Posted on 03/20/2008 9:16:44 AM PDT by kimber
Gun owners had their day in court on Tuesday, when the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the DC v. Heller case, which involves a challenge to the DC gun ban.
Absent some world-shaking surprise, it is pretty clear that there are five votes on the Supreme Court to declare that the Second Amendment is an individual right.
That fact alone should be enough to settle the argument over gun control and protect gun owners' rights. But as we all know, that's where the battle over the meaning of the Second Amendment begins.
More to the point, Justice John Paul Stevens asked Alan Gura, the attorney for Dick Heller, if it would be proper to say that the right protected in the Second Amendment shall not be "unreasonably infringed"?
To our shock and horror, Gura answered "yes." He did qualify his answer somewhat by saying "we don't know" exactly what this "unreasonable standard looks like." But he conceded a significant amount of ground with his answer, because any ban would be "reasonable" to Chuck Schumer and Sarah Brady.
Truth be told, we do have a proper standard for interpreting the Second Amendment. The language doesn't say anything about "reasonable" or "unreasonable;" it simply says the right of the people "shall not be infringed." It's a shame that even people on "our side" don’t fully understand that.
That's why when USA Today looked at all the briefs which had been submitted, the editors decided to use GOA for the opposing voice in today's editorial. The editors told our attorneys that GOA had an argument that was distinctive.
Indeed we do. GOA's brief says:
[T]he argument that "the right of the people" is subject to reasonable regulation and restriction tramples on the very words of the Second Amendment, reading the phrase -- "shall not be infringed" -- as if it read "shall be subject only to reasonable regulation to achieve public safety." "Public safety" is frequently a canard that tyrants hide behind to justify their oppressive policies. Writing in USA Today, our attorneys Herbert Titus and William Olson stated:
No government deprives its citizens of rights without asserting that its actions are "reasonable" and "necessary" for high-sounding reasons such as "public safety." A right that can be regulated is no right at all, only a temporary privilege dependent upon the good will of the very government officials that such right is designed to constrain.
good analysis
I listened to an excellent discussion re this on Hugh Hewitt, yesterday. It amazed me that with all the blow hard blather going back in forth that the entire discussion becomes moot when anyone looks at the phrase, “shall not be infringed”.
Shall not be infringed is as clear as it is possible to be, so we have to have fakers pretend that it says “unreasonably infringed”.
Snakes.
As I said yesterday, Gura was a terrible choice to argue this case. He blew it on more than one occasion.
All the other rights in the Bill of Rights are useless without the 2nd amendment. Thomas Jefferson made the intent of 2nd amendment very clear:
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” - Thomas Jefferson
Thank you for posting the above.
I believe that the subject of what is reasonable will generate a great deall of work for the Supreme Court in the future.
The reasonableness arguement is just another smokescreen to be used in the attempt to render your rights null and void. When reasonable is used in relation to the 1st amendment don't shout fire in a theater" is often brought up to illustrate that even the 1st amendment has some baggage encumbering it.
Compare that restriction to murder, bankrobery and any other heinous crime you care to mention. Notice that the Prohibition is against the deed and not the possibility that you might choose to commit such an act.
Nobody can encroach upon your right to keep and bear arms. However it would be quite reasonable to declare that it is a crime to use your right to keep and bear arms to injure your fellow man.
Semper Fi
An Old Man
Absolutely. There is no one standard for "reasonable", every person has his or her own conception of what is or isn't reasonable for any situation. OTOH, "shall not be infringed" is not a subjective phrase and it means the same to everyone who understands the English language. One thing we can know for certain, the Congress which authored the amendment and the state houses which ratified it didn't choose that phrase because they intended the amendment to be ambiguous.
Anything less coming from the SCOTUS than a decision that fully affirms our God-given right to keep and bear arms without restraint for our own protection and the protection of the nation will be a slap in the face of our forefathers who died by tens of thousands to give us a government that would safeguard our inalienable rights instead of denying them to us. An armed citizenry is the last guarantor for all of our rights, and the would-be tyrants among us can't wait to strip us of that right.
Our right to private arms is almost denied to us now, and if this attempt to recover it through the Court fails we either submit to our overlords and give up on living out the ideals of our revolutionary forefathers, or we have to consider finding another and necessarily less peaceful route to take in order to regain that right. If we fail to act, it's only a matter of time before every other Constitutionally guaranteed right falls to the siren song of "reasonable restrictions" and we devolve into just another nation whose people live out their lives at the will of their overlords who keep power by catering to the greed and lack of initiative of the passive government-teat sucking majority.
Honestly, I feel everyday that we draw closer and closer to the point that we may need to step in and fix what ails our government, if need be, it would most likely be by force.
Well let's hope and pray it never comes to that because it would be a very unpleasant affair. And unless the military took the people's side, given the inequity of armament between the military forces and anything the people could muster up it would be a very bloody and probably unsuccessful attempt for the people involved in it.
Amen.
Heaven forbid the writings of Jefferson should be looked at in this case.
The lefties only want to look at them when they want to distort the BoR to create a “freedome FROM religion”.
Great post!
Well there is where the problem arises, who should the military back, the government that is infringing on the rights of the people and violating the Constitution or the people with whom they are tasked to defend?
The military would legally have to support the people since it’s their job to defend the Constitution, and don’t forget, many in the military don’t look kindly on overly oppressive liberal government tyranny.
Very good ole man!
Don't dwell on the inequity, remember rather that it was us people who designed and manufactured those weapons. We have also used most of them at one time or another, and we still have friends who hold the keys to the Armory. If the time ever comes when you need something more powerful than a pea shooter, it will be made available to you.
Semper Fi
An Old Man
I used to have quite a bit of faith in the patriotism and support for Constitutional rights by our Generals, Admirals, and high rank officers in general. But Generals like McCaffey and several others who the MS media adore, and the Admiral who resigned because he doesn't support the C in C's Iran policy have caused me to wonder about what the top brass would do in such a difficult situation as a popular uprising against a domestic US tyrant.
Whether the lower grade officers and enlisted ranks would follow orders to suppress an armed insurrection against a tyrannical federal government is open to question, and I don't think they would at this point in time. But the government schools are working hard every school day to destroy the younger generations' patriotism and love for country and liberty and this generation's kids will be next generation's soldiers, Marines, and sailors. I just hope that a situation that would provide the answer never becomes necessary.
I hope you’re right Old Man. Although, it won’t be me who may need some more powerful weapons. I’m an old man myself, 70 years plus and probably older than you Old Man, and I’m not in good enough health to do much more than cheer from the sidelines if God forbid anything as drastic as what we’re discussing ever becomes necessary.
I had to remove your post because it had USA Today content, which is not allowed to be posted on FR.
Please feel free to re-post with just a link and the GOA content, which is not constrained.
Duly noted..apologies. I felt a bit “dirty” even surfing around the USA Today site...LOL
No problemo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.