Posted on 05/08/2008 7:02:15 AM PDT by NewJerseyJoe
May 5th, 2008; Washington Township, NJ
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Media Contact: Robert Kreisler
In a stunning first-of-its-kind announcement, the New Jersey Coalition for Self Defense (NJCSD) predicts that the Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) will confirm an individual right interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in Heller vs. DC, foreshadowing an end to decades of acrimonious debate over the meaning of what is widely considered to be a core principle for many Americans.
Using an advanced market research method known as a KJ analysis (named after its creator, Kawakita Jiro) a team of five analysts independently reviewed the statements made by the Justices during testimony in the Heller vs. DC case to arrive at this conclusion. The KJ method was developed as a way to examine complex problems where differing interpretations may exist and has become popular in business for its effectiveness.
The project was conceived and led by Joe Ficalora of SBTI Inc., a Texas-based management consulting firm. This is the first known time such an analysis has been applied to a contemporary legal issue and represents a groundbreaking implementation of this method. “Though we've been painstaking in our analysis, there’s always the remote possibility we may be surprised,” said Ficalora. “However, my experience indicates that the Supreme Court will confirm an individual right interpretation. I’m willing to stake my reputation on this in public, and in front of my colleagues in this industry.”
For many years, anti-gun factions have argued that an earlier decision by the Supreme Court in US vs. Miller established that the 2nd Amendment implied a collective right, meaning that private citizens had no individual right to own or carry firearms for self-defense or home protection.
“We're relieved that the hard facts point to what we've known all along - that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a personal right guaranteed to the American people as our legacy of freedom, preserved for us by our Founders and does not apply solely to the military or National Guard as some mistakenly believe," said Robert Kreisler, President of the NJCSD. “While we don’t mean to be presumptuous by leading the Supreme Court with this announcement, it is important to give America hope that our nation has not swung hopelessly toward socialism and that there are still those who support a traditional view of our Constitution and the liberties it was intended to enshrine through all ages.”
Arthur Rosbury-Yoder, NJCSD’s Executive Director, added, "This is just one example of the out-of-the-box kind of thinking we try to do at the NJCSD. Our organization exists to overcome the fear and ignorance perpetuated by liberals and socialist zealots who appear determined to eliminate our natural rights and by a mass media by a liberal bias against core principles of liberty, especially when it comes to gun rights and self-defense. When was the last time you heard the media put out a positive gun story of any kind?”
The New Jersey Coalition for Self Defense is a not-for-profit organization which has a focus on self-defense and Second Amendment rights. For more information please visit www.njcsd.org or call 877-690-5460.
Arms = anything and everything
Small arms fire = squad machine guns, crew-served weapons, rocket propelled grenades.
Basically everything
If the right to bear arms is not absolute, then government will try anything and everything they can to make it harder to own arms. And I’m talking about an anti-aircraft gun on your roof if you so desire (and can afford it).
If the citizen militia was to "execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions", you feel they could do this with arms limited to those which a person could bear?
I guess I don't understand what you're saying. Does the second amendment protect an individual right for self defense or was it written to protect the right of the citizens, collectively, to form a well regulated (organized and armed) state militia?
It seems like you want to say it does both, but then you're forced to come up with a definition of "arms" that I don't see in the second amendment. Perhaps if it said "firearms" I might agree with your interpretation.
To me, a reasonable regulation of a fundamental right is a law which passes a strict scutiny test. A reasonable regulation of a non-fundamental right is a law which passes a rational basis review.
I think it's intended to do both because (A) the distinction between the two was not as large as it is today and (B) the Constitution before the 14th Amendment did not bind states in the same way that it did after the 14th Amendment, thus allowing states to work out the distinctions we are trying to work out at a federal level.
One page I looked at, since you are demanding specifics, says that "bearing arms" was often a euphemism for going to war. That suggests a militia interpretation with local control. Remember that the Constitution also requires that Congress reauthorize the Army every 2 years because it opposed the idea of a central standing army. In fact, the Virginia Declaration of Rights in 1776 (a predecessor of the Bill of Rights) states, "That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
But the 2nd Amendment also protects a person's right to keep arms, which suggests allowing people to take arms home with them. From a pragmatic standpoint, I would argue that during the period when this was written, it would be assumed that a person would take a firearm home with them and hang it over the mantle but not keep a canon in their barn.
And I suppose I should point out, again, that the Constitution opposed the idea of a standing army. I don't think the Founders intended people to take canons (or tanks or bombers) home to fight the government but expected the government to not have a large standing army with canons (or tanks or bombers) that the people would have to fight if they needed to go after the government. It's not practical to allow private citizens to own weapons that can do the sort of damage required to overcome a modern army but as the Founders designed the Constitution, there shouldn't be a modern standing army for them to have to overcome.
If so, then it's awkward to define "arms" without going through some contortions and finding some hidden definition in the second amendment that just isn't there (eg., "arms" are weapons that are carried).
"the Constitution before the 14th Amendment did not bind states in the same way that it did after the 14th Amendment"
While it's true that some amendments in the Bill of Rights were "incorporated" under the 14th, the second amendment was not.
"But the 2nd Amendment also protects a person's right to keep arms, which suggests allowing people to take arms home with them."
It protects the right of "the people" to keep arms, yes.
"I don't think the Founders intended people to take canons (or tanks or bombers) home to fight the government but expected the government to not have a large standing army with canons (or tanks or bombers) that the people would have to fight if they needed to go after the government"
True. But the people were expected to "repel invasions", and an invading army would have them. The second amendment had to protect large weapons also.
Correct. The plan was to have well regulated state Militias -- they were deemed "necessary to the security of a free state".
But that changed after the War of 1812 when is was found that the concept was a failure -- most militia members showed up unarmed and untrained.
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.