GUNS AND THE CONSTITUTION:Telling The Right Second Amendment Story (BARF ALERT)

Findlaw.com (sic) ^ | 11/2/2001 | Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar

[Fixit]

A federal appellate panel ruled last week that the Constitution guarantees a limited right of individual Americans to keep guns for nonmilitary purposes. By so ruling in United States v. Emerson, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit re-energized popular debate about the meaning of the Second Amendment and also created a split among federal appellate courts, thus increasing the odds that the Supreme Court will soon weigh in with its own reading of the Amendment. Citizens who enter the fray;be they Justices or other judges, lawyers or layfolk;should be wary of the Fifth Circuit's opinion. Though the Circuit may have reached the right conclusion, both in recognizing an individual right and in deeming it nonabsolute, the court told the wrong constitutional story. And make no mistake, the story Americans tell themselves about liberty matters, and the story judges tell us especially matters, for these are the stories that shape our self-image and ultimately determine who has rights, to what, and why. The Emerson Opinion and the Constitution As our fellow Writ columnist Michael Dorf has explained more fully, Emerson involved a man who brandished a firearm against his estranged wife in violation of a federal statute. Parting company with other federal courts, which have limited the application of the Second Amendment to organized militias like the National Guard, the Fifth Circuit insisted that the amendment affirms a broader individual right to own guns. The court also ruled that this right must yield to reasonable regulations, including the gun statute at issue. Professor Dorf and other commentators have thoughtfully discussed whether the Emerson ruling is consistent with current Supreme Court precedent. But as United States Chief Justice John Marshall observed over 150 years ago, "it is a Constitution" — and not the U.S. Reports, which compile judicial opinions — that "we are expounding." And when we turn to the Constitution itself, we see that the Fifth Circuit's account of the document is lacking. The Fifth Circuit claimed that the Second Amendment's text and history compel an individual rights reading. But they do not. The Meaning of the Phrase "Bear Arms" Consider first the Amendment's text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The phrase "bear arms" in 1789 was at its core a military phrase: it referred to those who bore arms in the context of military service rather than those who carried guns merely for hunting or sport. Indeed, the Emerson court found only one clear nonmilitary use of the phrase before 1789. Against this linguistic outlier are scores of military allusions to arms-bearing in eighteenth-century laws and legal sources. The Second Amendment's overall context further strengthens the military reading of the phrase "bear arms." The Amendment speaks of a "militia"— another military term — and flanks the Third Amendment, which addresses the military issue of troop quartering. Most eighteenth-century state constitutions likewise linked arms-bearing to other military matters. Evidence for a Collective, Not an Individual, Right Moreover, in considering whether the Second Amendment creates an individual or a collective right, we should note that the Amendment speaks of a collective "people," not individual "persons." Elsewhere, the Constitution most often uses "the people" as a collective noun embodying voters and jurors, rather than all citizens. The Preamble, for example, states that "We, the people"–that is, voters–ordained and established the Constitution. Similarly, Article I directs that the House of Representatives shall be elected biannually by "the people"–once again, voters. And of course, at the Founding the class of voters was very different from the class of citizens. Women, children, and aliens fell outside this core definition of voting "people." They were likewise excluded from the Second Amendment's "militia." The Second Amendment's syntax, too, suggests that the "militia" and the "people" are, roughly speaking, synonymous; the use of "people" in the Amendment's second clause in effect refers back to the use of "militia" in its introductory clause. (Indeed, an early draft spoke explicitly of the militia "composed of the body of the people." The final draft makes this point with fewer words.) According to the Amendment's basic vision, all voters ideally should serve in the military, and the military in turn should be composed of ordinary voters. This conception is quite far afield from today's professional military. However, it can be more easily understood by thinking of the early military as somewhat similar to a jury, another local collectivist institution closely akin to the militia. At the founding, one would have not only a jury of one's peers, but ideally a militia of one's peers as well. The Historical, and the Contemporary, Second Amendment This reading of the original Second Amendment — suggesting that it confers a collective military right rather than an individual nonmilitary one — is confirmed by history. The Founders were thinking of local militiamen like those who fought at Lexington and Concord — not of hunters or sportsmen. The Framers envisioned Minutemen bearing guns, not Daniel Boone gunning bears. None of this means that Emerson is wrong in result or that the Constitution cannot now be read to protect a qualified individual right to possess guns outside the military. Other constitutional clauses are read nonliterally and the Second Amendment may likewise be read expansively. Law and language have evolved; today it is common to speak of nonmilitary arms-bearing. Many modern state constitutions embrace a limited right of individual gun ownership, and millions of Americans deem guns a fundamental right, though not an absolute one. The fact that there are almost as many firearms as citizens in this country similarly suggests that, like it or not, guns are part of the American ethos. How Later Amendments May Have Altered the Second Amendment's Meaning Most importantly, we must remember that our Constitution differs dramatically from the Framers'. Over the centuries, We the People have made amends for some of the Founding fathers' failures. And some of these amendments speak to the question of who in America should be trusted with arms. The great generation that won the Civil War had a more individualistic view of liberty than did the Founders, and this later generation's Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868, reflected that individualistic worldview. Concretely, the Amendment pledged to protect various fundamental "privileges and immunities" of individuals. One such "privilege" explicitly embraced by the Reconstruction Congress in legislation accompanying the Fourteenth Amendment was a limited right to have a gun in one's home for self-protection, because police in the 1860s could not always be trusted to protect blacks from white night-riders and other thugs. This right to a gun was seen as a right of all citizens–women as well as men, blacks as well as whites–even if the gun owner was not a voter or militiaman. The Fourteenth Amendment, which Emerson virtually ignored, both anchors an individual right in constitutional text and explains why this right is properly limited by other rights, like the right to be free from irresponsible gun use and thuggery. Instead of detailing the Fourteenth Amendment's new birth of freedom — and the way it might alter our understanding of the Second Amendment — Emerson blandly cited parts of the Supreme Court's infamous 1857 Dred Scott case, without even noting that much of that case was repudiated by the Fourteenth Amendment. (Dred Scott held that blacks, even if free, could never be citizens, and were entitled to little respect from whites. The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly overruled this holding by promising citizenship to all born in America–rich and poor, black and white, male and female--and by further promising to protect all citizens in their fundamental "privileges and immunities.") Nor did America's constitutional saga end with the Fourteenth Amendment. In 1870, the Fifteenth Amendment enfranchised black men because they had helped win the Civil War on the battlefield–preserving the Founding linkage between military arms-bearing and voting, but extending the definition of "the people" to include former slaves and other free blacks. A century later, the Twenty-sixth Amendment likewise enfranchised young adults who were being told to fight in Vietnam. And after the Nineteenth Amendment made women part of the voting " people" in a way they were not at the Founding, we might ask whether women should have a Constitutional right to bear arms on equal terms in today's military, just as they have a Constitutional right now to serve equally on juries. Rallying Around the Amended Constitution — Not Just the 1789 Text Emerson erred by failing to weave any of these amendments into its arms-bearing story. By inflating the Founding, Emerson exaggerated a 1789 text adopted with little input from women and blacks. It also slighted later amendments expanding democracy, amendments that affirmed rights of previously excluded persons and included these persons in the constitutional conversation itself. In general Emerson's methodological skew — that is, its exclusive focus on the founding — tends to tilt constitutional adjudication sharply rightward. Consider, for example, civil rights more generally. Unlike Emerson, the Warren Court understood the importance of Reconstruction and upheld every federal civil rights law it reviewed. In contrast, the Rehnquist Court, a la Emerson, has trivialized Reconstruction. In the name of Founding-era states' rights, the Justices have invalidated key Reconstruction-style civil rights laws protecting women, the elderly, the religious, and the disabled. The judiciary has also endorsed sex discrimination in the military and age discrimination in jury selection–types of discrimination much easier to justify if we look only to the Founders while ignoring the equality vision underlying the Fourteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-sixth Amendments. With Americans under attack, our Constitution can be a rallying point uniting citizens of diverse ethnicities, faiths, and ideologies. But the document contains much more than the Founding vision. It also reflects the spirit of antislavery idealists, progressive era reformers, and 1960's activists. When other courts and commentators revisit the gun issue, they should tell the full story, rather than merely the opening chapter, of American liberty. Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar are brothers who write about law. Akhil graduated from Yale College and Yale Law School, clerked for then-judge Stephen Breyer, and teaches at Yale Law School. Vikram graduated from U.C. Berkeley and Yale Law School, clerked for Judge William Norris and Justice Harry Blackmun, and teaches at U.C. Hastings College of Law. Their "brothers in law" column appears regularly in Writ, and they are also occasional contributors to publications such as the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Post. Jointly and separately, they have published over one hundred law review review articles and four books.

[Puppage]

Oh, I see.......The Bill of Rights is of the people, for the people & by the people...EXCEPT #2? Yeah, THAT makes sense. And, while I'm at it...since WHEN does a state have to GIVE ITSELF A RIGHT???

[JRandomFreeper]

As a citizen, I can own a tank, cannon, machine-gun and all of the other things you listed. I just have to get the correct tax stamp ($200) and a signature from the local sheriff. Many Class III weapons are owned by individuals. I just can't own a NEW one.

/john

[wcbtinman]

This article is full of lies and half-truths.

You should have posted this with a LIAR alert.

[Zon]

Government negates what the individual is. They claim individuals are incompetent to own guns without 20,000 laws/restrictions placed on them. Weapons don't kill people-- people kill people.

The government attempts to negate the fact that each individual must be responsible for his or her own actions. They compromise every individual's right to be an individual. An individual is responsible for his or her own acts. As individuals, most congresspersons must be held accountable for their irresponsible actions.

Just as criminals must be held accountable for abusing an individual and/or their property, politicians must be held responsible for abusing individuals. Politicians abuse individuals by passing laws that have no respect for what an individual is. The government must stop abusing the plentiful good apples in false hope of hindering the few bad apples.

This is not just a gun issue. Congress has passed laws that are abusive to individuals in just about every other area they can pass laws on. 

[da_toolman]

The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

I don't see the word limited anywhere, nor do I see anything related to "Non-Military" type weapons.

[CHICAGOFARMER]

60 Hard Truths about gun hating Liberals.

Author: Various Posted on 05/04/2001 12:04:41 PDT by moyden Improvements and additions welcome -

1. At the most basic level, the liberal is an adolescent forever in search of a world without moral consequence.

2. Freedom from moral consequence can only be secured by a collectivist, totalitarian state.

3. Liberals use moralistic tones and catch-phrases like "social justice", but their only moral is the accumulation of power

4. Liberals ideologies tend inevitably towards world-wide totalitarianism.

5. All non-sexual individual freedoms are despised by the liberal because they demand moral responsibility.

6. The fundamental power struggle of the liberal is individual v. collective. The individual must be relieved of all power in favor of the collective.

7. Individualism demands moral responsibility. Collectivism hopes to eliminate the need for moral responsibility.

8. The U.S. Constitution - specifically the individualistic Bill of Rights - is the enemy of the liberal.

9. The liberal despises the United States because it is the premier gaurantor and promoter of individualism in the world.

10. All institutions and concerns - schools, environment, courts, etc. - serve no relevant purpose other than the promotion of collectivism.

11. Abortion is necessary to gaurantee genital freedom and eliminate moral consequence.

12. The basis of psychology is the elimination of moral responsibility.

13. The liberal must create an atmosphere of crisis and fear to justify collectivist oppression.

14. Any religious person who believes or promotes moral consequence is the enemy of the liberal and must be oppressed.

15. Despite decades of spectacular failure, the liberal clings to the collectivist dream because it is far more than a theory of government. It is a religion.

17. The liberal seeks to dominate any institution which can weaken or destroy individual parental rights - public schools, child abuse agencies, pediatric associations, etc..

18. The liberal applauds the imprisoning of homeschooling parents who dare to raise their children outside the control of collectivist public schools.

19. Private ownership of guns is the single greatest symbol of individual power, and therefore despised.

20. All individual freedoms demand the responsible behaviour of the individual, and therefore demand a moral code. Liberals despise freedom because they despise morality.

21. The liberal loves Bill Clinton because of who he is, not in spite of who he is.

22. The liberal despises national sovereignty which protects individual freedoms.

23. The liberal promotes international governments (UN, EU, etc.) which seek to destroy individualism protected by sovereign states.

24. The liberal fears any hint of individualism in any part of the world, and is obsessed with the centralized control of all human activity and thought.

25. "Multi-culturalism" is the code world for a single, oppressive, collectivist culture.

26. Liberals speak often of tolerance, but only tolerate liberals.

27. The liberal seeks to criminalize any speech which promotes morality or individualism as "hate speech".

28. Environmentalists lie as a matter of course.

29. The liberal's only method of debate is to insult and discredit anyone who dares to disagree.

30. When possible, liberals opress anyone who questions their beliefs.

31. Liberals despise all innocence - especially the innocence of a child.

32. Liberals seek the sexualization of children and the normalization of pedophilia, all in the pursuit of genital freedom.

33. In the liberal mind, your freedom is their oppression.

34. Private property and individual wealth is integral to individualism, and the enemy of the liberal.

35. The liberal hates you.

36. The liberal seeks to replace a moral world view with an emotional world view.

37. The liberal typically chooses a career which produces nothing of value - lawyer, bureaucrat, "activist", etc. - and uses government to extract the wealth of others.

38. Liberal programs enrich liberals and do little to help the poor.

39. The liberal despises masculinity as a symbol of individual power.

40. Feminists groups are about lesbianism and socialism, not equal rights for women.

41. Liberals are perfectly willing to destroy you financially, remove your children, and imprison you for what you believe.

42. Liberals fear technology and change - because neither can be centrally controlled.

43. Liberals are not obsessed with sex, but with promiscuity. Promiscuity is the dominate theme of the liberal media culture.

44. Liberals despise the suburbs as a manifestation of individual prosperity, private property ownership, and the family.

45. Liberals despise marriage and family because they are institutions which frown on promiscuity.

46. Liberals are never satisfied with the power they have gained over the lives of individuals - they must control every thought and detail of human activity.

47. Liberals seek to control public schools, and force all children into them, in order to foster promiscuity and collectivist ideology in children.

48. Other diseases kill millions more, but liberals are obsessed with Aids because it is a moral consequence of promiscuity.

49. Liberals are more committed than conservatives because their politics is also their religion.

50. Liberal activities are all about ego - to demonstrate "I care more than you do" without really helping anyone.

51. Whenever a liberal expresses concern "for the children", they are using and targeting children to expand promiscuity, collectivism, and their own pocketbooks and egos.

52. Because collectivist politics is their only morality, liberals have no problem with deceit, oppression, or violence in their pursuit of collectivism.

53. Liberals are elitests who exempt themselves from the oppressive rules they impose on the general population.

54. Liberals howl if a transvestite or convicted felon is even slightly offended, but openly bash Christians.

55. Liberals dream of a return to a centralized, 1940's urban environment. We all ride the bus from a small, dirty, big city apartment to an 8-5 union job.

56. Liberals believe that wealth is static - anyone who makes money must be stealing it from someone else.

57. Liberals claim to be against violence, but makes excuses for liberals like Castro who torture political dissidents.

58. Liberals have enormous compassion for criminal predators, but little for the victims.

59. In the liberal world, all problems stem from individualism, and all solutions are collective.

60. Liberals believe that passing religious values to children is a form of child abuse. Let's review some leftist definitions: x42="Honest Man" Appeasing those who have declared themselves your mortal enemies="Peace Process" Supplying secret military technology to Red China="Constructive Engagement" Tyranny="Living Constitution" Slut="Liberated Woman" Acting like a slut="infatuated" Man="Rapist" Rape="Personal Matter" Using an intern like a whore="counseling" Perjury="Personal Matter" Obstruction of Justice="Full Cooperation" Navy EP-3 Crew="Spies" .01 C increase in global mean temperature="Environmental Catastrophe" Boys and girls are different="News" Ignorant journalist's opinion="News story" Satan's minion="Attorney" Seems as though they can't stand to hear the truth.

[epow]

Akhil graduated from Yale College and Yale Law School, clerked for then-judge Stephen Breyer, and teaches at Yale Law School. Vikram graduated from U.C. Berkeley and Yale Law School, clerked for Judge William Norris and Justice Harry Blackmun,

I think that about says it all.

This is just more PC crap from the collectivist/fascist academic community. The 5th circuit's Emerson decision has really got them shaking in their pink boots.

[CHICAGOFARMER]

Last updated 1.15.2001

FAMILY NEWS

DIAL 911 AND DIE

http://www.users.nac.net/thelaw/gonj/911die.htm

AIRBAGS MORE DEADLY THAN FIREARMS

http://www.access1.net/rdotson/airBags.htm

GENERAL STUFF

POLICEMEN FOR 2ND AMENDMENT

http://www.lepsa.org/Main.html

CHILDREND FIREARM FACTS

http://www.amfire.com/afistatistics/menu.html

JUST FACTS

http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm

YOUR SAFETY IS YOUR OWN RESPONSIBILITY

http://www.clede.com/Articles/oped/defend.htm

GUN FACTS STUDIES BY JOHN LOTT AND GARY KLECK

http://www.largo.org/effects.html

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm

HOW TO AVOID BEING SHOT BY A COP

http://www.clede.com/Articles/oped/copshoot.htm

FALLACY OF TRIGGER LOCKS

http://www.donath.org/Rants/OnTriggerLocks/

Excellent argument for self defense – well done

http://home.pacbell.net/rsdotson/guns.htm

THE FAILURE OF THE WASHINGTON DC DE ARMING CITIZENS

http://www.nraila.org/research/19990728-SecondAmendment-003.html

THE TRUE MEANING OF GUN CONTROL

http://www.2ndamendment.net/2amd6.html

MAIN STREAM NEW STORIES

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/3/9/131803

2 MILLION FELONS IN JAIL 3.7 MILLION ON PROBATION

http://www.ncpa.org/pi/crime/pd082900d.html

You might be a gun nut if …..

http://www.nethawk.com/~jcrouch/gun-nut.htm

DIAL 911 AND DIE

http://www.geekswithguns.com/audio/911_call_no_address.ram

COP NEWS STORIES

Women in Indiana and 2nd amendment rights

http://blueyedog.tripod.com/rkba.index.html

http://www.apbnews.com/newscenter/breakingnews/2000/12/13/family1213_01.html

YOUNG AFRICAN MALES AND HOMICIDE

http://www.heritage.org/library/cda/cda00-05.html

LEO (Law Enforcement Officers)

http://www.ih2000.net/ira/ira.htm

THE COST OF GUN CONTROL

http://www.freedomsnest.com/rummel_totals.html

“SHALL ISSUE” THE NEW WAVE OF CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMIT LAWS

http://www.kc3.com/shall-issue.html

I DARE YOU TO READ THIS

http://www.detnet.com/fuselier/GUNCULTURE.HTML

FIREARM SAFETY IN THE US

http://secondamendmentstuff.com/firearm_safety.htm

CONCEAL CARRY OWNER SAVES POLICEWOMAN

http://www.ofcc.net/letters/michael1.html

REDUCTION IN CRIME IN SHALL CARRY

http://www.nraila.org/research/19990729-RighttoCarry-001.html

AN ARMY OF GUN LIES

http://www.nationalreview.com/17apr00/kopel041700.html

THE COURAGE TO BE FREE

http://www.couragetobefree.com/shorts.html

Famous quotes, Hitler, Stalin, Tao

http://members.nbci.com/grizz/page5.html

CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL DEATHS AND FIREARMS.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/data/us9794/ofarm.htm

50 MILLION REASONS NOT TO SUPPORT GUN CONTROL

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/camppoptop/page6gun.html

THE MEANING OF THE WORDS IN THE 2ND.

http://www.princeton.edu/~strasbrg/con2nd.html

NICKELODEON - THE BRAINWASHING NETWORK

http://www.gunssavelife.com/articles.htm

FBI AND DOJ CRIME STATISTICS

http://www.guncontrolvictories.com/enemies_racial2.html

MYTHS AND FACTS

http://www.handguncontrol.net/myths.htm

THE AMERICANS WHO RISK EVERYTHING

http://rosecity.net/rush/freedom.html

GUN FACTS YOU CAN USE

http://guntruths.com/Resource/Resource_ctr.htm

School project site with resourse data

http://hematite.com/dragon/gunintro.html

THE 2ND ADMENDMENT HOME PAGE

http://www.2ndamendment.net/

AN ATTORNY’S LOOK AT THE SECOND

http://www.2ndamendment.net/2amd3.html

RELIGIOUS VIEWS ABOUT SELF DEFENSE

GUNS AND CHRISTIANS

http://www.gac.20m.com/

THE NATURAL RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE 1000 DOCTORS

http://www.claremont.org/publications/wheeler001221.cfm

SELF DEFENSE OR TURN THE OTHER CHEEK

http://www.gac.20m.com/self-def.htm

CHRISTIAN MILITA

A look at the Scripture and how Christians

http://www.netside.net/~stockton/right2bear.html

http://www.gac.20m.com/History.html

DOES GOD BELIEVE IN GUN CONTROL?

http://www.gac.20m.com/kopel.htm

CHRISTIAN RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

http://www.gac.20m.com/cgsa.html

WOMEN

WOMEN AND MOTHERS AGAINST GUN CONTROL

http://www.wagc.com/signup.html

THE DAY I DISCOUVERED THAT HANDGUN CONTROL INC WANTED ME DEAD?

http://www.gunowners.org/womensvoice.htm

WHERE IS MOMMY? – THERE ARE BAD PEOPLE

http://www.saveourguns.com/selfdefense.htm

WOMEN AGAINST RAPE

http://www.aware.org/index.html

Women site for honest information

http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com/Women

SOCCOR MOMS WITHOUT PROTECTION

http://blueyedog.tripod.com/rkba.index.html

Confessions of a gun totin mom

http://blueyedog.tripod.com/HCIbump.gif

GIVE THESE WOMEN GUNS

http://www.gunowners.org/wv15.htm

THE SHOT GUN IN THE WOMAN CLOSET

http://www.gunowners.org/wv08.htm

SO YOU WANT TO SEE ME NAKED?

http://www.gunowners.org/wv16.htm

REFUSE TO BE A VICTIM AGAIN

http://home.pacbell.net/rsdotson/gov/govkills.htm

Policemen other govt agents killing innocent people

http://www.gunowners.org/wv12.htm

My Transformation From Anti-Gun Feminist To Armed Feminist

http://www.gunowners.org/wv06.htm

WOMEN AND SELF PROTECTION

http://www.largo.org/women.html

US GOVT STUDY OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

http://www.potomac-inc.org/domviol.html

DO BATTERED WOMEN HAVE THE RIGHT BEAR ARMS

http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/fordbatt.html

WOMEN’S FOR PROTECTION WEBSITE

http://www.sas-aim.org/home.htm

POTENTIAL ATTACKER THIS MY GUN

http://www.angelfire.com/co3/PoWiteTrash/Warning.html

MOTHER’S SELF PROTECTION GROUP

http://www.mothersarms.org/

GUN FREE ZONES INVITE CRIMINALS

http://keepandbeararms.com/images/cape.pdf

http://keepandbeararms.com/ppt/cape.ppt

1000 doctors for firearm rights

http://www.claremont.org/1_drgo.cfm

DOCTORS MEDICINE

GUNS AND PUBLIC HEALTH: EPIDEMIC OF VIOLENCE OR PANDEMIC OF PROPAGANDA

http://www.2ndlawlib.com/journals/tennmed.html

Guns in the Medical Literature -- A Failure of Peer Review

http://rkba.org/research/suter/med-lit.html?suter#first_hit

285 PERIL OR PROTECTION? THE RISKS AND BENEFITS OF HANDGUN PROHIBITION

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/63perilo.htm

TO GUN OWNERS

WHAT TO DO IF THE POLICE COME TO CONFISCATE YOUR MILITIA WEAPONS

http://www.2ndamendment.net/2amd7.html

NATIONAL RECIPROCITY BILL

http://www.concealcarry.org/HR407.htm

NATIONAL CCW FOUNDATION

http://www.homestead.com/njccw/nationalccw~ns4.html

POLICE SUPPORT CCW

http://www.ofcc.net/lesupport.html

HOW SWAT SCREWED UP AT COLUMBINE

http://www.nypostonline.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/2557.htm

ST LOUIS POLICE SUPPORT CCW

http://www.ofcc.net/letters/quotes.html

THE ONLY NO COMPROMISE GUN LOBBY IN WASHINGTON

THE FIRST MILLION MOM MARCH (misguided mommy march)

http://www.guntruths.com/Resource/Posters/1st_million_mom_march.htm

http://www.gunowners.org/

GUN CONTROL DAILY NEW VICTORIES

http://www.guncontrolvictories.com/archivedguncontrol.html

FIREARM FACTS

http://blueyedog.tripod.com/facts.index.html

JOHN LOTT AND STATISTICS

http://www.users.nac.net/thelaw/gonj/gunstudy.htm

100’S OF HOT TOPICS

http://cssa.org/hot-topics/

JOHN LOTT WRITINGS

http://www.tsra.com/LottPage.htm

STATE AND FEDERAL RIGHTS THE BEST LAW REVIEW 96 pgS http://www.saf.org/AllLawReviews.html

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES

http://secondamendmentstuff.com/facts_figures.htm

GUARENTEE IN STATE CONSTITUTIONS TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

http://secondamendmentstuff.com/state_rkba.htm

2ND ADMENDMENT LINKS

http://www.afn.org/~ncfsa/2nd-amend.htm

THE PURPOSE OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS 9TH 10TH 14TH AND 2ND

http://www.handguncontrol.net/IMHO.htm

YOUR INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

http://cssa.org/hot-topics/

YOUR FUNDENDMENTAL RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE

http://www.2ndamendment.net/2amd10.html

IN my humble opinion, the second, ninth, tenth, fourthteen

http://www.handguncontrol.net/IMHO.htm

STATE FIREARM LAWS

http://secondamendmentstuff.com/laws.htm

THE RIGHT TO CARRY STATE LAWS

http://secondamendmentstuff.com/RightToCarry.htm

FEDERAL JUDGE RULES 2ND PROTECTS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

http://secondamendmentstuff.com/emerson_decision.htm

Britian and America assault is double in britian

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/

43 State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions

http://www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS: THE INTENT OF THE FRAMERS

http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Halbrook/hal14th.html

Examines constituional and historical issues of the gun control

http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/

Boston legal firm research

http://members.aol.com/BaltimoreLaw/secondamendment.html

THE HISTORY OF FIREARM RIGHTS

http://secondamendmentstuff.com/facts_figures.htm click on “fighting back”

THE MISCONSTRUCTION OF UNITED STATES V MILLER

http://www.2ndamendment.net/2amd4.html

INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS UPHELD IN FEDERAL COURT

http://www.nrawinningteam.com/2aupheld.html

SUPREME COURT

http://fullcoverage.yahoo.com/fc/US/Supreme_Court/

CIVIL LIBERTIY LAW

http://www.libertydefense.com/library.html

LAW WEBSITE

http://www.velek.com/bill/boycott/6.htm#laws

Nebraska CCW bill 496

http://www.unicam.state.ne.us/PDF/INTRO_LB496.pdf

INTERNET GROUPS SUPPORTING RIGHT TO LIFE BY STATE

KENTUCKY

http://www.kyfirearms.org/ v ILLINOIS

http://www.concealcarry.org/

http://www.gunssavelife.com/ccdeath.htm

http://www.gunssavelife.com/

http://www.packing.org/news/2000/11/29/2680.shtml

MICHIGAN

http://www.mcrgo.org/politics.asp http://www.tir.com/~johnhurd/

MISSOURI

http://www.moccw.org/

NEVADA

http://www.nsrpa.com/

http://www.gunownersofnevada.com/letter.htm

OHIO

http://www.ofcc.net/

100’S OF 2ND WEBSITES

http://www.gunowners.org/links.htm

MORE 2ND ORGANIZATIONS

http://dmoz.org/Society/Issues/Gun_Control/Pro-Gun_Rights_Organizations/

MORE 2ND WEBRINGS

http://gunsdontkill.virtualave.net/

http://www.angelfire.com/ma3/freedom2/index.html

2ND AMENDMENT YELLOW PAGES

http://www.ulster.net/~jperz/yellow.htm

This is what the opposition does not want you to hear!

http://www.guntruths.com/images/1ST_MMM_MARCH.gif

http://www.geekswithguns.com/audio/911_call_no_address.ram

58 Posted on 03/05/2001 13:42:50 PST by George Smiley (george.smiley@lycos.com)

[Green Knight]

I just love it how these people seek to "divine" the intent that the framers had when they wrote the Bill of Rights. If they gave a damn about what the framers had in mind then they'd go back and READ what they themselves had to say about the Bill of Rights. Of course, they don't even MENTION what the framers said about the Amendments they themselves wrote, because it would prove indisputably that their interpretation of the framers intent is 100% WRONG! The 2nd Amendment doesn't GIVE people the right to bear arms so they can serve in the militia. This is what it does:

1) It acknowledges that people have a right to bear arms. Let me say that, again. ACKNOWLEDGES. It's assumed that people have a right to bear arms. It doesn't give the right.

2) It then says that an armed populace is important to the defense of the nation.

3) It then stats that, because an armed populace is important to the defense of the nation, it explicitly prevents congress from doing anything that interferes with the citizens' right to bear arms.

It doesn't grant people the right to bear arms to serve in a militia. It acknowledges that people have the right to bear arms, and says that as a byproduct of that, people will be able to form a militia and defend the nation. Therefore Congress shouldn't do anything to prevent the citizenry from arming themselves.

[prambo]

The BOR is a list of inalienable rights that the govt is to leave alone, not "granted" by the govt. This continuous litany of "granted rights" is as bogus as the "we are a democracy" rubbish.

That, combined with the fact that "the people" are the same group in all of the BOR and...

Viola!!!!

Emerson is moot - the fedgov has no jurisdiction.

Period. Fini. End of story, etc.

prambo

[Sloth]

Why does the ammendment bring up the militia? If the framers wanted an unlimited individual right to bear arms why did they include that at all?

Probably to try to prevent the kind of confusion (deception) that we are dealing with today. Therefore, the amendment specifically states that private weapon ownership is NECESSARY to preserve freedom. They understood that in time, the U.S. government could become as oppressive as Britain was then.

Should there be an unlimited right to bear arms or are some restrictions ok? And where to you draw the line?

It should certainly include all the weapons a single individual could make use of in carrying out a military operation. Do I think the Amendment protects the ownership of something like nuclear weapons? No, because the nature of such a weapon means that in the hands of a private individual it is more likely to be used against the cause of freedom than to protect it.

If you believe that some reasonable regulation is ok, do you think it's a mistake for the NRA to take a Zero-regulation stance instead of working for a compromise?

I wish they would take a hardcore zero-regulation stance. Compromise is always bad when we're talking about Constitutional rights.

[Dan from Michigan]

Why does the ammendment bring up the militia? If the framers wanted an unlimited individual right to bear arms why did they include that at all?

I look at Federalist 46. According to James Madison, the 'militia' is the common people. I don't use the term 'militia' much because of what people nowadays think of with the militia, but that's what the militia was intended to be. US CODE seconds what Madison said.

Should there be an unlimited right to bear arms or are some restrictions ok? And where to you draw the line?

My opinion - All but felons. Felons shouldn't be able to vote either.

How do you even define "arms"? Certainly, weapons exist now that the framers couldn't even imagine.

That can be applied to the 1st amendment as well. TV? Internet? Radio? Can you own a cannon.... a tank? Only handheld? How about hand-held rocket launchers, machine guns, grenade launchers?

They had cannons back then. I look at what could be "beared". I can't bear a tank. I have no problem with machine guns, or even grenade launchers. Rocket launchers I'm a little nervous on, but still, if the person hasn't committed a violent felon, what threat does a law abiding citizen with even a rocket launcher poses to society? I wouldn't kill people with one.

If you believe that some reasonable regulation is ok, do you think it's a mistake for the NRA to take a Zero-regulation stance instead of working for a compromise?

The NRA has compromised. Many times. Sometimes too much so(I still like them anyway though as they are the best we got). The other side doesn't compromise. I look at it as a matter of trust more than anything else. If you don't trust me with a firearm, why should I trust you?

[Fixit]

I'm not much for reinventing the wheel here so I'll just give quick answers and provide what I think makes interesting reading.

Why does the ammendment bring up the militia? If the framers wanted an unlimited individual right to bear arms why did they include that at all?

This simply a justification preceding the operative clause. It merely gives the reason for the right, it does not condition it. Such clauses are common in many states' constitutions. See Eugene Volokh's The Commonplace Second Amendment.

Should there be an unlimited right to bear arms or are some restrictions ok? And where to you draw the line?How do you even define "arms"? Certainly, weapons exist now that the framers couldn't even imagine. Can you own a cannon.... a tank? Only handheld? How about hand-held rocket launchers, machine guns, grenade launchers?

The framer's imagined free people owning everything up to an including private ships of war and all the weapons that would entail. Further, restrictive laws on weapons of all kinds serve only to leave people defenseless at the hands of prior restraint. A free society should punish misuse, not posession and ownership. Further, manufacture of weapons of all sorts, up to and including the most powerful things in our arsenal, is conducted by private companies. They certainly are allowed to posess these weapons, and on some level each is posessed at some time by non-governmental individuals.

If you believe that some reasonable regulation is ok, do you think it's a mistake for the NRA to take a Zero-regulation stance instead of working for a compromise?

Sadly the NRA does not now, nor have they for years taken a Zero-regulation stance. The NRA deals in "political realities" and "the lesser of two evils" and "expediency and safety."

[x]

This is a pretty good example of how rights are lost. Note the final use of Blacks and women as battering rams against what remains of the old structure. I would have thought both groups would have been glad to have the right to bear arms in self-defense. Notice too the slight of hand that procedes from making the right to keep and bear arms a "collective" right exercisable by the militia, or all men of a given age, to the confiscation of arms in the name of the government since it is a "collective right". The idea that the Minutemen of Lexington and Concord took up arms against what they took to be an oppressive government somehow escapes the Amars, who don't seem to concede the possiblity that government could ever become oppressive or that an armed citizenry might be able to act against such a tyranny.

Here is Blackstone in 1765:

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

This does not appear to suggest that gun ownership is to be reserved to an organized militia. Here is St. George Tucker's 1803 Commentary on Blackstone:

This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty. . . . The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.

Here is Elbridge Gerry in the ratification debates for the Second Amendment:

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown.

The militia was intended as an alternative to oppressive standing armies, not simply as another government institution.

You can find out more at the "Founder's Constitution" site, the Liberty Library site, and, if you know what you are looking for, at the Century of Lawmaking site. There is also an interesting article here, which takes issue at least in part with the Amars, arguing that the individual vs. collective right scheme is flawed, since the amendment represented a compromise.