Posted on 05/10/2002 4:34:45 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan
Gunning Down The 2nd Amendment
“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.”
Most Americans think that the Second Amendment of the Constitution provides individual citizens the right to have guns. (Which is not to say that most Americans believe that there should be a right to keep arms.)
Very, very few judges, prosecutors or government lawyers over the past 60 years (at least)have officially taken the position that an individual right to own guns exists. The normal, reigning judicial view, the one that is essentially settled law, is that the right to bear arms pertains only to the right of states form collective defenses or "well regulated militias." This is not a controversial area of the law. No gun control laws have been declared unconstitutional by courts because they violated an individual rights to bear arms.
But it is a controversial area of political and academic debate.
In politics, gun control advocates believe there is only a collective right to bear arms. Gun control opponents believe citizens have a right to keep arms every bit as profound as the rights of free speech, free assembly and free worship. These are matters of civic religion.
Modern scholars and constitutional lawyers are divided on the 200 year-old question of whether the Second Amendment provides an "individual" or "collective" right, and there is no shortage of vehemence on both sides.
The NRA has bankrolled the production warehouse full of individual right scholarship -- and propaganda. However, some very independent and liberal scholars have reexamined the debate, which has really been an academic non-issue for a century, and came out on the individual rights side. It's like the nature vs. nurture debate: there ain't gonna be a winner.
Attorney General John Ashcroft, entrusted with collective security for the world's most powerful country, wants to settle the question once and for all, in a way that would eventually make it easier for individuals to have guns. Alien scientists and foreign anthropologists would be fairly mystified by this anti-Darwinian state of affairs.
Ashcroft has always believed in the individual right to have guns. His Justice Department, in an extreme break from what judges and presidents have done for decades, is trying to establish that view of the Second Amendment as the law of the land in order to eventually rein in federal, state and local gun control laws.
In footnotes to court briefing filed this week, Ashcroft’s solicitor general flatly asserted that, "The current position of the United States, however, is that the Second Amendment more broadly protects the rights of individuals, including persons who are not members of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to possess and bear their own firearms, subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse." (Remember, attorneys general don’t make law; judges and Congress do.)
This was expected. Last May, the new attorney general declared his position not in a legal brief, not in congressional testimony, but in a letter to an interest group, the National Rifle Association. In November, Ashcroft reiterated his view in a memo to U.S. attorneys across the country.
Now another round has been fired. And there are a few federal judges shooting at the same target. Second Amendment law has moved like a glacier for more than a century. The Supreme Court last dealt with the issue directly in 1939 when it clearly backed they collective, no-individual right position. Now that glacier is under a sun lamp and it’s melting fast.
So the time for pussy footing around is over. It’s time to repeal the Second Amendment. Bag it.
What the founders intended is unknowable. Objective truth about the meaning of the Second Amendment does not exist. Practical consensus about its meaning will not endure. The concept of "well regulated militia" is an anachronism in the 21st century.
So let’s get rid of it and address the life and death issues of gun control directly, away from the shadows and phantoms of civic theology. We do just that with other extremely dangerous mechanical devices that individuals use -- cars, boats, airplanes.
At least one key player in this battle thinks tinkering with the Constitution is no big deal -- John Ashcroft. During his six years in the Senate, he sponsored seven constitutional amendments -- a ban on abortion, a ban of flag burning, for a line-item veto, mandated balanced-budgets, super-majorities for tax increases, term limits and an amendment to make it easier to amend the Constitution.
So, let’s take ten paces and draw.
Dick Meyer, a veteran political and investigative producer for CBS News, is Editorial Director of CBSNews.com based in Washington.
Dick, why then is it called the STANDARD Model. Also, look at Emerson, the latest case.
the one that is essentially settled law
Again, EMERSON.
The Supreme Court last dealt with the issue directly in 1939 when it clearly backed they collective, no-individual right position.
BS. Read US v Miller.
What the founders intended is unknowable. Objective truth about the meaning of the Second Amendment does not exist. Practical consensus about its meaning will not endure. The concept of "well regulated militia" is an anachronism in the 21st century.
BS. What in the blue hell? Dick, have you read the federalist papers...especially federalist 46? Huh?
Of course, such an amendment will go nowhere (which is also exactly the way it's supposed to work).
Think how much better our society would be if abortion proponents had used similar tactics in the 60's.
Mr. Dick is sooooo right. It's long past time to stop pussyfooting around. Let's get that next American Civil War going. This ought to do it.
Then, I expect we'll see if he's got the courage to live his convictions.
Dick is an a**hole and a moron and an idiot and knows nothing of American history, nor, indeed the bloody history of the last century. Every SOB that has ever been in the US Congress for the last 200 years KNOWS (or knew) full well what the 2nd is all about - if any of them TRULY thought that there was NO RKBA, then they would have found a way to COMPLETELY ban guns a long time ago. No, Dick, you brainless fool, the RKBA is not only completely understood in both historical and contempory contexts, it will endure in America in some form or another long after you have become worm food.
And, as an aside, if objective truth cannot be known about the 2nd, then the whole damn Constitution is meaningless, the English language is worthless, the words of politicians and idiotic so-called "journalists" is nothing more than insane blather. So why the hell should we listen to the likes of Dick the Minor Moron?
Read what they wrote, Dick.
If what the author advocates comes to pass, then I will either be enslaved or dead.
More likely dead...with a decent kill ratio I hope.
Molon Labe.
5.56mm
repeat out loud ten times: "There is no liberal bias in the media"
Why is it that a corporation has rights superior to an individual in those areas where guns are restricted, e.g. New York City?
I think CBS should be totally disarmed, even prohibited from hiring armed guards, before any of their corporate pitchmen are allowed to speak on company time on the issue of guns!
ACW II
Let's Roll
Here's the homework you should have done, lefty.
What the Founding Fathers Said About the Second Amendment and Our Right to Keep and Bear Arms
That would be nice. ;-) Psst!-->....... Fuckin' A right!!! Woo Hoo!!
A war to ban guns? The irony is painful. Why are they so blind?
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.