Judge John Roberts on Second Amendment

Washington Post ^ | 9-14-2005 | Russ Feingold and John Roberts

[Dan from Michigan]

FEINGOLD: Let's go to something else then. I'd like to hear your views about the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms. This is an amendment where there's a real shortage of jurisprudence.

You mentioned the Third Amendment where there's even less jurisprudence, but the Second Amendment's close. So I think you can maybe help us understand your approach to interpreting the Constitution by saying a bit about it.

The Second Amendment raises interesting questions about a constitutional interpretation. I read the Second Amendment as providing an individual right to keep and bear arms as opposed to only a collective right. Individual Americans have a constitutional right to own and use guns. And there are a number of actions that legislatures should not take in my view to restrict gun ownership.

FEINGOLD: The modern Supreme Court has only heard one case interpreting the Second Amendment. That case is U.S. v. Miller. It was heard back in 1939. And the court indicated that it saw the right to bear arms as a collective right.

In a second case, in U.S. v. Emerson, the court denied cert and let stand the lower court opinion that upheld the statute banning gun possession by individuals subject to a restraining order against a second amendment challenge.

The appeals court viewed the right to bear arms as an individual right. The Supreme Court declined to review the Appeals Court decision.

So what is your view of the Second Amendment? Do you support one of the other views of the views of what was intended by that amendment?

[infowarrior]

And even that was wrong. Short-barreld shotguns had been in use.

They certainly were in use during WWI, in the trenches. It was directly after WWI that all the beeligerents, and many other countries as well, developed various versions of "the submachinegun", or "machine pistol", which provided the the benifits that a sawed-off shotgun provided in WWI, to wit, massive, man portable firepower, in a package that could be employed in close confines (like the trenches of WWI). In short, the sawed-off-shotgun was the original "room broom" (and still makes an acceptable substitute for a subgun today...)

the infowarrior

[Myrddin]

And there are certain measures, such as registration and mandated safety training, that I can see as not violating the 2nd amendment in any way, so long as the right to own a gun is not violated....

Registration leads to confiscation. That just played out in New Orleans as registration records were used to identify households with firearms. Local law enforcement confiscated firearms and arrested people on their own private property. The only reason to "register" who owns a firearm is to ensure the government can locate and confiscate when they see fit.

[2nd_Amendment_Defender]

We definately need another Supreme Court Justice that will uphold the Bill of Rights. I hope Judge Roberts is such a man.

[DocH]

Feingold is a weasel at best on the 2nd Amendment.

Remember to, that he, and RINO McCain, created their unconstitutional campaign "reform" act (what a joke and a travesty), in part, to silence the NRA before elections.

He's no different than your typical demonRAT scumbag politician.

[brushcop]

LOL! You all have excellent points. My remarks were SOMEwhat tongue in cheek but it really does get down to what is a person to do when confronted with illegal/oppresive acts by government officials, whether they be the police or NG?

And epow, I'm up there with you on the age so I know of what you speak.

Now, let's consider that our forefathers also tried every LEGAL means for fighting oppression but it didn't work. I believe that is what we will eventually be confronted with as well. After all lawful means (law suits, etc.) have been persued to no avail, then what? Your choice is to become "subjects" or fight as citizens, simple--but difficult. Remember: "You have a Republic, if you can keep it (paraphrased)".

Darn, I wish this wasn't going to be so hard...

[DocH]

Thanks for the link.

I particularly like the quote from Rep. Gratia-Hupp. I forwarded that quote, the story written by GOA's Eric Pratt, and the pro-gun cartoon and photo from the NO war zone, to many friends and family in my email mailbox.

I added info on Rep. Gratia-Hupp to the end of her quote...

"How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual... as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of." -Texas State Rep. Suzanna Gratia-Hupp (the lady who had to sit by and watch as a madman crashed his truck through a Luby's Cafeteria window and methodically set about shooting as many people as possible, including her parents. She had a firearm for protection, but due to Texas law at the time, she left it in the car for compliance. She later became a legislator, lobbied for concealed carry in Texas, and it was passed and signed by the Republican Governor - George W. Bush .)

[CDHart]

Everyone seems to think Roberts is OK, but for some reason I don't. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it's the look in his eyes or something. When I was much younger, Rock Hudson was the idol of so many women, but I never liked him. Turned out I was right. I hope I'm not right about Roberts.

Carolyn

[DocH]

Feingold, like some other, mainly demonRAT politicians, walks-the-walk, but doesn't talk-the-talk.

President Bush has been somewhat of a disappointment regarding our 2nd Amendment rights, but overall, he has been much better an ally than most who have come before him.

I do wish he would speak out more forcefully on a number of issues, including our border and illegal immigration situation, and most especially, the illegal and unconstitutional gun confiscations that just occurred down in NO.

[MortMan]

It appears to me that the label may have been left off of Robert's reply. Note that the following paragraph contains a FEINGOLD: label.

[pageonetoo]

Welcome to FreeRepublic. You're statements are absolutely correct. Judge Roberts is one of the most impressive individuals I have seen, and I am of the opinion that he will be turning a lot of things around. But, he knows that he has to get there, first!

[Les_Miserables]

2nd Amendment does not explicitly state firearms. Just arms. Based on the logic of Miller I suppose swords are not considered generally to have utility militarily and therefore we should have no right to own/bear swords...right? Hands Up!

[planekT]

ping for later.

[Bombardier]

Yes.....and also spent time at the range.

[absolootezer0]

a look at feingold's rating by GOA and brady shows that he is on the side of gun owners 10% of the time and on the side of brady 75% of the time..
if he was truly a pro-gun, he would know that us v miller wasn't a collective/ individual right case.

[steve-b]

The fact that he correctly understands Miller, and rejected the anti-gun-rights distortion of the decision, is promising. Beyond that, he really can't go (as he correctly noted, this is an issue that is very ripe for the Court, given the discrepancy between the Fifth Circuit and the Ninth Circus).

[absolootezer0]

wasn't there a prosecuter in that case that was a vet that would have seen them in use?

[steve-b]

There are more than a few libs who know the voters in their states or districts. For that reason alone, those pols consider the 2nd to be their third rail, they avoid it like the plague.

The Dem political strategists know that if it weren't for the gun issue, Al Gore would be in his second term. For this reason, they try to sit on the gun-grabber faction as hard as they can without actually offending them to the point where they stay home or vote Green.

[libstripper]

Right now, even though there's a conflict between the circuits, there's no pending case SCOTUS can rule on. SCOTUS denied certiorari in Emerson and this dialog shows there's no indication that certiorari was filed for in the Ninth Circuit case. That means we'll have to wait for another case to work its way up through the circuits.

A slightly favorable thing about Roberts is that he did say the Miller court side stepped the individual vs. collective right issue. The gun grabbers have long been saying Miller stood for the collective right interpretation of the Second Amendment.

[DocH]

This is what I said, in error, in my previous post...

Feingold, like some other, mainly demonRAT politicians, walks-the-walk, but doesn't talk-the-talk.

Obviously, in a hurry to post, I got it backwards.

Doh!

[Nov3]

Thanks for calling. I haven't been to the range near enough.