Posted on 09/15/2005 7:12:34 PM PDT by 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?
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Maybe. I don't get any indication that he understands that beyond being a violation of the Second Amendmemt, it is also an abuse of the Commerce Clause.
You are right. From what I understand, us v Miller was a joke, in the sense that the case was decided WITHOUT the defendants, or their representation, actually being present.
If anything, us v Miller proves that we do have a right to keep and bear arms suited to a militia.
Roberts is perfectly knowledgeable here. He correctly notes that:
1. The "collective rights" versus "individual rights" argument was raised, and
2. The court sidestepped this issue, ruling instead on the question of whether a sawed-off shotgun was a type of weapon that fell within the scope of the Second Amendment. (As others have noted, they got this question wrong because Miller's side did not present any evidence, presumably because Miller had shuffled off this mortal coil before the case reached the Supreme Court.)
From this, we learn that Roberts understands that gun-control arguments asserting that "Miller is a precedent establishing the 'collective right' doctrine" are worthless jaw-flapping.
I can't believe an elected official had the gall to say that in public.
This "nukes and nervegas" argument is easily disposed of by noting that the term "arms" (as understood by the drafters of the Amendment) clearly refers to the sort of weaponry carried by an ordinary soldier or officer in the field.
As noted earlier, this (not the "individual versus collective right") is the issue upon which the Court ruled in Miller.
"We the People,..."
We are sovereign here. Each individual is the King of their own life, and ONLY their own life. That many in government, and their sycophantic devotees, have forgotten this does not make it any less a fact. What we individual sovereigns need to do now is REMIND those who would take that sovereignty from us by force, that we outnumber them.
And we are PISSED.
You are correct in post 20.
The lawyer for the government stated that "shotgun serial number XXXXX was never in use by the military and thus does not fall under the protection of the 2nd Amendment."
Unfortunately, there was no opposing side to argue the point since it is believed that Miller had died by that point.
However, if you read the entire Miller case, it does affirm the individual right to keep and bear arms of "modern military nature". Hence, the 1986 MG ban is a direct violation of the 2nd Amendment according to the Miller decision. Unfortunately, because of the poor wording of the decision, the anti's try to use it and it is misrepresented quite often.
Mike
As others have noted, they got this question wrong because Miller's side did not present any evidence, presumably because Miller had shuffled off this mortal coil before the case reached the Supreme Court
miller's side presented evidence at district court level and won. it was declared that NFA was unconstitutional.
if you're interested in the district court case info here..
http://www.rkba.org/research/miller/Miller.html
I agree, let's overturn all these unconstitutional state and local restrictions on ownership and concealed carry.
...It, like the 1st and others, recognizes that we the people have certain rights as human beings which no gov't can give and that's one of them. The clear text of the amendment simply makes it clear that the gov't may not INFRINGE on this right....
Welcome aboard FRiend.
Ok, then....
Why should anyone have to register their car? Why should anyone have to pass a driving test (that obviously isn't hard to pass, considering the driving behavior of many people nowadays)? Why should you need a license?
The question isn't whether or not registration or training helps - its whether or not its a violation of the second amendment. Does requirement of registration or training violate this?
As for Vermont - comparing Vermont to California is an apples to oranges comparison. The correct comparison would be California pre-gun laws to post-gun laws, and comparing to trends in similar urban environments without restrictive laws...
Strip all un-Constitutional Laws from the books. Starting with the 1934 NFA.
It doesn't violate the Second Amendment. It DOES violate the 4th and 5th amendments. What the law requires and what is morally right are two completely different things. Also, I would like to point out that most people with drivers licenses still don't have a clue how to drive safely. A standard set up by the insurance companies would probably be a lot more efficient in the long run than anything conceived of by bureaucrats.
Welcome to FR!
Imagine if we had 535 Freepers in Congress....WHOOO HOOO!
I'm not sure about that, KP. Notice that there are two consecutive Feingold labels. If it was one continuous statement by Feingold, why would they label it twice? Also, the paragraph in question reads like an answer, though it could be background for a question. It seems a little too informative to be part of a question, almost like he'd be leading the guy. I think they failed to label that paragraph as a Roberts response.
that is what confused me, so I went to the referenced article, where the formatting is clearer. It seems that it is indeed still Feingold, though the redundant citation is odd.
After receiving you reply, I checked it out at the WaPo too, and I'm still inclined to think it's a mistake. I Googled a couple of phrases in the immediate vicinity to see if I could find another transcript online, but didn't get any hits.
as it was WaPo, one must consider the possibility that if indeed the citation is in error, the "mistake" might have been deliberate.
Hmm. I certainly wouldn't put it past 'em. But in general I never attribute to malice anything for which simple incompetence is an adequate explanation. There's so much of it around after all. ;-)
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.