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?

[Socratic]

Certain people argue that the clause regarding a "well regulated malitia" serves to restrict the individual's rights, but I argue that it strengthens the individual's rights because its intent is that all men should be proficient in the use of firearms in case their well-honed skills are ever needed by the government to preserve liberty for all.

[XavierLarry]

I would still take any 100 Freepers out of a hat for the Senate and we'd be far better off.

[crz]

Absolutely correct. It means that if we want to keep and bear arms, the government may NOT prevent/infringe on us from doing so.

I suppose one could say this is a right of ours to keep arms and that government may not infringe. So now, lets get the lawyers out to argue that. Around and around we go.

[chiya]

And by the time Miller was heard by the court, Miller was dead and the anti side was the only side that was heard. Miller was never defended.



The Homeland Support Team

[Ursus arctos horribilis]

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.

[Happy2BMe]

Rather difficult to know when Feingold stops grilling and Roberts starts answering - but interesting 2nd Amendment foray anyway.

ping

[bvw]

WWI Trench Sweepers. You'll also see them in old cowboy movies used as by lawmen or stagecoach drivers.

[XavierLarry]

The historic definition of "well-regulated" often gets lost in translation. Since muskets back then had no rifling and thus the musket balls tended to inaccuracy, it was the concentration of many balls of lead careening through the atmosphere in a general direction that was the military order of the day. The ability to train a number of guns to deliver these balls in one general direction was called "regulating" your fire and hence, a citizenry proficient in the use of the musket and well-practiced became a "well-regulated" militia.

[Happy2BMe]

You are aware that Feingold carries a concealed weapon aren't you?

[Socratic]

Thanks for the historical perspective.

[Fido969]

Good point.

[King Prout]

re: my mistake on post#8
see post #9.

;)

[PistolPaknMama]

The clear text of the amendment simply makes it clear that the gov't may not INFRINGE on this right.

Well I thank you for your first post, and you are exactly right. Keep on postin'!

[XavierLarry]

Thanks. I appreciate it.

[hispanichoosier]

Is this just something he says to mollify hunters in Wisconsin?

I'd wager that it's kind of a nod to the Wisconsin Constitution's provision (Article I, section 25) regarding the right to keep and bear arms:

The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.

Thus, unlike the U.S. Constitution's provision, Wisconsin's seems to definitely provide for an individual right with its mention of "security" and "hunting," and not just "defense."

[crz]

I had a well educated professor from the UK break the sentence down. He stated that there are actually two seperate sentences in there. One addressing a well regulated militia and the other concerning the non-infringement of the government to keeping and bearing arms. He also went on to say that it addresses a sort of states right issue mentioning a "free state". Addressing as such "A free state". There were what? 13? at that time?

[supercat]

Total BULL! Miller said no such thing. Miller said (paraphrasing) that short-barreled shotguns were not commonly used by the military, hence were not weapons protected by the 2nd Amendment. It certainly did not maintain that the RKBA is a collective right.

Actually, even that's not right. The court merely allowed the government to bring Miller/Layton to trial to determine, among other things, whether a shotgun was a militarily-useful weapon. Even though Layton was still alive, the government decided to plea bargain for time served rather than go to court to prove its case. Is there any other case where the government, after "winning", has offered a plea-bargain for time served?

[Waco]

Big hint to the turdbucket politicans,,,,,The ENTIRE US CONSTITUTION IS ABOUT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS!!!!!! Think about it. There is very little in it addressing other issues.

[Socratic]

Interesting - the notion of the added protection of states from Federal tyranny.

[DocH]

I'm shocked that Feingold claims to believe in the correct 'Indivivual right' interpretation.

We shouldn't be shocked that it was Feingold assigned to do the dirty, precarious questioning on the 2nd Amendment.

All these scumbags get together beforehand and divy-up the questions they think ought to be asked, and whether or not their constituents and major donors would have a problem with it.

Apparently, after learning the lessons of losing election after election where they pressed their anti-gun agenda, and LOST - they are being much more reserved in the raising of this issue.

Hence, the USUAL attack dogs on our 2nd Amendment rights, Schumer and Feinstein, are taking the easy route due to their constituents and major donors being more left-wing and anti-gun that Feingold's.

I don't know if this is fact, but I believe it is what these gun-grabbing scumbags are up to.

It also may be that Feingold ISN'T up for re-election next time around, and the others are, OR, Feingold IS up for re-election, and the people in his district are more pro-gun than he NORMALLY (when not up for re-election) is. Ala Hillary, he may be juking to the right in an effort to get re-elected. Just like Kerry, he's probably a lying-sack-of-sh*t when it comes to his views on the 2nd Amendment and firearms owned by law-abiding citizens.

Anti-gun, anti-freedom, anti-AMERICAN maggots.