Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Changing the 2nd Amendment
Seattle Post Intelligencer ^ | May 9, 2002 | Seattle Post Intelligencer Editorial Board

Posted on 05/09/2002 7:02:38 AM PDT by ethical

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/69642_guned.shtml

Changing the 2nd Amendment

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD

It is disturbing, though not surprising, that the federal government has decided after numerous decades of settled thinking on the Second Amendment to reinterpret its position.

The marked shift, formalized in a pair of footnotes to legal briefs submitted Monday to the U.S. Supreme Court, occurs because of the deeply held beliefs of the man who is now leading the Justice Department, Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Last summer, in a letter to the National Rifle Association, Ashcroft foreshadowed the change in official thinking. "Let me state unequivocally my view that the text and the original intent of the Second Amendment clearly protects the right of individuals to keep and bear firearms," he wrote.

The department's departure is profound from philosophical and practical standpoints.

Until now, through Republican and Democratic administrations alike, the Justice Department has been in virtual lockstep with the high court's position on the Second Amendment, as last stated in the 1939 decision, United States v. Miller. In that case the court said the amendment protects only those gun ownership rights that have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation of efficiency of a well regulated militia."

While legal scholarship on the exceedingly volatile amendment has seesawed between the two disparate views, the courts have been generally unified in their thinking -- adhering to the Miller decision in more than 100 federal and state appellate cases -- until last fall.

Then, in the prosecution of a Texan for violating a 1994 federal gun law, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals departed from precedent to maintain that the amendment protects the individual right to bear arms. It did say those rights could be subject to "limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions."

It should be noted that the department, while announcing its change of heart on the basic thrust of the amendment, does not disagree that gun ownership can be curtailed to some extent. And the department would prefer that the high court not involve itself in the Texas case or its companion on appeal, the case of a man convicted of owning two machine guns in violation of the ban against them.

We disagree. Though couched in a footnote, the pointed challenge to decades of unified thinking by the judiciary -- the perspective that ultimately counts -- has been made.

The time is ripe, as is said in legal parlance, for the high court to weigh in again on the Second Amendment and, it can be hoped, reaffirm the position that the Constitution guarantees only a collective right to guns through state and federal militias, not an individual's absolute right. Otherwise, the door will open wide to weakening the responsible gun laws that protect us all.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events; US: Washington
KEYWORDS: ashcroft; banglist; gunrights
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-143 next last
To: borkrules
Yes. The mention of Militia in the 2nd amendment simply acknowledges what "the people", individuals, can do when called upon. "We the people" does refer to individual rights reserved.
101 posted on 05/09/2002 10:27:01 AM PDT by ethical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: AnnaZ; HangFire; Lady Jenn; Kithlyara; AZ Spartacus; feinswinesuksass; abigail2...
Belles bump
102 posted on 05/09/2002 10:30:22 AM PDT by lowbridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HELLRAISER II
"If they want my guns they'll have to come take them by force."

I ditto that statement, Hellraiser II!!

103 posted on 05/09/2002 10:32:45 AM PDT by Destructor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ethical
That's fair enough...I'll bet you'd be hard pressed to find manny that find it logistically possible to carry 24/7. But the option is your individual right. Anti 2A people want that option to go away.

take care,

Jim

104 posted on 05/09/2002 10:35:41 AM PDT by in the Arena
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: ethical
Otherwise, the door will open wide to weakening the responsible gun laws that protect us all.

ROFL!!! Exactly how many lives have been protected by these 'wondrous' laws?

105 posted on 05/09/2002 11:01:00 AM PDT by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge
Stop the attacks on our God given Rights by the extreme wacko left !!

Guns Save Lives !!

Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!

The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed !!

An Armed Citizen, Is A Safe Citizen !!

No Guns, No Rights !!

Molon Labe !!


106 posted on 05/09/2002 11:05:52 AM PDT by blackie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Richard Axtell
"I recommend that local Freepers write this paper in volume, and make this fact absolutely clear to it's readers, in case there is or has ever been any doubt."

LOL......we write....but this is SEATTLE, home of the most lefty loonies living....

107 posted on 05/09/2002 11:19:06 AM PDT by goodnesswins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

"We disagree."

Tough crap, rag.
YOU do not speak for me so go pound sand.
You're worthless Leftist-Leakers; &, whatever ya got to say?
Carries with it about that much, or less, weight. {spit...}

FACT:
Leftists & their various *arms* ie the 'Rats, Socialists, Communists & other assorted sundry *freaks* will never stop attacking ALL our amendments in their hellbent effort to suit their needs, wants & schemes -- the 2nd Amendment, notwithstanding.

So damned lucky for us, that in order for the bastards to change any of OUR amendments?
They shall first be made to trudge both hell & high water.
Just as the system was designed to -- make anyone or anybody -- do; who, might be desirous of screwing around with OUR Constitution as written.

When the cold dark day comes, whereby these misfits start to fiddle with the mechanism(s) by which that amendment-changing process is applied and enforced so they can create themselves a short-cut?

...call me.

108 posted on 05/09/2002 11:24:53 AM PDT by Landru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: HELLRAISER II
This is one of the things I don't want to be correct about. I have been involved with too many organizations and clubs to trust a group that just sits back and let's others do the work. Remember the poster that said that talk is cheap? That's absolutely correct. Why would I think that someone who can't write a simple letter to the Editor, pay a lousy $25 dollars a year, attend one rally a year or vote every couple of years be trusted to watch my back. Rmember all the complaints that the NRA sends to much mail to people? They can't even be expected to haul their lazy butts off the couch to throw the letters away and someone expects to trust them with people's lives?

75 Million gunowners are waiting for you to do the work that they're too scared or lazy to do.

109 posted on 05/09/2002 11:28:24 AM PDT by Shooter 2.5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge
A thanks-for-the-ping BTTT.
110 posted on 05/09/2002 11:45:39 AM PDT by facedown
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
Dang Shooter...don't be so encouraging:>)

I'm not sure that membership rolls necessarily indicate resistance levels. Lots of gun folks are too stupid or lazy to put their money where their mouth is but might get motivated if JBTs start down their street.

BTW, your post motivated me to renew my NRA(5 years) and re-up my GOA donation. I told the very sweet girl at GOA that your post on FR had prompted me....something I had been procrastinating about for a couple of months.

Thanks

111 posted on 05/09/2002 11:51:51 AM PDT by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: keithtoo
I think you meant to say:

56,000,084

112 posted on 05/09/2002 11:56:01 AM PDT by Michael.SF.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

Comment #113 Removed by Moderator

Comment #114 Removed by Moderator

To: wardaddy
Thanks and bless you. I really don't care which group anyone joins. I might raise an eyebrow if a long time shooting buddy sent money to the Pink Pistols! LOL.

The other side has the media machine already in gear and rolling. I've already resigned myself to the fact that I have to start on all those letters that are still locked up in my brain.

115 posted on 05/09/2002 12:24:52 PM PDT by Shooter 2.5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
You're welcome....and thank you for prompting me.
116 posted on 05/09/2002 1:05:53 PM PDT by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins
"HMMM...in my copy the 2nd Amendment has 3 comma's...."

And it is wrong.

See This thread, at #30.

117 posted on 05/09/2002 1:17:34 PM PDT by boris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge
With all due respect, your editorial is just an opinion, and quite an uninformed one at that. Your opinion is that the Second Amendment does not and has never protected an individual right. Someday I would like for your paper to opine on how the word “people” can mean one thing in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments and take on an entirely different meaning in the Second. But, putting aside that basic problem for the anti-civil rights view, the larger question is has the Supreme Court’s opinion of what the Second Amendment protects changed? It hasn’t, but you wouldn’t know that because you obviously rely on poor scholarship or no scholarship at all to reach your opinions.

Your “opinion” cites US v Miller for its support. Much like all the cases which cite Miller, you haven’t the first clue what Miller actually stands for. It is clear you never read Miller. Had you done so, you would know that Miller stands for the proposition that the only arms for which an individual enjoys Constitutional Protection via the Second Amendment are arms with military utility. That’s right, under Miller an assault weapon is clearly protected.

Miller was not decided based upon a determination that individuals are not protected by the Second Amendment – it was based upon the incorrect notion that a sawed-off shotgun had no military utility. This was incorrect because they were in fact used in times of war to clear trenches and tunnels. The Supreme Court never heard this fact because Miller disappeared prior to his appeal being heard and his position was never briefed. Had the Supreme Court believed that the Second Amendment did not apply to individuals they would never have reached the previous, erroneous conclusion – they would have dismissed the case altogether on the grounds that the defendants, who were NOT members of the national guard or armed forces, lacked standing to even bring the challenge. That’s right, the Court did not dismiss the case based on standing, which it would be required to do unless the appellants had standing to bring the charge. The appellants could only have standing if the Second Amendment applied to individuals.

The statement that the Supreme Court has only opined on what the Second Amendment means is also incorrect. There are plenty of opinions from the Supreme Court that mention the Second Amendment. Every one of those cases includes the Second Amendment as an individual right. Those cases include, but are not limited to, United States v Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), stating that ‘the right of the people’ in the First, Fourth and Second Amendments should be construed consistently; Poe v Ullman, (1961) stating that the right to keep and bear arms is part and parcel of the ‘full scope of the liberty’ provided to the individual by the Constitution; Dred Scott v Sanford, (1850) where the Court specifically stated that if African-Americans were citizens they would enjoy the right to keep and bear arms; and Patton v United States, (1930) “The first ten amendments…were substantially contemporaneous and should be construed in pari material.” There are others, including Casey v Planned Parenthood, but I think I’ve demonstrated that Miller is by no means the last word on the Second Amendment, nor is the notion of what the Second Amendment protects “well settled.”

But don’t take this attorney’s word for it. Read Can the Simple Cite be Trusted?: Lower Court Interpretations of United States v. Miller and the Second Amendment, 26 CUMB. L. REV. 961-1004 (1996) at http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/17denc.pdf . It is a wonderful and in-depth analysis of Miller and the decisions that cite it. The article demonstrates that the cites to Miller either ignore the plain meaning of Miller or those Courts merely cited Miller without reading the opinion.

Either way, the Second Amendment hasn’t changed over time – it has always stood for the proposition that there is a fundamental right for an individual to possess firearms. It has only taken this long for legal scholars and finally an honest government to recognize that fact. It is high time the Media recognizes this fact as well. Only when we can all acknowledge that you and I have an individual right to possess firearms can we craft laws that target true criminals and leave you and I alone to pursue the “full scope of liberty” protected by the Bill of Rights.

We'll see if they print this response...and no, I won't hold my breath.

118 posted on 05/09/2002 1:50:04 PM PDT by Abundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: ethical
This rag's "editorial board" is an ass. The 2nd amendment has been under attack by one AG after another based on deliberate misconstruction of a Supreme court ruling from 1939 and this idiot is terrified that the intent to disarm the American people has been set aside.

He really needn't worry. The current administration is more likely than any since Lincoln to order confiscation of private firearms.

119 posted on 05/09/2002 2:07:04 PM PDT by Twodees
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
[If the 80 million gunowners would have taken an interest before this, we wouldn't be in this mess.]

Oh, Malarkey. If the NRA hadn't been playing politics with our rights, we wouldn't be in this mess. Guess who will be actually bowing up and shooting at any troops or police sent to disarm us. Hint: it won't be the NRA. The NRA is just a vehicle for channeling campaign money to gungrabbing politicians. The NRA is the largest guncontrol lobby in the US, and the media holds them up as the boogeyman who stands in the way of "common sense gun laws". As usual the media is full of malarkey.

Get a clue, Shooter. The NRA has been around since the radicals were running the country. If they represented the thinking of 80 million gunowners, they wouldn't have a membership of only 4.5 million. It's pretty telling that 97% of gunowners routinely tell the politicking NRA to kiss our collective asses. The fact is that the NRA has actively lobbied for, written and/or endorsed every major piece of federal gun legislation ever passed. They can KMA. The numbers show that most gunowners feel the same way I do about Moses and Waynie.

120 posted on 05/09/2002 3:02:39 PM PDT by Twodees
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-143 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson