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.
I used it once in an argument with someone here over the Commerce Clause. They argued that FDR's interpretation was "well settled law" and that under the principle of stare decisis (precedence) we should accept it.
I pointed out that it was "well settled law" for 150 years before FDR screwed with it, and that stare decisis could just as easily be applied to arguments for changing it back. I never did get a reply after that.
Outstanding point!
Not to go off on a tangent, but the Bill of Rights can not be changed. The Constitution can not be ammended in a way that negates Amendments 1-10. This was understood for hundreds of years.
I called the NRA and asked if they were going to pursue a lawsuit in the states, such as Kansas, similar to the one that is going on right now in Ohio. They stated that they are going to see how the Ohio lawsuit is ruled before they make any decisions. It's pretty aggravating to have to wait for every step, but at least the steps are in our direction.
"Who would have guessed that the shots heard 'round the world 225 years ago would fall on deaf ears in a nation now more sympathetic to the gun-grabbing Redcoat than the gun-bearing rebel?
-Michelle Malkin"
Good point, but explain Prohibition.
Good point. The Militia just didn't wake up one morning and decide to authorize itself to arm itself. That authorization came from We The People, collectively and individually. . . and We The People could not authorize a group to arm itself unless that right was inherent with We The People, individually. Cops are an extension of We The People as well. The only reason they are armed is because We The People authorized them to be armed. And again, We The People could not arm the cops unless we had that right to begin with . . . collectively and individually.
As one of We The People, I don't remember ever giving up the right to defend myself when and where necessary. On the contrary, it will always be my personal responsibility to protect myself, and not rely on someone who is far from the scene when and if my life is endangered. Otherwise, I would not have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
So the entire issue of gun control rests on a false premise . . . that your right to life is dependant upon the nearness of someone else who is armed who will protect your life. And that is clearly a pile of B.S.
We don't really need amendments anymore anyway, since FDR figured out we can just change the meaning of the words in the original to make it say whatever we want. /sarcasm
These guys read a sysnopsis of Miller or what some legal service says about it and they don't read the case.
No argument there. What I was trying to focus attention on was that if this is how the dems and their ilk want to play it, fine....that means that the ban on all of the semi-automatic weapons and high capacity magazines that was passed in the 90's is unconstitutional because of Miller. Therefore these "assault weapons" (the clueless gun-grabbers don't even know what a true assault weapon is) are perfectly legal to buy, sell and own. They can't have it both ways, i.e. Miller says assault weapons are permissable under the 2nd amendment.
You made a good point about shotguns being used in WWI. I'm sure the Germans had no problem understanding that those are quite usefull in combat...after getting a chest full of buck-shot or 12 gauge slugs.
The reason it was not within notice, is because the defense didn't show up for the trial, and so it was (lying sack of S**t) government revenue agents, vs. nobody.
Show me where the production and sale of alcohol is specifically mentioned in the BoR.
To be more to the point, new amendments can not be made that would say things such as "This is a repeal of the 2nd amendment" or "The right of the people to be secure.....can be infringed". The BoR protects natural rights and is not an enumeration of rights, as stated by the 9th and 10th amendments. The right to manbufacture and sell alcohol would have been one of the rights "retained by the States, or the people". The interpretation of the "interstate commerce clause" is probably the justification as to why the Federal governement claimed jurisdiction to ammend the Constitution to prohibt alcohol.
Socialists (Democrats) are not allowed to have any weapons.
Simple and to the point. It also allows "the people" to maintain the militia in these times of terrorists attacks upon America.
Monorities in the inner cities? - nope!
Liberal reporters? - nope!
Talk show hosts (Rosie?) - nope!
Cops who vote for Socialists? - nope!
Of course, once these ignorant people realize that their life is in danger and nobody will protect them, perhaps they will switch how they vote.
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.