Replies

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.