Replies

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals appears to be bent on adopting as many intellectually dishonest positions as is possible. In both this case and in the case respecting the Pledge of Allegiance, the Court insists on applying its ideological convictions to the Constitution, and on reading only what it wants to read.

Not only is this intellectually dishonest, it is also dishonourable and distinctly un-American. In the United States, we believe in the rule of law -- a concept rendered meaningless by Leftist insistence on subjective and illogical interpretations of the law.

The Second Article of Amendment specifically states that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

First and foremost, unlike the First Article of Amendment, the Second makes no specification as to who is prohibited from doing such a thing. Whereas the First applies strictly to the Congress, the Second makes a peremptory declaration that the right "shall not be infringed."

In essence, the Second expressly forbids any form of ingringement upon the right to bear and keep arms by any party, either the Federal or a State Government. Linguistically, there is simply no way for any party to infringe the right without being in direct violation of the terms of the Constitution, regardless of how well-intentioned the infringment.

Secondly, the Court's interpretation that the Second is simply an authorisation for the States to raise and equip militia is an entirely fabricated and unsubstantiated fantasy. Were that the case, the Second would read "the right of the States to equip and outfit well-regulated Militia shall not be infringed."

Notably, however, it does not say that. The Second refers not to the rights of the States, but to the rights of the people. It is clearly not a collective right of the State -- because the States are referred to as separate entities, and never as "the people."

In any event, the Court's invalid interpretation is revealed for what it is by the Ninth and Tenth Article of Amendment: Legalistic fabrication.

The Ninth specifically states that "[t]he enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The Tenth further states that "[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

In the first place, the form of the Tenth makes quite clear that, in the Constitution, "the people" is not synonymous with "the States," else the two terms would not be mentioned separately as distinct entities.

In the second place, even if the Second only protected the States' rights to equip militia, the right to keep and bear arms would still be protected by the Ninth, as a non-enumerated right.

And in the third place, the Tenth completely invalidates the Court's position:

Section 8 of Article enumerates the powers of the Congress; it empowers the Congress "[t]o provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

Clearly, then, the power to arm the militia is delegated to the Congress by the terms of the Constitution itself, and not to the States. Given that the power to do so is expressly delegated to the Congress, why in the Gates of Hell would the same power be vaguely reserved to the States?

Furthermore, section 10 of the same Article expressly states that "[n]o State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace."

This makes even more clear that the position the Court has read into the Second is completely nonsensical: The Second cannot possibly be protecting the States' right to equip and outfit militia, because the Constitution has already dealt with that matter! It delegated the power to do so to the Congress, and then went on to prohibit the States from keeping troops in time of peace without the Congress's consent.

The Second cannot uphold the States' power to equip and outfit militia, because the States explicitly do not have that power: It was expressly delegated to the Congress, and prohibited to the States without consent of the Congress.

The Tenth states that the powers not delegated to the Federal Government and not prohibited to the State Governments belong to the States or to the people. However, the power to equip and outfit militia is quite clearly delegated to the Federal Government and equally clearly prohibited to the State Governments; ergo, per the Tenth, that power does not belong to the States or to the people.

Needless to say, if a power explicitly does not belong to the States, that power cannot be protected. One can not protect what one does not have.

Clearly, then, the Court's interpretation of the Second is indicative of gross intellectual dishonesty and demonstrable constitutional ignorance.