Judges Give Ammo to Gun Owners

[rushmc 23]

By Nicholas von Hoffman
=====================================
There is much discussion about guns, the second amendment and "nut job" "right wing" NRA members. I think this article explains (and puts into context) the issues involved very well.
=====================================


A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

—Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

And look at what just climbed out of its coffin—the Second Amendment, the orphan child of the Bill of Rights. The U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia threw out a law in the nation’s capital that made outlaws of those keeping a gun, even in their own homes.

Until this ruling, many had relegated the Second Amendment to a place next to the Third, a truly obsolete, Amendment: “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”

The Appeals Court ruled that the law violates the heretofore much-ignored Second Amendment, thereby causing whoops of joy over at the National Rifle Association headquarters and lamentations from the city’s mayor and gun-control liberals everywhere. This battle is not over, for the lawsuit is on its way to the Supreme Court and more controversy.

Yet again, the air will be filled with talk about strict constructionists, judge-made law and on and on, as people argue about accepting the Constitution at its face value or embroidering new meanings on it as times and circumstances may demand. You would think, given the long, ongoing argument between close and loose interpretation, that the distinctions between the two sides is as clear as night and day.

A re-read of the Second Amendment should disabuse us of that idea. Take another look and ask yourself: What the hell does it mean? The Constitution, revered document though it may be, is often maddeningly opaque, and never more so than with the Second Amendment. What, for example, is a militia? Is it the National Guard? What is it, and why, if we have it (whatever it is), must people have the right to bear arms?

One answer to that question comes from Sanford Levinson in the Yale Law Journal. He writes: “There is strong evidence that ‘militia’ refers to all of the people, or at least all of those treated as full citizens of the community.

“James Madison, for example, speaks in Federalist Number Forty-Six of ‘the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.’ The advantage in question was not merely the defense of American borders; a standing army might well accomplish that. Rather, an armed public was advantageous in protecting political liberty.” So it is possible that the word “militia” has nothing to do with a government-organized military formation.

It is worth recalling that, in the era when the Constitution was written, our modern idea that the state or the government should have a more or less complete monopoly of force and violence was unknown. If it had been propounded, it would have been repudiated. After all, the Constitution was written by a group of white men who were haunted by the threat of a central governmental authority using force against its own citizens.

No doubt about it: The political thinking in late-18th-century America held that an armed citizenry was a check against government tyranny. It is an argument put forth today—often vehemently so—by anti-gun-controllers, and one that is scoffed at by liberal gun suppressionists, who scorn it as paranoid, melodramatic and absurd in the age of the powerful, all-knowing democratic central state.

But how paranoid is it when the government in Washington is caught making a routine practice of illegal wiretaps, snoopings, searches and even, on a more limited basis, graver transgressions against older ideas of civil liberty, such as secret trials and the suspension of habeas corpus? Abroad, the American government’s standard operating procedure now seems to include kidnapping and other illegal acts, often with Orwellian names such as “extraordinary rendition” and “targeted killing.” Maybe the liberals, even with their ongoing concerns about civil liberty, are less attuned to the danger of government tyranny than the right-wingers purported to dominate the National Rifle Association

But even assuming the possibility that the federal government might turn into an insupportable tyranny, most gun-controllers seem to doubt that a rifle in the closet will help, though Iraq should have taught us that a population with assault rifles in the house is by no means powerless when confronting a regime it detests.

Another argument for interpreting the Second Amendment to mean we have a right to own firearms is the defense of hearth and home. The amendment comes from a time long before there were police departments and when, as any reader of James Fenimore Cooper will tell you, a flintlock was indispensable. Does that prove that we do have a Constitutional right to bear arms, whatever that means? No, not for sure—but it might.

If the Supreme Court upholds this decision, there may be seriously bloody consequences. The decision left Adrian Fenty, Washington’s mayor, aghast. “I am personally deeply disappointed and frankly outraged by this decision,” he said. “It flies in the face of laws that have helped decrease gun violence in the District of Columbia.”

You can find plenty of people around Washington whose answer to that is to ask, “What decrease in gun violence?’” Regardless, if the Bill of Rights confers the right of gun ownership, should it be nullified by the courts because of the practical advantages outlawing firearms may bring? Mr. Levinson has something to say about that, too:

“If protecting freedom of speech, the rights of criminal defendants, or any other part of the Bill of Rights were always (or even most of the time) clearly costless to the society as a whole, it would truly be impossible to understand why they would be as controversial as they are. The very fact that there are often significant costs—criminals going free, oppressed groups having to hear viciously racist speech and so on—helps to account for the observed fact that those who view themselves as defenders of the Bill of Rights are generally antagonistic to prudential arguments.”

We don’t get to pick which part of the Bill of Rights we keep and which gets thrown away. It is often painful for some of us to observe others exercising their rights, but the only other choice is to mount a campaign to X out the Second Amendment by amending the Constitution. We could join up with the anti-flag-burners, who would like to do the same with the First Amendment. There’s a winning combo for you.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[narcimund 0]

Quote

We don’t get to pick which part of the Bill of Rights we keep and which gets thrown away. It is often painful for some of us to observe others exercising their rights, but the only other choice is to mount a campaign to X out the Second Amendment by amending the Constitution. We could join up with the anti-flag-burners, who would like to do the same with the First Amendment. There’s a winning combo for you.

Wonderful things can show up in closing paragraphs.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Wonderful things can show up in closing paragraphs.

Quote

But how paranoid is it when the government in Washington is caught making a routine practice of illegal wiretaps, snoopings, searches and even, on a more limited basis, graver transgressions against older ideas of civil liberty, such as secret trials and the suspension of habeas corpus? Abroad, the American government’s standard operating procedure now seems to include kidnapping and other illegal acts, often with Orwellian names such as “extraordinary rendition” and “targeted killing.”

And in the middle paragraphs.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Judges Give Ammo to Gun Owners

And here I thought you meant judges were handing out bullets. So much for a good deal.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Judges Give Ammo to Gun Owners

And here I thought you meant judges were handing out bullets. So much for a good deal.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

We don’t get to pick which part of the Bill of Rights we keep and which gets thrown away. It is often painful for some of us to observe others exercising their rights, but the only other choice is to mount a campaign to X out the Second Amendment by amending the Constitution. We could join up with the anti-flag-burners, who would like to do the same with the First Amendment. There’s a winning combo for you.

Wonderful things can show up in closing paragraphs.

Do you post this thinking I disagree?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Do you post this thinking I disagree?

Actually, I don't remember your position on the 1st, but if memory serves there are vocal pro-2nd posters here who have spoken obliquely but vigorously against the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 10th.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Do you post this thinking I disagree?

Actually, I don't remember your position on the 1st, but if memory serves there are vocal pro-2nd posters here who have spoken obliquely but vigorously against the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 10th.

I think at times you confuse discussions of what is, or should be, protected under and amendment, with protection of the amendment itself.

Some of the rulings around (and using) these amendments is damed convoluted.

Someone disagreeing with you as to whether or not something should be protected under an amendment (much like the 2nd amendment debate)
does not necessarily mean they are against it (an amendment) as you claim here.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Someone disagreeing with you as to whether or not something should be protected under an amendment (much like the 2nd amendment debate)
does not necessarily mean they are against it (an amendment) as you claim here.

I'm WHOLEHEARTEDLY in support of your distinction. Let's ALL be very careful about this clarification. If every pro- or anti-gun discussion kept it in mind, the conversations would be much more instructive than they have been.

Same with all the others.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Someone disagreeing with you as to whether or not something should be protected under an amendment (much like the 2nd amendment debate)
does not necessarily mean they are against it (an amendment) as you claim here.

I'm WHOLEHEARTEDLY in support of your distinction. Let's ALL be very careful about this clarification. If every pro- or anti-gun discussion kept it in mind, the conversations would be much more instructive than they have been.

Same with all the others.

Agreed, something to remember

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[livendive 8]

That's a good article.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Judges Give Ammo to Gun Owners

And here I thought you meant judges were handing out bullets. So much for a good deal.

No kidding. I was reading to find out where to get in line for the give-away...

[downwardspiral 0]

link to source please? I'm too lazy to google as Bilvon pointed out recently.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[rushmc 23]

http://www.observer.com/20070409/20070409_Nicholas_von_Hoffman_opinions_nationalobserver.asp

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[downwardspiral 0]

thank you kindly sir

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[rushmc 23]

Quote

thank you kindly sir

No problem

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

To me the above is blatently clear. Folks arguing the meaning of the first part reminds me of Clinton arguing the meaning of "is." Of course I am biased and feel this is a right that shall not be infringed.

www.FourWheelerHB.com