The New Normal: The Second Amendment After Heller and McDonald
But because the District of Columbia isn’t a state, it remained unclear whether this decision would affect state and local gun-control laws — which is most of them — as opposed to purely federal laws. The Supreme Court has long held that the Bill of Rights doesn’t apply directly to the states. However, through a doctrine called “incorporation,” it has been applied, piecemeal, to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Many legal academics (including me) have criticized this approach as unprincipled and sloppy, and suggested that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment meant for the entire Bill of Rights, at least, to apply to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause instead.
That’s what Alan Gura argued before the Supreme Court in McDonald vs. Chicago, and only one justice — Clarence Thomas — agreed. But if nothing else, this may have made the notion of traditional incorporation of the Second Amendment look less radical (a case of the ”Overton Window” in action, perhaps) and in the end Gura got five justices to agree on incorporation.
So the end result is that the Second Amendment now applies to the states, like the First, or the Fourth, or the Fifth. In other words, it’s now normal constitutional law.
For gun rights activists, that has both upsides and downsides. On the one hand, it means that some gun-control laws, at least, will now be found unconstitutional. Most of the work of doing this will be done by lower courts, which have traditionally been pretty dismissive of Second Amendment rights, but there’s some sign that lower courts are taking things more seriously since Heller, and this case is likely to reinforce things considerably. Chicago’s existing anti-gun ordinance is very likely to be struck down now, as it is virtually the same as the D.C. gun ban struck down in Heller. Other highly restrictive laws are also likely to fall.
On the other hand, if gun-rights activists sit back and expect the courts to do their work for them now, they will be sadly disappointed. If pressed with further cases (which Gura says he plans to bring), the courts will do some good. But the primary protection for gun rights up to now, and for all constitutional rights, really, is political. Judicial review was intended by the Framers to be a backup system, not the main source of protection. That was intended to come from the people — and realistically, because if people don’t stand up for their own rights, courts are unlikely to take up the slack for long. (Especially when, as here, the protection comes in a 5-4 decision).
Nonetheless, the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment decisions have made a major difference. In particular, they have offset the gun-control community’s longstanding effort to “denormalize” firearms ownership — to portray it as something threatening, deviant, and vaguely perverse, and hence demanding strict regulation, if not outright prohibition. That effort went on for decades, and received much media support. Two decades ago, it seemed to be working.
But with the Supreme Court saying that it’s clear the Framers regarded individual gun ownership as “necessary to our system of ordered liberty,” that effort must be seen as a failure now. Gun ownership by law-abiding citizens is the new normal, and the Second Amendment is now normal constitutional law. It will stay so, as long as enough Americans care to keep it that way.
“On the other hand, if gun-rights activists sit back and expect the courts to do their work for them now, they will be sadly disappointed.”
This is another way of saying that one should rarely, if ever, vote for a Democratic Party candidate. As a general rule, they are mealy mouth and deceitful enemies of your Second Amendment Rights. These postmodernists have learned to squeeze the truth, bend it, and do all sorts of other nasty things to it. Republicans are not always perfect, but Democrats almost always cannot be trusted. The fight will never be over. Utopian ideologues never rest. They will most assuredly take advantage of any opportunity to stab you in the back.
Now that all gun rights have been moved into the Federal purview, it will not be enough to vote Republican for your Federal representation. Many if not most “Moderate” Republican candidates will endorse or vote for various levels of gun control, and these new limits will apply to all of the United States. When the standard of the Second Amendment is applied to states or localities, then it will be justified that the Amendment must be re-interpreted to allow some infringements in some cases. This always winds up being expanded over time, and it most certainly will be this time. One must, in this case, look for Republicans who properly understand the relationship between the Federal Government as constrained by the Federal Constitution, and the States or the People (see the Tenth Amendment).
It might behoove you to reread what I wrote. I am very well aware that there are a handful of “moderate” Republicans who cannot be trusted. They still represent a small minority of the GOP. Maybe five percent? The Democrats, for the most part, are completely against the Second Amendment. As a general rule—you should almost always vote Republican.
I typically do vote Republican, however, in the Primary process I often hear that I must support the Republican who can win. This is defined as the Republican that the Elite Republican establishment finds least offensive as most Republican leadership today is moderate or progressive while their conservative base is large and growing. This is the reason we get choices like Obama or McCain in general elections. The Dems are rushing headlong left socialism, the Republicans think it can grab the middle, at the expense of their right of center coalition. The result is, strong enough, third party, right of center candidates to split the vote and ensure the election of Democrats, who are hostile to Natural Rights and see the Constitution as a impediment to their goals.
Our allies only recently pushed “moderate” Senator Bob Bennett out the door. We are seeing more of this sort of thorough house cleaning. The process begins in the primaries. Too many conservatives were indifferent in the past. The mushy headed John McCain is mostly solid on gun issues. I am not thrilled by his efforts to seek reelection—but he offers enough to deserve our support.
“I often hear I must support the republican who can win”
And the answer, as many Americans have learned to their horror, is that we MUST abandon the mythical ‘center’. We know now that there is no real center position remaining, that congress shockingly came fully on board with Obama’s radical leftist agenda, LUNGED to the left collectively, and we need to just get over the lingering ‘distaste’ (that is what it is) for the right before that snobbishness KILLS US.
Because the REAL misery of leftist rule is far, far more impacting than the ‘imagined’ misery of some wierd imaginary Jerry Falwell-land that is never going to happen even if solidly conservative candidates take full control of the Repub party and the nation. We continue to keep the social conservatives at arm’s length, worrying about some ‘religious government’, when the REAL religious government is trying to nuke us and chop our collective and individual heads off.
Personally, I am a Christian guy, fully on board with the general beliefs of the social conservative. Politically, I’m SICK of the fake separation between social and fiscal. ALL SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES are fiscal conservatives. The disdain felt by some Republicans for social conservatives is what gave us Obama and McCain.
NEVER AGAIN, to borrow a contemporary phrase.
I am with you, David, I was glad to see Utah send a message to Bennet, that he should find other ways to occupy his time. However, McCain may be good on guns, but he is horrible on Political Speech and Immigration. He likely would have been strong on military and we would have seen a much more aggressive prosecution. He is and was a mixed bag and Hayworth has his own baggage. We must remember that there are 300 million of us, the majority would be eligible for elective office. There is little reason to limit our representation to those who have already served or are known entities today. Surely Arizona could have fielded other candidates in the Republican primary and allowed a spirited debate to ensue. There were 6 candidates in the Republican primary for the Oregon Senate seat this cycle, but if you listened to the media and the Party establishment, you would be familiar with only one of those candidates, with the rest being largely ignored.
RE: Dave in Dallas, well said.
Vote for the most libertarian candidate you can find if you want to protect your individual rights.
The ONLY candidates that you can always trust are absolutely pro-2nd-amendment are Libertarians. Republicans are fickle, at best, allies who talk a good game at election time but tend to deliver very poorly in the crux. Most of the gun laws we live under today (1986 Firearms Ownership Preservation Act under Reagan, 1968 Gun Control Act under Nixon, 1972 creation of the BATF under Nixon, 1990 Crime Control Act under Bush I) were created under Republican Administrations. I only vote Republican when I don’t have a Libertarian to vote for, or if it appears a Democrat may beat the Republican without my support. Many Republicans are sorry second choices at election time.
Way, way (way) back in elementary school, I absorbed the concept that the Bill of Rights was added to protect the rights of individuals.
That’s why I saw right through the whole argument from the beginning. It was a public school, too.
My History teacher walked into class one morning
and went through the Bill of Rights one by one,
convincing us to give them up.
Then he looked at us sadly and pointed out that
a war was fought to secure those rights which
we could not defend against his attacks.
It was the most valuable thing he taught me.
You mean way back when they taught reading, writing, math and science instead of 101 ways to feel good and you and your self esteem?
For me it has always been simple logic.
The words “The People” show up in the Constitution of the United States 9 times.
The very first time we see them is in the pre-amble (which I was forced to memorize) “We The Poeple”
It also shows up in the second ammendment. “The Right of The People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Logically, THE PEOPLE means the same thing in the first three words of the U.S. Constitution that it means every other time it is used. You cannot convince me that the framers somehow held a -different- meaning for “The People” in the second ammendment than they did every other place it showed up in the Constitution.
Simple Logic.
A foreign concept to democrats.
One of the first things anyone studying the 2nd Amendment will learn is that the 1st and 2nd Amendment are completely the same.
99% of the attacks against the 2nd Amendment are really backdoor attacks on the 1st Amendment. Guns don’t magically start shooting ppl or load themselves ppl shoot ppl… why do ppl shoot ppl? Because of speech. Any argument used against the 2nd Amendment could be used against the 1st Amendment but 100x more so. In the end both are linked and we are losing both…this minor speed bump is just slowing down a process thats not going to stop unless we elect some ppl who believe in the US Constitution… and I’m not seeing any of those types of ppl running or planning on running anytime soon.
The major problem with relying on Heller and McDonald as guarantees of our gun rights is that the first decision explicitly sanctifies “reasonable regulation,” and the second decision says nothing that would undercut or limit said regulations. That puts the interpretation of “reasonable” squarely athwart the supposedly un-infringeable individual right to keep and bear arms. You can bet the rent money that state and municipal authorities will concoct the most restrictive, obstructive conceptions of “reasonable” they think they can squeeze by — and the courts will be of no use in penetrating the administrative roadblocks and delays those “reasonable regulations” will impose.
Ultimately, it might be necessary to defend our right to be armed round by round. I fear that outcome, but our political class — say, wasn’t America supposed to be the land without classes? — has grown so hostile to the notion of an armed citizenry that even Texan George W. Bush recoiled in horror from the suggestion that airliner pilots be armed — “Oh, no, we’re not going to do that!” — in the immediate aftermath of Black Tuesday, September 11, 2001.
I share your fear that these two decisions leave much to interpretation. While they seem to clearly state that a total ban on handguns is unconstitutional, there is nothing that prohibits a virtual ban using tactics such as onerous licensing fees and registration processes, or requiring the approval of an anti-gun bureaucrat in order. Mayor Daley has made it clear that he intends to keep guns out of the hands of law abiding Chicagoans one way or another, and this decision does little to prevent that.
Mr. Porretto –
Admire the reference to the late A. E. van Vogt’s “The Weapon Shops of Isher” series of short stories. Van Vogt and R. A. Heinlein were early contributors to my youthful libertarian sensibilities.
“The right to own weapons is the right to be free.” Ubnforgettable.
Fro me, the thing that cuts right to the heart of the gun confiscator argument – and the thing that raises my ire to incandescent fury – is that not only are they holding the Constitution in utter disregard and contempt, but by denying my right to delf-defense, they are also deciding for me what my life is worth. That last has been the prerogative of tyrants and mass-murderers throughout history.
The undeniable and incontrovertable fact of recent human history is that over 260 million – let’s say that again: over 260 million – unarmed citizens have been slaughtered by their own governments. Prof. R. J. Rummel of the University of Hawaii has compiled a total that he still estimates to be on the low side. The lesson is clear: those who wish to disarm you are monsters, despite their ‘best intentions’. Which are almost always proven to be the pretense, excuse and the precoinditions for monstrous acts to follow.
As important as it is, incorporation of the 2nd, I find it interesting that the challenges made in Heller and McDonald had to be made in larger cities where the violent, handgun oriented crime rates were amongst the highest in the nation, where the John Q. Homeowners were banned from possession of handguns. It would appear that logic is not the strong suit of politicians in general. Perhaps they should be banned from making any more laws. Seems we have inherited all we need from our forefathers, just need to follow through.
What David said. . . .I bet the “o” and his crew are hatin’ it. Gun control is necessary for him to push more of his marxist agenda, and the UN can’t be happy either. . . now if some more libs will be gone from the House and Senate. . .and the Repubs grow some balls. . .
In Pennsylvania there was an attempt to pass a law the requires gun owners o report the stolen weapons, The NRA fought this law as if it was the beginning of the end of the 2nd amendment. Unfortunately the NRA fails to realize that those stolen guns end up in crimes scenes. No one is challenging the 2nd amendment. Yo can have you little toys, but why do yo have to endanger out lives with your immoral policies
Do you really think that an instrument that a citizen might use to defend his life and property against a criminal is a “toy?” That is a very foolish attitude. I am sure that Big Brother would like to keep all the “toys” to himself and so decide who will be protected and when. You might be satisfied by such a scenario, but most Americans know it as tyranny.
Because we want you dead, obviously.
Seriously, what it is about thumbsucking liberals that makes them incapable of accusing their opponents of “immorality”? As they say, don’t force your morality on me, you nasty fundamentalist you.
> Unfortunately the NRA fails to realize that those stolen guns end up in crimes scenes.
Feel free to explain how reporting that a gun was stolen keeps it from ending up at a crime scene? (Actually, guns usually aren’t found at crime scenes as the perp tends to take his gun with him.)
The reality is that the proposal was not pure reporting, but something else.
How about this – let’s combine a real reporting requirement with a requirement that police return stolen guns to their owners. (No, police don’t return stolen guns. They typically keep them or destroy them.)
The foolish law of which you speak was really a disingenuous attempt to demoralize and demonize citizens by placing the onus of crime on the backs of the gun owner instead of real criminals where it belongs. Any American citizen should be embarrassed at the very thought of such self destructive stupidity. The NRA and the America people aren’t falling for this garbage in disguise as “common sense.”
When you presume to tell us that we cannot own firearms – and that lies at the heart and the intent of your post – you are not just pissing on the United States Constitution and the Second Amendment; you are presuming to tell us how much our lives are worth. You are saying that you see no reason to make it easier for us to defend our lives, or the lives of our families. You are saying that the lives of a family are worth less than that of a criminal with murderous intent. You are declaring your moral supremacy over the rest of us by presuming to judge the value of our lives in the first place. If there is a more tyrannical and immoral worldview, I don’t know what it might be.
You and people like are unfit to live in a free society. Leave now.
I always considered the “dismissive” attitude toward the Second Amendment dangerous. Since the term “the right of the people” was used in the sense of those whose rights the Amendment protected, defining “the people” as being only “members of a well-organized militia” (i.e., a standing army, government-employed police, etc.) opened the door to the abuse of the populace by the government as and when the government pleased.
“What, you think you have a right to free speech? Not if you’re not a cop.”
“What, you think you can’t be forced to tell us everything we want to know? You’re not in uniform, baby- now either spill, or it’s rubber-hose time.”
“We can’t take your property without paying for it? You didn’t take the King’s shilling, peasant, so shut the f**k up, and get out, or we’ll just shoot your a**.”
I firmly believe that, having suffered all of the above at the hands of George III, the Founding Fathers deliberately and with malice aforethought wrote the Bill of Rights in general, and the Second Amendment in particular, to be as restrictive as possible on the government. They weren’t about to take the chance of a repeat performance of George’s excesses by a future U.S. government, or even local or state governments, which saw itself as the master and the citizenry as potential slaves.
And yes, their “malice” was directed at future “rulers” who failed to grasp the concept that in this nation, a public servant is just that- a servant of the public. Not a ruler, and certainly not a master. And that if all else failed, the citizenry would always have the option of removing such a tyrant, or group of tyrants, by force.
Which probably explains the deep resentment the “enlightened elite’” of today hold for the Founding Fathers. And the Second Amendment.
clear ether
eon
a well armed milisha is NOT the government but the people to form a malisha to fight the Government when they fail or refuse to up hold the constitution and its laws…how can the the government control what is my God given right..to fight them!! if you read any of the founders papers and the federalist papers there wouldn’t be this argument..but “those smarter then us will always want to tell us how to behave…this gun control started in early 20th century by the progressives
What this really means is that we must find some way to rein in the unaccountable courts. The plain words of the Constitution ought to prevail, always. Every law regarding arms is an infringement on our rights, as enumerated in the Constitution. If the Constitution needs to change, there is a process for doing so.
Don’t let me start on Kelo.
Mr. Reynolds, your last sentence says it all. My prediction is that now that liberal states like Illinois can’t prohibit handgun ownership they will pass laws that criminalize self defense and give criminals’ families the right to sue crime victims that exercise self defense. All in all, a further boon to trial lawyers and a potential legal nightmare and financial ruin for those who decide to defend themselves, their families and their property instead of accepting being murdered in their own homes.
Politicians don’t like armed citizens. Neither do judges. Imagine that?
Alito can say (as he does in McDonald) that “The Court is correct in describing the Second Amendment right as “fundamental” to the American scheme of ordered liberty.” That doesn’t mean that the next round of cases (Sykes, Pena, Nordyke and others) won’t be judicially nullified. What do I mean by judicial nullification? It means that judges will read Heller and McDonald and fail to apply them with any force. The process has already started – the same DC court that got Heller wrong the first time just told Dick Heller that DC’s new registration scheme (as byzantine an approach as could be dreamed up btw) meets Heller’s requirements. Not bloody likely, but our black robed masters don’t like to be denied. Looks like Heller’s going to have to go back to the Supremes to get this sorted out.
We’re going to have to impeach some judges to get their attention. I prefer the traditional tar, feathers and rail myself, but alas this is modern times. Fear of losing their lifetime job (and pension) ought to “encourager les autres.”
We’re at the moment that the civil rights movement was at when Brown was decided, but before Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, which ordered lower lower courts to force desegregation “with all deliberate speed.” There are literally hundreds of facially unconstitutional gun enactments (I won’t deign to call them “laws”) on the books now. Time for them to go.
This is why I always vote “NO” when there is a question of retaining a judge (or Justice of the Peace) on the ballot.
Let them know that some people are watching.
Me too, but I wish there was an organization that rated judges based on their adherence to constitutional principles, and that rating was widely published.
Yes, ” firearms ownership …(is)threatening, deviant, and vaguely perverse…” but up the butt is marriage.
Because, after all, het couples never ever do that.
In 2007 the Petit family of Cheshire, Connecticut was wiped out by two intruders. Nowhere in the MSM did I read any speculation about the alternative results of this episode had that family been armed — as mine is, and will remain, notwithstanding what any court has said, or will say.
Expect the gun banners to try to create regulations that are so onerous that they make gun ownership effectively impossible. They will try to claim that these regulations fall under the “reasonable regulations” exceptions carved out by the Supreme Court.
We will have to go back to the courts many times before a coherent picture of what is “reasonable” and what is not.
Mayor Daley of Chicago is threatening to pass a new gun control statute. Will he just make regulations for licensing like there are in DC? How much of a right to own a gun is there if a city can make it very difficult to register one?
Going “Back to the courts many times” is not sufficient. Voting against Democrats is also required. So called pro-gun Democrats are often allowed by their legislative leaders to cast a ballot in our favor when it doesn’t make any difference. These same elected officials will likely betray you when Nancy Pelosi or Harried Reid demands their vote in a particular instance. It would behoove you never to forget the behavior of the “pro-life Democrats” during the passage of the Health Care bill. Keeping members of the Democratic Party out of office is the number one way of protecting your gun rights. Democrats are your enemies. Treat them in such a manner.
There is no longer any such thing as a pro-gun Democrat, just as there are no pro-life Democrats.
There are just Democrats that the leadership will allow to vote pro-life or pro-gun, so long as the result is not in doubt. When it matters, all Democrats toe the party line.
A lot of Americans are conned by meaningless votes. Democratic Party leaders encourage their purple and red state legislators to cast ballots making them look conservative to their constituents—as long as they have little chance of passage! A so-called pro-gun politician may therefore “earn” a high NRA voting record. They will then betray you when it comes to crunch time.
They will also free up a politician to vote his district, on votes that they know they have no chance of blocking. (Notice that I didn’t say vote his conscience.)
While I agree, David, that democrats are bane to a healthy republic and should be labeled as such, republicans have become increasingly toxic themselves these past decades as they have sought only palliative measures against the raging statist disease rather than a cure. My prescription: Be wary of ALL politicians and test them for effectiveness; discontinue use when results are not as advertised. Be alert to outcomes; remember, we’re talking about survival here.
I agree – the mere designation of an ‘R’ after a politicians name tells me nothing thses days. With all but a handful of exceptions, most of the Republicans holding office are what I call Vichy Republicans. With all that implies.
Democrats aer America’s domestic enemies. I spit on them and everything they stand for.
Fortunatly in Washington we have the Initiative process.
A few years ago the gun banners put forth a “comprehensive” Gun Control initiative. 676 went on the ballot. (Funny thing, out of state money poured in supporting 676, but Hands Off Washington was only concerned about the Out of State money contributed by the NRA 95% of which was from local residents, but snice the NRA is headquarted in Denver they called all of it out of state money.)
Anyway, the opposition to 676 was outspent 5 to 1.
It went down in flames. 70% NO vote. The election board noted that 100,000+ ballots had been cast in that election voting only on 676, and voting NO.
The People don’t want this nonsense, and now we can own our guns with pride.
CWP holder for more than 25 years.
jd
What happens in a few years when a 5-4 liberal Supreme Court reverses Heller?
Very, very strongly suggest that they not do that…
And in truth, they won’t. They might be happy little moonbat slaves of the government in their philosophy,(if you’ll pardon the misuse of the term), but they are patient, and they will embark upon an incrementalist approach to achieving their goals.
Meanwhile, we need to erect a statue of Alan Gura.
A big one.
At the risk of giving away the game – Chicago and others will use commerce powers to tax ammunition. $1000 a bullet. Serialized, traced and inventoried.
So no one will buy ammunition inside those cities. Or they’ll buy the material and hand load their rounds.
And there will be $10000 fines for unserialized ammo. They’ll use the excuse that lead is poisonous to require gunnies to give up all existing stocks.
Chalk another one up for the Supreme Court; they not only got Heller right, but surprisingly, this one too, although 5-4 is a little too close for comfort. RickGreenvilleSC is right – the WH and UN must be having hissy fits right now. I’m sure the WH is frantically working on figuring out a way to replace at least 1 of the 5 before Obama gets his pink slip in 2012. It’s no mystery where Kagan would’ve come down on this one. Justice Stephens: don’t let the door hit you on your way out, which can’t be soon enough for me.
The gun rights issue is not going to be done for a long while.
Both sides think they are morally correct. We are evolving into the same sort of passing argument we see with Abortion. Neither side argues the other’s positions’ validity, rather just waive plastic fetuses on one side of the street and coathangers on the other.
The issue is the same with guns. One side looks at gangbangers and other criminals and argues that if we could control the guns, we could prevent the crimes. The other side looks at people who use the guns for legitimate reasons and the government trying to prevent this and sees tyranny.
The argument over guns gets settled when we agree on 4 things:
1. A preknowable and non-obstructionistic process to legally buy and own guns.
2. A set of non-pleabargainable, and always enforced laws regarding use of a gun in a crime that are going to hurt (like the 10 year sentence in the 1935 FFA for illegal posession of a machine gun.)
3. A fundamental recognition on the part of liberals (including the media) that honest and good people can own firearms for legitimate purposes and not be demeaned, considered flawed in some way, or be treated like Anthropoloigsts discovering the lost tribe of the Ubangis.
4. A fundamental recognition on the part of the gun community (even the NRA) that the aberants amongst us are a detriment to the sport and we need to squeeze out and marginalize people who behave this way (and we have all been to the range and seen the creatures who shoot 19 rounds as fast as possible out of their Glock and yet not hit a B4 target at 10 yards, or people who shoot AR 15′s in a dark indoor range with their kids sitting behind them without ear protection.)
Short of a mandatory death sentence for using a gun in the commission of a crime, no gun control law will ever stop criminals from using guns.
That is the only “fact” that needs to be recognized by both sides.
As to your examples, while they are both nuts, they are not the kind of nuts that the govt needs to be worrying about.
Unfortunately, they can still pull out the “fewer guns = fewer gun crimes” justification. The idea is that *any* decrease in the absolute number of guns “on the street” is a net positive. They don’t care *who* they’re taking the guns from, as long as there are fewer of them. The fact that it’s only the law-abiding citizens who turn in their weapons doesn’t matter because, in the logical world of the gun-controller, the guns used by criminals are mostly stolen from law-abiding citizens. If the law-abiding citizen doesn’t have a gun, then a criminal can’t steal it and use it to commit crimes. And of course, there’s the notion that most law-abiding citizens defending themselves against attackers can be easily “disarmed” and have their own guns used against them. And finally, there’s the fact that guns can be easily misused or get into the hands of children – which makes firearms a public safety and health hazard that cost the taxpayer money and drive up insurance premiums. You will never convince these people that taking guns out of the picture has any downside at all.
Fight’s not over – not evern close.
“and we have all been to the range and seen the creatures who shoot 19 rounds as fast as possible out of their Glock and yet not hit a B4 target at 10 yards, or people who shoot AR 15’s in a dark indoor range with their kids sitting behind them without ear protection”
The first group need more practice and training; I’ve never seen any members of the second group.
Seriously — the local indoor range won’t let you into the range without eyes and ears, and restricts the number of people allowed in to at most 2 per lane. My club is outdoor only and requires eyes and ears at all time.
So… not seeing the problem.
I think the “aberrants” on most people’s minds are the ones who never go to the range at all. They are the ones who feel the need to possess a firearm but aren’t interested in learning how to use it. Weapon gets loaded, stuck in a drawer or under a car seat – end of training. If they’re lucky, they become the homeowners we sometimes read about who successfully defend themselves against robbers. If they’re not, they become suicides or mourning parents. Trouble is, there’s absolutely nothing anyone can do about them. They, along with criminals, rightfully *should* have their guns taken away from them. Unfortunately, we can’t do that without penalizing everyone else.
First group is too many and often too resistant to Range Safety Officers or Instructors offering help.
Second group is rare, but the examples I cited happened at a place called SHOTS in Omaha, NE in August 1991 and my brother and I were there to see the idiot with the AR-15 in person. We made for the door and tried to find solid stuff to duck behind.
I am not interested in guns but I have watched the gun rights activists and have supported their efforts because the right to own a gun is clearly stated in the Constitution, no matter how politicans and lawyers misconstrue the 2nd Amendment.
The vastly important consequences of Heller and McDonald is that should the gun right activists continue to defend their rights, Heller and McDonald is actually a first very important step toward the restoration of individual rights.
That restoration will necessarily be incremental, since the violations of our rights is huge and accumulative since the time Wilson and now involve mountains of regulations and regulatory agencies. But that the 2nd Amendment is now again properly regarded as “normal” is an important victory for individual rights, which are the more fundamental principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence second paragraph and which give rise to such things as the right to own a gun.
I am not interested in guns but I have watched the gun rights activists and have supported their efforts because the right to own a gun is clearly stated in the Constitution, no matter how politicans and lawyers misconstrue the 2nd Amendment.
The vastly important consequences of Heller and McDonald is that should the gun right activists continue to defend their rights, Heller and McDonald is actually a first very important step toward the restoration of individual rights.
That restoration will necessarily be incremental, since the violations of our rights is huge and accumulative from the time Wilson and now involve mountains of regulations and regulatory agencies. But that the 2nd Amendment is now again properly regarded as “normal” is an important victory for individual rights, which are the more fundamental principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence second paragraph and which give rise to such things as the right to own a gun.
Sylvia, you said that, “I am not interested in guns…” Let me relate a syaing by an old Russian Communist revolutionary: “You may not be interersted in war, but war is interested in YOU.” Adn there’s the problem. Your disavowal of your own self-defense means absolutely nothing to those who operate by the law of the jungle. How much is your life worth? And have you considered that a refusal to stand in your own defense has consequences for others?
Evil persists only with our sanction. We have an obligation as human beings to recognize and resist evil when we are confronted with it. Fail in this regard, and you’ve given ruthless men all the encouragement they need to perpetrate their evil upon others. Your passivity rewards their success.
If we’ve learned anything at all from the horror show that is the history of the last century – and this one as well – it is that evil must be fought and resisted. Always. And that will at times require your ability to function as judge, jury and yes, executioner.
So don’t look now, but there’s a distant thunder off on the horizon. It’s war. War is coming to to all of us, coming at the hands of ruthless men whose ambition is nothing less than dominion over every sphere of human thought and endeavor. My family and I will stand strong against them. What will you do?
Well said. Evil exists. How much do you love freedom? From Alexander Solzhenitzen:
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
What Jesus said does not have to carry a lot of weight with anyone, BUT for those who claim to “believe” in both Jesus AND the moral obligation to own a gun to fight evil, help me out here. I have moved away from a lot of Jesus “idealistic” teachings, but others claim to still try to follow them. How does that work with guns?
A couple of my favorite verses:
“I came not to bring peace…but a gun.”
“If my Kingdom were of this earth, then would my servants…pack.”
Probably one of the more important questions of this forum, you raise. Would Jesus pack?
Hmmmmm.
I doubt Jesus would pack. He didn’t come to defend himself but to teach us about God’s ways. It was the plan from the get-go that he would die. Now, I think that an argument could be made that packing is turning the other cheek, depending on what you do when you are confronted with a situation in which you might have to shoot somebody. How will you handle it? Will you show no mercy or as God has taught us, to show others the mercy he has shown us. That doesn’t mean you can’t defend your life and punish someone in the process. If you can pack and resist the temptation to be condemning, you may have a fighting chance. How could someone avoid condemnation of another and shoot him at the same time? When you round that corner, the flesh is operating anyway. Therefore, you have to ask yourself before the situation occurred – did I have moral ambiguity or complete moral justification when I arrived at this place? Moral ambiguity with a shooting would be questionable spiritually.
Case in point: did your ego push the situation forward to this happening, when you could have waived off the confrontation sooner had it not been for your ego whispering to you that you needed to be right or not to be a coward for standing down.
Elimination of moral ambiguity by following God’s word could result in a “righteous kill”. In that case, you truly were forced to. I can imagine plenty of situations where the gun owner simply had the final word but could have avoided the situation all together.
Dwight, to reply to you, I would first like to develop the idea of the value of the individual, and what I think about anger and fear.
The Bible should be recognized as the single most significant contributor to the concept of the value of a human soul. Certainly, the first glimmers of the idea can be seen in ancient Greece, but practically speaking, human life was cheap in the ancient world for all but the powerful few. The message of the gospel planted the seed of the concept of the value of an individual deep into human thought; it was a novel idea. The good shepherd leaves the 99 to seek out the one who is lost. It is the individual who enjoys eternal salvation. I’m trying to keep it short, but there are other examples of individuals being equal before God. The influence of the Bible on the US Constitution is more than obvious.
Fear is a perfectly normal, God-given emotion that gives us the energy to escape from danger (to preserve life). The more intelligent and perceptive you are, the more you will recognize genuine danger around you, and respond to it accordingly. Now, I posit that anger is an emotion that gives us the energy to right a wrong.
We all know that selfishness, cruelty, in short, all the dark parts of our makeup can very easily spill over into the expression of anger. When Jesus found that the money-changers had turned the temple into a house of merchandise, the Bible records that He became angry. His anger was appropriate to the situation, balanced, and under His control. This anger served the purpose of righting a wrong. I conclude that anger is a normal human response, with the specific purpose of righting a wrong. Regrettably, we often overstep when we are angry because of our human imperfection and spiritual immaturity, nevertheless, it would be abnormal not to be angry in the face of evil.
I judge an aggressor’s intent to deprive me or others of life as wrong and evil. Now, would I pull the trigger in such a situation? I have discussed this with a Vietnam veteran. He said that you do not know what you will do until you are in the moment, and I think he is right. I hope I never have to find out. Would I have the presence of mind to shoot to disable and not kill? Would that person then live to kill others?
When the left accuses conservatives of being angry, they know that this accusation will likely silence them. It is similar to the accusation of racism. The accusations get us off balance because, being moral and thoughtful, we have an awareness of our tendency to overstep in anger and we are sensitive to other’s feelings. Their strategy is to attack us on this ”weak point,” that we are moral. We need to shake off this misplaced guilt and act with the courage of our convictions. If we are passive and silent, we are agreeing with evil and in effect would commit suicide.
I appreciate the thoughtful reply, but you are dodging the “turn the other cheek” issue.
I am pretty sure that I can pull the trigger, but that it just me. I leave Jesus behind on that one. I just don’t hear many people saying, EXPLICITLY “Well, I am a believer, but I am not ever turning the other cheek.” Millions say this IMPLICITLY, which leaves us where, vis a vis Jesus and belief?
In Dostoyevsky’s Brothers Karamazov, the Grand Inquisitor tells Jesus to go back to heaven, because what he asks people to do is too difficult, essentially saying, “Our church and our rituals give them something that they CAN do.”
America seems to be built on a number of paradoxes, one of which is clearly “Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.” I accept that paradox as what we ARE (or were), but I do not understand what faith and belief mean in that context. Islam is apparently a religion which embraces war and killing. The New Testament does NOT. Is our greatness that we can believe and act out two completely contradictory philosophies? Apparently so.
Jesus did say, “I did not come to bring peace, but to bring a sword.”
As soon as you understand that Constitutional Law is addressed to and applies to the government you won’t need years of scholarly study to figure out what 2a means.
2a is addressed to the government ( not to individuals ) and it means exactly what it says.
That is what Constitutional Law is: Constitutional Law is law which applies to the government — as opposed to Public Law — which applies to all citizens.
Where ever government is limited you have a Republican form of government.
Has nobody put before the courts and the legislatures the plain and stark differences between the First and Second Amendments and to whom they applied?
The First Amendment starts with the words, “Congress shall make no law…”, clearly stating the party restricted.
The Second Amendment has no equivalent, ending with the words, “…shall not be infringed.” Without qualification, period, full stop, end of story. *Nobody* can abridge my God-given, Constitutionally protected right to self-defense.
What is so hard to understand about that?
16. David Thomson “Democrats are your enemies”
So very right you are, but a great many of the Republicans are as well. I find it enlightening to contact my local legislators and benignly ask what their position on the Second Amendment/gun control is. I like to do it in a way that doesn’t suggest my very libertarian views regarding firearms. The positions of many Repubs will horrify you.
I try to find the most conservative/libertarian that is on the ballot and give them as much support as I can.
You are most likely exaggerating. The odds are that you have spoken only to a small handful. There is also a good chance that you live in the northeastern part of the United States. “Moderate” Republicanism still exists in that area of the country. Most Republican candidates are solid regarding the Second Amendment.
Here in Ohio, a very anti-gun Republican governor was succeeded by a pro-gun Democrat (who’s running for reelection).
I am not greatly aware of the political situation. The “moderate” Republican should have lost to the pro-gun Democrat. But what is happening this year? Democrats as a whole are largely hostile toward gun rights.
Never has Freedom been so much in danger as today, and never has the Supreme Court played such an important role in defending the Republic against the subversives.
Thank you, good Judges.
Isn’t it paradoxical that the (alleged) “power to the people” crowd has always attempted, and will certainly attempt in the future, to disarm the People ?
America is still Free, and we will keep it Free.
NRA Life Member
in full celebration mode
We won !
The current “power to the people” people – liberals in general – basically have no one physically opposing them, violently or otherwise. They are perfectly safe to espouse and act out whatever sort of power they think they (as the true representatives of “the people”) need. Therefore, they do not need guns. Therefore, they do not see why anyone else would need guns, now or in the future.
I am hoping that most (at least local) government entities with restrictive gun laws will consider the defense of them in court to be an unwise use of scarce funds, given the diminishing likelihood of success…
What is ACORN up to now? Watch the video at http://www.ACUACORNAction.org to find out what ACORN has become. Track former leaders to ensure that we know when ACORN attempts to create new groups using fake names to continue their work.
“when did you last hear of troops being quartered in someone’s house?”
Heard it and saw it. New Orleans, August 2005, in the aftermath of Katrina
After Katrina, the only people driving around town
did so with their windows down, and weapons showing:
Gangsters and Feds; The honest people stayed home to avoid them,
and could at least defend themselves against the Gangsters
…until the Feds confiscated their guns.
Shortly thereafter, in Oklahoma, after a tornado,
the authorities confiscated firearms from citizens
to prevent unfortunate incidents of armed resistance
to necessary emergency measures carried out by the State;
This policy was not well received, and was soon discontinued.
When the economic collapse brings Hard Times, nationwide,
the authorities will make attempts to confiscate guns,
prevent citizens from defending themselves, and gather
‘hoarded’ necessities for equitable redistribution;
These actions will not be countered by filing lawsuits.
With Rights come Responsibilities…
Therefore, right now, before they can claim fear about “more guns on the streets”, we need to take control of this conversation, and demand strict accountability with regard to irrisponsible/criminal behahior involving firearms
Lets all push for IMMEDIATE FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT of ALL firearms violations in the major cities…
That means, among others, FEDERAL JAIL TIME for anyone UNDER 21 caught in the posession of a handgun. All those 18, 19 and 20 year old gangbangers caught with a handgun should go straight to jail.
Anyone else caught intentionally Discharging a firearm (particularly from a moving vehicle)in the direction of other people is defacto-guilty of attempted murder, and we should demand charges to be files as such.
We need to take control of the dialog, and make it clear to John Q. Gunless that there are PLENTY of criminal statutes concerning the felonious use of firearms that are NOT BEING ENFORCED, and it is these INTENTIONAL FAILURES OF AUTHORITY which are the greatest threat to his safety, not what goes on at the Gun Show (“loop-hole”).
Grab the megaphones, and shout them down. When legislators talk about cosmetic things like black plastic, ventelated handguards, shout them down and DEMAND THEY PUNISH THOSE ALREADY GUILTY OF VIOLENCE.
Heckle them everywhere, force them to explain their (backward) priorities, and demand punishment for the GUILTY first.
As much as I don’t like the idea of Gang-bangers carrying guns, I strongly disagree with your desire to disarm younger people. L. Neil Smith, in his essay “Kids and Guns at School” (http://www.lneilsmith.org/schools.html), makes a very good case for allowing children to carry guns.
He’s right: the problem with kids carrying guns to school is that the wrong kids are doing so. We should be training the good kids from an early age (say, six years of age) firearm safety, firearm operation, and when to use (and not to use) a firearm for self defense.
No, this means, When the federal government bans guns the States cannot say “not our Guns” because federal law trumps state laws.
States have to chop Fed and Fed makes the rules.
EXAMPLE: Feds ban all guns, Alabama says, No, In Alabama we will still obey the 2d ammendment and all Alabaman’s will have guns. Feds pull out this ruling and say, No fed law over rides Alabam law so drop your guns.
Think it cannot happen?
Think Obama.
I think the reason that politicians at the national level have tended to let the courts decide unpopular issues is that legislating on those issues is that much more likely to get so many legislators fired. Abortion, gun rights, gay marriage – all “divisive issues” where both parties in the legislative branch have nibbled on the edges while the court comes in and takes the occasional large bite. This is another good reason for term limits in Congress – they should be less concerned with keeping their jobs and more concerned with representing their constituents (whichever side of the issue they’re on). As a buddy of mine said yesterday, “it appears that the only term limit these people understand is death” (re: Byrd).
Also, is anybody up for challenging the Hughes Amendment to the 1986 Firearms Owner’s Protection Act? This particular provision prevents the sale to civilians of any fully-automatic weapon manufactured after May 19, 1986. Most people might view this as a “reasonable restriction”, except for the ATF background check and paperwork that is required. So the only real impact this amendment has is to raise prices (drastically) for everything that got grandfather’d in. If your intent is to break the law, you can buy all the parts needed to assemble one of these weapons for a fraction of the cost of obtaining one legally. Like the Chicago law then, the only people impacted are those of us abiding by the law.
The Second Amendment, America’s first freedom which insures all others will remain safe. The Declaration of Independence lays down the markers. Starting with the Consent of the Governed …
There was a lot more riding on this decision that no one is talking about. This decision concerned whether the states and municipalities had to observe the immunities granted by the second ammendment to our Constitution. The second ammendment is part of the Bill of Rights. If this decision had gone the other way it would have opened the door for states and municipalities to not observe the other immunities in the Bill of Rights. I believe this should be an eye opener for the people of the intent of the 4 “liberal” justices who opposed this decision.
Pardon me for being sceptical, that we are somehow entering into an era of enhanced freedom for decent Americans. Last year, BEFORE the security issues raised by the “underpants bomber”, half my family — including my housewife-and-former-English-Teacher daughter, her two-year-old daughter and four-month-old son were all detained at an airport as suspected TERRRORISTS. Yes, you read that right — four-month-old babies were being detained as “terrorists” while Homeland Security was allowing known Islamic militant fanatics from Nigeria to board planes unhindered. This did not cause our government to stop wasting its time cross-examining babies, so it could use its resources to genuinely protect Americans; instead, it led to new laws allowing Homeland Security’s SS personnel to view our wives and daughters stark naked whenever they fly. THAT is the law of the land, despite what the Supreme Court says about the Second Amendment. What profit is there to Americans being able to own guns, if doing so — or even making enquiries about doing so — puts them on federal “watch lists”, and singles them out for persecution by fully-armed, unelected agencies like HS, BATF, the IRS, etc. What about the over 100 completely innocent women and children who were burned alive by crazed troops and tanks at Waco? What justice has ever been given them? Why are the survivors of that attack still imprisoned? Why is there no real outcry by the NRA nor anyone else? The answer is not the lack of people owning their own weapons: The answer is the lack of US citizens with any remaining moral scruples. Pardon me for invoking Godwin’s Law; Hitler would have loved to govern the US — not because of its laws of lack thereof, but because of our utter religious bankruptcy. On that topic, the First Amendment, which presumably protects freedom of worship, has been “incorporated” and become “normal law” for some years now, and it has been used primarily to rid schools of their Bibles and destroy crosses at veterans’ memorials. What makes anyone here think, that “incorporation” of the Second Amendment will not have, effectively, the same result?
If the goal was controling gun violence in the inner cities…
we would have stories like “Krips and Bloods to take Hunter’s Safety Courses”.
The left has attacked the right to keep and bear arms for decades, hoping to eventually overturn the 2nd amendment for just one reason… it is very difficult and very dangerous to announce to an armed people that they are now SLAVES!!
I think it is amazing that Liberals can find Constitutional support for abortion and individual sexual practices (where there only penumbras for argument), but see no basis for an individual’s right to own a gun despite explicit provisions in the Bill of Rights.
Reply to The Root ’83 – NO, NO, NO. Do not call for FEDERAL law enforcement of anything!! The Federeal gov’t has no lawful police power under our Constitutional / Republican form of government. That is reserved to the states.
Put the monster back into its cage!
Why do I need a “permit” to exercise a right, I “permit” that requires that I provide a whole bunch of personal information, but I don’t have to show a picture ID to vote?
It will greatly help in protecting Americans’ rights if enough of them clearly understand the historical errors that underlie gun control advocates’ Second Amendment views. Justice Stephens’ Heller dissent was influenced by and based upon such errors, which were provided to the Supreme Court in the professional historians’ amicus brief, written by Professor Jack Rakove of Stanford in support of Washington DC’s gun control laws.
The historical errors in Professor Rakove’s Heller amicus have been documented on-line in a 24-part series of articles, ROOT CAUSES OF NEVER-ENDING SECOND AMENDMENT DISPUTE, which appear at On Second Opinion Blog (found in Archives – posted between January 25, 2009 and June 20, 2009).
There are also two 6-part series of articles at On Second Opinion Blog documenting historical errors in professional historians’ amicus briefs supporting Chicago in the McDonald case. The earlier series is titled, HISTORIANS TRY TO SELL LONDON BRIDGE TO U.S. SUPREME COURT (posted between January 17 and February 2, 2010), and the later is, HISTORIANS TRY TO SELL BENJAMIN FRANKLIN BRIDGE TO U.S. SUPREME COURT (posted between February 8 and April 17, 2010).
The numerous historical errors documented in the above-mentioned sources indicate that the extremely steep and high ideological divide over Second Amendment intent is not just opinion based, but that it has a solid foundation in errors of fact. This means that the divide can conceivably be demolished if those discussing the issue are capable of pointing out and documenting the numerous historical errors of those who have built the divide.
A separate post at the Blog, ERROR AS FOUNDATION FOR THE MOTHER OF ALL IDEOLOGICAL DIVIDES, demonstrates that the same historically erroneous primary argument regarding Second Amendment intent has been relied on by gun control advocates for nearly a half-century and is prominently featured in Justice Stephens’ Heller dissent.
Historically, the professional historians’ briefs in Heller and McDonald rate as a disgrace simply because of the extensive historical errors they present. The best that can be said for any of them is they are entirely unreliable, while a better description is they are completely worthless for understanding Second Amendment related history.
Remember the famous saying, those who do not understand history are bound to relive it.
Is it an error to note that at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights that no one could conceive that we would be living in a culture where thousands of young Americans die each year from gunshot wounds?
Is it an error to suggest that our current culture has very different issues and a lot more people who are either rabidly pro-gun or rabidly anti-gun than we see any sign of in the writings or events surrounding the founding?
Common sense tells us that we need some restrictions, but personally I cannot support outright banning of firearms anywhere…nor can I support ABSOLUTE and unabridged gun rights.
Limits on the number of firearms purchased, the restrictions based on the record, age, and training of the purchasers or carriers all make some sense, although I don’t know that the NRA has EVER been in favor of ANY restrictions. Am I missing something?
If you think that times have changed and that the current constitution isn’t working. Then work to change it, don’t ignore it.
As to your complaint about 1000′s of gang bangers killing each other, are you stupid enough to think that more gun bans will do anything about this?
OK, thousands of gang bangers, but a lot of relatively innocent youngsters as well.
I doubt if I am stupid to be noting a deep societal problem. I don’t know what a truthful amendment would say other than “Congress will make the minimum amount of laws abridging, infringing…etc.” It would at least be truthful, but few of us can handle the truth. One side rants about absolutes, the other side chips away in their largely ineffectual manner, and…here we are.
The decision by the SCOTUS in McDonald versus Chicago is indeed a great moment for lovers of liberty and supporters of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Anti-Second Amendment zealots like Mayor Daley of Chicago have already signaled their intention to oppose the ruling in practice. Just because the Supreme Court passes a law, does not mean it will be enforced, or honored by those charged with enforcing it. There are many means of stalling – bureaucratic delays, fees, onerous training requirements, taxes, etc. Be assured Daley will use them all.
Second amendment supporters, this writter included, would also do well to remember that having the right to be armed in self-defense in no assures our liberty. It only means that those who would take it will attempt to do so in another manner than by direct force. Put more simply, it isn’t the guys from with guns that worry me so much these days, it is the guys in suits with briefcases and pens and officious-looking documents that make your garden-variety stick-up artist or bankrobber look like a rank amateur. They can rob you blind, and without blinking an eye, say it was in the public good, and get away with it. And the right to keep and bear arms is currently of little use against them as things stand right now.
In sum, there are many ways to deprive a free person of their liberty, and we’d best be vigilant. Obama hasn’t fired a shot, and he is doing a rather “good” job of systematically depriving us of our liberties and way of life.
Typo alert – start of the second paragraph, “in no assures our liberty” should have read “in no way assures our liberty”…
My apologies for not proof-reading more thoroughly.
David Thomson wrote, “You are most likely exaggerating. The odds are that you have spoken only to a small handful. There is also a good chance that you live in the northeastern part of the United States. “Moderate” Republicanism still exists in that area of the country. Most Republican candidates are solid regarding the Second Amendment.”
Mr. Thomson, please allow me to offer a few comments. First, while you are correct that members of the GOP generally are more pro-2nd Amendment than Democrats, especially in the national regions you mention, it is equally true that members of gov’t. of both parties jealously guard their prerogatives and their monopoly on the use of force. Expanding the rights of the people and thereby shrinking the size and influence of government is directly at odds with the underlying motivation of most career pols, i.e. to amass power and expand the influence of government. A few people of character (even a few Dems like Zell Miller) buck this trend, but not enough politicians, I think we can agree. Second, if times turn radically to the worse, and we have widespread civil unrest of the kind just seen in Toronto at the G20 summit, Democrats and Republicans alike will circle the wagons against we the people. Bet on it. The real divide in America is not left versus right, progressive-liberal-leftist vs. conservative/libertarian – though that is certainly real enough – no, IMHO, the divide of consequence is between the insiders, the elites in Washington and elsewhere, and the rest of us, the common people. Under those circumstances, many of the alleged “differences” between political Democrats and Republicans would largely disappear.
The upshot? Everyday people should remain vigilant concerning our second amendment rights, not to mention all of the others handed down to us. It is unwise to turn your back on any pol, Democrat or GOP.
I always end up in the same place on this.
Guns? Yes I have some and enjoy shooting at the range. I am not anything like an enthusiast or expert as I prefer fishing over hunting. As home defense the average folks should take many other measures besides that such as alarm or decent locks on the doors, but I must admit the 9mm is comforting in some way.
What is the big deal? Well I have problem if my local government makes a law making the Hi-Power, or even the .22 Browning (semi-automatic!) illegal then I have a problem. Why? ‘Cause those are stuff I have and have never acted without responsible appropriate safety. I have the certificate from the NRA course and could get a carry permit if needed. I don’t where I live and work right now…whatever.
I have no problem with laws requiring gun owners, like driving a car, to have age and safety requirements. More than a drivers license I think. Cars are dangerous enough. Show proof that you know what you are doing and have a good reason to keep your weapon with you. Otherwise leave it at home and take it out only when you want shoot in an appropriate place and time.
Funny thing is that for the most part, despite the enormous number of US gun owners and shooters most are very responsible. Funny only because Brits and others, with far more restrictive laws, have gained little in the way of stopping violent crime.
Spin
As long as you don’t drive on publicly owned roads, you are not required to have a license.
One final point: The members of the G30 nations meeting in Toronto were protected, according to news reports, by 20,000 police, many of them outfitted with riot gear, tear gas, and other lethal/non-lethal weapons. Official reports note that such protection was necessary in light of past riots, unrest and demonstrations at previous summits. Perhaps this is sufficient explanation; after all, one well-targeted suicide attack or other criminal/terrorist act could wipe out multiple national leaders at one fell stroke. But I see and sense something else driving the extraordinary police presence – fear. Politicians from around the developed world are afraid for their personal safety, and fear their constituents. This in turn shows the failing legitimacy of these leaders, and their governments. Successful and/or popular leaders have no need of cordoning themselves off behind hundreds of cops, physical barriers, and the like. As recently as the administration of President Harry S. Truman, the Secret Service detail was comprised only of a handful of personnel. In the half century since, heads of state have come to rely upon de facto private armies and police forces for protection. 20,000 cops is roughly the equivalent of 1-2 infantry divisions. Even on a per leader basis, that is an enormous number of people. They’re afraid, our “fearless leaders”!
Let’s all go outside and fire our guns in the air to celebrate
In the struggle for defense of the Constitution, as a great half-American said about a related matter in 1942, “Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”
The assaults on the civil rights of all Americans will continue. Politicians in the Affirmative Action camp are not able to pursue criminals, so they pretend that weapons, rather than people, are the problem. They can’t change. So they must be fought. Unfortunately, the damage caused by the anti-rights crowd is severe; witness Justice Stevens’s incredible repudiation of the principles laid down by John Marshall in “Marbury v. Madison” (the basis for determinations of unconstitutionality), when he declared in his dissent in “Heller” that local legislative bigotry should be able to trump the Bill of Rights. Stevens is no idiot, but he sure dropped a major clanger there.
“Macdonald” is progress, albeit only incremental. We need no longer be deflected by the Militia clause, in DC or anywhere else in the US. Now to get working on the really radical stuff, that bit about “shall not be infringed.” The “Heller” decision didn’t say that infringement was OK; it said that the question of infringement was not going to be decided by “Heller.” Remember that to a long-term judge like Scalia, having a matter return in one mutant form or another to the Court, time after time after time, is not a bug, it’s a feature.
Has the cited documentation concerning the historians’ errors been read? The errors made by the historians relate to Revolutionary and Ratification Era historical facts.
Should decisions of the Supreme Court relating to American history be based upon facts or upon the personal opinions of academic historians that are contrary to the historical facts? How does it help the Supreme Court Justices make sound decisions regarding American history if many of the statements presented to the Court in amicus briefs from these professional historians are directly contradicted by period American historical sources, as documented in the thirty-six plus blog posts cited above?
For example, how is it possible for a group of FIFTEEN Ph.D. holding historians teaching at major American institutions of higher education to make even one misstatement of fact regarding Revolutionary Era history in the Heller amicus brief, much less the sixteen numbered erroneous statements documented in ROOT CAUSES OF NEVER-ENDING SECOND AMENDMENT DISPUTE? How many more academics would it take to notice there are numerous factually incorrect statements in the brief?
The implication here is not that the historians are being purposely misleading, something I do not believe. Rather, it is suggested that these historians are actually unfamiliar with the most relevant period sources relating to development of the Second Amendment as part of the U.S. Bill of Rights.
Judge for yourself the extent to which the historians’ statements can be relied upon as factually correct. Realize that the erroneous arguments made by the historians are the bedrock foundation of gun control advocates’ understanding of the Second Amendment’s meaning. That foundation consists of error of fact and omission and cannot withstand careful examination by anyone familiar with the relevant American history.
Where did they ever come up with this notion? The First Amendment (which was the third of the dozen articles submitted together to the states for ratification) says “Congress shall make no law…”, but the remaining nine articles of amendment in that package didn’t specify what level of government was prohibited from infringing upon the rights specified. The Tenth Amendment says that powers NOT prohibited to states are reserved to the states or the people, but it is inconceivable that the people who wrote the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, the original articles of the Constitution, and the Federalist Papers, could have intended that “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” only forbade the national government from such infringement, and left states free to violate it with impunity.
The Declaration of Independence says that the just powers of government exist to secure our rights. It objected to abuses of those rights by the British government, and claimed that the former colonies of the Crown were in fact independent states because the Crown had defaulted upon its raison d’etre and lost the consent of the governed. For those states to immediately commence violating inalienable rights would make their own legitimacy forfeit, under the terms of the very document that declared them sovereign states. Such a contradiction cannot stand.
How about some specifics here?
When I was a student in law school many years ago, the inevitability of gun registration followed by gun confiscation seemed assured. It was very depressing. Thank goodness something like this now comes along—-particularly, Justice Thomas’s opinion in the matter. This will prevent from happening here in the States the insanity observed in Great Britain where homeowners are prosecuted for shooting brazen (and armed) burglars and home invaders.
It has just been flat out wrong that so many black criminals have been allowed to prey upon so many other defenseless black solid citizens (or citizens of any color) in places such as Chicago.
God save our Republic. And God bless our founders for establishing three branches of government—executive, legislative, and judicial—which can direct their powers against one another rather than directing those powers in concert against the people.
RKBA is fundamental!
Dwight: “How about some specifics here?”
Just as one example of an incomprehensible error in the historians’ brief, they assert that only two, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, of the eight state bills of rights in existence when the U.S. Constitution was written, were made a part of their actual state constitutions. This is the erroneous statement examined in the very first post.
The fact is that the Massachusetts Constitution was copied by New Hampshire making its bill of rights the first part. Also, Vermont and North Carolina copied the Pennsylvania provision, Section 46, which declared the declaration of rights to be part of the constitution. Thus, contrary to the brief claim, five, not just two of the first eight state declarations of rights were specified as part of their state constitutions.
The post of March 31, 2009, CHALLENGE TO SUPPORTERS OF THE HELLER DISSENT, links directly to copies of the relevant period documents in Thorpe’s Federal and State Constitutions so readers can click and verify these specific documents.
http://onsecondopinion.blogspot.com/2009/03/challenge-to-supporters-of-heller.html
Furthermore, the historians figure of “only two states” is not a misprint in the brief because Professor Rakove, primary author, presented the same argument to Professor Volokh during a post-Heller diavlog at Bloggingheads TV recorded July 2, 2008. It appears at @31:40 in the presentation.
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/12562
Clicking the name at the top of my post links to On Second Opinion Blog. The newest posts are at the top. The earlier posts can be accessed through the archives or by clicking previous posts at the bottom of each page to start at the beginning of commentary on the historians’ errors in their Heller brief. Each post generally deals with a specific historical error or omission.
In my fifteen minutes worth of reading parts of a couple of your articles, which obviously deserve (and require) a lot more time than that, it appears that you are proving that there is clear line between individual rights to bear and militia powers issues, even though we have the two side-by-side in the Second Amendment and in the Virginia Bill of Rights. Or, at a minimum, you are proving that the historians making an historical conflation are in error.
I need to go back and check John Adams’ writing of the Mass. Constitution to see how the issues came into play here.
How did you become so focused on this issue? I stated my very general take on the gun-control issue above. I may not have read the appropriate primary sources (and it is possible that the most gun-oriented folk tended to shoot more and write less, but I have been struck by the LACK of reference to firearms, or a perception of them as a tool with a monetary value, rather than the revered object of many current gun-”worshippers.” A Rev. War Vet whose journal my Historical Society just published, sells and swaps a lot of guns and tends to unload guns and ammo if he can get a decent price when a campaign is over. I cannot tell exactly the attitude of his colleagues, even those who swapped with or bought from him.
My centrist approach is to split the difference between the gun-banners and the gun worshippers. Our current culture has yielded both people inordinately afraid of firearms and others who are obsessed by them. This “situation” is what the Lord of the 21st Century has blessed us with.
Hi Dwight. Has the Moderate Liberal Carp transformed into a “centrist” as of late?
50. Dwight
“How about some specifics here?”
June 29, 2010 – 6:42 pm
Ok.
“My centrist approach is to…”
Basically do this –
12. Dwight
“…a number of the denizens of this site border on the pathological in their blather against ‘our President,’ and they get each other all stirred up as well. I hope that there is at least a strand of rational discourse amidst all the absurd hyperbole…”
June 22, 2010 – 3:28 am
Dwight
Can you say howling and yowling drama queens?
June 23, 2010 – 7:47 pm
126. Dwight
“…from what I do, which is ‘centrist boilerplate,’ er, profundity.”
“You guys are drama queens.”
June 23, 2010 – 4:42 am
143. Dwight
“…crazy stuff in the fever-swamp of many righty brains.”
June 25, 2010 – 3:24 am
You’re been trying too hard lately, and it shows. Stop holding back. You know those “rightys” have “fevered” “brains” with nary “a strand of rational discourse amidst all the absurd hyperbole…” Break out some more of the Modern Liberal Thought and be all you can be. I’m sure there’s a toothless hillbilly somewhere needing correction. Come on now, no need for the mask. “Rightys” will understand.
And what the hell is this? Is this Centrist Carp Code for… Mr. President?
“This ‘situation’ is what the Lord of the 21st Century has blessed us with.”
Could this be a clue?
12. Dwight
“…what the hell am I doing here? My wife certainly asks that question all the time.”
June 22, 2010 – 3:28 am
Could this explain it?
110. Dwight
“I was awake, but I will confess to frequenting righty sites…”
June 22, 2010 – 4:24 pm
Confess? Confess? Confess to who? “…the Lord of the 21st Century”?
The Moderate Liberal Carp. Hook, line, and Mr. President.
My centrist approach is to split the difference between the gun-banners and the gun worshippers.
—
So you admit that you don’t think for yourself. You just find out what everyone else is doing, and agree with whoever you believe is in the majority.
Why not do what intelligent people do, and read the available evidence and come to your own conclusions.
How about diagraming the 2nd ammendment? If you do, you will find out that the phrase dealing with the militia is nothing more than an explanation as to why the RKBA is necessary. It does nothing to limit it.
If you think “gun banners” and “gun worshippers” are equally pejorative, then you are definitely the fool you have painted yourself to be.
MTG wrote: If you think “gun banners” and “gun worshippers” are equally pejorative, then you are definitely the fool you have painted yourself to be.
Now let’s think about the logic here; I’d better “diagram” it, eh? If I think x, then I definitely AM the y that I have painted myself to be. If I do not think x, then I am NOT the y that I have painted myself to be? And you think that your cleverness and logic is going to help elucidate the syntax Second Amendment? You have difficulty even spelling it (Not that I judge you for that, of course, any more than I can blame you for your limited capacity to think.) You are apparently proud of being an intelligent person, who reads the evidence and comes to his own conclusions. Hmmmm.
So let me guess: you think gun worshippers are much worse because they violate one of the Ten Commandments (Thou shalt have no other gods before me;) whereas the gun banners violate only the letter/spirit of the Second Amendment (a worldly document.) Is that how your thinking goes?
the only gun law we need is a felon with a gun does 10yrs anything else is an infringement.national socialist democrats do not care about criminals, hell bongo will probably use them for his private domestic army.they will go for registration schemes so they know who has guns when they try to confiscate them during a manufactured crisis.mayor dinkums was going to do this in ny because of black crime however he was only going to grab whiteys guns this is why you have to watch the slimy politicians all the time.never trust cops as they will try to steal your guns any chance they get.this is why we must elect people who respect our constitution and republican form of government.
Mr Lucky, Thank you, I guess, for repeating some of my earlier profundities; it would be presumptuous of me to do so. bruce conveniently appears to give us his fevered view of things; I rest my case. Have you ever noticed that righties tend to say “case closed.” Lefties say, “in any case…or…or on a case by case basis.?
If we were lucky, we could get you to grace us with your views on the Constitution, the Founders, or the nuances of militia participation pre and post Constitution.
I appreciate the fact that you understand that either party will support or oppose a strict construction of the Constitution, when said position would support their current position, right?
It tends to be more a conservative thing, because saying, “it’s not in the Constitution, therefore how can you regulate the finance industry or big oil?” happens a bit more than the righties saying, _…but it’s wartime, all cards are wild, no matter what the Constitution says.” Are we at war now? Who is the Chief Executive? …Gulp!
56. Dwight
Possible Profundity?
“Are we at war now? Who is the Chief Executive? …Gulp!”
“… fevered view of things; I rest my case. Have you ever noticed that righties tend to say “case closed.” Lefties say, “in any case…or…or on a case by case basis.?
Fever in the mornin’
Fever all through the night!
Jeez D-White, are you a lesbian marriage councilor working with John Birch and Madonna? I see Al and Tip dropped the charka, but Al did soldier on. You take on enough dimensions to qualify for string theory.
“It tends to be more a conservative thing…”
Could you do a rendition of “It’s Your Thing”, or possibly “We Are Family”? I’m sure you’ll find pitch as sitting on the fence with Picket Butt can concentrate the mind in way that non-sitters cannot appreciate. And falling off on the left side every time does give The Moderate Liberal Carp comfort.
Thank goodness for “the Lord of the 21st Century” President. He’ll make you whole again. He’s so disarming.
Do what you wanna do…
“I appreciate the fact that you understand that either party will support or oppose a strict construction of the Constitution, when said position would support their current position, right?”
No D-White, not everyone is William James.
Is the President of the Peggy Lee Fan club gig working out? That Light Ash Blond, 9 1/2A. Looks too conservative. Nice centrist mask though. But that get up will prevent you from getting an audience with Mr. President. Hugo Chavez drag will work better. But hide your toy gun. Or Michelle will go ballistic.
I can’t tell ya…
“… fevered view of things”
Everybody’s got the fever
That is somethin’ you all know
I am not saying that your delirium is without wit, but you use it to avoid any substantive comments. Maybe you can make you living here reacting to my profundities, but you have a right to you own substantive position as well, that is if you could think of one.
How about China and our manufacturing “problems.” Can you take your quinine and give that one your best thinking?
Dwight: “In my fifteen minutes worth of reading parts of a couple of your articles, . . .”
I have been researching period historical documents for forty years. When the historians’ Heller amicus came out, I was immediately struck by the large number of completely erroneous historical assertions it contained. So, I wrote an op-ed pointing out many of them as well as the completely off-track nature of the entire brief. The op-ed is at History News Network if you are interested.
http://hnn.us/articles/47238.html
Enjoy!
Personally, I think if patriotic americans took to quartering troops in their homes, we could reduce federal spending by a large amount…. hey, if you love America, why not?
Interesting points abut the anti-Federalists; I do need to read more on them. Were these eventually Democratic Republicans, or whatever Jeffersson’s Party called itself on any given day of the week…or a different entity? It would be good to remind many how the Founders were not always on the same page. Their battles with each other created an impressive set of documents, but some argued against them so passionately, that it may be a stretch to expect unalloyed genuflection to or agreement on the meaning of simple phrases in 2010, when such was not unanimously the case when they were written, or any time since.
In what I have read so far, I can see that the well regulated militia is not THE controlling factor, but neither is it completely irrelevant and (in my opinion) as said militia alters over time, SOME tweaking of the absolute rights may be permitted/necessary. In fact, we both know that this has already happened. I am open to more reading on the matter.
As for the prevalence of guns in colonial culture, one would assume that there were regional differences. Certainly by the time of the Civil War, the South was much more into the tradition of carrying and shooting than was the North, and on a percentage basis, I suppose that the same is definitely true today. I would probably settle for a Federal RIGHT to bear, but also a Federal monitoring system with relatively uniform laws for purchasing, qualifications. disqualifications etc. Obviously any move in this direction turns some of the enthusiasm for the recent ruling on its head. Local states and police can be tyrannical and unfair to certain interests, but can also give a lot of local loopholes.
Finally, how DO criminals get guns? It’s kind of a mystery to NRA folks; they know that they will always have them, but don’t know (and don’t want to know, evidently) where they come from. In fact, it may be a natural right for criminals to have guns…and nature supplies them. There, I’ve moved one or two clicks in my thinking today.
Good D-White. You’re getting the message.
And that Modern Liberal diagnosis? Did you get your psych training in the Soviet Union?
You say,” …SOME tweaking of the absolute rights may be permitted/necessary.”
Do tell. And what might those rights be? Care to list them? And who decides? Once we’ve tweaked (or ‘nudged’ to use Cass Sunstein’s terms) the right to self-defense out of existence or neutered it into uselessnes, why stop there? The Left has been persistently trying to move the goalposts defining the beginning and the end of life towards one another for years, now. What do you suppose will be in store for you and yours once that particular set of goalposts has been converged? Do you seriously believe that you’ll be immune to the consequences of your very, very bad decisions?
The Supreme Court had already prohibited a total ban on private firearms in it’s 2008 Heller. I suppose that means there has been no real support for a total gun ban in the post-2008, post-Heller era.
There have been some updates to the fight against the Hughes amendment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6Mx2UcSEvQ
http://vimeo.com/19173055
http://vimeo.com/19163920
http://vimeo.com/19179485
http://vimeo.com/19185561