The Hillary Clinton campaign has sent out mailers criticizing Barack Obama for trying to have it both ways on the Second Amendment. The mailer reads as follows:
These are all valid criticisms of Barack Obama; I have made some of these very criticisms myself (here, and here). But the source of these criticisms (Hillary Clinton) […]
This week Boston’s Mayor Menino testified before the Congressional Task Force on Illegal Guns. He had this to say:
We share a common disdain for what we have seen happen in our cities, to our residents and to our police officers as a result of illegal guns. So, we signed a statement of principles […]
As always with so called gun control; it’s not about guns, it’s about control.
I agree that bans are not workable and I demand the right to carry a gun. I dont agree that lack of legal jobs is the reason somebody is commiting crimes. I came from government housing and 16yr parents and did not get involved. It is a choice and I can tell you there is alot going on and it seems like the thing to do but most of my classmates are dead or in jail. Not to mention alot of my family is too. Its a choice and its not an excuse.
Comment by LBest — April 17, 2008 @ 2:36 pm
Your argument doesn’t exist without assumption #2. Most urban dwellers don’t think of bank robbery as ordinary gun violence. Most people don’t advocate prohibition. It would appear to me, that to you there would never be an illegal gun. No restrictions at all, then I can see why you would think any need to have any laws or government, so why is there an argument.
Go live in that society. My version of love it or leave it.
Re: “Go live in that society [one with no restrictions on guns].”
That isn’t much of an argument. It seems “the love it or leave it” approach would be better taken up by those advocating gun control — there are a lot of existing countries with much more restrictive gun laws than the U.S., and those countries must be better places to live, right?
I have never understood the fear that most gun control advocates (I don’t know if this includes you, VRB) have towards guns — guns are simple tools, easy to understand, and very safe when a few simple rules are followed. A car is more complex, requires just as much (or more) skill to operate safely, and is potentially just as lethal. Yet most of us are happy to cruise along at 65mph in the middle of a 4-lane freeway, with little worry about the risks involved, but the thought of a guy in the next lane with a gun underneath his seat is more worrisome than the same guy driving distracted while he talks on his cell phone.
All violence, gun related or not, is a problem that can only be solved by addressing much deeper issues in our society. And I find that I am not very interested in talking about those issues when the gun-grabbers start by portraying guns as some evil scourge upon society that only backwards-thinking barbarians would want.
There are some objective principals behind the “gun culture” in America, such as the desire to defend one’s life and property. These kinds of principals should not be abrogated simply because it might be an expedient way to mitigate the symptons of a larger problem.
Comment by Steve S. — April 18, 2008 @ 1:22 pm
I don’t fear guns.
“There are some objective principals behind the “gun culture” in America, such as the desire to defend one’s life and property.”
Steve S. does this preclude having regulation. I can never figure that out, how it would, unless guns were outlawed. To me have some restriction on how you would buy a gun is not the same as outlawing guns. If one could not buy a case of the same gun for personal use on that day, but purchased one gun, would that not be enough for you to defend your person or property.
OK, maybe two, because you have two hands.
Steve S.
I do believe that certain so called law abiding gun buyers dump guns in certain neighborhoods. Gun are too easily assessable to people who aren’t even able to get a drivers license. It is a temptation. It only takes one wrong choice for a person to be murdered or accidentally killed. I think if they had to actually go to the trouble to purchase one legally, that is if they were old enough, that sometime that choice would disappear.
Quite a few of these illegal guns are not purchased by previous felons. But that is a statistic that is floated by people who really don’t have a clue; those that do not know personally people that have been murdered or where murder is almost like a genetic disease in a family. They are not the ones that know the details. The victims don’t deserved to be viewed as “you reap what you sow.”
I didn’t mention “gun culture” but you imply there is another.
VRB,
The bottom line for all crime is human intent. For those intent on performing a crime, they *will* acquire the tools deemed necessary to perform the deed.
My supporting data for this are the 1940’s and ’50’s. Not just rifles, pistols and shotguns could be obtained via mail order with nothing more than sufficient funds, but surplus military arms were readily available for nothing more. Yet, violent crime as reported today was very rare.
I can very easily sympathize with your view of ‘reasonable’ regulation. But, there is a question. For anyone who can so easily violate the law of murder, just how effective will a law banning and/or controlling firearms will be?
The CDC gives us a hint.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
Comment by Harry Rossman — April 19, 2008 @ 11:50 am
Regarding firearm regulation:
First of all, most people and organizations advocating for increased firearm regulation do not support the right of individual firearm ownership. A great way to determine real the intent of such people is to look at their position on DC v Parker/Heller – do they recognize an individual’s “right to self-defense”? Or do they believe that any regulation is justified as long it has the possibility (real or imagined) of reducing gun violence?
In fact, most gun-control proponents believe that gun ownership is an antiquated practice that has little place in modern society, and even if not their stated goal, they would generally admit that they would have no problem with the complete elimination of private firearm ownership in America.
This ambivalence (or outright hostility) towards the rights of gun owners is revealed in the proposed regulations. Take the popular one-gun-a-month laws: Why is the quota one-per-month instead of one-per-week? If the goal is to constrain gun-trafficking, where is the data that suggests one quota is better than the other? Or is it possible that the gun-grabbers, who consider all gun ownership to be a luxury, find it completely inconceivable that there is any legitimate reason to even own 12 guns at a time, let alone purchase that many in a year?
So, given all this, I tend to look rather poorly upon any new firearm regulation. This does not preclude regulation entirely, but when the Brady Campaign uses the phrase “sensible gun laws”, I know what they really mean is “whatever the hell they think they can get away with” in terms of restricting or eliminating my right to own firearms.
s.s.
Comment by Steve S. — April 19, 2008 @ 12:47 pm
VRB,
I do believe that certain so called law abiding gun buyers dump guns in certain neighborhoods.
What are you suggesting with this statement. Who do you suspect is ‘dumping’ guns in these neighborhoods?
What, do they drive by and toss them out the window? Do they go out to the ‘burbs and buy expensive guns, then resell them in the bad neighborhoods at a loss? Who’s “dumping”?
Comment by Brad Warbiany — April 19, 2008 @ 4:10 pm
Brad,
If you lived where I have lived, you would know the answer. That scenario is hilarious.
Steve S.
I am not most people or a lawyer. I do think there are more people like me than the ones you mention. Many like me that have practically had murder on there door step.
To Harry Rossman, If we wait for that perfect society, it would have evolved upon too many bodies for my taste. One other thing, a response like yours never spells out just what is your responsibility is. Is it that those people should do something. Do what? What I believe to be done take hands on and not one hand. The individual one at a time is the one that produces change, not the one who pontificate about his personal responsibility. It is aways someone else’s fault and not yours. That’s why I said love it or leave it. America can not exist without effort.
Brad,
It just popped in my head what you were saying. I still say that the scenario isn’t what I had in mind; but when I used the word “dump”, I forgot that this word acquired an additional meaning in the last fifty years. I was not using it exactly the same way you were.
VRB, For the benefit of our readers who haven’t lived “where you lived”, wherever that may be, what do you mean?
As I see it, there are three scenarios:
1) A guy buys firearms on the legal market and smuggles them into the inner city and sells them at a profit.
2) A guy buys firearms on the legal market and smuggles them into the inner city and sells them at a loss.
3) A guy buys firearms on the legal market and trows them away in the inner city.
In scenario 1), the man is a smuggler, like Joe Kennedy or John Hancock and is a boon to society.
In scenario 2), the man is a charitable smuggler, kind of like a mixture of Joe Kennedy and his gradnson of that same name.
In scenario 3), the man is a litterer, and possibly crazy.
And yes, I don’t believe any weapon should be illegal, as I discuss in my first post at the Liberty Papers.
To Harry Rossman, If we wait for that perfect society
What perfect society?? My points are the limits of law and personal responsibility to yourself, family and community.
Food for thought question: Assume for the sake of argument that you are an armed police officer in uniform. You walk around a corner straight into a holdup. While the crimininals are busy taking your possessions, how much law is at that exact place and time????
One other thing, a response like yours never spells out just what is your responsibility is.
I do not entirely see what you mean by this. However, the basis of my actions are civics and government 101. All of us must begin with definitions and structures we can initially agree with: if not how to implement them.
it would have evolved upon too many bodies for my taste
Not that I am advocating anything at this point in history, but the question comes to mind: would the American Revolution have been “…too many bodies…”??
Comment by Harry Rossman — April 21, 2008 @ 12:39 pm
The late, great, Charlton Heston:
A good actor and an even better man. He’ll be missed.
Comment by UCrawford — April 6, 2008 @ 8:17 am
I watched/listened to the oral arguments in DC vs. Heller this morning, and in my view (solely based on my knowledge of the justices, and the questions and arguments raised today; which is always iffy) we’re looking at a mixed bag.
Well, first the good news. It seems clear that the entirety of the court, even […]
After reading 91 pages of oral argument I have to conclude that your synopsis of the proceedings seems to be spot on. Nice work in summarizing it for everyone. I agree with your conclusion and speculation, however, I question whether or not the decision yet to be made will have any real effect in “overturning” laws in the states mentioned. We’ll see. I sincerely hope so.
Comment by Jim Braaten — March 18, 2008 @ 5:58 pm
I think your analysis is excellent. I listened to the debate while reading the transcript and came to a similar conclusion. In my mission to use original rock to try and inspire people to spend the few minutes it takes to read the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights (at least), I have come across hundreds of speeches, writings, and letters from the Founding Fathers passionately supporting not only an individual right to own weapons of the same type used by contemporary militaries, but also the right and duty of an armed citizenry to overthrow tyrannical government when it becomes necessary. (And absolutely none that are counter to this view) This point is the heart and soul of the Declaration of Independence. What stunned me from today’s hearings was that not once did ANYONE reference the Declaration of Independence… the cornerstone of our Republic! If the Second Amendment is not understood in the context of being a final check and balance on government, then it is being misinterpreted.
Matt Fitzgibbons
Comment by Matt Fitzgibbons — March 18, 2008 @ 8:46 pm
Chris, I think your analysis is right on point. I was frustrated at Gura’s lack of preparedness & focus regarding what constitutes reasonable regulation, and for having allowed himself to be cornered by Stevens & especially Breyer. (I covered my face when Scalia actually appeared to try to help him answer Breyer’s question as to whether, given the murder rate, is a total handgun ban unreasonable (page 53 of the transcript) )
I agree with Matt, too, in that Gura never brought up the Declaration or the panoply of writings by the Founders — the Federalist Papers, the letters back & forth among the Founders, and even to spouses, etc.
I want to think that Ginsburg, Breyer & Stevens would not have been swayed by even the best arguments on reasonable regulation; that said, I’ll keep my fingers crossed that Gura’s general disorganization and mishandling of those questions won’t negatively affect the decision.
I was secretly hoping that Gura would get the flu & Stephen Halbrook would magically step in & argue the case. Ah, well.
Comment by Jason Owsley — March 19, 2008 @ 3:58 am
“Preventing libel, is a reasonable restriction on the first amendment, and is a compelling interest of the state.”
Which regulation ‘prevents’ libel (or slander)?
Are you saying there is some ‘fact-checking government required’ software somewhere on this system that scrutinized your article prior to it being posted? Libel laws are ‘reactive’ - they do not literally ‘prevent’ the crime.
Your right to yell “fire!” is only limited (illegal) *after* you’ve raised the alarm and when no fire existed. Your right of Free Speech is not ‘regulated’ based on your ‘potential’ to yell “fire!”.
Our ‘murder’ and ‘assault’ laws, can only be enforced *after* such has been attempted or accomplished. To suggest “reasonable restriction” on the Second Amendment means we should also consider “reasonable restriction” on your ability to speak (or write).
How about we all wear government devices that monitor our brainwaves to insure we never utter a slander or write a libel? Perhaps require a permit be obtained before being allowed to speak in public? Perhaps all pens and keyboards should require registration?
Hey, you wanted to equate First and Second Amendment rights. Just as your fear that one may shout “fire!” inappropriately is not a ‘reasonable’ basis to control our freedom of speech, your *fear* of what one may do with an arm is not is not a ‘reasonable’ basis to apply restrictions on the keeping and bearing of arms.
Comment by Bruce — March 19, 2008 @ 7:21 am
Good point Bruce.
Comment by TerryP — March 19, 2008 @ 7:33 am
Gentlemen–
Hello. I haven’t had time to read the whole transcript, but caught bits and piece of the arguments.
Besides “reasonable regulation” unpreparedness, Gura also was unable to respond to the observation that references to the use of arms for self-defense are sparse in discussions contemporary to the drafting of the BOR. He should have stated that self-preservation was an obvious right (the Justices have heard perhaps of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness), and who goes to pains to mention the obvious?
As it turns out, a couple centuries later, not stating the obvious was an error: some members of the Court have abandoned the idea of self-evident, natural (Creator-endowed), inalienable (does anyone even understand that word today?) rights; instead they profess that any right that isn’t nailed down by the Constitution and Amendments doesn’t exist (despite the 9th and 10th Amendments clearly saying that uninnumerated rights exist).
I would agree that “reasonable regulation” applies to all rights. Prior restraint, however, is never reasonable.
Comment by Ippolit — March 19, 2008 @ 8:13 am
Bruce,
The law on libel and slander, most of which is case law, has been part of Enlish and American common law since before the Colonial period.
It’s fairly obvious that the Founders did not intend the First Amendment to overturn those laws.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — March 19, 2008 @ 8:23 am
Chris,
A good analysis all around. For myself, I thought that Gura did a reasonably good job considering it was, as I understand it, his first oral argument before the Court. If he does come away from this with a win, he will have beat the Solicitor General of the US and a man who was arguing cases before the Supreme Court before Gura was even born.
I think what we’ll see, like you said, is a fairly strong holding on the individual rights basis of the 2nd Amendment, possibly including a complete reversal of Miller.
Beyond that, it’s going to take some time for the Court to work out a standard.
And we haven’t even gotten to the issue of incorporation of the 2nd Amendment and it’s applicablity to state and local laws. Right now, Heller will have no impact on state and local laws no matter how it’s decided.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — March 19, 2008 @ 8:25 am
Incorporation would simply be a matter of time. It would be obnoxious to law and common sense to have the Court recognize a fundamental right the US must respect, and then say that the member states of the US need not recognize it.
What will differ with each state is the extent to which they impose “reasonable” regulation. Kopel has written that the Court in Miller seemed to use the test that IF an arm would be useful to a militia, then that arm is protected. And that test would invalidate many portions of the NFA and GCA, so we can assume the Court will seek to develop a new test–what arms may be reasonably banned is at the heart of this case.
It would have been nice if Gura had suggested such a test, like: “If civilian law enforcement finds it useful, then it is protected.” Not only would such a test leave in place regulations on the “scarier” stuff (bazookas and hand-grenades), it succinctly restates the main purpose of the 2nd Amendment: that the Gov’t not be allowed a monopoly on the use (and means) of force.
Comment by Ippolit — March 19, 2008 @ 10:28 am
“Tyrants from Hitler to Mao to Stalin have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government.”
– Congressman Ron Paul, June 27, 2006
The Constitution was written to restrain the power of government and put the power into the hands of the people. Anything that transfers power in the opposite direction is contrary to the what our founding fathers believed.
Comment by John D. — March 19, 2008 @ 1:48 pm
After reading the transcript, I think you give an excellent account of how it turned out.
It was a big relief to see most of the justices so visibly pro an individual stance, but I do have concerns about where those ‘reasonable limitations’ rest. I am guessing most of the argument will rest on where the limits are.
Providing we truly get a ‘reasonable’ limit, I’d be very happy as would others I’m sure.
Comment by Scott — March 19, 2008 @ 1:59 pm
Chris,
Great post.
I did find this particular passage very funny, though:
He was much weaker on his other contention however that reasonable restriction and a broad standard of review were necessary to protect the public interest in regulating firearms; specifically citing machine guns and “plastic guns designed to get through metal detectors” (a fantasy commonly used by gun banners to scare people into agreeing to bans in principle).
When the TSA proves that they can stop METAL guns from getting through their screening points, maybe they can start worrying about the plastic ones!
Comment by Brad Warbiany — March 19, 2008 @ 5:15 pm
Indeed. What would the founders say about all this I wonder?
http://www/gopcatholics.blogspot.com
Comment by Peter — March 19, 2008 @ 7:58 pm
There have never been 80,000 deaths due to handguns in the United States in one year. Justice Breyer might want to check the source of that figure. There have been 26,000 to 30,000 deaths in any given year. The fact that the Court might want to take into account is “over 31 deaths per 100,000 each year in the District of Columbia” by guns and 81% of those by handguns. And 81% by IllEGAL handguns.The remainder of the country averages 6.5 deaths per 100,000.
Comment by steve carney — March 20, 2008 @ 3:27 pm
The Supreme Court had allotted 75 mintues for oral argument in D.C. v. Heller today — 30 minutes for each side and 15 minutes for the U.S. Solicitor General — but they actually ended up running nearly half an hour longer as the Justices considered the interpretation and application of an Amendment that has been […]
[…] at The Liberty Papers. […]
Pingback by Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » D.C. v. Heller Wrap-Up — March 18, 2008 @ 12:01 pm
[…] District of Columbia v. Heller Gets Its Day In Court […]
Pingback by FreedomSight » Blog Archive » Semi-live Heller Oral Argument Coverage — March 18, 2008 @ 1:00 pm
I think it could be fairly said that at this time the individual rights argument is held as correct by the entire court; but that the justices hold different views as to what constitutes a reasonable restriction on that right.
We’re back to the same issues as privacy and free speech, with compelling interest balanced against fundamental right.
My commentary is here:
http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2008/03/oral-arguments-on-heller-mixed-bag.html
[…] arguments in the case of D.C. vs. Heller, the handgun ban case, is great. Check out their posts here and […]
Pingback by The Crossed Pond » D.C. vs. Heller — March 19, 2008 @ 7:07 am
We have reformatted the Complete Oral Arguments and briefs from the PDF’s provided by the court into our much more easily accessible and faster EasySlide format. You can find it at:
http://PublicService.EveNDon.com
We will add the Court’s opinion as soon as it appears. All the material will remain on our site so please feel free to link to it.
If you have suggestions for additional highly topical material you would like us to handle, please post to us what it is and where to find it.
Don
Comment by Don Krieger — March 21, 2008 @ 8:17 pm
On a talk show I just heard a caller from Pittsbug who stated the there were pictures of Reverend Jeramiah Wright with President Johnson and Clinton on this web site along with articles from the Times magazine. What is the title and where on this web site can I find them
Thank You,
Ann Souza
Comment by ann souza — March 26, 2008 @ 1:24 pm
Well, with the coming of March 18th it’s started. The Supreme Court heard opening oral arguments on the case of “District of Columbia vs. Heller, and with this trial the right of the American right to possess firearms as guaranteed under the second amendment will either be given another layer of protection or be forever weakened. But I jump ahead of myself. First let me tell you about the case.
Since 1976 Washington DC has had some of the strictest firearms laws in the nation. They have enacted laws to make it illegal to possess firearms in your home unless they were disassembled, unloaded, and equipped with a trigger lock. However those laws only apply to long guns: Rifles, Shotguns, etc. Handguns were banned entirely. If you possessed a handgun, you were required to register it. When a law abiding citizen went to register their firearm they were told by the police that they couldn’t register, and that they had to turn it over to law enforcement.
DC stated that it was for the purposes of lowering crime, never mind the fact proven over and over again that states and cities with less restrictions on firearms *always* had crime rates much, much lower than those with stricter gun control laws. Since that time DC has actually been referred to frequently as “The Nation’s Murder Capitol” as the crime rate has skyrocketed over 350%. However, DC has adamantly retained its’ position that people do not have the rights to protect themselves in their own home.
To give you a further character portrait of this fine American city, they’ve decided that the police are not responsible for protecting its’ citizens either. In 1981 three women were sharing a house in DC. One night two of them were upstairs and heard intruders attacking their roommate downstairs. They immediately called the police and were told that officers were on their way there. After about 30 minutes, the other woman’s screams had stopped, and they assumed that the police had gotten there. They were wrong. The police weren’t there yet, but the attackers still were. During the court case when the women sued the city for severe negligence in their duty, the Warren court graphically phrased what happened to the three women as “For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers.” You would think that, in that instance, the women would have easily won that lawsuit, right? Wrong. The DC court ruled ”it is a fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.”
So basically the DC courts have said that people have absolutely no rights to defend themselves in DC, and that if you do attempt to, you will be persecuted to the fullest extent of the law, as the city also has the harshest punishments in the nation for violating their “no gun” laws.
In any case, in 2003 several people sued for the right to be able to carry handguns in their home. They were security officers who were allowed to carry at their job, but were denied the same right to protect themselves in their own home. Of course, the DC court slapped them down. They took it to the Court of Appeals and the court ruled in their favor, The court ruled “Once it is determined - as we have done - that handguns are ‘Arms’ referred to in the Second Amendment, it is not open to the District to ban them … That is not to suggest that the government is absolutely barred from regulating the use and ownership of pistols. The protections of the Second Amendment are subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment.”
Of course that didn’t set well with the DC courts, so they took it to the Supreme Court. And we have the case now known as “District of Columbia vs. Heller”.
There is a lot riding on this decision. Of course, the only question that the Supreme Court is concerning themselves with is “Whether the Second Amendment guarantees law-abiding, adult individuals a right to keep ordinary, functional firearms, including handguns, in their homes.” DC is arguing the case that the second admendmant only gives people in a state militia the right to possess firearms, and doesn’t protect individual freedoms whatsoever. In effect, they are saying that the phrase “the People” doesn’t actually mean “the People” like it does in every other admendmant that uses that phrase. They will be saying in that instance that “the People” actually means “who the government allows”. What if that was applied to every other admendmant that uses the phrase “the People”? Let’s see.
Amendment I - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of who the government allows to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II - A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of who the government allows to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment IV - The right of who the government allows to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment IX - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by who the government allows.
Amendment X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to who the government allows.
Things like this scare the hell out of me. I am an Ohio CCW holder, and carry everywhere I am legally allowed to do so. I am a firm believer that every freedom and liberty that we allow to be infringed only throws more oil on the slippery slope towards having less and less before finally losing all of our freedoms alltogether.
This will effect all of us that legally possess and carry firearms now. If the court rules in DC’s favor, it opens the door to a huge amount of future legislation restricting one of our fundamental American rights. Any city could enact that, and you better believe that liberals and crazy democrats in congress would leap at the chance to legislate our right into virtual nonexistance. Don’t think that they wouldn’t. California, as we speak, is leading the charge against lawful firearms users, having tried to get bill after bill passed to make it harder and harder to own or purchase one. In fact, they’re even sneaking in the back door there by trying to legislate ammunition out of existance. Without ammunition, grandpa’s rifle that he used to tell you hunting stories about will be just a fancy club, won’t it?
However, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Heller…firearms owners will finally have a leg to stand on in the federal courts. The Supreme Court will have weakened the liberal assault against our freedoms and helped reaffirm the right left to us through our forefathers to be able to protect ourselves and put food on our table traditionally.
“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.”…here are my views on what this has always meant:
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…” First, Well regulated has always meant two things historically in regards to the Second Amendment. Those things being “well trained” and “firearms of a level commiserate with what was normal for a soldier to carry, along with referring to firearms of a straight lineage from what was common in the day. Also, historically, governments have *always* disarmed their citizens before further subjugating them. A well-armed populace is a threat to a tyrannical government, and gives them far too great an ability to resist. Our forefathers knew what happens when all the power rests with the government and none with the people, and they protected us against that happening. They knew that a militia in the hands of the people helped deter oppression and helped keep the people free. Hence a trained similarly armed militia being necessary to the security of a free state.
“…the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” As in the first part, I believe that every word here has meaning. “The right of the people”. That’s us. WE are the people. Every single one of us Americans. “to keep” would mean to be able to possess, to own for ourselves. “and bear” would mean to carry, whether in our homes, on our persons, wherever. “shall not be infringed” means that there shall be no laws limiting our right as mentioned before, from any governmental agency, as this right is deemed inherent as an American.
Therefore, I believe that it means that all of us, to assure that our freedoms are never impugned upon and to protect ourselves from the possibility of a tyrannical government, shall have the right to own and carry firearms, and that right can *never* be taken from us.
This court case, which will be decided around June, will weigh heavily on this right. And I hope that all of you pay attention to the news, and watch this case carefully. You will be able to see if our freedoms will remain…well…freedoms, and not just allowances from a government that can take them away at any given time. Thankfully, thanks to Bush’s appointments, I am fairly confident that the Supreme Court will have enough votes in favor of personal liberty. As far as I can tell, I believe that Chief Justice Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito will rule in favor of Heller. I know almost for a fact that David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and John Paul Stevens will rule for DC. I am unsure about Stephen Breyer. However that will still be a 5 to 4 vote, which will carry us through. Let’s hope that I’m wrong, though, and that more of the judges than that realize the importance of this right.
You can find every document filed by both sides, along with who is supporting both sides, at this website that the NRA has set up:
Comment by Matthew Berry — March 27, 2008 @ 2:53 am
I’m sorry about that. I’ve been reading about the case and listening to the oral arguments, and I tend to get worked up everytime it seems like one of our rights is being assaulted that I went off on a bit of a rant. My apologies.
Comment by Matthew Berry — March 27, 2008 @ 2:55 am
Beginning at 10am today and lasting for 75 minutes, the United States Supreme Court will hear argument in the most significant Second Amendment cases ever to come before it.
Today, in the Boston Herald, Robert Levy, one of the lead attorneys for the citizens in the case, gives a preview of the argument he’ll be making […]
Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in District of Columber v. Heller, the case challenging the District of Columbia’s decades-old and near-complete ban on gun ownership by city residents. At stake is interpretation of an Amendment that has received almost no judicial scrutiny in 209 years since it was enacted.
One blogger, former Washington […]
[…] got some thoughts about the issues at stake and possible outcomes in the gun control case that will be argued before the Supreme Court tomorrow up at The Liberty […]
Pingback by Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » D.C. v. Heller Preview — March 17, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
[…] Mr. Mataconis closes his analysis of the case with the following thought: The most likely outcome of the Court’s decision in Heller, whatever it might be, is that it will merely be the beginning of an entirely new area of Constitutional jurisprudence. Ten years from now, Second Amendment cases may be as common in the Supreme Court as First Amendment cases once were, and that will continue until the Court hammers out a coherent Second Amendment case law. -=SOURCE=- […]
Pingback by A good PRE-analysis of DC v. Heller » Scott’s Morning Brew — March 17, 2008 @ 3:16 pm
I think the court will rule in favor of a collective right. It would fit in ideologically with Kelo and Raich. It would also fit in with the government, faced with the decision of backing up its own power or leaving such power in the hands of the individual, will side with keeping its own power.
I hope I am in wrong but I think the individual gun rights crowd are going to be handed a devestating defeat.
Comment by tkc — March 17, 2008 @ 6:10 pm
Chris is right that we are unlikely to see complete resolution of the gun control issue from this case
Constitutionally, the Court cannot completely resolve the gun control issue. It is limited to the case or controversy before it.
Comment by Joshua Holmes — March 17, 2008 @ 6:17 pm
[…] of the best commentary on this for laymen is over at the Liberty Papers which walks readers through a pretty thorough look at the legal landscape. The Raising Kaine folks […]
Pingback by BLACK VELVET BRUCE LI : The 2A Superbowl Kick-Off — March 17, 2008 @ 7:55 pm
tkc,
I could easily see them going for the “individual right” and the “rational basis” test instead of the “strict scrutiny” test.
That way, they get to tell you you have a right to bear arms, but don’t actually enact any meaningful limits on the government regulation of that right.
Comment by Brad Warbiany — March 17, 2008 @ 11:00 pm
[…] Brad Warbiany: tkc, I could easily see them going for the “individual right” and the “rational… […]
Pingback by The Liberty Papers »Blog Archive » Gun Rights On The Docket Today At The Supreme Court — March 18, 2008 @ 6:19 am
The Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights, these documents all have one thing in common and that is they are about “We the People.” All these documents place the emphasis on the individual and the States, ..”Government of the people, for the people and by the people ..” the government derives its powers by the consent of the governed, that is the people, why have we forgotten this?
There is nothing in any of these documents referring to the “collective” anything. So, why in a series of documents proclaiming the “individual,” why would the Founding Fathers pick the second spot in the Bill of Rights to proclaim that gun ownership was a collective right of the government, especially when the Constitution commands the Federal Government to have a standing Army, one cannot have a standing Army without guns, now can one? Then for what reason would the Founding Fathers be redundant on this subject?
Only in a liberal mind can one read into a statement the exact opposite of what that statement says. The government is not all-powerful, it is the people who hold the power and the sovereignty of this Republic. Take another look at the Tenth Amendment sometime.
Comment by VpatS — March 18, 2008 @ 7:49 am
[…] VpatS: The Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights, these documents all… […]
Pingback by The Liberty Papers »Blog Archive » District of Columbia v. Heller Gets Its Day In Court — March 18, 2008 @ 12:25 pm
On Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court will hear argument in what is clearly the most important Second Amendment case in decades:
Despite mountains of scholarly research, enough books to fill a library shelf and decades of political battles about gun control, the Supreme Court will have an opportunity this week that is almost unique for […]
It’s about time that the court hears arguments in this case. We are guaranteed those rights by the constitution and so many radicals don’t want us to have them so that they can control us. Gun control has not worked anywhere’s else in the world where it has been implemented. Criminals do not care about laws only law abiding citizens care about laws. When will the government understand this, probably never?
Comment by rundm — March 16, 2008 @ 7:38 pm
Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.
Ovid
One interesting question within political theory is the question of when armed rebellion against a government is justified. Most people that tackle this subject try to find some set of moral lines that a government must cross before […]
Outstanding post.
Ditto what UCrawford said.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — March 6, 2008 @ 9:05 am
Excellent post & a terrific counter to the brewing frustration with the left regarding a possible “armed” revolution. The GRU reference is also excellent; I for one always found Russian history particularly intriguing.
Comment by Nitroadict — March 6, 2008 @ 9:05 am
Konkin/Agorist Counter-Economics…
Sorry, i just noticed Brad’s thursday’s open thread…
Well said, and I think the Sun-Tzu and John Adams quotes you included have incredible force.
If the revolution is won before it is fought, it may never be “fought” at all.
Comment by Brad Warbiany — March 6, 2008 @ 10:16 am
You state that there is no legitimate government. I happen to agree; in fact I made this point in my philosophy of law class the other night when I asked why it was justifiable in the first place for a third party to carry out retribution on behalf of another (one of the basic functions of even a minimal state). My inquiry went unanswered.
Comment by David Wilson — March 6, 2008 @ 10:24 am
And yes, I do agree, this is a valuable post!
Comment by David Wilson — March 6, 2008 @ 10:27 am
Tarran,
Tremendous piece of writing. Well done!
Great post. And what a jackass quote from Bill Clinton.
Comment by Ben — March 6, 2008 @ 10:53 am
Great post, and I second the jackass quote from Comrade Clinton.
I remember, after the OK city bombing when all thoughs sweeping laws were being passed.I had a sticker on my car that said “I love my country but fear my Government”. And I still hold to that belief. I had a few people question me about that sticker and calling me “Un-American”. It’s moronic that the sheep will celebrat the 4th of July, but not understand what happened to get to that celebration.
But to answer your question, “When is Armed Rebellion Appropriate?”..First and foremost, you would have to “win the hearts and minds” with atleast a quarter of the people. Secondly, the State would have to do something truly alarming to the beer drinking, nascar watching moron, so atleast we have the people waking up. And last but not least, be armed to the teeth and to be prepared for a lasting Rebellion. Cause it couldn’t be just a few days.
A side note…I do watch Nascar. Was not meant to take offense.
Comment by RegularRon — March 6, 2008 @ 11:16 am
I would caution anyone who would want to begin or support an armed revolution against the government to study the French Revolution. There is always a chance that such actions can make matters worse, even if the revolution is successful. The French Revolution did not have the same success as the American Revolution. I would say that the outcome of the American Revolution is the exception, not the rule.
Even as bad as our government is at times (which we write about here on nearly a daily basis), we are still very free relative to most of the world. Freedom always yields to tyranny; it’s only a question of how rapidly it is allowed to happen. As a practical matter, we can only hope to slow this creeping tyranny to a level where we can work within the system. Armed revolution should always be the very last resort.
Great post Tarran!
Comment by Stephen Littau — March 6, 2008 @ 11:31 am
Stephen,
I would caution anyone who would want to begin or support an armed revolution against the government to study the French Revolution. There is always a chance that such actions can make matters worse, even if the revolution is successful. The French Revolution did not have the same success as the American Revolution. I would say that the outcome of the American Revolution is the exception, not the rule.
Excellent point. I’ve often wondered what it was that made the American Revolution different from the French Revolution, the Revolutions of 1848, the Russian Revolution, or any of the countless number of third-world revolts against colonialism after World War II.
It’s more, I think than just the fact that the American Colonies in the 18th Century were blessed with some incredibly wise men, though they clearly were. I think it comes down to the philosophical basis that they were working from.
The American revolutionaries had Smith and Locke and the writers that followed them. The French had who ? Voltaire ? In 1848 it was Marx. In Russia it was Marx and Lenin. And, in the third-world it was Marx, Lenin, and Ho Chi Minh.
When you build your revolution on a foundation of sand, it’s bound to fail in the end.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — March 6, 2008 @ 11:35 am
Doug,
I just finished with Atlas Shrugged the other day (what an excellent book!). I can’t help but wonder if the non-violent tactics John Galt and his fellow “men of the mind” used to change the system would work? Imagine if a large number of entrepreneurs, industrialists, investors, inventers, etc. went on strike in hopes that the entire economy went to hell? If such a thing could be organized, I think that it would not take very long before we would see sweeping changes in attitudes toward achievement, free markets, individualism, and wealth distribution/creation.
Comment by Stephen Littau — March 6, 2008 @ 11:44 am
Actually, RP did mention The Remnant in one of his videos, and further mentioned people being left behind that would be able to rebuild, although beyond that he didn’t mention anything specific. But yes, I also think it’s an interesting and potentially effective idea; I’d imagine it would definitely rally up the agorists.
I sadly have yet to read the book, but have read summaries of it. I still have an immense back log of books piled up on my desk as it is, although as of late, some of her quotations are convincing me to possibly put the fountainhead & AS higher up in the queue…
Comment by Nitroadict — March 6, 2008 @ 11:55 am
Nitroadict, 2 words: audio book :)
I listened to Atlas Shrugged about 1 hour a day at work on audio book (the abridged edition; 10 1/2 hours on 10 discs).
If you can listen at work or if you are taking a long road trip, this is the ideal time to listen. I simply do not have much spare time to read otherwise.
Comment by Stephen Littau — March 6, 2008 @ 11:59 am
Indeed, I recently decided to take the plunge with Rothbard via audio-book (For A New Liberty), and while I think reading would allow for more retention, it definitely is a time saver.
I’m thinking I might read The Fountainhead before reading AS, though. If there is an audio-book version of it, what version would you recommend?
Comment by Nitroadict — March 6, 2008 @ 12:04 pm
[…] Tarran at The Liberty Papers had a very insightful post regarding the appropriateness of armed rebellion. Tarran does address the improbability of an armed rebellion actually achieving its aims; my qualm with his argument is the contention that there would actually be a fight to begin with. This contention might be more applicable to the times when the gun barrels of oppressors were not that much bigger than those of the oppressed. […]
Pingback by Why nonviolence is not a choice | The Libertarium — March 6, 2008 @ 12:56 pm
[…] a comment to tarran’s post about the morality of armed rebellion, co-contributor Stephen Littau makes this point: I would caution anyone who would want to begin or […]
Pingback by The Liberty Papers »Blog Archive » Friday Open Thread — Why America ? — March 7, 2008 @ 5:43 am
Stephen Littau,
You should check ot The Free State Project:
Comment by dean — March 9, 2008 @ 4:30 pm
Last week I wrote a post about how Barack Obama was trying to have it both ways on the Second Amendment. Ken Blackwell at Townhall.com, however, believes that Obama’s doublespeak about the Second Amendment (
RSS 2.0 Feed
Stop talking like some elitist economist!
;-)
Comment by KipEsquire — May 5, 2008 @ 12:34 pm
If I qualify as an elitist economist, then we are in real trouble :)
Comment by Stephen Littau — May 5, 2008 @ 12:47 pm
I don’t know how many times I read over the post and never noticed the “she” was missing. Thanks for pointing that out.
Comment by Stephen Littau — May 5, 2008 @ 12:52 pm
Both Hillary and Osama Hussein Obama are reflexively anti-gun. As a Jewess in the US, I would like to remind everyone that criminals are stopped by FIREARMS, not by talk. And that America wasn’t won with a registered gun. That is why all REAL Americans put our 2nd Amendment FIRST!
Comment by Wendy Weinbaum — May 6, 2008 @ 10:25 am
Wendy, just wondering why you felt it important to give Obama’s name like that? You didn’t even bother putting his first name, Barack.
Comment by Aimee — May 6, 2008 @ 1:55 pm
Aimee,
I’m going to assume that it’s for the same reason that she chose to identify herself as Jewish immediately after she did it…because she somehow thinks that being a member of a group that’s been in conflict with Muslims and black people makes it okay for her to make racist comments about Muslims and black people (despite the fact that Obama’s not a Muslim).
By all means, feel free to correct me if there’s another reason for it, Wendy.
Comment by UCrawford — May 6, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
UCrawford, that was the impression I got, I was just curious.
Comment by Aimee — May 6, 2008 @ 4:01 pm
Even funnier the rifel on the envelope is a German made European high end model with the bolt on the left hand side. It also has double triggers which is only popular in Europe. Someone mirrored it because left handed style of that model was never made. Here is the dugg version along with comments.
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Annie_Oakley_s_Gaffe_Clinton_mailer_shows_non_existent_gun
Comment by Norm Nelson — May 6, 2008 @ 4:18 pm
She learned to appreciate the necessity for self defense in Bosnia, I guess.
Comment by hydralisk — May 7, 2008 @ 12:25 am
Yeah, HRC must be stupid if she thinks she can fool Second Amendment voters into believing she would be a staunch defender of the right to bear arms if she were president. She really must assume we are all stupid or that willing to consider her as an alternative to the other statists running for office.
Comment by Andrew — May 7, 2008 @ 2:12 pm
I guess South Park had it right when they compares our electoral process to the choice between a giant duesh and a turd sandwich, dems want out guns and Mc Cain will give us 100 years in Iraq. I feel that it is time for a direct democratic republic: 501 senators elected by lottery put forth bills, once they pass the senate they go to the people for a vote with a panel of 101 judges seeing to it that they follow they are constitutional. What say you of this?
Comment by Jay — May 8, 2008 @ 5:29 am
“I feel that it is time for a direct democratic republic: 501 senators elected by lottery put forth bills, once they pass the senate they go to the people for a vote with a panel of 101 judges seeing to it that they follow they are constitutional. What say you of this?”
To which I say: tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. I no more trust a mob to tell me what I can and cannot do than I trust a couple of politicians. The beauty of the American Constitution, at least as envisioned by Madison, is that it is set up to protect individual rights against the tyranny of the majority…this turns that principle on its head.
Comment by Mark — May 8, 2008 @ 6:35 am