Fred Thompson on Supreme Court decision to hear D.C. Gun Ban case

The Buckeye Firearms Association ^ | November 23, 2007 | Senator Fred Thompson

[2ndDivisionVet]

Here's another reason why it's important that we appoint judges who use the Constitution as more than a set of suggestions.

Today [Tuesday, November 20], the Supreme Court decided to hear the case of District of Columbia v. Heller.

Six plaintiffs from Washington, D.C. challenged the provisions of the D.C. Code that prohibited them from owning or carrying a handgun. They argued that the rules were an unconstitutional abridgment of their Second Amendment rights. The Second Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, provides, "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."

The District argued, as many gun-control advocates do, that these words only guarantee a collective "right" to bear arms while serving the government. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected this approach and instead adopted an "individual rights" view of the Second Amendment. The D.C. Circuit is far from alone. The Fifth Circuit and many leading legal scholars, including the self-acknowledged liberal Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, have also come to adopt such an individual rights view.

I've always understood the Second Amendment to mean what it says - it guarantees a citizen the right to "keep and bear" firearms, and that's why I've been supportive of efforts to have the D.C. law overturned.

In general, lawful gun ownership is a pretty simple matter. The Founders established gun-owner rights so that citizens would possess and be able to exercise the universal right of self-defense. Guns enable their owners to protect themselves from robbery and assault more successfully and more safely than they otherwise would be able to. The danger of laws like the D.C. handgun ban is that they limit the availability of legal guns to people who want to use them for legitimate reasons, such as self-defense (let alone hunting, sport shooting, collecting), while doing nothing to prevent criminals from acquiring guns.

The D.C. handgun ban, like all handgun bans is necessarily ineffectual. It takes the guns that would be used for self protection out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, while doing practically nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining guns to use to commit crimes. Even the federal judges in the D.C. case knew about the flourishing black market for guns in our nation's capital that leaves the criminals armed and the law-abiding defenseless. This is unacceptable.

The Second Amendment does more than guarantee to all Americans an unalienable right to defend one's self. William Blackstone, the 18th century English legal commentator whose works were well-read and relied on by the Framers of our Constitution, observed that the right to keep and bear firearms arises from "the natural right of resistance and self-preservation." This view, reflected in the Second Amendment, promotes both self-defense and liberty. It is not surprising then that the generation that had thrown off the yoke of British tyranny less than a decade earlier included the Second Amendment in the Constitution and meant for it to enable the people to protect themselves and their liberties.

You can't always predict what the Supreme Court will do, but in the case of Heller and Washington, D.C.'s gun ban, officials in the District of Columbia would have been better off expending their efforts and resources in pursuit of those who commit crimes against innocent people rather than in seeking to keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens who would use them only to protect themselves and their families. And that is why appointing judges who apply the text of the Constitution and not their own policy preferences is so important.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Former Senator Fred Thompson is a leading Republican candidate for President.

[2ndDivisionVet]

Right said Fred.

[traditional1]

What's Rooty-Tooty's opinion on this gun-grab issue? How about all the Nit-Mitt's?

FRed really connects with common sense folks, but the media want the easy-picken's for the Hildabeast (Rudy and/or Mitt).

[sageb1]

Related:

Fred to Rudy: Quit yapping about NYC

[TLI]

But, but Rudy is a conservative and he is pro 2nd. Just ask him! And, and... so is Mitt! Mitt is pro-2nd amendment ever since, uh... a few years ago!

[xzins]

Excellent opinion from Thompson

[sageb1]

Exclusive: Fred Thompson on the U.N.

Great comments. Scroll down.

[TLI]

What's Rooty-Tooty's opinion on this gun-grab issue? How about all the Nit-Mitt's?

OK, let's start with Mitt...

Q: As governor you signed into law one of the toughest restrictions on assault weapons in the country.

A: Let's get the record straight. First of all, there's no question that I support 2nd Amendment rights, but I also support an assault weapon ban. Look, I've been governor in a pretty tough state. You've heard of blue states. In the toughest of blue states, I made the toughest decisions and did what was right for America. I have conservative values.

Source: 2007 Republican Debate in South Carolina May 15, 2007



Will support assault weapons bill and Brady Bill

The candidate reiterated his support for an assault weapons ban contained in Congress' crime bill, and the Brady law which imposes a five-day waiting period on handgun purchases. `I don't think (the waiting period) will have a massive effect on crime but I think it will have a positive effect,' Romney said.

Source: Joe Battenfeld in Boston Herald Aug 1, 1994





And now Rudith on the 2nd…

Questions?

[ansel12]

“What’s Rooty-Tooty’s opinion on this gun-grab issue? “

Just take his anti second amendment actions and opinions as leader of one city and paste it on the city of DC, that is his opinion.

[GOPologist]

******officials in the District of Columbia would have been better off expending their efforts and resources in pursuit of those who commit crimes against innocent people rather than in seeking to keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens who would use them only to protect themselves and their families. And that is why appointing judges who apply the text of the Constitution and not their own policy preferences is so important.******

Fred is correct. I’m not going into detail; but, in States where innocent people are allowed to carry guns, crime is reduced. Take Florida for example.

This is the opposite in Washington, D.C. where criminals pretty well do as they please.

Also note the increase in crimes in those foreign countries e.g., England and Australia, that have taken guns away from innocent people.

[Eric Blair 2084]

Rudy’s opinion is:

“It would be OK if the court overturns it, or it would be OK if the court didn’t overturn it”, just like Roe v Wade.

[sageb1]

By the way, all of you FredHeads are invited to register and join the conversation at the Draft Fred Thompson forum. Join up and show your support!

[EGPWS]

FRed really connects with common sense folks,...

He talks with conviction and unlike the others, quantifies his talk. : )

[mountn man]

Question: If gun rights, are a constitutional right, only for the collective, and not for individuals. Would that also make abortion a collective right, not an individual right?

Yes, abortion is a right. It says so in the constitution. I don't remember what amendment it is, but its listed right after We The People....

[EGPWS]

Excellent opinion from Thompson

They always are.

IMO, he hasn't the time for double talk.

[tear gas]

Go Fred!!!

[traditional1]

"Q: As governor you signed into law one of the toughest restrictions on assault weapons in the country.

A: Let's get the record straight. First of all, there's no question that I support 2nd Amendment rights, but I also support an assault weapon ban.

Yeah, that's what I mean....

He feels "very strongly" BOTH ways.....whichever way the wind's blowin'.....typical politician.

[eyedigress]

I think they are going to throw some “DC doesn’t apply to the making of a militia or the right to protect itself from such”. Wouldn’t surprise me at all.

[ansel12]

Here is Rudy in his own words on guns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ99sBfdqE0

[Viking2002]

Same thing I told my mother, who is a Rudy supporter - he's not running for mayor of America, but campaigns as such. People in that anthill act as though Human Existence channels though them, and only them. Insufferable prats.

[oyez]

The danger of laws like the D.C. handgun ban is that they limit the availability of legal guns to people who want to use them for legitimate reasons>

A 45 in hand beats a cop on the phone, anytime.

I seen a lot of freedom go down the tubes since I was a kid. The main reason, is that criminals have become more free than the law abiding. Almost any crime case, the civil rights of the perpetrator become more important than the human rights of the victim.

So Joe Average needs to have his Constitutional Second Amendment Rights restored in order to protect his own human rights. When I was a kid there was very little crime and very few in police work. Now we have much crime and many in the police. The route back to low crime can only be guided by the armed citizen and his Constitutional Rights. Its time the legislatures got busy insuring the freedom of the law abiding public instead of the criminal element..