Posted on 11/23/2007 3:22:53 PM PST by 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.
But then, that's just me.
But then, that’s just you and me.(at lest)
“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.”
Well then, Mitt, you have no freaking clue what the Second Amendment means, and you will NEVER get my vote (in the primaries).
As for Rudy, I don’t think he’ll EVER get my vote, PERIOD. Sorry, if you speak for HCI, then not only won’t I vote for you, I personally despise your very existence.
There's a lot of lurkers (and some posters) who see the Rudy/Mitt alliance on RINO issues. The problem is getting a candidate who's conservative through the political control of the Republican heirarchy to the nomination.
In my book, the only conservative candidate who could possibly win the nomination AND carry the National election is FRed.
He connects and has National recognition that would get him the White House.
In the Declaration of Independence, the founding document of our country it states that, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The first unalienable right is the right to live. It seems to me that barring citizens from protecting themselves violates that right.
Republican presidential hopeful, former Sen., Fred Thompson of Tennessee, speaks during a campaign stop at Skip's Gun Shop in Bristol, N.H., Friday, Nov. 23, 2007.(AP Photo/Jim Cole)
FRED VETS, SIGN UP TODAY AT:
I love that Fred is so intellectually honest that he chose to include the "protection from government" rationale to the Second Amendment. Most politicians eschew this rationale and rely solely on the self-defense argument for fear of seeming radical. Fred relies on it and sets forth the article in a very reasonable tone.
Ping!
bump
Self-defense was not uppermost in the Founnders’ minds. National dfense was; and defense against a government grown tyrannical.
This has been posted before, but it’s certainly worth posting again.
It’s also worth noting that “Lazy” Fred had this posted on his web site later the same day that the USSC announced they would consider Heller.
Yup, Fred gets it.
I’m seeing a lot of MSM pieces about Fred not really “wanting” the Presidency, not really motivated to get it. The libtard MSM acts like this is a bad thing. The reality is far different: There is no better person to have power than one who does not crave it, and there is no worse person than one (she as in Hillary) who does...
>>People in that anthill act as though Human Existence channels though them,
The image at this link tells the story there:
http://www.adambaumgoldgallery.com/steinberg/posters/view_of_new_york.jpg
Linked in deference to dialup users, since it’s 164k. The classic New Yorker magazine cover, for those familiar with it
You need to read the Founder’s writing’s a little bit more.
Most of them wrote that the 2nd amendment was about self-defence against government tyranny.
Specifically, giving individuals the ability to take their government back if their government got totally out of control.
Also, the idea that the government should be afraid of it’s citizens and not the other way around.
Very true. If our first President hadn't lacked a thrist for power, we might be living in a monarchy today.
Fred has old school common sense...so much of it is lost today with ‘metro’ people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
