Posted on 3/23/2007, 4:49:23 PM by kiriath_jearim
This March has been wonderful. On Wednesday the 14th the provisions of HB347 became law. I no longer have to wrinkle my clothes trying to comply with the silly open carry provision in my car. That delighted me. But days before that, the great news came that the DC Circuit Court had finally issued a ruling in the Shelly Parker case, a ruling that turned out just as I had hoped it would. The Court stated in a two to one decision that the Second Amendment is indeed a recognition of an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Judge Silberman wrote, "[T]he phrase 'the right of the people,' when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual."
The majority opinion sums up its holding on this point as follows:
"To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia."
As someone who lived in Washington D.C. metro area in the 1980’s and dealt with the repercussions of that murderous ban, I jumped for joy at the news it would soon die. That is something 44 year old men do not do very often.
The melt down from the leftist elites and the anti-gun lobby has been predictable in the wake of this ruling. Mayor Fenty of Washington D.C. vows to enforce the ban anyways and fight the ruling no matter what. It appears he will appeal the case. We will see.
The hysteria over at the Brady Center was palpable as they sent out fund raising letters screaming to send money fast to fight activist judges. "The 2-1 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia striking down the District of Columbia's handgun law is judicial activism at its worst." wrote Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. I can almost picture him foaming at the mouth as he whacked that out on his keyboard.
Predictable comments of alarm came from the Washington Post crying the court had “gutted” the ban and that "will inevitably mean more people killed and wounded as keeping guns out of the city becomes harder." As I read that I thought, 'oh yes, the ban has been so successful in keeping gun out of the wrong hands' and rolled my eyes. Other liberal papers across the nation reacted much the same. The New York Times said that the D.C. Circuit had looked "blithely past a longstanding Supreme Court precedent, the language of the Constitution and the pressing needs of public safety."
With each article I read I must confess I was guilty of some schadenfreude, as I was enjoying watching these liberal anti-gunners writhe in pain like a vampire exposed to sun light. Like a glutton, I wanted more. So as I perused the leftist commentary I must admit I was surprised to see an article in The New Republic by Benjamin Wittes that took a completely different stance than the other alarmists. You see Mr. Wittes realized something that the others had not. The Second Amendment might actually mean what it says. But his solution to dealing with it meaning what it said was, to put it mildly, disturbing to me.
Wittes wrote:
“It's time for gun-control supporters to come to grips with the fact that the amendment actually means something in contemporary society. For which reason, I hereby advance a modest proposal: Let's repeal the damned thing.”
I will give Benjamin points for at least being honest about the desire on the left to not only take our guns but destroy the Second Amendment if at all possible, though repealing it is hardly what I would consider a "modest" proposal. Especially since I think it is just the sort of thing that might well spark a civil war. For many years Congressman Major Owens (D-NY) introduced legislation to repeal the Second Amendment. He did not make much progress with it. The liberals preferred to ignore the Second Amendment and pretend it was an outdated anachronism that meant nothing in modern times rather than take it on directly. Now, with the Parker decision, some folks on the left like Mr. Wittes will at least contemplate that the Amendment actually means what it clearly says and it still holds as much force as when it was written.
I have exchanged emails with Mr. Wittes. They have been pleasant. I pointed out to him that repealing the Second Amendment won’t have any meaning legally as the Second Amendment is the recognition of a right which predates the constitution. In fact, Judge Lawrence Silberman even wrote into the decision "That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution..."
In other words the Second Amendment does not give us anything, it merely is a recognition by the state of the obvious right that we have to keep and bear arms for our defense and security. Any animal is gifted by God with claws and teeth for their defense. The good Lord gave us a brain to fabricate our weapons.
You see, rights do not come from Government. They come from God or, if you are an agnostic, from nature. The government only issues privileges. Since the Second Amendment merely recognizes a right, repealing it does not repeal the right.
In his article, Mr Wittes also makes the point, as many do on his side, that the common gun of the Founders’ day was the single shot musket. Apparently he and they think the Founders could not have imagined more advanced designs. Assuming that technology was going to stand still is something only a fool would embrace. I do not take the Founders for fools. The argument itself is rather silly and demonstrates the lack of knowledge about guns from the other side. We know of double barrel flintlocks and there are examples of snaphaunce and flintlock handguns as well as rifles with revolving cylinders that have existed well before our revolution.
In fact, a very advanced gun had been developed in 1718. It was called the Puckle gun and it held 9 shots. To the modern eye it looks some what like a single barreled Gatling gun. In reality it was a huge revolver that fired round or square projectiles. These were made a full 58 years prior to the American Revolution. I can not help but think that Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin, who were the technology wonks of their day, would have heard of these guns if not actually seen one. Jefferson himself had a collection of patents in his personal library and probably would have seen drawings of it there. Examples of the Puckle gun still exist today in the Tower of London Collection and in Russia in the Hermitage Museum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_Gun
http://ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/news/PuckleGun.htm
I certainly do not think the Founders would be surprised or alarmed by the firearm advancements made in the 231 years that have passed since the Declaration of Independence. They trusted the wisdom and guidance of the people. If they did not they would not have created a Republic. I trust my fellow Americans too, otherwise I would not be writing on this website. I have no fear of my fellow law abiding citizen being armed.
You can not enslave an armed person. The Founders knew that and embraced that concept. They spoke of it openly, and often. It is clear they did so to remind the leaders of future generations that to even think of trying to establish a tyranny would be folly.
As Jefferson put it: "The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong but better so than not to be exercised at all." Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Abigail Adams, February 22, 1787 He also wrote, "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson, in letter to William S. Smith, 1787 I am glad that some people on the anti-gun left like Mr. Wittes are on the road to accepting that the Second Amendment is indeed an individual right. I only wish that they would come to understand and embrace that the right to bear arms is an important part of ensuring that this Republic is always free from tyranny. Whether that tyranny comes from a foreign invasion or a domestically produced tyrant privately held arms will help keep that threat in check. It is one of those precious gems of liberty that Patrick Henry warned us we must always guard. I intend to take his advice. I hope you will too.
[Tim Inwood is the current Legislative Liaison and Past President of the Clinton County Farmers and Sportsmen Association, a Life Member of the NRA and OGCA, and a volunteer for Buckeye Firearms Association.]
So easy to suggest, so difficult to enact...
and oh, so dangerous to enforce.
I especially like what he said when he wrote, "Any animal is gifted by God with claws and teeth for their defense. The good Lord gave us a brain to fabricate our weapons." That's a quotable quote right there.
Repeal the First Amendment. More mischief has been done to that one than all the others combined.
It's clear the anti-gun crowd is using the 2nd for money purposes. The real ans. is staring us in the face.Forget gun-control. Let everybody go armed as they see fit. Sure you'll have some mistakes and crack pots eleminating each other. But overall you'll get a more law-abiding society. Maybe that's what the anti-gun crowd is so worried about. That and losing a $ource of fund$.
Why does it seem that every one of the folks who want to do away with the 2nd admendment have no idea of what an unarmed nation is subject to? They have to be foolish to gamble their (and mine) life against an armed enemy or predator. What do these fools think would happen to us if we just acquiesed our freedom "because guns kill?" These folks are dangerous to us and to themselves.
Great scott! What a gun. Great article.
Bump for later read, looks good.
Amen. On all points...
A great tagline!
with an addendum...
This is the crux of the argument. These gun control whackos, as well as the people who back them, are would be tyrants. The difference between a free man and a slave is that the free man has the natural right and obligation to protect his body and life from those who would harm him. Taking away that right and essentially placing control of the most efficient means to do violence solely in the hands of the government turns the slow slide to tyranny into a headfirst tumble.
P.S. See my tagline. Gun control whackos existed even in the 3rd century B.C.
The Founders could never have envisioned electronic communications. I insist that the First Amendment applies only to manually-operated, single-sheet printing presses. In fact, let's repeal the damned 1st Amendment.
What a shock. You mean we might be allowed to defend ourselves against gang members? Pass me the ammonia capsule.
Wittes wrote:
“It's time for gun-control supporters to come to grips with the fact that the amendment actually means something in contemporary society. For which reason, I hereby advance a modest proposal: Let's repeal the damned thing.”
I too have a modest proposal: If the First or Second Amendments to the Constitution are repealed, then so too are the First and Second Articles of the then-defunct and invalid abrogated constitution.
Once Article One, Section One is gone, we'll have a lot fewer problems:
Section 1 - The Legislature
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Works for me, so long as the stipulated provisions of my Post # 16 above also apply.
"Mayor Fenty of Washington D.C. vows to enforce the ban anyways and fight the ruling no matter what."
GOA members and their lawyers need to hold a publicized "Carry In" or "neighborhood gun cleaning" and see if the good mayor wants to be charged with violating their civil rights.
Here's another often-missed fact: the 2nd Amendment was never intended or understood to only apply to personal small arms. Individuals purchased and owned any weaponry they could afford and desire, including cannons, warships, etc. This wasn't considered unusual or in any way undesirable. The citizenry was to be as well-armed (by its choice) as any military that might attempt to subjugate it, whether belonging to a foreign power or to a tyrannical local government. In modern terms, this would mean complete freedom to buy and own tanks, destroyers, jet fighters, etc.
If Bill Gates or Opra wanted their own Aircraft carrier, they should be able to have one...
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.