Prof wrong about right to bear arms

Contra Costa Times ^ | 12/01/2007 | DAVID T. HARDY

[upcountryhorseman]

It is not a puzzle at all! We have Madison’s views as he
wrote The Second Amendment, through letters and notes.

[tacticalogic]

Then as long as there’s evidence they wanted them to, the federal government shouldn’t try to interfere.

[neverdem]

Does anyone know when the “collective right” interpretation was first offered?

Our Second Amendment: The Founders’ Intent

According to Stephen P. Halbrook: "The agenda to pass firearms prohibitions led to the invention of the 'collective rights' view by the 1960s."

It makes sense with the urban riots and three major assassinations, i.e. JFK, RFK and MLK. Check Saul Alinsky and his cohorts. A recent thread mentioned Alinsky's disparagement of the Black Panthers and armed confrontation because he recognized that the right was overwhelmingly well armed.

However, I would be curious about the history involving NY's infamous Sullivan Law and the 1934 NFA.

[RJL]

Thanks for posting.

[neverdem]

How appropriate. Shooting the messenger on a gun thread.

Chemerinsky a messenger? Not hardly.

It's quite appropriate. He's not the fellow who just delivers the message. Erwin Chemerinsky wrote all sorts of messages for lefty statists.

[robertpaulsen]

There’s no need to go further. I said we agree.

[tacticalogic]

Sometimes what peole won’t say tells you more than what they will.

[An Old Man]

Never den wrote: "I would be curious about the history involving NY's infamous Sullivan Law and the 1934 NFA."

You can read an interesting abstract of the events leading to NY enacting the Sullivan act here: The Sullivan Act

For a brief history of the 1934 NFA look here: The 1934 NFA

[opus86]

bump for later

[neverdem]

Thanks for the links.

[neverdem]

Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York: July 26, 1788.[1]

That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State;

--snip--

That the Senators and Representatives and all Executive and Judicial Officers of the United States shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation not to infringe or violate the Constitutions or Rights of the respective States.

IMHO, that's only the second use of infringe that I ever read.

Things You Are Not Allowed to Say

Salvador Allende, KGB agent The original link is lame. Comment# 15 works.

The Deadliest IEDs

From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

[El Gato]

It makes no sense to assert nine of the 10 Amendments deal with individual rights and the Founders for some mysterious reason, reserved a collective right for the other one.

The first nine amendments deal with individual rights, the tenth deals with powers retained by the states and by the people as individuals.

The tenth amendment makes it perfectly clear that the founders knew the difference between "the states" and "the people"

[El Gato]

Must be an english teacher.

Not my English teachers. They taught me how to diagram and analyze sentence structure. Of course that was back in the dark ages of mid '60s Nebraska.

Maybe a Philosophy major who got off track while wondering about the meaning of "is"?

[El Gato]

Unless I'm mistaken the "Bill of Rights" amendments deal with the rights of the people.

All but the tenth, which deals with *powers* of the states and of the people.

However the whole of the Bill of Rights is a restriction on the powers of government. Not some list of entitlements. Otherwise, I'd be asking where to go to get the M-16 I've got a right to be provided with. Oh heck I'd ask for an M-249 or M-2, as long as I was also entitled to the ammunition. :)

[Repeal 16-17]

He begins by stating that "The language of the Second Amendment is a puzzle," citing its reference both to a "right of the people" to arms, and its reference to the necessity of a well-regulated militia.

This sounds like the Bork "inkblot" rationale regarding the Ninth Amendment. He knows what the Second Amendment means, but (like Liberals generally) hates the idea of the People being able resist the federal government.

The Nine High Priests Of Justice better get this issue right. The backlash from a "collective right" ruling would overshadow that of Kelo and Roe combined.

[Ken H]

Robert Bork on the Second Amendment:

The Second Amendment states somewhat ambiguously: "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 first part of the Amendment supports proponents of gun control by seeming to make the possession of firearms contingent upon being a member of a state-regulated militia.

The next part is cited by opponents of gun control as a guarantee of the individual's right to possess such weapons, since he can always be called to militia service.

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that there is no individual right to own a firearm. The Second Amendment was designed to allow states to defend themselves against a possible tyrannical national government.

Now that the federal government has stealth bombers and nuclear weapons, it is hard to imagine what people would need to keep in the garage to serve that purpose.

-- footnote Slouching Towards Gomorrah

[Ken H]

Justice Clarence Thomas on the Second Amendment:

Perhaps, at some future date, this Court will have the opportunity to determine whether Justice Story was correct when he wrote that the right to bear arms "has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic." 3 J. Story, Commentaries º1890, p. 746 (1833).

--J. Thomas, Printz v. U.S., 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

Marshaling an impressive array of historical evidence, a growing body of scholarly commentary indicates that the "right to keep and bear arms" is, as the Amendment's text suggests, a personal right.

--J. Thomas, Printz v. U.S., Footnote 2.

_____________________________________

BTW, great FReeper handle. Repeal the 16th and 17th indeed!

[neverdem]

Thank Providence Bork isn’t on the SCOTUS for Washington v. Heller.

[Joe 6-pack]

"If their line of reasoning is allowed to stand, no one's rights will ever be safe."

I don't mean to parse, but our rights will always be safe...they are after all, "inalienable." It is the ability to exercise those rights that is threatened. It's a very subtle, but critical difference, which again, I raise not to nit-pick, but I suppose, to illustrate the point that although a right will always be there, the failure to exercise it is really little different than a prohibition against practicing it...

[editor-surveyor]

I’m beginning to believe that to become a professor of anything but math, chemistry, physics, or engineering, one has to have their cerebral cortex removed and pickled.

It is because of the danger that an armed militia under the control of government presents to the safety, freedom, and stability of the nation, and the fact that such a militia cannot be prohibited, that the weapons of the people have to remain above the level of government.