The Second Amendment a second class right?

Enter Stage Right ^ | Jan 21, 2008 | Charles Bloomer

[Gunner9mm]

The Solicitor General has issued a truly bizarre amicus brief to the Supreme Court in the case of Heller vs. District of Columbia, the case that is challenging the District's ban on handguns.

The Solicitor General's Office represents the administration in cases before the Supreme Court and, as in this case, presents the administration's position. Needless to say, the Solicitor General's Office has considerable influence before the court.

The brief presented by the Solicitor General makes some valid points upon which Second Amendment supporters can agree. The brief states the administration's opinion that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, and that laws restricting that right should be subject to "strict scrutiny" – meaning that legislators must weigh the proposed benefit of the law carefully before infringing on a Constitutionally guaranteed right. Additionally, the brief expresses the opinion that the District of Columbia's strict gun ban should be overturned. So far, so good.

The Solicitor General's brief also takes a bizarre turn. While the Solicitor General calls for "strict scrutiny" for gun laws in general, he calls on the Supreme Court to apply only "intermediate scrutiny" as it determines Heller vs. DC. The Solicitor General also argues that the Second Amendment is not a "fundamental" right.

[Gunner9mm]

This column also available at www.libertycall.us under the 2nd Amendment section.

[Mach5]

It’s so second class that the Framers made it #2 on the list. Laughable.

[Robert357]

Maybe Gun Owners of America or some other group should also file comments on the Solicitor's comments about the Second Amendment being a non-fundamental right and remind folks of the language in the Declaration of Independence that state.....

"...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."

[jonascord]

Just keep in mind that now that the Bush administration is a lame duck, that they can come out of the Closet, and tell us how they actually think. Isn’t it nice to know that Bush thinks the Constitution is more like guidelines than actual rules?

[Joe Brower]

[Joe Brower]

This thread has just added to the FreeRepublic "bang list" (firearms interest list) by adding the keyword "banglist".

Any time a firearms-related thread is created on FreeRepublic, please be sure to add the "banglist" keyword to it so that interested FReepers don't miss it. Just a suggestion.

Let Freedom Ring,

Click the pic to go to the Gun Facts v4.2 download page!

[Mariner]

This is truly about government power.

They are FREAKED at the thought of most, if not all of the existing state and Federal laws will be negated by the USSC.

It's likely the USSC will see SOME interest the government and the states have in this issue...and may, in fact, specifically narrow their decision to the DC case...and warn the feds and states they need another approach along guidelines xyz.

I just don't anticipate the USSC will rule that all existing gun law is unconstitutional.

[Montfort]

Well, the way it works is, the rights that the drafters of the Constitution specifically numbered, are second-class rights, except the right of the press to have free speech.

The recently discovered rights implied in penumbras and emanations are absolutely sacrosanct.

The only two rights that cannot be abridged, are the rights of the press to engage in political speech, and the right of privacy, which only covers sex acts and the abortion of children resulting from sex acts. The right of privacy does not extend to matters not involving sex. Your right to smoke can be abridged by anyone, but your right to engage in high-risk sex is sacrosanct.

[RasterMaster]

Nothing suprises me, coming from a group who thinks the words “Congress shall make no law” are subject to interpretation.

[Condor51]

...the Solicitor General's amicus brief for further review, research, and study. The Solicitor General's advisors and staff need to hit the books and review a significant concept that they have previously missed – The Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights, are specific limits on government, limits adopted by the consent of the governed.

And in the process of re-educating themselves, they need to look up the definition of "shall not be infringed."

I'm going to give the Solicitor General and staff a litle help here on the 2nd Amendment - free of charge too.

The Second Amendment reads:
"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."

Okay let's break that down with some input from real Constitutional experts.

• A well regulated Militia,
  George Mason: "Who are the militia? They consist of the whole people, except a few public officers."

• being necessary to the security of a free State,
  Patrick Henry: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.

• the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
  Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

• shall not be infringed.
  Samuel Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
  

So there it is Mr Solicitor General. It can't get any simpler.

oops, almost forgot... You, yeah you 'public officers' like Senator Di-Fi and Schumer - you have NO RIGHT to own a gun, hand em in pronto. You have till midnight to disarm! (not sarcasm)

[Ancesthntr]

The recently discovered rights implied in penumbras and emanations are absolutely sacrosanct.

I think that Justice Thomas has a sign up in his office to the effect of "Don't emanate into the penumbra."

[Amendment10]

In case anybody missed this from previous posts, John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th A., included the 2nd A. when he read the first eight amendments as examples of constitutional statutes containing privileges and immunities that the 14th A. made mandatory for the states to respect. So whatever the intentions of the drafters of the 2nd A. was, there is no doubt in my mind that the 2nd A. now protects the personal right to keep and bear arms from both the federal and state governments as much as any other privilege and immunity protected by the federal Constitution protects other personal rights. Note the 2nd A. in the middle column of the following page from the Congressional Globe, a precursor to the Congressional Record.

http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4n

[foghornleghorn]

Agreed, it is unlikely that all gun laws would be evicerated. Remember the landmark “police power” case when during the San Francisco quake the police and firemen dynamited huge sections of the city to try to control the fires. The owners lost on their appeal for restitution. Here, public safety trumped property rights.

Having said that, the notion that the second ammendment is somehow inferior to others is pure hogwash. Every constitutional ammendment, along with the document itself, is black letter law of the land. The courts cannot (at least in a rational world) simply “interpret” away some, and support others. The law must be governed by logic or it becomes as arbitrary as Sharia.

[Filo]

THe question is this: How do we convince the President to force the revision of this brief?

[GingisK]

How do we convince the President to force the revision of this brief?

File impeachment basied upon violation of his oath of office?

[drypowder]

THe question is this: How do we convince the President to force the revision of this brief?

How ironic, this question goes directly to the purpose of the SECOND AMMENDMENT. And as the old saying goes, use it or lose it.

[TLI]

The Solicitor General also argues that the Second Amendment is not a "fundamental" right.

The Constitution is Not a “Living, Breathing Document”
Posted on January 18th, 2008
By Fred Thompson


This morning I heard that one of the other candidates commented that the Constitution is a “living, breathing document.”

Frankly, I assumed this came from Senator Clinton or Senator Obama. It is identical to what Al Gore said when he was running for President in 2000, when he said he would look for judges “who understand that our Constitution is a living, breathing document, that it was intended by our founders to be interpreted in the light of the constantly evolving experience of the American people.”

Imagine my surprise when I learned that this statement actually came from my opponent, Governor Huckabee, in an interview with CNN this morning. Now I know Governor Huckabee was talking about amending the Constitution, but I don’t think he understood that he was using code words that support judicial activism.

He does not appear to understand that reliance on the notion that the Constitution is a living, breathing document is precisely the kind of wrong-headed thinking about the Constitution that gave us Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion across our nation, and Lawrence v. Texas, which decriminalized sodomy.

I do not believe the Constitution is a living, breathing document. I am committed to appointing strict constructionist judges to the bench if I am elected President, strict constructionists who believe the Constitution has a fixed meaning that can be applied to cases that come before the courts today. They do NOT believe the Constitution is a “living, breathing document,” whose meaning, constantly changing with the sifting sands of our culture, can be determined and applied by unelected judges.

I fear that this loose language about our Constitution calls into question Governor Huckabee’s appreciation and understanding of the issue of judicial activism and raises questions as to what kind of judges he would appoint were he to become President.

We Need FRED THOMPSOM for President.

[Filo]

How ironic, this question goes directly to the purpose of the SECOND AMMENDMENT. And as the old saying goes, use it or lose it.

You're right, but short of taking up arms (while keeping that, as always, as an option) how do we convince this President to correct the errors in this brief?

[Question_Assumptions]

Be sure to review some of the early drafts of the Bill of Rights for the context in which the Bill of Rights was produced.

[William Tell]

Filo said: "THe question is this: How do we convince the President to force the revision of this brief?"

The "shot heard round the world" was fired in Boston to prevent the government from confiscating the arms of the people of Lexington and Concord. To suggest that the protection of the right of those citizens was unchanged by the Revolution and the ratification of the Constitution and the Second Amendment is an insult to the memories of those who died in the pursuit of freedom.

I wrote a snail mail letter to both Bush and Clement. I recommend that everyone should do so. They should need large trucks to deliver such mail.