Skip to comments.How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment
Posted on 06/21/2014 9:04:11 PM PDT by ForYourChildren
How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment
The Founders never intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun. Today, millions believe they did. Heres how it happened.
By MICHAEL WALDMAN
May 19, 2014
"A fraud on the American public. Thats how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum.
Twenty-five years later, Burgers view seems as quaint as a powdered wig. Not only is an individual right to a firearm widely accepted, but increasingly states are also passing laws to legalize carrying weapons on streets, in parks, in barseven in churches.
Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didnt rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individuals right to own a gun until 2008, when District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the capitals law effectively banning handguns in the home. In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise. Why such a head-snapping turnaround? Dont look for answers in dusty law books or the arcane reaches of theory.
The distortions, lies, misrepresentations, and total lack of knowledge shouldn't be surprising, but it always does surprise me.
We live in a world gone insane, Animal Farm insane.
Ah, more anti-constitutional garbage from Politico, the premier phony news site, where all the failed writers from the Washington Compost eventually end up.
I have no doubt they’ll soon be hosting screeds from Jennifer Rube and that idiot from the plum line.
“By calling attention to ‘a well regulated militia’, the ‘security’ of the nation, and the right of each citizen ‘to keep and bear arms’, our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason, I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.”
-Senator John F. Kennedy,rightwing extremist, April 1960
“Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, and one more safeguard against tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.” -Hubert H. Humphrey,bitter clinger,Guns magazine, February 1960, p.6
How the NRA stopped us from ignoring the Second Amendment.
People owned cannons on their private ships in those days!
Michael Waldman doesn’t appear to have read any of the writings of the founders on arms.
Where does this braindead dildo, Waldmann, get his information? Mein Kampf? The Communist Manifesto?
Yes, but Yahoo is reposting it from Politico.
Politco scribblers are Newsweak and ComPost rejects.
If these chodes would do their homework and read the Founders’ words on the 2nd Amendment, they couldn’t write tripe like this.
Yahoo are even less relevant. They recently slurred Christians as ‘Holy Rollers’ in an official ‘gay’ article
Hey Mikey! Try to focus and I’ll ‘esplain” it to you. Who were the Bill of Rights intended for? I won’t mention any names but their initials are THE AMERICAN PEOPLE you moron. Now, why would the founders think it necessary for the government to have the right to form the National Guard? Are you stupid or what?
The NRA is preventing tyranny you morons.
WHat makes you think reading what the Founders said and wrote about the 2nd Amendment would make then NOT write the lies they do IronJack....these puddles of runny excrement will write anything.
I cannot imagine their next try at throwing "" at the wall.
You are full of crap an uneducated lout.
Drunk with reducing your fellow man to subservience of the ruling class.
You are as wrong as a three dollar bill.
This is a liberal jackass from the NYU “School of Law”. He’s pimping his phony baloney book about how the Bill of Rights were intended for government use only. What a jerk.
Son and I went shooting today.
Just finished cleaning the 22 pistol, 22 rifle, .380 pistol, 9mm pistol and the AR.
Was a great day.
One thing about the left is that they always give you plenty of warning about what they are up to.
They keep hammering away at the 2nd amendment, just like global warming, and normalizing homosexuality.
Out of all the nonsense they push, disarming the American public is really the most important. Once that is done, they can ram whatever they like down our throats.
Bullcrap! Read the Founder's own words. Next!
“Where does this braindead dildo, Waldmann, get his information?”
Probably from the voices shrieking inside his head! ;)
Is the writer stupid, uninformed, or a liar?
Good point! Libidiots are always claiming IIA only protects weapons in existence at the founding. So, if that's the case, then why is it against the law for us to have cannon?
Why would someone think that? (That was a rhetorical question there...they are libs, and that is enough)
Anyone could own a gun in the 18th century in the colonies, if I am not mistaken. Why would they not think everyone should have an unregulated right to own a weapon, if they did at the time?
It's not rocket science.
Europe had firearms before they had clean water.
Chucklehead liberals like this one are useful to remind us that when the left says “gun control” they mean firearms confiscation.
There’s nothing in between.
Some days civil war seems inevitable
To understand the Court's decision in Miller, one must first comprehend how the Miller Court interpreted the Second Amendment:
"The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they [p179] were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
Blackstone's Commentaries, Vol. 2, Ch. 13, p. 409 points out "that king Alfred first settled a national militia in this kingdom," and traces the subsequent development and use of such forces." ~ United States v. Miller (No. 696) 26 F.Supp. 1002, reversed. [Decided: May 15, 1939]
If that's how the Court interpreted the Second Amendment, then why did it deny the defendant's claim that the Federal laws regulating firearms at the time were Unconstitutional?
The reason was clearly not, as has often been falsely claimed, that the Miller Court concluded that the Second Amendment did not grant an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Instead, the Court explained its reason this way:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158."
In other words, no evidence had been entered into the official record of the case proving that the weapon possessed by the defendant (a shotgun with a a barrel length of less than 18") was "any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense."
The Court interpreted the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right to keep and bear military grade firearms, and as far as it knew based on the evidence presented, a short-barreled shotgun was not "ordinary military equipment," nor was it useful for the common defense of the nation.
So the defendant lost the case solely because his firearm wasn't--in the opinion of the Court in the absence of any evidence on the subject in the official record of the case--a military grade weapon useful for "the common defense."
Therefore, per current binding Supreme Court precedent, any outright prohibitions of firearms that qualify as "ordinary military equipment" or that would be useful "for the common defense" are Unconstitutional.
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government, Thomas Jefferson
To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... Richard Henry Lee
A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms. Richard Henry Lee, Senator, First Congress
Americans need not fear the federal government because they enjoy the advantage of being armed, which you possess over the people of almost every other nation. James Madison
The said Constitution be never construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. Samuel Adams
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.- James Madison, in the Federalist Papers No. 46 at 243-44
Large and permanent military establishments which are forbidden by the principles of free government, and against the necessity of which the militia were meant to be a constitutional bulwark. - James Madison, Fourth Annual Message, November 4, 1812
An efficient militia is authorized and contemplated by the Constitution and required by the spirit and safety of free government.- James Madison, Eighth Annual Message, December 3, 1816
As long as our Government is administered for the good of the people, and is regulated by their will; as long as it secures to us the rights of person and of property, liberty of conscience and of the press, it will be worth defending; and so long as it is worth defending a patriotic militia will cover it with an impenetrable aegis. Andrew Jackson
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them. George Mason, during Virginias Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788).
... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ... Alexander Hamilton.
The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed, Alexander Hamilton.
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. Patrick Henry, during Virginias Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788)
(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. James Madison, The Federalist Papers
Suppose that we let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal: still it would not be going to far to say that the State governments with the people at their side would be able to repel the danger...half a million citizens with arms in their hands. James Madison, The Federalist Papers
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. 2nd Amendment
To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege. Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Even pacifists have an opinion; Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest. Mahatma Ghandi
Arms are the only true badges of liberty. The possession of arms is the distinction of a free man from a slave. Andrew Fletcher (1698)
Firearms...are the American peoples liberty, teeth and keystone under independence...(f)rom the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that, to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 and 99-100 percent of them by their silence indicate they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. They deserve a place of honor with all thats good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour. George Washington, Address to the second session of the First U.S. Congress, January 7, 1790
No. Everyday. The reasons for doing so are so blatantly clear and justified.
I had a liberal acquaintance actually post to me on Facebook, “Guns are scary.” Seriously.
He quotes Warren Burger as if he was known for upholding the Constitution....
I wouldn’t mind having a cannon. A conversation starter for sure.
That’s a beautiful post. I urge everyone to read each quote carefully... then go back to the top and read the bilge that this douchebag “author” wrote.
That garbage is from the article. It shows how totally wrong the entire thesis is. The two Warrens (Warren Burger and Earl Warren) may have had an 'R' next to their names but both were extreme leftists.
The sign also applies to Warren Burger.
Or ender, if needed.
The politico “writer” is an a**.
Turn the matter around and focus not on gun rights but on a homosexual marriage and consider that that issue was won in the courts even before it was generally won among the populace because it was won in the faculty lounges and in the newsrooms. If culture trumps politics, politics and culture also trump constitutional adjudication.
We conservatives are in for a series of disappointments in the Supreme Court not just because our nominees fail us once they don the robes but because the culture in the court comes from a culture in the faculty lounges of our law schools and the editorial board of the New York Times. We do not win enough elections, having won elections we appoint the wrong justices, having appointed justices they succumb to the culture.
George Soros with his Open Society foundation and elsewhere attempts to impose his tyranny on us from the bottom up. Here is an application of that theory which we should consider and counter.
“Thats a beautiful post.”
I copied those quotations from someplace; here, perhaps.