Skip to comments.Judge John Roberts on Second Amendment
Posted on 09/15/2005 7:12:34 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan
FEINGOLD: Let's go to something else then. I'd like to hear your views about the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms. This is an amendment where there's a real shortage of jurisprudence.
You mentioned the Third Amendment where there's even less jurisprudence, but the Second Amendment's close. So I think you can maybe help us understand your approach to interpreting the Constitution by saying a bit about it.
The Second Amendment raises interesting questions about a constitutional interpretation. I read the Second Amendment as providing an individual right to keep and bear arms as opposed to only a collective right. Individual Americans have a constitutional right to own and use guns. And there are a number of actions that legislatures should not take in my view to restrict gun ownership.
FEINGOLD: The modern Supreme Court has only heard one case interpreting the Second Amendment. That case is U.S. v. Miller. It was heard back in 1939. And the court indicated that it saw the right to bear arms as a collective right.
In a second case, in U.S. v. Emerson, the court denied cert and let stand the lower court opinion that upheld the statute banning gun possession by individuals subject to a restraining order against a second amendment challenge.
The appeals court viewed the right to bear arms as an individual right. The Supreme Court declined to review the Appeals Court decision.
So what is your view of the Second Amendment? Do you support one of the other views of the views of what was intended by that amendment?
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
If he can't come right out and say it's individual, then I'm not prone to trust him.
Noone gets my gun.....period.
The thing is if he says it is an individual right like I want him to, he may be forced to recuse himself from 2A rulings.
Ditto. It "sounds" favorable.
I'm shocked that Feingold claims to believe in the correct 'Indivivual right' interpretation.
Is this just something he says to mollify hunters in Wisconsin?
The Second Amendment is long overdue for a clarifying SCOTUS ruling, one way or the other. The legal "meaning" of that amendment has, if you'll pardon the pun, hung fire for far too long in the courts (though it's perfectly clear to me). Now there is a conflict between two federal circuits--the Supreme Court almost has to step in. If a majority of the court rules correctly on a Second Amendment issue--i.e., for the "individual right" that the amendment plainly confers on citizens--then the precedent has been set, and the gun control movement is out of business for the foreseeable future.
I am also cautiously optimistic. I think he's just trying to avoid any potential media talking points.
I was surprised at Feingold's statements though.
um, seems he said it loud and clear right there
nope, my bad, sorry.
that's still Feingold speaking.
Actually, according to this, FEINGOLD said that, which shocked me.
Yes, the libs continue to be totally transparent in their attempt to work EVERY angle to not only castrate the Second Amendment, but to disarm every law abiding citizen, for their own health and well being. That has always been the purpose of the S.A. to provide for the people to protect themselves AGAINST A TYRANNICAL goverment, like the libs want to turn the our Republic into.
A hard socialist state, where abosolute control of everybody and everything rests with a all-encompassing goverment (THEM)...
After reading the article and listening to some of it, he is doing a good job at making the Dems look exactly like what they are ---
The court has not ruled on the 2nd? What about Cruikshank?
Cruikshank stated that the amendment clearly said RKBA could not be infringed by Congress. That was back when the 10th meant something.
Have you called your representatives and the NRA over what happened in NO?
Me too. This line from Feingold, of all people, could easily come from any pro-2nd Amendment speaker:
I read the Second Amendment as providing an individual right to keep and bear arms as opposed to only a collective right. Individual Americans have a constitutional right to own and use guns. And there are a number of actions that legislatures should not take in my view to restrict gun ownership.
My first post here. Long time lurker. Love you guys. Now, on to my comment. the 2nd amendment DOES NOT GIVE us the right to keep and bear arms. It, like the 1st and others, recognizes that we the people have certain rights as human beings which no gov't can give and that's one of them. The clear text of the amendment simply makes it clear that the gov't may not INFRINGE on this right. The original concept of these rights were the right to be free from government interference. To see how far we've gotten away from the whole idea of the constitution, constitutional rights now are seen as right to receive something from government. Sad.
Individual vs. collective? What other article in the Constitution gives "collective" rights? As a matter of fact, NONE of the articles in the Bill of Rights actually "gives" rights to anyone. What they do is deny the Government the ability to interfere with your "right" to those things.
Yes he did. He's Fiengold though and he doesn't mean what you think it means.
"That case is U.S. v. Miller. It was heard back in 1939. And the court indicated that it saw the right to bear arms as a collective right."
Total BULL! Miller said no such thing. Miller said (paraphrasing) that short-barreled shotguns were not commonly used by the military, hence were not weapons protected by the 2nd Amendment. It certainly did not maintain that the RKBA is a collective right.
"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. (Emphasis added.) 307 U.S. at 178."
And even that was wrong. Short-barreld shotguns had been in use.