Posted on 01/14/2008 7:32:42 AM PST by jdm
The Bush Administration has filed an amicus brief in the D.C. gun case, which you can read here. The Administration agrees that gun ownership is an individual right, but says it is subject to reasonable restrictions. Here is a representative paragraph:
Although the court of appeals correctly held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, it did not apply the correct standard for evaluating respondent’s Second Amendment claim. Like other provisions of the Constitution that secure individual rights, the Second Amendment’s protection of individual rights does not render all laws limiting gun ownership automatically invalid. To the contrary, the Second Amendment, properly construed, allows for reasonable regulation of firearms, must be interpreted in light of context and history, and is subject to important exceptions, such as the rule that convicted felons may be denied firearms because those persons have never been understood to be within the Amendment’s protections. Nothing in the Second Amendment properly understood—and certainly no principle necessary to decide this case—calls for invalidation of the numerous federal laws regulating firearms.
Allah seems to treat this as though it’s weakness on the part of the Administration — although it’s hard to know whether he’s just having a little fun throwing red meat to his readers.
But I think the Administration is correct. I support the Second Amendment — but I don’t want felons carrying firearms, and I don’t think the Founding Fathers would have been upset at a law preventing that.
Where the rubber hits the road is in the application of the principle in other contexts. Can the government ban say, machine guns? Purists would say no — but would they say the same thing about nuclear weapons? If the idea behind the Second Amendment is to give the citizenry a credible threat of violence against an oppressive government, then citizens need nukes, right? Which means that when the TSA finds one in some guy’s briefcase, they should wave him though — right? Second Amendment, baby!
I don’t think any of us thinks the absolutism goes this far. So yes, there will have to be “balancing.” That’s okay — we do it for the First Amendment all the time, and that is also a cherished freedom and individual right. For example, you can’t libel people without consequence. All rights have some limits. What those limits are is the real question.
"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." — George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
The Second Amendment has never applied to people who were not free persons. Per the Thirteenth Amendment, someone convicted of a felony can be made a slave of the government. While there are some procedural problems with the way things are done (e.g. the federal government does not have the authority to mandate loss of RKBA for state crimes) the general concept that felons may be denied the RKBA would be entirely consistent with the Second Amendment if the laws mandating such were properly written.
Well...
What if a law was passed which required that convicted felons not engage in self defense? If attacked, they must not flee or fight, but must submit to whatever injury their attackers choose to deliver? Would that be Constitutional? Or would it be equivalent to depriving the felon of life without due process?
Privately owned cannons were commonly used on the Frontier as protection against Indians. They were found in forts (my ancestors in 1757 had one in their fort), keel boats, and trading posts.
Who will stand?
Slaves have no rights. The felon will have received due process at the time of his conviction, if the legally prescribed punishment included enslavement.
“That’s not my recollection of it. Bush said very passively that he would sign one if it reached his desk. I never heard him encourage ANYBODY to pass one”
You are splitting hairs. Perhaps he didn’t beg, but he wasn’t “passive” either.
From http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=14363&SC=8&EC=47
“The president supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law,” White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.
He also appoints fairly anti-RKBA AGs. From GOA Alert archived at http://shootersforum.com/showthread.htm?p=118168
“The president has made it clear that he stands ready to sign a reauthorization of the federal assault weapons ban if it is sent to him by Congress,” Gonzales said. “I, of course, support the president on this issue.”
Gonzales even spouts the HCI rhetoric:
‘He spoke of his brother, who is a Houston SWAT officer, and said, “I worry about his safety and the types of weapons he will confront on the street.” ‘
On Emerson and Ashcroft,
“While the Supremes refused to hear the case, gun owners did not fail notice that General Ashcroft was in full support of how the Emerson case was ultimately decided — thus, putting him in total support of the federal gun restrictions.
Not only that, but the Ashcroft-led Justice Department also opposed gun owners in the Silveira semi-auto ban case and the Lamar Bean case.”
Here is a good summary of the AWB from 2004. It is definitely worth reading:
http://www.wmsa.net/news/CNSNews/cns042008_repubs_divided_on_awb.htm
‘In a clash with pro-gun Republicans, President Bush has publicly supported the ban on so-called “assault weapons” dating back to his 2000 presidential campaign. Although he hasn’t actively pushed for an extension of the 1994 law, his spokesmen consistently reaffirm his support for it.’
He may not have bullied any congressmen into voting for it, but as standardbearer of the Republican Party he has no business supporting anti-gun legislation or administrative actions. Granted, he was much better than X42. That still isn’t saying alot. You may give him a pass but I most certainly do not.
Good point.
I feel your pain. But, when no electable conservative steps up, what do you do? Do you nominate him anyways so that he gets whooped by the uneducated general-electorate and validate the media's perception that the more liberal candidate is always what America wants? Let's face it, we don't have a conservative superstar. Paul, Thompson and Hunter are my favorites (in that order) when it comes to ideas and pro freedom stances, but Paul isn't nominateable and Thompson and Hunter aren't winnable. Flip Romney is our John Kerry so he isn't winnable. That leaves us with Abortiani, McKennedy, and Huckabee. I have to hold my nose and vote for Huckabee until a superstar arises. I would much rather see any of the above in office over Hitlery or Osama-bama.
I don't give him a pass. The signing of a renewal of the AWB was the single determining factor in winning my vote. He didn't sign it. I voted for him.
As far as I can tell from the reports at the time, nobody could have gotten a better result in the Supreme Court than Roberts and Alito. If the Heller decision comes out as it should, I will encourage my daughter to name my first grandchild George.
We learn something new every day. But still, how does one justify heavy artillery in this day and age? I’m well aware of the intent of the 2nd (protection against GOVERNMENT foremost among them) but still....
“Perhaps you could point out a single case of a felony prevented by prohibiting keeping and bearing arms by felons. Just one.”
I’m not a lawyer and I don’t play one on TV so I can’t answer that question. I know that the 5th and 14th amendments are the basis for taking away civil liberties from convicted felons. Do you think that someone who has been convicted of selling guns to mexican drug lords should be allowed to buy weapons legally? You know make it easy for them?
I’m not particularly interested in the 2A rights of hardcore criminals. I’m interested in the 2A rights of law abiding U.S. citizens. There is certainly some murkiness in the laws. For instance, women who are angry with their husbands and in the process of getting a divorce getting some type of protection order against them. Thereby, the sherriff comes and takes away his firearms. I know that happens and its plain wrong. Women who do this should have some type of tangible proof that they have been threatened before they get these protection orders.
We may well find out come March if things don’t go as they should.
Make sure you have a tarp big enough for it.
Hey, it’s New Hampshire—we have barns out here. Big ones, too.
Nor am I interested in the 2A rights of criminals.
But if you look at the hassles and expense of the measures that the government takes in their completely unsuccessful attempt to deny felons guns, virtually all of the burden falls on the law-abiding. Most of this burden would disappear if the infringement of demanding serial numbers on arms was removed.
If we really want to remove guns from the hands of felons, then we need to use the immense database of felon identifications to track them down, search their homes, and imprison them mercilessly if found in possession of a gun. AND LEAVE ME ALONE! I'm tired of having my right to keep and bear arms TAXED to satisfy your need to FEEL safer, with no measurable benefit to show for it.
“to satisfy your need to FEEL safer, “
Believe me, I have no need to feel safer. I don’t plan on ever being outgunned and quite frankly there’s not a whole lot of crime where I live. If someone ever broke into my home though, I would be prepared.
I’m just talking some common sense.
“If we really want to remove guns from the hands of felons, then we need to use the immense database of felon identifications to track them down, search their homes, and imprison them mercilessly if found in possession of a gun.”
This statement means that you are in favor of denying them their 4th amendment rights and denying them their 2nd amendment rights. Do you not think that what you are proposing will cost money also? I’m assuming that you are talking about warrantless searches since it is already legal to go get a search warrant for probable cause and search someone’s house.
In other words you are advocating the same things that I am. That is that convicted felons can be denied some of their civil liberties. Except you actually want to violate more of their civil liberties.
Also, you are complaining about extra costs associated with purchasing a gun in conjunction with ensuring that criminals do not get firearms. I live in Pennsylvania. The only extra cost that we have associated with us is the PA instant check system that checks for criminal records. I think it costs less than $10. We don’t have any law that requires us to purchase a license to own a firearm. To get a conceal carry license costs $25 for five years. I really don’t have a huge problem with any of that. If it is a lot more expensive for you, you need to be complaining to your state, not the federal government. The only part that is a requirement from the federal government is the instant check system when purchasing a firearm. The one problem in Pa is that the state police have a database of gun owners that was supposed to be destroyed, but currently has not. It is in court now and they better destroy that. It’s none of their business what law abiding citizens own guns.
That’ll work
I already stated that I am not concerned about the rights of felons that cannot be trusted to keep and bear arms.
I am concerned about MY RIGHTS. No gun owner should ever have to bear even one cent of financial burden to accomplish a goal which the anti-gunners are convinced benefits all citizens.
Think of how unsympathetic I am going to be as Kalifornia sinks into bankruptcy due to their profligate spending and surrender to the public employee unions. Yet these same people tax ME when exercising my right to keep and bear arms and spend tax dollars maintaining various anti-gun databases, while supporting bond measures to pay for nonsense. When the full burden of violating my rights falls on the general taxpayer, I will be happier.
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.