Conservatives Beware: D.C. Gun Ruling A Lot Like Roe (George Will)

Hartford Courant ^ | November 23, 2008 | George F. Will

[lentulusgracchus]

Actually read Miller. It says that the arms protected by 2nd Amendment are those in common use by the Armed Forces.

I read Miller in the epitome or digest, and scanned through the opinion, reading parts of it, and I agree with the point you made. The court made their remand of Mr. Miller (a common criminal caught with an NFA Class II sawed-off shotgun) hinge on the question of whether weapons like Miller's were "militia" weapons. The Court said no -- and the Court fibbed. Shotguns were widely used in the trenches in the Great War, so it erred on a point of fact.

The Court also erred in trying to divide personal sidearms by classifying them, and pretending to rule out the class to which Miller's weapon belonged, for the purpose of a) screwing Miller and b) upholding the NFA and providing the case-law test that Franklin Roosevelt wanted, and which he sent his Solicitor General to get from the unresisting and unrepresented, destitute felon Miller, whose lawyer had quit because Miller couldn't pay him. (Miller's partner was even more disadvantaged: he was dead.)

The language is simple enough: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and that includes sawed-off shotguns. The Court lied when they introduced a fictive, fabricated distinction.

There were other points and their sequelae, but that one is the one you were commenting on.

[lentulusgracchus]

Thanks for the quote and link.

[TChris]

Both rulings, says J. Harvie Wilkinson, suddenly recognized a judicially enforceable right grounded in "an ambiguous constitutional text."

Horse crap.

This is a desperate attempt to equivocate, nothing more.

Roe v. Wade created new law out of whole cloth, trimmed with emanations and penumbras. Heller simply reaffirmed the plain language of the 2nd Amendment. No penumbras needed.

[lentulusgracchus]

Thanx for the kind words, btw .... and I would add that it's ironic that both Communism and Jeffersonian constructions of sovereignty share the same intellectual heritage, down to a point.

The People are the Sovereign, and the State exists to serve the best interests of the People, which are paramount. On that, Americans and doctrinaire Communists agree. But along the way, the Communists were hijacked by the exponents of vanguardism, which turned the power of the Communist movement, which flowed from its mass appeal to, and support by, the People, into the kind of nightmare that drove George Orwell literally out of his mind -- the stress of beholding this monster in all its ugliness eventually killed him. You might say that in that way, Orwell was an intellectual martyr for human freedom, rather like Nathan Hale and, under other circumstances, Giordano Bruno, who accepted death at the stake at the hands of the Inquisition rather than surrender his freedom of thought and speech.

Dig up and read the very recent column by David Brooks in The New York Times (should be dated the 19th or so) -- barf alert here -- about the kind of administration Barack Obama is putting together. See if you don't think it screams "vanguardism". Brooks certainly does.

Oh, and a bit of vocabulary -- "Enarch" refers to the French lords of government and industry, products of the Ecole Nationale (EN) system, which is like the entire Ivy League, Stanford, MIT, Duke, Wharton, Chicago, and Georgetown all rolled into one. I've met an "Enarch" once -- and I recognized what he was and deliberately went out of my way to make his association with me an unpleasant one. Now he's probably a little anti-American weenie, lol.

[Lancey Howard]

In Heller, the court was at least dealing with a right the Constitution actually mentions.

That is no small point.

[stevie_d_64]

“...a judicially enforceable right grounded in “an ambiguous constitutional text.”

???????????

“...shall not be infringed.”

Seems pretty damn clear to me...

It is an INALIENABLE RIGHT...Which means it is derived from a higher and much more moral authority than any government instituted by man...

[Ancesthntr]

I long ago lost respect for Will, but I still tended to give him the benefit of the doubt (kind of like a family member with early-stage Alzheimers...sometimes the person you once knew makes an appearance).

But no more.

George, understand THIS: 1) Roe v. Wade really did make up law. In fact, it was based on a case (Griswold) that itself made up law. There is NO basis in the Constitution for the so-called “right” to an abortion. There **MAY** be some basis for stating and ruling that it is not within the powers of the federal government to regulate in any fashion (it IS supposed to be a government of limited and enumerated powers, after all), but NOTHING to protect it against state action - NOTHING!

2) The Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA) is a right (or, more properly, “are rights”) that pre-existed the formation of our nation, and which were deemed so essential to the proper functioning of our republic that the Founders decided to specifically protect that right against governmental action with an amendment to the Constitution. IN OTHER WORDS, the RKBA is an ENUMERATED RIGHT. Unlike abortion. In fact, the 2nd states “...shall not be infringed.” No words of qualification, like “...without due process of law” in the 5th Amendment - it is a COMPLETE BAR AGAINST GOVERNMENTAL ACTION (except, as is necessary, against children or the really and truly (not politically) mentally incompetent).

PUTZ, don’t you understand that the Court in Roe saw something that wasn’t there, and (prior to Heller) didn’t see something that IS there (the RKBA). Heller simply corrects the horrendous oversight (partially, anyway). Roe still stands as the penultimate example of lousy jurisprudence (and I’ve tried to explain to pro-abortion people that one could even be pro-abortion and against this particular ruling...though they all say “yeah, maybe so, but I’ll keep Roe, thank you” - the hypocrits).

I have ZERO respect for George Will. He’s sold his soul to the PC-devil in order to keep readership. So long, don’t let the door hit you in the ass.

[kingu]

When rights are unambiguously enumerated, courts should protect them vigorously. But Wilkinson says that when a right's definition is debatable, generous judicial deference should be accorded to legislative judgments — particularly those of the states, which should enjoy constitutional space to function as laboratories for testing policy variations.

An absurd interpretation does not make a debate. I would, only for amusement, enter into a debate with someone that the sun is shining on me as I write this. That does not make their point in any way valid. The 2nd is incredibly clear, and all points against it sum up the reason for it's existence. Without the right to keep and bear arms, the government has nothing to fear. And in this case, the government is everything from a neighborhood group on up to the federal offices.

That such things need be enumerated over and over and over again shows how desperate the government is to remove their fear of us, the people.

But what bothers me is how focused this has been on guns; it says 'arms', which does not solely mean firearms, but certainly includes all forms of weapons. Why would it be illegal for someone to ban a handgun, yet not illegal for someone to ban the carrying of a knife, a cane sword, an ice pick?

In that respect, these present pending cases that only deal with firearms are doing a disservice.

[Redbob]

“Conservatives Beware, George Will is not your friend!”

[ctdonath2]

The Court said no -- and the Court fibbed.

Not quite. The Court said there was no evidence presented either way in prior proceedings, the defendants were not present to say "well duh yes", the plaintiff didn't say anything, and the answer wasn't inherently obvious, so sent the case back to the lowest court for evidence gathering. By then Miller was dead and his pal copped a plea.

[Redbob]

"A liberal court muddied the waters with Miller..."

No, an uninformed court muddied the waters with "Miller."

[Captiva]

Does anyone still listen to this little flower of a man?

I can’t imagine GFW ever getting his hands dirty or wearing shoes other than really, really expensive slip on loafers.

[FredZarguna]

Sorry, but you and I must have fundamentally different ideas of what constitutes conservatism if you think a Supreme Court with the following members:

• Hugo Black,
• Felix Frankfurter,
• Charles Evans Hughes,
• Stanley Forman Reed,
• Owen Josephus Roberts (after 1936),
• Harlan Fiske Stone

was not liberal. It was indeed a liberal Court.

[budwiesest]

In America, they're no better than the rest of us, an idea their egos hate.

Thanks, this is the best explanation I've heard.(#79) Took me back to the Charlie Gibson interview with Sarah Palin- 'Bush Doctrine, you don't know what that is?, you're not worthy'. Or the Couric interview, 'you can't name a magazine that you read?, you're not worthy'. All the while, Sarah was probably thinking, "You pompous, phony, asses."

Last time I looked, Couric's evening news ratings were in the toilet. And Charlie- it took me a few minutes to even remember his name (but I couldn't forget the glasses on his nose).

I mistakenly thought it might be something more sinister but you're right- America did away with the caste system long ago, where anyone could dream of becoming president. The proof is in the puddinghead. We just elected him.