If the courts rule this way, it would open the right to bear machine guns. And why not? Maybe not for concealed carry, but ownership. And, maybe? Or am I going a little overboard here?
Posted on 05/11/2002 10:23:17 AM PDT by forest
Quite a number of us have been following the U.S. v. Emerson case pertaining to the Second Amendment. Therein, the federal trial court judge wrote one of the finest decisions ever to come out of a federal criminal court -- which tracked perfectly with the original intent of all of the Founding Fathers when they approved the Constitution and later the Bill of Rights.
However, the decision was appealed.
Alas, although the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court that the Second Amendment protects an individual right of the people to keep and bear arms, they reversed that part of the lower court's decision which benefited Emerson.(1) So, Emerson appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is now considering if it will hear the case.
Lawyers speak to the Court through their briefs and last May 6 was the deadline for filing them. In a nutshell, attorneys for Emerson are petitioning the Court to hear the case. Attorneys representing the federal government do not want the Court to hear it.
Last year, in a letter to National Rifle Association, Attorney General John Ashcroft said that the Second Amendment confers the right to "keep and bear arms" to private citizens, and not just to the "well-regulated militia" mentioned in the Amendment's preamble. "While some have argued that the Second Amendment guarantees only a 'collective' right of the states to maintain militias, I believe the amendment's plain meaning and original intent prove otherwise," Ashcroft wrote.
It would be kind of hard to support our Constitution and the intent of the Founding Fathers without agreeing with that. So, Ashcroft's letter got a lot of hopes up around the country. But "saying" it and actually enforcing it are two different things. So, we waited. Meanwhile, people were still being arrested around the country for unconstitutional and archaic gun laws.
Finally, last week, the Attorney General, via two U.S. Supreme Court briefs filed by Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson, tied actions to his words. Sort of, anyway.
As Linda Greenhouse reported in The New York Times May 7: "The Justice Department, reversing decades of official government policy on the meaning of the Second Amendment, told the Supreme Court for the first time late Monday that the Constitution 'broadly protects the rights of individuals' to own firearms.
"The position, expressed in a footnote in each of two briefs filed by Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson, incorporated the view that Attorney General John Ashcroft expressed a year ago in a letter to the National Rifle Association. Mr. Ashcroft said that in contrast to the view that the amendment protected only a collective right of the states to organize and maintain militias, he 'unequivocally' believed that 'the text and the original intent of the Second Amendment clearly protect the right of individuals to keep and bear firearms.'"
Linda Greenhouse was exactly correct. That is what was filed in both Emerson and another case. Unfortunately, "unequivocally" is not exactly what Ashcroft or Olsen intended. Unequivocal would mean that they support the words "shall not be infringed" in the Second Amendment with "no doubt or misunderstanding" and the meaning is "clear and unambiguous."
The words "shall not be infringed" are unequivocal to many of us. "Shall not" is rather clear and needs no explanation to anyone outside of a government office. However, public officials want tight control over the people. Therefore, the Justice Department does not think of our right to keep and bear arms as a "right." Rather, to them it is an inconvenient "privilege" that must be strictly regulated by capricious bureaucrats.
Justice does not want Emerson to be heard by the Supreme Court simply because they know the Court is going to take a very dim view of many gun laws and may wipe our hundreds in one opinion. One only need read Justice Thomas's opinion concurring with the majority in the 1995 U.S. v. Lopez(2) case for a hint. We are sure the Justice Department knows Lopez quite well. Congress tried to regulate guns via the Commerce Clause. But, the Supreme Court did not buy it.
Justice Thomas wrote: "While the principal dissent concedes that there are limits to federal power, the sweeping nature of our current test enables the dissent to argue that Congress can regulate gun possession. But it seems to me that the power to regulate 'commerce' can by no means encompass authority over mere gun possession, any more than it empowers the Federal Government to regulate marriage, littering, or cruelty to animals, throughout the 50 States. Our Constitution quite properly leaves such matters to the individual States, notwithstanding these activities' effects on interstate commerce. Any interpretation of the Commerce Clause that even suggests that Congress could regulate such matters is in need of reexamination."
With that in mind, let's examine some of the Solicitor General's argument filed in Emerson:
"In its brief to the court of appeals, the government argued that the Second Amendment protects only such acts of firearm possession as are reasonably related to the preservation or efficiency of the militia. The current position of the United States, however, is that the Second Amendment more broadly protects the rights of individuals, including persons who are not members of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to possess and bear their own firearms, subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse."
That's ten steps in the correct direction, to be sure. But, it most certainly is not "unequivocal" support of the Second Amendment. The Amendment clearly says "shall not." That is greatly different than restricting "possession of types of firearms" as the government wants to continue.
So, saying that the Emerson Appeals Court decision reflected the kind of narrowly tailored restrictions by which that right could reasonably be limited, the Solicitor General requested the Supreme Court to turn down the appeal.
If the government keeps control over our "right" to keep and bear arms, that right, then, becomes degraded to but a privilege.
It was the intent of the Founding Fathers that the American people shall have the unequivocal right to keep and bear arms and that government "shall not" interfere with that right. That intent was for personal arms one may "bear." Not cannon, howitzers, Apache helicopters, or tanks. Small arms only. Therefore, for small arms made to carry, there should be no restriction by government whatsoever.
To do otherwise is to violate the Constitution, as written. Because, restrictions would violate what Ashcroft called "the amendment's plain meaning and original intent" of the Founding Fathers. What the words "shall not" mean is that the right to keep and bear arms is an absolute right that government may not violate for any reason. As inconvenient as that may seem to our socialist tainted minds nowadays, that was the intent.
The Justice Department wants to have it both ways. That is why we expect the Supreme Court to seriously consider hearing Emerson -- and we hope they do.
1. http://laws.findlaw.com/5th/9910331cr0.html
2. http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/u10287.html
The words "shall not be infringed" are unequivocal to many of us. "Shall not" is rather clear and needs no explanation to anyone outside of a government office. However, public officials want tight control over the people. Therefore, the Justice Department does not think of our right to keep and bear arms as a "right." Rather, to them it is an inconvenient "privilege" that must be strictly regulated by capricious bureaucrats.
The Justice Department wants to have it both ways. That is why we expect the Supreme Court to seriously consider hearing Emerson -- and we hope they do.
If the courts rule this way, it would open the right to bear machine guns. And why not? Maybe not for concealed carry, but ownership. And, maybe? Or am I going a little overboard here?
-- the Solicitor General requested the Supreme Court to turn down the appeal.
If the government keeps control over our "right" to keep and bear arms, that right, then, becomes degraded to but a privilege.
It was the intent of the Founding Fathers that the American people shall have the unequivocal right to keep and bear arms and that government "shall not" interfere with that right.
Thus, we see that the Bush administration IS attempting to 'interfere', by urging the USSC to ignore the Emerson appeal.
Incredibly, many here at FR are swallowing this 'line', as a great stand on principle. -- It is not. -- It is a political ploy, a call for 'business as usual'. - With a sugar tit coating of platitudes for us gun nuts.
If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwartzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?
That was the question I asked Mr. A.C. Brocki, Editorial Coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers -- who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of "American Usage and Style: The Consensus".
A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.
Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a distinguished seventeen-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for "Editor and Publisher", a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.
He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, "American Usage and Style: The Consensus", has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publishers' Humanities Award.
That sounds like an expert to me.
After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did "not" give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:
*** "July 26, 1991
"Dear Professor Copperud:
"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.
"The text of the Second Amendment is, '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.'
"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."
My letter framed several questions about the text of the Second Amendment, then concluded:
"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance.
"Sincerely,
"J. Neil Schulman"
***
After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the following analysis (into which I've inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):
***
[Copperud:] The words "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitute a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying "militia," which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject "the right," verb "shall"). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.
In reply to your numbered questions:
[Schulman: (1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms "solely" to "a well-regulated militia"?;]
[Copperud:] (1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.
[Schulman: (2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" "granted" by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right "shall not be infringed"?;]
[Copperud:] (2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.
[Schulman: (3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" null and void?;]
[Copperud:] (3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.
[Schulman: (4) Does the clause "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," grant a right to the government to place conditions on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms," or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?;]
[Copperud:] (4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.
[Schulman: (5) Which of the following does the phrase "well-regulated militia" mean: "well-equipped," "well-organized," "well-drilled," "well-educated," or "subject to regulations of a superior authority"?]
[Copperud:] (5) The phrase means "subject to regulations of a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.
[Schulman: If at all possible, I would ask you to take into account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written two-hundred years ago, but not to take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.]
[Copperud:] To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged."
[Schulman: As a "scientific control" on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence, "A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,
(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence, and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and
(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict "the right of the people to keep and read Books" "only" to "a well-educated electorate" -- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?]
[Copperud:] (1) Your "scientific control" sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.
(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.
***
Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."
So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all government formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.
I love the well schooled-electorate analogy. I have used it several times with gun control nuts and have shut them down time and time again!
Justice Thomas wrote: "While the principal dissent concedes that there are limits to federal power, the sweeping nature of our current test enables the dissent to argue that Congress can regulate gun possession. But it seems to me that the power to regulate 'commerce' can by no means encompass authority over mere gun possession, any more than it empowers the Federal Government to regulate marriage, littering, or cruelty to animals, throughout the 50 States. Our Constitution quite properly leaves such matters to the individual States, notwithstanding these activities' effects on interstate commerce. Any interpretation of the Commerce Clause that even suggests that Congress could regulate such matters is in need of reexamination."
Good point.
Power and the ability to lose that power due to an armed, aroused, citizenry has more bearing on your average politician than any rights involved.
The street gangs have helped create the conditions for gun control in the cities, but it is the personal responsibility for individuals to protect themselves instead of leaving that duty to law enforcement.
Here's my point. When presented with such a list, whatever it looks like, what will be the reaction of the 21st century American public? A public which has been conditioned over the years to ban even drawings of guns in schools? If SCOTUS comes down with a decision giving us what we want, gun owners will be treated like smokers and taxed/regulated into obscurity. For example, high license fees, high taxes on bullets (or powder, primers, etc), shutting down practice ranges, or increasing lawsuit activity.
Just my opinion.
Now, here's where it gets dicey. When the Brady bunch holds up, or demonstrates, these weapons to the American public, what will be the reaction?
I would disagree as to this being a good point, with the exception of the opinion concerning the commerce clause.
Justice Thomas concludes, (or infers) that it is the provence of the individual states to determine what rights are given to citizens concerning the right to keep and bear arms.
The 2nd amendment simply (and rightly ) states, "shall not be infringed".
Take a look at the 1st amendment. " Congress shall not..."
Or, several articles of the constitution itself, " the states are prohibited ", "congress is prohibited", etc.
Likewise, the 9th and 10th amendments.
It is clear, that when a power is granted or prohibited, the party granted said power, or prohibited from exercising said power, is Expressly Specified.
In the case of the 2nd amendment, the prohibition of infringement is ALL ENCOMPASSING.
Neither Congress, Judiciary, Executive branch, The States, nor EVEN THE PEOPLE, can infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms.
Gun Rights Defenders are as bad as the Israelis vs. the Palestinians, ( Republicans vs. Democraps ) when it comes to public relations.
I see interviews on the Talking Head Shows debating gun rights, and it seems the chosen gun defender is always a bumbling fool, that is totally unprepared for the debate, and never challenges obvious lies and twisting of facts from the opposition.
The spokesman for the Brady bunch invariably makes the Gun Rights spokesman look like a fool.
We need a good Public Relations firm to take hold of the issue, and put prepared, informed spokesmen out there to present the case for Gun rights.
---- "seems to me that the power to regulate 'commerce' can by no means encompass authority over mere gun possession, any more than it empowers the Federal Government to regulate marriage, littering, or cruelty to animals, throughout the 50 States. Our Constitution quite properly leaves such matters to the individual States", ---
Leaving unsaid, of course, the obvious fact that states are required to conform to constitutional basics when regulating 'such matters'. -- It would not occur to Thomas that weirdos like you, roscoe, --- would think otherwise.
"The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress." -- US Supreme Court, U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), Presser v. State of Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
Possibly not since these are crew served, not individual, weapons. Almost all "machine guns" are crew served. But, not all fully automatic weapons are "machine guns".
If you're going to argue for an "individual right" then it could be argued that right protects individual, not crew served, weapons.
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.