Posted on 05/13/2002 4:51:59 AM PDT by rw4site
Attorney General John Ashcroft caused gun control nuts and assorted liberals to go ballistic last week by his radical assertion that, yes, the Second Amendment does indeed guarantee individuals the right to keep and bear arms.
That's exactly what most law-abiding, gun-owning people of this nation have believed all along. Apparently it was news to nanny-state proponents and other pantywaists around the country, even though the Second Amendment was ratified more than 200 years ago on December 15, 1791.
From some of the reactions, you would have thought the sky was falling:
"So now Attorney General John Ashcroft thinks he gets to rewrite the Constitution to reflect his personal opinions. His pronouncement this week that the 2nd Amendment guarantees individuals the right to own guns, despite six decades of federal policy and U.S. Supreme Court decisions to the contrary, is another audacious move by a man who mistakenly thinks his job is to make, not enforce, the law," opined The Los Angeles Times.
"Ashcroft has compared the gun ownership right with the First Amendment's protection of speech -- which can be limited only in a fashion narrowly tailored to accomplish compelling state interests. If that's the model, most federal gun laws would sooner or later fall," warned The Washington Post in an editorial on Friday.
More realistically, the National Rifle Association called Ashcroft's position a "breath of fresh air" to freedom-loving gun owners.
The meaning of the Second Amendment has been a matter of controversy throughout its history. If only its authors had spent a little more time on it.
The amendment states: "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."
Does that mean citizens have a "collective" right to own guns only so states can have well-regulated militias; that citizens can possess guns only for the purpose of serving in militias?
I don't know about you, but I've never known a member of the National Guard to take his or her own M-16 to summer camp.
Or does the Second Amendment mean that a citizen's basic right to keep and bear arms -- a right Americans enjoyed before there was a Constitution or a Bill of Rights -- cannot be infringed upon because states may someday need to call them up for service in a militia? Legal scholars remain divided.
Based on writings of the time, Ashcroft believes the Second Amendment was understood to mean that individual citizens had a basic right to keep and bear arms. Individuals in the 18th century needed guns to hunt and for their protection. And they need them for their protection today.
Ashcroft is saying that the last six decades of federal policy and court decisions on gun ownership have been too narrow. He is saying that the Second Amendment protects the right of gun ownership beyond what is reasonably related to the preservation or efficiency of the militia.
In a footnote filed with a legal brief to the Supreme Court, Ashcroft's position is explained as understanding 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."
Naturally, the gun control bunch doesn't like Ashcroft's Second Amendment position. It's a step backward for them. The true agenda of the gun control crowd is to eliminate individual ownership of guns, all guns, of any description. That includes granddad's favorite shotgun that hasn't been fired in 50 years.
And most liberals in this country prefer collective rights to individual rights. For them it may be OK -- but just barely OK -- to own a gun if it's strictly used for militia purposes. But individual rights often appear too dangerous for the safety, or best interests, of the greater society.
What liberals and gun control advocates should do is take a little breather. The sky is not falling. Count on the Justice Department to continue to enforce existing gun laws. Your next door neighbor is not going to bring home a 155mm howitzer.
All Ashcroft has done is to make individual Americans a little more free.
It is a breath of fresh air. But, of course, the Supreme Court can always take another view.
How does one define "firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse"? That sounds like a loophole big enough to drive a truck through.
The dirty little secret that no one is willing to bring up in the debate, is that celebrities/politicians never include themselves in these proposed gun control laws. After all, they are not part of the masses of the stupid and evil American public. They are better than the lowly masses. They deserve to conceal carry or hire an armed body guard. Until the government/elitists are willing to hire an armed body guard for me, or can find a way to arrive at my house before the crime is committed, I will continue to employ myself as my armed body guard.
"being necessary to the security of a free State,: note that they specify a FREE state. A despotism does not need or want a Militia (citizens trained in the use of arms, who work their regular jobs unless called upon in an emergency) -- they want a professional force of "jack-booted thugs". You cannot turn a FREE state into a UNFREE state if the citizenry is armed, and neighbors are TRAINED to work together, and trust each other, as a military unit
" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." : note that unlike the First Amendment, they do not say "Congress shall make no law infringing", they say "shall not be infringed", indicating that NO entity, at any level, has the right to infringe
But if we decided that the founding fathers never envisioned Fully Automatic Printing Presses capable of rapid release of papers - at rates thousands of time faster that the printing presses that were available when the 1st Amendment was crafted, perhaps some minor "prior restraint" might be justifiable. Remember the riots after the 4 police who beat Rodney King were found not guilty of attempted murder. The riots were in large part due to the lies and mis-information by the media. The failure of the media to "highlight" Rodney King's past crimes/conduct, and the conduct during the 100+ MPH chase. His resistance to orders to lie still, and the evidence that he might have been on drugs weren't properly published. The full evidence that showed the police weren't bigoted or racist wasn't revealed regularly. The TV media showed only the fragment of the video of the beating, but not the segment that showed King throwing the police off him like they were rag dolls. A properly informed public might not have rioted. That would have saved over 50 lives, and would have saved over 1/2 billion dollars in damages. So in light of the "group right" of Free Speech, perhaps a little governmental oversight to ensure information is slowly released, subject to editing for correctness .... any news stories deemed potentially inflammatory! Wouldn't the same liberals who want to gut the 2nd Amendment have a cow!! But we might as well sacrifice the 1st Amendment if we aren't going to have a 2nd Amendment.
If I can't have guns to protect me, I might as well have a government controlling the press to prevent further riots!! Maybe a "controlled" media could help reduce crime. Maybe we do need big brother if we can't be allowed to keep and bear arms! Why not!
< / sarcasm >
Mike
If you take the Second Ammendment to it's logical, historically correct conclusion, free citizens should be completely unimpeded in purchasing state of the art infantry rifles. So much for the "assault rifle" ban. IMO, Attorney General Ashcroft needs to go a few steps farther.
Just like a house of cards!! A breath of fresh air, indeed!
this is why the constitution has no provision for a permanent standing army.
As long as there is no effective counterbattery fire, I have no problem with that! The folks two towns over might, though.
Sounds like fun to me... Hey, Joe, how's about we take that thing and go duck hunting?
Now let’s see how long it takes Dubya to take it to the NEXT LOGICAL LEVEL:
ARM THE PILOTS – NOW!!!!
Ted Olson – who wrote precisely the same thing into two recent pleadings before the Supremes – wouldn’t be a grieving widower today had the pilots on Barbara’s plane been properly armed.
(And firing Minetta and Ridge would be equally logical moves.)
Interesting point. Do you think that their opposition to arming pilots flies in the face of President Bush's wishes? Or do you think their articulated position simply reflects Bush's - that is, they have been given their marching orders.
My point is that even though the two of them have said some really stupid things (Underperformin' Norman's comments on racial profiling at airports really stand out here), if the President wanted pilots to be armed, or wanted airport screening resources to be deployed more efficiently by targeting the demographic from which most terrorists are drawn, he would have Mineta and Ridge making those things happen, or he would have their resignations.
Bush is either not very alert, not very smart or this is HIS version of "Read my lips."
Apples DO NOT fall too far from the tree.
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.