Posted on 12/16/2002 8:10:29 PM PST by Dallas
When the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco earlier this month upheld California's assault-weapons ban, it said the purpose of the Second Amendment was to maintain effective state militias, not to give individual Americans a right to bear arms. Thrilled gun-control proponents claimed a major victory and predicted further victories once the Constitution is eliminated as a barrier to any and all gun controls.
But they should be wary of what they wish for. More gun control could be achieved if the courts accepted a different interpretation of the Constitution, the one held by the National Rifle Association (NRA), Attorney General John Ashcroft (news - web sites) and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans -- that the Second Amendment gives individuals a constitutional right ''to privately possess and bear their own firearms.''
That would open the door to a national registry, a database on the whereabouts of every firearm and a critical precondition to such controls as comprehensive licensing and ballistic fingerprinting. A national registry would require that when guns are sold and resold, the seller and buyer submit paperwork to the government. Police then could trace a bullet or spent shell casing to the owner of a murder weapon. It would also enable the police to determine from whom and where an unlicensed gun owner obtained his firearm.
Database needs support
An effective registry, however, cannot be created without the cooperation of tens of millions of gun owners who fear that registration would lead to confiscation, as happened in Great Britain after the 1996 school massacre in Dunblane, Scotland. Gun owners must be secure in the belief that they enjoy an inviolate constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If the Constitution were read to guarantee U.S. citizens a right to possess firearms, gun owners might support firearms registration and other gun controls aimed at preventing and solving gun crimes.
The Second 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.'' The NRA and millions of gun owners, focusing on the second clause, believe that the amendment guarantees adult Americans with clean records the absolute right to possess and even carry weapons. Gun-control proponents, emphasizing the first clause, argue that it guarantees the states only the right to control their militia units.
Ironically, in their zeal to eliminate the Second Amendment as a barrier to unrealistic gun controls, the gun controllers have in fact constructed a huge obstacle to achieving any gun control, including ballistic fingerprinting.
Incredibly, the Supreme Court has not decided a Second Amendment case in almost 70 years. Just recently, the court declined to review the 2001 case in which the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the individual-rights theory. This long period of Supreme Court silence has given gun owners the time to develop and nurture a confident belief that the Second Amendment is a vital individual right, just like and just as important as the First Amendment right of free speech.
A different interpretation
If the Supreme Court were so inclined, it could easily render a strong individual-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. There is a mountain of impressive scholarship supporting that view, some of it produced by mainstream and even liberal constitutional law theorists. A decision -- especially a unanimous one -- recognizing that the Second Amendment protects individuals, not states, would change the whole nature of the gun-control debate by paving the way for a national registry that makes ballistic fingerprinting, comprehensive licensing and other forms of regulation possible to implement and enforce.
In the end, such action probably would not entirely prevent tragedies such as the recent Washington-area sniper murders. But it could save lives and help capture criminals by enabling the police to trace a bullet or casing found at a crime scene back to the owner of the gun that fired the bullet.
James B. Jacobs is the Warren E. Burger Professor of Law and the director of the Center for Research in Crime and Justice at New York University Law School. He is also the author of Can Gun Control Work?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
Does "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" speak to a collective right of "the states?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Amendment 4
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Does "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,against unreasonable searches and seizures..." speak to a collective right of "the states?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Shall the enumeration of rights in the Constitution not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by a collective right of "the states?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Why is it that "the States" and "the people" are mentioned seperately here, if from the previously mentioned amendments, "the people" refers to a collective right of "the state."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Amendment 2
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.
I suppose that this is the only case where the authors of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution messed up, and wrote "the people," when they really meant "the State."
I have yet to find anyone who claims to not have a political motivation to explain to me how the Founding Fathers managed to trip up on this one amendment. As mentioned earlier in this thread, "well regulated" has a meaning other than what the "gun grabbers" believe. How about an example of what a "well regulated militia" is, based on the writings of Alexander Hamilton, from Federalist 29:
The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
In this case, "well regulated" means "properly functioning," not "run by the state," as so many of the gun-grabbers seem to believe. In fact, let's try rewriting the second amendment, to see how that fits:
A run by the state Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the state to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
A properly functioning Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Personally, I choose the second version. Another reason to prefer the second is from an obsolete definition from the 1989 Oxford English Dictionary (2nd Ed) that in 1690 defines "regulated" as "properly disciplined" when describing soldiers.
Mark
I always thought that "well-regulated" as applied to a technological device meant "synchronized." Regarding guns, a double-barreled shotgun is "well-regulated" if the shot patterns from both barrels impact the same point at some specified range. Regarding the militia, "well regulated" means "well trained" or "well organized."
It sure as $hit doesn't mean that you have to get the permission of some constipated dolt whose son is on drugs, whose daughter is a ho, and whose wife beats him regularly, and who also happens to work for the government approving firearms applications.
Ya'll Stay Safe, Cache, and BLOAT !!
In Marketing 101, this would be the "catch phrase" with the "weasel words".
My sense of it is that the author sees the writing on the wall and is attempting to fashion a response to keep his agenda moving foreward.
Either that or he is delusional and needs help.
He is correct about the politics, however. The best argument to use against these registry schemes is "That would lead to confiscation, just like it did in (Fill in the blank) ." Such a ruling would make make it obvious that confiscation is flately illegal; it takes the wind out of the sails of the "it would lead to confiscation" argument.
Of course, were registration to be tolerated, it would lead to an endless list of other just-short-of-confiscation rules and regulations. The goal would be to make gun ownership so inconvenient as to be impossible. (Just as post-Civil War voting laws in the South didn't make it illegal for Blacks to vote, they did make it exceedingly hard for them to do so.) The author seems to recognize this as well. Perhaps he hopes that his fellow travelers will accept the half a loaf now in hopes of getting everything but that final statutory crumb later.
ONCE THE CONSTITUTION IS ELIMINATED says it all. Once the Constitution is eliminated we have no law in the USA period. All we have is force of arms. Without a Constitution my court system that I set up is as valid as anything anyone else sets up. Since a whole lot of people swore an oath to defend the CONSTITUTION against all enemies foreign and domestic and these people clearly state they are opposed to the Constitution the response is clear. The Constitution is the only thing keeping these folks safe.
Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown
The sole exception to this is except when acting in self defense from attack. Merchant vessels were armed as a matter of course in the 18th, 19th and early 20th Centuries especially if they were entering waters that were known for having many pirates. By about 1910 such armaments were usually dispoensed with simply as a matter of cost effectiveness. The Navies of the civilized world had pretty much swept the seas of large armed pirate vessels and the need for cannon aboard merchant ships had disappeared. Small arms for officers of most ships were still common until the 1960's and almost every old merchant ship contained a small arms locker.
Further, these vessels could in times of war become auxillaries to naval vessels without specific letters of marque. British liners in WWI were officially designated as crusiers if they were to sink or capture a German ship (See the Congressional debates on the sinking of the Lusitania).
Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown
That would open the door to a national registry, a database on the whereabouts of every firearm and a critical precondition to such controls as comprehensive licensing and ballistic fingerprinting.
Such a shame that this professor of law doesn't know what "privacy" means.
Here's a hint: anything intolerable to the "private" "right" to abortion is likewise intolerable to a private right to arms. Shall we register, tax and license abortions? Keep lists of all women who have them?
SD
Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown
You probably also maintain that "Deck the Halls" encourages us to dress like homosexuals.
SD
~~Tijeras Slim
"A well educated citizenry being necessary for the maintenance of a free nation, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
Does this mean that only government controlled public schools and universities should have access to all types of books? That is your version of "militia".
*************************************
Let's just ask the primary author of the Bill of Rights what is meant by the "militia" in the second amendment:
"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
~~George Mason, at the Virginia convention to ratify the constitution. Mason also said
"To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
Further, you say nothing of the results of failing to recognize the Right of Individuals to keep and bear arms.
"The moon being made of green cheese, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
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.