The Most Mysterious Right

[midcan5]

by Cass R. Sunstein

"To understand the problem, we must begin with the text of the Second Amendment: "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.""

...

"In 1991, Warren E. Burger, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court, was interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour about the meaning of the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms." Burger answered that the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud-- I repeat the word 'fraud'--on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that "the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all. " In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was "to ensure that the 'state armies'--'the militia'--would be maintained for the defense of the state."

It is impossible to understand the current Second Amendment debate without lingering over Burger's words. Burger was a cautious person as well as a conservative judge, and the chief justice of the Supreme Court is unlikely to offer a controversial position on a constitutional question in an interview on national television."

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e8997807-107b-461f-90d2-51a3ef91b508

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I prefer a well armed law abiding populace. Its the only thing that stands between us and the lovely politicians in DC and their wannabe plans for a US oligarchy.

 

[Alpha1]

For over 230 years.....230 years, the citizens of the United States have enjoyed the right to own arms.....long before Mr. Berger was a twinkle in his daddy's eye.....so we'll go with precedent...and don't really need the learned Mr. Berger's personal interpretation...many learned men him have read the Amendment before him and found the intent clear....

 

[midcan5]

And we had slavery for how long? women's suffrage took how long? separate but equal for how long?

Equal rights still didn't pass...

Wrong is wrong no matter how old the stupidity is? It is a good argument for control - all the macho men who need to hug their gun to stay safe can continue to do so.

 

[Alpha1]

And we had slavery for how long? women's suffrage took how long? separate but equal for how long?

Equal rights still didn't pass...

Wrong is wrong no matter how old the stupidity is? It is a good argument for control - all the macho men who need to hug their gun to stay safe can continue to do so.

Madison did not invent the right to keep and bear arms when he drafted the Second Amendment—the right was pre-existing at both common law and in the early state constitutions.

Now if you think James Madison wasn't smart enough to draft what he meant in the Kings English...and maybe you're a little smarter, or Mr. Berger for that matter, write your Senator and vote Dim.....

 

[JeffWartman]

And we had slavery for how long? women's suffrage took how long? separate but equal for how long?

Equal rights still didn't pass...

Wrong is wrong no matter how old the stupidity is? It is a good argument for control - all the macho men who need to hug their gun to stay safe can continue to do so.

Do you honestly think that if guns were outlawed, criminals wouldn't have guns?

 

[Annie]

I prefer a well armed law abiding populace. Its the only thing that stands between us and the lovely politicians in DC and their wannabe plans for a US oligarchy.

See Putin's Russia...

 

[Gunny]

by Cass R. Sunstein

"To understand the problem, we must begin with the text of the Second Amendment: "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.""

...

"In 1991, Warren E. Burger, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court, was interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour about the meaning of the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms." Burger answered that the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud-- I repeat the word 'fraud'--on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that "the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all. " In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was "to ensure that the 'state armies'--'the militia'--would be maintained for the defense of the state."

It is impossible to understand the current Second Amendment debate without lingering over Burger's words. Burger was a cautious person as well as a conservative judge, and the chief justice of the Supreme Court is unlikely to offer a controversial position on a constitutional question in an interview on national television."

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e8997807-107b-461f-90d2-51a3ef91b508

It's actually pretty easy to understand the debate without Burger's concocted, erroneous interpretation of the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment says "the people," not "the state armies," nor "the militia."

 

[LordBrownTrout]

See Putin's Russia...

Yes, disturbing.

 

[Gunny]

And we had slavery for how long? women's suffrage took how long? separate but equal for how long?

Equal rights still didn't pass...

Wrong is wrong no matter how old the stupidity is? It is a good argument for control - all the macho men who need to hug their gun to stay safe can continue to do so.

How old is a lie? Ignoring the actual language of the Second Amnedment in favor of creative interpretation is as wrong now as the first time it was done.

 

[Gunny]

Do you honestly think that if guns were outlawed, criminals wouldn't have guns?

Of course they wouldn't. Never mind the fact that by very definition criminals set out to purposefully brek the law for their own gain. We know when it comes to guns, they'll follow THAT law.

 

[jillian]

For over 230 years.....230 years, the citizens of the United States have enjoyed the right to own arms.....long before Mr. Berger was a twinkle in his daddy's eye.....so we'll go with precedent...and don't really need the learned Mr. Berger's personal interpretation...many learned men him have read the Amendment before him and found the intent clear....

There IS no precedent on the issue. The Court hasn't ever ruled on the subject.

 

[Alpha1]

Yeah, its only became an issue since the rise of liberalism and gets any notice only when the Dims gain some extra congressional power.....

I'd say 230 years is some sort of precedent....

 

[jillian]

Yeah, its only became an issue since the rise of liberalism and gets any notice only when the Dims gain some extra congressional power.....

I'd say 230 years is some sort of precedent....

You can *say* whatever you choose. Doesn't mean you have a clue. *shrug*

Me? I figure I'll wait til the Court rules and take *that* as precedent.

 

[Annie]

You can *say* whatever you choose. Doesn't mean you have a clue. *shrug*

Me? I figure I'll wait til the Court rules and take *that* as precedent.

But Roe v Wade is 'settled law'?

 

[Gunny]

There IS no precedent on the issue. The Court hasn't ever ruled on the subject.

Why should a court rule on something written in plain English? Laws should stand on their own. Seems to me most precedents are set when someone comes up with some off-the-wall interpretation that defies what the law says. Not always, but most times I've noticed.

 

[Alpha1]

You can *say* whatever you choose. Doesn't mean you have a clue. *shrug*

Me? I figure I'll wait til the Court rules and take *that* as precedent.

That maybe true to your satisfaction....but there have been rulings that have at least touched on the 2nd amendment and to a degree define some of its phrases.......but this DC ruling may have a greater impact, ....or maybe not...



The Supreme Court has heard only five cases directly related to the Second Amendment. They are: U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), Presser v. Illinois (1886), Miller v. Texas (1894), U.S. v. Miller (1939), and Lewis v. U.S. (1980). One the Supreme Court refused to hear, Burton v. Sills (1968), and one concerning the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and "the people," U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), are also discussed. (Links to the Supreme Court decisions are provided at the end of each section.)

U.S. v. Cruikshank involved members of the Ku Klux Klan depriving black victims of their basic rights such as freedom of assembly and to bear arms. The court decided that neither the First nor Second Amendments applied to the states, but were limitations on Congress. Thus the federal government had no power to correct these violations, rather the citizens had to rely on the police power of the states for their protection from private individuals.

This case is often misunderstood or quoted out of context by claiming Cruikshank held the Second Amendment does not grant a right to keep and bear arms. However, the court also said this about the First Amendment. The court explained that these rights weren't granted or created by the Constitution, they existed prior to the Constitution.

Presser v. Illinois ruled that the states had the right to strictly regulate private military groups and associations. It also reaffirmed the Cruikshank decision that the Second Amendment acts as a limitation upon the federal government and not the states. However Presser also stated that setting the Second Amendment aside, the states could not prohibit the "people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security..."

Of the Second Amendment cases, U.S. v. Miller is the most mis-cited (intentionally and otherwise) by the lower courts, not to mention the news media, textbooks and encyclopedias. Some courts have acknowledged the true holdings of Miller, but then simply disregarded them.

 

[jillian]

I know what the cases say. And none of them have gone anywhere near where you'd like. And, in fact, in Miller, the Court specifically AVOIDED going there.

Like I said, I'll wait for the Court.

 

[Alpha1]

I know what the cases say. And none of them have gone anywhere near where you'd like. And, in fact, in Miller, the Court specifically AVOIDED going there.

Like I said, I'll wait for the Court.

Well Miss Lawyer, Lets not give the readers the impression that the Court has never commented on the 2nd Amendment.....
------------------------------------------------------

Who are "the people"? According to Chief Justice Rehnquist, the phrase "the people" was a term of art used by the Framers. Rehnquist wrote:

The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people." See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1, ("Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble")

Justice Hugo Black (one of the judges who decided Miller), commenting on the Second Amendment said, ' Although the Supreme Court has held this Amendment to include only arms necessary to a well-regulated militia, as so construed, its prohibition is absolute.'
------------------------

 

[midcan5]

Most gun huggers and so called rights advocates miss the point that guns are more than a object used to kill, they are part and parcel of our society and as such are the cause of many needless deaths. As we have argued often, you can't keep canons in your yard, nor explosives and there is a reason for that, just as simply there is a good reason to control guns. No sane society would / should worship the right to arm its citizens.