2nd Amendment


Diamond Member
Nov 22, 2003
Well the 1st amendment threads getting a lot of traffic, why not this? Links at site. An observation, it seems the left has given up on this for the most part. Americans are not too agreeable to the idea of being left without the ability to react, against intruders or government:


June 22, 2006


Arizona voters may get a chance to do something that Gov. Janet Napolitano would not: limit her power to take away their guns or limit their rights to carry guns during an emergency. On a 4-2 party-line vote, the Republican-controlled Senate Government Committee approved a measure Tuesday that would legally bar any governor from using a state of emergency to place new restrictions on the possession, transfer, sales, carrying, storage, display or use of firearms or ammunition. The bill also would remove any ability to commandeer and use weapons or ammunition during any state of war.

Meanwhile, Prof. Joseph Olson emails:

Minnesota AG Mike Hatch has joined twelve other Attorneys General in supporting a meaningful individual right to keep and bear arms. The amicus brief was filed June 16, 2006 in Parker v. DC. (the Cato Institute-backed Second Amendment-based challenge to DC's gun ban now on appeal in the US Court of appeals for the Disctrict of Columbia Link).

The AGs' position is that:

"The district court's holding that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms denies American citizens a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. *** [A]lthough the individual right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment is not an absolute right immune from any restrictions whatsoever, ... the D. C. Code provisions ... which essentially impose blanket prohibitions on handgun ownership and possession of functional long guns..., are fundamentally inconsistent with the Second Amendment right of Americans to keep and bear arms. As such, they are unconstitutional on their face."

I'm not expecting a win on this, but it's more sign of shifting sentiments, and politics.
posted at 12:50 PM by Glenn Reynolds
It's a good law. The second ammendment's original intention was to prevent the government from being able to take away our guns by declaring a state of emergency. During a state of emergency, the government should be able to commandeer citizens, much like police can deputize in desperate situations. However, you don't get the gun without the owner behind the gun. I'm also not averse to the government asking permission to use private firearms if it's short a few bullets, but it's the owner's choice.
A number of states are passing such laws, after Mayor "Chocolate City" Nagin flatly stated that he was disarming all New Orleans citizens in the immediate aftermath of Katrina. Many citizens have still not received their confiscated firearms back.

It is utterly ridiculous for a government to disarm its citizens during an emergency or natural disater - the times when police are least available to assist citizens in need and citizens need the protection of their firearms.

New Topics

Forum List