Showing posts with label right to bear arms. Show all posts
Showing posts with label right to bear arms. Show all posts
Saturday, December 05, 2015
Bearing arms: collective or individual right
Those who interpret “people” in the Second Amendment to mean “persons” forget the reason for armories. Armories were where militias kept the more deadly weapons until the militia needed them. An armory is the place for semi-automatic and automatic weapons, not in any given person’s house or vehicle.
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
Who was standing whose ground?
A big deal is made that a gun-toting "neighborhood watchman" was "standing his ground" in shooting an unarmed black teenager. Have many considered that an unarmed black teenager was standing his ground against somebody who was stalking him? Ah, since he didn't have a gun, then he couldn't "stand his ground". Trayvon Martin didn't have the right to bare fists!
Sunday, May 19, 2013
There is more to the U. S. Constitution than the 2nd Amendment
The NRA and others cite the Second Amendment as giving individuals the right to bear arms. One justification they give is "the people" need arms to protect themselves against "the government". However, they neglect Article II, Sec 8, of the Constitution: Congress has the power "to call out the militia to suppress insurrection".
If you use your guns to "protect you" from the government, then you are involved in an insurrection. If you are in an insurrection, then the Constitution gives Congress the power to suppress your insurrection. Suppressing an insurrection includes taking the guns from those in the insurrection.
George Washington was involved in putting down the Whiskey Rebellion, a tax revolt from 1791-1794. See "Whiskey Rebellion", Wikipedia. The Whiskey Rebellion was quite a complicated affair, but popular support seemed to be in favor of the suppression of the rebellion. Another interesting point that some make: it was also a conflict between large distillers who paid less per gallon than small, individual distillers who paid more per gallon.
The last great Republican President put the down the biggest insurrection of all, the Civil War.
See also "Is the N.R.A. Un-American", Stanley Fish, New York Times, 2013-05-13.
If you use your guns to "protect you" from the government, then you are involved in an insurrection. If you are in an insurrection, then the Constitution gives Congress the power to suppress your insurrection. Suppressing an insurrection includes taking the guns from those in the insurrection.
George Washington was involved in putting down the Whiskey Rebellion, a tax revolt from 1791-1794. See "Whiskey Rebellion", Wikipedia. The Whiskey Rebellion was quite a complicated affair, but popular support seemed to be in favor of the suppression of the rebellion. Another interesting point that some make: it was also a conflict between large distillers who paid less per gallon than small, individual distillers who paid more per gallon.
The last great Republican President put the down the biggest insurrection of all, the Civil War.
See also "Is the N.R.A. Un-American", Stanley Fish, New York Times, 2013-05-13.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Dred Scott and the Second Amendment
What does Dred Scott have to do with the Second Amendment? The non-permanent status of Supreme Court decisions.
Dred Scott was a slave brought to Northern States by his owner and went to a Missouri Court to gain his freedom. The case was taken all the way to the Supreme Court where the case was decided 7-2 against Scott; he was regarded as property and not a citizen. See "Dred Scott v. Sanford".
The case was essentially overturned by the Fourteenth Amendment, which included "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Furthermore, there was a 8-1 Supreme Court decision supporting segregation: Plessy v. Ferguson. The lone dissenter, Justice John Marshall Harlan "wrote that the majority's opinion would 'prove to be quite as pernicious as the decision made by this tribunal in the Dred Scott case.'"
"Plessy v. Ferguson" was overturned by the Supreme Court in "Brown v. Board of Education" in 1954 unanimously 9-0!
The Second Amendment was interpreted to apply specifically to individuals in "District of Columbia v. Heller". The case was decided 5-4 with the expected votes each way.
This is a case of "activist judges" interpreting the Constitution to match their political beliefs. From the "District of Columbia v. Heller" Wikipedia page we have:
Richard Posner, judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, compares Heller to Roe v. Wade, stating that it created a federal constitutional right that did not previously exist, and he asserts that the originalist method – to which Justice Antonin Scalia claims to adhere – would have yielded the opposite result of the majority opinion.
The text of the amendment, whether viewed alone or in light of the concerns that actuated its adoption, creates no right to the private possession of guns for hunting or other sport, or for the defense of person or property. It is doubtful that the amendment could even be thought to require that members of state militias be allowed to keep weapons in their homes, since that would reduce the militias' effectiveness. Suppose part of a state's militia was engaged in combat and needed additional weaponry. Would the militia's commander have to collect the weapons from the homes of militiamen who had not been mobilized, as opposed to obtaining them from a storage facility? Since the purpose of the Second Amendment, judging from its language and background, was to assure the effectiveness of state militias, an interpretation that undermined their effectiveness by preventing states from making efficient arrangements for the storage and distribution of military weapons would not make sense.[64]
End of extract.
Wikipedia has a good entry on the Second Amendment at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution.
So, how do these cases tie together? The decisions of the Supreme Court are no more permanent than the terms of office of politicians or the "to and fro" of public opinion. Some years for now, "District of Columbia v. Heller" may be overturned by a different court or another Constitutional Amendment.
Dred Scott was a slave brought to Northern States by his owner and went to a Missouri Court to gain his freedom. The case was taken all the way to the Supreme Court where the case was decided 7-2 against Scott; he was regarded as property and not a citizen. See "Dred Scott v. Sanford".
The case was essentially overturned by the Fourteenth Amendment, which included "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Furthermore, there was a 8-1 Supreme Court decision supporting segregation: Plessy v. Ferguson. The lone dissenter, Justice John Marshall Harlan "wrote that the majority's opinion would 'prove to be quite as pernicious as the decision made by this tribunal in the Dred Scott case.'"
"Plessy v. Ferguson" was overturned by the Supreme Court in "Brown v. Board of Education" in 1954 unanimously 9-0!
The Second Amendment was interpreted to apply specifically to individuals in "District of Columbia v. Heller". The case was decided 5-4 with the expected votes each way.
This is a case of "activist judges" interpreting the Constitution to match their political beliefs. From the "District of Columbia v. Heller" Wikipedia page we have:
Richard Posner, judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, compares Heller to Roe v. Wade, stating that it created a federal constitutional right that did not previously exist, and he asserts that the originalist method – to which Justice Antonin Scalia claims to adhere – would have yielded the opposite result of the majority opinion.
The text of the amendment, whether viewed alone or in light of the concerns that actuated its adoption, creates no right to the private possession of guns for hunting or other sport, or for the defense of person or property. It is doubtful that the amendment could even be thought to require that members of state militias be allowed to keep weapons in their homes, since that would reduce the militias' effectiveness. Suppose part of a state's militia was engaged in combat and needed additional weaponry. Would the militia's commander have to collect the weapons from the homes of militiamen who had not been mobilized, as opposed to obtaining them from a storage facility? Since the purpose of the Second Amendment, judging from its language and background, was to assure the effectiveness of state militias, an interpretation that undermined their effectiveness by preventing states from making efficient arrangements for the storage and distribution of military weapons would not make sense.[64]
End of extract.
Wikipedia has a good entry on the Second Amendment at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution.
So, how do these cases tie together? The decisions of the Supreme Court are no more permanent than the terms of office of politicians or the "to and fro" of public opinion. Some years for now, "District of Columbia v. Heller" may be overturned by a different court or another Constitutional Amendment.
Thursday, February 09, 2012
Constitution, Rights, and secretive Congress
I left the following comment on OccupyVotingBooths Facebook community to an item on the arrest of Josh Fox taking pictures of a Congressional hearing. The article is "The Arrest of Josh Fox: What Are They Trying to Hide When They Deny Our Right to Take Pictures?"
This all is a slippery slope of intent. If cameras were unknown at the writing of the Constitution, then how can we positively say that use of a camera is a First Amendment right? Since multiple-shot, concealable weapons were unknown at the writing of the Constitution, then there is no Constitutional right to conceal and carry. Either we have to interpret the Constitution to cover modern technology or we have to interpret it to not give rights of use of modern technology. As it is, we are interpreting it to suit our own interests. Nothing new there.
What we can assume about the arrest of Josh Fox is that some members of Congress have something to hide.
This all is a slippery slope of intent. If cameras were unknown at the writing of the Constitution, then how can we positively say that use of a camera is a First Amendment right? Since multiple-shot, concealable weapons were unknown at the writing of the Constitution, then there is no Constitutional right to conceal and carry. Either we have to interpret the Constitution to cover modern technology or we have to interpret it to not give rights of use of modern technology. As it is, we are interpreting it to suit our own interests. Nothing new there.
What we can assume about the arrest of Josh Fox is that some members of Congress have something to hide.
Thursday, July 08, 2010
Gun rights vs. community rights
The Coffee Party web site has an interesting blog "Personal Rights vs. Community Rights".
One of the interesting statements is "I do not carry a loaded weapon in a crowded area because of what that gun could do to innocent lives if it were accidentally to go off."
Have those who exercise their "right" to bear arms by carrying a loaded pistol in stores, churches, and other public places considered the number of police officers who have been killed with their own guns? Police officers receive extensive fire arms training and practice. If a crazy can grab a gun from a well-trained police officer, cannot a crazy grab a gun from a less well-trained person? Especially in a public place where people are in close proximity to each other. Shane had the benefit of wide open spaces and carefully choosing where he sat. Other gun-carriers are not living in the Old West, but in crowded cities.
One of the interesting statements is "I do not carry a loaded weapon in a crowded area because of what that gun could do to innocent lives if it were accidentally to go off."
Have those who exercise their "right" to bear arms by carrying a loaded pistol in stores, churches, and other public places considered the number of police officers who have been killed with their own guns? Police officers receive extensive fire arms training and practice. If a crazy can grab a gun from a well-trained police officer, cannot a crazy grab a gun from a less well-trained person? Especially in a public place where people are in close proximity to each other. Shane had the benefit of wide open spaces and carefully choosing where he sat. Other gun-carriers are not living in the Old West, but in crowded cities.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Second Amendment and Insurrection
"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."
- Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
Many people are using this amendment to justify carrying guns to defend themselves against what they believe is the tyranny of the state. But the amendment doesn't mention the security of the "people"; it says that a militia is necessary for the security of the state.
Moreover, Article I, Section 8, enumerating the powers of Congress states that it shall have the power
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"
Some of the people who want to be armed against a tyrannical state give a broad definition of the Militia, citing some law defining the Militia, that the Militia includes most adult males.
So, if those arming themselves against a tyrannical state rise up against a state they judge tyrannical, then they should obey Congress when they are called upon to put down their own insurrection.
Oh, well! As I read somewhere lately, the Constitution is not a coherent philosophical document, but a political document full of compromises and sometimes inconsistencies. Too many people are making it a philosophical document, selecting only those clauses that support their political beliefs.
- Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
Many people are using this amendment to justify carrying guns to defend themselves against what they believe is the tyranny of the state. But the amendment doesn't mention the security of the "people"; it says that a militia is necessary for the security of the state.
Moreover, Article I, Section 8, enumerating the powers of Congress states that it shall have the power
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"
Some of the people who want to be armed against a tyrannical state give a broad definition of the Militia, citing some law defining the Militia, that the Militia includes most adult males.
So, if those arming themselves against a tyrannical state rise up against a state they judge tyrannical, then they should obey Congress when they are called upon to put down their own insurrection.
Oh, well! As I read somewhere lately, the Constitution is not a coherent philosophical document, but a political document full of compromises and sometimes inconsistencies. Too many people are making it a philosophical document, selecting only those clauses that support their political beliefs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)