USA Today Opinion Section (on the right to bear arms)

[rushmc 23]

Interesting read.
----------------------------------------------------------
A liberal's lament: The NRA might be right after all
By Jonathan Turley

This term, the Supreme Court may finally take up the Voldemort Amendment, the part of the Bill of Rights that shall not be named by liberals. For more than 200 years, progressives and polite people have avoided acknowledging that following the rights of free speech, free exercise of religion and free assembly, there is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Of course, the very idea of finding a new individual right after more than two centuries is like discovering an eighth continent in constitutional law, but it is hardly the cause of celebration among civil liberties groups.

Like many academics, I was happy to blissfully ignore the Second Amendment. It did not fit neatly into my socially liberal agenda. Yet, two related cases could now force liberals into a crisis of conscience. The Supreme Court is expected to accept review of District of Columbia v. Heller and Parker v. District of Columbia, involving constitutional challenges to the gun-control laws in Washington.

The D.C. law effectively bars the ownership of handguns for most citizens and places restrictions on other firearms. The District's decision to file these appeals after losing in the D.C. appellate court was driven more by political than legal priorities. By taking the appeal, D.C. politicians have put gun-control laws across the country at risk with a court more likely to uphold the rulings than to reverse them. It has also put the rest of us in the uncomfortable position of giving the right to gun ownership the same fair reading as more favored rights of free press or free speech.

The Framers' intent

Principle is a terrible thing, because it demands not what is convenient but what is right. It is hard to read the Second Amendment and not honestly conclude that the Framers intended gun ownership to be an individual right. It is true that the amendment begins with a reference to militias: "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." Accordingly, it is argued, this amendment protects the right of the militia to bear arms, not the individual.

Yet, if true, the Second Amendment would be effectively declared a defunct provision. The National Guard is not a true militia in the sense of the Second Amendment and, since the District and others believe governments can ban guns entirely, the Second Amendment would be read out of existence.

Another individual right

More important, the mere reference to a purpose of the Second Amendment does not alter the fact that an individual right is created. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is stated in the same way as the right to free speech or free press. The statement of a purpose was intended to reaffirm the power of the states and the people against the central government. At the time, many feared the federal government and its national army. Gun ownership was viewed as a deterrent against abuse by the government, which would be less likely to mess with a well-armed populace.

Considering the Framers and their own traditions of hunting and self-defense, it is clear that they would have viewed such ownership as an individual right — consistent with the plain meaning of the amendment.

None of this is easy for someone raised to believe that the Second Amendment was the dividing line between the enlightenment and the dark ages of American culture. Yet, it is time to honestly reconsider this amendment and admit that ... here's the really hard part ... the NRA may have been right. This does not mean that Charlton Heston is the new Rosa Parks or that no restrictions can be placed on gun ownership. But it does appear that gun ownership was made a protected right by the Framers and, while we might not celebrate it, it is time that we recognize it.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

More good comentary on the Right to Bear Issue. I have posted to this before. From the Olando Sentinel.

------------------------------------------------------------


Gun control doesn't protect us -- guns do
Mike Thomas | COMMENTARY
October 4, 2007
Article tools
E-mail Share
Digg Del.icio.us Facebook Furl Google Newsvine Reddit Spurl Yahoo Print Single page view Reprints Reader feedback Text size: Tiffany Barwick and Michael Ruschak asked the cops to protect them from Barwick's former boyfriend.

She told them he had harassed her, threatened to kill her, bought a gun and sent an image of her riddled with bullet holes.

A Seminole deputy advised her to get a protective court order. We all know how effective they are against the criminally obsessed.



The deputy also would send her complaint to the State Attorney's Office, which is akin to tossing it into the Grand Canyon.

There is a lesson in all this.

The cops can't protect you.

The cops could not protect Erin Belanger and her five friends who were beaten to death by Troy Victorino and his band of thugs in Deltona.

She begged police for help in the days leading up to the assault.

"Can I ask you a question?" she said to a 911 dispatcher. "What can I do?"

Or better yet, what could they do?

Nothing.

I am not knocking the cops, just acknowledging reality. There are a thousand threats in the Big City. Picking out the real ones from the bluster is an impossible task.

Given this reality, given that Central Florida is turning into a bad Mad Max sequel, my liberal belief in gun control is getting wobbly.

I'm not advocating selling machine guns and cop-killer bullets at Wal-Mart. But if somebody faces an immediate threat, I have a hard time understanding why they need to wait three days or longer to buy a handgun for self-protection.

Shouldn't we be allowed to go to a reputable gun store, get a lesson in how to use a specific weapon and buy it after the background check?

The stated reason against this is that some ill-tempered lout will blow a fuse, run off to Guns R Us, buy a Glock and open fire on his spouse, neighbor, boss or co-worker.

One might assume someone this prone to venting with a volley already has a gun, locked and loaded.

A 2000 report in the Journal of the American Medical Association, hardly part of the gun lobby, showed cooling-off periods did not reduce homicide rates or overall suicide rates.

After examining 51 studies on various gun-control laws, including mandatory waiting periods, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded in 2003 that there was "insufficient evidence" to say they reduced gun violence.

It seems we pass laws that feel good without a lot of proof they are doing any good.

Maybe I need a good slap from Ted Kennedy, but I almost buy the National Rifle Association argument that the primary target of gun-control laws would be the people who shoot them at ranges, then lovingly oil and ogle them before safely locking them up.

As far as keeping guns away from bad guys, gun-control laws work as well as crack cocaine-control laws. My footnoted reference on this would be our crime blog.

We even have high school kids in Orange County firing guns in the air at high school athletic events.

If there were no guns, I would say allow no guns. But since all the wrong people already have them, and the cops can't do much about it except match their firepower, then it may well be time to arm thyself, citizen.

When Florida liberalized permits for concealed weapons in the 1980s, critics predicted a Wild West bloodbath. It never happened.

Responsible gun owners don't use guns irresponsibly. Go figure.

Until the cops get better at enforcing gun control on those who shouldn't have guns, a better alternative for the rest of us is gun education, gun classes and secure gun storage.

Mike Thomas can be reached at 407-420-5525 or mthomas@orlandosentinel.com. His blog is OrlandoSentinel.com/mikethomas.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[normiss 800]

Here's hoping that this will create precedence for New York, Illinois....and any other state that wants to over ride the federal perspective.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

...
A 2000 report in the Journal of the American Medical Association, hardly part of the gun lobby, showed cooling-off periods did not reduce homicide rates or overall suicide rates.

After examining 51 studies on various gun-control laws, including mandatory waiting periods, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded in 2003 that there was "insufficient evidence" to say they reduced gun violence. ... .

Good article, but I'm trying to figure out what the heck the CDC is doing studying gun laws. Last I checked, "homicide" as a cause of death wasn't contagious.

[warpedskydiver 0]

If the supreme court upholds Parker vs. DC, we may get the chance to see Mayor Daley and Gov. Blowjobabitch hauled off in chains for violations of citizens civil rights.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

...
A 2000 report in the Journal of the American Medical Association, hardly part of the gun lobby, showed cooling-off periods did not reduce homicide rates or overall suicide rates.

After examining 51 studies on various gun-control laws, including mandatory waiting periods, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded in 2003 that there was "insufficient evidence" to say they reduced gun violence. ... .

Good article, but I'm trying to figure out what the heck the CDC is doing studying gun laws. Last I checked, "homicide" as a cause of death wasn't contagious.

They have done more than a few politicaly motivated reports on this supject

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Last I checked, "homicide" as a cause of death wasn't contagious.

It's no more contagious than heart disease, although homicide, by definition, is death caused by another. I see no reason why the CDC should not look at all causes of death.

---

But, back to the original article, once you find that a guaranteed right shouldn't be a right anymore, it opens the door to other rights being taken away.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

It's no more contagious than heart disease, although homicide, by definition, is death caused by another. I see no reason why the CDC should not look at all causes of death.

Center for Death Control?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[SpeedRacer 1]

Good post.

If you look up the definition of "liberal", it would seem to me that it's hypocritical of people who call themselves liberals to deny citizens this right.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[quade 4]

Quote

Good post.

If you look up the definition of "liberal", it would seem to me that it's hypocritical of people who call themselves liberals to deny citizens this right.

What would you call them then? You can't call them "conservative".

Oh wait, how about not labeling people either way? Nawww, too difficult to whip up anger over a group with no label -- better to just call anyone people disagree with a "liberal" -- that's so much easier.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Lefty 0]

Well, I'm happy Mr. Turley is coming around...but I wonder why court cases and not a personal reading of the constitution are causing him to rethink his own principles.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Well, I'm happy Mr. Turley is coming around...but I wonder why court cases and not a personal reading of the constitution are causing him to rethink his own principles.

Because it gives him no choice?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Good post.

If you look up the definition of "liberal", it would seem to me that it's hypocritical of people who call themselves liberals to deny citizens this right.

What would you call them then? You can't call them "conservative".

Oh wait, how about not labeling people either way? Nawww, too difficult to whip up anger over a group with no label -- better to just call anyone people disagree with a "liberal" -- that's so much easier.

...if the phoo shits........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Good article, but I'm trying to figure out what the heck the CDC is doing studying gun laws. Last I checked, "homicide" as a cause of death wasn't contagious.

The political elements there assert that a culture of violence begets more violence. It's a classic example of scope creep, a bureaucracy looking to extend itself.

On a practical level, if one gang shoots another, there tends to be retribution in the days ahead. And then more retribution. You can get a chain of murders that are essentially a running game of 'tit for tat.' The analogy to biology looks neat, if a bit simplistic.

[quade 4]

Quote

It's a classic example of scope creep, a bureaucracy looking to extend itself.

Maybe, then again, I think it might have something to do with a law that requires reporting of gun-shot related emergency room visits.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Well, I'm happy Mr. Turley is coming around...but I wonder why court cases and not a personal reading of the constitution are causing him to rethink his own principles.

Probably much the same reason as I have come to re-think the issue over the past few years - because both he and I, as lawyers - as contrasted with other "non-conservative, non-gun culture" people who are not lawyers - analyze the issue first and foremost as a Constitutional issue, and not simply as an issue of modern policy. And the scholarly analysis of the Constitutional issue - some of which is found in more recent court opinions (like the Washington, DC case) - has led us to conclude that the Framers did indeed intend the 2nd Amendment to convey an individual right, and not just a collective "militia" right.

The only intellectually honest way to analyze the 2nd Amendment meaning of "militia" is to look at how the Framers defined the term in the U.S.at the turn of the 19th Century - not to how we in the 21st Century might define it today. There and then, "militia" was not just people banding together when a strictly military force needed to be raised, but also individuals using their personal arms for immediate self-defense against any domestic threat to life, property and safety, when civilian lawmen were few and far between, and not easily summoned to the scene of a crime in progress.

Those that think this definition of "militia" is obsolete in modern times may be right, or they may be wrong; but lawyers understand that they cannot use mere "modern policy" as a reason to simply ignore an existing Constitutional provision (the 2nd Amendment), or legislate it into nullity. Lawyers are trained to bear in mind: if a provision of the Constitution has outlived its usefulness, or has become contrary to modern society's principles, there is only one proper way to deal with it: engage the debate and amend the Constitution - if you can.

Sometimes principle is best illustrated by actual practice. After Hurricane Katrina, civil order in New Orleans - notably including the police force - completely broke down. True anarchy reigned, and the only way many people had to protect themselves, their families and their homes from marauding thugs - and thus maintain a modicum of civil order in the community - was by use of their personal firearms. Those individual people with their guns WERE the militia in New Orleans - EXACTLY as the Framers intended that term SOME 200 years earlier. And when some police officers - by definition, agents of the central government - confiscated some of those guns, leaving those people defensless to protect their homes against looters and robbers - they were confiscating them from the militia - and in doing so, they violated the 2nd Amendment.

[dannydan 5]

If GUNS kill people then MATCHES cause arson!! I use TWO hands for my GUN CONTROL! oh pullease dont get me started on this stuff.... : DD

[mnealtx 0]

Well written, Andy.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Quote

Well, I'm happy Mr. Turley is coming around...but I wonder why court cases and not a personal reading of the constitution are causing him to rethink his own principles.

Probably much the same reason as I have come to re-think the issue over the past few years - because both he and I, as lawyers - as contrasted with other "non-conservative, non-gun culture" people who are not lawyers - analyze the issue first and foremost as a Constitutional issue, and not simply as an issue of modern policy. And the scholarly analysis of the Constitutional issue - some of which is found in more recent court opinions (like the Washington, DC case) - has led us to conclude that the Framers did indeed intend the 2nd Amendment to convey an individual right, and not just a collective "militia" right.

The only intellectually honest way to analyze the 2nd Amendment meaning of "militia" is to look at how the Framers defined the term in the U.S.at the turn of the 19th Century - not to how we in the 21st Century might define it today. There and then, "militia" was not just people banding together when a strictly military force needed to be raised, but also individuals using their personal arms for immediate self-defense against any domestic threat to life, property and safety, when civilian lawmen were few and far between, and not easily summoned to the scene of a crime in progress.

Those that think this definition of "militia" is obsolete in modern times may be right, or they may be wrong; but lawyers understand that they cannot use mere "modern policy" as a reason to simply ignore an existing Constitutional provision (the 2nd Amendment), or legislate it into nullity. Lawyers are trained to bear in mind: if a provision of the Constitution has outlived its usefulness, or has become contrary to modern society's principles, there is only one proper way to deal with it: engage the debate and amend the Constitution - if you can.

Sometimes principle is best illustrated by actual practice. After Hurricane Katrina, civil order in New Orleans - notably including the police force - completely broke down. True anarchy reigned, and the only way many people had to protect themselves, their families and their homes from marauding thugs - and thus maintain a modicum of civil order in the community - was by use of their personal firearms. Those individual people with their guns WERE the militia in New Orleans - EXACTLY as the Framers intended that term SOME 200 years earlier. And when some police officers - by definition, agents of the central government - confiscated some of those guns, leaving those people defensless to protect their homes against looters and robbers - they were confiscating them from the militia - and in doing so, they violated the 2nd Amendment.

Thank you! See my last post/ COPS.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.