Classifieds Opinions Features Sports News

Second Amendment is not crucial for everyone to consider
November 16th, 2006
Letter to the Editor
The column entitled, "The Second Amendment is crucial for everyone to consider," (CT, Nov. 15) was chock full of fallacious arguments and historical inaccuracies. I want to set some of these things straight:

1 - "There is no better barometer for government involvement and ignoring citizens' rights than on gun issues," since there is a "constitutional amendment that expressly prohibits government infringement." Fact: the Supreme Court of the United States has not once accepted the Second Amendment right of individual gun rights as a defense. Different interpretations have arisen concerning the language of the amendment, but the court has repeatedly ruled that the amendment can play no role in canceling out state or federal laws restricting or regulating the purchase, transport or ownership of guns. All 50 states have such laws.

2 - " … if (Gandhi) can be against government's disarming citizens …" Fact: The Gandhi quote cited refers to a blanket deprivation of arms, including citizen militia groups, so even a gun-control advocate could agree with Gandhi's statement, in line with a very narrow interpretation of the Second Amendment.

3 - "But it's not about carrying a gun or not, guns are merely tools in the hands of people." Fact: Study after study has concluded that states with permissive gun laws have higher incidences of suicide, homicide (especially by family members), accidental death (especially children) and lethal robbery and theft. States clearly have discovered compelling reasons to restrict the number and kinds of weapons that their citizens can carry in various settings. They have an interest in protecting our lives, sometimes by limiting our freedoms.

 

Matthew Antonini

Graduate Student, Philosophy

1.5 / 5 (37 Votes)

Yelling fire in a crowded theater (by Dennis H. on 25th November) If we were to apply prior restraint to the first amendments' free speech guarantee, then it would be permissible, if not required, to gag a person the second he walked into a theater simply because he may yell fire, not because he showed any predilection to do so, but simply, because he has the ability.
Yelling fire in a crowded theater (by Dennis H. on 24th November) Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. wrote, no one has the right to falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater, and rightly so. The First Amendment also does not protect defamation, invasion of privacy, copyright infringement, threats or harassment. It boils down to the consequences of ones' own actions.

You are not prohibited under law from yelling fire, you are prohibited from FALSELY yelling fire. Even then, the restriction doesn't go to First Amendment restrictions, but to laws against reckless endangerment.

The argument falls flatter when we realize that the prohibition on "yelling fire" requires that the act must first be committed, whereas most gun control legislation creates prohibitions based on prior restraint. Prior restraint is an abuse of Second Amendment rights because it pre-punishes individuals for actions that are possible, not imminent.

If we were to apply prior restraint to the first amendments' free speech guarantee, then it would
A State Right, indeed! (by Charles Norris on 23rd November) The erroneous concept, both philosophical and legal, that states have "Rights" is a common error. A State can only have powers, powers coffered upon the state by individuals with the Right to vote. Once one begins to view Rights and Powers in their proper places, as did the Founding Fathers, the meaning of the Second Amendment is clarified
Rights are restricted as a last resort (by susan on 20th November) Most gun rights activists would be quite happy to have the 2nd Amendment treated with the same deference shown to the other amendments: restrict the right only as a last resort and in as limited a manner as posible.

As for the dependent clause of the 2nd Amendment, it is gramatically identical to the following: "A well educated electorate, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed. English 101.
By the way. (by Greg on 20th November) You CAN walk into a nursing home in Colorado with a machine gun in hand for no other reason than thinking it might be fun. If you discharge a round, you will likely be arrested, but as long as you have paid the transfer tax to own a machine gun there is no law against it here. For the record, machine guns (real assault weapons) have been hevily regulated by the federal government, not the state govenments for over 70 years. There are hundreds of thousands of them in circulation. You could still buy them new from the manufacturer up until 1986, and you can still buy them today if they are transferrable. (aka legally owned) There has been ONE felony in 70 years commited with a licensed machine gun in the United States. It was commited by an off duty police officer in Dayton, Ohio. Other than that one "bad cop" the entire body of the citizens of the United States that owns fully automatic weapons has never in over 70 years shot anyone with one of those weapons. Look
Rights are restricted as a last resort (by susan on 20th November) Most gun rights activists would be quite happy to have the 2nd Amendment treated with the same deference shown to the other amendments: restrict the right only as a last resort and in as limited a manner as posible.

As for the dependent clause of the 2nd Amendment, it is gramatically identical to the following: "A well educated electorate, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed. English 101.
Rights are restricted as a last resort (by susan on 20th November) Most gun rights activists would be quite happy to have the 2nd Amendment treated with the same deference shown to the other amendments: restrict the right only as a last resort and in as limited a manner as posible.

As for the dependent clause of the 2nd Amendment, it is gramatically identical to the following: "A well educated electorate, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed. English 101.
Miller actually didn't rule against armed citizens (by Greg on 20th November) The Miller vs. US case did not show that Miller could not have a weapon as an individual, it (incorrectly) ruled that a citizen cannot have a weapon classified as a weapon not suitable for militia use as a citizen. If he had owned a machine gun, would that not have been an appropriate weapon for a milita? The ruling implies that had his weapon been for something other than concealment, he would not have been in violation of the law (other than the NFA of 1934). As far as a short barrel shotgun not being a weapon suitable for a milita, this type weapon was currently in use in the military as a "trench gun". It is still used today in the military. The reason Miller's attourney did not argue this on his behalf is because the case was tried AFTER Miller had died and his defense was possibly not as vigorous as it would have been had he been alive. As far as Study after study showing increases in crime where there are more liberal gun laws, I would like you to refer me to
Miller actually didn't rule against armed citizens (by Greg on 20th November) The Miller vs. US case did not show that Miller could not have a weapon as an individual, it (incorrectly) ruled that a citizen cannot have a weapon classified as a weapon not suitable for militia use as a citizen. If he had owned a machine gun, would that not have been an appropriate weapon for a milita? The ruling implies that had his weapon been for something other than concealment, he would not have been in violation of the law (other than the NFA of 1934). As far as a short barrel shotgun not being a weapon suitable for a milita, this type weapon was currently in use in the military as a "trench gun". It is still used today in the military. The reason Miller's attourney did not argue this on his behalf is because the case was tried AFTER Miller had died and his defense was possibly not as vigorous as it would have been had he been alive. As far as Study after study showing increases in crime where there are more liberal gun laws, I would like you to refer me to
Amendments (by Matthew Antonini on 20th November) All guaranteed rights to the people have been restricted in various ways. Try yelling "Fire" in a crowded area and see where your first Amendment defense gets you. Smoke some Peyote and try to call it a practice of religion. Slander your friends over the airwaves. All of these are instances of the rights and considerations of another trumping your alleged freedoms. Which is once again my point: give your fellow citizens real reasons that you should be able to do what you want, beyond "The Constitution says I can."

Besides, the language of other amendments does not lay out an express purpose for which the freedom is being guaranteed as it does in the case of the 2nd. I doubt the Founding Fathers were interested in making sure that Thomas Paine could walk to the corner store with a cannon in his trousers.
The 2nd Amendment Means What it Says (by susan on 19th November) Your position that "My point is, if you're going to argue gun rights, do so on a legislative and rational-utilitarian basis, not a rights-based, Second Amendment one." flies in the face of the expansive reading the Supreme Court has given to the other Amendments. Perhaps we should apply your "rational" argument to that pesky 1st Amendment as well?
To all constitutional scholars (by Matthew Antonini on 18th November) Tribe, Dershowitz, and Halbrook are all wonderful scholars, as I'm sure you all are, and if you keep working maybe you'll one day make it to the Supreme Court so you can be the final word on the interpretation of the Constitution. Until that day, the very silence of the Supreme Court as a body on this issue means that legislative measures are the arbiter. As I pointed out, ALL 50 STATES have assented (to varying degrees).

Think about this: If the radical, “no infringement” argument is correct, then I can walk into a nursing home tomorrow with a machine gun in hand for no other reason than thinking it might be fun. This is absurd. The question, then, is how much regulation is appropriate. My point is, if you're going to argue gun rights, do so on a legislative and rational-utilitarian basis, not a rights-based, Second Amendment one.
Second Amendment crucial (by Dennis H on 18th November) Editor,

I would have loved to have seen my entire comment about Steven Halbrook published in full. The portion you did publish (twice) is incomplete and out of context.

If you cannot publish my comments in their entirety, please remove all of it.

Thank you,

Dennis
Second Amendment...crucial / Mr. Antonini has some reading to do (by Dennis H. on 17th November) Stephen Halbrook, renowned expert on Constitutional Law says this about Miller v U.S.:

In deciding Miller, the Court ignored the collective right argument and avoided determining whether a shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches may be registered and taxed under the National Firearms Act consistent with the Second Amendment. The district court had declared the Act facially violative of the Second Amendment, and thus no evidence was in the record that such a shotgun was an ordinary military arm. The Supreme Court remanded the case for fact-finding based on the following:

Miller v U.S. "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice
Second Amendment...crucial / Mr. Antonini has some reading to do (by Dennis H. on 17th November) Stephen Halbrook, renowned expert on Constitutional Law says this about Miller v U.S.:

In deciding Miller, the Court ignored the collective right argument and avoided determining whether a shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches may be registered and taxed under the National Firearms Act consistent with the Second Amendment. The district court had declared the Act facially violative of the Second Amendment, and thus no evidence was in the record that such a shotgun was an ordinary military arm. The Supreme Court remanded the case for fact-finding based on the following:

Miller v U.S. "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice
Matthew (by Henry the eighth on 17th November) Sorry Matt, you couldn't be more wrong. The State has no interest in protecting any individual citizen and there is absolutely no excuse for limiting freedoms. Once you go down that path, you are doomed.
DC Slayings usually with a gun (by Elliotte on 17th November) Just this moring I pulled out my copy of the Washington Times and on the top half of the front page is an article about the murder rates in DC. From the first paragraph of the article, "The Districtis among the major U.S. cities with the highest percentage of people being killed by firearms, despite having one of the strictist gun-control laws in the country." Later on in the article you find that last year 157 of 196, that's 80.1%, of the murders in DC were committed with a gun.

If more gun control laws are so good at stopping crime, why does a place with some of the most restrictive gun-control laws have such a high rate of murders committed with a gun?
Second Amendment...crucial (by Lee McGee on 17th November) Mr. Laurence Tribe is only one of many constitutional scholars who agree with the Framers. "Foolish liberals who want to read the 2nd Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like." -- Alan Dershowitz (certainly no right-wing gun nut)
Mr. Antonini has some reading to do (by susan on 16th November) It appears that you disagree with the noted constitutional expert Laurence Tribe. Please tell us why Professor Tribe is wrong.

Laurence Tribe, American Constitutional Law 902 n. 221 (2000): "Perhaps the most accurate conclusion one can reach with any confidence is that the core meaning of the Second Amendment is a populist / republican / federalism one: Its central object is to arm 'We the People' so that ordinary citizens can paricipate in the collective defense of their community and their state. But it does so not through directly protecting a right on the part of states or other collectivities, assertable by them against the federal government, to arm the populace as they see fit. Rather the amendment achieves its central purpose by assuring that the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification consistent with the authority of the states to organize their own militias. That assurance in turn is provided
Mr. Antonini has some reading to do (by susan on 16th November) It appears that you disagree with the noted constitutional expert Laurence Tribe. Please tell us why Professor Tribe is wrong.

Laurence Tribe, American Constitutional Law 902 n. 221 (2000): "Perhaps the most accurate conclusion one can reach with any confidence is that the core meaning of the Second Amendment is a populist / republican / federalism one: Its central object is to arm 'We the People' so that ordinary citizens can paricipate in the collective defense of their community and their state. But it does so not through directly protecting a right on the part of states or other collectivities, assertable by them against the federal government, to arm the populace as they see fit. Rather the amendment achieves its central purpose by assuring that the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification consistent with the authority of the states to organize their own militias. That assurance in turn is provided
I want to set some of these things straight: (by E. David Quammen on 16th November) Yes, let's do "set some of these things straight";

"The Constitution and laws of the United States "are the supreme law of the land," anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary, notwithstanding." Their supremacy is thus declared in express terms: "Whatever conflicts therewith has no operative or obligatory force. Allegiance to the United States, and loyalty to the United States Constitution and laws, are the paramount duty of every citizen. Within their legitimate sphere, they command the obedience of all, and no State Constitution or statute can absolve any one therefrom....As it is both the right and duty of every citizen to become fully informed upon all governmental affairs, so as to discharge his many political obligations intelligently at the ballot-box, and in other legitimate ways; and the freedom of the press and of speech are guaranteed to him for that as well as other essential purposes; and as the right
Indeed (by Matthew Antonini on 16th November) You might consider actually reading the case, friend. It very clearly states that a sawed-off shotgun could not be reasonably taken as a weapon used by a militia member. I'm not sure about the VA courts, but they certainly have a right to interpret, and the VA legislature to pass, gun laws as they see fit. It is a state right. That was my whole point. Also, if you have access to some empirical evidence that supports your claims, I would be interested in knowing more about it, as I'm sure the scientific community would. btw - I wasn't aware that there were any "guns with more permissive laws."
Indeed (by Matthew Antonini on 16th November) You might consider actually reading the case, friend. It very clearly states that a sawed-off shotgun could not be reasonably taken as a weapon used by a militia member. I'm not sure about the VA courts, but they certainly have a right to interpret, and the VA legislature to pass, gun laws as they see fit. It is a state right. That was my whole point. Also, if you have access to some empirical evidence that supports your claims, I would be interested in knowing more about it, as I'm sure the scientific community would. btw - I wasn't aware that there were any "guns with more permissive laws."
Indeed (by Matthew Antonini on 16th November) You might consider actually reading the case, friend. It very clearly states that a sawed-off shotgun could not be reasonably taken as a weapon used by a militia member. I'm not sure about the VA courts, but they certainly have a right to interpret, and the VA legislature to pass, gun laws as they see fit. It is a state right. That was my whole point. Also, if you have access to some empirical evidence that supports your claims, I would be interested in knowing more about it, as I'm sure the scientific community would. btw - I wasn't aware that there were any "guns with more permissive laws."
Indeed (by Matthew Antonini on 16th November) You might consider actually reading the case, friend. It very clearly states that a sawed-off shotgun could not be reasonably taken as a weapon used by a militia member. I'm not sure about the VA courts, but they certainly have a right to interpret, and the VA legislature to pass, gun laws as they see fit. It is a state right. That was my whole point. Also, if you have access to some empirical evidence that supports your claims, I would be interested in knowing more about it, as I'm sure the scientific community would. btw - I wasn't aware that there were any "guns with more permissive laws."
Facts: (by Anonymous on 16th November) Facts:
1) U.S. v. Miller ruled that the Second Amendment was not a collective, but an individual right. The VA courts have ruled in similar fashion, and VA is a "shall issue" state, meaning that they must issue permits to those who qualify, without judicial discretion.
2) Gun control advocates do not agree with Gandhi, most of them want no arms at all.
3) These supposed "facts" about suicide, homicide and other crimes are all outright lies. In fact, guns with more permissive laws have lower crime rates, lower murder rates, and lower overall violent crime rates. LYING is not acceptable. The STATE does not have a greater interest in protecting me than I do.

Comment:
Your name:
Your email:
Subject:
Comment:

Health Insurance
North Cyprus Properties
Home Insurance Quotes



Warning: include() [function.include]: URL file-access is disabled in the server configuration in /home/collegia/public_html/templates/5/tplcat_2_article.php on line 325

Warning: include(http://www.collegiatetimes.com/includes/ads/ads_footer.htm) [function.include]: failed to open stream: no suitable wrapper could be found in /home/collegia/public_html/templates/5/tplcat_2_article.php on line 325

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening 'http://www.collegiatetimes.com/includes/ads/ads_footer.htm' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/collegia/public_html/templates/5/tplcat_2_article.php on line 325

Powered by: PHPCow.com