Friday, March 16, 2007
"The Population of the Nanny State, being composed of irresponsible rednecks, rejects and retards, must not be allowed to have Arms."
- The Second Amendment as seen through liberal eyes, according to Human Events columnist Mack Johnson.
- The Second Amendment as seen through liberal eyes, according to Human Events columnist Mack Johnson.
That's how many on the left would indeed phrase the amendment, but now we have a substantial opinion from an influential federal appeals court saying they are wrong.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit voted 2-1 last Friday to reject on constitutional grounds a D.C. law unduly restricting the private ownership of firearms.
In overturning a federal district court's ruling supporting the ordinance, the appeals court's majority explicitly stated that "the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms" -- but "reasonable regulations," such as barring possession by felons and banning automatic weapons, are permitted.
The key word in that quote is "individual." Only one other federal appeals court -- the 5th Circuit in Texas -- has held that the right to own guns was an individual one, and that case was not appealed.
The U.S. Supreme Court has only ruled once on the issue in the past century, in a 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller, which has widely been seen as hostile to the individual-right view.
But this new ruling said that Miller, correctly understood, was at worst not hostile to an individual-right view and could be interpreted as supporting it.
D.C.'s gun ban has been one of the nation's toughest. In 1976, it forbade new handgun registrations and said that existing handguns, along with all rifles and shotguns, had to be kept unloaded and either disassembled or locked up.
That law was challenged by six District residents, who said it deprived them of their constitutionally guaranteed right to self-defense by not allowing them a "functional" weapon in their houses. They were not claiming a right to carry one on the street or to conceal one.
Just looking at the crime rates in their community, an objective observer would think they had a good point.
Since the law was passed, the District has held the title of "U.S. Murder Capital" in all but a few years (when it was second or third in per capita homicides). Denying its residents the right of self-defense hasn't had any noticeable influence on the ability of criminals to gain access to firearms.
So the plaintiffs, led by Shelly Parker, whose house had been invaded by a drug dealer, sued.
The full ruling, Parker v. D.C., is at pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf, but here are some of its highlights:
nİThe District claimed the amendment protects only a collective right because its introductory clause refers to "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. " Thus, its second clause, saying "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," refers only to the National Guard.
But the court rejected that interpretation, which it called "strained," by pointing out that the law's definition of "militia" includes all citizens fit to serve.
It added that two 19th-century cases (Dred Scott and Robertson) both referred to the "right of the people" to own firearms, and then it pounded the point home: "Every other provision of the Bill of Rights, excepting the Tenth, which speaks explicitly about the allocation of governmental power, protects rights enjoyed by citizens in their individual capacity. The Second Amendment would be an inexplicable aberration were it not read to protect individual rights as well."
Further, those rights predate the Constitution because they were well-established in English common law.
nİThe District also claimed the Miller ruling reinforced the National Guard standard by holding that sawed-off shotguns were illegal because they were not military weapons.
However, the appeals court countered that ordinary rifles and pistols are essentially equivalent to many now in military use, and it noted that the Miller decision accepted the broad definition of "militia."
So, the court said, "Miller's definition of the 'Militia,' then, offers further support for the individual-right interpretation of the Second Amendment."
nİProperly brushing aside the District's contention that it was not a "State" and therefore was not covered by this amendment, the court concluded that the right to keep and bear arms "existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad)."
The fate of a promised appeal is unknown (if the Supreme Court chooses to hear one), but the strength and depth of this ruling will cheer every American who values freedom.
M.D. Harmon is an editorial page writer and editor. He can be contacted at 791-6482 or at:
Reader comments
Sort by: Oldest first | Newest First
previous page | next page1-10 of 20 comments:
Ten thousand homicides related to firearms in the country every year? Well, would you feel any better if they'd been cut up with axes and machetes? There are over 400 million firearms in the hands of approximately 80 million people in this country. I'd say it's pretty obvious we're peacable and law abiding people, in the vast majority.
Deal with the law breakers! Bring back capital punishment, and be serious about it. Or we can provide these dirtbags with shelter and their daily bread until they're dead or so old they're not a danger anymore. Either way, makes little difference to me. But until you do this, leave me and my guns alone. Don't come around proposing anymore damned laws you haven't got the guts to enforce anyway, unless you're prosecuting some poor slob who got caught in your little scheme and wasn't truly "doing anything wrong" anyway.
Guns a crime are about as related as flies and garbage. One does not "cause" the other. My father likes to say, "Take that gun and throw it out in the yard and don't go around it. It'll never kill anybody, unless someone comes and picks it up and shoots it. It'll eventually rust and go into the ground from whence it came."
Brains and responsibility come with citizenship, and freedom is far from free and never "safe". Your version might be in your own mind, but remember what we've been told by smarter men than we.
Read up on it, see what the founders of the country and authors of the second amendment thought, truly. Then argue.report abuse
Statists have been trying for years, with a certain degree of success, to teach the kids that it is the other way around: That governments provide and grant rights. Remain obedient or lose your rights!
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance! The exercise of vigilance is facilitated by the bearing of arms.report abuse
And there's a reason that the right to bear arms is the 2nd Amendment, right after the right to freedom of speech.
The Founders had had enough of government tyranny, that much is obvious.
report abuse
Demetri,
Australia does not have a constitutional right to bear arms. In fact, in 1997, Australia put a "buy-back" program in place, and part of that law banned semi-automatic and any pump-action gun.
report abuse
You got it right, Dan. Was reading recently that the debate over whether to ratify the Constitution came up against how much power to let the uneducated "masses" have. It was only after the Bill of Rights, as promised, was added securing individual rights that enough states ratified the document and it became the law of the land.
The corruption of those rights, from habeas corpus, to gun ownership, to privacy threatens our liberties. These neocons would have us trade these liberties for a false security provided by an over powerful executive. How ironic they argue so fiercely for patriotism and a strong executive, but by doing so threaten the very foundations of the country. Scalia, by the way, called habeas rights "the very core of liberty" in his dissent in Hamdi v Rumsfeld.report abuse
Glad to hear you don't blame the gun, too many do. Blame the shooter, not his tools.report abuse
(Functions of Congress)
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
Individual ownership of guns cannot be interpreted by any standard as a "well REGULATED militia". Also, yahoos running around in their cammos in the woods living out their delusional fantasies are not under control of the civil authority and are thus accorded no recognition or right to bear arms as proscribed by the Constitution or the 2nd Amendment. Some organizations could be interpreted as having an actual function as a militia as envisioned by the founding fathers, such as the National Guard, etc.
Switzerland has almost 100% gun ownership and has almost no crime. Most or all males above a certain age are part of the national militia and report for training, and maybe even women too. If they commit a crime, they lose their weapons. Sounds fair to me. report abuse
previous page | next page
You must be a registered user of MaineToday.com to post a comment. Register or log in.