New Second Amendment Forum: The Right of the People

DBKP announces the opening of its new Second Amendment forum, moderated by RidesAPaleHorse.
DBKP Forum: The Right of the People



This bears repeating...

Article [II.]
"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."

The Second Amendment

The Second Amendment guarantees: "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."

This guarantees a citizen's right to keep and bear arms for personal defense. The revolutionary experience caused our forebears to address a second concern -- the ability of Americans to maintain a citizen militia. The Founding Fathers trusted an armed citizenry as the best safeguard against the possibility of a tyrannical government.

James Madison, author of the Second Amendment, wrote that Americans had "the advantage of being armed," that was lacking in other nations, where "the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." Patrick Henry proclaimed the "great object is that every man be armed. . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." The Second Amendment was then, as it is today, about freedom and the means to protect it.

In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Supreme Court refused to take judicial notice that a short-barreled shotgun was useful for militia purposes. Nowhere did the court hold that an individual does not have a right to keep and bear arms. In United States v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 846, 850 n. 7 (9th Cir. 1996), Judge Kozinski opined that "The Second Amendment embodies the right to defend oneself and one’s home against physical attack." In United States v. Hutzell, 217 F.3d 966, 969 (8th Cir. 2000), the court held that "... an individual's right to bear arms is constitutionally protected, see United States v. Miller ...." In United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001), the court examined United States v. Miller and held: "We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment. We hold, consistent with Miller, that it protects the right of individuals ... to privately possess and bear their own firearms ...."

The U. S. Supreme Court has recently recognized the Second Amendment as an important individual right. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992); United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1991).

On December 17, 2004, the U.S. Department of Justice published an exhaustive Second Amendment memorandum. It concludes without reservation that "the Second Amendment secures a personal right of individuals, not a collective right that may only be invoked by a State or a quasi-collective right restricted to those persons who serve in organized militia units."
--2004 Memoranda and Opinions




The Founding Fathers distrusted a government that wouldn't trust its people. To fulfill the promise of the Declaration of Independence, the authors of the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights made it clear that individual rights were paramount. The Bill of Rights, wrote Madison, was "calculated to secure the personal rights of the people."

Some claim that banning only certain firearms does not constitute an infringement of Second Amendment rights. That measured ploy is not new. George Mason exposed it at Virginia's constitutional convention in 1788: "[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man . . . to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually."

Our founders risked their lives to create a free nation, and they guaranteed freedom as the birthright of American citizens through the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment remains the first right among equals, because it is the one we turn to when all else fails.




by RidesAPaleHorse
images: RAPH
Sources:
* The Second Amendment
* The Right of the People
DBKP.com - Bigger, Better!.
Back to DBKP at Blogger Front Page

Government Takes Your Freedom Away One-at-a-Time

"Government never takes freedom in one swift move. It regulates and legislates it away, a little at a time-- mostly in the name of "protecting" you."

--R. E. Bierce

The Supreme Court is deciding on whether the government has to respect the Bill of Rights.

A public service reminder from DBKP.

by Mondoreb
image: myspace forums
Source: Government and the Loss of Freedom
DBKP.com - Bigger, Better!.
Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.
DBKP.com - Bigger, Better!.

DC v Heller: Court to Decide If the Bill of Rights is Valid

The Supreme Court declared that they believe the Constitution is not a fairy tale.

But the argument will be over whether gun-owners live happily ever after in America.

With nothing less than the sanctity of the Second Amendment at stake, several justices seemed reluctant to place their faith in freedom, preferring to let city officials legislate it away.

Justice Stephen Breyer, who only many times only recognizes a constitutional right to freedom once someone lands in prison, asked a typical Breyer-like question.

Is it "unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate ... to say no handguns here?" Breyer asked.

Americans have a right to own guns, the justices agreed.

Governments have a right to regulate those firearms, a majority of justices seemed to agree. But there was less apparent agreement on the case they were arguing: whether Washington's ban on handguns goes too far.

Will the Court decide that the Second Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, is still valid?
Read the rest of "DC v Heller: Deciding If the Bill of Rights is Valid".

by Mondoreb
image: RidesAPaleHorse; DBKP file
Sources:
* Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns
* Brian Thomas: Don't let our government protect away freedoms
* Government and the Loss of Freedom
DBKP.com - Bigger, Better!.
Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.
DBKP.com - Bigger, Better!.

Reuters: Americans with Guns Are Not All Drug Dealers or Urban Criminals

"The owners are not just urban criminals and drug dealers. There are hunters and home security advocates, and then there are the gun collectors."

--Reuters news story



Reuters published a story today about gun ownership in the USA. In the course of their meticulous research, they made an amazing discovery.

American gun owners are not all drug dealers and urban criminals.

Reuters then ran the story, YahooNews picked it up and the world NOW knows that there are a few gun-owning Americans who are not criminals--they're just gun nuts.

(Reuters) - An odd contraption in retired firefighter Alex Black's cluttered garage looks a bit like the hand winch at the top of a well. In fact, it is a machinegun.

Turning the shiny brass handle spat out a withering hail of bullets that transformed modern warfare.

"You march in to battle in straight lines against this, and nobody comes back," said Black, standing beside the hefty, carriage-mounted Colt Gatling Gun, which he restored over the course of a decade.

Reuters then reveals to the world that in a country of 300 million, there are 200 million firearms.

What's wrong with that?

Some Americans would maintain that that's not enough.

Black, who lives in this sleepy ranching town on the Arizona-Mexico border, is one of millions of gun collectors in the United States, where authorities estimate that there are more than 200 million firearms held in private hands in a country of 300 million people.

The American affinity for guns may puzzle foreigners who link high ownership rates and liberal gun ownership laws to the 84 gun deaths and 34 gun homicides that occur in the United States each day and wonder why gun control is not an issue in the U.S. presidential election.

It isn't an issue--yet.

But the next paragraph in the Reuters story is where the wire service unveils either its ignorance, political view or, most likely, both.

The owners are not just urban criminals and drug dealers. There are hunters and home security advocates, and then there are the gun collectors.

And, of course, if you own many guns you are a gun nut.

Reuters can't believe, apparently, that anyone would describe themselves that way.

Black's friend Lynn Kartchner is another self-described "gun nut" who lives in Douglas. He has a private arsenal of around 100 handguns, shotguns and rifles of all sorts which he uses for everything from hunting prairie dogs and rabbits to target shooting.

Europeans--Reuters is based in Europe--have a hard time understanding the American Second Amendment and why gun ownership is so important to many Americans.

Of course, Europeans who did understand the concept immigrated to the U.S. in years past.

The individual right to bear arms to protect home, family and neighbors and the notion of self-defense will get tested in the Supreme Court case set for next Monday, Heller v DC.

Reuters ends up the article with a quote from gun-owner Kartchner that they probably thought would chill the blood of most European readers.

But it likely elicited nodding of heads and smiles in most of the USA.

Kartchner has meticulously prepared the defense of his home.

He keeps a semi-automatic shotgun loaded with buck shot and heavy lead slugs behind the bedroom door, and a high-powered AR-15 assault rifle loaded in the next room.

"Guns are for projecting force," he says matter of factly, distinguishing firearms from other collectibles.

"Mao Zedong said 'power grows from the barrel of a gun,' and indeed it does."

The temptation is to file this story under "Dumbass".

Europeans are beginning to have to deal with a wide variety of problems on the continent that the political elites have been ignoring.

Criminal lawlessness, murders, honor killings, riots and other threats to the safety of individuals make a lot of Europeans wish, no doubt, that they had a right to bear arms.

The prediction is that the situation will get worse before it gets any better.

Perhaps then, Reuters will make an amazing discovery that there are some Europeans who own guns that are not criminals or drug dealers.


by Mondoreb
image: jerseynut
Source: For some in the US, Guns are a hobby, like any other
DBKP.com - Bigger, Better!.
Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.

Montana to Secede? Montana Legislators Warn Supreme Court Not to Violate Compact over Gun Rights

Montana Legislators Fire a Shot Across the Supreme Court's bow over Second Amendment case

We may move to Montana.

Members of the Montana legislature are hinting that if the Supreme Court rules against and individual's gun rights as protected by the Second Amendment, it would invalidate Montana's agreement it signed with U.S. when it became a state in 1889.

From Reason:

An interesting wrinkle in the gun-rights controversy: Various Montana politicians have signed a resolution arguing that anything other than an individual-right interpretation of the Second Amendment (at issue in the forthcoming Supreme Court case Heller v. D.C.) would violate the compact between Montana and the U.S.

Excerpts from the resolution:

WHEREAS, when the Court determines in Heller whether or not the Second Amendment secures an individual right, the Court will establish precedent that will affect the State of Montana and the political rights of the citizens of Montana;

WHEREAS, when Montana entered into statehood in 1889, that entrance was accomplished by a contract between Montana and the several states, a contract known as The Compact With The United States (Compact), found today as Article I of the Montana Constitution;

WHEREAS, with authority from Congress acting as agent for the several states, President Benjamin Harrison approved the Montana Constitution in 1889, which secured the right of "any person" to bear arms, clearly intended as an individual right and an individual right deemed consistent then with the Second Amendment by the parties to the contract;

............
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the undersigned members of the 60th Montana Legislature as follows:

1. That any form of "collective rights" holding by the Court in Heller will offend the Compact; and.........4. Montana reserves all usual rights and remedies under historic contract law if its Compact should be violated by any "collective rights" holding in Heller.

Some Montana legislators have big ones

A more detailed explanation: "Does a "collective rights" view of the Second Amendment breach Montana's contract for statehood?"

The only difference between a compact and a contract in any reasonable usage of the terms as they apply here is that a compact is more generally an agreement between or among states.

UPDATE: 9:10 pm EST Thursday February 21, 2008 Just saw this at the AR-15 forums Secy of State Brad Johnson of Montana delivered a letter to the Washington Times about possible outcomes of the Heller decision. Second Amendment an individual right The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide D.C. v. Heller, the first case in more than 60 years in which the court will confront the meaning of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Although Heller is about the constitutionality of the D.C. handgun ban, the court's decision will have an impact far beyond the District ("Promises breached," Op-Ed, Thursday). The court must decide in Heller whether the Second Amendment secures a right for individuals to keep and bear arms or merely grants states the power to arm their militias, the National Guard. This latter view is called the "collective rights" theory. A collective rights decision by the court would violate the contract by which Montana entered into statehood, called the Compact With the United States and archived at Article I of the Montana Constitution. When Montana and the United States entered into this bilateral contract in 1889, the U.S. approved the right to bear arms in the Montana Constitution, guaranteeing the right of "any person" to bear arms, clearly an individual right. There was no assertion in 1889 that the Second Amendment was susceptible to a collective rights interpretation, and the parties to the contract understood the Second Amendment to be consistent with the declared Montana constitutional right of "any person" to bear arms. As a bedrock principle of law, a contract must be honored so as to give effect to the intent of the contracting parties. A collective rights decision by the court in Heller would invoke an era of unilaterally revisable contracts by violating the statehood contract between the United States and Montana, and many other states. Numerous Montana lawmakers have concurred in a resolution raising this contract-violation issue. It's posted at progunleaders.org. The United States would do well to keep its contractual promise to the states that the Second Amendment secures an individual right now as it did upon execution of the statehood contract. BRAD JOHNSON Montana secretary of state Helena, Mont. Montana, the Second Amendment and D.C. v. Heller A massive, spirited discussion followed. A few of the comments: Mxpatriot51: "Now that's a kick ass state." Voodoo3dfx: "I can see this happening a lot more in the future as the BOR is being ripped to shreds."' Echoing our thoughts, CM Johnson: "I'm SURE that Sarah Brady, Diane Feinstein, and a fwe other anti-gunners would find this to be rather frighening. I believe Heller will go in our favor. But if not...I'm moving to Montana!" discoJon1975: "I'd become a citizen of Montanastan even if it meant losing my military pension in 9 years!" There are 21 pages of comments, some revealing, many funny. UPDATE #2: This is from last week's AP: Montana has joined 30 other states in urging the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold a lower court ruling, affirming the individual's right to bear arms. Attorney General Mike McGrath says the states signed a "friend-of-the-court" brief, that supports a federal appeals court ruling that the District of Columbia's ban on handguns violates the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

It's about time that political figures--any political figures--stood up against the ever-encroaching power of the federal government.

Montana's legislators are to be applauded.

As Frank Zappa once sang, "Moving to Montana soon..."

by Mondoreb
images:
* strangesports
* Montana t-shirt
Source: Montana: Wrong Heller Decision Would Violate Its Compact with the United States



Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.

John McCain and the Second Amendment: Where Does He Stand?

A Mixed Bag...


...But not as bad as Clinton or Obama

"He is really hard to get a fix on with gun rights."

John McCain and the Second Amendment: how does he stack up?

When we tackled the question, we have to confess, we didn't know. We assumed that McCain's record on Second Amendment issues would be the same as the rest of his record: more conservative than most Democrats, but not an advocate for the gun owner.

And at the conclusion of reading McCain and gun control articles by various Second Amendment groups and gun owners' rights websites, that's the evaluation that remains.

After reviewing all the information on John McCain and his record on Second Amendment issues, we have to agree with gun rights website, Front Sight's, appraisal.

"He is really hard to get a fix on with gun rights."

Some groups hold McCain's feet to the fire whenever he teams up with Democrats on any gun control legislation.

That's fair.

Government never takes away rights in one fell swoop: it is almost always incrementally, over a period of time that citizens lose their rights.

And government, especially the U.S. federal government, is especially jealous of the power it gets. Once it gets power, it almost never ever (the 21st Amendment being the only exception we can think of) gives it back.

A quick survey of what's been said of the Republican front-runner on gun rights from around the web.

The Buckeye Firearms Association:

As if there wasn't already plenty of evidence that Senator John McCain is the wrong choice for pro-gun Republicans in the Presidential primary, the Columbus Dispatch has added one more item to the list:

The specter of Mike DeWine as U.S. Attorney General.

BFA then cites a story from the Columbus Dispatch titled, "DeWine Could have a Shot in a McCain Cabinet". The Buckeyes weren't too fond of DeWine, describing him as "an anti-gun candidate sporting a Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (formerly Handgun Control Inc.) endorsement, [who] proved himself out-of-touch with Ohio voters on the Second Amendment, [and] was drummed out of office just over 1 year ago."

The Ohio report then lists a little bit of background about Mike DeWine and his attitude toward Americans and firearms.

In 2006, Human Events Online named DeWine among the Top 10 anti-gun U.S. Senators. And shortly before his defeat, DeWine took a position in opposition to legislation which barred gun manufacturers, distributors, dealers or importers from frivolous lawsuits designed to put them out of business. He consistently cast his votes on the side of the most rabid anti-gun Democrats in the Senate. And now he wants you to cast your vote for Senator John McCain.

Approximately 1/2 million people have hunting and/ or concealed handgun licenses in Ohio. According to the Minneapolis StarTribune's Dennis Anderson, Ohio gun owners made up 27 percent of the total vote in Ohio in the year 2000.

And they were none too happy with Mike DeWine, McCain's possible Attorney General.

Another gun website was unhappy at McCain in 2001: www.gunowners.org. It gave the Arizona Senator "Two Thumbs Down" for his appearance in a trailer attached to "Pearl Harbor", then showing in theaters nationwide.

Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona has appeared onscreen in many theaters, peddling a dangerous and very explosive propaganda -- thanks to an anti-gun group based out of Washington, D.C., which is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to run the political ad as a trailer in theaters this spring.

Urging parents to lock up their guns at home, Sen. McCain says "we owe it to our children to be responsible by keeping our guns locked up." This might sound "responsible" at first blush, until one realizes this one-size-fits-all approach can be deadly.

The reason? People don't know exactly when they will wake up and find themselves under attack. Like the Japanese zeros, criminals do not phone ahead and tell their victims to prepare for an assault.

Locking up one's guns might sound to some like the "responsible" thing to do. But if, God forbid, you should have to use your gun in an emergency, you can be sure of one thing: the thug in your home will not have a trigger lock on his gun.

Click on image to enlarge McCain warning label

In 2002, McCain sponsored legislation with Joseph Liberman(CN) to crack down on private sales at gun shows. According to a NewsMax story:

The gun-grabbing senators are now threatening to insert their bill (S.890), banning private sales at gun shows unless all gun buyers undergo background checks, as an amendment to other bills, according to Gun Owners of America (GOA).

Americans for Gun Safety(AGS)--(Ed. note: a gun control group]--has already claimed there was a link between terrorism and gun shows. No such link was ever demonstrated. It was all immersed in deception used to exploit the 9-11 tragedy. Americans paid no heed to this nonsense and instead rushed to buy firearms for self and family protection.

Gun owners should be concerned. As GOA declared in a press release: "Even more ominous, the McCain bill would threaten the very existence of gun shows. S. 890 would impose a five-year jail sentence on any gun show organizer if a single attendee of the show were not notified of his obligations under the Brady law. Obviously, if this bill were passed, an organization would be foolish to even sponsor a gun show."

The gun site, Front Sight, is more charitable about McCain's gun record: it calls it "mixed".

It has an excellent summary of John McCain's statements, votes and record on almost every gun control and 2nd Amendment issue that has come before the Senate during McCain's tenure there.

Front Sight's summary on McCain:

John McCain suffers from “senator’s disease” as a presidential candidate: as a long-time U.S. Senator, he has the most documented track record on the issues of all the top echelon candidates for 2008. Living up to his reputation as a maverick and a free thinker, McCain has not toed the gun rights party line. His record is profoundly mixed. Sometimes he has been with us; sometimes he has been very much against us. At times he has advocated positions such as mandatory gun locks and background checks at gun shows and then voted against the legislation when it finally came to a vote. Also he has voted against particular issues and then later advocated them in public statements. He is really hard to get a fix on with gun rights.

For a complete breakdown on McCain's record on guns, visit the Front Sight article, "John McCain on Gun Control".

In conclusion, we'd have to say that John McCain is more conservative on this issue than on many others. Whether McCain is a conservative, as McCain, his backers, the New York Times and other Mainstream Media outlets insist, is problematic.

On many issues, the Arizona Senator and the Senators from Illinois (Barack Obama) and New York (Hillary Clinton) have virtually identical records or stands.

We think he's definitely better on this issue than the two Democrats running for president.

However, that's a decision that each voter, particularly Second Amendment enthusiasts, will have to make.

John McCain and gun control.

What do you think?

by Mondoreb
hat tip: pat
images:
* joebluhm
* Bob McCarty
Sources:
* John McCain on Gun Control
* Gun Shows and Gun Control
* Another sign John McCain is no friend of Gun Owners
* DeWine could have a shot in McCain cabinet
* Two Thumbs Down for John McCain's Gun Control Ad



Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.

Guns: An Individual Right Given by the Founding Fathers

“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.”

--2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Such importance was placed on the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, that the Founding Fathers placed it second, only behind freedom of speech, assembly and the press.

The U.S. Supreme Court is going to hear a case that will decide if that right, given to every free citizen of the United States, set forth in the Bill of Rights and reaffirmed throughout American history, can be taken away.

For more, Red Planet Cartoons has some background and information to get a discussion going - "An Individual Right"

If the Founders were alive today, there's little doubt they'd be troubled by the infringements on basic individual rights and the erosion of the freedoms they left us.

About one thing, they would breathe a sigh of relief: citizens still have the right to bear arms. That right is a last guard against tyranny which many countries lack.

No matter what anyone tells you: a Republic never outgrows the need for its armed citizenry.

by Mondoreb
[image:redplanetcartoons]



Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.

Bill of Rights Video: Ted Nugent on the 2nd Amendment

In this 3-minute video, "Sweaty Teddy" holds forth on the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. Short and sweet.



Back to Front Page.