Will the U.S. Supreme Court Endorse a Right to Armed Revolt Against Government

This month's horrific shootings in Kirkwood, Missouri provide an all-too tragic and real context for the scholarly debate over the Second Amendment that is now before the Supreme Court in the case of Heller v. District of Columbia (Parker v. District of Columbia in the lower court). One of the key issues in the case is whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to armed revolt when an individual perceives the government's actions to be "tyrannical."

The Missouri shootings reveal that some of our citizens condone such violence. Charles Lee "Cookie" Thornton had been embroiled in a long running property dispute with the City of Kirkwood and its City Council. On February 7, he stormed a meeting of the council armed with two handguns and opened fire, yelling "shoot the mayor." When the smoke cleared, three city officials and two law enforcement officers were dead. Thornton's brother later justified the killings, telling local media, "My brother went to war... with the people, the government that was putting torment and strife into his life." Many comments on blogs and web articles covering the story echoed the same theme, including one on AOL News that stated, "GOOD!! I just hope he killed the right people, the evil ones, over this!!!!!! It is time we all stood up for our rights."

In the Heller case, the decision in question is that of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which struck down a District law that prohibits private possession of handguns except in limited circumstances. This marked the first time in history that a federal appellate court had struck down a gun control law on Second Amendment grounds.

In its decision, a panel of the D.C. Court of Appeals expressly held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess arms to defend against the "depredations of a tyrannical government." This insurrectionist philosophy has long been embraced by proponents of the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms unrelated to service in a government regulated militia. A right to arms to protect against "tyranny" is an important point to establish for the gun lobby, which seeks to keep gun ownership anonymous and unregulated by government. It is therefore no surprise that the National Rifle Association specifically endorsed the insurrectionist viewpoint in its friend of the court brief.

Following the decision of the lower court, the District of Columbia sought and obtained review of the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. In his brief to the Court, the respondent, Dick Heller, urges the Court to recognize that the Second Amendment protects the right of citizens to take up arms against their government "should our nation someday suffer tyranny again."

The need to empower government to quell armed insurrections, however, was one of the driving forces behind the drafting of our Constitution. Following the American War of Independence, private rebellions flared up, such as that led by Daniel Shays in Massachusetts. Shays and his followers attacked the armory at Springfield and attempted to shut down the local courts to prevent mortgage holders from foreclosing on their farms. "Shays' Rebellion" was put down with force, but revealed the need for a stronger central authority than that provided by the Articles of Confederation.

It is not because of sloppy draftsmanship that our Constitution prohibits treason and provides the national government with authority to "suppress insurrections." A reading of the Second Amendment that finds a right of individuals to possess arms so that they can engage in armed rebellion against the government when they perceive it to be "tyrannical" is irreconcilable with these and other provisions of the Constitution, as well as our history.

Fortunately, most Americans still believe that our courts are the constitutional method for resolving disputes, and the Supreme Court is likely to address this issue when arguments begin in the Heller case next month. For the sake of our democracy, let us hope they reject the insurrectionist principle (however much future Charles Thorntons believe themselves to be wronged). If the Court sanctions an individual right to armed violence against government, it may just limit its ability to resolve similar disputes in the future.

Comments

[patapsco99]

This is a great story. It shows that the constitution is not dead, and we do still have the right to protect ourselves from the ideas of others, look at imminent domain, the government or city council can take your land to improve an area, have more taxes, sounds like a good idea to get a gun to me. More fat cats will stop taking land illegal if they knew at anytime they can become a part of the OK Carrol. God Bless America and our forefathers because they developed the law of the land to protect us small people against greed. They were apart of the begining of globalization and hopefully us Americans are at teh end of Globalization.

[MsLiz]

You mean eminent domain.

[hopeless277]

In the first place this is not a democracy any longer. Congress has turned over all it's duties to the executive with the blessing of the courts. Our country is now operating under a facist dictatorship. In the second place, when the government proves unresponsive and openly hostile to its citizens by declaring them 'enemy combatants' and stripping them of their civil rights, as well as kidnapping them to be tortured, it is time to try something 'different'. Congress is unresponsive and impotent. Maybe they will understand a 'different' approach to getting their attention.

[WorkingClass]

I agree with hopeless. And I would add - if George Bush doesn't have to obey the law, then neither do I.

[MsLiz]

In 2004 the people re-elected these bozos. Don't give up yet. Let democracy play out. It is slow, but still alive.

[Nightowl22]

The bozos are the socialists and liberals in congress!! If not for them this war in Iraq would probably have been over before now.

[Federalist]

Oh Brother!. We are not a Fascist dictatorship. Fascism is an aspect of socialism. The term, NAZI is an abreviation for the German of: The German Socialist Workers' Party.

Next. We are not nor have EVER BEEN a "democracy." The founders abhored democracy. Benjamin Franklin said that: Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on what they shall have for lunch." And at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention, as he left the building, he was asked, "What have ye wrought?" His terse reply was: "A Republic if you can keep it." And that is what we are--a constitutional republic. Enough please of these nutcakes who either have no clue of our proper form of government, its history, and how we have lost the way as set forth by the founders. We really have to limit who is allowed to vote (which is NOT a constitutional right by the way)because these dullards are destroying the country.

[Nightowl22]

Sorry lad, once the people figured out how to vote to get what THEY want it became a democracy---EXACTLY what the framers were worried about!!

[Rule Of Law]

I agree that the founder's intent was for a republic as they trusted the citizenry not at all. However:

Fascism is typified by totalitarian attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life: political, social, cultural, and economic, by way of a strong, single-party government for enacting laws and a strong, sometimes brutal militia or police force for enforcing them.[18] Fascism exalts the nation, state, or group of people as superior to the individuals composing it. Fascism uses explicit populist rhetoric; calls for a heroic mass effort to restore past greatness; and demands loyalty to a single leader, leading to a cult of personality and unquestioned obedience to orders. Fascism is also considered to be a form of collectivi­sm.[19][20­][21] Fascism universally dismissed the Marxist concept of "class struggle", replacing it instead with the concept of "class collaboration". Fascism is a form of right-wing totalitarianism which emphasizes the subordination of the individual to advance the interests of the state.

If fascism is a right wing totalitarian government that dismisses one of the main tenets of Marx, which is class struggle, then it is certainly not Socialistic, and we are closer to it, if indeed not already there, than most people are willing to admit. Fascism also espouses the unification of Corporations and the State, again, very much like what we have in America today.

[Rule Of Law]

Also, while I enjoy your support of our Constitution, your last line sums up why Thomas Jefferson had no use for Federalists and their Proto-Monarchical mind set. Jefferson's answer for the People, was, and you can check it out, more education, not elimination. I would have to agree and also say that we have been dumbed down enough over the last 40 years and it is time that this country reclaimed its place as the premier center of Education with the highest number of educated people in the world.

[mommadona]

I am a peacenik.

I also own and know how to shoot a gun.

"In his brief to the Court, the respondent, Dick Heller, urges the Court to recognize that the Second Amendment protects the right of citizens to take up arms against their government "should our nation someday suffer tyranny again.""

I agree with Mr. Heller.

This is not a decision taken lightly.

Look what's in the works at the Federal level now, and that is why this peacenik woman keeps her guns well-maintained and loaded.

NSPD 51

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

[Rule Of Law]

Yes, one of the most frightening documents in our History, and only five people here tonight will take the time to read it!

[GritsJr]

I hate to say this, but if you embrace violence as a solution to any problem, you are not a "peacenik" or any type of advocate for nonviolence or peace.

[Sciguy]

Oh, nonsense. What am I supposed to do with the raccoons and weasels that eat my poultry - talk them into being vegetarians?

Humane traps are fine. We can catch the little buggers and transport them far enough away for them to eat someone else's poultry. Not much of a solution, is it? That's like telling the Iraqis to go kill Canadians instead of Americans. Not so hot.

[oafishcad]

If the citizens of The United States get to the point where they feel the need for armed revolt, they won't ask the permission of the Supreme Court.

[Rule Of Law]

Right On, Oaf, and as I said above, let's hope we all have made friends with folks serving in the military now, because we will need all the help we can get!

[Rule Of Law]

I seconded that earlier, Oaf, but it seems to have been lost.......

[FatHubie]

The Amendments were rendered in order of importance. But not to worry Blackwater operatives will be along shortly to get your guns.

[Semaj51]

There would be many poorer lawyers today if only the writers of the Constitution used plain and simple language in the Second Admendment. For decades, there has been case after case in the courts over the rights to own guns.

I amhappy that this specific issue is finally in front of the Supreme Court and pray that their decision will put an end to the "guns rights" issue. To tell the truth, whether this is a conservatiove or liberal court is not an issue as long as this point is finally settled. Once we know our "rights" as per the second admendment, then the local governments can develop laws and regulations which will not be an automatic feeding tray for lawyers.

[Nightowl22]

They tried to make it straightforward. Too many socialists try to bend it the way they want rather than try to understand what the framers actually mean.
Obviously they needed to define it much more!

[LeftRight]

Be honest here, BOTH sides have bent and twisted the language to mean EXACTLY what they want it to mean.

[TXfemmom]

Well, the NRA and other gun huggers must believe that armed insurrection is permissable.

Right now, our founding father, Washington, Jefferson, Hancock, Franklin, and others must be rolling over in their graves, that Americans have permitted the Bush/Cheney administration to rob the people of the freedoms and protections which they put their lives, wealth, and futures in harms' way to achieve.

Violence wouldn't be needed, just the people to have a Velvet Revolution, as the one that Bush applauded in Georgia, where the people took to the streets until the government, which had crushed their rights, resigned and fled. Americans won't even get hot or cold or wet to stand out and make Bush/Cheney to resign.

[dadw5boys]

Funny it was Jefferson that said:
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them." --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

[BeeOplentee]

Sorry, but a person's court of last resort is his/her gun..