That's the conclusion of Second Amendment scholar and Roger Williams School of Law Professor Carl T. Bogus writing on the American Constitution Society's blog on this week's Supreme Court oral arguments on whether the District of Columbia's ban on handguns violates the Second Amendment. Observing the "individual rights" tenor of the majority of the Justices' questions, Professor Bogus writes:
For those of us who believe that the collective rights model is the correct one for the Second Amendment - that is, that the Amendment, properly read, only grants a right to keep and bear arms within the government militia - oral argument in Heller v. District of Columbia was ominous. Based on comments at oral argument or previously, I count six likely votes for the individual rights interpretation: Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Breyer, Roberts, and Alito.
The Second Amendment provides a quintessential example of the adage 'a little knowledge is dangerous.' Those who know a little history tend to come out on the individual rights side. Typically, it is only after one is really steeped in the history of the Founding era that one is converted to the collective rights view. Several historians have written about this phenomenon. They are particularly disdainful of lawyers doing 'law office history' - failing to adequately understand the period under examination - and making a variety of errors as a result. One error is not appreciating that people in the eighteenth century held many different views and distinguishing between statements that represented the zeitgeist of the time and those that represented minority views. See, e.g., Don Higginbotham, The Second Amendment in Historical Context; Jack N. Rakove, The Second Amendment: The Highest Stage of Originalism.
Professor Bogus observes that this lack of appreciation seems to extend to presumed "swing vote" Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose questioning seemed more steeped in the television scripts of Fess Parker as Davy Crockett than the historical writings of James Madison as Founding Father. Questioning the District of Columbia's lawyer, Walter Dellinger, Kennedy asked:
"It had nothing to do with the concern of the remote settler to defend himself and his family against hostile Indian tribes and outlaws, wolves and bears and grizzlies and things like that?"
The answer, in a word, is no. Writes Professor Bogus:
What Virginian Madison was worried about when he wrote the Second Amendment was the possibility of Congress allowing the militia - upon which the South relied for slave control - to become 'disarmed.' Fellow Virginians George Mason and Patrick Henry had accused Madison and his fellow members of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia of giving Congress exactly that power when they wrote a document that allocated the lion's share of authority over the militia, including the authority to 'arm' the militia and thus conversely to disarm it, to the national government. See Carl T. Bogus, The Hidden History of the Second Amendment. The prospects of slave revolts were even more terrifying than grizzly bears....
It's accepted wisdom that the presumed outcome of a Supreme Court case should not be based on the nature or tone of the questions offered by the Justices. For the residents of the District of Columbia, and others across the nation protected by local, state, and federal gun laws, one can only hope that this adage holds true, and that in the interim the Court will employ more than `a little knowledge' on the Second Amendment before making its decision.
Connecticut: 1818
Indiana: 1816
Kansas: 1859
Maine: 1819
Massachusetts: 1780
Michigan: 1835
Missouri: 1820
Ohio: 1802
Pennsylvania: 1776
Rhode Island: 1842
Vermont: 1777
http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm
When it favors the anti-rights campaign, it is called "common sense."
When it opposes the anti-rights campaign, it is called "Judicial Activism(tm)."
So Josh, who are the anti's going to appeal to once SCOTUS rules in favor of true "common sense?"
VPC judges states by how many blacks were murdered solely . I can not believe no one has called the VPC out on this. This is singling out a race!! This is wrong, I gave the information to a friend at the NAACP, she is going to give the information to the Georgia head of NAACP.
Expect some calls Josh.
1. The Jim Crow laws in the South during Reconstruction. They were passed to disarm the former slaves, the newly freed African Americans.
2. The attempt to disarm the Native Americans. The White Man was even guilty of genocide against Native Americans. We should remember how General Gage gave the Native Americans blankets, which were contaminated with small pox virus. Gun control was another part of the systematic genocide of native Americans.
3. In NAZI Germany, the Jews were forbidden to own firearms. It would seem the reasoning was, the Jews would not be able to resist being sent to the death camps.
4. In the state of New York, the Sullivan Law was passed as a means of preventing the immigrants from owning firearms. This had the purpose of leaving them defenseless against the established order.
Gun control, as advocated by the Violence Policy Center, has definite racist intent.
Semper fi
Personally, I'd love a Walther PPKs. If you want to invest in the paint, I'd prefer it in Kelli green. :)
If states (or lesser juristictions within them) want to ban or regulate individual gun use (and really, the amendment says "arms" which are any instrument of warfare - think about that), that is their prorogative. This amendment only limits the Federal government from abridging such rights.
William Rawle 1791
However, you are forgetting the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights at the state level. In other words, the states cannot infringe on any of the rights guaranteed in the Bill of rights.
Again, using the states rights argument, to deny rights guaranteed by the Bill Rights, is a BOGUS argument.
This is standard nanny state tripe: "I know what's best for you so shut up and let me wrap you in a cozy blanket." No, thank you.
You have the right to your opinion and to express it in an effort to sway your legislators; that's what the first amendment is about (in spite of Senators McCain and Feinberg). That right has been clarified and codified by the Supreme Court mostly in the 20th century. They are about to do the same with the second amendment. Then, you can use your first amendment rights again to cry over spilled milk.
I respect your passion. I just wish you could focus it on whose standing behind the guns that are killing innocent people. That is the best way to solve the problem of violence; focus on the criminal.
Sincerely,
John Buckley
The term 'well regulated' meant well trained, it had nothing to do with regulations. Why would the Founding Fathers consider the Right to Keep and Bear Arms essential to having a well trained militia? The answer is simple: Shooting is a life-long learning experience. Marksmanship is not learned in a mere 8 weeks of basic military training. Good marksmanship and gun safety are learned over the course of years, and one does not stop learning.
The Constitution shall never be construed … to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. – Samuel Adams
Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest. – Mahatma Gandhi
Hey your boy Dellinger did a bang up job. He got caught in a big lie by Justice Roberts embarrasing huh?
Well Josh the good news, you can finally use the FFL you just renewed. Anyway keep up your postings and we will keep responding.
Warmest regards
~Melody~
http://tinyurl.com/2b6b6b