Hunting

Robert_E.Lee · September 8, 2006, 9:13am

^What you describe infringes upon my rights as an American as stated in the Bill of Rights.

mini · September 8, 2006, 1:38pm

Which well-organized militia do you belong to?

“The Second Amendment in fact does not give individuals a right to own guns, and every federal court that has ever looked at the Second Amendment,with the exception of one recent exception of a trial court in Texas,…has held that the Second Amendment…must be read in relation to state militia, state-sanctioned militia.”

<a href=“http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/#Scene_1[/url]”>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/#Scene_1</a>

<a href=“http://www.guncite.com/burger.html[/url]”>http://www.guncite.com/burger.html</a>

GHBrown08 · September 8, 2006, 4:19pm

What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ don’t you get?

It doesn’t say “shall not be infringed for state-sanctioned militia members.”

mini · September 8, 2006, 4:20pm

This isn’t a matter of opinion, except that of the federal courts, and since Miller (1939), they are virtually unanimous as to what it means.

Which part of “unanimous” don’t you get? (And why do you think the NRA - with its huge war chest - hasn’t been willing to bring a single gun-related case to a Republican-dominated Supreme Court?)

Robert_E.Lee · September 8, 2006, 4:37pm

My constitution says, “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” I hate how liberals try to misinterpret our Constitution for their own personal gain. Your liberal senators and representatives have even tried to pass bills in Congress to have another Constitutional Convention in order to rewrite our Constitution…

<pre><code> Amendment 2 seems pretty clear to me.
</code></pre>

driver · September 8, 2006, 4:38pm

Much smarter people than Mini have been wrestling with this issue for far longer. <a href=“http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/testimon.htm[/url]”>http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/testimon.htm</a>

         The U.S. Supreme Court Cases Do Not Treat the Right as a Collective Right&lt;/p&gt;

<pre><code> The U.S. Supreme Court has said little about the Second Amendment, but it has certainly not said that the Amendment secures only a collective right.

      Throughout the Court's history, the Justices have mentioned the Second Amendment, usually in passing, in 27 opinions.  In 22 of these 27, the Justices quoted or paraphrased only "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" language, without even mentioning the Militia Clause. 15

      One of the remaining five cases -- and the only extended 20th-century discussion of the right -- is United States v. Miller (1939), which held that the right extended only to weapons that were rationally related to the preservation of the militia. 16  But the Court emphatically did not hold that the right belonged only to the state or the National Guard.  Rather, it reaffirmed that the "militia" referred to the entire armed citizenry, and considered on the merits a lawsuit that was brought by an individual (Miller), not by a state.

      The only Supreme Court case that leans in the collective rights direction is Lewis v. United States (1980), which summarily rejected an ex-felon's claim of a right to possess a firearm, in passing citing some lower court cases that took a collective rights view. 17  But Lewis could equally well be explained as concluding only that ex-felons don't have a right to keep and bear arms (something that's also been held in the many states whose constitutions unambiguously guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms).  In any event, if one relies on passing mentions, Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992) (quoting Justice Harlan) in passing described liberty as including "[freedom from] the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on" -- a description that treats the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right on par with the other individual rights. 18

      Despite all the above evidence, the federal courts of appeal have unanimously subscribed to the states' right approach, though there are a few recent hints to the contrary in some opinions. 19  If the historical or textual evidence were in equipoise, and if the cases dealt carefully with the evidence and explained why the pro-states'-right evidence was more persuasive than the pro-individual-right evidence, then perhaps we might defer to these courts' views.  But when the lower courts' decisions are contrary to the unanimous weight of the evidence, and do not really confront this evidence but rely almost entirely on bald assertions or on citations to other lower court decisions, it seems to me that we must respectfully say that the lower courts are mistaken.

</code></pre>

mini · September 8, 2006, 4:41pm

“Amendment 2 seems pretty clear to me.”

It IS pretty clear, as Burger, and every Chief Justice of the Supreme Court since the 1939 Miller case agree.

Now if you’d like that changed, try to get the NRA to bring a case. Good luck to you.

Robert_E.Lee · September 8, 2006, 4:48pm

Well, all I know is that Amendment 2 is still alive and well today. I guess the liberals have been pretty unsuccessful trying to pass their anti-gun propaganda through Congress thus far. Boy do I love living in Conservative nation, do you not agree? Someone here mentioned putting all the guns in a storage building somewhere. When I read that, I nearly fell out of my Oval Office swinging chair.

<pre><code> -George W. Bush
</code></pre>

driver · September 8, 2006, 5:05pm

As I said, much greater minds have been puzzling with this for much longer than Mini.

<pre><code>08/27/99- Updated 12:34 AM ET

Scholar’s shift in thinking angers liberals
By Tony Mauro, USA TODAY

Publication of the first volume of a revised edition of a legal treatise would not ordinarily make news.

But even before it began arriving at law schools last week, Laurence Tribe’s American Constitutional Law was causing a stir.

Tribe, a Harvard law professor who is probably the most influential living American constitutional scholar, says he has already gotten hate mail about his new interpretation of the right to bear arms contained in the Second Amendment.

Relegated to a footnote in the first edition of the book in 1978, the right to bear arms earns Tribe’s respect in the latest version.

Tribe, well-known as a liberal scholar, concludes that the right to bear arms was conceived as an important political right that should not be dismissed as “wholly irrelevant.” Rather, Tribe thinks the Second Amendment assures that “the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification.”

Tribe posits that it includes an individual right, “admittedly of uncertain scope,” to “possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes.”

None of Tribe’s new thinking changes his view that gun-control measures are “plainly constitutional,” but his shift has been enough to anger gun-control advocates.

“I’ve gotten an avalanche of angry mail from apparent liberals who said, ‘How could you?’” Tribe says. “But as someone who takes the Constitution seriously, I thought I had a responsibility to see what the Second Amendment says, and how it fits.”

Tribe’s views on the Constitution are of more than passing importance.

Earlier editions of Tribe’s treatise have been quoted more than 50 times in Supreme Court opinions - by liberal and conservative justices - and by the top courts of India, Germany, Russia and Canada, among others.

The new edition also deals with the law on impeachment developed from President Clinton’s trial, as well as the Supreme Court trend cutting back on congressional power.

“He has an audience well beyond law students,” says Drake University law professor Tom Baker, who assigns Tribe’s book to students. “For Larry Tribe to say that there’s more to the Second Amendment than originally thought is very important, and reflects an open-mindedness that some don’t expect.”

Glenn Harlan Reynolds of the University of Tennessee adds: “He legitimizes this whole new body of scholarship, and it will force judges and others to face the issue on its merits.”

At the usually conservative law school at Pepperdine University, professor Douglas Kmiec recommends the book to “the very best students.” On the Second Amendment, Kmiec says, Tribe’s book offers “a fair and evenhanded appraisal of what is still an inconclusive right.”

Also this piece by Sanford Levinson in the Yale Law Journal:
</code></pre>

<a href=“http://www.guncite.com/journals/embar.html[/url]”>http://www.guncite.com/journals/embar.html</a>

GHBrown08 · September 8, 2006, 5:10pm

Here is what I understand: unanimity may connote correctness, but it does not denote it.

GHBrown08 · September 8, 2006, 5:14pm

Just imagine if this appeared in the constitution:

Able bodied women in the military being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the People to an abortion shall not be infringed.

How would you interpret that today?

bandit_TX · September 8, 2006, 7:46pm

What did the framers of the Constitution say? Reading the history of the 2nd Amendment (and the whole Bill of Rights) makes it clearly an individual right. Do your own research, but do read the various wordings including James Madison’s original.

MallomarCookie · September 8, 2006, 8:00pm

It may be revolting to you, but if you’re not picking up the tab, I think your son should be able to do it if he wants.

coureur · September 8, 2006, 11:42pm

So what’s wrong with that?

To begin with, Constitution itself provides (in Article V) for calling another Consitutional Convention to amend it in any way that is deemed necessary. So to deny this right would be, well, unconstitutional.

And that’s how the current constitution got written in the first place. If we couldn’t call new constitutional conventions we’d still be stuck with the Articles of Confederation.

Allmusic · September 9, 2006, 6:52am

I really is a good thing that the Republican led Congress allowed the Assault Weapons ban to lapse. Time to get me an AK47 (is that the right one?).

Honestly, for what purpose does any individual need to own an assault weapon?

Robert_E.Lee · September 9, 2006, 9:57am

Allmusic, do you actually think that a middle class American family would use that AK47 for anything more than to defend their home? Really, the Constitution gives us the expressed power to own arms in order to defend our home. Our founding fathers created the second amendment for the sole purpose of defense. No matter how much liberals hate that amendment, it will stay there because the security of a family is far more important than the agenda of a liberal senator or representative.

Allmusic · September 9, 2006, 12:32pm

Do you need an AK47 to defend your home? And against what?

Robert_E.Lee · September 9, 2006, 3:42pm

I am just speaking of firearms in general. Everyone should have the right to own a firearm for protection. Our founding fathers understood this, and so do I and many of the greatest political thinkers of the day.

Hunting

CONNECT WITH US