Cheney Opposing D.C. Gun Ban

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

Are you in favor of no regulation on the ownership of weapons?

Stinger missles for whover can afford them?

I want a customized F-16. It qualifies.

Hey, its in the constitution and is says “arms…right…shall not be infringed…”

If the government didn’t steal our money they couldn’t afford them either.

Maybe the amendment needs to be rewritten to keep the citizenry from uprising. But I think that was the intent of that right. If the intent is to protect the individual from the state then it seems foolish to limit the word “arms” to mean handgun.

The original Amendment capitalized the word Militia and not the word people. It was later changed to militia and People. I think they intended the People to have the power.[/quote]

The amendment does not need to be retooled. It was created to give the citizenry the power (or at least the means) to rise up against their government should they deem it necessary.

Ignore the last post. I didn’t read the entire thread before posting it. My bad.

Often, the ownership of heavy weapons gets brought up by gun banners as a red herring.

“You want an assault rifle? Why don’t I just let you have a nuclear weapon?”

Few of us really want to push the argument for private ownership of heavy weapons at this point. The NRA generally states that they want to keep their fight limited to firearms in a traditional sense…firing a small(largest I know of is .68 calibre) metal projectile.

Explosive weapons are legally regarded as destructive devices, not firearms. Sometimes the legislators and judges will pull the wool over our eyes and declare a particular shotgun a “destructive device”, but that is a sham. Do I personally think the government has some interest in regulating the real heavy stuff? Probably(notice I said regulating, not prohibiting). It may be a mistake to link those with firearms.

It should be noted some private citizens do own howitzers, flame throwers and so on, but I can imagine what they went through to get them(just check out the knob creek shoot).

I just think our energy would be better spent trying to get less regulation of 14" barrels, automatic weapons, silencers and imported arms than pushing all the way for grenades and mortars.

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
The gun culture prefers to emphasize the 2nd Amendment’s second clause, but, even respecting the 9th and 10th amendments, why do we not consider the primacy of the first clause?[/quote]

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State…”

The primacy of the Second Amendment is the precept for the entire argument for self-regulation of a “free State.”

A free State is one in which the People regulate and are responsible for their own security. The word free implies the absence of central authority unless called into active service by Executive authority when war has been declared by Congress. The militia of a free State is completely voluntary. Thus the DoD needs to be abolished and the DoWar needs to be reenacted.

A large active standing military was not intended by the framers as the People were to use the right of self defense granted in the Second Amendment against all enemies foreign and domestic. A “free State” demands self-regulation on all fronts. Congress does not have the authority to regulate the arms of the People.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
… Congress does not have the authority to regulate the arms of the People.[/quote]

They use the word regulated in the amendment.

I think what the framers had in mind with the militia is that large standing armies of professional soldiers under the command of a central government are a threat to freedom.

The second amendment does say that it’s purpose is to give the people the means of defending their freedom. It does not mention hunting, which John Kerry and others have tried to imply it is for.

An old but good article:

http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amsanjose.htm

[i]Posted on Fri, May. 17, 2002

GUN CONTROL
DECIDING WHO OWNS `RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS’
By Eugene Volokh

Do you and I have the right to bear arms? The Bush administration’s Justice Department recently answered with an emphatic ``Yes.‘’

As gun-control advocates cried foul and gun-rights supporters cheered, the government filed Supreme Court briefs May 6 in two cases, officially weighing in on the debate about the Second Amendment to the federal Constitution. The Justice Department rejected the executive branch’s longtime position that the right to own guns is a collective right given to state militias, claiming instead that the right belongs to individual gun owners.

The current position of the United States is that the Second Amendment more broadly protects the rights of individuals, including persons who are not members of any militia or engaged in active military service'' to possess and bear their own firearms,‘’ the Justice Department said.

The briefs acknowledged that the government was reversing several decades of its own constitutional policy, as well as challenging trends in the lower courts since the 1930s.

This policy, though a break with the recent past, fits into a long historical tradition. Americans from the Founding Fathers to the early 1900s took for granted that the right to bear arms is a right of individuals – not of the states or the National Guard.

This view of the Second Amendment as securing an individual right can be seen in the works of leading early constitutional commentators, such as Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (who was educated in the law in the decade after the Bill of Rights was enacted), St. George Tucker and Thomas Cooley. It is supported by similar provisions in states’ bills of rights, and in state legislatures’ calls for a federal Bill of Rights.

The individual rights position was the nearly unanimous view of courts and commentators throughout the 1800s, and was endorsed by Congress in the Freedmen’s Bureau Act of 1866.

It was only in the 1930s that elite legal opinion began to shift, as lower federal courts started to embrace the states’ rights view. Lower court decisions in the 1970s and 1980s reinforced this interpretation. The Supreme Court has never definitively resolved the question, making the Justice Department’s switch particularly significant.

Though the Bush administration’s position supports the individual right to own a gun, the government briefs stress that this right is nevertheless limited, like freedom of speech and other individual rights. Just as libel and child pornography are not protected by the First Amendment, neither is ownership of guns by violent felons protected by the Second Amendment. Many current gun-control laws would be upheld even under the government’s new position.

But if the Bush administration’s Second Amendment theory becomes law, some changes are likely. The Washington, D.C., handgun ban, for example, would probably be struck down as too broad. Similar bans in Chicago and other cities also would be vulnerable, provided that the Supreme Court follows its past practice and applies the restrictions of the Bill of Rights not only to the federal government, but also to the states.


EUGENE VOLOKH is a professor at the UCLA School of Law. He specializes in constitutional law and wrote this article for Perspective.
WHO POSSESSES THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS? IN ONE VIEW, IT’S THE INDIVIDUAL, NOT THE STATE

HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION

The Bush Justice Department’s May 6 decision to support an individual’s right to own guns independent of a militia is a reversal of previous administrations’ positions. But the author argues that there is ample evidence to show that the individual right to own guns was well-accepted in the 1700s and 1800s. He lays out his evidence in the chronology below, and also shows how opinions shifted in the 1900s, when the first major federal gun-control laws were passed.

1765: Sir William Blackstone, a powerful influence on the Framers’ thinking, publishes his famous Commentaries on the Laws of England.'' He describes the British right to bear arms, a predecessor to the Second Amendment, as one of the rights of the subject’’ – in other words, an individual right.

1776: Pennsylvania enacts the first state bill of rights, which protects the right to bear arms gun-ownership right from being abridged by the state. This provision and similar ones in other early state constitutions are evidence that the right to own guns was aimed at constraining state governments rather than empowering them to form militias.

1788: New York, North Carolina and Virginia demand that Congress secure the right to bear arms, and they define ``militia’’ as the citizenry at large. Rhode Island makes a similar demand in 1790.

1791: The U.S. Bill of Rights is enacted, including the Second Amendment: 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 phrase the right of the people’’ is also used in the First and Fourth amendments, which secure individual rights to petition the government and to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures.

1792: Passage of the federal Militia Act, which defines ``militia’’ as all able-bodied white male citizens ages 18 to 45 – not as a small National Guard-like group. Constitutional amendments passed after the Civil War eliminate the racial restriction.

1803: St. George Tucker, the first prominent American legal commentator, publishes his edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries, applying them to U.S. constitutional law. He says the Second Amendment prevents the government from disarming the citizenry.

1833: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, the leading American constitutional commentator of the early 1800s, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States,'' describes the Second Amendment right to bear arms as belonging to the citizens,‘’ and echoes Tucker’s view.

1866: Congress enacts the Freedmen’s Bureau Act. Part of it aims to protect the constitutional right to bear arms'' for black people, alongside their rights to personal liberty’’ and to owning property.

1880: Michigan Supreme Court Justice Thomas Cooley, the leading American constitutional scholar of the 19th century, stresses in his ``General Principles of Constitutional Law’’ that the right to own guns belongs to all the people, not just a small subgroup.

1934: The National Firearms Act – the first major federal gun-control law – is enacted. It is mostly aimed at weapons associated with organized crime, such as machine guns and sawed-off shotguns.

1939: The U.S. Supreme Court, in United States vs. Miller, says the Second Amendment protects only those arms that have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.'' But the court also stresses that militia’’ means ``all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.‘’ The court does not say that the right belongs to the states or the National Guard. It is the court’s only modern Second Amendment decision. (From 1820 to 1998, the court has referred to the Second Amendment 28 times, usually tangentially. Twenty-two of the 28 opinions quote only the right-to-bear-arms clause, without mentioning the militia language.)

1942: Two lower federal court decisions treat the Second Amendment as securing a states’ right, beginning a trend that continues to this day.

1956: The current Militia Act is passed, defining ``militia’’ as all male citizens age 17 to 45. (Given recent constitutional decisions, today this probably includes women, too.)

1960: Sens. John F. Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey express support for the ``right of each citizen’’ to bear arms. Their views illustrate that even as lower federal courts adopted a states-right view of the Second Amendment, many politicians and average citizens continued to view the right as an individual one.

1968: The Gun Control Act of 1968 is enacted. It requires professional gun dealers to get licenses, bans felons from possessing guns and sets up a variety of other gun controls. This marks the start of a 30-year period in which Congress enacts a string of gun-control laws.

1986: The bipartisan Firearms Owners’ Protection Act is enacted. It specifically asserts that the right to bear arms is an individual right.

2000: Liberal legal scholar Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law School concludes, in his widely respected Constitutional Law treatise, that the Second Amendment secures a individual right to own guns. His position is in line with many other recent legal writers, conservative and liberal alike.

2001: In United States vs. Emerson, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules that the Second Amendment does protect individual rights,'' but allows limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions or restrictions.‘’ This is the first time a federal court of appeals adopts the individual-rights view. Emerson was accused of possessing a firearm while under a domestic restraining order.

2002: The Department of Justice adopts the individual-rights view in two filings to the Supreme Court, one on the Emerson case and another on a case involving a ban on unlicensed machine gun possession.

This timeline is by Eugene Volokh. For the documents listed in this timeline, go to http://volokh.blogspot.com/ and click on ``Sources on the Second Amendment.’ [/i]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
… Congress does not have the authority to regulate the arms of the People.

They use the word regulated in the amendment.[/quote]

I used it as a verb, they used it as an adjective.

As an adjective, this usage of the word regulated means organized.

Organization does not necessarily mean thru central legislation.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
The gun culture prefers to emphasize the 2nd Amendment’s second clause, but, even respecting the 9th and 10th amendments, why do we not consider the primacy of the first clause?

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State…”

The primacy of the Second Amendment is the precept for the entire argument for self-regulation of a “free State.”

A free State is one in which the People regulate and are responsible for their own security. The word free implies the absence of central authority unless called into active service by Executive authority when war has been declared by Congress. The militia of a free State is completely voluntary. Thus the DoD needs to be abolished and the DoWar needs to be reenacted.

A large active standing military was not intended by the framers as the People were to use the right of self defense granted in the Second Amendment against all enemies foreign and domestic. A “free State” demands self-regulation on all fronts. Congress does not have the authority to regulate the arms of the People.[/quote]

Your points are respected, as are the ones made by Volokh in BostonBarrister’s post above.

But, Lifty, I ask you to read the other opinion, by Petitioners, in the Volokh link above. It is at least as convincing as Respondent’s brief, or more so.

For instance, in regard to Madison’s motivations and choice of words:

"The language used in the Second Amendment originated from the amendments proposed at the Virginia ratifying convention, but the wording changed during the drafting process in the First Congress. Madison, the initial drafter of the Amendment, made several changes to the Virginia proposals, notably merging the conscientious objector provision (19th) with the right to bear arms and militia provisions (17th):

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

1 Gales & Seaton�??s History of Debates in Congress (�??Debates�??) 451 (1789). Although the conscientious-objector clause did not survive, the initial inclusion of the �??bear arms�?? phrase in both the first and third clauses strongly supports the conclusion that Madison understood the Amendment as a whole to relate to military service alone."

I would suggest that both interpretations are correct, and Madison and the Framers were purposefully ambiguous: they believed that the right to keep arms accrued to citizens as individuals; and the right to bear arms was limited to the utility of a free people’s militia. A free people’s militia is a regulated organ of its constituted authority, the state (they did not have the concept of “The State.”)

But nowhere, I contend–noting Jefferson’s hyperbolic appeals to “water the tree of liberty” with the blood of rebellion–does the Constitution, or The Federalist, guarantee the right of armed insurrection, and gurantee the right to bear weapons for that purpose.

As for the DoD comments, I know, Lifty, you are sincere, but, in the 21st Century, you cannot be serious.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
I think what the framers had in mind with the militia is that large standing armies of professional soldiers under the command of a central government are a threat to freedom.
[/quote]

And history has shown that the framers were absolutely right.

[quote]JD430 wrote:
The NRA generally states that they want to keep their fight limited to firearms in a traditional sense…firing a small(largest I know of is .68 calibre) metal projectile.

[/quote]

The .700 Nitro express is .70 caliber. You may be thinking of paintball projectiles. :stuck_out_tongue:

With a 1000-grain projectile, the .700 only develops about 500 more foot-pounds of muzzle energy than the good old .50 BMG firing an 800-grain projectile.

I’d rather have the 50. Ammo is cheaper.

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

As for the DoD comments, I know, Lifty, you are sincere, but, in the 21st Century, you cannot be serious.[/quote]

Because in the 21st Century, the probability of the United States ever having a tyrannical government that needs to be opposed by armed, free citizens is exactly zero?

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:

As for the DoD comments, I know, Lifty, you are sincere, but, in the 21st Century, you cannot be serious.

Because in the 21st Century, the probability of the United States ever having a tyrannical government that needs to be opposed by armed, free citizens is exactly zero?[/quote]

Context, from Lifty’s post, and from the 2nd Amendment: the 18th Century armed forces were raised from state militias.
I do not think that, in the 21st Century, that is a practical answer to whatever military problems the US may have. And neither do you.

Do I fear an armed, tyrannical government? Try practicing my profession. You have not yet felt the thumb of government, my friend.
Do I fear an armed, radicalized bunch of self-anointed Believers led by a charismatic in Waco, or Ruby Ridge? No…that would never happen. But, gosh…the SLA and Patty Hearst did not seem very threatening either.

So, as much as I respect your need to defend your beliefs against the Black Helicopters, I ask, “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”

I’m not particularly worried about black helicopters, Doc. Abrams tanks, on the other hand, might pose a problem.

And in answer to your question, I submit Plato’s answer that we must instill in the watchers a distaste for power. Or at least a distaste for the consequences of the abuse of power. An armed citizen is in a better position to do that than an unarmed, or worse, disarmed subject.

Oh, and you should know that a man needn’t be either a member of the “gun culture” or a conspiracy freak in order to want to remain armed and free.

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
I ask, “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”
[/quote]
This is precisely the point of the second Amendment. We are guaranteed to have our right of self defense protected by means of our own arms.

In a free society every individual must protect himself and his own self-interest. Every individual must be on guard for his own security. Why would any rational creature submit themselves to the security of an unreliable, monolithic State?

As much as I respect the discipline and skill I gained from my stint in the USMC I do not entirely trust any organization with my or my family’s well being. It’s not because I feel that they are evil just that I do not believe in the concept of common good anymore.

I would like to give a more thorough, thoughtful reply to your other posts but its getting late and I am too tired to make coherent arguments right now.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
… Congress does not have the authority to regulate the arms of the People.

They use the word regulated in the amendment.

I used it as a verb, they used it as an adjective.

As an adjective, this usage of the word regulated means organized.

Organization does not necessarily mean thru central legislation.

[/quote]

Since they are talking about a singular militia I expect a form of centralized control was in their thinking.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:

As for the DoD comments, I know, Lifty, you are sincere, but, in the 21st Century, you cannot be serious.

Because in the 21st Century, the probability of the United States ever having a tyrannical government that needs to be opposed by armed, free citizens is exactly zero?[/quote]

Because in the 21st Century a militia will not do well against bombers from foreign powers. We didn’t defeat the Axis Powers of the 20th Century with a militia. We defeated them with tanks and planes. Not exactly the things we keep in our closets and gun cabinets.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:

As for the DoD comments, I know, Lifty, you are sincere, but, in the 21st Century, you cannot be serious.

Because in the 21st Century, the probability of the United States ever having a tyrannical government that needs to be opposed by armed, free citizens is exactly zero?

Because in the 21st Century a militia will not do well against bombers from foreign powers. We didn’t defeat the Axis Powers of the 20th Century with a militia. We defeated them with tanks and planes. Not exactly the things we keep in our closets and gun cabinets.[/quote]

True, but the militia was never intended to be used outside of American soil. In every attempt the federal government ordered militia outside of American soil (such as repeated attempts to invade Canada) the militia refused the orders. Besides, the militia has been an inferior fighting force on an open battlefield to begin with. Yet the myth of the citizen soldier is an enduring one.

Fighting on your home soil it would be nice to have tanks and planes, but they aren’t necessary for success when you have a rifle (and more importantly the training and courage to use it) behind every tree.

mike

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
JD430 wrote:
The NRA generally states that they want to keep their fight limited to firearms in a traditional sense…firing a small(largest I know of is .68 calibre) metal projectile.

The .700 Nitro express is .70 caliber. You may be thinking of paintball projectiles. :stuck_out_tongue:

With a 1000-grain projectile, the .700 only develops about 500 more foot-pounds of muzzle energy than the good old .50 BMG firing an 800-grain projectile.

I’d rather have the 50. Ammo is cheaper.[/quote]

Forgot about the .700 Nitro. I stand corrected. I don’t shoot at anything nearly large enough to require that round but you certainly have a right to it…

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
I’m not particularly worried about black helicopters, Doc. Abrams tanks, on the other hand, might pose a problem.

And in answer to your question, I submit Plato’s answer that we must instill in the watchers a distaste for power. Or at least a distaste for the consequences of the abuse of power. An armed citizen is in a better position to do that than an unarmed, or worse, disarmed subject.

Oh, and you should know that a man needn’t be either a member of the “gun culture” or a conspiracy freak in order to want to remain armed and free.[/quote]

Agreed in every point.

The watchers must have a distaste for power. It is in my memory that, not federal troops, but well-regulated state militias were a bigger threat to personal freedom. Whatever one’s politics, the examples I choose are: State troopers in Little Rock, state police in Kent State, various state authorities in Birmingham and Jackson. I do not put responsibility entirely at the feet of the Governors of the time, but in several instances it was Federal power that protected individual liberties.

So I asked the question, “who watches the watchers” with ambivalence: the Feds watch the state militias, sometimes. Citizen soldiers may be misguided in their suspicions about the Federal government. I submit there is more to fear from a posse comitatus, the KKK, and other self-appointed armed Guardians of Liberty; I want to be protected from them.