Shut the F**k up with your NRA version of the 2nd amendment!
Americans HATE YOU! Canadians LAUGH at you. You see the difference.
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, US Constitution
*****
Courts limit 2nd amendment
One argument tried by gun lovers is that the Supreme Court has never ruled on the 2nd Amendment. Wrong. From an excellent overview of The Myth of the Second Amendment:
As a matter of law, the meaning of the Second Amendment has been settled since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). In that case, the Court ruled that the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was to "assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia.
Since the Miller decision, lower federal and state courts have addressed the meaning of the Second Amendment in more than thirty cases. In every case, up until March of 1999, the courts decided that the Second Amendment refers to the right to keep and bear arms only in connection with a state militia.
What about all the lower federal and state rulings, which have the force of law unless they're overturned? One correspondent's analysis:
The issue of whether gun nuts have a constitutional right to run loose with their guns has been argued many times in the courts. The courts are unanimous in ruling that laws regulating the ownership of guns do not violate the Second Amendment.
Here's some of what the judges have said:
________________________
Since the Second Amendment right "to keep and bear arms" applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm. . .
—United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103.
________________________
An examination of the way other states have construed their constitutional right to bear arms statutes further supports the belief that no fundamental right to possess an assault weapon exists.
—Robertson v. City & County of Denver, 874 P.2d 325.
________________________
The [Second] amendment is a limitation only upon the power of Congress, and not upon that of the States.
—Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252
________________________
It is abundantly clear both from the discussions of this amendment contemporaneous with its proposal and those of learned writers since that this amendment, unlike those providing for free speech and freedom of religion, was not adopted with individual rights in mind, but as a protection for the States in the maintenance of their militia organizations against possible encroachments by the federal power.
—Tot v. United States, 131 F. 261
________________________
Under the controlling authority of Miller we conclude that the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the second amendment.
—Quilici v. Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261
________________________
To apply the amendment so as to guarantee Oakes' right to keep an unregistered firearm which has not been shown to have any connection to the militia, merely because he is technically a member of the Kansas militia, would be unjustifiable in terms of either logic or policy.
—United States v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384.
________________________
[I]t is well settled that the restrictions of these amendments operate only upon the Federal power, and have no reference whatever to proceedings in state courts.
—Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535.
________________________
It must be remembered that the right to keep and bear arms is not a right given by the United States Constitution.
— Eckert v. City of Philadelphia, 477 F.2d 610
________________________
A fundamental right to keep and bear arms has not been the law for 100 years...Cases have analyzed the second amendment purely in terms of protecting state militias rather than individual rights.
—United States v. Nelsen, 859 F.2d 1318
________________________
The courts have consistently held that the second amendment only confers a collective right of keeping and bearing arms which must bear "a reasonable relationship to a well-regulated militia."
—U.S. v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548
________________________
In short, the Second Amendment does not imply any general constitutional right for individuals to bear arms and form private armies.
—Vietnamese Fishermen's Association v. Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, 543 F. Supp. 198
________________________
It is not sufficient to prove that the *weapon* in question was susceptible to military use. It is evident that Hale's weapons were of a military nature and possessed the capability of killing and maiming groups of persons. Rather, the claimant of Second Amendment protection must prove that his or her *possession* of the weapon was reasonably related to a well regulated militia.
—United States v. Wilbur Hale, 978 F.2d 1016.
________________________
An individual has no private right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.
—United States v. Pencak, 872 F. Supp. 410
________________________
The right to keep and bear arms for the common defence does not include the right to associate together as a military organization, or to drill and parade with arms in cities and towns, unless authorized to do so by law.
—Commonwealth v. Murphy, 166 Mass. 171, 44 N.E. 138
________________________
The Supreme Court of the United States has held that the Second Amendment was not adopted to guarantee the right of the individual to bear arms, but rather to protect the states in the maintenance of their militia organizations against possible encroachments by federal power.
—Eckert v. State of Pennsylvania, 331 F. Supp. 361
________________________
The National Guard is the modern Militia reserved to the States by Art I, Sec 8, cl 15, 16, of the Constitution.
—Maryland v. United States, 381 U.S. 41
________________________
The right of the people to keep and bear arms for their security is preserved, and the manner of bearing them for such purpose is clearly indicated to be as a member of a well- regulated militia, or some other military organization provided for by law.
—Blaksley v. City of Salina, 72 Kan. Rpt. 230
________________________
With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such [militia] forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
—United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174.
________________________
The question has been faced by several states. State constitutions which provide to the 'people' the right to keep and bear arms for the common defence do not necessarily grant individuals that same right. The right is not directed to guaranteeing individual ownership or possession of weapons.
—Rabbit v. Leonard, 413 A. 2d 489
________________________
These legislative restrictions [the Omnibus Crime Control Act] on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939) (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia").
—Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55
________________________
There is nothing in the language of our state constitution or in the history of the right to "bear arms", as protected by the federal and various state constitutions, which lends any credence whatsoever to the claim that there is a constitutional right to carry a firearm into a drinking establishment.
—Second Amendment Foundation v. City of Renton, 668 P.2d 596
________________________
Most students of the subject would undoubtedly express agreement with the substance of the currently expressed view that "the term 'well-regulated militia' must be taken to mean the active, organized militia of each state, which today is characterized as the state National Guard."
—Burton v. Sills, 248 A. 2d 521
________________________
These decisions signify, and history supports the position, that the amendment was drafted not with the primary purpose of guaranteeing the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms but, rather, to allow Americans to possess arms to ensure the preservation of a militia.
—Arnold v. City of Cleveland, 67 Ohio St. 3d 35
________________________
Even as against the United States, furthermore, the Second Amendment protects not an individual right but a collective right, in the people as a group, to serve as a militia.
—In Re Application of Atkinson, 291 N.W.2d 396
________________________
This court is unaware of a single case which has upheld a right to bear arms under the Second Amendment to the Constitution, outside of the context of a militia.
—Thompson v. Dereta, 549 F. Supp. 297
The courts aren't quite unanimous since the 1999 Cummings ruling. But the Miller decision allowing gun regulation is still the law of the land. And if a few courts rule individuals have some right to bear arms, or even every right to bear arms, it doesn't change the meta-message.
The meta-message is that the 2nd Amendment is subject to interpretation, and the democratic majority will interpret it as it sees fit. If gun nuts don't like it, they can get the hell out of the country. "Love it or leave it" is the only choice "We the People" are offering them.
And from The Myth of the Second Amendment:
Even if one believes that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms, does that mean that all gun control laws are unconstitutional? Of course not. In fact, several states have clauses in their state constitutions which explicitly guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms, yet not a single gun control law has been overturned in those states for violating that clause.
The rights guaranteed by the Constitution have never been absolute. The First Amendment protects the freedom of the press, yet libel laws prevent newspapers from printing malicious lies about a person. The First Amendment also protects free speech, yet one cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre. |
