Second Amendment stuff
Whitney Kemper wrote this article in the Nashville City Paper. His conclusion is that the second amendment doesn’t support an individual right to arms. I sent Whitney Kemper the following email:
Regarding your article at http://www.nashvillecitypaper.com/index.cfm?section_id=40&screen=news&news_id=28055
You may wish to actually do some research before you take on a controversial subject like this. For example, if Miller supported the states’ right view the SCOTUS would have asked: Is Miller a state? They didn’t.
And for future reference:
US Code: Title 10
US Code as of: 01/26/98Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and,
except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United
States who are members of the National Guard.(b) The classes of the militia are –
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.Additionally, the case moving through the system now, Silveira v. Lockyer (http://keepandbeararms.com/Silveira/default.asp), is addressing specifically the individual rights view.
More facts regarding the Supreme Court addressing the second amendment from http://www.sierratimes.com/03/08/10/ar_gun_laws.htm
– The Court has not been quiet on this subject as previously thought, using some form of the word “gun” in its decisions 2,910 times (gun, rifle, pistol, shotgun, firearm, etc., even Winchester five times) in 92 cases. Three dozen of the cases quote or mention the Second Amendment directly.
– Armed self defense with personally owned firearms is recognized and supported in more than a dozen cases, is a distinct right of American citizens, and an ancient “duty to retreat” is not obligatory.
– The often-cited Miller case from 1939 is inconclusive, which is why gun-rights and gun-control advocates both claim it supports their position. The record shows that the Court actually remanded this case back to the lower court for retrial and a hearing on the evidence, since there was no evidence presented. Because Miller had been murdered by that time and his co-defendant had taken a plea agreement, no retrial or evidentiary hearing was ever held.
– All 92 cases are reproduced to show what the Court has actually said. More than 1,000 interesting quotations are highlighted, and each case includes a plain-English description. A special “descriptive index” reduces each case to the firearms-related question(s) it answers.
Send Mr. Kemper an email. In fact, just copy mine and send it.
November 6th, 2003 at 11:42 am
Good grief, just more leftist crap. I’m not the paranoid type, and I am not a gun owner, but good grief man. The reason liberals hate the 2nd Amendment is that it prevents absolute power. If we can own arms we can take control away from those that have it, if it gets out of hand. Leftists like control. They want to take care of things. The only problem is, that people want to be free.
Oh sure, their battle cry is that violent crime (gun crime) is a plague and it must be stopped… well they are right, but we already have laws for that. Their aim is to make it damn near impossible for the law abiding citizen to exercise their Constitutional rights. Yeah, its all been said before. This is where I start going on about how leftists really are not all together well minded and have this sickness for power and control.
November 6th, 2003 at 12:41 pm
But the Brady Campaign was set up by some Republicans. It comes from both sides.
November 6th, 2003 at 1:18 pm
Was Miller murdered, or did he just skip town before trial?
(I’m going from memory here so I don’t have a citation to either.)
November 6th, 2003 at 1:21 pm
I’ve read he died and that he was murdered. I guess murdering would lead to death.
November 6th, 2003 at 1:24 pm
I’ve read he died and that he was murdered. I guess murdering would lead to death.
Unless you are getting a ride with a Kennedy, then it is just an accident.
Too bad OJ does not read your ‘blog, I think he should take a stab at this one.
November 6th, 2003 at 3:29 pm
I understand the “free State” to be secured by keeping and bearing arms to in fact be the Condition of being free. What other definition of State could the Framers have had in mind?
November 6th, 2003 at 3:33 pm
None other that I know of.
November 6th, 2003 at 3:46 pm
It’s a question of who’s right to arms is protected:
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html
November 6th, 2003 at 4:26 pm
Publicola, in this long piece, does make mention of rumours that the NRA is trying to stiffle Silveira v. Lockyer, so there could be something to part of what Kemper wrote.
November 7th, 2003 at 12:57 pm
The NRA has since gotten on board after a bunch of bad press.