All rights have limits
Rosemary Hawkins
According to Lance Hunt, “the government cannot give rights; it can only take them away (“Gun ownership is an inborn right,” March 12 letter.)
He is dead wrong. Another government hater, I presume.
Hawkins is a retired business woman and local writer.
March 18, 2013 - 6:23 AM
“On the other hand, people who walk around with guns are threatening to the rest of us. ”
So the police are threatening to you? After all, they walk around with guns.
Ms. Hawkins….where is your “probable cause” in:
“How do we know you haven’t just lost your home, your job or your woman and are ready to take your pain out on someone who just squeezed you out of a parking space?”
Don’t need probably cause to merely wonder, but you DO need to it restrict rights, which is what Ms. Hawkins is advocating.
#3 Yes ‘Hoo, and it is the analogy and the rational she concludes with. Thus my, ‘your “probable cause” ‘
I just do not see where she was advocating taking rights without probable cause. Some level of gun owner control has been in place for a very, very long time and in light of some mass shootings, maybe more is warranted, but simply saying that “when certain practices infringe on our safety, or even our sense of it, those laws are needed to provide order” and backing that position up with saying that “people who walk around with guns are threatening to the rest of us. How do we know you haven’t just lost your home, your job or your woman and are ready to take your pain out on someone who just squeezed you out of a parking space?” just does not seem to be advocating for taking rights without “probable cause” to me.
We do not make laws or restrictions on the basis of probable cause that I am aware of.
She is just like the person who recently wrote an article here who said that every time she heard a gun shot on Sunday she called the game warden. According to Ms Hawkins everyone who carries a gun is out to hurt someone. where do all these wonderful people get such paranoid ideas. Is it something in the water? Making laws to react to a criminal act that restricts the law abiding peoples right “to bear arms shall not be infringed” has been upheld time and time again by the Supreme Court. How many more times does the SCOTUS have to tell people that they can not take guns away just because of fear. There must be a direct reason to do it and so far there have been very few.
In D.C. v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia’s gun law, which banned virtually all weapons, stating that the Second Amendment protected the individual right to keep legal guns in common use today at home for self-defense.
In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Supreme Court overturned the city of Chicago’s handgun ban, holding that the Second Amendment is “fully applicable to the states.” Heller applied just to DC, McDonald broadened it to all states.
To understand the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment, one has to know the historical context in which the Constitution was written. The framers at the time believed that the right of citizens to bear arms already existed. It was part of British common law, the colonists exercised that right before the Revolution, and after gaining independence from England, it was part of the constitutions of many states including that of Virginia.
The framers included the Bill of Rights to ensure that certain pre-existing rights, including the right to bear arms, could not be taken away by a strong federal government. Therefore the framers worded the Second Amendment to say that this pre-existing right could not be “infringed” by the government.
A driver’s permit is a privilege granted by state law when certain qualifications are met. The right to bear arms is a right of all citizens by birth and protected by the Constitution. The government cannot place burdensome restrictions on that right, e.g. trigger locks, etc.
In summery, the right to bear arms is not a privilege granted by the Constitution but a pre-existing right protected by the Constitution. There is a difference.
“So the police are threatening to you? After all, they walk around with guns.”
Well, yes, sometimes.
“It is obviously impracticable in the federal government of these states, to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all: Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained. It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered, and those which may be reserved; and on the present occasion this difficulty was encreased by a difference among the several states as to their situation, extent, habits, and particular interests.”
~George Washington 1787
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/translet.asp
I think even then there were obviously compromises and as he says “concessions” that made the whole work for them. We as well reserve the right to make the compromises ans concessions needed for our modern society to work best for us.
If the Constitution becomes a straitjacket, it will die and cease to be what we stand on.
I think Scalia and other SC Justices have admitted that gun control is Constitutional. Because it is.
BTW, can any of you tell me why taking up arms against “tyranny” would not be treason as defined in the Constitution? How is it not “levying War against them“?
Also, if the Second Amendment clause, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” means nothing, what about Article 1 Section 8 that spells out the role of the militia?
“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”
And what can Article II, Section 2 mean by: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States,“?
Why would none of that have any bearing on the militia in the Second Amendment? Don’t Amendments that “repeal” say so?
After reading the POV of several historians, I am of the mind that the Anti-Federalists, (or today’s 89Hoo) were still intent on weakening the control and power of the federal government. They knew that the Federalists supported a strong federal government with controls on states and that anti-slave rhetoric was already building. Rather than risk a President taking control of militias to end slavery or disbanding their slave patrol militia activity, they sought the Second Amendment which they could then operate under as they pleased to keep their slaves in line, as it was a “state right”.
IDK, but I think an argument can be made.
The Constitution basically limits the power of government. I can understand how a liberal would fear it becoming a “straightjacket” for expanding governmental power.
Regarding the Second Amendment, the SCOTUS has made it clear that the government cannot impose excessive restrictions on the right to bear arms.
This would include banning guns just on cosmetics, requiring trigger locks, requiring storage dismantled, requiring liability insurance, overly burdensome licensure, burdensome ammunition restrictions, requiring guns be stored locked up, having authorities inspect gun storage in the home, etc.
And what if, we are both wrong? “the Founders understood the right to bear arms as neither an individual nor a collective right, but as a civic right–an obligation citizens owed to the state to arm themselves so that they could participate in a well regulated militia.”
Could that be closest to the truth?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195147863
The SCOTUS made it clear that abortion is legal too, you don’t seem to support that though.
Remember the historical context at the time the Constitution was written.
The framers of the Constitution feared a strong centralized federal government with a standing army that could take over the state government. Remember, they just got through fighting the king of England, they didn’t want another king. The “militia” in the Second Amendment refers to a state militia to protect the state from a federal government takeover.
The power to declare war rests with Congress. The President cannot initiate hostilities without the consent of Congress unless the country is attacked. Furthermore the President can only carry out hostilities with resources (money) provided by Congress.
The President’s War Powers are limited by Congress. That is a check on presidential power provided to the states.
I do not think the gun rights case is helped by basing it on the “context” of the 1700′s. Even Scalia had to push past his so called “originalism” to decide Heller. Originalism could not leave out the militia clause.
I maintain the “state militia” is the slave patrols in place at the time and the states refused to allow the federal government to control them and IMO, that has much more basis in fact than a Constitution that made armed rebellion a civil right.
And if that is your premise, what then is treason?
I can understand how a conservative would applaud it being a “straightjacket” against expanding governmental power since that is the kiss of death. I maintain that if gun rights were switched with abortion, you would consider it a straitjacket too.
#9 The context you cite is the arguement(s) as to the sovereignty of the states versus the union of such states. From such discussion came the Constitution, also, and especially then, known as The Charters of Freedom.
The first ten amendnents of such were to protect the former & the inividual from the latter.
Once again you seek to rationalize such protection….and once again I ask you why? And yes, that is a rhetorical question…I know why.
Jim Lucas, my “context” was the “Letter of the President of the Federal Convention, Dated September 17, 1787, to the President of Congress, Transmitting the Constitution“, written by George Washington. I merely agree with him. It is not rationalizing when it is the truth.
John R, I grant you I am juggling several responses but who is denying “The power to declare war rests with Congress” (or that it has been ignored when convenient)?
It is clear that the right to bear arms is an individual right of all Americans protected by the Constitution.
Review Justice Scalia’s majority opinion in DC v. Heller, it’s worth a read:
“1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense at home. (2-54)
(a) In the Second Amendment’s operative clause (“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”), the phrase “the right of the people” creates “a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.” ( 5-7)”
“1. Operative Clause.
a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of
the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights
use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the
First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in
the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The
Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The
enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall
not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by
the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously
refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights
that may be exercised only through participation in some
corporate body.5″
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf
Justice Scalia is very clear about the Second Amendment being an individual right, not a collective right. I think Scalia is a very brilliant jurist!
Justice Scalia also turned over a 100 years of jurisprudence on its ear to do so. No sir, it was not “clear” for a very, very long time and in many minds it still is not. Maybe you like ignoring some words in the Constitution, but you sure get testy when I do it. Scalia is not brilliant, he is a tyrant and a petty small minded little man and I detest him. To each their own.
10 – Sandi, yes, taking up arms against the government is treason, in any government’s book. The Founding Fathers knew that if they didn’t win, they’d hang for treason against the King. A few did, in fact.
.
But take a step back. People rebel because they are unhappy with acts of the government that are tyrannical, or at least deemed tyrannical by enough of the people to want to force change. To be sure, not all rebellions have 100 per cent support…there were plenty of King George loyalists in the colonies (Tories) during the revolution.
.
But no one is advocating a revolution, and the Founding Fathers were not when they wrote the Constitution and amended it with the Bill of Rights. Those rights – never before included so explicitly and clearly in a governing document – were written precisely to prevent a revolution against the government by establishing the conditions under which the government could exercise its power, and by explicitly establishing the limits on that government’s power.
.
Implicit in the inclusion of the Bill of Rights (perhaps a more explicit statement would have removed confusion) is a warning to the government that when the government steps over the line – when it restricts speech, when it infringes on the right to keep and bear arms, when it resorts to quartering government troops on US soil, when it suspends habeas corpus (as Lincoln did), when it violates any of those rights – those conditions are such that could cause people to rebel. Those conditions are deemed tyrannical, as they echo (almost verbatim) the grievances in the Declaration of Independence.
.
Now that doesn’t mean, as just about any would agree, that any breach of those rights is a call to arms. Americans – all people, actually – have a capacity for, um, flexibility and reason, and can accept reasonable restrictions on (or we can all them adjustments to) those rights…
.
…but the acceptance of those adjustments comes with an implicit warning against slippery slopes. Sliding too far down a slippery slope could incite enough people to a rebellion.
.
But note that the cause of the rebellion would be the government’s unheeded slide down that slope, not any action of the people.
89Hoo, you say “no one is advocating a revolution” but hardly a gun rights thread can be found without reference to guns being protected to take up arms against the government. It is considered the purpose for many people and they voice it loudly. “Tree of liberty…” and “Don’t tread on me” flags ring a bell? Don’t patronize me with no one is touting rebellion!
The Constitution was already ratified in many states and the Bill of Rights was an addition to, not the precept or raison d’être that some want to pretend. Hell some people know nothing of the Constitution beyond the Bill of Rights.
The Constitution itself is a bulwark against government “tyranny” and the Bill of Rights adds nothing but lip service to that process. It was more political rhetoric and compromise than a “game changer”. YOU claim they “echo” the Declaration of Independence but the truth is that they “echo” the Constitution and the checks and balances in there. Maybe we need to change the Second Amendment. Repeal and restate it, like we have others. But gun control has already been done and decided.
NOTHING in any gun control proffered reaches the armed-rebellion point and yet it is already a topic. Gun rights mean more than the carnage they cost and until that changes for enough of us, we will remain arguing.
Don’t patronize me with no one is touting rebellion!
.
Please dispense with the faux outrage histrionics. They’re getting tiresome.
.
Sandi, we’re talking past each other. Pointing out – accurately – that the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, is there to protect the citizens against a government exceeding its bounds is NOT the same thing as fomenting rebellion. The Don’t Tread on Me flags were warnings to King George not to exceed HIS bounds at threat of rebellion.
.
Maybe we need to change the Second Amendment. Repeal and restate it, like we have others. But gun control has already been done and decided.
.
That would be the appropriate way to go around it. Would likely require a constitutional convention; why don’t you spearhead that movement? And if such a measure failed, would you abide by it?
.
NOTHING in any gun control proffered reaches the armed-rebellion point and yet it is already a topic.
.
I accept that you see nothing in the gun control measures already enacted that cross the tyranny threshold. That’s fine. A lot of Tories felt the same way during the American Revolution. If Britain had won, Jefferson, Washington, Adams, et al would have hanged for treason.
Keep it down to a dull roar, please. Thanks.
That dull roar heard across the nation is the second Amendment advocates cheering!
Politico is reporting that the assault weapons ban and high capacity ammunition magazine ban will not be part of a Democratic gun bill to be offered on the Senate floor. Instead, it will be offered as an amendment which means almost certain defeat.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/assault-weapon-ban-for-gun-control-loses-steam-89046.html#ixzz2O0gzwkiV
Poor Sen. Feinstein!
The bottom line is that Reid and the Dem controlled Senate did not have the votes for an assault weapons ban or a high capacity ammo magazine ban. Too many Dems up for re-election in ’14!
What happened to that ground swell of public opinion supporting the assault weapons ban that the MSM claimed was sweeping the nation?
I guess the evil NRA once again subverted the will of the people!
John R., I share your elation. If we get past the next round of SC nominations/appointments….perhaps we can put to bed the obvious.
Not Jewish (either), but tonight I bid…..mazel tov!
John R, “…Feinstein entered the office where Milk lay dead. She grabbed his wrist for a pulse, her finger entering Milk’s bullet wound. Horrified, Feinstein was shaking so badly she required support from the police chief after identifying both bodies.[8] Feinstein then tearfully announced the murders to a stunned public, stating: “As President of the Board of Supervisors, it’s my duty to make this announcement. Both Mayor Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk have been shot and killed. The suspect is Supervisor Dan White.” Maybe you could cut her just a little slack as she has dealt with this kind of senseless cruel violence up close and personal? The votes were not there, but she is acting in what she believes is the best interest of society. Is that not what we ask of our representatives?
Because you disagree with her does not make her wrong or a bad person for trying to get some better gun control options. I am proud of her and believe she is doing what her constituents want her to do.
Funny, you think so too when it is the TEA “party” or a conservative trying to end abortion rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscone%E2%80%93Milk_assassinations
I hope you will forgive me for not toasting the certainty of more carnage.
Ironic…defending abortion rights while lamenting the “certainty of more carnage”.
In any successful abortion, there’s a 100% certainty of “carnage”.
That’s funny The Other Rick, because I see irony in trying to repeal abortion rights due to the carnage while defending gun rights despite the carnage.
#30 Mrs. Saunders……that whole Constitutional, 2nd Amendment thingy aside…..when I was in the USCG, we fished corpes from the water.
We had to be careful so they not pull apart. They were bloated puss-filled balloons. The smell is indescribable. Never once have I advocated making boats illegal.
32 – Not all gun owners cause carnage. The right to own a gun, and exercising that right, does not create “certainty of carnage”. Most instances of said carnage are carried out by individuals that would not obey any sacred liberal “gun-control” laws.
Can’t say that about exercising the right to an abortion, though. If performed properly, 100% chance of “carnage”.
Were those “fished corpes from the water” people you knew and had worked with? Why do you believe your reaction to death should be everyone’s reaction to seeing their friends or co-workers murdered? Did the boats kill them?
I did not say that “all gun owners cause carnage”. The right to own a gun, and exercising that right, can and has created the ability for bad, mad and criminally minded people to gain a gun and deliver a “certainty of carnage” far too often. I wish every criminal had obtained their guns illegally but that is not the case. The same gun laws that law abiding gun lovers exercise allows killers and other criminals to gain guns too.
Because some people do not obey a law is not a reason not to make a law. The only think that saves many of us and holds our nation together is that most people in society agree to abide by the laws we make.
If you really believe in individual rights as a concept and God-given, it seems to me you would have to agree that because the exercising of it ends as that individual wants is no reason for others to condemn the right.
#35 Mrs. Saunders….is it your argument that our laws, not to mention our Constitutional proctections, should be subject to the emotional reaction of those who “have seen their friends or co-workers murdured”?
“Did the boats kill them”? Yes (as much as the guns).
No, my argument is not remotely that “our laws, not to mention our Constitutional proctections, should be subject to the emotional reaction” of anyone. I do not believe that was what I implied either. Not for nothing, but many of the gun rights folks come off as more than a little “emotional”. Ted Nugent and that Yeager fellow in Tennessee come immediately to mind.
I merely said I could understand her motivation and I also believe there are people, many in fact, certainly her own constituents who agree with her proposals. Else she would be out of her job by now.
That legislation is proposed, no matter how disagreeable you may find it to be, is how our system works. I am guessing that boating laws and flotation devices came out of concern for those like the folks you retrieved.
#39 Mrs. Saunders, in all honesty & all due respect….. what then was the purpose of your Feinstein anecdote? Straight answer please.
What does Ted Nugent have to do with this….and who is “that Yeager fellow in Tennessee”? BTW (big time), if either of these represent some emotional input…..how would that be different from the Feinstein one? (Which was my point). Tit-for-tat emotionalism?
No, Mrs. Saunders, #35, I do not (necessarilly) expect anyone to react to death the same as me, or anyone else.
Once again, my immediate point, and my general pursuit here, is pointing out the “progressive” growth of government power vis-a-vis the individual, the same growth of federal power versus states & local governments (and individuals)……and how so many people not only are not alarmed, but rationalize & advocate.
Thank you for your time.