Beyond militia, gun ownership is privilege, not right
by Theodore Fuller
Most people recognize that our rights are not absolute. The First Amendment says we have the right to free speech, and yet we know that we cannot yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater (unless there is actually a fire). Similarly, our right to free speech is limited by laws against slander and libel.
In the same way, our right to bear arms is not absolute. We have to balance the right to bear arms against other rights, such as the right not to fear that first-graders might be shot to death in their schoolrooms or that we might be shot to death in a movie theater.
Fuller lives in Blacksburg and is a professor of sociology at Virginia Tech.
March 6, 2013 - 6:45 AM
The professor didn’t do his homework! He obviously doesn’t understand the Second Amendment as interpreted by the SCOTUS.
I will say this one more time! In DC v. Heller, the SCOTUS ruled that being a member of a militia has nothing to do with a citizen’s constitutional right to bear arms.
“(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 within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
Once again, the Second Amendment DOES NOT REQUIRE MEMBERSHIP IN A MILITIA to own a gun. Furthermore, the “militia” part of the Second Amendment HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS!
To combine membership in a “militia” with the right to bear arms, as the professor suggests, would be unconstitutional.
You liberal anti-gun folks should read the actual decision in DC v. Heller instead of some liberal interpretation of what some liberal wishes it said. You don’t have to be a constitutional scholar to understand that a citizen has the right to own a lawful gun for any lawful purpose and government restrictions are limited.
Read just the first few pages of the decision. You liberals might learn something!
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Show me where I am wrong!
If you take out the section “a well regulated militia” which is between commas you see the writer has no idea what so ever what he is talking about. He wants to ignore one part in order to justify his attempt to subvert the constitution. Sorry it does not work that way. Liberals want to ignore the Supreme Court and the framers to in part their own interpretation of the 2nd amendment but holler when others try to do the same thing about freedoms of speech, assembly, press and association. Again it doesn’t work that way. Mr Fuller is totally wrong on this issue.
John R….Fuller knows he`s wrong…he`s a liberal and can`t help himself. We`ll always own guns and Mr. Fuller/ilk will always whine….worry….get angry….all of the typical leftist trademarks.
John R is correct. Heller confirmed the individual right to bear arms from federal infringment. McDonald, through the incorporation clause and the 14th Amendment (equal protection) extended such to state & local governments.
In addition, Fuller’s suggestion that gun ownership be limited to those belonging to a federally monitored/santioned militia is absurd. The purpose of the militia language in the 2nd Amendment is to protect such ownership & militia rolls from the federal government.
And as for the libs learning something ? Forget it. They live outside of reality and just make things up to suit their `comfort zone bubble`. Oh, almost forgot….Good News….Wal*Mart: a `block` of 550 .22 long rifle….$24.00 Can you beat that ?
Well if anything was going to make me “learn” it would be right wing insults delivered anonymously.
–
If Mr. Fuller was so “wrong”, we would not still be having this conversation.
While the libs want to look at the wording of amendments, they should look at Amendment 1 – “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,…”. When a locality wants to have the 10 Commandment posted in its schools, its a local issue. Congress is not involved.
-
Awood – thanks for the heads up on the .22 longs!
A final word, the professor could not be more wrong:
“…gun ownership is a privilege, not right”
Gun ownership is indeed a right! That is why it is included in the Bill of Rights.
A driver’s permit is a privilege granted by statute by the state. No one is born with a driver’s permit. Americans are born with the right to own a gun. The framers recognized that the right to bear arms predated the constitution and could not be “infringed”. It does not come from the constitution. To defend one’s self is a God given right.
The professor has a distorted view of constitutional rights.
I think the “distorted view” is the one that believes anything that can be taken away is a “right”. If rights are from the “creator” how does man get to revoke them? Rights are not something that can be taken. Not for cause and not for nothing. You either have a right or you don’t. From the beginning, all rights could be taken, up to and including your right to life. All that has EVER been required to take a right, was “due process” (as if that was/is so freaking sacrosanct and fair!). So in any critical thinking mind, that makes them privileges as much as rights, no matter how codified you believe them to be.
Sandi,
Please explain your interpretation of DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago — and cite any legal authorities who agree with you.
For once I have to agree with John R. That whole “militia” language in the 2nd amendment has no bearing on anything. Originally it might have — someone wrote that, and it’s in the Constitution — but it doesn’t now. Mentioning it just weakens whatever argument one is making, so I wish progressives would stop doing that.
–
But now I’ve got a question about civics. If the POTUS doesn’t understand the SCOTUS regarding the 2nd Amendment of the COTUS, should he get advice from the AGOTUS?
At the time of drafting the constitution, the states feared a strong centralized government with a standing army. They were afraid the federal government might invade a state and take over its government.
Therefore the framers included in the 2nd Amendment a provision for states to have their own militia for protection from the federal government.
This may seem strange to us today but remember, the colonists had just fought an invading army from a strong central government.
From what is going on today with the Obama administration, the framer’s innate fear of the federal government was well founded.
John R – you are right, but also must remember that one of the specific grievances the colonists cited in the Declaration of Independence was the standing army on American soil. That in itself was tyrannical; those truly concerned that the fear of tyranny is overblown, need only compare the grievances in the Declaration to the state we are in today.
.
And as easy as it is to throw stones at Obama’s glass house, we have to recognize that this situation has been bubbling since, well, we could go back to Lincoln if we were being honest. And it was Obama’s predecessor that ramped it up with warrantless wiretaps and the PATRIOT Act; without that, the NDAA would not be.
My faith in Scalia’s “originalism” and his opinion that the “original intent” of allowing “typical” firearms is my “interpretation”. I believe I read that he said 2A “undoubtedly” permits restrictions on firearms.
These are his words:
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. [United States v.] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons“. (bold is MY emphasis)
I think that in Heller there is room to hope that the court can separate the machismo driven use of military styled weapons and large magazines, as not necessarily “weapons that are widely held”. Most certainly the Court should see universal background checks as not a bridge too far.
Scalia also said, “I don’t know that a lot of people have machine guns or armor piercing bullets.”” It appears he does consider some things as “unusual” enough to regulate heavily or ban.
Can we convince the Court that the AR-15 with a 30 round magazine is a “dangerous” or “unusual” weapon? THAT remains to be seen, but I think it is worth the effort.
I disagree completely that the state militias were about “protection from the federal government” and their history of being slave chasers and being used in rebellion against the federal government also disabuse the notion.
The fact that we not only created but have kept a “standing army” as well as the test of the Civil War answered all of those concerns long ago and IMO people trying to make hay with shouts of “tyranny” today are shallow, whiny, self-serving and unpatriotic rather than being actual patriots concerned for the nation.
Hell, even Lindsey Graham and John McCain have finally called out the insanity!
So your earlier statements about using the abuses in the Declaration of Independence as a guideline of tyranny no longer apply? Whether you agree or disagree doesn’t change the fact that that’s the genesis of the militia and the Second Amendment…I have posted many quotes from the Founding Fathers showing just that. Disagree all you want, but facts are facts.
I think we will find out in couple of years. The militia’s are on standby,
Just look at the facts. I went into bedford yesterday to get my concealed permit and they are backed up 4 to 6 weeks when usually only 1. There are no ammo avail. in stores, its a long waiting time to just get an extra magazine for my glock.
Somethings coming I can feel it, just dont know when.
Yes, “facts are facts” and IMO the facts support that even in the actual period of the writing of the 2nd Amendment people, founders and citizens were of two minds on guns and militias.
To claim that there was no militia mindset (i.e. muster to protect the state) among the people or the leaders defies the facts. To claim that those same people took that same militia mindset to mean fighting the state when they did not approve of something also defies the facts IMO. That those militias were used to put down rebellion is a fact. That the founders used the rhetoric of liberty and freedom to “sell” the militia is also a fact. That they ever intended to encourage people to take up arms against the nation they were working tirelessly to build is not rational IMO. It is “buying” the hype without examining the substance.
http://www.amazon.com/Well-Regulated-Militia-Founding-Fathers-Origins/dp/0195341031
http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Rights_of_an_American_Citizen.html?id=wENJ5SVeJ1EC
“The provision of the constitution, declaring the right of the people to keep and bear arms, &c. was probably intended to apply to the right of the people to bear arms for such purposes only, and not to prevent congress or the legislatures of the different states from enacting laws to prevent the citizens from always going armed. A different construction however has been given to it.” ~1832
I think it is fair to say that the founders supported a right to arms but many had different ideas on that purpose. I think that is a fact.
I believe that self defense and defense of state are the two prevalent purposes.
Under what interpretation of “tyranny fighter” does concealed carry fall?