THE DAILY BLADE: Appeals Court: The Right To Bear Arms Belongs To Us All
"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."
When they crafted the Second Amendment, did the Founding Fathers intend that only those citizens already formed into militias have the right to bear arms to protect the State? Or that all citizens have the right to bear arms so that they may be formed into a militia to protect the State?
If you’re a liberal or gun control advocate, the first interpretation makes sense. If you know how to read, it’s clear the Founding Fathers had the second scenario in mind.
Two of the three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit know how to read and ruled that District of Columbia's 31-year old ban against handgun ownership – the most restrictive in the nation – is unconstitutional and that the rights conferred by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent" on joining a militia:
"The district's definition of the militia is just too narrow," Judge Laurence Silberman wrote for the majority Friday. "There are too many instances of 'bear arms' indicating private use to conclude that the drafters intended only a military sense."
The appellate court also voided Washington, DC’s requirement that registered firearms be kept unloaded, disassembled and under trigger lock (a triple redundancy!).
The case, Shelly Parker et al v. District of Columbia (No. 04-7041), involved six people living in high-crime neighborhoods in Washington, DC who were told by a lower court in 2004 that they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns and keep them in their homes for protection.
As The New York Times points out:
The decision was the first from a federal appeals court to hold a gun control law unconstitutional on the ground that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals, as opposed to the collective rights of state militias. Nine other federal appeals courts around the nation have rejected that interpretation. …
Lawyers on both sides of the case said it had created a conflict among the federal courts of appeal on a significant constitutional issue, making review by the Supreme Court likely. The Supreme Court last considered the issue in 1939, and there are only scattered hints about how the current justices might rule.
While the MSM was mostly on target in discussing the legal implications of this ruling, there were a few wild shots about how laws preventing crazies and felons from owning guns are in jeopardy. For instance, The Washington Post quotes D.C. Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large) hyperventilating that the ruling could "lead to the overturning of every gun control law in the city. I don't think we have any choice but to fight it."
The New York Times played the story surprisingly straight. But as usual, only gun control advocates were quoted by name; the views of those who applauded the ruling were paraphrased. Looks as though Adam Liptak couldn’t bestir himself to actually call a few gun rights advocates and scribble down their quotes.
The Los Angeles Times quoted people on both sides of the issue by name, but took a few potshots at the appellate court, describing it as "staunchly conservative" and imputing political (if not sinister) motives to the judges in the majority by notng:
Silberman is a close friend of Vice President Dick Cheney. Three years ago, the White House chose him to co-chair a panel that examined the failure to find the expected weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after the U.S. invasion.
Judge Thomas B. Griffith, nominated by President Bush in 2004 and confirmed by the Senate the next year, joined Silberman's opinion.
The third member of the panel, Judge Karen L. Henderson, dissented. She argued that the high court had made clear the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect a "well regulated militia," not individuals who want guns for their own uses.
She was appointed by President George H.W. Bush.
The WaPo, which also noted that Silberman is "a staunch conservative," not only quoted those against D.C.’s handgun ban, but explained their position:
Critics have long said that the D.C. law is ineffective, noting that the city has had hundreds of homicides in recent years, most of which were committed with handguns. Of last year's 169 homicides, 137 were committed with firearms, D.C. police said. Enforcing the strict handgun ban is difficult with so many guns on the streets, but police recovered more than 2,600 guns last year.
This was not lost on the Court of Appeals. In a footnote, Silberman noted that "the black market for handguns in the District is so strong that handguns are readily available (probably at little premium) to criminals. It is asserted, therefore, that the D.C. gun control laws irrationally prevent only law abiding citizens from owning handguns."
However, the WaPo's opinion writers must not have read this article because that same edition included an editorial that characterized the ruling as "radical" and stated that it gives "a new and dangerous meaning to the Second Amendment." The editorial also suggests that the ruling came about as a result of "the unconscionable campaign, led by the National Rife Association and abetted by the Bush administration, to broadly reinterpret the Constitution so as to give individuals Second Amendment rights" (emphasis, The Stiletto’s).
The last time the Supreme Court ruled on a Second Amendment case (United States v. Miller) the Justices stated that gun ownership rights were granted "with obvious purpose" of protecting the ability of states to organize militias and "must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."
This new appellate court ruling does protect the ability of states to organize militias. It stands to reason that in times of national crisis, an effective militia can be formed only with citizens who already own – and know how to use – firearms. Someone who has never handled a gun before will be more of a danger to himself than to the enemy.
Further, in a crisis acute enough to require citizens to fight alongside our military there will be no time to teach millions of people how to shoot. Never mind the logistical impossibility of procuring and distributing guns to a geographically dispersed unarmed population quickly.
Clearly, individual gun ownership is at the crux of being able to form a well-regulated militia.
Senator, You're No Jack Kennedy
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton compared herself to John F. Kennedy at a New Hampshire Democrats' 100 Club fund-raiser in Nashua on Saturday, reports The New York Post:
"He was smart, he was dynamic, he was inspiring and he was Catholic. A lot of people back then [1960] said, 'America will never elect a Catholic as president.'"
The Stiletto did not know Jack Kennedy, but nonetheless would argue that the terms "smart," "dynamic" and "inspiring" better describe Rudy Giuliani than the wonkish, plodding, poll-driven Hillary – plus, he would be only the second Catholic elected president. And today, a lot of people are saying that conservatives will never elect a candidate who does not oppose abortion on demand, gay rights and gun control as president.
Trackbacks
-
April 11, 2007
The Stiletto wrote:
With attorneys representing Washington, D.C. filing a petition to have the full Court of Appeals rehear a case in which several citizens successfully challenged the district’s 31-year ban on handguns last month, The Washington Post tells the story of Shelly Parker – she of Shelly Parker et al v. District of Columbia (No. 04-7041) fame - who “did everything she could” to keep her home in the 200 block of 14th Place NE safe: She owned a dog. She called D.C. police when she suspected illegal activity on her block. She installed a ...
Comments