The Second Amendment Deals With An Individual Right
Dec 7, 2015 Second Amendment, Tyranny
A piece is posted at Bill Moyers.com by a writer named Dorothy Samuels (the site indicates it was originally posted at The Nation) gives us this writer’s opinion that the Second Amendment was never meant to protect an INDIVIDUAL right to a firearm. She indicates that the Conservatives on the Robert’s Court twisted the words and meaning of the Second Amendment and ignored the prefatory phrase; a well-regulated militia, in order to invent a right out of thin air. Her assertion is that it was well established that the Second Amendment did not protect an individual right.
[note]I do not agree with her but as an aside, where was her outrage when the Robert’s court, led by John Roberts, codified Obamacare by changing a penalty to a tax?[/note]
Ms. Samuels could not be more wrong. It is important when looking at the Constitution to look at the words the people who wrote it used. It is important to read what they discussed about the document.
With regard to the Second Amendment the Founders were clear that it protected the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms. There is no doubt the militia is mentioned and it is important to note that each citizen can be called into service for the militia (at that time men of a certain age). There is no guarantee they ever will but their right to keep and bear arms still exists. If they are ever called they will be properly trained (which is what well-regulated means) to defend the state.
“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
—James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
The second phrase reads; “the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The phrase The People means the body citizen. It does not mean the militia, it means the citizens or the people. The preamble to the Constitution starts out We The People and no one is foolish enough to suggest that this means only those called into the militia.
[note]If Ms. Samuels and those who think like her believe that only the militia should be armed then we need a lot more people carrying firearms. Title 10 US Code Subsection 311 defines the militia as;
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. Cornell Law[/note]
Many quotes of the Founders can be found here. It is worthwhile to look at them and see what they had to say about individual liberty and freedom and how firearms kept and borne by citizens was important. Note that the quotes discuss the people and their right to bear their PRIVATE arms.
“The great object is, that every man be armed … Every one [sic] who is able may have a gun.”
— Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386
I would also point out that the first ten amendments are called the Bill of Rights. Some extend to industry like the media, institutions like religion and to the states and the people of those states. When it all boils down these are individual rights that are protected for the people from their government. The body of the Constitution already addresses standing armies, the Navy and the militia. If Congress intended for arms to only apply to the militia then it would have addressed it in the body and not in the portion that was designed to protect individual rights.
Ms. Samuels claims her position is well established. I say that the opposite was well understood a long time ago so much so that it needed not to be addressed. However, the common thought was displayed in the Dred Scott decision which reads, in part:
It would give to persons of the negro race, …the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, …to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased …the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went [emphasis mine]. Wikipedia
Now the Scott decision was a horrible one and dealt with slavery. The issue about firearms was only presented as a parade of horribles the court said would happen if Negroes (the court’s words, not mine) were allowed to be free (to be entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens). However, it clearly shows that the court was concerned that a ruling freeing Scott would give him the same rights as citizens and among those was the right to keep and carry firearms wherever he went.
There is no doubt that it was well established, contrary to Ms. Samuels claims, that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right so much so it was stated as an afterthought in the Scott decision. It was well known that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual one, that was never in doubt. It concerned the court that Scott would be allowed to do that which free men were already allowed to do.
So it is clear that Ms. Samuels is incorrect. She and those who dissented in Heller are the ones on the wrong side of history. Firearms are not responsible for the problems of society.
People are and the response, all too often, from people like Ms. Samuels is to punish those who had nothing to do with the problem.
It is un-American and it is unconstitutional.
All you have to do is read what the Founders wrote and look at the real history of the nation, not the common core crap they are teaching these days.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: constitution, dorothy samuels, founders, individual right, lies, Second Amendment
MD Senator Currie Wrong On Gun Ownership
Aug 18, 2008 Political, Second Amendment
Maryland State Senator Ulysses Currie of the 25th district (who is under federal investigation for illegal activities) wrote a piece about gun control. Currie is upset that the Supreme Court reaffirmed what our founders stated by ruling that the Second Amendment is an individual right. Currie takes exception to this and indicates that no other court has ruled this way. Actually, no other court has looked at this issue. The 1939 Miller case is held by gun control advocates as a bellwether for a militia interpretation but the ruling had nothing to do with the issue at hand. It dealt with interstate commerce and a weapon, not who had the right to carry it.
Currie is very upset that the SCOTUS overturned the DC gun ban and, like Chicken Little, cries “the sky is falling.” He asserts that we will have more murders in DC and he further goes to point out that states with more lenient gun control laws have higher death by gun rates. His statistics come from The Violence Policy Center which is an anti gun organization. The raw numbers are misleading and there are many other factors that play into this. What is very interesting is that Currie fails to mention the DC gun death rate which is one of the HIGHEST in the country. How can that be if strict gun laws keep us safe?
It is important to remember that one can make any claim using numbers. It is also important to note that gun death rates encompass a lot of reasons for death like suicide, justifiable shootings (as in the police or self defense), accidental shootings and criminal acts (murder or crimes resulting in murder). Another thing to consider is the number of crimes that were committed by law abiding citizens with carry permits. This makes a big difference because if the crimes are committed by people who should not have guns then the laws forbidding their possession are not working. Currie should whittle down the numbers and point out how many crimes are committed by people who are permitted to carry.
This is important because people like Currie lamented about how Florida would see a marked increase in gun deaths after the state relaxed its gun laws and allowed more people to carry. This has never come to fruition. In Florida hundreds of thousands of permits to carry have been issued and fewer than 20 people with a permit have been involved in crimes (not necessarily involving gun use). Up through 1998 no permit holder has ever shot a police officer but several permit holders have assisted police.
If Currie wants to skew statistics let me help him out. Blacks comprise a small portion of the population and yet they account for a disproportionate number of gun deaths. Cities with the largest number of blacks in the population (like DC, LA, and New Orleans) have higher murder rates than cities with more whites. In 2007 California ranked fourth behind Pennsylvania, Louisiana and Indiana in the number of black homicides. The black homicide rate pushes the rate for each state high because the rate is about four times higher than their percentage of the population. Is it fair to say that removing blacks from the states would lower gun death rates? While we are on the subject, Hispanics account for a disproportionately high number of gun deaths as well. The statistics certainly lay out a case for lowering the death rate by removing the minorities. This approach is as legitimate as using crime statistics for illegal acts as a methodology to ban LEGAL gun ownership. Perhaps we should ban people who live in Maryland’s 25th District from running for office there because 100% of the current Senators from there are under federal investigation. Banning everyone for the acts of criminals is nonsensical. Before anyone tells me that Currie has not had his day in court so he should be presumed innocent, keep in mind that he is assuming that all gun owners commit criminal acts and should not be allowed to own them.
What Currie fails to realize is that the crimes are being committed by people who have no regard for the law. DC, Chicago and many other major cities with extremely tough gun control laws have high gun murder rates. Once again, if the gun laws work why are these places suffering gun deaths? If gun control lowers gun deaths than these places should be the safest places on earth. Unfortunately, some of them have a higher death rate than Iraq and it is in the middle of a war.
People who obey the law do not get permits to carry weapons and then go around shooting people. The facts have proven time and again that law abiding citizens do not commit murders and that law breakers do not care about gun laws because they don’t follow the rules anyway.
Currie has his panties in a wad because the Supreme Court acknowledged that gun ownership is an individual right. This is nothing new. As I have pointed out before, the founders stated that the PEOPLE will be allowed to have guns. It is an undeniable truth. Regardless of the fact that it defies logic to think that the words “The People” mean all citizens everywhere it is used except the Second Amendment, the issue is moot because of the founder’s own words. Walter E Williams has a comprehensive listing of the founder’s quotes on the subject. I defy Currie or anyone else to read them and then demonstrate how they mean anything BUT an individual right. For example:
“That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms … ”
— Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
The people of the United States who are peaceable citizens. How can anyone misconstrue this to be anything other than an individual right?
Ulysses Currie is absolutely wrong on this issue. The places that allow citizens to own and carry weapons are the safest in the country. There are some gun control states that have low gun death rates. It would be interesting to see what the demographics of the population are because I would wager they are mostly law abiding people.
Once again, Mr. Currie, law abiding citizens do not go around killing people. Criminals account for the overwhelming majority of the gun deaths and all the laws in the world will not change their behavior.
We call them criminals for a reason.
Tags: DC, gun control, individual right, Maryland, Second Amendment, supreme court, ulysses currie