MORE ON 2ND AMENDMENT LOOPHOLE

David Kopel of the Washington Post said "The Second Amendment guarantees the right of the individual to own and carry firearms, including handguns. The 2nd Amendment actually says, "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." The District of Columbia v. Heller 2008 ruling, "...protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." A bit off the subject but the Justices said nothing about cowboys walking around on the streets with their guns. Something tells me that, until we find something more direct--that is to really gut the 2nd Amendment--we concentrate on passing universal background checks and getting rid of concealed carry, except for extenuating circumstances.

More to come.

GUN CONTROL'S NEXT FIGHT: CARRYING FIREARMS OUTSIDE HOME

True, background checks should be the primary goal for now and it looks like there is a surge in gun control support with maximum spending for those in Congress favoring the issue in November. Both Bloomberg and Gabby Giffords groups are investing heavily to offset the lies and propaganda of the National Rifle Assn. But the NRA lost in February when the Supreme Court refused to hear its cases on the right of gun owners to carry firearms outside their homes for self-defense. Another case originating in New Jersey seeking the same kind of decision was also dismissed by SCOTUS. The irony is John Drake can carry his Glock, Model 30, .45-caliber handgun in public in 38 states across the country. The District of Columbia 2008 decision upheld the individual's right to possess a gun for protection in the home. But it is widely believed that this was not meant to give the approval for the carrying of firearms outside the home.

The 2nd Amendment is ripe for new interpretation…again

Alan Singer is a social studies educator at Hofstra University in Long Island, New York and the editor of Social Science Docket (a joint publication of the New York and New Jersey Councils for Social Studies).  Apparently he has done his homework on the 2^nd Amendment in research for an article in the Huff Post titled, “Does the U.S. Constitution Prevent Gun Control?”  The answer to this question is a resounding “Yes” if asked of the gun nuts and their head fanatic Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the National Rifle Assn. (NRA).

Wacky Wayne says the 2^nd Amendment is sacred and an absolutist part of the Constitution that cannot be touched by gun control advocates.  Having been proven wrong on this several times already, this lunatic continues to rant and rave about gun owner rights in spite of the killings by firearms happening on a daily basis.  This sick ideology of rights over life itself is beginning to turn off a newly savvy American public.  LaPierre has used fear to make his point for years in the American Congress, NRA membership and the general population. 

 

 

President Obama has proposed new gun control regulations that range from universal background checks to banning assault rifles.  New York State passed their own law placing an immediate ban on semi-automatic rifles and pistols, shotguns, and other firearms with military-style features, requiring universal background checks prior to the sale of all guns and ammunition, making it easier for officials to confiscate firearms from the mentally ill, and increases penalties for gun-related crimes.  Singer ponders whether the law will survive.

In a conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court, they ruled that in the 2008 decision on District of Columbia v. Heller that the 2^nd Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves.  The key here is “in the home” which doesn’t rule out but definitely leaves the door open to curbing the carrying of concealed weapons.  Yes, this is a separate issue but it does illustrate a potential crack in the 2^nd Amendment that proves non-absolutism. 

Wayne LaPierre has accused the President of “undermining 2^nd Amendment constitutional principles.”  Alan Singer counters with just how the apparently divine Amendment—at least to the gun nuts—could be in trouble.  He cites the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court which leans to a “textualist” interpretation of the Constitution.  Textualism is defined by Wikipedia as follows:

A formalist theory of statutory interpretation, holding that a statute's ordinary meaning should govern its interpretation, as opposed to inquiries into non-textual sources such as the intention of the legislature {or forefathers/my words} in passing the law, the problem it was intended to remedy, or substantive questions of the justice and rectitude of the law. 

Singer says, “In general I find most ‘textualist’ arguments forwarded by the Supreme Court's right-wing activists to be self-justifying contorted attempts to discover constitutional support for positions they already hold.”  An interesting observation when you consider Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the most conservative, has said that stricter gun laws could be possible under the 2^nd Amendment.  This probably sent head NRA gun nut, Wayne LaPierre, gyrating into outer space but aroused the passions of all gun control advocates.

And it is here where Singer analyzes the Constitution in relation to the right of the people in connection with individual rights.  He says, “An examination of the Constitution shows a very clear and precise distinction between the term ‘people’ and ‘person’ or "persons.’"  Further, that America functions as a whole, not individually by states nor individual persons.  True, individuals do elect our lawmakers both local, statewide and nationally, but these same individuals acting separately can legally be limited. 

In the view of a textualist, “the right of the ‘people’ is a general statement of principle not a specific or individual right.”  Singer draws support from the Fourth amendment in its collective right of the people to be secure in their homes, papers, effects, etc., the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures.  However, with probable cause, identifying the place to be searched, the persons (individual), things can be searched and seized with the proper warrant.  It just proves that there is no absolutist finality in this or the 2^nd Amendment.

In conclusion, singer quotes the 2^nd: "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." 

It is clearly referring to the collective “people,” in other words the country has a right to defend itself, he claims.  He does add, “there is no specific prohibition on limiting the access of individual ‘persons’ to dangerous weapons.”  Even so, this interpretation of the 2^nd Amendment “provides an opportunity for even the most conservative Supreme Court Justices to support significant new gun restrictions approved by elected officials in local, state, and federal governments.  We can only hope for the best.        

 

I want concealed carry permits revoked for all except those with special needs…especially in Arizona



Arizona gun nuts



I can hear the screaming already from those gun bubbas that have to pack heat just to prove their masculinity.  And don’t throw the 2^nd Amendment at me because I really don’t believe the right to bear arms includes necessarily outside the home.  And if you people keep pushing this you are going to find yourselves without the right to even own a firearm, putting your buddy Wayne LaPierre and his organization the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) fanatics out of business.

For years the NRA has refused to budge on even negotiating over new gun control regulation.  And this has now come back to haunt them simply because the American public no longer believes the NRA’s bullshit about your “absolute” right to own a gun.  Nothing, particularly in respect to the U.S. Constitution, is absolute and this will be a key factor on any future decisions by the Supreme Court in deciding on gun control.  Just get used to being on the defense.

The Associated Press is reporting, “The next big issue in the national debate over guns — whether people have a right to be armed in public — is moving closer to review by the U.S. Supreme Court.”  It’s time to get these cowboys off the street and restrict the right to law enforcement and those with special needs.  I mentioned Arizona in the headline because there are people walking around all over this state that shouldn’t be carrying a gun.

Because of loose Arizona gun laws, loosest in the nation, you can buy a gun with no background check, use it without any training, and carry it anywhere you want to, including a bar.  Thanks to a Republican legislature that is one bullet short of a full cylinder, the gun nuts thrive here brandishing their toys with relish.  And although an Illinois federal appeals court struck down a state ban on carrying concealed weapons, there is disagreement here with other federal courts.

These courts have upheld state and local laws banning concealed weapons based on the Supreme Court’s ruling that individuals have the right to have a gun for self defense.  In Dist. Of Columbia v. Heller, the court ruled in favor of Dick Heller that allowed him to own a handgun in D.C. for self defense in his home.  Many have interpreted this to mean that the Supremes just might consider the banning of concealed weapons permits outside of the home.

The AP article points out that these split decisions between appeals courts is the very thing that whets the Supreme Court’s appetite for a juicy case.  UCLA law professor Adam Winkler, who published his book, “Gunfight,” last year believes SCOTUS just might take on the challenge.  Winkler thinks the Illinois statute would fall if put to a test before the Supreme Court.  He just isn’t sure how far the decision might reach re. an outright ban.  We’ll take our chances.

I’ll settle for the high Court to take a look at the whole concealed weapons issue, which could put yet another nail in the coffin of Wayne LaPierre and the National Rifle Assn. (NRA).  This organization and its radical management must be stopped and now is the time with the recent gun carnage in Newtown Sandy Hook School and other mass killings.  There is no doubt that gun control is on the move and the momentums is very encouraging.