VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 14:03:37 01/11/03 Sat
Author: Leland Gaunt
Subject: Column By Paul Rosenzweig; Gun Rights Should Favor Individuals



Column In Los Angeles Daily News Editorial Section; January 7, 2003.

By Paul Rosenzweig

The langauge of the Second Amendment seems straightforward: "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."
Yet the debate rages on: Does each American citizen have the right to own firearms or not?
Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit said yes. Citing historical evidence that clearly shows the Second Amendment was intented for personal rights, the court said the Constitution guarantees to each individual American the right to keep and bear arms. The Justice Department soon adopted this interpretation.
Wrong, the 9th Circuit recently responded. In an opinion penned by one of the same judges who declared the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, the court recounted different historical evidence to conclude that the Second Amendment protects only the right of the people to maintain an effective militia. In other words, the amendment doesn't protect individual rights at all.
With the decision of the 9th Circuit, the issue is ripe for resolution by the Supreme Court. Indeed, some observers say that the 9th Circuit's ruling is something of a challenge to the court, deliberately setting up a conflict between it and the 5th Circuit and daring the federal government to look the other way.
The issue isn't so much the amount of regulation. Hardly anyone, including the vast majority of those who say the Second Amendment protects individual rights, suggest that the amendment is an absolute prohibition on all government regulation of the use for the average citizen to own, say, a grenade launcher or an antitank missile. And, yes, those who own automatic weapons should register them.
No, the issue isn't "reasonable regulation." Most people agree that within some reasonable bounds, the government can should regualte who owns which types of weapons.
What then lies behind the conflict? A question as old as civilization itself: Exactly how much power does the government have to regulate individual conduct? Our founders answer to the question was plain: The Constitution comes down squarely on the side of limited government and individual liberty. Our entire Constitution resonates with the idea that "that government is best which governs least"-and the Second Amendment is no exception.
This view was widely held at the time of the Constituion was framed. One commentary on the Bill of rights, published anonymously in the Pennslyvania Gazette in 1788, asked: Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?....Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords...are the birthright of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will make it clear that the 5th Circuit's position isn't exactly a radical one.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms....serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man," said Thomas Jefferson in his "Commonplace Book". Alexander Hamilton wrote in "The Federalist Papers' that no federal army could threaten our liberties as long as "a large body of citizens," proficient in "the use of arms," stands ready to defend them.
A due regard for this history demonstrates the error of the 9th Circuit's decision. Through the question may have little consequence, it lies at the core of American self-conception and makes all the difference in the world. For the center of the American heritage lies the distrust of governmental power. Just how the heritage plays out in this case may soon be decided by the Supreme Court. It should remember where we came from.



Paul Rosenzweig is a senior legal research fellow in the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation and an adjunct professor of law at George Mason University.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.