Tuesday, February 27, 2018

Dr. Eowyn: Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that Second Amendment applies to individuals, not militias, and may include military weapons



On February 23, 2018, during a radio interview with Hugh Hewitt, Stanford U. political science professor and President George W. Bush’s secretary of state Condoleezza Rice said:
“I think it is time to have a conversation about what the right to bear arms means in the modern world. I don’t understand why civilians need to have access to military weapons. We wouldn’t say you can go out and buy a tank.”
By “military weapons,” Rice means the semi-automatic AR-15 rifle that confessed Parkland school shooter Nikolas Cruz allegedly used to kill 17 students and teachers on Feb. 14 in Parkland, Florida.

It is astonishing that a political science professor doesn’t seem to know that ten years ago in 2008, the Supreme Court had ruled 5-4 that:
  1. The Second Amendment’s guarantee of the “right to bear arms” pertains to individuals and not, as some insist, to militia.
  2. The Second Amendment’s prefatory clause [a “well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State“] may include citizens’ right to bear military weapons because today’s military has sophisticated weapons that government didn’t have in the 18th century. To ban individual right to such weapons would effectively render meaningless the prefatory clause’s “well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”.


District of Columbia v. Heller554 U.S. 570, was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Prior to the Court’s ruling, the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 had restricted District of Columbia residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975.

But the Court, in District of Columbia v. Heller, struck down the Regulations Act’s ban on handguns as unconstitutional, as well as the Act’s requirement that all firearms — including rifles and shotguns — be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock”.

The majority opinion, written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, is considered an example of constitutional originalism — interpreting the meaning of the U.S. Constitution in accordance with the original intent of our Founders. According to the Court’s ruling:
  1. The Second Amendment protects the individual‘s 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. (Pg. 2–53 of District of Columbia v. Heller)
  2. The “people” to whom the Second Amendment right is accorded are the same “people” who enjoy First and Fourth Amendment protection. In the words of Justice Scalia: “The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.”
  3. The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by:
    1. Analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment’s drafting history reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. (Pg. 28–32 of District of Columbia v. Heller)
    2. Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century. (Pg. 32–47)
But the Supreme Court also ruled that the Second Amendment right, like most rights, is not unlimited:

(1) The right to bear arms is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. 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.

(2) On the matter of “military weapons,” the Supreme Court ruled that:
“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller [United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174] said . . . that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradi­tion of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ […] It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause [a “well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”]. 
But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have lim­ited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.” (pp. 58-59)


Clearly, SCOTUS’ 2008 ruling understood the 2nd Amendment as a safeguard against a tyrannical government via citizens owning arms to defend themselves. What those arms are depend on the circumstances, specifically, arms technology. In the 18th century, those arms were rifles. But in the 21st century, handguns and rifles are insufficient against the vastly superior armament of the government’s military. And so, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court left open the possibility of individual right to military-grade weapons as a means to defend against a tyrannical government.

If we are to go by Condoleezza Rice’s assertion — “I don’t understand why civilians need to have access to military weapons” — we might just as well junk the Second Amendment entirely.


~Eowyn

6 comments:

  1. Indeed. And as a formers Stanford U student, I am embarrassed by Prof. Rice's lack of understanding on this issue.

    But then, she DID say, regarding 9/11, that 'no one could have imagined that terrorists would fly planes into buildings' - when that 'imagination' was widely known about, and talked about, at the time.

    Prof. Rice needs to go back to school, and learn a few things. About a lot of things. One of which is the endurance of the Internet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Know what you know what you know.

      https://www.facebook.com/groups/911TruthMovement/permalink/1541106035996952/

      Dr. Judy Wood- Left Handed Mug 11oz

      Perfect for coffee, tea and hot chocolate, this classic shape white, durable ceramic mug in the most popular size. High quality sublimation printing makes it an appreciated gift to every true hot beverage lover.

      https://characterdriven.com/1357

      Dr. Judy Wood- Women’s Racerback Tank Top

      High quality print of this slim fit tank-top will turn heads. And bystanders won’t be disappointed – the racerback cut looks good one any woman’s shoulders.
      .: Slim fit
      .: 60% Soft cotton; 40% Polyester
      .: Extra light fabric (3.9 oz/yd² (132 g/m²))
      .: Tear away label
      .: Runs smaller than usual

      https://characterdriven.com/1297

      Dr. Judy Wood- Know What You Know Women’s T-Shirt

      This lightweight shirt has a fitted and narrow cut that will highlight feminine curves. Durable print allows one to stand out in every occasion.
      .: Junior fit
      .: 100% Soft cotton (Sport Grey and Antiques contain 10% Polyester; Heathers: 65% Polyester)
      .: Light fabric (4.5 oz/yd² (153 g/m²))
      .: Tear away label
      .: Runs true to size

      https://characterdriven.com/1076

      Dr. Judy Wood- Know What You Know Men’s T-Shirt

      Comfortable and light, this premium fitted short sleeve is a classic choice. High quality print adds a statement to one’s workout or everyday routine.
      .: Premium fit
      .: 100% Soft cotton
      .: Light fabric (4.3 oz/yd² (146 g/m²))
      .: Tear away label
      .: Runs bigger than usual

      https://characterdriven.com/1163

      Delete
  2. No forensic evidence from the scene; no pictures of cartridges, blood, perps, bullet holes, broken glass, autopsy reports, nexus between bullets and guns, etc., etc., etc. There is one report the perp wore full body armor with mask. It is meaningless to report public opinion based on corrupt media lies where the media does zero crime scene investigations. Who are the crime scene investigators, who are the medical examiners, how many decades will the details be kept secret, how many shooters, etc., etc., etc? Was this a staged attack like most of the others? Millions of Americans own billions of guns and weapons of all sorts. Are they shooting up the roughly 140,000 schools in America? Obviously not. Will the public be permitted to view the crime scene before they destroy all the evidence of cover up by demolition as they did with Sandy Hook? Americans are the biggest saps on planet earth who love to be fooled, had and fleeced.
    Winfield J. Abbe, Ph.D., Physics

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes,there's no evidence of anyone being wounded or killed from the parking lot scenes at Parkland FL, and the student eyewitnesses mostly express less emotion than they would if their football team had lost a game. Glib, and no real tears on the hysterical bald headed one. As to Cruz, his red hair is the same color as James Holmes in the infamous Colorado Aurora theater shooting where eyewitnesses said they didn't even see him but saw instead masked invaders with guns. Could be the same hairdresser traveling from staged event to staged event. The bottom line is Eowyn is right and there's no need to revisit the 2nd Amendment.

    ReplyDelete
  4. By "civilians", I think the "esteemed" Ms. Rice means "underlings".

    ReplyDelete
  5. American -toaders haven't done anything in 150 years; the Chinese army won several battles. Do American -toaders know what they want ? and what they oppose ?

    ReplyDelete