The NRA's Two Second Amendment Lies

J Nagarya:

The NRA's Two Second Amendment Lies

The gun industry political front NRA tells two lies about the intent of the Second Amendment.  

1.  That the Second Amendment protects an "individual" "right" to possess guns.  

Comparison with the several prior Supreme Court decisions, and the legislative history -- the Congress' Debates of the writing of the Amendment, which are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- shows that Scalia's "Heller" decision is an outlier.  In "Heller" he falsely held that the Amendment protects an individual right -- for which he was excoriated by legal experts across the political spectrum for ignoring this adjudicatory standard:

When a conflict over the interpretation of a law cannot be resolved within the text of the law, one reverts to the legislative history of the law -- in this instance Congress' Debates of the writing of the Amendment.  

The facts from those Debates:

The subject of the Amendment is well regulated Militia, and its purpose to establish a National Defense, relying on that Militia.  The Militia is not an individual, and is a public institution, regulated under both Federal and state constitutions and laws; thus the Amendment is irrelevant to the issue of private, individual gun ownership:

James Madison is called "the father of the Constitution," and the gun industry/NRA claims that Madison wrote the Second Amendment.  If both of those are facts, then the word "people" is consistent in meaning from beginning of the Constitution to the end of the first 10 Amendments.  The first three words of the Constitution are "We the people," not, "We the individual".

This is the first draft of that which became the Second Amendment, which the gun industry/NRA calls the "Madison" Amendment -- but which it never quotes.  [Here I clarify it for the logic-impaired]:

"The right of the people [PLURAL] to keep and bear arms [this phrase is the well-regulated Militia, and was drawn from four state constitution Militia Clauses] shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms [in well-regulated Militia] shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY] to render military service [in well-regulated Militia] in person." 

Source: Creating the Bill of Rights: The Documentary Record from the First Federal Congress (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, Paperback, 1991), Edited by Helen E Veit, et al., at 12.  (This volume is readily available from Amazon.)

Note the word "compelled": Militia service was a DUTY -- not a "right".  And note the words "people" and "person": if a person -- individual -- claimed "religious" exemption from that DUTY, his case was scrutinized individually. 

The only "individual" "right" Congress debated was that last clause -- "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service" -- and it was obviously dropped from the proposed Amendment before it was ratified.  Thus the Second Amendment obviously does not protect "individual" ANYTHING. 

Only by ignoring the legislative history -- Congress' Debates of the writing of the Amendment, which are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- could Scalia falsely hold that the Amendment protects an "individual" "right".

2.  That the purpose of the Amendment was to establish a "right" to "take up arms" against the gov't -- which is refuted by the Constitution itself:

Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to . . . SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS.

The Founders themselves twice established the precedent on the point:

Under the Articles of Confederation, "Shays's" rebellion was suppressed by the state's legitimate well-regulated Militia, and the rebels charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.

And under the Constitution, AFTER the Second Amendment was ratified, the "Whiskey" rebellion was suppressed by Federalized Militia, lead by George Washington, and the rebels charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.

The Congress, as a co-equal branch of gov't, has the authority and power to overturn Supreme Court decisions.

Overturn "Heller".

PLEASE CIRCULATE INTACT.

        Posted at 8:13 5/19/2022 - I pay for this publishing service monthly. Disqus where are you? It is now 8:47.

Gun Factoid

Injury is the leading cause of death for persons aged 1-44 years in the United States. More than half (55%) of all injury-related deaths are caused by motor vehicles and firearms.. Although the number of deaths from motor-vehicle crashes has exceeded those from firearms, since 1968, differences in the number of deaths have declined: from 1968 through 1991, motor-vehicle- related deaths decreased by 21% (from 54,862 to 43,536) while firearm-related deaths increased by 60% (from 23,875 to 38,317).

Based on these trends, by the year 2003, the number of firearm-related deaths will surpass the number of motor-vehicle crashes, and firearms will become the leading cause of injury-related death. This report compares trends and patterns of deaths resulting from firearm- and motor-vehicle- related injuries in the United States from 1968 through 1991. - CDC

I have written a lot about guns and other weapons here over the years. My attitude progressed from earnestness through despair through insult to cheering for all the penis woundings in editorial tone.

Ultimately, I am tired down to the ground of all the dead toddlers. Not the famous school shooting toddlers. Every day toddlers. Every week I read about another child death from guns. Now, we have 11 year olds shooting 8 year olds over a puppy. A toddler killed its Mother. I am so tired of grieving. Our toddlers are dangerous now. And so it goes.

I read the above from the CDC and the light came upon me. I am not going to argue on right wing ground with ammosexuals. See example of such below. We do not need to take away guns by force from whackjobs. I think my plan could work. Talk me down?

Pat PlumDumpling • Like I said, you completely ignore Logic. Just because you don't like or want guns does not mean you have any say in my rights to own one. Want to confiscate them?, I would say you might get some if you start in someplace like CA, but guess what?, you will be starting a very bloody 2nd civil war, not to mention how many of the idiots going door to door would not make it past the first block. And again with the stupidity in thinking that this will do anything to help gun violence, when you are not addressing the problem, that the criminals (the group that commits the vast majority of gun violence) will not be following any of your new laws. Also, any form of registration, or mandate on legal gun owners will not work because at that point you are infringing on our rights, and unless you can get the 2A and 4A removed you are just another blathering Anti-gunner.

I say: A gun should be like a car. Registered, licensed and insured. Each and every gun. With the same penalties if you violate the rules. Department of Motor Vehicles for Ammosexuals. BAM!

One of the nicest things about not owning a car is not having to stand in line to pay fees and fines at DMV.