Comments on: Federalism and “the Right…to Keep and Bear Arms”

By: David S. Bloch

David S. Bloch — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 17:48:10 +0000

I assume (as does Zack, I think) that Prof. Tribe wrote this section before Heller was decided. Post-Heller, it’s beyond cavil that Prof. Tribe’s “Above-Average Gun Violence Act” is unconstitutional, in D.C. or elsewhere.

I’m also a little surprised to see Prof. Tribe equivocate concerning Second Amendment scholarship. It is my strong impression that most modern scholarship (ably surveyed by Justice Scalia in Heller) supports the “individual rights” interpretation of the Second Amendment. The most recent edition of Prof. Tribe’s “American Constitutional Law” textbook “made headlines . . . because in it Tribe embraced a more individual rights view of the Second Amendment than he had before — a shift that the National Rifle Association and other gun rights advocates seized on as vindication of their longtime assertions.” http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1117011910589 . Weird that he seems to be backtracking here.

By: Gary

Gary — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 14:13:52 +0000

NO abridgment of the Second Amendment is constitutional. Period. What is so hard to understand about that? EVERY law governing the possession, use or sale or firearms since 1934 has been a violation of the Constitution’s Second Amendment. This is simply not subject to debate. It is a fact. The Second Amendment contains, within itself, the words that make this all abundantly clear to any literate person:

“…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Nowhere does it specify WHO may keep and bear arms, nor does it specify HOW, WHEN or WHERE they may do. It also doesn’t specify WHAT particular weapons are considered to be “arms.” The intent is clear: this amendment is to protect our INALIENABLE right (that is, a right, not granted by the government, but as a condition of our existence) to defend our lives from any and all who would take it from us – including a fascistic government.

By: John

John — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 13:56:14 +0000

“Above-Average Gun Violence Act” – Wow, just wow. If can’t decide if such a bill is more analagous to the “Anti-dog-eat-dog Act” or the “Equalization of Opportunity Act”. Who is John Galt?

By: Flick

Flick — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 12:55:59 +0000

[sarcasm]No, wait, but guys, the author is a constitutional scholar, so that means his opinions carry more weight than any of your hard researched facts or anything written in the Federalist Papers! You obviously need to stop reading books and watch more TeeVee.[/sarcasm]

There is one point that no one seems to bring up, however, regarding the Second Amendment. That with rights come responsibilities is widely if not universally accepted. So what is the responsibility that comes with the right to keep and bear arms? It’s in the opening phrase of the Second Amendment. “Owning guns and complaining to your representatives being sufficient to the security of a free state,…” Right? Well that’s what most gun owners seem to think.

Owning guns is good, but it’s not what’s necessary to preserve liberty in America. For any who are interested in taking seriously the responsibility that comes with the right to keep and bear arms, I invite you to check out today’s militia at http://www.awrm.org, or my own site (click on my name). We might surprise you, especially if you still believe what the mainstream media and groups like the SPLC say about us.

Peace.

By: Zach

Zach — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 04:49:55 +0000

Did you dust this off from your archives? It doesn’t matter what “a mass of academic writing” says about the subject anymore. The supreme court has ruled, and the second amendment protects the individual’s right. You might want to read up on a case heard last summer, District of Columbia v. Heller.

By: alan sharpe

alan sharpe — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 23:27:42 +0000

“The right to…bare arms” is God-given and I intend to exercise that right, even in inclement weather. I am proud of my arms, as they are well-muscled and manly.

It is not fair to make me refrain from baring my arms.

It is a Constitutional Right!

By: Alex

Alex — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 21:13:09 +0000

Curious case of inverted logic.
For the “above-average-gun-crime” city the author proposes to institute a gun law which is AT LEAST as restrictive as exist in another, less violent city.
Recent statistics show that cities with less restrictive gun laws are also less violent.
So, if the violent city currently has MORE restrictive laws than the non-violent one – does it mean that the first one’s gun laws should be relaxed?

By: ansel12

ansel12 — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 21:00:01 +0000

“Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts,” Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony with legislators, sportsmen’s groups and gun safety advocates.
“These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”

Governor Mitt Romney 2002

By: Ray

Ray — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:27:14 +0000

Of course this would infringe upon 2nd amendment rights. Any fool knows that the overwhelming statistics show that gun restrictions have and always will INCREASE the crime rate. What does any outlaw (including politicians)desire but a defenseless populace. Ask Hitler…

By: red

red — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:24:42 +0000

No, the legal scholarship clearly shows that it is an individual’s right to bear arms that is protected. Further, read the Federalist papers. Gun ownership is a check on tyrannical government according to our founding fathers.

It is also interesting to learn the history that the civil rights movement drawing on my many sources of strength also relied upon gun ownership by blacks.

Lets start arguing that the First Ammnendment can be tinkered with on a geographical basis.

By: Mark W. Scott

Mark W. Scott — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:08:21 +0000

The Invisible Constitution is apprpriately named,which indeed is what most liberals and leftists would prefer. With Obama in the White House, Pelosi in the People’s House and Reid in the Senate – I really fear for the integrity of our Constitution.

By: John Gillman

John Gillman — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:06:21 +0000

A hot oven, being necessary to the creation of an excellent pizza, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

That statement means exactly the same as this one:

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.

At least it does to anyone with a fourth grade reading comprehension.

There are only three points left to be made.

1. Rights come from the Creator so governments can not take them away.

2. Arms are weapons of war. Nothing to do with hunting.

3. Keep it up libtards, and you’ll get what you want, and you’ll get it good and hard.

By: Karl

Karl — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:03:55 +0000

the right to keep and bear arms isn’t exclusively about hunting or self-defense, although these are an important part of it.
The right to keep and bear arms is the realization of the Founding Fathers that citizens had to have a way of protecting themselves from a tyrannical government.
If you doubt this, read the Federalist Papers.