When debating whether American citizens should be able to own personal firearms either in a personal, classroom, or legal setting, the second amendment is certain to be brought up. “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” is what the second amendment of the United States Constitution states.
Some pro-gun control activists think this means that the right to own a firearm is limited to militia members only due to the first clause "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State." Which now days our militia is the national guard, so if this was the case, this amendment would be invalidated now. On the other hand, anti-gun control activists believe the most important part of this clause is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed”. They believe this means US citizens have a right to own firearms whether in a military position or not. I believe is a combination of both these thoughts and by what early American politicians, legal scholars, and military men all said, it seems they thought the same thing.
St George Tucker, who was a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and a U.S. District Court judge (appointed by President Madison), wrote about the second amendment in "Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England" (1803). He believed that the intent was not to provide only militia with arms, but every law abiding citizen with the right. Regarding the 2nd amendment he states "This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty, The right of self-defense is the first law of nature . . . [When] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." (Volume 1-appendix) This is important because the direct relation to self-defense is made here, which is a major concern that is brought up in the current modern debate.
Another reputable source who studied and wrote about the second amendment is US Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story. He wrote "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States"(1833) which is the first comprehensive discourse of the US Constitution in whole. In this work he explained of the 2nd amendment, "The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. . . The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic." In addition, Tennessee Supreme Court later explained in Andrews v. State (1871) that this "passage from Story, shows clearly that this right was intended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to, and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights."
By looking at these three examples, I believe we can conclude that the founding fathers, as well as the legal and political leaders of that time, intended for the people to have the right to own firearms both for the duty of militia work as well as private use.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You say that all people should have the right to bear arms regardless of weather the are part of a militia, and you make some very strong arguments, but the fact of the matter is that the US constitution has never been ratified to say that it does not only pertain to the militia, but all citizens have the right to keep and bar arms. There are two ways written in the constitution on how a change can be made to the constitution, which would become an amendment to the constitution, “The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions.”(USConstitution.net) However, with that said there is also a way that the constitution can be interpreted, to and can change over time depending on changes in circumstances, such as allowing law abiding citizens to own guns for personal use. The problem is I think the intention of the people that you mentioned in your post, could not predict what would happen if everyone was allowed to have a firearm, into today’s world guns are no longer used for there intended purpose, which would be to protect family and state. Guns are used for school shootings such as Columbine High School, Littleton, Colorado April 20, 1999 where 15 people where killed, and the guns were purchased by the two boys from another person who had bought them at a gun show from an unlicensed dealer, or Santana High School, Santee, California March 5, 2001 where 2 people where killed and 13 others injured the gun that was used was stolen from a locked gun cabinet that the boys father owned, guns are not only used in school shootings but they are also use by adults in office building such as, Navistar International Corporation, Melrose Park, Illinois February 5, 2001 the gun that was used was owned by the shooter who had acquired it legally, Xerox office, Honolulu, Hawaii November 2, 1999 the gun again was legally purchased by the shooter. Can you imagine having kids one day and sitting at Wendy’s with them for dinner, and a gunmen comes in such as in Queens New York May 24th 2000, where a stolen gun that had been bought on the street three times before landing in the hands of the shooter was used to kill five people. The list goes on and on, when people are allowed to have firearms, there will be people out there who will steal them and use them for a purpose that suits them.
ReplyDelete• Mount, Steve. "Constitutional Topic: Martial Law." USConstitution.net. 30 Nov 2001. http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_mlaw.html (3 Dec 2001)
The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments, were added to the US Constitution in the legal fashion you mentioned making all the amendments legal in the entire country. I am not sure what you are trying to imply by stating the requirements of amending the Constitution since the legality of the Bill of Rights never has been questioned. The US Constitution is often referred to as a living constitution (Rehnquist 2006), one which can adapt and be flexible as necessary. This is why the courts have been reviewing cases and laws since our country's birth. The second amendment, as well the rest, were written vaguely because the framers knew that they could not possibly plan for every circumstance or situation (library.thinkquest.org). This is why discourses, court cases, and legal case opinions are all important because they review and interpret what the constitution means and was meant. Since you said in your original blog posting that "The Second Amendment is misused by Opponents of gun control," I mentioned and quoted two prominent and reliable legal scholars of our early country explaining that intent of the 2nd amendment was broader than the single sentence mentioned.
ReplyDeleteWhile I think we all can agree on the fact that no sane person wants another school shooting or uninstigated random public massacre to happen, the process to accomplish this is harder to agree on. I do believe that there needs to be laws regarded firearms possession and sale. The Supreme Court also has ruled that it is legal to pass laws regarding firearms. (Miller v. U.S. 1939, Lewis v. U.S. 1980) Minors, convicted felons, those convicted of domestic violence, illegal aliens, persons with mental health problems, gang affiliated members, and drug users are all prevented from owning firearms (Gun Control Act of 1968); stealing firearms also is illegal obviously. If these laws were followed and fully enforced, all those school shooting would not have happened, nor most of the other public massacres. Banning something, in this case a firearm, because the laws are not enforced as heavily as needed or because its easy to break the law does not make much sense at all. Vehicles are stolen hourly, as well as used to commit crimes daily. Alcohol is abused daily by many Americans. Knives, and martial arts are abused daily as well. Would banning any of these ever cross your mind? Or would enacting laws to prevent underage drinking, carrying of excessive size knives, harsher punishments for martial arts offensive assualts, or cracking down on auto thefts make more sense? The fact that some states still allow gun shows to skip some laws is a state legal issue, not a US firearm owning issue. If we could prevent minors from purchasing firearms, prevent thefts, prevent unstable people, gang memebers, or drug users from acquiring weapons, the abuse of firearms would go down. On top of enforcing the law we already have in place, better parenting and social support would help greatly. Children who think shooting their school up will solve their problems will not become health just because he couldn't find a weapon, nor will a drug dealer or gang member become a model citizen if firearms were banned. Social/parent intervention are more important in fixing this major problem we have in this country than banning law-abiding citizens from owning firearms.
I'm sorry but I am going to have to agree with Zach. Guns are not what kill people! People kill people! Taking guns away from society will make society more distrustful of every one around them. When the trust in community is removed, people have a far greater chance of procuring guns illegally just because they might think their neighbor has a gun too and why not; they need to protect their way of life as well. Instead we need to keep it legal for everyone to own a gun as long as they are within the parameters of those who can legally own or purchase a gun. Taking guns away does not stop school shootings or random massacres but will actually increase shootings because people will have a greater mistrust of the government and of their community.
ReplyDeleteZach,
ReplyDeleteAccording to Gun control saves lives, “the issue is whether or not gun control lowers overall rates of violence. And the answer to this question, based on the experiences of other nations where stricter controls have been put into place, is a resounding yes.” Ok so you say “The US Constitution is often referred to as a living constitution (Rehnquist 2006), one which can adapt and be flexible as necessary.” And that is fine, but don’t you think there should be a limitation to the kinds of weapons people own? People do not need automatic weapons for protecting their self at home or at work. “The right to bear arms should not be interpreted to mean that the average civilian must be guaranteed access to weapons designed for the purpose of killing as many people as possible as efficiently as possible.” (Gun control saves lives) you said” persons with mental health problems” are not allowed to own guns but the problem is they do, look at the Virginia Tech student who killed 32 people and then took his own life, he had a mental health record and was still allowed to buy a gun. Also would you be offended if you went to the mall and someone was carrying a machete because the second amendment does say they “right to bear arms” or would you be ok with it because that was there weapon of choice for protection.
Jess,
You say that guns don’t kill people, people kill people, and I will agree with you on that, but don’t you think that the “right to be free from the threat of gun violence deserves as much respect as the right to bear arms.” (Second Amendment is misused by opponents of gun control)
Citations
Cornell Saul, “The Second Amendment Is Misused by Opponents of Gun Control” Current Controversies: Guns and Violence. Debra A. Miller, Detroit: Greenhaven press (2009).
Ballaro, Beverly, and Laura Finley. “Counterpoint: Gun control saves Lives.” Points of View: Gun Control (2009)
It has been proven that countries such as Germany and United Kingdom that have very strict gun law also have lower gun violence incidences. However, hunting and target shooting are not common in these countries like it is in The United States and even the police are not armed in England. Also, their constitutions do not give them any right to own guns for any specific purpose. Therefore, when they became outlawed it didn't affect as many people since guns are not part of their culture like ours since our country began (hunting, militia, old west). I dont disagree that strict gun prohibition would lower crime rates, but it would do so in a harmful way, prevent only legal owners from possessing or purchasing them. As you stated earlier, most crimes are committed by stolen, unregistered, or illegal weapons. Stealing, illegal ownership, and black market weapons are already banned, so how would banning legal owners help?
ReplyDeleteAs I stated before, the Supreme Court already ruled it is legal to put laws on weapons (Miller v. U.S. 1939, Lewis v. U.S. 1980). You are NOT allowed to carry machetes because they are over the legal limit for size and type of weapon.. State and local laws each limit the size and type of knives carried. You are NOT allowed to purchase or own fully automatic weapons, federal law. You are NOT allowed to purchase or own armor piercing bullets, federal law. You are NOT allowed to purchase or own other weapons like grenades, rocket launchers, bombs, and others, federal law. The government has banned these, and been held up in court, because there is no reason except massive killing with these. An "assault weapon" which is legal to own but sometimes is questioned why is legal by gun control activists is a gun which is based off a military design but is only semi-auto. (Federal Assault Weapons Ban 1994) They shoot only ONE bullet at once and are able to hunt with, and long range competition shooting, no different than the typical hunting rifle.
The government's opinion on firearms actually has changed throughout time. Registering firearms has not always been required, not were background checks, as well as regulation what type of gun is allowed and where it can be carried. Any one used to be able to go to the store and buy a gun that instant and carry it anywhere you wished. Overtime laws have been enacted to suit our interests more. These include prohibiting certain weapons, prohibiting carrying guns in town/public, requiring national background check, the Gun Control Act to name a few. So yes, I believe we can and have adapted to current times from the revolutionary, wild west/frontier,and early 1900 eras.
As my first second post stated, enforcing our current laws is more important than making new laws. Enforcing the federal law that people with mental health problems are unable to purchase firearms might have helped VT shooting. If we can't enforce the current laws we have, what sense and good would enacting more laws do for public good when we can not enforce them?
What would I do if someone was carrying a machete because it qualified as a personal defense weapon? I would do nothing, same as I do for all the people who carry firearms as their choice of protection such as myself; I carry a firearm everyday. Why you might ask would I not care for some one to carry a weapon around me? This is very easy to explain. People who go through the process, paperwork, and fees to get their permit to carry are not people I'm worried about. People who gain weapons illegally I am worried about, which is why I carry mine. Making more laws will prohibate people like me from carrying, but will do nothing to those who ignore the laws. Yes they will go to jail if they are caught, however they still will now. That is why stricter enforcement of current laws are the best option. There are extreme amount of cases of legal carrying citizens who foil store robberies, home break ins, personal assaults, or muggings both towards themselves or others that they help.
Cont.
ReplyDeleteI would rather live in a town where everyone is armed either by being hunters, in the military, or personal protection than a town that bans all weapons because only legal guns are banned because there always will be black market/illegal weapons that criminals obtain that legal unarmed citizens will never know were they are.