Originally found here.My comments in bold.
---------------------------------
Is the U.S. Supreme Court ever wrong? You bet.
Start with the 1857 Dred Scott decision that affirmed slavery. Or Plessy v. Ferguson, 1895, that affirmed separate but equal treatment of blacks constitutional. Or Lochner, 1905, that found employers could exploit their workers, requiring them to work unlimited hours, even up to 80 hours a week. And in 2007, denying Lilly Ledbetter the right to continue her gender discrimination suit against Goodyear Tire for paying men more than her, even those she trained, for no legitimate reason. (I wonder if she has any issues with Roe V. Wade, Home Building & Loan v. Blaisdell, or Kelo v. New London? As is typical with Leftists, they believe the Supreme Court provides the inviolate, absolute gospel only when they happen to agree with the ruling. Otherwise, it's overreaching or denying people their rights. Witness their hysterical opposition to any sort of restrictions or standards regarding abortion, or their reaction to Citizens United.)
And they got it wrong in the 2008 Heller gun decision that gun advocates so sanctimoniously love to quote, greatly expanding gun accessibility. (Let's see if she's able to tell us exactly how they got it wrong.)
The Court overturned long-settled law dating from 1875 that the Second Amendment applies to the government, not an individual gun owner. (The least she could do is get the situation correct before she continues on her rant. The Heller case was the very first time the Supreme court had considered the issue, which is why it was noteworthy. It had never considered the second amendment before.
And its decision overturned lower court decisions, which is hardly a rare occurrence. As a matter of fact, courts of all kinds overturn rulings on a regular basis. Witness state laws regarding marriage, abortion, and other topics near to the heart of Leftists. They have no complaint at all when it goes their way. So the writer's appeal to precedent rings hollow.
The second amendment, like all of the Constitution, defines and limits government. It has nothing to say about the rights of The People, except in passing, as it imposes further government limits. This is explained by the ninth amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." I repeat, the Constitution is about the limits to government, not the limits to the People.
So there is no possible way that the second amendment can be construed to limit the possession of arms by the People.)
The Second Amendment to the Constitution says, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Got that? A well regulated Militia? (A common error for the Left, thinking that because a militia is mentioned that this is the only allowable opportunity to possess a firearm. Of course, the amendment plainly does not say that.
Legally speaking, the militia consists of "...of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age...", and can be either in the National Guard or separate from it. The People can be called upon to defend the country, even if they're not in the military. The militia, then, is the citizenry, who come when called to serve, with their weapons in hand. The are already armed!
Having completely misrepresented the second amendment, the writer now goes on to list a number of illegal uses of guns, searching in vain for a cogent, relevant point to bolster her argument. Somehow, in her mind criminals engaging in criminality has something to do with the matter at hand. What that might be is never explained.) Let’s see, is a Chicago ghetto kid armed with a handgun using it for the security of our country? Or the drug gang member with his assault weapon terrorizing rival gangs and drive-by shootings, really going to take it with him in the unlikely event he joins the National Guard, which many regard as the successor to the Militia of the 18th century. Are people willy-nilly carrying guns necessary “for the security a free State?” Guns in restaurants, and play grounds, and college campuses for our nation’s security? (Having attempted to establish that the only permissible reason to possess a gun is for a national security purpose, she builds on her false premise by offering ridiculous scenarios. A typical Leftist rhetorical tactic.)
The Militia is cited three (Actually, five.) times in our Constitution, and always with other military forces. (No, it is clear from actually reading the constitution that it is not always with other military forces.)
Congress shall have the Power “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions, ... To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining, the Militia and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States.” Art 1, Sec. 8. Art. II, sec. 2 says, “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy . . . and of the Militia.” (Notice that the writer is appealing the the language of the Constitution. Strangely, she names certain enumerated Constitutional powers of Congress, which Leftists never do. They are all about emanations and penumbras and the virtually unlimited powers of government via the misappropriation of the Commerce and General Welfare clauses. So it is odd that suddenly the Constitution is so important to a Leftist.
Unfortunately for the writer, that pesky Constitution ends up getting in the way of her narrative. Those who take the Constitution literally recognize that it enumerates a specific list of powers. If it isn't in the list, Congress can't do it. Here, Congress is specifically empowered by the Constitution in Sec. 8 [aka the enumerated powers section] to CALL FORTH a militia, that is, the militia is an entity that needs to be assembled. It doesn't serve the government or exist as an agency of government until called forth, and then only for specific purposes.
But even then, the writer deceptively quotes it.
First, she quotes three separate enumerated powers and includes them together in an effort to imply they have to do with each other. The first enumerated power she quotes, "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces," is a separate enumerated power from "...to provide for calling forth the Militia...," which is separate from the next enumerated power, "...to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining, the Militia..." From this she concludes that the militia is a government military entity. Clearly it is not.
It is unknown why she did not combine the next enumerated power, "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States..." Oh, yeah. Doing so would not further her deception...
The fourth time the militia is mentioned is in a completely different section, but the author deceptively combines it with the previous three enumerated powers clauses, and with a partial quote to boot.
Interestingly, this clause reinforces the idea that the militia is an assemblage of the People. Here's the full quote: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States..." Notice the militia is called into service from the several States. It is not a federal entity, it is not a standing organization, it is not a military force.)
How the Supreme Court made the jump to allowing guns to be carried by individuals for their own purpose, is hard to fathom. (Um, yeah. How the author makes the jump from a constitutional restriction of government to become a restriction on the people is hard to fathom...)
What advocates also neglect to understand, is that the Court clearly said that the Second Amendment right, like all rights, are not unlimited. (Topic change. She goes from the militia to the limits on rights. But what about the right to abortion? Isn't it unlimited?
You know, I don't recalling seeing any gun rights activist making a claim that the second amendment is unlimited, so the author seems to be offering a straw man.)
“Nothing in our opinion should 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.” I conclude that many of the advocates who contact (and excoriate me) have not even read the opinion. (Having constructed her straw man, she uses it to prop up her own wounded ego by suggesting her critics are ignorant. Another typical Leftist rhetorical tactic.)
Over 30,000 people are killed by guns each year, two-third of them suicides. I keep a daily gun tally from newspapers. Mass killings are not even on the front page anymore. Nor are children who accidentally kill other children. Parents who accidentally kill children and children who accidentally kill parents. Or domestic violence gun deaths. (Does she also keep a tally of fatal clubbings, knife deaths, or pill suicides? I doubt it, because those things violate her narrative.)
So, how many children slaughtered, how many needless accidents, how many children left without parents, parents without children, husbands and wives lost? Police officers, firefighters, school teachers, killed? How many people walking down their street, children sitting on their front door stoop? How many candle light vigils, before we rise up as a nation and say, no more? (Is she talking about guns, or automobile deaths?)
We can’t count on our Supreme Court to protect us, so where do we go from here? (If she means we can't count on them to protect us from tyrants like her, that is probably true.)
Ellie Kinnaird is a former state senator and Carrboro mayor. You can reach her at ekinnaird2@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment