The Audacity of Rhetoric
By Thomas Sowell
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
It is painful to watch defenders of Barack Obama tying themselves into knots trying to evade the obvious.
Some are saying that Senator Obama cannot be held responsible for what his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, said. In their version of events, Barack Obama just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time -- and a bunch of mean-spirited people are trying to make something out of it.
It makes a good story, but it won't stand up under scrutiny.
Barack Obama's own account of his life shows that he consciously sought out people on the far left fringe. In college, "I chose my friends carefully," he said in his first book, "Dreams From My Father."
These friends included "Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk rock performance poets" -- in Obama's own words -- as well as the "more politically active black students." He later visited a former member of the terrorist Weatherman underground, who endorsed him when he ran for state senator.
Obama didn't just happen to encounter Jeremiah Wright, who just happened to say some way out things. Jeremiah Wright is in the same mold as the kinds of people Barack Obama began seeking out in college -- members of the left, anti-American counter-culture.
In Shelby Steele's brilliantly insightful book about Barack Obama -- "A Bound Man" -- it is painfully clear that Obama was one of those people seeking a racial identity that he had never really experienced in growing up in a white world. He was trying to become a convert to blackness, as it were -- and, like many converts, he went overboard.
Nor has Obama changed in recent years. His voting record in the U.S. Senate is the furthest left of any Senator. There is a remarkable consistency in what Barack Obama has done over the years, despite inconsistencies in what he says.
The irony is that Obama's sudden rise politically to the level of being the leading contender for his party's presidential nomination has required him to project an entirely different persona, that of a post-racial leader who can heal divisiveness and bring us all together.
The ease with which he has accomplished this chameleon-like change, and entranced both white and black Democrats, is a tribute to the man's talent and a warning about his reliability.
There is no evidence that Obama ever sought to educate himself on the views of people on the other end of the political spectrum, much less reach out to them. He reached out from the left to the far left. That's bringing us all together?
Is "divisiveness" defined as disagreeing with the agenda of the left? Who on the left was ever called divisive by Obama before that became politically necessary in order to respond to revelations about Jeremiah Wright?
One sign of Obama's verbal virtuosity was his equating a passing comment by his grandmother -- "a typical white person," he says -- with an organized campaign of public vilification of America in general and white America in particular, by Jeremiah Wright.
Since all things are the same, except for the differences, and different except for the similarities, it is always possible to make things look similar verbally, however different they are in the real world.
Among the many desperate gambits by defenders of Senator Obama and Jeremiah Wright is to say that Wright's words have a "resonance" in the black community.
There was a time when the Ku Klux Klan's words had a resonance among whites, not only in the South but in other states. Some people joined the KKK in order to advance their political careers. Did that make it OK? Is it all just a matter of whose ox is gored?
While many whites may be annoyed by Jeremiah Wright's words, a year from now most of them will probably have forgotten about him. But many blacks who absorb his toxic message can still be paying for it, big-time, for decades to come.
Why should young blacks be expected to work to meet educational standards, or even behavioral standards, if they believe the message that all their problems are caused by whites, that the deck is stacked against them? That is ultimately a message of hopelessness, however much audacity it may have.
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Landmark Gun Ban Case Heard By Supreme Court
Landmark Gun Ban Case Heard By Supreme Court
Friday, March 21, 2008
On March 18, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in District of Columbia v. Heller, a case the Court has stated is "limited to the following question: Whether Washington, D.C.'s bans [on handguns, on having guns in operable condition in the home and on carrying guns within the home] violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes."
Most in the Supreme Court chamber seemed to agree that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. The issues that were most in contention included the meaning of the words "keep" and "bear," and whether the amendment protects the possession of arms only during militia service or also for self-defense; whether a total ban on handguns is a "reasonable" regulation of firearms; whether restrictions on the right to arms should be subject to "strict scrutiny," or legislatures or courts should be able to decide what is "reasonable;" and what kinds of regulations would be "reasonable" under the Second Amendment.
As expected, Dellinger emphasized the amendment's reference to the militia, and downplayed its operative clause, which commands that the "right of the people shall not be infringed." Because the militia are mentioned in the amendment, Dellinger insisted, individuals have a right to possess arms only while serving in a militia. To bolster that argument, he tried to write "keep" out of the amendment, presumably because "keep" means "in a private citizen's home."
Keep and/or bear?
Justice David Souter asked, "[if] 'keep' should be read as, in effect, an independent guarantee, then what is served by the phrase 'and bear?'" He then answered his own question, saying "it sounds to me as though 'keep and bear' forms one phrase rather than two." Justice John Paul Stevens was more direct. "It's one right to keep and bear, not two rights, to keep and to bear." (The Brady Campaign began pushing this new theory just last year.)
Solicitor General Paul D. Clement strongly disagreed, however, and three justices asked questions supporting that point. Chief Justice John Roberts asked, if the Framers had meant to protect a militia right, "Why would they say 'the right of the people?' Why wouldn't they say 'state militias have the right to keep arms?'" Justice Anthony Kennedy added, "the amendment says we reaffirm the right to have a militia, we've established it, but in addition, there is a right to bear arms. . . . [T]here's a general right to bear arms quite without reference to the militia either way."
Early on, Justice Antonin Scalia asked, "why isn't it perfectly plausible, indeed reasonable, to assume that since the framers knew that the way militias were destroyed by tyrants in the past was not by passing a law against militias, but by taking away the people's weapons -- that was the way militias were destroyed." He added, "The two clauses go together beautifully: Since we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Later, Justice Scalia noted, "It's not at all uncommon for a legislative provision or a constitutional provision to go further than is necessary for the principal purpose involved. The principal purpose here is the militia, but the second clause goes beyond the militia and says the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
Clement agreed. "A number of state courts that have interpreted [state constitutional right to arms provisions] have distinguished between the two rights and looked at them differently," he said. "And, obviously, the term 'keep' is a word that I think is something of an embarrassment for an effort to try to imbue every term in the operative text with an exclusively military connotation because that is not one that really has an exclusive military connotation." Clement later added, "it's worth emphasizing that the framers knew exactly how to condition a right on militia service, because they did it with respect to the grand jury clause, and they didn't do it with respect to the Second Amendment."
Self-Defense
Justice Stevens questioned whether the Second Amendment protects the right of self-defense, because most state constitutions in 1789 did not expressly mention self-defense in their provisions protecting the right to arms. And Justice Souter asked, "is there any evidence that the anti-Federalist objections to the Constitution that ultimately resulted in the Second Amendment were premised on any failure to recognize an individual right of self-defense or hunting?"
On the other hand, Justice Kennedy repeatedly suggested that the Framers intended the Second Amendment to protect the ability of settlers in the wilderness to defend themselves, and asked about self-defense in homes today.
Justice Scalia added, "[the English jurist] Blackstone thought [self-defense] was important. He thought the right of self-defense was inherent, and the framers were devoted to Blackstone. Joseph Story, the first commentator on the Constitution and a member of this Court, thought it was a personal guarantee."
Justice Samuel Alito asked, "If the amendment is intended at least, in part to protect the right to self-defense in the home, how could the District code provision survive under any standard of review where they totally ban the possession of the type of weapon that's most commonly used for self-defense?"
Dellinger back-pedaled from D.C.'s longstanding position that its laws prohibit self-defense, claiming that the city supports citizens using functional firearms for defense. That claim inspired a vigorous challenge by Heller's lawyer, Alan Gura. Solicitor General Clement sought to offer a solution to the problem, suggesting that D.C. should expressly "allow for a relatively robust self-defense exception to the trigger lock provision."
Chief Justice Roberts, however, scoffed at the idea that a citizen awakened by an intruder in the middle of the night could "turn on the lamp ... pick up [his] reading glasses," and disengage a trigger lock."
A ban is "reasonable?"
Perhaps the most animated exchange of the day was between Chief Justice Roberts and Dellinger, over whether a handgun ban is "reasonable."
Dellinger argued that states with constitutional protections on the right to keep and bear arms all allow reasonable regulations, but was flatly contradicted by Chief Justice Roberts, who asked him to explain what is reasonable about a total ban on possession?
Rest assured that we will continue to follow the developments in this case closely, leading to the Court's expected decision in June.
For more information on the Heller case, including links to the official Supreme Court Transcript, C-SPAN audio recording, and all the briefs in the case, please visit www.nraila.org/heller.
Friday, March 21, 2008
On March 18, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in District of Columbia v. Heller, a case the Court has stated is "limited to the following question: Whether Washington, D.C.'s bans [on handguns, on having guns in operable condition in the home and on carrying guns within the home] violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes."
Most in the Supreme Court chamber seemed to agree that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. The issues that were most in contention included the meaning of the words "keep" and "bear," and whether the amendment protects the possession of arms only during militia service or also for self-defense; whether a total ban on handguns is a "reasonable" regulation of firearms; whether restrictions on the right to arms should be subject to "strict scrutiny," or legislatures or courts should be able to decide what is "reasonable;" and what kinds of regulations would be "reasonable" under the Second Amendment.
As expected, Dellinger emphasized the amendment's reference to the militia, and downplayed its operative clause, which commands that the "right of the people shall not be infringed." Because the militia are mentioned in the amendment, Dellinger insisted, individuals have a right to possess arms only while serving in a militia. To bolster that argument, he tried to write "keep" out of the amendment, presumably because "keep" means "in a private citizen's home."
Keep and/or bear?
Justice David Souter asked, "[if] 'keep' should be read as, in effect, an independent guarantee, then what is served by the phrase 'and bear?'" He then answered his own question, saying "it sounds to me as though 'keep and bear' forms one phrase rather than two." Justice John Paul Stevens was more direct. "It's one right to keep and bear, not two rights, to keep and to bear." (The Brady Campaign began pushing this new theory just last year.)
Solicitor General Paul D. Clement strongly disagreed, however, and three justices asked questions supporting that point. Chief Justice John Roberts asked, if the Framers had meant to protect a militia right, "Why would they say 'the right of the people?' Why wouldn't they say 'state militias have the right to keep arms?'" Justice Anthony Kennedy added, "the amendment says we reaffirm the right to have a militia, we've established it, but in addition, there is a right to bear arms. . . . [T]here's a general right to bear arms quite without reference to the militia either way."
Early on, Justice Antonin Scalia asked, "why isn't it perfectly plausible, indeed reasonable, to assume that since the framers knew that the way militias were destroyed by tyrants in the past was not by passing a law against militias, but by taking away the people's weapons -- that was the way militias were destroyed." He added, "The two clauses go together beautifully: Since we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Later, Justice Scalia noted, "It's not at all uncommon for a legislative provision or a constitutional provision to go further than is necessary for the principal purpose involved. The principal purpose here is the militia, but the second clause goes beyond the militia and says the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
Clement agreed. "A number of state courts that have interpreted [state constitutional right to arms provisions] have distinguished between the two rights and looked at them differently," he said. "And, obviously, the term 'keep' is a word that I think is something of an embarrassment for an effort to try to imbue every term in the operative text with an exclusively military connotation because that is not one that really has an exclusive military connotation." Clement later added, "it's worth emphasizing that the framers knew exactly how to condition a right on militia service, because they did it with respect to the grand jury clause, and they didn't do it with respect to the Second Amendment."
Self-Defense
Justice Stevens questioned whether the Second Amendment protects the right of self-defense, because most state constitutions in 1789 did not expressly mention self-defense in their provisions protecting the right to arms. And Justice Souter asked, "is there any evidence that the anti-Federalist objections to the Constitution that ultimately resulted in the Second Amendment were premised on any failure to recognize an individual right of self-defense or hunting?"
On the other hand, Justice Kennedy repeatedly suggested that the Framers intended the Second Amendment to protect the ability of settlers in the wilderness to defend themselves, and asked about self-defense in homes today.
Justice Scalia added, "[the English jurist] Blackstone thought [self-defense] was important. He thought the right of self-defense was inherent, and the framers were devoted to Blackstone. Joseph Story, the first commentator on the Constitution and a member of this Court, thought it was a personal guarantee."
Justice Samuel Alito asked, "If the amendment is intended at least, in part to protect the right to self-defense in the home, how could the District code provision survive under any standard of review where they totally ban the possession of the type of weapon that's most commonly used for self-defense?"
Dellinger back-pedaled from D.C.'s longstanding position that its laws prohibit self-defense, claiming that the city supports citizens using functional firearms for defense. That claim inspired a vigorous challenge by Heller's lawyer, Alan Gura. Solicitor General Clement sought to offer a solution to the problem, suggesting that D.C. should expressly "allow for a relatively robust self-defense exception to the trigger lock provision."
Chief Justice Roberts, however, scoffed at the idea that a citizen awakened by an intruder in the middle of the night could "turn on the lamp ... pick up [his] reading glasses," and disengage a trigger lock."
A ban is "reasonable?"
Perhaps the most animated exchange of the day was between Chief Justice Roberts and Dellinger, over whether a handgun ban is "reasonable."
Dellinger argued that states with constitutional protections on the right to keep and bear arms all allow reasonable regulations, but was flatly contradicted by Chief Justice Roberts, who asked him to explain what is reasonable about a total ban on possession?
Rest assured that we will continue to follow the developments in this case closely, leading to the Court's expected decision in June.
For more information on the Heller case, including links to the official Supreme Court Transcript, C-SPAN audio recording, and all the briefs in the case, please visit www.nraila.org/heller.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Supreme Court and Heller Could Influence Elections
While the presidential primaries continue, and state and local races get into gear, the U.S. Supreme Court began hearing arguments March 17th on a case with huge political implications for gun owners: Heller v. The District of Columbia, or the Washington, D.C., gun-ban case.
The case concerns the 1976 District of Columbia law banning people from possessing handguns. Heller attorneys argue that the ban violates the right of D.C. citizens to own and possess firearms under the Second Amendment.
After oral arguments the first day, Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, gave an early "win" to the Second Amendment.
"Based on the questions that the justices asked, it is clear that they read the amicus briefs submitted by our side in support of District resident Dick Anthony Heller," Gottlieb wrote in an SAF press release. "We were impressed with the depth of questions asked by all of the justices, and we have no doubt that the court has a clear understanding of Second Amendment history, and that ‘the people’ are all citizens."
Gottlieb said a ruling is expected sometime in June.
The case concerns the 1976 District of Columbia law banning people from possessing handguns. Heller attorneys argue that the ban violates the right of D.C. citizens to own and possess firearms under the Second Amendment.
After oral arguments the first day, Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, gave an early "win" to the Second Amendment.
"Based on the questions that the justices asked, it is clear that they read the amicus briefs submitted by our side in support of District resident Dick Anthony Heller," Gottlieb wrote in an SAF press release. "We were impressed with the depth of questions asked by all of the justices, and we have no doubt that the court has a clear understanding of Second Amendment history, and that ‘the people’ are all citizens."
Gottlieb said a ruling is expected sometime in June.
Hillary's Gun Control Record
What does Hillary's gun control record look like?
Well, to be frank, It’s not good.
In a recent article, National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre wrote that, "As a ‘progressive’ senator, [Clinton] ranks among the handful of the worst ‘F’-rated gun banners who voted to support the kind of gunpoint disarmament that marked New Orleans’ rogue police actions against law-abiding gun owners in the anarchistic aftermath of Hurricane Katrina."
Clinton has also supported legislation to create a national registration for handguns and lent her face and name to the anti-gun Million Mom March.
Yet as a presidential candidate, Clinton claims to support the Second Amendment. She’s called for a vague gun summit, in which "everybody comes together on all sides of this issue." When pressed on the question of gun control, she admitted only to opposing "illegal guns."
Maybe Clinton's record on guns is best summed up by New York Times columnist Gail Collins, who recently wrote, "Clinton used to be very vocal about gun control when she was running for Senate in New York, but now [that she’s a presidential candidate], there's nothing about it on her Web site."
Well, to be frank, It’s not good.
In a recent article, National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre wrote that, "As a ‘progressive’ senator, [Clinton] ranks among the handful of the worst ‘F’-rated gun banners who voted to support the kind of gunpoint disarmament that marked New Orleans’ rogue police actions against law-abiding gun owners in the anarchistic aftermath of Hurricane Katrina."
Clinton has also supported legislation to create a national registration for handguns and lent her face and name to the anti-gun Million Mom March.
Yet as a presidential candidate, Clinton claims to support the Second Amendment. She’s called for a vague gun summit, in which "everybody comes together on all sides of this issue." When pressed on the question of gun control, she admitted only to opposing "illegal guns."
Maybe Clinton's record on guns is best summed up by New York Times columnist Gail Collins, who recently wrote, "Clinton used to be very vocal about gun control when she was running for Senate in New York, but now [that she’s a presidential candidate], there's nothing about it on her Web site."
SCOTUS Hears 2nd Amendment Case
This week, the Supreme Court of the United States will begin hearing arguments in Heller v. District of Columbia to decide the constitutionality of the 1976 District of Columbia law banning people there from possessing handguns.
The core issue is whether the Second Amendment is an individual right or one granted to states to establish militias.
"The District of Columbia's fight to preserve its nearly 32-year-old ban on handguns before the U.S. Supreme Court has drawn nationwide attention as a bellwether vote on the limits of gun control," the Washington Times reported. "The rarity of the case and the potential consequences of the ruling account for the widespread attention it has received. Nearly 70 amicus briefs have been filed on behalf of more than 320 members of Congress, 36 states and other interested parties on both sides of the case."
No group will watch the case more closely than the National Rifle Association.
"If you look at the briefs that have been filed on this case, the congressional brief is truly historic," said Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president. "What you see there is the people's branch of government weighing in that it's the people's freedom, and they want it protected.
"It's an important, watershed case. There's absolutely no doubt about that."
The core issue is whether the Second Amendment is an individual right or one granted to states to establish militias.
"The District of Columbia's fight to preserve its nearly 32-year-old ban on handguns before the U.S. Supreme Court has drawn nationwide attention as a bellwether vote on the limits of gun control," the Washington Times reported. "The rarity of the case and the potential consequences of the ruling account for the widespread attention it has received. Nearly 70 amicus briefs have been filed on behalf of more than 320 members of Congress, 36 states and other interested parties on both sides of the case."
No group will watch the case more closely than the National Rifle Association.
"If you look at the briefs that have been filed on this case, the congressional brief is truly historic," said Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president. "What you see there is the people's branch of government weighing in that it's the people's freedom, and they want it protected.
"It's an important, watershed case. There's absolutely no doubt about that."
McCain gets a "C"
Sen. John McCain, the Republican Party’s choice as 2008 presidential contender, has repeatedly stated his opposition to gun control, which he called "a proven failure in fighting crime." He has also opposed waiting periods for gun purchases and re-instating the federal assault weapons ban.
So why, as Reuters reported, has the National Rifle Association only given McCain a "C" grade on gun issues?
"(McCain) has supported legislation requiring gunmakers to include trigger locks with their products," Reuters reported. "(He) has supported mandating background checks on gun buyers at gun shows."
The good news for McCain?
"The National Rifle Association gives him an average grade of C for his position on guns but says he has a perfect voting record since 2007 and his grade may be revised."
So why, as Reuters reported, has the National Rifle Association only given McCain a "C" grade on gun issues?
"(McCain) has supported legislation requiring gunmakers to include trigger locks with their products," Reuters reported. "(He) has supported mandating background checks on gun buyers at gun shows."
The good news for McCain?
"The National Rifle Association gives him an average grade of C for his position on guns but says he has a perfect voting record since 2007 and his grade may be revised."
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Judging Gun Rights: Are They Inalienable?
By Ken Blackwell
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Editor's Note: This column is co-written by Ken Blackwell and Sandy Froman
“Rights [are] antecedent to all earthly government …” John Adams
As a historic Supreme Court case on the Second Amendment looms, District of Columbia v. Heller, two unexpected perspectives show what is at stake in this case for all Americans.
Between the two of us as authors, our commitment to the Second Amendment, coupled with our real-life experiences, explodes the stereotypical images of gun owners in America. We are living proof that the Second Amendment is a blessing for all Americans, and that all Americans have a vested interest in the pending court case.
What would compel a petite Jewish woman born in San Francisco and educated at Stanford University and Harvard Law School to buy a pistol and end up as the president of the National Rifle Association?
Growing up in the Froman family in the California Bay Area in the 1950s was idyllic. No one in my family owned guns. We didn’t even hunt or shoot. While real guns weren’t part of my life, “reel” guns were. Television Westerns like “Have Gun Will Travel” and of course, the “Rifleman,” were a type of morality plays — good guys and bad guys both used guns except the bad guys used guns to hurt and threaten people while the good guys used guns to protect and defend themselves. That lesson was never forgotten.
Thirty years later, as a young lawyer in Los Angeles, my gun awakening came in the form of terror when someone tried to break into my house in the middle of the night. Unable to defend myself, it suddenly became very clear that the person responsible for protecting my life and safety was me.
I refused to be a helpless victim. It was time to buy a gun and learn how to use it. Later when I joined the NRA and began receiving their flagship publication, the American Rifleman, I knew that Chuck Connors was right. Guns in the hands of good people save lives.
Growing up in the Blackwell household in the central city neighborhoods of Cincinnati informed my public policy work as mayor of the Queen City and as an undersecretary at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Families like mine — low income, civically engaged, and responsible — expected access to firearms for safety. Then, as now, criminals were not inclined to break into a house where the owner was armed.
Things were tougher in the South where the Deacons of Defense, most of whom were veterans like my father, chased away KKK riders and thugs. These groups of armed men patrolled their neighborhoods to keep them safe at night. Whether it’s an individual or a family who has to fight against random criminals or organized threats, our lives are evidence that Americans, particularly women and minorities in today’s urban areas, need our Second Amendment rights.
***
The Supreme Court has never settled the controversy at the heart of the great American gun debate: Whether individual citizens have a constitutional right to possess private firearms. Now the High Court has agreed to answer this question, in what will most likely be a 5-4 decision that could go either way.
This month the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in District of Columbia v. Heller. It is the first ever Supreme Court case that has the promise of finally answering the question of what the Second Amendment means. Assuming that the Court does not dismiss the case on some technicality, Heller could become the definitive standard for gun rights in America.
The Second Amendment says, “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.” The Heller case will decide whether the right to keep and bear arms refers to private, law-abiding citizens, or whether it is a right of the people “collectively” to have guns in the National Guard or other state militia units.
The facts of District of Columbia v. Heller make this a perfect test case. In the District of Columbia, it’s a crime to have any sort of readily-usable firearm. It’s illegal to have any sort of handgun — even a broken handgun — in your home. Having a long gun (rifle or shotgun) in your home is a crime unless the gun is unloaded and either disassembled or disabled by a trigger lock, with ammunition stored in a separate container. If someone breaks into your home, you have no time to have a functional firearm that is ready to defend your life or your family. The D.C. gun ban is considered the most severe gun control law in America.
Several citizens and lawyers brought the suit Parker v. District of Columbia to U.S. District Court to challenge this law. The federal trial court dismissed the case, stating that there is no right to own a gun. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed the decision, holding that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, and therefore holding the D.C. gun ban unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has taken the case, renamed District of Columbia v. Heller because Dick Heller was the only plaintiff found to have the standing to sue.
***
The issue in Heller is simple. The issue — or “question presented” — is whether the D.C. gun ban violates the Second Amendment right of individual citizens not connected with any state-sponsored militia to have guns in their home for private use.
The answer to the question presented is simple as well. But people reach opposite answers to this simple issue. Most people say the answer is “yes.” The Second Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, of which every other part — freedom of speech, religion, right to a jury trial, etc. — applies to individuals acting as private citizens.
The Second Amendment refers to “the right of the people.” The Founding Fathers were concerned about self-defense, the ability to defend your own property, and ensuring that the people had the means to throw off a tyrannical government, such as the one they had just escaped in Great Britain.
But others answer this simple question with a “no.” The framers did not want a standing army in peacetime. Some claim that the clause referring to a “militia” means that the framers were solely concerned about states being able to raise a military, and that this is the only “right” conferred by the Second Amendment. Thus, they conclude, the right can only be exercised in conjunction with service in this state-sponsored militia.
The reason people come to opposite conclusions for this simple question stems from different approaches to interpreting the Constitution, the issues that are implicated in this case, and different philosophies about government — self-reliance versus reliance upon government.
There are two different ways of reading the Constitution — sometimes described as “strict constructionism” versus the “Living Constitution.” Strict constructionism (the actual legal terms are “originalism” or “textualism”) requires judges to adhere to the words of the Constitution. A “Living Constitution” means that judges are free to interpret the meaning of the Constitution to make it conform to modern social trends.
Under the conservative approach there is no doubt the Second Amendment is an individual right, while under the “Living Constitution” a judge can simply say that modern society has evolved beyond the need for individual gun ownership.
Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit stated in Silviera v. Lockyer that “tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people.” Calling the Second Amendment a “doomsday provision,” Judge Kozinski warned that assuming you can never lose your freedom “is a mistake a free people get to make only once.” Those were the framers’ concerns when they wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights.
This is part I of a two part series. Part II will appear next Thursday.
Ms. Froman is the immediate past president of the National Rifle Association of America and a practicing attorney in Tucson, Arizona. Mr. Blackwell is the former mayor of Cincinnati and a fellow at the American Civil Rights Union.
Mr. Blackwell is Chairman of the Coalition for a Conservative Majority, a Fellow at the American Civil Rights Union, and the Buckeye Institute. He is a columnist for the New York Sun, a contributing editor for Townhall.com, and a member of the NRA Public Affairs Committee.
By Ken Blackwell
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Editor's Note: This column is co-written by Ken Blackwell and Sandy Froman
“Rights [are] antecedent to all earthly government …” John Adams
As a historic Supreme Court case on the Second Amendment looms, District of Columbia v. Heller, two unexpected perspectives show what is at stake in this case for all Americans.
Between the two of us as authors, our commitment to the Second Amendment, coupled with our real-life experiences, explodes the stereotypical images of gun owners in America. We are living proof that the Second Amendment is a blessing for all Americans, and that all Americans have a vested interest in the pending court case.
What would compel a petite Jewish woman born in San Francisco and educated at Stanford University and Harvard Law School to buy a pistol and end up as the president of the National Rifle Association?
Growing up in the Froman family in the California Bay Area in the 1950s was idyllic. No one in my family owned guns. We didn’t even hunt or shoot. While real guns weren’t part of my life, “reel” guns were. Television Westerns like “Have Gun Will Travel” and of course, the “Rifleman,” were a type of morality plays — good guys and bad guys both used guns except the bad guys used guns to hurt and threaten people while the good guys used guns to protect and defend themselves. That lesson was never forgotten.
Thirty years later, as a young lawyer in Los Angeles, my gun awakening came in the form of terror when someone tried to break into my house in the middle of the night. Unable to defend myself, it suddenly became very clear that the person responsible for protecting my life and safety was me.
I refused to be a helpless victim. It was time to buy a gun and learn how to use it. Later when I joined the NRA and began receiving their flagship publication, the American Rifleman, I knew that Chuck Connors was right. Guns in the hands of good people save lives.
Growing up in the Blackwell household in the central city neighborhoods of Cincinnati informed my public policy work as mayor of the Queen City and as an undersecretary at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Families like mine — low income, civically engaged, and responsible — expected access to firearms for safety. Then, as now, criminals were not inclined to break into a house where the owner was armed.
Things were tougher in the South where the Deacons of Defense, most of whom were veterans like my father, chased away KKK riders and thugs. These groups of armed men patrolled their neighborhoods to keep them safe at night. Whether it’s an individual or a family who has to fight against random criminals or organized threats, our lives are evidence that Americans, particularly women and minorities in today’s urban areas, need our Second Amendment rights.
***
The Supreme Court has never settled the controversy at the heart of the great American gun debate: Whether individual citizens have a constitutional right to possess private firearms. Now the High Court has agreed to answer this question, in what will most likely be a 5-4 decision that could go either way.
This month the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in District of Columbia v. Heller. It is the first ever Supreme Court case that has the promise of finally answering the question of what the Second Amendment means. Assuming that the Court does not dismiss the case on some technicality, Heller could become the definitive standard for gun rights in America.
The Second Amendment says, “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.” The Heller case will decide whether the right to keep and bear arms refers to private, law-abiding citizens, or whether it is a right of the people “collectively” to have guns in the National Guard or other state militia units.
The facts of District of Columbia v. Heller make this a perfect test case. In the District of Columbia, it’s a crime to have any sort of readily-usable firearm. It’s illegal to have any sort of handgun — even a broken handgun — in your home. Having a long gun (rifle or shotgun) in your home is a crime unless the gun is unloaded and either disassembled or disabled by a trigger lock, with ammunition stored in a separate container. If someone breaks into your home, you have no time to have a functional firearm that is ready to defend your life or your family. The D.C. gun ban is considered the most severe gun control law in America.
Several citizens and lawyers brought the suit Parker v. District of Columbia to U.S. District Court to challenge this law. The federal trial court dismissed the case, stating that there is no right to own a gun. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed the decision, holding that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, and therefore holding the D.C. gun ban unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has taken the case, renamed District of Columbia v. Heller because Dick Heller was the only plaintiff found to have the standing to sue.
***
The issue in Heller is simple. The issue — or “question presented” — is whether the D.C. gun ban violates the Second Amendment right of individual citizens not connected with any state-sponsored militia to have guns in their home for private use.
The answer to the question presented is simple as well. But people reach opposite answers to this simple issue. Most people say the answer is “yes.” The Second Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, of which every other part — freedom of speech, religion, right to a jury trial, etc. — applies to individuals acting as private citizens.
The Second Amendment refers to “the right of the people.” The Founding Fathers were concerned about self-defense, the ability to defend your own property, and ensuring that the people had the means to throw off a tyrannical government, such as the one they had just escaped in Great Britain.
But others answer this simple question with a “no.” The framers did not want a standing army in peacetime. Some claim that the clause referring to a “militia” means that the framers were solely concerned about states being able to raise a military, and that this is the only “right” conferred by the Second Amendment. Thus, they conclude, the right can only be exercised in conjunction with service in this state-sponsored militia.
The reason people come to opposite conclusions for this simple question stems from different approaches to interpreting the Constitution, the issues that are implicated in this case, and different philosophies about government — self-reliance versus reliance upon government.
There are two different ways of reading the Constitution — sometimes described as “strict constructionism” versus the “Living Constitution.” Strict constructionism (the actual legal terms are “originalism” or “textualism”) requires judges to adhere to the words of the Constitution. A “Living Constitution” means that judges are free to interpret the meaning of the Constitution to make it conform to modern social trends.
Under the conservative approach there is no doubt the Second Amendment is an individual right, while under the “Living Constitution” a judge can simply say that modern society has evolved beyond the need for individual gun ownership.
Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit stated in Silviera v. Lockyer that “tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people.” Calling the Second Amendment a “doomsday provision,” Judge Kozinski warned that assuming you can never lose your freedom “is a mistake a free people get to make only once.” Those were the framers’ concerns when they wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights.
This is part I of a two part series. Part II will appear next Thursday.
Ms. Froman is the immediate past president of the National Rifle Association of America and a practicing attorney in Tucson, Arizona. Mr. Blackwell is the former mayor of Cincinnati and a fellow at the American Civil Rights Union.
Mr. Blackwell is Chairman of the Coalition for a Conservative Majority, a Fellow at the American Civil Rights Union, and the Buckeye Institute. He is a columnist for the New York Sun, a contributing editor for Townhall.com, and a member of the NRA Public Affairs Committee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
