Keyes: Constitution protects machine gun ownership

M

MicroBalrog

New member
Keyes: Constitution protects machine gun ownership

August 25, 2004

BY SCOTT FORNEK Political Reporter
Advertisement


Declaring "the front line of the war against terror once again involves the citizens," Republican Alan Keyes said Tuesday he believes the U.S. Constitution grants properly trained private individuals the right to own and carry machine guns.

"You're not talking about giving citizens access to atom bombs and other things," the former presidential candidate said. "That's ridiculous."

But the GOP nominee for U.S. Senate argued the founding fathers intended the Second Amendment to allow people to carry the types of weapons "customarily carried in those days by ordinary infantry soldiers."

"And, yes, does that mean that in this day and age people would have the right to have access to the kind of the weapons our ordinary infantry people have access to? With proper training and so forth to make sure that they could handle them successfully, that's exactly what was meant."

Keyes made the remarks at a news conference he called to attack the "ideological extremism" of his Democratic opponent, state Sen. Barack Obama.

The Republican lit into Obama for voting against a bill in Springfield earlier this year that would have allowed people who use handguns to fend off home invaders or attackers to argue self-defense as a possible legal defense against prosecution for violating any local anti-firearm possession ordinances.

The measure passed the Legislature with bi-partisan support, but Gov. Blagojevich vetoed it last week.

Keyes called Obama's vote against the measure an "appalling . . . lack of common sense."

"This seems to be a man who is absolutely determined to make the world safe for criminals, while making sure that law-abiding citizens have no opportunity to defend themselves against the criminals," Keyes said.

Keyes said he supports a system in which guns would be treated similarly to automobiles, with people being required to undergo different levels of training before they would be allowed to own and carry various sorts of weapons.

"I always remind -- even people who support the Second Amendment -- that it has two parts: the right to keep and bear" arms, Keyes said. " 'Bear' means to carry, to carry around. . . . I think it has been proven empirically that . . . allowing law-abiding citizens this access to conceal-carry actually reduces crime."

Keyes said he owns two firearms himself: a 9mm Glock semi-automatic pistol and a .38-caliber "six-shooter." But he said he does not keep them at his new home in Calumet City.

Keyes only indirectly answered a reporter's question about whether he would "be comfortable if the entire society was walking around with Uzis, as long as they were properly trained."

"Have you ever been to Israel?" Keyes asked the reporter. "Because if you've ever been to Israel, you wouldn't ask that question. And in the midst of terrifying dangers, you walk around the streets of Israel and you see every other person carrying arms and Uzis and so forth and so on, and believe me, you do not feel less safe on that account."

Machine guns, or fully automatic weapons, are firearms that fire multiple shots with a single pull of the trigger.

Thomas Ahern, a spokesman for the Chicago division of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, said private individuals can only own such weapons if they apply with the bureau and clear a series of hurdles, including a background check, fingerprinting and the OK of local law enforcement officials. Additional paperwork is required any time the weapon is to be transported.

"It is heavily regulated," Ahern said.

A spokesman for Obama defended the Democrat's record on guns.

"Certainly he believes in the Second Amendment, but he also believes in common-sense gun safety laws, such as the federal ban on military-style assault weapons." said spokesman Robert Gibbs. "If Alan Keyes truly was concerned about public safety, that would be his position, as wel
 
It's a shame I violently disagree with Keyes in other areas.

Not that it matters, I'm registered to vote in Vermont so it hardly matters what I think of Keyes :)
 
"You're not talking about giving citizens access to atom bombs and other things," the former presidential candidate said. "That's ridiculous."
Click to expand...


Well, that's not what the 2A says. It's there to protect our right to own military weapons.


Actually, we really DO need an amendment to ban private ownership of WMD. They have no use in a revolution (you're going to win a battle for the hearts and minds of your countrymen by nuking some of them?) and they really are too dangerous to have lying around your average neighborhood. I'm sure the FF would have agreed if they could have foreseen nuclear & biological weapons.


No, that's not elitist - that's just reality.
 
At the point in history when the BOR was written didn't the militia serve as irregular infantry when needed? So doesn't it make sense that citizens should be allowed to own anything the basic infantry soldier carries onto the field? Even in this day and age the average footsoldier doesn't have portable nukes or aircraft carriers yet, so no dice on the super heavy hardware...

But when the govt starts outfitting infantry with those things, damn right citizens should have access too.
 
The United States Code, Title 10 (Armed forces), section 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes), paragraph (a) states "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."

In 1939, in United States v. Miller, on deciding against Miller and his short barrlled shotgun, the Supreme Court did not state that the owner of such a firearm needed to actually be in a "well regulated militia" for the Second Amendment to protect his right to own such a firearm, merely that the firearm could be of some use towards "the preservation or efficiency" of such a militia for the Second Amendment to apply. That, uh, would preclude the use of tactical nukes by the citizenry, I'm afraid. Insurance adjusters and busboys running around with Tomahawks are not very "efficient".

In 2002 a brief filed by John Ashcroft's Justice Department states that the 2nd Amendment: "broadly protects the rights of individuals, including persons who are not members of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to possess and bear their own firearms, subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse."

In United States v. Emerson, the justices of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals state that "as used throughout the Constitution, 'the people' have 'rights' and 'powers,' but federal and state governments only have 'powers' or 'authority', never 'rights.'" Furthermore, "There is no evidence in the text of the Second Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution, that the words 'the people' have a different connotation within the Second Amendment than when employed elsewhere in the Constitution."

Keyes said he supports a system in which guns would be treated similarly to automobiles, with people being required to undergo different levels of training before they would be allowed to own and carry various sorts of weapons
Click to expand...
I like to be in the company of such "crazies"...

I'm not sure exactly how this information fits in with the thread, per se, but this is the kind of research that is accomplished after reading such a thought-provoking thread....
 
Actually, we really DO need an amendment to ban private ownership of WMD.
Click to expand...

I would note that ownership of nukes is not covered by the 2nd, simply because any nuclear explosion on earth harms innocents.

FAE's? Be my guests.

MiG-21's? There's a civvie one in America now.

Cannon? I want to be there with you on the rage.
 
At the point in history when the BOR was written didn't the militia serve as irregular infantry when needed? So doesn't it make sense that citizens should be allowed to own anything the basic infantry soldier carries onto the field? Even in this day and age the average footsoldier doesn't have portable nukes or aircraft carriers yet, so no dice on the super heavy hardware...
Click to expand...


<sigh> Sadly, even 2A supporters have bought into the lie that the militia clause in the 2A defines the limits of the 2A. The word used is "arms" which is a general term meaning....

- are you ready for this?


Arms. Weapons. Things for hurting people and breaking things. There is nothing in the common use of that word in that day which limited it to hand carried weapons. That is an invention of interpretation that first reared its ugly head in the EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURY.

The FF had just fought a revolution using...

Arms. Weapons. Things for hurting people and breaking things. INCLUDING PRIVATELY OWNED warships and cannon.

No, warships and cannon are not issued to infantrymen.

And where in bloodly blue blazes does the 2A say anything about arms that don't "harm innocents"???? :eek:


With friends like these.....


Don't complain the next time SCOTUS re-writes the Constitution. They're just following your example.
 
If private citizens can't own warships and cannon, who is Congress authorized to issue letters of marque and reprisal to? The navy? :confused:

A problem arises when the BoR is looked at as a general list of things that the government shouldn't do, rather than realizing that the Constitution as a whole is a specific list of things that the government may do.
 
Tamara, I suddenly agree with you. That's scary.

However, I will gladly tag along with the 'small arms only crowd.' Anybody who wants an increase in freedom is a friend.
 
"And where in bloodly blue blazes does the 2A say anything about arms that don't "harm innocents"???? "



Your right to swing you fist...

In the same way, you can't own a nuke - since even if you detonated it in the desert, I would be hurt by the fallout.

If you invented a 'zero radiation, zero fallout' nuke' go for it. Shall not be infringed. :D
 
Nice theory, but that's not what our Constitution says.


Something about the "rule of law"....




Uh, that bit about harming innocents ( and just too many people in general ) is why I say we need an Amendment banning them.
 
Interesting point, Tamara, here's something else...

The only thing that I can add to Tamara's point is that the US has signed international treaties effectively surrendering its right to commission privateers.
However this does not affect in any way the importance of the power "to issue letters of marque and reprisal" for purposes of understanding the Framers intent and thus what the older parts of the Bill of Rights at a minimum afford us in terms of rights.
The Constitution allows the Government to surrender its powers by signing a treaty which supercedes the Constitution and any part therein.
But the "treaty clause" has in turn been modified like the rest of the Constitution by the Bill of Rights and other Amendments (after all that's what Amendments are for).
Thus the President can sign and treaty and the Senate can ratify it but it is unconstitutional if it conflicts with the Amendments. You see the Second Amendment says "shall not be infringed."
If the Framers had wanted the government to still be able to sign treaties that infringed on the Second Amendment or any other Amendment then they would have written those Amendments differently so that they would not in effect supercede the "treaty clause" with respect to arms.
Thus the Government has surrendered its power to commission privateers.
It cannot surrender our right to keep and bear arms presumably and in theroy including armed merchant or recreational vessels. Few private citizens owned warships built to be so from the hull up so that might not have been intended for protection by the Framers. After all even the US navy lacked anything heavier than a frigate at the time.
Actually to those who would foolishly argue that since merchantmen can no longer be issued letters of marque by the US they have no legitimate reason to be armed, I would point to the piracy that still plagues many global backwaters such as the Phillipines. And then there is always terrorism to consider. The US Navy does show the flag around the world but it can't be everywhere at every time.
But to wrap up with a more vital point: A proper reading of the constitution also conclusively proves that the treaty clause cannot be used by an anti-gun president and senate to get around the Second Amendment because the Second Amendment by its enactment modifying the treaty clause to make it non-applicable to anything involving private arms ownership and use. Period.
 
Few private citizens owned warships built to be so from the hull up so that might not have been intended for protection by the Framers.
Click to expand...


"Few" is enough. The few existed, and were used, and more than a few cannon. The writers and ratifiers of the BOR knew this. Had they meant only hand carried weapons, they'd have said so.
 
Quartus, I understand your point...

I said few almost as one of those instinctive qualifying remarks one makes to acknowledge that most cases have at least one exception even if it is the exception that proves the rule. Still, I'm sure there were some and that bolsters your point.
At the same time, warship armament has become so heavy that it no longer merely encompasses that needed to protect one's life and cargo. My concern here is not so much that those who would want modern warships as a right would engage in criminal activity but rather that they would have too great a prepoderance of firepower in comparison to other armed citizens.
There is a difference between being a privately armed citizen protecting one's rights and a warlord who maintains an armed body of retainers who have primary loyalty to him. Such individuals can oppress the people just as easily as a government can. Remember that tradesmen and peasents supported the growth of absolutist monarchies in part because they could tame the depradations of a military aristocracy with its own private armies.
The American answer to that question was to have a militia composed of privately armed citizens. One got the best of both worlds, a privately armed citizenry that could check the power of government but a public militia that could not turn on the citizenry. We need to understand that our armed citizenship is about private arms but not private arms for their own sake.
I wonder which if any private citizens had out and out warships and why they had them. This would be a primarily historical question. I am aware back then of course that the differences between warships and merchantmen could be blurred.
I remember reading of at one case where an East India Comany Commodore fooled a French squadron of warships into thinking that his own comparatively lightly armed convoy of East Indiamen were actually British navy ships of the line. This ruse saved his ships and cargo.
 
At the same time, warship armament has become so heavy that it no longer merely encompasses that needed to protect one's life and cargo. My concern here is not so much that those who would want modern warships as a right would engage in criminal activity but rather that they would have too great a prepoderance of firepower in comparison to other armed citizens.
Click to expand...


Are we discussion what the meaning of "arms" is in the 2A or what changes should be made to it now in light of the advancement of military technology? The second has nothing to do with the former. It means what it says, and any question about definitions has to be determined by examining what it meant when it was written, not what we think it means now or what we'd like it to mean.

I was discussing the first. My point was that the FF were quite happy with Joe Blow Ordinary Citizen having heavy, military weapons, as evidenced by the fact that ordinary citizens of that day DID legally possess and use the heaviest military armaments of that day. This is proven by history and that the Constitution specifically authorized Congress to issue letters of marquee to Joe Blow Ordinary Citizen deputizing him to use his legally, privately owned WARSHIP in a particular manner. The letter of marquee did not give PERMISSION to own the warship, it ASSUMED THE OWNERSHIP and authorized it to be used in a particular fashion on behalf of the Federal Government.

I can understand being a little uneasy about Bill Gates having his own Enterprise class carrier complete with aircraft and crew, but that doesn't change the meaning of the 2A. If we as a country don't want Billy to have that particular toy, the correct response is to pass an amendment barring that, NOT to re-interpret the 2A.
 
Lol, can I get a race-change to be black then? Maybe Keyes can give me one of those Uzis and AK47s that will be flooding the streets soon.
 
Maybe Keyes could kill two birds with one stone and propose gifting a machine gun to every black person in the US as the reparation payments he supports.

The Black Panthers proposed that.

Can we arm the Jews while we're at it? :)

*gets in line for the m-16's*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top