It looks like there's a concerted effort by the gun grabbers to write to every paper that mentioned the Second Amendment in their MMM coverage. Has anyone else seen the phrase "In repeating the NRA's bumper-sticker distortion of the Second Amendment, the < insert name of paper > is misleading its readers and abetting the gun lobby."
I replied, to the San Jose Mercury News:
Jon Windham is quite wrong in his claim that the right to keep and bear arms isn't an individual right. In United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990), Chief Justice Rehnquist affirmed what legal scholars have come to refer to as the "Standard Model" of the Second Amendment when he wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>..."the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.[/quote]
In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Supreme Court ruled against Miller solely because they were under the mistaken impression that a short-barreled shotgun was not a common military weapon. They implied that if Mr. Miller had been carrying what they would have recognized as a military weapon, he would have been protected by the Second Amendment. The Court ruled:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.[/quote]
The Supreme Court, in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) stated:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government...the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question [the Second Amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.[/quote]
Also, if Mr. Windham had bothered to do any research whatsoever, rather than parroting the tired lies of HCI, he would quickly and inevitably have found that the Founding Fathers fervently believed in the right and duty of all citizens to keep and bear arms. James Madison (author of the Second Amendment) and Thomas Jefferson were quite unequivocal in their support for this right. In the interest of brevity, I will simply suggest that the interested reader do their own research.
------------------
Protect your Right to Keep and Bear Arms!
I replied, to the San Jose Mercury News:
Jon Windham is quite wrong in his claim that the right to keep and bear arms isn't an individual right. In United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990), Chief Justice Rehnquist affirmed what legal scholars have come to refer to as the "Standard Model" of the Second Amendment when he wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>..."the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.[/quote]
In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Supreme Court ruled against Miller solely because they were under the mistaken impression that a short-barreled shotgun was not a common military weapon. They implied that if Mr. Miller had been carrying what they would have recognized as a military weapon, he would have been protected by the Second Amendment. The Court ruled:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.[/quote]
The Supreme Court, in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) stated:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government...the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question [the Second Amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.[/quote]
Also, if Mr. Windham had bothered to do any research whatsoever, rather than parroting the tired lies of HCI, he would quickly and inevitably have found that the Founding Fathers fervently believed in the right and duty of all citizens to keep and bear arms. James Madison (author of the Second Amendment) and Thomas Jefferson were quite unequivocal in their support for this right. In the interest of brevity, I will simply suggest that the interested reader do their own research.
------------------
Protect your Right to Keep and Bear Arms!