Professors say NRA is misreading Constitution

N

nralife

New member
Professors say NRA is misreading Constitution
Associated Press
Tuesday, March 28, 2000
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/local_regional/nra03282000.htm

A group of law and history professors accused the National Rifle Association yesterday of misleading the public by suggesting that proposed gun-control laws would violate the Constitution.

In a letter to NRA President Charlton Heston, who is slated to speak at Brandeis University tonight, the 47 professors said the NRA's ``repeated suggestions that the Second Amendment somehow stands in the way of effective and reasonable regulation of guns and gun ownership is a distortion of legal precedent and a disservice to all Americans.''

An NRA spokesman declined comment on the professors' letter.

The letter said the amendment ``plainly permits reasonable firearms regulations,'' including bans on certain types of weapons, requirements for safety devices and gun registration and licensing.

``The Second Amendment does not guarantee an unregulated supply of cheap handguns to all,'' Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe said in a telephone news conference.

Earlier this month, NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre stirred up controversy by saying President Clinton was ``willing to accept a certain level of killing to further his political agenda.''

Numerous federal appeals court decisions have upheld various gun-control laws against Second Amendment challenges.

The Supreme Court has ruled only once on the amendment's scope. It ruled in 1939 that there is no right to own a sawed-off shotgun in the absence of ``some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.''

Last October, the nation's highest court declined to hear two appeals that sought to assert a personal and constitutionally protected right to own a gun.

But in April 1999, a federal judge in Lubbock, Texas, ruled that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is a protected individual right.

U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings dismissed charges against a man accused of violating a 1994 federal law that prohibits someone under a restraining order from owning a gun. A federal appeals court is expected to hear the government's appeal of that ruling in June.

During the news conference, Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar said the Second Amendment does not create an unlimited right. Just as people can be required to get drivers' licenses and register their cars, licensing and registration can be required for gun owners, he said

Joe

------------------
Joe's Second Amendment Message Board
 
World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Mailing List
________________________________________

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Note: Needless to say, these characters don't have it right. Most of the
legal authority and scholarship is on the RKBA side. An even more
interesting thing is that Larry Tribe seems to ignore his own conclusion
reached in an earlier New York Times Article, October 28, 1999,
"Well-Regulated Militias, and More," (LAURENCE H. TRIBE and AKHIL REED AMAR),
that the right to bear arms is an individual right. What we have here is a
group of very liberal academics looking for a way to attack the NRA.
[/quote]

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
Check out their letter to Heston:
LCAV LEGAL COMMUNITY AGAINST VIOLENCE


An Open Letter to the NRA March 27, 2000 Mr. Charlton Heston President National Rifle Association of America 11250 Waples Mill Rd. Fairfax, Virginia 22030 Dear Mr. Heston, We are law professors and historians who have a deep interest in the Second Amendment and its implications for the regulation of guns and of gun ownership. Our politics run the gamut. But we are united on the vital importance of putting to rest any misperception that the Second Amendment prohibits a wide range of effective and reasonable firearms regulations. There is room for debate about which firearms policies will best serve Americans. But the law is well-settled that the Second Amendment permits broad and intensive regulation of firearms, including laws that ban certain types of weapons, require safety devices on others, mandate registration and licensing and otherwise impose strict regulatory oversight of the firearms industry. These and similar regulations are fully consistent with the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment – quoted in full – states that “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 United States Supreme Court and every federal appellate court to consider the issue have held that the Second Amendment permits a wide range of reasonable gun control laws. And although academic views differ regarding whether the Second Amendment does more than protect the state militia from being disarmed by federal law, we all agree that the Amendment plainly permits reasonable firearms regulations including those set forth above. The National Rifle Association’s repeated suggestions that the Second Amendment somehow stands in the way of effective and reasonable regulation of guns and gun ownership is a distortion of legal precedent and a disservice to all Americans, the great majority of whom support thoughtful firearms policies. The issue at hand transcends the liberal/conservative divide: prominent conservatives like the late Chief Justice Warren Burger and the late Solicitor General Erwin Griswold allied themselves against the NRA’s overbroad reading of the Second Amendment. Moreover, as this letter makes clear, it is false and misleading for the NRA to cite any of us or our scholarship as authority for the notion that the Second Amendment prohibits reasonable regulation of the manufacture, transfer, ownership and possession of guns. We encourage you and your supporters to focus on the real issue facing our country – and it isn’t the Second Amendment. The central issue on which we all should focus is what sort of firearms legislation and policies will best prevent the killings and violence that plague our country today. Sincerely, (see attached list of endorsers) cc: Wayne LaPierre, NRA Executive Vice-President
Academic Endorsers of the Letter to Charlton Heston Regarding the Second Amendment:
1. Akhil Reed Amar Southmayd Professor of Law Yale Law School
2. Edward Ayers Hugh P. Kelly Professor of History University of Virginia
3. Michael Bellesiles Professor of History Emory University
4. Carl T. Bogus Professor of Law Roger Williams University Law School
5. Jeff Brand Professor of Law University of San Francisco School of Law
6. John L. Brooke Stern Professor of American History Tufts University
7. Edwin G. Burrows Professor of History Brooklyn College
8. Richard M. Buxbaum Professor of Law Boalt Hall School of Law
9. Andrew Cayton Professor of History Miami University
10. Erwin Chemerinsky Sydney M. Irmas Professor of Public Interest Law, Legal Ethics and Political Science University of Southern California Law School
11. Saul Cornell Associate Professor of History Ohio State University
12. Edward Countryman University Distinguished Professor Southern Methodist University
13. Michael C. Dorf Professor of Law Columbia University
14. Norman Dorsen Stokes Professor of Law New York University School of Law
15. David R. Dow George Butler Research Professor of Law University of Houston Law Center
16. Robert R. Dykstra Professor of History and Public Policy State University of New York (SUNY) Albany
17. Susan Estrich Robert Kingsley Professor of Law and Political Science University of Southern California Law School
18. Heidi Feldman Associate Professor of Law Georgetown Professor of Law
19. Don Higginbotham Dowd Professor of History University of North Carolina
20. Peter Hoffer Research Professor of History University of Georgia
21. N.E.H. Hull Distinguished Professor of Law and History Rutgers University, Camden
22. Nancy Isenberg Associate Professor of History University of Northern Iowa
23. Yale Kamisar Clarence Darrow Distinguished University Professor University of Michigan Law School
24. Michael Kammen Professor of American History and Culture Cornell University
25. Stanley Katz Professor in Public and International Affairs Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs
26. David M. Kennedy Donald I. McLachlan Professor of History Stanford University
27. Christopher Kutz Associate Professor of Law Boalt Hall School of Law
28. Jill Lepore Associate Professor of History Boston University
29. Jan Lewis Professor of History Rutgers University, Newark
30. Rory Little Professor of Law Hastings College of Law
31. Ronald Mann Professor of Law University of Michigan Law School
32. Mari Matsuda Professor of Law Georgetown University Law Center
33. Andrew J. McClurg Nadine H. Baum Distinguished Professor of Law University of Arkansas at Little Rock School of Law
34. Mary Beth Norton Mary Donlon Professor of American History Cornell University
35. Michael L. Perlin Professor of Law New York Law School
36. Jack Rakove Coe Professor of History and American Studies Stanford University
37. Peter M. Shane Professor of Law University of Pittsburgh School of Law
38. Billy Smith Professor of History Montana State University, Bozeman
39. Laurence H. Tribe Ralph S. Tyler, Jr., Professor of Constitutional Law Harvard Law School
40. Richard Uviller Professor of Law Columbia Law School
41. Charles D. Weisselberg Professor of Law Boalt Hall School of Law
42. Robin West Professor of Law Georgetown University Law Center
43. Welsh S. White Professor of Law University of Pittsburgh
44. William M. Wiecek Conadon Professor of Public Law and Professor of History Syracuse University College of Law
45. Gary Wills Adjunct Professor of History Northwestern University
46. David Yassky Assistant Professor of Law Brooklyn Law School
47. Michael Zuckerman Professor of History
I don't recognize most of these names, but Bogus (Ironic name there, it fits.) is a hired gun for the gun control movement, who claims that the purpose of the Second amendment, get this, was to make it easier for fugitive slaves to be re-captured!


------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
Tribe's not saying that the 2nd isn't an individual right. He's saying that the proposed laws don't constitute constitutional infringement. He's missing the fact that unconstitutional laws have already been passed. Primarily the so-called "assault weapon" bans which clearly contradict the founders' intent that we all comprise the militia.

------------------
Protect your Right to Keep and Bear Arms!
 
I think the Associated Press is either confused or is attempting to spread confusion. The article implies that the academics are speaking against the Second Amendment as an individual right, hence the implied contrast with the Lubbock ruling. However, it seems to me that the profs are really arguing for the restriction of the RKBA, even while admitting that it may in fact be an individual right. Of course, the bottom line is the same--needless chipping away at a civil liberty for political ends.

Personally, I think it's unseemly for Americans--even professional academics--to beg for the restriction of their rights and to rationalize this restriction. For centuries people struggled and fought for the recognition of their civil liberties. Now we live in a time and a place where too many of us assert that we don't have such and such a right, or that this right, usually the RKBA, should be curtailed, as these whiny professors are urging.

Did any of us ever expect to see Americans so dad-blamed *eager* to deny or forfeit a civil liberty? Barf!




[This message has been edited by jimmy (edited March 28, 2000).]
 
As for Mr. Tribe, I seriously suspect that he's piping up because he's tired of getting hate mail from his leftist friends.
 
The name at the top of the list is Akhil Reed Amar. While his name may not have the impact of Lawrence Tribe, Amar is certainly one of the top Constitutional scholars of our time.

Amar wrote an excellent book entitled "The Bill of Rights" (I recommend you buy it). Based upon his book, there's no question that he's pro-Second Amendment. Here are a few quotes from it:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>An aristocratic central government, lacking sympathy with and confidence from ordinary constituents, might dare to resist - especially if that government were propped up by a standing army of mercenaries, vagrants, convicts, aliens, and the like. Only an armed populace could deter such an awful spectacle. Hence the need to bar Congress from disarming free-men.[/quote]

As far as "individual rights" go...

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The ultimate right to keep and bear arms belongs to "the people," not the states. As the language of the Tenth Amendment shows, these two are of course not identical: when the Constitution means "states," it says so.[/quote]

In regards to whether the militia is made up of the National Guard or "the people"...

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The seeming tension between the dependent and the main clauses of the Second Amendment thus evaporates on closer inspection - the "militia" is identical to "the people".[/quote]

And this line of reasoning continues with the Third Amendment ("No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in manner to be prescribed by law.")

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Like the Second, the Third centrally focuses on the structural issue of protecting civilian values against the threat of an overbearing military. No standing army in peacetime can be allowed to dominate civilian society, either openly or by subtle insinuation. The Second Amendment's militia could thwart any open military usurpation - say, a siege - but what about more insidious forms of military occupation, featuring federal soldiers cowing civilian by psychological guerrilla warfare, day by day and house by house? Bostonians who had lived under the hated Quartering Act of 1774 knew that this was no wild hypothetical. Hence the Third Amendment was needed to deal with military threats too subtle and stealth for the Second's "well regulated Militia."[/quote]

On the other hand, the letter sent to the NRA stated, "But the law is well-settled that the Second Amendment permits broad and intensive regulation of firearms, including laws that ban certain types of weapons, require safety devices on others, mandate registration and licensing and otherwise impose strict regulatory oversight of the firearms industry." Even given all of the above quotes, it's understandable that Amar would sign his name to such a statement.

For example, U.S. vs. Miller stated that the government COULD regulate firearms - so long as they have no reasonable relationship with the militia. This letter merely restates this fact. However, the mainstream press will surely never put ANY of the quotes from Amar that I posted above. They'll NEVER print that U.S. vs. Miller held that the government can not regulate "assault weapons".

I think this is just another example of the liberals telling half-truths.
 
Elector is absolutely right. And I submit that Mr. Tribe could well be confused. How many DECADES did it take for him to even figure out that the 2nd was an individual right? Someone remind me?

And how do they reconcile the so-called "privacy" concept often applied to the First Amendment and others? According to the professors in my ethics class, the reasoning of the Supreme Court has been that the right of privacy is essential to preserving the right of free speech, freedom of religion, etc.--because if you can't keep it private, then you aren't really free to practice it. But say the same thing about RKBA (like saying that registration is unconstitutional) and you're a lunatic who doesn't know how to read it. :confused: Why does the concept of a right to privacy mean so much when applied to all the rights BUT the RKBA, while it means absolutely nothing when applied to the RKBA?
 
re: "...The United States Supreme Court and every federal appellate court to consider the issue have held that the Second Amendment permits a wide range of reasonable gun control laws. And although academic views differ...the Amendment plainly permits reasonable firearms regulations..."

And WHO decides just what is reasonable? That is the prevailing question.
 
The author of the letter, (I doubt very much it was Amar.) is either ignorant of the NRA's policies, or simply dishonest. (Given what I know of some of the signers, I tend towards the latter explaination.)

The NRA clearly does not oppose all gun laws. (It doesn't even oppose ENOUGH gun laws, in my opinion!) And not all gun laws it opposes are opposed on strict Second amendment grounds.

Many, perhaps most, of the gun laws the NRA opposes, are opposed because while they might technically not violate the Second amendment, (Though only if it's interpreted narrowly, unlike the First.) their utility for legitimate governmental purposes is negligable, and the laws amount to either petty harrassment of gun owners, or obvious preparation for acts which clearly WOULD violate the Second amendment.

I'd like to ask these jokers two questions:

First, would it be constitutional to register and license printing presses?

And if not, why guns?

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nralife:
Professors say NRA is misreading Constitution
Associated Press
Tuesday, March 28, 2000
A group of law and history professors accused the National Rifle Association yesterday of misleading the public by suggesting that proposed gun-control laws would violate the Constitution.

In a letter to NRA President Charlton Heston, who is slated to speak at Brandeis University tonight, the 47 professors said the NRA's ``repeated suggestions that the Second Amendment somehow stands in the way of effective and reasonable regulation of guns and gun ownership is a distortion of legal precedent and a disservice to all Americans.''

The letter said the amendment ``plainly permits reasonable firearms regulations,'' including bans on certain types of weapons...

But, as the intent of the amendment is to ensure the people had the power to overthrow the government if necessary, does a ban on certain weapons apply to all? Can the goverment exempt itself from these bans and regulations?


...requirements for safety devices and gun registration and licensing.

If this amendment allows regulation, which other "individual rights" amendments allow regulation?
Tribe may have a point here. The courts have determined pornography isn't protected under the 1st Amendment.

``The Second Amendment does not guarantee an unregulated supply of cheap handguns to all,'' Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe said in a telephone news conference.

But who determines what "cheap" is? The federal government. And does "cheap" always mean poor quality?

Numerous federal appeals court decisions have upheld various gun-control laws against Second Amendment challenges.

The Supreme Court has ruled only once on the amendment's scope. It ruled in 1939 that there is no right to own a sawed-off shotgun in the absence of ``some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.''

Last October, the nation's highest court declined to hear two appeals that sought to assert a personal and constitutionally protected right to own a gun.

But in April 1999, a federal judge in Lubbock, Texas, ruled that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is a protected individual right.

U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings dismissed charges against a man accused of violating a 1994 federal law that prohibits someone under a restraining order from owning a gun. A federal appeals court is expected to hear the government's appeal of that ruling in June.

During the news conference, Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar said the Second Amendment does not create an unlimited right. Just as people can be required to get drivers' licenses and register their cars, licensing and registration can be required for gun owners, he said
[/B][/quote]

Driving a car isn't a right. Keeping and Bearing arms is...

Now, I challenge those learned professors...
Does the "right to keep and bear arms mean that an American citizen may carry without hindrance from the Federal government or states that ratified the Consitution?

Just asking...anybody have the e-mail addresses of those folks?
 
what part of "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" don't they understand????????
 
I have been reading this forum for sometime
now and while I agree with most here, we have
a large part of society that does not. There
is no question (to me) we are losing our rights,I served in vietnam and have seen our
country decline since,liberal schools,our
college's who produce journalist would not
tolerate a conservative student thus we will
never see equal time in the mainstream press.
My question is do we destroy ourselves within,(as a Russian leader once said we
would.)I don't know,I hope not but unless
we get some "common sense" people in D.C.
I feel our society will fragment, I believe
you can see some trends now in this direction
in various northwestern states.To me it's
clear follow the constitution, and the
Ten Commandments and we cannot go wrong,
however there seems to be a growing part of
society that wants/needs to tear this country
down. Someone tell me I'm wrong because I
sure hope I am.


------------------
 
the regulations refered to amounts to unlawful restriction and abridgement of clear second amendment rights. this precident , i feel , was set forth in the decision of the supreme court that a federal tax on news print and ink was defacto regulation of the freedom of the press. the government arguement was that newsprint and ink were items of intrastate trade therefore subjuect to taxation and regulation. the court decided that since the items were essential to the free press the government could not regulate them. military type weapons (read full auto assault weapons if you wish) and clips containing capacity suffcient to be competative on a battle field are essential to an effective free militia. the militia is read as "the people". 99 and 99/100% of gun laws and regulations are unlawful and tear at the fabric of the intentions of the founding fathers. i am sure the British would have been pleased to restrict the colonials to nonmilitary weapons, limit powder stores and regulate supplies of projectiles and cannons. in fact the first shots of the Revolution were when the Brits marched on Lexington and Concord to seize powder stores legally kept there for use in the colonial militia. the pure fact that Slick Wille and his cronies can not fathom is that it is the right of all law abideing citizens to have and shoot any and all types of firearms we can legally afford to own. including the latest military hardware both offensive and defensive.

------------------
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the outcome of the vote.
Let he that hath no sword sell his garment and buy one. Luke 22-36
They all hold swords, being expert in war: every man hath his sword upon his thigh because of fear in the night. Song of Solomon 3-8
The man that can keep his head and aims carefully when the situation has gone bad and lead is flying usually wins the fight.
 
If they know so much about the 2nd amendment maybe they should look into the 16th.


[This message has been edited by jeffer (edited April 02, 2000).]
 
Not long ago, I enjoyed listening to a debate between an ASU law professor and a well known RKBA author.

The professor was not an RKBA expert, but was somewhat knowledgeable in the area. His conclusion was that 'shall not be infringed' allowed every regulation up to, but not including confiscation of all guns. That is, he felt they could leave you with a bolt action .22 and still comply with the RKBA. This was his conclusion even though he could accept the RKBA as an individual right. I think we will see this argued more and more - admission that the RKBA is an individual right, but 'infringement' defined quite narrowly.

The most telling part of the debate was at the end, when a student asked how the professor felt personally about firearms. The professor stated that it 'seemed' as though there was too much violence in society, and he thought we'd be better off with fewer guns. That is, this otherwise intelligent man applied a 'gut' test to the issue, based upon the same media reporting the rest of us see. It was clear he had never carefully considered the issue.

[As a matter of fact, at one point in the debate he admitted that U.S. v. Miller would support the individual right to militia weapons. When a student pointed out the 1994 Crime Bill prohibited such weapons in individual hands, the professor was ignorant of the Crime Bill!]

I would wager that most of these letter-signing professors are in the same situation. The truth is that they want to find a way to support an argument that we can use existing law to limit the numbers of firearms, their characteristics and their possessors. I doubt that many of these people have ever used their brain power to carefully examine the true levels and trends of violence in the U.S.; the benefits of firearms, including self defense; the truth behind the bogus statistics distributed by HCI, VPC and others, etc.

And, regarding the original intent of the RKBA, I sincerely doubt that any of these scholars can honestly bring themselves to consider 'what if' we need firearms to defend ourselves against tyrannical government here in the U.S.


Now, it will be interesting to see if other scholars will be willing to take these people on, publicly. We're rapidly reaching the point where people need to risk their fortunes and honor to support what they believe to be good and right. I hope we still have such men and women.
 
What I gather from their intrepretation of the 2nd, is that if something is not specifically mentioned as disallowed then it is assumed to be permitted ("the amendment plainly permits reasonable firearms regulations, including bans on certain types of weapons, requirements for safety devices and gun registration and licensing") . What an intrepretation! Gun locks, licensing, registration, assault rifle bans were not even conceived of when the Constitution was written! So how can we say the 2nd permits them. Based on their intrepretation, the only way our freedoms would be protected would be if the 2nd read something like 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, there will be no requirements for the arms to be licensed, registered, locked up, or taxed, semi-automatic assault rifles may be possessed, etc. etc. There, now the 2nd reads as it should. What a crock.
 
"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"

So My question is a State free if the Federal Government is dictating what is allowed, reasonable, etc?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top