USA Today hot news....Liberal academic reads Constitution...discovers 2A!!!

P

possum

New member
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/10/a-liberals-lame.html



A liberal's lament: The NRA might be right after all

By Jonathan Turley

This term, the Supreme Court may finally take up the Voldemort Amendment, the part of the Bill of Rights that shall not be named by liberals. For more than 200 years, progressives and polite people have avoided acknowledging that following the rights of free speech, free exercise of religion and free assembly, there is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Of course, the very idea of finding a new individual right after more than two centuries is like discovering an eighth continent in constitutional law, but it is hardly the cause of celebration among civil liberties groups.

Like many academics, I was happy to blissfully ignore the Second Amendment. It did not fit neatly into my socially liberal agenda. Yet, two related cases could now force liberals into a crisis of conscience. The Supreme Court is expected to accept review of District of Columbia v. Heller and Parker v. District of Columbia, involving constitutional challenges to the gun-control laws in Washington.

Read the rest at the link....
 
Not the first time this has happened...remember "The Embarrasing Second Amendment"...

Now if we could just get our gun movement to be more socially progressive, we win.

WilditsonthecuspAlaska TM
 
(I added the same links as found in the article) From the school that brought you tobacco lawsuits and tried to sue McDonalds for making you fat....

A liberal's lament: The NRA might be right after all

By Jonathan Turley

This term, the Supreme Court may finally take up the Voldemort Amendment, the part of the Bill of Rights that shall not be named by liberals. For more than 200 years, progressives and polite people have avoided acknowledging that following the rights of free speech, free exercise of religion and free assembly, there is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Of course, the very idea of finding a new individual right after more than two centuries is like discovering an eighth continent in constitutional law, but it is hardly the cause of celebration among civil liberties groups.

Like many academics, I was happy to blissfully ignore the Second Amendment. It did not fit neatly into my socially liberal agenda. Yet, two related cases could now force liberals into a crisis of conscience. The Supreme Court is expected to accept review of District of Columbia v. Heller and Parker v. District of Columbia, involving constitutional challenges to the gun-control laws in Washington.

The D.C. law effectively bars the ownership of handguns for most citizens and places restrictions on other firearms. The District's decision to file these appeals after losing in the D.C. appellate court was driven more by political than legal priorities. By taking the appeal, D.C. politicians have put gun-control laws across the country at risk with a court more likely to uphold the rulings than to reverse them. It has also put the rest of us in the uncomfortable position of giving the right to gun ownership the same fair reading as more favored rights of free press or free speech.

The Framers' intent

Principle is a terrible thing, because it demands not what is convenient but what is right. It is hard to read the Second Amendment and not honestly conclude that the Framers intended gun ownership to be an individual right. It is true that the amendment begins with a reference to militias: "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." Accordingly, it is argued, this amendment protects the right of the militia to bear arms, not the individual.

Yet, if true, the Second Amendment would be effectively declared a defunct provision. The National Guard is not a true militia in the sense of the Second Amendment and, since the District and others believe governments can ban guns entirely, the Second Amendment would be read out of existence.

Another individual right

More important, the mere reference to a purpose of the Second Amendment does not alter the fact that an individual right is created. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is stated in the same way as the right to free speech or free press. The statement of a purpose was intended to reaffirm the power of the states and the people against the central government. At the time, many feared the federal government and its national army. Gun ownership was viewed as a deterrent against abuse by the government, which would be less likely to mess with a well-armed populace.

Considering the Framers and their own traditions of hunting and self-defense, it is clear that they would have viewed such ownership as an individual right — consistent with the plain meaning of the amendment.

None of this is easy for someone raised to believe that the Second Amendment was the dividing line between the enlightenment and the dark ages of American culture. Yet, it is time to honestly reconsider this amendment and admit that ... here's the really hard part ... the NRA may have been right. This does not mean that Charlton Heston is the new Rosa Parks or that no restrictions can be placed on gun ownership. But it does appear that gun ownership was made a protected right by the Framers and, while we might not celebrate it, it is time that we recognize it.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.
Click to expand...

Forgot his name, but that guy in charge of the Law School at Harvard hates guns. Wants to get rid of them. But even he acknowledges the Second Amendment. Admits that you can't get rid of guns by dancing around the 2nd, admits that it protects an individual right (vs. public privilege) - you'll have to get rid of the amendment itself.
 
Like many academics, I was happy to blissfully ignore the Second Amendment. It did not fit neatly into my socially liberal agenda.
Click to expand...

This is what I find appalling. If it were not for the SCOTUS cases, he would be happy to continue blissfully ignoring the Second Amendment. And don't think for a second that he doesn't believe that the most draconian restrictions on firearms fall perfectly under the Constitution. Just don't dare to infringe on one of those amendments he does hold dear.
 
Interesting read, and as was earlier asked, how painful might it have been for USA Today to print?
 
Thank you, applesanity, I was sitting here, "Turley, Turley. . . I know that name from somewhere.

Hey, the guy is making what must be an agonizing public confession. I hope if I'm ever wrong :p, I have as much courage!
 
So could this mean that the left will finally give up trying to redefine the 2nd Amendment and instead begin to work directly on repealing or abolishing the 2nd Amendment? What happens then? This would take all the ambiguity out of the debate and the actions of the left / Democrats/ liberals. The line would be clearly drawn: We want to take your guns away from you. We want to disarm the country. Then what?

Of course this could open up an entirely new can of worms. It would likely open up discussions and public debates on the reason for the 2nd Amendment in the first place i.e. To take our country back from any oppressive government be it foreign or domestic. And other subjects such as what was intended by the term “arms” if not the commonly used military weapons of the time. Granted I don’t think my neighbor should be allowed to have any nukes and it probably isn’t a good idea to have a bunch of S.A.M.s floating around the population at large. Be that as it may the original term “Arms” clearly meant the current available technology of the day.
 
Good for him. I'll leave it at that. It's nice to have a friend from a former enemy. We should focus on that and that alone. Be happy for those who come to us who weren't always with us, and try every day to raise the number.
 
First, kudos to him for acknowledging he was wrong. Kudos too, for admitting that he ignored anything that didn't fit into his socially "progressive" agenda. That's a start.

There are a lot of principles that too many people are all too willing to toss by the wayside. Innocent until proven guilty is one. All one has to do is look at the O.J. conviction or the number of people willing to believe Bush stole the 2000 election. People also seem to be too willing to support DUI checkpoints with their intrusive questions and to support "asset forfieture" laws based on the thinnest thread connecting one to illegal activities.

Harder for some academics to accept, I think, is the idea that so-called "hate speech" should be protected the same as say, burning the flag or wearing a NORML t-shirt in college. But I digress.

I don't recall if it was Don Kates or another author who pointed out that, in debating the 2nd Amendment there has not been one scholar who has changed their viewpoint from an individual rights model to the collective-rights model. None. Zero. But some very good scholars have switched their views to support individual rights. We just added another one.
 
Just don't dare to infringe on one of those amendments he does hold dear.
Click to expand...

Both sides ignore what the ox isnt goring :)

Of course this could open up an entirely new can of worms. It would likely open up discussions and public debates on the reason for the 2nd Amendment in the first place i.e.
Click to expand...

Ah but thats the right of the people isnt it...hmmmmmmmm

WildlightbulbAlaska TM
 
The interesting thing is that both the left and right believe that the government is likely not to act in their interests and may need to be repelled in the event that they should actively try to repress them for their beliefs, which they believe it inherently does.

Interesting, eh?
 
psycho cat is NOT funny

It just means some idiot treated it so badly, it now acts this way, and since it obviously cannot be adopted from this shelter of abused animals, it will soon be put to death by injection (probably dead by this time). real funny............ :mad:
 
The DC Supreme Court Case

http://www.firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=68&Itemid=29
Parker is now Heller
Written by Jeff Knox
Friday, 10 August 2007
Activists should be aware of the fact that as the “Parker” case heads to appeal at the Supreme Court, it is no longer the “Parker” case. The pleading for certiorari will be titled
“District of Columbia v. Heller” since Heller was the only plaintiff in the original case who was actually found have legal standing and the roles have switched for the appeal.
This change has made it difficult for many people trying to keep up with the case to locate information since Activists should be aware of the fac that as the “Parker” case heads to appeal at the Supreme Court, it is no longer the “Parker” case. The pleading for certiorari will be titled “Distric of Columbia v. Heller” since Heller was the only plaintiff in the original
case who was actually found to have legal standing and the roles have switched for the appeal.
This change has made it difficult for many people trying to keep up with the case to locate information since they were searching for the wrong case title.
The Supreme Court did grant the Districts request for more time to file their appeal and that time runs out on September 5. One of the primary reasons for the requested delay - and probably for the decision to appeal itself - is the fact that DC has managed to hire a prominent anti-gun law professor to head up their case. The Professor only became available in the past month or so and they wanted him to be able to supervise the whole shebang. (Or at least that’s what I think.)

I am currently writing a short piece on this subject for inclusion in the upcoming edition of the Hard Corps Report which we hope to have in th mail next week.
If you do not currently receive the HCR, all it takes is a donation (or really just a request, but we much prefer requests that are accompanie by a donation to help defray our costs.)

On-line at:
www.FirearmsCoalition.org
or via snail-mail at:
PO Box 3313
Manassas, VA 20108
Remember that your CongressCritters are home this month; make sure they get voting advice from you while they’re in town.
Yours for the Second Amendment,
Jeff
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Now if we could just get our gun movement to be more socially progressive, we win
Click to expand...

Some of us are trying. If we could get the republican party to be just the tiniest bit less socially ignorant I would be tempted to switch, but this article supports my theory that it will be easier to bring the progressives around on a few of their issues than it will be to bring the conservatives around on theirs.

Now that a progressive has admitted he was wrong on something as core as the 2nd amendment how long can it be before a conservative admits they were wrong on abortion, gay rights or religious freedom? I'm not holding my breath, but this guys change in attitude suggests it's not impossible.
 
applesanity: Forgot his name, but that guy in charge of the Law School at Harvard hates guns. Wants to get rid of them. But even he acknowledges the Second Amendment. Admits that you can't get rid of guns by dancing around the 2nd, admits that it protects an individual right (vs. public privilege) - you'll have to get rid of the amendment itself.
Click to expand...
The guy at Harvard is Alan Dershowitz, a former ACLU board member. He says he "hates" guns and wants the Second Amendment repealed. But he condemns "foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right .... They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top