Interesting letter to editor on 2nd amendment

Our crummy newspaper charges for archived articles after 10 days so here's the entire letter:

Interesting part about the two cases he cites.

http://www.coloradoan.com/apps/pbcs....3/1014/OPINION

There have been recent inquiries to the Coloradoan regarding private gun ownership under the Second Amendment. The simple answer to this question about the so-called rights under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is that you don't have any.

The only rights that individuals have regarding the private ownership of weapons is what are granted by the Constitution of the State of Colorado.

Of course, to understand the above you must put aside the propaganda put out by the National Rifle Association and study the Constitution and its amendments.

An excellent source of the history of the Constitution and its Amendments is www.justicelearning.org.

The text of the amendment is "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 amendment consists of one sentence of 27 words. It cannot be interpreted in pieces, but only as a whole, the NRA to the contrary.

The principle debate concerns whether the right to bear arms applies to individuals or only to a militia.

The Supreme Court has never decided the issue; however, there is currently a conflict between two Circuit Courts of Appeals that make the issue ripe for review by the Supreme Court, but unfortunately the individuals involved in the two cases have not seen fit to appeal either case to the Supreme Court. See U.S. v Emerson 270 F. 3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001) is in favor of individual ownership and Silveira v Lockyer 312 F. 3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002) is against individual ownership.

Both opinions are rich in history and case law in support of their conclusions and can be read at www.findlaw.com/casecode/; click on the appropriate circuit under the heading "Case Law" and then type in either "Emerson" or "Silveira" in the "Party Name Search" and then click on "Search."

The legal cases aside, there is a fundamental question whether the Second Amendment is applicable to the states at all. To answer this question, it is necessary to look at the history of Amendments.

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution were adopted in 1791.

From 1791 until the adoption of the 14th Amendment in 1868, the courts interpreted the Bill of Rights as applying only to the federal government, not to the states.

Even after the adoption of the 14th Amendment, with its "due process and privileges and immunities" clauses, the courts continued to interpret the 14th Amendment narrowly. Not until the 1920s did the courts begin to apply the provisions of the Bill of Rights, one by one, to the states, incorporating them via the "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment.

But even today, the courts have not extended the Second Amendment or the Seventh Amendment to the states.

So the Second Amendment only applies to the federal government, leaving the states to regulate the ownership of weapons as it sees fit provided that the state legislation does not conflict with any federal law on the same subject.

Of course, the gun lobby will continue to believe what it wishes in spite of the law or history to the contrary; however, believing it does not make it a fact.

William C. Roemer is a retired attorney. He lives in Fort Collins.

So how does one just gloss over that whole "the right of the people" thingy?

Without " the people " there really woudn"t be "the courts" or the
federal Government.

Here are my thoughts and arguments I use with liberal pinheads around the 2nd amendment:

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.

1) Some people use the absurd argument that the 2nd amendment is saying "We need an army, so the people can have guns - after all the people were the militia". You show me ONE OTHER NATION IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD that had to write down "Uhhh, we like, uhh, have the right to have an army - and, uhhhh, they can have guns". The right of a nation to defend itself is natural, and it would never be documented in this way! How many nations have been attacked and went "Crap, we forgot to write down that our army can have guns!". As for that "The people were the militia" thing, last I checked, our people were still the militia.

2) I have always thought that the Framers have read this sentence like follows: A well regulated Militia (which we are going to have since this is necessary to maintain the security of a free state), the right of the private citizens to keep and bear arms so they can defend themselves from that army, shall not be infringed.

3) Response I love to give in an extremely pissed off tone (be extra sure that you don't give them a chance to respond in this mini-tiraid): How dare you tell me that I cant defend myself! How dare you put my children at the mercy of some sicko! How dare you! If you choose to not defend your family that is your own bad decision! Don't force it on me! I love my family too much to not defend them!

4) Liberal Q: What happens when your kids get ahold of your guns.
A: I have 2 safeguards. #1, all of my guns are located in gun safes, be they in my basement, or 1 foot from the head of my bed. #2 My children know proper gun handling.
Be sure to shoot this question back quickly: Do your children know safe, proper, gun handling? What happens if they are at a friends house where guns are not properly stored? Do you not want them to be able to realize what is and what isn't proper?

5) Liberal Q: Well nothing is stopping you from getting mad in (work, traffic, etc) and shooting someone.
A: Ummm, yes there is. Society. Does our society allow me to go shoot someone? No. I will be put in jail, and perhaps even sentenced to death. Perhaps if the death penalty would be exercised a lot more, it would be even more of a deterrent.

Anyway, I just get pissed off to no extent when this comes up. I start going off on how we need to get all journalists licensed, have waiting periods to buy books, and have approval processes for all religions - just to point out the hypocrisy between how people treat the 1st and 2nd amendments so differently.

-Ruger

I just had a thought!

Does this guys point about

Quote:

---

So the Second Amendment only applies to the federal government, leaving the states to regulate the ownership of weapons as it sees fit provided that the state legislation does not conflict with any federal law on the same subject.

---

Explain how states like MA and CA can get away with their restrictive laws?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2ndChildhood

From 1791 until the adoption of the 14th Amendment in 1868, the courts interpreted the Bill of Rights as applying only to the federal government, not to the states.



William C. Roemer is a retired attorney. He lives in Fort Collins.

---

Didn't anyone ask this guy about the right to assemble? Freedome of religion? Freedom of the press? The 2nd follows right after the 1st. The right of "the people" to peacably assemble was interpreted only to apply to the state? The right of "the people" to freedom of religion only applies to the state? The right of "the people" to freedom of the press only applied to the state?

For a lawyer they guy sure doesn't seem to be very smart about the law.

If freedom of the press applied to the state then Larry Flynt would have lost his case when Jerry Falwell sued. He didn't lose. The freedom of the press was an INDIVIDUAL right, not a right of the state.

If freedom of the press is an INDIVIDUAL right then why would a right to keep and bear arms apply only to the state?

it all boils down to the hyprocrisy of those less educated /liberal anti-gun

who for years under clinton spouted the constitution was a living document and needed to be changed to reflect modern times.
THEN they now spout off how this adminstration is trampling the constitution regarding free speach, search and seizure etc
thats when i tell them
"well for years you said it was a living document that needed to be changed/updated. where gun ownership/2nd amd. was concerned. what's the problem know?
try that and see how plexed they get.

They only care about it if it's convenient for them. Getting these people to think reasonably and use common sense is basically impossible. Some of them can be reasoned with, though.

the "militia" was the government troops opressing the people

Our founding fathers, were the oppressed people. they had firearms and intestinal fortitude and fought back... and won !


the Bill of Rights recognizes that and the 2nd gives justification for its being written.

w/o the means to resist, the people were at a loss to do anything. the people keep the mililta regulated and our right to KBA ensures that.

the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed.

the word "PEOPLE" is the same in the 2nd as any other part of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Anyone who claims otherwise has other, not so good intentions.