Lawyer-Wearing-Yarmulka
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
A 2nd Amendment Post
Nephtuli requested that I post something on the 2nd Amendment, which seems to be in the news a a lot lately since the Supreme Court decided to take on Parker v. D.C.
There's way too much already written on the 2nd Amendment, most of written by people who more knowledgable on the subject, but I'd still like to make a few points.
First of all, note the location of the 2nd Amendment. It's in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is all about an individual's rights in relationship to the government. Context matters. If the right to bear arms was a power granted to the States, then it would be in Article 4 of the Constitution.
Second of all is the argument that the 2nd Amendment only protects weapons that were available at the time the Amendment was ratified, like muskets and flintlock pistols. That argument only works if you're going to limit the First Amendment to newspapers speeches in the town square.
Third of all, and this has nothing to do with merits of either side of the argument. If I were a Democratic presidential candidate, I'd be praying night and day that the Supreme Court rules in favor of the individual right. As recent history shows, gun control is not a winning issue for the Democrats. This case has the ability to decide the 2008 election.
There's way too much already written on the 2nd Amendment, most of written by people who more knowledgable on the subject, but I'd still like to make a few points.
First of all, note the location of the 2nd Amendment. It's in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is all about an individual's rights in relationship to the government. Context matters. If the right to bear arms was a power granted to the States, then it would be in Article 4 of the Constitution.
Second of all is the argument that the 2nd Amendment only protects weapons that were available at the time the Amendment was ratified, like muskets and flintlock pistols. That argument only works if you're going to limit the First Amendment to newspapers speeches in the town square.
Third of all, and this has nothing to do with merits of either side of the argument. If I were a Democratic presidential candidate, I'd be praying night and day that the Supreme Court rules in favor of the individual right. As recent history shows, gun control is not a winning issue for the Democrats. This case has the ability to decide the 2008 election.
posted by LWY, 1:28 PM
6 Comments:
I'm pretty convinced that the founders intended it more or less the way the NRA interprets it. The single question in my mind comes from their choice to include the bit about the militia. Why didn't the founders just leave it at The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?
That's a damn good question.
The Bill of Rights is all about an individual's rights in relationship to the government.
I'm not quite sure where this idea came from. For example, the establishment clause certainly was (is?) about the federal-state governments' relationship being that some states did in fact have established churches.
I'm not quite sure where this idea came from. For example, the establishment clause certainly was (is?) about the federal-state governments' relationship being that some states did in fact have established churches.
I'm not quite sure where this idea came from.
The text of the amendments.
For example, the establishment clause certainly was (is?) about the federal-state governments' relationship being that some states did in fact have established churches.
Wrong.
The bill of rights only became applicable to the states after the 14th Amendment was passed, under the doctrine of Incorporation.
The text of the amendments.
For example, the establishment clause certainly was (is?) about the federal-state governments' relationship being that some states did in fact have established churches.
Wrong.
The bill of rights only became applicable to the states after the 14th Amendment was passed, under the doctrine of Incorporation.
The text of the amendments.
Please cite the text that bans a State from establishing an official religion.
The bill of rights only became applicable to the states after the 14th Amendment was passed, under the doctrine of Incorporation.
How is this an originlist interpretation of the 14th amendment?
Please cite the text that bans a State from establishing an official religion.
The bill of rights only became applicable to the states after the 14th Amendment was passed, under the doctrine of Incorporation.
How is this an originlist interpretation of the 14th amendment?
Please cite the text that bans a State from establishing an official religion.
There's nothing in the text that prevents that...
I think we're talking past each other. Like I said earlier, the Bill of Rights is about the relationship between the individual and the government. (Originally the federal government, and later the states). There's no interplay between the Federal government and the States in the BOR, except for the 10th Amendment.
How is this an originlist interpretation of the 14th amendment?
See Justice Black's dissent in Adamson v. California.
There's nothing in the text that prevents that...
I think we're talking past each other. Like I said earlier, the Bill of Rights is about the relationship between the individual and the government. (Originally the federal government, and later the states). There's no interplay between the Federal government and the States in the BOR, except for the 10th Amendment.
How is this an originlist interpretation of the 14th amendment?
See Justice Black's dissent in Adamson v. California.
