The first 10 amendments to the Constitution placed limits on the powers of the new federal government. Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of the Second Amendment, which provides 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.”
For more than 200 years following the adoption of that amendment, federal judges uniformly understood that the right protected by that text was limited in two ways: First, it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes, and second, while it limited the power of the federal government, it did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms. Thus, in United States v. Miller, decided in 1939, the court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that sort of weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated Militia.”So there is no individual right to Free Speech (the 1st amendment)? A state may declare any speech it wants to be illegal and no challenge from the court will be forthcoming? I think not.
How about the 4th? The vaunted "secure n their persons" -- the right to "privacy" the rubric under which Roe V Wade operates. Let's see, where does the SCOTUS of the US stand on THAT one of the first 10 amendments being "limiting only to the Federal Government"?
How can anything like this be taken seriously? It is obvious that there is no rule or principle of law operating here at all, and WORSE, not even any rule of "common sense", let alone "natural law", the real foundation of the Constitution. We know that in fact the SCOTUS runs the OTHER way on nearly every issue -- abortion, environmental rules, BOcare, gay marriage, etc -- the general policy of the time is if the federal government decrees it, the states MUST obey. Oh, but wait -- the 2nd amendment is different! On what principle other than Stevens wants it to be so?
The "magic 5 words are here":
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”That's right. Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Hamilton, etc REALLY went to the trouble of a 2nd amendment so the army could have weapons! They were such dolts that they thought it necessary to codify that in a written constitution! But they were just "bad writers" -- they left out the important part!
But they didn't, and they wrote that they didn't ... for example:
The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.One of the chief fears of the founders was a STANDING militia -- in other words, the very 5 words the insincere idiot Stevens would like to see added. To which George Mason said:
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."So for 200 years the 2nd amendment was "understood" to mean that the army could have guns -- or so the ex justice says. But interestingly, not a lot of gun control seemed to be forthcoming in those 200 years!
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
How strange! Somehow I have a strong suspicion that if states in the American West were telling the pioneers that they couldn't have guns, they would have had a MUCH better response to guys like Stevens suggesting they give up their arms.
Tar and feathering really needs to make a comeback! Perhaps it is required to help the supposedly more intellectual understand common sense?
'via Blog this'