mjrodney
Member
This was published in the Sarasota Florida Herald Tribune this morning.
I'll post it in hopes that some of you will further provide this gentleman a history lesseon by sending a comment to the newspaper.
'Individual right' to bear arms is a gun lobby myth
The recent op-ed column by J.R. Labbe needs to be balanced by a more objective statement as to the meaning of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal from the 2-1 decision of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia holding the district's strict gun control law unconstitutional.
The Second Amendment states, in its entirety: "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 question the Supreme Court has agreed to review is whether the "right" referred to in the Second Amendment is an individual right to "keep and bear arms" or a collective right to be exercised in connection with service in state militia.
The gun control ordinance, passed in 1973 as part of an effort to address the district's violent crime problem, prohibits all possession of handguns and requires all other guns in the home to be disassembled or secured by trigger locks. In other words, the ordinance does not bar possession of hunting rifles and guns. Gun experts say that guns so secured can be made operable in one or two minutes.
Ms. Labbe's column did not state the provisions of the ordinance and left the impression that D.C. residents did not have "the ability to defend themselves in a city that historically has had one of the highest murder rates in the nation."
While many people believe that getting in a shooting match with home invaders is not the safest procedure, Ms. Labbe has overstated the defenselessness of people who need a minute or two to remove a trigger lock.
Most competent and impartial scholars agree that the Second Amendment was drafted in response to a fear on the part of many people in 1789 that a large federal standing army would be used to dominate the states.
The purpose of the Second Amendment was to allay that fear by guaranteeing that the federal government would not interfere with the right of the people to be armed, not as private citizens, but only as members of the "well regulated militia\[s\]" of the states.
The state militias, it was believed, would make a large federal standing army unnecessary. The Supreme Court so read the Second Amendment in its only pronouncement on the question.
In United States v. Miller, decided in 1939, the court stated that unless a weapon "has some reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument" (307 United States Reports p. 178).
The overwhelming majority of United States Courts of Appeal have interpreted the Second Amendment as conferring only a group right to be exercised in connection with service in a state militia and not an individual right.
In this political season, many candidates express their devotion to "Second Amendment rights" without saying what those rights are, but implying that it is an individual right. The theory that the Constitution guarantees a general individual right to bear arms is a myth created and promoted by the gun lobby and its allies. The myth has been repeated so effectively and persistently that it is believed even by some people who see the need for and favor strict gun control.
The "individual right" myth promoted by the gun lobby is just that -- a myth.
John E. Clay is a retired senior partner of the international law firm of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw. He is a former president of the Longboat Key Democratic Club.
I'll post it in hopes that some of you will further provide this gentleman a history lesseon by sending a comment to the newspaper.
'Individual right' to bear arms is a gun lobby myth
The recent op-ed column by J.R. Labbe needs to be balanced by a more objective statement as to the meaning of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal from the 2-1 decision of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia holding the district's strict gun control law unconstitutional.
The Second Amendment states, in its entirety: "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 question the Supreme Court has agreed to review is whether the "right" referred to in the Second Amendment is an individual right to "keep and bear arms" or a collective right to be exercised in connection with service in state militia.
The gun control ordinance, passed in 1973 as part of an effort to address the district's violent crime problem, prohibits all possession of handguns and requires all other guns in the home to be disassembled or secured by trigger locks. In other words, the ordinance does not bar possession of hunting rifles and guns. Gun experts say that guns so secured can be made operable in one or two minutes.
Ms. Labbe's column did not state the provisions of the ordinance and left the impression that D.C. residents did not have "the ability to defend themselves in a city that historically has had one of the highest murder rates in the nation."
While many people believe that getting in a shooting match with home invaders is not the safest procedure, Ms. Labbe has overstated the defenselessness of people who need a minute or two to remove a trigger lock.
Most competent and impartial scholars agree that the Second Amendment was drafted in response to a fear on the part of many people in 1789 that a large federal standing army would be used to dominate the states.
The purpose of the Second Amendment was to allay that fear by guaranteeing that the federal government would not interfere with the right of the people to be armed, not as private citizens, but only as members of the "well regulated militia\[s\]" of the states.
The state militias, it was believed, would make a large federal standing army unnecessary. The Supreme Court so read the Second Amendment in its only pronouncement on the question.
In United States v. Miller, decided in 1939, the court stated that unless a weapon "has some reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument" (307 United States Reports p. 178).
The overwhelming majority of United States Courts of Appeal have interpreted the Second Amendment as conferring only a group right to be exercised in connection with service in a state militia and not an individual right.
In this political season, many candidates express their devotion to "Second Amendment rights" without saying what those rights are, but implying that it is an individual right. The theory that the Constitution guarantees a general individual right to bear arms is a myth created and promoted by the gun lobby and its allies. The myth has been repeated so effectively and persistently that it is believed even by some people who see the need for and favor strict gun control.
The "individual right" myth promoted by the gun lobby is just that -- a myth.
John E. Clay is a retired senior partner of the international law firm of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw. He is a former president of the Longboat Key Democratic Club.
