The Right To Bear Arms Is As Old As Vermont

Status
Not open for further replies.

Drizzt

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
2,647
Location
Moscow on the Colorado, TX
The Right To Bear Arms Is As Old As Vermont

BY JAMES JARDINE, Staff Writer
Wednesday September 14, 2005

LYNDON -- Richard Gorham and Robert Hamel trace their roots back a long way in Vermont.

Hamel, 61, of Lyndon, is a fourth-generation Vermonter. Gorham, 54, of Mount Hunger, said his ancestry goes all the way back to the first couple to settle Kirby. The first Gorhams came to Vermont with a pair of oxen, he says.

Talking to the two on the front porch of Rick's Gun Shop and Mount Hunger Archery in Mount Hunger, a gun and archery shop founded by Gorham in 1992, it's apparent they have a core belief in their constitutional rights as Americans to own firearms and to own private property. Both men believe constant vigilance is required to safeguard those freedoms.

The shop, which includes an archery range, is a busy place with a constant stream of customers and a phone that rings every few minutes.

Customers look at firearms, purchase ammo, use the archery range and chat about the upcoming hunting season. A customer completes a background check form, and Gorham calls it in to obtain approval prior to the sale of a firearm.

Out on the front porch, Gorham points up the road to a forested area and describes his 10-acre piece of land. He says it is the spot where he nurtures wildlife, hunts game and hopes to be buried.

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says "no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of the law," and the Fifth Amendment says private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.

Article One of the Vermont Constitution declares "acquiring, possessing and protecting property" is an "inalienable right."

Vermont's Constitution says government may only take private property for public use "when necessity requires it" and that "the owner ought to receive an equivalent in money."

Still, Gorham wonders if those guarantees mean much these days, when the government can take his most cherished possession - his land - and "run a pipeline though it" or condemn his land by eminent domain and use it for a public purpose such as a highway or a sewer line.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that under certain circumstances a municipal government can take private property and resell it to a private developer so that the municipality may obtain "public benefit" from the higher property taxes generated by a new private development.

Gorham said the founding fathers, when they drafted the U.S. Constitution, had in mind the idea of "protecting us from our government."

He believes the Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to own firearms through the Second Amendment, which reads: "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."

He said citizens should have the right to own firearms for hunting, personal protection and, if necessary, to take up arms if an illegal government seizes power and violates the rights of the citizenry.

A Different Take

Robert Gensburg, a St. Johnsbury lawyer who lives in East Burke, has a different interpretation of the Second Amendment, bringing into focus the ability of two honest men to disagree on what our Constitution means.

Gensburg and Gorham are neighbors on Mount Hunger Road and, though they disagree in a few political areas, each respects the other. Gorham speaks warmly of Gensburg, saying the attorney allows him to hunt on his private property; Gorham has offered moose meat to the Gensburgs.

Gensburg, in turn, smiles when he good-naturedly tells Gorham the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to own arms.

But Gorham is deadly serious about what he perceives as a continuing effort to extinguish the right to gun ownership. He said there are people who oppose the "idea of protecting us from our government," and that those people believe "the Constitution has had its day, and it's time to change it." Some, he said, even want to get rid of it.

Gorham said Vermont is very high in the percentage of guns owned per capita, and he believes that's "part of the reason we have been safe for so long."

Robert Hamel believes "the Constitution was written by people like me." He calls himself a firm believer in our Constitution, saying, "There's only one way you can see the Constitution when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms." Hamel also believes gun ownership is constantly under siege.

He is not sure how he feels about registration of guns, but he is quick to say certain persons - such as someone who threatens a family member with a gun during a domestic dispute - should lose the right to own firearms for life.

Hamel has taught firearms safety for 12 years, and he stopped by Gorham's to check on registrations for an upcoming firearm safety course.

Like Gorham, the right to own private property is sacred to Hamel. He spoke quietly, but passionately, about the meaning of private property and the peace and enjoyment he gets out of his 14-acre piece of land with a camp on it. He goes there for the peace and quiet, to hunt and to vacation, and it's obvious it's his favorite spot on Earth.

Hamel talked about how deep the roots of private property ownership and firearm ownership run in Vermont. He said it's hard for him to imagine living in a city and never owning a home.

http://www.caledonianrecord.com/pages/special_news/story/a0ec46e44
 
Gensburg, in turn, smiles when he good-naturedly tells Gorham the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to own arms.

I'd like to know the reason he believes this, since as a lawyer, he should be aware that the vast weight of scholarship on the issue disagrees with his position.
 
Probably because the vast weight of jurisprudence (though wrong and all below the Sup Ct level) supports his position. That and he is unable to think and read for himself.
 
Probably because the vast weight of jurisprudence (though wrong and all below the Sup Ct level) supports his position. That and he is unable to think and read for himself.

I'll go for the latter theory as most likely. Anyone with a bit of understanding can read those decisions and punch holes in them. They are based on a flawed reading of US v. Miller, and a lot of ideological wishful thinking.
 
A few years back I had a very anti english teacher, hippie. So I did my paper on the 2nd. Did a lot of research, the founding fathers went to great pains before they wrote and decided on anything. Long story short self defence and the bearing of arms to goes way back to ancient Greece. Read the Federalist papers for a real eye opener. :what:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top