1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

A Reasonable Right to Self Defense With the 'Appropriate' Weapon

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Winchester 73, Apr 30, 2008.

  1. Winchester 73

    Winchester 73 member

    Apr 10, 2007
    This journalist has almost gotten it.


    Wednesday, April 30, 2008

    Bruce Ramsey / Times editorial columnist

    A right to reasonable self-defense with an appropriate weapon

    Some time before the end of June, the U.S. Supreme Court is likely to declare that Americans have an individual right to own guns. When the story comes out, the thing to look for is how strongly the court says it.

    Oral arguments on the case, District of Columbia v. Heller, were heard March 18. The tone of questioning indicated that the court is leaning toward protecting the gun owner. It's the first real gun-rights case since 1939, when a suspected moonshiner challenged the federal law against sawed-off shotguns.

    The moonshiner had argued that he was protected by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which says: "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."

    In 1939, the court said the moonshiner wasn't protected because his sawed-off shotgun wasn't a militia weapon. It was a dumb answer that has been the last word in American jurisprudence for 69 years — dumb because if militia (National Guard) weapons are protected, then Americans are free to own machine guns.

    Some of the anti-gun people would say Americans don't have a right to any private weapons. There are places in the world with that policy, and some that have far less gun violence than the United States.

    But that isn't the issue here. We have the Second Amendment; it is part of our Constitution and is not about to be repealed. The issue is: What does it mean?

    And it won't do to argue that it is only about serving in the militia. That is what the District of Columbia argued in defense of its ban on handguns, and the court wasn't buying it. It's an argument that does violence to the plain meaning of words and erases an entire amendment to the Constitution.

    The right to keep and bear arms has to mean something. But which arms? Machine guns? No, said the gun-owner's attorney, Alan Gura.

    On March 18, Gura had argued at the Supreme Court for a right to have "arms that are appropriate for civilian use." Speaking in Seattle last week at a meeting of the Federalist Society, Gura drew the line between semiautomatic and automatic weapons — that is, guns that shoot one round per trigger squeeze and those that spray bullets. Shooting one round at a time, you can decide whom you're shooting at, one person at a time. You can make a moral judgment. A machine gun, he said, is an "area weapon."

    Our state law bans machine guns. The question then arises: If the Supreme Court breathes life into the Second Amendment, will these and other such restrictions (no plastic guns, etc.) stand?

    An individual right to keep and bear arms cannot cover everything from pocket knives to H-bombs. Practically and politically it cannot. There have to be limits — but also there have to be limits on the limits, or else it is no right at all.

    Perhaps it could be what Jonathan Rauch suggested in the National Journal: a right to "reasonable self-defense by competent, law-abiding adults."

    State laws also recognize gun rights. The state of Washington is one of more than 40 states with a gun guarantee in its constitution. Here is ours, written in 1889:

    "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."

    That is stronger than the Second Amendment, but still subject to limits. No private armies. Defensive use only. Some weapons are presumptively defensive and some not.

    Guns are not like speech, in which one can declare that the more speech the better, because "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."

    That is not always true of words, and is more often untrue of personal artillery.

    Bruce Ramsey's column appears regularly on editorial pages of The Times. His e-mail address is seattletimes.com">bramsey@seattletimes.com; for a podcast Q&A with the author, go to Opinion at seattletimes.com
  2. divemedic

    divemedic Participating Member

    Nov 18, 2007
    30 minute drive from Disney World
    1 Then why do police need an "area weapon?" Is every SWAT team in the nation finding it necessary to conduct recon by fire?

    2 The fact is, a submachine gun fired in short bursts (instead of spray and pray) gives the shooter more control over where the bullets go than does a shotgun

    3 The real reason why multiple projectiles (auto fire and shotguns) are effective is the combination of "sensory overload" and the massive damage that is associated with getting hit by 3, 4, or more bullets nearly simultaneously.
  3. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Dec 24, 2002
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    The Bill of Rights is a set of limits on the power and authority of government. The history of the Bill of Rights is a long, sordid tale of government violations of those limits.

    Now we're supposed to trust government to limit the limits?
  4. yokel

    yokel Participating Member

    Apr 29, 2007
    When mobs run wild, gangs invade, tyranny strikes and an entire PD abandons it's post during disaster, all law-abiding citizens have the right to the finest tools available to protect and defend themselves and their country.
  5. mbt2001

    mbt2001 Senior Member

    Dec 5, 2005

    To all of the posts
  6. Deavis

    Deavis Participating Member

    Nov 21, 2003
    Austin, Texas
    Like all guns, that area is determined by the skill of the operator and the supply of ammo.
  7. Carl N. Brown

    Carl N. Brown Mentor

    May 10, 2005
    Kingsport Tennessee
    I have followed the gun control debates since the late 1950s.
    During the 1960s I went to the public library, Readers Guide to Periodical Literature, subject Firearms Legislation, and dug out every article on the subject. Dropped out of the issue for a while. Late 1970s and early 1980s I was again involved; read Kates 1979 and read Wright and Rossi manuscript and page proofs 1982; went fallow again. Got involved in the mid 1990s over TN/TX RTC. Then got involved again over the Bellesiles and Lott controversies 2002 to present.

    Over all, the Big Media have been anti-gun. Employment at the New York Times requires an oath to support and defend the Sullivan Act against all criticism; at lunch, they roll down the telescreen in the mess hall for a two-minute hate directed at whoever is the current director of the NRA.

    But gradually, some balance and sanity on the gun issue has crept slowly into the mainstream media.
  8. ConstitutionCowboy

    ConstitutionCowboy member

    Mar 15, 2006
    EXCELLENT point, SW. The government won't abide the limits in the Constitution, so how are we to trust them to abide any limit in law that's inferior to the Constitution?


    Our government was designed by our Founding Fathers to fit within the framework of our rights and not vise versa. Any other "interpretation" of the Constitution is either through ignorance or is deliberately subversive. B.E. Wood
  9. CZ-100

    CZ-100 Active Member

    May 12, 2003
    Sourh FL/East TN
    I like it...

    Very well put..
  10. Wetawd

    Wetawd New Member

    Feb 14, 2008
    Wahington. Maple Valley, Renton

    Very well put.:)

    Government wants more power because power corrupts so by it's very nature people in government want more power not less, and citizens owning guns limits their power.:neener:
  11. ServiceSoon

    ServiceSoon Participating Member

    Jan 3, 2006
    Isn't that why we have legislators who are reviewed by judges?

    I don't like the wording here. Didn't use the same terminology to describe how different guns function. It leans towards demonizing automatic firearms.
    I don't like this either. It implys less guns equals less crime, which hasn't been proven as fact.
    Does this mean we will only follow precedent if it is in the interest of the decision maker?

Share This Page