Natural Rights and Modern Weapons

[JJY]

The Declaration of Independence says “WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain Unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness.” By this statement, it is clear that our founders believed individuals possessed certain rights automatically. That is, certain rights are not granted, but rather exist independent of any government or law. Many refer to such rights as natural rights.

The founders believed, as they wrote, that these natural rights include the right to life. Certainly, a right to life is without meaning unless there is a right to defend life – a right to self-defense. Even a recent report from the United Nations recognizes a right to life and self-defense as a means of protecting the right to life.

If you agree there is a natural (or unalienable) right to life you must necessarily agree that self-defense is either a separate natural right, or at least a means of protecting the right to life. It simply would not make sense to suggest that individuals have a right to life but not a right to protect their life. Once that is agreed, the only issue remaining is each individual’s choice as to how to be prepared to protect their right, i.e., their life.

Each person should be free to determine how best to protect their own life. Some may choose to rely on the police; some may choose to be self-reliant. For those who wish to take an active role in protecting their right to life (and their right not be attacked, raped, etc.), it is reasonable to utilize the most effective means available. Many believe, and evidence confirms, the most effective means available for self-defense is to carry a gun.

In recognizing the natural right of individuals to protect their right to life, and other rights, from being violated by governments or other people, the Second Amendment recognizes an individual’s right to own and carry arms. Certainly technology has advanced since the Second Amendment was written, but that does not lessen the right that is recognized.

Some argue that modern weapons should not be included in the arms protected by the Second Amendment. Those who argue that would, to be consistent, also have to conclude that free speech should be limited to the means of communication that existed when the First Amendment was written. Clearly neither is true. Free speech, the right to keep and bear arms, and all other natural rights are basic, fundamental attributes possessed by individuals no matter the state of technology.

Rights do not change as technology advances. The only thing that changes is the practical means of exercising or protecting such rights. When more efficient means of communications were developed, the First Amendment was not limited to printing presses. The First Amendment protects views expressed on radio and television (and so on) just as well as it protected pamphlets and newspapers. Likewise, the Second Amendment protects private ownership of modern weapons just as well as it protected ownership of muskets and swords.

Natural rights do not change. They are possessed by an individual simply because the individual is a human being. With respect to the right to life and to self-defense, the means of protecting that right, as recognized in the Second Amendment, necessarily must keep pace with technology. The right to life, to self-defense, and the right to keep and bear arms, would be meaningless if individuals were limited to the means of protecting rights that existed hundreds of years ago while those who would violate those rights have ready access to modern weapons.

 

[Henry Bowman]

No argument here. Welcome to THR!

 

[romma]

Welcome

JJY

 

[knoxx45]

Welcome to THR

That was both well said and well written. I’m glad that you are on our side.

 

[CAnnoneer]

Unfortunately, our political system has moved so far away from the Founding Fathers that were they alive today, they'd all die of shame and heart attacks.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

JJY, An Excellent Piece.

I'd only call attention to one thing, and that is that it is not a case of choosing to take an active part in one's defense, it is a case of choosing not exercising the right, or delegating power to someone else from one's right to self defense, and taking your chances. It all begins with your right and duty to defend yourself. The choice is to delegate the power elsewhere, or not even exercise the right at all.

As for our arms, they are ours as a consequence of their invention. As you say, our right to arms existed from the dawn of man. It all started with our brains, hands, feet and teeth. Everything invented since those humble beginnings is an extension of those.

Welcome aboard!

Woody

"The Right of the People to move about freely in a secure manner shall not be infringed. Any manner of self defense shall not be restricted, regardless of the mode of travel or where you stop along the way, as it is the right so enumerated at both the beginning and end of any journey." B.E.Wood

 

[Molon Labe]

When it comes to natural rights, there's only one question that matters:

"What rights do you believe you have?"

If you believe you have an inalienable right, then you have it.

 

[DirtyBrad]

I think the argument against those things is that you having a Stinger missile is threatening my right to life.

 

[ctdonath]

Merely having a Stinger missile is no more a threat than a steak knife - actually, the latter have killed far more than the former. The former just happens to be a lot more dramatic, and is used almost exclusively against comparably armed and homicidally-minded (wartime) people.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Hold On A Minuet!

The only interpretation necessary of the amendment is to define what weapons a militia might commonly pack.

There is no such provision anywhere in the Constitution which does include the second added article thereto, commonly known as the Second Amendment. It simply states "arms". "Arms" are weapons.

The horsehocky spouted by the Supreme Court in US v. Miller is nothing more than horsehocky. The Supreme Court can no more add to, redefine a word in, or in any other fashion amend the Constitution. It is what it is, obey it, and keep your grimy hands off my rights! "...(S)hall not be infringed." means exactly that. It is clear. No ambiguity. It is absolute.

The right is as absolute today as it was before there was even any government. The granting of power to the Union by we the people through the Constitution did not relinquish our right or limit the power to arm ourselves as we see fit. We granted power to the Union. We did not grant THE power. We cant. The right from which the power to arm ourselves comes from is inalienable.

You can't even stop yourself from raising your hands and arms or ducking to block or avoid an unexpected blow.

Woody

A law that says you cannot fire your gun in the middle of downtown unless in self defense is not unconstitutional. Laws that prohibit brandishing except in self defense or handling your gun in a threatening or unsafe manner would not be unconstitutional. Laws can be written that govern some of the uses of guns. No law can be written that infringes upon buying, keeping, storing, carrying, limiting caliber, limiting capacity, limiting quantity, limiting action, or any other limit that would infringe upon the keeping or bearing of arms. That is the truth and simple reality of the limits placed upon government by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. B.E.Wood

 

[JJY]

I read Miller to say that the Arms protected by the Second Amendment are those that would be useful to a militia - “has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” I think that can be fairly read as saying any weapon that would be useful to a militia or military unit. That is a pretty long list of weapons that would evolve with technology.

Thanks for the welcomes from everybody.

 

[ctdonath]

And includes most of what's largely prohibited/restricted/discouraged now.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

JJY

I read Miller to say that the Arms protected by the Second Amendment are those that would be useful to a militia - “has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” I think that can be fairly read as saying any weapon that would be useful to a militia or military unit. That is a pretty long list of weapons that would evolve with technology.

You are correct in that the list of arms would be long. But bear in mind that as you read US v. Miller, the Court went beyond the Constitution by even inferring that such a caveat exists in the Second Amendment, or the right it protects, that such a list might exist. The part of the statement you have quoted, when taken out of context as you have done here, would imply that such a list might or could exist. However, when you take the entire quote from US v. Miller, you find that the Supreme Court actually stated they had no evidence to even make such a call, and that they could not even answer the question even if such a list existed - which we know there is no such list anywhere in the Constitution. There are not even any grounds to create such a list in the Constitution.

In the sentence which follows that quote from US v. Miller, the Court admits that it is not within judicial notice(*the authority of a judge to accept as facts certain matters which are of common knowledge from sources which guarantee accuracy or are a matter of official record, without the need for evidence establishing the fact) to make such a call. No evidence presented, and no common knowledge in the Court. They couldn't make the call, one way or the other - even if such a list existed. The Court's lack of judicial notice is proof positive that no such list does exist or there would have been judicial notice. And don't forget, there is no power granted to Congress to create such a list - even if there was no prohibition to infringe upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Woody

As the Court said in Boyd v. United States:

"It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon."

We should not wait solely upon the Court to protect our rights for us, but should take an active part in protecting them as well.

*Law.com Dictionary

 

[beerslurpy]

To put it simply- if we cant trust outselves with modern weapons, how can we trust government employees with them?

 

[Drewtam]

I would like to add one comment to stir the pot;

The idea that 2nd is only concerned with small arms, is something I dont find any basis in history.
Consider the situation faced by the founding rebels . Having no navy, they employed the ARMED merchant ships of the day.
"The 13 Colonies, having declared their Independence, had only 31 ships comprising the Continental Navy. To add to this, they issued Letters of Marque to privately owned, armed merchant ships and Commissions for privateers, which were outfitted as warships to prey on enemy merchant ships. Merchant seamen who manned these ships contributed to the very birth and founding of our Republic."
http://www.usmm.org/revolution.html

Yes, private citizens owned CANONS, private citizens owned WARSHIPS. It also shows that canons were being constructed by private firms and sold to anyone with the coin of the realm.

What would our culture say if you had an artillary piece on your property ?
HAH!

Drew

 

[JJY]

I believe what the Miller court was saying with regard to judicial notice was specifically related to the sawed-off shotgun that Miller was convicted of having. That is, that there was not evidence presented at the trial court level that a sawed-off shotgun was useful to a militia and that they could not by way of judicial notice conclude that it was.

I agree with you that the Second Amendment does not restrict the type of arms that individuals could own. I just reference Miller since it is one of very few Supreme Court cases to directly deal with the Second Amendment and, ironically, some say it has declared that there is no individual right to own guns – ironic because in fact it suggests (but not clearly holds in terms of legal precedent) that there is a limitation on the type of arms individuals may own and that limitation is the opposite of what the anti-gun folks and even some self-proclaimed pro-gun folks think – it suggests that people only have the right to have military type weapons. Of course, military type weapons are the ones that anti-gun folks hate the most, al la the assault weapons ban, full auto-restrictions, etc.

Again, I disagree with the court, but I think that is what it says.

 

[Broadhead]

From the first post of the thread:
The Declaration of Independence says “WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain Unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness.” By this statement, it is clear that our founders believed individuals possessed certain rights automatically.

I agree with most members of this forum that the authors of the 2nd amendment intended to authorize possession of arms for self-defense as an individual right. "Individual right" is not explicitly stated, hence lots of room for argument, and plenty of legal opinions going both ways.

The Declaration of Independence is explicit, but I find the fact that some of the signers of this document owned slaves diminishes the clarity.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Broadhead

I agree with most members of this forum that the authors of the 2nd amendment intended to authorize possession of arms for self-defense as an individual right. "Individual right" is not explicitly stated, hence lots of room for argument, and plenty of legal opinions going both ways.

One needn't look for the words "individual right"(the right of individuals) in the Second Amendment. One word covers it. "People" is the plural of "person".

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.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the body of enfranchised citizens(plural) of a state to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of a person's relatives(plural) to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the persons(plural) of a certain place,group, or class to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of persons(plural) considered indefinitely to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of human beings(plural) to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

All those definitions of the word "people" that I inserted and underlined (except where I added the note of plurality in parentheses) come from Webster's Universal Dictionary and Thesaurus, 1993.

There is also a definition of "peoples", it being all the persons of a racial or ethnic group, typically having a common language, institutions, homes, and culture. That definition would fit in just as well, for it also denotes the plural of "person".

The transitive verb definition would be out of context.

Woody

"I pledge allegiance to the rights that made and keep me free. I will preserve and defend those rights for all who live in this Union; founded on the belief and principles that those rights are inalienable and essential to the pursuit and preservation of life, liberty, and happiness." B.E.Wood