Repeal Second Amendment, Analyst Advises

[mordechaianiliewicz]

The entire Bill of Rights exists outside of the words. The words are simply a way of expressing those rights all human beings have simply by breathing. These rights are granted by our creator (my belief, although it's largely irrelevant where the powers come from because we have them the moment we are alive), and we can repeal all of them (seemingly a goal of the current administration), and they'll still exist.

The problem with folks of this guy's nature (on either the right or left), is that they don't understand the nature of the Bill of Rights. Those laws aren't subject to a majority of people, a minority, or one person acknowledging them. This guy might believe that a majority of people can take away a right, but they cannot.

As for myself, the only way my rights can be relinquished is for me to pass away. And, that same statement applies to every other human being on the planet.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

There is a big difference between repealing an amendment and simply violating it. The latter is very difficult to do. The former, unfortunately, has proven all too easy.

 

[MudPuppy]

I actually agree to the point of what he's saying, in that the constitution is at risk if we ignore the 2nd and continue to pass antigun laws.

If we are to restrict gun rights it MUST be done by amending the BOR.

I don't think they should, and I don't think it would be pleasant for them if they succeeded. But, I'd prefer they stand their ground and go for a repeal rather than the incrementalism of the past decades.

 

[TallPine]

I think this is great! At least he is admitting:

1) the 2A protects an inalienable individual right
2) their ultimate desire is to ban all private possession of firearms

No more of this "reasonable restriction" BS

 

[ghschirtz]

The problem is, if I read Parker v. DC, the Federalist papers and other writings correctly, the Second Amendment is not about owning guns. It is about the inalienable right of the individual, at times in concert with others in his community, to defend himself, his family, property and rights to pursue happiness...by force if necessary.

The word "arms" was used specifically by the Founders as they incorporated language and concepts which predated the broad use of firearms and were founded in self-defense by the individual. They certainly could have used the word "firearms" if they meant guns.

If you take a close read the majority discussion in Parker, it becomes plain that the DC gun ban robbed citizens of the right of self-defense. The cure is to allow them to be armed effectively so that they can defend themselves. At this time as then, a firearm is the best means to do this. In the future, phasers might become the common "arms" of the day, and 2A will be just as relevant to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the other rights enumerated in the Bill as it is today.

The second someone can force you to do whatever they want whenever they want without significant consequences, you have only the rights they will allow you to have. Without a means of effective self-defense, that is the position you are in. This is what the Founders are addressing with 2A.

Note that a standing federal army was not created, but a federal navy was. The Founders distrusted standing federal armies and dealt with the requirement for massed force on the ground via militias. However, it was impossible to mass on the square in response to threats to international trading activities of the states, so they established a navy. Such navy was engaged within a decade in the dealing with Muslim predators from Tunisia, our first encounter with those blokes.

Wittes does not get the meaning of 2A, and IMO, neither does NRA. I think NRA is less effective than it could be because it is blind to the underlying reasons for 2A that the Founders very clearly articulate. It is this clear articulation that pushed honest scholars like Larry Tribe into admitting 2A is about individual rights. Tribe is very liberal and prefers expansive gun controls, but he values his scholarship more.

Wittes does not value his scholarship, understand what he has read (if he got tot the right stuff) or cannot overcome his statist view that we should depend on the political class for our defense in all matters.

 

[JJpdxpinkpistols]

I agree with RavenVT100: At least give the chump credit for speaking the truth.

If they wanna repeal the 2A, they are welcome to try. It will fail, dismally, but they are welcome to try. They have to get a 2/3 majority to do so, and it won't happen.

 

[Grey54956]

Interesting that he says that the American population is more ambivalent to the right to bear arms than the founding fathers were...

This is probably true on the average. However, it is probably due to a large number of people who have been told their whole lives that guns are bad, and that there is no fundamental right to arms. It seems that there is also a large segment of the population that is every bit as determined to keep arms as the founding fathers if not more so. Basically, views towards RKBA have been diluted by a great many bleating sheep.

For those of us who still believe in the 2nd, we're anything but ambivalent. And the folks who are ambivalent had better look out if they decide to attack our rights.

 

[LawBot5000]

Ooh Randy Barnett is awesome. He is one of the best speakers and best constitutional scholars I have ever met.

 

[alan]

I suspect that such as this has, for many years, stood high on the antigun lobbies wet dream wish list. I doubt that it will happen during my lifetime though.

 

[Caimlas]

I'm all for politicians to attempt removal of the 2nd Amendment. Which is likely why the gun banners have not been too hasty to attempt such a tactic:

They'll just out themselves and get un-elected (in one fashion or another) sooner than later.

 

[Elza]

But challenging the Second Amendment on the basis that society's circumstances have changed since the drafting would similarly open up to question all other constitutional rights, according to Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett, who also participated in Monday's discussion.

'Ya think???!!! I really don't understand how people fail to see that this would only be the beginning. Our other rights would fall anytime they became 'inconvenient' to the powers-that-be.

 

[Monkeyleg]

Wittes is simply saying aloud what many, if not most, anti-gunners are afraid to say.

 

[Caimlas]

(in case you want to put a face with a name):


http://www.brook.edu/scholars/bwittes.htm

That's funny. I bet he speaks with a lit-t-thp to go with that pink shirt and foppish grin.

 

[yhtomit]

A depressing reality:

I've heard several fellow law students say (at least one verbatim) that "the 2nd Amendment is obsolete." I know that the Standard Model is the (obvious, sensible, why-are-we-debating-this?) view that the 2d guarantees individual rights, but plenty of people at Temple Law (and, I bet, even more so at more prestigious places) see it as a literal anachronism.

timothy

 

[Skibane]

Barnett argued, "Sure it was fine that persons should be secure in their papers and effects back in the old days when there wasn't a danger of terrorism and mass murder."

I can't believe he said that.

Sarcasm.

He said it to point out the absurdity of Wittes' argument.

 

[precisionshootist]

Excellent Point!!

ghschirtz, this is a great point that has not sunk in to defenders of the 2nd.

The word "arms" was used specifically by the Founders as they incorporated language and concepts which predated the broad use of firearms and were founded in self-defense by the individual. They certainly could have used the word "firearms" if they meant guns.

This is absolutely correct. "Arms" meant any implement used in battle or self-defense. This included firearms, cannons, swords, bow and arrow, knives, spears, etc. etc. The point that is missed by 2nd amendment scholars and defenders is that it also means M-16 A3's and "phased plasma rifles in a 40 watt range". With the current unconstitutional laws on the books no future or current military weapons are able to be possessed by individuals. The 2nd amendment has already in effect, been repealed. It's only a matter if time. In the very near future, only the government will have arms if we don't reverse this trend.

 

[HiroProX]

That day ever comes, my response will not be high road at all.

 

[FlaXD]

This is the perfect paper for a "stealth gun-lover" to write. Liberal admits people have the RTKBA and the only way to stop it is to pull off the impossible.

The article implies Wittes doesn't care much for guns. However, he isn't much of a liberal either in that he has concerns about regulations that violate the Constitution.

"The Second Amendment is one of the clearest statements of right in the Constitution," Benjamin Wittes, a guest scholar at the center-left Brookings Institution, acknowledged in a discussion Monday. "We've had decades of sort of intellectual gymnastics to try to make those words not mean what they say."

Wittes, who said he has "no particular enthusiasm for the idea of a gun culture," said that rather than try to limit gun ownership through regulation that potentially violates the Second Amendment, opponents of gun ownership should set their sights on repealing the amendment altogether.

 

[sacp81170a]

At least with Prohibition they followed the process and passed a Constitutional amendment banning alcohol. Didn't help, as people were doing anything they could to get the drug of their choice regardless of the law. They saw how badly it was working and the kind of disrespect it created for the highest law of the land, so they had the common sense to repeal prohibition. What makes anyone think that if they repeal the 2nd and pass laws prohibiting the possession of firearms that they will do anything but create a huge new class of criminals? People will do what they feel is necessary no matter what the law says.

As others have said, at least the guy is being honest.

 

[helpless]

This is a great way to deal with people I know who are Anti or even people who might call themselves "ProGun" with exceptions like "I am all for hunting rifles and revolvers, I dont see a need for Joe Taxpayer to own an Assault Rifle"

Just tell them that what they are really saying is that they dont see a need for the 2nd Amendment and they think it should be repealed.... Wait for it... Watch lightbulb go off.... "Well maybe just rewrite it or something..."

This makes the rest of the conversation much easier for me.

 

[Glockman17366]

I did get a response from Wittes. The red is my response back to him:

If that’s the case…then the First Amendment (which provides for, among other rights, freedom of the press) could also be repealed? Is that your opinion?

His original response to me (Blue):
-----Original Message-----
From:EDITED OUT On Behalf Of Benjamin Wittes
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 9:53 PM
To: Roy Jackson
Subject: Re: Your discussion of repealing the Second Amendment



Dear Mr. Jackson:
Thanks for your note, but I'm afraid you are incorrect about the amendability of the Bill of Rights. The first 10 Amendments to the Constitution are just that--amendments to the Constitution that are, like (almost) all other parts of the Constitution, themselves subject to amendment or repeal under the process laid out in Article V of the Constitution.

Nor do I retract my analysis, including my call for a discussion of whether American society has outlived the Second Amendment. If you are interested in my arguments on the subject, you may find the following of interest:
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w070319&s=wittes031907
Best wishes,
/b

And, my original e-mail to him...
On 6/12/07, Roy Jackson <EDITED OUT> wrote:

I believe you'll find the first 10 amendments cannot be repealed as they are recognized as pre-existing.



Please correct your error and report same to the Brookings Institute, Washington Post and any other organizations this has been reported to. It is better you correct your mistake, then have thousands of pro-Rights supporters (such as me) correct your error for you. I expect to read this in an editorial in the Washington Post within a week. A simple apology and withdrawal of the "suggestion" would suffice.

I'm sure you just tossed this in as a ludicrous attempt at humor since any attempt to do what you suggested would fail miserably. However, it is such statements from the so-called "intelligentsia" that makes us not only despise you more…but to cherish our rights (all of them) even more.

Basically, sir, you are doing more to erode your credibility then pro-rights people could.

R.Jackson

I did edit out all e-mail addresses.

I'm curious how he'll respond to the question about the First Amendment which would strike his rights. Of course, I'm not serious about repealing the First, as all our rights must be protected.

 

[RealGun]

I did get a response from Wittes. The red is my response back to him:

If that’s the case…then the First Amendment (which provides for, among other rights, freedom of the press) could also be repealed? Is that your opinion?

Funny that I had already projected that before opening this thread. I think I'll move along.

 

[buzz_knox]

He's correct in that each Amendment to the Constitution can be repealed or modified if the process is followed. The Constitution controls what the gov't can do, and how it interacts with preexisting rights. That relationship can be changed.

 

[JaxNovice]

I have having a real hard time understanding why everyone is so hot and bothered by Wittes comments. I went back read them again and thought about them. Here is what I took from them:

1) He admitted that he has no affinity for firearms.

2) He was actually speaking hypothetically about a course of action that would have an impact on gun rights.

3) He concluded such an attempt would be fruitless and alludes to the inheirent danger in trying to remove an amendment.

I don't see him as an gun control advocate. I see him as someone who personally does not like guns, but professionally spends his time considering all aspects of the constitution. At least he had the courage to explain his personal beliefs before diving into his constitutional thought process.

I find it more of an interesting take on the constitution as a whole then an attack on gun rights. He clearly is very smart and thoughtful. Just because he might have a different opinion then the rest of us on this board, does not mean his opinion lacks merit or is unworthy of civilized discourse.

 

[jselvy]

I really wish that the anti's would take a run at repealing the Second. It would at least get everybody's position out in the open. The uninterested would at least be able to clearly see them for what they are.

Jefferson