The Second Amendment, as defined in "The Citizen's Almanac"..

[MedWheeler]

My wife, born and raised in the USSR/Russian Federation, was sworn in as a US Citizen last month. Among the documents and literature issued to her by the USCIS is a book called "The Citizen's Almanac." It describes the origin of the nation, outlines the rights and responsibilities of the citizens of the nation, and touches on the building blocks of how this nation came to be such a favorite place of immigration from others.

In the section outlining "rights" of citizens are descriptions of each right assured by the first ten amendments of the Constitution (followed by those of other key amendments.)

I sighed and possibly moaned a bit as I was reading them, daring to subject myself to whatever off-beat interpretation of the Second I was about to face.

It reads:

"The Constitution protects the rights of citizens to have firearms for personal defense. This privilege is subject to reasonable restrictions to prevent unfit persons, or those with the intent to criminally misuse guns or other firearms, from obtaining such items."

Imagine my pleasant surprise at the lack of any attempt to apply this right only to any form of military force or membership in any such force, or for the purpose of defense of or at any specific location (such as home only.) In such an age when modern interpretations of the 2A (such as those in school textbooks) usually include, or restrict themselves to, such instances, I was relieved somewhat. It's particularly surprising considering that this is the version revised in May of 2013, during the current administration, and the current (or recent) gun-control-pushing environment.

Also notably missing is any mention of any specific types of firearms. No "muskets-only", no "double-barrel shotgun-only" (listening, Joe?), no prohibitions on anything that "looks military in nature", no nothing like that. I'm amazed that this got through the political proofreaders.

My relief, however, is not without at least some apprehension, as I disagree with the use of the word "privilege" in the second sentence, as such a definition implies that the 2A is protecting a privilege and not a right.

The clause "reasonable restrictions", despite recent anti-gunners' use and definition of such, does not bother me because it is defined as those "intended to prevent unfit" or those criminally-intended from access. The current usage of that type of clause in the agenda going on now does not have that intent, so I believe the current agenda falls outside the scope of this book's definition of "reasonable restrictions."

 

[MErl]

That sounds like it comes straight out of Heller.

You should still beware though, unfit persons is not defined and laws can be expanded so that criminal misuse can become something trivial.

Much better than it could have been though.

 

[HisStigness]

I think it's a case of this is how the Supreme Court has interpreted the 2nd amendment again and again. We assume that everybody in the government is anti gun because we only hear the people that yell the loudest, or whatever crap the news media feeds us on a daily basis. All hope is not lost! (yet)

 

[mnrivrat]

I disagree with the use of the word "privilege" in the second sentence, as such a definition implies that the 2A is protecting a privilege and not a right.

That single word (priviledge) alone is a horrible carnage on our rights. It's a complete bastardization of our Bill of Rights, and an attempt to distroy the real meaning and purpose of the amendment.

 

[JRH6856]

My relief, however, is not without at least some apprehension, as I disagree with the use of the word "privilege" in the second sentence, as such a definition implies that the 2A is protecting a privilege and not a right.

Please note that in the language of the 17th and 18th centuries, and in the writing of many Constitutional scholars of that time, the protection of certain natural rights by the Bill of Rigths was a privilege of citizenship. A prime example can be found in the Privileges and Immunities clause of the 14th Amendment.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…​

You are correct that the right is not a privilege, but its protection by the Constitution is a privilege of citizenship. Also, the privileges of protected rights are afforded to residents as well.

…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​

It is not a "bastardization or our Bill of Rights," but a further confirmation of their protection.

 

[200Apples]

.
Thanks for your post, MW!, and thank you JRH for the perspective!

And for those "antis" who continue to think that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights need changing (why? In spite of your desire to be part of an "enlightened" society, I remind you that Human Nature has NOT changed), please see my post signature, which I have appreciatively "borrowed" from another CA shooter...

 

[AlexanderA]

These sorts of materials are drafted in the light of the latest Supreme Court decisions, which in regard to the 2nd Amendment, means Heller.

However, I wouldn't try to parse the text too closely. It's intended as a brief introduction for new citizens, and is not legally binding.

 

[BigBore44]

I like it for the most part. The part that gets me is the word "intent". Proving intent can be tricky before a crime has been committed. Most times intent is proved after the crime. Conspiracy, is much easier to prove before. And if the intent is already there, the firearm probably is too. People aren't criminals......until they are. But all in all, not a bad generalization of the 2A.

 

[MedWheeler]

JRH6856, thanks for your insight. That is probably the intended meaning of the word "privilege."

Overall, I like the concession that has apparently been made. I'd kind of like to see those versions issued prior to Heller..

 

[RPRNY]

The Supreme Court has also ruled that the right protected from interference by the government in the Second Amendment is not granted by the Constitution or the Government of the United States, that it is a natural right that exists outside the framework of government. So "privilege" was a poor choice of wording.

But given that they played some country & western song at my wife's citizenship ceremony (she's British by birth) rather than the National Anthem, I am otherwise impressed with the wording in that document.

 

[JRH6856]

The Supreme Court has also ruled that the right protected from interference by the government in the Second Amendment is not granted by the Constitution or the Government of the United States, that it is a natural right that exists outside the framework of government. So "privilege" was a poor choice of wording.

On the contrary, I think the use of the word privilege is entirely correct. I read the almanac passage thus:

"The Constitution protects the [natural] rights of citizens to have firearms for personal defense. This privilege [of constitutional protection] is subject to reasonable restrictions to prevent unfit persons, or those with the intent to criminally misuse guns or other firearms, from obtaining such items."​

Again, there is no suggestion that the right is a privilege granted by government, but that the protection of that right by the Constitution is privilege of US citizenship.

 

[450 Dakota]

to prevent unfit persons, or those with the intent to criminally misuse guns or other firearms, from obtaining such items."[/INDENT]

Sigh.............Unfortunately, the "reasonable restrictions" rarely do this (as evidenced by the Batman killer, Virginia Tech shooter, and the Newtown loony) and high percentage of all murders that are passionately committed by first timers with clean records. If society would allow it, I submit that a psychological profile would be a more effective tool in screening out the killers. Currently any sociopath (or psychopath!) without a record of some kind can purchase a weapon. I am more comfortable with any of the three non-violent ex-felons who work for me having a gun than "Wild-Eyed Billy" down the road with a clean record but likes to slowly squeeze small animals to death or Bubba Hampton across town who salivates when kids walk by!

 

[JRH6856]

Yes, Dakota, since we already have another thread that has been taken over by this subject, we are well aware of your feeling that felons should be allowed to have guns. But the Felons with Firearms law is not the only "reasonable restriction" on the books.

Psychological profiling probably would be more effective than our current system of "sounds good, hope it works," but first you have to find a replacement for the politically incorrect word, "profile." I wonder, what is the psychological profile of a person with a profile phobia?

 

[easy]

It's intended as a brief introduction for new citizens, and is not legally binding.

It may not be legally binding, but it sure is mentally framing the mind of the prospective new citizen.

 

[SilentStalker]

"The Constitution protects the rights of citizens to have firearms for personal defense. This privilege is subject to reasonable restrictions to prevent unfit persons, or those with the intent to criminally misuse guns or other firearms, from obtaining such items."

I don't find anything about this statement reasonable. This isn't at all, IMO, what the second amendment says. I don't care if this is meant to be an introduction or not. To me this reads, new citizen brainwashing. This is exactly the kind of crap people are saying is in their kids textbooks these days and this is exactly one way they will erode the Constitution and our rights. There is nothing good about this statement at all!

 

[JRH6856]

I don't find anything about this statement reasonable. This isn't at all, IMO, what the second amendment says. I don't care if this is meant to be an introduction or not. To me this reads, new citizen brainwashing. This is exactly the kind of crap people are saying is in their kids textbooks these days and this is exactly one way they will erode the Constitution and our rights. There is nothing good about this statement at all!

But it is almost exactly what the Supreme Court says that the Second Amendment says. And the Court's opinion is binding.

 

[Scooter22]

I'd P--s on it open to those pages, put it in a zip lock bag and send it back. JMHO

 

[JRH6856]

I'd P--s on it open to those pages, put it in a zip lock bag and send it back. JMHO

 

[danez71]

MedWheeler

Congratulations to your wife.

 

[316SS]

Please note that in the language of the 17th and 18th centuries, and in the writing of many Constitutional scholars of that time, the protection of certain natural rights by the Bill of Rigths was a privilege of citizenship. A prime example can be found in the Privileges and Immunities clause of the 14th Amendment.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…

You are correct that the right is not a privilege, but its protection by the Constitution is a privilege of citizenship. Also, the privileges of protected rights are afforded to residents as well.

The recognition of natural rights transcends citizenship. In the language of the 18th century, all men are created equal; not all citizens. Almost invariably I see modern references made to US Constitutional protections being limited to US citizens. However, since the US constitution was intended to limit the power of the US government, why would it be limited to its own citizens? If natural rights are vested in all men, shouldn't all men be protected from having their rights violated by the US government?

 

[JRH6856]

Maybe. The US Constitution has no power by itself. It's protections must be enforced by either by Legislative, Executive, Judicial, or Popular action.

 

[jrmiddleton425]

If the Founders had foreseen what controversy that two-clause sentence would create 220 years after the fact, I think they would have written it like this:

"All citizens able to bear arms for the common defense and defense of themselves, shall furnish for themselves, at their expense, small arms of type currently in use in the land and naval forces of the United States."

 

[mnrivrat]

On the contrary, I think the use of the word privilege is entirely correct. I read the almanac passage thus:

"The Constitution protects the [natural] rights of citizens to have firearms for personal defense. This privilege [of constitutional protection] is subject to reasonable restrictions to prevent unfit persons, or those with the intent to criminally misuse guns or other firearms, from obtaining such items."
Again, there is no suggestion that the right is a privilege granted by government, but that the protection of that right by the Constitution is privilege of US citizenship.

I read the passage as the 2nd amendment being called a privilage , And I don't have to add " of constitutionl protection " to try to change the meaning into something palletable . Your wrong - dead wrong and did I mention you are incorrect in your assumptions of what it says. I agree with scooter22 (he did put a little color to it) so roll your eyes in belief that somehow that makes you right. Donate your brain and your rights to the goverment and politizised courts, but nobodys going to give away mine without a fight.

 

[JRH6856]

I read the passage as the 2nd amendment being called a privilage

Obviously. But it doesn't say that, anymore than the 2A says the right is only for the militia. When reading written English, punctuation and grammar matter and have an impact on comprehension.

It says the right is protected by the Constitution. It does not say the privilege is protected by the Constitution.

The first sentence says "The Constitution protects the rights of citizens to have firearms for personal defense." So the being armed is recognized as a right, and it is described as a protected right. The second sentence says "This privilege is subject to reasonable restrictions…" To what does it refer when it says privilege? Having arms has already been described as a right, so what is being described as a privilege? What has not been described? The protection of the right by the Constitution. Any other reading is contradictory in that it results in the second sentence contradicting the first by using two terms with different meanings to describe the same thing—that thing being "hav[ing] firearms for personal defense".

You can't read the Constitution in a vacuum. During the ratification process, the founders wrote extensively regarding the intent of nearly every word, comma and period. To understand this to the fullest, one need only read the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers.

One needs also read and understand the SCOTUS decisions interpreting the Constitution, because those decisions bring further clarity and meaning to the words. The Declaration of the Independence and Article 1 Section 10 and the first 8 Amendments of the Constitution speak of the rights of the people. The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers make abundantly clear that these riths are natural rights held by all men. In 1954 in the Dred Scott case, SCOTUS ruled that the Constitutional protection of these rights was a privilege afforded only to US Citizens. Hence, the rights are naturally held by all but Constitutional protection of those rights was privilege of citizenship. But the rights were only protected against the federal government.

In 1868, the 14th Amendment prohibited the states from abridging the privileges of a US citizen. What privileges do US citizens have? Look to Drad Scott: the privileges of the protections of the US Constitution.

This has thus been a long understood principal: all persons have natural rights, but the protection of those rights is a privilege of citizenship. Why a privilege of citizenship? Because the US Constitution only has authority over the federal and state governments of the United States. It has no authority over the governments of other countries and doesn't protect the rights of their citizens. Except when those persons are within the jurisdiction of the US.

I'm not trying to give away anyone's rights. But we can only keep them from being taken if we clearly understand what they are, and how they are protected. It makes it a lot clearer when and where those protections are violated or ignored—and when they are not.

 

[Ignition Override]

Congratulations on your wife's citizenship!

Does she understand at least a fair bit of the written language in those documents? Maybe she has some appreciation for the Sec. Amendment.
You might tell her that my next gun will be a Saiga 5.45 this spring, and looking fwd. to it (a first Kalash.).