USA: "Right to bear arms clearly delineated, law professor says"

[cuchulainn]

from the Toledo Blade

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbc...030214&Category=NEWS09&ArtNo=102140084&Ref=AR

Right to bear arms clearly delineated, law professor says
BLADE STAFF WRITER

The meaning of the Second Amendment is crystal clear, said Nelson Lund, a law professor at George Mason University school of law in Fairfax, Va.

"In fact, for over a hundred years after the amendment was adopted, there was no controversy about its meaning," Mr. Lund said yesterday during a taping of The Editors television program. "Everyone who wrote seriously about it agreed that it protected an individual right to keep and bear arms, just like the individual rights in the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment."

Gun-control laws became popular in the 20th century, and courts accepted the interpretation that the amendment really protected a right of the states to keep up a militia. "If you go and read the opinions, the reasoning in them is really quite abominable," he said.

The amendment, he said, contains only one idea: The right to keep and bear arms. The preface - "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" - is an explanation, he said, of why an individual’s right was being protected in what follows, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The amendment would mean the same thing even if the preface were deleted, he said.

The founders had a fear of peacetime standing armies, preferring a militia made up of civilians to be used only in emergencies. Even today, all men between 17 and 45, with a few exceptions, are part of a militia pursuant to federal statute, Mr. Lund said, and "that’s called the unorganized militia. The National Guard is considered the organized militia."

Mr. Lund was questioned by Thomas Walton, vice president-editor of The Blade, and Marilou Johanek, of The Blade editorial board.

The Editors will be broadcast at 9 tonight on WGTE-TV, Channel 30, and at 12:30 p.m. Sunday on WBGU-TV, Channel 27.

Courts haven’t held any individual right in the Constitution to be absolute. With the Second Amendment, courts will have "to get into a balancing of the value of the individual right to arm against the public interest in safety," he said.

The founders were worried about the federal government oppressing the people.

"Now, given the change in technology, the chance that even if we all had our Second Amendment rights to keep arms that we could actually resist the 101st Airborne has become much more problematic," he said.

"And for that reason, today the reasons for taking the Second Amendment seriously are not so much the ones the founding generation was worried about but, rather, it’s the problem of threats to our security that the government fails to protect us from, and that’s primarily violent criminals."

 

[another okie]

It's nice he's sticking up for the Second Amendment, but I disagree with his statement that we can't fight tyranny because of the 101st Airborne. Certainly a bunch of middle aged guys with shotguns are not going to defeat the military in open battle, but who ever said they could? If the government should ever become a tyranny hopefully the military would refuse to attack the citizenry. The job of the militia would be to defeat the police, if they were trying to enforce tyrannical laws, or to bog the military down in guerilla warfare until they came to their senses and followed their oath to protect the Constitution.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Certainly a bunch of middle aged guys with shotguns are not going to defeat the military in open battle...

The guerrillas almost always win.

 

[4v50 Gary]

Good to have an academian who can read.

 

[shu]

"... today the reasons for taking the Second Amendment seriously are ... threats ... that the government fails to protect us from, and that’s primarily violent criminals."

I thought individual security was an individual responsibility. It is the responsibility of 'the government' to protect me from violent criminals?

"Fail" is one of those emotion loaded words favored by the media. Look for those article headlines "[Congress/City Council/School Board] Fails to Pass [some program favored by the reporter]." "Fail" is not a neutral word. Do two plus two fail to be five?

"Loophole" is another emotional media pet words. (Comes to mind because I noticed it in another post here today about 'assault rifles' and 'loopholes. I wonder if liberals would stop using it if they thought about the origin of the word - a small hole in the wall of a fort or building placed intentionally so those inside can shoot those outside. Many 'loopholes' in laws are also placed intentionally to exempt a particular group, class, or individual.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

If RTKBA is so crystal clear, then why is the topic controversial and why do we need state permit laws?

 

[Blackcloud6]

The shocking part of this article is that the Toledo Blade printed it. That paper has always been anti-gun!

 

[grampster]

If one thinks about our military standing behind a tyrant, even with the police doing the same, one needs to also think about the vast territoy that makes up America and remember that there are multiple millions of us with guns of all kinds. When you start to divy up the military to sectors of the country the numbers of police and military are pretty thin, 101st nothwithstanding. The country would be fractured with a tyrant controlling portions of it, probably places like NY and DC and other "gun free zones". Where I live, maybe a Hummer with one crew might be assigned along with the Sheriff and State Police: Life expectancy? About an hour I would think, especially since the LEO's would probably join the "rebels". If they didn't they would be stuck home protecting their families from their former friends and neighbors. The reason they would last an hour as I think we'd give them that much time to think about their folly before we killed them.

That is why we have the 2A. A liberal would never understand that because they are idjits for the most part. If you wonder who they are, turn on the TV. They are on the news every night walking around with "I hate the USA" signs.
End of Rant