Like a Patriot. Obama’s views about the 2nd Amendment aren’t really based in Constitutional Law, they’re based on an attempt to reinterpret the Constitution in terms of his feelings and his prejudices.

It’s a particularly onerous thing to do when the President is talking about something as important as a Constitutional right. The Founders didn’t put the 2nd Amendment in there lightly — they did it because they understood that individuals bearing arms — “the right of the people to keep and bear” — should never be infringed because doing so is the most important guarantor and ultimate final arbiter of their liberty. Like all Statists, Obama subsumes the individual into the State and then declares that individuals shouldn’t own firearms.

He took the Oath, but his interpretation of the Constitution is very different, indeed.

Once again, folks, I’d like to ask people to consider my tagline and think about joining the NRA. More important than that is to recognize that your new President is a person who views your ownership of firearms as a legislative obstacle to be overcome, not a Constitutional right to be preserved.

Conservatives believe that liberty is the default state, and can only be limited. Liberals believe all rights are granted by a benificent government. Sadly, this is most likely exactly how kids are hearing it in school. I Know it was how they tried to teach me, when I was young.

gun sales are up as much as 50% in the last quarter. Obama was for the DC ban, before he was against it, before he was for it…….Or whatever way the wind is blowing today. He still supports Chicago’s ban on ownership.

Three scenarios and no, I didn’t make up any of them, but I can convey the thoughts (I think).

1. The administration tries to get an ‘assault weapons’ ban through, which will more than likely be proven unconstitutional, or dropped because of serious resistance.

Why would they do nothing more than that right away? Simple.

Better than even odds they’re going to get to appoint at least one and maybe more SCOTUS justices. What kind of people do you think they’ll seat to the highest court in the land, eh ?

At that point, if all the Democrats align with their party, then all they have to do is pass a law, let if fly all the way up to SCOTUS, where of course it will be upheld and poof….. bye bye 2nd Amendment….. and if Eric Holder gets his way, the 6th Amendment and maybe even the 5th and 1st will quite probably disintegrate as well.

Truth be told and the Dems know it big-time, there’s only one thing that can stop them and that thing is within The Constitution and Bill Of Rights they hate so much. The 2nd Amendment is in place to stop a rampaging government from eliminating The 2nd and all other Amendments, liberties and rights and freedoms. They have to figure out (some say they’ll manufacture) a way to get our weapons away from us. Which leads me over here………….

Scenario 2. We get hit by a terrorist attack. National emergency. A number of rights, freedoms and liberties are immediately suspended “for the good of the country and safety of the people”. They can keep that going indefinitely. PBHO knocking back all the defensive and offensive processes that President Bush put into place and also closing Guantanamo Bay is going to go a long way in making that a real possibility.

Scenario 3: These freaks of Socialistic policy pass that ‘one thing’ and it becomes the tipping point for so many people that enough is enough and people hit the streets, looking to get their freedom back….. including allot of PBHO’s supporters who are gonna get the biggest “see, I told you so” ever uttered by mankind. There goes suspension of rights freedoms and liberties again. That’s the real dangerous part and why I think we’re in for one hell of a bad time soon.

————–

Keep it in mind, the folks in power now do not care a tinker’s cuss about our Declaration Of Independence, Constitution and Bill Of Rights. They want their own “living documents” in place.

It, too, is incorrect.

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.
to this
The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms.

what gives him the right to change the very words that put him where he is now at?
Again I see , OOOgo Chaves

Probably a trivial disagreement, but I do not think the Declaration of Independence gives effect to the Constitution, a the Contitution doen’t even flow logically or naturally from it. The Article of Confederation are more closely linked in time with the Declaration, and they were uncontitutionally abandoned by the Constitution. If the Declaration gave effect to both documents, it would lead to the absurd result that it gives legal effect to two mutually exclusive documents — because the manner of Constitutional ratification violated the terms of the Articles of Confederation.

Regarding the Bill of Rights, I don’t think that flows logically, naturally, or necessarily from the Declaration either. Obviously if you buy the above logic, amendments to a Constitution that wasn’t a necessary result of the Declaration can’t be anymore necessary than the original document. But beyond that there’s no real necessity in the Bill of Rights, they almost weren’t passed at all.

Moving to the right to bear arms, which I like, I’m from Texas, arms are good, I think an Assault Weapons Ban or the like enacted by the Federal Government would probably be unconstitutional, but I can’t say the same for state laws banning some or all guns. The Bill of Rights didn’t have any impact on state law up until the 14th Amendment anyways. And it is a tough case to argue that an amendment designed exclusively (and everyone agrees on its purpose) to protect the civil rights of blacks and constitutionalize a Federal Civil Rights Act, can also somehow infringe on the plenary and police powers of the states to enforce their laws. A similar criticism can and should be leveled at Roe v. Wade, where a combination of the 14th and invented Constitutional privacy rights were used to infringe on the right of states to criminalize certain kind of action.

There is a very legitimate criticism of NO STATE SHALL pass any legislation infringing on the rights to bear arms as judicial activism. In most instances judicial activism tends to harm the political positions of conservatives (abortion, for instance) which is one reason I’m anti-activism generally, even when it produces political results I disapprove of.

To the extent that Obama, or anyone for that matter, proposes Federal legislation to ban weapons, I believe they’ve got a very serious 2nd Amendment issue to overcome. To the extent that anyone, much as I disagree with their politics, proposes state legislation to criminalize gun possession, well that isn’t as apparently unconstitutional to me as it is to the OP. Since Obama can’t pass laws in individual states, however, I think he’s mostly harmless. I believe that, politically, any Federal ban on weapons will have a hard time passing and, even assuming it does, it won’t make it through the courts. As a Texan interested in his right to bear arms, I’m not the least bit concerned about Obama.

“I’m anti-activism generally, even when it produces political results I disapprove of.”

Should read “I approve…” I need to do a better job of proof-reading.

I would also add that I’m very skeptical of Constitutionalism generally. Constitutional Law has historically had very little to do with the actual Constitution, and enormous damage has been done to the democratic process in the name of the Constitution.

As my aritcle stated, Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration, also had a significant influence on how Madison wrote the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights.

Both documents are based on the principle that our rights are given to us by Nature and Nature’s God, not by the government. That’s the point.

- JP

“…from my cold, dead hands…” Pretty much sums it up for me.

Not that I think Obama is going to be passing out projectile weapons at his next press conference, but that’s a much more open-minded interpretation of the 2nd than I would expect from this administration. It’s about the shortest interpretation listed, and from a plain-english reading does seem to say “Citizen, you can own a gun.” A lot more straightforward than the amendment even says.

Looking at how the other amendments in the list are interpreted – generally with minimal change to the wording, just slight translations from legalese – I would have expected something more like “The 2nd amendment supports the continuance of state militias by ensuring that the Federal government cannot prevent citizens from bearing arms. ” That would probably be a more precise translation , possibly closer in spirit to what was originally intended by the Founders, and probably a worse stand for the administration to take if you want this right to continue. (Say, because this leaves open that the STATES could prevent citizens from bearing arms, except perhaps in the official state Guard.)

I wouldn’t say that I’m thrilled by how it’s put there now, but it’s better than I would have expected.

RV

I think the problem with God isn’t that he does or does not give rights but that he rarely enforces them. It’s neat and all to say that rights are bestowed on people by God but they only happen to do so when also accompanied by a document or some legal framework that enforces those rights. We could have rights to arms in the absence of Nature’s God.

I think it is important to treat states and the Federal Government differently here as well. I completely agree that the Constitution, whatever it is supposed to do (be it protect God given rights or simply to organize society in a particular way) it operates very differently on Federal Congress than it does on State’s. Wherever one claims a right protected under the Constitution you are likewise stealing away from sovereign states their Constitutionally mandated plenary powers. The Constitution and its predecessor has/had much to say about the police powers of the states. Although, so far as I can tell, the Articles of Confederation, like the original Constitution, had nothing to say about ANYONE’S alleged right to own guns. So there’s two rights here, that of the states to decide amonst themselves on what should and should not be criminal activity and that of individuals to have guns. Enormous damage has been done to State rights, citing to the Constitution. I do not believe it was the original intent of the ratifiers of the Constitution that the states would be bound by the 2nd Amendment at all… I read the Bill of Rights as limiting CONGRESS (that’s what the Bill or Rights says, afterall) but not the states. It’s hard to imagine that Madison intended anything different but, even if he did, it’s important to keep in mind that his intent is no more but probably less important than the intent of the people ratifying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and not merely that of the author. And I likewise doubt that the ratifiers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights ever intended for it to place limits on the sovereign and protected powers of the states to criminalize very nearly whatever they wanted.

Incorporation is the theory presented post-14th Amendment that the Bill of Rights was now (but not prior) imposed on the states. For instance, even though the 1st Amendment EXPLICITLY speaks only of Congressional acts, it has since (I believe in the 1920s) been imposed on the states. The Bill of Rights originally was not a limit on states but a limit on federal goverment, a conclusion that can be reached quite easily by reading them in their entirety. It would be very unwieldy for every amendment to state “Congress shall not…” For over a hundred years, the Bill of Rights had little impact on what the states could or could not do legislatively. Then, along comes the 14th Amendment.

My position is that the 7th Amendment requirement for jury trials in controversies exceeding 20 dollars is a requirement in Federal courts but not State ones. I find the theory of incorporation to be largely unnecessary and think it does damage to state rights. States should be free to decide the nominal amount required to ramp up requisite jury trials without having to amend the Constitution. Likewise they should be free to act on the broad grant of power bestowed them by the Constitution. As the Constitution was ratified by people from different states concerned with issues like Federalism and the relationship between the States and the Federal Government in this newly formed nation, it isn’t much of a stretch to say they enacted the Bill of Rights as a protection against the government and not as a limitation. A 1st Amendment (which most people consider to the be the most important, not me necessarily but whatever) that read: NO STATE SHALL would never have been ratified.

This is an interpretation difference, one I hope to explain in more detail below, but I don’t think it is terrible damage to the language of the BoR to read the 2nd Amendment as flowing from the 1st. Your default is that the 2nd Amendment places a limit on the Federal and the State governments. I read it as placing a limit on the Federal Government, just like the amendment immediately preceeding it. I believe that’s precisely how it was treated for a hundred someodd years.

You said:

“Well, as I understand it, those are NOT the documents that are the law of the land. The RATIFIED and SIGNED Constitution, in all of its given wisdom, is what we use as our MAIN reference guide.”

My point was that the original RATIFIED and SIGNED Constitution said nothing of the right to arms. The country you live in was formed without anyone being protected in their right to have guns. For that protection to exist (and only a protection against Federal action, in my opinion) the Constitution needed to be amended. I do not believe the Articles of Confederation had any protection for the right to arms, either.

You said:

“The Constitution is very specific when it gives powers to either the federal government or the state governments.”

I completely disagree. The Constitution is infrequently specific, but where it is specific is only in naming the powers of the Federal Government. It is the opposite of specific in naming the powers of the states, which are generally anything and everything except those things (like the Contracts clause) it says states cannot do. Plenary, police, non-enumerated powers are the powers of the states, and they are: Everything except that tiny, narrow class of laws (like the Contracts clause) which the Constitution explicitly prohibits.

You said:

“In a well-ordered society, we simply do not have the luxury of picking and choosing what we like or don’t like. When we do, and it is forced on the people, the result is tyranny.”

Perhaps a philosophical difference, but where people pick and choose what they like or don’t like through the legislative process, I generally call that Democracy. I have never interpreted the word “tyranny” to mean: people get what they want. If it is the case that we in the United States “do not have the luxury of picking and choosing what we like or don’t like” than I think the result is we are no longer a democracy, but a tyranny. Unfortunately, I think in many instances it happens to be the case that we don’t live in a very democratic state. Our country has a lot in common with Iran in my opinion. They have limited democracy and then those democratic decisions are put before the Shari’ah courts or the approval of the Ayatollahs. Here we have democratic decisions (perhaps a state enacting legislation to ban abortions, for instance) that are overturned by the courts. We call our Ayatollahs Supreme Court justices. One of the reasons I’m so skeptical of Constitutionalism generally is that it isn’t very democratic and thus has the result of putting into the hands of unelected judges enormous power to shape the political landscape.

I am reluctant to expand the size and scope of the Constitution any further. I can imagine a world where the cost of free speech exceeds the benefit. I can imagine a country where some religions need not be recognized. I can imagine a state, though I’m quite certain it does not exist today nor has it ever existed in American History, where the damage caused by guns exceeds the benefit of being able to carry them. The Constitution is now the means by which 9 judges overturn democratically popular and enacted state laws. Whatever kind of government it is where we leave political choices to the interpretation of non-elected people of a document written hundreds of years ago and ratified by many people with different intentions in that ratification, it isn’t democracy. It it something else.

An easier answer is to say nothing in the Constitution is binding on any of the states because it was unconstitutionally ratified. That’s a rather radical position that I don’t like taking but it gets me where I want to go.

I hope that some of the above made clearer our PHILOSOPHICAL differences regarding the Constitution. I’m generally skeptical of it and for those who are not, we’ll have to agree to disagree. I’d just remind that it is at least as often but, in my opinion, far more often the case that conservative political victories are overturned by Constitutionalism. The 2nd Amendment is obviously not one of those instances, but it is unique like that. I think the history of Constitutional law unfortunately looks more like Roe v. Wade than it does [recent Supreme Court decision on 2nd Amendment in D.C. vs. Heller I believe]. We can have an expansive and therefore restrictive (on the states) reading of the Bill of Rights or not, but we can’t interpret some of them as limiting the states but not others. It has generally been the case where the court overturns state laws under some Bill of Rights basis outside the 2nd Amendment, it does so contrary to the wishes of usually conservative voters. I think the conservative politics is better off protecting state rights rather than reading them all as restrictive on the states and then taking the good (guns) with the bad (Roe v. Wade, insanely expanded rights of the accused, 7th amendment requirement of juries in excess of 20 dollars, etc.)

and you will see the current “our Government” as listed today used to be called “your Government” during GWBs tenure. Someone is taking ownership and it should make you nervous.

Sluf

that said:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Anything less would demand impeachment- period.

because there will be a civil war!

My rights are mine, given to me by Nature’s God. They will always exist though denied by the tyranny of government.

Montana has already taken steps by requiring that the state AG defend any Montanan gun owner being prosecuted by the Federal Government using the Commerce Clause and other clauses.

The only way, legal way, to take away arms in toto is by Constitutional Amendment. Any other way is violation of the Constitution and non-binding. States would be duty bound to protect the RIghts of the People.

In other words, States would be in open defiance of the Federal Government or derelict in their Duty to the People.

Not a good formula.

“Instead, an interpretation of what each amendment means in the view of the Obama administration is presented.”

That is a problem now, isn’t it.

This is gonna be some fun, eh ?

Hope this helps clear up some confusion on intent and interpretation………………….

The book: “The Founders’ Second Amendment ; Origins Of The Right To Bear Arms”

The author: Mr. Stephen P. Halbrook

The website: http://stephenhalbrook.com

I now ask that anyone confused about who said or intended what in regards to The Second Amendment’s conception, debate, writing and eventual passage, go forth and learn history.

The author takes a trip through or Founders’ own words on the why and how YOUR RIGHT to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

I picked up this book on a reco by Cam Edwards at NRA News and find it one of the most fascinating volumes of any history that I own.

Cheers !

What, like on special occassions like the Fourth of July? Who keeps them after that? We can touch, but we may not have, is that it? I suppose then the government will own all the guns, but if we’re good and jump through their hoops we can visit them on the weekends. I guess they consider that safe-keeping because we can’t be trusted?

I give to both. Heck we need to make certain that those NRA supported Democrats stay on the reservation.

There is nothing Un-Constitutional about believing in Un-Constitutional views.
Nor is there any proof of a great deal of love for Constitutional beliefs in the Obama administration.