Posted by
Pscyclone on Friday, March 16, 2007 4:40:38 PM
Purpose
In questions concerning personal protection and responsibility, the Second Amendment speaks clearly. Private firearm ownership is “necessary to the security of a free State.” Were this Amendment to be repealed, history proves tyranny would prevail. Indeed, it protects the citizens of this country from their own government, from foreign invasions, and from personal harm.
The Soviet Union enacted strict gun-control in 1929 in the form of licensing, bans on possession, and severe penalties for breaking the government decrees (Stevens). From 1929 until 1945, twenty million political dissidents and citizens in rural, farming communities were murdered (ibid). In Nazi Germany and occupied Europe another twenty million were murdered between 1933 and 1945; these were political opponents, Jews, Gypsies, critics, and other “examples” (ibid). As did the Soviet Union, the Nazis passed strict gun-control measures aimed at disarming the populace and leaving them defenseless (ibid).
The Second Amendment protects the citizens of this country from foreign invasion. During World War II, Japanese Navy Commander in Chief Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto was quoted as saying, “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass” (Interlution). From this remark, one could argue that the most gifted military strategist of the Japanese Fleet feared invading the mainland United States because he knew its citizens were free to arm – and were quite ready to die to defend – themselves.
Personal protection has become mired in the annals of political correctness. One is lately encouraged to rely on the prowess of law enforcement officers and security personnel for situations threatening one’s life or family (Brady). This point of view presupposes an intended victim is in a place of reasonable safety to:
- call 911,
- speak loudly enough for the operator to hear and understand the emergency, and,
- wait for law enforcement to respond.
Of course, the worst of these is waiting for law enforcement to respond. When one’s life or the lives of one’s family is at stake, waiting in the face of brutal criminal activity for a response from law enforcement is an unacceptable risk. More to the point, the opening of the Fourth Amendment reads, “The right of the people to be secure in the persons, houses, papers, and effects … “ which highlights the emphasis the Framers put on one’s personal security. The Second Amendment provides the means for an individual to see about their own defense in the manner most effective; by owning and rightly using a firearm.
Supreme Court Opinions
In matters pertaining to the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court has had little to say. Of what it has said however, the view that the Second Amendment delineates a singular right and that it protects private firearm ownership is reinforced.
The 1857 Supreme Court made a dreadful decision in Dredd Scott v. Sanford, preventing African-Americans from being recognized as citizens of the United States (Docs). In so doing, the Court described the civil liberties guaranteed to a U.S. citizen:
"It would give to persons of the negro race, ... the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased . . . the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went" (emphasis added) (ibid).
In the case of U.S. v. Miller, the 1939 Supreme Court ruled there was no Constitutional basis for Miller to own a sawed-off shotgun without registering it under the National Firearms Act (GPO 1193). Miller's argument was based upon the Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" and as such, was not required to register his shotgun (ibid). After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that:
"[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view” (1194).
Continuing, the Court defined the militia as a force consisting of "civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion” and that it was "comprised [of] all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," who, "when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time" (emphasis added) (ibid).
Whereas the Court had ruled that the firearm in question was not exempt from registration, it also highlighted two key points that reinforce the notion the Second Amendment provides for private firearm ownership. First, the Court states that the militia was composed of "civilians primarily," which is contrary to gun-control activist's views that the militia of the Constitution equates to the National Guard (i.e. “professional soldiers”) of today. Second, the Court states that those civilians, when called into service, "were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves," which is only possible if private firearm ownership is permitted.
In a more modern viewpoint, the 1989 Supreme Court unanimously held in U.S. v. Verdigo-Urguidez that the term “the People” in the Second Amendment carried the same meaning as when used in the Preamble to the Constitution, and the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments (FindLaw). In those contexts, “the People” described a singular right, that is, a right secured by each person of the United States and legal aliens while they are here (ibid). Thus, according to the ruling in this case, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” applies to the individual, just as the First Amendment does for free speech, or the Fourth does for security in one’s person.
((Author's note: This concludes Part II. Click here for Part III. ))
----------==========----------
Works Cited / BibliographyBeccaria, Cesare. “Of false Ideas of Utility.” Of Crimes and Punishments. 1788. Bell, R. 08 Apr 2004. http://www.constitution.org/cb/crim_pun40.htm
Berggren, Kris. “Fear-rooted gun culture kills before shot is fired.” National Catholic Reporter 06 Jun. 2003: 20. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOHost. M.M. Bennett Lib., St. Petersburg College. 19 Feb. 2003.
Brady. “The Second Amendment.” bradycampaign.org. 2004. The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence. 19 March 2004. http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=second
Cox, Chris. “Mr. & Mrs. America, turn them all in.” National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action. 20 Jan. 2004. 19 Feb. 2004.http://www.nraila.com/issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=114
Docs. “Transcript of Dredd Scott v. Sanford (1857).” ourdocuments.gov. 2004. 08 Apr. 2004.http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=29&page=transcript
FindLaw. “United States v. Verdigo-Urguide “ findlaw.com. 1990. Find Law for Legal Professionals. 08 Apr. 2004.http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=494&invol=259
Gooch, Robert Kent, O’Connor, Karen, and Larry J. Sabato. American Government: Continuity and Change. 2004 ed. New York: Pearson Longman, 2004.
GPO. “Second Amendment: Bearing Arms.” gpoaccess.gov. 1996. Government Printing Office. 08 Apr. 2004.http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt2.html
Halbrook, Stephen P. “The Right of the People or the Power of the State: Bearing Arms, Arming Militias, and the Second Amendment,” 26 Valparaiso University Law Review. (1994): 131-207. http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/law_review_articles/power.PDF
Interlution. “Famous Quotes.” famousquotes.com. 2003. Interlution. 15 Mar.2004.http://famousquotes.com/Show.php?_id=1053677
Lott, John R. Jr. More Guns Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1998.
NRA.org. 2004. National Rifle Association. 06 Mar. 2004.http://www.nra.org
NRAILA. “Good Riddance to the Clinton Gun Ban.” nraila.com. 2004. National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action. 17 Mar. 2004http://www.nraila.com/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=158
Poe, Richard. The Seven Myths of Gun Control. New York: Three Rivers Press, 2001.
Publius. “The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared.” The Federalist Papers: Federalist No. 46. 1788. 08 Apr. 2004http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/fed/fed_46.html
SAF. “Quotes of the Founding Fathers & Their Contemporaries.” SAF.org. 2001. Second Amendment Foundation. 08 Apr. 2004 http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/general/FoundersQuotes.htm
Stevens, Richard W. and Aaron Zelman. Death by “Gun Control:” The Human Cost of Victim Disarmament. 2001. Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership, Inc. 15 Mar. 2004.http://www.jpfo.org/deathgc.htm
“Targeting the Second.” ABA Journal. 28. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOHost. M.M. Bennett Lib., St. Petersburg College. 19 Feb. 2003.
Image source: http://www.patrioticon.org/patriotic-downloads-5.htm