Mediaboss Marketing

Gun control advocates have become so dependent on emotional arguments they often seem incapable of offering rational ones. So, I was eager to read a new Bloomberg column (via The Washington Post) headlined, The Second Amendment Allows a Ban on the AR-15.

The piece doesnt get off to a promising start, as author Noah Feldman props up a familiar straw man:

If we each have the right to bear arms, is there a constitutional right to a military-style semiautomatic rifle like an AR-15? What about a rocket-propelled grenade launcher? A small tank?

Notice how he jumps from the oxymoronic military-style semiautomatic rifle not a real thing to a small tank. Anyway, the proposition is that we should not have access to military-grade armaments. (Feldman is unaware that owning a small tank is legal.) But well get back to that in a moment.

Throughout the piece, Feldman treats the Second Amendment as some kind of courtesy extend[ed] by the state, rather than an inalienable right that can only be limited in extraordinary circumstances. The best way to avoid this confusion is to plug the words First Amendment whenever you see Second Amendment and the words newspapers every time you see guns. Though perhaps these days that wont help either.

The main problem in the piece, however, is that Feldman misunderstands the Supreme Courts 1939 United States v. Miller decision, which he contends is background to the current doctrine that makes it permissible to ban a semiautomatic rifle.

Miller revolved around a small-time bank robber and alleged murderer named Jackson Jack Miller and a sidekick, who in 1938 were caught in possession of an unregistered short-barreled shotgun while making preparation for armed robbery, according to the police. The two were charged with violating the relatively new National Firearms Act.

If it were up to the two criminals, the case would have ended right there, because both pled guilty. But the judge, Hiram Ragon, a New Dealer and NFA booster, refused to accept the pleas, assigning a court-appointed lawyer to the case. Instead of fighting the charges, the two crooks went on the lam. (Within a few months, Millers bullet-ridden body was found in an Oklahoma creek.)

Still, the case worked its way up to the Supreme Court, which is probably what Ragon had intended all along. The ruling was something of a sham. Millers lawyers didnt even bother filing a brief or showing up to make any oral arguments. And because anyone could buy any gun they wanted whenever they wanted, there were no Second Amendment advocacy groups in existence to take up the cause.

The Supreme Court issued a muddled opinion affirming the constitutionality of the NFA, finding that the Second Amendment didnt guarantee an individual the right to keep and bear a sawed-off double-barreled shotgun shorter than 18 inches, which was a weapon commonly used by criminals rather than law-abiding citizens. In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, the court found, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. (The justices were wrong, by the way. The military did use 14-inch barrel shotguns at the time, though there was no lawyer there to inform them of this fact.)

Feldman tries to argue that even Justice James McReynolds, a crazy libertarian, was a reasonable voice on guns 84 years ago. But the truth is the NFA didnt ban any kind of mechanism or any class of weapon. In 1939, a person could walk into a drug store and buy a tommy gun if they pleased, after paying a tax.

Miller quite literally undercuts Feldmans set-up. An unregistered sawed-off shotgun brought across state lines was illegal because such guns werent used by the military for the common defense. If it had been, it would have been legal. Meaning, not only an AR-15, but an M16 a true military-grade weapon would be legal.

Feldman dismisses this finding in the case as a practical disadvantage. Just ignore it, then, I guess. Instead, like many others before him, he pivots to claim that the Miller decision bolsters the revisionist case for a collective theory of gun rights. The left would have you believe they support gun rights, but only if you join a militia. Sure.

The problem is the court didnt offer any broad ruling regarding the meaning of the Second Amendment. Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons, Antonin Scalia wrote nearly 70 years later in D.C. v. Heller. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment.

To counter this claim, Feldman throws in this well-worn contention about the Heller decision:

That opinion featured the astonishing act (astonishing for an originalist, at least) of reinterpreting the original meaning of the Second Amendment. This took some jurisprudential jiu-jitsu. Scalia discounted the introductory clause that explains the purpose of amendment as ensuring a well-regulated militia. He shifted the meaning of the right to bear arms to personal self-defense.

The above paragraph is a completely concocted fantasy. Heller did not reinterpret anything. The well-regulated in the Bill of Rights refers to an orderly civilian military force, rather than a rabble of men. It always has. It does not mean regulation in its contemporary understanding of the state micromanaging your actions from the top down with a bunch of rules, which would have been alien to that generation.

And the regulated militia mentioned in the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment doesnt erase the operative clause of the amendment, which protects the individuals right to bear arms a right that virtually every notable figure from the founding era is on the record defending. There is nothing astonishing about it. Anyone whos spent five minutes reading about Madison and the Second Amendment understands why he wrote it the way he did. Many states codified the individuals right to bear arms in their own constitutions before the Bill of Rights was even written, most of them in much more explicit terms. No SCOTUS case has ever treated the Second Amendment as anything but an individual right. No Founding Father ever argued otherwise. The collective right is an invention of the 1990s.

You have a right to own an AR-15 because it is a gun in common use among ordinary citizens. There is nothing unusual about it. The most popular rifle in America isnt even close to being the deadliest weapon in the country.

The AR-15 has never been a military weapon. It was sold to civilians before it was modified. But even if we accepted the lefts contentions that ARs were some kind of military super gun a talking point that might well contribute to its popularity with homicidal nuts Miller still doesnt allow for a ban.

More here:
AR-15 Bans Are (Still) Unconstitutional - The Federalist

The Supreme Court declined to intervene Wednesday in an important Second Amendment case challenging Illinois new restrictions on gun owners.

But no, its not time to panic.

The battle isnt over. Not even close.

Earlier this year, Illinois enacted a law prohibiting civilian sales or transfers of many types of commonly owned semiautomatic rifles, based solely on the states arbitrary determination that certain cosmetic features turn these guns into so-called assault weapons.

Illinois residents who already possess these firearms, potentially millions of people, may continue to do so under the new lawbut only if they first register their ownership with the state.

They may not remove the gun from their property, except to take it to a gunsmith or gun range. And they cant transfer the gun to any other person residing in the state. The only exception: A person may receive an otherwise banned gun as part of an inheritance.

The Illinois state government, of course, chose to exempt itself from these prohibitions. Despite calling these guns weapons of war that arent useful for self-defense, the government will continue allowing police officers to use them for, well, that very purpose: defending themselves and others against common criminal threats to civilians whom the state insists have no use for these same guns.

Illinois new law is both poor public policy and a grotesque assault on the Second Amendment rights of peaceable citizens. It unquestionably should be struck down as unconstitutional, especially in light of the Supreme Courts 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. In that case, the high court said that for a gun law to be constitutional, the government must demonstrate that the law is consistent with [the] Nations historical tradition of firearms regulation.

In short, the United States has absolutely no historical tradition of completely banning sales of bearable small arms that are commonly possessed by peaceable citizens for lawful purposes.

Almost immediately after Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, a Democrat, signed the bill into law, Second Amendment groups and Illinois residents filed legal challenges in state and federal court. They also requested that these courts issue an injunction that would keep Illinois from enforcing the law while their legal challenges were pending.

Unfortunately, the lower courts declined to issue an injunction, and although the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals soon will hear the case on the merits, its timeline for review is too late to stop the law from going into effect. So, Second Amendment advocates petitioned the Supreme Court to intervene and block the law from going into effect before the 7th Circuit issues its decision.

By declining to intervene Wednesday morning, the Supreme Court didnt make any decision about the constitutionality of the Illinois law. Instead, the high court merely allowed Illinois to begin enforcing the laws provisions.

Yes, its disappointing that the law will go into effect for the time being. But this is neither a significant victory for gun control advocates nor a reason for Second Amendment advocates to be alarmed.

Its common for the Supreme Court to refrain from intervening in these types of cases at such an early stage in the litigation process. It does so for prudent reasons that have nothing to do with how the court might ultimately consider the underlying constitutional question.

Emergency interventions such as the one sought here require the Supreme Court to make decisions without the benefit of a robust factual record, extensive briefing from the parties, or ability to ask questions at oral argument. They also leave the court with far less time to consider important issues and reach well-reasoned decisions.

The Supreme Court has shown particular restraint when it comes to intervening in the myriad post-Bruen legal challenges under the Second Amendment that have worked their way through the lower courts over the past year.

No one knows for sure why the justices decline emergency intervention in some cases and not in others. However, one likely reason for their restraint in recent Second Amendment cases is that theyd like to give lower courts plenty of opportunity to try their hand at faithfully implementing Bruens framework.

Bruen was, after all, a major decision that fundamentally changed the way in which lower courts must analyze Second Amendment challenges. Its possible that these lower courts ultimately will prove themselves capable of correctly applying Bruen, in which case the Supreme Court will have avoided unnecessary and premature intervention.

Even if lower courts fail to faithfully and correctly apply the Bruen framework, there is plenty of reason to believe that, in such a scenario, the Supreme Court will step in to vindicate both Bruen and the Second Amendment by striking down the Illinois law (or a similar law in a different state) as unconstitutional.

Good law sometimes takes time for courts to achieve. That wait certainly can seem like an eternity for the residents whose rights are being undermined. But despite early cries of victory from gun control advocates, this latest battle for the heart of the Second Amendment is far from over.

In fact, its hardly even begunand defenders of the Second Amendment hold the high ground.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please emailletters@DailySignal.comand well consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular We Hear You feature. Remember to include the url or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.

Originally posted here:
Gun Control Groups Claim Victory, but Here's Why They'll Likely Lose War - Daily Signal

May 17, 2023 By Michael Weymouth

As gun violence continues unabated in our country, it has become clear that the Republican Party has no intention of doing anything about it, short of offering thoughts and prayers to the victims families. That and a plethora of useless bromides such as the only thing to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

The roots of the modern gun debate go back to the 1963, Kennedy assassination, when Democratic senator Thomas Dodd from Connecticut introduced legislation restricting the sale of mail order rifles. Shortly thereafter President Lyndon Johnson signed the Gun Control Act of 1968, and in 1994 President Bill Clinton signed the Assault Weapons Ban, which lasted ten years. It was allowed to expire under President George W. Bush. As a result, 20 million assault weapons are now in the hands of American gun owners.

It is clear that the Democratic Party has done its best to limit the sales of assault weapons, as well as to legislate common sense gun laws, while the Republican Party has done nothing but oppose them.

It hasnt always been this way.

In fact, two of the icons of the Republican Party actually held opinions about gun control that were diametrically opposed to positions held by todays Republican Party.

Chief Justice Warren Burger, a Nixon SCOTUS appointee said of the Second amendment, The gun lobbys interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American people by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies-the militia-would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.

One can hardly imagine that opinion coming from todays Supreme Court, which has adhered to a much narrower interpretation of the Second Amendment. Compare the Courts recent ruling that allowed New York citizens to openly carry guns, to comments made by President Ronald Reagan in 1967: There is absolutely no reason why out on the street today a civilian should be carrying a loaded weapon.

Burgers and Reagans comments beg the question: what happened to the Republican Party?

The answer is the NRA and its 5 million members, most of whom vote solid Republican, and, as Burger pointed out, the gun industrys lobby, which contributes millions of dollars to Republican politicians each year. The result is a constant Republican drumbeat that Democrats want to take away all guns. This is total hogwash.

In the meantime, American children fear going to school and their parents fear they will never see them again as their kids board the school bus in the morning.

Todays Republican Party has a lot to answer for and hopefully they will wake up to the damage they have done by failing to deal with this important issue. A good start will be for every American voter to condition his or her vote on how committed a candidate is to revisiting the Second Amendment and how it might be amended to better serve and protect the American people.

There should be no greater motivation than the fact that there have already been 202 mass shootings in 2023, more than one a day.

Continue reading here:
Opinion: The Second Amendment Fraud - Hingham Anchor

One of the biggest issues currently facing America is gun violence. I will be the first to admit, sometimes I regret the fact that our Founding Fathers gave us the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. Clearly, they did not know that weapon technology would evolve over time. Back in 1971, muskets were the primary if not the only guns being used. Enough is enough. Approximately five months ago, I wrote this petition in hopes to put a stop to gun violence in America. It proposes a 29th Amendment to the U.S Constitution to implement stricter gun control, and it may be the only hope to save our nation. Here is the link: https://www.change.org/Amendment_XXVIII.

Dante MedoriJenkintown, Penn.

Submit a letter to the editor at freep.com/letters

The Republicans and the Supreme Court have completely disregarded the first half of the Second Amendment, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a state" This is why I believe that the Second Amendment needs to be modernized.

In fact, I believe the entire U.S. Constitution needs to be modernized. The original document was written in the late 1700s and has been modified throughout the years, mainly in the mid to late 1800s and early 1900s. It is 2023 and there are many topics that are not mentioned in the Constitution because they did not exist in the 1700s or early 1900s. Computers, the internet, present-day guns, just to name a few. The problem is that the government won't do anything about this until lobbying is called what it truly is, bribery, and that corporate money is removed from politics completely. Citizens United must be overturned, and another Constitutional Convention be held to modernize the Constitution.

Robert JeziorowskiAdrian

My grandmothers home in Detroit was once my familys epicenter. That changed in 2014, when her home was ravaged by a once in a lifetime flood fueled by climate change, a phenomenon that continues to devastate Detroit communities.

While I commend U.S. Sen. Gary Peters for his work mitigating the impacts of flooding in Michigan, we need his leadership to help prevent climate catastrophe in the first place. The U.S. Congress is currently trying to gut crucial environmental protections and make it easier to approve more dirty fossil fuel and mining projects. House Republicans recently passed a dangerous energy package, H.R. 1, and the U.S. Senate is now holding hearings to craft their own harmful legislation, further endangering frontline constituents across the country.

If Sen. Peters is truly committed to ensuring a safe environment for all Michiganders, he must speak out now and oppose any bill that sacrifices environmental justice for pipelines and polluter profits.

Alisha Soofi Ann Arbor

Submit a letter to the editor at freep.com/letters

I am glad to see that the U.S. Preventive Services Screening Task Force has properly interpreted the existing data and has recommended screening mammography for all women of average risk starting by 40.

Scientific evidence shows that screening women in their forties reduces that group's mortality by 12% to 29% depending on the study. However, the American College of Radiology (ACR) and the Society of Breast Imaging (SBI) urge the Task Force to go further and recommend annual screening for women over the age of 40. Increasing evidence demonstrates that the mortality from breast cancer continues to rise in young minority women (African American and Ashkenazi Jewish).

The ACR and SBI also recommend that all women 25 years and older undergo a risk assessment evaluation to determine if they are at higher risk. If yes, they should discuss supplemental screening such as MRI, Contrast Enhanced Mammography and ultrasound with their clinician.

Murray RebnerAnn Arbor

Why I wonder why is AOL mail is so biased in favor of former President Donald Trump and the Republican Party? AOL supposedly asks readers to vote for or against Trump and or Republican policies. Trump and Republican polices always win these fixed elections with a 99% majority. Any one knows a 99% vote majority is impossible in any fair election.

Ronald KangasHarper Woods

Earlier this week, U.S. Rep. George Santos was arrested as his house cards collapsed with a 13-count felony incitement. His lies caught up with him. Does Long Island really want to be represented by this jerk? After six months of steady lying, U.S. Speaker Kevin McCarthy should cut his losses. Santos is a disgrace and unfit to serve in the House of Representatives.

Gerald MaxeyFarmington Hills

Contact the Free Press opinion page at freep.com/letters

More:
Letters to the Editor: I regret the Second Amendment - Detroit Free Press

by Merrill Ring | Special to the Courier

Douglas Lyons and I disagree [SCOTUS misses the point of the Second Amendment, May 5, and The Second Amendment is clear, obvious, and directly stated, May 12] about what the Second Amendment means because we disagree about the function of its first clause: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, I call those words a preamble because they are crucial to understanding the Second while Lyons thinks they are minor prefatory verbiage.

The particular labels are irrelevant. Is the clause important or not? Let me use something Lyons himself says to start showing its function. He correctly points out the clause is grammatically incomplete and so cannot be asserted on its own. A militia being necessary to must have a second clause to make a complete assertion. In logical form the whole is like, Being tired, he went to bed, Being tired is not an assertion on its own. However, we all know the whole means Because he was tired, he went to bed. Being tired is the explanation of what he did.

So too, the first clause of the Second Amendment means Because a Militia is necessary to the security of a free state, That is, the first clause explains why a right to arms is given in the second clause. An explanation is not a trivial preface, as Lyons calls the first clause. Rather, it gives the justification for a Constitutional grant to the American people of a right to arms.

Lyons further tries to trivialize the first clause by saying it merely gives examples; for him the reference to a militia is made simply as an example of what guns can be used for. But did Madison just accidentally single out militias as an example of the many uses of guns? Come on. The clause mentions militias because that is what the entire amendment is about. Madison in framing the Second did not just happen to refer to a military entity an example. The amendment sets out the connection between militia service and a right to privately own a gun.

Hurrying to dispense with the first clause and its reference to a militia, Lyons pays no attention to what it says about militias: being necessary to the security of a free State. Whoa! Is that true? We today do not have a militia, yet we are a free state. Despite the Second Amendments claim, a militia is not necessary to our national security.

Why is that false thesis in our Constitution?

The problem is solved by noticing that the Constitution rejects the idea of a permanent army, or a standing army (Article 1, Section 8). Given that we originally did not have a government organization to ensure our security, what then would be necessary for the military defense of the country? Militias! (Like those who harassed the British at Lexington and Concord.) The Second Amendment is in the Bill of Rights to make sure private citizens have the right to what they need, namely privately owned guns, to enable them to join in the defense of their country.

There is, however, a massively important consequence of having the Constitution attach a citizens right to keep a weapon to their service in a militia. We now have a permanent army to meet our military needs. With that, the necessity of having militias to provide military security has vanished. Without militias, the Second Amendments right to keep a weapon has become null and void. Thus, the Second Amendment has lost its reason for existence (just as has its companion, the Third Amendment). Yet, though irrelevant to the contemporary American way of life, it remains there in our Constitution (just as the human appendix remains in our bodies), a reminder of how the world used to be, a matter of historical interest only.

I would remind Lyons and friends that a right to own a gun can in all likelihood be developed by relying on the Ninth Amendment. They need to get to work on that: forget the Second Amendment.

Merrill Ring, a Claremont community activist for more than 40 years, is a retiredprofessor of philosophy and dedicated Courier letter writer.

Continued here:
Second Amendment jousting continues - Claremont Courier