Redstate

By paulseale Posted in 2008 — Comments (3) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Most of you probably know by now that our second amendment rights were affirmed this morning in a five to four decision to strike down the Washington, D.C. gun ban. This is a wonderful day for our individual rights and freedoms to be sure. You can down load the opinion by visiting the SCOTUS Blog here.

Yet my elation was tempered by the shock of hearing that the decision was five to four, one vote away from killing one of the most fundamental rights enshrined in our Bill of Rights. Why was the vote that close? What was the reasoning of the four other justices?

The dissenting opinions written by Justice John Paul Stevens and Justice Breyer are more than eye opening, it is a road map for the disarmament of the American people. In their eyes the Second Amendment was solely focused military purposes and does not grant the individual any specific rights, whether it is for hunting or self defense as layed out in Stephen's writing.

It confirms that the Framers’ single-minded focus in crafting the constitutional guarantee “to keep The parallels between the Second Amendment and these state declarations, and the Second Amendment’s
omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense, is especially striking in light of the fact that the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont did expressly protect such civilian uses at the time. Article XIII of Pennsylvania’s 1776 Declaration of Rights announced that “the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state,” 1 Schwartz 266 (emphasis added); §43 of the Declaration assured that “the inhabitants of this state shall have the liberty to fowl and hunt in seasonable times on the lands they hold, and on all other lands therein not inclosed,” id., at 274. And Article XV of the 1777 Vermont Declaration of Rights guaranteed “[t]hat the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State.” Id., at 324 (emphasis added).
The contrast between those two declarations and the Second Amendment reinforces the clear statement of
purpose announced in the Amendment’s preamble. It confirms that the Framers’ single-minded focus in crafting the constitutional guarantee “to keep and bear arms” was on military uses of firearms, which they viewed in the context of service in state militias. (Pages 7 and 8 of Stephen's dissent - emphasis added)

Stephens continues.

Without identifying any language in the text that even mentions civilian uses of firearms, the Court proceeds to “find” its preferred reading in what is at best an ambiguous text, and then concludes that its reading is not foreclosed by the preamble. Perhaps the Court’s approach to the text is acceptable advocacy, but it is surely an unusual approach for judges to follow.(Emphasis added)

So what does this mean? While I am no lawyer or Constitutional scholar Stephen's dissent reads as if unless civilian uses are spelled out, the individual has no specified rights granted by the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Yes, that means there are no granted rights to posses a gun for the purposes of hunting or defending your self. The only right given to people is to posses a fire arm for military purposes.

Stephens does not stop there, however. He continues noting that many of our rights defined by "the people" are in a sense all collective rights.

Framers used the phrase “the people” in these constitutional provisions. In the First Amendment, no words define the class of individuals entitled to speak, to publish, or to worship; in that Amendment it is only the right peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, that is described as a right of “the people.” These rights contemplate collective action. While the right peaceably to assemble protects the individual rights of those persons participating in the assembly, its concern is with action engaged in by members of a group, rather than any single individual. Likewise, although the act of petitioning the Government is a right that can be exercised by individuals, it is primarily collective in nature. For if they are to be effective, petitions must involve groups of individuals acting in concert. (Emphasis added)

By furthering the argument that gun ownership is solely the purpose of the collective need, it strips the individual of any rights. Period. What's more, if there were any rights assigned to the individual, it is subject to the collective as Stephens lays out in the next paragraph.

Similarly, the words “the people” in the Second Amendment refer back to the object announced in the Amendment’s preamble. They remind us that it is the collective action of individuals having a duty to serve in the militia that the text directly protects and, perhaps more importantly, that the ultimate purpose of the Amendment was to protect the States’ share of the divided sovereignty created by the Constitution. (Emphasis added)

It is worth noting that Justice Breyer's separate dissent is no better as it shadows much of Stephen's with the added, and perhaps more alarming, exception is that the protection allowed in the amendment is not guaranteed. Breyer argues that the amendment permits the government to "regulate interests that it serves."

Why does this matter? Simply put, we were one vote away from the Supreme Court stripping our long held Constitutional right to bear arms.

When we vote this November I urge everyone to remember today. The outcome of the election is simple to predict. Whomever we elected President will appoint a justice to the Supreme Court who will affirm one of our most basic rights, or will side with Stephens and strip them from us.