|
|
It has been a mainstay mantra of anti-rights orginazations that the Second Amendment is still open to interpretation. This is a desperate move to encourage the Federal judiciary to "define" this important civil right out of existance in much the same way they have the Tenth Amendment. This tactic requires only an honest collection of judges on the Supreme Court in order for it to fail.
A law goes through distinct stages from its inception. It is, of course, introduced, then debated and revised, then passed. After this it is usually challenged in court as to its exact meaning...to refer this question back to its original framers would mean to ask every person who voted on it what his or her personal opinion is on this...and probably get just as many different answers, so this is why the judiciary debates and determines the case. Laws are normally challenged a number of times after their passage, but eventually the challanges die down and no one continues to argue the meaning of the law, and society in general accepts the definitions laid down by the Judges involved...these determinations are called precedents, and in any future question of definition of that particular law the accepted and honest practice of a judge is to refer back to them when deciding an issue...to ignore a law's precedents is not only dishonest but violates the seperation of powers, for the judge is otherwise "legislating from the bench", a job he was NOT voted into office to do by the people who are subject to these laws.
Precedent is VERY important in the law, for without it the nine people on the Supreme Court could easily disregard the words, content and intent of ANY law and redefine it into something with no resemblance at all to what it was designed to be...and since the lives of all citizens are bound with the law, a dishonest Supreme Court, by disregarding precedent, would have, in effect, crowned themselves tyrant kings over all...changing the meaning of any law on a case by case basis at their whim.
United States vs. Cruikshank, 92U.S.542 (1876)---The indictment charged that Klansmen conspired to prevent Blacks from exercising their right to keep and bear arms...the Supreme Court determined that the right to keep and bear arms existed independently of the Constitution, and the Second Amendment only guaranteed that the right shall not be infringed by congress...the federal government had no power to punish individual citizens for attempting to prevent their fellow citizens from exercising that right. For a redress of that grievance the victims would have to look to the state's police powers.
Presser vs. Illinois, 116U.S.252 (1886)---The Supreme Court ruled that not only does the federal government have no power to infringe on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the states do not have that power, as well. This finding, however, did uphold a states right to make law preventing a body of men from banding together and drilling as a military unit...well, there goes my paintball games...
Miller vs. Texas, 153U.S.535 (1894)---The court, in essance, refused to rule on the Second Amendment applying to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment as they were not brought in a timely manner...not really relevent here.
U.S. vs Miller, 307U.S.174 (1939)---This is the one that makes anti-rights groups ill. This case applies the Second Amendment to federal firearms statutes. The Supreme Court refused to make a decision regarding the statutes constitutionality, but instead devised a test by which courts were to measure the consitutionality of statutes relating to firearms and then sent the case back to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing (the trial court had already held that section 11 of the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional). The court remanded the case after concluding:
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, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
If the weapon had been one of a type used by the military (reasonable relationship to), then it would have fallen under the protection of the Second Amendment...as there was no evidence the military used sawed-off shotguns, the weapon was subject to firearms statutes.
This case also determined that the militia mentioned in the Second Amendment consisted of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense". It also found that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." Anti-rights groups have been wrongfully holding that the militia of the Second Amendment only refered to a states National Guard, a military entity funded by and ultimatly answerable to the Federal Government and the President...simply an arm of the Federal military.
Lewis vs. the United States, 445U.S.95 (1980)---This case questioned whether the life-long banning of a Felon from the right to own a firearm violated the Second Amendment. The court found that certian rights are routinely removed from individuals not willing to abide society's laws (right to vote, hold office, serve on jurys, etc.) Those who will not abide by the rules should not be protected by them.
United States vs. Verdugo-Urquirdez, 110 S. Ct. 3039 (1990)---This case questioned the meaning of the word "people" in the Fourth Amendment (I swear, people will question anything!). The court unanimously held that the word "people" shall have a uniform meaning throughout the Constitution...the same people referred to in the preamble are the same people referred to in the First, Fourth, Ninth...and of course, the Second Amendments....duh!....this case completely removes any doubt that the Second Amendment is an individual right.
It is, unfortunatly, at this point where Second Amendment cases have started to unravel...some courts, citing the above precedents, supporting it, others, finding in direct opposition to these previous findings, attempting to redefine it out of existance...obviously some self-important, elitist judges are taking it upon themselves to decree to the public (whom they no doubt see as the "unwashed masses") what laws they will live under...uh, for their own good, of course. If the Second Amendment is somehow distasteful to the vast majority of Americans, then the process by which it can be altered or abolished already exists within the framework of the constitution...a constitutional convention....
....perhaps they're afraid that two-thirds of the American public do not favor becoming unarmed peasents, especially in the face of a government so willing to ignore and truncate the human rights laid down by America's forefathers.
|
|
