The Newsweek article "When Reason Meets Rifles" discusses the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, which was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court today. The basic dispute in the case is whether D.C.'s outright handgun ban and de facto ban on rifles, shotguns, and other firearms are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. Notice that the bias begins in the title itself, where "reason" and "rifles" are implied to be mutually exclusive concepts.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
As background, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "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." In very basic terms, gun rights advocates argue that the Second Amendment grants citizens a fundamental right to bear arms (the "individual rights" argument). By contrast, anti-gun advocates embrace the more restrictive interpretation that the Second Amendment guarantees a well-armed militia (the "collective rights" argument).The U.S. Supreme Court has not had a significant Second Amendment case since U.S. v. Miller in 1939. And even that case is of dubious significance. But that does not stop NewsweekMiller as a significant precedent, as the article concludes: from treating
The Supreme Court determined in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller that an individual right to a gun had no "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia," and thus the Second Amendment did not confer individual rights to guns.
This conclusion by Newsweek leaves the impression to readers that the central issue of Heller has already been decided on the side of the "collective rights" argument. This conclusion could not be more wrong. Keeping it brief - the Miller case was a very specific holding which involved sawed off shotguns and was never fully litigated on remand (Bob Owens has more analysis in his previous post).
The Supreme Court itself disagrees with Newsweek's conclusion. In the 1997 case of Printz v. United States, the Court stated:
In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense ... The Court did not, however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment.
And just today Justice Anthony KennedyMiller as a "defective" precedent. described
Nevertheless, the strength of the misrepresented precedent in Miller is the basis of the rest of its article, and in particular its criticism of the NRA. The article states:
But in the face of the courts' quiet resistance, a well-funded and powerful lobby group, the National Rifle Association, forcefully and effectively pushed the claim that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to bear arms. Four million-plus-members strong, the group has handed out millions of dollars and is credited with winning the 2000 election for George W. Bush. Whatever financial or political clout it has exhibited pales next to its legal influence: polls show that while a slight majority of Americans would support stricter gun laws, about 75 percent of them believe the Constitution confers a personal right to own a gun.
Did you get all that? The tone of the article is that in spite of the Miller precedent, and in spite of a majority who favor stricter gun laws, the NRA has nevertheless changed the national agenda with its funding and membership. And if you weren't already upset with the group, Newsweek reminds you that the NRA helped get George Bush elected. Finally, by alleging the group hands out "millions" of dollars, the article throws out yet another myth as fact, as in order to get to "millions" (plural) in donations, multiple years must be aggregated, or donations from almost six years ago must be taken in isolation. The NRA is actually fairly stingy with financial donations, and has historically averaged about 20% to Democrats.
The article then concludes:
So long overdue is Supreme Court scrutiny in Heller that the Bush administration has staked out one position, while Dick Cheney has taken another (rumors surfaced last week that the administration might change its position again at oral argument). But the more interesting question is whether, absent judicial pronouncements, large constitutional matters will be thrashed out by the people and the democratic process or by well-funded interest groups and well-meaning academics.
While the author might disagree, the distinct impression here is that the Heller case is just another hijacking of the courts by special interests. And while the NRA is not named by name, the reference to "well-funded interest groups" is hard to miss. And don't forget the title of the article.
The implication that the NRA was behind the Heller case could not be further from the truth. In actuality, the NRA spent "years of trying to wreck the litigation and avoid a Second Amendment showdown." But the NRA is the favorite "gun boogeyman" of the liberal media. If you are going to write an anti-gun piece, it is cheap and easy to include the NRA in the analysis.
In this instance, it would not have served the author's agenda to describe the NRA's true role in the Heller litigation. Consequently, it was not included.
—Jason Aslinger is a private practice attorney in Greenville, Ohio.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
US v. Miller
March 18, 2008 - 20:22 ET by allanfJason puts forth some valid arguments. Sadly the press tends to mutilate legal arguments into homogenized pulp.
Here are some excerpts from the United States v Miller
The Court Goes on to quote the following:
The ruling is murky at best. I take away the message that a sawed off shotgun is not a weapon that can be used by a militia, so it is not protected by the Second Amendment
The problem with that message
March 18, 2008 - 21:35 ET by sarcasmoFrom what I've heard, is that WW1 had just ended, and, if what I've read over the years is right, US Marines had long used US government issued Winchester model 1897 pump 12GA shotguns for trench warfare (and before that, for fighting in the Phillipine Islands). This can be easily checked today with a basic Google search, and should have been even more obvious to the Justices at the time of their blinkered and historically-challenged decision in this case.
These shotguns were (sensibly) commonly sawed-off by our fighting men in order to give a better 00 buckshot spread at short ranges. This easily-researched fact would, by definition, make the sawed-off shotgun "a militia weapon," which logically means that even back then NFA'34 should have been ruled unConstitutional on the known facts of Miller based on 3 decades of obvious recent US military history. IMO. But IANAL, and I'm aware that as the appellate process goes higher silly things like actual historical facts matter less and less.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
MSM is our enemy
March 18, 2008 - 20:42 ET by planetrepublicanDoes the MSM understand or care that a whole lot of us HATE them and do not respect or trust anything they say anymore? I see them on the tube and MUTE them. I tell family and friends to never listen to them. I tell my kids to never give interviews to the MSM ever, they will twist and lie about everything. Toilet dwellers the lot of them.
The 2nd Amendment Addresses Individual Rights
March 18, 2008 - 21:03 ET by rammingspeedThe Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to address and explain the rights that individuals have, not to further explain the power that the government had. This is fundamental. There is no room for argument. Anti-American elements (Stalinist educators, the MSM, et al) are trying to twist it, but they will fail.
The Meaning of People
March 18, 2008 - 21:11 ET by allanfThe question is whether the term "people" means individuals or is a collective term. If it is a collective term the Amendment does not confer the right on an individual to bear arms.
Senator Orin Hatch (R-Utah) wrote:
The collective rights
March 19, 2008 - 08:50 ET by pbanks7The collective rights people want us to ignore the entire constitution, and read the Bill of Rights in a vacuum. The Bill of Rights are individual rights of the people. Period. The rights and duties of the state are described in Articles I through VII.
Legislative - Article I, Section 8:
Executive - Article II, Section 2:
MSM - shaping all the perceptions you need to believe.
but it's worse than that...
March 19, 2008 - 08:59 ET by sarcasmoIgnoring the Constitution is par for the course these days. Nobody seems to notice (see my cloaked comment above) the fact that the statist side is also expecting us to ignore obvious, factual, uncontested US military history involving short barrel shotguns.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Yes. We can thank George
March 19, 2008 - 03:32 ET by rbosqueYes. We can thank George Mason and others for it. Those rights are individual citizen rights, not powers granted to the gov't.
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the
whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to
enslave them." -George Mason, during Virginia's Convention to
Ratify the Constitution (1788).
I cannot urge all readers
March 18, 2008 - 21:45 ET by JohnMI cannot urge all readers strongly enough to download and read the following document from the Department of Justice.
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf
This document contains the results of extensive research into the language of the original and documents and their contemporaries, the structure of legal stipulations, etc. It examines social structures, and delves into the historical precedents in British law. It draws upon extensive case histories. It thoroughly discusses Miller.
It identifies who introduced the erroneous concept that the 2nd Amendment pertains to government-run militias and not to private citizens, and shows how ignorance of the historical use of language played an important role in one judge's interpretation.
It concludes that the original intent was most assuredly a personal right.
It is a most enlightening paper, and I strongly urge everyone with an interest to devour it after dinner!
Best regards,
-John
(I have no affiliation with the DOJ or the paper - I just found it to be the best presentation I've ever come across, anywhere.)
(I copied this from my post in another thread re: "NYT snipes unfairly...")
Great Link!
March 19, 2008 - 09:12 ET by pbanks7The key phrase IMHO, starts on page 11:
Setting aside the Second Amendment, not once does the Constitution confer a "right" on any governmental entity, state or federal. Nor does it confer any "right" restricted to persons in governmental service, such as members of an organized military unit. In addition to its various references to a "right of the people" discussed below, the Constitution in the Sixth Amendment secures "right[s]" to an accused person, and in the Seventh secures a person’s "right" to a jury trial in civil cases. By contrast, governments, whether state or federal, have in the Constitution only "powers" or "authority." It would be a marked anomaly if "right" in the Second Amendment departed from such uniform usage throughout the Constitution.
In any event, any possible doubt vanishes when "right" is conjoined with "the people," as it is in the Second Amendment. Such a right belongs to individuals: The "people" are not a "State," nor are they identical with the "Militia." Indeed, the Second Amendment distinctly uses all three of these terms, yet it secures a "right" only to the "people." The phrase "the right of the people" appears two other times in the Bill of Rights, and both times refers to a personal right, which belongs to individuals. The First Amendment secures "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances," and the Fourth safeguards "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." In addition, the Ninth Amendment refers to "rights . . . retained by the people." We see no reason to read the phrase in the Second Amendment to mean something other than what it plainly means in these neighboring and contemporaneous amendments.
MSM - shaping all the perceptions you need to believe.
This is where the lefty's
March 18, 2008 - 21:55 ET by Gary P JacksonThis is where the lefty's get this wrong. The words "well regulated militia" confuse them. Back in the day, "regulated" meant well put together. The word had a different meaning.
Whether or not the dems know this, I don't know. But they've found a way to disarm citizens. (or so they think) It sure looks like the Court will vote our way!
Next Civil War
March 18, 2008 - 22:41 ET by jefflebowskiI really believe that any ruling the outlawing of personal ownership of guns would be the beginning of the next revolution or civil war. There are so many people who will never surrender their guns (and means to protect their families) to a government with whom they have no trust.
There will come one day when we will get out of our mini-vans and stop worrying about what Britney Spears is doing or who will win American Idol and take to the streets and demand a government that is responsive to the majority of Americans!
We yearn for statesmen and all we have are politicians!
I agree with you Jeff. The
March 19, 2008 - 03:35 ET by rbosqueI agree with you Jeff. The left is incrementally taking away our rights. If this continues it will only end in one way. I'll never surrender my firearm, if I do that, I'll become someone's slave.
Just the Thing
March 19, 2008 - 10:44 ET by allanfThe Second Amendment was added to the US Constitution to prevent tyranny. The American Left believes that the Federal Government is supreme, not the people.