Gun Rights
I support the individual right to own and carry firearms. This includes for sporting uses as well as self-defense uses (including defense against tyranny). As your Congressman, I will draft and pass legislation guaranteeing the right of qualified citizens to carry concealed firearms in all 50 states. I also believe the government may minimally regulate the use and type of such weapons, and require background checks, so long as universal registration is prohibited.
In District of Columbia v. Heller, our United State’s Supreme Court recently wrestled with the Constitutional guarantees enshrined in the 2nd Amendment. Justices Scalia and Stevens wrote the most thorough and eloquent opinions for each side. Scalia wrote for the majority who held that the 2nd Amendment DOES put restraints on what limitations a legislature may impose on gun ownership.
Scalia noted that, “... nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms ... as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’” [internal citations omitted]
Scalia recognized that limiting the protection of the right to gun ownership, to weapons that were in common use at the time of the drafting and passage of the Second Amendment, would render the purpose of such possession (namely, to enable the citizenry to effectively defeat, or at least resist, a standing Federal Military) essentially moot. He had this to say on that matter, “It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.” [internal citations omitted]
Justice Stevens spent a great deal of time discussing the purpose of the Second Amendment’s drafting and ratification and the historical record makes it rather clear that he correctly discussed that, as well as possible uses of guns, as follows, “Guns are used to hunt, for self-defense, to commit crimes, for sporting activities, and to perform military duties. The Second Amendment plainly does not protect the right to use a gun to rob a bank; it is equally clear that it does encompass the right to use weapons for certain military purposes. Whether it also protects the right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense is the question presented by this case. The text of the Amendment, its history, and our decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939), provide a clear answer to that question.
The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.”
The fact is, both Justices Scalia and Stevens are right. It is clear that the Second Amendment was drafted out of a combination of fear of federal tyranny as well as a need to have the people readily available to pick up arms and fight in a military conflict. Anybody who has read the Federalist Papers (which were written in support of the Bill of Rights), the legislative history of the Amendments, and contemporaneous legislation, can see that the purpose of the Amendment was not to guarantee an individual right to own and use firearms for non-military purposes. However, as a result of the way that Amendment was worded, that is precisely the right that was created. It doesn’t matter if the reason a right was codified no longer exists, what matters is that the right itself is now protected by law. Certainly it is not an unlimited right. As with all recognized Constitutional rights, reasonable restrictions can be placed on them. However, Justice Scalia reached the correct final conclusion when he held for the majority of the Court as follows:
“... [T]he enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”
In other words, if there are those that would like to completely outlaw the public’s ownership of handguns and rifles, I suggest they get to work on amending the Constitution, because anything short of that will be insufficient.
As with all issues, I stand with The Constitution in my firm belief in the individual right to own, carry, and use firearms, and that any attempts to disarm the citizenry would be foolish and futile.
Stand With Me
In District of Columbia v. Heller, our United State’s Supreme Court recently wrestled with the Constitutional guarantees enshrined in the 2nd Amendment. Justices Scalia and Stevens wrote the most thorough and eloquent opinions for each side. Scalia wrote for the majority who held that the 2nd Amendment DOES put restraints on what limitations a legislature may impose on gun ownership.
Scalia noted that, “... nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms ... as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’” [internal citations omitted]
Scalia recognized that limiting the protection of the right to gun ownership, to weapons that were in common use at the time of the drafting and passage of the Second Amendment, would render the purpose of such possession (namely, to enable the citizenry to effectively defeat, or at least resist, a standing Federal Military) essentially moot. He had this to say on that matter, “It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.” [internal citations omitted]
Justice Stevens spent a great deal of time discussing the purpose of the Second Amendment’s drafting and ratification and the historical record makes it rather clear that he correctly discussed that, as well as possible uses of guns, as follows, “Guns are used to hunt, for self-defense, to commit crimes, for sporting activities, and to perform military duties. The Second Amendment plainly does not protect the right to use a gun to rob a bank; it is equally clear that it does encompass the right to use weapons for certain military purposes. Whether it also protects the right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense is the question presented by this case. The text of the Amendment, its history, and our decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939), provide a clear answer to that question.
The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.”
The fact is, both Justices Scalia and Stevens are right. It is clear that the Second Amendment was drafted out of a combination of fear of federal tyranny as well as a need to have the people readily available to pick up arms and fight in a military conflict. Anybody who has read the Federalist Papers (which were written in support of the Bill of Rights), the legislative history of the Amendments, and contemporaneous legislation, can see that the purpose of the Amendment was not to guarantee an individual right to own and use firearms for non-military purposes. However, as a result of the way that Amendment was worded, that is precisely the right that was created. It doesn’t matter if the reason a right was codified no longer exists, what matters is that the right itself is now protected by law. Certainly it is not an unlimited right. As with all recognized Constitutional rights, reasonable restrictions can be placed on them. However, Justice Scalia reached the correct final conclusion when he held for the majority of the Court as follows:
“... [T]he enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”
In other words, if there are those that would like to completely outlaw the public’s ownership of handguns and rifles, I suggest they get to work on amending the Constitution, because anything short of that will be insufficient.
As with all issues, I stand with The Constitution in my firm belief in the individual right to own, carry, and use firearms, and that any attempts to disarm the citizenry would be foolish and futile.
Stand With Me
