[Big Mac]

The USSC has dodged the 2nd Amendment for far too long. It is undeniably an individual right. I'm just hoping we get a strong opinion from the Roberts Court instead of some of the muddled majority opinions it has often issued.

Today in Investor's Business Daily stock analysis and business news

View Archive | E-mail | Print | License | Reprints

A Shot At The 2nd Amendment
Click here to find out more!

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted 11/15/2007

Bill Of Rights: What does "the right to keep and bear arms" really mean? If the Supreme Court reviews the overturning of the draconian gun-control law in effect in the District of Columbia, we may finally have an answer.

Related Topics: Judges & Courts

The debate over whether the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees an individual right to possess firearms for one's own defense or only when in service to the state as part of a "well-regulated" militia may be finally settled if the Supremes later this month agree to hear an appeal of a lower court ruling striking down the D.C. ban.

In 1976, the district passed a law requiring all firearms to be registered with police, with only active-duty and retired police officers allowed to own handguns. As a crime-prevention measure it has been an abject failure. The district's murder rate consistently ranks in the metropolitan top 10.

But the issue is not whether a law is effective, but whether it is unconstitutional. In March, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court ruled that the ban violated "an individual right to bear arms."

The court said that if the Second Amendment applied only to the states, the Founding Fathers could have said so directly — as in "Congress shall make no law disarming the state militias" or "States have a right to a well-regulated militia."

The D.C. Circuit quite rightly noted the placement of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights, with every other amendment guaranteeing individual rights. So why one, the second one, guaranteeing states' rights?

As the ruling stated, "The Second Amendment would be an inexplicable aberration if it were not read to protect individual rights as well."

In October 2001, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in U.S. v. Emerson, a case about whether an individual under a restraining order could carry a gun, recognized that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does indeed guarantee individual citizens a right to own guns.

"All the evidence," the judges concluded, "indicates that the Second Amendment, like other parts of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans" and "that it protects the right of individuals, including those not then actually a member of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to privately possess and bear their own firearms."

Of course, rights are not absolute, starting with the proverbial prohibition on the shouting of "fire!" in a crowded theater despite a guarantee of free speech. No one has a problem with convicted felons or the mentally ill being barred from gun ownership.

Similarly, the type of firearms matters as well. Possession and sale of automatic weapons and machine guns have been strictly regulated since 1934.

Since its muddled ruling in the 1939 case U.S. v. Miller, which dealt with the narrow issue of whether possession of a sawed-off shotgun was protected by the Constitution, the Supreme Court has routinely dodged the issue of whether the Second Amendment applies to individuals and what a "militia" means.

George Mason, often called the father of the Bill of Rights, said a militia is the "whole people." In other words, all 300 million people in the United States are the militia.

James Madison also clearly considered anybody who could hold a weapon to be part of the militia and considered that a militia of the whole people to be the best defense against tyrants and their standing armies.

Governments have powers. It is individuals who have rights. The Bill of Rights was an enumeration of those individual rights to be protected from the intrusion of an oppressive government, whether it be freedom of speech, freedom of religion or the right to bear arms.

Based on its track record thus far, we feel — and hope — the Roberts court will agree and settle the matter once and for all.

Copyright 2000-2007 Investor's Business Daily, Inc. Click here for copyright permissions!
Copyright 2000-2007 Investor's Business Daily, Inc.

Return to top of page

[nonhuman]

I haven't agreed with many SC decisions in the past few years, but hopefully they can pull it together enough to rule according to the Constitution on this one.

[TheWOAT]

"The Second Amendment would be an inexplicable aberration if it were not read to protect individual rights as well."

This makes alot of sense to me.

[mduell]

What part of "as a well regulated militia" do you not understand?

I'm very much for guns, but I see the right to personal ownership/use coming from the 9th rather than the 2nd.

[Doofy]

It's real easy:

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.

The reason:

A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state

The constitutional statement:

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

As I read it, the NFA and GCA infringe upon the right to keep arms. Stating what type of "arms" can be kept is in itself an infringement. It's quite clear that the blokes who wrote the second intended the citizens to be able to fight against the tyranny of an oppressive government, and to do such a thing one requires the militia to be able to (at a moment's notice) acquire weapons which are equal in firepower to those that the oppressive government would be using. Thus, outlawing full-auto weapons is unconstitutional.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by mduell 

What part of "as a well regulated militia" do you not understand?

I'm very much for guns, but I see the right to personal ownership/use coming from the 9th rather than the 2nd.

As used in the 18th century, "militia" referred to the armed citizenry. The term "regulated" referred, in this usage, to "trained." In other words, they said that well trained (and presumably well practiced) armed citizens were essential to freedom. Our current usage of these words has no bearing on the fact that ALL the other articles of the Bill of RIghts refer to "the people" as individuals. Why would the Framers write up a bunch of amendments (basically all at the same time) and have only one aimed at a collective right? They were enumerating individual rights that they felt were not sufficiently covered by the basic Constitution.

[Shaddim]

I have high hopes for this judgment, anything less than full support of the 2nd Amendment would be a farce.

I will be fair though, they can have all my firearms when I run out of ammo*.



(*I have a ****-load of ammo.)

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Why would the Framers write up a bunch of amendments (basically all at the same time) and have only one aimed at a collective right?

Not just "collective".

The way that so many anti-gun or "gun-control" advocates interpret the 2nd amendment actually injects a constitutional right of the government to infringe upon the individuals rights…in a document designed to protect the individual from the government.

The only way to read this as anything BUT an individual right is to ignore or outright reject anything the authors intended. All you have to do is look at history, and the myriad of writings, letters, speeches, documents etc. and the answer is clear.

But the truth isn't important to these people. What's important is advancing the agenda and the only way to do that is to deliberately misinterpret the constitution.

[subego]

^^

It hadn't occurred to me to look at it that way.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by mduell 

What part of "as a well regulated militia" do you not understand?

That's not what it says. To be clear, let's revisit the 2nd:
"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."

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I have high hopes for this judgment, anything less than full support of the 2nd Amendment would be a farce.

I will be fair though, they can have all my firearms when I run out of ammo*.



(*I have a ****-load of ammo.)

Your post reminds me of a rare moment of clarity on Slashdot:
"DavidTC (10147) <[email protected]> on Thursday November 01, @01:14AM (#21193115)
(Slashdot: News for nerds, stuff that matters)

Have fun in your little made-up universe where the government comes to round you up and you manage to fight it off.

In the real world, fascism is when the corporations and governments work as a single entity, and you can wander around with your ****ing gun all you want. In fact, you'll have to wander around, because the government/corporations took your house and your car, and no one will hire you.

At which point you'll be arrested, not as some big anti-government hero by jackboot thugs, but for stealing bread to live on, by a perfectly normal cop who's just doing his job, a job that absolutely no one except you disagrees with, so when you shoot and kill him you're getting the electric chair and no one thinks you're a hero at all.

There are different types of totalitarian governments, and assuming a fascist one operates like a communist one is faulty. Fascist governments don't put troops in the streets...they work with corporations to make sure 'the wrong sort of people' do not have any economic power, and do not have anywhere to peddle their ideas.

Modern fascist states don't even bother to kill those people, and pretending they're going to show up in some stormtrooper outfit and start a gun battle with you is insane. They'll show up with a court order to evict you from your home because you failed to pay your mortgage, because pressure came from the top at your company to let you go. Or they'll just sue you and ruin your finances.

America is not a bunch of tiny castles where, as long as you can hold off the invading armies, you will be fine. The idea that that is how the world works is astonishingly naive. Almost all the population of America lives in housing they do not fully own, they get food from places they do not control like the supermarket, they require operating in society for money to obtain said food and shelter, a society where economics are controlled by some very large players that can crush them like bugs.

And a fascist state isn't going to 'assume control', you asshat. There's not going to some insane coup, there's a going to be a slow change, which has, in fact, already happened, or have you not looked at the telecom immunity stuff? That's classic fascism. The government breaks the law, the government gets private companies to break the law, the government gives said companies huge amounts of cash, the government attempts to make such behavior legal retroactively. We've got government officials and AT&T officers leaping back and forth between each other in an incestuous loop. Your government spying on you, sponsored by AT&T. It's not 'totalitarian' yet, as evidenced by the fact Democrats managed to stop the immunity, but it is fascism, at least the start of it. (And the same thing's happened with Blackwater.)

Oh, and before you start ranting about gun control some more, be forewarned I'm against it. I'm just not stupid enough to think that the US government being slowly corrupted by business is something that can be fought off with gunpowder. Guns are useful to deter crime and to deter invasion. They aren't useful against a corrupt government in any meaningful way."

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by peeb 

...capitalism sucks...blah, blah, blah...

You're just trading one fantasy with another. Who's going to put you in prison, big oil? Phillip Morris? Budweiser? Smith and Wesson? What big "government/corporation" are you talking about? Over 60 million adults own a gun. "They're" not going to put you on some black-list and begin taking away your homes, and cars or sue you and ruin your finances. Particularly if people continue to take advantage of their right to purchase a gun. Are they doing this to the numerous gun manufacturer/corporations, gun shops, and arms and ammo dealers now? Are they even doing this to entities particularly hostile to them like humiliateamerica.com? Nope. Still in business.

This entire long-winded dissertation was just another tired rant against corporate America and capitalism.

Talk about asshats.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Modern fascist states don't even bother to kill those people, and pretending they're going to show up in some stormtrooper outfit and start a gun battle with you is insane.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_Siege

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by peeb 

They aren't useful against a corrupt government in any meaningful way."

The Bolsheviks, Mao, Kurds, and a number of others would disagree with you.

[nonhuman]

We care what the architect of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution would have thought?

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

We care what the architect of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution would have thought?

not what they thought — only what they did (change by arms from within), which is a direct and factual counter to peeb's ideologically-tinged point.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

not what they thought — only what they did (change by arms from within), which is a direct and factual counter to peeb's ideologically-tinged point.

Ah, gotcha. That makes a lot more sense.

[Chongo]

It has been said the first step in subjugating a population is to eliminate it's ability to defend itself. When Paris was marched on the first thing that done was go to the police stations and get the gun registration records.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

It has been said the first step in subjugating...

Wow - a post that invokes Nazis and Red Dawn! Well done!

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Wow - a post that invokes Nazis and Red Dawn! Well done!

Thank you, thank you.
I forgot

Political power comes from the barrel of a gun
Attributed to Mao

[peeb]

Your adolescent fantasies about fighting off hoards of corrupt police come to take away your guns aside, I'm not sure what you think the relevance of quotes about communist armed revolution are to the 21st century USA.

[Chongo]

Ah, like what happened in New Orleans after Katrina.

To quote the Funk Master

Why use the bullet when you've got the ballot!
Chocolate City, George Clinton 1975

[BRussell]

I hope they use the liberal method of reading the bill of rights broadly rather than the conservative method of trying to read it so narrowly that people have no rights. If the justices used a typically conservative, strict-constructionist approach, we'd have no right to bear arms unless we were part of some (no longer existent) militias. If they use a liberal, expansive view of our civil liberties, they will find it to be a basic right on par with the freedom of speech and the right to a fair trial: Subject to regulation, not absolute, but nevertheless a broad individual right.

[BadKosh]

I wish the well regulated militia would remove the tyrants from office!

[subego]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I hope they use the liberal method of reading the bill of rights broadly rather than the conservative method of trying to read it so narrowly that people have no rights. If the justices used a typically conservative, strict-constructionist approach, we'd have no right to bear arms unless we were part of some (no longer existent) militias. If they use a liberal, expansive view of our civil liberties, they will find it to be a basic right on par with the freedom of speech and the right to a fair trial: Subject to regulation, not absolute, but nevertheless a broad individual right.

Is this humor? I was about to respond seriously, when I realized this might be a subtle joke.

If this isn't a joke, that you would state there is any consistency in "liberal" or "conservative" judicial philosophy is like, total wiggity wack.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by subego 

Is this humor? I was about to respond seriously, when I realized this might be a subtle joke.

If this isn't a joke, that you would state there is any consistency in "liberal" or "conservative" judicial philosophy is like, total wiggity wack.

I don't know what to say. I thought it was clear. Are you joking when you say there is no consistent liberal or conservative judicial philosophy? You've never heard of the debate over "strict constructionist" judges? Original intent? Textualism? Judicial activism? Living Constitution? There's never perfect consistency, of course, but there are general philosophies of judicial interpretation roughly corresponding to conservative and liberal.

Let me make it more clear: Conservatives always say they want "strict constructionist" judges who won't go too far with the Bill of Rights like they did with privacy and abortion and sodomy. But a very strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment would have to acknowledge that the text refers to a well-regulated militia. A true textualist, strict constructionist wouldn't just wave that clause away. Conservatives who do so are not being true to their constitutional philosophy.

Likewise, liberals say they want our civil liberties to be interpreted broadly - a basic right to privacy, for example, even though those exact words are not in the constitution. A broad interpretation of the 2nd Amendment would be willing to put aside anachronistic ideas like militias, update it for the modern world, and interpret it as a basic individual right anyway.

I'm just trying to be consistent, and trying to keep conservatives consistent by getting them to see that a strict constructionist view of the Constitution may not be the best one.

[Big Mac]

You're lumping textualist interpretation in with strict constructionist interpretation. They're not the same thing - you should pick up some of Scalia's writings (he's a textualist). A textualist reads the plain meaning of the words as they were understood when written, while a strict constructionist uses the narrowest possible reading of the words. They're both conservative approaches, but they're not synonymous approaches. Either way, you've got the militia clause wrong. The militia clause is an introductory, non-limiting clause that gives a rationale for the right, while the keep and bear arms clause is the rights clause. If the Constitution had said "A well-regulated press, being necessary for the freedom of a Republic, the right of the press to publish shall not be infringed," no one would claim the first clause limited the second. The term "well-regulated" trips people up and makes the left horny because they choose to misunderstand or ignore its 18th Century meaning, but it has little to do with the core of the right.

[subego]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Let me make it more clear: Conservatives always say they want "strict constructionist" judges who won't go too far with the Bill of Rights like they did with privacy and abortion and sodomy. But a very strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment would have to acknowledge that the text refers to a well-regulated militia. A true textualist, strict constructionist wouldn't just wave that clause away. Conservatives who do so are not being true to their constitutional philosophy.

No. Read the amendment again. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" isn't a clause, it's a present participle. The clause is "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Subject is "the right", verb is "shall".

The militia isn't being waved away, it's being treated for exactly what it is, something which cannot exist if the right of the People to keep and bear arms is infringed.

[His Dudeness]

So if the court rules against the 2nd Amendment, can we get Islam and Catholicism outlawed in the country? And what about the Press? I freakin hate the Press, getting all up in your business, and up Paris's skirts. Sheesh.

I think the 2nd amendment is pretty clear and straightforward. Plus, I think the crime rate would experience a nuclear detonation in the country if the court rules against gun ownership. I see the gun control laws worked fantastically in Miami a few days ago, right?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

If the Constitution had said "A well-regulated press, being necessary for the freedom of a Republic, the right of the press to publish shall not be infringed," no one would claim the first clause limited the second. The term "well-regulated" trips people up and makes the left horny because they choose to misunderstand or ignore its 18th Century meaning, but it has little to do with the core of the right.

Interesting. I'd think that would dramatically change the meaning of the free press clause. To me, looking at your hypothetical just demonstrates how different the First and Second Amendments really are.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by subego 

No. Read the amendment again. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" isn't a clause, it's a present participle. The clause is "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Subject is "the right", verb is "shall".

The militia isn't being waved away, it's being treated for exactly what it is, something which cannot exist if the right of the People to keep and bear arms is infringed.

Call it whatever grammatical unit you want, it's written as the rationale for the other part. A true strict constructionist would require that you'd have to be a member of a well-regulated militia to have a gun, because only the actual text matters. Hunting and home protection aren't written there, so they wouldn't be allowed to be used as justifications.

I think "strict constructionism" is just a way to reduce civil liberties, so I don't buy it. But every Republican politician says they're strict constructionists, and I think it's valuable to point out what that means here.

[Big Mac]

Wrong, BRussel. Multiple people have told you you're wrong and tried to explain it to you in different ways, so why do you persist in repeating falsehoods? People like you are the major reason why the framers feared democracy - the haughty among the ignorant.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Wrong, BRussel. Multiple people have told you you're wrong and tried to explain it to you in different ways, so why do you persist in repeating falsehoods? People like you are the major reason why the framers feared democracy - the haughty among the ignorant.

The fact is, there are (at least) two schools of interpretation of the amendment: Individual vs. state rights. That is a fact, and it is not "wrong." You side with one, apparently. I'm simply pointing out that both are out there - one is a more narrow, "strict" interpretation, the other is a broader interpretation. If you don't acknowledge that, then I'm afraid you're the one who's wrong, Big Mac.

[Big Mac]

No, BRussel, you're wrong, and your points have been thoroughly refuted. You claimed strict constructionists would rule against the individual right, and that's just plain wrong. There aren't two schools of thought here. There's only one way to read the amendment. Now of course there's the leftist desire to falsely inject a governmental right into what is clearly the people's right, which no one here - not even you - offers a defense for. I don't even know why I'm arguing with you because you're just clearly and utterly confused.

[BRussell]

The only time the Supreme Court has directly ruled on the Second Amendment, they used the interpretation that you say doesn't exist, Big Mac.

Originally Posted by US Supreme Court

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.

No militia purpose = no gun right, according to the US Supreme Court. Now tell me again that this interpretation is so wrong that you can't be bothered to even think it exists.

[Big Mac]

The Miller decision you quote from says something different from what you claim strict constructs would say. You claim strict constructions would say there is no individual right, and that's not what the Miller opinion said. Besides, the Miller decision was based on a technicality and an oversight by Miller's counsel; the Court took the opportunity to dodge the central issue. That's why we're looking to this upcoming case.

[subego]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Call it whatever grammatical unit you want, it's written as the rationale for the other part. A true strict constructionist would require that you'd have to be a member of a well-regulated militia to have a gun, because only the actual text matters. Hunting and home protection aren't written there, so they wouldn't be allowed to be used as justifications.

I think "strict constructionism" is just a way to reduce civil liberties, so I don't buy it. But every Republican politician says they're strict constructionists, and I think it's valuable to point out what that means here.

You're not noticing any irony here? You prove people pick and choose which civil liberties they endorse by showing that some people pick a civil liberty you don't endorse.

[Big Mac]

Not quite. He seems to be saying that he endorses the 2nd Amendment as an individual right but that only a broad reading of it allows for such an interpretation, which is wrong.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Any lawyers on up in this thread who are knowledgeable about interpreting legislation?

greg

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by subego 

You're not noticing any irony here? You prove people pick and choose which civil liberties they endorse by showing that some people pick a civil liberty you don't endorse.

I dunno subego, for some reason I guess I'm just not making myself clear today. I've tried to state several times that I do endorse the civil liberty of gun ownership. I endorse it because, as a liberal, I think we should have as expansive a view of our civil liberties as possible, and I want to be consistent with that philosophy.

I've also frequently complained about conservatives who, it seems to me, often try to read our constitutional liberties in too-narrow a fashion (strict constructionism). One way to drive that point home is to use the 2nd amendment, which they want to interpret as broadly as possible, as an example of where such a philosophy would put their desire to protect gun ownership in danger.

If I didn't make that clear, I'm sorry, but I'm going to bed.

[subego]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I've also frequently complained about conservatives who, it seems to me, often try to read our constitutional liberties in too-narrow a fashion (strict constructionism).

Okay. I'm getting a lock on this. Forgive me if I came off as a prick.

Strict constructionism isn't trying to read constitutional liberties narrowly, it's trying to read them as they are. Their narrowness or lack thereof is inherent in the way they are phrased.

I think the problem you are having is that most politicians who call themselves strict constructionists aren't. As an example, a strict constructionist would be against federal laws criminalizing recreational drugs for the exact same reason they are against federal laws legalizing abortion. Note the surplus of people who call themselves strict constructionists yet only maintain half of this position.

Really, if you look you'll find that an authentic strict constructionist is one of the biggest champions of civil liberties around. The only thing that gets in their way is if the liberty in question doesn't have a constitutional basis. That in no way means they believe we shouldn't have that liberty, it is an acknowledgment the liberties we do have require an iron shod framework to protect them. Broad interpretation weakens this framework.

The reason this seems counter-intuitive is that the primary example we have of broad interpretation is Roe v. Wade. This is an instance of the broad interpretation working in your favor, since it's a right you believe we should have (as do I FWIW).

Like many things in life, the point isn't to stop the good things, it's to protect you from the bad things.

When all the warrantless wiretapping stuff came out, a question I would ask to the people who supported the administration was "okay, you trust George Bush with the keys to the castle, but what is going to happen if (gasp) Hillary Clinton gets elected and has those same keys."

I ask you the same question. You're all for broad interpretation now, but what are you going to do when someone broadly interprets the other way?

For a last shout-out to the whole consistency issue, I should note a true strict constructionist would (and does) have a huge problem with circumventing the FISA court. Note again the politicians who call themselves strict constructionists yet think this is just friggin' peachy.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Call it whatever grammatical unit you want, it's written as the rationale for the other part. A true strict constructionist would require that you'd have to be a member of a well-regulated militia to have a gun, because only the actual text matters. Hunting and home protection aren't written there, so they wouldn't be allowed to be used as justifications.

I think "strict constructionism" is just a way to reduce civil liberties, so I don't buy it. But every Republican politician says they're strict constructionists, and I think it's valuable to point out what that means here.

At first I had written a tirade requesting an example of this "constructionism", then I read subego's reply and I also had misinterpreted your complaint... nothing else to say. If you're problem is a politician claiming one thing and acting contrary to the claim, I think you'll be hard-pressed stretching this into divisive (R) VS (D) thing. This works both ways contingent upon your flavor of the day. Otherwise, this would be a general complaint about politicians and not about (R)s.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

It's quite clear that the blokes who wrote the second intended the citizens to be able to fight against the tyranny of an oppressive government,

Not really. Jefferson and the antifederalists wanted a small to non-existent standing army and instead wanted to rely on the militia to defend America from invasion. That's what the second amendment is for. The federalists wanted a strong army and strong central government. The federalists wanted a small central government and no army with just a militia. The 2nd amendment was created to compromise between the two sides.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by subego 

Okay. I'm getting a lock on this. Forgive me if I came off as a prick.

Strict constructionism isn't trying to read constitutional liberties narrowly, it's trying to read them as they are. Their narrowness or lack thereof is inherent in the way they are phrased.

Nah, I've got you covered on being a prick.

On strict constructionism - I can't think of a time when the principle was used to argue for increased individual rights. Maybe there are some examples, or maybe in theory it could go that way, but in my experience, the clear trend is in the other direction.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

At first I had written a tirade requesting an example of this "constructionism", then I read subego's reply and I also had misinterpreted your complaint... nothing else to say. If you're problem is a politician claiming one thing and acting contrary to the claim, I think you'll be hard-pressed stretching this into divisive (R) VS (D) thing. This works both ways contingent upon your flavor of the day. Otherwise, this would be a general complaint about politicians and not about (R)s.

In fairness to me, I did say above that liberals should be consistent too.

But I'm also trying to say that strict constructionism is a bad philosophy, so it's not just hypocrisy that I'm trying to argue. And let's face it, I doubt many, if any judges would actually call themselves strict constructionist. It's a term that politicians use, mostly as code for "overturn Roe v. Wade."

[subego]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Nah, I've got you covered on being a prick.

On strict constructionism - I can't think of a time when the principle was used to argue for increased individual rights. Maybe there are some examples, or maybe in theory it could go that way, but in my experience, the clear trend is in the other direction.

Well, that's politics for ya. The term has been so loaded it's next to useless.

You are correct in your observation that the principle cannot (by definition) expand on the rights in the Constitution, but a true strict constructionist surveying our current government landscape would say that the rights in the Constitution (which even when strictly read are enormously broad) have been severely encroached upon (2nd, 4th, and 10th primarily). As I also mentioned, part and parcel with the 10th Amendment view on abortion is (should be) a 10th Amendment view on things like recreational drugs, or... I just puked in my mouth thinking about it... Terry Schiavo. Note again the supposed strict constructionists who are all too happy to get their grubby federal mitts on things.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by TheWOAT 

This makes alot of sense to me.

The Constitution should also apply to individuals, otherwise that'd make it weird.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

(*I have a ****-load of ammo.)

Who doesn't?

In talking to some of my friends in the industry, this announcement has already sold more guns than the LAST surge in buying: the Clintonista revolution of 92-93. Guns have been flying off the shelves around here, and at the gunshows. Get 'em while you can!

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Who doesn't?

In talking to some of my friends in the industry, this announcement has already sold more guns than the LAST surge in buying: the Clintonista revolution of 92-93. Guns have been flying off the shelves around here, and at the gunshows. Get 'em while you can!

Dear lord, I already have enough weapons and ammo to equip an assault on Normandy. The local police chief was by a few months ago for a BBQ and I walked him through gun vault, he couldn't stop laughing and shaking his head, "remind me never to try and lay siege on this place".

The best part was, "all this is legal isn't it? No, no, don't tell me, I don't want to know".

[Chongo]

I'm still waiting for the bloodbath that was to follow the passage of concealed carry laws.
Concealed carry in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Research into the effects of concealed carry laws on crime

There have been many studies published in academic journals regarding the effects of various concealed carry laws on crime rate. Academics have also taken the debate outside of journals, writing books, blogs, and having debates on the subject.

The effect of various concealed carry laws are the subject of past and present research. In his book, More Guns, Less Crime, pro-gun scholar John Lott's analysis of crime report data has shown some statistically significant effects of concealed carry laws. One major conclusion was that locations which enacted more permissive concealed carry laws had a decrease in violent crime but an increase in property crime.

Don Kates summarizes the consensus reached by criminological research into gun control thus:

"Unfortunately, an almost perfect inverse correlation exists between those who are affected by gun laws, particularly bans, and those whom enforcement should affect. Those easiest to disarm are the responsible and law abiding citizens whose guns represent no meaningful social problem. Irresponsible and criminal owners, whose gun possession creates or exacerbates so many social ills, are the ones most difficult to disarm."[10]

Regardless of the interpretation of statistics, the trend in the United States has been towards greater permissiveness of concealed carry. In Florida, which first introduced "shall-issue" concealed carry laws, crimes committed against residents dropped markedly upon the general issuance of concealed-carry licenses,[11] which had the unintended consequence of putting tourists in Florida driving marked rental cars at risk from criminals (since tourists may be readily presumed unarmed.) Florida responded by enacting laws prohibiting the obvious marking of rental cars. In 1991, the Luby's massacre prompted Texas lawmakers to pass a concealed carry law.[12]

Research comparing various countries' violent crime rates, murder rates, and crimes committed with weapons, have found that legal ownership of guns, including concealed carry guns, generally reduces crime rates.[13][10]

University of Washington public health professor Brandon Centerwall prepared a study comparing homicide rates between Canada and the U.S., as the two countries are very similar, yet have different handgun ownership rates. He reported "Major differences in the prevalence of handguns have not resulted in differing total criminal homicide rates in Canadian provinces and adjoining US states."[14] In his conclusions he published the following admonition:

"If you are surprised by my findings, so are we. We did not begin this research with any intent to "exonerate" handguns, but there it is -- a negative finding, to be sure, but a negative finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us where NOT to aim public health resources."[15]