Dear Family,

[FourScore]

Last edited Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:08 AM - Edit history (2)

Due to a severe case of the flu in my household, my 83 year old mother in GA had to cancel her flight to spend Christmas with us in NY. She called me late Christmas night because she felt depressed. Not because she missed seeing us, although that was a part of it. She was depressed because she started a conversation about gun control at the GA family Christmas gathering (we have a huge family), and was amazed by the ultra-conservative-FOXNews-spewing ideas of 2 of her offspring and their respective spouses. She was dismayed and shocked. My Mother is a true liberal. My Dad and his wife (they all get along) played the fence coyly. Two of my sisters stayed out of it, and as one said, "I just played with the puppy" -- undoubtedly the best course of action. After contemplating my Mother's sadness around what had transpired, I wrote an email to my FOXNews watching relatives. I read the email to my mother and she asked me not to send it. I sat on it for a few days, but I find it too good not to share, so I shall post it here. But before I do, allow me to say that I love my family very, very much -- so please be kind to them in your remarks. They are wonderful people. Politically ignorant, but in every other way, some of the finest people you could know. Really. So here goes:


Dear Family,

I understand I missed a big lesson on the Second Amendment and my Constitutional right to bear arms last night. Sounds invigorating. Clearly, I have been misguided by the left-wing rhetoric of gun control. So glad to have seen the light. By golly, I now want every classroom in my childrens' schools to have a properly armed teacher. I want guards! I want fortification! I can hear those sweet words now, "Children, there will be a substitute in our classroom tomorrow. I need to go to my federally mandated lesson on how to fire a Magnum pistol should some crazed gunman enter our classroom. Don't worry though, the substitute has also passed the training course and knows how to fire a Magnum with deadly accuracy." YAY! Sounds like a GREAT idea! Cost be damned! We'll take it from book funding!

Of course, the founding fathers never intended for the Second Amendment to ensure the right of individual gun ownership; but rather the historical debate swirled around "state militias" and state militia funding. This was to avoid a concentration of military might on the federal level. But who needs real historical context when the NRA contrived meaning of our Second Amendment is thriving at FOX News?

For those of you who do disagree with me on that minor detail, allow me to refer to the article The Right to Bear Arms (Parade Magazine, 1990) in which former Chief Justice Warren Burger states:

"The Gun Lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies - the militia - would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires."

Seriously, now. Let's look at historical record.

In 2002, the famous court case Silviera vs Lockyer was brought before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in which the plaintiffs charged that 1999 gun control laws passed in California limiting access to semi-automatic weapons was unconstitutional. In their decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals closely examined and documented the historical record surrounding the adoption of the Second Amendment. In other words, the decision is based in historical FACT. The Court concluded that the Second Amendment intended to provide the right of states to form their own militias, and does not provide unfettered access to any gun a person wishes to possess. The entire opinion can be read here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1464183.html

Historically, the courts had always interpreted the Second Amendment as a state right to form militias.

From the Tennessee Supreme Court, 1840:

"A man in pursuit of deer, elk and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms." Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. 154 (1840).

From the Texas Supreme Court, 1872:

"The word 'arms' in the connection we find it in the Constitution of the United States refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and the word is used in its military sense." English v. State, 35 Tex. 473 (1872).

And from the West Virginia Supeme Court, 1891:

"In regard to the kind of arms referred to in the [Second] Amendment, it must be held to refer to the weapons of warfare to be used by the militia." State v. Workman, 35 W. Va. 367 (1891).

During the 19th century, Supreme Court decisions revolved around the legality of states regulating firearms. In United States vs Cruikshank (1875), the court ruled that the Second Amendment:

“has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government” 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875)
http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php

In Presser vs Illinois (1886) the Court ruled the Second Amendment:

“is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the States.” 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886)
http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php

In 1939, the Supreme Court was once again called upon to interpret the Second Amendment in United States vs Miller. In this case, Miller was indicted for being in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934 when he and his buddy crossed state lines with an unregistered sawed-off shotgun. Miller argued that the regulation of interstate transport violated his Second Amendment rights. The US District Court of Arkansas remarkably agreed with Miller. The Supreme Court, however, overturned that decision on appeal. After reading the Second Amendment in conjunction with the Militia Clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the Court concluded :

“in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a sawed-off shotgun . . . 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.” 307 U.S. at 178. http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php

Then came Scalia and The District of Columbia vs Heller. In the 2008 landmark case, the Supreme Court shot down historical precedent with a...wait for it...5-4 decision. The majority opinion was written by Scalia and signed by the usual other 4. In this case, the plaintiff argued that new gun regulation laws passed in Washington DC were unconstitutional. These laws decreed that handguns within a person's home must be either dismantled or rendered useless via the security lock. This did not allow much in the way of self-defense. Oddly enough, and I'm sure I'll get hammered for this by all my liberal brethren, I'm rather glad the plaintiff won that ruling. I think the law went too far. I just vehemently disagree with basis on which it was won. The legal question brought before the Court was whether it violated:

"the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”

The Court focused on the clause "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." and came to the conclusion that this clause guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons. Laughably, they claim this was based on historical record. Let me say this again THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS ABOUT STATE MILITIAS!!! NOT INDIVIDUAL GUN OWNERSHIP!!! The ruling can be read here: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf . The historically acurate dissent from Stevens can be read here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html

So, here I sit, soaking in the knowledge that my closest loved ones believe my kids' teachers should be armed. You even go so far as to believe that if any Amendment should be abolished, it should be the First -- because we all know the blame lands squarely on the shoulders of Hollywood.

Like Dad facetiously chimed in, "Hell, why stop there? Let's arm the kids, too!"

In the end, I guess I am left pondering a tweet I read after the Newtown massacre -- Only in America, do we put up fight over who can get a marriage license, but don't give a shit about who possesses a semi-automatic weapon. I do love this country, but sometimes things just seem a little off. I think I'll go find a puppy.

[tavalon]

1. Yeah, that was too good

not to share with someone!

[AtheistCrusader]

2. You misunderstood Miller.

"“in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a sawed-off shotgun . . . 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.” 307 U.S. at 178. "

The state contended that no military used the sawed off shotgun, therefore it was not a protected armament. No one countered that claim, because the defendant (Miller) had died, and his counsel did not appear before the Court.

Such shotguns were in fact in common use by the military, as trench guns, at the time. No one made that point before the court, so it simply accepted the state's claim.

In the absence of any evidence...

The Supreme Court does not go fishing. If the defendant does not show up (dead in this case) and no one presents counter-evidence to the claim, then well... It would seem sawed off shotguns SHOULD have been protected under common use. (And Heller vs. DC reflects that.)

[AtheistCrusader]

3. Also, Presser vs Illinois (1886) no longer matters.

Since MacDonald vs. Chicago incorporated the 2nd against the States via the 14th.