Does the Platform really support an individual right to keep and bear arms

[hansberrym]

Some right-wingers, and surprisingly some Collective Rights advocates, have been regurgitating the NRA's dishonest talking points that Kerry/Edwards are somehow trying to DECEIVE the voters into believing that the platform supports an individual RKBA, while it does not(according to the NRA).

I get the NRA's spin, they are angry at Kerry for the Assault Weapons Ban and his support generally for gun control, but what puzzled me at first was why some on the far-left would undermine the party's attempt to get gun owners back into the fold. I think the Collective Rights advocates support the NRA's spin because otherwise they are left standing all alone way out in left field, making a claim for collective rights that just doesn't fit the facts, nor the Democratic party platform, nor the stated views of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential nominees.


Under the Collective Rights theory, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a right to maintain a state militia, or as stated in Silveira (the Collective Rights decision coming from the 9th Circuit) it refers to "the right of Americans collectively to have a well regulated militia".

The collectives rights argument denies that 2A is about "owning guns" or "hunting".

But Kerry/Edwards have explicitly stated for the record that they believe the second amendment does protect hunting and gun ownership. Therefore, without the spin of the NRA concerning the platform, Kerry/Edwards stated view of the second amendment is compatible with ONLY the individual rights interpretation.



From Silveira:
There are three principal schools of thought that form the basis for the debate.

The first, which we will refer to as the “traditional individual rights” model, holds that the Second Amendment guarantees to individual private citizens a fundamental right to possess and use firearms for any purpose at all, subject only to limited government regulation. This view, urged by the NRA and other firearms enthusiasts, as well as by a prolific cadre of fervent supporters in the legal academy, had never been adopted by any court until the recent Fifth Circuit decision in United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203, 227 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 2362 (2002).

The second view, a variant of the first, we will refer to as the “limited individual rights” model. Under that view, individuals maintain a constitutional right to possess firearms insofar as such possession bears a reasonable relationship to militia service.8


The third, a wholly contrary view, commonly called the “collective rights” model, asserts that the Second Amendment right to “bear arms” guarantees the right of the people to maintain effective state militias, but does not provide any type of individual right to own or possess weapons. Under this theory of the amendment, the federal and state governments have the full authority to enact prohibitions and restrictions on the use and possession of firearms, subject only to generally applicable constitutional constraints, such as due process, equal protection, and the like. Long the dominant view of the Second Amendment, and widely accepted by the federal courts, the collective rights model has recently come under strong criticism from individual rights advocates. After conducting a full analysis of the amendment, its history, and its purpose, we reaffirm our conclusion in Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996), that it is this collective rights model which provides the best interpretation of the Second Amendment. (end quote)

[The Doctor.]

1. Here's a fun fact....

The Assault weapons ban is set to expire this year (7 weeks from now) and Guess who wants to maintain and extend that ban?

That's right- Chimpy, the little Shrub, 'W' wants to renew the ban.

http://www.poynter.org/dg.lts/id.2/aid.33980/column.htm

(midway down)


Sportsmen for Bush my ass. Be sure to tell all your sportman buddies that Bush is in favor of gun control.


Let's get rid of this Chimp.

[hansberrym]

2. Clever game the gun grabbers got going, eh?

The far right says its the Democrats, while they (W, his dad, etc.) also push for laws that are designed to cut out the heart of the second amendment.

The Far-left say its the courts simply interpreting the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent, while they spread misinformation such as described in original post, and hold up judges such as that lying jackass Reinhardt of the 9th Circuit as some kind of paragon of progressive thinking as he states that the people have only the right to bear arms in defense of the state, as if we are mere peons in some feudalistic system, instead of citizens in a democratic republic founded on the principle that all power is derived from the people and that the people retain all rights not delegated to the government.


The ban on "military style" assault weapons was designed to get people used to the idea that it is proper to ban any weapon with a military utility, though the Supreme Court in US v. Miller has stated exactly the opposite. (see also Aymette v. state of Tenn. cited in Miller decision)



(James Madison, lead in to federalist 46)
RESUMING the subject of the last paper, I proceed to inquire whether the federal government or the State governments will have the advantage with regard to the predilection and support of the people. Notwithstanding the different modes in which they are appointed, we must consider both of them as substantially dependent on the great body of the citizens of the United States. I assume this position here as it respects the first, reserving the proofs for another place. The federal and State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes. The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other. Truth, no less than decency, requires that the event in every case should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents.(end Quote)



Judge Reinhardt seems to think that Madison had it exactly backwards.
According to Reinhardt: It is we, the people, who are but agents of the state, and we have only the right to defend the state, not ourselves. As mere agents of the state, we the people can be disarmed, or conscripted for service, as the state desires for its defense.

[The Doctor.]

3. Slowly but Surely

I've been indeed noticing a slow and seemingly inexorable push to disarm American citizens. No single party has been the executor of this push. There may be variations in the speach, but I've noticed both major parties have implemented some form of gun control while in power. This I find very troubling.
While I'm not what could be considered a 'firearm fanatic', I do have a penchant for the art of marksmanship and a healthy respect for ANY deadly weapon. I loathe the Idea that any yahoo can own a gun... and so many imbeciles do. But I do believe that this is a country of the people, and when all recourse is taken from the people including their one true last resort, it can only be bad for the country.
What worries me is that somewhere in the echelons of power there are forces who recognize that their power is merely tenuous until the general masses are fully subjugated and then subdued with material things. These powers are neither Republican or Democrat, they are wholly self-interested entities.

I will keep my gun in it's safe, I will teach my children to respect the exact nature of it's power, and no one but I will lay hands on it. (no- I don't need an assault rifle... but I'm sure they're nifty...)

[hansberrym]

4. I don't know which type of gun you own, but it might fall under the

defintion in S-1431 (re-authorization and expansion of the AWB)
http://www.banassaultweapons.org/docUploads/s1431.pdf
Under this bill, which did not get far in congress but which the sponsors will surely renew next session, even an M1 Garand is subject to banning.

It would be hard for me to label myself as a gun fanatic since I do not own any guns, and have not even shot targets for many years. However I have given it a lot of thought lately as I feel that it might be more difficult to get one in the future, and that I have a responsiblity to my fellow citizens to be prepared in the event that the last resort becomes a reality.

My fanaticism, if one could call it that, is directed to historical accuracy. The way the steady disarming of the citizenry is being accomplished is even more troubling to me than the fact that it is being done.

The Ninth Circuit's decision in Silveira v. Lockyer reads like something Orwell's Ministry of Truth might have written, and yet there was little coverage of that decision by major media except to dutifully report the Ninth Circuit Court's "findings".

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/gunlawsuits/silvlckyr120502opn.pdf

If you ever come across someone who has difficulty believing what you have stated regarding the powers that be, have them read Silveira with a copy of the Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalerist Papers, and a copy of US v. Miller close by to be able to check the veracity of the citations made by the majority in Silveira.

I agree with your sensible steps of locking your gun safely away, and teaching your children to respect its power, however I hope you will also encourage your children and others to read the basics (US Constitution, Federalist/Anti-federalist, and important Supreme Court cases) when they are of age to understand.

Education is the first line of defense against tyrrany, and if the people are educated about their rights and responsibilities, the last resort will not be needed.