“Founding Fathers Would Have Allowed Restrictions on Guns,” the Fox News headline announces.
It’s reporting on claims made by Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, one of the dissenters in both the Heller and McDonald cases, as he hawked his new book “Making Democracy Work” on Fox News Sunday.
James Madison didn’t really mean it when he included the Second Amendment, Breyer would have us believe. He just included it, presumably with his fingers crossed, as an appeasement gesture so the Constitution would be ratified.
And Breyer “think[s] more of the historians were with us,” and in agreement with that hypothesis.
So there.
Ergo, “the Second Amendment allows for restrictions on the individual, including an all-out ban on handguns in the nation's capital.”
And he leaves us with this gem:
"Are you a sportsman? Do you like to shoot pistols at targets? Well, get on the subway and go to Maryland. There is no problem, I don't think, for anyone who really wants to have a gun."
I’m not a sportsman, judge.
Would you also advise I go to Maryland to exercise my First Amendment-guaranteed right? Anything else in the Bill of Rights you deem geographic-specific, and what mechanism keeps that from being gerrymandered away?
After all, you said yourself “an all-out ban” is consistent with “shall not be infringed.”
But I forget. That was just a swindle—at least according to you and your imagined majority of academics on whom my unalienable rights apparently depend—at least in your terminally-mistaken estimation. But of course, judge, in your zeal to paint a much greater man than you as an insincere conman, you neglect to address one of the main arguments from those who opposed a Bill of Rights—that it was unneeded, because there was no delegated authority for the government to abridge the preexisting right to keep and bear arms.
You mutts didn’t grant it. Keep your paws off it.
By the way, in re your snotty, cavalier advice: Metro allows passengers to take guns on board now? Have they stopped with the random searches, or do you also need to go to Maryland if you want the Fourth Amendment recognized? We can just bring our guns on board and tell ‘em Justice Breyer says it’s cool now, we're going to target practice?
And speaking of the Old Line State, you’re certain we can just bring a handgun in, or does the fact that MD considers them “regulated” and requires their registration factor into any of this?
Not that Breyer gives credence to any “non-sporting” purposes behind the Second Amendment, but that’s to be expected from a cloistered member of the ruling elites who has been essentially above the concerns of “the little people” for his entire professional life. Add to that a worldview that your rights are what a panel in black robes says they are, and it’s small wonder no less a statist than Cass Sunstein lauds his approach:
… Breyer speaks in thoroughly pragmatic terms, emphasizing the beneficial consequences of purposivism. Breyer thinks that as compared with a single-minded focus on literal text, his approach will tend to make the law more sensible, almost by definition. He also contends that it “helps to implement the public’s will and is therefore consistent with the Constitution’s democratic purpose.”
Yeah, even though the word “democratic” appears nowhere in those stated purposes. Must be ol’ Madison playing fast and loose with his tricks again. But it certainly is no surprise that the likes of Sunstein and Breyer advocate forgetting the “literal text.”
Otherwise, terms like “domestic enemies” need to be reckoned with.
[Thanks to John Richardson for calling this to my attention through this post—his “No Lawyers—Only Guns and Money” blog ought to be a regularly-visited bookmark for those interested intelligent and timely commentary on the right to keep and bear arms.]
------------
At least government registration is good for something
It proves my FOIA request was delivered (see sidebar "slideshow").
What FOIA request?
I included it in this column, but I'll replicate it again in this slide show. It relates to this report that the Department of Homeland Security is classifying those who object to intrusive Transportation Security Adminsitration practices as a "domestic extremist."
Will it accomplish anything?
Who knows? It took them long enough, and I do love the way the "Quality Assurance" stamp missed much of the return receipt card surface. But stay tuned.
------------
A matter of resolve
Last year at this time, I came up with a series of New Year’s Resolutions to count down the days until January 1. Since they’re pretty much evergreen, I’m going to refer to them again this year, as something for newcomers to this column to consider, and as a reminder for those of you who have been long-time readers. Here’s today’s:
------------
Who will wa…uh…listen to ‘The Watchmen’?
I will be on Doc Bean’s show tonight to discuss this story as well as whatever else comes up.
Click here for The Watchmen Radio Network.
Click here to listen live, starting at 9:00 pm EST/6:00 pm PST and all points in between and around.
I hope you can join us.
------------
Help wanted--inquire within
Regular readers: Please help me spread the word by sharing Gun Rights Examiner links with your friends via emails, and in online discussion boards, blogs, etc.? (Also note “Share” options, below.) Then get more commentary at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance.
Comments
Under Breyer's theory, the following should be moved to Maryland or Virginia:
The Library of Congress
The National Cathedral
The Washington Post
If the Second Amendment doesn't count, then why should the First?
You'd have to either be stupid or intentionally deceitful to argue that the Founders would've supported "gun control". Since Breyer isn't stupid, he must be attempting deception. It's an undisputed historical fact that the spark that ignited the Revolution in 1775 was a direct result of the British forces attempting to seize weapons and ammunition from the colonists. They didn't go door-to-door, instead choosing to enforce "prior restraint" by taking control of the items at the point of distribution before the colonials could use them. Gee, why does that sound familiar?
I suggest anyone wishing to know the relevant details instead leave the job an historian:
onsecondopinion.blogspot.com
You'd have to be stupid or intentionally deceitful to argue that the Founders would have uniformly supported almost any controversial topic. There is no single "founders" entity, and their opinions on the topic would likely have been as diverse as their opinions on the relative strength of the federal government. Trying to deify them into a single entity gets us nowhere.
That's a 20th century controversy applied to 18th century history. There certainly were disagreements regarding armed citizenry at the time of the Revolution, but none of it resembled what we call the "gun control debate" today.
Yes, But! We don't have to speculate on any of this. We have the recorded minutes of the first and second congresses and of the constitutional convention including the debates on the Second Amendment. We have the Founders thoughts on the subject that they expressed in the "Op Ed" pages of their day and in their public and private correspondences. We also know that an attempt was made to add the words "for the common defense" to the Second Amendment and that the change was defeated in open debate. Guessing is not necessary. Speculation is not necessary. We know. Some of us may not like what we know and may not like what the founders did, but thats life.
Denial is not a large river in Africa.
DDS -- NRA Life Member
Where did he go to law school, Russia? He obviously never read the work done by the Federal Court Judge in Houston who was confronted with the issue. He did something novel, he actually looked at the minutes of the constitutional conventions of the states as they ratified the bill of rights to get their understanding on intent. In his decision, he documented that there is not doubt about the intention of the second amendment in their minds. Hint to Justice Breyer, with all due respect: The minutes somehow did not include the parts about hunting needing protection from government intrusion.
He tried to throw out the phony "machine guns? rocket launchers?" challenge. Wallace tried but wasn't really able to handle Mr Breyer's apparent sincerity. He could have pointed out, though, that a little "reasonable gun control" is never enough for liberals like Mr Breyer, there is always another "reasonable" restriction to impose on the people who aren't the problem.
he chuckled when he mentioned machine guns and torpedos.
it seems that his mentality is that its safe for the govt to have them but not untrustworthy citizens.
federalist papers,29,i believe,suggest that we should be armed,"not inferior"to the army,and gives reasons.
to reduce the need for a standing army,AND to keep it in balance.
yes,,i think WE need to be as strong as THEM
"Are you a sportsman? Do you like to shoot pistols at targets? Well, get on the subway and go to Maryland."
One is not to have the exercise of his liberty of expression in appropriate places abridged on the plea that it may be exercised in some other place.
--SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308 U.S. 147, 163 (1939).
The same goes for his right to self-defense.
On the other hand, anybody who is serious about his right to self-defense has indeed already hopped the Metro (or Southwest Airlines) and left places like DC far behind.
Start you countdown clock, Codrea. Legally, they have 20 working days (not saturday, Sunday or Holidays) to respond to your FOIA ("respond" does include putting it in the mail, so figure a few days beyond the 20 in fairness.)
I expect they'll try the standard federal stall of "searching for records" and may try to hit you for a ridiculous fee. If they try the fee game, let us know - it may be time to pull a "traditional" journalist in, one with access to deep corporate pockets and lawyers.
Ayup. 12/24 and 12/31 are Holidays, so the 20 will be up the first week in Jan. We'll see if I need to pass a hat--I'm thinking I can do this without--I've shamelessly begged for plenty of $ over the years for others, but have thus far managed to avoid asking for myself...
Our basic human right to life, liberty and property was not created or granted by "the founders," regardless of their various positions or words. Therefore, no words of theirs now, nor any interpretation of them can cancel or abridge the basic human rights we are all born with.
Breyer can renounce his own rights if he wishes, and become the slave of anyone who cares to take him on, but he can't speak for me - let alone for someone who's been dead for more than 200 years.
Justice Byeyer simply put & in language I'm sure you will understand & without any respect what so ever....... Sir you are an Idiot.
You can take your own gun and stick-it up your own butt, fire away. You must be so gullible to believe what FOX NEWS says. I feel what the judge and our Founding Fathers meant was to use guns to defend our nation against foreign enemies like the British, not to shoot each other (fellow Americans). But of course you would know this if you did your homework on why we have a constitution instead of keeping the Articles of Confederation.
Thank you. I always appreciate when one of the more capable voices for your worldview shows everyone the full extent of their knowledge, intellect and debate capabilities. What an appropriate representative you are!
"Stick it up your butt and fire" followed by "I feel."
You're a master. I'm in near-total awe here.
Wow! "stick my gun up my butt and fire away!" Is that the best you've got????? LMFAO! What a joke. Perhaps you should do a little American history reading comrad, and try one of the history books without pictures while your at it.
defend our nation against foreign enemies like the British"
we were Brits in a British colony so would you concede we were shooting at our brothers
how about the civil war ? it didn't seem to bother Lincoln
I would like to thank Chicago Mayor Richard Daley for taking the time away from his busy day to visit us and add his wise thoughts to our humble discussion.
Up yours, Mr. Mayor!
DDS -- NRA Life Member
Seems BITTER is the one who needs to do a little homework on the Constitution. The concern was not "foreign enemies" - it was "repressive government."
The Revolutionary War was just that - a REVOLUTION against a tyranical government - not a war against a foreign power.
If Fox has suddenly turned anti-gun then I am shocked. I have seen
most all gun issues were favored by various Fox hosts. The other
liberal media outlets is a totally different story though.
Both sides of this article miss the point. My rights aren't determined by the founders of my country, nor are they limited to the 10 listed in the Bill of Rights. The Constitution is a contract From 'The People' directed at the Public Servants that are appointed by each Sovereign individual of this country to run the day-to-day affairs. The Constitution is not addressed to me, nor does it limit me, but I can use it to limit Public Servants who have sworn an oath to abide by that contract.
"It’s reporting on claims made by Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, one of the dissenters in both the Heller and McDonald cases, as he hawked his new book “Making Democracy Work” on Fox News Sunday."
It amazes me how many People think that the United States is a democracy. It is not. It is a Constitutional Republic. The Founding Fathers spoke often of democracy. Jefferson himself said that “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
But it seems many in the movement will settle for the lesser of evils. That is not good enough. We have been settling for a long time now.
AUTHOR: Benjamin Franklin (1706–90)
QUOTATION: “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”
“A Republic, if you can keep it.”
ATTRIBUTION: The response is attributed to BENJAMIN FRANKLIN—at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation—in the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention.
Again, notice, that he did not say Democracy, but Republic.
Simply put, Breyer is a moron.
The function of the 2A is to allow the overthrow of a tyrannical government should that ever become (sic) necessary.
To then allow the government to specify which implements (if any) may be used for overthrowing itself is completely ludicrous.
If Breyer thinks (honestly) that the founders didn't see that and thus would have supported gun control, he either needs to get off drugs or on them.
A reminder to Justice Breyer and anyone else who may find it of benefit. The rights mentioned but not enumerated in The Declaration of Independence were not "granted" by The Constitution of the United States, by The Second Amendment, or any other part of The Bill of Rights. They predate those documents and are not dependent for their existance on those documents or on the system of government those documents established. The Second Amendment merely forbids the government, as in "shall not", from infringing on that pre existing right. The court on which Justice Breyer serves recognized these facts in US v Cruikshank. I'm sure Justice Breyer is well aware of that ruling and is bound by it under the court's doctrine of Stare Decisis, whether he agrees with Cruikshank or not.
If the United States government along with those of my state, county and municipality disappeared tomorrow, I would still have the right to keep and bear arms. And I intend to keep it.
Molon Labe.
DDS -- NRA Life member
Justice Breyer must be suffering from that common Washington DC malady, the "cranial-rectal inversion syndrome".
Justice Breyer seems to be unaware that the founding fathers of this nation overthrew the "legitimate" government by force of arms, arms held by individuals that banded together to form an army to fight against the tyranny of gun control and all it implies.
Maybe he should ask his Rabbi why Israeli's go about their daily lives armed, and with impunity. That is a conversation I would like to listen in on.
On the subject of anti-gun American Jews, a phenomenon I cannot for the life of me understand, I once got into a "heated debate" with a Jewish lady here in Miami. Seems she believed we should have "Israeli style gun control" here in the US. She stated that in Israel, only those with proper training were issued government liscenses to bear firearms. Which is true. But what I reminded her of was that almost all Jewish Israeli's are military reservists, have had such training, and can therefore bear whatever arms they wish including fully automatic weapons. Further, since Israel is a socialist state and provides the basic necessities to all of it's (Jewish) citizens, one can simply go down to the police station and borrow a fully automatic uzi with apparently no need to ever return it. And to top it off, Israeli school children are not permitted to go on school field trips unless a sufficient number of fully armed adult chaperones go along. When I asked if that was what she meant by "Israeli style gun control" she left the room in a big huff. I have no idea why.
DDS -- NRA Life Member
Wow! David I’m impressed I didn’t know your columns were being read by Mayor Daley.
You’ve made it to the big time David when the opposition starts coming out of the wood-work to comment on one of your articles. (“up your butt” Its got to be someone from Chicago, they like that sort of thing)
And what can we say about our good Supreme Court justice Breyer?
Personally I never knew Madison was trying to pull a fast one on the States when he wrote those 4 little words “Shall Not Be Infringed”
As far as the comments made by the Justice about the Maryland thing with the subways; I think the good Justice needs help.
P.S. Hats off to DDS he is making some good point today about the history of the founders! Good job
The First 10 Amendments to the Constitution as Ratified by the States December 15, 1791
PREAMBLE Congress OF THE United States.
"THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.."
Amendment II "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."
archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
It is nigh impossible to believe that anyone as self-delusional as Breyer could be allowed on ANY court, much less the Supreme Court.
He belongs on a court in China or Venezuela working for 'Ugo.
Unfortunately Justice Breyer doesn’t seem to have figured it out. The beliefs of the founding fathers are of interest only in as much as they reflect the views of the founding citizens. Justice Breyer’s argument is flawed in its self since he argues that a number of the founding fathers did not believe in an armed citizenry but were forced to include the second amendment by the people as a condition of acceptance. Lest Justice Breyer forget America is a government of the people, by the people and for the people and the Justices serve those people. That a Supreme Court Justice would present such a flawed argument to support his own agenda is troubling indeed.
Justice Breyer exemplifies the "Foolish Liberal" described in the following quote:
"Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constituton by claiming it's not an indidivual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like." - Alan Dershowitz (hardly a right-wing extremist)
Breyer completely ignores the collateral writings of the framers like Jefferson, Mason, Adams, Paine which left no doubt that citizens of the USA could keep and bear arms. His belief that Madison inserted the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights in order to win state ratification is bull. It was obvious to the framers that NO constitution would be ratified, unless it contained a package of individual rights.
Madison, Hamilton and Jay did write the "Federalist Papers" to try to convince New York governor George Clinton to ratify the proposed constitution, as he was opposed to it.
With the late Warren Burger saying the Second Amendment is "a great fraud", and now Breyer opining on the 2A; it makes one wonder about the types we have sitting on the Court.
P.S. - What is Breyer doing hawking a book on the news programs, anyway? I always thought SCOTUS was ultra-secretive about what they did, and never appeared in public.
What next, Letterman's show?
Breyer may be prepping for a career move. I personally would like to see him go but hope he will delay any career change 'till after 2012. ;-) Without him on the court, and his replacement selected by Obama's replacement, we might see some of these 5/4 cliffhangers come out as 6/3's in our favor.
Imagine for a moment a strict constructionist, nominated by a "tea party" president, on the court. A constitutionally limited Federal Government, a protected RKBA, and no commerce clause grab bag! Sweeeet!
DDS -- NRA Life Member
Would have, should have, could have are phrases that come to mind here when thinking of this man's, I won't dignify him by calling him a judge, comments. The courts are supposed to enforce the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and not interpret them according to the fore mentioned phrases. Our land is not supposed to be ruled by what current judges THINK but by what these documents say when strictly interpreted. To do less is to betray this country as surely as if you joined the Taliban. The judge has his right to disagree under the First Amendment but he has no right to enforce second guessing of the documents that founded this country through his decisions. He should be impeached and removed.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!