Close to a year-and-a-half ago, I posted on my blog a video clip of Brady Campaign legal director Dennis Henigan discussing the Second Amendment, with his explanation of why, in his opinion (and, presumably, that of the Brady Campaign as a whole), the Bill of Rights was not violated by Washington DC's total ban (since lifted--very slightly) of handgun ownership by private citizens. What makes the clip interesting is the clever bit of editing Henigan worked on the Second Amendment. In so doing, he made his explanation considerably more plausible. Take a look--it's only about 15 seconds long:
Video hosted by ICarry.org
Here's a transcript of the relevant portion:
The Second Amendment is the only provision in our Bill of Rights that actually states its own purpose. It says "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
Notice anything . . . different about his version of the Second Amendment--a few words shorter, perhaps? It's certainly easier to argue that the right protected by the Second Amendment does not accrue to individual people, when you leave out the inconvenient little fact that it's a right . . of the people.
Before I am accused of selectively editing the video clip in an effort to mislead, I should acknowledge that the above is a shortened version, but I truncated it only to reduce it to the relevant part--I didn't remove "of the people"--Henigan did that. The full length clip from which that excerpt was taken, I should point out, had been on You Tube, before the Brady Campaign realized that their sleight of hand was fooling no one, and that it simply made them look like, well . . . liars, causing them to remove it.
Remember that this clip was made before the Supreme Court's Heller decision (but after the appeals court had ruled against the DC gun ban), and the Brady Campaign was desperate to defeat the notion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to firearm ownership. When the Supreme Court declined to go along with their inventive "collective right" interpretation, the BC suddenly decided (or suddenly claimed to decide) that recognition of a Constitutional guarantee of an individual right to private firearm ownership was a good thing for the citizen disarmament lobby, because it would assuage gun owners' fears that proposed restrictive gun laws would lead to bans (never mind that we are now being told that Heller poses no obstacle to bans of an enormously popular and useful class of firearms--detachable-magazine fed, semi-automatic rifles).
Some clever folks have pointed out--to Brady spokesman Paul Helmke's discomfiture, that if the Brady Campaign is now pleased about the federal government being forced to recognize the Second Amendment rights of individuals, then they should view the incorporation of the Second Amendment under the Fourteenth Amendment (meaning state and municipal governments would also have to honor the right to keep and bear arms) as being 50 times better, and join with the NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) in fighting toward that end in Chicago. I gather he's not interested.
It's almost as if we can't count on the gun prohibitionists' forthrightness, or something.
- National Gun Rights Examiner: Presumptive confirmation a preemptive surrender
- Los Angeles Gun Rights Examiner: Nationwide concealed carry, Part IV: First contact.
- Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner: The Audacity of Self Defense
- Charlotte Gun Rights Examiner: 'Assault weapon' opening salvo: Levin lies to Congress
- Austin Gun Rights Examiner: Brady Campaign to prevent democracy? (Part 2)
- DC Gun Rights Examiner: Virginia Senator Creigh Deeds sells out gun owners, fools gun banners
- Milwaukee Gun Rights Examiner: Time to change our attitude about guns
Comments
This used to make me mad, but now it's just plain funny. Even without "The People", he's putting emphasis on the part of the law that states that the citizen's regular access and use of arms is necessary for the country to remain free.
Just like a lot of religions w/ the Bible--they omit where they like to serve their own purpose. Thanks for the video, Kurt! You are doing such a great job.
Thanks, Michelle (if that's who you are)--your support is greatly appreciated.
Sounds like a bunch of POlitical Mumbo Jumbo to me!
RT
www.real-privacy.us.tc
Rumor has it it is also here.
www.twine.com/user/hotmeganfox
Now she has guns
Well, the NRA and the right have been leaving out "a well regulated Militia" for years, so this only seems fair.
Stupid comment Tom
The 2nd Amendment was created to allow Americans the ability to defend themselves from their own government - in case we ever became ruled by fascist dictatorships.
Their right to keep and bear arms was not infringed. It was a handgun ban not a gun ban. They could still own a shotgun or rifle for self defense.
Hey Tom, do you have dung for brains or are you a dumocratic alcu lawyer? I have NEVER seen the 2nd amendment being explained like the liberals have tried to do to it. You liberals have NO idea of the word fair. It's all about lies and deceptions to further your anti american agenda. Why are the dumocrats so afraid of an armed population. Maybe they won't get to do to us like the Germans did to Czechoslavakia. A quote," They looked up to him as if he were a messiah." Nuremburg, Germany. Sept. 4th, 1934. If you don't know of whom I'm talking about, it was Adolf Hitler. They followed him like sheep to the slaughter and slaughtered they became. You best read about the history of the world because we will not survive being politically correct. It seems this is the way the media and certain groups have treated obama, the most anti-gun president we have ever had, but they won't admit to it.
He may be stupid, but Tom is correct.
Aargauer, James, and Tom
TO the best of my knowledge no one left off the declarative clause of the 2nd Amendment. In fact, the NRA paperwork that I got when I was a member, as well as the literature I have seen from them did not leave off that clause.
OTOH, perhaps none of you understand the definition of "militia". A militia is not a government controlled group. It is a group of armed citizens working together to defend against a threat. The militia was the whole of the people.
I am tired of explaining this to presumably intelligent people.
This is dumb. Gun-nuts are losers.
The fall of the First amendment would come very soon after the Second is taken from us.
The actual 2nd Amendment is "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.
This speaker forgot the key words "of the people"; the SCOTUS has ruled that it is the right of the people. Look it up!
The fall of the First amendment would come very soon after the Second is taken from us.
The actual 2nd Amendment is "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.
This speaker forgot the key words "of the people"; the SCOTUS has ruled that it is the right of the people. Look it up!
Why is it so hard for fast-talking fools like this to understand what was meant by the second amendment?
Samuel Adams: "The Constitution (shall) never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
-- During Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution Ratification Convention, (1788).
Noah Webster: "The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops..."
-- An examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution by the Late Convention (1787).
Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Proposed Virginia Constitution (1776,) Jefferson Papers 344, (J. Boyd, ed. 1950).
Edmund Burke: "The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion."
-- 1784 speech.
Why is it so hard for fast-talking fools like this to understand what was meant by the second amendment?
Samuel Adams: "The Constitution (shall) never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
-- During Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution Ratification Convention, (1788).
Noah Webster: "The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops..."
-- An examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution by the Late Convention (1787).
Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Proposed Virginia Constitution (1776,) Jefferson Papers 344, (J. Boyd, ed. 1950).
Edmund Burke: "The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion."
-- 1784 speech.
By the way, if you post a comment here, then hit 'Refresh', it reposts your comment again.
Keep fighting the good fight, man. I'm not personally that into guns, but the notion of special interest groups strip-mining the Constitution offends me on a fundamental level.
Scalia's interpretation is just plain silly. He says the 2nd amendment gives an individual right---OK, I can go with that. He agrees that one can even ban types of weapons/arms without abridging the right. Cool. But *not* handguns. Why?! And here's where his idiocy shines: because handguns are the popular form of personal protection *today*. Now wait a minute---isn't this the same moron who claims the Constitution is a fixed document? That its meaning is NOT to be governed by what happens to be popular? What a hypocrite.
You do not that the second amendment does not apply to the states because of selective incorporation. The bill of rights applies to federal government and only the 1st, 4th, part of the 5th, 6th, 9th, and obviously 10th amendments govern the states. Thus, states and smaller localities can do whatever they want regarding gun laws, completely constitutionally, until the Supreme Court changes its mind.
Marcus,
That makes absolutely no sense.
I understand that that is how it is currently interpreted among the courts. However, it is nonsensical.
The States agreed to the rules laid down in the Constitution before either ratifying the Constitution or joining the union, depending on the State. If the Bill of Rights (the entire thing) was not applicable to the ENTIRE United States and did not restrict State and local governments, then why was the 10th Amendment even in there?
Did Prohibition ONLY apply to the Federal Government? Can women only vote in Federal elections?
Regardless of whether it makes sense or not, it is how the American Government has been working since its inception. Before 1897 only Article 1 of the constitution applied to the states, and the rest of the constitution, including the Bill of Rights, applied only to the federal government.
This changed after 1897 when the Supreme Court used the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment to apply rights to state governments, which is where my previous argument lies. You can look at the cases of Gitlow v. New York (1925) and Palko v. Connecticut (1937) for more background upon selective incorporation and how it came about.
In addition, you bring up the 10th amendment. This amendment states powers not in the constitution or Bill of Rights are specifically for the states. It is not actually to provide powers for the states, but was set in place to limit the power of federal government and give the states a sense of autonomy as the founders still feared a strong central government at the time.
With regards to your last point, I did specify the Bill of Rights was what does not entirely apply to the states. Amendments 18, 19, and 21 are not in the Bill of Rights, and so they have always applied to the states.
While I do think it odd that the Government works this way, it is simply the way in which it works and it renders this article irrelevant, no offense meant.
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!