Founding Fathers Wanted Gun Control

[Ben]

Well I guess that settles that.

Supreme Court Justices -- another reason why sometimes you have to hold your nose to vote the party line. A majority with this philosophy would be quite dangerous.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/12/breyer-founding-fathers-allowed-restrictions-guns/

EDIT: Also, WTF with the "take the subway to Maryland"? This is exactly the elitist attitude that I can't stand. "Don't like our restrictions on your freedoms? Get the hell out." How about instead, "Don't like freedom? Get the hell out!"? 

[Monkeyleg]

Somebody give that guy a laxative, 'cause the **expletive deleted** is backing up into his brain.

[grampster]

His words contradict the notion that we are a nation of laws, not men.  His comment reinforces the arrogance of the Progressive movement in that the law is nothing but a flexible tool to be twisted to suit the ever changing circumstance.  That is a recipe for totalitariaism.  Breyer should be impeached and thrown off the court.

Liberal judges do have a value as long as they hold to the idea of law are to be followed, not set aside according to whim.

[dm1333]

EDIT: Also, WTF with the "take the subway to Maryland"? This is exactly the elitist attitude that I can't stand. "Don't like our restrictions on your freedoms? Get the hell out." How about instead, "Don't like freedom? Get the hell out!"? 

Did you watch the interview or just read the article?  I saw the interview and was not impressed.

[Ben]

I just read the article. I'll have to check out the interview tomorrow if they have it archived. My Doctor told me I can only take a set amount of blood pressure raising events per day. :)

[Scout26]

The ruling raised concerns by dissenters like Breyer that gun laws nationwide would be thrown out. That has not happened yet.

Emphasis mine.

I guess reading the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers (as the 2A was one of the few things that both sides agreed on) isn't required at his law school.....

[Doggy Daddy]

He struck me as being exceedingly smug.  His smile makes me think he probably had a hard time in high school from people wanting to remove it from his face.

DD

[Doggy Daddy]

I'm sorry.

For a moment there I thought I was posting on THR.  Give me a few minutes and maybe I'll let go and tell you how I really felt about him.

DD

[TommyGunn]

Well, first, kudos to Chris Wallace for bringing the subject up.
Second, antikudos to Breyer ... for repeating the tired old canard around "group rights" and the misinterpretation of the "militia clause" of the second amendment as a restriction on the 2A.
And also, for being OK with the idea that a Washingtonian can drive across a border and shoot holes in a piece of paper to excercise his rights...

Gee... maybe if I am arrested for something ... it's OK if things are illegally searched and siezed from me and if I am forced to testify against myself ... 'cause all I have to do is "drive across a artificial political border and excercise my rights there." THAT'S how to support the forth and fifth amendments!
How does THAT work for ya, Justice Breyer?? 

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

What an asshat.  Cherry picking on founding father, not reading up on all the framers ideas, and twisting the one founders ideas so far off base shows this idiot is not very well read.  I wonder what the air is like on his planet.

[AJ Dual]

Actually, I DO agree somewhat with Breyer's analysis of the origins of the 2nd Amendment. That it was about getting the states to sign on and ratify the constitution.

The somewhat muddy wording of the use of "the people" and "well ordered" militia was verbiage designed to walk a knife-edge on the issue between Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.

However, I think all the Founders/Framers felt that individual RKBA was such a given that it did not occur to them that it needed to be codified. And that the 2A can now be construed as protecting that individual right is something of a happy accident.

For which I am eternally grateful.  

If the Framers could have known what was coming down the pipe for us, they WOULD have included a very clearly worded 2A for the individual RKBA, and probably would have done a whole host of things differently in the Constitution. However, I think it would have backfired. If the Constitution was that restrictive on everything the statists, authoritarians, and collectivists over the past 200-odd years have wanted to do, the whole Constitution would have been dead-lettered and bypassed by now.

[TommyGunn]

Actually, I DO agree somewhat with Breyer's analysis of the origins of the 2nd Amendment. That it was about getting the states to sign on and ratify the constitution.

The somewhat muddy wording of the use of "the people" and "well ordered" militia was verbiage designed to walk a knife-edge on the issue between Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.

However, I think all the Founders/Framers felt that individual RKBA was such a given that it did not occur to them that it needed to be codified. And that the 2A can now be construed as protecting that individual right is something of a happy accident.

For which I am eternally grateful.  

If the Framers could have known what was coming down the pipe for us, they WOULD have included a very clearly worded 2A for the individual RKBA, and probably would have done a whole host of things differently in the Constitution. However, I think it would have backfired. If the Constitution was that restrictive on everything the statists, authoritarians, and collectivists over the past 200-odd years have wanted to do, the whole Constitution would have been dead-lettered and bypassed by now.

That it applies to individuals is no "Happy accident."
What can be more "clearly worded" than "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."? ? ? ?
The term "the people" appears in other amendments, and in a legal document, when a word or phrase obtains a specific definition, that same definition applies everywhere the phrase is used.

[BMacklem]

Let me see if I can find it in the recent California circut court ruling about concealed weapons....this should make you cringe.

Ah here it is...

"In particular, the government has an important interest in reducing the
number of concealed weapons in public in order to reduce the risks to other members of the public
who use the streets and go to public a...ccommodations."

Now my question is....what's next? A governmental interest in reducing the number of all firearms?
The government should have no "interest" at all in reducing any firearms whatsoever. The MOST I am willing to concede is that they have an "interest" in making sure that firearms do not get into the hands of prohibited persons.

[AJ Dual]

That it applies to individuals is no "Happy accident."
What can be more "clearly worded" than "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."? ? ? ?
The term "the people" appears in other amendments, and in a legal document, when a word or phrase obtains a specific definition, that same definition applies everywhere the phrase is used.

I agree in terms of interpretation of the actual Constitution 100%.  I also believe that RKBA is a natural and inherent right and simply enumerated by the Constitution. We'd still have it if there was no 2A at all.

However, I agree with the idea it was ambiguity to appease the Anti-Federalists, and Federalists on state militias. Individual people for the Federalists, and the well regulated Militia (regulated in the sense of having arms, and being functional/credible) to appease the states/Anti-Federalists.

I just believe a complete 180 from the anti-gunners, that the RKBA was such a given to the Framers that they might not have mentioned it at all. Considering what they'd just been through with the Revolutionary War, I'm not certain they had the frame of reference to consider that the fed.gov or state.gov would someday try to restrict the individual RKBA.

To them saying the individual citizen couldn't have arms was like saying he couldn't drink or breathe. So the states-rights (I say states rights for the sake of common usage, states don't have rights, they have powers, people have rights...) interpretation of the 2A makes sense to me.

Also keep in mind that while the entire BOR lists individual rights, with the exception of the 10th, which specifically lists the "states and the people", was still an exercise in mollifying the Anti-Federalists and coaxing the states to ratify the Constitution.  The whole BOR owes it's existence to the states that largely weren't clamoring/complaining about the enumeration of individual rights in the ratification process, they were concerned about the states powers against, and in balance with the federal government.

I know anything that seems to dilute the individual rights interpretation of the 2A makes people edgy, it's understandable, however, an examination of the motives behind it's enactment can be separated from what it actually says.

And again, because the BOR merely enumerates rights, the individual RKBA exists whether or not it's listed.

[makattak]

I agree in terms of interpretation of the actual Constitution 100%.  I also believe that RKBA is a natural and inherent right and simply enumerated by the Constitution. We'd still have it if there was no 2A at all.

However, I agree with the idea it was ambiguity to appease the Anti-Federalists, and Federalists on state militias. Individual people for the Federalists, and the well regulated Militia (regulated in the sense of having arms, and being functional/credible) to appease the states/Anti-Federalists.

I just believe a complete 180 from the anti-gunners, that the RKBA was such a given to the Framers that they might not have mentioned it at all. Considering what they'd just been through with the Revolutionary War, I'm not certain they had the frame of reference to consider that the fed.gov or state.gov would someday try to restrict the individual RKBA.

To them saying the individual citizen couldn't have arms was like saying he couldn't drink or breathe. So the states-rights (I say states rights for the sake of common usage, states don't have rights, they have powers, people have rights...) interpretation of the 2A makes sense to me.

Also keep in mind that while the entire BOR lists individual rights, with the exception of the 10th, which specifically lists the "states and the people", was still an exercise in mollifying the Anti-Federalists and coaxing the states to ratify the Constitution.  The whole BOR owes it's existence to the states that largely weren't clamoring/complaining about the enumeration of individual rights in the ratification process, they were concerned about the states powers against, and in balance with the federal government.

I know anything that seems to dilute the individual rights interpretation of the 2A makes people edgy, it's understandable, however, an examination of the motives behind it's enactment can be separated from what it actually says.

And again, because the BOR merely enumerates rights, the individual RKBA exists whether or not it's listed.

I have to disagree with you on their intention.

They may have included the militia clause as a concession to the states.

However, having just been through the oppressions of the British crown trying to confiscate privately held arms, I am certain they wrote this specifically to prevent the government from taking private arms.

It was not inconceivable to them that the government would try. The government had just tried to do it, specifically in Lexington and Concorde as the final act beginning the Revolutionary War.

Further, knowing that any government, even one so conceived in Liberty, could become tyrannical, they wrote "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The militia clause is the purpose because they knew how governments can become corrupt. A well ordered militia is a check on a tyrannical government.

[TommyGunn]

IIRC the authorization for the states to have militias  is found within the body of the Constitution.  Since the B.O.R. was intended to mollify critics by further gauranteeing certain rights not found within the Constitution itself it does not seem particularly logical to me to believe the Second Amendment provided any authorizations for state militias.
That is what I recall ... my memory may not be as good as it used to be ...  

[gunsmith]

Oh, Breyer is completely correct-unfortunately he is in our universe, not the walternate universe he comes from ( you'know Fringe and whatnot ) in the walternate universe gun control was the intent all along

[griz]

Do you like to shoot pistols at targets? Well, get on the subway and go to Maryland.

Maybe I'm not understanding his "meaning" but how can you do that without breaking the law?

[Scout26]

I have to disagree with you on their intention.

They may have included the militia clause as a concession to the states.

However, having just been through the oppressions of the British crown trying to confiscate privately held arms, I am certain they wrote this specifically to prevent the government from taking private arms.

It was not inconceivable to them that the government would try. The government had just tried to do it, specifically in Lexington and Concorde as the final act beginning the Revolutionary War.

Further, knowing that any government, even one so conceived in Liberty, could become tyrannical, they wrote "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The militia clause is the purpose because they knew how governments can become corrupt. A well ordered militia is a check on a tyrannical government.

This. 

Both sides (Federalists and Anti-Federalists) wanted to make sure that the people and the states had the means and the right nay, duty to resist a tyrannical federal .gov.  Given that the confiscaiton of privately held firearms kick off the whole revolution, there was little disagreement regarding the right to keep and bear arms.  That's why the 2A was written the way it was.  The people have the right to keep and bear arms, they also have a duty to defend themselves, their community and their state.

[230RN]

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
(Emphasis mine)

From the Preamble to the Bill of Rights.

And there you have it

[Levant]

I'm stunned that a Supreme Court Justice could make statements like this.

Therefore, Madison included the Second Amendment to appease the states, Breyer said.

He admits that the Constitution couldn't be ratified without the Second Amendment and that the Second Amendment means what it says, but because some disagreed then the amendment is void?  That's about as logical as it was for Chicago to argue that the views of the dissenting Justices in Heller was their proof of constitutionality of their gun ban.

If Madison didn't like the 2nd Amendment and didn't like commoners and peasants having guns... well... tough.  On that point, he lost.  Well, only a losing Justice would take a losing argument from the Founders and try to use that to justify his own losing opinion.

[Levant]

The MOST I am willing to concede is that they have an "interest" in making sure that firearms do not get into the hands of prohibited persons.

Are you willing to concede liberty?  Because if you concede on one violation of Constitutional protections, how can you object to the next?  If you concede that the Constitution can be violated, the only thing remaining to decide is exactly how does government wish to violate it.

I will retract this if you can find the phrase "prohibited person" in the Constitution for me.  Otherwise, who gets to decide which citizens don't get to live under Constitutional protections.

[sanglant]

hmm, yes we need to get rid of all concealed LEA weapons. guess that means they'll have to start clamping them in ski racks on patrol.