« Detroit Free Press reprinted my letter to the editor | Main | Reader commentary on why arms were singled out »
Brady Campaign in fallback position
Their president, Paul Helmke, writes in today's Huffington Post:
"Thus, the Parker court concludes, "the right in question is individual.
The court, however, simply obscured the real issue. There is no question that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to "the people" -- that much is clear from the text. The issue is: What right does the Second Amendment grant to the people? Is it the right to possess and use guns for private purposes like hunting or self-defense, as asserted by the Parker majority, or rather the right to be armed for purposes related only to service in a government-organized militia?"
They've gone from collective rights ("it's a right of the State") to the fallback of sophisticated collective rights.
How big a retreat is this? Well, their 2003 amicus brief at the District Court (pdf file) argued, for example, "By this action, Plaintiffs seek to contest long-settle precedent that construes the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as protecting only the ability of the States to maintain a "well-regulated Militia." (p. 2), "The vast majority of courts have interpeted Miller as a rejection of any individual right to bear arms under the U.S. Constitution," (p. 7) and "The Framers of the Constitution did not intend to create an individual right to bear arms." (p. 12)/ They cited pure collective rights cases (pp. 8-10).
Yep, it's a big retreat.
12 Comments | Leave a comment
To interpret this as a retreat, one has to assume that Brady argues based on fundamental principles. I've always assumed that any argument they make is simply chosen to best drive their desired conclusion, based on the current environment. Indeed, we've all seen them argue from several mutually exclusive directions simultaneously, in hopes that the reader or listener will adopt at least one of them.
Ken
This notion always sticks in my craw:
"What right does the Second Amendment grant to the people?"
Answer: none. The Constitution does not "grant" any rights to the people. It recognizes extant rights based on natural law and purportedly protects them against goverment invasion. The Second Amendment does not "grant" the right to own firearms any more than the First Amendment "grants" you the right to exercise your religion of choice or to speak out against government. These are rights that each of us, as individuals, have as part of the natural order of things - i.e., "inalienable rights" that are "endowed by our creator" (whoever or whatever that may be - see "right to exercise your religion of choice, supra). The Bill of Rights serves only to recognize, not "grant" those rights, and assure "the people" that the government also must recognize those rights.
Great. While still fighting ownership of small handguns and short-barreled shotguns, Brady can start advocating for ownership of assault rifles and howitzers.
Well said, Bill. The Constitution grants noting, rather, it recornizes God-given rights.
W
Aha! So that's why the Japanese don't have the right to be armed- they don't have the right god!
"The most amusing thing about the new Brady argument that it's militia purposes is that the California AW ban would clearly violate the law while bolt action hunting rifles could be banned.
-Gene"
Actually, that wouldn't be the case. The military has a long history of using bolt actions, particularly for sniper/sharpshooter applications. If its found that any arms that are military oriented can't be banned, while those that aren't can, then just about the only firearms that could be made illegal would be .22/.17 caliber firearms and blackpowder.
Note that these are the arms that are under the LEAST amount of duress, so even if it was ruled that they COULD be banned, its unlikely that they would be. After all, allowing someone to own a .50BMG M2 but not a .22lr or a single shot musket would be silly.
Bill's assessment couldn't be closer to the truth. Government was not intended to grant citizen's rights. The Constitution was written to put restraints on the Federal Government not the citizens of the states.
B.R.: I don't know anything about the firearms laws of Japan. But proponents of natural law would argue that the Japanese do indeed have a right to self-defense, which should include the right small arms. It is not so much that they do not have the right; rather the issue is whether their government and the foundational documents upon which it is based recognize that right and defend it against governmental intrusion. Apparently not. The same is true for many governments around the world.
Fortunately for us, the creators of our government were wise enough to include a recognition of our right to self-defense in the organizing document of the new government they were creating. Unfortunately for us, they did a less-than-masterful job of wording it in a way that subsequent generations would continue to understand.
Of course, Thos. Jefferson was a proponent of the notion that each generation should write its own constitution to create the form of government that best suited its needs. He actually would be disappointed at the extent to which we today have revered and consecrated as practically infallible and unalterable a constitution prepared over 200 years earlier. He did not like the idea of "dead hand" control over current-day affairs.
.22lr would be covered as a militia weapon, or at least the argument could be made based on aircrew survival rifles.
I believe the only reason that haven't gone after it (yet) is it's not time. They merely have to get us limited to that specific caliber THEN they can demonize it as well.
"...they don't have the right god!"
That's right BR, go for the cliché-- Only religious nuts favor constitutional rights. You left out the fact that we are all racist bigots, and probably drunken, illiterate wife-beaters.
Works every time.
In fact human rights are just that-- human, belonging to all people and not confined to any one place or time. As stated, it's just a matter of whether those rights are respected or whether they are attacked.
Smearing rights advocates as, for instance, religious nuts, going after both the 1st and the 2nd in one sentence, would be one example of such an attack. I'm sure you can come up with others.
On the "granting" of rights.
As others have said, I don't have to repeat.
All it shows is the Brady's are WRONG in their arguments before they even get started.
They should be laughed out of existance.
The most amusing thing about the new Brady argument that it's militia purposes is that the California AW ban would clearly violate the law while bolt action hunting rifles could be banned.
Feels like a Brer Rabbit problem in that argument for the other side.
-Gene