Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Trying to read Heller tea leaves | Main | NJ case strikes gun rationing »

Living Constitution dilemma

Posted by David Hardy · 23 June 2008 03:02 PM

According to a recent survey, 64% of Americans believe that a city handgun ban violates the Second Amendment, far outnumbering the 26% who either don't believe in an individual right, or reason that a ban wouldn't violate it. Even among non-gunowners, the 2A prevails by 3/2, or 50% to 35%.

This of course poses problems for the concept of a "living Constitution," at least one that would consider the beliefs of the American people (or the States, or Congress). A concept that ignores all those is all to clearly one of "the Bill of Rights contains only things that a sitting judge likes."

Hat tip to Dan Gifford...

· General con law

4 Comments | Leave a comment

C. Cox | June 23, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply

Well, of course, the "living Constitution" concept sort of begs the question: if the Constitution is so malleable, why do we still need it?

Rich | June 24, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply

to C. Cox, they need the constitution so they can say it, what it is at the moment, is in the constitution. isn't that obvious :)

Guy Smith | June 25, 2008 10:00 PM | Reply

The dubious nature of the "living document" theory is exposed by the Constitution itself.

Why would the people ratify a fluid constitution and yet in it create a congress with limited and enumerated powers? Why would they allow the courts to define the law and yet explicitly reserve the power to modify the Constitution to the people?

As David points out, the continued belief in the original intent of the Second Amendment is testament to the fact that the Constitution is the express written will of the people (the Kelo decision not withstanding).

When certified as such in the Heller matter, expect Brady et al to begin campaigning for an amendment. They know without a revision of the Second Amendment that all gun control laws are in jeopardy.

straightarrow | June 25, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply

Actually, I think American society is in jeopardy. I do not expect the Heller decision to be beneficial to the citizen or consistent with "shall not be infringed".

I can hardly wait to see how words are parsed, substituted and redefined to maintain illegitimate state power, while still insisting the constitution isn't being raped as in Kelo.

Leave a comment