« "Gun Walker" keeps growing | Main | Favor for Rep. Harold Volkmer »
We pause now for a bit of gloating
From a 1998 statement by the American Bar Association, to the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution:
"Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:.The American Bar Association appreciates the opportunity to submit its views to you on issues arising under the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The ABA serves as the national voice of the legal profession and has over 400,000 members. I am David W. Clark, of Jackson, Mississippi. I currently serve as the Chair of the ABA's Coordinating Committee on Gun Violence. I submit this statement at the request of the President of the ABA, Philip S. Anderson.
There is considerable confusion and misunderstanding about the meaning of the Second Amendment and its relationship to the power of the federal government to enact laws regulating firearms in private hands. In fact, our concern about the widespread misunderstanding of the law in this area caused our House of Delegates, in August 1994, to adopt a resolution calling on the legal profession to "...join and work with our counterparts in the medical, teaching, religious, civic, law enforcement and other professions, to ...educate the public and lawmakers regarding the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, to make widely known the fact that the United States Supreme Court and lower federal courts have consistently, uniformly held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution right to bear arms is related to a well-regulated militia and that there are no federal constitutional decisions which preclude regulation of firearms in private hands."
Few issues have been more distorted and cluttered by misinformation than this one. We agree with the views of former Solicitor General (and Dean of Harvard Law School) Erwin N. Griswold, expressed in his November 4, 1990, Washington Post column, "Phantom Second Amendment Rights," that the debate then ongoing as to a proposed ban on assault weapons should spend little time on "the unsupportable claim that restrictions would violate the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms."
There is no confusion in the law itself. Federal and state court decisions in this century have been uniform in the view that the Second Amendment permits the exercise of broad power to limit private access to firearms by all levels of government. The strictest gun control laws in the nation have been upheld against Second Amendment challenge, including a ban on handguns imposed locally."
13 Comments | Leave a comment
This just begs for a lawyer joke of some sort. Appropriate forum or not.
But before we gloat too much, remember that we're just one vote away from loosing the whole thing and being jerked back to those evil days.....
"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."
Again for the record. What is it about these words that is so difficult to accept. The Congress and the States ratified this exact wording, "shall not be infringed". Period. End of Story.
Lord save us from lawyers and others that speak evil.
yep, like Letalis Maximus, a proud non member of the ABA. Also a non member of the ACLU because of its position.
This shows how political the ABA is. I understand but have not been able to find, that this is actually a reversal of the ABA's position on the RKBA. Apparently there is a position paper from the 60's supporting the second amendment and the RKBA, If anyone has it or any leads to it please forward it to me.
It is a natural course of events that cause "landmark" court cases (eg. Heller and McDonald) to foster intellectual research on the subject matter.
I don't keep up with the legal literature, but am wondering if anyone has summarized the post Heller and McDonald legal literature?
It is this literature that will bolster or erode the validity of those decisions.
I have one compound word for this: Wordsmiths
What's wrong with three lawyers driving a Cadillac off a 500’ cliff?
The Cadillac easily seats six!
Sorry Dave!
What's wrong with three lawyers driving a Cadillac off a 500’ cliff?
The Cadillac easily seats six!
Until you need one
One of the major rules of this profession is to never believe your own BS. The anti-gun crowd forgot this rule. They spent so long isolated in their east coast enclaves that they forgot that their opponents even existed. Turns out we are the majority.
Yet another reason I have repeatedly declined every offer to join the ABA.
Agree with Bill above: "But before we gloat too much, remember that we're just one vote away from losing the whole thing ..."
Both Heller and McDonald seemed like such slam-dunks that the pro-RKBA side should have gotten 8 or 9 votes. We got 5. We're one vote away, and that's of concern. Until we firmly "hold that line" with Supreme Court Justices and with judges at the Circuit Court level, we need to vote this issue in every election.
I tried searching for anything the ABA might have said post DC v Heller, which led me to their website. Surprisingly enough, they don't have much to say.
Even though they have set up meetings and committees to examine the issue and they know they must respond and update their previous policy stances, they haven't done so yet. At least not publicly from what I have found so far.
So nearly three years after DC v Heller and nearly a year after McDonald v Chicago, the ABA seems paralyzed by indecision. I suspect they now know the game is over, but they are unwilling to admit defeat.
Two thing I have gleaned though: one, Dennis Henigan is closely involved in the making of ABA gun policy ; and two, the Obama administration has confirmed to the ABA a commitment to restoring the Federal ban on so-called "assault weapons".
Wonder if the ABA, of which I am proudly NOT a member, has bothered to correct that statement.