PDA

View Full Version : NRA fibs and the silence of the press.



cushioncrawler
11-29-2006, 10:25 PM
How the NRA Rewrote the Constitution On Second Amendment, Reporters Side With Gun Lobby Against Supreme Court (By Howard Friel).

On April 5, 1996, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit handed down its ruling in Hickman v. City of Los Angeles. Ray Hickman had argued that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gave him a right to keep and bear firearms, and that this right was infringed by the city's refusal to issue him a permit to carry a concealed weapon. The Ninth Circuit rejected Hickman's claim: "We follow our sister circuits in holding that the Second Amendment is a right held by the states," the court said, "and does not protect the possession of a weapon by a private citizen."

The Hickman case is the most recent in an unbroken chain of federal decisions, spanning 60 years, ruling that the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to possess firearms. Courts have consistently held that the amendment's language--"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"--only gives the states the right to maintain well-regulated militias, which since 1903 have taken the form of the National Guard.

Despite this clear legal history, the National Rifle Association for years has advanced the view that the amendment provides a fundamental right to private gun ownership that cannot be abridged by the passage of guncontrol laws. Despite its efforts, the NRA's interpretation of the Second Amendment has never passed constitutional muster in the courts; the group has litigated and funded several Second Amendment cases in federal courts, but has never won any.

Still, the NRA has managed to dominate political and journalistic discussions of the Second Amendment. While the NRA's interpretation of the Second Amendment is repeatedly cited in newspapers and on TV, the federal judiciary gets virtually no coverage of its definitive and binding rulings. News media coverage of the Hickman case is instructive: There was hardly any. Even though the decision is one of the most important in recent years on the Second Amendment, it went unreported in the New York Times, nor was it mentioned in the networks' evening newscasts.

The Second Amendment in Court

Modern jurisprudence on the Second Amendment is founded on United States v. Miller, a 1939 Supreme Court case concerning a person convicted for carrying a sawed-off shotgun across state lines in violation of a 1934 federal law. The defendant argued in lower courts that the restraint on firearms violated his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, ruling that the Second Amendment offers no constitutional protection for individual ownership or purchase of a firearm, unless related "to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated [state] militia."

Every federal court since 1939 to hear a Second Amendment case has upheld Miller, despite repeated challenges over the years by gun-rights advocates. Brief excerpts from a few of many such cases since Miller illustrate the clear consensus in the federal judiciary on the Second Amendment's meaning:

"Since the Second Amendment right 'to keep and bear arms' applies only to the right of the state to maintain a militia, and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm," the Sixth Court of Appeals ruled in 1971 (Stevens v. United States).

"These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties.... The Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated Militia,'" the Supreme Court reiterated in 1980 (Lewis v. United States).

The Hickman case decided this year followed these and dozens of other clearcut precedents. "This case turns on the first constitutional standing element: whether Hickman has shown injury to an interest protected by the Second Amendment," the appeals court stated in its unanimous decision. "We note at the outset that no individual has ever succeeded in demonstrating such injury in federal court.... Because the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the states to maintain armed militia, the states alone stand in the position to show injury when this right is infringed."

FatsRedux
11-29-2006, 11:32 PM
Here's the Libertarian stance on the issue:

I.6 The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

The Issue: Governments at all levels often violate their citizens’ right of self defense with laws that restrict, limit or outright prohibit the ownership and use of firearms. These “gun control” laws are often justified by the mistaken premise that they will lead to a reduction in the level of violence in our society.

The Principle: The Bill of Rights recognizes that an armed citizenry is essential to a free society. We affirm the right to keep and bear arms.

Solutions: We oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, regulating or requiring the ownership, manufacture, transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition. We oppose all laws requiring registration of firearms or ammunition. We support repeal of all gun control laws. We demand the immediate abolition of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

Transition: We oppose any government efforts to ban or restrict the use of tear gas, "mace" or other self-protection devices. We further oppose all attempts to ban weapons or ammunition on the grounds that they are risky or unsafe. We favor the repeal of laws banning the concealment of weapons or prohibiting pocket weapons. We also oppose the banning of inexpensive handguns ("Saturday night specials") and semi-automatic or so-called assault weapons and their magazines or feeding devices.

Fats

TomBrooklyn
11-29-2006, 11:46 PM
Libertarians are the best...if you like Liberty.

cushioncrawler
11-30-2006, 04:07 AM
Fats -- none of the citizen's rights that u mention exist -- however, me myself i would have nothing at all against the nra pressuring the state governments to allow anything and everything to do with guns -- as long as they cut out the bullkrap about the 2nd amendment.

But i karnt help wondering about what sort of scenario might ever exist whereby a citizen of the usa somehow somewhere might help to protect the usa by having and using a gun. Has this sort of private citizen sort of action ever happened anywhere else in the world's history?? Alltho i seem to recall that yugoslav fighters held up Hitler's troops in the yugo mountains for a few weeks, and that this few weeks ended up stopping the nazis from beating the winter snows to moscow, and this in effect ended schicklegubber's dreams. A pity really -- i think that the world couldnt have been worse off under a nazi fascist regime.

cushioncrawler
11-30-2006, 04:11 AM
One of my favorit "far side" cartoons is the one where he shows a saucer with a bumper sticker saying "ray-guns dont vaporize martians -- martians vaporize martians". madMac.

hondo
11-30-2006, 08:32 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cushioncrawler:</font><hr> One of my favorit "far side" cartoons is the one where he shows a saucer with a bumper sticker saying "ray-guns dont vaporize martians -- martians vaporize martians". madMac. <hr /></blockquote>


I tell my students, " Guns don't kill people; bullets do."

SpiderMan
11-30-2006, 09:42 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cushioncrawler:</font><hr> Fats -- none of the citizen's rights that u mention exist -- <hr /></blockquote>

You're posting from Australia? No, those rights don't exist /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cushioncrawler:</font><hr>But i karnt help wondering about what sort of scenario might ever exist whereby a citizen of the usa somehow somewhere might help to protect the usa by having and using a gun. Has this sort of private citizen sort of action ever happened anywhere else in the world's history?? <hr /></blockquote>

WW2 occupied Europe is a good example. It's very difficult to "occupy" a country where the general populace is armed. They'll keep finding ways to pick off the occupiers.

The US (General Motors) actually stamped out sheet-metal single-shot '45s, with rolled and welded sheet-metal barrels, for distribution behind the lines to civilians in occupied countries. I believe they were made at a cost of about $2, including a few rounds of ammo. It may not sound like much of a weapon, but all a guy had to do was ambush one Nazi soldier with it to get himself a real gun.

Allied victory in Europe (timetable) meant that the pistol saw only limited use in France, but it was heavily used in both the Philippines and China.

Today, surviving copies of this gun bring enormous sums, being collectible both for scarcity and historical significance. An excellent-condition example might go for $2,500, double that if it is still in the box with instruction sheet.

SpiderMan

Chopstick
11-30-2006, 10:00 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote FatsRedux:</font><hr> Here's the Libertarian stance on the issue:

I.6 The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

The Issue: Governments at all levels often violate their citizens’ right of self defense with laws that restrict, limit or outright prohibit the ownership and use of firearms. These “gun control” laws are often justified by the mistaken premise that they will lead to a reduction in the level of violence in our society.

The Principle: The Bill of Rights recognizes that an armed citizenry is essential to a free society. We affirm the right to keep and bear arms.

Solutions: We oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, regulating or requiring the ownership, manufacture, transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition. We oppose all laws requiring registration of firearms or ammunition. We support repeal of all gun control laws. We demand the immediate abolition of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

Transition: We oppose any government efforts to ban or restrict the use of tear gas, "mace" or other self-protection devices. We further oppose all attempts to ban weapons or ammunition on the grounds that they are risky or unsafe. We favor the repeal of laws banning the concealment of weapons or prohibiting pocket weapons. We also oppose the banning of inexpensive handguns ("Saturday night specials") and semi-automatic or so-called assault weapons and their magazines or feeding devices.

Fats



<hr /></blockquote>


<font color="blue">So what's the Libertarian stance on the display of breasticle units in public? </font color> /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

FatsRedux
11-30-2006, 11:50 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Chopstick:</font><hr>
<font color="blue">So what's the Libertarian stance on the display of breasticle units in public? </font color> /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Breasticle units have contributed greatly to the cause of liberty. They nourished our infant founding fathers. They have provided a soft place for our heroes to rest their weary heads. They have provided hours of wholesome entertainment during our darkest hours. Therefore, and provided the breasticle units in question have not succumbed to gravity and are perky, their public display should be encouraged. Such displays could not but stoke the fires of patriotism and liberty in all red blooded hetero American males. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Women of America, support liberty--SHOW US YOUR BOOBS!

Fats

Chopstick
11-30-2006, 01:46 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote FatsRedux:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Chopstick:</font><hr>
<font color="blue">So what's the Libertarian stance on the display of breasticle units in public? </font color> /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Breasticle units have contributed greatly to the cause of liberty. They nourished our infant founding fathers. They have provided a soft place for our heroes to rest their weary heads. They have provided hours of wholesome entertainment during our darkest hours. Therefore, and provided the breasticle units in question have not succumbed to gravity and are perky, their public display should be encouraged. Such displays could not but stoke the fires of patriotism and liberty in all red blooded hetero American males. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Women of America, support liberty--SHOW US YOUR BOOBS!

Fats <hr /></blockquote>

LOL. Very well spoken my friend. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif