By Phil Riske
Managing Editor, Rose Law Group Reporter
The debate over guns is more about constitutional interpretation than it is about what to ban or qualifications to own a gun.
The U.S. Supreme Court, where new gun laws would likely end up, often is faced with deciding the intent of constitutional amendments and laws.
Certainly James Madison, the author of the Second Amendment didn’t foresee the transformation of musket rifles into AK-47s. Can’t it be assumed, however the Founding Fathers were aware American society would change several times over, and the government would take reasonable actions as it adapts to change, without violating constitutional rights. Common sense also should tell us the argument the right to bear arms was written not to protect the citizenry from the government but rather for the protection of the government.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said recently there are “undoubtedly” limits to a person’s right to bear arms, but future court cases will have to decide where to draw the line.
He cited a practice from our early history known as “frighting,” where people “carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head axe or something. That was, I believe, a misdemeanor,” he said.
“So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed,” Scalia said. “What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time.”
How nicely “limitations” apply into these times, when a half dozen people are shot to death each day and when children are slaughtered in their schools.
At the same time, Scalia is the justice who authored the court’s 2008 opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, which ruled the Second Amendment protects a person’s right to bear arms and struck down a D.C. ban on handguns. But the court also ruled “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”
“My starting point and probably my ending point will be what limitations are within the understood limitations that the society had at the time,” he said. “They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne. So we’ll see what those limitations are as applied to modern weapons.”
All this said, the only truly effective gun controls are healthy minds.
Also: Giffords joins Bloomberg, Biden on cover of Time
‘Knee jerk’ reactions should not disarm citizens
By Adam Trenk
Rose Law Group attorney
It is important to start out by saying that I am cautiously optimistic in my belief that the 2nd amendment is not in jeopardy. While I certainly recognize that our leadership in the White House and in Congress have issues, I am confident that the values of those who govern are not so far askew as to result in the deprivation of one of our fundamental constitutional rights. However, in the event that our President and/or our Congress were to march down the path of depriving us of the right to bear arms it would be extremely alarming to me, and I would oppose it however possible.
The right to bear arms is the final “check and balance” which prevents tyranny. If a populace is disarmed there will be no reasonable threat of bodily harm causing men “carrying out their orders” to take pause to consider the justness of their cause before committing atrocities against their fellow man. This has happened countless times throughout the history of mankind. While I believe in America, I lack faith in humanity’s ability to evolve quick enough to disrupt this prevalent pattern in our lifetimes.
When a tragedy occurs it is natural to have a knee jerk reaction, but we cannot allow a series of independent incidents to be the impetus behind an attempt to disarm law abiding citizens. If that is attempted we must question the motives of those in power. And if it is successful, we should be very concerned. For free people will cease to have any semblance of equal footing with those in power, and eventually become “subjects” instead of citizens.
For those who argue they don’t want to take away all guns, just “assault weapons” consider this. The right to have a musket in 18th Century America was not merely for the purpose of hunting. The 2nd Amendment reads that the ‘right to bear arms shall not be infringed” and includes that it is “necessary to the security of a free state”. It is important that civilian populations have access to tools of self-defense sufficient enough, at minimum, to create a pause in the heart of an aggressor armed by the government. This requires civilian access to arms of similar lethality to those possessed by government forces. Without this check and balance there is no way to ensure the perpetuation of a free state.
