Attended an Interesting Second Amendment Talk Today Sponsored by the Local ACLU

[LAGC]

It took place in an "Urban Studies" Center, an adjunct make-shift expansion class-room affiliated with the local university located right smack dab in the middle of downtown Boise, Idaho. Some of the attendees were law students attending for extra credit, but it was open to the public (only really advertised to ACLU members like myself, though.)

The talk was billed as a discussion of "the historical context of the 2nd Amendment including Supreme Court decisions, and recent developments and debates around gun rights." In the brochure/e-mail the question was asked: "Is the amendment one that was created to ensure the continuation of state militias for defense or was it created to ensure an individual's right to own a firearm?"

Of course, knowing the national ACLU's official position on the 2nd Amendment, it was little surprise which side of the loaded question the professor (I believe he was introduced as having earned his doctorate in social studies, if memory serves) came down on... basically it was a 40-minute diatribe against an "individual rights" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, complete with a straw-man attack on the NRA for supposedly having an "absolutist" position, which isn't true at all. (Indeed, the NRA has been involved in crafting most of the gun control legislation we have on the books to date, including the 1968 GCA -- but nobody felt brave enough to point that out.) He went on and on about U.S. vs. Miller, pointed out that the biggest concern of the founders/framers around the time of drafting the Constitution was fear of a standing army, and that therefore a "well-regulated militia" was necessary to defend the country from foreign invaders, etc. He was good enough to point out that the militia of the day consisted of every able bodied adult MALE, but seemed to focus his presentation on the fact that we DO have a standing army now, therefore the need of a "well-regulated militia" was moot. He cited how interpretation of the 2nd Amendment shouldn't be a partisan issue, pointing out how some conservative commentators like George Will and various conservative judges have historically held a "collective rights" view, and how various liberals have called for abolition of the Second Amendment altogether as "antiquated". He ended his talk by lamenting the fact that the debate over gun rights centered on the term "gun control" -- he preferred the less politically charged term: "gun regulations."

But the best part of the talk came during the 20-minute question and answer session afterward, as the crowd pretty much tore him apart. One particular pro-RKBA gentleman mentioned Switzerland and how every household has a rifle and how they've never been invaded by any foreign armies since... a young gal spoke up and brought up the "defense from government tyranny" angle, which only got a luke-warm reaction from the professor, pointing out "Who decides when a government becomes tyrannical? When is it okay to start shooting police officers, for instance? People have used that excuse before..." I patiently waited my turn, and when finally called upon, just said: "One thing I don't understand, and maybe you could shed some light on, is if the 2nd Amendment is really only a 'collective right', why did the founders/framers stick the Second Amendment smack dab in the middle of all these other amendments dealing with individual rights in the beginning of the Bill of Rights? I mean, you have the First Amendment about INDIVIDUAL freedom of speech, the Third Amendment about INDIVIDUAL home-owner freedom from having to quarter troops, the Fourth Amendment about INDIVIDUAL freedom from unlawful search and seizure, the Fifth Amendment about INDIVIDUAL right against self-incrimination... why did the founders choose to stick something vague about "collective rights" right there next to all these other INDIVIDUAL rights -- why was it not placed at the end of the Bill of Rights, next to the Tenth Amendment about state's rights, for example, if that was really their intent?" All the professor could come back with was to say, "Well, yes, Scalia does point that out in the Heller decision..." As if citing Scalia automatically makes it an unworthy point worthy of dismissal... I mean, even a corporate stooge like Justice Scalia is right once in awhile, "a broken clock" and all that... but in general, he didn't seem to have much of a defense against criticism of his position, other than to be stubbornly set in his view.

Afterwards, as I was walking outside back to my car, I chatted with a local lawyer who I knew personally who attended the talk as well, telling him its always interesting hearing other people's opinions on the topic, and he quipped: "Well, his whole presentation was pretty much moot, in light of recent SCOTUS rulings." Indeed, that's what it really boils down to. Regardless of how much certain "professional" critics like to stick to their "collective rights" argument, the law of the land has spoken, and its now settled law so to speak. Even President Obama agrees that the Second Amendment details an individual right. It's unlikely a future SCOTUS will simply over-turn Heller, only interpret how far those individual rights go... I mean, one thing the professor did point out, was that none of our rights are absolute. But it just begs the question, how many "gun regulations" do we allow? Sure, the First Amendment doesn't allow you to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, but what's the Second Amendment equivalent? You can't shoot your gun on a crowded street? I think there are already laws against that: reckless endangerment, aggravated assault, etc. and not even the NRA seems to suggest that such wanton disregard for human life be "protected" by the Second Amendment.

Indeed, if we really held the Second Amendment in the same regard as the First Amendment, the exceptions to individual freedom would be very few and far between. I mean, even felons and the mentally ill still get their free speech rights restored upon completion of their sentence or discharge from a psychiatric hospital. How many exceptions are we going to allow, for a right that "shall not be infringed?"

[Logical]

1. It is obvious the 2nd amendment has restrictions.....

As does the 1st and 4th. And many people are not happy about how the 1st and 4th are treated by police.

The WHOLE debate about guns is where you draw the line vs. where others do.

I am against open carry and think CCW should require some training and a license. But many here think I am totally wrong on those two topics. Thus the gun debate.

[beevul]

2. Its all well and good to talk about "second amendment rights"...

Its all well and good to talk about "second amendment rights", as people often do, but I think framing the issue that way is a mistake.

You say: " How many exceptions are we going to allow, for a right that "shall not be infringed?"


Thats really how it needs to be talked about. Just as with the first and fourth amendment, we need to be talking about "second amendment restrictions" - on government. Fourth amendment restrictions, on government. First amendment restrictions, on government.


When government violates someones rights, what it has really done, is disobey rules IT has to follow.

The rules IT has to follow protect our rights.

So its discussing those rules as such, and reminding government that they are rules that IT must follow, that needs doing.


I bet that lecturer would have shit a brick, had someone in the Q&A session stuck him with the preamble to the bill of rights.