Second Thoughts

MS. PERINO: I would point you back to the fact that President, along with Secretary Spellings, hosted last October — October 10, 2006 — a conference on school gun violence after the Amish school shooting and the other shootings that had happened, because the tragedies are the ones that just collectively break America’s heart and are ones that we deeply feel, because all of us can imagine what it would be like to have been at your own school, your own college, and to have something happen. And those of us who are parents, or brothers or sisters of people at the schools have to take that into consideration.
As far as policy, the President believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed. And certainly bringing a gun into a school dormitory and shooting — I don’t want to say numbers because I know that they’re still trying to figure out many people were wounded and possibly killed, but obviously that would be against the law and something that someone should be held accountable for.
Q Columbine, Amish school shooting, now this, and a whole host of other gun issues brought into schools — that’s not including guns on the streets and in many urban areas and rural areas. Does there need to be some more restrictions? Does there need to be gun control in this country?
MS. PERINO: The President — as I said, April, if there are changes to the President’s policy we will let you know. But we’ve had a consistent policy of ensuring that the Justice Department is enforcing all of the gun laws that we have on the books and making sure that they’re prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Tom Plate on CNN:

“In the nineties, the Los Angeles Times courageously endorsed an all-but-complete ban on privately owned guns, in an effort to greatly reduce their availability. By the time the series of editorials had concluded, the newspaper had received more angry letters and fiery faxes from the well-armed U.S. gun lobby than on any other issue during my privileged six-year tenure as the newspaper’s editorial page editor.

But the paper, by the way, also received more supportive letters than on any other issue about which it editorialized during that era. The common sense of ordinary citizens told them that whatever Americans were and are good for, carrying around guns like costume jewelry was not on our Mature List of Notable Cultural Accomplishments.”

The amendments that became the Bill of Rights were the last ten of twelve amendments proposed in 1789.

It’s about the militia of the states, barring federal action but not state or private action.

Court observed that ”[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.”5 The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ”civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.” It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ”comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,” who, ”when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”

So, in order to make it possible for men to report for duty with weapons. In other words, for them to be able to fulfill their responsibility as militia members, it’s a right of membership in the society.

Why doesn’t the phrase “well regulated militia” allow for — and encourage — background firearms checks, regardless of where or when the gun is purchased? How does this interfere with anybody’s right to become a gun owner if he is qualified?

It is easy to imagine a legal framework in which someone with a record of involuntary commitment is prevented (at least by law) from obtaining a gun.

The Second Amendment links, however imprecisely, the right to bear arms with the existence of a well-regulated militia. Are permanent resident aliens included in the well-regulated militia of the country?

Massachusetts appears to prevent resident aliens from possessing certain firearms:

Persons who are not citizens of the United States, and are residents of Massachusetts may not possess large capacity rifles, shotguns, handguns or non-large capacity handguns. These persons may only possess non-large capacity rifles, shotguns, ammunition, and chemical propellant spray.

from CBS News.  “Similarly, Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., urged caution. “I hope there’s not a rush to do anything,” Reid said. He declined to say whether the NRA holds too much sway on Capitol Hill. “It’s not really good today to cast aspersions, either positively or negatively.” “

Note to self: when you get a chance, read through the annotations at Findlaw.com on the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (“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.”) to find out just what it is supposed to protect.

This is an example of a WordPress page, you could edit this to put information about yourself or your site so readers know where you are coming from. You can create as many pages like this one or sub-pages as you like and manage all of your content inside of WordPress.