19 June 2008

Levy: Heller Case Will Allow Supremes To Decide Between Written, Living Constitutions

Robert Levy, co-counsel to Dick Heller in the landmark Supreme Court case regarding the meaning of the 2A and Washington DC's draconian ban on handguns, has written a thought-provoking piece on what message the High Court may send with its upcoming opinion.

"For nearly seven decades, gun controllers and gun rights advocates alike have struggled to apply the murky doctrines propounded by Justice James Clark McReynolds in his 1939 Miller opinion.

"Does the right to keep and bear arms belong to us as individuals? Does that right extend to private use of arms? Or does the Second Amendment simply authorize the states to arm the members of their militias? The court will have to answer those threshold questions before deciding whether the D.C. gun ban is constitutional. Given the bizarre history of the Miller case, its dubious analysis and inconclusive result, about the only guidance Miller offers is how not to go about setting a Supreme Court precedent."

How true. Interestingly, the Miller decision's meaning has been bastardized by the gun controllers over the decades, and the legacy media has gone along with the story, never taking the time to understand the finer points of law, of that opinion.

Levy saves his best line for last:

"Fortunately, Heller presents the Supreme Court with another opportunity to declare its allegiance in the battles between the written and "living" Constitutions. The text of the Second Amendment clearly protects the right of "the people" - not states, not militias, but "people" to "keep and bear arms." By striking down the D.C. gun ban, the Supreme Court can affirm that basic principle and restore the Second Amendment to its rightful place of dignity within the Bill of Rights."

Right on! Read the entire text of Levy's column in the Washington Times by clicking here.

1 comment:

Mike W. said...

Of course the Miller decision says the following, which proves that it does not support a "collective rights" interpretation in any way.

"the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. "

If that doesn't support an individual rights interpretation I don't know what does.