A columnist for Tribune Media Services, in a piece that appeared in the Orlando Sentinel, suggests that both sides in the U.S. arms war need to compromise.
With respect, I humbly, and strongly disagree. Firearms owners have been "compromising" for decades, and with such appeasement have seen the rights of every American nibbled away. When I give a lecture on this subject, I use a timeline on a blackboard, with "compromise" being the point in the middle. Compromise for so many years has gone in favor of the gun controllers, until recently, with an increasing number of jurists recognizing that the shrill cries of "reasonable restriction" hold no merit, and provide no safety net.
Americans, with decisions like the DC appellate court and elsewhere, are slowly recovering these rights. If you have time, please take a moment to read the comments at the end of Mr. Pitts' column. A handful of those responding made some very good points.
14 February 2008
Columnist Suggests 2A Compromise In Heller Case Before U.S. Supreme Court
08 February 2008
Heller, DC Case Provides History Lesson
A lesson in history and the Framer's intents played out Monday during a debate at Harvard University that focused not on legal maneuvering, but the culture and the times that influenced the great minds who wrote the United States Constitution in the 1700s.
31 January 2008
Attorney: Meaning Of 2A Could Change
"Moreover, the Second Amendment is contained within the Bill of Rights, which the Founders drafted to safeguard individual liberties from government infringement. It simply defies logic that the other nine amendments would protect individual rights, but the Second Amendment would apply only to militias and restrict individual rights."
Excerpted from a guest column by a Florida attorney in the Tallahassee Democrat newspaper.
29 January 2008
Of Commas And Unnecessary Dissection
Brother-in-arms Jude Cuddy has been pondering the Heller/Parker case, and considering looming legislation here in Ohio regarding No Duty To Retreat/Castle Doctrine philosophy.
His opinion, from Behind The Berm as always, is straight to the point:
"It is interesting that there are already arguments about the placement of the comma, secondary or subsidiary standards, etc. All of the legal scholars have weighed in on the matter. However, no less an authority than Thomas Jefferson had this to say regarding the Constitution and the Bill of Rights:
"On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when
the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates,
and instead of trying what meaning can be squeezed out of the text, or invented
against it, conform to the probable one which has passed."
"I see no reason or room to dissect the Second Amendment."
22 January 2008
Is The 2A A Second Class Right?
"The Solicitor General's brief also takes a bizarre turn. While the Solicitor General calls for "strict scrutiny" for gun laws in general, he calls on the Supreme Court to apply only "intermediate scrutiny" as it determines Heller vs. DC. The Solicitor General also argues that the Second Amendment is not a "fundamental" right. So what the Solicitor General seems to be saying is that, well, sure, the Second Amendment calls for individual rights, and those rights should be afforded "strict scrutiny" most of the time, but the administration does not believe that gun rights are "fundamental" rights, and so, therefore, Your Honor, you don't need to be too strict in your decision-making process in this case.
"In fact, we don't think you should really decide this case, but you should send it back down to the Circuit Court for more study, and while they are at it, tell them they only need to use "intermediate scrutiny."
Read the entire analysis from Enter Stage Right, here.
