DRAFT: That Silly Ol' Second Amendment - So Obsolete that Only a Gun Fetishist Could Love It!

    When I posted my article yesterday about the dismal record of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in terms of judicial activism, and the rough handling their decisions tend to receive by the Supreme Court, I expected to take some flak. I figured that the most vitriolic criticism would come from the left. After all, the default debating style of the left is name-calling and claiming that anyone taking an opposing position is a liar, malicious, stupid and (if they can find a pretext to work this in) a racist. 

    I wasn't disappointed.

    After posting on other sites for the past few years, and keeping up with the news, I'm as familiar as everyone else with the paranoid leftist mindset that anyone who disagrees with them must be evil. And I know that they argue by screaming and hurling insults the same way that caged monkeys throw their feces at passersby.

    But there was one respondent - Dale Ruff - who clearly strongly disagreed with everything I said, and yet posted several responses that were reasonably civil for someone on the left. Oh, sure, he accused me of writing garbage and distorting the truth about the Ninth's record. He also informed me that I was repeating a lie concocted by President Trump and Sean Hannity, but he was generous enough to say that I had "foolishly believed" what those two nefarious individuals said. So I'm not evil, just really stupid.

    I honestly have no idea what I was duped into believing by the Trump/Hannity cabal. I admit that I support President Trump and agree with most of what Hannity says. However, I have practiced law since 1997. Since 2001, my practice has focused exclusively on criminal appellate law, and I am admitted to practice before the Tenth, Eighth, and Seventh Circuit courts of appeal. I have never had the dubious pleasure of appearing before the Nutty Ninth.

    The point is that I do know how federal appeals courts are supposed to decide cases. And I don't really expect to ever depend on Trump or Hannity for my understanding of legal issues.

    Anyway, as it always seems to do when courts and the Constitution are the topics, the Second Amendment popped up. Dale opined that judges who are "strict constructionists" are really the bad guys who legislate from the bench. The evidence he offered to support that view was that the constructionists have conspired to pretend that the Second Amendment was written and ratified to grant rights that don't really exist - the individual right to bear arms, the right to hunt, and the right of "individual protection," by which I assume he meant self-defense."

    In practicing criminal law, I have had clients that would have frightened Dracula into wetting himself. Since most of those individuals are armed whenever they are not in custody, I have had a fair amount of exposure to Second Amendment law. As most of you know, it says nothing about a right to hunt,  the right to self-defense, or any other specific activity for which one can use a firearm.

   The truth is that the Second Amendment doesn't give us any rights at all. The Framers 

 

   

 

The 2nd Amendment  grants the right to hunt and individual protection, concepts entirely absent from  the 2nd Amendment, which declares that the right to keep and bear arms (under the control of Congress--Article 1, Section 8) is based on the need of a pool of armed  men to be called forth to defend the country or put down insurrections by Congress...or the need for collective defense, without a word or hint of individual self-defense, hunting, etc.....just collective  defense of the country.    
 
Such inventions of law by the strict constructions is based not on the text or intent of the law but on the need to provide legal cover for  the  use of Big Money to buy elections and dominate the political process and the right to strike down gun laws based on the noted invented  reasons for the 2nd Amendment.

 

For  judges invent laws, the prize goes to the 
"strict constructionists" who  have ruled that 
corporations (legal constructs chartered by the states) are people with the rights of individual
 
money is free speech (meaning the wealthy have the most free speech and the poor have none)
 
The 2nd Amendment  grants the right to hunt and individual protection, concepts entirely absent from  the 2nd Amendment, which declares that the right to keep and bear arms (under the control of Congress--Article 1, Section 8) is based on the need of a pool of armed  men to be called forth to defend the country or put down insurrections by Congress...or the need for collective defense, without a word or hint of individual self-defense, hunting, etc.....just collective  defense of the country.    
 
Such inventions of law by the strict constructions is based not on the text or intent of the law but on the need to provide legal cover for  the  use of Big Money to buy elections and dominate the political process and the right to strike down gun laws based on the noted invented  reasons for the 2nd Amendment.
 
We recall how the court once ruled that slaves have no rights, as they are property, and so the rights belong to their owners.   In this case, this was a ruling consistent with the original intent of the slave owners who wrote the Constitution.

 

"Well-regulated" is defined in Article 1, 'Section 8 of the Constitution:  Congress shall have the power to call forth, arm, and control the militia for 3 specific purposes: 1) to enforce the law 2) to put down foreign invasions and 3) to put down insurrections.
 
These are specifically spelled out and there are no other purposes for the militia, and the 2nd Amendment only confirms that the militia is well-regulated (as defined) and the reason for the prohibition against infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.  
 
In other words, the 2nd Amendment makes it clear that it is a duty (to be called forth: conscription; involuntary servitude) disguised as a right.
Add to this that since the 2nd Amendment is based on the need for a militia Congress can call forth and command to put down rebellions, etc, in the absence of a standing Army, which the Founding Fathers  feared (having just defeated a standing army), the Amendment became obsolete over two hundred years ago when a standing army was established to perform the duties described in Article 1, Section 8.
 
Nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention, or even a hint, that the militia was empowered to challenge the new central government that the 
Constitution created to replace the weak and failed government under the Articles of Confederation.

 

 
 
Jeff Michka Added Dec 5, 2018 - 9:00pm
The article started with a rightist lie and went downhill from there.  Of course, Lyin Ryan backs the lie and hopes he'll snag a newbee idiot like "Tanstaffl" revealed himself to be.  WB rightists simply love lies, so dispense some more, rightist pig.  I  don't know what rock you crawled out from under, but go back.  Crap article, newbee.
 
 

George Washington, Virginia

“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.”

 

Thomas Jefferson, Virginia:

 “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they. . . encourage (rather than) prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”

 

James Madison, Virginia:

The Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

 

George Mason, Virginia:

“[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised. . .to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them. . .”Advertisement – story continues below

 

“That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state.”

 

Samuel Adams, Massachusetts:

“The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”

 

Alexander Hamilton, New York:

“(A government army) can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of (armed) citizens, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens.”

 

Thomas Paine, Pennsylvania:

“[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.”

 

Noah Webster, Pennsylvania:

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws . . . because the whole body of the people are armed . . .”

 

Richard Henry Lee, Virginia:

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…”

 

Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania:

“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

“. . . the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”

 

Zachariah Johnson, Virginia:

“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”-

 

 

 

 

Recent Articles by Writers David L follows.