Letter to the Editor
Second Amendment
Published Tuesday, March 25, 2008
March 16, 2008
To the editor:
The United States Supreme Court is going to rule on the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms. This is huge!
In the last 200-plus years, this has only come before them two or three times. They have managed to sidestep a direct ruling each time. In Sunday’s edition on MSNBC’s news edition, there was an article re: District of Columbia v. Heller that stated that the court would hear the case, which has been before all the lower courts.
As the story read, it has been specifically designed to “Make the court address the amendment.” This will undoubtedly set some sort of “case precedent” which will affect us all. As the article was written, there have been 39 states that have filed “Friend of the Court Briefs” along with some other very heavy political hitters.
Their ruling is supposed to come out in June or July. How they rule will affect Alaskans and Los Angelans. I believe and have faith that they will read it and rule on it exactly as it was written. Again.
Comments
Patriot Act! The government will protect you. You dont need rights when you have the government..... right?
I sure wish we had one more conservative, constructionist vote. I'd be less anxious about the outcome. These justices that rely on international law, or maintain that the Constitution "...is a living, breathing document" are scary.
This is why presidential elections have such lasting impact. We're still paying for the Clinton years, with bleeding heart judges.
Justice Thomas is my hero.
The attorney general of Montana has stated that if the court rules that the right to bear arms is not an individual right, Montana will succeed from the union.
Secede?
Yeh, that looks right.
Reader1 -
I would imagine that Alaska would try to do the same. Of course, you can't do that.
Uncle Sam would squash us in a heartbeat with all of those weapons of mass destruction that they've developed with our money.
I don't think even McGarry's family full of assault rifles would stand much chance against a stealth bomber at 10,000 feet.
From what I understand, and have read in a few articles. The Second Ammendment is not truely 100% under the microscope. The court is not going to come out with a ruling stating that citizens can no longer carry weapons. They are simply trying to regulate it. I believe that the use of concealed handguns is the major issue, not the use of rifles.
I have also read a few articles that claim that this issue is coming in from of the supreme court to require those who do carry concealed weapons to acquire a permit to do so, which I don't entirely disagree with. Maybe we should try and look at what good the change can do, and hope that the government has the capability of doing us right, for once.
Twingirl, I got an Alaska concealed Handgun permit in 2000. I had to go to a class in order to get the permit. The class, as described by the instructor, was designed for "a woman who had never touched a gun before." While a good class, it hardly created from scratch highly trained, certified gun toters. I believe that until someone demonstrates that they shouldnt be allowed to do something, like carry a gun, then they should be able to. The masses should not be made to jump thru silly hoops created by out of touch lawmakers, just to be able to exercise a right. Should we be required to get a permit to exercise free speech?
To my knowledge the Second Amendment has not been found to apply to the state governments under the Fourteenth Amendment, it only applies to federal laws (and D.C. is run by the federal government). Thus any likely ruling will not apply to state governments except as non-binding guidance on how the state courts (and federal courts applying state law) interpret their versions of the Second Amendment in their state Constitutions.
"we're still paying for the Clinton years, with bleeding heart judges." let me figure this out, Stevens, appointed by president Ford,Scalia and kennedy, apointed by president Reagan, Souter and Thomas, appointed by president H. W. Bush, Roberts and Alito, appointed by president W. Bush, Ginsburg and Bryer, appointed by president Clinton. it seems as though even outnumbered 7 to 2 the god hateing terrorist supporting liberals, still scare the bejesus out of the patriotic chosen by God conservative's
newsreader, you are right i cant hold a candle to that. that will be what it will take to get my guns. kill us all or you cant have them.
Wake up people,they keep chipping away at our rights a little at a time!It won't be long before we are standing around with WHAT HAPPENED looks on our faces! I'm sure you have heard the old joke"how do you eat an elephant....one bite at a time".Don't let our rights be the elephant
Well, as far as our rights our concerned: It was the current administration who took us out of the Geneva Convention when they decided torture should be legal. It was the current administration who decided to curtail our rights through the Patriot Act so that now the government can freely ease drop on our phones and emails. It was the current administration who brazenly lied, distorted the facts, suppressed every opposing voice and dragged us into a war for oil rather than continue to go after the Tali-ban. It was our current government that decided that as long as they slap on the "terrorist" label, the right to a trial, the right to legal representation, no longer matter.
So no need to worry. The Supreme Court isn't going to make any significant decision concerning our right to bear arms. Our government doesn't care whether we have guns or not. As long as enough of us are gullible enough to believe the big lies they're telling, the guns we have don't make any real differences and the corporations who are busy reaping profits (gun manufacturers and corporate prisons) are the ones dictating policy.
You're guns are safe. My guns are safe. Our basic rights as specified by the Constitution are very much in peril.
I agree with many of these posts. Our basic rights are very much in peril. The points Joe brought out just go to show you who, given the chance, will steal your God given rights. Also, that is a funny comment seven51, and how true it is....even in a 7-2 court, the God fearing chosen are terrified of the satanist liberals. Joe Vogler said it best:
"Government is not the giver of rights; only God confers these to the people. People create government, giving it certain and limited powers. Only eternal vigilance by the people will confine government to its proper role."
We should all keep this quote close at hand and keep up that vigilance Joe talked about!!
Yukonjohn - I hate to break the news to you, but your invisible friend hasn't given me anything. Mostly he (through his followers) takes away things, like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to pursue happiness, freedom of thought, etc.
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Otherwise, I agree with you... In fact, if you'd just get rid of that extremely offensive and childish first sentence, the quote would be great:
"People create government, giving it certain and limited powers. Only eternal vigilance by the people will confine government to its proper role."
If you all want to hear or read the argument they are here:
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007...
It is interesting, and will give you an idea of what is at risk, and which justices support your beliefs.
Yukonjohn - Sorry, just couldn't let this go...
Maybe I'm confused and misunderstood, but do you really think that unless someone is one of "the God fearing chosen" they are a "satanist"? Because, wow, that is so incredibly deluded and ridiculously arrogant.
Should I be worried that you are gonna track me down and burn me at the stake now?
newsreader - Honest question for you. Is it just the Christian God and Christianity you find so offensive and distasteful? Or is it any god and any religion? And no, I have no interest in burning you at the stake - thankfully, good people come in many flavors.
Dana - Thanks for the question - I welcome it.
My main problem is with organized fundamentalist religions. The tenants typically disallow free thought. Followers are not allowed to question the leaders. For me, organized religion is about control of the masses by a powerful elite. Since we all know that power corrupts, fundamentalists have the ultimate tool to allow corrupt leaders to have their way with the unquestioning masses.
So, I have a problem with ANY god that disallows free thought and insists that their followers stick with "blind-faith".
And, I can tell you, statements that separate the world into "God fearing choosen" and "satanists" only reinforces exactly what I'm trying to say.
As far as your particular beliefs go - you have shown yourself to be thoughtful and inquisitive. You have divorced yourself from these fundamentalists by stating that homosexuality is natural, by not taking a clear stance on abortion, and by allowing the fact that good people come in all flavors. As such, I applaud your ability to reconcile your "blind-faith" with reason. I personally don't understand how anyone can do so.
My secondary problem is with any belief in the spiritual world. It is a cop out to believe in something that you can not prove with any certitude. And, as soon as one gives into to the belief in god, they are immediately susceptible to the type of control that I previously spoke of.
"...you encourage ignorance. Tis opium you feed your people, so that, drugged, they do not feel their hurts, inflicted by you."
Anyway, I dont see this court ruling really breaking any new ground. All this push towards a socialist America will come to a head someday. I dont think many of us will survive to see the outcome.
Newsreader - Thank you. Never had I heard my same views on organized religion put so succinctly. I myself am not adverse to the idea of god, I just want some kind of proof. Since I know I'll never get it in my lifetime - why worry about it now? I think organized religion is also a way for people to shift responsiblility - onto god. They leave so much of their lives to their god's will - they just become puppets for the leaders. I know what I think and why, I am open to new ideas and refuse to judge others based on my own opinions - which is why I blog - to see others' opinions. Who am I to judge?
Thanks for your response newsreader. I appreciate the candidness.
Ok, Dana, now I have a question for you. You seem to be a thoughtful intelligent person.
How can you stomach being associated with the fundamentalist Christians like those I quoted the other day? Those that teach intolerance and hatred (against gays or atheist, for instance). Or those the would deny hundreds of years of careful, painstaking research because of statements from a book that is thousands of years old? (I refer, of course, to evolution).
I had to read the letter twice because of the God talk in the comment section and the letter does not mention God or the supposedly good christians. God did not make my .45 a company called Smith and Wesson did. I think newsreader gave one of the best comments on the religion part. Great response newsreader. Neither the government nor God or some phony christian fundamentalist will ever take my gun i dont give a damn what laws they pass.
Tony08 - No, the letter doesn't mention God, you are correct. However, in the course of the discussion (as with many) God came up... So, I felt compelled (as always) to respond to it.
Rest assured, that the Christian fundamentalists are the last ones that are going to be taking away your guns - it is part of their war-like 'eye for an eye mentality'. If you believe others, it will, instead, be the "satanist liberals".
hate to hear <religion and guns> in the same topic its sort of scary.
YukonJohn and I see eye to eye on a great many issues, which might be odd since I'm one of those satanist liberals. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for religion. We live in a country that was founded on the premise of religious freedom. Perhaps the Constitution's framers might think we've gone to far, but when any religion aligns itself with a government and attempts to enforce their own religious principles, it spells trouble for personal liberties and for democracy.
I cannot find it in my conscience to endorse any God as part of our government. I won't endorse a Christian state, a Jewish state, a Muslim state. I want a state where each religion is free to practice their religion and let others, including those with no religion at all, go on about their lives. Oh yeah, and I want guns too. Lotsa guns.
Newsreader, You have misunderstood me, hugely!! For one, the quote about God conferring rights is a verbatum quote from Joe Vogler. I don't know how long you have been here, possibly you have not heard of him. He was one of the greatest Alaskans to have ever walked on this hallowed ground we call home.
Secondly, as you will find, while I am a Christian, there is not one other person in Alaska that feels more strongly in seperation of Chruch and State, and EXCLUSION of religion in our government!! I am not looking for a moral compass from politicians nor judges! I was just chuckling at the comment made by seven51. I think if you go back and read my post, you will see that as well. Otherwise, I guess you will think what you care to, but I just wanted to clear up any confusion I might have created.
Yay Yukon. I perhaps have misread your post as well. Anyone who believes in the seperation of church and state is a friend of mine.
Yukonjohn - sorry about that - I was wondering, which is why I said:
"Maybe I'm confused and misunderstood,"
Thanks for clearing that up. I am VERY glad to hear your feelings as well as those of Joe, Reader1, Ljc120802, Tony08, and dumpbush.
I'm still waiting to hear back from Dana, though...
[I do know who Joe was. Truly a great Alaskan from what I understand. Never got to meet him, but I'd have liked to].
I got that response via e-mail. Thanks Dana.
oh lol it went through did it? - my computer said it didn't. That was only a piece of it newsreader and I sent the rest just now (3 parts, 3000 characters each... poor you).
Not a problem at all, newsreader. Too bad I didn't stop while I was ahead! But that's the risk one runs I s'pose (especially when one is as verbose as this one is...)
It sounds like there are quite a few confused people. The issue is the 2nd ammendment. The right to keep and bear arms, with a strong militia. "not verbatum"
Some people have little faith in the "Highest Court" in our land, due to who appointed them. I sincerely hope they are wrong. Once a Supreme Court Justice is appointed, its for life, with no strings attached. They are given prior instructions "and an Oath" that they are required too vote within the strict confines of the Constitution, whether it is their personal belief or not. They are usually right.
Other people believe that we should relinquish our "Constitutional Right" and ask for a privelage, with licenses and permits. What good is a "Constitutional Right" if we give it up. One of the legal terms is "implied consent".
Yukon John, Joe Vogler and others Elder Lebert have tried and "are trying" for a long time to point this out.
As for the last few who think that the 14th ammendment giving states "Autonomy". That is right, unless it conflicts with the U.S. Constitution. State Constitutions are written very closely inline with the U.S., and U.S. rights are appealable to the highest law in the land. Period.
The last distubing issue that I have is that the District of Columbia, is almost another state Washington DC. Ten square miles, not a part of any state but Federally Controlled. Chew on that.
realdeal, that indeed is the scary part. D.C. is not a state, and any decision made will hold for the country eventually. I really feel like this bench "legislates" more than any bench ever, and we know they should not do that. We know that underneath the doctrine of stary decisis, the other courts will have to hold to this decision- with few exceptions. I do think this is very scary, but if one really studies these justices- they can probably see how this will turn out. And listening to the oral arguments along with studying them, and what others have to say- I really think they will make the right decision. I think this is a National Issue, and we MUST fight to protect our rights. We need to discuss it amoungst each other, and our law makers. Maybe we should be more Montana like too!
Grover, your statement was very thoughtful. I believe that we should have faith in our "Supreme Court". Trust me, they will either step up to the plate or swing foul, side step. Let's not go "Postal", unless we do it legislativaly. As far as I'm concerned, lets just "rewrite the "Constitution". We have already given up so many rights "that could be retained", at the highest court level. Ask your $100.00 an hour lawyer. If you started getting your rights back who is going to pay them. I am done for the night, before I say something else I wished I had'nt.
The primary issue here is that the courts are addressing our 2nd amendment rights. The second amendment was created to provide for the peoples protection, you can read that however you will, but that is the basis of the point. I interpret the amendment to mean that the government WILL NOT infringe our right to bear arms. As 'realdeal' pointed out the individual states are given the power to create their own regulations (constitutions) provided that they do not conflict with the US constitution. This is the issue, if the states have the right to pass legislation to void our 2nd amendment right in that state it essentially nullifies our other rights to a degree. To make a poor 'slippery slope' argument this means that California could then void or alter the people's right to free speech (within that state).
The constitution was written by a group of people who had to use force to overthrow a government which got out of control. The ability to do so was partly due to their ability to posess firearms. Hence they secured this right for generations to come, should the need arise again. The purpose of the government is to serve the people. As such the government should have a healthy fear of the people, not the other way around. The ability of the people 'to keep and bear arms' is a means by which we can provide for our own security and the the security of our other basic rights which we practice daily, even as you read this. I am not advocating or suggesting an overthrow of the government, just the right to protect ourselves should the need arise. (Indescriminant Diety Forbid)
My final comment, as it seems that few are prepared to "Battle a Windmill".
"We" can get some of our rights back. If we allow some of these issues "And there are many" Get to the "Supreme Court". America could be free again.(Ask the right question and you will get the right answer, simple and direct).
Our problems, are overwhelming. Time is one, figure that your Life will move on. It will take years to proceed through all the lower courts. People grow tired of the stress and of the waiting and give up, but look at the reverse "they" will take that time to defeat your goal, your desire to keep your "Constitutional right"" or else they will give up, or dismiss the case" no contest. Allthewhile everybody else gives up "No Contest" and set "Case precedent". "What everybody else does". It has been going on for generations.
This is how we have lost our Constitutional rights and become subject to. "Do it my way or else". There are a lot of complainers about how things are, but few who make a difference.
I am just like you. I am to busy making a living raising kids and don't have time.
There are fresh young minds, in all of our major colleges, on chat lines and I'm sure some of them know way more than I do. They are being tought the traditional methods of this is the way things are! But they are being lured by "The Big Bucks".
The U.S and every state have written "50 Titles" of the interpretation of a one page document. The Constitution.
One reknowned Supreme Court Justice, stated that 98% of the "Legal system" are "Incompetant" At Law! (not verbatum)
Our founding fathers gave us this tool so it would not be necessary for "anyone" to revolt. The problem is they outwait us and have outpriced us. Who can afford it. (In my opinion they were inspired as they did in fact realize that it would rule millions) "Just listen to our national "Propoganda" of freedom.
In my opinion the solution lies in the Court "Judicial" system, not with revolt. Freedom of Speech. God forgive me.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.