Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, June 30, 2008
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison :: Townhall.com Columnist
Citizens' Rights Reloaded
by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


This piece is co-authered by Stephen Halbrook, an attorney in private practice and author of "The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms."

On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a landmark decision protecting constitutional rights by overturning the District of Columbia's ban on individuals owning handguns. The consequences of that decision will be felt throughout the nation.

Because of the high court's decision to affirm the Second Amendment as an individual right, local, state and federal governments will have a much harder time infringing on citizens' rights to protect themselves and their families. This is the biggest victory for individual rights in decades.

We assisted in this effort by filing a congressional "friend of the court" brief in the case of D.C. v. Heller in favor of the respondent, Dick Heller. That brief, signed by 55 senators, 250 members of the House of Representatives and the vice president, proved that a majority in Congress understood the Second Amendment to be a protected individual right. Never before had so many members of Congress signed such a brief to the Supreme Court.

In 1976, the D.C. City Council passed the nation's toughest gun control law, banning handguns completely and requiring rifles and shotguns to be registered, stored unloaded and locked, or disassembled.

The D.C. murder rate was declining before this law; in the next 15 years it jumped 200 percent. Earlier this month, The Washington Post ran an editorial saying the "District of Columbia ended last year with more people killed than in the previous year," and the number of murders so far this year is higher, yet.

Besides being ineffective, the ban was simply incomprehensible. Under D.C. law, business owners had the right to use a firearm to protect their store cash registers, but they could not use the same firearm to protect themselves and their families in their homes.

The Founding Fathers did not put the right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution by accident. In 1775, the American Revolution began when ordinary citizens decided to fight back against foreign tyranny. Many in George Washington's regiments used their own guns.

The Second Amendment says, "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." It is now clear our Founders did not use the term "militia" to suggest gun rights could be used only in an organized army, despite gun control advocates having made that argument for years.

If the Framers' purpose had been what is known as a "collective right," they would have been satisfied with Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to "call forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrection and repel invasions."

Instead, to ensure that gun ownership was recognized as an individual right, they included it in the Bill of Rights, a compilation of such other individual rights as freedom of speech, freedom of religion and a fair trial. The location of these words provides strong evidence for the Founders' vision.

Thomas Jefferson once wrote, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." In debate on the Bill of Rights, James Madison wanted the American people to have the right to be armed in order to prevent the kind of tyranny that dominated the rest of the world, especially Europe.

In the last century, totalitarian regimes such as the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany successfully confiscated weapons from their citizens in order to force them to submit more easily. Today, dictators in Burma and Cuba confiscate privately owned guns, and their people continue to suffer.

The Second Amendment ensures that Americans have the ability to secure their rights and defend them from government suppression, if necessary. It is that right that a government of the people, by the people and for the people must never extinguish.

In the case of D.C. v. Heller, the Supreme Court affirmed Second Amendment rights for the first time in almost seven decades. This is a welcome outcome for those who love liberty in our great nation. Because of the high court's decision on Washington, D.C., every American will have this precious right.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Senator Hutchison chairs the Senate Republican Policy Committee and is representing Texas in her third full term in the Senate.
Citizens rights Reloaded
Wow first I think.
What a to the point column on the subject. Did you scam my blog. Go to my sight and judge for yourself.
The law passed in DC was a bogus law for crooks only.

Please mind your own business!
Dear Senator Hutchinson,

As a resident of DC I've never voted for you and I would appreciate keeping you nose out of local DC laws. If you're really interested in our "precious rights," give us voting representation in Congress.

You say that, "The Second Amendment ensures that Americans have the ability to secure their rights and defend them from government suppression, if necessary."

We're not being suppressed by Mayor Fenty our other elected officials, but by an arbitrary Congress that treats us like serfs. The next time you decide to meddle in our affairs, maybe the armed citizens of the District of Columbia will rises up insurrection. There are a lot more of us than there are of you

Huh?!
Just how is Senator Hutchinson meddling in your affairs? The author(s) of this commentary are merely expressing their opinion (freedom of speech, remember?). If anything, it was the SCOTUS that was meddling in your affairs; but, then, they had a job to do i.e. make a ruling in this case.

Some advice for sjpatejak
You might want to wait until your fellow citizens quit voting crack addicts into office before you complain about lack of voting representation in Congress.

Senator Hutchison is not on the Supreme Court so it wasn't her that "meddled" with your laws. I point that out for the benefit of those who are products of DC's failing public schools. As a citizen of Senator Hutchison's state I will still be glad to get my elected officials to stop meddling in DC's affairs, just as soon as DC residents quit meddling with my wallet. Our taxpayer money provides about a fourth of the DC government's total revenue.

I agree - with the implications, too
Senator Hutchison -

I agree with you that part of the framers' intent was to insure that the citizenry has the ability to use force against the government in the event that the government becomes too big for its britches - or in the language of the Declaration of Independence "...destructive of these ends...".

Given the kind of armaments that a modern government has today - in comparison to what a government had in the 18th century - what kinds of arms should we allow citizens to "keep and bear"? Something that would be effective against a jet fighter? against a tank? against a man in body armor?

I think that the answer to each of these questions is "yes".

Sometimes it is difficult to be intellectually honest. But the opposite is even more difficult.

The only problem
In understanding the arguments against the plain text is its from enemies of the people of the United States.

The text of the Second Amendment is,

"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."

Below is the same sentence structure

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict
"the right of the people to keep and read Books" only to "a well-educated electorate" - for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?



Does the clause

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"

grant a right to the government to place conditions on the

"right of the people to keep and bear arms,"

or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?

No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia.


Its been obvious for over 200 years and only questioned in the last 30.
That alone tells all all he needs to know.

If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged."
Copperud

Another iondividual who has read the
headlines and not the ruling. This ruling currently means NOTHING to the rest of the country.

To sjpatejak

If you want a "voting represetnative" then move out of DC. DC was NEVER intended to be a city with a permanent population and it is specifically NOT a voting "State".

Try reading the Constituion for a change.

This is a good ruling
that the SCOTUS got correct. Just when I thought this court was not up to the task of doing their job, they throw me a curveball. Well done SCOTUS, but you may want to explain to the 4 DISSENTERS what "shall not be infringed" really means....

Silver Lion
First they themselves would have to understand what "shall not be abridged means" since they said it was OK to regulate many aspects of keep and bear.

Read paragraph 2 under "held"

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07- 290.pdf

What about taxes?
It would be encouraging if our Congress was as passionate about cutting the size of the Federal government and its orgiastic spending agenda.
No coincidence that supporting the gun rights decision didn't eliminate one earmark, hometown cash festival, or Senator named building project.
Keep the Fed. out of our lives and wallets. Now that's freedom, Meg.

Because of the high court's decision...
"Because of the high court's decision on Washington, D.C., every American will have this precious right."

Yes, but for how long...until Kennedy decides to do a 360. I just cannot believe that this court was even this close. Where are the heads of those 4 justices that voted against an individual right to keep and bear arms? They should immediately resign for their failure to understand “The Constitution and The Bill of Rights”; therefore, they can never properly interpret it or what the desires of the Founders were in creating it.

The Supreme Court of the United States finally got one right for a change…until the next time. Then watch out…we are in for troubling times ahead.

Their Next Step....
They are not waiting for Kennedy, I went to Huffington Post immediatly after the decision and one og the first responses was "Let them keep their guns, we'll go after their bullets."

Join the NRA
and donate to them -- we need to organize to keep lawmakers from infringing on our right to bear arms.

Hurah!
Yes, that's my Senator!
SLHaynes
Houston, TX

talent scout,
"A well-schooled electorate, ..."

That is the best paraphrase/aid to understanding of the Second Amendment that I've ever seen. May I borrow it for future use in future debates?

Second amendment
Now we have to put a stop to registration which can lead to confiscation. Licensing/registration does not stop crime. Look at Canadas' fiasco. Next the media will list gun owners publically and the criminals will know where to steal their guns. Criminals will not be licensed and I guarantee you fees will skyrocket in order to discourage gunowners.
Can you imagine if you have a gun collection what it would cost to register and license each one?

2D AMENDMENT
Sen. Hutchison's article is well on point. However there is nexus between private citizens keeping and bearing arms and military service. In the 1960's the army commissioned a survey of soldiers by the Arthur Little Co. The survey assessed soldiers with a prior familiarity with firearms with soldiers who did not. The results showed that soldiers with firearms experience before entry into the military tended to have larger numbers of enlistees rather than draftees, did better in all aspects of training including non-firearm related courses, were more likely to volunteer for combat arms branches, were more likely to volunteer for combat assignments, and were more likely to re-enlist or make the army a career. Thus, even in modern times, an armed populace does result in better soldiers.

Here we go again
“untalented stup” thinks our founders and the writers of the Constitution were idiots, and did not understand the English language.

The arguments against the wrong interpretation of the Second as it was written, is from people who honor and respect the brilliance of the writers of that document, and who understand the English language, including, and especially the use and meaning of punctuation.

Again I say, I am not against what gun users want to do, I just say that rather than disobey the Constitution as it was written, Amend it.

=======
talent scout Location: CO untalented stup
Reply # 6
Date: Jun 30, 2008 - 3:27 PM EST
Subject: The only problem
In understanding the arguments against the plain text is its from enemies of the people of the United States.

The text of the Second Amendment is,

"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."

Below is the same sentence structure

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict
"the right of the people to keep and read Books" only to "a well-educated electorate" - for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?

==========

I say: If that was how it was written that is absolutely what it meant. They would not write such a thing, only a partial illiterate like you would push such a restriction of people to read and understand the English Language.


And here we continue



What if the Second said:
"A well-armed people, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Wouldn’t that rather simple amendent solve the whole problem, and in fact make the second unneeded.

What if they wrote these.

“A requirement to stop at a Stop Sign, being sometimes necessary to the safety of highway traffic, the right of the people to ignore the sign and cause an accident, shall not be infringed.”

First it says you are required to stop, then it says the right not to stop shall not be infringed.

Just like your intrepertaion of the Second says only a Militia is important, but anyone can have a gun.

If you read the Constitution, you will see that they almost, and as good as, wrote the following.

“An involved electorate being necessary to the creation of a good Government, the right of only a property owner to vote, shall not be infringed.”

“The color of a person’s skin, being necessary to the creation of a good Government, the right of only a White person to vote, shall not be infringed.”

Let’s see you mis-read either of those.

You could write a million sentences like that, and the words and punctuation would still matter.


keturah1122, I await your comment


I enjoyed trying to understand all the detail in your comment last Friday about commas, but since language is for communicating, and posts on TH are for communication among the masses, not just the educated elite, your use of words like “participial phrase, subordinating conjunctions, subordinate clause, conditional sense, an appositive,” does not contribute much to the discussion.

As a matter of fact, my friend a University professor for 40 years, did not understand what you were saying.

It would seem that using your logic, before a housewife could push the button on the microwave, she must understand the creation, and results of microwave. I can’t imagine how she could run the washing machine, if she did not understand all the functions needed to get the water from rain-fall in the mountains a 1,000 miles away, to her home.

Hey I’m just kidding, I enjoyed reading what I could understand, but that wasn’t much. Those 50 cows I milked each morning while in high school for a couple of years 65 years ago, did not teach me all of that.

So that all of that doesn’t not need to be repeated, anyone can read the last several comments at

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AndrewLanger/2008/06/27/ the_supreme_court_-_reaffirming_the_founders_brilliance

It's not rocket science
I have two simple points here.

1) Do those of you who feel that the 2nd amendment is meant for military/paramilitary purposes only really believe that the Bill of Rights is a bill of government's right? They're the rights of individuals, and the whole purpose of the BOR is to protect the people from government. WOuldn't you feel equally silly suggesting that the right to free speech was only for the government? If you don't, Mugabe may have a job for you in Zimbabwe.

2) Let's say you do believe my previous question. The founding fathers were pretty smart guys. Do you honestly believe they felt that had to add a provision to the constitution to allow the military to be armed?

Previous Gun Experience in the Military
When I joined the military in 1965, there were 250 people in my Basic Training Company. The first day we learned weapons, the company was asked, "How many people have fired any gun at all?" There were less than twenty five.

Those of us who did have previous knowledge did much better at accuracy and did much better in combat because we had some knowledge of what a gun could - and could NOT - do. It is too bad that schools won't go back to offering shooting as a P.E. selection.

Gun Control
I always thought of GUN CONTROL as the skill of being able to hit what you aim at.

adios,
Harvey
Lancaster, Mexifornia
dial 1 for english

GOT AMMO?

MILITIA
THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION DID NOT PUT AN AMENDMENT INTO THE CONSTITUTION SO THAT YOU COULD CARRY A GUN IN THE ARMY.
HOW IDIOTIC DOES THAT SOUND?

ADIOS,
JARVEY
LANCASTER, MEXIFORNIA
dial 1 for english
p.s. as far as 'VIVA LA RECONQUISTA' goes,
Keep Your Powder Dry.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.