Founders Intended Limits On Gun Rights

This is so wrong it makes my head hurt…

The National Rifle Association and their fellow gun enthusiasts continue to misconstrue the founders’ original intent in creating the Second Amendment to the Constitution. A recently published NRA comment states that “Guns save lives, stop crime and protect you. This is why we arm police, why people arm themselves and why the Founders put the Second Amendment in the Constitution.”

The amendment reads as follows: “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.” A total of 27 words.

The NRA’s comment in the first paragraph would be accurate if these first 13 words of the Second Amendment concerning the role of a militia had not been included in this simple statement. The first 13 words have meaning. The founders were much concerned about the power of a standing army and the possibility of overt military control of the fledgling country.

In 1791 the members of the Virginia legislature elaborated on the importance of a militia in a letter accompanying their ratification of the first 10 amendments (1791). They stated 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. That armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty…: and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.” 1791 was a time when less than 15 percent of the white male population, mostly untrained in the military use of weapons, possessed guns.

The requirement for a well trained militia rather than a standing army was further emphasized in several issues of the Federalist Papers authored by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay. In fact, Federalist No. 29 was exclusively dedicated to the need for a militia.

Of course, the issue of no standing army was short-lived. The War of 1812 proved that a standing army and navy were essential to our survival as an independent nation. The concern, however, about undue influence of the military remains today.

Over the years Supreme Court rulings have essentially ignored the first half of the Second Amendment, opting instead for easy access to weapons. A major question: How did the founders’ intent to provide for a militia evolve into a nation with over 300 million guns in circulation?

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, in his recent book, “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution,” proposes the addition of five words to the Second Amendment. As so amended, it would read: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”

There is no Second Amendment right to own guns! So intended the founders!

Source: http://www.abqjournal.com/477477/north/founders-intended-limits-on-gun-rights.html

Ultimate Hypocrite

The National Rifle Association has struck back at former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, dinging him as the “ultimate hypocrite” for lobbying against Second Amendment rights for average Americans while maintaining his own personal armed security force.

He is one that believes that the rules should apply to the little people. We are a nation of laws, not men — so all laws should apply equally, regardless of who they are applied to.

Read the rest of the article: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/2/nra-lashes-michael-bloomberg-ultimate-hypocrite/

Pennsylvania Could Give The NRA The Right To Sue Cities

Cities in Pennsylvania may have to think carefully before passing ordinances relating to guns and gun control in future years: Doing so could land them in legal trouble with the National Rifle Association.

The Pennsylvania state House last week passed a measure that would give anyone who may legally own a firearm, or a membership organization like the NRA, the legal standing to sue any municipality that enacts gun laws that are more stringent than the state’s.

The measure could make enhanced gun laws a financial risk for the cities themselves: It could require cities on the losing end of lawsuits to pay the legal bills of the plaintiff.

Read the rest of the article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/09/30/pennsylvania-could-give-the-nra-the-right-to-sue-cities/

CA Gov Jerry Brown Signs AB1014

California will become the first state that allows family members to ask a judge to remove firearms from a relative who appears to pose a threat, under legislation Gov. Jerry Brown said Tuesday he had signed.

The bill was proposed by several Democrats and responds to a deadly rampage in May near the University of California, Santa Barbara.

Relatives of the victims and other supporters of the bill said the parents of 22-year-old Elliot Rodger were thwarted in their attempts to seek help for their troubled son before the rampage.

Supporters had said such a measure could have prevented the attacks, winning out over critics who said it would erode gun rights.

“If both of these laws had been in place on May 23, things could have been very different,” Rodger’s father, Peter Rodger, said in a statement Tuesday night. “California, today, is a safer state because of this legislation. Let’s hope other states follow.”

Law enforcement authorities in Connecticut, Indiana and Texas can seek a judge’s order allowing them to seize guns from people they deem to be a danger.

The new California law gives law enforcement the same option and extends it to family members.

Read the rest of the article: http://news.yahoo.com/gov-jerry-brown-signs-california-gun-restriction-195626557.html