Fred Thompson writes on the Second Amendment

[CWOOD]

This is from "The Fred Thompson Report"

http://abcradio.com/article.asp?id=405250&SPID=15663

The text is:
May 10, 2007

Armed with the Truth

If you care about Constitutional law, and everybody should, the big news is that it looks as if the Supreme Court is going to hear a Second Amendment case some time next year. The event that sparked this legal fuse was a case brought by six D.C. residents who simply wanted functional firearms in their homes for self-defense. In response, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the District's 31-year-old gun ban -- one of the strictest in the nation.

Our individual right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, may finally be confirmed by the high court; but this means that we're going to see increasing pressure on the Supreme Court from anti-gun rights activists who want the Constitution reinterpreted to fit their prejudices. The New York Times has already fired the first broadside.

A few days ago, the Gray Lady published a fascinating account of the case -- fascinating but fundamentally flawed. In it, the central argument about the Second Amendment is pretty accurately described. Specifically, it is between those who see it as an individual right versus those who see it as a collective states' right having more to do with the National Guard than the people.

Unfortunately, the article falsely portrays the individual right argument as some new interpretation held only by a few fringe theorists. The truth is very different, as civil rights attorney and gun law expert Don Kates has pointed out recently.

From the enactment of the Bill of Rights in 1791 until the 20th Century, no one seriously argued that the Second Amendment dealt with anything but an individual right -- along with all other nine original amendments. Kates writes that not one court or commentator denied it was a right of individual gun owners until the last century. Judges and commentators in the 18th and 19th century routinely described the Second Amendment as a right of individuals. And they expressly compared it to the other rights such as speech, religion, and jury trial.

The Times has simply replayed theories invented by the 20th century gun control movement. Their painting of the individual right interpretation as a minority view is equally fanciful.

Kates writes that, "Over 120 law review articles have addressed the Second Amendment since 1980. The overwhelming majority affirm that it guarantees a right of individual gun owners. That is why the individual right view is called the 'standard model' view by supporters and opponents alike. With virtually no exceptions, the few articles to the contrary have been written by gun control advocates, mostly by people in the pay of the anti-gun lobby."

Kates goes further, writing that "a very substantial proportion" of the articles supporting individual gun rights are by scholars who would have been happy to find evidence that guns could be banned. When guns were outlawed in D.C., crime and murder rates skyrocketed. Still, the sentiment exists and must be countered with facts. All of this highlights why it is so important to appoint judges who understand that their job is to interpret the law, as enacted by will of the people, rather than make it up as they go along.

[The Marshal]

These 3, in light of the above, are worth looking at again...

~Bill

12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.

13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.

14. These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble", "right of the people to be secure in their homes", "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people", and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people", all refer to individuals; but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.

[GrillKing]

Well put, Marshal

[stevie_d_64]

The Bill of Rights only enumerates an "inalienable" right bestowed upon us by our creator the right to keep and bear arms...

There is no higher authority that I or anyone else I know that can come up with something that can beat that...

It is obviously an individual right...

Remember...

The Supreme Court of the United States of America is not a lock in our favor...

If it is opinionated that the 2nd Amendment is a "fundamental" right and not an "individual" right...If the court takes this issue up...Keep this in mind...

Not going to be a good day...

But then again stranger things have happened...

[kauboy]

Stevie, if the Court decides that it is indeed a fundamental right, it will open up even more possibilities for us. A fundamental right is much harder to restrict, if I understood Charles correctly.

[TEX]

It is a shame Thompson doesn't have a real shot at being elected President. I see him or Ron Paul as a much beeter choice than that Nutball from Arizona or Mr. New York. They are both democrates in republican clothing. Heck I would vote for Tom Delay over those guys. A Supreme Court ruling in our favor still won't change the minds of gun control (read gun erradication) zealots. They will just say it was a set up by Bush, yada yada yada - puke! Facts seldom have any effect on these folks other than to infuriate them.

TEX

P.S. I recently finished Tom Delay's book "No Surrender - No Retreat". It is a pretty good read if you are interested in political history and specifically Texas political history, and Delay is pretty humble through out the whole book. He talkes openly about his screw ups and well as accomplishments. Unless the book is total bull he comes out as a true patriot.

[repsychler]

You're right. Thompson has no shot. I guess I'll stop supporting him, telling people about him, and everything else we can do to give him a shot.

Sarcasm aside, Thompson has a shot, if we get behind him and give him one. I'm not going to hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils.

If it makes you feel any better, last week I was looking at the political futures bets at a sportsbook website, and Thompson was right behind Giuliani, but well ahead of others that get much more press. (McCain, Romney, etc)

[O6nop]

And he hasn't even officially declared himself!
If this hasn't been posted somewhere else, here is an online petition asking him to run. Check it out...
http://www.fred08.com/

[GlockenHammer]

So far, he's got my vote. He'll have to work hard to lose it. Lots of time left for things to develop...

[O6nop]

May be old news, but I heard on the news tonight that he is not returning to his TV show, Law and Order. Guess that means he'll be announcing officially soon. I'm actually torn between him and Ron Paul.

[srothstein]

You know, as much as I think the Republicans and Democrats are both the same in most respects, I have to admit that a Thompson/Paul or Paul/Thompson ticket would probably get my vote.

[KBCraig]

I'm actually torn between him and Ron Paul.

The difference for me is, I know I support Ron Paul. I think I would gladly support Thompson if he was the nominee, but only based on what I know so far.

[KBCraig]

Fred Thompson certainly has a sense of humor. Michael Moore challenged him to a debate about health care, after Thompson criticized Moore for his propaganda trip to Cuba. Moore shot back that Thompson should be investigated for breaking the embargo by smoking Cuban cigars.

Thompson's reply, cigar in hand:

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=611

[jimlongley]

[Liberty]

Fred Thompson certainly has a sense of humor. Michael Moore challenged him to a debate about health care, after Thompson criticized Moore for his propaganda trip to Cuba. Moore shot back that Thompson should be investigated for breaking the embargo by smoking Cuban cigars.

Thompson's reply, cigar in hand:

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=611

While Fred has a point he still didn't address why its OK for him to smoke Cubans while it was wrong for Michael Moore to seek Cuban heathcare. I would like to know if he is for the embargo or against it.