Quoted Text

No longer a need for people to bear arms  
First published: Sunday, July 22, 2007

Regarding the July 12 editorial on guns, investigations and usage:
  
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."

The Constitution does not say people should have shotguns, rifles or handguns for any purpose other than to maintain the security of a free state.

Since that amendment, enacted 216 years ago, we have formed states, cities, towns and villages that are empowered to keep the peace and to bear arms for that purpose.

People do not need guns. Guns are used to kill or maim animals and humans.

Giving legal authorities the ability to investigate, arrest and punish those who illegally sell firearms is only one of many steps that should be enacted and enforced -- notwithstanding the pitiful pleas of the National Rifle Association.

RAYMOND S. BLANCHARD Albany

Quoted Text

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."

The Constitution does not say people should have shotguns, rifles or handguns for any purpose other than to maintain the security of a free state.

Quoted Text

Since that amendment, enacted 216 years ago, we have formed states, cities, towns and villages that are empowered to keep the peace and to bear arms for that purpose.

Quoted Text

Access to data on legal gun ownership is a threat to privacy rights  
First published: Sunday, July 29, 2007

Sunday, July 15, the Times Union published a second editorial criticizing the recent bipartisan actions by Congress to deny access to federal gun sales and ownership data to local elected officials and police departments, unless the data is requested during the prosecution of a specific crime committed with a specific gun. The editorial asked, "Really now, what sensible person would resist legislation that would give local governments and police agencies access to data tracking gun sales?"
  
I can't claim to be the most sensible person around (witness my quixotic efforts to influence the Times Union editorial board on matters like this), but I care very much about this issue.

Our constitutional, individual right to defend ourselves, our families and our homes from unlawful assault, and to personally own firearms for the purpose of this defense, is fundamental to the civic responsibilities of the citizens of this nation. It seems obvious to me that whether I own a gun, what gun I own, how I obtained it, or any other data pertaining to this particular piece of my property is my own private business and certainly not that of our local politicians.

Unfortunately, New York state requires me to be licensed to possess a handgun, and thus local governments and law enforcement agencies already have access to most of that data for that particular firearm. Many other states do not require such disclosure, at least without cause. Thus the concern of so many congressmen and women to represent their constituents in good faith in this policy area.

So there are serious issues of privacy, constitutional rights, and civic responsibilities involved here. I ask you to respect those concerns of mine, even as I respect our mutual right to free speech, which I know is a matter dear to your own heart.

W. STEARNS CASWELL
Delmar

Quoted Text

Guns are not what makes society violent  
First published: Thursday, August 2, 2007

I read with some interest Raymond Blanchard's July 22 letter, "No longer a need for people to bear arms." The argument that the Second Amendment is 216 years old and is obsolete because we have states, towns, etc., empowered with law enforcement who can use firearms to protect us is simply naive and ill-conceived. The Second Amendment is no more made obsolete by modern society than is the First Amendment, which is also 216 years old. Now that we have radio, TV, Internet and massive network conglomerates supplying us with professionally crafted free speech, would anyone suggest the First Amendment is obsolete?
As far as the law enforcement entities of states, towns, etc., protecting us: I submit for consideration the case of home invasion that recently took place in Chesire, Conn. The details are too horrible to relate, but three are dead and one injured in this incident. As is the norm, law enforcement was not there to intervene, only to react after the fact. Could a firearm in the home possibly have helped this unfortunate family defend itself against this horrific assault? Mr. Blanchard would deny them such opportunity for defense. I find that appalling.

  
Violence is something we can all agree to detest. Sadly, violence and guns are often equated. But the truth is that guns are simply tools and, like most tools, can be used properly or improperly. Most of the arguments regarding guns in our society are, in my opinion, based on the frustration we have with violence and crime, which seems so prevalent. But the reality is that the causes of violence are complex. To try to simply blame guns is to create a convenient smoke screen that misdirects the energy we should be using to try to find true solutions to violence in our society.

I direct those readers with an interest in this subject to the well-articulated "Pistol Regulation: Its Principles and History," written in 1930 by Karl T. Frederick. It appeared in the American Journal of Police Science in 1931 but its content is just as relevant today as it was then. The article can be found on the Internet at: http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/ Frederick1.html.

DREW HOLCOMB Pittstown

Quoted from Shadow

The only trouble with the ones in the city hunting money is that it's our money they're hunting.

Quoted Text

Americans have right to protect themselves
First published: Friday, August 3, 2007

With regard to Raymond Blanchard's July 22 letter about the right to keep and bear arms: I'm not sure what world Mr. Blanchard lives in, but in this one, it can take the police anywhere from 5 to 30 minutes to respond to a 911 call. I'm sorry, but that's more than enough time to be killed in your own home.
This area has seen more than a few home invasions lately. We need to protect ourselves and our families, in the legal and proper way our forefathers intended -- with arms. Hopefully we will never have to, but it's good to have the option of fighting back, not just giving up.
  
TONY BARBARO
Schodack

Quoted Text

Gun lobbyists react to what they know  
First published: Saturday, August 4, 2007

This is in respond to your July 25 editorial "In the crossfire":
  
It's not so much that the gun lobby is all powerful, they just know what Franklin D. Roosevelt knew. If you let the camel get his nose under the tent, pretty soon he's in the tent with you.

The smokers learned this first: Ban TV ads, then smoking here or there, then offices, then restaurants, then bars. In some places in this country you can smoke only at home and in your car.

The fast food industry is afraid it will be next, too. Pretty soon you may need a ration-like coupon for a Big Mac, if your cholesterol or blood pressure are deemed to be too high.

C.L. STILL
Rensselaer

Quoted Text

Guns are indeed a tool -- with one purpose  
First published: Wednesday, August 8, 2007

In response to Drew Holcomb's Aug. 2 letter, I don't know anyone who claims that guns are the cause of violence in our society. Rather, what is obvious is that guns make deadly violence much more likely, so that controlling and reducing their availability seems to me to be responsible and sane policy.
  
If we were to accept Mr Holcomb's ill-considered claim that "guns are simply tools," then we need to ask him: What is the purpose of this tool? I know what the purpose of a saw or screwdriver is. But a gun? Well it's only purpose is to shoot bullets which, depending on the shooter's aim, may kill a living being, maybe your spouse, child or friend. So this is simply a "tool" that everyone should have in their toolbox?

Read the Second Amendment: It says that the right to bear arms is related to and dependent upon the need to maintain a "well-regulated Militia." It does not say that access to guns should be everyone's unregulated right.

MICHAEL FOSTER
Niskayuna

Quoted Text

First of all Mr Foster is interpreting the second amendment as he would like it to read not what it really says. As far as a militia is concerned, kick in my back door and the militia will appear right in front of your eyes. There are many people who hunt, target shoot, shoot competitively in gun clubs, and just plain protect their home and family. No Matter what you say Mr Foster it is my right to bear arms, and it's not the gun that kills it's the nut behind the trigger. We need to enforce the laws we already have on the books, do a better job of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally challenged individuals. If we follow the writers lead we wouldn't have knives, autos, baseball bats, rope, or anything else that has ever been used by a nut to kill people.

Quoted Text

Gun Control Advocates, Opponents Prepare for Supreme Court Argument
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
By Lee Ross

WASHINGTON —  The nine justices of the highest court in the land will meet Tuesday to hear arguments on who the Founding Fathers intended when they called for the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms: a well regulated militia or all individuals.

Tuesday's arguments in front of the Supreme Court — the focal point for gun rights advocates and foes alike — will be the first significant Second Amendment case in front of the high court since 1939. Supporters and opponents are equally excited and concerned by the prospect of what the court’s ruling — expected by June — could mean for individuals seeking clearer laws on the right to bear arms.

Washington, D.C., the nation's capital and one party to the case, argues its handgun ban “is a governmental duty of the highest order.” The contrary argument claims the city's law is “draconian” in its infringement of Second Amendment rights, which states, "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."


In its pre-argument briefs to the Supreme Court the parties to this case seem to have been writing to convince today’s nine foremost grammarians or historians. Much of the presentations to the Supreme Court focus on the grammatical meaning of the 27-word amendment.

The agitator at the center of this case is private Heller, a police officer for the federal government who in his job patrolling federal buildings carries a handgun. But D.C. law prohibits him and nearly every other resident from registering a handgun for personal use.

The agitator at the center of this case is private Heller, a police officer for the federal government who in his job patrolling federal buildings carries a handgun. But D.C. law prohibits him and nearly every other resident from registering a handgun for personal use.

Heller contends the handgun is necessary to defend himself at his home. The city’s law, on the books for more than three decades and one of the most stringent in the country, was passed to prevent violent and accidental gun violence. It’s a law the city and its supporters say is necessary and successful.

Heller’s lawsuit against the city was initially dismissed but the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a landmark 2-1 decision, overturned that ruling. It declared that the Second Amendment guarantees all individuals the right to keep and bear arms.

That ruling contravened decades of jurisprudence that held the Second Amendment right was exclusive to militias. The D.C. government appealed that ruling and in November the Supreme Court announced it would take the case.

The D.C. government presents three overarching arguments to the Court. First, the city contends the D.C. Circuit erred in its basic interpretation of the law.

“The text and history of the Second Amendment conclusively refute the notion that it entitles individuals to have guns for their own private purposes,” reads the appeal by the city to the high court. Specifically, it points to the language of the Second Amendment and argues both clauses taken individually or in concert can only be read to suggest its application to militias and not individuals.

As for its historical argument, the city concludes, “There is no suggestion that the need to protect private uses of weapons against federal intrusion ever animated the adoption of the Second Amendment.”

The city's attorneys detail the debate that preceded the enactment of the law as part of the Bill of Rights. In so doing, the city draws upon the works of William Blackstone, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and similarly worded legislation passed in the late 18th century. It argues the Founders’ “efforts surely were purposeful, and should not be ignored two centuries later.”

The city’s second argument is that the Second Amendment does not apply to District-specific legislation. It is a curious argument, at least politically, for a government keen on seeking equal representation in Congress.

“The Framers created a federal enclave to ensure federal protection of federal interests. They could not have intended the Second Amendment to prevent Congress from establishing such gun-control measures as it deemed necessary to protect itself, the president and this court.”

Its final argument rests on an analysis of the D.C. statute which the city says should be done on a “proper reasonableness” standard. The city argues its law “represent(s) the District’s reasoned judgment about how best to meet its duty to protect the public. Because that predictive judgment about how best to reduce gun violence was reasonable and is entitled to substantial deference, it should be upheld.”

In response, attorneys for Heller roundly disagree with the District’s positions with its most fundamental argument being that the lower court was correct in its judgment that the Second Amendment does in fact guarantee an individual the right to keep and bear arms.

They contend the D.C. gun ban is a “draconian infringement” of the Second Amendment. And they too present their grammatical and historical interpretation of the law writing there cannot be “doubts or ambiguities” about the meaning of the second clause or its relationship with the first.

“The words cannot be rendered meaningless by resort to their preamble. Any preamble-based interpretive rationale demanding an advanced degree in linguistics for its explication is especially suspect in this context,” the attorneys argue.

Heller’s lawyers also present its Founders-era evidence by quoting from George Mason, Blackstone and Madison. They also quote lawyer John Adams during his successful defense of British soldiers in the aftermath of the Boston Massacre.

In that trial Adams conceded that “here every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time for their defense, not for offense."

They also dismiss as spurious the city’s argument that the Second Amendment does not have the effect of law in the District of Columbia. They acknowledge that Congress (and now the D.C. government under Home Rule) has the ability to make gun laws but must do so in accordance with the Constitution. Heller's lawyers draw a parallel with Congress’s power to run the city’s schools which they note cannot then be segregated or otherwise be operated contrary to Constitutional holdings.

Finally, they dismiss the city’s argument that the handgun ban is legal under a “proper reasonableness” standard. Instead they offer a “strict scrutiny” guideline for imposing restrictions on gun ownership.

“As our nation continues to face the scourges of crime and terrorism, no provision of the Bill of Rights would be immune from demands that perceived governmental necessity overwhelm the very standard by which enumerated rights are secured. Exorbitant claims of authority to deny basic constitutional rights are not unknown. Demoting the Second Amendment to some lower tier of enumerate rights is unwarranted. The Second Amendment has the distinction of securing the most fundamental rights of all — enabling the preservation of one’s life and guaranteeing our liberty. These are not second-class concerns.”

It is common for the Supreme Court to ask for the official position of the United States government. In this case, Solicitor General Paul Clement has been given 15 minutes to argue before the court. Lawyers for the District of Columbia and Heller will each have 30 minutes.

His brief, however, surprised many when it argued against a definitive ruling on the merits of the case. Instead the brief counsels the justices that the “better course” would be to remand the case back to the lower courts for further review. In so doing, Clement urges the court to acknowledge the “plain text” of the Second Amendment and recognize that the law does guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms. He says such an interpretation “reinforces the most natural reading of the amendment’s text.”

Clement asks the court to remand the case out of fear that an outright affirmation of the lower court’s ruling could “cast doubt” on all existing federal firearms legislation.

“The Second Amendment, properly construed, allows for reasonable regulation of firearms.” Within that framework Clement offers to the court what he describes as an intermediate or heightened level of judicial review. He says the court’s handling of legally similar cases by remanding them for further proceedings represent a due diligence that should be followed in this case.

Of the more than 65 friend-of-the-court briefs filed on this case, one drew immediate attention for its dismissal of the solicitor general’s remand argument and because the lead name attached to it is that of Vice President private Cheney.

Cheney, in his position as president of the Senate, joined a brief with 55 senators and 250 House members to support Heller asking the court to fully affirm the lower court ruling. It created the most unusual circumstance of the vice president — not to mention majorities of both chambers of Congress — in opposition to the official position of the U.S. government.

“This court should give due deference to the repeated findings over different historical epochs by Congress, a co-equal branch of government, that the amendment guarantees the personal right to possess firearms. ... No purpose would be served by remanding this case for further fact finding or other proceedings.”

The members of Congress who joined the brief are mostly Republicans, including presumptive Republican presidential nominee and Arizona Sen. John McCain. A healthy number of gun-rights Democrats also joined in the brief.

Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, both vying for the Democratic presidential nomination, did not make their positions known to the court. Another brief by 17 other House members—all Democrats—and the non-voting delegate to the House from Washington, D.C. asked the court to uphold the city’s handgun ban.

Quoted Text

High court ponders scope of amendment on gun rights
BY DAVID G. SAVAGE Los Angeles Times

    WASHINGTON — The Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms” finally had its day in the Supreme Court on Tuesday, and the long-held view that it protects the rights of gun owners appeared poised to win a historic victory.
    Five justices, a bare majority, signaled they believed the amendment gave individuals a right to have a gun for self-defense. It was not limited to arms for “a well-regulated militia” for the common defense, they said.
    By adopting that view, the justices probably will strike down the nation’s strictest gun-control law, a ban on handguns in the District of Columbia.
    But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said he favored a narrow ruling, one that would not cast doubt on an array of gun-control laws. They include a ban on the sale of new machine guns, required background checks for new buyers of handguns and state licensing rules for those who wish to carry a concealed weapon.
    “I don’t know why when we are starting afresh we would try to articulate a whole standard that would apply in every case,” Roberts told one lawyer.
    The court is indeed “starting afresh” with the Second Amendment, nearly 200 years after it was adopted as part of the Bill of Rights. It 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.”
    Despite this command, the court has never struck down a gun-control law for violating the Second Amendment. For many years, judges believed the amendment merely prohibited the federal government from interfering with the state’s right to maintain a “well-regulated militia.”
    But most Americans know the second clause, referring to the “right of the people to keep and bear arms.” And in polls, a large majority say they believe it gives law-abiding persons a right to own a gun.
    While the court appears ready to agree with them, the chief justice alluded to the difficulty of deciding what kind of right is protected by the Second Amendment. Is the right to own a gun like the right to freedom of speech in the First Amendment? If so, most restrictions on that right would be in doubt. Or is the gun right subject to strict regulations by the government?
    The justices strongly hinted Tuesday they would leave open the question of whether many current restrictions on gun rights will stand.
    Nonetheless, a ruling recognizing an individual right in the Second Amendment would be a landmark. And it could well signal the beginning of an era in which anti-gun regulations are subject to legal challenges.
    The case heard by the court Tuesday began when Robert A. Levy, a libertarian lawyer who lives in Florida, decided to challenge D.C.’s 30-year-old ban on handguns. One plaintiff, private Heller, is a private security guard who wants to keep his handgun at home.
    Last year, the U.S. appeals court here struck down the D.C. law, prompting the city to appeal the case.
    Washington lawyer Walter Dellinger, defending the city’s law, began by arguing the Constitution’s framers sought to protect state militias. The phrase “bear arms” refers to the “military context,” he said.
    But he ran into skeptical questioning.

Quoted Text

The First 10 Amendments to the
Constitution as Ratified by the States
December 15, 1791
Preamble
Congress OF THE United States
begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday
the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Quoted Text

Amendment II
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.

Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of tria