bteague2
04-03-2007, 11:37 PM
http://dailybeacon.utk.edu/showarticle.php?articleid=51261
Guns pivotal to continued freedom
Michael Lumley - Columnist (http://dailybeacon.utk.edu/userhomepage.php?userid=3948)
Tuesday, April 03, 2007 issue
Click here to print (http://dailybeacon.utk.edu/printarticle.php?articleid=51261)
Big news from our nation’s capitol: Lawyers for the District of Columbia are arguing in court that the Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms” applies only to members of a militia. I’ll just take a minute here to let that sink in. Go ahead, read it again. The right to “keep and bear arms” applies only to members of a militia.
Todd Kim, solicitor general for Washington, D.C., told a United States Court of Appeals panel that the District “interpret(s) the Second Amendment in military terms” and that the District believes that it has the authority to ban all weapons outright.
It seems that the fringe-liberal bastion of lawyers and activists would like us to believe that, as a whole, the U.S. Constitution somehow implies that mothers have a right to kill their unborn children, but that the Second Amendment, which explicitly states “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed,” does not specifically protect the right to own a firearm in the District of Columbia.
It’s simply unbelievable. My favorite part of this story comes when Justice Karen Henderson of United States Court of Appeals argued that the Second Amendment does not apply in this case because the District of Columbia is not a state. Brilliant stuff. Really.
Fortunately, the Court of Appeals overturned the District’s handgun ban in a two-to-one decision, but the District has already petitioned the court for a rehearing before the entire 14-justice panel. If that fails, the Supreme Court – which has suspiciously avoided this issue for over seventy years – may be forced to take a stand.
From there, no one knows what might happen. According to David Gossett, a partner at a prominent D.C. firm, it’s not a forgone conclusion that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of gun owners and the Second Amendment. After all, these are the same people that brought you eminent domain in Kelo v. New London.
Whether you live in Washington, D.C., or Knoxville, Tennessee, gun ownership is an important right that absolutely must be protected. Study after study has shown that gun ownership and concealed carry laws actually reduce violent crimes. When used responsibly, guns are always a force for good, but gun control laws almost exclusively target responsible gun users. Gun control laws don’t work because criminals – you know, the ones these laws are meant to stop – don’t follow the law.
But the most important thing to remember is the historical context surrounding the drafting of the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment. I sound like a nut job just saying this (I’ve already got a compound in Minnesota), but it became necessary in the past for American citizens to take up arms against a tyrannical and unjust government – to deny that such a situation may arise again in the future is naïve, dangerous and unwise. History can teach us quite a few valuable lessons – and in 1776 “We the People” learned a lesson about independence from our friends in England. A government that can not be forcibly overthrown by the people is a government prone to corruption, tyranny and ultimately despotism. Democracy, liberty and rule of law are only sustainable when they are supported by a well-armed, vigilant and freedom-loving people.
So as we engage in our “scholarly legal debates” as to whether or not the Second Amendment applies to militias or individuals and whether or not an “arm” is a weapon or a human limb (an equally valid constitutional “interpretation”), let’s all try to remember that guns aren’t just for hunting or shooting. They are personal insurance – our protection from criminals and our weapons of last resort in resisting tyranny and oppression in our system of government.
Michael Lumley is a junior in economics. He can be reached at mlumley@utk.edu.
Guns pivotal to continued freedom
Michael Lumley - Columnist (http://dailybeacon.utk.edu/userhomepage.php?userid=3948)
Tuesday, April 03, 2007 issue
Click here to print (http://dailybeacon.utk.edu/printarticle.php?articleid=51261)
Big news from our nation’s capitol: Lawyers for the District of Columbia are arguing in court that the Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms” applies only to members of a militia. I’ll just take a minute here to let that sink in. Go ahead, read it again. The right to “keep and bear arms” applies only to members of a militia.
Todd Kim, solicitor general for Washington, D.C., told a United States Court of Appeals panel that the District “interpret(s) the Second Amendment in military terms” and that the District believes that it has the authority to ban all weapons outright.
It seems that the fringe-liberal bastion of lawyers and activists would like us to believe that, as a whole, the U.S. Constitution somehow implies that mothers have a right to kill their unborn children, but that the Second Amendment, which explicitly states “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed,” does not specifically protect the right to own a firearm in the District of Columbia.
It’s simply unbelievable. My favorite part of this story comes when Justice Karen Henderson of United States Court of Appeals argued that the Second Amendment does not apply in this case because the District of Columbia is not a state. Brilliant stuff. Really.
Fortunately, the Court of Appeals overturned the District’s handgun ban in a two-to-one decision, but the District has already petitioned the court for a rehearing before the entire 14-justice panel. If that fails, the Supreme Court – which has suspiciously avoided this issue for over seventy years – may be forced to take a stand.
From there, no one knows what might happen. According to David Gossett, a partner at a prominent D.C. firm, it’s not a forgone conclusion that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of gun owners and the Second Amendment. After all, these are the same people that brought you eminent domain in Kelo v. New London.
Whether you live in Washington, D.C., or Knoxville, Tennessee, gun ownership is an important right that absolutely must be protected. Study after study has shown that gun ownership and concealed carry laws actually reduce violent crimes. When used responsibly, guns are always a force for good, but gun control laws almost exclusively target responsible gun users. Gun control laws don’t work because criminals – you know, the ones these laws are meant to stop – don’t follow the law.
But the most important thing to remember is the historical context surrounding the drafting of the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment. I sound like a nut job just saying this (I’ve already got a compound in Minnesota), but it became necessary in the past for American citizens to take up arms against a tyrannical and unjust government – to deny that such a situation may arise again in the future is naïve, dangerous and unwise. History can teach us quite a few valuable lessons – and in 1776 “We the People” learned a lesson about independence from our friends in England. A government that can not be forcibly overthrown by the people is a government prone to corruption, tyranny and ultimately despotism. Democracy, liberty and rule of law are only sustainable when they are supported by a well-armed, vigilant and freedom-loving people.
So as we engage in our “scholarly legal debates” as to whether or not the Second Amendment applies to militias or individuals and whether or not an “arm” is a weapon or a human limb (an equally valid constitutional “interpretation”), let’s all try to remember that guns aren’t just for hunting or shooting. They are personal insurance – our protection from criminals and our weapons of last resort in resisting tyranny and oppression in our system of government.
Michael Lumley is a junior in economics. He can be reached at mlumley@utk.edu.