Commentarys 36 and 36a- Guns and the 2nd Amendment

Jersey-born judges get it right on guns
Posted by Paul Mulshine July 01, 2008 5:43AM


I was walking around Rutgers the other day when I came upon a memorial to students who had fought in World War II. The list of names was impressive, but I imagine most major universities in America have similar memorials.

It was only when I happened to walk by Old Queens that I noticed something you wouldn't see on just any campus. It was a plaque honoring the Rutgers men who had fought in the Revolutionary War. Nearby is the spot from which Alexander Hamilton directed cannon fire against the British in cover of George Washington's army.

You don't see that sort of thing in the so-called heartland, which would be in the heart of nowhere if not for the Jersey boys. Yet hardly a day goes by that I don't receive an e-mail from some self-proclaimed 100 percent American in a red state informing me that I can't possibly be a true conservative because I and my newspaper column originate here in New Jersey.

I am thankful to Antonin Scalia and Sam Alito for forever laying that myth to rest. It is a curious fact that two-ninths of the membership of the U.S. Supreme Court originates in that city where George Washington so famously routed the Hessians back in 1776. And the Trenton two were instrumental in the historic decision last week that, to the consternation of liberals everywhere, returned the Constitution to its revolutionary roots.

That was, of course, the decision in the case of D.C. vs. Heller, in which the court ruled for the first time that the Second Amendment to the Constitution means what it says. And what it says is that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You might argue that anyone could have concluded the same. But the genius of the Jersey-born Scalia was in expressing that opinion in terms that are irrefutable even to liberals. Liberals love to argue in favor of both individual rights and the right of revolution, assuming the revolutionary in question looks good on a T-shirt, à la Che Guevara. Well, if that's what you like, said Scalia, then you shall have it. He went out of his way to ground the Second Amendment right to bear arms in the right of citizens to rebel against an oppressive government.

With that task accomplished, Scalia went on to make it plain that the right to self-defense is every bit as much of an individual right as the First Amendment right to free speech. He cited an 1803 version of Blackstone's Commentaries that put Second Amendment rights on the same plane as First Amendment rights and said that in both cases the courts are sworn to protect those rights from overbearing politicians.

This left liberals nowhere to stand on principle. So they turned to politics. In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that "there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

Again, this is a subject a Jersey guy would know a bit more about than the California-born Breyer. Though Scalia left Trenton as a lad, his parents took him to New York City, then quite a rowdy spot. Alito, meanwhile, was until recently working in Newark, a city whose virtues in that regard I need not list.

Here is where we come to a crucial difference between liberals and conservatives. Implicit in the liberal view is the idea that rights must be trimmed to fit the behavior of the citizenry. The conservative, meanwhile, argues that rights are eternal while social conditions are temporary.

Andrew Napolitano, the third in the triumvirate of great Italian-American legal minds from Jersey, shares with Alito and Scalia what he calls an indispensable link to the great tradition they espouse, the fact of growing up in "a traditional Italian Catholic household."

Napolitano, a former Superior Court judge on the Jersey bench who is now a Fox News legal analyst, said this family history links all three to a conservative tradition perhaps lacking in the heartland -- the Catholic tradition of natural law as elucidated by Thomas Aquinas.

"The most important thing in the opinion is that the right to self-defense is a natural right," said Napolitano, who attended Princeton with Alito. "You have right to defend yourself against unjust use of power."

That principle is now explicitly enshrined in constitutional law for the first time since the founding. And it is a principle that, perhaps more than any other, defines the difference between liberals and conservatives.

So for all those people in the red states who write me e-mails questioning how someone from Jersey can be a conservative, there's your answer. Our revolutionary history is better than yours. And our conservative intellectuals are smarter than yours.


My Commentary:

Posted by Zemack on 07/02/08 at 9:29PM
The only drawback I see to that decision is how close it came to going the other way. The vote was 5-4. It should have been a slam-dunk 9-0.

It is a sad and dangerous fact that many if not most Americans have lost the knowledge of the concept of inalienable individual rights, the basic founding principle of the United States, and what it takes to keep them. While the right to gun ownership is not a primary right, it is derived from those primaries, which are life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. The right to life includes the right to defend that life. As Judge Napolitano correctly states, "The most important thing in the opinion is that the right to self-defense is a natural right. You have a right to defend yourself against unjust use of power."

I have never owned a gun, and I see no personal reason for ever owning one in the future. But it is still my right. Do I want to forfeit that right, just because I happen not to exercise it? NO!! By tying 2nd Amendment rights to the 1st Amendment, Justice Scalia raises a crucial point. The loss of any one basic right endangers all of the rest. Liberty never disappears overnight. It vanishes in a steady erosion of freedoms surrendered by the people to the state bit by bit in the name of "good intentions." It is a process that has been going on in America for about a hundred years. It is the road to dictatorship.

The only way freedom can be preserved is for every citizen to be willing to stand up and defend not only his own rights, but all peoples' rights. This issue is about more than gun owners, and the anti-2nd Amendment crowd should think again here. Those who would vote away the rights of others, should know that they are voting away their own, as well.



What are People Thinking?
By Kris | Jun 17, 2008

I run another blog, which is primarily focused on outdoor pursuits, as that is one of my hobbies. I wrote a post over there addressing Obama’s position on gun control, and the 2nd amendment. Recently, someone commented on that blog that Obama’s lack of respect for the 2nd amendment isn’t really a big deal. Here is the comment from the other blog:

i support obama…..i also understand where you’re comming from feeling worried about the whole “right to bear arms” situation…..but really, IS that the most important thing right now? yes, it’s our right as americans, and some would say that gun control policies would only lead to the government then slashing away at other rights, but i don’t believe that would happen….when politicians support gun control, it’s because they believe it’s a way to make our country a safer place….their intentions aren’t those of oppression. and as i stated before, we have much bigger problems facing this country…not voting for someone who otherwise has very good policies, just because of their stance on one issue is illogical.

What this person does not seem to understand is that the right to bear arms is a constitutional right. That means that politicians are not allowed to come along and decide that they “can make our nation a safer place” by getting rid of this right. Could the same politician decide that taking away the freedom of speech (1st amendment) could make our country safer, and therefore get rid of it? I think not, there would be wide spread outrage over such a move. However, much of the country is satisfied with taking away the 2nd amendment on a whim.

I am amazed that someone would ever think that BO’s policies are good other than this. I for one, find very little (if anything) that I can agree with BO on. His policies for the future of this country will certainly bring change, but that change will not be good. His idea is to turn as much over to government as humanly possible, after all the government knows better what is good for you than you do. I for one don’t need the government taking over my health care, or taking more money from my paycheck to pay for all the entitlement programs that are on the democratic agenda. We have far too many people wanting handouts rather than a hand up in this society, and BO and his policies will only exasperate the situation.

This person obviously has only swallowed the BO and democrat kool-aid. Never has taking away guns made a society safer. We can take the handgun ban in Washington D.C. as one example. Only one time since the institution of the ban has the murder rate been lower than when it was instituted. Seems to me that makes the plan a failure, as it was put in place to help cut the murder rate in the city. And yet, proponents of the ban insist that it remain. So, there is a whole city whose citizens cannot purchase a handgun to protect themselves–the whole point of the 2nd amendment!

Liberals will so easily allow the government to take away my rights, but they want to make sure that those detainees in Guantanamo Bay have their rights. What seems to be the problem here? I am a US citizen, and as such I have a right to keep and bear arms…I don’t think BO has the right to decide for me whether that is safe or not. I will most definitely vote against candidates that campaign on taking away constitutional rights. If you vote for them, then you had better start practicing keeping your mouth shut…your right to free speech just might be next!



My Commentary:

It is a sad and dangerous fact that most Americans have lost the knowledge of the concept of inalienable individual rights, the basic founding principle of the United States, and what it takes to keep them. While the right to gun ownership is not a primary right, it is derived from those primaries, which are life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.

I have never owned a gun, and I see no reason for ever owning one in the future. But it is still my right. Do I want to forfeit that right, just because I happen not to exercise it? NO!! As Kris correctly points out, freedom of speech (or any other right) could be next. Liberty never disappears overnight. It vanishes in a steady erosion of individual self-determination surrendered by the people to the state bit by bit in the name of good “intentions.” It is a process that has been going on in America for about a hundred years. It is the road to dictatorship.

The only way freedom can be preserved is for every citizen to be willing to stand up and defend not only his own rights, but all peoples’ rights. Those who would vote away the rights of others, should know that they are voting away their own, as well.