This may actually be the worst article on the Second Amendment that I have ever read.
There are so many errors, I wonder if the author managed to spell his name correctly.
Suffice is to say, there hasn’t been a Supreme Court decision in the history of the republic that affirmatively said the Second Amendment applied only to arms held in connection with military service. Furthermore, there has never been a Supreme Court decision since Van Staphorst v. Maryland (2 U.S. 401, 1791), the first case ever argued before the court, that said arms were to be kept by anyone but the people themselves.
The National Guard was not even officially established until 1903. Under the same law the created the National Guard, the militia also consisted of every able-bodied man aged 18 to 44 who was a citizen or expressed a desire to become a citizen.
Warren Burger’s comments have no legal bearing whatsoever. They are personal opinions expressed after he retired and they appeared in a Sunday supplement magazine and in a PBS interview. Burger never participated in a significant Second Amendment case during his entire tenure on the Supreme Court.
Yes, retired Justice John Paul Stevens added a lot of significance to them, but Stevens also added a lot of significance to the opinion written by Justice James McReynolds in United States v. Miller (307 U.S. 174, 1939), which didn’t even support his contentions that the Second Amendment applied only to a collective right. McReynolds said only that a shotgun with a barrel of less than 18 inches was not in common use in the militia, so it was not protected by the Second Amendment. Had Frank Miller been caught with a Tommy Gun, the story might have been quite different.
The Fifth Amendment very clearly states that a person can be deprived of life, liberty and property only through due process of law. Therefore a person convicted of a felony or one adjudicated as mentally unfit has received due process and can be constitutionally stripped of their right to keep and bear arms.
If the inalienable right to life can be taken after due process, how would the inalienable right to keep and bear arms or to speak, worship and peaceably assemble be any different?
In United States v. Cruikshank (92 U.S. 542, 1876), the first major Second Amendment case heard by the Supreme Court, the court said that the right to keep and bear arms existed independently of the Constitution.
The reasoning that the right to keep and bear arms isn’t real because the government doesn’t have to give you a gun is so far beyond silly it borders on delusional. Perhaps the argument has been expressed elsewhere, but I would hope it has been trashed whenever it appeared. The people also have the right to a free press but don’t hold your breath waiting for the feds to deliver your shiny new printing machine, ’cause it isn’t coming.
Mr. Doscher’s display of ignorance is not only monumental, it’s offensive. The likelihood that anyone could be so so bereft of any understanding yet remain capable of stringing so many words together is so low that one is left with the inescapable conclusion that Mr. Doscher isn’t ignorant, he is deliberately following in Joseph Goebbels’ footsteps. Lie big; lie often and eventually people will believe you. That doesn’t change the fact it is still a lie.
As big lies go, this one’s a whopper.