How Justice Stevens' retirement might benefit gun rights
At least he said "might."
So if I don't expect the Court to move very far, if at all, toward greater recognition of gun rights, why do I see Steven's departure as helpful? Simply because it's something else to keep the administration and Senate busy for a while. As I wrote last month, the passage of a health care reform law has taken a huge item off the Obama administration's "to-do" list, perhaps moving "gun control" up on that list.
A bitter, hard-fought Supreme Court nomination battle, heading into mid-term elections, puts a big item right up near the top of that list, moving any potential efforts for more "gun control" back down. Any speed-bumps that can be placed in the path of efforts to advance the forcible citizen disarmament agenda are good for the country.
As a comment I suggested that whoever replaces Justice Stevens, assuming he or she has similar opinions about gun control, will certainly be young and vibrant by comparison. This will prove to be a major setback for the so-called gun rights movement perhaps for decades to come.
What I'm waiting for is when one of the conservative members has to be replaced. That will obviously make even a bigger difference.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Funny you mention this as I am doing research for my work blog on the possible Supreme Court nominees.
ReplyDeleteConsider that the oldest of the "Conservative branch" are mere sprogs at 76 (Scalia and Kennedy), 61 (Thomas), 60 (Alito), and 55 (Roberts) and this is where the concept of "gun rights" actually took hold.
Short of Robert's, or one of these other Justices, having serious health problems, the "conservatives" are firmly entrenched for the time being. Robeerts is the most likely for having health problems with his history of seizures.
As for "Gun Rights", you have comments such as when asked for his opinion on the Second Amendment Chief Justice Warren Burger said it was "...one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest groups that I’ve ever seen in my life time. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies--the militias--[preamble] would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment [referring to the preamble] refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires."
And "Wild Bill" Douglas's in his dissent at Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S 143, 150 -51 (1972):
"There is under our decisions no reason why stiff state laws governing the purchase and possession of pistols may not be enacted. There is no reason why pistols may not be barred from anyone with a police record. There is no reason why a State may not require a purchaser of a pistol to pass a psychiatric test. There is no reason why all pistols should not be barred to everyone except the police.
Critics say that proposals like this water down the Second Amendment. Our decisions belie that argument, for the Second Amendment, as noted, was designed to keep alive the militia."
I think Douglas's membership in the Miller court gives his opinion some weight even if he wasn't part of the case. He did know members of the court and is the longest serving Justice on the Supreme Court.
Stevens was "Wild Bill's" successor.
But Stevens is actually a moderate and was appointed by Gerald Ford. He has only become considered a "liberal" since the Court has become more fringe in its opinions.
Stevens' dissent kept alive the "Civic right" concept of the Second Amendment, but I am not sure what the point will be.
The revisionists have a very strong hold on the public mind, which is how the term "gun rights" can be used in relation to the Second Amendment without having people laugh in your face.
While the concept of defence may have been mentioned, "gun rights" is an incredibly novel idea,as the Burger and Douglas quote show. But something I would lead lexicographers to wrestle in addressing its origins.
Kurt Hoffman is neurologically-impaired. Citing Kurt Hoffman for any other purpose than ridicule and derision is a fool's errand.
ReplyDelete--JadeGold
Laci: As for "Gun Rights", you have comments such as when asked for his opinion on the Second Amendment Chief Justice Warren Burger said it was "...one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest groups that I’ve ever seen in my life time.
ReplyDeleteIn the same article, Burger goes on to say:
"Nor does anyone seriously question that the Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting game any more than anyone would challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods and other equipment for fishing -- or to own automobiles."
So Burger finds no individual right to gun ownership in the Constitution, yet DOES find Constitution rights to hunting, fishing, and automobile ownership?
Can someone show me the rights to hunting fishing, and automobile ownership in the Constitution?
Devid Kopel looks at Obama's potential Supreme Court nominee records on the Second Amendment, and finds Cass Sunstein to be "not-all-bad." Mikeb, maybe Harold Koh is your man!
ReplyDeletePotential Supreme Court nominee records on the Second Amendment:
David Kopel • April 11, 2010
In order from worst to not-all-bad:
Strongly-ideological, highly-committed gun prohibitionist: Harold Koh.
Extensive record of anti-Second Amendment leadership: Secretary of State Clinton, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, Gov. Deval Patrick.
Limited but clearly negative record on right to arms: Judge Diane Wood, Judge Merrick Garland.
Mixed record, but with very little positive: Amy Klobuchar.
Mixed record: Cass Sunstein, Janet Napolitano [negatives include the ridiculous Dept. of Homeland Security report conflating political dissent with terrorism; as governor she signed some pro-right to arms legislation, and vetoed other bills], Jennifer Granholm [like Napolitano, a mixed record as governor, including signing some important reforms].
Unknown: Elena Kagan
Still no examples of this collective rights notion before 1970.....
ReplyDeleteKurt Hoffman is neurologically-impaired. Citing Kurt Hoffman for any other purpose than ridicule and derision is a fool's errand.
ReplyDelete--JadeGold
Good to see you're still letting Jade spew his BS personal attacks around here.
Got that double standard still going strong huh MikeB?
Laci - Get back to us when you've figured out that VT does in fact have state preemption.
ReplyDelete"negatives include the ridiculous Dept. of Homeland Security report conflating political dissent with terrorism;"
ReplyDeleteCitation?
"Good to see you're still letting Jade spew his BS personal attacks around here.
Got that double standard still going strong huh MikeB?"
That oughta blow the Iron-O-Meter's needle right off the scale.
David Kopel: "negatives include the ridiculous Dept. of Homeland Security report conflating political dissent with terrorism;"
ReplyDeletedemocommie: "Citation?"
Kopel provided the following link in his blog post, which failed to copy to this blog:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_04_12-2009_04_18.shtml#1239922107