Second Amendment article appears in Chigago Trib.

Read Article Here

Signs of life stir in 2nd Amendment
Steve Chapman

March 18, 2007

For nearly 70 years, the 2nd Amendment has been the Jimmy Hoffa of constitutional provisions--missing, its whereabouts unknown, and presumed dead. The right to keep and bear arms, though treasured by many Americans, was a complete stranger to the Supreme Court. But recently, a federal appeals court did something no federal court had ever done before: It struck down a gun-control law as a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

The District of Columbia statute in question is one of the most stringent in the country. It bans the ownership of handguns except those registered before 1976, and it requires rifles or shotguns to be not only registered but kept unloaded and equipped with a trigger lock. Such tight restrictions, the appeals court said, can't be reconciled with the Bill of Rights.

The decision does not prove that the 2nd Amendment is alive and well. But it does mean that, finally, we are likely to get an answer from the Supreme Court on a question that has generated endless debate: Is the 2nd Amendment a meaningless anachronism, or a live guarantee? The court will be confronting the issue at a time when legal scholarship is increasingly inclined to say there is indeed a right to keep and bear arms.

The full text of the provision is: "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 last significant 2nd Amendment case, in 1939, the court didn't exactly say there was no individual right. Instead, it said the firearm at issue, a sawed-off shotgun, would not be of use to someone serving in a militia. The question of an individual right was left unresolved.

The amendment is a puzzle because of those two separate clauses, one about militias and one about gun rights. Gun-control supporters generally read the first to nullify the second, while gun-control opponents do just the opposite. And trying to determine what the framers meant is hard because they barely discussed the right and what it might entail.

Second Amendment skeptics think any right is a collective one related to militias that no longer exist. But just because the colonial Minutemen have vanished doesn't mean they took the rest of the 2nd Amendment with them. It's hard to know exactly what the text means by a right to keep and bear arms, but it must mean something.

Even some liberal constitutional experts now agree that gun ownership enjoys constitutional protection. The most notable is Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, who once subscribed to the collective-rights theory. The amendment, he writes, recognizes "a right [admittedly of uncertain scope] on the part of individuals to possess and use firearms in defense of themselves and their homes." The appeals court agreed, striking down Washington's prohibition of handguns in the home as well as the regulations on other guns.

It would be a stunning turnabout if the Supreme Court adopts that view. It would remove some of the most extreme laws from the books--such as the near-total ban on handguns in Chicago and some suburban communities. Gun rights would feel sweet vindication.

But there is consolation for the other side as well. The appeals court made clear that a host of other limits on firearms possession are constitutionally permissible. States, it said, could forbid the carrying of concealed handguns, require registration of firearms and mandate training for gun owners.

So if this decision is upheld, it will not change our treatment of guns very much. Complete bans would be off-limits, but they are already rarer than white buffaloes. Most other gun-control laws would remain on the books, and anti-gun groups would be free to press for additional ones.

The only obstacle would be the one that has stymied them in the past: insufficient public support. It wasn't the constitutional right to keep and bear arms that induced Congress to let the federal ban on "assault weapons" expire, or persuaded 40 states to allow the carrying of concealed handguns. Those choices were the product of sentiment among citizens and legislators who see most restrictions on firearms as futile at best and dangerous at worst.

The bad news for gun-control advocates is that the Supreme Court may adopt an expansive view of the 2nd Amendment. The worse news is that's the least of their troubles.

Steve Chapman is a member of the Tribune's editorial board. E-mail: schapman@tribune.com
Copyright © 2007, Chicago Tribune


Write to Mr Chapman and thank him for his positive article

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting

The sooner we as hunters realize this the better. The anti hunters and the anti gun community have a common enemy and feed off each other's victories. They gain these victories by creating a fissure within the shooting sports community and then exploiting it. They use terms and arguments such as "sporting purposes" and "we are not after your sporting arms." to create a false sense of security in the hunting ranks.
At the same time the HSUS and other anti hunting orgs. target vunerable hunting methods and seasons, they even use the same type of argument "it's not sporting" or "it's not fair chase". Hmmm, there is that word again: Sporting.

By HSUS targeting and winning victories with, as an example, dove hunting, they begin to gain an incremental reason for anti gun orgs. to target semi automatic shot guns. This is how WE give them the ammo they need to use against us. Hunters that would never give dove hunting a second thought have, in fact, given the anti gun orgs. a bullet to use against semi auto shotguns. Some States disallow the use of semi auto weapons in many aspects of hunting, this calls into question the "sporting use" of these weapons giving more wiggle room to the anti gun orgs.

We can no longer afford to keep the divisive categories within our ranks; shooters, hunters, archers, bowhunters, crossbow hunters. These are antiquated and counter productive to the preservation of all of our "sports". We are marksmen, nothing more, nothing less; wether I use a bow or a .50 caliber I am a marksman. Wether I shoot paper, clays, 3D targets or live game I am a marksman. I practice my marksmanship to be the best I can be at whatever pursuit I choose to partake in.

Local NBC Station reports Armed Citizen Story

Police in Memphis say a gunman firing a pistol beside a busy city street was subdued by two passers-by who were also armed.
Advertisement


No one was hurt during the incident that apparently began with a minor traffic accident, but one passing car was believed hit by a bullet.

Brothers William Webber and Paul Webber told police they stopped their car and pulled their own pistols when they saw a man firing a handgun yesterday.

The brothers said they ordered the man to drop his weapon and then held him at gunpoint until police arrived a few minutes later. Police say the Webbers did not fire their pistols.

Police arrested Dementrius Roberson and charged him with reckless endangerment. Police say the Webber brothers and Roberson have licenses to carry firearms.

Paul Webber says Roberson was firing across traffic and they couldn't tell why he was shooting.


Read and post comments here

These are the types of good stories we need to positively reinforce with letters and comments to their publications and outlets.

DC Gun Ban Overturned on appeal

From The NRA/ILA website

Fairfax, VA- The District of Columbia Circuit Court today affirmed that the Second Amendment of the Constitution protects an inherent, individual right to bear arms. Today’s ruling should have a positive impact on the current D.C. gun ban, the National Rifle Association is fighting to overcome.


The majority opinion of the court states, "[T]he phrase 'the right of the people,' when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual." The majority opinion sums up its holding on this point as follows: The D.C. Circuit Court went further in upholding individual freedoms, rejecting the claim that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District because it is not a State.

The D.C. City Council is expected to appeal the ruling.

You may read the majority opinion here

This is very positive although there is still appeals that can be brought.

Jim Zumbo: Letter to Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

February 28, 2007


Mr. Alan Gottlieb, Chairman
Citizens Committee for the
Right to Keep and Bear Arms
12500 N.E. Tenth Place
Bellevue, WA 98005

Dear Alan:

They say that hindsight is always 20-20. In my case, hindsight has been a hard teacher, like the father teaching the son a lesson about life in the wood shed.

I was wrong when I recently suggested that wildlife agencies should ban semiautomatic firearms I erroneously called “assault rifles” for hunting. I insulted legions of my fellow gun owners in the process by calling them “terrorist rifles.” I can never apologize enough for having worn blinders when I should have been wearing bifocals.

But unlike those who would destroy the Second Amendment right to own a firearm – any firearm – I have learned from my embarrassing mistake. My error should not be used, as it has been in recent days by our common enemies, in an effort to dangerously erode our right to keep and bear arms.

I would hope instead to use this spotlight to address my hunting fraternity, many of whom shared my erroneous position. I am a hunter and like many others I had the wrong picture in mind. I associated these firearms with military action, and saw not hunting as I have known it, not the killing of a varmint, but the elimination of the entire colony. Nothing could be further from the truth, but I know from whence it comes. This ridiculous image, formed in the blink of an eye, exerts and unconscious effect on all decisions that follow. In seeking to protect our hunting rights by guarding how we are seen in the public eye, I lost sight of the larger picture; missed the forest for the trees.

My own lack of experience was no excuse for ignoring the fact that millions of Americans – people who would share a campfire or the shelter of their tent, and who have hurt nobody – own, hunt with and competitively shoot or collect the kinds of firearms I so easily dismissed.

I recently took a “crash course” on these firearms with Ted Nugent, to learn more about them and to educate myself. In the process, I learned about the very real threat that faces all American gun owners.

I’ve studied up on legislation now in Congress that would renew and dangerously expand a ban on many types of firearms. The bill, HR 1022 sponsored by New York Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, is written so broadly that it would outlaw numerous firearms and accessories, including a folding stock for a Ruger rifle. I understand that some of the language could ultimately take away my timeworn and cherished hunting rifles and shotguns as well as those of all American hunters.

The extremist supporters of HR 1022 don’t want to stop criminals. They want to invent new ones out of people like you and me with the simple stroke of a pen. They will do anything they can to make it impossible for more and more American citizens to legally own any firearm.

Realizing that what I wrote catered to this insidious attack on fellow gun owners has, one might say, “awakened a sleeping giant within me, and filled him with a terrible resolve.”

I made a mistake. But those who would use my remarks to further their despicable political agenda have made a bigger one. I hope to become their worst nightmare. I admit I was wrong. They insist they are right.

Enclosed, you will find a check that is intended to be used to fight and defeat HR 1022. I also hope it inspires other gun owners to “do as I do, not as I say.”

I’m putting my money where my mouth should have been, and where my heart and soul have always been. I know the Second Amendment isn’t about hunting and never has been. My blunder was in thinking that by working to protect precious hunting rights I was doing enough. I promise it will never happen again.

I don’t know what lies over the horizon for me. I am not ready for the rocking chair.

I’m going to devote every ounce of my energy to this battle. I will remind my fellow hunters that we are first, gun owners. Whether we like it or not, our former apathy and prejudices may place that which we love, hunting, in jeopardy. I will educate fellow outdoorsmen who mistakenly think like I talked, even if I have to visit every hunting camp and climb into every duck blind and deer stand in this country to get it done. I was wrong, and I’m going to make it right.


Sincerely,
Jim Zumbo



We at OHPA send a heartfelt thank you to Jim Zumbo.