the second amendment the right to bear arms mr. davison (full disclosure – i do hold a valid...
TRANSCRIPT
The Second AmendmentThe Second Amendment
The Right to Bear ArmsThe Right to Bear Arms
Mr. DavisonMr. Davison
(Full Disclosure – I do hold a valid (Full Disclosure – I do hold a valid pistol permit and did work in law pistol permit and did work in law
enforcement)enforcement)
The Second AmendmentThe Second Amendment
A well regulated A well regulated Militia, being Militia, being necessary to the necessary to the security of a free security of a free State, the right of the State, the right of the people to keep and people to keep and bear Arms, shall not bear Arms, shall not be infringed. be infringed.
Second Amendment Trivia!Second Amendment Trivia!ORIGINAL WordingORIGINAL Wording
A well-regulated militia, A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of composed of the body of the people, being the best the people, being the best security of a free state, the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep right of the people to keep and bear arms will not be and bear arms will not be infringed.infringed.
BUT no person religiously BUT no person religiously scrupulous shall be scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.compelled to bear arms.
““right of the people to keep and right of the people to keep and bear arms”bear arms”
But what was meant by But what was meant by adding “well-regulated adding “well-regulated militia” and “necessary to militia” and “necessary to the security of a free the security of a free state”?state”?– Does it mean that you can Does it mean that you can
only carry arms if you are only carry arms if you are in the militia?in the militia?
– Can guns only be used for Can guns only be used for national defense, or does national defense, or does that mean self-defense?that mean self-defense?
““right of the people to keep and right of the people to keep and bear arms”bear arms”
Is the militia in 2005 Is the militia in 2005 mean the same thing mean the same thing as it did in 1787?as it did in 1787?
CENTRAL CENTRAL ARGUMENT!ARGUMENT!– Whether people have a Whether people have a
right to bear arms as right to bear arms as INDIVIDUALS, rather INDIVIDUALS, rather than just as part of an than just as part of an official militia.official militia.
Before the Second Amendment:Before the Second Amendment:Gun Control in EnglandGun Control in England
There was the right to There was the right to bear arms BUTbear arms BUT– ““as allowed by law”as allowed by law”
– NOT an absolute right.NOT an absolute right.» FOR GOOD REASON!FOR GOOD REASON!
The Citizen-Soldier in AmericaThe Citizen-Soldier in AmericaBEFORE the RevolutionBEFORE the Revolution
Belief the part-time Belief the part-time citizen-soldier would citizen-soldier would represent the values of represent the values of his community.his community.
Unlikely to become an Unlikely to become an instrument of instrument of oppression as a full-oppression as a full-time professional time professional soldier.soldier.
The Citizen-Soldier in AmericaThe Citizen-Soldier in AmericaBEFORE the RevolutionBEFORE the Revolution
The citizen-soldier The citizen-soldier brought his own gun brought his own gun to the fight or to the fight or protection of his protection of his community.community.– APOLOGY to the APOLOGY to the
women in here. In women in here. In 1776, they didn’t 1776, they didn’t consider women as consider women as citizen soldiers!citizen soldiers!
But women were soldiers!But women were soldiers!
Nancy Hart in the Nancy Hart in the American Revolution.American Revolution.– Guns certainly helped Guns certainly helped
her!her!
Bearing Arms and the Bearing Arms and the ConstitutionConstitution
What the Founders What the Founders meant when they meant when they deleted the C.O. deleted the C.O. (conscientious (conscientious objector) and the objector) and the militia wording is militia wording is STILL not clear.STILL not clear.
Collective Rights v. Individual Collective Rights v. Individual Rights: One Point of View (POV)Rights: One Point of View (POV)
Some think the 2Some think the 2ndnd Amendment was designed Amendment was designed ONLY to protect the ONLY to protect the rights of the states to have rights of the states to have militias.militias.– NOT the right of NOT the right of
individuals to bear arms for individuals to bear arms for their own self-defense.their own self-defense.
– ““well-regulated militia” and well-regulated militia” and “security of a free state” “security of a free state” prove their point.prove their point.
» Restrictions on hunting Restrictions on hunting and self-defense.and self-defense.
Collective Rights v. Individual Collective Rights v. Individual Rights: Another POVRights: Another POV
Individual rights were Individual rights were included in the militia.included in the militia.– Militia = the body of Militia = the body of
the people.the people.
– Militia then includes Militia then includes EVERYONE in the EVERYONE in the community.community.
– ALSO the Bill of ALSO the Bill of Rights was included to Rights was included to protect INDIVIDUAL protect INDIVIDUAL rights, not the states!rights, not the states!
Collective Rights v. Individual Collective Rights v. Individual Rights: Another POV (cont.)Rights: Another POV (cont.)
Also the Second Also the Second Amendment says Amendment says “right of the “right of the PEOPLE” – meant to PEOPLE” – meant to protect individual protect individual rights?rights?
The Second Amendment and The The Second Amendment and The CourtsCourts
Barron v. Baltimore Barron v. Baltimore (1831)(1831)– The Second The Second
Amendment makes it Amendment makes it so the FEDERAL so the FEDERAL government cannot government cannot make laws limiting make laws limiting guns.guns.
» BUT!!!!! It doesn’t stop BUT!!!!! It doesn’t stop the states from the states from regulating guns.regulating guns.
The Second Amendment and The The Second Amendment and The CourtsCourts
Presser v. Illinois Presser v. Illinois (1886)(1886)– Continued on Barron.Continued on Barron.
– Illinois could have a Illinois could have a law saying ONLY the law saying ONLY the state militia could drill state militia could drill or parade with arms.or parade with arms.
The Second Amendment and The The Second Amendment and The CourtsCourts
US v. Miller (1939)US v. Miller (1939) National Firearms Act National Firearms Act
of 1934 required of 1934 required registration of sawed-registration of sawed-off shotguns.off shotguns.
Mr. Miller said this Mr. Miller said this violated his right to violated his right to bear arms.bear arms.
DOES IT?DOES IT?
The Second Amendment and The The Second Amendment and The CourtsCourts
Miller Ruling:Miller Ruling:– Possessing a sawed-off Possessing a sawed-off
shotgun is NOT related shotgun is NOT related to the militia and not to the militia and not protected by the protected by the Second Amendment.Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment and The The Second Amendment and The CourtsCourts
Because of the Miller Because of the Miller Ruling – every time Ruling – every time gun control laws go gun control laws go through the Congress through the Congress and the President – and the President – they have to SPECIFY they have to SPECIFY the weapons and prove the weapons and prove they don’t go with a they don’t go with a well armed militia.well armed militia.
The Second Amendment and The The Second Amendment and The CourtsCourts
No federal court has No federal court has EVER struck down EVER struck down gun control legislation gun control legislation as a violation of the as a violation of the Second Amendment.Second Amendment.
You Decide!You Decide!
Quilici v. Morton Quilici v. Morton GroveGrove
The town of Morton The town of Morton Grove, Illinois passed Grove, Illinois passed a law to ban a law to ban possession of possession of handguns in the home. handguns in the home.
Persons with guns had Persons with guns had to turn them in to the to turn them in to the police.police.
You DecideYou Decide
Guns for recreational Guns for recreational shooting had to be stored shooting had to be stored in gun clubs.in gun clubs.
Police, security guards, Police, security guards, armed forces exempted.armed forces exempted.
Mr. Quilici believes his Mr. Quilici believes his Second Amendment rights Second Amendment rights are being violated.are being violated.
DO YOU AGREE / DO YOU AGREE / DISAGREE?DISAGREE?
Morton Grove DecisionMorton Grove Decision
The Federal The Federal Government can’t Government can’t make laws regulating make laws regulating guns – but local guns – but local communities can!communities can!
The Future of Gun ControlThe Future of Gun Control
Pro-Gun: National Rifle Pro-Gun: National Rifle AssociationAssociation– If the 2If the 2ndnd Amendment is Amendment is
infringed – no other infringed – no other constitutional rights are constitutional rights are safe.safe.
– Just because criminals use Just because criminals use guns does not mean that guns does not mean that law-abiding citizens should law-abiding citizens should be denied the right to bear be denied the right to bear arms.arms.
» Costs of democracy. We Costs of democracy. We have to live with hate have to live with hate speech to have all speech.speech to have all speech.
The Future of Gun ControlThe Future of Gun Control
Advocates for Gun Advocates for Gun Control: (Brady Law)Control: (Brady Law)– No right is absolute in No right is absolute in
the Bill of Rights.the Bill of Rights.
– Right to bear arms Right to bear arms must be weighed must be weighed against potential harm against potential harm it can cause society.it can cause society.
» Harm is more deadly Harm is more deadly than speech.than speech.