Constitutional-Literacy-13

=**Section 13: The Second Amendment**=

Dr. Susan Gratia gave legislative testimony on gun control laws. Watch her testimony below - her testimony is on what she sees as the benefit of the second amendment versus gun control laws. media type="youtube" key="6sEYGcXSmpQ" height="315" width="420"


 * Discussion Question: Why is the right to keep and bear arms important based on Dr. Susan Gratia's testimony?**


 * Discussion Question: What argument would be made by opponents of Dr. Gratia's testimony?**

Her testimony is an argument that is often re-argued even today. The 2nd amendment reads "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." Does the 2nd amendment protect the individual right to keep and bear arms or does it only protect this right for a militia. This debate went back and forth until 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller.
 * Walter Dellinger (former Solicitor General who argued) said the 2nd amendment was over concern of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, which gave the new national Congress the power to organize, arm, and even disarm the State militias. The first text to consider is “right to keep and bear arms.” When Madison introduced the amendment, he exactly equated “bear arms” with the quote “rendering military service.” Dellinger, therefore, says the right is militia-related.
 * Chief Justice Roberts, in reply, asked if it is limited to state militias, why would it say “the right of the people?” In other words, why wouldn’t they have said “militias have the right to keep arms?”
 * Dellinger: Says the “people” and “militia” are the same – in sync with each other and uses a reference of the Federalist farmer saying “the people are the militia and the militia are the people.”
 * Roberts: If the militia included all the people, doesn’t the Preamble that you rely on really restrict that right much at all? It includes all the people. The point Roberts is saying is that "We the people" means everyone, not just a certain group. Dellinger is saying that "the people" in the 2nd amendment's wording, though, doesn't mean everyone, but rather only the militia.
 * Dellinger: continued to press theory that the 2nd amendment is a group right, not an individual right.
 * The result was a 5-4 decision that the 2nd amendment is an individual right – Scalia said every other time the words “right of the people” were used, it was clearly an individual right. The Supreme Court had to go on to decide if the D.C. law – banned ownership of any hand gun and prohibited one from loading any gun in their home for any reason whatsoever – was unconstitutional. The court ruled it unconstitutional. This case examined the wording more than any other amendment at any other time. The NRA and other groups long supported research on gun rights. The Supreme Court correctly ruled on individual rights, but a 5-4 vote. A liberal justice replacing a conservative justice will reverse the ruling.


 * Comprehension Question: What would it mean if Walter Dellinger was able to convince the Supreme Court to limit the 2nd Amendment to militia rights - our version today of militia would be the state National Guard.**


 * Comprehension Question: What was the decision in the District of Columbia v. Heller case?**

The Heller case was carefully chosen by 2nd amendment advocates. It was from D.C., not a state, so the 2nd amendment directly applied without state policies. If it were from a state, it would also have to determine if the 2nd amendment also applied to the states as well as whether or not it was an individual freedom. In 2010 a case from Chicago came before the court.

Below is a clip of a CNN report a few years ago when Sonya Sotomayor was appointed by President Obama to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. The NRA opposed her confirmation because when Senator Tom Coburn (Senate must approve) asked her about the right to bear arms, she said the Supreme Court never ruled that it is a fundamental right and therefore doesn't apply to the states. media type="youtube" key="GHeOQNO2z0k" height="315" width="560" What if this logic was used for the other amendments – she didn’t state her position. The 3rd amendment, parts of 5th amendment, and 7th amendment are not considered fundamental rights applicable to the states (because states already assure those rights). Why? Basically just because the Supreme Court said so.

In McDonald. V. Chicago 2010 the same 5-4 vote rule that the 2nd amendment is binding to both the federal and state governments. The reason was that self-defense is a fundamental right. Most of the fundamental rights are bound to the compelling interest test. Justice Scalia takes on this notion. It's a balancing test between government interests versus individual liberty. Scalia says the court shouldn't apply this test where original intent doesn't require it, in other words if the original intent was for a right to be a fundamental right then the court shouldn't use the compelling interest test to see if government interests should be ruled over individual liberty. Scalia says the enumeration of a right takes it out of the hands of the government and says if future Supreme Courts can change a ruling, then it's not a right. He says the first amendment of right to free speech even allows speech by hate groups like the KKK and neo-Nazis even though this speech is offensive. There is no balancing test on free speech in that situation and so the same should apply to the second amendment. Scalia's approach is best to protect the original intentions.


 * Comprehension Question: What was the decision in the McDonald v. Chicago case and why was it significant?**


 * Discussion Question: Is the right to keep and bear arms a right that you believe should be fundamental? Do you think it's important? Why or why not?**

The mass shooting in Colorado in 1999 to this day 227 people have been killed in fatal school shootings, 227. All right, that's a lot 23 of those elementary kids, that was in Connecticut. However, in 1999 there were 28,874 shooting deaths in America. 28,874 shooting deaths in 1999. In 2017, 15,590 that's almost cut in half. So when the commentators tell you this is out of control. Guns are everywhere People can be undone. It's not true. That in this country. All right these kinds of crimes, shooting crimes are going down.

Here's the most startling fact of all. In 1999 there were 641,000 victims of gunshots wounds. Last year., 2017, 70,000 from 641,000 to 70,000. So authorities are making progress on solving this problem. No doubt about it. All right. We are not becoming more violent as far as guns are concerned, we're becoming less violent here in America. You'll never hear that. You will never hear that in the national media.

The mass shooting in Colorado in 1999 to this day 227 people have been killed in fatal school shootings, 227. All right, that's a lot 23 of those elementary kids, that was in Connecticut. However, in 1999 there were 28,874 shooting deaths in America. 28,874 shooting deaths in 1999. In 2017, 15,590 that's almost cut in half. So when the commentators tell you this is out of control. Guns are everywhere People can be undone. It's not true. That in this country. All right these kinds of crimes, shooting crimes are going down.

Here's the most startling fact of all. In 1999 there were 641,000 victims of gunshots wounds. Last year., 2017, 70,000 from 641,000 to 70,000. So authorities are making progress on solving this problem. No doubt about it. All right. We are not becoming more violent as far as guns are concerned, we're becoming less violent here in America. You'll never hear that. You will never hear that in the national media.
 * Discussion Question: What is your analysis of the stats given? **

**Overall: Summarize the main idea of this section and why it's important.**

Back to the Constitutional Literacy main page