Is the Second Amendment Absolute?

[billh58]

Andrew Rosenthal of the New York Times wrote this editorial a little over a year ago, but its message remains true:

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/is-the-second-amendment-absolute/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1

- Snip -

"Even if you believe the Second Amendment grants each American an individual right to own a gun, which remains a matter of some debate, it does not follow logically, legally or constitutionally that this right is absolute. No right granted by the Constitution is totally exempt from limitations.

The Fourth Amendment forbids unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee due process. Yet many of the same politicians who champion an absolutist understanding of the Second Amendment tolerate the indefinite military detention of alleged (not proven) terrorists. Just yesterday Charlie Savage reported that lawmakers charged with merging the House and Senate versions of the National Defense Authorization Act dropped a provision that would have barred the military from holding American citizens indefinitely, without trial.

Not even the right to speak is absolute. Justice Antonin Scalia explained in 2008 that “offers to provide or requests to obtain child pornography are categorically excluded from the First Amendment.” By my lights, “offers to provide or requests to obtain” child pornography are to the First Amendment what “offers to provide or requests to obtain” semiautomatic rifles with 100-round magazines, without so much as a background check, are to the Second Amendment. If your “freedom” threatens children’s safety, it’s reasonable to restrict it."

The enumerated rights of the BOR are ALL subject to regulation, restriction, and/or interpretation, and the Second Amendment is no different. Even Heller affirmed this Constitutional flexibility.

Just for reference:

"The Bill of Rights enumerates freedoms not explicitly indicated in the main body of the Constitution, such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, a free press, and free assembly; the right to keep and bear arms; freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, security in personal effects, and freedom from warrants issued without probable cause; indictment by a grand jury for any capital or "infamous crime"; guarantee of a speedy, public trial with an impartial jury; and prohibition of double jeopardy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

[elleng]

1. No.

[Hoyt]

2. I hope someday soon the 4 dissenting Justices in Heller will become 5.

Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting --

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html

The dissenting Justices make far more sense than the majority, but even Scalia said restrictions are allowed.


" . . . . . . When each word in the text [of the Second Amendment] is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. . . . . . ."



One day soon, those Justices bought off by the NRA and the right/white wingers will not be in the majority.

[billh58]

3. It's also more than a little

telling that the "majority" were the very same right-wingers that selected Dubya for POTUS.

[lastlib]

4. For a second, I thought the question was...

"Is the Second Amendment Obsolete?" To which I answered a resounding "YESSS!"

[billh58]

5. Since we do have

a standing Army, a Navy, an Air Force, a Marine Corps, the National Guard in every state, and many thousands of municipal police officers, I would say that yes, the Second Amendment has been obsolete for a while now.

But the Second Amendment absolutists will say that the reason for keeping the Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with "the security of a free state," and everything to do with self-defense against unnamed scary looking unarmed people.