Would be proper to say that the right protected in

I was just checking my e-mail and found an interesting one from Gun Owners Of America. In case you hadn't guessed it is about the Supreme Court making a decision on the meaning of the Second Amendment, "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." I always thought that was pretty easy to understand, it's not real long and it doesn't have any real big words. One of the questions that's now being ask is, "would be proper to say that the right protected in
the Second Amendment shall not be "unreasonably infringed"?








Wednesday, March 19, 2008


Gun owners had their day in court on Tuesday, when the U.S. Supreme Court
heard oral arguments in the DC v. Heller case, which involves a challenge to
the DC gun ban.

Absent some world-shaking surprise, it is pretty clear that there are five
votes on the Supreme Court to declare that the Second Amendment is an
individual right.

That fact alone should be enough to settle the argument over gun control and
protect gun owners' rights. But as we all know, that's where the battle over
the meaning of the Second Amendment begins.

More to the point, Justice John Paul Stevens asked Alan Gura, the attorney
for Dick Heller, if it would be proper to say that the right protected in
the Second Amendment shall not be "unreasonably infringed"?

To our shock and horror, Gura answered "yes." He did qualify his answer
somewhat by saying "we don't know" exactly what this "unreasonable standard
looks like." But he conceded a significant amount of ground with his
answer, because any ban would be "reasonable" to Chuck Schumer and Sarah
Brady.

Truth be told, we do have a proper standard for interpreting the Second
Amendment. The language doesn't say anything about "reasonable" or
"unreasonable;" it simply says the right of the people "shall not be
infringed." It's a shame that even people on "our side" don’t fully
understand that.

That's why when USA Today looked at all the briefs which had been submitted,
the editors decided to use GOA for the opposing voice in today's editorial.
The editors told our attorneys that GOA had an argument that was
distinctive.

Indeed we do. GOA's brief says:

[T]he argument that "the right of the people" is subject to reasonable
regulation and restriction tramples on the very words of the Second
Amendment, reading the phrase -- "shall not be infringed" -- as if it read
"shall be subject only to reasonable regulation to achieve public safety."

"Public safety" is frequently a canard that tyrants hide behind to justify
their oppressive policies. Writing in USA Today, our attorneys Herbert
Titus and William Olson stated:

No government deprives its citizens of rights without asserting that its
actions are "reasonable" and "necessary" for high-sounding reasons such as
"public safety." A right that can be regulated is no right at all, only a
temporary privilege dependent upon the good will of the very government
officials that such right is designed to constrain.

For the rest of the editorial:

For the GOA brief, and other important documents and briefs in DC v. Heller:


I don't know about the rest of you but I feel that our Founding Fathers were some pretty plain spoken easy to understand folks that said what they meant and meant what they said. I'd dare to say that they would find the idea of this case having to go before the Supreme Court was pretty unreasonable.

Thanks go to
Gun Owners Of America.

God Bless America, God Save The Republic.