Legalities
Life, Politics and the Law From ABC News Correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg
Jan Crawford Greenburg is a correspondent for ABC News' bureau in Washington DC. She covers politics, the Supreme Court and provides legal analysis for ABC News. She is a graduate of the University of Chicago's law school and is a member of the New York bar.
RECENT POSTS
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Lining up for Guns
March 16, 2008 10:26 PM
The landmark legal battle over the 2nd Amendment is still two days—and two cold nights—away. But people already are waiting in line to get a prized seat in the courtroom for the historic arguments.
Jason McCrory, 23, and Dan Mott, 21, started the line at exactly 5:35 p.m. Sunday. I know, because I happened to be standing out front myself, getting ready to file a report about the case for World News.
“Here’s your story,” a Supreme Court police officer yelled over to me, pointing to a sport utility vehicle that stopped across the street. Out came two guys with a bunch of stuff--rolled up blankets, plastic bags of water--and within minutes they’d found a spot at the foot of the Court’s steps and settled in for the long haul.
Let me tell you, it already was pretty cold and-- as anyone who happened to see my World News piece knows—absurdly windy. But Jason and Dan were unfazed. Jason pulled on a fur hat. Dan wrapped up in a blanket.
They’d come down from Lancaster, Pa. because they have pretty strong opinions about the 2nd Amendment.
“The 2nd Amendment is important to me,” said Jason, who just graduated with a degree in political science from Millersville University and is working construction until he gets a job more suited to the degree. “It’s intended for people to defend themselves.”
Added Dan: “We’re constitutional supporters.”
And that, both said, means they support the idea that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun.
Before long, they were talking to a guy from Phoenix who had just gotten into town for the arguments. He and a friend had gone straight to the Court from the airport, and he was planning to camp outside, too.
If you had any doubt this was a big case—if the scores of legal briefs on both sides hadn’t convinced you---there’s more proof, sitting right outside the Courtroom tonight.
Long lines mean big cases that stir deep emotions. And you can be sure that line is going to get longer and longer as it gets closer and closer to 10 a.m. Tuesday.
That’s when the Court, for the first time in 70 years, will confront one of the most vexing constitutional questions: Does the 2nd Amendment protect an individual’s right to “keep and bear arms” or does it only protect a state’s right to a “well regulated militia?”
The people in front of the Court tonight adamantly believe it protects an individual’s right, as do most members of Congress, the Bush Administration and—according to the polls—a vast majority of the American people.
But officials in Washington D.C., which bans handguns and has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation, argue otherwise. And most of the federal appeals courts have agreed that it only protects a state’s right to assemble a militia. That interpretation means, of course, that the government can ban guns if it wants to.
Tuesday, we’ll hear for the first time from the justices, and their questions to the lawyers may finally give us some sense of how they’re thinking about this case. We sure don’t have much to go on now.
There’s no precedent, no past Supreme Court cases, to guide them. The briefs are voluminous, but take wildly divergent positions. The justices literally will be writing on a blank slate. And people on both sides—those sitting in line outside and those listening at home--think it’s absolutely clear what they should write.
The 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to own a gun. The 2nd Amendment protects a state’s right to form a militia.
But which one?
March 16, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (28)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
"The purpose of the Second Amendment is not to repel foreign invaders, but to assure the ability to overthrow the government if it ceases to be a government run for and by the people". -- Thomas Jefferson
The other quotes are authentic. This one is not. When the pro-gun rights side has so many authentic comments to choose from, there's really no excuse for making one up.
I didn't make it up. To the best of my knowledge it is real, although I do not know the original document off the top of my head. What are your grounds? Have you memorized everything Jefferson ever wrote?
Posted by: TBJW | Mar 17, 2008 5:53:56 PM
If anybody thinks that the right to bear arms would allow any militia to overthrow the US government, then they're living either in the 1700's, or in a dreamworld.
When the Constitution was penned, an armed militia might have had that power, but considering the strength of the military today, it would just be a massacre. Maybe parts of the Constitution need to be rewritten to bring it up to date?
Posted by: Richard Sutherland | Mar 17, 2008 6:12:43 PM
Scanning through the web looking for the original quote, I must admit I couln'd find it other than on one webiste. However, I did find this one, which appears to have very similar sentiments, and several others expressing similar views.
[quote]The most famous exposition of this idea is Jefferson's: "[W]hat country can preserve it's [sic] liberties, if their [sic] rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms ... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Letter from Thomas Jefferson to William S. Smith (Nov. 13, 1787), in Jefferson: Writings 910, 911 (Merrill D. Peterson ed., 1984); see also Trenchard & Moyle, supra note 159, at 12.
[/quote]
Posted by: TBJW | Mar 17, 2008 6:14:52 PM
Richard, we are discussing what the 2nd means, as described by the Founders, not whether an armed revolt would succeed.
You are right, such a revolt would probably fail unless it were supported by rank and file of the armed forces (which it might be, see others above).
However, anyone who thinks that a tyranny couldn't arise today understands neither history nor the nature of some people.
Indeed the only anti-gun position that I respect at all (even though I disagree) is "The Bill of Rights is obsolete, let's rewrite it." What a can of worms that would open.
Posted by: TBJW | Mar 17, 2008 6:19:28 PM
Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-gun, but I do think certain parts of the Constitution are worded really badly for this day and age. Your point about the discussing what the 2nd means indicates such.
As for whether a tyranny could arise, well some might say that one has already arisen. I guess only history will determine that.
Posted by: Richard Sutherland | Mar 17, 2008 6:52:24 PM
Mr. Sutherland, please consider the following;
It seem to me that some of the greatest armies that the world has ever seen have come undone by insurgents, rebels and assorted riffraff. Cases in point would be the American Revolution against Great Britain, the Viet Cong et al against the United States and ARVN, the mujahadin against the Soviets in Afghanistan, to name a few, not to mention the difficulties that we're having in Iraq. Asymmetrical warfare can and is often very effective.
Does anyone really think that the majority of the rank and file military and/or civilian security forces of this country would willingly go door to door against their families, neighbors and friends to confiscate their "rightfully" owned firearms? Were that day to come I suspect that a new Civil War or second American Revolution would ensue. Not a pretty picture at all is it? How many of the "authorities" do you think would "defect" and take up arms with, and not against, their fellow citizens? There is also the aspect of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and how it relates to legal vs. illegal orders.
I'm neither living in the 18th century nor a dreamworld. The essential fact of the matter is that as a human being one is endowed with certain inalienable rights, among which are, but not solely limited to, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the right and means to defend one's self, family and community. I refer you to the 10th Amendment.
Posted by: Greg | Mar 17, 2008 11:52:06 PM
Mr. Sutherland: "As for whether a tyranny could arise, well some might say that one has already arisen." While I am not pleased at all at some of the stuff Mr. Bush as done in the last 7 years to refer to him as a tyrant makes one look ignorant and belittles the term. If he were the "tryant" many profess this blog would not even be possible and if you openly said these things then you would suffer quite badly. If he were the "tryant" some think he is you would end up in a plastic shredder, a rape room or have your head taken off publicly. The bad attitude hate the left spouts is ridiculous and shows one of two things, 1) they actually believe this in which case they are not in touch with reality as to how bad it would be under the rule of a actual "tyrant" or 2) they are hoping the the people they are preaching upon are illiterate to believe their spoutings. The first makes them rather sad and unwordly at best and complete idiots at worst. The second makes them to be manipulators and one could argue are just as troublesome as the person they profess to hate.
Posted by: Tom | Mar 18, 2008 7:39:30 AM
Germany banned the rights of its people to keep and bear arms sometime ago when its own government was in the midst of change. This action was one of many that led to the deaths of so many innocent men, women, and children without a shot being fired.
Posted by: JB | Mar 21, 2008 1:10:51 PM
Post a comment
