McClaughry On The 2nd Amendment

        Sorrell and 2nd Amendment Rights

The US Supreme Court will soon rule on an extremely important case. It’s styled DC versus Heller, and it gives the court its first opportunity ever to decide what the Second Amendment means. The 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.”

The DC Circuit Court strongly held that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. It is crystal clear that the founding fathers expected armed citizens to come together in time of danger to form the militia. But the gun controllers claim that no one has a right to keep arms, and only organized militia members have any right to bear arms, and then only under  government control.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott solicited the support of all attorneys general in an amicus brief defending their citizens’  2nd Amendment rights. Thirty of them have signed on.  One who notably refused: No surprise here: Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell. His Deputy Janet Murnane says that  “we support the principle of each state’s authority to regulate firearms.”

So much for your right to keep and bear arms – not only under the 2nd Amendment, but also Chapter I Article 16 of the Vermont Constitution's Bill of Rights. Apparently Sorrell is too busy filing nutty carbon dioxide suits against the EPA to stand up for the firearms rights of Vermonters.

John McClaughry

Comments

[Carl Donath]

"His Deputy Janet Murnane says that 'we support the principle of each state’s authority to regulate firearms.'"

That's interesting. The Vermont Supreme Court long ago ruled that the state had no such authority. (Of course, "regulate" in this context is read to mean "suppress/prohibit", not "facilitate".)

[Jon Harrison]

If Murnane is saying it's a states' rights issue, then I applaud her. One thing you're never going to get a majority of Vermont voters to agree to is the government taking away their right to bear arms.

[Mister Guy]

"it gives the court its first opportunity ever to decide what the Second Amendment means."

Not quite...how about the first time since the last time it decided about that...almost a hundred or so years ago. Doesn't VT have some of weakest gun laws in the whole country?

[Jon Harrison]

Weakest -- yes, thank goodness.

[Mister Guy]

That's what I thought...so where's the threat then? The laws have been weak here forever. Even Howard Dean wouldn't touch them.

[Lazarus Long]

To Jon Harrison and Mister Guy: Don't for one minute think that there are not salivating gun confiscation proponents waiting in the wings of the state legislature and state govt. They are playing it shrewd and will let the Federal folks do all of the heavy lifting on the issue. That way they can claim innocence and tell all the rest of us serd that their hands are clean. Of course, they will not say a thing in protest.

[Jon Harrison]

Well, I sure hope you're wrong, Lazarus.

[Mister Guy]

Paranoid much Mr. Long?

[Lazarus Long]

To Mr. Guy: The folks who are pushing for nationwide draconian gun laws leading to bans and confiscation and our local pols are cut from the same cloth. When any national anti-firearm laws are proposed do local pols rise and speak out in protest? I have not seen it happen. Yet lots of local pols rise and give their two cents worth on other issues raised at the Fed.gov level. The obvious difference proves my point.

To Jon Harrison:
I'm willing to bet the price of an M1 Rifle on my position. What say ye?

[Mister Guy]

"The folks who are pushing for nationwide draconian gun laws leading to bans and confiscation"

No one that I know of is seriously pushing for this. No one wants to take away the guns that you have now. Common sense gun laws are *not* about that. Do yourself a favor and stop being so scared...you'll live longer...