I support the Second Amendment....

[johnharris]

It is election time. Sort of like a fog in the air at early dawn, our vision is clouded by all of the prospective political speak that abounds. Well, on second thought, it is not so much a beautiful morning fog but more like the man-made stinch of a sewage treatment plant that impairs other senses.

This week, I have been looking forward to the long holiday weekend of July 4th. I have been listening to contestants for politicial office recommend themselves for office. It is almost as predictable. As after they proclaim their citizenship, their business successes, their family values and the need to protect our borders, I usually hear "and I support the Second Amendment." That to me is a sound bite and means nothing.

"I support the Second Amendment" is a political code issued in hopes of avoiding the fate of Al Gore with his home state. It is the "is" of Clinton-speak.

I place no value in the assertion that a politician believes that he or she supports the Second Amendment. What I want to know is what does that politician believe the Second Amendment means and what specifically do they believe must be done in the desired office relative to the Second Amendment.

By way of example, consider a candidate for federal office. Several questions might be:

1) Does the Second Amendment extend to prohibit laws and regulations at the state level? I believe not as it was written because that was the exclusive province of state legislation. The Founding Fathers understood that the powers of the Federal Government were limited to those expressly delegated in the Constitution. They understood that the federal government had powers greater than those of the states only in limited, specifically stated areas. Our Founding Fathers would likely chastise us for what we have done as slothful children with our inheritance because we have not preserved the country and the intended balances of power.

2) Does the Second Amendment protect an individual right or a "collective" right? I believe it is an individual, political right.

3) Does the Second Amendment protect the right to hunt? It's purpose and protections are much broader. There was no perceived need at that time to protect the right to hunt - it was inconceivable that anyone would ever seek to impair that right. No, the Second Amendment protects another right - a political right of governmental displacement which is necessary to the premise that the people are the ultimate rulers. It exists to preclude the federal government from disarming the public and thereby impairing its ability to displace the federal government should the public so choose.

4) What is meant by the term "arms"? The term arms as used is the Second Amendment is not, as the federal government presently defines it, weapons suitable for "sporting purposes." The term arms, as uniformly held by state and federal supreme court decisions throughout the 1800's and early 1900's, means weapons suitable for modern military purposes. Arms, as used in the Second Amendment, means infantry weapons. Arms means assault looking rifles, semi-automatics, full automatics, select-fired weapons, high capacity firearms, machineguns, short barrel shotguns and rifles - anything that may be found in the military arsenal for the infantry and special forces.

If an candidate for office professes to support the Second Amendment then they must be required to tell us what they think the Second Amendment means.

I have talked to several candidates for state and federal office. Not one has answered correctly questions about the repeal of federal laws restricting the types of arms which can be owned by the public. Instead, they pander about on other minor issues - you know, throw the dog a bone issues. Not one talks about real action that would restore the Second Amendment to its original purpose and intent because that would require repealing most federal laws and regulations.

I have talked with candidates for state office. Frankly, very few of them have answers that I feel comfortable with either. They do not talk about the State Constitutional protections under Article 1, Section 26 - almost none of them know that it exists much less what it says. They do not talk about repealing restrictions to the full extent that would be necessary under the Tennessee Constitution. They do not know about the 2 Tennessee Supreme Court decisions which are key. They do not talk about introducing legislation at the state level seeking to force federal action to repeal the existing federal laws and regulations impairing the Second Amendment.

When a candidate tells you that they support the Second Amendment, make them tell you what "is means" otherwise they are doing nothing more than kissing babies.

[billgemmell]

Bob Corker appears to be the leading candidate who will face Harold Ford in the general election in Nov.2006. There are many reasons I don't care to vote for Harold Ford. Corker says he supports the 2nd Amendment. However, I assume from what TFA says, we really don't know where Corker stands on this. Maybe he had opportunity while mayor of Chattanooga to show his inclination on firearms issues.
Anyone who has knowledge of where he stands on the 2nd Amendment, please post it.
Happy and safe Independance Day to all. Herman

[SomeGuy]

[Ed__357]

[johnharris]

[SomeGuy]

[ProguninTN]

[Freedom2U]

[ProguninTN]

[johnharris]

ProguninTN,

Yes, I am referring to court decisions. One of my concerns is that sometimes those of us on the side of the 2nd Amendment are working off of sound bites and our own - perhaps flawed - interpretations.

While I may not agree with all of the cases which have made an effort to construe the 2nd Amendment I do agree with most of the ones which have actually taken a very close, hard and historical examination of the subject.

In my opinion, too many politicians disrespect gun owners by saying "I am an NRA member" (which means they spent $35) and "I support the 2nd Amendment."

I will tell you from experience as a trial attorney who handles 2nd Amendment cases, the BATFE ("Ban All Those Firearms Entirely") "agrees" with the 2nd Amendment but that agency's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is a far cry from what the Founding Fathers wrote and intended.

When most politicians say they "support the 2nd Amendment" they are speaking as one with the BATFE unless they prove to me otherwise.

How do they prove otherwise? What legislation have they introduced? I could care less if they voted for legislation because that is too easy to do once they see the landscape. I want to know if they put their money whether their campaign mouth was. I want to see specifically that they supported the 2nd Amendment by filing and pursuing legislation to repeal bad laws and restrain the BATFE to a level that the Founding Fathers would have agreed with. This hits Ford, Bryant and Hilleary on point so where is the proof?

What about state legislators? The issues can be more complex. What legislative or resolutions have they passed to force the Attorney General to file actions against BATFE for infringing the rights of Tennesseans? What legislation have they sponsored in the state to repeal laws contrary to the Tennessee Constitution? I know from history the kind of legislation that various incumbents have sponsored and those that have been our opposition. Very few, very few will put it on the line - particularly with House Democrats because of Speaker Naifeh and his willingness to use unfair tactics to perpetuate his control.

What about those who are new? Well, let's take Corker for example. He was in State Government - what chances did he have to make change? He was the mayor of Chattanooga I hear almost daily on TV and the radio. How many publically owned properties did he removed the signage from? How many publically owned gun ranges did he make available to the public? I don't know but I suspect some of you do - tell us all.

What about others who have no political history? Well, are the NRA members or NRA Life (or higher) members? Do they support NRA-ILA? Have they been in regular attendance at gun ranges, local TFA chapter meetings, or even Friends of NRA events? Do they raise money to fight the lobbying fight for gun rights? If they will not contribute time and money (or cannot show that they did) to fight for these rights when they were mere citizens - why would we be foolish enough to think that they will put it on the line when their political aspirations are involved?

For me, I have not heard a single campaign ad from anyone, anywhere yet that tells me what they think the 2nd Amendment means. Until they do, they are just debating what "is" means as far as I am concerned.

[ProguninTN]

Mr. Harris,

I agree completely. I too am sick of polticians thikng they can people over just with comments. I appreciate your clarification of your earlier post.

[SomeGuy]

Regarding Bob Corker, Chris Clem wrote a damning piece about him. (Chris Clem was my Rep, until he opted to retire this term, he was a good guy.)

http://www.teamgop.org/blog/archives/ch ... index.html

While in the end, Clem says go with Corker over Ford, I for one won't. Ford would be far easier to unseat in 6 years than Corker.

[Freedom2U]

[SomeGuy]

[Freedom2U]

[ProguninTN]