That is pretty interesting. Thanks for posting.
This is a discussion on Liberals and the NRA have found common cause in a pending supreme court case. within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Now this is an intresting little side-development on things......dosn't quite "check with chart"......this common sense thing. What say you? When the constitutional accountability Center launched ...
Now this is an intresting little side-development on things......dosn't quite "check with chart"......this common sense thing. What say you?
When the constitutional accountability Center launched in 2008, it looked like just another liberal legal-advocacy group, dedicated to "fulfilling the progressive promise of our Constitution's text and history." The causes it has backed run the standard liberal gamut: among other things, the group supports California's efforts to regulate carbon emissions and pushes for "robust due-process protections for immigrant criminal defendants." So if you were told that the CAC had filed an amicus brief in McDonald v. Chicago, a case about gun control to be argued before the Supreme Court this week, you might think it was siding with Chicago, whose restrictions on gun ownership are being challenged.
You would be wrong. For decades, liberals have opposed gun rights on the grounds that the Second Amendment is limited to the establishment of state militias. But some liberal dissenters from this view now say that is too narrow a reading of the Constitution. They contend that it fails to take into account the historical record and contradicts liberals' own reading of the Constitution's protection of individual rights.
The CAC has joined forces with staunch conservatives, including Steven G. Calabresi, cofounder of the Federalist Society, to support expanding individual rights, including gun rights, in the states—inviting the possibility that Chicago's virtual ban on handguns might be overturned. "There is a deeply progressive historical basis for some individual right to bear arms," says Douglas Kendall, the CAC's founder.
This is still far from the standard liberal view. But Kendall does have allies. Some sharp liberal legal minds are part of his campaign to reverse and embrace the right to gun ownership. "I believe in an individual right to bear arms, consistent with a living Constitution," says Adam Winkler, a professor of law at UCLA and a frequent participant in the American Constitution Society, the liberal answer to the Federalist Society. Winkler was one of eight scholars, including other prominent liberals, who signed the CAC's brief in the McDonald case.
What is going on here? For much of the nation's history, Kendall and his supporters argue, the right to bear arms was considered essential to citizenship. "Forty-two states in their state constitutions provide protections for the right to bear arms," says Winkler. "It is one of the longest-standing, most deeply entrenched rights in American history."
At the heart of the left-leaning dissenters' argument is a plea for consistency. For decades, liberals have insisted that the Constitution assumes—even if it does not explicitly spell out—a right to bodily autonomy. This right, long disputed by conservatives, is a basis for arguments in favor of abortion rights and gay rights. Liberals who support gun rights find a similar implied right to own weapons: after all, they say, what is the right to bear arms but the ability to protect your body from criminals as well as the government? "The right to bear arms gives you a mechanism to protect your bodily autonomy from attack," says Winkler.
The Unlikely Liberal Case for Gun Rights - Newsweek.com
That is pretty interesting. Thanks for posting.
Note: This post may contain misspellings, grammatical errors, disorganized sentence structure, or may entirely lack a coherent theme. These elements are natural to the process of writing, and will only add to the overall beauty of the post.
...At the heart of the left-leaning dissenters' argument is a plea for consistency. For decades, liberals have insisted that the Constitution assumes—even if it does not explicitly spell out—a right to bodily autonomy. This right, long disputed by conservatives, is a basis for arguments in favor of abortion rights and gay rights. Liberals who support gun rights find a similar implied right to own weapons: after all, they say, what is the right to bear arms but the ability to protect your body from criminals as well as the government?...
Interesting twist...thanks for posting!
Proverbs 27:12 says: “The prudent see danger and take refuge, but the simple keep going and suffer for it.”
Certified Glock Armorer
NRA Life Member
Thanks for the post.
When I saw it in my local paper early this morning I had planned to post it when I got back home.
As I have said RKBA is not exclusively a conservative issue. Nor is it just the Republican party that supports it. I know many thinking Democrats and liberals who support the RKBA.
What has happened is that many of out schools, and political organizations are being taken over by some sort of populist import of the traditional European labour parties/socialist parties -- which is not at all true liberal thinking.
As Tint Bob from the UK pointed it out in thread http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulle...lls-bills.html
Much of the Anti-RKBA is a product of exposure to that bumper sticker mentality, feel good generalizations and promises, boggy-man fear and create straw-men arguments. Many Antis never had the good luck to grow and learn from clear thinkers of any stripe. In Dan Casey's column, today [see: http://www.roanoke.com/columnists/casey/wb/239031] he said,
"I'm 51, the oldest of four kids, and grew up in New York, New Jersey and (mostly) Maryland." ??? Hum? I wonder what chance he ever had to avoid the labour party/socialist party type influences? What chance to ever use the tool, rather that have it used as a boggy-man fear symbol.
IMHO, we in the RKBA community need to build all the links which we can to those who support the RKBA and agree to disagree on any other issues -- rather than say, If you don't agree with me on [fill-in-the-blank], I won't work with you on the the RKBA.
IMHO, this is not unlike my great distaste for the divide and conquer forces in our ranks. The hair on my neck goes up whenever I see a thread, or hear someone say, "Well I'm a [target shooter, hunter, CC not OC, etc] I don't see why anyone would need...." or "We need more [fill-in-the-blank] for gun safety."
We all need to draw together [all of us of all stripes], not separate ourselves over issues that are not germain to the RKBA.
Last edited by DaveH; March 7th, 2010 at 02:29 PM. Reason: Sp
I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.
I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.
Veni, Vidi, Velcro
Exodus 22:2 "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed"
What this says to me, is that some individuals have more rights than others. I'm not completely sold..."There is a deeply progressive historical basis for some individual right to bear arms," says Douglas Kendall, the CAC's founder.
Trust in God and keep your powder dry
"A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government." -source
Incorporation of the BOR provisions against the state has been a "liberal" position for decades. That is how "liberals" who applauded Miranda (incorporation of the 5th for example) got themselves stigmatized by the so-called law and order crowd who wanted an anything goes at the police station approach.
Liberals were similarly stigmatized for advocating that the 4th, is incorporated against the states. And they have been similarly vilified for advocating that the 1st is incorporated against the state--- prohibiting states from establishing religion with the display of religion promoting materials in court houses; or trampling free speech with flag burning laws, or restrictions on black arm bands in school.
Conservatives wanted to adhere to Jim Crow era interpretations which gave states latitude to oppress. E.g., to keep men and women from using birth control.
There have been innumerable arguments here in the past on these issues.
Well, there is an old saying, "politics makes strange bedfellows."
On the 2A issue, a liberal reading would require that it, along with the other portions of the BOR be held to restrict the behavior of the states-- that is, be incorporated. The strict conservative view would go against gun owner rights.
As it happens, in order to deal with Chicago (and other abominations from the pro-gun owner's rights point of view) 2A must become incorporated as all the other BOR provisions.
This then presents an uncomfortable position for both liberals and conservatives. As conservatives tend to be the most vocal pro-gun people, they end up arguing against gun owner rights if they argue against conservative principles on incorporation.
Also upside down, the liberal who argues against incorporation because they like gun restrictions, is going against everything else s/he has proclaimed.
We might now see the spectacle of the most conservative judges going against
prior conservative views by incorporating 2A against the states, while the so called liberal judges would oppose incorporation even though they like it for all the other BOR provisions.
This just goes to show, ideology means nothing.
People (Justices included) want an outcome, and most are willing to bend principle to get the outcome they want. We will see plenty of bent "souls" and bent reasoning, twisted logic, and worse when the final ruling comes out-- however that might be.
It will be strange in deed to watch Thomas and Ginsburg rationalize their way to the end result they want. Don't expect much adherence to principle.
Here's a link to McDonald v Chicago where you can get all briefs on both sides.....
McDonald v. City of Chicago - ScotusWiki
Enjoy the reading.......
Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.