.
Rich Estes, one of my West Point classmates and with whom I more often than not agree on political issues, posted the following on Facebook today, saying, “… this pretty well sums up my understanding of the 2d Amendment. I’m interested to hear some rational, well informed comments, pro and con.”
.
.
In response, I posted a summary of my blog posts here on the subjects of the 2nd Amendment and gun control. Having done so, it occurred to me that re-posting that summary here might help others follow the discussion as well. So, here it is:
.
My first post on the subject was in 2008, shortly after the US Supreme Court decided in the Heller case and contrary to the interpretation contained in “What the 2nd Amendment REALLY Says”, that the “right to bear arms” is an individual right, independent of the establishment of any militia:
.
https://freelegaladvice.wordpress.com/2008/06/26/supremes-uphold-individual-handgun-ownership-right/
.
After taking a long break from blogging, I resumed in late 2012. On December 29th, shortly after the Sandy Hook murders, I wrote in part:
.
“… in the absence of an amendment to the Constitution modifying its terms, the Second Amendment means that the government (federal directly and state/local through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment) has no authority to “infringe” (per Merriam-Webster online Dictionary: “to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another”) on the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Period. Not handguns. Not rifles. Not shotguns. Not even “assault weapons”, regarding which, by the way, there really is no such thing. When the federal government passed the so-called “Assault Weapons Ban” in 1994, Congress had to make up a definition of what constituted an “assault weapon” within the meaning of the law.”
.
After discussing various gun control issues, I concluded:
.
“We should not be teaching our children to live in fear. And, as horrific as were the events in Sandy Hook, the occasional occurrence of such events is one of the prices we pay … and must pay … to live in a truly free society.”
.
The full discussion is here:
.
https://freelegaladvice.wordpress.com/2012/12/29/what-now-for-the-second-amendment-gun-control/
.
That discussion prompted a comments and questions by another classmate, Terry Atkinson, who’s opinions I value highly. In response, I wrote a lengthy analysis of the language of the 2nd Amendment and what it meant at the time it was written:
.
https://freelegaladvice.wordpress.com/2013/01/04/more-on-the-2nd-amendment-and-gun-control/
.
I wrote there that my own “strict construction” interpretation of the 2nd Amendment would “… exclude from constitutional protection such weapons as fighter aircraft, naval ships and weapons, artillery pieces, napalm, nukes & other bombs, as well as even such lesser weapons as 50 caliber machine guns, shoulder mounted rocket launchers, flamethrowers, hand grenades and most other military-style weapons.”
.
(As a side-note, I have since come to realize that the term “military-style weapons” is a poorly worded attempt to describe the kinds of weapons used by the military. It is probably more useful to simply use the term “fully automatic”.)
.
I also concluded there that “… a strict construction of the 2nd Amendment would also require that … the mentally ill, like convicted felons, can be thought of as not having any 2nd Amendment right to be infringed by governmental action.”
.
Other gun-related discussions on my blog include:
.
https://freelegaladvice.wordpress.com/2013/01/14/dispelling-the-myth-that-more-guns-more-murders/
.
… in which I contend and explain the basis for the contention that:
.
“… proponents of more restrictive gun control laws rely on a bald-faced lie to support their efforts to disarm law-abiding citizens. That lie, of course, is the claim that possession of more guns by private, law-abiding citizens results in more violent crime and, in particular, more murders … and the corollary thereto, that reducing the number of guns in the possession of such citizens will reduce violent crime and murder.”
.
This blog post motivated objections from classmate John Douglas, which led to an even more detailed discussion, which appears here:
.
.
This post includes a number of contemporary (or shortly thereafter) historical references to the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, several of which make the point that the right to bear arms is as much for protection against the government as for any other purpose. It also includes an analysis of gun violence statistics and their meaning.
.
Other posts:
.
https://freelegaladvice.wordpress.com/2013/01/19/assault-weapons-band-aid/
.
… which is a discussion of why the 1994 so-called “assault weapons ban” was ineffective.
.
.
… for the Libertarian view of guns & control.
.
.
… regarding the use of firearms in self-defense and in cases of large-scale regional or national emergencies.
.
https://freelegaladvice.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/no-one-is-coming-to-take-your-guns-yet/
.
… on why we should be concerned about governmental confiscation of firearms.
.
.
… which discusses and links to the absolutely brilliant “Virtual President’s” state of the union address on guns.
.
.
… a response to Bill Maher’s claim that “the Second Amendment is bullshit”.
.
https://freelegaladvice.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/2nd-amendment-letter-to-the-editor-june-17-2000/
.
… which reproduces a letter to the editor I wrote in 2000 regarding gun control.
.
https://freelegaladvice.wordpress.com/2012/12/30/congressman-ron-paul-is-a-voice-of-reason/
.
… on Ron Paul’s Libertarian take on gun control and personal security.
.
… and finally:
.
https://freelegaladvice.wordpress.com/2012/12/31/powerful-congressional-testimony/
.
… a link to powerful congressional testimony about the 1991 Luby’s Cafeteria murders in Killeen, Texas.
.
Would be happy to hear any response anyone might have to any of these discussions.
Free Legal Advice Isn't Worth What You Pay For It ... 
Pingback: Quora