pageok
pageok
pageok
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

has, it turns out, been celebrated by Wisconsin's Citizen Soldier Highway ("in recognition of the right of the citizens of this state to keep and bear arms and as a tribute to all Wisconsin veterans, members of the national guard and any other reserve component of the U.S. armed forces, law enforcement officers, and fire fighters, and to the first citizen soldiers of this state, American Indians"), Georgia's specialty "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms" / "Shall Not Be Infringed" / NRA insignia license plates, and Montana's right to bear arms week:

The week beginning the first Monday in March is an official week of observance to commemorate Montana's valued heritage of the right of each person to keep and bear arms in the defense of the person's home, person, or property or in aid of civil power. During this week, all Montanans are urged to reflect on their right to keep and bear arms and to celebrate this right in lawful ways.

Melancton Smith:
Here in Illinois we are celebrating "Subject to the Police Power" week. Emphasis on "Subject".
9.23.2009 6:17pm
Allan (mail):
Man. A celebration of the second amendment.

I really would like to see a celebration of the third amendment, which seems to be sacrosanct. I have never come across any court case dealing with the third amendment. Indeed, the last time this may have come up is in 1865.

"No soldiers quartered in my house!" is my creed.

But, since the third amendment comes after the second (necessarilly), I guess it just does not justify the sentiment.
9.23.2009 6:20pm
BT:
The irony being that Wisconsin is one of two states that do not allow concealed carry. The other being Melancton Smith's and my Illinois.
9.23.2009 6:22pm
ruuffles (mail) (www):

The irony being that Wisconsin is one of two states that do not allow concealed carry. The other being Melancton Smith's and my Illinois.

But ... but .. state's rights?!?!?
9.23.2009 6:23pm
ruuffles (mail) (www):
Oh and federalism!
9.23.2009 6:23pm
PJens:
I live in WI and had not heard of this! It would be nice if the legislation had received more attention from the press. Also, the highway designated is in western WI and a bit rural. The irony in this Second Amendment recognition is that WI is one of the few states (4?) that does not allow concealed carry of any kind.
9.23.2009 6:26pm
Steve:
I have never come across any court case dealing with the third amendment. Indeed, the last time this may have come up is in 1865.

The leading Third Amendment case is Engblom v. Carey, 677 F.2d 957 (2d Cir. 1982). You're welcome!
9.23.2009 6:29pm
Allan (mail):
Why is there any irony?

You have the right to bear arms, just not hide them.

Why hide them in any case? Are you ashamed of the arms you are bearing?
9.23.2009 6:30pm
Allan (mail):
Steve,

Leading should be in quotation marks.
9.23.2009 6:31pm
ruuffles (mail) (www):

Why is there any irony?

The real irony occurred when Senate GOP voted en mass for the Thune Amendment erstwhile supporting DOMA.
9.23.2009 6:32pm
Steve:
Leading should be in quotation marks.

I disagree. It's a real decision, and a real amendment for that matter!
9.23.2009 6:49pm
PersonFromPorlock:
Allan:

Why hide them in any case? Are you ashamed of the arms you are bearing

It's kind of like having a lawyer on retainer: a sensible precaution, but it looks pushy if you announce it to everyone you meet.
9.23.2009 7:09pm
Daniel Chapman (mail):
Heh. Nice to see my home state mentioned on VC for something that doesn't involve someone having sex with a dead animal or getting his 23rd OWI.

Go Pack! :)
9.23.2009 7:18pm
FantasiaWHT:
@Allan - perhaps, except for the announcement by Milwaukee's police chief that, opinion of the AG saying open-carry is legal in Wisconsin notwithstanding, his cops would be ordered to take anyone openly carrying a gun down to the ground first and worry about legality later.
9.23.2009 7:21pm
BT:
I realize this is a cheap shot Daniel Chapman, but when don't people form Wisconsin have sex with dead animals and then go out and get caught drunk driving the 23rd time?

BTW, how your Packers can turn Cedric Benson into the second coming of Barry Sanders is beyond me.

Go Bears!!!!
9.23.2009 7:31pm
More Importantly . . .:

Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn said "My message to my troops is if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we'll put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether you have a right to carry it"


http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/43347632.html

What a delightful man -- anyone spoiling for a good excessive force law suit knows where to go.
9.23.2009 7:42pm
JSatclaire:
I suppose Chief Flynn won't mind a bit if I, in the course of executing a citizen's arrest, "put him on the ground, take his gun way, and then decide whether he has a right to carry it." Last I checked, his open carrying and my open carrying were equally legal and equally suspicious.
9.23.2009 8:11pm
Melancton Smith:
ruufles wrote:

But ... but .. state's rights?!?!?


States' Rights, I think you mean, do not trump human rights. We fought a bloody war purportedly to emphasis that point. Plus a couple Constitutional Amendments.
9.23.2009 10:18pm
J. Aldridge:
Funny no one ever celebrated the second amendment until recent times. hmmmmmm
9.23.2009 11:28pm
Eugene Volokh (www):
J. Aldridge: Enough, please, of the mystifying one-liners. If you want to make an argument, make it explicitly, with supporting evidence (and, if possible, with reactions to the obvious counterarguments, such as the early Republican references to the Second Amendment as the "true palladium of liberty" and the like).
9.23.2009 11:50pm
J. Aldridge:
What is mystifying about it? I've never seen any evidence of the second amendment ever being celebrated, say, first 150 years of its existence.
9.23.2009 11:58pm
Larrya (mail) (www):
What is mystifying about it? I've never seen any evidence of the second amendment ever being celebrated, say, first 150 years of its existence.
For the first 150 years it would have been like celebrating the Third Amendment. Everyone took it for granted.
9.24.2009 2:49am
Michael Golden (mail):
J. Aldridge, Mr. Volokh just gave you evidence.
In 1803 the founding-era legal scholar St. George Tucker said in his edition of Blackstone's Commentaries: "[The 2nd Amendment] may be considered as the true palladium of liberty"
In his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution Justice Joseph Story said "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic"
Wouldn't you say those statements celebrate the 2nd amendment?
9.24.2009 2:57am
Eugene Volokh (www):
J. Aldridge: What's mystifying is the "funny" and the "hmmm," which suggests that you're making some deeper point. But on top of that even the bare factual assertion that you made -- if it is to be interpreted as simply a bare factual assertion -- is hard to reconcile with the "palladium" talk.
9.24.2009 1:37pm
J. Aldridge:
A lot of things are referred to as a "palladium of liberty," including the constitution itself. I think you guys misunderstand what is being asserted by such comments in regards to the 2A. It is the palladium of liberty that people of the states are free of a standing army because they are free to keep and bear arms as part of the military force of the state instead of a arbitrary power confined to rulers over a people.

Joseph Story:
And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well-regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised that, among the American people, there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization it is difficult to see.

I don't think the 2A was taken for granted at all, just it was properly understood until recent times.
9.24.2009 5:46pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.