Those of us who read the Second Amendment in the context of American history, American tradition, and the significance of the main clause in a sentence think it ludicrous that any person would argue it guarantees the right to keep and bear arms only to citizens serving in a government militia.

However, history teaches that no matter how much evidence damns a notion as absurd, some will accept and defend it to advance their political agenda — in this case, millions of Liberals who applaud the Ninth Circuit’s finding that the Amendment speaks only of a “collective right” (Silveira v. Lockyer).

Further adding to the turmoil surrounding the meaning of the Amendment is the fact that, incredibly, the Supreme Court hasn’t definitively ruled on the “right to keep and bear” issue, although it has found reasonable restraints upon gun ownership constitutional.

In light of this void in American jurisprudence, District of Columbia v. Heller gives the Court the opportunity to rule in a way that comports with the intent of the Amendment’s writers and the demands of the American people from 1791 to the current day.

Of course, we cannot know how the ruling will come down, but the oral argument gives us a clue about which justices will likely hold that a general guarantee exists and therefore evaluate Second Amendment “reasonableness” cases with the same caution which guides them in deciding First Amendment cases.

The oral argument also indicates which justices may agree with the notion of a “collective” right (or a cousin of that mad Liberal invention) and therefore find even a total ban of handgun ownership constitutional.

To help readers better understand the issues surrounding Heller, some observations about and quotes from the oral argument follow.

Contending that the District’s complete ban on handguns is constitutional, attorney Walter Dellinger opened the session by characterizing the “collective right” mentioned in the Second Amendment as undeniable:

The Second Amendment was a direct response to concern over Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which gave the new national Congress the surprising, perhaps even the shocking, power to organize, arm, and presumably disarm the State militias… And even if the language of keeping and bearing arms were ambiguous, the amendment’s first clause confirms that the right is militia-related.

Chief Justice Roberts immediately and effectively questioned that assertion:

If you’re right, Mr. Dellinger, it’s certainly an odd way … to phrase the operative provision. If it is limited to State militias, why would they say “the right of the people”? In other words, why wouldn’t they say “state militias have the right to keep arms”?

To which Justice Scalia added this illuminating thought:

…isn’t it perfectly plausible, indeed reasonable, to assume that since the framers knew that the way militias were destroyed by tyrants in the past was not by passing a law against militias, but by taking away the people’s weapons …the two clauses go together beautifully: Since we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Next, Justice Kennedy asserted his belief that the framers had more than militia service in mind when they guaranteed an individual’s right to keep arms. Moreover, he unequivocally stated his opinion about the “collective right” question:

It had nothing to do with the concern of the remote settler to defend himself and his family against hostile Indian tribes and outlaws, wolves and bears and grizzlies and things like that?

…in my view [the Amendment’s second clause] supplemented [the first clause] by saying there’s a general right to bear arms quite without reference to the militia either way.

Justice Alito’s comments and questions reflected the positions taken by Roberts, Scalia, and Kennedy while Justice Thomas, as usual during oral arguments, remained silent.

Curiously, Justices Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens, and Breyer chose to focus only on the general notion of “leeway for some weapon prohibition” (Ginsburg).

(“Curiously” because in First Amendment cases, Liberals do not find it necessary to repeat ad nauseam that the right to free speech does not permit, for example, libel and slander.)

After the Liberals continued to press that general point, Justices Breyer and Souter finally got specific with the stunning argument that in the interest of protecting the citizenry during a “crime wave” (Breyer) or in the face of “crime statistics” (Souter), government may ban handguns entirely while permitting the ownership of other kinds of arms, albeit with restrictions.

In contrast, when the Jeffersonians spoke of permissible restraint, they never lost hold of common sense. For example, Justice Scalia mocked the notion that a gun law is reasonable if it requires that “when you hear somebody crawling in your — your bedroom window, you can run to your gun, unlock it, load it and then fire.”

Scalia’s remark resonated so much with the audience that it elicited laughter, as did Chief Justice Roberts’ observation about first reaching for one’s “reading glasses” (made after Scalia had enlightened him about the operation of various kinds of gun locks).

The foregoing gives readers some insight into how eight of the justices view Heller. However, the truth is that as important as the case is, it exists in a larger context, one so profound that it pertains to the survival of Jeffersonian Democracy as expressed by the constitutional principle of Federalism.

Thus, the mention of “the Election” in the title of this piece and the following brief explanation for it:

If you believe that Liberals invented Liberal Judicial Activism because they fully understand that the People have virtually no chance of undoing edicts issued by a Liberal Judicial Oligarchy operating at the Supreme Court —

If you believe that Liberal Activist Judges assume unto themselves not simply the power to decide what the Second Amendment ought to say but to decide everything —

If you believe that Democratic presidents, despite their moderate views on some aspects of public policy, have (wink-wink) furthered the establishment of the Oligarchy by exclusively nominating Liberal Activists for the Supreme Court —

Then, you will agree that in the Election of 2008, it’s either Roberts or Ginsburg, Alito or Breyer.

You will also agree that the decision you make about a candidate’s views on the judiciary is so profound that it is equaled in importance only by your decision regarding a candidate’s national security proposals and his or her general fitness for keeping the nation safe from external enemies.

Copyright by A.J. DiCintio