.

Rep Hausman gets schooled on what is the Second Amendment

It could not be any clearer. Rep Alice Hausman has a very faulty understanding of the United States Constitution

Public Safety Finance and Policy Committee Meeting Feb 6, 2013.  Alice Hausman DFL 66A presented her bill to ban particular styles of rifles.  During the presentation Alice Hausman made some startling revelations about her understanding of the United States Constitution Second Amendment.  She is comparing the US to other Nations on Gun violence (not violent crime of course, which would completely negate her argument, even without consideration of her error on the 2nd Amendment).

Alice Hausman:

"But there is one component that sets us apart, and its a sentence.  Um the second amendment, I've heard from a lot of people in the last few days about that. Um, and um, um, I just wanted to speak on that sentence for a minute. Uh, a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, [speeding up her voice here] the right of the people shall not be infringed.  That first part of the sentence is one we don't hear very often. The one frequently repeated are those last few words "shall not be infringed".  But the first part of it, and this is what will weigh heavily on you, what does that mean "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"?


Representative Alice Hausman has a viewpoint that many liberals want or would like to be true, but which was recently and very solidly been decided in the Supreme Court case of District of Columbia v. Heller.

Hamline Law Professor Joseph Olson explains:

I actually had one of my articles cited in Heller. So, uh, I know Judge Scalia is familiar with my work.  I have read the opinion a number of times, I teach it in my seminar at Hamline Law School. Uh, the Supreme Court did two things in Heller case that are relevant to the discussion as Representive Hausman brought it up. One in Heller the Supreme Court made very clear that the introductory clause to the second amendment is not part of the normative statement. In other words the introductory statement is not part of the rule of law. The rule of law is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  And the court went on to discuss just exactly how much the District of Columbia was infringing that right. Furthermore the court talked in the case about the arms that were protected by the second amendment, and it said the arms that were protected were the arms that were in common use.  Military style firearms are in common use.

It could not be any clearer.  Rep Alice Hausman has a very faulty understanding of the United States Constitution and is making serious error in the proposed law she is authoring.  We need serious discussion on what is a solution. Not misguided efforts that will do nothing to actually resolve the issue they claim to be furiously "doing something" about.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Liberaltarian February 08, 2013 at 04:42 AM
Uh, well uh, judges have interpretted the constitution very differently over the past 220 years. The meaning of equal rights, due process, etc. in 1945 was different from what it means today. It's only logical to expect that the court's definition of "infringed" will change to adapt to the times as other words and clauses have. It's also logical to assume that "Founding Fathers" found it necessary to place into context the statement, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". That statement could easily have stood alone without the introductory clause. But the constitution says, "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, ..." It's a statement that justifies the inclusion of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The conclusion that can logically, and I think correctly, be drawn is that if the Founding Fathers didn't believe that a well regulated militia was necessary to the security of a free state, then it wouldn't be necessary to prevent government from infringing on the people's right to keep and bear arms. There are currently many very secure free states in the world that infringe on the rights of their people to keep and bear arms. Apparently, the right is no longer necessary for that purpose.
Dallas Pierson February 08, 2013 at 02:58 PM
You do come up with "interesting" if divergent interpretations. Clearly a step too far even for the law Professor (Vogel?) that Heather Martens brought out to attempt to counter Professor Olson. He however chose a more reasonable approach based on the Tenth Amendment.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something