« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
The Supreme Court Erased 13 words from the Constitution...and nobody seems to care that much.
The Second Amendment reads as follows:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
If, as the court said today, the right to bear arms is an "individual" right, then why did the founders bother with that whole spiel about "A well regulated militia being necessary to the securtiy of a free state?"
Why wouldn't they have just written "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?
If that had been in the constitution, the i would agree with the court's ruling. However, that's not what the amendment says.
Can someone explain this to me. This seems an awful lot like "judicial activism" to me. I mean, the supreme court just erased 13 words from the constitution.
Comments (83)
I posted this in a previous thread:
Yes, you can have a gun. Yes, the government can regulate them. No, the government can't ban them.
That's the extent of the 2nd amendment. It's why felons and mentally disturbed people do not get to own guns, and it's why waiting periods are constitutional. The government has every right to regulate who owns the weapons. They just can't out-and-out ban them.
A fair decision by the Court.
June 26, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, unless you are a student at my alma mater, Virginia Tech. There, in spite of a court of law declaring one "a danger to himself and others," a Hokie can still order guns and ammo online, or he can purchase them in stores without any constraints whatsoever. I guess we Hokies are just God's special people. Yeah, sure, that must be it.
Or, maybe the problem is a bit more widespread than that. Maybe, just maybe, any nutjob with half a brain can get a gun in this country. If that is the case, this Supreme Court ruling is nothing more than a rubber stamp of an understatement of a sad sad pre-existing state of affairs.
June 26, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you are arguing for a blanket prohibition against civilian possession of firearms, taking a single, specific case of system breakdown does not prove your case.
My unscientific experience is that by and large, people who wish to read the Constitution as allowing the government to ban civilian possession of firearms have fired very few rounds, if any, in their lifetime, and are therefore instinctively averse to guns. There are exceptions, of course, and so if you manage to dig up a former Green Beret lifer who now opposes civilian possession of firearms, it won't convince me otherwise.
If the last eight years has taught liberals anything, it ought to be that the means to resist tyranny and governmental lawlessness (no, not by having miniguns and antitank weapons, but by having enough firepower in civilian hands to dissuade the government and its myrmidons from trying to roll over us) is of great value.
If the Jews in Europe had each had a .38 and the will to use it, the Nazis would have had to think of something else. And if American blacks were not armed in the time of Jim Crow, the South would be nearly all white today.
"A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves."
June 26, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the last eight years has taught liberals anything, it ought to be that the means to resist tyranny and governmental lawlessness (no, not by having miniguns and antitank weapons, but by having enough firepower in civilian hands to dissuade the government and its myrmidons from trying to roll over us) is of great value.
We have been 'rolled' over the last eight years Mr. Wigmarx. I never even had a opportunity to waste one lawless 'loyal Bushie' or a single 'myrmidon' with my 32 round extended clip Glock or my 9mm Lugar both of which I keep loaded with safety open in my hand or under my pillow 24 x 7 WigJack.
June 26, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hellllooooooo????? What history book have you been reading?
Blacks who could not exist in the south during Jim Crow migrated north. Uh, killing Mr. Charlie left you hanging like strange fruit from some tree.
June 26, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Black migration to the north did not begin until after WW1. During the period 1870-1920, their guns (and also their economic usefulness, true enough) kept them alive.
"And no wonder, given this longstanding circumstance, that Ida B. Wells, a co-founder of the NAACP and leader in the anti-lynching movement of the turn of the last century, should have remarked, 'The Remington rifle should have a place of honor in every black home.'"
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14329
Do you care to wonder what blacks' fate would have been if the whites knew they had no guns?
June 26, 2008 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wigmarx
Two points and two little snippets.
Jade7243 is correct that Black migration began much earlier than WWI. Free Black Union soldiers were part of the migration.
http://www.answers.com/topic/black-migration?nr=1&lsc=true
Second, was it WINCHESTER or Remington that Wells mentioned?
http://functionalculture.blogspot.com/2008/03/ida-b-wells-profiles-in-courage.html
Now the snippets
_In his dissent on the DC gun case, Justice Breyer said the following:
"In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."
_It is interesting that an African-American male, John White, killed a teenage who was part of a mob of White males who came to the Black man's home in the dark of night threatening to harm the man's son was found guilty of second degree manslaughter. The shooting happened in Riverhead, New York on Long Island in August of 2006. The conviction occurred in December of 20007.
One of the people leading the protest that followed the trial and supporting the right to used armed force for self-defense was Al Sharpton.
June 27, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
From your source:
"The single largest movement of African-Americans occurred during World War I when approximately 500,000 people moved from the rural and small-town South into the cities of the North and the Midwest. The steady migration out of the South lasted until the 1970s; from 1916 through the 1960s, more than 6 million black people made the move."
And how do "free black union soldiers," who got to the South because they invaded the South, get counted as migrating from the South?
And "Winchester v. Remington" is laughably irrelevant. My source, to which I linked, quoted her as saying "Remington." A net search suggests she actually said "Winchester," as you state. But I think this rates a "B.F.D," because a Remington can kill a nightrider just as dead as a Winchester-- either way, she is supporting the idea that black possession of guns helped keep them alive, which was what Jade scoffed at, and I wonder why you care who made the gun.
June 30, 2008 1:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the last eight years has taught liberals anything, it ought to be that the means to resist tyranny and governmental lawlessness (no, not by having miniguns and antitank weapons, but by having enough firepower in civilian hands to dissuade the government and its myrmidons from trying to roll over us) is of great value.
We have been 'rolled' over the last eight years Mr. Wigmarx. I never even had a opportunity to waste one lawless 'loyal Bushie' or a single 'myrmidon' with my 32 round extended clip Glock or my 9mm Lugar both of which I keep loaded with safety open in my hand or under my pillow 24 x 7, how about you Mr. WigJack?
June 26, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two posts. Both marginally coherent, and both pointless. And I thought your "Lugar" would become "Luger" in your second, but I guess you have the Myanmar-made copy, complete with misspelling.
June 26, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was in the military. I fired many, many rounds, threw live grenades, etc., etc. Prior to my short stint in the military I fired 22's and shot guns when I was a youth. I believe that all firearms should be banned, except flintlocks as being necessary for a well regulated militia. If you want strict constructionism, that's strict construction. Also, flintlocks would give the animals that are fleeing from hunters at least a shot at excaping without being killed.
Ownership of firearms do not protect people from crime and in fact is more dangerous than not owning firearms. All the dead children from accidents and stupid parents speaks volumes. Also, the theft and ease with which loons and criminals can get weapons also warrants banning all firearms.
I hate the 4 nazis and the semi-nazi on the supremes. They have so much blood on their hands. I hope they rot in hell.
June 26, 2008 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Michael,
Unfortunately, you didn't address the 2nd Amendment anywhere in there. Your personal hatred of guns and your views about gun violence are not a Constitutional argument.
The amendment does affirm the people's right to bear arms. If we limit that to 18th-century technology, should we also limit freedom of the press to the use of an old-fashioned manual letterpress using hand-set type?
I very much believe in restriction and regulation of gun ownership, but I find it hard to square a total ban with the language of the Constitution.
June 27, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was responding to wigmarx comments about people opposed to firearm ownership have fired very few rounds. That was the point.
On your argument point, the purpose of the second amendment is the maintenance of state militias, not personal firearm ownership. Now, if the intellectually dishonest tony wants to be a "strict constructionist," like he professes when its convenient for him, then the ownership should only be flintlocks and I agree that for tony the first amendment would only allow for printing presses. He should be consistent and he is not.
And, yes I do hate fireams. In a modern society weapon ownership is unnecessary and dangerous.
June 27, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
BalRog -
And that's your problem to democratically pass gun regulation in your state to control that. There is a rather subjective definition of what reasonable regulation may entail which to some degree should be decided regionally.
You can't however ban all guns entirely as a flat out measure.
I'm fine with this decision. I wish he had arrived here decades ago, as it basically rules out the zealots on either side of the issue: those who are culturally against all guns and seek to entirely prohibit others from having them on one side, and those on the other who think anybody should be able to have any gun anywhere.
June 26, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
There wasn't a standing army for the USA until after World War II, and this part of the second makes it possible to call up an army (militias) when needed, and that they would be armed and ready.
Standing armies were created at different times for different reasons throughtout our history, but in the early days there was a ddep mistrust of standing armies (and corporations -as extensions of imperilistic armies).
things change
June 26, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Based on the Constitution, this was a correct ruling. If "things change" then the country should change the Constitution through the prescribed amendment process.
It's not up to the Supreme Court to determine if a section of the Constitution is out-dated. They are simply to interpret it as it is written. It's up to the States to change the Constitution.
June 26, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
It bothers me more that the militia has been exported to Iraq.
June 26, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I sure like you!
June 26, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hereby cede my home compound from the Union establish a free state on my yard. Praise the lord and pass the ammo!
Wait what do ya mean it don't work that way?
Well pass the ammo anyway. We'll play militia on the weekends.
June 26, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
In a week where my congressional representatives, including my candidate for president, have decided that my 4th Amendment rights aren't important, I'll take that the court recognizes my individual right to gun ownership with a hearty thank you.
June 26, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I say we form a militia. Who's in? We'll be well-regulated, and we'll protect the security of the State. We'll all get a bunch of guns, and we'll hold practices and drills. Heck, the government will love us for it.
June 26, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that went over big with the Feds in the 90s!
June 26, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Count my family in.
June 26, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm in! Or, we could just join the Minutemen. Same diff.
June 26, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll bring the beer!
June 27, 2008 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe i wasn't clear: the constitution doesn't give you an individual right to own a gun(that is, if you read the amendment as written).
It gives "militias" the right to own guns because organized militia's, not armed individuals, are necessary to the security of a free state.
Thats what the amendment says. How can you possibly read it otherwise? The words are all there.
I mean, can we agree that if it was written in the constitution, there must be a reason for it.
If the founders had intended an "individual" right, they why did they bother with the stuff about militias? It would have been much simpler and easier to say "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
But they made an implicit point to include all that stuff about militias because the amendment was meant to apply to militias, not individuals.
June 26, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The majority opinion and dissent both spend page after page after page making their arguments about the very matter you raise. In the end, I thought Scalia had a passible argument that the right ultimately extends to "the people" and not just "the militia" by noting that if your interpretation is correct why didn't the second clause read, "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." But the dissent also had good arguments. Ultimately I'm just thrilled they appeared to leave the door open for banning machine guns, etc., as well as other regulations that don't go so far as to prohibit someone from having a gun in their home.
June 26, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know this is basically what the case was about. But it seems pretty clear to me that these "strict constitutionalists" aren't really, because if they were, there's no way they would have reached the ruling they did.
Would it be impractical to say there is no individual right? Considering how many gun owners there are in this country, yes it would be.
But the court is supposed to rule on the constitution, not the practicality of enforcing it.
And it feels like they said, hey, we cant get 200 million guns off the street so why even try? Also, dont you think if this had gone the other way, there would be hell to pay and probably a push for an amendment sponsored by the NRA.
I just think politics had more to do with this ruling than the reading of the constitution. And its a disgrace. The supreme court isn't supposed to play politics. But since Bush v Gore, that's allthey've done.
June 26, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I know this is basically what the case was about."
And I know basically what Bose-Einstein condensates are all about, too.
May I suggest you and Jade 7243 actually read the Court's own summary of the decision? It isn't that long.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008
District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of
handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses;
and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device.
Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement
insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the
use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second
Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that
firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.
Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
* * *
The “militia” comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress
power to abridge the , so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately
followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.
Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the
late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
[Held:] 2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Pp. 54–56.
[Held:] 3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban
on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the
lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this
prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional
muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument
that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy
his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.
Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf
June 26, 2008 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I forgot to note, "emphasis [italics] added."
June 26, 2008 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Freaktown,
I spent the better part of the afternoon reading the opinion. For those that haven't, I suggest you do since it is compelling reading.
What struck me on the face was the revelation that Scalia (writing for the majority) is hardly an "originalist" or a "strict constructionist". At least if those terms mean that you interpret a text literally, or in a historically contextual way.
Scalia begins the opinion by stating: "in interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that the Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning." He then proceeds to do just the opposite.
Justice Scalia broadens what we would conventionally understand the meaning of the phrase "free state" to include the general polity rather than well, a state. Being that he's a so-called "strict constructionist" this seems a little out of character. He then proceeds to narrowly define "the people" to allow for the exclusion of those who are deemed by the state as being unfit to own firearms. Justice Stevens points out how discordant this interpretation is when compared to other times when the phrase "the people" is used in the Constitution and other contemporaneous documents, meaning, well, the people--everyone--regardless of mental health status, or felony records, etc.
Overall, I'm not at all convinced by the majorities ruling. I think the minority-- ironically enough considered the liberal wing of the court--had a more conservative, narrow view of the amendment and its application.
I do think the D.C. ban is excessive, but I don't think creating an individual right to bear arms in the second amendment is the right mechanism was the appropriate way of remedying the situation.
This decision will have ramifications for years to come. Roughly 70 years of jurisprudence on this issue coming from the Miller case will have to be revisited. Gun laws across the nation now face court challenges. It was a bad decision.
June 27, 2008 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
It says you have the right to keep and bear arms and that the importance of a well regulated militia is why they want you to have that right. But that doesn't mean that you don't have the right in the absence of such a militia. They give you the right and then a rationale for doing so. You still get the right even if the rationale is wrong or absent. The militia part is simply an elaboration.
Anyway, for now the debate us over and I do have an individual right. That means I can shoot my wiretapped telephone!
June 26, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
really?
then why don't they give a rationale for the first amendment? it doesnt say, "the free exchange of ideas is critical to the survival of a free state, therefore congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech."
it just says "congress shall make no law..."
why is this "rationale" only restricted to the 2nd amendment? why did they feel the need to give one for arms, but not speech?
June 26, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Couldn't tell you. Why doesn't it say: "For the express and sole purpose of serving in a well regulated militia, the people shall have the right to keep and bear arms."
I say that whenever there's ambiguity in the Constitution that you should err on the side of more individual freedoms rather than less.
June 26, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
i would agree except when its clear that the founders intended otherwise. and i think its clear by just reading it that they did intend otherwise.
the supreme court disagreed with me.
so america losses.
I just wonder how many people will actually die as a result of this ruling. because you know people will. its not like the "restoration" of habeus where scalia just wanted to scare people. this ruling will actually kill people.
god bless america.
it's in the "general welfare" of america to make sure its citizens can kill each other with minimal interference from the government.
June 26, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I truly think they intended it to be for individuals:
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press." - Thomas Jefferson
I reckon we could go round and round in this way. Doesn't mean I don't appreciate you and your posts.
June 26, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, more people will have guns and that means more people will die form them. I can't deny it. But I have a funny relationship with guns. I grew up with them. Never saw them as a problem. Just objects used to shoot targets. I'm fine with gun regulations. But I don't think I'd be fine with the government outlawing all the legitimate target shooting.
June 26, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
My take.
First, there were no such thing as standing militia's. The concept was the government could not infringe upon the individual right to own and bare arms so as to hinder the formation of a militia. The issue of whether we still need militias has never been brought before the Court or addressed in Congress. So unless you address the militia issue and remove it the right to keep and bear arms is sacrosanct.
June 26, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because back in those days, you could bare arms without sunblock or worring about UV.
(Sorry. Given that homonyms are my downfall, I couldn't resist.)
June 26, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I think jsfox basically has it down. It used to be that the militias worked when Paul Revere ran around yelling, "Hey militia people! Come on out and bring your guns!!" It wasn't about a professional military or anything like that. It was a volunteer group of amateurs bringing their own weapons to the fight. So the Constitution basically said, look, the people have to be able to keep guns because the volunteer amateur militia is so important.
Of course, things don't work like that anymore, so it's a real question as to why this still matters.
June 26, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Paul Revere does kinda predate the 2nd Amendment by a bit, but I agree with the spirit of your message.
June 26, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, here's the elephant in the room that both sides dance around and ignore. There's at least a strong argument that what was in the Founders' heads was the preservation of the people's ability to launch an armed Revolution against this big powerful, potentially overweening, new federal government they were setting up. Lexington and Concord were still recent history.
That's certainly what the militia fringenutter movement of the 90s was about and it was not a view devoid of historical support.
The problem is that if you couple the right to bear arms with "the militia" (which, in those days, meant all the military age white men in a jurisdiction), you are almost inevitably led down a road that leads to a personal right to own and bear military grade small arms. And an implicit right to engage in armed revolution.
June 26, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank You, the second amendment has nothing to do with quail hunting or target practice but rather for the citizenry to be able to resist and oppressive government.
James Madison:
"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops."
This is why they did not want to allow the government to make laws impinging on the citizens right to bear arms, or arm bears - whatever.
The deed is done, due to technology and our bizarre obsession with some notion that they're coming for our vermin rifles, the government has effectively disarmed the population. Thanks Bitter Hunters.
June 26, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a dilemma, but the people who like this kind of fun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV74rbgIsr8
Are apparently not too concerned about this, which is not so fun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IHQqW8zOSk&feature=related
June 26, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with the first responder.
1. Individuals are permitted to own firearms.
2. The government can regulate gun ownership.
3. The government cannot issue a blanket ban on gun ownership. It can restrict ownership for certain groups (criminals, mentally deficient individuals, minors, etc.)
Makes perfect sense. Ifyou want to discourage gun use, makes the penalties for the commission of ANY crime involving a gun draconian. THIS would be a more effective method of making gun use less attractive.
June 26, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Forget the "draconian penalties" deterrent. In most states the penalties for armed vs. unarmed robbery, armed vs. unarmed assault, armed vs. unarmed burglary are drastically different.
Actually I'm with Chris Rock on this one, "We don't need gun control; we need bullet control." Personally I think the federal government should just tax the hell out of ammunition. Start with a 300% tax on bullets and go up from there.
June 26, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I think Eddie Izzard was first to suggest we target the ammunition - but I'm with you on that point as well! :)
June 26, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
put simply, the inmates are in charge of the SCOTUS asylum.
June 26, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Better to erase a 13 word adverbial phrase than a 14 word independent clause.
June 26, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmmm... seems to me the Second Amendment (being one of the amendments -- that is, changes or additions to the original document) is meant to expand up that phrase in the Preamble to the Constitution where "providing for the common defense" is referred to.
The means to provide "common defense" is a "well-regulated militia." While the country initially did not have a standing army, there was an organization of militias which formed to propel the Revolutionary War forward. By the time the Constitution was written, we had a war under our belts, were discarding the old Articles of Confederation to "form a more perfect union."
We can reasonably argue that a police force or constabulary is a militia, as is the National Guard. As I read the Amendment, joining a militia is the prerequisite to bearing arms and not the reverse. Which is to say that all men -- at the time -- should be a part of a local militia, designed to provide for the common defense of not only his home and hearth, but that of his neighbors. But with ownership is with regard to regulations that apply to being part of a military unit.
With regard to gun control, the Court may have unwittingly stepped in it. There are jurisdictions in this country -- Kennesaw, GA being one of them -- where homeowners are required to own a gun. Opting out of the ownership is a pain. So, what about communities who infringe upon a person's right to NOT bear arms? If it is unconstitutional to ban gun ownership, is it not equally unconstitutional to require ownership, especially when you force a citizen to have to opt out?
The Court embraced having a gun to protect home and self. Fine. But what about the vigilantes out there -- like the fellow in Texas who killed a burglar or two at his NEIGHBOR'S home, when he was not in danger, he was talking on the phone to police who told him to stay inside, they (the police) were seconds from being on scene, and yet the man went outside killed these people and claimed "self defense."
The ruling is ill-conceived and frankly, illogical. For a court made up of at least 5 so-called "strict constructionists" I see one hell of a lot of judicial activism. So much for stare decisis.
So much for my two cents worth.
June 26, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The first thing to consider is the era in which the Constitution, and in particular the 2nd Amendment, was written. The militias were formed by armed CITIZENS. Militias are not standing armies. They are formed in time of need which, at the time, necessitated having a reliable force of self-armed free white men.
Many citizens were armed for one very good reason -- the ability to hunt game and provide food for their families. Having a hunting rifle at the time was very common, even for those living in the cities. Cities at the time were not like cities we live in now. At the time forests to hunt and game to take for food were plentiful even in cities like Boston.
The Amendment was written for the era in which it was relevant. Yes, handguns were not as common as they are now, machine guns did not exist as we know them now and even semi-automatic rifles did not exist. Regardless of this fact, the ability to kill anyone at anytime by shooting them with a rifle, a concealed hand pistol or 1 or 2 shot Derringer, etc. was still possible. It's ingenuous to believe that the founders didn't consider this in writing the 2nd Amendment. There were, after all, still criminals and malcontents back in their day.
More to the point, from my understanding, the Amendment does not prevent States from regulating arms, it prevents them and the Federal Government from all out banning them.
The hysteria that surrounds this issue mystifies me. It is by far a tiny part of the population that uses weapons to commit crimes or violence against other people. To ban the ownership of arms (arms include knives by the way) to the general population to stop the relatively small percentage of armed criminals out there is ridiculous. I'm a former policeman and I guarantee you that the black market and availability of handguns would not stop if individuals were denied the right to own guns -- indeed the market would simply become bigger, more widespread, and more difficult to stop.
I'm not a conservative plant, I am a liberal thru and thru. I guarantee you that the government that bans the ownership of weapons to it's citizens is not one to trust.
Feel free to flame away.
June 26, 2008 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Twohawks:
At last, reason. I, too, am ex-police (and military). I have been "armed" all my teenage and adult life (since age 12). I have yet to kill anyone, or have anyone injured by an accidental discharge.
As to the 2nd Amendment: Keep in mind the time it was written. Almost everyone owned a gun (by necessity); The nation was a "Republic" formed by a "confederation" of States who were a "little put off" by this notion of a strong central government. In able to get the states to allow themselves to be "weakly" controlled by a "central government", it was agreed that the states could form militias using all of those armed citizens (of the states). That wouldn't be possible if the "right to bear arms" was "infringed".
Fast forward to the 21st century: Strong central government, weak state governments (the civil war changed that). No more armed "civilian soldiers", as in Rome (which Jefferson thought was a very good role model).
Now the armed citizen doesn't need to protect his state from the Fed's (after all, my pistol wouldn't do much good against an Army rifle squad); He needs to protect himself from a criminal element all too prevalent in our modern society, and Police Officers too slow to respond in a time of need (in a mugging, or robbery, seconds are precious). The 2nd Amend. doesn't really apply to this situation, other than to say I can defend myself because I have "the right to bear arms", and my state says I have the right to carry a concealed weapon.
In a perfect world we wouldn't need weapons; But this isn't a perfect world, is it?
June 27, 2008 4:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
For the record, The Dred Scott Decision (1856) did give Blacks the right to keep and bear arms:
"More especially, it cannot be believed that the large slaveholding States regarded them as included in the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another State. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
I think the Dred Scott Decision points heavily in favor of the right to keep and bear arms as being a right for all American Citizens (individuals).
Also to refer to part of the conversation regarding Blacks and arms, I agree with Jade7243 to argue that American Blacks should have or did use firearms to protest themselves during Jim Crow is ridiculous. Blacks were persecuted, enslaved, and discriminated against in the South in completely inhumane ways -- using a gun to try to stop whites would have only made it worse. Were I a black person back in that time I would have moved myself and my family up North as fast as I could go.
(Also for the record, slavery did not end with the Emancipation Proclaimation. The enslavement of Blacks was rampant in the South even up until this century. If you need convincing simply see Douglas A. Blackmon's excellent book, "Slavery By Another Name" at http://www.slaverybyanothername.com)
June 26, 2008 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am a 63 year old white female with a BS in science. I have unfortunately had to use a gun 4 times in my life. It was enough to save (1) another person, me and my children from a drunk enraged male dragging a female down the road (State Rd. 7), (2) me from rape on a lonely road near Lake Okeechobee, (3) another person from rape down the road from my horse barn, and (4) me from a drifter sleeping in the hay of my horse barn (who knows?). I never had to shoot anyone because the threat of the gun was enough. You can never convince me that a law abiding citizen should not have a gun. I participated in an NRA shooting course when I was young and continue to target practice occasionally. We are our own militia at times. The police are not there when we absolutely must have protection especially in the rural areas.
June 26, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
twohawks
Wouldn't dream of flaming your excellent post.
In oral argument of this case, AJK's thrust was somewhat along the lines you stated. Clearly he envisioned that at the time of the Framers, the frontier tradition of lonely homesteads was still a reality and the economic and defense necessity of privately owned firearms was a given. The "militia" was often a call-up and it would be assumed that armories or arsenals would be remote from where the settlers actually lived and worked.
Here is the relevent question:
KENNEDY: "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?"
June 26, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hate to say that I agree with anything Justice Scalia says, but in this instance I believe that his majority decision is the correct interpretation. Historically - and, as someone pointed out, it was very recent history for the framers - the 'militia' were the male citizens who had, in fact, brought their own arms to form together and protect their homes ...... to protect them from, as it so happened, the government currently in charge. Now, I'm a bleeding heart liberal and would like to see a LOT of restriction on gun ownership and I don't like the mind-set of most of the ardent pro-gun supporters. But, I have come to believe that there is some wisdom in the reasoning of those framers and the reasoning of today's SC decision.
Probably because of the different perspective that I gained in many arguments with my liberal but pro-gyn-ownership father. (He would be so pleased I listened.) He served in WWII and firmly believed in the individual's right to own guns. He even opposed universal registration. -- I'm not sure what the status of gun ownership was in Germany in the 1930s, but he always felt that something like the Nazi take-over and their worst excesses could not happen in this country for two principal reasons: 1) because by nature and heritage we are encouraged to "question authority" ..... and 2) because the citizens of this country are permitted to possess guns.
Does a Crystalnacht occur if the citizens are armed? I don't know, but it does give one pause.
June 26, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
And again, in orals, Justice Scalia, took another approach, very clever actually:
Scalia: "But why 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 -- that was the way militias were destroyed. 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."
June 26, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Scalia is an animal. The guy lost his copy of the constitution long ago. He is totally intellectually dishonest, a complete political hack and an embarrassment to the Court. Once again, I hope he rots in hell.
June 26, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Calling the justices you don't like "animals" and "Nazis" and damning them to hell is not an argument.
June 27, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know, but like the old adage if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and sh%ts like a duck, it's a duck. The positions of the 4 justices on the court in the tony wing are very close to the nazis of the 1930's. No habeas corpus, the government can do no wrong, corporations rule and can do no wrong, etc., etc., etc. So, the label. Thanks.
June 27, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's not my favorite either. I have written extensively in other forums on his jurisprudence and lack of consistency. He is a piece of work alright.
What gets to me is his dual jurisprudence: he has the equivalent of two judicial operating systems that he toggles back and forth on depending on his agenda requirements... Heller is a good case in point...
He is originalist only to the point where he becomes a living constitutionalist!
He is consistent on one thing however...he despises using legislative history to find causes for action.
June 26, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo.
June 27, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jade7243,
Since you have noted that the right to keep an bear arms is "only" an amendment, Please consider that the _only_ rights provided to americans that are NOT "only" amendments are copyright and patent protection.
Please also note that, along with the other 9 of the first 10 amendments, the second amendment is part of our chereshed bill of rights. So if you wish to poo poo rights that are "only" expressed as amendments, kiss freedom of expression (first amendment) freedom from unreasonable search (fourth amendment) etc. etc. goodbye.
ALL of which, given this ruling, are now individual rights.
June 26, 2008 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Often overlooked in the second amendment is the term "people's." If it was an individual right the word would have been "person."
Also militias and armies bear arms, not persons. Note the plural "arms." One would appear awkward saying "Look out, I am bearing arms!" An individual is armed.
June 27, 2008 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can't help you there. I'm happy with the decision. I enjoy recreational shooting, including a sport that involves old west shooting. I would never own a handgun for self defense because I would never kill anyone and that's kind of the purpose when it comes to self defense and guns.
I think the real way to deal with gun violence is three fold.
One, proper parenting. School shootings are a new thing, guns have aways been available to anyone with the wherewithal to get one, however what is fairly new to our society is the extremely high percentage of children being raised by the boob tube. Without proper family support the stuff on TV can be very damaging to a child's psyche.
Two, take care of poverty. People with real options are less likely to turn to a violent life style.
Three, Punish the deed. Much stronger punishments for any crime involving the use of a gun.
Whether intended or not, owning a gun has become a right over more then a hundred years of people being allowed to own them. However I do feel that getting a gun should become harder. I would even support a mandatory psych eval. I also think a final important step is to stop the trafficking of illegal weapons.. most bad guys don't get there weapons from Bobs guns on main. They get them from the back of a van. Guns are trafficked just like drugs. Drugs are illegal and still every city has a drug problem. Guns won't go away just because they are banned.
I don't know, the idea of our government holding the only weapons in our society kind of scares me. Especially after the last seven years. Call me a tin foil hat type of guy but remember this nation was created by a bunch of people using guns to overthrow an oppressive government. If the British had made sure we had no weapons to fight them we would not be the United States of America. We would still be a colony.
June 27, 2008 4:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Punishing the deed is fine, but there's nothing better than preventing the deed from being done in the first place.
Visit a country like Germany sometime. Gun ownership is not exactly encouraged, but it's also not prohibited. Every little village seems to have its own "Schützenverein", roughly translated as "sharpshooter club". A gun permits is about as difficult to obtain as a drivers' license. Surely no one can object to that?
BTW good luck overthrowing your government when it has tanks, airplanes, rockets, and artillery, and all you have is handguns and rifles.
June 27, 2008 4:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
P.s. From reading the comments above I will also say this in response to an anticipated people will die response. Yes they will. People die every day from all sorts of things. Cheese burgers kill more people every year then guns do in ten (only counting within US borders).
You don't outlaw cheese burgers, you educate people, give them better options and make sure they have health care. I know a cheese burger is not going to blow anyones head off, but just look at all the people next time you are in McDonald's and ask yourself how many will die before 50 from massive heart failure.
Laugh all you want but fast food has been putting millions of tiny bombs in all our hearts for years. Millions served daily. Millions one step closer to death daily. It may be slower but it's pretty damned effective.
All I'm saying is there are better options to controlling violence then gun control. Just like we could all have a salad every once in a while. Options and freedom. That's American.
June 27, 2008 4:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is something I will never understand because I didn't grow up in the US of A. Why do you guys get your panties in a bunch over some indecipherable text written more than two centuries ago? Forgive me the analogy, but this is analogous to arguing that something must be thus because the Bible says so. It's an argument without merit.
Does it ever occur to people that if they lived in the 21st century, the Founding Fathers would probably do things a little differently? Wherever they are, they are now probably having a good laugh at your expense.
There is an incredible amount of hypocrisy here. The Constitution clearly says "arms". It doesn't say that citizens are allowed to have handguns but not assault rifles or RPGs or tanks. But letting private citizens own tanks or nuclear warheads (how are they not "arms"?) doesn't sound like a very good idea. So let's forbid that, regardless of what the Constitution says. But our citizens are so fond of their guns and rifles... what to do? Let's try schizophrenia. Why not draw an arbitrary line in the sand and say that you can have this arm because the Constitution says so, but you can't have that one because... because we said so.
Here's what a true originalist would do. Allow people to keep and bear arms - but only up to model 1787.
June 27, 2008 4:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Too funny. Answer: Charleton Heston needed a Winchester Rifle for his role in "Will Penny." That was a much later movie than "Daniel Boone" in which the old muzzle loader killed varmints. Gun control limited Heston to a staff, snakes and locusts in "Moses and the Ten Commandments." But instead of the guns, we got the thrilling Yahwah and the tablets, and the rest is history. If you had a choice between gun control or taxing religion which would you choose? Who would you rather have lunch with Paris Hilton or the Pope?
June 27, 2008 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd choose taxing religion and lunch with the Pope.
And yes, I know that sounds self-contradictory.
June 27, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not at all. I'd refuse the choice and make Paris Hilton have lunch with the Pope. Then I'd vote for Ron Paul if he makes the offer to ONLY tax the church as reparations for the rest of us.
June 27, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Codegen86: Americans' tendency to argue heatedly over the meaning of the Constitution may seem strange to outsiders.
But this is a large nation with many people of disparate backgrounds. The Constitution and the freedoms it promises are the glue that holds it together. Our country was born without many of the traditions and customs that govern other, older countries. So we have always looked more toward the letter of our highest law for guidance.
It's what has allowed us to more or less get along -- even when our ancestors may have come from all corners of the globe, bringing all kinds of eclectic ideas and customs with them -- and generally live in peace and prosperity.
(But I do think that the Protestant tradition of relying on interpretation of the Bible for all religious belief and doctrine is a factor too.)
June 27, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if they had RPG's, or Nukes in the 1700's, I suppose the US Govt. would have had allowed everyone to own some. I suppose a US citizen could have bought, and armed, his own 44 gun Frigate, if he wanted. He just couldn't use it against his fellow citizens (unless they were pirates).
June 27, 2008 5:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
freaktown,
I'll explain it to you.
Your premise--that "[SCOTUS] erased 13 words from the Constitution"--plainly misrepresents the recent decision.
You, on the other hand, would enthusiastically erase 10 words you dislike, namely "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms."
As a liberal pacifist and Constitutional conservative, I have a problem with that.
Those two reciprocal clauses do not justify the pretense that you or I or any lawyer can somehow erase or ignore any 10 words of your personal choosing.
The idea that the Second Amendment can be picked apart letter by letter, clause by clause, or even by misreading punctuation, all to eviscerate its intent and meaning, has done great damage to the liberal cause and to the country. Again, I say this as a liberal pacifist.
The varied ploys to do in the Second Amendment's explicit right to keep and bear arms depend on badly framed and fallacious reasoning.
Neither eliminating a well-regulated Militia, nor maintaining a well-regulated Militia (or Army or National Guard), can justify eliminating or effectively eliminate the right to keep and bear arms.
If we deviate from the prescribed Militia, or presume incorrectly that a National Guard or Army is sufficient or like substitute, that in no way justifies stabbing the right to keep and bear arms in the back. I'll suggest that neither the police, national guard nor the army are well-regulated.
Restoring the intended relationship between gun rights and armed forces would be an improvement. But pretending our history didn't happen, or that the plain language of the Constitution doesn't mean what it says, is a recipe for disaster---and an eager capitulation to the right-wingers amongst us. Ceding ground to gun nuts and right-wingers may be your bag, but then, that attitude brought us George W. Bush, didn't it?
June 27, 2008 6:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Johnsturgeon,
The problem with your argument is that it is not "either/or". It is not about setting up 14 words against 10 words or vice versa.
The amendment has a prefatory phrase and a operative phrase. In other words, they are related and inseparable from the other. The prefatory clause announces the purpose: "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.." Which is then expanded upon by the operative clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". In other words, so a militia can be raised at a moments notice to protect a state against an external or internal threat, the government can not forbid the ownership of arms.
The larger question is, does this amendment have any relevancy for today? We have a standing army to repel external threats and to settle internal skirmishes.
It is judicial activism to take the plain and simple meaning of the text and deem that it claims an individual right to bear arms for purposes of protecting yourself in your home. I know a man's homes is his castle, but is it his "state"? ;-)
For the record, I believe a law abiding citizen should be allowed to own guns. I have absolutely no bias in the matter. I'm not a partisan on this issue. It never has had any relevancy to me. I don't care if people own guns, as long as they don't shoot me. That said, the second amendment says nothing that the court majority declared yesterday. It was a sad day for jurisprudence.
Justice Stevens wrote an eloquent, and frankly intellectually honest dissent yesterday. The irony is that the so-called "liberal" four Justice minority took a strict constructionist interpretation of the text, while the five "conservative" Justices created a right that had previously not existed in the text.
The problem is that nowhere in the text does the amendment afford an individual right to own a handgun in an urban area with a high crime rate. The inconsistent reasoning applied by the majority to arrive at its conclusion was breath taking.
June 27, 2008 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
We could always go back to SCOTUS with something like this....
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the rights contained within the 2nd Amendment shall not infringe upon the states right to regulate firearms, to assure that defense."
A couple of well-placed commas should do it....
June 27, 2008 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
"being necessary to the security of a free state" means that by this reading, US civilians can own tanks, bombs and fighter jets, as well... it is our constitutional right!
Things change... the Supreme Court fails to recognize that hand gun crime is a threat to the security of our free state.
June 27, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't like or even understand the individual-right interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, but this ship really sailed some time ago- there has been an increasing consensus favoring it among legal scholars, including many who would generally be classified as "liberal". Given that reality, this decision is far less damaging to rational gun regulation than it could have been or than I would ever have expected from the likes of Scalia. I don't like it, but it's probably the best outcome that could realistically have been anticipated.
June 27, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
The reason we have a Second Amendment was because our nation was conceived in revolution against its parent nation. It was not only advisable but necessary, considering the bloody war for independence, for the far-flung nation, with a still-hostile neighbor (Canada remained the British Empire) to grant the right to firearms explicitly, for the purpose of raising citizen militias. But it was also to allow the states as individual nations in their own right, to resist the central government if they in turn felt it necessary to resist tyranny from the USA to which they belonged. This is in the nature of revolutionary governments.
Unfortunately we are no longer in a revolutionary period, and the amendment should give way to the present day reality that we have no hostile empire on our border and no homesteads to protect from internal or external incursion. The Constitution has been changed before, most notably after the emancipation of the slaves, to remove all of the language of ownership of slaves. So it's not like it can't be changed. It should be changed.
June 27, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
And it CAN be changed!
The founders could foresee that times would change so they provided a mechanism for altering the Constitution! It's called the Amendment Process!
This requires that a bill pass the House and the Senate by a 2/3 vote, and then pass 75% of the State Legislatures to approve any amendment that changes the Constitution. There is nothing that says the Supreme Court, the President, or Congress can individually implement changes to the Constitution just because it is out of date.
There's also a second mechanism where the States themselves can call a Constitutional Convention, but it's never been used.
You see, we are a republic of sovereign States. It is up to the States to change the Constitution, not 9 justices, 1 president, 100 Senators, or 435 members of Congress.
If we want to get rid of the 2nd Amendment, then come up with a new amendment to repeal it.
June 27, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think so too. But if possible at all (about which I'm sceptical), it will require a sustained effort spanning multiple decades.
June 27, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Steve,
Most assuredly. I think it will be quite some time, and a great deal of advance in law enforcement procedure, before any such repeal of the 2nd amendment is even on the table.
June 27, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOCK AND LOAD MUTHAF**KERS!
The gun nuts have won big time!
The NRA can now put out their new commercial slogan:
It's okay,
To go for a spray,
With your AK,
Time to make society pay,
Join the NRA!
Speaking as a resident of Florida's murder capital for 14 long years, I couldn't be happier as it will give me new outlets for solid future investment.
ARMS MANUFACTURING and BODY ARMOR!
ZEIG HEIL BABY!
June 27, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment