Another Liberal Admits the Truth

rod · August 28, 1999, 11:25 PM

http://www.usatoday.com/news/ndsthu08.htm

08/27/99- Updated 12:34 AM ET

Scholar's shift in thinking angers liberals

By Tony Mauro, USA TODAY

Publication of the first volume of a revised edition
of a legal treatise would not ordinarily make news.

But even before it began arriving at law schools last
week, Laurence Tribe's American Constitutional Law was
causing a stir.

Tribe, a Harvard law professor who is probably the
most influential living American constitutional scholar,
says he has already gotten hate mail about his new
interpretation of the right to bear arms contained in
the Second Amendment.

Relegated to a footnote in the first edition of the
book in 1978, the right to bear arms earns Tribe's
respect in the latest version.

Tribe, well-known as a liberal scholar, concludes
that the right to bear arms was conceived as an
important political right that should not be
dismissed as "wholly irrelevant." Rather, Tribe
thinks the Second Amendment assures that "the federal
government may not disarm individual citizens without
some unusually strong justification."

Tribe posits that it includes an individual right,
"admittedly of uncertain scope," to "possess and use
firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes."

None of Tribe's new thinking changes his view that
gun-control measures are "plainly constitutional," but
his shift has been enough to anger gun-control advocates.

"I've gotten an avalanche of angry mail from apparent
liberals who said, 'How could you?'" Tribe says. "But as
someone who takes the Constitution seriously, I thought I had a
responsibility to see what the Second Amendment says, and how
it fits."

Tribe's views on the Constitution are of more than passing importance.

Earlier editions of Tribe's treatise have been quoted more than
50 times in Supreme Court opinions - by liberal and conservative
justices - and by the top courts of India, Germany, Russia and Canada,
among others.

The new edition also deals with the law on impeachment developed from
President Clinton's trial, as well as the Supreme Court trend cutting back
on congressional power.

"He has an audience well beyond law students," says Drake University
law professor Tom Baker, who assigns Tribe's book to students. "For
Larry Tribe to say that there's more to the Second Amendment than
originally thought is very important, and reflects an open-mindedness that
some don't expect."

Glenn Harlan Reynolds of the University of Tennessee adds: "He
legitimizes this whole new body of scholarship, and it will force
judges and others to face the issue on its merits."

At the usually conservative law school at Pepperdine University,
professor Douglas Kmiec recommends the book to "the very best
students." On the Second Amendment, Kmiec says, Tribe's book offers
"a fair and evenhanded appraisal of what is still an inconclusive
right."

=rod=

Jeff Thomas · August 29, 1999, 11:09 PM

Dr. Tribe may not have gone as far as many of us would have liked, but I do admire his courage to honestly practice his craft.

Those of us who believe in the RKBA have truth on our side. Now, whether a respect of the RKBA will prevail depends upon honest men such as Dr. Tribe. If our Supreme Court Justices bow to political pressure we are lost.

Now, an even more interesting question is how Tribe squares an individual rights perspective with 'constitutional' gun control legislation. He is doing a good job of selling his book ...

**Mal H** · August 30, 1999, 12:40 AM

This is damn good news. Tribe is a very respected constitutional scholar. His opinion comes at a very opportune time if a 2nd Amendment trial is soon to be heard before the SC.

shades6848 · August 30, 1999, 01:49 AM

Good news indeed! I am a bit surprised that USA Today printed the article though.

BigG · August 30, 1999, 08:12 AM

As a "constitutional scholar" of long standing, I'm glad Perfesser Tribe finally got around to reading and digesting the second amendment.

PS: I'm a genius because I got it the first time, and I'm no constitutional scholar!

------------------
Remember: When you attempt to rationalize two inconsistent positions, you risk drowning as your own sewage backs up... Yankee Doodle

jimmy · August 30, 1999, 12:32 PM

Yes, this is all to the good

It's interesting that Prof. Tribe is now getting first-hand experience of the intolerance and intellectual violence of all those supposedly tolerant and non-violent liberals.

Jack 99 · August 30, 1999, 04:40 PM

I have a big problem with this.

We've become so used to the Constitution being "interpereted" that here we are, "the people," as defined by that divinely inspired document, looking at this declaration from some egghead as a great triumph. Why do I need some appointed expert (appointed by who, by the way?) to tell me that "there may be more to this Second Amendment thing than we previously thought. You may even have the right to keep and bear arms after all."
(my paraphrasing)?

We are as much subjects as any people on this planet if we concede the debate only to "experts", "scholars", "the media" and politicians who are supposedly "qualified" to read what is written in black and white in language as plain as day.

I can read the damn thing myself!! The 2nd does not "give me any rights," rather it describes a pre-existing, God-given right that cannot be usurped. It also gives the govt the task of protecting that right (so much for that idea).

------------------
"Put a rifle in the hands of a Subject, and he immediately becomes a Citizen." -- Jeff Cooper

Coinneach · August 30, 1999, 04:47 PM

Jack,

We're happy because Dr. Tribe has finally shown common sense. Yes, you and I and most of the country understand the BoR, but most academics don't, or refuse to try. The conversion of Tribe is a small victory, but at this point, we need all the allies we can get.

------------------
"Taking a long view of history, we may say that
anyone who lays down his arms deserves whatever he gets."
--Jeff Cooper

James K · August 30, 1999, 05:04 PM

It is interesting that a man described as one of the nation's foremost constitutional experts on the Bill of Rights finally got down to number two. I wonder how long it takes him to cover the rest of the amendments.

Jim

Futo Inu · August 30, 1999, 05:08 PM

This is reeeel good. Tribe has ENOURMOUS influence in the real world courts. I still want to bitch slap him for saying "gun control" measures are plainly constitutional, when many of them are plainly not, if anything. This is the first hurdle, establishing it's an individual right. Now the antis can't ever argue that national guard BS again. Now the next hurdle is EXTENT of the right. After that, application of the right to the states via the fourteenth amendment (just like the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, etc.)

Jack 99 · August 30, 1999, 05:46 PM

Coinneach - I see we are both fond of the wit and wisdom of the Guru. What do you think Cooper's reaction to this would be? Better yet, what do you think Madison, Jefferson, Patrick Henry and the rest would say about the "Constitutional Interperetation" of the 2nd if they were alive today?

I don't think they would say anything, they'd just start dumping tea in the harbor

As far as this Tribe guy goes, I think you may have missed my point. Yes, its great he's come around, but if we've already conceded to the authority of the Supreme Court, Executive Branch, Legislators (at all levels), Academics, media, "scholars", pundits and law enforcement, THEN WE'VE ALREADY LOST THE RIGHT!!

Who did you ask before you posted to this board? If you wanted to print some pro-RKBA flyers and put them on cars at the mall, would you ask first? Then why, when it comes time to buy a firearm do we have to ask permission to exercise that right? Well, its mostly because we've let legislators and courts "interperet" and cast doubt on the 2nd, even when its crystal clear and even a cursory glance at the origins of RKBA shows clearly what the intent was. I don't need any more of these idiots telling me what my rights are, I can read pretty well at this point in my life. This interepretation and "living Constitution" nonsense are what got us in this mess in the first place. We don't need more of it.

So great, Tribe sorta kinda feels that the 2nd may be relevant and may even guarantee some limited rights. Excuse me if I don't do any handstands.

------------------
"Put a rifle in the hands of a Subject, and he immediately becomes a Citizen." -- Jeff Cooper

abruzzi · August 30, 1999, 05:48 PM

I have practiced law as a private attorney for most of the last 26 years, have purchased (and even read in part) Tribe's second edition of Constitutional Law, and write here merely to underscore the importance of the publication of his views.

In short, it is impossible to overstate the importance of the publication of Tribe's views for all constitutional discussion from this day forward. No commentator has, or has had, greater influence over the development of constitutional law in this century. None.

For Tribe to endorse the principle that the 2nd amendment incorporates and embraces individual rights premised on the concept of self defense RADICALLY alters the quality of the debate in favor of second amendment rights. Prior to this event, it is fair to say that lawyers who advocated an individual right premised on the 2nd amendment were viewed, to put it gently, as lightweights. No more. There is no heavier weight commentator than Tribe.

Don't worry about the details of his possible toleration for "gun control" in a variety of forms. Ask the question this way -- is the right to possession of a firearm a fundamental right, which raises the standard of review of intrusions by the government, or is it a secondary right which enjoys lesser status. A review of his third edition and possibly subsequent writings will be necessary to resolve that issue.
That is a debate in which he may or may not express views which this board may find agreeable.

But that issue is, at least today, a side show. The second amendment is personal to the individual, not a prerogative of the state.

Allah has spoken, and every lawyer in the USA has heard him.

**Mal H** · August 30, 1999, 06:23 PM

Excellently stated, abruzzi. I haven't been as excited over anything like this in a looong time. Those who wonder why Tribe hasn't gotten around to contemplating the 2nd must think he is just sitting in his ivory tower twiddling his thumbs with nothing else to do. Let's take the big step forward and appreciate it for what it is instead of complaining about it.

[This message has been edited by Mal H (edited August 30, 1999).]

Brett Bellmore · August 30, 1999, 07:56 PM

Well, I'm glad he finally got around to actually studying the evidence, but I really have to ask: Granted, he's one of the most respected constitutional scholars in the country... Does he actually DESERVE that respect, if he's been opining on the Second amendment all these years without having examined the evidence? And what other of his authoritative opinions are just hot air? And are we going to get an apology out of him for all the years he was wrong, when the evidence was there any time he chose to look?

Sorry about the griping, but this "liberal", "Even though I now agree with what you said all those years, I'm not going to admit that you were right all along!" attitude always gives me a pain.

Jeff Thomas · August 30, 1999, 08:14 PM

abruzzi, thanks as well for weighing in here. I'm not an attorney, and I've heard of Tribe, but it certainly helps to have his views put into perspective.

I certainly tilt at my share of windmills, but getting excited about the Supreme Court having the power to interpret the Constitution, or debating whether Tribe should be considered a constitutional expert seems like a waste of time. The Supreme Court does interpret the Constitution, and while I might dislike some of their work, some interpretation seems necessary from time to time. And, perhaps Tribe should have been more careful / balanced in his earlier reviews, but if he is highly respected in the legal community, then so be it. Both are reality.

Let's be thankful for the wonderful timing of having honest folks like Cummings (see US v. Emerson), Tribe, Levinson and others. Lesser men (and, we seem to have them in abundance right now, right?) would have just kept their mouths shut and scheduled their next tee time. You know, I can tolerate people that disagree with me on the issue of RKBA - but, I can't stand spineless, ignorant, lying b******s, and unfortunately we seem to have a ton of those re: the RKBA.

This has become a truly fascinating philosophical debate, and it is both exciting and unnerving to watch it unfold. Exciting because of the implications and breadth of the issue. Unnerving because I think all of us rightly fear for the future of our country without the RKBA.

Damn ... this is getting interesting!

Regards from AZ

rod · August 30, 1999, 10:17 PM

It's an interesting issue, the interpretation of the Bill Of Rights. On the one hand since the primary purpose of this document is to mandate rights of the governed it seems to be a conflict of interest to let any government agency "interpret" them for us. The founders made clear their view that governments tend toward oppression, they viewed it as a natural progression that could only be countered by an independent thinking defiant populace who had the means to resort to force if necessary. Giving the power of interpretation to a government agency would seem to short circuit this idea, governments in their natural evolution toward enhancing their own power at the expense of their citizens would could simply start telling us that green is now red and if we couldn't see it its just because we're not knowlegeable enough about the law. The Second Amendment debate has looked an awful lot like this lately.

On the other hand allowing individuals to interpret the Constitution willy-nilly to their own benefit could result in say a mass murderer claimings his acts were Constitutionally protected political expression.

Seems like we allow the Constitution to be interpreted for us by the government until they step so far over the bounds that we can't let it pass. For the most part checks and balances work. But in the case of RKBA where predjudices have been so inflamed on such a large scale, I'm not so sure the system is working.

It's an interesting time to see this come to a head. I'm skeptical that the powerful forces behind gun control will allow their agenda to be thwarted by a minor court case. On the other hand there a lot more to be optimistic about than there was just last week.

=rod=

[This message has been edited by rod (edited August 30, 1999).]

Brett Bellmore · September 22, 1999, 07:47 PM

Ok, we've all had a chance to read the USA today article. But has anyone read the book chapter which triggered that article, and is it available on the net?

August 28, 1999, 11:25 PM	#1
rod Senior Member Join Date: October 16, 1998 Location: AZ Posts: 101	http://www.usatoday.com/news/ndsthu08.htm 08/27/99- Updated 12:34 AM ET Scholar's shift in thinking angers liberals By Tony Mauro, USA TODAY Publication of the first volume of a revised edition of a legal treatise would not ordinarily make news. But even before it began arriving at law schools last week, Laurence Tribe's American Constitutional Law was causing a stir. Tribe, a Harvard law professor who is probably the most influential living American constitutional scholar, says he has already gotten hate mail about his new interpretation of the right to bear arms contained in the Second Amendment. Relegated to a footnote in the first edition of the book in 1978, the right to bear arms earns Tribe's respect in the latest version. Tribe, well-known as a liberal scholar, concludes that the right to bear arms was conceived as an important political right that should not be dismissed as "wholly irrelevant." Rather, Tribe thinks the Second Amendment assures that "the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification." Tribe posits that it includes an individual right, "admittedly of uncertain scope," to "possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes." None of Tribe's new thinking changes his view that gun-control measures are "plainly constitutional," but his shift has been enough to anger gun-control advocates. "I've gotten an avalanche of angry mail from apparent liberals who said, 'How could you?'" Tribe says. "But as someone who takes the Constitution seriously, I thought I had a responsibility to see what the Second Amendment says, and how it fits." Tribe's views on the Constitution are of more than passing importance. Earlier editions of Tribe's treatise have been quoted more than 50 times in Supreme Court opinions - by liberal and conservative justices - and by the top courts of India, Germany, Russia and Canada, among others. The new edition also deals with the law on impeachment developed from President Clinton's trial, as well as the Supreme Court trend cutting back on congressional power. "He has an audience well beyond law students," says Drake University law professor Tom Baker, who assigns Tribe's book to students. "For Larry Tribe to say that there's more to the Second Amendment than originally thought is very important, and reflects an open-mindedness that some don't expect." Glenn Harlan Reynolds of the University of Tennessee adds: "He legitimizes this whole new body of scholarship, and it will force judges and others to face the issue on its merits." At the usually conservative law school at Pepperdine University, professor Douglas Kmiec recommends the book to "the very best students." On the Second Amendment, Kmiec says, Tribe's book offers "a fair and evenhanded appraisal of what is still an inconclusive right." =rod=

August 29, 1999, 11:09 PM	#2
Jeff Thomas Senior Member Join Date: December 9, 1998 Location: Texas Posts: 4,753	Dr. Tribe may not have gone as far as many of us would have liked, but I do admire his courage to honestly practice his craft. Those of us who believe in the RKBA have truth on our side. Now, whether a respect of the RKBA will prevail depends upon honest men such as Dr. Tribe. If our Supreme Court Justices bow to political pressure we are lost. Now, an even more interesting question is how Tribe squares an individual rights perspective with 'constitutional' gun control legislation. He is doing a good job of selling his book ...

August 30, 1999, 12:40 AM	#3
Mal H Staff Join Date: March 20, 1999 Location: Somewhere in the woods of Northern Virginia Posts: 16,950	This is damn good news. Tribe is a very respected constitutional scholar. His opinion comes at a very opportune time if a 2nd Amendment trial is soon to be heard before the SC.

August 30, 1999, 01:49 AM	#4
shades6848 Member Join Date: July 30, 1999 Posts: 47	Good news indeed! I am a bit surprised that USA Today printed the article though.

August 30, 1999, 08:12 AM	#5
BigG Senior Member Join Date: May 19, 1999 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 4,334	As a "constitutional scholar" of long standing, I'm glad Perfesser Tribe finally got around to reading and digesting the second amendment. PS: I'm a genius because I got it the first time, and I'm no constitutional scholar! ------------------ Remember: When you attempt to rationalize two inconsistent positions, you risk drowning as your own sewage backs up... Yankee Doodle

August 30, 1999, 12:32 PM	#6
jimmy Senior Member Join Date: January 29, 1999 Location: Texas Posts: 1,796	Yes, this is all to the good It's interesting that Prof. Tribe is now getting first-hand experience of the intolerance and intellectual violence of all those supposedly tolerant and non-violent liberals.

August 30, 1999, 04:40 PM	#7
Jack 99 Senior Member Join Date: July 5, 1999 Posts: 1,082	I have a big problem with this. We've become so used to the Constitution being "interpereted" that here we are, "the people," as defined by that divinely inspired document, looking at this declaration from some egghead as a great triumph. Why do I need some appointed expert (appointed by who, by the way?) to tell me that "there may be more to this Second Amendment thing than we previously thought. You may even have the right to keep and bear arms after all." (my paraphrasing)? We are as much subjects as any people on this planet if we concede the debate only to "experts", "scholars", "the media" and politicians who are supposedly "qualified" to read what is written in black and white in language as plain as day. I can read the damn thing myself!! The 2nd does not "give me any rights," rather it describes a pre-existing, God-given right that cannot be usurped. It also gives the govt the task of protecting that right (so much for that idea). ------------------ "Put a rifle in the hands of a Subject, and he immediately becomes a Citizen." -- Jeff Cooper

August 30, 1999, 04:47 PM	#8
Coinneach Staff Alumnus Join Date: February 23, 1999 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 4,272	Jack, We're happy because Dr. Tribe has finally shown common sense. Yes, you and I and most of the country understand the BoR, but most academics don't, or refuse to try. The conversion of Tribe is a small victory, but at this point, we need all the allies we can get. ------------------ "Taking a long view of history, we may say that anyone who lays down his arms deserves whatever he gets." --Jeff Cooper

August 30, 1999, 05:04 PM	#9
James K Member In Memoriam Join Date: March 17, 1999 Posts: 24,383	It is interesting that a man described as one of the nation's foremost constitutional experts on the Bill of Rights finally got down to number two. I wonder how long it takes him to cover the rest of the amendments. Jim

August 30, 1999, 05:08 PM	#10
Futo Inu Senior Member Join Date: February 12, 1999 Location: Oklahoma City, OK, USA Posts: 3,624	This is reeeel good. Tribe has ENOURMOUS influence in the real world courts. I still want to bitch slap him for saying "gun control" measures are plainly constitutional, when many of them are plainly not, if anything. This is the first hurdle, establishing it's an individual right. Now the antis can't ever argue that national guard BS again. Now the next hurdle is EXTENT of the right. After that, application of the right to the states via the fourteenth amendment (just like the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, etc.)

August 30, 1999, 05:46 PM	#11
Jack 99 Senior Member Join Date: July 5, 1999 Posts: 1,082	Coinneach - I see we are both fond of the wit and wisdom of the Guru. What do you think Cooper's reaction to this would be? Better yet, what do you think Madison, Jefferson, Patrick Henry and the rest would say about the "Constitutional Interperetation" of the 2nd if they were alive today? I don't think they would say anything, they'd just start dumping tea in the harbor As far as this Tribe guy goes, I think you may have missed my point. Yes, its great he's come around, but if we've already conceded to the authority of the Supreme Court, Executive Branch, Legislators (at all levels), Academics, media, "scholars", pundits and law enforcement, THEN WE'VE ALREADY LOST THE RIGHT!! Who did you ask before you posted to this board? If you wanted to print some pro-RKBA flyers and put them on cars at the mall, would you ask first? Then why, when it comes time to buy a firearm do we have to ask permission to exercise that right? Well, its mostly because we've let legislators and courts "interperet" and cast doubt on the 2nd, even when its crystal clear and even a cursory glance at the origins of RKBA shows clearly what the intent was. I don't need any more of these idiots telling me what my rights are, I can read pretty well at this point in my life. This interepretation and "living Constitution" nonsense are what got us in this mess in the first place. We don't need more of it. So great, Tribe sorta kinda feels that the 2nd may be relevant and may even guarantee some limited rights. Excuse me if I don't do any handstands. ------------------ "Put a rifle in the hands of a Subject, and he immediately becomes a Citizen." -- Jeff Cooper

August 30, 1999, 05:48 PM	#12
abruzzi Senior Member Join Date: April 23, 1999 Location: Hurricane, WV, USA Posts: 192	I have practiced law as a private attorney for most of the last 26 years, have purchased (and even read in part) Tribe's second edition of Constitutional Law, and write here merely to underscore the importance of the publication of his views. In short, it is impossible to overstate the importance of the publication of Tribe's views for all constitutional discussion from this day forward. No commentator has, or has had, greater influence over the development of constitutional law in this century. None. For Tribe to endorse the principle that the 2nd amendment incorporates and embraces individual rights premised on the concept of self defense RADICALLY alters the quality of the debate in favor of second amendment rights. Prior to this event, it is fair to say that lawyers who advocated an individual right premised on the 2nd amendment were viewed, to put it gently, as lightweights. No more. There is no heavier weight commentator than Tribe. Don't worry about the details of his possible toleration for "gun control" in a variety of forms. Ask the question this way -- is the right to possession of a firearm a fundamental right, which raises the standard of review of intrusions by the government, or is it a secondary right which enjoys lesser status. A review of his third edition and possibly subsequent writings will be necessary to resolve that issue. That is a debate in which he may or may not express views which this board may find agreeable. But that issue is, at least today, a side show. The second amendment is personal to the individual, not a prerogative of the state. Allah has spoken, and every lawyer in the USA has heard him.

August 30, 1999, 06:23 PM	#13
Mal H Staff Join Date: March 20, 1999 Location: Somewhere in the woods of Northern Virginia Posts: 16,950	Excellently stated, abruzzi. I haven't been as excited over anything like this in a looong time. Those who wonder why Tribe hasn't gotten around to contemplating the 2nd must think he is just sitting in his ivory tower twiddling his thumbs with nothing else to do. Let's take the big step forward and appreciate it for what it is instead of complaining about it. [This message has been edited by Mal H (edited August 30, 1999).]

August 30, 1999, 07:56 PM	#14
Brett Bellmore Senior Member Join Date: March 17, 1999 Location: Capac, MI, USA Posts: 1,927	Well, I'm glad he finally got around to actually studying the evidence, but I really have to ask: Granted, he's one of the most respected constitutional scholars in the country... Does he actually DESERVE that respect, if he's been opining on the Second amendment all these years without having examined the evidence? And what other of his authoritative opinions are just hot air? And are we going to get an apology out of him for all the years he was wrong, when the evidence was there any time he chose to look? Sorry about the griping, but this "liberal", "Even though I now agree with what you said all those years, I'm not going to admit that you were right all along!" attitude always gives me a pain.

August 30, 1999, 08:14 PM	#15
Jeff Thomas Senior Member Join Date: December 9, 1998 Location: Texas Posts: 4,753	abruzzi, thanks as well for weighing in here. I'm not an attorney, and I've heard of Tribe, but it certainly helps to have his views put into perspective. I certainly tilt at my share of windmills, but getting excited about the Supreme Court having the power to interpret the Constitution, or debating whether Tribe should be considered a constitutional expert seems like a waste of time. The Supreme Court does interpret the Constitution, and while I might dislike some of their work, some interpretation seems necessary from time to time. And, perhaps Tribe should have been more careful / balanced in his earlier reviews, but if he is highly respected in the legal community, then so be it. Both are reality. Let's be thankful for the wonderful timing of having honest folks like Cummings (see US v. Emerson), Tribe, Levinson and others. Lesser men (and, we seem to have them in abundance right now, right?) would have just kept their mouths shut and scheduled their next tee time. You know, I can tolerate people that disagree with me on the issue of RKBA - but, I can't stand spineless, ignorant, lying b******s, and unfortunately we seem to have a ton of those re: the RKBA. This has become a truly fascinating philosophical debate, and it is both exciting and unnerving to watch it unfold. Exciting because of the implications and breadth of the issue. Unnerving because I think all of us rightly fear for the future of our country without the RKBA. Damn ... this is getting interesting! Regards from AZ

August 30, 1999, 10:17 PM	#16
rod Senior Member Join Date: October 16, 1998 Location: AZ Posts: 101	It's an interesting issue, the interpretation of the Bill Of Rights. On the one hand since the primary purpose of this document is to mandate rights of the governed it seems to be a conflict of interest to let any government agency "interpret" them for us. The founders made clear their view that governments tend toward oppression, they viewed it as a natural progression that could only be countered by an independent thinking defiant populace who had the means to resort to force if necessary. Giving the power of interpretation to a government agency would seem to short circuit this idea, governments in their natural evolution toward enhancing their own power at the expense of their citizens would could simply start telling us that green is now red and if we couldn't see it its just because we're not knowlegeable enough about the law. The Second Amendment debate has looked an awful lot like this lately. On the other hand allowing individuals to interpret the Constitution willy-nilly to their own benefit could result in say a mass murderer claimings his acts were Constitutionally protected political expression. Seems like we allow the Constitution to be interpreted for us by the government until they step so far over the bounds that we can't let it pass. For the most part checks and balances work. But in the case of RKBA where predjudices have been so inflamed on such a large scale, I'm not so sure the system is working. It's an interesting time to see this come to a head. I'm skeptical that the powerful forces behind gun control will allow their agenda to be thwarted by a minor court case. On the other hand there a lot more to be optimistic about than there was just last week. =rod= [This message has been edited by rod (edited August 30, 1999).]

September 22, 1999, 07:47 PM	#17
Brett Bellmore Senior Member Join Date: March 17, 1999 Location: Capac, MI, USA Posts: 1,927	Ok, we've all had a chance to read the USA today article. But has anyone read the book chapter which triggered that article, and is it available on the net?