CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Well, it's an interesting exchange. In the end, [Senator Ted] Cruz overshot. His question was, his argument was you wouldn't tamper with the first amendment on free speech for example, the way you're tampering with the second in restricting it by making some weapons illegal. And the answer that Feinstein ended up with, suggested by Dick Durbin was yes, we do with the first amendment when we outlaw pornography. So that is a large category of speech that is illegal, and that therefore it isn't absolute every right in the first or the second or the fourth amendment is one that you cannot touch. So, I thought Cruz was -- also the manner which he asked it, I think it appeared a little bit offensive. I don't think Cruz helped himself
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Durbin( and Krauthammer) was the one who missed the point. Cruz was referring to the constitutional term of art "the people", which is used in all three amendments.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
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.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The First Amendment grants "the people" the right to assemble and to present grievances. The courts have allowed very few if any restrictions on these rights. Durbin was referring to the more general right to freedom of speech and the press, which was drafted as a limitation on congress rather than a right of "the people. "
Similarly, the Fourth Amendment grants "the people" broad rights against unreasonable search and seizure. While the courts have struggled at times to define what is reasonable, there are no broad exemptions to the right of the sort advocated by Feinstein for guns.
Ironically, liberals have sought to push both the First and Fourth Amendment guarantees to often absurd levels.
Durbin is effectively analogizing certain classes of guns to pornography. The courts have supported this in very limited cases, eg sawed-off shotguns. Even the "bazookas" Feinstein keeps referring to are prohibited. But the Heller decision made it abundantly clear that guns that are in customary useage for self defense fall squarely within the Second Amendment's protection. It is hard to see how the most popular class of rifle in the country, AR's, or the most popular handguns, hi cap semi autos, could be classified as anything but customary self defense weapons.
The democrats in effect are trying to say that they could ban the Wall Street Journal and Sports Illustrated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Durbin( and Krauthammer) was the one who missed the point. Cruz was referring to the constitutional term of art "the people", which is used in all three amendments.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
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.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The First Amendment grants "the people" the right to assemble and to present grievances. The courts have allowed very few if any restrictions on these rights. Durbin was referring to the more general right to freedom of speech and the press, which was drafted as a limitation on congress rather than a right of "the people. "
Similarly, the Fourth Amendment grants "the people" broad rights against unreasonable search and seizure. While the courts have struggled at times to define what is reasonable, there are no broad exemptions to the right of the sort advocated by Feinstein for guns.
Ironically, liberals have sought to push both the First and Fourth Amendment guarantees to often absurd levels.
Durbin is effectively analogizing certain classes of guns to pornography. The courts have supported this in very limited cases, eg sawed-off shotguns. Even the "bazookas" Feinstein keeps referring to are prohibited. But the Heller decision made it abundantly clear that guns that are in customary useage for self defense fall squarely within the Second Amendment's protection. It is hard to see how the most popular class of rifle in the country, AR's, or the most popular handguns, hi cap semi autos, could be classified as anything but customary self defense weapons.
The democrats in effect are trying to say that they could ban the Wall Street Journal and Sports Illustrated.
