<div dir="ltr"><div id="wrapper_inner"><div class="" id="blog_content"><div id="blog_title">
<h1 class=""> <font size="4">The NRA's Fraud: Fabrication of Second Amendment Rights
</font></h1>
<div style="padding-top:15px" class="">
<span class=""><font size="4">Posted: 04/17/2013 4:13 pm Huff Post, Burton Newman, Washington University School of Law</font></span></div><div style="padding-top:15px" class=""><span class=""><font size="4">The article is a long one, so here is the guts of it:</font></span></div>
<div style="padding-top:15px" class=""><font size="4">What did the Supreme Court say in the 2008 <em>Heller</em> decision? The Court held that there existed an individual right to bear arms only for traditional purposes such as self-defense in the home. The Court declared that the Second Amendment should not be understood as conferring a "right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." The Court gave examples of firearms laws presumed to be lawful. These included laws prohibiting firearm possession by felons, mentally ill persons and possession of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings. The Court found that conditions on the commercial sale of firearms were presumptively lawful. The Court said this list was not exhaustive; and found that the Second Amendment is consistent with laws banning firearms that are "dangerous and unusual."<br>
</font></div><div style="padding-top:15px" class=""><span class=""><font size="4"><p>The ruling in <em>Heller</em> was a departure from the 1939 decision in the <em>Miller</em> case where the court stated that the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was to ensure effectiveness of the stated Militia. However, even with this departure the decision in <em>Heller</em> is limited in its scope. The only right specifically mentioned in the Supreme Court's opinion is the right of an individual to possess a gun for self-defense in the home.</p>
<p>Did this limited decision stop the NRA from its propaganda campaign? Of course not. On <em>Meet the Press</em> on March 24, 2013, Wayne LaPierre declared to the nation that under the <em>Heller</em> decision it would be an "absolute abridgement" of constitutional rights to regulate assault weapons. That myth, heard by millions, was intended to again mislead the country into believing that there are sweeping Second Amendment rights that cannot be regulated. Nonsense. The very language of the Supreme Court opinion in <em>Heller</em> calls out LaPierre as a liar.</p>
</font></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" id="entry_body"><div class=""><p><font size="4">"<em>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.</em>" ~ Second Amendment, U.S. Constitution</font></p>
<p><font size="4">Following the Sandy Hook massacre, gun rights, gun laws and the
Second Amendment have been the subject of a national dialogue. Any
discussion of these topics is severely tainted by calculated messaging
by the NRA to deceive and mislead our citizens to believe that the
Second Amendment grants far reaching gun rights which have not and do
not exist.</font></p>
<p><font size="4">The Second Amendment became part of our constitution in 1791. For
well over two centuries the Supreme Court never decided that the
Amendment granted a constitutional right to individuals to bear arms.
The widely held notion that such a right existed was a myth fabricated
by the NRA for its own self interest and for the corporate profits of
gun manufacturers. This fabrication altered the mindset of most
Americans to accept fictional Second Amendment rights that permitted the
proliferation of all manner and kind of dangerous weapons. We became a
gun culture run rampant. The gun manufacturers reaped enormous profits
as gun sales soared. In 2011 industry wide gun sales were $4.3 billion.
Misconceptions generated by the NRA created a warped interpretation of
Second Amendment that generated these sales.</font></p>
<p><font size="4">The fraud perpetrated by the NRA is patent. We do not heed the
warnings of prominent citizens such as former attorneys general Nicholas
Katzenbach, Ramsey Clark, Elliot L. Richardson, Edward Levi, Griffin B.
Bell and Benjamin R. Civiletti. The joint statement in the <em>Washington Post</em> of these former attorneys general in 1992 reads as follows:</font></p>
<blockquote><font size="4">"For more than 200 years, the federal courts have
unanimously determined that the Second Amendment concerns only the
arming of the people in service to an organized state Militia: it does
not guarantee immediate access to guns for private purposes. The nation
can no longer afford to let the gun lobbies' distortion of the
constitution cripple every reasonable attempt to implement an effective
national policy towards guns and crime."</font></blockquote>
<p><font size="4">In a PBS <em>News Hour</em> interview in 1991, former Supreme Court
Chief Justice Warren Burger referred to the NRA Second Amendment myth as
"one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the
American people by any special interest group that I have ever seen in
my lifetime."</font></p>
<p><font size="4">The opinions of these distinguished legal scholars had no bearing on
NRA propaganda that continued unabated. During the weeks before the 2000
general election, a self-anointed constitution "scholar," Charleton
Heston, ceremonial president of the NRA, flooded the airways to urge
voters to support candidates who would protect and preserve Second
Amendment rights. Little did most Americans realize that such rights did
not exist. The NRA's reading of the Second Amendment was purely
fictional and unsupported by the law of the land.</font></p>
<p><font size="4">Candidates for public office both state and federal reaped in
political contributions from the NRA. These elected officials feared the
wrath of the NRA should they stray from the NRA's Second Amendment
myth.</font></p>
<p><font size="4">A norm evolved offering sanctity to gun owners and manufacturers. Gun
manufacturers and the NRA prospered and profited. As one gun
manufacturing executive states the equation, the NRA "protects our
Second Amendment rights and those rights protect the ability to buy our
products." Elected officials stand idly by while gun deaths and
massacres escalate without lasting public outcry or meaningful
legislative efforts.</font></p>
<p><font size="4">The statistics are staggering. The depth of lost life is evident by
comparing deaths in foreign wars and firearm deaths of citizens within
our borders. In all foreign wars during our history about 650,000
soldiers died. In the 45 years since Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther
King were assassinated in 1968, there have been over 1.3 million deaths
in our country caused by firearms. The fraud perpetrated by the NRA as
recognized by former Chief Justice Burger is linked to these deaths. The
blood of thousands upon thousands of Americans permanently stain the
hands of NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre.</font></p>
<p><font size="4">How did the NRA gain such power and influence on our citizenry? For
the first century of its existence beginning in 1871, the NRA primarily
devoted its efforts to gun safety. Following enactment of new
restrictive gun laws requiring gun licensing and taxes, a 1977 coup
within the NRA membership led by militants resulted in a new harder
edged and more aggressive NRA. The truth mattered not. The edifice of
the NRA headquarters would now bear an abbreviated version of the Second
Amendment: "The Right of the People to keep and Bear Arms Shall not be
infringed." The NRA amended the Constitution unilaterally to avoid even a
hint that the language pertaining to a Militia had any meaning. The law
of the land spoke otherwise.</font></p>
<p><font size="4">In 1939 the Supreme Court issued the <em>Miller</em> decision. The
justices ruled that "the Second Amendment must be interpreted and
applied with the view of its purpose of rendering effective Militia."
That was the state of Second Amendment law until the 2008 <em>Heller</em> decision. Prior to <em>Heller</em>,
the Supreme Court never recognized that individuals had an individual
right to keep and bear arms. It was the NRA propaganda, not the law of
the land, that led the cry for unlimited gun ownership and protection of
gun owner rights. The NRA myths allowed the cycle of expanded gun sales
and NRA power to purchase political influence. Democrats and Republican
alike announced their allegiance to the Second Amendment and the public
grew to believe that the NRA view of the Second Amendment was
consistent with constitutional law. The NRA controlled too many elected
officials to allow for protection of our citizens from gun violence, gun
deaths and unspeakable gun horrors in schools and public places.</font></p>
<p><font size="4">The NRA myths were disseminated on other fronts. Articles appeared in
NRA publications and rewrote history by declaring that "Armed citizens
[were] unregulated except by his own ability to buy a gun at whatever
price he could afford." This credo became an NRA rallying cry. </font></p>
<p><font size="4">The NRA poured millions upon millions of dollars into congressional
and state legislative campaigns. Gun owners and manufacturers poured
more money into the NRA. The revisionist view of Second Amendment rights
gained momentum in 1982 when a Senate judiciary subcommittee issued a
report about the discovery of "long lost proof" of an individual's
constitutional right to bear arms. The chair of the subcommittee was
Utah Senator Orrin Hatch. The "proof" has never surfaced.</font></p>
<p><font size="4">For over three decades the NRA funded legal research, legal seminars
and pushed for law review articles supporting individual rights to bear
arms. This and the NRA persuasion of elected officials led to a dramatic
shift in Second Amendment legal views. In 2003 the NRA established a $1
million chair at George Mason University law school. The views of NRA
supported professors and legal scholars were relied on in the 2008
Supreme Court decision finding an individual right to bear arms for the
first time.</font></p>
<p><font size="4">What did the Supreme Court say in the 2008 <em>Heller</em> decision?
The Court held that there existed an individual right to bear arms only
for traditional purposes such as self-defense in the home. The Court
declared that the Second Amendment should not be understood as
conferring a "right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." The Court gave examples of
firearms laws presumed to be lawful. These included laws prohibiting
firearm possession by felons, mentally ill persons and possession of
firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.
The Court found that conditions on the commercial sale of firearms were
presumptively lawful. The Court said this list was not exhaustive; and
found that the Second Amendment is consistent with laws banning firearms
that are "dangerous and unusual."</font></p>
<p><font size="4">The ruling in <em>Heller</em> was a departure from the 1939 decision in the <em>Miller</em>
case where the court stated that the "obvious purpose" of the Second
Amendment was to ensure effectiveness of the stated Militia. However,
even with this departure the decision in <em>Heller</em> is limited in
its scope. The only right specifically mentioned in the Supreme Court's
opinion is the right of an individual to possess a gun for self-defense
in the home.</font></p>
<p><font size="4">Did this limited decision stop the NRA from its propaganda campaign? Of course not. On <em>Meet the Press</em> on March 24, 2013, Wayne LaPierre declared to the nation that under the <em>Heller</em>
decision it would be an "absolute abridgement" of constitutional rights
to regulate assault weapons. That myth, heard by millions, was intended
to again mislead the country into believing that there are sweeping
Second Amendment rights that cannot be regulated. Nonsense. The very
language of the Supreme Court opinion in <em>Heller</em> calls out LaPierre as a liar. </font></p>
<p><font size="4">How can the American people be educated to understand the true
meaning of the Second Amendment consistent with the Supreme Court's
interpretation of that Amendment? Such an education process could lead
to sweeping reform of state and federal regulation of firearms. But how
is the mindset of the American people to be changed? The same way our
mindset about drunk driving and smoking changed over time. Let's take a
look at the circumstances involved in smoking. Smokers 35 years ago
would never have believed there would be no public smoking. When harms
caused by drunk drivers and tobacco users were known in clear terms, the
mindset of the public changed. New reforms, enforcement of laws and
demands for a safer society became reachable goals. The change in that
mindset did not take place in a day a week or a year. Nor will the
change in the mindset regarding Second Amendment rights change
overnight. But it is the education of the citizenry and the education of
our lawmakers that is necessary in order for the calculated messaging
of the NRA to be known for what it is: Lies, myths and fictions that
have harmed and killed our citizens and will continue to do so until an
enlightened view of the very limited scope of Second Amendment rights is
known, understood and acted upon.</font></p>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="">
</div>
</div>
<div class=""></div> </div>
<div class=""></div></div>