OPINION: Sharron Angle Supports The Bill Of Rights...On Her Terms

Sharron Angle is a big fan of bits of the Bill of Rights. Her way. In answers to a questionnaire submitted to the Washington-based political committee Government is Not God, Nevada Republican senatorial candidate Angle says members of the clergy should be allowed to endorse political candidates from the pulpit.

So? Churches are banned by the federal government from participating in political campaigns on behalf of candidates. Presumably, this pesky ban would be overturned, First Amendment notwithstanding, if she wins.

Perhaps she could enlist her not so secret weapon if she encounters reluctance from fellow senators. “You know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies.”

Sharron Angle advocated “Second Amendment remedies” at least three times, each time suggesting something slightly different: protection against a tyrannical government and having a revolution; fighting “for liberty” if conservatives lose at the ballot box; to turn the country around if Congress keeps going the way it is (“The first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out”).

She never really walked back those statements.

Sharron Angle’s pro poodle press. It can be free, but on her leash. Having run - literally - from the media during much of her campaign, she’s made a few astonishing statements recently, which shed light on her actions. Basically, she wants her own Home Shopping Network.

“We wanted [journalists] to ask the questions we want to answer so that they report the news the way we want it to be reported,” Angle said to Fox News’ Carl Cameron. Can we pause for a minute to gasp? OK, on we go.

“And when I get on a show and I say send me money to SharronAngle.com, so that your listeners will know that if they want to support me they need to go to SharronAngle.com.” (Just to be contrary, I’ll balance things out and point you to www.therealsharronangle.com.) Wait, there’s more, and it’s worse.

“I’m not going to earn anything from people who are there to badger me and use my words to batter me with,” Angle said to CBN’s David Brody. At least she’s not alleging the media are making stuff up.

Is Sharron Angle’s understanding of the First Amendment a press that is her friend, that contributes to her web site, and reports the news the way the wants it to be reported? Is she that naive? Or is she that cynical and manipulative?

It’s interesting that Government is Not God has endorsed Sharron Angle. It believes that “government should not play God”. While Angle calls for the abolition of the Department of Education and for Social Security to be “transitioned out” (a position she denies), she also wants government to restrict the production and sale of pornography (which means government has to enforce it) and has previously called for prohibition, which would call for massive government enforcement. Quite a lot of work for the federal government,

Sharron Angle said in an interview with TruNews Christian Radio’s Rick Wile on April 21: “What’s happening in this country is a violation of the First Commandment. We have become a country entrenched in idolatry, and that idolatry is the dependency upon our government. We’re supposed to depend upon God for our protection and our provision and for our daily bread, not for our government.”

This is just fascinating. SharronAngle.com says Sharron Angle is a staunch supporter of the U.S. military. If we’re relying upon God for our protection, why do we need it? Where is God sending our provision and daily bread from? Is it loaves and fishes, or a nationwide reliance on charity?

Angle’s making God the government.

She said in the same interview that she knew all along when she started praying a year ago over it. It seemed to be the battle that she needed to go to war with. “And I need warriors to stand beside me. You know, this is a war of ideology, a war of thoughts and of faith.”

Angle’s on a Crusade.

For those who oppose her, and don’t want to resort to Second Amendment remedies, there’s still freedom of speech, the right to peaceably assemble, and, if all else fails, to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Victoria Jones is a White House Correspondent for the Talk Radio News Service

Supreme Court Likely To Strike Down Some Gun Laws, But How Many?

Even liberal Justices seemed to agree in today's Supreme Court oral arguments that the Second Amendment must prevent cities and states from passing certain gun regulations. The Supreme Court in 2008 ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to bear firearms, but that ruling applied to only the federal government, and today's case, McDonald v. Chicago, raised the question of whether states as well are prevented from restricting access to guns.

The 2008 case of DC v. Heller held, in a controversial 5-4 decision, that the Second Amendment to the Constitution protects not only the right of the citizens in a militia to own guns, but also the fundamental right of individual citizens to own guns. If such a right is fundamental, liberal Justices asked today, is there any way the Court can consistently say that states are allowed to infringe upon that right?

Alan Gura, the lawyer for Otis McDonald, began today's session by arguing that the Supreme Court should toss out an interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment dating back to 1873, and should instead adopt a new justification for recognizing civil rights. But Justice Antonin Scalia admitted that even though he disagrees with the current interpretation, "even I have acquiesced in it." Scalia went further, dismissing Gura's theory as the "darling of the professoriate," since a number of high-profile law professors filed briefs urging support for Gura's side. Still, Scalia did seem to strongly favor the application of the Second Amendment to the states, arguing that the Court has found that the Constitution prevents states from outlawing "homosexual conduct and … abortion on demand," so the same logic must apply to gun rights.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked pointed questions of Gura, saying that at the time of the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, there were still many Americans who were denied fundamental rights, and not just in the southern states. Gura, confused, responded, "I'm sorry?" Ginsburg then explained that she was referring to married women, who at the time did not have the right to enter into contracts. If the Fourteenth Amendment was meant to ensure no American was denied these fundamental rights, she asked, why were women excluded?

There was some agreement among the Justices, though. Justices John Roberts, John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, and Stephen Breyer all seemed to be looking for a way for the Court to rule narrowly and say that the Second Amendment applies to states, but not get into the details of what that meant. Though Justice Scalia seemed to argue in favor of strong gun rights, his opinion in DC v. Heller followed this model, finding that the Second Amendment protected an individual right but declining to say how extensive that right is. That kind of minimalist decision, one favored by Chief Justice Roberts in other cases, may carry the day when the case is decided this summer.

Republicans Shoot Down Sotomayor’s Second Amendment Interpretation

By Courtney Ann Jackson-Talk Radio News Service

Republican Senators are objecting to Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's interpretation of the Second Amendment.

“In her decision making process in cases that she decided, Judge Sotomayor, earlier this year, rendered an opinion that held that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right,” said Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), referencing a ruling Sotomayor issued as a 2nd Circuit judge for the city of New York last year. The Supreme Court nominee determined that the Second Amendment did not apply to city and states, but only the federal government.

Sen. Jim DeMint argued during a press conference with fellow Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) Wednesday that if the Second Amendment does not apply to every American, then the Constitution no longer has any bearing on controlling the role of the federal government.

“It’s a very important question that goes... beyond the question of bearing arms but whether or not we are still a Constitutional Republic.”

The Senators reiterated their belief that the right for the people to keep and bear arms applies to all Americans and stated that they plan to ask Sotomayor questions about her interpretation of the Second Amendment during her confirmation hearings in July.

NRA means "No rentals available."

My sister is a proud Republican. She loves lower taxes, big business (She has told me "what's good for business is good for people." repeatedly) and an individual-rights approach to the Second Amendment. She's among the many that are thrilled by the Supreme Court's ruling to lift the handgun ban in the District of Columbia, especially since she 's living in DC for the summer. To celebrate she and a family friend went to the National Rifle Association's shooting range this past week.

They toured the museum and paid for the range. My sister had to fill out paperwork and get a 30-minute evaluation on using a hand gun. She's been shooting before and has had training. When she passed the written test they indicated a lane for shooting. She asked how much for gun rental. And that is when she got a shock.

There are no guns for rental at the National Rifle Association's shooting lanes.

Many shooting ranges provide rental for a variety of handguns for those who are recreational shooters but don't bring or own guns. The leading lobby for gun-owner's rights takes their mission quite literally-- it is helpful to be an actual gun owner if you are interested in shooting there. Hearing this story from my sister was pretty amusing, especially since they had administrated the whole vetting process with her plainly standing there in a tank top and jeans. How many 20-year-old interns do YOU know with a conceal and carry permit? And in that clothing where on earth was she supposed to be packing heat?

Beyond defending the right to keep and bear arms, the NRA kindly suggests you bear them if you want to shoot on their range. Bring your own or go home.

Supreme Court: You have a right to protect yourself with guns

DC v. Heller

"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."

Heller is a security guard at the Federal Judicial Center. He's licensed to carry a handgun at work. He applied for a permit to take it home, and it was rejected.

DC law has several provisions. You're not allowed to carry an unregistered handgun, and the law prohibits registration of handguns. You're also not allowed to carry any guns without a license, and the chief of police can issue licenses. You can own longguns (like shotguns and rifles) and keep them in your home, but you must keep them unloaded and dissembled, or bound by a trigger lock. There's no exception in the statute allowing you to take the lock off or load it if you want to use it to protect yourself, but the DC government says they wouldn't prosecute you.

Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion for 5 Justices: himself, Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito.

The opinion is 64 pages long and spends 56 pages interpreting the amendment before addressing the DC law. The first half of the Second Amendment is read as a preface: it states a purpose but doesn't limit the amendment's meaning. This part of the opinion has little support other than saying that this type of construction is common in founding-era documents, and Justice Scalia cites a law review article rather than specific examples. Turning to the "Operative Clause," Justice Scalia rights that "the people" refers to the normal people: the same ones protected in the 1st, 4th, 9th, 10th, and other amendments.

Justice Scalia reads the 2nd Amendment as protecting two rights: the right to keep arms, and the right to bear arms. He argues that the phrase "to keep and bear arms" was not in common usage, so there is no reason to interpret it as a unitary right. He then turns to historical analysis, finding little support for the proposition that "keep arms" and "bear arms" were only used in military contexts. Therefore, it must be read to mean that average people can possess ("keep") and carry ("bear") weapons ("arms"). Further, there was a right in England for Englishmen to be armed (enacted after the Stuart Kings disarmed the populace and packed the militias with their supporters), so the right was preexisting, not new.

The prefatory clause states the purpose of the Amendment. Since the purpose was to make sure people would be able to serve as a militia and the kinds of weapons they would bring would be the ones they owned for home protection, those are the kinds of weapons protected by the Amendment. M-16s and other high-power weapons wouldn't be useful for home defense and thus would not be expected in a militia. Therefore they would not be protected by the Amendment.

Justice Scalia leaves significant questions unanswered: Does the right only apply against the federal government, or against states, too? Justice Scalia says that the opinion does not allow felons and the mentally ill to possess guns, or allow guns to be taken into sensitive areas like schools, but he does not offer support for those exceptions.

Turning to the DC laws, Justice Scalia says that they prohibit any possession of weapons that would be useful for self defense. Handguns are the weapons most people choose for defense of the home, and DC bans them as a class. Similarly, the restrictions on longguns render them useless for home defense. Thus, the restrictions are unconstitutional.

The challenge did not address the requirement that guns be registered, so that law stands.

Justice Stevens dissents, criticizing the majority's interpretation of the Second Amendment. He reads it as saying people can have guns only in a military context, since phrases like "bear arms" have often been used when referring to organized state militia.

Justice Breyer takes issue with the invalidation of the DC laws. Under a balancing approach, considering DC's crime rates and the crime control options available to lawmakers, he says that the DC laws should be allowed to stand. This is similar to the position the Bush Administration took in the case, which was that there is an individual right to possess guns, but that the courts should be more deferential when reviewing the laws.