Madison alder declares constitutional freedoms to be ‘childish’

[oneshooter]

A number of Wisconsin citizens have apparently attempted to start a dialog with the Madison City Council in an effort to achieve a legislative solution to the threats by Chief Wray to arrest all open carriers for disorderly conduct. And while such an effort is one which I normally recommend, it seems as if the City Council is just as hostile to civil rights as the police department but with considerably less professionalism.

In one example, a Wisconsin citizen named Brent Hancock emailed his concerns about the recently released memo to the Madison alders indicating that he would no longer shop in Madison until the issue was addressed. Madison alder Lauren Cnare (District 3) responded with the following:

Have a good time staying at home. While legal, it's inappropriate and aggressive to pack your little pistols in public places. We won't miss you or the childish displays of constitutional freedoms.

Lauren Cnare - District 3 Alder


More here: http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-minneapolis/madison-alder-declares-constitutional-freedoms-to-be-childish

Not my state but it seems that someone need to know who is in charge, and it ain't the city council.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[CBGLuthier]

1. english for the impaired

childish displays

See those two words. One is a noun and one is an adjective. The adjective acts as a modifier . Usually this is modifying the nearest noun. Which in this case is the word displays. Not the words,
constitutional freedoms.

In other words, the display is being called childish. Not the constitutional freedom.

Sounds like an apt word for such acts to me. What kind of sad person feels the need to carry on their hip like some fucking cowboy. Only a loser and a half.

[NoNothing]

5. The "display" IS the constitutional freedom

It's the "bear" part of "keep and bear arms."

[Euromutt]

32. Including in the Wisconsin state constitution

Article I, Section 25:

The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.

[mvccd1000]

6. "Only a loser and a half?"

So the police are all losers?
Security guards are all losers?
My dad, picking up the cash receipts from his restaurant after it closed at midnight was a loser because he carried a gun?

You have an interesting worldview... I'm curious as to where you've found utopia with no crime and no criminals against whom these losers could ever possibly need to defend themselves.

(Now I'll agree with you that all of Chicago's aldermen and all of the celebs listed in this thread are losers, but it's not because they all carry guns. They earned that distinction in other ways!) :)

[Callisto32]

21. English for the reading impaired.

"...childish displays OF CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOMS."

Those words go together, like "displays of constitutional freedoms" is being called "childish."

Grammar. It's Fundamental.

[PavePusher]

34. What kind of sad person...

feels the need to express their assinine opinion in public like some fucking government agent? Only a loser and a half, amIright?

See what I did there?

[SteveM]

38. So you start with grammar and end up with a straw man? Ba-Da-BOOM!

So, Luth, would you support concealed-carry in Wisconsin; you know, so you wouldn't have to see any "fucking cowboys?" BTW, I don't believe you saw any cattle-herding specialists engaging in sexual intercourse during all this, did you? I mean, being into English and all.

[RandomThoughts]

2. Calling someone childish is assuming a parent role.

That requires a claim of 'knowing what is better' and is usually not accurate.

it is arrogant at best, and really ironic.

[hendo]

12. yet the anti-gun left does it all the time. NT

[SteveM]

39. I'm not really sure how many are left on the "Left...."

A survey done a few years back indicated that 51% of DU members owned at least one firearm, and quite a few more indicated they were thinking about obtaining one. Frankly, I think gun-control is really the position of Democratic Party technocrats, esp. those in some big-city government bureaus, and within the DNC. I don't think there is much sympathy for gun-control among the Left. Certainly, not with this lefty or those pro-RKBA lefties in this forum.

[hendo]

43. But the smaller thier group gets the louder it will become

Look at it like the tea party, fringe elements are always the loudest.

edit: and they rarely care that they are destroying the party they claim to support.

[SteveM]

46. You're right about that. That's the problem with prohibitionist culture war...

pretty soon it results in tunnel vision. I think this is exacerbated by seeing an "issue," which was once so prominent because of MSM's unbridled support, implode. People just don't want to give up on something they are personally invested in lest it be a reflection on their poor judgment, moral commitment or whatever. It doesn't help that the "controllers" have constructed such hideous straw men and stereotypes ("cowboys," "gun nuts," "Freepers," "guns for everyone," etc.). Once hate is involved, it is REALLY hard to let up.

I think it will be difficult to pry out the rotten molar of gun-control from the mouth of the Democratic Party because of the shrillness of the controllers, and their ability to sell a proper animosity by threatening those who differ with gun-control as being part of the "other side" (of straw men). But eventually the Democratic Party must remove this corrupt ideology; the Party has many other issues which threaten its viability, not the least of which is an inability to provide a countervailing force to corporate power and the GOP.

[sharesunited]

3. Who would you have be in charge? Gunmen?

[hendo]

11. they would certainly do a better job of protecting

constitutionally guaranteed rights than the Madison city council. There is enough hatred of Madison in Wisconsin. The last thing we need is idiotic comments like this in an election year. Especially in a state where our democratic candidates are already hurting in the polls.

[spin]

13. Often people who favor RKBA have far more commonsense ...

than many who oppose RKBA, and have a more realistic view of the world.

[cleanhippie]

14. Not you, thats for sure.

[Hoyt]

4. Where do I contribute to Ms. Cnare's campaign? I tend to agree with her comments.

Don't have a real problem with guns in one's home. But open -- or concealed -- carry in public is often what she says, particularly the "inappropriate" part. I'd add "unnecessary" too.

[mvccd1000]

7. Can you list any other constitutionally-protected rights you'd like to curtail?

You must have loved the patriot act.

[hendo]

9. While I agree with part of your response

saying that hoyt must have loved the patriot act is going too far.

[Hoyt]

15. Naw, I just get hung up with that "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment.

For some reason, toters seem to ignore that part.

I guess if a gun toter is in a "well regulated militia," it's a Constitutional right. But, it's still inappropriate, unnecessary, tacky, etc.

[TheWraith]

17. That doesn't mean what you think it means. Try reading the founders' writings.

The prefatory clause in no way is intended to limit the right to bear arms ONLY to a militia, and there's about 200 years of legal support for that.

[Hoyt]

18. Perhaps you can enlighten me. Seems pretty clear. Besides,

If you want to go back 200+ years to define "militia" as anybody with a gun, let's use the 200+ reference for "arms." Somehow, I don't think packers are going to get the same charge out of toting muzzle loaders around in public strapped to their legs.

Besides, the founders wrote of freedom, liberty and all that. Yet, many went home and beat/raped their slaves, prohibited women from voting, and endorsed killing Native Americans for their land.

[X_Digger]

19. Just for you..

"well regulated" at the time, and in this context meant 'well functioning'-

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/WellRegulatedinold%20literature.pdf

In Item 1, Anne Newport Royall commented in 1822 that Huntsville, Alabama was becoming quite civilized and prosperous, with a “fine fire engine” and a “well regulated company”. I suppose one could make the case that the firefighters were especially subject to rules and laws, but the passage is more coherent if read, “They have a very fine fire engine, and a properly operating company.”

William Thackary’s 1848 novel (item 4) uses the term “well-regulated person”. The story is that of Major Dobbin, who had been remiss in visiting his family. Thackary’s comment is to the effect that any well-regulated person would blame the major for this. Clearly, in this context, well-regulated has nothing to do with government rules and laws. It can only be interpreted as “properly operating” or “ideal state”.

In 1861, author George Curtis (item 5), has one of his characters, apparently a moneyhungry person, praising his son for being sensible, and carefully considering money in making his marriage plans. He states that “every well-regulated person considers the matter from a pecuniary point of view.” Again, this cannot logically be interpreted as a person especially subject to government control. It can only be read as “properly operating”.

Edmund Yates certainly has to be accepted as an articulate and educated writer, quite capable of properly expressing his meaning. In 1884 (item 6), he references a person who was apparently not “strictly well-regulated”. The context makes any reading other that “properly operating” or “in his ideal state” impossible.

Secondly, let's look at the preamble to the Bill of Rights-

The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The Bill of Rights was intended as a 'the government shall not' document- "to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers"- not a 'the people can' document. Rights aren't limited by the bill of rights; rather the scope of protections of certain rights are set. If the Bill of Rights were a listing of all a person's rights, there would be no need for the ninth and tenth amendments ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." and "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." respectively.)

And finally, let's look at the second amendment itself-

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.

Who does the right belong to? The militia? No, the people. See US v. Verdugo-Urquirdez for the salient definition of 'the people'.

Grammatically this can be broken down into two clauses- a prefatory clause and an operative clause. Similar wording can be found in other writing of the time, though it's fallen out of favor these days. For comparison, see Rhode Island's constitution, Article I, Section 20- "The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject..". That construction- '{reason}, {statement}' exists today, but we usually swap the clauses- "I'm going to the supermarket, I'm completely out of soda." or we add in a 'because' or 'since'- "Since I'm completely out of soda, I'm going to the supermarket." or "I'm going to the supermarket because I'm completely out of soda."

I know that complex English is lost in today's twitter-ful and facebook-y terseness, but it really does pay to read older documents when you want to analyze what a sentence from that era actually means.

So with the point from the first section, the second section in mind, and rearranging the clauses per the third would yield a modern restatement of the second amendment as-

"Because a well functioning militia is necessary to state security, the government shall not interfere with the right of the people to be armed."

or

"The government shall not interfere with the right of the people to be armed because a well functioning militia is necessary to state security."

Nothing in either of those statements says that arms are only for militia service, rather the ability to raise an effective militia is _why_ protecting the right to be armed is protected. Since we know from the preamble (and the 9th/10th amendment) that the bill of rights is not exhaustive, we have to look outside the bill of rights itself to see if the founding fathers expected this right to extend beyond militia service.

State analogues of the second amendment that were adopted in the same timeframe give a clue-

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/WhatStateConstitutionsTeach.htm (sections rearranged by me)

The present-day Pennsylvania Constitution, using language adopted in 1790, declares: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

Vermont: Adopted in 1777, the Vermont Constitution closely tracks the Pennsylvania Constitution. It states "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State.."

Kentucky: The 1792 Kentucky constitution was nearly contemporaneous with the Second Amendment, which was ratified in 1791. Kentucky declared: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."

Delaware: "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use."

Alabama: The Alabama Constitution, adopted in 1819, guarantees "that every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state"

Arizona and Washington: These states were among the last to be admitted to the Union.* Their right to arms language is identical: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."

Illinois: "Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."**

(footnotes removed)

So from analagous documents created by many of the same founding fathers or their peers, the individual right unconnected to militia service is fairly well laid out.

* Admittedly, not analogous in time to the others, but still demonstrates the point.
** same

You should read other cases such as US v Cruikshank ("This right is not a right granted by the Constitution . . . neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.") or Presser v Illinois ("the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, as so to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.")

Both the Heller and McDonald decision shed more light on the subject.

[Hoyt]

24. "Militia" seems pretty clear to me. Besides, it's still "inappropriate" to carry in public.

Constitutional of not -- it's still inappropriate and often tacky.

You guys go through a lot of work to define something which is pretty clear. I don't see a lot o wiggle room in "well regulated militia." The folks I see packing in public don't usually fall within the clear meaning of that phrase.

[TheWraith]

27. It's only "clear" because you've redefined it to mean something other than the intent.

Again, please read some 18th century writings that use the phrase "well regulated." You'll find out that it doesn't have anything to do with "regulation" as we refer to it today. "Well regulated" meant something that was working well.

Also read the history of SCOTUS cases involving the second amendment. You'll find out that the prefatory clause, as it's known, has no impact on the right being protected any more than the prefatory clause on the fourth makes it only apply to searches of homes and belongings.

Finally, your opinion of what is or is not "inappropriate" has absolutely nothing to do with what is actually inappropriate.

[X_Digger]

28. Ddi you actually read what I posted, or no?

You seem to have just clicked reply.

Care to try again with a cogent response based on what I actually wrote?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

30. Here's his problem

[Euromutt]

33. The prefatory clause does not impose a limit on the operative clause

The meat of the Second Amendment is the operative clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That part stands by itself as a sentence. The prefatory clause doesn't make sense taken by itself. What the prefatory clause does do is explain why it is actually in the government's interest not to infringe upon the right of the people (not "militia," "people") to keep and bear arms, namely that in the event of an emergency, the government can call upon a recruiting pool of citizens who are already well versed in the basics of weapons handling and marksmanship.

A "well regulated militia" is not the purpose of the Second Amendment; it's an added bonus.

[PavePusher]

35. May I ask what commitee...

nominated you as the arbiter of "inappropriate", and can you produce some supporting credentials?

[DissedByBush]

47. Let's take it apart for the real meaning

"A well regulated"

Well-regulated back then meant well-armed, trained and capable. It did not mean controlled by the government. This is evident in all of the writings of the Founders.

"Militia"

This is the whole of people who can be called to arms. This pre-dates the concept of a National Guard.

"being necessary to the security of a free State"

This says free state, as opposed to a non-free or oppressive state, as in this is making provisions for the overthrow of an oppressive government.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

And that's the absolute statement referring to the pre-existing right of the people recognized, not granted by the Constitution.

Note that unlike the First Amendment it doesn't say "Congress shall make no law." It says absolutely and unqualified that the right shall not be infringed, meaning by ANYONE.

In short, the first clause gives the reason for the absolute second clause. And the given reason is that we need to be armed in order to protect our liberty from our own government.

[Hoyt]

48. Cool. Show me where carrying into public parks. etc., helps you protect your liberty from gubment.

Still "inappropriate" and often tacky.

[DissedByBush]

50. You missed the absolute part

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

They gave a reason, not a restriction.

Inappropriate and tacky I may agree with. But it is quite necessary to push our rights until the government realizes it can't screw with them.

Most rights movements tend to do things that the opposition considers inappropriate, like having gay day parades, refusing to move from bus seats, etc.

[friendly_iconoclast]

20. Since all 9 Supreme Court justices found in [i]Heller[/i] the militia bit

did not apply, it's rather a moot point.

A question for you:


Since you insist that militia service be a prerequisite for someone who wants to keep and bear arms, would you support

the reestablishment of an 18th Century (or Swiss) style militia open to ALL citizens over 18?


Of course, that would mean that most adults would have an assault rifle and possibly a large caliber handgun in their homes....


You've talked the talk. Will you walk the walk?

[TheWraith]

23. So then you'll have no problem with passing a law banning you from owning a computer.

After all, if you rationalize that only the military weapons of the 1700s are protected by the constitution, then your computer isn't protected by the first amendment. Neither is your cell phone protected by the fourth, so we'll be putting a wiretap on that immediately.

See how ridiculous that argument is?

And yeah, let's all bash the founders, since apparently every one of them was a worthless human being, even the ones like Ben Franklin who were some of the first abolitionists. And by extension, everything they did was evil, so we need to throw out the constitution, and the country with it.

[Hoyt]

25. From my cold, dead hands . . Besides, toting computers in public is good and appropriate.

Guns aren't.

[TheWraith]

26. So you're completely okay with staking out a hypocritical position?

And defining yourself as the one true moral authority on what's okay and what's not? People in bad neighborhoods or high risk jobs don't need to carry a computer day to day, they need a manner to defend themselves. And some people make it a point to push back against attempts to restrict that. If you feel that you have the right to restrict their rights based on your own moral views, then you're also implicitly saying that the right wingers have the right to ban abortion and gay rights, because that contradicts THEIR beliefs about the world.

[friendly_iconoclast]

31. BTW, don't you have some reports of 'crossfire' incidents to report to us?

You know, the ones that some cite - but for some reason just can't seem to find examples of

You were going to get back with us "tomorrow". It's tomorrow, so where are the reports?:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=341484&mesg_id=341555


A search hint- try looking next to "Obama's Secret Plan To Establish The Washington Caliphate"

[SteveM]

42. Okay, sir, here it is:

The "militia clause" is there for the government to define its powers under the Articles; the "right of the people" is recognized for citizens. In essence, the government is merely stating its vested interest in the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

You should know that big majority of constitutional scholars, political scientists, lawyers, etc. (including some rather noted liberals) see the Second as an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, not contingent on membership in the militia. Even Alan Dershowitz (a former board member of the national ACLU, and no friend of firearms) has said if you don't want people to have arms, then repeal the Second Amendment.

So start your campaign.

I also note your muzzle-loader metaphor. Do you still use a wooden printing press, a la Franklin? No? Using a computer? Why you have no consititutional right to do that, using your "logic."

Funny, you should mention slavery and the Jim Crow era. Where do you think all the gun-control laws we have now sprung forth from, the head of Zeus? My goodness, read your history. See also Fannie Lou Hamer and Rosa Parks.

[Abq_Sarah]

51. Packers... toters....

What derisive names do you have for people who exercise other constitutional rights?

[proteus_lives]

29. Too bad you don't pay attention court decisions.

That militia argument has been dead in the water for decades.

Sorry you think rights are unnecessary and tacky.

[mvccd1000]

37. Then why didn't they write...

..."The right of THE MILITIA to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?"

All of the other rights that guarantee the right of "the People" refer to individuals. Where on earth do you get the idea that this right, also referring to "the People," doesn't really refer to the people?

I read one quote on the subject that stuck with me: "Because it started to rain, I stepped inside." Regardless of the reason, the fact remains that I am no longer outdoors. Most people (including the SCOTUS) believe that the 2nd Amendment is read the same way.

[SteveM]

41. You're new to this forum, or you wouldn't say

"For some reason, toters seem to ignore that part <'well regulated militia'>."

So, please peruse the back files and be enlightened. BTW, I don't disparage a right because it is "inappropriate, unnecessary, tacky, etc." You style-based arguments wouldn't last 5 minutes in court.

[krispos42]

49. All US males between the ages of 17 and 45 are militiamen.

Why don't you support the right of women to keep and bear arms?

[Callisto32]

22. Awesome,

let's disarm the police first.

[SteveM]

40. So, you would deny concealed AND open carry?

You realize that the big majority of states disagree with that position? And you must realize that as long as gun-control remains an issue among politicians (esp. Democratic ones), then they and candidates around them will suffer the result of losing elections.

Gun-control: the gift that keep on giving -- for the GOP.

[hendo]

44. Yup, yet they never realize

We need to define gun rights as a tenet of the democratic party! Then we can take gun rights off the list of rights that our party doesn't support.

[SteveM]

45. It's a measure not of their commitment to an issue (gun-control), but the desire...

to engage in culture war, blog punking, or some other selfish endeavor.

[Hangingon]

8. Does Wisconsin have a recall for city elected officials

Not my state either but if it were I would be looking at removing this alderman and the chief.

[hendo]

10. Unfortunately, Madison is very anti-gun. NT

[Hangingon]

16. I should have realized that.

Madison must be like Austin. When I lived there the city council drove me crszy. It was impossible to change them or to get rid of them.

[PavePusher]

36. I take offense....

A 1911 is not a little pistol. Carrying two is essentially exercise in a very physical sense.