Great introduction

cathouse01

NES Member
Joined
May 10, 2018
Messages
2,430
Likes
4,643
Feedback: 2 / 0 / 0
From the introduction to the article by Nelson Lund, Professor, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University published in the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Scholarly Commons. THE FUTURE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN A TIME OF LAWLESS VIOLENCE

This Essay argues that the single most foundational principle on which our liberal regime rests is the inherent right of self-defense against violent assaults, whether from common criminals or political activists or tyrannical governments. The Second Amendment’s core purpose is to insulate that right from improper government interference. But protecting the right to keep and bear arms also serves a broader civic purpose. An armed citizenry displays the spirit of courage and self-reliance on which genuine self-government depends. That spirit should be honored and defended more than ever in times of civil unrest and especially when governments have responded to mob violence with passive acceptance or with perverse encouragement.

Read the whole article if you have the time.
 
“The single most foundational principle on which our liberal regime was established is the inherent right of self-defense against violent assaults, whether from common criminals or political activists or tyrannical governments. The Second Amendment’s core purpose is to insulate that right from improper government interference. But protecting the right also serves a broader civic purpose. An armed citizenry exemplifies the spirit of courage and self-reliance on which genuine self-government depends. That spirit should be honored more than ever in times of civil unrest, and especially when governments have responded passively or with perverse encouragement to mob violence.

Justice Stevens was right when he said: “Your interest in keeping and bearing a certain firearm may diminish my interest in being and feeling safe from armed violence.” But he was wrong to advocate that the Second Amendment be repealed in order to ensure that the government’s interest in helping those like him to feel safe will always take precedence in court. It is equally wrong to suggest that violent crime, or widespread civic turmoil, provides any justification for relaxing the Second Amendment’s strong presumption against infringements of the freedom to keep and bear arms. If anything, flaccid government responses to violent mobs should make judges more skeptical than ever about restrictions on the liberty of those whom the government cannot or will not protect.”
Page 30
 
Government’s intent to assure Public Safety by promulgation of more laws is inexhaustible, justified by their continued inability to make the Public “feel safe.” Government has no mandate to keep any individual citizen physically safe, only to promote general Public Safety.

“Public Safety as a Social Good” is doomed if “Personal Safety as a Personal Good” cannot hold in check a government’s propensity to do what’s good for its citizen, no matter how much it pains them.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom