The Supreme Court of the Public Broadcasting System?

A few days ago, I ran across a column by a Terrence Cummings, “COMMENTARY: But for Rittenhouse doctrine.” It was the usual garbage you’d expect from victim disarmers. I didn’t — at the time — think it worth a response column, but I did write to Cummings.

“But for the Rittenhouse doctrine, you would think you would have a right to take your AR-15 to any grievance or protest near you and across state lines. Then, you could possibly “murder” (used loosely throughout this piece) two people, injure another and call it self-defense.”

Lessee…

1. Rittenhouse didn’t have an AR-15. It was a Smith & Wesson M&P rifle.

2. Rittenhouse didn’t take the rifle across state lines.

3. “Murder” is a specific term best not used “loosely,” unless you enjoyed being sued for libel/defamation. Murder is the deliberate, unjustified killing of a human being by another human being. The general term you are searching for (if you were being honest) is “homicide.”

3a. Rittenhouse fled his first attacker. He fired only when trapped and physically attacked. That is confirmed by video evidence and witness testimony.

3b. Rittenhouse again fled an attacking mod (video & witnesses). He fired again when, laying on the ground, he was again attacked with potential lethal force (the skateboard; if you doubt that’s potentially lethal, ask the family of the Santa Monica man killed by being struck in the head with a skateboard, or check with the California police officer who ended up in ICU when struck with a skateboard by an Antifa protester).

3c. Rittenhouse — still on the ground — fired again at a person who repeated aimed his own unlawfully possessed firearm at Rittenhouse. Video & witnesses.

4. Immediately after the shootings, Rittenhouse fled the pursuing crowd and attempted to turn himself in to the police.

I never made it much past that, since you’d already proved yourself ignorant of federal and state law and the events of the night, and that you are grossly biased.

Cummings’ reply was simple.

Thanks so much for your email and sharing your perspective. It is welcomed and appreciate.

I assumed that was the end of it, until this morning when I received another email from Mr. Cummings. He referred me to another, earlier column he wrote: “COMMENTARY: America worships guns.”

President Bill Clinton signed the last assault weapons ban and the 1994 Crime Bill. Afterward, crime went down for 25 years.

One might wonder how a bill that banned nothing caused crime to go down. A quick search might’ve shown a more inquisitive person that violent crime rates had already been dropping for years when the misnomered “assault weapon ban” was signed.

To revisit the Second Amendment, it should be clear that the Founding Fathers were referring to a typical revolutionary-era musket.

To revisit the First Amendment, using this same pseudo-logic, one would have to assume that the “Founding Fathers” were referring to hand set movable type, and handwritten missives using quill pen on and parchment, delivered by horse-back messenger.

Put away your word processing computer, and back away from that worldwide electronic communications network, Cummings.

But not to worry. Cummings’ electronic communications modes are safe. James Madison, known for his role in drafting the Bill of Rights (including that pesky 2A) lived through the rise of repeating firearms, breechloaders, paper cartridges, percussion caps, metallic cartridges, pinfire cartridges, centerfire cartridges, revolvers, and mass production of firearms.

Heck, an early machinegun was pitched to the US War Office in 1812, and patented in 1813 — during Madison’s presidency (and was a refinement of a 16th century machinegun).

Yet never once did Madison stop and say, “Whoa, guys! We didn’t have any of this new shit in mind. the Second Amendment is just for muskets.”

It’s almost as if they foresaw “Progress of Science and useful Arts” — including arms. And communications systems. You might even get the impression they sought to “promote” such advancements by “securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

On reflection of opinions from the Supreme Court of the United States, both Chief Justice Warren Burger and Associate Justice Antonin Scalia weighed in with reasoned opinions on the Second Amendment.

Oh yes; shall we?

Justice Burger is recorded in the annals of SCOTUS as remarking, “The Gun Lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud. I repeat the word fraud…

Beg pardon? Where is that in the “annals of SCOTUS?” That’s from a 1991 PBS interview, years after Burger retired, and it reinforced a peculiar post-retirement 1990 Parade Magazine puff piece. If he believed that position had a constitutional basis, why didn’t he use his position as Chief Justice to espouse it, instead of waiting until retirement to write an opinion column not subject to Associate Justice ridicule and judicial dissent?

Perhaps we should should stick with actual Supreme Court decisions.

  • Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016): “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”
  • US v. Miller (1939): Those called up for militia service are “expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”
  • Perpich vs. Department of Defense (1990): The National Guard is not an independent state militia, but is totally subject to the will of the federal government.

And, of course, we have this year’s Bruen decision:

New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.

Fourteenth Amendment; not only the Second.

The test that the Court set forth in Heller and applies today requires courts to assess whether modern firearms regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding. Of course, the regulatory challenges posed by firearms today are not always the same as those that preoccupied the Founders in 1791 or the Reconstruction generation in 1868. But the Constitution can, and must, apply to circumstances beyond those the Founders specifically anticipated, even though its meaning is fixed according to the understandings of those who ratified it.

Yes, the Second Amendment does apply to modern weapons. Although, as noted above, I suspect the occasional advancement in firearm technology was anticipated.

Those are too recent for Cummings’ taste?

  • 1857, Dred Scott: The Supreme Court ruled against Scott because — among other reasons — if Scott was a free man, he’d have the right to bear arms just like every other individual citizen; not that he’d simply have the right to join a militia, but to bear arms at all.
  • 1876, Cruikshank: The Court found that the Bill of Rights applies to all people. The limitation was on which governments were forbidden to infringe on rights. In this case, they found that it did not apply to state governments.
  • 1886, Presser: Admittedly, this was militia related, but the Court found that everyone capable of bearing arms is in the militia. Everyone; all individuals.

We have 165 years of Supreme Court decisions. Cummings has a Parade opinion from an elderly retiree.

Cummings wrapped up his poorly informed opinion with an amusing anti-NRA screed bemoaning that group’s promotion of “idolatry and worship for guns,” and buying off “gun worshiping-legislators.” Apparently he also missed 88 years of Vichy NRA actions meant to destroy the Second Amendment; all the better to fundraise to “protect” what they damaged.

Yes, Mr. Cummings. The Vichy NRA is your oldest and most powerful anti-human/civil rights ally in the war on Second Amendment-protected rights.

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.
Click here to donate via PayPal.

(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

3 thoughts on “The Supreme Court of the Public Broadcasting System?”

    1. Colt’s Manufacturing disagrees.

      The M&P is an AR-pattern firearm, but Colt holds the registered trademark on “AR-15.” The patent expired, not the tradmark.

      Scour the S&W website; I’ll be astonished if you can find a single instance of the company calling its product an AR-15.

  1. As to 3c, the ‘victim’ admitted on the stand to that fact as well. Also admitting that Rittenhouse didn’t fire his rifle until the aggressors pistol was pointed at him.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *