The Washington Post Ignores Right to Bear Arms

The Washington Post Ignores Right to Bear Arms

Dean Weingarten

Arizona -(Ammoland.com)- In an article about shall issue carry permits in Washington, D.C., the authors, Peter Hermann and Peter Jamison, ignore half of the rights contained in the Second Amendment. It is rather odd, considering it is the main topic of their article.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the “may issue” law in D.C. specifically.  Here is an excerpt from Wrenn that shows how strong the opinion is.

From Wrenn v. D.C.:

Our first question is whether the Amendment’s “core” extends to publicly carrying guns for self-defense. The District argues that it does not, citing Heller I’s observation that “the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home. Id. at 628. But the fact that the need for self-defense is most pressing in the home doesn’t mean that self-defense at home is the only right at the Amendment’s core. After all, the Amendment’s “core lawful purpose” is self-defense, id. at 630, and the need for that might arise beyond as well as within the home. Moreover, the Amendment’s text protects the right to “bear”as well as “keep”arms. For both reasons, it’s more natural to view the Amendment’s core as including a law-abiding citizen’s right to carry common firearms for self-defense beyond the home (subject again to relevant “longstanding” regulations like bans on carrying “in sensitive places”). Id. at 626.

This reading finds support in parts of Heller I that speak louder than the Court’s aside about where the need for guns is “most acute.” That remark appears when Heller I turns to the particular ban on possession at issue there. By then the Court has spent over fifty pages giving independent and seemingly equal treatments to the right to “keep” and to “bear,” first defining those “phrases” and then teasing out their implications. See id. at 570-628. In that long preliminary analysis, the Court elaborates that to “bear” means to “‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” Id. at 584 (quoting Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting)). That definition shows that the Amendment’s core must span, in the Court’s own words, the “right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Id. at 592 (emphasis added).

But Peter and Peter ignore the obvious.

From the Washington Post article:

City officials have long fought efforts to chip away at the District’s strict controls since the high court used a local case in 2008 to declare that an individual has a right to gun ownership.

(snip)

City officials decided not to appeal to the Supreme Court because of the potential national implications. An unfavorable ruling could have weakened gun control regulations in states such as California, New York and Maryland.

(snip)

“I wasn’t going to try to manufacture a reason. It’s the Bill of Rights. You shouldn’t need a reason,” he said recently, referring to the Second Amendment right to own a firearm.

It is almost humorous the length Peter and Peter of the Post go to not mention the right to bear armsThey specifically mention that the D.C. government will not appeal the case because they fear the Supreme Court will uphold the right (to bear arms).

The court case that mandated the change in D.C. law, was all about the right to bear arms.  But the right to bear arms is conspicuously absent from the Washington Post article. Perhaps an editor removed it as Post policy.

We may never know.

2018 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30-year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Subscribe
Notify of
17 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
tomcat
tomcat
2 years ago

Why bother writing an article about the WAPO. Everyone knows all they are are a bunch of lie peddlers and one of the worst when it comes to presenting anything about 2A or politics.

Renov8
Renov8
2 years ago
Reply to  tomcat

I agree. In fact, why even quote a source that does not even acknowledge us or the rights we stand behind? I say boycott each and every news source on the principle its not news or worthy or our time.

If half the country stood by their principles and gave up on the principal, we would be better off. Money speaks and bullshit walks.

Oldshooter
Oldshooter
2 years ago

This is a tad off topic, but relates to inherent human rights, including the right to self-defense, whence comes our 2nd Amendment. Progressives believe that health care is a basic human right (ever since FDR), and use that to justify tax supported socialized medicine, “so even the poorest can have effective healthcare.” Next time you get into a discussion about this with a liberal/progressive, don’t fall into the trap of arguing whether or not healthcare is a human right. It doesn’t matter. Just point out that in American political philosophy, the function of government is merely to protect the individual… Read more »

Tionico
Tionico
2 years ago
Reply to  Oldshooter

BOOM!!!!! this is brilliant. Should be a fun bit of logic to foist upon some of the liberal fearful anti-gun lot I unfortunatly kow.

Clark Kent
Clark Kent
2 years ago
Reply to  Oldshooter

If healthcare is a ‘right’ than healthcare providers can be FORCED by the government to provide same. The only fly in the ointment is slavery was abolished years ago. No man has the right to the labor of another.

The Revelator
The Revelator
2 years ago
Reply to  Oldshooter

No, no, no.. I don’t know any progressive or liberal arguing that “Healthcare” is a right. Anytime I hear them talk, they are not referring to healthcare when they say “Healthcare”, they are talking about a commodity called “health Insurance.”

I have been trying to point this out to them any time the subject comes up, but when I do they get this funny twitch in their right eye and their brain starts to melt..

Case in point, lets not call it Healthcare. Calling it healthcare is like calling an AR-15 an assault rifle or machinegun.

Vanns40
Vanns40
2 years ago

@X-RayVision: Huh? What was that again? Wait, my oatmeal’s getting cold, back with you……..what the hell were talking about?

Marc Disabled Vet
Marc Disabled Vet
2 years ago

Don’t care about anyone but Family and Friends !
I will protect myself and the above clan any way I can .
God gave me life and he’s the only one gonna take it from me .
Hell , High-water and Hand-grenades and some hot lead.
$hit , I’d use boiling oil to save my life .( sorry for Kentucky fried )
But that’s the plan facts .
God made me ,the Government trained me, in the end God will Judge Me !

Mark Are
Mark Are
2 years ago

Sorry you slaves…get it straight… you HAVE NO RIGHTS ever since we took control of your money system back in 1913. WE determine your rights.And as for the 2nd amendment, this your NEW 2nd amendment that “WE” have determined you have. NEW Second Amendment of the amended US Bill of Rights… (sorry, we no longer follow “proper procedure” for amending these PITA) A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed EXCEPT: You are buying the firearms for yourself. EXCEPT: you want… Read more »

Vanns40
Vanns40
2 years ago
Reply to  Mark Are

Just a suggestion, some of your comments are WAY to long. When I go past two paragraphs I worry that I’ve lost readers. You lost me after the first one, when I glanced and saw how long the rest was. Just my opinion, it’s free, take it for what it’s worth.

X-RayVision
X-RayVision
2 years ago
Reply to  Vanns40

@Vanns40….Some people have very short attention spans and cannot process info accordingly. Wouldn’t you agree ?

Green Mtn. Boy
Green Mtn. Boy
2 years ago
Reply to  Mark Are

@ Mark Are

You Nailed it.

James Wagner
James Wagner
2 years ago

When the millions of 2nd Amendment supporters stop visiting any state that takes our right to defend ourselves away, it will put a dent in their budgets. There are thousands of people moving out of these SOCIALIST STATES OF AMERICA !

Tionico
Tionico
2 years ago
Reply to  James Wagner

Businesses arer also doing that.. MagPul, Remington, Weatherby, I think Ruger….. some take it so far as to stop patronising arms manufacturers who are, by no choice of their own, located in those sick states. California are losing some incredible number of businesses each month… shifting to other more Constitution friendly states. I remember what happened to Nicaragua after the commies took over when the US Puppet Dictator Somoza was “escorted” out of his own country in the dark hours of the night, aboard an old DC 3 bound for no one knew where. THings were bd enough under Somoza,… Read more »

I'mOffendedTreatMeSpecial
I'mOffendedTreatMeSpecial
2 years ago

the Washington Enquirer, i mean Post, will never admit the people have any rights and the government is not their all powerful benefactor.

Renov8
Renov8
2 years ago

Isn’t that what the Left does? Ignores the rights and values we put our faith in, thereby negating us the opportunity to have a meaningful discussion based on facts, which are supported by the values we have and the rights we defend. If you don’t acknowledge those two basic tenants, then there is no point in having a discussion…which might be their objective…right?

Green Mtn. Boy
Green Mtn. Boy
2 years ago

Ah the Post,bird cage liner of choice for the District of Corruption area.