Bloomberg-Supported Gun ‘News’ Feeds False Narrative that Heller was Revisionist

That's not what “established” it. As the Supreme Court noted in 1876, “The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.” But don’t expect Bloomberg-beholden The Trace to tell you about that.

U.S.A. – -( “The National Rifle Association, and its lawyers, draw a line straight from the founding fathers to the modern ‘good guy with a gun,’” The Trace writes Thursday. “In their framing, people who arm themselves with lethal weapons to defend themselves, their families, and their communities do so with the blessing of the Constitution, as evidenced by the meaning of the Second Amendment.

“But that understanding of the Second Amendment was enshrined by the courts only recently,” the “report” claims. It’s referring, of course, to District of Columbia v. Heller, and the failed gun-grabber contention that an individual rights “interpretation” of the Second Amendment is a modern fiction without basis in prior understanding and legal opinions.

It’s hardly surprising to see this tack taken.  As a “news organization” that brays loudly about its “editorial independence” that just happens to be “Bloomberg-backed,” The Trace exists to be a dispenser and repeater of anti-gun narrative talking points. Thwarted, resentful antis have never gotten over the rejection of their pre-Heller insistence that “the Second Amendment guarantees no right to possess firearms unless in connection with service in a state-regulated militia.” They’ve been nursing that grudge ever since, unable to let it go or to stop lying that an activist SCOTUS somehow invented “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

We know what the Founders said about that right, and it’s reasonable to assume prior courts did, too. So it’s hardly surprising that the manufactured individual vs. collective “controversy” actually did not arise until the gun ban lobby invented their argument, and it’s no surprise they’d point fingers and claim the exact opposite.

Projection is what gun-grabbers do.

Up until relatively recently, even “liberal” politicians proclaimed an individual rights understanding and recognized the purpose behind the right.

From John F. Kennedy (incidentally an NRA Life Member who was gunned down by a “progressive” ACLU member):

“By calling attention to ‘a well regulated militia,' the ‘security' of the nation, and the right of each citizen ‘to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.”

And from “liberal icon” Hubert H. Humphrey:

“Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used, and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.”

Which side’s position is the recent contrivance again?

In fairness, The Trace is not talking about political interpretations, but legal ones. Still, the way its assertion is presented evokes nothing so much as a paraphrase of Bill Clinton’s weasel-wording: It depends upon what the meaning of the word “enshrined” is.

Yeah, Heller offered an opinion specific to the case, no argument.  But it’s hardly the first time in history the Supreme Court has told Americans how it perceived the Second Amendment.

The Scott v. Sandford Court recognized (in 1856):

“[C]itizens in any one State of the Union [had] the right … to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

The U.S. v. Miller Court recognized (in 1939):

“[W]hen called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time [further identified as ‘ordinary military equipment … that … could contribute to the common defense.’]”

As much as Bloomberg’s propaganda minions obviously wans people to believe otherwise, gun owners who know better have an obligation to not let them get away with misdirection masked as news. At least not without challenge…

Speaking of which, does anybody see a way to comment on their site, so that visitors who don't know they're being played can be shown how?

About David Codrea:David Codrea

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

  • 5 thoughts on “Bloomberg-Supported Gun ‘News’ Feeds False Narrative that Heller was Revisionist

    1. Obviously based on their arguments the Constitution also doesn’t apply to electronic mass media, smart phone tracking technology, and confiscation of private property for private development since the Supreme Court only recently in the last 50 years made decisions on them and the Founding Fathers didn’t directly talk about them. The idea that a civil right doesn’t exist because a court (Supreme Court or otherwise) didn’t expound a decision on them since our founding doesn’t mean anything. There hasn’t been a Supreme Court decision on the Third Amendment since our founding fathers (or I’m not familiar with it), even though the US Military moved military units onto people’s property during wartime (during several wars including the Civil War), quartered troops on them, and abandoned the property after the war (or sometimes not). The Country let the military get away with it under the circumstances of war, but it was still quartering troops and/or taking property without due process or compensation.

    2. “But that understanding of the Second Amendment was enshrined by the courts only recently,” the “report” claims.

      Yeah, so what?

      It wasn’t until 1907 that the Supreme Court took its first FREEDOM OF THE PRESS case ( Does this imply that freedom of the press didn’t exist until 1907?

      Judicial inattention on the part of a government doesn’t “evaporate” individual rights.

    3. “. . . does anybody see a way to comment on their site, so that visitors who don’t know they’re being played can be shown how?” I doubt that it’s possible to force one’s comments to be sustained on someone’s site that wants to suppress them. But suppose I’m mistaken. The threshold question is: Whether commenting on Anti sites is apt to have any impact? Communication is now highly polarized. Rights advocates read TTAG; Control advocates read TheTrace. Trolls are disparaged and disregarded.

      To have any impact, we must achieve each of two results:
      1. – introduce the beginnings of doubt in the mind of someone who had been sympathetic to Control;
      2. – plant the seed of personal commitment to the principle of defense-of-self.

      With respect to #1, imagine that we might create a new website named TheTRUEtrace where we publish the truth about the right to the means of defense-of-self. Why would our audience come to read this new site? The highly motivated and polarized on both sides go to see what TheTrace is saying. The Controllers want to keep up on the latest control arguments; the Rights advocates want to know what the “enemy” is saying. Soccer moms are not reading either TheTrace nor TTAGs; nor would they read a site such as my imagined TheTRUEtrace.

      To achieve #1 we need to discover a way to “broadcast” the message in soundbites of media that everyone consumes. In the early 20’th Century this was radio and the newspapers; that’s where everyone got their news. Today, the MSM is captured by Progressive interests. We need some innovative means. By way of illustration, suppose we sprinkled news stories with links about women who defended themselves and children with guns in Twitter tags such as #Cooking, #Children or #Single. As much as WE want to talk about rights and the security of a free state, our audience isn’t interested. Instead, our audience might begin to see the light if they could see themselves cowering behind a bedroom door – six-shooter in hand.

    4. David, looks like any other Facebook business page. Sign up, like & follow & it should open up a link to post a comment. Of course, being who they are & what I feel you would post, it may not see the light of day cause I’m betting it’s heavily monitored.
      I threw up a little in my mouth just thinking about “liking” this page though.

    5. The Dred Scott dicta: “… to keep and carry arms wherever they went.” is interesting in that it was generally mistaken as respects the States and – for most practical purposes – mistaken as respects the Federal government. We must keep our time-line clear. Dred Scott was after the Baron decision and before the 14A. It was long before the Heller and then McDonald decisions. Therefore, in the antebellum era, the States were relatively free to withhold the right to arms from anyone at pleasure since there was no McDonald decision to impose the 2A upon them. The 2A was applicable then only in the District of Columbia and the federally governed territories. So, Taney was correct as respects DC and the territories; but his official observation wasn’t applicable to the States who could disregard it. Nevertheless, the Dred Scott dicta was then; and this is now. That statement reflects the sentiment of the antebellum era that the right to “carry arms wherever they went” was accepted as a badge of citizenship everywhere, notwithstanding the legal power of each State to strangle the life out of its own right-to-arms State constitutional provision.

      Therefore, the right-to-arms is not merely an 18’th century concept; it is, at least, a mid-19’th century principle recognized by SCOTUS in Dred Scott and enshrined by postbellum Congressional legislation and the 14A. The practice of regulating arms-bearing is largely confined to CONCEALED-carry and it bears its racist stripes through the first 60 years of the 20’th century. Southern practice of denying blacks concealed-carry permits (e.g., Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.) is clear. NY’s Sullivan Act was directed at undesirable European immigrants. Discriminatory licensing of concealed carry began to fall in the last decade of the 20th Century.

      The best point to be made, in this “carry arms wherever they went” vein is that the 2A’s arms-bearing right was NOT MERELY an 18’th century thought. Instead, it was a principle of citizenship widely held throughout the 19’th century and well into the 20’th century. Carry regulation was principally confined to prohibiting/permitting CONCEALED carry. Other regulation of carry is deeply tarred by racist motivations long disparaged by modern law and public sentiments.

    Comments are closed.