Suggested Answers to the Second Short Quiz

[johnkarls]

.

Question 1

Is the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution part of the “Bill of Rights” (i.e., the first 10 Amendments) which were promised by the Authors of the Constitution as a sine qua non for obtaining ratification of the Constitution by a sufficient number of states?

Answer 1

Yes.

Question 2

Does the Second Amendment say – “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”?

Answer 2

Yes.

Question 3

Regardless of the historical analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court, have we often studied in other contexts --

(A) Contrary to popular perception, George Washington and the Revolutionary Army were NOT the reason for the 13 colonies winning their independence from England.

(B) Throughout the conflict, George Washington and his army did virtually nothing but retreat, finally facing surrender on Chesapeake Bay when Lord Cornwallis’ troops which had out-run their supply lines, were expecting the English fleet to show up with new supplies and “saw the writing on the wall” when the French fleet showed up instead.

(C) Cornwallis immediately surrendered and Washington was credited by American historians with the victory – but it was really the French fleet which should have been credited!!!

(D) THE REAL AMERICAN HEROES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION WERE THE “MINUTEMEN” who, literally as described inter alia in Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s epic poem “Paul Revere’s Ride,” were expected to, AND DID, grab their muskets and WITHIN ONE MINUTE of receiving an alarm, were engaging English “Red Coats.”

Answer 3

(A) Yes.
(B) Yes.
(C) Yes.
(D) Yes.

BTW, we have also studied many times that the “firebrands” who perpetrated “The Boston Tea Party” were NOT being joined by the other American colonies unless they agreed to accept George Washington as the leader of the Continental Army.

And that during the so-called “French and Indian War” (1754-1763), George Washington led the Virginia Militia.

That war found the British and their American colonies fighting the French who had established forts along the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers to join their Quebec colony with their Louisiana colony, thereby halting the westward expansion of the British colonies and reserving for themselves everything west of the Mississippi to the Pacific (except for the Spanish colony of Mexico which extended so far north as to include modern-day California, Utah and Colorado -- indeed, when the Mormons arrived in Utah in 1847, they thought that they had successfully fled the U.S. for Mexico).

While leading the Virginia Militia in the so-called French and Indian War, George Washington spurned the advice of the Brits’ Native-American allies in more than a half-dozen important respects, as a result of which the Virginia Militia was routed and largely massacred.

George Washington’s performance had two consequences.

FIRST, virtually all of the Native Americans in the area had been British allies and Washington’s performance caused them to switch sides. [Indeed, the area west of the Mississippi never fell under British control and only became part of the United States in 1803 when it was purchased from a bankrupt France that was trying to dig out of the financial disaster of the French Revolution (and finance the yet-more-disastrous Napoleonic Wars).]

BUT SECONDLY, BETWEEN THE FRENCH AND INDIAN WAR AND THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION, IF ANY MEMBER OF THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT WANTED TO CALL ANYONE ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD INCOMPETENT, S/HE WOULD CALL THAT PERSON “A GEORGE WASHINGTON”!!!

Question 4

Accordingly, is it surprising that the U.S. Supreme Court would (A) uphold the Second Amendment right of homeowners to bear arms to protect their homes, while (B) restricting the right to bear arms to muskets and their modern-day equivalent – not tanks, airplanes, etc.?

Answer 4

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 5

Do recent U.S. Supreme Court opinions include –

(A) District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) - The Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

(B) McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) – The Second Amendment applies to state and local governments, courtesy of the “Due Process Clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(C) Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016) – the Second Amendment extends to all “bearable arms” even if not in existence at the time the Second Amendment was adopted (and re-affirmed that the Second Amendment is fully applicable to state and local governments).

(D) New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) – The Second Amendment prohibits a state from denying a license to purchase a handgun for use OUTSIDE THE HOME for self-defense without showing a “proper cause” for a heightened need for self-protection over the general population. HOWEVER, the 6-3 majority opinion was accompanied by a concurring opinion from Justice Kavanaugh in which Chief Justice Roberts joined (MEANING A FAILURE TO SATISFY THEM WOULD REDUCE THE 6-3 MAJORITY TO A 4-5 MINORITY) which said that it was NOT intended to invalidate such restrictions as fingerprinting, background checks, mental health evaluations, and mandatory training requirements – stressing that such requirements are objective rather than subjective (though query whether a mental health evaluation can ever be anything but subjective!!!).

Answer 5

(A) Yes.
(B) Yes.
(C) Yes.
(D) Yes.

Question 6

On 5/17/2023, did the U.S. Supreme Court leave in place an Illinois law banning AR-15-style weapons and large ammunition magazines while the case (National Association for Gun Rights v. City of Naperville and State of Illinois) wends its leisurely way up to the Supreme Court?

Answer 6

Yes.

Question 7

Re the Bi-Partisan “Safer Communities Act of 2022,” does the Wikipedia article provide a decent description of the Act’s Sections 12001 thru 12005 dealing with firearms and gun safety (please see the article at viewtopic.php?f=744&t=2344&sid=99333e2f ... 7314118795
and the text of the Act at https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-con ... /2938/text?

Answer 7

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 8

Were the 10 Democrat U.S. Senators on Sen Cornyn’s Bi-Partisan Group of 10 Democrats and 10 Republicans presumably constrained in their demands by the realization that the hundreds of 2020 race riots around the nation have spurred gun sales?

Answer 8

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 9

Indeed, have gun sales sky rocketed since 2020 among suburban housewives, a key voting bloc for the Democrat Party in the 2020 election?

Answer 9

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 10

BTW, do proponents of gun-safety laws point to all the countries (e.g., the U.K.) which do NOT permit citizens, in general, to bear arms?

Answer 10

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 11

Do such countries have such a high proportion of their populations that was subjected to slavery, “Jim Crow” laws, post-“Jim Crow” discrimination, etc.?

Answer 11

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 12

Are there any items on Rabbi Van Lanckton’s “wish list” of 16 (please see viewtopic.php?f=742&t=2343&sid=99333e2f ... 7314118795) that would be permitted by the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court opinion in New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen (please see Q-5 above) and are NOT included in the “Safer Communities Act of 2022”?

Answer 12

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 13

BTW, isn’t Rabbi Van Lanckton’s Wish No.3 to raise the minimum age to buy a gun to 21 misleading because even before the “Safer Communities Act of 2022,” the federal-law minimum age to buy a handgun was 21?

Answer 13

The short answer = yes.

The long answer is as follows --

Title 18 U.S. Code Sec. 922(b) provides --

“(b) It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver -- (1) any firearm or ammunition to any individual who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe is less than eighteen years of age, and, if the firearm, or ammunition is other than a shotgun or rifle, or ammunition for a shotgun or rifle, to any individual who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe is less than twenty-one years of age; (2) any firearm to any person in any State where the purchase or possession by such person of such firearm would be in violation of any State law…..”

These provisions have been verbatim in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922 for nearly 55 years since 6/19/1968.

The “Gun Control Act” of 1968 was prompted by the 4/4/1968 assassination of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the 6/5/1968 assassination of Robert F. Kennedy.

It replaced the “National Firearms Act” of 1934 which did not contain these age and state-law provisions among its many requirements.

Per the website of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (previously known as ATF) – “This legislation was a direct response to gang violence, this act imposed criminal, regulatory and tax requirements on weapons favored by gangsters: machine guns, silencers and sawed-off shotguns.”

Small wonder!!! After all, the nation had become less agrarian, it had just emerged from the Prohibition Era (1/16/1919 - 12/5/1933), and the FBI’s J. Edgar Hoover (Director of the predecessor Bureau of Investigation 1924-1935 and first Director of the FBI 1935-1972) convinced Congress that he needed the “National Firearms Act” of 1934 to fight organized crime.

Question 14

And BTW, do Rabbi Van Lanckton’s Wishes No. 4 and No. 5 (re red flag laws & no-fly lists) flirt with the Kavanaugh/Roberts NY vs. Bruen rule requiring objectivity rather than subjectivity? Would it be worth the attempt by gun-control advocates to determine whether Kavanaugh/Roberts think (A) whether having been “red flagged” or being on a “no-fly list” is objective, or (B) whether the process of being “red flagged” or being put on a “no-fly list” is subjective?

Answer 14

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 15

And really “getting into the weeds,” does Rabbi Van Lanckton’s Wish No. 10 requiring gun owners to keep the gun locked in a secure location and ammunition for the gun locked in a different secure location violate the Revolutionary War “Minute Man” test of whether a homeowner would be able to unlock the gun, unlock the ammunition, load the gun and be ready to defend one’s self and home WITHIN ONE MINUTE?

Answer 15

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 16

Does anyone have any other comments re gun safety?

Answer 16

Anyone???