"Drastic times require drastic measures." She has no idea how drastic. Fuzzy-thinking Texas A&M law prof wants to repeal the 2nd Amendment with a "state's rights" solution.
The Daily Caller picked up the story, wherein an Aggie law professor calls for the repeal of the Second Amendment on, wait for it. state's rights grounds.
The original story quoted by DC came from CT News Junkie, where Penrose is quoted as saying:
“I think I’m in agreement with you and, unfortunately, drastic times require drastic measures,” Penrose said. “. . . I think the Second Amendment is misunderstood and I think it’s time today, in our drastic measures, to repeal and replace that Second Amendment.”
Rather than applying the amendment to all states, Penrose recommended striking the provision to enable individual states greater discretion in determining their own gun policies.
“The beauty of a ‘states’ rights model’ solution, is it allows those of you who want to live in a state with strong restrictions to do so and those who want to live in a state with very loose restrictions to do so,” she said.
Penrose said she advocates redrafting the entire U.S. Constitution when she teaches constitutional law courses. She said American life has changed drastically since the 18th Century when the constitution was adopted.
“Why do we keep such an allegiance to a constitution that was driven by 18th Century concerns? How many of you recognize that the main concern of the 18th Century was a standing army? That’s what motivated the Second Amendment: fear of a standing army,” she said.
"State's rights" interpretation? Would this legal idiot accept that for the First Amendment? The Fifth? Ah, but CT Governor Malloy apparently would:
Penrose, who described herself as “somewhat agnostic about guns but extremely passionate about the United States Constitution,” said she had expected her proposal to be very controversial. But she felt more at ease after listening to remarks by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, who spoke at the symposium Friday morning.
Malloy defended a law passed this year that tightened state gun control restrictions in response to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Although he spoke before any of Friday’s panel discussions, the governor seemed to anticipate some questioning of the law’s constitutionality.
“This being a legal symposium, I’m quite certain the constitution will be thrown around quite a bit,” he said. “We support in our state the constitutional right to have arms. But no right is without its limitations.”
Although there is a right to practice religions, society has accepted that there is no right to practice human sacrifice or polygamy, Malloy said. Collectively, we have recognized limitations on the right to free speech, he said.
“There are other rights that we all agree have limitations. It really is only this one particular point that our society clashes on, and that one side honestly and I think truly believes there should be no limitations,” he said. “But, as you can probably surmise, I think they’re wrong.”
Malloy did not call for a repeal of the Second Amendment, but he did say he believes Connecticut and other states have the right to decide what the appropriate regulation of firearms is within the confines of the state and federal constitution. He said he recognized that other states would choose different regulation models, or may chose not to regulate guns.
Malloy also said he hopes the federal government will ultimately put into place laws that allow states that have chosen to properly regulate gun ownership to have a legal framework to prevent those guns from getting into their state.
I have a letter en route to Governor Malloy asking him some pointed questions about his enforcement of the magazine ban already. But I think I'll take keyboard in hand later on to engage Penrose on the field of ideas. In the mean time. . .
Here's the official bio for Mary Margaret “Meg” Penrose, Professor of Law
If you'd like to send this legal twit an email yourself, her address is: megpenrose@law.tamu.edu. Remember now, no threats and keep it clean.
18 comments:
Reblogged.
Apparently it doesn't require much to become a law prof at Texas A & M. This woman needs to review US v Cruikshank. She also needs to review what SCOTUS said in Heller and McDonald about Cruikshank. What she thinks about 2A is irrelevant.
She's welcome to try and repeal anything she wants. Even if successful, my RKBA stands without the protections she would remove. All she would accomplish is move FedGov farther into the realm of what Jefferson considered as unjust governments.
Then, of course, the "Law of Unintended Consequences" would rear its ugly head. The constitution that protects us from her also protects her from us.
Your move, Professor!
They anticipated their proposals to be "somewhat controversial," huh? They might as well propose the repeal of the law of gravity, for all I care... I will reject both out of hand, as equally absurd.
By refusing to consider such rubbish- while declaring it for what it is- robs them of what they want most; serious consideration. :)
My letter to the twit:
Professor,
I am constantly amazed at how little grasp of law you liberal law professors have. Take Obama for example. As a self-professed Constitutional "scholar" his grasp on the Constitution is tenuous at best as he applies some laws and ignores others!
Take yourself for example. You call for the repeal of the Second Amendment using the Tenth Amendment as a legal basis yet you are totally clueless that the Second Amendment, in the Bill of Rights, cannot be amended, repealed, removed, folded, spindled, or mutilated.
Moreover, you state that you embrace the Constitution but you fail to grasp the root cause of the American Revolution which was over gun control. The British were marching on Concord and Lexington Green armories to confiscate all arms and powder, ball, etc. There were other causes to be sure but the "shot heard 'round the world" started over gun control because to be weaponless is to be a slave.
The right to self-defense and defense of others can be found as far back as the Talmud which states: "when a man comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first." The right of self-defense was charted in Roman Law and again in the British Bill of Rights in 1689and therefore, the right to keep and bear arms IS an inalienable right that was bestowed on our by our Creator, not the Government.
As a matter of fact, the writings of the Founders in the Federalist Papers bear out that the thinking behind the Second Amendment was to provide the people with the means to overthrow a tyrannical government, i.e., the Nanny State, which tells you how much soda to drink, no salt, no transfats, no smoking, with oversight by the NSA, the IRS, etc, etc, ad nauseum.
Indeed, these means do not have to be jets or howitzers but quite simply firearms with which to resist with an armed invader, i.e., Pancho Villa, or the FBI/ATF (Eric Holder and Janet Reno) at the Waco Massacre.
Corpus Iuris Civilis (late 400's AD): "We grant to all persons the unrestricted power to defend themselves, so that it is proper to subject anyone, whether a private person or a soldier, who trespasses upon fields at night in search of plunder, or lays by busy roads plotting to assault passers-by, to immediate punishment in accordance with the authority granted to all. Let him suffer the death which he threatened and incur that which he intended (Codex Justinianus 3.27.1).
In conclusion, it appears that the Founders were once again right in their thinking of providing the means for the people to retake their government, when the ballot box finally fails.
Can you deny that our very own government is not of a tyrannical nature when they use the IRS to prevent their political opponents from organizing (Obama/Lerner v TEA Party non-profits)? Or in the case of Obamacare where an unpopular law was passed in the dead of the night, through political chicanery and crammed down the throats of the American people, to be the utter failure it is? Or the NSA spying on Americans in a clear violation of the 4th Amendment? Or the militarization of the police in America, subjecting innocent Americans to "stop and frisk," TSA car searches, groin grabs at the airport, or the military rolling through the streets of Boston like the Red Army?
Tyranny is here madam, you should wake up and smell the coffee and stand with the very Americans who seek to uphold and defend the Constitution, not subvert and destroy it.
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” — Benjamin Franklin
R/S
gunnyg,
She' playing for the other team. Most of "academia" is.
Someone please check her drivers license to see if she is an organ donor. She qualifies as braindead and these organs should not go to waste.
Yet another leftist law prof who either wants to scrap or edit the Constitution.
Sixth graders in Arkansas, under a new Common Core curriculum, were recently told to pick two amendments from the Bill of Rights to be deleted.
Among the definitions of "revolution" is "fundamental change." That's what Obama promised. The revolution is happening, yet most sleep through it.
"Fear of a standing army"?
I have that. Their names are Johannes Mehserle and Daniel Harless and Christopher Dorner, the Deming, New Mexico police department, the Hidalgo County Sheriff's Office, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, the Pima County, AZ, SWAT team, and thousands more coast-to-coast.
carlwk3c,
Yeah I know but I always try to save a lost soul. I've converted a few Liberals in my day and nothing is better for us than a convert who becomes a zealot for our side!
Forwarded on to some (other) people down there. They need to know what type of animal is in their midst.
An irony of the leftist argument on this is that they are actually partially correct about how the constitution should be viewed based upon how the ratifiers set up the constitution and explained its intent during the ratification debate.
However, their logic also means that NO federal gun laws that these same people advocate are constitutional. No ATF, no instant check, no federal laws whatsoever. That was how the founders intended both for the second but also the other amendments, so nonsense like incorporation and fed courts overruling state laws would not take place.
Of course, somehow i doubt this woman and other gun banners would be ok with their own logic extended and zero federal gun laws existing as the ratifiers intended.
My comments to ms Penrose
Dear Ms Penrose,
I agree entirely. The Constitution and therefore any rights established by it are not absolute. That is why I am I am encouraging my state to greatly reduce the right of women to vote and drive. Oh and I think we should seriously consider cutting back on education and employment for women. After all, as long as the majority think it's okay, then we are following the democratic process. I will be sure and cite you as the reference that it is the right thing to do.
Now that the sarcasm is over let's look at a few facts. The Constitution does not grant any 2nd Amendment rights. It instead places restrictions on the government from interfering with an inalienable right all humans have, the right of self defense with the best tools available.
Every state agreed to the rules contained in the Constitution when they became part of the U.S.
As far as states going their separate ways, that sounds like secession and we know how well that went over…..
Frank
"How many of you recognize that the main concern of the 18th Century was a standing army? That’s what motivated the Second Amendment: fear of a standing army.” Funny, that is exactly what my state's constitution says in its unrestricted right to bear arms clause. We are now seeing many more examples of law enforcement brutality and rights violations, as well as efforts to erase jurisdictional boundaries to turn law enforcement into a militarized (and unauthorized) standing army.
“Why do we keep such an allegiance to a constitution that was driven by 18th Century concerns? How many of you recognize that the main concern of the 18th Century was a standing army? That’s what motivated the Second Amendment: fear of a standing army,” she said.
Indeed! That 'standing army' thing still concerns me. ESPECIALLY in light of ALL THE ARMED Federal agencies prowling our streets and snooping through our private lives at will and busting down doors without so much as an apology or compensation for their misdeeds. They murder innocent pets for fun without remorse or conscience. We have created an army of antisocial personality disorders controlled by an antisocial regime.
I'd say strengthening the Second Amendment and giving it more recognition and broadening the definition of arms available to the citizenry to "dissuade" such aggressions against peace loving American citizens is a safer approach than repeal.
Have I mentioned how much I hate communists?
Keep in mind that she may teach there, but she isn't an Aggie.
Good Greg ('84)
"Constitutional Flawyers"
III
Tell her that the next war will be Civil. Like the first. And for the same reasons. People like her.
Hey, I can get behind states rights! First thing we should do is secede. Oh, she didn't want to go quite that far? Her commitment to states rights is not that strong? Surprise, surprise.
Post a Comment