From: [d c d] at [se.houston.geoquest.slb.com] (Dan Day)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: The NRA Manifesto
Date: 7 Nov 1995 23:03:49 GMT

In article <[D H H 5 pu 51] at [bigtop.dr.att.com]> [d--o] at [francium.dr.att.com] (Dave Olson) writes:
>There was an interesting item in Wednesday's newspaper.  Apparently, Burger's
>will is flawed -- things ranging from spelling errors to failure to grant his
>executors the power to sell his real estate.  One lawyer called the will
>"woefully inadequate".  The views of the Constitution by a "scholar" who
>screws up something as simple as his own will just don't impress me much.

That's not all Burger managed to screw up.  Here's my standard reply
for anyone who likes to quote Burger as an alleged authority on the
Constitution:
#####
>    Didn't that well known liberal Warren Burger lambast the NRA
>  for spreading "outright lies and distortions" about the Second
>  Amendment?
  [The following will sound suspiciously like an ad hominem attack,
   and I suppose it is, but such is an appropriate antidote to an
   "argument from authority", such as that which appears above.
   I'd be glad to argue against Burger's case on its merits, but
   other than his extreme opinion, he doesn't seem to *have* a case.]
 
He certainly did.  He also clearly didn't know what the hell he was
talking about.  Being appointed to the Supreme Court is unfortunately
no guarantee that you're an expert in all areas of constitutional
history.  There's a good reason why there are *nine* justices
on the Supreme Court -- any one of them can have his head inserted
firmly into his posterior on any given issue.  Burger is entitled
to his opinion, but it's clearly an extreme minority one, even among
Supreme Court justices.
 
Burger never backed up his personal opinion (delivered verbally
at a press conference for a proposed bill which would have banned
*all* handguns) with anything remotely resembling cites or historical
references, so we're at a loss as to what he based his opinion on,
if indeed he based it on anything at all.  Of course, Burger was
a bit of a loon on a lot of other Constitutional issues as well.
For an overview of Burger's idiosyncratic view of the Constitution,
see "The Burger Years: Rights and Wrongs in the Supreme Court", edited
by Herman Schwartz, in which many authors discuss the Burger court,
and Burger himself.  From the introduction:
 
   "...one of the most important factors is the relationships among
   them and the respect they hold for one another.  Chief Justice
   Burger was not effective in this sphere.  Few of his fellow
   justices had much respect for his intellectual powers, and they
   tended to mistrust him, partly because of his often punitive
   manipulation of his authority to assign opinions."
 
Burger really *is* a loon on this subject.  Burger lent his support
during a June 25, 1992 news conference in which Senator Chafee introduced
his bill to outlaw the sale, manufacture, and possession of all handguns.
Burger's remarks that I comment upon below were taken from that news
conference.
 
Also, I find it ironic that anti-gun liberals like to make Burger
their darling -- he's a "the government is always right" Nixon appointee
who was the bane of liberals on almost every other position he held.
Furthermore, he's not above twisting the clear wording of the Constitution
when it suits his agenda on other matters, either -- one of his positions
was that the word "all" in the sixth amendment doesn't really mean "all".
Personally, I don't know any other way to interpret, "in all criminal
prosecutions" than to conclude that it damn well means *all* criminal
prosecutions, but Burger somehow managed to justify his ruling that *not*
all criminal prosecutions need to be tried by a jury, even though the
sixth amendment says they must be.
 
#[Medium bold text on left] Former Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger called
#the gun lobby's distortion of the Second Amendment a "fraud on the American
#public."
 
Of course, Burger's opinion on this matter is just a bit extreme, not to
mention that it shows signs of being very poorly researched.  From the
*same* *sentence* that the above quote is taken (and somewhat modified,
btw, which isn't kosher), Burger mentions "the Second Amendment, which
doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all."  This is certainly
an, um, unusual interpretation of "the right of the people to keep and bear
arms".  In the same speech, he discusses "the arguments advanced by the
ammunition & gun manufacturers thru various agencies, some of which you
could identify."  You know, I wish he *would* identify them.  This smacks
a lot of McCarthy's "I have here in my hand a list of communist spies"
(which, of course, he never showed to anyone).  The NRA is funded almost
entirely by private citizens' membership fees and contributions.  I'm
not aware of any lobbying organization heavily funded by "ammunition and
gun manufacturers" -- they all prefer to keep a low profile and avoid
charges of political lobbying, since they're disliked enough already.
If this is an indication of Burger's scholarly research on the matter,
he's not doing very well.  Further evidence of his lack of actual research
is the statement, "They [the militia] don't take pistols, they take rifles.
Pistols aren't much use in warfare.  Anyone who's been in the military knows
it."  Does anyone who really *was* in the military care to set Burger straight
on this score?  Does anyone care to tell him about the 1911 pistol, also known
as the Colt .45 [semi]automatic, which was invented for military use and
has seen over eight decades of military service?  Finally, lest anyone
think that Burger was simply engaging in a scholarly presentation separate
from his own advocacy agenda, consider the following, again from the same
speech:
  "I'll suggest this to the mayor [of Washington DC] when she comes.
  Here's a small area, DC, pass a statute for DC every gun of every kind,
  every firearm, pistol, shotguns, everything, must be registered in 30, 60,
  or 90 days, some reasonable period. And any person found in possession of
  a firearm after that, which's not registered, gets a very, very heavy
  sentence."
Hey, wait a minute.  I see that he delivered this suggestion in *1992*.
Does Burger not know that back in *1976*, DC *banned* the *ownership*
of handguns, and required the *registration* of shotguns and rifles?
Burger is suggesting implementing something that was *already* the case
for sixteen years!  Is *this* an example of his vast knowledge on the
subject and the care with which he conducts his research??  He bloody
well *worked* there, what excuse does he have for this ignorance?
 
What's ironic is that another Burger quote seems to apply so well here:
 
  "Ours is a sick profession.  [A profession marked by] incompetence,
  lack of training, misconduct, and bad manners.  Ineptness, bungling,
  malpractice, and bad ethics can be observed in court houses all over
  this country every day."
-- 
"Why shouldn't truth be stranger than fiction?
Fiction, after all, has to make sense." -- Mark Twain (1835-1910)