Why would Chris Cox say this???

[stevie_d_64]

"Anti-gun politicians can no longer deny that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right," said NRA chief lobbyist Chris W. Cox. "All law-abiding Americans have a fundamental, God-given right to defend themselves in their homes. Washington, D.C. must now respect that right."

Now far be for me to parse words and meaning (intent) of someone who I have a ton of respect for, and still will respect and support even with this I have on the words chosen...

I was in the agreement (with many others here) that early on in the pre-Heller case discussions regarding the definitions and usage of the words "fundamental", "individual" and "unalienable" were fairly debated and defined by those who engaged in those discussion to be as follows...As best as I can recall...

Fundamental - a condition where (in this case) a "right" is open for regulation, restriction and other forms of conditions that are determined by others (government and other authoritive entities)...

Individual - (in this case) a single persons choice to keep and bear arms, as they see fit to do so...

Unalienable - a right bestowed upon us by a higher (moral or devine) authority than any elected government or ruling class...It is also believed to always have been something we have had...

Since this is all basically a moot point since late this last week, I had always believed that any opinion by the Supreme Court that certified our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as a "fundamental" right would have opened up a pandora's box that we would not like (by what I recall our discussions to be regarding this word)...Therefore our firm stance that the right is an "unalienable and individual" right (all along)...

This statement was sent in an official NRA-ILA email blast I recently received this morning...

Maybe I'm driving this too hard, and have no intent to insult his committment and leadership in our cause...I am just trying to figure out why this was worded the way it was...

I just would not have chosen those words if I were to make a statement like this...I would have been careful not to use a word that would allow any wiggle room for the gun control crowd to utilize in a manner that would cause any damage to what we all believe is not a fundamental right we are regulated and granted to exercise, but it is, and has been affirmed by the Supreme Court as an individual right, with no ambiguity...

Just my observation and opinion...

[srothstein]

I believe he is using the term fundamental right for its legal and public relations benefits. There is no set real definitions of fundamental or unalienable rights. As I understand the law (which could be wrong) all rights are open to regulation in the US. The difference is that case law recognizes that a right designated as fundamental can be restricted only if the restriction passes what is called strict scrutiny. This mean the restriction must be for a valid state interest, must work for the goal AND be the least restrictive method of achieving that goal.

A less restrictive scrutiny would allow restrictions without the proof that this is the least restrictive method. I am not sure there even has to be proof that the law works towards its goal.

So, if we can get everyone to think of self-defense, and therefore the Second Amendment, as a fundamental right, when it goes to court we have a much better chance. I don't think any gun control law can pass the strict scrutiny test if it is done hoenstly since none have ever been proven to work.

[HerbM]

"Anti-gun politicians can no longer deny that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right," said NRA chief lobbyist Chris W. Cox. "All law-abiding Americans have a fundamental, God-given right to defend themselves in their homes. Washington, D.C. must now respect that right."

...
Fundamental - a condition where (in this case) a "right" is open for regulation, restriction and other forms of conditions that are determined by others (government and other authoritive entities)...

Individual - (in this case) a single persons choice to keep and bear arms, as they see fit to do so...

Unalienable - a right bestowed upon us by a higher (moral or devine) authority than any elected government or ruling class...It is also believed to always have been something we have had...

Is there some specific source you are following in these definitions?

I believe you are either being picky (and I can certainly insist on accuracy myself) or may just be in error on thinking these terms are so well defined or even distinct.

If there is a distinction, the fundamental right MIGHT be claimed to rely on the constitution OR natural rights, while the natural rights do not depend on the constitution (at all). The right to keep and bear arms is both, or the most inclusive of all these (now.) According to Wikipedia (indicative but not authoritative source) fundamental rights are incorporated under the 14th Amendment (i.e., binding on the states) and generally require Strict Scrutiny (which NO gun control law can pass -- not even the School or 'sensitive location' restrictions except prisons and such, nor NICS/Brady background checks).

Natural and fundamental rights seem to be interchangeable terms for what the Declaration of Independence termed unalienable rights. These are inseparable from the human condition, whether (depending on your religion) granted by God, nature, or inherited from our human parents. They are distinct form rights created by compacts such as the Constitution which also offers protections for rights such as "Trial by jury" which are NOT automatically incorporated upon the states but merely restrictions upon the Federal government since they are empowered solely by the Constitution creating that government.

These unalienable, inherent, fundamental, inseperable, natural rights are incapable of being removed -- you cannot sell them nor lose them, except through due process for actual crimes you commit or demonstrably irresponsible behavior (e.g., insanity, attempts to harm others.)

Heller mentions fundamental rights once (majority, page 20), and declares that the PRE-existing right to keep and bear arms is such due to English legal precedent; and again page 20 mentions the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, and again (quoting a source) on page 21:

“t is a natural right which the people have reserved to them- selves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence.�

And again, page 39:

...the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence� and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced

It is also possible that the NRA spokesman was merely speaking to a TV or media audience, using the venacular, where most people presume that "fundamental rights" are those at the bedrock of their humanity. Life, liberty, freedom of though (and religion), self-defense and the means to do so, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

I think it is pretty clear direction in Heller that incorporation and strict scrutiny are expected. The majority opinion treats it as natural and fundamental and the Court history is pretty clear on such rights.

[stevie_d_64]

My recollection from our discussions last year very much covered the strict scrutiny (litmus test, for lack of a better analogy at this time...) issue...Charles (at that time) has gone over some of that as well...

Herb brought up some great stuff on natural rights and how that mingles with the Constitutional side of our argument...

All I am saying is that the discussions we had, in my opinion, basically defined those terms I mentioned above...

I believe there is just too much play (in future legislative efforts, up and down the government chain) in mentioning "fundamental right" with what has just been opinioned by the Supreme Court...

I was not one believing that the Supreme Court was going to paint a broad opinion on the narrow questioned asked in the Heller case...

I was pleased that it re-affirmed our individual right, only to see soon after this, the word "But"...I pretty much rolled my eyes and muddled my way through all the "reasonable" and "responsible" nonsense that seemed to permiate the rest of the opinion...I still have some studying to do...

Maybe I am being a bit to harsh, but when I saw this a while ago, I had to throw this out there to see if my head was on straight...It wouldn't be the first time it was cross-threaded...

But then again my passion and patriotism is based upon the originalist intent of these founding documents, and that the infringments and un-Constitutional regulations and restrictions go way beyond the simple argument of: "What part of shall not be infringed" do some people believe is acceptable, or unacceptable, depending on your philosophy...

We do not need to give any more ammunition (pardon the pun) to the likes of an Associate Justice who wrote a separate dissenting opinion that basically said that YOU and I do not have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms for any reason, especially if you live in a high crime nieghborhood...YOU would be adding to the problem if YOU were armed to defend against the risk of becoming a crime statistic...

With Justices like that, who needs terrorism anymore as a threat to our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, much less our freedom...

[HerbM]

The four minority Justices have demonstrated egregious intellectually dishonesty in this decision -- they don't even have the excuse of failing to understand that the 2nd Amendment protects a pre-existing natural right. They argred unanimously on that.

I don't have a problem with your insistence that NRA spokespeople get it right (although to the average person hearing a sound bite, remember that would not be a legal argument), fundamental right may sound more fundamental than natural right.

Frankly, the NRA is on occasion way too compromising for my philosophy -- remember, the NRA did not bring the Heller case and did virtually everything possible to derail, hijack, or neuter it.

Natural right is (as you say) likely more accurate than fundamental right.

And please do avoid the trap of believing that a fundamental, natural, or unalienable right cannot be infringed at all. Minimal infringements consistent with some intense level of scrutiny (e.g., strict scrutiny is usually required for a natural or fundamental right) are constitutional, as well as losing rights either temporarily or permanently after due process.

What is not allowed is arbitrary infringement or infringement for the mere convenience of the government or on mere supposition.

When we hear that "reasonable regulations" or "reasonable restrictions" we should immediately unleash the full strict scrutiny argument in most cases.

Reasonable does NOT mean merely "sounding reasonable" but rather reasonable when testing the law under the strictures of the Constitution.