Rep Hausman gets schooled on what is the Second Amendment

Public Safety Finance and Policy Committee Meeting Feb 6, 2013.  Alice Hausman DFL 66A presented her bill to ban particular styles of rifles.  During the presentation Alice Hausman made some startling revelations about her understanding of the United States Constitution Second Amendment.  She is comparing the US to other Nations on Gun violence (not violent crime of course, which would completely negate her argument, even without consideration of her error on the 2nd Amendment).

Alice Hausman:

"But there is one component that sets us apart, and its a sentence.  Um the second amendment, I've heard from a lot of people in the last few days about that. Um, and um, um, I just wanted to speak on that sentence for a minute. Uh, a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, [speeding up her voice here] the right of the people shall not be infringed.  That first part of the sentence is one we don't hear very often. The one frequently repeated are those last few words "shall not be infringed".  But the first part of it, and this is what will weigh heavily on you, what does that mean "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"?

Representative Alice Hausman has a viewpoint that many liberals want or would like to be true, but which was recently and very solidly been decided in the Supreme Court case of District of Columbia v. Heller.

Hamline Law Professor Joseph Olson explains:

I actually had one of my articles cited in Heller. So, uh, I know Judge Scalia is familiar with my work.  I have read the opinion a number of times, I teach it in my seminar at Hamline Law School. Uh, the Supreme Court did two things in Heller case that are relevant to the discussion as Representive Hausman brought it up. One in Heller the Supreme Court made very clear that the introductory clause to the second amendment is not part of the normative statement. In other words the introductory statement is not part of the rule of law. The rule of law is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  And the court went on to discuss just exactly how much the District of Columbia was infringing that right. Furthermore the court talked in the case about the arms that were protected by the second amendment, and it said the arms that were protected were the arms that were in common use.  Military style firearms are in common use.

It could not be any clearer.  Rep Alice Hausman has a very faulty understanding of the United States Constitution and is making serious error in the proposed law she is authoring.  We need serious discussion on what is a solution. Not misguided efforts that will do nothing to actually resolve the issue they claim to be furiously "doing something" about.