|
Announcements President Kathy reminded all that this weekend was the District Conference on Friday and Saturday, especially emphasizing and encouraging attendance on Saturday night for our member and current District governor, Larry Lohman. Mary Beth Harper announced that the Shoe Box Project for the Children of the Dump in Nicaragua has been permanently canceled by their government. Kent Rotary has been part of the project for 15 years and her announcement saddened all in the attendance. She remarked what a tragic loss for the children, as well as all the other Rotary achievements in the area including building hospitals and a school. Kelly Tremaine announced that the school reading program is moving forward and is partnering with Principal Heidi Singer at Walls Elementary to provide a different approach for this year. Carol Crimi announced that the water projects our club helped sponsor through COCODA have been completed. In addition, as Chair of The Kent Rotary Foundation, she reported that at the last meeting, the Foundation awarded a $1000 grant to the Boy Scouts in support of their efforts to inform girls about their opportunities in scouting and a $1115 grant to Edible Kent, for the continued maintenance and development of a Community Garden available to all residents. Lauren Talion reminded us of all our annual Kent Rotary Foundation Auction being held on May 6. In addition, Rotarians are asked to pick up raffle tickets to either sell, or purchase, in support of the Auction. The committee is still seeking donated items for the auction or cash donations. Student of The Month President Kathy introduced Dennis Love, Principal of Theodore Roosevelt High School. He presented the Rotary Student of the Month, Megan Moser, a senior at Roosevelt. Megan is the daughter of Beth and Mike Moser. In his remarks, Principal Love emphasized Megan’s leadership in the classroom, her stellar academic performance in earning a perfect 4.5GPA in her 25 Advanced, AP, or College Credit Plus Course. In addition, she has been a two-year Captain for her Volleyball, Basketball, and Softball teams. She is recognized by her coaches and teammates as an outstanding leader and teammate. Most importantly, Megan is seen as having a heart of gold, passionate about her community. She is loving and caring toward her classmates, but is competitive, helping others to achieve. Megan plans on attending Hiram University in the fall, Majoring in Biology and playing softball for her school. Program David Dix set the stage for our program by citing a few statistics: -There are 120 guns per 100 people living in the United States. -There are 37.30 gun deaths per 1000 people. -The rate of gun deaths are 25 times higher than any other country in the world. With those comments, David introduced Professor John Koritansky, an instructor from Hiram College. The title of his program was The Second Amendment and Gun Rights in America. Before his formal presentation, Professor made a few lighthearted requests. First, that he be excused for not using a PowerPoint during his presentation. (Paraphrasing a well know phrase - Power corrupts; Power Point corrupts absolutely!) Secondly, he is not an expert on gun control or on gun restrictions as they relate to number of killings. Instead, he proceeded to use the findings by the Supreme Court in DC vs Heller, that held the law unconstitutional in a 5-4 decision, as a vehicle to clarify the constitutional thinking of two members of the Court; Justice Antonia Scalia writing the majority opinion and Justice John Paul Stevens who authored the dissenting opinion. He indicated Scalia had the better legal argument in writing the majority opinion over Stevens’ minority opinion and proceeded to expound on each of those arguments. Scalia’s majority opinion used the basis of his argument in terms of a textualist, citing the constitutional meaning of the preamble of the second amendment, the scope of reasonable certainty of the meaning, and the rule of authority supporting the amendment. - His argument centered on the preamble of the amendment and not on its scope, noting no other amendment had such a preamble, thus suggesting the framers intended to ban any limits on individuals to their right to bear arms.
- He noted historical evidence supporting that “of the people” and “keep and bear arms” always meant carrying and using firearms for self-defense of person and home by individuals.
- The preamble to the amendment, he argued, served as a prohibition on Congress in limiting the right of individuals to carry and use firearms.
- He used William Blackstone’s argument of “self-defense as a natural right,” thus Congress is restricted from banning a citizen’s right to bear arms to protect themselves.
Stevens, in the dissenting opinion argued that Scalia’s use of historical context is contrary to any supportive evidence suggesting framers created the amendment to limit congress from denying individual use of firearms. He noted that the second amendment preamble served to reserve the right to those members of state militia only. - He argued the term “bear arms” has many meanings, but the preamble reinforces the meaning as members of the “militia” holding this right.
- Reinforcing this perspective, he noted that the definition of who the “people” were in guaranteeing this protection, was controlled by the “well-regulated militia” clause in the amendment’s preamble, thus guaranteeing members of the militia their right to “bear arms” for defense.
- He dismisses the Blackstone argument, further arguing that it is reasonable for this constitutional guarantee to be reserved to state militia in defense of tyranny and states have the right to regulate citizen possession and use of firearms.
In conclusion, Professor Koritansky summed up the winning argument in the Supreme Court’s decision in asking the question “Can the Constitution deny revolution?” and noted that The Declaration of Independence, serving as the foundation of The Constitution, supports the “natural rights” argument for individuals bearing arms in defense from tyranny. Professor Koritansky then entertained questions from the club members. David Dix asked if “Can there be limits placed on the types of arms people can have?” Response: No because the type of threat would determine the type of arms needed. Asad Khan asked, “Are decisions a matter of politics or constitutional law?’ and “Can I own a tank?” Response: The first answer was that decisions of the court can leave us with wishy washy answers. As far as a tank, Dr. Koritanky believed the answer was no. Tom Myers asked on the matter of the Militia or the Individual, “Can’t we use the historical era of the writers when everyone was armed?” as to the meaning of the amendment. Response: They expected an armed populace, but it doesn’t settle the question of what the preamble of the amendment does. Howard Boyle interjected that yes, you can own a tank, and can see a parade of privately owned tanks. Noting that the cemetery owns a cannon as well but concedes it may raise some concerns if they used projectiles when shooting it. Asad Khan asked, “What is the perception of people in other countries of our right to bear arms?” Response: Our philosophy is different from any other country in the world. The people hold the power and are the authority, suggesting a Libertarian heresy. Other democratic countries utilize a “social contract,” while we use the “natural rights” argument in supporting our form of government. Responder Carol Crimi provided the response, thanking Professor Koritansky for presenting. She noted that during her legal education she read thousands of court findings, but not one on the Second Amendment. In providing legal services at Kent State, she suggested that lawyers grapple with our 240-year-old Constitution to find legal solutions to today’s challenges. Submitted by Roger Sidoti
|
.png)
