re Constitution Day that our local paper would carry this series of lessons, I had a feeling one of them would be a hit piece on the Second Amendment and the right of the people to own a firearm. My suspicions were proved correct on day two with a "lesson" entitled "When guns make news, spotlight falls on the Second Amendment." The first sentence of the introduction to the "lesson" stated:

"When a big tragedy strikes a school, it is felt in every other school. And when the tragedy involves guns, the Second Amendment to the Constitution gets attention across the nation."

The "lesson" used the 2005 school shooting on the Chippewa Indian reservation in Minnesota to set up the discussion. After invoking the fears and emotions of the students concerning school shootings, the "lesson" turned to the Second Amendment.

"The problem of violence involving guns is a hot issue in the United States. Both people who want strict gun control and people who do not want gun control look to the Second Amendment to support their causes.

People who think that the government has no right to limit gun ownership by citizens often quote the part of the Amendment that states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." This is often interpreted to mean that individuals, except people too young and those convicted of violent crimes, all have the right to own guns.

People who think the Founding Fathers intended to limit gun ownership feel the amendment's reference to 'A well regulated militia, being necessary' indicates who shall be allowed to bear arms."

From a constitutional standpoint, the first thing wrong with this statement is the attempt to put government and the American people on an equal plane by asserting that government has the "right" to act. Under our constitutional system of government, the federal government has been granted the power to act - it does not have the "right" to do anything. [Fn 1]

The second thing wrong is the lack of any reference to a provision in the Constitution that grants the federal government the power to regulate or restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms in the first place. The federal government is a government of limited enumerated powers - not a government of unlimited general powers. Absent a specific grant of legislative power, the debate over the proper interpretation Second Amendment is a red herring. Since the federal government has no authority to legislate outside of its delegated powers, why debate the extent of a power never granted?

The third thing wrong is the assertion that the Constitution grants the federal government the power to limit the rights of the people. As stated in the first paragraph of the preamble to the Bill of Rights, the purpose of the Amendments was to restrict the powers of the federal government. There is no provision in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that grants the federal government the power to limit the individual rights of the American people.

The fourth thing wrong is the assertion that the Second Amendment might be the source of the people's right to own a firearm. As stated above, the Bill of Rights restrains the exercise of power by the federal government. The Amendments do not grant the people any rights. Amendments that restrict the powers of government cannot be the source of individual rights.

The conclusion to the introduction of the "lesson" stated:

"In the days that the Constitution was written, a militia was a group of armed citizens from a town who were loyal to their state and community.

So the question debated by legal experts is, does everyone have the right to own a gun, or only people who are part of an organized force that defends their state and community?

There is no certain answer. The Supreme Court spends a lot of time trying to figure out how the Constitution should be applied to modern lives, and what the Founding Fathers really meant."

Yes there is a certain answer. The Second Amendment is not the source of the people's right to own a firearm. The Second Amendment does not limit the people's right to own a firearm. The Second Amendment does not grant the federal government the power to restrict the people's right to own a firearm, and the Second Amendment does not grant the people the right to own a firearm. Therefore, the right to own a firearm exists independent of the Second Amendment.

The statement about the power of the Supreme Court is an absurdity. Where is the provision in the Constitution that grants the Supreme Court this power or the power to mold the document to fit "modern" times? What purpose would a written document serve if a federal court could change its meaning based on a whim or the political make-up of the Court?

The lesson concluded by asking students and teachers four questions. Here are the first two:

"Question 1- The first 10 amendments to the Constitution are known as the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment declares "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. As a class, discuss whether you think the wording of the amendment gives everyone the right to own guns, or only allows limited ownership. Do you think limiting gun ownership would have an effect on violence in the United States or its communities?"

Since when is asking a student what they "think" relevant to resolving a problem or the meaning of a constitutional provision in a classroom environment? If a student "thinks" 3 plus 3 equals seven does that make it a fact? I thought the purpose of school was to teach students to solve problems by ascertaining facts. How about doing some research before the discussion and presenting some facts to support your assertions? It seems to me that would be a better educational tool than spouting emotional drivel.

"Question 2- Guns make news every day. In the national or local section of the newspaper, find a story about a crime that involved a gun. Read the article. Write a paragraph describing how the use of the gun affected the outcome of the crime. Then write a paragraph describing how the crime would have been different if no one had a gun."

How about writing a paragraph about how the outcome would have been different if several law-abiding citizens had used their firearms to stop the perpetrator before it became a crime? Oh I forgot - firearms cause crime, they do not stop crime.

This so-called lesson on the Constitution is an open window to the sorry state of the American education system. In the author's opinion, "Newspapers in Education" is either constitutionally incompetent or advancing an agenda disguised as education. Unfortunately, the average American is too constitutionally challenged to know the difference.

[Fn 1]-since the "lesson" refers to the Founding Fathers, and the state governments existed prior to and independent of the Constitution, the author assumes they are referring to the federal government when they use the term "government."

Robert Greenslade focuses his writing on issues surrounding the federal government and the Constitution. He believes politicians at the federal level, through ignorance or design, are systematically dismantling the Constitution in an effort to expand their power and consolidate control over the American people. He has dedicated himself to resurrecting the true intent of the Constitution in the hope that the information will contribute, in some small way, to restoring the system of limited government established by the Constitution.

If you are interested in finding out more about the Constitution, take a look at this book. I use it in many of my articles and it is the best book I've found on this subject. Bob

The Federal Government: Its True Nature and Character: Being a Review of Judge Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reprint of the 1868 edition. ''Perhaps the ablest analysis of the nature and character of the federal government that has ever been published. It has remained unanswered.'' This review of Judge Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States is perhaps the ablest analysis of the nature and character of the Federal Government that has ever been published. It has remained unanswered. Indeed, we are not aware that any attempt has been made to challenge the soundness of its reasoning. The great vise of Judge Story and the Federalists consisted in desiring the clothe the federal government with almost monarchical power, whereas the States had carefully and resolutely reserved the great mass of political power for themselves. The powers which they delegated to the federal government were few, and were general in their character. Those which they reserved embraced their original and inalienable sovereignty, which no state imagined it was surrendering when it adopted the constitution. Mr. Madison dwelt with great force upon the fact that ''a delegated is not a surrendered power.'' The states surrendered no powers to the federal government -- they only delegated them. 160 pages.