Past NRA pres. talks gun rights
By
Therese Kennelly |
IDS
POSTED AT
11:56 PM ON Nov. 3, 2009
| PRINT |
Email
| SHARE
| COMMENTS (9)
Sandy Froman went from a life without guns to president of the National Rifle Association.
The attorney and former NRA president discussed on Tuesday the implications and future of the Second Amendment. She shared personal sentiments and her take on past and current gun control cases with law students.
Froman’s talk, “Guns Under Fire: What do the Chicago Gun Case and Heller v. D.C. Mean for Your Civil Right to Bear Arms?” provided a forum for students to hear her opinion and discuss the politics of the Second Amendment.
“I grew up in a milk-toast kind of household – nothing bad ever happened,” San Francisco native Froman said. “Crime never touched me.”
She became involved in work with Second Amendment rights when a man tried to break into her home.
“That night made a believer out of me,” she said. “The next morning, I looked in the phone book, and I went to a gun store. I was there before they even opened.”
Though Froman doesn’t come from the usual background for gun advocacy, she is a strong proponent for upholding the Second Amendment.
She began her talk by discussing previous law cases precedence on the amendment.
She discussed District of Columbia v. Heller and other pertinent cases.
The Heller case asked whether sections of Washington’s code violated an individual’s right to keep and bear arms without being in the state militia, Froman said.
The court affirmed that individuals have the right to bear arms and deemed the Washington ban unconstitutional.
She then discussed the three schools of thought that developed as a result of differing opinions on gun presence in American society: collective, individual and sophisticated collective rights theory.
Collective rights theorists appeared in the 1990s and believe guns should be used only for militia. Individual rights advocates think everyone has the right to bear arms for their protection. Sophisticated or expanded collective rights activists believe those preparing for service in the militia can have firearms.
“The Miller case was so opaque that all views cited Miller as reason for their theory,” Froman said.
The main focus of the talk was on the current case of McDonald v. Chicago. The case will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in February 2010 and will decide if the right to bear arms will become a federal issue instead of a state issue.
“When things are this widespread, it begins to affect a change on the culture,” Froman said. “It’s really important that we all know what our Constitutional rights mean according to these tools.”
After her talk, Froman fielded questions from law students on a wide range of Second
Amendment-related concepts and her role in bringing discussion of the Second
Amendment to the forefront during the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor confirmation hearings.
“I found it interesting and insightful,” senior Rhonda Betz said. “She brought up a lot of good points, especially that a gun is a tool, not something to be afraid of.”