Remember Joseph Warren This Memorial Day
America’s war dead have included leaders of prominence, including one of the Founding Fathers.Read More »
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.
Setting a Precedent is a big unknown, who would have thought that an individual farmer growing too much wheat for his own consumption with no intention of selling it would lead to the federal government regulating how much water you use to flush your toilet. It did with Wickard v. Filburn expanding the Commerce Clause and with many others setting a precedent no one could foresee. What is most concerning is that this is not the Enumerated Powers but the Bill of Rights under attack that affects people directly. In D.C v. Heller, the Supreme Court made precedent connecting the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights as a whole.
1. Operative Clause.
a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.
The precedent anti-gun zealots want varies and the laws enacted vary from state to state. Basically, what the anti-gun zealots want, law-abiding gun owners are fingerprinted like some criminal, forced to register as is they were some offender, forced to pay hundred of dollars for permits, their personal possessions are being restricted and their personal information is being taken, all without due process. All because someone committed a crime which they had nothing to do with. Taking a second look at the Second Amendment, it is undeniable that each individual has the Right to protect his or her selves. Furthermore, the federal government has the power to regulate these individuals into a militia if necessary. What precedent would this establish, criminals take away the Rights of individuals protect their selves from these criminals but you would need a standing army to substitute this protection. This is exactly what the Second Amendment was supposed to prevent and the reason it was enacted, it is necessary to the security of a free State.
“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
Thoughts of Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson
There should be no doubt that if the Second Amendment falls we would be on the “slippery slope” toward a Police State, Martial Law, not by our local police but a National Standing Army or a National Police Force.
What Precedent would this have on other parts of the Bill of Rights, particularly the murky subject of Case Law that heavily depends on Precedent? Wherein lawmakers with all certainty will expand this into absurdity, to bastardize and pervert the Bill of Rights. We cannot predict any particulars and conversely no one can predict any particulars would not happen. The only certainty known on this subject is that this “slippery slope” is dreadfully real and history has ample warning not to go in this direction. So what if this Precedent was to apply to freedom of speech and religion? Would we need to register our thoughts with the government, pay a fee to exercise our thoughts and if anyone abused these they would be further restricted. We may need some gun control but we already have these – you commit a crime the criminal goes to jail and if someone is murdered, we should have a death sentence for such atrociousness. We do not need any more laws, we need to enforce the laws against criminals and not law-abiding gun owners. Clearly, the current anti-gun legislation needs to be flushed and buried forever.
If you have any more possible precedents, you are welcome to add them…