imported post
While I respect what everyone at Open Carry.org is doing, I have to disagree with the widely held idea that last year's Heller decision, by the Supreme Court, was in any way a "good thing."
First of all, the Supreme Court has absolutely no right or power to even consider any modifications to the Constitution. Period. The Constitution is the overriding law of the land and the Supreme Court's job - their only legitimate function - is to interpret legal cases as to whether the laws in question either violate the Constitution or not. Many people have the mistaken idea that the Supreme Court is empowered to "interpret" the Constitution as they see fit. In fact, the duty of the Court is to determine whether all laws are in accordance with the Constitution, which, again, is the supreme law of the land. So, again, the Supreme Court had no legal right or jurisdiction to tell us what the Second Amendment means and whether or not we have a legal right to possess firearms. The relevent case was Heller vs. D.C., in which case the Court should have been ruling on whether the D.C. gun ban is constitutional or not. That was the issue; not whether the Constitution's Second Amendment is valid or not.
Given that, I would like to point out, for the vast majority of gun owners, who seem to have missed this crucial point, that when the Court rendered its "decision" on Heller, the words "...within reasonable limitations..."appeared in their pronouncement that we do, indeed, have a Second Amendment right to possess firearms. The very fact that this verbiage was included echoes the government's continuing attitude that firearms ownership is a mere privilege granted by the state and not an inalienable right. This statement opens the door for the government to further erode our Second Amendment guarantee of an existing right. The Second Amendment doesn't grant any rights, for rights cannot be granted. Rights are inalienable conditions of our existence. We all have the right to defend our lives and that includes defending them against the aggressions of a despotic government. Without this fundamental right, all our other rights are undefendable.
So, when I hear anyone, especially gun owners, say the Heller decision was a good thing and that they're glad the Supreme Court is "on our side," I have to wonder what part of "...shall not be infringed" they fail to understand. The fact is, every gun law created since the National Firearms Act of 1934 is a flagrant violation of the Second Amendment. Where does anyone, then, get the idea that adding successive layers of bureaucratic controls over the Second Amendment is in any way legal, let alone good?
If gun owners and the organizations that profess to support them are so concerned with education about firearms, they might start with learning a basic understanding of why we have a Constitution, in the first place, and what it really means.
Gary
www.thefreezone.garyrea.com
While I respect what everyone at Open Carry.org is doing, I have to disagree with the widely held idea that last year's Heller decision, by the Supreme Court, was in any way a "good thing."
First of all, the Supreme Court has absolutely no right or power to even consider any modifications to the Constitution. Period. The Constitution is the overriding law of the land and the Supreme Court's job - their only legitimate function - is to interpret legal cases as to whether the laws in question either violate the Constitution or not. Many people have the mistaken idea that the Supreme Court is empowered to "interpret" the Constitution as they see fit. In fact, the duty of the Court is to determine whether all laws are in accordance with the Constitution, which, again, is the supreme law of the land. So, again, the Supreme Court had no legal right or jurisdiction to tell us what the Second Amendment means and whether or not we have a legal right to possess firearms. The relevent case was Heller vs. D.C., in which case the Court should have been ruling on whether the D.C. gun ban is constitutional or not. That was the issue; not whether the Constitution's Second Amendment is valid or not.
Given that, I would like to point out, for the vast majority of gun owners, who seem to have missed this crucial point, that when the Court rendered its "decision" on Heller, the words "...within reasonable limitations..."appeared in their pronouncement that we do, indeed, have a Second Amendment right to possess firearms. The very fact that this verbiage was included echoes the government's continuing attitude that firearms ownership is a mere privilege granted by the state and not an inalienable right. This statement opens the door for the government to further erode our Second Amendment guarantee of an existing right. The Second Amendment doesn't grant any rights, for rights cannot be granted. Rights are inalienable conditions of our existence. We all have the right to defend our lives and that includes defending them against the aggressions of a despotic government. Without this fundamental right, all our other rights are undefendable.
So, when I hear anyone, especially gun owners, say the Heller decision was a good thing and that they're glad the Supreme Court is "on our side," I have to wonder what part of "...shall not be infringed" they fail to understand. The fact is, every gun law created since the National Firearms Act of 1934 is a flagrant violation of the Second Amendment. Where does anyone, then, get the idea that adding successive layers of bureaucratic controls over the Second Amendment is in any way legal, let alone good?
If gun owners and the organizations that profess to support them are so concerned with education about firearms, they might start with learning a basic understanding of why we have a Constitution, in the first place, and what it really means.
Gary
www.thefreezone.garyrea.com