This is very good news for gun rights fighters. The Supreme Court has accepted the case to answer the question on whether the 2nd Amendment applies, or is “incorporated”, to the states.
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to decide whether strict local and state gun control laws violate the Second Amendment, ensuring another high-profile battle over the rights of gun owners.
The court said it will review a lower court ruling that upheld a handgun ban in Chicago. Gun rights supporters challenged gun laws in Chicago and some suburbs immediately following the high court’s decision in June 2008 that struck down a handgun ban in the District of Columbia, a federal enclave.
The new case tests whether last year’s ruling applies as well to local and state laws.
While this is good news for hopeful gun rights activists it raises questions for die hard Constitutionalists. The dirty details of “incorporation” reveals some divisions among us. I’ve previously discussed my own thoughts on “incorporation”, but I can certainly understand the opposing viewpoint. The question came up earlier this year when the states rights argument was utilized by the anti-gun rights Senators in reference to the Thune amendment that would have permitted concealed carry reciprocity between the states.
The conventional wisdom is that the Supreme Court has a very good chance of voting in favor of 2nd Amendment incorporation. Perhaps, the more interesting thing, similar to Heller, will be what the majority opinion says at the conclusion of the case.
“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.”
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
At no point would I vote for limits of any sort on the right to bear arms as a federal congressman. There is simply no authorization in the Constitution that delegates this power from the people and the states to United States Congress. States and localities can decide details for themselves based on state constitutions, local preferences and the US constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.
As for my personal view, I have spent several years of my life in China, which bans guns, and this changed how I personally view this issue. There are four exceptions to China’s rule, and the first three naturally belong to the State. The power to use force against citizens is retained by the armed forces, the police, and the banks’ security personnel who transfer the paper currency.
Rand Paul was kind enough to participate in an email interview with us earlier this week. Tomorrow he celebrates his father’s birthday with a money bomb of his own. Organized by grass roots supporters and dubbed the “Run Rand Run” money bomb, it aims to raise $1 million for his Senate campaign.
Yesterday a new scientific poll was released showing that Rand Paul trails the establishment GOP candidate by only 11 percentage points. Rand showed up with 26% to Trey Grayson’s 37%. This is a very strong showing for an anti-establishment candidate challenging a career politician. There are still 9 months to go before the May 2010 GOP primary in Kentucky. This poll proves the viability of Paul. Grayson now has to prepare himself for a dogfight. A lot can happen in 9 months.
Here is our short interview with Rand Paul from earlier this week.
LM: Starting off with a bit of a personal question, what was it like growing up in the Ron Paul household? Was he as strict with his children as he is with following the Constitution?
Rand Paul: All the kids were into sports. My older brother was a nationally ranked swimmer and my younger brother played baseball in college. I swam for a non-scholarship program at Baylor. My earliest memories are of discussing politics with my father’s friends. I always gravitated to the adult conversation.
This week let’s start off with some interesting comments by radio talk show host Jason Lewis. A caller discusses the now infamous New Hampshire Town Hall gunman’s appearance on Hardball with Chris Matthews. Lewis uses the opportunity to bluntly say that the gunman identified himself as a Ron Paul supporter and is the Ron Paul supporters who are “leading the charge on taking the country back.” Listen to the excerpt below.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
The Left is attempting to minimize the dissent running rampant at “town halls” across the country. Now a chain email has been initiated by the White House to debunk what they call “lies” about health reform efforts. To this I ask what happens when these so-called lies turn out to be true? Haven’t we had enough denying economic reality? Supporters of this kind of health reform argue that it’s not a single payer plan and that the government’s public option will compete fairly with private insurance companies.
Ron Paul was interviewed on “The Ed Show” yesterday to discuss the New Hampshire man open carrying his firearm outside Obama’s New Hampshire Town Hall meeting.
The man mentioned that he voted for Ron Paul when he was interviewed by Chris Matthews so Ed wanted to get Ron Paul’s perspective on the “incident”.
A man who had the gall to exercise his Constitutional right to bear arms has come under fire, so to speak. The man, William Kostric, chose to open carry his handgun in a leg holster while holding up a sign prior to an Obama Town Hall meeting in New Hampshire the other day. What the hell was this guy thinking? Let’s find out…
See the following video from MSNBC reporting the story while it was happening:
The sign he happens to be holding doesn’t help calm fears about this man’s intentions, but think about it. If he were intending to do harm to anyone why would he be advertising that he has a weapon? He attempts to clear things up a bit when he was a guest on Hardball later in the day.
Making the 2nd Amendment applicable to the States as referenced in this article from the other day was discussed in a bit more detail on Guntalk over the weekend.
The host Tom Gresham interviewed The Second Amendment Foundation’s Alan Gottlieb about the 9th Circuit Court’s decision to re-hear the case where it decided that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated to the states.
Gottlieb discusses the ramifications of the 9th’s decision. Interestingly enough he suggests it may not be a bad thing and he suspects the Supreme Court will take up the 2nd Amendment Incorporation question regardless of what the 9th does.
Listen to the audio below.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
In the wake of last year’s Heller decision the question of incorporating the 2nd Amendment to the states has seen some play in the U.S. circuit court system. What is “incorporation” and should the 2nd Amendment override state law?
First, here is some audio from Guntalk, a weekly radio show hosted by Tom Gresham of Guntalk.tv, a wonderful resource for all gun-owners.
Gresham reveals the details of the previous incorporation-related cases and a new development that could have a bearing on whether or not the Supreme Court takes up the question. Before it was a no-brainer for the high court to hear the case, but now the 9th Circuit Court appears to be trying their hardest to make it a “brainer”. Listen to Gresham lay it all out in the audio below.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Originally, the Constitution and Bill of Rights were a set of restraints on the federal government. The states pretty much had free reign on the laws they could enact. The states were governing themselves prior to the ratification of the Constitution. Our Founders (for the most part) tried to avoid trampling on states’ rights to self-govern. The amendments passed following the Civil War, particularly the 14th, set the stage for the trampling to begin.
Sometimes a video comes along that must be shared. This is one of those videos. The Reverand Ken Blanchard delivers a sermon on freedom, liberty, and the 2nd amendment in a Youtube video. As a new gun owner I can’t describe the feeling you get while exercising your 2nd Amendment rights, even in the safe environs of a shooting range. The best way I can come close to describing it is that you feel empowered. Empowered to protect yourself, family, friends, and strangers if the situation calls for it.
While I practiced and preached my own right to not own a gun for most of my life, recently I became a new gun owner. As I become more acquainted with firearms I’m starting to believe that owning and knowing how to operate a gun is a political declaration. The open carry of a firearm is like holding up a sign in public that reads: I demand to be free. Of course, many self defense experts will preach using concealment as the preferred method of carrying a self-defense weapon. With concealment you have the element of surprise and you are not advertising yourself as a “first target” for a would-be attacker. Still others argue that openly displaying a firearm can be a deterrent in itself. I suppose it all depends on the attacker’s state of mind.
Enough of my yammering… watch the excellent Rev. Blanchard below.
The amendment I discussed yesterday, S.845, which would allow concealed carry permit holders to legally carry into other states as long as that state’s laws were followed failed today. The vote was 58 for the amendment and 39 against. 60 votes were required for acceptance.
I can’t help but wonder if Norm Coleman had defeated Al Franken and if Arlen Specter didn’t switch parties the required 60 would have been reached. Both Franken and Specter were among the 39 who voted ‘No’.
After some thought I realized there is a valid argument that this amendment could violate states rights. The argument is based on a bit of a “catch-22″ built-in to the amendment. In short, the amendment would allow concealed carry permit holders to “violate” the state laws that apply to obtaining a permit. For instance in some states the law is such that in order to get a permit one has to pass a live firing test. The amendment would nullify that rule for someone who enters the state from a state that does not have such a requirement.
That being said, there’s something to be said for thinking of it like one thinks of a driver’s license. The laws governing obtaining a driver’s license differ in each state, yet we don’t seem to have a problem allowing reciprocity for cars crossing state lines as long as the rules of the state are obeyed.
And what about the 2nd Amendment? The entire debate should be rendered moot if we actually followed the 2nd amendment. Isn’t it true that humans have a natural right to defend him/her self from harm? After all the Bill of Rights does not grant us rights, it merely affirms our natural human rights. We had the right to defend ourselves from harm pre-Constitution.
Below I’m including the remarks from Virginia Senator Jim Webb delivered yesterday during the debate on this amendment. He was one of several Democrats who voted for the amendment. As one of his constituents I thank him for doing so. I’d like to be thanking him for also cosponsoring S.604 to fully audit the Federal Reserve, but he hasn’t done that yet. I hope in time he does so.
In the meantime, enjoy his strong and thoughtful arguments on the amendment today.
Liberty Maven
Loading ...
