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.
One book near the top of my must-read list is Thomas DiLorenzo’s Hamilton’s Curse. Having previously read The Real Lincoln and listened to DiLorenzo speak in person and on talk shows like Baltimore’s Ron Smith Show, I am already a fan. Today at the Future of Freedom Foundation, George C. Leef references DiLorenzo’s book as he gives his own scathing rundown of how Hamilton and his legacy has greatly ruined this country. Here’s a small piece:
…Hamilton looks pleasant enough in his portrait on our $10 bill, but he was an arrogant egomaniac.
Hamilton was a determined opponent of Jefferson’s laissez-faire philosophy at every turn. When it came to trade, he demanded high protective tariffs because he thought, in the mercantilistic tradition, that if a nation produced “its own” goods rather than purchasing them from “other countries” it would become stronger. Mercantilism was inseparable from economic nationalism — the foolish and destructive idea that political boundaries have great economic significance. (We still suffer grievously from this idiocy, of course.) Individual American consumers would be harmed by artificially high prices for items they might have bought less expensively from producers in other countries, but Hamilton was not concerned about the problems of individuals. His obsession was with “strengthening” the nation.
In the early years of the United States, Hamilton battled against Jefferson’s reading of the Constitution as placing severe limits on federal authority. To Hamilton and his Federalist allies, the wording of the Constitution, especially the enumerated powers of Congress, meant nothing more than an intellectual game of trying to invent interpretations that gave the government “inherent” powers that it was not specifically given. Contrary to the sensible, restrictive reading of the Constitution defended by Jefferson, Hamilton insisted that the General Welfare and Commerce Clauses were meant to give the federal government almost limitless powers.
Leef then goes on to discuss the traitorous presidencies of Lincoln, Roosevelt, and disasters in the form of the 17th Amendment, the income tax, and the Federal Reserve Act. I highly recommend reading the entire article.
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.
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.
Today the Senate is debating what has come to be known as the Thune Amendment (S.845), which would allow those with concealed carry permits to carry in other states. Watching the debate is rather interesting. Just about every Senator who rises to oppose the amendment argues that it “tramples states rights”. As an individual who supports states rights this caught my attention.
Does the Thune Amendment actually violate states rights?
It does not. It can be thought of as applying the laws of state driver’s licenses to concealed carry permits. The summary of the amendment makes it clear that it requires that the carrier follow the laws of the state in which he/she is carrying:
A bill to amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to allow citizens who have concealed carry permits from the State in which they reside to carry concealed firearms in another State that grants concealed carry permits, if the individual complies with the laws of the State.
Yet every Senator opposed to the amendment is falsely arguing that it violates states rights?
Incidentally, I applaud my own Senator, Jim Webb, for supporting the amendment against the wishes of his Democratic colleagues.
The vote is supposed to occur about an hour from the time of this writing. I’ll write more following the vote.
Much of what our federal government is doing right now is not just illegal and unconstitutional, it’s also just plain stupid. How about using some “Common Sense”?
by Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution Originally published on Monday, June 8, 2009 at http://www.nolanchart.com/article6514.html
This short piece will describe “50 Laboratories” model using the current debate over federal nationalization of our health care as a practical example. However, I want to stress that this argument can be applied to most other topics of national concern, such as energy, the economy, retirement and even hot-button topics like same-sex marriage and abortion.
As the self-styled “Champion of the Constitution,” readers of this column are very familiar with my application of the Constitution to current events and issues. I confess that an affection for the Tenth Amendment from the Constitution’s Bill of Rights runs very strong in my blood. I even believe it should be repeated several more times in the Constitution so that posterity will never neglect it.
“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.”
However, let us assume for the purpose of this article that this argument is null and void. In fact, our federal Legislative, Judicial and Executive have behaved for the past decade as if this is the case, so whatever your personal views are, oath or no oath, this is a fair assumption to make.
Conversely, let us also hypothetically assume the argument that all 50 States do not have Sovereignty over their own States is also null and void, though this is fairly ridiculous. Perhaps when the day arrives where Rhode Island and Connecticut decide to merge into the state of Rhodnecticut, or North Carolina and South Carolina combine into Carolina, we can review this once more.
Based on then-Senator Obama’s voting record regarding gun rights, our current president could arguably be considered the most anti-gun president in our nation’s history. That, along with an anti-gun Congress, the United States could be headed for more tyranny.
As Scott McPherson of The Future of Freedom Foundation pointed out, similar to the right expressed in our Second Amendment, the English have a right to bear arms as expressed in English Declaration of Rights (1688). Nonetheless, in 1997, handgun ownership was completely banned.
Given the leftist atmosphere in U.S. politics currently, alongside the wiggle room that Justice Scalia left in the Heller decision (”Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”), we could be in trouble. As McPherson puts it,
Don’t bet your life, or your children’s or grandchildren’s freedom, that 50 or a 100 years from now a sufficiently reconstituted and “progressive” Court won’t consider it a “reasonable restriction” of your “not unlimited” right to make firearms so difficult to obtain that armed self-defense becomes a thing of the past.
Government will become more arbitrary, restrained only by good sense and decency — virtues not commonly found in those holding great power. At that point, the American citizen becomes a subject — one step removed from a serf — then a slave. Whatever verbal calisthenics or contortions legislators or judges may employ to convince you otherwise, that was the greatest fear of the Founding Fathers, and the very reason early American statesmen demanded that the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed” — period, end of discussion.
McPherson also explains our natural right to gun ownership in a way I’d not heard it before: we don’t need the 2nd Amendment to deem all federal gun restrictions illegal.
Freedom of speech, of the press, of the right to peacefully assemble, to petition for redress of grievances, to trial by jury, and to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure, and even a statement protecting rights not listed — all are found in the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. Even if there were no Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms would fall under the Ninth Amendment’s protection of unenumerated rights, but gun ownership was considered so important that it too was mentioned specifically.
We liberty lovers went into a bit of withdrawal last week when Freedom Watch aired a “best of” show. Yesterday it returned in stellar form with guests Ron Paul, Daniel Hannan, Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods, Peter Schiff, Shelly Roche, and Tom Palmer (CATO) joining Judge Napolitano.
Ron Paul and Daniel Hannan united in a one two punch fighting for liberty. They spoke about nullification, secession, and then compared Europe and America on the road to socialism. Another topic that they and the other guests discussed was protectionism. Peter Schiff seems to believe the U.S. need not worry too much about protectionism. Tom Palmer disagrees. Woods and Rockwell delve into the prospects for liberty in our lifetime.
Quote of the Day: “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.” — 10th Amendment, U.S. Constitution
* Government was supposed to be local, close to the people
* Federal government was supposed to be small compared to the combined states
* The 10th Amendment limits the federal government to 20 functions, leaving all other matters to the states and the people. To see the list of these functions, go to DownsizeDC.org’s Enumerated Powers Act campaign
Then, click on the “Talking Points” tab.
It’s bad enough that Congress has exceeded its constitutional limits. It’s potentially worse that they now fund the majority of state spending too. Funding usually means control, so the consequences are huge . . .
* Federal control is usually dictated by bureaucrats, not your elected representatives
* These bureaucrats often use federal aid to “bribe” your local governments to do things they would prefer to NOT do
But it gets worse. Many states require a balanced budget. Federal funding allows states to skirt these limits. Essentially, because the feds are always running huge deficits, the states are getting the federal government to do their borrowing for them.
Worst of all, federal funding centralizes decision making, magnifying the harm caused by bad policies. Bad laws in California don’t impact Arizona, but mistakes made by federal politicians harm everyone. And boy, Congress sure makes a lot of mistakes. For instance . . .
These are hardly isolated examples. We could go on for pages listing others. And the more our government centralizes at the federal level, the more numerous and dangerous the examples will become.
Now, we say this mainly for the benefit of our many new members . . .
Ever since texas Governor Rick Perry remarked on the fact that the secession is a possibility if the Federal Government continues to encroach on states’ rights, and certain members of the left and the media overreacted with hysterical claims of treason, Ron Paul has been been talking to any media outlet that will have him to bring some sense to the situation.
In case you missed it, and wish to get Dr. Paul’s take on it, take a look at his weekly column Texas Straight Talk, where spells it all out:
Last week the governor of Texas ignited a media firestorm for his remarks involving the idea of secession. He did not call for Texas to secede from the United States. He merely pointed out that the federal government was treading heavily on the sovereignty of the states and that this can not continue indefinitely without a breaking point.
The reaction to Governor Perry’s statements has been nothing short of hysterical. He has been called treasonous for making this obvious point and opening up a discussion. I am not calling for secession either, however there is nothing wrong with a healthy and open discussion of this issue.
America was born from an act of secession.When King George’s rule trampled on the rights of the colonies, we successfully seceded from England. It took a war, but we were well within our rights. We applauded when former soviet states seceded from the USSR and declared their sovereignty. And hopefully the United States will eventually secede from the United Nations. We pay most of the bills of the UN, yet do not have the commensurate votes, so someday we will wake up and realize that membership, for these and other reasons, does not serve our interests. [Continue]
Liberty Maven
Follow LM on Twitter