Why?
This past week a couple of events turned my thoughts to the 2nd Amendment. The first was a notice that I received from the Utah Bureau of Criminal Identification which stated that the fingerprints I submitted with my application for my Concealed Firearm Permit was deemed unreadable and that I would have to submit a new set. This notification also contained an admonition that reminded me that my permit was "provisional" on a "clean" criminal records check and that if the bureau didn't receive new fingerprints my permit would be "suspended". The second event was an article I read stating that New Hampshire was joining with a number of other states in passing a law that would allow New Hampshire citizens to carry a firearm, concealed or open and whether loaded or unloaded, within the state without the need for a special permit but that the state would issue such permits on request by citizens in order to comply with concealed carry reciprocity agreements with other states.
My initial thought was "Why?" to both events.
Why then should I have to apply for a Concealed Firearm Permit in the first place? The second amendment of the United States Constitution states "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.", notice that this sentence places no conditions or limitations on the right and includes the emphatic, unambiguous phrase " . . . shall not be infringed.". It does not make any mention of having to have a license or permit, nor does it make mention of any class of citizens (those having been convicted of a felony) being excluded from keeping and bearing arms. I can understand that society might want to exclude the mentally unstable and those convicted of VIOLENT felonies from possessing fire arms but the logic of denying those convicted of non-violent acts eludes me. What is the logical link between someone whose committed say income tax evasion and the prohibition from firearms ownership? There is none, neither is there any constitutional basis for any federal nor state nor local statute to place any conditions or limitations on the second amendment any more than there is a basis for a federal, state, or local statute to add conditions or limitations on the 13th or any other Amendment.
On reading the constitution I find no element which explicitly nor implicitly gives any governmental body the authority to "interpret" any element of the constitution nor to change any element of the constitution outside of the mechanism provided in Article V (the amendment process). Anti-gun proponents are quick to point out that the second amendment begins with the words "A well regulated Militia, . . . ." and falsely propose that this indicates that the second wasn't meant for the average citizen but only applied to the "militia" hoping that you are ignorant of history. If we review American history we find the reasoning for the second amendment in the writings of the architects of the constitution which reasonings are embodied in this quote by Thomas Jefferson "The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of speech, freedom of property and freedom of the press.", additionally we can look to acts which are contemporary to the constitution such as the Militia Act of 1792 which gives contemporary meaning to the word "militia". This act states, in part, ". . . That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, . . ."; in the 18th century life expectancy of males was 35 to 50 years dependent on locale of residency (I believe 41 years in the United States). So any reading of the act said every male citizen from adulthood (18 years of age) to near the farthest extent of expected life were required to be members of the "militia"; in other words the militia consisted of every adult male. The act goes on to say ". . . That every citizen . . . . provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, . . . ", in other words the act said every male citizen must fit himself with the latest in firearms technology, with ammunitions, and accoutrements of service. This act was made a constitutional mandate for Congress to provide these arms, ammunitions, and accoutrements to every male citizen in Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia . . . reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;". In today's world and in today's terms, contrary to anti-gun laws currently extent, this section requires that congress provide every male citizen with an assault weapon, ammunition, and such uniform items as is necessary to serve as a militiaman.
On reading the constitution I find no element which explicitly nor implicitly gives any governmental body the authority to "interpret" any element of the constitution nor to change any element of the constitution outside of the mechanism provided in Article V (the amendment process). Anti-gun proponents are quick to point out that the second amendment begins with the words "A well regulated Militia, . . . ." and falsely propose that this indicates that the second wasn't meant for the average citizen but only applied to the "militia" hoping that you are ignorant of history. If we review American history we find the reasoning for the second amendment in the writings of the architects of the constitution which reasonings are embodied in this quote by Thomas Jefferson "The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of speech, freedom of property and freedom of the press.", additionally we can look to acts which are contemporary to the constitution such as the Militia Act of 1792 which gives contemporary meaning to the word "militia". This act states, in part, ". . . That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, . . ."; in the 18th century life expectancy of males was 35 to 50 years dependent on locale of residency (I believe 41 years in the United States). So any reading of the act said every male citizen from adulthood (18 years of age) to near the farthest extent of expected life were required to be members of the "militia"; in other words the militia consisted of every adult male. The act goes on to say ". . . That every citizen . . . . provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, . . . ", in other words the act said every male citizen must fit himself with the latest in firearms technology, with ammunitions, and accoutrements of service. This act was made a constitutional mandate for Congress to provide these arms, ammunitions, and accoutrements to every male citizen in Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia . . . reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;". In today's world and in today's terms, contrary to anti-gun laws currently extent, this section requires that congress provide every male citizen with an assault weapon, ammunition, and such uniform items as is necessary to serve as a militiaman.
For well over 100 years the constitution, and in particular the 2nd Amendment, has been under attack and our rights under the Constitution have been correspondingly eroded and undermined. With respect to the 2nd Amendment the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act as well as various state and local laws have, in my humble opinion and through the perverted "interpretations" by activist jurists, unlawfully and without benefit of the amendment process placed conditions on the Second Amendment of the Constitution and infringe on "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" and need to be repealed. If the conditions and restrictions on gun purchasing, ownership, and carriage as embodied in these acts and statutes are truly the will of the majority of the American people then such conditions need to be implemented through the constitutionally established amendment process. In this vein I would encourage every American who truly loves the constitution and wishes to reestablish constitutional rule in the United States do four things; first contact your state legislators and demand that your state enact a similar act as New Hampshire and other states with respect to concealed carry, second contact your national legislators and demand that they push repeal of the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and a return to the original intent and scope of the 2nd Amendment, push for federal legislation that severely limit the judiciary's usurped authority to "interpret" the constitution, to amend the constitution from the bench, and to be the sole arbiters of the Constitution, and lastly become a member of the NRA and active in the "Tea Party" movement.
It would do us well to remember the words of Thomas Jefferson, "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one."
No comments:
Post a Comment