4/24/2013 9:28:00 AM Letter: Bills regulating guns not unconstitutional
There is nothing in the proposed bills being considered by the Washington politicians that in any way violates the Second Amendment of the Constitution.
There is nothing unconstitutional in the executive orders arranged by the president in the interest of gun regulation.
The gun lobbyists want to make a case for an attack on the constitution as leverage against what they see as a threat to their freedoms and a potential reduction of their gun sales. Using their own narrow definition of the amendment, they carefully omit its first 13 words, thereby preferring to ignore one of its major provisions. They leave out any reference to regulation.
The NRA's interpretation of the amendment appears to be as follows: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The legal wording of the amendment, however, is as follows: "A well-regulted militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
A careful reading of the definitive case of the The District of Columbia vs. Heller (2008) reveals the Supreme Court's position on this issue. In the 5-4 majority opinion that affirms a right to bear arms by those unconnected to a militia (seen as a victory by the NRA)the individual rights position is further qualified with the following words by the conservative Justice Antonin Scalia who wrote for the majority.
"Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
Such laws are considered to be "presumptively legal." The Court thereby affirms the constitutionality of laws similar to those supported by the administration.
Posted: Sunday, May 12, 2013
Article comment by:
If you've never heard the term "boiling a frog", please look it up. By widdling-away our right to keep and bear arms (none of which has anything to do with gun control), Washington is trying to change the perception of people regarding firearms. Realize this: If our second amendment is weakened to the point that destroying it only takes one tiny, little step, it will be destroyed. After the second amendment goes, next will be the 4th, the 5th and finally the 1st. As people give up their rights, they weaken all of their other rights.
From a constitutional point of view, what Washington is doing is criminal and should be charged as such. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and breaking that law should be met with charges.
Posted: Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Article comment by:
It must have been that "shall not be infringed" part that threw me.
Even if we accept your argument that the laws are constitutionally permitted, it does not mean that they would be necessary, helpful, effective or even desired by the American people. The same administration that pushed these laws does not prosecute and uphold the current registration laws so the only effect would be to hinder law-abiding citizens.
Everyone knows that this is not the end game, these "registration" laws are just one more small uptick in temperature and the people are the frog in the pot. The statements made by these leftists have betrayed them. They can't be trusted. They don't really care about tougher registration laws, they want bans and confiscation.