The Post Constitutional Era! Part XXVII

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms

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. 

Infringe - vb [Latin infringere] 1: violate, transgress 2: encroach, trespass Source: NMW In the context of the Constitution, phrases like "shall not be infringed," "shall make no law," and "shall not be violated" sound pretty unbendable, but the Supreme Court has ruled that some laws can, in fact, encroach on these phrases. For example, though there is freedom of speech, you cannot slander someone; though you can own a pistol, you cannot own a nuclear weapon.

This whole Second Amendment issue has been twisted to the point the citizenry have no clue what it means, and the historical background for it.  A background the Framers absolutely knew and understood.  On Tuesday, August 7, 2012

I published an article that I feel clearly outlines what the intent was behind the Framers words.  Please enjoy!

Second Amendment: It Is What It Says....Nothing More and Nothing Less

By Rich Kozlovich

Normally when I get those “please pass this along” e-mails I read them, and even when I think they are interesting I don’t usually send them along. However, this was sent to me today - and I was asked to pass it along. Quite frankly it seems a worthwhile effort considering the wider ramifications of this kind of thinking. The e-mail starts out saying;

“Attorney General Holder says, "We have no right to possess guns!”’

So what does a person who believes that we shouldn’t “need” guns to do? Well, that depends if that person believes that we shouldn’t “have” guns or not. There is a substantial difference between “having” and “needing”, but in this case the "having" is based on the "needing". The fact of the matter is we live in a dangerous world, and when the general population is armed the world is substantially less dangerous because crime goes down when gun ownership goes up. Clearly that, at the very least, is the "need" to justify this "having".

Most importantly we really do need to get this. The second amendment was deliberately inserted in the Constitution for two reasons. One, to make sure you can defend yourself, your loved ones and your property, and two, to give the citizenry the ability defend the Constitution against a government gone wild and is based on English natural law as codified in the English Bill of Rights.

The English Bill of Rights became law after a politically difficult time (actually it was more religious than political…or if you will….the religious issues generated the political issues) in English history where the common people overthrew King James and forced he and his successors, William III and Mary II in to accepting the English Bill of Rights. This was done for three reasons. There was a fight over the authority or the King to govern without consent of Parliament and the King’s (who was Catholic) desire to disarm his Protestant subjects and maintain a “permanent standing army”, against the wishes of Parliament; clearly and attempt to keep them in line with no way to defend themselves.

It might be noted that this wasn’t a new right being demanded by Parliament from the ruling authorities. This was merely codify what was always considered a ‘the natural right’ of all Englishmen, and the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) agreed by saying this regarding the English Bill of Rights "clearly an individual right, having nothing whatsoever to do with service in the militia". Furthermore, this was not a “granting of a new right”, but codifying forevermore a right they held without permission of the King, nor did the King have the right to disarm them.

The Second Amendment says; 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.
So, who does everyone think this "well regulated militia" is made up of? The general population! The term “well regulated” merely defines the difference between legal and criminal behavior. Otherwise they would be a mob bent of murder, mayhem, destruction. When the Constitution was written a militia was not anything but the general population fighting as a civilian army, organized to their own likings and purposes. And they could go back to their regular lives and take their arms with them because they might be called upon to stand up to defend their community once again. And from where did this right originate? If this is a natural right then it didn’t originate with the King in England and it isn’t a “granting” to be given or to be taken away by the Government of the United States.
This e-mail went on to say;
  

“I Guess they were not happy with the poll results the first time, so USA today is running another one...Vote now...Attorney General Eric Holder, has already said this is one of his major issues. He does not believe the 2nd Amendment gives individuals the right to bear arms.

Whether a person is a gun person or a non-gun person it is impossible to avoid seeing the implications of this. The number one law enforcement agent in the nation is advocating overturning the second amendment based on his opinion. Even the Supreme Court agrees individuals have the right to own arms.

According to “Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who wrote the opinion for the court's dominant conservatives, said:

"It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty." However Justice Scalia says; “that there are limitations on the individual right to keep and bear arms, but the Supreme Court will have to decide what exactly those limitations are.” What are the implications of that?

“Scalia is saying is what every constitutional lawyer in the country knows: No constitutional right is absolute; there are burdens on each right that do not violate that right. It can give the wrong impression to refer to “limitations” on any right; it says that certain things are either beyond the definition of that right, or are a burden that the Constitution allows. For example, certain types of speech—such as perjury, fraud, impersonating a federal agent, and inciting people to engage in violence—are not protected by the First Amendment.”

Does anyone find it interesting that this has become an issue since the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty was rejected by Congress? Is this all about a movement by powerful forces in the world to impose a worldwide government under the auspices of the United Nations, The most incompetent and corrupt organization the world has ever known? Nah....can't be....everyone knows there is no such thing as a conspiracy!