Comments on: Second Amendment

By: Chris Morgan

Chris Morgan — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 04:05:38 +0000

In order to understand the Constitution and even the 2nd Amendment for that matter, we must understand were the founding fathers were coming from. The Framers of our Constitution got our Bill of Rights from the Bible, based uon what is known as Natural Law.(lex naturalis)
Natural Law is set by nature and therefore has validity everywhere. These inalienable rights are given by God, not government! This had a major impact in the developement of English Common Law, The Declaration of Independance as well as our Constitution.
What we must take care to remember is this: Our rights are guaranted by God! Because we are human beings, made in Gods image. The Constituiton does not ‘give’ us any rights, rather, they guarantee a minumum set of rights that may not be taken from us by the state or federal government.
Furthermore, Militia’s have nothing to do with a standing and professional military. Alex Bogaski, pretty much sums it up well and no need for me to repeat this.
On the 2nd Amendment, particularly the Brady Bill, the state can choose to ignore the so called Brady Bill based upon the law suits that were brought forth by several Sheriffs in Western States. ( Mack v U.S., 856, F.supp. 1372 (D.Ariz 1994)
The Supreme Court in a nut shell stated ” Sheriffs do not have to enforce the Brady Bill. Furthermore, (My oppinion) any Sheriff that does enforce the Brady Bill, is guilty of Malfeasance in Public Office. [This is based on the West Virginia State Supreme Court ruling, that the U.S. Supreme Court uses as it's litmus test for this. West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Daugherty v Ellis, 142 W.Va. 340, 3578,97,S.E. 2d33 42-3 (W.Va. 1956)]
What people do not realize is this: failure to support the Constituiton as a politician is treason! Any District Attorney, State Attorney General or Sheriff, who does not enforce this is just as guilty! The Sheriff is the Law of the Land, in his county! The federal government has no jurisdiction in the State, because of the states sovereignty, they must ask the Sheriff for permission to do anything in his jurisdiction. You must have a strong leader as your Sheriff.

I am curently in college at Clarion University, in Clarion, Pa.( Senior) I also ran for Sheriff in my county as a Libertarian. Lot’s of politicians talk about the Constitution but very few know the real meaning. If I was voter eligable in Oklahoma, you would have my vote. Just remember the true meaning and intent of the Constitution, both the National and State constitutions. Good Luck and God Bless.
Chris Morgan

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:23:11 +0000

“Hunting, sport shooting, collecting guns, and defending our homes…”

…are all nice perks, but they all miss the *real* purpose of the Second Amendment. You might review the majority opinion in Parker v. District of Columbia, as well as Chief Justice (9th Circuit) Alex Kozinski’s dissent from the court’s denial of en banc rehearing in Silveira v. Lockyer.

If you want my vote, show me that you know what the Constitution *really* means.

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 21 May 2010 16:50:36 +0000

What are your feelings on NFA weapons? IE – silencers, machine guns, and destructive devices?

By: Will

Will — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 14:22:48 +0000

I’d like to point out to you that not all liberals believe in restricting gun rights. To paint all members of a group with such a broad brush is thoroughly disingenuous. That would be as absurd as me saying that all conservatives are racist. Certainly some are and certainly some liberals want to restrict gun rights. However, there are a great many of us who believe in ALL the amendments in the Bill of Rights. Not just the first or just the second.

I would ask you to please make an attempt to go beyond the sound bites and talking points and actually explain your position rather than just trying to demonize your opposition.

I notice that I am not the only one who has pointed out this ad hominem attack and yet you have failed to address those concerns for nearly a month. I can’t help but wonder if you would be similarly unresponsive in Congress.

By: CDT Alex Bogaski

CDT Alex Bogaski — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 05:30:54 +0000

If I remember right, the definition of the militia is every able-bodied man between the age of 17 and 40. Just because the state’s do not maintain a well drilled militia for the most part does not make the militia go away. The militia IS the people, and therefore the people have a right to own weapons.

Furthermore, I disagree that there is no need for a militia. State militias could be very helpful in a variety of ways. They could help in fighting illegal immigration and drug smuggling. Militia troops could be trained to serve in times of crisis, such as a natural disaster or a terorrist attack. They could also be valuable in playing a support role for the Army and Air National Guards of the several states.

Above all, the maintaining of an active militia exercises the sovreignty of the states, and reminds the federal government that the states have rights given to them by the Constitution. This is a fact that Washington seems to forget quite often.

Respectfully,

CDT Alex Bogaski, USAR

By: Brian Altenhofel

Brian Altenhofel — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 20:20:03 +0000

I agree with the later post by Mr. Schmidt that it is not a good thing to just throw out a bumper sticker slogan. A common misconception is that liberals just want to exert their preferences onto everyone else without regard to the Constitution. That argument can also go the other way, historically speaking.

The Bill of Rights is not an enumeration of Rights granted by the federal government, but rather a non-comprehensive list of Rights protected by the federal government at the federal level. What the Second Amendment says is that at the federal level the Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This means that laws such as Brady and the GCA’s of ’34, ’68, and ’86 are unconstitutional, while laws that restrict firearms at the state and local levels are not under the Tenth Amendment. (Remember the Second hasn’t been “incorporated” under the Fourteenth, yet. But the incorporation doctrine under the Fourteenth only serves as a means to grow and centralize the federal government, but that’s another argument.)

While I am admittedly not in your District, out of the candidates that have filed you are one of the two that I support. And I must say that part of that support stems from the impact you made on my life while at Falls Creek. I truly hope that the real you that shows from a Congressional term is the same you that we all know.

By: Steve Schmidt

Steve Schmidt — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:25:38 +0000

Hey all,
I hear what you’re saying. And I am not against owning firearms. I own 4 myself. I was saying that stating “conservatives stand with the constitution while liberals stand with their preferences” was overly simplistic and biased. It’s one thing to have honest disagreements about how to interpret the constitution; it’s quite another to just throw out bumper-sticker slogans that inaccurately divide people in an attempt to score brownie points with a base constituency.

By: will williamson

will williamson — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 16:13:33 +0000

The Second Amendment is truly a statement of one of our individual, inalienable rights–the right of self-preservation, whether from an individual or a government. Our Founders debated it and passed it with the conclusion that the wording of it, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, was that what was protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.

By: cbalthrop

cbalthrop — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 13:35:24 +0000

I agree, James. It’s not misleading to say the Constitution protects an individuals right for gun ownership.

In the First Amendment we see a list of protected rights that are related, but separate. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The establishment of religion and the freedom of speech are related topically, but separate in significance and application. The spirit of our day seems to want to limit freedom of speech as it relates to the practice of religion by individuals within our government. These are rights established within the same amendment but have different applications.

In the same way the Second Amendment creates a similar list of related, but separate rights. It lists a well regulated militia as a right of the State. And then follows with a related, but separate right, the right of individuals to own and use firearms.

With a full-time professional standing military the need for a state run militia may no longer exist but that neither negates the rights of a State to establish a militia nor negates an individuals right to own and use firearms.

Media outlets in our country are well established and very successful. They report on whichever stories they find significant and they do so unhindered under the protection of the First Amendment. Does the existence of a professional standing Press Corp. eliminate the right of an individual to practice freedom of speech? Certainly not.

Conservatives aren’t ignoring the first clause of the Second Amendment, rather we recognize that the entire amendment is significant. Regardless of how one feels about guns, the people who own them or the affect a professional standing military has on the necessity of individuals to bear arms it would require a new amendment to change the current right itself. We can’t simply legislate away or ignore the freedoms expressly guaranteed by the Bill of Rights because we don’t like or don’t find necessary anymore one of the phrases contained within.

The Second Amendment isn’t a statement of what’s needed. Like the rest of the Bill of Rights, it’s a statement of individual and state rights.

By: jlankford

jlankford — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 04:54:29 +0000

Your statement is a common arguement to limit gun ownership. But, I do not agree. The problem is determining if the Constitution provides only for the military or if it provides for citizens to protect themselves in danger. Here is my thought, it is impossible to have a prepared militia if individuals do not have weapons ready. I cannot understand how private citizens owning a gun violates the Constitution. It seems obvious that the intent of the document was to restrict the government from limiting gun ownership not to restrict individuals.