The Message is Clear: Democrats Seek to Erode, if not Eliminate, the Rights of Americans

2009-05-25T11:35:00.008-04:00

In the 111th Congress, House of Representatives bill 45 (HR 45) has been introduced and at this writing is in the subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security. Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection, Representative Bobby L. Rush (D-IL) finds that it is more appropriate to erode the rights of all Americans than to provide prescriptive legislation to the judiciary. Instead of amending existing laws and establishing definitive guidelines for minimum sentencing, Congressman Rush finds it within the Congress’ authority to erode the second amendment rights of every American. This is but one way the Democrats are countering the Supreme Court interpretation of the second amendment to mean that the individual has the right to keep and bear arms.

In the 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court affirmed the citizenry’s right to keep and bear arms by striking down the gun ban that was imposed by the District of Columbia, a law which had stood for over 30-years until challenged by Dick Heller. The district court dismissed Heller’s complaint, but on appeal, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed the decision.

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia wrote, “We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country… But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that is it not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.” The Court’s decision agrees with what one of the founders wrote. Thomas Jefferson said, “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” HR 45 and any legislation which Congress or a state legislature seek to limit or abolish the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms is despotism. Jefferson clearly believed, as probably did most of the founders, that the people have not only the right, but also a solemn duty to protect themselves from the government if the government should become tyrannical. For what did we fight the revolutionary war if not to free ourselves from tyranny? In 1833, Joseph Story wrote in his Commentaries on the Constitution, “One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offence to keep arms, and by substituting a regular army in the stead of a resort to the militia.” So it could be said that Congress, state legislatures and local legislative bodies, could be taking the first steps towards tyranny by restricting lawful, rightful ownership of arms, for without arms, how does the citizenry protect themselves from the government?

I do not agree with all which was stated by Justice Scalia in the delivering the Court’s opinion, however, I do agree that dissenting Justices have grotesquely misinterpreted the second amendment. The Court has clearly identified that it is an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, and is clear on what is the meaning of both. Given the Court’s decision, it is unadulterated arrogance and insolence when legislative bodies seek to dismiss rights guaranteed the citizenry under constitutional provisions.

What the gentleman from Illinois, many other members of Congress, and state legislative bodies have overlooked is the power they and the president and governor wields in regulating the constitutionally legal, quasi-dictatorship that exists at all levels of government today, and that is our courts. In their courtrooms, judges wield extraordinary powers, and often their decisions and actions go unchecked. Congress, as well as our state and legislative bodies, can counter and check autocratic activities by our judges by ensuring clearly defined sentencing guidelines for violations of our laws. This will ensure the judge acts as a mediator ensuring that both plaintiff’s and defendant’s rights are upheld, and if a defendant if found guilty, the judge is provided with clear, concise guidelines on punishment that must be awarded for the violations. By doing this, the legislative bodies, governors and presidents will ensure those who abuse their rights under the second amendment are punished justly. When judges are allowed to thwart legislator’s efforts to ensure strict punishment for a crime, they overstep their authority yet their impeachment is rare. Many legislative bodies have adopted Three Strikes and You’re Out laws to address habitual criminal behavior, clearly directing the judiciary by providing sentencing guidelines for such criminals. The same can be done for those who commit crimes using arms.

Infringement of rights guaranteed by the constitution is unlawful, and our lawmakers who introduce or support such legislation conspire to deny American citizens of those rights. Legislators who lack the fortitude to deliver clear directives to the judiciary for appropriate sentencing of those who break the law do not deserve our trust, and they must be denied the continued or future privilege of representing We the people.

Will Morrison's Musings

The Message is Clear: Democrats Seek to Erode, if not Eliminate, the Rights of Americans