Judges, Guns Of War And Unalienable Rights
BY Herschel Smith
11 years, 5 months ago
“U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton last night dismissed a National Rifle Association (NRA)-backed lawsuit challenging the constitutionality on Second Amendment grounds of Washington, DC’s ban on the sale and possession of handguns,” the Violence Policy Center crowed back in 2004, before the historic Heller decision. “Judge Walton’s 68-page ruling in Seegars v. Ashcroft upholds the ban, which was adopted by the City Council in 1976.
“In his opinion, Judge Walton … wrote: ‘[T]he Court must conclude that the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to possess firearms. Rather, the Amendment’s objective is to ensure the vitality of state militias,’” the VPC release continued.
David has a discussion of the secret authority wielded by judge Walton that’s well worth the time. Another from Kurt Hofmann.
The problem with that argument is that the distinction between soldiers and “peace officers” (don’t hear that term much anymore, do you?) is rapidly disappearing. Can anyone look at the massive abuses perpetrated by “peace officers” in Boston in pursuit of the surviving alleged Marathon bomber, and dispute that “law enforcement” is becoming an occupying army?
To the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, that’s just fine, with executive director Josh Horwitz cautioning us to “not pile too much on the militarization of law enforcement,” because “they have a tough job.”
Besides, none of the forcible citizen disarmament advocates object to the police being armed with so-called “assault weapons” (although in that context, they might call them “patrol rifles,” or “personal defense weapons“), which we are told are “weapons of war, that belong on the battlefield, not on our streets,” and are thus not suitable for civilian ownership. Does that not make the police who are issued them soldiers?
Read Kurt’s setup for the situation and the argument for the following comments to make any sense.
Kurt is commenting on what we discussed in And Now They Trample The Third Amendment (which WRSA picked up and linked). Kurt makes an interesting point of logic. If the gun controllers and collectivists argue that AR-15s are weapons of war, then they cannot rationally and consistently object to the application of the third amendment to law enforcement – that is, for collectivists who want at least the pretext of being consistent and rational.
Bob Owens has a wonderful takedown of the argument that the founders didn’t imagine weapons of war in the hands of civilians, entitled ‘ … but the founders couldn’t have imagined more than muskets.” (I had asked Bob to give me the URL for this article several weeks ago and he couldn’t produce it, which means that I know more about what Bob is writing than he does, or something like that).
Bob’s piece is masterful and necessary reading. Using Kurt’s syllogism and Bob’s article, it means that there is no distinction (which also means that the Hughes amendment is obscene), and both that the police are guilty of a constitutional violation and we should have access to these “weapons of war” since the founders envisioned that we would.
Turning back to David, I don’t really find it surprising that this collectivist judge doesn’t believe in the second amendment, even though it is troubling. What I find most interesting is how he expressed his demurral: ” … the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to possess firearms.”
Dear readers, listen to me carefully and pay close attention. Might does not make right. If it did the Nazis were justified in killing Jews. The fact that you have guns and are willing to perish to keep them (like me) doesn’t mean that it’s your right to own them. Furthermore, the government – voters, rulers, policy, pieces of paper including even the constitution – does not confer rights. The government is not in a position of justifiably conferring anything on you.
Listen again, dear reader. If you believe that the constitution confers the right to own a gun, you will always be subject to the vicissitudes of constitutional interpretation and the latest hermeneutic fashions.
I rarely press my religious beliefs, but there is a time and occasion for it. This is one of those times. Your rights are conferred by your creator, and that’s why they are unalienable. The constitution merely recognizes and acknowledges those rights.
You have rights to your “weapons of war,” and so do I. And the police have no right to invade your castle. And we have a right to demand better of those who would adjudicate our laws than we have in judge Walton.
|
|
On July 9, 2013 at 11:55 pm, sailmailman said:
I’ve been going over in my mind, since reading about the Henderson NV unconstitutional/unlawful house invasion by “law enforcement” 3rd amendment article, what is the next logical step or option we as citizens have against a repressive, over zealous military type police invasion of our homes. If a criminal had broken down Anthony Mitchell’s front door he would have had every right to protect himself with deadly force. Are these officers any different. As difficult as it is to envision to myself, and I thing Law Enforcement is giving us no other way to protect our rights and our homes, somewhere sometime someone is going to be ready with double OO buck when Law Enforcement tries these tactics again and there will be blood. Because of my respect for the good officers that I know, it is inconceivable to me to even contemplate firing upon an officer, but these Henderson officers, if they are allowed to continue are opening themselves to that deadly response. Where is the sheriff and what will he have to say then?
On July 10, 2013 at 4:27 am, DAN III said:
From my personal experiences and from observing the experiences of others, it appears to me the biggest threat to Freedom & Liberty comes in this order:
1. Judges.
2. Those who enforce the rulings of judges.
Get rid of #1 and their power(s) and #2 will disappear. Liberty and Freedom will then flourish.
On July 10, 2013 at 8:13 am, bubba said:
While stationed overseas in the Army, forty years ago, I had a conversation one night with my new roommates. The older one was trying to understand why I would volunteer to serve and what brought about my decision to do so. To summarize my beliefs I told him the following:
Freemen understand one truth, if you have nothing worth dying for then you have nothing worth living for.
On July 10, 2013 at 8:17 am, Mark Matis said:
Better have more than 00 buck to deal with them when they show up in body armor. Unless, of course, you’re lucky enough to get off a bunch of head shots BEFORE they initiate their attack. “Aggressively displaying a weapon” is sufficient grounds for “Law Enforcement” to shoot you, and as far as I’m concerned what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. And if you can get them after they’ve pulled the pin for the flash bang BEFORE they breach your door, you may have time for additional head shots in their ensuing confusion.
On July 10, 2013 at 7:47 pm, Jim Harris said:
No, might does not make right — but unfortunately, it DOES make it relevant — which is why the 2nd Amendment is so important!
We need a constitutional amendment that, in some way or other, makes judges (from Supreme Court on down) the true political animals they pretend not to be — by making them subject to electoral validation every few years, just like the President of members of Congress.
Some will wail that this will politicize the judiciary. Problem is, they are already politicized; but at present, they are not accountable to the people.
That must change.
On July 10, 2013 at 7:53 pm, Jim Harris said:
I would add — one reason Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc., espouse the faith they do is a supreme confidence that God will win over the devil.
In the might over right arguments, consider a world where we thought that the devil might actually win!! Some of our Germano/Scandinavian and Celtic ancestors dealt with such world views; and in many shamanistic religions, people spend a lot of time trying to appease evil spirits. Our ancestors adopted Christ, not because He was meek and mild, etc., but because of His power! — He overcame death, like none other had done; and the Germanic barbarians wanted that working for them!!
I am pro-2A because I want to remain relevant!
On July 10, 2013 at 10:49 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Be careful Jim. Who happens to be mighty for a season – this particular season or next season – will change with the wind (or actually, the decree of God).
Your rights are based on the immutable will of God. There is no other sure foundation.
On July 11, 2013 at 10:22 am, James Harris said:
Herschel: No argument that rights come from God, from my perspective anyway.
But ocassionally, due to the wickedness of man, the devil may appear to prevail for a season — in all his forms (Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stallin, Papa/Baby Doc Duvalli…?(sp – Du-val-yea), Attilla, etc.).
Might in the wrong hands can and does make right seem irrelevant.
I want the might on my side to under-write my rights. That includes a militarily powerful U.S.; it includes police forces that can overpower criminals; — but, it also includes my right, and the right of people generally, to resist all of the above forces and to resist oppressive government.
A hard balance to achieve for sure; but the @A is a key component of all that.
On July 11, 2013 at 5:27 pm, Draco Lavinia said:
Hey Mark Matis… you can be low, behind cover and hit then in the legs and hips. Hard to sustain an assault with no legs…..
Just sayin…
On July 11, 2013 at 5:39 pm, Draco Lavinia said:
Jim Harris:
Judges only occupy the bench in good behavior. Unfortunately the politicians have forsaken their jobs to police the bench. At this juncture I would respond with Lincoln:
“We must prevent these things being done, by either congresses or courts — The people — the people — are the rightful masters of both Congresses, and courts — not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it —”
Abraham Lincoln 1859 on his presidential campaign.
Interesting here Lincoln was speaking about the Congress and the Courts attempt to subvert the Constitution and prohibit slavery in the states that the Constitution permitted slavery in. He also stated that the Constitution prevented slavery from spreading in new states expressing exact Constitutional language. If South Carolina were not to have fired on a Federal Enclave-Fort Sumter-the Civil War would have been nothing more two countries agreeing to disagree. Regardless, judges making up the law as they go is the same damnable practice the Jesus complained of… 2000 years and human nature has no improved a darned bit.
Interesting reading…enjoy
http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/connections/abraham-lincoln-papers/history3.html