Basics of the Second Amendment
Geoff Metcalf
Monday, Jan. 27, 2003
What has become known as "The Emerson Case" has been
largely overrated and articulated by the left and the right. Defenders
of the Second Amendment and radical left-wing gun grabbers have attributed
too much to the single case and less to the essence of the core issue
and facts.
Last June the U.S. Supreme Court ( http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2003/jan/24/012406253.html
) declined to hear arguments that Emerson should have been allowed
to keep his guns under the Second Amendment right to "keep
and bear arms."
Emerson was indicted after a restraining order was issued during
his divorce in 1998. He owned several rifles and a handgun at the
time. He "should" have fought the restraining order.
Emerson had become a nexus because his case and a similar one the
Supreme Court also rejected, the Bush administration told the Supreme
Court that the Second Amendment protects an individual as well as
the collective right to gun ownership. THAT was and is a big deal.
That position reversed government policy on the Second Amendment.
However, the administration did not support Emerson's appeal. It
said the Second Amendment right was still subject to "reasonable"
restrictions.
Who gets to define "reasonable"? What part of inalienable,
shall not be infringed, suggests ANY restrictions?
Emerson's attorney has argued his client shouldn't be punished
for owning guns that were legal once his divorce was completed.
Sounds reasonable & but reason and the law are often mutually exclusive
concepts.
In the wake of a growing litany of mutually exclusive items (from
the denunciation of Bellesile's revisionist history to the
latest "study" contradicting Dr. John Lotts More
Guns Less Crime, it seems appropriate to once again reiterate some
facts too often ignored or manipulated.
These are axioms:
1. The Second Amendment doesnt GIVE us a bloody thing.
It merely acknowledges a GOD-GIVEN inalienable right to keep and
bear arms. In fact the entire Bill of Rights is NOT a list of federal
gifts but rather recognition of freedoms. No one GAVE us these freedoms
and NO ONE can take them away. Government can (by force and abuse
of power) restrict or deny freedoms. But that doesnt make it right.
2. The Framers wrote the Second Amendment not to guarantee my
right to hunt birds or competition shooters to perforate paper.
The Second Amendment was written, and specifically intended, to
guarantee that citizens always have access to firearms. Why? So
that if or when it were ever to become necessary to rise up and
overthrow an abusive and unresponsive government citizens would
have the tools to do so. THATS A FACT.
3. Notwithstanding revisionists' attempts to the contrary, two
facts remain:
a. Communities in which gun ownership
is less controlled by government realize less crime.
b. Communities in which government impedes
gun ownership realize increased violent crime.
I have been accused of being paranoid about efforts to destroy
the Second Amendment. Paranoia is defined as delusions of persecution.
EXCUSE ME! The persecution is not delusional. It is very real, palpable,
and documented.
The founder of Handgun Control, Pete Shields, was quoted
in the New Yorker Magazine, June 26, 1976, pg. 53.
'One Step at a Time'
"We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily
- given the political realities - very modest. We'll have to start
working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen
the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control
of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow
down production and sales. Next is to get registration. The final
problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with
a few exceptions) totally illegal."
That describes an agenda of incrementalism that has not only been
articulated but also legislated.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein told "60 Minutes" the week
after the passage of Brady Bill, "if I thought I could get
the votes I'd have taken them all." Nothing delusional about
that.
Charles Krauthammer hit the nail on the head (April 5, l996
Washington Post) when he wrote, "The Brady Bill's only effect
will be to desensitize the public to regulation of weapons in preparation
for their ultimate confiscation. Ultimate confiscation is the
goal and objective.
The renewed efforts to continue the incrementalism of Shields,
Feinstein, Schumer, Clinton et al. is frankly counterintuitive.
We need more armed and trained American gun owners, not less.
The Japanese in World War II were fearful of invading a country
of armed cowboys. The Soviets eschewed invasion plans because
of ubiquitous American gun ownership. If we are at war with terrorism,
dont disarm America. Arm us, train us and let the bad guys come.
