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 Lott’s “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 doesn’t 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 doesn’t 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. THAT’S 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,
don’t disarm America. Arm us, train us and let the bad guys come.
