Tag Archives: Second Amendment

legal news, national news, political news

Are all rights absolute?

barack

Barack Obama made a number of interesting points today as he laid out his strategy to use his executive authority to reduce gun violence.

One of them dealt with the First Amendment and whether we should treat it as an absolute right. Yes, the president said, we have the right of free speech, but we cannot yell “fire!” in a crowded theater.

We also have the right to religious freedom, but the law prohibits human sacrifice.

The Second Amendment is seen by many in this country as being an absolute right. The men who wrote the constitutional amendment meant that all Americans had the right to “keep and bear arms.”

Sure thing. I, too, have read the amendment and I get it.

I keep asking, though: Aren’t there measures that we can take that regulate the sale of these weapons while protecting the integrity of the Second Amendment? Gun-owner-rights groups — namely the National Rifle Association — keep insisting that the two principles are mutually exclusive. You can’t regulate firearms in any manner without watering down the Second Amendment, they say.

I guess I’ll just have to disagree with such a notion.

President Obama isn’t seeking to “legislate” through executive order, as his critics suggest he’s seeking to do. He has a team of constitutional lawyers who are advising him on what he can do legally. He wants to make it tougher for criminals or mentally disturbed individuals to put their hands on firearms and said today he has no intention of stripping law-abiding Americans of their constitutional right to own a gun.

Doesn’t that goal protect the amendment while trying to make the nation safer from bad guys with guns?

 

national news, political news

Law-abiding gun owners can relax; your guns are safe

gun over american flag

I’m trying to wrap my mind around this notion.

The Second Amendment guarantees the right of Americans to “keep and bear arms.” It doesn’t say so explicitly, but my strong hunch is that the men who wrote that amendment intended for it to apply to law-abiding Americans.

Now we hear the president of the United States suggesting that we need to tighten laws in an effort to ensure greater gun safety.

He said clearly and unequivocally: We aren’t going to confiscate the guns of law-abiding citizens who have guns for the right reasons . . . to hunt or to shoot at targets.

The target — if you’ll pardon the intentional pun — are the criminals who are able to purchase guns through loopholes in current state and federal law.

Thus, President Obama has acted.

Measures outlined.

I’m certain I heard him say he believes in the Second Amendment. He noted that it’s written “on paper.” It’s on the record. His support of the amendment will stand forever.

He noted quite correctly that we register our cars. Why can’t we register our guns? he asked. If the law-abiding folks want to own guns, they are able to do so. No problem. No issue here.

Obama said he wants those who sell guns to go through extended background checks. He wants to hire more agents for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. He wants Congress to authorize more money for mental health care.

Does any of that suggest that the president is going to dispatch storm troopers across the land to take away the guns of those who own them, who use them properly, who want to defend themselves against those who would do them harm?

I do not believe that will happen.

Ever.

 

national news, political news

Executive action on guns draws expected fire

1 Comment

gun over american flag

President Obama is considering some executive action he hopes will require gun dealers to go through increased background checks.

Does it mean that “law-abiding Americans” will be denied their right to “keep and bear arms” as provided by the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

Obama says “no.” Republican presidential candidates say “yes.”

Who do you believe? I guess that depends on your political party, your philosophical persuasion, your own bias.

Me? I’m willing to let the president give it a try.

I am going to take the usual — and expected — criticism from readers of this blog who believe as GOP contender Chris Christie said that Obama is acting like a “dictator.”

I disagree with that characterization. The president has a team of constitutional lawyers surrounding him who’ll likely advise him that he’s acting totally within the law in issuing the orders to require the checks.

Congress won’t do it. Heck, Congress wouldn’t even approve legislation that would have restricted people placed on no-fly lists from owning firearms. Does the president expect Congress to follow his lead on his effort to curb gun violence? Not a chance.

So he’ll do what he needs to do on his own.

Do I feel threatened? Are the feds going to knock on my door and take my guns away from me? No and no.

However, the president’s apparent move toward executive action has prompted the apoplectic response from the GOP presidential field.

But what the heck. That’s politics.

 

national news

So, just who really needs an assault rifle?

2 Comments

Some of the weapons collected in Wednesday's Los Angeles Gun Buyback event are showcased Thursday, Dec. 27, 2012 during a news conference at the LAPD headquarters in Los Angeles. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's office says the weapons collected Wednesday included 901 handguns, 698 rifles, 363 shotguns and 75 assault weapons. The buyback is usually held in May but was moved up in response to the Dec. 14 massacre of students and teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)

Let’s talk about guns for a moment or two.

A Rhode Island congressman, Democrat David Cicilline, has pitched the Assault Weapons Ban of 2015 to his colleagues in the House of Representatives.

The ban has drawn the support of a number of Democrats. However, Republicans control Capitol Hill, which likely means the assault weapon ban won’t see the light of day.

Cicilline issued a statement: “Assault weapons are designed for the sole purpose of killing as many people as quickly as possible,” he told The Hill newspaper. “We need to do everything we can to reduce the toll of gun violence by keeping these weapons out of our communities.”

Here’s what I believe will happen to the bill, although I likely am wrong about some of the nitty-gritty details of the debate.

They’re going to tell us that the Second Amendment says categorically that the right to “keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” They’ll look past the first part of the amendment that talks about a “well-regulated Militia.” I’m not going to argue the point here, given that I believe the amendment was written poorly in the first place; it seems to contain a non sequitur … but that perhaps is just me.

The congressman’s bill would allow those who currently possess an assault weapon to keep it, but it could become difficult for someone to sell it.

So, does this proposed legislation water down the Second Amendment to an unacceptable level? I do not believe it does.

Then again, I’m not in Congress and I don’t have to listen to the wishes of constituents who think otherwise. In fact, an ABC News poll says Americans now oppose a ban on assault weapons, believing that authorities are unable to stop “lone wolf” attacks by someone toting an assault weapon.

Despite my concern about the verbiage contained in the Second Amendment, I accept the notion that gun ownership is a protected right. I own a couple of weapons. They’re hidden.

The notion I cannot accept is that assault weapons are part of the package envisioned by the Founders who wrote the Second Amendment — in the late 18th century.

Nice try, Rep. Cicilline.

national news

Merry Christmas … and lock ‘n load!

dvydb58athsqyakzf2g8

You may believe this if you wish, or you may disbelieve it. Doesn’t matter much to me.

But, optics matter.

I saw this picture of a Nevada state legislator who had her picture taken with her family … all of whom are armed to the teeth with guns.

Assemblywoman Michele Fiore, a Republican, thought it would be nice to show her support for the Second Amendment by putting this image on Christmas cards.

Honest to goodness, I really don’t have much to add to this, except to invite you to look at the picture and decide whether you believe this is in keeping with the Christmas spirit.

Would Jesus be packing? If they had these kinds of weapons 2,000-plus years ago, my strong hunch is that the Lord himself — the Prince of Peace — wouldn’t be seen with a gun.

But, you know, I’m just speculating.

As a friend of mine back in Beaumont was fond of saying: “My three-word answer is … W. O. W.”

 

national news, political news

More guns means less mayhem?

guns

The processing of the latest gun-violence massacre is continuing across the nation — perhaps even the world.

Nine people were gunned down in Roseburg, Ore., this past week and we’ve heard the mantra from gun-owner-rights advocates: If only we could eliminate these “gun free zones” and allow more guns out there …

The idea being promoted — and I haven’t yet heard from the National Rifle Association on this — is that more guns in places such as Umpqua Community College, where the Roseburg massacre occurred, could have stopped the madman.

NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre said infamously after the Newtown, Conn., bloodbath that killed 20 first graders and six teachers, that the “only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.”

I’m not in favor of disarming American citizens. I believe in the Constitution and the Second Amendment, although for the life of me I still have trouble deciphering its literal meaning: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The question has been posed: When did “well-regulated Militia” get translated to meaning the general population? Still, the courts have ruled time and again that the Constitution guarantees firearm ownership to all citizens. I’m OK with that.

But I am not OK with the idea that more guns means less violence, less mayhem, less bloodshed, fewer deaths and injuries.

Surely there can be a way to tighten regulations gun ownership in a manner that does not water down the Second Amendment, one of the nation’s Bill of Rights.

If only our elected representatives could muster the courage to face down the powerful political interests that simply will won’t allow it.

 

national news, political news

Terror vs. gun deaths

terrorism12115

Here’s an interesting statistic that today drew some attention on one of the many Sunday morning TV news/talk shows.

In the past decade, 153,144 people have died in this country from gun violence; 3,046 individuals have died at the hands of terrorists during that same period.

This came from Chuck Todd, moderator of “Meet the Press,” citing the stats provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

He asked Rich Lowry, editor of the National Review, about whether the country needs to do as much to combat gun violence as it has done to battle terrorism.

Lowry gave a reasonable and intelligent answer, which was that government’s fundamental role is to protect citizens against foreign enemies; he added that any gun-related action “on the margins” won’t do anything and that more comprehensive action runs the risk of infringing on the Constitution’s Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms.”

Meet the Press tackles gun violence

The discussion was fascinating.

Still, I’m a bit baffled by the fact that with such a huge disparity between gun-violence deaths and terror-related deaths, we still have been unable — or unwilling — to deploy government’s machinery to impose additional restrictions on gun ownership that does not infringe on citizens’ right to own a firearm.

After all, the government created a whole new Cabinet-level agency — the Department of Homeland Security — immediately after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Still, madmen take guns into public places and massacre thousands more innocent victims … and we do nothing?

 

national news

What harm do background checks bring?

3 Comments

gun-control

I am a law-abiding, taxpaying, loyal American patriot, who once wore my country’s uniform and went to war to protect it.

I also own a couple of rifles. They’re hidden away. I don’t take them out very often.

But as the nation today ponders the impact of the latest mass shooting by a maniac, this time at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Ore., I am compelled to ponder: What would happen if I went to a gun store to purchase a firearm and was forced to wait a few days while the government performed a background check?

President Obama has called yet again for more stringent laws that might help prevent future maniacs from getting their hands on a gun.

Gun-rights groups — chiefly the National Rifle Association — will argue against any such action, contending it would violate the Second Amendment guarantee that Americans have the right to “keep and bear arms.”

Suppose we had mandatory background checks.

I’d go into the gun store. I’d select my weapon of choice. I would pay for the firearm. But I couldn’t take it home. Why? The business owner would submit my name to, say, the FBI or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for that mandatory federal background check.

I would wait a number of days. Let’s say it’s a week.

The check comes back. I’m clean. I can then pick up my firearm, take it home … and perhaps store it along with the two rifles I already own.

Have my Second Amendment rights been “infringed”? Have I been denied the right to “keep and bear arms”? Is the government going to disarm me?

No to all three things.

Why on God’s Earth can’t we enact a law that might prevent someone else from committing the kind of dastardly act that took place today in Roseburg?

 

national news

Here we go again … more gun violence

Guns-In-America

The list of cities and towns that have become synonymous with gun violence keeps growing.

Littleton, Austin, Blacksburg, Tucson, Newtown, Charleston, Aurora, Killeen. I know I’ve missed a few.

Let’s add Roseburg to that infamous list. A gunman today opened fire at Umpqua Community College in southern Oregon. Ten people were killed.

The gunman died in a fire fight with police.

Gun violence erupts again

This one hurts. It happened in my home state.

I’ll tell you just a bit about Roseburg. It’s a conservative community. Douglas County derives much of its income from logging. It’s a pretty part of the state, rather peaceful … really! Many residents there like to hunt deer and elk.

But here’s the latest version of the same question many of us keep asking when these spasms of violence erupt: Isn’t there a way to impose reasonable regulations that can keep guns out of the hands of maniacs while protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens?

I know what the Second Amendment says. It ends with the phrase ” … the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

I endorse that principle. Honestly.

However, I keep coming back to the idea that stricter regulations — such as background checks on every person who purchases a firearm — can protect citizens’ right to “keep and bear arms” while denying permission to others who might pose a threat to society.

Gun-rights group and their powerful allies in Washington believe we have enough regulations on the books already. Bad guys will get guns no matter what, they contend.

If that’s the case, that no additional regulation is going to stop forever the kind of senseless carnage that erupted today in Roseburg, then are we going to just continue with the status quo and do nothing to tighten the rules that could prevent someone in the future from doing what that maniac did today?

The status quo is not working.

 

national news

Confiscate guns? Not going to happen

gunviolence

The conversation has begun.

The shooting deaths this week of two TV journalists in Roanoke, Va., has prompted the call for greater gun regulation in America.

I do not oppose that idea.

But some folks are now looking Down Under, at Australia, where officials years ago confiscated guns throughout the country. The result was a plummeting of violent crimes committed by people using firearms.

OK, will that happen here? Are the feds going into every home in America and start taking guns away from Americans? Not in a gazillion years.

The Constitution says gun ownership shall not be abridged. There will be no amendment to the Constitution that repeals the Second Amendment. Period. End of that discussion.

However, I am not going to accept the argument that stricter laws that keep guns out of the hands of the people who should have them are somehow violating the rights of “law-abiding citizens” to “keep and bear arms.”

Alison Parker and Adam Ward died at the hands of someone who purchased a gun legally in Virginia. He put down his money and walked out with a firearm that he then used to cause untold grief to two people’s families.

I am not certain how a background check on this guy would have detected some mental or emotional distress that could have kept him from owning that firearm. It’s not altogether fitting to look at just one crime and then say, “Well, all we have to do is just enforce existing laws.”

But if we step back and examine all the incidents of gun violence and the backgrounds of all the individuals who have committed these crimes, then it’s fair to ask whether there is some mechanism that could be used to detect the potential for violence if they decide to purchase a firearm.

I don’t want my two rifles taken from me. They’re heirlooms. I’ve had ’em since I was a boy. My dad gave me a .22 when I was about 11; he then gave me a 30.06 — that he had owned for many years previously — when I was in my late teens. They rarely come out of the place where I store them.

A nationwide confiscation isn’t going to happen.

But why can’t we consider some measures that (a) honor the Second Amendment and (b) make it harder for fruitcakes to get their hands on deadly weapons?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/australia-confiscated-650000-guns-murders-and-suicides-plummeted/ar-BBm9eak