Another Amendment Bites The Dust

In highlighting this article by Judge Andrew Napolitano, I am not condoning robbery, but I also do not condone overly zealous prosecutions, nor twisting the words of the Constitution to permit such unscrupulous prosecutions. As Napolitano also notes though, many people who should not be prohibited persons for guns, in fact are.  Napolitano writes:

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that no person shall "for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." This is commonly referred to as the double jeopardy clause. Like the other initial eight amendments in the Bill of Rights, the Fifth Amendment was written largely in response to government excesses and abuses during the colonial period. In the case of this clause, it was expressly written to prevent repeated attempts to convict.

...snip...

Compare that clear liberty-loving language with the Court's tortured idea of the textual differences between offenses and crimes, and one can see that judicial intellectual chicanery can always find a means to an end. The Supreme Court should be in the business of protecting our rights, not upending them.

The benefit of any historical doubt or textual ambiguity should always favor liberty over power, because liberty is inalienable and integral to our humanity and essential for our happiness. Power is whatever the government wants it to be.

Go read the entire article which is located at Townhall.com today. Napolitano is correct that Americans should not be subject to prosecution for the same crime twice. This is known as double jeopardy, and the 5th Amendment is pretty clear on this subject.  Once again, the Supreme Court sides with the tyrants rather than the people.  Of course, this ruling is null and void because it offends the Constitution, but unfortunately, the effect is to put real people in double jeopard.

Neither Judge's Decisions, Nor Legislative Decrees are the Law of the Land Unless They Agree with the Constitution

An interesting argument was made by columnist Deroy Murdock at Gunblog.Online entitled Does the Government Have a Subrogatable Right to Regulate Us? The argument, which Murdock answers in the negative, is general, but his example deals with gun rights.

  The general misconception is that any statue passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for a law which violates the Constitution to be valid. This is succinctly stated as follows: "All law which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Mardbury vs. Madison, 5 us (2 cranch) 137, 174, 176 (1803) "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491. “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” These simple words set a clear standard on the governments inability to infringe on our right to own firearms.

  The right existed prior to the formation of the government and was in no way granted to the people by the government. As such, the Second Amendment is a restriction on the government and is not in any form a privilege granted to the people. The Supreme Court ruled in Mardbury vs Madison that “No provision of the Constitution is designed to be without effect,” “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law." As such, any control or restriction placed over a particular firearm is an Infringement on the people. Anything that prevents citizens from purchasing a firearm or requires them to turn in their weapons goes directly against the Second Amendment. Further, current laws involving a permit or license to purchase, possess or carry are unconstitutional. This was made clear by Murdock vs. Pennsylvania: "A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution…No state may convert any secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it.” The Second Amendment is very much a secured liberty.

Mr. Murdock makes a powerful argument, and, one suspects, if he were writing in the 19th century, he would find much agreement in any court in the land, including the Supreme Court. That was then, this is now. The Constitutional ignorance which reins among the population as a whole permits the government to get away with such Unconstitutional acts.  And that ignorance is deliberate.  Leftists have taken positions in the academy that allows them to influence the teaching of American history and our Constitutional rights.  If we want to reclaim our rights, we must take the time to learn the true nature of our Constitution, and teach it to our children.

As a start, go read the linked article.

Guns For All!

A week ago I heard that Joe Biden, current DemocRat front runner had made the claim that since abortion was a constitutionally protected "right," that taxpayers were obligated to pay for it!

Wait...What?

Well then, does that mean that the actual constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms is also supposed to be paid for by the Federal government?  I don't remember hearing about such a program.

Hmmm...

Today over at the blog Of Arms and the Law Deroy Murdock has written a piece proposing exactly that entitled If Taxpayer Dollars for Abortion Are A Right, Give Us Guns For All!

Hehe...Go read the article at the link. Just as Jonathon Swift before him made a modest proposal, so Deroy Murdock now makes another. And just as Swift's proposal wasn't to be taken seriously, so Murdock's real point is this:

It’s only fair: If Democrats want to kill the Hyde Amendment and stick pro-life taxpayers with the tab for the constitutionally protected abortions that the Left loves so much, then Republicans should enact Guns for All and force pro-gun-control taxpayers to underwrite the constitutionally protected firearms that the Right loves so much.

On second thought, let’s try this:

Democrats should keep their sticky fingers off of the Hyde Amendment, and Republicans should ignore Guns for All as an idea whose time has not come. Instead, this simple concept should enjoy bipartisan support: If you want an abortion or a gun, pay for it yourself.

The Unintended Consequences of Locking Up Your Gun

John R. Lott, Jr. takes Texas to task for giving in to anti gun groups who insist we should keep our guns locked up in a post at Townhall.com entitled Mandating Gun Locks Can Have Unintended Consequences. Lott claims that the people killed because they were unable to get to their self defense weapon in time, dwarf the number of people killed by children stealing their parents' guns.

The media just can’t help itself playing this public safety campaign spending as a defeat of those who support gun ownership. But the media completely ignores another bill that really will project school children, a bill that expands Texas’ program to let teachers carry guns at school.

Please go read the entire article. I would note that in the North Carolina State Legislature, Rep. Larry Pittman has introduced a bill that would allow armed teachers in schools, H216.  If you are in NC, it might behoove you to support this bill. 

What the Gun Grabbers Don't Get

John Lott tells us yesterday over at Townhall.com What Gun Control Advocates Fail to Grasp After Mass Shootings. It is of course as obvious as the nose on your face, if you are a normal person. But, of course they are not. So what is it?

These killers face no real penalty for violating gun laws. Shooters die in three-quarters of attacks. Even when they don’t, the threat of losing their job or facing a few year prison term means nothing to someone who is already facing multiple murder counts.

Gun control advocates don’t seem to grasp this important point. Attackers don’t follow gun laws. But the penalties for illegally carrying a gun are very serious for law-abiding people.

Exactly so.  Murder is already illegal.  Yet some people find a need to murder their fellow man.  Are they likely to be deterred by a law that says they can not have a gun?  I don't think so.

Rather than trying to control guns, we should get rid of gun free zones, which have proven to be nothing more than target rich environments for those with intent to kill.  Our children are not safe in such a place, and neither are we.

Of course, you should read the entire article.  Dr. Lott has done extensive studies of the effects of gun laws on actual crime.  His book More Guns Less Crime should be on every patriot's book shelf. The gun grabbers can't refute it, so they just ignore it.

Do the People Work For Government, or Does Government Work For the People?

Today's post comes from Ammoland.com where we find an excellent explanation, not only of the original reasons for the Second Amendment, but also its relevance to the average American today. The article is entitled Second Amendment Makes Clear: Americans Are Not Subservient to Government-Part Two by Roger Kate. As this is only Part 2, I urge readers if they have time to read Part 1 and Part 3. All are excellent and the arguments made in these articles should be in every patriot's ammo bag.

I will not quote the entire article, since I am a poor scribe, and Kate himself is a far better wordsmith. However, to give the reader a taste of what you will encounter, allow me to quote:

Thus, Collectivists relentlessly attack the notion of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. They are adamant in their refusal to accept the idea that the right of the people to keep and bear arms exists– or is even capable of existing–independent of Government authorization.

But, there is reason why Collectivists refuse to countenance the notion of the right of the people to keep and bear arms as fundamental, natural, and immutable, quite apart from their rejection of natural law. To the Collectivist, an armed citizenry is an inherent danger to Society. As the Collectivist theorizes, a safe and secure society is one under absolute Governmental control, one under constant supervision and surveillance. So Collectivists remonstrate not only against the existence of an armed citizenry but against the right of unconstrained freedom of speech and freedom of association. And, they attack the basic idea that the American citizen has an unalienable right to be secure in their person and possessions from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Collectivists place their sole faith and trust in Government, not in the citizenry. They presume that the citizen cannot be trusted. Contrariwise, the founders placed trust in and their faith in the individual, a sentient being endowed with an immortal soul, by a Divine, Loving Creator. For the founders, it is, then, Government that should not, and cannot be trusted. Thus, the founders designed and implemented a Constitution establishing a Government of limited power, authority, and reach; incorporating into the Constitution, a Bill of Rights, setting forth an expansive set of fundamental, natural, and immutable rights and liberties to be retained solely by the people, in the people themselves, beyond the power of Government to diminish or abrogate.

If you also get to part 3, you will also encounter this:

But, it is tyranny that Cuomo and Swalwell want, and it is tyranny upon the American people that the American people will most certainly get, if Cuomo and Swalwell, and others like them, prove successful in foisting on the American people, a vision of the world at odds with the vision of the founders and one the founders sought to cement through the creation of a system of checks and balances in Government; and through incorporation into the Constitution–the blueprint for the new Nation they had conceived–a set of natural, fundamental, unalienable rights: codified in a document called the Bill of Rights.

But, if the Collectivists' vision for this Nation takes root, Americans will see the realization of that vision decimate all that our founders created and that so many in our Nation had given their lives to preserve. As a dense thicket of weeds overtakes and squeezes out a carefully planted and tended garden, we will see all that our founders held dear smothered and blotted out.

The fundamental question is do the people work for the government, of does the government work for We the People. Our government is designed to work for the people. The people are sovereign, and lend some of the enforcement of their rights to government.  But if the socialist come to power, all of that will be destroyed. Our faith is in God, their faith is in government. As these rights are from God, we need to defend them at all costs.

Having No Evidence of Guilt...Means You Are Guilty

Please go and read Derek Hunter's piece at Townhall.com today entitled If Liberals Were Held To Their Own Standards. Hunter is on a tear about the fact that the Left keeps changing the rules. In particular, because then can't impeach the President legitimately on the basis of the Mueller report. they want to change the basis of the justice system to say that since he can't be exonerated by a lack of evidence, he is therefore guilty. I am guessing here that the Democrats believe there target audience is too stupid to know the difference. In any case:

Robert Mueller was “unable to clear” the President of any wrongdoing, which is decidedly not how the justice system works how every story is framed. CNN ran a long blog posted disguised as a “fact check” because the former Special Counsel “publicly refused to exonerate” the President.  Using that standard, I have no proof everyone at CNN is not either a child abuser, necrophiliac, or both. I’ve looked, but I can’t exonerate them the allegations because I have yet to find proof they don’t do it.

While we’re at it, I can’t find any proof the employees of MSNBC aren’t cheating on their spouses. If I were married to any of them, especially the on-air “talent,” I’d be worried because I can’t prove otherwise. And don’t even get me started about what I can’t prove they don’t do to farm animals and small woodland creature.

No one, rightly, would accept the idea they were guilty of something simply because they couldn’t prove themselves innocent. I suspect most of us have no alibi for what we were doing when Malaysian flight 370 disappeared, does that make us suspects? Are we now a Kafka novel?

By this standard, anyone is vulnerable to the most outrageous accusations. the new standard is that someone has accused you. No evidence needed. Instead, it is up to you to provide evidence of your innocence.  Once again, we must resist the Dems push to turn justice on it head.

This is similar to anti-gunners who, having no evidence that any NRA member perpetrated any of the mass shootings that have plaqued our country,  never the less blame that organization for those mass shootings.  By that standard, I could say that while I have no evidence whatsoever, Mr. Bloomberg is guilty of funding the perpetrators of these crimes.  Now Mr. Bloomberg has to prove he didn't do it., right?  But of course, that is a ridiculous standard, and no, I don't believe Bloomberg committed such a heinous act.  But this is what the Dems are opening us up to.