Democrats Love Felons. The Law Abiding, Not So Much

 Today, at the American Thinker Frank Friday asks Will the Supreme Court put a stake through the heart of gun control? They should, of course. If you want to know how long our government has been corrupt, the law in question is the infamous Sullivan Act of 1911, that got the ball rolling on gun control. It was yet another Tammany Hall middle finger to the population of New York and the nation.

In yesterday's post, I spoke about how the Second Amendment was intended to work. Young men would join a local militia, train with them under regulations set by Congress, and take their weapon home, to maintain both the weapon and a certain number of rounds to fit it. It was understood that this militia would serve in various capacities: as a readily trained source of soldiers in times of invasion and as needed for sheriff's posses and other emergencies for which the county or state might need them. In today's post, Friday mentions something similar

When this case is decided, there will of course be the usual gnashing of teeth by the gun-grabbers, who will shriek about how the Second Amendment is not a personal right, and it's just for members of a state militia.

This argument was annihilated several years ago by Prof. Volokh in his 1996 article "The Commonplace Second Amendment," where he shows that the Second Amendment enshrines a right of the people individually: "Early Kentucky, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Vermont Bills of Rights speak of 'the right of the people to bear arms.' Since these provisions secure rights against the state governments, they must recognize a right belonging to someone other than the state or entities whose membership is defined by the state — this likewise suggests that 'the right of the people to bear arms' refers to a right of individuals."

The Kentucky state constitutional language, written just a year after the U.S. Bill of Rights, by men who were friends and colleagues of Madison and the other Virginia framers, is particularly on point: "[t]he rights of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

Furthermore, the "militia clauses" of the original U.S. Constitution give the Congress extensive powers over the organization and training of the state militias. If the Second Amendment was somehow intended by such oblique phrases to then modify this power of Congress, it is all but impossible to see how.

The real meaning of a "well regulated" militia, as used by 18th-century Americans, means much more than just a well trained and equipped military force. It is a political concept that assumes an armed populace as an integral part of society and good government. Both American and English patriots were deep admirers of the Swiss model of militia. Diplomat Abraham Stanyan even wrote in 1714 that the "Swiss have a ... well regulated Militia ... that may overturn a Government at Pleasure."

It is long past time that we should see the end not just of Roe v. Wade but also Sullivan The problem with crime in our streets has nothing to do with guns per se, nor with who has them, but with who is willing to use them against fellow citizens. These people need to be dealt with tout de suite.

We have been here before with soft on crime District Attorneys and laws painting criminals as the victims of society. It wasn't true then either, and we had to toughen up our laws. Unfortunately, we toughened up the wrong laws while letting the real felons free to recommit. The Democrats love felons, after all.