Who Decides?

The Second Amendment to our Constitution is one of the inalienable rights granted to us by our Creator.  Being granted by God, the Constitution therefore is an acknowledgement of a fact, not some sort of special gift from our founders.  Had it not been written into the Constitution, it would still be our right, but it would also be harder to defend that right legally without having to actually use it.  There have always been atheists, of course, who would deny God and claim government was the highest authority, but our Declaration of Independence says otherwise.

All the above is a short preface to an article today at the American Thinker by Mike McDaniel entitled The Second Amendment: Who decides?. McDaniel is here writing about two cases to which the Supreme Court has granted cert, Viramontes and Grant. Both cases involve government bans on AR-15 style rifles, the most popular semiautomatic centerfire rifle in America, in contravention of the Constitution. The states will claim that times have changed, that banning these weapons is necessary for public safety. But human nature hasn't changed. Until that day arrives, we will need arms for self-defense.

Another point needs to be made here. One of the things the gun grabbers keep emphasizing is that AR-15s are "weapons of war." I find this argument particularly ignorant.  The founders, having just fought a war for independence against the greatest military on earth wanted the people to have weapons of war.  Understand that no soldier would go to war with an AR-15. The similar weapon, the M16 was select fire capable of semiautomatic and automatic fire.  And they also have heavier weaponry such as fully automatic machine guns. Even so, if needed, an AR-15 is better that rocks and spears.

The foundation of this case, and every case involving an express, unalienable right, is who gets to decide which rights are really unalienable and which are mere privileges. Many people don’t understand that people have rights and governments have powers. The Constitution delegates limited powers to government, powers granted it by the People, powers they may revoke when government exceeds its limits.

That boundary was breached long ago. Government has taken upon itself all manner of powers not delegated to it by the People, and routinely infringes on unalienable rights such as life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and property.

The operative clause of the Second Amendment, the clause that carries its meaning and can stand alone as a complete sentence and intention without its prefatory clause, is:

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

This is an unalienable right, among the rights that make the Constitution unique and uniquely revolutionary as the sole governing document that recognizes individual rights granted by God. They are untouchable by men. They should be beyond debate and government regulation, but of course, they are not. Arguably, the First Amendment enjoys more legitimacy; government is more “hands-off” this Amendment than the Second, so much so that the Court, in its Bruen majority decision, felt the need to specifically say that the Second Amendment is not a “second-class” right. Prior to the Court’s Heller, McDonald, and Bruen decisions, it had certainly been relegated to second- or lower-class status.

That the Court must affirm—or deny—that one of the most popular arms, an arm unquestionably in common use—the Court’s own standard—is protected by the Second Amendment indicates that the Second Amendment is still second-class, where it will remain until the Court vindicates that unalienable right in language that cannot be ignored or played.

As usual, I encourage gentle readers to read McDaniel's article and keep an eye on the Supreme Court and these cases. Even if you don't have guns, the Second Amendment is important as the existence of guns keeps those who want to control your life from implementing their worst impulses. They always have to calculate just how far they can go without triggering a general uprising.