Tags

, , , , , ,

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/01/oklahoma-bill-would-nullify-in-practice-all-new-federal-gun-control-measures/

Assuming that Oklahoma SB 1124 is as well researched as reported in this article, there is still a logical and constitutional inconsistency in it, and that is its fatal flaw: it prohibits participation of enforcement of FUTURE federal gun laws and regulations.

In the practical sense, pity the poor state and local employee who’ll have to know which closely related or virtually identical federal law and regulation to enforce, and which not to. It will get very confusing to enforce one because it’s old and not enforce another one because it’s new.

In the legal sense, it makes no sense to make a distinction between old and new laws and regulations. Having cooperated with the enforcement of the old ones has established the precedent for cooperation with the new ones, pure and simple.

In the constitutional sense SB 1124 makes no sense. If you make a stand on 10th Amendment grounds, then you have to reject ALL federal gun laws and regulations, not just the new ones, because the 2nd Amendment plainly says, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It does NOT say that “CONGRESS shall make no law…” (which would let States do whatever they want); it does NOT say that the feds have the right to REGULATE or moderate this right; it says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The Founders could not have been clearer than that!

On this basis I would argue that

(1) Any law or regulation by design and intention is necessarily a limitation and therefore an infringement on one’s activities, especially on the exercise of a constitutional right;

(2) Given the wording of the Second Amendment, ALL federal gun laws are unconstitutional, including the 1980s era ban on “assault” rifles, more recent state or federal prohibitions on “large capacity” magazines, the current proposals for biometric trigger locks, background checks, the growing list of reasons to fail a background check, etc; and

(3) If the gun grabbers have a good reason to modify the 2nd Amendment, then they should use the amendment process prescribed in the Constitution to do it.

The last paragraph of Article 1, Section 8,

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

does not provide any excuse or support to the gun grabbers. You can NOT make ANY “necessary and proper” laws when the amendment is clear: SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

The only regulation of arms that might by some stretch of logic be inferred to be “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers” is only in the context of the enumerated powers to “raise and support Armies,” “provide and maintain a Navy,” and “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States — not before, not after, not when they are civilian citizens, but only during the time and only as long as they are in the service of the US.

I hope they fix Oklahoma SB 1124 and have the guts and resources to defend it. I wish all States would sign on along with them.

It is especially important to draw this line in the sand at this time. The nation is under assault from jihadists, mass shooters, drive-by shooters, gangsters and criminals. “When seconds count, the police are minutes away.” The first line of defense is the people, each individual immediate potential or actual victim, each of us armed and properly trained to defend ourselves.

Writing in various Federalist Papers, the Founders explained the necessity for an armed citizenry as the people’s defense against enemies foreign and domestic, including, if it has to come to that, their own oppressive government (Federalist 28, 29, 43, 46). The Supreme Court has recently affirmed (District of Columbia v. Heller) that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, not a collective right that is exercised only in the context of a militia.

They all recognized that self-defense is a God-given right. It is the most fundamental and most essential right not only of every citizen but in fact of every one of God’s creatures. THAT is the meaning of “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”

 
Advertisements