Posted by Woodenblog on Tuesday, October 25, 2011 12:11:41 PM
Burqa wearing gun owners
There was a time in America where it was a privilege, an honor, and the law that one must, to be able to rightfully carry your weapon of choice out in the open, or concealed, however one wished, and without government interference, without the need for permits, submission to authority for licenses, etc. At one time our Second Amendment covered every citizen, and government protected the rights of the individual. That time has long passed. Since the Progressive movement, and even prior. States, like Tennessee, tried to outlaw the carry of firearms in the 1830's, but state courts rejected the law, and overturned it, based on Second Amendment criteria (“...shall not be infringed”). Even Justice Story, on his treatise on the Constitution, was noted to have written that should any attempt be made against the amendment it would be at the state level, but that if such an attempt were made, that the “Second Amendment” would prevent its being constitutional.
Once relegated (in vogue in western territories before they became states) to the outlaw west, the authority to do this was never considered correct within the United States proper. That is, until the period of Prohibition when running booze became a full time, gangster style job. Prior to that names like Dillinger, and 'Baby Face” Nelson, the James Boys, Ma Barker & her boys, and other bank robbers ran around taking money which the Federal Treasury properly considered within their purview. The Tax man, and revenuers, too became legendary in song, and movie.
In the early 1900's, Timothy Sullivan and the gang at Tammany Hall, the corruption involved, the desire to attain, and hold power, the state of NY determined that due to the rise of murders in NY City that a law needed to be on the books to stop the criminal activity, much of it sponsored by the criminal gangs, many of those run by Tammany Hall itself. Tim Sullivan was a man of ill repute, noted in the Movie “Gangs of New York.” The extent of the corruption was widespread, and the organization was under constant scrutiny, and investigation. The fact is, Tammany Hall was a corrupt political organization as many came to learn, and as many within the system knew at the time. The problem was the power the organization wielded, a power they were reluctant to relinquish to the people, especially the many of “we, the people” being 'undesirables', many illegal aliens, many legal aliens, but thought unequal to those Americans already here who had for generation eked an existence out of the woods, and cities of the new world.
As many states came to realize that their political power could be gained at the behest of the masses by staunching the corruption, and illegality, by keeping the people, in other words, “safe” from the criminal element they found these masses more willing to submit to laws which would stifle their rights. As the educational system devolved to our current 'socialist' public education system, as the criteria to be taught was changed, as the educational processes assumed that propaganda would be better than actual teaching of history, the constitution, the beginnings of our country, and why these then created a capitalist system with a rule of law, all law answering to the constitutionality by the court(s). Whatever happened to these concepts? The people were mis-educated, fed a line of BS for so long that today we don't question our masters, but instead simply kowtow to them. When did the change occur that presumed in a whole people's mind that government was the be all and end all, whereas individual thought, innovation, creativity, responsibility, and individual rights could be trampled upon for the new ideology of the 'common good', the new math, the new world order? How did 'the common good' devolve from “limited government” into 'all encompassing' government?
History relates that it started after the Civil War (War Between the States, or War of Northern Aggression, depending on where you live and your ideology). I tend to believe that the states could not only decide to join the union, but given the Declaration of Independence's assumption that one could decide to throw off any government, and design one to fit the needs of the people whom it represented; that secession was legal, justified, and constitutional.
During this after war period, the states often passed laws (Jim Crow) to prevent former slaves from owning, or bearing arms. This, of course, depended on these who were prohibited abiding by the law. As we know, some did not, and those who did often ended up at the end of a noose, put there by white sheeted, and hooded, thugs of the KKK. In essence, the war for liberation (meaning constitutional rights applied to all equally)of the black populace lasted much longer than the Civil War did, by decades. In the 1950's, and 1960's, the Civil Rights movement took off. Prior to this Amendment's 13, 14, and 15, were adopted to try to bring all states into compliance with equality under the law; in essence, true equal justice. However, nowhere was justice ever admittedly equal. Equality can only come from “rule of law,” and adherence to the principle(s) of the law, the primary law in our country being the constitution.
In 1934, FDR passed the first Federal Firearms Act. It disparaged the ownership of the first “Weapons of Mass Destruction,” fully automatic rifles (military assault rifles), and sawed off shotguns, and rifles. Alo0ng with these, the ownership of silencers was also prohibited. That the law was wholly unjustified given that weapons of this type were seldom used, or owned, by the general population, given that the majority of these weapons used were by notorious gangsters, and thugs, the non-necessity of the law couldn't be any more apparent. That one could own these if they applied to the FBI for a permit to do such, that said permit was, in essence, unconstitutional (see the meaning of 'infringed'; 'encroach,' and 'hinder,' among other definitions of infringe).
The Miller decision stated that American citizens could only own those weapons pertinent to militia/military use, but our military had used both shotguns, and full automatic weapons in WWI, which ended a full 16 years before passage of the Federal Firearms Act of 1934. The supposition was that such prohibitive laws would make it so costly to own these weapons that only outlaws would own them. At the time, a permit to own such was $200. During the Depression, when most worked for $1 a day, or less, this was cost prohibitive to the general person. This didn't include the cost of attaining the weapon, keeping it in good working order, or supplying it with ammunition. A cheaper alternative ewas the sawed off rifle, capable of being carried discretely (concealed) where ownership of pistols was now under “permit” systems.
Let me first off note here that in the Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham decision (1969), the courts declared that permits for rights were unconstitutional. They quoted the SCOTUS decision of Staub v. Baxley, which decried permits for sales within various districts. There was also a decision about permits being needed to solicit for churches proselytizing door to door. In Shuttlesworth, quoting from Staub, the justices noted that permits for rights were “unconstitutional censorships, or prior restraints” on the individual. As such, anyone faced with such a licensing law “may ignore it, and engage with impunity in the (right) for which the law required a license (permit).” One of our Supreme Court justices, Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, during the Heller decision, asked complainant Heller if he would be acceptable of a permit system in D.C. I had written seven of the 9 justices, RB-G excluded, asking that when they considered the Heller decision that they also announce that not only was “the right to keep and bear arms” and individual right, but also that it was not to be infringed, as the amendment notes. I sent them the information on the Shuttlesworth decision, and asked that the two justices not written to be filled in by the other seven. As we can see, these justices, all 9 of them, didn't follow past precedent in this case, and instead opted for a watered down version of the Second Amendment more consistent with current ideology, and inconsistent with our Constitution's plain language; “...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” With what part of this didn't the dissenters concur? Were they using their perceived agenda to create a constitutional crisis? Why did a recent decision in regards the Permit system be turned away by the SCOTUS? We can only surmise that they have done so in an effort to put off the rights of the people to keep and bear arms. To what end? Do all those in power believe that our constitution needs revision, and if so, why are they unwilling to do it by the process inclusive to it; amendment? Worse, since even the left today considers “past precedent” so vital in being maintained, given the erroneous decision in Roe v Wade, why would they skip over Staub/Shuttlesworth? After all, it is a “Civil Rights” decision, and all of our rights are civil rights as Abraham Lincoln so aptly made known when he stated our constitution was a “Civil” document.
So, why is it that we have to “conceal” our firearms when we carry? It is very similar to those in Islam who make note that women must be covered head to toe by a burqa. Are firearms so enticing that more people would carry if they knew it was not only possible, but our God given, constitutionally guaranteed right? And, if it is a constitutionally guaranteed right, why haven't our past presidents taken states to court to get laws which are passed by them which”infringe” the right, and have them overturned? Isn't that their job?
I'm sick of being relegated to being someone who must hide my belief in my constitution. I am sick of being bullied by the media, the police, the government at all levels because I desire, and do, carry a weapon on myself at all times. I am tired of trying to keep it hidden, and should it poke out for some reason being prodded by local para-militarists with guns drawn as if I am some kind of human scum, the lowest of the low, for merely exercising my right as an American citizen? Why is my life jeopardized because I wish to be equal to a para-militarist (local law enforcement)? It seems incongruous with our rights, yet it is happening throughout the United States. Are we now Mexico, Canada, Britain, Australia, or New Zealand? Why is it a law abiding citizen who has a permit is subjected to guns drawn, in your face, confrontation by these para-militarists? And, what right do they have to do so given that the state allows my right to be turned into a privilege, and at my behest, when I comply with their inane, ridiculous, unconstitutional permit system laws?
I'm tired of, in essence, having to wear a burqa over my weapons in public, because I appreciate, and exercise, my right (not state sponsored privilege) to keep and bear arms. ###
BPB
No comments:
Post a Comment