Redefining the 2nd Amendment - NOT necessary

George Will has a column where he basically asserts that the 2nd amendment is rather 'ambiguous'. To wit:

When rights are unambiguously enumerated, courts should protect them vigorously. But Wilkinson says that when a right's definition is debatable, generous judicial deference should be accorded to legislative judgments -- particularly those of the states, which should enjoy constitutional space to function as laboratories for testing policy variations".

Now, in general, I tend to like George. But, sorry George, you are dead wrong in your assertion that the 2nd amendment is ambiguous. The tired argument that the 'militia' clause somehow dilutes the right to keep and bear arms (RKBA) by defining it as a 'collective' right was finally, officially, debunked in Heller. Any honest analysis knew this long ago. People, rights are not 'collective'. Rights are, and always have been, individual. The right to speak, to vote, to be secure in our homes, etc. The only reason to assert the 2nd is collective, was because you did not like that right being in the hands of individuals...period.

I wish the court had been stronger in striking down gun laws. But, alas, George was correct in noting that the most important word on the court is 'Five'. I suspect had Heller been worded any more strongly, it would not have gotten to 'Five'.

So now, we will be treated to an endless string of cases about bullshit restrictions. Trigger locks? What type of gun? How many? Can you have one within 100 feet of this building or that building? The failed, so-called, Assault Weapons ban will almost certainly be re-instated.

The most troubling restriction of the new law:

Private transfer of so-called Assault Weapons will be prohibited.

Now, you ask, why is this so troubling? Well, how will this provision be enforced? Since there is no record of what guns a person may or may not currently own, how will the Jack Booted Thugs of the ATF know a gun was transferred? Simple - you will see a national gun registration requirement flow 'logically' following HR1022.

The 'logic' that will be used:

• Private transfers are forbidden
  
• We need to enforce this
  
• We need to have a list of guns that you own so that we can identify if one has been illegally transferred.
  
• Therefore, we require you to register all your guns
  
• If we find that you did not register one - you will go to jail
  
• When the time comes that we simply ban ownership (Like happened in Australia, England, Canada) we will know what you have
  
• If you don't turn it in - you will go to jail

The other aspect of the law is the use of the phrase

"that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General."

This is playing to the Politically Correct, but completely INCORRECT notion that the 2nd has something to do with self-defense or hunting. It does NOT. It is to allow armed citizens to be the last line of defense against the GOVERNMENT. Sorry if that makes you squirm. Deal with it. Having the AG, working for the Government, determine what guns are ok is the ultimate Fox-Hen House mentality.

In his article, Will makes the assertion that, with the 2nd, the Legislature should be given wide latitude to make law. As a general rule, I am all for the Legislature having precedence over the court. However, where the Constitution tells the Government HANDS OFF (as in 'shall not be infringed') - then it is the courts job to tell the Legislature to go pound salt.

After the shooting in Texas at a Luby's, one of the survivor testified before the Senate. About 4 minutes into the video, she tells the stunned Senators that the 2nd was not about hunting or self defense. It was about defending ourselves from all of 'you' - as she pointed to the vaunted Senators! You go!!!



As our Dear Leader gets ready to take office, I just pray that we will not experience first hand what the 2nd is REALLY all about.