Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Supreme Court to Settle Gun Rights

Report by Arthur Blank, MT Chapter

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." 
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).

The U.S. Supreme Court will be deciding this year if “The Organization” plan to deprive citizens of their Constitutional Right to bear arms will go forward. The lawsuit that brought the issue before the highest court in the land is District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). Previously, the District of Columbia ban on handguns was ruled to be unconstitutional by a federal appeals court. If the Supreme Court sides with the District of Columbia, cities and states around the country will be free to take guns from the hands of private law-abiding citizens. Conversely, the opposite decision will restore Constitutional Rights to DC residents and Chicago residents, where there is a similar ban.

Thomas Jefferson said, “Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.” It is for precisely this reason “The Organization” wants the citizenry to be unarmed. It is not until the guns are taken from the people, that we will be be completely subject to the tyrannical rule of “The Organization.” Until that time we still have the ability to stand up and “water the tree of liberty.”

Our so-called elected officials easily bend to the whims of the secret power structure in this country; however, federally appointed judges are, for all intents and purposes, free from such pressure, because they are appointed for life. Once on the bench, “The Organization” has an extremely difficult time removing a federal judge; it is for this reason there is still a shred of hope for our Constitutional Rights. That, unfortunately, may not be the case for long. One DC insider noted that, “if the Court rules against the goals of “The Organization,” there is speculation that there will be considerable pressure to change the Constitution to allow the easy removal of judges that don’t play ball.” For this reason, we may see the Court rule against our Constitutional Rights in order to maintain job security.

It is obvious that gun bans such as the one in the District of Columbia don’t protect innocent victims. In 1976, the year that the ban was enacted, there were 135 gun related deaths. Last year, after 31 years under the ban, that statistic was 143 gun related deaths. Despite the ban, the District of Columbia leads the nation in firearm related deaths. Last year, there was 31.2 such deaths per 100,000 people in DC. Alaska was second, with 20, and the national average is 11.5 firearm related deaths per 100,000 people. Somehow, despite the ban, criminals in the nation’s capital are still getting guns, leaving only the innocent unarmed. If unarming the innocent doesn’t save lives, our government can have only one reason for pursuing such an agenda - namely saving themselves from innocent citizens who have grown tired of having their Constitutional Rights trampled.


Stephanie M said...

i thought the constitution was untouchable. please keep me updated on this issue. it will be a horrible day if our right to bear arms is taken away from us. it would be the first of many rights we would lose.

nanc (for privacy)

Jaired B. Hall said...

As you can see, I'm looking out for you: http://jairedhall.blogspot.com/2008/03/ultimate-frisbee-fans.html

Daniel said...

It appears the Supreme Court is leaning towards gun rights.


I would even the say that the Second Amendment gives us the rights to own the same level of firearms, if not better, than the government. I believe part of the reasoning of the Second Amendment is to give the people a reasonable opportunity to revolt.