FA+
Shop
Should we fear the wrong decision?
17 years ago
A historic event may soon be taking place; in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court will make a ruling that may finally decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms or if it only protects a state's right to maintain a militia, this often being defined as the National Guard.
While supporters of the 'individual rights' interpretation of the Second Amendment no doubt pray for a ruling that supports their views (as well as the Founding Fathers'), there may be little to fear from a ruling stating that the Second Amendment applies to the National Guard.
First off, the Founding Fathers, no doubt anticipating attacks on the Second Amendment in the future, put into the Constitution and Bill of Rights several safe guards that will remain in effect even if the Supreme Court makes the wrong decision, as well as make any move by the government to seize firearms easier to challenge.
The Fourth Amendment's protection against unlawful search and seizure and the Fifth Amendment's protection against taking property without due process will protect the rights of those who already own a firearm. The Tenth Amendment will also present an formidable obstacle, as there is nothing in the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights granting the Government power to confiscate property, even if it isn't specifically protected by said documents.
As for those of us who do not yet own firearms, a certain bill written in 1907 that created what is today the National Guard also created what is called the "Reserve Militia", which, according to Wikipedia, "presently consists of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia. (that is, anyone who would be eligible for the draft)[2]." That bill is the Militia Act of 1903.
Thus, even if the Court rules that the Second Amendment only applies to state militias, a person could still challenge the assumption that the National Guard is the only militia. Also, if one can prove that the Founding Fathers intended the militia to be a protection against tyranical government (which, considering their comments on the militia, should be an obvious fact), the fact that the National Guard can be placed under the Federal Government's control can also be used to challenge a 'state's rights' view of the Second Amendment.
Granted, we should not let these apparent safeguards lull us into a false sense of security. Our government routinely violates Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression in the name of political correctness and sensitivity, and Freedom of Religion is currently being suppressed in the name of "Separation of Church and State". One must not disbelieve that the government will try and find a loophole with which to ban firearm ownership and confiscate all firearms. However, we can take some comfort in the fact that, regardless of the Supreme Court's ruling, the American people will not be easily disarmed.
So for now, watch, listen and pray. If the Supreme Court rules in our favor, than we have won a great victory for freedom. If not, know that the road to disarmament will be a rough and bumpy ride for the government, one they may find they are unable to take.
While supporters of the 'individual rights' interpretation of the Second Amendment no doubt pray for a ruling that supports their views (as well as the Founding Fathers'), there may be little to fear from a ruling stating that the Second Amendment applies to the National Guard.
First off, the Founding Fathers, no doubt anticipating attacks on the Second Amendment in the future, put into the Constitution and Bill of Rights several safe guards that will remain in effect even if the Supreme Court makes the wrong decision, as well as make any move by the government to seize firearms easier to challenge.
The Fourth Amendment's protection against unlawful search and seizure and the Fifth Amendment's protection against taking property without due process will protect the rights of those who already own a firearm. The Tenth Amendment will also present an formidable obstacle, as there is nothing in the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights granting the Government power to confiscate property, even if it isn't specifically protected by said documents.
As for those of us who do not yet own firearms, a certain bill written in 1907 that created what is today the National Guard also created what is called the "Reserve Militia", which, according to Wikipedia, "presently consists of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia. (that is, anyone who would be eligible for the draft)[2]." That bill is the Militia Act of 1903.
Thus, even if the Court rules that the Second Amendment only applies to state militias, a person could still challenge the assumption that the National Guard is the only militia. Also, if one can prove that the Founding Fathers intended the militia to be a protection against tyranical government (which, considering their comments on the militia, should be an obvious fact), the fact that the National Guard can be placed under the Federal Government's control can also be used to challenge a 'state's rights' view of the Second Amendment.
Granted, we should not let these apparent safeguards lull us into a false sense of security. Our government routinely violates Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression in the name of political correctness and sensitivity, and Freedom of Religion is currently being suppressed in the name of "Separation of Church and State". One must not disbelieve that the government will try and find a loophole with which to ban firearm ownership and confiscate all firearms. However, we can take some comfort in the fact that, regardless of the Supreme Court's ruling, the American people will not be easily disarmed.
So for now, watch, listen and pray. If the Supreme Court rules in our favor, than we have won a great victory for freedom. If not, know that the road to disarmament will be a rough and bumpy ride for the government, one they may find they are unable to take.
