As we all continue to digest the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of the District of Columbia v. Heller, it is irritating, annoying and downright maddening (not to mention sadly disheartening) to see how the media is uneducated, the illuminati (sometimes referred to as Professors) are entrenched in their propaganda and the masses don’t know which way to go, or how to think when they get there.
First, I want to address what the Supreme Court actually said, some (I am not educated enough in the law to tell you all) of the implications this ruling has and what reaction and attitude we should espouse moving forward.
The Supreme Court did not abolish all gun control laws in the country; in fact, they specified that reasonable restrictions are allowed. Addressing this first, in my opinion the meaning of reasonable restrictions will be the most influential and most contested (in and out of the courts) phrase in the entire ruling. If we look to other uses of this concept by the Supreme Court, this ruling is on par with so many 1st Amendment rulings. The Court has ruled that speech, especially speech that is political in nature, is protected under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. It is, however, subject to some reasonable restrictions, such as: Libel or slander, these are both separate legal terms, but for my purposes, they both mean to bring someone’s character falsely into question. Purposely lying about something someone did or said to demean their character or person is not protected by the 1st Amendment.
Using the same principles as those applied to the 1st Amend. It would be reasonable to say that while the ownership of firearms is protected, not all uses would be protected. I think it would be perfectly reasonable for a restriction on the use, in defense of one’s property or self, of a firearm to require that there be a threat to said property and or life. In other words, you should not have the right to shoot people simply for trespassing; however, trespassing in a mask at night would be just cause for shooting. Anybody who does not agree simply does not understand that most people who trespass at night in disguise mean you harm, and even if they don’t they are willfully breaking the law and disregarding your rights to property and to be secure within that property. As Thomas Paine said, “arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property… Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.”
Many people have said that this ruling has no effect on State, County, City and Local Governments and does not restrict their ability to do anything they want in terms of gun control. I sharply disagree in principle even if reality does not follow suit. The 2nd Amendment is part of a Federal document and in this ruling, the right to the personal ownership of firearms was found to be protected in Federal Jurisdiction. Thanks to the 10th Amendment, things that are not regulated by the Federal Government are left to the States to regulate. In this case this is a good thing, because now we not only have the 2nd Amendment, we have a modern Court upholding that right and the maintenance of that right at the Federal level so the States cannot regulate the right to the point that it violates the standard of the Federal level. In other words, this is why the NRA and Second Amendment Foundation (saf.org) had the confidence to file suit in San Francisco, Chicago and 3 suburbs of Chicago.
This is going longer than I thought it would so I will close with this last paragraph: I think that any freedom loving individual, whether gun loving or not, should be rejoicing in this decision as freedom won the day. Freedom won out over tyranny, oppression and the sophistry of the freedom hating gun control movement. I call them “freedom hating” because they seek to destroy the freedom of one person in order to shelter the feelings and emotions of another. They do no good in this pursuit, and neither will their effort be successful in anything other than increasing the very thing they claim to seek to end… violent crime. The choice is ever present to respect, if not agree with, someone else’s right to practice something in which you choose not to participate. There are countless examples of this in our society and yet when it comes to guns, the side that wishes to preserve life and liberty the most is attacked at hateful and many times uneducated simpletons. I challenge you with this fellow freedom lovers, use this decision to light the fire of a good conversation with friends and neighbors about our freedoms and why you believe they are so important, but do so in a way that they can find no fault in you, even if they find fault in your argument. Plant a seed of reason, water it delicately and watch it grow. Thank you and good day.
-Common Sense Guy (Matt)
