Submitted by: Joseph Grisafi Jr
THOUGHTS ABOUT OUR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
Washington D.C. vs. Heller
The Supreme Court has issued its ruling on the Washington, D.C. vs. Heller case. Sadly, it was a 5-4 decision in favor of Heller. The decision should have been unanimous in favor of Heller. Why wasn’t it?
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall. Adolph Hitler – March 18, 1938
To many, even to Constitutional lawyers, the Second Amendment is clear. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand many of the writings of our Founding Fathers who have repeatedly wrote about our right to keep and bear arms. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Edmund Burke, John Adams, Thomas Paine, Noah Webster, James Madison, and Richard Henry Lee are but a few who have written about our right to keep and bear arms.
Our Founders knew and understood that without arms law abiding citizens did not have protection from criminals and most importantly a tyrannical government. Government tyranny can only flourish when law-abiding citizens are disarmed.
“Americans need not fear the federal government because they enjoy the advantage of being armed, which you possess over the people of almost every other nation.” --James Madison
As you may know in Washington D.C. everyone is barred from having a working handgun, even in their own home. No one can keep a gun ‘at the ready’ in their home for property and family protection. If a home owner has a firearm in his home it must be completely disassembled. The abuse of this right for citizens of Washington D.C. has been in existence for many decades. No one, not even the National Rifle Association wanted to put this before the Supreme Court for fear of losing because a few of the liberal Justices will easily lean left on certain causes.
“And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms…The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants”.—Thomas Jefferson
The four dissenters on the United States Supreme Court, with their education, experience and knowledge, know better than I the meaning of the Second Amendment. They also understand the words spoken and written by each of our Founders. Yet they choose to distort and misrepresent the Founders true meanings in order to promote their socialist agenda. Some, not all in The Supreme Court, have come to believe that THEY are the law of the land in order to force the citizens of the United States to comply.
“If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed in my country, I never would lay down my arms - never - never - never!” William Pitt 1777
Liberals began to restrict our rights on arms about mid 20th century. Government started indoctrinating us that they know better, that they know how our lives should be lived. Political correctness has now become our watch-word. Collage law professors and justices from top to bottom tried to sell everyone on the notion that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with individual rights. The word “militia” in the Second Amendment to them means the military and other law enforcement groups, not to you and me as individuals.
Justice Stevens wrote one of the two dissents. Justice Breyer wrote the second. In the first three paragraphs of the Stevens dissent, it is clear the direction he was headed. Personally, I could not believe the words he put to paper. He disingenuously pretended to believe the founders were protecting not the right of the individual to bear arms but the power of the government to monopolize force upon us.
“…the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms” Article from Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18, 1789
In Stevens’ first paragraph he writes, “…that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.” It appears that he is trying to say that the government has the ‘right’ to tell you all the reasons you can and cannot use a firearm and for what purpose.
In his second paragraph he writes, “The Second Amendment plainly does not protect the right to use a gun to rob a bank; it is equally clear that it does encompass the right to use weapons for certain military purposes.” This is gibberish and childish coming from a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. It is clear however, that he is trying to push the militia or military as the sole purpose of the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment does not protect the right to use a gun to rob a bank - Really? How perceptive.
“…to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” George Mason debates.
Also in Stevens’ dissent, page 7, he writes about hunting and personal defense, “…the Second Amendment’s omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense…” Here, he tries to make the argument that because the Amendment does not specifically state a purpose, the Amendment is therefore null and void for these purposes or any purpose not stated. In one instance he compared the Second Amendment with the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont where it does state that “the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state,”
“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.” Thomas Paine, 1775
What was Thomas Paine referring to when he said ‘property’? To preserve order in the world would mean in war time by the use of the ‘militia’ and therefore is it possible that ‘property’ could mean defense of self, family and property? Richard Henry Lee stated, “To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms.” Does the preservation of liberty only mean during war-time? To preserve one’s liberty should also include during one’s life-time.
Justice Stevens’ dissent was 46 pages long and I’m only up to page 9. This will be my last comment about Stevens’ dissent because it’s truly a winner. “The right of the people” So who are ‘the people’? Stevens’ contention is that the Second Amendment does not include ‘the people’ as does the First and Fourth Amendments because the First and Fourth Amendments is not limited to law-abiding citizens whereas the Second Amendment does not include felons. Therefore, he is matching classes of people to a specific Amendment.
In Justice Breyer’s dissent he tries to make a distinction between keeping firearms at home for militia purposes verses self-defense purposes. He writes, “But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective is not the Amendment’s concern.” So if you were “called to arms” by your government you can use your firearm but for self-defense you better not touch it. Breyer is also trying to make the point that firearms are only for the ‘militia’ or the military. Obviously Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer have trouble understanding what our founders wrote or their agenda takes precedence. I choose the later.
Justice Scalia delivered the majority opinion; 64 pages of well thought out, logically written context about the Second Amendment. He dissects the amendment and explains each part based on previous rulings and its history. He also debunks all the cases presented by Stevens and Breyer and backs them up with facts. Scalia also states “…they (Stevens, Breyer, Ginsberg, and Souter) manufacture a hybrid definition…” It appears, based on Scalia’s opinion that Breyer was trying to ‘make law’ by writing, “He (Breyer) criticizes us (the majority) for declining to establish a level of scrutiny for evaluating Second Amendment restrictions.”
In one instance Justice Stevens used a deleted draft from James Madison concerning the “inclusion of a conscientious-objector clause”. Justice Scalia responded, “It is always perilous to derive the meaning of an adopted provision from another provision deleted in the drafting process.”
Justice Stevens also stated “…that the phrase “bear arms” was most frequently used in the military context.” Justice Scalia debunked this by stating that ‘most frequently’ does not mean all the time. He stated, “…the fact that the phrase was commonly used in a particular context does not show that it is limited to that context…”
Although this is a win for the good guys, we cannot rest. We cannot and should not think that the battle is over. Even Justice Scalia left ‘loop-holes’ in his opinion even though he did confirm that it IS an individual right. You can rest assured that the ‘anti’s’ will take every advantage of these loop-holes.
The anti-rights crowd will stop at nothing to achieve their agenda. They are now attacking our military personnel that have been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The current number of returning personnel diagnosed with PTSD is 300,000. With PTSD on their record they can never own a firearm and have no recourse. Even for civilians, if your doctor puts anything on your record that diagnoses you with any kind of disorder and it appears in your background search you may and most likely will be rejected from owning a firearm. There is now a bill before congress, H.R. 5865, that will amend chapter 44 of title 18, U.S. code, to require a court adjudication before certain veterans may be denied the right to possess a firearm and for other purposes.
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” Thomas Jefferson 1776
Liberals will continue their attack against our Second Amendment rights. Try as we may to convince them of its meaning will be futile. Try as we may to convince them using logic, quotes from our Founding Fathers and the Federalist Papers is useless. For them, the meaning and the facts mean nothing. Their agenda is everything – disarmament. With arms, they know we have the ability to fight back. All we need is the WILLINGNESS TO DO SO.
I believe that the opinions from Justices Breyer, Stevens and Scalia should be used in classrooms around the country, not only in collages but also in high schools. We need to start teaching American history again in all our classrooms.
Thank you, and God Bless America
Joe Grisafi
Is not a professional writer
Joe is a gunsmith and firearms instructor.
Memberships include:
The NRA (life member) and a certified instructor in five disciplines.
The Texas State Rifle Association
Gun Owners of America
The Second Amendment Foundation
American Gunsmithing Association
The Constitution Party (Ex-republican – never a democrat)
Minuteman Civil Defense Corps.
CHL holder and Texas DPS certified instructor
Firearms Tactical Trainer
Thunder Ranch Tactical Training Graduate – 3 times
Front Sight Tactical Training Graduate
Lethal Force Institute Tactical Training Graduate
No comments:
Post a Comment