Guns, voting, abortion, our Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court. HUH?

9-25-08

Citizens must pay arbitrary unlimited fees to file their registration applications. When submitting these applications they are required to supply photographs, verify their residency in the district and prove their eyesight meets yet more arbitrary standards. They must pass a required written test and submit to mandatory fingerprint card processing. Then they wait. For how long nobody really knows. Perhaps a month maybe more. A year? Not out of the question after all this stuff takes time. They may never hear back because some elected officials in this country think they are above the law and can just kick a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to the curb when it doesn’t suit their agenda.

Sponsors... article continues below...

Could the above scenario represent the hurdles a woman must go through to have an abortion in this country? Perhaps it reflects the difficulties one faces when attempting to exercise their right to vote?

No, this is what law abiding citizens in one of the most dangerous cities in the country have to deal with when trying to acquire a handgun for protection inside their own homes! I’m not talking about applying for a concealed carry permit I’m speaking of the right to simply be able to defend your life in what should be the safety and sanctity of your own home.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June 2008 in the case, District of Columbia ET AL. v. Heller, affirming that the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the District’s bans on handguns, carrying firearms within the home and possession of functional firearms for self-defense violate that fundamental right.

Washington D.C. has some of the most onerous firearm laws in the nation yet throughout the years also had some of the highest murder rates in the country. It is illegal to possess any handgun, even within your own home, and any long guns have to be kept in an inoperable condition and locked up at all times. Pretty handy when some thug is kicking down your door so they can help themselves to your TV and perhaps your life.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the D.C. v. Heller majority decision:

“The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.”

Seems like the Supreme Court has spoken and pretty clearly on this issue. Washington D.C.’s response? Mayor Adrian Frenty signs a bill defying the SCOTUS (Supreme Court Of The United States) ruling leaving most of the city’s handgun ban in place along with the long gun inoperability clause. The only real difference was people were now allowed to load a long gun in their home so long as they were actually under attack or the danger of an was attack imminent, otherwise they must remain in the previously required inoperable and locked up condition.

It would seem that the defiant mayor and D.C. council has chosen to ignore the ruling from the highest court in the land, flipped the bird to the court if you will, apparently comfortable in the knowledge that nothing would come of it. The plaintiff in the landmark case, Dick Heller, confident the law was now firmly on his side, decided to amble on down and get his handgun registered (a lawful citizen having to register a gun and acquire a license to possess a firearm inside their own home with law enforcement officials should be illegal in this country as it clearly gives them a record of who owns what and where it is when it comes to confiscation time) with the local police precinct. He was promptly denied based on some complete nonsense contained in the D.C. municipal code. Never mind that SCOTUS has informed these clowns they are on the wrong side of this issue. The actions by the mayor and council have now forced Mr. Heller to go back to court, even though the Supreme Court had definitively ruled in this matter, to force Washington D.C. to abide by the ruling granted in D.C. v. Heller, an absolute waste of taxpayer money.

The cities of Chicago and San Fransisco have very similar laws as D.C. in place and the elected officials in those locales have declared they too will ignore the SCOTUS ruling. While lawsuits have been filed in both cities in an attempt to force them to comply with the law the two ultra left wing mayors have vowed to spend whatever amount of taxpayer money is necessary to fight them.

The liberals and anti gun crowd in this country are no doubt thrilled with this kind of in your face defiance of the D.C., Chicago and San Fransisco officials. After all why accept something you are diametrically opposed too even if the law are not on your side?

After I became aware of this issue in D.C. I began to wonder what would happen if cities, towns and even states started to question the validity of the 1973 SCOTUS ruling in Roe v. Wade or other rulings elected officials simply do not agree with?

Justice Harry Blackmun wrote for the majority in Roe v. Wade that a woman has a federally protected right to have an abortion according to the “due process” clause in section one of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Justice Blackmun relied on a “right of privacy” that he said was extrapolated from the due process clause of section one, 14th amendment of the Constitution based on a previous case, Griswold v. Connecticut. Clearly there is no explicit “right to privacy” in section one of the 14th amendment so the SCOTUS relied on what they called “penumbras” (a body of rights held to be guaranteed by implication in a civil constitution) and “emanations” (to come out from a source) to make the stretch and force the right to have an abortion to fit into our Constitution. In other words they used other language contained elsewhere within the Constitution to arrive at the interpretation of the 14th amendment they used to decide this contentious issue. This ruling by the ’73 Supreme Court has encouraged groups like Planned Parenthood to interpret the law in such a way that they feel it might not always be in the best interest of a minor to have the permission of a parent of guardian prior to having an abortion. Amazing huh?

The right to vote in our elections is one of the most important we have in this country. Over the years many changes were needed to the original 15th amendment to correct the inequities inherent within many states. Many pieces of legislation have been passed since the 15th amendment was ratified including The National Voting Rights Act of 1965. The voting act of 1965 addressed racial, physical disability and language barrier discrimination prohibiting the right or ability to vote based on these issues. One thing that will not be found in either the 15th amendment or the National voting Rights Act of 1965 is any kind of prohibition to ask a voter to identify themselves when they arrive at a polling place to vote. This particular issue has become quite contentious over the years with Republicans believing voters should be identifying themselves when casting their ballots on election day. Democrats are adamantly opposed to this and insist it is some kind of terrible burden for someone to have to actually prove who they are when they vote. That argument is laughable. Write a check for 20 bucks at your local Walgreens store and see how quickly they ask to see some ID. The SCOTUS has recently ruled that the photo ID requirements for voters in Indiana, the most stringent in the country, were reasonable and constitutional but unfortunately this ruling does not have an impact on the rest of the country other than to serve as precedent in future litigation.

To return to the beginning of this article, “Citizens must pay arbitrary unlimited fees to file their registration applications. When submitting these applications they are required to supply photographs, verify their residency in the district and prove their eyesight meets yet more arbitrary standards. They must pass a required written test and submit to mandatory fingerprint card processing. Then they wait.”

Now, can anyone imagine the outrage from the liberals if a city or state anywhere in this country tried to apply the same stipulations when a woman wanted to exercise her “constitutional right” to have an abortion? All hell would break loose with every feminist group in the nation swarming the place like fire ants in someone’s south Texas backyard.

How about a city that required voters to jump through the same hoops in order to vote? Since Democrat connected groups such as ACORN and Project Vote have been mired in voter fraud scandals for years perhaps it is time for municipalities to follow D.C.’s lead and simply enact whatever rules and regulations they feel necessary to ensure a fair and honest election devoid of the usual left wing shenanigans we see and hear about in every election.

Since our Second Amendment rights in this country are constantly under assault and there doesn’t seem to be a whole lotta outrage about our plight from those that twist and torque the Constitution to suit their selfish whims I think it just might be time to turn the tables on them, use the same tactics and see the predictable response. Now wouldn’t that be a hoot!

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Simple, clear, easy to understand and has held up under the test of time that is unless Barack Obama gets his way.

Photobucket
Photobucket

This entry was posted in U.S. Politics.

Leave a Reply