Safer Streets 2010: Safer streets finally underway again.

Once in a while, a Los Angeles Times Editorial surprises me on liberty and second amendment issues. Today's editorial finds the Times agreeing with the Supreme Court's 5 - 4 decision to incorporate 2A such that states have to follow the same rules as the feds. The last line of the editorial is "Better that than a selective enforcement of the Bill of Rights." Selective enforcement of gun laws has been the abuse of due process. Some restrictions on the mentally ill sounds fine to us, but the definition of who is mentally ill – such as soldiers returning home after they have been entrusted with the lives of others – is an abuse of process for gun control. A lot of work remains.

With the Supremes sending the case back to the lower court and jet propelled by incorporation, the last holdouts against 2A will be challenged for their interference or infringement of a civil right guaranteed by law. This will probably mean workplace, schools, more latitude (respect for a civil right) in airports, perhaps even aboard civil aircraft, we hope. It could change the whole complexion of how America meets and answers terrorism as much as everyday crime.

The state and cities do not have the legal authority to ban guns, because the second amendment is now law for them, too, by incorporation. The Time's analysis of the dissenters was swift and correct. Translation: what we feared is coming true, namely absolute disregard for our rights by people who believe our right is not a fundamental one.

The Times mentions its analysis of the Heller decision based in part on the language ". . a well regulated militia", but the papers and speeches of the founders outline their original intent clearly: they did not want a standing army, and that the everyman citizen was the militia of the time. That framing-era period of everyone's being the militia was 130 years before what we call today the National Guard, so we know the founders did not mean National Guard. From the papers, speeches and debates of the founders, we know their original intent. 

This is the second time I have praised the Times on a second amendment editorial. The last one was how the Times perceived a threat to the First Amendment without incorporation. It is encouraging to see editorials which compare and contrast the Bill Of Rights to the enumerated powers of the federal government. The government has only those enumerated powers granted it and nothing more. The Bill Of Rights are the exceptions to those enumerated powers we grant them. Further, our own U.S. History explains that only citizens have fundamental rights; the government does not.

A lot of error in the lay view of second amendment – and in the legal view of it – forgets original intent. The Supremes thrive on it, and it should be no surprise, really, that the Supremes agree with gun owners and not the lower government bodies who irk and control their citizens. This was one of the things the founders wanted to block; abuse of due process. As the Times observes, selective enforcement.

We're very lucky to live in a country that knows history well enough that forty-eight states affirm the second amendment and know why. Could it be that our path back to freedoms would be to learn more about our history?

Another error laymen and lower courts, states and cities make is in interpreting the Constitution in 21st century terms, as if it were a document which adjusts to trends and pressures. It's not honest. The Constitution was written to resist pressures, and some of that selective enforcement. In fact, while we're on the subject of history, try this on for size: the second amendment was not written for us, it was written for the servants not to tell us what we already know, but to put them on notice that this shall not be infringed.

The only way to interpret the Constitution is to learn the founders' original intent. The founders knew that every generation that follows would face challenges to its sovereignty from its own servants. The real battle today is where the servants dispute that they are even servants at all.

Think November. Think the people as the Sovereign, and government as our servants.

And be sure to register for my Safer Streets Newsletter. For more, see NationwideConcealedCarry.com

_______________________________________________