The gun lobby outvotes D.C.? Not quite.

March 9, 10:57 AMLA Gun Rights ExaminerJohn Longenecker

Previous Next

2 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the LA Gun Rights Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Where do officials get the idea that Governments have fundamental rights? In a March 5, 2009 editorial, The New York Times wrote,  "The measure to at long last allow District of Columbia residents a voting member in the House has run afoul of the gun lobby that is determined to deny Washington another fundamental right: to regulate firearms." 

In my interview with Oklahoma State Senator Randy Brogdon Saturday, we both talked about how citizens have rights and governments do not. Every founding father and every liberty knowledgeable citizen understands this. D.C. has not run afoul of the so-called gun lobby, then, it runs afoul of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court ruled against them. Now, when we desire for all principals to the case to abide by the ruling, D.C. defies the ruling every way it can. It might be worth noting that this is the third upbraiding for the District on this issue, the Heller v. D.C. decision in 2008 being the most recent.

Who’s infringing on whose rights here? How do you demand rights when you won’t officially respect the rights of others? That’s fundamental rights, that is.

Citizens have rights, governments do not. Government may be entitled to interests and it may have powers, and only those we deem proper. Those ‘Governments’ include state government, city government, federal government. The Government does not have a fundamental right to regulate guns. The Government has no fundamental rights at all. Who ever told you that it does?

Organizations may be assigned rights, such as by corporate contract. There are music rights, publishing rights, rights of this and that, but there are only a few things known as fundamental rights, and they belong only to citizens. These are few, to be sure, but freedom and liberty mean that these are all we need, really. Our Constitution spells out, on the other hand, a great many limitations on what Government may do and may not do.

Regulating guns is one of the things it may not do. Unlike the first amendment which says that Congress shall make no law, the second amendment says shall not be infringed. Where other governments may make such laws regulating free speech, the second amendment says no to every sort of infringement. Why does the government keep trying? Every citizen needs to ask this question. Why does any government wish to disarm its Boss?

I’ve written for years that there is no such thing as a sensible gun law, because the second amendment is absolute. It is the force which backs our authority as the Sovereign. Senator Brogdon and I talked about what sovereignty is to citizens in 2009, and since we are the sovereign in this country and the government is not relative to citizens, it is we who have the monopoly on force and not D.C. Or San Francisco. Or any official body for that matter, including college campuses.

State sovereignty was the topic in that interview, and it is a very intelligent and legal way to get out from under this very kind of intrusion and abuse of process. Sovereignty means that agencies like the District do what they are told by the people, and not the other way around.

Not a great start for a government body asking for rights.

Does getting out from under federal pressure by invoking the tenth amendment (state sovereignty) sound like a good idea?

Catch the interview on MP3 here.