THE SECOND INDIVIDUAL RIGHT

July 18, 2007 at 11:40 am The District Of Columbia, moved so by an appellate court decision in Parker vs. The District of Colombia, against its thirty-year-long gun ban, has elected to file with the U.S. Supreme Court

By de Andréa

This could be the single most important national domestic issue to have ever been brought before the Federal Supreme Court since the founding of this Constitutional Republic. The stated issue is whether or not the Second Amendment is a collective or an individual right. I said, “Stated Issue” because this is really not the issue at all; since the collective is made up of individuals the collative is nothing but a collection of individuals. This is just one of the ignorant ways for the anti-gun demagogs to create a diversion of senseless argument so that the fundamental purpose of the right is avoided.

I also said that this could be the single most important issue to be brought before the Supreme Court; “ever”. The reason for the elevated significance of this subject is that if the people, who are the ultimate authority in a Democratic Republic, are totally disarmed by the very governmental that answers to the people then the government no longer answers to the people but it is the people who have become helpless subjects of the government. Anyone who does not understand that this threat of the abolition of citizen’s right to arms as the very foundation of tyranny, has never cracked a history book.


If I could address the Supreme Court:

The argument that weapons apply only to militias, fails to address that Militia as defined by United States Code applies to civilians as well as it does military. Historically, civilians were the first Militia. See U.S. Code Title 10 here where we still are the Militia.

It is also important to note they did not mean National Guard in those days: National Guard was not even conceived of or organized for another 130 years.

But that’s only the beginning:

If it pleases the Court:
I would like to cite several authorities emanating from writings of the Founders Original Intent and decisions since the nation’s inception. I have many other authorities, but since the time before the Court is limited, I would like to cite just a few.

The Founders had revolted against, above all else, abuses of the law, and in writings, in debate and ratifications, they wrote words that abuse of due process be forbidden.

This is especially evident in the second amendment, the modern question of whether the right is collective or individual is without meaning, because the second amendment was not written for citizens, but written for government – that is, written directly to government, like the whole of the Constitution is.

Also the second amendment was not written about guns, per se, but more importantly about abuse of the law. The Founders did not need to imagine weapons of the future; they did not view weapons as a threat to the new nation, but an asset. They had just defeated the Crown and its cruelty in abuse of its own law; the second amendment was written to forbid future self-dealing abuses of due process as an ever-present threat in any age, any era, and any government. (Any government does not mean sovereign states outside the U.S., but all levels of government within the U.S., including the federal government, states, counties, and cities.)

In a Constitutional republic, it declares the citizen as supreme authority; the Founders knew that citizen authority must be backed by lethal force, and forever. To perfect the concept that any regulation, interference, or infringement of this force is unreasonable, the amendment which protects that force is made absolute in the words ‘shall not be infringed’.

But rather than any Government Troops versus Citizens shoot-outs, violent crime as an instrument of demagoguery is used to sway the public to disarm, and in so doing, to surrender the force which backs its authority. The net effect of this is, of course, is higher numbers of injured victims of crime where constituents fear a fate of prosecution more than thuggery and this becomes self-fulfilling for the demagogue who claims that crime is intractable. It is not. For those communities, gun control is the ultimate abuse of state or local government power, as has been made self-evident in recent school shootings, as well as the kind foreseen and forbidden by the Founders.

The second amendment also lifts burdens of government, always a worthwhile endeavor, as opposed to the ever-increasing official desire for the taking up of burdens in demagoguery. Unanswered with citizen authority, crime creates a vicious cycle of more work, more unreasonable law, more hiring’s, more purchases, restricting reasonable resistance in order to grow crime in order to grow government, and an ever increasing government oppression.

Since the inception of an organized police force in the United States, it has never been a duty of law enforcement to protect individuals. From the earliest rulings to the most recent – Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 2005, U.S. Supreme Court – the rulings have been the same: no constitutional right to police protection.

This leaves a tremendous void in the logic of disarming citizens who face grave danger alone by the hundreds of thousands each year left up to the mercy of criminals who may or may not possess a gun.

What about 300 million guns in the hands of 80 million citizens? In America, about 29,000 persons are shot to death each year according to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report (mostly crime-on-crime shootings), and that same report demonstrates that armed citizens in fact de-escalate violent crime on the order of more than 2.5 million times each year.

Why such a disparity? It is 86 to 1.

Guns are not the major commonality among all the violence. By the numbers of all violent crime, violence in grave danger or great boldly harm is easily perpetrated without a gun – in beatings, multiple assailants, knifings, strong-arm assaults, rapes, robberies gone bad, and abductions.

Regulation, or the banning of guns does not foil crime, it enhances it. 2.5 million gun defenses each year to de-escalate violence is not guns against guns, but armed citizens on the record 2.5 million times a year of de-escalating all manner of violent acts from completion.

Public policy and interest:

EMS teaches CPR, First-aid, and the Heimlich maneuver to citizens because Advanced Life Support cannot always arrive within a life-saving response time. This is also true of law enforcement. Citizen intervention has been held to be in established public policy and interest. Our system recognizes the average reasonable person doctrine, the presumption of intent in reasonable apprehension of grave danger, the doctrine of standing in the shoes of the victim, citizen authority, citizen arrest, assisting law enforcement, volunteerism and other doctrines, reflecting a spirit of helpfulness and self-rule which in a democracy must not be discouraged or punished. In time of violence, no one – no police or policy – can take the place of the citizen as the first line of defense. Armed citizens have been proven to be the most reasonable and responsible of all.

It is this marriage of liberty and personal responsibility which together outshine the hysterical forecasts and hyperbole of gun control and intentional interference by even the slightest gun regulation. The genius of Original Intent Independence and its responsibility are together illegally obscured and frustrated purely because of Liberty’s ability to shine as the ultimate authority as it was intended in a nation of self-rule. Crime cannot any longer be used as a tool for the ambitious that cite violence as a cause to disarm that ultimate authority.

THE BOTTOM LINE: No body of Government at any level has any legal authority to interfere with the force which backs citizen supreme authority, but it can affirm it, in respecting the Original Intent by the Founders who knew the history of abuse of due process in any time, any era, and of any government. This outrageous attack on our basic Constitutional rights is indicative of the ignorant mentality of some of our elected officials.

The Second Amendment as it is written: “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”. It is a documented reminder, that it is the Peoples Militia, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, that secures the freedom of this Republic.

Conversely, without that armed security, government will do what governments do, and liberty will eventually fail…

de Andréa