The Commerce Clause versus the Ninth Amendment....

Congress has used the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to justify numerous restrictions of the inalienable rights associated with firearms ownership protected by the Second Amendment. And yet, the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution clearly states, "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This is clearly what has taken place. The enumeration to congress of the right to regulate commerce, which historically meant that congress was responsible to REGULARIZE (encourage the free-flow of) commerce, not restrict it, has been used to disparage and deny the inalienable rights associated with firearms ownership retained by the people under the Second Amendment.

With that in mind, it it time for all of us to bring pressure on our representatives to repeal such laws. The Gun Free School Zone Act is one such example; there are many others ("assault" weapons, hi cap mags, etc.). Congress, under Bush (who signed the original GFSZA in 1990), argued that, since the commerce clause gives it the right to regulate interstate commerce, and since nearly all firearms (or their individual components) must be obtained via interstate commerce, congress has the right to restrict the use of firearms. The Second Amendment, on the other hand, explicitly reserves the right of firearms ownership, use, and carry to the people. So my question is this: since such legislation is clearly a violation of the Ninth Amendment (making the legislation illegal and, therefore, unenforceable), why was it allowed to proceed in the first place, and why has it been allowed to remain and be enforced? The followup question is, since it has been allowed to remain, why is legislation and legal action to repeal such laws on the basis of the Ninth Amendment not being actively pursued?

Our legislators won't do it if we don't make it a priority. We are coming into an election year. There needs to be a groundswell of communication from the firearms owner community to those currently in office demanding the repeal of all firearms-restrictive legislation based on the commerce clause. This must be one of the litmus tests that determines whether a candidate is worthy of our consideration. Simply stating that firearms ownership is a "political right" as Gingrich recently did is not enough; we need to see a solid commitment to the principle that firearms ownership is an inalienable right protected by both the Second and Ninth Amendments of the Constitution.

Open Letter to Sen. Carl Levin....

December 20, 2011

Senator:

While I appreciate the lengthy response I received recently regarding my request that you support eliminating the Gun Free School Zones Act (GFSZA), I find the substance of your response to be very disturbing.

Sir, your first duty is the defense of the Constitution - not the furtherance of the Brady Campaign.  You have taken the following oath numerous times over your long career in the US legislature:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

And yet, as I have observed the policies you have pursued over the years, I find it troubling that so many of them result in increasing restrictions on the fundamental rights - the inalienable rights - guaranteed to us in the Bill of Rights.  Our Second Amendment right is one such example.

Your response to me indicates that you believe that the solution to the problem of criminal activity involving firearms is to do away with the Second Amendment altogether - even though you didn’t say that in so many words.  And yet, as the shooting in Norway, a nation with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world, indicates, there is no way to stop an individual determined to commit a crime involving a firearm from obtaining and using one.  Washington, DC, Chicago, IL, and other such cities that so heavily regulate access to firearms are also the cities with the highest gun-related crime rates, while the FBI’s own statistics clearly prove a direct correlation between increasing numbers of legal firearms ownership and decreases in crime.

In 2000, the CATO Institute published the following report:

Gun Control: Myths and Realitiesby David LampoThe number of well-publicized public shootings during the past few years, especially the tragedy at Columbine High School, has re-energized the gun control movement. As a show of strength, a coalition of gun control groups has organized a "Million Mom March" to be held in Washington, D.C. on Mother's Day, an event designed to stir up emotions rather than promote rational thought. And when one looks at the facts about gun control, it's easy to see why the anti-gun lobby relies on emotion rather than logic to make its case.

 Think you know the facts about gun control? If your only source of information is the mainstream media, what you think you know may not be correct. Take the quiz below and test your knowledge.

 1. Thousands of children die annually in gun accidents.

 False. Gun accidents involving children are actually at record lows, although you wouldn't know it from listening to the mainstream media. In 1997, the last year for which data are available, only 142 children under 15 years of age died in gun accidents, and the total number of gun-related deaths for this age group was 642. More children die each year in accidents involving bikes, space heaters or drownings. The often repeated claim that 12 children per day die from gun violence includes "children" up to 20 years of age, the great majority of whom are young adult males who die in gang-related violence.

 2. Gun shows are responsible for a large number of firearms falling into the hands of criminals.

 False. Contrary to President Clinton's claims, there is no "gun show loophole." All commercial arms dealers at gun shows must run background checks, and the only people exempt from them are the small number of non- commercial sellers. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, at most 2 percent of guns used by criminals are purchased at gun shows, and most of those were purchased legally by people who passed background checks.

 3. The tragedy at Columbine High School a year ago illustrates the deficiencies of current gun control laws.

 False. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold violated close to 20 firearms laws in amassing their cache of weapons (not to mention the law against murder), so it seems rather dubious to argue that additional laws might have prevented this tragedy. The two shotguns and rifle used by Harris and Klebold were purchased by a girlfriend who would have passed a background check, and the TEC-9 handgun used by them was already illegal.

 4. States that allow registered citizens to carry concealed weapons have lower crime rates than those that don't.

 True. The 31 states that have "shall issue" laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states. Remarkably, guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns. 5. Waiting periods lower crime rates.

 False. Numerous studies have been conducted on the effects of waiting periods, both before and after the federal Brady bill was passed in 1993. Those studies consistently show that there is no correlation between waiting periods and murder or robbery rates. Florida State University professor Gary Kleck analyzed data from every U.S. city with a population over 100,000 and found that waiting periods had no statistically significant effect. Even University of Maryland anti-gun researcher David McDowell found that "waiting periods have no influence on either gun homicides or gun suicides."

 6. Lower murder rates in foreign countries prove that gun control works.

 False. This is one of the favorite arguments of gun control proponents, and yet the facts show that there is simply no correlation between gun control laws and murder or suicide rates across a wide spectrum of nations and cultures. In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel "have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States." A comparison of crime rates within Europe reveals no correlation between access to guns and crime.

The basic premise of the gun control movement, that easy access to guns causes higher crime, is contradicted by the facts, by history and by reason. Let's hope more people are catching on. (Lampo, David. "Gun Control: Myths and Realities." May 13, 2000. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4706 ).

While the idea of doing away with access to firearms may have a certain utopian attraction to some, reality teaches a different lesson - and it is a lesson that was well understood by leaders of the past.

Thomas Paine wrote, "...ARMS LIKE LAWS DISCOURAGE AND KEEP THE INVADER AND THE PLUNDERER IN AWE, AND PRESERVE ORDER IN THE WORLD AS AS WELL AS PROPERTY. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms [added observation -- I find Paine's point here highly debatable; history clearly demonstrates that, were all the world destitute of arms, someone would still develop weapons as a means of imposing their will on others], for all would be alike; but since some WILL NOT, others DARE NOT lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. HORRID MISCHIEF WOULD ENSUE WERE ONE HALF THE WORLD DEPRIVED OF THE USE OF THEM; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves (emphasis added)."  Paine understood that there will always be those who resort to weapons as the means of obtaining their ends, whether in international or interpersonal relations.  And while the notion of relying on law enforcement is a noble one, it is also naive.  Law enforcement is neither omnipotent nor omnipresent - even in a police state.  It will always take time for them to respond, by which time, in the vast majority of cases, the damage is already irreversible.  The recent incident in Detroit involving an 11 year old girl’s 911 call during a break-in, to which it took law enforcement 21 minutes to respond, is ample proof of this fact.

Here are other such examples:

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty .... The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction" -- St. George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in Blackstone Commentaries, 1803

"That the Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe on the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent ‘the people’ of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms… " -- Samuel Adams in arguing for a Bill of Rights, from the book "Massachusetts," Pierce & Hale, 1850 pg. 86-87"The great principle is that every man be armed.... everyone who is able may have a gun." -- Patrick Henry

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." -- Tench Coxe in "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -- James Madison, Federalist, No. 46.

Senator, you have made a practice of justifying such legislation by appealing to the vaunted Commerce Clause of the Constitution.  And yet, as the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution clearly proclaims, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."  The Commerce Clause does not override the Second Amendment of the Constitution - regardless of your personal desires and agenda.  The right to bear arms is clearly one retained by the people.  The Danbury Baptists, in their letter to President Thomas Jefferson, made the following observation regarding the freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution:

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name,person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.

As was true of the above-referenced observation regarding the freedom of religion, our right to bear arms is not the object of legislation.  It is not a favor bestowed upon us by a beneficent legislature.  It is a fundamental, inalienable right protected by our Constitution.  And just as it true that freemen should not have to endure degrading and condescending behavior on the part of their legislators because of their religion, it is likewise true that freemen should not have to endure the same because of the exercise of the inalienable right guaranteed us in the Second Amendment.  

To those who have the eyes to see, it is manifestly evident that gun control laws have neither prevented outlaws from obtaining firearms, nor have they prevented them from carrying those same firearms into zones designate as “gun-free.”  Enacting even more gun control laws will not accomplish this task; it will only serve to continue furnishing outlaws with defenseless targets.  It may be cliche, but it is also unassailably true that where guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.  I sincerely hope, although I am not naive enough to truly believe this to be possible, that you will reconsider your position and return to your sworn duty to defend the Constitution - the whole Constitution.

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2011....

I sent the following resolution to my state legislators urging them to instruct our congressional representatives to remove section 1031, giving the President unconstitutional, unlimited power to detain American citizens indefinitely, without charges or trial, from the NDAA of 2011.

I urge you to do the same.

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS on Wednesday, March fourth, 1789, "THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added...", and

WHEREAS "...the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution...", and

WHEREAS said amendments were ratified by the legislatures of the several states December 15, 1791, and

WHEREAS the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States guarantees the citizens thereof that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized...", and

WHEREAS the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the Untied States guarantees the citizens thereof the right to due process, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.... nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" and

WHEREAS the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the Untied States guarantees the citizens thereof that, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence....", let it be

RESOLVED that the Legislature of the Great State of Michigan does hereby recognize and declare that section 1031 of S. 1867, the United States Senate's National Defense Authorization Act of 2011, authorizing the President of the United States to send the military anywhere in the world to imprison civilians, including citizens of the United States, indefinitely without charge or trial based on suspicion alone is a fundamental violation of the rights embodied in the first amendments to the Constitution that were demanded by the conventions of the States as necessary to prevent the federal government from abusing its enumerated powers, and does hereby call on the duly elected representatives of the Great State of Michigan to the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives to vigorously pursue such actions as shall be necessary to remove section 1031 from S. 1867.

The Wisconsin "Mitten"......

If Wisconsin is so eager to be represented by an article of clothing, then I suggest this! It looks a lot more like the state of Wisconsin than any mitten!

Let's not forget - Wisconsin is better known for its cheese than just about anything else!  Leave the mitten to Michigan!