The Forgotten Amendment....

As we work to stem the continuing erosion of the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights/Constitution, we hear all manner of reference to the First and Second Amendments, predominately.  The ground covered in those amendments to the Constitution seems to be where most of the war is taking place these days.


But as important as those amendments are, along with the other six amendments that initially comprised the Bill of Rights, the Ninth Amendment is the article that explicitly protects our rights from infringement by the federal government.


The Ninth Amendment reads as follows: 

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The rights granted to the general (federal) government comprised a very limited, discrete package of powers.  James Madison put it this way:

"It has been objected also against a Bill of Rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution."

Simply stated, Madison argued that, contrary to the political doctrine we see exercised by the federal government today, the only powers granted to the general government were those that were explicitly granted.  The assumption underlying the Ninth Amendment, therefore, is that all other powers, even those not explicitly stated, were reserved to THE PEOPLE.  In his speech introducing the Bill of Rights, during which he also addressed objections to the creation of such a document, Madison emphasized the idea of "the great residuum" of powers that were reserved to the People:

"It has been said, by way of objection to a bill of rights....that in the Federal Government they are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows, that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained; that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people;"

As we continue the fight to bring the federal government back into line with the principles stated in the Constitution, one thought stands out from the rest: if at any time the powers of the federal government come into conflict with the rights of the people, the Ninth Amendment declares which set of powers is to take preeminence - and those powers don't belong to the federal government.

Gov. Snyder's Belief That More Immigration Will Make Michigan Prosperous Again....

Michigan's Gov. Snyder made a speech in Grand Rapids, MI, on March 8, 2012, in which he stated, yet again, his belief that immigration is the key to turning Michigan around, essentially stating that Michigan residents do not possess the skills needed to get the job done.

If by immigration he means that process by which people become productive legal residents and citizens of this country via the processes that have been established by our laws, then by all means, Welcome!

If by immigration he means that process by which people sneak across our borders or deliberately stay in the country long after their visas expire, having children who automatically acquire American citizenship, thus providing a safeguard against being deported and making their children (and, by extension, the parents) eligible for all manner of public assistance, then, Governor, you need to seriously re-consider who you are in Lansing to represent. Our state spends nearly $1 BILLION ($928,800,000) annually providing assistance to the families of illegals. But instead of doing something about that, you placed the blame for Michigan's financial problems on teachers and other public employees, cutting the wages and benefits of TAXPAYERS - people who truly contribute to the income of this state - while making the case to increase access to Michigan jobs by "immigrants."

Mr. Governor, you are in office to represent the needs of the CITIZENS and LEGAL RESIDENTS of this state - not to make a case for yet another back door amnesty program. I am aware that our immigration system is in need of work, but that hardly serves as justification to simply throw open the door to people who are taking jobs that are needed by out-of-work citizens and legal residents of this state. Those jobs in the agricultural and hospitality industries used to be the staples of American high school and college students. And don't get me started on the jobs in the construction and other industries that are now being filled by illegals instead of citizens - high paying jobs, not the minimal wage jobs that the open border crowd always like to point to. These are all jobs that can, should and would be filled by CITIZENS if they didn't have to deal with an employment deck that is stacked in favor of illegals.

A number of bills have been submitted that would A) severely penalize employers who hire illegals, B) require verification of legal residency for employment and business transactions, and (C) make the practice of using ITINs or matricula consular as substitutes for social security numbers or passports a state felony. THOSE are the initiatives you need to be supporting - not paving the way for yet another round of amnesties.

"Federal Judge Declares Maryland's Concealed Carry Requirement Unconstitutional..."

That was the headline of an article posted on guns.com today.  A federal judge found Maryland's requirement that an applicant for a concealed carry license provide a "good and substantial reason" to carry unconstitutional.  With this ruling in mind, I sent the following letter to my Michigan state legislators:

Gentlemen,

I have contacted your offices several times regarding our Second Amendment right to carry firearms with reference to businesses and places of public accommodation, both for employees and customers/clients.  While the recent federal ruling does not specifically address this issue, the judge's opinion includes statements that have direct bearing on it.
First, that this is a civil rights issue.  To allow a business or place of public accommodation to prohibit the carry of firearms, a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment, is discrimination.  The judge ruled that we do not need to provide justification for carry; "…the right's existence is all the reason [he] needs."  Laws that permit such limitations "…impermissibly infringe[s] the right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment."

Second, that "…self-defense has to take place wherever (a) person happens to be."  That right does not stop at the entrance of a business or place of public accommodation, and, as is true of the civil rights of religion, speech, due process, etc., cannot be abridged by anyone. The one exception that has survived legal challenges is the ability to openly practice these rights in a place of employment.  Laws allow employers to limit open display of religious/ political symbols or personal items such as jewelry in certain circumstances, but they cannot enact complete prohibition of these rights; the argument can therefore be made that such latitude would apply to employers with regard to open carry of a firearm by an employee, but, similarly, that it does not give them the latitude to completely prohibit the right to concealed carry.

This ruling, as it applies to this issue, provides for consistency and predictability with regard to our civil/legal right to carry firearms; our current system, under which any business and most places of public accommodation can arbitrarily impose their own limitations on the right to carry, has created a hodge-podge of gun-free zones that makes it nearly impossible for conscientious carriers to exercise their right.

As a final thought, I would suggest that, since the Second Amendment and Michigan Constitution make no distinction between concealed and open carry, the judge's decision also applies to the need to apply for a CPL, as, to use the judge's reasoning, this amounts to a "rationing system" that requires a citizen "…to offer a 'good and substantial reason' why he should be permitted to exercise his rights."  The elimination of the CPL system therefore not only makes sense for Constitutional reasons, but for financial reasons as well, as this would do away with the costs associated with the administration, implementation, and enforcement of what is, in the light of this decision, arguably an unconstitutional system.

Sincerely,

The Second Amendment and Business Owners....

The Bill of Rights protects certain - wait for it -  RIGHTS.  Non-negotiable, so-called inalienable rights.  Natural rights, not legislated privileges.  They are:

First Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly; right to petition.

Second Amendment – Militia, Sovereign state, Right to keep and bear arms.

Third Amendment – Protection from quartering of troops in peacetime.

Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

Fifth Amendment – Due process, protection from double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.

Sixth Amendment – Criminal trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel.

Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury.

Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.

Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically delegated to Congress in the Constitution.

Tenth Amendment – Powers of States and people.

In today's political climate, however, all too many politicians and citizens have taken the attitude expressed by Capt. Barbosa in the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie:  "...the code is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules.”

This attitude is nowhere as evident as when discussing the rights of business owners and the rights of those who carry firearms - employees and clients - in accordance with the provisions of the Second Amendment.

We frequently see and hear remarks like the following: "I would be upset if the government tried to tell me how to run my business..." 

The fact of the matter is that the government ALREADY tells one how to run their business - in ways that are at-odds with the Constitutional protections afforded private citizens on property that is truly private. It requires business entities to construct bathrooms a certain way. It specifies how many handicap parking spaces one must provide. It requires one to allow service animals (even in a restaurant), and prohibits one from discriminating in hiring - meaning that one can be forced in some instances to hire people with whom one might not normally associate in a truly private setting where the Constitutional right of association (First Amendment) is protected. Additionally, business entities may not discriminate against customers based on race, ethnicity, religion, etc. - people with whom a private citizen might not choose to associate in the privacy of their home.  These laws serve to protect the civil rights of employees and clients. 

In short, civil rights, which the Bill of Rights establishes (including the civil right to bear arms), have been legally elevated above the rights of business entities. 

Of all of the rights specified in the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment exists to insure that other rights - including property rights - are secure. One must be able to defend that which belongs to one's self.  Without a means of defense, all other rights - including property rights - are vulnerable.  In other words, the right to own property exists only insofar as one is able to DEFEND that property.  This includes the right to defend that property which is most precious to every person, their own body.  As was observed by Bastiat in his work, The Law:

"Man can only derive life and enjoyment from a perpetual search and appropriation; that is, from a perpetual application of his faculties to objects, or from labor. This is the origin of property. But also he may live and enjoy, by seizing and appropriating the productions of the faculties of his fellow men. This is the origin of plunder. When does plunder cease, then? When it becomes more burdensome and more dangerous than labor.....God, has bestowed upon every one of us the right to defend his person, his liberty, and his property, since these are the three constituent or preserving elements of life; elements, each of which is rendered complete by the others, and that cannot be understood without them. For what are our faculties, but the extension of our personality? and what is property, but an extension of our faculties?...every man has the right of defending, even by force, his person, his liberty, and his property."

The right to protect one’s body does not end at the doorway of a business, whether entering as an employee or a client.

The absolute necessity of the Second Amendment is found in the terminology contained therein.

The Second Amendment states, “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.”  As used in a legal context, as is the case in the Second Amendment, the phrase "shall not" indicates that the provision is non-negotiable; absolute; mandatory. When legislators wish to convey the unconditional, mandatory nature of a law, they insert the phrases "shall" or "shall not". NO ONE has the authority to abridge the practice of the right delineated in the Second Amendment - "...shall not be abridged." This is an absolute statement. Congressional acts restricting the right guaranteed in the Second Amendment using the Commerce Clause of the Constitution (using the Constitution against itself) are in violation of protections explicitly stated in the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights [i.e. congressional authority], shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The Second Amendment right to bear arms is one of the rights "retained by the people." And there is that pesky legal phrase again: "shall not". The Bill of Rights is not a smorgasbord from which we choose which rights we will protect.   One may choose not to practice a right, but that choice not to practice rights guaranteed in the Constitution in no way infringes on or negates the practice of Constitutionally-protected rights by others.

While business owners (this author has been in that position himself) might wish to argue that their business is private property in the same way as their home, there are an overwhelming variety of laws governing business entities that say otherwise.  As has been observed previously, those laws exist to protect the civil rights - the rights preserved in the Bill of Rights - of employees and clients.  Business entities, places of public accommodation, do not enjoy the same level of Constitutional protection as that afforded to individual citizens. While that may be hard for some to swallow, even a cursory look at US business and civil rights law will bear this out.

The Second Amendment and the Legislator.....

In 1764, Cesare Bonesana, the Marquise of Beccaria, published a book entitled, Of Crimes and Punishments.  As its name implies, it is a treatise on crimes and appropriate punishments, the reasons underlying crimes, and the rights of citizens to protect themselves as a deterrent to crime.  Remember that date of publication.  1764.


On pages 83-84, Bonesana made the following observation in a section entitled, "Of false ideas of utility":

A principal source of errors and injustice are false ideas of utility. For example: that legislator has false ideas of utility who considers particular more than general conveniencies, who had rather command the sentiments of mankind than excite them, and dares say to reason, `Be thou a slave'; who would sacrifice a thousand real advantages to the fear of an imaginary or trifling inconvenience; who would deprive men of the use of fire for fear of their being burnt, and of water for fear of their being drowned; and who knows of no means of preventing evil but by destroying it.

The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty?

It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons. (ephasis added)

Translation:  it is when legislators try to protect us from every conceivable evil that they cause the most damage.  It is then that they begin to enslave the populace by building fences against imaginary ills, rather than empowering the citizenry to exercise their own judgements in their own defense.  It is those kinds of laws that require the citizen to rely solely on the government for their protection, disarming them, and, therefore, empowering the criminal - the law of unintended consequences.  As a result, the governed are deprived of their liberties, while the criminal is given free-reign to terrorize those who have been so enslaved.


The Second Amendment exists for this very reason.  Our freedoms of religion, speech, assembly, press, due process,  protection from illegal search and seizure, all are based on our ability as individual citizens to prosecute those rights - by force of arms if necessary.  Our Bill of Rights is the only document of its kind that gives the ordinary citizen the right to take the defense of those rights into his or her own hands, to protect those rights from ALL who threaten them, whether from enemies foreign or domestic, private or public.


Think about the following statements made by past leaders of our great republic:

"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

"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

"[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.

"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.

"The great principle is that every man be armed.... everyone who is able may have a gun." -- Patrick Henry

Those who downplay the critical importance of the Second Amendment, as we hear with such increasing frequency these days from legislators, the media, and even our fellow citizens, truly misunderstand what is at stake. In the words of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights:

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 as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Why Mitt Romney Cannot Represent ALL Americans - And Why Christians Cannot Support Him.

A Response to Rep. Justin Amash's Call to Eliminate the TSA.....

As most have already heard, Sen. Paul was recently inconvenienced at a TSA checkpoint, and had to undergo a pat-down screening.  He has called for the elimination of the TSA for some time, and in the aftermath of the inconvenience he suffered, Rep. Amash has begun publicly calling for the same thing.  Congressman Amash went so far as to claim that Sen. Paul should have been exempt from secondary screening because his status as a senator provides him, under certain circumstances, with immunity from arrest.  While others continue to debate whether the protections afforded in the Constitution apply in this particular instance, I wish to address the bigger issue - one about which I have communicated with ALL of my legislators in D.C. on numerous occasions.


Here is the brief note I posted on Rep. Amash's FaceBook page in response to his call to "Free Rand Paul":

Now that we have your attention, I will ask the question again. I have written to your office about this before (as I have written to all of my legislators), and received a response detailing your concern about the potential for racial profiling.

When is the government finally going to let airport security (I don't care if it is the TSA or a private security company) begin working from known criminal/terrorist profiles (which happen to reference ethnicity), as is the case with all other law enforcement agencies, so that they can begin a more effective, more targeted approach to airport security? As Sen. Paul said himself, "We have to bring some sense to what we're doing in this country ... we treat everybody equally as a terrorist suspect." This is proof that, contrary to our public statements, the terrorists HAVE won, and our way of life, with its Constitutional protections, HAS been changed as a result of 9/11. It is one more example of how we have turned our backs on the Constitution as a result of public hysteria.

But as is true in so many cases, until a legislator or other ranking official is inconvenienced by the very processes they put in place, legislators will consider no alternatives. And if history is any indicator, the only change that will come as a result of this incident is that a bill will be passed exempting legislators and other select government officials from the screening process, while the rest of their constituents continue to slog through the process and innocent American Citizens continue to be treated as potential terrorists.

This is not a TSA issue.

This is the result of decisions by government officials, beginning with former Secretary Norman Mineta, not to do the sensible thing and look most closely at those who, according to the criminal profiles (from which airport security officers are not permitted to work) are the most likely to perpetrate the kinds of crimes the TSA was intended to prevent.

Maybe now we can begin to have a real discussion about what really needs to take place with airport security.

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.