Rich Moniak’s column on nullification is thoughtful but filled with the errors of constitutional jurisprudence that has been the hallmark for generations. He claims that there are limits to the right to keep and bear arms, but nowhere can he cite just exactly where or what they are. This would appear to be left to the courts, as in the federal government, and this is precisely why we are in this crisis today. Court opinions were never meant to interpret the Constitution, although they have been doing so since Marbury v. Madison in 1803. Asking the federal government to place limits on the federal government is like asking that all seven games of the World Series be played in Yankee Stadium with all the umpires ex-Yankees.
Moniak also talks about hunting and self-defense, presumably against criminals, but if he read the Federalist Papers, he would find that the right to keep and bear arms was created as the ultimate defense against a tyrannical government — no, not invading Nazis, but our own.
The question to ask is this: if the Second Amendment has limits, just where are the limits for the federal government? We can actually read them, in something called the Constitution, and too many of us now will no longer accept the opinions of the long-faced, black-robed charlatans that sit on the courts. It is much better to seek definition and relief from our friends and neighbors in the Legislature.
I challenge any lawyer, judge, scholar or professor to a Lincoln-Douglas debate on nullification. Name the time, place, sponsor and venue. I will travel at my own expense.
Bob Bird
Kenai
Comments (6)
Add commentChallenge accepted!
The framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights feared a standing army but not our own, because at the time it was written, we didn't have one. The Continental Army was disbanded after 1777 because of this fear. It was reconstituted under the Legion of the United States in 1792, but a standing army didn't really come into being until we found we needed one after the War of 1812.
Look, rights have restrictions. We do it all the time. Even Scalia said in D.C v. Heller, "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
We can absolutely place restrictions on gun ownership, but here's the thing: Elimination of high capacity magazines, background checks for all firearm sales and a national gun registry, these things aren't even a restriction. So why dig your heels in? It's time.
A well regulated militia...
I see an opening for a solution in that phrase.
For me, the questions could become:
1. Are we well regulated when it comes to firearms?
2. Are we failing to uphold the Constitution here?
Regulations banning machine guns in 1986 have produced desirable results: there hasn't been a single rampage killing involving them since.
So, regarding other weapons that our Founders could not envision, I ask, are we as well regulated as some lobby groups would have us believe?
And finally, who would disagree that our exceptional governing document, the US Constitution, provides no legal mechanism to address whether we are well regulated or not?
Mike
Ask Old Hickory and President Lincoln
about nullification.
"Nullification means insurrection and war; and the other states have a right to put it down."
Andrew Jackson
‘"the Union (will be) preserved at all hazards, and from all assaults, and that those who would destroy the law would be dealt with by the strong arm of the law."
Abraham Lincoln
Over 650,000 Americans died between 1861-1865 over the question of nullification (secession). President Lincoln threw all of the resources of the Federal government behind the effort to preserve the Union and give a re-birth to freedom. And thank God, General Grant and General Sherman that he did.
Question asked and answered. The debate is over.
What part of "shall not be
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you haters not understand ?
bfranklin
Nothing is being infringed. The Constitution does not give you the right to purchase any weapon ever invented, it simply allows you to possess firearms. If the assualt weapons ban happens, you still have the right to possess firearms, just not assualt weapons.
If it really means that much to you, I would advise that you run for presidency and get the Constitution to read "..have the right to bear ANY and all arms.."
No debate needed
No debate needed. You would have us accept more Sandy Hook's so you can wait for the "time" when Special Ops kicks the door down and you go down in a blaze of glory. My bet is that more common sense gun control is going to happen. Simply, I do not share your fears.