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.