Part III: Infringement
April 11, 2002
1:21 PM CST
This from my Reader Mail:
“I liked Guns Part 1, and thanks. My questions involve ‘infringement’-- aren’t all these [gun control] laws plainly infringement? If the law says you can’t own a gun in Chicago, isn’t that infringing on your constitutional right to “bear arms”? And if so, why isn’t NRA or other fighting such laws?” —J.
Oh boy. As the man said, you’ve exposed a great huge hole in our attitude towards guns. This requires an article rather than just a brief reply, so here goes.
It all started long, long ago in Liberal Land…
From the Morton Grove, IL website.
”On June 8, 1981, the Morton Grove Village Board of Trustees passed the history-making ban on handgun possession, as well as the sale of handguns. The Village Board’s 4-2 vote led the Village into nation-wide prominence as the first community to ban the possession of handguns within its boundaries. This decision subsequently became the battleground for pro-gun and anti-gun factions across the country and worldwide. The ordinance survived three separate legal challenges. One suit was heard in the Illinois State Supreme Court and another, the U.S. Court of Appeals. On October 3, 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case, leaving intact the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals which ruled that Morton Grove’s handgun ban did not violate citizens’ right to keep and bear arms according to the Second Amendment.”
Ever since then, because of those poxy liberal bastards in Morton Grove, many other municipalities have felt free to trample all over the Second Amendment. (The City of Chicago likewise banned handgun possession, California has banned guns which look nasty, and so on.)
Why the Supremes refused to hear the case remains beyond comprehension--I guess because, if memory serves, Morton Grove argued that they weren’t trying to ban all firearms, just those nasty lil’ handguns.
The fact is that you can bear arms (guns) in Morton Grove, just not a specific kind of gun.
However, Chicago, under Bitch Ex-Mayor Jane Byrne, took it one step further and instituted gun registration (of all guns), which is, to my mind, blatantly illegal. Here’s the relevant piece of legislation which supports my contention:
18 US 926. - Rules and Regulations (pertains to the duties of FFL dealers in maintaining sales records.)
3. No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. [emphasis mine]
And here’s a U.S. Supreme Court Decision:
”A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution. The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down… a person cannot be compelled ‘to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the Constitution.’ ”
~~ MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA 319 US 105 (1942)
This seems as plain as day to me. Gun registration is illegal. End of story.
There are many in this country, and I happen to be one of them, who think that the whole business of concealed-carry weapon permits is illegal too. If the CCW permits were free, then I might perhaps go along with them. But the minute you put a cost on the permit, it becomes illegal--a license tax on the exercise of a constitutional freedom. What if you can’t afford to buy one?
Moreover, the CCW in essence creates a state registry of gun owners, which is explicitly forbidden under the U.S. Code (above).
But it gets worse.
I also happen to think that the Illinois State Constitution itself stands in violation of the U.S. Constitution, vis-a-vis the issue of gun ownership (and no, I don’t know why this hasn’t been challenged, either):
SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
“Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Subject to the police power? So if the fuzz decide that only they themselves can own guns, that’s okay? In the United States, constitutions are about limiting government power, not adding to them. Can you imagine what Madison, Jefferson or Adams would have said had someone tried to insert language into the Second Amendment which read:
”Subject only to the whim of the state governor, the right of the citizen to bear arms shall not be infringed.”
They’d have reached for a rope, damnit. The Second Amendment is about ensuring the rights of the citizen to be armed, despite the wishes of government or State bureaucracy. The Illinois constitution is flat-out illegal.
Finally, as to who should oppose these un-Constitutional issues: it’s not going to be the National Rifle Association. Despite the liberal media propaganda, the NRA is hopelessly accommodating with the gun control movement. They are known to legislators all over as “people who you can do business with.”
When Charlton Heston held up that flintlock musket and gave the “cold dead hands” spiel to Al Gore during Campaign 2000, it typified the NRA, to my way of thinking. Nobody’s interested in your museum-piece, Chuck.
Had he held up an unlicensed AK-47 “assault rifle” in a speech delivered in California (thus openly defying California state law), then I’d have been impressed.
The NRA are a bunch of pussies, and have a vested interest in the continuance of Second Amendment infringement--otherwise they’d go back to being a safety- and musketry-training organization.
