- Text smaller
- Text bigger
Last Thursday when I sat down to have breakfast, the only newspaper
available in the restaurant was USA Today. I noticed immediately the
front page story headlined “Case could shape future of gun control.” As
I read the Richard Willing article I got a chill down my spine. USA
Today? What next? Objective reportage from CBS or CNN? Naaaah. …
I had been aware of Judge Cummings decision back in April, but I was
not aware of the recent epiphany of Harvard’s liberal icon Laurence
Tribe, or the significance of the shifting tide on academia. The timing
is both interesting and extraordinary.
“For the first time, a federal judge has ruled that the Second
Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun.” Willing wrote.
HOOAH! He went to add, “If the decision by a federal district court
judge last April in Texas is upheld on appeal, it could be a huge
setback for gun control advocates, placing perhaps hundreds of laws in
danger of being struck down. And it would be a victory for gun control
When I started my fight in California
the traditional gun rights institutional types shunned me. They didn’t
want the “politics” of guns to taint politicians they want to get
elected (presumably so they can support gun rights). Three years ago
when I broached the concept to Gun Owners of America President Larry
Pratt, he said, “Don’t do that Geoff. It will just cause Handgun Control
to throw millions of dollars at California. Instead devote your energy
to getting good conservative Republicans elected.” The reality is it is
getting increasingly hard to find either a good or a conservative
Republican, and damn near impossible to find one who can’t or won’t
compromise on a core principle.
The individual right and prudence of firearm ownership is
overwhelmingly supported by facts. Hell, we have always had the facts on
our side. However, the anti-constitutionalists and revisionists have
been winning consistently and routinely by manipulating the mainstream
media, and jamming another gaggle of law down our gullet every time some
demented wacko uses a gun to wreak havoc.
Virtually every study reports kids taking guns to school is down.
Armed violence in schools is down. Yet, reportage has significantly
increased of what government officials acknowledge are “aberrations.”
Dr. John Lott’s seminal work, “More Guns/Less Crime,” and his University
of Chicago study that preceded it document that when law-abiding
citizens are armed, crime goes down. Real simple. Bad guys don’t want to
confront an armed victim. Conversely, the abysmal failure of Australia’s
gun confiscation has resulted in a 44 percent increase in armed crime.
Again, if the bad guys know victims are unarmed, life is good …
Now that liberal scholars like the redoubtable Laurence Tribe of
Harvard, and his University of Texas predecessor Sanford Levinson have
given their support to “an individual’s right,” “Katie bar the door!”
one Second Amendment specialist noted. “The real-world consequences (of
the Texas case) could be enormous.” Carl Bogus of Roger William’s law
school went even further when he said, “it would stand the law on its
head,” if Judge Cummings ruling is upheld. Bogus says, “This is
not just an academic exercise.”
It is kind of weird that legal scholars have made a boutique industry
out of what even a CBS poll revealed is conventional wisdom. An Aug. 15
CBS poll showed that 48 percent of adults believe there is an individual
right to own a gun — 38 percent don’t. I guess the other 14 percent
didn’t understand the question.
Reality is, notwithstanding the diffidence of alleged conservatives
and their PACs, “stuff” is gonna hit the fan in January or February.
Judge Cummings wrote the federal law is unconstitutional because it
allows a state to deprive a citizen of his Second Amendment rights
without demonstrating the threat of future violence by the individual.
As a result of that a cabal of 45 law professors and legal historians,
incensed with facts, which contradict their preconceived opinions and
philosophy, have filed suit on behalf of the anti-constitutionalists.
As a layman I have never understood how any alleged scholar could
maintain that when the framers used “the people” they meant “the people”
in every instance EXCEPT the Second Amendment.
I often remind my radio audience that the first three battles of the
American Revolution were not fought over taxation, or representation, or
tea. The first three battles of the War for Independence were fought
over gun control. The British were attempting to confiscate powder and
ball. Captain Parker and his friends in Lexington were not about to be
disarmed by a tyrannical government. A Yale law professor, Akhil Reed
Amar capsulated it succinctly in the USA Today article when he said, “If
you get Lexington and Concord, you get the Second Amendment.”
Please note, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights do not
give us anything. The framers designed those documents to
restrict government. No rights are given. They acknowledged God-given
inalienable rights. That means no one gave them to us and no one can
take them away. Another law professor noted, “If a right is involved,
presumably the whole picture changes. Any law impacting on that right
might have to pass a much stricter test.” And about flipping time! I
previously noted Ann Coulter observed that if the Second Amendment were
viewed with the same scrutiny as the First Amendment, we might all be
required to have nukes at home.
A friend recently shared a story about a colleague of his who was
one of the executive producers of “Schindler’s List,” Jerry Molen. Molen
was speaking to some group after the film’s critical acclaim. In the
audience he noticed an old man who was staring intently at him during
his speech. He said he felt odd by the intensity of the glare. After the
speech he was basking in the glow of audience approval when the old man
walked up to him. The old man pointed a craggy finger at Molen and with
a voice filled with intensity and seriousness, he said “Don’t you EVER
let them take YOUR guns.” Molen noticed that the right forearm of the
old man had a series of faded blue numbers tattooed on his flesh.