Gun Control?

Recently, the question of gun control came before the Supreme Court. The question had to do with whether the Second Amendment extends to States. Does the Federal Government have the right to force a State to change it's Gun Control laws? Does a State have the right under the Constitution, to ban particular types of firearms? These questions had me in a bit of a divide. I believe in a person's Rights as defined by the Constitution; I also believe in the rights of the individual States. This seamed to me to be a real challenge. It was a question of personal rights versus States rights, wasn't it?

Well, to solve this little quandary, I went to the Constitution itself. After all, I wasn't getting any background from the press. What DID the constitution say on the matter? And why wasn't anyone talking about it? Maybe people think it's not relevant anymore. Maybe people think it's too complicated. Maybe we've been TOLD it's too complicated. Well, I went ahead and had a look anyway, and here's what I found.

The Bill of Rights has a Preamble. A “first part,” that explains why the thing was written. Here is, in part, what it says:

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 starts of its institution.

What this means is this: That when the Federal Government was created, several States wanted to limit it's ability to abuse power by listing several restrictions and declaring certain freedoms that could not be messed with. This was done to make the people less fearful and ensure a smooth start to our fledgling Government. You see, people had just gotten out from under an overbearing, tax-happy King, they had no intention of creating a new one.

The next part is one we hear quoted all the time, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” Period. Right? This is what people call, “The Separation of Church and State.” This has led to many people feeling generally uncomfortable even mentioning faith in public and official lives. Public prayer has been banned from schools, outdoor civic events, and High School football games. All we can dare to do is have a “moment of silence.” But, it's not “period.” Look back up there, THAT'S a comma, NOT a period. What's that, you say? Why, it's the second part we have forgotten: “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof“ So, what this second part is saying is this, “Congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise... of religion.” Really, go back and read it. I'm honestly not kidding. So what it basically says is this, the Federal Government cannot establish a State Church; AND the Government can never tell us what to pray, when to pray, or where we can pray. What the Constitution is calling for is not a Government free of prayer, but a prayer free of Government. That when the people pray, the Government needs to bow it's head, be quiet, and wait for the amen. That, my friends, is the separation of State from Church!

So how did we get it so backwards? How did we allow someone to read that line to us in such a way that it somehow made since to let Government control prayer? How did we let that one get so upside-down and backwards? And, if we missed that one, what else have we got wrong? And what about the order of the Amendments? Like it said back in the Preamble, this document was created to address some pretty serious concerns the people of the day had about Government power. So straight up, out of the box, the Government has to promise to never interfere with a person's right to worship, speak, publish, assemble, or petition the Government for a redress of grievances. All these things are in the First Amendment. The very first change to the constitution was a promise to keep their hands off of our ability to communicate with God and each-other. A vocal people, free to exchange ideas and express grievances, are more likely to remain free.

That brings us to the next part, the Second Amendment:

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.

That's it. The whole thing. The entire Second Amendment is one-sentence-long. Albeit, a complicated sentence for those of us who went to public school. What's more, it has been interpreted in many ways, by many factions within this country, to mean many different things. Fortunately, you've had me to drag you through all that First Amendment stuff to establish context. Remember, we are talking about a document that was created to demonstrate to the people that they were free and Government was harnessed, not the other way around. Most importantly, these rules were being written into the very fabric that defined the nature of what Government was to be in this country. I am not making this up. Go back and read the preamble: these amendments were meant to be restrictive clauses to the powers of Government.

So what exactly is the Second Amendment saying? And, what's up with all the commas? At first glance it looks like a poorly worded, jumble of a sentence. On second glance, it looks as if it could be argued lots of different ways. So, what the heck? Why were the founders so lazy that they couldn't be more specific? Why follow so profound a First Amendment, with a throw-away one liner open for debate? What made this one rank higher than the right to a jury trial or, no cruel or unusual punishment? Well, it's because the Second Amendment is the one that backs up the first. It is the one that keeps a free State free.

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.

If you look at this sentence like an English teacher or a Lawyer, you will see that it is not vague at all. It looks complex only because it is intensely specific. There are only a few things that we need to understand before we can completely parse it out.

What is a Militia and why is it necessary to the security of a free State? Well, we're not talking about the State's need to defend itself from international invasion. This was covered under Article Four of the original Constitution. We are talking a State's ability to protect itself from tyranny from above, the right of the free States to guaranty their ability to remain free. Specifically, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms so that they would never again become subjects to a crown. The founders understood that it was necessary for a free people to be able to rise up and defend their rights, their homes, and their families from oppression, whatever its source.

It was assumed at the time, that each home that contained at least on man and one rifle could be called upon to defend their community. That, these men together represented the greatest security to the citizenry in time of need. It was the declaration of the Federal Government, in the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, that this right to self defense would never be taken away. The right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. This was the promise necessary to secure the support of the American People. The single right that guaranteed our ability to keep all the others.

It is important to note that these Rights are not granted by the Constitution, they are protected by it. These Rights are understood to be granted by God and the Constitution specifically states that they shall not be infringed. The Bill of Rights was required by the people to prove that the free States and their people would remain free. Sadly, not all of the people within the States were free at the time. This would take another eighty years to change. But when freedom finally came to all peoples within the states, the Constitution was ratified again to guaranty the rights and freedoms promised by it would apply to all, equally. No State would be allowed to restrict the Rights and Freedoms of it's citizens protected under the Constitution of the United States of America.*

*Article VI of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment.

alaniz