Dan Wos, Author of – Good Gun Bad Guy
Host of The Loaded Mic
USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- Our Founding Fathers didn’t create the Bill of Rights to give you rights. They created the Bill of Rights as a reminder to the government that these rights are inherent simply by being human. Rights cannot be granted or taken away. However, rights can be violated, and unfortunately, we see that frequently concerning our right to keep and bear. God gives us our rights, and Democrats think they can take them away. They view your rights as government-issued privileges that they control.
When government officials yammer on about what guns are allowed and what guns aren’t allowed, they are viewing the 2nd Amendment as a privilege or allowance that can be manipulated. It’s a shame that those who we entrust with our sacred Bill of Rights don’t understand the fundamental purpose of those Constitutional Amendments. Unfortunately, those who don’t want you to be able to defend yourself will always find a way.
In 1939 in a case called US v. Miller, a court ruling was falsely determined that a shotgun having a barrel of fewer than 18 inches was illegal because it had no relationship to the preservation of a “well-regulated militia.”
“The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.” – United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
This was the beginning of gun grabbers correlating the 2nd Amendment with militia use only, but they ignore the fact that the decision recognized military-use weapons as “guaranteed” under the ruling. They would use this “militia only” tactic for 70 years to justify gun control unless you are part of a well-regulated militia. As a side note, their idea of being well regulated was “government regulated.”
Why would the people who just got done defeating a tyrannical government in pursuit of freedom give that regulating authority back to the government?
Nowhere in the 2nd Amendment does it say that the government will do the regulating.
So why are we letting the gun grabbers run away with the narrative that military-style weapons shouldn’t be allowed? The Miller case clearly suggests that military-type weapons would be covered under the Second Amendment. That would include machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades, and a whole list of other military weapons.
During that time, the government argued that the 2nd Amendment protected the “collective right” of being armed during active militia service, but the court directly rejected that argument. In a lower court decision, a judge misrepresented the “individual right” the 2nd Amendment recognizes and latched on to the “collective right.” After that, courts jumped on that misrepresented interpretation. Since then, every effort was made to prevent the Supreme Court from ever seeing 2nd Amendment cases because if the Supreme Court were to see these cases, the hypocrisy would be revealed.
The gun grabbers loved the idea that the 2nd Amendment could be twisted to fit their narrative that it was to be reserved only for collective, government-regulated, militia use.
They hate the part that says, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That part is indisputable, so they pretend it doesn’t exist.
It wasn’t until Heller, McDonald, and most recently Bruen that we see favorable decisions coming out of the Supreme Court to back up the individual right of people to keep and bear arms. In the case of DC v. Heller, it was determined that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, in fact, an individual right, and no active militia participation is necessary to exercise that right.
Justice Antonin Scalia would go on to say in a written opinion that firearms which are in common use at the time and would be normal for a person to bring with them to militia service if called upon would qualify under the Second amendment.
McDonald v. Chicago determined that the 2nd Amendment is fundamental for self-defense and applies to the States under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
And most recently, the NYSRPA versus Bruen case, which was a 6 to 3 decision, determined that the right to keep and bear arms includes bearing arms for personal protection outside the home. It also determined that current and future laws would be required to meet “historical tradition.”
“The government must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.”
So as much as the gun grabbers kick and scream, the Supreme Court has consistently determined that the 2nd Amendment refers to an individual right to keep and bear arms inside and outside of the home, protected from both federal and state overreach for personal defense or militia use with military-style weapons including those which are in common use.
It seems that the Hughes Amendment, which banned full auto firearms back in 1986 and the NFA from 1934, may be ripe for the picking now that we have some Supreme Court decisions in our ammo bag.
The 2nd Amendment is not a privilege. It’s your right.
Dan Wos
Author – Good Gun Bad Guy
Host – The Loaded Mic
About Dan Wos, Author – Good Gun Bad Guy
Dan Wos is available for Press Commentary. For more information, contact PR HERE
Dan Wos is a nationally recognized 2nd Amendment advocate, Host of The Loaded Mic, and Author of the “GOOD GUN BAD GUY” book series. He speaks at events, is a contributing writer for many publications, and can be found on radio stations across the country. Dan has been a guest on the Sean Hannity Show, Real America’s Voice, and several others. Speaking on behalf of gun rights, Dan exposes the strategies of the anti-gun crowd and explains their mission to disarm law-abiding American gun owners.
from https://ift.tt/eGk9MnD
via IFTTT
No comments:
Post a Comment