All guns blazing

With the Supreme Court reaffirming the Second Amendment rights of Americans and striking down the gun ban Washington D.C. put in place, Republicans scored a too-rare victory on the national political scene. (Maybe it’s because we aren’t the ones attempting to circumvent the Second Amendment – with a few exceptions.) Local reaction followed the expected pattern, beginning with First Congressional District hopeful State Senator Andy Harris:

Today, State Senator Andy Harris M.D. praised the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling reaffirming our Second Amendment rights. For the first time United States history, the Supreme Court ruled that individual Americans have the right to own firearms for personal use. The ruling struck down the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns.

As a naval officer with expert pistol qualification who believes in the historical basis and the value of the 2nd Amendment, Andy supports the right of all law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. As a State Senator, Andy routinely receives “A+” ratings from the NRA for his support of Second Amendment rights. Andy is a lifetime member of the NRA.

“Today’s ruling is a victory for individual rights and personal liberty.” said Senator Harris. “Gun-grabbing liberals should take note that the Constitution clearly states Americans have the right to own firearms and the Supreme Court reaffirmed that today.”

I’ll actually have a little more from Harris later in the post. It was also occasion for Dr. Jim Pelura and the Maryland Republican Party to chime in:

“The Supreme Court’s decision this morning to uphold the Second Amendment reaffirms that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right.  The rights enshrined in our nation’s Constitution are just as relevant now as when they were first authored. 

Today’s ruling also illustrates the important choice that we face in this election. Senator McCain strongly supports the Second Amendment and believes it is no less important than the any of the other rights enumerated in the Constitution. Senator Obama is arguably the most anti-gun presidential candidate in our nation’s history.  Obama failed to step forward and join Senator McCain in signing a bipartisan amicus brief expressing support for the ruling issued today. Obama has supported banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns, even possession by law-abiding citizens.  Today’s ruling is a victory for all Americans. We must ensure that our justices strictly interpret the Constitution, and do not attempt to radically re-define our freedoms from the bench.”

Come on, do you REALLY think Senator Obama liked the ruling or thought it was Constitutional? He’s probably planning the end run now, but couching it as common sense gun law. In fact, I checked the Obama website and found this, under “Urban Policy“:

As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama also favors commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn’t have them. He supports closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. He also supports making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

Damn, I was right. I swear I didn’t read the blurb before I wrote the preceding paragraph. I’d like to see President Obama go into downtown Chicago, walk into whatever safehouse MS-13 or another such gang is using, and tell the nice young men there that they can’t use those assault weapons because they’re illegal. I’m sure they’ll say, “oops, we didn’t mean to have that here, some Republican left it.”

In the interest of fairness, I also checked up on what First District candidate Frank Kratovil and Maryland Democrats have to say about the Supreme Court ruling since I figured they’d also be interested in preserving our Second Amendment rights:

 

Strangely silent, although I did find out that Frank Kratovil is bringing in some young inside-the-Beltway hotshot to take over his campaign. That’s really down-home Eastern Shore, ain’t it?

Anyway, back to Senator Harris. I’m not sure I’m digging the “prescription for (insert problem here)” which his campaign is billing some of their recent releases, to me it’s hokey and detracts from the common sense that is placed under the headline. Nevertheless, it gives me something to discuss:

Andy took the occasion of the court’s ruling today to announce his “Prescription for Protecting Our Second Amendment Rights.” The plan has four parts:

  1. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right that cannot be taken away from a law-abiding citizen. Therefore, the federal government does not have the authority to keep records of who does and who does not possess firearms.
  2. National right-to-carry laws with reciprocity should be enacted.
  3. The right to self-defense means that every American should be permitted to take any means necessary to protect their home, their possessions, and their loved ones from loss or harm – without fear of government or personal legal action when self-defense is used. Laws confirming that right of self-defense should be enacted.
  4. Public lands should be made available to citizens for legal hunting.

Law enforcement and Homeland Security may scream bloody murder, but Andy is correct with point number one on the federal level. On a local and state level it’s somewhat more permissible. However, I’m not sure if points two and three don’t tread a little bit too much on the Tenth Amendment. Actually, come to think of it, point number three could be the seed for a new Constitutional Amendment. It may go with some others I’ve proposed. Because I’m writing this off the cuff as it were, I’m not going to spend the time to look it up but I think there was an argument made at our founding that we should have the right to life, liberty, and property – the “pursuit of happiness” was a compromise phrase.

While I’m not a hunter myself I see no issue with point number 4, but just wait until the environmentalists catch wind of that.

On the whole this ruling is an issue Andy can push because I’m thinking the pro-Second Amendment types around these parts outnumber the gun grabbers by at least five to one. Either way, the Supreme Court made a good ruling but it’s unfortunate the case ever got that far – once the ruling was properly made for the plaintiffs in the case, it should have been laughed out of the first appeals court because the Constitution is pretty plain about the right to bear arms.

Author: Michael

It's me from my laptop computer.

5 thoughts on “All guns blazing”

  1. Well, I’m glad Frank supports the Second Amendment – of course anything less might be political suicide around here. (He might want to get that word out via more than just PolitickerMD.)

    As for your point about Meekins, Chris was on the Harris campaign pretty much from day one whereas this new kid comes in at the stage when the DNCC starts to pay attention to the race. I just found that interesting timing, and I wonder if Frank wanted the change or it was “suggested” to him by someone higher up in the party.

  2. Meekins was born and raised in Cecil County where I believe his family still lives. He is more Eastern Shore than both of the candidates themselves.

  3. Gee, It only took the court 217 years to define the nature of the 2nd amendment. The Miller case in 1939 was the last time the court had the opportunity to do so, and they didn’t address the issue squarely then, but the world was a different place then too. No surprise that Obama is anti-2nd amendment. He understands the Constitution about as well as he does capitalism, free markets, supply and demand, foreign policy, global warming………

Comments are closed.