Letter: Anti-gun op ed got it all wrong
Anti-gun op ed got it all wrong
Editor of the Reformer:
I am writing this in rebuttal to Dave Kilby's "The Second Amendment -— An historical perspective" (Dec. 18). You can always tell when someone who knows nothing about firearms writes an anti-Second Amendment editorial mixing fact with fiction so low-information voters can make a quick emotional decision going their way at the ballot box.
The founders didn't envision 100 cartridge clips, 650 round per minute weapons. Really. I bet they didn't envision Kilby using a word processor or maybe he used ink and quill for his tome. Or how about his statement, "The Second Amendment isn't there to protect the people from government: it was placed there to protect government from the people." Nothing could be further than the truth. I can cite over a dozen quotes from Adams to Washington as to the founders intent of the Second Amendment. It was to put the citizens on an equal footing with a government that has become tyrannical. This is why all military and oaths of office are to the Constitution not to the federal government or elected officials.
He goes on to criticize the Supreme Court over the 2008 decision District of Columbia v Heller stating in his opinion "they blew it" and it should be overturned. The political left uses Supreme Court decisions as a crutch to advance their political agenda when it is to their advantage. They use the phrase "settled law" when it comes to decisions that go their favor like Roe v Wade or the decision on the Affordable Care Act. When the Supreme Court makes a decision over a case like Citizen's United or Bush v Gore the Supreme Court is wrong, That's not "settled law" because the decision did not go in their favor.
In the case of the 2010 Supreme Court decision McDonald v Chicago, which Kilby totally ignored in his op ed, Hillary Clinton like Dave Kilby said that the Supreme Court was wrong. I guess they didn't like the decision this time and want it reversed. Or in Hillary's case, would issue an unconstitutional executive orders to circumvent a Supreme Court decision. The court's decision in McDonald v Chicago stated that a state or lower government cannot ignore or supersede the rights granted to the people under the Constitution specifically the Second Amendment. However, it is the second part of McDonald v Chicago which settles which weapons can and cannot be owned by citizens. The court states: "None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation. Neither U.S. v Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, nor Presser v Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 refutes the individual-rights interpretation. U.S. v Miller, 307 U.S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes."
In layman terms, Americans have the right to keep and bear arms that are equivalent to those "in common use" by the National Guard which the court considers "a well regulated militia." The weapon "in common use," according to the National Guards web site, and is standard issue to the National Guard is the M16 Rifle with 30-round magazines. Regular citizens cannot own an M16, which has a three-round burst option. We can only own the "demilitarized" M15, which is like any other semi-automatic rifle. As long as the National Guard has these weapons the Supreme Court has ruled that the American citizen has that same fundamental right. The Supreme Court refutes any attempt to make so called "assault weapons" like the M15 or 30-round magazines illegal. The Supreme Court has now made two, not one decisions on the Second Amendment in over 70 years. And they are now "settled law."
TALK TO US
If you'd like to leave a comment (or a tip or a question) about this story with the editors, please email us. We also welcome letters to the editor for publication; you can do that by filling out our letters form and submitting it to the newsroom.