 |
|
|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Ron Paul on the Second Amendment Battle in DC
- Text size
Borderfire Report
February 22, 2008
As a United States Congressman, I take my oath to uphold all of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights Ron Paulvery seriously. Unfortunately, too many in Washington DC believe they can pick-and-choose which provisions of the constitution they can uphold. For example, many politicians, judges, and bureaucrats believe they have the power to disregard our right to own guns, even though the second amendment explicitly guarantees the people’s right to “keep and bear arms.”
Like the Founding Fathers, I believe that the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to a free society. Where law-abiding citizens are most freely allowed to defend themselves, communities are safer, while crime rises when law-abiding people’s access to firearms is restricted. Gun laws only disarm those who respect the law. Those with criminal tendencies do not turn in their weapons and reform their ways because government bureaucrats enact statutes that tell them to. Gun control laws turn peaceful citizens into sitting ducks for criminals to prey upon.
Ironically, one of the most draconian gun laws in the nation is in the nation’s capital. Banning guns did not make DC safer. In fact crime in DC rose after the gun ban went into place! Fortunately, last year, a federal court struck down DC’s gun ban in the case of DC v. Heller. This is the first time in years a court found a gun control law violated the second amendment. However, victory is not secured. The city of DC has appealed and the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case. If the lower court’s decision is upheld, law abiding citizens should once again be allowed to defend themselves in DC and I would expect it to become a much safer city. It would also set a very positive precedent that could affect gun laws all over the country.
However, a Supreme Court decision that the District of Columbia ’s gun laws are a “reasonable” infringement on constitutional rights could severely setback the gun rights movement.
This is why I have signed on to a brief headed by Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and signed by a majority of Congress asking the Supreme Court to uphold the lower court’s decision and take a stand for stricter standards of constitutional review for gun laws. I am pleased to work with Senator Hutchison, and so many of my other colleagues, on this important issue. As a member of the Second Amendment Caucus, I will continue to work with those of my colleagues who support gun rights and grassroots activists to defend the Second Amendment Rights of Americans.
-
- Social bookmarks
- Email this article
-
- Print this page
- Share on Twitter
February 22nd, 2008 at 9:22 am
Kay Bailey Hutchison? Good job praising a warmongering neocon who supports the police state, Ron. I’m for the 2nd amendment, but perhaps the brief could have been backed without praising Hutchison.
February 22nd, 2008 at 9:44 am
Ron Paul you are the man! Let’s hope that we the people can keep our guns just in case we are attacted by another country. This is another good argument for WE THE PEOPLE to retain our right to bear arms. The first and foremost is the Constitution.. Power to the peacefull Love to live live to love RIO in NC
February 22nd, 2008 at 4:25 pm
The Second Amendment needs all the support we can muster.
“Defense of person and property is a natural right given by our Creator.”
“Gun control worked well for the communist governments which slaughtered millions in Russia, Latvia, Poland, China, & c.”
“False is the idea of utility…that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it…. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man….” – Cesare Beccaria, 1738-1794
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:59 am
Ron is an incredible human being.. he came out of nowhere with 0 media support and 0 cooperation support and fought with the big dogs for being president of the united states.
cheers to ron, now that he has some free time he can do alot of good like reform the republician party, be the voice of truth, and further the species we call mankind with his realism.
Ron Paul 2012 anyone?
He has a chance to get down and dirty and start some good projects now.. we need to reach out to him and help him with that.. broad subject but this dude is pro demon slayer, he should get to work on getting a pro constitution program going and generally strengthening the moral and intellectual fiber of America.
February 23rd, 2008 at 3:19 pm
It is a shame the usa mind control (govern-ment) now fear the peoples RIGHT to bear arms I wonder WHY.
February 25th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Montana officials are warning that if the Supreme Court rules in the D.C. gun ban case that the right to keep and bear arms protects only state-run militias like the National Guard, then the federal government will have breached Montana’s statehood contract.
Nobody is raising flags for the Republic of Montana, but nobody is kidding, either. So far, 39 elected Montana officials have signed a resolution declaring that a court ruling of the Second Amendment is a right of states and not of individuals would violate Montana’s compact.
“The U.S. would do well to keep its contractual promise to the states that the Second Amendment secures an individual right now as it did upon execution of the statehood contract,” Montana Secretary of State Brad Johnson said in a Feb. 15 letter to The Washington Times.
The resolution also was signed by Rep. Denny Rehberg, Montana’s lone Republican congressman, and state Sen. Roy Brown, who is running to unseat Gov. Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat.
The dispute goes back more than a century. Back in 1889, the settlers of the Montana territory struck a deal with the federal government: They agreed to join the union, and the government agreed that individuals had the right to bear arms.
That has worked fine for the past 118 years, but the Supreme Court is expected next month to hear oral argument in District of Columbia v. Heller, the appeal of a federal court decision striking down the District’s gun-ownership ban on Second Amendment grounds.
The high court has not issued a broad ruling on Second Amendment law in almost 70 years, including the key question of whether it provides an individual right, like speech and jury trial, or a “collective right” held by state governments. Many constitutional scholars, both liberal and conservative, say this case gives the justices an opportunity to rule on that matter.
The Montana statehood contract, which was preserved as Article I of the state constitution, specifies gun ownership as an individual right: “The right of any person to keep or bear arms … shall not be called in question.”
March 1st, 2008 at 12:59 pm
i think then that the ‘any person’ of the MT Constitution includes: vets with PTSD, dishonorably discharged vets, mentally ill, extremists….ANY one
(What is this “You are posting comments too quickly. Slow Down” crap from Wordpress?! this happens when i try to post….is this being censored?)
PISTOL PETE Reply:
February 25th, 2009 at 12:47 am
Was it not ok when the vet packed a gun in your defense? For the others on your list,anyone who truly wants to get his,or her hands on a gun can do so…………