You don’t fly?
You don’t buy!
It should be as simple as that! If the federal government has reasonable suspicion to place you on a terrorist “No Fly List,” you should also be barred from buying guns.
No ands, ifs or buts.
I know a little bit about reasonable suspicion, having served as a criminal defense lawyer for 20 years in Philadelphia and viewed the actions of every cop who ever targeted a client of mine for criminal activity. The police officer was required under law to state the grounds for his or her suspicion in a court of law. You could not use “racial profiling” for any of the reason that might draw your attention to the individual. But, you could share what roused your suspicions and see if they would pass what the law called the “reasonable man’s” understanding of facts and circumstances.
Reasonable suspicion would be enough for me to take away the right to assert your Second Amendment to the Constitution. Too often, up[holders of this clause forget to include the working of that “Bill of Right” which we have taken for granted as part and parcel of our Constitution. The framers clearly focused on a “militia” being given the right to bear arms. A militia working for the individual state and not himself.
In addition, they inserted a wonderful word the National Rifle Association conveniently forgets to use when championing this right. And that word was “regulated.” The Second Amendment says:
“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.”
The Second Amendment was based partially on the English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. It supported the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state, according to legal sources.
In 1876, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, “The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence” and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government. In addition, the Court said that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.”
In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court enlarged the right, ruling that the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.
“Nothing,” I say again, “nothing” prevents the government from regulating the sale of arms under certain circumstances. I believe the mass shootings in the United States call for a return to the original intent of the Constitution and a common sense approach to our mutual safety.
(By the way, let’s require all gun sales to have background checks, including any made over the Internet and at gun shows. In addition, require sellers to contact the FBI whenever someone wants to purchase body armor. It would have tipped off authorities if it was the law a week ago.)
(And while we’re at it, let’s help women in an abusive relationship who seek help from the courts in the way of a “protective order.” If anyone threatens or performs any act of aggression, ban that person from having the right to bear arms.)
So true. We need sensible gun reform
Sent from Windows Mail
Thank you my best friend from Kansas!
(Actually, you are my only friend from Kansas!)
My good friend from her protest days commented on Facebook this way:
Great piece. In my experience part of a protection order includes the confiscation of any known guns from the named offender male or female. In cases I have known in Philadelphia this did happen. I am told gun shows are now doing background checks and quickly. I don’t have first hand knowledge of that.
Great. I’ll pass this on!
Michael J Contos Great. I’ll pass this on!
My good friend who I’ve been writing with the past year spoke about this issue on Facebook: