UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

You never get something for nothing. While the LGBT community and staunch liberals are claiming victory now, they will soon be crying foul when they realized they opened Pandora’s box.

Via Allen West

Yesterday, as you know, five justices on the SCOTUS redefined what marriage is in America and also found the time to violate the concept of federalism. They decided that an individual’s behavioral choice was grounds to create a new “right” in the U.S. Constitution. Now of course there are those of you who are somewhat despondent, but just know that in every storm there is a rainbow — quite sure y’all get my tongue-in-cheek comment. Yep, since now the SCOTUS has determined it can bequeath a right to marriage across all 50 states, there is an interesting point to be made.

As reported by BearingArms.com, “If you’re following any of the various media outlets this morning, you’re probably aware that the U.S. Supreme Court has just extended gay marriage to all 50 states. The Supreme Court ruled Friday that same-sex couples have a right to marry nationwide, in a historic decision that invalidates gay marriage bans in more than a dozen states. Gay and lesbian couples already can marry in 36 states and the District of Columbia. The court’s ruling on Friday means the remaining 14 states, in the South and Midwest, will have to stop enforcing their bans on same-sex marriage. The outcome is the culmination of two decades of Supreme Court litigation over marriage, and gay rights generally.”

The Court used Section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to justify its argument, which reads: Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now here is the kicker, as the writer articulately brings to light: “By using the Constitution in such a manner, the Court argues that the Due Process Clause extends “certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy” accepted in a majority of states across the state lines of a handful of states that still banned the practice. The vast majority of states are “shall issue” on the matter of issuing concealed carry permits, and enjoy reciprocity with a large number of other states. My North Carolina concealed carry permit, for example, was recognized yesterday as being valid in 36 states, which just so happened to be the number of states in which gay marriage was legal yesterday. But 14 states did not recognize my concealed carry permit yesterday. Today they must.

Using the same “due process clause” argument as the Supreme Court just applied to gay marriage, my concealed carry permit must now be recognized as valid in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Yes folks, there is a standing right called the Second Amendment, which grants the right to keep and bear arms, and that specifically granted right shall not be infringed. So, the SCOTUS does not need to have a court case and prolonged legal, judicial activism — that right exists.

So, since I have moved from Florida to Texas, my concealed weapons permit is not only transferrable here, but all across the country, in all fifty states — or fifty-seven if you are President Obama. Yeehaw! Thanks to the LGBT community for making it very clear, my constitutionally declared right MUST be recognized in every state. Not only is it my right to keep and bear my arms (weapons) but that personal choice is central to my individual dignity and autonomy — the protection of the unalienable rights granted to me by the Creator, the first of which is life. Hot doggone, I just cannot wait to hear the liberal progressive socialist anti-gun argument against this premise — which is now established!

Perhaps I should probably remind folks of some of the quotes of the Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment:

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!” — Benjamin Franklin

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” — George Mason

“No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state…such area well-regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.” — Richard Henry Lee

“[W]hat country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.” — Thomas Jefferson

“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent on others for essential, particularly for military, supplies.” — George Washington

“An armed person is a citizen, and unarmed person is a subject” — Allen B. West…I know, I’m just a regular fella, but just thought I’d sneak this one in.

Now, I suppose someone will say the words of Franklin, Mason, Lee, Jefferson, and Washington are invalid because of some lame excuse like — “ya know they owned slaves.” But the point is simple and easy to comprehend. If the SCOTUS could create a right that is truly non-existent in the Constitution using the 14th Amendment, then it seems reasonable and logical to use the same Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and equal protection to extend the concealed carry right to all 50 states.

So here is the call to action: since we are coming up on our 239th Independence Day celebration, let’s all call the White House and inform them that we CCL owners are going to be traveling for the Independence Day holiday and we plan on carrying our weapons wherever the heck we please. And if anyone decides to stop an American citizen and challenge his or her Second Amendment right, then let’s discuss the violation of federalism by the SCOTUS mandating same-sex marriage. As a matter of fact, we expect the ATF to start issuing NATIONAL CCL cards to all of us who are current holders of valid CCLs — heck, we know the DHS is planning on printing ID cards for illegal immigrants.

Therefore, celebrate your 4th of July knowing that the SCOTUS just solidified our right to keep and bear arms — and that no state has the “right” to infringe upon our Second Amendment right. If the violation of federalism works ok for LGBTs — then it works well for gun owners!

Yeehaw!

6
Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Persnickety
Persnickety

Lots of discussion of this idea on the gun boards. Consensus is that it seems correct, but the courts will undoubtedly not affirm CCW reciprocity in this way. More Just-Us for the masses.

Not discussed nearly as much is Karl Denninger’s view that the decision just turned all fundamental rights into privileges in the eye of the Court. His editorial on this is linked below. Jim, you might see if you can cross post the whole thing, I think it’s a real risk that should get attention.

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=230277

DC Sunsets

We’re so hiveminded now that we “recognize” the power of 9 people (who work for the FedGov) to tell us all what we can and can’t do, irrespective of common law crimes like theft, assault and murder.

How far we’ve fallen, and how fast.

Faux Queue
Faux Queue

Tyrannies do not refer to legal precedent as they press their boots to your neck. Nor do the cops refer to written law (see the Constitution) when pummeling the crap out of or killing whomever they perceive as having disrespected them.

The rights of the people rest with the people. Claim them. If there is no injured party, there is no crime. We’ve always had the right to carry a weapon, concealed or otherwise, wherever we want in the United States, but what we seem to lack at this juncture in history is the balls to aver and retain that right and many others.

Many years ago I was arrested and charged with a non-violent felony for growing a few little plants on my farm. At my first court appearance, and against the advice of the whore lawyer representing me, I respectfully asked the judge to kindly produce the injured party. He responded that the state had brought the charges because no taxes had been collected on the product, even though it was never going to be sold anywhere. Was this a criminal or civil action, I inquired. Criminal. I again respectfully asked the judge if Mr. State could describe how I had injured him and how my actions ever hurt anyone. He said that I knew that he could not do that, and I then asked him how, in good conscience, he could prosecute an innocent person, and if in fact this was about the state attempting to seize my property through forfeiture “laws”. He said that I had made my point, but I said that I did not think I had and asked him once again to produce the injured party. He adjourned at that point and requested my attorney to meet him in chambers, where he said that he did not want me in his courtroom ever again. The charges were dropped and all my property returned. The attorney “representing” me told me that acting against his advice had made the difference and that had I “gone along to get along” my property would have been forfeited. I was the “only” person he had ever represented who understood how jurisdiction in criminal law worked.

Everyone makes mistakes, as I did in my youthful zeal to have a clean and safe product to use. But I never harmed anyone and never intended to do so. Do not ever make the mistake of not claiming your Constitutional rights. Scream them if you have to, but never waive your rights by silence.

Concealed carry is the same. My state passed a no permit concealed carry law this year. If I make the “mistake” of carrying into a “prohibited zone”, it is not with the intention of harming anyone, it is with the intention of protecting myself and my family and will argue same in court if required. This is a misdemeanor charge in most states, but I still would fight it tooth and nail if it came to it. They are your rights-use ’em or lose ’em.

overthecliff

I wholeheartedly agree with the article concerning conceal carry reciprocity. It is logical, it makes sense and will fail in the Supreme Court. The fascists on the court will decide that the words “shall not be infringed” do not really mean what they say.

We are Without Rule of Law, we have no Constitution. They will do any damn thing they want to do if they can enforce it. It is going to be interesting to watch when the plunderers start fighting amongst themselves. My money is on the Mohammedans they really know how and when to enforce their positions.

gm
gm

slippery slope indeed wonder if my state issued hunting and fishing license is covered also ? hmm business license ? doctors license etc etc etc hmm doesn’t Colorado license business to sell pot? seems like they can sell outta state now? a license is a license? lol

GilbertS
GilbertS

That first quote sounds wrong. Not period-correct. A quick search online found this:
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Democracy
Misattributed

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

Widely attributed to Benjamin Franklin on the internet, sometimes without the second sentence, it is not found in any of his known writings, and the word “lunch” is not known to have appeared anywhere in english literature until the 1820s, decades after his death. The phrasing itself has a very modern tone and the second sentence especially might not even be as old as the internet. Some of these observations are made in response to a query at Google Answers.
The quote can be traced to an article that appeared in the Los Angeles Times on Nov. 25, 1990[1]. “Democracy has been described as four wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch”
In 1992, Marvin Simkin wrote in Los Angeles Times,

Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote.[2]

A far rarer but somewhat more credible variation also occurs: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.” Web searches on these lines uncovers the earliest definite citations for such a statement credit libertarian author James Bovard with a similar one in the Sacramento Bee (1994):
Historian Shelby Foote also used the term “Democracy is like two wolves and a lamb deciding on what they want for dinner” in Ken Burns 1990 Civil War documentary.

“Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.”
This statement also definitely occurs in the “Conclusion” (p. 333) of his book Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty (1994) ISBN 0312123337

Variants of this statement include that by Larry Flynt, as quoted in “Flynt’s revenge” by Carol Lloyd in Salon (23 February 1999):

Majority rule will only work if you’re considering individual rights. You can’t have five wolves and one sheep vote on what they want to have for supper.

Discover more from The Burning Platform

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading