The inside story behind Virginia’s “Second Amendment Sanctuary City” movement that you didn’t hear on the news.
Sharyl Attkisson
Untouchable Subjects. Fearless, Nonpartisan Reporting.
Sharyl Attkisson
Untouchable Subjects. Fearless, Nonpartisan Reporting.
Subscribe To The Newspresso Daily
Get Sharyl’s Latest Stories Straight to Your Inbox Once a Day
u r a corageous woman! and a beautiful one to…so i truly hope that others will follows you coz we need real journalism n real journalists ! God bless you
Excellent coverage on the Virginia Gun Rights March. Saw you walking among the line of Virginian’s at the event on YouTube. You were there and that counts.
[Not a lawyer, just a Texas citizen trying to make sense of the laws I and my government are supposed to operate under.]
A few points, not necessarily in answer to specifics brought up in your excellent podcast:
The Second Amendment does not grant the right to arms. It forbids the government to “infringe” a right to arms which is presumed to exist. (And as I like to say, “shall not be infringed” means “No, you don’t even get to trim off the decorative bits dangling around the edges”.)
You said the preamble to the Second mentions an “organized” militia. No, it mentions a “well regulated” militia, a term of art meaning well trained–“regulated” as in a regulated watch, something of a novelty at the Founding.
Federal law (10 U.S.C § 246) defines the militia as “all able bodied males” between the ages of 17 (that’s high school juniors!) and 45, and “female citizens who are members of the National Guard”. It divides the militia into the Organized militia, which is the National Guard; and the Unorganized Militia, which is everyone else, all of us. (See the code for a few more details.)
The National Guard, established in 1903, and not defined in the Constitution, is in fact a branch of the Army, and has military standards and training far in excess of what’s needed for a militia of the people.
The purpose of the Second’s militia clause is not to restrict who may exercise the right to arms, but rather, to ensure that the militia is universal. “The whole of the people”, as George Mason said.
The restrictions on the First Amendment are on specific harmful acts. For instance, the First does not protect a “right” to commit fraud, slander, incitement, or child sacrifice. Nevertheless, the government must not forbid you to speak publicly, own a printing press, photograph or record the police, read a book, connect a computer to the Internet (a technology undreamt of by the Founders, unlike machine guns) or go to church, on the grounds that you MIGHT commit these crimes. The courts block attempts to do so as “prior restraint”.
Likewise, the Second Amendment does not mean you are permitted to commit robbery, rape, or murder with a gun–these things are all prohibited by their own laws, and rightly so.
The Supreme Court has identified “levels of scrutiny” to evaluate laws that might violate the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment is accorded “strict scrutiny”; that is, a proposed law must be necessary to a “compelling state interest”; “narrowly tailored” to achieving this compelling purpose; and use the “least restrictive means” to achieve the purpose. [lifted from Wiki].
No standard of scrutiny has ever been established for the Second Amendment, but given that its language is stricter than the First Amendment (“shall not be infringed” versus “Congress shall make no law”; and that it said to be “necessary to the security of a free state”, very few anti-gun laws issued at any level of government are likely to survive a strict scrutiny analysis.
The Constitution, Article I, Section 8, clause 16, gives Congress the power “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,” Note that this could be accomplished by instituting a mandatory militia class in high school (17 years old, remember?) and issuing rifles to anyone volunteering to enlist in the organized militia–not the National Guard, but a true citizen’s militia.
And a few trite sayings:
The primary reason for the militia is not crime control, it’s tyrant control, which is why politicians favor gun control, which is really about people control.
As to crime control itself: The true first responder is always, necessarily, the victim.
And heed Sir Robert Peel, founder of the first modern police department, Scotland Yard: “The people are the police, and the police are the people, the police being only citizens paid to perform full time duties incumbent on every citizen.” Another good reason to train everyone in high school, one which would increase mutual respect.
NO GUN HAS EVER KILLED ANYONE BY IT SELF . IT IS SICK PEOPLE THAT GO OUT AND JEST KILL FOR THE HELL OF IT . SO FIX THE SICK AND LEAVE OUR DAM GUNS ALONG . AND NOW TO WHY THE DNC IS GOING AFTER OUR GUNS . IT IS TO COVER UP ACTIONS OF OBAMA . BACK WHEN OBAMA (CUT ) FUNDING FOR MENTAL HEATH BIG TIME .. THIS IS WHAT THEY DONT YOU TO LOOK AT . THAT FUNDING WOULD HAVE SAVED LIVES . BECAUSE OF THE HELP IT WOULD HAVE GIVEN TO THEM THAT NEED IT . THE PROBLUM HERE IS NOT THE GUN IT SELF . BUT THE WAY THE DNC IS MISSLEADING AMERICA . THERE USEING THE SAME FLOOR MAT. THEY USED TO MAKE THE KILLING DRUGS ILLEGAL .60 TO 80 YR AGO . THERE GUN PROGRAM IS SET UP SO THEY CAN ADD NEWS LAWS TO IT. QUICK AND EASY . THEY START OUT SLOW AND THEN WILL COME AFTER OUR GUNS . AND WHEN YOU ADD THERE PUSH FOR OPEN BORDERS .?? JEST THESE (2)ACTIONS WOULD LEAVE MOST AMERICANS HELPLESS TO DEFEND OUR SELFS . SO I ASK WHO IS THE DEMCORATES WORKING FOR THESE DAYS BECAUSE IT IS NOT FOR AMERICA OR (US ) AMERICANS
I enjoy your podast via Spotify! Keep up the good work
and always stand your ground.