NATIONAL CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY REQUIRES CAREFUL THOUGHT: AMERICANS HAVE MUCH WORK AHEAD OF THEM TO MAKE THIS A REALITY.
NATIONAL CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY—LIKE SELF-DEFENSE—IT’S A RIGHT, NOT A PRIVILEGE.
AMERICANS WHO CHERISH THEIR SECOND AMENDMENT AND WHO SEEK TO STRENGTHEN THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS MUST BE MINDFUL OF DEEP-SEATED ANGER AND RESENTMENT OF THOSE WHO SEEK TO DESTROY THIS MOST CHERISHED RIGHT.
With the Nation’s Electoral College’s 538 Electors having cast their ballots—with the vast majority voting for President-elect Donald Trump, notwithstanding a last ditch effort by Clinton’s malcontent, insufferable supporters to prevent this—and with President-elect Donald Trump soon to take the oath of Office as the 45th President of the United States, and with Donald Trump clearly supportive of our Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms, Americans can now say with assurance a mandate exists for national concealed handgun carry reciprocity. No one can reasonably, rationally deny this. But, the foes of the Second Amendment will seek to prevent this, nonetheless.
We know the foes of the Second Amendment well. They include, inter alia, antigun groups, the mainstream media, left-leaning legislators in Congress and in the States, ignorant and frightened supporters of antigun group propaganda, Hollywood Moguls and actors, and liberal academicians.
But another foe exists: one both secretive and powerful; ruthless and dangerous. That foe comprises the internationalist power brokers. These internationalist power brokers—residing both here and abroad—seek the demise of the U.S. Constitution and destruction of our Nation State. This extraordinarily wealthy and dangerous foe machinates tirelessly and unceasingly toward the singular goal of a one World Government. America’s Bill of Rights is not compatible with their political, socio-economic blueprint. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is forever on the radar screen of these secretive, powerful, ruthless internationalists. They will fight vigorously to disrupt attempts to strengthen the Second Amendment.
The antigun groups, the mainstream media, the internationalists, leftist legislators in the U.S. Congress and in the State Capitals, liberal academicians, among others, are stymied, flummoxed, baffled, and bewildered by the defeat of their darling child, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Had Clinton won the Presidency—as the prognosticators projected and hyped—the foes of the Second Amendment would have rubbed their palms and chuckled in glee. For they would then have found fair winds. They would whittle away at the Second Amendment with unrestrained ferocity. Now they cannot do so. The wind is in their faces and the seas are roiling. We, fervent supporters of the Bill of Rights and, particularly, of the Second Amendment, are now the gods of the sea. We control the oceans, and we intend to sink the ships of those who betray our birthright.
Yes, those of us who voted for Donald Trump can be jubilant, but, even so, we must remain ever vigilant. We have stopped the foes of the Second Amendment in their tracks. But we cannot sit on our laurels, for the foes of the Second Amendment—are not sitting idly by. They are bracing for the true impact of a Trump Presidency and the strengthening of the Second Amendment’s right of the people to keep and bear arms. No longer are we merely fighting a rearguard action. And on the matter of the Second Amendment, Trump must be true to his word. We will not stand for equivocation or compromise here.
With Donald Trump as U.S. President we are victorious. We have stopped the foes of the Bill of Rights—the would-be killers of the Second Amendment—in their tracks.
But, we cannot rest on our laurels, for the foes of the Second Amendment, are not sitting idly by. They are bracing for the true impact of a Trump Presidency and strengthening of the Second Amendment’s right of the people to keep and bear arms. No longer are we, supporters of the Second Amendment, merely fighting a rearguard action. We have gained the high ground and we are on the offensive. Those groups that abhor the Second Amendment are not pleased with this new state of affairs and are, undoubtedly, more than just a trifle concerned.
The prospect of strengthening the Second Amendment amounts to another order of reality—something the foes of the Second Amendment cannot and will not abide. Realization of national concealed handgun carry reciprocity will do much to strengthen the Second Amendment. Antigun Legislators in Congress are already marshaling their forces against this. Senator Charles Schumer said he will oppose national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation. He has made plain his intention to fight “tooth and nail” against enactment of such legislation.
These foes of the Second Amendment may try to ingratiate themselves with Trump. If that does not work—and it must not—they will attempt to place obstacles in his path and those obstacles we will destroy as fast as the foes of the Second Amendment raise them.
THE SECOND AMENDMENT’S RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS UNIQUE. NO NATION OTHER THAN THE UNITED STATES, HAS, EITHER IN THEIR CONSTITUTIONS OR IN LEGAL DOCUMENTS A RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS THAT IS REMOTELY COMPARABLE TO OUR SECOND AMENDMENT.
No other Country has anything like our Second Amendment. The very existence of our Second Amendment is heresy for the power brokers—these internationalists—that seek to destroy it. For, the Second Amendment is a tacit assertion that Government is the servant of the People, not the other way around. The very existence of the Second Amendment serves as a reminder to the elected officials and bureaucrats of the federal Government that the American people are fully capable of—and have, in fact, a duty—as the founders of our Republic intended—to take back their Government from those who lose sight of the true rulers of this Country—the American People. The idea that authority—true and ultimate authority—resides in the American citizenry is anathema to the internationalists and to the puppets they control.
These internationalists seek to controvert the notion that rights and liberties, as set forth in our Nation’s Bill of Rights, exist intrinsically in the person.
These internationalists posit that such rights a citizen exercises and such liberties a citizen enjoys exist, not as inalienable, natural rights and liberties, preexistent in the individual, but as a grants or privileges bestowed by government on a citizen, or “subject.” For these internationalists, rights and liberties do not exist independently of government.
The very existence of our Second Amendment is, to the power brokers, heresy. These power brokers—these internationalists–disavow that rights and liberties exist in the person and not in Government. They intend to dissuade those who believe otherwise.
The Second Amendment—preeminent among rights and liberties is a tacit assertion that Government is the servant of the People, not the other way around. Hence, America’s Second Amendment is fertile ground for attack and its removal the first order of business for these internationalists and for the puppets who operate at the behest of these internationalists.
THE NOTION THAT CERTAIN RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES EXIST INTRINSICALLY IN THE PERSON IS NOT WIDELY ACCEPTED IN THE WORLD—NO LESS SO IN WESTERN NATIONS THAN IN DICTATORSHIPS AND IN MUSLIM THEOCRACIES.
Consider: President Obama and the defeated Democratic Party candidate for U.S. President, Hillary Clinton, have both overtly expressed their admiration of Australia’s restrictive gun laws. Most Americans, who keep abreast of politics, know this. They have made known their admiration for Australia’s outrageously restrictive, draconian gun laws on numerous occasions. That should sound the alarm for Americans. But there is something more ominous in this naked admiration. For, the Constitution of Australia is bereft of a bill of rights. Australia’s Government instituted restrictive, draconian gun laws easily because Australians—and they are less citizens and more mere subjects of the “Crown of England”—do not have rights or liberties but those that the Government deigns to bestow on Australia’s subjects.
Curiously, the framers of the Australian Constitution considered inserting a Bill of Rights in their Constitution, and looked to the United States Constitution and our Country’s Bill of Rights for guidance, but decided against this. One might speculate why the framers of Australia’s Constitution would forego a Bill of Rights for Australians. But this means that such rights and liberties that Australians happen to enjoy in Australia are man-made—concessions of Government to the people—the subjects of Australia–rights and liberties that are granted and withdrawn at will by Australia’s Parliament. That is fact not speculation.
Australia’s Constitution does not recognize rights and liberties preexistent in and preeminent in the individual. So, members of Australia’s Parliament have no difficulty dismissing out-of-hand any notion of a right to keep and bear arms. No wonder that President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton emulate the actions of Australia’s Parliament.
Australians owe their allegiance to the Queen of England. The Queen of England, and other “royalty” and “nobility,” have historically, distrusted the common man, and, so, have treated the common man with disdain.
Far from recognizing the lack of a bill of rights in Australia’s Constitution as a flaw, some acknowledge this as a good thing.
A few years ago, an Australian blogger, Mark Fletcher, published an article in a mainstream British newspaper, “The Guardian,” titled, “It’s a good thing that Australia isn’t burdened with human rights legislation.”
Fletcher ends his polemic with this: “So let other countries puff their chests with empty slogans about rights. Let them use International Human Rights Day to reaffirm their ideological commitment to the inalienability and irrefutability of whichever rights happen to suit them most. Let their restrictions on legislative capability be a testament to their fear that parliament is forever tempted to commit atrocities. Instead of trying to emulate these mediocre, antiquated, constipated ways of other jurisdictions, Australians should take pride in our achievements, learn from our errors, and strive to show the rest of the world that bills and charters of rights are superfluous.”
Reading this, one may understandably do a double-take. Is the author serious, or is this satire? Apparently, the author is serious. But, it is this very attitude that proponents of restrictive antigun measures have in our Country toward our own Bill of Rights that should raise the alarm. It is obviously a tacit idea held by the outgoing U.S. President, Barack Obama, and one also held by the defeated Democratic Party candidate for U.S. President, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Obama and Clinton do not respect our Bill of Rights and obviously consider such rights and liberties that are codified in our Bill of Rights to be ephemeral rather than real. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, as with Australian Government officials, believe rights and liberties exist extrinsically, with Government, not intrinsically within the People.
Consistent with this line of odd reasoning, Government can, at will, repudiate rights and liberties. Rights and liberties may be reduced, warped, changed, ignored, or discarded outright. Americans have seen Obama attempt to reduce the import of the Second Amendment by Government fiat. We have seen Obama ignore the unreasonable searches and seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment, ostensibly to enhance national security. And we have seen Obama curtail the First Amendment free speech clause under the guise of and for the benefit of promoting “political correctness” in public discourse.
Had Clinton won the Presidency—as the prognosticators projected and hoped for and hyped—the foes of America’s Bill of Rights would have rubbed their palms and chuckled in glee. For they would then be able to whittle away further at our rights and liberties even as they give lip-service to being of service to and protecting them.
The foes of the Second Amendment would give the Second Amendment especial attention. These foes of America’s rights and liberties would whittle away at the Second Amendment with increasing and particular ferocity. With loss of the Second Amendment we would inevitably lose, essentially, the entirety of our Bill of Rights. Whatever remained would be a hollowed out shell, with no true import or significance.
So, before engaging antigun groups—their supporters and their wealthy benefactors both here and abroad—and before considering the mechanics of making national concealed handgun carry reciprocity among the States and U.S. Territories a reality–we would do well to give serious consideration to the reason for making national concealed handgun carry reciprocity a reality.
As we work toward making national concealed handgun carry reciprocity a reality, it behooves us to have an argument at the ready to be used against those who will surely oppose it and who will oppose it vehemently. Thus, there is a good reason for promulgating a formal argument in support of national handgun carry reciprocity.
The Arbalest Quarrel has broached in an earlier article a thesis in support of national concealed handgun carry reciprocity. But, we wish to set forth at length a cogent, comprehensive, analytic basis for making national concealed handgun carry reciprocity a reality, in anticipated response by foes of our sacred Second Amendment.
What we provide for you in our next article, to be posted immediately as Part 5 of our ongoing series on national concealed handgun carry reciprocity, shall serve as the Arbalest Quarrel’s formal argument in support of national concealed handgun carry reciprocity.
Copyright © 2016 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.