Sangamon
County Rifle Association
Right Reason on Second Amendment Rights
Springfield, Illinois
Right Reason on Second Amendment Rights
Springfield, Illinois
| |
Sangamon
County Rifle Association
Right Reason on Second Amendment Rights Springfield, Illinois |
|
The DRED SCOTT CASE, and the Second Amendment For years, the anti-Freedom forces who are trying to emasculate the Second amendment have relied on their interpretation of the Miller case, decided by the Supreme Court in 1937, I believe, where a Federal law that required owners of Machine guns and certain other described firearms must register those guns with the Treasury Department and pay a Fee to possess them, was upheld as not a violation of the Constitution's restrictions against the possession of firearms under the Second Amendment. In the Miller case, the defendant failed to file a brief in the Supreme Court, and no one argued his side of the case. The facts the judges based their decision on were wrong, as they claimed there was no evidence that a sawed -off shotgun was a military weapon, even tho' short-barreled shotguns were used by our forces in the trench warfare of WWI, and had prior use in the Civil War on both sides of the conflict, and had seen use by our men in campaigns in Nicaragua, and The Philippines. But they ruled that the Second amendment was at very least an effort to protect the right of the States to be able to form and muster up their own militias. The Court never ruled that it did not protect a private right to keep and bear arms, as is claimed. Of course, the Miller case was not the first U.S. Supreme Court case that discussed the meaning of the Second Amendment. Those anti-freedom advocates have been lying about that for years, and this includes the ACLU, which has cherry picked the Bill of Rights since its inception. In 1856, The U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of DRED SCOTT VS. SANFORD, ( 19 Howard, 393-633( 1856) ) , in which a black slave claimed he was freed by the operation of law when his owner took him into Illinois where they resided for several months. Since Illinois was a free state, where slavery was not allowed, Scott argued that he was " freed ". The Courts disagreed, but in a Landmark Decision, Chief Justice Taney, who was from a Border Slave State of Tennessee, decided to go further, and cut off all future claims to freedom that might arise from time to time. He decided that Negroes could not be considered " Citizens " of the United States, even if they were considered " Citizens " in certain " free " states, under those state's own Constitutions and laws. By holding that Negroes could not be Citizens of the United States, Taney concludes that they can not claim any rights acknowledged as belonging to all free citizens by the Federal Constitution: ..." More especially, it cannot be believed that the large slaveholding States regarded them[ Negroes ] as included in the word " citizens", or would have consented to a constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another State. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public, and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hole public meetings upon political affairs, and TO KEEP AND CARRY ARMS WHERE THEY WENT. [Emphasis added by writer ]And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safe of the State. ...." How in the world can anyone in the America Civil Liberties Union claim that the " U.S. Supreme Court has not spoken on the meaning of the Second amendment until " Miller ', " after reading Dred Scott? The bigger question is how can any American of African descent support the banning or restricting of the right to keep and bear arms by any State, or subdivision of the state, or the Federal Government, after reading that case? Here is a Southern Jurist, fully steeped in all the prejudices, and fears of his day, fully indoctrinated in the racial stereotyping of that time concerning Negroes, declaring the South's Biggest Fears if Negroes were afforded the FULL RIGHTS of citizens. And for years now, since the Civil rights struggle renewed, and began to overturn such laws concerning every other right recognized by our Federal Constitution, Black Americas- of course, not all, but so many that its embarrassing--- have supported local mayors and political leaders in their demands to restrict and ban guns, making false claims in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that such laws will reduce violent crime. It is accepted legal doctrine( " settled law " is the legal term-of-art used by Judges and lawyers) that the 13th Amendment overturned the Dred Scott decision when it ended " involuntary servitude. The 14th Amendment spelled out that the states were required to recognize and extend the rights and privileges of citizenship to all freed blacks. But it seems that in catering to certain political wings of the Democratic party, many African Americans are willing to give up the most basic freedom recognized by the Constitution, and the is the right to be able to defend yourself from enemies, foreign and domestic, and even from your own government when the need arises. I do not believe any person in the USA can call himself a Free Person unless he acknowledges ALL the freedoms recognized by the Constitution as well as those that have arisen as a result of Court rulings and interpretations of that Constitution. And, you can't cherry pick, or recognize a right for one group of people, and not for another group. The 15th Amendment called for all citizens to be treated equally under the law. When Black Americans call for the banning of guns, they not only abandon their birthright as Americans, they endanger my birthright, too. If they want to know why I protest against them when they seek to impose their silly beliefs on me and endanger my freedom, property and life, I am happy and proud to tell them. And I am also happy to beg them to rethink their position, and become the Free American so many of us have fought so long to give them as their birthright, and so many people who have gone before died to earn that right for them. Benjamin Franklin said it best of all: " Anyone who would give up a bit of liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security." He was not speaking of the Second Amendment. But he was speaking in general of all the rights that the Founding Fathers ( yeah, those old white guys) believed were given by our Creator to each of us. He had helped to write the Declaration of Independence, He had been a representative of the Colonies in the Court of St. James, and had been publicly humiliated by King George III himself in front of Parliament, after which he spent the war years in France trying to create and maintain an alliance with that country so that we could have the arms and men to fight off the British Army. He lost his only son, William, who was a royal Governor of New Jersey, at the end of the war because of their difference in loyalty. When he died in 1790, his death was considered a great loss to this country, as he died as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were being circulated among the states for ratification, and many people looked to Franklin to explain in common language what it all meant. His writings were also widely read all over Europe. How can we forget such wisdom and warnings when someone is messing with our constitutionally-protected rights? What has so changed in the hearts of men that we now think we can risk giving up any of those rights? And why would people with ancestors who were enslaved, persecuted, discriminated against, both legally and socially for more than 180 years be so willing to give up their birthrights? If anything, Logic would suggest that as soon as Blacks were restored the right to vote, and all the rest of their civil rights, they would be down at gun shops getting training in how to use firearms correctly, and safely, and then buying their own guns and ammo. They would be openly carrying them in the streets, and demanding that concealed carry laws be passed in every state, so that all citizens, including Blacks, could protect themselves in their homes, and on the streets from anyone who insists on being a violence- prone bigot towards them. When I still hear of incidents involving violent racial attacks on African Americans, I want to know why that poor man or woman was not armed to protect themselves and others from just such an occurrence. The next time someone says, " The Supreme Court has never held that the Second Amendment protects a private right to keep and bear arms", ask them if they have read the Dred Scott Case? And the next time you see Blacks picketing a gun store calling for banning the sale and possession of guns, given them a copy of this part of the Dred Scott decision, and ask them why they are so willingly giving away their birthright as a Free American? I want to know, too. Paul Vallandigham Attorney At Law Secretary, GunsSaveLife.com, Inc. 1707 Stratford Dr. Champaign, IL. 61821 217-378-4239 Return to SCRA Home Page |