This is another response to the May 5th letter to the editor in the Register Mail.

—

I enjoyed reading Ed Klapp’s thoughts on our referendum. However his final conclusion, “Unregulated possession of arms is not anyone’s right,” did not meet with the interpretation of the Supreme Court  (SCOTUS) in Heller. It would appear to me Mr. Klapp’s understanding of the term “regulated” refers to  regulations as in laws or statutes. The court stated with regard to the term, “regulated” as follows:  “…the adjective “well?regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and  training.” (Heller p23) The training and discipline refers to the Militia.

His comments on the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment (2A) did agree with the court. On  page 3 of the Heller opinion the court restates for better clarity their version of the 2A as follows:  “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to  keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

I like to use as an example my own version of an imaginary amendment: The weather being subject to  change unexpectedly, the right of the people to keep and bear an umbrella shall not be infringed. The  prefatory clause gives a reason why one might keep and bear an umbrella; however the operative clause  can stand on its own without the prefacing clause.

Mr. Klapp further mentioned the right is not without limit, at which point he quoted: “It is not a right to  keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” This is  true; the court states that the purpose for keeping and bearing must be a lawful purpose, such as self defense, hunting or any number of other possible reasons. Keeping and bearing for unlawful purposes such as to rob or steal can be prohibited.

A further quote used by Klapp: “…we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment…” implies that the full range of the 2A interpretation will be coming along as time proceeds. Indeed four cases last month were decided in favor of the pro 2A proponents. These cases will most likely continue to wend their way through the courts to end up before SCOTUS.

Finally it is important to note that Illinois’ complete ban on the exercise of a fundamental right will not likely stand. Last month in Woolard v Sheridan (Maryland) the court stated: “A citizen may not be required to offer a ?good and substantial reason? why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.”

If you want to correspond with me regarding these remarks I may be contacted at:
editorials@pike912.org.

Dan A. Mefford, D.C.
Initiator of the Pike County Constitutional Carry Referendum

Following is a Letter to the Editor I submitted to the Register Mail in response to a letter from Ed Klapp.

—

In the May 5^th2012 edition of the Register Mail, Mr. Klapp has written quite eloquently quoting the Supreme Courts comments effectively. However some of what Mr. K has missed is the court did not presume to discuss the extents of what Second Amendment law includes. Therefore much of what regulation can be done without infringing the Right has yet to be determined.

The court likes to use the rights enumerated in the First Amendment as examples and I as well prefer these rights as examples.

Free speech- is a natural and fundamental right… Do we need permission from government to speak our mind? NO! However there is a limit to about any natural right; for instance in this case the classic – you cannot yell FIRE! or BOMB! in a crowded auditorium. So a reasonable regulation might be; “do not yell fire in a crowded auditorium when there is no fire.”

Free Press… Do we need permission of government to print speech? NO! There is a natural limit – you cannot print defamatory or libelous talk or lies. A reasonable regulation might be, “Do not libel.”

Now Right To Keep and Bear Arms….. Do I need permission of government to exercise my natural, God given “RIGHT” to keep and bear/carry an arm? NO!… IT IS a NATURAL RIGHT the same as the others. Is there a natural limit to the exercise of this right? Of course there is! We cannot exercise our right by irresponsibly placing other individuals at risk and reducing/stealing their right to enjoyment of life by waving, brandishing, intimidating with an “arm.” The key; does government have any more ability to “regulate” the bearing of arms than it does free speech, free press, free exercise of religion, etc.? NO! But the government does try to regulate it in the name of safety. We call the excess regulation “usurpation” of power. Now we the People have been ignorant and allowed it to happen but somewhere it must stop…. So yes it can be regulated in some ways. I would say, “We do NOT have to ask permission of government to possess, keep or carry an Arm!”

In Illinois there is a complete ban on the public carry of a firearm whether concealed or openly carried. There is ban on any firearm without the express permission of the government in the form of a FOID card, unless you are from out of state, in which case the Chicago Machine trusts you to be an honorable person.

So while Mr. K is correct that some regulation might be accomplished you cannot have a complete ban on a fundamental right without infringing on that right.

—

To sign the Constitutional Carry of Arms Ordinace for your county, call 309-760-4114

Many thanks to Dan for the help, check out his blog here:

http://www.pike912.blogspot.com/

May 11th Update: This letter to the editor was finally published in the May 10th edition of the Review Atlas.  Also the total counties as of today (May 11th) is 14 counties.  This article says 10.  Hopfully the number will continue to grow!

—

I am writing in response to the May 2^nd, 2012 letters to the Editor by Jim Brower and this supposed person named Jack Winchester.

Jim, I want to thank you for your support. From the feedback I am getting, the majority of the people feel the same.

Now, on to this mysterious Winchester fellow:

The Cruise Night scenario is a great one BUT let’s imagine it with NO gun rights. The first thing we need to remember is that CRIMINALS DO NOT OBEY GUN LAWS. Are we naive enough to think that out of 25,000 people, quite literally from all over the country, that there are no criminals carrying a hidden gun? So the situation we presently have is a huge crowd of unarmed law abiding citizens (fathers and mothers with their children) rubbing shoulders with at least some armed criminals. These criminals know that since there are no gun “carry” rights in Illinois they have the upper hand in any confrontation they choose to cause. As Jack would say, “Parents, feel safe about your kids attending?”

Now let’s look at the same scenario with our 2^ndAmendment rights restored. One percent of the law abiding citizenry, responsible fathers and mothers, decide to exercise their constitutional right to “bear arms”. Now, if you were a criminal, which crowd would you like to be in? Are you going to try to lift the wallet or snag the purse (or something much worse) of a person if that person (or the person around the corner) could be carrying? The proven result: crime rates go down!

The only response I have to the obvious character assassination attempt on me in the last two-thirds of Jack’s letter is to confess that indeed there is another, be it not ‘darker’, agenda to this movement which has now spread to ten other counties in Illinois. It is to tell the Chicago Political Machine that we are tired of it’s control over our great state and if the only way we can have our voices heard is by passing a countywide referendum so be it. I ask you to join me.

In closing, this idea that restoring our 2^ndamendment rights is an extremist political agenda is a fabrication of the gun grabbers. The law abiding citizens of the other 49 states have options to carry if they choose. Five have a form of Constitutional Carry with eleven others considering it.

Sean McKee

309-760-4114

seanmmckee@gmail.com

Here is a response written by a fellow patriot in response to the “commentary” prefacing the Constitutional Carry of Arms Ordinance press release printed in the Review Atlas April 27th 2012. 

The press release can be found here: Area man pushes for end to firearm regulations

—-

Dear Editor,

I read your article dated April 27th regarding Mr. Sean Mckee circulating a petition regarding the concealed carry of a firearm in Warren County. I applaud Mr. McKee and wish him luck. What disturbed me were Mr. Algren’s remarks in the article about the “interpretation” of the 2nd Amendment in today’s world.

May I have a moment to educate Mr. Algren who apparently never obtained any education in American History while attending Law School. This is the problem with today’s academics. Rather than attempt to “interpret” the 2nd Amendment, maybe they should just read the historical context in which it came about.

The U.S. Constitution was ratified on Sept.17th, 1789. The convention of delegates were called together to discuss issues and problems that the 13 SOVEREIGN nation states were having amongst themselves under the previously ratified Articles of Confederation. The ratification debates lasted over several separate sessions from 1787-1789.

Studying the debate minutes of the Constitutional Ratification, we find that unlike today, it was understood that…

• A. The States were never under Federal Governmental rule…They were completely sovereign.
• B. The Federal Government had very limited and specific powers as outlined in Article 1 Section 8. Eighteen Innumerated Powers.
• C. If there were to ever be any question as to jurisdiction, it would always fall to the states.
• D. The union of states was and always meant to be voluntary… Abraham Lincoln killed that one.
• E. There were never any obscure clauses to ponder, ie. Establishment Clause, Interstate Commerce Clause, General Welfare Clause…etc etc.

Literally at the last minute, prior to ratification, Article V was written, giving the states the mechanism by which to reign in Federal governmental usurping of power. The framers then signed and ratified the Constitution…. Then what happened?

Virginian, Patrick Henry was so concerned that they had just created another monarchical government, that he pushed for, and over the next two years… Amended the Constitution…We call these the Bill Of Rights. Interestingly enough, the only reason there was any debate over the ten Articles of Amendment were the fact, as cited by James Madison, “These Articles should not be needed, for we have innumerated the powers of the new Federal Government… Little did he know….

Anyway, let me answer Mr. Algren’s remarks about the 2nd Amendment. First, Every State had their own Militia. You see, originally, the framers did not EVER want a standing Army. However, the states already existed, and already had their mechanisms to call forth the unorganized militia in the event they were needed. The 2nd Amendment says, “A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”… Here, yes Mr. ALgren is correct.

However, he implies that there is some misunderstanding as to what the phrase, “Well Regulated” means… One only has to read the debate minutes to see that the context of “Well Regulated” simply means… The Same, or Regular. At that time, most of the states required that every man from ages 17-45, have specific weapon, ammo, bedroll, and other items at the ready, so he would be “Regular” with the rest of his countrymen. And, most importantly, he would be under the command of his GOVERNOR! What the 2nd Amendment does, as all the rest of the Amendments do, is PROHIBITS INFRINGEMENT BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

This is not my opinion, but the opinion of Patrick Henry, George Mason, John Dickinson, James Monroe, John Tyler…just to name a few of the founders of our country. It has only been academia and the American Bar Association that seems to have trouble deciphering what the “Interpretation” of the 2nd Amendment is…. My advice? Don’t interpret…Simply read it…

Thank You and Good Luck to Mr. McKee

Sincerely,

Joel Carlston