H.R. 822

The axiom at hand states that the first requirement for tyranny to infect a nation is an apathetic populace, followed by an electorate that acquiesces to unquestioned policies purported to be enacted for the greater good.

The founders and framers believed deeply that the protections afforded a free press under the first Amendment to the United States Constitution would be the first, strongest and best bulwark in keeping tyranny at bay.

The current mass media conduits should be ashamed.

A little noticed piece of congressional legislation went almost uncommented on by most media outlets, and almost completely unnoticed by the electorate at large, sadly at their own peril.

Once again, the framework of the Constitution is under assault under the guise of protecting the public, when the reality is that freedom and liberty are being subjugated by the ignorance of our elected officials.

To wit:

H.R. 822: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 intends to “amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State”.  In other words, there would be an accepted national law regarding weapons possession superseding individual state legislation.

This bill passed Nov 16, 2011 in the House of Representatives by roll call vote. The totals were 272 Ayes, 154 Nays, 7 Present.

Putting aside the almost comical outrage that seven elected officials could somehow vote ‘present’, in other words take no stand on the issue, and ignoring the second amendment concerns relative to such legislation, the critical issue herein is that it appears few members of Congress are familiar with the tenth amendment.

The tenth amendment to the Constitution reads, in total, as follows:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.

That is short, to the point, and wholly unambiguous. The framers put this language into their guiding document for a reason. Read it again and understand that it goes to the heart of this matter, and shows how the aforementioned legislation is indicative of the slow but steady assault upon the Constitution.

Consider:

New York State has strict restrictions on firearm possession. It is amongst the most stringent in the country. The right to bear arms is not prohibited in New York; it IS tightly regulated, as are the laws governing firearm possession in California.

The laws in Florida are considered amongst the most lax in the nation. This is not an issue of right or wrong, better or worse. The fact is that it is easier to possess a weapon in Florida than in New York. The citizens of each respective state have made these choices by electing those to office who hold these views.

There are states that require formalized training before permits are issued, other have age requirements. Some states have mere age and felony conviction restrictions.

These are laws unique to each state. Some states do have reciprocal laws with other states, but again, such decisions are made by each individual state, according to the demands of their specific electorate.

The federal government can have national restrictions and regulations for weapons possession for the areas of their specific responsibilities, but this assault upon the American electorate is dangerous.

This is not about the second amendment, or even a states rights issue. This is about the permeating effects of a federal government run amok, being guided by politicians without a cogent and cohesive understanding of why the Constitution was framed and written the way it was.

The federal government has no constitutional jurisdiction on state weapons possession and thus should have no voice in such matters.

It is lazy and complacent to structure this as an issue of public safety; it is not. This legislation merely makes it easier for the federal government to involve itself in matters for which it has not been granted constitutional authority.

If the American electorate wishes to have stricter or more relaxed regulations for their state, it should be handled at the ballot box, not instituted by national fiat.

The tenth amendment exists to safeguard America and should be respected as such. To ignore it ‘for the public good’ is nothing more than the recipe for tyranny.