America's Double Standards

[Rooster Ron Wayne]

I found this today .

And thought it was worth sharing .

‎

America's double standard against Second Amendment gun rights

© Getty

Our Founding Fathers cherished the belief “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights” and enshrined this belief in the Declaration of Independence.

The right to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to assemble, the right to secure your person and property from unlawful search, the right against double jeopardy, right to remain silent, right to due process, the right to a speedy trial and to confront witnesses, the right to bail and protection from cruel and unusual punishment — among others — are all guaranteed to the people by different sections contained in the first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution, collectively known as the “Bill of Rights.”

So dear are these rights that the original document which forged our national culture is protected in the National Archives.

These rights have consistently been considered by the Supreme Court to be inherent, rather than the result of a personal petition followed by adjudication by the federal, state or local governments.

Justice Hugo Black, writing for the majority in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), stated “No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance.” He considered this right to be inherent and the courts do not require that a person need to petition for the right to freedom of religion in order to exercise this right.

In Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505 (1961), Justice Potter Stewart, writing for a unanimous court, stated: "…at the very core stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion." There is no requirement for a person to petition for this right to be free from unreasonable search, again it is intrinsic.

In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), Chief Justice Earl Warren, writing for the majority, actually required that persons be informed of their inherent right to remain silent and to counsel. This further expanded the right to counsel defined in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), delivered by Justice Hugo Black. Although the person can request counsel, there is no requirement for a person to petition for this right to remain silent and have their request adjudicated by a court in order to exercise this right.

In Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976), the court provided guidelines for the lower courts to apply the inherent right against cruel and unusual punishment for cases involving the death penalty. Again, there is no requirement for the person to petition for this right against cruel and unusual punishment, it is inherent.  

These are just a few examples where the courts have found that the rights affirmed in the Bill of Rights are inherent and do not need to be adjudicated as a result of a personal petition to the federal, state or local courts.

In the District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, stated: “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

He further states: “Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition — in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute — would fail constitutional muster.” The Heller decision reaffirms that the “right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,” as is all rights delineated in the Bill of Rights, is an individual right.  

Does the Heller decision, reaffirming this individual “right of the people to keep and bear arms,” mean all the state and local laws that require a person to apply for this individual right and have this application adjudicated by the state or local authorities is an “infringement”?

After all, why would the right to keep a firearm in the home, as defined in the Second amendment and affirmed in the Heller decision, be the only individual right in the Bill of Rights to be exercised only after an application to an adjudicating authority like state and local authorities, rather than these governments denying the exercise of this right only with the existence of “…warrants …” issued “…upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation…” as with other rights granted in the Bill of Rights?

Does this create a double standard between an American’s ability to exercise their inherent right to keep and bear arms, and an American’s ability to act on the other rights listed by the Bill of Rights and affirmed by the Supreme Court?

Indeed, would it not be more consistent for the government, be it federal, state or local, to deny persons to the “right to keep and bear arms,” only upon meeting the standards protecting other rights guaranteed in the “Bill of Rights”?

John M. DeMaggio is a retired special agent in charge and served as a captain in the U.S. Navy. The above is the opinion of the author and is not meant to reflect the opinion of the U.S. Navy or the U.S. government.

 

 

 

[Charlie T Waite]

Good article Rooster.

 

Charlie

[Rooster Ron Wayne]

Thanks Charlie .

We all need to fight for our rights to keep and bear arms .

Knowledge is the first step .

Rooster 

[Subdeacon Joe]

Even more basic, in 1943 SCOTUS made it plain that the entire Bill of Rights is off the political table:

 

Quote

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

: Robert H. Jackson, US Supreme Court Justice West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

 

Our enumerated, constitutionally protected civil rights should not even be being discussed.