The right to bear...

Black, tan, any color

No, this isn’t about being overly hairy, having long, untrimmed nails, or taking a long winter’s nap - this is about the right to keep and bear arms (of any sort or color). In the wake of the SCOTUS decision on New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen declaring that people have a constitutionally-protected right to carry firearms on their person, several states, feeling pressured to issue carry licenses, have taken up other approaches to prevent people bearing arms.

For instance, in a press conference, Governor Hochul of New York denounced the SCOTUS ruling stating, “I refuse to surrender my right as Governor to protect New Yorkers from gun violence or any other form of harm.” She then went on to explain that New York will issue concealed carry licenses, but in order to qualify, New Yorkers will have to jump through more hoops than a trained circus bear, including:

• completing firearms training

• providing four character references

• providing a list of all social media accounts that the applicant held over the last three years (even if deleted/cancelled)

• disclosing the names of any adults living in the same home as the applicant

• submitting to an in-person interview with a licensing officer, who also may request any additional appropriate (in the officer’s estimation) information

• recertification or renewal every three years

The process sounds about as pleasant as taking a strigil to your nether-regions.

If, even after this body-cavity-search-of-a-background-check the applicant manages to acquire a license to carry a weapon, Hochul and with others, continued their tyrannical rant explaining that, not only would New York expand the use of “red flag laws”, but that locations where firearms could be carried would be restricted. Firearms will not be permitted in schools, government buildings, Times Square, libraries, bars, hospitals, restaurants, or places of worship.

Other states are following suit. New Jersey’s state Assembly, a few days ago, passed a new bill that in a recorded hearing, one assemblyman essentially admitted is racist, and another noted targets law-abiding gun owners. New Jersey is attempting to make obtaining a license financially prohibitive, requiring the purchase of liability insurance and charging an exorbitant licensing fee. In addition, much like New York, New Jersey seeks to make carrying in most public places illegal, effectually neutering the permitting process. After all, what is the point of paying an oversized permitting fee only to be told you cannot carry that which the certificate permits?

What most struck me recently on this topic was passage this month of a law in Maryland’s Montgomery County, home to three Supreme Court Justices, making illegal the possession of a firearm almost anywhere except one’s home (thanks to Emily Miller’s wonderful reporting for bringing this to my attention). Since Justices Roberts, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, all residents of Montgomery, also all concurred on the high court’s ruling, this could almost appear as revenge legislation. The main thrust of the law is preventing the possession of a firearm within 100 yards of “a place of public assembly”:

Expedited Bill 21-22 would prevent an individual from possessing a firearm within 100 yards of a place of public assembly even when the individual has a wear-and-carry permit from the State of Maryland. This restriction would strengthen current County law, which exempts individuals with permits from the restriction against carrying weapons within 100 yards of places of public assembly (Expedited Bill 21-22, Weapons – Firearms In or Near Places of Public Assembly, Bill Specifics).

You might be wondering, “what constitutes a ‘place of public assembly’?” The bill clarifies: “a park, church, school, public building, and other place of public assembly.” Well, that makes having a permit convenient, doesn’t it? So, you could carry your firearm from your home to your car and vice-versa, but having it on your person on almost any public street would put you within 100 yards of what the bill defines as a “place of public assembly.” So, like the other examples, this Maryland County is attempting to nullify by law the purpose of issuing concealed carry permits. Why would anyone go through the process of pursuing such a license if they were then forbidden from using it? That is the purpose of these laws - while upholding the SCOTUS decision to issue permits, this type of legislation makes such a permit purposeless.

Trying to support these laws, refrains always heard from proponents of such are statements like, “the Second Amendment was never meant to be unlimited,” or perhaps, “we need to find the balance between people’s Second Amendment rights and what States can do to protect their citizens.” The issue with these and similar statements is that they fail to recognize the purpose of the Second Amendment, or, for that matter, any of the Bill of Rights - that purpose being restricting the government, not the people, from stepping on the rights our founding fathers saw as “self-evident” and coming from “Nature’s God.” It is not about granting rights; it is about protecting them from government infringement. This is why the Second Amendment says, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The Amendment isn’t about “the greater good.” It is not about how far a “right” granted by government goes. It is preventing the government from hindering Americans exercising a natural right.

The fact that there even are such laws, requiring a license to exercise a right, is a violation of the Constitution. Imagine having to go through such background checks, training, and licensing in order to be able to speak freely, or to worship God according to your conscience. Imagine being told that, despite the First Amendment stating that “Congress shall make no law,” Congress passed a law requiring a permit before you could verbalize your thoughts within 100 yards of a place of public assembly? Requiring someone to go through a permitting process to practice one’s prerogatives relegate rights to privileges. The government does not grant rights, according to our founding fathers, and government therefore may not preclude them.

Though many, including myself, have written about the Second Amendment, most such dissertations focus on the right to keep arms, as does mine: 

On the Second Amendment

Of late, more legal battles have taken up the issue of bearing arms, which is why this is so relevant. There really is not much more to argue, however, as the same points that apply to keeping arms may be applied as well to bearing them, concealed or otherwise - the Second Amendment bears no concealment clause. Though the lawyers and legislators like to lock horns over precedents and stare decisis in contending the confines that may emanate from this amendment, there are none apparent. The idea that having one’s arms wherever one traveled flows so naturally from the concept of simply having arms, that it does not appear that the founders gave much thought of having to defend it from misunderstanding. In discussing the Second Amendment, Hamilton penned in the Federalist #29, “where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests?” While addressing the militia in general (i.e. all able-bodied men ages 18 - 45, according to The Militia Act of 1792), the militia was composed of individuals, and all rights, as enumerated and protected by our founding documents, are rights that belong to individuals - there is no such thing as group rights or corporate rights. Hamilton's point is, you should have nothing to fear from your fellow citizens possessing and carrying with them weapons (even “weapons of war” as indicated by Hamilton's writing).

Further, laws that impede this right do not protect people as has been proven time and again. Those intent on committing crime will not be stopped by laws that restrict carrying firearms; only law-abiding citizens will be affected as their right to protect themselves is trampled by tyrants.

Elected officials need to uphold their oaths to protect the constitution and stop seeking to circumvent it. If authoritarian administrators continue passing these abominable acts, they may just have some bearish citizens with whom to deal.