As anyone who follows closely the fight against "gun control" knows,in 2008 a case reached the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) titled District of Colombia vs. Heller (Heller) which was pivotal in the battle for the inalienable right to self defense in America.
And while the case forever put to pasture the absurd notion that the Second Amendment (2A) was a "collective right" as per the -up till now- common and blatant misinterpretation of the declarative preamble of the law "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State",there are still some absolutely glaring misapplications of historical context and outright lies contained in Heller that justify the odious "gun control" measures that the majority opinion headed by Justice Scalia,and indeed Alan Gura,counsel for Heller,did not wish to challenge.
Basing his dicta
on the concept of "reasonable regulations" that government may impose to "reasonably" restrict an inalienable right that government is clearly told it must not infringe upon,Scalia makes the case that these "long standing precedent" are as reasonable as asking people to not yell "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire.
This has become the "exception" rule for denying individuals what Scalia himself said is an otherwise inalienable right to self defense and to keep and bear the tools of self defense.
So far,NOT ONE SINGLE CASE brought before the court seeking to use Heller as a basis for challenging "gun control" has fully succeeded in challenging the odius Nazi GCA68 or other "gun control" measures which Scalia has deemed "reasonable" in the most blatant and contradictory example of Orwellian double speak to ever come from judicial activists in the SCOTUS.
The Four Exceptions are these:
The Felon Exception
The Exception for the Mentally Ill
The Exception for "Sensitive Places"
The Exception for Commercial Regulation
I would like to bring to the attention of the reader an excellent legal research paper by Carlton F. W. Larson from the University of California, Davis - School of Law.
Four Exceptions in Search of a Theory: District of Columbia v. Heller and Judicial Ipse Dixit
You can download a .pdf of it here-
Four Exceptions in Search of a Theory: <i>District of Columbia v. Heller</i> and Judicial <i>Ipse Dixit</i> by Carlton Larson :: SSRN
In this paper,Larson examines these "four exceptions" on the basis of the very same historical precedent that Scalia (supposedly) applied to reach the Heller ruling.
There is absolutely no "longstanding historical precedent" supporting the "felon exception" worth any merit in a court of law,much less to base a ruling on without considering the polar opposite and its absolute dearth of evidence to the contrary.
Despite the claim that in the colonial era and in the 18th century "felons were considered civilly dead" thus justifying the "revocation" of any rights,there is absolutely no specific law that can be found supporting any "longstanding precedent" that disarmed any class or group of people based on a conviction of any crime at all.
In fact,convicts sent to America by the English as punishment for their crimes -a punishment called "transportation",were often seen as convicts here in America as well,treated as such,and I have even found one historical example of a man SENTENCED TO DEATH by the Crown,who's sentence was reduced to "transportation"-WHO SERVED HONORABLY IN THE COLONIAL ARMY DURING THE REVOLUTION AGAINST ENGLAND.
This begs the question- how did he possibly serve in the Army if he was barred by any "longstanding precedent" that Scalia wishes to imagine took place in history,that denied him the use of arms as a convicted felon?
Find here the story of Jonathan Ady,a convict who fought for Scalias' liberty to sit on the bench in the highest court and deny others the same-
THERE IS NO "LONGSTANDING PRECEDENT" DENYING ANYONE THEIR RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE AND THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IN THIS NATION BASED ON CONVICTION,IN FACT IT IS QUITE THE OPPOSITE- CONVICTS SERVED IN THE REVOLUTION AND HELPED WIN US OUR LIBERTY AND OUR VERY NATION!
As the paper by Larson continues to explain,the earliest "felon exception" law was a state law -not federal- enacted by New York in 1897.
Only those people in the "pro-gun community" who jealously deny others their natural rights for offenses they themselves most likely could be found guilty of on a bad day ("felonies" and crimes charged as "felonies" have grown exponentially since the 18th century -get caught speeding "too fast" and you can be charged with the "felony" of "reckless endangerment",or accidentally own a rifle or shotgun with too short a barrel without government permission,or perhaps loan a malfunctioning semiautomatic rifle to a friend,and see how fast you "lose" your rights) could continue to support such blatant violation of others' rights.
There are also no historical laws setting any sort of "longstanding precedent" supporting the disarmament of the mentally ill.
However,one remedy -and a sound one in my opinion- for keeping ANYONE too dangerous to own a firearm from doing harm,is to lock them up.
in fact,wouldn't it be a better world if we did not need "gun control" laws because people deemed too dangerous to be free were kept behind bars where they cannot excersize their inalienable rights?
If someone is SO DANGEROUS as to not be able to be trusted with firearms,should we then trust them with kitchen knives,automobiles and sporting equipment?
And DESPITE the "gun laws",isn't it HIGHLY common to find such dangerous people set loose by the authorities in possession of arms anyway?
Dangerous people need to be locked up so they cannot harm others.
For the rest of us- we are free to act on the inalienable rights granted to us by God,despite any blemishes in the past.
Just like Jonathan Ady -a man convicted and sentenced to death by the crown,who then bore arms in support of our very nation and Liberty itself- was.
As to the final 2 exceptions,the one regarding sensitive places can be justified by longstanding precedent,the "exception for commercial regulation" cannot.
The point is,that even Scalia -considered by many to be a conservative that bases his rulings on originalist interpretation- sadly in this day and age,practices nothing less than activism for the status quo on the bench of the SCOTUS.
Our rights,granted as a part of our humanity by our Creator,as inalienable from us as our immortal souls,and pre-existing the very idea of government; cannot be "taken away" by government any more than government grants them.
Government cannot create or take away the natural rights that each of us have.
It can only choose to violate them,or uphold them.
But the People get the government they deserve.
The question then becomes,what do we as Americans want?
Rights dictated and "reasonably regulated" by the state,or a government that stays within the confines of the limitations placed upon it by the Constitution,which must also obey the limitations placed on it in the Bill of Rights?
Its time we made a decision.