Posted on 10/09/2014 3:51:12 PM PDT by WXRGina
Listen to an audio version of this column
Jason Baker's column from Wednesday, "Alabama Statewide Amendment 3 could be a slippery slope," warns against the possible dangers to Alabamans' right to keep and bear arms due to the wording of the proposed amendment to the state's constitution. I want to concur with Mr. Baker's sentiments and amplify the warning.
Here's the section targeted for amendment. The Alabama Constitution of 1901, Article I, Declaration of Rights, Section 26 states:
That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence [sic] of himself and the State.
You could hardly be plainer in stating our unalienable right to bear arms, yet the proposed Statewide Amendment 3, while seeking to further clarify this right, actually muddies it. Here is the proposed amendment on the state ballot for this November 4th:
Act 2013-267, HB8, proposes an amendment to Article I, Section 26 of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to provide that every citizen has a fundamental right to bear arms and that any restriction on this right would be subject to strict scrutiny. The proposed amendment also provides that no international treaty or law may prohibit, limit, or otherwise interfere with a citizen's fundamental right to bear arms.
The proposed Amendment 3 sounds good when it addresses the international treaty and law issue, yet the wording Alabama would do well to delete is the statement that:
"... any restriction on this right would be subject to strict scrutiny."
That passage should be a deal-breaker to any thinking Alabama resident. Yet, in my research for this column, I stumbled across a website called, "Conservative Christians of Alabama," that encourages people to vote "yes" on Statewide Amendment 3. I wonder who runs that website, and whether or not they have truly considered the implications of the amendment's wording.
That passage in the proposed amendment is at odds with the very premise of our unalienable right to keep and bear arms. Since Alabamans have that unquestionable right, then why would you amend the state constitution to say the right might not be absolute?
As Mr. Baker writes in his Examiner column:
The problem is one of semantics – the inclusion of the phrase "any restrictions on this right would be subject to strict scrutiny." This would be well and good if only constitutionally minded people held office. This sadly is not the case or even a reality. Patrick Henry in speaking for the inclusion of the Bill of Rights warned Madison about this very thing. The question he posed to Madison was "What are you going to do when evil men take office?
If Alabama falls prey in the future to an anti-gun liberal Governor, Legislature, or State Supreme Court it would be their strict scrutiny to whittle away your rights.
While the drafters of this amendment may have the best of intentions, why would they entertain a "what if" scenario allowing for the potential of "any restrictions"?
This is something the voters of Alabama must seriously consider on November 4th. It is unfortunate that this wording was included in the proposed amendment, but the people of Alabama should vote "NO" on Statewide Amendment 3, and further demand that their state representatives reject the prospect of allowing for the infringement of their right to keep and bear arms in any future proposed amendment. Section 26 of Alabama's Constitution is solid as it stands, and if it ain't broke, don't "fix" it.
Alabama ping
- Roll Tide _
Was Updyke involved?
I'll never understand why some people work to defeat their own position. I think those who oppose this do not understand the judicial concept of strict scrutiny.
But whatever. There will eventually be bloodshed defending out right to keep and bear arms from government infringement. Might as well not constrain government further. Let's get this party started.
Explain now, your understanding of "strict scrutiny." Then explain why you say "VOTE NO".
Bama Carry and the Alabama Sheriff's Association are both opposed to this, which means somebody doesn't get it.
Check out the Dick Act of 1902.
Did you even consider the words written in this column? Did you not see that this amendment leaves open the possibility that your right to keep and bear arms might be infringed? Do you understand that “bad guys” could easily obtain office and use their “strict scrutiny” to sign away those rights?
If you don’t see the danger in this amendment, then you have a lot more faith in your elected representatives than most of us have. The amendment is clear AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS!
“Strict scrutiny” is the language of judicial jurisprudence. Its use and interpretation is entirely the invention of judges. Jurisprudence means basically judge-made law, that is, that future decisions of the court build on past decisions and stare decisis instead of the original language and intent of the law or constitution. Jurisprudence is the opposite of a written constitution. And taking language that has no history or meaning other than in jurisprudence and putting it in a constitution is just plain dangerous to the constitution.
Hope that helps.
That should read, the Alabama Constitution's Declaration of Rights concerning the right to bear arms is clear AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS!
Strict scrutiny means that a law must have a compelling state interest for its existnce, and the law must be narrowly tailored.
McDonald and Heller both won with SCOTUS using the strict scrutiny analysis.
It has effectively tied the the hands of Chicago, mandating shall issue, and is giving DC problems.
In a perfect world, it wouldn’t be needed. But, it is a good tool under the current political realities.
Simple, a Liberal judge reads that to mean this gun-control regulation is not strict enough in restricting the use of guns and keeping them out of the hands of citizens. See?
>McDonald and Heller both won with SCOTUS using the strict scrutiny analysis.
McDonald and Heller both won with 5 conservative justices, period.
See post 10.
Agreed. Strict scrutiny is the highest level of judicial review. If even the punctation of a purposed statue violates the State RKBA, it would be struck down.
At which point the nearest oak tree should be adorned with a pendulent judge...
Nice try but that website definition has no force of law.
>At which point the nearest oak tree should be adorned with a pendulent judge...
If it worked that way, there would already be at least four of them from SCOTUS.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.