Posted on 10/15/2014 6:42:37 AM PDT by WXRGina
Listen to an audio version of this column
Last week, I wrote a short column warning of the very real danger to Alabama residents' gun rights from the proposed Statewide Amendment 3 on the ballot for this November 4th. Here is the proposed amendment:
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 wording in the amendment makes quite clear the back door it leaves wide open for future courts or state legislatures, under the sway of leftists, to impose restrictions on Alabamans' gun rights – after "strict scrutiny," of course! But, I was astonished to learn that there are apparently supporters of this amendment among conservative, TEA Party and gun rights groups, including "Alabama Gun Rights," whose Legislative Affairs Director, George Owens, has on his publicly viewable Facebook page a message of support for this amendment, posted on September 30th By Brian Phillips. The post was signed by George Owens, and states, in part:
Currently there are three levels of scrutiny applied to the issues of constitutional rights; Rational Basis, Intermediate Scrutiny, and Strict Scrutiny.
Passage of this Amendment will go far in protecting the rights of future generations of Alabama Citizens who may not have the blessings of a pro-gun legislature, and be faced with passage of laws that significantly curtail their right to bear arms.
This Amendment is supported by the National Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, The Citizens Committee on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Gun owners of America, and every attorney who has argued for gun rights in every court in this nation including Alan Guara, who argued the Heller v DC and McDonald v Chicago gun rights cases.
Alabama Gun Rights Inc., asks our members to make your family and friends aware of this important constitutional amendment and ask them to vote for the amendment on the November ballot.
This is dead wrong, and if true, it's deeply disturbing that all these gun rights groups are supporting this amendment. We must remember that it is leftist, tyranny-pushers who have worked their way into positions of power in courts and legislatures who have used twisted "legal" arguments under the guise of terms like "strict scrutiny" to shred the United States Constitution and our natural rights.
I don't know whether conservatives who support Alabama Statewide Amendment 3 are doing so out of a lack of understanding of the danger to their gun rights that amendment poses, or if they are leftist infiltrators posing as conservatives to mislead people into voting away their God-given right to keep and bear arms. Either way, it's not good. With the words, "...and that any restriction on this right would be subject to strict scrutiny," this amendment declares that your unalienable right to keep and bear arms is NOT unalienable and will be subject to restriction! Don't you see? This is subtle and evil, the wordsmithing of tyrants.
I contacted retired attorney, constitutional scholar and logician extraordinaire, Publius Huldah, to give us her take on this proposed amendment. Here is what she wrote:
The proposed Amendment 3 takes away the God-given or natural right of self-defense recognized in the existing wording of Article I, Section 26 of the Declaration of Rights of the Alabama Constitution; and transforms it into a mere "fundamental right" which is subject to whatever restrictions the Alabama State government might later decide to impose.
A "fundamental right" [as opposed to a God-given or natural right] is a government created and regulated "right." This concept is being used to strip us of the God-given unalienable rights mentioned in our Declaration of Independence (2nd para), and replace them with "fundamental rights" which are subject to whatever restrictions the government wishes to impose.
The People of Alabama should take no comfort in the use of the fine-sounding terms, "fundamental rights" and "strict scrutiny." Such terms were chosen to deceive you. In this Brave New World, these terms are legal code language for replacing God given or natural rights with privileges granted and withdrawn by the government.
The proposed Amendment 3 is a treacherous scheme to deprive the People of Alabama of the God-given right of self-defense. The existing wording of Article I, § 26 does not permit the State government to impose ANY restrictions on your God-given right to self-defense.
If The People of Alabama ratify proposed Amendment 3, they will thereafter bear arms ONLY if the Alabama government says they can.
This is a serious warning, not only for the people of Alabama, but for every American in any state where nefarious people seek to tamper with our natural right to keep and bear arms. Don't be deceived by Alabama Statewide Amendment 3. It's a Trojan horse that will one day bite the hand that votes for it. Alabama, be wise and vote "NO" on this terrible amendment!
BTTT
I’m not sure you’re correct about this. I’ve tagged martwain, becuase he’s very conversant with gun-rights legal issues.
Currently future legislatures and voters, via initiatives, have the power to enact new gun laws. The situation as it stands now is that should those laws be challenged in court, an easier standard than strict scrutiny may be applied.
Not having read the proposed amendment, there may be something dangerous in there, but from what you’ve posted, it just says that any future laws when challenged have to pass the most difficult hurdle to be held constititional, and specifically mentions (but does not limit itself) to international rights-theft schemes.
Is that about right, marktwain?
BFLR
The proposed amendment is here in the column (linked, too).
There’s really no argument on this. The wording is clear. Whereas you once had the unalienable, un-tamperable, unrestrictable right to keep and bear arms, this amendment allows for restriction—under “strict scrutiny,” of course.
Alabama may have a pro-gun state government right now, but in the future, what do you suppose the “strict scrutiny” of any restriction by someone just like Eric Holder would look like?
Are you aware of any other definition that has legal standing?
A fundamental right may or may not be a natural, God-given right (and Publius Huldah argues it is not a natural right), but the key is in the allowing for restrictions on that right, which this amendment does.
Alabama Constitution Article 1 - Section 26 - Right to Bear Arms "That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state." Art. I, § 26 (enacted 1819, Art. I, § 23, with "defence" in place of "defense," spelling changed 1901).
Article 1 - Section 36 - Construction of Declaration of Rights That this enumeration of certain rights shall not impair or deny others retained by the people; and, to guard against any encroachments on the rights herein retained, we declare that everything in this Declaration of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate.
I'm not a legal scholar, but it sounds as if the current laws don't really need revision. Just my two cents worth.
Well, for the moment I think Huldah's argument is weak at least in the context of the legal language of the proposition. The founders had no problem prior to adoption with referring to the matter simply as a "right". To argue that a "fundamental right" is not fundamental seems ineffective.
Nonetheless, even under the best definition of a "fundamental right" there are undeniably sensible restrictions on the right to bear; e.g., those serving time in jail are not allowed to bear arms in order to defend themselves.
We will always be faced with attempted, perhaps even logical restrictions on this right. A strict judicial scrutiny of any such attempt seems entirely appropriate.
“Strict scrutiny”
I think I’m going to steal that.
Unless it's Eric Holder whose applying the "strict scrutiny."
That should read, “... who’s applying...” not, “whose applying...” DUH. Proof reading is our friend.
True.
Unbelievably, the survival of our 2dA promise/guarantee is currently subject to a knife edge 5/4 balance. Holder may be willing to take a substantial cut in pay to sit on the USSC just for that.
Yep. That’s a big, scary possibility.
There are elected officials in Alabama that DENY the conclusions of Heller v US, and believe the right to keep and bear arms ONLY applies to the National Guard. We had an official speak to our local chapter of Bama Carry that said EXACTLY that.
People like that do not take our rights seriously. One election, and they are GONE!
You are full of nonsense on this. What does Holder have to do with what happens in Alabama? Strict scrutiny is the best friend the right to keep and bear arms has ever had. If you lose that, and it’s NOT in the Alabama 1901 Constitution now, and these gun grabbing judges will rule that the state’s interest of “safety” is compelling over our rights EVERY TIME.
It's not something that was just made up.
This is a legal term that goes back DECADES.
An absolutely nonsensical statement, that shows your ignorance of the law and legal precedent. I'm not even a lawyer, and I know better than this.
Eric Holder has absolutely NOTHING to do with this discussion. This is a state judiciary issue. If you don't know that, you shouldn't have written this ignorant article.
It is the most stringent level of judicial review under the 14th Amendment. Buzz words, actually. It goes with a “compelling interest” terminology.
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.