What Part Of The Second Amendment Does San Francisco NOT Get?

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

On Tuesday, the citizens of San Francisco enacted a referendum. As of the moment the law becomes active, no one living within San Francisco may own a firearm, nor will there be an firearm sales within the city limits. This is a direct violation of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment, the last time I checked, was a part of the Constitution, which is the highest law in the land. No city or citizen may trump that with any local or state law.

A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law.

The above is a direct quote from Alexander Hamilton from Federalist #78. The Constitution is fundamental law. Nothing can be superior to it. The only time that occurs is if an amendment is proposed, amkes it through Congress, and is sent to the body politic; the citizens of the nation. People have the inherent and enumerated right to bear arms. To curtail this vital right is to leave the people victims of those would would subjugate them.

The liberal argument is that if no one has the right to have a gun, crime would decrease. On the contrary, when the people are relying on the government to protect them, i.e. the police, they are worse off. Average response time to a 9-1-1 call where a serious threat of violence is present is approximately 8 minutes. That's a long time where a lot could happen. If the people have the ability to protect themselves, crime goes down. A woman today, 66 years old, saved her daughter and grand-daughter because she shot a burglar dead in her home. That's protection, and that's just one of two reasons why we have the right to own and bear firearms.

We have the ability to protect ourselves. Responsible owners of firearms don't use them in the commission of a crime, or rarely do. (Yes, I'm aware of "crimes of passion," but I'm not referring to the rare oddity.) When the city of Miami passed a concealed-carry referendum, and it was enacted, violent crime dropped close to sixty percent in the first month alone. That's power, and it's power that the citizens should possess. I'm not saying we should return to the age of gunslingers in the 1800s, but the people have the right to have protection. (And for the Hillary fans, I'm not referring to a condom.)

The second, and possibly the most important reason why we have this right, was made clear by another Framer:

There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instil prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism. 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? --Hamilton, Federalist #29

Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.

To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it. --Madison, Federalist #46

The arguments for the rights of the citizens far outweigh the numerous wails of liberals who don't like guns, and don't want people to have them. When I saw that this measure was due to be voted on by the people, I had a feeling enough morons would venture to the booths, and just like like the sheeple they are, pull the lever to remove another right from their list, willingly. I'm sure if they had things their way, we'd all lose this right collectively. Thanks, but I like my firearms. I plan on keeping them.

They aren't just there for us to retake this nation should the government get so out-of-control that we're left with no other option. They're available so we can protect ourselves from the dregs and scum of society that the libnerals embrace and toast, and victimize. It makes me sick to see them do this to the nation. But I'm positively nauseated at the idea that American citizens would be so ready and willing to give up a fundamental right.

I've heard word that the NRA is mounting a legal effort to have this overturned. Good. I'm glad to see it. I'm participating in a couple of other cases right now, otherwise I'd offer my services to them pro bono.

Mistress Pundit

ADDENDUM: I forgot to include this, which is the primary focus of the NRA lawsuit. It's the first Article of the California State Constitution. (emphasis mine)

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

This is damning to the opposition in this case. The state constitution demands and decrees "defending life and liberty," "protecting property," and "pursuing and obtaining safety." Each of those can be construed to include the ownership of a firearm. Law-abiding citizens would use their firearm--a tool, mind you--in upholding those precise ideals.

Nothing may supersede the federal Constitution. The accepted precedent that was set a long time ago is that if the federal government already has the point on a issue then the states can't disregard that. If the city of San Francisco had opted to enact a provision making concealed weapons illegal, thereby nullifying a CCW permit, then they may do so. Why? The constitution doesn't guarantee we can carry concealed firearms. It simply grants us the right own and bear them. The city could have had an initiative that banned firearms in all public places, but they can't ban the ownership or sale of them.

To do so, it's a violation of the rights of the citizens enumerated within the Constitution. I STRONGLY URGE those concerned with this in California to help the NRA as much as possible, and i urge the State Supreme Court to strike this law down as quickly as possible. It's unconstitutional.

Mistress Pundit