Lawsuit Could Set Precedent on Restoring Gun Owner Rights for Non-Violent Felons

By David Codrea

Since this guy can't be trusted, the obvious solution is to keep him away from the rest of us. (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation)
David Codrea in his natural habitat.

USA – -(Ammoland.com)- A man convicted in 2010 for securities fraud who wants his right to own a gun recognized by the government filed a complaint Monday in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Montana resident Gregory L. Reyes’ lawsuit names as defendants U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Thomas E. Brandon, Acting Director of the bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Curiously, per Law360.com, Reyes “has hired Attorney General Jeff Sessions' personal lawyer.”

“Plaintiff challenges the complete denial under Section 922 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code of Plaintiff’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms solely and exclusively on account of his 2010 convictions for federal securities and accounting offenses,” Reyes v. Sessions declares.  “Section 922(g)(1) prohibits firearm possession by ‘any person . . . who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.’”

We can see that for ourselves. The question is “Should it?” And how does such a blanket ban enhance public safety or comply with a government prime directive “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”?

Reyes’ complaint make all the legal arguments his lawyers could amass, including arguing that the crimes for which he was convicted do not qualify under federal law as offenses to which a firearms disability apply. Under Montana law, it argues, he would be free to own guns.

As long as we’re talking the law, where in the Constitution — “the supreme Law of the Land” — is the federal government delegated powers to have any say whatsoever in gun ownership? Aside from Congress having authority “to provide for calling forth the Militia,” the only other clear mandate to all branches is “shall not be infringed.”

Still, as long as “We the People” are by and large content to allow usurpers to usurp and court precedent to trump founding intent, Reyes can either use the “legal” tools at his disposal to petition for restoration of recognition, submit to a mandate wherein the state considers his life not worth defending, or take risks that can ruin his life for good by disobeying “the law.”

If that law is not guided by justice, common sense and morality, what do we need it for?  Why would or should the governed give their consent to being unjustly and stupidly ruled?

Oh, but if you don’t want to do the time don’t do the crime, some unsympathetic “law and order” types will argue.  When they do, don't be surprised if they cite recidivism statistics.

What they’re doing is showing they believe in judging individuals based on the collective, and protests about their being gun owners notwithstanding, they not only believe in “gun control,” they’re giving credibility to the notion that it works. That’s what they’re really saying.

In Reyes' case, it doesn't matter if you don't like the guy or think he's all too representative of arrogant elites who skate by on things the rest of us would be in a world of hurt over. We're not talking about arming Charles Manson here, and if he's successful in his complaint, who knows how others might one day benefit from the precedent he could set?

“Anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian” is a maxim I’ve been using for years because it’s true. Recalling that the three greatest mass murders in U.S. history were reportedly initiated with utility knives, fuel oil and fertilizer, and gasoline and a match, and how many homicides are committed with blunt or sharp objects or even with hands and feet, why would you want to give a “prohibited person” access to those along with the freedom to move among the rest of us?

After all, if violent criminals are still truly dangerous, Robert J. Kukla made a brilliant observation in his 1973 classic “Gun Control,” equating their release from prison with opening the cage of a man-eating tiger and expecting a different result.

Why not restore full rights to someone who can be trusted without a custodian? Does anybody think “prohibited persons” like Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby pose an existential danger to the lives and safety of anyone? And conversely, what sense does it make to open a tiger’s cage just because some arbitrary expiration date has been reached?

Chuck Schumer
Curiously, some “”law and order” gun owners are siding with Chuck Schumer.

Unfortunately, for now, Reyes’ lawsuit is the only legal option open to him.  That’s because, as Gun Owners of America noted in a May alert, Chuck Schumer is in complete agreement with all those unsympathetic gun owners arguing to keep all felons disarmed, regardless.

Let's hope none of them ever get convicted for inadvertently “violating” a tyrannical “gun law.”  Some of us have even done that on purpose.

Defiantly. And proudly. Knowing there are no “legal” remedies. And how there would be no shortage of condemnation from “our side” for “making everyone look bad.”

Tough. Disobeying disarmament orders is an old American tradition. And it sure beats the newer ones:

“For roughly 25 years, the ‘Schumer amendment’ to the Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations Bill has prohibited any federal funds from being used to restore anyone’s constitutional rights,” GOA explained. “So for much of this time, if a person were a veteran with PTSD, they’re out of luck. If they had a conviction for a federal regulatory offense — fifty years ago — they’re out of luck. They will NEVER get their guns back, thanks to Democrat Chuck Schumer.”

It’s not quite fair to just blame Schumer though, is it? After all, gun-owning voters gave Republicans majorities in the House and Senate along with the White House under the assumption that all that fundraising rhetoric and all those high grades for being “staunch supporters of the Second Amendment” were more than just hype to draw the rubes into the Big Tent.

On a tangentially-related note, some of us have been arguing for many years against “Project Exile” and its mandatory sentencing for felons caught with guns. We argued at the time that those pushing it had no control over who would be caught up in the net they were helping cast. We argued that non-dangerous citizens, including those disarmed through un-American “laws” like the Lautenberg gun ban, could be included in the haul and put away for a very long time (along with demonstrable proofs showing it wasn’t really working as hyped).

While researching another project, I came across a 2002 article validating such concerns:

“The majority of the defendants — 154 out of 191 — have no violent felonies on their records; two were illegal aliens with no criminal record at all. Among the 37 who do have a history of violence, seventeen did not use a gun in their previous crime. This means that just slightly more than one in ten of the prohibited persons prosecuted under Project Exile — twenty out of 191 — has a proven history of gun violence. Among those twenty, the most common charge was “felony menacing,” meaning the person had brandished a gun but hadn't pulled the trigger. Only four of the defendants had been convicted of actually shooting a gun during a crime.”

How about we put violent predators away until they can be safely released, and if they can’t, work out some sort of arrangement where they don‘t have free access to a fresh victim pool? How about if we charge and punish them for the actual crimes they commit?

And how about if a person has paid his debt, and established through his conduct he’s trustworthy enough to be reintegrated back into society, that he gets treated as a full citizen with all attendant responsibilities and rights?

Because again, if you can’t trust him, what the hell are you doing letting him out?

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

  • 40 thoughts on “Lawsuit Could Set Precedent on Restoring Gun Owner Rights for Non-Violent Felons

    1. I think it is absurd that the only INALIENABLE RIGHT that specifically states that it SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON, is the only RIGHT that actually is greatly INFRINGED upon. And if a RIGHT can be taken away for something as minor as a traffic infraction, is it a right at all or is it just a privilege granted by a higher authority???
      If a person kills another person intentionally with their automobile by running them over, is convicted of some type of willful killing, pleas out to a lesser charge of whatever, does their time & is released from custody, they can still get another car, a drivers license and in fact can own an automobile while incarcerated. Maybe not even loosing their license at all. It seems to me that this driving and owning of vehicles “privilege” is more of an inalienable right that a privilege and vice versa. You get the point…

    2. Pretty much any time Chuckie Schumer takes one side of a political debate then the opposite side will always be correct.

    3. I wish they would let Ol’ Chuckles lose in San Francisco with all the weapons he could carry. Certainly would make a full day of confused news reporting. The anti prison left who don’t believe in sentencing criminals against the anti gunners. In the end we’d all win. Charlie could have a fun last day. We’d be rid of a few more libtards. California could pass a few more laws. The world keeps ona turn’n.

    4. “As long as we’re talking the law, where in the Constitution — “the supreme Law of the Land” — is the federal government delegated powers to have any say whatsoever in gun ownership? Aside from Congress having authority “to provide for calling forth the Militia,” the only other clear mandate to all branches is “shall not be infringed.””

      NO WHERE…But…you must not know about The NEW Second Amendment of the amended US Bill of Rights… (sorry, we no longer follow “proper procedure” for amending these pain in the ass listed rights)
      A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed EXCEPT:
      You are buying the firearms for yourself.
      EXCEPT: you are under indictment or information for a felony for which the judge could imprison you for more then one year.
      EXCEPT: you have been convicted of a felony or any other crime for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more then one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation.
      EXCEPT: you are a fugitive from “justice”
      EXCEPT: you are an “unlawful” user of or addicted to marijuana or any depressant,stimulant, narcotic drug or any other controlled substance.
      EXCEPT: you have ever been “adjudicated” mentally defective or you have ever been committed to a mental institution.
      EXCEPT: you were dishonorably discharged from the armed forces.
      EXCEPT: you are subject to a restraining order restraining you from harassing, stalking or threatening your child or an intimate partner or child of such partner.
      EXCEPT: you have been convicted in a court of a MISDEMEANOR crime of domestic violence.
      EXCEPT: you have ever renounced your “United States” citizenship
      EXCEPT: you are an illegal alien
      EXCEPT: the firearm fires more then one round with the pull of the trigger
      EXCEPT: the firearms doesn’t have a vertical grip attached if it is a pistol
      EXCEPT: the barrel on a shotgun is not shorter then 18″
      EXCEPT: for sound suppressors
      EXCEPT: the rifle has a barrel no shorter then 16″. (It used to be 18″, but we accidentally sold some 16″ carbines to the public so we had to fix this and so we shortened the length to 16″ to cover our screw up.)
      EXCEPT: if it is a pistol there is no shoulder stock attached.
      EXCEPT: you carry it concealed, with a permit, which of course we issue and charge you for.
      EXCEPT: it has a magazine that can contain more then 10 rounds
      EXCEPT: the magazine is removable
      EXCEPT: it is black and looks scary
      EXCEPT EXCEPT EXCEPT…stay tuned for updated version. We the psychopaths who own you have now concluded that this new 2nd amendment is in force and effect and that you have no rights guaranteed by ANYTHING UNLESS you are in the “big club” which of course you are NOT. So screw your rights. We are in control of your television set, your phone, your computer, your air, your water and especially your pretend rights. Oh, and by the way, just in case you are wondering…we have ENFORCERS for this who are willing to shoot your children in the back, your wife in the head, burn down your church with 17 children inside just in case you think we are kidding.
      One other thing…none of these exceptions apply to us. We are allowed to have whatever we want to kill you and maim you any time we want for whatever excuse we want. Just take a look at some of the wonderful things WE get to have by looking up Dillon Aero on YouTube.

      1. @Mark, The SCOTUS found that the Gun Control Act is a constitutional exercise of Congress’s power to control commerce. That is a fraud, however. The founders never intended that Congress could diminish the enumerated rights of the people by using its Commerce control power or taxing authority. The elitist SCOTUS was just as scared of Bobby Seals and the Black Panther party as Congress and the president was.

    5. I could not agree more with Mr. Codrea, and some of you other folks. One thing I’ve noticed in this articles comments. The usual RINO blow hards that frequently expound on all matters pertaining to firearms are absent. Many of them are law and order types, who understand that they or none of their family members will ever be in this position. They are above any reproach, just because, they are who they are. As a NRA lifetime member, and legal gun owner, I have seen some very good people suffer this consequence. I believe in a standard that is equally applied, wherein an individual can reclaim his full rights. And do this without expensive lawyers and legal manuevers. I think a time frame of one being a citizen of good report, and showing character deserving of such rights, they should be restored. I have seen too many people manipulated and intimated with this law. I have seen spouses use it on one another as blackmail. Ignorance really is an excuse, if it were not so, Chuckie Schumer wouldn’t be a footnote in History. I’m very curious to hear from some of the regulars on this subject. If you can break yourselves away from your spelling, and diction ramblings, and hawking gun blogs to correct the less informed. Trust me, we pass laws everyday that will soon make us all outlaws.

      1. I always understood that once a person had paid their debt to society – in other words had served their time in jail and/or prison – that they were to have their full rights restored.
        Whatever happened to that concept?
        Unfortunately, the single greatest violator of the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights and its Amendments, as well as being the single greatest criminal enterprise in the United States, is the United States government. If you are the greatest violator of Constitutional Rights in United States, you are by definition the greatest criminal enterprise in the United States of America.
        Unfortunately, probably the single greatest crime it is guilty of is abusing its authority by denying people their constitutionally guaranteed and inalienable rights.
        I think that everyone needs to stand up and make as much noise as they possibly can, each and every time someone’s constitutionally protected and inalienable rights are violated by the United States government.
        After all, inalienable means that your rights cannot be diminished, reduced, restricted, or taken away.

      2. If people want the law changed, seems to me that need to get on to their “elected things” and keep on them seeking whatever changes in the law they desire. Posting on discussion sites will not “cut this salami”.

        1. Well, were not cutting salami. And many of us have been lobbying and contacting, these elected things. Taking uncomfortable bus trips together as a group to draw attention to this and other issues. Very rarely does the mainstream gun culture want to have a dialogue on this issue. They mostly just listen make some obtuse comment, and then pass the buck. Kinda like you just did…….

          1. I did not think, nor do now think, that my comments amounted to “passing the buck”. In any case, I did not so intend. It does seem to me that a few minutes spent on contact with the people who write the law might be more impactful than the same amount of time spent here. While I will admit to,never having ridden the bus, which you mention, I have spent significant amounts of time and effort communicating, or trying to anyway, communicating with legislators on various matters, writing Letters to The Editor too, some of which have been published.

    6. I have a possession of a controlled substance less than one gram felony conviction from 1997 but still cant get my rights back. I havent so much as had a moving violation since before 2000 but still not good enough. See, my conviction happened in cook county, illinois, the hardest place in the country to get a restoration of rights, PLUS I moved out of illinois and all the bad influences I knew there and because I am not an illinois resident, I don’t qualify to get a restoration of rights. I cant get one in the state I now reside because it has to be heard in the municipality where it was adjudicated, being cook county, illinois. Despite this being my first offense, non violent conviction, I can never file for a restoration unless I move back to illinois and even then I will still have to deal with the anti gun ideology that is strict gun policy in chicago. Some states restore rights after completion of any punishment levied by the courts. Some states there is a waiting period of a number of years after completing punishment. Some states, like illinois, you can never get them back unless you wait 20 years and then you must petition the court to be heard, and even then there no guarantee. There should be ONE national law on this or it should be up to the states where a person lives, not where they got in trouble.

      1. There is one law; and, under it, you have been screwed by Chuck Schumer. The US DoJ has the power to adjudicate your case and restore your rights. However, Schumer has pulled the funding for this program for many years. It is restoring funding for this program – which is already authorized by Federal law – that we ought to be fighting for.

        Too many of us PotG are doing you and others in similar cases a great disservice. By naievely insisting that ALL felons should have their rights restored automatically after release (or after parole is completed) they make your cause a non-starter. Voters are terrified that among “all” felons there must be far too many who are still dangerous. So, they won’t give the issue a moment’s reflection if we push for a blanket restoration of rights.

        The easiest path to provide some relief is to pressure Congress to resume funding this existing program. It’s already a law on-the-books; it just needs a line in the budget If we couldn’t accomplish this small goal, why would anyone imagine that we could restore rights for ALL felons.

        We PotG don’t have a good grasp of tactics. We want it ALL and we want it NOW! NOTHING short of that is worth considering. We would rather lose the war without winning a single battle rather than compromise our sainted principles.

        I’ll grant that we aren’t going to get funding for this program over-night. With funding, still many worthy felons will not be granted relief. Yet some would; and after these have been given releif, others would follow. And, then, maybe we could get some reform in the Prohibited-Person law.

        Nope; not going to happen. We PotG are all rugged individualists who won’t coalese around something that could be made to happen. Each of us insists on being ABSOLOUTELY Right and unwilling to compromise his sacred principles. Is this the way the Leftists operate?

    7. While some might look at this guy , being a major white collar, pressed trousers, shined shoes type, undeserving of consideration, the man did not commit a crime of violence, though his crime might well have done significant harm to others. Additionally, the restrictions pushed by Senator Schumer smell bad, a not uncommon situation re his antics.

    8. Yes if someone commits a non violent crime and a period of time say 5 years passes & he doesn’t commit any more crimes then he should be able to get his rights back. For instance an 18 year old steals a car but no one gets hurt he pays his price to society and a few years later ig no further offenses are committed then he should be able to get his rights back. Why should he be punished for the rest of his life for a stupid act he did when he was 18. Give him a second chance

    9. This case is an excellent one on which to make a point. There are probably lots more that are even better; e.g., a vulnerable women with an angry ex who has a fraud conviction. In any case, we should try to make the BEST of our argument, NOT THE WORST! After all, we are trying to achieve progress for SOME worthy felons; why promote the cause of ALL worthy felons while accomplishing NOTHING?

      “. . . where in the Constitution . . . is the federal government delegated powers to have any say whatsoever in gun ownership?” Nowhere. But, that isn’t the point. Instead, it’s a firmly established aspect of Constitutional law that if you commit a bad-enough crime (typically a “felony”) then you may be “dis-abled” of some of your Constitutionally-protected Rights. E.g., the Right to vote. Your Creator may have endowed you with a Right; but the Constitution “guarantees” that Right only so-far.

      It is bad tactics for us to argue (on behalf of worthy felons) that Congress lacks the Power to revoke 2A rights in cases where Constitutional Rights are vulnerable to dis-ablement. Would we argue that a State legislature has no power to deprive felons of the right to vote?

      Instead, we need to reach only so far as is necessary to get the “low-hanging fruit”. The cause of veterans was the lowest-hanging. Next, Social Security disability recipients. Now, we need to argue for the causes of non-violent criminals who served their time and those who were once mentally ill but have now recovered. If we can’t achieve relief for these, then we can’t accomplish anything for any other class of 2A-disabled people whose cases are less obvious.

      We should be undermining the voters’ BLIND FAITH in the justness and wisdom of gun-controls. Get voters to try to think about gun-controls in a light more favorable to liberty and rationality. This requires discipline on our part; to pick our battles with a view to winning one-step-at-a-time. At all cost, we must avoid a strategy calculated to lose the war without a single won battle.

      1. I have a question for Mark PA,
        I mean this with all sincerity. Could you point me to the section of the Constitution where it refers to disablement?
        I must confess to not knowing the constitution fully and as well as I should so would appreciate any help you can give me and pointing me to that specific reference.
        Thank you

        1. Chuck, you will not find what you are sincerely looking for in the U.S. Constitution. Losing ones civil rights due to conviction of a felony is Tenth Amendment police powers, so look to the statutes of your particular state.

          1. Civil rights and UNALIENABLE rights are two different things. The RIGHT to defend your life, liberty and property are UNALIEANBLE rights spoken of in the founding document. The Declaration of Independence. A FELONY as the Founders knew one was a HEINOUS crime. Not some BS paper crime like not filling out a form “properly”.

        2. Sorry Chuck, I’m pretty sure it’s not to be found in the Constitution. Also, respecting Wild Bill’s reference to the 10A, I don’t think that’s a complete answer to disablement. Assume, for a moment, that disablement is NOT an enumerated power of the Federal government. Well, then, the several States retain that power. Moreover, the States are explicitly granted the power to set the qualifications of their voters. (Albeit that power has largely been diluted away.) One case – specifically – is that the various States vary on whether and when they allow felons to vote. The power to dis-able is probably to be found in traditions, and likely inherited from England. We PotG are students of the Constitution. However, there is more to it than simply reading the text of the original document and amendments. We are being naive if we imagine that reading the text qualifies us as Constitutional scholers. As a practical matter, what good does it do us to believe something – “X” – if: not a single judge anywhere in the US agrees with us. No majority of either chamber of cCongress agrees with us. And, the President will use his resources to apply SCOTUS’s decision? No matter how sincere our beleif in “X” might be, it’s a non-starter. There is no alternative but to coalese our political power in the voting booth and elect Presidents and Congress-critters who will respect our viewpoint.

    10. America is really great about forgiving transgressions, giving second chances, even third, fourth, fifth (deported illegals) etc, except for our own citizens. Once convicted of a paperwork felony you are considered to be the same as a first degree murderer. It’s time to reconsider how we treat our own.

      1. @Howard, it is also time to consider how we treat the aliens, which aliens can be come one of us, and how and why those aliens can become one of us.

        1. @WB, I do you believe you have your finger correctly placed on this issue. Much must be addressed to correct this issue that seems like a simple task. In my state it can be as simple as the right lawyer, and a particular judge. Or, It can inflame ones own case if he fails at the first attempt for restoration. The alien, immigration issue, concerning this cannot be unaddressed. I gratefully live in an open carry state, where most folks are never challenged. But a felon being in any proximity to a firearm is a very slippery slope in the same state. It leaves much open to interpretation to the law officer in question. And not only can the felon be charged, but an unknowing carrier around said felon can be charged, left to the understanding of the law officer and ultimately the courts. Very seldom does a felon, or one charged in enabling him, defend himself
          successfully in these courts. It is a risk and a threat, hidden, as it were, to anyone who is in control of a firearm. We all need to be aware of our state statutes. Concerning said firearm exclusions. Many state laws are even applied to those that only have been charged with a felony, but not yet convicted. It is so in my home state, and two bordering states. A slippery slope, yes indeedy.

        2. “aliens” is rather a large class of people. It includes those who suffered the paperwork, time (sometimes years), costs (sometimgs multiple thousands) and suspense while waiting for that paperworl. Sometimes the permission comes bery quickly. But for everyone in that “class”, it comes, and they wait to enter, or to begin behaving like a resident, and it comes before they begin enjoying the sweet fruit of their patience persistence, payments.

          The other class of alien is rather “other”…. they care not a whit about any law, proceedure, requirement, they just up and invade, breaking the laws concerrning residence, and here they are. They have broken our laws to get here, or to remain here once arrived. Most are the ones costing billions in welfare, additional education needs, medical, low income housing subsidies, etc, and few have any desire or intention to integrate into and become part of our culture. At any moment they can, and do, up stakes and leave the US. Many manage to get here via help of unscrupulous “agents”, tyically of the drug cartels. THEY get reasonable salaries but the ones being “imported” pay, and the organisation gets rich….

          So, when you mention “aliens” make sure you specify which class of them…. they comprise two radically different groups. And only one of them can ever legally become “one of us”. Or ever legally own guns. The question of “which aliens can become one of us” is already clearly answered.

          1. @Tionico. Yes, my reference to aliens was very confusing. And it may not have been with the same intent as WBs.With my limited legal understanding I will try to explain my words. Several states have and will make exception to an alien carrying arms. With no knowledge of prior life. A year ago, I actually believed a non resident could not be in law enforcement in these United States. I have found this now to be false. For whatever reason, they are locales where non residents are serving as LEOs. I believe this has actually become an issue in Colorado. Someone please tell me I’m wrong, but I believe it is true. In one state in particular, a immigrant can bear arms at the behest of his employer on employers property, such as in agriculture settings. But in the same state, a individual is required by law to keep firearms from known criminals. And, can be charged with this crime, even if an offender had not been convicted, only charged. What a conundrum. As far as illegal immigrants, call me biased, but how can their rights even compare to a U.S. citizens. I hope this has clarified my point. I always enjoy your contributions. I think Mr. Codrea is hoping to get a dialogue going on this issue. Not only here, but with gun owners across our great country, and rightfully so, it should be done. In total disclosure, two years ago, I had no inkling of the abuses that this situation had perpetuated. I now think it may be the biggest danger we face. If they can’t outlaw guns, simply outlaw who can possess them. It’s elitism at its best. It’s the reason the King was defeated by colonial lll% ers. They learned their lesson. We, and our rights are in grave danger my friend. Many thanks for your words. I should have been more clear.
            Always in Liberty.

            1. “. . . a non resident could not be in law enforcement in these United States. . . . ” I wonder if you meant a ‘non-citizen’. I don’t have any knowledge one-way-or-the-other, but I would find it hard to imagine a LE agency giving cop status to a non-resident who is a non-citizen.

              In any case, this alien thing is a big can of worms. First, we should note that it is fairly clear that a green-card holder probably does have the RK&BA because they are construed to be members of the class “the people” in other contexts by SCOTUS rulings. (And, this is fair. E.g., my wife is not a natural-born citizen. She lived under her Green Card for decades in the US; escorting our children. Why deny her the RK&BA – thereby denying our children the right of an effective self-defense – merely because she wan’t a citizen at the time?)

              Backing up to first principles, “all men . . . are endowed by their Creator with the right . . . to life”. Do we believe this? If we do, then where do we find in this text that our Creator had in mind only Americans? Perhaps she had in mind only Virginians, not Pennsylvanians. Jefferson – when referring to “my country” – meant Virginia, not the United States of America. Do the People of Venezuela or Mexico or Syria have a right to life? (I may not lay-down my own life to protect the RK&BA of Venezuela. Yet, on the other hand, my conscience forbids me to erect any barrier in the path of any Venezuelan.)

              This gives rise to a question as to how to treat aliens; whether they happen to be on US soil by lawful means other than a Green-Card; or, on other soil. Likewise, Cubans or Syrians, etc. The 2A did NOT guarantee the RK&BA to “all men”; it erected a guarantee only to We “the People” of the US. Aliens bear arms in the US at the pleasure of Congress; the 2A does not apply. Aliens shop in the “Arsenal of Democracy” at the pleasure of Congress and Eric Holder.

              If Eric Holder sees fit to ‘run guns down to Juarez’ for the Sinaloan Cartel, he has that “Power”. Congress has confirmed that he had that Power because it has done nothing to bring him to account for Fast & Furious. At the same time, Congress continues to forbid any Mexican campesino from shopping in the “Arsenal of Democracy” in order that he might protect his family. Congress has that Power; and it exercises it at OUR pleasure – we the voters.

              There are lots of aliens on US soil for various reasons. Some are illegal; others, perfectly legal. They may have business visas, student visas, worker’s visas, or simply a visa allowing them to shop on the US side of the border. What do we the PotG think of all these aliens? Do we deprive them all – under a broad blanket – of their God-given RK&BA? Under what rationale, exactly?

              Or, do we discriminate? Those who are here illegally in one class; those here legally in another class? Among those here legally, might some be permitted/licensed to purchase, keep and bear arms? Which ones? All/some/none?

              I do not suggest that our answer to the question about aliens is a really important question that we should invest energy in solving. It is merely a philosophical question. Just exactly what is it that we believe; why? If we thought that the legal Mexican campesino has an equal right to shop at an FFL in Laredo, then what would that imply as to the laws concerning NICS checks, 4473 forms and eligibility of Americans to shop at an FFL? What would it mean to the state of civil-order in Mexico if all its citizens – not just those who are members of the Sinaloa cartel – could shop in an FFL? What would it mean if the citizens of Mexico – or Venezuela or Syria – had the sovereign power of their respective Peoples to alter or abolish their systems of government? Might they be able to sort-out their own affairs without quite so much help from the US Marines?

              My philosophical question here – about aliens and the RK&BA – might be of no real consequence to us as Americans. It may just be an amusing question. Even so, the Founders deemed a “well regulated militia” to be “necessary” to the “security of a free state”. Did this conclusion apply exclusively to the US? Or, if we were to ask the Founders if it also applied to Englishmen, or Frenchmen, etc. might they have explained that it applied to every state? If they thought it applicable to all peoples, then might they have understood that we might make fewer deployments of US Marines in other countries if only we allowed the peoples of those countries to shop our gunsmiths for their natural RK&BA?

          2. @Tio Nico, Yes, the answer is clearly in federal law, which the Oblabla administration ignored; and the Trump administration is gearing up again. But I think that the federal law needs to change from Ted Kennedy’s everybody and their relative classes of aliens to only aliens with skills that Americans do not have (not including language skills that Americans do not have).

        3. @WB…Speaking of aliens, I have began to wonder if ts or xx or whatever is an illegal, and if soros is paying cash under the table, there by not paying taxes. Probably not or he would have been bragging about it.

    11. There should be no Gun Control Act. Any and all chipping away of the GCA is a good thing. Repeal of the GCA and the National Firearms Act (NFA) would be even better.

      1. Conceptually, this IS a good argument. Practically, it falls apart. Voters will acknowledge that some violent felons – the Charles Manson types – must be kept locked-up for life; or, at least, until they are severely impaired by old-age.

        What we fail to recognize is that voters are also aware that taxpayers will NOT keep MOST violent felons in expensive prisons long-enough to dissuade them from their chosen path of violence. Voters realize that MOST violent felons WILL be released and MOST of these will commit another violent crime. Voters understand that they would be better off paying the price of another year in prison for every violent criminal in order to spare themselves the cost of violence. Yet, voters are not likely to re-calculate their appetites for more taxes and less crime. This is where we are; and, changing this attitude is not going to be a cost-effective approach.

        The very best argument we have is this: “The best gun control is enforcing felon-in-possession. It’s not a perfect solution; nor is it even good-enough. Yet, IF any gun-control offers any potential to improve violent crime, this is the one we ought to be enforcing.” After a violent felon has been released or paroled, he should – for a time – remain a “prohibited-person”. After he has lived in peace for a few years, he should be allowed to plead for re-enablement of 2A Rights. Nope! We won’t make that argument.

        The only argument we will make is that ALL felons – violent or not – who are released from prison automatically “deserve” their RK&BA restored AUTOMATICALLY and IMMEDIATELY. It bothers us NOT AT ALL that such a proposal is a non-starter; that it promises to provide relief to NO worthy candidate. But, it’s great “virtue-signaling” as is characteristic of the loony-left. We are purists!

        Have we PotG the capacity to think through our tactics? Or, are we prepared to virtue-signal all the way to the lion’s den?

        1. @MarkPA. All your comments are noted. You evidently have quite a passion for this issue. You have brought out many points of contradiction, not on your side, but simply because legaliam is always convoluted, by virtue of what it is. Everybody wants to get from point A to point B the quickest route. In time, side roads and short cuts are built to accomplish same. Some routes are so filled with obstructions that it even deters travel. Some routes cover terrain and rediculous direction that no one can sensibly travel that way and are meant to deter travel. Thus is our legal system. We think only recently, bad actors have began to attack our Constitution, but it’s been going on for years. There are statutes and laws that lie dormant until a particular defense is in question, or offense, as the case may be. If you ever wonder about attorney fees, researching and verdict comparisons are the money suckers, not actual Court time. Thus, it is a slippery slope of travel. Because everyone (states), have injected route change requirements on a road running straight uphill. The abuses of this issue are simply to numerous to even mention here. And they concern law abiding persons. The gun haters will eventually use these laws on all gun owners. Strangely, many court officers, and law enforcement, who appear to be constitutional thinkers and believers appear benign to the fact that they are enabling the very act of violating the Constitution.

          1. You are very charitable. We are the only people who were given not only a Constitution, but also a users manual. See the Federalist Papers; and, also, the Anti-Federalist Papers. We were warned about mere “parchment barriers”. Maintaining our rights was not for the faint of heart.

            Too many of us think that it suffices to read the Constitution and then pontificate. Strategy and tactics matter not-at-all. These of our fellows have not studied how we lost our gun rights; nor how we have allowed so many other rights to whither away.

            I’m despondent about how rare it is to see a remark in any of the gun blogs that seriously address the strategy and tactics issues. Some posters are altogether too eager to compose intemperate posts that the Antis use to paint the PotG with a broad brush. Are such posters plants whose deliberate intentions are to defame the PotG? Some posters argue for some simplistic measure that is really a non-starter: ‘The 2A is my gun permit!’ How does that advance the ball one inch?

            I don’t think the war in defense of the 2A will be won in a single battle; nor, will it be won quickly. I see no really obvious path to try to rally the troops to follow. I see altogether too many paths. Some are counter-productive; worse so if they are sincerely pursued. Some are distractions; they neither hurt nor help. Others would be – individually – constructive, but they dilute our efforts. Gee, if the enemy is fanned out in an arc of 180 degrees, all we have to do is spray and pray and some of our bullets will hit home. No point in finding a weak point in their lines and charging to take that single objective.

            As a prominent leader in the movement once remarked to me (in a private conversation): “Some times our members are our own worst enemies”. Can we coalesce? It’s not impossible; the Progressives learned to do it.

            1. Well, your heads on straight. And your in the right crowd. Mr. Codrea and his devious mind that he uses for good, has set my head to spinning more than once. And some of these folks that comment here have taught me much about digging for facts, intelligent debate, and questioning my own first thought on what I see, hear, and read. It will not only be a long fight, evil is with us always. We must stand therefore, until we disconnect from this mortal state.

              Always in Liberty.

    Leave a Comment 40 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *