NRA, SAF Lawsuit Evokes Fundamental Questions About Rights and Democracy

Wolves Kill Sheep
The vote is in, this fellow lost and his rights are what the majority say they are.

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “The Second Amendment Foundation and National Rifle Association have filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging gun control Initiative 1639 in Washington State, on several grounds,” an SAF press release advises. “The lawsuit challenges the measure on the grounds that it violates the commerce clause by banning sales of rifles to non-residents, and that it unconstitutionally impairs the rights guaranteed by the First, Second and Fourteenth Amendments, and Article I Section 24 of the Washington State constitution by preventing the sale to otherwise qualified adults under age 21 of certain rifles.”

Who thinks the better young man is David Hogg?

As matters of historical perspective, Audie Murphy would have been deemed “too young” to be trusted with a rifle at the time his legendary heroics earned him recognition as the most decorated combat soldier of WWII. It also flies in the face of 10 U.S. Code § 246 – Militia: composition and classes:

“(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.”

There are more fundamental considerations here, though, that goes to the heart of what rights are, and just how far democracy can go until it becomes a tyranny of the majority.

What is a right? Is it something that is granted by a government authority? If so, how does that differ from a privilege? Can something that is granted be withheld? Can something which is licensed be revoked?

Are not rights unalienable? Do they not precede the establishment of government? Are they not, in fact, outside the authority of government?

Recognizing the dangers of mob rule, our Bill of Rights defined some of the areas where the individual would be immune to the will of the collective. What this means is, no matter how many of us disagree with you, we cannot lawfully use force to shut you up, to suppress your political views, or to make you worship in the way we see fit. We cannot break into your house and search your property without cause and a legal warrant. We can't torture you into confessing to a crime. Barring behaviors on your part to disqualify yourself, we cannot strip you of your ability to keep and bear arms.

No matter how many of us vote on it.

Rights are meant to protect the minority. Accepting that in turn protects the majority, whether that is realized and appreciated or not.

Someone once defined pure democracy as wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. The denial of the right to keep and bear arms mandated by I-1639 is every bit as illegitimate and intolerable. It merits being defied and resisted by whatever means necessary, a choice we all must face when the only other option being offered is abject surrender.

Appealing to the courts is a first step. It’s only the last if everyone agrees their rights are subject to the votes of others.


About David Codrea: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 a contributor to Firearms News, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

  • 17 thoughts on “NRA, SAF Lawsuit Evokes Fundamental Questions About Rights and Democracy

    1. the problem with this article is that it keeps talking about a democracy,but we don’t live in a democracy. this is a constitutional republic

    2. Quote: “Barring behaviors on your part to disqualify yourself, we cannot strip you of your ability to keep and bear arms.” Please explain what behaviors to disqualify one from owning and bearing arms are listed in the US Constitution and where in that document are they listed?

      1. Being convicted of murder and sent to death row, for one. Any federal crime listed in the Constitution requiring incarceration for its duration or capital punishment — “Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations … counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States … Treason…”

        1. “Treason” is punishable by Death, thus it serves to take the problem person out of society rather than take rights away Unconstitutionally. All other cases are to be prescribed by Congress. In fact, their guidelines are; No “Titles of Nobility,” which are routinely handed out to Agencies now. No “Bills of Attainder,” which it’s very obvious that they bypass due process regularly, sometimes without any trial what soever via an Agency punitive regulation, which is often applied “Ex Post Facto.” Also forbidden. This illuminates a more salient point David.

          If a person is so dangerous that they present a problem to society, and then allowing them a tool for destruction is a concern, they should be taken out of society rather than take rights away from the general public for lesser offenses. Car, knife, poison, or a single punch is all it takes to murder and Mame. I will assure you that there were; drunken, dope peddling, wife beating, crazy, law abusing individuals when the “Bill of Rights” was ratified. Our founders baked it into the formula. Arm Everyone, and things will level out for the better good in the end!

          1. You’re reading a lot more into it than I said. Of course you take him out of society. You disarm prisoners. My position is longstanding: ANYONE WHO CAN’T BE TRUSTED WITH A GUN CAN’T BE TRUSTED WITHOUT A CUSTODIAN.

            1. Oh, I think we are close in our beliefs. I didn’t read any extra into your statement at all. If you take the statement that Robert plucked out of the article, and add your comment to him, it plainly says you believe that the government can make certain carve outs of our rights.

              Very dangerous notion indeed…Define “WHO CAN”T BE TRUSTED WITH A GUN.” Then explain to me why they can be trusted with “Free Speech,” or say “Quartering” because the government didn’t like what you said about them. See the problem is, if we allow those small subjective carve outs, where does it end? Once they can circumvent anyone’s rights for any past deed, then all they have to do (and they do) is expand the definition of illegal activity. The case that I would cite that you should be familiar with is the addition of “Prohibited Persons” in the GCA 1968, where they took people’s rights away “Ex Post Facto.” What’s next, do we allow the government to increase punitive fines down the line and collect Ex Post Facto? Do we allow the “Quartering” of personnel in a an exfelon’s home to keep them in line? Do we take away a person’s ability to protest, due to a violent breakout at the previous event? Slippery Slope.

              Robert was correct in asking for clarification because as far as I know there is only one Crime that has a punishment assigned to it and that’s Treason…Punished by Death. If there are others please point them out.

          2. Except that I cannot find anywhere in MY copy of the COnstitution where thepunishment for treason, the ONLY crime named and described in the Constitution, is death. It IS defined in there, but the punishment was left up to the Congress, which means it COULD be changed once estalbished. Maybe I missed it… can you cite where IN the COnstitution the penalty for treason is death? I think it SHOULD be, and it has been so punished in the past. But IS it so prescribed in the Constitution?

            1. Sure; Article 3, Section 3. For purpose of this discussion the last paragraph.

              While it allows for the Congress to “declare the Punishment,” it also has sever-ability, so as not to prejudice against families or friends. “Corruption of Blood” is expressed for a reason, and only to the participant of said “Treason.”

              Am going to add that in Article 2, Section 4, there is provision for removal from office for the Executives in the cases David put forward, but no Deprivation of Rights directly assigned to those acts. In that I was wrong.

      2. Exactly, there are no qualifiers in the “Second Amendment.” We may be able to include those “high Crimes and Misdemeanors, but that would apply to the Government only, and in fact, any violation of the Governmental Constraints which the compact (Constitution) provides may be interpreted as cause for loss of said rights.

        The only other place that there may be “disqualification is during punishment until all other facets have been served…Certainly the “Ex Post Facto” applications are highly Unconstitutional, and become “Bills of Attainder” when applied.

    3. These are solid grounds for the Federal court filing, and that does a complete end-run round the corrupt and traitorous Washington State courts, incluidng the SUpreme COurt of the state. THEY approved the measure to be put on the ballot, when it violates several points of the Washington Constitution.

      What is amusing is that Bloomie’s Boyz had started an Initiatie Petition in Oregon that is almost word for word the same bill. Folks in Oragon sued, and their Ststr Suprme COurt declared it cannot be put on the ballot because it violates Oregon’s Constitution.

      Both states prohibit CItizen’s Initiatives that adeal with more than one issue. both of these change at least six issues each, thus cannot be a CItizen’s Initiative. Both states require that a petititino to gether signatures for an Iinitiative MUST have the entire text of the bill in READABLE form ON the petition, AND provide underlines and strikeouts where the bill changes/repeals existing law, including the revised text. Oregon’s High COurt struck the bill on those two issues alone. Washignton’s Supreme COurt ws almost unanimous in approving it for the ballot.

      Dealing with so many discrete issues is confusing and deceptive…. the promoters can, and did, harp on one or two issues that they thought would gain high ovter approval, so it was passed. Then never uttered a peep on the other half dozen nasty issues hidden in all the rest of the 32 pages of this rotten bill. And THAT is preciesly WHY the State Constitution mandates ONLY ONE ISSUE for citizen’s initiatives.

      Action should be initiated in the Washington court system on those and other bases. They did this last time when BLoomie bought us I 694 or whatever it was, the so-called “universal background check (and six other things) bill they crammed down our throats three or so years back.

      Let us hope the Federal courts quickly act and strike this bit of deceptive tomfoolery from the record.

    4. Folks, the time is past – we must make a stand and make it yesterday! They are attempting to pick us off 1 by 1 every single day. B.S. after b.s. law keeps on coming down the pike guys. Wake up before it is too late for us all.

      1. @Hey-J, Let’s not get ahead of ourselves. It is not past time. It is time to prepare. We have a friendly administration. We have two important S.Ct appointment victories, with many other lesser fed. ct. appointment victories to come.
        Trump will be getting back to draining the swamp. A friendly Senate. No one is coming to our houses.
        We have not arranged the logistics, training, secure coms, transport (and all that goes with it), command structure, or A PLAN!

        1. Trump will be boxed in by these moonbats. God love him but he can’t even get an executive order to stick. Jimmy is right Bill.

    5. The same thing happened to me last month. I went to South Carolina to Ridgeland PSA one of my favorite online gun shops. I thought I would stop in and by a Rifel they refused to sel it to me because I have a Maryland license. By the way my family owns property in SC. That didn’t help unless I change my drivers license back to SC.

    6. It is insane that the same politicians who support banning 18 year olds from buying an AR15 in america have no problem sending them off to die in the middle east for some pointless war. Pure psychopaths running this country, media, and society. John Lennon was right about the people in charge!

      1. @Trumped…You only think it is pointless because the point has been well hidden and obscured. The M.E. war is for Ersatz Israel, and it has only just begun. Take a look at a map for Ersatz Israel and you will see what I mean by “it’s only just begun”. The antichrist will not be happy until he has it all. And the US is being used like a whore to supply the blood and treasure to accomplish that goal.

    Leave a Comment 17 Comments

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