Keep and Bear Arms

Free Speech and Firearms: Our Only Chance

by Donald E. Clem
ConservativeViewsAndForum.com
[email protected]

Two recent rulings (both unconstitutional) by the Supreme Court along ideological lines are threatening our freedom to speak and own firearms. One ruling upheld the restrictions and limits on campaign spending by political parties, while the other upheld the keeping of gun records by the FBI for six months. The court said the both rulings upheld federal laws covering the issues. Again the Constitution took a hit, as did freedom, at the hands of the liberal Justices who have never seen a federal law restricting liberty that they did not like. Federal laws are only valid if they meet the requirements of not conflicting with the Constitution. These two rulings were so far afield that I have to wonder what country the Justices call home.

There is more to this than meets the first impression when the rulings are viewed from a Constitutional perspective. The First Amendment protects the right to speak and freely assemble. Inherent in that right is the right to join a group, speak, and be a contributor to help advertise whatever messages the group desires to express. The group is free to spend what it can afford or deems necessary in order to promote the causes it supports. The group�s right to speak comes, not because the Constitution specifically makes a provision for group rights, but because rights extend to the group through individual members, that is unless it is a political party or a pro gun group. Denying a group the right to speak is the tantamount to denying individual members the same right. Being a member of a group does not negate any right to speak in the manner one chooses -- if I understand the Constitution correctly.

One question now for the court can be asked. Where do you get the authority to tell us how, where, the amount, and for what purpose to spend our money? The Constitution does not give you the power to do so; the law that Congress passed, on which you based your ruling, is unconstitutional on the wisdom that campaigns are individual and a function of state party organizations. And though the parties are national in scope (becoming such through the processes in each of the 50 states), it is not within the government�s power to regulate political speech by any method or means. Congress shall make no law�Are you familiar with that phrase? If you aren�t, then read it.

An ability to give money to support a group is an integral part of free speech. A solitary individual might not have enough money to support a candidate or the issues but he or she can give to the group and be a part of the larger effort. Now according to the Supreme Court a party cannot advise a candidate on the where and the how of advertising to help his or her candidacy. Through the latest action the court has effectively deprived the voice of the individual who gives to the party and has thereby restricted his or her freedom of speech. Individuals were already prevented from direct co-ordination with a candidate and this decision does nothing but impose more gag rules on freedom of political expression. That is what the press wants because they can now set the agenda for their liberal desires. With the party cut off from the candidate the press is free, with no restrictions, to campaign for anyone they please, all under the protection of the First Amendment.

Originally the restrictions came about because of the Watergate era. Individuals were manipulating candidates (haven�t they always?) so a federal law was passed to stop the potential for direct influence and the consequent corruption due to a politician being beholden to a big donor or one who did favors of various kinds. It makes sense that giving to a party would lessen the influence of givers through party affiliation since the many other contributors would dilute the likelihood of any one donor having more clout than other donors would. Unfortunately the court didn�t see it that way. It was a bad decision for the nation since it narrowed the First Amendment by taking away a means of promoting political speech that should be available to average Joe Citizen.

Firearm issues are not remote from free speech, although the politicians try to divorce the two issues. The now dead McCain-Feingold bill would have denied those who speak for gun rights, along with other groups, to be stifled 60 days before an election. Yet gun rights remain under assault, and are a red-hot issue with the Court entering the fray in support of the FBI holding gun records for six months instead of immediately destroying them as they were supposed to do. That the keeping of the records is an informal, illegal registration of firearms albeit only to temporary, is denied by no less than the venerable FBI which �always� tells the truth. The question remains as to why the FBI or the government wants to know who owns firearms. If it is a safety issue the FBI needs to answer some questions in the exercise of their right of free speech. The first is a request for the number of times a decent law abiding gun owner shot an FBI man or any law officer accidentally or otherwise. The second is how many times have federal or state gun laws kept a criminal from owning or discharging a firearm? (The Brady Bill numbers from the government about denial of purchase are bogus according to all credible sources.) The third, how many times have owners of firearms been injured by their own gun while defending life and limb from criminals? Their answers would be interesting lessons in obfuscation.

Now for the questions that will give the FBI, BATF, and anti-gun police departments a chance to redeem themselves:

How many times has a law enforcement officer actually been on the scene to make it unnecessary for a citizen to use a firearm?
How many times has an officer arrived in time to stop a crime in progress after 911 received the call?
How many crime scenes (murder) have officers presided over because the victim(s) did not have access to a gun?
How many times has an officer shot an innocent citizen by mistake or otherwise?
How many times has a black booted squad invaded the wrong house due to an address mix up and killed the occupants?
How many officers have been assaulted with a gun by innocent homeowners when their homes were invaded?
And how do you justify a raid on a tomato garden during which the owner and his guest were treated like criminals?
What is the excuse for the screw-ups? Aren�t they professionals? They are supposed to be but the search for a definitive yes continues.

The safety issues are as bogus as the FBI telling the truth, the numbers of the Brady Bill, and money restrictions on freedom of speech. It appears that the citizens are in more danger from some police agencies and the courts than they are from lawful, decent gun owners. The penchant for knowing who owns guns does not make any sense to anyone but the government officials and anti-gun people, but when asked for answers they only talk nonsense.

History proves indeed that citizens armed with free speech and a gun are dangerous to government goons at all levels. (Just ask the British for the truth of that statement.) Couple the ruling on speech regarding campaigns to the ruling on the bogus need to keep gun records, it is safe to say that the chance of remaining free for very much longer is predicated upon dedicated activism and patriotism. Is that why they will not tell us the reasons for the violations against the First and Second Amendments?

	Print This Page

Written By:	Donald E. Clem
	Free Speech and Firearms: Our Only Chance by Donald E. Clem ConservativeViewsAndForum.com [email protected] Two recent rulings (both unconstitutional) by the Supreme Court along ideological lines are threatening our freedom to speak and own firearms. One ruling upheld the restrictions and limits on campaign spending by political parties, while the other upheld the keeping of gun records by the FBI for six months. The court said the both rulings upheld federal laws covering the issues. Again the Constitution took a hit, as did freedom, at the hands of the liberal Justices who have never seen a federal law restricting liberty that they did not like. Federal laws are only valid if they meet the requirements of not conflicting with the Constitution. These two rulings were so far afield that I have to wonder what country the Justices call home. There is more to this than meets the first impression when the rulings are viewed from a Constitutional perspective. The First Amendment protects the right to speak and freely assemble. Inherent in that right is the right to join a group, speak, and be a contributor to help advertise whatever messages the group desires to express. The group is free to spend what it can afford or deems necessary in order to promote the causes it supports. The group�s right to speak comes, not because the Constitution specifically makes a provision for group rights, but because rights extend to the group through individual members, that is unless it is a political party or a pro gun group. Denying a group the right to speak is the tantamount to denying individual members the same right. Being a member of a group does not negate any right to speak in the manner one chooses -- if I understand the Constitution correctly. One question now for the court can be asked. Where do you get the authority to tell us how, where, the amount, and for what purpose to spend our money? The Constitution does not give you the power to do so; the law that Congress passed, on which you based your ruling, is unconstitutional on the wisdom that campaigns are individual and a function of state party organizations. And though the parties are national in scope (becoming such through the processes in each of the 50 states), it is not within the government�s power to regulate political speech by any method or means. Congress shall make no law�Are you familiar with that phrase? If you aren�t, then read it. An ability to give money to support a group is an integral part of free speech. A solitary individual might not have enough money to support a candidate or the issues but he or she can give to the group and be a part of the larger effort. Now according to the Supreme Court a party cannot advise a candidate on the where and the how of advertising to help his or her candidacy. Through the latest action the court has effectively deprived the voice of the individual who gives to the party and has thereby restricted his or her freedom of speech. Individuals were already prevented from direct co-ordination with a candidate and this decision does nothing but impose more gag rules on freedom of political expression. That is what the press wants because they can now set the agenda for their liberal desires. With the party cut off from the candidate the press is free, with no restrictions, to campaign for anyone they please, all under the protection of the First Amendment. Originally the restrictions came about because of the Watergate era. Individuals were manipulating candidates (haven�t they always?) so a federal law was passed to stop the potential for direct influence and the consequent corruption due to a politician being beholden to a big donor or one who did favors of various kinds. It makes sense that giving to a party would lessen the influence of givers through party affiliation since the many other contributors would dilute the likelihood of any one donor having more clout than other donors would. Unfortunately the court didn�t see it that way. It was a bad decision for the nation since it narrowed the First Amendment by taking away a means of promoting political speech that should be available to average Joe Citizen. Firearm issues are not remote from free speech, although the politicians try to divorce the two issues. The now dead McCain-Feingold bill would have denied those who speak for gun rights, along with other groups, to be stifled 60 days before an election. Yet gun rights remain under assault, and are a red-hot issue with the Court entering the fray in support of the FBI holding gun records for six months instead of immediately destroying them as they were supposed to do. That the keeping of the records is an informal, illegal registration of firearms albeit only to temporary, is denied by no less than the venerable FBI which �always� tells the truth. The question remains as to why the FBI or the government wants to know who owns firearms. If it is a safety issue the FBI needs to answer some questions in the exercise of their right of free speech. The first is a request for the number of times a decent law abiding gun owner shot an FBI man or any law officer accidentally or otherwise. The second is how many times have federal or state gun laws kept a criminal from owning or discharging a firearm? (The Brady Bill numbers from the government about denial of purchase are bogus according to all credible sources.) The third, how many times have owners of firearms been injured by their own gun while defending life and limb from criminals? Their answers would be interesting lessons in obfuscation. Now for the questions that will give the FBI, BATF, and anti-gun police departments a chance to redeem themselves: How many times has a law enforcement officer actually been on the scene to make it unnecessary for a citizen to use a firearm? How many times has an officer arrived in time to stop a crime in progress after 911 received the call? How many crime scenes (murder) have officers presided over because the victim(s) did not have access to a gun? How many times has an officer shot an innocent citizen by mistake or otherwise? How many times has a black booted squad invaded the wrong house due to an address mix up and killed the occupants? How many officers have been assaulted with a gun by innocent homeowners when their homes were invaded? And how do you justify a raid on a tomato garden during which the owner and his guest were treated like criminals? What is the excuse for the screw-ups? Aren�t they professionals? They are supposed to be but the search for a definitive yes continues. The safety issues are as bogus as the FBI telling the truth, the numbers of the Brady Bill, and money restrictions on freedom of speech. It appears that the citizens are in more danger from some police agencies and the courts than they are from lawful, decent gun owners. The penchant for knowing who owns guns does not make any sense to anyone but the government officials and anti-gun people, but when asked for answers they only talk nonsense. History proves indeed that citizens armed with free speech and a gun are dangerous to government goons at all levels. (Just ask the British for the truth of that statement.) Couple the ruling on speech regarding campaigns to the ruling on the bogus need to keep gun records, it is safe to say that the chance of remaining free for very much longer is predicated upon dedicated activism and patriotism. Is that why they will not tell us the reasons for the violations against the First and Second Amendments?