Publius+Forum Warner+Todd+Huston Second+Amendment Guns

00Publius Contributor - 2nd Amendment - Constitution - Judges - News - Security/Safety - Society/Culture - Warner Todd Huston

The Constitution LIVES – 2nd Amendment Finally Upheld

June 26, 2008 by

I am sure I’ll have more to say as time moves on, but for now here is an AP story with the news…

Supreme Court says Americans have right to guns

WASHINGTON (AP) – The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense in their homes, the justices’ first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court’s 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia’s 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms restrictions intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: “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.”

See the rest at Breitbart.com

00Publius Contributor - 2nd Amendment - Constitution - Democrats/Leftists - Founders - History - Media Bias - News - Security/Safety - Society/Culture - The Law - Warner Todd Huston

Paper: I Know, Let’s Compromise Our Rights Away!

June 1, 2008 by

-By Warner Todd Huston

Columnist Tom Eblen of the Lexington, Kentucky Herald-Leader has proven to the world that he doesn’t know what a “right” is. He thinks it is something that you can “compromise” over. He thinks it is something that can be endlessly tinkered with. He seems not to realize that a “right” is something that is supposed to be insoluble, unchangeable, permanent. Worse, he has equated an American right to the horse raising industry as if the business decisions made by a handful of ranchers is somehow comparable to the observance and maintenance of our rights. Ridiculously he says that if we don’t compromise this one right, our 2nd Amendment right, it will be taken away. And hypocritically, after using fear to urge us to compromise, he accuses those of us interested in safeguarding the 2nd Amendment of using “fear” tactics.

This latest op ed, “NRA’s slippery slope full of holes,” was the result of some flack he took for touting the existence of a small gun owner’s organization that many NRA members claim is a front group for an anti-gun group. He wrote admiringly about this small group and was assailed by emails and messages informing him that he was giving support to a stealth gun grabbing group and, instead of checking out the group more thoroughly, these emails seemed to set Eblen off. Typical of a self-righteous denizen of the media, instead of finding out if the complaint letters were right and reassessing his original support, Eblen merely lashed out at 2nd Amendment supporters who alerted him to his mistake. (In fact, Eblen doesn’t even bother to try to find out more about the small gun group he wrote about before merely blowing off his obligation to be informed about what he writes.)

So, off Eblen goes wagging his finger at 2nd Amendment supporters telling them that their “hard-line views” and their use of “fear” to sell gun rights is the wrong track to take. He particularly focuses on the fear aspect, claiming that this is an illegitimate way to advocate for our rights. But, even as he claims the NRA illegitimately uses “fear” he uses fear himself to claim that if we don’t compromise our rights away we will lose all of them.

Continue reading “Paper: I Know, Let’s Compromise Our Rights Away!”

00Publius Contributor - 2nd Amendment - Constitution - Democrats/Leftists - News - Security/Safety - Society/Culture - The Law - Warner Todd Huston

Citizens Revolt Against Boston PD’s Jackbooted Gun Hunt

March 27, 2008 by

-By Warner Todd Huston

A few months ago, the Boston police department announced it would form a squad of uniformed police that would roam about certain “high risk” neighborhoods on the hunt for guns. The plan would be that these police squads would arrive at the doors of home owners, knock a few times, and “politely” ask residents if they would consent to a warrantless search of the premises — as if asking nicely was all the state needs to do to make it OK to abrogate the Constitution!

Well, apparently the community has discovered what a violation of trust and Constitutional rights this sort of jackbooted action would be. According to the Boston Globe, residents have “surprised” the police by intense opposition to the plan. The Boston Globe reports the shock and aw shucks of the police.

Boston police officials, surprised by intense opposition from residents, have significantly scaled back and delayed the start of a program that would allow officers to go into people’s homes and search for guns without a warrant.

The program, dubbed Safe Homes, was supposed to start in December, but has been delayed at least three times because of misgivings in the community. March 1 was the latest missed start date.

Apparently, citizens are a bit alarmed that the police imagine that they can just roam about preemptively “stopping” crimes that have yet to be committed. One community group has been circulating a petition to stop the program cold.

And here is the claim that the police have for their little program…

Police would ask parents or legal guardians for permission to search homes where juveniles ages 17 and under are believed to be holding illegal guns. Police would only enter homes into which they have been invited and, once inside, would only search the rooms of the juveniles.

This is an outright falsehood. Police legally CANNOT be limited to a single goal like they would be with a warrant. If the police enter a home, whether bidden or unbidden, they are obligated to act on anything that raises their suspicions. In effect, even if the homeowner imagined that they were only going to have police enter under a single premise, any violations the police see upon entering is fair game for police actions. In other words, by inviting police into the home, the homeowner is opening himself up to trouble even if he imagines the police are only there for one reason!

Community members are beginning to realize this fact, too.

Sarah Wunsch, a staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union who has attended meetings about the plan, said those warnings are unnerving.

“People on the street may say: ‘This is great. I’m letting them in,’ ” she said. “But those are the people I’m concerned about, because they haven’t been educated about the hazards.”

What we have here is an violation of the Constitution, plain and simple. The police may have what some might consider good intentions. But, destroying the Constitution even for good intentions is no way to go about improving the community.

I hope that the communities in Boston continue to oppose these illegal police policies. So far, they are doing a good job doing so.

____________

Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as newsbusters.org, townhall.com, New Media Journal, Men’s News Daily and the New Media Alliance among many, many others. Additionally, he has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events. He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the new book “Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture” which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of publiusforum.com. Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions : EMAIL Warner Todd Huston