Chris Tedder: ‘Common Sense’ Gun Laws Versus Our Bill of Rights

bill-of-rights-james-madison-statue-ap-photo
CHRIS TEDDER

Common sense demands that only citizens have rights. Our elected government has no rights; rather the government enforces laws to protect the rights of those it represents.

Our brilliant Forefathers laid out our rights in the Bill of Rights. Yet somewhere along the way, liberals in all levels of our government have applied laws that strip its citizens of those rights. These liberal politicians apply their “common sense” to decide when and where we get to use our Constitutional rights.

Hence, the Fourteenth Amendment was ushered in to rein in an out-of-control government. In 1868, Rep. John Bingham framed the Fourteenth Amendment to protect the first eight Amendments of the Bill of Rights. In it, the Due Process clause prevents arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the government outside the sanction of law.

The Due Process clause basically protects our fundamental rights. It cements the ideal that a majority cannot take God-given rights away from the minority.  In other words, fundamental rights cannot be voted away in an election nor can any level of government create laws that suppress our basic freedoms.

This is why the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) swatted down Chicago’s oppressive gun laws in McDonald v. Chicago (2010). In that ruling, SCOTUS affirmed that the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, thereby protecting Second Amendment rights from infringement by the states. The average citizen already knew that the right to own firearms was an inherent right, but SCOTUS’ decision bolstered that knowledge by reaffirming that the right to bear arms is indeed a fundamental right which cannot be denied.

The ruling in McDonald came down to a 5-4 vote. All four liberal justices dissented: Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, and Sonia Sotomayor. Our fundamental rights were almost written off because of four liberal justices. Clinton and Obama appointed three of them. Republican presidents appointed the 5 justices that chose to uphold our Constitutional rights.

This is where the real power of presidential elections lies. For example, Trump has already appointed Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court (where he will likely serve for decades). And Justice Gorsuch just dissented with Justice Thomas regarding SCOTUS’ denial to hear Peruta v. California.

Just imagine where we would be if Hillary Clinton won the last election. How would SCOTUS look for the next few decades?

While Republican presidents sometimes miss the mark with like-minded appointees (think Souter and Stevens), Democrats do not seem to have that problem. When a Democrat president nominates a Supreme Court justice, they seem to search out the most liberal judge they can find. So, in future presidential elections, try to remember what you are really voting for–conservative justices over liberal ones.

“Common sense” laws change constantly. However, once a population loses a right, it rarely comes back. It seems the best way to protect our freedoms from such “common sense” is to keep liberals out of the White House, which would, in turn, keep them off the SCOTUS bench.

Chris Tedder is president of Clinger Holsters and a guest columnist for “Bullet Points with AWR Hawkins.”

.

Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.