Dakota Beacon

Today, after a brief break, we are back to finish our examination of the Bill of Rights.  So far the Amendments have been specific in nature, requiring fair procedures and due process and protecting specific citizens’ rights - our right to keep and bear arms, our right to free speech, our right to free association, to worship, our right to freedom of the press, etc.  Today we have the Ninth Amendment. Before we go into its particulars, we should examine the reasoning behind it.

There was a great deal of heated debate over whether we should have a “Bill of Rights”.  The authors of the Constitution felt that they had protected these rights as far as anyone could.  Others, however, had unhappy memories of  abuses of the colonists by the British. They wanted to be specific in their statement of rights not mentioned. Here it is as written:

Amendment IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Our Constitution would not permit the government to forbid ownership of a computer, for example, just because the right to own one is not among the enumerated rights.  We have the right to move freely within our country - the government cannot prohibit that simply because it is not mentioned in the Constitution. The importance of this idea needs no emphasis.  When you hear about some new law proposed by Congress which would limit your rights, check it against the Bill of Rights and the Ninth Amendment.

And now, in today’s news, Richmond, Virginia, was the site of Monday’s “gun rally”, organized to protest Virginia Governor Northam’s and the state legislature’s plans to pass gun control legislation in contravention of the Second Amendment.  

Those who hoped that the rally would erupt in violence were severely disappointed.  The attendees conducted themselves as civilized Americans always do. We invariably saw this with tea party rallies.  A minimum number of 16,000 (many estimates were much higher) showed up from all over the U.S. at the event organized by the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a pro-Second Amendment group.  Despite the “concerns” which prompted Governor Northam to increase security, only one arrest was made - that of a young woman who was wearing a “mask” - a bandana over part of her face which she refused to remove.  Although guns were banned within a determined perimeter of the capitol, a number of people elected to come armed and stayed outside of that boundary.  

Northam has proved to be an unpopular governor and to many an embarrassment.  Petitions calling for his resignation were circulating. Bills were moving through committee in the legislature to require background checks, to remove guns from those deemed to be a “threat”, to allow only one handgun purchase per month and to allow local jurisdictions to ban guns at events.  

Many jurisdictions and sheriffs have already made clear their determination not to obey these laws if passed and numerous towns have established themselves as “Second Amendment sanctuaries” where these laws will not take effect.  Northam and the legislature are poised to set up some extreme polarization within Virginia. Many of those who came from out of state understand that if this kind of Second Amendment violation is permitted that no one’s rights will be secure.  

We also need to understand that restrictions in some areas deny rights to Americans from other areas.  The days to come will be interesting in Virginia - watch for future developments. The big take-away from Monday’s event is that gun owners are, for the most part, law-abiding citizens who are concerned with protecting themselves and their families in an increasingly dangerous nation.  It is being made more dangerous every day by policies and practices of permitting unvetted immigration and in “catch-and-release” practices, an attitude of insubordination in some communities when it comes to our immigration laws (which are too lax to begin with) and a proliferation of prescription and street drug abuse.  The people who want to own guns legally are not the problem. The problem is, and has always been, criminals.

Comments:  (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)