It’s a Matter of the 14th Amendment

The Heller decision pretty clearly and unambiguously said that there was a Second Amendment right to bear arms, in addition to keeping them in the home. The McDonald decision incorporated that Second Amendment right through the 14th Amendment, so that it applies to both federal, state and local governments equally.

Cliff Schecter, a paid shill strategic advisor for Mayor Bloomberg’s group of illegal mayors, apparently has never heard of it. Let me remind Mr. Schecter of an important part of the 14th Amendment, from Section 5: “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” I would like to note the language of H.R. 822:

(3) The Congress has the power to pass legislation to protect against infringement of all rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(9) Among the purposes of this Act is the protection of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Regardless of all the policy hysteria in Mr. Schecter’s op-ed, constitutional rights trump all but the most dire policy arguments. The fact of the matter is, anyone who’s not disqualified for crimes committed from exercising their right ought to be able to do it without regards to state borders. My right to free speech, free religion, or right be free of unreasonable searches and seizures does not appear and disappear as I move from state to state. Why is the Second Amendment any different?

But I understand why Schecter is working this issue, because it scares the hell out of Mayor Bloomberg. Well, tell your boss, Mr. Schecter: we are coming for his city’s gun laws, and we’re going to be relentless in this. We’re going to lay waste to the 20th century gun rights monstrosity that has been erected in New York City. Those laws are, and always have been, unconstitutional. There’s no amount of hewing and hawing on his part, or on the part of people he’s paying to hew and haw on his behalf, that’s going to stop us.

9 thoughts on “It’s a Matter of the 14th Amendment”

  1. “we are coming for his city’s gun laws, and we’re going to be relentless in this.”

    I will be willing to declare victory and go home only when we all have the right to open carry in Central Park. Until then, we aren’t nearly done yet.

  2. It could be that’s the only right you get, depending on how the Supreme Court goes. But OC in NYC wouldn’t be much of a victory, because businesses would still be free to ban the practice, which would mean carry in NYC would never amount to much more than a political statement.

  3. Businesses are free to ban the practice now. They pretty much don’t. They don’t want the hassle of bothering people, they just want to make the sale. And friendly smiling gun owners giving them cash will always trump the occasional annoying loon from Brady Campaign. Witness what happened at Starbucks.

    You say “political statement” like it’s a bad thing. Haven’t the people on the Left been screaming that we should make the personal political? Everything you do can be called a “political statement” by someone who disagrees with you. Mostly they should just be told to build a bridge and get over it.

    OC’ing in Central Park would make all the right heads go all ‘splodey. It’d be worth the trip to Mordor on Hudson just for that.

  4. I don’t think it’s a bad thing, but say, like a great many people, you have a job in Manhattan. OC isn’t generally going to help you very much in your day-to-day life. Probably not going to help you much if you head in to do a show and dinner.

    And I can promise you Bloomberg is going to pressure businesses to sign a “no gun pledge.” High profile NYC establishments will probably participate, because there’s a lot that can be done for non-compliance.

  5. I want to be able to walk down the street with a .44 Marlin lever action on my shoulder and hop on the subway just like my dad did as a kid.

  6. Scared isn’t a good word to describe Bloomberg. I do not think he really believes all his rhetoric. I would describe it more as being concerned he’s on the losing side of an issue and that hurts his ego.

  7. I have to agree with Jacob. MAIG & Bloomberg’s other schemes are more about scape-goating and smoke screens than actual attempts to address violence (tip: keep repeat offenders locked up.) If he’d wanted to actually address violence, he’d have looked at things that actually worked.

Comments are closed.