Second Amendment On Deck - They're Coming for Your Guns

Posted On December 04, 2015 Charles Ramsay

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak outâ??

Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak outâ??

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak outâ??

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for meâ??and there was no one left to speak out for me.

- Pastor Martin Niemoller, 1946

If you read our blog, you know that the Minnesota Supreme Court has consistently ruled that drivers arrested under suspicion of DWI have no Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights because the state's "compelling interest in public safety| is more important than the individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

If "public safety" is sufficient to selectively nullify the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, why wouldn't it also apply to the Second Amendment?

Here's a quote from the recent DWI case of State v. Bernard, tailored (altered text in brackets) to support a Second Amendment argument:

The state has a compelling interest in [public] safety justifying efforts to keep [guns out of the hands of the mentally ill/religious extremists]. [Requiring psychological/religious tests] to determine whether [gun owners/buyers] suspected of being [mentally ill/extremist] are in fact [mentally ill/extremist] is reasonably related to the government's interest in keeping [guns out of the hands of the mentally ill/religious extremists].

Encouraging [gun owners/buyers] to submit to such tests, through criminalizing their refusal, furthers that interest. [And is therefore constitutional.]

Is that okay with you?

I deplore gun violence, and I don't think civilians need AK-47 assault rifles. But until and unless at least 38 states ratify a constitutional amendment, I will defend the right to keep and bear arms.

Why? Because as an attorney, I took an oath to uphold the United States Constitution.

And here's the rub: I'm not the only one who swore an oath. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution couldn't be much clearer:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof â?¦ shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution[.]

So why is Minnesota government defying the Constitution? And what remedy do we have?

To be continued...