The following is a quote from Jerry Patterson on the 2nd Amendment
Dear Fellow Texans,
It is not much of a reach to say that Texas is the #1 gun friendly state in the Union. If it is not, Texas is certainly near the top of the list. Nonetheless, recent tragic events at the Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs and at Santa Fe High School have proven that even in Texas, the debate over the right to arms enumerated in the U.S. and Texas Constitutions can be animated, if not downright hostile.
After the Santa Fe High School tragedy, Texas Governor Greg Abbott convened a series of roundtable discussions which ultimately produced a 42 page “School Firearm and Safety Action Plan”. Both Texas House and Texas Senate committees have begun interim studies and public hearings on elements of the Governor's draft plan.
The most controversial idea being considered is the Extreme Risk Protective Order (ERPO) also known as a “Red Flag” law. Many gun rights advocates claim such a law would be unconstitutional. In fact, some of those opposed to a ERPO statute also claim ANY restriction or regulation of firearms is unconstitutional and are quick to defend that premise with the “What part of ‘shall not infringe’ don’t you understand?” cliche.
Claiming any government regulation or restriction on firearms is unconstitutional is bizarre. Not once has the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) come even close to such a conclusion.
But let’s not take SCOTUS word for it. Let’s go back to the 1789 final draft of the Bill of Rights as well as the correspondence on the subject by James Madison, the author of those first ten amendments to the Constitution. What was Madison thinking and what did the words “shall not infringe” mean in his mind?
The 2nd Amendment states “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”.
In the 4th Amendment we find “The right of the people to be secure . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated " which raises the question as to which word is more restrictive: “infringed ” or “violated ”? Does the use of infringed mean you cannot restrict gun rights in any fashion? If violated had been used instead of infringed, would that mean something else?
For that matter, the 9th Amendment relates “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
So we have infringe, violate, deny, and disparage used in the Bill of Rights. I conclude that Madison as a writer did not put any more significance to any of them but rather did not want to use the same word too many times over a short expanse of copy. Nowhere does it say that government cannot make law regulating firearms. If that were Madison's intent, we know exactly what he would have said.
The 1st Amendment protecting freedom of religion, speech and assembly begins with “Congress shall make no law…” There you have it. The strongest limitation on Congress was not the use of shall not infringe or violate or deny or disparage - it was “Congress shall make no law…”
If Madison had intended to deny Congress the right to regulate firearms as a matter of law, he would have written the same words used in the 1st Amendment. He did not.
So Congress and the legislature can regulate firearms and do so constitutionally. The problem is when regulation becomes prohibition or becomes so onerous as to effectively deny these enumerated rights to the people - that is an unconstitutional act by government.
So while “What part of 'shall not infringe' don’t you understand?” makes a great bumper sticker, it does not go very far in defending 2nd Amendment rights. Those who use it are hurting - not helping - the cause of liberty.
Semper Fi and God Bless Texas!
Dear Fellow Texans,
It is not much of a reach to say that Texas is the #1 gun friendly state in the Union. If it is not, Texas is certainly near the top of the list. Nonetheless, recent tragic events at the Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs and at Santa Fe High School have proven that even in Texas, the debate over the right to arms enumerated in the U.S. and Texas Constitutions can be animated, if not downright hostile.
After the Santa Fe High School tragedy, Texas Governor Greg Abbott convened a series of roundtable discussions which ultimately produced a 42 page “School Firearm and Safety Action Plan”. Both Texas House and Texas Senate committees have begun interim studies and public hearings on elements of the Governor's draft plan.
The most controversial idea being considered is the Extreme Risk Protective Order (ERPO) also known as a “Red Flag” law. Many gun rights advocates claim such a law would be unconstitutional. In fact, some of those opposed to a ERPO statute also claim ANY restriction or regulation of firearms is unconstitutional and are quick to defend that premise with the “What part of ‘shall not infringe’ don’t you understand?” cliche.
Claiming any government regulation or restriction on firearms is unconstitutional is bizarre. Not once has the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) come even close to such a conclusion.
But let’s not take SCOTUS word for it. Let’s go back to the 1789 final draft of the Bill of Rights as well as the correspondence on the subject by James Madison, the author of those first ten amendments to the Constitution. What was Madison thinking and what did the words “shall not infringe” mean in his mind?
The 2nd Amendment states “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”.
In the 4th Amendment we find “The right of the people to be secure . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated " which raises the question as to which word is more restrictive: “infringed ” or “violated ”? Does the use of infringed mean you cannot restrict gun rights in any fashion? If violated had been used instead of infringed, would that mean something else?
For that matter, the 9th Amendment relates “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
So we have infringe, violate, deny, and disparage used in the Bill of Rights. I conclude that Madison as a writer did not put any more significance to any of them but rather did not want to use the same word too many times over a short expanse of copy. Nowhere does it say that government cannot make law regulating firearms. If that were Madison's intent, we know exactly what he would have said.
The 1st Amendment protecting freedom of religion, speech and assembly begins with “Congress shall make no law…” There you have it. The strongest limitation on Congress was not the use of shall not infringe or violate or deny or disparage - it was “Congress shall make no law…”
If Madison had intended to deny Congress the right to regulate firearms as a matter of law, he would have written the same words used in the 1st Amendment. He did not.
So Congress and the legislature can regulate firearms and do so constitutionally. The problem is when regulation becomes prohibition or becomes so onerous as to effectively deny these enumerated rights to the people - that is an unconstitutional act by government.
So while “What part of 'shall not infringe' don’t you understand?” makes a great bumper sticker, it does not go very far in defending 2nd Amendment rights. Those who use it are hurting - not helping - the cause of liberty.
Semper Fi and God Bless Texas!