Keep and Bear Arms

Senator Feinstein & Registration
John A. Lee

I just love Senator Feinstein's argument that we should register guns because we register cars. What a crock of undiluted hogwash. Apparently she is incapable of distinguishing that driving is a privilege, whereas gun ownership is a right. It's true that driving didn't exist when the Constitution was written. That, however, did not stop the Supreme Court from extending First Amendment protection to other new technologies which didn't exist in the late 18th century, such as videotape, radio, television, etc. The Court could easily have elevated driving to the level of a right had there been a need to do so, but it has not. Driving and gun ownership remain non-equivalent.

It's worth noting that it is illegal under current US law for any convicted felon to so much as possess or attempt to possess a firearm. But the United States Supreme Court held in Haynes vs. U. S. (1968) that no convicted felon can be required to register a firearm, as that would amount to a violation of his/her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Therefore, Senator Feinstein's registration bill will force ONLY law-abiding citizens to register their guns, since it is illegal to compel felons to do so.

As much as she likes to call her registration scheme "reasonable" and "common sense," and would like for you to have the impression that registration is the goal, it isn't. As she herself said on Sixty Minutes on 12/5/95: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it." In that she took an oath to support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, I am curious to know how she squares her views on proposed gun control legislation with the Second Amendment, which reads that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Those who agree with her love to say that individuals don't have a right to keep and bear arms, that's it's a myth or that it's a "group" right, etc. But if I as an individual don't have that right, then "the people" mentioned in the First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments don't have any rights, either--which means that the Million Moms who organized in Washington didn't have the right to peaceably assemble.

I'm sure Senator Feinstein has a nice, Clintonian explanation - not only for her double standard on the Second Amendment, but for her perfectly asinine, unworkable and treasonous legislative gun registration proposal.

	Print This Page

Written By:	John A. Lee
	Senator Feinstein & Registration John A. Lee I just love Senator Feinstein's argument that we should register guns because we register cars. What a crock of undiluted hogwash. Apparently she is incapable of distinguishing that driving is a privilege, whereas gun ownership is a right. It's true that driving didn't exist when the Constitution was written. That, however, did not stop the Supreme Court from extending First Amendment protection to other new technologies which didn't exist in the late 18th century, such as videotape, radio, television, etc. The Court could easily have elevated driving to the level of a right had there been a need to do so, but it has not. Driving and gun ownership remain non-equivalent. It's worth noting that it is illegal under current US law for any convicted felon to so much as possess or attempt to possess a firearm. But the United States Supreme Court held in Haynes vs. U. S. (1968) that no convicted felon can be required to register a firearm, as that would amount to a violation of his/her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Therefore, Senator Feinstein's registration bill will force ONLY law-abiding citizens to register their guns, since it is illegal to compel felons to do so. As much as she likes to call her registration scheme "reasonable" and "common sense," and would like for you to have the impression that registration is the goal, it isn't. As she herself said on Sixty Minutes on 12/5/95: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it." In that she took an oath to support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, I am curious to know how she squares her views on proposed gun control legislation with the Second Amendment, which reads that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Those who agree with her love to say that individuals don't have a right to keep and bear arms, that's it's a myth or that it's a "group" right, etc. But if I as an individual don't have that right, then "the people" mentioned in the First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments don't have any rights, either--which means that the Million Moms who organized in Washington didn't have the right to peaceably assemble. I'm sure Senator Feinstein has a nice, Clintonian explanation - not only for her double standard on the Second Amendment, but for her perfectly asinine, unworkable and treasonous legislative gun registration proposal.