Julian Huxley, Second Amendment & UN Suzerainty

Suzerain- Main Entry: su·zer·ain
Pronunciation: ˈsü-zə-rən, -ˌrân; ˈsüz-rən

Function: noun

1 : a superior feudal lord to whom fealty is due: overlord;

2 : a dominant state controlling the foreign relations of a vassal state but allowing it sovereign authority in its internal affairs.

Jeremy Rabkin, a professor of law at George Mason University School of Law, recently authored an article published in Imprimis called “The Constitution and American Sovereignty”. In the article, Rabkin explains how the concept of national sovereignty, as we understand it today, developed during the Seventeenth century along with nationalism.

Abraham Lincoln defined sovereignty as “a political community without a political superior”. Thus, sovereignty isn’t so much about power as it is about authority and legitimacy. Rabkin notes that:

“… in medieval Europe… the defining character of that period was overlapping authority and a lot of confusion about which authority had primary claims. No one had to think about defining national boundaries. This became an issue only in the modern era, when interaction between different peoples increased.”

In the course of arguing that the King of France did not owe allegiance to the Holy Roman Empire, Jean Bodin, a French jurist of the late 16th century, also advocated religious toleration, protection for personal property, rule of law and representative government. According to Rabkin, Bodin was in favor of free trade and his natural law theories recognized God as the source of legal authority.

Not coincidentally, the law of nations (i.e., international law) also began to develop at this time as a result of expanded commercial activities, maritime pursuits and the pursuit of war by European monarchs and princes.

Rabkin discusses how the U.S. Constitution provides that treaties will be “the supreme Law of the Land”. Treaties are binding on the states; nevertheless, to be valid, a treaty must be consistent with the Constitution. Thus, the Constitution preempts and supersedes treaties. As Alexander Hamilton explained, “A treaty cannot change the frame of the government” because it is the Constitution that authorizes the government to make treaties in the first place. The historical consensus, now under attack, has been that a treaty violating the Constitution violates the authority which provides legitimacy for the treaty in the first place:

Today there is no longer a consensus regarding the principle that legislative and legal authority cannot be delegated to international tribunals or commissions and this has become a contentious issue. There is strong legal precedent, however, prohibiting Congress from delegating its power to legislate to an international body.

Delegation of judicial power is also a point of contention. Can the rights of American citizens in the U.S. be determined by foreign courts? Such delegation of the judicial power violates Article 3 of the Constitution. Judicial power “shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”

In the case of Medellin v. Texas, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court considered an International Court of Justice ruling. A Mexican national that violently raped and murdered two girls in Texas had the right to receive counsel from the Mexican consulate under the 1963 Vienna Convention. Despite a ruling that Texas could not execute a convicted murderer, the U.S. Supreme Court held that treaty provisions were diplomatic in nature and did not bind the sovereign State of Texas.

Rabkin points to the European Union and its European Court of Justice, originally established to interpret disputes about treaty provisions between sovereign European nations, in order to illustrate how rapidly loyalties can shift to supra-national bodies. Wasn’t the dissension about the war in Iraq largely a national schism over whether the Bush Administration or the United Nations was to decide international policy relating to Iraq? In the 1970s, the Court of Justice held that conflicts between treaty provisions and national constitutions would be resolved in favor of the treaty provisions and EU members accepted the idea that a treaty takes precedence over national constitutions.

A proposed UN Climate Change Treaty waiting in Copenhagen for the President to sign in December may soon test whether the Court will hold to its previous ruling in favor of non-delegation of legislative power.

This week the NRA, Second Amendment Foundation and others filed suit against the City of Seattle for violating the Washington state firearms preemption law. Dave Workman describes how this local gun battle is a part of a larger war looming, as the campaign to subject the American people to a UN gun treaty gets under way:

“As former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr writes today on his blog, there is an international battle over gun rights unfolding in the United Nations, and one in Seattle that has been well-covered….

International gun prohibitionists have been pushing the United States to sign an arms trade agreement for several years. With Barack Obama in the White House and Hilary Clinton at State, this could happen. Barr’s column is a “must read” for anyone interested in that controversy. He calls it the “Perfect Storm” for the UN gun control agenda.”

Rabkin asks whether being an American will mean just being part of some abstract humanity. Should we put our faith in words? “What about the idea that as long as we say nice things about humanity, everyone will feel better and we’ll all be safe?” Many states, anticipating the UN push to ban our guns, are already enacting firearms sovereignty provisions in order to erect a fence between a new federal-internationalist tyranny and the people’s right to keep and bear firepower. Meanwhile, Mayor Nickels defies state law and acts like a soon to be deposed satrap in his own feudal principality of Seattle.

In February, 2007, before most of us thought candidate Obama would be the next President, J.R. Dunn suggested in an American Thinker article that a global religious creed may be the only chance for world governance to overcome U.S. resistance to any variety of global suzerainty. The key to promoting such schemes (floating around since before the founding of the ill-fated League of Nations) is a messianic figure that can usher such a secular religious crusade into institutional existence:

In the Fifties and Sixties, Huxley and the CIA were experimenting with LSD, while Aldous’ uncle, Julian Huxley, was busy promulgating a social agenda that sounded vaguely like the utopian, mushroom-eating societies favored by his nephew, Aldous. Julian’s counter-intelligence, propaganda apparatus was headquartered at UNESCO, where he was head of the UN religious mission. In “Religion Without Revelation”, Julian Huxley identified the sense of the numinous (feelings of awe and religiosity) and announced that a universal world religion was needed in order to incorporate such profound feelings….

He advocated enlistment of the media outlets as the best method for converting masses of humanity in every nation to the new secular religion. Thus, by making spiritual feelings (i.e., numinosity) available to everyone without the need to look to higher authority (i.e., Biblical revelation) the world can dispense with feelings of guilt or other negative reactions resulting from moral degradation, loss of human life and diminished expectations of human dignity that have been washing to shore since Huxley began his mission in the 1940s. Now we see all this along with an evangelical-style face in a neo-Progressive wave being financed by George Soros, a billionaire intelligence operative who works at levels that are apparently deeper than most folks realize.

According to one description of Rudolf Otto’s thinking (the German scholar who popularized the concept of numinosity):

Otto describes the numinous as an awe-filled encounter with ultimate reality (UR). UR is designated by Otto as a mysterium tremendum and a majestus as it is experienced as a powerful sentient force, worthy of utmost respect. It inspires not only awe, but also fear. While the subject is urgently attracted to this ineffable source of creation, it may in some instances frighten, humble and ‘purify.’ Otto also notes subjects may perceive some sense of creaturely wretchedness and unworthiness, standing naked, as it were, in the face of a great and powerful, “wholly other”(16) UR-Creator-God.

See C. G. Jung and Numinosity

This definition of numinosity is fairly close to the way in which C. G. Jung defined it and the context in which Julian Huxley used the term in “Religion Without Revelation”. Huxley, the founder of UNESCO, envisioned a future synthesis of Communism with Capitalism.

Finally, notwithstanding our digressions into the semantics of numinosity we are back to Rabkin’s most startling thesis:

Where does this trend away from the sovereignty of national constitutions lead? I do not think the danger is a world tyranny. I think that idea is fantastical. Rather what it will lead to, I think, is an undermining of the idea that national governments can protect people, with the result that people will start looking for defense elsewhere. We saw this in an extreme way in Iraq when it collapsed into chaos before the surge, and people looked for protection to various ethnic or sectarian militias. A similar phenomenon can be seen today in Europe with the formation of various separatist movements. We’re even hearing loud claims for Scottish independence. And it’s not surprising, because to the extent that Britain has surrendered its sovereignty, Britain doesn’t count for as much as it used to. So why not have your own Scotland? Why not have your own Wales? Why not have your own Catalonia in Spain? And of course the greatest example of this devolution in Europe is the movement toward Muslim separatism. While this is certainly driven to a large extent by trends in Islam, it also reflects the fact that it doesn’t mean as much to be British or to be French any more. These governments are cheerfully giving away their authority to the EU. So why should immigrants or children of immigrants take them seriously?

If the world ever looks to supra-national insitutions for protection, I am convinced there will be a recognizable world religious movement with new religious symbolism representing the power and authority of the new “majestus”. Some Bible teachers have predicted a synthesis of Catholicism and Islam may occur. As events in the religious world shift before your eyes, ask yourself- in what will your grandchildren grow up believing and whom will they serve?

Terror at Beslan; Our Schools Are Targeted for Terror Attacks


People need to make the decision to prepare for deadly force now, not when the attack precipitates. By then, it will be too late.”

Read Israel’s answer to school violence.

Schools and school buses are probably under surveillance by terrorists and being “pinged” in order to measure reactions and identify security measures.

Every active shooter attack in a school, mall or other public place provides data for terrorists who study news reports and publicly available studies conducted by security experts. Beslan was a slaughter of school children in Russia that was probably a dress rehearsal for the rape, slaughter and torture of young school children in the U.S. The attacks on innocent people conducted by Al Qaeda affiliates, like al AShabaab’s attack on the Westgate Mall in Nairobi, Kenya may be harbingers of how future operations in the U.S. might look.

The school attack in Beslan has been carefully analyzed in John Giduck’s study. Entitled Terror at Beslan, Giduck’s warnings detail the importance, but also the pitfalls, when armed citizens react to terrorist attacks. Both the attack at Beslan and the Westgate Mall attack demonstrate how helpless governments become in the face of well-armed terrorists working in teams.

Beslan came under attack from Chechen terrorists that had already made up their minds not to negotiate and to inflict the maximum amount of pain on Russian school children by unleashing torture, death and pysychological damage to the survivors and the Russian people. The terrorists demanded opportunities to negotiate. Such demands were only issued in order to deceive the Russian authorities into providing more time for the terrorists to wire school buildings with bombs.

Security personnel and operatives on the side of terrorist groups study every aspect of how the authorities and media respond to such attacks. This includes reaction time, vulnerabilities, follow up, etc. John Giduck was in Russia at the time the attack on the Beslan school occurred and was able to work closely with Russian security forces during the immediate aftermath of the attack. The book also got the author banned from Russia because of his honest criticism of what the Russian security forces did wrong. Eleven men from Russia’s elite Alpha and Vympel Counter Terror units lost their lives saving 1,181 hostages- 777 of them children.

The attack began on Sept. 1, 2004. The school was destroyed in an explosion and 334 were killed, 186 of the dead were children and many that survived witnessed horror that will scar them forever. Lt. Col. Dave Grossman has long warned that it COULD happen here, there are things you and I can do to prevent such attacks and it could be YOUR child’s life that you save.

John Giduck suggests what we can do as parents and as concerned citizens that are not in the law enforcement or intelligence communities. Mr. Giduck is a trial lawyer who also holds the highest level certification in Homeland Security. He works with a non-profit NGO, the Archangel Group, consulting with law enforcement and other agencies in the field of anti-terrorist training and has spent considerable time gaining first hand expertise on Russia’s security operations.

Giduck’s recognition of the role armed citizens can play in responding to terrorist activities should silence very anti-gun idealogue. After the events in Nairobi’s Westgate Mall attack, refusing to acknowlege the need for armed security in our schools is tantamount to giving aid and comfort to terrorists! Even an Interpol chief has now publicly proposed that armed citizens are one of the few options available to stop terrorist attacks like the one at the Westgate Mall in Nairobi, Kenya.

Almost every attack has been in a “gun-free” zone. Thus, the murderer knows that it is unlikely any of his or her victims will be armed. At the present time, the Washington Administrative Code, promulgated by unelected bureaucrats, prohibits weapons on campus in Washington. It is questionable whether the WAC regulations have any legal effect since they conflict with Washington State’s firearms preemption law that prohibits any local municipal gun laws more restrictive than the restrictions in the state RCWs.

Some liberal lawyers and anti-gunners in Olympia want to get a new law passed to “clarify” the situation. No one wants to be a test case and you could get expelled from your state university for carrying. Each student in a state college or university has to make an informed decision as to whether to exercise his or her right to carry on campus with a valid carry license pursuant to our state laws.

It is your life and your education that is at stake. There is no right to carry at a high school or elementary school with or without a license to carry, at this time. But write to your representatives and demand that something be done like what is starting to take place in Oregon and other states that have empowered certain armed volunteers to carry in schools.
Most restrictions only restrict law- abiding people and not criminals, psychopaths and terrorists. If a disturbed person would gun down a defenseless child, that same person will pay no attention to a law restricting guns.

In fact, the gun-free status of the institution or facility makes it a target for the psychopathic killer.

The individuals in our colleges and universities that need to be the first line of defense>, however, are the students, instructors and staff with either concealed carry permits or specialized training.

Elementary, high school and middle school personnel may need a new kind of training with a special license indicating some advanced tactical training for active-shooter situations. Most of the security guards that do provide a presence at such places are unarmed security guards, however, and the expense of hiring enough armed security is prohibitive.

Revenge or anything like vigilante action is the worst possible thing anyone can do and advocating or engaging in retaliation is criminal conduct.

True Followers of Christ will not engage in murdering innocent people but many Americans may be carried away with the concept of imprisoning or taking revenge against Islamic people in the same way as Japanese were interned during WW II.

The same “liberals” that already want to restrict our gun rights and disarm honest people may be holding the reins of power if and when the country faces the chaos of a WMD, Mumbai-style tactical teams terrorizing our communities or some other disaster.

On the other hand, the jihadist believes that in a few generations a Caliphate will force you to submit (that is what Islam means- subjection) to its religious laws.

Many of the U.S. authorities are presently so eager to accomodate Islamicists (and are so intimidated by CAIR’s threats of legal action) that Christianity is being denigrated while Islam is celebrated in the name of diversity. There are many examples but sufficient to state for now that these are the first steps toward submission.

Self-defense and defense of others when attacked is not vigilantiism.

Make sure you recognize your school bus drivers and ask your local school district to provide for some staff to become trained and certified to carry weapons.

We need to take precautions similar to the Israeli schools and schools in other countries like Thailand where the staff is armed and ready for jihad. Meanwhile get your permit and learn how to shoot.

Some of our neighbors in Federal Way are preparing to provide opportunities for teachers and other school professionals to learn to work tactically so that they are trained when the authorization to carry in our local schools finally comes. It does not take an act of the Congess or the legislature. Federal and state lawmakers have left it up to local school boards!

Washington State Firearms Attorney In Spokane

Our law practice focuses on firearms related issues in Washington state. We were in Federal Way for 25 years. The Federal Way Mirror asked me to write a column in the local newspaper. The Mirror published the Firearms Lawyer column for four years. The column was about local law enforcement and current legal issues of concern toContinue reading “Washington State Firearms Attorney In Spokane”

FBI Clears Way for Restoration of Gun Rights After DV Conviction in Washington State

Until recently, anyone that had been convicted of a Fourth Degree Assault determined to be domestic violence in Washington State was in a tough position because the NICS did not recognize a Restoration of Rights for Washington state non-felony domestic violence convictions. State and federal laws on the subject of domestic violence and gun rightsContinue reading “FBI Clears Way for Restoration of Gun Rights After DV Conviction in Washington State”

Restoring Your Right to Keep & Bear Arms

You can petition the court to restore your right to own firearms by representing yourself or obtaining an attorney. We can provide some links that will help you to obtain the forms but there are some pitfalls. For instance, at the present time, the federal government (BATF & NICS) will not recognize rights restored byContinue reading “Restoring Your Right to Keep & Bear Arms”

King County Lawyers Discuss Washington State Gun Law


Reprinted from King County Bar Association Bar Bulletin (September, 2011).

I read KCBA President Joe Bringman’s message in the Bar Bulletin (August, 2011 President’s Page). Many lawyers have the impression that the KCBA is taking political positions that conflict with the conservative principles which animate more than a few lawyers. The President’s comments related to state preemption of local gun control efforts might be commendable as an opinion piece or an expression of his personal opinion. Nevertheless, the fact that he was writing as President to KCBA members raises the issue of whether the President’s Page is an appropriate venue from which to advocate taking a questionable position regarding RCW 9.41.290.

Consider how many lawyers and even judges have CPLs and ask how those of us that “bear arms” as a normal part of our daily routine would be able to navigate our way down the freeway if we have to research the laws of every municipality into which we enter. If it is a challenge for lawyers that are experts when it comes to legal research then what about the non-lawyer that chooses to carry? If judges and lawyers adopt the approach that each man or woman that bears arms also bears the risks of running afoul of a patchwork of confusing laws, the chilling effect will hobble any meaningful exercise of our rights under the U.S. Constitution and SECTION 24 of the Washington State Constitution:

RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

If I go to a park in Seattle using public transportation would I check my gun in with the driver before I get on the bus? If I am walking around Seattle, will the City provide a lock box outside each entrance to a city park the way the courts are required to do by statute? And what about when I park in a municipally owner parking while stopping in a city that has decided to enact legislation prohibiting firearms in vehicles parked in municipal parking lots? The unpredictability and chaos will lead to utter disrespect for the law.

The impact of any potential modification concerning RCW 9.41.290 collides with common sense Local governments are not best situated to determine how to ensure the safety of their citizens. Local lawmakers react to local political pressures often without considering ramifications that involve travelers, visitors and business people that may be carrying large amounts of money with no place to safely store a weapon when they enter an area that restricts firearms. Many states have similar preemption laws and are safer than cities like Chicago where most residents have been prohibited from keeping guns- even in their homes- and the murder rate is out of control. Enacting the President’s proposals for Washington State would create legal chaos and make us less safe!

RCW 9.41.290 states:

The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality.

Given the harm all too frequently associated with statist theoreticians, it’s time that we ask whether the benefits provided by our state’s firearms preemption law outweigh any short term political advantages to be gained by modifying state law.

A few years back, the Bar Bulletin published a great article entitled PRYING THE SECOND AMENDMENT’S MEANING FROM THE FOUNDERS’ COLD DEAD HANDS. The well written legal analysis of the Second Amendment was written by a young attorney that started out with negative assumptions about the Second Amendment but she discovered that its provisions are actually very meaningful.

There are presently lawsuits pending in Illinois that will almost certainly establish a right to carry a firearm in many public places. The Washington State Constitution is unequivocal in its legal protection for gun owners and those of us that bear arms. Proposals to modify firearms preemption are actually a giant step back to the patch work laws that have worked to completely deprive many people in Illinois from enjoying a right that residents of most states take for granted; i.e., the right to simply possess a firearm within their own homes!

Things have changed a lot since most of us were in law school. One reason to think soberly and clearly about such proposals is because, as lawyers, we are more likely to be threatened with violence than most people. The threats to judges and prosecutors in particular have been escalating according to a study by the Washington State Board for Judicial Administration (BJA).

See article.

There is no evidence that armed citizens are creating a threat by wearing pistols in public places and a concurring opinion in the NORDYKE V KING case (Ninth Circuit, 2009) contained a strong comment as to how effectively the Second Amendment protects Americans from the promiscuous carnage that occurred during the attacks in Mumbai by terrorists armed with automatic rifles. A few guns at the youth camp in Norway could also have saved many lives. An unarmed officer in uniform was one of the victims in the early stages of that attack.

More lawyers should get involved in the full debate about guns. The issues are serious and the public needs the rigorous analysis lawyers can provide on the subject of gun law, not the kind of superficial analyses that politicians and news media often produce.

Preemption: Washington Cities Violate State Gun Law

Attorneys for various municipalities around Washington State have issued legal opinions that RCW 9.41.290 “only applies to the regulation of firearms themselves” and “excludes regulations that only secondarily affect firearms… that do not embody a punitive regulation”. The Washington State Attorney General’s Office issued a legal opinion last week that thoroughly rebuts such opinions based on Cherry v Metro and another case that dealt with certain narrow issues applied to a venue for a gun show leased from the City of Sequim, washington.

We previously pointed out in a letter dated May 22, 2008, that the so-called “legal authority” on which many jurisdictions are relying is contrary to any reasonable analysis of the law. Incidentally, the City of Federal Way is now in full compliance with state law as of January 8, 2009.

The legislature has put cities and counties in Washington on notice that local governments’ hands are tied when it comes to restricting our gun rights- even inside the building where the jails and police stations are located. If the City can’t disarm you inside City Hall, how can it force you to be defenseless in the City’s Parks? Keep in mind- cities can only enact those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law.”

There was recently a mass shooting in another state where the attacker shot and killed a uniformed police officer as a prelude to killing several other people during a City Hall meeting. Our state’s legislature has decided that the solution to such scenarios is not to disarm the people but to make sure that many honest people will be armed when violence occurs.

The key case is Cherry v Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, a case in which a Metro employee was fired for bringing a gun to work. The folks that seek to repeal or subvert the state preemption law assert that Cherry is authority for disarming you when you cross onto City property. Despite such bold assertions, the Cherry case just stands for the premise that if you work as a municipal employee, you may be prohibited from carrying a weapon while on the job.

There are presently cities all over Washington State receiving legal advice based on legal reasoning that has already been repudiated by every jurisdiction that has honestly looked at the state preemption law and the cases. The reason they get bad advice advice is because many politicians in our state of Washington, like Mayor Greg Nickels in Seattle, don’t like the state preemption law and have announced publicly that they want it repealed.

Lawyers often provide advice that will provide justification for the client’s agenda (e.g., to restrict your gun rights). Prior to the AG issuing the opinion putting anti-gun politicians in their place, cities were being advised by counsel to rely on the case of Pacific Northwest Shooting Park Association v Sequim in order to wage their quiet jihad on your ability to protect your family and loved ones and remain safe at public meetings.

In Pacific Northwest Shooting Park Association v City of Sequim, 158 Wash.2d 342 (2006), the court held that the City of Sequim was acting in a private capacity when leasing out a city convention center to an association conducting a gun show within the premises belonging to Sequim. The court decided that the laws that apply to public parks, public meetings and other municipally owned premises and property are not the same as restrictions imposed on private parties per a city’s contractual relations with private parties.

AGO Opinion 2008-8 essentially states that the City of Federal Way’s conclusion that the city has the right “to decide as an owner how its property is used” would render the preemption statute meaningless. In the event civil litigation becomes necessary, attorney’s fees for the defendant can be very high especially in the face of the unequivocal legal authority outlined herein.

As stated already, there are several jurisdictions within the State of Washington that are not presently complying with the preemption law and firearms owners are becoming very concerned that such callous indifference to state law may endanger the lives of Washington citizens in direct contravention of legislative intent!

The best defense for the citizens of Washington state, all of whom are vulnerable to random shootings and street violence is to limit the number of “gun free” zones that are available as kill zones to criminals, terrorists or other deranged individuals seeking publicity by mass shootings. Almost all such shootings have occurred in areas where honest citizens have been rendered defenseless by laws or policies that violate RCW 9.41.290.

See also The Living Constitution?

Otis McDonald & the Second Amendment in Chicago

The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) may have decided the most important gun case in history on June 28, 2010. A previous landmark 2008 gun case, DC vs. HELLER, held that the Constitution actually meant what the Founding Fathers thought they meant when they drafted it! The Bill of Rights only began to be applied to the states due to the 14th Amendment, enacted after the Civil War to protect newly freed citizens from the tyranny of Southern regimes that deployed de jure force of law and de facto intimidation to perpetuate slavery.

In MCDONALD VS. CHICAGO, the Court acknowledged that the 14th Amendment aims at firearms restrictions enacted against Blacks and enforced by armed white mobs often via the noose-end of a rope! Otis McDonald, the 76 year-old African-American Plaintiff in the case, is a neighborhood activist targeted because he stood up to thugs that lay claim to the streets of Chicago.

Chicago required registration in order for Mr. McDonald to keep a hand gun in his home but also prohibited the registration of handguns. Thus, McDonald sued Chicago and declared independence from a de facto ban on handguns.

The criteria upon which SCOTUS determined that the right to keep and bear arms applies against state governments relates to whether gun rights are fundamental to a civilized society. Amazingly, Mayor Richard Daley, thinks that disarming citizens in the City of the Big Shoulders is just a “common sense” measure because other civilized nations also have enacted severe gun control laws.

Judging by the high murder rate in Chicago, Mayor Daley’s “common sense” may seem like blatant racism to black people like Otis McDonald. Just as Daley’s father defied Martin Luther King by displaying his middle finger to Civil Rights marchers in front of City Hall in Chicago, Chicago’s current machine boss has vowed to keep fighting to keep guns out of the hands of honest people.

Chicago is busy attempting to thwart gun ownership with new legal barriers and the Mayor urged countries like Mexico to sue the U.S. gun industry in the World Court!

Washington has a firearms preemption law that prevents municipalities from enacting gun laws that are more restrictive than laws enacted by the state legislature. Expect to see lawsuits challenging California laws against semi-automatic rifles; i.e., “assault weapons” that look like fully-automatic M-16s.

Washington State’s legislature has recently considered enacting assault weapon bans similar to the one in California. The Second Amendment protects “militarily useful” firearms. Future court decisions may protect us against folks like our own Sen. Kline (another former SDS affiliate who graduated into state politics) by deciding in the future that the Second Amendment protects “assault weapons”. Military style semi-autos, high-capacity magazines and/or .50 caliber rifles- legal in Washington and most other states- are all prohibited in California.

The Obama administration is presently moving toward a UN Treaty on Small Arms and expects the courts might uphold executive orders backed up by international treaty commitments that would arguably preempt the U.S. Constitution. Abridging Americans’ gun rights is now one of the most important planks in the agenda of the United Nations and one reason Supreme Court nominations launch battles that become hotly contested fire fights!

Christian Legal Society loses case

On the same day the McDonald decision came out, the Court issued the Christian Legal Society vs. Martinez (UC Hastings) decision that removed an important cultural and legal landmark. The Christian Legal Society encourages Christian law students to remain faithful to Christ. The pressure to conform to certain standards of “professionalism” can be intense in law school.

Clubs have always been defined by the ability to determine their own membership but the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law has policies that force the organization to accept officers and voting members who hold beliefs and engage in conduct that opposes CLS’s purpose of developing Christian character in law students and providing Christian outreach and witness on campus. Therefore, the law school, located in San Francisco, takes a position that is very unusual for most universities and thereby inhibited the group’s ability to define and express its message.

Justice Kennedy voted with the majority in erasing a strong legal principle militating in favor of putting all campus groups on an equal playing field in which each group decides its own criteria for determining membership qualifications. CLS was seeking special treatment, according to the majority. Does this mean that all clubs on campus must now allow new members when the new members are opposed to the fundamental principles for which the group stands? Do Jewish campus groups have to let Hamas sympathizers join? Must socialist clubs allow members from Young Americans for Freedom?

While some Americans ask why some of us use the harsh language of “partisan” warfare, citizens in nations that have lost their freedom are looking at what Americans will do next as the land of the free struggles to remain free.

DC vs. Heller

The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed DC v Heller in a five to four landmark decision last year. Justice Scalia firmly placed the Court’s decision, which knocks down Washington DC’s ban on firearms within the bedrock of the Founding Fathers’ original intentions; i.e., the decision sets forth a principle scorned by tyrants over the centuries. It is in the people that the power of governmental force resides. The government’s use of deadly force ultimately derives from an individual’s duty to protect herself or himself, one’s family and neighbors.

The fact that the discussion of self-defense is usually framed in terms of rights is, perhaps, unfortunate in that Americans can easily become exhausted by the perpetual yapping about “rights”. We have welfare rights, immigration rights, First Amendment right to purvey obscenity. The “right” to keep and bear arms is first of all a duty. Many states, especially in the Eastern U.S., still have laws on the books requiring men of certain ages to have a military weapon and suitable ammunition in specific quantities in order to be ready to perform militia service:

That is what Congress did in the first militia Act, which specified that “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia.” Act of May 8, 1792, 1 Stat. 271.

Ironically, many of the states that still have such laws on the books will see state and local restrictions on gun ownership challenged as a result of Justice Scalia’s bold enunciations. The Court has recognized an ancient truth that the ancient commonwealths of Israel, Athens, Rome and England (to name a few) took for granted. Free men should own weapons. Those that refuse will not remain free for long. As late as WW II, the authorities called out armed civilians to patrol the East Coast to prevent possible invasions.

The habits of training and handling personal firearms breed a culture of respect for life, habits of steady minded courage, craftsmanship, patience and skill along with appreciation for history and the role of the individual and families in shaping history.

With the Founders’ values and principles in mind, it is worth reflecting on the context of the decision. Yesterday, the Court in another five to four decision, Kennedy v Louisiana, referenced evolving standards to institutionalize a “consensus” that capital punishment for violent child rapists offends decency. In both cases, there were four solid justices lined up in favor of looking to the Founders’ intentions against four justices that regularly look to vague extra-Constitutional concepts such as international norms, foreign precedent and “consensus”. These paradigm shifts in the court evolve in synchronicity with the evolution of elitist morality that has so often been legislated upon those of us that are not law professors or enablers of the American mandarin class.

Judges like Justice Ginsburg, a former ACLU counsel, will normally confront the violent rape of a child with a certain amount of equanimity. After all, in her world, shaping public policy is a priest-like and arcane activity, requiring esoteric power to construe the direction of evolving standards and articulate a mysterious consensus about which mere mortals are unaware.

Rather than attempt to amend the Constitution from the bench as the dissenters would, Justice Scalia’ majority opinion in the Heller case began squarely with the plain meaning of the terms employed by the framers of the Bill of Rights:

“Keep and bear Arms.” We move now from the holder of the right—“the people”—to the substance of the right: “to keep and bear Arms.” Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary(1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828).”

Justice Scalia went on to define what it means to keep and bear arms:

We turn to the phrases “keep arms” and “bear arms.” Johnson defined “keep” as, most relevantly, “[t]o retain; not to lose,” and “[t]o have in custody.” Johnson 1095. Webster defined it as “[t]o hold; to retain in one’s power or possession.” No party has apprised us of an idiomatic meaning of “keep Arms.” Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”

Thus, when the Constitution was drafted, the right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects. Scalia quotes Blackstone, the great expounder of the common laws of England. Blackstone’s Commentaries “constituted the preeminent authority on English law for the founding generation….” The English Bill of Rights inspired, to a large degree, the U.S. Bill of Rights and, according to Blackstone, self defense and the right to be armed was “one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen”. See 1 Blackstone 136, 139–140 (1765). Contemporary authorities concurred.

The Heller decision also presents incisive history lessons related to the nature of the organized & unorganized militia, concepts that were familiar to many at the time that the Federalists were trying to win over anti-Federalists who feared standing armies and the despotism that was associated with strong central government:

There are many reasons why the militia was thought to be “necessary to the security of a free state.” See 3 Story §1890. First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large standing armies unnecessary—an argument that Alexander Hamilton made in favor of federal control over the militia. The Federalist No. 29, pp. 226, 227 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.

Thus, Justice Scalia states, “It was understood across the political spectrum that the (Second Amendment) right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down.”

Many of the state constitutions at the time of the Founders used Second Amendment keep and bear arms language in a manner that clearly demonstrated an intent to recognize that individual ownership and use of firearms was encompassed by the term. Scalia cites Pennsylvania’s Declaration of Rights of 1776:

“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the state . . . .” §XIII, in 5 Thorpe 3082, 3083 (emphasis added).

The majority opinion goes on to point out that many colonial statutes required individual arms-bearing for public-safety reasons— such as the 1770 Georgia law that “for the security and defence of this province from internal dangers and insurrections” required those men who qualified for militia duty individually “to carry fire arms” “to places of public worship.”

The Court cites St. George Tucker’s version of Blackstone’s Commentaries for the proposition that:

The right to self-defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine the right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” He believed that the English game laws had abridged the right by prohibiting “keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game.”

Another famous Constitutional scholar wrote:

One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offence to keep arms, and by substituting a regular army in the stead of a resort to the militia.” A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States §450 (Story).

The Court cites one of my favorite authors, firearms lawyer Stephen Halbrook, to illustrate that “in the aftermath of the Civil War, there was an outpouring of discussion of the Second Amendment in Congress and in public discourse, as people debated whether and how to secure constitutional rights for newly free slaves. See generally S. Halbrook, Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms, 1866–1876 (1998):

Yet those born and educated in the early 19th century faced a widespread effort to limit arms ownership by a large number of citizens; their understanding of the origins and continuing significance of the Amendment is instructive. Blacks were routinely disarmed by Southern States after the Civil War. Those who opposed these injustices frequently stated that they infringed blacks’ constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Needless to say, the claim was not that blacks were being prohibited from carrying arms in an organized state militia.”

The majority opinion discussing the legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment quotes a joint Congressional Report that described how after the Civil War “in some parts of [South Carolina], armed parties… without proper authority, engaged in seizing all firearms found in the hands of the freemen. Such conduct is in clear and direct violation of their personal rights as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, which declares that ‘the right of the people to freedmen of South Carolina have shown by their peaceful and orderly conduct that they can safely be trusted with fire-arms, and they need them to kill game for subsistence, and to protect their crops from destruction by birds and animals.”

The view was common right after the Civil War that newly freed black citizens held a constitutional right to bear arms. The viewpoint expressed in these statements “was widely reported and was apparently widely held.”

For example, “an editorial in The Loyal Georgian (Augusta) on February 3, 1866, assured blacks that “[a]ll men, without distinction of color, have the right to keep and bear arms to defend their homes, families or themselves.”

“It was plainly the understanding in the post-Civil War Congress that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to use arms for self-defense.”

Justice Stevens’ dissent strains to reach new apogees of linguistic sophistry. It is like listening to President Clinton split hairs about what the meaning of “is” is:

“[K]eep and bear arms” thus perfectly describes the responsibilities of a framing-era militia member. This reading is confirmed by the fact that the clause protects only one right, rather than two. It does not describe a right “to keep arms” and a separate right “to bear arms.” Rather, the single right that it does describe is both a duty and a right to have arms available and ready for military service, and to use them for military purposes when necessary. Different language surely would have been used to protect nonmilitary use and possession of weapons from regulation if such an intent….”

The dissent lectures the majority on the principle of stare decisis; i.e., the principle that a court should not lightly set aside prior precedent. Citing Miller, Justice Stevens argues that the holding relates the right to keep and bear arms to military matters.

Belying the dissent’s reliance on Miller, there was no party briefing the case for the other side in Miller. The Miller Court ruled that the distinction between the sawed-off shotgun possessed unlawfully by the defendant in that case and a militarily useful weapon should be the basis for upholding the National Firearms Act that outlawed certain kinds of weapons. That is as far as the Miller court went. Nevertheless, from 1939 until now the Miller case has been cited to deny individuals any standing to enter the courthouse door and seek redress state, local or federal policy render us defenseless. See United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939).

In 2003, the usual Supreme Court suspects cried, “Stare decisis be damned and full speed ahead with the global social agenda!” All in the name of melding our institutions with the evolving international consensus. That was the case where the Court overturned its own seventeen year old precedent, negating its previous opinion upholding states that outlaw sodomy between adults.

Think of all the cities like Chicago and Washington, DC that have disarmed their citizens, a citizenry that has seen children raped, the streets held by thugs and armies of drug dealers. Citizens fear what used to be called “hue and cry”. Well, now the mayors, like Seattle’s Mayor Nickels and the Mayor of the other Washington, are making the hue and cry.

See full text of Heller decision.