Lies the government told you by Andrew Napolitano (big screen ebook reader .TXT) 📕

in Virginia as long as the weapon was easily visible. Unbeknownst to her, the federal government had recently passed the School Safety Zones Act in 1990, which prohibited weapons near school zones, and which was eventually declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Since she was following Virginia law, her gun was in view of a passerby who reported it to the BATF. Boley was then arrested during the middle of a girl’s choir class. Though she had never been violent and had done her best to obey the law, she became a “criminal” facing up to five years in prison.23 She was initially suspended from her teaching job, but the support she received from students, parents, and the school—combined with an unusually rational district attorney— resulted in a probationary period of six months with good behavior, at which time she was able to return to the school.

The subjectivity of the provisions in the Act granted broad latitude to the BATF to enforce the gun regulations. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms is the chief enforcer of all federal regulations with regard to guns. But, unlike most other enforcement agencies that are under the Department of Justice, the BATF originally began as a part of the Internal Revenue Service, then was shuffled to the Department of Treasury, then the Department of Justice, then back to the IRS, until finally, after the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, it returned to the Department of Justice.

The government’s own confusion as to where to place these jack-booted thugs stemmed from its initial lie with regard to the National Firearms Act; that it was a revenue-raising measure, not a means of gun control, and therefore fell under the auspices of the IRS. Yet, if all the gun control regulations are considered revenue-raising measures, why do agents of the BATF raid homes for the most minor of offenses that carry small fines; fines that, if assessed, bring in less revenue than the cost of the raid?

One Small Step Forward: The Right to Bear Arms

Is a Fundamental Individual Right

The spawn of gun control regulations at the state and federal levels resulted in a situation in which it was almost impossible for a law-abiding citizen to obtain a handgun permit, even for his own home. The District of Columbia, for example, criminalized the act of having an operational handgun in one’s own home. Imagine that, even if you were able to obtain a permit for your firearm, the law in essence prohibited you from being prepared to use it for the constitutional purpose of self-defense. You might have a slim chance to own a handgun legally, but get no chance to use it legally.

One man in the District of Columbia wanted to be able to use his gun. Dick Heller owned his handgun, a 1911 single action Colt .22, bought in 1976. It was the gun from Gunsmoke.24 Unfortunately for Heller, this was the year that the District of Columbia passed its infamous gun ban. Having learned from Germany’s past history with gun registration, Heller decided not to register his gun, fearing that it would be confiscated. Soon, Heller began working as a security guard for the Federal Judicial Center. While on the job, he was required to carry a handgun in order to protect himself and his federal workplace. Heller was a federal police officer with a federal license to use his federally issued gun at his federal workplace.

Until 2002, things went along famously. But Heller lived in a high-crime area, and one day he noticed bullet holes in his town house. This motivated him to action, and he decided to request a permit for his Colt. Unfortunately, his “Gunsmoke” weapon was no longer acceptable. Rather, the gun, because it was a bottom-loading gun, was banned from being possessed or registered. If Heller, a certified law enforcement officer, could not obtain a permit, what chance would anyone else have? Heller decided that this was not a state of affairs he was willing to live with and began a fight to regain his Second Amendment rights.

Heller filed a lawsuit in 2003, along with five other residents of Washington, D.C., who were fed up with the local government’s total infringement of their constitutional right.

The result of this lawsuit was the United States Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. A majority of the court dispelled the myth of the Second Amendment as a collective right and held that the right to bear arms is an individual and fundamental right. The court noted that the right is a fundamental (natural) right, stating that “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.” Through this statement, the Court recognized the right to keep and bear arms as a natural and therefore fundamental right.

In its opinion, the Court analyzed each of the clauses in the Second Amendment separately and determined that “the right of the people” meant that the right belonged to the individual, like those enumerated in the First and Fourth Amendments. “To keep and bear arms” was held to mean “the carrying of the weapon . . . for the purpose of offensive or defensive action.” The Court therefore determined that the D.C. handgun ban was an infringement of the natural, constitutionally protected right of self-defense, and struck down the requirement that a gun be disassembled and inoperable in one’s own home.

One Giant Leap Back:

A Fundamental Right Can Be Infringed

As much as the Heller decision has been celebrated for its long-sought-for conclusion that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual and fundamental right, there is also a huge gap in its protection. That gap is the fact that the Court, while giving pages of analysis on each separate clause of the Second Amendment, almost completely ignored the most crucial, the phrase “shall not be infringed.” One would think that is because this phrase, above