PA Bill Number: HB829
Title: In preliminary provisions, further providing for definitions;
Description: An Act amending the act of April 12, 1951 (P.L.90, No.21), known as the Liquor Code, in preliminary provisions, further providing for definitions;
Last Action: Signed in House
Last Action Date: Jul 3, 2024
The problem with the Second Amendment :: 08/14/2019
"The problem with the Second Amendment..." Some people would not read farther before deciding that whoever wrote the preceding phrase must be an enemy of freedom and rights. After all, the text of the amendment ends with "shall not be infringed," so that should be all one has to say. Reality, however, is more complex, as recent history bears out.
Some people should not be allowed to bear arms. Some people want to harm the innocent, and it would be unwise and unjust to facilitate their ability to do so. No one in his right mind would try to refute this.
The problem is that liberals and globalists want to use that reality as a basis to infringe the rights of the other 99.9% of the gun-owning population.
The Second Amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The problem with that is that those who refuse to use guns responsibly have no right to bear arms, since they unjustly endanger the rights of others to life and peaceful existence. The right to bear arms gives no one license to use arms to kill, maim, rob, or terrorize others. Those who use arms to do such things forfeit the right to bear arms.
But since the Second Amendment does not specify these facts, they seem to escape the notice of those who insist that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed under any circumstances. That is unfortunate.
While some should not be allowed to exercise the right to bear arms, based on their wrongful intent to abuse the right, or on their propensity to cause harm to others, it is just as wrong to abuse or infringe the unalienable rights of responsible gun owners, solely because a small minority misuse their guns for wrongful purposes.
And while some should not be allowed to exercise the right to bear arms, it is wrong to circumvent constitutional requirements in order to expedite confiscation of guns. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. No one is authorized to violate it. Anyone who violates it is engaged in imposition of unlawful acts.
Red Flag laws that authorize the confiscation of the guns of anyone while circumventing the constitutional requirement of due process are unlawful. Due process is required by two constitutional amendments, and the alternative, basing confiscation solely on the assertions of law enforcement officials, is clearly an invitation to imposition of totalitarian rule.
The day that courts base the orders they issue on the unsubstantiated testimony of officials will be the day that freedom vanishes from America, as on that basis that there would be no acts of abuse that could not be committed by government while justifying them on the basis of the words of an official.
Red Flag laws set an extremely dangerous, unlawful, unconstitutional precedent that can lead to no good. Some action is needed to determine, based on real facts and solid reasons, who must be prohibited from bearing arms. But that must not be determined on the basis of unbridled fear, or on the unsubstantiated claims of anyone.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/08/the_problem_with_the_second_amendment.html
