The right to self-defense is not negotiable Senators Weinberg, Menendez and Lautenberg

The House of Representatives passed HR-822, The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, which would allow citizens who have a permit to carry a concealed firearm in their state the ability to do so in any other state.

The reaction by anti-Second Amendment “activists” such as New Jersey’s two U.S.senators, newly appointed New Jersey state senate president, Loretta Weinberg, editorial writers and others, including political science professor Brigid Harrison, was swift.  They oppose the bill because they claim New Jersey is “not” Alaska or other states that allow citizens to exercise their rights to carry a concealed firearm, and that HR-822 violates states’ rights.

On the contrary, the Second Amendment states unequivocally, 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 (emphasis added).  In other words, the Bill of Rights outlines the people’s “natural rights,” that government recognizes those rights and the people charge the government to protect those rights.

In other words, the states cannot abolish what is clearly a fundamental human right, the right to self-defense, without which other rights are irrelevant.  If human beings cannot protect themselves and their property, then what good are the other rights we have if we are dead or severely wounded?  Thus, the Second Amendment recognizes every citizen’s right to thwart violent acts against him or her.

Moreover, critics of HR-822 imply, without any evidence, that states with liberal concealed carry laws have more crime.  The data show just the opposite.  In addition, they assert that New Jerseywould be turned into the “wild west” if visitors bring in their concealed firearms into the Garden State.  Again, there is no credible evidence that concealed carry laws create shoot em ups anywhere in the country.

In states where concealed carry laws are liberalized, crime goes down, because criminals do not know who is “packing heat.”  Criminals prey on the defenseless.  That is why New Jersey’s “may issue” permit regs are grossly anti-Second Amendment and anti self-defense.

In New Jersey, which has issued only about 1,000 concealed carry permits, crimes still occur, especially in cities, where drug gangs and other criminals have firearms while peaceful residents are unarmed thanks to anti-Second Amendment legislators and governors.

If concern for the safety and security of inner city residents is supposed to be high on the agenda of Senators Menendez, Lautenberg and Weinberg, they sure have a strange way of expressing it with their support for virtual total disarmament of residents living in high-crime neighborhoods.

The right to self-defense is a natural right of the people.  Any attempt to restore that right should be applauded not condemned.  HR-822 is a step in the right direction, finally allowing Americans to defend themselves no matter where they travel in the United States.  For New Jerseyans, liberalizing the concealed carry permit process will reduce crime in high crime neighborhoods.

If Senator Weinberg wants to help inner city residents live in a more peaceful and secure environment, she should take the lead and introduce legislation that restores the people’s Second Amendment rights in New Jersey, including liberalizing the right to carry a concealed firearm.

 

 

 

This entry was posted in Crime, Federal Government, Human rights, New Jersey. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to The right to self-defense is not negotiable Senators Weinberg, Menendez and Lautenberg

  1. Inquisitor says:

    Maybe someday the SCOTUS will be forced to answer the question: by what definition of “. . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms shalll not be infringed” is regulation and/or restriction of by whom, how, and where that right is exercised, not a restriction? But until then, under our current legal system, the SCOTUS has ruled that concealed carry is a privilege and the Federal Government has declared that some people are disenfranchised from having rights under the 2nd Amendment.

    The power of the Federal Government to disenfranchise people from having 2nd Amendment rights needs to be clarified in the courts and SCOTUS; but, unless the ability of the Federal Government to exercise that power is overturned, that power remains. Once the ability of the Federal Government to disenfranchise people from exercising 2nd Amendment rights is established, then there must be identification of those actions that would cause a person to be disenfranchised The Federal Government currently has such a set of criteria.

    The Federal Government has declared that some people are disenfranchised from having rights under the 2nd Amendment. The following classes of people are ineligible to possess, receive, ship, or transport firearms or ammunition:
    o Those convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for over one year, except state misdemeanors punishable by two years or less.
    o Fugitives from justice.
    o Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs.
    o Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution.
    o Illegal aliens.
    o Citizens who have renounced their citizenship.
    o Those persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces.
    o Persons less than 18 years of age for the purchase of a shotgun or rifle.
    o Persons less than 21 years of age for the purchase of a firearm that is other than a shotgun or rifle.
    o Persons subject to a court order that restrains such persons from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner.
    o Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
    Persons under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year are ineligible to receive, transport, or ship any firearm or ammunition. Under limited conditions, relief from disability may be obtained from the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, or through a pardon, expungement, restoration of rights, or setting aside of a conviction.

    Those criteria must be reviewed, by the voters, Congress, the courts, and SCOTUS to insure that they are the absolute minimum lawful and necessary criteria required to protect the life, liberty, safety, and welfare of the people. If, those criteria are not lawful and necessary, then we need to work to change or eliminate those criteria through legislation and/or the courts.

    Once there is a set of criteria, there must be some means of identifying those people that, by their own actions, have violated those criteria and therefore have been disenfranchised from exercising 2nd Amendment rights and/or conversely identifying those people that have NOT been disenfranchised from exercising 2nd Amendment rights. A system, such as Vermont’s, whereby each and every time a person’s ability to exercise 2nd Amendment rights is challenged, an independent verification must be done, is extremely cumbersome. Under such a system, people will be treated as if they have been disenfranchised until the authorities get around to finding out otherwise, since “the danger” has already been “averted”. So, who is going to certify that individuals are NOT disenfranchised from exercising 2nd Amendment rights? The Federal Government or State governments? Right now, the States have assumed that responsibility. However, the States in assuming that power have also assumed that they have the power to add even more criteria and/or restrictions to the people’s 2nd Amendment rights. Some States have further assumed that power extends to denying anyone the “right to keep and bear arms” (known as “may issue” or “discretionary issue”) for any reason. Those State criteria and/or restrictions must be reviewed, by the voters, State Legislatures, Congress, the courts, and SCOTUS to insure that they are lawful and necessary to protect the life, liberty, safety, and welfare of the people. A prima facie assumption in that review should be: “Are any criteria and/or regulations beyond those at the Federal Government level necessary or even permissible?” If those criteria and/or restrictions are not lawful and necessary, then we need to work to change or eliminate those criteria and/or restrictions through legislation and/or the courts.

    Once a person has been certified as NOT being disenfranchised from rights under the 2nd Amendment, there needs to be a way for that person to prove they are NOT disenfranchised A concealed weapons permit issued by a State is currently recognized as acceptable proof of that person’s ability to exercise their rights under the 2nd Amendment. However, some States have assumed, in addition to their power to regulate the peoples’ rights under the 2nd Amendment, that they also have the power (and right) to NOT recognize concealed weapons permits issued by other States. Such action is prohibited under the US Constitution and must be eliminated through the courts and/or legislation.

    In summary, unless all regulation and/or restriction of 2nd Amendment rights are eliminated, there is a need for the issuance of concealed weapons permits and interstate recognition of those permits.

    Our goal should remain, however, to reduce those regulations and/or restrictions to the absolute minimum that are lawful and necessary to protect the life, liberty, safety, and welfare of the people. While an extreme goal may be to totally eliminate those regulations and/or restrictions, I believe that will never happen because no one, except the delusional, truly believes that absolutely anyone, without exception, should be allowed to own and carry a firearm anywhere. Only when all regulations and/or restrictions applied to 2nd Amendment rights are eliminated, could we have Constitutional Carry.