New, Radical Republican Wing Cites 2nd Amendment:

Only Guarantee against tyranny, dictatorship -

It's the keystone, the linchpin of conservative activism -
the issue of gun ownership, the right to keep and bear arms.

Shake a conservative palm anywhere in the jungle and the
coconut that falls out has the message written on it in
plain English: The liberals are going to take our guns.

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.

The American Bar Association published an opinion of these
27 words, stating that there is more disagreement and less
understanding about this right than of any other current
issue regarding the Constitution.

And yet the issue of an armed public unfettered by federal,
state or local regulation of firearms ownership is paramount
to all others, according to literature distributed by New
Revolution Now, sponsors of nullification rallies nationwide
and a key supporter to Republican challengers for local
office in the mid-term elections.

In a questionnaire aimed at new candidates seeking office at
the state level, this Political Action Committee asks, "Do
you agree that the Second Amendment is 'the Palladium of
rights,' that all others codified in the Bill of Rights are
made possible by the second?"

They don't stop there.

In another question, they ask of office seekers, "Do you
agree that the primary protection of the U.S. citizenry
from tyranny is exercise of Second Amendment rights?"

Further, they question those who seek contributions from the
PAC, "Will you work to ensure that Second Amendment rights
are not further infringed, and roll back existing federal
infringement on same?"

Finally, "Will you introduce or support legislation
nullifying in Texas any future federal law or regulations
infringing on Second Amendment rights?"

It is a question that is under present Supreme Court review
following the Seventh Circuit Court Appeals' holding that
states have the right to determine the extent of stricture
of the right to keep and bear arms in McDonald v. City of
Chicago.

In that case, Mr. Otis McDonald and David Lawson were denied
the right to register their firearms under the tough and
exacting regulations of the code of the City of Chicago,
which "requires inhabitants to register their firearms, but
generally prohibits the registration of handguns," according
to the brief filed in support of the Supreme Court appeal.
"This handgun ban functions identically to that struck down
as infringing the Second Amendment rights of District of
Columbia residents" in District of Columbia v. Heller.

In that case, the Court held by a vote of 5 to 4 that it is
unconstitutional for the District of Columbia to prohibit
the ownership of handguns under the terms of the Second
Amendment.

The holding regards a political subdivision of the Federal
government, the District of Columbia, the seat of
government, and not a separate state.

When the Seventh Circuit issued its conflicting holding, it
set the stage for a showdown in the Supreme Court to settle
the conflict, once and for all.

Attorneys for the petitioners argue that the Seventh Circuit
Court erred when it granted Chicago's oral motion for
judgment on the pleadings, giving the opinion that the
Second Amendment does not apply to that city. They further
argue that Chicago is not granting the petitioners the due
process of law guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

Their argument asserts that "the failure to honor the
Fourteenth Amendment's original public meaning foments
confusion and controversy as courts pursue other approaches
to protecting core individual rights."

The argument advanced in a friend of the court brief by Jews
For the Preservation of Firearms strikes the most resounding
chord. Based in nearby Wisconsin, the JPFO works to
preserve gunowners rights by fighting against registration
or any other strictures regarding the ownership of guns.

They cite Nazi laws enacted in 1928 and 1938 that denied
people of Jewish ancestry the right to keep and bear arms.

It's not their only example of what happens when an armed
public loses the right to own guns.

"During the 20th Century, more than 70 million people, after
first being disarmed, were slaughtered by their own
governments. This pattern appeared in Ottoman Turkey (1915-
17), the Soviet Union (1929-45), Nazi Germany and Occpied
Europe (1933-1945), Nationalist China (1927-1949), Communist
China (1949-52, 1957-60, and 1966-70), Guatemala (1960-81),
Uganda (1971-79), Cambodia (1975-79), and Rwanda (1994),
just to name a few."

In 19th Century America, the U.S. Army slaughtered the Ghost
Dancers at the Oglala Sioux Reservation at Wounded Knee
after first confiscating their firearms.

In the 19th Century, Acadian people were forcibly removed
from the Canadian Province of Quebec and transported to the
swamps of Louisiana under force of arms by British troops
after France lost a war with Britain. They had first
voluntarily surrendered their firearms. Many died of exposure.

They starved to death in those swamps.

"In many cases, firearm confiscation proceeded only after
the groundwork was laid by purportedly 'reasonable'
regulation and registration of firearms," the JPFO brief
continues. "History illustrates just how readily the
standardless 'reasonable' regulation of firearms invites
large-scale abuse by the state and ultimately paves the way
for wholesale confiscation of arms and the mass slaughter of
the disarmed (much like the massive censorship that likely
would arise under a rule permiting "reasonable" regulation
of speech and press.)"

They cite a dissenting opinion filed by Judge J. Kozinski of
the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals at San Francisco in a
similar case, Silveira v. Lockyer.

"The position urged by Respondents, that the guarantee
afforded by the Second Amendment is effective only against
the federal government, would eviscerate one of the
esssential purposes of the Second Amendment - to ensure that
an armed populace is available to discourage the amibitons
of a potential tyrant."

All briefs filed in the Supreme Court review in McDonald v.
Chicago cite numerous examples of the legislative intent
espoused by those who framed the Second Amendment. In "The
Federalist Papers," Alexander Hamilton and James Madison
held that an armed populace is the only real guarantee
against tyranny and aggression of the government against the
people.