Select Page

Coronavirus Pandemic Used To Assault Second Amendment

Coronavirus Pandemic Used To Assault Second Amendment

We have heard over the last two weeks cases where the Democrat leadership in cities and states have used this crisis to infringe on our second amendment rights; New Orleans is the latest to join in with this assault against our rights by the liberal left.

New Orleans Mayor LaToya Cantrell (D) issued a coronavirus emergency order giving herself the power to ban the sale and transportation of firearms in the city. What I find interesting about this is that no governor nor mayor has the right to strip an American citizen of their national rights. A national emergency does not grant this right, nor does it give them the legal right to suspend our constitutional protections. This is just another, in a long list, of the left trying to take what they can’t by the courts or by votes, to take it upon themselves to strip this right from us.

We heard from National Review in 2016 this exact case that was being brought up, they stated:

Progressives like to insist that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects a collective, rather than an individual, right to “keep and bear arms.” Or, put another way, they say that the only right Americans have to the ownership of lethal weaponry exists within the context of state-sanctioned military service. As a result, progressives conclude that there is nothing in place to stop the federal government from prohibiting the private ownership of firearms and allowing access to weapons only to those who belong to the National Guard — the modern descendant of early-American state and local militia forces.

This was decided back in 2008 with District of Columbia v. Heller, where the District thought they had the right to regulate the right to possess arms as an individual, in the words of the late Justice Scalia:

The Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent the elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right — unlike some other English rights — was codified in a written Constitution.

He went on to explain:

By the time of the founding, the right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects. Blackstone, whose works, we have said, “constituted the preeminent authority on English law for the founding generation,” cited the arms provision of the Bill of Rights as one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen. His description of it cannot possibly be thought to tie it to militia or military service. It was, he said, “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation,” and “the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence.” Other contemporary authorities concurred. Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.

The left is, if nothing else, persistent in their attempts to strip what they see as not an individual right from Americans, yet the court has stopped them in their place each time. With this current crisis in effect, the fact that such cases are happening with more frequency, with the people in power knowing before such order gets halted they first have to go through the gambet of courts, this takes time, so they seize our rights, even if for a temporary time, this is still seen as a victory by the left.

What we are seeing is not the stopping of our rights to possess arms, rather the stripping of the rights for us to transport them. This seems to be the latest move by the left, where they suspend the right not only to sell arms but to take them with you, something that is happening at a very brisk rate due to this national emergency. The Democrats find the act of buying a weapon to defend yourself as unacceptable; the criminal should be protected, the state should be the ones who determine who should be supported, not we as individuals.

The Democrats find the act of buying a weapon to defend yourself as unacceptable, the criminal should be protected, the state should be the ones who determine who should be defended, not we as individuals.

Mayor Cantrell had issued her order in two parts over less than a week. The result was Cantrell claiming the power to ban the sale and transportation of firearms and “suspend or limit the sale, dispensing, or transportation of alcoholic beverages,” among other things.

Don’t misunderstand what is written here. I am by no means saying a mayor does not have the right to shut down businesses in such a case or say that one can’t ban your constitutional rights or the second amendment. In contrast, you can do some things to protect the public’s safety, but to impose on their population that they have no legal authority to transport these weapons, that no one has a legal right to do.

We are currently waiting for the high court to give their ruling on the case of NYS Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York, where New York prohibited a right to transport arms in any way, they were using this as a premise to take possession of legally owned firearms from citizens.

Until this is done, the left will continue to use this tactic to not strip you of the right to have arms in your home. You may not carry them with you or risk losing them.

This should run into problems when the court comes back with their decision, much of this is the legal right to open carry, to say you can open carry, but only around your home is nonsense. Still, the left will try to use the letter of the law to undo what they see as an inconvenience, to take away our second amendment rights.

Until we get a ruling back from the court, expect this type of power grab to continue, one can only hope with this case having been heard four months ago.

This is not the first time New York has tried this, first New York passed a law limiting magazines to five rounds, they then moved to try to force every gun owner to carry a million dollar liability to possess a firearm, then to force each person to register their weaponsthen force every gun owner to go through a psychological testlast they tried to force them to give up their access to all social network accounts so that the police could check their online posts.

What we are seeing is death by a thousand cuts against the second amendment. To make the ownership of guns is not possible for an average citizen due to the cost of what the state is demanding. The attack against gun owners’ rights; is currently being used under the claim of protecting citizens’ rights during this national emergency. This is just another assault against our second amendment rights.

About The Author

Timothy Benton

Student of history, a journalist for the last 2 years. Specialize in Middle East History, more specifically modern history with the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Also, a political commentator has been a lifetime fan of politics.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published.