The story of the rich young ruler is an episode in the life of Christ. The rich young ruler comes to Jesus to ask what he might lack in order to receive eternal life, since he had kept all the commandments from his youth. Jesus’ response is to go and sell all he has and give to the poor. The point being that the young man, even though he had kept all commandments, was short on one key ingredient that was a heart issue in which he held his riches just a little closer to his heart than his concern for the things of God.
While our Illinois sheriffs have made huge steps in the right direction, in my opinion they lack one key ingredient. It has to do with the recent statement of the Illinois sheriff’s association:
“Rule of Law. Sheriffs recognize the rule of law in the United States in which the Supreme Court and lower courts are the ultimate authority in determining the constitutionality of any law.”
On the surface it looks good. However just as in WWII, at the Nuremberg trials, the most common reason for committing atrocities was, “I was only following orders.” That didn’t work out so well because we each as individuals understand down deep in our souls that certain actions against human kind are not acceptable by any normal human.
In this case the courts are NOT the “ultimate authority” or “ultimate” arbiter of any law. We can never escape our personal responsibility to our foundational documents and the constitution and especially to the man in the mirror. You cannot argue with the phrase, “…shall not be infringed.” It is simple language. It is clear. It is concise. It is pointed. It is irrefutable on any reasoning level. The ability to keep and the ability to bear, on or in the public way, and in any responsible way without infringement by government is clear and unmistakable. I don’t have room to go into “stacking” the courts by either party. I previously covered the Dred Scott Supreme Court case that stated that blacks were:
"beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.."
On the surface the Illinois sheriffs’ concern that those with mental instabilities should be excluded from firearm possession has some merit. However just who gets to decide who is mentally unfit? And who gets to make the definition? Will it be the politicians from Chicago? Or will it be the politicians from down state? Who gets to make and grade the “test” to determine if one is “allowed” to exercise his fundamental right?
In the case of most of the gun violence incidents of the last few years, the guns involved were stolen. Consequently figuring out a scheme that would weed out the mentally unstable didn’t matter anyway. The form 4473 that is filled out when you buy a gun asks if you are mentally unstable. How many people, even someone who is ‘nuts,’ is going to answer yes?
The real truth is that life has a measure of danger that cannot be escaped completely. 99.9% of the people out there are not going to kill anybody in their lifetime. No amount of government tests will prevent a few ‘wackos’ from going ‘wacko.’ However if the people who wish to be armed are free to exercise their fundamental right to keep and carry, then there is a much better chance that when someone does go off the deep end, there will be another present who can stop the “rabid dog” before he can wreck too many lives.
Many of the Founders set their faith on the “Rock” of the unchanging scripture. Subsequently our Declaration of Independence and Constitution becomes the foundational “rock” of the People’s contract with the government. It can be changed, but the change cannot go against natural law or it will be null and void, just like Illinois gun law. Rights come from our Creator. The final arbiter of the contract is, and will continue to be, the People. There is an old saying that the People get several votes, the voting box, the jury box and the bullet box. I say, make every vote count.