Logic. It’s a course
you can take in college. There are a lot
of sophisticated rules to make things work out to a realistic conclusion. I wonder, can we apply these principles to
the Second Amendment (2A)? Logic would
say that, if A = B, and B = C, then it is logical that C = A. Where the rub comes in, not all can agree on
the various premises that come in to play.
However, I have never drawn back from traveling in places
where angels fear to tread; therefore I will give this a “shot.” Yes, the pun was intended.
Assuming the Founders meant what they wrote in the 2A, then
the operative portion (Heller v. Washington D.C.) is, “…the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall
not be infringed.” The courts have
stated repeatedly that the first place to look to understand the meaning of any
statute is the statute itself. Illinois v Holmes, states, “The best
evidence of legislative intent is the language used in the statute itself,
which must be given its plain and ordinary meaning.” We will designate the 2A as, “A” which is the
“supreme law of the land.”
In McDonald v Chicago, the Supreme Court of the United
States (SCOTUS) stated that the 2A applies/incorporates against and/or to the
states. Therefore 2A applies to the
states becomes “B.” Therefore “B” is now
the “supreme law of the land” for Illinois.
Now, assuming that Pike County is a subdivision of the state
of Illinois; and further that the “supreme law of the land” is operative here
we can conclude that the operative phrase of the 2A, “…the right of the people
to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” applies in Pike County,
designated as “C.”
Now let’s check our statement:
- 2A is the supreme law in the US, “A,” is equal to, “B” which states that 2A is the supreme law of Illinois, since Pike County is a division in Illinois the 2A must be the supreme law of Pike County, “C.” Therefore Supreme law of Pike County "C," is equal to, "A" the supreme law of the US.
The question then becomes; “If the 2A is already the law of
Pike County then why would making it an official part of the code create any
change in liability to the County?”
Now let’s assess our Chicago Attorney Victor’s statement. Mr. Victor spoke to the Pike County Board at the last meeting, May 30th, 2013. He stated that passing an
ordinance which duplicated the operative portion of the 2A would be
unconstitutional. The part he left out
was he gave no supporting documentation to show how incorporating the operative
portion of the 2A could conflict with any constitution. The ordinance would create no new law, it
would not supersede any law but simply copy it to the code of Pike County.
He said it might create confusion but didn’t explain
how. He could give no scenario that
would create liability but simply stated, "It will expose the county to
enormous legal liability, enormous financial liability.” He further stated that the County cannot
presume to interpret the law or constitution.
I can see no attempt to interpret the constitution in this most simple
of ordinances.
Perhaps he could elaborate further. Perhaps another attorney would care to comment. Would we be having this discussion if the operative portion of the ordinance stated, "Therefore be it enacted that the right of the people to free expression shall not be infringed?"
We can even take this further by interjecting Article VI of the US Constitution, which contains the supremacy clause.
We can even take this further by interjecting Article VI of the US Constitution, which contains the supremacy clause.
- "This Constitution ... shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
No comments:
Post a Comment