Are some rights more equal than others?

Sometimes the concepts of Liberty are just too simple to comprehend easily.  That is almost an oxymoron phrase.  We have been indoctrinated with the implications for so long in our schools that our rights come from the Constitution.  However the very simple truth is that they are a gift from our Creator, Higher Power, by right of birth, by the fact that we are born, etc.  Whichever one works for you will work for the thoughts expressed here.  

I recently ran across an article that really gave me another perspective that I thought I would share.  The Bill of Rights (BOR) describes or enumerates a number of very important rights that are essential to a free people.  The author made it clear that no one expressed right was of a higher value than another.  For example when the question, “Why would anyone need more than 10 rounds to hunt with?” would then become “Why would anyone need more than 10 books?” or “Why would anyone need more than 10 bibles?” or “Why would anyone need more than 10 letters to the editor?” or “Why would any one town need more than one newspaper or church?”

30 Round Mags...

I have been asked my opinion on the necessity of keeping 30 rounds magazines for guns.  To quote some comments: “The only reason for 30 round mag is to kill people – why should the government allow those?”  “What possible sporting use is a 30 round mag?”  And so it goes that it would appear to the average person that there is really no necessity for these large capacity mags, except to kill people.

So it is time to get down to the cold hard unpleasant facts that no one really wants to think about or consider.  The true purpose of the Second Amendment is not to preserve sporting purposes, or to make a better target shooter, or to hunt much of anything in the wild kingdom.  The true purpose is as check on, as last resort against, a government that has gone completely outside its boundaries. 

Furious...

In the past week my feelings have ranged from euphoria to fury.  Euphoria because a court has finally declared the complete ban of public carry of firearms by Illinois to be unconstitutional; fury at a government who would render citizens helpless against a broken rabid dog who takes his sickness out on young children and helpless teachers and staff at a school.

I am no more “mad” at a sick broken person than I would be against a rabid dog.  I am mad at the government who would prevent me or any other responsible adults from carrying protection against the danger.  I am mad at a system of officials who would continue to deny their oath to uphold the Constitution and its people and support a Chicago Machine government agenda to keep the People disarmed. 

It makes me furious that in the high school my children attend we have some willing staff that are unable to carry weapons which they have been trained to use responsibly that could defend my kids against rabid broken crazy people, yet they are not allowed perform that function.

Commentary on Moore/Shepard v. Madigan/Illinois

A few months ago the US Court of Appeals for the 7^th Circuit reviewed two cases that were similar in their merits.  One was a case by a party named Moore and the other by a party named Shepard.  In essence the argument was concerning the complete ban by the State of Illinois with regard to the carrying of ready-to-use firearms for self defense by the average citizen.  Frequently people have thought it was about concealed carry however the issues were far deeper than manner or method of carry.

This decision really has nothing to do with concealed carry.  It has everything to do with removing a complete ban of the right to “bear” arms "ready-to-use" in the public way by the private citizen for defensive or other lawful purposes.  Presently in Illinois there is a complete ban on a fundamental right to bear arms that are loaded and ready-to-use in the public way.  The complete ban has been struck down and left to the legislature to decide in what “reasonable” manner they will “allow” the “bearing” or carrying of firearms ready-to-use.  There may also be some restriction allowed for so called “sensitive” places such as schools.  I repeat the decision made NO DISTINCTION as to whether the form of carry was open or concealed that I could see.

Bureau of “Public Safety Law” Injury Prevention to the Rescue

“Public safety” as pushed by the legislature is to prevent some type of injury to the public and individuals.  Thousands of laws are passed supposedly to improve public safety.  Another aspect has occurred to me, we might benefit more by a Bureau of “Public Safety Law” Injury Prevention.

 

Perhaps we could discuss the great harm caused through financial and mental distress that occurred to some of our local business people by the OSHA in the last year or so.  While no injury occurred to persons or property from supposed dangers to persons or property by violating some OSHA regulations, an injury nevertheless occurred to the local businesses and owners.  In one case I am familiar with, a window was being repaired by a worker elevated on a forklift with no safety restraint, no surrounding safety guards or bars, and further there was no safety meeting with a supervisor to plan the repair of this little pane of glass.

Of course there was no discussion about the financial injury caused by the insistence of having a safety meeting with supervisor and machine operator and worker in a two person company.  All of which would have turned a $75 dollar job into a $250 plus job.  All of this would cause an additional injury to the customer by having to pay the added expense.  Perhaps if the true cost was known in advance the customer would have elected to do the job himself costing the glazier the injury of lost business and the community the injury of a loss of the economic activity.  Perhaps the nonprofessional customer would have been more susceptible to physical injury due to his lack of expertise in glazing repair.

Or what about the physical harm caused to a public who is prevented from providing their own personal protection by carrying a weapon of their choice.  Somehow government deems it too expensive to provide personal police protection for all the individuals as they go about their daily activities, but then turn around a say that you cannot protect yourself unless, for example, you use a nail file, or try to vomit on an offender (advice to women being raped from the ISP website at one time) among other ignorant suggestions.  You cannot have a cop with you all the time, yet the public will be injured by being arrested and charged by police and the prosecutor if we carry a truly equalizing weapon.

I am sure that the stories are endless of the injuries caused by so called government safety programs.  While I think the intent is good, what happens is that the bureaucracy loses common sense in its mindless attention to the letter of the law while ignoring the spirit of the law.  You cannot expect a bureaucrat charged with enforcement to ignore the letter.  His job depends on finding issues that justify his paycheck and his pension.  How many businesses leave a little flaw somewhere, like a dirty sink, just so the inspector will have something to write up.  Yep, it happens.

Our Founders instituted a method to solve issues of negligent behavior, that is called a justice system.  The Good Book makes it clear that the one who is responsible for the injury covers the cost (Exodus 21).  If there is a repeat negligent injury the penalty goes up substantially.  We have recourse to settle for an injury to our person or property by another person.  If the government injures via its Public Safety Agencies, just try and collect against an agency with an unlimited budget for legal fees.  Now you’re talking serious injury.  For that injury we need the new Bureau of “Public Safety Law” Injury Prevention.  Just in case a legislator is reading this please don’t take the suggestion of this new bureau seriously.  One more bureau really won’t help.  I am just trying to make a point.

Thanks for the comments, keep them coming.  If you would like to correspond with me on this contact me at: editorial@pike912.org or leave a message at 217-285-2134, or follow my blog at: pike912.blogspot.com.

Is Public Saftey Important?

I enjoy getting comments on my writing.  Two people called for clarification on my letter last week; they followed the theme, “Is any public safety important?”  My comments could have been taken to mean no attention to public safety is necessary.  That isn’t what I meant.  So let’s take this apart a little more.

What did the Pilgrims move to America for?  Was it for: better streets, better neighborhoods, safer environment, better working condition laws, improved sewer system, better police protection, etc?   No, they moved to no streets, an unsafe neighborhood, maybe environmentally safer if you don’t count wild Indians and wild animals, worse working conditions, no sewer system, no police protection.  So what did the Pilgrims value above public safety?  The answer is Liberty.

They moved to a distinctly risky environment, with no public (governmental) amenities or services.  They moved from an area of increased public safety and tyranny, but minimal Liberty, to an area of substantially greater risk for something we call Liberty.  The Pilgrims cherished Liberty above all of the previously stated government ‘services.’ 

Our Founders did not fight a war for independence for the purpose of gaining increased public safety; they fought a bloody war for increased Liberty.  What we find as we delegate more and more importance to a host of bureaus to increase public safety and security is that each one removes one more piece of Liberty.  So where does it end?

This week in the news we find a school in Florida is contemplating putting in cameras to see if students throw away their veggies in the school lunch program.  At what point will the powers that be decide to penalize adults if they eat too much of the wrong food, like say pizza, and not enough broccoli?  With the advent of Obamacare the government now has a vested interest in seeing what you eat, how much you eat and whether or not we are in full compliance with the recommended daily hygiene list. 

Thomas Jefferson said it best, “that government governs best that governs least.”  So what government services are absolutely essential?  Do I want to do without peace officers?  Well no, not really.  What about OSHA?  All I can say is Liberty has an element of risk.  Do I need government inspections to see if my business is clean enough for its intended purpose?  No, the public will determine that.  The People will vote with their dollars by taking them elsewhere, if my business doesn’t suit them.  If your eating establishment is filthy, don’t count on me eating there. 

A few weeks ago my son was badly injured in a horse accident.  He was transported to the hospital for emergency treatment and examination.  His pain was so great that morphine was administered for the pain.  However inadvertently the amount of morphine he was given was well in excess of what should have been given.  He became violently sick and was sick for several days from the overdose.  Now I don’t say that we should “outlaw” morphine, I would recommend that the overdose be corrected to an amount that is beneficial without harming the patient.  Another example is Warfarin or “rat poison,” administered in judicious amounts it can be beneficial.

The same is true for what I have called “Governmenticin.”  A judicious level can be good, too much and you have an overdose.  I say that we currently have an overdose in our country of Governmenticin.  That overdose is producing a very sick economy and a culture of people who have become dependent or addicted to Governmenticin and are very ill economically and/or socially because of it.

Thanks for the comments, keep them coming.  If you would like to correspond with me on this contact me at: editorial@pike912.org or leave a message at 217-285-2134, or follow my blog at: pike912.blogspot.com.

Public Safety vs. Liberty

By Dan A. Mefford, D.C.

I enjoy the study of history.  It gives us the clues that should help us avoid making the same mistakes that have been made over and over.  The old saying is, “those who fail to study history will repeat it.”  EVERY TIME!

One of my favorite and most amazing stories occurs in the early days of our country; the story of the Pilgrims.  By looking at the motivations of these early pioneers, we can begin to see what they valued more than life itself.  Let’s start by looking at what they didn’t move for.  The Pilgrims did not move for the purpose of increasing public safety, public health, education, health insurance, public welfare benefits, etc.

They were dropped on a distant shore after a hard and discouraging voyage with much sickness across the Atlantic.  Safety did not exist.  They had no shelter.  There was no way to get rich, and if they did get rich where would they spend it?  There was a shortage of food supplies and other material goods and bad weather was not far off.  There was no security.  There were wild beasts, “wild” Indians, dangers from starvation and the potential for many unknown calamities. 

So back to our question, why did these folks take their families on this arduous, hazardous voyage to an unknown continent, this land of, essentially no opportunity?  What was this most precious “thing” that would drive them into the unknown fraught with peril?  The driving force was the possibility of finding a measure of Liberty; enough Liberty to practice their faith as their conscience dictated, and not as their government demanded. 

My question then becomes, “How much of the currency of Liberty are you willing to spend for some imaginary perceived safety, security, public health insurance, public welfare, etc?  It is essential that we understand that for just about every new rule, law, ordinance and regulation that is passed we have a proportionally decreasing measure of Liberty.  Founding Father, Ben Franklin, said it best, “They who can give up essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor safety."

My final questions, to which I have no good answer:  “What are you willing to do to prevent a government, even our own county government, from inadvertently, and perhaps though meaning well, robbing you of any more Liberty?”  Will you get out and vote? Will you go to committee meetings, even though it is possible those you have elected to represent you will ignore you?  Or, will you just complain as the government throws off the chains of the constitution and in turn binds We the People with regulations for: the children, the elderly, the handicapped, the poor, so called public safety, and the ‘you-name-it.’ 

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!”  (Samuel Adams, Founding Father)

One hundred percent Public Safety is an illusion.  This illusion requires a Ruler, who is human with the normal motivations of humans, which include greed, compassion, and all the like feelings and temptations humans have, to oversee We the People.  My opinion is that the People are the best Rulers of themselves.  There is too much temptation for the average person to resist in the process of Ruling.  One look at the history of Illinois governors makes it clear.  The classic Illinois joke is our governors serve two terms, one in the State house, and one in the “Penhouse.”  As Citizens do not be lulled into approving well meaning rules by well meaning rulers, that ultimately steal your Liberty.

In addition to the Chicago Machine, I have been hard on our local officials recently.  I don’t believe for one instant that our county board has one bad intention.  I do believe they have good intentions.  They work hard for no significant pay going to, many times boring, committee meetings.  Attending other functions; answering many phone calls with complaints about all types of things.  However, I believe that inadvertently We the People and our local leaders can get in a trap that continues to try to get government to fix every issue.  The real truth is every issue cannot be fixed by government.  The People have to roll up their sleeves and fix it themselves or accept some risk, such as bad lettuce, a faulty cooler door seal, a trashy neighbor, or any of a number of other issues.  If We the People continue to say, “There ought to be a law;” then we will pay the price of being overburdened by government.

Just for fun, ‘google’ “dumb laws in Illinois.”  You will find a lot of laws that are truly stupid.  Laws like the City of Normal, “It is against the law to make faces at dogs.”  Or, Ottawa, “Spitting on the sidewalk is a criminal offense.”  And many others…  Remember though, that while these are funny, all laws are enforceable at the point of a gun.  That is not funny.  Therefore maybe we ought to have a law against enforcing ignorant laws…  (grin).  You can legislate against stupid, but that ain’t gonna fix stupid.

For comments feel free to contact me at: editorials@pike912.org.

The War on Food Borne Illness

The Pike County Board, over the objection of every citizen who spoke, that was not directly associated with the Pike County Health Department (PCHD), passed the licensure requirement for restaurants, etc.  I kind of wonder, “Why bother with the hearings?” 

I thought the PCHD officials did a great job of presenting their own case for why it WASN’T ‘necessary’ for a food licensure law.  They stated that statistically there are approximately 3.5 million meals served per year in Pike County.  Out of those meals there were, statistically calculated, 15 food borne illnesses (FBI).  I inquired what the actual number was, since I am under the impression that FBI is a reportable condition – the Citizens present heard that the actual number of FBIs was 2.  Regardless, the point they were trying to make is that we need licensure to be able ENFORCE compliance with the Rules. 

Now my impression is that new laws are to address a real need, or correct an imminent real problem.  Somehow I found myself impressed with what a great job that the PCHD is doing with the tools (I think “tools” has nicer sound than hammers, chains, steel pry bars, guns, etc) already at their disposal.  I failed to see how adding a new law, another layer of bureaucracy, an additional theft of just a little bit more Liberty, was going to make any meaningful improvement to public safety.

I would remind the board that all laws, even this simple little law, is ultimately enforced by the barrel of a gun.  Imagine if you will a restaurateur who has a little flaw in his refrigerator door seal.  The inspector says, “correct it or else.”  The owner says, “it is insignificant.”  The war is on.  If the owner continues in non-compliance long enough, and resists enough that he would rather die than close the business, then eventually there will be a Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) or SWAT team who will be dispatched to take care of the “problem.”  All of this over a door seal.

Now I realize that this example might be considered extreme, but I would argue that it is no more extreme than trying to eliminate 2 FBIs out of 3.5 million meals served.  That is like sweeping up a pile of 3.5 million grains of sand but somehow 2 grains escaped us so we need to pass a law to eliminate 2 grains of sand.  In the case of FBIs, it could happen from lettuce that came from outside the county and all the licenses in the world will not stop that.

My hope is for a reconsideration of this additional encroachment upon that “Jewel of Liberty,” as our Founders would term it.  Where does government stop?  Liberty by its very nature has an element of risk.  The Declaration of Independence made the purpose of government clear, “…[We] are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights… that to SECURE these RIGHTs governments are instituted among men…” (emphasis mine).   I didn’t see a thing about “public safety” there.  Preserving our rights to Liberty exceeds public safety.  I don’t think anybody objects to reasonable regulation; however 2 grains of sand out of 3.5 million just isn’t reasonable, in my opinion.

I am convinced that the PCHD means well.  I am convinced that their purpose is NOT to steal our Liberty; I believe that they are trying to gain tools to do their job more efficiently and to meet their mission of increased public safety.  I commend them on a job well done, however there is a logical limit, and I think this new licensure law exceeds the logical limit for the whole People.  In the process the new law fails to add real and meaningful increased public safety, while it encroaches on Liberty.  The county board, comprised of our elected officials, is a guard to our Liberty and should pass only necessary laws. 

If you would like to correspond with me, Dan A. Mefford, D.C., on this topic contact me at:  pike912.blogspot.com/ or editorial@pike912.org or leave a message at 217-285-2134.

Conceal Carry Now ? How 'bout Constitutional Carry Now!

In 1995 my business was the subject of a burglary.  At that time I wrote a letter praising the local city and county police in solving that crime.  I continue to stand by that letter.  I also made the following remark:

“It is encouraging to see the ‘system’ work as it is supposed to.  Many times it is easy to say “where are the police when you need them?”  However they cannot be everywhere at once.  We would not want them everywhere at once.  After all who needs a police state?  Not I!”

Fourteen years have passed and we have more police than ever and are closer to a police state than we have ever been.  The police still cannot be everywhere, thank God.  However our rulers, Chicago Machine, say the common people, citizens of Illinois, cannot be trusted to own a firearm without their blessing via the FOID card.  I say that is garbage.  It is time that the people realized that our rulers wish to keep the people disarmed because the rulers are afraid of an armed citizenry, not concerned about “the children.”

In the name of ‘safety for the children’ and a plethora of other so called necessities, I, a citizen of Illinois in good standing, must crawl to the rulers to ask for permission to own and carry a gun in Illinois.  At the same time the police cannot be everywhere to “protect and serve.”  Many police are my friends, but I don’t want them everywhere.  The rulers have made it increasingly clear that keeping the peace is now secondary to being “Law Enforcers,” carrying out the edicts of the rulers.  Really important laws like, seat belt laws, have actually become an excuse to stop and check for other violations, and generate revenue.  Many police don’t feel good about it, but they are just doing their job.  If they don’t do it they will be hunting a new job.

Many Illinois citizens are now begging that the rulers let us carry concealed firearms.  The truth is the people have a God given fundamental right to carry guns.  Now it is important to understand that the term ‘fundamental right,’ or ‘inalienable right,’ is a right that you are born with.  A fundamental right is NOT granted by any so-called law making body or any constitution.  The constitution secures and guarantees and recognizes these inalienable rights, the constitution does not grant any rights whatsoever.  Therefore a fundamental right cannot be taken away by any law making body accept at the risk of the wrath of the people (some would say sheeple).

These rights should not be confused with “civil rights.”  Civil rights are rights, supposedly granted by the government.  An example would be something like the “right to an education.”  Nobody is born with a right to an education.  Another might be a “right to a minimal income.”  Nobody is born with a right to be supported by others.  Any civil right can be taken away.  I always enjoyed my old colleague Illinois Senator John Davidson when he would breathe fire and yell at the rest of his fellow chiropractors, what the government giveth the government can take away.”  He would follow it by a speech to support financially those legislators who supported our cause.  Then he would say at the top of his voice into a microphone, “money is the mother’s milk of politics and don’t you ever forget it!”  My point is, the right to keep and bear arms is NOT a civil right that can be voted away and don’t you ever forget it!

For example there is no dispute that the people have a right to freedom of speech un-infringed by laws made by some ruling government body.  The individual has the right to exercise this freedom up to the point at which it infringes on some other individual’s right to enjoyment of life and liberty.  The old classic is that you are free to talk about someone as long as it is the truth, even if it might not be in good taste.  If you begin to lie about, defame and libel someone then you have crossed the natural limit to the exercising of that fundamental right to freedom of speech.  All rights have a natural boundary that the honest, moral, and reasonable person can recognize without the assistance of government.  No one would dispute that if the government were to pass a freedom of speech license that it would not be right or constitutional.  In other words you would be able to express yourself as long as you purchased a “speakers license.”  Then you could speak as much as you want, at least as long as your speech was, of course, “politically correct.”  Well you can see that obviously the government has taken a fundamental right to free speech and converted it into a privilege and is now charging a tax (license fee) for it.

Now let’s apply this to the firearm issue that is currently a hot topic among many in this state and in our country as whole.  I, as member of the human race, have been born with the right to “keep and bear arms,” as have all other humans.  Remember, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men… are endowed… with certain inalienable rights….”  The right to keep and bear arms cannot be voted away by an act of congress or an act of the Chicago Machine House of Rulers.  This is recently affirmed in the Heller US Supreme Court case.

Now the rulers come along and say, for the children, for the old folk, for the safety of the police, etc. etc. it is necessary to approve of and make sure that the person who owns a gun is not a criminal.  Therefore we will require them to apply for a permit to exercise their God given fundamental right to bear arms in defense themselves, their family and others.  They have taken a God given fundamental right and converted it into a privilege and are charging a tax for it.  It is no different than the example above with regard to freedom of speech.

In the case of firearms, the rulers have it backwards or as one astute fellow told our county board last Tuesday night, “the government has it upside down.”  I and all my fellow humans have the God given fundamental right without the rulers’ permission to keep and bear arms.  The limitation to exercise my right to keep and bear arms can only be legally and constitutionally “taken” if I were to act irresponsibly in the exercising of my right.  Just as the person who is free to exercise their free speech is limited at the point at which it invades some else’s right to enjoyment of their liberties, my right is limited when I approach the point that I infringe another’s right to enjoyment of their liberties.  In other words if I exercise my right by brandishing my gun to steal another’s property then I have over stepped my natural boundary to exercise my God given fundamental right. 

Now many gun owners in this state are humbly beseeching their rulers for a permit to carry concealed weapons; a permit to do that which they already have a God given fundamental right to do.  Further they are trying to get it passed by offering to take a 40 hour course in which they would have to pass some kind of a test, go through some background check, and give out their private property in the form of their finger prints like a common criminal and their money to take this so called safety course.  It makes me sick!

All holders of a public office, from the public library board to the judges, police, and the big boy rulers in the far away cities are charged with the public trust, and take an oath to defend our constitution from encroachment by enemies foreign and domestic.  Have the big boys failed in the public trust?  What are their enforcers to do?  Somehow I am not concerned about the foreign enemies as much as I am the domestic enemies.  It would seem that the rulers are not concerned about foreign enemies either.  They “‘holler’ foreign terrorist,” then pass a bunch of stupid domestic laws to watch you and me.  They won’t even put up a simple fence to keep the ‘terrorists’ out.  They don’t even want me to carry a gun to protect myself and my family against terrorist boogey men.  The rulers do want to track every financial transaction, every bit of health care, and a whole range of inconsequential things, all in the name of security and safety for the children, etal.  I would say that the most secure place in Pike County is our jail, but how many want to live there?  Do you really believe that all this background check and finger printing is just for the safety of the children?  Are people really that naïve? 

I wonder what those traitors to their government (King George), Samuel Adams, James Madison, Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry and George Washington and rest of our founding fathers who pledged their very lives, fortunes, and sacred honor would say to all us Illinois gun owners, who on our knees before the rulers, are humbly begging, beseeching, and petitioning for a permit law to do that for which many Founders gave all.  Our precious soldiers have poured out or risked their life’s blood to preserve those God given fundamental/inalienable rights.  The next step is licking the rulers’ jack boots to the clinking music of our chains.