2nd Amendment Cage Fight

HARD-ASS NRA
HARD-WIRED DNA

SECOND AMENDMENT… STATE OF THE LAW

Today’s Second Amendment jurisprudence says the government is forbidden from banning handguns. See Heller One, 554 U.S. 570 (2008– a 5 to 4 decision written by Justice Scalia who, with an eye toward the future, indicated that, even the “inherent” right to bears arms under the Second Amendment, is not an absolute “right to keep and carry any weapons whatsoever, in any manner whatsoever, for whatever purpose”). But, Government can, however, ban AR15s, like the one used in Parkland Florida to take 17 lives on Valentines Day 2018– at least until the U.S. Supreme Court says otherwise, if they ever do. See Heller Two, 670 F3d 1244 (2015 D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals).

THE ROLE OF HARD-WIRED DNA

There may be a semblance of logic and law in both the majority and the dissenting opinions of Heller One and Heller Two. But, for most Americans, logic, law, deductive reasoning and legal analysis take a back seat to long-seated, preexisting, emotional bias that surrounds firearms and the Second Amendment. My 75 year understanding of human nature tells me thatheredity aka DNA hard-wiringcreates a primitive, preexisting emotional response that predisposes Americans to either favor the NRA position of a Second Amendment on steroids with its absolute right to bear arms of any and all kinds whatsoever, or, alternatively, predisposes Americans toward the banning of military type weapons in the hands of civilians.

While the Second Amendment battle for the hearts and minds of Americans rages on, I foresee an upcoming battle to end all battles… an “Armageddon in the Octagon” that will decide once and for all whose DNA hard-wiring will ultimately prevail in the American, Constitutional landscape that seeks to define the contours of the Second Amendment.

ARMAGEDDON IN THE OCTAGON

Tonight’s a night that will be remembered in infamy. 100,000 “standing room only” spectators, stand shoulder to shoulder, elbow to elbow, packed into the Roman Colosseum to watch the “battle of all battles.” These present-day lovers of epic violence and daring have paid $3,000 a ticket just to stand in the shadow of history and bask in the days of glory gone by– days when ferocious lions devoured the early Christians and days when Gladiators fought to the death against wild beasts as well as against one another… “mano e mano”.

Today’s spectators of the octagon are the successors of those who relished the historic battles of old. Today’s spectators are the new-wave followers of “Texas Death Matches” (whatever that’s about). These spectators of today have come from continents across the globe to witness this Armageddon in the Octagon. They have already whipped themselves up to fever pitch, as impresario Vince McMahan takes the microphone and begins the introductions that will begin the “battle that will end, all the battles”.

INTRODUCTIONS

Out of the red corner. Laaaaadieeeees aaaaand gennnntlemen. This is the cage fight to the death that we have all been waiting for. So lets get riiiiight to it. Fighting out of the red corner and representing the Second Amendment warriors of the NRA, we have many familiar faces, starting with the much hyped, bellicose citizens of America “armed to the teeth” as they are with AR15s and other military style weapons, all wearing tee shirts emblazoned with a scull and cross bones and all shouting out the war chant, “NRA!!! NRA!!! NRA!!! NRA!!! NRA!!! NRA!!!” I can see everyone is revved up and ready for tonight’s “Arrrrrmaaaaageeeeedon
in the Occccctaaaaagon”!!!

Supporting America’s “armed to the hilt” citizens and also fighting out of the red corner of death and destruction, are the likes of which have filled our world with horror and terror for as long as human time can remember. Although these household names need no introduction, I give you Geeeeenghiiiisssss Khaaaaannnnn, Alexxxxxaaaaanderrrrr the Grrrrreat, the one and only Caeeeeesarrrrr of Rooooome, his crucifying corner men spitting out nails of crucifixion, rat ta tat tat!!! Take that… “smack”!!! Also in the red corner, I give you that king of barbarism, Aaaaattilllllaaaaa the Huuuuunnnnn, standing alongside those much feared explorers and occupiers of new world America, the fearless Connnnnquiiiiistaaaaadors of Spain, and their one time foe, the “Colonizers” from Great Britain, along with some new charter members, the Taliban and ISIS, plus some Christian Crusaders who have already registered for tonight’s event, but who have yet to pay their entrance fee to the NRA. We are assured, as we speak, that they are returning from the Holy Land with a goodly fortune from the selling of indulgences to the infidels. These ever-dangerous Crusaders should be here momentarily and pay their NRA membership fees, square up with the promoter, Don King, and jump in the affray. Let’s hear it for this line-up of “over the top,” pure pedigree, DNA, NRA charter members of death and destruction… all fighting out of the reeeeeddddd corrrrrnerrrrr!!!

The Second Amendment crowd and their groupies in residence roar with “stage door Johnnie” approval, NRA!!! NRA!!! NRA!!!… as the “rapture” of anticipated violence, death, dismembering and destruction hits a resounding cacophony in an “over the top” crescendo of NRA!!! NRA!!! NRA!!!

Aaaaaaaaaand, nowwwww, fighting out of blue corner, if you even want to call it fightin,’ I give you a disparate bunch of pacifists and bleeding heart liberals, well known for their chicken-hearted failure to stand up with the violence of arms, AR15s and bump stocks… those who fail again and again to worry enough about dominating God’s children of color. I now give youuuuu those weak kneed pacifists … Jesus of Nazareth, Mahatma Gandhi, the wise and gentlemanly Rabbi Hillel, the always “something to hide” Dali Lama, who once dodged the Special Prosecutor’s question, “What religion are you”???… by inappropriately responding with the irrelevant answer, “My religion is kindness.” Joining those historical enigmas of non-violence is South Africa’s notorious black, long-time convict, Nelson Mandela, who appears along with America’s ineffective, “just havin’ a daydream” Reverend, Dr. Martin Luther King, accompanied by his like minded and just as ineffective preacher, the Reverend Mr. Black, who got knocked on his back by a hard punchin’ lumberjack and, just “turned the other cheek.” Finally, the last two contestants fighting out of the non-fighting blue corner are that chicken hearted, draft dodger, the “Champ” aka Muhammad Ali, formerly Cassius Clay, out of Louisville, Kentucky and, last and certainly least, that sweet, but naïve, Pollyanna-ish, Catholic nun who foolishly claims… “the meek will inherit the earth.” All the way from the slums of Calcutta, now Kolkata, I give you the mother of all mothers, Moooootherrrrr, Teeeeerrrrreeeeesa!!!

No discernible response other than few barely audible “amens” and some mumbles about walking through some lonesome valley of their enemies while showing no fear.

NATIONAL ANTHEM

Please rise for the National Anthem to be sung by that genius of unending opinions and verbal attacks who calls 16 year-old high schoolers “soulless” because they dare take to the streets to protest against the NRA. I give you the one and only, NRA poster boy and fearless big game hunter who courageously guns down our unarmed white tail deer friends with his bevy of high-powered rifles. I give you the one and only “Motor City Madman”– Ted (don’t call me Theodore the Chipmunk) Nugent. He will be accompanied on piano and backup vocals by Kid “Made in America” Rock– just off one of his memorable skirmishes in one of Detroit’s topless joints. After the singing of the National Anthem by the dynamic duo of the “Tedster” and the “Kidster,” the blue corner will give you the loser song of all time by John “just trying to give peace a chance” Lennon.

AND THE WINNER???

Damn it. I fell asleep during the first round. But, as I eventually awake and the fog of battle lifts, I see that Vince McMahan’s verbal assault of the night before has left me shipwrecked on some desolate island in the Caribbean, surrounded by 30 or 40, six inch tall Lilliputians who have traded in their miniature bow and arrows of yesterday for the real life AR15s of today.

Now!!! That’s what I’m talkin’ about.

In light of the recent ruling (6/4/21 ) by Federal judge Roger Benitez overturning a California firearms ban on assault weapons where he ruled it violates the Constitutional right to bear arms, his words, referring to the Second Amendment, I have a suggestion. In my thesis regarding the Second Amendment I think it will prove his ruling “..right to bear arms” has everything to do with a “militia” and nothing to do with a “person” or individual, which the following will suggest..

In some 225 years neither law professors, academic scholars, teachers, students, lawyers or congressional legislators after much debate have not been able to satisfactorily explain or demonstrate the Framers intended purpose of Second Amendment of the Constitution. I had taken up that challenge allowing Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s dilemma to understand the true intent of the Second Amendment.

I will relate further by demonstration, the intent of the Framers, my understanding using the associated wording to explain. The Second Amendment states, “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.”

Militia, a body of citizens organized for military service.

If, as some may argue, the Second Amendment’s “militia” meaning is that every person has a right to keep and bear arms, the only way to describe ones right as a private individual is not as a “militia” but as a “person.” (The individual personality of a human being: self)

The 4th Amendment reminds us, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons….”

The Article of Confederation lists eleven (11) references to“person/s.” The Constitution lists “person” or “persons” 49 times to explicitly describe, clarify and mandate a constitutional legal standing as to a “person” his or her constitutional duty and rights, what he or she can do or not do.

It’s not enough to just say “person/s” is mentioned in the United States Constitution 49 times, but to see it for yourself (forgo listing), and the realization was for the concern envisioned by the Framers that every person be secure in these rights explicitly spelled out, referenced and understood how these rights were to be applied to that “person.”

Whereas, in the Second Amendment any reference to “person” is not to be found. Was there a reason? Which leaves the obvious question, why did the Framers use the noun “person/s” as liberally as they did throughout the Constitution 49 times and not apply this understanding to explicitly convey the same legal standard in defining an individual “persons” right to bear arms as a person?

Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissent in Barr v Kanter (2019) Second Amendment argument acquiesced to 42 references to “person/s, of which 13 characterize either a gun or firearm. Her Second Amendment, “textualism” approach having zero reference to “person/s. Justice Barrett’s view only recognizes “person/s” in Barr, as well in her many other 7th circuit rulings. It is her refusal to acknowledge, recognize or connect the U.S. Constitution benchmark legislative interpretive precept language of “person/s,” mandated in our Constitution 49 times, to the Second Amendment.

Leaving Supreme Court Justice Barrett’s judgment in question.

In the entire U.S. Constitution “militia” is mentioned 5 times. In these references there is no mention of “person” or “persons.” One reference to “people” in the Second Amendment. People, meaning not a person but persons in describing militia.

Now comes the word “shall” mentioned in the Constitution 100 times. SHALL; ought to, must ..

And interestingly, the word “shall” appears in the Second Amendment. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and shall not be infringed.”

“[S]hall not be infringed.” Adding another word “infringed” to clarify any misunderstanding as to the intent of the Second Amendment. Infringe. To encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another;

The condition “Infringe” has put a stop as to any counter thoughts regarding the Second Amendment, as you shall not infringe or encroach on beliefs other to what is evident as to the subject “Militia.”

Finally, clarifying “..the right of the people to keep and bear arms…
People. Human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest.

In closing, I am not against guns, everybody has them. I’m against using the Second Amendment illogically as a crutch. If it makes those feel better so be it. Just what it deserves, use it with a wink.

William Heino Sr.

1 Comment

William Heino Sr. says:

June 18, 2021 at 1:56 pm

In light of the recent ruling (6/4/21 ) by Federal judge Roger Benitez overturning a California firearms ban on assault weapons where he ruled it violates the Constitutional right to bear arms, his words, referring to the Second Amendment, I have a suggestion. In my thesis regarding the Second Amendment I think it will prove his ruling “..right to bear arms” has everything to do with a “militia” and nothing to do with a “person” or individual, which the following will suggest..

In some 225 years neither law professors, academic scholars, teachers, students, lawyers or congressional legislators after much debate have not been able to satisfactorily explain or demonstrate the Framers intended purpose of Second Amendment of the Constitution. I had taken up that challenge allowing Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s dilemma to understand the true intent of the Second Amendment.

I will relate further by demonstration, the intent of the Framers, my understanding using the associated wording to explain. The Second Amendment states, “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.”

Militia, a body of citizens organized for military service.

If, as some may argue, the Second Amendment’s “militia” meaning is that every person has a right to keep and bear arms, the only way to describe ones right as a private individual is not as a “militia” but as a “person.” (The individual personality of a human being: self)

The 4th Amendment reminds us, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons….”

The Article of Confederation lists eleven (11) references to“person/s.” The Constitution lists “person” or “persons” 49 times to explicitly describe, clarify and mandate a constitutional legal standing as to a “person” his or her constitutional duty and rights, what he or she can do or not do.

It’s not enough to just say “person/s” is mentioned in the United States Constitution 49 times, but to see it for yourself (forgo listing), and the realization was for the concern envisioned by the Framers that every person be secure in these rights explicitly spelled out, referenced and understood how these rights were to be applied to that “person.”

Whereas, in the Second Amendment any reference to “person” is not to be found. Was there a reason? Which leaves the obvious question, why did the Framers use the noun “person/s” as liberally as they did throughout the Constitution 49 times and not apply this understanding to explicitly convey the same legal standard in defining an individual “persons” right to bear arms as a person?

Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissent in Barr v Kanter (2019) Second Amendment argument acquiesced to 42 references to “person/s, of which 13 characterize either a gun or firearm. Her Second Amendment, “textualism” approach having zero reference to “person/s. Justice Barrett’s view only recognizes “person/s” in Barr, as well in her many other 7th circuit rulings. It is her refusal to acknowledge, recognize or connect the U.S. Constitution benchmark legislative interpretive precept language of “person/s,” mandated in our Constitution 49 times, to the Second Amendment.

Leaving Supreme Court Justice Barrett’s judgment in question.

In the entire U.S. Constitution “militia” is mentioned 5 times. In these references there is no mention of “person” or “persons.” One reference to “people” in the Second Amendment. People, meaning not a person but persons in describing militia.

Now comes the word “shall” mentioned in the Constitution 100 times. SHALL; ought to, must ..

And interestingly, the word “shall” appears in the Second Amendment. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and shall not be infringed.”

“[S]hall not be infringed.” Adding another word “infringed” to clarify any misunderstanding as to the intent of the Second Amendment. Infringe. To encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another;

The condition “Infringe” has put a stop as to any counter thoughts regarding the Second Amendment, as you shall not infringe or encroach on beliefs other to what is evident as to the subject “Militia.”

Finally, clarifying “..the right of the people to keep and bear arms…
People. Human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest.

In closing, I am not against guns, everybody has them. I’m against using the Second Amendment illogically as a crutch. If it makes those feel better so be it. Just what it deserves, use it with a wink.

William Heino Sr.

Comments are closed.