The Voice of Liberty: WHEN A CIVIL ACTION IS ENOUGH TO TAKE AWAY YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS

Good intentions are essential seeds by those on the Left in ridding the American citizen of his or her Constitutional rights. The District of Columbia City Council, emboldened by United States District Judge James E. Boasberg’s decision to uphold America’s strictest gun control laws in Heller vs. District of Columbia (Civil Action 08-1289) on May 15, 2014, wishes to strike while the iron is steamed. No doubt Richard Martinez cry of “Give me Gun Control Now or Give Me Death” engorged the sincere need of the City Council to act as guarantor of life and death and make certain that not another person falls victim to gun violence. Saying "we are all to blame" for the death of his 20-year-old son, Martinez urged the public to join him in demanding "immediate action" from members of Congress and President Barack Obama to curb gun violence by passing stricter gun-control laws. Of course, had no guns been available, Elliot Rodger, the real killer, would not have had any means of tragically murdering seven people in a fleeting rage attack in California. Unfortunately, few are reporting that “Three male victims were stabbed to death in the apartment before th....” Maybe they will bring it up at the next Congressional Hearing on Knife Control. I digress.

The DC City Council hosted a public hearing this morning, May 29, 2014, at 11:00 AM, to consider B20-0472 - TEMPORARY PROTECTION ORDER FIREARM RELINQUISHMENT AMENDMENT ACT OF 2013. What exactly is Bill B20-0472? It is a bill that requires “an individual subject to a temporary protective order to relinquish the individual’s firearms”. Protective orders are civil orders issued by a judge to prevent one.... Under B20-0472, the District would have the power to take possession of any protective firearms that an individual possesses as demanded by the Courts. Yes, the same courts that believe that the City with the strictest gun control laws believes that the rules should be stricter. It pursuit of the Second Amendment, liberals leave behind the weapons of convenience—knives, baseball bats and tire irons. On Wednesday, 16-year-old Vincent Parker admitted in court to killi... It’s the guns that are killing all of the people. I digress.

Many have not had the fancy of reviewing the second amendment in the coveted Bill of Rights of the US Constitution. It is written, “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." It is the right of American citizens to “keep and bear arms”. It is a right not merely for hunting, sport or collection but for protection of self, property and the Nation. As it is a continued pursuit of a free state, Americans must protect themselves from even a tyrannical government or military coup. Our Founding Fathers, men of virtue and not perfection, understood that there were always natural passions and desires in a fallen man that would make him a threat to society. They did not believe that State in and of itself had the capabilities or the character to maintain order without infringing on the rights of mankind. For this, keeping and bearing arms by the individual is most prudent. In District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), the Supreme Court made it plain that States have the right to regulate and prohibit criminals and the mentally ill from possessing protective firearms. This serves as the bone of my contention. A protective order neither infers nor concludes that you or I are either mentally ill or a criminal. Yes my friends, protective orders are civil matters. While they do appear on a criminal record, a protective order does not indicate a criminal activity. Hence, no one should be stripped of their Constitutional right because of a civil action. What a brutish Philistine!? Yes, I know. Indict me. Condemn me. However, do not take away my natural right to defend myself.

Well there must have been a very good reason for a protective order. There may be. There may be not. In most cases, no one knows if a restraining, forgive me, protective order has been issued. Such matters are done ex-parte, meaning out of sight of the accused. The person, who claims that a restraint against you for fear of bodily harm must be issued by the court, does not have to be present and you cannot defend yourself. Time elapsed in the service and scheduling of the order may exceed 2 court weeks. An American citizen without protection and reliant upon the State may be harmful indeed. In the following questions, please consider your defense when there is a knock at the door by the Metropolitan Police to seize your protective arm(s) for merely being considered a menace to society by a loved one. What if the judge illegally issues a protective order? Ken no federal judge would play fast and loose with the law. I suppose that you are right. What if you did not know that there was a restraining order against you? Yeah, maybe it did not show up on Twitter! What if you did not intentionally violate the order? Now, here’s one that I know does not happen often in Urban America. What if you were falsely accused?

“I’m sorry, Baby. I just needed a little. You were mad and I was sad and we said things. We can work this out can’t we? I really thought you were going to do something that night!”

I am certain that a few kisses and hugs will make MPD speedily return your defensive arms to your home.

The Left immediately directs our attentions to the issues of domestic violence and abuse. The assertion is that every American citizen that legally owns a protective firearm is a suspect for revenge and retribution. How could anyone want someone to suffer at the hands of an enraged spouse, rebuffed lover or mentally disturbed son of an assistant director in Hollywood USA? Let us not put the emotional indictment of the grand court of public opinion without considering fully what powers are taken from the citizen and then, ceded to the State. No sane person wants anyone to suffer hurt, harm or danger. Our founding fathers understood squarely that it is a natural right for men to protect themselves fully in fear that government could never completely protect every citizen nor should be given the power to attempt such an exercise. However, futility is the lust of every liberal legislator and corruption of natural law with emotionally stained symbolism is the aphrodisiac.

If those on the Left are so concerned about the next son of an assistant Hollywood director getting the drop on his or her deranged beloved then, it would be prudent to make the accuser take arms and self-defense training from Marty Hayes and to receive counseling. By golly, maybe the Mayor and City Council can squabble over using those “pertinent” speed-rail dollars to have MPD protect families from the potential efforts of the accused. They could truly prevent crimes from ever happening.

Practically speaking, it makes little sense to disarm the innocent ...

At this moment, common sense should kick in for a lot of persons that are not under the Kool-Aid induced utopic high of the Left. A criminal, a person who has committed a crime, will use whatever tool is at his disposal or financially secure whatever tool is needed to execute his nefarious actions. Whether it’s Wal-Mart or Lil’ Larry behind the convenience store, a criminal will exact his vengeance. It behooves us to get every tool and training available to the innocent to prepare them for the rages of men and women. Law-abiding citizens are not criminals but, the initial protectors of our society.

This election season is barren of successes by legislation or by executive orders for many a politician. Race, Gender and the Second Amendment are all of the tricks left in the bag of Leftists executives, jurists and legislators. We should not disparage the Second Amendment based on the noble intentions of the Left. It would certainly be a step in the right direction if the dethroned Mayor and City Council would spend more of their time commending those that protect the Second Amendment rather than cajoling others that threaten the natural rights of DC citizens. A protective order does not make one a criminal. A protective order does not take away the right of men and women to protect and defend. It is the emotional baggage of noble intentions that defile the politician into believing that retarding the natural rights of men and women will make them and us safer. Such are the hopes of the powerful that depend upon people becoming innocent victims to every “virginal” murderer rather than overcomers of deranged assailants. Stop identifying law-abiding citizens as criminals and start identifying guns as modes of protection. The faster we do so, the more lives we will save.

Home Page