Editorial: The right to bear arms and self-defense

In my lifetime most states had chosen to restrict firearm carry and ownership entirely. They were perfectly legal in doing so because the 2A did not apply to the states. Over the past 20+ years most states had a change of heart and willingly decided to respect the 2A to varying degrees. Some allowed citizens to carry firearms without many conditions at all, such as AK, VT, and AZ. Others allowed open-carry only, such as WI. Others allowed concealed-carry only, such as TX. Some allowed both forms of carry, such as MT. Most states implemented a permit-based system which required firearm carriers to acquire a license after paying fees and completing certain requirements. Acquiring that permit was more difficult in some states than in others, for it could be acquired by mail in PA whereas it is virtually impossible to acquire it at all in HI. Because the right to keep and bear arms was not a fundamental right, but rather was an activity the state could choose to allow or disallow, the licensing of that activity was legitimate regardless of how easy or difficult the process might have been.

Then came the Heller decision three years ago which resulted in the entire 2A being incorporated against the states by the McDonald case in June of 2010. The 2A was now an individual right, one which states can no longer infringe upon. At that time only one state was in total defiance of the 2A, which was the state of IL.

As an enumerated right cannot be licensed, such as the right to vote and other fundamental rights, the permit-based systems which had been implemented in most states were no longer Constitutional. That is, they were illegal, but they continued to be enforced. Admittedly, it takes time for states to react and respond to their new reality. Within ten months of the 2A being incorporated against the states Wyoming became the first to drop its permit-based system and recognize "Constitution Carry" (no license required to carry a firearm). Other states are moving more slowly in that direction with varying degrees of political resistance to the difficult but necessary changes which must be made, but in time they will all be moving towards the goal of Constitution Carry.

Clearly the states no longer have the authority to license the exercise of a fundamental right. Now that the 2A is one of those rights it makes no sense in this post-incorporation era to be establishing a brand-new permit-based system to recognize the carrying of firearms. It is just as illegal as the idea of a state attempting to license voters while denying the right to vote to those who had not paid a fee and completed various requirements to acquire a voters' license. A permit-based system is now illegal in all states which have it and it would be illegal in any state which implemented for the first time in this post-incorporation era. Those who were promoting HB0148 in IL to establish a permit-based system which allowed citizens to carry firearms were actually promoting an illegal activity.

Yes, I agree the carrying of firearms in IL would be beneficial to the state of IL, but rights are rights regardless if they provide benefits to society or not. The right to vote brings about corruption, deception, anger, and even violence in our society, but it is one of the founding principles upon which our free country was founded. No matter how much negative activity takes place in politics or elections, voting will always be a core activity of our nation. In the same way, the right to keep and bear arms is a core activity of our nation which will continue regardless of the positive and negative benefits it brings to our homeland.

We now have an incorporated 2A which recognizes citizens have a natural individual right to keep and bear arms, a right which neither state or federal government can infringe upon. It is not a right which can be licensed or infringed upon. The state of IL needs to be forced to recognize that fact, preferably through yet another lawsuit which aims for nothing less than Constitution Carry.

The right of self-defense is a corollary to the right to life; to deny one is to deny the other. The purpose of government is to insure our rights, not to infringe on them.

The fact is that governments should not be involved in permitting the carriage of weapons, either openly or concealed, by anyone.

Our constitution states that the right of the people to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms shall not be infringed. Marbury v. Madison (1803) decided that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that any law that contradicts the Constitution is null and void. "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed ... An unconstitutional law is void." (16 American Jurisprudence 2d, Sec. 178)

The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]

In Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) the Supreme Court stated that a constitutionally-protected right may not be licensed, nor a fee charged.

In Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, Alabama (1962) the Supreme Court decided that ���If the state does attempt to convert a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.��� (That means they can't punish you, folks!)

To paraphrase an oft-quoted movie line, "Permits? We don' need no steenking permits!"