The right to keep and bear arms is a Civil Right...

Suit challenges Kentucky law barring non-citizens from concealed weapons

Before you read the rest of this post, take a moment to read the article at the link above.

In light of his recent comments about the citizenship requirement in the Kentucky concealed carry laws and the suit brought by a British national, Alexander M. Say, residing in Kentucky, see above, I have a few questions for State Representative Bob Damron (D-Nicholasville) specifically, and all Representatives and Senators in general.

1. Would you sponsor or vote for a bill that would forbid Mr. May from attending religious services or otherwise practicing his faith?
2. Would you sponsor or vote for a bill that would forbid Mr. May from speaking at a public gathering?
3. Would you sponsor or vote for a bill that would forbid Mr. May from publishing articles in a newspaper?
4. Would you sponsor or vote for a bill that would allow police to enter Mr. May’s home or business and seize his property without a warrant or other due process?
5. Would you sponsor or vote for a bill that would allow police to arrest Mr. May and hold him without charges, and deny him access to counsel?
6. Would you sponsor or vote for a bill that would allow others to discriminate against Mr. May because of race or gender?
7. Do you really believe any non-citizen terrorist will be applying for a Kentucky Concealed Deadly Weapons License?
8. And assuming the answer would be “NO” to all of the above, we come to the most important question, then why would you deny Mr. May the Civil Right of bearing arms?

The right to keep and bear arms is one of our Civil Rights. It is not something that the national or state constitutions give us. It is not something that the legislature allows us. Our rights, according to the Constitution, were our rights before government existed. (See the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution) Nor does any one of our Civil Rights take precedence over any other. They are co-equal. If any would take first place, it would be the 2nd Amendment. Said Thomas Jefferson, "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Mr. Jefferson recognized, as did most of the Founding Fathers the greatest danger to the rights of the people comes from government.

Representative Damron also said, quoting the AP article, “…the purpose of Kentucky's law is to allow "citizens" to protect themselves, which is what the Second Amendment to the Constitutional (sic) calls for.” Respectfully, Representative Damron, you are wrong.

Kentucky law does not “allow” citizens to protect themselves, and that is not what the 2nd Amendment is for, either. Self defense may be inferred, as the “security of a free State” recognizes not only external, but internal dangers such as insurrection or lawlessness. If the people are not secure personally, the State is not secure. The Kentucky Constitution does make specific mention of self defense. (Lest anyone think those wild Kentucky frontiersmen were responsible for what I have been told is the “archaic concept of private gun ownership”, the current Kentucky Constitution was adopted in 1891.)

“All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned: ... Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state, subject to the power of the general assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons. (Bill of Rights, § 1, para. 7)”

(And as regards Mr. May’s suit, the most pertinent phrases here are “all men” and “inherent and inalienable”.)

We need to reframe our defense of the right to keep and bear arms. “Civil Rights!” should be our frequent and consistent call and focus. We need to stop talking about being pro gun, or pro 2nd Amendment. It’s about denying us our Civil Rights!

We need start telling people it doesn’t have anything to do with hunting or sport shooting.

It’s not gun control; it is prior restraint of our Civil Rights.

It isn’t “reasonable regulation”; it is unreasonable and unconstitutional infringement of our Civil Rights.

Banning firearms is the constitutional equivalent of banning printing presses and padlocking churches.

We need to ask those we elect to office the kinds of questions I’ve asked above and hold them accountable for their answers.

Engage the opposition with a term most of them hold near and dear to their hearts and doesn't cause their eyes to glaze over at the beginning of the conversation.

I applaud Mr. May for standing for his Civil Rights, and wish him the best.