By Andrew Horning via The Indiana Policy Review Foundation
“This latest tragedy, at a heavily fortified army base, ought to convince more Americans to reject the argument that the solution to gun violence is to arm more people with more guns in more places.” — Paul Helmke, former mayor of Fort Wayne now president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
Maybe Steven Covey, the business guru, was talking about Indiana when he said, “The way we see the problem is the problem.” The new “Guns at Work” law exemplifies such political myopia in extremis.
Like most things we call law today, it contains lots of words — nearly as many as in the whole U.S. Constitution. But unlike our simple, easily-understood-if-you’d-just-read-it constitution, the bill invokes bizarre, anti-constitutional, self-contradicting abstractions through painful incantations:
Prohibits a person, including an individual, a corporation and a governmental entity, from adopting or enforcing a policy or rule that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting an individual from legally possessing a firearm that is locked in the individual’s vehicle while the vehicle is in or on the person’s property, unless the firearm requires a certain federal license to possess.
Yet in signing this legalistic effluvium, Gov. Mitch Daniels said, “Considering the clear language of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and the even stronger language of Article 1 Section Thirty-Two of the Indiana Constitution, protecting these rights as provided in HEA 1065 (“Guns at Work”) is appropriate.”
The NRA claims that the new law will ” . . . prevent state or local government authorities from confiscating lawfully owned firearms during declared states of emergency, such as occurred in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina.”
Really? By what authority did government ever confiscate guns? Do new laws protect constitutions? From who?
The anti-gun side is undeniably passionate and persistent in their regulation, litigation and rhetoric. Former Fort Wayne Mayor Paul Helmke, now president of the Brady Campaign, once presented a seemingly reasonable challenge: “Ask why there is so much gun violence. Ask why laws to restrict access to guns are being weakened, not strengthened.”
In reaction, the pro-gun advocates think they’re pragmatic and clever in “moving the ball forward” by “working within the system” that they apparently believe is controlled by people like Helmke. But what are gun rights, and who really opposes them?
Article I, Section 32 of the Indiana Constitution says exactly and only this regarding weapons: “The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.”
That is the gun law that Governor Daniels has always been legally required to execute.
Article I, Section 25 of the Indiana Constitution says: “No law shall be passed, the taking effect of which shall be made to depend upon any authority, except as provided in this Constitution.”
That means that laws such as the “Guns at Work” do not create authority. Laws depend upon constitutional authority. Read our state and federal constitutions and you’ll be surprised to learn that not even courts were given any power over constitutions. Both remain clear and un-amended regarding an individual’s right to arms. Citizens already have the legal right to carry a weapon as long as it doesn’t impinge upon another citizen’s rights.
No agent of government, no person — not Mitch Daniels and certainly not Paul Helmke —has any constitutional authority to take away, license or even register your weapons. Our federal and state constitutions have been amended many times but gun rights, as guaranteed in writing, haven’t changed.
So my dear gun-rights friends, you’ve long ago been given what you want. But instead of demanding what’s yours, you’re spitting on it. With half the effort you’ve put into counterproductive new laws, you could annul unconstitutional laws and actions.
Helmke, you see, is not the enemy; it’s our sophistry and games that bring death by a thousand cuts. The state and federal constitutions, to which politicians, soldiers, police and new citizens swear an oath to support and defend, are still and truly the Law of the Land.
Andrew Horning, an adjunct scholar of the Indiana Policy Review Foundation, was the GOP candidate for the 7th Congressional seat and more recently the Libertarian candidate for governor.
If you find this article informative? Consider donating any amount you choose.
Related posts:
- Great logic from Paul Helmke: Better off unarmed in a fire fight RINO Paul Helmke thinks your better off...
- Put this in your pipe and smoke it, Helmke From Fox News An 80-year-old Chicago man...
Entries (RSS)
I'm confused…. your right to have a firearm DOESN'T ordinarily apply on someone else's private property (as the 'supreme authority' so to speak on that private property, they have — right now at least — the right to tell you that you cannot bring a firearm onto their property).
It seems to me, if I'm reading what you're quoting, that this law says that private property owners are losing that right to prevent guns from coming onto their property in visitors' vehicles. (The theory being, I guess, that while the gun-owner is in the car with the gun, they have the gun to protect them, but as soon as they get out of the car on someone else's private property, they have to leave the gun, locked up, behind)
This SOUNDS like it was designed to close the gap of "I own a gun and want to have it to protect myself getting back and forth to work, but my employer prohibits guns, and so I can't even have it locked up in my car waiting for me while I work."
Now, under existing law, if you have a gun, on SOMEONE ELSE'S PRIVATE PROPERTY, in violation of that person's wishes, then — technically speaking — it probably becomes criminal trespass (you're there in a manner not in accordance with the manner proscribed by the property owner). Since the criminal trespass "involves" a firearm, that would, very plainly, allow for the confiscation of the weapon "involved".
What this law is saying "that's horseshit, the gun's locked up outside in the car, so you can't bust someone for that", which would then eliminate the criminal trespass, which would then eliminate the confiscation.
So I guess I'm just saying — why are you upset about this?
You may have read over " as long as it doesn't impinge upon another citizen's rights."
Craig: private property rights have LONG trumped civil rights, since the first days of the Republic. For example, private property owners can happily tell people "you cannot use my property/land to exercise your right to protest, you have to go out there on the sidewalk on the public property to do so". Likewise, property owners very much do have the right to tell you "you don't get to have a gun on my property".
So the predicate of the law is sound. Private property owners DO have this right today, and most would argue SHOULD have this right. If you don't want to use their property in accordance with their wishes, you are free to NOT use their private property. (Or do you think that I can just march onto your front lawn, plant a Pro-Obama sign on your property and tell you that "my first amendment right to protected speech" trumps your property rights?")
This law is a reasonable balance between a property-owner's rights, to determine what is and is not allowed on their private property, and the gun-owner's right to feel safe getting to and from the property-owner's property.
Gee, what we REALLY need is a few more lawyers to help finetune the micromanagement of our lives even more.
Anybody know what you call a "gun free zone"?
A target.
There's nothing right about this law. Read it. First of all, it'll get ripped up in court, and employers will find other ways to fire/punish people anyway. Second, there was never any law that allowed politicians to take guns…they operate in violation of law. Third, it is shortsighted and plain stupid to pit one right against another. Either you have a right or you don't. And since we've dismissed the constitutions, you, frankly, have no rights at all. There's no longer anything to keep politicians from doing whatever the heck they want because you have allowed an infinite number of contradictory legal-ish words to make the only leash on governing power in this country (constitutions) irrelevant to everybody.
I don't blame our ideological enemies for this. I blame foolish friends who refuse to accept the authority of our state and federal constitutions, and instead play the games of those who mean us harm.
Let's hope Helmke never returns to a public office.