What’s Immutability Have to do With Civil Rights?
It's hard to disagree that there’s a difference between race, sexual orientation, and carrying a firearm, and I think most reasonable people would agree that racism has been far more of a scourge in our society than discrimination based on less immutable characteristics, such as gun ownership. But I think the Brady Campaign is really missing the larger picture when it comes to how we treat rights of citizens, weather based on immutable or non-immutable characteristics. We protect against much discrimination based on non-immutable characteristics in our society. Especially expressions and behaviors protected in our constitutional structure.
Religion, for instances, is non-immutable, yet we generally protect religious minorities in society in the same way we protect racial minorities. Would it not be outrageous if a retail business decided to ban people wearing wiccan symbols, yarmulkes, or hijabs, or refused to make reasonable accommodation for its employees who were religious minorities? Religious symbols are easily something that can be "left at home" or "left outside" too. Would it matter if proponents argued that it’s just the symbols, not the person they have a problem with? I think most people who valued individual liberty would see through such arguments. We would expect victims of this kind of discrimination to call it such, and to dress their arguments in civil rights language. That would be completely within the American experience when it comes to debating civil rights in our society.
But it’s not just religion. While many would argue that homosexuality itself is an immutable characteristic, homosexual behavior certainly is not. What if a movie theater chain decided that it would allow gays into its theaters, but you have to leave the gay behavior at home. No holding hands, snuggling next to each other in the theater seats, and for God’s sake, no kissing! Would we not expect gay rights activists to complain of discrimination? Would we expect they would accept it's not them we hate, just their homosexual behavior? Of course we wouldn't, and I suspect many of the same folks who penned this article at the Brady Campaign would join in fighting such discriminatory practices.
The Bradys will no doubt argue that, unlike religious symbols or homosexual behavior, guns kill people. But that's really a different debate. That's a debate for whether we should allow the keeping and bearing of guns by individual citizens -- a debate the Brady Campaign has largely lost. It’s very difficult to escape the language in DC v. Heller that strongly suggests that carrying a firearm for personal protection is an individual civil right — recognizing the longstanding notion in common law that the right to protect ones own life is indeed fundamental. As much as the Bradys wish this were a debate about guns, it's really a debate about rights. Why should we be any less outraged that the Brady Campaign is petitioning to frustrate the exercise of the Second Amendment than we would be if they were petitioning to frustrate the First?
The pro-Second Amendment argument has been, all along, is that the right to keep and bear arms deserves to be treated as seriously as other rights within our constitutional structure. Discrimination against the exercise of a right is discrimination against the people who choose to exercise it.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Kudos, Sebastian.
The Bill of Rights specifically mentions "the people" in five separate Amendments. In order for the Bradys' argument to hold water , we would have to accept that "the people" enumerated in Amendments 1, 4, 9 and 10, are not the same "the people" enumerated in Amendment 2.
Note: SCOTUS has consistently ruled the police are not responsible for the safety of the individual citizen. Since I alone am responsible for my safety (and that of my family members), it would defy reason to deny me the tools necessary to effect same.
"Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society ,and which perhaps I could not surrender if I would." - John Adams, American Patriot
What many people forget and what many like the Brady Campaign would like to obscure is that the rights listed in the US Bill of Rights are inherent, not granted. The Bill of Rights did not grant any rights. Rather, the authors enumerated what they considered to be the most basic, fundamental, natural rights of free citizens and forbade their newly formed government from ever infringing upon them. But, as my early grade school teacher taught us, those guarantees are meaningless words on paper without the right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the 2nd amdendment. The recognition and guarantee of the natural right to self defense and to the means of effecting that self defense from predators, criminals, and one's own government is what has set the United States apart from the rest of the world for 220 years.
Throughout history , efforts towards depriving the common citizenry of personal weapons have always been in conjunction with oppression and tyranny. And those who promote such efforts have invariably lied about their goals.
First off, one persons' rights shouldn't trump someone elses'. There have been lawsuit victories, and rightly so, where property owners were protected from leasing rental homes to homosexuals on religious grounds. When it comes to keeping people from wearing religious symbols in a certain establishment, those days may not be here yet, but eventually, there will come a day when they do. It's growing more and more politically incorrect to be a christian as it is. However, the property owner should have the right to make the rules that apply on their property. If they are going to be legally responsible for what happens there, they should be able to protect themselves. They should also be able to appeal to those that will keep them in business.
We have an ongoing ordeal in Kansas City right now. A downtown area, with bars and restaurants, has chosen to exclude blacks that are dressed a certain way. Many are crying racism , but if a gang element ends up causing a deadly incident, who are they going to sue? The victims are going to sue the business owners who didn't prevent such an incident from happening. If they lose the current battle in the courts, are these businesses going to be able to pass on the liability to the government , for forcing the situation? Probably not, and that's too bad.
What I find dangerous to our individual freedoms is when we are forced to accept others over our personal beliefs. Take the Boy Scouts of America. A group that has, for some time, had christian principles behind them, being forced to give those up because the government says so. The "separation" crowd has no problem with the government forcing secular norms on religious groups . If a troop doesn't agree with homosexuality , or wants to protect themselves against child molesters, and something happens because they are forced to admit everyone, will they be able to pass on the liability to the government? Probably not.
I understand where you're coming from. The Brady campaign wouldn't have a leg to stand on in court. First, there's the Heller case, and second, they would have no way of proving gun bans protect anyone, other than criminals. Their only other option is intimidation. It's up to Starbucks now.
Is there a lawsuit in the gunowners' future if the Brady group "forces" Starbucks to overide our rights?
I don't follow anyone, because those that appear to be on the same path usually end up just getting in my way.
The fundamentals are intact for a reason. The Constitution is a guideline - a framework, if you will - through which the entire system is/should be built around. It's foolish to think that the Constitution/Bill of Rights/Declaration of Independence is all we need in that system.
But it's important that we don't forget that the fundamentals of our Nation come first. We are free in our lives. Free to worship what we want, think how we want, and express ourselves however we like. Being free, truly being free in our lives, involves the right to self-defense . It is a fundamental right made clear in the second amendment . For some real world scenarios a gun may be necessary while other situations may call for a knife or broom-handle. Life is more dynamic than we can ever expect.
While a firearm does not guarantee survival, we are still guaranteed our firearms .