Stand Up And Applaud

[Promoted - Gov. Huckabee speaks for a great many of us today. - Jon Henke]

Gun owners and conservatives everywhere should stand up and applaud the Supreme Court's ruling today in favor of striking down the unlawful Washington, DC handgun ban.

Today’s decision affirming the 2nd Amendment right to an individual owning firearms is a refreshing decision from the court, and reminds us how important the election of the next President can be. The Washington, D. C. ban on handguns was clearly unconstitutional and the court ruling today reminds us that our Constitutional rights are not geographical---one locale cannot decide a different right than other locales—they are Constitutional rights—not community rights

Judge Antonin Scalia wrote the Majority Opinion. Joining Justice Scalia were Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Thomas and Kennedy.

Many of you know I proudly own a variety of firearms and enjoy hunting as well as sports shooting with targets and clays. But even if I were not a hunter I would still be a firm believer in the Second Amendment right of Americans to own firearms for self-protection and as a matter of principle.

In 1998, after the tragic killing of a teacher and four students at the Westside Middle School near Jonesboro, Arkansas, I was being interviewed by Katie Couric on NBC’s Today show. She intimated that mass murder on school campuses seemed to be confined to schools in the Deep South, where there existed a “culture of guns.”

I assured her that yes hunting and ownership of firearms were Southern traditions. At the same time murder of innocent schoolchildren was most certainly not and such violence was inexplicable regardless of one’s geography. When she continued to press, looking for some validation of her view that these shootings were in some way connected to the South, I firmly reminded her that Colin Ferguson boarded a train in New York and coldly killed 27 people before finally being subdued. That event occurred in New York where the gun laws are among the toughest in the country and where gun ownership is much lower than in the South.

We certainly should be tough on those who abuse firearms by employing them in a crime. But abolishing firearms because there are reckless abusers makes as much sense as abolishing cars because some people drive while drunk.

Most firearms owners are responsible and exceptionally careful and safety conscious. My own membership in the NRA is something I cherish and value. This is not so much because I love guns but because I love freedom, and I believe to trample on one part of the Bill of Rights is to trample on all of it.
 

 

A version of this blog is cross posted at www.huckpac.com.

3.5
Your rating: None Average: 3.5 (4 votes)

Comments

I applaud! I applaud!

Thank you for a great and thought provoking post.  You rock, Mike.

Mike? Mike Huckabee?  Omigosh, this is way too cool for words!

(Rensen is going to have a cow when she sees this.) 

Mike, can you please ask Janet and Chuck Norris to weigh in also?  Please please?  It's well-documented:  I'm a huge Janet Huckabee fan!  Heh.

Cool--I'm a coblogger with

Cool--I'm a coblogger with Mike Huckabee. :) Good post, and I like what you're doing with HuckPac.

Welcome aboard, Gov!

Today truly is a great day for freedom and all Americans who cherish it.  Thank you for taking the time to post your thoughts here.  It's gratifying to know that you're taking this effort (The Next Right) seriously enough to share your thoughts with those of us who are participating in it.  It's a reflection, much like the campaign you waged, on your foresight.  You tapped into the power of networking unlike any of your opponents and accomplished amazing feats on the proverbial shoestring budget.  The future of conservatism could certainly learn a lot from the organization you put together.

I, for one, appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts with us.  I hope you'll take the time to do it again in the near future.

Gobsmacked..

LOL @ Rebel..

Ya.. it's cool.. I hope he takes time to share more with us.

In support of an earlier comment submitted to this post...

Let me just say that Walt Gilbert, rather than the governor, was in the right on this issue. With all due respect to former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, I think that the ruling in the Heller case is a victory for all Americans, not just conservatives or gun owners, much in the way that the end of segregation benefitted all Americans rather than just any one group of us.

I re-read the Governor's comments based on your post

And I think I understand what he meant when he said:

Gun owners and conservatives everywhere should stand up and applaud the Supreme Court's ruling today in favor of striking down the unlawful Washington, DC handgun ban.

Truly (as we saw even on the Daily Kos) this is a great day for all Americans - no doubt about that.  But this is a mighty day for gun owners and conservatives because of the razor-thin margin which allowed this ruling to be handed down from the Supreme Court of the United States.  And that razor inhabits the internationalist musings of Justice Kennedy's Mind, as Jonah Goldberg wrote so passionately about in his 2005 National Review article:

In 1989 Justice Kennedy signed on to a ruling that considered the standards he used this month to be "absurd" and/or "irrelevant." He rejected "the contention that the sentencing practices of other countries are relevant" in 1989. In 2005 he said "it is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty." Kennedy says that times have changed and there's a national consensus for banning juvenile executions. Leaving aside the tendentious math he invokes to find this "consensus" on the issue at the state level, if there's a national consensus, why bring up the "international" consensus against the juvenile death penalty?

Where have we heard the phrase "national consensus" lately?  Oh, let me think now - could it have been just a few days ago?  Ah yes, it all comes back to me now:

Anthony Kennedy — supported by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer — wrote that the prohibition against cruel punishment derives its meaning from the “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.”

“The rule of evolving standards of decency … means that resort to the [death] penalty must be reserved for the worst of crimes and limited in its instances of application,” the opinion read.

After a review of the “history of the death penalty for this and other nonhomicide crimes, current state statutes and new enactments, and the number of executions since 1964, we conclude there is a national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape,” Anthony Kennedy wrote.

I am fairly certain that the irony of these two rulings coming so close together, yet remaining such complete polar opposites in terms of Conservative values, did not escape one so sharp-witted as Governor Huckabee.  This whole notion of "national consensus" without a voting electorate to confirm it just smacks of judicial activism, and isn't that a very real Constitutional violation?  Unlike certain candidates I will not pose as a Con Law professor, so I'll leave that question out there for the more knowledgeable among us.  But that's my JPF (Just Plain Folks) theory.

In the end, Governor Huckabee wraps up with this thought:

Most firearms owners are responsible and exceptionally careful and safety conscious. My own membership in the NRA is something I cherish and value. This is not so much because I love guns but because I love freedom, and I believe to trample on one part of the Bill of Rights is to trample on all of it.

The Governor does not imply that a love of Freedom is in any way limited to Conservatives - but I believe there is a subtext that is not lost on those of us who are in that group.  And because I agree with him, and because I perceive violations of that Bill of Rights (Kelo v. City of New London, Roper v. Simmons, the right of Guantanamo detainees to challenge their detention in civilian courts) by Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer and Kennedy with his reliance on European, and other international rulings rather than our own American precedents - not to mention the absence of measurable evidence of "national consensus", I feel all the more certain that this election is crucial because of a very high risk that the next Presidential term could well hold the key to one or more new Supreme Court justices. 

I appreciate your analysis of the Governor's post...

But, I was not disputing whether or not he cherishes freedom. I viewed his post as explaining why the ruling was important to him specfically, and not to the American people as a whole. That said, your thoughts on Justice Kennedy and the four dissenters in this case is a good one. To be frank, I was disappointed that this case was a 5-4 and not a 6-3 or 7-2 ruling, particularly because the wording of the majority opinion leaves much room for further litigation on the finer points of gun ownership.

Amen....

Amen Pastor Mike. Keep up the good fight.

-Chuck Adkins

 

For once we have a good Supreme Court ruling.

I agree with you Governor.