(MGN Graphic)

GUN MANAGEMENT 101.

Gun management should rest solely on the shoulders of each home town sheriff across the country.

People on the left want to ban guns and leave us all at the mercy of rogue elements. People on the right can’t keep guns out of the hands of the crazies of this world.

But I say, it’s not up to any of us, and was never was. Our legislatures have No Right to “Infringe” on the peoples’ right to bear arms. Meaning: The right to bear arms is not up to a democratic vote to approve or deny anyone of any gun.

But let’s be pragmatic about the subject of background checks and gun control itself.

First, however, congress cannot do anything meaningful about gun control even if they want to because of the following court case.

“District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), held in a 5–4 decision, that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia”.

This case totally denies the fact that the responsibility of regulating firearms falls directly on the elected leader of the local militias, or in today’s definitions, the local elected sheriff. And So, I believe that The Supreme Court seriously erred in their opinion that the 2nd Amendment protects the individual right to bear arms. It doesn’t say that. It says the people plural. All guns should be well regulated and managed by the people through their local elected Sheriff.

Everyone knows the second amendment exists to form an armed rebellion against the government if it gets too tyrannical and to repel a foreign invasion.

In the event of a rebellion the sheriff should lead it. No? If the local sheriff isn’t on your side you have zero chance of success anyway.

Now look at this concept from a different angle. Individuals cannot even vote in congress. The people speak/vote through their congressmen; why should individuals be able to bear a gun if he cannot even vote directly on congressional bills?

To the contrary, however, Individuals need to be able to have weapons and even handguns to defend themselves from a robbery or personal attack, and we need precision bolt action rifles for hunting food, and maybe even shotguns for emergency protection to defend against home invasions, but not as an individual right; only as an individual privilege regulated by the local elected sheriff.

Again, I say that Individuals do need Small arms, not semi-auto rifles or full auto or military grade weapons to be used in a rebellion or to repel a foreign invasion but groups and communities do need them for those purposes. That’s why the framers framed the 2nd amendment with the caveat of a “Well Regulated Militia”. I.e. The County Sheriff’s office; to well-regulate the firearms that people need in their homes vs. what we all need stored in our local armories.

If implementing this causes you to worry that the sheriff wouldn’t be fair and ban all guns? Elect a different one. If he arbitrarily discriminates against protected classes and minorities he can be sued for his prejudices not based on fact and law.

Until that Supreme Court case is reversed no firearms can be legally banned from individuals. The Federal Government and State Congresses have no constitutional say in the matter anyway because it says that the rights of the people (not individuals) shall not be infringed for the purpose well-regulated militia.

This means it’s totally up to the communities themselves. Not even the state’s legislatures can make laws infringing in the elected Sheriff’s turf, regarding the peoples’ armories and regulating who can have and carry weapons and where at the community level. The Court’s separating the militia element from the interpretation is equivalent to legislating from the bench.

Gun control/management rests solely within the purview of each home town sheriff across the country as granted by the Constitution to the militia leaders at that time.

- A.D. Conner