OPINION: Arms, citizens and governments

We are finding that many of the same people who support defunding police protection are also for disarming law-abiding citizens -- leaving us defenseless.

There is a movement afoot to circumvent the Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The Second Amendment is totally unrelated to the right to engage in sporting activities. It was established in a very real historical setting. The American Revolutionary War began April 19, 1775, with the battle(s) of Lexington-Concord. There were numerous issues boiling between the Colonies and Great Britain. In mid-April of 1775, west of Boston, some colonists were stockpiling arms and ammunition, potentially to be used to protect the colony from tyranny of "Indians," French-Canadians, their British governor or of the Kings army. British troops were mustered to abolish an arms cache in Concord. On the morning of the 19th the "Shot That Was Heard Around the World" was discharged as the Minute Men sought to end the British attempt to obstruct their right to maintain a supply of weaponry. The Second Amendment was an attempt by the Founders to insure that their new government would not repeat the restrictive efforts. To be able to raise a Militia (units of citizen soldiers), the citizens must be free to possess armaments without registration that might reveal to any adversary the location, number, or type(s) of protective equipment held by one potentially oppressed. Where there is no fair and effective formal protection, the right and power of self-defense is essential.

Sheldon Richman, former editor of The Freeman wrote: "The Second Amendment ... is indeed a well-crafted sentence. ... Its syntax permits only one reasonable interpretation of the authors' meaning, namely, that the people's individual right to be armed ought to be respected and that the resulting armed populace will be secure against tyranny, invasion, and crime. ..."

To assure "the right to bear arms" precludes any governmental listing or registration of who has arms, what kind, or how many -- or limiting access to ammunition. Such restrictions would allow enemies of freedom a beginning place for confiscating arms. These reasons for the freedom to keep and bear arms seems to prohibit placing limits on number, type, magazine size, etc. on arms available to citizens. Citizens are placed at an indefensible disadvantage if they have less access to arms than do governments (foreign or domestic) or than do criminals.

Only if, through adequate due process, one has been determined to be a demonstrable threat to himself, herself, or others, might access to weapons (firearms, knives, and/or others), and/or to freedom of movement be abridged.

Only if an adequate database could be created and maintained, naming only individuals restricted through due process (accuser required to prove cause, not the accused required to prove innocence), should one consider as appropriate an instant check system for mandatory use by gun sellers -- and only under these conditions:

• The potential seller could receive instant documentation that he had done a background check on a specific individual on a specific day at a specific time.

• Assurance that the check could be made with no third-party record of the inquiry being made or kept.

• No public record of gun sales or security checks would be maintained.

• Records of gun transfers along with documentation of background checks to be maintained only by both seller and buyer, available to authorities only with warrant issued for due cause. Such records should always be considered private property, not subject to any "freedom of information" requests.

• Anyone (including the press) publicizing or otherwise misusing information of such records would be open to severe civil and/or criminal penalties for endangering lives, limbs, property, or liberty of involved parties.

However, given the history within our government -- IRS, White House staffers, Justice Department employees, and "deep state" bureaucrats -- and of hackers, it is doubtful that government could safely, efficiently, and privately manage such a procedure.

Without these safeguards in place, I will oppose any efforts to restrict lawful access to arms that are available to tyrants and to outlaws.

We hope to never confront tyrants or outlaws without official support, but, in case we do, our constitution protects our right to be properly prepared. Our responsibilities are to judiciously defend our selves, our families, our property, our neighbors, and our lawfully functioning governments.

"If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all." (Romans 12:18, ESV)

-- Ted Weathers is a Siloam Springs resident and a career educator. Contact him at [email protected]. The opinions expressed are those of the author.