Q&A of the Day – Supreme Court’s ruling regarding the 2nd Amendment

Q&A of the Day – Supreme Court’s ruling regarding the 2nd Amendment

Each day I’ll feature a listener question that’s been submitted by one of these methods. 

Email: brianmudd@iheartmedia.com

Twitter: @brianmuddradio

Facebook: Brian Mudd https://www.facebook.com/brian.mudd1

Today’s entry...

Every morning when you claim that Red Flag Laws are this great thing that somehow is keeping us safe, and that they are not being abused, I feel nauseous and ready to chuck my breakfast all over the car's dashboard. Let me start by saying that Red Flag Laws by definition are an abuse, they ignore due process, they ignore the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th amendments. No matter how you look at Red Flag Laws they infringe on the constitution, or what's left of it, and are a CLEAR violation. First thing here is that you have NOT committed a crime, nor are you even suspected of committing a crime! This is a VERY DANGEROUS precedent where we are telling judges that you can be found guilty of thoughts, or conscience.

Bottom Line: I hear what you’re saying and where you’re coming from generally. I’m also sorry for the occasional bouts of nausea – that's certainly not the intention. Here’s the deal. Regardless of the issue, I feel it’s important to establish the facts and formulate opinions and views accordingly. There are many who feel that any gun control is an infringement on their constitutional rights. I understand where that comes from, however that’s not how the Supreme Court has ruled. The United States Supreme Court most recently affirmed 2nd Amendment Rights in a 2008 court ruling. Within that decision the court stated the following: 

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense.

At the same time the court also ruled the following:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. 

The Supreme Court has specifically ruled that laws restricting mentally ill individuals from owning firearms are constitutional. We may personally agree or disagree with the ruling, but the fact remains. Given that it’s constitutional I’ve watched the implementation in Florida, evaluated the use in South Florida, and discerned that there haven’t been any clear abuses in our state with over 2,200 orders carried out thus far. Also, while studying counties across the state, there wasn’t any clear political bias in the carrying out of orders. One of the most conservative counties in our state with a Republican sheriff is responsible for carrying out the most orders on an absolute basis and when adjusting for population. Also, it’s noteworthy that we haven’t had any mass shootings in our state since the inception of this policy. 

I’m a constitutional conservative and a pragmatist who goes where the facts take me. I’m not an ideologue and I understand that may at times be frustrating because it’s somewhat unusual but hopefully you can respect where I’m coming from...information driven rather than agenda driven. And even in the most literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in which we’re compelled to take back our country from a repressive government...I still don’t want mentally ill folks armed up next to me in battle. Just saying.


Sponsored Content

Sponsored Content