Written by Spencer Aland


There has been a lot of talk recently about gun registries since Canada has voted to disband its long gun registry. I wrote earlier that I am in favor of eliminating this registry, but I want to take some time to talk more about gun registries and how they relate to the 2^nd Amendment.


While I am not in favor of long gun registries, it is not for the same reasons as most gun advocates. I think a long gun registry is economically a waste of time and money; the number of crimes committed with long guns is so small that it is quite easy to trace them back to their original owners without any type of registry. Handguns however are a different story. Nearly all gun crimes are committed with handguns, almost all illegal sales are handguns, and handguns are among the top items stolen during home burglaries. I am in favor of a handgun registry and firmly believe that it does not infringe on the right to bear arms.


The idea of a gun registry is simple; it assists the police in discovering who was involved in a gun crime. I’m sorry to those of you that feel like a registry is a government conspiracy to be able to disarm the public at will, but I just don’t think there is any merit to that claim. If the government wanted to disarm the public I don’t think that a registry would make much of a difference since the military would likely have no problem going home to home if personal liberties were already so low that forcibly removing firearms was even an option.


The fact of the matter is that a handgun registry does not infringe on the right to bear arms. If you are a law abiding citizen you should be able to buy a gun whenever and wherever you want to, but the fact that you have to register that gun doesn’t block you from exercising your right. A registry does only one thing: it tells the police who purchased the weapon involved in a crime so that hopefully they can trace it back to whoever used it. I am a strong advocate of the 2^nd Amendment, but a gun registry has nothing to do with that. Arguing that a registry is an invasion of privacy is one thing, but please don’t drag the 2^nd Amendment into it.

Written by Spencer Aland


A New Jersey Judge has ruled that a quadriplegic man has the right to own and operate a firearm. The man will have to mount the weapon on his wheelchair and operate it by blowing into a tube. The judge ruled that the man may hunt and use the firearm as long as he is surrounded by qualified individuals who can assist him in its operation.


I read this article several hours ago and have been unable to decide whether or not I actually support this decision. As a firm supporter of the 2nd amendment I feel obliged to say that the man has a right to own a firearm regardless of his circumstance, and that the ruling was just. However, I also understand the concern that some might feel towards a man with a firearm attached to his wheelchair bouncing through the forest. There is an obvious need for reasonable moderation when dealing with rights in order to preserve social order and safety; this is similar to the idea that an individual’s right to free speech does not outweigh the social costs involved should that individual yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.


I feel like I should revert back to what the meaning behind the 2nd amendment really is. The amendment represents an individual’s right to defend and preserve his self, family, and property. It also forces the government to live with an armed citizenry which would severely limit a government’s ability to become tyrannical should it ever choose to. The problem with the quadriplegic man in question is that he is physically unable to defend himself or his property without assistance. He is dependent upon others and/or technology to exercise his rights. Also his inability to use a firearm without assistance creates hazards not normally associated with personal gun ownership.


There are two main points that make me feel as if the 2nd amendment does not apply to this situation. Firstly, even if the man was allowed to own a firearm he would not be able to use it for defensive purposes even given the most inconceivable of circumstances. Secondly, the man cannot serve as a deterrent to criminals or any other type of tyrant for that matter. The man in question will only be able to use his weapon while hunting under strict surveillance, and quite frankly, the 2nd amendment was not written to protect hunting. Do I believe that the man should be granted the privilege to hunt under the circumstances the judge presented? Yes. But do I believe that the 2nd amendment should be used as justification for this man to have access to firearms. No.

Do you like to blog? Do you believe in an individual’s right to bear arms? Then tell me about it!


Anyone is welcome to blog about gun rights here, and if you have something you would like to add to the defense of the 2nd amendment, send it to me. If it sounds good then I’ll post it on the website.


Email your blog to blogs@mygunsmyrights.com

Written by Spencer Aland


I am not a hunter, or for that matter even a gun enthusiast. I do enjoy occasionally going out with friends and family for a little trap shooting. But apart from my intermittent outings I rarely shoot, nor do I have any desire to hunt. I do not own a handgun, and I am not even a member of the NRA. Why then do I blog nearly every day about gun rights? There are a couple of answers to that question. Firstly, I want people to understand that not all gun rights advocates are gun wielding extremist; you don’t have to own a gun to believe in a person’s right to own one. Secondly, I truly believe that it is a natural and necessary right that people both need and require in today’s world.


As I stated earlier, I am not a gun enthusiast. I think I only went out shooting guns twice this past year – I golf much more than I shoot. But it angers me when far left individuals speak as if anyone who supports gun rights is a uneducated redneck who would rather shoot someone rather than talk to them. The truth is that all people, gun lovers or gun haters, can see the benefits of the 2nd amendment. Those who do not even attempt to understand the philosophical reasoning behind gun rights are as closed minded as the stereotypes they pretend to combat.


The primary reason I write about gun rights, however, is that I believe gun rights are necessary in our world today. From the beginning of civilization people have had the need to defend themselves. Some of the greatest catalysts for ingenuity and creativity throughout history have come from man’s insistent attempts to better defend himself, his family, and his property. Will there ever come a day when we no longer feel the need to protect ourselves against other people and our governments? I certainly hope so. I absolutely believe in creating a better world, but unfortunately that time is not now. Even the most democratically run governments in the world often need to be reminded that they work for the people. The individual in today’s world is not appreciated enough within the opus of society to feel comfortable without defensive rights. The rights of individuals to protect themselves, even against government, is instrumental in bringing about a society where individuals are protected enough to willingly lay down their weapons. You cannot have a free society where individuals are forcibly disarmed. Disarming citizens leads to an imbalance between individualism and collectivism, which will inevitably lead to an unbalanced and autocratic future.

Written by Spencer Aland


Just the other day I had the fortune of riding for the first time in a car in England. My wife and I were offered a ride back to our apartment after a church activity and I was excited to accept since I had not yet experienced the excitement of driving on the left side of the road. The nice couple that drove us home are actually citizens of Australia, but have been living in England now for many years. Unfortunately I did not get to enjoy the full experience because the conversation quickly turned from driving, to the metric system, and then to government regulation. The couple and I agreed that the metric system was better, but they contended that the government should forcibly impose the system in America making it illegal to produce any products not based on the metric system. Being the free market advocate that I am, I stated that it was unnecessary and that if it was profitable, the market would move to the metric system on its own, and much more smoothly. This Australian man then stated something that I will never forget, he said:

“Being from Australia and also living in England has made me used to hard regulation, and I feel more comfortable with it; the government should force people to adapt to things that are better for them.”

Fortunately the conversation never reached gun control or I might have ended up having to walk the rest of the way home. If you didn’t already know, Australia has permanently outlawed the possession of guns just like England did before them. Although we never spoke about guns, I couldn’t stop thinking about what he said and how it related to gun control and gun rights.


I sincerely hope that we never get so used to government regulation that we feel uncomfortable without it. But sometimes I feel like we are already at that point. Every time there is a tragedy or disaster it seems as if no one can sleep at night until some new law has been passed to prevent that catastrophe from happening again. Society now turns to government for answers in times of peril instead of to each other. This didn’t happen overnight; the government regulates inch by inch, not mile by mile.  Before we realize what has happened, we have nowhere else to turn. What does this have to do with gun rights? Gun rights are perhaps the best example of what I am arguing. Why do you believe the people allowed the governments of Australia and Britain to ban all guns? Was it because they sincerely believed that it would stop gun crime, or was it because that so few people were actually able to own guns that nobody really cared? Inch by inch the number of people allowed to own guns dwindled until there wasn’t nobody left to defend them.


In America we have a false sense of security in respect to gun rights. The 2nd amendment itself is not bulletproof. The more gun rights are restricted for law abiding citizens the more comfortable we are with it. The battle for gun rights will be won or lost by inches, not miles.

Written by Spencer Aland


Last week a New Jersey Court ruled that Americans do not have the right to own handguns. Even with the Supreme Court ruling of D.C. v. Heller the New Jersey court stated that the ruling “has no impact upon the constitutionality of” the state law. If you ask me, it sounds a lot like they don’t want to follow the Supreme Court ruling ‘just because’.


I have said this before but perhaps its needs to be said again: You cannot defend one set of rights and argue against another without being hypocritical. The court in New Jersey was so determined on ruling against gun rights that they didn’t care about other rulings or even about the very right guaranteed by the Constitution. It is just astounding how this same court can reverse a very large eminent domain case upholding an individual’s right to property and then shortly after rule that we have no right to protect our property.


This case highlights again how important next year’s hearing in the Supreme Court will be when they review McDonald v. Chicago challenging Chicago’s restrictive gun laws. If the Court rules in favor of gun rights again then these types of selective-rights trampling may finally come to an end.

Written by Spencer Aland



The second amendment states:

“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.”

There are many today that believe this amendment was drafted specifically, and only, for the purpose of having a ‘well regulated militia’. This is false. In fact the history of the 2nd amendment is very unique among the original ten. When James Madison wrote what would eventually become the Bill of Rights he proposed nine amendments to the constitution to appease the anti-federalist who were concerned about too much power being given to the federal government and not enough rights protected for the people. The second amendment was originally contained within the fourth amendment, and was written as:

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

This is obviously a very clear statement leaving no open interpretation as to whether the right to bear arms is tied to militia service. In the end, after many changes and debates, the section on the right to bear arms was removed from the fourth amendment and given its own place as the second. In fact, the right to bear arms was already so important to individuals that prior to the ratifying of the new Constitution all of the previous state constitutions under the Articles of Confederation had already guaranteed gun rights within their texts.


We are lucky that the current Supreme Court understands the true meaning of the 2nd amendment as they stated in the landmark case District of Columbia v. Heller:

“The Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

We can only hope that the court will rule in favor of the right to bear arms when it hears a potentially more important case next year out of Chicago.

Written by Spencer Aland


Does the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution give individuals the right to bear arms? If you answered yes to this question then you are absolutely wrong. The same is true about the 1st amendment, it does not grant individuals the right to freedom of religion, press, etc. The Bill of Rights does not grant individuals any rights, but instead it acknowledges the pre-existence of rights and then prohibits government from infringing upon them.


The constitution is unique in the world because of this characteristic. It believes that people are naturally endowed with certain rights that cannot be given to them and should not be taken away. The 2nd amendment is representative of the right to self defense. A free man can never truly be free unless he has the right to defend himself and his other rights.


There are many advocate groups who refer to the old adage, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” in defense of many obscene and outlandish behaviors from individuals; yet I never hear any of these groups mutter something like “I believe guns kill people, but I will defend to the death your right to own them.” Why are so many groups and people so selective over which amendments they choose to support? Is it possible to defend the 1st amendment and argue against the 2nd without being hypocritical? I believe that the rights recognized within the Bill of Rights are natural and not granted to us. I also believe that natural rights do not go away in time or change because of circumstance. If the individual loses his or her natural rights then the individual within society will cease to be important. Taking away one right will inevitably lead to the taking away of many.

Under the 10th amendment any rights not directly granted to the federal government within the Constitution will fall under the authority of the states. However, the federal government has used the commerce clause to extend their authority to any and all things that “might” cross state lines, including firearms. Federal regulators have until now been able to force states to abide by specific gun control laws under these circumstances.


Montana has finally said that it will not follow federal gun control laws anymore. Montana now has a plan to label their firearms ‘made in Montana’ and they will only be for people in Montana. Since the firearms will not be distributed across state lines the people in Montana will finally be able to enjoy the full benefits of the 2nd Amendment.

Written by: Spencer Aland

It would appear that the Supreme Court may be the 2nd Amendments best ally on Capitol Hill. Last year the Supreme Court ruled that the Washington D.C. ban on guns was indeed unconstitutional. The basis for the ruling was that the right to bear arms was not only for militia use but also served as a check upon the state itself by the people. Unfortunately, the ruling did not extend to all states and municipalities because of the complex structure of law unique only to D.C. However, the court is now prepping to hear a similar case from Chicago and is likely to rule in the same fashion as the D.C. case which will finally extend the ruling to include all laws governing the use of guns in America.
It is a breath of fresh air to finally hear from someone in power that the people themselves actually need to check the government. The system of checks and balances in America must include the people or it wouldn’t be complete. The writers of the Bill of Rights understood that voting alone was not a sufficient check and so they gave us the 2nd Amendment. Those of us that have understood this governing principle in the constitution should feel relieved that we finally have a friend in D.C.