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


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.

Written by Steve Bettison

Less than 2 months ago a man appeared outside a town hall meeting in New Hampshire carrying a sign that read, “It is time to water the tree of liberty”. Nothing sinister in that. What was apparently sinister was the fact that he had a loaded firearm in a leg holster. This has sent certain sections of the media into howling, screaming fits of rage. As can be witnessed here when Chris Matthews interviewed Wiliam Kostric the man who was carrying the sign and the firearm. The discussion surrounding this issue was ramped up further when others openly carried arms at a speech by President Obama to veterans.

This debate has exposed how parts of the media view the issue of state’s rights and gun laws. Their shrill intonations also expose how they suffer from quick knee jerk reactions and completely misunderstand the issue of gun laws that vary from state to state. They have a conception of an America that is primarily a federal jurisdiction and their own beliefs should be channelled via the President to ensure that the Second Amendment is abolished.

It seems that while the President, state enforcement agencies and those carrying the guns are level headed, the media are running around and wildly screaming. The media is a devilish mistress and one that is continually becoming a hindrance to liberty rather than a promoter of it. It is no longer acting as a brake against government wrongdoing. In America it consistently chooses to ignore the Constitution and suggest a tyrannical course of action. Is it any wonder that they are going out of business and being overtaken by internet based news websites/blogs? They have disconnected from their customers to follow their own politicised agenda, a self-inflicted suicide.

Written by: Spencer Aland

The government should always live in fear of the people it governs. This statement is one of the most important principles necessary for a government to be truly democratic. We too often forget that the founding fathers were in fact members of government, but they understood that a government by the people and for the people cannot be against the people. The average citizen during the beginnings of America was not educated and many could not read, but the government respected them and feared them. Today the average citizen not only can read, but they are well educated and yet the level of respect by the government for its people has never been lower.

The 2^nd Amendment to the constitution was 2^nd for a reason. A citizenry armed is a force to be reckoned with. This was advantageous for government because its citizens were able to help defend the country at a moment’s notice, and mostly it was advantageous to the people because they could defend themselves against the government itself if needed. This Amendment was so important because it established an ultimatum for government: either the people will fight with you or against you. It forced the government to be more accountable to those who elected them and it also kept them from committing civil abuses.

Not only is the right to bear arms essential for personal security and criminal deterrence, but it is essential for a government to not outgrow its bounds. A government that disarms its citizens does not respect them and does not fear them, and that is the making for disaster.