|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
What the Second Amendment and Article 16 Mean for Vermonters
The right to keep and bear arms is a cornerstone of both American and Vermont values, yet it’s often misunderstood. Many see the Second Amendment and Vermont’s Article 16 as granting a privilege, a legal allowance to carry firearms. But the truth is, these provisions don’t grant a right—they recognize an inherent, natural right to self-defense, affirming it as part of being human. The Constitution doesn’t authorize this right; it restricts government from infringing upon it. This distinction is critical to understanding why these rights must be defended and preserved.
An Inherent Right, Not a Governmental Gift
One of the deepest misconceptions about gun rights is that they come from the government. But the instinct for self-defense, the right to protect oneself, family, and property, predates any government or legal system. It’s a natural right, as ancient as humanity itself. The founders of the United States understood this when they drafted the Second Amendment, and Vermont’s founders echoed this understanding in Article 16 of the Vermont Constitution.
By formalizing these rights in law, the federal and state constitutions don’t create them; they clarify and restrict the government’s power over them. This isn’t about providing a new privilege but about acknowledging a timeless truth and preventing governmental overreach. Both documents serve as boundaries—a reminder that this right is beyond the authority of government.
The Second Amendment and Article 16: A Check on Government Power
The framers were well aware that, throughout history, governments have expanded their power by undermining individual freedoms. The Second Amendment and Article 16 are in place not to empower the government but to restrain it, ensuring that the people retain their inherent right to self-defense. These provisions act as both protections for citizens and warnings to any government that would seek to limit this right.
A Challenge to Anti-Gun Advocates
For those who oppose the right to bear arms, the challenge lies in the consistency of their beliefs. Imagine if anti-gun advocates displayed a sign in their front yard stating, “This household is against gun ownership; there are no firearms here.” While perhaps an unwise action, it brings to light an important question of responsibility. Those who oppose firearms often benefit from the security created by responsible gun owners in their community, much like an unspoken neighborhood watch.
This challenge isn’t just about putting up a sign; it’s about reflecting on the social structure that gun rights create. By publicly stepping away from the protections that responsible gun ownership provides, anti-gun advocates would, in effect, be choosing to forego a level of security that is indirectly offered to everyone in the community.
Misconceptions and the Push for Restrictions
In recent years, a push for restrictive firearm regulations has taken root, often based on the assumption that firearms ownership is a privilege that government can limit. This trend misinterprets the purpose of the Second Amendment and Vermont’s Article 16: they were intended to protect, not grant, an individual’s right. These safeguards against government overreach are shields for citizens, not permissions to be handed out or revoked.
In Vermont, recent firearm restrictions enacted in response to specific incidents, like a potential school shooting in 2018, sparked frustration among many Vermonters who view these as infringements on their inherent rights. For some, these restrictions reflect a broader shift away from personal responsibility and independence. When firearms were common in daily life, respect and responsibility around them were emphasized, and young people were taught to understand these principles at an early age. Many argue that increased restrictions represent not just a drift from gun rights but a lowering of societal expectations and responsibilities.
Responsible Gun Ownership as a Community Asset
Supporters of the Second Amendment and Vermont’s Article 16 contend that responsible gun ownership is a benefit to the broader community. Lawful gun owners play a subtle yet significant role in public safety, as studies suggest firearms are used defensively anywhere from tens of thousands to over two million times a year. Often, no shots are fired; the presence of a firearm and a responsible gun owner is enough to deter crime.
This unspoken protection benefits all, including those who may oppose firearms. By deterring crime, responsible gun owners contribute to a safer neighborhood for everyone. This communal aspect is part of the social fabric in communities that recognize and respect self-defense rights.
Upholding Liberty Through Responsibility
The right to bear arms, as outlined in the Second Amendment and Vermont’s Article 16, is about more than just self-defense; it embodies the balance of liberty and responsibility. This inherent right isn’t granted by any government but exists as part of our humanity. Upholding it requires proactive steps to ensure these freedoms remain understood, respected, and protected.
For Vermonters looking to foster a responsible approach to gun rights, here are some steps to enhance and open up the discussion:
- Promote Education on Responsible Gun Ownership: Schools and community programs can offer resources on firearm safety, handling, and legal responsibilities, fostering a culture of responsibility and informed ownership.
- Encourage Open Community Forums: Regular forums provide safe spaces where citizens can openly discuss gun rights, address misconceptions, and bridge divides, fostering mutual respect.
- Challenge Anti-Gun Advocates to Acknowledge Community Benefits: Ask those opposed to firearms to reflect on how lawful gun owners contribute to community security, potentially helping bridge ideological gaps.
- Support Communication and Conflict Resolution Programs in Schools: Investing in communication skills, conflict resolution, and emotional regulation programs can address root causes of violence, decreasing the need for reactive legislation.
- Advocate for Balanced Media Representation: Encourage media to cover lawful and defensive firearm uses alongside negative incidents, helping the public see responsible gun ownership’s positive impact.
- Engage Legislators on Constitutional Intent: Regularly remind legislators that the Second Amendment and Article 16 exist to limit government’s control over this right, ensuring policy decisions respect the true intent of these provisions.
By taking these steps, Vermonters can actively safeguard their right to bear arms while fostering a community built on respect and responsibility. The goal is to create an environment where freedom coexists with accountability, contributing to a safer, more united society. In defending these principles, Vermonters not only protect their inherent rights but also strengthen the foundations of a free and secure community.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Commentary
Excellent arguments and article Dave. Thank you.
THE 2nd AMENDMENT DOES NOT GRANT US THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. THE 2nd AMENDMENT PROHIBITS THE GOVERNMENT FROM INFRINGING ON OUR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS – PERIOD! THEREFORE, ALL GUN CONTROL UNDER THE CONSTITUTION IS ILLEGAL!
“The very text of the 2nd Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and only declares it shall not be infringed”. – Antonin Scalia
“The Constitution is not a living organism, it’s a legal document, and it says what it says, and it doesn’t say what it doesn’t say”. – Antonin Scalia
Excellent points and easy to follow presentation. Thank you for the effort to create this essay.
TRUMP IS A DICTATOR! Yet every dictator in history disarmed the citizenry to take power.
1774 – British General Gage takes over as governor of the Massachusetts colony and 36 Tories are appointed to the Massachusetts council by King George III
Gage restricts the distribution of gunpowder and has 300 barrels of gunpowder seized. Gage realizing he is outnumbered restricts powder & shot trying to use “ammo control” to disarm the people. Guns, powder and shot were however considered private property.
On October 17th Gage is ordered to confiscate arms especially long guns but knows this is not practicable and as the colonies get wind of what is happening in Massachusetts start arming themselves.
King George III bans the importation of guns to the colonies also the importation of gunpowder, saltpeter and lead.
1929 – Russia disarms its citizens. Between 1929 & 1953 20 million Russians murdered.
1935 – China disarms its citizens. Between 1948 & 1952 20 million Chinese murdered.
However, in China they believe it’s more like 100 million murdered.
1938 – Germany disarms its citizens. Between 1939 & 1945 over 13 million Jews and
other nationalities murdered.
1956 – Cambodia disarms its citizens. Between 1975 & 1977 1 million educated
Cambodians murdered.
1964 – Guatemala disarms its citizens. Between 1964 & 1981 100 thousand Mayan
Indians murdered.
1970 – Uganda disarms its citizens. Between 1971 & 1979 over 300 thousand
Christians murdered.
Yet Kamala is the one who would let the government into our homes to inspect our firearms. https://americanmilitarynews.com/2024/09/video-harris-supported-govt-entering-gun-owners-homes-to-inspect-firearms/
And don’t forget her mandatory gun buyback.
https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2024/08/08/fact-check-on-harriss-mandatory-buyback-comments-missing-important-question-n1225869
Trump is a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment. So, we all really know who the dictator will be.
Dave is 100% correct in his analysis of the situation. The framers of the Constitution clearly understood that the right to bear arms was in fact “Natural Law”. They also recognized that the reason for this was the possibility (or eventuality – these were smart guys) of our government getting out of control. It was our means of shedding ourselves of our own government should it become too large, overbearing, and restrictive. In other words, they foresaw the possibility of another American Revolution somewhere down the road.
I would argue that in intending the citizens to have a “level playing field”, they meant that we should be able to use the same armaments that the government used as time went on and technology evolved. My interpretation is that this means automatic weapons were obviously meant to be available to the citizenry as they were invented. Only the stupidest among us fail to realize that you don’t go into a gunfight carrying only a knife.
And this worked well for a long time… Up until the 1940s or 1950s, when, with the advent of the military-industrial complex Eisenhower so presciently warned us about, the government developed bombs, missiles, space-based weapons including lasers, torsion field and EMP devices, and who knows what else (using OUR tax dollars, btw).
So now what? Should the citizenry have access to these types of things? That’s where I draw my line. Others may disagree, and that’s fine. However, I would bet that in a pinch. someone would be willing to provide many of those weapons to our citizens via the black market. Look no further than the Houthis. But I digress.
Back to guns. What is it about the phrase “shall not be infringed” that’s so difficult to understand? Seems clear to me. It says we should be able to legally acquire any guns of our choosing. Period, end of story. And use them if I have to – for anything from hunting to self-defense.
I also believe “shall not be infringed” means not having to pay for an unnecessary license, register what I purchase, or be limited as to what capacity magazine I can own. Those are infringements, right? With those limits in place, we’re really not even equal to any two-bit criminal or organized gang, are we? They don’t seem to have any problem getting anything up to and including automatic weapons “on the street”.
Oh, but “it’s about the children”. Blah, blah, blah. “School shootings”. Yadda, yadda, yadda. Okay, let’s look at that, shall we? It’s pretty clear by now that most school shootings are done by a) kids on mind-altering psychotropic SSRI drugs (I won’t dignify them by calling them “medications”) or b) trans kids – who in addition to having psychological problems that may have them on SSRIs, are taking a cocktail of (also mind-bending) puberty blockers and I don’t even know what else. You think maybe if we stop drugging our kids the liberal raison d’etre “school shootings” might immediately drop 90%? Maybe they won’t, maybe they’ll only drop 50%. But isn’t any reduction worth a try?
No one is forcing anyone to buy a gun. It’s your choice. I’m not telling you that you have to, so don’t tell me that I can’t. QED.
And why focus only on the negative outcomes? What about the multitudes of mass casualty events that have been stopped or severely limited because a patriotic American was “packing”? What about the now clear data showing that the states with the least restrictions on gun ownership, which tend to be the states with *more* gun owners, have significantly less crime of all types than states with the most restrictions and barriers? Oh, but these examples don’t fit the narrative, do they?
I’ll go out on a limb and say that only 15% (max) of our citizens really believe and are pushing ALL this communist nonsense. Someone I greatly admire said that in the end, only 4-6% of the population is truly unredeemable, with the rest of the 15% being sheeple. Do you want to let 15% or less dictate how you should live? I sure as hell don’t.
President Trump was correct that day in July. Fight, fight, FIGHT! I’ll add, if we don’t, very soon there won’t be anything left to fight for.
“So now what? Should the citizenry have access to these types of things? That’s where I draw my line.” – The citizenry already has access to most military weaponry. There are HUNDREDS of private military contractors in the United States that aren’t part of the official government military. More importantly, if we never were involved in conflict without a congressional declaration of war, there would be a lot smaller marketplace for these “innovations”, and resources would go to building more important things for humanity. Stop the never ending illegal wars. Arrest the politicians that allocate our resources to other countries. Arrest the politicians that sign NDAAs that state the military will be used against the people without declaration of war.
“not even equal to any two-bit criminal or organized gang” – Gangs exist because the government made drugs illegal. Even though that same government brings in the street drugs, and conspires with big pharma to drug 80% of everyone.
“What about the multitudes of mass casualty events that have been stopped or severely limited because a patriotic American was “packing”?” – Most mass casualty events are in “gun free zones”. Statistics show that firearm usage helps much more than it hurts, but even if that wasn’t true, freedom is dangerous. It’s the duty of a free people to keep themselves safe. If they fail to do so, that is a failure of the people.
” Do you want to let 15% or less dictate how you should live? I sure as hell don’t. ” – In a free country the minority is protected from the majority. The mind control programming system knows as “educational institutions”, need to be dismantled immediate. The people on the left and right are equally ignorant of cause and effect.
@VermontVermonter – So are you saying you agree with me?
@Robin Banks – I believe we are on the same page. Only I believe “drawing the line” is a fallacy. The government and their supporters are the ones who are responsible for the escalations. Government lawlessness does not somehow magically exempt the power of the military to be in the hands of the people.
Power to the people!
The only thing that can protect rights, are severe consequences for those who violate their oath to protect them, as outlined in Title 18. If the law isn’t being enforced, you can kiss them goodbye. The problem is, government makes laws and consequences for us, while they get a free pass to do whatever they want. This is not Liberty and Justice for All. State actors should be the MOST accountable and scrutinized to the rule of law in a free country. We don’t treat our rights as the “highest law of the land”, otherwise the police would be very busy monitoring the state house for criminals to arrest.
The absolute last thing any mental issue should be treated with are medications that have homicide listed on the side-effects label. The practice of medicine has failed society. We don’t need to put children on meth because their imagination wonders. We should encourage children to have wondering imaginations instead of killing their brains with drugs, where they later turn to street drugs because they can’t handle existing in reality.
People that have proven that they can’t be trusted to live with the rest of society unsupervised by using a firearm improperly, need to be isolated and monitored for 30 years minimum. If someone murders someone else, they should get life in prison at minimum. Instead they are immediately released, then 2 years later given a slap on the wrist. There should be a priority system where violent criminals get their day in court almost immediately, instead of lagging for years, while the traffic ticket can wait 2 years instead.
People need to know their draw to first shot times for each self-defense scenario. People need to know about proper backstops. People need to know how to be aware of their surroundings, and not be victims. No victims, no criminals.
Thanks for a concise acknowledgement of defense of self and others being an essential element of NATURAL LAW and Article 16 and that the 2nd Amendment recognizes that commonly owned firearms, the types and technologies which have been in private ownership for almost 150 years fall under that purview. It’s should be hard to argue against the words: “Shall Not Be Infringed”.
Guns can be used to PREVENT harm in a variety of ways without ever being fired.
If someone is trying to prevent an imminent threat, just the mention of a gun being available can be sufficient to quell it. If that doesn’t work, revealing it’s shape under clothing may work. If the threat persists, it can be displayed at one’s side. If necessary, the sound of a slide being racked or a hammer pulled back is a powerful auditory convincer that you are serious. If then necessary, it can be pointed.
If that still doesn’t get the message across, a warning shot ramps up the sound level
so that intent is unmistakable. If the threat is ongoing, there is the option of a non-lethal wound to incapacitate the attacker and hopefully alleviate the threat. Many options exist before a lethal shot is resorted to.
You people keep talking like this and we will not need the N. R. A. or other gun rights group saying they will protect your rights after you join and pay them a fee. These people would have to find a real job.
Just to clarify, the N.R.A. is not a gun rights group. They are a rights compromise lobbyist club. F.P.C. ad G.O.A. are better, but really all these groups should be funding themselves with millions of civil suits.
Thank you, Dave. One of the best defenses for self-defense and the real intent and purpose of the Second Amendment I’ve ever read.
I had my 2nd amendment right trampled last Friday when I purchased a firearm from a Burlington area gun shop. After passing the background check and paying for my purchase I had to wait 72 hours to take possession . Since I do not live in that area anymore I still have not taken possession of it. It is a 120 mile drive one way for me to get there from S E Vermont. What makes this so ridiculous is I could have had a truck load of firearms and ammunition with me at the time. Where is the sense in this infringement?
Maybe you can sue the state for causing over 1,000,000 gallons of excess fuel cost over the next 10 years for violating their carbon reduction goals with the ILLEGAL 72 Hour waiting period.
What if every FFL formed their own club, and then decided they were going to ignore all the illegal laws?
That infringement is part of the Baruth/LaLonde “common sense restrictions” which do NOTHING to reduce gun crimes. The 72 hour thing is for “suicide prevention”…in a state where the democrats in the legislature created a legal framework where you can hire a doctor to kill you. They just dont like it done by do-it-yourselfers. The waiting period is a real comfort to battered women who may need immediate access to a weapon.
This waiting period and magazine capacity law are both violations of the constitution and article 16. The legislative council that previews laws for their constitutionality probably told them so. They passed the law anyway knowing that it must be challenged in court and could take years and lots of money to see it through to the supreme court.
Even the Vermont supreme court is a player in that game by deciding the laws were constitutional. A high school student could determine they are wrong by reading article 16.
I understand the commenters frustration. Many of us are hunters and shooting enthusiasts and own many guns. I recently traded one at a firearms dealer’s store. I walked into the store with a gun, the store took possession of it, I paid for the new one but could not take possession of the new one for 72 hours. Does that make any sense at all? And I had others at home too. Some gunowners are collectors, they have access to numerous guns in their collections, but here’s the bottom line.
Baruth, head of the senate, an educator of English at UVM and is from NY is an avid firearms hater. LaLonde, also from out of state and chair of the judiciary committee in the house is also a gun hater. Both of the politicians took an oath prior to taking office, pledging under the pains and penalties of perjury they would uphold, defend and not harm the constitution of Vermont. Their pledge was worthless, and they were dishonest from day one. They aren’t the only ones down in Montpelier, but they are the ones that can move legislation along. Phil Scott also took that pledge and, in my opinion, has violated the Vermont constitution more than once during Covid.
So, the people elected to honor and defend the US and VT constitutions after pledging to do so have violated their oaths and would have you thrown in jail for exercising a constitutional right that they have no authority to do. We The People, are empty words that once actually had meaning.
Thank you for your excellent analysis.
The issue becomes even more critical when you read the Department of Defense’s recent re-issuance of Directive 5240.01, which empowers the military to assist law enforcement “in situations where a confrontation between civilian law enforcement and civilian individuals or groups is reasonably anticipated.” This is the go ahead to assert martial law -allowing the government to authorize the military to use lethal force against the citizens of the U.S. This is what the American founders feared and is the reason they opted for a republic bound by the rule of law: the United States Constitution.
The Posse Comitatus Act in 1878 made it a crime for the government to use the military to carry out searches, arrests, seizure of evidence and other activities normally conducted by a civilian police force. We should support our police. As a former chaplain in the LAPD I support the police. We need to fund them to protect us and they need more training not less training and support. But our local police should understand the obligation they have to the community and not to the DOD. When the DOD rescinds Directive 5240.01 and the Posse Comitatus Act in 1878 is fully enforced then, and only then, would a discussion on the 2nd Amendment make any sense. Steve Berry
Yup, guns are dangerous for sure, that’s why I carry one everyday! “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery” Thomas Jefferson