Democrats Empower Citizens to Restrict Constitutional Rights

In order to pursue their politicization of personal behavior, progressive Democrats have recently taken a troubling step. They have acted at both the state and Federal levels to empower citizens to take actions that clearly impair the constitutional rights of fellow citizens. 

This is particularly evident in the treatment of two rights that were decided by the Supreme Court: same sex marriage and the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. How these rights are treated proves that Democrats are once again bending and distorting the Constitution in order to use these issues to gain political support from their voters. 

The contempt President Obama has for established order in Federal government, particularly in the manner in which he has ignored Congress, is well known. He has also stated that if he doesn’t like a law written by Congress, such as any law dealing with immigration, he will just ignore their proposed bills and declare his own by Executive Order.

Democrats have now empowered citizens to decide when and where other citizens may exercise their constitutional rights. This is most clearly illustrated in how government treats the rights of storeowners with regard to same sex marriage and concealed carry laws.

Examples abound. In Colorado when a bakery refused to bake a cake for a same sex wedding, the state court ruled against the baker. The government has made sure that no bakery, florist or pizza place may refuse to serve a same sex couple. But in Illinois any storeowner can merely put a sign in their window and deny any citizen with a legal concealed carry permit the right to exercise their Second Amendment-based right to keep and bear a firearm. 

Gay rights were first established in states by judges. In 2002 no state allowed gay marriage, but the number increased primarily through court rulings. This is a violation of states’ rights. But most of these same judges won’t defend concealed carry rights; perhaps because the Second Amendment wasn’t established by them. 

Just imagine if a storeowner in Illinois used crime statistics to argue that he should be allowed to ban blacks from his store. Look at the facts; he/she may argue: blacks are 13% of the population yet commit 56% of the robberies, 28 % of the property crime, and 41% of the weapons arrests. The fact is, the black crime rate is higher than that of whites’. Yet no one, especially a Democrat who fights concealed carry permit laws, would dare suggest that this is a reasonable justification for a storeowner to ban blacks from entering their stores.

But storeowners fearing guns are allowed to discriminate against concealed carry permit carriers. However, there is not one iota of evidence that concealed weapon carriers commit crimes at a rate higher than non-carriers. The FBI doesn’t categorize murder or other crimes as to whether or not the perpetrator had a concealed carry permit. The crime rate for concealed carry weapons permit holders is, if you study FBI records, zero. While some murderers use legal guns, they do not have concealed carry permits, according to FBI data.

Yet, discrimination against concealed carriers is not only tolerated by Democrats, it is codified into Illinois state law. The chief law enforcement agency of Illinois, the IL State Police, makes a free No Guns sign available for download from the internet. This is the constitutional equivalent of a State Attorney General’s office distributing signs that state No Blacks Allowed.

And while people worry that concealed guns should be banned, the irrefutable fact is, when Chicago banned handguns for twenty five years FBI and Chicago police records revealed that the murder rate went up forty four percent.

This is state-endorsed discrimination, and someone with a conceal carry permit should sue a storeowner in Illinois for a violation of their rights, and the State of Illinois for mandating these Second Amendment violations. However, as I have noted before, there is no penalty for violating the Constitution, particularly when these violations are committed by Democratic politicians.

In Illinois, the resistance to gun ownership is maintained by Democrats who have supermajorities in both state houses. They have no evidence so they need to set up a fantasy issue of gun control merely in order to hang onto their voter support. The IL State Law 098-0063 called the Concealed Carry Act is 168 pages long. The Second Amendment is one sentence long. 

It’s also an issue of equal protection of the law. It is difficult for Democrats to explain how Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have secret service protection whose members carry loaded handguns but civilians in Illinois are banned from carrying legal handguns to most public places. Equal protection also means equal protection under the Second Amendment. 

The U.S. Justice Dept. has a website instructing citizens in how to file a Federal civil rights lawsuit. But to my knowledge this does not cover the topic of how to sue states for Second Amendment rights violations. Somehow the right to exercise the Second Amendment is not listed as a civil right. Should a Republican win the presidency in 2017, he/she should immediately work to list/enforce the Second Amendment under the Civil Rights Act to assure Federal protection, enforced by the Justice Dept. so states cannot fabricate unreasonable restrictions as they do now in many states. SCOTUS has already given same sex marriage de jure civil right status. The right to carry a legal gun is clearly in the Constitution, same sex marriage is not.

The U.S. Constitution does not say that the Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens can be regulated by small business owners. No one would suggest that restaurants have the right to ban Asians or blacks, but somehow because of the hysterical anti-gun rhetoric they are allowed to ban persons from exercising their Second Amendment right to carry a legally owned gun.

Today drivers are allowed to drive a car until they violate motor vehicle laws. Laws such as DUI can limit their privileges. The same standards could be used with concealed carry permit owners; that their rights cannot be taken away until they violate laws. The concept of innocent until proven guilty doesn’t apply to concealed carry permit owners. Yet state BMVs have no issue with assuming drivers are innocent of DUIs until proven guilty.

Another recent way Democrats have tried to take away rights is through the use of protesters at college campuses. The safe space movement tries to limit student free speech, even speech that is not abusive or in violation of the free speech of others. And this is being done through liberal persons who are public employees such as Melissa Click by the U. of Missouri. She made a clear reference to violence when she said “we need some muscle over here.” Her intention was to intimidate people from exercising their First Amendment rights.

Democrats are desperate. They’ve lost the House and Senate, and need to cling to as many of the black and gun control voters as possible.  It’s unfortunate that President Obama can’t use economic growth and middle class prosperity as sources of voter support. 

In order to pursue their politicization of personal behavior, progressive Democrats have recently taken a troubling step. They have acted at both the state and Federal levels to empower citizens to take actions that clearly impair the constitutional rights of fellow citizens. 

This is particularly evident in the treatment of two rights that were decided by the Supreme Court: same sex marriage and the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. How these rights are treated proves that Democrats are once again bending and distorting the Constitution in order to use these issues to gain political support from their voters. 

The contempt President Obama has for established order in Federal government, particularly in the manner in which he has ignored Congress, is well known. He has also stated that if he doesn’t like a law written by Congress, such as any law dealing with immigration, he will just ignore their proposed bills and declare his own by Executive Order.

Democrats have now empowered citizens to decide when and where other citizens may exercise their constitutional rights. This is most clearly illustrated in how government treats the rights of storeowners with regard to same sex marriage and concealed carry laws.

Examples abound. In Colorado when a bakery refused to bake a cake for a same sex wedding, the state court ruled against the baker. The government has made sure that no bakery, florist or pizza place may refuse to serve a same sex couple. But in Illinois any storeowner can merely put a sign in their window and deny any citizen with a legal concealed carry permit the right to exercise their Second Amendment-based right to keep and bear a firearm. 

Gay rights were first established in states by judges. In 2002 no state allowed gay marriage, but the number increased primarily through court rulings. This is a violation of states’ rights. But most of these same judges won’t defend concealed carry rights; perhaps because the Second Amendment wasn’t established by them. 

Just imagine if a storeowner in Illinois used crime statistics to argue that he should be allowed to ban blacks from his store. Look at the facts; he/she may argue: blacks are 13% of the population yet commit 56% of the robberies, 28 % of the property crime, and 41% of the weapons arrests. The fact is, the black crime rate is higher than that of whites’. Yet no one, especially a Democrat who fights concealed carry permit laws, would dare suggest that this is a reasonable justification for a storeowner to ban blacks from entering their stores.

But storeowners fearing guns are allowed to discriminate against concealed carry permit carriers. However, there is not one iota of evidence that concealed weapon carriers commit crimes at a rate higher than non-carriers. The FBI doesn’t categorize murder or other crimes as to whether or not the perpetrator had a concealed carry permit. The crime rate for concealed carry weapons permit holders is, if you study FBI records, zero. While some murderers use legal guns, they do not have concealed carry permits, according to FBI data.

Yet, discrimination against concealed carriers is not only tolerated by Democrats, it is codified into Illinois state law. The chief law enforcement agency of Illinois, the IL State Police, makes a free No Guns sign available for download from the internet. This is the constitutional equivalent of a State Attorney General’s office distributing signs that state No Blacks Allowed.

And while people worry that concealed guns should be banned, the irrefutable fact is, when Chicago banned handguns for twenty five years FBI and Chicago police records revealed that the murder rate went up forty four percent.

This is state-endorsed discrimination, and someone with a conceal carry permit should sue a storeowner in Illinois for a violation of their rights, and the State of Illinois for mandating these Second Amendment violations. However, as I have noted before, there is no penalty for violating the Constitution, particularly when these violations are committed by Democratic politicians.

In Illinois, the resistance to gun ownership is maintained by Democrats who have supermajorities in both state houses. They have no evidence so they need to set up a fantasy issue of gun control merely in order to hang onto their voter support. The IL State Law 098-0063 called the Concealed Carry Act is 168 pages long. The Second Amendment is one sentence long. 

It’s also an issue of equal protection of the law. It is difficult for Democrats to explain how Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have secret service protection whose members carry loaded handguns but civilians in Illinois are banned from carrying legal handguns to most public places. Equal protection also means equal protection under the Second Amendment. 

The U.S. Justice Dept. has a website instructing citizens in how to file a Federal civil rights lawsuit. But to my knowledge this does not cover the topic of how to sue states for Second Amendment rights violations. Somehow the right to exercise the Second Amendment is not listed as a civil right. Should a Republican win the presidency in 2017, he/she should immediately work to list/enforce the Second Amendment under the Civil Rights Act to assure Federal protection, enforced by the Justice Dept. so states cannot fabricate unreasonable restrictions as they do now in many states. SCOTUS has already given same sex marriage de jure civil right status. The right to carry a legal gun is clearly in the Constitution, same sex marriage is not.

The U.S. Constitution does not say that the Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens can be regulated by small business owners. No one would suggest that restaurants have the right to ban Asians or blacks, but somehow because of the hysterical anti-gun rhetoric they are allowed to ban persons from exercising their Second Amendment right to carry a legally owned gun.

Today drivers are allowed to drive a car until they violate motor vehicle laws. Laws such as DUI can limit their privileges. The same standards could be used with concealed carry permit owners; that their rights cannot be taken away until they violate laws. The concept of innocent until proven guilty doesn’t apply to concealed carry permit owners. Yet state BMVs have no issue with assuming drivers are innocent of DUIs until proven guilty.

Another recent way Democrats have tried to take away rights is through the use of protesters at college campuses. The safe space movement tries to limit student free speech, even speech that is not abusive or in violation of the free speech of others. And this is being done through liberal persons who are public employees such as Melissa Click by the U. of Missouri. She made a clear reference to violence when she said “we need some muscle over here.” Her intention was to intimidate people from exercising their First Amendment rights.

Democrats are desperate. They’ve lost the House and Senate, and need to cling to as many of the black and gun control voters as possible.  It’s unfortunate that President Obama can’t use economic growth and middle class prosperity as sources of voter support.