Saturday, May 14, 2011

Chuck Schumer forgets about the Constitution, Again

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.


It seems pretty clear to me that like several other sentences it the Constitution the Second Amendment was intended to cover a couple different subjects.   First the States have an obligation to provide a militia.  Second that the people have the right to bear and keep weapons..  Over the last 235 years, and increasingly over the last sixty, law makers have infringed heavily on the definition of infringed.  Now Senator Chuck Schumer, (D-NY) and Representative Caryoln McCarthy (D-NY) have both introduced well intended, nearly Identical legislation in their respective Houses of Congress to infringe a little a lot more on the 2nd Amendment.
One of the stated goals of the legislation is to keep firearms out of the hands of people with serious mental problems like Jarad Loughner who shot and killed six people and wounded fourteen others including  Rep Gabriel Giffords in Tuscan last January. 

No sane person is going to to suggest that keeping anything more dangerous than a french fry away from people like Jarad Loughner is an infringement.  Deciding who should make the "Official Determination" that someone is likely to Loughner is a threat is tough, From the Daily Caller
According to the legislation, decisions of whether someone is of subnormal intelligence, competency and/or mental illness are to be decided by a “court, board, commission, or other lawful authority.” No medical qualifications or background in psychological sciences are specified as necessary for such lawful authorities
I don't know enough about Carolyn McCarthy to make this statement.  Chuck Schumer's antics are legendary.  Almost half the people of New York State, and many, many people outside of of New York would argue that Chuck Schumer's actions in the Senate make him a "mental health defective" because they consider him a threat to their well being..  It would be a piece of cake in many parts of the country to convene a commission of ordinary people who would declare him incompetent..

School systems are a lawful authority,  most regular Grumpy Readers are familiar with what happened to Tyler when his school insisted he had be medicated over his fathers objections.
 For those who aren't, you can visit his Website Memorial.   Just a couple days ago many of you read Sandra's report about Gretchen Herrera, who's son was forced by the school to take tests, against medical advice for very little logical reason except the school system wanted to prove they had power to demand he do so.   After I published the story about Tyler I got enough emails and comments to know these aren't isolated cases. 

The Daily Caller Story about Schumer and McCarthy's proposals discussed how this law, if passed could have a life long impact on kids that didn't do much more than get on a teachers nerves.. This is part of a statement in the article by Jeffrey Schaler, A psychologist and professor at American University’s School of Public Affairs
This is similar in some way to what is happening all over the country in the public schools. Teachers who are upset with certain students quickly diagnose the student as having Attention Deficit Disorder and/or Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder, and they strongly argue that the child be put on an amphetamine drug like Ritalin or Concerta, or whatever,” he said.
Schaler said that just because someone may be “ordered” to take a drug, it doesn’t mean that the person lacks the sufficient mental capacity of “normal” individuals. Furthermore, Schaler said the most troubling issue of further defining the terms of “mental illness” on a federal level is that diagnosis of those “diseases” is a cultural and political process, not a scientific process
Read more:

To top it off, there is no expiration date on the diagnosis, Once labeled under these proposals, a person is branded for life.  A youngster like Tyler, who's only crime was annoying a teacher, would be prohibited from owning a firearm for the rest of his life.. 

The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation 
It seems to me that taking away rights guaranteed by the US Constitution is depriving a person of their liberties..  Is the determination of a teacher, who may have mental issues themselves Due Process? 

It also seems that once again Senator Chuck Schumer is going out of his way to prove that he's a danger and a threat to the to all Americans, or at least to thier Constitutional Rights.  Another stipulation in the bill confirms this, If you are arrested, and aquitted of a drug charge, you still have to endure a five year probationay period before you regain your Constitutional Right to Bear nad Keep Arms.  Under this law you are presumed guilty of a crime a jury has found you innocent of commiting... because Chuck Schyumer says you're guilty... 



  1. To clarify, on the Herrera child who had to take State exams, it was the State level counsel for the SC DOE who indicated federal regulation required the tests. If the child did not take the test, the charter school told the parent he would not be able to study there. Funding lives and dies based on test scores and a national testing obsession. Whose interests are served?

  2. Sandra, both cases illustrate the over reach of of public institutions, in this case schools, making (or ignoring) medical or mental determinations they aren't qualified to make or or question. They give them the power to do so for the convenience of the bureaucracy, without regard to the interests of the child.

    Passage of this law, and laws like it, legitimizes unqualified bureaucrats "Power" to make judgements with consequences that can deprive people of their liberties and sometimes even their life.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.