Q&A – Supreme Court’s Ruling On The 2nd Amendment

Today’s entry - Every morning when you claim that Red Flag Laws are this great thing that somehow is keeping us safe and that they are not being abused, I feel nauseous and ready to chuck my breakfast all over the car's dashboard. Let me start by saying that Red Flag Laws by definition are an abuse, they ignore due process, they ignore the 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments. No matter how you look at Red Flag Laws they infringe on the constitution, or what's left of it, and are a CLEAR violation. First thing here is that you have NOT committed a crime, nor are you even suspected of committing a crime! This is a VERY DANGEROUS precedent where we are telling judges that you can be found guilty of thoughts, or conscience.

Bottom Line: I hear what you’re saying and where you’re coming. I’m also sorry for the occasional bouts of nausea, that's certainly not the intention. Regardless of the issue, I feel it’s important to establish the facts and formulate opinions and views accordingly. There are many people who feel that any gun control is an infringement on their constitutional rights. I understand where that comes from, however, that’s not how the Supreme Court has ruled. The United States Supreme Court most recently affirmed the 2nd Amendment Rights in a 2008 court ruling. Within that decision, the court stated, "The Second Amendment protects 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."

At the same time the court also ruled, "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogs. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms"

The Supreme Court has specifically ruled that laws restricting mentally ill individuals from owning firearms are constitutional. We may personally agree or disagree with the ruling, but the fact remains. Given that it’s constitutional, I’ve watched the implementation in Florida, evaluated the use in South Florida, and discerned that there haven’t been any clear abuses in our state with over 2,200 orders carried out thus far. Also, while studying counties across the state, there wasn’t any clear political bias in the carrying out of orders. One of the most conservative counties in our state with a Republican sheriff is responsible for carrying out the most orders on an absolute basis and when adjusting for population. Also, it’s important to note that we haven’t had any mass shootings in our state since the inception of this policy. 

I’m a constitutional conservative and a pragmatist who goes where the facts take me. I’m not an ideologue and I understand that it may at times be frustrating because it’s somewhat unusual but hopefully, you can respect where I’m coming from, information-driven rather than agenda-driven. And even in the most literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in which we’re compelled to take back our country from a repressive government, I still don’t want mentally ill people armed up next to me in battle. Just saying.

Submit your questions using by one of these methods. 

Email: brianmudd@iheartmedia.com

Twitter: @brianmuddradio

Facebook: Brian Mudd https://www.facebook.com/brian.mudd1

Photo by: Getty Images North America

Sponsored Content

Sponsored Content