What to wear to a town hall meeting, or Rights erroroni . . .

Saturday morning. Sofa. Coffee.

"Honey, I don't know what to wear to the President's town hall meeting. Are slacks okay, or do you think I should go with a dress?"

"Both would look great on you dear, but you may want to know I'm wearing the brown tooled leather USA leg holster for my 9mm Smith and Wesson. I thought about the AR-15 with the black strap, but that seemed a bit pretentious. Besides, you know Harry. He'll probably be wearing his. He's so tasteless. He's the kind of guy that makes you question the second amendment. But remember, we may be moving into the church at some point, so watch the cleavage."

During the past week it became popular among second amendment enthusiasts to sport unconcealed weapons at or near President Obama's town hall meetings. In New Hampshire, the first place this happened, a man with a Smith and Wesson 9mm strapped to his leg was in the crowd. He had been given permission by a church near the town hall meeting to stand in its yard so that he could not be arrested. I can hear Jesus now, "I wore my instrument of death upon my leg, and you came to my defense . . ." I think that part of Matthew was left on the cutting room floor. The NRA was apparently not as strong with the Constantine administration.

I am not a fan of the second amendment as presently interpreted. I would defend Michelle Obama's right to bare arms, but that's about it. But it is a problematic amendment, and until it is amended or interpreted differently by the Supreme Court, it is the law of our land.

Expounding a rather creative defense, some of the folks who were packing heat at the town halls said they had no intention of using the weapons. The action was more of an expression, or a statement, that they wanted to make. Exercising both the first and second amendments at the same time. Sort of a whole body constitutional work-out.


I am going to make an assumption here. I think that most of the folks exercising the first and second amendments in their display, if not use, of their personal arsenals, are constitutional strict constructionists. That is what they say when someone tries to suggest that the right to own and carry firearms be restricted. One wonders then if they have ever really read the second amendment:


"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 was the stated reason by the authors of the constitution that the purpose of the amendment was for the benefit of the state, not the individual. The right is couched in the State's right to regulate it's militia, and the State's right to maintain its security. If the members of the U. S. Supreme Court were to act as the strict constructionists that most of them claim to be, things would have to change. A citizen's right to bear arms would be subject to conditions.


Are you willing to be called into the state's militia at any time and bring your weapon with you?


Do you support the state in what it is doing?


Do you have any notion that your right to bear arms gives you the right to do anything in opposition to the will of the State?


Many of us have the belief that the second amendment was written to allow individual citizens the right to own and bear arms to keep the power of government in check. That romantic notion belongs in a Nicholas Sparks novel. The right of the citizen to bear arms is clearly conditional on it being for the benefit of the state and it organized militia.


Clearly, under the amendment, the government, at the very least, reserved the power to the state to regulate the ownership and use of firearms.


So just a bit of advice for you who desire the unfettered right to bear arms. Look for some of those evil "activist" judges. That is what you truly need.


Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, always good for a sound bite quote in his opinions, wrote now famous words regarding freedom of speech in his opinion in U. S. v. Schenk (1919):

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

The case involved the challenge of a statute which made it illegal to protest against the draft for WW I. The insidious behavior in question was the handing out of flyers in opposition to the draft.

We have rights of expression and rights to bear arms. It is our responsibility to use them wisely. The most serious threat to our rights is not the government. It is the stupid, irresponsible exercise of those rights that ultimately cause the wisdom of those rights to be questioned. Carrying firearms, loaded or not, to a presidential appearance is the kind of infantile behavior that will require more restrictions. Like parents of irresponsible adolescents, the government will be forced to put us in time out, and take away our toys.

And a church that thinks it glorifies the Body of Christ to allow a person to carry a firearm to a presidential town hall meeting is a topic for another day. While I know I have a first amendment right of expression, for the moment , I am rendered speechless, probably by the grace of God.

.