Opinion: Learning the Hard Way -VT Fails To Address Truth Regarding Legal Firearms
By Brian M. ErskineContributing Writer
March 25, 2008
Jonathan Swift said “There's none so blind as they that won't see.” So many people walk around their whole lives with their eyes wide shut. The highest paid, most powerful voices here at Virginia Tech are effectively blind to what is going on outside of Burruss Hall.
As the Hokie Nation quickly approaches the anniversary of the shootings of April 16, nothing has changed. False reforms were buried in committees of oblivion and the university painted a pretty picture for the media by placing access to dormitories on the honor system. All in all, there is no evidence suggesting a higher state of safety, and if nothing else, then those who may seek to cause harm have only grown smarter.
Closely resembling a presidential candidate during a press conference, the administration has dodged every substantive question it has been posed. What is the most common reason behind avoiding a question in a political context? The answer.
One week after the Supreme Court heard a monumental case regarding the Second Amendment of the Constitution, Tech continues to fly in the face of the Constitution and its protection of the right to defend one’s life.
After the grieving subsided and the plan for action, or inaction as it were, was formulated, Virginia Tech took the easy way out in total disregard for the cost of human life. It refused to pioneer the way into genuinely safe territory. Even more distasteful, an academic institution never opened the arena for dialogue out of fear that antiestablishment ideas may gain traction.
Liberals will automatically jump to characterizations of gun-toting hillbillies, but this does not move the discussion forward. Conservatives will undoubtedly start dressing up like Clint Eastwood to make a point, but this does not move the discussion forward. Progress is only going to come from a vantage point of honesty and the rule of law.
Adhering only to the portions of the Constitution that fit one’s own ideological preferences is not only unethical, but also illegal. Specific mechanisms exist for the purpose of altering the Constitution, but defying it is an un-American protest. Would any statute really be broken if someone were to carry a legal firearm onto a college campus?
Avoiding the truth in favor of a false sense of security is disgraceful, and moreover, it is a slap in the face of the people who lost their lives nearly one year ago.
Those with ideas that protect life, but involve more than committee meetings are not a part of the discussion. Satellite trucks and talking heads are on their way. What is unclear is whether or not Tech will deliver coffee and pleasantries, or the truth about campus security.
What security measure can keep a madman from entering a dormitory or a classroom and hurting innocent people? There is no way to keep crazy people from doing crazy things, but there is a way to defend life. How many shots will ring out and how many people will get hurt when one person has the means to fire back? Rest assured, it would be less than 32.
Part of Planet Blacksburg’s mission is to get students published. Some our content comes from guest writers and from articles written for class by non-member students. The views expressed by these “Contributing Writers” are solely those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Planet Blacksburg as an organization.
Comments (8)
With the Supreme Court hearing District of Columbia v. Heller, many people are asserting that the Right of the people to Keep and Bear Arms is dependent upon judicial interpretations of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
That is totally incorrect!
The Second Amendment is a statement that the people’s Right to keep and bear arms, a Right that pre-existed the Constitution, can not be infringed in any way. The Amendment is a statement of the Supreme Law of the Land that no federal, state or local “law” may be enacted that will deprive the citizens of their Right to Keep and Bear arms.
The Right to keep and bear arms is an Unalienable Right.
The only argument required to substantiate this and to overrule all gun laws written anywhere in the United States is:
1. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme Law of the Land.
2. The Second Amendment to the Constitution is a part of the supreme Law of the Land.
3. The Congress and no state or lower jurisdiction may enact and/or enforce any law or
ordinance that is contrary to the Constitution.
4. Therefore, all laws written anywhere in the United States restricting the Right of the
people to keep and bear Arms are unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void.
There is written authority in the Constitution for each statement above and the Courts of the United States have upheld each.
I. The Constitution of the United States is the “supreme Law of the Land.”
Authority: Article VI of the Constitution of the United States prescribes that the Constitution and the Laws of the United States written in accord with the Constitution are the supreme Law of the Land.
II. The Second Amendment is a written part of the supreme Law of the Land. The Second Amendment and all the other Amendments comprising the Bill of Rights became part of the Constitution in 1791.
III. The Congress and no state or lower jurisdiction may enact and/or enforce any law or ordinance that is contrary to the Constitution.
Authority: Article VI of the Constitution of the United States also prescribes: That everything that the Constitution pertains to, including the Amendments, overrules all state constitutions, laws, and ordinances and all lower jurisdictions’ laws and ordinances that are contrary to this “Law of the Land.”
Authority: Amendment 14 of the Constitution of the United States prescribes: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;”
Court Upheld: U.S. District Judge Sam A. Lindsay wrote on Monday, 21 May 2007, that an Anti-Immigrant Law passed by the community of Farmers Branch, Texas, is invalid and writes that the community can not “pass an ordinance that conflicts with federal law." citing the Supremacy Clause of The Constitution of the United States as the grounds. Further, U.S. District Judge Sam A. Lindsay wrote: "The court recognizes that illegal immigration is a major problem in this country, and one who asserts otherwise ignores reality" "The court also fully understands the frustration of cities attempting to address a national problem that the federal government should handle; however, such frustration, no matter how great, cannot serve as a basis to pass an ordinance that conflicts with federal law."
Court Upheld: Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137 (1803)
All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. —
Court Upheld: [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.
Court Upheld: U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 591-592 (1875). The United States Supreme Court has stated that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not constitutional in nature, but a right that ensures the citizens because it existed before the Constitution. Instead, the 2nd Amendment exists to restrict the Congress from infringing this right. The U.S. Supreme Court said in Cruikshank v. U.S. (1876) that the Second Amendment protects a right which existed even before the Constitution was written. The right to arms "is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that the Right shall not be infringed."
Therefore, as specified in the Constitution of the United States and upheld by the Courts, All gun laws written anywhere in the United States restricting the right of the people to keep and bear Arms are null and void.
Some will continue to argue that all statutes and ordinances written regarding gun control are valid and the law of the land.
A general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. This is not true. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement with the Constitution. Any statute not in agreement with the Constitution is unconstitutional. An unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void.
An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. “No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177.
Court Upheld: "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void." Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 5, U.S. (Cranch) 137, 174,176
In summary, all laws written anywhere in the United States that restrict the Right of the people to keep and bear Arms are contrary to the Second Amendment and, therefore, unconstitutional and null and void.
Posted by James Marie | March 26, 2008 10:16 AMSo what censorship is going on here? I posted a comment at ~08:55 yet the only one appearing after screening is the
Posted by Pete C. | March 26, 2008 11:19 AMone by James Marie at 10:16
Excellent info James
Posted by scott | March 26, 2008 8:09 PMI must say that I have mixed reviews about this article. The love the spirit of it. I love that someone is standing up and making their voice heard on this very sensitive issue and I agree that not enought has been done. However was it really necessary to bring party stereotypes into the mix. I consider myself a liberal and I am not about ready to state that there are a bunch of "gun toting hillbillies" out there. Perhaps this is one of our main problems. We need to see past the stereotypes and focus on the people themselves.
Posted by Shauna | March 27, 2008 12:09 PMI think Brian's argument is very well stated, but it overlooks the problems that such a policy would create. College is an emotional and volatile place. It's no secret that college students drink alcohol at higher rates than the rest of the population. If we take an environment that is at times violent and confrontational and add firearms to the mix, the results could be disastrous.
Also, I have heard the argument that if one person had a gun on April 16th, then the whole situation could have been a lot less tragic than it was. It's very unlikely that if one student had a gun that they would be able to shoot the student who did go on the rampage. It is more likely that two students would have been shooting and the death toll would have actually been tired.
Gun control is an interesting topic of discussion. I would never argue that people should not be allowed to own guns, but I question the logic and realist expectations of allowing them on college campuses.
Posted by Rob Godby | March 27, 2008 1:18 PMI don't know how the word "tired" ended my second paragraph (probably subconscious), but the word was supposed to be higher.
Posted by Rob Godby | March 27, 2008 1:21 PMRob, the assertion that college students are drinkers is moot. Nearly all drinking takes place off-campus, where carrying of firearms is already legal. Besides, anyone with a permit is not going to carry to a party, and if they do, they wouldn't drink - carrying and being intoxicated is illegal and who would risk losing their permit over a few drinks? That has never been a problem off campus.
Further, I don't know how you say campus is more "emotional and volatile" - I simply cannot discern how that is true, comparatively speaking. There are all kinds of stresses off-campus and there are no shootouts over them. A permit holder's training teaches them that drawing a weapon is a last resort, when all else fails, and life is unquestionably in danger - anything less would result in jail time. Plus, there are currently 11 campuses allowing concealed carry (for 60 combined semesters) and they have had NO problems whatsoever. One of these campuses is Blue Ridge Comm College - just a short trip from here.
Some people argue that a legally armed citizen could have stopped April's events. I don't like that because there is no guarantee that there would have been someone on that floor carrying, that they wouldn't have been shot before they could draw, etc. We don't want to be police, there to save the day. The thing is that it WOULD have given them a chance - currently, the choice is not available. Cho stopped many times to reload, and a few people tried to attack him but failed. With concealed carry legal, an attacker would not be able to identify who was armed, giving the person the element of surprise to at least have a chance.
One last thing - these attackers choose unarmed victims for a reason - they are cowards. Turn the tables and send a message that they may be stopped short of their mission, and they may rethink being the next copycat.
Posted by Ken Stanton | March 30, 2008 10:28 PMYes, the right to keep and bear arms is an "unalienable
Posted by Jeff Billings | April 9, 2008 8:08 PMright". Just remember your right ends where mine begins.
If you decide to use that weapon in self defense just
make sure you your judgement is as accurate as your shot.
Most situations where cops draw their weapons don't involve
a "crazed shooter" but domestic disputes (with alcohol in
the mix) where judgement is key. Hostages, innocent bystanders, trigger control....