Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley wants state lawmakers to consider passing legislation that would require residents to obtain a license before purchasing a handgun. Such a law would be an impediment to a constitutional guarantee for which there is no such requirement.
I find it interesting that liberals attack the requirement that a person needs to show identification in order to vote, but they will put multiple restrictions on people who have a right to keep and bear arms as set down in the Constitution.
Unlike the Second Amendment, there is no absolute right to vote. Consider the 26th Amendment that was added to the Constitution in 1971 mainly in reaction to the draft and the Vietnam War. Draftees argued that if they were old enough to be drafted to fight and die for their country at 18 years of age, then they should have a right to vote for the people who start the wars. Section 1 of the Amendment reads:
“The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.”
Notice that the 26th Amendment says that being 18 is not enough. An 18-year-old must be a citizen of the United States. Not just any 18-year-old can vote. In order to get around liberal insistence that voters should not have to show identification in order to vote, state officials check for the age of the voter. Once this is established, the potential voter will have to show proof of citizenship. Age and citizenship go together. The 26th Amendment, unlike the 2nd Amendment includes an age and citizenship requirement.
The 2nd Amendment guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” Nothing is said about identifying who these people are or their age. Unlike voting, you do not have to prove you’re a citizen or are of a certain age in order to own a gun.
Let’s apply Gov. O’Malley’s call for state lawmakers to pass legislation that would require residents to obtain a license before purchasing a handgun. What would happen if he and other governors passed laws that would require people who engage in religious practices to get a license? There was a time when ministers were required to register with the State. An example of this is the 1662 Act of Uniformity in Great Britain. In 1658, John Bunyan (1628–1688), author of Pilgrim’s Progress, was arrested for preaching without a license.
Maybe it’s time that newspapers secure a license before they can comment on the news. Heaven knows there is been many examples of poor journalism and outright lies published by the press.
Any time a person wants to engage in public speech, a license would have to be obtained from government officials. If you wanted to petition the government for a redress of grievances, a guarantee of the First Amendment, you would have to get a license from the governmental entity that you wanted to petition to air your grievances.
Some might say that we already have some of these restrictions. If that’s true, then let’s not give into any more restrictions on our God-given and constitutional freedoms.