By now you may have heard there's a lawmaker in Indiana (Jim Lucas) who's caused quite a stir. He did this by introducing a bill, modeled after the language used to license Indiana citizens 2nd Amendment right to carry a handgun in public. He did this, not because he's some fascist and wants to restrict what we say or how journalists do their job, but, to point out the hypocrisy of the left in wanting to restrict and infringe upon our most basic right; the right to defend ourselves.
Jim Lucas, Indiana's State Representative, District 69 has introduced a Constitutional Carry bill three separate times in Indiana and in each and every time it's been defeated because of the Left's insistence that “No right is absolute” and that “moderate regulation is Constitutional”.
On October 10th, 2017 Jim Lucas went on a radio show against three liberals, one was the radio host named, John Krull. The other two were Indiana University Professor Jody Madeira of the Maurer School of Law; and Pierre Atlas, professor of political science at Marian University. It was during this 60-minute broadcast after the two professors insisted that no right is absolute, Jim produced this bill. He did so, just simply to prove a point. At the time the two professors stayed silent on the matter, realizing I suspect, what Jim had cleverly done. This bill shows the absolute hypocrisy in infringing on any Constitutional right and how much of a slippery slope it is to give up any ground on any rights guaranteed to us under the Bill of Rights. It shows that if done right can be infringed on, then they all can be.
The backlash so far is astounding. The outcry from the left is hilarious as they think this bill had been submitted and is to go to vote, attacking our 1st. Amendment rights. When asked, multiple times, from multiple sources Jim has insisted he would never submit this bill to be considered as he finds it repugnant, just like he finds it repugnant to license or restrict our 2nd Amendment rights. Still, multiple news outlets try to twist his intentions and claim he supports the destruction of the 1st. Amendment, when this is simply not the case.
This was on his Facebook wall today in response to all the hate mail and posts to his page on this subject:
The first 10 Amendments made up the Bill of Rights. They use absolute language as they define and protect our individual rights, and their purpose and equal protections are outlined concisely in the Preamble. The Indiana Constitution also uses absolute language in protecting our gun rights; “Article 1 Section 32 – The people shall have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State.”
There has been quite the stir recently with a draft I presented that holds the media to the same licensing requirements we currently accept for our gun rights and this is my explanation.
To exercise a Constitutional right and lawfully carry a handgun in the state of Indiana, a license is required. Indiana is a “shall issue” state with no training requirement, which means that if you are not a prohibited person, you will get your handgun carry license. To get a license, a person must fill out lengthy forms online, take time off work to get fingerprinted and pay a fee of up to $140 to get a card to prove their innocence.
I believe it wrong to require a license to exercise a Constitutional right and I have introduced gun rights legislation known as Constitutional Carry that eliminates this cumbersome and expensive burden on innocent people. The only people affected by this will be those innocent people.
Contrary to constant false reporting in the media, this law will not let prohibited people get or carry a gun, and prohibited people doing these things will still be breaking the law. It also does not place police lives in danger, as over 10 hours of testimony did not produce any evidence showing that it presented an increased risk to officer safety from the 13 other states that have Constitutional Carry. Ironically, a recent PoliceOne poll of 15,000 street officers revealed that over 90% supported good people carrying a gun.
Given the media’s continual irresponsibility in reporting what my bill does and does not do while demanding the current gun rights licensing system remain in place, I did an experiment. I presented a draft that simply took the exact language we currently use to license our 2nd Amendment rights and applied it to professional journalists 1st Amendment rights. I wanted to highlight the hypocrisy and double standard of the media demanding the licensing of one right while heatedly denying that other rights could be held to the same requirements.
As expected with the licensing of a Constitutional right, the draft is reprehensible, vile and repugnant.
And, it is beautiful. The outcry has been epic and my point is proven beyond my wildest expectations!
Suddenly, the licensing of a Constitutional right was deemed unconstitutional by “legal experts”. Absurdly, how can any reasonable person argue logically that some rights can be constitutional to license and others cannot?
The primary lesson of my drafts is to expose the danger of thinking it acceptable to tolerate restrictions on anyone right, since doing so exposes and jeopardizes all rights. Legislators swear an oath to support both Constitutions and to faithfully and impartially discharge their duties, not pick and choose which ones they favor.
This proves the ugliness of licensing a Constitutional right and therefore I will continue to fight against it.
In his own words, you can see that this was nothing more than a way to get a true conversation started on gun control and how it's hypocritical to infringe on one right and not others, pointing out in the process, that no right should be infringed upon. The fact is he's right. It is repulsive that any one of our rights should fall under any infringement from the Government. Should we allow a subsection of our population to disarm us, or even make it more difficult to defend ourselves against those who don't follow laws, to begin with? The left would have a woman pee on herself to repel a rapist, while we, on the right, would have her armed and able to defend herself. In following his posts, I've seen a lot of people on the left misrepresenting these words: 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.
The left side of the aisle insists that the right ignores the first portion of our 2nd Amendment and concentrates on the second half. This couldn't be further from the truth. You see, they just simply don't understand the simplicity of the language used or they're intentionally misrepresenting it hoping we wouldn't know what it really means so they can subvert it.
So what does it really mean? Simple. We'll take this in three parts to fully explore this Amendment and what the language actually means. The first part: “A well regulated Militia” simply means a well trained and well armed Militia. “Militia” simply means citizens who are not professional military men/women who can be called upon to defend the state, town or village they are in. Nothing more, nothing less. This is why the 2nd part of this Amendment states “being necessary to the security of a free state”. So you see, they're telling us that they know a well-armed citizenship is necessary to the security of a free state (defense against foreign enemies or tyrannical federal government), which leads us to the third part “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”. This simply means that the Government has no right to restrict, regulate nor infringe upon a law abiding citizens right to keep and bear arms.
Mr. Lucas is only trying to restore our 2nd Amendment to its rightful place as unrestricted, with his Constitutional Carry bill, which brings us to the lefts completely illegitimate, dishonest, and morally wrong objections to this bill in the first place.