Rescinding the Second Amendment – Grisham’s Folly

By – Michael Teninty, Chief Policy Analyst of AMAC Action

The Second Amendment of our United States Constitution is unique in that it really has very limited exceptions. It describes what is possibly the most unassailable codified human right among the others listed in the Constitution. Consider, the First Amendment guarantees your freedom to exercise your religion, and your “faith;” but not so far as to infringe on another person’s free exercise of their faith. This concept is echoed in the requirement that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” therefore the free exercise of your religion does not allow you (or Congress) to command the government by it, nor does it allow you to command others under the auspices of the exercise of faith. 

Similarly, you are guaranteed the right of freedom of speech, except when that speech runs afoul of another person’s equal freedom of speech, libel, lies, or perjury, etc. These are just two examples of how the rights documented in the First Amendment are not absolute. Consider further, as another example, the Third Amendment; “No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house […] but in a matter to be prescribed by law.” In this case, the exception is actually codified in the Amendment.

But the Second Amendment is different. It includes a statement in no uncertain terms that the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed.” Let us follow Ariadne’s thread out of the labyrinth of tyrannical ideology to emerge from the confusion, and recognize, that there is no provision of the Second Amendment that infringes on the Constitutional rights of others; therefore, it is not personally limited.

Americans have long allowed, because the evil [is] “sufferable,” governments at every level to slowly “infringe” on their right to bear arms. For example, a law abiding gun owner will submit to a background check, and/or conceal their arms, not carry them in school or government zones, or surrender them if law enforcement recognizes them as mentally infirm (whether they are or not), or criminal (again, whether they are or not;) and many other examples; and none of these examples are considered by the Second Amendment; they are therefore unconstitutional by their very nature. Note, a law-abiding gun owner will obey the law until it is rescinded, and they may certainly, and they should, work within the structure of our government to rescind it. As an aside, the measures in the Second Amendment extend to state and local governments as documented in the 10th Amendment, and promulgated by the 14th; neither states, counties, nor localities may infringe on your right to bear arms.

With that in mind, the Governor of New Mexico, in September, issued (via her Secretary of the Department of Health,) an edict based on “emergency authority” rescinding the right to bear arms for certain areas of the State. Before further discourse, I respectfully quote anonymous:

“If you let the government break the law for an emergency, government will create an emergency to break the law.”

In the spirit of the phrase “What have you done? (Gen. 4:10)” as directed to Governor Grisham, I offer the following:

Succinctly, natural law leads to a natural right to life; and by extension, a right to defend life. Our founding is replete with documents discussing this and I’ll refer you to them for further review. Nevertheless, the Second Amendment codifies this right as granted by God and it is immutable, indeed unalienable. Governor Grisham, in what I hope is a genuine effort to protect life, has chosen an action against the Constitution and many Supreme Court adjudications, to curtail the liberties of the citizens of New Mexico in a drastic and awful way, in a way “repugnant to the Constitution” by issuing an 8 September 2023 Public Health Order suspending the right to bear arms. In the face of a Federal Court decision to nullify her actions she issued yet another order on the 15th of September with the same intent. The second order, although not fully in effect, is more restrictive than the first in that it adds areas of the prohibition to bear arms and removes areas where it was excepted in the 8 September order. Issuing the same order twice indicates conviction and intent to commit this folly against the citizens of New Mexico. 

The sum total of these events justifies the cliché “death by 1,000 paper cuts” because every slight infringement on our right to bear arms has led to this actual prohibition, by a sitting governor, who, to add insult to constitutional injury, took an oath to support and defend our law of the land. 

Why is it that liberal progressives generally look to restrict our liberties instead of leveraging them. Contemplate this: If there were concern over public safety, why would you not encourage the public to arm themselves instead of purposefully disarming those who may stop gun violence before or during the act? This has happened on many occasions already, and recently! 

An apostle of liberty, Thomas Jefferson, a revered founder of our nation and a draftsman of the Declaration of Independence remarked in a letter to his nephew, “let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.” My fellow Americans, and governors of states, heed this advice: instead of restricting liberty, seek to apply it in every way.

Addressing my fellow Americans again now I urge you to take action in situations like this, to apply your liberties in person. Communicate with your elected officials, express your concerns and opinions through your freedom of speech, do not sit idly by, but participate with others through your right to peaceably assemble. Pray for our nation, you have that right too. Connect with your friends and fellow citizens and join with other like-minded people through AMAC Action chapter meetings and campaigns and perhaps you can prevent events like Governor Grisham’s folly.