Andrew McCarthy: Government Could Strip Every Constitutional Right under "Emergency" Claim

Andrew McCarthy had a great article on National Review Online yesterday about Chuck Schumer's (D., N.Y.) claim at a Judiciary Committee hearing last week that many constitutional liberties are routinely restricted in "emergency" circumstances — in particular, Fourth Amendment rights against warrantless search and arrest, so we should do the same thing to the Second Amendment:

President Obama and his allies in Congress seek to deny the constitutional gun-ownership rights of Americans merely suspected of terror ties — even as the Left champions the non-existent immigration rights of aliens from regions notorious for terror ties. The backbone of the Democrats’ stratagem is a specious “constitutional” claim, one whose logic would empower the government to strip every civil right the Constitution is designed to protect against government encroachment.

As posited by Senator Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) at a Judiciary Committee hearing last week, Democrats claim that many constitutional liberties are routinely restricted in emergency circumstances — in particular, Fourth Amendment rights against warrantless search and arrest. Hence, the argument goes, Second Amendment rights, too, may be stripped away if Democrats can concoct an emergency — such as the ongoing crisis in which guns, apparently with minds of their own, mow down infidels.

McCarthy continues:

It is black-letter law that a statute cannot limit a constitutional safeguard. Not only is the Constitution the higher-ranking source of law; the safeguard in the Second Amendment is a safeguard against government action. If government action could undo such a safeguard, the purpose of having the safeguard in the first place would be defeated. The Second Amendment, and indeed all constitutional guarantees against governmental abuses of power, would be null and void anytime government came up with an “emergency” pretext.

McCarthy, who as a U.S. Attorney prosecuted the "Blind Sheik" for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing, takes a back seat to no one when it comes to protecting the U.S. from jihadists.  But he also understands the Constitution and explains in great detail why this theory being pushed by  the gun ban Democrats is dangerous to liberty.  Read the entire article.

McAuliffe and Gun Control

NRO's Charles Cooke is spot on:

Apparently deterred neither by the recent and successful liberalization of state gun laws in Virginia nor by the clear message that Colorado voters sent to lawmakers earlier in the month, Virginian gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe has added a gun-control plank to his campaign website.

You see, as this site shared yesterday, Terry McAuliffe has decided to come out of the shadows and post on his web site the kind of gun control he supports. As Cooke notes:

With the exception of the one-gun-per-month rule, a 1993 measure that was repealed last year, McAuliffe is effectively suggesting that the state of Virginia pass exactly the same package that led to two state senators in Colorado being recalled: the extention of background checks to private sales and limits on the size of magazines. If McAuliffe is elected, it will be interesting to see how successful he will be in convincing skittish state legislators to put their careers on the line for such a fringe issue. My suspicion is not very.

Cooke also makes a good point that McAuliffe should tell us if he supports the 1993 version of handgun rationing, or the law as it stood in 2012 when it was repealed. By 2012, most people had already been exempted from the law including ncluding anyone with a concealed-handgun permit, all law enforcement, all private security companies, and anybody who “lost” a firearm within 30 days and needed to replace it. As Cooke concludes:

To go back to the latter would simply be silly; to go back to the former, on the other hand, would be radical.