tactical tailor - ingels on constitutionality

7/29/2019 Tactical Tailor - Ingels on Constitutionality

1/4


2/4

In Tactical Tailor's manufacturing facility, discussing Sequestration with Washington Congressman Denny Heck.

Heres his stance on things

The key to a rational and balanced approach, he says, is to follow the

requirements set forth in the U.S. Constitution and to make sure that we followthe mechanical application of Constitutional requirements when making decisions

on Constitutional issues. The U.S. Constitution provides the framework to insure

that the States do not pass inconsistent laws that infringe upon rights guaranteed

in the U.S. no matterin fact because ofthe emotional and sometimesirrational feelings attached to an emotional issue.

Clearly thisis a passionate issue, but the United States has addressedseveral

passionate issues that are all vitally and equally as important has gun rights and

restrictionssuffrage, slavery, the definition of citizenship... The 2ND

Amendment of the U. S. Constitution is the relevant section that protects an

individuals right to possess and carry firearms but its certainly not the only vital

Amendment, and once you infringe upon one you imperil them all.
http://kitup.military.com/?attachment_id=23481


3/4

Ingels explains that Constitutional Federalists (and

Fundamentalists) would argue (correctly) the Federal

government has limited power. However he is confident thatthough they might take issue with his interpretation of

States rights, they would ultimately agree with his analysis

of the Constitutional precedent and process. The case lawwith the Second Amendment, he says, is clear, and as recentas 2010.

The Second Amendment specifically prohibits the

Federal Governmentfrom passing laws that infringe

upon that Second Amendment. This begs thequestion as to whether the individual States can pass

laws that infringe upon the Second Amendment. The

short answer is no, they cannot. Why? Because the

Second Amendment applies to the States equally

through the equal protection clause of theFourteenth Amendment. The SupremeCourt upheld this analysis in InMcDonald v. Chicago, [561 U.S. 3025 (2010)],

where the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and localgovernments to the same extent that it limits the Federal government.

What does this mean given our current situation, with States like Colorado andcities such as Chicago passing weapons restrictions that go beyond the Second

Amendment and federal common law? It means that these laws will have to pass

Constitutional scrutiny, which they are unlikely to do. The States are openingthemselves up to costly litigation by irrationally passing frequently impractical,

ineffective laws that will not pass constitutional scrutiny. What you will see

develop is that several Constitutional law attorneys will challenge the validity ofthe laws in order to protect the total sanctity of the Constitution, not only to

protect the Second Amendment but to protect against infringement of all

fundamental rights guaranteed within the U.S. Constitution. Follow the process

and youre going to protect the nation as a whole. The Constitution is a fluiddocument designed to be interpreted. To change it, you must amend it, as was

done with the Eighteenth and Twenty-First Amendment.

It was quite a conversation, as you might imagine, and hes clearly passionate about the

topicin fact, he texted me at least a dozen times and then called me back after to

discuss it further.

We have a social responsibility to stand up and bring these suits. I dont know

why there arent more companies filing suit yetmaybe some are focused on

sequestration and just keeping their doors open, maybe some are biding theirtimebut if and when these laws are passed in Washington State, we will take

aggressive action against it, and not just on our behalf. Clearly we have a vested

interest in this, were a part of the industry, butset that to the side for a

momentwere not a firearms manufacturer, we wouldnt be as impacted [as
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicagohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicagohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicagohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago


4/4

firearm manufacturers] and certainly not as much as the class of individual gun

owners, but this is important.

This isnt just about protecting your right to keep and bear arms, this is about your

freedom of speech, your freedom of the press, all of it.

I've asked him to watch the comments section here to respond, if he is able (he will beextremely busy over the next few days because of sequestration) and he promised he'd

try. One point I'd like to make, and hopefully he'd agree - rational discourse is imperative

on a topic like this. Simple, stubborn, blunt arguments - whichever side of the debate you

come down on - are not going to do anything to convince anyone on the other side. Forthose who believe as Ingels does (and honestly as do I), you would do well to remember:

you have to listen if you expect them to, and although a convincing, well reasoned

argument may not feel as good or be as self congratulatory as a Come and take them/Colddead hands type argument, it has a better chance of swaying those who're on the fence.

In any case, hopefully he wont have to file itbut Im not holding my breath.

David Reeder is a retired military veteran and LEO who spent the last few years of hiscareer teaching combat tracking. He is a freelance writer whose work has appeared in

several magazines. He occasionally appears on Soldier Systems Daily, writes for Kit Up

and is a sometime contributor to Breach-Bang-Clear.

tactical tailor - ingels on constitutionality

Documents