This was written over 4 years ago but it is no less true. The anti-gun rights crowd is rearing their ugly heads again. Hillary Clinton is for the UN firearms ban treaty. No matter the time or place, the fools never give up. What is written occurred previously and all that has changed since it was written is time, the place and the people. We must be ever vigilant to ward off the nit-wets who want to disarm us.

States have lost their independence to a runaway federal government and the federal courts. Laws (many are unconstitutional) passed by Congress to address specific problems are twisted in order to fit situations for which they were never intended. One such act is the federal, which addresses issues in the workplace that could be hazardous to employees. A federal judge used the law to block an Oklahoma state law that Occupational Health and Safety Act was designed to allow employees to carry their guns to their job. He said it conflicted with the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The ruling is wrong and now for the reasons his ruling is unconstitutional.

To begin, the Second Amendment says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. There is no mention that arms can’t be carried in the work place or that employers have the right to limit them because private rules can’t counter Constitutional rights. Secondly, states don’t have the right or delegated power to change the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Article VI, clauses 2 and 3 specify that legislators and judges at all levels shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution. In other words, they have no other choice but to support the Constitution when they take the oath of office. The problem arises when they don’t either by willfully ignoring the provisions or by convoluted reasoning or both.

Next, the Constitution provides for amending the Constitution and judges declaring certain things with rulings aren’t one of the ways. U.S. District Judge Terence Kern did that very thing when he issued the injunction against the Oklahoma law. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution can any provision be found that allows a judge at any level to void a state law that isn’t in conflict with the federal Constitution. The judge ignored the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, protecting the rights of the people and the states. The ruling effectively destroyed the right of the people of Oklahoma to pass laws that the people desired.

The Occupational Health and Safety has nothing to do with guns or gun safety in the workplace. It is another example of a judge using a law that was never intended to address anything other than work place hazards and safety directly associated with employment at any given place. The judge would do well to read and grasp the meaning of Article VI, clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Disregard the section on treaties since it isn’t applicable to the discussion. The clause can be read as follows (it is grammatically and factually correct): This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof: shall be the supreme Law of the Land: A federal judge is forbidden from amending it by judicial fiat. His ruling circumvented the process of amendment and infringed on the right to bear arms.

Judge Kern used the Occupational Health and Safety as a tool to limit the rights of the people of Oklahoma in spite of the fact that laws cannot be construed to impinge on and change the Constitution and the protected rights. The Oklahoma law followed the state’s constitution and protected the rights of the employees per the U.S. Constitution. It is a sad day when federal judges who are supposed to be learned in the Constitution and law, make rulings that take away rights of the people.

Now that you have read the foregoing, do your own research on the matter of constitutionally protected rights and make your own decision on the truth of the matter. It will be no surprise if you arrive at the same conclusion as this a writer and conclude In Sorting It Out, that a stupid judge made a stupid ruling.

10-10-2007 DEC

                         http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200710/NAT20071010b.html