A city councilman in California needs to take a nice, long step toward a library and reread the Second Amendment.
You see, Councilman Mark Olbert sits on the San Carlos City Council, where they were considering a moratorium that would block a retail store from opening. The store would also sell guns, which is all but guaranteed to put a burr in the saddle of any California politician.
Olbert supported the moratorium but was reported as making a claim that makes so little sense as to be laughable were this not from someone tasked with making laws for regular folks.
Turner’s Outdoorsman has already signed a 10-year lease for the location on Industrial Road near REI, and has spent $125,000 on the new store.
Grocott also said he was concerned that the city may see a lawsuit from Turner’s or a Second Amendment group such as the NRA.
But Councilman Mark Olbert, who voted “hell yes” for the moratorium, had a different take on the issue. Olbert said that since guns are the only commodity mentioned in the Bill of Rights, government is allowed to regulate guns.
Yes, that’s what he apparently said.
Now, let’s look at where guns are mentioned in the Constitution.
A well-regulated milita being necessary to the security of a free state, the people’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I’m not seeing anything that says regulations are welcome. In fact, the phrase “shall not be infringed” clearly indicates otherwise.
While the Supreme Court has ruled that some regulations are justified, that wasn’t what Olbert was alluding to. After all, he doesn’t seem to mention the Court’s rulings on the matter. Instead, he simply quips that because guns are even mentioned in the Constitution, he can do what he wants.
And that’s the problem with California lawmakers, as a group.
Acceptable Regulations On Firearms
The Second Amendment is very specific. It clearly states that there are no acceptable rules on guns. There simply aren’t. The phrase “shall not be infringed” doesn’t provide wiggle room for the convenience of the legislature. It’s a clear and distinct restriction against government interfering with our sacred civil rights.
Lawmakers, however, tend to have very different ideas. They believe that the Constitution is a roadblock that needs to be removed or, at the very least, ignored. To them, it’s an arcane relic of a bygone age, something to be discarded the moment it’s convenient.
But that’s not the way our nation works, despite their best efforts. We’re a nation of laws, and those are required to have their foundation in the Constitution. We also have our Supreme Court there to serve as a check on whether or not laws are doing just that.
What we shouldn’t get are small-town city councilmen who think that because arms are mentioned in the Constitution, he gets to decide who can get what, where and when.
No, that’s not how freedom works, and that not how the right to keep and bear arms works.
But I think Olbert knows this. He knows it and just doesn’t care because he gets to make the rules, much like any other wannabe tinpot dictator.