Constitution grants no rights

Richard Nelson's letter in the July 9 issue of the Daily Herald has a few errors.

His first sentence, "The Supreme Court has ruled the 2nd Amendment ... establishes a personal right to own a handgun," shows a complete lack of understanding about what the constitution is and is not.

The constitution grants no rights. It is a corporate document that created a corporate entity known as the Federal Government (FedGov). That document clearly spells out exactly what the FedGov may or may not do. It delineates three separate branches of government and enumerates exactly the powers given to those three branches.

Those powers are given by we the people. Go read the preamble to the constitution and you'll see exactly what I mean.

The Bill of Rights grants no rights. It places severe restrictions on exactly what the government may or may not do. I detailed this point in a previous letter but I'll give one example.

First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law regarding ..." The restraint is on Congress (government) and not the people. The 1st amendment does not give me freedom of speech or religion; it stops the government from abridging those rights.

Nelson then goes on to state: "Formerly, courts have held that the right to bear arms was only a collective right connected to maintaining a well-regulated militia."

I'm sure you can provide in your rebuttal the case where this was decided, because nine Supreme Court justices last month in the case concerning the 2nd Amendment could not find the precedent that the 2nd is a "collective" right and it doesn't exist anywhere in the pile of books I own on the constitution.

In addition, maybe you could clearly explain that foggy liberal notion of a "collective" right.

The constitution delineates two separate entities which the FedGov must respect: the states and the people. A reading of the Bill of Rights reveals the wording "of the states" and "of the people" regarding entities to whom the FedGov is restrained in its actions.

"Well-regulated militia" was determined in a Supreme Court case to mean all able-bodied men, not in the military (i.e.: citizens,) between the ages of 17 and 45.

Regarding Nelson's idea that certain military weapons are not necessary for "self-defense," the Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. Miller that if any type of arm was protected under the 2nd amendment, it was a military arm. The 2nd amendment is not about self-defense. It's about controlling an out-of-control government, with force if necessary, to make sure we stay a constitutional republic.

Finally, Nelson states: "By enforcing these rules (current laws on the books) we could remove most of the guns from (criminals.) Thanks. We've been saying that for the last 30 years. Maybe government doesn't want to take the guns from criminals so they can use violence to justify ever expanding government.

Jeff Lonigro

St. Charles