President Washington. “Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth.”

Mayor Daley. “We are a country of laws, not a nation of guns.”

Now, disclaimer time. I am not an attorney, a Constitutional scholar (well not officially) and have never even been to the Supreme Court in Washington, DC. I usually spend most of my time at the Lincoln Memorial. Once you read the engraved words of The Gettysburg Address, they never leave you.

Here is my question. The Supreme Court has, at least for now, decided the law. President Washington believed in the importance of the Second Amendment, Mayor Daley believes we are a “country of laws.” Is it not time to enforce the law of the land and deal quickly and unequivocally with those that brake it while not obstructing in any way, the inalienable rights of law abiding citizens?

I know Mayor Daley. I believe him to be an honorable, dedicated community servant that cares deeply about the gun violence plaguing the City of Chicago. As he moves forward in “complying” with this new decision, he needs to limit the hurdles for those rightfully keeping and bearing arms while substantially upping the hurt for those criminals that forfeited their right.

This is the time. If we are a “country of laws” then the Mayor needs to abide by them and not use some type of legal gymnastics to circumvent the 2nd Amendment.

Continue the discussion with Brian on Facebook

Continue the discussion with Brian on Twitter

The “abridging of the freedom of speech” is the focus of a court case in St. Louis where U.S. District Court Henry Edward Autrey recently ruled that a building size mural reading, End Eminent Domain Abuse, must come down.

The Institute for Justice, which brought the case on behalf of Jim Roos, the author of the 360 Square foot mural, plans to appeal. According to a report on STLToday.com, Michael Bindas, the attorney from the Institute for Justice, stated, “The Supreme Court has made clear that political speech like Jim’s gets the utmost constitutional protection precisely because it is the stuff of public debate.”

Notwithstanding your opinion on eminent domain practices, it would seem that Mr. Bindas has a point. Speech complaining about governmental policies is the very speech that the government is charged with protecting. Seems important enough that our framers made it first on their list of things to protect.

Follow Brian on Twitter.

Follow Brian on Facebook.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am not a Constitutional scholar, an attorney or even a court reporter – I do miss Boston Legal though. Honestly I have little, if any, education regarding the recalling of a sitting U.S. Senator. So, witnessing all the experts and pundits today fill the airwaves and websites with the legalities of this case, their imagined eventual outcomes and the habitual labeling of opposing viewpoints with ridicule and disdain, I did what I often do in situations of this ilk. I opened the Constitution and read a bit for myself.

Now, before everyone attacks me for daring to interpret or translate the Constitution without a law degree, buzz off. You should also know that an old friend of mine once told me “Opinions are like assholes, everyone’s got one” and truth be told, I really don’t care all that much about yours. So, don’t  follow me on Twitter, don’t Fan me on Facebook, you don’t even need to read any further and by all means, don’t bother calling me. If I lose you as a reader, that’s the consequence I’ll face for telling you to “Buzz Off.” The repercussions for my rudeness are mine alone to bare. I’ll accept the outcome for my actions.

If any of you are still here, I thought you might find this interesting. In Article 1, Section 2 of the United States Constitution it defines the parameters for The Senate. Contained therein was this fragment, “Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election,” and though the sentence continues, the word “Consequence” yelled out at me.

I know it’s not terribly popular anymore to admit that our actions have consequences, our deeds come with corollary ramifications.

I accept full responsibility for dropping Newtonian Science on you by mentioning that “every action has an equal and opposite reaction.” Truth is, there is a certain physics to electrons and elections both. The action of voting someone in often leads to them reacting by going to Washington.

Instead of placing all of our energies on recalls, perhaps we should pause next time to think seriously about the outcome of voting (or not voting) for a particular Senatorial candidate. When we cast a ballot, the by-product of our vote is six years for a U.S. Senator. Apparently, there are consequences for constituencies as well.

Follow Brian on Twitter.

Follow Brian on Facebook.