«
»

Cain goes wobbly on Second Amendment

Posted 10 Jun 2011 in 2012 election, gun control, Herman Cain

When Herman Cain announced his candidacy, I immediately became a strong supporter. His mixture of business acumen, conservatism, and common sense seemed the right mix with which to defeat King Barry in the 2012 election. But lately, Mr. Cain has been shaking my confidence with some of his positions (such as his support for 90% of the Patriot Act).

The latest — he stated on CNN the view that gun control should be an issue for the states to decide. In the video, the comments in question come around the 3:00 mark:

BLITZER: How about gun control? Do you support any gun control?
CAIN: I support the 2nd amendment.
BLITZER: So what’s the answer on gun control?
CAIN: The answer on gun control is I support, strongly support, the 2nd amendment. I don’t support onerous legislation that’s going to restrict people’s rights in order to be able to protect themselves as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment.
BLITZER: Should states or local government be allowed to control guns, the gun situation, or should…
CAIN: Yes
BLITZER: Yes?
CAIN: Yes.
BLITZER: So the answer is yes?
CAIN: The answer is yes, that should be a state’s decision.

I don’t believe the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights are subject to state restriction. They are known as incorporated rights, whereby American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the states. In this instance, the SCOTUS decision in McDonald v. Chicago held that the right of an individual to “keep and bear arms” protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore, it applies to the states.

If Cain disagrees with this (and I’m not sure from this one soundbite whether he truly does or not), does he also believe that the rest of the Bill of Rights should be subject to restriction by the states? Should New York be allowed to outlaw free speech? Should California be allowed to ban religion? We’ve seen similar judiciary madness recently when the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that citizens have no rights under the Fourth Amendment to resist unlawful intrusion into their houses by the police.

Perhaps Mr. Cain missed these four words in the Second Amendment: “…Shall Not Be Infringed.”

I don’t expect to agree with Cain on every single issue. And this isn’t enough for me to dismiss him as a candidate. But if Mr. Cain truly believes that the states can limit the ownership of weapons by ordinary citizens (such as the unconstitutional D.C. gun ban), that is definitely a mark against him, as far as I’m concerned.

Posted by FullMetalPatriot
12th gen. American, Constitutionalist, Harley-riding Texan, gun owner & NRA member, blogger, illustrator, Florida Gator alumnus. #TCOT

Leave A Comment