By Stephen Darger

A disturbing trend that is quite evident these days for anyone with even a little intelligence and something more than a couch-potato disposition, is the apparent slow (yet in reality fast) disappearance of our rights as a free people. I say as a free people, but are we really free these days? As an attorney, I have had to study the Constitution, and must rely on it for much of the legal principles that I use in my practice, yet, I find that much of the protections of the bill of rights just don’t apply anymore. What is more appalling is the fact that most people I talk to, even those who stubbornly make trite statements like "they can’t do that, it is against my constitutional rights", haven’t even read the Constitution, much less try to understand it. And yet it is such a simple, strait forward document.

Take for instance, the Second amendment. It says in very clear, unconfused, simple words: "…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Shall not be infringed. How can one get more clear than that, and yet, in this country today there are hundreds, if not thousands of laws "infringing" the right to keep and bear arms. Are these laws Constitutional? Not on the face of them. Every one of them directly contradicts that statement "shall not be infringed", but most people in this country go right a long with the media in proclaiming that we must have restrictions if we are to have a society free from crime. Oh really? Whether guns are outlawed or not will not stop the criminals from obtaining, and using guns in the commission of crimes. Remember, criminals don’t abide by the law. If all the law abiding citizens turn in their weapons, and that is the direction our laws are heading, only criminals will have them. In fact, it will only encourage them to commit more crimes since they will know that no law-abiding citizen will have a weapon to protect himself or herself.

The other side of this problem lies in the question of why our government would want to take away our weapons in the first place. As mentioned above, reducing crime is not the real reason. The government knows it and you know it too. In fact when this country was young, even when it was still just thirteen colonies, it was basically required that people carry their own weapons for protection from both man and beast. With the citizenry carrying weapons there was virtually no crime in that era. So why does our government want to take away our weapons, why do they keep chipping away at that and every other right that was guaranteed by our constitution. Could it be for greater control of, or final enslavement of the population? Do I sound like one of those conspiracy fanatics? You say, "oh that sort of thing cant happen here." Maybe so, but pay close attention to what is happening in this country, and if you care to, compare it to what went on in Germany just prior to World War Two. Remember it was Adolph Hitler, who in 1935 said: "This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!" We all know what followed.

This slow chipping away at our rights is dangerous in the extreme, and I don’t mean just with gun control/confiscation. Read the Bill of Rights carefully, and then take a close look at congressional legislation and Presidential Executive Orders over the last few years. Especially look at Executive orders relating to drug trafficking and anti-terrorist activity. Look at how we are going to a national ID system. Look at the thousands of watchful cameras on the highways, in supermarkets, in airports, in daycare centers, etc, etc. Right to privacy? What right to privacy? Habeas Corpus? Who bothers with that these days? Confiscation of property of thousands of innocent Americans in the name of "the war on drugs". Whatever happened to the right to a fair trial?

Let me illustrate, with an actual example, the current state of affairs concerning our so-called rights these days.

Recently, I was travelling through the Mojavi Desert in southern California. The weather was hot, well over the century mark, and as luck would have it, my vehicle broke down. After contacting the auto club, I spend a remarkable time riding 40 miles in the passenger seat of a towe truck. Mr. Kirkpatrick was the name of my driver and rescuer. To pass the time, he began to tell me of recent events in his life that left him in a deep depression for well over 6 months. I could understand why.

Living in the middle of one of the most desolate and hottest places on can find in the continental U.S. , Mr. Kirkpatrick had found it necessary to work several hard to find jobs just to make ends meet. As part of this process of economical desert survival, he had started a small business catering barbecues on weekends. He had placed a sign in front of his home, and was quite proud of his resourcefulness and ability to etch out a life in this difficult place. Unfortunately, some people will not let others live in peace, even in a place as hard to live as this, and several hoodlums knocked down the sign. Mr. Kirkpatrick replaced it just to have it torn down a second time. He put it up again. Then one afternoon, he saw the hoodlums, several under-age, over-bored teenagers walking toward his property, he stepped outside to confront them. He said he knew it was they who were tearing down his sign and he wanted them to put a stop to it. Their reaction was to threaten him with the promise that they would not only tear down the sign again, but were intent on cutting off his private parts and raping his wife as well. Mr. Kirkpatrick, aware that promises like this are frequently followed through, turned and went inside to dial 911.

If you have ever dialed 911 in southern California, you know what a joke it can be. Mr. Kirkpatrick was informed over the telephone by the local police, those public officers, sworn to uphold the Constitution, whose duty it is to protect and serve the citizen, that he would have to call back on the non-emergency number. Mr. Kirkpatrick objected, saying that there were several thugs on his property, threatening his life and threatening his wife. The police operator suggested that if he did not want to call back on the non-emergency number, he could come to the station to fill out a complaint. Furious, our law abiding citizen, who by the way should have a right to protect himself and his family when threatened with bodily harm, told the operator that she should perhaps call an ambulance instead, as there would soon be several dead persons lying on his front lawn.

This did the trick. Within a few minutes the sirens were screaming, and the thugs made a hasty departure for parts unknown. Upon their arrival, Mojavi’s finest did nothing to assure that the lives of the peaceful residents had not been harmed. Instead they were more interested in removing Mr. Kirkpatricks ability to protect himself. While officers searched his house and confiscated his weapons (Which, by the way, were legally owned and had not been taken out and brandished in any way), another officer, presumably the one in charge, began to question Mr. Kirkpatrick. Naturally, Mr. Kirkpatrick was objecting to this treatment. He was being made to feel like the criminal. He asked why the officers were not interested in pursuing the hoodlums, the real criminals in this matter, the ones who had already broken the law, committed an assault upon him, and placed him in fear of his life. The officer told him that if they had apprehended the teenagers, they would simply interview them and let them go. Astonished at this, Mr. Kirkpatrick asked what the police intended to do about his sign being torn down. The officer repeated that the teenagers would only be interviewed and let go.

"What about if I put the sign up fourth time and they tear it down again? asked our surprised citizen.

The officer repeated "we will interview them and let them go."

"And what about if I put the sign up even again and they tear it down? I am the one trying to abide by the law and make a simple living, while they get away with murder"

The officer, sounding like a broken record, said again, " We will interview them and let them go."

"Tell me, officer," asked Mr. Kirkpatrick, "Exactly when was it that I lost my rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?"

"Mr. Kirkpatrick," responded the officer, "I can’t tell you exactly when you lost your rights. All I can say is that you don’t have them."

"Is this justice, officer?" asked the despondent Kirkpatrick.

"No, Mr. Kirkpatrick, this is not justice. Unfortunately we are not able to give justice today.

Apparently the officer did not like the fact that Mr. Kirkpatrick was concerned about Constitutional rights, and that he was upset that he no longer had any. I know that I would be upset if an officer of the law told me to my face in Gestapo-like fashion that I had no rights as guaranteed by the instrument that established this nation; the instrument that he swore to uphold; the instrument that is all that stands between a free society and tyranny. Here it was, a Police officer, telling an American citizen that they could not give us any justice, that we have no rights. Yes, Mr. Kirkpatrick was understandably angry.

Since Mr. Kirkpatrick had broken no law, the officers could not charge him with anything, yet, for some inexplicable reason of their own, perhaps due to their attitude of superiority, authority, and control, they did not want to just leave and let poor Kirkpatrick stew in the knowledge that he had just been denied his civil rights by authority of the government. Instead, they seemed to feel that, once they barge into a home and take the guns, they must also take a body.

"I’ll tell you what we are going to do for you," said the officer. "We are going to give you a ride 90 miles down the road to the hospital to see a psychiatrist."

"But I don’t need a psychiatrist, all I need is some justice. I don’t have the money for a psychiatrist."

"That’s alright," said the officer. "It’s a state hospital. It won’t cost you a thing."

Well, Mr. Kirkpatrick was handcuffed and forcibly taken from his home like a criminal. After spending 6 hours in the waiting room of the hospital, the psychiatrist interviewed him for 10 minutes with the conclusion that Mr. Kirkpatrick did not need any treatment. The psychiatrist agreed that he too would be upset if this had happen to him.

Mr. Kirkpatrick was charged for the visit. It cost him over $500 for that 10 minutes to tell the psychiatrist that he had been abused by the law. Although he tried. Kirkpatrick could not get either the state or his health insurance to pay for his forced visit to the hospital.

This story is true, and is not just an isolated incident. This type of ominous activity is occurring with alarmingly increasing frequency as police, government, and military agencies gain more and more power through the continual legislative, legal, and administrative attacks on our freedoms.

The question is, with all of this going on more and more all the time, who is doing anything about it? Who is standing up protesting the usurpation of our rights. Remember, rights are based on principles. Principles are absolutes. Either you have the right or you do not. Either you have the right to bear arms and protect yourself or you do not. If you agree with the partial abrogation of rights, then you must face the fact that in reality you do not have that right at all. On the whim of a government agency, it can be taken away from you. This is the danger facing us today. It is the same danger that faced Germany and Europe in 1935, when the Germans were so proud of the fact that they had full gun registration. Are we doomed to repeat history? Are we really such fools?