Whether the left likes it or not, firearms are a part of America’s history. We were born from the gun, settlers moved West and survived with a gun, brother fought brother with a gun and America helped saved the world with the gun. The left may grimace, but our history is intertwined with the firearm.
Many families possess cherished family heirloom firearms. Though I possess many practical firearms, it’s no coincidence that the one I take the best care of is my grandfather’s old .22 rifle that I keep harbored in a leather scabbard that once hung from his trusty horse, Sam.
One New Jersey man, however, has learned that his family heirloom is not a family heirloom so long as the government is concerned; it’s an “assault weapon” and subject to confiscation.
In April of 2013, Danny Burt had his gun collection seized by the New Jersey State Police when a temporary restraining order was placed upon him. Burt lost his 21 guns and his Second Amendment rights- right that are supposedly God-given and not rights “given” by government.
However, among the firearms seized was his cherished family heirloom- his grandfather’s M1 Carbine that was used in World War II.
The M1 Carbine was the alternative issued to soldiers who still needed a rifle, but whose duties did not necessitate the use of the heavy and bulky M1 Garand issued to riflemen, such as mortar operators.
The rifle that helped liberate Europe and the Pacific from the clutches of the Nazis and the Japanese, respectively, is, according to the State of New Jersey, an illegal “assault weapon.”
Though Burt claimed that the rifle had significant sentimental value and that he was not even sure if the rifle was operable, the court upheld the draconian gun confiscation.
Whether one is “pro-gun” or “anti-gun” is irrelevant; what is clear is that subjects (not citizens) of New Jersey are living in a state that does not seem to recognize the supremacy of the Constitution.
The Second Amendment is clear in that it provides a right to bear arms that, as the amendment reads, “shall not be infringed.”
Now, liberals are free to dislike the amendment and are more than welcome to crusade for its repeal. However, as the law is written currently, the Second Amendment remains remarkably clear: we hold the right to individual firearm ownership and this right “shall not be infringed.”
In Mr. Burt’s case, his firearms were seized by police without due process and the burden was upon him to regain that which was already his.
The government of New Jersey has not only unlawfully seized his property, but has declared that he is not allowed to own this firearm. In New Jersey, one must possess a firearm identification card to be allowed to own a firearm and such a privilege is revocable, as seen in the case of Mr. Burt.
How, by any stretch of the imagination, could such draconian requirements be considered anything other than an “infringement” upon the right to bear arms?
As a frame of reference, when the British increased taxes on tea a miniscule amount, we Americans went nuts began to revolt. Have we as a nation lost our nerve?