OK

There might be.

Article IV Section 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
But I suppose that it will depend upon what the legal definition of "domestic violence" is, as it pertains to the Constitution.

The level of crime and violence, I've been reminded quite frequently here, has been dropping for twenty years, and that includes slaughter by gunshot.

It doesn't seem that way to me, but I've spent my whole life in a smallish town in southwest Washington State.

Since the mass murder of what can only be described as babies, really, just five and six year olds and teachers and the Principal of the Sandy Hook elementary school it seems like these horrific events just keep on happening more and more and more.

It's probably a combination of our 24-hour news channels and the spread of current 'news' events via social media. Everywhere you look, round the clock, there's the information on the latest such terrible occurrence.

Because the numbers, they tell me, don't lie. Less people are dying from gunshots.

OK. Let's say I take those data points as a given. Let's say I agree that there are less dead people today than a decade ago, from violence and murder most foul.

That's just not good enough. Not for me.

The father of one of the more recent victims of Gun Violence in America said it best. Mr. Martinez didn't lash out at the murderer of his son, or the family which nurtured the beast that stole the life of his child. He took it straight to those responsible for keeping the peace and ensuring the safe society in which we should expect to live. He blamed the politicians and the leaders and told them in no uncertain terms:

#NotOneMore


The 2nd Amendment however is a stumbling block of monumental proportions to anyone with the desire to see the end of slaughter by guns, in these United States.

Recent Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decisions have come down on the side of gun supporters, more and more. There is little to no hope that we will see any serious restrictions or regulation on gun ownership anytime soon.

UPDATE from the comments by Wayward Wind

Since the Heller/McDonald decisions, there has been a flood of lawsuits filed in lower courts attempting to expand on the principles laid down in Heller. Overwhelmingly, those efforts have failed miserably - 96% of the 800+ lawsuits filed resulted in rulings which upheld the gun control/gun safety laws.
The PR machines for the gun nut organizations (NRA, GOA, SAF, etc.) have been working overtime to downplay this aspect of their efforts, and to create the illusion that they are winning repeatedly in their efforts. That helps fill the coffers with donations, and gives them far broader political power than they would otherwise enjoy, but it remains an illusion, not a reality.

Post Heller Litigation Summary April 2014

Supreme Court Leaves Lower Court Victories Untouched

So, what's a person who desires a safer society to do, when faced with all of that?

This one decided to go read her Constitution, again. Hoping against hope that somewhere within those words of wisdom lay a small thread which might lead to something with which to fight back against the cold steel in the hearts of the gun enthusiasts.

Do you read what I read in Article IV, Section 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

[emphasis added]


If I'm reading this correctly, it says that the Federal Gov't of the United States is promising to render aid to any state whose Legislature or Executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) applies for assistance with the issue of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

Now, I'm certain sure that that phrase most decidedly does NOT refer to the sort of Domestic violence which occurs in individual homes on a regular basis.

I have the sneaking suspicion that it means violence committed against the State. But then, the regular, violent, slaughter of innocent citizens in their schools and movie theaters and shopping malls seems like it would fit this description, doesn't it?

Can we not say that en toto these actions are the equivalent of an aggressive act of Domestic Violence against The People?

Is #SlaughterByGun not a sufficient danger to describe it as Domestic Violence against The People and the State?

How say you, Legal Beagles and RBKA enthusiasts?

Originally posted to My .02¢ from The Other Washington on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 05:43 PM PDT.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.