A voters guide published in our local paper for Sunday Oct. 19th.
Candidate for Texas State Representative District 14 Ron Darby (libertarian) provided us with the test we should apply to all candidates for elected office at any level.

All programs must pass the 3 question test:
Is it Constitutional?
Do we need it?
Can we afford it?

If we would all force our elected officials at every level to live up to this simple test for policy and program decisions we would all live in better country.

Two very surprising developments in the war on guns occurred last month. One in the District of Columbia and the other in the Great State of Texas.
After 30 years of Unconstitutional repression the citizens of the District will finally be free to exercise there God given right to self defense.

I know this grates on the nerves of the left but the truth is the truth. I have done it before and will do it again, post the exact wording of the Second Amendment so you can read it with out some Government school teacher interpreting it for you.
(for those of you interested the bill of rights can be found here)

Now just in case you prefer the nightly news version I will break this down.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,(Big Comma There).
Militia, at the time of the writing was not as some Anti-Freedom types like to say refering to membership in the National Guard. The National Guard did not exist at the time of the writing of our Constitution. Militia in that time frame refers to the orderly gathering of citizens together to aid in the defense. Both the defense of the country as a whole, the state, or even the city or little burg they lived in. It meant and literally still does mean that every peasant with a gun can and should be the last line of defense for the security of a free state. Then there is the Comma, to me the biggest comma in American History. That comma means as it does in many other of the fist ten amendments
“we think these ideas are linked but not dependant on each other”.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms,(again the comma) shall not be infringed. Clearly just as with all ten amendments this means that Congress has no authority in this matter. This as with all of the Bill of Rights, it clearly restricts the Government from interfering in a right granted by our creator and clearly that right is granted to individuals not some mythical group. Here is your reference example:
Eight Amendment:

Excessive bail shall not be required,(again one of those nasty commas) nor excessive fines imposed…

Now if you believe the Government school teachers or the leftist gun control activists you would have to think that in just 6 little amendments the framers completely changed how they thought and wrote down those thoughts. Excessive bail shall not be required, the comma exists to state “we think these ideas belong together but are not beholden to each other” nor excessive fines imposed. Now if you are to believe the Left about the second amendment meaning the militia is only supposed to have guns then you have to believe here that the framers meant that if the bail was reasonable then the fine could be outrageous, or that if the fine was reasonable then the bail could be your first born child. What they meant is exactly what you read, the government can not do either of these things. Exactly as the Second reads, the government can not restrict either of these activities and neither one individually is dependant on participation in the other. Individual citizens can not be restricted from owning weapons to defend themselves, their families and their property from invaders no matter they be thieves, foreign armies or the Federal government.

So now in the March ruling from the D.C. Circuit Court on an appeal from a lower court we get this:

To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.

That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad).

In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty.

Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.

The judges of the D.C. Circuit Court understand exactly what role they are to play in the legislative process. They are to read the law and then see if it violates by letter or spirit any section, clause or amendment to the Constitution. They in fact did exactly what the framers intended, they realized that a legislature had passed a law that specifically violated the citizen’s rights and they struck down that law.

This one is a freebie: (just cause it drives socialists crazy)
Tenth Amendment:

Simply put, if power is not specifically granted here then the Government has NO Authority to Regulate. So it shoots holes in the theory that Government can do anything that the Constitution does not say it cannot. No, Government may ONLY do the things that the Constitution SPECIFICALLY says it can, and nothing else.

Now on to the heartwarming part, in the Great State of Texas the Legislature and the Governors office have realized that the right to self-preservation and protection of ones person, family and property is a right far beyond the reach of mans laws. On March 27th 2007 Governor Rick Perry’s office released this statement:

“The right to defend oneself from an imminent act of harm should not only be clearly defined in Texas law, but is intuitive to human nature,” said Gov. Perry. “Today, I am proud to sign the Castle Law which allows Texans to not only protect themselves from criminals, but to receive the protection of state law when circumstances dictate that they use deadly force".

The state legislature of Texas has finally realized that citizens have a right to defend themselves. They have now taken the first step toward correcting on of the biggest and most egregious injustices that exist in our nation today. The notion that government entities are supposed to protect us. It is the right and responsibility of the citizen to be prepared to protect and defend themselves, their families, their property and their livelihood against all who would do them harm. Now Texas has put that on paper and made it law. The State can not seek prosecution of a citizen who exercises the God given right to self defense.
We salute Gov. Perry and the sitting Texas Legislature for realizing that the rights of the citizens cannot be infringed upon by Government.

(Exact text of Texas Senate Bill 378 can be found here)

(Explanation of how this affects Texas Citizens can be found here)