2nd Amendment Helps with Border Security

Good Evening All,

First, a little background of myself to hopefully help with building my credibility on the topic I am about to engage in. I am a USMC Veteran, I specialized in Anti-tank infantry and the last year and a half of my time with the Marines, I was the legal chief of First Tank Battalion out of California. I am currently a history major with a minor in political sciences at Texas Tech University.

As we sit here and discuss how to help improve the border situation, I posed myself with a question: why is there such a problem with gun running and drug smuggling across our border, especially in the Rio Grande area? This of course led to other questions posed later.

The laws are there. It’s illegal to smuggle drugs, or weapons, or people across the border. So why does it keep happening? There is only so much that Border Patrol and local police can do along the border. It is our responsibility to help secure our borders, especially those who literally live on the border itself but more so as an entire state. Again I am faced with trying to figure out what the problem is. Yet again I turned to the law. There is law after law that restrict Texans from doing what is necessary to secure the border by the Federal government. Quiet frankly we cannot lay blame solely on the shoulders of the Federals government, after all, when they do restrict us, Texas Legislature doesn’t appear to do anything to counter it. Granted I am not an expert on Texas immigration laws but I personally cannot find through any source where the Federal government has the right to dictate how a state goes about securing it’s borders for the greater safety of the nation as a whole. At least I cannot find it in the Constitution of the United States, which is where the Federal government gets it’s power from. After all, there have been at least four confirmed Islamic terrorist having been caught coming through the southern border and that documentation is in San Antonio and those are only the ones they are telling us about.

To the point of the 2nd Amendment. The US Constitution states that: ” A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The Texas Constitution reads: “Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.”

Now according to Merriam-Webster dictionary the most fitting definition of the word “keep” means “to continue having or holding (something): to not return, lose sell, give away, or throw away (something).” That means according to this we have a right to “keep” or own firearms. The next word that we have to look at, which is the most important, is to “bear” arms and using the same source, the only definition that can possibly apply to firearms means “to be equipped or furnished with (something).” In this source, “furnished” is highlighted, suggesting further information. It states that for the term equip it “suggests the provision of something making for efficiency in action or use.” How can one use a firearm for personal protection, as state law states, if they have to leave it at home because of laws that the state has put in place?

That was a lot of information I know but it has to be presented for my argument. According to the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, clause 2) of the US Constitution a state law cannot make laws that make it impossible to follow both state and federal law. Now I love Texas. I believe we are shining examples of how this country should be run but there is a problem here. Federal law, according to those definitions, states that there can be no law infringing on our 2nd Amendment rights. Texas state law says they CAN infringe on our rights by saying they can regulate the wearing of arms (meaning conceal carry laws). This violates the Supremacy Clause but Texas isn’t the only one in the wrong here. Also according to those definitions, the only ones that can possibly be applied to the right of firearms, the Federal government is wrong in trying to implement any law that prevents a person from owning legally, and carrying in public, firearms by an American citizen. As much as I hate to say this, even criminals have the right to protect themselves. Some do change in jail while others don’t but it is proven that if good people have guns, crime tends to go down because criminals that don’t change are not as likely to commit crimes for fear of losing their life.

So how does this apply to border security? By going to Constitutional Carry, we can ease the strain on those currently charged with securing our borders. Regardless of what Jeb Bush, who apparently is an idiot, says, illegal immigration is not an act of love but it could be looked at as an invading force regardless of size or who is in coordinating it. This means we need to allow those living on the border, and across the state, the right to defend themselves, their property and their families with force if they feel those things are being threatened instead of punishing them for protecting themselves. We also need to stop this idea that our Constitutional Rights stop when we step outside our doors and off of our property. Last time I checked, I didn’t need permission for my First Amendment right or my Third through Tenth Amendment rights so why do I need permission for the Second Amendment? Why can I protect myself at home but the moment I leave home I lose that and need a special permission?

I hope that maybe someone can clarify this up for me. If the Attorney General would be so kind to personally respond I would be very grateful. If anyone else can help clarify feel free to email me at timothy.miller0916@gmail.com with an appropriate title so that I know it isn’t junk mail.

Semper Fidelis
Timothy Miller