Reckless Endangerment

​By TPATH Contributor
Ms. RoseAnn Salanitri

January 10, 2015 ~TPATH~ The new year brought with it old concerns – especially regarding the vulnerability of American citizens, including a worldwide increase in Islamic terrorists’ activities.  As the Islamic terrorist movement grows, our vulnerability is increased not only by the terrorists but by lawmakers that have seriously infringed upon our Second Amendment right to defend ourselves and our families. 

The Second Amendment is short and clear.  It reads: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms (sic), shall not be infringed.  (Emphasis added) While some dispute the meaning of what our Founders meant by the term “Militia”, the second half of the Amendment that is emphasized above is unambiguous. It simply means that the “people” – that’s you and me – have the right to purchase, keep, and carry firearms.  

​According to our Constitution, this is a civil right that is meant to be protected by government.  It bears repeating. This is not a privilege. It is a right. Therefore, it does not require a license and should not be regulated or infringed upon. This Amendment, which is part of our Constitution, is also legally binding upon all law makers and government officials who have taken and oath to uphold the Constitution.  By virtue of their office, no one – no, not one – has the right to infringe upon any of our civil rights, including this one.  As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions that any law that is contrary to the Constitution is no law at all.  Therefore, all the well-meaning firearms regulations are unconstitutional, since they infringe upon a civil right that is guaranteed in the Constitution. 

​Even the most notoriously liberal Ninth District Court recognized our civil right to defend ourselves against terrorists.  They stated: “The right to bear arms is the bulwark against external invasion. We should not be overconfident that oceans on the east and west coasts alone can preserve security. We recently saw in the case of the terrorists attack on Mumbai that terrorist may enter a country covertly by ocean routes, landing in small craft and then assembling to wreak havoc. That we have a lawfully armed populace adds a measure of security for all of us and makes less likely that a band of terrorist could make headway in an attack on any community before more professional forces arrived…” In Nordyke v. King, 364 F.3d 1025, 1037 (9th), Judge Gould stated: “As I have said previously, I do not think that individual rights under the Second Amendment are outmoded․ The Second Amendment was designed to provide national security not only when our country is strong but also if it were to become weakened or otherwise subject to attack. As the people bear the risk of loss of their freedom and the pain of any attack, our Constitution provides that the people have a right to participate in defense of the Nation. The Second Amendment protects that fundamental right.”  

​Although many of our lawmakers may believe that they are doing good by instituting gun control legislation, they are actually endangering this country and our citizens by infringing upon their civil right to defend themselves with firearms.  In the process, they are creating a situation where citizens, now increasingly at risk from terrorists’ attacks, lack the means of defending themselves.  This is not only ill-advised, it is reckless and it endangers our citizens –  and “reckless endangerment” is not only a distasteful term; it is a criminal violation. According to USLegal.com, reckless endangerment is defined as:…a crime consisting of acts that create a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. The accused person isn’t required to intend the resulting or potential harm, but must have acted in a way that showed a disregard for the foreseeable consequences of the actions…It should be noted that according to the definition above, the person guilty of reckless endangerment did not have to intentionally place their victim in harm’s way – even those exercising good intentions can be guilty of reckless endangerment. 

Furthermore, the harm can also be interpreted to be “potential.”  For example, if a parent places a child in a hot locked car, the parent returns quickly and that child doesn’t die and the parent’s never intended that any harm should come to the child, they are still guilty of reckless endangerment. Given all of the above, especially in this day and age when terrorist threats abound, our legislators that have signed gun regulations into law that infringe upon our right to own and carry firearms, are guilty of reckless endangerment.  Additionally, such laws that have passed are not laws at all since they are in clear violation of our Second Amendment, which has clearly defined the right to carry as a civil right.