Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Tactical Tailor - Ingels on Constitutionality

Tactical Tailor - Ingels on Constitutionality

Ratings: (0)|Views: 464|Likes:
Published by solsys

More info:

Published by: solsys on Feb 28, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

02/28/2013

pdf

text

original

 
Tactical Tailor: Ingels on Constitutionality
by David Reeder 
I recently had an interesting conversation with Casey Ingels, the CEO o Tactical Tailor . 
It was interesting because he’d just drafted a Federal co
mplaint against State of Washington on Constitutional grounds.
 Now, to be clear, he doesn’t actually have anyone to file it
against,
yet, he’s just getting it ready in the event any of the
threatened gun control legislation becomes law.
“Listen,” Casey told me, “a lot of people, maybe
most 
 people, are missing the underlyingConstitutional element of this in the larger context.State lawmakers are seizing on emotion at a time of 
national tragedy and circumventing the Constitutional process...this isn’t just
about gun control.
 All 
of the Amendments deal with things of tremendous
importance and public safety…or do we suddenly think slavery and suffrage is
somehow less important than the right to keep and bear arms? The same standards
must 
 be applied to everything in the Bill of Rights. States are infamous for knee jerk reactions
 —that’s why we have an amendment process in the first place.
 All 
Constitutional rights are vitally important.”
 
It is Ingels’ belief that between ongoing gun control debate and media atten
tion onincidents of gun violence many states have essentially jumped on a bandwagon. He
argues that they’re passing laws that are inconsistent, will make no real progress in the
reduction of violence and are ultimately an emotional
unconstitutional 
response to thegrief and outrage felt in the wake a national tragedy. He also believes most people aregenuinely unaware of just how simple the pertinent body of law is, with respect tosomething more complicated, like privacy.
“It isn’t complicated,” he says.
 
“It just seems that way. People need to look at this
not as an infringement on the Second Amendment, but on
every
Amendment,
 because that’s what it represents in potential. That’s my grave concern here.”
 Many people are unaware that Ingels formerly served with 2
 ND
BN/75 Ranger Regiment.
He’s not just a former Ranger and avid mountain climber, he is a licensed attorney,
licensed to practice in all Federal courts. He is a member of the American Bar Association and the Federal Bar Association with extensive litigation experience onConstitutional cases. As such he comes with to the debate with a different perspectivethan many other in the pro-guncommunity.
 
 
 In Tactical Tailor's manufacturing facility, discussing Sequestration with Washington Congressman Denny Heck.
Here’s his stance on things— 
 
“The key to a rational and balanced approach,” he says, “is to follow the
requirements set forth in the U.S. Constitution and to make sure that we followthe mechanical application of Constitutional requirements when making decisionson Constitutional issues. The U.S. Constitution provides the framework to insurethat the States do not pass inconsistent laws that infringe upon rights guaranteedin the U.S. no matter 
 — 
in fact
because of 
 — 
the emotional and sometimes
irrational feelings attached to an emotional issue.”
 
“Clearly this…is a passionate issue, but the United States has addressed
 several 
 passionate issues that are all
vitally and equally
as important has gun rights and
restrictions…suffrage, slavery, the definition of citizenship...
The 2
 ND
 Amendment of the U. S. Constitution is the relevant section that protects an
individual’s right to possess and carry firearms but it’s certainly not the only vital
Ame
ndment, and once you infringe upon one you imperil them all.”
 
 
Ingels explains that Constitutional Federalists (andFundamentalists) would argue (correctly) the Federalgovernment has limited power. However he is confident thatthough they might take issue with his interpretation of 
State’s rights, they would ultimately agree with his analysis
of the Constitutional precedent and process. The case lawwith the Second Amendment, he says, is clear, and as recentas 2010.
“The Second Amendment specifically proh
ibits the
 Federal Government 
from passing laws that infringeupon that Second Amendment. This begs thequestion as to whether the individual States can passlaws that infringe upon the Second Amendment. Theshort answer is no, they cannot. Why? Because theSecond Amendment applies to the States equallythrough the equal protection clause of the
 Fourteenth
Amendment. The SupremeCourt upheld this analysis in In 
,[561 U.S. 3025 (2010)],where the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local
governments to the same extent that it limits the Federal government.”
 
“What does this mean given our current situation, with State
s like Colorado andcities such as Chicago passing weapons restrictions that go beyond the SecondAmendment and federal common law? It means that these laws will have to passConstitutional scrutiny, which they are unlikely to do. The States are openingthemselves up to costly litigation by irrationally passing frequently impractical,ineffective laws that will not pass constitutional scrutiny. What you will seedevelop is that several Constitutional law attorneys will challenge the validity of the laws in order to protect the total sanctity of the Constitution, not only to protect the Second Amendment
but to protect against infringement of all  fundamental rights guaranteed within the U.S. Constitution
. Follow the process
and you’re going to protect the n
ation as a whole. The Constitution is a fluiddocument designed to be interpreted. To change it, you must amend it, as wasdone with the Eighteenth and Twenty-
First Amendment.”
 
It was quite a conversation, as you might imagine, and he’s clearly passionate
about the
topic…in fact, he texted me at least a dozen times and then called me back after to
discuss it further.
“We have a social responsibility to stand up and bring these suits. I don’t knowwhy there aren’t more companies filing suit yet…maybe some ar 
e focused onsequestration and just keeping their doors open, maybe some are biding their 
time…but if and when these laws are passed in Washington State, we will take
aggressive action against it, and not just on our behalf. Clearly we have a vestedintere
st in this, we’re a part of the industry, but…set that to the side for amoment…we’re not a firearms manufacturer, we wouldn’t be as impacted [as

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->