Tactical Tailor: Ingels on Constitutionality

by David Reeder

I recently had an interesting conversation with Casey Ingels, the CEO of Tactical Tailor. It was interesting because hed just drafted a Federal complaint against State of Washington on Constitutional grounds. Now, to be clear, he doesnt actually have anyone to file it against, yet, hes 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 underlying Constitutional 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 isnt just about gun control. All of the Amendments deal with things of tremendous importance and public safetyor 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 reactionsthats 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 attention on incidents of gun violence many states have essentially jumped on a bandwagon. He argues that theyre passing laws that are inconsistent, will make no real progress in the reduction of violence and are ultimately an emotional unconstitutional response to the grief and outrage felt in the wake a national tragedy. He also believes most people are genuinely unaware of just how simple the pertinent body of law is, with respect to something more complicated, like privacy. It isnt 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 thats what it represents in potential. Thats my grave concern here. Many people are unaware that Ingels formerly served with 2ND BN/75 Ranger Regiment. Hes 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 on Constitutional cases. As such he comes with to the debate with a different perspective than many other in the pro-gun community.

In Tactical Tailor's manufacturing facility, discussing Sequestration with Washington Congressman Denny Heck.

Heres 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 follow the mechanical application of Constitutional requirements when making decisions on Constitutional issues. The U.S. Constitution provides the framework to insure that the States do not pass inconsistent laws that infringe upon rights guaranteed in the U.S. no matterin fact because ofthe emotional and sometimes irrational feelings attached to an emotional issue. Clearly thisis a passionate issue, but the United States has addressed several passionate issues that are all vitally and equally as important has gun rights and restrictionssuffrage, slavery, the definition of citizenship... The 2ND Amendment of the U. S. Constitution is the relevant section that protects an individuals right to possess and carry firearms but its certainly not the only vital Amendment, and once you infringe upon one you imperil them all.

Ingels explains that Constitutional Federalists (and Fundamentalists) would argue (correctly) the Federal government has limited power. However he is confident that though they might take issue with his interpretation of States rights, they would ultimately agree with his analysis of the Constitutional precedent and process. The case law with the Second Amendment, he says, is clear, and as recent as 2010. The Second Amendment specifically prohibits the Federal Government from passing laws that infringe upon that Second Amendment. This begs the question as to whether the individual States can pass laws that infringe upon the Second Amendment. The short answer is no, they cannot. Why? Because the Second Amendment applies to the States equally through the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court upheld this analysis in In McDonald v. Chicago, [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 States like Colorado and cities such as Chicago passing weapons restrictions that go beyond the Second Amendment and federal common law? It means that these laws will have to pass Constitutional scrutiny, which they are unlikely to do. The States are opening themselves up to costly litigation by irrationally passing frequently impractical, ineffective laws that will not pass constitutional scrutiny. What you will see develop 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 youre going to protect the nation as a whole. The Constitution is a fluid document designed to be interpreted. To change it, you must amend it, as was done with the Eighteenth and Twenty-First Amendment. It was quite a conversation, as you might imagine, and hes clearly passionate about the topicin 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 dont know why there arent more companies filing suit yetmaybe some are focused on sequestration and just keeping their doors open, maybe some are biding their timebut 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 vested interest in this, were a part of the industry, butset that to the side for a momentwere not a firearms manufacturer, we wouldnt be as impacted [as

firearm manufacturers] and certainly not as much as the class of individual gun owners, but this is important. This isnt just about protecting your right to keep and bear arms, this is about your freedom of speech, your freedom of the press, all of it. I've asked him to watch the comments section here to respond, if he is able (he will be extremely busy over the next few days because of sequestration) and he promised he'd try. One point I'd like to make, and hopefully he'd agree - rational discourse is imperative on a topic like this. Simple, stubborn, blunt arguments - whichever side of the debate you come down on - are not going to do anything to convince anyone on the other side. For those who believe as Ingels does (and honestly as do I), you would do well to remember: you have to listen if you expect them to, and although a convincing, well reasoned argument may not feel as good or be as self congratulatory as a Come and take them/Cold dead hands type argument, it has a better chance of swaying those who're on the fence. In any case, hopefully he wont have to file itbut Im not holding my breath. David Reeder is a retired military veteran and LEO who spent the last few years of his career teaching combat tracking. He is a freelance writer whose work has appeared in several magazines. He occasionally appears on Soldier Systems Daily, writes for Kit Up and is a sometime contributor to Breach-Bang-Clear.