Last night I had a dream

I had a dream the other night that someone established a country where the people were the masters and the governors were the servants, where the people had inalienable rights of freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech and religion, the un-infringable right to bear arms, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure and many others all guaranteed in writing and where the government's authority was limited to a finite, delineated number of powers and where the most industrious and productive citizens were rewarded; a country where the governors are elected based on the content of their character not the colour of their skins . . . if only dreams could become true . . . oh well time to stop dreaming and return to the real world!

Nullification

In 1798 Thomas Jefferson and James Madison wrestled with the question that we are faced with today; "What happens when the federal government oversteps its constitutional authority?"  In the Kentucky Resolutions Jefferson put forth the concept of nullification, the act of the states to undo legislation by the federal government that the federal government did not have the constitutional authority to pass.   Jefferson postulated that since the states formed the federal government  and ratified the constitution then it followed that the states, not the federal government (nor, as was  later usurped by the  Marshall court, the judiciary), were the ultimate arbiters of constitutionality and especially as to the constitutionality of acts of the federal government not specifically granted to the federal government under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution and that the states had the authority, under the Tenth Amendment, to tell the federal government  "No".  

Madison, commonly accepted as the father of the Constitution, in the Virginia Resolution exerted that the only way the union would survive is for the states to watch over the federal government and assure that it exercises only the powers assigned to it and agreed upon in the Constitution.

Today, under what can only be described as the most anti-America regime in our history, we are witness to the most egregious overreaches of the federal government, overreaches which not only threaten the constitution but also the entire existence of the republic. 

Obama, Holder, the liberal leftist in state and federal legislatures, the supreme court, and certain governors’ offices can say anything they want; they can issued any “executive order”, they can pass any acts and laws they want, and issue any opinions they want but the secret they know and hope you, as “the people”, never find out and act on is that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that any act, law, opinion, or "executive order" that conflicts with anything  in the constitution is unlawful and is, by the nature of their being unlawful, null and void; no citizen is lawfully nor morally obligated to obey them, no law enforcement officer is lawfully nor morally obligated to enforce them, no court is lawfully nor morally obligated to adjudicate them, and no jury is lawfully nor morally obligated to pass judgment on offenses against them;  in fact all have a legal and moral obligation, as Jefferson has said,  to nullify them!

In our time no less a legal authority than the encyclopedia of United States law, the American Jurisprudence, in Volume 16 of the second edition, Section 177 (the later edition you will find this information in section 256) asserts:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land.  The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement.  It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail.  This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.  An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed.  Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it....

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.  An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.  Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

How then do the states tell the federal government "No!"?  The process is easily established; if the federal government passes legislation outside the 19 delineated powers granted to it or which conflicts with anything in the constitution then a state legislature draws up a resolution addressing the legislation and delineates the reasons for its nullification, it  then proceeds to passes it.  The nullification legislation is then presented to the governor of the state for signature which, once signed, declares that the unconstitutional federal legislation does not apply within that state and is thus nullified.  

Until the people and the state legislatures understand and embrace the concept of nullification the central government will continue the usurpation of unintended powers until the ultimate goal of the left is achieved, the nullification of the constitution itself and with its nullification the extinguishing of the flame of liberty in this nation.

Lies and Half Truths

OK, I think it’s about time that someone exposes what I consider some of the half-truths and lies surrounding the “debate” over gun control and since no one else has tackled that “gorilla in the room” I guess I will.

“The people are behind the President on gun control!” . . . lie!   If “the people” are behind the President on gun control how does one explain the spike in firearms, high capacity magazines, ammunition, and reloading supplies sales since the Newtown massacre and since the President declared war on the second amendment, lawful gun owners, and the whole of the American people.  Firearms manufacturers report that firearms purchases since Newtown have driven firearm sales to 5-year highs, and data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation shows that the agency performed 2.78 million background checks in December 2012 (when Obama first declared war), which is up from the 2.01 million conducted during the previous month, which was the first month to exceed two million.  Or that concealed carry permit applications in Utah alone tripled in December, 2012.   Or the fact that from  December, 2012 until the present time .223 caliber ammunition (the type of ammunition for the AR-15, the most popular “assault rifle”) has flown off the shelves of sporting goods stores and departments as did the supplies needed to reload “assault rifle” ammunition; small rifle primers, brass cases, and projectiles are not to be found.   This trend has been replicated for all calibers of ammunition while the Federal government under Obama has exasperated the shortages by buying up 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition for "civilian departments" of the government.   According to a recent NEWSMAX poll 71% of the people polled responded “No” to the question “Should the federal government regulate guns of any type?”, 71% responded “No” to the question “Should Congress ban semi-automatic weapons?”,  79% responded “No” to the question “If Congress does not act, should President Obama use an executive order to ban or strictly control the sale of semi-automatic weapons?”, and 81% answered “Yes” to the question “Do you agree that the Second Amendment gives citizens the right to own and bear guns without infringement?”.   Perhaps a truer statement would be “Anti-gun, anti-second amendment advocates are behind the President on gun control and his despotic attempt to unconstitutionally disarm the American people.”.

“Children will be safer with more stringent gun control laws.” . . . lie!  To quote Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.  Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one.".  If the first person, the school’s principal,  to confront the malevolent beast at Newtown was armed and trained in the use of deadly force it is most likely that the whole thing would have ended with that confrontation and the death of Lanza.  Instead she and twenty-five others were killed.  

In an attempt to keep people safe, both the Aurora Theater and Sandy Hill were "gun free zones".  “Gun free zones” rather than serving to protect serve in fact  as just open invitations to cowards to attack the defenseless without fear of confrontation.  The events that have spurred these most recent attacks on the Second Amendment played out in “gun free zones"; areas where the attackers could be relatively assured that their targets would be unarmed and unable to defend themselves.  These events are proofs of Beccaria’s admonition rather than supports for stronger gun control laws.   Increased gun control has only served to make the vulnerable more vulnerable not less.

“Assault rifles are more dangerous than other rifles.” . . . lie!  In a recent experiment I read about individuals were shown two rifles one which was a “standard” rifle with light coloured, wooden stock and forearm the other had a black adjustable, synthetic stock and forearm, pistol grip, and a flash suppressor.  In every case the “assault rifle”, the black one, was identified as being more dangerous . . . both rifles where exactly the same except for the configuration of the “furniture”.

“No one uses an assault rifle to hunt deer.” . . . lie!  The fastest growing variety of rifle used for hunting, plinking, and target shooting is the AR-15, the “assault rifle”.  It is as efficient in hunting as any other rifle.

“No one needs 30 rounds to kill a deer.” . . . half truth.  While it is true a hunter should only need one bullet to take a deer this statement would only make sense in the context of this “debate” if the Second Amendment’s original intent was to insure the right of the people to hunt . . . it was not.   While anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment liberals would like to deny it, the original intent of the Second Amendment was to ensure that the people, in the form of a non-standing militia (the National Guard and federal armed services being a standing militia or army), would always have access to the firearms necessary to protect themselves and other civilians from a federal governmental which abandons the Constitution and descends into tyranny.

"Reducing magazine capacities will reduce casualties" - lie.  In numerous controlled tests it was found that the difference in placing 30 well placed shots in a target was negligible, a mere 1.44 seconds between a shooter using a 30-round magazine and 3 10-round magazines, in other words ejecting and reloading a magazine took less than 1 second (.72 seconds to be exact).  When the same tests were done with a relatively  inexperienced, nervous shooter who had difficulty ejecting and reloading the magazines the time difference was 8.6 seconds or 4.3 seconds to accomplish the reload.

"Easy access to firearms is the cause of our violent society." . . . big lie.   The arguments of those that are the current aggressors to the Constitution are that guns are the cause of violence in our society and that more stringent gun laws are the answer.  When the statistics of violence in our society are examined this assertion proves fallacious.  According to Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) figures for 2011, 323 people were killed with “assault rifles” in the United States while during the same period 496 people were killed with hammers, and 650 were killed with knives.  Would it not make sense therefore that, if their real intent were to reduce violence in society and an article were to be identified as the cause of that violence, we’d be outlawing or licensing, replete with background checks, hammers or knives since they were used more than twice as many times in killings?   Likewise, since 72% of violent crimes committed with firearms were committed with handguns rather than long guns and that it is twice as likely that a long gun used in a violent crime would be a shotgun as opposed to a rifle of any sort, would it not therefore make sense to focus on those weapons?  Once again according to FBI figures 99.9% of all firearms in the United States are not used in violent crimes, 99.8% of all firearms were not used in any crime at all and only 4% of those firearms used in crimes were obtained legally.  Why then the attack on “assault rifles” and firearms legally procured?

To quote Noah Webster "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe."   The answer then to the question posed is simple; pistols, shotguns, and bolt action rifles pose no real threat to an opposing force armed with modern, fully automatic weapons but citizens armed with equivalent weapons are and, in spite of what the anti-gun/anti-constitution leftist attack squads would like us to believe, the possibility of the people having to defend the Republic and the Constitution against a standing army raised and supported by a future tyrannical national government was the original motivation for the Second Amendment.

“The Second Amendment was intended to apply to the people formed into a militia not to individuals citizens.” . . . half truth.  The Second Amendment does say “A well regulated Militia, . . .” however that term, militia, must be understood with its 18th century meaning.  Since none of us were around in the 18th century we have to look to documents that are roughly contemporary to the Second Amendment, one of which is the Militia Act of 1792.   This act states, in part, “. . . each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, . . .”;  in the 18th century life expectancy of males was 35 to 50 years dependent on locale of residency (I believe it was 41 years in the United States).  Any reading of the Act reveals that  every male citizen from adulthood (18 years of age) to near the farthest extent of expected life were required to be members of the 'militia';  in  other words the militia was intended to consist of every adult male citizen.  

To ascertain the original intent of the architects in respect to the Second Amendment all we have to do is recall their words:

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” - attributed to Thomas Jefferson

 “And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …” - Samuel Adams

“Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference . . .” – George Washington

“The constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” - Alexander Hamilton

“The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” -  Thomas Jefferson

“Stronger gun laws will stop gun violence.” . . . big lie.  Laws do not stop crime . . . let me say that again for those too dense to understand this simple truth . . . laws do not stop crime nor any anti-social behaviours, they only provide penalties for violating acceptable social standards which when violated are deemed criminal.  It is an indisputable fact that it is only the law abiding that obey laws, those with malevolent criminal intentions do not. The view that new, more restrictive gun laws will somehow cause criminals to be deflected from committing criminal acts is not just naïve but verges on criminal malfeasance when that view is held by elected officials.

If stringent gun laws actually reduced violence then Chicago and New York City with among the most, if not the most, stringent gun laws would be the safest cities in America . . . they are not!  Recreational use of drugs has been illegal in this country for over 100 years and laws forbidding them have become increasingly stronger and numerous yet drug abuse is today as bad or worst than it has ever been.   Rape is illegal yet it still occurs, theft is illegal and still it occurs, and more relevant to this “debate” assault and murder are both illegal and in spite their illegality they still occur.  

While preventing firearms access for violent criminals and the violent, or potentially violent, mentally ill is necessary to protect society.  I would pose that there must be some rational relationship between public safety and such restrictions.  There is absolutely no rational relationship between someone who is convicted of a non-violent felony, for example tax evasion, and the probability that such a felon will commit a violent act in the future nor is there any rational relationship between someone who suffers from a benign mental disorder such as obsessive compulsive disorder, for example, and the probability that the sufferer, due to this relatively benign mental condition, will commit a violent act with a firearm in the future.  When establishing restrictions specificity must be used to protect the rights of individuals rather than painting members of a class with a broad brush for the purpose of political expediency.

Stronger gun laws will only force ordinarily law abiding citizens to choose to either become victims or criminals. 

“We need to ban assault rifles and high capacity magazines to prevent future Newtowns.” . . . big lie.  The investigation by police reported that 4 semi-automatic pistols were found in Sandy Hook elementary school, Lanza left the semi-automatic assault rifle and its high capacity magazines in his car in the parking lot.   Lanza used hand guns, not an assault rifle to commit the massacre.  Why then is the Obama controlled media and his administration pushing an assault rifle/high capacity magazine ban?  Remember this is the administration whose mantra is “never let a crisis go to waste”.  This is the liberal left’s opportunity to further its agenda to disarm the American people and kill the Second Amendment by cynically and cold heartedly using the slaughter of these children do it.  

“Disarming the people is the most effective way to enslave them.”  . . . THE TRUTH.  Every totalitarian regime needs to accomplish three things to secure their despotism; (1) destroy the family unit, (2) control communications and (3) disarm the people.  Where is the United States on this path?

Do your homework and don’t silently accept the lies . . . stand up for your rights.  By allowing the unconstitutional changes to the Second Amendment being proposed we will be damned by yet unborn generations for allowing the gift of liberty we enjoyed being stolen from them. 

Behind the Beard

The thing that few Americans seem to be unable to grasp is that the push by the current regime in Washington and its left-wing, anti-gun base has almost nothing to do with guns themselves but with expanding control over an increasingly docile and apathetic citizenry.  Guns are but the current “beard” behind which anti-Constitutionalists hide their real agenda. The current “debate” over gun control is in reality an attack by ever more aggressive left-wing forces on the Constitution and the very freedom of the American people.   I have saluted too many flag draped coffins of men and women, some of who gave their last full measure of devotion to this nation, to allow our Constitution to be abandoned without my opposing those elements which would turn us from a Constitutional Republic to a socialist paradise ruled by the whims and dictates of a “beloved leader” rather than a nation governed by law.  

The arguments of those that are the current aggressors to the Constitution are that guns are the cause of violence in our society and that more stringent gun laws are the answer.  When the statistics of violence in our society are examined this assertion proves fallacious.  According to Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) figures for 2011, 323 people were killed with “assault rifles” in the United States while during the same period 496 people were killed with hammers.  Would it not make sense therefore that, if their real intent were to reduce violence in society and an article were to be identified as the cause of that violence, we’d be outlawing or licensing, replete with background checks, hammers since they were used more than twice as many times in killings?   Likewise, since 72% of violent crimes committed with firearms were committed with handguns rather than long guns and that it is twice as likely that a long gun used in a violent crime would be a shotgun as opposed to a rifle of any sort, would it not therefore make sense to focus on those weapons?  Once again according to FBI figures 99.9% of all firearms in the United States are not used in violent crimes, 99.8% of all firearms were not used in any crime at all and only 4% of those firearms used in crimes were obtained legally.  Why then the attack on “assault rifles” and firearms legally procured?

If more stringent gun laws were the answer then how can one explain contradictions to their assertions such as the fact that after Washington, D.C. passed gun control laws banning people from owning firearms in 1974 the murder rate in the District went up by 134% while the murder rate in the rest of the U.S. went down 2% over the same period or that Chicago, with among the most stringent gun laws in the nation, has among the highest gun violence rates or that it appears that on every occasion and in every location when  conceal-carry gun laws have been allowed the crime rate has gone down?

How do these antagonists explain the fact that while private gun ownership in the United States is at all time highs overall gun violence, including murders, nationally are declining?   

All these facts come together to testify that there is no real causative relationship between violence and private firearms ownership and I would put forward that the real causative relationship is between violence and the moral decay brought on by the abandonment of the basic moral principles that this nation was built on and their being replaced by left-wing, liberal political correctness. 

What then is behind the beard?  To quote Noah Webster "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe."   

Throughout modern history enslavement of a free people has always been preceded by, primarily, three things; the destruction of the family unit and its replacement by fidelity to a charismatic leader, the conversion of a free press to the propaganda arm of the state, and the removal of the means of resistance from the people.  If we examine the state of American society today we can easily identify that two of these precursors, the destruction of the family unit and conversion of the free press, are well on their way to being accomplished and that the liberal-left and progressives have now turned their attack on the last, the means to resist enslavement. Their focus in this attack is on “assault” type weapons and high capacity magazines even though there is no real causative relationship between those items and violence anymore than there is between hammers and violence.   Why then the attack?  Simple, pistols, shotguns, and bolt action rifles pose no real threat to an opposing force armed with modern, fully automatic weapons and, in spite of what the anti-gun/anti-constitution leftist attack squads would like us to believe, the possibility of the people having to defend the Republic and the Constitution against a standing army raised and supported by a future tyrannical national government was the original intent of the Second Amendment.   

Today nontraditional news sources are ripe with the story of the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA purchasing 1.6 billion rounds of military grade ammunition, 2700 heavily armoured urban assault vehicles, and thousands of fully automatic “assault rifles” for “support of their response in natural disasters”.  Of course the traditional news media, when they acknowledge the purchases, are quick to point out that the ammunition purchases were simply a matter of the economics of scale, the Department was making a bulk purchase of ammunition for all government civil agencies as a cost savings; that the armoured vehicles are not assault vehicles but were purchased for use as ambulances or to transport supplies under adverse conditions which occur in natural disasters; and, while the firearms may look like “assault rifles”, they are in fact defensive, personal protection weapons for Department personnel in cases of “civil unrest”.  What is the truth, I don’t know, I’ll leave that up to the reader, but I would ask “If the ammunition purchase was to take advantage of economies of scale, why wasn’t the purchase made through the Department of Defense?” and “If the vehicles were not for urban assaults then why are they armoured when unarmored vehicles of the same type are so much cheaper and provide the same performance?”  and finally,  “Why, with an Army, Marine Corps, and National Guard would we need to arm a civilian force with fully automatic weapons?”   On July 2, 2008, in a speech he gave in Denver Mr. Obama said, “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set.  We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”, in case you’ve missed it, as did most of America at the time, notice the use of the royal “We” in describing  his plan.   Can this be the force he was suggesting?  I don’t know, all I do know is that by allowing the unconstitutional changes to the Second Amendment being proposed we will be damned by yet unborn generations for allowing the gift of the liberty we enjoyed being stolen from them. 

Contact your Governor and demand he sign all pro-gun legislation into law and demand that your representatives, both state and federal, publicly and privately defend the Second Amendment and the Constitution and stop all anti-gun legislation.

Who is the Militia?

“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 liberal-left, anti-gun/anti-Constitution movement focus primarily on  one word in the Second Amendment to nullify its application to the general population, “Militia”, declaring with non-existent authority that it is proof positive that the Second Amendment’s original intent was to establish a government controlled reserve armed force.  Is that true?  Just who is the militia?

The modern, legal definition of the “militia” is set forth in Section 311 of the United States Code (USC) Title 10, entitled “Militia: composition and classes”

"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are —

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

So, according to today’s definition, the militia is all citizens who are not members of the “organized militia”.

The original meaning, in the Constitution, of the word militia can be found in the words of, among other founding fathers, Richard Henry Lee who defined it as “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” and George Mason who said “I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.”   Support for their definitions can be found in the Militia Act of 1792, a document contemporary with them and the Constitution, which codified the militia as “. . . each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia . . . “.  It is evident therefore to any rational mind that both currently and at the time of the establishment of the Constitution that the militia was, and is intended to be, the entirety of the citizenry of the United States.  

Those that would disarm the people would counter by quoting the Second again, “A well regulated Militia . . .” They then would contend that “regulated” implies under the control of the federal government such as is the case of the National Guard.  However, such government regulation was not the intended meaning.  In the context of the Bill of Rights the term meant only what it says, that the militia be well regulated, but not by the federal government.   It just does not make sense that the Bill of Rights, being a proscription on the power and authority of the federal government, would introduce such an incongruity as to grant the power of regulation of the militia to the federal government especially when considering “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” was a militia that might, at some future time, be required to fight against a standing army raised and supported by a future tyrannical national government. 

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press,  or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; . . . or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions.” – Samuel Adams

The Constitution and its Amendments are the supreme law of the land and as such cannot be overridden or superseded by state or federal statute, judicial decision, nor by “executive order” but only by Amendment as described in Article V.  The attempt to deprive any citizen of the United States of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution under colour of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage (commonly referred to as under colour of authority) is punishable under Title 42, Sections 1983, 1985, and 1986  and Title 18, Sections 241 and 242 of the United States Code.   Current and past actions of all three branches of the federal, state, and municipal governments have, under colour of authority, infringed on the Second Amendment and unlawfully deprived citizens of the United States of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution.  Every citizen, in defense of the Constitution and their liberty, should demand that, at the very least, those members of the Legislative, the Judiciary, and the Executive branches (of municipal, state, and federal governments) be subjected to prosecution under Title 42 for their current attempts at deprivation of those Second Amendment rights. 

Perhaps Trent Coxe said it best, “Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”  It is up to us, the people, to defend the Constitution, our liberty, and our rights and not cheaply trade them for the illusion of momentary safety. 

 Write to your Governor and your legislators and demand an end to the current attack on the Second Amendment, their support for the original intent of the Second, the rescinding of current unconstitutional gun laws, and a return to Constitutional governance.   All changes to the Second Amendment or any part of the Constitution must be through the amendment process.

The Aurora Massacre

No sooner had the smoke cleared over the tragedy in Aurora, Colorado than the usual chorus of anti-gun/anti-constitutionalists renewed their attacks on the 2nd Amendment demanding new anti-gun legislation and more stringent gun laws while totally ignoring the fact that the coward that perpetrated this senseless attack violated at least one gun control law.  The fact is the only people killed, wounded, and placed in danger were the people who followed the law and did not bring a gun into the "gun free zone" which was the theater.  That is the basic flaw in all gun control laws, the only people that obey gun laws are law abiding people and the only ones placed in danger by gun control laws are unarmed, law abiding citizens . . . those intent on doing harm with firearms simply do not obey those statutes and that is the fact that anti-gun proponents fail to understand.   Two hundred and forty-eight years ago Thomas Jefferson, in quoting Cesare Beccaria,  introduced that simple truth to America when he said "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one.”

After the most recent tragedy at Sandy Hook, another "gun free zone", the anti-gun/anti-Constitution forces began yet another onslaught against scary "assault rifles" even though police reports disclosed, according to NBC news, that no assault rifles were used in this attack, it was  left by the attacker in his vehicle in the parking lot.  Facts have never gotten in the way of the left-wing liberal agenda nor the current federal regime when it comes to attacks on the Constitution and the Second Amendment.

These renewed attacks by those cynically seeking to exploit and politicize these tragedies to advance their assault on the Constitution focus on the types of firearms and magazine capacities using the argument that "These (types of) weapons ("assault rifles") are not intended for hunting or target shooting." as if the Second Amendment of the Constitution was designed to address the issue of hunting and target shooting.  That was not the intent.  Just as the First Amendment is the voice and soul of the Constitution and the American people, the Second Amendment is their teeth.   Its intent is to provide the people with a last resort to resist any despotic attempts to destroy the Republic from within . . . nullify the Constitution and enslave the people.  

We have only to look to the words of the notable men in our history, the founding fathers and the framers of the Constitution, to discover the truth of this statement

 "What country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States."  - Noah Webster

"But if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights. " – Alexander Hamilton

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."  - Thomas Jefferson. 

I could go on and on citing almost every founding father with all agreeing on this one point, the right to bear arms is founded in the concept that to preserve liberty, the Republic, and the Constitution it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms without infringement, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them and that disarming this people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them. 

In what appeared to me to be a signal to the forces of the anti-gun movement Justice Anthony Scalia made what is,  in my opinion, the most un-defendable statement I've ever heard coming from a member of the Supreme Court when he said that in context of 18th century history “They (the framers ?) had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne,".  My questions to him is "If the framers indeed recognized such limitations why were they not included in the Second Amendment?  Why is no mention of limitations present in their dissertations on the Second?  Why did they include the phrase ' . . . shall not be infringed.'   In the Second when in other amendments they did delineate conditions and exceptions?".  

No Mr. Scalia, the framers did not intend any limitations.  If in stating, “My starting point and probably my ending point will be what limitations are within the understood limitations that the society had at the time.  They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne. So we’ll see what those limitations are as applied to modern weapons.”,  Mr. Scalia meant that our right to bear arms is limited to those weapons contemporary to the constitution, as some anti-gunners have said, then this position would mean we would have to view the entirety of the Constitution in the same myopic manner; i.e. we would have to dissolve the Air Force since there were no aircraft contemporary with the Constitution and the Constitution makes no provision for an "air force" only an army and navy, likewise we would have to throw out the income tax since contemporary with the Constitution there was no evidence of the concept of a tax on earnings or wages, and let's not forget women's suffrage and equality, both of these would likewise need to be eliminated since the concepts are not contemporary to the Constitution.  In short such a view would likewise eliminate many of the aspects of our modern age which are not contemporary to the Constitution.  

No Mr. Scalia, the Second Amendment means exactly what it says "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.”   What about ". . . shall not be infringed." do you, the other justices, the lesser courts, and the anti-gun movement not understand?  Oh I know, it contains the word "Militia" but by common usage contemporary with the Constitution "militia" meant every able-bodied male as described in the Militia Act of 1792 which gives contemporary meaning to the word "militia".  This act states, in part, ". . . That each and every free, able-bodied, white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, . . ."; in the 18th century life expectancy of males was 35 to 50 years dependent on locale of residency (I believe 41 years in the United States in 1792).  So any reading of the act said every male citizen from adulthood (18 years of age) to near the farthest extent of expected life were required to be members of the "militia";  in  other words the militia consisted of every adult male.  A contemporary of the Constitution, Richard Henry Lee (whose motion in the Second Continental Congress called for the colonies' independence from Great Britain, was a signatory to the Articles of Confederation and whose famous resolution of June 1776 led to the United States' Declaration of Independence, which he signed, and who served as the President of the Continental Congress) gives us a definition of  "militia", "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves... and include all men capable of bearing arms."   So much for the lie that the Second only applies to "militias".   

In the words of Tench Coxe, another contemporary of the Constitution, "Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.  The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."  Today, more than any time in our past, we need to reject any call for new or stricter gun laws and demand that our legislators on both the state and federal levels repeal all gun laws, the only legitimate way to change or limit the rights of the people granted in the Second Amendment is through Article V of the Constitution, the amendment process, not from the bench through "interpretation" and not by statute or "executive order".

If we allow the teeth of the Constitution to be blunted, the soul and the voice will be placed in jeopardy and soon lost.

An Open Letter to Governor Herbert 

Governor Herbert,

I recently read your “first shots” in the battle over gun control and Utah’s gun legislation.  To say I was disappointed in its compromising tone is an understatement. There cannot be any compromise on the Constitution . . . something is either Constitutional or it isn’t, if it isn’t then it is not lawful and should be nullified by both the people and the states. These are your five key points void of your expansions on each point, the comments are mine. 

1.  “Respect the Second Amendment” - Respect for not just the Second Amendment but all of the Constitution is the obligation of all Americans.  All current firearm control statutes diminish our fundamental right to bear arms and disrespect the Second since they have been instituted outside of the Constitution.  The Second Amendment guarantees us the right to keep and bear arms and places no restrictions or conditions on that right and specifically and clearly states that the right “shall not be infringed”.  All current and proposed firearms control statutes infringe on this right.  The Constitution allows for only one way to change anything in it and that is through Article V, the amendment process.  If, with the passage of time, limitations or conditions need to be placed on this most basic right they cannot be legitimately introduced through legislation, from the bench, nor through “executive order” since the authorities for modification of the Constitution are not enumerated to the legislative, judicial, or executive branches by Articles I, II, or III which enumerate the powers of these branches.

2.  “Find rational solutions” - Finding rational solutions is an important consideration Mr. Governor, but it is the Federal Administration and its left-wing, liberal anti-gun attack squads that are acting without careful consideration and in a reactionary manner marked by a hatred and contempt for the Constitution in proposing extreme measures designed to not only politicize and polarize the debate but also to inflame those who support the Second Amendment.   Additionally, we do not need to find solutions that protect Second Amendment rights, they are built into the Constitution in Article V which provides the only lawful means to change or add any amendment.

3.  “Enforce existing laws” - As you know, Mr. Governor, laws do not stop any anti-social behaviours, they only provide penalties for violating acceptable social standards which when violated are deemed criminal.  It is an indisputable fact that it is only the law abiding that obey laws, those with malevolent criminal intentions do not. The view that new, more restrictive gun laws will somehow cause criminals to be deflected from committing criminal acts is not just naïve but verges on criminal malfeasance when that view is held by elected officials.

If stringent gun laws actually reduced violence then Chicago and New York City with among the, if not the most, stringent gun laws would be the safest cities in America . . . they are not! 

Even though all current gun laws are unlawful since they amend the Constitution without going through the Amendment process, if we are not going to rescind them due to their un-Constitutionality then we should enforce those we have, we don't need new ones.

We already have "Universal" background checks.  Since 1986, those engaged in the business of selling firearms for livelihood and profit have been required to have a Federal Firearms License (FFL).  All retail sales of firearms currently require a NICS check, no matter where they occur.  Regarding the issue of private firearms sales, since 1968, it has been a federal felony for any private person to sell, trade, give, lend, rent or transfer a gun to a person he either knows or reasonably should know is not legally allowed to purchase or possess a firearm.  According to a January 2013 report from the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice, the effectiveness of “universal background checks” depends on requiring gun registration.  In other words, the only way that the government could fully enforce such a requirement would be to mandate the registration of all firearms in private possession – a requirement that has been prohibited by federal law since 1986.

A common misrepresentation made by the liberal-left, anti-gun/anti-constitutional lobby is that criminals obtain firearms through sales at gun shows.  A 1997 Bureau of Justice Statistics survey of state prison inmates who had used or possessed firearms in the course of their crimes found that 79 percent acquired their firearms from “street/illegal sources” or “friends or family.”  Only 1.7 percent obtained firearms from anyone (dealer or non-dealer) at a gun show or flea market.  The fact is that the majority of criminals DO NOT acquire their weapons legally.  New gun laws would not limit the access of criminals to firearms it would only un-Constitutionally limit non-criminals from obtaining them for lawful purposes.

As you’ve said, preventing firearms access for violent criminals and the violent, or potentially violent, mentally ill is necessary to protect society.  I would pose that there must be some rational relationship between public safety and such restrictions.  There is absolutely no rational relationship between someone who is convicted of a non-violent felony, for example tax evasion, and the probability that such a felon will commit a violent act in the future nor is there any rational relationship between someone who suffers from a benign mental disorder such as obsessive compulsive disorder, for example, and the probability that the sufferer, due to this relatively benign mental condition, will commit a violent act with a firearm in the future.  When establishing restrictions specificity must be used to protect the rights of individuals rather than painting members of a class with a broad brush for the purpose of political expediency.

In 2010, the FBI denied 72,659 NICS checks out of a total of 14,409,616.  But only 62 of these cases were actually prosecuted, and only 13 resulted in a conviction.   Enforce current laws!

In a recent General Accounting Office study, as of 2011 23 states and the District of Columbia combined submitted less than 100 mental health records to NICS in addition 17 states submitted less than ten mental health records to NICS and four states submitted no mental health records to NICS.  In other words in 2011 only 110 mental health records were submitted.  

If you are not going to support the rescinding of all current gun laws because of the lack of Constitutional basis then demand the ENFORCEMENT OF THE CURRENT LAWS and the cessation further un-Constitutional gun law enactments ! 

4.  “Protect the vulnerable” - As you've stated, protection of the vulnerable is an imperative but to quote Cesare Beccaria “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one."   The events that have spurred these most recent attacks on the Second Amendment played out in “gun free” zones, areas where the attackers could be relatively assured that their targets would be unarmed and unable to defend themselves.  These events are proofs of Beccaria’s admonition.   Increased gun control will serve to make the vulnerable more vulnerable not less.

5.  “Address a growing culture of violence” - As much as the liberal-left, anti-gun/anti-Second Amendment movement would like to convince Americans differently, the truth is that violence in American Society has actually declined, not increased over the past quarter century.  Between 1991 and 2011, the latest years I could find data for, the violent crime rate decreased 51 percent to a 41-year low (including a 51 percent decrease in the murder rate, to a 48-year low).  The original  “Assault Rifle”Ban was signed into law in 1994 and expired in 2004, in other words the decline in violence began 3 years before the ban was enacted and has continue for the 7 years (now 9 years) after the ban expired.

Mr. Governor, there is a growing divide in this nation based not on race, religion, or even class but between those that support the Constitution and those that would have us abandon it with the Second Amendment being the current skirmish.  In Utah the Utah Sheriffs Association as well as a majority of law enforcement, the Utah Legislature as well as our Federal Representatives and, I believe, the majority of Utahans are standing on the side of the Constitution.   I ask you most respectfully to stand with the Constitution and the people you serve and sign HB114, the Protection of The Second Amendment Act,  and any other legislation supporting the Constitution when they appear on your desk even if they inflame those that favour abandonment of the Constitution.

Unlawful Statutes

Rule by edict and whim is the way in which monarchs and dictators rule serfs, peasants and the proletariat in monarchies and dictatorships, systems where rights are replaced by privileges granted by an absolute ruler.  Governance by a constitution and law is the way chief magistrates and legislatures govern free citizens in a constitutional republic, a system in which the rights of the governed form the basis of law.  In such a system privileges, where they exist, such as a driving privilege, are granted not by the governors but established by statute.  In the former there are no limitations on the powers of the rulers, in the latter limitations are imposed on the powers of the governors by those governed through their constitution.  The United States of America is a Constitutional Republic so two thing follow; firstly, the powers of the governing bodies; the executive, legislative, and judiciary are delineated and limited in the constitution and secondly, uniquely to our constitution, the inalienable and unalienable rights of the governed are codified in our constitution while not being limited to those which are delineated in it.

In our constitution the powers and authority of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches are carefully delineated in Articles I, II, and III respectively; the most basic rights of the people are enshrined in the “Bill of Rights”, the first ten amendments; and the only lawful method to add to, change, or clarify the constitution or any of its amendments is codified in Article V.  These elements form the entire structure of our government, the foundation for all our laws, and the assurance that the people’s will, through the legislatures of their sovereign states, will be the ultimate and only arbitrators of the Constitution.   

Various specific authorities and powers were ceded to the Congress by the sovereign states in Article I of the Constitution which gives legitimacy to statutes and acts created by the federal legislature.  However, statutes and acts created by Congress based on unconstitutional, usurped authorities or powers are null and void;  citizens are under no lawful obligation to comply with them, law enforcement agencies are under no lawful obligation to enforce them, and courts are under no lawful obligation to adjudicate violation of them.    In the words of Thomas Jefferson, “Resolved, That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force . . .". 

Article II Section 2 of the Constitution delineates the entirety of the function, authority, responsibilities, and powers of the President.  Nowhere there in, or in any other place in the Constitution, can the term “executive order” be found nor in any place in the document can such a power be derived by reasonable implication or construction through related powers.  The very concept of an “executive order” runs counter to the notion of a chief executive in a constitutional republic, reflects government by edict rather than by law and is contrary to the dictum of three coordinate departments of government, independent of each other fashioned so as to check and balance one another.

"But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.'  True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force." --Thomas Jefferson

Successive Supreme Courts since 1803, as well as various inferior courts, have violated Article V of the Constitution through the exercise of the fraudulent and extra-constitutional authority of “judicial review” to establish the judiciary as the sole arbiters of the Constitution.  This usurped power has resulted in the de facto amendment of the Constitution from the bench without the requisite ratification by the states.  Article III, Section 2 paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Constitution which layout the authority, powers, and jurisdictions of the judiciary makes no mention of “judicial review”, of the judiciary’s authority to interpret the Constitution, nor does it extend to the court the authority to amend the Constitution from the bench.   Once again looking to no less of an intimate of the Constitution than Thomas Jefferson for confirmation of this lack of authority we find it in this quote, "You seem... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions: a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is "boni judicis est ampliare juris-dictionem," and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions or time and party, its members would become despots."

Even the most casual reading of the preceding leads to only one conclusion; the offices of the federal government have, over the course of time, departed from the elements of constitutional governance through various ploys and by appropriating authorities and powers not found in the Constitution.  With respect to the Second Amendment in particular, over the course of the past 78 years, since the first attempt at federal gun-control legislation in the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934, the federal government has sought to unlawfully infringe on the people’s inalienable right “ . . . to keep and bear arms, . . .” using every guise from the government’s  tax authority to perverting the Commerce Clause (Article I Section 8) of the Constitution and most recently, the use of the non-existent Presidential power of the “executive order”.  

I would pose that, since the statutes and acts thus far instituted to this end, limiting or placing conditions on the Second Amendment, lack Constitutional legitimacy based on the points I've discussed, they are null and void and should be rescinded.  If logical restrictions and conditions or clarifications are need with respect to the Second Amendment then they must conform to the Constitution, be subjected to the amendment process, there must be some real relationship between public safety and the limitation or condition,  and there must be a balance between the supposed public safety imperative and the original intent of the Second Amendment.  Limitations based on the appearance of a firearm or on magazine capacity, after examining the facts, would fail these criteria as would restrictions from ownership of a firearm based solely  on conviction of a non-violent felony or suffering from a benign mental disorder.  In respect to the former, there is no evidence that military appearance alone portends any greater public danger than does a firearm with a non-military appearance nor does the capacity of a magazine represent a greater or lesser danger when one considers the ease and short period of time  in which magazines may be exchanged.  As to the latter, the restriction on felons, there is absolutely no real relationship between someone who is convicted of a non-violent felony, for example tax evasion, and the probability that such a felon will commit a violent act in the future anymore than there is between someone who suffers from obsessive compulsive disorder and the probability that the suffer, due to this mental disorder, will commit a violent act with a firearm in the future.

The only reason for rushing through changes to the Second Amendment outside of Article V, as is currently being pursued,  is that the public safety imperative is but a beard behind which the real agenda, the disarming of the people for nefarious reasons, can be hidden.

Why gun laws don’t work

The United States has had, until relatively recently, a long history of private ownership of firearms based on the Second Amendment with relatively low incidents of gun violence in proportion to its population.  What has happened to change that?   Has the change occurred because of a greater proliferation of firearms or because we can now purchase “assault rifles” and “high capacity magazines” or because we are exposed to violence in video games, television and movies as those pushing for more stringent gun laws and a weakening of the Second Amendment would have us believe?   I would say “NO!”, the root cause of gun violence, and violence in general in our society, has nothing to do with the weapons themselves but with the societal decay that has resulted from the pervasive shift from a center right nation to a center left one, the spread of political correctness that has crippled law enforcement, and the abandonment of traditional, faith based moral values in deference to the secular pseudo-religion of atheism.  

Is the answer to gun violence and domestic terrorism more stringent gun laws limiting the types of firearms Americans can own based on a firearm’s appearance or which disallow the sale and possession of magazines based on capacity or requiring gun owners to register their firearms or limiting the number of firearms or amount of ammunition an American can own or is the answer heavily taxing firearm and ammunition purchases or,  as some left-wing, progressive intellectuals have suggested, the total abandonment of the United States Constitution and with it the right to “keep and bear arms”?

Why do the liberal-left, progressive (the new term for communist), anti-gun lobbies and proponents not understand that gun laws do not reduce gun violence nor do they reduce incidents of domestic terrorism such as Aurora and Sandy Hook.  If stringent gun laws did then it follows that New York City and Chicago would be the safest cities in the U.S.  The history of gun laws indicate that they do nothing to reduce gun violence and the locales that have the most stringent firearms control laws, such as New York City and Chicago, actually are among, if not the, most dangerous locales!  Why?  Because it is a simple truth that only law abiding people obey laws.  Those with malevolent intentions do not obey the law!  The idea that someone who would use a firearm to commit murder or who is intent on using a firearm to rob would be deterred by the fact that the firearm they were using was unregistered, was of a banned type, contained a banned magazine or was obtained without a background check is not just naive but is moronic and legislators who subscribe to that idea should be removed from office for criminal incompetency.   The truth is that disarming the general public only makes them easier targets for those intent on victimizing the disarmed. 

We, as a nation, must realize that we will never totally eliminate violence.  Violence is the fatal flaw in our human DNA, but if we are intent on reducing violence in our society then we must attack those true root causes for the proliferation of violence and not be diverted by attacking the inanimate objects that have the potential of being the instruments of violence.  We must attack and eliminate that societal decay, that spread of political correctness, and that abandonment of traditional, faith based morality that has brought us to our present condition.   Our legislators need to reverse that societal decay by reducing the “mommy state”, restoring personal responsibility and enforcing the laws that we have, they need to eliminate “political correctness” in all its forms and restore the authority of the police to police by allowing them to “profile” and target those anti-social individuals and groups in a community who are the perpetrators of violence with particular emphasis on gangs and “gang bangers”, and, perhaps most importantly, they need to reset our national moral compass by inviting God back into our national conscience through the  re-establishment of the original intent of the First Amendment . . . the prohibition against the state establishing a state religion not, as the liberal-left has perverted its meaning, the separation of the state and the people from God.

If all the foregoing be true then why are some of our leaders pushing gun control so strongly and ignoring the issues of societal decay, the destructive nature of political correctness, and the abandonment of traditional, faith based moral values?   In my view it’s simple, these elements do not fit into their political agenda which is the abandonment of the United States Constitution and the transformation of our Republic into a socialist state in which privileges flow from the state and rights are non-existent; where we are ruled  by the edicts ("executive orders") and dictates of our chief magistrates rather than governed by them under the protections of a constitution.  Those who conspire in this agenda fear that such an overt attack on the Constitution and the Republic would be responded to as the architects of the Second Amendment intended . . . by the people working in concert in armed rebellion for the preservation of both.  They, those who so conspire, realize that advancing their agenda with impunity requires that the means to belligerently and successfully resist must be eliminated, ergo the weakening and eventual elimination of the people’s inalienable right to “keep and bear” arms.   I contend that the continued denial of this intent is the proof of this agenda.  

The liberal-left and their progressive allies have begun blaming our national woes on the American people’s insistence on obedience to the Constitution and who characterize it as archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil.  Professor Louis Michael Seidman, who calls for politicians and judges to engage in “constitutional disobedience”, has said “ ‘We the people’ is impossibly Utopian.  If so, we have to give up on the claim that we are a self-governing people who can settle our disagreements through mature and tolerant debate. But before abandoning our heritage of self-government, we ought to try extricating ourselves from constitutional bondage so that we can give real freedom a chance.”

Each president and legislator takes an oath to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”  Violation of this oath in an act of “constitutional disobedience” is, in my opinion, not just  a mere broken campaign promise, not only an impeachable offense but rather, it is, arguably, an act of treason and the higher the office the higher the treason. As John Adams stated, “We are a nation of laws, not of men.” , being such requires strict adherence to our foundational laws, the United States Constitution.  It appears to me that this president and some member of our current federal legislature and judiciary are intentionally practicing constitutional disobedience and are aided and abetted by a small albeit vocal and strategically placed cadre of liberal-left wing and progressive operatives.

We, the people, must take the opportunity of this "debate" to remind those that we have chosen to govern that they are not the masters, we are and they are our servants; that it is not for them to decide what rights they will allow us but to defend the rights granted to us by the Constitution; that the Constitution is not a group of suggestions for them to pick and chose which to comply with and which to ignore but that it is the law they must conform to and obey and finally, that we will not tolerate any further attacks on our rights and demand the full reinstatement on those rights that have been thus far compromised and infringed on.  It is time for our states through their governors, legislatures, and judiciaries to reassert their sovereignty and dominance over the federal government and support the Constitution by exercising nullification of laws, court rulings, and “executive orders” that violate that Constitution.   

Finally we must bear in mind that no power on earth can wrest our freedoms from us so long as we maintain the means to resist but we can lose it none the less through apathy and inaction when that means is threatened.

Their real agenda

Most of the American people do not understand what is really going on in the “debate” over the Second Amendment and are being manipulated by an alliance of liberal-left anti-gun advocates and progressive (communist) anti-constitutionalist who are cynically using the victims of gun violence and the coffins of small children to pray on the emotions of the moment to mask their real intentions; the abandonment of the U.S. Constitution and the destruction of our constitutional republic.

Some fifty-four years ago Senator Joseph McCarthy was censured and discredited by the U.S. Senate for the methodologies he used in his investigations of communist infiltration into all aspects of American life and his subcommittee was disbanded.  In 1975 the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HCUA), whose charter was to investigate suspected communists in positions of influence in the United States society, was equally discredited and disbanded.   History though has a way of separating the chaff from the wheat, today we find that Joe McCarthy may very well be vindicated and the oversight that was the HCUA was necessary after all.  Today "creeping socialism", left-wing liberalism, and yes, even communism, now rebranded as “progressivism”, have found their way into every facet of American life from education, to the news media and the entertainment industry, and even to the very highest levels of government; exactly what McCarthy set out to expose in the 1950s.  Traditional American values of hard work, individualism, and personal responsibility have been displaced by entitlements, socialism, and the trend to blame someone or something else for all of one’s failures, short-comings and transgressions.  Whether you're a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or Independent it's time to drop ideology and get serious about what is happening and face the unpleasant truth . . . this country is in trouble caused by the deliberate, managed decline of our economy, social structure, and military strength.  A reading of the true history of the United States for the past 100 years uncovers a determined attack on the Constitution over the course of that period which has accelerated and become more open and virulent in the course of the past 6 years.

Throughout my adult life I have been interested in the United States Constitution.  I've read and reread it, read about it, read some of the writings of the founding fathers and the architects of it and, sadly to say, have been witness to it being steadily undermined and perverted to conform to various political agendas, political correctness and social engineering theorems.  During all my studies I have searched for the Article, Amendment, paragraph, or sentence that contain the words "judicial review", "separation of church and state", “executive order” or "freedom of expression" or which explicitly give one branch of government authority over another and have found none.  I have found no reference to the power to “interpret” the Constitution nor have I found anyone who can point to an Article, Amendment, paragraph, or sentence within the Constitution that does.   I can easily find Articles that establish the Republic and its branches and which explicitly limit the powers of those branches and of the entire central (federal) government.  I can find Amendments that establish definitive rights of the people and the mechanism to correct errors or clear up ambiguities in the original document but what I can't find is even one reference to these terms and usurped powers which have, over the course of time, been used to undermine the original intent of the Constitution, its articles and original amendments.   I would pose therefore that any statutes derived through these extra-constitutional, usurped powers are unlawful and by their unconstitutional basis nullified.

Just as the architects of our Republic and the Constitution built checks and balances within and between the branches so too did they build a check and balance between the governors and the governed in the form of the Second Amendment.  So important was this amendment that they put it second only to that which permanently and irrevocably enshrined the people’s right to freedom of religion, freedom of speech and press, right to peaceably assemble, and to petition for redress of grievances.  The framers so crafted it as to be as a spear point at the throat of government poised, ever threatening, in the protection of the rights of the people.  It was not, as today is being “debated”, so codified as to protect the right to hunt or target shoot nor to restrict arms only to militia as would be redefined by those inclined to dismiss the amendment as being misinterpreted by the common people.  The prefatory clause of the amendment, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”, merely announces the purpose of the Amendment.  This clause does not create a limitation on nor expands the scope of the operative clause “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”.  The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual’s right to keep and bear arms without any limitation or condition being placed on the right.  In seeking today the original intent of this basic and important amendment we need to be guided by Thomas Jefferson’s admonition on interpreting the Constitution, "On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.".  To this end we can look back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, to the Militia Act of 1792 which is roughly contemporary to the Constitution.  This act defines the militia as every adult, male citizen.  

Jefferson warned us against allowing the judiciary to usurp the power to interpret the Constitution when he wrote, "You seem... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions: a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is "boni judicis est ampliare juris-dictionem," and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions or time and party, its members would become despots.".  If, however, you accept the authority of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution then it follows that you must accept that current proposals limiting the right to bear arms based on the appearance of a firearm or magazine capacity violate the Second Amendment.  In District of Columbia vs. Heller the court held that the type of weapons to which the right applies are “those in common use for lawful purposes”, but “does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes”.  Since the AR-15 or “assault rifles” style firearms are firearms which are “in common use for lawful purposes” they fall under the court’s opinion as do “high capacity” magazines capable of holding greater than 10 rounds (for handguns) and 20 or 30 rounds (for rifles) since they too are for “common lawful use”.  Just because criminals may misuse otherwise lawful weapons and magazines for unlawful purposes such misuse is not justification to bar law abiding citizens from possessing lawful weapons or for violating the constitution by infringing on the guarantee of the Second Amendment.

Do not allow yourself to be fooled by the cynical, academy award worthy performances being played out in the leftist dominated media.   This “debate” and agenda is not about protecting the innocent, if it were it would be a debate about protecting the most innocent, the unborn, from legalized murder; it is not about keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill or felons, if it were it would stop at background checks;  it is about protecting the public, if it was the "debate" would be about enhanced penalties and   mandatory sentences for the use of a firearm in commission of a crime, equal penalties for both adults and juviniles, and any number of "non-politically correct" measures; it is not even about getting the most common weapons used in crime out of the hands of the public, if it were the "debate" would be about controlling handguns since 72% of the firearms used in firearm related crimes are handguns not "assault rifles".  What this "debate" and agenda is really all about is eliminating the means for normally law-abiding citizens  to resist the establishment of a totalitarian government and the abandonment of the United States Constitution, as was  the original intent of the Second,  to be replaced by a new, leftist manifesto under which the people are ruled not governed.  

 John Philpot Curran is attributed with observing that, "The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." we should pay particular heed to his obseration since this “debate” is the first step on a road that ultimately leads to enslavement. 

Why?

Why?

This past week a couple of events turned my thoughts to the 2nd Amendment.  The first was a notice that I received  from the Utah Bureau of Criminal Identification which stated that the fingerprints I submitted with my application for my Concealed Firearm Permit was deemed unreadable and that I would have to submit a new set. This notification also contained an admonition that reminded me that my permit was "provisional" on a "clean" criminal records check  and that if the bureau didn't receive new fingerprints my permit would be "suspended".  The second event was an article I read stating that New Hampshire was joining with a number of other states in passing a law that would allow New Hampshire citizens to carry a firearm, concealed or open and whether loaded or unloaded, within the state without the need for a special permit but that the state would issue such permits on request by citizens in order to comply with concealed carry reciprocity agreements with other states.  

My initial thought was "Why?" to both events.

Why then should I have to apply for a  Concealed Firearm Permit in the first place?  The second amendment of the United States Constitution states "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.", notice that this sentence places no conditions or limitations on the right and includes the emphatic, unambiguous phrase " . . . shall not be infringed.".   It does not make any mention of having to have a license or permit, nor does it make mention of any class of  citizens (those having been convicted of a felony) being excluded from keeping and bearing arms.  I can understand that society might want to exclude the mentally unstable and those convicted of VIOLENT felonies from possessing fire arms but the logic of denying those convicted of non-violent acts eludes me.  What is the logical link between someone whose committed say income tax evasion and the prohibition from firearms ownership?  There is none, neither is there any constitutional basis for any federal nor state nor local statute to place any conditions or limitations on the second amendment any more than there is a basis for a federal, state, or local statute to add conditions or limitations on the 13th or any other Amendment.  

On reading the constitution I find no element which explicitly nor implicitly gives any governmental body the authority to "interpret" any element of the constitution nor to change any element of the constitution outside of the mechanism provided in Article V (the amendment process).  Anti-gun proponents are quick to point out  that the second amendment begins with the words "A well regulated Militia, . . . ." and falsely propose that this indicates that the second wasn't meant for the average citizen  but only applied to the "militia" hoping that you are ignorant of history.  If we review American history we find the reasoning for the second amendment  in the writings of the architects of the constitution which reasonings are embodied in this quote by Thomas Jefferson "The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of speech, freedom of property and freedom of the press.", additionally we can look to acts which are contemporary to the constitution such as the Militia Act of 1792 which gives contemporary meaning to the word "militia".  This act states, in part, ". . . That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, . . ."; in the 18th century life expectancy of males was 35 to 50 years dependent on locale of residency (I believe 41 years in the United States).  So any reading of the act said every male citizen from adulthood (18 years of age) to near the farthest extent of expected life were required to be members of the "militia";  in  other words the militia consisted of every adult male.  The act goes on to  say ". . .  That every citizen . . . . provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, . . . ", in other words the act said every male citizen must fit himself with the latest in firearms technology, with ammunitions, and accoutrements of service.  This act was made a constitutional mandate for Congress to provide these arms,  ammunitions, and accoutrements to every male citizen in Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia . . .  reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;".     In today's world and in today's terms, contrary to anti-gun laws currently extent, this section requires that congress provide every male citizen with an assault weapon, ammunition, and such uniform items as is necessary to serve as a militiaman.

For well over 100 years the constitution,  and in particular the 2nd Amendment, has been  under attack and our rights under the Constitution have been correspondingly eroded and undermined.  With respect to the 2nd Amendment the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act as well as various state and local  laws have, in  my humble opinion and through the perverted "interpretations" by activist jurists, unlawfully and without benefit of the amendment process placed conditions on the Second Amendment of the Constitution and infringe on "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" and need to be repealed.  If the conditions and restrictions on gun purchasing, ownership, and carriage as embodied in  these acts and statutes are truly the will of the majority of the American people then such conditions need to be implemented through the constitutionally established amendment process.   In this vein I would encourage every American who truly loves the constitution and wishes to reestablish constitutional rule in the United States do four things; first contact your state legislators and demand that your state enact a similar act as New Hampshire and other states with respect to concealed carry, second contact your national legislators and demand that they push repeal of the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and a return to the original intent and scope of the 2nd Amendment, push for federal legislation that severely limit the judiciary's usurped authority to "interpret" the constitution, to amend the constitution from the bench, and to be the sole arbiters of the Constitution, and lastly  become a member of the NRA and active in the "Tea Party" movement.  

It would do us well to remember the words of Thomas Jefferson, "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one."