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."

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, and reloading supplies sales since the Newtown massacre and since he declared war on the second amendment and lawful gun owners.  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, which is up from the 2.01 million conducted during the previous month, which was the first month to exceed two million.  Concealed carry permit applications in Utah alone tripled in December, 2012.   During December, 2012 and January, 2013 .223 caliber ammunition (the type of ammunition for the AR-15, the most popular “assault rifle”) flew off the shelves of sporting goods stores and departments  as did the supplies to reload “assault rifle” ammunition; small rifle primers, brass cases, and projectiles are not to be found. A truer statement would be “Anti-gun, anti-second amendment advocates are behind the President on gun control.”.

“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 to confront the malevolent beast at Newtown, the school’s principal, 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.  “Gun free zones” are just open invitations to cowards to attack the defenseless without fear of confrontation.

“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.

“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 18^th century meaning.  Since none of us were around in the 18^th 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 revels 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.

  “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.  Laws provide penalties for anti-social behavior . . . criminals do not obey laws, that is why they are called criminals; only the law abiding obey laws.  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.  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.  

“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.

Utah Sheriff's Take a Stand

As the term was used in 18^th century English a “state” was synonymous with nation or country and its subdivisions were variously know as provinces or colonies.  In the Treaty of Paris, which ended the American Revolution, King Georg III recognized not the independence of a single American nation but that of thirteen sovereign states, “His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States; . . .”, notice the use of the word “States” and not “State” indicating that he was making peace with 13 sovereign nations and that the term “United States” was a descriptive term for the confederation of these nations not the title of a new nation.

These 13 sovereign states, realizing the need to have a united face to present to the existing established world states, formed together into a voluntary confederation for mutual defense and economic strength, but none of these new states was willing to give up its sovereignty and all had a deep seated distrust of central governments.  Spurred by this distrust they deliberately made the central governing body weak and impotent and the confederation itself loosely formed.  The express reservation of “. . . every power, jurisdiction, and right” to the states (Article II of the Articles of Confederation) soon made this confederation unworkable.  As a result of trying to correct the short comings of the Articles, the Constitution and a Federalist government was born.   Those sovereign states and the architects of this new government still had a deep seated distrust of a strong central, now Federalist, government so, subsequently, in the new Constitution’s Articles they delineated the specific powers of each of the Federal Government’s three branches and reserved those powers not expressly given to the Federal government to the individual sovereign states that composed the new union.   To further restrain the Federal government they immediately enshrined in the Constitution ten, not only inalienable, but unalienable rights in a “Bill of Rights” and, realizing that the people’s right to free speech, a free press, and the need for a moral compass found in the people’s right to practice a religion of their choice to be of paramount importance encompassed those in the very first amendment.  With the realization that, at some point in the future, the people might have to defend those rights, the next eight rights, and the very Constitution itself set the right of the people to keep and bear as the very next right.  Not only did these far-sighted architects place this right second only to those which comprised the voice, conscience and soul of the Constitution but also made it, the teeth of the Constitution, uninfringeable.     

Over the course of the 211 years since the Constitution was ratified it and these ten, delineated, unalienable rights have been under attack by individuals and groups seeking to silence that voice, to cloud that conscience, deaden that soul and to blunt those teeth.   Over the past fifty years the pace of these attacks have quickened and grown both in boldness and effectiveness with little opposition by a populace grown ever more complacent and timid.  

On Saturday, 19 January of this year, I read a letter written to the President of the United States and published by the Utah Sheriff’s Association which said:

“Dear President Obama:

We, the elected sheriffs of Utah, like so many of our fellow Americans, are literally heartbroken for the loved ones of the murdered victims in Connecticut. As Utahans, we are not strangers to this kind of carnage—one of the latest being the 2007 Trolley Square murders wherein nine innocents were gunned down—five losing their lives.

We also recognize the scores of other recent domestic massacres, which have decimated countless honorable lives. As Americans, we value the sanctity of life. Furthermore, similar to our inspired Founders, we acknowledge our subservience to a higher power. 

With the number of mass shootings America has endured, it is easy to demonize firearms; it is also foolish and prejudiced. Firearms are nothing more than instruments, valuable and potentially dangerous, but instruments nonetheless. Malevolent souls, like the criminals who commit mass murders, will always exploit valuable instruments in the pursuit of evil. As professional peace officers, if we understand nothing else, we understand this: lawful violence must sometimes be employed to deter and stop criminal violence. Consequently, the citizenry must continue its ability to keep and bear arms, including arms that adequately protect them from all types of illegality.

As your administration and Congress continue to grapple with the complex issue of firearm regulations, we pray that the Almighty will guide the People’s Representatives collectively. For that reason, it is imperative this discussion be had in Congress, not silenced unilaterally by executive orders. As you deliberate, please remember the Founders of this great nation created the Constitution, and its accompanying Bill of Rights, in an effort to protect citizens from all forms of tyrannical subjugation. 

We respect the Office of the President of the United States of America. But, make no mistake, as the duly-elected sheriffs of our respective counties, we will enforce the rights guaranteed to our citizens by the Constitution. No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights—in particular Amendment II—has given them. We, like you, swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation.”.

I have never been so proud to be an American nor Utahn.  Finally an organization and individuals charged with the responsibility to “Defend and protect the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic and bear true faith and allegiance to the same.”;has taken a courageous stand to be true to this oath and push back against the anti-constitutional tide which is threatening to eliminate the rights of the people.   The government of Utah, being the elected representatives of a sovereign state, has a legitimate obligation to the people it governs to take an aggressive stance against the erosion and infringement on the rights of its citizens as codified in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution even if that stance is the defiance and nullification of Federal Statutes, Executive Orders, or Supreme Court rulings which infringe on the U.S. Constitution or in substance unlawful alter it.   Every citizen of Utah should contact the Governor and the Legislature and petition them to publish their support of the courageous stance taken by the Utah Sheriff’s Association. 

 I, for one, share that oath and will, as all Americans should, stand shoulder to shoulder with Utah Sheriffs and their deputies in the preservation of the Constitution’s traditional interpretation.