With the Sandy Hook thing and the government’s promised (illegal) response we’re rightfully seeing a huge outpouring of ‘rhetoric’ from gun owners and Constitutionally minded Americans. I use the term “rhetoric” because damn near all of the blogs, posting, comments and subject matter woefully MISSES THE MARK on this subject. Yes, you’re ALL missing the point and folks had best redirect their efforts and their time into the real question revolving around our Second Amendment as well as the rest of the contents of the Bill of Rights and that is – are ANY of their past or proposed “laws” lawful and binding on Citizens or the states?
A blatant example of the nonsense constantly bantered around is the goofy obsession over the wording of the Second Amendment by the term “militia” in the context of the Amendment. The “militia” were the state’s irregular forces that could be called up by the federal government in a time of crisis. Therefore, the meaning of the phrase “a well regulated militia” reflected the fear that the aforementioned “militia” needed to be counterbalanced, out of necessity “to the Security of a Free State” when/if they were under the command of the federal government. That ‘counterbalance’ required the clear and articulate phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” That said the obsession over this wording makes everyone go round and round over terms like “militia” and “people” thus who had the Right?
I see the goofy petition emails asking folks to weigh in on the question “Does The Second Amendment Confer an Individual Right”, like any of those bozos in Washington listen to us or ‘petitions’. Wake up folks -the SJC of the United States has already answered that question in the 2008 Heller case (http://jpfo.org/pdf02/heller-opinion-07-290.pdf) as “Yes” and the Department of Justice concluded in their own report titled the “Whether the Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right”, having 103 pages, with 437 footnotes to the Attorney General, (http://www.justice.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf) that, in fact, “the Second Amendment secures a personal right of individuals, not a collective right”. So, the government themselves admit that we have a “Right” to keep and bear arms so this question is moot. Thus the People and the government both understand the FACTS. The “People” have the Right to keep and bear arms and the government is PRECLUDED from changing that fact by the phrase “shall not be infringed”.
So, the real question is how can they license that Right, regulate that Right, tax that Right, ‘limit’ that Right, or, in any way, remove that Right by legislation, Executive Order or any other crafty method thought up in Washington DC? Simply put, THEY CAN NOT without amending our Constitution.
Let’s ponder my point in the simplest manner. How about the House & Senate pass a ‘law’ Titled “Term Limits” wherein they state “There shall, after January 1st 2013, be no term limits placed upon the Office of the Presidency.” This is clear and to the point. The term of the Presidency will no longer be limited to two four year terms. Simple, right? Lawful, no. Why? Because the terms allocated to the Presidency are governed by our Constitution. In order to ‘change’, ‘amend’ or ‘augment’ the term of a President Washington MUST go through the formal Amendment Process described within Article V of the Constitution.
How about the House & Senate pass a ‘law’ Titled “Executive Office Ascension Bill” wherein they state that after January 1st 2013 the office of the Presidency will be transferred, every four years, to the highest bidder, in an open and public auction.” This is clear and to the point. The office of the Presidency will no longer be attained by some quasi-democratic election but transferred to the highest bidder. Simple, right? Lawful, no. Why? Because how a President attains office is governed by our Constitution. In order to ‘change’, ‘amend’ or ‘augment’ how a President attains office Washington MUST go through the formal Amendment Process described within Article V of the Constitution.
The Second Amendment (indeed ANYTHING with regard to the Constitution or Bill of Rights) is no freaking different. If those nitwits in House & Senate wish to ‘change’, ‘amend’ or ‘regulate’ any aspect of what’s written within our Second Amendment, Washington MUST go through the formal Amendment Process described within Article V of the Constitution. Simply ‘legislating’ the words “(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.” as they did in their bill titled H.R.3355 in 1994 or again in 2013 doesn’t make their legislative changes to our Constitution lawful any more than their legislating making Obama the President For Life would.
So, gun owners and Constitutionally minded Americans, Oathkeepers, LEOs and members of our armed forces (not to mention the social fascists legislating in Washington and our state capitals) need to get this straight and I quote the Supreme Court of the United States: “Where rights (liberty) secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate (abolish) them.“ Rights contained in our Bill of Rights can NOT be altered accept by Constitutional amendment. As such, any ”Laws” made to regulate or limit, license or ban or in any way alter our Constitution short of a Constitutional Amendment pursuant toArticle V are ILLEGAL under our Constitution.
Please, for Christ’s sake, STOP all the unrelated, nonsensical and round-about rhetoric and discussions that these fascist in DC and their media want to get you to engage in that can be ‘spun’ to make you look like a nut-case and FOCUS on Article V.
“A free people … should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. – George Washington.
A simple letter (not email) to your Representative (if you really believe they represent you or give a flying rat’s ass what you think) should simply inform them that if they wish to curb the individual Right articulated in the Second Amendment, require licenses for “arms”, ban possession of certain “arms” or outlaw certain “arms” then they MUST go through the formal Amendment Process described within Article V of the Constitution. If they do not ‘amend’ the Constitution then there will be no compliance with their ‘laws’. If agents of government attempt to enforce laws limiting the Second Amendment passed outside the Amendment Process then said agents of government will be resisted with force, as is our Right under the Declaration.