ALERT: Neither the federal government or any state government can lawfully debar the People of the right to "keep and bear arms" without first amending the Constitution! Take Action! Blast Faxes to Congress.
[[Sidebar from Abundant Living Information Services>>this could/would lead to a Con-Con, Constitutional Convention--which is NOT what is wanted. Go here to read the reasons why: http://stoptheconcon.wordpress.com/, but the history given below is good to know for future reference]]Conservative American,
One-hundred and forty-seven years ago today [April 3, 1866] the Supreme Court decided Ex parte Milligan. The case, one of the first to be heard by the Court after the close of the Civil War, issues a strong argument against the idea that the government can depart from the principles of the Constitution when it wills.
The Court declared, "The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism ..."
In other words, the Court ruled that it is never permissible to depart from the Constitution or any of its Amendments - for it is "law for rulers and people equally in war and in peace."
So, what does Ex parte Milligan mean for today's so-called "debate" on the Second Amendment? It means there is, in fact, no debate whatsoever - it means that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" just as the Supreme Law of the Land clearly states.
Since the Sandy Hook shooting took place in Connecticut late last year, government gun-grabbers have been pushing legislation in opposition to the Second Amendment. They argue that there is need for "reasonable" and "common sense" regulations to address what they call a "gun safety" crisis.
But the fact is: no gun-control legislation being offered is authorized by the Constitution as it stands! If gun-grabbers are so confident that the People overwhelmingly support gun-control - Obama himself claimed that 90% of Americans support universal background checks, for example - then they ought to be bold enough (and honest enough) to try to fully repeal the Second Amendment!
Of course we don't want to see the Second Amendment repealed - we know that you don't either. But the fact is, this is what certain legislators are trying to do!
Our challenge, then, is this: Gun-grabbers can take our right to "keep and bear arms" only if they are willing to go through the process and successfully amend the Constitution by a 2/3 vote in both chambers of Congress and the approval of 2/3 of the states!
Take Action and Demand Congress to OPPOSE All Gun-Control Legislation without first REPEALING the Second Amendment by a 2/3 vote and the approval of 2/3 of the States! If Congress wishes to DISMANTLE the Second Amendment, they ought to be bold enough to do it properly (and be willing to face the consequences)!
In Washington right now, Sens. Feinstein, Reid, Lautenberg, Schumer - naming only a few - are offering bills or amendments to bills that would dismantle the Second Amendment through the establishment of weapon and clip bans, universal background checks, and a national firearms registry.
In addition to sponsoring sister bills to the Senate's efforts, the House of Representatives has introduced additional legislation that would "dry up" the Second Amendment through establishing heavy taxes on all "concealable weapons." Further still, Rep. McCarthy's bill would mandate gun-insurance for gun owners, punishable by fines up to $10,000.00!
Although the Feinstein Bill has been officially tossed by Senate leadership, we shouldn't think for one minute that gun-control is dead in Congress. The fact is, as soon as the Feinstein Ban was out the Reid Bill (S. 649) has taken center-stage.
The Reid Bill - while not an express ban on certain types of weapons like the Feinstein Ban - is gun-control and is opposed to the Second Amendment just the same.
In fact, the Reid Bill is more dangerous than the Feinstein Bill because it is heralded as a "compromise" bill, one that may attract the support of turn-coat Republicans. Democrats are crafting "palatable" gun-control legislation right now in their efforts to garner "common sense" Republican supporters. They only need a few to get the sixty votes they need.
Sen. Chuck Schumer says, "I'm working very hard with both Democrats and Republicans, pro-NRA and anti-NRA people, to come up with a background check bill that will be acceptable to 60 senators and be very strong and get the job done."
Our message to Congress must remain unchanged: No gun-control while the Second Amendment stands! If they truly want gun-control, they must do it the Constitutional way!
The battle is not just in Washington either; the Second Amendment is also under attack by several of the state governments! Right now Connecticut is in the process of adopting the most stringent gun-control in the country - they are adding over 100 weapons to their current assault weapons ban, they are looking to ban clips that hold more than ten rounds, and are establishing a background check for all private and commercial sales.
The California legislature is looking to lay heavy taxes on ammunition as well as ban any weapon that has a detachable magazine. The Golden State, already known as the strictest state on guns, is also looking to outlaw clips that hold more than ten rounds.
Other states - New York, New Jersey, Colorado, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New Mexico - are also legislating strongly against the Second Amendment.
Can states do this?
Generally states have power to run their own affairs and legitimately legislate over more areas of human behavior than the federal government can. The Tenth Amendment reserves all powers to the states that aren't given to the federal or prohibited by it.
However, the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the states as well - in other words, no state has the Constitutional power to violate any of the first ten amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
This means that all legislation from the states that would violate the Second Amendment is unauthorized by the Constitution, what the Declaration of Independence would call "Pretended Legislation."
So what violates the Second Amendment? What laws would be out-of-step with Constitutional gun rights?
The Amendment states, "A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
First, it is important to point out that the Amendment's pre-amble - "A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state" - only provides intent and is not the meat of the law. The word's that follow are what we need to take a look at - "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
When the Amendment was written, "infringe" meant to disable, diminish, weaken, impair etc. Thus any government action that would infringe upon "the right" - a pre-existing right - "to keep and bear arms" is unlawful.
So are all weapons protected? Are all weapons considered "arms" by the Second Amendment?
Constitutional scholar Robert Natelson answers that question well. He notes: Today the Second Amendment protects a range of weapons appropriate for citizen militias resisting foreign invaders and tyrannical politicians.
Now at this point someone favoring gun control always comes up with the line, "Well, does that mean that citizens have the right to hoard naval artillery and atomic bombs?" And the answer is "No, the Second Amendment doesn't encompass naval artillery or atomic bombs any more than the First Amendment includes falsely shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater." The language and purposes of the Second Amendment, as well as its history, tell us what it excludes as well as what it includes. Naval artillery and atomic bombs are not customary for personal self-defense and they never have been militia weapons used for repelling foreign invaders and domestic tyrants. In fact, the Second Amendment itself refers to the right to bear arms - that is, to carry arms - referring to weapons that normally are carried by a human being.
This is all to show that the current proposals being offered by states and the federal government are out-of-step with the Second Amendment. Rifles can be carried, "high capacity" magazines can be carried, weapons with a pistol-grip can be carried ... you get the point. This is exactly why the gun-grabbers are in the wrong, and why their "common sense" proposals are so egregious in fact.
The Supreme Court decision issued April 3, 1866 in Ex parte Milligan declares that, "The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times and under all circumstances ..."
Part of the Constitution's "protection" of the American people is its guarantee of the Second Amendment - the right to "keep and bear arms."
Neither the Federal Government nor any State Government (via the 14th amendment) has any right to debar Americans of the right to privately own and use weaponry for defensive purposes. No Congress is authorized by the Constitution to pass gun-control legislation.
Today the Second Amendment protects a range of weapons appropriate for citizen militias resisting foreign invaders and tyrannical politicians.
Now at this point someone favoring gun control always comes up with the line, "Well, does that mean that citizens have the right to hoard naval artillery and atomic bombs?" And the answer is "No, the Second Amendment doesn't encompass naval artillery or atomic bombs any more than the First Amendment includes falsely shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater."
The language and purposes of the Second Amendment, as well as its history, tell us what it excludes as well as what it includes. Naval artillery and atomic bombs are not customary for personal self-defense and they never have been militia weapons used for repelling foreign invaders and domestic tyrants. In fact, the Second Amendment itself refers to the right to bear arms - that is, to carry arms - referring to weapons that normally are carried by a human being.
This is all to show that the current proposals being offered by states and the federal government are out-of-step with the Second Amendment. Rifles can be carried, "high capacity" magazines can be carried, weapons with a pistol-grip can be carried ... you get the point.
This is exactly why the gun-grabbers are in the wrong, and why their "common sense" proposals are so egregious in fact.
No comments:
Post a Comment