Re: VIRGINIA UPRISING GIVES US THE FORMULA TO ....

RE: Gun Rights in America

To witness the ongoing and the constant fight for individual gun rights in America has been somewhat confusing to me... and the reason is simply because from my simple cursory review of the matter, it is my belief that the government totally and completely lacks the authority to regulate the firearms industry... And so I believe that we have in fact been fighting the wrong fight.
Please allow me to try to explain.

Government claims its authority to regulate firearms by its use of both the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Sec 2) and the Commerce Clause (Article I, Sec 8 (3)). However, I believe that both are being misapplied and misinterpreted. For example, Article VI, Sec 2 is clearly a conditional statement as it says that with regard to U.S. law being the supreme law of the land that; "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;" - meaning of course that all US law must be made "in Pursuance thereof" with respect to the Constitution in order for any such laws to hold a place together with the Constitution as being the supreme law of the land. But without belaboring this and setting aside for now all what is contained within the original document, let’s just consider the following. The Constitution is a "compact" meaning a contract or agreement with its intent being to restrict the power and authority of the newly created federal government. And under recognized and accepted contract law, an amendment to the original document bears more weight and exerts more force because the terms and the conditions of an amendment always "supersede" the terms and conditions of the original document, and this is simply true because the amendment acts to, and has the effect of, permanently altering and changing the original document. And so regardless of what can be argued to be contained within the original document, the Second Amendment makes clear that, "the Right of the people to keep and bear arms Shall Not be infringed" is the supreme law of the land and that it shall continue to be the law of the land until such time as a change occurs via the passage of another constitutional amendment that specifically addresses this provision. As a case in point, the 18th Amendment banned alcohol beverage consumption and made Prohibition the law of the land. But even after finally recognizing Prohibition to have been a horrible mistake, it could not be undone via any act of the Congress nor with a presidential executive order. And so it was not until with the passage of the 21st Amendment that the era of Prohibition finally came to an end. The Rule of Law is clear. Neither the Congress nor the President nor the US Supreme Court have the authority to alter or to change any of the provisions of the Constitution as this can only be done via the amendment process... And with respect to "the Right of the people to keep and bear arms" this has NEVER been done and so "the Right of the people to keep and bear arms Shall not be infringed" remains as the Supreme Law of the Land throughout the United States of America… PERIOD!!!

There are several other examples and also a number of US Supreme Court cases that clearly recognize the argument I am briefly making here and that are contained in an essay I wrote awhile back. The actions being taken by government are unlawful and their unlawful actions need to be challenged as they are clearly not obeying the Rule of Law. We must STOP this constant renegotiation of our Rights and not continue to accept watered down versions of what the Founding Fathers intended for us to have. Years ago someone gave me the advice to never argue the amount. Now what does it mean to "never argue the amount"? Well if you were for example to receive a billing statement demanding that you pay the sum of $10,000 to an entity that you did NOT recognize as owing any liability to; Would you pay it or would you argue? And if you argued, would it be over the amount? Well if you do argue over the amount then this constitutes an admission that you do in fact owe some amount and the other side would then simply only have to begin to negotiate with you in order to see how much they could extract from you. The correct thing to do would be to disavow any and all liability and to refuse to pay even one cent... And if the other side believed differently then to make them produce the evidence in order to support their claim and to prove the liability they claim you have to them. Because in the absence of any valid proof of claim, it makes their claim against you worthless and entitles them to absolutely nothing! And so in the case of our Right to keep and bear arms, we always seem to be fighting over the scope of what this Right is and then arguing over interpretations of the Second Amendment... In other words, we are constantly "arguing over the amount" and as a result what we now have is a very watered down version of the Second Amendment when it was NEVER subject to negotiations in the first place. Please understand that both the Constitution and the first ten amendments have a "Preamble" which state their purpose and that these documents are restrictive in their nature and act to provide limits on the power and the authority of the government. And as to the reason given for the first ten amendments the preamble states that they (the Founding Fathers who authored these documents) "expressed a desire, that in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added..." Also, bear in mind that there is a reason for their use of commandment words such as "shall" because in legal terminology the use of the word "shall" creates a very explicit directive that compels one party to either act or not to act according to the directive being given. And so "The right of the people to keep and bear arms Shall Not be infringed" is in fact an explicit directive to the government and one which was intended to very strongly limit the power and authority of the government. Let us also not forget that our Rights do Not come from government but are instead recognized as being God given Rights and that as such our Rights can not be surrendered nor taken away. However, if we allow them to convert our Rights into government granted privileges and to accept having to be "licensed" in order to enjoy the exercise of these privileges, then we are automatically subjecting ourselves to further regulation and to even having government one day terminate and put an end to any of the "privileges" that would then be under their control.

Black's Law Dictionary defines "License" as: "Permission to act or to do something that would otherwise be illegal or prohibited". - Therefore, everything that requires you to have a license has been deemed by the government to be an "illegal act" and therefore requiring the special permission of the government via a state issued license. Just think about it, what can you really do today without first obtaining a state issued license? As in the words of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe;
“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

There are two axioms of law to remember that I think greatly apply in these matters:
"If you don't know your Rights then you don't have any"... and

"If you don't raise an objection, then you do not have one". (and you have acquiesced to their authority)

Also, here is something else to remember and that we must never forget...

"Every single treaty the Indians made with the U.S. Government was broken by Washington; The U.S. Constitution is the treaty that the American people have with the Federal Government, and it too is now also being broken". -- Russell Means, Indian activist.

************************