(Thanks, A. :)

Reader AC writes:

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

Re: Reader Charles: 'FIVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ....

Please post this response.

A few more questions to consider.

Is the law being applied properly with regards to our Rights?

The government claims the authority to regulate firearms based on "their" interpretation (but also their misapplication) of the Supremacy Clause and the Commerce Clause... However, please consider the following more relevant questions:

1) Is the U.S. Constitution a compact and subject to the same set of rules under contract law as all other agreement documents?

2) And if this is the case as I believe it is then is not this document called the Constitution also not permanently altered and changed via the inclusion of an amendment?

3) Because is it not also true that 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 the amendment always over ride and "supersede" the terms and the conditions of the original document as the amendment acts to, and has the effect of, permanently altering and changing the original document?

4) And if this be the case, then do not the terms, conditions and provisions of the 2nd Amendment over ride and supersede everything that came before it so as to settle any conflict in terms and provisions between the two in favor of the very explicit directives of the 2nd Amendment and thereby nullifying any claimed government authority under the original document as to the government's ability to impose on the American people any kind of firearm regulations?

5) And is this not the exact same condition that made Prohibition the Supreme Law of the Land under the 18th Amendment and which could therefore not be altered or changed via any act of the Congress or by any presidential executive order so that it was not until with the passage of the 21st Amendment that the ban on alcohol consumption in America could finally come to an end?

6) Is it not the Rule of Law under our Constitution for government to have to follow the procedures as set forth within this document and that only by the amendment process can the Constitution be "lawfully" changed or altered?

7) And is it not true that with respect to the provisions contained in the 2nd Amendment that no formal change has ever taken place and that therefore, the 2nd Amendment stands as originally written and remains as an explicit "command directive" to the government that; "the Right of the people to keep and bear arms Shall Not be infringed" and that this command directive remains still today as the Supreme Law of the Land?

8) Is it not true that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights, has a Preamble which states its purpose as the Founding Fathers agreeing to have; "...expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added"? And that this makes very clear that in addition to the limitations of power and authority expressed in the original document by virtue of the very specific enumerated powers being granted to the government, that further restrictions and limitations of power and authority were in fact the specific intent and purpose in drafting these original ten amendments to the Constitution?

9) And is it not also true that the US Supreme Court has upheld the notion in numerous cases that unconstitutional laws are in fact null and void from their inception? "An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed." (Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 1886).

10) And so in closing, is it not true that regardless of what authority to regulate firearms is claimed by government under any of the provisions of the original Constitution, that in fact with the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment and the fact that no subsequent amendment has ever been passed to amend, alter or change the explicit directive of the 2nd Amendment that the government totally and completely lacks any and all authority to in any way regulate the firearms industry?

Today now more than before with this current election cycle, they are wanting to eliminate the Electoral College and to change the way a president is elected and thereby end our Constitutional Republic and to convert us completely to a democracy whereby the voice of individuals in rural America will be easily silenced by the overpowering noise of the large groups in heavily populated cities. This is something the Founding Fathers warned us about. And if the Rule of Law can so easily be set aside to allow ignoring the requirement of the amendment process so that provisions in our Constitution can so easily be changed by acts of Congress as has been done with gun Rights, then by mere legislation will they also force an end to our Constitutional Republic?

Thank you for your time.

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