Yep, yep, yep :-))

Thanks,
Lynda

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

Re: Judge Amy Barrett and the Second Amendment

This format does not really allow me to send you the full message I would like to deliver to you, but briefly, here is the point I wish to make:

I do not understand this ongoing constant struggle to "defend" the Second Amendment when instead what I believe we should be doing is to "invoke" our Rights under the Second Amendment, which if I am not mistaken is still in force (as originally written) and is still part of our Constitution.

Please understand that the Constitution being a covenant falls under the rules of contract law so that when the Constitution document is amended, this results in permanent changes to the original that override and also "supersede" any conflicting terms or provisions of the original document. Furthermore, under the system of law created by our Constitution, changes to the Constitution can ONLY be made via the constitutional amendment process and can NOT be made via any act of the Congress or by presidential executive order… or even by interpretation of the courts. As a case in point, the 18th Amendment gave us the era of Prohibition which banned alcohol consumption, sales and distribution and when later this was found to have been a mistake, it could not be so easily corrected or reversed or even amended by Congress or by the president because Prohibition was now the supreme law of the land. And so we see that Prohibition was in fact only brought to an end with the passage of the 21st Amendment.

Now since no change has ever been made to the Constitution that would alter the provisions and the "command directive" of the Second Amendment, it stands today as originally written and "the Right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed" remains as the Supreme Law of the Land.

The government has relied on their interpretation (and misapplication) of the "supremacy clause" and the "commerce clause" to make their claim that they can regulate the firearms industry. However, (as one quick example) if one bothers to read Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution you will see that it is in fact a conditional statement and that the laws of the United States must be "made in pursuance thereof" with respect to the Constitution in order to also hold a place next to the Constitution as being the Supreme Law of the Land. But also understand that regardless of what the government might use or rely upon that is within the original document in order to base their claim of having the authority to regulate firearms, the amendment overrides and supersedes everything that came before it. And under the rules of contract law it is the provisions and the directives of the amendment that must and shall always prevail... and this means that the command directive of, "Shall NOT be Infringed" is what must prevail!!!

Contrary to popular belief, the Second Amendment does NOT give us our individual gun Rights. The Second Amendment protects our recognized God given Right to be armed and expresses this as a very clear and precise “command directive” to the government that sets forth both a limitation on the power and authority of the government by providing a very strong worded prohibition against taking any action that would impede or infringe upon this Right. The message of the Second Amendment is clear, and there is nothing ambiguous about “Shall Not be infringed”!!!

A cursory analysis of our founding documents and of our early American history leaves me with the conclusion that the government totally and completely lacks the lawful authority to regulate the firearms industry and that therefore all anti-gun legislation that has ever been passed is both unlawful and unconstitutional... Just consider what the high court has had to say about this? Here are a few relevant rulings.

“The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.” - Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137

Additionally, “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; 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

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491

Constitutional Right – “A right guaranteed to the citizens by the Constitution and so guaranteed as to prevent legislative interference therewith”. - Delaney v. Plunkett, 146 Ga. 547, 91 S. E. 561, 567, L. R. A. 1917D, 926, Ann. Cas. 1917E, 685. – Black’s Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition

”The Constitution is a legal binding contract between the government and its employer (the American people). The U.S. Supreme Court was right when it said, "The Constitution is a written instrument and as such its meaning does not alter, that which it meant when it was adopted, it means now!" U.S. vs. South Carolina (1905)

"The U.S. Supreme Court broadly and unequivocally held that licensing or registration of any Constitutional Right is itself unconstitutional." -- Follett vs McCormick, S.C., 321 U.S. 573 (1944)

There is of course much more to this argument... but I have yet to hear of anyone or of any group making this very valid argument in defense of individual gun Rights. Why is that? Is there really (on the part of pro gun lobby groups or among the legislative representatives that swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution) any kind of real or sincere interest and a true goal of insuring that individuals have the Right to keep and bear arms that the Founding Fathers intended for us to have?

I would guess no because what I see is that instead of a true Right to keep and bear arms that the Founding Fathers intended for us to have in order to be able to defend ourselves from tyranny, what we have today is a watered down version of the Second Amendment. And we continue to see this Right and all of our other Rights erode away as we are slowly marched toward a socialist tyrannical form of government that is a far cry from the Constitutional Republic left to us by the Founding Fathers.