Re: If 'They' Ram Through H.R. 127 Into Law a ....

I am really getting tired of all of this anti-gun legislation and also of hearing gun owners say that we must show our support for the Second Amendment. Did you ever stop to think that maybe we were going about this all wrong?

Forget about supporting the Second Amendment... Intend try invoking it !!!

The Constitution is a covenant. And under the rules of contract law, an amendment to a document overrides and supersedes what is in the original document. So regardless of what the government relies on to support their assertion that they have the authority to regulate firearms such as by their interpretation of the Supremacy Clause or the Commerce Clause (which are both being misused and misapplied); the fact that there is a Second Amendment with a very clearly written and a very explicit command directive that has never been altered or changed or reinterpreted
in any way by the only lawful means available, meaning by a constitutional amendment that specifically addresses the provisions of the Second Amendment, "the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed" remains as the supreme law of the land.

Understand that when the 18th Amendment gave us the era of Prohibition which made the sale and distribution of alcoholic beverages illegal, that this then became the law of the land. But then when later Prohibition was found to have been a big mistake, there was no act of the Congress or by the president that could reverse that mistake. No sir, Prohibition had been made the law of the land with the 18th Amendment and as a result Prohibition could only be ended by the passage of another constitutional amendment... and so the era of Prohibition only came to an end after the passage of the 21st Amendment. You see, the only way to change the provisions and the directives of an amendment is with another amendment.

So please stop making arguments about individual gun Rights. There is nothing to argue about. Absent a constitutional amendment that specifically addresses the provisions of the Second Amendment, it stands today as originally written and
continues to be the supreme law of the land. And the government at all levels lacks any lawful authority under our Constitution to regulate the firearms industry...PERIOD! All of the anti-gun laws are meaningless because an unconstitutional law is not binding on anyone and it is null and void from its inception.

A Right that is recognized as being a God given Right and also protected by the Constitution can NOT be abrogated or diminished by merely passing a law.

The protections afforded us under the Constitution and its amendments are for us to use as an impenetrable shield against the power and authority of the government. All we need to do is to raise this shield. However, 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 the other is?
"If you don't raise an objection, then you do not have one". (And that by your silence you have thereby acquiesced to their authority)

But we should also know that we do in fact have the high court's rulings in our favor. The United States Supreme Court upholds this notion of the people always having the protections and guarantees of our constitutionally protected Rights with a number of Supreme Court rulings which include the following:

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)

And as for accepting a "License", consider the following:

The word "License" is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as;
"Permission to act or to do something that would otherwise be illegal or prohibited" - Thus everything requiring a license has been deemed to be illegal and prohibited by the state. Just stop and think for a moment everything in our lives that today requires a license. Marriage used to be a sacred covenant between Man, Woman and God but today we must involve and obtain special permission from the state in order to engage in the act of holy matrimony.

The government's permission is NEVER required in order to exercise a Right. However, if one accepts a government granted privilege then one also accepts the government's authority to regulate and to also restrict and to even deny the exercise of that privilege.