Thanks, I'll forward this to ~Basil...

Psst As Seawitch just posted the other day.. Read The Dick Act of 1902 .. It invalidates all so-called gun-control laws.... Just don't search it out using Google :_)

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

Re: ~Basil - Disaster Warning! Biden And Cohor....

Anti-Gun Laws

I am a little confused about how it is that we have anti-gun laws in America. I say this because to my way of thinking and my understanding of the law and of established legal principles, in America all anti-gun laws are unconstitutional.

It is very clear to me that under our system of law, once a document is amended, the new provisions, conditions and directives of the amendment override and supersede all that came before it. And that if there are any areas of conflict between what is in the original document and what is in the amendment, it is always the provisions and the directives of the amendment that shall and must prevail. In any and all contract dispute cases, this is how the courts have always ruled, and our Constitution is a covenant.

With that in mind, there is a command directive in the Second Amendment that overrides and supersedes everything and anything that the government may attempt to rely upon for their claim of authority to regulate the firearms industry and/or individual gun Rights. And because only a new amendment can change the provisions of an existing amendment; Until such time as a new amendment is passed that specifically addresses firearms, the Second Amendment stands unaltered and as originally written and with its original meaning and with the force of its command directive that very clearly states, "the Right of the people to keep and bear arms Shall NOT be infringed". In fact, the use of the word “SHALL” or in the negative, "SHALL NOT" implies mandatory and compulsory and thereby removes and eliminates all discretion and also makes clear that it is not subject to any reinterpretation of its very clear meaning.

Understand also that history supports this notion as it took passing the 18th Amendment to ban alcohol in order to bring about the era of Prohibition and that once that mistake was realized that it then took passing another amendment (the 21st Amendment) in order to put an end to Prohibition. An act of the Congress or a presidential executive order would be wholly insufficient to have accomplished this as the 18th Amendment had made Prohibition "the supreme law of the land". The Constitution is very clear that only via the constitutional amendment process can the Constitution be changed.

The government of course has ignored this principle of the law and has also hoodwinked us by making the claim that the supremacy clause and the commerce clause of the Constitution gives them the authority to make laws that regulate the firearms industry and the people's Right to keep and bear arms. But it can be shown in both cases that these clauses are being misapplied. As an example, Article VI, Sec 2 creates what is clearly a conditional statement in that with regard to U.S. law being the supreme law of the land it states 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. United States laws therefore do NOT automatically share the status with the Constitution of being "the Supreme Law of the Land" unless the new laws first meet the all important criteria of having been made "in Pursuance thereof" with respect to the Constitution. But regardless of what provisions may exist in the original Constitution document, the provisions and the command directive of the Second Amendment override and supersede it all, and so it is the directive contained in the amendment that must prevail.

As for the original intent of the Founding Fathers; Most people do not know that the Bill of Rights has a Preamble that states very clearly the reason the Founding Fathers wanted to immediately incorporate those first ten amendments into our Constitution. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights written by the Founders states that they "expressed a desire, that in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added..." Their desire and intent was for there to be a small and limited federal government with the power residing locally with the states and with the people. That was clearly their intent and their goal, and in fact that is pretty much the thought behind what is stated in the Tenth Amendment.

It should be very clear to everyone that a Right that is recognized as being God given and which is also protected by the Constitution can NOT be abrogated or diminished by merely passing a new law. Our system of law in America under our Constitution simply does not work that way... and this has been affirmed by the high court.

“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).

In closing there is also something else that we should try to remember and that we must try to never forget...

The fact that; Washington never bargains in good faith.

"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.

Now tell me, why haven't we seen this argument being made in any case involving the defense of individual gun Rights? We are told to join and to support one or more of the so-called pro gun lobby groups like the NRA (which by the way was in support of the 1934 NFA and the 1968 Control Act). And so it seems apparent that this is a subject or a train of thought that none of them wish to touch... or to even consider. I have come to the belief that the pro-gun lobby is pretty much like the cancer industry in that there is too much money to be made while the problem exist to ever want to extinguish it. The so-called pro gun lobby needs this conflict of the continued threat of new anti-gun laws to continue in order to justify their existence, secure new members and to solicit for more donations.

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