(Thanks, A. :)
Reader AC writes:
Re: Reader: 'Justice Amy Coney Barrett Second ....
A Better Understanding of Individual Gun Rights
Often times when reviewing the law it not only helps, but one is required to also go back to examine the intent of the framers that wrote it in order to gain a better understanding.
To that end, consider that those first ten amendments to the Constitution which we collectively refer to as The Bill of Rights also includes a Preamble which 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 that would leave the real power to reside 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. The mindset and intent of the Founding Fathers is very clear, the main purpose and function of the Constitution was to serve as a firewall against the overreach of power and authority by the federal government… and so when the framers thought that maybe the Constitution did not go far enough, they tried to make this more clear by the incorporation of those first ten amendments to the Constitution that we today recognize as the Bill of Rights.
But please do not make the mistake that because we call these first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, that it is these documents and/or the government that provides us with our Rights. It is a big mistake to say that we have a Second Amendment Right or a Constitutional Right to have a gun as this would imply that this Right comes from the government. The government can only grant privileges and not Rights and we should never make the mistake of confusing Rights with government granted privileges which can be regulated and which can also be revoked by the government... because as we know, what the government gives it can also take away. But Rights on the other hand are recognized as being God given and are also protected by the restraints of the Constitution and therefore can NOT be abrogated or diminished by merely passing a new law. Our system of law in America under the directives of our Constitution simply does not, or at least should not, be working that way. And furthermore, this has clearly been affirmed by the high court. To wit:
“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).
Furthermore, it is very clear to me that under our system of law, once a document is amended, the new provisions, conditions and the directives of the amendment override and supersede all that came before it. And that if there are any areas of conflict or dispute 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 continue to rule to this very day... And we must not forget nor overlook the fact that our Constitution is in fact also a covenant and has been considered such from day one and so our U.S. Constitution is therefore also subject to the same rules of contract law.
With that in mind, the Founding Fathers used a very clear command directive in the Second Amendment that was intended to override and supersede everything and anything that the government may attempt to rely upon for their claim of authority to regulate the firearms industry. 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. The truth of the matter is that any anti-gun law or regulation seeking to prohibit or license firearms in America is in fact a direct infringement on the command directive contained in the Second Amendment. Furthermore, in the first words of the Second Amendment its very purpose is clearly stated, and there are NO requirements for guns to have a so-called "sporting purpose". Arms are any weapon that can be used for war by individual Americans to defend the country and the Constitution from outside enemies and/or from enemies within our country. And so even if the Founding Fathers would have ever in any way entertained the notion of including any such wild and crazy requirement for there to be a so-called "sporting purpose" attached to the Right of the people to keep and bear arms, I have no doubt that the sport in their mind would have been the shooting of tyrants!
Also bear in mind that in the case of the 18th Amendment which resulted in the ban on alcohol and gave us the era of Prohibition, that once the mistake of Prohibition was realized, it then took passing another amendment (the 21st Amendment) in order to put an end to Prohibition. Any new congressional act that would have been passed by the Congress or any presidential executive order would have been wholly insufficient to have lawfully accomplished this task as the 18th Amendment had made Prohibition "the supreme law of the land". And which as a result then made it a requirement that in order to make any kind of formal change to the manner in which Prohibition was enforced, that a constitutional amendment would first be required in order to proceed with changing or altering any part of Prohibition. The Constitution is very clear that only via the constitutional amendment process can the Constitution be changed. And the constitutional amendment process is in the Constitution to guarantee that each and every state would have a vote and a say in matters having to do with any proposed changes to the Constitution.
No such change or alteration nor formal lawful reinterpretation to the Second Amendment has ever been made and it therefore stands today as originally written and with its very clear command directive that "the Right of the people to keep and bear arms Shall Not be Infringed".
The government needs to follow the Rule of Law!