Monday, January 04, 2016

Let's set this matter straight [again], shall we?

   It is an indisputable fact that the Congress of the United States was Constitutionally delegated the authority and power over the "militia" in the following manner:
U.S. Constitution

Article I. . . .

Section. 8.

   The Congress shall have Power . . . [to] provide for the common Defence . . . To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

   To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress . . .

Article. II. . . .

Section. 2.
   The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States . . .
   And that is IT. That is all the authority and power that was delegated to the Federal government concerning the "militia". To further clarify the extent of the delegated authority and power that was granted. As well as make clear, by express declaration, the defined LIMITATION of that authority and power. An amendment to the Constitution was demanded and obtained. Which is as follows:

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

       THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further DECLARATORY and RESTRICTIVE clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

       RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

       ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution….

Amendment II 
DECLARATORY clause; [Common Defense]
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
RESTRICTIVE clause; [Self-Defense]
the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed.
   Or, in other words, if the clauses were expounded upon. They would very well read:

   ‘One of the chief reasons that the preexisting natural right of the people to keep and bear their own individual arms in self-defense shall not to be infringed upon by American Governments. Is due to the fact that they can combine together in a well regulated militia for their common defense, which is necessary to the security of a free state against all enemies; foreign or domestic.’

   The explanation of the above Constitutional construction is done in perfect detail by Mr. James Madison in Federalist #41. Here is an extract:
    ” . . . Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are “their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare.”
   And the above contention is proven most conclusively by one of the most famous Chief Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court; Mr. Chief Justice John Marshall. Whom was present at the debates, in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, concerning our Constitution. Which of course means he had first hand knowledge of just what was intended:
   “Also, the conditions and circumstances of the period require a finding that while the stated purpose of the right to arms was to secure a well-regulated militia, the right to self-defense was assumed by the Framers.”–Chief Justice Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court. [As quoted in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846); State v. Dawson, 272 N.C. 535, 159 S.E.2d 1, 9 (1968).]
   Which falls right in line with the FACT that the right to keep and bear arms was a preexisting right:
   An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown . . .
. . . That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law…
   And that it was purposefully Constitutionally intended to be totally withdrawn from the power of our government(s). As Mr. Hamilton proves here:
   “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government . . . The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms…”–Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers No. 28, New York Packet. Tuesday, December 25, 1787.

   ALL previous, present and future 'gun control laws' or presidential dictations are direct violations of We The People's Constitutionally secured right. And are therefore plain usurpations of authority, making them null and void the moment they were 'enacted' or spewed forth.

No comments: