There are two distinct reasons that the preexisting individual right to keep and bear arms was demanded to be Constitutionally secured.
First, because of the infringement that had been perpetrated by the British government against the people of Boston. When their arms had been confiscated by the British, resulting in the start of actual hostilities between the Americans, at that time "colonists", and the British government. That one event is what directly led to arms first being used in actual orchestrated revolt against the British.
Second, was due to a 'law' that had been passed by the government of the state of Massachusetts. Which had disarmed those that participated in Shay's Rebellion for a period of 3 years. That 'law' resulted in "universal disgust" throughout all of the states. And caused fellow patriots to arm themselves and come running to Massachusetts from all surrounding states to aid their brethren, almost sparking another revolution. Which of course resulted in the state of Massachusetts rescinding the perverse 'law'. This event had occurred just prior to, and even during, the Constitutional Convention which is responsible for our present day Constitution.
It must be made clear from the start, that there was no authority or power granted to our governments over the preexisting natural right of We The People to keep and bear our own individual arms in self-defense. And where no "authority" or "power" has been delegated or granted, then none can be exercised. It is clearly outlined in We The People's Constitution what our hired servants "shall" have delegated "authority" and "power" to do. As well as what those same hired servants "shall not" have 'authority' and 'power' to do.
In addition and more perhaps importantly, our hired servants were expressly forbidden by Constitutional Amendment from infringing upon that right in any fashion whatsoever. In other words, they were expressly Constitutionally denied all authority or power to 'control' that specific right. The right was specifically removed from their [ever over-reaching] grasp.
Next, consider how that the federal government had already been delegated limited "authority" and "power" over arms in the hands of the "militia" in the original Constitution. And how that Amendment II had been insisted upon in order to make clear that the 'authority' and 'power' that had already been delegated over the "militia". Was not to be so construed as to have been intended to extend over the preexisting right of We The People to keep and bear our own individual arms for defense. And there is a mountain of valid historical evidence that abundantly testifies of that fact. Chief of which is contained within the Preamble to the Bill of Rights itself:
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.
The above is made crystal clear when applied to Amendment II:
. . . Amendment II
DECLARATORY clause; ["Common Defence"]
"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."
There is no mistaking or misconstruing the simple language expressed in those terms. The only purpose that the federal government had anything whatsoever to do concerning arms, was expressly limited to arms in the hands of the "militia". The thought that the authority and power already delegated could be construed as extending over arms in the hands of We The People at large was expressly Constitutionally removed.
Thus it is plain to see that all 'laws' that have been enacted which contravene the right of the people at large to keep and bear arms in any way. Are nothing more than acts of unconstitutional 'authority' and 'power'. They have no true force of 'law', for they were expressly denied the 'authority' or 'power' to enact them in the first place. Which of course makes all such 'laws' null and void. For those 'laws' have no true Constitutional sanction or validity. And any agent of government that enforces or upholds those 'laws', does so in clear violation of the Supreme Law of the land. Which is the very same "Supreme Law" that they have supposedly taken a solemn oath to "uphold and defend". To enforce those 'laws', would be nothing more than clearly acting outside of the bounds which are Constitutionally imposed on them. And this of course applies to ALL of our hired servants in government in ALL branches; Executive, Judicial and Legislative.
The express Constitutional prohibition outlined above, in addition to obviously applying against any encroachments by the federal government. Was also intended to apply equally against all other forms of American government as well; local and state. As is made perfectly clear in the body of the Constitution itself:
Thus it is plain to see that all 'laws' that have been enacted which contravene the right of the people at large to keep and bear arms in any way. Are nothing more than acts of unconstitutional 'authority' and 'power'. They have no true force of 'law', for they were expressly denied the 'authority' or 'power' to enact them in the first place. Which of course makes all such 'laws' null and void. For those 'laws' have no true Constitutional sanction or validity. And any agent of government that enforces or upholds those 'laws', does so in clear violation of the Supreme Law of the land. Which is the very same "Supreme Law" that they have supposedly taken a solemn oath to "uphold and defend". To enforce those 'laws', would be nothing more than clearly acting outside of the bounds which are Constitutionally imposed on them. And this of course applies to ALL of our hired servants in government in ALL branches; Executive, Judicial and Legislative.
The express Constitutional prohibition outlined above, in addition to obviously applying against any encroachments by the federal government. Was also intended to apply equally against all other forms of American government as well; local and state. As is made perfectly clear in the body of the Constitution itself:
Article I - Section 10:
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
The Constitution of the United States is definitely a "contract" between the government we established and We The People.
Article IV - Section 2:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
That "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is most certainly an "immunity" from government interference is beyond any doubt. And no one can possibly contend differently.
Article V:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Article VII
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
We then return to the Preamble of the Bill of Rights, as it was presented to the states for ratification:
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. . . .
All of the facts presented above are firmly cemented by the following statement by one of the leading authors and proponents of We The People's Constitution. And bear in mind that this statement was made prior to the adoption of our Bill of Rights:
“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; and which, against the usurpation of the national rulers, may be exerted with an infinitely better prospect of success, than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts, of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defence. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.”–Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers No. 28, New York Packet. Tuesday, December 25, 1787.
There can be no doubt as to what the word "paramount" means. Nor can there be any contention that the right to keep and bear arms is inextricably linked to "that original right of self-defense".
So it is once again seen, that not only were all forms of American government not Constitutionally delegated any 'authority' or 'power' over arms in the hands of We The People. But they were expressly Constitutionally denied any such 'authority' or 'power'.
Any hired servant within our governments; federal, local or state, in any branch; executive, judicial, or legislative, that claims differently than what is presented above. Is in plain violation of their solemn oath to "uphold and defend" the Supreme Law of the land. Which most assuredly can be construed as Conspiracy to commit treason against We The People. For We The People and our Constitution most certainly are the true "sovereign authority" in our Constitutional Republic. And this, regardless of what any of our hired servants 'opine' to the contrary.
Just because our hired servants have gotten away with their previous treason, does not provide the excuse for them to continue on with further treason. Treason is still treason, regardless of how 'long-standing' it is. And We The people are not bound to obey treasonous 'laws'. For that would defeat the very purpose for which our Constitution was adopted. Which is of course to keep our hired servants within the certain expressed boundaries of law that we had confined them to begin with.
So it is once again seen, that not only were all forms of American government not Constitutionally delegated any 'authority' or 'power' over arms in the hands of We The People. But they were expressly Constitutionally denied any such 'authority' or 'power'.
Any hired servant within our governments; federal, local or state, in any branch; executive, judicial, or legislative, that claims differently than what is presented above. Is in plain violation of their solemn oath to "uphold and defend" the Supreme Law of the land. Which most assuredly can be construed as Conspiracy to commit treason against We The People. For We The People and our Constitution most certainly are the true "sovereign authority" in our Constitutional Republic. And this, regardless of what any of our hired servants 'opine' to the contrary.
Just because our hired servants have gotten away with their previous treason, does not provide the excuse for them to continue on with further treason. Treason is still treason, regardless of how 'long-standing' it is. And We The people are not bound to obey treasonous 'laws'. For that would defeat the very purpose for which our Constitution was adopted. Which is of course to keep our hired servants within the certain expressed boundaries of law that we had confined them to begin with.
No comments:
Post a Comment