And here we go again...

Back on Friday, May 24, 2013, I had posted the following [Excerpted]:

   In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), the court ruled the following:

"The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States."

   And, although many parts of Cruikshank have been overturned by later decisions, it is still relied upon with some authority in portions. Cruikshank was also reaffirmed in Presser v. Illinois in 1886.

   That being the case concerning the view of the court concerning the second amendment at that time. And for more than 100 years thereafter. Then how can the court reconcile the following?:

1934 National Firearms Act

1938 Federal Firearms Act

1968 Gun Control Act

1972 Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms created

1986 Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act

1990 Crime Control Act

1994 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act

   Did not the federal government totally disregard the ruling of the court? Not to mention the express prohibition found within the “Restrictive clause” of the Second Article of Amendment to the United State Constitution itself:

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

   I contend it can be firmly held that the federal government has indeed disregarded the prior ruling of the court. In addition to the clear restriction found within the second amendment itself.

   Why? Has the court joined in a long running conspiracy with the other branches of the federal government. And this in order to deprive part or all of We The People of our preexisting Constitutionally secured right? It certainly appears that way, does it not? Especially after considering that the right to keep and bear arms was intended as the final checkpoint in our system of checks and balances.

   What has happened to our intended system of “checks and balances”?

 After doing a bit more studying, I discovered this foot note at the bottom of United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939):

   Concerning The Militia -- Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252; Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275; Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455; Jeffers v. Fair, 33 Ga. 347; Salina v. Blaksley, 72 Kan. 230; 83 P. 619; People v. Brown, 253 Mich. 537; 235 N.W. 245; Aymette v. State, 2 Humphr. (Tenn.) 154; State v. Duke, 42 Texas 455; State v. Workman, 35 W.Va. 367; 14 S.E. 9; Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, Vol. 1, p. 729; Story on The Constitution, 5th Ed., Vol. 2, p. 646; Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. X, p. 471, 474.

   Now I shall pose the question AGAIN. How did the United States government suddenly obtain the delegated authority to regulate "arms" in the hands of We The People? Especially when our Constitution expressly declares, in the "Restrictive clause" of Amendment II: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

   I shall REPEAT, did not the United States Supreme Court state in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), the following:

"The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States."

   And as we see above, the court even referenced their Presser decision in Miller. From whence did the United States government get the delegated authority to regulate arms in the hands of We The People? From whence did the court get the authority to opine what the meaning of "arms" are in the hands of  We The People? Especially when the following is considered:

"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.

"...Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped .... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights, and those of their fellow citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army; and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."--Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 29, Independent Journal, Wednesday, January 9, 1788.

"The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our Constitution; and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. Its intrinsic merit entitles it to this high rank; and the part two of its authors performed in framing the constitution, put it very much in their power to explain the views with which it was framed..."--Chief Justice John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court, Cohens v. Virginia (1821).

   The Federalist Papers were the means employed to sell We The People this new form of government. They cannot be arbitrarily dismissed by the court. Especially after considering the court itself has quoted the Federalist in a very large number of their own cases. 

   Why are We The People allowing our hired servants to DICTATE to us our rights? The very rights which we hired them to "secure" for us? It is plain that they have been deliberately deceiving us. And playing 'cat and mouse games' with our rights. They have robbed us blind, and are playing us for fools....

". . . We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...."--The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

    The people that have been in 'power'. As well as those that are currently in 'power'. Have been, and are continuing to betray We The People, as well as God and Nature. That this has been a long running conspiracy, is a fact that cannot be controverted. It is that, or we possibly have some of the most deliberately ignorant people in the history of mankind in positions of 'authority'. And We The People must always keep in mind. that these people are nothing more than our hired servants. It is high time that we give our servants a very stern reminder of that fact. For We The People ARE the "legitimate" and "ultimate authority", not them.