"Says It Would Not Restrict Use of Legitimate Weapons...."

SHIELDS DEFENDS ANTIPISTOL LAW

Says It Would Not Restrict Use of Legitimate Weapons.

   Former Assistant Secretary of War Crowell, on behalf of the Army Ordnance Association, of which he is president, is opposing the Shields anti gun-toting bill to prohibit interstate transportation of pocket pistols and revolvers on the ground that such a law would operate to impair the function of the army for national defense.

   In a letter to Senator Shields Mr. Crowell Said:

   "We are Informed that the passage of this bill would restrict the manufacture of pistols and revolvers to the quantities bought by the army, navy and Marine Corps. Inasmuch as the termination of the war left the military services with great reserves of these weapons, it will be many years before the war and navy departments again become heavy purchasers of these arms.

   "Thus, the passage of this bill would destroy the industry upon which this government must rely in case of war not only for its pistols and revolvers, but largely for its machine guns and similar weapons, and in the event of another emergency there would be no established industry to which the government could turn for these indispensable arms."

   In reply Senator Shields wrote Mr. Crowell:

   "You have evidently misunderstood the terms and purposes of this bill. It does not prohibit the shipment of such pistols as are ordinarily used in the United States army and navy, but especially excludes them from its prohibition.

   "The several States of the Union all have laws prohibiting the carrying of firearms of the class the transportation of which is intended to be prohibited, and, with few exceptions, all have laws prohibiting the sale of such firearms. These laws have proved abortive because the manufacturers of small pistols advertise their wares in the papers & circulating in the States and ship them by mall or express to anyone desiring them in the State, and thus, through the mails and through the interstate commerce carriers they have interfered with local government and the State's police power in their efforts to suppress crime.

   "The small arms are not used in warfare, nor are they necessary to enable the citizen to keep arms in his home for defense. The large pistols are the ones used for these purposes, and are best suited for these purposes. The small pistols which are carried concealed about the person: are used for the purpose of executing vengeance, robbery, assassination and murder, and not for any lawful purpose."

[The Washington Herald, Washington D.C., Wednesday, July 06, 1921. No. 5357 Pg. 2]

   Since when does the hired servant decide what is a "legitimate weapon" for their masters? Apparently senator shields had forgotten the Constitutional PROHIBITION to our government; "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Which of course made him guilty of the high crime of treason. A crime which is punishable by death. For our governments were EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN from enacting ANY 'law' which contravenes that specific right. And one of the main reasons that this amendment was inserted into our Constitution. Was to enable We The People to be armed against our own governments in the event they became tyrannical. To Wit:

"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. Independent Journal, Friday, December 26, 1787.

   In addition, Mr. Hamilton explains precisely WHY our governments were NEVER intended to have ANY 'control' over our right to arms PERIOD. To Wit:

   “For it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of insuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion.”--Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, No. 25. New York Packet, Friday, December 21, 1787.

   The Federalist Papers were the means employed to sell We The People on the idea of the United States Constitution. As such, it has definitive bearing and weight. For it gives a clause by clause definition of our Constitution. Explaining exactly what was the intent of the framers of that instrument. Thus, it needs NO "interpretation" by the United States Supreme Court. Which was actually charged with the duty of 'interpreting' if the 'laws' enacted by congress were in compliance with the "Supreme Law of the Land." In light of Mr. Hamilton's words above, that the right is "PARAMOUNT to ALL positive forms of government". It is made quite clear what the original intention of the Constitution was. And that our right is "PARAMOUNT" to ALL of our governments. That this is a FACT, is very easily proven. To Wit:

   "It is a rule of law that, in order to ascertain the import of a contract, the evident intention of the parties, at the time of forming it, is principally to be regarded. Previous to the formation of this Constitution, there existed certain principles of the law of nature and nations, consecrated by time and experience, in conformity to which the Constitution was formed."-- Mr. Elliot, Debate in U.S. House of Representatives, Oct. 25, 1803 (The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution), [Elliot's Debates, Volume 4]

   Which is a FACT that had formerly been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court itself. To Wit:

   "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).

   "5. Because, from the contemporaneous exposition of the constitution, in the numbers of the Federalist, (which is cited only because the Supreme Court has recognised its authority,) it is clear..."--Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, Dec. 19th, 1828. Protest of the Legislature of that State, [Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, 1789-1873 TUESDAY, February 10, 1829.]

   "The Federalist is regarded as the highest contemporary authority on the construction of the Constitution; and in the sixty-fourth number the functions of the Senate "sitting in their judicial capacity as a court for the trial of impeachments" are examined."--Salmon P. Chase, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. [Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, WEDNESDAY, March 4, 1868.] 

   Does it make ANY sense whatsoever, to allow 'control' to be exercised over the means to put down tyrannical government(s). To be put into the hands of the very government(s) those arms are to be used against if they betray the people? NO, IT MOST CERTAINLY DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE WHATSOEVER. It, in FACT, defies the very reason and purpose that the amendment was inserted to begin with. The only ones that have anything to fear from an armed people are criminals and tyrants. That our governments have infringed upon our inalienable right just proves that they are not only criminal, but have every intention of becoming tyrannical. And the historical facts prove this most conclusively. Especially the more recent perverse actions of many in our criminal government(s).

   "Shall not be infringed" means PRECISELY that which is written. Which of course includes every aspect involved in the exercise of that right. Whether it be; manufacturing, shipping, sales, ammunition, etc. And We The People need to FORCE our hired servants to adhere to that Constitutional prohibition. Which means that our governments MUST cease and desist in their present illegal encroachments. As well as strike down EVERY SINGLE 'gun control law' currently on the books. And that applies to ALL of our governments in the United States of America; Federal, State, and municipal. For We The People's Constitution IS the "supreme law of the land". And is applicable to EVERY form of government here in the United States. The only power our governments have delegated to them. Is to provide punishment for the abuse or misuse of that Constitutionally secured right. And there are already laws on the books which provide ample punishment presently.

   The fact that our governments have, and continue to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms. Is ample evidence that many of the hired servants within our governments are operating with treasonous intent. That they have no intention whatsoever of "upholding and defending" the very Constitution which they have made a solemn oath to do. They are thus operating illegally, and We The People are under no obligation whatsoever to abide by their dictates. In fact, we are duty bound to disregard them and treat them as "domestic enemies". To Wit:

   "No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."--Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78. Independent Journal, Saturday, June 14, 1788.

   "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes . . . . Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it."--James Madison, The Federalist Papers No. 46, Tuesday, January 29, 1788.

   Don't know about you, but I have no intention of making "a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures". And, if you hold any value to the Freedom and Liberty won for us by our ancestors. Then it is strongly asserted that you don't as well.