'Gun Control Laws' have no Constitutionally legal foundation whatsoever. And, in fact, are nothing more than violations of the Supreme Law of the Land

   The U.S. Constitution, as presented on Sept. 17, 1787, had already delegated limited authority and power over the "militia" in Article I; Section 8; with the following:

   "To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; 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." 

   And in 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".

   The powers delegated were specifically intended for the "common defense", as is made clear in the preamble of our Constitution:

   "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America".

   We The People however, were not satisfied that the extent of that delegated authority and power was made clear enough. So we demanded that it be made clear that the authority and power already delegated did not extend over arms in the hands of We The People at large. And this was done by amending the Constitution by enacting Amendment II 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.

   The "Restrictive" clause of Amendment II was enacted in order to "secure" that right against any government interferences. Like that made by the British government under General Gage over the people of Boston when he had disarmed them. Which is the one event most responsible for the start of our Revolution. As well as when the Massachusetts state government enacted a 'law' which disarmed those that had participated in Shay's Rebellion for a period of three years. The latter event having taken place just prior to and even during the Constitutional Convention that produced our current Constitution. And which latter event almost brought on another revolution. Those two events are the REAL reasons that Amendment II had been demanded in the first place.

   The true purpose of Amendment II is made clear by one of the most famous Chief Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court in the following:

   “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).]

   In other words, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed" means precisely that which is written. Our governments are Constitutionally forbidden from enacting ANY 'law' which contravenes that specific right. They have absolutely no Constitutionally legal authority or power over the right PERIOD. All that they have the authority to do, is enact laws that provide punishment for abuse or misuse of the right. All other 'laws' are nothing more than preemptive violations of the right with no Constitutionally legal authority. Which of course makes them null and void, because they have no legal force or Constitutional sanction. Those 'laws' are nothing more than meaningless words on paper.