"of the right of the people to keep and to bear arms for their defense...."

"...And sir, that other pretense, of necessity, I repeat, cannot be allowed. The Constitution cannot be preserved by violating it. It is an offense to the intelligence of this House and of the country, to pretend that all this, and the other gross and multiplied infractions of the Constitution and usurpations of power were done by the President and his advisors out of pure love and devotion to the Constitution. But if so, sir, then they have but one step further to take, and declare, in the language of Sir Boyle Roche in the Irish House of Commons, that such is the depth of their attachment to it, that they are prepared to give up, not merely a part, but the whole of the Constitution, if indeed this pretext of necessity be well founded, then let me say, that a cause which demands the sacrifice of the Constitution and of the dearest securities of property, liberty, and life, cannot be just; at least it is not worth the sacrifice.

   "Sir, I ran obliged to pass by, for want of time, other grave, and dangerous infractions and usurpations of the President since the fourth of March. I only allude casually to the quartering of soldiers in private houses without the consent of the owners, and without in any manner having been prescribed by law; to the subversion in a part at least of Maryland of her own State government and of the authorities under it: to the censorship over the Telegraph, and the infringement repeatedly, in one or more of the States, of the right of the people to keep and to bear arms for their defense. But if all these things I ask, have been done in the first two months after the commencement of this war, and by men not military chieftains and unused to arbitrary power, what may we not expect to see in three years, and by the successful heroes of the fight? Sir the power and rights of the States and the people and of their Representatives, have been usurped; the sanctity of the private house and of private property has been invaded and the liberty of the person wantonly and wickedly stricken down; free speech, too, has been repeatedly denied; and all this under the plea of necessity. Sir, the right of petition will follow next--nay, it has already been shaken; the freedom of the press will soon fall after it; and let me whisper in your ear, that there will be few to mourn over its loss, until, indeed, its ancient high and honorable character shall be rescued and redeemed from its present reckless mendacity and degradation.--Freedom of religion will yield too, at last, amid the exultant shouts of millions, who have seen its holy temples defiled and its white robes of a former innocency trampled now under the polluting hoofs of an ambitious and faithless or fanatical clergy. Meantime national banks, bankrupt laws, a vast and permanent public debt, high tariffs, heavy direct taxation, enormous expenditure, gigantic and stupendous peculation, anarchy first and a strong government afterwards, no more State lines, no more State governments, and a consolidated monarchy or vast centralized military despotism, must all follow in the history of the future as in the history of the past they have, centuries ago, been written...."

[Columbia Democrat and Bloomsburg General Advertiser, Bloomsburg, Columbia County, Pa., Saturday, August 10, 1861. Vol. 15.--No. 23. Excerpted from the article; "Speech Of Hon. C.L. Vallandigham, Of Ohio, On Executive Usurpation. In the [U.S.] House of Representatives, July 10, 1861. Pg. 2 (Cont'd. from Pg. 1)]

"Their right to defend themselves and to keep and bear arms has been infringed...."

STATE ACTION IN BEHALF THE KANSAS SUFFERERS.

LETTER OF GOV. GRIMES TO PRESIDENT PIERCE.

Executive Office, Iowa.
Burlington, Aug. 20, 1856

   To his Excellency, Franklin Pierce, President of the united States:

   Sir: During the hut twelve months I have been constantly receiving letters, memorials and Affidavits, from former citizens of Iowa, now residents of the Territory of Kansas, alleging that they are not protected by the United States' officers in that in the enjoyment of their liberty and property. They charge, and the evidence fully supports the charge, that at the first, and at each subsequent territorial election, armed bodies of men from an adjacent State invaded the Territory, took possession of the polls, deprived the actual settlers of the right of sufferage and perpetrated gross outrages upon such citizens as professed political sentiments disagreeable to the invaders.--By threats and lawless violence, they secured the election of a majority of the members of the legislative Assembly, many of whom were then and are now citizens of another State. By this Assembly a code of laws was enacted unparalled in the history of legislation--laws palpably unconstitutional, and which no man with the spirit of a freeman could obey without personal dishonor and a violation of his conscience.

   In this condition of things, and without any attempt to repel violence by violence, the people of Kansas sought a peaceful remedy for the wrongs that had been perpetrated, by forming a State Constitution, electing State officers and asking admission into the Union as a sovereign State.

   Although the Constitution of the United States declares that treason "shall consists only in levying war," yet a man holding a commission under the seal of the United States, and exercising the office of Chief Justice in that Territory, has decided that the persons who accepted office under the State Constitution are guilty of treason. Under his instructions, the State officers have been indicted, arrested and bail denied them, under the pretence of judicial proceedings, but without a trial or hearing of any kind.

   An armed posse has invaded the town of Lawrence, and destroyed printing-presses, private dwellings and a hotel. Human lives have been destroyed, citizens have been driven from the Territory by violence, and anarchy and disorder everywhere prevail.

   Among the sufferers have been former citizens of Iowa, who went to Kansas in no spirit of propagandism, but with the intention of becoming permanent residents of that Territory. Three of them have been slain by arms said to have been placed by a Fed[er]al officer in the hands of a band of outlaws from a remote State. Some have been compelled to flee from the Territory for no offence save that, of having emigrated from a free state, while others remain there, stripped of their property, and appeal to their fellow citizens of Iowa for sympathy and protection.

   In my conviction, their appeal should not be in vain. They went to Kansas relying upon, and had a right to expect the protection of the general Government. Is this expectation they have been disappointed. Citizenship has been virtually denied to them. Their right to defend themselves and to keep and bear arms has been infringed by the act of the Territorial officers, who have wrested from them the means of defense while puttings weapons of offense into the hands of their enemies. They have been oppressed by a code of laws unequaled in atrocity in modern times. The character and conduct of the Territorial Judges have shown that an appeal to the judicial tribunal is worse than useless.

   The Central Government having failed to perform its duty by protecting the people of Kansas in the enjoyment of their rights, it is manifestly tho right of each of the States to adopt measures to protect its former citizens. If the people of Iowa are not permitted to enjoy the rights of citizenship in that Territory, they retain their former citizenship in this State, and am as much entitled to protection from the State while upon the public domain, as they would be if the General Government failed to protect them in a foreign country.

   While I write an army raised in the State of Missouri is marching into Kansas with the avowed purpose of driving out all those citizens of the Territory who emigrated from the Free States, and who express a preference for a Free State Constitution. Another armed body of men have placed themselves on the emigrant route from the State of Iowa, to prevent at the point of the bayonet any further emigration from this State.

   The State of Iowa cannot be an indifferent spectator of these acts of lawless violence. She demands that her citizens shall be protected in Kansas, and stand upon an equality there with the citizens of other States. She will not submit to the closing of the emigrant route through her domain into that territory.

   As the Executive of Iowa, I demand for her citizens in Kansas protection in the enjoyment of their property, their liberty and their political rights. I ask that the military forces on the line of emigration into the Territory be dispersed.

   A compliance with these reasonable requests will tend to restore peace in Kansas, and quiet the public mind of this State. In the event of a non-compliance, in my view, a case will have arisen, clearly within the principle laid down by Mr. Madison in the Virginia Resolutions of 1798 when it will be the doty of the States "to interpose to arrest the progress of the evils" in that Territory.

   I am, very respectfully your obedient servant,
JAMES W. GRIMES. Gove[r]nor of Iowa.

[The Anti-Slavery Bugle, Salem, Columbiana County, Ohio, Saturday, October 25, 1856. Vol. 12.---No. 10. Pg. 3]

New York District Attorney openly advocates and calls for treason against Veterans

[New-York Tribune, Friday, January 13, 1922. Vol. LXXXI No. 27,452 Pg. 4]

   So now we discover it was the treasonous Joab H. Banton that originally called for the tyrannical interstate commerce Constitutional usurpation. Which is apropos, considering he was brought into the position by the corrupt democrat party Tammany Hall crowd. The same traitors that backed the infamous and treasonous New York 'Sullivan' law. May he and the rest of the traitors that followed his perverse course receive their just deserts.

"Positively not; emphatically and unalterably and unquestionalily not...."

GOTTA HAVE A SEARCH
WARRANT SAYS LAWYER

However, Police Judge has
Different Views and Fines
Chicken Shorty $50.

   Has an officer a right to search a man on the streets for firearms without a search warrant?

   Positively not; emphatically and unalterably and unquestionably not. It's against all the constitutions; against the state constitution and the national constitution and especially against the constitution of the man searched. The constitutions guarantee the inviolability of the person of every citizen from unnecessary seizure and arrest. Before an officer can make arrests under such circumstances he must go get a search warrant.

   This was the gist of an impassioned argument before Police Judge T.D. Evans yesterday by former County Attorney John P. Evers. He was appearing for D.T. ("Chicken Shorty") Hatfield, charged with carrying A concealed weapon.

Found Hefty Pistol.

   Hatfield was arrested by Officer F.A. Francis Friday night in the business section after the latter had discovered a hefty revolver protruding from one ef Shorty's pockets.

   Francis said Shorty attracted his attention by his doubtful ability to carry home a good-sized "Jag." When ho stopped him. Shorty proceeded to "cuss out" the police force and everybody connected with it, said Francis, and Intimated that he bad a good notion to shoot up not only the force but the police court as well.

   Attorney Evers spoke eloquently and impassionedly on the sacred rights of citizens and their personal liberties. He cited and quoted from the constitution and from a United States court decision in Kansas and one down in South Carolina to substantiate his claim that on officer cannot search a man, even tho he thinks he is armed, until he has first procured a search warrant.

   "But suppose that having made the search, the officer discovers the man is armed and is violating the law?" interrupted Judge Evans. "Do you maintain he cannot be punished?"

Argument Impressive, But--

   Yes, sir, Mr. Evans maintained it because he declared the officer had no right to make such a search and having it, the evidence could not be used against Shorty because a man cannot be forced to testify against himself.

   Mr. Evers' argument was impressive but not convincing and Judge Evans assessed a fine of $50. Mr. Evers said he would not appeal.

   Shorty Hatfield is the father of young Vernon Hatfield, who was shot and killed by members of the police force some months ago.

[Tulsa Daily World, Tulsa, Oklahoma, Sunday, October 28, 1917. Morning Edition. Vol. XIII, No. 40 Pg. 8]

   Can someone please tell me WHY we don't have reporters like that anymore? Why is it that all of the current mainstream reporters, report as sycophantic boot-lickers? One reason why, is their 'masters' muzzle them and feed them well. Another is, that they are more afraid of our corrupt government than We The People. And it is way past time that We The People need to make these sycophants and their 'masters' afraid once more - VERY AFRAID. As is  alluded to here by Mr. Coxe:

"Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article [the Second Amendment] in their right to keep and bear their private arms."--Tench Coxe, under pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian," Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789. (Mr. Coxe was a leading proponent of the Constitution and Bill of Rights and an American political economist and a delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress in 1788-1789. He was appointed revenue commissioner by President George Washington on June 30, 1792).

"Introducing firearms is prohibited"

[Evening Bulletin, Honolulu, H.I., Thursday, August 31, 1899. Vol. VII. No. 1312. Pg. 1]

   Find that to be very interesting indeed. Especially in the light of what the following statement from the United States Supreme Court sheds on the subject:

"...The Territory being a part of the United States, the Government and the citizen both enter it under the authority of the Constitution, with their respective rights defined and marked out, and the Federal Government [Page 60 U. S. 450] can exercise no power over his person or property beyond what that instrument confers, nor lawfully deny any right which it has reserved.

"A reference to a few of the provisions of the Constitution will illustrate this proposition.

"For example, no one, we presume, will contend that Congress can make any law in a Territory respecting the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people of the Territory peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for the redress of grievances.

"Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel anyone to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding.

"These powers, and others in relation to rights of person which it is not necessary here to enumerate, are, in express and positive terms, denied to the General Government, and the rights of private property have been guarded with equal care."--Chief Justice Roger Taney, United States Supreme Court, Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856).

   Can you say; "Liars, cheats, and thieves"? I know that you can....

And We The People have allowed these perversions to continue unabated for over 79 years. WHY?

From the 'atf' website:

Top 10 Frequently Asked Firearms Questions and Answers (Link is to a pdf file which can be read online, or downloaded).

On page two of the document we find the following, (#1 Question):

1. Can a person prohibited by law from possessing a firearm acquire and use a black powder muzzle loading firearm?

The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) prohibits felons and certain other persons from possessing or receiving firearms and ammunition (“prohibited persons”). These categories can be found at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and (n) in
http://atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-4.pdf

However, Federal law does not prohibit these persons from possessing or receiving an antique firearm. The term “antique firearm” means any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or before 1898. The definition includes any replica of an antique firearm if it is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition, or uses rimfire or conventional centerfire ammunition which is no longer manufactured in the United States, and which is not readily available in ordinary channels of commercial trade. Further, any muzzle loading rifle, shotgun, or pistol which is designed to use black powder or black powder substitute, and which cannot use fixed ammunition, is an “antique firearm” unless it (1) incorporates a firearm frame or receiver; (2) is a firearm which is converted into a muzzle loading weapon; or (3) is a muzzle loading weapon which can be readily converted to fire fixed ammunition by replacing the barrel, bolt, breechblock, or any combination thereof.
See 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3), (a)(16).

Thus, a muzzle loading weapon that meets the definition of an “antique firearm” is not a firearm and may lawfully be received and possessed by a prohibited person under the GCA.
In addition, the GCA defines the term “ammunition” to mean “ammunition or cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or propellant powder designed for use in any firearm.” Because an “antique firearm” is not a “firearm,” it would is lawful for a prohibited person to receive or possess black powder designed for use in an “antique firearm.” Also, the Federal explosives laws do not make it unlawful for a prohibited person to acquire and possess black powder in quantities not exceeding fifty pounds if it is intended to be used solely for sporting, recreational, or cultural purposes in “antique firearms.”
See 18 U.S.C. § 845(a)(5)

By contrast, a prohibited person may not receive or possess black powder firearms that can be readily converted to fire fixed ammunition by replacing the barrel, bolt, breechblock, or any combination thereof. ATF has classified certain muzzle loading models as firearms. All of these models incorporate the frame or receiver of a firearm that is capable of accepting barrels designed to fire conventional rimfire or centerfire fixed ammunition. These muzzle loading models do not meet the definition of “antique firearm” as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(16), and are “firearms” as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3). Furthermore, as firearms, these and similar models, regardless of the barrel installed on the firearm or provided with the firearm, are subject to all provisions of the GCA. Persons who purchase these firearms from licensed dealers are required to fill out a Firearms Transaction Record, ATF Form 4473, and are subject to a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) check. Felons and other prohibited persons may not lawfully receive or possess these firearms or ammunition.

The following is a list of weapons that load from the muzzle and are classified as firearms, not antiques, under the GCA, because they incorporate the frame or receiver of a firearm:-2-

• Savage Model 10ML (early, 1st version)
• Mossberg 500 shotgun with muzzle loading barrel
• Remington 870 shotgun with muzzle loading barrel
• Mauser 98 rifle with muzzle loading barrel
• SKS rifle with muzzle loading barrel
• PB sM10 pistol with muzzle loading barrel
• H&R/New England Firearm Huntsman
• Thompson Center Encore/Contender
• Rossi .50 muzzle loading rifle

This list is not complete and frequently changes. There may be other muzzle loaders also classified as firearms. As noted, any muzzle loading weapon that is built on a firearm frame or receiver falls within the definition of a firearm provided in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3).

Finally, even though a prohibited person may lawfully possess an antique firearm under Federal law, State or local law may classify such weapons as “firearms” subject to regulation. Any person considering acquiring a black powder weapon should contact his or her State Attorney General’s Office to inquire about the laws and possible State or local restrictions. A list of State Attorney General contact numbers may be found at www.naag.org.

   So then, we can clearly see that kongress realized that they cannot entirely bar even a felon from having a weapon for their own defense. Yet, kongress fails to abide by the Constitutional Prohibition placed on it in Article Two of Amendment, "Restrictive" clause:

"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed."

   Which is very interesting indeed, when remembering that the intended purpose of the Second Amendment was to secure the right to arms to those that HAD violated the law. Thus it is conclusively shown that kongress has indeed "infringed" on the right of We The People to Keep and Bear Arms. As well as created an 'agency' which defines the extent and definitions of the infringements perpetrated. All of which has been 'upheld' by an equally perverse 'judicial' system. Which has equally disregarded the solemn oath to "uphold and defend" the Supreme Law of the Land - the United States Constitution. And We The People have allowed these perversions to continue unabated for over 79 years. WHY?

"or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

   "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.

United States Constitution concerning Treason:

Article I.

Section. 6.

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

Article II.

Section. 4.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Article III.

Section. 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

   It can easily be asserted, that by openly advocating for violation of a crucial Constitutionally secured right, is treasonous in nature. Especially a right which would be absolutely necessary in order to battle against a government that had become tyrannical. And was openly engaging in criminal warfare against the rights of the people that it was intended to serve.

Online Interview with Ed Brown....

This man needs our help. He is standing on foundation principles and is putting his money where his mouth is. We The People need to listen to what this man has to say. For, if you listen to him you'll readily discover discover that he is NOT some "lunatic". With each successive battle that the perverse in our government are allowed to win by attrition. The more difficult it will be for We The People to resume our Rightful Sovereign authority. There MUST be a stand made, or we will be left with NOTHING to stand for....
.

Click here to listen to phone interview.

.

Courtesy Kenneth Hensley, via commentary left on The War on Guns.