Monday, January 04, 2016

Let's set this matter straight [again], shall we?

   It is an indisputable fact that the Congress of the United States was Constitutionally delegated the authority and power over the "militia" in the following manner:
U.S. Constitution

Article I. . . .

Section. 8.

   The Congress shall have Power . . . [to] provide for the common Defence . . . 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 . . .

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 . . .
   And that is IT. That is all the authority and power that was delegated to the Federal government concerning the "militia". To further clarify the extent of the delegated authority and power that was granted. As well as make clear, by express declaration, the defined LIMITATION of that authority and power. An amendment to the Constitution was demanded and obtained. Which is 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.
   Or, in other words, if the clauses were expounded upon. They would very well read:

   ‘One of the chief reasons that the preexisting natural right of the people to keep and bear their own individual arms in self-defense shall not to be infringed upon by American Governments. Is due to the fact that they can combine together in a well regulated militia for their common defense, which is necessary to the security of a free state against all enemies; foreign or domestic.’

   The explanation of the above Constitutional construction is done in perfect detail by Mr. James Madison in Federalist #41. Here is an extract:
    ” . . . Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are “their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare.”
   And the above contention is proven most conclusively by one of the most famous Chief Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court; Mr. Chief Justice John Marshall. Whom was present at the debates, in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, concerning our Constitution. Which of course means he had first hand knowledge of just what was intended:
   “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).]
   Which falls right in line with the FACT that the right to keep and bear arms was a preexisting right:
   An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown . . .
. . . That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law…
   And that it was purposefully Constitutionally intended to be totally withdrawn from the power of our government(s). As Mr. Hamilton proves here:
   “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, New York Packet. Tuesday, December 25, 1787.

   ALL previous, present and future 'gun control laws' or presidential dictations are direct violations of We The People's Constitutionally secured right. And are therefore plain usurpations of authority, making them null and void the moment they were 'enacted' or spewed forth.

1-10-1867: "The Democratic Governor of Deleware . . . intends to enforce the State law forbidding colored men to carry arms. . . He seems never to have heard of the right of the people to bear arms, or to imagine that an old pro-slavery statute of his State will justify him in violating it with impunity...."

The Evansville Journal, “General Grant has promised to furnish the citizens of Kansas cavalry arms to protect themselves against Indian depredations. . . . The Democratic Governor of Deleware, true to his instincts, announces in his late message that he intends to enforce the State law forbidding colored men to carry arms. . . He seems never to have heard of the right of the people to bear arms, or to imagine that an old pro-slavery statute of his State will justify him in violating it with impunity. . . . to devise plans for evading emancipation and re-establishing their favorite institution in a new form.”, Jan. 10, 1867

Sunday, January 03, 2016

10-17-1866: "Judge Bullock, of the County Court of Natchez, has decided the State law that deprives colored people of the right to bear arms to be in opposition to the State Constitution..."

The Weekly North-Carolina Standard, “In Choctaw County a Mr. S.M. Hawkins shot an old crazy colored woman whom he found in his peach orchard. . . . Judge Bullock, of the County Court of Natchez, has decided the State law that deprives colored people of the right to bear arms to be in opposition to the State Constitution, which obliges the Legislature to protect the persons and property of the freedmen.”, Oct. 17, 1866

10-6-1866: “One of the main grounds relied on in justification of the free negro upon the charge of carrying fire arms, is shown to be, under the 23d Section of the Bill of Rights of Mississippi, declaring that “every citizen has the right to bear arms in defense of himself..."

Civl Rights Bill Declared Unconstitutional, “One of the main grounds relied on in justification of the free negro upon the charge of carrying fire arms, is shown to be, under the 23d Section of the Bill of Rights of Mississippi, declaring that “every citizen has the right to bear arms in defense of himself and of the State.” The question then arose, was the free negro “a citizen” of this State?”, October 6, 1866

7-16-1866: "[OFFICIAL.] Laws Of The United States. . . . including the constitutional right to bear arms, shall be secured to and enjoyed by all the citizens..."

[OFFICIAL.] Laws Of The United States. Passed at the First Session of the Thirty-Ninth Congress. “the right to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, and the acquisition, enjoyment, and disposition of estate real and personal, including the constitutional right to bear arms, shall be secured to and enjoyed by all the citizens . . . Resolved, That the said bill pass, two-thirds of the House of Representatives agreeing to pass the same. . . . Resolved, That the bill do pass, two-thirds of the Senate agreeing to pass the same.”, July 16, 1866

6-14-1866: “very little is said these days about “military satraps” and “base hirelings” who interfere with the right of the people to keep and bear arms . . . The Democratic party has ever refused to acquiesce in the great idea that underlies free government….”

Marshall County Republican, “very little is said these days about “military satraps” and “base hirelings” who interfere with the right of the people to keep and bear arms . . . The Democratic party has ever refused to acquiesce in the great idea that underlies free government….”, June 14, 1866