MORE PROOF OF THE PURPOSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT

Some people ask if the Second Amendment applies to the State and local governments. Some people have the feeling that the purpose of the Second Amendment is a limitation on federal action "only", and that the states do not fall under its sphere of authority. This is not a correct evaluation of the Second Amendment.

Some people think that the courts have the right to apply the Second Amendment to the states via the 14^th Amendment and this would require even more erosion to states rights.  The damage that the 14th Amendment has caused is due to its overall misconstruction, and particularly, in Section I of the 14^th. The 14^th Amendment has been used to satisfy the imperialistic federal thirst to consolidate all authority over the states unto itself.

The reason that the Constitution was amended by the addition of the first 10 Articles (the Bill of Rights) was due to the great lectures for about three weeks, delivered by Patrick Henry in the Virginia State House. The 10 Articles comprising the Bill of Rights were ratified by all 13 states after the foresight and the enlightenment bestowed upon them by Patrick Henry. Until the Bill of Rights was added, the Constitution was slated to end up as a monarchy as it had offered no written protection for the rights of the people.

Patrick Henry presented many criticisms relative to the Constitution without a Bill of Rights. Fortunately, he was victorious in his efforts, which is why we now have a proper understanding of the purpose of the Bill of Rights. The inclusion of the Bill of Rights as a part of the Constitution has rightfully acclaimed it to be the most magnificent document ever struck off by the hand of man; provided, that the people fulfill their obligations and responsibilities to the system.

The founding fathers did not write about things that did not exist. Keep in mind that the founding fathers could not issue a prohibition on a given subject without stating the existence of the particular subject matter concerned. The Bill of Rights was acknowledged as a confirmation of our God-given rights. After Patrick Henry expounded upon the lack of provisions necessary to guard the natural rights of the people, it was the view of the states that these rights were inviolate and they were ratified in December 1791.

When the 14^th Amendment was written, the federal government wrongfully seized the position of being the “enforcer” of the Bill of Rights, when in all reality, the “enforcement” was actually being levied against the federal government.

Are you aware that before the Bill of Rights became attached to the Constitution it was actually a separate document of its own self, with its own Preamble, which began as follows:

“The Convention 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 insure the beneficent ends of its institution:”

Notice it says “declaratory” and “restrictive”. The founders were establishing existence and protection for the most endangered rights by declaring them essential. So, as you see, the Bill of Rights is also a positive source that confirms, documents, and guards the existence of these essential rights of the people. This endowment from the Creator was encased in a non-repealable palladium.

While guarding against federal encroachments, the authors of the Bill of Rights certainly were not bent upon allowing their own states to encroach or violate these rights and provisions. Henry made sure that the linchpin of all liberty, the right to arms, would no longer go unrecorded! In other words, at the same time that the rights of the people and powers of the state were being confirmed, they were also being enshrined as a prohibition primarily upon federal powers.

Yes, the barrier was placed upon the federal government, but the founders, representing the states at that time, did not leave state officials able to do what they had forbid the federal government from doing! That would not make sense! The people of the 13 states and their state representatives made sure those rights listed in the Bill of Rights applied to all of the people in all of the states.

The states compiled the Bill of Rights, as they believed it to be self-evident that these were the endowments from the Creator. This is a verification that these rights are unalienable, deserving of a sacred storehouse so that no man could violate them. Rights given to man by the Creator are beyond the purview and prerogative of our fellow man to alter or violate.

Federal use of the 14^th Amendment “to apply the Bill of Rights to the states” was totally unnecessary! That was connived for the enhancement of federal control over the states. All that was really necessary was to pass a federal law, declaring the blacks as being full citizens, which in turn, would declare blacks as free men with full citizenship. As citizens they would automatically be recognized to have the protection of the Bill of Rights just as all of the people were since 1791. Nothing more needed to have been said; however, the courts began to interpret Section I of the 14^th Amendment as a revision of federal power wherein the federal government could expand its authority over the states, and unjustly take superiority over them. Wrongfully, the tail began to wag the dog! What Patrick Henry feared would happen, has come to pass because the people have failed in their responsibility to issue an amendment with proper wording to end slavery.

There never was any need for the federal government to seize the position that they held authority to “make the Bill of Rights apply to the States” via a deceptive Amendment. After the 14^th Amendment was so poorly drafted, the federal government “assumed” and “created” for themselves an authority over the States that has grown increasingly more seditious. Attached is a 3-page summary sheet of some of the points Patrick Henry made in those three weeks when he stopped the ratification of the Constitution and forced adoption of the Bill of Rights.

Henry railed long and hard over allowing the federal government to take control over the militia, the collective right of the people to keep and bear arms. (It was by use of the militia that they won their independence and established liberty.) “Your guns are gone!” he chastised them during this time. He demonstrated that the federal government would have all power and the people would have no power (authority). He warned that their liberty would be wrested from them. Freedom of speech, albeit an essential, would not be adequate to do the job of protecting their authority. He told them that they had to retain their arms as a form of force lest they be ruined! It was necessary that an understanding be made that another function of the militia existed that was beyond the reach of federal power. The Second Amendment clarified that need.

Patrick Henry told it like it is! It is easy to see why the socialist/globalist/change artists have dropped him from the history classes in the schools of recent times. The federal government, which long sought to control the schools, and now does so through the United Nations (U.N.E.S.C.O.), never wanted to allow future Patrick Henrys to spring up!

The dual purpose of the Bill of Rights is further evidenced by the fact that twelve states entered the Union without a provision for the keystone amendment, the Second Amendment. The efforts of Patrick Henry in demanding a force to protect their liberties made the right to arms subject so clear and all encompassing that it gave them security. After his orations, the states, which had not yet signed in on the new Constitution, began attaching to their Act of Admission to the Union their own suggestions for rights they wanted to be entered as a part of the on-coming Bill of Rights.

Of the twelve states that entered into the Union without a provision for firearms in their state constitutions, four were members of the Thirteen Original States. Those four original states were: Delaware, New Jersey, New Hampshire and Maryland. Eight additional states entered into the Union without a provision for firearms in their state constitutions long after the battle over the federal 1787 Constitution had been settled. They were: West Virginia, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, Nevada, Nebraska, and California.

After Patrick Henry’s successful demand in 1788 that a Bill of Rights be provided in the new Constitution for the 13 original states, all of the 37 states that later entered the Union included a provision in their own “Act of Admission to the Union” to cover their need. The provision stated that they were being “admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original states in all respects whatsoever”. Attached you will find two sheets giving the exact wording that was used by each of those 37 states. This is strong evidence to support what was meant by the declaratory and restrictive wording inscribed in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights.

Where else will you find included in the federal Constitution the satisfaction of the demand that was made for a documented statement of man’s unalienable rights except for in the Bill of Rights? After such vigorous heated discussions over (1) the need to limit the ability of the federal government to invade, usurp, and destroy the authority and rights of the people, and (2) the need to document and confirm the existence of unalienable rights of the people (their endowments from the Creator, including those powers the people were willing to vest in their own state houses) did it become possible to continue ratifications for adoption of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights is a very powerful form of law.

As to the existing 14^th Amendment, Sections 3, 4 and 5 cause one to chuckle in view of the fact that there is so much blatant tyranny and sedition occurring in this country today! Insurrection and rebellion against our proper system should cause all those federal public officials to be denied any salary who are constantly giving aid and comfort to our enemies. They have taken an oath to abide by the Constitution. Such claims for payment of services (salaries) should be held illegal and void, like it states in these Sections.

In view of current conditions, and the threat against the right to arms of the people, I feel that the best move which could be made is a strong push for revitalization of the true militia – the “enrolled militia” – the people-at-large – which does not mean the National Guard nor the troops – but the ordinary people, the farmers, the business men, the teachers, etc. (the like of which George Washington took out to train in proficiency with arms for the protection of their liberty).

This is conclusive evidence, that the Bill of Rights has a dual nature: (1) It confirms the people’s right to arms, individually and collectively, and (2) It restricts the federal government from interfering with or denying the use of those rights belonging to the people.

Bernadine Smith, National Director

Second Amendment Committee

SOME OF THE CRITICAL REMARKS MADE BY

PATRICK HENRY

WHILE HE WAS OPPOSING THE CONSTITUTION

WHEN IT WAS

UNGUARDED BY A BILL OF RIGHTS.

This Constitution will trample on your fallen liberty. It squints toward monarchy. It will convert us to one solid empire.

This Constitution substitutes a consolidated in lieu of a confederated government, and this threatens the total annihilation of the state sovereignties. It will lead to a consolidation of the states into one consolidated government instead of a confederation of the states.

When government removes your armaments, you will have NO power but government will have ALL power! What will you do when evil men take office?

You are writing this Constitution as if only good men will take office.

When evil men take office, the whole gang will be in collusion. They will keep the people in utter ignorance and steal their liberty by ambuscade. *

A standing army we shall have, also to execute the execrable commands of tyranny.

Your guns are gone! What resistance could be made?

Will you assemble and just tell them? Even if you could assemble, how will you enforce rightful punishment when due? Your guns are gone!

My great objection to this government is that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights, or waging war against tyrants. Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies, when our only defense, the militia, is put in the hand of the congress?......

Oh, sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only necessary to assemble the people.

Let Mr. Madison tell me when did liberty ever exist when the sword and the purse were given up from the people? Unless a miracle shall interpose, no nation ever did, nor ever can, retain its liberty after the loss of the sword and the purse.

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty! Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force, and whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined!

They are being allowed too much money. They are being given too much power.

The power of the federal courts would swell the patronage of the president.

The president will lead in the treason. Your militia will leave you and fight against you.

The clause before you gives a power of direct taxation unbounded and unlimited.

Your laws on impeachment are a sham and a mockery due to mutual implication of government officials.

The cession of the whole treaty-making power to the president and the senate is one of the most fearful features in this Constitution, as they can enter into the most ruinous of foreign engagements.

The pay of the members is to be fixed by themselves without limit or restraint.

You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured! For liberty ought to be the direct end of government.

Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings - give us that precious jewel and you may take everything else.

The adoption of this instrument has been maintained upon the ground that it would increase our military strength. You are negligently suffering our liberty to be wrested from us.

Even if you could assemble, how will you enforce rightful punishment when due? Oh, Sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only necessary to assemble the people. A standing army we shall have, also to execute the execrable commands of tyranny.

The policy or impolicy of any provision does not depend upon itself alone, but on other provisions with which it stands connected.

I am not well versed in History, but I will submit to your recollection whether liberty has been destroyed most often by the licentiousness of the people, or by the tyranny of the rulers. I imagine, sir, that you will find the balance on the side of tyranny. Happy will you be, if you, miss the fate of those nations, who omitting

to resist their oppressors, or negligently suffering their liberty to be wrested from them, have groaned under intolerable despotism!

Let not gentlemen be told that ‘it is not safe to reject this government’. Wherefore is it not safe? To encourage us to adopt it, they tell us, that there is a plain easy way of getting amendments. When I come to contemplate this part, I suppose that I am mad, or that my countrymen are so. The way to amendments is, in my conception - - shut!

“Hence it appears that 3/4th of the states must ultimately agree to any amendments that may be necessary. Let us consider the consequence of this. Let us suppose (for the case is supposable, possible and probable) that you happen to deal these powers to unworthy hands; will they relinquish powers already in their possession, or agree to amendments? 2/3rds of the Congress, or of the state legislatures are necessary even to propose amendments. If one-third of these be unworthy men, they may prevent the application for amendments; but a destructive and mischievous feature is, that 3/4ths of the state legislatures, or of the state conventions, must concur in the amendments when proposed. In such numerous bodies, there must necessarily be some designing bad men!”

The least you can do is guard this Constitution with a Bill of Rights!

Patrick Henry

The brunt of the battle fell on Henry alone. Madison and others were accusing him of disunion. Henry told them that the dissolution of the Union was abhorrent to his mind. He considered himself a sentinel over the rights of the people, their liberties and happiness. He declared that even if twelve states had adopted the 1787 Constitution as it was without a Bill of Rights, he would still reject it.

* ambuscade means attacked from a concealed point.