WHY OUR FAITH IN THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM

HAS BEGUN TO FADE!

 

The Right Of The Law-Abiding People To Own Firearms:

A Proper View Of The Second Amendment

 

The Founding Fathers, in defense of liberty, and as a shield against tyranny, drew a sharp line that government officials were ordered not to cross! That barrier is what we know as -- the Second Amendment.

 

The framers of the Constitution were quite skillful in the use and drafting of the English language. According to the system of government, which they established, every able-bodied man born in the United States of America is automatically a part of the militia and he is expected to be armed with weapons supplied by himself. This is what the Founding Fathers addressed as the citizen soldier.

 

 

What Went Before

 

When the 1787 Constitution was ready to be submitted to the governors of the various states for ratification, Patrick Henry, the immortal voice for liberty, lectured daily against the Constitution in the Virginia Statehouse for three weeks, criticizing it, warning that the Constitution had been written “as if only good men will take office!” He asked what they would do when evil men took office! “When evil men take office,” he declared, “the whole gang will be in collusion, and they will keep the people in utter ignorance and steal their liberty by ambuscade!”

 

Patrick Henry asked: “What resistance could be made if the people have no guns?”.... “Your guns are gone!”.... “Your laws on treason are a sham and a mockery because of their mutual implications!”

 

Henry told the Continental Congress that a major reason for his objection to the Constitution was that “It does not leave us the means for defending our rights or waging war against tyrants!”  He declared, “This Constitution will trample on your fallen liberty!”  Henry even termed it a “crazy machine”.

 

Patrick Henry warned that the new federal government was being given “too much money, and too much power,” and that it would end up “consolidating all power unto itself,” and would convert us “into one solid empire.”

 

Amongst other things, one of the areas upon which he felt the need for modification and limitation was in the use of the treaty power, an area in which he predicted that “....the president would lead in the treason!”

 

His fervor and graphic description of “execrable tyranny” which would befall the people if they would not take arms against evil men who might take office, placed Patrick Henry in the forefront of the effort to protect this inherent and natural right of the people. He called for the immediate opening of another Constitutional Convention to strengthen particular parts of the Constitution. Since that suggestion was not workable, he proclaimed: “The least you can do is guard it with a Bill of Rights!”

 

Patrick Henry placed all his hopes upon the vigilance of the people of the future to protect the liberty that he helped win in the War for Independence, by having them stand behind the Bill of Rights, and forbidding any infringement or curtailment of the Second Amendment. He cautioned:  “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!”

 

Thomas Jefferson agreed in stating: “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

 

Conclusion: History proves that the primary purpose for which the Second Amendment was drafted is to prevent tyranny in government. This threat will always be with us!  The right in the Second Amendment was always meant to be an absolute right!  It can be no less!

 

 

The Sound Reasoning Left To Us By The Founding Fathers

 

The reason a Bill of Rights was chosen as the palladium for storehousing the right to arms and other sacred rights of the people is that the Bill of Rights possesses a unique feature that no other human law contains:  its contents are not subject to repeal!

 

The Second Amendment is the necessary heart and soul of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment is the only amendment that contains force and a viable form of self-sustaining energy.

 

In order to sustain themselves, all of the other nine Amendments within the Bill of Rights, with the need to preserve their own existence, depend completely upon the existence of the energy and force within the Second Amendment.

 

The Second Amendment is not subject to any international agreements. It is beyond the reach of the treaty-making power of the president and the Senate. It is immutable law. It can not be superseded. Its meaning was well defined over 200 years ago. It is not subject to the courts of today for its interpretation”. It is the duty of the courts to apply and enforce it in the light of the intent and purpose for which it was created by the Founding Fathers.

 

Neither the Founding Fathers nor the Second Amendment grants us a “right to keep and bear arms”. Rather, the Second Amendment confirms that this inherent and natural right does exist. The Founding Fathers knew that it had always existed.  It existed even before there ever was a Second Amendment! The obligation is incumbent upon all of us to clarify, defend, preserve, and protect the Second Amendment against all who are debasing, misconstruing, and detruding it. This is an obligation we owe to our posterity, and to one another!

 

The Second Amendment makes known the fact that it is unlawful for the right to arms to be -- in either its individual or its collective aspect -- subjected to even as much as an infringement!

 

The Second Amendment confirms the existence of an individual right that can be exercised by the people in a collective manner.

 

 

The Collective Aspect Of The Second Amendment

 

The collective aspect of the Second Amendment refers to the militia, composed of the whole people.

 

By putting the militia at the forefront of the Second Amendment wording, they stressed the importance of the collective use of the right to arms. The collective right used in this manner, has equal status with the individual aspects of the right of the people to arms.

 

The Bill of Rights in itself is a separate document from the (1787) Constitutional Charter which was signed years earlier by George Washington. The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights was drawn up and ratified (1791) several years after the new Constitutional Charter had already been ratified. Today these two documents together form what we call the Constitution. Each document makes reference to the militia, but the purpose behind the militia is different in each document!

 

Patrick Henry railed against accepting the new Constitutional Charter because he saw what it had done to their militia -- the people-at-large. In it the militia was given over to the very ones he feared most: the federal government. He knew that this condition had to be mitigated. Henry led the opposition against acceptance of the Constitutional Charter until an agreement came forth that there would be drawn a Bill of Rights to be attached as a part of the Constitutional Charter.

 

What resulted is that the Constitutional Charter was allowed to retain control over the “organized” militia system, an alliance of the state and federal governments; while the people’s defense against tyranny in government caused by public officials, went on to be safeguarded by the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights; thus, protecting the authority and inherent rights of the people at large: the “unorganized” militia.  Additionally, the Second Amendment became further sustained when they added the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

 

 

Here Is Where We Stand Today.

 

Judges, courts, and other public officials, state and federal, have no authority over the Second Amendment! They can not legislate against it! They can not take preeminence over it!  They can not successfully put over misconstruction of it!

 

Public officials today, through the “laws” they write, openly transgress, subtlety usurp, and silently seek to gradually repeal the Second Amendment, and to legislate it out of existence.  The reason behind their actions is Public Law 87-297, the 1961 law which calls for “General and Complete Disarmament of the United States in a (so-called) Peaceful World.”  This law has been added to in 1989 and updated by Public Law 101-216 with the same goal of completely disarming every American and transferring on a permanent basis the entire United States armed forces to the communists who control the United Nations. This is the prime reason for the misconstruction going on today of the words in the Second Amendment.

 

History will support the position of the people who defend the Second Amendment as an exclusive right of the people!  Is it any wonder why the great achievements of Patrick Henry and his orations have been buried and are being kept from being taught in our schools?

 

 

It Is The Duty Of The People To Retrieve Their Rights And Secure The Free State

 

The type of militia conceived by the authors of the Second Amendment, requires the participation of the whole people in order to provide the necessary type of security adequate to the maintenance of a free state. The militia of the Second Amendment is meant to be a safeguard against those public officials who become corrupt in their lust for unbounded power.  It is the duty of the people themselves to retrieve their rights, and to provide the “security of a free state”.  The militia of the Second Amendment, historically known as an “unorganized” militia, must be reinstated and be well regulated, completely beyond the control of federal government officials.

 

The Bill of Rights and the Constitutional Charter have always had their own separate Preambles. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights shields the Second Amendment against the aggressive nature of the federal government by its restrictive nature; while at the same time, it cloaks the Second Amendment with protection against all public officials by its declaratory nature. Besides, by merging the two documents, the Second Amendment acquired an additional provision declaring it to be the supreme law of the land.  Both of these documents were written by the people.  They are the people’s exclusive property!  No public official can supersede either document!  There has been no consent of the governed to give up these two documents.  Both are still the supreme law of the land.

 

For most of the years spent under these two documents, there was no question about the meaning of the Second Amendment.  It was well known as the bedrock of our liberty, and its purpose was regarded not only to protect us from danger from without: it was primarily regarded for the purpose of preventing tyranny from within our government.

 

 

The Threats We Now Face From Misconstruction

 

Despite our safeguards, today we are plagued by public officials -- in all ranks -- who deliberately lie about its meaning. The reason these public officials pour forth with untruthful statements is that they seek to deny the people a form of resistance while the gradual overthrowing of the American system of government falls under totalitarian global management.

 

The state and federal legislatures have been drafting laws, and their executive officials (governors and presidents) have been signing them into (so-called) “law”, which infringe and violate the commands and restrictions of the Second Amendment.  What they are participating in are bogus laws!  One of the most ignorant members of the Congress, Repr. Major Owens, has even gone so far as to push for passage of legislation which states:

 

“The second article of amendment to the

Constitution of the United States is repealed.”

 

H.J. Res 438 102nd Congress 2nd Session

 

In addition to various fraudulent “laws” pouring out from state and federal executive and legislative bodies, there is yet a greater offender. The judicial system is the division of government that is more to blame, because it has abandoned its assigned basic role of maintaining enforcement of the true law. Recently, the federal attorneys-general and attendant deputies have increased their boldness by issuing blatant, false and untruthful statements, such as in this February 20, 1997 letter by Ronnie L. Edelman of the federal Department of Justice:

 

“The current state of federal law does not recognize that the Second Amendment protects the right of private citizens to possess firearms of any type.  Instead, the Second Amendment is deemed to be a collective right belonging to the state, not to an individual.  Accordingly, the Second Amendment is interpreted by this administration as prohibiting the federal government from preventing a state government from forming or having a state-recognized militia force.  With this understanding in mind, the source of a citizen’s authority to possess a handgun has never been particularly identified in American law....”  (Letter signed by Principal Deputy Chief, working in the U.S. Department of Justice, Ronnie L. Edelman dated February 20 1997.)

 

Another example of a false and untruthful statement coming from the same Department of Justice, signed by Seth P. Waxman on August 22, 2000:

 

“The language of the Second Amendment, when it was first presented to the Congress, makes it quite clear that it was the right of the States to maintain a militia that was being preserved, not the rights of an individual to own a gun [and] there is no indication that Congress altered its purpose to protect state militias, not individual gun ownership [upon consideration of the Amendment].... Courts... have viewed the Second Amendment as limited to the militia and have held that it does not create a personal right to own or use a gun.... in light of the constitutional history, it must be considered as settled that there is no personal constitutional right, under the Second Amendment, to own or to use a gun.” (Letter signed by Seth P. Waxman on August 22, 2000, Office of the Solicitor General - U.S. Dept. of Justice.)

 

The last hope for help from public officials begins to fade when the United States Department of Justice joins the chorus of those who are grossly guilty of malfeasance and who classify the militia of the Second Amendment as “terrorists”.

 

The Department of Justice ignores the fact that George Washington himself took farmers out for training and organized them in age-related corps so that they could protect themselves against tyranny brought on by unauthorized acts of public officials.

 

George Washington referred to the unorganized militia of the whole people as forming “the real defense of the country”.  Just as Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson, who cited tyranny in government as the primary reason for an armed citizenry, Washington also made reference to the purpose for which the militia of the Second Amendment was being trained.

 

George Washington himself said, referring to the unorganized militia, that it “would effectually oppose the introduction of tyranny”.

 

                    Source:  1790 Plan for Organization of the Mili8tia – Introduction.

 

 

Even the highest Justice, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Warren E. Burger, has gone so far as to accuse the National Rifle Association of perpetrating a “fraud on the American people” by maintaining that individuals have a right to own guns!  Justice Burger participated in the writing of a new “constitution” for the United States while he attended the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions in Santa Barbara, California.  That “constitution” reads as follows in Article VIII Section 12:

 

“No person may possess a lethal weapon….”.

 

In the State of California, the Legislative Counsel in August of 1975 made several untruthful, and misleading “half-truth” statements, regarding the Second Amendment, in their ‘advisory’ letter addressed to California State Senator H. L. Richardson, and signed by Paul Antilla, Deputy Legislative Counsel, in which they said the following:

 

“…The right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the constitution.  Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.  The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.  This is one of the amendments that has no other effect, than to restrict the powers of national government and not those of the state….” 

Ramirez 193 Cal. 633, (at 651)

 

“…the regulation of firearms has long been considered a proper exercise of the police power….It is clear that in the exercise of the police power of the state, that is, for the public safety or the public welfare generally, such rights may be either regulated or, in proper cases, entirely destroyed.  People v Camperlingo 69 Cal. App. 466 473.”

                                          Paul Antilla, Deputy, in the Legislative Counsel of California

 

In recent days, John Ashcroft, the current U.S. attorney-general has made commitments to Senator Diane Feinstein that he will enforce anti-gun laws if they are passed by Congress, including hers.  This satisfied Senator Feinstein.  Ashcroft issued a letter under date of May 17, 2001, in which he is being mistaken as a true supporter of the Second Amendment.  However, if you will read his letter, you will find that he disqualifies his so-called support himself in the footnote of his letter in which he states that he will observe “compelling state interests”.  This means that he will enforce anti-gun laws that are passed by Congress and the states!

 

 

Conclusion:  Stopping The Abuse Is Dependent Upon The Fortitude Of The People!

 

Militia groups are neither terrorists nor extremists, yet public officials seize upon every opportunity to denigrate them.  In August of 1996, Jackson-Lee of Texas introduced ridiculous legislation which in essence called for the elimination of the militia.  (Source:  104th Congress, 2nd Session, H Con. Res 206).

 

While he was president, William Clinton called the militias “un-American”. The president is a part of the effort to vilify firearms, their owners, and the normal responsibilities within a republic. Necessary firearms in the possession of the people are being called “assault weapons” and ownership of them is banned. There is no authority for public officials to conduct themselves in this manner. Disarming the law-abiding people and their nation is against the laws in the Constitution.  This abuse is not tolerable.

 

All of our liberties hang on the various facets of the Second Amendment, but we are constantly being bombarded with misconstruction, tricky definitions, and out-and-out lies! There is no authority for such false claims!

 

If we are not to be defrauded and swindled, the people must remain the ultimate authority of this republic.  This is only possible under an armed citizenry!

 

It has been said that

“The Bill of Rights exists in vain

for those who do not have the courage

nor the means to defend it.”

 

Without firearms, there will be no Bill of Rights!  Without a Bill of Rights, freedom is dead!

 

The people have but one choice: They must continue their efforts to rectify these injustices by holding fast to the proper meaning of the Second Amendment in all aspects of it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Second Amendment Committee      P.0. Box 1776      Hanford, California 93232      559-584-5209