An insidious threat to the Second Amendment

I've posted about this before, and I'm pleased to see that at least one newspaper has also wised up to it.

From the AZ Daily Courier ( http://prescottdailycourier.com/main.asp?SectionID=36&SubSectionID=73&ArticleID=39456&TM=26905.86 ):

4/20/2006 4:00:00 AM

Two-thirds enough to lose firearms

If the United States ever elects the wrong president or gets the wrong majority in Congress, law-abiding Americans could lose the right to own firearms by a two-thirds vote of the Senate, alone.

It's scary enough that someday Congress could vote away that right, but the Constitution provides a back door to gun confiscation.

And waiting to walk through it is the United Nations, that wonderful world body that has a Human Rights council comprising the world's worst goon nations and whose Security Council is powerless to deal with whacko Iran because Russia and China are making too much money dealing with Iran to act against its nuclear terrorism ambitions. It is seeking a worldwide treaty that in effect would disarm Americans.

Back in 2001, the United Nations issued a report called "Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons, in All its Aspects."

A recent article in American Legion Magazine says the document calls for "a voluntary but comprehensive program of gun control, an international tracking system, worldwide record-keeping and national gun registries. The umbrella organization of the groups advocating such U.N. policies ? the International Action Network on Small Arms ? wants to go further, licensing all gun owners, registering all small arms, limiting the carrying of guns and making gun laws uniform within national borders."

How can this be? Check the U. S. Constitution. Article II, Section 2 gives the president the power to make treaties, "provided two thirds of the senators present concur," and Article VI says that the Constitution, all laws made in its furtherance and "all Treaties made, or which shall be made ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land."

The United Nations was a wonderful concept. But in practice today, with the exception of its worldwide relief programs, it is either utterly worthless or downright insidious.

So far, with George Bush in the White House, a GOP majority in the Senate and John Bolton refusing to let the idea get very far in the United Nations, the Second Amendment is safe.

But that could change with frightening speed.

I've addressed this issue several times before on this forum, probably most clearly in this thread:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=159587&highlight=treaty

specifically these posts:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=1954014&postcount=10
http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=1954046&postcount=13

The bottom line is that the the Constitution does NOT grant modification powers to treaties as a back door method of Constitutional amendment.

Treaty power is LIMITED.

Attempts to construe it otherwise is USURPATION, all bets are OFF.

Yeah right the yellow pages will be pulled out and the nearest F troop office located. Lexington and Concord 21st century redux.

So what can we do?

BOHICA

Actually, it could be worse than that - agreements do not require a 2/3 vote of the Senate (example: NAFTA) and they often have binding effects similar to treaty.

geekwitha45 is correct though that a treaty cannot trump the Constitution. Given the murky decisions considering the 2A at the Supreme Court level though, the big question is whether the Court would reach the right decision?

The problem as I see it is that rather than issue a Kelo-type decision that creates a big backlash (but much less within-the-system than the backlash created by Kelo), I would suspect an anti-court would avoid the decision for as long as possible while the government enforced the treaty. So what happens in the interim?

So what can we do?

Pro-gun Senators and Congressmen are a much better protection of your rights than a pro-gun President.; but all we need is a majority in one House to block an agreement or 34 votes in the Senate to block a treaty. A President can veto either one and our current UN ambassador, John Bolton, has made it clear that the U.S. will not participate in any treaty that attempts to restrict an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. Nothing will come of this meeting; but we had better make sure we know the next time the UN Small Arms group meets and have representatives who will work with us to make sure it stays that way.

Pro-gun Senators and Congressmen are a much better protection of your rights than a pro-gun President.; but all we need is a majority in one House to block an agreement or 34 votes in the Senate to block a treaty. A President can veto either one and our current UN ambassador, John Bolton, has made it clear that the U.S. will not participate in any treaty that attempts to restrict an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Aren't you forgetting the 89 import ban?

So what happens in the interim?


A LOT of stress.

Aren't you forgetting the 89 import ban?

Aren't you forgetting the 1968 GCA? The only reason the President had the authority to consider "sporting purposes" is because Congress passed a bill saying so.

I don't think anything will ever come of it.
First off, I don't think the US authorities will ever try to enforce such a thing.
The UN wouldn't be allowed on US soil and even if they somehow forced their way in, the words of the late Adm. Yamamoto would ring true. "There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

Everyone claiming that AK's are inaccurate would be pleasantly surprised by the AK's ability to obtain minute of blue helmet accuracy.

Maybe the Tree of Liberty will need to be watered again.

Are you kidding?!

Most people on this forum would hand 'em right over, because they
either "have family to worry about", or "don't think the time is right".

Don't kid yourself. Most of the gun owners you know or talk to on the
internet would roll right over. Oh, they might grumble a lot of talk a
bunch of junk, but when push comes to shove, they're gonna be right
there in line, waiting to turn them over.

I wish it were otherwise, but I'm not convinced.

The future armed struggle for liberty will likely be a lonely one.
I wish it were not so, but I'm afraid it is. But maybe YOU can help...

Most people on this forum would hand 'em right over, because they
either "have family to worry about", or "don't think the time is right".Perhaps, but as one who does not have a "family" to worry about, that facet does not enter into the equation with me. In my book, the time is ALWAYS right to resist tyranny and government intrusion into my life. Just ask the census taking who dropped by my home in 2000 about how forthcoming I was with data beyond how many lived at my home.

What exactly do you want Fu-man Shoe? I think a lot and say little. On topics like this where armed resistance is an option I feel that it is better to keep silent than to blab away on a message board. Who knows who reads all of these posts.

I would direct your attention to Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=252&page=416), a case that has never been overturned and is considered "settled law."

This case hinged on the Migratory Bird Treaty of 1916 and the subsequent Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918.

Prior to this, Congress had passed laws to regulate hunting of migratory waterfowl. Several States brought lawsuits that successfully argued that Congress had no Constitutional authority to regulate such and that it was the province of the States according to the 10th amendment.

Despite later cases that have implied (entirely in dicta) that no treaty may overide the Constitution, this particular case stands as a landmark in that it gives the Congress a power that is not enumerated. It was Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes who gave the majorities opinion.
Acts of Congress are the supreme law of the land only when made in pursuance of the Constitution, while treaties are declared to be so when made under the authority of the United States.

Treaties may therefore give to Congress powers not delegated to it by the Constitution and are of the same legal weight as those Constitutional restraints.

geekWithA.45, while I agree with you, that no treaty is valid if it disagrees with the Constitution, the Supreme Court disagrees with the both of us.

The UN Treaty in question would in fact abolish any right to keep and bear arms, should it ever be ratified by the Senate.

First off, I don't think the US authorities will ever try to enforce such a thing. Two words: Remember New Orleans



OK, maybe that's 3 words.

First off, I don't think the US authorities will ever try to enforce such a thing.

National Firearms Act of 1934
Gun Control Act of 1968
The following principal changes have been enacted to the Gun Control Act since 1968:
-The "Firearms Owners Protection Act," McClure-Volkmer Amendments (P. L. 99-308, 1986) eases certain interstate transfer and shipment requirements for long guns, defines the term "engaged in the business," eliminates some record-keeping requirements, and bans the private possession of machine guns not legally owned prior to 1986.
-The "Armor Piercing Ammunition" Ban (P. L. 99-408, 1986, amended in P. L. 103-322, 1994) prohibits the manufacture, importation and delivery of handgun ammunition composed of certain metal substances and certain full-jacketed ammunition.
-The Federal Energy Management Improvement Act of 1988 (P. L. 100-615) requires that all toys or firearm look-alikes have a blazed orange plug in the barrel, denoting that it is a non-lethal imitation.
-The Undetectable Firearms Act (P. L. 100-649, 1988), also known as the "plastic gun" legislation, bans the manufacture, import, possession, and transfer of firearms not detectable by security devices.
-The Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1990 (P. L. 101-647), as originally enacted, was ruled unconstitutional by the U. S. Supreme Court (United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549 (1995), April 26, 1995). The Act prohibited possession of a firearm in a school zone (on the campus of a public or private school or within 1,000 feet of the grounds). In response to the Court's finding that the Act exceeded Congress's authority to regulate commerce, the 104 th Congress included a provision in P. L. 104-208 that amended the Act to require federal prosecutors to include evidence that the firearms "moved in" or affected interstate commerce.
-The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, 1993 (P. L. 103-159) requires that background checks be completed on all nonlicensed person seeking to obtain firearms from federal firearm licensees.
-The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (P. L. 103-322) prohibits the manufacture or importation of semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices (for a 10-year period). In the case of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, the ban on importation applies to those devices manufactured after September 1994. This Act provides an exception for the transfer, sale, or possession of semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices lawfully possessed on the date of enactment. This Act also bans the sale or transfer of handguns and handgun ammunition to, or possession of handguns and handgun ammunition by, juveniles (under 18 years of age) without prior written consent from the juvenile's parent or legal guardian; exceptions related to employment, ranching, farming, target practice, and hunting are provided. In addition, the Act disqualifies persons under court orders related to domestic abuse from receiving a firearm from any person or possessing a firearm. It also enhances penalties for the criminal use of firearms and makes other changes to existing law.
-Federal Domestic Violence Gun Ban (the Lautenberg Amendment, in the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY1997, P. L. 104-208) prohibits persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence from possessing firearms and ammunition. The ban applies regardless of when the offense was adjudicated: prior to, or following enactment. It has been challenged in the federal courts, but these challenges have been defeated. (See CRS Report RL31143, Firearms Prohibitions and Domestic Violence Convictions: The Lautenberg Amendment, by T. J. Halstead.)
-The Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Appropriations Act, 1999 (P. L. 105-277), requires all federal firearm licensees to offer for sale gun storage and safety devices. It also bans firearm transfers to, or possession by, nonimmigrants who have overstayed their the terms of their temporary visa.
-The Treasury, Postal and General Government Appropriations Act (P. L. 106- 58) requires that background checks be conducted when former firearm owners seek to redeem a firearm that they sold to a pawnshop.

http://www.policyalmanac.org/crime/archive/crs_gun_control.shtml

"...Shall Not Be Infringed":rolleyes:

Republicans have strayed too far to the middle, but I'm not splitting my vote on a Libertarian or other 3rd party to open the door for the "Multi-National Common Sense Gun Safety Act of 2010".:barf:

Thanks so much for another great eye-opener Preacherman.:what:

None of those are about confiscation.

Try and take the guns of folks and you may find that the answer is come get em followed by the sound of actions slamming home.

<Try and take the guns of folks and you may find that the answer is come get em followed by the sound of actions slamming home.>

The ATF did go door to door taking away Spitfire carbines in the 60's. Police went door to door confiscating guns in Oshkosh Wisconsin, and more recently New Orleans. I know of no shootouts with the police in any of these cases. If at some point in the future your guns are ruled illegal, either chose the moral choice and risk it and hide them, or choose the evil choice and turn them in. But under no circumstances should you try and shoot it out with the government. Besides throwing away your life, such an act would make the news and fuel the anti's. I should also add that suggesting fighting it out with the cops is counter productive, because anti gunners who stumble onto this site and read that will think we are all nuts.

<Don't kid yourself. Most of the gun owners you know or talk to on the
internet would roll right over. Oh, they might grumble a lot of talk a
bunch of junk, but when push comes to shove, they're gonna be right
there in line, waiting to turn them over.>

There are millions of unregistered full auto's out there. Most of us will not admit it, but most of us have heard stories of someones M-16 from Nam in the clothset or Grandpa's WWII M2HB in the attic. If forcing people to register or give up certain guns didn't work in 1934 or 1968, what makes you think they will do it now?

Al Norris:

Thanks for the STATE OF MISSOURI v. HOLLAND citation.

Having given it a read, it seems that the case turned on a different basis than that of which we speak here, a significant part of which is refusal to acknowledge the state's title to free roaming animals. (In short, possession is necessary to title or deed, and the state's claim to posess animals that are freely migrating is rejected.)


Although the case does touch on the question of the limits of the authority of treaties,

It is said that a treaty cannot be valid if it infringes the Constitution, that there are limits, therefore, to the treaty-making power, and that one such limit is that what an act of Congress could not do unaided, in derogation of the powers reserved to the States, a treaty cannot do.

it leaves that question open.

It is open to question whether the authority of the United States means more than the formal acts prescribed to make the convention.

Whether leaving the question open is an(other) act of judicial cowardice, or consequent to the judicial practice of not commenting on questions beyond the minimum scope necessary to decide the case at hand I leave as an open question. ;)



As for relevance to 2A, I direct your attention to this statement, made repeatedly in the majority opinion:

The treaty in question does not contravene any prohibitory words to be found in the Constitution.

There most certainly are prohibitory words on the topics of interest to us. ;)

geekwitha45 made most of the same points I wanted to make. I would disagree that Missouri v. Holland represents the point you stated. The case stands for two main points:

The test of validity of a treaty is not whether Congress would have the power to do the same thing with legislation.

A treaty may override the power of the state.

As has already been noted, there are a lot of qualifications in there that would mean this case would not apply at all in a Second Amendment sense.

I know of no shootouts with the police in any of these cases.

if and when it happens I believe Americans would begin exercising theyre rights granted under the Declaration of Independence

if and when it happens I believe Americans would begin exercising theyre rights granted under the Declaration of Independence

:confused:

Declaration doesn't grant any rights...do you mean the Constitution? Course, the Constitution doesn't grant rights either, it lays out the restrictions of the gov't.

National Heritage Sites are a creation of the UN and enforced and funded by congress.

The Great Smokey Mountain National Park is a UN protectorate.

Charlotte, NC and Portland, OR are Agenda 21 cities. In the case of Charlotte not a single solitary vote was ever taken to mandate acceptance of th Agenda regime, yet it is the driving and controlling factor in the city's development.

The US congress in the process of limiting access to vitamins and dietary supplements because of a protocol mandated by the UN.

The list goes on and on. I see no reason to expect small arms to be manipulated any differently once we get a pliant congress or president.

Declaration doesn't grant any rights...do you mean the Constitution? Course, the Constitution doesn't grant rights either, it lays out the restrictions of the gov't.
__________________
Words have meaning.
Therefore we must use caution in the words we choose to use.
No founding document GRANTS anything.
What they do, is itemize (some of) the rights we have. And identify the limits of authority we (albait grudgingly) 'grant' to government.
The fact that government has overstepped the boundaries that were intended to limit, are of no small consequence.

That line in the sand keeps getting closer for all of us.

There is no way that an armed group of civilians could hope to defeat the government of this country (more specifically the military) in open combat.

Unfortunately, the technology tyrants currently have access to is overwhelming. The only way to resist at this point is to work inside the system - to go to combat would be suicide.

There is no way that an armed group of civilians could hope to defeat the government of this country (more specifically the military) in open combat.

Unfortunately, the technology tyrants currently have access to is overwhelming. The only way to resist at this point is to work inside the system - to go to combat would be suicide.

I think that you have been watching way too much "24".

There is no way to send satellite imagery to Jack Bauer's PDA, at least not in a meaningful fashion. If so, then there wouldn't be a single living insurgent in Iraq today.

"Open combat" is not the way to defeat standing armies. Neither is "working within the system" when "the system" is corrupt.

I don't watch television, so I missed the references.

I suppose one could follow the Iraqi method - IEDs, mines, ambushes, etc.


I believe we still have alternatives, many, many alternatives before resorting to violence.

As noted earlier, we currently have all the votes we need to stop any treaty attempt cold - and we had those votes even during the darker days of the Clinton administration.

Keeping pro-gun votes in Congress is going to be a lot easier than any of the alternatives.

I wholeheartedly agree.

I have a good stable life, a job, I go to college and Im building up my career. However, I would throw it all away if our government ever decided to abolish the second amendment. The good of the people outways the good in my life.

If the governement tries to take out ANY of the Bill of Rights. You can be assured that what is good today will not be good tomorrow.

Don'tburnmyflag, Well, if you really believe that, would you take the first step and carry against your states laws? Would you have a gun with too large a clip? Would you throw a gun in the trunk and head to Grandma without first locking it?

Your 2A ammendments are already gone.

What about a Million Armed Man March?

While it's great that we're clarifying on the differences in "treaties" versus "agreements", there's another more troubling layer of Presidential authority we haven't hit on yet.

Bill Clinton abused his powers under Executive Order authority extensively, eliminating the transfer of military surplus items to the civilian market, etc.

"Stroke of the pen, law of the land..."

NAFTA, CAFTA, the future FTAA, and IIRC WTO were all "agreements" because there was no way to get a 2/3's senate majority to agree. Also and agreement gets both houses of congress on the record so if stuff blows up the senate ain't the only body with blood and bone on its face.

Declaration doesn't grant any rights...do you mean the Constitution? Course, the Constitution doesn't grant rights either, it lays out the restrictions of the gov't.

well rights generally are considered god/nature given. what you say about constitution laying out restrictions of the government is true but that is not the same case with the Declaration of Independence.

Words have meaning.
Therefore we must use caution in the words we choose to use.
No founding document GRANTS anything.
What they do, is itemize (some of) the rights we have. And identify the limits of authority we (albait grudgingly) 'grant' to government.
The fact that government has overstepped the boundaries that were intended to limit, are of no small consequence.

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm


That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the RIGHT of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.



But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their RIGHT, it is their DUTY, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

See my sig.

Pops

It is said that a treaty cannot be valid if it infringes the Constitution, that there are limits, therefore, to the treaty-making power, and that one such limit is that what an act of Congress could not do unaided, in derogation of the powers reserved to the States, a treaty cannot do.
"It is said..." Who said this? The Court has certainly not said this. This is a mere note in passing that some interpret treaties in this manner. It says nothing as to how the Court interprets treaties.

Justice Holmes goes on to talk of the specific cases challenged earlier, before the treaty, and the Congressional enactment of that treaty and says this about those prior decisions:
Whether the two cases cited were decided rightly or not they cannot be accepted as a test of the treaty power.
Why? Because the treaty was not yet in existence, therefore no such test could be made or inferred upon.

So let's take a look at what Holmes says next, in full context.
Acts of Congress are the supreme law of the land only when made in pursuance of the Constitution, while treaties are declared to be so when made under the authority of the United States. [my quote] It is open to question whether the authority of the United States means more than the formal acts prescribed to make the convention. [geek's quote] We do not mean to imply that there are no qualifications to the treaty-making power; but they must be ascertained in a different way.
Now we are getting into the crux of the decision.
It is obvious that there may be matters of the sharpest exigency for the national well being that an act of Congress could not deal with but that a treaty followed by such an act could, and it is not lightly to be assumed that, in matters requiring national action, 'a power which must belong to and somewhere reside in every civilized government' is not to be found.
Everything after this point, is justification for the decision made in the above, that is to say, dicta.

Read that last quote carefully. (Taking into account that all the quotes I have just used, barring the opening quote, follow one from the other.) What is Holmes saying here?

Like an amendment, which modifies any portion(s) of the Constitution previous to the amendment, a treaty also modifies the Constitution in the same manner. Where Congress had no specific power or authority to act, before the amendment or treaty, it now has such power or authority to act. Conversely, if the amendment or treaty prohibits an action, power or authority not specified in the Constitution, it now prohibits such.

The supposition as to whose property the migratory birds are, is now a moot point. What the treaty did was to grant to Congress the power and authority to regulate the species denoted in the treaty, regardless of any prevailing authority before the enactment of the treaty.

The Courts decision is inescapable when read in context.

When using this interpretation of the Treaty Power of the Supremacy Clause, one may stop and reflect about the proposed IANSA Treaty. Enactment of this particular treaty would fundamentally alter the Constitution and the Second Amendment.

The question to ask, is who on the Court today would revisit Missouri with the intent to overturn (at best) or modify (at the least) this decision?

Roberts I fear to say, would not go against Stare Decisis. Most especially, Scalia would not. Thomas would. Kennedy... Maybe. It is too soon to tell, but I'm leaning that Alito might. That takes care of the "right" side of the court

On the liberal side, Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens and Breyer would not in this case. Consider this from the same paragraph in Missouri, from which all the other quotes have been taken:
We are not yet discussing the particular case before us but only are considering the validity of the test proposed. With regard to that we may add that when we are dealing with words that also are a constituent act, like the Constitution of the United States, we must realize that they have called into life a being the development of which could not have been foreseen completely by the most gifted of its begetters. It was enough for them to realize or to hope that they had created an organism; [I]t has taken a century and has cost their successors much sweat and blood to prove that they created a nation. The case before us must be considered in the light of ou[r] whole experience and not merely in that of what was said a hundred years ago.
Allow me to repeat an important phrase (dicta though it may be), "The case before us must be considered in the light of ou[r] whole experience and not merely in that of what was said a hundred years ago." Thus in 1920, from the hand of Justice Holmes, we see the beginnings of the "Living Document" theory of Constitutional interpretation.

The liberal side of the Court will not go against this precedent if the IANSA treaty were to be enacted. To do so would invalidate their entire thesis of Constitutional Interpretation.

I always thought that dicta was the part of the Court's decision that didn't support your argument? :D In this case, I think Justice Holmes noting that here there was no Constitutional prescription against the exact activity regulated by the treaty is important to how this decision would be read by future courts. Holmes was lookling to uphold the act and was seeking to justify the decision in an era where you couldn't just sprinkle the words "commerce clause" on legislation and pass it. I think that this too would be an important distinction of the case.

Also while I agree with your breakdown on stare decisis, Scalia and others did not go against stare decisis in U.S. v. Lopez or Term Limits or any other number of 1990s cases; but their decisions sure changed the way the old interpretations applied.

First off-I am NOT being facetious or being Devil's advocate. I really want to know.
So what happens if they did outlaw guns? What are our recourses?
Are you going to shoot it out with them as they come door to door to take our guns away?
The govt. has been slowly taking away our rights for many years now and nobody can do anything about it. Honestly please tell me.

Dicta is a judge's expression of opinion on a point other than the precise issue involved in determining a case and therefore not binding as part of the ruling.

As for my take on the analysis, I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Lamazza if rifles are useless weapons then why do soldiers still use them.


There are a lot of things you could do. Helicopters cannot hold ground. Tanks cannot grow corn. Nuclear weapons do not pay taxes. If we were to exit our homes and raise arms against the government all at once there would be nothing the govt could do. This is with every soldier following all their orders(and I know they all won't).


If you don't go to work and generate taxable revenue the government ceases to exist.

How many soldiers would fight for the govt. if the govt could not feed them?


If people were to take up arms against the government it would be a major disruption to everything. How long before truckers decide it's safer at home.
The govt needs revenue if our revenue were to stop that alone would do untold damage. If technology equals victory then why are there still insurgents in Iraq.

Now how much would you be willing to suffer for your freedom that you have known all your life? The freedom of your children? Of their children?



1 rifle and 1 bullet repeat as necessary until the trouble is over.

There are 85 million gunowners in this country. The gov doesn't have 85 million Jack Booted Thugs.

You are 100% correct in theory Kodiaz, but this would be gradual thing just like the way our govt has been slowly making oppressive legislation. First national ID cards, then registering each box of bullets that you buy, then stricter 'assault' weapon laws, then etc etc.
There will come a point where the people are so whipped that-not too far away-you couldnt rally them for love or money. The nation wide push on "safety" is making people so afraid of getting hurt that they will soon be wearing helmets to work in the garden. Most of our corporate types actually believe in the system and the ones with children are worried about what they would do without the company health insurance.
So, honestly, what would you do ,because I'd really like to know.

Its come to a point where anti-gun has called the bluff, which was bound to happen eventually. The voting masses who dont focus to elect only pro-gun politicians into office, will not be found digging trenches just because of some "minor" violation on their rights.
The levels of ignorance and apathy are pretty high. Many non gun owners still think their right to a firearm is secure... Until they actually try to buy one.

If we allow ourselves to be marganlized like that then anyone who "votes from the rooftops" at this point would have the opposite effect. Rifles are ineffective in such small numbers with a public that just dosnt care.

I think the OP makes a good point in that relying on the Constitution to support itself, just like relying on someone else to go nuts and fight your revolution for you, isint a healthy tactic for keeping RKBA alive in the US.
Unscrupulous politicians will ignore all the rules if you leave them alone long enough, even pass stuff thats failed the vote.

I dont think it takes 2/3rds so much as having the wrong man in power at the ideal time to write a law that, by simply staying in place for a few years, overrides the constitution. Just as the sporting weapons clause and later MG ban in fopa have done.

Ignorance is bliss. There are a lot of blissninnies. People are so caught up in the rat race and then their Ipods and tv that they don't read papers they don't think. These people don't want to accept responsibility.


Our freedoms are a fulltime job. We spend hours writing letters to our elected thieves.


"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance"

When you have a firearm in your house, you accept responsibility for your protection and your freedom.

Having a gun is fun but it is also work. When my cousins come over I get some empty mags check my guns and MAKE them handle my guns. I make them I have to make them because they can give me my guns with the slide open and no mag in it with their eyes closed. But if I ever forget to secure a weapon and they are here solo they won't touch it because the guns have been de mystified. When you have little ones you have to secure your weapons and ammo this is work.

But people today don't want to do ANYTHING for themself. Look at Wilma I drive a Hyundai I do not have a lot of money. I was never in a govt. line for anything and I lost power for 10 days. Why? Because I accepted my responsibility to take care of myself. Those lines were filled with high dollar cars people that have the means to have food in their home but abdicated their responsibilities. And this year because I was tired of burning a check on hurricane supplies I started to stock up from last year. So if you were to tell me a hurricane was coming right now the only thing I would have to buy would be some extra chlorine.

Dicta is a judge's expression of opinion on a point other than the precise issue involved in determining a case and therefore not binding as part of the ruling.

That may be strictly true, but Bartholomew Roberts' definition is much funnier! :D :neener:

In my haste, I failed to address this...
I think Justice Holmes noting that here there was no Constitutional prescription against the exact activity regulated by the treaty is important to how this decision would be read by future courts.
Article I, Section 8, clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

Please note that the term welfare does not mean anything in specific nor is it even a grant of power to do anything "for the common good." If it meant anything like that, the rest of the enumerated powers would be redundant and meaningless.

This is further clarified by Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In short, if it is not explicitly granted, then the Federal Government has no power or authority to act. Therefore when Holmes wrote, "The treaty in question does not contravene any prohibitory words to be found in the Constitution," he explicitly ignored the clear meaning of the 10th amendment, as it does prohibit any action not within the grant of powers. We can see this disdain in the following from Holmes: "The only question is whether it is forbidden by some invisible radiation from the general terms of the Tenth Amendment." Invisible Radiation? Please, Mr. Holmes... There is nothing invisible about what that amendment says.

Holmes goes on to opine, "We must consider what this country has become in deciding what that amendment has reserved." Must we? No, we must not. The tenth says very plainly that what is not granted is forbidden.

By this twist of logic, the Court effectively buried the tenth. The so-called "States Rights" issue was finally put to bed. It has been dead since that day in 1920.

I'd agree with you that this decision did not enhance State's Rights and that even the 1990s decisions by the court to revive those rights have not brought them back to 1946, let alone 1920. It doesn't follow though that this decision would allow a treaty to overrule the Second Amendment.

Look at the American Jurisprudence section on Federal Treaty Power generally:

It is uniformly conceded that a treaty cannot be considered as the law of the land within the meaning of the Federal Constitution, and as such binding on the courts, if in making it the limits of the treaty-making power have been exceeded.[FN5] While there is no such limitation as to subject matter on the treaty-making power as exists in the case of the legislative power, nevertheless, the federal power to enter into treaties does not extend to the making of treaties which change the Constitution[FN6] or which are inconsistent with our form of government, with the relations of the states and the United States, or with the Federal Constitution, nor does it extend so far as to authorize a cession of any portion of the territory of one of the states without its consent.[FN7]

This is the important distinction. Holland says that the treaty making power is not subject to the same limitations as legislative power; but there is still controlling precedent saying a treaty cannot modify the Constitution in the following cases: Holden v. Joy, 84 U.S. 211, 21 L. Ed. 523 (1872); The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. 616, 20 L. Ed. 227 (1870); Pagano v. Cerri, 93 Ohio St. 345, 112 N.E. 1037 (1916). In fact, the last case (Pagano v. Cerri) has never had any portion of it overruled in almost 90 years and says:

A treaty duly ratified has no more binding force than an act of Congress generally, and as to its subject-matter clearly it cannot overstep the limitations of the federal Constitution. It would manifestly be beyond the power of the United States government to provide by treaty with Italy that subjects of Italy residents of Ohio should be entitled to exemption from execution for debts for an amount in excess of that granted citizens of Ohio, or to provide that such subjects should be entitled to obtain a divorce on the ground of desertion or willful absence for one year; whereas, to other citizens the right was limited to absence for three years.

Stare decisis isn't an issue here. To reach the decision you have suggested follows from Holland would require the court to ignore Pagano and considerably expand Holland. I don't see Scalia, Thomas, Roberts or Alito doing that for sure. I am very skeptical that Kennedy would follow it either since he prefers to resolve things on a case-by-case basis where power ultimately resides with the court and this would undercut that power considerably unless it was made so narrow as to be easy to bypass.

From all the comments I've read in this thread, it seems to come down to two opinons:

#1:
The only possible hope of resisting / preventing the loss of our RKBA and confiscation is to work within the system and vote the "right" people in office. As it only takes one "wrong" person, in office at the right time, to emilinate our RKBA, and that sooner or later that person will be elected, we are fighting a losing battle and all we can hope for is to preserve / enjoy our RKBA as long as possible. Sooner or later they WILL come and take the guns. Then you better either hide them or meekly turn them over.

#2:
Working within the system is the best bet to keep our RKBA intact ... for now. However, if / when someone in power removes that right and attempts confiscation, then we have nothing to lose and may as well fight back. We may win or may lose, depending on how many join the fight and how well prepared they are.


Which side are you on?


For me, if the time comes when they demand that we trun our guns in, when they declare that they will come door to door and confiscate them, I'll use these words as a guide ....

http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/henry.shtml

....... And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation.

There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free--if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us! They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength but irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extentuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

March 23, 1775
By Patrick Henry

The only possible hope of resisting / preventing the loss of our RKBA and confiscation is to work within the system and vote the "right" people in office. As it only takes one "wrong" person, in office at the right time, to emilinate our RKBA, and that sooner or later that person will be elected, we are fighting a losing battle and all we can hope for is to preserve / enjoy our RKBA as long as possible. Sooner or later they WILL come and take the guns.

Actually, that is not correct. The great thing about the American system is that no one person can do anything. There is always a conflict among the separate branches of government. A President cannot eliminate our RKBA acting on his own, he must have consent from Congress and then consent from the Court as well. For our RKBA to be in danger, our system must be both corrupt from top to bottom and gun owners so marginalized that they are no longer feared. While there is certainly corruption in our government, it is nowhere near the level where the system does not work.

Thank you Bartholomew for those thoughtful comments.

I cannot comment further until after I read those cites. In the meantime, I hope you are correct, as it will put to rest one of my fears.

Interesting that both Holden v. Joy and The Cherokee Tobacco are examples of the Congress and the Court breaking (to one degree or another) the Indian Treaties. The dissents in both of these cases are short and to the point (particularly that of The Cherokee Tobacco) and illustrate the duplicity of the Congress and the Court in holding mere congressional acts superior to the Treaty Power that the Constitution provides as Supreme Law.

Pagano v. Cerri is a state supreme court case (Ohio), and is instructive only in that it has survived appeal.

Regardless, you cannot dispute the fact that Holland did change the nature of the Constitution. It gave to Congress the power to legislate in an area, that was before the Treaty, unauthorized by the Constitution. Despite what you posted in AmJur2d, Holland has not been overturned.

With the ability of the Congress to claim almost everything in America as part of Commerce, coupled with the Treaty power, I remain unconvinced.

I respectively disagree.

The United Nations Charter itself, drafted during the "San Francisco Conference" was headed by Alger Hiss, who acted as the secretary general of the Conference. He was a (now known) Soviet Spy (proven by the release of the translated Venona Cables from the former Soviet Union in 1995) who infiltrated the Roosevelt Cabinet, and was the person who encouraged Roosevelt to cede Poland to Joseph Stalin during the Yalta conference.

My point is, Alger Hiss supervised the "Dumbarton Oaks Conference" which helped create the United Nations in the first place. In keeping with it's founding, the United Nations "Human Rights Council" today, is curently made up of the worlds largest group of Dictator/Thugs in recorded history, with the exception of Hitler.

I have been bleating like a cut goat about the U.N. Small Weapons Treaty plan for the last four years. If the United States gets a Far Left Wing Democrat majority, like John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, or a Nancy Pelosi led Congress, (no matter which Anti-Gun Leftist is in the Executive Office) the Leftists will vote to sign the United Nations Small Weapons Treaty, the intent of which, is clearly laid out on their web site.

You will register your guns, with Kofi Anon, (or whichever Globalist is in charge of that august body at the time) and then, the United Nations will set up a "Conference" to determine which of these known lovers of Democracy within their Global Union, will be the registrar of your guns.

Then, they will regulate, after which, they will confiscate. Period.

The number one guarantee of our safety and liberty, would be to elect a Congress with the cajones to withdraw from the U.N., and deport each one of the "Ambassadors" out of the country as soon as possible.

If forces within the government who might be bent on confiscating guns are operating under the assumption that Americans really will roll over like some suggest and give up their guns, well, imagine the surprised looks on their faces if that proves not to be the case. :)

There is no way that an armed group of civilians could hope to defeat the government of this country (more specifically the military) in open combat.

The Iraqis have shown the world how an ad-hoc insurgancy equipped with relatively primative technology can bring the world's most powerful military force to a screeching halt. Any group idiotic enough to engage in open combat with such a force deserves what they get.

Quote
"There is no way that an armed group of civilians could hope to defeat the government of this country (more specifically the military) in open combat."

The Russians sure found out differently in Afghanistan. And those guys were driving beat up Toyotas, and in most cases, beat up camels, using at first, 1908 Springfields left over from the first world war.

There are 85 million gunowners in this country. The gov doesn't have 85 million Jack Booted Thugs.
By most estimates and probably less than .1% are willing to use them for anything other than a play thing.

Check the U. S. Constitution. Article II, Section 2 gives the president the power to make treaties, "provided two thirds of the senators present concur," and Article VI says that the Constitution, all laws made in its furtherance and "all Treaties made, or which shall be made ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land."The only problem with your analysis from a legal standpoint is that the Second Amendment is an amendment to the Constitution, the Constitution is not an amendment to the Second Amendment, therefore the Second Amendment is also an amendment to Article II, Section 2, to the extent that Article II, Section 2 might otherwise have been interpreted to authorize the Federal Government to infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Why worry about international treaties when the Congress, President, and Supreme Court have already proved willing to suppress our right to arms?

~G. Fink

By most estimates and probably less than .1% are willing to use them for anything other than a play thing.

That's still 8,500 heavilly armed, smart, motivated and PO'd Americans.

Plenty 'nuff.

I highly doubt it will be .1

How many NFA guys are out there I'm sure they to a man would love to take a whack at F troop.

I have no NFA weapons. How many out there are like me 1st generation born American, whose grandfather fled tyranny. How about Oleg who I'm sure clearly remembers life in Russia. It'll be a lot more than 8500 if it comes to it.

From all the comments I've read in this thread, it seems to come down to two opinons:

#1:
The only possible hope of resisting / preventing the loss of our RKBA and confiscation is to work within the system and vote the "right" people in office. As it only takes one "wrong" person, in office at the right time, to emilinate our RKBA, and that sooner or later that person will be elected, we are fighting a losing battle and all we can hope for is to preserve / enjoy our RKBA as long as possible. Sooner or later they WILL come and take the guns. Then you better either hide them or meekly turn them over.

#2:
Working within the system is the best bet to keep our RKBA intact ... for now. However, if / when someone in power removes that right and attempts confiscation, then we have nothing to lose and may as well fight back. We may win or may lose, depending on how many join the fight and how well prepared they are.


Which side are you on?


#2

Allow me to share a comment i've seen many times & agree with 100%.

"The Framers gave us 3 Boxes to use to Preserve Freedom And Liberty in our Nation, and they are to be used in this order, the boxes are.

1. The Ballot Box
2. The Jurry Box
3. The Ammo Box

Which one have we not used/tried/worn out yet?"

Simple, yet Explains it well.

We have at present "nearly" worn out both boxes 1 & 2 which Corrupt Officials have a stranglehold on, what is left?

That number is off by a little.

O.1% of 85 million is 85,000.

And I sincerly doubt it would be a number as low as that. I'm guessing closer to 1% - 5%.

That's between 850,000 and 4,250,000.

Kodiaz

I hope you are correct and I am wrong but this generation is a far cry from the generation that fought WWII.

I'm not counting on the multitudes with their ears filled with I-pod music and their minds filled with American Idol(Idle). In them I have no faith. But not everyone in this country is a blissninny.

And what those WW2 oldtimers they are still around and some of them still have steel in their hearts. They would fight for the rights of their grandchildren and great grandchildren.

Don't give up the fight before it has started. I was raised in the city but I'm no blissninnny I'm sure I am not the only one. So how many country boys are out there who have lived free most of their lives and have only recently (AWB) felt the weight of liberal oppression.

So how many country boys are out there who have lived free most of their lives and have only recently (AWB) felt the weight of liberal oppression.

I grew up in and lived my first 25 years on a farm up by the Canadian border. Most of my family is still up there, and I pity the poor fools who try to take their guns away. There wouldn't need to be but six or seven of them who'd take up arms before the rest of the community would rally to their aid. The rest of the population wouldn't need their arms twisted to join in the fight--there's not a lot of love lost between the community people and the governmentnto start with. The confiscators would find that the local sheriff and his deputies would be more likely to pitch in and help the local folks than the confiscators. It would be ugly business, but if anyone was damned fool enough to go into that part of the world and try to take guns, he would get exactly what he deserved.

Exactly. Besides blissninnys live in cities so

A they have no guns to impose their socialist commie utopia on us.

B. I don't remember seeing edible stuff growing from the cement and asphalt of city streets.


So the great liberals will have no choice but to leave us be once the JBT's are dealt with.


Liberals depend on US to follow THEIR B.S. laws. When we don't they can't do anything but find someone else willing to do their dirty work. They do have one other option, they can whine.

And once you make it clear that doing liberal dirty work will only get you a place in a hog's trough, or as gator bait in a canal, recruitment will go down to zero fast.

Use of the term "recruitment" was in no way meant to disparage any freedom loving member of the armed forces or any LEO.

Kodiaz, I sort of agree with you but sort of disagree with you. If we were ever, God forbid, to reach the tipping point where we had an armed insugency or civil war or whatever you want to call it, I do see it boiling down to an urban-vs-rural scenario. To give you an idea of which side I'd be on, my bug-out bag has all the stuff I want to take with me when I high-tail it for my family home in the country.

But I don't necessarily see it as liberal versus conservative. I see it as tyranny versus liberty. We have conservative tyrants as well as liberal tyrants, and they may all have to be dealt with.

I agree with you but for the sake of not having to defend my post against all the King's men I took the easy way out. Oh well you caught me, Darn.

They took out the word "expressly" from the 10th because it was in the Articles of Confederation, and some of the framers felt that it was too restrictive on the federal government. Plus, if "expressly" were left in the 10th, it would be hard for the federal government to carry out any implied powers that are necessary to carry out an end. See McCulloch v. Maryland, U.S. v. Butler. Hamilton was appalled at this because he knew it could lead to a overpowering federal government.

History speaks volumes. In the Revolutionary War days, people were not so attached to to comfort, acceptance and convenience as to choose submission. They did not use their families as an excuse to be cowards. In fact, their families back then had the dignity to hate them if they did. The entire attitude toward freedom was 180 degrees off from the general mood today.

Today exists the product of decades of concerted, gradual, subtle efforts to erode liberties and consolidate power and wealth in the governments and corporations. To a large extent, this has been accomplished. Few Americans own their own businesses anymore, and even fewer know how to survive on their own. Dependence on other people to sell them what other companies have made for them using methods unknown to them is the norm. To those with faith in our 85 million gun owners, how many do you think will actually fight? How many will take the easy way out, fearing death or ostracization, or the loss of their precious technological gadgets, upon which the easy, lazy style of life they've adopted is so hopelessly dependent? How many will choose that ultimate low, "My faaamily neeeeds me!"

Mel Gibson's character in The Patriot tried that last approach (personally, my least favorite coward's line), but eventually realized his family would, not so ironically, be better served if he did fight. And he did.

But to those with no faith, I would ask you: how much more will it take? Will the people never awaken to the reality of lost freedom and its essential nature, vowing to fight for its restoration on any field available? Will they awaken, yet be unwilling to fight? The latter is more likely than the former, and with attitudes like the one above that would have you believe you have but two options in the face of tyranny (hide the guns or turn them in), it has already begun to spread, with mentally poisonous effects. Remember one thing: if cowardice (hiding the guns) and cowardice (turning them in) were the only two options, this nation would not exist! The Founding Fathers did what was right, fearing not the consequences, fearing not the odds, fearing certainly not the idea of failure: for when faced with death in battle or lifelong slavery, what is to fear? You may as well fight.

That last statement is disregarded by the modern American, who has been led to believe that he is already free--that that freedom was won for him over two hundred years ago, and could never be threatened. It seems no matter what liberties are stripped from him, he does not care so long as his distractions (technology, possessions, emotional stimuli) are left intact. So clever and gradual has the substitution of distractions for liberties been that few have seen it. Many of us here have, and I believe when and if the time comes we will stand ready, strong, and united as Americans--as those great Americans did so long ago.

However, one thing remains certain. If and when the day comes that demands resistance, it is absolutely necessary for those few patriots to know each other, know each other's locations, and be ready, able, and willing to organize quickly. It all starts with an efficient communications network, and this is formed in no more fitting means than by citizens' militias. Join and be active, and spread the word of liberty!

The government sure thinks it has the authority to take the guns whenever they want--and the People let it, so long as they are placated by hearing those suffering the tyranny called "terrorists," "criminals," or "extremists." In the end, it matters not what the government or courts think is constitutional or legal--if the People disagree, they will get their way, provided they are willing to fight for it at any level necessary, and provided they unite. The People MADE the government and the courts. And they can re-make them both if they so choose. But who knows what the future holds?

10% of us


Who take pride in their skill at arms. Who have more than one weapon.

1 of every ten of us is enough to do it when it needs to be done.

Not counting unarmed citizens. Not counting all the military and LEO that aren't JBT.

But it will be hard for those one in ten to make that decision. Once you have you've crossed a line and you will bring the weight of the government on your head. But if they are beating on your door to take your guns the weight will already be there.

Look at what happened after Waco and Ruby Ridge. All those militias formed all over the country. I lived in Jersey at the time. New jersey had a militia. New Jersey with its AWB had a militia form in it.

The .gov stopped with the sniper assasinations and the house burnings then. If it wasn't for McVeigh there would be citizens militias in place all over by now.

You'll know it started when you fire up Drudge and you read for 3 day straight that govt. buildings are being attacked all over the U.S. It will be called terrorism by the way.

The Iraqis aren't led by some Patton. Every day someone else sneaks into the country or says enough and they do something.

It'll be an American here and another there some will have help some won't but they will act and slowly but surely it will start.

But the real question is will it stop. That's the hard part.


Oh some of you may take exception to me suggesting that the Iraqis are attacking because they don't like the fact we are in their country.

Let me ask you this. If for whatever reason the Blue Helemets come here to "help" us and things get a lot worse in the day to day and then you start hearing stories about torture and prisoners being killed. What would you do?

+1 Phetro

Americans do seem to lose control of their bodily functions when confronted by death. There are those who condone the President violating our civil rights with: "He has to do this to protect us from terrorists." To which I usually reply that I'd rather die like a man than live like a cowardly worm. I'm not a Christian, but there was a Christian theologian, Meister Ekhart or someone like that, who wrote about Christ: "He did not consider life something to be clung to, but something to be shared, even unto death on the cross." Today far too many Christians feel the opposite of Christ, that life is something to be clung to at all costs, even if that cost is the act of living.

I think the 10 percent number is correct--about 8.5 million people--but consider this: those coming for the guns have no idea who those 8.5 million people are. That fact alone will ensure that the confiscators will have reason to be afraid of every blade of grass. Sure, they will be able to make examples of some of the leaders, much like Pilate did with Christ, but we see where that got the Romans in the long run.

I think the 10 percent number is correct

When you man the wall I certianly hope you aren't counting on 10% to carry the day because it won't happen.

It already happened once granted, it was 230 yrs. ago. But the odds were about the same bunch of nonsoldiers against the greatest military on Earth.


And it ain't 30% of the Iraqis fighting it's probably around ten with another 20% not ratting them out.


I don't see the Iraqis making skirmish lines and sitting in some new Alamo. There aren't thousands of them assaulting bases.

Look at what the two so called "snipers" did to the beltway. 2 guys with no goal and no plan killed a bunch of people and shut down that area.

2 guys.

If the governement tries to take out ANY of the Bill of Rights. You can be assured that what is good today will not be good tomorrow.
But yet he have the Patriot Act.

We are screwed

You're right ant to people like us the "patriot" act is an abomination. Really it is a total violation of the 4th. The "free speech zones" are an infringement on the 1st.

The RINO's have been as bad to the BOR as the liberals.

Despite what Jefferson said about a revolution every twenty years or so, I don't think that a revolution will work out well no matter how you look at it. I am not saying the government couldn't be toppled and replaced with something else via an armed revolution. That's been done too many times in history to deny the possibility. You would only need about ten percent of the population committed to the goal. What I am saying is that even if a revolution was successful, what is the likelihood of the aftermath being favorable to liberty? I'd say it's pretty slim.

We've never actually toppled by force a domestic government and replaced it with a pro-liberty government. What happened in the late 18th Century was not, actually, a revolution, but a war for independence. The Colonists were only remotely loyal to the crown to start with, i.e., so long as they let us alone they can say that they rule us, but we were actually self governing for at least a century prior to the Boston Tea Party. We had established institutions of self-government, and a long tradition of liberty. It was the British who, in the late colonial period, began to encroach upon our institutions and traditions of self government and liberty, and it was against this that we rebelled. It was a war in defense of existing domestic traditions and institutions, not against existing domestic traditions and institutions, as a modern day revolution would be.

When the colonists finally ousted the British, they simply returned to their traditions of self government and liberty, i.e., those that they'd embraced for a century previous. See the difference? If we overthrew the domestic government, and it's long established tradition of socialism and despotism (Let's be honest, our government's been despotic for over a century now, and socialist since at least FDR. Getting periodically to vote for one's masters is not actually the definition of liberty), where would that leave us? We have a population thoroughly accustomed to the nanny state, identifying that with freedom. Few will support actual liberty, as they are not familiar with it, and feel naked in that condition. Are we going to impose liberty on them? Not likely. Some demagogue will come along and convince them that he only needs their trust, and he will restore America to greatness. Just invest him with sufficient power, and he'll get us out of the present mess, and restore normalcy, i.e., a new nanny state, but this time, he will tell them, he'll do it right, i.e., without the gross violations of civil and human rights, and without the overt and unpleasant characteristics of a police state, although he might admit to the need to "break a few eggs" in the process of getting us there.

You see, it's the aftermath that would be the problem, not the successful overthrow of the present government. This is why the only chance liberty has anymore lies in a secession movement, which has its embryonic phase in something like the free state projects. That, as I see it, is the only possible chance for a future of liberty on the North American continent.

Hawkeye, how is secession going to happen in light of Texas v. White, 74 US 700 (1869)? (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZS.html)

Hawkeye, how is secession going to happen in light of Texas v. White, 74 US 700 (1869)?Al, I read through your hyperlinked citation. It is full of errors, but too many for me to respond to in anything short of a pamphlet (certainly too many for me to respond to in one post). If you will provide a small list of the best arguments you perceive from that citation against the legality of secession, I will be glad to address them one by one. Just pick the best ones you see there, maybe three or four, and state them succinctly in a post. I will have no difficulty refuting them.

Hawkeye, I see that I erred in giving you the syllabus instead of the actual decision. (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZO.html)

However, the ruling in Texas v. White held that when a state was accepted into Union, it was in perpetuity. Since such Union is based upon acceptance by the Congress of the United States, it necessarily required the Congress to agree to the secession.

The Republic of Texas was admitted into the Union, as a State, on the 27th of December, 1845. By this act, the new State, and the people of the new State, were invested with all the rights, and became subject to all the responsibilities and duties of the original States under the Constitution.

From the date of admission until 1861, the State was represented in the Congress of the United States by her senators and representatives, and her relations as a member of the Union remained unimpaired. In that year, acting upon the theory that the rights of a State under the Constitution might be renounced, and her obligations thrown off at pleasure, Texas undertook to sever the bond thus formed, and to break up her constitutional relations with the United States.

...

In all respects, so far as the object could be accomplished by ordinances of the convention, by acts of the legislature, and by votes of the citizens, the relations of Texas to the Union were broken up and new relations to a new government were established for them.

The position thus assumed could only be maintained by arms, and Texas accordingly took part, with the other Confederate States, in the war of the rebellion which these events made inevitable. During the whole of that war, there was no governor, or judge, or any other State officer in Texas who recognized the National authority. Nor was any officer of the United States permitted to exercise any authority whatever under the National government within the limits of the State except under the immediate protection of the National military forces.

Did Texas, in consequence of these acts, cease to be a State? Or, if not, did the State cease to be a member of the Union?

...

...The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States.

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

Rather than just posting a decision, do you suppose you could state your position, and then restate, in brief, the argument in its favor. Not sure what you expect me to do with that decision. Naturally, I don't agree with the arguments presented by the justices. I don't feel like writing the equivalent of a college term paper, though.

Overall, however, I can say that most of the errors have to do with the underlying premises. From defective premises come defective logic and defective conclusions. For example, the Union of the United States was never proposed as an indivisible union by the Founders. It says nothing of the sort in the Constitution, for example (the language of the Articles to that effect having been intentionally left out). In fact, the Founders considered the ever-looming threat of secession to be one of the multiple and essential checks on the power of the Federal Government, viz., Many considerations, besides those suggested on a former occasion, seem to place it beyond doubt that the first and most natural attachment of the people will be to the governments of their respective States...

Ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other. - Federalist No. 46Additionally, the Declaration of Independence, the most seminal document of The United States of America, declares that all peoples have a right to secede. It was this right on which the Founders acted in seceding from Great Britain.

We've never actually toppled by force a domestic government and replaced it with a pro-liberty government. What happened in the late 18th Century was not, actually, a revolution, but a war for independence.

And a war for independence is what the next one will be, when it comes. I don't think anyone could really argue we are "independent" at this juncture. The Feds have turned most American taxpayers into wage-serfs.

That said, I have noted the likelihood of a secessionist movement in these pages for a long time now. Pulling back and shoring up is probably the only way to guarantee the sustained existence of anything resembling the original vision of the Republic.

Secession is probably the best way to get our freedom back. But it would require flooding a state with people who valued freedom more than their hides because the corpgov. would in no way abide a state seceding to live better than the other 49.

Hawkeye, earlier I presented a case that gave to Congress, by the power of a Treaty, authority to enact legislation in an area that before the Treaty they had no power.

Despite some people who said that this cannot be done, it was and it has been upheld at every turn.

Here, I give a case that says the Union is perpetual and that the states may not secede except by approval of the other states, via approval of the Congress.

You say that you think this decision is flawed. Good. Glad to hear it. As I think many decisions have been flawed.

In a rather oblique manner, what I am trying to point out is that in our country, we have what is known as the "Rule of Law." What this all boils down to is that the law is what the Court says it is. The Constitution does not mean what we think it means, it means what 9 Robes say it means.

We come back around to Marbury v. Madison. wherein the Court gave itself the power to interpret the Constitution. Judicial Review. I doubt you could get a handful of attorneys to say that was a wrong decision. Yet I agree with Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton, it was wrong. It was never contemplated by the authors of the Constitution that the Court would have this power, a power that the founders all said rightfully belongs to those who ratified the Constitution... The People, through their States, who "ordained" said document.

In case it hasn't been noticed, but since the time of Roosevelt's New Deal, the Courts have expanded not only the Legislative powers but also the Executive powers. Thereby expanding the Courts own power as well.

All this leads me to conclude that should the IANSA treaty be signed and ratified by the Senate, the Court would uphold it. Said Treaty would enable the Congress to enact legislation in an area that they are forbidden to enact without the Treaty in place. That was the holding in Holland.

Al,

You should check out the writings of Thomas DiLorenzo. He goes into the history of secession in a historically accurate way. He is one of the few who actually brings the truth out.

The Texas decision came during a period of provisional government. We were in effect a dictatorship for years after the Civl War..aka 'reconstruction'. The Court was essentially ordered to decide as the Administration of Lincoln and Grant demanded, otherwise face imprisonment.

The entire political system and the courts were shaped in the Lincolnian way thereafter. Now, if you want to argue that secession is illegal and wrong because that issue was "settled" in 1865 after a bloodbath - ok.


I have to agree with Hawkeye. Secession is the only way. I see it happening in the future. But not anytime soon. The nation is becoming too culturally diverse. No matter how you try and fight secession, or rule it as invalid - you cannot fight the will of the people and you cannot stop cultural change.


You see, democracy only works in a limited form. It also only works between two like minded sides. Both these conditions are gone. People who are like-minded vote on small differences, but generally agree on the big stuff. We do not have that anymore. We have people voting on completely and totally philosophically opposite positions. That cannot be sustained for long.

Here, I give a case that says the Union is perpetual and that the states may not secede except by approval of the other states, via approval of the Congress.

I'd agree this is pretty much settled law in the United States. This issue was settled by 1865 if nothing else.

We come back around to Marbury v. Madison. wherein the Court gave itself the power to interpret the Constitution. Judicial Review. I doubt you could get a handful of attorneys to say that was a wrong decision. Yet I agree with Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton, it was wrong. It was never contemplated by the authors of the Constitution that the Court would have this power, a power that the founders all said rightfully belongs to those who ratified the Constitution... The People, through their States, who "ordained" said document.

Marbury v. Madison simply said that the court has the power to say what is compelled by the Constitution or law. It is silent on the issue of whether the President and Congress may also interpret the Constitution. That is a small distinction but an important one. It is also worth noting that the Court is still just nine people. None of its decisions can be given effect without the willing compliance of both Congress and the President.

All this leads me to conclude that should the IANSA treaty be signed and ratified by the Senate, the Court would uphold it. Said Treaty would enable the Congress to enact legislation in an area that they are forbidden to enact without the Treaty in place. That was the holding in Holland.

Yes, that is the holding in Holland; but this holding does not allow treaty power to modify the Constitution. Whether IANSA would be upheld wouldn't turn on Holland; but on whether the Second Amendment prohibited such action - which in turn depends on whether it is viewed as an individual or collective right.

None of its decisions can be given effect without the willing compliance of both Congress and the President.
That was a lesson learned with Lincoln, IIRC. I'm of the opinion that the Court has been working to remedy that situation, even if unconsciously.

Consider, how often do the police nowadays consider themselves, an officer of the court? This wasn't always so. Also consider if the military of today would follow a presidential directive that the Court ruled to be improper and unconstitutional, as was the case with habeas corpus during the 1860's?

Things have changed and the power struggle between the three branches is not always evident, but it is there nonetheless.

Once again, the Congress needs no international treaty in order to enact a ban on firearms (or anything else for that matter). According to the Supreme Court, it already has unlimited power to legislate in the arena of “interstate commerce,” even when said commerce does not, in fact, cross state lines.

~G. Fink

In a rather oblique manner, what I am trying to point out is that in our country, we have what is known as the "Rule of Law." What this all boils down to is that the law is what the Court says it is. The Constitution does not mean what we think it means, it means what 9 Robes say it means.That's not what the rule of law means. The most essential characteristic of the rule of law is that all the laws apply equally to everyone, including the police and government officials. We don't have that. Just ask Lon Horiuchi and Teddy Kennedy.

Perhaps I should have clarified, from the start, what I mean when I say that a treaty allows for the modification of the Constitution.

A treaty does not modify de jure, as if it was an amendment. But it does de facto modify the Constitution.

We agree that the holding in Holland allows the Congress to legislate in an area that it could not do so without the treaty in place. That in and of itself modified the enumerated powers de facto.

A properly signed and ratified treaty gives to the Congress the power of legislating to effect the purpose(s) of the treaty, other provisions of the Constitution notwithstanding. The basis for this is the Commerce Clause (To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations) and the Necessary and Proper Clause (To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution... all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States). Treaties, in general, being both a form of Foreign Commerce and a vested Power.

But even if the treaty in question is not a form of Commerce, we still have that (sometimes) pesky elastic clause to deal with.

Article 6 clause 2 (Supremacy Clause):
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land...

The construction above makes two things immediately clear: First, that the Constitution itself and all laws made to comply with the Constitution are supreme. Second, Treaties made in under the Authority of the U.S. are supreme. Both have equal footing in the law and both are supreme.

The supportive reasoning is the use of the conjunctive and that separates the two clauses that are separated by the semicolon gives equal stature within the sentence itself.
...but on whether the Second Amendment prohibited such action - which in turn depends on whether it is viewed as an individual or collective right.
I don't believe the Court would even have to go there, should the (IANSA) Treaty be challenged. All the Court would need to find is if the Treaty was properly made according to the Constitution. If it was, then it holds the same weight of law that the Constitution holds and therefore gives to the Congress the ability to legislate in an area where it had no power or authority beforehand.

The Second Amendment would be nullified, de facto, without the Court ever having to determine what type of "right" it was.

De Facto modification.

Al, the Second Amendment is an amendment to the Constitution, the Constitution is not an amendment to the Second Amendment, therefore the Second Amendment is also an amendment to Article II, Section 2, to the extent that Article II, Section 2 might otherwise have been interpreted to authorize the Federal Government to infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. If any treaty is interpreted so as to negate the Second Amendment, acting on that interpretation would be the act of an outlaw. First there was Article II, Section 2, then there was its AMENDMENT forbidding any interpretation of it to permit an infringement on the people's right to keep and bear arms. This means that any interpretation of Article II, Section 2 is subordinate, from a legal standpoint, to the language of the Second Amendment, just as any interpretation of the Eighteenth Amendment (prohibition) is subordinate to the Twenty-first Amendments (repeal of prohibition) language.

Hawkeye, ask any ConLaw Prof and you will hear them say that the Bill of Rights did not modify a single clause of the Constitution. And that is also what the Courts have always said.

But let's assume that you are correct. Before the Courts have a chance to rule on this, your (and mine) guns will have already been confiscated. Even then, should the Court rule like you say, how many of our guns will we get back? And when? And under what conditions? I submit we are seeing in NOLA what very well could be a national scenario.

The only guide we have for the future, is how things have happened in the past. Looking at that past tells me to be very wary of any Treaty sponsored by IANSA.

Gentlemen barring the Republicans finding some saints to run in November they will lose both houses.

In 2008 the Dems will get the White House barring a miracle. The repubs have alienated the small govt conservatives. They started a new entitlement, they added to the bureacracy and they further infringed the BOR.


Our day of reckoning will arrive in 2008. When the dems have both houses and the white house and incredibly expanded govt. power.

The dems will probably sign an IANSA treaty (they would love that) or make up their own new ban. The gun control wardrums have already started beating again. Gun control will be talked about in the next Pres. election cycle.

Al Norris, following your posts I did some more research on Missouri v. Holland and discovered the following:

Apparently you aren't the first person to have the concern that the decision might allow treaty to trump the Constitution. During the 1950s there was enough concern that this might be a problem that there were several attempts to pass the "Bricker Amendment" making it clear that the Constitution was still the supreme law of the land over any treaty.

Apparently, that effort to pass the amendment died off when Justice Black stated in the Reid v. Covert decision (1957) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert) that the Constitution supersedes international treaties.

Justice Black went on to emphasize that Missouri v. Holland supports only the proposition that by delegating the treaty power to Congress, the States have given up that power they enjoy under the Tenth Amendment and that a state cannot enact a law in conflict with a treaty duly passed by Congress (this was a big concern at the time of Missouri v. Holland since negotiations over the Treaty of Versailles also contained child labor laws that would impact the states).

Bartholomew:

W00t! Fantastic thing to yank out of your behind!

Bart, I must admit that after a first reading of Coverts, I am heartened. Thanks for pointing me to that case.

You should check out the writings of Thomas DiLorenzo. He goes into the history of secession in a historically accurate way. He is one of the few who actually brings the truth out.


I second your recommendation and am currently reading The Real Lincoln, a pivotal book about an unnecessary war.

Pro-gun Senators and Congressmen are a much better protection of your rights than a pro-gun President.; but all we need is a majority in one House to block an agreement or 34 votes in the Senate to block a treaty. A President can veto either one and our current UN ambassador, John Bolton, has made it clear that the U.S. will not participate in any treaty that attempts to restrict an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. Nothing will come of this meeting; but we had better make sure we know the next time the UN Small Arms group meets and have representatives who will work with us to make sure it stays that way.

Glad I voted for Bush.