Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall proclaimed that "any act of the legislature, repugnant to the Constitution, is void", 1803, Marbury vs. Madison.
Questions regarding the "First Law of Nature" (fundamental human right and responsibility of self-defense) were resolved at the time the Second Amendment, principal defender of our Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15th, 1791. The continuous and very real protections that this Amendment affords cannot logically be interpreted as being antiquated. Its purpose remains sound and noble. Accordingly, constitutional law and commonsense should render further discussion respecting the absolutes of self-defense as unwarranted. However, as this primary instinct is now under a vicious attack by the encroaching United Nations, faithless politicians, and other debilitating influences of Socialist activism, a plan of rational reaction is in order.
To the men and women who are outraged by the incremental theft of their fundamental human rights, this essay will be of interest. Some, who are well meaning yet clearly misinformed might also profit by proceeding. For the others who are indifferent, faint of heart or content with the social engineering of their lives by an oppressive nanny-state, they will not benefit by reading further. Because of an inability to direct and accept responsibility for their own lives, these bewildered individuals have by now blended into the flock, heading towards the precipice. Until the grazing meadows of sweet-grass wither, they will not stray.
The Constitution was conceived for the enumeration of legitimate authority and limitations of federal government, states and the people. Justly restrained, government has no constitutional authority, in any degree or manner, to infringe upon our unalienable, Second Amendment rights and responsibility of self-protection. Rebellious of this embarrassing yet straightforward and unalterable Second Amendment, our elected officials have enacted treasonous and unconstitutional legislation, placing millions of men, women and children in jeopardy.
Whether or not the majority of citizens believe in the right of the people (individuals) to keep and bear arms is irrelevant to the application of constitutional law. Intentionally disregarding degrees of social and political popularity, the Constitution equally protects the rights of every individual. Like it or not, this is a nation of laws and not men. We do not consider the political correctness of Socialism (endorsed by liberal Democrats and many so-called moderate Republicans), or polls of public opinion in order to determine which unalienable, constitutional rights government shall permit the people to exercise. We are dependent upon "Constitutional Law" for such judgments. Not any individual or faction has ever been blessed with the luxury of picking and choosing which "Article or Amendment" is more convenient and adaptable to their self-serving needs. The Constitution must be accepted logically, with honesty and in its entirety.
Federal court decision: "A state cannot impose a license, tax or fee on a constitutionally protected right. Murdock vs. Pennsylvania 319 US 105 (1942)." For those who rely on constitutional law and commonsense, the possession of firearms is clearly "a constitutionally protected right". Regardless of this truth, most states require a citizen to pay a "fee" (registration or background check "fee") in order to obtain a "license" (concealed carry "license") before keeping and/or bearing a firearm. And, a federal and/or state "tax" (firearms and ammunitions sales "tax" or machine gun "tax" collected by the BATF) is always levied at the time of firearm transaction.
Supreme Court decision: The U.S. Supreme Court broadly and unequivocally held that requiring licensing or registration of any constitutional right is itself unconstitutional. --Follett vs. Town of McCormick, S.C., 321 U.S. 573 [1944] This rather settles the question concerning the unconstitutionality of licensing, taxation or registration of a constitutional right.
NOTE: "Webster's University Dictionary - Infringed: 1. To violate or go beyond the limits of (e.g., a law). 2. To break (a law or agreement); fail to observe the terms of: violate. 3. To defeat: invalidate. - To encroach upon something. Infringement: 1. A violation, as of a law or agreement. 2. An encroachment, as of a privilege or right". Old Noah Webster must have experienced a prophetic dream prior to publishing these definitions.
Unrelentingly, armed lawful men and women are harassed beyond reason and commonsense with infringing, illogical and asinine gun control laws (forbidding self-defense). In their incremental efforts to abolish all guns, our corrupted government and dishonorable politicians are doing precisely what the Constitution forbids. If the 20,000 (plus) federal and state gun laws (fact) do not flawlessly illustrate Webster's definition of infringed, then no other repressive or invading action will. Within the world of authenticity, our gun laws remain as insidious acts of infringement and severe violations of constitutional law. Contrary to the standards and intent of the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights, these so-called "gun control laws" should not be enforced as "laws" but instead, denounced as acts of "outlaw gun control legislation". Acts, by the Legislature, which are indeed repugnant to the Constitution. These unconstitutional legislative and judicial illegalities represent direct and treasonous assaults upon the men, women and children of this nation and our sovereign "Constitutional Republic". Without question, it is outlaw legislation that has no constitutional foundation and violates the most basic of all human rights - self-defense. This legislation, under the pretense of legitimate congressional action, must be immediately voided.
The Second Amendment has been assailed on countless occasions. Mesmerized by fanciful visions of United Nations utopianism (world government), our sovereign government refuses obedience to constitutional law. Contemptuously, disloyal legislators defile constitutional principles with blatant violations of the most fundamental commandment, "the right of the people (properly interpreted as individuals in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the Bill of Rights) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Contrary to Socialist propaganda, our Founding Fathers did not place limitations on the possession of arms - i.e.. "(After receiving a concealed weapons permit) the right (limited by 20,000 state and federal gun laws) of the people to keep (inside their perilously unhandy gun safes) and bear arms (of specific description and registered with the BATF and equipped with trigger safety locks, rendering the weapon useless for self-protection) shall not be infringed (unless feel-good solutions, opinion polls and Congress deem additional oppressive and unrealistic restrictions appropriate to their self-serving political needs)".
As a former law enforcement officer of many years, I can state with credibility that guns save innocent lives far more often than they kill. Law enforcement documentation also indicates that there are over two million lives saved by guns each year (facts, never disclosed by the local or national media). In opposition to this truth, I have heard many anti self-defense advocates say that they only want "reasonable restrictions" on gun ownership. That is of course, "for the sake of our children". My question is, does the number of 20,000 standing gun control laws appear to be "reasonable restrictions" to anyone other than a deceitful politician or an imbecile?
Each day, they rape the Constitution and molest our unalienable rights. Our disingenuous Legislators, Attorney Generals and Supreme Court Justices belittle and dishonor the memory, intent and integrity of our Founding Fathers. These self perceived ethical scholars of law have bastardized the Constitution with their convoluted and ambiguous interpretations of our unequivocal "Bill of Rights". Virtue by virtue, liberty by liberty, our Constitutional Republic is being systematically eroded away. It is they who are the most corrupting of outlaws.
The germane question is, would the peoples of China, Cuba, Nazi Germany (Holocaust survivors know the answer), Soviet Russia, Kosovo, Chechnya and so on, have become victims of rape, torture and genocide, had the citizenry been well prepared with handguns and assault weapons (the real thing, fully automatic) for self-defense? With adequate weaponry at hand, along with an appropriately defensive attitude, the numbers of casualties certainly would not have counted into the millions.
Unarmed, we are all vulnerable to tyranny. In truth, it is occurring to this day. Irrespective of ongoing governmental attempts at deception (BATF , FBI, sniper Lon Horiuchi, Senator Danforth and Federal Judge Walter Smith), the federally sanctioned atrocities involving more than eighty men, women and children (shot or burned to death) at Waco and a young innocent boy (shot in the back) along with his infant bearing mother (shot in the face while nursing her baby) at Ruby Ridge, should serve as profound examples demanding a well-armed citizenry. As a consequence of militarism (deploying lethal equipment such as machine guns, tanks and noxious gases, proper for conventional warfare but not paramilitary assaults upon U.S. civilians), now being discovered within the ranks of our federal, state and local police forces, freedom inspired armed citizens must hold these audacious agencies in check. Black or camouflage garb including ski masks are the costumes of choice, producing the affects necessary to demoralize and secure absolute public submission. Excluding legitimate security responses, these agencies instill terror in the hearts of loyal Americans. Street-wise criminals and the insane are not the only threatening elements within our society requiring constant vigilance and preparedness. Dismissing firm and decisive actions to rectify government atrocities assures us of further tyranny. Refusing to defend self and family by the most effective means possible, not only is an omission of unnatural cowardice but such inaction demeans God's gift of life.
Repeated Supreme Court decision: 1803, Marbury vs. Madison, Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall proclaimed that "any act of the legislature, repugnant to the Constitution, is void". Supported by his proclamation, any law or legislative act that attempts to deprive law-abiding citizens of their Constitutional rights is itself illegal and void.
Lawmen, including prosecutors, are obliged to discern "Constitutional Law" from outlaw legislation. On all occasions, conscientious officers must refuse to enforce laws that are egregiously unconstitutional (Confiscation of Constitutionally protected firearms from honest fellow citizens). The success of law enforcement is dependent upon the goodwill of the people and a peaceful community is the result of an equal partnership between police and citizenry. Without reciprocal confidence, the consequences will be minor acts of dissension escalating into mass rebellion. Police are compelled to serve only the people and have no other master.
Lawmen! Consider your predicament with care. Your responses will be either courageous and patriotic, or cowardly and treasonous. You must defend or condemn the Constitution. There is no middle ground for you. Stand with dignity and in contrast to the majority of politicians today. Honor your oath of office.
Demand from your legislators that they cease their unconstitutional assaults on the American people. If your elected officials refused to obey and defend the Constitution of the United States then vote the traitors out of office, for they are nothing less. Elected and appointed officials who with intent, actively attempt to subvert the Constitution of the United States, must be impeached, prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned for acts of high treason against the people of this nation. Contemplation of leniency for crimes of such far-reaching and destructive consequences is unconscionable. Through organization, our words and votes, we must immediately vanquish the adversaries of Constitutional Law, personal responsibility and individual liberty.
Self explanatory: In 1856, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that local law enforcement had no duty to protect individuals but only a general duty to enforce the laws. South vs. Maryland, 59 US (HOW) 396, 15 L. Ed. 433. (1856) A U. S. Federal Appeals Court declared in 1982, "There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen." Bowers vs. Devot, U. S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 686 F. 2d 616 (1982).
The reality is that you have no right to demand of anyone to risk his or her life in the defense of yours. Obviously, preserving your life is a very personal endeavor requiring sound judgment. Make no mistake! Anyone, regardless of ignorance or intent, who deprives you of the means or ability to defend the lives of yourself and family is your enemy and must be consciously and continuously perceived as such. All anti self-defense activists are as deadly a threat to you and your family as any uncontrolled violent criminal or psychopath. Their actions contributing to the same result, government along with many politicians (Clinton, Lieberman, Schumer, Feinstein, Kennedy, Daschel, on and on) and street-wise criminals must all be held accountable for the thousands of men, women and children whose lives are lost to felonious assaults each year.
Because of their ceaseless and malicious distortion of gun related facts, many members of the liberal news media are morally responsible for these horrific losses. Knowing full well that women are far more vulnerable than men to violent assault, the "National Organization for Women" (NOW) is quite negligent by refusing to encourage the arming of their supporters for self-defense. If they were sincere in their concern for the welfare of women they would certainly do so. And, if noted on paper, acts of hypocrisy by the "American Civil Liberties Union" (ACLU) would fill volumes.
How many elected officials venture outdoors without the security of an armed bodyguard standing at their side? Are their lives of greater value than your own? Can you afford to retain the same quality of protection for yourself and family? Dialing 911 will not assure your safety. Although in most cases they are willing to assist, police usually provide an after-the-incident response. After the damage is done, they will always be there to investigate your homicide or rape.
Bureaucrats defiantly and unconstitutionally refuse to permit all honest citizens from exercising the "First Law of Nature". Covertly, government is aiding and abetting the most sadistic malcontents of humanity, the psychopaths and violent criminals within this nation. Indeed, along with former President Clinton and his appointed scoundrels, the blood is also on the hands of many other elected officials. Not only have they violated their oaths of office but actively subvert the Constitution of the United States.
Our Founding Fathers did not endure the abuses of a tyrannical government (England) and learn nothing. Their goal was not to create a document of government sanctioned privileges, to be allotted out by contemporary miscreants in office. Ingeniously, they instead provided us with the "Bill of Rights" which is intended to limit government. Not the people! They protect our Creator bestowed rights and further affirm the "First Law of Nature". The Constitution was conceived by the people and for the people, placing literal and enforceable limitations upon government. Without question, our elected officials have illegally far exceeded the authority of their office.
The establishment of our Constitution demanded a display of courage and independence by a well armed citizenry. Its continued integrity will necessitate the same. Look around you. Be observant! Question all actions of government and propaganda by the bias news media (dependent on distortions and sensationalism for high ratings rather than facts). Our freedoms remain in peril to this day. It will require more than indifference, complacency or fear to sustain your liberties.
As for myself, I am an ordinary, lawful American citizen who has witnessed for the past thirty years, the systematic, ruthless and devastating erosion of our human rights by a government behaving in an unconstitutional and corrupt manner. The bottom line is that I shall not tolerate further infringements on my unalienable rights. Coexisting in harmony with liberty, my Second Amendment rights are not to be compromised. Regarding independence of thought and action, I have never pledged fidelity to any militant cause, religious doctrine or political party. I will, however, defend with dedication and ferocity, the principles and intent behind the United States Constitution. I am a former Deputy Sheriff and have participated in hundreds of criminal investigations including armed robbery, felonious assault, homicide, rape and child abuse. Having tired of the despair related to this profession, with pleasure, I now indulge in the sculpting of wildlife, nudes and portraiture. However, to this day I experience a sense of duty to the public safety.
My final questions are, how many governmental invasions into our personal lives are we willing to tolerate? Have we not yet endured enough bureaucratic molestations? And, lastly, when will "WE THE PEOPLE" of this nation awaken to reality and reclaim our constitutional authority? This nation must be returned to the people. Without detour, we are rapidly approaching the point of no return. For the preservation of yourself and family, do give it some thought.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
Source:
http://www.americasvoices.org/avarc2001/archives2001/HoffS/secondamendment.htm
That's just the "keep" part of the 2A; the "bear" part is a whole other ball of wax. 
