"2A wasn't written for us"...and I have to agree

[Chad]

This gentleman's views echo my own in many ways.
I found it very thought provoking.

2008 Candidates: Now Is The Time To Repeal All Gun Laws
By John Longenecker (05/12/07)

I wrote this days ago and elected not to upload it. Then I changed my mind.

Here is an excerpt from a piece written by Sandy Froman of the National Rifle Association of America, May 3, 2007: "To paraphrase from my previous column, there are two main conflicting views of the Second Amendment: the individual rights view and the collective rights view. Those who hold the former say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms to every law-abiding and peaceable individual American citizen. Those who hold the latter say the Second Amendment does nothing more than give state governments the power to equip National Guard units. The gun debate in America revolves around which of these two views is correct.

But who decides which view is correct? Only the courts have the power to do that."

Do they? Perhaps and perhaps not. Maybe it’s all a non-issue. Here's why.

Please note that of all in this country, not all are adults, not all are registered voters, not all are even here legally. But of the 80 million gun owners (and perhaps more), all are constituents, all are probably adults, most if not all are voters and, by dint of their gun registrations and background checks in Concealed Carry Permits, all are pretty much vetted. This makes gun owners a most significant bloc for 2008 candidates, and because weapons enforce liberty, it makes these citizens not a gun lobby, but a liberty bloc of mainstream values to be taken seriously by those 2008 candidates over, for instance, whether the issue is decided in a court. It also makes this bloc a target.

Why all gun laws are illegal and why the second amendment is not even to come under the supervision of the Supreme Court is this: it was written for government limitation and not for us, and, short of another amendment, it was written to be impervious to abuses of due process. Gun laws are an exquisite example of abuses of due process, abuses backed by force.

Indeed, why is it even a topic of debate? Because armed authority is a roadblock to looting the country, politically, such as using violent crime as a reason to usher in stupid policies, but this is another edition of Good For The Country, and the topic of Transfer of Wealth.

Meanwhile, some have insisted on sway (so-called sensible gun laws) and have abused due process in this country in order to pry the authority of the people away from our legal and lethal force which backs it. It is this sway (opinion) or use of force (gun laws) which by the second amendment are not permitted officials. It’s not even permitted other Americans, such as activists.

Let’s take a legal education to go with our history education.

1. The second amendment was not written either as a collective nor individual right because it wasn’t written for citizens. It was written for Government as the entire Document is written to define our rights and to put limits on government. Government cannot grant rights, and itself has no rights. Only citizens have rights and those rights trump the interests of agencies just as citizen rights trump the interests of the people. 2A puts limits on government and puts no limits on citizens on this question and for the reason that the citizen is the ultimate legislature and supreme authority. That is the original intent because abuse of due process was the basis of the War for Independence.

Because 2A was not written for you and me but written for Government, it’s just stupid to think that Government (including courts, appointed officials and law enforcement) gets a say-so or even an opinion in protecting its own interests over that of citizens, interests of officials which conflict with the authority of the citizen. Which prevails? Citizen rights and authority prevails.

2. The Founders did not care which weapons they did or did not foresee in centuries ahead because they didn’t view weapons as the danger to the nation. The Founders viewed takings as a danger, and how, brother. They knew all about takings. 2A was not written about weapons they could or could not foresee: it was written because the Founders foresaw abuses of due process in any time, any era, and even any administration or office. "Shall not be infringed" bars applying due process to takings of the lethal force which backs citizen authority. No state is immune to this creeping abuse of process in powers not granted, not even the United States, and the Founders knew it only too well. It was not guns, but abuse of due process the Founders foresaw in writing the second amendment.

So, the Founders gave the power of ultimate authority not to officials, but to the armed citizen, and that precludes any gun control, inclduing regulation. Officials and 2008 candidates, by dint of their oath, may not quarrel with this, and may not even legally entertain any anti-gun sway of activists any more than they may entertain lobbying for the ownership of one person by another in this country. Not even a little.

Yes, some parts of the Constitution are absolute: the law against involuntary servitude and the law against infringing on the lethal force which backs citizen authority.

The language of the second amendment was written to avoid even this debate, for there is no debate as to who runs this country – we do – and no debate as to how we back our authority.

Any idea of accepting SCOTUS decisions on this question is a mistake by affirming one of the greatest legal errors in this nation’s development, and that would be the people’s idea that a court decides what the Founders have already decided: citizen authority is backed by force, and 2A was not about guns, it was about takings of guns. Not written for us, but for government, and that would have to include the Supremes.

The matter must be resolved by Congress in the repeal of all gun laws. All guns laws are illegal because they chip away at the legal and lethal force which backs the authority of the citizen over the executive. Gun laws are illegal because the amendment was not written for the citizen, it was written for the very officials who claim authority to decide the issue. Cangress can dump it all, and I'll hold your coat.

So-called sensible regulation, types of weapon or ammunition, where it may be carried or not, or even a debate on collective or individual right are each a non-issue when such abuse of due process against citizen authority is what the Founders anticipated in writing the second amendment to the Constitution of The United States.

Any further delay on the affirmation of this truth would be positive proof that our greatest fears have come true.

Now is the time to repeal all guns laws.

John Longenecker is author of The Case For Nationwide Concealed Carry. Visit http://www.TransferOfWealth.net/

 

[davhina]

Wow.
Well said.
I am not very bright , but I get it.
The anti's/elite's get it too, they just don't admit it.
WE THE PEOPLE, disappears with 2A. It becomes WE THE GOVERNMENT, you the peasants.

 

[yokel]

I suspect that just about everyone around these parts would wholeheartedly concur with Mr. Longenecker's analysis.

Now is the time to repeal all gun laws

We shall just have to hope against hope for fulfillment of that command.:banghead:

 

[jpk1md]

I like that.

 

[george29]

Not only are conservative women more intelligent, they are also better looking. Sandy definitely has sex appeal.

 

[MarshallDodge]

I agree and liked this statement:

Government cannot grant rights, and itself has no rights

 

[rlb]

Compare that with Giuliani's recent speech- "the Constitution grants," "I would grant women the right..." etc.

 

[Mr.V.]

Hey Mr. Art Eatman --

Haven't you been saying this till you're blue in the face?

Or at least something regarding a post office in Georgia and a preamble to the Bill of Rights? =)

 

[James T Thomas]

on second thought

I find it inconcievable to form an army, militia, or any kind of defense force, and then state in the Constitution, that, by the way, they have a right to be armed!

Considering the illogic of it, there must be another intention than the arming a military force.

 

[ctdonath]

there must be another intention than the arming a military force.

The intention is that a an armed military force may be elicited from the general population, to the extent needed, where needed, when needed, as needed, instantly.

The problem with the "collectivist model", even when most benevolently presented, is that the need is determined, then the populace allowed to arm in a manner fitting the perceived need. This, obviously, can easily take far too long to be effective. Discovering your commercial airliner is about to be driven into a building is no time to request your government work out needed resources, equip them, and move them into position - it is very much the time for you, "well-regulated" militia member, to pull your pistol out of your briefcase and shoot the ********.

Unfortunately, there do seem a surprising number of people who earnestly believe the 2nd Amendment is a tautology (to wit "those individuals in the standing army may be armed").

 

[Ieyasu]

Marshall Dodge wrote:

I agree and liked this statement:

Government cannot grant rights, and itself has no rights

And from the article:

Government ..itself has no rights. Only citizens have rights...

I can forgive a THR poster for believing that crap, but I sure get tired of reading it by people who should know better. (Actually I don't know the author and didn't read the rant, so I really don't know whether he should know better.)

From a previous post of mine:

Below are quotes from three JURISTS, who were contemporaries of the founders, and published constitutional commentaries in the early 19th century. The quotes here are only a SAMPLE. These commentaries are sprinkled with references to rights and powers of governments.

To assert all of these folks were confusing rights and powers (especially when they were lawyers and judges), when the model I described above comports to the contemporaneous evidence, is to strain credulity. (Unless of course some evidence of contrary writings from the time is provided, or some scholarly work today shows strong evidence that all of these lawyers and judges were confused.)

The commentator's below are referenced by date published.

St. George Tucker (source: http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/LFB...Pt05_View.html):
"The state governments not only retain every power, jurisdiction, and RIGHT not delegated to the United States, by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, but they are constituent and necessary parts of the federal government"

"it is likewise a maxim of political law, that sovereign states cannot be deprived of any of their RIGHTS by implication; nor in any manner whatever by their own voluntary consent, or by submission to a conqueror."

"From the moment of the revolution they became severally independent and sovereign states, possessing all the RIGHTS, jurisdiction, and authority, that other sovereign states, however constituted, or by whatever title denominated, possess."

"Whether this original compact be considered as merely federal, or social, and national, it is that instrument by which power is created on the one hand, and obedience exacted on the other. As federal it is to be construed strictly, in all cases where the antecedent RIGHTS of a state may be drawn in question."

"The sum of all which appears to be, that the powers delegated to the federal government, are, in all cases, to receive the most strict construction that the instrument will bear, where the RIGHTS of a state or of the people, either collectively, or individually, may be drawn in question."

William Rawle:

"A high function also appertains to the judiciary in the EXCLUSIVE RIGHT to expound the Constitution, and thereby to test the validity of all the acts of the legislature."

"The natural inclination of those who possess power, is to increase it. History shows that to enlarge the description of treason has often been resorted to as one of the means of increasing power. To have left to
the legislature an unlimited RIGHT to declare what should amount to this crime would have been less consistent with public safety, than to fix, by common consent, its plain definition and exact limits."


"The United States, therefore, justly reserved to themselves the RIGHT to punish this high offence, and the state courts, since the adoption of the
Constitution, have abstained from intermeddling with prosecutions on account of it."


Joseph Story (appointed to the Supreme Court by James Madison.)

"The first resolution adopted by the convention on this subject of the powers of the general government, was that the national legislature ought to be empowered to enjoy the legislative RIGHTS vested in congress by the confederation, and moreover..."

"Nor can any power be inferred in the states to regulate commerce from other clauses in the constitution, or the acknowledged RIGHTS exercised by the states."

"While this sheet was passing through the press, President Jackson's Proclamation of the 10th of December, 1832, concerning the recent Ordinance of South-Carolina on the subject of the tariff, appeared. That document contains a most elaborate view of several questions, which have been discussed in this and the preceding volume, especially respecting the supremacy of the laws of the Union; the RIGHT of the judiciary to decide upon the constitutionality of those laws; and the total repugnancy to
the constitution of the modern doctrine of nullification asserted in that
ordinance. As a state paper it is entitled to very high praise for the clearness, force, and eloquence, with which it has defended the RIGHTS and POWERS of the national government. I gladly copy into these pages some of its important passages, as among time ablest commentaries ever offered upon the constitution."

[the following are selective quotes from Jackson within the above passage]

'"The constitution has given expressly to congress the RIGHT of raising revenue, and of determining the sum the public exigencies will require. The states have no control over the exercise of this RIGHT, other than that, which results from the power of changing the representatives, who abuse it, and thus procure redress. Congress may undoubtedly abuse this discretionary power, but the same may be said of others, with which they are vested.'


"What are they? Every law, then, for raising revenue, according to the South-Carolina Ordinance, may be rightfully annulled, unless it be so framed, as no law ever will or can be framed. Congress have a RIGHT to pass law for raising revenue, and each state has a RIGHT to oppose their execution, two rights directly opposed to each other; "

"No one, fellow citizens, has a higher reverence for the reserved RIGHTS of the states, than the magistrate, who now addresses you."

Again, as in all cases, Jackson's comments as relayed by Story are only a sampling of the instances in which the RIGHTS of states or the national government are referred to.

 

[obxned]

No matter how you slice it, the Founding Fathers put the 2nd Amendment in there because of their recent experience with bad government and their knowledge of what is required to correct the problem.

 

[Bezoar]

ah the good old debate, and the nd amendment. Do we have a way to instruct those making laws that:
-militia means everyday citizens who take up arms to defend their homes and towns from the enemy?
-the 2nd amendment established the right for citizens to band together with fireamrs and fight the common enemy wether it be redcoats coming down the road, or a bunch of crazy savages commin for scalps?

and i believe we need to think about the big reason to shift the 2nd amendment from the private citizen militia soldier to federally controlled national guard units:
remove firearms from private ownership and to keep as much firepower in federal government hands to prevent another george washington or benjamin franklin assembling a 21st century peasent army to make a new government in the peoples best interest.

 

[glockman19]

Well said. I agree.

 

[Mr.V.]

Ieyasu--

I find myself agreeing with you again. In many ways "powers" and "rights" are synonymous. The federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce. Is this power not functionally different than a "right" to regulate interstate commerce?

So it would seem that governments have rights (or powers if you prefer). Nevertheless, they do have restrictions on those rights. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights was meant to clearly define the extent of those rights/powers of government vs those retained by the People.

I suppose that's where the Preamble to the Bill of Rights fits in...

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added...

i.e. to limit the rights of the Federal (and even State) governments vis-à-vis the People.

 

[Ieyasu]

Howdy Mr V,
I certainly agree with what you wrote here:

Nevertheless, they do have restrictions on those rights

I think we'd only disagree that rights and powers are synonymous. Although you did say in "many ways," so I could agree with that. However for those who might think they are exactly the same, I'd disagree. For example a government could have the power to do something though not the right or vice versa.

 

[stinky]

ummm...okay....good luck with that

 

[Mr.V.]

ummm...okay....good luck with that

I'm not sure how much luck I'll need so much as an adequate dictionary...like Websters for instance...

Main Entry: right
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English riht, from riht, adjective
...
2 : something to which one has a just claim: as a : the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled
...

Does the Constitution not grant "power" to justly entitle the Federal government to regulate interstate commerce?

I realize "rights" also frequently have religious overtones, personal significances, etc, so pinning down an exact definition that everyone approves of is going to be tricky, but at some level a power (with the important distinction that the power is justly bestowed/exercised/entitled/you-name-it) is as close to a common definition of a right as we're going to get.

As many of Ieyasu's quotations point out, many people in the past also believed that a government has "rights". Some may shy from that and call them justly entitled powers...I'm just not sure what the difference is, and I don't think Mr. Webster does either...

Ieyasu, you're correct on that point about rights vs power. Certainly a tyrant may exercise a power by force or coercion that is not, and that should not be, deemed a right...I hadn't considered that caveat...

 

[rlb]

Anybody notice that the context of "rights" in (almost?) every one of those quotes are "rights" vis-a-vis another part of the government?

 

[Chad]

I'd be sorry to see the issue set aside in favor of a debate over who is misinterpreting what terms.

Is there any argument that the Constitution grants or restricts government authority, while defining and protecting the natural, inherent rights of citizens?

Therein lies the difference between powers and rights. Beyond that it doesn't really matter what you call them.
The concepts of the two ideas are simple.
Any further semantic argument is irrelevant.

Ieyasu: Go back and read the "rant".
I think you'll find that what you object to is an infinitesimal part of the whole.

 

[gyp_c2]

well...

... prefer to read that as...

something to which one has a just claim: as a : the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled

...note emphasis...

Semantics is exactly what we're seeing argued here...The problem isn't in the reading, it's in the constant interpreting...

 

[jpk1md]

I think the terms you folks want are Authority and Power.

Does the US Gov't have the "Authority" (as per Const) to regulate Interstate Commerce? YES!

Does the US Gov't have the "Power" to enforce Interstate Commerce Regulations? Yes Again!

Apply that to the 2A.

I would argue that the 2A is written to restrict the US Gov't from infringing on the rights of "The People" and as such have no "Authority" to regulate firearms.

I believe that they have demonstrated that The People have allowed them the Power to regulate them though....

 

[Chad]

I believe that they have demonstrated that The People have allowed them the Power to regulate them though....

Absolutely!

It's past time we learned that lesson, and started to fix our mistakes.

 

[jpk1md]

Hopefully in 2008 we'll kick these clowns to the curb and elect more responsible leaders.

In the meantime more folks need to send letters/e-mail and make calls to their Congress Critters.

Nothing pleases me more than to see the current ratings for Congress Critters at the same level as Bush.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Rights Vs Powers

Rights and powers are not the same nor have they ever been the same. Powers are derived from rights. Our Union only has those powers we grant to it in the Constitution. Those powers we grant to the Union are derived from the rights we as individuals have as our birthright as humans, or granted to us from God, or the Creator, by nature, or simply because we exist depending upon our beliefs.

Ergo, government does not have rights. As an example, you have the right to defend yourself and all the powers you can conjure to that end. Through the Constitution, you have granted some of the power to defend yourself to the Union to defend yourself on a larger scale - combined with some of that same power others granted to the Union through the Constitution - by amassing the resources you and everyone else granted to the Union to build those aircraft carriers you as an individual can hardly afford. Had you not granted some of that power(and money) to the Union, this land would be in constant turmoil from abroad. The combined force of power handles that quite well when properly administered.

More later.

Woody