ARE FEDERAL GUN LAWS CONSTITUTIONAL?
Cole Firearms Inc.
ARE FEDERAL GUN LAWS CONSTITUTIONAL?
By Michael LeMieux
January 8, 2010
NewsWithViews.com
If �We the People� are the creators of the government, and the
government is authorized arms, then in order for the people to maintain
their position, in relation to the government, they to must be armed. If
the servant government (servant of the people) has arms, and the people
do not, then the roles are reversed for the people can not resist a
government that has become tyrannical.
This same logic applies to self defense. If the law abiding citizen does
not have the means to resist a lawless adversary, then the will of the
adversary becomes the law. Our Congress had formally passed an �assault
weapons� ban. The stated goal was to remove the arms used by gangs, drug
smugglers, and extremists. How many of us really believe that anyone in
any of the aforementioned groups, who owned an �assault weapon,� would
get rid of those weapons, just because the Congress passed a law?
However, many law abiding citizens did, in fact, give up their arms so
as to remain �law abiding.� The end result is no change for the criminal
element and a disarming of the citizen. This has happened, without
exception, with EVERY gun law passed by Congress. In this regard, every
gun law, by definition, aids the criminal and penalizes the law abiding
citizen.
The Second Amendment, arguably the most contentious of all the Bill of
Rights amendments, however, is the least tried in the Supreme Court. It
simply states:
�A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed.�
It may be a small amendment, but, it carries the weight and guarantee
for all other rights. For without the capability of the people to defend
themselves, to prepare as a militia, or to reign in a tyrannical
government, we all become serfs and subjects.
There are those among us that would argue the collectivist position that
the amendment pertained only to the Militia and not to individuals. The
Supreme Court has spoken on the collective issue in U.S. v. Emerson, 46
F.Supp.2d 598 (N.D.Tex. 1999), in which it states: "Collective rights
theorists argue that addition of the subordinate clause qualifies the
rest of the amendment by placing a limitation on the people's right to
bear arms. However, if the amendment truly meant what collective rights
advocates propose, then the text would read "[a] well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the States
to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." However, that is not
what the framers of the amendment drafted. The plain language of the
amendment, without attenuate inferences therefrom, shows that the
function of the subordinate clause was not to qualify the right, but
instead to show why it must be protected. The right exists independent
of the existence of the militia. If this right were not protected, the
existence of the militia, and consequently the security of the state,
would be jeopardized." (Bold Added)
As the foregoing statement clearly shows, there is one aspect of this
amendment which is based in the collective thought, and that is
collective safety. The Second Amendment prohibited the government from
infringing on an individuals right in order to protect a collective
purpose. If the federal could disarm the populace, then the states would
have no effective militia and no means to defend itself. This is why
there is such a strong tie between the militia and the people.
Remember, the constitution and �Bill of Rights� are there to restrain
the government; not the people. This was an instruction to the
government to leave the peoples� guns alone. They could not trespass on
or encroach upon our right as citizens to own and bear arms. If we look
at the enforcement of federal laws and the cost government has placed on
the American people I think we must conclude that infringement has and
is occurring. The federal government has the right to regulate its�
jurisdictions outside of the state jurisdiction; but I will show that
the enforcement of those laws is where they have violated the Constitution.
Advertisement
In the early years of our nation, it was common sense and historically
imperative that the people be armed. They were armed not only for self
defense, but as defense against invasion from nefarious nations as well
as from �ambitious and unprincipled rulers� who would look to remove
their rights and to enslave the nation.
In general, Laws are made to codify certain unwanted behavior and to
establish acceptable behavior in society. However, as soon as you
transfer this mechanism to inanimate objects, this logic fails. To
illustrate, I think we would all agree that a criminal who steals,
rapes, or murders is doing wrong. The tools he may use in that action do
not change the act. �Ah,� says the liberal/communist, �but you remove
the ability for him to get the tool, now he cannot accomplish the act.�
If only that were true. I look at the genocide that has taken place in
African states; the mutilation by means of machete; where limbs were
severed and people left to bleed to death. Whole villages where women
were raped, breasts removed, children hacked to death. Evil will do what
evil does by whatever means is at their disposal. To assume the morally
bankrupt of our society would stop a behavior by solely passing a law
against an instrument he may use in the commission of a heinous crime is
na�ve at best. Added to this is the undercurrent of black market
supplies of weapons, around the world and here in America. The criminal
does not obey laws, and he is prohibited to obtain weapons, yet he still
gets them. Thus the net effect is to disarm the victims, making them
unable to lawfully protect themselves.
The law abiding citizen is, by definition, not the problem. The problem
is the criminal, because by definition, he does not obey the law. As
importantly, is the fact that the government is treating ALL citizens by
the standards of the criminal. For instance, a criminal uses a handgun
in the commission of a robbery. Another criminal uses an ice-pick to
commit the same crime. A third uses a baseball bat. With the logic of
the gun control advocates the mere possession of a gun, an ice-pick, or
a baseball bat should be outlawed. The root of the problem, however, is
not the objects with which they perpetrate their crime; it is their
willingness to commit the crime. The item used to aid that crime is
merely the tool. And as every tool used to commit a crime has a peaceful
use, outlawing the tool ONLY infringes on the person who would not use
it for nefarious reasons.
What our nation needs are laws that punish criminal behavior and to stop
criminalizing honest citizens who wish only to protect themselves and
their families. Both the Department of Justice and the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) statistics have shown that the
majority of violent crimes are committed without firearms, and the vast
majority of gun crimes are committed with guns that were illegally
obtained, bypassing gun laws. So the net effect of gun control laws is
to affect the law abiding citizen and has virtually no effect on the
criminal element of our society.
The enactment of �firearms laws� is a relatively recent occurrence for
the federal government. The Federal Firearms Act in 1934 was the first
act by congress to regulate firearms. This act was based upon the
perceived need to regulate the firearms industry and license the
dealers, manufacturers, and gunsmiths within the firearms trade. It was
based upon the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
Appropriately it was codified under Title 15 of the US Code � �Commerce
and Trade�. The new �laws� under the Act included the creation of a
Federal Firearms License (FFL), for anyone doing business in the firearm
trade. One of the primary goals was to prohibit FFL holders from selling
firearms to convicted felons. Requiring FFL holders to keep records of
all firearms sales, and for the first time it made any alteration of
firearm serial numbers a crime. Some felt this was an infringement on
state jurisdiction by enacting a law that reached past the state
boundary, in violation of the Constitution.
From 1934 to 1968 everything went along fairly well until the
government decided to play a little shell game, and they switched the
Firearms Act from Title 15 to Title 18. Title 18 is entitled �Crimes and
Criminal Procedures.� Why would the government switch the code section
from Title 15 to Title 18 after having been codified under Title 15 for
thirty years? The only rational reason is jurisdictional obfuscation, or
hiding what would otherwise be apparent as to the limits the government
could act upon us, the citizens. You see, under Title 15, the government
was within its rightful jurisdiction of �Commerce and Trade�. However,
if you are bound by �Commerce and Trade�, you cannot enact laws on
normal citizens who are not acting in the �trade.� Therefore, the
government changed, with the stroke of a pen, their Constitutional
powers from commerce to crime.
Shortly after President Kennedy�s assassination, in 1968, the �Gun
Control Act� was passed. It was an attempt by the government to justify
broad-sweeping firearms control. The finesse with which the government�s
lawyers crafted and pushed this bill through can be seen right from the
opening lines. The bill is entitled: �An Act to amend title 18, United
States Code, to provide for better control of the interstate traffic in
firearms.� Doesn�t that title sound allot like Chapter 15? In fact, even
though there is much overlap between Title 15 and Title 18, Title 15 was
never repealed.
Advertisement
This was done to provide better control of �interstate� traffic in
firearms. However, the stated purpose of the act is as follows:
Title I � State Firearms Control Assistance
Purpose
�Sec. 101. The Congress hereby declares that the purpose of this
title is to provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement
officials in their fight against crime and violence,�
Did you catch that? To support State, and local law enforcement! Where
does the Constitution say anything about the federal government
assisting law enforcement? Remember, the federal government cannot
legally do anything that is not specifically enumerated by the
Constitution. So where is its justification? It has none; any federal
law that falls outside the enumerated powers of the Constitution is
repugnant and is void. That does not stop the jack-booted thugs from
kicking in your door and enforcing unjust and unconstitutional laws; it
just makes them wrong with a gun.
I can not say this enough, the birth rights we have as American Citizens
are higher than the Constitution. They exist by virtue of our creation
and are bestowed at birth and these rights cannot be taken by any
government, unless we give them away. The Second Amendment is paramount
to all other rights, because without this right, we cannot defend the
other rights. I have come to understand that those without a means of
defense become victims to those who will force their will upon them. I
have personally seen this in Somalia, Pakistan, Kuwait, the Philippines,
and Afghanistan. In most cases, the only reason we received respect from
the enemy was because we had the means to remove them from the face of
the earth. Make no mistake, if it were not for the Second Amendment,
this nation would not be here today. Our future still depends on the
willingness of �We the People� to stand up and fight to keep this right.
It is a proven axiom that a criminal will not try to commit a crime
while a police officer is present. Thus the saying �There is never a
policeman around when you need him.� There are those who want a society
where there are no guns. A society where a woman can walk down a street
at night without fear of molestation. Where drugs, gangs, corruption,
and evil no longer exists. There is such a place, but it only exists in
the stories of Hollywood. The cold reality is that evil does exist and
we must protect ourselves and our families against that evil.
So, who is responsible for our protection? Is it the government, the
state, the local police? It may surprise you to learn that none of these
is the correct answer. Time and time again the courts have ruled, and
those rulings have been upheld, that there is no requirement for any
level of government to guarantee our individual protection. In this
nation, the policy of policing is that of �general� peace and order; and
no one person or group can have any expectation of individual protection.
To illustrate this I would like to present the following case that
illustrates this position:
In Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) the courts ruled:
�There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against
being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state
fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not
violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we
suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a
charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let the people
alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to
provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and
order.� (Emphasis added)
There are literally hundreds of cases that say exactly the same thing.
In the liberal world, I constantly hear that the police are trained to
protect the innocent. Quite often this happens solely because they are
out on the streets looking for bad guys. Odds are, eventually they will
run into a crime in progress and take action. The police are there to
bring criminals to justice, which is what they get paid for. However, in
order for one to be deemed a criminal they must first perpetrate a
crime. Only then can the police take action. You and you alone have the
primary responsibility for your protection and safety. By law, someone
who pays another to commit a crime is just as guilty as if he committed
the crime himself. In my estimation, someone who pays another for
protection, and is unwilling to take responsibility for their own
protection, is guilty of cowardice. Willingness does not equate to
capability. Many people are willing to protect themselves, but do not
have the capability. If you are not willing to fight, or even kill to
protect your own life or the lives of your family, then you cannot ask
someone else to do it for you.
The Constitution states that the Second Amendment �shall not be
infringed.� How many laws does it take before it is considered
infringed? 500? 5,000? 20,000? That�s about how many laws we have on the
books today, over twenty thousand. Not infringed means exactly that;
leave it alone.
The United States was built and survived because of private ownership of
arms. Many gun haters cannot abide hearing this; and they manage to
forget, or they don�t understand the history that brought us through the
oppression of the English Kings. One of the sparks to the war of
independence was the Kings� mandate to disarm the people. Our
forefathers included in the Constitution the guarantee that the people
would never be disarmed again.
The firearm is a tool, nothing more nothing less. It has no powers but
what the person wielding it provides. If that person be evil, then evil
may be produced. If that person be good, then the good man has a means
by which he may protect himself and his family from the evil man. If a
man be prone to commit assault or even murder, what does he care about
gun laws? Will this evil doer decide to not use a gun when he robs,
rapes, abducts children, or kills because there is a law stating he may
not carry a gun? Of course not! The evil person cares not for the law,
therefore gun laws ONLY affect the law abiding citizen, not the
criminal. But it is my belief the lawmakers know this. The excuse, of
fighting crime, is only the �reason� to pass the law not the desired
effect. The desired effect is removal of honest gun ownership. Once this
is accomplished the country is then helpless against the rulers of our
nation. Another means of checks and balances, the final means, will be
abolished.
The last seventy years have been a continual neutering of the American
patriot. When all is said and done, the wresting of our God-given rights
from the �communist-liberal left and the power-hungry government
bureaucrats� may come down to one thing; our Second Amendment Right.
--
�Cannibalism, it�s not just for the foodie.� -- Rev. Shawn Cole
nraclaptrap
news:J96dnXGYE56k8trW...@giganews.com:
> ARE FEDERAL GUN LAWS CONSTITUTIONAL?
Yes.
See Art I Sect 8 Cl 3, 16, 17, 18; Art IV, Sect 3, Cl 2; Art VI, Cl 2;
Amendment 2.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
betweentheeyes
news:Xns9CFA8D3ABA167p...@216.196.97.131...
Incorporation is on the front burner and Commerce clause is next. We both
saw Miller fall by the way side. Your freedom grab days are numbered.