Monday, January 11, 2010

Federal Gun Laws: Constitutional or Not?

This morning I came across an article which answered some of my questions about Federal Gun laws--Rick

By Michael LeMieux
January 8, 2010
© 2010 Michael LeMieux - All Rights Reserved

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 too 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. Read Article Here.

During the past few years I have researched the Constitution, which we were taught in the 1940s through 1950, when I attended grade and high school, I have come to a more clear understanding of the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment.

Prior to the Civil War, both the North and the South used their state militias to fight the battles of the conflict. The North used Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution to incorporate northern state militias into the Union forces. "The Congress shall have power to ... "To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years... To provide and maintain a navy... To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress...."

The South seceded, and as they wanted to remain a separate nation, it was not an insurrection. It was not a 'civil war,' but a 'war between the states.'
The National Guard of the United States is a reserve military force composed of state National Guard militia members or units under federally recognized active or inactive armed force service for the United States. ... Established under Title 10 and Title 32 of the U.S. Code, state National Guard serves as part of the first-line defense for the United States. Source: Wikipedia.

Under the Constitution, the militia (now called the National Guard) may only be called into duty by the federal government in three specific situations. According to Article I, Section 8; Clause 15, the Congress is given the power to pass laws for “calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” The militia was intended by the Founders and Ratifiers to be defense force and nothing more. Tenth Amendment Center.

In conclusion, I believe the federal government, under the National Guard Act, incorporated in laws of 1903, violated the original provisions of the U.S. Constitution in the 'acquisition' of state militias into federal service as the "National Guard."

I believe the states were mandated by the Second Amendment to form militias under the authority of the state governors, regulated, and to have every able-bodied man owning his own weapon. This is the only way the Second Amendment can be literally taken, and not "interpreted" by those who would destroy the amendment and its purpose.

In conclusion, any state, any government or private institution, churches, and our own very homes, if deprived of personal weapons, might as well post a sign to law-breakers: "welcome. This place is declared a criminal enterprise zone."

No comments:

Post a Comment