Federal Gun Laws: Constitutional or Not?

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

ARE FEDERAL GUN LAWS CONSTITUTIONAL?

By Michael LeMieux
January 8, 2010
NewsWithViews.com
© 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."

Major States' rights violation developing in Montana

December 5, 11:09 AM Lake County Independent Examiner Robert Rule

If you are not familiar with States' rights you had better get educated. The people of Montana are notorious for being free (reference to the Montana Freemen). The Freemen snared the federal government in their own trap and paid dearly for it. Now the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) has written letters to gun dealers in Montana “to let them know the BATFE will be disregarding the state sovereignty law.

The Montana law like in other states was written to stop the power of the federal government bureaucracy that uses the interstate commerce laws to regulate fire arms. In Montana the law clearly states that any firearm produced in Montana now will be sold exclusively in Montana which excludes it from interstate commerce. Read entire article here.

Blogger Comment:
Many states have now passed similar resolutions. The solution is for these same states to do as the Second Amendment 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" [emphasis mine]. The militia was never, as gun-control politicians contend, the National Guard, which was not created until after the war between the states.

These states should 'regulate' the training and to develop the proficiency of all of their citizens who wish to participate in their state militias. Both the North and the South sent their 'militias' into the battle in the Civil War.

The Militia is Not the National Guard—It is We The People

Commentary---Rick

Time after time, I have posted on this blog, quotes from our founding fathers, as to why the Second Amendment was written. I have also read dozens of other blogs presenting the same information. Some have reprinted letters written between various of our founding fathers to one another, not only about why the need for the Second Amendment, but what it spells out. And very clearly, the founders have also spelled out who it applied to and who is the militia mentioned in the amendment. Yet, I still read, on a daily basis, blogs, articles, opinions on opinion pages of daily newspapers, and rants from those who are either naive to the real meaning of, or outright hatred of the Second Amendment.

One article written by David Swanson, posted just this morning, the 24th of September, on the Let’s Try Democracy website, linked here, presenting a new argument: The Second Amendment was written to protect the Southern states’ right to use armed militias to enforce slavery. We no longer have slavery, but we do have the National Guard, which is supposed to be under the control of state governors. Maintaining the Second Amendment to allow the states to ‘enforce’ slavery is totally without foundation. This idea has been disproved by various individuals.

Also, the connection between the second amendment and the national guard here needs some explanation. He explains further by saying, We need to correct the current situation in which the US president controls the National Guard and sends its members to fight foreign wars for empire. If we read the Second Amendment as providing an individual right to bear arms, it is important to notice that it makes no distinction between the right to bear arms to violently protect oneself and the right to bear arms to easily slaughter masses of people, or the fact that some types of arms are much better suited to the latter than the former. Clearly, this is one right that needs to be limited by legislation or amendment to the extent that it conflicts with that “self-evident” right to “life.” The line, "slaughter masses of people," is ridiculous. Many laws exist which punish the improper use of fire arms, and needs not be addressed by further legislation, as too many laws already exist that prohibit the use of fire arms, some which should be lawful under the Second Amendment.

The Constitution neither provides for nor prohibits the establishment of a National Guard. 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.[3] The state National Guard is divided up into units stationed in each of the 50 states and U.S. territories and operates under their respective state governor or territorial adjutant general.[4] The National Guard may be called up for active duty by state governors or territorial adjutant general to help respond to domestic emergencies and disasters, such as those caused by hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes.[4] (Quoted from Wikipedia).

The National Guard is NOT the militia mentioned in the Second Amendment: “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.” If the National Guard is not the militia, what is the militia, and who constitutes it?

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." – Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Alexander Hamilton: "...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms." (Federalist Paper #29)

Thomas Jefferson: "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.", letter to William S. Smith, 1787, in S. Padover (Ed.), Jefferson, On Democracy (1939), p. 20.

Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788) What the Founding Fathers Meant by the "Militia"

Many more quotes from our founding fathers are available, but this should be enough to settle the question among those who either do not know, or who know and don’t want anyone else to know. It is the latter that I believe are in the leftist camp, who want to change our constitution, and they will lie, use trickery, and any dishonest means to accomplish this. They hope to enlist the aid of the uninformed citizen, to make him believe that the Second Amendment is not for the average citizen for his own protection, or to protect him from an abusive government.

We must be vigilant and do more than to just defend what we used to believe the Second Amendment meant. We must expand the right to carry either openly or concealed. We must elect men and women to the government that will not only protect the Second Amendment, but who will set about the task to repeal all state and federal laws that restrict the honest American from the proper possession and use of personal arms. This includes the repeal of all laws requiring the licensing of fire arms, such as those in New York and New York City, procedures which take time, and cost a prohibitive amount of money for some residents to obtain a license to own. The licensing includes shot guns and hunting rifles.

Those who are now openly carrying are setting the example, which much be protected and supported by all who support the Second Amendment. From now on, we must not allow any further watering down of the original meaning of the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights. If we lose our rights under the Second Amendment, we will soon after lose our rights under the First. Then the other rights will also be lost, one by one, until we will lose all of our freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. We must never permit that day to come!