Quotes from the Founding generation, Part II: Guns, Guns, Guns

George Mason-

“To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

Thomas Jefferson-

(1)    ”Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.”

(2)    ”No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

Richard Henry Lee- (first to formally propose independence from Great Britain, signer of Declaration of Independence)

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”

Patrick Henry-

“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”

George Washington-

“Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”

Thomas Payne-

“Arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe and preserve order in the world as well as property.”

Alexander Hamilton-

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”

“I’m living the American dream,” said Jack Sheppard. “I’ve got the No. 1 product in America.” That would be guns, and the 42-year-old Sheppard, owner of Aim Right Guns & Ammo, is an expert…

At his shop on Main Street in this small South Carolina town just over the state line from Charlotte, N.C., business was brisk. It was a Black Friday bonanza.

For the second year, the 48 hours starting at 12:01 a.m. the Friday after Thanksgiving marked what’s called “Second Amendment Weekend,” at least by the Republican state legislator who sponsored the bill. To Rep. Mike Pitts, that, more than the possible economic stimulus, is what’s important. Handguns, rifles and shotguns were tax exempt, ammunition, holsters and toy handguns were not.

There are all sorts of clauses and explanations in the ruling, which states in a footnote: “If a part or attachment to a handgun, rifle or shotgun (e.g., sight) is pre-packaged with a handgun, rifle or shotgun, then that is one transaction to purchase a handgun, rifle or shotgun and the sale of the pre-packaged unit would be exempt, provided the transaction meets all the requirements of the exemption as set forth in the law.”

“It’s a wonderful thing,” said Sheppard, whose business was three times the usual. “A lot of firearms are made in America. We’re promoting growth in our economy.”

Glocks are his most popular product, he figured. As for his overall firearms sales, demand breaks down 60/40 when it comes to whether the purchase is for personal protection vs. hunting. Or, as the bumper-sticker on display said: “Guns Save Lives – 2.5 Million Defensive Uses Each Year.”

This weekend there was the added incentive of free barbecue sandwiches for customers – a mix of old and young, mostly men, but some women, too.

“I served seven butts,” he said on Friday afternoon, with one day and seven more butts to go.

The day included a raffle for a local children’s charity ($2 a ticket, three for $5) with the prize being a 12-gauge Mossberg 500 pump-action tactical shotgun, plus a just-in-case survival kit that included a first-aid kit and C-rations.

Sheppard – a member of the NRA, the Central Carolinas Shooting Club, Carolina Tactical Shooters and Charlotte Rifle and Pistol Club – teaches concealed carry classes and is a licensed armed security instructor. At the shop, he does his own gun repair.

It’s not just the deals and the food that drew customers. A T-shirt on the wall with a likeness of the president proclaimed Barack Obama: “Gun Salesman of the Decade.” It’s not anything he’s done. (In fact, the president signed a bill that allows licensed gun owners to carry loaded weapons into national parks and wildlife refuges.) It’s a fear of what he might do.

“Obama’s placed people in office who are very anti-gun,” said Sheppard, ticking off Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and Attorney General Eric Holder. Sheppard is a fan of Sarah Palin and wishes she would run for president. “She’s not for sale,” he said.

Sheppard has heard that buried deep within the pages of the health-care reform bill are words declaring gun owners a “health risk.” Though the PolitiFact Truth-O-Meter has judged the rumor false, saying, “there is nothing in the bill itself to indicate that is contemplated,” it’s still floating around.

Fears like these drew some weekend shoppers, including a 61-year-old Fort Mill man who has never owned a weapon.

“I don’t know if I want to bring a gun into the home,” said the man, who didn’t want to give his name. Then he talked about a scary future, based on “prophecy,” a time when “lawlessness becomes relevant.”

“The United States is a very fragile country,” he said. “We’re spoiled brats; if things get rough, we’re not going to do well.” While he added, “I still believe prayer is more important,” he was holding onto a .38 revolver when he said it.

Sandy Jones, who with her husband owns five guns, was a lot more relaxed as she browsed. Jones, a Fort Mill information technology specialist for a health-care facility in Charlotte, belongs to a shooting club and takes part in competitions. She thinks all gun owners should take lessons.

Practices at her club set up real-life scenarios, “like someone’s coming at you,” she said. “It’s just fun.” Though President Obama hasn’t taken anyone’s guns or ammunition away, “everybody’s afraid he’s going to,” Jones said. “You might as well get it now.”

Pitts is trying to make his “Second Amendment Weekend” a permanent annual event, and while Louisiana and other states are following his lead, the move isn’t popular everywhere.

In the New York Daily News, columnist Michael Daly wrote: “Firearms traffickers are not expected to pass the savings on to New York criminals, but what is called ‘the extrava-gun-za’ and ‘Second Amendment Weekend’ is sure to help South Carolina stay among the top five states that provide 85 percent of the illegal handguns recovered in New York City.”

“Even without a tax holiday, South Carolina gun shops sold a half-million handguns in a 10-year period. The state’s population is only 4.5 million,” Daly noted.

That didn’t concern Sheppard, who roamed the shop on Friday, Glock on his hip. (That’s OK because, he said, “I’m in my castle,” and South Carolina’s “Castle Doctrine” extends the right to carry in your home and business.)

“Step right on up, bring your wallets,” he joked to some of the more reticent customers.

He paused to offer me a spot in his concealed carry class. I would be a perfect candidate, he said, because, at my size and weight, I’m “one of the prime targets in Charlotte.”

“You may be a fighter,” he said, “but you don’t look like one.”

I told him I’d think about it.

Mary C Curtis – November 30, 2009 – source PoliticsDaily

This is why I was always a Nugent fan

In case you haven’t found it, Alan Gura, lead counsel in McDonald v. Chicago, which could be an even more significant Second Amendment case than District of Columbia v. Heller, has created a blog specifically for the case: ChicagoGunCase.com.

His posts, insight, and obviously his access, are amazing.

Alan Gura, Esq. lead counsel in McDonald v. Chicago and blogger

According to his blog, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments March 2 at 10 a.m.

YOU ARE THE AMERICAN MILITIA – BUY A GUN

During the war for our independence, only approximately a third of the colonists supported the independence cause. Another third didn’t care one way or the other and the last third wanted to remain under British rule.
Out of those that supported independence and revolution, only some Three Percent were actively engaged on the battlefield with the full active support of only about Ten Percent
of those who were pro independence.
Twenty Percent of the pro-independence faction did nothing to actively support the cause.
This is the root of today’s Three Percenter term.

Those of us who currently proclaim ourselves to be Three Percenters make no claim that we actually represent three percent of the population, although we might – nobody knows for certain how many of us there are, but we stand for the Second Amendment, and our support goes far beyond mere words.

Three Percenters today are American gun owners who have taken a stand.
We WILL NOT disarm.
We WILL NOT obey further anti-gun legislation, regardless of it’s source.
We WILL NOT stand for further circumscription of our God given rights and
we WILL defend ourselves if we are attacked.
Since our guns are the most effective means of defending ourselves,
we WILL NOT surrender them.
We are committed to restoring the Republic as envisioned by the Founders
and are willing to fight and to die in defense of ourselves and the Constitution.

I know that these are strong words, but in the words of Thomas Paine “These are the times that try men’s souls.” As I wrote a few months ago, what I am currently witnessing is unprecedented in my lifetime, which has spanned more than 65 years.
I noted then that Barrack Obama was the most anti-gun president in the history of our Republic, but since then, things have gotten worse – much worse.

Obama clearly wishes nothing so much as the destruction of our Republic.
Don’t believe me? Read on.

Incidentally, we DO NOT live in a “democracy” as so many in the “lame stream media” would have us believe.
A “democracy” is two wolves and a lamb sitting down and taking a vote on what’s for dinner.

The United States are a Constitutional Republic!

Barrack Obama and his far-left cronies are attacking the entire Bill of Rights, not just the Second Amendment.
In this essay, I will focus primarily on that aspect of the Obama Administrations anti-liberty attacks, although the entire Bill of Rights is under attack by Obama. There are several anti-gun measures proposed in the House of Representatives, the most draconian of which are HR45, the Blair Holt Firearms Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 and HR 2159, described below. You can look at the entire text of HR45 at the following link:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-45

Here are the high points:

- a federal license for all handguns and semi automatics, including those currently owned.
- All handgun and semiautomatic owners must have their thumbprint taken by law enforcement and the owner’s signature on a certificate to the effect that the firearms will be stored in an inaccessible location, essentially where they cannot be readily accessed for self-defense.

But Wait – We’re only getting started!
Next is HR 2159, introduced by a REPUBLICAN !

HR 2159 was introduced by Rep. Peter King, R-NY, and is titled The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009.
Read the full text at the following link:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-2159

Again, here is a summary:

-In a nutshell, HR2159 enables the attorney general to designate anyone he desires to be a “Dangerous Terrorist” and deny him or her the right to possess firearms. (Note that the DHS assessment on “Right Wing Extremism” defines almost anyone as a potential “terrorist”, especially veterans.)
If you attended a “Tea Party” last month or plan to in the future, you can count on being labeled a “terrorist.”

But as the T.V. commercials say, “Wait – there’s more!”

HR45 and 2159 are clearly unconstitutional, but that hasn’t stopped the Obama
administration from it’s anti-American activities thus far. Besides, by the time these unconstitutional “laws” were challenged and overturned, they would have been fully implemented, although enforcement might be difficult as we will presently see. Obama and his left-wing cronies are well aware of the unconstitutional nature of their proposed “laws” and are seeking to circumvent the Constitution via international treaty.

Obama has recently been bringing pressure on the Senate to ratify the “Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing and Trafficking in Firearms,” also know as “The Curb Illicit Small Arms Trafficking (CIFTA) Treaty.” This treaty was signed by Bill Clinton in 1997 and mandates a national database of firearms owners and registration of all firearms. This database would be accessible to any other signatory nation to the treaty and would essentially allow the the government to confiscate guns from those to whom they were registered.
Obama tells us that ratifying the treaty is “the right thing to do” because 29 other countries have ratified it. But as Lou Dobbs commented in a CNN feature on the treaty, “Those countries don’t have a Constitution and a Second Amendment.” Dobbs’ coverage, by the way, was very pro-gun. The good news is that a number of senators are prepared to fight ratification of this egregious treaty.

Another component of the Bill of Rights that Obama and his cronies are attacking is the First Amendment, which recognizes our right to free speech. Obama is attempting to resurrect the “Fairness Doctrine” and make it permanent. Not only will this shut down critics like Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Michael Savage and others, but will also severely restrict internet communication that is critical of government.
I never imagined that anything like these proposed unconstitutional laws and actions would occur, but they all took place during Obama’s first 100 days.

I suspect that neither the legislation I have described, nor CIFTA will become law, but the fact is that Obama and the left will never give up trying to deny us our God-given inalienable rights that are protected by the Constitution.
What this means is, as Thomas Jefferson said, “The price of Liberty is eternal vigilance.” In present day America we must therefore all be aware what our enemies are doing and make no mistake, Obama and the left ARE our enemies, just as they are enemies to the Republic and the Constitution.

What can you do?
Get out to the “Tea Parties” in your communities.
Join the NRA [[the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership - JPFO, and Gun Owners of America - GOA too]] if you haven’t already.
Be vigilant, be informed and perhaps most importantly, be vocal!
Contact your representatives and let them know your beliefs. (You DO know who they are, don’t you?) You don’t have to write a letter and mail it – they all can be contacted online and they will respond.
I know because I make it a point of contacting my representatives on issues that concern me. Speak in defense of America’s values, culture and Christian foundation.

It isn’t all bad news, though – there are positive straws in the wind.
One is Oath Keepers
http://oath-keepers.blogspot.com/
a fast growing organization of law enforcement and military personnel who, like me, swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of These United States against ALL enemies foreign and domestic. I took that oath when I joined the US Army and swore a similar one when I signed on at the police department where I am a reserve police officer.
I did not take an oath to uphold the President, the Congress, the Governor of my state,
the Mayor of my city or any other politician.
My loyalty is to the Constitution and neither I nor any other police officer of my acquaintance will obey or enforce unconstitutional laws.

I suggest that you go to the Oath Keepers website above and read the “10 Laws We Will Not Enforce” section. I have discussed this with officers in my small department and with officers in adjoining jurisdictions and we are all of a single mind
- we are in lock step with Oath Keepers and WILL NOT enforce unconstitutional laws, although this leads to another cause for concern.

Obama probably knows that the majority of serving military and law enforcement personnel apparently will not enforce unconstitutional laws and edicts, and so for some time he has been calling for a national police force that he envisions being as well armed and equipped as the military.
Why does Obama want a national police force whose loyalty is to him rather than the Constitution?
Go back and study history! The last time something took place was Germany in the 1930’s, the police force was called the Sturm Abteilung (SA) or just the “Brown Shirts” and the leader of Germany was a guy named Adolf Hitler.
The Brown Shirts were his personal enforcers.
Don’t think Obama is similar to Hitler in his actions?
Compare the similarities between him and Hitler and see for yourself.

Another positive indicator is the “nullification resolutions” that have been passed by some 25 states as of the time this was written in May 2009.
The list of states is growing and it appears for a situation similar to that which led to the Civil War of 1861-65.
Nullification resolutions state in essence that if the federal government infringes on the Bill of Rights, especially the 2nd, 9th and 10th Amendments, the compact established between the states and the federal government by the Constitution is nullified and the state will secede.
Nullification resolutions were passed by all eleven states that eventually became the Confederacy.
The modern ones are virtually identical and the governors of several states, including Texas, are openly using the “S” word!

If you are in the military or law enforcement, I urge you to remember your oath to the Constitution and reflect on your willingness to enforce orders that clearly violate that oath.
I also encourage you to join Oath Keepers.

If you are a gun owner who believes in the Second Amendment, the Bill of Rights and our Constitutional Rule of Law, there are two things you should do:
-First get a copy of the Constitution and read it, especially the first ten amendments – the Bill of Rights, which you should commit to memory.
-Second, go to the following website and learn what it means to be a Three-Percenter:
http://sipseystreet-irregulars.blogspot.com/2009/02/what-is-t…

Finally remember the words of Patric Henry:
“Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?
Forbid it almighty God!
I know not what course others may take, but as for me:
Give me Liberty, or give me Death!”
SH

Surprise.

In a city which bans ownership of handguns, the mayor and members of the City Council are taking advantage of an 1872 law designating elected officials as peace officers and thus exempt from the gun ban.

From Steven Chapman in the Chicago Tribune:

Under a state law dating back to 1872, mayors and aldermen are designated peace officers. And, conveniently, peace officers are permitted to not only own but carry handguns.

That makes aldermen a special class in Illinois, one of only two states with an almost complete ban on the carrying of concealed handguns. In most places, an adult with no criminal record or history of psychiatric commitment can get a concealed-carry license after taking a training class.

But here, we have a unique system. You want to be able to pack a weapon in public for your safety? Fine. All you have to do is 1) run for the City Council and 2) win.

But if you’re just an ordinary citizen, your Second Amendment rights are denied to you.

And law-abiding? Chapman reminds us:

“Law-abiding” is not the very first word that comes to mind when you think of the City Council. Since 1972, 27 of its members have been convicted on charges involving malfeasance, misfeasance, nonfeasance, disfeasance and anti-feasance with mopery aforethought.

It would be hard to come up with a group of people that has proven itself less deserving of blanket trust.

Once again, it’s the political class reserving rights for itself that it’s all too willing to deny to the people they are supposed to serve.

And you really think government-run health care will be any different? Why else do you think members of Congress exempted themselves from the mandates they’re ready to impose on the rest of us?

If I wind up finding one positive review of Sarah Palin’s massive-selling book, Going Rogue: An American Life, I might pass out.  The liberal reviews are great, nonetheless.

The first one worth mentioning is a review written by Patricia Williams of The Observer.  Past article-titles of such stellar unbiased reviewing include:

1.) My Family’s Debt to the Kennedys’ America

2.) Having Barack Obama as president doesn’t make America colour – blind

Ms. Williams is a professor at Columbia, so it’s not a surprise that she would attempt to give small-town folks the benefit of the doubt by stating: “America’s small towns are filled with vibrant, curious, diverse personalities” right before saying:

But Palin is committed to a romantic Disneyesque trope of “small town values,” a uniform, folksy fairyland where no one ever has to lock their doors or even disagrees.

That’s because; Ms. Williams, all of those small-town folks, including Ms. Palin believe in the second Amendment.  Therefore; leaving our doors unlocked is no trouble.

The question presented is Whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is incorporated as against the States by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities or Due Process Clauses.

I haven’t read all of the briefs, but I wonder if any of them pointed out that there is a document that “incorporates” the Second Amendment against the States. It’s called the Constitution of the United States of America. In fact, that document would have never passed had they not added the first ten amendments to the Constitution known as the inalienable Bill of Rights.

After all, Sotomayer said in her confirmation hearing that the Constitution and the words of the founding fathers should be the most important factor in any court decision.

During a slow week at the Court, the amicus briefs filed Monday in the gun rights case McDonald v. Chicago continue to be the biggest news. At Balkinization, David Gans describes the “overwhelming case” made by the Constitutional Accountability Center in its amicus brief (of which he is a co-author) for the Court to rejuvenate the Privileges or Immunities Clause; at the same time, Gans aims to quell concerns that such a move would endanger the constitutional rights of non-citizens. Douglas Berman of Sentencing Law and Policy sifts through the briefs for arguments about criminal justice implications. And at The Volokh Conspiracy, Orin Kerr segues from originalist arguments in the briefs to a discussion of originalism and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

The Jurist notes the filing of other amicus briefs yesterday in the terrorism support case Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project.

The WSJ Law Blog discusses the judicial takings theory advanced by the petitioners in Stop the Beach, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, to be argued next week. (You can read Elisabeth Oppenheimer’s preview of the case for Scotuswiki here.)

ScottWiki
The Volokh Conspiracy
JPFO INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE

Amendment II

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.

After the sickening murder of a 9-year-old boy in Washington, our friend Spencer Ackerman made an impassioned plea: U.S. Central Command chief General David Petraeus for D.C. metro police chief. The idea of America’s leading counterinsurgent taking on one of its most crime-ridden towns definitely has a certain visceral appeal. But militarizing our approach to policing is an idea that could backfire in a hurry.

Spencer’s done an outstanding job of explaining counterinsurgency as a progressive military doctrine: The whole point is to not uphold the social status quo, it’s an attempt to get at the “root causes” of violence through political reform and public works. These days, that’s a job for both the armed forces and the police. “The ’soldiers aren’t cops’ argument isn’t going to fly here,” he wrote. After all, talented military officers are now telling their fellow soldiers to “view neighborhood security as if they were running Kansas City police patrols.”

Ackerman’s not the first to pick up on the idea that smart counterinsurgents could teach the police a thing or two. Last week, Karl Vick of the Washington Post reported on how the police in Salinas, Calif., enlisted the help of the Naval Postgraduate School to help them combat a homicide wave. And earlier this year, Andrew “Abu Muqawama” Exum hosted an interesting discussion thread about using counterinsurgency tactics in Oakland.

At first glance, counterinsurgency (at least the “soft,” population-centric American version) bears a fair amount of resemblance to community policing: It’s all about changing the dynamic in the communities where insurgents operate, encouraging troops to “walk the beat” and bringing in social services. And many of the tools of the modern counterinsurgent — forensic exploitation, pattern analysis and social-network diagramming — would be familiar to any detective. (The Law Enforcement Professionals program for combating roadside bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan even called on retired agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to help take down insurgent networks.) And if you look at the geographic reach and organizational sophistication of some gangs — think Mara Salvatrucha or 18 — and it’s tempting to draw comparisons with, say, a Hezbollah or a Hamas.

But to the COINdinistas I would say: Be careful what you wish for. Counterinsurgency is still a tool for dealing with political emergencies, and it involves a heavy degree of population control. And at home, it’s a bridge too far.

“Policing can be informed by counterinsurgency – and they are in fact similar at some points,” said John P. Sullivan, a lieutenant with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and an expert on transnational gangs. “But at others they really diverge. So you need to be very, very careful.”

Sullivan, the co-founder of the Los Angeles Terrorism Early Warning Group, told Danger Room the parallels with community policing — patrolling contested areas, identifying centers of gravity — make it tempting to view counterinsurgency as a tool for containing gang violence. But domestic policing and military operations, he added, are inherently different. “It [counterinsurgency theory] is attractive, and I think that people looking at gangs should look at the literature,” he said. “But to wholesale take it in and do it is probably not a good idea.”

Take, for instance, checkpoint operations — a regular feature of any counterinsurgency. No harm, right?  Well, the police in Washington tried that; the whole idea was to “protect” the endangered population of the Trinidad neighborhood by cordoning it off and restricting the movement of vehicles. A federal appeals court struck down the operation as unconstitutional. Same for “cordon and knock” — going house to house, politely searching for contraband. The police tried that in D.C., too, under something called the “Safe Homes Initiative.” It didn’t go down well, either.

That’s not to mention the more potent intelligence tools of control that are essential to fighting insurgents: Human intelligence (i.e. informants); intrusive surveillance; biometric collection. Those methods are available to domestic law enforcement, but the point is counterinsurgency is to establish sweeping civil control. Anacostia ain’t Anbar province (Al Anbar Governorate).  As Sullivan described it, the bar for collecting intelligence on your own population has to be much higher.

“The liberty issues are vital,” Sullivan said. “What gives you legitimacy in the long haul is preserving liberty while providing security. If you don’t end up doing it right, it ends up enhancing the legitimacy of the gang.”

Want to see what a place looks like when counterinsurgency starts to seep into policing? For a softer example, take a look at the United Kingdom. I’m not going to wade into Second Amendment territory here, but suffice to say that the United Kingdom has a pretty expansive surveillance system that in part was developed in response to IRA terror. (It also has a more robust Official Secrets Act.)  For a more dismal example of what happens when the police take enthusiastically to checkpoint operations, take a look at Russia. We’ve been spared much of this, because we tend to intervene in other countries’ counterinsurgencies. Let’s not start looking for one at home.

There is still plenty of overlap between good policing and counterinsurgency “best practices.” Collecting unbelievably fine-grained statistics and holding local commanders responsible for their patrol areas are essential tasks. But we are dealing with two different things. Insurgency, at its heart, is a political struggle. I don’t see drug dealers or street gangs expressing a political grievance, or trying to control of some part of the government. We have an unhappy tendency to declare “war” on problems (drugs, crime, poverty, terrorism) that defy easy solution; do we need to treat a D.C. crime wave like a mini-Malaya Emergency?

Eric Holder and two Congress critters from New York are well on their way to making sure over a million Americans are stripped of their constitutional right to own firearms…  A 12-month period ending in March of this year, 1,600 people were nominated daily by the U.S. intelligence community to be put on the list due to ‘reasonable suspicion.’

Senator Gillibrand and Representative McCarthy have introduced the Gun Trafficking Prevention Act of 2009. Ostensibly designed to prosecute gun traffickers, the bill would also deny the Second Amendment to anybody on the so-called terror watch list. The legislation is supported by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, and the Brady Campaign.

The number of unique names on the U.S. terror watch list totals 400,000, newly released FBI data reveals. The Washington Post reported that during a 12-month period ending in March of this year, 1,600 people were nominated daily by the U.S. intelligence community to be put on the list due to ‘reasonable suspicion.’

In July, 2008, the terror watch list contained well over a million names, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.

“Members of Congress, nuns, war heroes and other ’suspicious characters,’ with names like Robert Johnson and Gary Smith, have become trapped in the Kafkaesque clutches of this list, with little hope of escape,” said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office in July, 2008. “Congress needs to fix it, the Terrorist Screening Center needs to fix it, or the next president needs to fix it, but it has to be done soon.”

Obama did not fix it. Instead, as noted below, his attorney general and two Congress critters from New York are well on their way to making sure over a million Americans are stripped of their constitutional right to own firearms.

PRNewswire-USNewswire

Before the Senate Judiciary Committee November 18th, 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder revealed a stunningly broad and aggressive anti-gun agenda.

“The President of the United States asked that politicians not use the Ft. Hood attack to engage in ‘political theater.’ It appears those committed to attacking gun owners and the Second Amendment simply can’t help themselves and are engaged in blaming guns and gun owners on the heels of this terrorist attack. Sadly it looks like ‘politics as usual,’” said LEAA’s spokesperson, Ted Deeds.

After explaining and defending his decision to give enemy combatants constitutional protections and the right to public trial in civilian courts, Attorney General Holder revealed his support for a national gun owner registration scheme and authorizing the government to ban firearm possession for any person by merely adding that person’s name to the terror watch list.

Drawing reasonable conclusions from what Holder publicly said, we now know:

• Holder wants a national, permanent gun registration system administered by law enforcement. A registration of honest citizens that have cleared the federal background check for gun purchases with those records permanently retained by and shared among law enforcement.

• Holder wants new federal authority to prohibit any person on the federal watch list (reported to be 400,000 names) from buying guns and supports confiscating guns from those on the list who possess them.

Transcribing General Holder: “The position of the Administration is that there should be a basis for law enforcement to share information about gun purchases.” “… [It's not] inconsistent to allow law enforcement agencies to share that kind of information, for that information to be retained and then to be shared by law enforcement.” “It seems incongruous to me that we would bar certain people from flying on airplanes because they are on the terrorist watch list and yet we would still allow them to posses weapons.” {Emphasis added}

November 24, 2009 – story at InfoWars

LEAA’s Executive Director Jim Fotis said, “Those behind the badge don’t believe more restrictions on honest gun owners is a reasonable, practical or constitutional response to acts of terrorism. As a retired officer, I know that America’s men and women in blue want to fight terrorism, to stop terrorists; not waste time keeping records on innocent gun owners!”

]

This is one of those ahhhhhhhhh videos floating around that’s supposed to make the viewer feel good. For the most part it did make me feel good. I am a sap for things patriotic. I fly my flag and am present at every Fourth of July parade our village sponsors. I sing the National Anthem as best I can at public events, even though I wish it would be changed to America the Beautiful to get away from its war theme.  I agreed with everything until it got to the place where it said, “I have freedom of choice, I have GOD given rights.” One of the rights was for the truth from those who command, probably referring not only to our elected officials but also to those in the military since technically we, the people, are the ones who supposedly employ all government and service personnel. OK I can live with that. It’s scary to think of a military take over of our government.

It said I have freedom of religion that birthed the land. I began wondering if the artist who wrote and sang this  meant ALL religions which are practiced in America. Or was he just singing about the practice of  HIS religion which should be accepted by ALL Americans? Does he feel everybody should have that freedom? I wonder. If he truly meant ALL Americans who follow a particular religion of their own choosing, then I agree with that too. Is he talking about the 21% who do not practice the predominant religion? Does he include atheists and agnostics, the unaffiliated among us? At one time in America it was against the law to be unaffiliated in some communities. I’m just wondering.

Major Religious Traditions
in the U.S.
Among all adults
%
Christian 78.4
Protestant 51.3
Evangelical churches 26.3
Mainline churches 18.1
Hist. black churches 6.9
Catholic 23.9
Mormon 1.7
Jehovah’s Witness 0.7
Orthodox 0.6
Other Christian 0.3
Other Religions 4.7
Jewish 1.7
Buddhist 0.7
Muslim* 0.6
Hindu 0.4
Other World Religions <0.3
Other Faiths 1.2
Unaffiliated 16.1
Don’t know/Refused 0.8
100
* From “Muslim Americans: Middle
Class and Mostly Mainstream,” Pew
Research Center, 2007
Due to rounding, figures may not add to
100

He mentions the rights for his taxes to be spent responsibly. I totally agree with that, but then again I wondered who determines whether the taxes are being spent responsibly. I am definitely against the Medicare and Medicaid FRAUD that has been published in the papers lately. I am not against the attempt to help those who honestly cannot afford health care. Have you seen the stories of the homeless veterans who, because their health issues are not service related, cannot get help? Or the devoted couples faced with mountains of medical bills for their children or spouses who are divorcing to lower their joint income to the point where they can get some medical relief? Or the fugitives who are accused of swindling the system in Medicare schemes to the count of billions of dollars?

What about the bloated Department of Defense budget that has grown at a rate of 9% a year for the last 11 years?

The United States and its closest allies are responsible for approximately two-thirds of global military spending (of which, in turn, the U.S. is responsible for the vast majority). Department of Defense spending accounts for 21% of the United States’ federal budget, and approximately half of its federal discretionary spending, which comprises all of the U.S. government’s money not accounted for by pre-existing obligations.

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in 2003 the United States spent approximately 47% of the world’s total military spending of US $956,000,000,000. Did you catch that? I’ll repeat it. The United States spent approximately 47% of the WORLD’S TOTAL MILITARY SPENDING. Isn’t anyone questioning the necessity of that spending? That was six years ago. I wonder what the percentage is now. Is that responsible spending? I’m just asking the question. I don’t know for certain.

What about the citizens of the states who gladly reap the benefits of pork barrel spending by a Congressperson who in essence is buying their votes to get reelected? Is that responsible spending?

I’ll let the views on truth, religion, and responsible tax spending slide. I can see God as being on the side of truth, freedom to worship God and responsible stewardship.  What I CANNOT let slide by as a GOD GIVEN RIGHT is the right to own a gun. I cannot, in any stretch of my imagination, figure out how the artist who sings this song can consider that the right to own a gun has ANYTHING to do with GOD. Next he will be saying that the Constitution was written by God just as many say God wrote the Bible in the language of old English in the King James version.

WHOA, Nelly! First of all, an argument which has been brewing forever concerns the second amendment itself. For those of the Americans who run around shouting, “I have the RIGHT to own any weapon I can remotely call an ‘arm’ regardless of its fire power.” As far as the God given right, tell that to the mother of a sixteen year old girl that the gang-bangers shot this month three miles from my house. They claim “The CONSTITUTION says so!” 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.

I ask you. How many gun owners in the United States belong to a well regulated Militia? When the Constitution was written, there were no standing official armies or navies. There were just country folk who had to be called upon at a moment’s notice when the people were being attacked by the natives or the English. It would not have been prudent to take away the simple single-shot guns of these citizens who formed militias when necessary. Remember the Concord Bridge? Paul Revere’s ride? These are events that have captured a place in American lore. Those that claim a Constitution given right to bear arms never take the time to read the first thirteen words of that amendment. They only read and claim to  know the last fifteen words. That is all of the second amendment that they are concerned about. God has nothing to do with the following weapons that some Americans claim as their right to own.

Military firearms

• Long gun
  • Arquebus
  • Blunderbuss
  • Musket
    • Musketoon
    • Wall gun
    • Grenade launcher
  • Submachine gun
    • Personal defense weapon
  • Pistol
    • Service pistol
    • Service revolver
  • Rifle
    • Lever action rifle
    • Bolt action rifle
    • Assault rifle
    • Battle rifle
    • Carbine
    • Service rifle
    • Sniper rifle
  • Shotgun
    • Combat shotgun
    • Semi-automatic shotgun

Machine guns

• Gatling gun
  • Minigun
• Nordenfelt gun
• Metal storm
• Mitrailleuse
• Submachine gun
  • Machine pistol
• Machine gun
  • General-purpose machine gun
  • Light machine gun
    • Squad automatic weapon
    • Infantry Automatic Rifle
  • Medium machine gun
  • Heavy machine gun

Handguns

• Handgun
  • Revolver
  • Machine pistol

Autocannon

• Autocannon
• Chain gun

Artillery guns

• Artillery gun
  • Cannon
  • Carronade
  • Falconet
  • Field gun
  • Howitzer

Tank guns

• Tank gun

Hunting guns

• Elephant gun
• Express rifle
• Shotgun
• Muzzleloader
• Breechloader

Guns for training and entertainment

• Airsoft gun
• BB gun
• Paintball gun
• Replica gun
• Inert gun
• Spud gun
• Water gun
• Nerf gun

This song is catchy as far as its tune goes. It’s meant to rouse the sleeping majority of we, the people, to become actively involved in their government. I totally support that. We, the people, in many ways are getting royally screwed and have a right to protest. But let’s not say we have the God given rights that this artist says. We have the rights written by men, human beings every one,  and contained in the Constitution. We have the right to elect the most powerful world figures as the leaders of our government. We have the right to stand before the Supreme Court. We have the right to fair laws. But God didn’t give us those rights and its time that we recognize the separation of church and state. Namaste. Attic Annie

]]> http://whitewraithe.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/zionist-jews-in-new-york-congress-mayor-bloomberg-and-atty-general-holder-move-against-second-amendment/ Wed, 25 Nov 2009 07:37:11 +0000 whitewraithe http://whitewraithe.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/zionist-jews-in-new-york-congress-mayor-bloomberg-and-atty-general-holder-move-against-second-amendment/ http://johnjacobh.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/how-real-men-shoot-skeet/ Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:58:54 +0000 johnjacobh http://johnjacobh.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/how-real-men-shoot-skeet/ http://jdlong.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/texas-ag-sues-city-of-chicago-over-second-amendment/ Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:52:05 +0000 Johnny Alamo http://jdlong.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/texas-ag-sues-city-of-chicago-over-second-amendment/ http://criblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/bipartisan-group-of-21-delaware-lawmakers-signs-amicus-brief-supporting-nra%e2%80%99s-stance-in-key-u-s-supreme-court-gun-rights-case/ Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:32:55 +0000 leewilliamscri http://criblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/bipartisan-group-of-21-delaware-lawmakers-signs-amicus-brief-supporting-nra%e2%80%99s-stance-in-key-u-s-supreme-court-gun-rights-case/

Attorney General Beau Biden, Rep. Mike Castle, Senators Ted Kaufman and Tom Carper did not sign similar briefs

By Lee Williams

Nearly 1,000 lawmakers from all 50 states – including 21 Delawareans – have signed a “friend of the court” brief supporting the National Rifle Association’s position that an individual’s rights to keep and bear arms, guaranteed in the Second Amendment, should be incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

“It’s vitally important that elected officials protect the Constitution, and you can’t pick and choose the parts of the Constitution you like or don’t like,” Sen. Colin Bonini, R-Dover South, said of his decision to sign the NRA’s brief.

“Regardless of how people feel about firearms, the Constitution clearly protects an individual’s right to own firearms,” Bonini said. “As legislators, we took an oath to defend the Constitution.”

The NRA’s brief was filed Monday with the Supreme Court in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago.

“We are pleased that such a large group of state legislators and other officials agree that our Second Amendment freedoms should apply to all Americans, not only those who reside in federal enclaves,” NRA Chief Lobbyist Chris W. Cox said in a written statement. “Gun owners across the country should be proud of the stand that their lawmakers are taking on this crucial effort to restore and protect the gun rights of law-abiding Americans everywhere.”

In 2008, the Supreme Court struck down Washington D.C.’s near total handgun ban in the landmark case District of Columbia v. Heller. The justices found that the right to bear arms granted in the Second Amendment is an individual right.

However, since the District is a federal enclave, the court still had to consider whether the Second Amendment protections applied outside of D.C.

Now in McDonald, the court will determine whether the Second Amendment protections are incorporated against the states and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment.

The case was spawned by Chicago’s restrictive gun laws, including a near-total handgun ban, which have been in effect for 27 years.

The court’s decision could force many jurisdictions to change or remove their firearms laws and restrictions.

Dover attorney John Sigler, a CRI board member and immediate past-president of the NRA, said in Heller, the Supreme Court found that the Second Amendment protections that provide an individual the right to keep and bear arms predate the formation of our country.

“It was merely codified by the founders in the Second Amendment so that future generations would not forget this fact,” Sigler said. “In addition, the Supreme Court in Heller recognized the fundamental right of all human beings to self defense.”

Because the District of Columbia is a federal enclave, Sigler pointed out, the impact of the case was limited.

“The McDonald case presents to the court the question of whether the right to keep and bear arms contained in the Second Amendment is like the right to free speech, the right to a free press, the right to a jury trial, prohibitions against unlawful search and seizure, that are all applicable to the states, in protecting the fundamental rights so well understood by the founding fathers,” Sigler said.

The impact of the decision in Delaware may not be as great as in other states and jurisdictions, because of safeguards incorporated into the state constitution.

“Having said that, it is entirely possible that Chicago, New York, San Francisco and many of the states of the union – particularly New Jersey – could find many of their gun laws to be unconstitutional because they infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes,” Sigler said.

The amicus curiae brief signed by the state lawmakers was accompanied by a similar brief submitted by 251 members of the U.S. Congress and 58 U.S. Senators.

In addition, 38 attorneys general have signed a brief supporting the NRA’s position.

Neither Attorney General Beau Biden nor any member of Delaware’s congressional delegation signed these briefs.

Biden did not immediately return calls seeking comment for this story.

Sen. Joseph Booth, R-Bridgeville, first learned of the McDonald case from the NRA.

“I support the NRA. They don’t take elected officials down the wrong road,” Booth said. “There’s an old adage where they talk about SUVs killing people. It’s actually people in operation of a motor vehicle, or in operation of a gun, where we have concerns.”

Signing the brief were: Delaware Auditor of Accounts R. Thomas Wagner, Jr., State Senators Bruce Ennis, Colin Bonini, Gary Simpson and Joseph Booth, State Representatives Tom Kovach, Richard Cathcart, Robert Gilligan, Michael Ramone, William Carson, Pam Thornburg, William Outten, E. Bradford Bennett, Robert Walls, David Wilson, V. George Carey, Ruth Briggs King, Gerald Hocker, Daniel Short, Clifford Lee and John Atkins.

Contact investigative reporter Lee Williams at (302) 242-9272 or lee@caesarrodney.org

The Caesar Rodney Institute is a 501(c)(3) non-partisan research and educational organization and is committed to being a catalyst for improved performance, accountability, and efficiency in Delaware government.

Locke 'N Load

The political philosophy of John Locke greatly influenced our Founding Fathers. This is evident by the long passages of Second Treatise of Government which were reproduced word for word in the Declaration of Independence. Locke’s ideas go on to influence the drafting of The Constitution of the United States of America, the oldest constitution that is still in use today. Amended into that document in 1791 was the Bill of Rights, which ensures us basic liberties. Most of us are familiar with these rights which include, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to due process, and others (The Constitution). However, some citizens question the logic of the 2^nd Amendment, who’s text is reproduced below. The goal of this post is to make the logic of John Locke and our Founding Fathers clear regarding the inclusion of the 2^nd Amendment into our Bill of Rights.

Text from The Constitution:

“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.”

Text in Simple English:
“People have the right to have weapons, for example guns.”

The arguments in opposition of our 2^nd Amendment Rights are based on the false notion that by living in a politic society with a common judge we have no need for weapons. In order for us to warrant nullifying the 2^nd Amendment, we would have to show that there exist no cases in which a firearm or weapon could be used in a civil society. I will attempt to counter this reasoning by demonstrating that the philosophy of John Locke—one of the political and philosophical cornerstones that our nation was founded upon—has provisions in which the use of force, and thus, the use of weapons, would be permitted even in a modern civil society such as America.

First let us make clear Locke’s philosophies, beginning with the state of nature. In short, humans existed in “a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature” (Locke §4). This state is governed by one law, “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions” (Locke §6), this is the law of nature. Locke provides yet another state, called the state of war which is “a state of enmity and destruction…[arising from] designs upon another man’s life” (Locke §16). When we are put into a state of war, we have the right to take the life of that individual who has initiated this state of war and whom “has exposed his life to the other’s power to be taken away from him, or any one that joins with him in his defense” (Locke §16). As Americans, we have left this state of nature, for “want of a common judge with authority” (Locke §19).

This is where some Americans become confused with regards to the philosophy of Locke. ust because we have left this state of nature and relinquished our executive rights to a common judge does not mean that we need to relinquish our weapons as well. There are many cases in which there is neither the time, nor the option to seek remedy from a common judge.

A mugging for example. By using force, a mugger attempting to acquire your property is not only threatening to take that property, but, we can deduce, also threatening your life. For, if he is so willing to use unlawful force to acquire material goods, if he were to have you fully under his power, what would stop him from taking your life? The mugger merely poses the question, “your money or your life”. The mugger has not given you a choice, you “could not have time to appeal to the law to secure [your life], and when it was gone it was too late to appeal. The law could not restore life to [your] dead carcass. The loss was irreparable; which to prevent the law of Nature gave [you] a right to destroy him who had put himself into a state of war with [you] and threatened [your] destruction” (Locke §207). Locke’s philosophy holds true and we are given the right to defend ourselves, even if that means taking the life of the mugger. The mugger’s use of “force without right upon a [your] person makes a state of war both where there is, and is not, a common judge” (Locke §19).

“Where there is, and is not, a common judge”, this shows that Locke’s philosophy holds even after we have chosen to leave the state of nature by seeking a common judge with authority. Thus, Locke’s philosophies do allow for the use of force by the citizenry to defend themselves in situations in which there is no option of an appeal to a common judge. Next time you are posed with the question, “your money or your life”, choose both. Our 2^nd amendment rights allow us to deal with those noxious animals—with fisticuff or firearm—who seek to impose their will upon us using unlawful force.

Works Cited:

The Constitution of the United States (1787).
Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. 1680. Print.

And if Ms. Maddow had her way, the Second Amendment would lose, big time. Even though she’s an avid shooter, she still doesn’t believe people should actually be able to own guns.

Let’s review that:

“I like making liberals shoot guns, I just don’t think we should be allowed to bring them home.” [Stoutcat: I have to presume she's referring to the guns here, and not the liberals...]

“I mean, you go to the carnival, you know, and like, the roller coaster is fun. But that doesn’t mean you get one to come home with. Doesn’t mean you get to do your own home roller coaster. Just leave it there, it’s a game.”

“It’s a game.” Sheesh. What part of “the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” does she not understand?

Actually, I think Ms. Maddow understands the Second Amendment perfectly well, but she disapproves of it, and so believes it can be conveniently ignored and/or legislated out of existence.

Liberals. Can’t live with ‘em, can’t use ‘em for target practice…

Stoutcat

Note: If you’re interested in hearing about Ms. Maddow’s opinion of the Tea Parties, her first date with her girlfriend, or how to mix perfect drinks, the entire video clip can be seen here.

http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/opinion/don_t_promote_gun_violence

An important piece of legislation being considered by the PA senate is creating a wealth of dis-information to be spread by anti-gunners and some media. The overriding theme to their dis-information is that HB40, better known as the Castle Doctrine, will lead to more gun violence and provide legal escape routes for criminals.

HB40 reduces the Pennsylvania citizen’s need to “retreat” in the face of a violent confrontation. It does not completely remove the need to retreat, nor does take away from the need to show intended serious bodily harm before using lethal force. HB40 doesn’t promote a “shoot first, ask questions later,” mentality.

A person involved in a shooting, will still need to prove that they felt in immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm. What the bill does do is support the basic foundation of Law of our country, that a person is “innocent until proven guilty” and puts the burden of proof on law enforcement where it belongs.

The key portion of the Castle Doctrine, which is in my opinion the most important part, is that a person using a firearm in justifiable defense cannot be sued in civil court. I find it ridiculous that if a person legally defends himself in a violent criminal encounter, that he should then be subject to a lawsuit by the perpetrators family for denying said shit-bag his rights.
If my family is subject to a home invasion and I terminate the criminal’s career, I did so because of his negligence, not mine. There is no reason why, after being found justified in using force, I should be found civilly responsible to provide for the criminal’s family.

I truly hope that our State leaders will listen to the masses who have voiced their opinion that the Castle Doctrine should be made law. As citizens of a great and free country, we should not have to retreat from our homes or places of business and we should not have to be held civilly liable for the illegal actions of others.

Let’s not ignore, gloss over, not think about, or otherwise minimize the destructive and illegal acts by the deliberate traitors. All who love God, freedom, the Constitution, their children and those who come after, MUST do EVERYTHING it takes to stop them! We cannot wait for an election (which may be filled with fraud and weak-willed candidates) as time is not on our side! If they will not listen to We the People and they will not submit to the Constitution, then We the People have no other choice than to exercise our 2nd Amendment Right and duty to restore righteous governance as the Founders intended. Please read the linked article by James Simpson

Cloward-Piven Government.

While scribbling my last post, it occurred to me to mention a thought that has bothered me and some of my confederates of late.

It should be no secret that the United Nations abhors personal freedoms, and in particular the freedom of Americans to own and use a firearm for self-defence . (Self-defence is called “escalation of violence” in UNspeak) and they are working hard to get a treaty together that would wipe out the second amendment.

What scares the crap out of me is how would the UN enforce its treaty?  Probably the same way they have tried throughout their useless existence to enforce other things…by calling in “peacekeepers” 

Unless they have a plan to dismantle the Posse Comitatus act (like I would put anything past them), they will not be able to use the American military as “peacekeepers” 

This would therefore mean brining in foreign troops onto American Soil to enforce laws against Americans!  Imagine divisions of Russian and Chinese troops unloading in Boston Harbor or LaGaurdia airport?  How about  having to show your papers to Irani soldiers while they search your home?

Go Ahead…tell me it couldn’t happen this way…tell me I am just being paranoid….Believe me I would sleep better if it were truee

The Maersk Alabama gets attacked by pirates not once but twice

The first time they were unarmed and the Captain was kidnapped and under threat of death until Navy Seals “serviced the targets”

The Second time they had an armed team aboard and repelled the pirates

Unarmed = Victim  Armed= Non victim

Why is this hard to understand?

Lets see what the International Maritime Organization has to say

(Editor’s note: this article can also be viewed on CRI’s Issues page.)

The high-profile Chicago case should be viewed through the prism of the original intent of the Constitution. The nearly 1,000 state lawmakers, 38 Attorneys General, numerous academics and overwhelming, bipartisan majority of members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate who have signed amicus curiae briefs supporting the case are upholding the idea that the United States Constitution applies to all levels of government and every individual, as intended by the Founders.

By David T. Hardy, Esq.

Foundations of the Union

In 1775 the American Revolution began, a struggle fueled by belief that the British government was depriving the colonists of their rights as Englishmen – the right to vote on taxation, to be tried by jury and to be protected against random search and seizure. The conflict ignited when the British tried to seize militia arsenals in Massachusetts and in Virginia – to the Americans, this made it clear they were to be made powerless and enslaved.

The new States fought almost all the Revolution with a Continental Congress but no formal agreement. The first such agreement, the Articles of Confederation, was not ratified until 1781. The Articles provided for a weak central government. Each State got one vote in Congress, and any major decision took a 2/3 majority. Budgets were met by asking money or supplies from the States, which often refused, leaving American armies unpaid and unfed for extended periods.

A Proposed Constitution

The Articles had no enforcement provisions, and so States did as they willed – refusing to contribute funds, or violating treaties, or taxing imports.  Congress eventually agreed to summon a convention to propose strengthening amendments to the Articles.

This 1787 convention instead drafted an entirely new constitution, enormously increasing Federal powers to tax and spend, to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, to negotiate treaties and to establish an army and navy. It had federal courts and an executive branch to enforce decisions. State conventions were asked to ratify the agreement; once nine agreed, it would bind them, and others if they later ratified.

George Mason of Virginia proposed to add a bill of rights to the new charter, but the convention, in its greatest mistake, rejected the idea. Mason and others refused to sign the constitution and returned home to oppose its ratification. (Those supporting ratification are today called federalists, and those opposing it, antifederalists).

Antifederalists argued that Americans had just thrown off a distant, powerful central government – King George and his Parliament – which had ignored their rights.  This new, untried, national government might go down the same path, especially since it had no bill of rights. Why had the convention spent so much effort giving power to government, without putting limits on it, or protecting their natural rights? When the Constitution got its required 9^th vote, from New Hampshire, it came with a compromise: the State ratified but demanded that a national bill of rights be added on.

The Constitution now bound the States that had signed on, but several (including powerful Virginia and New York) still had not ratified. Both States followed the New Hampshire pattern, ratifying while providing a list of amendments that they demanded Congress adopt.

The Bill of Rights

In the ratifying debates, and in his contributions to the Federalist Papers, James Madison had argued that no bill of rights was necessary, since Congress would only have what powers were delegated, and nothing in the Constitution said it could suppress free speech, establish a church, etc. (Madison probably knew this was a weak argument; the spending power could create a church, powers over interstate commerce could suppress newspapers). He also argued that bills of rights were just “parchment barriers” which legislatures would violate at will.

As a Representative in the First Congress, however, Madison became the champion of a bill of rights. Madison had probably pledged to work for a bill of rights in the Virginia ratifying convention; he had clearly promised to do so during his election campaign, and he was an honorable man. He and Jefferson had also debated the question in correspondence, and Jefferson had argued that even a “parchment barrier” is useful; if the people are to resist invasions of their rights, by voting or by more direct means, they should start with a written agreement as to what those rights were.

The First Congress, though, resisted. It was busy creating a new government – taxes, a treasury, courts, an army and navy, a post office, and a bill of rights seemed a low priority. At one point, Madison protested that they could have drafted a bill of rights in less time than they had spent debating whether to draft one! Eventually, Madison won out and the First Congress did vote out a Bill of Rights, in the form of 12 amendments, 10 of which were ratified by the States and became known as the Bill of Rights. Antifederalists had predicted the new government would violate Americans’ rights; Madison had it prove its good faith by swearing off any power to infringe freedom of speech, press, or religion, or to establish a church, to infringe the right to arms, or make unreasonable searches, and so on.

Applying the National Bill of Rights to the States

In 1833, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Bill of Rights only restricted Federal action, not action by States (some State courts later disagreed, reasoning that a right is a right).

After the Civil War, Congress proposed, and the States ratified, the 14^th Amendment. This forbade States to abridge the “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” or to deprive anyone of “due process of law.” (In the 1860s and before, “privileges” were commonly used to describe “rights.”).

There is strong evidence that “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” was meant to describe (at the bare minimum) the Federal Bill of Rights. But the Supreme Court was hostile to this, and in 1870s decisions played a complicated word game that made “privileges or immunities” almost meaningless.

In the 20^th century, though, the Supreme Court thought better of applying the Federal Bill of Rights to the States. Rather than admitting it was wrong in the 1870s, it instead used the 14^th Amendment’s “due process clause” for this, ruling that infringing this or that right deprived Americans of due process of law. Because the Court could pick and choose rights for this, this was called “selective incorporation.” As of this writing, all Bill of Rights liberties have been applied to the States except for the right to arms (whose application to the States is now before the Supreme Court), the right to jury trial in civil suits, and the requirement that felony prosecutions be approved by a grand jury rather than a judge.

David T. Hardy is an attorney and member of the U.S. Supreme Court bar. He has published 19 articles in law reviews, most devoted to constitutional law; his first such article in 1974, was the first of the modern law review articles to document the Second Amendment as an individual right. He submitted friend of the court briefs for Academics for the Second Amendment in both D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. He recently produced the documentary film “In Search of the Second Amendment” (www.secondamendmentdocumentary.com) which was nominated for the ABA’s Silver Gavel award.

The Caesar Rodney Institute is a 501(c)(3) non-partisan research and educational organization and is committed to being a catalyst for improved performance, accountability, and efficiency in Delaware government.

© Copyright 2009 by the Caesar Rodney Institute

gun free zones are killing zones.