Are you looking for Solutions for America in Distress

You are in the right place to find out about what is really going on behind the scenes in the patriot movement in America, including solutions from Oathkeepers, Anna Von Reitz, Constitutional Sheriffs, Richard Mack, and many more people who are leading the charge to restore America to freedom and peace. Please search on the right for over 3300 articles.
You will find some conflicting views from some of these authors. You will also find that all the authors are deeply concerned about the future of America. What they write is their own opinion, just as what I write is my own. If you have an opinion on a particular article, please comment by clicking the title of the article and scrolling to the box at the bottom on that page. Please keep the discussion about the issues, and keep it civil. The administrator reserves the right to remove unwarranted personal attacks. Use the golden rule; "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Wednesday, March 28, 2018

Repeal of the 2nd Amendment would not Abolish any Right


Following the recent school shooting in Connecticut, American citizens have once again displayed their total ignorance concerning the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment. Facebook postings, comments to so-called news articles and letters to the editor are calling for repeal of the Second Amendment. These individuals believe the right to own a firearm is based on the Second Amendment and the right will vanish if the Amendment can be repealed. Unless the Second Amendment created the right, then repeal of the Amendment cannot constitutionally abolish the right.
Following the Federal [Constitutional] Convention of 1787 and the subsequent ratification of the Constitution in 1788, the several States began submitting amendments to Congress for consideration. By September of 1789, Congress had reduced approximately 210 separate amendments to 12. The amendments were inserted into a congressional resolution and submitted to the several States for consideration. Of these, numbers 2-12 were ratified by the States in 1791 and became the so-called Bill of Rights.
A little known fact about this resolution is that it contained a preamble declaring the purpose of the proposed amendments. Most modern editions of the Bill of Rights either do not contain the preamble or only include the last paragraph. The most important paragraph is the first one because it discloses the intent of the proposed amendments.
A review of this paragraph shows that the sole purpose of the proposed amendments was to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” To accomplish this, “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” were being proposed. The amendments, if adopted, would place additional restraints or limitations on the powers of the federal government to prevent that government from usurping its constitutional powers. Every clause of the Bill of Rights, without exception, is either a declaratory statement or a restrictive provision.
If the Bill of Rights had granted rights, then the word “granted” would have to appear each and every time a right was being established. A review of the Bill of Rights shows that the word “granted” does not appear in any Amendment.
In reality, the Bill of Rights placed additional or secondary restraints on the powers of the federal government concerning the rights of the people and powers reserved to the States. That is why the words “no,” “not” and “nor” appear throughout the Amendments instead of the word “granted.”
Since the Second Amendment did not create or grant any right concerning firearms, the right enumerated in the Amendment has to be an existing right separate from the Amendment. Thus, repealing the Second Amendment would not eliminate any right because the right enumerated in the Amendment was not created by the Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms exists independent of the Constitution or the Second Amendment.
In order to help explain this constitutional principle, I reluctantly decided to reference a United States Supreme Court case from 1875. Normally, I would not cite a court case to support a constitutional principle because too many opinions do not reflect the true intent of the Framers. However, I decided to make an exception because this decision states this constitutional principle clearly and concisely and has never been overturned.
In the case of United States v Cruikshank, the United States Supreme Court held that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights were not granted by the Amendments and are not dependent upon the Constitution for their existence. The Court also ruled that the Amendments were restraints on the powers of the federal government and it is the duty of States to secure the individual rights of the American people.
One of the most definitive and succinct interpretations of the Second Amendment is found in the Court’s second holding:

Become a member and support the TAC!
“The right there specified is that of ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose.’ This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed: but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National [Federal] Government…”
The Second Amendment did not create or grant any right to keep and bear arms. It placed an additional restraint on the powers of the federal government concerning the existing right to keep and bear arms. Thus, all a repeal could do, from a federal standpoint, is remove the secondary restraint imposed on federal power by the Amendment. And since many States have a right to keep and bear arms clause in their constitution, separate and apart from the Federal Constitution or the Second Amendment, the existence or non-existence of the Second Amendment would not affect the right because the federal government was not granted and does not have the general power to abolish a natural or individual right secured by a State Constitution.
Note: There is a school of thought that the Fourteenth Amendment made, through a doctrine known as incorporation, the Second Amendment applicable to the individual States. Since the Second Amendment did not create a right, then repeal of the Amendment could not abolish the right in the individual States through the Fourteenth Amendment.

24 comments:

  1. That's all well and good, however when the swat swats show up to remove everyone's guns from their homes then what?
    All ready in Florida they just passed "law?" That they can take away someone's guns without due process.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Re: Guns confiscated
      It happened in highriver, alberta. Canada. Flood occurred in town and cops or whoever, maybe military, banged all doors in, of ALL homes with guns registered and took them all. All after people were evaluated from their homes. Military occupation for sure! - war crimes on man, theft and trespass. If it can happen here, it can happen there.

      Delete
  2. And note that nowhere in the Bill of Rights is the word "citizen" ever used. All citizens that bought and registered guns have no standing your licensed in a commercial nexus, you obey or you will be dealt with.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Only smart people didn’t register=abandon their guns!

      Delete
  3. Well then tbe actual purpose of the 2nd would then need to be applied as total infringment would be an act of war on Americans...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well then tbe actual purpose of the 2nd would then need to be applied as total infringment would be an act of war on Americans...

    ReplyDelete
  5. coat of arms of original framers. right to bare arms

    ReplyDelete
  6. It was much worse in places in New Orleans when the government went to "hi we are here to help you" and confiscated a lot of guns. The really bad stuff, reported by troops and eye witnesses.....
    Rand Paul just said the other day, reminded that the constitution was written to control government and is their rules to abide by not ours or the nationals. Still just like in Chicago and other ganglands, when they shoot out the windows or aim some other nasty harm at you, extortion, what can you do? Obviously they cannot obey there own law even before it is tossed out so they do not have to consider it at all. So if the rights of anyone are violated by a disobedient government service employee, can they also use the Nurembergh defense, that they are only following orders and did know it was wrong but did it anyway. If one of Al Capone's men did not know that shooting people was wrong or against the law, had no intent, thought and believed it was normal and OK, what would he be guilty of? Yep, trained to be insanely violent as though it is normal, that is your modern corporate military training at least in 2004. Ignorant large dummies are hired to patrol neighborhoods. Be as wise as a serpent and as harmless as a dove. Make peace with your brother on the way to the court and avoid the controversy, gain a friend.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The only rights you have in this world are the ones your willing to fight for.
    Our forefathers did not politely protest the British. They did not vote them out of office, nor did they impeach the King, march on the capital, or ask permission for their rights. They &^%$ing shot them. Today, they’d be shooting by now.
    You must surround yourself with those on the same mission as you.
    Just remember: “aim small, miss small”
    Americans aim to be FREE.
    “The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” – Thomas Jefferson

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, I think they started out being friendly until, time after time, they were met with increasing animosity. "In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."
      So, yes, it is advisable to be polite - especially at first, trying to get things hashed out in a friendly manner, then become increasingly hard-nosed.

      Delete
    2. WE did not fire on them til fired upon first- after decades of entreaty for fair treatment as OUR Right as Englishman.
      Esp after fighting 7yrs of bloody French+Indian Wars for Britain for control of North America.
      Today's DC deepstate and swamp creatures make King George only 1/2 bad with many States as bad or worse.

      Delete
  8. This is correct, but most Americans are not recognized as Americans. They are mis-identified as "US citizens"--- that is, Territorial or Municipal Citizens of the United States. Not Nationals. Territorial and Municipal Citizens have no constitutional guarantees--- now or ever. So, we do have the falsification of our political status records to deal with and we have the dishonesty and usurpations of the British-backed Territorial and French Municipal "Government Service Providers" to deal with.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can anyone back up or deny this statement?

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. The general gist appears fundamentally true. However I believe one vital point is missing from the premise of the statement.

      Taking the approach D-Day suggests places the burden of proof squarely on the shoulders of yep...you guessed it,...you and me, and that is not the place for it to be.

      Since the United States would be the movant in most cases, and they are aware that it is impossible to prove a negative, they want you on the negative defensive in order for them to pounce when you slip up, and then suddenly it's 5 years and $50,000 later. Crooked bastards.

      But, as movant they are required to prove up their allegation using United States written law, and regarding US citizenship they cannot possibly do that because of 8 USC se. 1421.

      There is the benefit of placing the burden of proof squarely on them, because until the question of your US citizenship and their jurisdiction over you is lawfully proven by fact evidence of United States written law by the moving party, the case would not be able to proceed.

      If the question of US citizenship is ever put to you by United States agents, in court or out of court, your response is always short and to the point using the following words:

      Here's what you say:

      "Your honor,I have no evidence in my possession of having ever elected to become a United States citizen."

      You should plan on making this statement three times and referencing 8 USC se. 1421

      You do not explain the statement or even converse with the judge/administrator. They are well prepared to trip you up. Just keep your mouth shut after you have made the above statement.

      Modern judges and attorneys are, for the most part, all guilty of practicing their profession on land not belonging to the United States of America. This is a great approach also.

      There is great personal liability awaiting the judge who dares to attempt to move forward once a legitimate jurisdictional challenge has been lodged with the court. The court is now forced to prove up its jurisdiction, and mostly they cannot.

      Since anything short of 8 USC sec. 1421 can not prove US citizenship, all potential adhesion contracts lose their lustre.

      There is far more myth than fact floating around so there is no substitute for intense personal study.

      Anna's site is worth the time!

      Net

      If you're thinking of rebutting the government info on your political status you are fortunate to have arrived at this juncture in time as the process had become quite cumbersome for a time. I believe it is now about 4-5 documents that need to be sent to the United States for correction if that is the route you choose to pursue.

      You should also check out freeinhabitant.info

      The website belongs to Paul John Hansen. He has the best handle on how to deal with modern courts. He also offers his opinion regarding the US citizen issue. Between him and EdRivera.com, they are the two most accurate sites out there dealing with law issues.

      I don't know much of how successful Anna is with her approach. We don't hear much about it. The Living Law Library continually is made reference to but we don't hear much about them either.



      Delete
    4. What happens when one does challenge jurisdiction and the judge ignores it and proceeds

      Delete
    5. The issue is challenging jurisdiction in such a way as to alert the administrator to their personal liability if they do not prove up jurisdiction.

      Most administrators will not proceed when challenged properly. I would give judicial notice citing pertinent United States Code written law. A stubborn bencher may not easily take judicial notice and you may have to firmly state your judicial notice three times with law cite before they will reluctantly take your judicial notice.

      By going to their court and standing before their administrator, you already consented to their jurisdiction. That all happened before you would even get a chance to challenge jurisdiction. They view that as a green light in favor of their presumption.

      Suffice it to say, United States courts should be avoided at all costs. If you end up there beyond your control, they will use every legal twist to see that you are found guilty, including tricking you into agreeing that you live 'in the State', or 'in this State'. If these words are used by the administrator or prosecuting attorney, and you don't immediately object to their attempt to place evidence of their jurisdiction on the record, you consent to it.

      You can see why it is imperative we stay out of their courts completely.

      You may want to look into Dr. Eduardo Rivera's Organic Law Institute. He offers the best law courses on any question you could ask. And he does so in a way the knowledge and understanding can take root in our hearts and minds.

      We each need to embrace our responsibility to the enforcement of law. This is what constitutions are about. They are not written to govern you. The United States Code was written to strictly adhere the federal government to the limits of their jurisdiction in relation to land, people and written law.

      We must all become experts in law since it is the only path to our success in elevating American common law to the premier system of law used in America. It used to be that way and it must be that way again. All man made systems of written law, and therefore legislation, lack the authority of the Laws of Nature's God.

      The greatest injustices in America relates directly to political immunity abuses allowed by United States lawmakers. The most dangerous politicians are those who know, or thought they knew, they were above the law.

      If we are not expert in our knowledge of American common law as well as the U.S.C. we will hardly be able to reign in the works of darkness that have taken root here and around the world.

      We have the United States Code organic laws to force the United States to operate strictly within their jurisdictional limitations.

      Delete
  9. i am not saying they will honour any of this, but important things to note.

    it gets better (or worse perhaps)...see "the excellence of the common law" book, brent winters IIRC, for info. on the common law county-level "militia".

    for the state-level, and what "wellregulated" means, see "militia" www.dict.org, bouviers 1856

    point being, a "militia" is an (american) common law core component, and the "state militia" came out of that.

    why is that important? one, if noone is running proper states and there are no "state citizens" and/or nationals but only "one nation", then that delegated powers falls back to "the people" and/or counties.

    if the "feds" don't run state-level "court martials" and train the state militia, they are not performing their duties.

    secondly, it is the native law of the land.

    even "we the people" (who are "soverieigns" a.k.a. "joint kinghood" with all "titles" and powers by default, until we start "delegating" them away) cannot alter the native type of law. see:

    https://archive.org/stream/jamesmadisonsnot00scot/jamesmadisonsnot00scot_djvu.txt

    It was a principle of the English common law
    that an act of a corporation in excess of the grant
    in its articles of incorporation was ultra vires,
    and as such null and void; and it was also a
    principle of the common law, that by-laws of a
    corporation could not be valid and yet contrary
    to the laws of England, without a statement by
    the law-making power to that effect. It was
    further a principle of the common law that the
    king himself could not authorize a corporation
    to pass a by-law contrary to the law of the realm.

    --------
    whether non-militia should have weaponry, and what types, is another story.

    but, the "King himself" cannot go against the common law.

    at best, they have the "revolutionary right" (lincoln's words) to "secede", but that nullifies any contract they might have with us. and breaks the "perpetual union" which they supposedly have "pledged" to.

    "one nation, indivisible" they have already "seceded" from the "several states" as it were, but it violates their new "pledge" too.

    if they claim american common law is not the native type of law and law of the land, then they have already admitted to "seceding".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. grab a copy of nathaniel hawthorne, the scarlet letter, opening pages re: civil flag versus military.

      ask any "military flag" people if they have "seceded" or not. their pledge says "one nation" yet bouviers law dictionary 1856 right on the cover/title page (www.dict.org, click "database copyright information") states "several states"

      just ask them if they have "seceded" from the "several states" or not.

      why should someone in the "several states" care if their bogus "one nation" federal constitution gets "revised" ? they have "seceded" from the union of "several states" already.

      Delete
    2. 11-june-1-2015-thirty-four-commanders-of-naval-military-installations-alerted-of-felony-and-treason-to-the-constitution.pdf

      also, google for that, from https://supremecourtcase.files.wordpress.com, see 3 quotes at bottom.

      if the "Feds" are not training state militia, not running proper state governments, and doing fake states of "federal citizens" only (see blacks law dictionary) that in and of itself is 'treason'

      Delete
    3. nnnm765: Why would we allow the "created" association administrators (the feds) to train its "creator(s)' (states')" militia, and running proper state (the feds' creators) government in the first place?

      Delete
  10. Their sins of omission and commission are far too numerous to comprehend. One would have to have a very twisted mind to want to have anything to do with what it takes to support their agenda, at any level.

    The faulty thinking of some to not consider their future beyond this world. It's crazy. What these people have done are the works of madmen.

    Since we have no choice but to accept the task ahead of us we should learn proper and deep. The foundation of our nation contains the most efficacious system of common law known to mankind.

    United States law, the U.S. Code, is written to provide free inhabitants with the necessary tools to force the federal government to make following their restrictions a perpetual priority, with our direct oversight.

    U.S. Code is the organic law of the United States. For the United States (corporation) it is the supreme law of the land. Before we can hope to enforce these laws destroying our nation we must entirely comprehend each of the four organic laws that make up the United States Code, taking the vital initiative to diligently enforce them over those to and for whom, they are written.

    To continue to neglect the knowledge contained in each of these constitutions that make up the U.S. Code will surely be disastrous for the future of America. To fail here will assure we leave insurmountable obstacles for our children and grandchildren to overcome and certain perils as righteous defenders often experience.

    Yet to a large degree, Americans more resemble walking dead.

    Change will only occur as it dawns on our hearts that we are that change, forcing us to apply foreseen, documented solutions for insuring the United States either gets back in it's box or face a growing population of very intelligent and determined free inhabitants willing to take certain steps in assurance of getting their wholehearted attention.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Here, Here Net!!! Very well stated Thank you!

    ReplyDelete

Place your comment. The moderator will review it after it is published. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason.