By Michael LeMieux

In the United States, under a republican form of government, power is divided between the states and the central government.  Within the central government, as is within the states, that power is further sub-divided between branches of the government.  All of these government organizations have charters or documents that govern what power they have and the boundaries each organization must adhere to.  The fundamental document outlining these powers and duties are the constitutions for their respective governments.  Any action by these organizations that does not have a basis within their founding constitutions is unconstitutional and therefore constitutionally illegal.

In this article we will be dealing primarily with gun laws and the primary organization of the central government that enforces national gun laws the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).  The main areas I wish to present are the historical evolution of the ATF, their constitutional footing, and whether national gun laws are truly constitutional.

Evolution of the ATF:

The enactment of “firearms laws” is a relatively recent occurrence for the federal government. The Federal Firearms Act in 1938 was the first act by congress to regulate firearms.  This act was based upon the perceived need to regulate the firearms industry and license the dealers, manufacturers, and gunsmiths within the firearms trade.  It was based upon the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Appropriately it was codified under Title 15 of the US Code – “Commerce and Trade”.  The new “laws” under the Act included the creation of a Federal Firearms License (FFL), for anyone doing business in the firearm trade.  One of the primary goals was to prohibit FFL holders from selling firearms to convicted felons. Requiring FFL holders to keep records of all firearms sales, and for the first time it made any alteration of firearm serial numbers a crime.  Many people felt this was an infringement on state jurisdiction by enacting a law that reached past the state boundary, in violation of the Constitution.

From 1938 to 1968 everything went along fairly well until the government decided to play a little shell game, and they switched the Firearms Act from Title 15 to Title 18.  Title 18 is entitled “Crimes and Criminal Procedures.”  Why would the government switch the code section from Title 15 to Title 18 after having been codified under Title 15 for thirty years?  The only rational reason is jurisdictional obfuscation, or hiding what would otherwise be apparent as to the limits the government could act upon us, the citizens.  You see, under Title 15, the government was within its rightful jurisdiction of “Commerce and Trade”.  However, if you are bound by “Commerce and Trade”, you cannot enact laws on normal citizens who are not acting in the “trade.”  Therefore, the government changed, with the stroke of a pen, their Constitutional powers from commerce to crime.

In 1968 the “Gun Control Act” was passed.  It was an attempt by the government to justify broad-sweeping firearms control.  The finesse with which the government’s lawyers crafted and pushed this bill through can be seen right from the opening lines.  The bill is entitled: “An Act to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for better control of the interstate traffic in firearms.” (Emphasis added)  Doesn’t that title sound allot like Chapter 15 Commerce and Trade?  In fact even today the firearms laws deal, for the most part, in taxing control.  Machine guns falling under the firearms control act are still legal to own if you do the background check and pay a $200.00 “tax stamp” fee.

However, the purpose of the act, as written, states:

“Title I – State Firearms Control Assistance

Purpose

“Sec. 101. The Congress hereby declares that the purpose of this title is to provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence, and it is not the purpose of this title to place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity, and that this title is not intended to discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, or provide for the imposition by Federal regulations of any procedures or requirements other than those reasonably necessary to implement and effectuate the provisions of this title.”

To support State, and local law enforcement!  Where does the Constitution say anything about the federal government assisting state law enforcement?  Remember, the federal government cannot legally do anything that is not specifically enumerated by the Constitution.  So where is its justification?  It has none; any federal law that falls outside the enumerated powers of the Constitution is repugnant and void.   And as a friend of mine, Dave Champion, said “Congress is free to make any asinine statement it wants about its “intentions” or its “goals”, but the text of the laws it enacts must still adhere to the limits of federal power imposed by US Constitution.”

So, in 1934 we have a “revenue” tax scheme that charges $200.00 for the sale or transfer of a machinegun, a short barreled rifle/shotgun, or a silencer.  What was the net effect of this “revenue” tax scheme?  It all but completely eviscerated these businesses, put people out of work, and resulted in a drop in tax revenue on the legitimate sales of these items.  In 1934 a silencer could be purchased for between 5 and 20 dollars at your local hardware store.  But who would pay a $200.00 tax on a 5 dollar item.  Many towns had shooting ranges within the city limits and required silencers to be used to keep noise down for local residents. Most shooters could not afford the $200 tax stamp so these businesses closed as well.  So as a “revenue” scheme the Firearms Act was a complete bust unless you look at the evolutionary progress of the ATF in its expansion to control not only the firearms industry but also to become national crime fighters as well.

The ATF evolved from an arm of the IRS under title 15 “Commerce” to now being a part of the Department of Justice under title 18 “Crimes and Punishment.”  I ask once again – under what constitutional authority?  At least under title 15 the central government had a nexus to commerce as they originally only involved those individuals and businesses that were in the firearms trade.  Today, however, someone who only possesses an item can be put in jail for not asking permission and paying tribute, even when they are not “in the business” of manufacturing or selling firearms.

There is no constitutional authority for the ATF as they are currently organized and only very limited constitutional authority as originally organized.  As congress can only legally legislate those areas to which the states have seceded, as outlined in Article 1, section 8, all other laws are, by their very definition, unconstitutional.  But because the government has the power of creating laws, they can enforce even unconstitutional laws – it does not make them right it only makes them wrong with a gun. (Pun intended.)

The concept of natural inherent rights within the body of the people is unique to the United States.  All other countries today endow their citizens with varying degrees of “rights” and privilege.  Our founding precepts are espoused in our Declaration of Independence stating that we, the people, are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights and that governments were instituted among men to secure these rights.  So even if the Second Amendment was not listed in the “Bill of Rights” it would still exist.

Let me say very clearly – your rights do not come from government.  You have these rights solely on the basis of your existence.  The Constitution grants no rights to the citizens of this country and are listed as Amendments to the Constitution to PROHIBIT the central government from acting against these specific, enumerated, rights that where endowed in the citizenry before the government was created.

“…The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  We already know that the Bill of Rights was written to place limitations on the federal government in its dealings with the people.  What does it mean to be infringed?  From the Merriam-Webster New Collegiate Dictionary, 1977 edition it reads: “1. obsolete: defeat, frustrate. 2. To encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another. Synonymous with trespass.”  Based on this definition any action which attempts to make guns obsolete, or to defeat the ability of ownership, or frustrates the keeping and bearing of arms is infringing on the rights of the citizens and is an affront to the Constitution.

United States Representative Ron Paul, from the 14th District in Texas, stated in a November 6th, 2006 article entitled “Gun Control on the Back Burner”:

“The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of that time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms.”  (Bold added)  You can read this entire article and more on his official web site at www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/ tst110606.htm.

I may be cast a heretic; but the fact of the matter is, laws are not meant to stop crime.  In many cases laws create crime where none existed.  An example would be what I call the stupidity laws, such as mandatory helmet wearing on motorcycles or seat belts in cars etc.  These “laws” tell us that the government knows what is best for you, and they will enforce their will upon you by writing laws to protect you from yourself.  This is EXACTLY the mentality of a communist society and brute force is EXACTLY the methodology a communist government would use to make you do what they know is best for you.

What crime is committed by possessing an object?  Who or what is damaged?  If I own an icepick to break up blocks of ice and fill my ice chest – is that a crime?  Yet I can use that icepick to rob, damage, or kill another person.  Would that person be more dead if I used a gun?  There are more people killed each year in cars than with guns – should we limit the speed a car can travel to reduce its killing capability?  In fact more people are killed with hands and feet than with guns – should we have to register our limbs as well?  I have known people who have never been in a car collision their entire lives.  They are safe and effective drivers.  I have likewise known many people who have owned guns and have never shot anyone.

Now the central government is attempting to unconstitutionally expand their power even more by trying to infringe further upon our Second Amendment rights by banning common weapons, invading the Fourth Amendment by forcing us into “trade” by mandating how we dispose of our private property at an added cost burden.  And the very weapons they are trying to ban are very much a protected type of weapon as stated by the Supreme Court in US V Miller.

“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.”

The court reasoned that based on the information they had at the time a saw-off shotgun did not have “some reasonable relationship… of a well regulated militia” and that it was not “any part of the ordinary military equipment.”  Well we have testimony from the Commander in Chief, Diane Feinstein, and a host of liberals in Congress that they are trying to ban the very same “military style weapon” that the Supreme Court said was explicitly protected by the Second Amendment.  But they want it both ways and the only conclusion we can make is that they do not care about the Constitution or for what it stands and especially ANY limitation on their agenda.

Article 1 of the Constitution tells us how we can solve our crime problem within a year.  Article 1, Section 8, states that Congress has the power to call forth “the Militia to execute the laws of the Union.”  Every mass murder, every gun attack, drive by shooting, home invasion, carjacking, or any other such crime is already a crime and the tool the criminal uses really does not change the crime.  But if every second or third law abiding citizen was armed, crime would very quickly dry up.

You, the “We the People” of our great nation are responsible for your own safety.  The Sheriff the Policeman, even the entire judicial system, is only there to deal with the bad guy.  Yes they drive around with a motto painted across the car saying “to Protect and Serve” but did you know that, by law, they have no responsibility to protect anyone?  In the case of DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services the court ruled, and many others as well, that the only individuals that the police have a responsibility to protect are those that are incarcerated or restrained against their will such as prisoners or mental patients stating: “The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State’s knowledge of the individual’s predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf.”

The gradual expansion of government to control the firearms industry, to keep criminals out of the trade, then expanded to tax ordinary citizens from owning certain pieces of equipment, then expanded to everyone buying from a dealer, and now expanding once again to encompass every law abiding citizen who has a gun even if they are not in firearm commerce.

A prime example of the expansion; did you know there is NO gun show loophole?  If you go to a gun show and purchase a gun, you have to fill out the same background check forms as you would in their store and the FFL will run the check and if approved you will get the firearm.  Where the confusion comes in is that occasionally a private citizen, who may have guns he wants to sell, may offer their gun to an attendee at the show.  This is called a private sale.  It is not different than someone putting an add in the paper for a gun for sale and someone going to his house to buy it.  That is perfectly legal to do.  Why, because neither individual is in the “firearm business”.  Which is what the law covers, not private individuals.  That is why it is perfectly legal to make your own gun for personal use but illegal if made to make money.  That is called manufacturing and that requires a license.

We now have the President and politicians, from both sides of the aisle, that want universal background checks.  Meaning any transfer of a firearm would have to be done through a licensed dealer to perform a background check.  Secondly, they want national “red flag” laws that will allow government to confiscate your firearms and ammunition solely on someone else’s feelings or knowledge.  “I just feel he is going to do something.”  Should we be cautious and follow up on such claims?  Absolutely!  But before any “raid” to take property happens a judge needs to evaluate the evidence/claims and order a warrant before any property is seized.  By the way that is what the 4^th Amendment is about.

But will this solve the problem?  Well, as I have said before, if laws stopped crime then the jails would be empty.  So laws will not stop the type of crimes that have happened in the past nor will they stop them from happening in the future.  Some may say that by banning these weapons (law) then they will not have them to use.  If that were true prohibition would have been a success, the drug war would be over by now and our streets would be drug free.  All the central government is managing to do is to increase the victim pool by disarming the law abiding citizen because as we all know the criminal will not obey the law and if he does not have one now the black market will provide it to him just as it always has.

© 2019 Michael Lemieux – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Michael Lemieux: raven-1911@hotmail.com

Politicians who support gun control, and gun control advocates, are either ignorant, power hungry control freaks, or delusional idealists. Ignorance would mean simply lacking in knowledge of the subject, but because of their positions, and touted “research,” they should know the subject. Power hungry control freaks would indicate a desire to subjugate a population under their perspective of reality regardless of facts. And finally delusional idealists believe that all mankind can live in such a way as to make weapons unnecessary and that we can force this position by simply taking away the weapons.

Each and every position is lacking in common sense and logic.  First:  history of mankind has shown that violence by man against man has always taken place.  Some have argued that it is human nature but in a civilized society we try to provide mechanisms to allow alternatives to violence.  For many of us that is sufficient, for others – not so much.  Secondly: for whatever reason; some people seemed to be pre-disposed to violence.  Jack the ripper, who still evokes terror and disgust from society, did his deeds with a knife.  Whether you call it a mental derangement or just plain evil there are bad people in the world, there always has been and there always will be.  Lastly; to believe a utopian ideal can be accomplished by forcing people to do so is delusional on its face.  The vast majority of people when facing starvation or watching their loved ones starve will do things they normally would not do to save them – steal, fight, and perhaps even kill to save the lives of themselves and their loved ones.

To be right up front – gun control is not about guns, it never has been, it is about control.  There is no other conclusion that can be drawn.  Let’s take the Colorado movie theater nut-job for instance; at his home police found a number of explosives and bomb making equipment.  He had the knowledge to build “sophisticated” explosive devices.  Do we think for one moment that if by some miracle every firearm in the US was confiscated and no firearms were smuggled into the country and no garage shop machinist built a weapon for him that he would not have used those explosive devices to carry out his fiendish plot?

The common denominator in all this is the individual.  Does a person become more dead if he is killed by a firearm rather than a pipe bomb or a sword or an icepick?  The object that kills is merely a tool chosen by the individual.  The act of killing, by whatever tool, is still a crime, and has always been a crime.

We also always hear from the left that we need to make it harder for the criminals to get guns.  Really?  So why do they pass laws against the law abiding citizen making it harder for them to defend themselves from the criminal?  The criminal is doing nothing new.  His behavior has not changed only the tools he has used.  We have outlawed many inanimate objects over the centuries and not once has it made those objects go away.  A perfect example are drug laws.  We have passed thousands of pages of laws to outlaw drugs and decades later we have more drugs on the street than ever before.  We outlawed alcohol nation-wide only to repeal it a few years later after it failed so miserably.

What is the common denominator here?  To use a TV phrase it is the “human factor.”  Does it matter what drug a person is on when he runs someone over in his car?  Does it change the effect on the person struck?  Does it matter what tool was used to threaten someone in a robbery? Is the effect more devasting if he uses a black Beamer instead of a station wagon?  What we need to focus on is the behavior – not tools.

An example of the lefts logic is given by ex-President Jimmy Carter who stated

“I have used weapons since I was big enough to carry one, and now own two handguns, four shotguns and three rifles, two with scopes.  I use them carefully, for hunting game from our family woods and fields, and occasionally for hunting with my family and friends in other places. We cherish the right to own a gun and some of my hunting companions like to collect rare weapons. One of them is a superb craftsman who makes muzzle-loading rifles, one of which I displayed for four years in my private White House office.

But none of us wants to own an assault weapon, because we have no desire to kill policemen or go to a school or workplace to see how many victims we can accumulate before we are finally shot or take our own lives. That’s why the White House and Congress must not give up on trying to reinstate a ban on assault weapons, even if it may be politically difficult.”[1]

First of all try to overlook the rhetoric of wanting “to kill policemen” etc.  This is an emotional plea to sway people to his position and has nothing to do with the facts.  No law abiding citizen wants to do these things and having a law against assault weapons will not deter a criminal from getting them.  Secondly, President Carter is disingenuous at best when he talks about the “assault weapons” ban.  He stated he owns three rifles, two with scopes and the only difference between his firearms and the assault weapon is in the furniture attached to it.  (Furniture is the items attached to the firearm, stock, hand guards, flash suppressor, etc.)

An assault weapon, according to the assault weapon ban, is any firearm that had a certain number of furniture items on the firearm.  For instance if I remove the “flash suppressor” and replace it with a muzzle break, change the pistol grip to a one piece stock that had a thumb-hole in it, and reduced the magazine from 20 rounds to 10 – have I changed the ballistic capability of the weapon?   A 7.62 (30 cal) round will impact with the same devastation regardless of what the weapon LOOKS LIKE.  An M-16 rifle shoots the 5.56/.223 round and is used around the world by many militaries.  Do you think the round will be less effective if shot from a rifle that is set-up as a non-militaristic looking weapon?

Let’s look at this from a different point of view: in the Supreme Court case of United States V. Miller, the Supreme Court found in favor of the United States concerning the interstate transportation of a sawed off shotgun.  The defense argued that the weapon was protected under the Second Amendment and Justice McReynolds gave the opinion of the court stating:

“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”[2]

Their finding of the court in supporting the US government’s position was that the weapon would NOT be covered under the second amendment as it was NOT a part of the “ordinary military equipment.”  However, assault weapons ARE a part of the normal military equipment and therefore ARE covered under the Second Amendment.  We cannot have it both ways.

Senator Diane Feinstein likewise shows here ignorance stating:

“Weapons of war don’t belong on the streets,” Feinstein said on Fox News. This is a powerful weapon, it had a 100-round drum; this is a man who planned, who went in, and his purpose was to kill as many people as he could in a sold-out theater. We’ve got to really sit down and come to grips with what is sold to the average citizen in America.”

“I have no problem with people being licensed to buy a firearm, but these are weapons that are only going to be used to kill a lot of people in close combat,” she said.[3]

We have already covered the legal, Second Amendment, aspect to gun control but what about the moral rights of the citizen to have firearms?   She states that these are used to kill people “in close combat.”  It is interesting that she uses that terminology.  I’m sure she used it to evoke a negative militaristic emotion from the reader as something inherently evil.  The act at the theater was most definitely evil but the weapon was just a tool.

But getting back to Ms. Feinstein and the moral right of the people – why did the founders put the second amendment into the Bill of Rights?  Was it to allow Americans to hunt and go target shooting?  No. Was it to come to the aid of the country and keep the peace?  Yes in part.  Was it to be a check and balance to civil authority against a tyrannical government?  Absolutely.

United States Representative Ron Paul, from the 14^th District in Texas, stated in a November 6^th, 2006 article entitled “Gun Control on the Back Burner”:

“The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of that time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms.”[4]

We know this is the position of those that organized this country for it was written in the Declaration of Independence stating that “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -That whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it”… but “not for light and transient causes…”  but for when that government becomes tyrannical “it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

This is the reason that the Second Amendment was secured to the people.  Because this is exactly what they experienced, and the history of mankind has shown this pattern to repeat in every government since the dawn of man.

Those on the left talk of wanting to protect the citizens by enacting tougher gun laws but by enacting these laws they disarm law abiding citizens thereby aiding the criminal.  They totally overlook the entire history of mankind and the fact that governments have killed more of their own citizens than the criminals ever have and the very first thing a government does is to remove the ability of the citizen to resist by first registering and then confiscating weapons; whether that is a sword or a rifle.

The gun control advocates would have us believe the following:

First: Gun control laws curb criminal behavior.
Second: If gun availability is lessened there would be a decrease in gun crimes.
Third: More gun control means safer streets, schools, homes, etc.

All three statements would be true, in a vacuum or in a totally controlled environment. If we add the human element into the equation, these statements become false.

First, as we have already discussed, the criminal does not obey the law and therefore does not care about legally purchasing or owning firearms.  Do we really believe that someone who is capable of rape or murder cares one whit about registering a firearm or submitting for a license?  Of course not!  He does not obey the law; therefore, no law will curb his behavior.

Second, in every state where handguns are freely permitted to be carried there has been a lessening of overall violent crimes.  It does seem to follow, “if you outlaw guns, the only people who will have guns will be the outlaws.”

Third, the city with the most stringent gun control laws is the city with the highest gun crime, Washington D.C.

So why doesn’t gun control work?  It is really quite simple, laws are meant to control and regulate “behavior” not objects, a set of standards, if you will, that says these things we do not do, and if you do them there will be consequences.  Legal systems are designed to provide a framework of acceptable “behavior” by which persons within a society interact with each other.  Murder is illegal in nearly every society on the face of the earth.  The manner in which that murder is accomplished is simply tool identification.  The lack of moral upbringing and interference by the government has removed parental power.  Today a child in some cities cannot be spanked out of fear that child protective services will take their child away.  Yet, the state makes the parents responsible for the child’s behavior, and stands between the child and parent when discipline is most needed.  If a child grows up thinking there are no harsh consequences to whatever he does, then he will do whatever he wants.  The problem with our society is not the availability of guns it is the absence of a moral standard for our society and an advancement of secular belief that denies God in the public square.

What our nation needs are laws that punish criminal behavior and to stop criminalizing honest citizens who wish only to protect themselves and their families.   Both the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) statistics have shown that the majority of violent crimes are committed without firearms, and the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with guns that were illegally obtained, bypassing gun laws.  So the net effect of gun control laws is to affect the law abiding citizen and has virtually no effect on the criminal element of our society.

So instead of listening to lying politicians, agenda driven special interest groups, start taking responsibility for your own life.  Stop demanding from someone else what you are too much of a coward to do yourself.  The Supreme Court has stated the police are not liable to protect any individual citizen.  Then if they are not – who is?  YOU!

If more law abiding citizens would purchase, train, and start taking responsibility for themselves and their position in society, those who would do them ill would think twice about it.  And all you PC business owners, like Colorado movie theaters, who make it unlawful for a law abiding citizen to defend himself have created an environment that emboldens the lawless because no one is going to be able to do a damn thing to stop them.  These businesses have a degree of responsibility for creating a venue of criminal terror.

© 2019 NWV – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Michael Lemieux: raven-1911@hotmail.com

Footnotes:

[i] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/opinion/27Carter.html

[ii] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZO.html

[iii]http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/239343-feinstein-johnson-spar-over-expired-assault-weapons-ban

[iv] http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/ tst110606.htm

In light of the recent mass shootings, and the apparent ignorance of the majority of the “news” media and elected officials, I am moved to write a brief primer of the 2^nd Amendment in order to spread some enlightenment.

As has been born out in the writings of the founders and authors of the Constitution, their debates, and indeed the US Supreme court, the “Bill of Rights” are not now nor ever envisioned to be a grant of right to the American people.  In fact the founding documents have spoken clearly that our rights come from our creator, not the government.  In fact the preamble of the Bill of Rights was quite clear that the intent of adding these rights was to restrict the federal government from abuse, it states: “THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added…” (Bold added)

In US V. Cruikshank (92 US 542) the Supreme Court ruled that the application of the First and Second Amendments “was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens” and “has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,” respectively.  Again we see the intent, recognized by the founders and by law, that the Bill of Rights was only a restraint on the Federal government from acting in these areas.

The 2^nd Amendment, with its statement of “shall not be infringed” means exactly that.  That the federal government does not have the authority to pass laws restricting the right of citizens in keeping and bearing arms.  However, as we have witnessed in recent history (post 1939), not have authority has no longer been a deterrence to its power to pass laws.

We now have, and to be honest for some time now, we have had the call to ban military styled weapons call “assault weapons.”  To be factual, none of the firearms sold today are assault weapons.  By definition an assault weapon has the capacity for automatic fire (which includes 3 round burst).  A semi-automatic weapon is not an assault weapon.  And even if it were it is not within the authority of the federal government to ban.  I did not say within the power to ban as all governments rule by force and they have the military/police power to do anything, even if it is unconstitutional.

In US V. Miller (307 US 74), a case of a man who crossed state lines with a sawed off shotgun and was arrested.  During trial the courts made the determination that the weapon was not covered by the 2^nd Amendment stating: “we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”  So, by the courts own admission; the only weapons which are guaranteed covered by the 2^nd Amendment are those weapons used by the military, which would be by definition Assault Weapons.

Now as we have seen in some states, they have restricted many areas of the 2^nd Amendment; and it is their authority to do so if it falls within the power established by the states constitution.  Obviously California and Massachusetts comes to mind.  And as we cited above in the Cruikshank case, the states are not bound by the 2^nd Amendment as it was originally intended.

Why did I say as originally intended?  Because, after the civil war the federal government did something that has allowed them to turn the Constitution on its head.  This was, in my opinion, one of the most mis-appropriated amendments to the Constitution, the 14^th Amendment.  In particular the 1^st section which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”  (Emphasis added)

What happened in this clause was to change the federal government from a construct of the many states to having the states subordinate to the federal government.  It accomplished this by stating that all citizens are first citizens of the United States and secondarily to the state they reside.  Prior to this a citizen was known by the state they were a citizen of and not of the central government.   Historically this was done to protect the recently freed slaves and to overcome the Jim Crow laws that were put in place.  And though well intentioned the effect was far reaching as politicians came to understand how much power they actually gained by this amendment.

The bottom line is that constitutionally the federal government does not have the authority to ban firearms but it will always maintain that it has the power to do so.  And as we all know, power corrupts…

© 2019 Michael Lemieux – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Michael Lemieux: raven-1911@hotmail.com