Of Liberty and Tyranny

Guess what- NO ONE who serves within any branch of the state or general (federal) government has ANY lawful authority over guns. The US Bill of Rights is a list of things FORBIDDEN to those who serve within our governments or how certain put-into-writing things can be done in a specific manner, under specific circumstances ONLY by those who serve within our governments.

1943 Supreme Court Case of West Virginia Board of Education Vs. Barnette 319 U.S. 624, Justice Robert H Jackson (Justice Robert Jackson, Chief U.S. Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials – all Americans should know his name) said the following:
“The very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcomes of no elections.”

Example of Forbidden;
Dr. Vieira: “What are the defining characteristics of a limited government? They are its disabilities; what it does not have legal authority to do.
Look at the First Amendment… What does it do?
It guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion.
But how does it do that?
I quote: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press” etcetera. “Congress shall make no law;” that’s a statement of an ABSENCE OF POWER. That’s a statement of a disability.” (end quote)

Michael LeMioux;
“The first Amendment does not give us any rights. The amendment is comprised of six limitations put on the government. It merely states what the government cannot do, and thus protects citizens rights from government infringement.
First Amendment reads as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

The six protections against government encroachment are:
1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
2. Congress shall make no law prohibiting the exercise of religion
3. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech
4. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press
5. Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peacefully to assemble
6. Congress shall make no law abridging the right to petition the government for a redress of grievance.

Example of certain things can be done in a specific manner, under specific circumstances ONLY;
M. LeMioux;
4th Amendment
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

There are two governmental limitations stated in this amendment.
1. The citizens are to be secure in their person, home, papers, and property, from
unreasonable searches and seizure. In other words they have the privacy to go about their lives without worrying whether the government will invade them. This amendment was to ensure that the government does not trespass on the people nor take anything from the people without following correct legal procedure.
2. The government is restrained from taking either person or property without first getting a warrant, and only after proving probable cause. This, however, is only as valid as the judge is honest. There have been numerous cases in which judges have signed blank warrants, and the details are not filled in until after serving the warrant.

Everyone must understand that these Amendments are not grants of right, but limitations put on to those who serve within our governments – state and general (federal) to ensure that they do not trespass beyond their enumerated powers (listed, put-into-writing powers).

Okay, most of you probably have the idea of how this works now, so taking the wording of the Second Amendment let’s determine if it is a “Forbidden” to those that serve within our governments or a “you are allowed to do this but ONLY in this way, under these circumstances”;

Constitution of the United States of America, Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Looking at “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” We know – or should know – that “well regulated” means trained in the manner of the US Military when called into service, though not as often so that if need be the people of the state who are the Militia can defend their city, state, and country if needed to, that they are available if called upon by either the congress, the Governor, or the people themselves to:
— Enforce the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution,
— Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which are constitutional laws ONLY),
— Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
— “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.

They can do so per US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15 and Clause 16.

So we know that they are the ONLY lawfully constitutionally mandated force for those duties listed above.

But more important is that there is a word there that is NOT found anywhere else within the US Constitution, “Necessary” is that word. Why would a Militia be necessary for a free state? And is this the “state of being” or an actual man created state such as Kansas, Nebraska, etc? Some are still debating that issue, but I believe from my studies that it is referring to “state of being”, because all people are inherently free and possess natural rights.

So would a Militia of the people be considered “necessary for the security of a free state” because throughout history when standing military and (whatever version) of law enforcement is created and used, they ended up being used against the people themselves?

We are seeing this happening within the USA today, so that is the most likely reason that the framers forbid those who serve within our governments to create a standing military and any governmental professional law enforcement – state or general (federal), and requried that they both use the Militia for those purposes.

Now we get to the part that says “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” That says that there is no one who serves within our government that is given any authority over the people concerning weapons, their use, etc that it is entirely up to the people themselves.

Samuel Adams: It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control … The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their Power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them..”

Patrick Henry: “If you have given up your militia, and Congress shall refuse to arm them, you have lost every thing. Your existence will be precarious, because you depend on others, whose interests are not affected by your infelicity.”

Tench Coxe: “Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American…The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 29: “What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen… Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

James Madison, Federalist 46 wrote: “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…”

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 28: “ there exists a right of self-defense against a tyrannical government, and it includes the people with their own arms”
“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government… if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers… The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair… The people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate… If their rights are invaded… How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized! (being armed)“

Joseph Stalin, 1933: ”The United States should get rid of its militias”.

Cockrum v. State: “The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power”

Nunn vs. State:’The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right”.

Some things to think about is that since those that serve within our government is FORBIDDEN to modify or change the 2nd Amendment, why are they going against that for which they have no lawful authority? It is not their business, nor under their jurisdiction.

Alexander Hamilton: “Every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

Since those that serve within our governments are doing so, one might also need to understand that there is also No Such Thing as “emergency powers” or “martial law” here in America. That “emergency powers” and “martial law” are the direct opposite of our legitimate government and also forbidden to those that serve within our state and general (federal) governments.

Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 425 (1934): “Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions upon power granted or reserved. The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the Federal Government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency and they are not altered by emergency.”

The Supreme Court of the United States: “The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism.”

Thomas Jefferson: “[A] strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.”

Since those that serve within our governments were not authorized to have anything at all to do with the Second Amendment that they are doing so, and have been doing so unlawfully should be a warning to ALL Americans and those lawfully allowed to be here.