We Have Now Reached The Inevitable…

supreme_court_buildingThe Supreme Court refused today to schedule oral arguments in Noonan, et al v. Bowden — the Obama ballot eligibility challenge; apparently, according to hard proof offered by attorney Orly Taitz, the Supreme Court’s very own Law Clerks sabotaged the presentation of this case at the scheduling conference by failing to distribute the original petition and supplemental briefs properly, causing the Justices to refuse to consider scheduling the case at all.

They say that you learn something new every day… and I have learned today, while keeping tabs on the case, that the Supreme Court is completely irrelevant now, and is no longer an effective “check” in the great scheme of “checks and balances” conceived by our Founding Fathers.

487094_438112242893151_442673287_nObama doesn’t need to concern himself any longer with how the Justices will rule on any specific issue, since he has the Law Clerks in his pocket. It is the Law Clerks who actually determine what the Supreme Court accepts — and even what documents that Justices themselves see.

So, from this day forward, if Obama does not want a particular issue to be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court — he just lets the Court’s Law Clerks know that the issue is “off limits”, and the case will never make it before the actual Court itself.

Friends, I am sure that this is NOT how the “Separation of Powers” called for in the Constitution is supposed to work. And I am absolutely sure that our Founders are spinning in their graves like a whirling dervish!

I am now convinced that America is doomed to Civil War.

The Executive branch of our government now rules by fiat, with no concern for the sanctity of the Constitution or the rights of us, the citizens of the several States, and is not concerned with being upbraided by the other two branches of government;

US_Congress_02The Legislative branch of our government no longer listens to or consults the people who sent them to Washington to represent them, and, just like the Executive branch, is no longer concerned that the Judicial branch will stop any plans or ill intentions they have in store for America;

Now that we have apparently been subjected to a coup by the Law Clerks of the Judicial branch, all but the most influential and wealthy Americans have completely lost the ability to effectively seek redress of grievances in a fair and impartial legal forum.

american-revolutionThis is not the America which my ancestors fought and died to establish and preserve, and speaking for myself, this present government has now lost the consent of the governed and is illegitimate; it no longer has sanction by the Constitution, and has fatally violated that founding contract.

Ladies and gentlemen — the Constitution can be saved, but I am afraid that it can no longer be rescued without the necessity of completely tearing the existing farce of an institution out by the roots.

599243_265727886867335_1759798258_nAnd that will be a long, expensive — and very bloody — task for the Patriots of America. It is the only viable alternative left, though — the present government has made peaceful resolution completely impossible.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy once said, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.”…

I believe that we have now reached the inevitable…

Advertisements

Gun Control Really Is Never Going To Be Possible

This is a re-post of an article posted at the American Live Wire.  This article is so good, and so pertinent to the struggle going on today, I felt that it was imperative that these words and facts be preserved here as well.

The Dick Act is Not the Gun-Control Holy Grail

Those of you circulating information about the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 (the Dick Act), PLEASE cease and desist.  You know, the email and Facebook snippet that’s being touted as the Holy Grail of Second Amendment rights, and includes this ridiculous statement: “The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.” (Boldface added for emphasis)?

One Congress can ABSOLUTELY repeal the acts of any previous Congress.  It’s as simple as that. So please, stop spreading this drivel.  At best it’s disinformation, at worst it’s ludicrous. And I’m not even going to address the if-I-write-it-they-will-come lunacy of including “bills of attainder and ex post facto laws.

The writers of the Constitution chose their words carefully. Any law which in any way hinders the RIGHT to keep and bear arms is illegal. ALL gun control laws are illegal. A law creating multiple definitions and divisions of “militia” does not override the Second Amendment. The most amusing part is: The Dick Act has been superseded several times.  It’s ALREADY been “repealed.” And the superseding acts don’t override the Second Amendment either.

Advocates for the Second Amendment Are Grasping at Straws

It appears that many Americans are stretching the limits of the believable, looking for a magical mantra that will not only keep the Federal government away from our guns and keep the ATF from busting in our doors, but to also miraculously change the minds of those who are supporting stricter gun control.  So many supporters of the Second Amendment have seem to forgotten that the Constitution of the United States is the law of this land, and no one – not the President, not Congress, not the FBI or ATF or any of the alphabet gangs -is above it.  So many supporters of gun control have forgotten the same thing.  It’s not surprising, actually – Americans have given up so many of their fundamental rights in the ultimately fruitless pursuit of safety and security that most people have stopped paying attention to the egregious slashing of the Bill of Rights happening right under their noses.  Our government has become a self-perpetuating entity, an entity that has convinced America that we cannot live without it.

The fact is, the government cannot live without us.   We’ve allowed our politicians to manipulate us into believing “popular opinion” and “majority” mean something in this country.  Sorry, they don’t.  The Constitution (and the amendments thereof) is the law, and it directs, grants, and limits each and every power and responsibility of the Federal government.  And it is our right, duty, and obligation to ensure they fulfill those duties and responsibilities – with our unalienable rights enjoying the utmost care and respect.

The JFPO published an article stating,” That each person is responsible for his own defense against criminals has long been the law in the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court implied this in 1856, when it decided South v. Maryland, and held that a sheriff did not have a duty to protect an ordinary person, but only had a duty generally to uphold the Law. The Court indirectly re-affirmed Americans’ private and personal right to keep and to bear arms for self-defense purposes. More recently, a U.S.Appellate Court reaffirmed that the government has no duty to protect the average person. In 1939 [with regard to United States v. Miller, the only U.S. Supreme Court case reviewing the Second Amendment in the last 70 years] the Supreme Court was not asked to recognize that Americans never have had a right to protection by the government, and so have a right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Because the average person’s right to self-defense – and to the possession of firearms for that purpose – has not been explicitly recognized,criminals’ abuse of firearms has been used to justify sharp curtailments of law-abiding persons’ civil right to be armed. Laws concerning the ownership of firearms for personal defense need to be adjusted to recognize that South v. Maryland implicitly re-affirmed Americans’ right to own firearms for personal defense. As a result, criminals’ abuse of firearms cannot lawfully be a pretext to deprive the law-abiding of those firearms (boldface added). 

In other words, we don’t need to find the Holy Grail of sensibility to resist further infringement.  We are holding it in our hands.

That said, let’s back up a bit.

A Historical Perspective

From our Declaration of Independence, In Congress on July 4, 1776:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–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, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Firstly, this is irrefutable proof that our Founding Fathers recognized that each of us has “certain unalienable rights,” rights endowed by the “Creator.”  Doesn’t matter if you believe in God, the Declaration of Independence rests   on the premise that God believes in you.

Secondly, our Founding Fathers recognized that a government can become tyrannical only if the people allow it.  They provided for a government whose sole power lies in the “consent of the governed,” the governed having the right – and obligation – to “alter or abolish” any government or form of government that poses a threat to the unalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

Thirdly, our Founding Fathers acknowledged a very important and telling human trait – a trait that should be easily recognizable to anyone currently in America:  ”…mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves…“. In other words, people will take the devil they know over the devil they don’t any day of the week, even if the devil they know is abusive, tyrannical, repressive, and wholly self-perpetuating.

11 years later, the Federal Convention met to revise the Articles of Confederation.  After several months of discussion and debate, it became clear that amendment to the Articles would not be sufficient, and an entirely new frame of government would be drafted instead.  Throughout the summer, closed sessions were held to draft a comprehensive governing document… and on September 17, 1787, the Constitution of the United States was ratified and established.

Stay with me while we examine a bit more closely what our Founding Fathers were doing with this reframed document:

Article I., Section I.  ” All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”  This means that only Congress can enact legislation.  The ATF can’t just make up laws and regulations.  Neither can the President.

Article II, in entirety, states the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Military and of “the Militia of the several states” if that Militia is called into action in the service of the United States.  The President has the power to require any Executive Department to report with regard to the duties of their Department, and he has the power to grant reprieve/pardon for offenses against the United States (except for impeachment, obviously).  He can make treaties with the consent of Congress, he can appoint United States Officers and Supreme Court judges, and “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”  In other words, the President is tasked with being the guardian of the Constitution, and ensuring that the law of the land is supreme.  But the President does not have the power to make law.

Further, nowhere in the Articles of the Constitution does it grant power to any branch of the Federal government to restrict, regulate, suppress, or otherwise impose upon the tools of “the militia.”  The powers of Congress, the President, or any Executive department do not extend to regulation of firearms and ammunition (among other things). Period.

Now, moving on to the Bill of Rights, we see the Second Amendment in all of its glorious simplicity:  ”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.”  ”Infringed” means “violated.”  Synonyms of “infringe” include “breach,” “contravene,” “encroach,” “impose,” “intrude,” “invade,” “meddle,” “steal,” “offend,” “transgress,” and “trespass.”  Replace “infringed” with any one of these synonyms and it should be obvious that the Framers were really serious about the right of American citizens to protect themselves, their families, and their liberty – and about their roles as Citizen Soldiers.  This right – this unalienable right – shall not be infringed.

In a 1986 Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy article, David T. Hardy wrote, “The closing phrase of the Second Amendment favors neither the collective nor the individual right interpretation, but its absolute language suggests that the Framers intended to recognize the right in the strongest possible language. Early courts and commentators were in accord with this view, stressing that “No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people.” Some early courts and commentators even suggested that the choice of the term “shall not be infringed” rather than “Congress shall make no law” (as is used in the First Amendment) indicated a desire to prohibit such action by states as well as the federal government.

From The Oxford Companion to US Military History: The concept of the “citizen-soldier” is based on the notion that citizens have the obligation to arm themselves to defend their communities or nations from foreign invaders and from domestic tyrants. Usually associated with republicanism, it is best understood in opposition to other forms of military organization, particularly the practices of hiring mercenaries or establishing professional standing armies of the state. In the latter two cases, soldiers and officers are isolated from society and can represent a praetorian challenge to legitimate rule. By contrast, the citizen-soldiers embody the will of the people directly because they are the people. They have a stake in preserving liberties and rights in a society, hence supplying a check on tyranny and corruption of governments.

Richard W. Stevens noted, “Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 and 16 of the U.S. Constitution refer to Congress’s powers concerning the state militias. Clause 15 empowers Congress to “call forth” the state militias into national service for specific purposes. Clause 16 empowers Congress to organize, arm and discipline the state militias, and to govern the militias while they are in national service. The Second Amendment confines Congress’s power by guaranteeing that the Congress cannot “govern” the militias right out of existence and thereby disarm ‘the people.’”

Further, the United States, as an entity, is a product of the Constitution. When the government punishes a American citizen abroad, the protection of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are not stripped from the individual because the individual is in another land. All agreements made with a foreign nation are restricted by the Constitution to the degree of power they confer on any branch of the government.  No Executive Order, Presidential Directive, Executive Agreement, no NAFTA, GATT/WTO agreement/treaty, passed by ANYONE, can supersede the Constitution.

So What Now?

As the only Supreme Court review of the Second Amendment was seventy years ago, the decision of the United States Supreme Court in United States vs. Miller, which is essentially a narrow form of the individual rights approach to interpretation of the Second Amendment. The decision shares at least most of the amendment’s historical virtues, but is incapable of dealing with changes in infantry weapons technology that have occurred in the 20th century. Under that approach, legislatures are prohibited from restricting the possession of modern weapons by private citizens because these weapons can be used for military purposes.

Those who think the Supreme Court’s decision in United States vs. Miller was a broad-based general ruling which gave the government license to restrict Americans’ civil right to be armed should also accept the Court’s logic, and consider plainly unconstitutional bans on: new manufacture of fully-automatic and semi-automatic military-type firearms, the new manufacture of detachable ammunition holders (magazines), especially those types of magazines which are standard U.S. military issue, and possession and sale of armor-piercing ammunition. These types of firearms, accessories, and ammunition are precisely those most suitable for military and militia use. and have been so issued by the Federal government to U.S. armed forces. The Court held that the keeping and bearing of such firearms was explicitly protected by the Second Amendment.

And those who think, like I do, that the Supreme Court made a narrow decision in 1939, which affected only short-barreled shotguns, should think the above bans are plainly unconstitutional, and so in need of Supreme Court review.

Should we be given such a golden opportunity, it must be established by powerful documentary and expert evidence beyond any doubt that the use by U.S. military and militia forces of certain classes of firearms, ammunition, and magazines – which have been banned from civilian possession– makes such bans unconstitutional.  Additionally, South v. Maryland (1856) and a large body of later Federal and State jurisprudence , by effectively relieving the government of a duty to protect the average person,  implicitly recognizes the civil right of the law-abiding person to keep and bear arms for personal defense.

Thus, if the Holy Grail of gun control is what you seek, leave all reference to the dead-and-gone Dick Act and find it in this statement supported by the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and existing case law:   If, according to established precedent, the law-abiding person has a civil right to be armed for self-defense, criminals’ abuse of firearms cannot be used to justify depriving the law-abiding of those firearms.

Did you know there can be no gun control?

10thAmendment-350w233hI am going to make a shocking statement… and then I am going to tell you logically why I am absolutely correct.

Neither the federal, or any of the state governments, have any Constitutional authority to enact any law which defines who can or cannot own a gun, who can or cannot carry a gun, where you can or cannot carry a gun, what kind of gun you can or cannot own or carry, or make any other edict which concerns the unique relationship Americans have with firearms.

The Founding Fathers were wise enough to remove that topic from the discussion completely — just as they were wise enough to make sure that no one could alter the words or meaning of the Constitution unless it was done through the Article V process that they provided for.

However, all three federal government branches — the federal Judicial, Legislative and Executive branches — as well as all State governments, have usurped Powers and Authority which they were not granted or were specifically denied by the Founders and the Constitution.

supreme_court_buildingBy interpreting the meaning of the Constitution (which the Constitution does not authorize them to do), rather than ensuring that all US and State Laws conform to the letter of the Constitution, the Judicial Branch has usurped a power which they were not given by the Constitution.

Furthermore, by exercising an authority that they do not have, the Judicial Branch has unlawfully granted the Legislative and Executive Branches a number of powers which were never delegated to them by the Constitution, or were denied to them by the Bill of Rights.

Additionally, the State governments have usurped Powers which they were specifically prohibited from exercising by the Constitution and Bill of Rights; the 2nd Amendment specifically prohibits the States from infringing upon the right of the People to keep and bear arms, yet the States have enacted a multitude of “gun control” laws which are all patently un-Constitutional on their face.

This has been done by means of unlawful Supreme Court rulings which are based upon the exercise of powers that the Judicial Branch has usurped in “interpreting” the meaning of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

400299_10151287876466321_1853991989_nThe people of America MUST recognize these usurpations; the American People MUST repudiate these unconstitutional usurpations of power by all three branches of government, as well as by the States, and simply say — in one unified voice — “NO”, we will no longer comply with illegal and unconstitutional laws.

And they need to do so by some stronger “show of force” than posting on Facebook.

What I am saying, in other words, is that there truly needs to be a Revolution in practice — preferably, a peaceful revolution — but this present system of government MUST be returned to the Constitutional Republic instituted by our Founding Fathers.

militia_answer_1_xlargeAs long as we do not, our federal and State governments will continue to spread their unconstitutional message and will continue to usurp the Constitution to the extreme detriment of the American People.

And that, I am certain, will lead to a violent and bloody Revolution that the nation will not survive.

In order to offer further proof of the principles expounded above, I have recently found a very detailed linguistic interpretation of the Second Amendment.  For those who are still a bit skeptical of my reasoning, I include this interpretation below; I believe you will find that this expert’s opinion shows that my analysis is right on the money.

============================================================

The Unabridged Second Amendment
by J. Neil Schulman

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you’d ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers — who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.

A little research lent support to Brocki’s opinion of Professor Copperud’s expertise.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He’s on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster’s Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud’s fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher’s Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:

“I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

“The text of the Second Amendment is, ‘A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.’

“The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, ‘A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State’, is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.’

“I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary.”

My letter framed several questions about the test of the Second Amendment, then concluded:

“I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance.”

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):

[Copperud:] “The words ‘A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,’ contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying ‘militia,’ which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject ‘the right’, verb ‘shall’). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

“In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] “(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to ‘a well-regulated militia’?”

[Copperud:] “(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.”

[Schulman:] “(2) Is ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms’ granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right ‘shall not be infringed’?”

[Copperud:] “(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.”

[Schulman:] “(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed’ null and void?”

[Copperud:] “(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.”

[Schulman:] “(4) Does the clause ‘A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,’ grant a right to the government to place conditions on the ‘right of the people to keep and bear arms,’ or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?”

[Copperud:] “(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.”

[Schulman:] “(5) Which of the following does the phrase ‘well-regulated militia’ mean: ‘well-equipped’, ‘well-organized,’ ‘well-drilled,’ ‘well-educated,’ or ‘subject to regulations of a superior authority’?”

[Copperud:] “(5) The phrase means ‘subject to regulations of a superior authority;’ this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.”

[Schulman:] “(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.”

[Copperud:] “To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: “Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.’

[Schulman:] “As a ‘scientific control’ on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

“A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.’

“My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

“(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment’s sentence?; and

“(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict ‘the right of the people to keep and read Books’ only to ‘a well-educated electorate’ — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?”

[Copperud:] “(1) Your ‘scientific control’ sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

“(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.”

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: “With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion.”

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people’s right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard’s desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.

And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms — all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.

And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.

It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn’t mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?

Or will be simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortuned, and our sacred honor?
——————————————————————————————————-
(C) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All other rights reserved.

——————————————————————————————————

About the Author

J. Neil Schulman is the award-winning author of novels endorsed by Anthony Burgess and Nobel-economist Milton Friedman, and writer of the CBS Twilight Zone episode in which a time-traveling historian prevents the JFK assassination. He’s also the founder and president of SoftServ Publishing, the first publishing company to distribute “paperless books” via personal computers and modems.

Most recently, Schulman has founded the Committee to Enforce the Second Amendment (CESA), through which he intends to see the individual’s right to keep and bear arms recognized as a constitutional protection equal to those afforded in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth amendments.