Prohibiting Firearms for Political Profit

By Rob Morse

Slow Facts
Slow Facts

California – -(Ammoland.com)-  Politicians make political profit by passing ineffective laws.  I study firearms laws, so that is where I noticed it first.  When it comes to violence in our society, a politician doesn’t need to actually improve things with their legislation.  In fact, the next gun law they pass can actually make things worse rather than better.

We buy our politics like an impulse shopper.  We don't look beyond the packaging to see what is really inside.

Politicians live in a world of vague images and impressions about the stated intent of their proposed law.  All the politician really needs is a good headline.  He will even write the headline for the media.. if the media lets him.  Favorable media coverage helps the politician get political donations.  Campaign cash is the real goal of legislation.  That is a far cry from actually doing the people’s business and controlling criminal violence on our streets.

You and I live in the real world where a politician can’t do very much.  The reasons are simple enough.  When it comes to controlling violence, criminals don’t obey the law.  That is a problem for the average unarmed citizen, but violent crime is actually an opportunity for the politician.  More laws and controls are always the solution.. no matter what the problem.  All that matters is that the politician’s press release spins well enough for the fawning news media.

This problem is widespread.  A gullible news media and short attention span voters can be found from coast to coast and border to border.  The only solution I see is to have a smaller government and to be a better consumer of political news.  Pay attention to what your politicians do.

Our politicians won’t change unless we change them.  Our politicians will only stop lying when they are caught and shamed.

hillary-glasses

You’re right.  It was a cheap shot to post Hillary’s picture, but she is the poster child for lying politicians.

Here are several more examples of political hypocrisy that needs to stop.

  • Let’s start in Seattle. We were told that the recently passed Washington gun law would stop criminals from getting guns. These new laws demand a background check each time honest gun owners take possession of each other’s guns.  Last week, a Seattle woman was robbed at gunpoint in front of her home.  The armed thief took her purse and keys.  The criminal didn’t submit to a mandatory background check to get his gun.  In fact, robbery is up 38 percent in the area year to year.  The “mandatory background check” law sounded good but simply doesn’t work as advertised.
  • Oregon passed a similar “mandatory background check” law. Here is news that another felon from Oregon used a gun as he robbed a home.  It was already illegal for these convicted felons to have guns, but that doesn’t stop them.  The new mandatory background check law won’t stop them either.
  • A thief robbed a San Diego, California restaurant and shot a customer.   This is San Diego where honest citizens can’t get a permit to carry a firearm.  The thief had a gun anyway.. and he didn’t bother asking the sheriff for a permit.
  • Two police officers were shot and killed in Hattiesburg, Mississippi. They officers were shot by two convicted felons.   It is illegal for a felon to possess a firearm, but criminals don’t obey the law.
  • Three to four people have been shot each day in Baltimore, Maryland after the recent riots. Baltimore has extremely strict gun laws.  The laws are so strict that it is impossible for an honest citizen to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon for self-defense.  That isn’t stopping the thugs.  Those gun laws only leave the honest citizens defenseless.
  • Gangs run guns into the gun free cities of New York City and Washington, DC. Gangs move drugs.  Gangs move people.  Gangs move guns and ammunition.  That doesn't move New York politicians.  Criminals get their guns, but honest citizens are left disarmed by law.
  • Violence soared as Chicago passed more and more gun laws. Public violence finally fell when citizens were allowed to protect themselves on the street with a discreetly carried firearm.  There are exceptions.  Crime remains high on Chicago public transportation where honest citizens remain disarmed by state gun laws.

No city is immune.

I can see it now.  There are headline-surfing anti-rights voters out there saying that we should pass a new law to make criminals obey the old law.

Sigh.  And another politician found his low-information voters and smiles.

I’ll make is simple for you.  Gun laws can only infringe on the rights of law abiding gun owners because honest gun owners are the only ones who obey gun laws.  Criminals don’t.  Crime won’t drop by telling criminals it is illegal to own guns.  Criminals don’t care because they break the law for a living.  Failed firearms prohibition only makes it more cumbersome for honest citizens to protect themselves.  Is that failure a flaw in the law.. or is it a feature that was designed in from the start?

That may be the political intent all along.
~_~_

About Rob Morse: By day, Rob Morse works as a mild mannered engineer for a Southern California defense contractor. By night he writes about gun rights at Ammoland, at Clash Daily and on his SlowFacts blog.   He is an NRA pistol instructor and combat handgun competitor.

  • 2 thoughts on “Prohibiting Firearms for Political Profit

    1. First, if a “law”, regulation, treaty is not in Pursuance thereof (follows) the US Constitution then it is LAWFULLY “Null and Void”.

      The US Constitution has constitutional remedies for “We the people” to chastise and stop rogue domestic enemies who serve within our governments. Yes, those same traitors will tell you that we have no power, but we do. We need to start educating those who do not know what they are and then IMPLEMENT them.

      Some education.

      The three branches of the American government is NOT the same three branches of the state and federal – legislative, executive, and judicial. READ the US Constitution, it names them starting with the Preamble to the US Constitution:

      “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

      The Preamble to the US Constitution says who is responsible for doing certain things within our nation and it is not “We the congress”, nor is it “we who serve within the executive branch”, nor is it “we the judges” – state or federal. It is “We the People of the United States” are to:
      – “establish Justice”
      – “insure domestic Tranquility”
      – “provide for the common defence”
      – “promote the general Welfare”
      – “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”

      It is made VERY clear and easy to understand.

      They backed it up with these comments;

      James Madison, Father of the US Constitution said in Federalist 46: “The Foederal and State Governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, instituted with different powers, and designated for different purposes… They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone; and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expence of the other. ”

      James Madison: “The ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms.”

      Thomas Jefferson: “The most effectual means of preventing [the perversion of power into tyranny are] to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts which history exhibits, that possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes.”

      Thomas Jefferson:“I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves, And if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”

      George Washington: “The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.”

      James Madison, Federalist 57, wrote that Congress “can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society.”

      So what duties are constitutionally assigned to the people and over which those that serve within our governments have NO LAWFUL jurisdiction or authority, or VERY limited, put-into-writing exactly how and under what specific written circumstances they may do certain things?

      The Militia, because those that serve within our governments are forbidden to create “standing” military and governmental professional law enforcement, but are to use the Militia of the several states for:
      — 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”.

      The US Constitution guarantees to each state its own “Republican form of government”. It is every state’s Militia that is the ONLY Constitutionally assigned force to “counter Invasions” and “Domestic Violence” within our nation, NOT those that serve within our governments.

      US Constitution, Article I, Section. 8, Clause 11: “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water”.

      This is using private citizens in their own privately owned crafts to defend the USA and her people, this is using the Militia.

      Clause 12 specifies that there shall be no military beyond that of two years. The Militia of each state is charged with our nations defense here within the USA until and unless the congress has declared war and a military is raised.

      Clause 12: “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years”.

      Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, floor debate over the 2nd Amendment, I Annals of Congress: “What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to PREVENT THE ESTABLISMENT OF A STANDING ARMY, the bane of liberty….”

      James Madison: “… large and permanent military establishments … are forbidden by the principles of free government, and against the necessity of which the militia were meant to be a constitutional bulwark.”

      Clause 15: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions.

      The militia of each state is taxed with the defense of the USA and her people, not just with the defense of their state; and they are to be armed with weapons that can repel any invasions bearing modern weapons of war. Congress is required to provide those military grade weapons for the militias in Clause 16. They are NOT authorized or given the power to sell, give, trade, etc military grade weapons to foreign nations, foreign entities, foreign terrorists/rebels, nor are they authorized to give those weapons to an (unknown and forbidden) governmental professional law enforcement – domestic or foreign.

      Clause 16: “To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”.

      Article 2, Section 2: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States”

      Thomas Jefferson, 1st inaugural, explained that: “a well-disciplined militia” is “our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them” and also a guarantee of “the supremacy of the civil over the military authority; [and] economy in the public expense.”

      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.”

      Tench Coxe, ‘Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution’, on the Second Amendment where he asserts that it’s the people with arms, who serve as the ultimate check on government: “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms”.

      Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers 28: “The militia is a voluntary force not associated or under the control of the States except when called out; [when called into actual service] a permanent or long standing force would be entirely different in make-up and call.”

      John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States 475: “To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.”

      George Washington: “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, PARTICULARLY MILITARY, supplies.”

      James Madison, Federalist 14: “In the first place, it is to be remembered, that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any”.

      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”.

      Bliss v. Commonwealth: “Arms restrictions – even concealed weapons bans – are unconstitutional, since arms bearing is an individual right and the legislature may not restrict any aspect of such a right.”

      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”.

      It has also been well established that the original intent of the 2nd amendment was to enable the people to defend against tyranny which invariably comes in the form of an overbearing and oppressive government. This right to defense is not special to Americans and is a natural right of all peoples.
      In the 70s and 80’s the Afghani militia (the mujahideen) was engaged against tyranny (Soviets). In order to aid them in their fight against their oppressors, the USA sent Stinger shoulder mounted rocket launchers so they could wage an asymmetrical battle against the much better equipped Soviet forces.
      Those serving within our own federal government also established the precedent that, in the age of a modern military, rocket launchers fall within the scope of weapons necessary for citizen militias fighting against tyranny – inadvertently making the case that they should be covered under the 2nd amendment.

      Silveira v. Lockyer, 328 F.3d 567 (2003), Judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reminded us that the Second Amendment is not about duck hunting: “All too many of the other great tragedies of history – Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few – were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. … If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.
      “My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed – where the government refuses to stand for re-election and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.
      “Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten.” Judge Alex Kozinski

      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.”

      Justice Robert H. Jackson (Chief of Counsel for the United States, Nuremberg Trials – Nazi Germany): “It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error”.

      Grand Jury
      Fifth Amendment: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, …”

      “The grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right. In fact the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people”.

      “Thus, citizens have the unbridled right to empanel their own grand juries and present “True Bills” of indictment to a court, which is then required to commence a criminal proceeding. Our Founding Fathers presciently thereby created a “buffer” the people may rely upon for justice, when public officials, including judges, criminally violate the law.” (Misbehavior, “Good Behaviour” requirement)

      “The grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside, we think it clear that, as a general matter at least, no such “supervisory” judicial authority exists. The “common law” of the Fifth Amendment demands a traditional functioning grand jury.”

      “Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the judicial branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. Judges’ direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. The grand jury’s functional independence from the judicial branch is evident both in the scope of its power to investigate criminal wrongdoing, and in the manner in which that power is exercised.”

      “The grand jury ‘can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not.’ It need not identify the offender it suspects, or even “the precise nature of the offense” it is investigating. The grand jury requires no authorization from its constituting court to initiate an investigation, nor does the prosecutor require leave of court to seek a grand jury indictment. And in its day-to-day functioning, the grand jury generally operates without the interference of a presiding judge. It swears in its own witnesses and deliberates in total secrecy.”

      “Recognizing this tradition of independence, we have said the 5th Amendment’s constitutional guarantee presupposes an investigative body ‘acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge”

      “Given the grand jury’s operational separateness from its constituting court, it should come as no surprise that we have been reluctant to invoke the judicial supervisory power as a basis for prescribing modes of grand jury procedure. Over the years, we have received many requests to exercise supervision over the grand jury’s evidence-taking process, but we have refused them all. “it would run counter to the whole history of the grand jury institution” to permit an indictment to be challenged “on the ground that there was incompetent or inadequate evidence before the grand jury.” (Plus it would not be lawful as the Grand Jury is independent of the judicial branch.) Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the majority said In the Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735, 504 U.S. 36, 118 L.Ed.2d 352 (1992)

      Then there is the “Good Behaviour” requirement for ALL judges. US Constitution, Article III, Section 1: “The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”

      The US Constitution assigns what all judges, state and federal, must do to be allowed to stay in a judicial position, they are:
      — Required to take, and keep an Oath(s), or a combined Oath.
      — Required to “support and defend” the US Constitution and all that is in Pursuance thereof it before the duties of the office they occupy.
      — Required to carry out the enumerated duties assigned to the judicial branch by the US Constitution in a constitutional manner.

      That is “Good Behaviour” for judges. They can be removed by a Grand Jury trial of the people if found guilty, and can also be charged with any crimes they have committed.

      Then of course the Elections are the peoples voice. Election Fraud silences that voice and quite possibly is treason since it is action against the people. All Treason has to be against the people and the US Constitution; though it may come through the representatives of the people, it is NOT specifically against those reps.

      Thomas Jefferson: “Freedom is lost gradually from an uninterested, uninformed, and uninvolved people.”

      Basically what it all boils down to is that NO registration of the people is lawful here in the USA for any reason, and that is backed up by the Nuremberg Trials (Nazi Germany). Registration always leads to confiscation, picking up of the people for whatever reason those in government desire as thousands of years of history has shown us, particularly the 20th century.

      Those that serve within our governments are under written contracts strengthened by an Oath (felony to break), that says exactly what they can do, what they are forbidden to do, and what is allowed ONLY under specific circumstances and done in a specific way. Remember, we do are bound by the US Constitution in our activities, and that includes supporting and defending IT, not those that serve within our governments. They are not there to hold our allegiance, but to do specific duties. These quotes may make it clearer.

      J. Reuben Clark: “God provided that in this land of liberty, our political allegiance shall run not to individuals, that is, to government officials, no matter how great or how small they may be. Under His plan our allegiance and the only allegiance we owe as citizens or denizens of the United States, runs to our inspired Constitution which God himself set up. So runs the oath of office of those who participate in government. A certain loyalty we do owe to the office which a man holds, but even here we owe just by reason of our citizenship, no loyalty to the man himself. In other countries it is to the individual that allegiance runs. This principle of allegiance to the Constitution is basic to our freedom. It is one of the great principles that distinguishes this “land of liberty” from other countries”.

      Mark Twain: “The government is merely a servant, merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.”

      Benjamin Franklin: “In free governments the rulers are the servants, and the people their superiors and sovereigns. For the former, therefore, to return among the latter was not to degrade but to promote them.

      John Adams: “We are told: ‘It is a universal truth, that he that would excite a rebellion, is at heart as great a tyrant as ever wielded the iron rod of oppression.’ Be it so. We are not exciting a rebellion. Opposition, nay, open, avowed resistance by arms, against usurpation and lawless violence is not rebellion by the law of God or the land. Resistance to lawful authority makes rebellion… Remember the frank Veteran acknowledges that the word rebel is a convertible term.”

      You also might want to consider this;
      The opinion in Mack and Printz v. United States stated, “The Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system in which the State and Federal Governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people. The Federal Government’s power would be augmented immeasurably and impermissibly if it were able to impress into its service–and at no cost to itself–the police officers of the 50 States… Federal control of state officers would also have an effect upon the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself.”

    2. Two birds, one stone. Politicians get smiles from freaked out voters, and surreptitiously disarm the law abiding, thereby strengthening criminals……….and the beat goes on.

    Leave a Comment 2 Comments