Topic: Constitutional
Because, once upon a time, I thought I knew what the Constitution said! I was WRONG.
Too often, discussions of firearms ownership, carry, use and a host of other questions either refer to Law or opinion, instead of being based in the Constitution, or Constitutions (State level) as they should be.
What is a Constution? What does it have to do with "bearing arms?"
Starting at Rush Limbaugh's premise that "words mean things," we do what all should do - define the terms. Too much of modern speech, free as it may be, is based on substiuting opinion for reality. Too much of that is DELIBERATE...
Websters on-line gives:
1 : an established law or custom : ordinance
2 a : the physical makeup of the individual especially with respect to the health, strength, and appearance of the body <a hearty constitution
> b : the structure, composition, physical makeup, or nature of something <the constitution of society>
3 : the act of establishing, making, or setting up
4 : the mode in which a state or society is organized; especially : the manner in which sovereign power is distributed
5 a : the basic principles and laws of a nation, state, or social group that determine the powers and duties of the government and guarantee certain rights to the people in it b : a written instrument embodying the rules of a political or social organization
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/constitution
Does anyone see a serious problem right up front?
A Dictionary is a compilation of words. Problem is, the definition of words are often generated or modified by usage. Take "gay" for example. This wonderful word which, in the 1800s meant "happy and..." has now been subverted and perverted to mean or include "homosexual" and the like. Has the word changed? No, the Dictionary has.
The problem here in referring to Websters for a discussion on our US/State Constitution is that the unenlightened might assume the Constitution is a LAW, since thats the first entry. IT IS NOT.
SME NEEDED
The most correct definition(s) when (CAVEAT) - WHEN using this source, are entries three and four:
3 : the act of establishing, making, or setting up
4 : the mode in which a state or society is organized; especially : the manner in which sovereign power is distributed
Three. A cake is Constituted of flour, water, sugar, baking powder, frosting and et-cetera. The question is - what- What is it composed of?
Our US Constitution (its not a Federal Constitution, the Founders did not create the Federal Monster which now invades Washington D.C.) is made up of, constituted of exactly what the Preamble says it is:
" 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. "
[Source: pocket Constitution by Commission on the Bicentennial of the US Constitution, paperback]
So, the Constitution ("The C.") is about creating the USA, a Union, Justice, tranquility, a military, a Welfare State and a document which gives us Liberty? ABSOLUTELY NOT.
The C. does not MAKE these things, it enumerates what WE have or are about to make. Our Rights are not granted BY or FROM The C., they are already established in the Declaration of Independence. In The C. we are establishingan unprecedented system of Government "...of, by and for..." and COMMANDING that it not interfere with our RIGHTS.
We're not asking, we're TELLING.
The Constitution is not Law, it exceeds and precedes Law. It did not create a Nation, it was already created. The Constitution is a working document that describes how we will arrange and manage our Nation, and it will not be based on rule of law from a KING, TYRANT OR DICTATOR like we had just left in Europe.
The C. is about eliminating the abuses in/of those systems which caused the Founders to flee Europe, England and France in particular, to escape. It does not create the things enumerated in the Preamble, it says 'we have or are about to do them,' and this is HOW we will do it. We will not be asking permission from the King of England to do ANYTHING. In fact, we had just killed a great number of his Soldiers as evidence to that fact.
The C., Article 1, evidences the creation, not before the authority of the People, but after, a Legislature, Congress, President and et-cetera. They did not exist before.
Do you see the words "Federal Government" there? I DONT!
The premise first off in Art. 1 is that 'legislative powers are GRANTED from the People' who "ordain and establish..." and NOT VICE VERSA. "All powers granted" do not include powers not granted, which is a serious problem today, the CONgress has taken upon itself to create a monster called the Federal Reserve which has destroyed our National Economy. That authority is not vested in CONgress from our Constitution.
In contradiction to Websters Dictionary, The C. is NOT LAW and it was not Custom. No where else in HISTORY had anything like The C. existed.The C. is ABOVE law and establishes the processes by which WE will MAKE law.
Did you notice the gross and DANGEROUS error in Websters definition 4?
"...and guarantee certain rights to the people..."
Recall what I mentioned about people who liked to define things to suit themselves? Here's the Big Lie.
This LIE pretends that The C. and then laws, and then Government, GIVE people rights - sorry - People. That word must be capitalized.
Theres the modern Leftist Welfare State lie- Government gives, Government takes away.
The Constiution DID NOT "give" People anything, the People TOOK IT UPON THEMSELVES UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF ALMIGHTY GOD AND THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE TO HAVE THESE RIGHTS. The C. is a STATEMENT of, not Our Rights, but absolute PROHIBITIONS on the Government we ALLOW to exist from RESTRICTING THOSE RIGHTS.
This was the England problem- the King, Church and Corporation giveth and taketh away.
[ For an excellent treatment of 'people who like to define words their way, Jay Shapiro did a piece on "semantic infiltration" It's not on his page today, but Ive written to ask for it.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Radio/Author.aspx/1182 ]
Don't go on until you fully understand the above comments. Our Society is being attacked and destroyed from within by people with ideas that The C. has been set aside in exchange for Laws.
Now, onto the Second Amendment (2A):
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."
Q: How did our Nation, Declaration of Independence and Constitution become? How did the computer you are reading this on become?
A : Our Founders took up GUNS to kill SOLDIERS of an invading army who wanted to take our FREEDOMS away.
Take a day to think about that. It wasnt paper that did it, it was LEAD.
That same old Subversive force, Law, is threatening our FREEDOMS. The basic problem here is that the Legal system is attempting to bring rights into the realm of Law, where corrupt Government, ignoring the Constitutional LIMITS on their authority that WE COMMANDED UPON THEM, can hack away at rights.
This problem with respect to 2A rears its ugly head in the following manner:
Q. Is it legal to openly carry a firearm
A1.) Yes, such and so law says so
A2.) No. Its constitutional
A1.) is normally cited. It is NOT "legal" to openly bear arms, because LAW has no HOLD on the matter (or should not). The "is it legal" trap is exactly that, attempting to bring the question within the jurisdiction of the Courts where activist judges (lower case intentional) can attempt to hack away at the Right to Bear Arms. Neither is it illegal to openly Bear Arms, except in areas like REICHland Washington USA that has illegally, and with deliberate contempt for both Constitutions and WA Law, where the City Council has attempted to make laws regarding the Right to Bear Arms. See:
http://second-amendment.tripod.com
for related documents.
This is a similar problem as with the old bar joke:
"Are you still beating your wife/husband?"
The joke is that there is no correct answer, if one responds "No," then the jokester replies- "so when did you stop?" You, of course, cannot respond "yes..." or be admitting to assault.
Following that example, is openly carrying a firearm legal?
Yes it is, and now Law can regulate it.
No, it isn't, which implies that law has already banned it.
Neither is A2.) correct, because the Constitution does not "give" us rights, nor can it take them away.
A little 2A analysis- NRA can't even get it right...
Heller vs D.C:
[ Headline -"Supreme Court Declares That the Second Amendment
Guarantees an Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms"
Notice that the headline is W-R-O-N-G... one more time... the Constitution LIMITS government power, it does not give rights ]
was landmark because it was about The C.'s limits also applying to Washington D.C. which is critical, since D.C. is not a State. There is no limitation in the Second Amendment that limits the limits to limiting only a Federal Government.
The modern questions are whether The C. and its limitations apply only to the Federal Government or to it and the States, Cities, et-cetera. Another question is the Militia, what is it, who is it.
Let's carefully dissect The 2A by removing the dependent clauses:
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."
becomes:
"A well regulated Militia... shall not be infringed."
What shall not be infringed upon by whom? There is no limitation to "whom." It can be implied that the reference is to whomever or whatever was previously discussed in The C., which is the establishment of the Presidency, CONgress et-cetera. The Heller Decision says - "no, that limitation does not singly apply to the Fed."
What's so extremely critical in Heller thats been overlooked is 'what Washington D.C. IS..." - its a legal and political construct of the Federal Government which is given POLICE POWER. Its the old corporate shell game- "you can't sue us, we subbed that out out another Corporation..."
The same prohibition on prohibitions then should and must extend to States and Cities with the same logic. Again, nothing in The 2A limited the limitation.
The Militia is the discussion here, and its not to be diminished by infringing on the peoples rights to bear arms, implying that the People are the Militia.
Heller trod this ground.
Now lets look at the clauses:
clause 1: "being necessary to the security of a free State"
What is "security" in this context? That term not being explicitly defined takes a common meaning, look it up. Combining the terms "militia" and "free state security" we look at The C., Article 1, Section 8:
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions."
The 2A amplifies Section 8 in that no one shall infringe on the Peoples Right to Keep and Bear Arms immediately 'at hand-at home.' To dilute this right renders the Militia inoperative.
Clause 2: "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms..."
This is the meat of Heller vs DC- not allowing DC to limit the Peoples Rights to Bear Arms. Prohibiting possession of a loaded firearm does infringe on that right because, as the Court notices, such a prohibition makes the arms ineffective, useless. What good is a disabled firearm except throwing at an enemy?
HERE IS THE CRITICAL POINT:
The Second Amendment PROHIBITS political subdivisions (States etc) of the Peoples Nation from organizing to SUBVERT PEOPLES RIGHTS, DISARM THEM AND SUBVERT THE NATION.
The 2A is about the Peoples authority to prevent TAKOVER FROM WITHIN.
Notice that the Washington Constitution echoes this:
http://www.sos.wa.gov/history/constitution.aspx
"The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the State, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.” WA State Constitution, 1889, Article I, Sect. 24
This Constitution makes the individual right PERFECTLY clear, so, at least in Washington State, the question as to whether it extends to the State level is 'ground already trod.'
What is "State?" Is that a generic term, or does it specifically apply to one of the United States? It seems obvious from the fact the word is capitalized, as is State in the Preamble, that the State proper, now one in 50, is the intent.
But all across the land, we have political subdivisions called CITIES and DISTRICTS (like Wa. D.C.) ATTEMPTING TO SUBVERT The C. by passing "laws" regarding prohibiting, restricting, licensing, concealing, training...
- a Pandoras Box of Prohibitions they are forbidden to make.
12/9/09, More to follow,
Back to the last dependent clause- it's "bear arms," not "bare arms!"
What's it mean to "bear arms?" Websters gives more or less to carry arms as a soldier, and the Greek (pherow) about the same-"to carry some burden..."
I suggest that neither is what's meant, because of the context, and it was the context of the day - bringing arms to bear against an enemy.
What good is bearing arms without USING them?
While there is little doubt as to what "arms" are, the VERB is overlooked-
( to) bear...
The critical point here is not only to "use" but to possess. The Second Amendment is about forbidding restrictions on INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS TO POSSESS PERSONAL PROPERTY. It is not necessarily about Self Defense, that is an end to the means and another related topic which Art.1, Sect. Eight of The C. covers.
Personal property rights are what this Nation is all about, we started with a desire to have our own Land, and the King of England wanted to strip us of that and our Possessions by excessive taxation. As if that wasn't bad enough, the Kings Corporations were in the mix as well, trying to get their greedy grubs on our goods as well.
A founding principle of Marxism, drilled into students heads in School, is the abolition of personal property in favor of the State owning and controlling all, or, more exactly put, a small group of dictators who run the State controlling all. "Redistribution of wealth."
A problem with our modern Government(s) is that they are about depriving People of property of Arms by any devious means possible. If it's illegal to possess arms in the Public then arms are relegated to home possession for home defense only, which is an argument of gun control nuts. After all, don't the Police protect us in Public? Hardly.
Granted that banning Public possessions does not exactly fulfill the Marxist dream of total Goverment control of property, but its a good start against People who are ASLEEP.
Or were asleep...
The Kings Corporations were at work in Ohio a few years back when the State (corrupt as it is, I didnt realize how right I was when I accused the OAG of corruption..) "allowed" possession of concealed weapons in Public. Never mind that they are not permitted to make such a law in the first place, but now that's going off topic. What did the Kings minions do? Demanded the right to prohibit Citizens from bearing arms in their places of business, public at that. The signs went up everywhere, pretending to disallow people to bring Arms into their business places.
Now in Ohio, businesses are making law. Evil, in a word.
