Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Authority to fight Tyranny.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Authority to fight Tyranny.

    In our Country we have 4 branches of Government,
    The Legislative, Congress
    The Executive, President
    The Judicial, Supreme Court.
    and
    "WE, THE PEOPLE".

    At the time the Constitution was being written only 9 states were willing to ratify it
    without a Bill of Rights.

    The common fear was that government would become like those of Europe, setting up a
    King, Monarch or Dictator.

    Alexander Hamilton confirmed this in Federalist Papers No. 29, he wrote,

    "Since the fear of the people was that the federal army would usurp the people’s liberty, it
    makes sense that the intent is for the people to be allowed to keep and bear arms at all
    times".

    The people had insisted on their rights and freedoms being spelled out in the Constitution.


    James Madison wrote the bill of rights and in the Federalist paper 46 he explained the
    intent and purpose of the Second Amendment.

    Here's a short exert:
    "Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal
    to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the
    federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments,
    with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.

    The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be
    carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls;
    or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms.

    This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five
    or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a
    million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among
    themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by
    governments possessing their affections and confidence.

    It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by
    such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last
    successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to
    deny the possibility of it.

    Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of
    almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people
    are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the
    enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any
    form can admit of".

    The second Amendment is not so much about personal defense as it is the "Backbone" of
    a "National Strategy" within the Constitution for armed citizens to be the ultimate
    "National Defense" of their country, Constitution, Government and freedoms.

    Personal weapons capable of fighting a war are a necessary part of that defense.

    Alexander Hamilton also wrote,

    "if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any
    magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a
    large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms,
    who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This
    appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best
    possible security against it, if it should exist."

    Obviously, the authority to fight even against this nation's army, would also included any
    other agency Government might employ against Citizen,

    the FBI being the most obvious.


    James Madison noted that the power of government had granted the liberties in the
    Magna Carta, however,America had set the example of liberty granting the power of
    Government.

    The liberty of the people had granted their own freedoms, and the power of government
    to govern, with Government restricted to those areas "Enumerated" and without any
    authority to legislate within the areas of the “Bill of Rights” citizens had give themselves.

    Only the People has the power to make any changes to the Constitution and then only by
    "Amendments to the Constitution".

    Any effort by any Government, Local, State or Federal, to legislate in the area of the "Bill
    Of Rights" violates the Constitution.

    And when Local, State or Federal Government fails or refuses to enforce the Constitution
    it become the "DUTY" of each Citizens to use their weapons against such "Criminal
    actions", and without penalties for exercising their Constitutional duty.

    "The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated
    under the name of local practice". [Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, 24.]”

    “When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or
    legislation which would abrogate them. [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.]

    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of
    Constitutional rights [Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946]”

    Thomas Jefferson stated this idea very clearly in the document that started our nation, the
    Declaration of Independence:

    "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."


    Abraham Lincoln said, “The people of these United States are the rightful masters of both
    Congresses and Courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who
    pervert the Constitution”.

    The "enterprise of ambition" as we've seen in the "Deep State" would quickly result in
    Tyranny and the destruction of the Constitution and our form of Government along with
    all the liberties therein.

    And any attempts to violate it should have every citizen "Up in arms".

    As James Madison noted: "Government never gave our rights to us", and we never gave
    govenment Jurisdiction to legislate them away from us.

    These "Red Flags" laws are an attempt by both States and Federal governments to take
    Jurisdiction and legislate in an area not given to them,

    While at the same time violating Amendment 14 in denying Rights before due process of
    law, seizing gun on "Suspicion" of future crimes.

    "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities
    of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
    property,.....without due process of law;....nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction
    the equal protection of the laws."

    Judges who sign these weapons confiscation orders are complicit in these violations.

    It's been said that to interpret the Constitution correctly, one must interpret it in the same
    frame of mind that wrote it, Jefferson said the same thing.

    "On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the
    time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates,
    and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented
    against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

    - Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

    We need to get back to interpreting the Constitution in the same frame of mind and within
    the context of "Intent and Purpose" that the "Supreme Law of the Land" was written.

    This really isn't about Guns rights but about Local, State and Federal Governments
    attempting to take Jurisdiction in an area the Constitution does not grant to them.

    And refusing to abide by the Constitution is an act of "Tyranny".

    And regardless of your Politics, that should concern Everyone.

    When no branch of government will defend citizens rights, then it become the "DUTY"
    of each citizen to use the Second Amendment to protect their "Constitution".

    "WHEN" are gun owners going to start "organizing" to take on this government that has already taken the first steps toward "Tyranny"??

    We can't count on these Gun clubs to led the way, money seems to be their main objective.

    Tennessee has introduced a "Red Flag" law to be voted on shortly,

    And I'm in the "initial stage" of issuing a "CALL TO ARMS" to fight against it.

    It would be a great help if other people around the nation would do the same in their states.

    Obviously, the more who responses to the call will lessen the fight.

    It's time "Keyboard Warriors" became "Patriots".

  • #2
    One heck of a first post there Committed...Introduce yourself in the new members area and stick around a while!
    Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. James Madison, Federalist Paper No 10

    Comment


    • #3
      In addition:

      The Supreme Court in
      Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137, 177. (1803) stated: “Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and, consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.” And, in their closing the Marbury court, at page 179, stated: “Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

      The Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, 23 L.Ed 588 (1876) declared that the right of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” was not granted by the Constitution. The understanding was that it was in existence before the Constitution. “The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”

      Then 134 years later the Supreme Court declared that the Second Amendment applies to the states. See McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).

      In 2008 the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592, 171 L.Ed 2d 637, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) declared “we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.” The Court then cited Cruikshank as part of its historical analysis. Thus, Heller held that the right to bear arms for a lawful purpose was secured by the U.S. Constitution.

      More importantly, Heller did not limit the right to bear arms. It specifically stated, “Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.” The Court reiterated, “Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers.”

      Additionally, the Supreme Court in Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U. S. ____ (2016) unanimously held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.”

      The Ohio Legislature enacted ORC §9.68, which became effective in 2007. ORC §9.68 clearly provides that a person’s possession or transportation of a firearm, including the open carrying of a firearm, is a right secured by the U.S. Constitution, and Ohio Constitution, because it predated those Constitutions.

      On January 12, 2018, in the case of Virginia Duncan, Et Al. v. Xavier Becerra, in the State of California, eighteen States filed an Amici Curiae Brief, in Support of Virginia Duncan, in which they made clear that:

      ‘“The Second Amendment guarantees “the individual right … to carry weapons in case of confrontation”’ — that is, to “‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 584, 592 (2008).”’

      Those eighteen states included the Attorney General of Ohio, Mike DeWine, now Governor, agreed that the Feds and the States have no authority to regulate the bearing of arms, period.

      Comment


      • #4
        Great thread!
        Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. James Madison, Federalist Paper No 10

        Comment


        • #5
          This is a letter I sent to Supreme Court Justices, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch.



          With all the laws being passed concerning the Second Amendment.

          I thought it might be a good idea to remind people how these laws violate the structure of
          the Constitution, and how Government powers to legislate are separated from the Rights
          of citizens.

          Just as we have three branches of Government, and each branch with an area of authority
          in which neither of the other two branches may infringe,

          We have a separation of Government powers to legislate away from the areas of the
          rights/freedoms of citizens.

          First I’ll need to explain why we have the right to arms.

          Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Papers No. 29, wrote,

          "Since the fear of the people was that the federal army would usurp the people’s liberty, it
          makes sense that the intent is for the people to be allowed to keep and bear arms at all
          times".

          James Madison wrote the bill of rights, and in the Federalist paper 46 he explained the
          intent and purpose of the Second Amendment.

          Here's a short exert:
          "Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal
          to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the
          federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the
          State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.

          “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of
          almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people
          are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the
          enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any
          form can admit of".

          The framer of the Constitution envisioned a time when Citizens might have fight against
          their own government, even their own Military in order to keep their Freedoms,

          This was the primary reason "for the people to be allowed to keep and bear arms at all
          times".

          At the time the Constitution was being written not all the states were willing to ratify it
          without an itemized Bill of Rights.

          But, When “Rights” are itemized in a document of agreement, such as a labor contract or
          our Constitution,

          Law has a tendency to interpret itemized Rights as being restricted only to those rights
          itemized.

          Whereas, If the Rights are not itemized, the field is wide open to interpretation as to what
          those Rights might include.

          In writing the Constitution, many opposed placing an itemized Bill of Rights in the
          Constitution for this very reason.

          The Federalists contended that a bill of rights was unnecessary. They responded to those
          opposing ratification of the Constitution because of the lack of a declaration of
          fundamental rights by arguing that, inasmuch as it would be impossible to list all
          rights, it would be dangerous to list some and thereby lend support to the argument
          that government was unrestrained as to those rights not listed.

          James Madison wrote:

          “It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular
          exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not
          placed in that enumeration, and it might follow by implication, that those rights which
          were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General
          Government, and were consequently insecure.

          This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a
          bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I
          have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth
          resolution.”

          Madison had written to Jefferson:

          “My own opinion has always been in favor of a bill of rights; provided it be so framed
          as not to imply powers not meant to be included in the enumeration. . . . I have
          not viewed it in an important light because I conceive that in a certain degree

          ". . . the rights in question are reserved by the manner in which the federal powers
          are granted".

          This was their problem,

          If they itemized the Rights/Freedoms of citizens, Government would then be free to
          legislate every Right/Freedom not itemize in those Rights.

          But they didn’t want a government without limitation on it’s powers, so, Madison
          explained the solution to the problem was to limit Government to the areas of
          “Enumerated” powers granted to it and leaving Citizens Rights unlimited by Government.

          . “the rights in question (BoR) are reserved by the manner in which the federal
          powers are granted”. (Restricting government to enumerated powers)

          “making clear that a (Itemized) Bill of Rights might not by implication be taken to
          increase the powers of the national government in areas not enumerated”.

          The same way they expected Citizens right to be restricted only to those rights
          enumerated in a Bill of Rights,

          They expected Government's power to be restricted only to the enumerated powers given
          to government.

          And that would restrict Government from legislating in any of the areas of
          Rights/Freedoms.

          Madison even went so far as to say that itemized rights would be additional security.

          ""If they are incorporated into the constitution, independent tribunals of justice will
          consider themselves in a peculiar manner the guardians of those rights; they
          will be an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or
          executive; they will be naturally led to resist every encroachment upon rights
          expressly stipulated for in the constitution by the declaration of rights. Besides this
          security, there is a great probability that such a declaration in the federal
          system would be enforced;

          (The Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, First Congress, 1st Session, pp
          448-460.)

          The Ninth and Tenth Amendments reaffirm this idea.

          Ninth Amendment
          "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or
          disparage others retained by the people".

          Tenth Amendment
          "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to
          the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".



          Hamilton, in Federalist Paper 84 ask the question:

          “Why include a Bill of rights/freedom of press, if Government can not legislate
          outside the enumeration of powers granted to it”??

          The Supreme Court has upheld this interpretation of the Constitution and restriction on
          Government in the Miranda vs Arizona decision.

          “When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or
          legislation which would abrogate them. [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.]

          This restriction against Government legislating citizen’s Rights applies to the States as
          well as the Federal Government.

          "The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated
          under the name of local practice". [Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, 24.]”

          Article VI
          2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
          Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of
          the United States,

          “shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound
          thereby,”

          "Second Amendment" legislation is outside the enumerated authority given to either the
          States or Federal Government by the Constitution.

          Restrictions on Guns, Types, Ammo, Red flag laws upset the balance of power between
          Government power of legislating and citizens power to "Keep and bear arms" to repel any
          Government, Foreign or Domestic, from usurping our liberties.

          Our Constitutional Rights/Freedoms was never meant to have a different interpretation
          each time we crossed a State line, today the “Supreme Law of the land” has been made a
          joke and certainly not “Supreme”.

          Congress and States are bragging they are going to take our Guns and Second
          Amendment right, not by a Constitutional Amendment as required by the Constitution
          but by passing laws, but legislated law has no authority to change the Constitution.

          Adding restrictions on rights denies citizens a voice in any changes of Rights/Freedoms
          they would otherwise have through the Constitutional Amendment process,

          The “letter of the law” hasn’t been followed, it’s why the Constitution, law,
          rights/freedoms are a tangled up mess from State to State, Coast to Coast, Border to
          Border.

          I'm sure Madison wouldn't be happy that today’s “Tribunals of Justice” doesn't view
          "rights expressly stipulated for in the constitution by the declaration of rights" as being
          "an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power" and “such a declaration”
          are not being enforced by the Federal system.

          America doesn't have a "Nobility class", everyone is equal, Citizens safety and jeopardy
          of life is shared equally with Law enforcement and the Military to keep/secure our Rights.

          It's been said that to interpret the Constitution correctly, one must interpret it in the same
          frame of mind that wrote it, Jefferson said the same thing.

          “On every question of construction of the Constitution, let us carry ourselves back to the
          time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates,
          and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against
          it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

          - Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

          If Government can legislate one Right/Freedom from Citizens, they can legislate all
          Rights/Freedoms from citizens.

          I don't think anyone needs a Harvard degree to understand the framers of the Constitution
          never granted any government the power to legislate citizens rights/freedoms away from
          citizens.

          Comment

          Working...
          X