Professor [Jake] Charles mistakenly asserts that “[text, history, and tradition] and arguments like those about self-made guns imply that government always regulates to the outer limits of its power.” To the contrary, THT analyzes centuries of history to see how many governments (local, state, or federal) ever extended their power during that time to the extent the government currently being challenged has.
He concludes that “[i]f historical argument is going to take a prominent place in Second Amendment analysis, it ought to be based on evidence of widespread understanding that a past practice was protected as a right, not simply that it existed without regulation.” Placing the burden on the people to prove the existence of their constitutional rights fails to appreciate the nature of the United States government. As James Wilson famously declared while discussing a bill of rights during the constitutional debates, “the congressional authority is to be collected, not from tacit implication, but from the positive grant expressed in the instrument of union. Hence it is evident, that . . . every thing which is not given, is reserved.” Presumptions favor liberty, not governmental authority.
Moreover, there are over 300,000 federal crimes—so many, in fact, that the Department of Justice is unable to count them. The number of state and local laws throughout American history are countless as well. It is reasonable to infer that there must be a reason why none of these hundreds of thousands of laws has touched upon a common practice [home made guns] —especially when the activity is associated with a constitutional right.
Joseph Greenlee in Text, History, and Tradition: A Workable Test that Stays True to the Constitution
From the article cited :
“Here is an abbreviated version: the Second Amendment’s text protects the right to keep arms. One must be able to acquire something to keep it, and the most fundamental way to acquire something is to produce it oneself—indeed, it would be strange to mandate that people purchase from others something that they have a right to own and can produce themselves. Therefore, the text seemingly protects the building of personal arms.”
Translation, “Duh.”
Let’s hope a further clarification comes from the high Court, particularly ‘Saint’ Clarence Thomas in the very near future…
Keep in mind that the right already exists whether or not the supreme court rules on it or not. You will still have that right. ” Any law that the constitution finds abhorrent need not be obeyed.” The only thing a regulation does is limit your freedom to act. “Shall not…” is not a recommendation. It is an order to congress not to trespass on the right of the people. You and I, of course, as individuals are the people.
” Any law that the constitution finds abhorrent need not be obeyed.”
Who determines whether or not a law is constitutionally abhorrent? What is the reality of the above quote? If individuals determine for themselves which law is unconstitutional, do we not have chaos? Do we not bear the consequences of self-determination?
If a person decides that all gun control laws are unconstitutional, where does such person obtain a firearm? In states that prohibit private sales without a BGC, one must either build their own firearm, or commit both a state and federal crime. Such crime may go undetected forever, but maybe not. If such individual is charged and convicted, the appeals process must then be applied, and if the appeals fail, what is the utility of declaring “shall not be infringed”?
We possess numerous unenumerated rights, but are those rights actually effective? If they are not effective, what is the point of having such rights? In the end, one has only those natural, human and civil rights one can successfully defend and preserve. Life must be lived in Realsville.
I hope this is incorrect. I’m thinking it’s the main reason why Trump took us out of the W.H.O. and now Joey has joined it again. This is a threat bigtime!
https://cairnsnews.org/2022/04/09/who-ihr-treaty-will-override-constitutions-of-australia-and-america/
It will be a cold day in hell before I prove a damned thing to any self appointed holier than thou pompous pasty mouth Gun Control zealot. After all it is Gun Control zealots carrying around trying to sell an agenda that history confirms is rooted in racism and genocide…What Filth.
Debbie —
Don’t sugarcoat it — tell us how you really feel!
(You knew it was coming.) 🙂
alien…OK…According to history Gun Control zealots should be charged with treason. I feel that way and so should you.
Preach!!!
Can I get an “Amen?”
“According to history Gun Control zealots should be charged with treason.”
Article III, Section 3, Clause 1:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Who has Congress declared to be “the enemy”?
Installing, or attempting to instal, unconstitutional laws (essentially, anything we don’t like) does not fall under the definition of treason.
When we declare gun control laws “treason”, we are reduced to lunatics, howling at the moon; not taken seriously.
Congress do not definem nor do they list or label, “enemy” status. In fact, quite often Congress are the enemy as they often work to deprive us of our God-given rights.
Further your “deinintion” of “unconstitutinal lws” as “anything we don’t like” is very childish. Grow up. When NYC declare their subways, busses, trains, etc to be Gun Free Zones, and innocents get murdered because they can no longer “lawfully” defend themselves against the out of control criminal element in that city, the lawmakers themselves ARE traitors, as they are making war upon THE PEOPLE by denying them their God=given right to self-defense.
“Who has Congress declared to be “the enemy”?”
The US President just a day or so ago had something to say on that issue :
““This MAGA crowd is really the most extreme political organization that’s existed in American history, in recent American history,” Biden told reporters at the White House, referring to Trump’s “Make America Great Again” movement.”
Huh. President Biden just declared fully 50 percent of the American people to be terrorists. Literal enemies.
It seems to me a rational course of action would be to take Biden at his word… 🙁
I wonder if Sam is aware that the basic oath of citizenship mentions enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC.
PS: Would the braniac who runs this site fix its’ delusion that a capitalized e-mail address is not the same as one that’s all lowercase? The actually end up in the same mailbox.
We shouldn’t have to prove we have the to voice an unpopular opinion, or condemn government overreach either, but………..
Here we go again Right-Wing bullshit trying to glorify the Founders of Capitalvania who were no different than todays, greedy, power mad and thoroughly corrupt politicians.
The Second Amendment was the greatest hoax and most slickly worded document the Founders ever wrote. They knew they could not come right out and restrict severely gun ownership so they constructed a very vaguely worded document that gave them the power through legislation and the courts to restrict gun ownership while giving the proletariat (hillbillies) the illusion they had firearms rights.
In reality 2A was written for the States to cajole them into joining the Federal Government by agreeing to let them have their own private militias to murder slaves if they revolted. The founders were worried and well aware of the then current slave unrest and later full-blown slave revolt in Haiti as the super white rich of Haiti had already begun to flee for America bringing their slaves with them.
In reality there were anti-gun laws on the books in many cities large and small before the Revolution and none were rescinded after the Revolution, in fact they became more numerous right up to the present days. All this proved what a joke 2A has always been from the very beginning.
State Militias of the time often kept guns locked up in arsenals and there were some cases of them even taking guns from people who did not tow the party lines. So much for the Founders being pro-gun. Politicians of that era were as big a liars and con artists as they are today, saying one thing but doing quite another.
The corrupt power made leaders of the time in colonial America were no different than the corrupt power mad politicians of today and the corrupt courts often voted to appease popular sentiment in complete violation of the Constitution. Witness the Dred Scott Decision which legalized slavery or the Plessy v Ferguson case which legalized segregation (something the Far-Right racist Republicans still support). And the Supreme Court sat on its ass, a least for a while, when Roosevelt imprisoned 120,000 Japanese American Citizens during WWII mostly for political points he needed for the next election. The Far Right loved him for the atrocity.
In conclusion it is the Legislatures and the Corrupt Courts who traditionally have been extremely hostile to 2A (because they fear it) that actually gives you any rights to own firearms and they have taken away plenty of them. History has proven it many times over.
dacien —
Where is this fictional land of “Capitalvania?”
It bears little resemblance to the United States of America that we know.
alien,
None of dacian the stupid’s deluded, ahistorical, illiterate fever dreams bear any resemblance to reality. He lives in his own special little world, dacianthestupidland, and only uneducated morons are permitted to live there.
(mumbling, looking around for the Whac-A-Mole mallet…)
Last I checked, FDR was a democrat, and he signed an executive order for the internment of both aliens and citizens. At the time, Democrats held 61% of the seats in Congress, and the bill to make the EO a law was passed by the Democratic Party majority. The only truth to your statement is that the internment order, after pearl Harbor, was a wildly popular order and later law., clearly an emotional reaction to the Japanese attack.
Well you were asked for the proof that the Founders were aware of the Haitian Revolt and made statements that the 2A was to put down slave revolts. Actual proof, something like letters between the Founders that predate the penning of the BoR or some notes from the actual debates. Something not of some authors claims that he never provided source documentation for. Show how smart you are and provide the proof.
And once again you provide no evidence to back up your bs.
If the history was on your side then post it.
Dacian–
Do you EVER grow tired of the sh*t you spout, or is it that you just like to run off at the mouth?
“And the Supreme Court sat on its ass, a least for a while, when Roosevelt imprisoned 120,000 Japanese American Citizens during WWII mostly for political points he needed for the next election.”
You are unaware of the Koramatsu v. US decision, when SCOTUS upheld Roosevelt’s order? BTW, all 6 SC justices who voted to uphold Roosevelt’s order were Democrat appointees.
You may want to re-read the Declaration of Independence.
I have a challenge for you. Find anywhere in the writing of the founders that specifically denies the right of individual firearm ownership of a free people.
I’ll wait here.
dacian, the Dunderhead, More of your Leftist-Socialist rhetoric? My God, you are a broken record.
The Founding Fathers drew up the Constitution with an eye toward creating a government that would do the will of the people. Where did you come up with the “idea” that the @nd Amendment is “vaguely worded”? Sure looks rather specific to me. But then I’m not a Leftist.
What part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you understand? And for about the 10th time, the Founding Fathers considered EVERY AMERICAN pat of the “well organized militia”.
Another one of you fantasies is that you claim the state militias kept firearms in arsenals. Horse Pucky! Which state are you referring to? And could you submit some proof of this fantasy?
Whether the 2nd was written to “cajole” states to join the union is immaterial. The fact is that it exists. As a matter of fact, the entire Bill of Rights was written to “cajole” the states so join. So fricking what?
Then you have the gall to allege that the Founding Fathers were corrupt just like the politicians of today. PROVE IT OR LOOSE IT!
Whut do ya think would happen if gun owner’s united as in 1776? Even though patriots were maybe only 1/3rd of the population?!? Keep poking the bear leftards…
A well armed and many military trained 1/3
The 2nd Amendment is NOT a Constitutional Right. It is a Constitutional Restriction on the government. The People’s Right to keep and bear arms predates the U.S. Constitution.
I don’t need a permit from the local, state or federal government to keep and bear arms. Also, the 2nd Amendment and the U.S. Constitution is NOT my permit. It is my Protection from a tyrannical government.
/preaching to choir.
The Freeman Principle.
“The 2nd Amendment is NOT a Constitutional Right. It is a Constitutional Restriction on the government.”
Yes, the phrase “Constitutional right” is actually sloppy usage. It would be more correct to call it “a Constitutionally protected right.”
This. I’m personally tired of hearing “2A gives me the right……..”.
“I’m personally tired of hearing “2A gives me the right……..”. ”
But, what if it is true, that the Constitution itself is the grantor of rights? Upon what concept of life is the Constitution built? What if there are only human rights, not rights arising from “Nature and Nature’s God”?
To argue that the Constitution protects “God-given rights”, presupposes a “truth” subject to societal norms and and assumptions. That presupposition is the existence of God. What if there is no God? Who decides that God exists? What if society (the public, the voters) holds a super-majority of individuals for whom “God” is a non-entity? From whence do “rights” emanate?
Arguing “God-given” natural, human and civil rights to a public that does not recognize “God” as controlling the universe is unpersuasive. That is, depending on the concept of a “God” as ruler to validate claims about the Constitution falls on deaf ears of those who reject “God”, and proclaim that humans are the highest power under the sun. Without a “God”, natural, human and civil rights are totally dependent upon power.
Are we amidst an argument over the meaning of a written document, or one of humanism versus deity? It matters.
Out battle isn’t that we shouldn’t have to prove RTKBA, but the fact that we do.
Geoff “I’m getting too old for this shit” PR”
“President Biden just declared fully 50 percent of the American people to be terrorists. Literal enemies.”
A president declaring someone a political enemy, does not activate the “treason clause” (and the State Dept hasn’t listed MAGA as a terrorist group).
In my lifetime, I have known fully one half the nation to be my political enemies. Seems Biden would need a full declaration of war from Congress, or approval from Congress to apply the “War Powers Act”.
Sam —
Agreed, not treason. But characterizing the opposition as “terrorists” could justify involvement of Homeland Security to persecute us under provisions of the Patriot Act or a slew of other questionable or extralegal measures.
Would they need a declaration by the State Department? I doubt that would impede their progress.
“But characterizing the opposition as “terrorists” could justify involvement of Homeland Security to persecute us under provisions of the Patriot Act or a slew of other questionable or extralegal measures.”
The corruption of the Patriot act has been well underway for a long, long time. Homeland, and thus the FBI, are already identifying dissenting parents as terrorists.
So, let’s fight the corruption, and not shout “treason” at every frustration. We have a chance of proving corruption, but no chance of proving “treason”.
@tionico
“Congress do not definem nor do they list or label, “enemy” status. ”
No, but they did declare the act of “treason”
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them,
In the day of the founders, “war” has a common understanding as being armed conflict. The founders did not play with words, such the “War on drugs” was equivalent to foreign instigated, or internally instigated, armed conflict. Nor were the founders confused about the difference between armed conflict, and even extreme political differences short of armed conflict. Political enemies were not covered by the term “enemy” in the “treason clause” of the federal constitution.
Declaration of war was/is the preserve of the Congress, not the President. The concept was that the military (headed by the commanding general – the President) was under the control of Congress (representing “the people”), and responded to the direction of Congress in the conduct of war, and putting down rebellions. The President was not empowered to instigate military action, then ask for permission later (War Powers Act).
“Treason” is not a catch-all term to be applied to political differences, no matter how extreme in wording. Overuse of “treason” has the exact political and legal power of “shall not be infringed”. It makes 2A defenders look and sound like duufi (what the heck is the plural of dufus?). Besides, individuals cannot sustain, in court, a charge of treason.
This generation is not the first to declare political enemies/opponents treasonous. Gotta wonder why we don’t seem to have a record of an individual charge of treason ever being brought against other individuals.
quote: “Sam I Am May 6, 2022 At 18:46
@tionico
“Congress do not definem nor do they list or label, “enemy” status. ”
No, but they did declare the act of “treason”
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them,” end quote
Article III, Section 3, Clause 1:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Giving aid and comfort, to me, sounds like what the left is doing daily while working to destroy America, their stated goal for at least 60 years.
Who is it you deem valid authority to declare a person, or organization, is a declared enemy of the US?
If political activity, or lack, were grounds for a charge of treason, we would have thousands upon thousands of law suits on record. How many law suits have challenged government action/non-aciton, yet not one person/agent of government, has been prosecuted for treason. As noted before, the Shay’s rebellion, and Whiskey rebellion happened in the time of the founders. Yet the rebels were not charged with treason. In short, armed rebellion (insurrection) was not deemed treason…giving aid and comfort to enemies of the US. Now, go find out how many people were convicted of treason as a result of Civil War 2.0.
Please, drop this silliness of claiming every presumed violation of the Constitution is treason. The anti-gun mob don’t need help defaming gun owners.
“I wonder if Sam is aware that the basic oath of citizenship mentions enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC.”
Sam I Am is aware that the Constitution states: “Article II, Section 1, Clause 8:
Before he (President) enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:–”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
The “all enemies, foreign and domestic” part is simply federal law, established in September, 1966. The “treason clause” is very clear that “enemies” are not people with opposing, even extreme, political views, and the designation is certainly not left up to individuals to determine.
Sam I Am also knows that if political opposition can be considered “treason” the First Amendment has no purpose. And, of course, Sam I Am knows that even with the most egregious violations of the Constitution, no person has been charged with “treason” (any guesses as to why?). Even “insurrection” charges have not been stretched to include “treason”. The Shay’s Rebellion, and Whiskey Rebellion were not declared “treasonous” acts. Even John Hinckley was not charged with “treason”.
The point is interesting concerning the preponderance of authority given to liberty and questions arise.
However …
There were no “grants” (something that was “granted”) in the U.S. Constitution. Rights were seen as, and theretofore understood to be, granted exclusively by God. Only our Maker has the power and moral authority to grant rights and duties.
This is easy and enjoyable to prove.
Rights are given by the Almighty. Not man. Any analysis which doesn’t begin with this as an axiomatic irreducile (a presuppositional starting point) is flawed, whether it be gun control or pro-2A.
Ghost speech? Speech you wrote at home before taking it out in public? Can’t believe this analogy never occurred to me before.
There are now more than 24,000 gun control laws in effect in this nation at the federal, state, and local levels. Regarding those laws, I have been asking the same question for more than 40 years now, and I have yet to receive an answer: Exactly where in the wording of The Second Amendment is there any provision, or even a suggestion, allowing for restrictions, limitations, or exceptions? Answer: there isn’t any. Thus, all of those 24,000 laws are unconstitutional. Period.
Yes. Thank you.
Comments are closed.