Boston Globe: Hand Over Your Weapons

“There are 310 million handguns, shotguns, and semi-automatic weapons in American homes, garages, and waistbands.”

And that tells me it would be far easier to hand over the anti-gunners to whatever country with gun control they want that it is to confiscate guns from Americans.

Liberals never learn history.

If the Navy had done what they were supposed to do, maybe this guy doesn’t buy his weapons. Pass all the laws you want but if they aren’t properly implemented, what good are they?

“Spartans lay down your weapons!”

“Persians come and get them!”

Before I would ever hand over my AR’s to the government, I would pass them out like candy free of charge to like-minded Patriots.

I was listening to Rush Limbaugh on Friday. A girl in 6th (?) grade I think had called him and said she was happy to read his Young People’s History on the Revolutionary War, etc., etc, and how much American History fascinated her.

He asked her if she had learned any American history in school and she said,

“No. Just two years (!) of Muslim and Islamic history.” !!!

Islamic history but NO US history???!!!

It will be anything but “gun safety” when they show up to confiscate them from their rightful owners.

Not counting trillions of rounds of ammunition. This person desperately needs counseling or:

In_My_Safe_Space

Boston Globe: Hand over your weapons.
samiam5: sure thing, just come on by and pick them up!

The LEOs need to inform these bottom feeding politicians if they want to “confiscate” the guns of Americans, they should go to the homes of Americans and confiscate them. No use for any LEOs being shot. They are not expendable. Politicians are. Come and take ‘em you commie bastards!

My response: No. BFYTW. Your move...

Actually, it is A4:S2:C1 that is binding over the several States. Incorporation is not a valid idea (that was NOT the reason for the language of the 14th Amendment ... something I can actually give good proof for if you don’t trust me ... though it would be another LONG post).

But here is the thing: look closely at the BoR and the earlier clause I mentioned and you will see several things.

First, with respect to the BoR the language of the 9th Amendment should make it clear that there is a relationship between the rights enumerated in the first 8 amendments specifically and the 9th and it is this: that these others are either drawn from rights already retained by the people prior to the Ratification of the BoR or derived from the principals on which those rights are based.

All the subject matter of Amendments 1 to 8 are then a subset of the unenumerated rights indicated to preexist by the 9th Amendment. That these rights are described as “retained” speaks to them actually being a known thing and not some body of privileges or immunities unknown at the time.

Now, and this is important, that doesn’t mean that the BoR does not contain elaborations on these preexisting rights, or that it doesn’t either seek to add something consistent with prior principals or clarify something where prior legal scholarship had yet formalized it ... but never the less ALL of the enumerated rights share a formal and established relationship with this unnamed body of rights “retained” when the language was Ratified.

So, what is this body of preexisting rights?

An off the cuff answer is to acknowledge that it is indeed the same Privileges and Immunities mentioned in A4:S2:C1; however, off the cuff does not examine the possibility that there were different forms of Laws in competition to then be considered now.

There are many forms of Laws to consider but ONLY those known among the Colonies which became the States that Ratified the Constitution and then the BoR need be considered.

For example, Sharia Law is a form of common law that was not in any sense conceivable known (in force) among the several States ... it is a Foreign law. Likewise forms of common law or administrative laws found in Europe but not England or her possessions were Foreign laws and they need not be considered when it comes to either A4:S2:C1 or the first 9 amendments as well. Moreover the specific laws of the various native peoples need not be considered except for the conditional case that they actually influenced the development of applicable laws, and only to that extent.

There were in fact just three forms of laws known to all the English colonies, and thus the founding States, that need to be considered and these are English Common Law (the Native Common Law), the philosophy of Natural Laws as postulated up to that time IN the Colonies/States, and the specific developments of British administrative laws (or, crudely speaking, laws that only have a political basis).

Here we can point to the Declaration of Independence, as a necessary part of our organic law, to categorically reject British administrative laws thus far known as in ANY way informing the laws we should consider. This is because it was this very form of laws that was described as arbitrary by the DoI, which in rejection of them and expressing the desire to retain the free system of English laws (I.e, English Common Law as known up till that time, while the Crown was the Sovereign with right to make Law and not the several States or the American People) was given as an important reason WHY we had a revolution at all.

So the form of laws we rebelled to escape its potential application to us CANNOT be the basis for any right retained or Privilege and Immunity.

This leaves English Common Law (and by extension the laws of the specific colonies developed while under the English Sovereign) as it was and Natural Law.

Now some of the developments in the Laws of that time, those which had greatly entangled the generation of the founders and their fathers would scandalize progressives!

Chiefly, needing an example, I’m thinking of the right of Free Labor (not “free” in the modern sense of being without cost but in the same sense we derive freedom) to negotiate fees for services. You need to understand that the development of political law in Europe deemed it the prerogative to define wages for services, namely to set upper bounds for these. It was hard fought among the colonies to recognize that the government did not have the right to set these limits, to in effect enter into any negotiations for remuneration for services as if a Party to them. I would point out that this right runs counter to Union Shop rules, for these force association, and that Right to Work is really very close to this P&I that SHOULD be universally honored among the several States and by the federal (as an unenumerated right retained by the people when the BoR was ratified).

In principal BOTH (as then known) English Common Law and Natural Law philosophy need to be considered.

It is immaterial if legal philosophy has proffered other ideas than Natural Law, and indeed now often consider it a quaint and obsolete philosophy, BECAUSE those latter day ideologies are spurious to the Law: they did NOT inform the founding of the nation, the writing of the Constitution, or it’s ratification. If they were known (and many were) they were not commonly accepted by those who ratified the Constitution.

They (these other philosophies of law) should NOT even be considered.

Now the reason for this lay in the Original Right which contemporaries spoke of and which is found in the writings of (notably) Marshall in Marbury v Madison. The Original Right is a matter of Sovereignty to make Law.

Under the crown the Sovereign power to make Law was vested in the King, and through the extension of his authority to his various ministers (more specifically jurists and ministers and not so much the legislators whose statutes carried a different significance, as they made laws ... not Law) to make Law in his name (but subject to his attention and revision at any time).

I’m of course speaking about English Common Law (though this can apply to common laws in general) as the received basis for Laws. This is no small matter for there are places where their founding charters (their equivalent of our constitution and the charters of the several States) expressly FORBID being under any form of common law. You will find that not many rejected Administrative Law as did this nation at its founding.

This distinction is carried over under the Constitution: the Original Right is vested in the several States which Ratified the Constitution and which may from time to time amend the Constitution: these (ultimately the People behind them) are the Sovereigns to make Law when they ratify an Amendment.

Thus we find Marshall writing of the fact that the exercise of this right is a great endeavor, one not frequently (or at least lightly) undertaken.

The exercise of the Original Right makes new Law in this country, either actually new or or alter old, is now the amendment process and only the amendment process. The Congress does not make Law, only enact statutes pursuant to the Law they should be beholden to. Presidents do not make Law, they only administer the duties entrusted to them by the Law or statutes enacted by Congress pursuant the Law, and, yes, the Court does not have any right to make Law (to act in place of the Amendment process as they have done since FDR’s time) either ... we do not have a Federal Common Law in this country and judge made Law should no longer be accepted because the government is not the Sovereign over itself (as the crown would be) and so it’s ministers and jurists lack the rights due to ministers and jurists of the Crown.

Here is an interesting fact about Marbury that should cut the feet out from under the Modern Court: having justified the prerogative of judicial review on the back of the oath of office alone, and the obligation that imposes to decide for the Law when laws or other acts of government contradict the Law, Marshall expressly noted that officials in other departments (the Congress and the President) take the same oath of office.

If it is worse than a solemn mockery to require judges, who have taken such an oath, to close their eyes to the Constitution and only see the laws, the statutes, THEN what is it to require the Congress or President, any who take such an oath, to close their eyes to the Constitution and only see the opinions of the Court?!?

VERY IMPORTANT: the obligation of review that Marshall described is a destructive power with respect to novelties ... it is NOT a constructive power of novelties to make them be considered lawful as the Modern Court has done.

So if the Court should not have such power then how do latter day scholars come to basically cause it to be exercised by their putterings about, their musings which are neither Natural Law nor English Common Law which informed the writing and Ratification of the Constitution?

Clearly, they are nothings and should be treated as nothings. Let the legalistas eat cake.

The Original Right belongs to those who Ratified the Law, Ratification being the application of the Sovereign Power. That power is not found in elections of the Congress or of Presidents ... not even FDR.

When the Constitution is Amended intent with respect to what has been added is likewise added. But only with respect to the addition. Amending does not cause earlier Intent to cease to be important, controlling.

So having said all that, what ARE the other rights retained?

Process of elimination demands that they were the self same Privileges and Immunities mentioned in A4;S2:C1. It is actually easier to say what these did NOT include than to enumerate what they did include.

This is because A4:S2:C1 makes it clear that our P&I were those known among the several States.

If something was not lawful among ANY of the several States that Ratified the Law then those things are NOT 9th Amendment rights no matter how much people want them to be. And one can also point out that if something WAS flatly lawful among ALL the several States that Ratified the Law then those ARE 9th Amendment rights no matter what folks who want to rid us of those P&I now may think. The same holds true of A4:S2:C1.

This was not some federalizations of all laws to give the Court final say in all matters of rights but rather a requirement imposed upon the several States to basically keep doing as they had been doing. So if we can recognize that, per the preamble to the Bill of Rights, these were added to reassure folks the federal government wouldn’t run amuck the same observation should be valid of A4:S2:C1 ... for it reassures that the States will not run amuck.

And guess what?

The right to bear Arms was known among ALL the several States when they Ratified the Constitution, for it was the very basis on which so much of our being able to be a nation at all depended.

That the elites want to stamp their widdle feets and pout that this P&I should be gotten away with, even by State statutes, is lawlessness.

But I don’t expect anything more of progressives. Even in the infancy of progressivism they were all about being a very different nation than our Law permitted us to be. Now that they are an insane-Cultural-Marxist-doesn’t-know-which-bathroom-to-use-Poofter-loving-Muslim-Brotherhood-asskissing-posse that assessment applies in spades, diamonds, clubs, hearts and a few other suits yet to be invented as well!

Hey, I’m used to folks looking at me like I just swallowed a bug. < ^ . ^ >

bump for later

Even if I didn’t own 5 or more (and I don’t), I would not tell a reporter or a census taker, or a pollster.

Why does anybody tell these people anything?

Excellent analysis!

RKBA Ping List

This Ping List is for all things pertaining to the 2nd Amendment.

FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.

More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.

Some old dead white guy once said,”You won’t neeed the Second Amendment until they try to take it away from you”

From the original birthplace of the Sons of Liberty. Ironic.

Only a true idiot didn’t know that total gun confiscation has been the end game all along.

Regardless of your position, we all saw how the limiting of of tobacco use (I’m not a smoker) has turned into a de facto ban, or soon to be outright ban.

We all saw how the tugging at heart strings for the use of medical marijuana for those poor, poor suffering souls that we all knew was the Trojan horse for legalized marijuana. And so it has been.

We all saw how the rest of us were so hateful and non-compassionate not to allow civil unions. That’s all the homosexuals wanted was to have a civil union and be left alone. Of course that too was just another Leftist Trojan horse.

And so it is with “sensible gun control”. We all know the end game is mandatory and total gun confiscation and declaring any private gun owner to be a felon.

You may come and get them, but you will have to take them by the barrel end.