[GatekeeperBookman]

"As far as I know, nobody has surrendered any rights."

Our rights are restricted by ten's of thousands of so called 'gun control laws'. These are surrenders & should not stand.

There are fresh proposals daily, to end gun ownership-even through indirect means such as taxation.

"The legal authority is under the commerce law the courts have granted."

The commerce clause was intended to regulate interstate commerce ( to avoid conflict among the states & facilitate trade-not end it ). It was not meant to restrict the God given rights acknowledged by the Bill of Rights. The Supreme's recently over-turned one Texas law, explaining this very clearly. Gun free school zones was the point of the law-the commerce clause was unsuccessfully employed to justify the law.

"As far as I know, God has not weighed in on this matter."

The very acknowledgment of our rights in the Bill of Rights, is founded on centuries old knowledge, of how the world works-as described by some old texts commonly known as the Bible, The Torah, et al. The Constitution & other founding documents make clear reference to God's authority & then go on to employ logic & His authority for our rights & the actions of the founders.

If you require assistance in finding this explained, logically & very clearly, in a brief and quite SECULAR text, try reading Mr. Bastiat. The Law is actually referred to as a political work. God weighed in on this many centuries ago-by the very act of our creation. If you doubt His authority, then you are beyond any understanding-as Mr. Limbaugh has famously said, about Libertarians-"You're on your own". I perceive that you are. I wish you Good luck.

I am grateful for the opportunity to make my humble observations.

That Sir, is as far as I know, at this early morning moment

[Cold Heat]

LOL! well, we differ on those legalisms.

IMO, the law of the land is primarily secular. It is, based of Christian/Judeo principles of long standing however. But that does not mean that those principles are the law.

I have a slightly different read on that subject.

A good analogy is the english language. Based in latin in part, but latin plays a limited role.

[El Gato]

The commerce clause was intended to regulate interstate commerce ( to avoid conflict among the states & facilitate trade-not end it ). It was not meant to restrict the God given rights acknowledged by the Bill of Rights. The Supreme's recently over-turned one Texas law, explaining this very clearly. Gun free school zones was the point of the law-the commerce clause was unsuccessfully employed to justify the law.

Even if the commerce clause hadn't been misused to regulate firearms, the power to regulate interstate commerce, whatever that might mean, cannot be used to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, which it has been, any more than it could be used to deny freedom of the press, speech or assembly. The nature of the Bill of Rights, as amendments to the Constitution, means that they overide or trump anything in the body of the original document if and when there is a conflict. That is what amendments to any contract or other document do.