Sample Page – Page 204 – KrisAnne Hall

Full Analysis of ATF Form 4473 2012

June 28, 2013/in Archives for Articles/by James Hall

Analysis of the changes between ATF Form 4473 Revised April 2012

And ATF Form 4473 Revised August 2008

By KrisAnne Hall

Summary available here. Printable version here.

ATF has made several changes to their Form 4473, Firearms Transaction Record Part I- Over-the Counter. ATF has cited a memorandum of the Attorney General as the source and requirement for these changes. ATF asserts that these changes are necessary to comply with the purpose in the memorandum to prevent STATES from creating more stringent requirements on aliens than those of citizens. The AG memorandum does not make this assertion, nor does the memorandum support such reasoning. Finally, the AG, in issuing their memorandum, has made it easier for transient immigrants, who are not loyal to the laws of this land, to buy, transport, and ship guns and ammunition than for US Citizens. The ATF, in enforcing the AG’s standards, has claimed that the states have no right to do anything about it.

It is also relevant to point out that the recent Supreme Court ruling in Arizona would support both the AG’s memorandum in granting greater access to nonimmigrant aliens as well as the ATF’s assertion that the states have no say in the matter. (For further understanding of the Arizona ruling please read here)

A. The Specific Changes made to ATF Form 4473 from 2008-2012

1. There are three specific changes made to ATF Form 4473. First, section 10 requires the applicant to verify “Race (Ethnicity).”

The 2008 version gives the following choices:

The new 2012 version breaks section 10 into sections 10-a and 10-b and gives the following options:

NOTE: It is interesting to note that there is no box for “Arab or Middle Eastern” and no box for “Other.” The choices are so specific, how would someone answer that question if they were from Iraq or Israel or Pakistan? This author could not find in the AG memorandum any requirement or even justification for this particular change; it is nonetheless a significant change in the forms.

2. The next significant change in the form involves sections 11-l and 12.

The 2008 version states:

The 2012 version states:

NOTE: The 2008 inquiry covered ALL aliens; the new version does not.

3. The final significant change in versions is the elimination of the language in section 20-c and the alteration of language in section 20-d of the 2008 version:

NOTE: The 2012 version of this form does not require any immigrant aliens to provide this documentation and focuses only on those with a nonimmigrant visa and section 20-d is now section 20-c with the following changes:

B. The Analysis

ATF has made several changes to its practices in allowing nonimmigrant aliens to purchase firearms. ATF asserts the justification for these changes are pursuant to a Memorandum issued on October 28, 2011 and signed by Assistant Attorney General Virginia Seitz.

ATF declares the basis for all the changes are due to the AG office reinterpretation of Congress’ intent in defining the terms “nonimmigrant alien” in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(B) (2006) and its application to the ability of an alien to ship, transport, possess, or receive a firearm or ammunition :

A provision of the federal Gun Control Act prohibits any “alien” who has “been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa” from shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving “any firearm or ammunition” that has a connection to interstate commerce. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(B) (2006).

AAG Seitz’s memorandum concludes that the ATF had been inappropriately expanding the definition ‘nonimmigrant alien’ to include all nonimmigrant aliens, when the Attorney General’s office felt these restrictions should apply to those nonimmigrant aliens who were required to get a “paper” visa and did not possess waivers.

The AG office claims congress did not intend for the prohibitions in the Gun Control Act of 1968 “to apply to all aliens with nonimmigrant status, including nonimmigrant aliens admitted to the United States without a visa, pursuant either to the Visa Waiver Program, see 8 U.S.C. § 1187 (2006), or to regulations otherwise exempting them from visa requirements.”

In 2002, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) issued an interim final rule interpreting this prohibition to apply to any alien who has the status of “nonimmigrant alien,” regardless of whether the alien required a visa in order to be admitted to the United States. We explained that the text is clear: the provision applies only to nonimmigrant aliens who must have visas to be admitted, not to all aliens with nonimmigrant status. (emphasis added)

Section 922(g)(5)(B) makes it unlawful for aliens who have been “admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26))” to ship, transport, possess, or receive any firearms or ammunition. A nonimmigrant is a person who is not seeking citizenship and does not intend to remain permanently in the United States. The AG’s office claims that people in the United States with student visas and employment visas should be treated differently than those who are simply visitors from countries authorized to enter the US without visas for vacation purposes, as well as aliens admitted under the Visa Waiver program. All those who are in this country as visitors or under the Visa Waiver program are only allowed to be here for 90 days or less.

The AG asserts that “although the text of the statute does not include an express rationale for the distinction drawn between nonimmigrants with visas and those without” they believe Congress never intended for these temporary visitors to be restricted by the Gun Control Act. Although the AG memorandum of October 28 does not list any specific changes that need to be made, the memorandum does make it clear that all “pending investigations and prosecutions predicated on the view that the statute applies to all nonimmigrant aliens, regardless of visa status” must be immediately terminated. The changes to the ATF Form 4473 are made pursuant to subsequent open letters issued by the Department of Justice “To ALL FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSEES.”

The first Open Letter is dated December 8, 2011 and is signed by Chief, Firearms and Explosives Industry Division head, Chad Yoder. This open letter does not directly reference the above memorandum, but does mention it by way of “Office Of Legal Counsel” opinion.

“Recently, the Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, (OLC) has informed ATF that its interpretation of the scope of persons prohibited by section 922(g)(5)(B) is overly broad.”

This letter reiterates the AG opinion that the Gun Control Act of 1968 does not apply to all nonimmigrant aliens.

“Those aliens, and others who are lawfully in the country without a visa, are not within the scope of the GCA prohibition.”

No changes to the form are issued at this time, but Mr. Yoder explains that these changes are pending, putting all licensees on notice that the changes in interpretation are forthcoming.

The next Open Letter is dated April 30, 2012 and is signed by Chief, Firearms and Explosives Industry Division head, Chad Yoder (Attached as “C”). Again this letter references the October 28 AG memorandum as well as the December 8, 2011 open letter as the purpose for the letter. The April 30 letter, however, implements changes in ATF Form 4473, claiming the changes in policy pursuant to the AGs interpretation of the Gun Control Act. This letter asserts that the opinions issued in the AG memorandum claims that “states” applying “more stringent residency standards” was a violation of the AG’s interpretation of the Gun Control Act.

“Second, DOJ concluded that, as a matter of law, applying a more stringent state residency requirement for aliens legally present in the U.S. than for U.S. citizens is incompatible with the language of the Gun Control Act (GCA).”

There is no such direct statement in the October 28 AG memorandum. This memorandum dealt entirely with the ATF’s interpretation of this act and made no comments regarding state requirements. Yoder further claims,

“Therefore, an alien legally in the United States is not required to provide 90-days proof of continuous residency in the State prior to the transfer of the firearm.”

No further explanation is given. Perhaps, because nonimmigrants here upon waivers alone are only permitted to be in this country for less than 90 days at a time, requiring proof of residency to predicate access to firearms and ammunition is seen as a prohibition on this particular class of immigrants. But this requirement was removed for ALL IMMIGRANTS and not simply for those who are here pursuant to waiver. Gun and ammunition dealers and law enforcement agents are no longer allowed to request proof of residency from ANY nonimmigrant for authorization of shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving “any firearm or ammunition”. The justification for this change, as stated by Mr. Yoder, is to prevent STATES from applying more stringent residency requirements on aliens than citizens. The AG memorandum specifically stated that the ATF could not apply more stringent requirements upon one class of immigrants over another. This memorandum never stated that more stringent requirements could not be made of ALL nonimmigrants.

Additionally, Mr. Yoder does not even mention the changes in section 10-a of the 2012 ATF Form 4473 in the April 30 Open Letter. As a reminder, this section adds a separate question regarding ethnicity, to distinguish Hispanic or Latinos from all other races. This is in addition to section 10-b that requires the person to identify race, giving 5 choices. What is the justification for this change? How does a separate distinction between Hispanics and non-Hispanics meet the intent of the Gun Control Act as claimed by the AG? What is the purpose of making this distinction?

C. Conclusion

In Conclusion, on April 30, 2012 ATF made changes to ATF Form 4473, Firearms Records Part I- Over-the-Counter. ATF asserts these changes are justified by a memorandum issued by the Attorney General on October 28, 2011. Chief, Firearms and Explosives Industry Division head, Chad Yoder, claims the reason these changes are necessary is because states who are applying more stringent state residency requirements for aliens legally present in the US to purchase, ship, transport, possess, or receive a firearm or ammunition is incompatible with the Gun Control Act of 1968. The October 28 memorandum does not mention anything about “state requirements” and only addresses ATF’s interpretation of the Gun Control Act relative to separate classes of aliens.

The distinction made by the AG allows a specific class of aliens to purchase guns and ammunition. Aliens without nonimmigrant visas do not intend to obtain citizenship, express no intent to stay in this country for more than 90 days, make no application for visa, and therefore have had no formal background checks. Therefore, the AG has made it easier for transient immigrants, who are not loyal to the laws of this land, to buy guns and ammunition than for US Citizens. The ATF, in enforcing the AG’s standards claims that the states have no right to do anything about this; the states cannot make more stringent requirements upon aliens than on citizens. However, there seems to be no problem making more stringent requirements upon citizens than on transient aliens.

Although there are several legal arguments that could be asserted against the Attorney General’s memorandum asserting their understanding of Congress’s intent in drafting the Gun Control Act of 1968, the purpose of this analysis is to discuss the changes made to the ATF Form 4473 and the reasons asserted for these changes. (NOTE: Will the AG’s understandings ever be challenged? It is unlikely when the correction is issued by the Department of Justice against the Department of Justice, the agency governing itself.) Since the AG has made it a point to tell us what they believe Congress’s intent with immigrant aliens and the Gun Control Act, it would seem that it is inherent upon Congress to clarify these issues.

From Slave To Patriot~They Gave Their Lives So YOU Could Be Free

June 28, 2013/in Archives for Articles/by James Hall

As we remember our brothers and sisters who have sacrificed and continue to sacrifice so we can have Liberty, let us also remember those that history denies their due glory. How many know that the first man to die in the Revolutionary War was a black man named Crispus Attucks? Crispus Attucks was freed slave who had become a whaler for the merchant marines. Here is a poem written about Attucks by John Boyle O’Riley:

Honor to Crispus Attucks, who was leader and voice that day;

The first to defy, and the first to die, with Maverick, Carr, and Gray;

Call it riot or revolution, his hand first clenched at the crown;

His feet were the first in perilous place to pull the King’s flag down;

His breast was the first one rent apart that liberty’s stream might flow;

For our freedom now and forever, his head was first laid low.

Call it riot or revolution, or mob or crowd, as you may,

Such deaths have been seed of nations, such lives shall be honored for aye.

What about Ned Hector, who was a freed slave and fought in the battles of Brandywine and Germantown? When his military unit was being defeated and the order to retreat was given, he refused to retreat. He said, “The enemy shall have not my team. I will save the horses or perish myself!”

History is full of brave men such as these. Many slaves were made freemen because they wanted to fight for liberty. One such man was Peter Salem. Salem fought at the battle of Bunker Hill where he is remembered for shooting and killing British Major John Pitcairn. Many believe if it had not been for Peter Salem, Pitcairn’s troops would have won that battle. Because of his bravery, Salem was honored and introduced to General George Washington as a great hero for liberty.

As a matter of fact, there were battalions of freed slaves who fought for OUR liberty in the Revolutionary War. George Middleton was a Colonel in the Revolutionary War and led the Bucks of America, a battalion of freed slaves dedicated to the cause of liberty. Even after the war, Middleton would continue to fight through the organization he founded in 1796 called, the African Benevolent Society. This organization provided aid to widows and orphans of the Revolutionary War.

Who better to stand for Liberty than men who had been slaves and knew the value of Liberty? They believed so greatly that all men deserved to be free from tyranny that many of these men would give their ONLY free breath so WE could be free. They were willing to die for something they would never even taste. How do WE repay their ultimate sacrifice? We deny their existence in history, refusing to teach our children of their bravery, just to satisfy a wicked and evil progressive agenda to keep men slaves. THAT, my patriots, is REAL racial hatred and bigotry!

GET THIS LESSON ON DVD & EMPOWER GENERATIONS IN THE NAME OF LIBERTY http://bit.ly/ForgottenFoundersLFU

We have the same obligation our forefathers had, to “secure the Blessings of Liberty” for “ages and millions yet unborn.” It is now our duty to pick up that mantle. But make no mistake; it will take a whole body of people to secure this Liberty. Not a whole nation, but a whole body dedicated to the great task remaining before us, and willing to give that pledge of Life, Fortune, and Sacred Honor.

We can fulfill this obligation because we are not alone in our struggle to maintain the Liberty that so many have died for. In the words of Patrick Henry, “(we are) Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of Liberty (and) we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us…The battle…is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave.” WE are the “vigilant, the active, the brave” and it is time that we embrace the truth, honor our heritage, and fulfill our destiny. America is indeed exceptional, and we are still capable of exceptional bravery and commitment.

I had a conversation with my son, who is six and afraid of the dark. As we were getting ready for bed, I told him to turn off the light and get into bed. He said, “Mommy, I can’t, if I turn off the light it will be dark and I won’t be able to see to get back to my bed.” I explained that there is nothing between the light switch and the bed that would hurt him and that he just needed to do it. He protested for a short while and then did as he was told. I then praised him for being so brave and reassured him by pointing out that the room didn’t change simply because the lights were dim. With tears in his eyes he said, “Mommy I was not brave at all, I was scared.” What a wonderful teaching moment God had given me! I said with great pride and joy in my heart, “Honey, being brave doesn’t mean you aren’t scared. Being brave means that you do what has to be done even though you ARE scared. And you were very brave.”

We must be brave. There is much we must do.

In America’s first great struggle for Liberty, Mercy Otis Warren wrote to John Adams;

“I have my fears. Yet, notwithstanding the complicated difficulties that rise before us, there is no receding; and I should blush if in any instance the weak passions of my sex should damp the fortitude, the patriotism, and the manly resolution of yours. May nothing ever check that glorious spirit of freedom which inspires the patriot in the cabinet, and the hero in the field, with courage to maintain their righteous cause, and to endeavor to transmit the claim to posterity, even if they must seal the rich conveyance to their children with their own blood.”

We must know as Patrick Henry said, that we need not be afraid, we will not fight our battles alone. But these battles for Liberty must be fought. And as Mercy, we must be resolute in the face of fear.

We must stand firm because we have the greatest birthright of any people. We live in the greatest nation on this planet. To whom much is given, much is required. We must deny our fears that convince us that we cannot survive without the comforts we enjoy. We must deny all fears that place anything above the Liberty that has been purchased for us. We must be resolved to make the same commitment to our children that our founders made for us.

“…though we are daily threatened with the depredations of Britain…yet each city…stands ready to sacrifice their devoted lives to preserve inviolate, and to convey to their children the inherent rights of men, conferred on all by the God of nature, and the privileges of Englishmen claimed by Americans from the sacred sanction of compacts.” Mercy Otis Warren December 29, 1774

GET THIS LESSON ON DVD & EMPOWER GENERATIONS IN THE NAME OF LIBERTY http://bit.ly/ForgottenFoundersLFU

Fear is a CHOICE and this glorious gift of Liberty comes with a price. This price has been paid for us and is continually paid by those men and women who give all. It is time that we do more than just barbeque and wear patriotic gear. We must meet this responsibility and honor their sacrifice with our devotion to the cause of Liberty, so that our children will not have to fight a battle that should be fought by us. Just because the light of this nation has dimmed, and at times we feel we cannot see the way ahead, the path to maintain Liberty has not changed. We must stand active, vigilant, brave – for the Liberty of our children – remembering those who bravely gave all…remember those who led the charge before us… remembering our obligation to liberty and to future generations…

“Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. ” – Winston Churchill

May God continue to bless America a little while longer…

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand

Between their loved homes and the war’s desolation!

Blest with victory and peace, may the heaven-rescued land

Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.

Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,

And this be our motto: “In God is our trust.”

And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave

O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave! ~ Star Spangled Banner

A Hertitage Worthy of Thanks

June 28, 2013/in Archives for Articles/by James Hall

As we reflect on the past year in America, let us not forget that Liberty is a gift that was purchased for us with great sacrifice. Among the many things we have to be thankful for, we must be eternally grateful for the wisdom of men and women that understood that Liberty was a gift from God and that all God’s gifts are worth our every sacrifice. John Adams, in a letter to Abigail in 1777 expressed this sacrifice.

Posterity ! you will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom! I hope you will make a good use of it If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven that I ever took half the pains to preserve it.

We must honor this sacrifice by honoring their memory and continuing their efforts. Too often I see the revisionism of our history in an effort to demean these men and women with the purpose of destroying our nation. We do not properly respect their efforts by allowing these lies to be taught to our sons and daughters. We must teach the truth. We owe it to them. We owe it to our children.

I am not trying to give the founders some divine status or even suppose them a level of perfection that they did not have. We must understand that our nation was not founded upon people, but upon principles. The people that gave us our exceptional American principles were flawed vessels just like you and me. However, the really amazing part of this history is that flawed men understood that the foundation of an enduring nation must be liberty moored in morality. Consider these words by Alexander Hamilton:

Equal pains have been taken to deprave the morals as to extinguish the religion of the country [France], if indeed morality in a community can be separated from religion…The pious and moral weep over these scenes as a sepulcher destined to entomb all they revere and esteem.

The politician who loves liberty sees them with regret as a gulf that may swallow up the liberty to which he is devoted. He knows that morality overthrown (and morality must fall with religion), the terrors of despotism can alone curb the impetuous passions of man, and confine him within the bounds of social duty. (emphasis original)
The Stand, No. III (April 7, 1798)

Our founders knew that Liberty is a combination of two equally important parts – it is FREEDOM under the constraints of MORAL LAW. Liberty cannot survive where there is pure freedom. Pure freedom gives man the right to do whatever is right in his own mind: cheat, lie, rob, murder. Pure freedom is anarchy. At the same time, Liberty cannot survive with moral law alone. Moral law not mingled with freedom is theocracy. Theocracy in the hands of men is tyranny in the name of religion. Our founders attempted give us this balance and secure the blessings of liberty for us in our founding documents. When we abandon our founding documents and disregard our moral foundations, liberty is in peril.

Thomas Jefferson gave us this warning, “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God?”

While Benjamin Franklin warned America’s founders directly:

“In the beginning of the Contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for Divine protection…. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of Superintending Providence in our favor…have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?…. God Governs in the affairs of men And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?”

Patrick Henry said “Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.”

As an exceptional nation built upon exceptional principles, we cannot deny that we are built with a foundational understanding of an exceptional God. Thomas Jefferson reminds us that, “We are not in a world ungoverned by the laws and the power of a Superior Agent. Our efforts are in His hand, and directed by it; and He will give them their effect in His own time.”

Because of our historical understanding that our nation was built on the principles of freedom and morality, America has always been the haven of rest when tyrants oppress their own. She is the vineyard of innovation and opportunity. This is the nation that opens its arms to the tired, to the poor, to the oppressed, to the huddled masses yearning to breathe free. No other nation can claim this legacy, no other people has this birthright. This is the shining city upon a hill, and we cannot hide our light under a bush.

The focus of our education should not be on the flaws of the men who gave us this nation, but on the exceptional nation that they gave us. We have an exceptional nation where “all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights.” A nation birthed by the principle that the power of the government is to be held BY the people and not where the government holds power OVER the people. A nation that believes the principle that says all are free to worship according to the dictates of their conscience, and all are equally free, “Jews, Turks, pagans, AND Christians.” A nation that has prospered based on the principle that ideas and hard work open the door to prosperity regardless of bloodline, skin color or social status. A nation that has remained free based on the principle that liberties remain secure by maintaining the right to defend self, property, and Liberty.

In the profound words of Daniel Webster, “Is our Constitution worth preserving? Guard it as you would guard the seat of your life, guard it not only against the open blows of violence, but also against that spirit of change…Miracles do not cluster. That which has happened but once in six thousand years, cannot be expected to happen often. Such a government, once destroyed, would have a void to be filled, perhaps for centuries, with evolution and tumult, riot and despotism.”~ An Anniversary Address by Daniel Webster July 4th 1806

So in this time of Thanksgiving, let us maintain a true focus on what is important. In this day it is so popular to denigrate America for every little flaw. Why not take back a bit of American Exceptionalism? Why not embrace what makes us different from every other nation on the globe? America is an exceptional nation because we are built on exceptional principles. Principles of Liberty, freedom, morality, and equality as derived from our Creator. And these principles are STILL WORTH FIGHTING FOR!

Happy Thanksgiving America! May God continue to bless this exceptional nation.

Right to Keep & Bear Arms- Protection from Tyrants

June 28, 2013/in Archives for Articles/by James Hall

What many citizens and legislators do not understand is that the federal government has no right to prevent any law-abiding citizen from owning or possessing ANY firearm. The Constitution and its history is unequivocally clear on this! Here is a little 2^nd Amendment history lesson so we can defend our Rights from becoming government bestowed privileges.

Everything we need to know was explained by our founders in the years 1787-1788. Lesson one comes from George Mason. George Mason, along with James Madison, is referred to as the “Father of the Bill of Rights.” Seems to me a good person to listen to when it comes to any portion of the Bill of Rights is someone who is referred to as its “Father.” Mason first explains the REASON we are to bear arms, and guess what; it has nothing to do with hunting and skeet shooting…or fighting muggers!

“Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, (Sir William Keith) who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia. [Here Mr. Mason quoted sundry passages to this effect.] Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed? The general government ought, at the same time, to have some such power. But we need not give them power to abolish our militia.” George Mason, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1788

In the words of the “Father,” we bear arms to keep from becoming enslaved by the federal government. But Mr. Mason doesn’t end his lesson there, he continues by making sure we know WHO the militia is and this is contrary to what most politicians profess.

“Mr. Chairman, a worthy member has asked who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c., by our representation? I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor…” George Mason, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788

So Mason explains We The People are the militia who bear arms to keep from being enslaved by the federal government AND to protect ourselves from the tyranny of OUR REPRESENTATIVES, whose dereliction leads us to suffer the same fate of foreign nations!

Lesson two comes from the great patriot Noah Webster. Speaking on the threat of an overpowering central government, he further explains, with great clarity, the REASON our founders intended the entire citizenry be armed.

“Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command: for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.” Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787

There is no interpretation need. These instructions are written in plane English. Why do we bear arms according to Noah Webster?

To prevent rule by a standing army;
To prevent Congress from executing unjust and unconstitutional laws;
To prevent the Federal Government from becoming unjust and oppressive;
The people bearing arms should be SUPERIOR to an army controlled by Congress.

Lesson number 3 comes from a founder referred to in pseudonym as Letter from a Federal Farmer (most likely Richard Henry Lee, writer of the Resolution Declaring Independence). Mr. Lee explains,

“[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.” Letter from the Federal Farmer #18 January 25, 1788.

Mr. Lee explains that it is our DUTY to not simply bear arms but to ALWAYS bear arms. Mr. Lee is probably rolling over in his grave at the idea that we have to ask permission of the government to carry a firearm. How about that directive that we also must teach our children to bear arms?

Our final lessons today come from Patrick Henry. Mr. Henry was probably one of the most passionate champion of the citizen’s duty to bear arms. No one can break it down like Patrick Henry.

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.” Patrick Henry Virginia Ratifying Convention June 5, 1788

“Oh, sir! we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone;…Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors can not assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America.” Patrick Henry Virginia Ratifying Convention June 5, 1788

Well, there you have it, an historical and truthful education on your Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The education is easy to find and easy to read. Why are our politicians bent on disseminating miseducation and lies? Perhaps they repeat the lies because they intent on disarming the people, because they know, as our founders did, that an armed citizenry is the last line of defense against absolute tyranny.

Just remember, the Federal government has no legitimate power beyond what its masters delegate to it. The States are the final battleground against centralized tyranny. We will defend our States, until we regain our nation. ( www.SovereignDuty.com )

“There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #78

Be Part of the Solution

June 28, 2013/in Archives for Articles/by James Hall

Are you part of the solution or are you part of the problem. Are you standing in defense of liberty or are you passively waiting for someone else to do the job. Have you made the defense of liberty come first? Well, I can tell you that there are a couple of politician’s I’d like to call out who are PART OF THE PROBLEM.

One if Maro Rubio. Marco Rubio is an enemy of the Constitution. Not a defender of the Constitution and his promotion of immigration reform has exposed his true colors. His speech on the floor of the house was just a bunch of tripe and Rubio we don’t want to hear anymore of your personal stories about coming to this country. It’s just smoke and mirrors meant to hide your true motivation about open borders.

The other politician I’d like to call out (and have called out in the past) is Allen West. Allen West is not a friend of liberty and his voting record screams it out for anyone to hear who just might be listening and has voted against the Constitution at almost every opportunity. He also brags about being the author of indefinite detention act sections 1021 and 1022 and he denies it’s intention and refuses to even sit down with me to discuss it!

So you want to be part of the solution. Forget about party affiliation. Forget about what they, watch what they do and if they are not defenders of liberty then they are part of the problem and as a voter and a citizen you can be part of the solution.

Shall Not Be Infringed?

June 28, 2013/in Archives for Articles/by James Hall

In true teleprompter form, King Barry delivered his royal decree on gun control. It is amazing to me the blind ignorance that so infects Washington DC. The framers of this nation made THEIR position very clear on gun ownership and the DUTY of a free people to keep and bear arms. It is very tempting to go through the King’s pronouncement line by line, but for the sake of brevity, I will restrain myself. I am going to focus only on the Second Amendment, but we must be aware that everything presented in the 23 “executive actions” are completely unconstitutional. The federal government does not have the power to fund research, the States, their law enforcement or even operate the ATF. Those are all powers that remain with the States through the 10^th Amendment and there has NEVER been a constitutional amendment to change that.

What seems to elude those who are willing to jump on board the gun control train is the very principle and purpose our framers had in mind when drafting the Second Amendment. Knowing what the drafters said is essential to knowing why the King’s declarations are not only unconstitutional but also anti-liberty.

The fundamental principle behind the Second Amendment is actually pretty simple: it is the duty of the PEOPLE to preserve Liberty and to do so they MUST keep and bear arms. King Barry said he supports the Second Amendment for hunters and sportsmen and personal protection. Problem is, Barry, the framers said lots of things about our duty to keep and bear arms and NONE OF THEM had to do with hunting or sport or protections from the mugger.

George Mason:“When the resolution of ENSLAVING America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised to disarm the people that it was the best and most effectual way to ENSLAVE them; but that they SHOULD NOT DO IT OPENLY, but WEAKEN them and let them SINK GRADUALLY…”

Barack Obama:“Require universal background checks for all firearm sales. Reinstate and strengthen the ban on assault weapons. Limit ammunition magazines to 10 rounds. Ban possession of armor-piercing ammunition by anyone other than the military and law enforcement. Eliminate restrictions that force the ATF to authorize importation of certain firearms because of their age.” Translation: Let’s make them sink gradually.

Noah Webster:“The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the WHOLE BODY of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops…A military force at the command of Congress,can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power; and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination to resistthe execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”

Barack Obama:“I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. I respect our strong tradition of gun ownership and the rights of hunters and sportsmen. There are millions of responsible, law-abiding gun owners in America who cherish their right to bear arms for hunting or sport or protection or collection.” Translation: Bearing arms has nothing to do with me…just the deer in the field or the robber entering your home.

Richard Henry Lee(Federal Farmer #18): Whereas to PRESERVE LIBERTY, it is essential that the WHOLE BODY of the people ALWAYS possess arms…The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder TRUE REPUBLICANS are for carefully guarding against it.

Barack Obama:“Ban possession of armor-piercing ammunition by anyone other than the military and law enforcement. Reinstate and strengthen the ban on assault weapons.” Translation: Only the government can keep and bear arms unless I DECLARE otherwise.

In summary, the writers of the Second Amendment intended all the people to always bear arms to:

1. Keep from becoming slaves to a central government;

2. To keep the central government from enforcing unjust, unconstitutional, and oppressive laws;

3. To preserve Liberty and protect our Constitutional republic from men who operate to remove Liberty.

Barack Obama believes the Second Amendment is for:

1. Hunting, sport, protection, and collection;

2. Law enforcement officers;

3. The military in war (not when they come home);

4. Federal government agents unless otherwise declared by the federal government.

You CANNOT preserve Liberty by compromising the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment reads“the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” That literally means the government is completely forbidden to violate or transgress the peoples’ right to bear arms. Yet the King wants us to believe that it is a matter of “common sense” to allow the central government to decide who and on what terms the people can bear arms. Do you see how that is contrary to the very core of the Second Amendment? The King says he is going to“direct the U.S. attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun and make recommendations to ensure dangerous people aren’t slipping through the cracks.”I thought we were trying to make sure only criminals didn’t own guns. Now the government wants a new classification, “dangerous people”. I’m sure the King and his court will be ready and willing to pronounce the definition of “dangerous”. Who are the“dangerous” people today? Who will they be tomorrow? But then where does the compromise end? Because when you are completely forbidden to do something and then you get permission to do it just a little bit, you are no longer COMPLETELY forbidden, you are CONDITIONALLY forbidden. Conditions, as well as definitions, in the eyes of the government, are always mutable.

If you have heard or read the King’s diktat, he has warned you that the argument of Liberty would be presented; how very Alinsky of him. His denunciations of the founders’intent and the principles that make this nation great are merely tactic and have no credibility. He speaks from lies and emotional propaganda…the founders taught from historical experience and timeless principles. But I am just the messenger, so you must make your own decisions. As for me and my family, we stand with G. Mason, N. Webster, R.H. Lee and the men who sacrificed for Liberty. You may, however, choose to stand with those who only stand on avarice, ambition, and constitutional destruction. I leave you one last testimony from each side, a closing argument if you please:

Barack Obama:“If parents and teachers, police officers, and pastors, if hunters and sportsman, if responsible gun owners, if Americans of every background stand up and say, enough. We’ve suffered too much pain, and care too much about our children to allow this to continue, then change will –change will come.”

Daniel Webster:“Is the Constitution worth preserving? Guard it as you would the seat of your life; guard it not only against the open blows of violence, but also against that spirit of change.”

Senate Standing Guard

June 28, 2013/in Archives for Articles/by James Hall

Congress has possibly the lowest approval rating in history, even lower than possibly the worst President in history. Perhaps it is because of the apparent disconnect from reality that becomes obvious when listening to some of them. In a recent email to one of my radio show listeners, Marco Rubio, a Senator who is alleged to really “get it” and is a “rising star” in the GOP, made the following statement:

“I take my role as a U.S. Senator very seriously and I will continue to provide important oversight of these government agencies. Should anyone attempt to restrict our freedom or liberty, I will hold them accountable. Furthermore, I will continue to support and defend the principles and liberties in the U.S. Constitution.”

Seriously? “CONTINUE to provide and important oversight”?? When and where is that happening from Congress, Mr. Rubio? “Should anyone attempt to restrict our freedom or liberty”?!!? Is Mr. Rubio asserting that it hasn’t happened yet, but when it does we should rest assured that he will be RIGHT THERE supporting and defending the Constitution? FYI, it’s happening every day. Someone needs to pump some fresh air in Washington DC because I am seeing significant signs of asphyxiational delusion displayed by the majority of its residents.

Just in case some Senators are unclear about what might restrict our freedom or liberty, here are just a few things going on that could use some oversight and accountability:

1. Obamacare is a massive tool to restrict our freedom and liberty. It is a mandate that requires citizens to purchase the healthcare the government deems appropriate and penalizes anyone from working outside the confines of government control. It gives the federal government the power to not only mandate healthcare but creates a “significant governmental interest” in matters of our health giving the government potential control over every aspect of our lives. A small case in point is the measure popularly known as the “Medicine Cabinet Tax,” contained in pages 1,957 to 1,959 of a law that runs more than 2,400 pages. This provision FORBIDS AMERICANS from using their health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement account (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase nonprescription medicines. (

Sunshine State News, Eric Guinta)—Did you hear that Mr. Rubio…the Federal Government is FORBIDDING AMERICANS from using their own money to buy Tylenol! Surely THAT is a restriction on our freedom or liberty…Where is the oversight?

2. In the midst of “government shut down” over budget issues, the Obama administration is set to hire TENS OF THOUSANDS of health care professionals, union workers and community activists (ACORN? Planned Parenthood?) as “navigators” to help Americans choose Obamacare options. Their starting pay as of Oct. 1 will be anywhere from $20 to $48 an HOUR, according to new regulations issued Wednesday. (The Examiner, Paul Bedard) What will these “navigators” do? They will be translating Obamacare into foreign languages to encourage the use of Obamacare by non-English speaking people. Multilingual statism, beautiful! Is this an example of that oversight Mr. Rubio mentioned?

3. The Senate Budget Committee just recently voted to CONTINUE working with Mexican government to increase participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamps (a program started by George W.). Exporting government dependency, fantastic! That gives new meaning to the phrase “Made In America.” Apparently our own government isn’t doing enough to spend us into oblivion, we will now have the assistance of Mexico in enslaving our children in debt and national bankruptcy. The PARTNERSHIP, alone, will cost us MILLIONS, not to mention the cost of the Food Stamps (FoxNews.com) (Daily Caller, Caroline May) Senate oversight in the works, perhaps? No, this is probably just “immigration reform,” a.k.a. Democrat voter drive.

4. Congress “quietly” passes the Farmer Assurance Provision. Apparently, throwing the farmers’ legal recourse against negligent corporations into the hands of the FDA. What is the justification for this unconstitutional support of special interest? Law suits are costing the FDA too much money. (multiple media sources) Perhaps this is actually what oversight means… making sure the special interest and lobbyist groups are protected!

5. Immigration “reform” is in the works, being pushed through by the unconstitutional establishment of the “thugs of 8”. The last clause of Article 5 of the Constitution requires “equal suffrage” in the Senate for ALL senators…not just 8! Who have the thugs of 8 “hired” to write their “immigration reform”? The AFL-CIO. AMAZING degree of oversight…again ensuring that the lobbyists get their way. (ABC News, Arlette Saenz) Not only that but the GOP has issued a statement that a loophole in this program will allow for TRILLIONS of dollars of welfare assistance to be given to illegal aliens…and the absurdity continues. (Breitbart, Matthew Boyle)

6. “Law enforcement intelligence-processing fusion centers” admit to spying on US Citizens…but don’t worry! They are only spying on “groups that are anti-government.” Our local law enforcement PARTNERING with DHS to spy on our own citizens. Our 4th Amendment is being openly and transparently shredded and WHERE is that defense of our Constitution that
Mr. Rubio was talking about?…crickets. (RT.com)

7. Joe Biden says on a conference call to Mayors Against Guns: “And lastly, but not least, the Assault Weapons ban and the limitation on the size of magazines, let me say this as clearly as I can: this is just the beginning.” Obama said in his last State of the Union Address, “if Congress won’t act soon… I will. I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future.” The Executive branch has openly and transparently DEFIED its constitutional limitation, taking more and more power from Congress, destroying the Constitution its tyrannical wake…Again I ask, where is the oversight?

8. Because Washington claims to be having budget problems…our defense budget is being cut. Our Marines are being told to conserve bullets and gas. (WND, Garth Kant) The Blue Angels were just grounded because of budget constraints. (CNN, GejJones) Civilian DOD employees are being furloughed, losing 14 day’s pay. (US DOD) The White House has canceled tours, even to our school kids in spite of promises otherwise. (Fox News, Chad Pergram)

*MEANWHILE* back in Washington…Our government sends $250 Million to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (The Blaze, Madeleine Morgenstern)…The White House throws a STAR STUDDED concert, inviting Al Green, Ben Harper, Queen Latifah, Cyndi Lauper and Justin Timberlake, among many others (FoxNews.com)… Obama FAMILY finds the cash to take lavish vacations, bought and paid for by the tax-payers (The Alexandrian, Lee Hernley)…Biden spends over $585,000 for ONE NIGHT in a Hotel in Paris, spending almost $1million in total tax-payer dollars for that trip (The Huffington Post, Ryan Grenoble)

Is THIS what our Congress considers oversight? Is this what our Congress considers defending our Constitution, our Freedom, our Liberty? Every day in DC seems like April Fools meets Groundhog Day. I am not quite sure what some of these Senators are looking at, but it’d be easier to see Russia from my backyard than see oversight and Constitutional defense in Congress.

Second Amendment and UN Arms Treaty

June 28, 2013/in Archives for Articles/by James Hall

The Second Amendment was not established on a whim. Our founders incorporated the second amendment based upon generations of experience fighting tyranny. The drafters’ intent is easily discovered by simply going to their writings and their history. What we discover from the founders’ writings is that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or skeet shooting. (The fact that the founders wrote down what they intended the Constitution to mean is somehow lost on masses of uninformed Americans.) Sadly, our understanding of the right to bear arms has already moved so far from where our founders intended. If we cannot convince Americans of its true purpose, we will be looking at a future in which we are completely powerless against the forces of oppression and enslavement. Furthermore, we cannot allow our elected employees to have any perspective other than the one which is indicated by the Constitution and explained by its framers.

The framers’ history is a history of the rise and fall of tyrants. Their history is a history of the pursuit of Liberty and the progressive securing of greater and greater protections for that Liberty. Our founders came to this country with their own Bill of Rights. This document was the very basis for their protest against King George III. Not surprisingly this document looks strikingly like the Declaration of Independence. The English Bill of Rights of 1689 lists among its grievances against James II that he was disarming the people while the government remained armed and that he employed standing armies illegally. So when George III started tyrannizing them with the very oppressions that their fathers had suffered, they understood that he was violating a fundamentally protected right.

Sam Adams explained that every colonist had the inherent right to certain things under the laws of nature.

“Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: first, a right to life; secondly, to liberty; thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can.”

Fundamental to the rights of life, liberty and property are the right to defend them. Yet as we speak our current government is attempting to legislate this right to defend our rights and they are collaborating with the likes of China and Russia. From whom did our founders feel the greatest threat? From what “attacker” is the Second Amendment intended to protect us? They had in mind the very threat we see today with the UN Gun treaty. They were placing in the hands of the people the means to deny a government trading our sovereignty for ‘global negotiations.’ They wanted to ‘arm’ us with the truth of our liberty and the duty we have to defend it, not just for ourselves, but for our posterity!

“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.”

Nearly every argument against the right to bear arms centers on a misrepresentation of the first four words; “a well regulated militia.” What did our founders think when they penned those four words?

George Mason, while addressing the Virginia Constitutional Convention in 1778 asked the question: “who are the militia?”

“[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually…I ask, who are the militia?”

In asking this question, Mason gives a grave warning. He warns it is the enemy within (governor of Pennsylvania in his case) that desires to enslave the people. He also warns that this enemy will not suddenly show up at our door demanding our firearms. The enemy will wait until the people have been worn down, perhaps regulated, to the point that they no longer WANT to be bother owning firearms. I cannot imagine a better example of the government attempting to make us “sink gradually” that the enormous effort required of a LAW ABIDING citizen to purchase a firearm. When it takes hour and forty-five minutes of paperwork and background checks to purchase a one shot .22 caliber rifle, how can this be justified? Our founders demanded in the second amendment that our right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. These regulations are an infringement and they are designed to eliminate gun owners NOT keep the people safe. It is an effort to destroy Liberty!

Mason did not end his argument with a question, but answered it with a simplicity that is astounding. He explains:

“They (the militia) consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor…”

Mason knew the militia was every person, “all classes, high and low, and rich and poor.” He feared without the incorporation of the second amendment the people would forget that fact and allow the government to disarm them. Noah Webster shared Mason’s concerns. Webster not only explains to us WHO a militia is, but who it is NOT and the PURPOSE for having this militia.

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence (sic), raised in the United States…”

Noah Webster explains that unless we want to be like every other kingdom in Europe, with a disarmed people and a standing army at their door, the WHOLE BODY of the people must remained armed! The purpose of an armed people, Webster explains, is to keep the federal government from enforcing unjust laws. Can you imagine someone printing that statement in an op-ed today? Oops, I guess I just did. Webster continues by explaining that the “well regulated militia” is the whole body of the people and NOT “a military force, at the command of Congress.”

“A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”

There you have it, a clear line of demarcation.

Richard Henry Lee (the man who proposed the initial amendment to declare independence from Great Britain, and could be rightly regarded as the Father of America) also wrote a letter to the Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788, to elaborate on what our founders knew to be true about the need to bear arms.

“[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them;”

Wow, imagine that, the purpose of the WHOLE BODY OF THE PEOPLE being armed is to preserve liberty, not for the purposes of hunting and skeet shooting. In fact, Lee said it is ESSENTIAL that the WHOLE BODY of the people ALWAYS possess arms. That little word “always” really throws a wrench in the works in believing the government has the right to impose conceal and carry permits on the people. That is NOT something our founders would have accepted.

Lee continues with his explanation to help us understand who the well regulated militia is NOT:

“nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.”

We must now be the “true republicans” dedicated to carefully guarding against the government forcing us to believe they are the only ones to own guns. We must do as Lee said and help everyone to always possess arms and we must train our children to do so as well. This will not increase gun related deaths it will decrease them. The facts support this assertion and the emotion of the gun haters cannot handle that.

Finally, let us look to Patrick Henry. Henry was arguing against Edmond Pendleton who opposed the Bill of Rights and the incorporation of the second amendment. Pendleton declared there was no need to codify such a right, because if the Senators started to impose unjust laws, the people could simply recall them. This was a reasonable assertion at the time, because prior to the ratification of the seventeenth amendment in 1913 the people had that power. However, Henry was not satisfied with this argument and felt it an inadequate protection of the liberties inherent to men.

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.”

Patrick Henry was very passionate about this right and the record reflects that Henry then “sneered at Pendleton” and said,

“O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone…Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation…inflicted by those who had no power at all.”

So you see, it’s undeniable what our founders intended. “A well regulated militia being necessary to secure a free state” is the whole body of the people always possessing arms to secure liberty, to prevent a standing army in times of peace, and to prevent the federal government from enforcing unjust laws—free from government regulations that would cause them to be disarmed over time.

That is why I say, we do not have a RIGHT to bear arms, we have a DUTY to bear arms. We have a duty to prevent the gradual sinking of the people by an effort to disarm them. We have a duty to ensure that the federal government does not try to rule us with a standing army. We have a duty to prevent the federal government from imposing unjust laws by the sword. It is this duty we owe to ourselves and our posterity, to secure the blessings of liberty. According to George Mason, Noah Webster, Richard Henry Lee, Patrick Henry, the remaining founders and an entire nation of people 225 years ago, keeping that promise, fulfilling that duty, requires that we bear arms.

Do not fail our children. Do not fail liberty. Educate everyone that you know that any law that infringes upon our right to bear arms is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Inform Congress that the UN Gun Treaty is unconstitutional and WE WILL NOT COMPLY. Let Congress know if they sign the UN Gun Treaty, if they fail the second amendment, they will fail their oath of office, and they are enemies of liberty and we WILL “carefully guard against” them. We the people are going to keep our commitment to our children; WE are going to put Liberty First, either with them or without them! We will not be disarmed and we will NOT allow a tyranny to be passed down to our children. We will NOT stand idly by while those we elect destroy our Liberty and sell our children into slavery!

Scalia Gives Life To Founders' Fears.

June 28, 2013/in Archives for Articles/by James Hall

Justice Scalia’s opinion in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. (Arizona voter ID laws) is a misapplication of constitutional principles and the framers’ intent and results in the further dissolution of State sovereignty. Ironically, the framers actually predicted Scalia’s conclusion and feared its consequences. There are three matters that must be understood in this case:

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) requires a state to “accept and use” a uniform federal form to register voters for federal elections. (emphasis added)

Article 1 Section 4 Clause 1 of the Constitution (Election Clause) permits Congress to make a law or alter State voting regulations regarding the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives.

“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing (sic) Senators.”

Article 1 Section 2 Clause 1 of the Constitution (Voter Qualification Clause) establishes that the power rests within the States to identify the qualifications of voters within that State.

“The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.”

Scalia asserts that since the Election Clause permits the Congress to “override” State law in regard to the “time, place, and manner” of congressional elections, then the NVRA’s requirement to “accept and use” a uniform federal form as a mandate upon the States prevents them from making any voter qualifications in addition to the federal form. This “logic” creates a contradiction within the Constitution. Since Arizona has the constitutionally established power to define voter qualification, but according to Scalia, no power to require proof of compliance with these qualifications, they in reality, have no power at all. Scalia has functionally told the States that their power to define a voter is subject to federal regulation. This is NOT what the framers of this nation intended. James Madison speaks to this very issue:

“The definition of the right of suffrage is very justly regarded as a fundamental article of republican government. It was incumbent on the convention, therefore, to define and establish this right in the Constitution. To have left it open for the occasional regulation of the Congress would have been improper.” The Federalist No. 52

There was much opposition and debate over the inclusion of the Election Clause within the Constitution. The problem the framers had, the same issue in this case, was the vagueness of the words “time, place, and manner.” The framers feared that someday the central government would use this phrase to transfer power over the election process from the States to itself. Listen to the arguments made against this provision from the North Carolina Ratifying Convention 25 July 1788:

Mr. Spencer: These words are so vague and uncertain, that it must ultimately destroy the whole liberty of the United States. It strikes at the very existence of the states, and supersedes the necessity of having them at all.

Mr. Bloodworth: This Constitution, if adopted in its present mode, must end in the subversion of our liberties…We know that there is a corruption in human nature. Without circumspection and carefulness, we shall throw away our liberties. Why is this general expression used on this great occasion? Why not use expressions that were clear and unequivocal?

Mr. Maclaine: The clause enables Congress to alter such regulations as the states shall have made with respect to elections.

Ironically, Scalia’s transfer of power to the federal government was the very thing feared by those who opposed this clause.

Scalia tries to invoke Alexander Hamilton’s words from Federalist No. 59 as a means to support his position: “[E]very government ought to contain in itself the means of its own preservation…” What Scalia fails to do is openly convey the context in which Hamilton was making that statement. Without this context, one might assert that Hamilton believed that the central government possesses an “inherent right to self-preservation.” Hamilton did not believe that, nor did any of those recorded during the history of the Constitutional conventions.

Hamilton makes no argument that the central government is superior to the States. When Hamilton said the government should have a means to preserve itself, he was trying to ease the fears of those who asserted the Election Clause was dangerous to that end. Hamilton knew the government they created was one in which the States held most of the power and the central government had very little power. He believed he was giving the central government an aid to survive in the face of such great State power. A more complete reading of Hamilton’s reasoning in Federalist No. 59, 60 and 61 shows that Hamilton did not approve of the central government “swallowing up” the states, he just thought it would never be allowed to happen. He called the idea, the product of a wildly fanciful imagination and highly improbable. Hamilton believed that if the central government attempted to do what Scalia has granted them the power to do, there would be extreme consequences from the people.

“so improper a spirit…could never be made without causing an immediate revolt of the great body of the people,–headed and directed by the state governments…so fundamental a privilege, in a country so situated and so enlightened, should be invaded to the prejudice of the great mass of the people, by the deliberate policy of the government; without occasioning a popular revolution, is altogether inconceivable and incredible.” Federalist No. 60

Hamilton did not believe such an usurpation could be achieved without military force:

“I imagine, it will hardly be pretended, that they could ever hope to carry such an enterprise into execution, without the aid of a military force sufficient to subdue, the resistance of the great body of the people…. Would they not fear that citizens not less tenacious than conscious of their rights would flock from the remotest extremes of their respective states to the places of election, to overthrow their tyrants, and to substitute men who would be disposed to avenge the violated majesty of the people?” Federalist No. 60

Hamilton’s disbelief in the ability of the central government to assume this tyrannical power which Scalia has asserted was not unique.

“The possible abuse here complained of never can happen as long as the people of the United States are virtuous. As long as they continue to have sentiments of freedom and independence, should the Congress be wicked enough to harbor so absurd an idea as this objection supposes, the people will defeat their attempt by choosing other representatives, who will alter the law.” Mr. Nichols Virginia Ratifying Debates June 14, 1788.

“Nothing would support government, in such a case as that, but military coercion. Armies would be necessary in different parts of the United States. The expense which they would cost, and the burdens which they would render necessary to be laid upon the people, would be ruinous. I know of no way that is likely to produce the happiness of the people, but to preserve, as far as possible, the existence of the several states, so that they shall not be swallowed up.” Mr. Spencer North Carolina Ratifying Convention 25 July 1788

“If the Congress make laws inconsistent with the Constitution, independent judges will not uphold them, nor will the people obey them. A universal resistance will ensue. In some countries, the arbitrary disposition of rulers may enable them to overturn the liberties of the people; but in a country like this, where every man is his own master, and where almost every man is a freeholder, and has the right of election, the violations of a constitution will not be passively permitted. Can it be supposed that in such a country the rights of suffrage will be tamely surrendered?” Mr. Steele North Carolina Ratifying Convention 25 July 1788.

This is obviously a much more important case, than deciphering the meanings of words. Even the framers of the Constitution, seeing the problems with vagueness of words, knew this was not just an issue of the proper application of terms, but a matter between liberty and tyranny. Unfortunately, in the framer’s perspective, Justice Scalia has chosen tyranny. A more disturbing question arises Hamilton’s argument, “Where are the citizens Hamilton describes who would only be subdued in this manner by the power of an army?”

Peace on Earth? Good Will Toward Men?

June 28, 2013/in Archives for Articles, Faith/by James Hall

Listening to the news, watching the headlines has become a requirement for my current ministry. But I have come to realize that a daily diet of this is hazardous to my health. This never ending caustic supply of drama and crisis is not healthy for the body or the soul. IT makes me want to cry out, “Peace on Earth? Good will toward men? Where is it!”

There have been many in this battle for Liberty who have succumbed to the overwhelming negativity of the media invented reality, leaving behind the battle to search for the “normal life.” We must guard against this intrusion and obstruction to the defense of Liberty. I am convinced the ever-continuing crisis after crisis is purposed to dishearten the patriot and discourage the fight. So what is the solution? We must learn to find our hope and center ourselves on the true reality, not the one contrived by those receiving their marching orders from Alinsky, Cloward and Piven. We must know that just as we have inherited the Liberty we enjoy, we have also inherited the enemies of Liberty. We must pick up the mantle of those that came before us and learn from their courage and resolve. Will we be sunshine patriots or true victors of Liberty?

Our history is rich with men and women who have surrendered all so that many could have the greatest nation the world has ever known. For over 700 years before the Declaration of Independence, men and women were learning the lessons that would be taught to our founders. Lessons that would infuse our founders with a courage and a hope that would build the greatest nation in the world. Patrick Henry said, “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know no way to judge the future but by the past.” He was letting us know that his knowledge of those last 700 years, were the very reason he knew how this fight would turn out. He knew that every time men and women understood the value of Liberty and pledged all to protect it, they were always victorious. These guarantees of history must have raced through Henry’s head; 1100 Charter of Liberties, Magna Carta, 1628 Petition of Right, 1641 Grand Remonstrance, and his very own Bill of Rights of 1689. These were battles fought in the name of Liberty and he knew that victory was a guarantee. This is our history. This is our guarantee. This is our victory!

Did these brave men and women live without fear? Hardly so! Mercy Otis Warren articulated this dilemma so well.

“I have my fears. Yet, notwithstanding the complicated difficulties that rise before us, there is no receding; May nothing ever check that glorious spirit if freedom which inspires the patriot in the cabinet and the hero in the field, with courage to maintain their righteous cause, and to endeavor to transmit the claim to posterity, even if they must seal the rich conveyance to their children with their own blood.”

They knew that bravery was not the absence of fear, but doing what you must in the face of fear. They knew that the battle for Liberty, as Mercy called it, was a righteous cause. Knowing the source of her courage is the key to understanding her resolve. In a letter to her friend Mrs. Macauley, in 1774, lies the key to the source of her strength. She said they were “ready to sacrifice their devoted lives to preserve inviolate, and to convey to their children the inherent rights of men, conferred on all by the God of nature.”

You see, the battle for Liberty is a battle for the gifts of God. Thomas Jefferson said, “God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that is justice cannot sleep forever.”

For Patrick Henry, courage not only came from knowing the history that “guided his feet” or fighting with the “vigilant, active, and the brave,” but also knowing they served a “just God who presides over the destinies of nations” and when standing for Liberty, a gift from God, they could not fail.

He declared,

“We are three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.”

The key to victory, the key to the courage that brings victory is not simply fighting the fight, but KNOWING we fight a righteous battle for the One who gave us that Liberty. Our founders were in a position to pledge their lives, the lives of their families, everything that they had because they were firmly rooted in ALL the assurances of Liberty. Our founders knew that Liberty is a gift from God, and those that stand for God’s gifts will be victorious through God’s promises. They firmly believed that living in tyranny was worse than dying for Liberty. They knew that through their faith in Christ, their rewards in standing for God’s gift would be certain, whether on the battle field or in Heaven.

As Thomas Paine so eloquently put it, “THESE are the times that try men’s souls.” But Paine’s full statement gives a richness that is lost with the inititial quote alone. Payne continues to tell us who will last in this battle and WHY they will last.

“The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing (sic) its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.”

If we wish to have the resolve that Mercy Otis-Warren spoke of, the confidence that Patrick Henry displayed, we must KNOW what Thomas Jefferson knew so we will not become the sunshine patriots Thomas Paine condemns. We must know Liberty is a gift from God, this Gift, although comes at a high price, is worth fighting for because God is with us. If God be with us, who can be against us?

This is not yet the darkest hour experienced by our nation by far. We still live in the greatest nation in the world. A nation built upon the principles of Liberty. The principles that cry all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. A nation where all men have equal opportunity to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. No other nation can make that claim. No other people have that birth right. But with that gift comes great responsibility to secure that Liberty for generations to come. We cannot lose hope. We cannot let Liberty slip. Because, it is not our hope, it is not our Liberty, it is the hope and Liberty of ages and millions yet unborn. We must reacquaint ourselves with the lamp of experience that gives us the courage to see a guaranteed victory. But we must also reacquaint ourselves with the Giver of that gift of Liberty and the provider of the hope of victory.

In one of the darkest moments of our history, a story is told of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. Henry’s wife had been tragically and fatally burned in June of 1861. Henry, himself, was badly burned trying to put out the fire that consumed his beloved wife. He was so consumed by grief over the loss of his wife, at Christmas he wrote in his journal, “How inexpressibly sad are all holidays.” One year later, Henry wrote, “A merry Christmas’ say the children, but that is no more for me.” That following year, Henry learns that his oldest son was severely wounded in the Civil War after a bullet passed under his should blades damaging his spine. His journal was blank on Christmas on 1864. However, on Christmas day, 1865, Henry penned the words to “I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day”. During one of the darkest times our nation has ever known, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow found his hope;

“I heard the bells on Christmas Day

Their old familiar carols play,

And wild and sweet

The words repeat

Of peace on earth, good-will to men!

And thought how, as the day had come,

The belfries of all Christendom

Had rolled along

The unbroken song

Of peace on earth, good-will to men!

And in despair I bowed my head;

“There is no peace on earth,” I said;

“For hate is strong,

And mocks the song

Of peace on earth, good-will to men!”

Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:

“God is not dead; nor doth he sleep!

The Wrong shall fail,

The Right prevail,

With peace on earth, good-will to men!”

Henry awoke from his despair and realized that God is not dead and is still the Giver of peace and hope. He knew that God promises victory to those who trust in Christ and will stand for God’s gifts. He was able to express that hope in the phrase, “God is not dead; nor does he sleep! The Wrong shall fail; the Right prevail, With peace on earth, good-will to men!” That same promise belongs to us, the greatest nation this world has ever known. We simply must place our trust in the right place. My hope is not in Congress. My hope is not in any man or his government. In this holy season, let us not forget that through the shed blood of Christ, whether the victory is on the battle field or through the gates of Heaven, we are winners either way. This is the REAL HOPE; a hope that can change the world.

MERRY CHRISTMAS!