Tag Archive for: 2nd Amendment

Second Amendment and UN Arms Treaty

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!

FL Sheriff Arrested by Governor Scott For Defending Right to Bear Arms

This week Liberty County Florida Sheriff, Nick Finch was arrested by Governor Rick Scott for standing in defense of the Constitution and honoring his oath of office.  Sheriff Finch believes the Second Amendment means what it says, our Right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.  What Sheriff Finch did was well within his authority and in full compliance with the rules and regulations for records retention and destruction.  What Sheriff Finch did was stand in the gap where the government is trying to erode your Liberty.

Sheriff Finch made the decision to not pursue a charge against Floyd Parish; well within the authority of the Sheriff to do.  Upon making that decision, Sheriff Finch removed Parish’s file from the records and removed his name from the jail log.  Well within his authority; The General Records Schedule for Law Enforcement, Correctional Facilities, and District Medical Examiners outlines this authority.

ARREST RECORDS: OFFENDER INFORMATION Item #32 

This record series documents each adult and juvenile arrested. The records provide such information as complete name; alias or nickname; residence; sex; age; date of birth; place of birth; height; weight; color of hair; color of eyes; complexion; race; date of arrest and/or offense; offense committed; car make, year, license number, and state; occupation; habits; name of closest relative or friends; scars, marks, or tattoos; any abnormalities; and special remarks. The juvenile records may also include parent(s) or guardian’s name(s), telephone number(s), and occupation(s). If the arrest results in an investigation, the record should be filed with the applicable Criminal Investigative Records item. See also “CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE RECORDS” items, “CRIMINAL HISTORY SUMMARY RECORDS/RAP SHEETS,” and “MASTER NAME INDEXES.”

RETENTION:

a) Record copy. Retain until obsolete, superseded, or administrative value is lost.

b) Duplicates. Retain until obsolete, superseded, or administrative value is lost.

You see, when Sheriff Finch used his proper authority to not pursue charges against Mr. Parish, the records pertaining to his arrest lost their “administrative value.”  Sheriff Finch, by this Florida Regulation was within his authority to destroy this record.

The arrest affidavit of Sheriff Finch gives a pretty detailed account of what took place.  But the arrest affidavit NEVER mentions Parish being booked into custody.  Being placed in a jail cell is not being booked.  If the arrest affidavit is accurate, and we have to trust it to be as it was given under oath, then Parish was never booked so the log that contained his name was in error and the Sheriff’s office also had full authority to white out his name and make space for someone who was actually booked into the jail.

Sheriff Finch never broke a law and never even violated a regulation.  So what is he being accused of doing?

The arrest affidavit claims Sheriff Finch violated Florida Statute 838.022(1).  This statute reads:

F.S.838.022 (1): It is unlawful for a public servant, with corrupt intent to obtain a benefit for any person or to cause harm to another, to: (b): Conceal, cover up, destroy, mutilate, or alter any official record or official document or cause another person to perform such an act;

Is Governor Scott trying to tell us that when Sheriff Finch defended our Constitutionally protected Rights he was acting with “corrupt intent?”  Have we really come to the point in our country where honoring your oath to “support and defend the Constitution” and wanting to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity” is a crime of corrupt intent?

Is Governor Scott trying to tell us that when Sheriff Finch stood in defense of our Constitutionally protected Rights he was conferring upon Mr. Parish a “benefit.”  The Second Amendment is NOT a benefit it is a RIGHT and the last time I checked it was called a Bill of Rights not a Bill of Benefits.

Do you think Sheriff Finch should just have shut up and enforced the law even knowing it is unconstitutional?  I hope not.  He took oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States FIRST; not an oath to support and defend unconstitutional laws.  If you believe officers should simply enforce all the laws, regardless of their oath, then why in the world do they even take one?  Is it just a pleasant formality that looks good in a ceremony or does it actually mean something?  It is a man of honor who will stand for his word, even when it might be unpopular, even when it might hurt.  Sheriff Finch appears to be a man of such honor.  By the way, I can remember an incident in our recent history, where a Sheriff should have stood for what was right and what was constitutional.  Instead the Sheriff chose to simply enforce the law.  On that day, Rosa Parks was arrested for refusing to sit in the back of the bus.

The Second Amendment clearly states our Right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!  Sheriff Finch believes in the Constitution.  He believes in his oath.

Sheriff Finch did nothing wrong.  He defended the Constitution.  He stood in the gap for us.  Now he’s being prosecuted for that.  It’s time to stand in the gap for him.  When our Sheriffs are toppled, then we are the last line of defense.

Watch the Sherrif Finch video explanation of this analysis

Open Letter re: "Gun Legislation"

Our government is traveling down a very dangerous road. We have neglected our duties as responsible employers and we are about to pay a dear price. We must arm ourselves with the truth to educate our employees and assist them in doing the right thing. The following is an open letter to our Senators and Representatives to educate them in this “gun debate” and allow them to make the right decisions. By giving this information, we not only educate them, but we identify which employees are willing to do the right and which are not. If we do not educate, they can claim ignorance. If we provide them with the proper tools and they refuse to use them and continue to destroy our Constitution, we must mark them as enemies and eliminate their ability to do further destruction.

Please assist me in educating our Senators. Please share this letter. Send it to them multiple times, so to be sure they KNOW we are serious.

Thank you,

In Liberty,

KrisAnne Hall

www.KrisAnneHall.com

Dear Senator,

Today, as you begin to debate so-called “gun legislation” please consider the following four points:

1. The nature of this legislation. This is NOT “gun legislation” this is 2nd Amendment legislation. Our right to bear arms is a RIGHT given to us by God, not a privilege granted through legislation. It is not something that is up for legislative control. Would we so easily accept “religion legislation”?

2. The sanctity of the 2nd Amendment.

What does the phrase “shall not be infringed mean?” The words are not complicated, they are not elusive. In the legal world, when a judge sees the words “shall not” there is no discussion to be had. It means, literally ‘SHALL NOT,’ completely disallowed, impermissible. It should mean the same to Congress. Noah Webster defined the word “infringed” as “to break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey.” The right to bears arms shall not be broken, shall not be violated, shall not be transgressed. The 2nd amendment shall be fulfilled, shall be obeyed. That is a very clear boundary, not mutable in any way. You don’t need to fully eradicate something for it to be violated or transgressed. Simply placing a hand on something can violate the sanctity of that object. Therefore, the only correct answer to the question, “what does ‘shall not be infringed’ mean?” is as follows: The right to bear arms SHALL NOT be touched!

3. The purpose of the 2nd amendment.

WHY do we have the right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights? Contrary to popular belief, the 2nd Amendment is not for hunting, skeet shooting, gun-collecting nor even self-defense from robbers and muggers.

The framers of this nation made it extremely clear why this right is to be protected.

According to George Mason, we bear arms to keep from becoming ‘slaves’ to our government: “[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advise …to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

According to Noah Webster, we bear arms to prevent the government from using a standing army to enforce unjust, unconstitutional, and oppressive laws on the people: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed…The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed…A force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional…jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive”

According to Richard Henry Lee, we bear arms to preserve Liberty: “[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms…”

According to Patrick Henry, we bear arms to overthrow tyrants: “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.”

It is notable that the framers declared a “right to bear arms” not a right to “own muskets”. Arms meant the same to them as did to the Supreme Court in 1939. (See United States v. Miller, 307, 174 (U.S 1939) issuing the opinion recognizing that the second amendment protects the people’s right to bear the same arms as the military.)

Therefore, the only correct answer as to WHY our right to bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights is as follows: The whole body of the people has the right to bear arms to preserve liberty, prevent the government from enforcing unjust, unconstitutional, oppressive laws; to keep from becoming enslaved by our government and to overthrow tyrants.

4. The process for altering the 2nd amendment. This legislation, being 2nd Amendment legislation, is wholly unconstitutional as the 2nd Amendment can ONLY be modified through the Amendment Process.

Be it known that if you continue down this unconstitutional path in your assault upon the Liberty of the American people and upon the foundations of this nation, you will be marked as a tyrant and an enemy of Liberty. We the people, being the only legitimate source of power in this nation, demand that you honor your oath to support and defend the Constitution.

Sincerely and In Liberty,

Your Employers

Forewarned & Disarmed

James Madison said;

“A standing military force with an overgrown executive will not long be safe companions to liberty”

George Washington warned against foreign entanglements but have we listened? No we haven’t listened. We have not cared to listen and now you’ll hear people say  how it is so much of a different world, possibly leading you to believe that a standing military force is a result of advanced intellectual thinking. We’re just smarter now and we know better. Really?

In 1641 they identified the same mechanisms tyrants have used for centuries.

Here is the malignant and pernicious design, a pattern of behavior used by tyrants to completely destroy liberty as identified by people in 1641.

  • Corrupt the court system.
  • Infiltration of foreign law.
  • Diminishing property rights of the people.
  • Government taking control of the church to enforce laws and collect taxes.
  • Manipulation of the monetary system.
  • Government disarming the people while the government remained armed.

Are we smarter now then they were in 1641. Well if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. Guess what? It’s a duck! They knew in 1641 this was the popular mechanism of tyrants. Are we smarter now?

Criminals vs Contitutionalists

In Lakeland, Florida an officer of the law, pulls over a young woman for a broken taillight. In the process discovers her license had been suspended (which is not a criminal offense in Florida).  The officer has her empty her pockets and twice tells her to pull of her shirts, pull her undergarments away from her body and has her shake her body to see if she is in possession of drugs. Then at the end of the ordeal tells the young lady, “I’m done scaring you and now you can go home!” What happened to his officer  you ask? Unbelieveably he was suspended for 4 days and now he’s  back on the job. Now compare this with Sheriff Finch who refused to charge someone for carrying a concealed a firearm without a permit because he believed it was not constitutional. He stood up for the Constitution in the exercise of his duty and he was arrested by Governor Rick Scott. Now compare that to the Lakeland, Florida the officer who for all intent and purposes sexually assaulted a woman who gets suspended for four days without pay. Are you kidding me?

KrisAnne Hall Stands Up For Sherrif Nick Finch

This week Liberty County Florida Sheriff, Nick Finch was arrested by Governor Rick Scott for standing in defense of the Constitution and honoring his oath of office. Sheriff Finch believes the Second Amendment means what it says, our Right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. What Sheriff Finch did was well within his authority and in full compliance with the rules and regulations for records retention and destruction. What Sheriff Finch did was stand in the gap where the government is trying to erode your Liberty.

Sheriff Finch made the decision to not pursue a charge against Floyd Parish; well within the authority of the Sheriff to do. Upon making that decision, Sheriff Finch removed Parish’s file from the records and removed his name from the jail log. Well within his authority; The General Records Schedule for Law Enforcement, Correctional Facilities, and District Medical Examiners outlines this authority.

Show ORourke

Proof!: DOJ Busy Destroying the 2nd Amend & Arming Terrorists!

Is the Federal government aiding and abetting terrorists within the United States? You be the judge. In April ATF made some peculiar changes in their form required for over the counter purchase of firearms, Form 4473, Firearms Transaction Record Part I- Over-the Counter. ATF requires firearm dealers to use this form for over the counter gun purchases and cites the reason for these changes to be an order by the Attorney General’s Office. These changes are stunning as they actually make it easier for illegal aliens to purchase firearms than for US Citizens. Transient aliens, which will include illegal aliens, are not required to show any proof of residency and are not required to undergo the same rigorous background checks as citizens. What is the purpose of these changes you may ask? ATF asserts that these changes are necessary to prevent STATES from creating more stringent residency requirements on aliens than those of citizens, but I believe the evidence shows much more than that.

state-limitation

 

(Open Letter To All Federal Firearms Licensees, DOJ April 30, 2012)

Gun and ammunition dealers and law enforcement agents are not allowed to request proof of residency from ANY temporary aliens in order to ship, transport, possess, or receive “any firearm or ammunition”.  But guess what? CITIZEN have to provide this information and MORE.

It is relevant to point out that this falls right in line with the recent Supreme Court ruling in Arizona. The Supreme Court, in this ruling gave greater protections to aliens, and the DOJ and ATF are falling right in line. (For further understanding of the Arizona ruling please read here)

Aliens with nonimmigrant visas are just temporary visitors. They do not intend to obtain citizenship, express no intent to stay in this country for more than 90 days, make no application for visa, have made no profession of loyalty to the laws of this land, and have had no formal background checks. Have you tried to buy a firearm from a dealer or store lately? How many HOURS did it take you? I bought a .22 rifle built for young shooters and it took me an hour and 45 minutes just for the background checks (yes that is plural, checkS). With these new changes, the AG and ATF have made it easier for transient immigrants 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.

90-20days

 

 

(Open Letter To All Federal Firearms Licensees, DOJ April 30, 2012)

The changes made by ATF and DOJ should be even more alarming when we consider the Government Accountability Office report which criticizes our visa offices for “bickering over the degree of association with a terrorist that would make a visa applicant ineligible to enter the United States.” Our government is authorizing visas to people with KNOWN terrorist affiliations and then making it easier for them to buy, ship, and transport firearms and ammunition than for our own citizens!

Another interesting change in form 4473 occurs in section 10. The updated form adds a new section and a separate question regarding ethnicity, to distinguish Hispanic or Latinos from all other races. This is in addition to the new section 10-b that requires the person to identify race, giving 5 choices.

The original form looks like this:

atf-2010

The changed form looks like this:

atf-2010a

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? 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?  Does that mean aliens from Arab countries do not have to fill out this form at all?

Have we just uncovered the DOJ’s American version of gun running? Is this how they are arming our enemies within? Why else would they make it so easy for aliens with known terrorist affiliations to remain in this country and then make it so easy for them buy, possess, and ship firearms? We must know that this will only serve to dilute our 2nd Amendment rights, or at least provide gun hating legislators and organizations with the ammunition to try.

The AG has made it a point to tell us what they believe Congress’s intent is with immigrant aliens and the Gun Control Act. It would seem that it is inherent upon Congress to respond and correct them. Will the AG’s understandings ever be challenged? It is unlikely when the corrections are generally issued by the Department of Justice against the Department of Justice; the agency governing itself. If we make Congress aware of these changes, they will have the opportunity to stop the “lawful” arming of terrorists in this nation. Will they do their job, or do we have to wait for another tragedy?

***NOTE~ This is a summary of my 6 page report. To view the entire report, please go here.