democratic tyranny

On May 17, 2001, AG John Ashcroft made a statement. That statement was that the Second Amendment was a right belonging to an individual and that is how the Department of Justice would now interpret it. Well, we all remember the uproar by anti-gun groups like the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center, but one thing should stick out like a sore thumb or a wart on the nose. That one thing is that this was a major shift in supreme court precedent, historical precedence, and justice department policy that had gone back for over 65 years. It was actually 66 years, but I guess saying 'over 65 years' makes it sound better. Lets take a look at that date, 66 years ago from 2001.

It was 1934 and Franklin Delano Roosevelt has been president for 2 years. Along with FDR's 'new deal' administration, the government also passed the National Firearms Act of 1934. The National Firearm Act of 1934 was enacted as a reaction to the behaviors of gangsters of the era. It was passed as tax legislation to discourage ownership without an outright prohibition. Why no prohibition? Because it would be unconstitutional maybe?

It should also be pointed out that FDR was a New York State Senator when the Sullivan Act was passed. The Sullivan Act is a New York state law that requires a permit to carry or own any gun small enough to be concealed. Because the permit is issued by local law enforcement, it provides a great deal of local control on firearm availability. This act was later amended in 1931, when FDR was Governor, to require finger prints and photographs.

Also passed during FDR's presidency, and with democrat majorities in both houses, was the
Federal Firearms Act of 1938. FFA38 was based upon the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution. It was implemented in Title 15 of the US Code. Why did these two acts have to be passed under tax legislation and the commerce clause? Because the Second Amendment was still a constitutional right belonging to an individual!!!!

Now it should also be duly noted that these acts were passed with the intent to prevent crime and ensure that 'criminals' weren't able to obtain firearms. Sound like a familiar argument? It should since we hear it on a daily basis from the many anti-gun groups and most democrat politicians, as well as a few republicans. These were also considered 'common sense' gun laws.

The next major piece of 'Gun Control' legislation was The Gun Control Act of 1968. The GCA of 1968 was passed as a delayed reaction to the assassination of President Kennedy. Also known as the "Omnibus Crime Bill and Safe Streets Act of 1968", it repealed FFA38 but reenacted provisions thereof. In the process, gun law was moved from Title 15 to Title 18 of the US Code. Title 15 is 'commerce and trade', which is where the FFA resided for 30 years. As 'OriginalIntent.org tells it - 'Despite the law operating just fine for 30 years, someone deemed it no longer proper to have the law contained within Title 15. Want to guess why? That's right - the government's jurisdictional limits were far too easy to ascertain when the law was within the "Commerce and Trade" title. If it wasn't moving in interstate or foreign commerce, then the US didn't have jurisdiction over it! However, by moving the Act to Title 18, and thus disconnecting the Act from the Title of "Commerce and Trade", there are few clues left to the law's original intent and its Constitutional limitations.'
For a more thorough explanation of how the government was able to pull this off, visit Original Intent, Chapter 44.

All of the gun control legislation, so far, has been done by Democrat Presidents with Democrat Majorities in the legislature and as we will see, it only gets worse as time goes on. During these last few decades numerous court cases traveled through the judiciary process, alot of them with second amendment violations as the crux of the argument. This is where the 'collective right' theory of the second amendment being a 'right of states to form and maintain militias' and not an individual right started, in the courts. Remember, that since the 'new deal' of FDRs administration and a majority of democrats in congress, it was easy for democrats to fill judicial slots with judges aligned with democrat party ideology, such as gun control. It should be easy to see why we have so many decisions by circuit and appellate courts that have effectively conditioned a large portion of the population to believe such drivel.

In 1982, the US Senate put forth a report on the Second Amendment, which concluded that the Second Amendment is the right of an individual to keep and bear arms. This was done after an extensive study of historical documentation and analysis. Were any of these Gun Laws repealed or ruled unconstitutional? That answer would be no, but in 1986 there were some changes made.

FOPA, or the Firearm Owners Protection Act, also known as the McClure-Volkmer Act, significantly amended GCA68, providing gun owners some positives and some negatives. This removed several minor restrictions, mainly mail ordering long guns and discontinued record keeping for ammunition purchases, but it had some serious negative effects as well.

The Hughes Amendment

The restrictions on full-auto firearms are a result of the Hughes Amendment (99th Congress, H.AMDT.777). The amendment prohibited the general public from possessing fully-auto firearms manufactured after May 19, 1986. Rep. William Hughes (D-N.J.) proposed the amendment late in debate and at night when most of the members of the House were gone. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), a long proponent of gun control, was presiding over the House at that time and a voice vote was taken. Despite the fact that the bill appeared to fail, Rep. Rangel declared the amendment approved and it was incorporated into House Bill 4332. Once passing the House, H.R.4332 was incorporated in its entirety into S.49. The Senate passed the final S.49 on April 10, 1986 by voice vote and it was signed by the President on May 19, 1986.

So, using questionable tactics, a handful of Democrats, AGAIN, undercut and infringed upon an individual right to keep and bear arms.

In 1994, the Assault Weapons Ban was signed in to law by President William Jefferson Clinton, a democrat. The AWB can be read about Here. Amazingly, after a 10 year sunset provision expired, we no longer have this as federal law, although several states have implemented their own.

So now that we understand fully why the brady bunch and VPC are upset about AG ashcrofts remarks, I have to wonder what the 'precedent was for the years PRIOR to 1934. But i'll save that for tomorrow.

The War on Guns: State Secrets

The War on Guns: State Secrets

David points out some serious hypocrisy from the anti gun Saint Petersburg times.

Yet the Legislature overreacted to a single incident and passed legislation

overreacted? to one incident? how dare they? nobody, especially a legislature, should EVER overreact to just one incident.

Isn't that right Sarah Brady?

The rights that don't exist

Alphecca has a blog entry about gun control being a right. Well, actually it's about a commentator for the Salt Lake Tribune spinning this right in to existence.

Saul Cornell, a writer for the History News Service, is a professor of history at Ohio State University and author of "A Well Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America."

Now, i've never read his book nor have I read any of the History News Service, to my recollection, but in reading his commentary, it leads me to believe that he studied history at Justice Stephen Reinhardt University. For those of you unfamiliar with that name, that is the justice of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals who has rewritten most of the US constitution and Bill of Rights with his political ideology based decisions instead of being based on the supreme law of the land.

In Mr. Cornells commentary he states,

They also staked out another right that has not been much talked about recently in this debate: a right to be free from the fear of gun violence.

and

The right to be free from the threat of gun violence deserves as much respect as the right to bear arms.

So, being a history professor, Mr. Cornell should be able to provide some sort of evidence that there actually exists a right 'to be free from the fear of gun violence' or a right 'to be free from the THREAT of gun violence' but he decides not to put forth this evidence. Since he did not, I took it upon myself to look for this right through all the history documents that I could find and was unsuccessful, however, I did find this little peach of an entry,

"There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let the people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order."

This comes from a 1982 7th circuit case 'Bowers v. Devito' which explicitly states that you have no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. Now, you DO have a right not to be murdered, but since there is a law prohibiting murder AND you are 'supposed' to have a right to defend your life, this is taken care of. It makes YOU responsible for protecting your right to life. One can only assume that if there is no right to be free from being murdered, then there is absolutely no right to be free from gun violence, or the threat thereof, only to use your own means to protect yourself from it, hence the right to keep and bear arms.