This article was printed from KeepAndBearArms.com.
For more gun- and freedom-related information, visit
http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------
|
The
10th Amendment Causes all Federal Firearm Legislation & all Federal Firearm
Law Enforcement to be Unconstitutional. by
Richard Wesson -
January 2001 forwarded
from Martin in New Zealand The
10th Amendment of the US Constitution was written to ensure that the Federal
Government cannot usurp powers of individual States, nor cause them to carry out
the duties of the Federal Government. This
confirms that there are aspects of Law and the Constitution, which are purely
the criteria of individual States and about which the Federal Government may not
interfere. Despite
the phrase ‘the People’ within the wording of the 2nd Amendment, there is
discussion whether the 2nd Amendment refers to the Rights of individuals,
localities or States. Irrespective
of this discussion, one agreed reason is to ensure that the People can protect
themselves from the tyranny of the potentially excess powers of Federal
government. The
2nd Amendment and Article 1, Section 10, allow localities and States the power
to raise militia (which the
US does not govern, Article 1, Section 8.), in times of public danger.
[The National Guard is not a militia.
It is part-time units/troops of the Federal military establishment (orbat,
1903, 1916 etc Acts), and State Guards (part-time troops who may be
Unconstitutional - Article 1, Section 10) do not negate the need for self arming
local militia in times of public danger.] The
requirements of local militia are determined by local criteria.
That is State and/or County, rather than Federal, criteria. Notwithstanding
any individual’s Rights to protect him/herself, or others, when not protected
by the State or US, as allowed by the 9th (especially) and 10th Amendments or
the 4th (to be secure in their persons ....etc) and the 5th (....nor be deprived
of life, liberty or property, ...), it is individual States, Counties and
localities who are authorised by the 10th Amendment to define the requirements
and permissions {i.e. issuance
and/or private ownership} of arms and engines of war with respect to, and
for the use of, militia which are raised in times of ‘public danger’ for the
protection of those self-same States, Counties and localities.
[Due to cost and the need for flexibility, local militia are raised with
the volunteers supplying their own arms (definition from 1792 Act), e.g. a
county sheriff raising a posse to find or arrest and hold a dangerous fugitive.] Any
limitation imposed by Federal legislation on State and County militia (and
individuals) is therefore directly opposed to the intent of the 10th (and 9th)
Amendment and that part of the 2nd Amendment, which refers to the security of
the individual People who make up a State.
Federal firearms’ legislation and Federal firearms law enforcement {i.e. restricting the effectiveness of potential volunteers’ firearms
and therefore the militia themselves} is interfering in and encroaching on,
the internal affairs of, and the means {i.e.
militia which the US do not govern} for the individual protection of, and
general welfare of, States and is therefore unconstitutional. Richard
Wesson - January 2001 NOTES 1.
The
above argument is designed to show that neither Congress nor the Executive have
any Constitutional powers of legislation or enforcement with respect to any
aspect of firearms and the individual, or the movement of firearms, for
individual (The People’s) use, between States. The
above argument does not negate any arguments relating to any individual’s
absolute Right to “keep and bear arms” (military definition of arms, past
present or future - concealed or unconcealed). Definitions
relating to ‘The People’ or arguments involving Government’s or any law
enforcement agency’s refusal or inability to take responsibility for any
individual’s 4th and 5th Amendments’ Rights relating to safety and security
(see Note 4) from criminals and/or US or State government are unaffected by the
above argument. Nor,
is the above argument to be taken to abrogate a person’s 9th or 14th
Amendments’ Rights to keep and bear arms of his/her choice in the manner of
his/her choice for the above reasons. 2.
It can be further argued that there is a need for individuals (The
People) to be already fully armed because, apart from an individual’s need to
be armed to protect him/herself when the authorities are unwilling or unable to
do so, if there is a need for a militia (or posse), there is a possibility that
a militia cannot be raised with sufficient speed -- unless they are properly
armed. It may require individuals
(on their own initiative) to immediately delay a belligerent force or contain a
public danger until a militia (or other authorities) can be raised or arrive to
restore the Peace (Article 1, Section 10). 3.
Amendment IV, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
not be violated, ...”, and, Amendment V, “..., nor be deprived of life,
liberty or property, without due process of law; ....” do not limit these
wrongful actions to only government or government servants, but to all potential
criminals. These are absolute Rights. The
Courts have stated that no law enforcement agency is required to enforce these
Rights. If the US and/or any State
will not or cannot enforce these Rights, then the enforcement of these Rights is
de facto, delegated to the individuals who make up the People. This argument, in itself, allows any competent person within
the US, without let or hindrance, to keep and bear any type of arm and/or engine
of war that could otherwise be used by any Federal or State department to
restore the public peace or defend the Nation. It
therefore becomes Constitutionally incumbent on all civil servants to veto any
international treaty, which could inhibit the free passage of arms for the
purpose of sale to individuals, because such arms, at some time, may be required
for States’ militia. It
therefore also becomes an act against the Constitution for a politician, member
of the Executive or civil servant (NB, s/he has given a oath
of allegiance to the Constitution) to do anything other than veto/destroy
such treaties or laws, even if such treaties or laws are part of a greater
treaty or law. [It also becomes a constitutional requirement for the US
Government to cause the disbandment of (and refusal to fund) any UN, or other,
committee or organisation dedicated to banning or control of civilian owned
weapons.] 5.
Currently, it is often illegal for the People to have the means to
protect themselves from illegal violent attack (4th & 5th Amendments’
Rights) while they are on Federal (or State) owned lands and properties.
The question must be asked, “Does the Federal (or State) Government
have the Power under the Constitution to deny the People, the ability to protect
themselves from potentially lethal attack while on Federal (or State) {i.e.
taxpayers’} land or property?” RJJW
01/2001 |
||||||||