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
tv2h@global.co.za

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.

4.  Article 1, Section 8 and the 10th Amendment dictate that it is Unconstitutional for the Federal Government to interfere with a State’s or locality’s ability to acquire weapons for its non-US employed militia, other than to provide for its arming.  (The US may only “provide for organizing, arming and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, ...”, i.e. advice, funds and access to prisons for non-US employed militia which the US may not govern.)

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