SmallGovTimes.com

By: James Marie | Published on 06/23/07    

An Open Letter to our elected and appointed officials. June 23rd, 2007

The President of the United States: e-mail.
The Honorable Members of Congress: e-mail to most members. All AZ members, Speaker of the House, Majority and Minority leaders, President of the Senate and Majority and Minority leaders, most anti-Second Amendment legislators and several pro-Second Amendment legislators.
The Honorable Justices of The Supreme Court: by hard copy to each, slightly modified.
The Governors of the individual States: e-mail to Gov. of AZ
The legislators of the individual States: e-mail to all AZ legislators.

I am writing to you because I am deeply concerned by the way some officials in our government are abusing our inalienable Rights as they are described in the Constitution of the United States and in the Bill of Rights. This abuse is totally unlawful and must stop. You, Ladies and Gentlemen, have the authority, under the Constitution, to stop the abuse of our Rights and return our country to the Constitutional Republic our Founding Fathers conceived and put into place over two hundred years ago.

An untold number of people have written volumes concerning the Second Amendment. I only want to make a statement showing that all laws infringing on the people's Right to keep and bear arms are unconstitutional and, therefore, must be repealed.

Our inalienable Rights and the meaning of the Bill of Rights becomes completely clear when the Preamble to the Bill of Rights and the Bill of Rights are read together as they were written and in their intended context as a valid part of the Constitution of the United States.

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights specifies the purposes of the proposed amendments, which are to:
1. Make additional declarative and restrictive clauses that prevent misconstruction or abuse of Government power.
2. Promote public confidence in Government.
3. Ensure the benefits intended by the institution of Government by making the amendments a valid part of the Constitution of the United States.

The first purpose as stated in the Preamble was to write into the Constitution very specific wording that would prevent the Government from misconstruction or abuse of its powers. This was of primary concern to many of the Founders -- they did not want to create a Government that could easily turn tyrannical. The Founders wanted to form a more perfect Union and wrote:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

An examination of the Second Amendment in context with the Preamble of the Bill of Rights serves as a perfect example to illustrate the intent of the Founders and to give a proper reading of the Bill of Rights.

The Second Amendment was written, as stated in the Preamble, with the additional declarative and restrictive clauses: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State," (declarative clause) "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (restrictive clause)

The first part of the Second Amendment, the declarative clause, is a simple statement that does not specify any right belonging to the people neither does it restrict any power delegated to the Government by the people.

The second part, the restrictive clause, is a statement that the Government is restricted from infringing in any way on the people's pre-existing natural Right to keep and bear Arms.

This restrictive clause clearly states that the people have a Right to keep and bear Arms. It does not create that Right, but clearly enumerates a pre-existing Right. Therefore, any assertion that the Amendment grants a Right to the people is not accurate -- the Right was pre-existing. The restrictive clause restricts the Government. It does not restrict the people.

Thus, this reading of the Second Amendment in context with the Preamble of the Bill of Rights clearly follows and substantiates what the Founders stated they intended to accomplish: They wrote the Second Amendment with two clauses -- the first clause is a simple declarative statement: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," followed by the second, or restrictive clause, that prevents misconstruction or abuse of Government powers: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

When the Government abides by this restriction, not to infringe on the Right of the people, the other two purposes as stated in the Preamble -- to promote public confidence in Government and to ensure the benefits intended by the institution of Government -- are fulfilled.

This example clearly shows the purpose and meaning of The Bill of Rights -- to restrict the Government in its ability to give unto itself more power that it was given by the people and to restrict the Government from abusing the powers it was given.

In summary, the preamble to the Bill of Rights shows that the purpose of the Amendments is to place restrictions on the Government and thus promote public confidence in Government and to ensure the benefits intended by the institution of Government. The Bill of Rights is not a declaration of our inalienable Rights, but defines the legal restrictions placed on the Government in regard to those Rights.

These restrictions not only apply to the federal government, but apply equally to all state and local governments.

Article VI of the Constitution of the United States clearly states that the Constitution and the Laws of the United States written in accord with the Constitution are the supreme Law of the Land. That everything that the Constitution pertains to, including the Amendments, overrules all state constitutions, laws, and ordinances and all lower jurisdictions' laws and ordinances that are contrary to this Law of the Land.

To ensure that the Law of the Land is upheld, Article VI also states: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;"..

Also, the Judges in every State shall be bound by the Law of the Land and that no laws may be enacted or enforced by any State that is contrary to the Law of the Land.

Our elected and appointed officials are all bound by their oath to support and defend the Constitution.

In other words, there is a Law of the Land and the Second Amendment, which is a written part of the Law of the Land, applies the restriction enumerated in the Second Amendment equally to the federal, all state and local governments -- "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" .

This principle was re-affirmed during May 2007, when U.S. District Judge Sam A. Lindsay wrote that an Anti-Immigrant Law passed by the community of Farmers Branch, Texas, is invalid and that the community can not "pass an ordinance that conflicts with federal law" -- citing the Supremacy Clause of The Constitution of the United States as the grounds.

Therefore, the Supremacy Clause of The Constitution, as written and upheld by the Court, invalidates all "gun laws" written by any jurisdiction anywhere in the United States, because the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States clearly states: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" and the Supremacy Clause is a written part of the Law of the Land that states that no laws may be enacted or enforced by any State or local governments that are contrary to the Law of the Land.

In short, all federal, state, and local firearms laws are unconstitutional, because they are contrary to the Bill of Rights and are over ridden by the Supremacy Clause of The Constitution.

The Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, was written to restrict the Government and the Bill of Rights is the Law of the Land. Therefore, the Government, being so restricted, has no authority to rewrite or to remove that Second Amendment restriction.

The Government, including the courts, elected or appointed officials and law enforcement, has no authority to protect its own interests over the Rights of the citizens. The citizen's Rights are supreme.

Further, to quote Justice Robert H. Jackson, who wrote in the 1943 flag-salute case, "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights, was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

Words to live by, it seems to me.

Therefore, all gun laws that infringe on the Right of the people to keep and bear arms are unconstitutional and the Second Amendment can not be overturned by any Court, because the Second Amendment was written to limit all Government -- the Courts included.

However, today in the United States, contrary to the Law of the Land, elected and appointed officials are writing laws outlawing firearms. Ordinances are being written and voted upon to ban and confiscate firearms. Elected officials, appointed officials and law enforcement are preventing peaceable, law-abiding citizens from carrying self-defense firearms in many parts of our country. Even the United States Park Service, an Agency of the Federal Government, is banning self-defense firearms in our country's Parks.

In all of these cases and many others, government officials are infringing on the Rights of our citizens and are violating the Law of the Land -- our Constitution. How can this be? Our Constitution and Bill of Rights clearly prohibits these misconstructions and abuse of Government power. All government officials must obey the Law of the Land.

If it's possible for our representatives to write laws contrary to the Constitution, our courts to uphold or ignore such laws, our police to enforce unconstitutional laws and our citizens to vote not to protect our Constitutionally protected, inalienable Rights, then the system is well and truly broken.

Further, given the reality that the police cannot be everywhere and that, by Court decree, the police are not required to protect an individual citizen, it is unconscionable to disarm people who need and want to defend themselves.

Laws against guns are not laws that control crime and criminals; but are laws against the peaceable, law-abiding citizens, who need and want to defend themselves, their families, loved ones and neighbors. Most gun control advocates make no distinction between peaceable, law-abiding gun owners and gun-wielding criminals. We do not need more laws that criminals will ignore and that have the potential to make criminals of honest citizens.

You, our elected and appointed officials, must uphold and defend the letter and the spirit of the Law of the Land -- The Constitution of the United States.

Therefore, I respectfully ask that you show the ultimate respect for The Constitution, The Bill of Rights and the sovereign citizens of our country by repealing all existing gun laws - nationwide - that infringe on the Right of the people to keep and bear arms. Then ensure that no new gun laws are enacted that infringe upon that Right. All gun laws that infringe on the Right of the people to keep and bear arms are unconstitutional, immoral and unconscionable.

You, our elected and appointed officials, must stand up for America. You must ensure that America remains the Home of the Free.

Original URL:
http://www.smallgovtimes.com/story/07jun23.letters.leaders/index.html