Freedom Hangs In The Balance
Friday, March 19, 2010
There are now 5 states, Wyoming, Montana, Tennessee, Utah and South Dakota, that have passed laws for self declared exemptions from federal gun regulations on weapons made, bought and used inside state borders, according to WND reporter, Bob Unruh. Wyoming’s new law includes language that makes it a felony for any U.S. agent to “enforce or attempt to enforce” federal firearm regulations, which could be punishable by a fine of $2000 and/or imprisonment.(1) This week, Wyoming passed a 10th Amendment Sovereignty Resolution as well.
Gun control is not only a 2nd Amendment issue, it also relates to other parts of the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment states, “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.” The 10th Amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
In a conversation with G. Edward Griffin, he said that there are two competing philosophies about the Bill of Rights:
1. The states are sovereign and can do anything they want (so long as it does not involve a power delegated to the federal government by the Constitution). The Bill of Rights restricts only the federal government.
2. States also must adhere to the Bill of Rights the same as the federal government.
Mr. Griffin said that the last words of the 2nd Amendment: “… shall not be infringed” presents an ambiguity as to who would be infringing: the federal government? The state and local governments? However, he said that this question is answered by the 1st Amendment which begins with the words: “Congress shall make no law …” We conclude, therefore, that all of the following amendments carry the same clarification that it is CONGRESS that is being limited, not the states. This understanding supports the conclusion that the states, indeed, are free to do what they wish.
Chicago has had a gun ban for 27 years, and it now is being tested in the Supreme Court (McDonald vs. Chicago).(2) There is a real dilemma here. McDonald claims that his right to bear arms may not be infringed by local governments, even though the 2nd Amendment was not intended to protect that right at the local level. Why not? Because, he says, the 14th Amendment’s “equal protection” clause prohibits states from denying “to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” That makes sense as far as it goes, but it does not answer the question of whether or not the right to bear arms is a “law” and especially if it is a law in Illinois. So there is a great deal of wiggle room left for legal argument on both sides.
(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)
The bad news is that, regardless of how the decision turns out, American tradition will lose. If the Court rules in favor of the 14th Amendment, this could diminish states’ rights, and the fear is that new federal “rights” could be invented (such as the right to health care) and that states would be required to go along. If the Court rules in favor of states rights, then the right to bear arms is vulnerable to attack at the state level.
To further muddy the waters, there is a lawsuit in Montana against U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder for attempting to impose federal regulations of weapons made, bought and used within the state. The federal government asserts that the Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8) allows it to regulate anything that is traded solely within a state because it affects commerce across state lines.(3) With this interpretation, there literally in nothing that can be considered outside interstate commerce. The federal government has used this interpretation for many years to rationalize authority over the states and, unfortunately, the Supreme Court generally can be relied on to uphold it.
Lastly, Hillary Clinton has announced that the U.S. will participate in a UN Treaty(4) that will regulate conventional arms sales in every nation. Many fear it will be the beginning of a back-door international move to eliminate American 2nd Amendment rights.
The back door is known as The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which states: “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
Over the years, the Supremacy Clause has been corrupted on behalf of internationalists who seek the elimination of American sovereignty. After winning freedom from Britain in the Revolutionary War, the Framers of the Constitution would never have favored turning that freedom over to foreign entities by treaty or anything else. Yet, in 1922, the Supreme Court applied the Supremacy Clause (in Missouri vs. Holland) and declared that a treaty with Canada regarding migratory birds was superior to the laws of the states dealing with the same topic. From that date forward, the federal government has assumed that the issue is resolved and that the 10th Amendment no longer provides sovereignty to the states.
But the battle is not over. Along the way, there have been a number of attempts to restore original intent to the Constitution, and it looks like a new wave of awareness may bring this issue back to the courts and into the consciousness of the American people.
This article was posted: Friday, March 19, 2010 at 9:16 am