CONGRESS ACTION: April 30, 2000
=================

THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS: LINK: For many years, our federal
government has been gradually eroding many of our most fundamental
Constitutional rights, and it is currently engaged in a concerted effort to
totally eliminate the individual right to keep and bear arms that is
protected by the Second Amendment of our Bill of Rights. The activities of
this administration are so hostile to individual Freedom and to our
Constitutional Liberties, and those activities are so willingly accepted by
the majority of the people of this country, that there is serious doubt
about the continued viability of our nation as a free representative
republic. The attack on the right to keep and bear arms is just one aspect
of the assault on our Freedom, but that particular attack involves a
campaign of lies, deceit, and disinformation so extraordinary in its scope
and so pernicious in its intended effect, as to merit special attention. If
public policy is to be pursued by reasoned debate pursuant to Constitutional
principles, rather than by mass hysteria, an understanding of, and respect
for, the fundamental facts of the issue must be held by all concerned.

There is a wealth of documentary evidence — debates in the Constitutional
Convention of 1787, debates in the State Ratification Conventions, letters
and documents written by many members of the founding generation of
Americans, contemporary newspaper commentary, the text of many of the
original constitutions of the States as well as the provisions of most of
the constitutions presently in force in the States today, and in the
treatises of political philosophy widely read and relied upon by the
Founders in creating our government — that the Founders intended that the
individual citizens of the new United States would retain their right to
keep and bear arms, and retain their right of personal self defense. That
evidence has been added to over the intervening years by decisions from
numerous courts, including the United States Supreme Court, and by
commentary from many learned jurists and scholars.

Beyond that clear documentary evidence of the intent of the Founders, there
stands the historical context in which the Constitution and the Bill of
Rights were drafted, debated, and ratified. The Revolutionary War for
Independence began in earnest when a rag-tag group of colonial Minute Men
met the British troops on the town green of Lexington, Massachusetts, on the
morning of April 19, 1775. The British were marching to Concord, for the
purpose of arresting the rabble-rousing John Hancock and Samuel Adams, and
of seizing the muskets, gunpowder, and shot that had been accumulated by the
colonists in Concord. Hancock and Adams were warned and readily eluded
capture, but the stores of arms could not be moved. In the years leading up
to that April morning in 1775, the American colonists had often confronted
the British authorities, and had protested many of the actions of the
British government. To protest taxes, the colonists pelted British troops
with snowballs in Boston Common; to protest taxation without representation
they dressed up as Indians and threw tea into Boston harbor; to protest the
Stamp Act that infringed on their freedom of speech, they boycotted British
paper goods. But it was only when the British moved to confiscate their
weapons that the colonists actually organized an armed force in opposition
and actually opened fire on the British troops. It was in defense of their
right of self-defense that the American colonists fired the “shot heard
’round the world”.
Twelve years later, it was against that backdrop that the Founders gathered
in Philadelphia to organize a new national government. At that convention
was proposed a Constitution for the new central government. The purpose of
that Constitution was to unambiguously define the structure, the powers, and
the authority of the new government.

That any government has an inherent tendency to usurp power and to oppress
its citizens was a truism that the Founders considered beyond dispute, and a
danger that they took numerous steps to guard against in drafting their new
Constitution. Their fundamental premise was that any powers not specifically
granted to that national government by the People in their Constitution –
the enumerated powers, and powers necessary and proper for carrying into
execution those enumerated powers — would be beyond the legitimate
authority of that government. Simply put in modern terms, the States and the
People of the new United States said to their new national government, “If
the Constitution doesn’t say that you can, then you cannot.” Nowhere in that
Constitution was the federal government given any authority whatsoever to
disarm law abiding citizens, and thus even without the protection of the
Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights, the authority to disarm law abiding
citizens did not then, and does not now, exist. That absence of enumerated
authority alone should settle the issue of “gun control” with finality. But
then consider the historical context of the Revolutionary War, the “citizen
soldier”, States jealous of their sovereignty, the inherently oppressive
tendency of government, and a People acutely conscious of the long and
costly war fought to secure their Liberty. And the “shot heard ’round the
world” fired in defense of their right of self-defense. What would the
reaction have been to anyone suggesting that the new national government be
given the authority to disarm the citizenry? Certainly if such a proposal
were made, it would have occasioned, at the very least, extremely heated
debate. Such a proposal and the ensuing debate would have been recorded by
someone, somewhere. It would have been the topic of debate in at least some
of the State ratification conventions. Nobody today claims that such a
proposal was ever made — it wasn’t — let alone that such a proposal was
debated — it wasn’t — or that the federal government was ever actually
granted such an authority — it wasn’t. Clearly, nowhere in the Constitution
is such authority found, or even hinted at.

But people today do not claim that such authority was specifically and
intentionally granted. Clearly, it was not. People today make an even more
astonishing claim than that: they claim that such authority simply exists,
even without ever having been proposed, debated, granted, or ratified!

The delegates to the Constitutional Convention debated long weeks over the
precise terminology to be used in their new Constitution. Those delegates
very carefully considered the implications of any powers granted to, or
withheld from, the national government, and they argued for days over the
implications, meaning, and effect of specific words and phrases they used.
Yet many people today contend that the federal government has the authority
to disarm the citizenry, and that such a momentous power exists even without
any authority having been specifically granted by the Constitution, even
without such authority ever having been proposed or debated in the
Constitutional Convention, or in any of the State ratification conventions;
that the power to do so simply exists even without such a suggestion ever
having been made by anyone, anywhere, at any time during the founding and
ratification period. Such an idea is precisely opposite to the very nature
of the limited government of clearly enumerated powers created by the
Founders.

But the Founders went even further than the limited and enumerated powers
contained in the body of the Constitution itself. At the insistence of many
of the States, they added a Bill of Rights. Many of the States refused to
ratify the proposed federal Constitution without the addition of a Bill of
Rights, and many States submitted proposals of fundamental rights that they
insisted be protected by the Bill of Rights. The purpose of that Bill of
Rights was to specify certain fundamental individual rights that were
considered to be so important to Liberty as to merit special protection,
beyond the protection afforded by the Constitution itself for all of the
retained rights of the People. The States and the People wanted to make it
absolutely clear that those fundamental rights were unquestionably beyond
the reach of the national government. The language of the resulting Bill of
Rights is absolute and unambiguous: “Congress shall make no law.”; “.shall
not be infringed”; “The right of the People to be secure.shall not be
violated”; “. nor shall private property be taken.”; “.the accused shall
enjoy the right.”; and the final two imperatives: “The enumeration in the
Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage
others retained by the People.”; and “The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved
to the States respectively, or to the People.” The framers of the
Constitution did not say “should not”, or “may not”, or “might not”. They
used the clear, mandatory, commanding language “SHALL NOT”.
The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the individual rights of the
citizens against government intrusion. It was not designed to protect the
rights of government — such a contention is absurd. Yet that is precisely
the absurdity upon which rests the argument of those seeking to disarm law
abiding citizens. The Second Amendment, many people today claim, protects
only the right of the federal and State governments to keep and bear arms,
and only within the context of police forces and State National Guards.
Protects against whom?

Does the First Amendment protect the right of the government to Freedom of
speech and of the press? The right of the government to Freedom of religion?
The right of the government to peaceably assemble.to do what.to petition
itself for redress of grievances?

Does the Fourth Amendment protect the right of the government to be secure
in their persons (what is the government’s “person”, anyway?), houses, and
papers, against unreasonable searches and seizures? By whom?

Does the Fifth Amendment protect the government against double jeopardy? The
right of the government against self incrimination? The right of the
government not to be deprived of its life or liberty (what is the
government’s “life” and “liberty”) without due process? The right of the
government to just compensation for property taken for public use?

Does the Sixth Amendment protect the right of the government to a speedy
trial? The right of the government to confront the witnesses against him
(“him” is the word used, not “it”)? The right of the government to counsel?

Does the Eighth Amendment protect the government from cruel and unusual
punishment?

And when the Tenth Amendment protects the rights of the States, it
specifically uses the word “States”. Twice. It clearly distinguishes
“States” from “People” as two separate entities. It is thus obvious that
when the Founders meant “States”, they were fully capable of saying so. In
the Second Amendment they did not say “States”, they specifically said “the
right of the People.shall not be infringed”. The People.

The idea that the Bill of Rights protects governments and not people is
demonstrably absurd and irrational, as is clear from the above suggestions.
Yet despite all that, are we supposed to believe that the Second Amendment,
alone among the Bill of Rights, protects only the government, and not the
People? Are we supposed to believe, although the Second Amendment uses the
word “People”, that among all the other Bill of Rights provisions that also
use the word “People”, the Second Amendment alone really doesn’t mean
“People”, it means “States”, or federal government, only? Yes, that is
precisely what we are asked and expected to believe.

The officials of our government know that they do not posses the legitimate
authority to disarm law abiding citizens. So with the aid of a duplicitous
national media, this administration seeks to incite mob hysteria to achieve
its agenda of eliminating the individual right to keep and bear arms. Our
government can enact any laws it chooses, no matter how illegitimate, and it
unquestionably possesses the raw power to disarm the citizens of this
country pursuant to those laws, if it so chooses. What is there to stop
government officials who have repeatedly shown their utter contempt for the
Constitution? But the exercise of such power would be the lawless act of a
lawless government, without even the slightest pretense to Constitutional
legitimacy. It would be a tyranny of force, a dictatorial usurpation of
power aided and abetted by mass public hysteria. Such an act of lawlessness
would be the final nail in the coffin of our Constitution, and the final
abandonment by our government of the Rule of Law. And it will toll the final
death-knell of our Freedom.

As a nation, we are already dangerously far along the road towards accepting
the unbridled rule of force by our government. We are increasingly governed
by policies established, not by laws duly enacted by elected legislators,
but by judicial edicts arising from lawsuits, and by mandates from unelected
and unaccountable regulatory bureaucrats. We watch our government move from
one lawful industry to another, ignoring the legislative process and
imposing its will by regulation and the threat of lawsuits, leaving its
victims only the choice between surrender and bankruptcy. First it was
tobacco, now firearms, next perhaps alcohol, sport utility vehicles and
maybe all automobiles, pharmaceuticals, fast foods.the list is literally
endless. And that list grow longer as those bureaucrats learn that they can
get away with imposing their will and ideological agenda through force,
intimidation, and the threat of lawsuits. And as they do so, our democratic
institutions, and the will of the People of the country, become increasingly
superfluous, except to the extent that the people are needed as props to
supply the necessary mob hysteria. We watch our government demonizing
people, groups, entire industries, for the purpose of whipping up a mob
frenzy to validate its attacks. And we remain silent. What will be the next
target of vindictive federal potentates? We don’t know, we only pray that it
will be someone else and not us, and that they will leave us alone for a
little while longer. That is no way for a free People to live. That is how
slaves under totalitarian dictatorships live. From where does a president,
or any government bureaucrat, get the authority to decide that a legal
product, wanted and used by millions of Americans, should no longer exist?
One firearms manufacturer (Colt) has already been driven out of the business
of selling its products to private citizens entirely; another (Smith &
Wesson) has been bludgeoned into an agreement that will probably lead to the
same result. From where does any government bureaucrat get the authority to
destroy lawful companies simply because that bureaucrat doesn’t like the
product being sold? In a free society, governed by a Constitution and the
Rule of Law, government bureaucrats do not have that authority. But we have
allowed them to seize the power to do exactly that.

Whether we govern ourselves by the Rule of Law, the Constitution, and
reasoned debate; or allow ourselves to succumb to mass hysteria and the
tyrannical rule of unbridled government force, is still up to us. Although
dangerously weakened, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have not yet
been repealed. We still have the right to vote tyrannical government
officials out of office, and although our votes are increasingly diluted by
electoral fraud, and by the votes of non-citizens and felons, that right has
not yet been taken from us. We still have, for now, the right to speak out
against those who trample our rights; we still have, for now, the right to
contribute money and support to those legislators and would-be legislators
who understand and respect the Constitutional restraints on their authority.
But as government power and government lawlessness grows, and as our
Liberties shrink in consequence, our power to control our government is
rapidly disappearing. By our silence, we are selling ourselves and our
children into bondage.

>From where do the gun banners presume to get the legitimate authority to
ban
the individual right to keep and bear arms? It is clear that the Second
Amendment’s reference to “militia” will not suffice, since the Founders
clearly described the nature of the 18th century militia; the State
constitutions, following the intent of the Second Amendment, clearly
demonstrate that understanding; and the Bill of Rights was designed not to
limit the rights protected by the Constitution, but to further enhance and
protect those rights. It is clear that the “general Welfare” clauses will
not suffice, since both James Madison and Thomas Jefferson clearly explained
that the “general welfare” concept must operate within the boundaries of the
enumerated powers, or else the Constitution itself means nothing; and
disarming citizens was clearly not one of the enumerated powers. It is clear
that the idea of an “evolving, growing” Constitution will not suffice, since
the whole point of a written Constitution is to serve as an immutable
structure of rules that remains in force until that structure is changed by
the formal amendment process provided for by the Constitution itself. A
Constitution that can be “redefined” by the very institutions it is intended
to restrain is no Constitution at all.

On what Constitutional foundation do the opponents of the right to keep and
bear arms support their beliefs and their agenda? There is none. But the
totalitarians in our government and among our population care nothing for
the Constitution, which they would like to finally repeal in its entirety;
or about the Rule of Law, which they will bend, twist, or ignore as it suits
their purpose. They care only about power. The Founders, in their wisdom,
gave us the tools to preserve our Freedom against such unbridled government
power, and to do so within the structure of our Constitution.

A new link will be established at the home page of this newsletter to combat
lies and hysteria with facts. The information will be expanded from time to
time, and will contain evidence from a host of sources of exactly what the
Founders of our republic intended when they wrote that “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 information is here. What we choose to do with it depends on how much we
still value our Freedom.

FOR MORE INFORMATION.
========================

THE RIGHT TO KEEP AN BEAR ARMS: LINK:

http://www.velasquez.com/congress_action/RKBA_Founders.html

A Century of Lawmaking: Debates on the Constitution:

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lawhome.html

Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/debates/debcont.htm

James Madison Center: http://www.jmu.edu/madison/center/index.htm

The Federalist Papers: http://www.mcs.net/~knautzr/fed/fedpaper.html

Links to individual State Home Pages and State constitutions:

http://www.globalcomputing.com/states.html

Federal and Supreme Court Cases:

http://www.findlaw.com/

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/index.html

http://www.washlaw.edu/

http://www.ilrg.com/caselaw/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mr. Kim Weissman
[email protected]

CONGRESS ACTION Newsletter can be found with most web searchers,
and is available at: http://www.velasquez.com/congress_action/