With the Supreme Court hearing District of Columbia v. Heller, many people are asserting that the Right of the people to Keep and Bear Arms is dependent upon judicial interpretations of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
That is totally incorrect!
The Second Amendment is a statement that the people’s Right to keep and bear arms, a Right that pre-existed the Constitution, can not be infringed in any way. The Amendment is a statement of the Supreme Law of the Land that no federal, state or local “law” may be enacted that will deprive the citizens of their Right to Keep and Bear arms.
The Right to keep and bear arms is an Unalienable Right.
The only argument required to substantiate this and to overrule all gun laws written anywhere in the United States is:
1. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme Law of the Land.
2. The Second Amendment to the Constitution is a part of the supreme Law of the Land.
3. The Congress and no state or lower jurisdiction may enact and/or enforce any law or
ordinance that is contrary to the Constitution.
4. Therefore, all laws written anywhere in the United States restricting the Right of the
people to keep and bear Arms are unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void.
There is written authority in the Constitution for each statement above and the Courts of the United States have upheld each.
I. The Constitution of the United States is the “supreme Law of the Land.”
Authority: Article VI of the Constitution of the United States prescribes that the Constitution and the Laws of the United States written in accord with the Constitution are the supreme Law of the Land.
II. The Second Amendment is a written part of the supreme Law of the Land. The Second Amendment and all the other Amendments comprising the Bill of Rights became part of the Constitution in 1791.
III. The Congress and no state or lower jurisdiction may enact and/or enforce any law or ordinance that is contrary to the Constitution.
Authority: Article VI of the Constitution of the United States also prescribes: 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.”
Authority: Amendment 14 of the Constitution of the United States prescribes: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;”
Court Upheld: U.S. District Judge Sam A. Lindsay wrote on Monday, 21 May 2007, that an Anti-Immigrant Law passed by the community of Farmers Branch, Texas, is invalid and writes 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. Further, U.S. District Judge Sam A. Lindsay wrote: "The court recognizes that illegal immigration is a major problem in this country, and one who asserts otherwise ignores reality" "The court also fully understands the frustration of cities attempting to address a national problem that the federal government should handle; however, such frustration, no matter how great, cannot serve as a basis to pass an ordinance that conflicts with federal law."
Court Upheld: Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137 (1803)
All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. ?amp;quot;
Court Upheld: [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.
Court Upheld: U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 591-592 (1875). The United States Supreme Court has stated that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not constitutional in nature, but a right that ensures the citizens because it existed before the Constitution. Instead, the 2nd Amendment exists to restrict the Congress from infringing this right. The U.S. Supreme Court said in Cruikshank v. U.S. (1876) that the Second Amendment protects a right which existed even before the Constitution was written. The right to arms "is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that the Right shall not be infringed."
Therefore, as specified in the Constitution of the United States and upheld by the Courts, All gun laws written anywhere in the United States restricting the right of the people to keep and bear Arms are null and void.
Some will continue to argue that all statutes and ordinances written regarding gun control are valid and the law of the land.
A general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. This is not true. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement with the Constitution. Any statute not in agreement with the Constitution is unconstitutional. An unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void.
An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. “No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177.
Court Upheld: "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void." Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 5, U.S. (Cranch) 137, 174,176
In summary, all laws written anywhere in the United States that restrict the Right of the people to keep and bear Arms are contrary to the Second Amendment and, therefore, unconstitutional and null and void.
The only problem with proving that all laws pertaining to the people’s Right to keep and bear arms are unconstitutional is that the federal, state and lower jurisdictions will never accept this proof. All government wants control of the people and the best way to control the people is to ensure they are not armed. If this were not true, there would be no laws written to infringe on the people’s Right; there would be no agencies enforcing the unconstitutional laws; no court would need to hear any case regarding the Second Amendment and all laws restricting the Right to keep and bear arms would be stricken from the record.
Jerry, Socialist Republic of MarylandApr 08, 2008 @ 01:19 AM
