A Thesis on our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and how to reverse the damage

H/T JPFO.

By Donald L. Cline. January 22, 2020. frdmftr@frdmftr.net.

A thesis pertaining to the destruction of ALL our rights occasioned by restrictions on our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Preface I: It has been claimed by various members of the legal and political professions that while the Constitution of the United States provides a permissible structure of laws, it is not law itself and its provisions must be enacted into statutory law to have legal effect. This is an egregiously and fraudulently bogus interpretation: The Constitution of the United States says it is 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.”

The U.S. Constitution IS the law.

Preface II: No crime, or criminal access to a firearm has ever, in the history of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, been prevented by a background check, and prevention of crime was not the purpose of the Act. Furthermore, the rate of violent crime was decreasing before the Brady Act and the rate of decrease after the passage of the Brady Act has been essentially unchanged. Background checks have not reduced violent crime or criminal access to firearms. Not one bit.

Preface III: Unlike other western nations, the United States of America does not list a collection of revocable government-issued privileges and permissions and pretend they are rights. Our form of government is founded on the principle that rights are a gift of G-d and are by law beyond the reach of government.

RE: Brady Act Background checks compelled as a precondition to the purchase of a firearm:

  • The right to keep and bear arms encompasses the right to buy and sell firearms. The Ninth Circuit has so ruled.
  • Being compelled to ask government permission to exercise a right converts the right into a government-issued permission and the permission is revocable. Conversion of our right to keep and bear arms into a revocable government-issued permission was one of two fundamental purposes of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993.
  • The second purpose of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 was to sucker citizens into supporting destruction of their Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendment-guaranteed rights as a pre-condition to obtaining government permission to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.
  • The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides and requires: “The right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” A NICS Background Check is a SEARCH of our “papers and effects,” albeit on government databases, and is compelled without a warrant, and without probable cause of criminal conduct. The noted records are NOT public records and may not be accessed absent criminal investigation. The compelled NICS background check is therefore a violation of our Fourth Amendment-protected rights whether done at the point of sale at a commercial business or compelled prior to the personal sale or transfer of a firearm to a private party.
  • The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides and requires in pertinent part“No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law …” Due process of law is defined NOT by some government overseer monitoring the purchase or sale of firearms, but rather by a criminal court trial and conviction of criminal wrongdoing by a jury of the defendant’s peers. Absent a criminal court trial, withholding a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms is a TAKING of the right to keep and bear arms as well as our right to property, all in violation of our Fifth Amendment-protected right.
  • In addition, absent a criminal court trial and all the protections of our liberties attendant thereto, the confiscation of a citizen’s firearms by ex parte order of a Court as a function of a so-called “Red Flag Law” aka “Extreme Risk Protection Order” aka “Stop Order” is an egregious violation of our Fifth Amendment-protected right to due process. FURTHERMORE, an order by a Court to the victim of a Red Flag Law to undergo a mental health evaluation based upon his willingness to cooperate or lack thereof, is a SEARCH in violation of our Fourth Amendment-protected right against unreasonable search. (Aside: An unwarranted search not supported by probable cause of criminal wrongdoing IS an “unreasonable search.”)
  • The Ninth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides and requires “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” It is a long-standing doctrine of law that a person cannot be compelled to give up a right in order to exercise a right, and this right is protected by the Ninth Amendment. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 compels the citizen to give up a whole raft of rights in exchange for revocable government-issued “permission” to exercise the citizen’s right to keep and bear arms – permission no government at any level has any delegated subject matter jurisdiction to issue or deny.
  • The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides and requires “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This Amendment deserves further analysis:

♦  No power is delegated to the federal government to even license firearm dealers, let alone compel them to violate the aforementioned rights of their customers. Therefore it is unConstitutional for the federal government to do so.
♦  The States are specifically prohibited by the Bill of Rights from interfering with our right to keep and bear arms, our right to be secure from unwarranted and unreasonable search, our right to be secure from the taking of any right without due process, and our right to be secure from being compelled to give up any right in order to exercise any right. Therefore it is a violation of the Tenth Amendment prohibition for any State to do so.
♦  THEREFORE, these rights, ALL OF THEM, are reserved to the people – and the people cannot delegate these rights to government as powers, for government is prohibited from exercising them.

Suggestions on how to correct these egregious violations of our Constitutional rights:

Perjury is a “High Crime.” A “High Crime” is justification for impeachment. Elected, appointed, and commissioned officials are sworn or affirmed to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States as amended. Acting in a manner contrary to the terms of that Constitution is perjury of the oath. At the very least, any legislator exercising his duty under that oath has the duty to file an ethics complaint against any other legislator introducing, sponsoring, advocating, or voting for legislation not pursuant to the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State in which he or she serves.

It is also the right and duty of any citizen to file a civil or criminal complaint against any legislator or law enforcement officer or judge for legislating, enforcing, or adjudicating any color of law not pursuant to the Constitution of the United States or the State in which the offense occurs.

The U.S. Constitution Article I Section 6 Clause 1 provides in pertinent part “The Senators and Representatives … and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.” But for purposes of ethics complaints or Articles of Impeachment it is not necessary to question them in any other place; their introduced or sponsored legislation standing alone is sufficient evidence of their violation of oath.

Ultimately, the egregiously and flagrantly unConstitutional Brady handgun Control Act of 1993 must be rescinded, repealed, or otherwise struck down with extreme prejudice. It threatens our entire Constitutional form of government under the rule of law.