The gun grabbers are at it again, each time with a new twist on why government should seize guns from citizens who have committed no crime and threatened no one. This is the third major violation of the Second Amendment to come out this week.
One of the most lawless states with the most draconian laws is California, with the law books overflowing with rules and regulations that serve only to limit the rights of innocent citizens.
Somehow, the liberal judges and legislators never seem to get the message that criminals and evil-doers are not interested in these laws and will refuse to obey them. That includes legal purchases and mandated background checks, ignored by the bad guys, which means the regulations will only punish those who obey the law.
In this case, January 1st, 2016 marks the day that gun owners in California can have their guns seized by authorities with no prior notice, and no crime committed.
The law permits a person’s weapons to be seized for twenty-one days if a judge can be convinced that there is a potential for violence, as determined by family members of the gun owner. The key is to convince a judge that the person possessing a firearm “poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself or another by having a gun in his or her custody or control.”
I’m waiting.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW FORBIDS JUDGES OR LAW MAKERS FROM INFRINGING OR PASSING LEGISLATION “EDITING” ANY AMENDMENT.
2nd Amendment: Original Meaning and Purpose
When the Constitution was signed on September 17, 1789, federalists claimed the new government would only have limited powers expressly delegated to it. This wasn’t enough for anti-federalists like George Mason, who wanted explicit guarantees to certain rights in order to prevent any potential encroachment by the federal government.
One of them was the right to keep and bear arms. Mason wrote:
“A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State”
The Founding Fathers, having just broken away from Great Britain, understood the new federal government they were ratifying might one day become just as tyrannical. If it had the authority to control citizen access to firearms, then it could disarm them, just as the British attempted to do. This would make any attempts to restore liberties futile.
The Second Amendment was specifically included in the Bill of Rights to prevent this.
Two centuries later, we are in an ideological struggle with gun control advocates attempting to alter the meaning of the Second Amendment in order to allow for federal restrictions on our right to bear arms. Not surprisingly, they completely ignore what the ratifiers of the Constitution and the Second Amendment had to say, because all pertinent historical documents contradict them.
For example, when the Founders wrote of a “well regulated” militia, they meant militias needed to be well regulated through training and drilling in order to be effective in battle. This could only happen if citizens had unrestricted access to firearms.
James Madison, the father of the Constitution, said in 1789 that “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
An example of a well regulated militia under Madison’s definition were the Minutemen at Concord and Lexington, who had drilled on fields in preparation for war.
As to the meaning of the word “militia,” it has nothing to do with the National Guard. There is already a clause in the Constitution that specifically authorizes arming them.
So what is a militia as defined by the Founders? Mason said they were “the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
In fact, there was a universal acceptance among both federalists and anti-federalists as to the importance of the right to bear arms.
Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 28 that “if the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense,” a right which he declared to be “paramount.”
And then there is clause “shall not be infringed.” There is no exception to this contained anywhere in the amendment.
Zacharia Johnson, a delegate to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, summed up the meaning of the Second Amendment when he declared that “The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”
Full possession. Not some. Not most. Full possession of their weapons. The feds were to keep their hands off entirely.
The Founders made it very clear what the Second Amendment means. But if we do not fight against any and all attempts by the feds to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms, then it loses all relevant meaning.
Come and get them ! Pleeeeeaaase
how funny people acutally beleive this story – LMAO
Look a tht esource – a koch bros tea bagger site.
This can and will start a civil war!
as the holicaust begins, do not ever give up your rights
Read,if you can,the article before commenting.
They don’t want you to have any to defend yourself
Grace kibbler ur a moron u take away my self defense and leave only the lawless to carry because the lawless dont follow the law so when a gang member assaults u on the street mugs u shoves u to the ground with only a rock smacks I in the face steals ur wallet and proceeds to steel ur two children to do horrible acts the 10 minutes it takes a cop to show up and finish his coffee before he starts to figure out what’s going on what then . I bet u would have been happy for my .38 snub nose ccw concealed carry weapon . Or if for some reason a musrat decides ur great looking cuz in Somalia u cant find women and decides to rape u and ur children what r u going to call the cops wait ten minutes and hope they show up in time to catch him after the fact . Think before u speak and look out the window do u see a cop parked in front of your house response time to NY any part in in Rochester is 6 minutes that’s a long time
Thank god up above I live in good ol’ Texas