Welcome! Jesus Christ is my LORD and Savior! Romans 10:9-10,13; John 3:16

[For EU visitors, I do not personally use cookies, but Google or any clickable link (if you choose to click on it) might. This is in compliance with mandatory EU notification]

I am a Natural Born United States Citizen with NO allegiance or citizenship to any nation but my own, and will use this site as a hobby place of sorts to present my own political and religious viewpoints, as a genuine Constitutional Conservative and a genuine Christian Conservative.

Thank you for coming.
In the Year of our LORD Jesus Christ
-- As of January 20, 2017
A Sigh Of Relief With The Inauguration Of Donald John Trump as President of the United States of America, And Hope For A Prosperous Future For All United States Citizens (we who are a nation called "the melting pot of the world"). We shall be great and exceptionally great again.

It is likely that the entries to this blog will be less frequent than in years past. I do intend to keep this blog active, and to offer insightful information and/or opinion (and sometimes humor and/or entertainment on occasion) when I do post.

Peace and Liberty. Semper Fidelis.

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

Joe Biden reports Obama is ready to Executive Order Gun Safety? Or does he mean the second Amendment, which is illegal to try to do?

In the following post, I feel it necessary to re-cite the cases of my post from 

"Legislating or treatying away our Constitutional Rights, such as under the Second Amendment? Hold it! Better read what the Supreme Court has to say first!"  http://www.brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2012/12/legislating-or-treatying-away-our.html

 Gun ownership to a United States Citizen is not only a legal right, but is a Constitutionally mandated assurance against centralized Army occupation aimed at taking away our First, Third, and Fourth Amendment rights as well.  

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is on record incorrectly stating that if she could get a 51% majority vote to confiscate every "assault rifle" in America, in private or civilian hands, she would do it. 

 When you think about it in the way that Progressives will argue, since a bullet flies out of the barrel, it assaults its object. Therefore, it would not be just an assault weapons ban, it would be every gun in America that would be banned, including something as antiquated as muskets.    

 But what has the United States Supreme Court said on this issue?

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) @ 491 "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them.

Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973) @ 272  "It is clear, of course, that no Act of Congress can authorize a violation of the Constitution."
United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975) @ 877  "But "no Act of Congress can authorize a violation of the Constitution," Almeida-Sanchez, supra at 413 U. S. 272, "

This also extends to any "end-run" attempt made by Congress in ratifying a United Nations Small Arms Treaty that requires gun confiscation of its Citizens.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)
@ 176  "The question whether an act repugnant to the Constitution can become the law of the land is a question deeply interesting to the United States, but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognise certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it. 

...   The powers of the Legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the Constitution is written.

@177     "Certainly all those who have framed written Constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be that an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void.

@178   "... the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature...."

   ... it is apparent that the framers of the Constitution
 contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the Legislature.

...It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

 Doe v. Braden, 57 U.S. (16 Howard) 635 (1853) @ 657  “By the Constitution of the United States, the President has the power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur. ... And the Constitution declares that all treaties made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land.    The treaty is therefore a law made by the proper authority, and the courts of justice have no right to annul or disregard any of its provisions unless they violate the Constitution of the United States."

The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. (11 Wallace) 616 (1870) @ 620  “The second section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United States declares that
"This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land."
It need hardly be said that a treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that instrument."

Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 (1890) @ 267  “The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the states. 
It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or in that of one of the states, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent.”  [Case citations omitted]

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) @ 701 “… as will appear by tracing the history of the statutes, treaties and decisions upon that subject -- always bearing in mind that statutes enacted by Congress, as well as treaties made by the President and Senate, must yield to the paramount and supreme law of the Constitution.”

State of Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920)
@ 432 It is said that a treaty cannot be valid if it infringes the Constitution, that there are limits, therefore, to the treaty-making power, and that one such limit is that what an act of Congress could not do unaided, in derogation of the powers reserved to the States, a treaty cannot do. 
@ 433  … Acts of Congress are the supreme law of the land only when made in pursuance of the Constitution....”     (This case, while arguing about the 10th Amendment, applies to other amendments of the Constitution as well).

Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265 U.S. 332 (1924) @ 341 A treaty 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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."  Constitution, Art. VI, § 2.
      The treaty-making power of the United States is not limited by any express provision of the Constitution, and, though it does not extend "so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids..."  [Case citations omitted] 

United States v. Minnesota, 270 U.S. 181 (1926) @ 208  “The decisions of this Court generally have regarded treaties as on much the same plane as acts of Congress, and as usually subject to the general limitations in the Constitution….”

Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1956)
 @ 16        “...  The obvious and decisive answer to this, of course, is that no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution.
Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:
"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 . . ."
There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates, as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI, make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary 
@17           War, would remain in effect. [Footnote 31] It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights -- let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition -- to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. [Footnote 32] In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government, and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.
There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty. [Footnote 33] For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U. S. 258, 133 U. S. 267, it declared:
"The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the 
@18        government, or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent."
This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity with a treaty, and that, when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null. [Footnote 34] It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument.”

On January 9, 2012, putative Vice President Joe Biden announced that there are "Executive Orders" that he claims will be used in place of legislation to regulate gun control.

If putative Vice President has any notion of seeing the Second Amendment revoked, such an Executive Order IS unconstitutional.  If such an Executive Order to over-rule the U.S. Constitution is implemented by force of arms, such as forced armed home invasions and confiscation, then we as a nation will quickly descend into example after example where there will be unrequited violence. 

There have been bans on a designated category of automated rifles, called "assault" rifles, in the past: but such an action must come through the Legislature...it cannot come via Executive Order.

The Legislation necessary, which must come through Congress, to control "gun safety" would be to Legislate high capacity magazines to 20 rounds or less in both rifles and handguns AND to enforce existing gun laws and background checks already enacted, might be the alternative solution to Gun Control Legislation.  

Banning high capacity magazines has been part of what Governor Andrew Cuomo views is part of a comprehensive gun legislation package,

so why not start and mostly end there?  

I would NOT endorse a maximum magazine capacity of less than 20 rounds, even though it is within the power of Congress to do so.  

  Unfortunately, instead of a peaceful and law-abiding vast majority of gun owning American Citizens, the Media and certain anti-gun coalitions or such advocates 
seek to use the temper tantrum of Alex Jones on the CNN Piers Morgan program on or about January 7, 2012

 as justification on why Americans should not have the right to own a semi-auto rifle.  

 Alex Jones decided to use his debate to solidify his audience's loyalty to him personally as an angry spokesman.  That is NOT what America needs right now.   

We need a strong and intelligently reasoning voice, which is able to say why we should be able to own a .223 Sporter "Assault Rifle" or whatever gun they wish to say we have no right to own.  The answer is in the Bill of Rights.  The first Amendment tells "We the People" that they have the right to "freedom of religion [with]...the free exercise thereof", “freedom of speech", and "freedom of the press" (freedom of speech OR of the Press), “the right of the people peaceably to assemble", the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Contrary to Democrats chastising or ignoring the right of the people “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" is just as co-equal as the right of free speech, the right to freedom of religion NOT from religion.  The United States Constitution and the decisions of the United States Supreme Court informs us that we have more power than they have a clue about.
In order to protect these rights from being squashed by a corrupt central authority, the Second Amendment was written.  

 Amendment II
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.


Originally, when dealing with just the militia aspect,  it was envisioned to arm that of the Posse Commitatus and Local Municipal and Regional Individuals banded together to be called up to, in an orderly fashion, repel and defeat: Indian uprisings, foreign armies or Shanghai parties (of any type landing on our shores), or  pirates, robber bands, organized crime or revolt. The organized militia had for its Executive Officer, the Governor of the State in which they belonged as its citizens, and this chain of command was the example by which a professional centralized army of the United States should have as its Commander in Chief, a civilian President who was- according to our Constitution, to be -- a natural born citizen of the United States, born to a U.S. Citizen father and born on United States soil.  Obama had a foreign father who never became a U.S. citizen, and even he has claimed he was never born here until after he became a U.S. Senator.  Even the Kenyan Government has verified his earlier claims that he was born in Kenya, and Obama to this day refuses to enter any birth records under penalty of perjury in a United States Court of Law.  Curious.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, 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.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
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 Second Amendment where "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"  is a guarantor that the civilian population would have those kind of pistols and rifles that are well enough to repel an actual army, whether it is foreign invaders, or even the presumption of that of our own troops in times of Peace seeking to forcibly barrack themselves in the homes of the Civilian population against their will to house them.  
So when the Third Amendment reads "No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law"; the Third Amendment presupposes that such violations could  -- LEGALLY (under the Constitution's intent) -- be fought off by the owner, against even our own Army, by the use of a gun, for it says NOT just a militia may own a firearm, but "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" in the Second Amendment.  That means, any United States Citizen  -- (felons lose their citizenship or have it in a suspended state of revocation, and are prohibited ) -- has the freedom and the legal right to own a .223 semi-auto rifle or any firearm powerful enough to fight off members of any military in the world (including our own if they clearly violate the Constitution).  Since the U.S. Army uses a .223 caliber in its general issue, the focus would then shift to the question of  magazine capacity for semi-autos to be just enough for home defense against other armed intruders or a mob, and only this issue of magazine capacity, then, would be the issue of any intelligent discussion or compromise. 

Again, you can regulate the Rifle magazine down to 20 and preferably no less that 10-15 rounds through proper Legislation, but I would not suggest a  magazine capacity less than 20.   
 We are at all times to find what legal PEACEFUL recourse we can...but if Obama signs an executive order or Congress by a mere vote says we no longer have the right to own a gun, and anyone tries to carry out the order, THEY are the ones in violation of the Constitution, and I would argue that we would have the need to seek an emergency injunction for relief to the Supreme Court for a ruling that overturns such an act of illegal legislating BEFORE we have to resort to NECESSARY passive or pro-active resistance at any attempt of gun collection or gun seizure, because executive orders and alleged plenary powers of congress exercised with a 51% majority vote cannot over-ride the Constitution. 

We have the Decisions of the Supreme Court itself telling us this.

 It takes an Amendment to the Constitution by 2/3 of Congress and ¾ of the States ratifying such an Amendment to the Constitution authorizing any course of action that is to over-ride another Amendment to the Constitution.   

We can very often prevent calamities and great conflict by using intelligent reason and intelligent argument in ADVANCE.  

 When the option of PEACE and the proper use of the rule of Law of all sides is available, we should prefer THAT option.  Revolution, hypothetically, even when legally justified, should always be an option that must be used only when all the other options for the rule of law upon the Government to fulfill its obligation to follow its contractual promise, to abide by the Constitution between itself and its people, is beyond reconciliation or repair, and a new Government willing to abide by the original contract can be instituted by force of arms.  

If the "illegal, but criminally in charge anyway " Obama  White House has any sense, they will address the issue of "gun safety"at the very most  by asking the Congress legislate gun magazine capacity to 20 round maximum capacity, and allow gun training clubs to have restricted use on site of greater capacity magazines and drums for training purposes, and sporting pleasure in target practice as well in their legislation.  

 It would be the very best of all scenarios if the Obama Administration saw the Second Amendment as sacrosanct, and would just leave it alone.  My recommendation allows them that opportunity to do just that. 

That's my input. 

P.S., The Fox Five posted Gawker  Nick Denton's phone number and e-mail at 2:42 on the enclosed segment below.  He has no problem posting 446 pages of New York gun owners as a public service.  You may write him or contact at:

646-470-4295 or nick@gawker.com

 You can google the street address at https://maps.google.com/ and click on the 360 degree picture to know what to expect.  If you do for some reason wish to say a few words and contact them by mail, e-mail, phone, or in person, don't make threats and keep it civil.  Thanks.

 http://advertising.gawker.com/contact/    lists the ff.:

Publishing & Editorial
Nick Denton: nick@gawker.com

Business Development
Erin Pettigrew: erin@gawker.com

Tom Plunkett: tom@gawker.com

Andrew Gorenstein: andrew@gawker.com

Gawker Media
210 Elizabeth Street, Fourth Floor
New York, NY 10012

(212) 655-9524

Media Inquiries


Also check out Andrew Napolitano's article,

Individuals are sovereign – not the government



[Last updated January 10, 2012 to amend one sentence for clarification]

No comments:

Post a Comment