Blog

By John W. Whitehead

“It is often the case that police shootings, incidents where law enforcement officers pull the trigger on civilians, are left out of the conversation on gun violence. But a police officer shooting a civilian counts as gun violence. Every time an officer uses a gun against an innocent or an unarmed person contributes to the culture of gun violence in this country.”—Journalist Celisa Calacal

Yes, gun violence is a problem in America, although violent crime generally remains at an all-time low.

Yes, mass shootings are a problem in America, although while they are getting deadlier, they are not getting more frequent.

Yes, mentally ill individuals embarking on mass shooting sprees are a problem in America.

However, tighter gun control laws and so-called “intelligent” background checks fail to protect the public from the most egregious perpetrator of gun violence in America: the U.S. government.

Consider that five years after police shot and killed an unarmed 18-year-old man in Ferguson, Missouri, there has been no relief from the government’s gun violence.

Here’s what we’ve learned about the government’s gun violence since Ferguson, according to The Washington Post: If you’re a black American, you’ve got a greater chance of being shot by police. If you’re an unarmed black man, you’re four times more likely to be killed by police than an unarmed white man. Most people killed by police are young men. Since 2015, police have shot and killed an average of 3 people per day. More than 2,500 police departments have shot and killed at least one person since 2015. And while the vast majority of people shot and killed by police are armed, their weapons ranged from guns to knives to toyguns.

Clearly, the U.S. government is not making America any safer.

Indeed, the government’s gun violence—inflicted on unarmed individuals by battlefield-trained SWAT teams, militarized police, and bureaucratic government agents trained to shoot first and ask questions later—poses a greater threat to the safety and security of the nation than any mass shooter.

According to journalist Matt Agorist, “mass shootings … have claimed the lives of 339 people since 2015… [D]uring this same time frame, police in America have claimed the lives of 4,355 citizens.”

That’s 1200% more people killed by police than mass shooters since 2015.

For example, in Texas, a police officer sent to do a welfare check on a 30-year-old woman seen lying on the grass near a shopping center, took aim at the woman’s dog as it ran towards him barking, fired multiple times, and killed the woman instead.

In Chicago, a SWAT team—wearing “army fatigues with black cloth covering their faces and wearing goggles,” armed with automatic rifles, and throwing flash-bang grenades—crashed through the doors of a suburban home and proceeded to storm into bedrooms, holding the children of the household at gunpoint. One child, 13-year-old Amir, was “accidentally” shot in the knee by police while sitting on his bed.

In St. Louis, Missouri, a SWAT team on a mission to deliver an administrative warrant carried out a no-knock raid that ended with police kicking in the homeowner’s front door, and shooting and killing her dog—all over an unpaid gas bill. Taxpayers will have to find $750,000 to settle the lawsuit arising over the cops’ overzealous tactics.

In South Carolina, a 62-year-old homeowner was shot four times through his front door by police who were investigating a medical-assist alarm call that originated from a cell phone inside the home. Dick Tench, believing his house was being broken into, was standing in the foyer of his home armed with a handgun when police, peering through the front door, fired several shots through the door, hitting Tench in the pelvis and the aortic artery. Tench survived, but the bullet lodged in his pelvis will stay there for life.

In Kansas, a SWAT team, attempting to carry out a routine search warrant (the suspect had already been arrested), showed up at a residence around dinnertime, dressed in tactical gear with weapons drawn, and hurled a flash-bang grenade into the house past the 68-year-old woman who was in the process of opening the door to them and in the general direction of a 2-year-old child.

These are just a few recent examples among hundreds this year alone.

Curiously enough, in the midst of the finger-pointing over the latest round of mass shootings, Americans have been so focused on debating who or what is responsible for gun violence—the guns, the gun owners, the Second Amendment, the politicians, or our violent culture—that they have overlooked the fact that the systemic violence being perpetrated by agents of the government has done more collective harm to the American people and their liberties than any single act of terror or mass shooting.

Violence has become our government’s calling card, starting at the top and trickling down, from the more than 80,000 SWAT team raids carried out every year on unsuspecting Americans by heavily armed, black-garbed commandos and the increasingly rapid militarization of local police forces across the country to the drone killings used to target insurgents.

The government even exports violence worldwide, with one of this country’s most profitable exports being weapons. Indeed, the United States, the world’s largest exporter of arms, has been selling violence to the world for too long now. Controlling more than 50 percent of the global weaponry market, the U.S. has sold or donated weapons to at least 96 countries in the past five years, including the Middle East. The U.S. also provides countries such as Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and Iraq with grants and loans through the Foreign Military Financing program to purchase military weapons.

At the same time that the U.S. is equipping nearly half the world with deadly weapons, profiting to the tune of $36.2 billion, its leaders have also been lecturing American citizens on the dangers of gun violence and working to enact measures that would make it more difficult for Americans to acquire certain weapons.

Talk about an absurd double standard.

If we’re truly going to get serious about gun violence, why not start by scaling back the American police state’s weapons of war?

I’ll tell you why: because  the government has no intention of scaling back on its weapons.

In fact, all the while gun critics continue to clamor for bans on military-style assault weapons, high-capacity magazines and armor-piercing bullets, the U.S. military is passing them out to domestic police forces.

Under the auspices of a military “recycling” program, which allows local police agencies to acquire military-grade weaponry and equipment, more than $4.2 billion worth of equipment has been transferred from the Defense Department to domestic police agencies since 1990. Included among these “gifts” are tank-like, 20-ton Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles, tactical gear, and assault rifles.

There are now reportedly more bureaucratic (non-military) government agents armed with high-tech, deadly weapons than U.S. Marines.

While Americans have to jump through an increasing number of hoops in order to own a gun, the government is arming its own civilian employees to the hilt with guns, ammunition and military-style equipment, authorizing them to make arrests, and training them in military tactics.

Among the agencies being supplied with night-vision equipment, body armor, hollow-point bullets, shotguns, drones, assault rifles and LP gas cannons are the Smithsonian, U.S. Mint, Health and Human Services, IRS, FDA, Small Business Administration, Social Security Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Education Department, Energy Department, Bureau of Engraving and Printing and an assortment of public universities.

Seriously, why do IRS agents need AR-15 rifles?

For that matter, why do police need armored personnel carriers with gun ports, compact submachine guns with 30-round magazines, precision battlefield sniper rifles, and military-grade assault-style rifles and carbines?

Short answer: they don’t.

In the hands of government agents, whether they are members of the military, law enforcement or some other government agency, these weapons have become routine parts of America’s day-to-day life, a byproduct of the rapid militarization of law enforcement over the past several decades.

Over the course of 30 years, police officers in jack boots holding assault rifles have become fairly common in small town communities across the country. As investigative journalists Andrew Becker and G.W. Schulz reveal, “Many police, including beat cops, now routinely carry assault rifles. Combined with body armor and other apparel, many officers look more and more like combat troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Does this sound like a country under martial law?

You want to talk about gun violence? While it still technically remains legal for the average citizen to own a firearm in America, possessing one can now get you pulled over, searched, arrested, subjected to all manner of surveillance, treated as a suspect without ever having committed a crime, shot at and killed by police.

You don’t even have to have a gun or a look-alike gun, such as a BB gun, in your possession to be singled out and killed by police.

There are countless incidents that happen every day in which Americans are shot, stripped, searched, choked, beaten and tasered by police for little more than daring to frown, smile, question, or challenge an order.

Growing numbers of unarmed people are being shot and killed for just standing a certain way, or moving a certain way, or holding something—anything—that police could misinterpret to be a gun, or igniting some trigger-centric fear in a police officer’s mind that has nothing to do with an actual threat to their safety.

With alarming regularity, unarmed men, women, children and even pets are being gunned down by twitchy, hyper-sensitive, easily-spooked police officers who shoot first and ask questions later, and all the government does is shrug, and promise to do better, all the while the cops are granted qualified immunity.

Killed for standing in a “shooting stance.” In California, police opened fire on and killed a mentally challenged—unarmed—black man within minutes of arriving on the scene, allegedly because he removed a vape smoking device from his pocket and took a “shooting stance.”

Killed for holding a cell phone. Police in Arizona shot a man who was running away from U.S. Marshals after he refused to drop an object that turned out to be a cellphone. Similarly, police in Sacramento fired 20 shots at an unarmed, 22-year-old black man who was standing in his grandparents’ backyard after mistaking his cellphone for a gun.

Killed for carrying a baseball bat. Responding to a domestic disturbance call, Chicago police shot and killed 19-year-old college student Quintonio LeGrier who had reportedly been experiencing mental health problems and was carrying a baseball bat around the apartment where he and his father lived.

Killed for opening the front door. Bettie Jones, who lived on the floor below LeGrier, was also fatally shot—this time, accidentally—when she attempted to open the front door for police.

Killed for running towards police with a metal spoon. In Alabama, police shot and killed a 50-year-old man who reportedly charged a police officer while holding “a large metal spoon in a threatening manner.”

Killed for running while holding a tree branch. Georgia police shot and killed a 47-year-old man wearing only shorts and tennis shoes who, when first encountered, was sitting in the woods against a tree, only to start running towards police holding a stick in an “aggressive manner.”

Killed for crawling around naked. Atlanta police shot and killed an unarmed man who was reported to have been “acting deranged, knocking on doors, crawling around on the ground naked.” Police fired two shots at the man after he reportedly started running towards them.

Killed for wearing dark pants and a basketball jersey. Donnell Thompson, a mentally disabled 27-year-old described as gentle and shy, was shot and killed after police—searching for a carjacking suspect reportedly wearing similar clothing—encountered him lying motionless in a neighborhood yard. Police “only” opened fire with an M4 rifle after Thompson first failed to respond to their flash bang grenades and then started running after being hit by foam bullets.

Killed for driving while deaf. In North Carolina, a state trooper shot and killed 29-year-old Daniel K. Harris—who was deaf—after Harris initially failed to pull over during a traffic stop.

Killed for being homeless. Los Angeles police shot an unarmed homeless man after he failed to stop riding his bicycle and then proceeded to run from police.

Killed for brandishing a shoehorn. John Wrana, a 95-year-old World War II veteran, lived in an assisted living center, used a walker to get around, and was shot and killed by police who mistook the shoehorn in his hand for a 2-foot-long machete and fired multiple beanbag rounds from a shotgun at close range.

Killed for having your car break down on the road. Terence Crutcher, unarmed and black, was shot and killed by Oklahoma police after his car broke down on the side of the road. Crutcher was shot in the back while walking towards his car with his hands up.

Killed for holding a garden hose. California police were ordered to pay $6.5 million after they opened fire on a man holding a garden hose, believing it to be a gun. Douglas Zerby was shot 12 times and pronounced dead on the scene.

Killed for calling 911. Justine Damond, a 40-year-old yoga instructor, was shot and killed by Minneapolis police, allegedly because they were startled by a loud noise in the vicinity just as she approached their patrol car. Damond, clad in pajamas, had called 911 to report a possible assault in her neighborhood.

Killed for looking for a parking spot. Richard Ferretti, a 52-year-old chef, was shot and killed by Philadelphia police who had been alerted to investigate a purple Dodge Caravan that was driving “suspiciously” through the neighborhood.

Shot seven times for peeing outdoors. Eighteen-year-old Keivon Young was shot seven times by police from behind while urinating outdoors. Young was just zipping up his pants when he heard a commotion behind him and then found himself struck by a hail of bullets from two undercover cops. Allegedly officers mistook Young—5’4,” 135 lbs., and guilty of nothing more than taking a leak outdoors—for a 6’ tall, 200 lb. murder suspect whom they later apprehended. Young was charged with felony resisting arrest and two counts of assaulting a peace officer.

This is what passes for policing in America today, folks, and it’s only getting worse.

In every one of these scenarios, police could have resorted to less lethal tactics.

They could have acted with reason and calculation instead of reacting with a killer instinct.

They could have attempted to de-escalate and defuse whatever perceived “threat” caused them to fear for their lives enough to react with lethal force.

That police instead chose to fatally resolve these encounters by using their guns on fellow citizens speaks volumes about what is wrong with policing in America today, where police officers are being dressed in the trappings of war, drilled in the deadly art of combat, and trained to look upon “every individual they interact with as an armed threat and every situation as a deadly force encounter in the making.”

Remember, to a hammer, all the world looks like a nail.

Yet as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, “we the people” are not just getting hammered.

We’re getting killed, execution-style.

Violence begets violence: until we start addressing the U.S. government’s part in creating, cultivating and abetting a culture of violence, we will continue to be a nation plagued by violence in our homes, in our schools, on our streets and in our affairs of state, both foreign and domestic.

---

ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People  is available at www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org.

By: Suzanne Sherman

The impulse to turn everything into a federal case – even something a personal as an obscene finger gesture – flips the middle finger at the political system the founders created.

Whether you agree with the behavior or not, the “right” to wave your middle finger at police officers has been declared expression protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Debra Cruise-Gulyas was stopped by Officer Matthew Wayne Minard in Taylor, Michigan, back in 2017; at that time, Minard cited her for a non-moving violation. As she drove away, Cruise-Gulyas waved her middle finger at Officer Minard, who responded by pulling her over a second time; at this point, he revised her citation to a moving violation.

At issue is whether the second stop was lawful. To be so within the constitutional system as originally intended, this woman’s expression must be protected by the laws and the constitution of the State of Michigan — not the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. But predictably, all of the analysis in the media has turned to the following issue: is waving the middle finger at a police officer speech protected by the U.S. Constitution?

Judge Jeffrey Sutton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit answered in the affirmative. He wrote in his opinion that “fits of rudeness or lack of gratitude may violate the Golden Rule. But that doesn’t make them illegal or for that matter punishable.” He also explained that “Any reasonable officer would know that a citizen who raises her middle finger engages in speech protected by the First Amendment.”

Constitutional History

The First Amendment reads, in relevant part: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…” Taken absent any historical context, (and ignoring the very first word — Congress) the Court’s opinion is in conformance with mainstream interpretations of Constitutional guarantees and is celebrated as such. But is this interpretation in conformance with the document as proposed to and ratified by the States?

The powers delegated to Congress by the States are enumerated in Article I, section 8 of the Constitution. Speech, religion, the press, arms, searches and seizures, procedural due process, for example, were left out of the main body of the Constitution. Fearing the general government would tread beyond the powers specifically delegated to it, some States refused to ratify unless changes (amendments) were added to guarantee their powers and the rights of individuals would not be usurped. A Bill of Rights was added, not to guarantee, grant or protect the rights included therein, but to gain the confidence in the people that the new government would not encroach upon them.

Many people are not aware that there is a preamble to the Bill of Rights, which states, in part, the following:

“The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.” (emphasis added)

Accordingly, the behavior at issue in this case, considered speech, is clearly outside the delegated power of the general government; meaning, this matter is historically outside the purview of the federal judiciary.

Because the general government was prohibited from legislating or reviewing such laws, the Tenth Amendment becomes operative, and it states the following:

“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.”

James Madison, who proposed a strong central government at the Philadelphia Convention, after his Virginia Plan was rejected outright, explained the role of the new government as follows in his Federalist #45:

“The powers delegated to the proposed Constitution to the federal govern, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite…The powers reserved to the several states will…concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the states.”

The Bill of Rights was never understood to be applicable to the States. There is no historical evidence to support this notion. Even ardent nationalist John Marshall, in the 1833 case Barron v. Baltimore admitted such when he said that the first ten “amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply to them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them.”

The Incorporation Doctrine

In 1925, in Gitlow v. New York, the United States Supreme Court magically “found” the authority to apply the Bill of Rights against the States supposedly hidden away in the 14th Amendment. This creation of law by the Court is both problematic and unsupported by historical records. The amendment was proposed by the 39th Congress. It did not intend incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the States. However, by this time, the Progressive era was in full swing and the Supreme Court was on a mission to rewrite the Constitution, diminishing the “separation of powers” between the States and the general government. The system created was “federal” and not “national” in nature, meaning the States were to work in unison with, not be subservient to the general government. The incorporation of the Bill of Rights was made up by a federal court, and has been the chief mechanism through with a “one-size-fits-all” form of government, with all rights and powers emanating from Washington, D.C., has arisen.

Constitutional Law

As I have said many times before, Constitutional law is not the same thing as Constitutional history; the former is the creation of mostly left-leaning federal judges who interpret the document to support the policy outcomes they desire. Typically, this results in powers the states never delegated being brought within the realm of control of the national government. This in contravention to the purpose and intent of the document as ratified — meaning, that which the states and the people through their state delegates consented.

Applying History to the Present Case

The general government was empowered to punish three crimes only: treason, piracy on the high seas, and counterfeiting. Accordingly, pursuant to Article I, section 8, the Bill of Rights, and the intent of the 14th Amendment, the ruling of the 6th District court is incorrect; in fact, they never should have heard it in the first place.

As stated above, the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to instill confidence in the public that only specifically-listed powers fall under the authority of the general government; it is more accurately a bill of restrictions. To say the natural rights expressed therein are “Constitutional” rights ignores the fact that the politicians take the opportunity to regulate them, even if they were prohibited from doing so from the very beginning. If properly understood as restrictions, then there is no latitude for Congress to usurp these rights.

How police and the citizens of the states interact, and how such conduct is to be regulated is outside the role of general government. Taking such a case to the federal judiciary is also extremely risky; imagine if they ruled to the contrary, and we end up with an opinion that affects the rights and ability of every person on this continental land mass to express themselves, with or without dignity and respect.

If we accept the notion that states and their citizens are not capable of dealing with such issues internally, without the wisdom of the federal judiciary, then we have accepted the notion that we are utterly incapable of self-governance. Worse yet, we have surrendered our revolutionary legacy.

Tags: 14th Amendment, First Amendment, Incorporation Doctrine

---

Suzanne Sherman

Suzanne is a licensed attorney who quit her practice to raise her children. In 2013, she left California to enjoy the peace and freedoms available in a remote location in the mountains of North Eastern Utah. She makes radio appearances, hosts a show and speaks on principles of federalism, history, and liberty. She can be reached at suzanne@littel.com https://www.suzannecsherman.com/

Be sure and visit our friends over at the Tenth Amendment Center and BamaCarry Inc.

By: Mike Maharrey

It never goes away – the myth of absolute federal supremacy.

I got an email from a Tenth Amendment Center volunteer in Illinois last week. He has been working to get the Fourth Amendment Protection Act introduced there. Passage of the bill would end state cooperation with unconstitutional federal warrantless surveillance. But he’s run into a bit of a snag. The senior attorney for the Senate Democrats told him that “all federal laws supersede state laws.”

Now, of course, the federal government is supreme. The Supremacy Clause in the Constitution makes this clear. But this notion that supremacy means the federal government can do anything it wants any time it wants is simply absurd.

Fact: The federal government is only supreme within its sphere.

Think about a referee in a football game. He is the supreme authority on the football field. But that supremacy doesn’t mean he can go to a baseball game and start calling balls and strikes. The baseball game lies outside of his sphere. He has no authority there.

The Supremacy Clause declares that the Constitution and all laws … “in pursuance thereof” are the supreme law of the land. Any actions that are not “in pursuance thereof” lie outside of the sphere of the federal government. They are not supreme. In fact, Alexander Hamilton called such laws “void.”

Hamilton laid out the scope of the federal government’s supremacy in Federalist #33.

“If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted to it by its constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies and the individuals of whom they are composed….But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. Hence we perceive that the clause which declares the supremacy of the laws of the Union, like the one we have just before considered, only declares a truth, which flows immediately and necessarily from the institution of a federal government. It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution.”

The Constitution limits federal supremacy to those objects falling within the general government’s delegated powers and not one iota beyond them.

St. George Tucker wrote the first extended, systematic commentary of on the Constitution shortly after ratification. For nearly half a century, it was one of the primary sources for law students, lawyers, judges and statesmen. His commentary echos Hamilton’s explanation in the Federalist.

It may seem extraordinary, that a people jealous of their liberty, and not insensible of the allurement of power, should have entrusted the federal government with such extensive authority as this article conveys: controlling not only the acts of their ordinary legislatures, but their very constitutions, also.

The most satisfactory answer seems to be, that the powers entrusted to the federal government being all positive, enumerated, defined, and limited to particular objects; and those objects such as relate more immediately to the intercourse with foreign nations, or the relation in respect to war or peace, in which we may stand with them; there can, in these respects, be little room for collision, or interference between ‘the states, whose jurisdiction may be regarded as confided to their own domestic concerns, and the United States, who have no right to interfere, or exercise a power in any case not delegated to them, or absolutely necessary to the execution of some delegated power.’

That, as this control cannot possibly extend beyond those objects to which the federal government is competent, under the constitution, and under the declaration contained in the twelfth article (Tenth Amendment), so neither ought the laws, or even the constitution of any state to impede the operation of the federal government in any case within the limits of its constitutional powers. That a law limited to such objects as may be authorized by the constitution, would, under the true construction of this clause, be the supreme law of the land; but a law not limited to those objects, or not made pursuant to the constitution, would not be the supreme law of the land, but an act of usurpation, and consequently void. [Emphasis added]

In a nutshell, the federal government does exercise supremacy, but only within its limited sphere. It is not an anything and everything proposition.

---

Mike Maharrey

Michael Maharrey [send him email] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center. He proudly resides in the original home of the Principles of ’98 – Kentucky. See his blog archive here and his article archive here. He is the author of the book, Our Last Hope: Rediscovering the Lost Path to Liberty. You can visit his personal website at MichaelMaharrey.com and like him on Facebook HERE

From the Virginia Citizens Defense League

Red Flag laws, also called Gun Violence Restraining Orders and Extreme Risk Protection Orders, are gun-confiscation laws disguised as “gun-violence prevention” laws that are being pushed hard at both the state and federal levels.  VCDL expects to be fighting Red Flag bills in the Virginia General Assembly in 2019.

Red Flag laws are really unconstitutional “prior restraint” laws that violate the protections found in the Bill of Rights, including the:

• Second Amendment (right to keep and bear arms)
• Fourth Amendment (protection against unreasonable search and seizures)
• Fifth Amendment (right to due process, just compensation, self-incrimination) and 
• Sixth Amendment (right to confront accusers, cross-examine witnesses, have a public defender)

And all of those violations of the Constitution based solely on an unnamed person’s secret allegation that someone else “might” do something dangerous to themselves or others in the future.  The State is supposed to punish those who have broken the law, not those who might break the law.

The person accused of being “dangerous” has not committed a crime and has no notice there is a problem until the police show up, pre-dawn, with guns drawn and confiscate the accused’s firearms. The accused is not given due process to defend himself or herself in court from the accusation for weeks or months after the confiscation.  It is up to the accused to prove that he or she is not dangerous!  (How do you prove a negative? How do you prove you are not dangerous?)  Until such proof is provided to the Court’s satisfaction, the guns are not returned.  This could drag on for months, years, or indefinitely!

If a person is “too dangerous” to own a gun, then why is that person left walking around with the rest of us?  Can’t that “dangerous” person still commit suicide or harm others if they have the opportunity?  The answer to both questions is that Red Flag laws are about confiscating guns, not saving lives.

In Maryland, which recently enacted such a law, two-thirds of the requests for confiscation were deemed frivolous.  In other words, most of the requests that were denied were from people wanting to “get even” with someone else by making their lives miserable! But how many frivolous requests got through anyhow?

We do NOT want Red Flag laws in Virginia or anywhere else in America!

Click here to read more and to print out a flyer for sharing with as many people as you can – gun owners and non-gun owners alike (PDF)“.jpg” version for posting on social media

Maharrey’s Monday Musings

I can’t tell you how many times over the last week or so that I’ve heard somebody say, “I support the Second Amendment, but…”

This is a prime example of the principle that you can pretty much ignore everything a person says before the “but.” 

They don’t mean it.

If there is a “but” in a statement of support for the Second Amendment, the person doesn’t really support the Second Amendment.

I can’t emphasize this enough. There is no “but” in the Second Amendment. It simply says, “shall not infringe.”

Period.

End of story. 

This leads me to a second important point. I hear stuff like this all the time. “The Second Amendment does not give you the right to own an AR-15.”

This is actually true. It doesn’t give you the right to own an AR-15. The Second Amendment doesn’t give you any rights at all. It actually prohibits the federal government from infringing on a right you already have – the right to keep and bear arms. And yes. That includes an AR-15.

The first 10 amendments are restrictions on the federal government. They really should have called the Bill of Rights the “Bill of Restrictions.” That would have eliminated a lot of confusion. 

Here’s the key point: these restrictions on federal power are absolute. There are no exceptions. There are no asterisks. There are no “buts.”

Shall not infringe means shall not infringe!

Visit Michael Maharrey’s page. www.michaelmaharrey.com

By: Rob Natelson

A newly published document from America’s founding offers a clue.

When interpreting the Constitution, judges and scholars consider what people said about the document around the time it was adopted. Writings by the Constitution’s advocates explaining its meaning to the general public are particularly helpful, because Americans relied on those explanations in deciding to ratify the document.

The most famous writings of this kind were penned by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay and collected as “The Federalist.” But there were many others. Among the most important were newspaper op-eds produced by Tench Coxe.

Few people know of Coxe today, but during the founding era he was famous. He served in the Confederation Congress. After the Constitution was ratified he became our first assistant secretary of the treasury, working directly under Alexander Hamilton.

Public release of the proposed Constitution on Sept. 17, 1787 ignited a massive public debate. Opponents argued that if the instrument were ratified it would create an all-powerful central government. Coxe supported the Constitution — and like Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, he was frustrated by opponents’ misrepresentations.

Coxe wrote a series of op-eds to accurately explain the Constitution’s legal effect. His informal style was much easier to understand than the scholarly tone of The Federalist, and his articles became extremely popular.

Many of Coxe’s op-eds were republished long ago, but new ones sometimes surface. The editors of the Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution recently issued new volumes that include four productions by Coxe previously known to only a few dedicated scholars.

In a Pennsylvania Gazette article published February 20, 1788, Coxe addressed the right to keep and bear arms: “The power of the sword, [opponents] say … is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for THE POWERS OF THE SWORD ARE IN THE HANDS OF THE YEOMANRY OF AMERICA FROM SIXTEEN TO SIXTY … Who are the militia? are they not ourselves[?].”

Coxe added, “The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

In other words, all able-bodied adult men have the right to keep and bear arms — not just law enforcement and the military. (Since ratification of the 14th Amendment, women also possess the right.)

Coxe also addressed the kinds of arms included: “Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American.” In other words, the right to keep and bear includes military arms, not just hunting pieces. Rifles such as the AR-15 (misleadingly branded “assault weapons”) are protected — not despite the fact that they are military weapons, but precisely because they are military weapons!

Coxe’s view is hardly surprising to those of us who study the founders: The Revolutionary War had ended only five years before. If American citizens had not possessed military-style weapons, we would have lost.

Coxe wrote further, “Congress have no power to disarm the militia. What clause in the state or federal constitution hath given away that important right[?]”

This passage was composed well before the Second Amendment was proposed. Even then, Congress had no power to disarm the people. This was part of Coxe’s wider argument that federal powers were strictly limited. In other op-eds, Coxe listed many other matters outside the federal sphere and reserved exclusively to the states: education, social services, agriculture, most business regulation, and others.

Despite the fact that Americans relied on such representations when ratifying the Constitution, the federal government now asserts almost unlimited authority. Since politicians always seek to expand their power, that is understandable. Unfortunately, writers on the Constitution often pervert history and constitutional meaning to provide “cover” to the politicians. An example is the ludicrous claim — promoted by some leading law professors — that the Constitution’s Commerce Clause granted Congress vast power over our national life.

Tench Coxe’s writings provide a useful corrective. They are valuable reading for anyone who wants to understand what the Constitution actually says.

---

This article first appeared in the Daily Caller.

By: Mike Maharrey

Law enforcement lobbyists always oppose asset forfeiture reform, generally relying on the claim that seizing people’s stuff serves as a valuable crime-fighting tool. But a recent study conducted by a Seattle University economist for the Institute of Justice casts serious doubts on this claim, and many others touted by supporters of asset forfeiture.

The study found that increased forfeiture proceeds do not translate to an increase in the number of crimes solved despite the claim that they give law enforcement more crime-fighting resources. Nor do forfeiture proceeds correlate to lower the levels of drug use in the community. Furthermore, the study supports the belief that asset forfeiture leads to “policing for profit.” It revealed that forfeitures tend to increase when local economies struggle, suggesting law enforcement agencies use forfeiture money to plug budget holes.

Dr. Brian Kelly authored the study.

“These results add to a growing body of evidence suggesting that forfeiture’s value in crime fighting is exaggerated and that police do use forfeiture to raise revenue,” he said. “Given this evidence and the serious civil liberties concerns raised by forfeiture, forfeiture proponents should bear the burden of proof when opposing reforms that would keep police focused on fighting crime, not raising revenue.”

The study used local crime, drug use and economic data from a variety of federal sources with more than a decade’s worth of data from the Department of Justice’s equitable sharing program.

The scope of the federal asset forfeiture program is staggering. Between 2001 and 2017, the feds took in close to $40 billion, and the funds’ net assets have surpassed $4 billion in every year since 2013. Between 2000 and 2016, the federal government made more than 660,000 disbursements to state and local law enforcement agencies totaling over $6.8 billion.

Cops claim asset forfeiture proceeds make them more effective crime fighters. They insist additional resources allow them to purchase additional gear and fund special programs. But the study suggested that “forfeiture does not help police solve more crime. The results of these analyses were statistically insignificant at conventional levels, suggesting additional forfeiture revenue does not translate into more crimes solved.” And it doesn’t appear to lower levels of drug use either – one of the oft-stated claims made by police lobbyists supporting forfeiture.

For none of these illicit drug use measures did I find increases in equitable sharing proceeds led to subsequent reductions in use. In short, to the extent forfeiture advocates hope increasing enforcement through forfeiture will reduce drug use, this does not appear to be happening.”

While federal asset forfeiture doesn’t fight crime, it does incentivize state and local police in states with more stringent asset forfeiture procedures to circumvent their state laws and collect funds through the federal program.

“Equitable sharing may also circumvent democratic controls in potentially allowing state and local law enforcement to evade state laws that make forfeiture less lucrative or more difficult. A number of states allow agencies to keep less than 80 percent of forfeiture proceeds or offer more robust protections for property owners; a few have even abolished civil forfeiture entirely. Where a state does not expressly restrict equitable sharing participation, state and local agencies may seize on this loophole.”

A 2018 study bears this out. It found that “on average, agencies in states with the lowest financial incentives and the greatest protections for property owners took in more than twice as much equitable sharing money per agency as agencies in states with the highest incentives and poorest protections.”

This is why it is imperative that state asset forfeiture reforms include provisions to withdraw the state from the federal equitable sharing program.

In a nutshell, the study shows police arguments for forfeiture are basically all lies.

Institute of Justice senior legislative council Lee McGrath puts it more generously, saying the study proves it possible to undertake much-needed asset forfeiture reform without jeopardizing police effectiveness.

“Congress should abolish equitable sharing, and in the meantime, states should opt out of the program. And lawmakers should eliminate the financial incentives in both state and federal forfeiture laws that encourage the pursuit of revenue over the pursuit of justice.” [Emphasis added]

---

Mike Maharrey

Michael Maharrey [send him email] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center. He proudly resides in the original home of the Principles of ’98 – Kentucky. See his blog archive here and his article archive here. He is the author of the book, Our Last Hope: Rediscovering the Lost Path to Liberty. You can visit his personal website at MichaelMaharrey.com and like him on Facebook HERE

By: Suzanne Sherman

Many people simultaneously claim to support the Second Amendment while insisting the federal government should be able to ban “military-style weapons.” These are actually mutually exclusive positions. In fact, the whole purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure the people would always have access to “weapons of war.”

On February 14, 2018, Nicholas Cruz shot and killed 17 students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. Cruz, 19, had been suspended from the school for disciplinary reasons. Despite a long history of bad behavior, as well as attention from law enforcement, Cruz was not treated as a legitimate threat. In an attempt to reduce the school-to-prison pipeline, the district failed to report activities and generally kept him under the radar of local law enforcement agencies.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions also admitted that the FBI failed to act on numerous reports of erratic and threatening behavior on the part of Cruz.

Despite government failures at both the local and federal level, the public debate predictably turned to the issue of gun control with specific focus on the ban of “military style” rifles, or “assault rifles,” as they are often called. In one school, students were instructed to write letters to representatives asking them to implement stricter gun control regulations.

A common refrain from both sides of the debate is, “No one is saying that military weapons should be in the hands of civilians.”

Former President Barack Obama said, “Weapons of war have no place on our streets,” and, “our law enforcement officers should never be outgunned.”

Many conservative media pundits agree. In the process, they concede a crucial point that was a central reason for the ratification of the Second Amendment: The People must have the means by which they can resist a tyrannical government – means rendered ineffective if we surrender the right to be on a level playing field when it comes to firearms.

As Ryan McMaken explained in a recent article, the origins of the militia trace back to 17^th century England when Americans resisted the standing army sent by the king to crush dissent. McMaken shares the insight of British historian Marcus Canliffe regarding the origins of American military institutions and the compromises reached between a centralized military capable of suppressing dissent and a reasonable force needed to maintain order:

 “A compromise was reached. First, a small regular force was to be maintained: this was the actual foundation of the British standing army. Second, there was to be a nationwide militia, composed of civilians who would — as in earlier days — be summoned in time of need. The militia, however, was to be under civil law, and to be organized locally by the lord lieutenant of each county. It was thus decentralized and divorced from royal control.”

In the colonies, standing armies were viewed with skepticism (hatred, actually), and this was especially so after the British Army was sent as an ultimate enforcement mechanism for the various taxes and other acts imposed on the colonies by the Crown. As the Constitution was being discussed and debated, one of the most hotly contested objects relating to the powers of the new Congress was its ability to raise armies.

During the Virginia Convention, Patrick Henry famously observed that “A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment?”

Henry went on to say that “the clause before you gives a power of direct taxation, unbounded and unlimited, exclusive power of legislation, in all cases whatsoever, for ten miles square, and over all places purchased for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, &c. What resistance could be made?”

Henry’s denunciation clearly and emphatically rejected the centralization of power. He feared to give what he called a “central government” the power over both the sword and the purse. He observed that any attempt to restrain government in such an instance “would be madness” and thundered “you will find all the strength of this country in the hands of your enemies; their garrisons will naturally be the strongest places in the country. Your militia is given up to Congress, also, in another part of this plan: they will therefore act as they think proper: all power will be in their own possession. You cannot force them to receive their punishment”. Henry concluded this opening barrage by asking “of what service would militia be to you, when, most probably, you will not have a single musket in the state? for, as arms are to be provided by Congress, they may or may not furnish them.”

This proclamation by Henry provides a succinct summation of the general beliefs of a large portion of Americans during the ratification period, a belief which led directly to the establishment and adoption of the Second Amendment.

Most States, Virginia included, ratified the Constitution on the basis that “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” upon the general government should be added. And among the specifics, Virginia asserted in her ratification instrument that “the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that 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.” [Emphasis added]

Virginia declared as a condition of ratification that “standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.” [Emphasis added]

Likewise, New York, as a condition of ratification, insisted very similarly to Virginia that “That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State; That the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law except in time of War, Rebellion or Insurrection. That standing Armies in time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in Cases of necessity; and that at all times, the Military should be under strict Subordination to the civil Power.”

Clause XIII of the Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights guarantees “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.” [Emphasis added]

Suffice to say that the founding generation had an immense and universal fear of standing armies. James Madison explained that “a standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty.” St. George Tucker wrote the first systematic commentary on the Constitution. He provided further context to the right to bear arms and its role in preventing standing armies when he pointed out, “Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” A more thorough discussion of these concepts can be found HERE.

The Second Amendment thus came about as a means of preventing the need for standing armies by keeping “the militia,” or as George Mason asserted “every able bodied person,” under the auspices of the individual states – in other words, out of the immediate control of the general government.

In his book The Founders’ Second Amendment, Stephen P. Halbrook describes Pennsylvania Senator William McClay’s concerns as written during notes from debates that would result in the enactment of the 1792 federal Militia Act; namely, that Alexander Hamilton and his faction were instigating war with American Indians and foreign nations to justify raising an army that would “awe our Citizens into submission.”

Roger Sherman of Connecticut commented that man had an essential right “to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made.” [Emphasis added.]

The intent of the Constitution and historical background are irrefutable: a civilian, decentralized force was viewed as the optimal means by which forces loyal to a king, or central government could be held in check, should they become tyrannical in nature. The government, the media and the education system have successfully indoctrinated the people into believing that their safety lies in their ability to defend themselves but only extends so far as to render us subservient to the capabilities of the government to defend itself from us.

In other words, the polar opposite of the purpose of the Second Amendment.

In 1794, George Washington marched troops into Pennsylvania, absent the required request from the governor, to quell a rebellion over a Whiskey Tax. The Whiskey Rebellion came about after the urban/Hamiltonian faction of government used its power to impose a tax on its opposition, the agrarian/Jeffersonians. When the rebellion occurred, the federal government used its might to suppress opposition in a manner in contravention to the law.

From Wounded Knee to Waco, we can see what happens when a civilian population is unable to defend itself from government. Worldwide, over two hundred million lives have been lost after governments disarmed their citizenry.

Yet we continue to buy into the insane notion that “We the People” are incapable of bearing arms equal in power and effectiveness of that of the military, the standing army. Even the definition of commonly-used firearms has been changed to fit the modern anti-gun narrative:

In his 1828 dictionary, Noah Webster described a musket, the weapon used by colonial militias, as “a species of firearms used in war.” In other words, it was once a given that civilians, i.e. the militia, would have the very same firearms as the military.

Merriam Webster recently changed its definition of “assault rifle” to the following: any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire; also : a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire (emphasis added).

A federal court in Massachusetts recently held that such rifles are not protected by the Second Amendment and may lawfully be subject to regulation, and even an outright ban. The ruling is problematic, however, for several reasons, the most blatant being a federal court was ruling on a state firearms law. Under the Constitution, as ratified, they have no legal authority to do so. According to the Tenth Amendment, this matter was reserved to the states when they ratified the Constitution.

Second, the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to any model or type of weapon; it applies to the general government, meaning Congress. The Amendment is not a means by which the right to keep and bear arms was granted to the people and the states. It is a restriction against the general government prohibiting it from regulating firearms at all.

Note the language used in the above case by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey:

“Today’s decision upholding the Assault Weapons Ban vindicates the right of the people of Massachusetts to protect themselves from these weapons of war…and we will not be intimidated by the gun lobby in our efforts to end the sale of assault weapons and protect our communities and schools.”

Those seeking to restrict the right to “weapons of war” cite D.C. vs. Heller, in which Justice Antonin Scalia explained that the Second Amendment “protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” What the Court is implying is that “assault rifles” are not subject to Second Amendment protection, which is, again, a total fallacy given the history and intent of the Constitution as ratified.

Rifles that simply look like military rifles are banned in many states, or at least must be registered. And now we are seeing bans in local communities as well. We have become so conditioned to this false notion that civilians should not be equally as well armed as the standing army the founders so distrusted, that now we are accepting bans on guns that simply resemble such weapons.

Patrick Henry’s worst fears have materialized and the general public, uneducated on their own history, is largely clueless.

Tenche Coxe writing in The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788, asked “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom?” He continued by affirming that “Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

With the average American gleaning their “understanding” of the Second Amendment in particular, and American history in general, from agenda-driven academics and talking heads in the media and on talk radio, such basic arguments are being capitulated. As a result, we are in the process of surrendering a fundamental tenet – our ability to defend ourselves from personal assault as well as from a proven threat by the very government imposing these unlawful restrictions. Our founders are rolling in their graves.

Note: Carl Jones contributed to this article. He is a former active duty U.S. Marine, and a Certified Firearms Instructor. He is a contributing writer for the Abbeville Institute and a member of the Society of Independent Southern Historians.

---

Suzanne Sherman

Suzanne is a licensed attorney who quit her practice to raise her children. In 2013, she left California to enjoy the peace and freedoms available in a remote location in the mountains of North Eastern Utah. She makes radio appearances, hosts a show and speaks on principles of federalism, history and liberty. She can be reached at suzanne@littel.comhttps://www.suzannecsherman.com/

---

Be sure and visit our friends over at the Tenth Amendment Center and Alabama’s BamaCarry Inc

By: Rob Natelson

This is the second article examining contributions to our understanding of the Constitution from the three brand new volumes of the Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution of the United States.

My first article observed that probably the greatest contribution of these three new volumes is reproduction, in indexed and easy-to-use hard copy form, of four essays by Tench Coxe.

Coxe was a Pennsylvania businessman, economist, and member of the Confederation Congress who later served as our first assistant secretary of the treasury. During late 1787 and throughout 1788 he wrote a series of essays urging the Constitution’s ratification. Coxe wrote under several pseudonyms, but all four essays in the new volumes were signed “A Pennsylvanian.”

Coxe’s essays were widely popular, and they unquestionably helped reconcile the American people to the new Constitution. Their analysis of the Constitution’s meaning help us reconstruct the original understanding behind the document.

My last article noted how the “Pennsylvanian” essays, particularly the third, explained the limits of federal power.  The third also contains information useful for understanding the Second Amendment. That amendment provides 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.”

Discussion of the right to keep and bear arms was not plentiful during the ratification debates. That is one reason opponents of the individual right to keep and bear arms could maintain for so long that the Second Amendment guarantees only a state power against the federal government.  Specifically, opponents argued that the term “militia” refers only to the relatively small body of soldiers actively under arms and supervised by each state.

Advocates of the “individual right” theory countered that during the Founding Era the term “militia” referred to the citizenry generally, or at least to all able-bodied men between certain ages. This position was supported by James Madison’s Federalist No. 46, in which he referred to an American “militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands.” (The number “half a million” approximated the number of able bodied men out of the population of the time.) Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist No. 29 provided some support for the “individual right” interpretation as well.

But still, these writings did not state unequivocately that all able-bodied males were in the militia; to conclude that, one had to make inferences.

However, the writings of Tench Coxe were more direct. In his third “Pennsylvanian” essay he wrote as follows: (Capitalization and italics are his.)

The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for THE POWERS OF THE SWORD ARE IN THE HANDS OF THE YEOMANRY OF AMERICA FROM SIXTEEN TO SIXTY. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American. What clause in the state or federal constitution hath given away that important right . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

This passage leaves nothing to inference: Coxe states explicitly that the militia consists of every man from 16 to 60 years of age.

Prior to the publication of these new volumes, only a few experts were familiar with this passage. For example, the Independence Institute’s David Kopel, the nation’s leading Second Amendment scholar, published an article 20 years ago that reproduced Coxe’s words. It appeared in Tench Coxe and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 1787-1823, 7 Wm. & Mary Bill of Rts J. 347 (1999).

However, publication of these new volumes enables us all to read this passage in accessible form—and in the context of Coxe’s entire essay.

---

Rob Natelson

In private life, Rob Natelson is a long-time conservative/free market activist, but professionally he is a constitutional scholar whose meticulous studies of the Constitution’s original meaning have been repeatedly cited in U.S. Supreme Court opinions and published or cited by many top law journals (See: https://i2i.org/author/rob/) He co-authored The Origins of the Necessary and Proper Clause (Cambridge University Press) and The Original Constitution (Tenth Amendment Center). He was a law professor for 25 years and taught constitutional law and related courses. He is the Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence at Colorado’s Independence Institute.

---

Be sure and visit our friends over at the Tenth Amendment Center and Alabama’s BamaCarry Inc

By: TJ Martinell

Two hundred and twenty-seven years ago this past May, the U.S. Congress passed the Militia Acts of 1792. This pair of bills authorized the president to lead the state militias in war and to conscript all able-bodied free men to fight with self-provided arms and munitions.

To a modern American living in the midst of an empire with a permanent military presence both here and abroad, there might be little reason to acknowledge this anniversary. However, it offers an example of how the founders believed military defense and war should be handled, and why so many modern arguments against civilian gun ownership don’t match the history.

The first Militia Act was passed on May 2, followed shortly thereafter by the second Act on May 8. The first act gave the president the power to call up the militia “whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe.” The second Act called on every “free able-bodied white male citizen” between the ages of 18-45 to join a militia.

Why are these laws relevant today?

We live in a time when Americans are told by self-appointed “wise overlords” that the founders never intended for private citizens to have military weapons. Incidentally, they never cite anyplace that the founders made this assertion, nor where they declared their love for intervening in other countries’ domestic affairs, endless unconstitutional wars, and a permanent military with bases in foreign nations for that matter. This argument is used to justify gun control policies that restrict our right to keep and bear arms as described in the Second Amendment.

The reality is that many in the founding generation were terrified of a permanent, standing army that could crush liberties at home. This fear was a major theme during the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788. In fact, the convention’s proposed Second Amendment text makes it clear why it was so important that the proposed central government had no say in the possession of firearms by Americans (bold emphasis added):

That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that 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; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

The convention’s “Second Amendment” draft also provides another glimpse into their worldview. The country’s defense was to come from the people, not an army held to a different legal standard. There was no separation between soldier and civilian. At the convention, George Mason referred to the militia as “the whole of the people.” In every colony besides Pennsylvania, able-bodied men not only had to join a militia and show up to musters, but they had to furnish their own functioning arms.

The Militia Acts show that this tradition carried on through Colonial America into its history as an independent country apart from Great Britain and under the newly-approved U.S. Constitution.

Under the Militia Acts, the militia members had to bring the following:

A good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutered and provided.

The militiamen were to be armed with their own weapons, not ones provided and owned by the federal government.

Now some might argue the U.S. government lacked the financial resources it does today, but that’s why it’s important to look at the broader context of the law. The founders did not want a standing army, and there were no calls for these men to surrender their personal firearms once a military crisis had been addressed.

Ultimately, free men must be the ones responsible for defending their liberties and their country if that freedom is to last. The founders believed that, and it’s why they favored a militia-style military composed self-equipped men, which would reduce the risk of a standing army that would take that responsibility away. If free men are not responsible, then they are not really in charge – and thus they are not truly free.

A constitutionalist or someone sympathetic to anti-federalist concerns might take issue with the law and how it was used to call up the militia during the Whiskey Rebellion. However, the Militia Acts offer reveal the blueprint for how the founders believed wars should be fought, and why they made it clear the central government should have no right to infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms.

---

TJ Martinell

TJ Martinell is an author, writer, and award-winning reporter from Washington state. His dystopian novel The Stringers depicting a neo-Prohibition Era in the city of Seattle is available on Amazon.

Visit his personal site at www.tjmartinell.com. Join his Facebook page here. Listen to his weekly podcast on Sound Cloud.http://www.tjmartinell.com

---

Please visit our friends at the Tenth Amendment Center and BamaCarry Inc