Gun Control

The founding fathers clearly secured the right of “We the People” to bear arms in defense of himself or the State, as an absolute right and that no law can “be passed to infringe upon or impair it because it is above the law, and independent of lawmaking.” The globalists who seek a tyrannous world government under their elite control have slowly eroded this platform and are trying to repeal the 2nd amendment using false flags, lies, and propaganda to brainwash the masses that it is a necessity to reduce gun violence. Dr. John Lott of the Crime Prevention Center has the stats to prove that (1) more guns equals less crime and less guns equals more crime; (2) expanding background checks doesn’t cut down on gun violence; (3) how gun free zones leave innocent Americans vulnerable, thus making them prime targets for mass shooters; (4) how the federal government and the institutional left are funding bogus health studies to undercut our Second Amendment rights; (5) why women concealed carry holders are surging; and (6) how the media is a total disaster when it comes to gun laws and the lexicon within the firearms industry that could prevent egregious mistakes in reporting gun crimes.

The 2nd Amendment (from FreedomOutpost)

Dan Zimmerman wrote an article on September 5, 2014, titled, The Second Amendment, the Founders and Original Intent. His article begins as shown below.

“Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. -Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States” -Noah Webster, 1787

Liberal propaganda aside, it’s very clear what the authors of the Second Amendment meant by “well regulated” They meant all those who could carry arms, organized when needed, to fight a corrupt federal government. So…who needs a select fire M-4 carbine? Every citizen who’s able to bear arms. That was the intent.”

Pay close attention to the last paragraph which shows that the intent was to ensure that the PEOPLE have a right to arm themselves with any weapon they had a right to buy. This includes the semi-automatic arms. It should be noted that before the government ruled that machine guns had to have a special license to obtain, machine guns were legal. It is the government that has made the decision that the Second Amendment does not mean what the Founding Fathers meant it to be. Why does the government want to remove guns from the citizens? We only have to go back in time to see just what happens when government removes all the weapons from the people.

“The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government. It is one of the “High Powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it because it is above the law, and independent of lawmaking.” Cockrum v State, 24Tex394 (1859)

We see a case that makes the statement about rights that are showing without a doubt that, “The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms, in a lawful defense of himself or the state, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government.”

This clearly shows that the right to bear arms is above the Second Amendment and cannot be violated. Yet, our government has slowly destroyed this platform and one has to wonder just what the government is doing. One also has to wonder just what is the end platform the government is looking for by attempting to destroy all the Second Amendment rights “WE THE PEOPLE” have?

We have seen the government in some instances go after our First Amendment rights so now they are viciously attacking our Second Amendment rights. “WE THE PEOPLE” have to pay attention to what is going on because if the Second Amendment is removed, “WE THE PEOPLE” have no way to keep the government removing other freedoms and beginning to control every facet of our lives. At that point, the term “WE THE PEOPLE” will lose all meaning due to the fact that the government will have control over nearly everything we do, think, or say. Let that sink in.

Let us look at some more of the ideas of the Second Amendment.

In 1867, Judge Timothy Farrar published his Manual of the Constitution of the United States of America, which was written when the Fourteenth Amendment was “in the process of adoption by the State legislatures.”

The States are recognized as governments, and, when their own constitutions permit, may do as they please; provided they do not interfere with the Constitution and laws of the United States, or with the civil or natural rights of the people recognized thereby, and held in conformity to them. The right of every person to “life, liberty, and property,” to “keep and bear arms,” to the “writ of habeas corpus” to “trial by jury,” and divers others, are recognized by, and held under, the Constitution of the United States, and cannot be infringed by individuals or even by the government itself.

Farrar, Timothy (1872). Manual of the Constitution of the United States of America. Little, Brown. Retrieved July 6,2013. § 34. The people of the United States, in making their Constitution, do not create or confer on themselves any new rights, but they expressly reserve all the rights they then held, except what were delegated for their own benefit; and they particularly and expressly recognize and perpetuate many natural and civil common-law rights, which, of course, are placed beyond the reach of any subordinate government, and even of their own. Among these are the following : 1. The right to be, what they call themselves, ‘the people of the United States,’ citizens, and component members of the body politic, – the nation; and to participate in all the privileges, immunities, and benefits the Constitution was designed to obtain or secure for all the American people, especially the right to be protected and governed according to the provisions of the Constitution. 2. A right to the privileges and immunities of citizens in any of the several States. Among these is the fundamental and elementary right of suffrage. The Representatives to the national and State legislatures must be chosen by the people, the citizens (Section 2). Consequently, the citizens must choose them, and have a right to choose them. Am. 14, § 2. 3. A right to the common-law writ of habeas corpus, to protect the other common-law right, as well as natural and constitutional right, of personal liberty. 4. A right to trial by jury in any criminal case. 5. A right to keep and bear arms. 6. A right to life, liberty, and property, unless deprived by due process of law. 7. A right to just compensation for private property legally taken for public use. 8. A right to participate in all rights retained by, or reserved to, the people. Most of these rights, with many others, belong by the Constitution not only to the citizens, – the people of the United States, strictly so called, by reason of the franchise of natural birth or otherwise, – but also to all persons who may be allowed to be and remain under the jurisdiction and protection of our government. These are a part only of the rights held by every member of the nation, under and by virtue of the Constitution of the United States, independent of any other earthly power, and which, of course, ‘cannot be destroyed or abridged by the laws of any particular State.’ Who, then, in the United States is destitute of rights?…The States are recognized as governments, and, when their own constitutions permit, may do as they please; provided they do not interfere with the Constitution and laws of the United States, or with the civil or natural rights of the people recognized thereby, and held in conformity to them. The right of every person to ‘life, liberty, and property,’ to ‘keep and bear arms,’ to the ‘writ of habeas corpus’ to ‘trial by jury,’ and divers others, are recognized by, and held under, the Constitution of the United States, and cannot be infringed by individuals or even by the government itself.

Given all the words from those who designed and wrote our Second Amendment, it would indicate that the idea to ensure the “People” have a right to own any arm that they wish was their intention.

Tom Clancy may well have stated it best about gun ownership.

“Switzerland is a land where crime is virtually unknown, yet most Swiss males are required by law to keep in their homes what amounts to a portable, personal machine gun.” –Tom Clancy

We need to look at what a patriot of the United States said to realize that the men who wrote the Constitution knew some bad people would try to take the guns.

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any body of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” – Noah Webster

So, given the idea of the Democrats (or globalists) who wish to disarm “WE THE PEOPLE,” are the Democrats about to create a standing army?  We have to ask this because to disarm the citizens is to make the government the one to enslave us all because we have no way to defend ourselves from any criminal which would have guns no matter how illegal it would be.

False Flags, Lies and Propaganda

A study of the numerous mass shootings that have taken place at schools and elsewhere will show that the official stories of these mass shootings don’t add up. Many point to involvement by the FBI or other agencies full of rogue agents and corrupt directors. The globalists are trying to manufacture reasons to regulate and confiscate guns, and along with the propaganda news networks like CNN, Americans are falsely being convinced that gun control is the answer.

Gun control propaganda worked in the UK after a mind-controlled individual killed 16 small children and their teacher in Dunblane, Scotland on March 13, 1996. About 10 months later, parliamentary laws were passed that said that possessing a gun in the UK meant 10 years in prison. Legislation was passed even faster in Australia when a gunman armed with an assault rifle killed 35 and wounded 19 in a massacre in Tasmania, Australia on March 28, 1996-just two weeks after the Dunblane shootings. (Coincidence that these two massacres occurred in quick succession of each other? Hardly.)

Dr. John Lott is the go-to expert when it comes to crime data and Second Amendment rights. His studies from the Crime Prevention Center have been cited in numerous pieces, including ones published on Townhall, about the Left’s incessant, and often ridiculous, efforts to strip Americans of their Second Amendment rights. His studies have proven that contrary to what the anti-gun Left says about concealed carry holders, they’re actually more law-abiding than law enforcement. It proved to be useful data when the Violence Policy Center, an anti-gun outfit, decided to push the narrative that concealed carry holders were killers by fudging the data between convictions and trials pending. The VPC combined the two to cook the books. As any lawyer would know, there’s an explicit difference between a conviction and a pending trial. He’s also taken a stab at the whole myth about background checks, which isn’t the magic bullet to creating safer communities.

“I would ask gun control advocates one question:  name a single place in the entire world where murder rates fell after gun control laws were passed.”

Two decades have passed since More Guns, Less Crime was released in 1998, immediately remaking the gun rights debate landscape.  Not a single antagonist has refuted his empirical conclusion that more firearms result in reduced crime. Lott, who brought an economist’s empiricism to a debate saturated in passion but short on probative data, proposed “a critical review of the existing evidence on gun control and crime.”  Accordingly, he asked:  “Does allowing people to own or carry guns deter violent crime, or does it simply cause more citizens to harm each other?” Lott’s objective conclusion was controversial in 1998, less so today.

Based upon broad data sources and examination of FBI annual crime figures for all 3,054 American counties spanning sixteen years, he found that waiting periods, gun buybacks and background checks “yield virtually no benefits in crime reduction.”  In contrast, Lott observed that “of all the methods studied so far by economists, the carrying of concealed handguns appears to be the most cost-effective method for reducing crime.”

Addressed by the third edition was the federal “assault weapons” legislation, which took effect in 1994 but terminated in 2004.  Gun control advocates predicted an explosion in murder and violent crime when the ban expired, but rates actually declined substantively.  As Lott noted, “rarely do we get a chance to look at the impact of gun laws when they are first passed and then when they are eliminated.

As noted above, Dr. Lott has not encountered a single jurisdiction in the entire world where imposing gun control laws triggered a decline in murder rates. The bottom line today, just as was true in 1998, is that “the very rules that seek to save lives can result in more deaths.”  Dr. Lott has thus provided an invaluable service to America and the world audience generally. Years of experience and mountains of data confirm the empirical truth – more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens mean less crime.

In Oregon, Christopher Harper-Mercer was able to kill nine people at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg. Oregon has a universal background check law for all gun purchases. Yet, Lott took this talking point to task in 2013, when Congress was mulling a universal background check bill by Sens. Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) post-Newtown. For starters, the media was blitzing the scene, rehashing the 40 percent myth—the false claim that 40 percent of all gun sales are performed without a background check—and delved into the realm of private purchases. Lott noted that the 40 percent myth is based on very old data, with a sample size that isn’t worth considering for any serious academic review. Also, the sales in the 251-person survey from which the 40 percent myth is derived were based on sales before the Brady bill mandated background checks on gun sales. Second, most private sales where background checks aren’t performed are mostly relegated to family purchases and fall within the low single digits overall. Other than that, there’s really no hard data on private sales.

When it comes to the gun control debate, there are two kinds of data: data that’s accurate, and data that left-wing billionaires, politicians, and media want you to believe is accurate. In The War on Guns, economist and gun rights advocate John Lott turns a skeptical eye to well-funded anti-gun studies and stories that perpetuate false statistics to frighten Americans into giving up their guns.

Yet, for everything that Dr. Lott has done in various publications and studies over the years, he’s now compiled in one simple book: The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies. It’s one massive triggering event for any pro-gun control liberal. It details how expanding background checks doesn’t cut down on gun violence; how gun free zones leave innocent Americans vulnerable, thus making them prime targets for mass shooters; how the federal government and the institutional left are funding bogus health studies to undercut our Second Amendment rights; why women concealed carry holders are surging; and how the media is a total disaster when it comes to gun laws and the lexicon within the firearms industry that could prevent egregious mistakes in reporting gun crimes. For example, how many times have you heard a news organization demonize semiautomatic weapons, which are really quite readily available for civilian use? In fact, the vast majority of gun owners in America probably own a semiautomatic firearm.

Here are some excerpts from his book relating to the media spin and the failure of gun registries, which is one of the main courses served by anti-gun liberals as some way to help make communities safer. In actuality, it sends the message that gun owners are criminals in waiting, and that to exercise one’s right to own a gun requires them to submit their personal information to the government. It’s atrocious:

The Media Spin

The media not only ignores positive examples of defensive gun use; news reports about the scientific side of the gun control debate are just as unbalanced. Coverage generally focuses on interviewing pro-gun control academics and questioning a gun shop owner or an NRA spokesperson for the other side of the argument. Of course, the New York Times will never run a news article on studies that find that guns save lives. Even when they write about studies supporting gun control, newspapers choose only to present comments by academics who support gun control. These articles give the impression that objective, qualified scientists are concerned about using gun control to save lives, while those with a profit or some other ulterior motive are willing to say anything to keep selling these lethal weapons. One of my books, The Bias Against Guns (2003), went through example after example of these one-sided reports in the media.

Unfortunately, little has changed. In January 2016, CNN ran a lengthy news story on studies that found gun control to be effective in preventing suicides. It wasn’t just my academic research that reporters ignored on this topic; there was also no mention of the National Research Council’s research showing that suicidal individuals had merely “substituted other methods of suicide.” Nor did the studies mentioned by CNN give any consideration to research which found that firearm suicides are not so much the product of higher gun ownership as factors related to rural areas (e.g., older men in rural areas are more likely to commit suicide because of the large male-to-female imbalance). (Also see this article)

Consider a December 2015 Deseret News article on how to curb mass shootings. The only academics interviewed were gun control advocates, namely Garen Wintemute of the UC-Davis Violence Prevention Research Program and Mark Rosenberg of the Task for Global Health. The only opposing perspective came from National Rifle Association spokeswoman Catherine Mortensen. Likewise, a January 2016 story in the New York Times on Obama’s new proposed gun control regulations balanced discussions with a pro-gun control professor and Bloomberg’s Everytown with some federally licensed gun dealers and gun owners.


Registration Failures

Whether in Canada, Hawaii, Chicago, or Washington, D.C., police are unable to point to a single instance of gun registration aiding the investigation of a violent crime. In a 2013 deposition, D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier said that the department could not “recall any specific instance where registration records were used to determine who committed a crime.”

The idea behind a registry is that guns left at a crime scene can be used to trace back to the criminals. Unfortunately, guns are very rarely left at the scene of the crime. Those that are left behind are virtually never registered—criminals are not stupid enough to leave behind guns registered to them. In the few cases where registered guns were left at the scene, the criminal had usually been killed or seriously injured.

Canada keeps some of the most thorough data on gun registration. From 2003 to 2009, a weapon was identified in fewer than a third of the country’s 1,314 firearm homicides. Of these identified weapons, only about a quarter were registered. Roughly half of these registered guns were registered to someone other than the person accused of the homicide. In just sixty-two cases—4.7 percent of all firearm homicides—was the gun identified as being registered to the accused. Since most Canadian homicides are not committed with a gun, these sixty-two cases correspond to only about 1 percent of all homicides. [End excerpt]

We must always be vigilant. Hawaii became the first state to require its gun-owning residents to be entered into a federal database. California keeps adding more anti-gun measures on its books as well. Lott’s book serves as a how-to guide in fighting these pernicious narratives that seek to undercut one of our most vital civil liberties. At the same time, liberal Democrats, especially Obama, have been the best sales team for guns over the past eight years, with over 100 million sold since 2009. We’ve seen gun sales break records consistently for months, as talk of new gun control measures from the Hill send law-abiding Americans flocking to their local FFL. Now, everyone has the ultimate guide to knowing facts about guns, the laws, the studies, and the politics to fight these left wing narratives about firearms wherever they may appear. Support for gun rights is at its highest point in 25 years, but you can never let your guard down against those who keep pushing these lies about the Second Amendment—looking at you Hillary Clinton.


See also: 5 Facts Proving “They’re Coming for your Guns” is not a Conspiracy Theory

Chronological History of Gun Control

Project Veritas Exposes Democrat Mark Kelly’s True Plans to Crack Down on Second Amendment Rights

Project Veritas Exposes Democrat Mark Kelly’s True Plans to Crack Down on Second Amendment Rights

James O’Keefe released Part 1 of his undercover videos on senate candidate Mark Kelly (D) and claimed Kelly “deceives AZ voters” as to the true nature of his gun control intentions. O’Keefe spoke with Angelica Carpio, a field organizer for Mission for Arizona. O’Keefe describes Mission for Arizona as “basically Arizona’s Democrat Party and an extension of the Mark Kelly campaign.” Carpio told O’Keefe, “[Kelly] just ...
Read More
Virginia Governor Abuses Law to Declare State of Emergency, Ban Guns for Planned Pro-gun Rally

Virginia Governor Abuses Law to Declare State of Emergency, Ban Guns for Planned Pro-gun Rally

As the Virginia State Legislature — now firmly in the hands of Democrats — prepares to push for what Republican Party of Virginia Chairman Jack Wilson calls “a disarmed, vulnerable, and subservient citizenry,” freedom-loving citizens of the Old Dominion planned a rally for Monday (the 20th of January) to voice their concerns and demand that their right to keep and bear arms is not infringed. In ...
Read More
VA Democrats Drop AR-15 Confiscation After 1000s of NRA Members Storm the Senate

VA Democrats Drop AR-15 Confiscation After 1000s of NRA Members Storm the Senate

Folks, pay attention because this is how you win against the tyrannical left. You show up.  Thanks to thousands of NRA members storming the Senate, Virginia Democrats have withdrawn their AR-15 confiscation bill. See how easy that was? Of course, there’s still a long, long road to go but this is the winning “recipe” to defeating these monsters. The NRA called on their members to flood ...
Read More
Netherlands: 44% of Women Feel Unsafe In Public Places

Netherlands: 44% of Women Feel Unsafe In Public Places

A stunning 44 percent of women in the Netherlands regularly feel unsafe in public spaces, according to findings of a large survey conducted by De Telegraaf. Over 1,000 female readers were polled on a series of questions pertaining to personal safety and security, and the results indicate a sizable portion of the country's female population is unable to comfortably move about in public on a consistent basis. "Avoid ...
Read More
TEXAS CHURCH SHOOTING: Shooter Gets Off Two Shots Before He’s Shot Dead

TEXAS CHURCH SHOOTING: Shooter Gets Off Two Shots Before He’s Shot Dead

As reported by Cassandra Fairbanks, two people were killed and one person is in critical condition after a shooting at the West Freeway Church of Christ in northwest Texas. The shooter was prevented from creating more carnage by armed members of the church, several of whom drew their own weapons in response to his attack, as well as a security guard. It has now been confirmed ...
Read More

Gun Safety

For those who own a gun or are considering owning a gun, following gun safety rules is a necessity. The 4 universal rules of gun safety are: (1) Treat all guns as if they are always loaded; (2) Never let the muzzle point at anything that you are not willing to destroy; (3) Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target and you have made the decision to shoot; and (4) Be sure of your target and what is behind it. Our friends at have provided a guide covering these 4 universal gun safety rules, explain the importance of each, followed by additional rules that everyone can benefit from. Read More…

Firearm Registration

As any student of history knows, gun control figures prominently in the designs of totalitarian states. These features recur: (1) Centralization of the police force with a vast network of surveillance and informants to spy on citizens; (2) National identification cards for all citizens; and (3) Civilian disarmament via gun registration, and licensing, followed by banning and confiscation of firearms. Once this mechanism of oppression is firmly in place, persecution and elimination of political opponents follow, and every social, political, and economic policy the Total State desires can be implemented. This has happened in National Socialist states like Nazi Germany, fascist states like Italy under Mussolini, and communist powers such as the former Soviet Union (and its satellites behind the Iron Curtain) and Red China. It is therefore astonishing and disturbing that Americans have been assailed in the last several years by dangerous political proposals that threaten the individual liberties our Founding Fathers bequeathed to us.

Unbeknownst to many Americans, who have seen and experienced mostly the goodness of America, gun registration is the gateway to civilian disarmament, which often precedes genocide. In the monumental book Lethal Laws* we learn that authoritarian governments that conducted genocide and mass killings of their own populations first disarmed their citizens. The recipe for accomplishing this goal was: demonizing of guns, registration, banning and confiscation, and finally total civilian disarmament. Enslavement of the people then followed with limited resistance, as in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Red China, Cuba, and other totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century.

* Jay Simkin, Aaron Zelman, and Alan M. Rice (Milwaukee: Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership, 1994);

When presented with these deadly chronicles and the perilous historic sequence, Americans often opine that it cannot happen here. As to the dangers of licensing of gun owners and registration of firearms, they frequently retort, “If you don’t have anything to hide, then you don’t have anything to fear!” Followed by, “I see nothing wrong with gun registration because we have to do something; there are just too many guns out there that fall into the wrong hands.” These naive attitudes ignore the penchant of governments to accrue power at the expense of the liberties of individuals.

A brief glance at history will tell you that emperors and tyrants have been trying to expand their power and influence over greater and greater areas for centuries. It just happens that today it can be done on a global scale like never before today and a brief glance through this site will prove that tyrants have agents throughout America working to take away our God-given liberty and remove power from the people and place it into the hands of the elite. They are few, but wealthy and powerful, so gun control is a necessity in order to create a new world order.

Civilian disarmament is not only harmful to one’s freedom but also counterproductive in achieving safety. That has been further attested by University of Hawaii Professor R. J. Rummel’s Death by Government (1994) and Stéphane Courtois’s edited volume, The Black Book of Communism (1999). These books make it clear that authoritarianism and totalitarianism are dangerous to the health of humanity. During the twentieth century, more than 100 million people were killed by their own governments bent on destroying liberty and building socialism and collectivism.

When Cubans lost their guns in 1959 they also lost their ability to regain freedom. Thus today, Cubans on the other side of the Florida Strait remain enslaved in what was supposed to have been the dream of a socialist utopia, the ultimate Caribbean Worker’s Paradise. What they ended up with was the nightmare of a police state in a communist island prison.

Americans must vigilantly protect their sacred liberties, which are threatened, for example, by the closing of gun shows with burdensome regulations, rationing lawful gun purchases, and banning the importation of certain firearm accessories. Laws should be directed against criminals and felons, and should be referred to as crime control rather than gun control.

In the wake of New York’s 2013 gun control law, the New York Police Department sent out notices to registered gun owners demanding that they give up their firearms, clear proof that gun registration leads to outright confiscations. The notice provided gun owners, who possessed firearms newly prohibited under New York’s unconstitutional SAFE Act, the “options” to either surrender their firearms to the police, remove them from the city limits or otherwise render them inoperable. The NYPD knew exactly who to send the notices to by using a centralized firearms registry which lists the city’s gun owners and what firearms they have in their possession.

Registration and the Law

Another fact Americans need to understand is that registration is directed at law-abiding citizens, not criminals. Not only do convicted criminals by definition fail to obey the law, but they are also constitutionally protected against any registration requirement. In Haynes v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1968 ruled that requiring registration by those who unlawfully possess firearms amounts to a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s proscription against forced self-incrimination. The court said that if someone “realistically can expect that registration will substantially increase the likelihood of his prosecution,” the registration requirement is unconstitutional.

In short, with the historically crucial and potentially fatal issue of progressive civilian disarmament, perhaps, we should once again summon the words of the “Federal Farmer” (1788): “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”




Amendment 2

The amendment was ratified by the States and authenticated by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson as: “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.” In spite of the lower liberal federal courts interpreting it as protecting merely a collective right of state militias, the founders clearly meant all Citizens capable of bearing arms. It follows the 1st amendment because it is there to defend and secure our first amendment rights as a guard against tyranny. At Lexington and Concord, the British sent soldiers to confiscate Colonists weapons and arms and America was birthed in revolt to tyrannous laws and government actions. The Cockrum v. State decision reads: “The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute.  He does not derive it from the State government.  It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government...”

The term “well regulated” in the late 1700’s meant that something was in proper working order, something that was calibrated correctly and something that was functioning as it should.  When the term is applied to the militia of the time, it meant that the militia should be properly trained, exercise often and that they be able to carry out their tasks in an expedient and efficient manner.

Just as the pendulum in a grandfather clock is called a regulator, the term “well regulated” in the Second Amendment meant that the Founding Fathers thought that a well run and skillful state militia would be important to prevent the federal government from seizing too much control.

Where the Second Amendment refers to the militia, it refers to all Citizens capable of bearing arms.  This does NOT refer to some force under the control of government.  In fact, the federal government did not have control of a standing army for more than one hundred years.

The term “…well regulated…” did not mean regulation by legislative action in any sense of the word. It did not mean the National Guard.  The National guard was not to be formed for another 116 years. The militia at the time the Second Amendment was written pertains to the men capable of bearing arms. In fact, up until the Militia Act of 1903, the militia still consisted of all men capable of bearing arms between ages 18 and 45.  The Militia Act of 1903 separated the men into two distinct groups, the National Guard and the Reserve Militia.  Some writers from the era refer to these two groups as the organized militia and the unorganized militia.

The Militia Act of 1903, merely recognized the fact that militia service by all able-bodied males was no longer necessary or compulsory.  In fact, only a handful of state militias at the turn of the twentieth century even got together and exercised as an armed body.

Nowhere in the Militia Act of 1903 were the members of the Reserve Militia restricted or prohibited from bearing arms.  Furthermore, the federal and state governments were not given the power to restrict firearm availability to the Reserve Militia.  There were other acts that pertained to the militia also.  The National Defense Act of 1916 and another act in 1933 and yet another in 1957.  It is important for the reader to realize that the Reserve Militia now known as the Unorganized Militia has always retained the right to keep and bear arms.  It is simply an intentional misinterpretation by modern anti-gun fanatics, that the Second Amendment only referred to the National Guard.

The term “being necessary to the security of a free state” meant that it was important to preserve the well being and integrity of each individual state with a well trained and efficient Militia.  The Founding Fathers were very suspicious about a powerful central government and the power and influence that it could amass.  They wanted to make certain that a powerful central government, would not be able to overwhelm each individual state.

The term “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” means just what it says.  The term “the people” is used throughout the founding documents and nowhere does it mean anything other than the general population of the United States.  Allow me to quote:

“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. . . . 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.” – Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20, 1788.

When the Second Amendment was passed, each delegate at the Constitutional Convention knew full well that it protected the individual right to bear arms outside of military service.  Those who believe otherwise, should do more homework before they go spewing their irrational beliefs and make complete fools of themselves.  ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE SITTING JUDGES, OR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.  THE COMPLETELY IGNORANT MAY BE EXCUSED FROM THEIR MISINTERPRETATION, BUT NOT ATTORNEYS GENERAL, LAWYERS, LEGISLATORS OR CONGRESSMEN.

The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute.  He does not derive it from the State government.  It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.  A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.” – Cockrum v. State, Source: 24 Tex.394, at 401-402 (1859)

Wherever the Constitution enumerates rights to the States, it says so, wherever it gives rights to the people it says that also.  For anyone to contend that “…the people…” referred to in the Second Amendment does not mean what it says, is preposterous.   The term “the people” is used throughout the Constitution and the other founding documents.  The contention that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms applies only to government-run militias is groundless and has no historical foundation whatsoever.

According to the founders, guns (including AR-15’s, AK47s, and other assault rifles) belong in the hands of the citizens and their state militias, as plainly and eloquently spelled out in the Second Amendment. Thomas Jefferson and the founders did not craft the Second Amendment to protect the right of hunters and target shooters. It was included – right after the First Amendment guaranteeing political speech – to ensure the right of citizens to violently oppose a tyrannical federal government if need be. “Assault” weapons are the sort of tools that will be used if push comes to shove and the people must violently oppose the government. Any politician or group that wishes to handicap the people with lesser or no weapons to defend themselves against a powerful federal government is a traitor.

Leftists recoil at the prospect of armed resistance to a tyrannical centralized federal government and refuse to accept that this is what the Second Amendment is all about. “The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people,” wrote Fisher Ames, a member of the Massachusetts convention that ratified the Constitution in 1788. This concept is antithetical to the modern liberal who believes government to be a force of good.

“The Second Amendment was to protect the ability of the people to violently overthrow the government,” writes Richard Schrade, an attorney from Georgia and member of the Libertarian National Committee. “Let’s remember that this country was formed in a violent revolution. Let’s remember that at Lexington and Concord citizen fired on and killed government soldiers sent by the central government to confiscate their weapons and arms…. When viewed in this light, it is apparent that a limitation on automatic weapons would be an infringement on the purposes of the Second Amendment.”

Jefferson made a famous assertion in a letter to William Smith in 1787, that the “tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants”.

To understand the Second Amendment as the Founders did, we need to remember what the Constitution does.  It defines how the federal government is to function – and the very purpose of its design is to secure our unalienable rights.  Consequently, unalienable rights are senior to, on a higher level than, the Constitution and, of course, any amendment to the Constitution.

The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government. It is one of the “High Powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it because it is above the law, and independent of lawmaking” – Cockrum v State, 24Tex394 (1859)

The Constitution is all about defining and dispersing the powers of government.  It is fundamentally a design for limiting the federal government, limiting it precisely in order to secure our unalienable rights from attempts by people in government to violate or even infringe upon those rights.  In the words of Thomas Jefferson, “let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

In fact, the Founders’ understanding of unalienable rights caused Madison and other Founders to oppose a bill of rights initially.  Here is Hamilton in Federalist 84:

It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of [royal] prerogative in favour of privilege[.] … Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain everything they have no need of particular reservations[.] … For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?  Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?

For Madison and Hamilton, a bill of rights, traditionally a concession of privileges wrested from the sovereign political power, had no place in the American Constitution.  (When Madison eventually realized that the public’s demand for a bill of rights made it a political necessity, he took responsibility for drafting it and made certain that it included the Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

The Ninth was intended to insure that enumerating some rights would not have the effect of narrowing our understanding of the vast range of our unalienable rights.

Now, let’s consider the First Amendment before moving on to the Second.  Please notice how it begins: Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press[.]”  The very first words of the very first amendment are “Congress shall make no law.”  No rights are here granted to the citizen.  They cannot be because those rights are unalienable, that is, already possessed by the citizen.

The First Amendment follows the logic of the Constitution as a whole; it restricts what the federal government – in this case, Congress – can do.

So does the Second: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  That “shall not be infringed” is strong language and perfectly clear.  To infringe is to trespass, to intrude, to encroach.  “Shall not be infringed” in plain language means “No Trespassing.”  And it is the government that is warned to keep out.

That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or prevent the PEOPLE of the United States, who are peaceable from keeping their OWN arms. – Samuel Adams

The First Amendment protects the people’s freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly.  Why would they immediately afterward add to this list a state’s power to form its own militia? It is more than abundantly clear that the framers and founders of America intended to protect the long-held, common law, pre-existing right of the citizens to own the firearm of their choice to protect themselves against a powerful central government gone awry. Go see the U.S. Department of Justice’s Statement On The Second Amendment, which clearly dispels the all too prevalent myth that the Second Amendment only gives the power to states to form and train state-controlled militias.

George Washington wrote that the American Founding occurred during a time “when the rights of mankind were better understood and more clearly defined than at any former period.”  Our current debate about the Second Amendment makes it all too clear that that better understanding and clearer definition of our rights has been slip-sliding away during the period in which you and I live.

The deep state actors are intent on creating their new world order and repealing the 2nd amendment is a top priority. At that point, they can proceed with the same manner of disregard to our rights as they have with the first amendment by censoring conservatives and truth.

The Second Amendment does not give anyone a right to own a gun.  Instead, it really acknowledges the pre-existing right of firearm ownership and guarantees that the government of the United States cannot enact legislation that denies or infringes upon this right.

The fact is that without the Second Amendment and an armed and free citizenry, all other rights could be subject to erosion and destruction.  The Right to Keep and Bear Arms  is the ultimate check and balance on the power of government.  The Second Amendment guarantees that the entire Constitution will remain intact. The Founding Fathers knew that government is changed by either the voting booth or the firearm, and they made sure that both would always be available to the Citizens of the United States.

“The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops…” – Noah Webster,  An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia 1787

Supreme Court Decisions

The following text was taken from

U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876)

Cruikshank was the first Second Amendment case to reach the Supreme Court. Cruikshank is occasionally misconstrued as deciding the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Among the counts against Cruikshank et. al. were charges to deprive two blacks their First and Second Amendment rights. Regarding the First Amendment charges the court stated:

The right of the people peaceably to assemble for lawful purposes existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. In fact, it is, and always has been, one of the attributes of citizenship under a free government… It is found wherever civilization exists. It was not, therefore, a right granted to the people by the Constitution. The government of the United States when established found it in existence, with the obligation on the part of the States to afford it protection…The first amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from abridging “the right of the people to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” This, like the other amendments proposed and adopted at the same time, was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National government alone…

…For their protection in its enjoyment, therefore, the people must look to the States. The power for that purpose was originally placed there, and it has never been surrendered to the United States.

Similarly regarding the Second Amendment violations the court wrote:

The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called…”internal police”

In brief, following precedent, the court stated the Bill of Rights only applied as a limitation on the “National government.” Individuals could not file charges against other citizens in federal court regarding violations of their constitutional rights. It was up to the states to protect the fundamental rights of its citizens when their rights were abridged by other citizens.

Presser v. People of Illinois (1886)

Herman Presser was found guilty of parading a group of armed men without authorization in the state of Illinois. The defendant had tried to claim this was unconstitutional and violated his Second Amendment rights as well. The court ruled the states have the power to control and regulate military bodies, including drilling and parading activities. Though the court stated Second Amendment issues were not involved, it re-affirmed that it applied as a limitation only on the national government. However the court then stated:

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States; and, in view of this prerogative of the General Government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view [the Second Amendment] prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the General Government.

Thus the Presser court wrote that the right to keep and bear arms existed, independently of the Second Amendment, for “all citizens capable of bearing arms” and the states could not infringe upon this right.

Miller v. Texas (1894)

Franklin Miller, convicted of murder, on appeal, claimed his Second and Fourth Amendment rights had been violated under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court upholding the conviction, reaffirmed Cruikshank v. U.S. and stated: “And if the fourteenth amendment limited the power of the states as to such rights, as pertaining to citizens of the United States, we think it was fatal to this claim that it was not set up in the trial court.” In other words the court wouldn’t even consider whether Miller’s rights had been violated under the Fourteenth Amendment because he had not filed such a claim in his original trial.

U.S. v. Miller (1939)

Frank Layton and Jack Miller were charged with violating the 1934 National Firearms Act, which regulated and taxed the transfer of certain types of firearms, and required the registration of such arms. The Miller court decided the following:

  1. The National Firearms Act was not an unconstitutional usurpation of police power reserved to the states.
  2. “In the absence of evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length,’ which is the subject of regulation and taxation by the National Firearms Act of June 26, 1934, has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, it cannot be said the the Second Amendment to the Federal Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument, or that the statute violates such constitutional provision.”
  3. “It is not within judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”
  4. “The Second Amendment must be interpreted and applied with a view to its purpose of rendering effective the Militia.”

As noted in the Summary section, Miller has often been mis-cited. Note that in the entire text of Miller, neither the words “state militia” nor “National Guard” are to be found.

Regarding item 4) above, the Miller court defined the Militia as the following:

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.

The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case back to the district court, giving the defendants a chance to provide evidence that a short-barrelled shotgun could contribute to “the efficiency of a well-regulated militia.” Note Miller only required evidence that the weapon contribute to the efficiency of a well-regulated militia. The court never said the defendants had to belong to a well-regulated militia. In other words the Miller case interpreted the Second Amendment to mean one has the right to own militia type weapons.

The defendants had not appeared for their Supreme Court hearing and they had no legal representation as well! In its brief the U.S. government argued the “collective rights” theory. (See GunCite’s rebuttal to the U.S. government’s brief.)

More importantly please read how the Miller case has been mis-cited by some federal courts and see how some rulings are simply based on judges own feelings, desires, and values rather than the rule of law and valid evidence.

A criticism of the Miller decision itself.

Lewis v. U.S. (1980)

Title VII of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 forbids the possession of firearms by a convicted felon. Lewis, the petitioner, was convicted of a felony in a 1961 state court “for breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor”. In 1977, in Virginia, Lewis was charged with receiving and possessing a firearm in violation of the above act. Lewis, claimed his latest conviction violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments because he had no counsel present during his 1961 trial.

The court upheld Lewis’ conviction, holding:

(a)…the fact that there are remedies available to a convicted felon – removal of the firearm disability by a qualifying pardon or the Secretary of the Treasury’s consent, as specified in the Act, or a challenge to the prior conviction in an appropriate court proceeding – suggests that Congress intended that the defendant clear his status before obtaining a firearm, thereby fulfilling Congress’ purpose to keep firearms away from persons classified as potentially irresponsible and dangerous.(b) The firearm regulatory scheme at issue here is consonant with the concept of equal protection embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, since Congress could rationally conclude that any felony conviction, even an allegedly invalid one, is a sufficient basis on which to prohibit the possession of a firearm. And use of an uncounseled felony conviction as the basis for imposing a civil firearms disability, enforceable by criminal sanction, is not inconsistent with Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S. 109; United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443; and Loper v. Beto, 405 U.S. 473.

In a footnote the court stated:

These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939) (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have “some reasonable relationship to [445 U.S. 55, 66] the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”);

Note, the court restated the Miller court’s focus on the type of firearm.

The court also commented it was customary to deny convicted felons the right to vote, hold union office, or practice medicine.

Burton v. Sills (1985)

From Stephen Halbrook’s “That Every Man be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right”:

A…striking erosion of the right to possess arms was exemplified in the New Jersey case of Burton v. Sills (1968). It originated when members of sportsman clubs and gun dealers brought an action to declare unconstitutional the state’s gun-control law, which imposed restrictive requirements. Conjuring up an image of “political assassinations, killings of enforcement officers, and snipings during riots,” the court expressed exaggerated fears of a revolution. The New Jersey Supreme Court restricted the definition of militia to “the active, organized militias of the states,” that is, the National Guard. The court’s very use of these adjectives to modify the word “militia” ignores the constitutional militia comprised of all persons capable of bearing arms. The Burton opinion simply fails to provide scholarly, historical, and analytical treatment of the subject, as indeed primarily only the antebellum state opinions do provide.”. . . “the people” seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by “the People of the United States.” The Second Amendment protects “the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to “the people.” See also U.S. Const. Amdt. I (“Congress shall make no law … abridging … the right of the people peaceably to assemble”) …. While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that “the people” protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community. . . .”
Chief Justice William Rehnquist
United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 265 (1990)

Is the 2nd Amendment Christian? Absolutely.  Jesus’s instruction to sell one’s cloak and buy a sword in Luke 22:36 should be interpreted as endorsing the carrying of weapons for personal protection. Timothy Hsiao gives a philosophical argument showing that a strong moral right to gun ownership can be derived from the right to life in THIS article and The Story of Liberty provides evidence in the video below. This land of Freedom was assisted by the hand of God in becoming a free nation because there is always opposition from the adversary to hinder good. Tyrants lust for power and control and we can only defend ourselves from slavery by weapons of defense.


Chronological History of Events Related to the 2nd Amendment

Report: ATF Working with Joe Biden to Go After AR-15 Pistol Braces

Report: ATF Working with Joe Biden to Go After AR-15 Pistol Braces

A report from the NRA-ILA suggests the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is already working with former Vice President Joe Biden to go after AR-15 pistol braces. On October 7, 2020, Breitbart News reported that the ATF reclassified a small sliver of AR-15 pistols with stabilizer braces as Short Barrel Rifles (SBRs), thereby placing them under the purview of the National Firearms Act (NFA). The ...
Read More
DeSantis pushes expansion of Stand Your Ground law as part of ‘anti-mob’ crackdown

DeSantis pushes expansion of Stand Your Ground law as part of ‘anti-mob’ crackdown

Gov. Ron DeSantis has drafted “anti-mob” legislation that would expand Florida’s Stand Your Ground law — a move that critics say will allow armed citizens to shoot suspected looters or anyone engaged in “criminal mischief” that disrupts a business. Lawyers say it’s just one of the many troubling aspects of the draft bill being pushed by the Republican governor in response to police-brutality protests that erupted ...
Read More
Project Veritas Exposes Democrat Mark Kelly’s True Plans to Crack Down on Second Amendment Rights

Project Veritas Exposes Democrat Mark Kelly’s True Plans to Crack Down on Second Amendment Rights

James O’Keefe released Part 1 of his undercover videos on senate candidate Mark Kelly (D) and claimed Kelly “deceives AZ voters” as to the true nature of his gun control intentions. O’Keefe spoke with Angelica Carpio, a field organizer for Mission for Arizona. O’Keefe describes Mission for Arizona as “basically Arizona’s Democrat Party and an extension of the Mark Kelly campaign.” Carpio told O’Keefe, “[Kelly] just ...
Read More
Federal Judge Orders City Of L.A. To Pay NRA $150,000 After Retaliation Against Contractors With Ties To Gun Group

Federal Judge Orders City Of L.A. To Pay NRA $150,000 After Retaliation Against Contractors With Ties To Gun Group

The city of Los Angeles has been ordered to pay the National Rifle Association $150,000 after Mayor Garcetti and co. were caught trying to strong arm and intimidate city contractors who had ties to the gun organization. Federal Judge Stephen Wilson, of the Central District of California, ruled that the city’s tactics were a violation of the contractors’ 1st Amendment rights of free speech and free ...
Read More
Super Bowl LIV

Super Bowl LIV

This year FOX decided to ban pro-life ads and gun rights ads from their Super Bowl broadcast. They were too controversial. Pro-life advocates with the new Faces of Choice organization said they waited at least six months for an answer from FOX about their ad – and then were denied the opportunity to air their message during the Super Bowl. But during the Super Bowl halftime show Jennifer ...
Read More

Red Flag Laws

Laws at the top of the current list of demands by progressives that are ostensibly implemented to take guns away from mentally disturbed gun owners, but they are based in fallacy and represent real losses of rights. Two glaring fallacies underlie those proposals: (1) firearms are inherently evil, as are their owners, and catalysts for violence; (2) and such laws will not be misadministered and lead to endangering other rights. Proposed red flag laws would allow police to violate both one’s Second Amendment rights and the rights of due process by confiscating one’s firearms based on a claim that the gun owner is unbalanced or prone to violence.

“Red flag” gun confiscation laws violate every principle of liberty upon which our country was founded. There is no due process associated with “red flag” laws. A judge’s order to seize the firearms from an American citizen who has not been accused of a crime, charged with a crime, convicted of a crime—or who never even threatened to commit a crime—based on the accusation of a single individual is anything but due process.

Our accuser could be a disgruntled employee, a bitter ex-spouse or relative, a vengeful neighbor, an anti-gun liberal or even an anti-gun policeman. By definition, “red flag” laws use mere suspicion of what one “might” do as justification to seize a person’s firearms. Tactics such as these have been used in virtually every despotic regime of history. In the name of protecting society, the rights and liberties of individuals were denied. Eventually, these repressive governments included political or religious persuasion as triggering “red flags,” which led to their disarmament—all in the name of public safety, of course.

When the rights of ONE American are abridged, the rights of ALL Americans are abridged. This is not yet a communist nation where the rights of the state—or even the rights of a majority of citizens—supersede the rights of the individual.

Gun control advocate Milton Eisenhower’s National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence study recommended that private handgun ownership be banned in the 1960’s. But the bias behind that and other recommendations was stripped away in a later study by the Carter administration that was intended to confirm the Hopkins findings and provide a launch pad for draconian gun laws. It didn’t. Carter researchers found the Hopkins study was “results oriented” and intentionally constructed to come to the conclusions it did. The surprise Carter conclusion, which was shoved under the proverbial publicity rug, stated: “It is commonly hypothesized that much criminal violence, especially homicide, occurs simply because firearms are readily at hand and, thus, that much homicide would not occur were firearms generally less available. There is no persuasive evidence that supports this view.” The lead researcher then delivered what remains the coup de grâce most have never heard: “A compelling case for gun control cannot be made.”

That should have pushed the red flag law idea over the precipice, but it didn’t. Gun-control activists keep making up “truths” that reflect their own irrational biases, without any regard to the likelihood that their new laws would bring about a legal and constitutional slippery slope and a descent into a police state of informers and arbitrary arrests.

Red flag law proponents dismiss that scenario and buttress their dismissal with the opinions of academics such as Diablo Canyon College philosophy professor Jacob E. Van Vleet. He and other elites generally maintain that the slippery slope concerns are fallacies “precisely because we can never know if a whole series of events and/or a certain result is determined to follow one event or action in particular. Usually, but not always, the slippery slope argument is used as a fear tactic.” Maybe so, but that’s a rhetorical cop-out, for there is an overriding reality about the type of constitutional-rights-busting power implicit in red flag laws that was stated by English Baron John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The danger becomes all the more likely when a medical professional such as a psychiatrist claims a gun owner has gone off the rails. But is a psychiatrist’s claim truly an indication of real danger? Most people would likely believe it is. But tests of that belief conducted by Stanford University professor of psychiatry David Rosenhan and others in a landmark 1973 study indicate such an opinion is far from a slam-dunk fact. Rosenhan had sane people fake hallucinations in order to test the widely held belief that psychiatrists could reliably tell a truly mentally ill person from one who is not. The results showed “psychiatrists cannot reliably tell the difference between people who are sane and those who are insane.”

Though Rosenhan received much pushback from the psychiatric community, the essence of his conclusion was found as far back as 1887 by investigative journalist Nellie Bly. She successfully faked symptoms of mental illness to gain access to a lunatic asylum in order to expose its inhumane conditions. At the very least, Bly’s fakery and Rosenhan’s study bring into question the legitimacy of the psychiatric opinion, an opinion to which all red flag laws I’ve seen give added weight regarding who is sane and who is dangerous. Is that warranted?

Furthermore, Dr. Ann Bukacek, a highly respected medical doctor, wrote:

Mental health diagnoses given by physicians or other mental health care workers do not predict firearm violence. As a physician for over 30 years who has treated many patients with mental health diagnoses and some autistic spectrum patients, I have not had one of those patients commit an act of gun violence. I did have a patient who bludgeoned a man to death with a blunt object, and that patient carried no mental health diagnosis. Psychopaths with no conscience, especially the more intelligent ones, usually escape detection and/or a particular diagnosis.

This doctor’s examination of the issue reflects reality.

Besides, under these “red flag” laws, exactly who is it that determines that someone is “crazy”? Is it one judge, who bases his or her conclusion on the accusations of just one individual? Is it up to politicians or government bureaucrats to define who is and who is not “crazy”?

There are some people who believe that anyone who would even own a firearm is “crazy.” Others believe one’s political or religious beliefs qualify him as “crazy.” Heck! We have all read the documentation of various governments (local, State and federal) that have assigned all kinds of “crazy” (even “dangerous”) definitions against people based on their interpretation of Bible prophecy or their association with political candidates such as former Congressman Ron Paul or their opposition to politically correct ideologies, etc.

Does the judge who issues a warrant to seize a person’s firearms under a “red flag” law provide the accused with an opportunity to defend himself BEFORE violating his constitutional and Natural rights? No. Does the judge provide an opportunity for a close examination of the accusations against the accused (including investigating the accuser) BEFORE violating his constitutional and Natural rights? No. Does the judge allow the accused to face his accuser BEFORE violating his constitutional and Natural rights? No.

“Red flag” laws turn the Bill of Rights and the fundamental legal doctrine that a man is innocent until proven guilty completely upside down. “Red flag” laws are a mockery to every constitutional principle of liberty since the Magna Carta. Seizing a citizen’s firearms by force (and thereby rendering him defenseless) without a crime being committed—or even the accusation of a crime being made—is old-fashioned TYRANNY. Such an act presumes a person is guilty until proven innocent.

Then there is this: After the guns are seized, it could take years for the victim to prove his innocence (or competence) and have his guns returned—and in what condition would they be when (and IF) returned? Furthermore, will you legislators, judges and police officers who collaborate to strip an innocent person’s ability to defend himself accept any responsibility when the real bad guys take advantage of this person’s vulnerability and invade his home and bludgeon or rape or even kill his family? Of course you won’t. But mark it down: You will be held responsible in the eyes of Almighty God—and in the eyes of the citizens you have victimized.

And are you really going to try and tell us that police officers are more competent and mentally stable than the rest of us? Are you kidding? The examples of improper, unsafe, careless and even homicidal acts of cops with guns are ubiquitous.
It was an FBI agent who was armed at a nightclub in Denver and then started gyrating and dancing like a madman until his handgun fell on the floor, discharged and wounded a fellow patron. But no official even questioned this officer’s fitness to possess a firearm—even AFTER that event took place.

Then there is the case of the Dallas police officer who walked into the wrong apartment and shot and killed the man who lived inside. Where was the “red flag” regarding this officer? And what about the two police officers in St. Louis who used a revolver to play Russian roulette, and one of the two wound up shooting and killing the other one? Why wasn’t a “red flag” raised about these nincompoops? These stories could go on forever.

Where are the “red flag” laws for the policemen and sheriff’s deputies in this country? The only difference between them and the rest of us who are being victimized by these draconian “red flag” laws is that they wear badges, and we do not—and the other difference is the vast majority of private citizens who carry firearms are not nearly as stupid and incompetent as the policemen mentioned above.

So much for equal justice under the law.

It has taken many of us a lifetime of hard work and labor to be able to obtain our gun collections; we have successfully passed FBI background checks and local and State requirements and obligations for responsible gun ownership, yet our guns are going to be confiscated overnight on the word of someone (an anonymous someone, at that) who claims we “might” be unsuitable to own a gun? Again, such an act turns American history and our Bill of Rights upside down.

Kris Kobach is the former Secretary of State of Kansas. He is a former professor of constitutional law at UMKC School of Law. He wrote an excellent analysis of the constitutional violations of these “red flag” laws:

1. The seizure of guns without any hearing at all. The laws all contain an ex parte provision that allows the state to temporarily seize a person’s guns without even notifying the gun owner or giving him a chance to be heard. This is the quintessential denial of due process. The Fourth Amendment makes clear that a person cannot be denied of liberty (to exercise one’s constitutional right to bear arms) without due process of law. This confiscation is “temporary,” but it can easily lead to long-term or permanent confiscation.

2. Based on the testimony of one unrelated person. The confiscation order can be based on the testimony of only one person claiming that the gun owner poses a risk to the safety of himself or others. The law [proposed in Kansas] deceptively says that it has to be the testimony of a “family member.” But “family member” is defined to include “former dating partners” and anyone who has ever lived with the defendant. So a jilted former boyfriend or girlfriend, or even a roommate from years ago, could easily set in motion the disarming of a lawful gun owner.

3. Using a very low standard of proof. The standard for obtaining an ex parte order against a gun owner is absurdly low – one need only show “reasonable cause” to believe that the person may pose a risk. That’s even lower than the “probable cause” standard for obtaining a search warrant. In addition, the judge is forced to rush his decision and issue the confiscation order on the same day of the ex parte hearing. Within two weeks of the ex parte hearing, a hearing with the gun owner present must occur; the purpose is to put in place a long-term confiscation order. But even at that hearing, the standard of proof is far below the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in criminal trials. Rather, it need only be shown by “a preponderance of evidence” that the person poses a risk of injury to self or others. What kind of evidence? Things like the “reckless storage” of firearms and drinking habits can be considered. If you keep a handgun in the bedside table and drink beer regularly, you may [be] in trouble.

4. Shifting the burden of proof to the gun owner. The long-term confiscation order lasts up to a year, but may be renewed indefinitely. Once it is in place, it becomes very difficult to remove. To have the confiscation order lifted, the gun owner must prove he does not pose a threat to himself or others. Proving a negative is nearly impossible. Adding insult to injury, the bill even authorizes local law enforcement to charge the gun owner a storage fee for confiscating and storing his guns.

The implementation of “red flag” laws (at any level) is unconscionable and totally unacceptable. And I am here to warn you that there are millions of Americans who will never submit to such oppression. None of us wants to see acts of violence committed against law enforcement personnel in America, but when law enforcers begin carrying out these draconian “red flag” laws, they will begin lighting the matches of resistance in the hearts of freedom-loving people in this country like hasn’t been seen in over 150 years.

We have already heard about Gary Willis, the Maryland man who was killed by police officers in his own home as they attempted to carry out a “red flag” order to seize his guns. This man had committed no crime; he had not been accused of committing a crime; he was given no hearing and no due process. Mr. Willis did not attempt to harm the officers; he merely resisted their efforts to disarm him, and he was killed on the spot—in his own home—by police officers who had taken an oath to protect the liberties of this poor innocent man.

I assure you, Mr. Willis will not be the last American to resist the attempted confiscation of his firearms.

Do you legislators, judges, county sheriffs, chiefs of police, sheriff’s deputies and city policemen not realize that “red flag” laws are tantamount to a declaration of war against the American people? Are you so far removed from “the laws of Nature and Nature’s God” that you cannot see this? Do you not realize that in spite of all of Great Britain’s abuses of power, our colonist forebears did not openly rebel against the Crown until King George sent troops to Lexington and Concord to confiscate the colonists’ firearms? You do understand that, right? And you do understand, do you not, that the blood of the colonists flows in the veins of we Americans?

At what point do the American people come to believe that you truly do NOT wish to honor your oath to the Constitution or behave in a manner that truly honors America’s Second Amendment and the heritage of liberty that we all share as Americans? At what point do we Americans lose all respect for our civil magistrates and peace officers? For many Americans, that point will come when policemen bang on their doors at 5am and attempt to seize their guns.

Do you not realize that every single instance of an innocent person being subjected to a “red flag” gun confiscation order will only magnify and strengthen the resentment and animosity in the hearts of the community against these laws—and against the ones who are creating and implementing them?

Do you not understand that this is a powder keg that could explode into all-out rebellion at any time? Do you want that? I don’t want that! I don’t want that for my wife and me, my children and grandchildren, my friends or my community. Why would you legislators, judges and policemen even think about doing such a thing?

In the name of all that we hold dear, in the name of the brave men at Lexington Green and Concord Bridge, in the name of every American who has given his life in defense of the principles contained in our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution and our Bill of Rights—including many of our brave police officers and sheriff’s deputies—and in the name of the Natural Laws of our Creator, please STOP this madness before you literally tear our communities and our country apart.

As a legislator, you must not pass any semblance of a “red flag” law; as a judge, you must not issue a gun confiscation warrant on the basis of a “red flag” law; as a sheriff or chief of police, you must not order your officers to confiscate a citizen’s guns on the basis of a “red flag” warrant; and if you are a sheriff’s deputy or city policeman, you must not obey an order to confiscate your fellow citizens’ guns on the basis of a “red flag” law.

I beg you to realize what you are doing. I beg you to refuse to participate in this madness. I beg you to join your fellow churchmen, clubmen, neighbors, friends and townsmen and help us turn back this dastardly attempt to transform our constitutional republic into another repressive regime that, in the end, would require The People to tear it down.

Again, I beg you to think about what you are doing, about the pain you are causing, about the lives you are ruining and about the potential harm you are inflicting on our country.

“Red flag” laws are on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of our Constitution, the wrong side of liberty and on the wrong side of the laws of God.

That does not mean America would necessarily slide into an East German-style Stasi police state overnight. It might take a while. “There is no ‘slippery slope’ toward loss of liberties, only a long staircase where each step downward must be first tolerated by the American people and their leaders,” former U.S. Senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming has said. But “once the down staircase is set in place, the temptation to take each next step will be irresistible,’ noted former New York Times columnist William Safire. The late U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas understood:

As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air — however slight — lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness.

And victims we will be.

The urge to destroy our Second Amendment will require that other rights against abusive government, such as search-and-seizure protections, will have to be weakened as well. As the Sir Thomas More character in the movie A Man For All Seasons asked a zealot who wanted to knock down all the laws of England to find the devil, “Do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then — the laws all being flat?”

Wake up and smell the sulfur.