Bill of Rights Part III
How many still apply? If suspended, by WHOSE authority?
. Minutemen firing from cover of trees, walls, and houses on British Regulars retreating along the road to Cambridge. - Courtesy U.S. National Park Service
Gun Laws
The Second Amendment:
“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.” No exceptions!
The Founders wrote the 2nd Amendment to ensure the citizens have the same recourse if the American government became tyrannical, not just to ensure the citizens could defend themselves from domestic attackers. The disparity between the weapons the government has and the weapons the government allows its citizens to possess could not be wider. Even still, there are those in Washington who seek to limit our rights further.
All gun laws are unconstitutional because rights don't come in degrees! The right to protect yourself is absolute! Gun laws are passed to infringe on the rights of law-abiding Americans:
Criminals DON'T abide by laws! That's why they are criminals.
The guns laws passed are for the most part not enforced.
The federal statute that requires enhanced penalties when a firearm is used in the commission of violent crimes or drug-related offenses is 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c). Minimum sentence of five years to up to life in prison for possession of a gun during a crime. Minimum sentence of 10 years to life in prison if the firearm is discharged during a crime.
The first things plea bargained away!
George Soros-elected prosecutors across the country release violent criminals, even the ones who used guns, right back onto the street, without bail, so they never show up at their hearing and continue to commit the crimes they were arrested for in the first place!
Using Biden's argument that rights aren't absolute, let's explore this:
The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution repeals slavery in the United States. So, the buying and selling of human beings is no longer prohibited?
The Fourteen Amendment that essentially reversed the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. So black Americans are no longer citizens and have no standing in U.S. courts?
The Nineteenth Amendment where women have a right to vote?
The National Firearms Act of 1934 was the first gun law.
Contrary to popular belief, the National Firearms Act never set out to ban any weapons. The National Firearms Act intended to impose a tax on certain classes of firearms:
Machine Guns – Machine guns are defined in the National Firearms Act as “any firearm which can fire repeatedly, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.”
Short Barreled Rifles – This category includes any rifle with a barrel less than 16” long and an overall length of less than twenty-six inches.
Short Barreled Shotguns – Similar to the short-barreled rifle category, short-barreled shotguns must have a barrel no shorter than 18” and an overall length of 26”.
Suppressors – Silencers were targeted as well and included any portable device designed to muffle or disguise the report of a firearm.
Destructive Devices – This category was added in 1968 as part of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. This restricted the sale of any type of explosive material or device and any gun with a bore over .5 inches except for shotguns, which were deemed to have legitimate sporting purposes.
In an attempt to make them too expensive to own!
"No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and fee for it." - MURDOCK v. PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
Nor the Federal government for that matter or cities like Chicago:
You must be 21 years old or older
You must possess a firearm owner’s identification card (FOID).
You must have a concealed carry license if you intend to remove your gun from your home.
By attaching fees to rights, it becomes too expensive for Americans, especially in the crime filled inner cities to be able to defend themselves, giving criminals free rein to terrorize and kill them.
A compilation of some of the so-called gun laws over the years Notice how they get progressively more restrictive:
1938: Federal Firearms Act - Created the Federal Firearms License, (FFL), for selling firearms and maintain a list of buyers with names and addresses. Also enacted that convicted felons are not allowed to own firearms.
1968: Gun Control Act - “Placed restrictions on the sale of firearms across state lines and expanded the prohibited persons who were not allowed to purchase or possess firearms.” Created Form 4473 for firearm purchase, with the dealer simply holding on to the form. The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, (ATF), was created in 1972 to administer and regulate these things.
Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986: Surprisingly reigned in the ATF for complaints of abuses. Banned the civilian ownership or transfer of any fully automatic weapon which was not registered by May 19, 1986. Expanded on the list of people not allowed to own guns.
1993: Brady Act - Created the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), maintained by the FBI. Federal Firearms Licensee must call a 1 -800 number or go online and verify information on the 4473 form to complete or deny a sale. Expanded on the 1986 act and imposed a waiting period to buy a handgun. A lot of people died waiting including women in domestic abuse situations that had restraining orders which are about as worthless as a “Gun Free Zone” sign!
“Federal Assault Weapons Ban” 1994 - Banned the sale and manufacture of any semiautomatic rifle that even remotely resembled a military style weapon but in no way, shape or form functions like one.
The U.S. Army definition of an “assault rifle”:
“A selective-fire rifle chambered for a cartridge of intermediate power. If applied to any semi-automatic firearm regardless of its cosmetic similarity to a true assault rifle, the term is incorrect.”
NOT an assault weapon
2005: Gun confiscation Hurricane Katrina - New Orleans officials ordered the confiscation of lawfully owned firearms from city residents.
2013: Gunshow Background Checks Act - “Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to require registration of gun show promoters and to set forth the responsibilities of promoters, licensees, and other transferors. Grants the Attorney General authority to enter the place of business of any gun show promoter and any place where a gun show is held, during business hours and without a showing of reasonable cause or a warrant, for purposes of examining records and the inventory of licensees conducting business to determine compliance with this Act.” (Emphasis mine)
2014: California laws - Created a state database of gun owners and their ammunition for easy collection.
2014: Connecticut laws - An actual state issued gun permit or certificate from the state to own a long gun or buy ammunition!
Concealed Carry Permit Laws - Think about this! You are asking permission to exercise the right to defend yourself?
Isn't your “Concealed Carry Permit” the Constitution?
Federally licensed firearms dealers (FFLs) are now required to provide the FBI with the personal addresses of individuals whose attempted purchases and were denied.
Is there already a national gun ownership registry? YES! A database of gun serial numbers is maintained by the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR). This database contains information on all firearms that are registered in the United States. The NFRTR also maintains a database of firearm owners. This database contains the name, address, and phone number of every firearm owner in the United States. Why do you think they are so apoplectic about “ghost guns”, (guns they don't have a serial number for)?
The good news? There are estimated to be over 400 million guns in the United States between police, the military, and American civilians. Over 393 million (Over 98%) of those guns are in civilian hands, the equivalent of 120 firearms per 100 citizens. A whopping 392,273,257 of those are estimated to be unregistered! The average gun owning American has 5 firearms, while nearly 22% of gun owners only have a single firearm. Until recently, buying ammunition was not tracked. So the amount of ammo potentially out there for the registered and unregistered guns is definitely astronomical!
So, what about needing those F-15’s Joe?
Firearms are regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, (ATF). The same ATF that would shut down a Federal Firearms Licensed Dealer, (FFL), for not crossing a “t” on a form and makes personal visits to American citizens who purchased two guns at the same time, (TOTALLY ILLEGAL), apparently has such lax security at their firearms destruction facility THOUSANDS of guns, parts and ammunition were stolen over a three year period by a security guard, including weapons from the infamous Eric Holder/Barack Obama “Fast and Furious” operation where semiautomatic and fully automatic, (machine guns), were actually sold to Mexican drug lords, resulting in thousands of Mexican citizen murders and the murder of a Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.
“Red Flag Laws”
In a nutshell, red flag laws are unconstitutional:
An anonymous complaint is made by an angry neighbor, ex -husband or ex-wife, etc., that you are too dangerous to possess firearms. A warrant is issued, and police come and seize your firearms, (property). You then must PROVE you are not guilty of a crime you did not commit yet to get your firearms back which violates:
The 4th Amendment for lack of probably cause.
The 5th Amendment because you are deprived of your property without due process.
The 6th Amendment because you had no trial, were not presented with the charges and evidence against you, no opportunity to confront your accuser(s), or assistance of counsel.
The 7th Amendment because you are guaranteed a jury trial in controversies exceeding $20 and your gun or guns seized are worth hundreds, maybe thousands of dollars.
The Homeland Security Act of 2002, “aka”, The Patriot Act
Regardless of your thoughts on 9/11 and its anomalies, (110 story buildings collapsing perfectly on themselves, building 7 with no damage collapsing on itself for no apparent reason, cell phone calls being made from planes when the technology didn't exist yet, etc.), in the same mindset as:
John J. McCloy, the assistant secretary of war, remarked that if it came to a choice between national security and the guarantee of civil liberties expressed in the Constitution, he considered the Constitution “just a scrap of paper.”
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 was passed just six weeks after the September 11 attacks by a panicked Congress. It vastly expanded the government's authority to spy on its own citizens, while simultaneously reducing checks and balances on those powers like judicial oversight, public accountability, and the ability to challenge government searches.
The Patriot Act increases the government's power to spy in four areas:
Secret searches. It expands the government's ability to search private property without notice to the owner. (Section 213)
Intelligence searches. It expands a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment that had been created for the collection of foreign intelligence information (Section 218).
"Trap and trace" searches. It expands another Fourth Amendment exception for spying that collects "addressing" information about the origin and destination of communications, as opposed to the content (Section 214).
Expanded access to personal records held by third parties
One of the most significant provisions of the Patriot Act makes it far easier for the authorities to gain access to records of citizens' activities being held by a third party. At a time when computerization is leading to the creation of more and more such records, Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows the FBI to force anyone at all - including doctors, libraries, bookstores, universities, and internet service providers - to turn over records on their clients or customers.
The result is unchecked government power to rifle through individuals' financial records, medical histories, internet usage, bookstore purchases, library usage, travel patterns, or any other activity that leaves a record.
The government no longer has to show evidence that the subjects of search orders are an "agent of a foreign power," a requirement that previously protected Americans against abuse of this authority.
The FBI does not even have to show a reasonable suspicion that the records are related to criminal activity, much less the requirement for "probable cause" that is listed in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. All the government needs to do is make the broad assertion that the request is related to an ongoing terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation.
Judicial oversight of these new powers is essentially non-existent. The government must only certify to a judge - with no need for evidence or proof - that such a search meets the statute's broad criteria, and the judge does not even have the authority to reject the application.
Surveillance orders can be based in part on a person's First Amendment activities, such as the books they read, the Web sites they visit, or a letter to the editor they have written.
A person or organization forced to turn over records is prohibited from disclosing the search to anyone. As a result of this gag order, the subjects of surveillance never even find out that their personal records have been examined by the government. That undercuts an important check and balance on this power: the ability of individuals to challenge illegitimate searches.
Making matters worse:
Puts CIA back in business of spying on Americans. The Patriot Act gives the Director of Central Intelligence the power to identify domestic intelligence requirements. That opens the door to the same abuses that took place in the 1970s and before, when the CIA engaged in widespread spying on protest groups and other Americans.
Creates a new crime of "domestic terrorism." The Patriot Act transforms protesters into terrorists if they engage in conduct that "involves acts dangerous to human life" to "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion." How long will it be before an ambitious or politically motivated prosecutor uses the statute to charge members of groups like Pro-life groups and MAGA supporters with terrorism? They already are! Under the Patriot Act, providing lodging or assistance to such "terrorists" exposes a person to surveillance or prosecution. Furthermore, the law gives the attorney general and the secretary of state the power to detain or deport any non-citizen who belongs to or donates money to one of these broadly defined "domestic terrorist" groups.
Allows for the indefinite detention of non-citizens. The Patriot Act gives the attorney general unprecedented new power to determine the fate of immigrants. The attorney general can order detention based on a certification that he or she has "reasonable grounds to believe" a non-citizen endangers national security. Worse, if the foreigner does not have a country that will accept them, they can be detained indefinitely without trial.
Personal note: I know of a guy, (an American citizen), who has been in Federal custody now for almost four years. I have not been told he had an arrangement YET!
Roe v Wade
The most heinous violation of the Bill of Rights in American history. It is estimated 63,459,781 babies’ lives have ended since Supreme Court decision Roe v Wade Jan. 22, 1973. To put that in perspective, the death toll from WWII was 40 to 50 million! Joseph Stalin probably murdered 60 million. Mao Zedong 40 million possibly up to 80 million. Hitler murdered 17 million. Pol Pot was a real amateur at a mere 1.7 to 2.5 million murdered.
Of that 63,459,781, over 20,000,000, certainly a disproportionate high amount, were black babies, since Planned Parenthood Clinics are conveniently set up mostly in minority neighborhoods. Apparently, this is not a concern, yet prisons allegedly being overpopulated by minorities is. If black lives matter, where is “Black Lives Matter” on this?
This was the brainchild of the patron saint of Planned Parenthood, notorious racist, eugenicist, KKK collaborator and actual inspiration to the Nazis, Margaret Sanger to “control the population of the darker inferior races.”
To carry out her population control plans, her organization, American Birth Control League that she founded in 1921, opened its facilities in predominantly black, immigrant and poor areas of New York City. (This would be the template for the majority of Planned Parenthood clinics.) In 1939, with the help of wealthy Americans moguls (such as Clarence Gamble, of Procter & Gamble, and Mary Lasker) launched her racially motivated population control scheme that she called “Negro Project”, recruiting black preachers to sermonize her population control message.
On the extermination of blacks:
We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members. - Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939, letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts.
Note: If you look up Margaret Sanger in Wikipedia, you'll see not one word of this!
How monstrous that black ministers, like “man of God” Senator Warnock of Georgia, participated and condoned the actual extermination of their flocks!
How monstrous, for that matter, all the other churches, regardless of denomination or race, that are also pro-choice or pro-abortion, and do the same to their congregations!
More quotes from Margaret Sanger:
"The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
-- Woman and the New Race, Chapter 5, "The Wickedness of Creating Large Families." (1920) http://www.bartleby.com/1013/"No more children should be born when the parents, though healthy themselves, find that their children are physically or mentally defective.”
-- Sanger, Margaret. (1918) When Should A Woman Avoid Having Children? Birth Control Review, Nov. 1918, 6-7, Margaret Sanger Microfilm, S70:807.
https://www.nyu.edu/projects/s...“Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives… If we are to make racial progress, this development of womanhood must precede motherhood in every individual woman.” -- “Woman and the New Race,” 1920
Roe v Wade was arrived at bizarrely by finding a right to privacy in the 9th Amendment. The court held that a woman’s reproductive right was implicit in the created right to privacy protected by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
Some scholarly legal opinion on Roe:
Iconic conservative judge Robert Bork wrote, “Both Roe and [Planned Parenthood v.] Casey are, in fact, crass violations of the rule of law; they are not rooted in any conceivable interpretation of the Constitution and have nothing to do with ‘constitutional terms.’”
Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox added, “The Justices read into the generalities of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment a new ‘fundamental right’ not remotely suggested by the words.”
Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe admitted, “One of the most curious things about Roe is that behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.”
Even the late Justice Ginsberg commented how poorly written Roe v Wade was and she fully expected it overturned someday.
The most egregious convolution of law is that if a mother is injured or killed and the baby she was carrying died in the process, the prosecutor will pursue a single or double homicide charge. Yet if she chose to abort it, it's all good!
A Harvard-affiliated children’s hospital is making a wild claim that kids can know they are transgender before even coming out of the womb.
So now it's not just a “clump of cells”? It is a reasoning human being when it's convenient to argue a bizarre point.
From Nat Hentoff, “staunch liberal and anti-abortion jazz critic and longtime Village Voice columnist.” Hentoff was an atheist, which I of course disagree with. However, his words here are spot on:
I begin my talks to students and faculty eager to dissect my heresy with a quote from the second edition of a standard medical textbook, The Unborn Patient: Prenatal Diagnosis and Treatment, published by W.B. Saunders Company, a division of Harcourt Brace, in 1991. The editors--all medical school professors at the University of California at San Francisco and experts in fetal treatment--are Michael Harrison, Mitchell Golbus, and Roy Filly.
God is nowhere mentioned in the textbook. The first chapter begins: ''The concept that the fetus is a patient, an individual whose maladies are a proper subject for medical treatment as well as scientific observation, is alarmingly modern. Only now are we beginning to consider the fetus seriously--medically, legally, and ethically.''
In recent years I've interviewed a number of physicians engaged in research on prenatal development. Without exception, they emphasize that human life is a continuum--from the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterine lining to birth to death. Setting up divisions of this process to justify abortion --as in Roe v. Wade--is artificial. It's a denial of biology. Whether in the fourth or 14th week, it is the life of a developing human being that is being killed. The American Medical News (June 20, 1994)--a weekly publication of the American Medical Association--has reported an analysis of the beginnings of human life by Dr. C. Ward Kischer, a professor in the department of anatomy at the University of Arizona College of Medicine. I commend it to Professor Reed:
''Every point in time is part of a continuum. Therefore, every point in development derives its significance from the previous point. Scientific 'spin doctors' have invented and promoted such bogus biology as 'pre-embryo' and 'stages of individuality,' and have duped many physicians who know little about human embryology. Many of them are now using this pseudo-science to justify human embryo experimentation. The Nuremberg trials settled this question conclusively.''
The Nuremberg trials were concerned solely with human beings, as I am.
In the February 18, 1990, Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Joel Hylton, a physician in Thomasville, North Carolina, who had people like Adolph Reed Jr. in mind, wrote:
''Who can say that the fetus is not alive and is not a separate genetic entity? Its humanity...also cannot be questioned scientifically. It is certainly of no other species. That it is dependent on another makes it qualitatively no different from countless other humans outside the womb.'' (Emphasis added.)
Dr. Hylton added: ''It strikes me that to argue that one may take an innocent life to preserve the quality of life of another is cold and carries utilitarianism to an obscene extreme. Nowhere else in our society is this permitted or even thinkable--although abortion sets a frightening prospect.''
So now that we have it established scientifically that life begins at conception, what rights do these human beings have and are being violated, since what we are talking about here is an arbitrary conviction and execution?
Fifth Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, nor be deprived of life or liberty, without due process of law.
Sixth Amendment: The accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
Eight Amendment: nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Especially egregious considering the “method of execution”, ie, the abortion itself!
The trigger for the overturning of Roe v Wade was Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health, where Mississippi passed a law that there will be no abortions after 15 weeks.
The majority opinion came from Justice Alito. Here is the full text.
The Conclusion:
Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives."
My opinion. Since every state Constitution contains the Supremacy Clause, it is subordinate to the U.S. Constitution, and abortion clearly violates the Constitution. So how can states make laws that allow abortion?