Freedom-Fighters Forum

The Constitutional Broadside

V1 N3 A PUBLICATION OF THE TWENTY FIRST CENTURY COUNCIL
Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.

PROBLEM

There are several bills before congress designed to limit ownership of guns and other arms. Are any of these or can any such Bill be Constitutional?

CITIZENS HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

One of the inherent and unalienable rights guaranteed to us by our Creator is the right to our lives. God’s law states, “Thou shalt not kill.” Since we are commanded not to murder, it follows that we have an inherent right to protect our lives against those who would take them from us.

Down through history, whenever the government wished to perpetuate itself in power it has attempted to confiscate the weapons of individual citizens. In every country taken over by communism, the confiscation of weapons was one of the first moves toward enslaving the individual.

Gun registration is the first step toward confiscation. Once those in power know where the guns are located, it is a simple matter to take possession.

The II Amendment of the United States Constitution reads, “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.” This amendment guarantees the individual citizen the right to own guns. Any attempt to eliminate this right by any government official is sure proof that he has broken his oath to uphold the United States Constitution.

CONSTITUTIONAL OWNERSHIP OF GUNS BY GOOD CITIZENS REDUCES CRIME.

Rep. Bob Casey of Houston, Texas introduced a study into the congressional Record on Jan. 30, 1968 which suggests that ownership of guns by good citizens reduces crime. The study reports, “Crime rates tend to be lower where the percentage of gun ownership is higher.”

For example, Idaho has 26,408 hunting license holders per 100,000 population, and 959.6 serious crimes per 100,000.

New York, home of the Sullivan law, has only 3,854 hunting licenses per 100,000 population and 2,399.6 serious crimes per 100,000.

Hawaii, with a hunting license index only about three percent as high as Idaho’s has a serious crime index more than twice as high.

“In general,” the study sums up, “as the proportion of population possessing firearms goes down, the crime rates go up. Fewer people with guns do not mean less crime. The fact of the matter should be evident. More guns in the hands of good citizens reduces the rate of crime.

CRIMINALS WANT GUNS CONFISCATED

The following comments were made by a convict as reported in a prominent magazine: “Looking at it only from a professional (criminal) standpoint, most criminals would be more than happy to see laws passed making it difficult or impossible for citizens to obtain guns. We would be perfectly justified in yelling, along with well-intentioned but badly informed citizens, that honest folks don’t need guns, that an armed police force is all that they need for their protection. That would be just dandy with me, inasmuch as I have no intention of ever holding up a police station.. Any gun in the hands of a citizen is a menace as far as I’m concerned… Public ownership of sporting arms probably does more to discourage crimes against property than all the law enforcement agencies put together.”

OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY IS SACRED

Statement by President John Adams: “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be secured, or liberty cannot exist.” The Freeman Jan. 1957, page 27

OWNERSHIP OF GUNS PROTECTED BY CONSTITUTION

Guns are property and the Constitution was designed to protect our lives, our liberty and our property. The Bill of rights, which consists of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, is a restriction on those persons who happen to make up the federal government at any particular time.

REGISTRATION OF GUNS VIOLATES THE FOURTH AMENDMENT

Any law which forces a citizen to register guns or be licensed to own a gun is an infringement of the citizen’s rights under the Fourth Amendment. That amendment reads, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Registration of guns and licensing of owners gives to citizens who are employees of the federal government information which violates the fourth amendment and is therefore unconstitutional.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL MILTON S. EISENHOWER ADVOCATES TAKING PISTOLS FROM CITIZENS

The following item is taken from a United Press International release for December 16, 1969: Dr. (honorary degree) Milton S. Eisenhower, who headed an 18-month study of violence in America, said Monday the nation eventually will have to take pistols away from private citizens. “The day is coming—it ought to be here today but isn’t –when we are going to have a system of restrictive licensing so that those guns must be taken away from everyone except those who need them,” said the brother of former President Eisenhower… He said private ownership of hand guns should be outlawed both to reduce bloodshed caused by anger and to facilitate police detection of illegal firearms.

COMMUNIST PARTY INSPIRED DEMAND TO REGISTER FIREARMS.

The Los Angeles Examiner for Sept. 16, 1943 reported “Communist Party inspired demands that all persons in Los Angeles be required to register all firearms they possess was the subject of a public hearing yesterday before the public safety committee of the City Council. James Wilson, chairman of the legislative committee of the Communist Party, led a small group favoring adoption of an ordinance that would require such registration.”

TEXAS NEWSPAPER’S VIEW UNCONSTITUTIONAL

The Marshall, Texas News Messenger, July 8, 1968 says, “…Now President Johnson has asked Congress to add a registration provision to the bill. The outcry has been horrendous. Men are crying out that registration is but a step toward eventual confiscation of all guns, thereby disarming the American public. But there is no substantiation for this claim. The bill is aimed solely at making it easier to trace ownership of guns that have been used by criminals.” Editor’s note: If the gun had been stolen, ownership, of course, would indict the owner instead of the criminal.” It is difficult to understand any responsible opposition to a gun-registration law. Reputable citizens have nothing to fear from registering their guns. What is more, if their guns are stolen, recovery can be simplified when positive identification is possible through registration.

“A gun control and registration law can hardly hurt the American people. It will neither take their guns from them nor prevent them from buying others. Its main thrust is to make it more difficult for criminals and imbeciles to buy and keep guns. It is not a cure-all for crimes of violence. It is merely a step in the direction of trying to prevent the irresponsible possession and use of firearms.” (Congressional Record July 17, 1968-page S 8 765-placed by Sen. Joseph D. Tydings (D-Md)

GUN CONTROL FACTS TO REMEMBER AND TELL TO OTHERS

LESS THAN HALF OF CONGRESS VOTED YES ON 1968 GUN CONTROL ACT

Less than half of the congress voted “Yes” in the final voting on the present Federal gun law, the Gun Control Act of 1968. Of the 535 Senators and Representatives, only 230 voted “Yes.” The others either voted “No” or did not vote.

The congress repeatedly rejected moves for gun registration and firearms owner licensing in 1968 after National Rifle Association spokesmen and others made clear the opposition of the NRA membership.

45 OF 50 STATES HAVE RELAXED LONG ARM PURCHASE PROVISIONS

Since 1968, 45 of the 50 State Legislatures have passed bills relaxing long arms purchases provisions of the 1968 act at the State level – despite demands by gun control advocates that they pass stricter laws. In short, 90% of the State legislatures agreed that the Federal act was too strict in this respect.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL POLLS INDICATE DECREASING SUPPORT FOR GUN LAWS

National and local polls have indicated DECREASING support for gun laws. A Harris survey in 1968 showed 81% in favor of registering all guns. Another Harris survey in 1971 showed only 66% favoring registration and then only for handguns. In Detroit Free Press polls, 65.6% opposed more gun laws and 74.5% objected to hand gun confiscation. A Philadelphia Inquirer poll revealed 83.5% there as opposed to more gun controls. When the Washington Star station WMAL mounted the most intense television campaign on a record for gun control last fall, its letters ran 2 to 1 against it. When handgun ban was debated on “The Advocates,” coast to coast, the public vote went 5 to 1 against it, 25,690 to 5,261.

HOW MANY OWNERS WOULD REGISTER THEIR GUNS?

There are an estimated 40 to 100 million firearms in the United States. How many owners would register their guns? Some official answers from population centers where local registration already exists: In Washington, D.C., only 35,000 of an estimated 75,000 are registered; in Detroit, 100,000 of 600,000; In New York, 423,000 of 900,000 and in Chicago 409,000 of an unofficially estimated 850,000. So will registration work? Editor’s comment: The question is not whether it will work, but whether it is Constitutional? It is definitely NOT CONSTITUTIONAL.

ARE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FOR MORE GUN LAWS?

Are law enforcement officers eager for more gun laws? The big International Association of Chiefs of Police heard New York City Police Commissioner, Patrick V. Murphy appeal for handgun confiscation—and ignored it. The National Sheriff’s Association upheld the right of law abiding Americans “to purchase, own or keep arms” and opposed gun confiscation. Several smaller organizations have taken similar stands. Adapted from THE AMERICAN RIFLEMAN, Feb., 1972.

THE RIGHT TO LIFE

Is the War in Vietnam the major issue confronting us here in America today? Or is it perhaps the malignant spread of crime and violence in our streets? Then again, maybe it’s the race question?– or urbanized society? – or birth control? – or abortion reform? – or education?

LOSS OF INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM

The true answer lies at the root of all these issues. For the above are merely the symptoms, the effects, the natural by-products of a deeper fundamental issue which lies at the heart of virtually every malady that faces us today. This root cause can be stated concisely in a single phrase: the deterioration of individual freedom.

DOES THE INDIVIDUAL HAVE A RIGHT TO LIFE AND LIBERTY?

Either an individual born into society has the right to his own life, or he does not.

Either he has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, or he does not.

Either this fundamental right is his by nature, by the very fact of his existence, or it is an arbitrary gift which can be granted to him by society, or revoked by that society according to the whim of the moment.

Either an individual’s life belongs to himself alone, or it is an object of public domain which can be manipulated by and sacrificed to any group that puts a claim upon it.

FREEDOM GIVEN BY GOD, NOT BY GOVERNMENT

It is my assertion here that there can be no such thing as civil rights, or human rights, or economic rights, or any other kind of “rights” unless there is first and foremost an understanding of the true nature of individual rights. Unless we understand and affirm the principle that each and every individual is born a free agent into society, that this freedom is a natural right and is not granted to us by governmental decree, and that this basic right entitles the individual to use his life as he sees fit, to aim it in whatever direction his reason and ethical judgment advises him to– as long as he does not interfere with the same right of his fellow human beings– there can be no such thing as peace on earth, no such thing as harmony in our cities, no such thing as satisfactory education, no such thing as morality in our personal lives (for morality presupposes freedom of choice). Unless each and every individual is free to direct his own life, free to make the decisions that are necessary for his own welfare and survival, none of us is totally free.

WHEN ANYONE GETS SOMETHING FOR NOTHING OTHERS LOSE SOMETHING WITHOUT PROPER REASON

It is important to remember that, for every individual whose rights are sacrificed for the “general welfare,” there is someone at the receiving end of each coercive sacrifice— someone is collecting sacrificial offerings dictated by the state. And just as the state may demand that one individual be sacrificed today for another, so tomorrow it may change the rules and today’s recipient may become tomorrow’s victim.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PEACE ON EARTH AS LONG AS—

There can be no such thing as peace on earth as long as the state is permitted to draft its citizens from private life into the ranks of an internationalist police force.

THERE CAN BE NO SUCH THING AS ORDER IN THE STREETS AS LONG AS—

There can be no such thing s order in our streets as long as people do not recognize and respect the right of other individuals to own and control property, to walk the streets without threat of physical attach—in short, as long as people do not respect the right to life itself.

THERE CAN BE NO SUCH THING AS RACIAL JUSTICE AS LONG AS—

There can be no such thing s racial justice as long as we insist on categorizing individuals as members of a particular collective—as Jew, as Negro, as Wasp, and so on ad infinitum—rather than judging a person according to his worth as an individual.

THERE CAN BE NO SUCH THING AS A DECENT EDUCATION AS LONG AS—

There can be no such thing as “decent education” as long as the state is free to authorize a public curriculum, and then make every citizen support it through taxes regardless of whether or not he believes in it and wants to make use of it for his own children.

THERE CAN BE NO SUCH THING AS RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AS LONG AS—

There can be no such thing as freedom of religion as long as particular religious sects organize lobbies to pressure for governmental favors, thus dissolving the barrier between church and state which was the direct cause of religious freedom in the first place.

THERE CAN BE NO SUCH THING AS MORALITY AS LONG AS—

There can be no such thing as morality, itself, unless each individual is free to make decisions that effect his own personal life—indeed, the most personal elements for his life.

MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE IN AMERICA TODAY

The most important issue confronting us here in America today—across the entire face of the earth for that matter—is the attack by the collective mentality on the freedom of the individual. It is an attack on the right to life itself. Only by recognizing this fact and meeting it head on will we achieve the freedom and justice that is so dearly cherished by all rational men. (the Right to Life, by Jerome Tuccile, The Freeman, Aug. 1968, pages 507, 508)

INHERENT, UNALIENABLE AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

The Declaration of Independence reads, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

RIGHT TO OWN AND CONTROL PROPERTY COMES FROM GOD

One of the unalienable rights guaranteed to us by God is the right to our property. This is evident in the commandment, “Thou shalt not steal” When God gave this commandment He did not exempt anyone from obedience to it whether an individual alone or an individual as an employee of government. If everyone would obey this commandment everyone would be secure in his property. This commandment of God guarantees to the individual the right to own and control property and the right to retain the fruits of his labor. It forbids any individual or government to take these rights from him.

COMMUNISM EQUALS SOCIALISM EQUALS PLUNDER

Karl Marx in the communist Manifesto said that the government would take from those who have and give to those who have not. This philosophy makes Marx and all those who follow him thieves. President Lyndon B. Johnson said in a White House press release on Jan. 15, 1964, page 3, “We are going to try to take all of the money that we think is unnecessarily being spent and take it from the “haves” and give it to the “have nots” that need it so much.

GOVERNMENT ONLY A COLLECTION OF INDIVIDUALS

This philosophy of plunder makes it impossible for the average United States citizen to enjoy his rights to life, liberty and property. Many citizens of our great country have trouble deciding when their rights have been violated by government because they have been trained to think that the government can do no wrong. They seem to forget that the government is merely a collection of individuals just as prone to evil as anyone else.

IF YOU CAN’T DO IT, GOVERNMENT CAN’T DO IT

There is a simple method which makes it easy to determine when those in government are doing something wrong. If you, as an individual do not have the right to act in a particular way, the government does not have the right to act that way. It is impossible for you to give to government a right which you do not have yourself. For example, if you break into your neighbor’s house and take $100.00, you are a thief even if you give all of it to a friend who needs it.

UNCONSTITUTIONAL “LAW” CREATES EVIL

Since you do not have a right to take such action, you cannot give anyone in government the right to break into a citizen’s house or his income and take money for the benefit of himself or anyone else no matter how much need there is. If “lawmakers” do this through unconstitutional “law”, they are thieves and those who administer the “law “are thieves and those who receive the stolen goods are thieves.

In The Life of Colonel David Crocket compiled by Edward S. Ellis, 1884, one of the colonel’s constituents, Horatio Bunce, said to Davy, “No, Colonel, congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch the dollar of the public money for that purpose… The people have delegated to Congress, by the constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these few things it is authorized to collect and pay moneys. Everything beyond this is usurpation and a violation of the Constitution.”

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” [Samuel Adams, 1776; Great Quotations, p. 808]