Republic Magazine 14

8/14/2019 Republic Magazine 14

1/32


2/32
http://www.restoretherepublic.net/


3/32

PO Box 9Bo o B c , FL 33425

l: 714.436.1234 o866.437.6570

f x: 714.455.2091www. p bl cm z .com

PuBLisherGeorge Shepherd

Managing editOrGary Franchi

COPy editOrEarle Belle

Joan Walling

COntriButing WritersMichael Badnarik

Earle BelleDavid BurkeGary Franchi

Michael LeMieuxRichard Mack Joseph MaelFrank Meyer

Nguyen NguyenSadie Norlin

Michael NystromDr. Edwin Vieria, Jr.

design & PrOduCtiOnEd Rother

advertisingEarle Belle

toll F : 866.437.6570m l: @ p bl cm z .com

Subscriptions/Multiple Copy Orderswww. p bl cm z .com

o c ll: 866.437.6570

Mail-In OrdersPO Box 9

Bo o B c , FL 33425

r p bl c M z P bl Mo l

P bl d cl m : t r p bl c M zff Cdi P bl c o , i c. m

ffo o cc c of fo m -o p w p . al o ,

f om m o m o m occ . W -, l p o , o o o l c

/o l l o p of o l c o op c xpo r p bl c M z b fo -

c o . Cdi P bl c o , i c. ff o l bl fo m l f om

m of fo m o co o cc c of fo m o p o o

b o co b o .

From the Editorgary FranChi

ColumnsConstitutional Discipline

t s co am m .MiChaeL Badnarik

60 Second ActivismBuying a Gunsadie nOrLin

Activist Pro leNo Small Target: Gun Ownership Organizations You Should

JOsePh MaeL

FeaturesSecond Amendment. Friends & Foes

sadie nOrLin

Microstamping Ammunition Is Problemati JOsePh MaeL

A Well Regulated Militia: True Homeland Secura yo do yo Co o l d fo hom

dr. edWin vieria, Jr.

Liberty or Leisure: The Second AmendmenMiChaeL LeMieux

Three Steps to TyrannyMiChaeL LeMieux

Real Killers in America: Where Do Guns RanFrank Meyer

Monthly Pault Fo O l i of s co

MiChaeL nystrOM

Gun Safetydavid Burke

On The RecordsheriFF riChard MaCk (ret)

A Quick Primer To Reloadingnguyen nguyen

Care & Cleaning of Your Firearmdavid Burke

Are Gun Grabbers About to Show Their HanearLe BeLLe

4

5

19

25

7

8

10

13

14

20

22

23

27

28

30

31

s b c b O l o C ll 1-866-437-6570 i 14 r p
http://www.republicmagazine.com/http://www.republicmagazine.com/http://www.republicmagazine.com/http://www.republicmagazine.com/http://www.republicmagazine.com/http://www.republicmagazine.com/


4/32

g a r y s . F r a n C h i J r .

In Adam Sandlers classic comedy Happy Gilmore the character Mr. Larson, played by Richard Kiel, who was made amous in the James Bond lms, wears a t-shirt that states Guns dont kill people, I do! While the comedy lm takes us on a roller cthe subtle t-shirt makes a lasting statement. Who do guns kill? No one. He who holds the gun chooses to pull the trigger. Will own guns? Yes. Do unsa ely stored guns nd their way into childrens hands? Yes. Do guns save lives every day? Yes. Shouldresponsible stewards o our guns i we choose to own them? Yes. Should there be restrictions on gun ownership. NO.

The ounders included the right to keep and bear arms in our bill o rights because they knew the lengths that a tyrannicago to control their people. Whether or not you are pro-gun, the act is this nation would not be here and you would not be ablblessings o reedom without them. I King George placed ten day waiting periods, restricted elons, and required registratifedgling colonies we would still be taking a break or tea daily.

The truth is never reported by ANY media source about the real reason or increased gun laws. Over the past 100 years average American have been slowly eroded. We are slipping rom a ree state to a state where compliance with the law is not but by increased orce. This is evidenced by the use o deadly tasers or non-violent crimes at tra c stops, and Peace OLaw En orcement. The Revolutionary War resulted when government orce became so great it could only be met with orce. this as they pass restricting laws. They then work simultaneously to remove the peoples ability to react and organize with the

advocated by the ounders.The ounders knew that gun ownership and the peoples militia would ensure the security o the Free State, NOT the emptregulations o politicians who live above the law and their oaths. Let me be clear that we seek peace ul measures to reach our grepublic, but we ask you to remember why the ounders gave us the 2nd Amendment in this, your 14th issue o RepublicMagazine.

r p bl c M z i 14 www. p bl cm zs b c b O l o C ll 1-866-437-6570
http://www.republicmagazine.com/http://www.republicmagazine.com/http://www.magazineuniversity.com/http://www.ronpaulmarket.com/


5/32

M i C h a e L B a d n a r i k

We hold these truths to be sel -evident says theo ten-quoted Declaration o Independence. O course,that depends on whom you mean when you say We.

Sel -evident truths are only obvious to those that have alreadydiscovered those truths. It seems to be part o the human conditionto assume that i one knows something, then others must know too.Clearly, this is not always true.

I someone asks, Why would you jump out o a per ectly goodairplane? I am absolutely certain that theyve never made a skydivebe ore. Anyone who has experienced the exhilaration o fyingwouldnt need an answer to that question. It would already besel -evident. We [skydivers] already know many reasons to jump, yet in this example, We are a very small subset o thepopulation.

We [Americans] are ond o parades and picnics on July 4th. We [Texans] proudly celebrate March 2nd.We [Badnariks] always pose on the so a or a holiday

amily portrait. Each o these traditions is sel -evident,yet only to the group o people that are included inthe editorial We.

To whom was Thomas Je erson re erring

to when he wrote We hold thesetruths? I am certain that Weincluded the ty-six signers whodedicated their lives, ortunes, andhonor to de end what they thoughtmust surely be obvious to anyone whocontemplates the truths outlined in thedocument. Its possible that many o thepeople living in the thirteen colonies atthe time, were also amiliar with the

undamental concept o Liberty, andby necessity, with the importanceo being skilled with rearms.Regrettably, many in todays societyare woe ully ignorant on the topic o Liberty, and openly hostile to guns andthe Second Amendments signi cance.

Lets begin with a ew assumptions. Youare reading these words, which means thatyou are alive and possess at least some level o intellect. You have a strong desire to stay alive,and you hope to postpone your inevitable mortalityuntil the last possible moment. This general tendency is known asthe survival instinct. Every living creature is born with it. Go without

water, ood, or sleep or longer than you are used to, and these thingsautomatically become higher priorities.

All animals are biologically designed to respond to perceiveddanger using a sympathetic nervous system that

we commonly re er to as a ght or fightreaction. When all avenues o escape areblocked, even the most timid creature iscapable o responding with earsome violence

in order to end o a larger predator. Thisautomatic reaction is generally a surprise to both

attacker and victim.Some individuals possess a level o intellect that

allows them to remember the past and anticipate theuture. These individuals have pondered the human

condition long enough to realize that uture dangercan be minimized or avoided by anticipating what could

happen, and plan courses o action appropriate or thesituation. This might be loosely categorized as learningrom other peoples mistakes.One o the dangers mankind aces is the aberrant behavior

o a very small minority o our own population. Why are someoverly aggressive and downright mean? What could possibly

motivate one person to severely harm or even murder another?

The answers to those questions are ar beyond the scope o thisshort article, yet it would be irrational to argue that these terriblethings do not happen.

So, what should a rational person do when aced with the possibilityo being murdered? We have already mentioned the automatic ghtor fight reaction that is hard-wired in each o us. Anyone smartenough to anticipate a physical con rontation, will also be wise enoughto search or an e cient method o neutralizing a threat to his or herwell-being.

I will not insult your intelligence by concocting a phony paragraphpretending to discover the best tool or stopping an attacker.The clich that advises that you never take a kni e to a gun ghtsummarizes it. Without a doubt, a handgun is the best way to endthe li e o anyone determined to put a premature end to yours. Nota pretty truth, yet it is indisputable. Fortunately, a credible threat o violence is o ten as e ective as the violence itsel . About 90% o thtime, simply pointing a gun at someone will put a stop to their assault,which allows you to protect your own li e without being obligated totake someone elses.

You are probably amiliar with the Preamble to the Constitutionthat begins, We the People o the United States, in order to orm amore per ect union... You may have been required to memorize thatparagraph. However, I want to draw your attention to the Preamble tothe Bill o Rights. Did you know there was one? The Bill o Rights was

THE SECOND AMENDMENT. WHAT DOES IT MEAN? WHY IS IT IMPORTANT?

www. p bl cm z .com s b c b O l o C ll 1-866-437-6570 i 14 r p
http://www.republicmagazine.com/http://www.republicmagazine.com/


6/32

added to the Constitution ...in order to prevent misconstruction or abuseo its powers... Misconstruction is de ned as a kind o misinterpretationresulting rom putting a wrong construction on words or actions, o tendeliberately [emphasis, mine].

The Second Amendment re ers to a well regulated militia, whichopponents o your right to li e insist re ers to the National Guard. This ideais preposterous! The Bill o Rights was rati ed in 1791, however the National

Guard was created by the Militia Act o 1903.1 I the Second Amendmentre ers only to the National Guard, then the Founding Fathers were able topredict the uture, and the Amendment stood meaningless or 112 years untilCongress nally lled in the blanks. This argument is so outrageous, that itdoes not deserve the dignity o a response.

Others insist that the Second Amendment only grants a collective rightto keep and bear arms. This is a blatant oxymoron. The only types o rightsthat exist are INDIVIDUAL rights! (Read Chapter 3 o my book or a lengthydissertation on this topic). We do not share a collective right to reedomo speech that is exercised or us by the mainstream media. Each o hasan individual right to say what is on our minds, and government is explicitly

orbidden rom making ANY law abridging our reedom o expression. Each o us has an individual right to li e that is certainly not respected simply becausesome subset o the population is still alive. How would you respond i youwere told, Yes, you have a right to li e, but the community is going to exercisethat right in your absence. You will be sorely missed. As utterly insane as thatmay sound, that is essentially what the anti-gun people are telling you. Beinganti-gun is the same as being anti-li e.

So ar, my examples have imagined threats to your li e rom one or twoindividuals. What i a large group o people organized themselves speci cally

or the purpose o threatening your li e? What i this organizatithe publics perception o legitimacy? How would you eel knowinorganization spends nearly a billion dollars o our tax money to pinnocent people, simply or the purpose o generating widespreadcompliance? I re er, o course, to the Federal Department o Alcohoand Firearms (ATF, a.k.a. BATF, a.k.a. BATFE). This organization is tone explicitly tasked with eliminating one o the Bill o Rights!

I Dante were still alive, he would have to create another levespeci cally or the social miscreants who have the unmitigated gallan oath to protect and de end the Constitution, and then go to work assiduously violate that oath! How dare they? This is the department thaan early morning raid on the Branch Davidians or the sole purpose oa video to document how earnestly they were protecting us rom dapeople. I you have not yet watched the JPFO2 documentary about th(B)ATF(E) called The Gang,3 then you owe it to yoursel to do so.

The Founding Fathers knew about government oppression rst-hanhad already experienced the irksome and capricious laws conceptuaKing George III and en orced by his aggressive army and navy. They uat a visceral level why men must join together to overthrow tyrannDeclaration o Independence states that, When a long train o abusurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design tthem under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to thsuch Government, and to provide new Guards or their uture securonly way to throw o a government that has grown tyrannical is or credibly threatening to kill, the people who are violating your righextrapolation threatening your li e.

THAT is why the Second Amendment was written! It has nwhatsoever to do with hunting. It really has very little to do with deyoursel rom common street thugs. It has everything to do with public servants to respect the Constitution they so eagerly and supeswear an oath to protect. To put it more bluntly, the Second Amendmour emergency cut-o switch or a government run amok.

Patrick Henry said, Guard with jealous attention the public Suspect anyone who approaches that jewel. Un ortunately, nothipreserve it except downright orce. Whenever you give up that oare ruined.

Thomas Je erson said, The strongest reason or the people to rright to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselvestyranny in government.

I dont know about you, but I stand on principle with Henry and JeThe Second Amendment means that we are justi ed in using deadlyresist slavery. I re use to be a slave to anybody. Thats how much ILiberty, and thats why I will never voluntarily relinquish my guns.

So? Whats the problem? Why is there so much controversy surrothe Second Amendment? I think John Wayne explains it best duportrayal o a dying gunslinger in The Shootist. He says, It isnt alw

ast, or even accurate, that counts. Its being willing. I ound out emost men, regardless o cause or need, arent willing. They blink adraw a breath, be ore they pull the trigger. I wont. Most Americansaware o the threats to our Liberty. I think the problem with most Amis that they dont have the courage to do what it takes to protect their LI certainly hope Im wrong. O course, only time will tell.

1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Guard 2 http://www.jp o.org (Jews or the Preservation o Firearms Ownership) 3 http://www.thegangmovie.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Guardhttp://www.jpfo.org/http://www.thegangmovie.com/http://www.republicmagazine.com/http://www.republicmagazine.com/http://www.thegangmovie.com/http://www.jpfo.org/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Guardhttp://www.debtcrisissolutions.com/


7/32

President Obama has many people literally up in arms over the possibility o his administration stripping our countrys citizens o our Second Amendmentrights to legally own rearms. Obama is on record saying he will, uphold theconstitutional rights o law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen.Yet, the nervousness o the American public can clearly be seen within theinternet community as well as in the FBIs records o its National InstantCriminal Background Check System - the system used to do backgroundchecks on citizens buying weaponswithin the United States. When

compared to the numbers romNovember 2007, backgroundchecks are up 42% in November o 2008 and up 24% in December.

Attorney General Eric Holderstated on February 25th o thisyear, that President Obama willbe attempting to reinstitute thecurrently expired (as o 2004) Assault Weapons Ban. He also mentioned thatthis would be a good move not only or the United States, but also or Mexico,as they are dealing with extreme violence pertaining to drug cartels along theborder. Apparently, many rearms are making their way across the borderinto the hands o these cartels and are contributing to this violence. This maybe the case however, people peddling drugs who want weapons will procurethose weapons in any manner possible. It is doubt ul that banning assaultweapons in the United States will prevent violence rom taking place amongdrug cartels in Mexico. Drug dealing is intrinsically violent, as it is an illegalactivity. Making certain weapons illegal in the US would most likely only addto violent activities, as people would turn to black markets to acquire them.

Attorney Holder has made it clear, in several statements, that he is in avoro banning assault weapons rom legal sale, and he is not alone in his stance.Carolyn McCarthy, a New York Representative, sponsored a bill called H.R.1002: Assault Weapons Ban and Law En orcement Protection Act o 2007.The ban during the Bush Administration identi ed assault weapons by two

eatures, whereas, this bill identi ed them by only one; adding several types o

rearms to the list o those to be banned. This bill had sixty-seven co-sponsorsincluding Representative rom Ohio, Dennis Kucinich, and Representativerom Massachusetts, Barney Frank, as well as several other Representativesrom Cali ornia, Florida, and New York.

Another bill which did not see law entitled H.R. 6257: Assault WeaponsBan 2008, was de erred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, andHomeland Security, on July 28, 2008, and never saw Congress, as it wasstill in subcommittee when their 110th session ended. H.R. 6257 wasintroduced by Representative Mark Kirk o Illinois and was co-sponsoredby Rep. Michael N. Castle o Delaware, Rep. Mike Ferguson o New Jersey, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen o Florida, and Rep. ChristopherShays o Connecticut.

Although, there are several legislators whoagree with Attorney Holder, thereare, also, several who opposethe Assault Weapons

Ban. One o which is Alaskan Senator Mark Begich, who boasts thli etime member o the NRA (National Rife Association), and rmthat responsible gun ownership is a undamental right guaranteedConstitution and no government can take that right away.

Bill Frist and Lamar Alexander, both Senators rom Tennessee,oppose the ban as well. Alexander states that he also is a member o and whole-heartedly opposes the ban. Senate Majority Leader, Harr

as well as Speaker Nancy PeloCali ornia, also stated that t

would speak out in opposito any e ort to reinstituteban. Senator John Barrasso Wyoming vehemently speaks against the ban on his web shttp://www.barrasso.senate.goand has made appearances on LDobbs, voicing his opinions.

states that people have good reason to be alarmed about Attorney GHolders intentions, because o his record regarding the Second AmeIn the past, Holder has given the impression, in his writings and asAttorney General, that he believes the Amendment does not apindividuals, but to well regulated militia. Barrasso says that he unddisagrees with this; and that the people o the US need to know ththey believe the Second Amendment to mean, is actually what it meanthat it does apply to all citizens; and that a ban concerning this shoumade into law, once again; and should not be made permanent, as Hattempting to do.

Although violent crime in the United States is de nitely a probneeds solving, 75% o violent crimes in the US are not gun-relatedone might look at peoples quality o li e: how many millions o peowithout health insurance and even health care? How many live in povwithout basic necessities? How many people are bombarded by advand television, telling them what they need to be happy, what they be ul lled? Most people will never be able to a ord what they ar

need. They will never make enough money to take those beauti ul vacBarcelona or to buy a speedboat. Most people dont need the drugs beto them, and, their lives wont improve, i they take them. Most peoover orty hours a week and can hardly survive. Most people are because o these things - because o the way we live here in Ameripeople work and struggle the majority o their lives and never recetheyre working toward or or, they become desperate. Desperate pe

desperate things, which many times end up being violent acts. TheStates doesnt need a ban on assault weapons; it needs an improvem

citizens quality o li e and a sense o community that has long

by Sadie NorliN

Friends &Foes2Nd ameNdmeNt

www. p bl cm z .com s b c b O l o C ll 1-866-437-6570 i


8/32

There is not much time to take notice o recent developcoming rom Washington D.C. that will a ect your rights to own guns. Laws that imparegistering, ngerprinting, inspecting and cataloging every rearm, rearm owner, and reain the United States are coming at us in various orms and attacking the second amendmenstep o the process. The Obama anti-gun team, who made a pledge to not take your guns, hdi erent path by ocusing their radar on ammunition microstamping. Rather, new legislation putting your ammunition in a tracking database. Attempting to quietly creep its way into mAmerica by microstamping our ammunition, is a continuous movement toward gun controunconstitutional and a caustic attempt to impede on your reedom o choice. Besides beinthe consumer, the technology is not precise, is discriminatory, and easily circumvented.

Going back to 2006, the Cali ornia Million Mom March Chapters and Women against Guboth initiated support or Assembly Bill 352, which was to mandate microstamping on automatic handguns. Microstamping is a technology that would replace the incidental markon bullet casings with serial numbers. Stamps are to be 25 microns in depth, with a micron bo a millimeter, or just the raction o the size o a strand o hair. In short, microstampingis a patented process that laser engraves the rearms make, model, and serial number on the guns ring pin, so that, in theory, it imprints the in ormation on discharged cartridge pro-gun advocate Ted Novin. The bill became Cali ornia law in September o 2007, whenArnold Schwarzenegger approved the Crime Gun Identi cation Act o 2007 (AB 1471),



9/32

semi-automatic pistols to have microstamping technology included by 2010. AB 1471, an amended bill; outlines the would-berequirements which place heavy tolls on manu acturers, merchandisers, and gun buyers. In 2007, this bill was introduced 9times (in 5 states), yet currently, the amended bill is being introduced 31 times (in 18 states). (6) The big picture indicates thisproposed legislation should help speed up the data analysis process and eliminate the long process o image analysis in crimes,and initially ocuses on handgun and assault rife ammunition. (1, 2)

COSTLY, UNSTABLE TECHNOLOGYThe Cali ornia Hunting Industry is dealing with recent political setbacks, having lost the battle against the ban o lead

ammunition, also signed by Schwarzenegger. As o July 1, 2008, lead bullets are banned in some hunting districts despitethe lack o scienti c evidence to prove lead ammunition actually causes harm to wildli e, in this case, the condor. Sixty-eightpercent o the hunters in Cali ornia opposed this mandatory ban o lead bullets, resulting in an anticipated loss o 25% o thegame hunting in those key areas where the ban is en orced. It also serves as a potential loss o over 2,000 jobs and a net losso state revenues o over $225 million. A big reason would be that the cost o copper headed bullets is double the cost o lead bullets. When the cost-to-bene t ratio is so high on bills like the ban on lead bullets which is compounded with the AB1471, and many other bills that anti-gun legislatures are urging, there is a lack o merit in such a system that is supposed to beprotected by the Constitutions Second Amendment. (3)

The business o guns is a precise one in every aspect.There are many laws and regulations or all parties involved and theengineering behind the machinery cannot be fawed or the results would spell disaster. In a state unded study at UC Davis,experts concluded that this technology, originally developed by Todd Lizotte in the 90s, in its current phase o testing, is ar

rom precise. In wear-testing per ormed with Smith & Wesson, 40% o the ring pins showed wear a ter 2,500 rounds.Though proponents o microstamping say it will help law en orcement trace bullets to the guns that red them, no conclusiveevidence suggests microstamping will provide consistent results. Additionally, regulating these laws would be another costpassed down to the taxpayers. Similarly, mandating microstamping under AB 1471 would not only raise the cost per bullet,yet or a gun to meet new standards under these regulations, costs to the gun owner could exceed $200 per gun. Moreover,an estimated 240 million boxes o cartridges per year will be required to be tracked. This is an amazing task, especially or asole-source technology that is immature in proven independent testing. (4)

Long term e ects o this legislation will impact society by not only cost, but also by creating easily beatable restrictions.Consider the multitude o methods to de eat this technology in the court system - using a stolen gun, ling o the microstampwith a ngernail le (diamond coated les are easily accessible and inexpensive), scattering decoy casings at a crime sceneand barrels, ring pins, slides and bolts can easily be altered or replaced. O the 250 million guns (according to DOJ data) thatwill be required to meet this technology, still, only a small raction o these weapons will be used in criminal acts, rendering amassive percentage o the in ormation irrelevant data.

Drag marks are created by certain semi-automatic pistols which obliterate, or at very least, obscure the case when red.

Yet this is only one o several variables ound rom one gun to another that override the true intention o microstamping.There are many questions that remain unanswered in the regulation o AB 1471, and the many bills just like it presentedacross the country. What would happen in the case o stolen or lost ammunition used in crimes? How would regulation onimported ammunition work? With the billions o casings produced each year, how can misidenti cation be ensured? What abouthand-loaded ammunition, which cant be accurately tracked? Ammunition Accountability (.org) and the Brady Campaign donot o er legitimate acts, particularly in evaluation o the true burden o costs to gun manu acturers and gun owners.

Cali ornia has been a leader in adopting bills that destroy some o Americas greatest constitutional reedoms. Panelsdiscuss diverse topics including ederal and state legislative a airs, right-to-carry issues, rearms litigation, new communicationtechnologies, microstamping, and ammunition bans. Yet gun owners, who prepare or the worst, while di erent rom huntersand general enthusiasts, should not be promoted as societal outcasts, as anti-gun coalitions would like us to believe. Lawabiding gun owners have the right to maintain supplies o ammunition, yet this legislation could damage gun owners to do this,which is why many consider this a de acto ban on gun ownership.

Many bills that limit or otherwise alter the power o gun owners get struck down every year in the U.S. by simple education.

When a bill contains aults that do not improve the right to bear arms, and in act work against that reedom they claim toprotect, they easily all fat. Fortunately, people have resources and many ways to get the acts. Also consider the act that,as in AB 1471, law en orcement is strictly exempt rom microstamping ammunition.

This is, as many suggest, an easily de ended legislation, but it is up to individuals to educate and to understand what is atstake. Stamping out violence is a positive, yet doing so at a major cost, in unproven terms, would do more harm than good.

* Re ers to all semi-automatic pistols that are not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section 12131.

1 http://www.saf.org/gt/gt155.pdf 4 http://ammunitionaccountability.org/Legislation.htm 2 http://www.fogcityjournal.com/news_in_brief/ca_gun_laws_060313.shtml 5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AB_1471 3 http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=311&issue=1006 http://www.bradycampaign.org/chapters/california/ab1471faqs.pdf

Once itsimplemented,

urther research

would bewarranted.

Todd Lizotte, Developer o th

Microstamping

AmmunitionTechnology.

New Haven Register,

March 18, 2008

http://www.saf.org/gt/gt155.pdfhttp://www.ammunitionaccountability.org/Legislation.htmhttp://www.fogcityjournal.com/news_in_brief/ca_gun_laws_060313.shtmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AB_1471http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=311&issue=100http://www.bradycampaign.org/chapters/california/ab1471faqs.pdfhttp://www.republicmagazine.com/http://www.republicmagazine.com/http://www.bradycampaign.org/chapters/california/ab1471faqs.pdfhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AB_1471http://www.ammunitionaccountability.org/Legislation.htmhttp://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=311&issue=100http://www.fogcityjournal.com/news_in_brief/ca_gun_laws_060313.shtmlhttp://www.saf.org/gt/gt155.pdf


10/32

What is the undamental constitutional institution or homelandsecurity? The answer to this question may depend on the continuedindependence and reedom o the United States.

Obviously, such an institution must exist, because, as the Preamblestates, one important goal o the Constitution is to provide or thecommon de ense. Just as obviously, however, this institution is notthe recently birthed Department o Homeland Security or even themore pedigreed Department o De ense. For the Constitution mentionsneither o them.

The undamental constitutional institution or homeland securityis not even the Army or Navy. Americas Founding Fathers pro oundlydistrusted standing armed orces under the control o any governmentas potential enemies o liberty, not least o all because o their ownexperiences with the British Armys attempts to suppress reedom in theColonies and independent States. So, in the Constitution, the Foundersre used to adopt any pre-existing army or navy, or to create new ones,as permanent establishments or the United States.

True, the Constitution delegates to Congress the powers [t]o raiseand support Armies and [t]o provide and maintain a Navy. Article I,Section 8, Clauses 12 and 13. And with such powers comes a duty toexercise them, when necessary and proper. Compare United States v.Marigold, 50 U.S. (9 Howard) 560, 567 (1850), with Article I, Section8, Clause 18. Otherwise, though, Congress need never raise andsupport, and need not continuously provide and maintain, an armyor a navy. Furthermore, the Constitution requires that, even whenCongress does raise an army, no Appropriation o Money to that Useshall be or a longer Term than two Years. Article I, Section 8, Clause

12. This enables the House o Representatives--the House o Congrelectorally closest to the people and most wary o their lives, liberand property--to prevent an army rom continuing in existence wh

it serves no purpose that justi es its expense, or when it threatenAmericans reedoms.

In addition, the Constitution provides that [n]o State shall, withothe Consent o Congress, * * * keep Troops, or Ships o War, in to Peace. Article I, Section 10, Clause 3. So, nowhere in the edsystem does the supreme law o the land treat an army or navy as inevitable, indispensable, permanent, or perpetual institution.

Where, then, should Americans look or constitutional homelasecurity? The Second Amendment to the Constitution provides th

rst giant steps towards the answer:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security o a ree S

the right o the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be in ringedBy de nition, the security o a ree State is homeland security

homeland being, not simply a geographical area, but a special policonception rooted in reedom). The Amendment describes [a] wregulated Militia as necessary (not simply use ul) or such secuAnd, the Amendment singles out the right o the people to keep and bArms as so important to the existence o such a Militia that the ri* * * shall not be in ringed. There ore, the undamental constitutinstitution o homeland security must be [a] well regulated Milbased upon the right o the people to keep and bear Arms.

Perhaps more importantly, the body o the Constitution itselnot silent on this matter, either. To be sure, the Constitution does nocreate any well regulated Militia. It delegates no power to Congre

ARE YOU DOING YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY FOR HOMDr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.

10 r p bl c M z i 14 www. p bl cm zs b c b O l o C ll 1-866-437-6570


11/32

to raise and support (as with an army), to provide and maintain (aswith a navy), or in any other words to ashion rom whole cloth any wellregulated Militia. And, it does not even de ne what constitutes such aMilitia. That is because it did not have to. In the late 1700s, every adultAmerican knew that well regulated Militia had existed in the Coloniesand independent States rom the mid-1600s, and were established in everyState o the Union even as the Constitution was being dra ted and rati ed.For that reason, the Constitution simply acknowledged the Militia o theseveral States as already in existence, adopted, and incorporated themaccording to the historical legal principles by which they had long and eventhen operated, and thereby perpetuated them in that orm. See Article I,Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16; and Article II, Section 2, Clause 1.

The denotation Militia o the several States recognizes that theMilitia lies largely outside the jurisdiction o the General Government.Thus, [t]he President shall be Commander in Chie * * * o the Militiao the several States, yet only when [they] are called into the actualservice o the United States. And, Congress is empowered [t]o provide* * * or governing such Part o them as may be employed in the Serviceo the United States, yet not otherwise. Moreover, these powers are tobe exercised only when Congress provide[s] or calling orth the Militia to

execute the Laws o the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.For example, see Title 10, United States Code, Sections 331 to 333. Sel -evidently, i Congress and the President may govern and command theMilitia only when such Part o them are in act call[ed] orth or certainde ned and limited National purposes, during all other times the Militiamust remain within some other legal and territorial jurisdictions romwhich they may be call[ed] orth, and therein must be subject to othergovernance and command: namely, that o the several States.

By recognizing, adopting, incorporating, and perpetuating theMilitia o the several States as they historically existed, the Constitutionimmunizes them rom undamental changes in their legal compositionand characteristics through mere legislative acts. The Constitution doesimpose certain new National duties on the Militia when they are call[ed]

orth * * * to execute the Laws o the Union, suppress Insurrections andrepel Invasions. This, however, also empowers them in these particulars,both when call[ed] orth according to laws that Congress provide[s],and in those situations in which the Militia ought and need to be call[ed]

orth, yet Congress re uses, ails, or is unable to do so. Even moreimportant, by incorporating the Militia o the several States with noother additions to, subtractions rom, or modi cations o , their historicallegal composition and characteristics, the Constitution preserves in allother respects the undamental rights, powers, privileges, duties, andimmunities, that the Militia exercised and enjoyed throughout the period

rom the mid-1600s through the late 1700s.Because the Constitution itsel empowers the Militia o the several

States or National purposes, the Militia are not optional, discretionary,or disposable or Congress, the President, the Judiciary, the States,or even, We the People. First, because the Militia are the Militia o the several States, Congress lacks authority to create or to dissolvethem. Congress also lacks authority to disregard, neglect, or impede theMilitia, with respect either to their per ormance o their constitutionallymandated services to the Nation, or to their practical ability to per ormthose services. Instead, Congresss powers and duties are [t]o provide

or calling orth the Militia or particular National purposes, and to makethem ully e ective or those purposes by provid[ing] or, organizing,arming, and disciplining the[m]. Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16.The President shall be their Commander in Chie , when [they are]

called into the actual Service o the United States. Article II, SectioClause 1. And, the Judiciary lacks authority to absolve either Congror the President o these responsibilities.

Second, although the Militia o the several States are Stainstitutions, the States cannot dispense with them, either, because thConstitution presupposes their permanence, and the Constitution is tsupreme Law o the Land. Article VI, Clause 2. Obviously, i the Scould dissolve their Militia at will, they could erase Congresss powecall [ ] orth the Militia. They could render un ul llable the duty United States to guarantee to every State in this Union a RepublicForm o Government and to protect each o them against Invasiand * * * against domestic Violence. Article IV, Section 4. And, thcould even disarm themselves rom engag[ing] in War when actuinvaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit o delay, bec(absent dispensation rom Congress) they would have no other arm

orces to deploy. Article I, Section 10, Clause 3.Third, because the Militia are State institutions, the Constitutio

reserves to the States an exclusive power and duty to govern [ ] suPart o them as may [not] be employed in the Service o the UnStates, and a concurrent power and duty to provide or organizin

arming, and disciplining their Militia i Congress re uses, ailsunable to do so, in whole or in part. See Article I, Section 8, ClauseAmendment X; Amendment XIV, Section 1; and Houston v. Moore, U.S. (5 Wheaton) 1 (1820). Indeed, i a negligent or criminal Congresshirking its duties or conspiring to de eat the Constitution, could renthe Militia impotent and thereby put the Nation and States in peril, athe States nevertheless could do nothing to correct the situation, would be absurd to speak o the Militia o the several States at al

Fourth, because the Militia are composed o We the People arms, all Americans retain the right, and reserve the power, to arrathemselves in the Militia o the[ir] several States, should Congressthe States completely ail, neglect, or re use to per orm their dutithat particular. This right and power derives rom:

We the Peoples explicit adoption, incorporation, and empowermeo the Militia in the Constitution, which cannot be de eatedinaction, incompetence, negligence, or criminality on the part their mere agents;

the mandate o the Second Amendment, which recognizes [a] well regulated Militia as necessary to the security o a State, (ii) the right o the people to keep and bear arms as tprecondition or such a Militia, beyond the power o public oto in ringe [ ], and there ore (iii) the right o the people to themselves into constitutional Militia when the security o a State is at risk; and, in the nal analysis,

in the case o a criminal conspiracy among public o cials to dAmericans o their lives, liberties, or property, the overarchprinciple o the Declaration o Independence, that when a long o abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Objeevinces a design to reduce the [people] under absolute Despotisit is their right, it is their duty, to throw o such Government, to provide new Guards or their uture security.

Concomitant with this right and power, urthermore, is the persoconstitutional duty o every American to serve in the Militia in scapacity, unless excused by immaturity, senility, physical disabilityother proper legal exemption or disquali cation. I Congress andStates ail or re use to exercise their powers and to ul ll their dwith respect to the Militia, each and every American must ll the g



12/32

by exercising his own duties within the boundaries o the law. This cannot beemphasized too strongly, because constitutional duties typically apply only topublic o cials or public o ces. [T]he Militia o the several States, though,are critically important components o constitutional government; and everyAmerican (not properly excused) is a working constituent o the Militia.

From their permanence, and the situations which may cause them to be

call[ed] orth, the Militia o the several States leap o the parchment o the Constitution as the primary, and in some circumstances the only availableor desirable, constitutional orce or homeland security. With their usualperspicacity, the Founding Fathers designated the Militia to de end againstevery salient danger, oreign and domestic, including: execut[ing] the Lawso the Union, suppress[ing] Insurrections and repel[ling] Invasions (ArticleI, Section 8, Clause 15); guarantee[ing] to every State * * * a RepublicanForm o Government and protect[ing] them all against Invasion anddomestic Violence (Article IV, Section 4); and even enabling the States toengage in War when actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as willnot admit o delay (Article I, Section 10, Clause 3). Notable is that, becausethe Constitution is the supreme Law o the Land (Article VI, Clause 2),the Militia may be call[ed] orth to execute the [Constitution] itsel . And,

because usurpation and tyranny by public o cials constitute the gravestpossible violations o the Constitution, the Militia are empowered by theConstitution to suppress them--and, in extremis, may even call [themselves]

orth or that purpose, as they did at Lexington and Concord in 1775.For, as a constitutional institution, the Militia o the several States are agovernmental institution. So, the true ederal government o this countryconsists o six parts: We the People (the political body, empowered to vote),

Congress, the President, the Judiciary, the States, and the Militia (thebody, empowered to ght).

Yet when and where, in all the strident propaganda and agitation, and orchestrated paranoia about the need or homeland security toAmerica against terrorism, has anyone in political prominence poout? Or, suggested that homeland security be based on it? Or, pr

a comprehensive revitalization o the Militia o the several Statecentral ocus o homeland security? Why, instead, is homelandbeing used as a cover-story to rationalize the construction o a cenational police state, or which the Constitution provides no juswhatsoever, yet disallows in every particular?

Why have all the worldly wise and power ul, the sel -styled brightest, in Washington, D.C., as well as in State capitals throughcountry, ignored the point that stands out on the ace o the Conwith as much prominence and character as Karl Maldens nose? Can read the Constitution? I they can read it, can they not understand itcan understand it, can they not speak out? Or, is their silence the veevidence that Americans could have o the need to revitalize the the several States?

Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds our degrees rom Harvard: A.B. (Harvard Co and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School o Arts and Sciences), and J.D Law School). For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with econstitutional issues. In the Supreme Court o the United States, he succe or brie ed cases leading to landmark decisions. He is a writer or Newcom. He can be reached at: P.O. Box 3634, Manassas, Virginia 20108.

True Homeland Security

Buy Gold NowBefore the Stimulus

Wipes You Out

Buy Gold Now

Gold Silver Numismatic Coins

~ Family Owned and Operated ~~ Fast Confdential Delivery ~

~ No Computer Records Kept ~

~ ~

~ ~

Call 800-225-31262925 Newmarket, Suite 107

Bellingham, WA 98226

~ ~

Pacific Rim TRadingPacific Rim TRadingPacific Rim TRading

http://www.newswithviews.com/http://www.newswithviews.com/http://www.newswithviews.com/http://www.newswithviews.com/http://www.newswithviews.com/http://www.newswithviews.com/http://www.buygoldcurrency.com/http://www.buygoldcurrency.com/http://www.buygoldcurrency.com/http://www.buygoldcurrency.com/http://www.buygoldcurrency.com/http://www.buygoldcurrency.com/http://www.buygoldcurrency.com/http://www.buygoldcurrency.com/http://www.buygoldcurrency.com/http://www.buygoldcurrency.com/http://www.buygoldcurrency.com/http://www.buygoldcurrency.com/http://www.buygoldcurrency.com/http://www.buygoldcurrency.com/http://www.buygoldcurrency.com/http://www.buygoldcurrency.com/http://www.buygoldcurrency.com/http://www.buygoldcurrency.com/http://www.buygoldcurrency.com/http://www.buygoldcurrency.com/http://www.buygoldcurrency.com/http://www.buygoldcurrency.com/http://www.buygoldcurrency.com/http://www.buygoldcurrency.com/http://www.buygoldcurrency.com/http://www.buygoldcurrency.com/http://www.buygoldcurrency.com/http://www.buygoldcurrency.com/http://www.buygoldcurrency.com/http://www.buygoldcurrency.com/http://www.buygoldcurrency.com/http://www.buygoldcurrency.com/http://www.buygoldcurrency.com/http://www.buygoldcurrency.com/http://www.buygoldcurrency.com/http://www.buygoldcurrency.com/http://www.buygoldcurrency.com/http://www.buygoldcurrency.com/http://www.buygoldcurrency.com/http://www.buygoldcurrency.com/http://www.republicmagazine.com/http://www.buygoldcurrency.com/http://www.republicmagazine.com/http://www.survivalgearsource.com/http://www.newswithviews.com/


13/32

When considering the true purpose o the Second Amendment, they could

not be urther rom the truth. To prove this point, lets consider the words o the Second Amendment itsel : A well regulated militia being necessary tothe security o a ree state, the right o the people to keep and bear arms shallnot be in ringed.

How many times was a recreational activity mentioned in this Amendment?None. The reason is stated up ront-- or the security o a ree state.

Security rom what? Many o you reading this may be shocked; it is securityrom invasion, insurrection, or a tyrannical central government!

Our Fore athers knew through history what power does to governmentand also its natural tendency to expand its power. This American experimentwas to provide a union o independent nations (states) with a balance o powerbetween the ederal, states, and the people. The right o arms is the ultimatesecurity, providing people with the means to withstand oppression.

In 1833, Justice Story, a Supreme Court Justice appointed by JamesMadison in 1811, penned Commentaries on the Constitution o the UnitedStates. Regarding the Second Amendment, he wrote: The militia is thenatural de ence o a ree country The right o the citizens to keep and beararms has justly been considered, as the palladium o the liberties o a republic.

He went on to relate o a growing indi erence to any system o militiadiscipline, much as we see today. Almost prophetically, he stated: There iscertainly no small danger, that indi erence may lead to disgust, and disgust tocontempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by thisclause o our national Bill o Rights.

In this same vain, Representative Ron Paul stated in 2006: The Second

Amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nig

It is not about protecting onesel against common criminals. It preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens wouldbe able to overthrow a tyrannical government, as they did. They envgovernment as a servant, not a master, o the American people. The mthey used against the British Army were the assault rifes o that tipractical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cansecure in their reedoms.

It is my belie the lawmakers know this. The excuse o ghtinglimiting weapons to only recreational use is only the reason to law, not the desired end e ect. The desired end e ect is the remocapability o the citizenry to resist government. Once this is accomthe country is helpless against abusive rulers. Another means o chbalances, the nal means, is abolished.

The last seventy years have been a continual neutering o the Ampatriot. When all is said and done, the wresting o our God-given rithe communist or collectivist and the power-hungry government buremay come down to one thing: our Second Amendment Right.

Michael LeMieux is a retired U.S. Army intelligence and imagery ana served combat tours in Kuwait and A ghanistan with the 19th Speciis a Purple Heart recipient or injuries received in A ghanistan. Mr. L author o Unalienable Rights and the denial o the U.S. Constitution, Publish America and a regular writer or Republic Magazine. You can LeMieux via his website at: www.constitutiondenied.com.

ver the years, I have heard countless politicians and gun

activists de ending our Second Amendment right as being or hunting, target shooting, or some other recreat

http://www.constitutiondenied.com/http://www.constitutiondenied.com/http://www.constitutiondenied.com/http://www.constitutiondenied.com/http://www.constitutiondenied.com/http://www.constitutiondenied.com/http://www.republicmagazine.com/http://www.republicmagazine.com/http://www.constitutiondenied.com/


14/32

Every advanced culture in the history o the world has utilized

intelligence in one orm or another to determine the current

conditions o its adversaries, or to predict uture actions o

other nations. Knowing a nations history will provide indicators

o when something may happen in the uture.For instance, an example o an indicator that a neighboring country is

preparing or a space launch is that preparations are being made at a space fightcenter. Rocket uel is being positioned on the launch pad, support vehicles showup, a rocket capable o space fight is positioned on the pad, and large groups o observers watch.

At this point, no launch has occurred, no big smoke cloud can be seen, theyhave not told us they are launching a rocket, and the rocket is still sitting on theearth. I all the indicators rom above are presented, would you think there is apotential or a space launch in the immediate uture? I think we could all agree, it ismore likely than not.

Taking this same type o logic to the political arena; i a government says to thepeople that their only interest is the rights and sa ety o the people; and yet, time andtime again, we see indicators and warnings o the opposite, what do we believe?

I do not pretend to be psychic in any shape or orm; however, we must look athistory as an indicator to a potential course o action. Remember the adage by GeorgeSantayana: Those who cannot learn rom history are doomed to repeat it.

Knowing past indicators is not a guarantee that the next step is inevitable; it isonly an indicator o a possible course o action out o a number o possibilities. In the

oregoing example o a possible space launch, this may have been solely an exercise totrain those personnel involved in the launch. Yet, there are also indicators that cross apoint o no return. In the above example, just having uel vehicles present may indicatean intention, yet does not pass the threshold o impending action.

As any chemist can tell you, rocket uel is very corrosive anonce loaded into a rocket, the countdown starts as to when itmust be used, or they must scrub the launch. So, an indicatoro impending action is the actual loading o the uel into rocket. At this point, it crosses the threshold rom potential probable.

One o the indicators or determining the actions o a rityrannical government are to look at indicators that hav

allowed governments in the past to become tyrannical. Oneindicator that appears to be universal, is or governments tremove the ability o the population to de end themselveagainst a tyrannical government.

In 1911, while Samuel Colt was producing the venerab1911 semi-automatic pistol, Turkey established gun control astarted disarming the population. With looming involvementhe First World War, the Constantinople government did notrust Armenians living in their country. Many o the Armenwere learned men o pro essional stature; doctors, pro esand businessmen, thought to be a threat to the new regimIn 1915, with a new de enseless citizenry, they rounded umany as 1.5 million Armenians and exterminated them.

In 1929, the Soviet Union, with the rise o Staestablished its version o gun control. Stalin introducethe Soviet landscape, what would become known as ocollectivization. Stalin began to take land rom mo small peasant armers, consolidated it into large and orced the ormer owners to work or die. The Ruintelligentsia o the time had a belie that the only meo li e lies in the conscious participation in something gthan the individual. From 1929 to 1953, Stalin rounded20 million political dissidents and exterminated them. Iback at the stump speeches o our current leader and ra similar intelligentsia belie that we must hang our s

something greater than ourselves, some collective vthat suddenly takes on a somber tone.In the midst o the Chinese civil war, 1935,

established gun control as a means to control the masserebellion. Mao Zedongs Communist Party victory la

oundation or unprecedented class struggles. As in thUnion; Mao redistributed armland and suppressed land owners. From 1948 until 1952, Mao extermi



15/32

anti-communists, Christians, and political dissidents. By the timethey were through, they killed over 20 million o their own citizens.In total, over 70 million deaths are attributed to the Maoist thought.Mao Zedong believed in the duty o the individual to support the stateand the duty o the state was to care or the people.

In 1938, Germany established gun control, and in the ollowingyear, 1939, started killing Jews, Gypsies, handicapped, and otherpeoples who had mongrel traits. This continued until 1945 with

a total o over 13 million deaths. It is important to note that eachgovernment listed, Hitler included, passed laws to make this possible,be ore turning around and murdering millions o unarmed civilians.

In 1956, Cambodia established gun control and disarmed thegeneral population. In 1975, the Khmer Rouge, a ter overthrowingthe government, set out to cleanse the country o anyone opposingthe regime. It was assumed that all intellectuals would be inopposition and there ore were killed. Entire districts o the nationwere relocated and any re using to leave, or were too slow, werekilled. The Khmer Rouge, under Pol Pots leadership, ollowed theMaoist model o collectivism.

In 1964, the Guatemalan government, under civil war, establishedgun control to remove rearms rom the general population. Morethan a million people were orced rom their homes. The 3 decadecivil war resulted in the deaths o over 200,000 with over 83% beingunarmed Mayan Indians.

In 1970, Uganda established a new gun control law to replace theormer British Firearms Ordinance, thus prohibiting any person not

politically connected to the Obote dictatorship rom having a modernrearm. In 1971, Idi Amin, in a military coup, took over Uganda and

began a murderous genocide against a now disarmed populace. In total,the Amin regime murdered over 300,000 Ugandans.

Most every American reading these statistics would not believe thiscould ever happen here at the hands o our government. And, or the mostpart, I would agree, yet only or one reason, we still have our guns.

In each instance listed above, a trend was ollowed, indicators i you will,as to the intent o the government. First; were the gun laws that registeredrearms, so the government would know where they were. Second;

came con scation to disarm those to whom the government is targeting.And third; tyranny, oppression, and extermination at the hands o thegovernment, or others, that take advantage o the now weak populace.

Be ore I progress urther, let me sidetrack or a minuteto cover a point dealing with rights. There seems to bea misunderstanding in America today, about what rolethe Constitution and Bill o Rights play regardingthe American citizen. Many believe that thisvenerable document grants our individual reedomsand rights. We o ten hear people talking about theirConstitutional Rights or rights guaranteed by the

Constitution; however, they are mistaken. The rightsenjoyed by all Americans are derived rom one source,our creator. You were endowed with these rights whenyou came into the world and they do not come rom thegovernment.

The Declaration o Independence also tells us the rolethe government should play in the lives o its citizens bystating: That to secure these rights, governments areinstituted among Men, deriving their just powers romthe consent o the governed So here we see, that theprimary reason or us to have a government is to securethese rights. Meaning they are to protect, as a primaryunction o government, the rights o its citizens rom any

encroachment upon these unalienable rights.The remainder o this article examines how well our

government is looking a ter the rights o the people to keepand bear arms.

In 1833, Justice Story, a Supreme Court Justice appointedby James Madison in 1811, penned Commentaries on theConstitution o the United States. Regarding the SecondAmendment, he wrote: The next Amendment is: A wellregulated militia being necessary to the security o a reestate, the right o the people to keep and bear arms shallnot be in ringed.

The importance o this article will scarcely be

doubted by any persons, who have duly refected uponthe subject. The Militia is the natural de ence o a reecountry against sudden oreign invasions, domestic



16/32

insurrections, and domestic usurpations o powerby rulers. It is against sound policy or a reepeople to keep up large military establishmentsand standing armies in time o peace, both romthe enormous expenses, with which they are

attended, and the acile means, which they a ordto ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvertthe government, or trample upon the rights o thepeople. The right o the citizens to keep and beararms has justly been considered, as the palladium

disposition, rom a sense o its burdens, too all regulations. How it is practicable to kepeople duly armed without some organizatiodi cult to see. There is certainly no small that indi erence may lead to disgust, and

to contempt; and thus gradually undermine aprotection intended by this clause o our naBill o Rights.

This commentary came at a time when thwere absolutely no ederal rearms laws obooks. It was understood that the right o cicould not be in ringed upon. I you mupermission to do something, then it is a privnot a right. He also warned that the graindi erence would lead to an underminingprotection intended by the Second Amendme

The enactment o rearms laws is a relarecent occurrence or the ederal governmenFederal Firearms Act in 1938, was the rst aCongress to regulate rearms. This act was bupon the perceived need to regulate the reindustry and license the dealers, manu actand gunsmiths, within the rearms trade. Itbased upon the Interstate Commerce Clausthe Constitution. Appropriately, it was codunder Title 15 o the US Code CommercTrade. The new laws under the Act incluthe creation o a Federal Firearms License (

or anyone doing business in the rearms One o the primary goals was to prohibi

holders rom selling rearms to convicted It required FFL holders to keep records rearms sales, and or the rst time, it mad

alteration o rearm serial numbers a crimeelt this was an in ringement on state juris

by enacting a law that reached past the sboundary, in violation o the Constitution.

From 1938 to 1968, everything went aairly well until the government decided to

little shell game, and they switched the FirAct rom Title 15 to Title 18. Title 18 is eCrimes and Criminal Procedures. Why wthe government switch the code section Title 15 to Title 18 a ter having been counder Title 15 or thirty years? The only rareason is jurisdictional ob uscation, or hidinwould otherwise be apparent as to the limitgovernment could act upon us, the citizens.see, under Title 15, the government was wits right ul jurisdiction o Commerce and THowever, i you are bound by CommerceTrade, you cannot enact laws on normal citiwho are not acting in the trade. There oregovernment changed, with the stroke o a penConstitutional powers rom commerce to crim

o the liberties o a Republic; since it o ers a strongmoral check against the usurpation and arbitrarypower o rulers; and will generally, even i theseare success ul in the rst instance, enable thepeople to resist and triumph over them. And yet,

though this truth would seem so clear, and theimportance o a well regulated militia would seemso undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that amongthe American people there is a growing indi erenceto any system o militia discipline, and a strong

http://www.republicmagazine.com/http://www.republicmagazine.com/http://www.photonsoundbeam.net/


17/32


18/32

Amendment right. As with any revelation, the ull truth is neverevealed. Most importantly, until the American people are willing to to tyranny and oppression, the depths o that oppression will grow deeBATF, under the Treasury, is willing to lie to Congress, alsely imprisoentrap and coerce honest citizens into unknowingly committing inand then ravage their lives and make them criminals, when there was n

criminal intent; what makes us think the IRS or any other governmenis any di erent? They are just another branch on the same tree.I cannot say this enough, the birth rights we have, as American C

are higher than the Constitution. They exist by virtue o our creationbestowed at birth, and these rights cannot be taken by any governmentwe give them away. The Second Amendment is paramount to all othebecause without this right, we cannot de end other rights. I have cunderstand that those without a means o de ense, become victim to thwill orce their will upon them. I have personally seen this in SomaliKuwait, the Philippines, and A ghanistan. In most cases, the only rreceived respect rom the enemy was because we had the means to them rom the ace o the earth. Make no mistake, i it were not orAmendment, this nation would not be here today. Our uture still dep

the willingness o We the People to stand up and ght to keep this rThe last seventy years have been a continual neutering o the A

Patriot. When all is said and done, the wresting o our God-giverom the Communists and Collectivists and the power-hungry gov

bureaucrats may come down to one thing: our Second Amendment R

Michael LeMieux is a retired U.S. Army intelligence and imagery ana served combat tours in Kuwait and A ghanistan with the 19th Speciis a Purple Heart recipient or injuries received in A ghanistan. Mr. L author o Unalienable Rights and the denial o the U.S. Constitution, Publish America and a regular writer or Republic Magazine. You can LeMieux via his website at: www.constitutiondenied.com.

In ormation or this article was derived rom multiple sources to include: www.preventgenocide.org, www.gao.gov,www.keepandbeararms.com, Book: Unalienable Rights and the Denial o the U.S. Constitution.

http://www.constitutiondenied.com/http://www.constitutiondenied.com/http://www.constitutiondenied.com/http://www.constitutiondenied.com/http://www.constitutiondenied.com/http://www.constitutiondenied.com/http://www.preventgenocide.org/http://www.gao.gov/http://www.keepandbeararms.com/http://www.republicmagazine.com/http://www.republicmagazine.com/http://www.republicmagazine.com/http://www.primaryassetprotection.com/http://www.freemarketunderdog.com/http://www.silverpatriot.com/http://www.keepandbeararms.com/http://www.gao.gov/http://www.preventgenocide.org/http://www.constitutiondenied.com/


19/32

Bu ing GunI youve been thinking o purchasing a rearm, there are

several things you must consider be ore doing so. First o all, pin-point whatyour plans are or the weapon; hunting, target practice, or strictly or sel -de ense in your home or on the street. This process, due to over-regulation,will take much longer than 60 seconds.

For the latter, you want to make sure, be ore even researching what typeo gun will suit you, that you are com ortable owning a gun and somedaypossibly having to re it at another human being. In a heated situation, youwont have the time to think on the question o whether or not you couldtake another human beings li e. You must eel certain, that in desperation,you could do so. I , in the end, you are discontent with this concept, it wouldbe a better idea or you to purchase a can o pepper spray or a taser to suityour needs.

Considering you come to the conclusion that you are com ortable with a

gun in your home or on your person, you must then see that you apply or acarry permit (depending on which state you live in) as those may take quitesome time to obtain. Whether or not you choose to carry your rearm withyou or to keep it at home, a handgun is the best option or purchase. There areseveral di erent models ranging in price and size, all o which would t easily

sadie nOrLi

in a dresser-drawer or hip-holster. The ollowing are excellent choicsearching or a sel de ense rearm: Smith & Wesson Model 60 at Tec P32 at $320, Kahr MK40 at $680, or a Kimber 1911 Compact at

For hunting, you will want to choose something that you eel at eand that is somewhat multi-purpose. O course, your decision odepends on what type o hunting you plan to do. For large mammalsdeer, elk, moose, or bear, a 30-06 is a good decision. They can be pu

rom a ew di erent makers such as Savage, Remington, or Moi a package rife can be ound, it will come with the scope thatneed. When looking to hunt smaller game such as; birds, rabbit, or sMossberg 500 slide-action shotgun in 12 gauges should work well. Tis airly inexpensive and very reliable.

I buying a rearm speci cally or target shooting, a .22LR is a gbecause the ammunition is airly cheap in comparison to other targeguns. With the economy the way it is, one o these may be a good idMark II at $300, Browning Buckmark at $400, or a Browning Sig

Target at $600.Owning a rearm is a he ty responsibility and should not be takNeedless to say, all rearms can be deadly and must always be handextreme caution. I children are present in your home, have your gammunition in a locked and out o reach case at all times.

http://www.republicmagazine.com/http://www.republicmagazine.com/http://www.ingoldwetrust.us/http://www.freedom-loving-books.com/


20/32

There is no question that Americans are divided over the gun issue. On theone side are those who view guns as a prime reason people su er violence andpremature death. They believe that the gun itsel is the perpetrator o deathwhen in reality it is merely a tool in the users hand.

On the other side are people who value guns or many positive reasons. InAmericas early history, the musket was a means o providing nourishment andprotection. For young rontier boys, being entrusted with a weapon became arite o passage. To women throughout the Wild West, a pistol or double barrelshotgun were the great equalizers.

While ew people still use guns to provideood, around 15 million choose to put their

money and time into the sport o hunting. Overorty million engage in competitive shooting.

As our society becomes more violent, manycitizens carry a concealed weapon or sel -de ense. Others enjoy the beauty o a well-cra ted weapon. So, why the strong desire todeny our history and take away the right o theprivate ownership o guns?

The answer seems easy or the anti-gun people: Guns kill people. Think o the

innocent students at Columbine High Schooland Virginia Tech.

While statistics can be manipulated toprove nearly any point you want to make,they provide some objective comparisonsin evaluating who the real killers are. Inresearching statistics or this article, I cameto the strong conclusion that we need to be very care ulin the interpretation o statistical numbers. It is said thatstatistics dont lie, yet the people who use them do.

Consider these acts. The most emotionally loadedcharge against guns is the number o children killedby them. While the death o every child is tragic, it isobvious that we need to ask; why the disproportionedoutcry against guns, when minor, compared to othercauses? (See Table 1)

While the actual number o guns owned by Americanscan only be estimated, it turns out to be similar to thenumber o motorized vehicles in this nation, somewherein the range o 250 million, almost one per person.In an average year, over 3 million people are injured inautomotive accidents, and slightly more than 40,000 arekilled (Table 2).

Now compare these numbers to the estimated

Table 2

1995 Fatal Accident TotalsMo o - cl 43,900

F ll 12,600

Po o 10,600

d ow 4,500

F 4,100

C o 2,800

F m 1,400*

* acco fo 1.5% of f l cc .so c : t n o l C fo h l s c

Fact Sheet: The Real Story On Kids DeathsCause Number Number

(a 0-14) (a 0-4)Mo o - cl 2,591 819

d ow 943 568

F m 593 327

M c c l ffoc o 601 508

i o of foo , obj c * 169 169

F m 86 19

so c : F fo 2000. n o l s f Co c l, i j F c :2003 e o , 10-11, 129.*t i o of foo , obj c c o po col m c nsC o cl fo 5 o 14 y .

Table 1

Guns kill people, yet sobathtubs, legal drugs, and swimming pools. Puttin

and subjective prejudices, what are the facts? Why the great

25,000 people killed by guns, with well over ty percent beingSince the registration and licensing o both vehicle and driver havno e ect on the death rate, where is the logic o registering guns their wrong ul use?

Here is another area where comparisons can help place the biggerin perspective. There is a movement called Doctors or Gun Controit is understandable that an emergency physician who regularly dethe carnage o gunshot wounds may come to hate what guns do to

also realize that his pro ession creates a coThese are general statistics wherein subjecemotional convictions do not match hrealities.

According to Harvard Medical Schphysicians kill an estimated 96,000 patieyear through malpractice. Larry Pratt oOwners o America, points out that we aretimes as likely to be killed by our doctors, tsomeone murdering us with a gun.

Now, compare this to the statistics medical deaths in hospitals. In July 2Mercola.com carried an article Doctors

The Third Leading Cause o Death in thKilling 225,000 People Every Year. Thibased on a piece published in the Journthe American Medical Association (JAMDecember 1999 (Table 3). The author wasBarbara Star eld o the John Hopkins SchHygiene and Public Health.

The author admitted that these are estimates basethe sel -reporting o doctors and hospitals. One canwondering, how many additional deaths were attrito other causes? Doctors o ten joked with me duripastoral relationship that I got to bury their mistakes

As we have seen with automotive deaths, docnurses, and medical specialists are highly educated, liand heavily regulated, yet despite their best e orts, tmake mistakes. Does it make sense to shut down hoor pass more laws to regulate them?

Whats the comparison with the wrong or accidento guns? Accidental gun deaths are minor by compThis conclusion leads to other pertinent actors.

Do guns cause people to commit suicide, or, aresimply an e ective means to achieve a predeterminStatistics vary here as well, yet generally about 50 po gun deaths result rom people using them to en

By FraNk Meyer



21/32

lives. Some argue that reducing the availability o gunswould lower the number o suicides. While there is nosure way to disprove their theory, people can choose anynumber o ways to commit suicide. I this is a prime reason

or banning guns, do we also ban knives, razors, sleepingpills, and the multiple methods used to end ones li e?

This line o thinking attempts to nd workable waysto reduce crime.The statistics coming out o Australiaand England provide positive evidence that the expensive

con scation and destruction o nearly all privately heldguns have not reduced gun-associated crimes. Trendsin both nations show that gun use in criminal actionshas increased. The acts are that disarming law-abidingcitizens has simply made the criminals actions sa er.

What about arming private citizens? John Lotts book,More Guns, Less Crime, provides exhaustive evidencethat what the title says is true. This has been con rmed by a number o American towns that passed laws requiring homeowners to own at least onegun. In every case, home the ts declined, and there was no evidence thathomeowners used their weapons criminally.

However, there are statistics indicating that guns in the home may lead toa higher possibility o accidents, or o use in amily disputes. These statisticsare highly suspect, due to the uncertain variables in gathering accurate data.

What is clear is that private citizens do use their guns to prevent or stopcrimes. Again, the exact numbers are impossible to determine, because peopledo not report all the incidents, and law en orcement agencies have di erentreporting standards. However, estimates range rom 800,000 to 2.5 milliontimes a year. Yet, the mass media seldom reports on these events. The NRAsmagazine has a standard page reporting real situations where gun ownershave taken positive, law ul actions in their sel -protection.

Heres another statistic that adds positive evidence or the privateownership and responsible use o guns. Armed citizens kill more crooks thando the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as policedo every year (1,527 to 606). Readers o Newsweek; in George F. Wills Are

We a Nation o Cowards? (15 November 1993), learned that only 2 percento civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identi ed as acriminal. The error rate or the police, however, was 11 percent, more than

ve times as high. This leads to the issue o the growing trend or citizens to endure the

expensive process o obtaining a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Theanti-gun lobbies predicted blood in the streets, yet acts are; that it is rare tononexistent, or a permit-holder to use his weapon in an unlaw ul manner. Instates or counties that grant concealed permits, there is always a reduction inthe crimes committed via guns.

This then raises the question, what is the real motive behind the grab orguns? Here is another act to consider. Death by Government, a book byR. J. Rummel, examines a subject o ten ignored. Over 150,000,000 peoplewere killed in the 20th century, not in wars, but by their own governments.Genocidal purges by statist andtotalitarian regimes claimed liveso their own citizens, mostnoted were under Stalin, Hitler,and Mao in China. Could thistrend continue in America?

Conclusion: Blaming gunsas the killers, leads to a cry

or registration o all weapons.

History shows that gun registration is a majotoward eventual con scation. One o our FouFathers oresaw the next step. To disarm the pis the best and most e ectual way to enslaveGeorge Mason, 1788.

At our very best, we are imper ect and livfawed world. At our worst, man is a killer. Violea reality in human history. Be ore guns existed; arrows, spears, and knives were the main instru

o violence. Weapons have always had twounctions: sel -protection or orce ul asse

ones will over another. In either case, the weasimply a tool, a means to an end that must be usehuman. Thus, the root cause or the wrong use instrument cannot be laid to the weapon, but operson using it.

There ore, as you grapple with the social/political issues surrounyou will be wise to look or the acts. Dont get carried away with emotional pitch to get your vote, donation, or a notch on their couby convincing you to side with them and their cause, no matter hoit appears.

Guns will continue to be a major actor in li es realities in the 2st centuryTheir misuse will also perpetuate despite the best e orts o well-law en orcement and the law-abiding population. The vital questithey also remain available or their positive use by all responsible cilaw ul pursuit o our God-given rights to our lives,liberty, and the protection o our property?

Frank Meyer is a USAF veteran o t he KoreanWar era, a retired Evangelical Presb yterian pastor, and a published writer whose novelsdeal with social/political issues o the day, re ecting lessons learned rom 30 years o social activism.

His books can be reviewed at: www. reedom-loving-books.com.

Table 3

1999 AccidentalMedical Deathsu c s 12,000

M c o e o 7,000

O e o 20,000

i f c o 80,000

n eff c of d 106,000

Total Deaths 22 ,000so c : Jo l of am c M c l a oc.

http://www.freedom-loving-books.com/http://www.freedom-loving-books.com/http://www.freedom-loving-books.com/http://www.freedom-loving-books.com/http://www.freedom-loving-books.com/http://www.freedom-loving-books.com/http://www.freedom-loving-books.com/http://www.freedom-loving-books.com/http://www.republicmagazine.com/http://www.freedom-loving-books.com/http://www.republicmagazine.com/


22/32

Ron Pauls position on the Second Amendment is very clear. He supports it, andhe understands the original intent or which it was dra ted. In 2003, Dr. Paulintroduced HR 153, the Second Amendment Protection Act (reintroduced in2005 and 2007), which intended to reverse the steady erosion o the right tokeep and bear arms by repealing unconstitutional laws.1

The Founding Fathers were clear about the rationale or the SecondAmendment. It went without saying that guns were necessary or hunting,yet the right o individuals to own guns was enshrined in the Constitution

or di erent purposes. The Second Amendment is the original (andConstitutional) homeland security.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security o a ree State,the right o the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be in ringed.

In a YouTube video produced during his 2008 presidential bid,2 Dr. Paulstates that the Second Amendment was provided, ironically and a lot o people dont understand this to protect against abusive government.

The dra ters o our Constitution were not citizens o a ree state, they wereresidents o a colony, and there ore were subjects o the despotic King GeorgeIII o England. As a result, they witnessed the importance o rearms to anindividuals ability to secure and protect his God-given rights. Most Americanstoday have orgotten this original intent, i they ever knew it at all.

Dr. Paul has not orgotten it. In a weekly Texas Straight Talk Column rom20033, arguing against the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, he writes:

~ The Founders Original Intent of the Second Amendment ~By Michael NystroM

The Second Amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a your nightstand. It is not about protecting onesel against common cIt is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed cwould never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government, as they dienvisioned government as a servant, not a master, o the AmericanThe muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifetime. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed cannot be secure in their reedoms. Its convenient or gun banners

this argument by saying That could never happen here, this is Amerhistory shows that only vigilant people can keep government underBy banning certain weapons today, we may plant the seeds or tyrfourish ten, thirty, or ty years rom now.

In act, we can already see the seeds o tyranny beginning to tThe right to keep and bear arms is the one right that protects all otgeneral public ignorant to this act will no doubt eventually learn,way, o the Founders Original Intent.

1 Ron Paul speech to Congress Restoring the Second Amendment:http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=662

2 You Choose 08 Spotlight: Ron Paul on the Second Amendment:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdxTg9x3Mbg

3 Assault Weapons and Assaults on the Constitution:http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=301

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=662http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=662http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdxTg9x3Mbghttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdxTg9x3Mbghttp://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=301http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=301http://www.republicmagazine.com/http://www.dailypaul.com/http://www.republicmagazine.com/http://www.mygiftedlife.com/http://www.burkesgunoil.com/http://www.ial.org/http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=301http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdxTg9x3Mbghttp://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=662


23/32

Several years ago, a group o moose hunters had just returned to

camp. Suddenly, a rife shot rang out and one o the hunters ell to

the ground shot through the pelvic area with an exit wound that

tore away hal his buttocks. 300 Win Mags will do that to you.

The other hunters went into shock; ortunately, the one who was shot,did not. He dragged himsel over to a hammock, pulled up the hanging fap,and was able to apply pressure to his back-side to staunch the bleeding.His own actions saved his li e, as it took nearly 4 hours or medical help to

arrive. When last I saw him, he was still walking with a limp, yet at leastalive to tell the tale.In the oregoing incident, the person responsible broke at least three

di erent sa ety rules: 1] He carried a loaded gun back into camp. 2] Thesa ety was o . 3] The gun was pointing in an unsa e direction. Had he just

ollowed one o those rules, this incident would never have happened.Now, lets look at gun sa ety. What is gun sa ety? It is a set o

procedures, rules i you like, that allow individuals to operate rearmswithout endangering others or themselves. Pretty basic you say, and yetwe continue to have accidents involving rearms.

There are our main areas where rearm sa ety comes into play. Theyare: 1] Storage 2] Transportation 3] On the Range 4] In the Field

StOrAGe:All rearms should be stored in a secured and locked gun cabinet, a lockedgun room or lockable container. Handguns should be urther secured witha trigger, or other mechanism, lock, as well. Most, i not all, new handgunscome supplied with them. Ammunition also needs to be secured, ideally,under lock and key. In some jurisdictions, the preceding comments arelaw; and in all jurisdictions, they make good sense.

All rearms should be stored empty, that is, without ammunition.But wait you say, what about de ense against predators, both the our-

legged, as well as, two-legged variety. With respect to the our-leggedvariety, you need ready access to a rearm and ammunition. The two

should be kept separate and readily available or this purpout o the reach and view o others, particular young cEven in jurisdictions where rearms are heavily regulated, provision or people living in a rural area to adopt this appr

The approach to de ense against the two-legged predatvary rom jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Staying within the lawpractice. Where right to carry laws are applicable, your hanunder your control at all times. Where these rules dont appmay wish to consider a keyed lock-box which would prov

with reasonably quick access.

trANSpOrtAtiON:Generally applies to vehicles and requires that reartransported unloaded, out o sight, i.e. in the trunk o a cao sight in a van or pick up. In some jurisdictions, all rerequire trigger locks. Unless the owner has a concealed carryhandguns should also be in the trunk or out o sight, loccase and stored. Ammunition should be stored separately. Oshould check with public transportation companies, to dettheir requirements prior to travel.

ON the rANGe:Most ranges will have a clearly de ned set o rules and reg

or all to ollow. These regulations are likely to be posprominent location. Here are some general guidelines that will ensureshooting activities are sa e and enjoyable.

The rst group is covered under the acronym ACTS: Assume all rearms are loaded until you prove otherwise Control the muzzle direction at all times Trigger keep your nger o the trigger and out o the trigger guar See that the rearm is unloaded prove it sa e

The second set o guidelines comes under the acronym PROVE:

Point the rearm in the sa est available direction Remove all ammunition Observe the chamber Veri y the eed path Examine the bore, each time you pick up a rearm.

These guidelines will de nitely keep your shooting on a solid ousa ety.

An incident that happened to me will serve to highlight the importhese guidelines. My son, who was well versed in gun sa ety, was targewith me one weekend. At some point, he said okay, I have nished; so,his pistol and moved away rom the line. A week later, I took that sato the range, unboxed it, and went through ACTS, PROVE. You can imy surprise when I discovered a blocked barrel. Closer examination rround stuck in the barrel.

Two actors, the rst being that regardless o my sons rearm exhe did not r

Republic Magazine 14

Documents

Transcript of Republic Magazine 14