May the Federal Government Lawfully Make ANY Restrictions on Our Guns & Ammo?


No!

When you look at it from the perspective of limiting the federal government to its “enumerated powers”, it all becomes very easy and clear. We haven’t been looking at it this way because we are so ignorant of our Constitution that we don’t know that it delegates “enumerated powers” only to the federal government.

The Truth is, that when WE THE PEOPLE “created” the federal government, we itemized (“enumerated”) in the Constitution all the powers WE delegated to it.

We nowhere delegated to any branch of the federal government power to restrict, infringe, etc., guns, ammo, etc.

So any federal laws or BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives) rules for the Country at large which purport to restrict, infringe, etc., guns or ammo, are unconstitutional as outside the scope of the powers delegated to the federal government in Our Constitution.

This is what we need to get people to understand. Their misplaced focus on the 2nd Amendment as being the “source” of our right to keep & bear arms, has been a disaster:

Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1, enumerates the powers of the federal courts – it lists the types of cases they may hear. One category of case they may hear is “all cases or controversies arising under this Constitution”. The 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution. That is how they claimed judicial power to decide the scope and extent of our “rights” under the 2nd Amendment; and hence, what federal restrictions on our “2nd Amendment rights” are “reasonable”.

Do you now see why you must point to The Declaration of Independence (2nd para) and assert that your right to keep and bear arms – to self-defense – comes from GOD and is Unalienable?

And since people don’t know that the federal government has only “enumerated powers,” they don't know that the federal government has no authority whatsoever to impose any restrictions on guns, ammo, etc.

And yes, private American citizens can have armed ships! Remember the Privateers who fought the British ships in the War of 1812? Remember Letters of Marque & Reprisal (Art.I, Sec. 8, cl. 11)? Our Framers contemplated an American People who were so heavily armed that they could be Privateers, as well as wreak vengeance on our enemies via letters of Marque & Reprisal.

So be a patriot and buy a tank … or an armed ship!

Originally Congress had very little problem with the Right of Citizens  to own  Warships, During some of our early conflicts Congress would contract  (Letters of Marquee)with the owners to assist our Navy and raid enemy shipping. ‘In this painting the American privateer General Armstrong fires on British ships during the War of 1812 (painting by Nethaniel Currier, courtesy Library of Congress, LC-USZC2-1904).

Originally Congress had very little problem with the Right of Citizens to own Warships, During some of our early conflicts Congress would contract (Letters of Marquee)with the owners to assist our Navy and raid enemy shipping.
‘In this painting the American privateer General Armstrong fires on British ships during the War of 1812 (painting by Nethaniel Currier, courtesy Library of Congress, LC-USZC2-1904).

Many Thanks to Grumpy Opinions for the photo and his caption.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.


Print Friendly





Comments

comments

About Publius Huldah
Lawyer, philosopher & logician. Strict constructionist of the U.S. Constitution. Passionate about The Federalist Papers (Alexander Hamilton, James Madison & John Jay), restoring constitutional government, The Bible, the writings of Ayn Rand, & the following: There is no such thing as Jew & Greek, slave & freeman, male & female, black person & white person; for we are all one person in Christ Jesus. She also writes legal and Constitutional commentary at her site: Publius-Huldah
  • Anonymous

    Heh- I want a tank now. ;)

  • Steven

    I can only add one thing. STATE governments are also prohibited from restricting arms, both by the logic presented here, AND by the 2nd amendment. The language of the 2nd amendment states the the (preexisting) right to keep and bare arms, shall not be infringed. It does NOT say by whom. Given that it was written by the same Congress that wrote the 1st amendment, which DOES limit itself to the federal government, it logically applies to all levels of government.

    • SamH II

      I was wondering about this... since the SCOTUS has extended the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" of Article 1 to apply to the state and local government as well. I think they're wrong about this, but neverthelees, it seems like the illegal logic would apply.

    • Steven

      The Supreme Court is never granted the authority to expand anything. Their SOLE job is to interpret the law AS IT EXISTS. They claim is that the 14th amendment, via the 'equal protection clause', extends the Bill of Rights to apply to the states as well as the federal government. I contend this is not possible, because the very language of amendments 2 - 10 applies to all levels of government from the start. The requirement to ensure 'equal protection of the law' does NOT require all states to treat people the same. It requires each INDIVIDUAL states to apply the law equally to everyone in that state.

  • ken.

    in order for we the people to protect ourselves from all enemies foreign and domestic including a tyrannical government we have an absolute right to any weapons that can be used here on our own soil. it doesn't mean we can or should have short, medium or long range missiles that can strike targets out of line of sight or overseas. or nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, but full auto, grenades, short range rockets, cannons and explosives are an absolute right.

    • SamH II

      how would you take out a federal drone with a semiauto rifle? Locally controlled militias' armaments need the more powerful weapons as well.

    • ken.

      a surface to air shoulder fired rocket is a line of sight weapon that should be an absolute right. the point of the post was to show that we the people have a right to weapons that have use here in our country, while it is up to the government to handle wars on foreign soil. we can't have some nut sending missiles overseas starting a war. but we do need to have short range line of sight weapons to keep our government honest. your missing the point on what is short range and what is long range.

  • gary

    9 most dangerous words youe ever want to hear "Im from the govt and im here to help"
    ronald reagan

  • gary

    how is gun control working out on DC and chicago

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ron-Lund/100000165512957 Ron Lund

    OBAMA WOULDNT SELL THEM TO AN AMERICAN

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Thomas-Berquist/100000269520591 Thomas Berquist

    I think we should pull together and buy the F-16's and 200 tanks obama is selling to our enemies.

  • Randy131

    The 'Genius' of our 'Founding Fathers' was also the knowledge and command they had of the English Language. There is no better word, that I could possible come up with, that would effectively protect the 2nd Amendment more completely than infringed, because that would prohibit regulations, restrictions, usurpations, and abrogation of the people to keep (own and posses) and bear (carry on one's person at any time and anywhere) Arms (weapons of any type) which is also said by those 'Founders' to be necessary for the security of the State (a sovereign political unit, country, or nation). Pure 'Genius', but the only thing they forgot was you cannot get immoral people to honor their oaths, such as Obama and the liberal Democrats, for they always find an excuse not to, even using a tragedy like the Sandy Hook massacre. If they don't like the 2nd Amendment, and want to get rid of it, or just change it, the 'Founding Fathers' wrote procedures to do so, that would allow them to still honor their oaths, but it takes the majority of the people in the USA to do so, but adherence to what the majority wants never was their bailiwick. But you got to give credit to the 'Founding Fathers', infringed is a great use of the English Language to preserve what they thought was essential to all Americans.