Acer-m14
.950 JDJ
This is a long one i have been seeing in comments on FB posts .. what is your all take ??
All gun laws, rules and policies are unconstitutional and must be eliminated! Regarding the
governments ability to impose "Reasonable Restraint" which has now become the mantra of our liberal influenced government.
Supporters of the bill of rights claim they have a constitutional or Second Amendment right to
keep and bear arms. Opponents counter even if it were the case, the government was granted
the general power to place restraints on the right. Both of these assertions are based on a
misconception concerning the intent of the document known as the Bill of Rights.
When the Bill of Rights was submitted to the individual States for ratification, it was prefaced
with a preamble. As stated in the preamble, the purpose of the Amendments was to prevent the
government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” To accomplish this, “further declaratory
and restrictive clauses” were being recommended. The Amendments, when adopted, did not
create any so-called constitutional rights or grant the government any power over individual
rights; they placed additional restraints and qualifications on the powers of the government
concerning the rights enumerated in the Amendments.
By advancing the myth Amendments grant the American people their individual rights, the
government has illegally converted enumerated restraints and qualifications on its power into
legislative, executive, judicial and administrative power over individual rights. The government
claims it was granted the constitutional authority to determine the extent of the individual rights
enumerated in the Amendments and/or impose “reasonable restraints” on those rights. This
assertion is absurd. The government does not have the constitutional authority to ignore,
circumvent, modify, negate or remove constitutional restraints placed on its power by the
Amendments or convert them into a power over the individual right enumerated in the particular
restraint.
A denial of power or an enumerated restraint on the exercise of power is not subject to
interpretation or modification by the entity the restraint is being imposed upon. The restraints
imposed by the Amendments, which were adopted 4 years after the Constitution was ratified,
override the legislative, executive, judicial or administrative powers of the government. If this
were not the case, then the restraints would be meaningless because the government could
simply circumvent, modify or remove them. Why would the States have requested and adopted
enumerated restraints on government power, subsequent to their ratification of the Constitution,
if the government possessed the authority to nullify them?
When the government infringes on one of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights it is not
violating anyone’s constitutional rights; it is violating the additional restraint or qualification
placed on its power by the particular Amendment where the right is enumerated. The distinction
between rights and restraints is critical. [The right is not given by the Government. Our rights
are natural born and are inalienable. Therefore, they can't be limited or taken away.]
As stated in the Declaration of Independence, the American people have unalienable rights that
come from a higher source than government or a written document. By acknowledging people
have natural rights, which are bestowed by a creator, the Founders laid the foundation for the
principle the government does not have the lawful authority to take away or infringe on those
rights. This principle was incorporated into the preamble and structure of the Amendments to
secure individual rights from government encroachment; that is why they were designed and
imposed as restraints on the exercise of power.
If the individual rights of the people had been created by the Constitution or an amendment to
the document, then they would cease to be unalienable because the right would depend on the
existence of a document. If the document or a provision of the document disappeared, so would
the right. The belief individual rights were created by a written document has opened the door
for the government to claim the power to define the extent of any right enumerated in an
Amendment. This has transformed constitutional restraints placed on governmental power into
subjective determinations of individual rights by the institutions of government. By failing to
understand the difference between amendments that create rights and amendments that
impose restraints on government, the American people are watching their individual rights
vanish as they are reduced to the status of privileges bestowed by government because the
constitutional restraints placed on governmental power are being replaced by government
decree.
Opponents of the Amendments always try to diminish the right enumerated in the Amendments
by asserting rights are not absolute. This is just another straw man argument because the
Amendment is about imposing a restraint of the powers of the government concerning a right:
not granting a right or defining the extent of a right. In addition, a review of the Second
Amendment shows the restraint imposed by the Amendment does not contain any exceptions.
Legal precedence supporting constitution and bill of rights.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137: “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of
the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.”
Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105: “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and
attach a fee to it.”
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262: “If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the
citizen can engage in the right with impunity.”
Owen v. Independence, 100 S.C.T. 1398, 445 US 622: “Officers of the court have no immunity,
when violating a Constitutional right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the law.”
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 1974: Expounds upon Owen Byers v. U.S., 273 U.S. 28
Unlawful search and seizure. Your rights must be interpreted in favor of the citizen.
Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616: “The court is to protect against any encroachment of
Constitutionally secured liberties.”
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436: “Where rights secured (Affirmed) by the Constitution are
involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.”
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425: “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it
imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as
inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d. 486, 489: “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be
converted into a crime.”
Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748: “Waivers of Constitutional Rights, not only must they be
voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness.” “If men,
through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the
eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation.
The right to freedom being a gift of ALMIGHTY GOD, it is not in the power of man to alienate
this gift and voluntarily become a slave.” —Samuel Adams, 1772
Cohens v. Virginia, 19 US (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821): “When a judge acts where he
or she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.”
Mattox v. U.S., 156 US 237, 243: “We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the
law as it existed at the time it was adopted.”
S. Carolina v. U.S., 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905): “The Constitution is a written instrument. As
such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.”
#RepealAllGunLaws
#NoMoreGunControl #NoMoreGovernmentOverReach
All gun laws, rules and policies are unconstitutional and must be eliminated! Regarding the
governments ability to impose "Reasonable Restraint" which has now become the mantra of our liberal influenced government.
Supporters of the bill of rights claim they have a constitutional or Second Amendment right to
keep and bear arms. Opponents counter even if it were the case, the government was granted
the general power to place restraints on the right. Both of these assertions are based on a
misconception concerning the intent of the document known as the Bill of Rights.
When the Bill of Rights was submitted to the individual States for ratification, it was prefaced
with a preamble. As stated in the preamble, the purpose of the Amendments was to prevent the
government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” To accomplish this, “further declaratory
and restrictive clauses” were being recommended. The Amendments, when adopted, did not
create any so-called constitutional rights or grant the government any power over individual
rights; they placed additional restraints and qualifications on the powers of the government
concerning the rights enumerated in the Amendments.
By advancing the myth Amendments grant the American people their individual rights, the
government has illegally converted enumerated restraints and qualifications on its power into
legislative, executive, judicial and administrative power over individual rights. The government
claims it was granted the constitutional authority to determine the extent of the individual rights
enumerated in the Amendments and/or impose “reasonable restraints” on those rights. This
assertion is absurd. The government does not have the constitutional authority to ignore,
circumvent, modify, negate or remove constitutional restraints placed on its power by the
Amendments or convert them into a power over the individual right enumerated in the particular
restraint.
A denial of power or an enumerated restraint on the exercise of power is not subject to
interpretation or modification by the entity the restraint is being imposed upon. The restraints
imposed by the Amendments, which were adopted 4 years after the Constitution was ratified,
override the legislative, executive, judicial or administrative powers of the government. If this
were not the case, then the restraints would be meaningless because the government could
simply circumvent, modify or remove them. Why would the States have requested and adopted
enumerated restraints on government power, subsequent to their ratification of the Constitution,
if the government possessed the authority to nullify them?
When the government infringes on one of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights it is not
violating anyone’s constitutional rights; it is violating the additional restraint or qualification
placed on its power by the particular Amendment where the right is enumerated. The distinction
between rights and restraints is critical. [The right is not given by the Government. Our rights
are natural born and are inalienable. Therefore, they can't be limited or taken away.]
As stated in the Declaration of Independence, the American people have unalienable rights that
come from a higher source than government or a written document. By acknowledging people
have natural rights, which are bestowed by a creator, the Founders laid the foundation for the
principle the government does not have the lawful authority to take away or infringe on those
rights. This principle was incorporated into the preamble and structure of the Amendments to
secure individual rights from government encroachment; that is why they were designed and
imposed as restraints on the exercise of power.
If the individual rights of the people had been created by the Constitution or an amendment to
the document, then they would cease to be unalienable because the right would depend on the
existence of a document. If the document or a provision of the document disappeared, so would
the right. The belief individual rights were created by a written document has opened the door
for the government to claim the power to define the extent of any right enumerated in an
Amendment. This has transformed constitutional restraints placed on governmental power into
subjective determinations of individual rights by the institutions of government. By failing to
understand the difference between amendments that create rights and amendments that
impose restraints on government, the American people are watching their individual rights
vanish as they are reduced to the status of privileges bestowed by government because the
constitutional restraints placed on governmental power are being replaced by government
decree.
Opponents of the Amendments always try to diminish the right enumerated in the Amendments
by asserting rights are not absolute. This is just another straw man argument because the
Amendment is about imposing a restraint of the powers of the government concerning a right:
not granting a right or defining the extent of a right. In addition, a review of the Second
Amendment shows the restraint imposed by the Amendment does not contain any exceptions.
Legal precedence supporting constitution and bill of rights.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137: “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of
the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.”
Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105: “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and
attach a fee to it.”
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262: “If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the
citizen can engage in the right with impunity.”
Owen v. Independence, 100 S.C.T. 1398, 445 US 622: “Officers of the court have no immunity,
when violating a Constitutional right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the law.”
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 1974: Expounds upon Owen Byers v. U.S., 273 U.S. 28
Unlawful search and seizure. Your rights must be interpreted in favor of the citizen.
Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616: “The court is to protect against any encroachment of
Constitutionally secured liberties.”
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436: “Where rights secured (Affirmed) by the Constitution are
involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.”
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425: “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it
imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as
inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d. 486, 489: “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be
converted into a crime.”
Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748: “Waivers of Constitutional Rights, not only must they be
voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness.” “If men,
through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the
eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation.
The right to freedom being a gift of ALMIGHTY GOD, it is not in the power of man to alienate
this gift and voluntarily become a slave.” —Samuel Adams, 1772
Cohens v. Virginia, 19 US (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821): “When a judge acts where he
or she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.”
Mattox v. U.S., 156 US 237, 243: “We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the
law as it existed at the time it was adopted.”
S. Carolina v. U.S., 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905): “The Constitution is a written instrument. As
such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.”
#RepealAllGunLaws
#NoMoreGunControl #NoMoreGovernmentOverReach
