The 2nd Amendment says: (I'll say this in a few ways)
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
2A is about both the individual right, power, and authority of We the People, who are the whole of the unorganized militia to bear arms, and of the State to form a well regulated "organized" militia. We are all, until death the militia of the country who come to aid the common defense. The able bodied persons may be drafted by the State or Congress as needed. State Military Reserves are commanded by the Governor. Sheriff's Posse are commanded by the County Sheriff. The federalized militia and armed services are commanded by the President.
2A is about the protected right of We the People, shall not be infringed. The word "shall" is not about an option, it is about a "mandate". The government is mandated to not diminish our rights to bear what? Arms.
2A is about both the right of people to bear armaments of war and the power of the people and States to form a militia. The militia is the whole of the people, consisting of the organized or active duty militia, and the unorganized militia, from which the organized militia recruits. The people are to be proficient in the skills of the soldier, woodsman, pioneer, sailor, nurse, etc., and contribute to the common defense of the Nation.
"bear" means purely to carry anywhere and any manner you please.
"Arms" means armaments, not only guns, all the weapons and armor of a warrior, soldier, knight, samurai, sailor, ninja, marine, mercenary, etc. These would include knives, swords, dirks, daggers, spears, arrows, darts, atatls, billies, saps, clubs, batons, axes, tomahawks, and guns.
Armiger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armiger
The Latin word armiger literally means "armour-bearer". In high and late medieval England, the word referred to an esquire attendant upon a knight, but bearing his own unique armorial device. [1]
Armiger was also used as a Latin cognomen, and is now found as a rare surname in English-speaking countries.
The 1867 version Law Dictionary of John Bouvier, defines Armiger:
"In its earlier meaning, a servant who carried the arms of a knight."
Therefore "arms" is broadly defined as the armaments of a war fighter. Meaning the Assault Weapons Ban and certain other city, State and Federal laws, regulations and codes are unlawful, unconstituional, and violate citizens rights.
That's what I know.
Comment
Comment by Matthew O. on November 30, 2011 at 7:32pm Well......I agree.
According to these Supreme Court cases, we don't have to adhere to these unlawful "laws".
huttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262If a state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage inthe right with impunity.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be NOrule making or legislation whichwould abrogate them."
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425"Any unconstitutional act is not law, it confers no rights, it imposes noduties, it affords no protection, itcreates no office, it is an illegal contemplation, as inoperative asthough it had never been passed."
Boyd v. US, 116 US 6165th Amendment rights. "...constitutional provisions for the security ofperson and property should be liberally construed... It is the duty of the courts to be watchful forthe constitutional rights of citizens, and against any stealthy encroachment thereon."
Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw. 60 (1830). "Statutes that violate the plainandobvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void."
Butcher's Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 US 746 (1883)."Our rights cannot, by acts of Congress, be bartered away, given away ortaken away."
U.S. v. Morris. 125 F 322, 325. "Every citizen and freeman is endowedwithcertain rights and privileges to enjoy which no written law or statute isrequired. These are the fundamental or natural rights, recognized amongall free people."Mugler v. Kansas 123 U.S. 623, 659-60. "Our system of government, based upon the individuality and intelligenceof the Citizen, the state does not claim to control him, except as hisconduct to others, leaving him the sole judge as to all that only affectshimself."
(see Christy v. Elliot, 216 Ill. 31, 74 NE 1035; Cal v. Farley, 98 Cal.09,20 CA 3d 1032; Mich. v. Duke, 266 US 576, 69, 449.) State police power extends only to immediate threats to public safety,health, and welfare.
Just my $.02
Robert Morse posted a blog post
© 2012 Created by RCC.
You need to be a member of Responsible Citizens of California to add comments!
Join Responsible Citizens of California