Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

From Duty to be Armed to Permission to Carry

By Publius Huldah

“If the central government has the authority to tell a state it must accept permits from all the other states, then it also has the authority to tell a state it may not accept a concealed permit from any other states. If the central government can do these things it can set up a national concealed carry permit scheme and in essence bring into existence a national arms registry. That is exactly where this is headed.” Attorney Richard D. Fry 1

Some are touting the federal Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (HR 38) as a bill which would expand our right to carry. But if you will walk with me for a few minutes, I’ll show you a better path to take.

Let us look at the applicable First Principles, to which I propose we return.

1. Gun control is not an enumerated power delegated to the federal government

Our federal Constitution doesn’t delegate to the federal government any power over the Country at Large 2 to restrict our arms. Accordingly, all pretended federal laws, regulations, orders, opinions, or treaties which purport to do so are unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated. They are also unconstitutional as in violation of the Second Amendment.

The only power the federal government has over the Country at Large respecting arms is set forth at Article I, §8, clause 16 with respect to providing for the “organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia”. Pursuant to this clause, Congress passed the Militia Act of 1792 which required every able-bodied male citizen (with a few exceptions) between the ages of 18 and 45 to acquire a rifle, bayonet, ammo, ammo pouch, and report to his local Militia Unit for training. 3

2. What does your State Constitution say about the right to keep and bear arms?

Each State has its own Constitution which addresses its State Militia and the right to be armed.

Now listen: No State may lawfully make any law which contradicts its State Constitution or which interferes with Congress’ power to “organize, arm, and discipline, the Militia”.

Accordingly, any State Statute which purports to require a permit before one may carry a gun is probably unconstitutional under that State’s Constitution; and is certainly unconstitutional under the federal Constitution because Congress may lawfully require able-bodied male Citizens to acquire firearms and ammo and report to their local Militia Unit for training!

Do you see?

Now let’s look at Title 18, US Code, Part I, Chapter 44, which HR 38 proposes to amend.

3. Title 18, US Code, Part I, Chapter 44 is unconstitutional

It sets up a complex federal regulatory scheme over firearms, every word of which is unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated, and as in violation of the Second Amendment.

HERE it is, look through it (§§ 921-931).

4. What HR 38 actually does

HR 38 proposes to amend this existing federal regulatory scheme to insert a new provision [to be § 926 D] to require States which have a statute which permits residents of their State to apply for a permit [!] to carry a concealed firearm

to allow persons from other States:

· who aren’t prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms [!]; and

· who are carrying a photographic ID issued by a government body [!]; and

· who are carrying a concealed carry license or permit from the other State [!],

to possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or “destructive device”) which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

So! Even though a State Constitution, such as that for Connecticut, 4 prohibits the State Legislature from making ANY laws restricting firearms (such as imposing requirements for registration, a permit, government issued photo ID), a Citizen of Connecticut who exercises his constitutionally recognized right to carry without registration or a permit or a government issued photo ID, wouldn’t qualify under HR 38 for concealed carry in another State.

To qualify for concealed carry in other States, the Citizen of Connecticut would need his State Legislature to pass a law [which is unconstitutional under the Connecticut and federal Constitutions], so that he could comply with an unconstitutional federal statute [HR 38], so that he could carry in other States which also would have to pass unconstitutional laws imposing permit requirements on those who carry concealed.

Do you see how a God-given right [self-defense] is thus converted into a privilege which is regulated, granted, or denied, by civil government?

HR 38 also provides that any person carrying a concealed handgun in a State under the reciprocity provisions may also carry concealed in the public parts of National Parks and certain other lands under federal control. Lest you think this a gain, consider that: (1) The Constitution doesn’t authorize the federal government to operate national parks and such like, and (2) the federal government has no lawful authority to impose registration requirements for carrying arms anywhere!

5. What’s the solution?

Read our Declaration of Independence and federal Constitution. Then you won’t fall for unconstitutional gimmicks like HR 38.

The gun rights organizations could perform valuable services to our Country by working for:

· the repeal of the entire unconstitutional federal regulatory scheme respecting arms;

· the repeal of all unconstitutional State regulatory schemes;

· the revitalization of the State Militia to replace the federally controlled National Guard; 5 and

· by providing more classes for Citizens in arms training.

And please stop lobbying for unconstitutional federal legislation!

Endnotes:

1 From the late Attorney Richard D. Fry’s email of Dec. 10, 2015 to US Senator Moran, a co-sponsor of SB 498, the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015. Richard, who was my Friend, sent me a copy of his letter.

2 Pursuant to Article I, § 8, next to last clause, Congress has general legislative powers over the District of Columbia, military bases, dock yards, mints, federal courthouses and post offices, and such other places needed for Congress to exercise its enumerated powers. The exercise of such powers by Congress over these small federal enclaves is restricted by the Bill of Rights – including the 2nd Amendment. So Congress is prohibited from making, for these federal enclaves, any laws which infringe the Right of The People to keep and bear Arms. Congress may properly require individuals visiting federal prisons, the psych ward of military hospitals, the mint, federal courthouses, and such like, to leave their arms in their vehicles. But Congress may not require Citizens to obtain and carry a permit or photo ID as a condition precedent to carrying a firearm.

3 The “Militia of the several States” were creatures of State Statutes – not of the federal government. Dr. Edwin Vieira’s short video shows how the State Militia were replaced by the federally controlled National Guard.

4 The Constitution of the State of Connecticut says at Article I: “SEC. 15. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”

5 See A SERIOUS QUESTION FOR THE NRA, by Dr. Edwin Vieira, re revitalization of the Militia of the several States. Dr. Vieira’s mind is a delight.

Add to DeliciousAdd to DiggAdd to FaceBookAdd to Google BookmarkAdd to MySpaceAdd to NewsvineAdd to RedditAdd to StumbleUponAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Twitter

July 19, 2017 - Posted by | 2nd Amendment, concealed carry reciprocity act, gun control, Militia | , , , , , , ,

25 Comments »

  1. Reblogged this on PUMABydesign001's Blog.

    Like

    Comment by bydesign001 | July 25, 2017 | Reply

  2. the US Supreme court ruled long ago, that States cannot charge taxes or fees for “rights and Liberties”,…guns are both, meaning the charging of fees and taxes for a CCW permit is Unconstitutional….
    319 US 105 – Justia Supreme Court
    supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/319/105/case.html

    Like

    Comment by chiefcabioch | July 23, 2017 | Reply

    • You are referring to Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/319/105/case.html ?

      Don’t fall into the trap of thinking it is a great case for us. It is poison:

      1. “A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.” Oh, so rights come from the Constitution? They don’t come from the Creator God? The 2nd para of the Declaration of Independence is wrong?

      2. Article III, Section 2, clause 1, delegates to the federal courts judicial power over all cases or controversies “arising under this Constitution”. If rights come from the Constitution, then the federal courts have judicial power over our rights. So they are NOT unalienable. Again, the 2nd para of the Declaration of Independence is wrong?

      3. The original intent of the First Amendment is that it restricts ONLY CONGRESS! Read the Amendment. Not until 1925 did the US Supreme Court announce that Section 1 of the 14th Amendment “incorporated” the First Amendment so as to delegate to the federal courts judicial power over how the STATES handled speech, religion, etc. THAT is how the supreme Court seized judicial power over all speech and religious activities at high school football games, in public school classrooms, and justifies banning nativity scenes and crosses in towns and villages throughout the Country. See this: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/06/19/religious-freedom/

      We must not look at the result in any one case. Look at First Principles and evaluate Supreme Court opinions with respect to their adherence to the First Principles.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 23, 2017 | Reply

      • “We must not look at the result in any one case.” Thank you!! This is where so many people make grave mistakes. Vieira summed it up nicely when he stated: “It isn’t the Judges who tell us what the Constitution is. It’s the Constitution which tells us whether the judges are right or wrong!” So simple… So true.

        The courts’ opinions are NOT the standard by which we measure the intent of the Constitution, in spite of what characters like Former Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes would have us believe.

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by cgdustdevil | August 11, 2017 | Reply

        • Wonderful! Where have you been all my life?!

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | August 12, 2017 | Reply

  3. How does the “full faith and credit” clause fit in on this subject?

    Like

    Comment by Robert Sioa | July 20, 2017 | Reply

    • Excellent question! But not easily answered.

      1. James Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention of 1787 shows no discussion of the meaning of this clause. The Federalist Papers don’t say much about it. What I have found on the original intent of this clause is set forth in footnote 2 in this paper: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2015/05/11/searching-for-marriage-in-the-fourteenth-amendment/

      Some applications of the clause – as originally intended – are clear. Say I obtain a Money Judgment against John Doe from a Court in Tennessee. But then John Doe moves to Texas. Under the full faith and credit clause (Article IV, Section 1), I can jump through some hoops set by Congress and get my Judgment from a Tennessee Court recognized and enforced by Texas.

      I am a citizen of Tennessee. Say I own real property in Georgia, and in my Will I provide that the Georgia property is to go to John Doe. So I die, and my will is admitted in Tennessee for Probate. Under the full faith and credit clause, my Executor jumps through a few hoops and my Will is admitted in Georgia and the Georgia records are changed to show title in the Georgia property is transferred from me to John Doe.

      I would have to search the individual writings of our Framers to find out more about what they meant by this clause!

      2. At the time of our Framing, people in the trades and professions didn’t have licenses issued by State governments. In some States, it was during the 1960s and 1970s that the trades began to be licensed by state government. People didn’t have drivers’ licenses. Or marriage licenses. Or hunting licenses. Or licenses to carry arms. Or licenses to do anything! [We were free then.]

      So the original intent of the full faith and credit clause can’t have been that one State must recognize and accept the licenses issued by other States. Because the idea that one must have permission from government to work in his chosen trade or profession, to travel around, or get married, or hunt, or carry arms, would be anathema to our Framing Generation.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 22, 2017 | Reply

  4. This is an excellent explanation of why federal gun control laws and many State gun control laws are unconstitutional. I have been trying to get this point across to people for years, along with the Health care Bills that Congress is wasting time and money on, since they have no constitutional right or power to do.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by archbishopgregori | July 20, 2017 | Reply

    • Thank you, Abouna Gregori!

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 23, 2017 | Reply

  5. Reblogged this on .

    Like

    Comment by Brittius | July 20, 2017 | Reply

  6. Reblogged this on Bob's Opinion and commented:
    Great post and really something to watch for… We do not want to go down a path of registry, regardless who in the central government wants and calls it by any other name.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by R.S. HELMS | July 20, 2017 | Reply

  7. Pennsylvania Constitution..

    Right to Bear Arms
    Section 21.
    The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

    Like

    Comment by Rich | July 19, 2017 | Reply

    • Excellent! And thanks for looking it up. Do Pennsylvania statutes obey this Constitutional provision? Under the State Constitution, a Pennsylvania Citizen should be able to carry concealed without any kind of permit.

      As a practical matter, a man looks great when he is wearing jeans and a shirt and a gun around his waist. But guns don’t usually go with a woman’s outfit; and a man wearing a suit needs to carry concealed. So women need to carry concealed (either in their purses or under their clothes); and men wearing suits needs to carry concealed.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 19, 2017 | Reply

  8. […] More… […]

    Like

    Pingback by From Duty to be Armed to Permission to Carry | Southern Nation News | July 19, 2017 | Reply

  9. Pubs,

    Re your article about a national law on states’ reciprocal recognition of each other’s firearms permits:

    EXCELLENT-PLUS as usual

    Most of us don’t have — or don’t take — the time . . . to REALLY sit down and THINK, THINK, THINK through the Constitutional aspects of the huge variety of issues we’re confronted with. AND . . . even among those who are “professionally” involved in Constitutional law and the constitutionality of proposed new laws, most do not or cannot think really thoroughly, really logically, or from a REALLY solid, near-perfect, well-thought out AND INTEGRATED overall perspective on the Constitution. IE, even most “professional” Constitutional “scholars” do not fully grasp all the “sub-” principles or “corollary” principles which are pre-requisites for a correct understanding of how to apply the Constitution in practice to laws at all levels.

    But PH, YOU can always be relied on to do ALL the thorough thinking necessary to come up with the right answer. The right answer almost always seems very simple and obvious — once YOU explain it.

    LIke this issue, it’s a “light bulb” that makes the reader think “Of COURSE!!” even if he hadn’t bothered to think of the right answer in the first place and just sorta “passively” had accepted a commonly held (and flawed) position on the issue. After a few sentences of your article espousing the opposite conclusion, I’d guess most sensible readers do an instant “about-face” on the issue.

    The BBA is one of many other issues which are similar in the above respect to the current topic. YOU are one among a very tiny minority who don’t automatically accept the “instant” seemingly-obvious. Not until it’s judged with logical thoroughness against all the principles and sub-principles which govern a proper understanding of the Constitution’s meaning and intent, do you draw your conclusions.

    Most people — including a huge portion of the alleged “experts!!!!!!” — just adopt positions on such issues based on what SUPERFICIAL thinking makes “obvious” — but nevertheless wrong. The error is this, for an example:

    We want fewer specific restrictions on our firearms-related rights, and THAT is the rough and simple and approximate and thus imprecise and thus LOGICALLY INCORRECT standard most people think of as sufficient to define “proper” gov’t and laws. So — as with both the BBA and federally-mandated-state-reciprocity laws, and others — we jump to the conclusion at the logically superficial level that they may be good because they SEEM to allow for or grant A) wider or less-restricted individual rights or B) narrower and more restricted gov’t powers in those areas.

    But this is true only by superficial and IMPRECISE logical thinking. The flaw in such deductions is that even though — YES — such proposals often do broaden individual options and narrow the gov’t’s powers IN A VERY SPECIFIC AREA, they actually serve to EXPAND the gov’t’s powers and narrow the states’ or individuals’ GENERAL or PRINCIPLED rights. IE, the “obvious” immediate, direct, and obvious benefits are CONDITIONAL — conditional on the expansion of an underlying principle which will enable the EXACT OPPOSITE in its broader and more general application to many other issues over time (including a review of the current issue’s specifics).

    IE, people run to get more for themselves — freedom- or materialistic-wise — without thought for the longer run wider (principled) implications. They can see in front of their noses but not beyond. They want more NOW and jump to support what they think will, and may actually, provide it — but they can’t see the full ultimate costs of what appears to be and may well actually be, a (very short term) benefit.

    Feeding at the public trough, generally, is another example. Those who receive the short term benefits of any specific program will support it and think it’s “good,” without realizing that the underlying principle it embodies guarantees the ultimate destruction of all such programs, and of the gov’t’s ability to perform its far more important and also destroy the ability to perform its far more valuable basic proper functions, like defense, like a proper Constitutional court system, like true daily freedom in every individual’s living of his own life both spiritually and in the material realm.

    These are the considerations YOU never overlook, NEVER omit to include when analyzing the nature of any new proposal that becomes a popular political concern. And that’s why your “job” or the “job” of anyone who seeks the truth is often so difficult and frustrating — because the way most people think, YOUR conclusions will very often be contrary to the majority’s — precisely BECAUSE your conslusions are correct, and BECAUSE they result from more focused, thorough, and principled logical thinking, which is unfortunately NOT the means used by the typical or “average” citizen for deriving his own conclusions

    Different methods usually produce different results. That doesn’t always matter very much — eg, when the topic is frying eggs (although even there, the use of slipshod, imprecise directions and approximate quantities can ruin things). When the topic is the proper principles for a proper gov’t, the negative consequences of slipshod and lazy thinking are far more dangerous. Unfortunately, far too many people bring slipshod thinking to EVERY issue that confronts them.

    Thanks for another very well written and easily understandable piece of valuable educational “ammunition,” in this case on the issue of the right to bear arms.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Morry | July 19, 2017 | Reply

    • God gave me the right Father to equip me for the job God set me to do. My Papa had a classical education and started teaching me Logic when I was a toddler. And he never gave me the answer to a question. He would say, “Well, let’s analyze this.” And then he would walk me through the analytical process. So as a toddler, I had a classically educated man teaching me how to think by illustration and by example.

      And then, in the 10th grade, I discovered Ayn Rand. She had a HUGE influence on me.

      I suggest that People can be trained to think! I was trained to think. And when one is trained and practiced in it – it becomes automatic.

      One must also begin with the applicable First Principles AND want only the Truth. When dealing with the federal Constitution, the applicable First Principle is “What does the Constitution actually say?”. And as you pointed out, one must understand all of the Constitution before one can understand any one Article, Section, and clause. All of the parts fit together and we are to understand each Article, Section, and clause in the Light cast by the whole.

      We are not to begin with “what have I always heard?” or “what does the Supreme Court say?” or “what does everyone say?”

      And one must serve only Truth. Truth sheds her own Light – it is the fervent search for Truth which turns on the light. “What is True?” NOT, “what result do I want?”

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 19, 2017 | Reply

  10. Again, More refreshing well expressed thought instead of emotional claptrap devoid of reality. As an old Military retiree I am thankful when I read where someone follows the historical admonition, Look, See, Think, Measure and then act accordingly. Thank you, DC Stager, USN retired.

    Like

    Comment by Dennis Stager. | July 19, 2017 | Reply

  11. Excellent work. Needs to be shared widely, including gun rights groups and our elected Rep’s. Thank you.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by David Welden | July 19, 2017 | Reply

  12. Reblogged this on Starvin Larry.

    Like

    Comment by gamegetterII | July 19, 2017 | Reply

  13. It appears to me that the 2nd. Amendment protected right to keep and bear arms has tacitly been confirmed by all states by virtue of their statehood. At the time of the drafting of the 2nd. Amendment, senators were direct representatives of the states. The Senate soundly rejected the House’s silly notion of any collectivity proclaiming the right to be that of the individual. The states, through their agent senators, thus recognized the right to keep and bear arms to be an individual right and confirmed that via ratification. States subsequently joining the union do so under the same terms and conditions as the original states.

    Your thoughts?

    Like

    Comment by Wayne | July 19, 2017 | Reply

    • The Key point of my paper is that “gun control” is not an enumerated power delegated to the federal government.

      The 2nd Amendment – consistent with Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 & 16 – recognizes the extreme importance of an armed citizenry organized and trained in the Militia of the several States. Do watch Vieira’s 7 minute video on the Militia and read the papers on the Militia. That is the other key.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 19, 2017 | Reply

  14. Thank you PH,
    The argument you put forth makes perfectly clear the federal government’s limited authority in regards to our Second Amendment. Although the meaning of the Second Amendment is plain, the Federal courts have still allowed encroachments upon our exercise of this right. The understanding I’ve come to is that they do it by the power given them in the commerce clause. It seems where any of our rights come into contact with commerce the courts bend over backwards to accommodate commerce. However I rarely see our god given and constitutional rights triumph when they have anything to do with commerce. I think the courts aren’t properly balancing the founder’s intentions of the commerce clause. Where would I go to accurately learn what was intended for proper interpretation or application of that power?

    Like

    Comment by Rocklander | July 19, 2017 | Reply

  15. This is awesome, I will post it to the Groups. Thank You,

    And today in Los Angeles the Stupid cops will again Melt down 5,000 weapons confiscated from the Citizens….

    ‘ For they know not what they do’

    God Bless.

    A.

    >

    Like

    Comment by sicilianthing | July 19, 2017 | Reply

    • I would not let anyone off the hook on the doctrine of ignorance. I would suggest to you that they know EXACTLY ‘what they do’…

      Like

      Comment by cgdustdevil | August 11, 2017 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: