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!


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 | , , , , , , ,


  1. PH, I recently took issue with Larry Pratt of Gun Owner of America when thought we should get behind “National Reciprocity” I did point out that the 2nd Amendment applied only to FedGov. While I’m not a learned as you, I find his response wanting. Let me know what you think :

    “Thanks your message. We’re delighted to hear you’re with us in the fight against bump stock regulations. Additionally, we should note that GOA does oppose all gun control, especially the unconstitutional National Firearms Act. In fact, we have challenged machine gun bans in the courts, and we are actively lobbying Congress to dismantle regulations on suppressors. Additionally, GOA is the original group to advocate for Constitutional Carry, and now, thanks in large part to GOA activists, permitless carry is now law in 14 states.

    However, some pro-gunners mistakenly believe that Federal reciprocity is the antithesis to federalism.

    But this is simply not true.

    Consider the Tenth Amendment, which states:

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    The principle undergirding the Constitution is this: Powers have been delegated by the Constitution to the federal government; but powers NOT delegated to the federal government are retained by the states and the people.

    Having said that, the Tenth Amendment notes that some powers have been “prohibited” to the states (many of these can be found in Article I, Section 10). And while some powers are prohibited, there are other areas where the states can be limited.

    Two such examples are found in the Full Faith & Credit provision of Article IV, Section 1 and the 14th Amendment — the latter which was featured in McDonald v. Chicago (2010).

    Justice Samuel Alito, one of the most pro-gun judges to ever sit on the Supreme Court, authored the decision in McDonald — arguing that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment, thus preventing states from infringing the right to keep and bear arms of citizens.

    The 14th Amendment authorizes Congress to pass legislation to protect people’s rights (in the first eight amendments) from state abuse. In fact, the sponsors of the 14th Amendment both agreed that this language would prohibit states from infringing upon people’s right to keep and bear arms. (See the statements from Ohio Rep. John Bingham and Michigan Sen. Jacob Howard, as cited in McDonald.)

    The enforcement mechanism in the 14th Amendment is found in Section 5, which says: “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

    We live in a day when several anti-gun states are not only severely restricting the Second Amendment rights of their own citizens, they’re doing the same to citizens from other states:

    • Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg financed several illegal “gun stings” from Virginia to Arizona — all with the stated intent of finding improprieties that will create momentum for stricter gun restrictions.

    • Maryland police have pulled over out-of-state drivers to search for weapons, in violation of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986.

    • In an attempt to drive gun makers out of business, several anti-gun officials brought dozens of lawsuits against out-of-state gun manufacturers after their weapons had been used in crime. The reckless lawsuits would have ruined the gun industry had Congress not interposed itself and enacted the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in 2005.

    • For years, several anti-gun states have blocked out-of-state citizens from exercising their right to keep and bear arms when traveling within their states. This has even resulted in the death of a lawful concealed carry holder, a military veteran, who was prevented from carrying in a neighboring state where he was rendered defenseless in the face of a mass shooter.

    A handful of anti-gun states are trying to drive a stake through the Second Amendment and deny gun rights to individuals ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

    But thanks to 2nd and 14th Amendments — and the Full Faith and Credit provision in the Constitution — Congress has the power to do something about this.

    If there is one power the government definitely has, it is to ensure that the Constitution — and the God-given powers it embodies — are effectual.

    And those Second Amendment advocates who claim that states can abrogate the right to keep and bear arms — both with respect to their own residents and with respect to the residents of other states — have an obligation to explain why they are not reading the Second and Fourteenth Amendments into irrelevancy.

    If the Obama-packed anti-gun courts refuse to enforce the McDonald decision and respect the Second Amendment, it is the responsibility of Congress to do so.

    Hope this helps.”


    Comment by Tim Martin | July 10, 2018 | Reply

    • It is disappointing to see such muddled thinking coming from GOA.

      But Americans no longer reason [as in logical analysis] from First Principles. Instead, they accept the presuppositions of the status quo and begin their rationalizations from there. The result is the muddled letter you got from GAO.

      Do you understand what I am saying? I sometimes think people don’t understand – perhaps I’m not clear.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 11, 2018 | Reply

      • Yes, perfectly clear. I felt the GOA response was muddled, twisted logic devoid of as you put it no reason from a basis of “First Principles” While I’m not as well versed on things Constitutional as you, everything in the GOA’s response rang false. Their use of the “Full Faith and Credit” clause didn’t apply to the issue at all, and neither did their citing the 2nd Amendment and the 14th, neither support their view of FedGov being involved whatsoever.


        Comment by Tim Martin | July 11, 2018 | Reply

        • Right. And people think it’s so cool to have a concealed carry permit. If they thought this through, they’d see the REAL purpose of such legislation is to compile a list of gun owners. When one buys a firearm at certain places, the seller goes thru the unconstitutional federal background check to see if the person is “qualified” to own a firearm. But many people have firearms which they inherited, or bought at gun shows, where no federal background checks were conducted.

          So how do the state and federal governments find out about the People who got their firearms with no federal background checks? Simple: Sell them on getting a concealed carry permit. Sell them on reciprocity!

          And why do the state and federal gov’ts want to know who has guns? As history has shown us, the pattern is this: Registration – then Confiscation – then Extermination.

          So GOA’s shortsightedness is not serving our Country well. But their obstinance in refusing to listen is troubling.

          Adolf Hitler is reputed to have said: “How fortunate for governments that people do not think.”


          Comment by Publius Huldah | July 12, 2018 | Reply

          • Exactly, Concealed Carry Permits, or as I call them, certificates of permission from government to exercise your right, transmuting your right into a privilege permitted at the whim of Government. Don’t get me started on the Unconstitutional Background check which demands you prove your innocence prior to exercising your right. In my State we don’t have gun registration, officially that is, but you can bet the State maintains some form of backdoor registry.

            GOA is indeed shortsighted, but then it’s about the membership dollars not principle.


            Comment by Tim Martin | July 12, 2018

  2. Happy New Year PH, I do need a bit more “clarification” if you will on something you posted earlier. Here’s the Quote: “We know beyond any reasonable doubt, that the original intent of the first 10 Amendments to the federal constitution is that they restrict ONLY the federal government.

    The 2nd Amendment doesn’t restrict the State governments – it prohibits only the federal government from infringing the right to bear arms… ”

    Ok, we know that the Bill of Rights applied to the Federal Government, so then are States free to enact any law they want, such as creating Conceal Carry Laws requiring permission to exercise a right? In California for instance they require all firearms be registered, have a capacity no greater than 10 rounds and if sold in California it has to be “approved” by the California DOJ and on and on. All of which I would reasonably consider infringements. Does it all come down to whether these laws violate an individual State’s Constitution?


    Comment by Timothy Martin | January 2, 2018 | Reply

    • Apparently, I can’t write so that people can understand. In the paper on which you comment I wrote:

      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!

      Tell me what you don’t understand about the above and I’ll try again.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 2, 2018 | Reply

      • Sorry, I did read that but apparently my mind failed to process it correctly.


        Comment by Timothy Martin | January 2, 2018 | Reply

        • sometimes, I do get it wrong and don’t say what I mean.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | January 2, 2018 | Reply

    • Actually, the first 10 amendments, including the 2nd, are merely reminders to the people and the federal government, that these rights are natural, unalienable rights that no government can infringe upon, and is in fact, established for the protection of these rights. There is no power delegated in the Constitution to the federal government to regulate firearms, speech, etc.

      The states are not obligated to abide by the constitution, but they are obligated to abide by the laws of nature and nature’s God. Therefore, any government that infringes upon an individual’s natural right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of their own preservation, is acting immorally and tyrannically, and is outside of the role of government to secure our unalienable, natural rights.


      Comment by Sopater | January 8, 2018 | Reply

      • Well, certain provisions of the federal Constitution do address and restrict the States. For example:

        Article I, Section 10, lists the powers the States agreed to relinquish.

        In Article VI, clause 2, the States agreed that they would not make laws which violate the “supreme Law of the Land”.

        But certainly, the first 10 Amendments were not intended to restrict the States.

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by Publius Huldah | January 8, 2018 | Reply

        • Agreed.


          Comment by Sopater | January 9, 2018 | Reply

        • Yes, I misspoke a bit. The states are indeed obligated to abide by the Constitution in the areas where they have agreed to relinquish certain authorities, such as in the the articles and sections that you mentioned above, but that does not apply to the 2nd amendment.


          Comment by Sopater | January 9, 2018 | Reply

          • I address the powers of the States respecting arms in the paper.


            Comment by Publius Huldah | January 9, 2018

  3. Wow this statement from Gun Owners of America is truly disturbing in it’s ignorance: “While Gun Owners of America appreciates the House of Representatives for passing Constitutional Carry-friendly reciprocity, GOA continues to vehemently warn congressmen about the dangers of the ‘NICS Fix’ provision, which can also be referred to as the ‘Parking Ticket Gun Ban.’” Just how is handing management of your rights to FedGov equate to “Constitutional Carry-friendly” reciprocity? Apparently GOA believes that the NICS Fix is gun control but HR 38 is not???? But they go on to say ““So GOA will continue to rally our 1.5 million grassroots supporters to kill the ‘NICS Fix’ language and to pass a clean, Constitutional Carry-friendly reciprocity bill in the Senate, such as S. 446.”” So it’s all about the Benjemin’s that 1.5 million supporters bring to the table.


    Comment by Tim Martin | December 15, 2017 | Reply

    • I know what you are saying. I expect that as a People we are too stupid to be free. I have come to the sad conclusion that “conservative” organizations exist solely to provide nice jobs for the officers. Pragmatism is deeply ingrained into the American mindset. They don’t think in terms of TRANSCENDENT PRINCIPLES to which they must adhere – they think only in terms of the immediate results they want. And if something will immediately give them the result they want – they refuse to look at the long range consequences.

      The leftist organizations seem to exist to further their agenda.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 15, 2017 | Reply

  4. Here’s an article that should leave you scratching your head in amazement at the Constitutional ignorance where the author thinks National Reciprocity will be advancing rights. Huh? Putting the Feds in charge of this will advance rights?


    Comment by Tim | December 12, 2017 | Reply

    • Most Americans are too ignorant/stupid/short-sighted to be allowed to vote. At Article I, section 2, clause 1, US Constitution, the States retained the power to set qualifications for voters. But the Progressives indoctrinated us with the idiotic belief that the ideal is “universal suffrage” – and so now we have blithering idiots voting & drowning out the voices of the wise.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 12, 2017 | Reply

    • Dearest P H, I attended a meeting last night and brought up my hatred for HR38 as it is giving the feds control over us being able to go into other states with our current states “permissions slips” and said ‘why isn’t the state of Oklahoma obeying the 2nd amendment … who the heck are they to make up their own restrictions…? The answer i got was that when Oklahoma joined the union ? 1907 …the folks chose to have in Oklahomas constitution x y & z instead of just adhering to the 2nd. This tiny group has tried twice before and is getting ready to attempt again to have that idiocy thrown out so the state will have to follow the 2nd BUT… & THIS REALLY LIT MY FIRE… REPUBLICANS SHOT IT DOWN…BOTH TIMES what the heck??? I really wanted to exercise my 2nd amendment right over OKs tyrannical govt. How is it a state can make up their own constitution which spits at the US Constitution and the 2nd amendment??? And better still what can be done about this evil and stupidity??? thank you.


      Comment by madelyn thide | December 15, 2017 | Reply

      • Dear Madelyn,

        Thank you for the warm greeting!

        1. I just finished teaching a Constitution class at some friends’ home. One of the classes was about the bill of rights. Contrary to what most believe, the bill of rights was never intended to restrict the States – it was merely to restrict the federal government. Even the Supreme Court agreed, when it decided Barron v. Baltimore in 1833, that the “bill of rights” restricts only the federal government.

        It wasn’t until 1925 that the Supreme court asserted that Sec. 1 of the 14th amendment “incorporated” the first amendment so as to give the federal courts power over how the States acted with respect to first amendment issues. That was the beginning of a massive usurpation of powers by the federal courts over the States.

        This paper explains the damned “incorporation doctrine” and shows how the supreme Court used it to silence Christian speech in the public square throughout our entire land:

        So when a person says that the bill of rights applies to the States, he is actually accepting the unconstitutional “incorporation doctrine” where the supreme Court claimed that Section 1 of the 14th Amendment gave them power to oversee how the States applied the “bill of rights” within their own States.

        2. Rights don’t come from Constitutions. Our Declaration of Independence says that rights come from God – and the purpose of government is to secure the rights GOD gave us. It was GOD who gave us the right to use lethal force in self-defense.

        3. The actual purpose of the 2nd amendment was to emphasize that the reason the people must be armed is so that they can serve in their State Militia. In Federalist No. 46, James Madison says the purpose of the “militia of the several states” is so the States can defend themselves from the federal government – when the need arises.

        I discuss more on the purpose of the State Militia here:

        4. I just glanced at the Oklahoma Constitution provision on bearing arms:

        Section II-26: Bearing arms – Carrying weapons.

        The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his
        home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when
        thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but
        nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from
        regulating the carrying of weapons.

        I don’t know how Oklahoma courts have construed that provision – and I am not allowed to give legal advice to people in Oklahoma – but I think that the State Constitution permits Oklahoma citizens to have arms in their homes, and in their cars, and on their persons for purposes of defense.

        The Oklahoma Legislature could properly make laws prohibiting the carrying of arms in State courthouses, prisons, mental hospitals, and such like.

        If the Oklahoma Legislature has made laws which violate the Oklahoma Constitution, then the gun rights people in Oklahoma need to get to work and get those unconstitutional state laws repealed!


        Comment by Publius Huldah | December 15, 2017 | Reply

        • Dear PH, I thank you for your detailed answer but then wondered if i asked my question correctly…here is my question: Do states have a right to stop other states from traveling into their states armed say to visit friends or relatives or for business purposes. What good is the 2nd Amendment if they can? thank you. Sorry to be ignorant…your information is really the first exposure to our founding documents so very sorry to say. My schooling in NYS (i graduated in 1966) did not mention the Constitution… Thank you for the vast knowledge and understanding you know and so freely share. respectfully , Madelyn.


          Comment by madelyn thide | December 16, 2017 | Reply

          • Dear Madelyn,

            I also was raised and educated in the NY State public school system, and I graduated in 1964. We started to learn about the Constitution of the United States when I entered the 5th grade. Then all the way through High School, we were taught Civics and American History. Then for some reason, after 1964, the schools stopped teaching these subjects, either completely or by teaching a false interpretation of the subjects. Today, at the apartment complex where I reside, there are a lot of new immigrants from the Ukraine and other Slavic countries, whose junior and senior high school children come to me, almost on a weekly basis, asking me if I could teach them about the Constitution, because they aren’t being taught any thing about it in the schools. They tell me that they can read it, but they don’t understand exactly what it means, and if they ask their teachers, each teacher they ask, gives their own biased interpretation. This has become a sad and dangerous situation for the U.S.

            At 72 years of age, I do what I can to educate these kids, but my expertise is not in the Constitution, it is in theology, so every chance I get, I have these students come to the Publius Huldah web site, at least once a week to study the various teachings and explanations she puts forth. So far, they seem to enjoy this site and they tell me that they are learning a lot.

            I wish I had the answer to your question, but I am stymied myself, but I am sure Publius Huldah will give both of us a clear and honest answer.


            Comment by Sayedna Gregori | December 16, 2017

          • Thank you, dear Abouna Gregori! I’m writing a paper on it.


            Comment by Publius Huldah | December 17, 2017

          • PH, I am looking forward to it. Thank you very much. I really appreciate you sharing your knowledge, and i do share it with others… ignorance is not bliss.


            Comment by madelyn thide | December 17, 2017

          • So the questions are:

            Does Oklahoma [or any other State] have the “right” to prohibit persons from other States from bringing their personal firearm with them when they enter Oklahoma [or another State]? And if States have that right, then what good is the 2nd Amendment?

            1. First of all, governments don’t have “rights” – governments have “powers”. Only humans [and animals] have “rights”, and they are bestowed by the Creator God. It was God – not human governments – who gave us the right to use lethal force to defend ourselves. [And as a practical matter, the only way most people can defend themselves is with a firearm.]

            2. Secondly, we must distinguish between the exercise of lawful powers, and the usurpation of powers not delegated. Our State and federal governments routinely exercise powers which they usurped. They get away with it because the American People abandoned our Constitution over 100 years ago, and everyone since ignores it.

            The result is unconstitutional government on the federal and state levels.

            The lawful powers of the federal government are itemized – enumerated – in the federal Constitution. If a power isn’t listed, the fed gov’t doesn’t have it.

            The State governments were created by the State Constitutions. Typically, state constitutions delegate general and unlimited powers to the State government, and the powers are restricted only by the Declaration of Rights in the State Constitution; and by Article I, § 10, of the federal Constitution.

            3. We know beyond any reasonable doubt, that the original intent of the first 10 Amendments to the federal constitution is that they restrict ONLY the federal government.

            The 2nd Amendment doesn’t restrict the State governments – it prohibits only the federal government from infringing the right to bear arms. The purpose is to reiterate that the pre-existing power of the States to maintain their own state Militia is to be preserved. James Madison said in Federalist Paper No. 46 that the State Militia is the State’s primary defense against a usurping federal government.

            As outlined in the paper, “From Duty to be Armed to Permission to Carry”, State governments may not lawfully do anything which violates their State Constitutions or which interferes with the federal government’s lawful power to REQUIRE all able-bodied male citizens to buy weapons and join their local militia unit in their State for training.

            The papers under the Category, “Militia”, explain the importance of the “militia of the several states”:

            4. There is no easy answer to your question for the reason that everyone has ignored the federal constitution for so long. Accordingly, the people with the power decide things.

            As a matter of Constitutional Principle, state governments have no lawful power to prohibit persons from other States from bringing their personal self-defense firearm with them when they enter another State.

            However, our criminal “justice” systems on the federal and state levels no longer follow Constitutions – the federal and state governments make whatever criminal laws and rules they want – and prosecutors prosecute violations – and uninformed juries convict.

            5. One should also read one’s state Constitution to see the provisions re search and seizure. In the past in this Country, warrantless searches were generally unlawful. In the past, law enforcement couldn’t blockade the roads and conduct searches of everyone’s vehicles and persons – just to see if they had prohibited items on them. If a person is concealing a gun on his person or in the glove compartment of his vehicle, how would law enforcement know?

            We live in dangerous – lawless – times, and governments are among the worst offenders.

            But then, we have to remember that it was The People who elected the office holders. I see Americans literally worshiping politicians like Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz! Anyone who knows our federal Constitution can see in a heartbeat that both of them are frauds and phonies and tyrants.


            Comment by Publius Huldah | December 20, 2017

          • Ms. Huldah, there are many of us who know and realize that our Federal, State and Courts ignore and have been ignoring the Constitution of the United States. Also, there are very few American citizens, both in the general public and those who are elected to or appointed to any position in government who even have any working knowledge of the Constitution. Our elected and/or appointed representatives swear and oath of office in which they swear to uphold and defend the Constitution, a document they know nothing about. The ignorance concerning the Constitution is due to either a lack of interest in learning it, or a failure on the part of our education system to teach it. Often, when if and when it is taught, they students are given an inaccurate and biased interpretation.

            Since all of this has been going on for so many years, how do we rectify this situation? How do we get our government back to being the Constitutional Republic we were founded to be, especially when the majority of the citizens of the United States seem to be leaning more and more left due to brainwashing in our schools and by our news and entertainment media?


            Comment by Sayedna Gregori | December 20, 2017

          • I’m paraphrasing, but this is the gist of the answers our Framers gave:

            Thomas Jefferson said WE must educate the People on this issue – and he didn’t mean public schools. He said who ever wants to be ignorant and free, wants what never was and never will be.

            John Adams said our Constitution is for a virtuous people only – it is totally unsuited for any other.

            James Madison said our Constitution depends on a virtuous & intelligent people electing only wise and virtuous people to office.

            Jefferson, Madison, and Alexander Hamilton said that when the federal government usurps powers, the States must refuse to comply with unconstitutional acts – nullification.

            I’m reminded of the Book of Judges: People need to be led: When they have a good Judge, all goes well. But when the good Judge dies, the people fall away and everyone does that which in his own eyes seems right. Then tyrants take over. Then the people cry out to God and He send them another good judge. But when that judge dies, the people once again sink into depravity and the same pattern is repeated over & over.

            If the pattern in the Book of Judges is True, then it seems that our job is to educate the People, and bring them back to God, get them [who are now immoral, ignorant & conceited] to repent of their sins so that God will heal our land and send us a good “Judge”.

            But we have many Americans today who are malignantly stupid & conceited spouting off about matters of which they are completely ignorant.


            Comment by Publius Huldah | December 20, 2017

          • You are so right, we have both Local, State and Federal Representatives who are deeply ignorant of the document they have sworn an oath to protect and defend. Our schools don’t teach our history our Constitution, if they do it’s glossed over and slanted towards trying to discredit our Founders. It is just as bad out there in the general populace, when I see responses to posts I or others have made standing for the Constitution some reply with stuff like, “That’s not how things work, grow up.” Or the Michael Farris COS worshipers who can’t see they’ve been lied to. Not sure how we turn it around, but I do try and evangelize the Constitution every day…don’t think I’ll see a return to Constitutional fidelity in my lifetime…


            Comment by Timothy Martin | December 20, 2017

  5. The passage of HR 38 with along with it’s companion bill to “Fix” NICS was cheered as a win for “Gun Rights” by most of the organizations who claim to be protectors of our right to keep and bear arms. You know who they are the NRA, USCCA, GOA, NSSF, FPC, and others who tend to support federal gun control because it gives them a cause to rake in membership dollars. It seems all these organizations support Unconstitutional legislation as long as they agree with the result, and their ignorant members dutifully go along, unwittingly cheering more encroachments. Constitutional ignorance among these organizations and their members is pretty much universal. I’ve seen some who support this Federal overreach try and say it’s full faith and credit clause which give FedGov the authority. I thinking that doesn’t apply to unconstitutional acts.


    Comment by Tim | December 11, 2017 | Reply

    • You are right – the ignorance and gullibility of the members of the so-called “gun rights” organizations is horrifying. And yes, I expect the leadership exists to exploit this gullibility. After all, if the fed gov’t obeyed the Constitution respecting arms, they’d be out of a job. Or so they think – I hoped I could get them to see that they could perform valuable services by teaching citizens to become experts in all aspects of firearms.

      It is a result of our mindset of Pragmatism – we don’t care about Principles – all we care about is the result for the right here & now.

      And right, the full faith & credit clause doesn’t authorize the fed gov’t to draft unconstitutional federal legislation. I discuss the full faith and credit clause in footnote 2 of this:


      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 11, 2017 | Reply

      • Yep, it’s frustrating watching so many believe Congress (including Congress) has any power to enact such a bill…but again Constitutional ignorance has found a nice comfy place among the majority of the populace. I’ve been posting feverishly regarding the Unconstitutionality of HR 38 and all Federal and State laws regarding arms, including State Conceal Carry Permits; which I refer to as “Certificates of Permission” from the Government in which one must also pass a background check to prove their innocence before being allowed to exercise your right.


        Comment by Tim | December 11, 2017 | Reply



      Comment by madelyn thide | December 11, 2017 | Reply

      • Exactly, the Right to Keep and Bear arms was a natural and essential right in the eyes of our Founders, one that Government was instructed “Shall Not be Infringed.” But over the years folks have been conditioned to see the Federal Government as their benefactor, their protector when nothing could be farther from what our Founders envisioned for us. How many Americans actually understand the 2nd Amendment, God knows the NRA doesn’t.

        Noah Webster perhaps explained it best when he said: “Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command: for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”


        Comment by Tim | December 11, 2017 | Reply

        • Right! And the armed people were to be organized & trained & enrolled in the Militia of their State. Because only such an organized Militia could effectively contend against the federal government.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | December 12, 2017 | Reply

          • And that’s exactly what these so-called “Gun Rights” organizations should be teaching…but I’ve come to the conclusion that they are just as ignorant as their membership.


            Comment by Tim | December 12, 2017

      • As it has been noted, the whole problem concerning our Constitution is ignorance of the document. This ignorance is on the part of WE the PEOPLE as well as those whom we elect to represent us in OUR government. Our children are NOT being taught the Constitution in our schools, or at least not the truth about it. We have elected and appointed government officials who take an oath of office swearing to uphold and defend the Constitution, a document they know NOTHING about. Even our U.S. Supreme Court Justices, not only are ignorant of the Constitution, but they also VIOLATE it themselves, for example, where did they get the right and power to declare “same-sex” marriage the law of the land? Where did they get the idea that the government has the constitutional power to be involved in our education system, our health care system, to gobble up huge amounts of land, or for that matter, to declare the Federal Reserve Banking System Amendment to be constitutional when it was never constitutionally ratified by the proper number of States?

        As for WE the PEOPLE go, how many of those who elected Obama, would have voted for him if they truly understood the Constitutional meaning of a “natural born citizen” as understood by the Framers of the Constitution? Ignorance is NOT bliss, it is extremely dangerous, especially when it comes to our nation, our laws, and our way of life.


        Comment by Sayedna Gregori | December 11, 2017 | Reply

        • That’s the Truth! You meant, “the 16th Amendment” not the federal reserve banking system amendment, right?


          Comment by Publius Huldah | December 12, 2017 | Reply

  6. Greetings and blessings to my dear friend Publius Huldah, I have posted your teaching, on this subject, along with your video, on my video blog site at:
    I also added comments of my own. Because of the overall length of the topic, I had to make the posting in three separate videos. You are truly a Constitutional expert. May the Lord grant you many years, or as we say in the Greek; “Eis Polla eti, despota.” (“Unto many years, O master”)

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Sayedna Gregori | October 21, 2017 | Reply

    • MISS HULDAH TRULY IS A SUPERB NATIONAL TREASURE… I will keep her in my prayers … so thankful for the teaching i never in a million years would have gotten from public school…We were never taught the US Constitution perhaps i heard the word once… shameful


      Comment by madelyn | October 22, 2017 | Reply

    • Dear Abouna Gregori, thank you! I watched your videos and your warnings are True. Alas that Americans are so lethargic about these issues. I often think that the root sins are Cowardice and Laziness. People seem to be too lazy to observe & think; and too cowardly to resist the flow toward certain destruction.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 27, 2017 | Reply

      • Dear Huldah, how right you are. Sadly, so much of America today has degenerated into a slothful, cowardly, dependent and an egocentric society. We have abused and overused the word “Hero” so that in many cases, it really has no meaning any more. So many in America are smart ONLY in their own minds and would rather gorge themselves on the pap spoon-fed to them by the so-called news and entertainment media, and they lack the knowledge on how to go about investigating whether what they are being told is true or not. How utterly sad and devastating it is going to be when the last of our generation (those born in the 1940’s) have passed, because the light of truth will finally be extinguished.


        Comment by Sayedna Gregori | October 27, 2017 | Reply

  7. PH, have you seen this bill regarding the interstate travel with firearms? Wondering what your take on this, is this a bill where the Feds have any power?


    Comment by Timothy Martin | October 21, 2017 | Reply

    • I’m printing the bill out now to read for later. I have to prepare a lesson plan, then I’ll look at this bill. But know that the federal gov’t has NO authority over the Country at Large to restrict or regulate the transportation or ownership of arms.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 21, 2017 | Reply

  8. I can see that the Federal Govt has no constitutional authority to infringe on our rights to keep and bear arms and i can see how this HR38 is not where we should go but i do not clearly see how a state can infringe, regulate, … our right to bear arms and how each state can determine if a resident of one state can or can not enter or travel through their state with or without a weapon… I love your teaching: All Federal Gun Control is Unlawful and i post it as much as i can. I do not recall being taught a thing about the US Constitution … probably would have been taught lies and ignorance anyway. Thank you so very much … i love education and hate being ignorant. Bless you.


    Comment by madelyn | October 21, 2017 | Reply

    • One of my points is that most State Statutes which purport to regulate guns are probably unconstitutional under the State’s Constitution. And any State Statute which purports to ban guns is unconstitutional under the federal Constitution. Because pursuant to Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 & 16, Congress has the power to require every able-bodied Citizen to GET ARMED and trained in the State Militia.

      Of course, States can require people who are visiting state Courthouses, prisons, mental institutions, and such places to leave their arms in their vehicles.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | October 21, 2017 | Reply

      • Thank you for your very prompt reply. I have read where the sex and ages of the “citizens” Militia are within certain guidelines so in that case what about the rest of us, where does that leave us…those of us who are not men and older than the age restrictions? I read where you said, if i am not mistaken that the actual National Guard should be what is called the Militia or what we think of as “the citizens militia” but is not the National Guard we currently have which is somehow ordered by ?? the State? for state problems but also by the Federal Government??? to go into foreign lands to fight instead of protecting the state they are from. My understanding is the Sheriff of a county would … call the Militia to assist in evicting Federal Agents and even Police… from his or her county as a need arose. So if i understand what youre saying is that states i am not a resident of but want to travel to or through based on their own state constitutions which are probably unconstitutional actually have no right to restrict and or prevent us from being armed how do we then go about to secure our rights if the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act is not the way to go? What is “Constitutional Carry” then? I Don’t like the idea that HR38 would require a license nor that it would restrict what weapons we choose to carry/transport with us. Again, thank you.


        Comment by madelyn | October 21, 2017 | Reply

        • In the Militia Act of 1792 [linked to in my various articles], Congress provided that the Militia of the several States would consist of male citizens between the ages of 18-45.

          Congress today could include women. I advise against including Women for combat roles, but women could be allowed to volunteer to join the Militia for non-combat positions.

          I’m not sure I follow all that you are saying. What I meant to get across is that the Militia of the Several States were deactivated and replaced by the National Guard which is an adjunct of the federal military and thus is under federal control.

          Article I, Sec. 8, clause 15, US Constitution, sets forth the only purposes for which the Militia of the Several States may be called into federal service. The Militia may NOT be lawfully called into service to go overseas! But the National Guard – being nothing more than an adjunct of the federal military – may be sent overseas.

          The County Sheriffs have no control over the Militia of the Several States unless a State Constitution gives them such control. However, the Sheriffs could have large armed posses – and they should have them since our State governments sold us down the river by giving up our State Militia.

          In these days, everyone slings around terms – it’s sometimes hard to know what they mean. The federal Constitution does not prohibit Citizens from being armed; and the two “militia clauses” authorize Congress to REQUIRE Citizens to get armed and trained. So any State Statute which purports to disarm its citizens is probably unconstitutional under Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 15 & 16 of the federal Constitution; and may well be unconstitutional under the State Constitution. One would have to check the Constitution for his State.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | October 21, 2017 | Reply

          • Thank you very much … i do believe you answered my questions and my thought was to look up the state constitutions as you mentioned… I greatly appreciate all you must have gone through to learn what most of our government has no clue about or… does but does not want us to realize. Again, thank you so much.


            Comment by madelyn | October 21, 2017

          • Any time!


            Comment by Publius Huldah | October 21, 2017

  9. Gun control is not an enumerated power of the federal government, but then again, a lot of other things are NOT enumerated powers of the federal government, yet it it seems that with each passing year the federal government shows less and less concern or respect for the Constitution and their oath of office as they usurp mopre and more power unto themselves, and WE the PEOPLE do nothing to stop it. So, as they say, we get the type of government we deserve.


    Comment by Sayedna Gregori | September 17, 2017 | Reply

    • Yes, you are right, Sayedna. But Americans now blame-shift: they blame the federal government for the consequences of their own failures to learn and enforce our Constitution.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 17, 2017 | Reply

  10. Publius: Another fascinating take on what seems conservative but is not necessarily so. I would lightly dissent and suggest that the fifth clause of the XIV Amendment empowers Congress to enforce its provisions, including the Second Amendment which under Heller is incorporated into the XIV Amendment. Also the Bourne decision of the SCOTUS holds that basically Congress cannot use that power to overrule the Second Amendment in Heller. So I would Congress can expand Second Amendment rights but not restrict them, Sandy Sanders from the Virginia Right blog.


    Comment by Elwood Earl "Sandy" Sanders, Jr. | September 17, 2017 | Reply

    • Hi, Sandy,

      1. As to the original intent of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment, please see the posts under this Category – and note Professor Raoul Berger’s landmark book, Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment: Berger’s book is extraordinary in its excellence.

      So may the Supreme Court CHANGE that original intent by means of their opinions [which aren’t even part of the “supreme Law of the Land”!]?

      And is the Supreme Court not merely the “creature” of the federal constitution, and completely subject to its terms? [It was created by Art. III.] Does the “creature” dictate to the Creators? Does the “creature” have the power to rewrite the document by virtue of which it owes its existence?

      2. As to the “incorporation theory”: That too is a lie: Please see at sections 10 – 12 and the accompanying footnotes. It was a monstrous usurpation of judicial powers.

      Bottom Line is that You and I and all the other lawyers in this Land were not told the truth while we were in law school.

      So my function is to offer American Lawyers the “red pill” – because they were fed the “blue pill” in law school.

      All of the writings of our Framers support the Principle that the Supreme Court is merely the creature of the Constitution and is completely subject to its terms, and the States have as much right to judge the actions of the Supreme Court as they do the legislative & executive branches of the federal gov’t. On the remedy of Nullification which our Framers actually advised states to use when the fed gov’t usurps power see the articles under the Category “Nullification”. Here are two of them on The Tenth Amendment Center website:



      Comment by Publius Huldah | September 17, 2017 | Reply

  11. Reblogged this on PUMABydesign001's Blog.


    Comment by bydesign001 | July 25, 2017 | Reply

  12. 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


    Comment by chiefcabioch | July 23, 2017 | Reply

    • You are referring to Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) ?

      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:

      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?!


          Comment by Publius Huldah | August 12, 2017 | Reply

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


    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:

      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

  14. 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!


      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 23, 2017 | Reply

  15. Reblogged this on .


    Comment by Brittius | July 20, 2017 | Reply

  16. 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

  17. 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.


    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

  18. […] More… […]


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

  19. 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

  20. 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.


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

  21. 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

  22. Reblogged this on Starvin Larry.


    Comment by gamegetterII | July 19, 2017 | Reply

  23. 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?


    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

  24. 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?


    Comment by Rocklander | July 19, 2017 | Reply

  25. 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.




    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’…


      Comment by cgdustdevil | August 11, 2017 | Reply

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: