2a - Constitutional civil rights are not subject to a majority vote


Sanctuary County Presentation

Good Evening.


There are a lot of promises in the Constitution, but only one thing that guarantees these promises: The Second Amendment. The Constitution clearly enumerates the areas where the government has no authority to pass laws, but some legislators believe a 51% majority negates any basic human right they disagree with. The recent election has resulted in much concern for millions of Virginians regarding the gun control agenda driven by the record spending of $2.5 million dollars from gun control groups funded by New York billionaire Michael Bloomberg.The narrowly elected Democratic majority, largely from DC suburbs in Northern Virginia, has pre-filed proposed bills such as SB 16 which bans virtually all semi auto rifles and handguns under penalty of a Class 6 felony, based upon arbitrary and exclusively cosmetic appearance features that in no way affect or alter the operation of the federally legal firearm. There is also no provision for currently owned legal firearms or magazines of an arbitrary size, creating a de facto confiscation. The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia strongly enshrines that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Additionally, there is extensive case law precedent that clearly and explicitly proves that the gun control proposals on so called ‘assault weapons’ are unconstitutional to the United States Constitution and are therefore not enforceable by any government body.

<b>Case Law Precedent against the Constitutionality of Proposed Gun Control Legislation </b>

"The Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes" (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 2008)

The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding, and that this Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States. (Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 2016)

The Second Amendment was incorporated against state and local governments, through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 2010)

"An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed." (Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 1886)

"Congress does not have the power to pass laws that override the Constitution." (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 1803)

It is unconstitutional to require a precondition on the exercising of a right. (Guinn v US 1915, Lane v Wilson 1939)

It is unconstitutional to require a license (government permission) to exercise a right. (Murdock v PA 1943, Lowell v City of Griffin 1939, Freedman v MD 1965, Near v MN 1931, Miranda v AZ 1966)

It is unconstitutional to delay the exercising of a right. (Org. for a Better Austin v Keefe 1971)

It is unconstitutional to charge a fee for the exercising of a right. (Harper v Virginia Board of Elections 1966)

It is unconstitutional to register (record in a government database) the exercising of a right. (Thomas v Collins 1945, Lamont v Postmaster General 1965, Haynes v US 1968)

“If the State converts a right into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right with impunity.” (Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262 1963)


<b>What Happens After Gun Confiscation?</b>

1. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves against their ethnic-cleansing government, were arrested and exterminated.
2. In 1929, the former Soviet Union established gun control as a means of controlling the "more difficult" of their citizens. From 1929 to the death of Stalin, 40 million Soviets met an untimely end at the hand of various governmental agencies as they were arrested and exterminated.
3. After the rise of the Nazi's, Germany established their version of gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves against the "Brown Shirts", were arrested and exterminated. Interestingly, the Brown Shirts were eventually targeted for extermination themselves following their blind acts of allegiance to Hitler. Any American military and police would be wise to grasp the historical significance of the Brown Shirts' fate.
4. After Communist China established gun control in 1935, an estimated 50 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves against their fascist leaders, were arrested and exterminated.
5. Closer to home, Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayans, unable to defend themselves against their ruthless dictatorship, were arrested and exterminated.
6. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves from their dictatorial government, were arrested and exterminated.
7. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million of the "educated" people, unable to defend themselves against their fascist government, were arrested and exterminated.
8. In 1994, Rwanda disarmed the Tutsi people and being unable to defend themselves from their totalitarian government, nearly one million were summarily executed.
9. In 2009, Venezuela banned private ownership of firearms, and less than a decade later the socialist government began massacring their own citizens, starting a civil war.
The total numbers of victims who lost their lives because of gun control is approximately 70 million people in the 20th century. The historical voices from 70 million corpses speak loudly and clearly to those Americans who are advocating for a de facto gun ban. Governments murdered four times as many civilians as were killed in all the international and domestic wars combined. Governments murdered millions more people than were killed by common criminals and it all followed gun control. I am not saying that Richmond is actively preparing to commit mass murder against our fellow citizens, but the proposed laws have a direct coorleation with disarming the populace and rendering them at the complete mercy of the state, which leads to my next point of concern.
Sweeping gun bans are not the only unconstitutional proposals that the narrow Democrat majority enthusiastically seeks to institute. Also on the agenda are red flag laws, or emergency gun confiscation orders.
There are several red flags with the very notion of Red Flag Laws.
Red flag laws allow the government to disregard several Amendments of the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd (right to keep and bear arms), the 4th (protection against unreasonable search and seizures), 5th (right to due process, just compensation, self-incrimination) and the 6th (right to confront accusers, cross-examine witnesses, and to have a public defender). The individuals in question are not permitted to make their case before the court in the form of a rebuttal or defense, the only argument that is heard is that of the petitioner seeking to have firearms taken away.  Secondly, the very success of Red Flag Laws depends entirely upon all parties acting in good faith and that no action taken is politically – or otherwise maliciously ­­– motivated. To insist that this will never occur is simply naive. Thirdly, those that are legitimately mentally unstable will be less likely to pursue treatment if they feel that it will result in confiscation of their property or other forms of legal ramifications. Fourthly, red flag laws are entirely arbitrary. At any time, any individual may petition a court to initiate the process of confiscation for any length of time and they do not require a mental health diagnosis or professional medical opinion to do so. Mere suspicion is enough.

Red Flag Laws are immoral and unjust. They emphasize and exacerbate political hysteria and will do nothing but further widen the canyon of ideological divide. They alienate the mentally ill and are antithetical to the very notions of justice that are enshrined in the United States Constitution.

<b>Case Law Precedent against Proposed Red Flag Laws</b>

The 14th Amendment-
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Red Flag Laws strip law-abiding gun owners of their property and their ability of self defense without due process, assuming guilt until proven innocent, with ample ability for the law to be abused and provides broad immunity for the accuser from recourse. Red flag laws force the victim of the red flag order to rely on law enforcement as their sole means of protection when there is a litany of case law which clearly and repeatedly states that the State and its law enforcement officers have absolutely no duty or requirement  to protect their own citizens.
For Example:

Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686F.2d 616 [1982]
"There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state (or Federal) against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state (gov't) to let people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order"

Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an oft-quoted District of Columbia Court of Appeals case that held that the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to citizens based on the public duty doctrine.

Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, 7–2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman's three children by her estranged husband.

DeShaney v. Winnebago County, 489 U.S. 189 (1989), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on February 22, 1989. The court held that a state government agency's failure to prevent child abuse by a custodial parent does not violate the child's right to liberty for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Lozito v. New York City; In the spring of 2012, Joseph Lozito, who was brutally stabbed and "grievously wounded, deeply slashed around the head and neck", sued police for negligence in failing to render assistance to him as he was being attacked by Gelman.In response to the suit, attorneys for the City of New York argued that police had no duty to protect Lozito or any other person from Gelman. On July 25, 2013, Judge Margaret Chan dismissed Lozito's suit, stating that while Lozito's account of the attack rang true and appeared "highly credible", Chan agreed that police had "no special duty" to protect Lozito.
Parkland Students’ Suit against Broward County Dismissed
Judge Beth Bloom dismissed the suit... "The critical question the court analyzes is whether defendants had a constitutional duty to protect plaintiffs from the actions of Cruz," Bloom wrote. But she determined that "for such a duty to exist on the part of defendants, plaintiffs would have to be considered to be in custody.”

A 2019 study by gun rights advocate John Lott found red flag laws have no significant effect on murder, suicide, the number of people killed in mass public shootings, robbery, aggravated assault, or burglary. There are also multiple documented cases of victims of red flag laws in other states being killed by police in their own homes executing the red flag confiscation order. The risks to peaceful, law abiding gun owners are staggering and entirely unwarranted.
Another bill proposed would mandate “universal background checks” to be performed any time a firearm literally changes hands, whether you are selling a firearm, loaning a rifle to a family member for a hunting trip or just sharing the use of your firearm with friends at the shooting range- all of the previous examples would legally be  considered “transfers”, and thus requiring a federal and state background check to be conducted by a firearm dealer. Looking past the absurdity of this, the only way such a law enforcement would have anything to check against would be a state and national registry of all firearms and who owns them, which is explicitly prohibited by the Firearm Owner’s Protection Act (FOPA) of 1986. FOPA makes it illegal for the national government or any state in the country to keep any sort of database or registry that ties firearms directly to their owner. Universal Background checks would not have prevented or affected any of the mass shooting events in the last several years, and has been admitted as such by prominent congressional Democrats under oath.
Yet another bill proposal would make the ownership of firearm suppressors illegal in the state. Suppressors are already regulated equally to machine guns and hand grenades on the federal level, and have a burdensome application process requiring fingerprinting, submitting photographs and undergoing an extensive background check by the FBI, as well as a $200 tax and a wait time for approval of roughly 9 months to a yea- all of these apply to each item purchased, every time.  These procedures unconstitutionally limit law abiding gun owners who want to purchase the noise reducing device determined by the CDC to be the single most effective hearing protection device for the shooter and which also reduces noise pollution for all people in surrounding areas. As per the CDC report, “The only potentially effective noise control method to reduce students’ or instructors’ noise exposure from gunfire is through the use of noise suppressors that can be attached to the end of the gun barrel”. A silencer or suppressor reduces the sound of a gunshot from 165 decibels, which causes immediate and irreversible hearing damage, to 135 decibels, the equivalent of a jet engine at takeoff.  Some gun control activists claim that noise on shooting ranges isn’t a health issue- the CDC says otherwise, and the report is freely available for anyone interested to read.
There are many proposals that are patently unconstitutional to both the United State’s Constitution as well as the Commonwealth of Virginia’s Constitution. While these laws will likely be challenged in the courts following their rushed passage in the legislature, we citizens, becoming a 2nd Amendment Sanctuary County is the best statement that we citizens have against the astroturfed agenda pushed by massive spending from out of state gun control groups until such time as the courts justly rule against the reckless infringements and Stalinist red flag laws that force us to rely on a government that has no duty to provide for our individual safety and which undermine our natural rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.



<b>The enforcement problems with gun-grabbing ‘red flag’ laws are even worse than you think</b>
by Donald Kilmer
 | August 17, 2019 06:00 AM

Everyone is debating “red flag” laws like they’re some new thing, but California has had variations of them for decades. We call them domestic violence restraining orders, civil harassment restraining orders, workplace restraining orders, elder abuse restraining orders, mental health seizures and prohibition orders, and, more recently, gun violence restraining orders.
They’re all meant to disarm dangerous people — but they’re all fundamentally flawed.
None of these red flag laws would have prevented recent mass shootings. And in my 23 years practicing law in the heart of Silicon Valley, I have litigated dozens of these cases. I’ve seen firsthand the practical enforcement problems that emerge in real-life cases.
These kinds of court orders are usually obtained from a judge ex parte. That’s fancy Latin for: The judge only hears one side of the story, it is not your side, and you may not even know about it until after the fact. Then they immediately strip you of fundamental constitutional rights for the duration of the orders. You’ll get your “full due process” hearing, but not until later.
And any violation of these orders is separately punishable as a crime. So even if you are innocent of the underlying conduct that inspired the “red flag” order, if you violate the order pending your hearing, you can still face criminal charges.
The initial temporary orders are usually “self-executing.” That means you might get served with a court order that tells you to take your guns and surrender them to the police or a local dealer within the next 24 to 48 hours.
You are, of course, expected to comply. But since you cannot legally possess guns upon being served with the order, how are you supposed to transport your guns to surrender them? Perhaps you could just call the police and tell them you were served with a “red flag” order – marking you a “dangerous and volatile” person (even if you’re not) – and ask them to come pick up your guns.
That kind of situation is ripe for danger. In one situation in Baltimore, police ended up shooting a man when they came to collect his guns under a “red flag” law.
Or perhaps you could take your guns to a local gun dealer and ask them to store them for you – that is, if you can find one that’s willing. In my experience, storage will cost you about $200 per month for a couple of guns. And that might be the best deal you can get. Local governments are now charging people thousands of dollars to store guns that are confiscated, and they tack on a charge for inventory and processing fees.
In one case in Southern California, a client had to pay a $1,000 ransom, that was reduced from an initial “offer” of $4,000, to get his 50-gun collection back.
Experienced counsel to defend you in a “due process” hearing will run about $15,000 in fees. If you lose and want to appeal, expect to spend another $25,000 to $100,000 in fees and costs. And even with all of that, you might still lose.
To win these hearings, you have to refute an allegation that you pose a danger to yourself or others where a judge already issued a temporary ex parte order that concluded you were already a danger. Many judges will likely err on the side of caution, and against your rights.
As a practical matter, if the government’s interest is in separating a potentially-dangerous person from guns, it makes no sense to leave other guns that belong to family members in the home. So, if you live with someone that gets a red flag order issued against them, then you and others living in the same home risk losing your guns, too.
Think that’s a fantasy?
Ask Lori Rodriguez, a plaintiff in a case that has been kicking around the California and federal courts for six years. The Ninth Circuit Court recently invented a new exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. The court approved the police seizing Rodriguez’s firearm which was owned, registered, and locked in a gun safe , from her, while the police were at the home seizing firearms from a different family member.
Even if you win, the judge isn’t going to just hand your guns back to you at the end of the hearing. It’s probably a good idea to “lawyer up” just to go through the process of recovering your guns, so you don’t go to jail or prison for accidentally breaking an obscure firearm law or regulation. You wouldn’t want to set off a red flag.

Donald Kilmer is a law professor and practicing attorney who has litigated dozens of restraining order matters, defended against state and federal gun charges, and prosecuted several Second Amendment public interest cases.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-enforcement-problems-with-gun-grabbing-red-flag-laws-are-even-worse-than-you-think


__________

<b>Compiled links, comments, articles, facts, statistics, legal precedents</b>



https://guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

https://www.atf.gov/file/5646/download (93% crime guns illegal)

https://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/e1fabu/lets_talk_about_gun_violence

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-in-the-us-2018-041019.pdf/view

https://crimeresearch.org/2017/04/number-murders-county-54-us-counties-2014-zero-murders-69-1-murder/
More than 50% of the firearm homicides in the US happen in 2% of the counties in the US. More than 50% of the counties in the US have a firearm homicide count of 0.00

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/09/criminals-looking-victimize-women-love-gun-control/#.XXZJgC5y6h4.twitter
____

The odds of a child being killed in a school shooting is 1 in 614,000,000.  The odds of winning the power ball are 1 in 292,201,338.  The odds of being stuck by lightning are 1 in 700,000.  Why are we discussing taking away a natural right from millions of people because of a statistically insignificant event?  It's obviously tragic any time it occurs but there were more kids killed by drunk drivers in 2016 (the only year I can find an exact number which is 214) than total mass shooting deaths in the same year (123).  Why aren't we talking about prohibition of that's a bigger problem?

_____

All the Judicial, Statutory, and Historic evidence from the 17th Century to Modern day supports the individual right to keep and bear arms unconnected to militia service.

Being a direct descendant of the English colonies American law is based off of the English model. Our earliest documents from the Mayflower compact to the Constitution itself share a lineage with the Magna Carta. Even the American Bill of Rights being modeled after the English Bill of Rights.

The individual right, unconnected to milita service, pre-exists the United States and the Constitution. This right is firmly based in English law.

[In 1689 The British Bill of Rights gave all protestants the right to keep and bear arms.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689)

["The English right was a right of individuals, not conditioned on militia service...The English right to arms emerged in 1689, and in the century thereafter courts, Blackstone, and other authorities recognized it. They recognized a personal, individual right." -
CATO Brief on DC v Heller]( http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/07-290_RespondentAmCuCATOInstJMalcolm.pdf)

Prior to the debates on the US Constitution or its ratification multiple states built the individual right to keep and bear arms, unconnected to militia service, in their own state constitutions.

["That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State" - chapter 1, Section XV, Constitution of Vermont - July 8, 1777.](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/vt01.asp)

["That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state" - A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OR STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, Section XIII, Constitution of Pennsylvania - September 28, 1776.](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/pa08.asp)

Later the debates that would literally become the American Bill of Rights also include the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

["And that the said Constitution never be constructed to authorize Congress to infringe on the just liberty of the press, or the rights of the conscience; or prevent of people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceful and orderly manner, the federal legislature for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers, or possessions." - Debates and proceedings in the Convention of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1788. Page 86-87.](https://archive.org/details/debatesandproce00peirgoog)

The American Bill of Rights itself was a compromise between the federalist and anti-federalist created for the express purpose of protecting individual rights.

["In the ratification debate, Anti-Federalists opposed to the Constitution, complained that the new system threatened liberties, and suggested that if the delegates had truly cared about protecting individual rights, they would have included provisions that accomplished that.  With ratification in serious doubt, Federalists announced a willingness to take up the matter of  a series of amendments, to be called the Bill of Rights, soon after ratification and the First Congress  comes into session.  The concession was  undoubtedly  necessary to secure the Constitution's hard-fought ratification.  Thomas Jefferson, who did not attend the Constitutional Convention, in a December 1787 letter to Madison called the omission of a Bill of Rights a major mistake: "A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth."](http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/billofrightsintro.html)

In Madison's own words:

[“I think we should obtain the confidence of our fellow citizens, in proportion as we fortify the rights of the people against the encroachments of the government,” Madison said in his address to Congress in June 1789.](https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/on-this-day-james-madison-introduces-the-bill-of-rights)

Madison's first draft of the second Amendment is even more clear.

["The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."](https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=227)

Ironically it was changed because the founders feared someone would try to misconstrue a clause to deny the right of the people.

[*"Mr. Gerry -- This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the maladministration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the Constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous and prevent them from bearing arms."* - House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution 17, Aug. 1789](http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs6.html)

Please note Mr. Gerry clearly refers to this as the right of the people.

This is also why we have the 9th Amendment.

["The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."](https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States_of_America_1992)

Article I Section 8 had already established and addressed the militia and the military making the incorrect collective militia misinterpretation redundant.

Supreme Court cases like US v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, DC v. Heller, and even the Dredd Scott decision specifically call out the individual right to keep and bear arms unconnected to militia service.

______

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

Bill of Rights, Amendment 2

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

According to the SCOTUS:

"The Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes" (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570)

The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding, and that this Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States. (Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 2016)

The Second Amendment was incorporated against state and local governments, through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742)

"An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed." (Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425)

"Congress does not have the power to pass laws that override the Constitution." (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137)

It is unconstitutional to require a precondition on the exercising of a right. (Guinn v US 1915, Lane v Wilson 1939)

It is unconstitutional to require a license (government permission) to exercise a right. (Murdock v PA 1943, Lowell v City of Griffin 1939, Freedman v MD 1965, Near v MN 1931, Miranda v AZ 1966)

“If the State converts a right into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right with impunity.” (Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262)

It is unconstitutional to delay the exercising of a right. (Org. for a Better Austin v Keefe 1971)

It is unconstitutional to charge a fee for the exercising of a right. (Harper v Virginia Board of Elections 1966)

It is unconstitutional to register (record in a government database) the exercising of a right. (Thomas v Collins 1945, Lamont v Postmaster General 1965, Haynes v US 1968)

_______

They only right that ever has been accused of requiring a "need" is the 2nd. It is subjected to unconstitutional restrictions that have been struck down as unconstitutional when applied to other rights-

According to the US Supreme Court it is unconstitutional to :

Require a precondition on the exercising of a right. (Guinn v US 1915, Lane v Wilson 1939); (ATF FORM 4473, CCW, licenses, "Cooling-off"/'waiting' period)

Require a license (government permission) to exercise a right. (Murdock v PA 1943, Lowell v City of Griffin 1939, Freedman v MD 1965, Near v MN 1931, Miranda v AZ 1966); (CCW, licenses, Title 1 arms)

Delay the exercising of a right. (Org. for a Better Austin v Keefe 1971); (ATF FORM 4473, CCW, licenses, "Cooling-off"/'waiting' period)

Charge a fee for the exercising of a right. (Harper v Virginia Board of Elections 1966); (CCW, licenses, NFA)

Register (record in a government database) the exercising of a right. (Thomas v Collins 1945, Lamont v Postmaster General 1965, Haynes v US 1968); (ATF FORM 4473, CCW, licenses, NFA)

. . . and yet we see all these applied to gun ownership....

There’s a huge disparity in the words constituting the 2nd Amendment versus how it is applied in practice (especially depending on the state you live in). How many restrictions and qualifications can you place on a right until it is no longer truly a right?

It's more than just that.

[Castle Rock v Gonzalez](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales)

[DeShaney v Winnebago County](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County)

[Lozito v. New York City](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maksim_Gelman_stabbing_spree)

[And most recently in the Parkland shooting.](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/12/19/parkland-shooting-judge-school-cops-no-duty-protect-kids/2360683002/)

[To *"protect and serve"* is just a slogan that came from a PR campaign.](http://www.lapdonline.org/history_of_the_lapd/content_basic_view/1128)

[Also the national police response time on average is 18 minutes according to the National Sheriff's Association.](https://www.sheriffs.org/content/embracing-technology-decrease-law-enforcement-response-time)

______

Any perceived uptick in just the few recent years—which is not (yet) a trend—can be laid directly at the feet of Mass Media-driven hysteria:

[The Effect of Media Coverage on Mass Shootings - IZA Institute of Labor Economics (PDF, 22pgs)](http://ftp.iza.org/dp11900.pdf)

['Media Contagion' Is Factor in Mass Shootings, Study Says - American Psychological Association](https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2016/08/media-contagion.aspx)

[Contagion in Mass Killings and School Shootings - NCBI, NLM, NIH](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4489652)

[The Media Engine of Chaos – BJ Campbell](https://medium.com/handwaving-freakoutery/the-media-engine-of-chaos-c3874d4bac10)

[How the American Media Fuels A Cycle of Violence - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3VQULyT390)

[A Study of Active Shooter Incidents in the United States Between 2000 and 2013 — FBI](https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-study-2000-2013-1.pdf/view)
[Active Shooter Incidents in the United States in 2014 and 2015 — FBI](https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/activeshooterincidentsus_2014-2015.pdf/view)
[Active Shooter Incidents in the United States in 2016 and 2017 — FBI](https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-us-2016-2017.pdf/view)
[Active Shooter Incidents in the United States in 2018 — FBI](https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-in-the-us-2018-041019.pdf/view)

---
[Mass Murder with Firearms: Incidents and Victims, 1999-2013 - Congressional Research Service, July 30, 2015](https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44126.pdf)

With data provided by [criminologist Grant Duwe,](https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/04/mass-shootings-more-deadly-frequent-research-215678) the CRS compiled a 44-year (1970-2013) dataset of firearms-related mass murders that could arguably be characterized as “mass public shootings.” These data show that there were on average:

* one (1.1) incident **per year** during the 1970s (5.5 victims murdered, 2.0 wounded per incident),
* nearly three (2.7) incidents **per year** during the 1980s (6.1 victims murdered, 5.3 wounded per incident),
* four (4.0) incidents **per year** during the 1990s (5.6 victims murdered, 5.5 wounded per incident),
* four (4.1) incidents **per year** during the 2000s (6.4 victims murdered, 4.0 wounded per incident), and
* four (4.5) incidents **per year** from 2010 through 2013 (7.4 mevictims murdered, 6.3 wounded per incident).

[You're Being Lied To About Mass Shootings - And It's Worse Than You Think](http://www.rallyforourrights.com/mass-shootings-lies/)

[Mass killings happen randomly, yet rate has remained steady, study finds | Illinois.edu](https://news.illinois.edu/blog/view/6367/568301)

[There's No Correlation Between Gun Ownership, Mass Shootings, and Murder Rates | Mises Wire](https://mises.org/wire/theres-no-correlation-between-gun-ownership-mass-shootings-and-murder-rates)

[Gun Laws Have Basically No Impact on Mass Shooter Rate – BJ Campbell](https://medium.com/handwaving-freakoutery/gun-laws-have-basically-no-impact-on-mass-shooter-rate-3c079b709f5b)

---
And finally,

[The Gun Homicide Epidemic Isn’t – BJ Campbell](https://medium.com/handwaving-freakoutery/the-gun-homicide-epidemic-isnt-ac13b21ff3f9)

[The Gun Solution – BJ Campbell](https://medium.com/handwaving-freakoutery/the-gun-solution-f9339609b3b8)

https://www.ammoland.com/2019/08/update-firearms-fatalities-accident-rates-in-the-usa-94-reduction-1933-2017/#axzz5zkhjoeNU

https://thefreethoughtproject.com/police-mass-shooters-guns/

https://thecommonsenseshow.com/activism-agenda-21-conspiracy/democrats-are-gun-confiscation-party-genocide-always-follows-gun-confiscation

https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MURDER.HTM

The Supreme court has ruled in [Printz v United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printz_v._United_States) that local law enforcement are not obligated to enforce federal firearms laws.

__________

<b>Qoutes</b>

Thankfully the bill of rights is simply an enumeration of rights, not the source of them. It also helps that the people who wrote the bill of rights also wrote a lot of other things that make their intention clear.

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..." - George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country 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." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of." - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..." - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." - Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves." - Thomas Paine, "Thoughts on Defensive War" in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." - Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." - Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

"For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28




_______




 I have freely copied comments and work created/compiled by other redditors, this is not my own doing. Please do not feel ANY need to attribute, and please DO spread the knowledge and truth contained here to as many people as possible. There are many more great sources, including wikis on several freedom supporting subs which likely contain this material as well as info that I have not included, my note is hardly exhaustive nor is it anything other than a collection of facts, links and statistics I have come across and wanted to keep.

Sic Semper Tyrannis. Molon Labe.