LUCKY 13: Kentucky Joins in Lawsuit to Battle Obama Administration Overreach
Lucky 13.Read More »
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is under assault by Washington politicians.
They are plotting as we speak to come up with new regulations that will have no effect on gun violence but will only place onerous restrictions on Americans seeking to exercise their God-given right to possess firearms. They make phony gun control arguments and are playing on fear and emotion and not facts, reason or experience.
These lawmakers have no respect for the rule of law, the natural rights of man, or the Constitution. Case in point: The Vice President of this country stated that the President is “exploring” using an executive order to “combat” gun violence; Constitution be damned. This out and out power grab should be condemned by every single American citizen and legislator regardless of political party. This type of action has no place in a limited, constitutional republic. Because of this, state governments will now have to step up and defend the right to bear arms. Tennessee has a history of doing just this.
Tennessee Supreme Court Justice Thomas J. Freeman wrote in the majority opinion for Andrews v State (1871) that:
“It is said by the Attorney General, that the Legislature may prohibit the use of arms common in warfare, but not the use of them in warfare; but the idea of the Constitution is, the keeping and use of such arms as are useful either in warfare, or in preparing the citizen for their use in warfare, by training him as a citizen, to their use in times of peace.”
He then quotes Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story:
“The right of the citizen to keep and bear arms, has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of the republic, since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will in general, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
Justice Freeman then states:
“We cite this passage as throwing light upon what was intended to be guaranteed to the people of the States, against the power of the Federal Legislature, and at the same time, as showing clearly what is the meaning of our own Constitution on this subject, as it is evident the State Constitution was intended to guard the same right, and with the same ends in view. So that, the meaning of the one, will give us an understanding of the purpose of the other.
The passage from Story, shows clearly that this right was intended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to, and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights”
These words still ring true today. The question is, will they fall on deaf ears?
They have not fallen on deaf ears of legislators in Wyoming. In that state they have proposed a bill that “any federal law which attempts to ban a semi-automatic firearm or to limit the size of a magazine of a firearm or other limitation on firearms in this state shall be unenforceable in Wyoming.”
I believe that this a necessary step that all state legislatures should take and it is for this reason that I am writing today.
Would you support/sponsor legislation in the state of Tennessee that would mimic the bill proposed in Wyoming?
Cross-posted at Rampart Media