Zero: The Number of Federal Gun Control Measures that are Constitutional
Articles Blog

Zero: The Number of Federal Gun Control Measures that are Constitutional

October 13, 2019

How many federal gun control measures are constitutional? Zero. And we’ll talk about that next. The 2nd Amendment declares that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The meaning of the word “infringed” hasn’t been changed since the Bill of Rights was ratified. It means “To act so as to limit or undermine something; encroach on; or violate.” The 2nd amendment supersedes any conceivable authority to regulate firearms you might be able to ring out of the other delegated powers in the constitution. Simply put, the federal government may not constitutionally act in any way that limits the right to keep and bear arms. That means all federal gun control measures – all of them – including the acts of 1934 and 1968, are unconstitutional. And they should be treated that way too.

Only registered users can comment.

  1. Help us create more educational videos like this. JOIN TAC, Support Liberty!

  2. All Federal Gun Control Measures are Unconstitutional.

    the other question is
    Do the States retain enough Sovereignty to enact their own gun control measures?

    You see the entities that created the federal government, the US constitution, and the Bill of Rights
    entended for the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to comply with the constitution and the Bill of Rights,
    but not for them selves because they had their own state constitutions that set up the state governments
    which were commissioned to observe and protect the rights of their respective citizens.

    Those who profess in the belief of a centralized power will claim that the 14th Amendment
    asserts that the federal Bill of Rights incorporates those rights onto the states as well.

    So the question is, is the Doctrine of Incorporation through the 14th Amendment valid?

    Does the 14th Amendment Nullify the 10th Amendment?

    There are serious historical arguments questioning validity of the 14th Amendment.

    It is pretty clear that the Framers and Ratifiers intended that the Bill of Rights were to put
    further restraints on the new federal government as stated in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights.

    And it is clear that the Framers and the Ratifiers did NOT intend for the Bill of Rights to put any restraints on the states themselves.

    So the real question is "is the 14th Amendment valid?

    Much of the federal case law has hung on the assumption of that validity.

    EVERYTHING changed because of the 14th.

    The 14th made us all Subjects of the State of America.

    You can assert the 10th Amendment all you want, but until we clean out the 14th and its cancerous effect we are essentially slaves.

    Mere Nullification will not fix this problem.
    The time is way passed due to hold another Article 5 Convention.

    Is the 14th Valid?

    Watch these videos for yourself.

  3. Repetition is a good thing when you are trying to get a point across.
    I think this same point was broadcast on October 14th, 2015

  4. We The People need the teeth to prosecute violators of the Constitution. Probably a good thing we don't have that power as I can see it being abused like other laws.

  5. The meaning of the word "infringed" hasn't changed since the founders penned the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, people get hung-up on the preamble section. While the preamble does not contain the "meat of the matter" (it is merely background information to provide a glimpse of the founders' motivation for creating the Second Amendment), it was typical of legislation styles of the day but it is no longer a typical legislation style and people are now unfamiliar with it.

    Agreed–as long as they are not in denial of the Second Amendment, the meaning of "infringed" is clear to the the literate, but the preamble section of the Second Amendment contains words with ambiguous meanings that have changed though the years. The founders' understanding of the words "militia" (armed citizens in a ubiquitously armed society) and "well-regulated" (proficient and efficacious) mean quite different things to people today. Even gun rights proponents have different understandings of "well-regulated." I think most of them agree with my assessment, above, but I have also heard the argument that it imposes a requirement that the militia maintain like and compatible arms, methods, and standard operational procedures. I believe that such an imposition violates the meaning of "militia" itself!

    Given the direct and unambiguous syntax and semantics of the rule of law section, a preamble was unnecessary and now we are burdened by it. It is most unfortunate that the founders included text that would eventually erode and undermine their intent and the purpose of the Second Amendment.

    Even Penn and Teller disagree that "the militia" means a ubiquitously armed society. In this episode of their TV show, they argue that the militia does refer to a government controlled military entity and the Second Amendment was devised to provide a check and balance to it:

    Even the meaning of the phrase, "the security of a free state" is up for grabs today. Most gun grabbers believe that it means securing the state's borders from attack and, given the standing armies of the U.S., it is no longer applicable or relevant. Given that the entire Bill of Rights was devised to protect individual rights from government powers, I do not believe that the Second Amendment was devised to ensure that the United States is able and ready to thwart an invading army. No–the state will always see to this need and the Second Amendment enhances its ability to do so not at all! The only interpretation that is consistent with the purpose of the Bill of Rights is that Second Amendment was devised to ensure that people could thwart the tyranny of their own government! Furthermore, they did not write "the security of the United States of America" or "this state" or "our state." Rather, the founders were saying that the militia is a necessary condition for a "free state" to exist in general! "Free State" means freedom itself, as embodied and protected by a state.

    In conclusion, the founders' intent would have been far better served if they had only written, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Being mere "ink on paper" (IOP), I'm not so sure it would have made a difference though. IOP is powerless. The Bill of Rights is not secured by IOP. Rather, it is secured by a mindset and it is not a common mindset in the people of today. Peoples' minds have changed and the Bill of Rights has been nullified as a result.

    The problem that the TAC faces is its methods do not "strike the root" of the problem. People who disregard the Bill of Rights (or any law and IOP) will only gain respect for the IOP after their minds' change (which is unlikely given today's public school system, presstitute employing media, politicians, etc.). People must come to understand that ALL law is force at the muzzle of the states' guns and thus, constitutes an initiation of aggression and violence against others. "Gun control" (civil disarmament) IS violence!

  6. Let's see what Trump does WHEN (not if) he get's elected. I heard his speech to the NRA & it sounded good. Time will tell if the globalists that might be advising him are able to change his mind on this issue.

  7. I'm no constitutional scholar, but I have a problem with the universal acceptance of the confined interpretation of the word "arms" as it pertains to the 2nd Amendment. I've compiled the definition from several dictionaries:
    Arms – pl noun
    1. weapons

    Oxford Dictionary
    1. weapons and ammunition; armaments

    1. weapons and ammunition; armaments

    1. a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense

    Cambridge Dictionary
    1. weapons and equipment used to kill and injure people
    1. (Firearms, Gunnery, Ordnance & Artillery) weapons collectively. See also small arms
    2. (Military) military exploits

    Collins Dictionary
    1. weapons collectively
    2. military exploits

    McMillan Dictionary
    1. weapons, for example guns or bombs

    The 2nd Amendment does not read "shoulder operated firearms" or "small arms", it simply says "Arms." I am left with no choice but to interpret that to include any and all weapons, as Cambridge points out may be used "to kill and injure people" even including, as McMillan clearly states, "bombs." The word "arms" is ubiquitously used by the government and media to describe these things. For example, the terms: arms deal, arms embargo, arms race, nuclear arms, etc. unquestionably refer to far more than only shoulder/hand operated firearms. While even most staunch 2nd Amendment proponents resist this interpretation, it can exist harmoniously with laws against killing and injuring people. Restricting weapons is not only unconstitutional, it's redundant. As Washington said, "It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it."
    Can someone rationally explain what's wrong with this logic? Thanks.

  8. I wanna know where the 1825 13th amendment went, why the 14th exists and why the 10th hasn't challenged the 14th for legality and also how SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED  got turned into well  if you can go through this course you get x choices

  9. I fully believe your assertion that ALL federal gun laws are illegal . Understanding that the governments power derives from the Constitution , it (Gov.) is only allowed the powers granted in the Constitution . NOTHING in the Constitution allows government to restrict or remove the rights of any group of citizens . Also as many times as I have read the Constitution I have yet to find the code of conduct one must adhere to , to be afforded the rights contained there-in . So how do you justify the taking of second amendment rights from felons ? You can have your 2nd amendment rights removed if you are in the military and get an "other than honorable" discharge . You can get an other than honorable discharge for sleeping with an officer if your an enlisted man . HOW is that anywhere close to Constitutional ? Enough ranting lets get to the point .

    Thomas Jefferson said something to the effect of – A man has no duty to follow an unjust law. If a law is unjust a man has a duty NOT to follow it .

    The problem with that theory is the courts do not recognize the Thomas Jefferson defense

  10. The contract between the Union and the States is no longer mutually beneficial. Time for severance or abolishment.
    The latter is the preferred course of action.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *