James City County will consider a 2nd amendment sanctuary pronouncement. My letter to Ms. Sadler, JCC BOS, giving my full support of said pronouncement.
Dear Ms. Sadler, I will be out
of town on December 10th, 2019. I will be traveling for business. If
the opportunity arises that, I shall be given the right to speak at a later date,
then I will do so. In the meantime, I have written what I would have spoken to in
regard to our individual rights. If you can please enter into the transcripts of
the meeting that would be great. If you wish to read for me that would be
great. Good Luck.
James City County has a fitting
question to answer this December 10, 2019. Will we the people protect lawful
abiding citizens from the constant need of others to deny the constitutional
rights of legal abiding citizens? The 2nd Amendment was written deliberately
and divided into three parts. Some scholars may argue for two parts, but I
would say the 2nd Amendment offers three separate "individual rights"
or roles and the Supreme Court agrees with me, or I could say I agree with
them. This intended divide would consider its prefatory clause, ("A well regulated
Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state") and its
operative clause ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms")
and then closes with the phrase ("shall not be infringed"). All
separated by commas.
With getting to the point in mind, let us consider what
is at hand. There are two opposing arguments. Argument one: state rights noted
with importance and found within the prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment.
Here we see a case for the protection of state rights from an overzealous
federal government. Many states would have never signed the Constitution,
states like New York, Rhode Island, and yes, even Virginia had provisions not
been made or promises to amend the Constitution with a bill of rights. The 2nd Amendment
being the right to “form a militia” if need be is evident to this writer as
significant to our founding fathers. After all, it was the 2nd Amendment
considered. But the founding fathers did not stop here; the founding fathers
went on to write another portion into the 2nd Amendment. "Individual
rights" emphasized the operative clause, here we see our founding fathers
protecting individual citizens in the ownership, possession, and transportation
of firearms. However, our founding fathers did not stop here; they went on to
write "shall not be infringed."
In the United States vs. Miller, the Court sustained a
statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off
shotguns. The Court observed with a distinct purpose to assure the continuation
and render possible the effectiveness of militia or public force. "The
significance of the militia, the court continued, was that it was composed of
civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion." This force, if called upon, is
a force that states could rely upon for the defense and securing of laws. A
force that "comprised of males physically capable of acting in concert for
the common defense," who, "when called to service".... were
expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in
common use of the time. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence tending
to show that possession or use of a sawed-off shotgun having a barrel of fewer
than 18 inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the
preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the
2nd Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. What
they were saying is, if the weapon is not used in general defense of the
country, then it can be regulated.
The governor and his fellow Democrats want to ban the
following.
1.
AR-15: A semi-automatic rifle used for hunting in VA
and of course is considered a hunting rifle in VA. This same rifle can be used
in defense of the state whereby the military and the private citizens use the
same ammunition NATO .556 for lawful purposes. Even the Democrats call this
weapon "an assault / military rifle and want to ban. But, according to
United States vs. Miller, that would be against the law. When a state draws up
bills that are against federal law or fall under the protection of our
Constitution, we must cast off said government and legally create our own.
2.
Extended magazines: Extended magazines are needed and
would be useful to a militia in the protection of our state, county, or city.
Extended magazines are part of ordinary military equipment. To ban would be
against the law.
After the United States vs. Miller decision, Congress
placed more significant restrictions on the receipt, possession, and
transportation of firearms. Proposals were made for the prohibitions of
firearms altogether. Miller, however, sheds a little light on the validity of
such proposals. Miller points out the interest in the "character of the
2md Amendment right” has been burgeoned, and our governor, along with the
Democrats, want to destroy our "individual rights" even further.
Justice Thomas, concurring in the Court's
invalidation of the Brady handgun violence act, questioned whether the 2nd
Amendment bars federal regulation of gun sales, and suggested that the Court
might determine "at some future date, Whether Justice Story was correct
"that the right to bear arms" has justly been considered, as the
palladium of liberties of a republic. A republic minds you; the Democrats want
to destroy.
The Supreme Court sided with "individual
rights" in or around 2008. The Court in Columbia v Heller confirmed what
has been a growing consensus among legal scholars - that the rights of the
Second Amendment adhered to individuals. The Court reached this conclusion
after a thorough examination of the Amendment, an analysis of the historical
use of prefatory phrases in statues, and a detailed exploration of the
18th-century use of the phases found in the Amendment. The Supreme Court went
on to consider the phrase "well-regulated militia." This phase did
not adhere to state or federal militias but a pool of "able-bodied
men." who were available for conscription. The Court reviewed
contemporaneous state constitutions, post-enactment commentary, and subsequent
case law to conclude, the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms extended
beyond the context of militia service to include the right to self-defense.
Using this "individual rights theory," The
Court struck down a District of Columbia v. Heller law that banned virtually
all handguns and required that any other type of handgun could be prohibited as
long as other guns (such as long guns) were available. Another requirement that
all firearms be inoperable at all times was found to limit the "core
lawful purpose of self-defense."
In McDonald v. Chicago, it found that the 2nd
Amendment is incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment and is thus
enforceable against the states. The Court examined whether the right to keep
and bear arms is "fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty" or
deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition. Relying on Heller, the
Court noted common English law of the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense
and a bulwark against overreaching federal authority. The Court suggested that the right
to keep and bear arms has become a valued principal for self-defense.
One might find it interesting, the 14th Amendment of
which I have already tied the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect the right
of ex-slaves to keep and bear arms. While the dissent might have countered with
the equal protection clause, not the due process clause, the plurality also
found enough evidence of the then existent concerns regarding the treatment of
blacks by state militia to include that the right to bear arms was also
intended to protect against generally-applicable state regulation. The
Democrats and some presidential candidates are calling for the confiscation of
guns nationally in 2019. I might note here, while by the 1850's the perceived
threat of the National Government disarming the citizenry had primarily faded,
this communist idea has resurfaced, as a means to obtain power over the
citizenry of the United States. If not for no other reason, we should consider
a 2nd Amendment sanctuary pronouncement.
In closing, our rights to bear AR15’s and extended magazines
are protected under federal law and given statute under United States vs. Miller.
The rights of the 2nd Amendment adhere to individual rights and not state
rights as written with statute District of Columbia vs. Heller. Lastly, has it
not become rather obvious, the Democrats want our lawful guns in order to gain
power over the citizenry, in order to dictate egregious laws that may further dilute
our God given rights. What will our 2nd Amendment sanctuary look
like? You will find the answer in my last paragraph. “The plurality of the
Supreme Court acknowledges individual rights to keep and bear arms, arms should
be useful to “other pool of men” conscripted into service. Arms are for self-defense,
individual rights such as hunting, and above all “shall not be infringed” upon.
Ref. Columbia University of Law
