All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 10, 1998 - Bill Cooper
01:01:41
Right to Keep & Bear Arms #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Light power of the hour, please the power of the sun.
What an incredible thing to do what I see in my life.
I'm going to do it again.
You're listening once again to the Hour of the Time.
Good evening. You're listening once again to the Hour of the Time. I'm William Cooper.
This is the second broadcast in our week, and maybe longer, series on the right to keep
and bear arms.
This series is all about the second article in amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America.
The second article in amendment states very simply, ladies and gentlemen, a militia being necessary to the security of a free state The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Last night, we began a report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, Second Session.
And I read the preface to the report, that's as far as we got.
The report is entitled, The Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
The preface that I read to you was written by Orrin G. Hatch, senator from the state of Utah.
And we will continue in this broadcast, ladies and gentlemen.
So, don't go away.
I'll be right back.
Make sure that you get pen and paper and I'll tell you how you can get this report, give you the full title, where you can
find it, so that you can obtain a copy and use it when you confront the liars in the anti-gun
lobby.
Thank you.
They come from the new world.
And...
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Never in human history has so few taken so much from so many as America's Illuminati
and the warlords of Wall Street and Washington.
In just 80 years, these banksters and international government gangsters took us from the greatest predator nation to the largest veneration on Earth.
Our standard of living has dropped like a lot for four out of every five Americans.
They have foreclosed on our homes, our farms, our factories.
They've extorted your child and surrendered our arms.
They want it more.
More.
You know, I get letters from people who listen to that and they say,
brought us from the greatest creditor nation to the greatest debtor nation in just eight years.
Why? Why, that's a lie.
I mean, President Clinton in his State of the Union address said that
he has reduced the national deficit and next year it will be zero.
Bye.
And once again, these letters and phone calls show the ignorance of the vast great herd of sheeple out there, ladies and gentlemen.
The deficit has absolutely nothing to do with the debt.
The national debt is unbelievable, and some say that it could never be repaid simply because the amount of interest that accumulates on the debt exceeds any ability to reduce the principle of the national debt of the United States of America.
Also, ladies and gentlemen, the personal debt of each individual American has Quadrupled, ladies and gentlemen, in just the last twenty years.
This nation owes more money than has ever been printed by all the nations of the world in the history of the human race.
How about that?
Folks, the music that I just played is right on the money.
It's you who's off the mark.
Find out the difference between deficit and debt.
And then you will know just exactly how far off you are.
I'm going to tell you right now, you're so far off that it's like someone standing on the earth talking about it's only two inches to get to Barnard's Star.
And if you've never heard of Barnard's Star, look that up too.
Part of my mission is to get you off your butt, to begin examining things, questioning, researching, instead of believing everything that you hear all the time by the people who make a wonderful living telling you lies.
Write this down.
This is the name of the report.
This is where you can get it.
And you need this information.
I'm going to read it every day, so if you only get part of it today, just listen tomorrow, and you will be able to pick up what you missed.
It's entitled, The Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
It is a report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary,
United States Senate, Ninety-Seventh Congress, Second Session, dated February
1982.
It is printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary.
You can obtain it from the United States Government Printing Office,
886180 Washington, D.C., 1982.
It's for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, United States Government Printing Office.
This is where you can send it to.
Superintendent of Documents, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 20402.
And I'm not going to read all of the stuff that I read yesterday, the members of the committee and all of that kind of stuff.
We covered the preface yesterday, written by Senator Orrin G. Hatch of the state of Utah.
And today, we're going to read the preface The right to bear arms is a tradition with deep roots in American society.
Dennis DeConsini, ranking minority member at that time, subcommittee on the Constitution
from the state of Arizona.
He wrote this on January 20, 1982, and I quote, The right to bear arms is a tradition with deep roots in
American society.
Thomas Jefferson proposed that, quote, No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms, end
quote.
And Samuel Adams called for an amendment banning any law, quote, to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms, end quote.
The Constitution of the state of Arizona, my state, for example, recognizes the, quote, right of an individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state, end quote.
Even though the tradition has deep roots, its application to modern America is the subject of intense controversy.
Indeed, it is a controversy into which the Congress is beginning once again to immerse itself.
I have personally been disappointed that so important an issue should have generally been so thinly researched and so minimally debated both in Congress and the courts.
Our Supreme Court has but once touched on its meaning at the federal level, and that decision, now nearly a half-century old, is so ambiguous that any school of thought can find some support in it.
All Supreme Court decisions on the Second Amendment's application to the states came in the last century, when constitutional law was far different than it is today.
As ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, I, therefore, welcome the effort which led to this report, a report based not only upon the independent research of the Subcommittee staff, but also upon full and fair presentation of the cases by all interested groups and individual scholars.
I personally believe that it is necessary for the Congress to amend the Gun Control Act of 1968 I welcome the opportunity to introduce this discussion of how best these amendments might be made.
The Constitution Subcommittee staff has prepared this monograph, bringing together proponents of both sides of the debate over the 1968 Act.
I believe that the statements contained herein present the arguments fairly and thoroughly.
I commend Senator Hatch, Chairman of the Subcommittee, for having this excellent reference work prepared.
I am sure that it will be of great assistance to the Congress as it debates the Second Amendment
and considers legislation to amend the Gun Control Act.
Signed, Dennis D. Consini, Senator, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution,
January 20, 1988.
And now we get into the substance, the meat of the report.
Pay close attention, ladies and gentlemen.
History 2nd Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms The right to keep and bear arms as a part of English and American law antedates not only the Constitution, but also the discovery of firearms.
Under the laws of Alfred the Great, whose reign began in 872 A.D., all English citizens, from the nobility to the peasants, were obliged to privately purchase weapons and be available for military duty.
1.
This was in sharp contrast to the feudal system, as it evolved in Europe, under which armament and military duties were concentrated in the nobility.
The body of armed citizens were known as the Fyrd, spelled F-Y-R-D.
While a great many of the Saxon rites were abridged following the Norman conquest, the rite and duty of arms possession was retained.
Under the Assize of Arms of 1181, the whole community of free men between the ages of fifteen and forty were required by law to possess certain arms which were arranged in proportion to their possessions.
They were required twice a year to demonstrate to royal officials that they were appropriately armed.
In 1253, another Assize of Arms expanded the duty of armament to include not only freemen, but also villains, who were the English equivalent of serfs.
Now, all citizens, burgesses, freetenants, villains, and others from fifteen to sixty years of age were obliged to be armed.
While on the continent the villains were regarded as little more than animals hungering for rebellion, the English legal system not only permitted, but affirmatively required them to be armed.
The thirteenth century saw further definitions of this right, as the longbow, a formidable armor-piercing weapon, became increasingly the mainstay of British national policy.
In 1285, Edward I commanded that all persons comply with the earlier assizes and added that, quote, anyone else who can afford them shall keep bows and arrows, end quote.
The right of armament was subject only to narrow limitations.
In 1279 it was ordered that bows appearing in Parliament or other public assemblies shall come without all force and armor well and peaceably.
In 1328, the Statue of Northampton ordered that no one use their arms in a fray of the peace, nor to go nor ride armed by day or night in fairs, markets, nor in the presence of the justices or other ministers.
English courts construed this ban consistently with the general right of private armament as applying only to wearing of arms, quote, accompanied with such circumstances as are apt to terrify the people, end quote.
The King ordered that the sheriffs of London require all citizens, at leisure time on holidays, to use in their recreation bows and arrows, and to stop all other games which might distract them from this practice.
The Tudor kings experimented with limits upon specialized weapons, mainly crossbows, and the then new firearms.
These measures were not intended to disarm the citizenry, but, on the contrary, to prevent their being diverted from longbow practice by sport with other weapons which were considered less effective.
Even these narrow measures were short-lived.
In 1503, Henry VII limited shooting, but not possession of crossbows, to those with land worth 200 marks annual rental, but provided an exception for those who Shot out of a house for the lawful defense of the same.
In 1511, Henry VIII increased the property requirement to 300 marks.
He also expanded the requirement of longbow ownership, requiring all citizens to use and exercise shooting and longbows, and also have a bow and arrows continually in the house.
Others were required by law to purchase bows and arrows for their sons between the age of seven and fourteen, and to train them in longbow use.
In 1514 the ban on crossbows was extended to include firearms, but in 1533 Henry reduced the property qualification to one hundred pounds per year.
In 1541 he limited it to possession of small firearms of the length of one whole yard for some firearms and three-quarters of a yard for others, and eventually he repealed the entire statute by proclamation.
The later Tudor monarchs continued the system, and Elizabeth added to it by creating what came to be known as train bands, selected portions of the citizenry chosen for special training.
These trained bands were distinguished from the militia, which term was first used during the Spanish Armada crisis to designate the entire of the armed citizenry.
The militia continued to be a pivotal force in the English political system.
The British historian Charles Oman considers the existence of the armed citizenry to be a major reason for the moderation of monarchical rule in Great Britain.
More than once he, meaning Henry VIII, had to restrain himself when he discovered that the general feeling of his subjects was against him.
His gentlemen pensioners and his yeoman of the guard were but a handful, and bills or
bows were in every farm and cottage.
When civil war broke out in 1642, the critical issue was whether the king or parliament had
the right to control the militia.
The aftermath of the Civil War saw England in temporary control of a military government which repeatedly dissolves Parliament The Military Government ended with the restoration of Charles II.
Parliament and authorized its officers to, quote, search for and seize all arms, end
quote, owned by Catholics, opponents of the government, or any other person whom the Commissioners
had judged dangerous to the peace of this Commonwealth, end quote.
The military government ended with the restoration of Charles II.
Charles in turn opened his reign with a variety of repressive legislation,
extending the definition of treason, establishing press censorship, and ordering his supporters
to form their own troops.
The officers, to be numerous, disaffected persons watched and not allowed to assemble, and their arms seized.
In 1662, a Militia Act was enacted empowering officials to search for and seize all arms in the custody or possession of any person or persons whom the said lieutenants, or any two or more of their deputies, shall judge dangerous to the peace of the kingdom.
Gunsmiths were ordered to deliver to the government lists of all purchasers.
These confiscations were continued under James II who directed them particularly against the Irish population.
Although the country was infested by predatory bands, a Protestant gentleman could scarcely obtain permission to keep a brace of pistols.
In 1668 the government of James was overturned in a peaceful uprising which came to be known as the Glorious Revolution.
Parliament resolved that James had abdicated and promulgated a Declaration of Rights later enacted as the Bill of Rights.
Before coronation, his successor, William of Orange, was required to swear to respect these rights.
The debates in the House of Commons over this Declaration of Rights focused largely upon the disarmament under the 1662 Militia Act.
One member complained that, quote, an act of Parliament was made to disarm all Englishmen, who the lieutenant should suspect, by day or night, by force or otherwise.
This was done in Ireland for the sake of putting arms into Irish hands, end quote.
The speech of another is summarized as, militia bill, power to disarm all England, now done in Ireland.
A third complained Arbitrary power exercised by the ministry.
Militia imprisoning without reason.
Disarming himself disarmed.
Yet another summarized his complaints.
Militia act an abominable thing to disarm the nation.
The Bill of Rights as drafted in the House of Commons Simply provided that, quote, the acts concerning the militia are grievous to the subject, end quote, and that, quote, it is necessary for the public safety that the subjects, which are Protestants, should provide and keep arms for the common defense, and that the arms which have been seized and taken from them be restored, end quote.
The House of Lords changed this to make it a more positive declaration of an individual right under English law, that the subjects which are Protestant may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.
The only limitation was an ownership by Catholics, who at that time composed only a few percent of the British population and were subject to a wide variety of punitive legislation.
The Parliament subsequently made clear what it meant by, quote, suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law, end quote.
The poorer citizens had been restricted from owning firearms, as well as traps and other
commodities useful for hunting.
you.
Following the Bill of Rights, Parliament re-enacted that statute, leaving its operative parts unchanged with one exception, which removed the word guns from the list of items forbidden to the poor citizens.
The right to keep and bear arms would henceforth belong to all English subjects rich and poor alike.
In the colonies, availability of hunting And need for defense led to armament statutes comparable to those of the early Saxon times.
In 1623, Virginia forbade its colonists to travel unless they were, quote, well-armed, end quote.
In 1631, it required colonists to engage in target practice on Sunday and to, quote, bring their pieces to church, end quote.
In 1658 it required every householder to have a functioning firearm in his house, and in 1673 its laws provided that a citizen who claimed he was too poor to purchase a firearm would have one purchased for him by the government, which would then require him to pay a reasonable price when able to do so.
The first session of the legislature ordered that not only free men, but also indentured servants own firearms, and in 1644 it imposed a stern six-shilling fine upon any citizen who was not armed.
When the British government began to increase its military presence in the colonies in the mid-eighteenth century, Massachusetts responded by calling upon its citizens to arm themselves in defense.
One colonial newspaper argued that it was impossible to complain that this act was illegal, since they were British subjects to whom the privilege of possessing arms is expressly recognized by the Bill of Rights, while another argued that his or this is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defense.
The newspaper cited Blackstone's commentaries on the laws of England, which had listed the having and using arms for self-preservation and defense among the absolute rights of individuals.
The colonists felt they had an absolute right at common law to own firearms.
Together with Freedom of the Press, the right to keep and bear arms became one of the individual rights most prized by the colonists.
When British troops seized a militia arsenal in September 1774, and incorrect rumors that colonists had been killed spread through Massachusetts, 60,000 citizens took up arms.
A few months later, when Patrick Henry delivered his famed, quote, give me liberty or give me death, end quote, speech, he spoke in support of a proposition that a well-regulated militia composed of gentlemen and freemen is the natural strength and only security of a free government.
Throughout the following revolution, formal and informal units of armed citizens obstructed British communication.
Cut off foraging parties and harass the thinly stretched regular forces.
With seven states adopted state bills of rights following the Declaration of Independence, each of those bills of rights provided either for protection of the concept of a militia or for an express right to keep and bear arms.
Following the Revolution, but previous to the adoption of the Constitution, Debates over militia proposals occupied a large part of the political scene.
A variety of plans were put forth by figures ranging from George Washington to Baron von Steuben.
All of the proposals called for a general duty of all citizens to be armed, although some proposals, most notably von Steuben's, also emphasized a, quote, select militia, end quote, which would be paid for.
In the debates over the Constitution, Von Steuben's proposals were criticized as undemocratic.
collect militia was the successor of the trained bands, and the predecessor of what is today
called the National Guard.
In the debates over the Constitution, von Steuben's proposals were criticized as undemocratic.
In Connecticut, one writer complained of a proposal that, this looks too much like Baron von Steuben's militia, by
which a standing army was meant and intended.
In Pennsylvania, a delegate argued, Congress may give us a select militia which will, in fact, be a standing army.
Our Congress, afraid of a general militia, may say there will be no militia at all.
When a select militia is formed, the people in general may be disarmed.
Richard Henry Lee, in his widely read pamphlet, Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, worried that the people might be disarmed by modeling the militia.
Should one-fifth or one-eighth part of the people capable of bearing arms be made into a select militia, as has been proposed, and those the young in ardent parts of the community, possessed of little or no property, The former will answer all the purposes of an army, while the latter will be defenseless.
He proposed that the Constitution ought to secure a genuine and guard against a select militia.
Adding that, 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.
Suspicion of select militia units expressed in these passages is a clear indication that the framers of the Constitution did not seek to guarantee a state right to maintain formed groups similar to the National Guard, but rather to protect the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms.
Lee, in particular, sat in the Senate which approved the Bill of Rights.
He would hardly have meant the Second Amendment to apply only to the select militias he so feared and disliked.
Other figures of the period were of like mind.
In the Virginia Convention, George Mason, drafter of the Virginia Bill of Rights, accused the British of having plotted, quote, to disarm the people.
That was the best and most effective way to enslave them, end quote.
While Patrick Henry observed that, quote, the great object is that every man be armed, end quote, and, quote, everyone who is able may have a gun, end quote.
Nor were the Anti-Federalists, to whom we owe credit for a Bill of Rights, alone on this account.
Federalist arguments also provide a source of support for an individual rights view.
Their arguments in favor of the proposed Constitution also relied heavily upon universal armament.
The proposed Constitution had been heavily criticized for its failure to ban or even limit standing armies.
Unable to deny this omission, the Constitution's supporters frequently argued to the people that the universal armament of Americans made such limitations unnecessary.
A pamphlet written by Noah Webster, aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, observed the following, quote, 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 raised in the United States."
In the Massachusetts Convention, Sedgwick echoed the same thought, rhetorically asking
if an oppressive army could be formed, or if raised, whether they could subdue a nation
of freedom.
who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands.
In Federalist Paper 46, James Madison, later author of the Second Amendment, mentioned, quote, the advantage of being armed which the Americans possess over the people of all other countries, end quote, and that, Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
A third and even more compelling case for an individual rights perspective on the Second Amendment comes from the state demands for a Bill of Rights.
Numerous state ratifications called for adoption of a Bill of Rights as a part of the Constitution.
The first such call came from a group of Pennsylvania delegates.
Their proposals, which were not adopted but had a critical effect on future debates, proposed, among other rights, that, quote, The people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game, and no law shall be passed for disarming the people, or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or a real danger of public injury from individuals, end quote.
In Massachusetts, Sam Adams unsuccessfully pushed for a ratification condition on adoption of a Bill of Rights beginning with a guarantee, That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience, or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
When New Hampshire gave the Constitution the ninth vote needed for its passing into effect, it called for adoption of a Bill of Rights which included the provision, quote, Congress shall never disarm any citizen unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion, end quote.
Virginia and North Carolina thereafter called for a provision, quote, that the people have the right to keep and bear arms, that a well-regulated militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, end quote.
When the first Congress convened for the purpose of drafting a Bill of Rights, it delegated the task to James Madison.
Madison did not write up on a blank tablet.
Instead, he obtained a pamphlet listing the state proposals for a Bill of Rights and sought to produce a briefer version incorporating all the vital proposals of these.
His purpose was to incorporate, not distinguish by technical changes, proposals such as that of the Pennsylvania minority, Sam Adams, and the New Hampshire delegates.
Madison proposed, among other rights, that, quote, 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."
In the House, this was initially modified so that the Militia Clause came before the proposal recognizing the right.
The proposals for the Bill of Rights were then trimmed in the interests of brevity.
The Conscientious Objector Clause was removed following objections by Elbridge Gerry, who complained that future Congresses might abuse the exemption for the scrupulous to excuse everyone from military service.
The proposal finally passed the House in its present form.
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.
In this form, it was submitted into the Senate, which passed it the following day.
The Senate in the process indicated its intent that the right be an individual one, for private
purposes, by rejecting an amendment which would have limited the keeping and bearing
of arms to bearing, quote, the common defense, end quote.
The earliest American constitutional commentators concurred in giving this broad reading to
the amendment.
When St.
George Tucker, later Chief Justice of the Virginia Supreme Court, in 1803 published an edition of Blackstone annotated to American law, he followed Blackstone's citation of the right of the subjects of having arms suitable to their condition and degree, and such are allowed by law, with a citation to the Second Amendment.
And this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government."
William Rawls' view of the Constitution, published in Philadelphia in 1825, noted that under the Second Amendment, "...the prohibition is general.
No clause in the Constitution could, by a rule of construction, be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people.
Such a attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a
state legislature.
But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may
be appealed to as a restraint on both."
The Jefferson papers in the Library of Congress show that both Tucker and Rall were friends
of and corresponded with Thomas Jefferson.
This suggests that their assessment as contemporaries of the Constitution's drafters should be afforded
special consideration.
Bye.
Later commentators agreed with Tucker and Rall.
For instance, Joseph Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution, considered the right to keep and bear arms as the palladium of the liberties of the Republic, which deterred tyranny and enabled the citizenry at large to overthrow it should it come to pass.
Subsequent legislation in the Second Congress likewise supports the interpretation of the Second Amendment that creates an individual right.
In the Militia Act of 1792, the Second Congress defined militia of the United States to include almost every free adult male in the United States.
These persons were obliged by law to possess a firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment.
This statute incidentally remained in effect into the early years of the present century as a legal requirement of gun ownership for most of the population of the United States of America.
Now, there can be little doubt from this that when the Congress and the people spoke of a militia, They had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today called the National Guard.
The purpose was to create an armed citizenry such as the political theorists at the time considered essential to ward off tyranny.
From this militia, Appropriate measures might create a, quote, well-regulated militia, end quote, of individuals trained in their duties and responsibilities as citizens and owners of firearms.
The Second Amendment, as such, was rarely litigated prior to the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Prior to that time, most courts accepted that the commands of the Federal Bill of Rights did not apply to the states.
Since there was no federal firearms legislation at this time, there was no legislation which was directly subject to the Second Amendment, if the accepted interpretations were followed.
However, a broad variety of state legislation was struck down under state guarantees of the right to keep and bear arms, and even in a few cases under the Second Amendment when it came before courts which considered the federal protections applicable to the states.
Kentucky, in 1813, enacted the first carrying concealed weapons statute in the United States.
In 1822, the Kentucky Court of Appeals struck down the law as a violation of the state constitutional protection of the right to keep and bear arms.
And can there be entertained a reasonable doubt that the provisions of that act import a restraint on the right of the citizen to bear arms?
The court apprehends it not.
The right existed at the adoption of the Constitution.
It then had no limit short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it, and in fact consisted of nothing else but the liberty of the citizens to bear arms."
On the other hand, a similar measure was sustained in Indiana, not upon the grounds that a right to keep and bear arms did not apply, But rather upon the notion that a statute banning only concealed carrying still permitted the carrying of arms and merely regulated one possible way of carrying them.
A few years later, the Supreme Court of Alabama upheld a similar statute, but added, quote, We do not desire to be understood as maintaining that in regulating the manner of wearing arms the legislature has no other limit than its own discretion.
A statute which, under the pretense of regulation, amounts to a destruction of that right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defense, would be clearly unconstitutional."
When the Arkansas Supreme Court in 1842 upheld a carrying concealed weapons statute, the Chief Justice explained that the statute would not, quote, detract anything from the power of the people to defend their free state and the established institutions of the country.
It prohibits only the wearing of certain arms concealed.
This is simply a regulation as to the manner of bearing such arms as are specified."
While the dissenting Justice proclaimed, I deny that any just or free government among earth has the power to disarm its citizens."
Sometimes courts went farther.
When in 1837 Georgia totally banned the sale of pistols, excepting the larger pistols known and used as horseman's pistols and other weapons, the Georgia Supreme Court in Nunn v. State held the statute unconstitutional under the Second Amendment to the Federal Constitution.
The Court held that the Bill of Rights protected natural rights which were fully as capable of infringement by States as by the Federal and that the Second Amendment provided, quote, the right of
the whole people, old and young men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep in their
arms of every description, and not merely, such as are used by the militia, shall not
be infringed, curtailed, or broken in on in the slightest degree, and all this for the
important end to be attained, the rearing up and qualifying of a well-regulated militia so
vitally necessary to the security of a free state, end quote.
Thank you.
Prior to the Civil War, the Supreme Court of the United States likewise indicated that the privileges of citizenship included the individual right to own and carry firearms.
In the notorious Dred Scott case, the court held that black Americans were not citizens and could not be made such by any state.
This decision, which by striking down the Missouri Compromise did so much to bring on the Civil War, listed what the Supreme Court considered the rights of American citizens by way of illustrating what rights would have to be given to black Americans if the Court were to recognize them as full-fledged citizens.
It would give to persons of the Negro race, who are recognized as citizens in any one state of the Union, the right to enter every other state whenever they pleased, and it would give them full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects, upon which its own citizens might meet, to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they want."
Now, following the Civil War, the legislative efforts which gave us three amendments to the Constitution and our earliest civil rights acts likewise recognized the right to keep in their arms as an existing constitutional right of the individual citizen And as a right specifically singled out as one protected by the Civil Rights Acts and by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution against infringement by state authorities.
Much of the Reconstruction effort in the South had been hinged upon the creation of, quote, black militias, end quote, composed of the armed and newly freed blacks, officered largely by black veterans of the Union Army.
In the months after the Civil War, the existing Southern governments struck at these units with the enactment of, quote, Black Codes, end quote, which either outlawed gun ownership by blacks entirely, or imposed permit systems for them, and permitted the confiscation of firearms owned by blacks.
When the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was debated, members of Both of the Senate and the House referred to the disarmament of blacks as a major consideration.
Senator Trumbull cited provisions outlawing ownership of arms by blacks as among those which the Civil Rights Act would prevent.
Senator Soulsbury complained, on the other hand, that if the act were to be passed, it would prevent his own state from enforcing a law banning gun ownership by individual free blacks.
Similar arguments were advanced during the debates over the Anti-KKK Act.
Its sponsor at one point explained that a section making it a federal crime to deprive a person of arms or weapons he may have in his house or possession for the defense of his person, family, or property was intended to enforce the well-known constitutional provisions guaranteeing the right in the citizen to keep and bear arms.
Likewise, the debates over the Fourteenth Amendment.
Congress frequently referred to the Second Amendment as one of the rights which it intended
to guarantee against state action.
Following adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, however, the Supreme Court held that that
amendment's prohibition against states depriving any persons of their federal privileges and
immunities was to be given a narrow construction.
In particular, the privileges and immunities under the Constitution would refer only to those rights which were not felt to exist as a process of natural right, but which were created solely by the Constitution.
These might refer to rights such as voting in federal elections and of interstate travel, Which would clearly not exist except by virtue of the existence of a federal government and which could not be said to be natural rights.
Now this, paradoxically, meant that the rights which most persons would accept as the most
important—those flowing from concepts of natural justice—were devalued at the expense
of more technical rights.
This, when individuals were charged with having deprived black citizens of their right to
freedom of assembly and to keep and bear arms by violently breaking up a peaceable assembly
of black citizens, the Supreme Court in United States v.
Cruikshank held that no indictment could be properly brought since the right of bearing arms
for a lawful purpose is not a right granted by the Constitution.
Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.
Nor, in the view of the Court, was the right to peacefully assemble a right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
The right of the people peaceably to assemble for lawful purposes existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States.
In fact, it is and has always been one of the attributes of citizenship under a free government.
It was not, therefore, a right granted to the people by the Constitution.
Thus the very importance of the rights protected by the First and Second Amendment was used as the basis for the argument that they did not apply to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment.
In later opinions, chiefly Presser v. Illinois and Miller v. Texas, the Supreme Court adhered to the view.
Cripshank has clearly been superseded by twentieth-century opinions Which holds that portions of the Bill of Rights, and in particular the right to assembly, with which Cruikshank dealt in addition to the Second Amendment, are binding upon the state governments.
Given the legislative history of the Civil Rights Acts and the Fourteenth Amendment, and the more expanded views of incorporation which have become accepted in our own century, it is clear that the right to keep and bear arms was meant to be And should be protected under the Civil Rights Statutes and the Fourteenth Amendment against infringement by officials acting under color of state law.
Within our own century, the only occasion upon which the Second Amendment has reached the Supreme Court came in United States v. Miller.
There, a prosecution for carrying a sawed-off shotgun was dismissed before trial on Second Amendment grounds.
In doing so, the Court took no evidence as to the nature of the firearm, or indeed any other factual matter.
The Supreme Court reversed on procedural grounds, holding that the trial court could not take judicial notice of the relationship between a firearm and the Second Amendment, but must receive some manner of evidence.
It did not formulate a test, nor state precisely what relationship might be required.
The court's statement that the amendment was adopted to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such militia forces and must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
When combined with the court's statement that all constitutional sources show plainly enough that the militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense, these men were expected to appear bearing arms Supplied by themselves, and of the kind and common use at the time, suggests that at the very least private ownership by a person capable of self-defense and using an ordinary privately owned firearm must be protected by the Second Amendment.
What the Supreme Court did not do in Miller is even more striking.
It did not suggest that the lower court take evidence on whether Miller belonged to the National Guard or a similar group.
The hearing was to be on the nature of the firearm, not on the nature of its use.
Nor is there a single suggestion that National Guard status is relevant to the case.
And as an aside here, ladies and gentlemen, according to the law, the law of your state and the law of the United States of America, all, all able-bodied men Between the ages of seventeen and forty-five are members of the unorganized militia, whether they want to be or not.
And according to the intent and purpose and the ruling and interpretation of the law by the courts throughout the ages of the existence of the United States of America, all able-bodied citizens Whether male, female, young or old are members of the whole body of the populace known as the militia.
Whether you like it or not, folks, that's the law.
I'm going to end today's reading right here, and we'll pick it up again tomorrow.
We're going to continue with this all week long and possibly all next week long until we have covered everything that there is to cover concerning the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
It is one of the most important concepts that was ever recognized in the history of the human race.
It is the concept That keeps free people free.
It is the enemies of free people who want to ridicule those who call themselves free men.
They respect and adhere to the principle that it is not only a right, but a duty of all American citizens to keep and bear arms, and to teach their children the proper use of, maintenance of, and the duty to keep and
bear arms.
Good night ladies and gentlemen.
Bye.
Don't forget to tune in tomorrow night for the Hour of the Time with yours truly, William Oh, and God bless each and every single one of you.
Hey honey, something's not right.
Watch your heart.
Things can go fast too.
We're here for the government.
We're here to help you.
And I'm from the IRS with a priority tax.
If you've got a complaint...
Get out of this house, so you don't give me your gold.
You better obey my rules.
You have obeyed Tupac's orders.
Answer them, so that you may be told.
Hillary Shalala, Rio Grande, United States, reading the words of General Isaac Tyson,
the money founder of the Tupac's clan, engineer of the Mossad-ish master clan.
Bye.
I said, Lucifer is dying across this land.
And Clinton's saying take the mark in your right hand.
While we're all dancing to the drums of uproar of life, Clinton's preparing it for another theme.
I say, we're good to go.
Order out of chaos, depression, affliction, create the panic and rape the nation.
We're going to...
...tell them...
...how...
...to...
...crisis creation.
Incite black and white programs and mutations.
Don't make this!
You're surrounded!
By the UN and White and Brown.
The AKF, the Men in Black, and the One World Order.
But it's not new!
Iron mountain computeries and cattle mutilations.
White projects, UFOs, and weird genetic combinations.
The Nazi doctors didn't die?
Come on, get hip!
They came here with the O.F.S.
through Operation Paperclip.
National ID?
Debit card?
Yeah.
Vaccination, biochip, milk carton kits, genetic engineering.
Clinton says her health plans for you and your own good.
Come on!
And add on his and Robin's good.
This is a test for all of us.
Anxiety and riots in crisis creation.
Biotip implantation.
Vaccinate your kids for human identification.
This is a test for all of us.
So I have today just one simple request.
A comprehensive package of healthcare benefits that are always there and can never be taken away.
Atmospheric social media.
Media hype.
Planned confusion.
Masonic religions.
I'm a hallucinogen, media hype, planned confusion.
Masonic religion, it's a liar.
Not your friend, the Luciferian messiah.
The Illuminati think that they're enlightened, that they're to be the gods of Earth,
born of incest from the sons of Satan and their sisters in satanic birth.
The Illuminati think that they're enlightened, that they're to be the gods of Earth,
born of incest from the sons of Satan and their sisters in satanic birth.
Hidden Agenda, Kissinger, Nixon, Ford, and Bill.
While your kids out back smoking crack for some cheap thrill.
They've numbed us down and dumbed us down with fluoride TV drugs, the NEA, and public schools.
They've taken your brightest and our best and made them public fools.
With many who have framed any lies and felt the bankers owe their wealth.
Johnson, Bush, Carter, Reagan, Gore, and Dems.
They've all been fricking pissed, but funny, that's their plan.
For whom have you?
Rhodes, Scholar, Oriental, Clinton, Stevenson, and Ricksonian.
For whom have you?
Luciferian subjugation.
Numerous order Illuminati coronation.
That's the grand ovation.
Orders of the quest.
They think they're superior.
They think that they're the best.
And you are, and you are, you little cat.
Skull and bone colony.
Knightshipler Harbor University.
They're the Christian fraternity.
Knife of the Golden Circle, Ancient Order of the Rotten Cross, C.F.R.
Albatross!
C.F.R.
Albatross!
C.F.R.
Albatross!
C.F.R.
Albatross!
C.F.R.
Albatross!
C.F.R.
Albatross!
C.F.R.
Albatross!
C.F.R.
Albatross!
C.F.R.
Albatross!
C.F.R.
Albatross!
C.F.R.
Albatross!
C.F.R.
Albatross!
C.F.R.
Albatross!
C.F.R.
Albatross!
C.F.R.
Albatross!
C.F.R.
Albatross!
C.F.R.
Albatross!
C.F.R.
Albatross!
C.F.R.
Albatross!
C.F.R.
Albatross!
C.F.R.
Albatross Galileo, NASA.
Jupiter.
Plutonium 2000.
You will stop.
They'll call it Lucifer.
For fun.
Pyramid of Giza.
Hitler called it the Luciferian millennium.
A thousand.
▲
Export Selection