J. M.

Williams

2007-09-02

Why I Would Obey a Gun Control Law

by John Michael Williams

2007-09-02

J. M. Williams

2007-09-02

Introduction
I'm formerly a hunter and now a target shooter. I used to work with nuclear weapons, and I'm a by-the-book kind of a guy; the rule book is something to be followed, as literally as possible. I'm also a reductionist, which means that I like to find simple solutions to complex problems. So, here's my problem: Why would I obey a gun-control law which I know is not lawful? Why should I get into a predicament over something as straightforwardly black-and-white as the law? Why is this a problem? Let me provide some explanation. Please bear with me as I explain my quandary, even though I shall be restating obvious factors already known and accepted by the reader.

The Structure of the Law

Federal Powers
We live under the protective wing of a federation of States. That's why it's called, The United States. In this country, the sovereign (ultimate) power is that of the States. When this country was formed, the States agreed to surrender some of their powers to a federation, thus forming a federal government. The agreement is called the Constitution of the United States, and its purpose is described in its Preamble. As stated in the Preamble, the people of the States voted, through their representatives to the Constitutional Convention in 1789, ... to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity ... This is the same Constitution we have today. The security of the Federal Government, the national security, the national interest -- these aren't explicit concerns. They are secondary to the purposes listed in the Preamble. While important, "National Security" is not something with priority over any number of other concerns. It is a means to those ends, but it is not an end in itself. There is no real reason to fix upon a particular means, provided the ends are achieved. Obviously, a stable and predictable Federal Government is more desirable than an unstable one, as a means to the ends of the Preamble; so, various aspects of the Federal Government are enumerated explicitly in the Constitution. The Constitution has authorized a Federal Government of a certain form, with various checks and balances intended to secure fulfillment of its purposes. The powers surrendered to the Federal Government by the States are an explicitly enumerated collection. No power can be considered legitimately Federal

J. M. Williams

2007-09-02

unless it has been enumerated in the Constitution or is unavoidably implied by an enumerated power. This is required in the Constitution by Amendments IX and X, which state that, The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people [; and, that] the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. To clarify some terminology, a power is something granted to an office or other government entity; a right is something inherent in a person which can not be created, surrendered, or lost. Governments can have powers but not rights; persons can have both powers (when in office) and rights.

Resolution of Contradictions
Laws in this country are passed by Federal, State, or local legislatures. Different laws can countermand one another, confusing those who try to enforce them. When there is a conflict, there is a ranking of priorities (mostly based on Article VI of the Constitution) which is used by the judiciary to resolve conflicts: Of first priority is the Constitution: No law may be enforced, anywhere that the United States has power, in contradiction of anything in the Constitution. Laws contradicting the Constitution are called unconstitutional; they need not be obeyed and should not be enforced. Of second priority are treaties made with foreign powers; such treaties may not contradict the Constitution, but they supercede all other laws when those other laws contradict them. Of third priority is Federal Law, as embodied in the U. S. Code of Federal Law: Provided they are constitutional, these laws, passed by agreement of the representatives of all States, supercede State laws wherever there might be a contradiction. Of fourth priority are laws of the States: These laws are sovereign provided they do not contradict a power surrendered to the Federal Government, or denyed to the States, by the Constitution. Because all local governments exist by legislation or contract under State law, they may be given power by a State to pass laws which supercede State law. So, what does the Constitution have to say which might grant the Federal Government power to regulate guns, or which might prohibit such power to the States?

J. M. Williams

2007-09-02

The Constitution
There are three main topics in the Constitution relevant to this question: Those relating directly to guns, those relating to the militia, and those relating to the bearing of arms by the States.

The Second Amendment

This contains the only direct Constitutional reference to gun ownership. It says, as I am sure many readers will recognize, that, 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. Many papers have been written about the possibly peculiar wording of Amendment II. There is only one reading which satisfies me as being completely consistent with the grammar of the times and the purpose of the Constitution. The Constitution is full of checks and balances. There are three branches of the Federal Government, Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. They are independent; but, like the independent states of Delaware and California, they are by no means equal in power. Each branch has limited control over the others, to keep everything well-balanced and honest: The Legislature can dictate military regulations; the President can command the armed forces in battle. Bills by the Legislature may be vetoed by the President. The Judiciary may prevent enforcement of laws passed by agreement of the Legislature and the Executive if it finds them unconstitutional. Judges are appointed by the Executive, but are confirmed by the Legislature. And, it goes on and on . . .. So why is the militia mentioned in an Amendment granting that the people have a right to keep and bear arms? There is only one good interpretation. Just as the militia serves as a deterrent to rebellion among the regular armed forces, or among the people, and the regulars can be used to put down a rebellion among the militia, so also shall the people be permitted arms as a deterrent against abuse of power by the militia. The people, who elect the Legislature and the head of the Executive, reserve the right to regulate the militia by force of arms, should such regulation become necessary. Checks and balances. It seems reasonable that Amendment II could be interpreted to mean small arms, only, weapons which could be carried by an individual, but it does not explicitly forbid weaponry superior to that borne by the militia, such as armored vehicles, automatic weapons, armed airplanes -- anything a militia might use. However, I think that Amendment II does not justify companies or platoons of "the people", bearing arms in organized formations or guerrilla squadrons. Such activities would move them from the "people" to the "militia", I think. But, in a time of rebellion among the militia, as occurred during the 1860's, one might consider that a large group of "people" could arm themselves by exercising their Amendment II rights.

J. M. Williams

2007-09-02

Anyway, Amendment II does not say that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied. What it says, is that it is a right, and that it shall not be infringed. "Infringed" doesn't mean denied; it means that any interference is forbidden. Even the slightest threat, or any hint, of denial is forbidden under the law. Such a threat would infringe, although it might or might not deny anything, depending on what was done in carrying it out.

The Militia
The Constitution gives Congress power to call up the militia, and the President is given the power to command it if it is called to Federal service. The officers of the militia must be appointed by the States. Originally, probably, the people could be called up (maybe drafted) and then would constitute the militia. In modern times, the militia is represented by the National Guard. In addition to Amendment II, the Constitution refers to the militia explicitly in Article I, Sections 8.15 and 8.16, and in Article II, Section 2. Nowhere is the militia considered the same as the people. It is an organized force trained by the States and controlled by Congress. In case of a localized natural disaster, Congress can call up the militia of a single State and leave it under command of its ranking officers in that State. At present (2007), Congress has called up several National Guard units which have been put into Federal service overseas.

Armaments of the States

Although the States are given power to train the militia (National Guard) by Article I Section 8, they are denied power in peacetime to maintain them, by Section 10, except as the Legislature may permit. The States also are forbidden warships except with Legislative permission. Of course, Congress does permit substantial exercises of National Guard forces -- but this is by a Constitutional power of the Legislature, not by the sovereign power of a State. According to Article I, Section 10, States also may not make treaties or other agreements with foreign powers or other States, unless Congress permits it. Of course, they may not wage war, either. So, provisions in the Constitution regarding rights of the States to keep or bear arms are not relevant to the right referred to in Amendment II.

Conclusion
Barring an armed rebellion in the National Guard, the militia is irrelevant to the right to keep and bear arms. Equally irrelevant is the residual right of the States to arm their agents or employees. There is no lawful justification to any form of gun control imposed on individual people. Any such "control" by definition must be an infringement and thus must not

J. M. Williams

2007-09-02

be lawful. Legislations forbidding possession or carrying even of automatic weapons are unlawful, and penalties for not registering arms of any kind with the Federal Government are unlawful, because they imply a threat to deny possession of the arms to be registered. Background checks on purchasers of arms are unlawful, because it is a right, not a privilege under government control, to keep and bear arms. If such checks could not be used to infringe upon the right to keep or bear an arm, then what is their purpose? Surely, they can't be just job security for office workers? The IRS could put those jobs to much better use than Federal agencies which break the law by denying a person the opportunity to obtain an arm to bear. Under the Constitution, the only person who may be denied exercise of a right, whether it be the right to vote, to own property, or to bear arms, is a convict -- a prisoner under sentence. This seems clear from a reading of Amendments V, XIII and XIV. A Judicial ruling may suspend certain rights of a particular individual for probable cause -- for example, by issuance of a search warrant. Any other denial of rights represents corruption. Corruption in government is just unlawful behavior. And, inconsistency in respect for the Constitution is a cause of this corruption. Laws must be obeyed. All of them. When there is inconsistency, the Constitution must be used to resolve it; when it can not be so used, inconsistencies must be resolved following the other priorities in our system of law as described above. Gun control laws are the grinning skull of corruption in our government. A living human is a beautiful thing. After death, the body becomes corrupt, decomposes, and the lower jaw detaches, inconsistently, from the skull. This creates the appearance of an open grin. Happy are those who love gun control, but theirs is a grin of death. Not to them, personally, maybe, but to our beautiful country, which dies a little, every time selfishness or fear denies someone a right. So, why would I obey a gun control law? It's simple: Fear. There are a lot of big bullies out there, State and Federal officials, politicians, and even private citizens, who are willing to break the law, violate the Constitution, and harm me, should I not comply with their demands. So, I do. I am willing to send the Federal Government a signed statement saying that, even though I have a right to purchase a gun, I will humbly request their permission to exercise my right and complete the sale. And, I pay them a little, to process the form. Like a poll tax. That's OK; we had poll taxes for years; they kept out the riff-raff and preserved our privileges. Yes, I fear the big bullies who twist the law and distort its purpose to suit their own, selfish goals. Why do they do it? Maybe it's political ambition; maybe it's vengeance against the innocent (me) for some gun crime committed years ago.

J. M. Williams

2007-09-02

I admit it. I'm afraid to obey the law, the real law, the Constitution, because I'm bullied by those who don't want it. That's why I would obey a gun control law. But, why not work for a better, shared understanding of the meaning of government, especially the Federal Government? Votes still make a difference, and laws infringing upon rights can be changed. I want to take away the grins and the snarls of the bullies. That's why I would obey a gun control law, and that's why I'm writing this essay.