3 votes

The Real Question Regarding Gun Confiscation:

The Real Question Regarding Gun Confiscation:

Occasionally we get letters asking questions for our view or standpoint on certain issues.

One question was this:


Question: "...Can you please inform in all manners possible that the State and Local law Enforcement, DO NOT have to carry out any Federal Ordered Program like Gun Control or Seizure."



I can explain what was written in the Original Compact of the Constitution as it was intended.

I can explain the principles that establish that authority is created by the Original Compact.

But you realize that if no one (no judge, no representative, no citizen, no soldier) upholds or is willing to defend the limitations set forth in the Original Compact, then a tyrannical government will get away with anything it wants under a "PRETENSE of Authority".

To understand this corruption of the principles that DEFINE TYRANNY, read John Locke Second Treatise on Civil Government From paragraphs 199 to 210.

Further, read 211 on, taking special attention to paragraph 218 regarding the Executive using the "PRETENSE of Authority" against the laws of the Original Compact thereby causing the DISSOLUTION of Government.


To understand the Limitations of Original Compacts, which to understand, that we are a Republic and not a democracy. Republics that are formed under an Original Compact with the people which allows a limited amount of authority and no more.

Locke 212: "...When any one, or more, shall take upon them to make laws whom the people have not appointed so to do, they make laws without authority, which the people are not therefore bound to obey; by which means they come again to be out of subjection, and may constitute to themselves a new legislative, as they think best, being in full liberty to resist the force of those who, without authority, would impose anything upon them. Every one is at the disposure of his own will, when those who had, by the "delegation" of the society, the declaring of the public will, are excluded from it, and others usurp the place who have no such authority or delegation."

See also 166, 171 political power, original and consent of the people, 220, 192 definition - "...and also till they are allowed their due property, which is so to be proprietors of what they have that nobody can take away any part of it without their OWN CONSENT, without which, men under any government are not in the state of free men, but are direct slaves under the force of war..." 230 (crime being committed by our federal government): "...This I am sure, whoever, either ruler or subject, by force goes about to INVADE THE RIGHTS of either prince or people, and LAYS THE FOUNDATION (i.e. "DESIGN") FOR OVERTURNING THE CONSTITUTION and frame of any just government (i.e ORIGINAL COMPACT ie CONSTITUTION(S)), he is guilty of the GREATEST CRIME I think a man is capable of, being to answer for all those mischiefs of blood, rapine, and desolation, which the breaking to pieces of governments bring on a country; and he who does it is justly to be esteemed the common enemy and pest of mankind, and is to be treated accordingly."

Samuel Adams, Absolute Rights of the Colonists 1772:

"...When Men enter into Society, it is by voluntary CONSENT; and they have a RIGHT to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions, And "PREVIOUS LIMITATIONS" as form an equitable "ORIGINAL COMPACT".-- Every natural Right not expressly given up or from the nature of a Social Compact necessarily ceded REMAINS.--"


First the supreme court is supreme only within the delegated powers and a means to keep the federal government within those powers. Neither the supreme court, Legislative nor Executive can exceed or redefine these limitations or arrogate new power.

State supreme Courts are a second check to the abuse of federal power. State Judges are a third. State legislatures are fourth. County Judges fifth. Mayer sixth. County Commissions seventh. Sheriffs eighth. Citizens ninth.

Not in any order but all equally responsible to act.

As a judge looks back at the intentions set forth in the legislature which creates law to establish how he upholds the law in court; So is the intent of the Founders, who have created and established the Constitution, the law of the Constitution and prior rights even the Constitution is subject to, are to be upheld in every court.

All those prior known rights not expressly delegated, and those rights which either are established by engagements, oaths and known law, are reserved to the states and to the people. They are in full effect today as they were before the Constitution was ratified, as clearly presented.

In these the federal government has no power over, but only to defend, at request of the independent state.


It is clear in these Conventions and debates, that the intent of the founders is that the federal government is only there as an additional protection at the beck and call and control of the states; and not one of creator of "new powers", a subjugator, or of internal improvements, and manipulations of state laws; or of anything that has not been expressly delegated to it.

The first issue regarding the Original Compact which LIMITED the federal government, is whether under that Compact the federal government could make ANY law or Regulation that would either:

1.) "Effect the Citizens of the Union at Large";
2.) "Govern Police outside the 10 miles Square of Washington DC;
3.) Exceed their limited delegated powers.
4.) Arrogate any new power?

and the answer to all of these is NO.

I will list a few examples below and link the documents.


Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788

In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl...

Edmund Pendleton:

"Mr. PENDLETON. Mr. Chairman, this clause does "NOT" give Congress power to impede the operation of ANY PART of the Constitution,(N)or to make ANY REGULATION that may affect the interests of the citizens of the Union at large. But it gives them power over the local police of the place, so as to be secured from any interruption in their proceedings. Notwithstanding the violent attack upon it, I believe, sir, this is the "fair construction of the clause". It gives them power of exclusive legislation in any case within that district. What is the meaning of this? What is it opposed to?Is it opposed to the general powers of the federal legislature, or to those of the state legislatures?I understand it as opposed to the legislative power of that state where it shall be. What, then, is the power?It is, that Congress shall exclusively legislate there, in order to preserve {440} serve the police of the place and their own personal independence, that they may not be overawed or insulted, and of course to preserve them in opposition to any attempt by the state where it shall be this is the "fair construction". Can we suppose that, in order to effect these salutary ends, Congress will make it an asylum for villains and the vilest characters from all parts of the world? Will it not degrade their own dignity to make it a sanctuary for villains? I hope that no man that will ever "compose" that Congress will associate with the most profligate characters.(APP: If this was not such a sad statement, it would be funny)

Why oppose this power? Suppose it was contrary to the sense of their constituents to grant exclusive privileges to citizens residing within that place; the effect would be directly in opposition to what he says. It could have no operation without the limits of that district. Were Congress to make a law granting them an exclusive privilege of trading to the East Indies, it could have NO effect the moment it would go without that place; for their exclusive power is confined to that district. Were they to pass such a law,it would be nugatory; and every member of the community at large could trade to the East Indies as well as the citizens of that district. This exclusive power is limited to that place solely, for their own preservation, which all gentlemen allow to be necessary.

Will you pardon me when I observe that their construction of the preceding clause does not appear to me to be natural, or warranted by the words.

They say that the state governments have no power at all over the militia. The power of the general government to provide for arming and organizing the militia is to introduce a uniform system of discipline to pervade the United States of America. But the power of governing the militia, so far as it is in Congress, extends only to such parts of them as may be employed in the service of the United States. When not in their service, Congress has no power to govern them. The states then have the "sole" government of them; and though Congress "may" provide for arming them, and prescribe the "mode" of discipline, yet the STATES have the Authority of training them, according to the uniform discipline prescribed by Congress. But there is NOTHING to preclude them from arming and disciplining them, should Congress neglect to, do it. As to calling the militia to execute the laws of the {441} Union, I think the fair construction is directly opposite to what the honorable member says. The 4th section of the 4th article contains nothing to warrant the supposition that the states cannot call them forth to suppress domestic insurrections. [Here he read the section.] All the restraint here contained is, that Congress may, at their pleasure,on "application of the state legislature", or "(in vacation)" of the executive,protect each of the states against domestic violence. This is a restraint on the general government "not to interpose".

The "state" is in "full possession" of the "power" of using its "own militia" to protect itself against domestic violence; and the power in the general government "cannot be exercised, or interposed", without the "application of the state itself". This appears to me to be the "obvious" and "fair construction".

With respect to the necessity of the ten miles square being superseded by the subsequent clause, which gives them power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof, I understand that clause as NOT going a "single step beyond" the "DELEGATED powers". What can it act upon? Some power given by this Constitution. If they should be about to pass a law in consequence of this clause, they must pursue some of the "DELEGATED powers",but can by "NO MEANS" depart from them,

(N)OR "ARROGATE" "ANY NEW" powers; for the PLAIN LANGUAGE of the clause is, to give them power to pass laws in order to give "effect" to the "DELEGATED" powers"."

George Nicholas: "...But the "COMMON LAW" is "NOT EXCLUDED". There is "NOTHING" in "that paper"(APP Note: referring to the US Constitution being considered) to warrant the assertion.

As to the exclusion of a jury from the vicinage, he has mistaken the fact. The legislature may direct a jury to come from the vicinage. But the gentleman says that, by this Constitution, they have power to make laws to define crimes and prescribe punishments; and that, consequently, we are not free from torture.

Treason against the United States is defined in the Constitution, and the forfeiture limited to the life of the person attainted.

Congress have power to define and punish:

a.) piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and
b.) offenses against the laws of nations;

but they (APP: the federal government, legislature or supreme court) CANNOT DEFINE or PRESCRIBE the PUNISHMENT of "ANY OTHER CRIME WHATEVER", WITHOUT "VIOLATING the CONSTITUTION"....

....A bill of rights is only an acknowledgment of the PREEXISTING CLAIM TO RIGHTS IN THE PEOPLE.

They BELONG TO US AS MUCH as if they had been inserted in the Constitution....

"...The gentleman last up says that the power of legislation includes every thing. A general power of legislation does. But this is a special power of legislation. Therefore, it does NOT contain that plenitude of power which he imagines. They "CANNOT LEGISLATE" in "ANY case" but those "PARTICULARLY ENUMERATED"."

So now you know what the law is, the limitations are.

What I think you may unknowingly be asking is this:

When the federal government under a PRETENSE OF AUTHORITY enacts a law / regulation that will effect the "Citizens of the Union at Large" (strike 1); Against our RIGHT to bear arms (strike 2); Which the STATES are equally responsible but CAPITULATE (strike 3); and both Federal and State join together to force or engage and GOVERN Police to invade the property of the Citizen (strike 4) without authority (strike 5) for which the Original Compact(S) Expressly prohibit infringing the RIGHT to KEEP and BEAR ARMS (strike 6) or making illegal - which there can be no authority - search and seizures (strike 7) and invading the RIGHT to be Secure in Person (strike 8), Papers (strike 9) and Effects i.e. PROPERTY (strike 10).

What federal or state or county judicial, legislative, assurance from these who are equally guilty of allowing laws made under such PRETENSE of Authority to exist,

And; What assurance can I give you, that Sheriffs and Law Officers, aside from the equal responsibility to maintain their Oath and Laws of the Constitution, and NOT comply with UnConstitutional mandates you mentioned, That they can't be made to, or won't willingly do so, acting blindly and without question under laws and mandates that can never have authority....

Well... I think you can or will have to answer that yourself, maybe you and your neighbors, and other people in your local state or county society.

I would advise you to get active and start educating others;

The more people that are educated as to what is really happening, and what inalienable rights are we do not have the power to give up, then the more chance there will be those in the position of power that will prevent the evil of allowing the attempts upon those rights from ever taking place as well as setting safeguards for further attempts.


Samuel Adams - Absolute Rights of the Colonists 1772:

"...Thirdly, The supreme power CANNOT JUSTLY TAKE from ANY man, ANY part of his PROPERTY without his CONSENT, in PERSON OR BY HIS REPRESENTATIVE.--

These are some of the FIRST PRINCIPLES of natural law & Justice, and the GREAT BARRIERS OF ALL FREE STATES, and of the British Constitution in particular. It is utterly irreconcilable to these principles, and to many other fundamental maxims of the common law, common sense and reason, that a British house of commons, should have a right, at pleasure, to give and grant the property of the Colonists....

.....The Colonists have been branded with the odious names of traitors and rebels, only for complaining of their grievances; How long such treatment will, or ought to be born is submitted."

Written in 1772, it took 4 years longer, then it was war.

Natural Rights are not something to trifle with.

Now, as it was then, it was not those defending their rights that were rebels, it was the government going against the Laws agreed upon under the Original Compact, that were Rebels; as John Locke clearly Establishes when governments exceed their authority (See paragraphs 226 & 227)

Hope this answered your question.

Richard Taylor
American Patriot Party.CC


Educate Yourself. Educate Others.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


Thomas Jefferson; Kentucky Resolution 1798:

Paragraph #2. " Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish:

a.) treason,
b.) counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States,
c.) piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and
d.) offenses against the law of nations,


and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,"

therefore the act of Congress, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, and intituled "An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," as also the act passed by them on the — day of June, 1798, intituled "An Act to punish frauds committed on the bank of the United States," (>>>> and ALL their OTHER ACTS which assume to CREATE, DEFINE, or PUNISH crimes, OTHER than THOSE so "ENUMERATED" in the Constitution,) >>> are "ALTOGETHER" "VOID", and of "NO FORCE";

and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains SOLELY and EXCLUSIVELY to the respective "STATES", each within its own territory"

In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/candidates

American Patriot Party.CC


Educate Yourself. Educate Others.

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.