Gun Control: Is it Treason?

Connecticut leaders have just released plans for their upcoming anti-Second Amendment legislation, or what I like to call, "feel good legislation." Connecticut it not alone, my beloved state of Maryland and its fearless leader, Martin O'Malley, are not far behind. 

What most news headlines fail to note is that the governors of both of these states, and those in other anti-gun parts of the U.S., are setting themselves up for treason by not upholding the Constitution they swear to protect. However, I, like most reasonably minded Americans, want nothing more than for the government to pass legislation that effectively targets and punishes criminals and not reward them. 

Of the thousands of articles written since the tragic shootings in Colorado and Connecticut, none of have really looked at what the Constitution and federal regulations have to say about gun ownership in the U.S. — and I am not just talking about Heller, McDonald, and the Second Amendment. 

As such, the following excerpts from regulations and SCOTUS rulings demonstrate why these governors are guilty of treasonous activity — by supporting and promoting legislation, firearm registration systems and "bans," that are knowingly unconstitutional and deny millions of people their protected rights. 

1. The Firearms Owner Protection Act (1986): "No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary’s authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation."

This excerpt clearly explains that the registration of firearms, and their owners, is illegal, yet many of this in power still push for the establishment of said systems. "Universal background checks" is nothing more than a Trojan Horse for the government to be able to monitor all of the guns in the U.S., a.k.a a registration. The push back to these ideas has nothing to do with the NRA, but with upholding the current Federal law!

2. Miller v. United States (1939): To give some background on this case, Miller's argument was the government had NO right banning short-barreled shotguns (SBS — under 18") because the 2A protected is rights. The court ultimately ruled against Miller because in their view, the SBS was not a "common use" weapon, especially when compared to the weaponry expected to be carried by the Militias within the U.S., and thus, not protected from regulations, even under the 2A. As much as would like to agree with Miller, the court was correct in their assessment of the SBS at the time of this case. 

"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

Looking at 2013, the AR-15, the semi-automatic civilian model of it's assault weapon (fully automatic/select fire) cousin, the M4 and M16, has been one of the best-selling rifles in America since it's introduction in the 1960's. Also, despite the creation of the National Guard, and as indicated in the court's opinion, the Constitution still recognizes an secondary militia consisting of, "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," and is why all men at the age of 18 have to register for the armed services, regardless of their intentions to join the military.

With that said, there is no arguing that should the need arise for the secondary militias, the semi-auto AR-15, AK-47, etc, would be the first gun I would grab from my collection, as would every other gun owner who owns one of these weapons. This also includes 30 round magazines, which are the "commonly used" magazine in the military and are standard issue with all new AR-15s, except in states with magazine capacity limits, which are also unconstitutional laws under this same concept. The magazine is just as much part of the gun as the gun itself and is why the courts will rule it falls under the 2A. 

3. Political Intimidation: In Maryland, as I'm sure happens elsewhere, legislators are "recasting votes" under the pressure of Martin O'Malley, who actually thinks he has a chance of running for President in 2016. Even when it comes to amendments designed to discipline criminals, O'Malley still think's it's best everyone pay the price. The following is an excerpt from an newsletter I receive from a pro-2A organization in Maryland called, Maryland Shall Issue.

"On Friday, March 29, 2013, the representatives on the Joint House Committee bowed to heavy pressure from Governor O'Malley and passed SB281 out of committee with limited changes. Every Pro-2A amendment was defeated, even those that passed. Yes, you heard me right — even the amendments that passed were defeated. Delegate Smigiel proposed an amendment to the bill that would deny time off for good behavior to any criminal who used a firearm in the commission of a crime. The amendment passed 24-21. Chairman Vallario then called a break in the hearing. Delegates were hustled into the back room by the Governor's whips. Moments later, the Delegates returned and the amendment was voted on for a second time. With the Chairman's vote included, the bill was defeated in a tie vote of 23-23." 

When the dust settles and the facts come out, many politicians resort to unethical and illegal means to get what they want as part of their agenda. Everyone, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, young, old, black, white, Hispanic, etc, should be outraged at our so called, "leaders" for knowingly passing legislation that violates existing laws (just like marijuana in Colorado and Oregon), especially when it comes to our civil rights, regardless of your personal position.

I may be conservative in nature, but I think it is ridiculous that gay marriage is even still an issue in this day and age. It clearly denies a certain group of citizens a multitude of rights and benefits that comes with marriage. If you truly care about holding people accountable for their actions, then fighting against these sort of politics should be a no-brainer for everyone and I strongly encourage everyone to set aside their emotions and comfort levels and stand-up for everyone's rights, and not just those you feel affect you personally.