Restore The Republic,Militia,Constitution,Founding Fathers,Republic

Restore the Republic

The Individual Rights Theory

February 28, 2017 | 2nd Amendment, Civil Liberties, Constitution, Founders, Militia, Sovereignty

by Nicholas Testaccio

In order to subscribe to the individual rights theory you must ignore the history of the nation and what the Founders specifically understood from personal experience. You must ignore the fact that the individual rights theory is a product of the later part of the Twentieth Century. You must also ignore the fact that the promoters of the theory are the same people who pushed through some of the most restrictive gun laws.

It’s simply a matter of bait and switch. If you convince the public that the Second amendment protects an individual right rather than the awesome power that the Constitution recognizes as the only authority “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions” you’re one step closer to removing the sovereignty of the People.

The Second amendment reads, “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”. What does that mean in terms of those who wrote the Constitution, and for whom the document was written?

In Pollack v. Farmers Loan and Trust Company, 157 US 429, 558 the court opined, “What did those who framed and adopted it understand the terms to designate and include? We must remember that the fifty-five members of the constitutional convention were men of great sagacity, fully conversant with governmental problems, deeply conscious of the nature of their task, and profoundly convinced that they were laying the foundations of a vast future empire. *** They had immediately before them the example of Great Britain, and they had a still better school of political wisdom in the republican constitutions of their several States, which many of them had assisted to frame.”

In Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U.S. 213, 332 the court noted “On this subject also, the Court has taken such frequent occasion to declare its opinion as to make it unnecessary, at least, to enter again into an elaborate discussion of it. To say that the intention of the instrument must prevail; that this intention must be collected from its words; that its words are to be understood in that sense in which they are generally used by those for whom the instrument was intended; that its provisions are neither to be restricted into insignificance nor extended to objects not comprehended in them, nor contemplated by its framers is to repeat what has been already said more at large and is all that can be necessary”.

Each of the Thirteen colonies had their own constitution that framed the workings of their respective republics. Each had its own militia that, for the most part, had existed for some 150 years prior to the revolution. Each understood militia to mean the body of the People with all able-bodied men, generally, from 17 – 45 required to keep and bear the prescribed firearm exactly as detailed in the statutes. Each understood the role played by militia when the first shots were fired on Lexington Green.

Tenche Coxe wrote: “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. –The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: “Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” I Annals of Congress (August 17, 1789)

George Washington: “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”

William Rawle: “In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated militia is necessary to a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. Although in actual war, in the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable; yet while peace prevails, and in the commencement of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia form the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel invasion, to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace of government. That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulation as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest.” – William Rawle, “A View of the Constitution of the United States of America” (1829)

Most important are the words of George Mason Co-author of the Second Amendment: “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788. Clearly, the authors of the amendment understood that the word militia meant all of the People. It did not mean some body of the army, nor John Rambo out there pretending to be some super soldier.

So why is there this insistence that the second amendment is about an individual right and nothing else? Why is it that modern Americans can’t comprehend that militia is “the whole of the people” as stated by one of its authors?

In part, the idea of serving in some fashion is out of the question for most people. The Dick Act came into effect because the states allowed the militia to atrophied. Even the congress understood the need for “the whole of the people” to be armed and “well regulated”. The congress recognized the serious nature of this deficiency and invoked their power at Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 to allow the states to have some force available for emergencies. “No state shall, without the consent of Congress, *** keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace.” It was a move prompted by the fact that Americans had become ambivalent, and could care less about the duties prescribed by law.

From the current New Jersey state Constitution:

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 1

“Provision for organizing, inducting, training, arming, disciplining and regulating a militia shall be made by law, which shall conform to applicable standards established for the armed forces of the United States.”

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 2

“The Governor shall nominate and appoint all general and flag officers of the militia, with the advice and consent of the Senate. All other commissioned officers of the militia shall be appointed and commissioned by the Governor according to law.”

From the Virginia Constitution, upon which the Second was drawn:

“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, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”

From the Virginia statutes:

  • [1775] “[I]n each county * * * all free male persons, hired servants, and apprentices, above the age of sixteen, and under fifty years, except such as are * * * excepted [under the statute], shall be enlisted into the militia[.]”
  • [1777] “[A]ll free male persons, hired servants, and apprentices, between the ages of sixteen and fifty years [with various exceptions] * * * shall * * * be enrolled or formed into [Militia] companies[.]”

The statutes I quoted above were standard throughout the Thirteen colonies, and remained in force upon the formation of the Union. Across the states they explain Militia as “[A]ll free male persons, hired servants, and apprentices, between the ages of sixteen and fifty year”.

The Founders understood militia to be all the People “armed and disciplined”. So what has changed in law? The understanding of the awesome power of militia is the only change that can explain what has taken place. As Tenche Coxe noted “Congress have no power to disarm the militia”.

In the eyes of the Founders the “Militia of the several States” represented the ability of the People to enforce the law, and in all manner, maintain a “free State”. The Militia represented the full force of the sovereignty of the People acting as the basis for all law. An aspect of law that was made virtually impossible to change by the construction throughout the Constitution, and the existing state statutes.

In the early part of the Twentieth Century, those who sought to overthrow our “Republican Form of Government” corrupted the definition of militia as one means of dismantling the republic. Instead of the honorable position it held during the Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Civil War, it was defamed. Militia became synonymous with the KKK, outlaws, and other nefarious institutions. The idea that the American people were stupid and incapable of independent thought became the doctrine, by which our most precious institutions would be ruined, and our sovereignty destroyed.

Throughout the Century we became cowed with fallacy after fallacy. The Sixteenth, and the Seventeenth amendments, neither one “ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States”. The Federal Reserve Bank, no more federal than FedEx. The gold confiscation, Pearl Harbor, the Lone gunman, WMD’s, and even when we’re told to our face that we were lied to as in the Gulf of Tonkin incident, we can’t muster the integrity to admit we’ve been duped.

From the NRA’s American Rifleman magazine of March 1968; “The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns. *** NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts.”

The article goes on, “The NRA supported the original ’Dodd Bill’ to amend the Federal Firearms Act in regard to handguns when it was introduced as S.1975 in August, 1963. Among its provisions was the requirement that a purchaser submit a notarized statement to the shipper that he was over 18 and not legally disqualified from possessing a handgun.”

I could go on, but to most who’ve been snatched out of reality and placed into some oblivion would not only deny the obvious, they’d rather “kill the messenger” than face the ugly truth.

This is a game that powerful people play. There is money from both sides of the battle, and it benefits the few at the top while the rest of us struggle to survive in an ever encroaching, and overbearing State. The Founders were astute, and far thinking. They did not leave to chance the power of the ‘Sword’. They placed it firmly in the hands of the good People, but today we spit on the legacy of the men who mustered on Lexington Green, those who harassed and battled the British Regulars all the way to Boston, and all those who fought for years to free this nation.

The roots, understanding, and need for “[T]he unlimited power of the sword *** where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people” are there for everyone to read and follow. In modern America, even the so-called pro-2nd community fights tooth and nail against the proper application of the amendment that would revoke current gun control, and prevent any future attempts to disarm the populace.

Either the words and their definitions remain in tact today, or we face the dissolution of what was once a great republic. The Founders placed the ‘Sword of Sovereignty’ in the hands of the People. Americans reject their birthright, and instead we fight battles dictated by the enemies of freedom while they occasionally pat us on the head with what we perceive as a victory.

The Second Amendment states, “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”. The Constitution recognizes the “Militia of the several States”, and the statutes detail what arms “to keep”, when, how and why to “bear” them. There are twenty-seven words in the amendment, and the so-called pro-2nd community appears to be incapable of understanding the dynamic of the law of the land surrounding this crucial link to liberty.

I’m being generous when I say incapable because there is a darker side to this denial. It is a slap in the face of those who sacrificed in order that this nation could be born. Militia is a requirement of law. It imposes a duty on all members of society. It is not voluntary. It demands that we train, and become proficient in whatever is necessary for “A well regulated militia”. It is the essence of controlling crime on the streets, the halls of the legislatures, and corruption in the judiciary.

On the other hand the individual right requires nothing of anyone. It imposes no duty, creates no office, and in practice is nothing more than talk. It does not demand that we sacrifice a few weekends a year, or muster when an emergency strikes the community. All that is needed of the individual right is for the populace to complain when emergency services are overwhelmed, and have not saved us from whatever disaster we might face. It is a tool for what America has become; a nation of ignorant whiners who know nothing of the Founders and the tools they past to us so that we might, just might keep ourselves and our progeny free and prosperous.

Murder For Hire

July 22, 2016 | General, History, Republic, Sovereignty

by Nicholas Testaccio

We have had an horrific shooting, in which 49 people were killed and over 50 wounded. A man who was born here, of Afghani descent, carried out this act of terrorism. To add to that, Mateen had been interrogated by the FBI and was an employee of G4S Security (a DHS contractor).

Judge Andrew Napolitano recently read from an FBI report wherein they stated that no one died in the Pulse nightclub until 5:13 AM.

We have had an attack on police, resulting in five dead and six wounded by possibly two shooters, or as it goes the lone gunman, using military style tactics (according to reports). Six more shot in Baton Rouge, and every time I look there has been another incident.

Half of what we know cannot be properly verified, nor do I expect it to be as-is the case of Sandy Hook (now classified under National Security with FOIA request routinely denied). On a more global scale we are denied the full story of what happened in Benghazi. The depths of misinformation seem to be bottomless.

My journey into this starts many years ago as a young child listening to the family talking politics and life in general. Back then it seemed that no one trusted government and behind most events you could uncover a conspiracy. Certainly the Federal Reserve, the Income Tax, and WMD’s in Iraq are three of the most obvious.

I’ve heard men, such as Dr. Steve Pieczenik, state that Sandy Hook was a conspiracy involving many, many participants.

For shootings such as the Aurora Theater and now Pulse nightclub, we know that witnesses claimed multiple shooters were involved. Perhaps in Orlando, with a bit of help from the FBI, we can conclude that those other shooters were all police.

Would the government cover up the facts and would the media participate in the cover up? Without a doubt. For what purpose? One could certainly be that the administration is intent on disarming the populace. Another could be that one or more of these attacks were bona fide terrorist attacks perpetrated by someone, who the FBI was well aware of, had plans. Another still, goes back to the employer of Omar Mateen, G4S – a government contractor performing the same type of work as Blackwater.

However, what prompted me to write this particular article was the fact that I was approached by a co-worker who asked for my take on what had happened in Orlando. In short, he could not reconcile the story being promoted by the media. It simply did not make sense to him and certainly we can agree that a lot of what we are told makes little to no sense.

I mention that because in studying history back in school we engaged the topics of the day as current events and legislative action of the congress. As a young teenager I had no idea that we would be living out what was opined in those discussions. The legislation then was not for the benefit of the people, but rather the slow and inevitable destruction of all rights by a small group of men and women who have no regard for their fellow man. Their primary concern is the ill-gotten gains they can obtain for selling out the populace. Those of us they consider useless-feeders.

This is no longer a republic. We have not operated in a capitalist environment for decades. Our existence is based in conspiracy, lies, and ignorance. Most Americans would much rather not be involved in the truth. Lies are much easier to absorb for the masses. Hitler is quoted as saying, “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.” Every day is given to those words as I watch this nation fall for every charlatan, politician, or media personality who is incapable of telling the truth.

Certainly, most American’s wouldn’t recognize a conspiracy if you placed every piece of evidence in their laps. The only thing that would matter is what the corporate media portrayed, and the fact that in this modern day and age with communication as it is it would be impossible to pull something off as large as Newtown.

News Flash folks! It’s easier today than it has ever been. The narrative starts before the event is understood.

Ridiculous you say? The Internet provides the means for both sides of the story to come to pass quickly, and in most cases without all the facts in place. The question is, who controls the narrative? In years past you had investigative journalists who were not limited by a corporate media (that took its marching orders from DC), but rather were interested in learning the truth.

The facts were not readily available, so someone would have to go out and vet the information. It wasn’t ‘here it is’, ‘don’t believe anything else after this’ even when you see inconsistencies in the story. The vast majority will confine themselves to the boob tube and not look any further than their noses. Certainly I’m not off the mark when I say that government fabricates situations such as Private Lynch’s story and Pat Tillman’s murder, Nayirah testimony, Saddam’s WMD’s, and then there is Western created ISIS.

There is also the fact that FBI organizes almost all terror plots in the US. I don’t expect the intended audience to read any of the links that I’ve posted here because that might actually disturb their understanding of what is taking place in this country, so I’ll just go to the point of this article:


Corporations from the so-called mainstream media, to the military industrial complex, to the pharmaceutical giants control the agenda. Municipal water resources are sold to private companies. Land is stolen by the BLM in order that foreign nations or corporations can take it over. The list of fascist enterprise is staggering.

Our elected representatives and bureaucrats have no problem selling us out to line their pockets, and it is the corporate media that fools the people into believing the very notions we should abhor.

What has any of this done for the American people? The Flint, Michigan water crisis goes well beyond what we initially thought. Can someone justify to me why the federal and state EPA’s were not on top of this a long time ago? It just didn’t creep up on us unexpectedly.

Now to the point that really hits home and displays, not only the ignorance of the American public, but also the callus attitude for which the elite display by ignoring and disparaging the truth; a barrage of vaccines and other pharmaceuticals.

Let’s first recognize the fact that the eradication of disease in this country is due, in large part, to our change in primary health functions such as bathing and clean water. Diseases such as polio were already on the decline when the vaccine became available. “In 1977, Dr Jonas Salk, who developed the first polio vaccine, testified along with other scientists that mass inoculation against polio was the cause of most polio cases throughout the USA since 1961.”

Jenny McCarthy, an activist in the autism spectrum field made vaccines and the effects they have on children a news topic. Since then there have been court cases proving the detrimental effect of the vaccine schedule on children that has prompted some doctors to come out and give us some insight of the vaccine to autism issue.

Obesity, autism, polio, tuberculosis, and even small pox are on the rise. Part of it has to do with Top 9 vaccines you never need…” Some of it has to do with this government allowing millions of illegal aliens to enter who are carrying infectious diseases. Certainly, water pollution plays a big part. Then there is the food chain.

It should be noted that Vladimir Putin is making Russia a GMO free country, and that Russia will be the #1 exporter of non-gmo foods. Why? Because despite the corporate media promotion of, if not outright lies, certainly questionable scientific studies have fooled the majority. Some scientists are starting to speak out on the real dangers of genetically engineered food.

We are under attack. Genocide is taking place in this country and it is being covered up not only by legislators, bureaucrats and corporate entities, but also a public that consistently refuses to investigate the facts and admit they’ve been deceived.

The people who are supposed to represent you do not. They represent themselves, the power and the lust for money. Their concern is the expansion of government and the eradication of resistance. Their actions are no different than Hitler, Stalin, Pol-Pot, or Idi Amin.

We are looking at so many attacks on the good people of this nation, that I’m absolutely amazed at how complacent the majority appears to be. In the face of these attacks what does government do? If you need to understand the dynamic of what is taking place and why we are in the midst of genocide and political cleansing, just look to the states of California, and Massachusetts where the disarming of the people is in full force.

This Fourth of July – 2016

July 3, 2016 | Civil Liberties, Constitution, Founders, Jury

by Nicholas Testaccio

Richard Henry Lee, one of Virginia’s representatives to the Continental Congress having made the long journey to Philadelphia presented a resolution on June 7th, 1776 that proposed the separation of the Thirteen Colonies from the state of Britain.

The Lee Resolution declared, “That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; that measures should be immediately taken for procuring the assistance of foreign powers, and a Confederation be formed to bind the colonies more closely together.”

However, there were states that were not ready to take the steps necessary to break the bonds with England. On July 1st, the Congress selected Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, John Adams of Massachusetts, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, Roger Sherman of Connecticut, and Robert R. Livingston of New York to draft “A Declaration”.

John Adams convinces Thomas Jefferson to write the first draft and in just three days the man from Virginia writes what will become one of the most poignant doctrine of history, proclaiming not only the reasons for “dissolv[ing] the political bands” of one people to another, but also detailing what was to become the most unique governmental enterprise known to man … A government “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”, and subject to the popular sovereignty of the People.

After a long and arduous fight the “bands” were broken and a new nation was formed. The struggle was not over as the men from Virginia stood their ground to guarantee “certain unalienable Rights”. Once again the political genius that helped form this nation instituted a Bill of Rights.

Sadly, this Fourth of July we lament the end to the Bill of Rights for despite the admonition that “Congress shall make no law” every branch of this government, its bureaucrats, and unconstitutional agencies treat the document as if it were a blank sheet of paper that may be interpreted away by fiat, and tyrannical acts. Unalienable rights will eventually become irrelevant while being replaced with pretend rights that aid in the destruction of family, safety, honor, and integrity.

Today we live in a world where common sense is overwritten by political correctness. Our rights are no longer “endowed”, but rather privileges granted by the state.

  1. Hordes of immigrants are granted favor for their religion, free speech is that which is consigned to zones and does not offend select groups, and this government of the People has declared it has no obligation to redress a grievance.
  2. The body of the People most “necessary to the security of a free state” is gone through deceit and outright lies, and without our knowledgeable consent.
  3. We quarter thousands of our friends, neighbors, and family as those who stand ready to write tickets, arrest for pretend offenses while allowing invaders to rape and destroy our traditions and laws.
  4. We are subject to forfeiture of property, invasions of our home by teams of armed men, sometimes holding defective warrants, sometimes holding silent warrants, and always held by those without the recognized authority “to execute the Laws of the Union”.
  5. We are subject to the ignorance, corruption, and ambivalence of a grand jury no longer under the control of the People, but rather subject to the machinations of often vicious and ambitious prosecutors.
  6. We are held for criminal prosecutions derived from unconstitutional acts, and often deprived of knowing the nature and cause of the accusation, and unable to confront those in the state who make such fictitious claims.
  7. We are subject to the whims and fears of an uneducated jury improperly, and erroneously instructed by a black robed administrator of the state.
  8. We are fined or jailed for protecting our property, speaking out, resisting unlawful arrests, and attempts to reclaim our sovereignty.
  9. Rights that are clearly defined are attacked and eroded ongoing, while those activities most repugnant to the sanctity of a free republic are lauded as something to be honored.
  10. We are cowed to a federal oligarchy that imposes its will through schemes, or artful design that erodes, confuses, and confounds liberty while the state stays silent as its People are laid bare to tyranny.

This Fourth of July, we may drink our beer, eat our hot dogs, and celebrate the acts of some celebrity, or sports figure as the nation falls into decay, and the forces of evil encroach on every aspect of our lives.

Stand Your Ground

May 20, 2016 | 2nd Amendment, Civil Liberties, Constitution, Founders, History, Militia

by Nicholas Testaccio

“Stand your ground. Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.” – Captain John Parker, Colonial Militia.

I want to stand on the Green in Lexington with my two grandsons and tell them the story of Captain Parker, and his company of Minute Men.

I want to see the look in their eyes as I relate the tales of men so daring that I can barely explain the reverence I have for such honor and fortitude.

I want them to enjoy the story, wonder at the bravery, and admire the courage it took for the men and women who started this nation. Every one of who served its community by contributing to the Militia. Whether one of Captain Parker’s Minute Men bearing arms, the miller, the merchant, or the wives who made the patches, and the gun powder that fed the muskets.

I want them to know, and understand that in the eyes of the men who stood on that Green, and words penned to the Constitution, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms was not simply about owning a firearm for self defense, but rather it was a sacred duty to country.

According to militia statutes all able bodied men between the ages of 16 to 45 carried their weapons wherever they went. It was not simply a right to “keep and bear arms”, but a duty to contribute to the security of the colony, and subsequently the nation.

Virginia’s Militia Statutes:

  • [1632] “ALL men that are fittinge to beare armes, shall bringe their peices to the church * * * , yf the mayster allow not thereof to pay 2 lb. of tobacco * * * , and the servants to be punished.”
  • [1643] “[M]asters of every family shall bring with them to church on Sondays one fixed and serviceable gun with sufficient powder and shott * * * , and servants being commanded and yet omitting shall receive twenty lashes on his or theire bare shoulders[.]”
  • [1775] “[I]n each county * * * all free male persons, hired servants, and apprentices, above the age of sixteen, and under fifty years, except such as are * * * excepted [under the statute], shall be enlisted into the militia[.]”
  • [1777] “[A]ll free male persons, hired servants, and apprentices, between the ages of sixteen and fifty years [with various exceptions] * * * shall * * * be enrolled or formed into [Militia] companies[.]”

Lest we believe that Virginia was the only one of thirteen colonies that enforced such statutes, each colony was required to maintain a “well regulated militia”.

  • [1647] “[E]very Inhabitant of the Island [of Rhode Island] above sixteen or under sixty yeares of age, shall alwayes be provided of a Musket, one pound of powder, twenty bullets, and two fadom of Match, with sword, rest, bandaleers all completely furnished.”
  • [1779] “[E]ach and every effective Man * * * shall provide, and at all times be furnished, at his own Expence (excepting such Persons * * * unable to purchase the same) with one good Musquet, and a Bayonet fitted thereto, * * * one Ram-rod, Worm, Priming-wire and Brush, and one Cartouch-Box.”

Each colony recognized that hostilities would sweep the nation and so some strengthened their Militia statutes.

New Jersey Provincial Congress

  • [1775] “The Congress taking Into consideration the cruel and arbitrary measures adopted and pursued by the British Parliament and present Ministry for the purpose of subjugating the American Colonies to the most abject servitude, and being apprehensive that all pacific measures for the redress of our grievances will prove Ineffectual, do think it highly necessary that the inhabitants of this Province be forthwith properly armed and disciplined for defense of the cause of American freedom. And further considering that, to answer this desirable end, it is requisite that such persons be entrusted with the command of the Militia as can be confided in by the people, and are truly zealous in support of our just rights and privileges, do recommend and advise that the good people of this Province hence forward strictly observe the following rules and regulations, until this Congress shall make further order therein:”
  • “That one or more companies *** be Immediately formed in each Township *** that the several Committees in this Province do, as soon as may be, acquaint themselves with the number of male inhabitants in their respective districts, from the age of sixteen to fifty, who are capable of bearing arms; and thereupon form them into companies, consisting as near as may be of eighty men each; which companies so formed shall, each by itself, assemble and choose, by plurality of voices, four persons among themselves, of sufficient substance and capacity for its officers, namely, one captain, two lieutenants, and an ensign.”
  • “*** [S]hall with all convenient speed furnish himself with a good musket or firelock and bayonet, sword or tomahawk-, a steel ramrod, priming-wire and brush fitted thereto, a cartridge-box to contain twenty-three rounds of cartridges, twelve flints, and a knapsack, agreeable to the direction of the Continental Congress, under the forfeiture of two shillings for the want of a musket or firelock, and of one shilling for the want of the other above-enumerated articles”; also ” that every person directed to be enrolled as above shall, at his place of abode, be provided with one pound of powder and three pounds of bullets of proper size to his musket or firelock.”

Across the Thirteen Colonies were formed the Militia that were always armed and ready to protect the county, enforce the law, and give a good account of itself in time of war. Militia existed for 150 years in that form until the American colonies began that time when it became necessary “to dissolve the political bands” with Great Britain.

On April 19, 1775 the Militia began to flex its independence from the yoke of Britain. It became, as was intended through Five Hundred years of English common law the good People of the colonies exercising their authority to “distress and harass [the crown] by all the ways in which they are able; that is to say, by the taking of our castles, lands, and possessions, and by any other means in their power, until the excess shall have been redressed, according to their verdict”. – CARTA LIBERTATUM of King John, 1215

Even King John, as vicious and sadistic a ruler as he was purported to be, was forced to recognize the authority of the people to seek and obtain redress by any means possible. And how was this accomplished?

Militia has a long and honored place in our history. It was the means, by which the barons would harass the king, it was the mustering of Minute Men on Lexington Green, and it was to be the authority “to execute the Laws of the Union” as recognized, and enacted by the authors and signers of the Constitution.

Now, when someone tells me that he or she is a constitutionalist, and they shy from the proper lawful meaning of Militia, and the Second Amendment, I have to call fake.

I did not create the definition of Militia, nor did those who drafted the Constitution. They used hundreds of years of historical fact and original statutes in writing “the Constitution of the United States”. They debated for months and considered “every word” so that it would “have its due force, and appropriate meaning, for it is evident from the whole instrument, that no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added”.

So the question to the individual rights theorists is whether or not the words “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” have any meaning or “due force”?

What I am writing here are not the secrets hidden away in some crypt, or kept in some government bunker beyond the hands of the people. They are in plain view for all to see. Yet, it remains one of the biggest scams perpetrated upon the American people with those claiming to be friends of liberty as part of the deception.

The authors of the Constitution did not endow us with the power, but rather recognized the weight to enforce our sovereignty when government fails to abide by the limited delegated authority that “We the People” grant. However, there is a misconception in the current mindset that is at best unlawful, historically inaccurate, but more importantly dangerous to the continuity of a free nation.

When we abandon the only “necessary” implement of our authority we place ourselves outside the rule of law. Our law recognizes authority, power, and delegate’s limited aspects of that to government, but does not make implications determined by mood, agenda, twists, or political aspirations.

In Connerly v General Contractor the court noted, and I think correctly, “The dividing line between what is lawful and unlawful cannot be left to conjecture.” The court went on to determine that “The result is that the application of the law depends, not upon a word of fixed meaning in itself, or one made definite by statutory or judicial definition, or by the context or other legitimate aid to its construction, but upon the probably varying impressions of juries ***. The constitutional guaranty of due process cannot be allowed to rest upon a support so equivocal”.

At this time in history it is essential to remind ourselves of the arguments presented by one of our great statesmen, Patrick Henry. “By this [the grant of power that permitted Congress to arm the militias], sir, you see that [congressional] control over our last and best defence is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless:  the states can do neither-this power being exclusively given to Congress. The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous.”

The rules for tyranny are as obvious as Henry had railed against the wording that could, and would be interpreted. Judge Alex Kozinski recognizing the patterns of history wrote in his dissent of Silveria v Lockyer “Judges know very well how to read the Constitution broadly when they are sympathetic to the right being asserted. *** When a particular right comports especially well with our notions of good social policy, we build magnificent legal edifices on elliptical constitutional phrases —or even the white spaces between lines of constitutional text.” And perhaps the elimination of certain words that do not reconcile with the comfort of individuals either averse to performing their duty, or ideology that ignores past lessons.

Judge Kozinski continues, “The majority falls prey to the delusion—popular in some circles—that ordinary people are too careless and stupid to own guns, and we would be far better off leaving all weapons in the hands of professionals on the government payroll. But the simple truth—born of experience—is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people. Our own sorry history bears this out *** All too many of the other great tragedies of history— Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few—were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations.”

In his reference to the past, Judge Kozinski does not fail in his recognition that the primary goal of the second amendment is a requirement of law. “Many [of those tragedies] could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here.” In our fundamental law, the right of the People to keep and bear those arms most suitable to military service is paramount to restraining, or as established centuries ago, to “distress and harass” the governmentuntil the excess shall have been redressed, according to their verdict”.

Over decades the general public has been brainwashed. There is no other way of putting it. Somehow, after all the strife of bringing forth a free and open society, we’ve been led to believe that we can now place any trust in agencies of government. By trust I mean to enter a court of the realm that Judge Koszinski notes, use some constitutional provisions as springboards for major social change”. To ask agencies of government for permission to grant us license to defend ourselves in some inferior manner flies in the face of a nation “of the people, by the people, for the people”.

The individual by definition is but one against great odds, and it is not those who believe in the strength and force of unity who have been deceived, but rather those who ignore the facts of division and confusion who have been led down the path to defeat.

It is time that we drop the pretense that the few and scattered victories of individuals have overcome the relentless juggernaut of tyranny, or that acting in concert with compelling government interests, granted privileges, whims, fears, and false doctrine will maintain “a free state”.

It is our right, it is our duty “to execute the Laws of the Union” as “A well regulated militia”, and when the state abandons the rule of law as set by the People, it is your duty “To stand [y]our ground”.