What Guides My Path

June 16, 2019 | 2nd Amendment, Civil Liberties, Congress, Constitution, Founding Documents, General, Republic, Sovereignty

by Nicholas Testaccio

“I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.” – Patrick Henry, Richmond, Virginia
March 23, 1775

History tells us that men are more likely to sit quietly and suffer rather than to right the wrongs that are cast upon them. They make no allowance for what their docile attempts at reconciliation may have on their posterity. “Not a man lives on the continent but fully believes that a separation must some time or other finally take place, and a generous parent should have said, ‘If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace’; and this single reflection, well applied, is sufficient to awaken every man to duty.” – Thomas Paine

Over the years, I have been called many derogatory names for my stand on the Second Amendment. I’ve been called an idiot, a dolt, moron, and even a traitor. On more than one occasion I’ve been told to go back to my masters. Nope! I’ve not heard that from anyone who wants to take our guns, but rather supposed supporters of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. That group of so-called patriots, as far as I can tell, know little to nothing about the subject. They parrot much of the false doctrine promoted by groups such as the NRA, and GOA. In fact, I was asked to leave a group for speaking about what the Second Amendment clearly states; “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…” It does not go on to say that we mean only the individual, but in the context of the Law as the Framers knew it to be, the individual was ultimately responsible for acquiring and maintaining his “weapons of war”, in order to fulfill his requirement to be armed and trained in the Lawful Militia.

When I started my journey, the first thing I asked was, “What do those words, “A well regulated Militia” mean?” I was told by members of the NRA that they meant nothing. So, the men who debated, and understood the meaning of the words that they placed in the document, were what? Were the words irrelevant? Did someone say, let’s add some words to confuse people? Was the intent to make the document a twisted wrangle of unexplainable non-sense so the good People would eventually lose their rights?

The Constitution begins with “We the People”. It then goes on to delegate certain limited powers to the federal government and impose duties and restrictions on the States. So that the People are firmly in charge, the Framers clearly placed in our hands the authority to enforce the rule of law. Over the years, the judiciary, and its esquire’s have muddled what the Constitution clearly states. Warnings came from those who opposed the Constitution that the judiciary would usurp what the Framers enshrined, and then take justice from the people and centralize it to, what has become an oligarchy.

In debating the rule of law, I’ve noted over the years that it comes down to one recurring fault, the People have lost the concept of a free society in which they are the ultimate authority. It eludes even the most well read among us. In fact, they will argue assiduously for their own demise by citing every so-called expert who knows so little as to refer to this as a democracy wherein the branches of government should decide what the Constitution says.

Thomas Jefferson wrote the seminal document on the relationship between the people and the governments they form in order to protect their rights. To some this means that we have a body that dictates and enforces the law. In our form of government, what the Founders did was to create a vehicle for the legitimate enforcement of a set of rules that We the People have prescribed. The underlying fact is that government was never given any authority to prosecute without the overriding consent of the People. We have a Grand Jury that investigates a complaint in order to determine whether a wrong was committed. If that wrong can legitimately be established, and if that suit can be rectified to the satisfaction of the person who has been violated then justice is served.  

If the violation cannot be rectified, and the perpetrator is not readily within the grasp of a sheriff, or marshal, then the Militia is called forth “to execute the Laws of the Union”. Once the perpetrator is in custody, a Petit Jury is empaneled so that the facts, and the law may be examined in order to make a final determination of whether or not a harm has been inflicted, whether or not the accused is indeed the perpetrator, and if the facts reconcile the complaint.

In the case of some supposed crime against the State, in other words if a statute that originates from some limited authority granted by the People, then the Petit Jury also has the duty to examine the law, and make the determination on the constitutionality of the law in question. For it is We the People who are the author and source of the Law. As Justice Joseph Story wrote in his commentaries on the Constitution, “It is to be interpreted, as all other solemn instruments are, by endeavoring to ascertain the true sense and meaning of all the terms and we are neither to narrow them, nor to enlarge them, by straining them from their just and natural import, for the purpose of adding to, or diminishing its powers, or bending them to any favorite theory or dogma or party. It is the language of the people, to be judged of according to common sense, and not by mere theoretical reasoning. It is not an instrument for the mere private interpretation of any particular men. The people have established it and spoken their will; and their will, thus promulgated, is to be obeyed as the supreme law.”

This is a Constitutional Federal Republic despite the constant repeating of the term democracy. It is based on a series of laws that “The Senators and Representatives *** and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution”.

Within that document, to which our representatives, and including myself as a veteran have sworn an oath, reside the words, “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;”.

Patrick Henry recognized, from the lessons of history, that there were pitfalls in that no matter how clear the words in the manner understood by the delegates, there would be those who would distort and corrupt the rule of law. Under his leadership, the Virginia House demanded a Bill of Rights to place further restrictions and duties on the agencies of government. James Madison argued that it would be superfluous, but relented, and the Bill of Rights became a part of our system of law.

Within that Bill at Article II are the words “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 United States Constitution is a unified document that must be read in its entirety. It was written at the end of a bloody conflict, in which at least some of the signers of the Declaration of Independence had lost their lives, their families, or their wealth. While those they bequeath the duty to create a nation of independent and sovereign People were unsure of the architecture, none were unsure of the role and the Duty of Militia as a foundation for the enforcement, and the security of what they were about to lay down for their posterity.

As they set out on the task of creating this unique experiment, they defined the roles of the Legislature, the Executive, and the Judicial branches. Every branch was built from the ground up since they could not refer to history for its structure. Each received a specific set of instructions on how to perform their duties. What they had no need to elaborate was the militia. On April 19^th, in the year 1775, Seventy organized, armed, and disciplined Militia under Captain John Parker faced Seven Hundred of General Thomas Gage’s regulars on the Green at Lexington. On their retreat back to Boston the regulars were confronted by organized Militia from the various communities in their path.

What happened on April 19^th is legend, but it is nonetheless a fact of history that today’s supposed patriots in the second amendment community dismiss as something other than a pertinent aspect of our Rights, and Duties. It was the foundation for which men like Patrick Henry, and George Mason insisted upon as “necessary”. It was the basis for a free and Sovereign People never to be disposed to the convulsions, and corruptions created by the latter day proponents of a Constitution to be “interpreted”, and thereby invalidated with posturing on what the law should be, rather than what “the true sense and meaning of all the terms” meant in “the language of the people” at the time of the ratification.

There is nothing in the Constitution that should be changed without an amendment. There is nothing in the document that needed to be changed. The changes made were intended to weaken the authority of the People and centralize power. The changes made did not affect something that had been there before, or the changes that did were designed to move us away from the stature of a republic.

What I’ve found over the years is that a successful program has been instituted in order to control the narrative that would lead us to a condition, in which all our rights are fundamentally void. We are essentially a rudderless people who believe in all the tripe posted by those who have not the slightest inkling of the original intent, the principles, and the foundation. Those who profess to be or are lauded as constitutional scholars should know some of the fundamentals such as the fact that Article IV, Section 4 has not been amended. Article III does not give the judiciary, or any other body the authority to interpret the law, or for that matter grant immunity to those who step on the rights of the People.

At the heart of the issues we face today is a populace that has been convinced that a right can be regulated and licensed in some manner. The licensing of a right brings it to a condition that it has been converted to a privilege. Why anyone claiming the accolade of constitutional scholar would subscribe to such a blatant obstruction of our rule of law is beyond the pale. The word “unalienable” as it appears in our Declaration of Independence, and as it applies to all our Rights precludes any restrictions. The definition of “unalienable” in the common language of the day; “Not alienable; that cannot be alienated; that may not be transferred.”

Yet, government goes along attacking the rights of the People while claiming some compelling interest, or “[t]he State of New Jersey has, undoubtedly, a significant, substantial and important interest in protecting its citizens safety”, Id. at 437 (quoting United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. i739, 745 (1987)). There are at least two glaring issues with the District Court for New Jersey citing Salerno. First, and foremost, the U.S. Constitution places the Duty in the body of the People as “the Militia of the several States”. Militia, as the Framers experienced it were all able-bodied men organized, and armed with their own firearms, and recognized as the sole authority “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions”.

The law, and historical background surrounding the militia has not changed in more than Three Centuries. It has, however, been made irrelevant through agenda driven rules and regulations devised to muddle the authority, the structure, and thereby the ability of Militia to carry out their Duty and halt the ever-encroaching monstrosity of a government no longer of the People.

Simply put, the U.S. Constitution begins, “We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” By every measure possible, we have endeavored, and succeeded in violating the Preamble. The basic concepts of freedom and liberty as laid out in the Declaration of Independence rest on our ability to protect and defend the rule as set out in the Constitution. We limited the congress, the executive, and the judicial branches not simply through words, but rather by giving ourselves the only recognized authority “to execute the Laws of the Union”, but also by stating for our posterity what is “necessary to the security of a free State”. Over and above whatever acts, and judicial decrees may come our way, it is our responsibility to reconcile them in a manner that complies with the rules we originally set to Law.

If we are to wonder off into never-never land, where the rule can be changed to suit some agenda, we’ve established the fact that there is no rule that cannot be broken, there is no “security of a free State”, and ultimately, no security for ourselves or our posterity.

The establishment, and subsequent recognition in the Constitution of Militia were the commitment of every able-bodied man to protect his family, community, and ultimately the nation from the tumult that might occur. It was established as the force of the People to protect and defend, not only the country, but the rule of law that we determined would most likely keep us as a free, prosperous, and safe nation. It was meant to be the First line of Defense, not the last. It was meant as that measure of a People determined to keep their freedom, and thwart the corruption of those who seek power, and “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety…”