PA Bill Number: HB829
Title: In preliminary provisions, further providing for definitions;
Description: An Act amending the act of April 12, 1951 (P.L.90, No.21), known as the Liquor Code, in preliminary provisions, further providing for definitions;
Last Action: Signed in House
Last Action Date: Jul 3, 2024
Does the Government have a subrogatable right to regulate us? :: 06/14/2019
The general misconception is that any statue passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for a law which violates the Constitution to be valid. This is succinctly stated as follows: "All law which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."
Mardbury vs. Madison, 5 us (2 cranch) 137, 174, 176 (1803) "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491. “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” These simple words set a clear standard on the governments inability to infringe on our right to own firearms.
The right existed prior to the formation of the government and was in no way granted to the people by the government. As such, the Second Amendment is a restriction on the government and is not in any form a privilege granted to the people. The Supreme Court ruled in Mardbury vs Madison that “No provision of the Constitution is designed to be without effect,” “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law." As such, any control or restriction placed over a particular firearm is an Infringement on the people. Anything that prevents citizens from purchasing a firearm or requires them to turn in their weapons goes directly against the Second Amendment. Further, current laws involving a permit or license to purchase, possess or carry are unconstitutional. This was made clear by Murdock vs. Pennsylvania: "A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution…No state may convert any secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it.” The Second Amendment is very much a secured liberty.
Also, the Supreme Court clearly ruled in Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham that "If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it, you can ignore the license and fee and engage the right with impunity.” The fact that these unconstitutional laws can be ignored was also made clear by the Supreme Court in Norton v. Shelby, “An unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protections, it creates no office. It is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it has never been passed.” This sets a clear standard that any law regarding a constitutional can be ignored.
With regard to trying a citizen it is important to remember Byars vs. the United States in which it was ruled that "Constitutional provisions for the security of person and property are to be liberally construed, and “it is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon.”" This decision was also clearly upheld in the decision of Boyd vs. The United States “The Court is to protect against encroachment of constitutionality or secured liberty.” For the people, remember that when you are brought in front of officers of the court that officers of the court have no immunity when violating constitutional right, from liability. To summarize, the court has to uphold the Second Amendment (and any constitutional liberty) liberally in favor of the beneficiary of the constitution – which is the people. Any officer of the court that fails to do so is liable for violating the people’s constitutional rights.
A few other things that need to be said in this discussion ... Government interests about public safety, no matter how "legitimate" they claim to be, still don't obviate my right to privacy, nor my right to conduct a trade or purchase firearms, or any other good or service, sans government interference. "Public Safety" like "Regulate Commerce" are ill-defined terms that lend themselves to creep and for which there is no subrogatable right to regulate.
Finally ... Furthermore, the federal government nowhere in the Constitution granted authority to restrict, in any fashion whatsoever, guns, ammunition, etc. Thus, all laws made by Congress, all regulations made by the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, and Tobacco (BAFT), are unconstitutional as outside the scope of the powers granted to Congress and to the Executive Branch by our Constitution. Regulation of arms and ammunition is not one of the “enumerated powers” delegated to Congress or the Executive Branch. Furthermore, all pretended regulations made by the BAFT are also unconstitutional as in violation of Article 1, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution, which vests all legislative powers granted by the Constitution in Congress. Executive agencies have no lawful authority whatsoever to make rules or regulations of general application to The People! In addition, the President and the Senate may not lawfully by treaty do anything the Constitution does not authorize them to do directly. Since the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to disarm us, the federal government may not lawfully do it by treaty.
A special thanks goes out to Son-of-Liberty on Twitter for the use of his amazing words of wisdom.
Be sure to follow us on our social media pages, like Twitter, Parler, and FaceBook And by all means, subscribe to our channel at Full30 You can also subscribe to our Blog Email list on the right side of this page.
I want to thank you all for taking the time to read this.
Dan
