Illinois House Resolution 855 seeks to distort the meaning of the Second Amendment and if you want to know where the statists want to take the country, just read this measure. They blame all gun violence on guns, not the perpetrators, and hope to convince the electorate that the Second Amendment is not an individual right. They want to take guns from law-abiding citizens.
The Amendment starts out by blaming the gang violence in Chicago on guns – an absurdity in of itself. It claims that the majority opinion of the Supreme Court justices in the Heller decision misread the intent of the Founding Fathers.
They then quote leftist US Supreme Court Justice Stevens:
“in his well-thought out dissent” in Heller  stating, “The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms.”
“Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.”; rather the Second Amendment’s original purpose nwas to act as a check on federal gun-making policy, not to prevent individual states from creating gun policy as they saw — would urge “the courts, especially the U.S. Supreme Court, to adhere to the clear wording of the Second Amendment being a right afforded to state sponsored militias and not individuals.”
Justice Stevens is the one who said we have no right to self-defense, we have the right to call 911.
The measure further states that Heller has resulted in the proliferation of firearms. One might differ on that and say it is Obama’s call to take away our rights under the Second Amendment that is causing the proliferation of firearms.
The bill blames gun sellers and manufacturers for crimes and wants them to pay.
It concludes that they want the establishment of Stevens’ version of the Second Amendment which eliminates the individual right to own a firearm.
The exact wording:
RESOLVED, BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE NINETY-NINTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, that we urge the courts, especially the United States Supreme Court, to restore interpretation of the Second Amendment as a right afforded to state-sponsored militias that as Justice Stevens stated in his Heller dissent, ” … it does not curtail the Legislature’s power to regulate the non-military use and ownership of weapons …”.
The Constitution is replete with proof that the Founding Fathers believed in the individual right to bear arms. It’s really outrageous that the leftists would warp the meaning of the Constitution.
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” ~Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” ~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 178
“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” ~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” ~Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
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.”
The Framers didn’t say, a militia regulated by Congress or state legislatures because they meant it to be regulated by the people to fight against an army of a tyrannical government.
The Federalists, urging passage of the Constitution by the States had committed themselves to the addition of the Bill of Rights, to serve as “further guards for private rights.” In that regard, the first ten amendments to the Constitution were designed to be a series of “shall nots,” telling the new national government again, in no uncertain terms, where it could not tread.
“Private rights” they wrote, not government rights.
George Mason, one of the Virginians refused to sign the Constitution when it lacked a Bill of Rights, said: “Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people.” Likewise, the Federal Farmer, one of the most important Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution, referred to a “militia, when properly formed, [as] in fact the people themselves.”
The Amendment itself says it is “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It means the people as individuals or as a group. It doesn’t mean the government.
This was confirmed by Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist, No. 29.
” . . . but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights . . . .”
Armed law-abiding citizens pose no threat and the Framers expected them to be able to form militias, well-regulated by them, to “insure domestic Tranquility” and “provide for the common defense.”
In a pamphlet pleading for ratification of the Constitution, Noah Webster wrote, “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe.”
George Mason told his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies’ recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch’s goal had been “to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
Illinois and Justice Stevens are talking about disarming the American people and confiscating their guns. This is the goal and this is where they hope to take us. The people who want to do this are the same control freaks who want to control every single aspect of our lives as we have seen over the last seven years.
Illinois, particularly Chicago, has the strictest gun laws in the nation. The only place to go from where they are is to gun confiscation and the demand for the end of individual gun ownership. That is what this law demands.
If this were to go to the Supreme Court of the United States, would Heller hold? We are one vote away from losing the Second Amendment.