Illinois Law Declares Second Amendment Is Not an Individual Right

17
Share

GrannyClampett-729655Illinois 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 [2008] 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.

Share

17 COMMENTS

  1. Justice Stevens can take a hike or watch his wife cuckolding . Try n take me guns but those you send to tread on me their lives are the cost.

    • THIS WAS SETTLED IN THE SUPREME COURT IN THE EARLY ‘1930S. THE ARGUMENT WAS THAT THE 2nd AMENDMENT GUN ISSUE ONLY APPLIED TO ARMING THE MILITIA…. FDR’S FRIENDS WERE SHUT DOWN SO QUICKLY BY THE SUPREME COURT IT MADE THEM DECIDE TO PACK THE COURT. FDR ALMOST DID.

    • I don’t understand why people don’t understNd exactly what you just said. A state can’t do away with anything on a federal matter.

  2. The time is near. Soon we will take to the streets and kill these traitors and replenish the tree of liberty. I for one can’t wait to make them pay for infringing on my liberty. Make no mistake I will not hesitate. I will give no mercy to my enemy. The rules of engagement do not apply here. So go ahead and try and you will see. Molon labe .

  3. “We are one vote away from losing the Second Amendment”… and one made add, the start of the Second Civil War between the States.

  4. Very simple answer: throw out all gun control laws other than background checks and imprison all Democratic Party politicians in Illinois at Guantanamo on charges of sedition, conspiracy, and treason.

  5. Why don’t we build a wall around COOK county and force them out of the state?! We could tell them to raise their own damn tax money, pay for their own damn entitlements and either form the 51st state or we will sell them to Quebec.

  6. The Supreme Court answered this challenge when Chicago was told their gun ban was unconstitutional and again when concealed carry was shoved down Illinois’ throat. This will go no where.

  7. We are always told by the statists+their talking heads in the corporate owned mainstream media what the original framers intent was or what they really meant. What do I think? Why not go straight to the source?
    Some select quotes that surely translate to INDIVIDUALS OWNING FIREARMS, PERIOD regardless of any association with a militia which despite explicit knowledge of these in our Constitution the clearly overreaching Federal behemoth now regards as domestic terrorists. In fact anyone who has the courage and speak any truth that contradicts Federal Govt lies with TRUTH is a suspected terrorist. The ever growing list of reason being used to deny citizens their rights to firearms be they disabled (in the most need for self defense due to physical limitations), veterans (who’ve earned it more than anyone), Patriots and Constitutionalists and anti-UN schemers. It adds up to a paranoid govt who is afraid of THE PEOPLE and for good reason, they are corrupt and do not represent THE PEOPLE in any way shape or form, they rather support their contributors and special interest lobbyists to the DETRIMENT of THE PEOPLE. The last time THE PEOPLE were TAXED W/OUT REPRESENTATION there was a tad bit of blow-back i think is the terminology.

    “The great object is, that every man be armed … Every one who is able may have a gun.”
    — Patrick Henry

    “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the WHOLE people, except for a few public officials.”
    — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution

    “Whereas, to preserve liberty, IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT THE WHOLE BODY OF THE PEOPLE ALWAYS POSSESS ARMS, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.”
    –Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

    *To this day VA Constitution states that all able bodied MEN ARE THE MILITIA.

    Are there any attorneys present who are on the side of THE PEOPLE? IF so please advise THE PEOPLE towards convening a grand jury to charge and indict these individuals who introduce such blatant seditious actions against our NON-NEGOTIABLE BILL OF RIGHTS into OUR legislature when it is clearly well over a majority who want nothing to do with such bills and their CONSTANT usurpation. In some municipalities and counties, up to >80% do NOT support bans on ‘assault guns’ whatever the heck that mean, nobody w/ a brain calls a rifle an assault weapon. A machine gun? Ok, probably, but a RIFLE, NOW EVEN A PISTOL? ludicrous! The CONTINUAL assault against the Bill of Rights must cease now, and the propaganda/false narrative of an epidemic of gun violence. Google the FBI UCR the govts own gold standard an you find the murder rate down 50% over the past 20 yrs FACT. That the actual wording is perverted on CNN and other mainstream narratives calling for an end to gun violence which includes not only suicide but ACCIDENTS into the mix GROSSLY OVERSTATING THE chance of ever being involved in a shooting incident, esp if one avoids gun free zones!

  8. “Justice Stevens is the one who said we have no right to self-defense, we have the right to call 911.”
    Funny he can make that claim when the police have no obligation to protects its citizens.

Comments are closed.