Liberty or Laws? Government Enforces Their Laws – Who Shall Enforce the Constitution?

Liberty or Laws?
Government Enforces Their Laws – Who Shall Enforce the Constitution?

gov const balance

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 3, 2014


“Felony Possession of a Firearm” is the feds’ way of charging someone who is a convicted felon and possesses a firearm, which is found in 18 USC 922, at (g)(1). In two previous articles, we touched upon various aspects of that law. In “No bended knee for me” – the Charge against Robert Beecher, we addressed the interstate commerce aspect of that law. It explained that the law can only be properly applied if a person is directly involved in interstate or foreign commerce of a firearm, as any other interpretation would result in unequal justice under the law, whereby a citizen of one state might be able to have both firearms and ammunition, in another state, one might be able to only have ammunition or a firearm, and in the remainder of the states, one could possess neither firearm or ammunition.

In a subsequent article, Camp Lone Star – Massey & The Clash of Laws, we discussed the conflict between state and federal laws. The Constitution provides, in Article IV, § 4, that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”. Further, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, to wit:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This provides that if a power is not delegated to the United States, the state may consider it reserved for their disposition, and, when that is not applied, then the people retain the power.

Now, supposing that is the case, could the federal government, absent such delegated power, pass a law, or promulgate a rule (See The Bundy Affair – The Revenge of the BLM), that was Constitutional, or is it without jurisdiction – unless supported by another power or authority granted to the federal government? The “Clash of Laws” article refers to a Supreme Court decision, United States v Lopez 514 US 549 (1995), which removes any doubt as to whether the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, “To regulate Commerce … among the several States” (Art. I, §8, clause 3) allows that regulation to extend to any use, once removed from interstate commerce. The Court ruled, “To uphold the Government’s contention… would require this Court to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional Commerce Clause authority to a general police power of the sort held only by the States”. The Court, in declining to decide in the government’s favor, ruled that the government was unable to extend its “Commerce Clause authority” to encroach upon the authority reserved to the States.

So, that is two strikes against the federal government, in their intent to broaden their authority where it was never granted by the Constitution. Is it possible that there might be a third strike that would, without question, prohibit the federal government from imposing any limitation of the right to possess a firearm, leaving that power solely to the state government to do as they wish?

The first eight Amendments are prohibitions – things that the federal government cannot violate. Let’s start with the Second Amendment:

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.

Before we proceed, it might be worth understanding what the definition of the most significant word in that Amendment is. This definition is from Webster’s 1828 Dictionary — words as they were understood by the Founders.

infringe, v.t.
1. To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done.
2. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law.

infringed, pp. Broken; violated; transgressed.

Well, that is pretty clear that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” means that it is not within the granted powers and authorities granted to the federal government, for it to do “what is stipulated not to be done”.

That appears to be a good start, though we need to go a bit further to see if that infringement is contrary to a provision of U. S. Code that is very consistent with the Second Amendment, and in its provisions, does not exclude the right, under federal law, to possess a firearm — except, possibly, while directly involved in interstate or foreign commerce.

So, what about the militia? The government tells us how bad they are, but, what does United States Code (the Law of the Land, as per Art. VI, say about the militia? From 10 U.S.C. §311, et seq, pertinent parts:

   § 311 – Militia: composition and classes – tells us who is in the militia. “The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32 [note: this has to do with ages of officers], under 45 years of age…” It goes on to explain both organized and unorganized militia. The next section tells us who is exempt from the militia, to wit:

   § 312 : US Code – Section 312: Militia duty: exemptions

(a) The following persons are exempt from militia duty:

(1) The Vice President.

(2) The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.

(3) Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty.

(4) Customhouse clerks.

(5) Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail.

(6) Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the United States.

(7) Pilots on navigable waters.

(8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United States.

    (b) A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious holding of that belief is established under such regulations as the President may prescribe. However, such a person is not exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be noncombatant.

Nowhere in this law made in pursuance to the Constitution, specifically the Second Amendment, does it prohibit a convicted felon from being in the militia. In fact, it is mandatory, since he is not exempted, that he be within those defined as “unorganized”. So, ponder this; can someone be in the militia that is unable to possess a firearm? That would seem to be contrary to the Constitutional provision pertaining for the militia. only the most absurd reasoning could devise to argue against a person’s right to possess a firearm, with the exception of that portion that prohibits direct involvement in interstate or foreign commerce.

Article VI, clause 2 tells us “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereofshall be the supreme Law of the Land.” So, if a law is made in pursuance, as opposed to without such authority, it is Constitutional. Otherwise, it is not.

So, do we allow the judges, who are constantly subverting the Constitution by ruling contrary to its provisions, or adding their personal beliefs, as enforceable points of law, to continue to rule in such a manner? Or, do we, as Americans, have every right to read, interpret, so long as we don’t err in that interpretation, abide by, and enforce the law as was intended by the Founders? Moreover, does this right extend to the use of whatever force necessary to free those shackled by government efforts to quash the Constitution in such a manner as to grant them powers that are tyrannical?


Related articles:

Liberty or Laws? — Dealing with the Current Invasion

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Defense of the State

Liberty or Laws? — Militia in Aid of Our Neighbor

Liberty or Laws? — Immigration or Invasion

Liberty or Laws? — Treason Against the State

Liberty or Laws? — Government and Patriots Aiding and Abetting Criminal Activity

Liberty or Laws? — … and jealously guard our Liberties

Liberty or Laws? – Appeasement

Liberty or Laws? “Felon in Possession of a Firearm” is Not Legal or Lawful


  1. Tim Guiney says:

    Great job, Gary! I think you have exposed one of the most insidious methods the federal authoritarians have been using to subvert the US Constitution for many years!
    Funny how they have said that when you are convicted of a felony, you have lost your rights, but I have always wondered how you can lose the rights that innately belong to American citizens!
    This again, is their deviousness in action. They don’t just suspend those rights during incarceration, then upon release, they are automatically restored. Oh no, you must ask a judge (god with a little g!)if he will grant your request! How does a non-divine man restore the unalienable rights already granted by God! Who gave this douche-bag that power? I certainly did not! If asked, I would have certainly said no to that!
    This is an obvious usurpation of power by the federal government, that is NOT granted by the Constitution! And, this was done very long ago!

    • ghunt says:

      These laws were enacted in the 30s – the gangster era. Where a murderer, for the gangs, might get a sentence of five years, then be back out. It was to discourage him from rejoining the gang, or at least, not being armed.
      I don’t believe it was Constitutional then, at least at the federal level. Each state, though, under state law, might be able to enact such.
      My belief is that on a Jury, upon conviction, can impose any restriction on future use.

  2. Paul says:

    If the Felon were so bad, as to not be able to own another firearm ever, why were they released from prison ?
    My feeling is the time is served, the debt paid, released back into society because of rehabilitation or time served,
    All rights must be reinstated.
    Otherwise you have created a career criminal by leaving them bound in chains, designed to create failure at the very least.

  3. Do you really read those U.S.C. sections as ‘pursuant’ to the constitution?

    Militia is mentioned in two of the enumerated powers in Article I and once in Article II, Section 2.

    There is no reference to a militia “of the United States” only “of the several States.” Both Articles refer to the possibility of the militia being in the service of the United States, implying that at all other times the militia is in the service of the several states.

    If there were a militia of the United States, it would likely only comprise members from those districts where the Congress exercises exclusive legislation, such as the District of Columbia.

    While Congress could exempt persons within its jurisdiction, such as employees, I don’t see any power to define who is part of the militia. Each state constitution has a militia clause. How can an act of Congress override a state’s militia power? If it could, it could also disband the militia, which is what it did, in effect, do with the Dick Act (Militia Act of 1903). Do you believe the Dick Act, which federalized the militias of the several states, is ‘pursuant’ to the constitution?

    • ghunt says:

      I agree. However, that is a different subject (See A United States Militia). To bring that up in this article would have served no useful purpose, though it would have added length, and possible confusion.
      The point of the article is that according to their own code, the cannot apply “Felony Possession”, except, possibly, in the strict confines of the Commerce Clause.

  4. Kimo says:

    They did this slow, methodically, waited until all were basically having to work 24 7, so bound up with bills, so having to go so fast, they waited, until we the people, didn’t have as much time, freedom, to bring the hammer down. Now, we at at the critical point. we either stand, or go along. Mr. Hunt, has LEGALLY fought this soo long, i don’t make a pimple on his ass, but I dam sure understand him. My God almighty, we on on the edge of WWIII, and civil unrest. They waited for good men to get old, sick, they waited, like the song monster, they waited.

  5. Brian David says:

    This whole article is based on a false argument, the constitution does not apply to free people. What evidence do you have that the constiution applies to anyone just because they live in a land called America.

  6. […] a recent article, “Government Enforces Their Laws – Who Shall Enforce the Constitution?“, I raise a question that is now worthy of our consideration. If we want our birthright of […]

  7. […] IX. Government Enforces Their Laws: Who Shall Enforce the Constitution? [11/3/14] […]

Leave a Reply