From Duty to be Armed to Permission to Carry

By  Publius Huldah   12/8/2017

“If the central government has the authority to tell a state it must accept permits from all the other states, then it also has the authority to tell a state it may not accept a concealed permit from any other states. If the central government can do these things it can set up a national concealed carry permit scheme and in essence bring into existence a national arms registry. That is exactly where this is headed.”

-Attorney Richard D. Fry ¹

Some are touting the federal Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (HR 38) as a bill which would expand our right to carry. But if you will walk with me for a few minutes, I’ll show you a better path to take.

Let us look at the applicable First Principles, to which I propose we return.

1. Gun control is not an enumerated power delegated to the federal government

Our federal Constitution doesn’t delegate to the federal government any power over the Country at Large ² to restrict our arms. Accordingly, all pretended federal laws, regulations, orders, opinions, or treaties which purport to do so are unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated. They are also unconstitutional as in violation of the Second Amendment.

The only power the federal government has over the Country at Large respecting arms is set forth at Article I, §8, clause 16 with respect to providing for the “organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia”. Pursuant to this clause, Congress passed the Militia Act of 1792 which required every able-bodied male citizen (with a few exceptions) between the ages of 18 and 45 to acquire a rifle, bayonet, ammo, ammo pouch, and report to his local Militia Unit for training. ³

2. What does your State Constitution say about the right to keep and bear arms?

Each State has its own Constitution which addresses its State Militia and the right to be armed.

Now listen: No State may lawfully make any law which contradicts its State Constitution or which interferes with Congress’ power to “organize, arm, and discipline, the Militia”.

Accordingly, any State Statute which purports to require a permit before one may carry a gun is probably unconstitutional under that State’s Constitution; and is certainly unconstitutional under the federal Constitution because Congress may lawfully require able-bodied male Citizens to acquire firearms and ammo and report to their local Militia Unit for training.

Do you see?

Now let’s look at Title 18, US Code, Part I, Chapter 44, which HR 38 proposes to amend.

3. Title 18, US Code, Part I, Chapter 44 is unconstitutional

It sets up a complex federal regulatory scheme over firearms, every word of which is unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated, and as in violation of the Second Amendment.

HERE it is, look through it (§§ 921-931).

4. What HR 38 actually does

HR 38 proposes to amend this existing federal regulatory scheme to insert a new provision [to be § 926 D] to require States which have a statute which permits residents of their State to apply for a permit [!] to carry a concealed firearm

to allow persons from other States:

· who aren’t prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms [!]; and

· who are carrying a photographic ID issued by a government body [!]; and

· who are carrying a concealed carry license or permit from the other State [!],

to possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or “destructive device”) which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

So, even though a State Constitution, such as that for Connecticut, ⁴ prohibits the State Legislature from making ANY laws restricting firearms (such as imposing requirements for registration, a permit, government issued photo ID), a Citizen of Connecticut who exercises his constitutionally recognized right to carry without registration or a permit or a government issued photo ID, wouldn’t qualify under HR 38 for concealed carry in another State.

To qualify for concealed carry in other States, the Citizen of Connecticut would need his State Legislature to pass a law [which is unconstitutional under the Connecticut and federal Constitutions], so that he could comply with an unconstitutional federal statute [HR 38], so that he could carry in other States which also would have to pass unconstitutional laws imposing permit requirements on those who carry concealed.

Do you see how a God-given right [self-defense] is thus converted into a privilege which is regulated, granted, or denied, by civil government?

HR 38 also provides that any person carrying a concealed handgun in a State under the reciprocity provisions may also carry concealed in the public parts of National Parks and certain other lands under federal control. Lest you think this a gain, consider that: (1) The Constitution doesn’t authorize the federal government to operate national parks and such like, and (2) the federal government has no lawful authority to impose registration requirements for carrying arms anywhere.

5. What’s the solution?

Read more at the Tenth Amendment Center

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.  
You can donate HERE.

The post From Duty to be Armed to Permission to Carry appeared first on Oath Keepers.

Convention Supporters’ Myths about State Control of Delegates – Publius Huldah

By Publius Huldah

Convention supporters assure us that the States will have control over Delegates to an Article V convention.

That is not true.

The Truth is States have no power over the convention at Art. V.  All they can do is “apply” to Congress for Congress to “call” a convention. THIS CHART by Judi Caler shows who has the power to do what respecting an Article V convention.

Delegates to an Article V convention are performing a federal function – they are not under the authority of the States.

Furthermore, Delegates are the sovereign representatives of The People and thus are vested with plenipotentiary powers to alter or abolish our form of government – our Constitution (Declaration of Independence, 2^nd para).

This has already happened once in our history:

At the Federal Convention of 1787, this plenipotentiary power was exercised to replace our first Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, with the Constitution we now have. On February 21, 1787, the Continental Congress called a convention “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”. But instead of proposing amendments to our first Constitution, the Delegates wrote a new Constitution – the one we now have.

Furthermore, the new Constitution had a new and easier mode of ratification: Article XIII of The Articles of Confederation (p 8-9) provided that Amendments to the Articles had to be approved by the Continental Congress and all of the then 13 States. But the new Constitution, drafted at the “amendments” convention of 1787, provided at Art. VII thereof that it would be ratified upon approval by only nine of the then existing 13 States.

And the Delegates to that convention disregarded the instructions of their States as well as the instructions of the Continental Congress.

So! Not only do Delegates to a national convention have this plenipotentiary power to impose a new Constitution; the precedent to do so has already been established.

It is child’s play to figure out how to get around State’s “faithful delegate” laws.  This is how to do it:

Delegates can vote to make the proceedings secret – that’s what they did on May 29, 1787 at the federal convention where our present Constitution was drafted.

• If the proceedings are secret, the States won’t know what is going on – and can’t stop it.


• And if Delegates vote by secret ballot – the States would never know who did what.

So!  Do you see?  It would be impossible for States to prosecute Delegates who ignore State instructions.

Is it any wonder that James Madison, and Supreme Court Justices Arthur J. Goldberg and Warren Burger said that Delegates to an Article V convention can’t be controlled?

When James Madison and two former US Supreme Court Justices have warned that delegates to an Article V convention can’t be controlled, it is wicked to dismiss their warnings as “fear mongering”.

Publius Huldah