Six years ago today, the second-deadliest act of mass murder to happen at a U.S. school tragically unfolded itself on Virginia Tech’s Blacksburg campus. On April 16^th, 2007 in the early morning light, Seung-Hui Cho armed himself with a Glock 19 (9mm) and a Walther P22 (.22 caliber) and proceeded to murder 32 Virginia Tech students and staff before taking his own life. He also injured 17 people, in addition to 6 students who were injured when they jumped from windows in an escape effort.

Unfortunately, this calamity, like so many others, has not led to better public discourse on the issue of gun control. Recent tragedies like the one at Sandy Hook Elementary School haven’t led to a better conversation about the efficacy – or lack thereof – of restrictive gun control, either.

Instead, proponents of gun control use these tragedies as opportunities—opportunities to make an emotional appeal for more gun control while casually avoiding the true debate: whether or not gun control and concealed carry policies actually prevent gun violence.

Victim Parent Holly Adams Opposes Stricter Gun Control
Holly Adams is the mother of Leslie Sherman, one of the victims in the Virginia Tech massacre. Although gun control proponents are quick to point out when parents of victims agree with their cause, Adams is an example of the opposite: someone who recognizes that the gun control issue is more complex than the simple banning of guns. In fact, Adams herself has labeled the movement for more gun control on campuses as “unfortunate.”

“Would the other parents of victims be forever thankful if a professor or student was allowed to carry a firearm and could have stopped Seung-Hui Cho before their loved one was injured or killed? I would be.“ Holly went on to explain the likelihood of prevention, had law-abiding citizens been armed during the Virginia Tech massacre. “I also suspect that the tragedy may not have occurred at all if Cho knew that either faculty members or students were permitted to carry their own weapons on campus.”

Her views reflect the views of many pro-gun advocates who believe that having more guns in the hands of good, law-abiding citizens is the only real way to prevent similar mass murders in the future. It is, after all, the law-abiding citizens who remain the only one to honor restrictive gun laws.

Preventing Campus Violence
Preventing this kind of violence on campuses is of particular concern to American parents. Liberty University(LU) now allows students with valid concealed carry licenses and special permission from LU to carry guns into buildings and classrooms. Pro-gun advocates believe that allowing students to defend themselves with this kind of force might be the difference between a large-scale shooting and an averted disaster.

Holly Adams’ commitment to protecting students runs deep: “I would give anything if someone on campus; a professor, one of the trained military or guardsman taking classes or another student could have saved my daughter by shooting Cho before he killed our loved ones. ”

“Gun-Free” Zones
It’s unfortunate how many crimes happen in gun-free zones. In gun-free zones, law-abiding citizens are disarmed while criminals ignore the rules. The end result is not that everyone is disarmed, but only that those who would avert a disaster are disarmed.

Liberty University’s strategy allowing students to carry weapons into classrooms may just be the experiment in school safety that the nation needs to return to rational views on gun control. As Holly Adams demonstrates, you can be emotionally invested in the gun control debate and still recognize which strategies work—and which laws simply disarm the law-abiding citizens.

Carrie is an avid 2^nd Amendment supporter who works for RYP Marketing, a Blacksburg web design and internet marketing company. In her spare time, Carrie enjoys biking, running and hiking through the breath-taking mountains of Virginia. You can follow Carrie on Twitter: @rypcarrie

Is it any different when it comes to carrying a gun? Do you know when you’re going to get robbed? Murdered? Only carry your gun on the days you know you’re going to get murdered or there is going to be another Virginia Tech massacre. Nope, you better carry your gun every time you set foot out your front door. You never know when a drug-crazed guy is gonna shoot you for a few bucks.

On February 20th in Woodbridge, VA, Gregory Holley was walking his dog around 9:40pm when he was approached by another man, Aric Smith. In the short encounter, Aric shot Gregory and robbed him. Gregory was unarmed. He was completely unable to defend himself.

Responding police officers were able to quickly apprehend the shooter, due to witnesses seeing a man flee the scene. Long story short, Aric Smith was booked for first degree murder, armed robbery and using a firearm in commission of a felony.

It was later discovered that the firearm used in the murder had been reported stolen from a vehicle in Monclair just 5 days earlier.

While it’s great the bad guy was quickly arrested, this doesn’t help Gregory Holly very much. I doubt he knew his fate when he stepped out his front door for a walk in the icy-cold evening air. If he had known what awaited him down the road, might he have grabbed a gun for protection?

Carrie Thompson is an avid 2nd amendment supporter who believes everyone should protect themselves. Carrie is a regular contributor to AJGraves.com, an alternative news source for Libertarians, Tea Party Activists, Ron Paul supporters and freedom lovers. Follow Carrie on Google+.

How can you possibly make a decision?!

1. Choose Your Carry Method

While it may seem illogical to start by choosing how to carry your gun, this will directly influence the gun you’ll need. Personally, I’m not a fan of off-body carry methods such as purses, briefcases, folders, etc. My philosophy is it’s too easy for an assailant to disarm you. Then, not only are you defenseless, you’ve just armed your attacker. If you do choose to carry in a purse your options for a gun will be much wider as you can have a larger frame gun. Concealment will also be much easier.

On-body carry, which is the only way I carry, offers a variety of methods include inside the waistband(IWB) at the small of your back, bra holsters, thigh holsters, underarm holsters, bellybands, outside the waistband (OWB) hip holsters, pocket holsters and ankle holsters.

Personally, I think the best options are in the small of your back (the gun is tucked into the back of your pants), thigh holster or a bra holster. As a woman, tucking a gun in your clothes without it printing can be tricky. Your body  may determine your carry method. If you have back problems, don’t choose a small-of-the-back holster. If you have circulation issues in your legs, you don’t want a thigh holster.

2. What Caliber Gun is Best?

I can’t recommend carrying a .22 for self-defense, but I don’t suggest carrying a .45 ACP either as that’s not practical for me, as a woman. Personally, I carry a 9mm – it’s the perfect middle ground between a round with enough force to stop practically any threat and yet it allows me to carry a smaller frame gun. Thus, I have a very practical gun that I can easily conceal. .380′s are popular, especially among women, as they have decent stopping power, but are a smaller gun. Check out this handy guide for choosing the best caliber for self defense. Regardless of the caliber of gun you buy, remember that any gun is better than no gun.

Once you’ve decided your carry method, that helps narrow down your guns options further. If you choose to carry in the Flashbang Holster (bra holster), you’ll mostly be limited to a .22 or .380. The thigh holster (which is really only practical for concealing with skirts or baggy shorts), would allow you to carry with a small frame 9mm, .380 or a .22. The small-of-your-back carry option probably would allow you to carry with a slightly larger frame gun. However, remember that the larger the gun, the looser your shirts must fit.

3. What Makes a Gun “Good”?

The particular gun you choose needs to be one that:

• Fits your hand – if you can’t properly hold the gun and pull the trigger, you won’t be able to control it. Also, shooting a gun that is too big for your hand can cause your trigger finger to hurt from being stretched too far or the thumb joint to ache, due to the recoil hitting your hand at the wrong spot.
• You can control – if you can’t shoot the gun and have some level of control, don’t buy that gun. Keep looking. While recoil is normal and to be expected, especially among smaller frame guns, you need to be able to hit your target.
• Must be reliable – research a gun online before buying it. Read reviews. Ask your local gun shop for advice.
• Check the trigger pull – Each gun has a weight on the trigger, measured in pounds. In other words, pulling the trigger is like lifting that much weight. Most Glocks have about a 5 lb pull, while a Ruger LC9 is 7 lbs. The Ruger P90 (full size .45 ACP) is 11 lbs. Usually this info can be found on the manufacturer’s website on a specifications sheet. I would suggest a 5-7 lb pull, but try some guns out. See what is best for you.

4. Semi-Auto or a Revolver?

It’s a hot debate and everyone has their own opinion as to which is best. Those who love revolvers exclaim, “If you can’t solve the problem with six shots, you probably can’t solve the problem.” There is some merit to that, but I don’t like revolvers because they are wider than semi-autos, for the most part. Thus, they are harder for me to conceal. Revolvers are easier to clean, require less maintenance than semi-autos and almost never jam when firing.

Semi-auto lovers respond with, “No one who has ever been in a gunfight said they wished they had a smaller gun or fewer bullets.” More bullets certainly doesn’t hurt, but if you can’t hit your target it doesn’t really matter how much ammo you have. Being a good shot and carrying a gun you can handle is more important.

Semi-autos aren’t difficult to take apart and clean, especially if you watch a YouTube video that shows you step-by-step directions. Semi-autos can hold more rounds and because they are thinner than revolvers, they are often more concealable. While semi-autos can jam a bit more than revolvers, clearing a jam isn’t hard. (Note: I’ve only had a semi-auto jam a few times and that was the non-factory ammo’s fault, not the gun’s.) If you buy a good quality gun and use dependable ammo, I wouldn’t be concerned about your gun jamming.

Read more on the differences, pros and cons for semi-autos vs. revolvers here.

How I Do It

I carried a Glock 23 (.40) for over a year in Crossbreed’s SuperTuck Delux holster, which I carried in the small of my back. It’s possible, but difficult. The worst part is dressing even remotely stylishly when you’re packing a gun that big. Winter isn’t hard because you just add a jacket to your outfit, but summer concealment is overwhelmingly hard. I eventually switched to Crossbreed’s MiniTuck holster with a Ruger LC9 (the smallest single-stack 9mm on the market, I believe).

When you’re carrying in the small of your back, the hardest problem is not the length of the gun, but rather the width. A Gock 23 is 1.18 inches wide, while the Ruger LC9 is 0.75. That’s a night and day difference – I can wear pretty much any non-spandex t-shirt with my Ruger and it just disappears. Not so with my Glock – I have to wear baggy, non-clingy shirts. So keep the width and overall length of your gun in mind when shopping – it makes a bigger difference than you might think!

As you consider your options remember that whatever gun you buy, you must be happy with it. If you don’t like your gun or carry method, you’re unlikely to actually carry the gun on a daily basis. What is the point of having the ideal gun, if it’s not practical for you to carry?

Carrie Thompson is an avid 2^nd amendment supporter who believes everyone should protect themselves, women included. Carrie is a regular contributor to AJGraves.com, an alternative news source for Libertarians, Tea Party Activists, Ron Paul supporters and freedom lovers. Follow Carrie on Google+.

I think most of us have.

Maybe a dropped tray in a middle school lunchroom or perhaps a hopelessly mangled musical performance that left you wishing that some poor soul could be granted a “do over.”

I have to say, after witnessing the television news coverage of the President’s State of the Union Address, my usual contempt for the mainstream media has been tinged with outright pity.

For a solid hour this past Tuesday, America listened to the President lay out his State of the Union.  In his vaunted speech, he refused to cut spending in spite of our nation’s 16 trillion dollar debt, pledged to use executive orders as a way to get around congress and our terribly inconvenient constitution, and blamed the violence in our society on the fact that too many law abiding citizens own firearms.

He forgot to mention the extra-constitutional violence he is visiting on people around the globe in his self-appointed role as America’s drone-happy executioner-in-chief.

And what was the big story our nation’s media elite took away from all this?

Senator Marco Rubio wet his whistle while delivering the Republican response.

Yes, he actually took a sip from a bottle of water because his throat was dry. There are some scandals that are so heinous, they simply cannot be ignored. It is enough to make one long for the days of Rather, Brokaw and Jennings, when liberals were at least smart enough to contrive plausible justifications for undermining people with whom they disagreed.

While I say some of these things with tongue in cheek, it is a gravely serious situation.

Ever since the days of Joseph Stalin leftists have made up for their bankruptcy of ideas by using media control to influence public opinion.

But we are supposed to be different, this is America.

Not only does our constitution include provisions that inhibit the consolidation of political power, but in years past we could also count on the news media to serve as a backstop to check the ambitions of would-be tyrants.

That educated journalists – members of a once respected profession – would trade in their roles as public watchdogs for that of sycophantic groupies is incredibly disappointing. While this is bad news regarding the state of journalism in our country, it, ironically, may be good news for the American People because it exposes the fact that the elite media has run totally dry on both ideas and creativity.

The days when somber and heavily browed liberal reporter Sam Donaldson routinely lobbed scud missiles at President Reagan’s press conferences has given way to an era in which our current media professionals are reduced to running around in hapless circles firing cap pistols into the air (MSNBC showed the clip of Senator Rubio sipping water 155 times in one day – no joke).

The utter silliness of the left leaning media will hopefully create an opportunity for objective “just the facts” style news agencies to make a comeback.

While our nation’s people may be obsessed with Disney World, Hollywood and reality TV, our mainstream media is on the verge of becoming too absurd for anyone with half a brain to take seriously.

First, a quick disclaimer… this blog post is just sharing ideas and thoughts on the subject. This is in no way meant to be legal advice. Also, if you’re a felon or mentally deranged, click the “x” button on your browser now.

Now, on with the program.

Because there are so many little details, it might be easier to give a quick answer, then follow up with the background and details you might need.

To get your concealed carry permit, here are the steps:

1. Demonstrate competency by taking a gun safety or instruction class.
2. Complete the Application for Concealed Carry Permit.
3. Drop off the proof of competency, your completed application and application fee at your county court house.

That’s it!

But depending on where you live, there may be some important considerations…

First, I should give passing attention to the reasons behind getting a concealed carry permit. There are many, and most of the time you don’t need a particular reason. I chose to get my CCW more for a political statement than anything else. Still, there are occasions when I like to be protected.

But for some states, your reason for wanting to exercise your Second Amendment right is important. In New York, for example, the state can require that you prove your need to carry a gun.

(We’ll address the constitutional issue in another post. The short version is that the right to bear arms is right there in the Constitution. Three men deciding that right doesn’t apply to some people is outright tyranny.)

Just understand that while Virginia does not have any requirements that you prove need, your state might. Be sure to look it up. Your State Police website is usually a good place to start.

Details About Getting A Concealed Carry Permit

The process works like this:

1) Take a Concealed Carry Permit Class

Here is the list put out by the Virgnia State Police…

• Completing any hunter education or hunter safety course approved by the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries or a similar agency of another state;
• Completing any National Rifle Association firearms safety or training course;
• Completing any firearms safety or training course or class available to the general public offered by a law-enforcement agency, junior college, college, or private or public institution or organization or firearms training school utilizing instructors certified by the National Rifle Association or the Department of Criminal Justice Services;
• Completing any law-enforcement firearms safety or training course or class offered for security guards, investigators, special deputies, or any division or subdivision of law enforcement or security enforcement;
• Presenting evidence of equivalent experience with a firearm through participation in organized shooting competition or current military service or proof of an honorable discharge from any branch of the armed services;
• Obtaining or previously having held a license to carry a firearm in this Commonwealth or a locality thereof, unless such license has been revoked for cause;
• Completing any firearms training or safety course or class, including an electronic, video, or on-line course, conducted by a state-certified or National Rifle Association-certified firearms instructor;
• Completing any governmental police agency firearms training course and qualifying to carry a firearm in the course of normal police duties; or
• Completing any other firearms training which the court deems adequate.

It is noteworthy that this list may seem scary, but when you really read through it, the requirement is really simple.

Also note that when you go to sign up for a concealed carry permit class, different gun ranges and shops will have different requirements. Some are very strict and some are very easy. It is left up to you to decide what you need. In Virginia, your demonstrated competence could be as simple as watching a 45 minute video and answering 10 questions, or as comprehensive as a full day class with a couple hours of range time. Exercise good judgement here.

Once you have your training, make sure you get a copy of the certificate.

2) Visit your County Courthouse for a Concealed Carry Permit

You can prepare yourself for your visit by completing the Application for Concealed Carry Permit. Form SP-248 is required in Virginia. BUT… In Prince William County, for example, they have a computer set up for you to fill out the form right there in court building. If you call the Court Clerk, they will tell you if you need to have the form filled out ahead of time. Again, it’ll be different in every county in every State.

3) Deliver your certificate demonstrating your competence (your class certificate), the application required and the application fee ($50 in Virginia) and you’re done.

In Virginia, the Court Clerk told me to expect a 6-8 week wait, but my concealed carry permit came in just under four weeks.

Who Can’t Get A Concealed Carry Permit?

There are some people who are not allowed to even apply for a concealed carry permit. The Commonwealth of Virginia has 20 categories of people who are not eligible to apply for a concealed carry permit. You can read the entire list, but the main reasons include:

• If you’ve been convicted of a felony
• If you have a felony charge pending
• If you have received treatment for mental illness or substance abuse
• If you’ve been convicted of dealing drugs

These are the big reasons you may not be eligible, but there are a ton more and even these reasons have all kinds of additional qualifiers and conditions. You really need to read the state police website for yourself.

So, to recap…

What Happens After You Get Your Concealed Carry Permit

First, take a class that demonstrates your competence in using a firearm.

Second, fill out your State’s application, easily found online.

Third, visit your county courthouse and submit your competence certificate and applicate, and pay your application fee.

There is a HUGE amount of information you should know about what to do after you get your concealed carry permit. Laws in every state are different and it is up to you to know and understand the laws where you live. There are laws that apply to individual counties, cities, and municipalities. A great resource is the Virginia Gun Owner’s Guide. Buy this book! The book is careful to point out that you should still do your homework and learn the laws in your neighborhood.

• Nobody needs more than 7 bullets to protect himself
• Nobody needs assault weapons
• The People couldn’t stand up to the military anyway
• Too many kids get killed by guns
• We have to do something

This is only a partial list.  I’m sure you have no problem coming up with all the reasons we’re told we don’t need to be armed.

It doesn’t take much to kill this entire (stupid) line of thinking.  After all, it has nothing to do with need.  Bearing arms is a right, given to us by God and codified by the document we the People created.

To thinking people, this should be enough.

But alas, it is not.

Gun control is not about guns.  It is about control.  When people have no way of defending themselves against tyranny, tyranny is free to reign.  Totalitarianism has killed tens of millions of people over the past century.  In every case, totalitarianism was preceded by a systematic disarming of the people.  Every case.  Hitler, Mao, and scores of other despots disarmed and then murdered millions of people.

This has nothing to do with hunting, sporting or how many bullets I need.  It has everything to do with protecting a right.  When man becomes the arbiter of rights, we effectively have no rights.  Our rights are inherent in our humanity.  Our rights were given to us by our Creator.  Private property, the freedom to speak, think and to protect ourselves is a right granted to us naturally.  It cannot be modified or removed by another man.

Bill Whittle sums it up nicely…

Nullification deniers such as Matthew Spalding of Heritage Foundation, Jarrett Stepman of Human Events, law professor Randy Barnett, David Barton of Wallbuilders, and history professor Allen C. Guelzo, say that nullification by States of unconstitutional acts of the federal government is unlawful and impossible. They make the demonstrably false assertions that:

• States don’t have the right to nullify unconstitutional acts of the federal government because our Constitution doesn’t say they can do it;
• Nullification is literally impossible;
• The supreme Court is the final authority on what is constitutional and what is not; and The States and The People must submit to whatever the supreme Court says; and
• James Madison, Father of Our Constitution, opposed nullification.

Their assertions contradict our Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers, our federal Constitution, and what James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton really said.

What are the Two Conditions Precedent for Nullification?

The deniers seem unaware of the two conditions our Framers saw must be present before nullification is proper and possible. These conditions are important – you will see why!:

• The act of the federal government must be unconstitutional – usually a usurpation of a power not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution; and
• The act must be something The States or The People can “nullify”- i.e., refuse to obey: the act must order them to do something or not do something.

What is “Interposition” and What is “Nullification”?

A State “interposes” when it stands between the federal government and The Citizens of the State in order to protect them from the federal government. Interposition takes various forms, depending on the circumstances. Hamilton refers to interposition in Federalist No. 33 (5^th para):

“If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard [the Constitution] they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify.” [emphasis mine]

“Nullification” is one form of interposition. Now! Here are three highly relevant illustrations:

When the act of the federal government is unconstitutional and orders The States or The People to do – or not do – something, nullification is the proper form of interposition.

When the act of the federal government is unconstitutional, but doesn’t order The States or The People to do – or not do – something (the alien & sedition acts), nullification is not possible. The States may interpose by objecting, as in The Virginia & Kentucky Resolutions of 1798.

When the act of the federal government is constitutional, but unjust (the Tariff Act of 1828), the States may not nullify it; but may interpose by objecting and trying to get the Tariff Act changed.

Our Founding Principles in a Nutshell

In order to understand The Right of Nullification, one must also learn the Founding Principles set forth in The Declaration of Independence (2^nd para). Then one can see that “when powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act” ¹ is “the natural right, which all admit to be a remedy against insupportable oppression.” ² These Principles are:

1. Rights come from God;
2. People create governments;
3. The purpose of government is to secure the rights God gave us; and
4. When a government We created seeks to take away our God given rights, We have the Right – We have the Duty – to alter, abolish, or throw off such government.

Let us look briefly at these Principles:

1. Our Declaration of Independence (2^nd para) recognizes that God is the grantor of Rights. So Rights don’t come from the Constitution, the supreme Court or the federal government.

2. The Preamble to our Constitution shows that WE THE PEOPLE created the federal government. It is our “creature.” Alexander Hamilton says this in Federalist Paper No. 33 (5^th para); and Thomas Jefferson, in his draft of The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 (8^th Resolution). As our “creature,” it may lawfully do only what WE authorized it to do in our Constitution.

We created a “federal” government: An alliance of Sovereign States ³ associated in a “federation” with a national government to which is delegated supremacy over the States in few and defined areas only. James Madison says in Federalist No. 45 (9^th para):

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which … concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” [boldface mine]

Do you see? We delegated only “few and defined” powers to the federal government. These are the “enumerated powers” listed in the Constitution. ⁴

These enumerated powers concern:

• Military defense, international commerce & relations;
• Control of immigration and naturalization of new citizens;
• Creation of a uniform commercial system: Weights & measures, patents & copyrights, money based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, mail delivery & some road building; and
• With some of the Amendments, protect certain civil rights and voting rights (for blacks, women, citizens who don’t pay taxes, and citizens 18 years and older).

It is only with respect to the enumerated powers that the federal government has lawful authority over the Country at large. All other powers are “reserved to the several States” and The People.

3. Our Constitution authorizes the federal government to secure our God-given Rights in the following ways:⁵

It is to secure our rights to life and liberty by:

• Military defense (Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 11-16);
• Laws against piracy and other felonies committed on the high seas (Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 10);
• Protecting us from invasion (Art IV, Sec. 4);
• Prosecuting traitors (Art III, Sec. 3); and
• Restrictive immigration policies (Art. I, Sec. 9, cl. 1).

It is to secure our property rights by:

• Regulating trade & commerce so we can produce, sell & prosper (Art. I, Sec. 8, cl.3). The original intent of the interstate commerce clause is to prohibit States from levying tolls & taxes on articles of commerce as they are transported thru the States for buying & selling.
• Establishing uniform weights & measures and a money system based on gold & silver (Art I, Sec. 8, cl. 5) – inflation via paper currency & fractional reserve lending is theft!
• Punishing counterfeiters (Art I, Sec. 8, cl. 6);
• Making bankruptcy laws to permit the orderly dissolution or reorganization of debtors’ estates with fair treatment of creditors (Art I, Sec 8, cl. 4); and
• Issuing patents & copyrights to protect ownership of intellectual labors (Art I, Sec 8, cl 8)

It is to secure our right to liberty by:

• Laws against slavery (13^th Amendment);
• Providing fair trials in federal courts (4^th, 5^th, 6^th, 7^th, and 8^th Amendments); and
• Obeying the Constitution!

This is how our federal Constitution implements The Founding Principle that the purpose of government is to secure the rights God gave us.

4. The fourth Founding Principle in our Declaration is this: When government takes away our God given rights, We have the Right & the Duty to alter, abolish, or throw off such government. Nullification is thus a natural right of self-defense:

Thomas Jefferson said:

“… but where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non foederis,) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them…” ⁶ [boldface mine]

James Madison commented on the above:

“… the right of nullification meant by Mr. Jefferson is the natural right, which all admit to be a remedy against insupportable oppression…” ⁷

Alexander Hamilton says in Federalist No. 28 (5^th para from end):

“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success …” [boldface mine]

Hamilton then shows how The States can reign in a usurping federal government:

“…the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority…”

Do you see?

But the nullification deniers do not see because, in addition to their apparent unfamiliarity with the original source writings on nullification (as well as The Federalist Papers), they reject, or do not understand, the Founding Principle that Rights pre-date & pre-exist the Constitution and come from God. Nullification is not a paltry “constitutional right!” It has a hallowed status – it is that natural right of self-defense which pre-dates & pre-exists the Constitution.

Now, let us look at the false assertions made by the nullification deniers.

False Assertion 1:

That States can’t nullify unconstitutional acts of the federal government because the Constitution doesn’t say they can do it.

1. As we have just seen, Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton saw nullification of unconstitutional acts of the federal government as a “natural right” – not a “constitutional right.” And since Rights come from God, there is no such thing as a “constitutional right!”

2. The Right of Nullification, transcending as it does, the Constitution; and being nowhere prohibited by the Constitution to the States, is a reserved power. The 10^th Amendment says:

“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.”

Nothing in the federal Constitution prohibits The States from nullifying unconstitutional acts of the federal government. Thus, nullification is a reserved power of the States & The People.

3. We saw where Madison says in Federalist No. 45 that the powers delegated to the federal government are “few and defined,” and all other powers are “reserved to the several States.”

Thus, it is the federal government which is supposed to look to the Constitution for the list of “enumerated powers” We The People delegated to it.

The States don’t go to the Constitution to look for permission because they retain all powers they didn’t exclusively ⁸ delegate to the federal government, or prohibit by Art. I, Sec. 10.

The nullification deniers have it backwards: They permit the federal government to ignore the “enumerated powers” limitations set forth in the Constitution; but insist The States can’t do anything unless the Constitution specifically says they can!

Do you see how they pervert Our Constitution?

False Assertion 2:

That Nullification is literally impossible.

We saw above the two conditions which must exist before nullification is proper and possible:

• The act of the federal government must be unconstitutional, and
• The act must be something The People or The States can refuse to obey.

Here are examples of unconstitutional federal acts the States can and should nullify:

The Constitution does not delegate to the federal government power to ban Christianity from the public square. But in 1962, the supreme Court first ordered The States to stop prayers in the public schools. That Court next banned the Ten Commandments from the public schools. Since those orders were usurpations of powers not lawfully possessed by the Court,the States should have nullified them by directing their School Boards to ignore them.

If Congress by “law”, or the President by “executive order”, orders The People to turn in our guns, We must refuse to comply. The Constitution doesn’t authorize the federal government to disarm us. So, The States and The People must nullify such law or order by refusing to obey.

Here are examples of unconstitutional & unjust State laws Martin Luther King nullified:

The Jim Crow laws required black people to sit at the back of the bus, and prohibited them from eating in public places and using public restrooms, water fountains, park benches, etc. Using non-violent civil disobedience, MLK led black people to refuse to obey these unjust and unconstitutional (Sec. 1, 14^th Amdt.) laws. This was nullification by brave Citizens!

Now, I’ll show you unconstitutional acts which couldn’t be nullified because they weren’t directed to anything The States or The People could refuse to obey:

In 1798, Thomas Jefferson wrote The Kentucky Resolutions, and James Madison wrote The Virginia Resolutions. These Resolutions objected to laws made by Congress which purported to grant to the President dictatorial powers over aliens and seditious words.

Kentucky and Virginia could object, but they couldn’t prevent the President from enforcing the alien & sedition acts, because the President had the raw power to send out thugs to arrest aliens or people who had spoken or written “seditious” words; and then to persecute them.

So Jefferson and Madison showed why the alien & sedition acts were unconstitutional, protested them, and asked other States to join the protest.

Now! Note Well: Randy Barnett, law professor, and other deniers crow that the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions prove there is no “literal power” of nullification in the States.

But Barnett should know better because he is a lawyer. Every litigation attorney knows this: At a motion hearing before the judge, opposing counsel whips out a court opinion which he cites as authority for a legal point. He gives the judge a highlighted copy and gives you (opposing counsel) an un-highlighted copy. While he is making his argument to the judge, you must listen to what he is saying, and at the same time, read the opinion and develop an argument which “distinguishes” the opinion opposing counsel is using from the case at bar. When opposing counsel finishes, the judge looks at you and says, “And how do you respond?” You must be ready with your argument right then.

Are we to believe that Randy Barnett, law professor, sitting in his ivory tower and under no pressure, is unable to distinguish between situations where a State does have a “literal power” to nullify an unconstitutional act of the federal government [when it orders The State or The People to do -or not do - something]; and when The State does not have a “literal power” to nullify the act [because, as with the alien & sedition acts, it does not dictate something The States or The People can refuse to obey]?

False Assertion 3:

That the supreme Court is the final authority on what is constitutional and what is not; and The States and The People must submit to whatever the supreme Court says.

The federal government has become a tyranny which acts without constitutional authority.

This came about because we were lured away from The Founding Principle that the purpose of government is to secure the Rights God gave us; and were seduced into believing government should provide for our needs and protect us from the challenges of Life.

Progressives of the early 1900s ⁹ transformed the federal government into the Frankensteinian monster it is today. They imposed the regulatory welfare state where the federal government regulates business and commerce, natural resources, human resources, and benefits some people [e.g., welfare parasites, labor unions & obama donors] at the expense of others.

The Progressives claimed the power to determine what is in the “public interest” and have the federal government implement their notions of what advances the “public interest”.

Under the Progressives, the federal government was no longer limited by the enumerated powers delegated in the Constitution; but would follow the “will of the people” as expressed by their representatives in the federal government. In other words, the Progressives gave the federal government a blank check to fill out anyway they want. People in the federal government now claim power to do whatever they want to us.

The federal government imposed by the Progressives is evil:

• In order to provide benefits to some; the federal government violates the God-given property rights of others. The federal government robs Peter to pay Paul.
• In order to protect us from the challenges of life (including made up problems such as “global warming” and “lack of medical insurance”), the federal government violates everyone’s God-given rights to Liberty.

And thus today, the federal government:

• Usurps powers not delegated to it in the Constitution. Most of what it does is unconstitutional as outside the enumerated powers delegated in our Constitution.
• Has become an instrument of oppression, injustice, and immorality.
• Has taken away most of our God given rights, and is now conniving to take away our God given right to self-defense.

Now you know how the federal government was transformed from being the securer of our God given rights to a tyranny which oppresses some of the people for the benefit of others; and takes everyone’s Liberty away – except for those in the ruling class.

So! What do We do? What can We do?

The nullification deniers insist We must obey whatever Congress and the President dictate unless five (5) judges on the supreme Court say We don’t have to. They say the supreme Court is the final authority on what is constitutional and what is not.

But think: Who created the federal government?

We did! It is our “creature”. Is the “creature” to dictate to the “creator”?

The nullification deniers say, “Yes!” They say that:

• Every law made by Congress [the Legislative Branch of the federal government] is “supreme”; and
• Every executive order issued by the President [the Executive Branch of the federal government] is binding; and
• The States and The People must obey, unless and until five (5) judges on the supreme Court [the Judicial Branch of the federal government] say the law or executive order is unconstitutional.

In other words, only the federal government may question the federal government.

Under their vision, the federal government WE created with the Constitution is the exclusive and final judge of the extent of the powers WE delegated to it; and the opinion of five (5) judges, not the Constitution, is the sole measure of its powers.

Jarrett Stepman regurgitates the statist lie that “the ultimate decision maker in terms of America’s political system is the Supreme Court.”

Randy Barnett, law professor, chants the statist refrain, “…What has the Supreme Court said and meant? and … Are there now five justices to sustain the claim?”.

Barnett selects two paragraphs from Madison’s Report on the Virginia Resolutions (1799-1800), (which address the alien & sedition acts), and claims they show Madison “expressly denies, or at minimum equivocates about whether, there is a literal power of nullification in states”.

Well, We saw above that States couldn’t nullify the alien & sedition acts because they purported to grant dictatorial powers to the President; and did not require The States or The People to do – or not do – something.

And the two paragraphs Barnett claims are so “telling” as to The States’ lack of “literal power” to nullify anything, and as to the ultimate authority of the Judicial Branch, appear under Madison’s discussion of the last two Resolutions where Virginia had asked other States to join the protest. Madison merely says the citizens and legislature of Virginia have the right to communicate with other States; and in so doing, they are not exercising a judicial function.

Now! Note Well: Madison actually says, in the same Report Barnett cites, that it is “a plain principle, founded in common sense” that The States are the final authority on whether the federal government has violated our Constitution! Under his discussion of the 3^rd Resolution, Madison says:

“It appears to your committee to be a plain principle, founded in common sense, illustrated by common practice, and essential to the nature of compacts; that where resort can be had to no tribunal superior to the authority of the parties, the parties themselves must be the rightful judges in the last resort, whether the bargain made, has been pursued or violated. The Constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the States, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority of the Constitution, that it rests on this legitimate and solid foundation. The States then being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently that as the parties to it, they must themselves decide in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.” [emphasis mine]

A bit further down, Madison explains that if, when the federal government usurps power, the States cannot act so as to stop the usurpation, and thereby preserve the Constitution as well as the safety of The States; there would be no relief from usurped power. This would subvert the Rights of the People as well as betray the fundamental principle of our Founding:

“…If the deliberate exercise, of dangerous power, palpably withheld by the Constitution, could not justify the parties to it, in interposing even so far as to arrest the progress of the evil, and thereby to preserve the Constitution itself as well as to provide for the safety of the parties to it; there would be an end to all relief from usurped power, and a direct subversion of the rights specified or recognized under all the State constitutions, as well as a plain denial of the fundamental principle on which our independence itself was declared.” [emphasis mine]

A bit further down, Madison answers the objection “that the judicial authority is to be regarded as the sole expositor of the Constitution, in the last resort”.

Madison explains that when the federal government acts outside the Constitution by usurping powers, and when the Constitution affords no remedy to that usurpation; then the Sovereign States who are the Parties to the Constitution must likewise step outside the Constitution and appeal to that original natural right of self-defense.

Madison also says that the Judicial Branch is as likely to usurp as are the other two Branches. Thus, The Sovereign States, as The Parties to the Constitution, have as much right to judge the usurpations of the Judicial Branch as they do the Legislative and Executive Branches:

“…the judicial department, also, may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution; and, consequently, that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution, to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority as well as by another — by the judiciary as well as by the executive, or the legislature.”

Madison goes on to say that all three Branches of the federal government obtain their delegated powers from the Constitution; and they may not annul the authority of their Creator. And if the Judicial Branch connives with other Branches in usurping powers, our Constitution will be destroyed. So the Judicial Branch does not have final say as

“…to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial as well as the other department hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power, would annul the authority delegating it; ¹⁰ and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution, which all were instituted to preserve.”

Shame on you nullification deniers who misrepresent what Madison said, or ignorantly insist that Madison said the Judicial Branch is the Final Authority!

False Assertion 4:

That James Madison opposed Nullification by States of Unconstitutional Acts of the Federal Government.

Matthew Spalding (Heritage Foundation) and David Barton (Wallbuilders) cite South Carolina’s Nullification Crisis of 1832 as “proof” that James Madison “vehemently opposed” nullification.

What Spalding and Barton say is not true. Did they read what Madison wrote on S. Carolina’s doctrine of nullification? Are they so lacking in critical thinking skills that they can’t make the distinction between the nullification doctrine Madison (and Jefferson & Hamilton) embraced, and the peculiar doctrine of nullification advanced by S. Carolina?

We saw in Madison’s Report on the Virginia Resolutions (1799-1800) that in a proper case, “interposing even so far as to arrest the progress of the evil” is essential “to preserve the Constitution itself as well as to provide for the safety of the parties to it”.

And we saw above that the condition which must be present before nullification is proper, is that the act of the federal government must be unconstitutional.

Now, let’s look at The Tariff Act of 1828 and the S. Carolina Nullification Crisis:

South Carolina was an agricultural state. During the 1820’s, they bought manufactured goods from England. England bought cotton produced by S. Carolina and other Southern States.

However, “infant industries” in the Northeast were producing some of the same manufactured goods as England; but they were more expensive than the English imports. So they couldn’t compete with the cheaper imports.

So! In 1828, Congress imposed a high tariff on the English imports. The Southern States called this the “tariff of abominations”, because the tariff made the English goods too expensive to buy; and since the Southern States stopped buying English goods, the English stopped buying Southern cotton. The Southern States had to pay more for manufactured goods, they lost the major buyer of their cotton; and their economy was weakened.

Now! Note Well: Our Constitution delegates specific authority to Congress to impose tariffs on imports, and the tariff must be the same in each State (Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 1).

Thus, the Tariff Act of 1828 was constitutional! ¹¹

So! Can you, dear Reader, see something which Matthew Spalding, Ph.D., and David Barton are unable to see? South Carolina wanted to nullify a constitutional law! Of course, Madison opposed S. Carolina’s peculiar doctrine of nullification! Madison (and Jefferson & Hamilton) always said the act nullified must be unconstitutional!

In his Notes on Nullification (1834), ¹² Madison addressed S. Carolina’s peculiar doctrine. He said that in the Report of a special committee of the House of Representatives of South Carolina in 1828, a doctrine of nullification was set forth which asserted that:

• A State has a “constitutional right” to nullify any federal law; and
• The nullification is presumed valid, and is to remain in force, unless ¾ of the States, in a Convention, say the nullification isn’t valid.

What Madison opposed was the particular doctrine of nullification set forth by S. Carolina; and what Madison actually said about the S. Carolina doctrine is this:

• The federal government has delegated authority to impose import tariffs;
• The Constitution requires that all import tariffs be uniform throughout the United States;
• States can’t nullify tariffs which are authorized by the Constitution;
• ¼ of the States don’t have the right to dictate to ¾ of the States on matters within the powers delegated to the federal government;
• Nullification is not a “constitutional right”;

And near the end of his Notes, Madison quoted with approval Thomas Jefferson’s statement:

“…but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non foederis,) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them…”

Madison then says:

“Thus the right of nullification meant by Mr. Jefferson is the natural right, which all admit to be a remedy against insupportable oppression.” [emphasis mine]

Do you see? Madison is saying that:

• S. Carolina couldn’t nullify the Tariff Act of 1828 because the Act was constitutional.
• Nullification is a “natural right”- it is not a “constitutional” right. Rights don’t come from the Constitution.
• All agree that when the federal government acts outside of the Constitution, nullification by the States is the proper remedy.

Application Today

When WE THE PEOPLE ratified our Constitution, and thereby created the federal government, WE did not delegate to our “creature” power to control our medical care, restrict guns and ammunition, dictate what is done in the public schools, dictate how we use our lands, and all the thousands of things they do WE never gave them authority in our Constitution to do.

Accordingly, each State has a natural right to nullify these unconstitutional dictates within its borders. These dictates are outside the compact The Sovereign States made with each other –WE never gave our “creature” power over these objects.

As Jefferson and Madison said, without Nullification, The States and The People would be under the absolute and unlimited control of the federal government.

And that, dear Reader, is where these nullification deniers, with their false assertions and shameful misrepresentations, would put you.

To sum this up:

• Nullification is a natural right of self-defense.
• Rights don’t come from the Constitution. Like all Rights, the right of self-defense comes from God (The Declaration of Independence, 2^nd para).
• Nullification is a reserved power within the meaning of the 10^th Amendment. The Constitution doesn’t prohibit States from nullifying, and We reserved the power to do it.
• God requires us to disobey civil authorities when they violate God’s Law. That’s why the 2^nd para of the Declaration of Independence says we have the duty to overthrow tyrannical government. See: The Biblical Foundation of our Constitution.
• Nullification is required by Oath of Office: Article VI, cl. 3 requires all State officers and judges to “support” the federal Constitution. Therefore, when the federal government violates the Constitution, the States must smack them down.

Conclusion

Our Founders and Framers were a different People than we of today. They were manly men who knew statecraft & political philosophy and could think. But our “experts” of today have been indoctrinated with statism and can’t think. They just repeat what they hear. We need them to man up, throw off the indoctrination, learn our Founding Documents including The Federalist Papers, get a Logic Book, and stop disseminating misinformation! We need them to repudiate cowardice as the proper response to the evil which is overtaking our Land. Man up, People! PH

Endnotes:

¹ Thomas Jefferson, The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, 8^th Resolution.

² James Madison, Notes on Nullification (1835). The quote is near the end. Use “find” function.

³ The deniers seem unaware that The States retained sovereignty in all matters not exclusively delegated to the federal government. Alexander Hamilton says in Federalist No. 32 (2nd para):

“An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention [the Constitution] aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not … EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States…” [caps are Hamilton's; boldface mine]

Federalist No. 62 (5^th para):

“…the equal vote allowed to each State [each State gets two U.S. Senators] is …a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty… [in order to guard] … against an improper consolidation of the States into one simple republic.” (Madison or Hamilton) [boldface mine]

See also Federalist No. 39 (Madison) (6th para, et seq.)

In Madison’s Report on The Virginia Resolutions (1799-1800), he several times refers, in his discussion of the 3^rd Resolution, to the States acting “in their sovereign capacity” when, as “the parties to the constitutional compact” they decide “in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated”:

“…The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal, above their authority, to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently, that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition….” [boldface mine]

⁴ Contrary to the misconstructions long and unlawfully applied by the federal government, the federal Constitution is one of enumerated powers only. E.g.:

“…the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignity over all other objects…” (Federalist No. 39, 3^rd para from end) (Madison) [boldface mine]

“…the general [federal] government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects...” (Federalist No. 14, 8^th para) (Madison) [boldface mine]

“…It merits particular attention … that the laws of the Confederacy [Congress], as to the ENUMERATED and LEGITIMATE objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land…Thus the legislatures, courts, and magistrates, of the respective members [the States], will be incorporated into the operations of the national government AS FAR AS ITS JUST AND CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY EXTENDS…” [caps are Hamilton’s] (Federalist No. 27, last para)

⁵ Our Constitution authorizes the federal government to secure our God-given rights in the ways appropriate for the national government of a Federation. The States secure them in other ways.

⁶ The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798,8^th Resolution.

⁷ Madison’s Notes on Nullification (1834). The quote is near the end. Use “find” function.

⁸ This explains the limited “exclusive jurisdiction” of the federal government, and the areas where the federal government and The States have “concurrent jurisdiction”.

⁹ Teddy Roosevelt ran on the Progressive Platform of 1912. Both major parties have been dominated by progressives ever since.

¹⁰ Hamilton says, respecting the Legislative Branch (Federalist No. 78, 10^th para):

“…every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” [emphasis mine]

¹¹ The Tariff Act of 1828 was constitutional; but benefited the Northeast at the expense of the South. It thus violated our Founding Principle that governments exist to secure the rights God gave us. God never gave us the right to be free of competition in business! Since the tariff was constitutional, but unjust, the remedy was to get Congress to fix it.

¹² Madison’s Notes on Nullification (1834) are long & rambling. Copy to Word, enlarge the type, & color-code to sort out the strands of arguments. Keep in mind that what Madison is addressing is S. Carolina’s peculiar doctrine where they wanted to nullify a constitutional t

Before a government can start murdering people, it has to disarm them. Have a good look at this chart put together by JPFO.

Still think gun control is about hunting and “doing” skeet?

(Click to enlarge chart)

• .45 Automatic Colt Pistol
• 12 gauge auto-loader
• AR-15

Jessie Duff is an authority on the subject.  This seven minute video says it all.  The point she makes is that the talking head clowns have no idea what they are talking about.  They want to ban AR-15′s because they look scary, not because of anything that will prevent violence.

This video should be spread wide and far…

Shooting a Glock 23 at Indoor Shooting Range at Sarasota, Florida (Photo credit: Ratha Grimes)

The latest round of rubbish flooding our in boxes is an ignorant rant claiming that the Dick Act of 1902 (which respects our Right to be armed) can’t be repealed because to do so would “violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws”.

Who dreams up this stuff? Does anyone check it out before they spread it around?

Of course we have the God-given right to keep and bear arms, to self-defense, etc., etc. Our Declaration of Independence (2nd para) recognizes that our Rights come from God and are unalienable.

In addition, the 2nd Amendment to our federal Constitution recognizes that this God-given right to keep and bear arms is to be free from any interference WHATSOEVER from the federal government.

Our Framers were all for an armed American People – they understood that arms are our ultimate defense in the event the federal government oversteps its bounds. See, e.g., what James Madison, Father of Our Constitution, writes in the second half of Federalist Paper No. 46! The reason the Citizens – the Militia – are armed is to defend ourselves, our families, our neighborhoods, communities, and States from an overreaching, tyrannical federal government.

Furthermore, the federal government is 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 Art. I, Sec. 1, 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.

But the assertion that one Congress may not repeal acts of a previous Congress is idiotic.

And the assertion that Congress can’t repeal the Dick Act because a repeal would “violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws” shows that whoever wrote that doesn’t know what he is talking about. He obviously has no idea what a “bill of attainder” is, and no idea what an “ex post facto law” is.

This accurately explains what a “bill of attainder” is.

An “ex post facto” law RETROACTIVELY criminalizes conduct which was not criminal when it was done.

Say you barbecued outside last Sunday. That was lawful when you did it. Next month, Congress makes a pretended law which purports to retroactively criminalize barbecuing outdoors. So, now, what you did is a crime (for which you are subject to criminal prosecution); even thou when you did it, it wasn’t a crime. That is an ex post facto law.

Now, say Congress passes a pretended law making possession of firearms a crime and ordering everyone to turn in their guns. Only if you do not turn in your guns will you have committed a “crime”. That is not an ex post facto law because if you turn in your guns, you won’t be criminally prosecuted. The “crime” is the failure to turn in your guns – not the prior possession of guns.

Such a law would be totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL, because gun control is not one of the enumerated powers of Congress. Thus, the law would be outside the scope of the powers delegated to Congress.

It would also be unconstitutional as in violation of the 2nd Amendment.

But it would not be an ex post facto law.

People shouldn’t sling around terms, the meanings of which, they do not understand. It is immoral.

If TRUTH spread as rapidly as lies, our problems would have been resolved long ago. But if People can come to love TRUTH more than they love the ignorant rubbish they circulate, perhaps it is not too late to restore our Constitutional Republic. PH

Endnote:

1 In Federalist Paper No. 84 (4th para), Alexander Hamilton says re ex post facto laws (and of the importance of the writ of habeas corpus):

“…The creation of crimes after the commission of the fact, or, in other words, the subjecting of men to punishment for things which, when they were done, were breaches of no law, and the practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny…” PH