Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists....

The letter from the Danbury Baptist to Pres. Thomas Jefferson:

The address of the Danbury Baptists Association in the state of Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801. To Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America.

Sir,

Among the many million in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe that none are more sincere.

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious
liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter
between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.

Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each state; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states and all the world, till hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the chair of state out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for your arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you to sustain and support you
enjoy administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to raise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.

And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his heavenly kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.

Signed in behalf of the association, Nehemiah Dodge
                                                     Ephraim Robbins
                                                     Stephen S. Nelson

Jefferson's response - perhaps one of the most misconstrued letters in the history of our nation: 

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen,

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and, in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" thus building a wall of eternal separation between Church & State. Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect, I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & the Danbury Baptist [your religious] association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson Jan. 1. 1802.

While the religiosity of Thomas Jefferson may be a matter of debate, his steadfast adherence to other principles is not. 


The Danbury Baptists wrote to Jefferson out of a growing concern that the government was beginning to venture into areas that would jeopardize religious freedoms, perhaps to the point of naming a state religion, as had been done in England. Three points are of great concern, and Jefferson's response to their letter tells us much about the Constitutional extent of the authorities enumerated to the government.

First, the Danbury Baptists expressed their concern that the right to religious freedom was being treated by the government more "as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights..."  Second, they asserted that "...the president of the United States is not the national legislator..."  Third, they further asserted that "...the national government cannot destroy the laws of each state..."

Jefferson's response is telling, both by what he explicitly states, and what he leaves untouched.   His response regarding the "...wall of eternal separation between Church & State..." is directed solely at the government; he clearly states that the wall was one-way, addressing the stated concern that religious belief and practice were being treated as favors instead of inalienable rights. The "eternal wall" to which he referred preserved the right of the individual conscience, recognizing that such matters were between God and man, while severely limiting the government's ability to intervene in such beliefs and practices. He clearly enunciates the principle that the governance of religious exercise is the sole concern of each religious sect. At no point does he give any indication that, conversely, religious belief has no place on public life.


This is what he explicitly addresses. His failure to address the second and third assertions is equally significant. Jefferson is consistent (going back to the Kentucky resolutions) in maintaining that the federal government is to have as little impact on the daily lives of citizens as is possible. The President has no power to legislate on his own; he can only execute legislation developed by Congress. In the same manner, and contrary to what we are witnessing today, Congress is powerless to devise legislation that is at-odds with the laws of the individual States.

With Jefferson's views so clearly communicated, one has to wonder how such contrarian notions as those underlying our government in this day could ever have been developed.

Time for the States to Resume Their Rightful Role as the Overseers of the Federal Government....

Over the course of the last year I have once again been reminded just how important is our Bill of Rights.  In some very significant ways, it is even more important than the Constitution it amends.  The Constitution and the Bill of Rights share one critical component, however - both required the ratification of the States, an explicit recognition of the supreme place occupied by the States in our republican form of government.


It is that component that elevates the Bill of Rights to a position of supremacy over the Constitution.


According to the Preamble, the Bill of Rights was demanded by the States in order to restrict Congress from over-regulating our lives, to insure that basic rights were safeguarded from a potentially power-hungry centralized government.


The States first created the federal government by ratifying the Constitution.


The States then formulated measures intended to restrict and regulate the federal government.


It is time once again for the States to exercise their rightful role to bring Congress back into compliance with the Bill of Rights, to insure that Congress exercises its Constitutionally-enumerated powers in a manner consistent with the preservation of the rights enshrined in that first set of amendments to the Constitution.

Will We Bow to Fear? An Open Letter to Michigan's Legislators (Originally posted 1/12/2011)

Senators,

As the following article warns us, a couple of legislators are going to use the unfortunate events that transpired in Arizona to try to push through legislation that will seriously limit our freedom of expression and speech.  I urge you to please read this article, and then, with John Green, the father of 9 year old Christina-Taylor Green (who died in the Arizona shooting), refuse to bow to fear:  “In a free society, we’re going to be subjected to people like this, but I prefer that to the alternative...”  I urge you to vote against this legislation when it is brought to the floor.  We have sacrificed enough of our freedoms in the effort to remain insulated from fear and insecurity.

Will We Bow to Fear?  by Michael Maharrey

“And the things that we fear are a weapon to be held against us…” 

Rahm Emanuel had the gall to say it out loud, but the principle seems to exist inside the skull of virtually every politician on the planet – you don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste. 

Less than 48 hours after a man gunned down Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, the politicians quickly went to work capitalizing on this horrible act. 

Rep. Robert Brady, D-Pa., announced Monday that he plans to introduce legislation making it a federal crime to use symbols “that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a Member of Congress or federal official.” 

“The rhetoric is just ramped up so negatively, so high, that we have got to shut this down,” Brady said during a CNN interview.  (emphasis added)

While Brady shuts down expression,  Rep. Carolyn McCarthy seized on the shooting to advance her pet cause – gun control. The New York Democrat wants Congress to ban high capacity ammunition clips for handguns. Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.) says he was prepared to introduce a similar bill in the Senate. 

“The only reason to have 33 bullets loaded in a handgun is to kill a lot of people very quickly,” Lautenberg said in a statement. “These high-capacity clips simply should not be on the market.” 

It’s easy to scream, “We have to do something!” and demand immediate action when caught up in the emotion of a national tragedy. But that reaction roots itself in fear. And as Peart wrote, fear serves as a weapon far deadlier than any 33 bullet clip. 

Alexander Hamilton warned in Federalist No. 8 that people will willingly hand over their liberties when staring into terror’s face. “To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free.”  Politicians understand this and use it to their advantage, twisting tragedy into opportunites to consolidate power and advance their causes.

Keeping this in mind, perhaps we should slow down for a moment – pause in the heat of our emotion and consider Benjamin Franklin’s admonishment.  
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” 

Amazingly, a voice of sanity comes from a man who truly suffered a loss in this tragedy. 

John Green’s 9-year-old daughter died Saturday. Christina-Taylor Green was born on 9-11 and was the only girl on an all boy baseball team, intelligent and interested in the political process. 

As the father of a daughter, I can’t even fathom John’s suffering. If anybody has a right to lash out and make demands, he does.


But he refuses to bow to fear. 


“In a free society, we’re going to be subjected to people like this, but I prefer that to the alternative,” he said. (Bolding added)

Time for the FairTax (Re-post)

We need a system under which tax incentives are not necessary, and a tax system under which loopholes are non-existent. We have tried the income tax and business tax systems, but they are riddled with loopholes, and those who are at the lower end of the scale usually end up paying more of the cost. We have tried incentivizing businesses; that helped put us into the financial hole in which we now find ourselves, because A) the government provided more tax abatements than it was receiving in revenues, and B) too many companies took advantage of the abatements as short-term profit grabs, and then split without ever producing the promised long-term jobs. The idea of relying on income taxes when individual income is down means that revenues are down as well, so that idea makes no sense, and with IRS non-compliance figures estimating that Michigan is losing as much as $2.2 billion each year because of illegals, we need a system that somehow taps into their earnings - something an income tax fails to do. In short, the system under which we have been operating for generations - under administrations of BOTH parties - has failed miserably.

It is time to switch to a broad-based consumption tax with no loopholes to which everyone contributes regardless of legal status or source of income.

The Michigan FairTax would:

* Let us keep our entire paychecks by eliminating tax withholding.

* Replace Michigan’s current complex and unfair tax system with a simple, no loophole, retail sales tax on all new goods and services with an effective tax rate of 0 - 9.75%.

* Make taxation visible to the consumer.

* Provide a more stable revenue source and raise the same amount of money for Michigan government.

* Eliminate tax on necessities via a “prebate”. 

* Require public approval for increases.

* Eliminate current sales tax, Personal Income tax, Michigan Business Tax, Personal Property Tax, 6 mill State Education Tax on business and sales tax on all business purchases. 

* Make Michigan products more competitive with out-of-state/foreign products and return jobs here by lowering the cost of doing business in Michigan.

What would be taxed?

* All new consumer goods and services, at the time of sale. 

* All new titled goods (homes, vehicles, boats, trailers)

What would NOT be taxed?

* Business to Business Transactions

* Most used goods, including vehicles (Tax paid at the time of sale when item was new. Sales tax on homes, new or used, is paid at closing)

* Tuition 

* Insurance Premiums 

* Savings, Investments 

* Charitable Giving Taxes paid to federal/local governmental units 

* Loan, Car and Mortgage Payments (Tax is paid at the time of sale when item is new, or at closing of homes - new or used)(Information taken from Michigan FairTax, a brochure produced by the Michigan FairTax Association)

There is no tracking of income, no worrying about indexing a standard deduction to factor in the cost of living, inflation, or anything else. You buy it, you pay tax on it. It's that simple. The more you buy above the federal poverty level, the more taxes you will pay. The FairTax taps into both illegally obtained income as well as that of illegals because everyone has to make purchases. It is that simple. With an income tax, if you don't track it and declare it, you can't tax it. And by including the prebate, a monthly tax return sent out in advance of the month, we also insure that those below the poverty level pay no taxes on any necessity.

So, again, there is nothing to track, nothing to adjust, you know exactly how much tax you are paying for a given item (no tax pyramiding - hidden taxes). You keep your entire paycheck, your employer doesn't incur the costs associated with tracking and reporting your income.  With no taxes on business to business transactions, we can get rid of tax abatements and still attract new business -- including the movie industry. Analysis of this system shows that it will at least be revenue-neutral, and in all likelihood will increase revenue -- in addition to making Michigan the premier location in which to locate a business.

It is time to make the switch. Slash and burn doesn't work; this does. Our state's future depends on it.  You can use the links in the right column to find your Michigan legislators and let them know that you support the FairTax -- and so should they!

PS -- The same concept will work at the national level, as well!

The Solution to the Problem of a Federal Government Run Amok

The solution to the problem of a federal government run amok is provided for us in the Preamble of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was demanded by the States to keep the federal government, created by the acts of each sovereign state as they ratified the Constitution, in check, to prevent it from assuming unfettered powers. In the words of Jefferson, "...to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go....In questions of powers, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

The first two paragraphs of the Preamble of the Bill of Rights provide a template by which A) the federal government may obtain additional authority, or B) such authority may be restrained, but to do so in such a way as to "...bind [it] down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution":

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution...

This bit of parliamentary procedure has been left out of most studies of American government, but they are critical to our understanding of the relationship that is supposed to exist between the states and the federal government.

First, a need for additional authority, or the need to restrain authority, is recognized ("THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added..."). While the needs addressed in the Preamble were identified by the states, they could just as easily identified by Congress.

In response to the identified need, legislation appropriate to address it is formulated, debated, and vote upon by the Congress. Since it applies directly to resulting federal authority, a two-thirds majority in both houses is required for passage ("...in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring...").

Once the legislation has been formulated, debated, and passed by congress, it is then sent to the States for their ratification ("...the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States..."). Note that the States have the right to approve or reject any or all of the provisions contained in the proposed legislation ("...all or any of which Articles..."). Since the proposed legislation would have the effect of expanding or restraining federal authority, a three-quarters supermajority of state legislatures must approve the legislation for it to be passed ("...when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures...")!!!

This is the template that was utilized to create and empower the federal government in the first place, and this is the template that must once again be employed if we are to bring our federal government back into accountability to the states, and more importantly, the citizens.

Second Amendment Trumps the Commerce Clause....

Letter 2 sent to my legislators regarding the need to repeal the Gun Free School Zones Act.

To My Legislators:

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. (emphasis added)

According to the Preamble, the Bill of Rights exists to do one thing - restrict the power of the federal government to over-regulate the citizens of this country.  Any power enumerated in the Constitution must be utilized in accordance with the restrictions laid out in the Bill of Rights.

With that in mind, the Second Amendment restricts Congress’ ability to restrict access to and carrying of firearms under the Commerce Clause - not the other way around!  You cannot use the Commerce Clause to violate the clearly defined protections accorded citizens in the Bill of Rights.

It is time for the GFSZA to be repealed.

Letter to my Legislators to Repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act

October 12, 2011

Rep. Justin Amash, Senator Debbie Stabenow, Senator Carl Levin

Washington, DC

To My Legislators:

HR 2613 was sent to the Judiciary Committee in July of 2011.  This bill to repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) is critical for the safety of our citizens across the nation.  The simple fact of the matter is that the GFSZA has done nothing to DISCOURAGE illegal weapons in school zones across the nation.  In the 21 years that have passed since the initial passage of the GFSZA, the percentage of students carrying guns to school has dropped only two percentage points, from 7.9% to 5.9%, and there are no objective data to prove that this drop is anything other than a societal shift completely unrelated to the GFSZA.  During the same time period, however, there have been 217 gun-related events in areas covered by the GFSZA resulting in 627 casualties (deaths/injuries/hostages).  The objective data clearly demonstrate the failure of this legislation.

Not only does the GFSZA not prevent weapons from being carried on school property, it also insures that anyone faced with a weapons-related situation while on school property is completely defenseless.  The average person is forbidden to carry a firearm on school property.  Those who are licensed by their state to carry must, under the terms of the GFSZA, do so openly but may not actually fire the weapon in self-defense within 1,000 feet of a school property without facing criminal charges themselves.  So not only are persons on school property forbidden to defend themselves, anyone living in the surrounding neighborhood is also forbidden to use a legally-owned firearm to even protect their own property - a blatant violation of the protections guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution.  According to the research, waiting for police to respond as one’s only legal recourse under the GFSZA does nothing but insure that the body count will be significant.  For every minute it takes police to respond to a weapons-related situation, another three casualties can result.  In a city like Detroit, where the average response time to a 911 call is 24 minutes just to arrive on-scene, the results of the GFSZA would be nothing short of disastrous.

Finally, as was already alluded to, while the GFSZA is in-line with current interpretations of the Commerce Clause, which has been turned into Congress’ license to grab unlimited power, something that was never intended by the framers of the Constitution, it is a blatant violation of the protections that were demanded by the legislatures of the States that ratified the Constitution and were enshrined in the Second Amendment of the Constitution.  The Preamble to the Bill of Rights clearly states this concern:

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. (emphasis added)

The Second Amendment is there for a reason, and blithely overriding its clearly-defined protections is something that should NEVER happen.  In elevating the commerce clause as it has to give itself power to regulate anything merely by asserting that something was provided by way of interstate commerce at some point in its history, Congress has shown the fears of those delegates to be very well-founded; Congress has turned misconstruction and abuse of its power into a highley-developed art form.  Congress is using the Constitution to violate the Constitution.  The Second Amendment clearly states that citizens have the right to bear (carry) firearms.  It does not define the nature or origin of that firearm, nor does it relegate the carry of that firearm to defined spaces.  And in that respect, under the clearest declaration of protection accorded by the Second Amendment, the GFSZA is a gross violation of the  protections that were demanded by the Conventions of the States.

It is time for the GFSZA to be repealed.

Sincerely,

HR 2613: Time to Repeal the Gun-Free Zones Act of 2009

From Congressional Record S7920-7921

THE GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES ACT OF 1995

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, with my colleagues Senators Specter, Simon, Feinstein, Bradley, Lautenberg, Chafee, and Kerrey, we rise today to introduce the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995. This common-sense measure, which replaces the original Gun Free School Zones Act, is needed to send a strong message to teachers, State law enforcement officers and State prosecutors: the Federal Government stands behind you and will support you in getting guns out of our school grounds....Mr. President, this bill is a practical approach to the national epidemic of gun violence plaguing our education system. In 1990, the Centers For Disease Control found that 1 in 20 students carried a gun in a 30- day period. Three years later, it was 1 in 12. Even worse, the National Education Association estimates that 100,000 kids bring guns to school every day. How can Congress turn its back on our children when their safety is being threatened on a daily basis?......

With these words, the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995, a revision of the original 1990 bill, was voted upon and eventually signed into law.


This bill constitutes yet another power grab based upon the perceived authorities granted congress under the now-infamous Commerce Clause of the Constitution.  Since nearly everything has an effect on interstate commerce, congress has seized upon this clause as a nearly infinite source of ever-expanding federal power.   But one must ask whether this Act, implemented with the stated goal of reducing gun-related violence in schools, has actually achieved its goal in the twenty-plus years that have passed.  One must further ask whether the Act is truly in-line with the expressed intent of the Constitution.


First, let's address the Act's efficacy.


The earliest numbers this author was able to obtain relating to the prevalence of firearms on school property were published by the CDC in 1993.  According to the statement quoted above, 1993 was a much worse year for guns on school property than 1990, the year the Act was originally signed into law.  The Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance report issued by the CDC reflecting a reporting period from February through May of 1993 indicated that "...22.1% of students nationwide had carried a weapon (e.g., a gun, knife, or club) during the 30 days preceding the survey."  Of the 22.1% of students, the report indicates that 7.9% (one-third) had carried a firearm.  Skip ahead now to the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance report published June 4, 2010.  The data for this report indicated that, "Nationwide, 17.5% of students had carried a weapon (e.g., a gun, knife, or club) on at least 1 day during the 30 days before the survey....Nationwide, 5.9% (roughly one-third, added) of students had carried a gun on at least 1 day during the 30 days before the survey."   Intellectual integrity dictates that we acknowledge that there was a small  decrease (5%) in the number of weapons in general, and firearms in particular (even smaller percentage, 2%) in the twenty-plus years that passed since the signing of the Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) in 1990.  The number of weapons overall has decreased slightly while the ratio of weapons in general to guns in particular has remained constant.  But the question that must be addressed is this:  how much of this increase is actually attributable to the GFSZA, and how much of this is simply a naturally-occurring societal shift?  Unfortunately, the anti-gun lobby has been so gung ho to prove their case that no one seems to have actually addressed this question.  When a similar downward trend was observed in Michigan relating to an increase in the number of citizens holding concealed pistol licenses (CPLs) and a decrease in violent crime (a 14% decrease in 10 years, versus only a 2% decrease in firearms carried on school grounds since the GFSZA was initially signed into law 20 years ago!), opponents were quick to assert that this trend could not conclusively be linked to the increase in CPL holders.  Given the lack of any objective data to the contrary, this author must make the same assertion regarding the coincidental link between signing the Act in 1990 and the decrease in guns on campuses.


Given the considerable resources that have been made available to establish the GFSZA, one would expect to see a much more substantial decline in both the number of weapons making it to school grounds and the numbers of shootings that have resulted; a 2% firearms reduction over twenty years is hardly something about which to exalt, and as has been noted in other posts, the GFSZA has hardly prevented the mass shootings it was designed to forestall.  Since the Act was initially signed into law in 1990, there have been at least 217 gun-related incidents on the premises of educational institutions, resulting in 627 total casualties (deaths/injuries/hostages).  This means that, if we add the 2% reduction back in (the reduction from 7.9% to 5.9%), the GFSZA MAY have prevented a total of 4 additional events and 12.5 casualties in twenty years.  You be the judge: just how effective has this Act been?


Efficacy, however, is only one consideration.  Constitutionality is the other consideration.


As has already been observed, the US Congress has transformed the Commerce Clause of the Constitution into its own personal power bank.  But at what cost to other provisions of the Constitution?


When the Constitution was first ratified by the legislatures of the States, great concern was expressed because of the lack of protections it provided to the individual citizen.  Having just seceded from an all-powerful monarchy, there was justifiable fear that, in time, the US could become a mirror image of Britain, with total power resting in the hands of an unaccountable centralized power structure.  As it has turned out, their fears, which led to the ratification of the Bill of Rights, were justified.  The Commerce Clause has been used to subjugate all other provisions of the Constitution - freedom of speech, assembly, and chiefly, the Second Amendment right to bear arms.  While the Commerce Clause can be interpreted in such a way as to provide congress with nearly inexhaustible authority, the Second Amendment explicitly guarantees the right of citizens to provide for their own protection by carrying firearms - no interpretation is necessary.  Take a good look at the Preamble to the Bill Of Rights:

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. (emphasis added)

The Bill of Rights does not limit the nature or origin of the firearm, nor does it place any restrictions on the location in which a firearm may be carried.  History tells us that legislators used to carry firearms into the chambers of Congress - something that has been explicitly outlawed in the interceding years.  This basic right, accorded by both God and Constitution (see author's post, A Theology of Church and Personal Protection), has played an integral role in the development of our country, providing protection from totalitarian rule not available to other countries.  While Congress may be able to argue that the GFSZA is in line with their own understanding of the Commerce Clause, it is most certainly a violation of the explicit protections provided in the Bill of Rights; the Second Amendment restricts the Commerce Clause - not the other way around.


Whether in science or sociology, there is always a point at which an experiment must come to an end.  The objective data tell us that we have reached that point with the GFSZA.  It is time for the Judiciary committee to bring HR 2613, which would repeal the GFSZA, to the floor of the House of Representatives for an up or down vote.  If our Representatives truly wish to do right by their constituents, they will see that the GFSZA experiment comes to an end.