THE SUPREME COURT’S VITAL FUNCTION: ENSURE THE SECOND AMENDMENT, THE ULTIMATE SAFEGUARD AGAINST TYRANNY OF GOVERNMENT, ENDURES STURDY AND ROBUST

IF THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS FALLS BY THE WAYSIDE A FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC FALLS WITH IT

The Constitution of the United States TOOK EFFECT on June 21, 1788, when New Hampshire became the ninth State to ratify it. At that time, Constitution consisted of the ARTICLES only. Yet, some of the Framers expressed acute dissatisfaction with it in one respect. The Constitution lacked A BILL OF RIGHTS (BOR).

They would not abide by this. They were adamant.

They found an express statement of Americans’ Fundamental, Unalienable, Eternal Natural Law Rights, especially the need for an explicit assertion of the elemental Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms as obligatory. That Right and other Natural Law Rights must be cemented in the Nation’s Constitution.

IF FREEDOM AND LIBERTY ENDURE AND THAT THE SUPREME SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE OVER THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BE PRESERVED, THEY DEEMED AN ASSERTION OF THIS RIGHT—THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS—AS ESSENTIAL, LEST TYRANNY ENSUE AND THEREBY ANNIHILATE BOTH A FREE REPUBLIC AND THE ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY OF THE CITIZENRY OVER GOVERNMENT.

Thus, THIS FACTION OF THE FRAMERS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, THE ANTIFEDDERALISTS, MADE THEIR CASE. THEY INSISTED ON INCORPORATING, THE BOR, AS A FORMAL DOCUMENT IN THE NATION’S CONSTITUTION.

The ANTIFEDERALISTS CORRECTLY DEDUCED WHAT THE OTHER FACTION AMONG THE FRAMERS, THE FEDERALISTS, DID NOT: THAT THE NASCENT FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC MIGHT EXIST for a short period of time without a formal BOR, but IT WOULD NOT PERSIST through time.

Like a newborn child, THIS NATIONAL, CENTRALIZED, FEDERAL GOVERNMENT would be born delicate, weak, completely helpless, posing little threat to the states and to the people. But, give it time to grow and, with the powers it wields (demarcated AND limited though they be), this U.S. Government would be poised to become, eventually, a gargantuan headache and extraordinary danger to the continued safety, security, and well-being of a Free State and to the well-being and sovereignty of the American people.

In a short time, the Federal Government would prove to be a mischievous imp and hellion—hardly a well-behaved child, knowing its place.

The Government would be UNRULY, DIFFICULT TO CONTROL SURELY, YET STILL MANAGEABLE, ALBEIT BARELY, since the GOVERNMENT, a few decades out, would still be in its formative stage of growth.

BUT—GOVERNMENT would, in time, reach its full potential, EVENTUALLY, INEXORABLY, INEVITABLY, growing into a fierce, uncontrollable, and raging Monster, CHALLENGING THE AUTHORITY AND POWERS OF THE STATES, AND AT THE SAME TIME, DENYING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THEIR RIGHTS AND POWERS AND MERCILESSLY TUGGING AWAY AT AND WRENCHING FROM THE PEOPLE THEIR SOVEREIGNTY OVER GOVERNMENT—becoming a thing justifiably FEARED AND LOATHED—a TYRANNY.

IN SO DOING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WOULD TRY TO REVERSE ITS DEFINED ROLE AS SERVANT OF THE SOVEREIGN, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. WITH THE POWERS IT WIELDS AND USURPS FROM THE PEOPLE, THE GOVERNMENT WOULD DEMAND OF THE PEOPLE, THEIR OBEISANCE TO IT, AS THE NEW AND UNLAWFUL MASTER OVER THE PEOPLE.

THIS MALFEASANCE OF GOVERNMENT CANNOT BE AND MUST NOT BE BORNE.

Consider: Were it not for the American people, who, before the creation of both GOVERNMENT and the STATES, fought and won a TRULY EPIC, HISTORIC WAR for INDEPENDENCE from TYRANNY of GOVERNMENT, A GOVERNMENT AN OCEAN AWAY, THE BRITISH EMPIRE.

If so, is it not THEY, the AMERICAN PEOPLE, who, AS PROGENITOR of BOTH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE STATES, remain the SOLE and SUPREME SOVEREIGN over both? And, if so, Are not the AMERICAN PEOPLE the SUPREME RULER OVER GOVERNMENT, THE STATES, AND THE NATION?

After all THE PEOPLE (WHO WOULD BECOME THE FIRST AMERICANS AND ITS FIRST CITIZENS) COMPRISED THE COLONIES. AND THE COLONIES DID NOT BECOME STATES, AND THE STATES, IN TURN, DID NOT BECOME A NATION UNTIL THE PEOPLE, THE FIRST AMERICANS AND AMERICA’S FIRST PATRIOTS, AND ITS FIRST CITIZENS, FOUGHT AND WON THEIR WAR FROM INDEPENDENCE FROM TYRANNY. See PDF in congress.gov.

THE PEOPLE ACCEPTED THE FORMATION OF STATES FROM THE COLONIES AND THE PEOPLE, THROUGH THE STATES, RATIFIED THE CONSTITUTION THAT BECAME THE BLUEPRINT FOR A FREE REPUBLIC AND NATION, AND THE FORMAL DOCUMENT FOR THE CREATION OF A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THAT EXISTS ONLY BY THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. ALL THIS AROSE AFTER  THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THREW OFF THE YOKE OF TYRANNY—WON THEIR WAR OF INDEPENDENCE FROM THE TYRANNY IMPOSED ON THEM BY THE BRITISH EMPIRE UNDER THE MONARCH, GEORGE III.

So, then, as all this came to be, are not the American People, those who, before both States and the Federal Government, have a vested interest in and the most senior interest in SECURIING for themselves, for their families, for their offspring, and for those generations of Americans, yet unborn, the greatest stake in securing for posterity, a FREE STATE (AN INDEPENDENT AND SOVEREIGN NATION, AND FREE REPUBLIC) AGAINST TYRANNY, whether THAT THREAT OF TYRANNY emanates INSIDE OR OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES?

If that is so, would not these FIRST PATRIOTS, these FIRST AMERICANS, these FIRST CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, not be dismayed, then, to see THEIR FREE STATE metamorphosing into a thing despised—a thing they had given their blood and coin to defeat—A TYRANNY?

AMONG THOSE FRAMERS, surely neither of one the two factions, FEDERALISTS OR ANTIFEDERALISTS would dare to risk LOSS OF THEIR FREE REPUBLIC they had struggled mightily to craft after extensive  capital, in blood and money was spent to achieve victory over such a mighty, formidable foe, the British Empire, and its Monarch, George III.

But, there was dissension among the two factions on one point.

The FEDERALISTS, among the Framers, hoped and trusted that the NATIONAL GOVERNMENT conceived and assiduously crafted and ratified by the States, would effectively avoid the dangers it might pose, to the People, through the formidable powers that Government wields, since a number of “checks and balances” among the THREE BRANCHES would prevent any one BRANCH gaining control over the others, and, thus, prevent endangering the SECURITY OF A FREE STATE.

Would such assiduously crafted “CHECKS and BALANCES” truly prevent the new-formed FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DEVOLVING into TYRANNY?

Would not the “CHECKS and BALANCES” prevent this U.S. Government from destroying, irreparably, a Free Constitutional Republic?

Both FACTIONS felt that this SEPARATION OF POWERS AMONG THE THREE BRANCHES WOULD HELP THWART THE ONSET OF TYRANNY. BUT WOULD THAT BE ENOUGH?

There did exist a “FAIL-SAFE” unconnected to GOVERNMENT, OVER WHICH GOVERNMENT would have no lawful authority to regulate and therefore constrain.

Both factions felt that, in a worst-case scenario, the Nation’s WELL ARMED CITIZENRY—ALWAYS ARMED—would serve as the BEST CHECK against and the ultimate effective impediment to encroaching TYRANNY of GOVERNMENT, in the event the mechanism of “SEPARATION OF POWERS” through a system of “CHECKS and BALANCES,” failed to forestall if not prevent GOVERNMENT TYRANNY from arising.

These FIRST PATRIOTS were therefore confident that, if THE TYRANNY OF GOVERNMENT did arise, in some future time, those future generations of Americans would be able to resist and successfully defeat THAT TYRANNY, just as they, the progenitors of what would become the greatest Nation on Earth, had effectively resisted and successfully defeated the powerful British Empire—the most impressive and powerful Empire that existed in the Eighteenth Century.

BUT RISK OF TYRANNY IS ALWAYS A CONSTANT, AS IT TYRANNY IS INHERENT IN ALL GOVERNMENT. Best then to avoid having to rely on the ARMED CITIZENRY to thwart TYRANNY in the first place—since substantial, horrific bloodshed would result. For, a Tyrant Government would not be so easy to displace, nor willing to acquiesce to the armed citizenry.

Yes, the armed citizenry may help prevent a TYRANNY from becoming an insurmountable threat, which is possible once a TYRANT consolidates all the powerful mechanisms of Government. And those mechanisms are certainly expansive and extraordinarily powerful—beyond anything the Framers could have conceived of at that time, even as they had no doubt a Centralized Government, wielding extensive powers even at that time, in late Eighteenth Century America, would accrue more power in the passing years and decades.

So, then, why take a chance? Why would the Framers wish to craft a CENTRALIZED, NATIONAL GOVERNMENT at all? Many of the States balked at the prospect of relinquishing any power and authority to one Government.

But FEDERALISTS among the Framers were proponents of a strong, central Government, as they saw a need to guard against such future threats coming from abroad, i.e., such THREATS posed by foreign adversaries as the British had once posed to them, before they had even come to form a Nation.

And the Federalists won the day on that point.

To that end, the Federalists felt a “STANDING ARMY,” ready to meet an invasion at once, and head-on, would serve as the best deterrent to such a threat posed by a foreign invader. THAT IS THE UPSIDE, AS THE FEDERALIST FACTION SAW TO FORMING A STRONG CENTRALIZED GOVERNMENT.

But where there is an UPSIDE, there is a DOWNSIDE.

And the DOWNSIDE to having a centralized Government is the inherent threat it poses to the American people and to the States. itself.

Neither FEDERALISTS nor ANTIFEDERALISTS maintained any illusion about THE THREAT a FEDERAL GOVERNMENT poses to the STATES and to the PEOPLE.

The Framers knew that, even with their best efforts to keep Tyranny at bay, their well-crafted Federal Government cannot police itself. Within it the seeds of TYRANNY reside, always waiting, patiently, eternally, for an opportunity to pounce.

Since NO Government that man ever devised can ever prevent Tyranny from emerging at some point since the desire of all GOVERNMENT is control, those nations that perceive themselves as either DEMOCRACIES or REPUBLICS, and not outright DICTATORSHIPS, (at the inception), find themselves in a quandary.

Government will invariably default to a DESPOTIC STATE as that is its NATURAL STATE OF BEING—ITS NATURAL CONDITION—IF IT DIDN’T ALREADY commence as a DESPOTIC STATE.

It is axiomatic, self-evident true, that GOVERNMENT cannot be trusted to truly and effectively “POLICE” itself.

A system of CHECKS AND BALANCES, to complement the REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT the Framers devised and implemented can, at best, FORESTALL TYRANNY, for a time, but cannot PREVENT it.

GOVERNMENT will eventually subjugate its populace. For control and subjugation of a population is its aim, even if Government fails to consciously see that aim, for Government comprises men, and even the most ethical among them, will, likely, eventually, take advantage of opportunities for self-advancement, at the expense of the American people, and many will fall victim to outright corruption.

Thus, if those in the Government convince themselves that they truly operate to serve their constituents, that they only have the best interests of the people at heart and are motivated only to act to serve those interests, they will ultimately falter.

Tyranny is therefore inevitable, and, so, unavoidable, in the absence of an equally powerful countervailing force, to prevent tyranny of government, and that countervailing force must come from the outside.

The Framers of THIS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT fashioned THE GOVERNMENT AS A REPUBLIC, RULED BY LAW,  AND SAFEGUARDED BY A CONSTITUTION, OVER WHICH INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS REIGN SUPREME.

A POINT OF CLARIFICATION IS NECESSARY. THAT POINT OF CLARIFICATION PERTAINS TO THE NATURE OF OUR NATION AND THE FORM AND STRUCTURE OF TH FEDERAL GOVERNMENT COINCIDENT WITH THE NATION——

Contrary to the incessant, tiresome pontification of many politicians, echoed by a smug, self-righteous, seditious Press, that the public witnesses today, the United States IS NOT A DEMOCRACY.

The Framers, to their credit, never crafted the Federal Government to be a “DEMOCRACY.”

Those politicians, and members of the Press, and those in the academic community that constantly, nauseatingly, refer to our Nation and THE Government as a Democracy are simply wrong or, otherwise, they deliberately seek to confuse the public. For what they mean by the term is “DEMOCRACY in its “PURE” form: A “DIRECT” DEMOCRACY. See the article in consoc.org.

Likely, this is constant reference to the Federal Government (and, by extension, the Nation) as a “DEMOCRACY” is a misnomer, and this is by design, and the aim is insidious.

APPLICATION OF A PURE (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY in a LARGE BODY OF PEOPLE—A NATION—is never a good thing.

In structure, this form of Government is inherently unstable: A MOBOCRACY, leading to outright ANARCHY, and dissolution of society—and, so, in practice, completely inoperable, unless devious individuals or groups, seek to utilize a mob to foment constant riots, to destabilize society with the aim of instituting DESPOTIC REGIME from the ruin of society.  

Otherwise, what is purposed as a “DIRECT (PURE) DEMOCRACY” isn’t really a DEMOCRACY at all.

Those that employ the term do so to confuse the public. The term ‘Democracy’ sounds pleasant. That is why they use it. But, on analysis, nothing good comes from application of a “DIRECT (PURE) DEMOCRACY, ON A NATIONAL STAGE, INVOLVING MILLIONS, OR TENS OF MILLIONS OR HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS, OR BILLIONS OF PEOPLE.

The main reason a “DIRECT (PURE) DEMOCRACY” falls short especially in the context of present-day politics is that those who propound it find it useful as a propaganda tool devised for the purpose of manipulating public thought so that the majority of the Electorate would vote into office those people who dictate policy that benefits dangerous, unelected  forces, working in the shadows. Their aims and agenda are wholly contrary to the interests of the American people and inconsistent with the precepts, principles, and tenets of INDIVIDUALISM upon which our Constitution, reflecting the core values of the FRAMERS of the U.S. CONSTITUTION, and FOUNDERS OF OUR FREE REPUBLIC are grounded.

The FRAMERS of our Nation (and Government) crafted it as a REPRESENTATIVE (NON-DIRECT) DEMOCRACY, more familiarly, and more accurately, “A FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.”

Those Destroyers of our Nation, talk incessantly, glowingly, and imperiously of “DIRECT (PURE) DEMOCRACY,” which they seek to utilize to institute a MARXIST DICTATORSHIP. The aim is to control the thought processes of tens of millions of people who tend to vote.

These DESTROYERS OF OUR NATION, realize they are most successful in influencing those Americans who live in the major urban areas that contain high concentrations of people, and, especially concentrations of people who are amenable to their messaging.

These DESTROYERS would like very much to dismantle our ELECTORAL SYSTEM which would, if successful, give them an extraordinary edge in winning elections grounded on POPULAR VOTE,” (even though Trump did win the POPULAR VOTE as well as the ELECTORAL COLLEGE in the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election).  

Once these DESTROYERS succeed in placing a majority of PROGRESSIVE and “DEMOCRAT SOCIALIST” (a.k.a. COMMUNIST or MARXIST) LEGISLATORS IN CONGRESS and succeed in winning the “WHITE HOUSE,” the Government would fall prey to control by unelected forces operating in the shadows, using the elected officials as their puppets.

The horrific impact of such manipulation is manifest in the actions of the BIDEN-HARRIS ADMINISTRATION.

Extraordinary damage was done to our Country: economically, geopolitically, socially, culturally, and jurisprudentially.

If the majority of the Electorate had voted Kamala Harris into Office, and if the Democrat Party controlled both Houses of Congress, the end of the Republic would have been in sight well before the end of Harris’ first term in Office.

President Trump has cast a bright light on the extent of damage this BIDEN-HARRIS ADMINISTRATION had wrought on our Nation.

The aim is to destroy our Republic. What these people have in mind is the creation of a DESPOTIC REGIME THAT IS CLOAKED IN THE GUISE OF DEMOCRACY, ruled by a chosen few: AN OLIGARCHY.  

Their objective is to exercise firm control over, and subjugation of, the masses.

They seek the DESTRUCTION of the Rule of Law, even as they claim to extol it. They seek the DISSOLUTION OF A FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC even as they claim, arrogantly and disingenuously to preserve it.

They intend, unabashedly, to DISASSEMBLE our Nation’s HISTORY AND HERITAGE, OUR NATIONAL IDENTITY AND ETHOS, OUR CULTURE AND OUR JUDEO-CHRISTIAN ETHICS, GROUNDED ON THE PRECEPTS, TENETS, AND PRINCIPLES OF THE SOCIO-POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY OF INDIVIDUALISM—all in the pursuit of something better, which they have considerable problem in articulating since it is noxious, and internally incoherent.

And they yearn to ERADICATE NATURAL LAW RIGHTS on which our BILL OF RIGHTS exists.

But then they do not acknowledge or recognize the existence of NATURAL LAW RIGHTS.

All LAWS AND RIGHTS AND POWERS they presume are man-made constructs, nothing more nor less than that.

And they intend to ERASE ALL EXERCISE OF RIGHTS that appear in the BILL OF RIGHTS—A DOCUMENT THESE DESTRUCTORS OF OUR REPUBLIC FEEL IN DRASTIC NEED OF AN OVERHAUL.

Such Rights listed either must be strenuously modified or, as they insist, or, as regards the “ARMED SELF-DEFENSE,”—which they abhor—abrogated.

This raises the question——

WAS THE INCLUSION OF THE NATURAL LAW RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS A SOURCE OF CONTENTION AMONG ANY OF THE FRAMERS?

NO, OF COURSE NOT.

BOTH THE FEDERALISTS and ANTIFEDERALISTS alike, presumed that FUTURE AMERICANS would internalize basic defining traits that the Framers themselves inculcated—

ONE, TO TAKE as axiomatic, THE EXISTENCE of SUCH THINGS AS NATURAL LAW RIGHTS, INTRINSIC TO MAN, ENDOWED IN MAN BY THE DIVINE CREATOR.

TWO, TO TAKE AS A GIVEN THAT THE EXERCISE of AMERICANS’ Natural Law Rights is sacrosanct and inviolate, ordained by the Divine Creator.

This means that NATURAL LAW RIGHTS ARE UNDERSTOOD AS THE LAW OF THE LAND—SUPREME LAW—beyond the lawful power of Government to regulate, modify, abrogate by edict, repeal, ignore, or transgress in any manner.  

These ELEMENTAL RIGHTS include, most crucially, THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS FOR SELF-DEFENSE AGAINST THE TYRANNY OF GOVERNMENT), AND THE RIGHT TO EXPRESS THEIR WILL (THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH and THOUGHT and ACTION).

Thus, both FEDERALISTS and ANTIFEDERALISTS, felt that, IF OR WHEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DEVOLVED TOWARD A CONDITION OF TYRANNY, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WOULD BE ABLE TO AVAIL THEMSELVES OF THE MOST EFFECTIVE AND THE MOST EFFICIENT WEAPONS AVAILABLE TO RESIST AND TO DEFEAT TYRANNY.

This means AMERICANS MUST OWN, POSSESS, AND HAVE IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE (AT THE READY) MILITARY PERSONNEL WEAPONRY TO BRING TO BEAR AGAINST A TREACHEROUS TREAONOUS GOVERNMENT, ITS LEADERS AND SUCH MILITARY THAT WOULD TAKE UP ARMS AGAINST THE CITIZENRY IN DEFERENCE TO A DESPOTIC REGIME.

Understand, these Federalists—no less than the Antifederalists—accepted as self-evident, THE EXISTENCE/PERSISTENCE of ETERNAL (SUPERNAL) LAW, FUNDAMENTAL, NATURAL LAW bequeathed by the DIVINE CREATOR to MAN and existent on and in MAN.

They saw NATURAL LAW RIGHTS as ABSOLUTES, and TRULY THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND as did the ANTIFEDERALISTS.

The two factions differed on whether a body of Rights had to be expressly set down in writing.

The FEDERALISTS thought an explicit written BOR inserted into the Constitution, unnecessary. They believed that future generations of Americans no less than they, as the FIRST generation, would never doubt the existence of, importance of, and the supremacy of a BODY of FUNDAMENTAL, ETERNAL, UNALIENABLE NATURAL LAW RIGHTS, without which a FREE REPUBLIC, EXISTENT now, would not continue to exist (PERSIST) through time.

WHO, among those FUTURE AMERICANS would disagree with this? To do so would be to welcome TYRANNY. That would be an apostasy, pathological, and idiotic in the contemplation of it.

The Federalists, and likely the Antifederalists too, would find it difficult to fathom that future generations of Americans would acquiesce to Tyranny, let alone welcome it.

The Framers would find bewildering and disturbing that some Americans, albeit a tiny number, would welcome the dissolution of the Republic, while a substantial number would bow to the wishes of those who would destroy the Republic. They would do so because they have lost faith in the Republic and felt that they have no voice in the future well-being of it. Such Americans have capitulated, believing ruination of the Republic is inevitable, seeing the Republic collapsing around them and feeling powerless to effectuate change for the better. Many other Americans refuse to believe that those politicians who remonstrate against the Nation truly mean what they say.

And when such Americans come across evidence of the dangers posed by such people that cannot be dismissed out-of-hand, they fall victim to bouts of cognitive dissonance, refusing to accept what their senses tell them. They simply block from their minds blatant evidence of destructive tendencies of politicians whom they intend to vote into office anyway. And that accounts for a third of the Electorate. They will support politicians who do not have the interests of Americans at heart.

The FEDERALISTS, lacking foresight, would find impossible to grasp how the sensibilities of Americans could become so fractured.

And, being unable to accept the perversity of some Americans, and presuming, wrongly, that all Americans, will accept in the future, just as they do, that Natural Law Rights of Man are not a matter of fashion, but are containers of absolute truths—timeless, not contingent or transient, but eternal. Hence, the FEDERALISTS FELT NO NEED IN CRAFTING AN EXPRESS  BOR. NATURAL LAW WOULD BE BEST SIMPLY LEFT, IMPLIED.

The ANTIFEDERALISTS—as a group more skeptical and cynical but prescient, demurred.

They insisted on an EXPRESS BOR, and their insistence and persistence ultimately won the day.

Given the persistent, vehement concerns and arguments raised by the ANTIFEDERALISTS, the FEDERALISTS acceded to the inclusion of an EXPLICIT BILL OF RIGHTS.

Once the Framers agreed to set down a formal written BILL OF RIGHTS, the question arose as to which of the natural law rights are most important to the existence and persistence of the Nation as a FREE REPUBLIC. These Rights would be “ENUMERATED,” and such UNENUMERATED rights as exist but not considered at the time would also be referenced and were included in the catch-all NINTH AMENDMENT (as recognition that NATURAL LAW RIGHTS not expressed do not automatically exclude others.

This was one of the sticky points among the Federalists who raised concern that in a future time the Government might not recognize and acknowledge other important Natural Law Rights, and therefore argue that the only Rights to be acceded to would be those ratified to by the States in a formal BOR, if in fact the BOR were explicit, expressly stated in a document, incorporated in the Constitution.

The point made had merit. And, The Ninth Amendment rectified the issue the Federalists raised, without jeopardizing the crafting of a FORMAL BOR, set down in writing.

Thus, the ANTIFEDERALISTS could delineate, “ENUMERATE” the most important NATURAL LAW RIGHTS—those most clearly impacting THE NATION. Thus, a renegade Government  would be unable to plausibly, convincingly claim and proclaim to the polity that such NATURAL LAW RIGHTS, not explicitly mentioned either don’t exist or that, if they do exist, the failure to be explicitly mentioned in the BOR means the Framers didn’t feel necessary to mention them and so, the Government can therefore ignore them. And, so the Country would descend head over heels into tyranny due to the mere failure of NATURAL LAW not being set down in writing.

BUT, THE MOST IMPORTANT NATURAL LAW RIGHTS ARE ARTICULATED IN WRITING. AND THE MOST IMPORTANT, BY FAR, IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. THIS NATURAL LAW OPERATES AS BOTH AN EMPHATIC RIGHT, MANIFEST IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND, SO, IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO IGNORE, AND ALSO AS A “POWER” that A TYRANT MUST CONTEND WITH.  

It was with this deep concern in mind the Framers realized a need for the ARMED CITIZENRY to be set down meticulously in writing, and to be set down back-to-back with the right of FREE SPEECH. SINCE BOTH FEDERALISTS AND ANTIFEDERALISTS AGREED THAT THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS WAS ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL TO THE WELL-BEING OF THE REPUBLIC BOTH AT THE TIME OF RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS, AND WOULD REMAIN THE MOST IMPORTANT RIGHT AND POWER THE PEOPLE COULD EVER EXERCISE, THE FEDERALISTS AND ANTIFEDERALISTS PLACED THIS RIGHT AND POWER, FRONT AND CENTER IN THE BOR.

THE RIGHT CODIFIED IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION WOULD BE THE FRAMERS’ ANSWER TO THE EXISTENTIAL THREAT POSED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WITH ITS IMPOSING “STANDING ARMY” IN THE EVENT THE GOVERNMENT TURNED TOWARD DESPOTISM.

AS THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS INFINITELY MORE POWERFUL TODAY THAN IN THE PAST, THE IMPORT OF THE ARMED CITIZENRY IS NO LESS VITAL TODAY IN SECURING A FREE REPUBLIC. AND THAT CITIZENRY—COMPRISING TENS OF MILLIONS OF WELL-ARMED PATRIOTS IS NOT A FORCE A TYRANT CAN TRIFLE WITH. AND IT DOESN’T. PROOF OF AN INTENTION OF RUTHLESS FORCES TO CONTROL THE CITIZENRY INVARIABLY ZEROES IN ON THE “ARMED” CITIZENRY. THE DESIRE OF THOSE FORCES THAT SEEK OUR NATION’S DEMISE EXPENDING SUBSTANTIAL EFFORT TO CONSTRAIN THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SERVES AS PROOF OF THE SIGNIFICANT POWER EXISTENT IN THAT ARMED CITIZENRY TO KEEP A GOVERNMENT, TEDNDING TOWARD DICTATORIAL RULE, EXTREMELY CONCERNED AT THE FORMIDABLE POWER EXERTED BY THIS ARMED CITIZENRY THAT CAN COME TO BEAR WITH SUBSTANTIAL FORCE AGAINST A TYRANT.

A STANDING ARMY of the U.S. (FEDERAL) Government would be pose an existential threat both to the States and to the people, just as the ARMED CITIZENRY would pose an existential threat to a TYRANT GOVERNMENT.

Thus,

The Framers of the Constitution — the ANTIFEDERALISTS and FEDERALISTS, alike — agreed on that. There was no debate on THAT threat. There was only a debate on how to best suppress that threat.

The Framers all agreed on the need for THE ARMED CITIZENRY. And, once the Antifederalists convinced the Federalists that “the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms” needed to be set down in writing because a renegade government would deny that such a Natural Law Right exists unless it were made explicit, no further argument needed to be made.

The FRAMERS SET THAT FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS—A RIGHT THAT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED—IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS, CEMENTED IT IN PLACE, NEVER TO BE REMOVED.

Once expressed in writing, the Tyrant Government could not thereafter claim, even if implausibly, that THE CITIZENRY has no such right. For THERE IT IS—right in the Constitution—AND THERE IT SITS AS a CONSTANT REMINDER AND WARNING TO ANY WOULD-BE TYRANT THAT THE TRUE AND SOLE AND SUPREME SOVEREIGN OF THE NATION IS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

GOVERNMENT WOULD DO WELL TO HEED THIS.

This express notation, THE A RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS in the Constitution would serve to remind a Tyrant Government that, even if Government did not recognize the existence of Natural Law Rights, it is enough THIS RIGHT, FOR ONE, IS SET DOWN EXPLICITLY IN A WRITTEN BOR.

So, the Tyrant Government has to acknowledge its treachery to Constitution and People, were it to strike the Second Amendment down, banning exercise of the Right.

STRIKING DOWN THE RIGHT, DOESN’T DESTROY THE RIGHT. FOR THE RIGHT IS ETERNAL, EXISTENT IN THE MIND OF GOD, AND EXISTENT IN THE MIND AND HEART OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

THE RATIFICATION OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS COMES TO FRUITION IN 1791.

On December 15, 1791, THREE-FOURTHS of the original 13 States comprising THE UNION RATIFIED THE Nation’s BILL OF RIGHTS, INCORPORATING IT into THE CONSTITUTION. But three of the original thirteen states, curiously, Georgia, Connecticut, and Massachusetts held out their vote, until 1939. NO MATTER. A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF STATES RATIFIED IT BACK IN 1791, THAT IT BECAME EFFECTUATED IN THE CONSTITUTION, FOR ALL TO SEE. See the article in prologue.blogs.archives.

A SLOW, INEXORABLE ATTEMPT TO UNWIND EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

THE DISTURBING TRENDING OF OUR FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC TOWARD A STATE OF TYRANNY HASN’T COME OF A SUDDEN, BUT QUIETLY, INSIDIOUSLY, DECADES IN THE MAKING—OVER A CENTURY—AND, LIKE THE PROVERBIAL FROG IN A POT OF WATER BEING SLOWLY HEATED TO BOILING, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, LIKE THE FROG, IS SLOWLY BEING COOKED, NOT REALIZING THAT OUR MOST IMPORTANT RIGHT IS BEING CHIPPED AWAY AT THROUGH ENACTMENTS OF A ROGUE CONGRESS AND A ROGUE U.S. SUPREME COURT. THIS STARTED IN THE LATE 1800S RACHETING UP IN EARNEST IN THE 1930S, COMMENCING WITH CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENT OF WHAT CONSTITUTED ITS FIRST MAJOR, ATTACK ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

CONGRESS PASSED THE “NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT” (NFA) IN 1934, A BRAZEN INFRINGEMENT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT.  THIA ACTION OF CONGRESS WAS IN CLEAR DEFIANCE OF THE NATURAL LAW RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, THAT, THAT PLAINLY PROHIBITS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM INTERFERRING WITH THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT.

The law imposed a tax on the transfer of machine guns and short-barrel firearms Many Americans and Pro-Second Amendment organizations were justifiably outraged. The Federal Government is prohibited from enacting laws infringing NATURAL LAW RIGHTS. The codification of the Natural Law makes the prohibition plain. The independent clause in the Second Amendment says——

CLEARLY, CONCISELY, AND CATEGORICALLY,

“THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”

Congress drafted a statute that infringes a Natural Law Right, codified in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, blatantly and unapologetically. The NRA and other Pro-Second Amendment organizations brought suit against it. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Law, ruling it Constitutional, notwithstanding the plain language of the Right codified in the Second Amendment prohibiting Federal action against exercise of a Constitutional, Fundamental Right. The transfer tax, expensive for the time, operated effectively as a ban on ownership and possession of firearms since few Americans could afford payment of the tax.

From that point on, the Supreme Court would continue to hold such acts by Congress that are clearly unconstitutional and are deemed constitutional anyway, infringing the natural law right to armed self-defense. Several Anti-Second Amendment States, such as New York, that had long taken a dim view of civilian citizen possession of firearms had presumptively attacked the Second Amendment over twenty years before the NFA was enacted, with enactment of the Sullivan Act of 1911 that formalized licensing of handguns in New York. The State required anyone desiring to carry a handgun in New York to first obtain a valid handgun license from an authorized New York State official.

The State interposed itself between the American citizen who wishes to exercise his fundamental right to keep and bear arms and a fundamental, unalienable, Natural Law Right.

At the time, New York Courts upheld the law on the grounds that the Second Amendment prohibition on Government infringement of the Fundamental right only applies to the Federal Government, not to the States. A hundred years later, in the case McDonald vs. City of Chicago, the U.S. Supreme Court would hold that the Second Amendment Right operates as a constraint on the States no less than on the Federal Government.

The point is that no Government, Federal or State can impose laws that infringe the core of the Right. New York remains  defiant of U.S. Supreme Court Second Amendment rulings, and routinely infringes the plain import of the Second Amendment to the present day. When NYSRPA vs. Bruen came out in June 2022, the New York Government, under Governor Kathy Hochul, paid only lip-service to the rulings. The State’s blatant effrontery toward both the High Court and Americans’ most sacred right, codified in the Second Amendment, continues to the present day. A challenge to the constitutionality of the State’s amendments to its Handgun Law came immediately—within two weeks of the Governor’s signing of the amendments into Law. When the case wended its way to the U.S. Supreme Court on a Second Petition for Writ of Certiorari, in February 2025, the Court perfunctorily denied it, weakening the Second Amendment and undermining the Court’s own credibility. The refusal of the Court to hear Antonyuk is no small matter, for this case directly impacts the soundness of the Court’s rulings in Bruen. Thus, the failure to review this case is of another order of magnitude.

Anti-Second Amendment jurisdictions having continuously given little regard to the Second Amendment since publication of the first Landmark Second Amendment case—the 2008 case, District of Columbia vs. Heller—will only be further emboldened to defy the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court.  

Many States erroneously assumed that the Second Amendment only applies to the Federal Government, the Framers of the Bill of Rights, never stated or intimated that the BILL OF RIGHTS only operates as a limitation on the Federal Government and not the States, this is presumptive, not definitive. Sure, the Bill of Rights directly impacted the Federal Government, but as a Government entity itself, the States were wrong and have been wrong for over a Century in taking as axiomatic that the States were free to regulate with abandon, the Fundamental Rights of the American people.

The 2010 McDonald case made plain the BOR applies to the States no less than it does to the Federal Government.

Although the High Court utilized the Fourteenth Amendment to piggyback off of the use of a Civil Rights Amendment upon which to find application of the Second Amendment to the States strikes us as more a makeweight—namely a Court crafted rule upon which to compel State compliance with a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT. Is such really necessary?

To assume so logically implies that States do not have to accede to the supremacy of Natural Law Rights by virtue of the inherent power baked into those Rights as preexistent God-Given Law, but only by virtue of what Supreme Court rulings say about the efficacy of them and by what Congress does.

And Congress, as it turns out, transgresses the import of Natural Law Rights whenever it wishes, as it has done with enactment of the NFA in 1934, and has since done. See discussion infra.

Although concerned about a rogue, tyrannical Federal Government trampling basic rights, the Framers of the U.S. Constitution did not suggest that Fundamental, Natural Law Rights don’t affect the States.

UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF FEDERALISM, THE STATES AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS SOVEREIGN POWERS IN THEIR OWN RIGHT EXERCISE POWERS RESERVED TO THEM ALTHOUGH ARTICLE IV, SECTION 4, APPEARS TO BE AN AREA OF CONTENTION. TO THE STATES HAVE A RIGHT AND POWER TO ENFORCE THEIR OWN BORDERS AGAINST ILLEGAL ALIEN INVASION, WHEN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS REMISS IN PROTECTING THE GEOGRAPHICAL INTEGRITY OF THE NATION’S BORDERS OR, IN FACT, DELIBERATELY, UNCONSTITUTIONALLY AND UNCONSCIONABLY FAILS TO FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THE LAWS OF CONGRESS AND THE CONSTITUTION?

This matter is not academic. It arises from the Biden Administration’s (namely the President’s) unlawful failure to protect the Borders of the United States, placing policy aims and agenda, unconstitutional on their face, over the Laws of the Land, thereby failing to protect the HEALTH, WELFARE, AND SAFETY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, IN PURSUIT OF AN AGENDA THAT COMPORTS WITH INTERNATIONAL AIMS THAT CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTITUTION AND THE LAWS ENACTED BY CONGRESS.

Anything that the Articles don’t delineate as powers exercised by the Federal Government alone, are either exercised by the State or the people, as the TENTH AMENDMENT sets forth, or fall within the purview of the Federal Government. But, once again, where the Federal Government fails to act, be it through sheer ineptitude or through reckless indifference to the SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, then that bespeaks TREACHERY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, and the STATES AND THE PEOPLE MUST ACT TO PROTECT THEIR INTERESTS, AND THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE NEXT U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION TO DO SO.

The U.S. SUPREME COURT, UNDER CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS HAS ITS WORK CUT OUT FOR IT, BUT IS NOT UP TO THE TASK.

Through time, both the Federal Government and the States have chipped away at the Fundamental Rights of the people. As between the “Police Powers” directed to the right and duty of the states to provide for “PUBLIC SAFETY” and the Right and corresponding duty of the People to provide for their “PERSONAL SAFETY” there is now a clash of signature powers and rights of the Federal Government, the States, and the People.  

The U.S. SUPREME COURT is remiss on delineating the SCOPE OF AND BOUNDARIES OF POWERS, RIGHTS, AND OBLIGATIONS AND OF THE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THE STATES, AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

THE SIGNATURE RIGHT AND POWER OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE RESIDES IN ITS EXERCISE OF THE SACRED AND VITAL FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT (AND POWER) AS CODIFIED IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS. THE MOST FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF THE CITIZENRY’S RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS PLACES THE ELECTORATE IN A PRECARIOUS POSITION OF DEPENDENCY ON STATE OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR ITS HEALTH, WELFARE, AND PERSONAL SAFETY. THIS IS RIDICULOUS AND PROFOUNDLY DANGEROUS. IF THE PEOPLE ARE DENIED THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, AND IF THEIR OTHER BASIC RIGHTS FALL PREY TO GOVERNMENT OR STATE USURPATION AND DE FACTO REPEAL, THEN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NO LONGER ARE CONTROL OVER THEIR OWN DESTINY. THEY NO LONGER THE SOVEREIGN OVER THE NATION’S ARTIFICIAL CONSTRUCTS—STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. THIS CANNOT BE BORNE INDEFINITELY. THE PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT AND THE DUTY TO COERCE THESE GOVERNMENTAL BODIES TO REFRAIN FROM EXERTING UNLAWFUL CONTROL OVER THEM, ESPECIALLY WHERE THESE GOVERNMENTAL BODIES FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THEIR OWN DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS UNDER LAW AND CONSTITUTION.

CONSIDER THE FAILINGS OF THE FIRST TWO BRANCHES, CONGRESS AND THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, COMPRISING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND THE FAILINGS OF MANY STATES (those controlled by Progressives and “Democrat Socialists,” i.e., Marxists and Communists).

To whom do the PEOPLE look to obtain clarification of their duties and the relationship of the Federal Government and the States to toward the People, apropos of the Peoples’ exercise of their Natural Law Rights?

WHEREOF DOES ONE FIND THE THIRD BRANCH OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO SECURE AND CLARIFY THE RIGHTS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AGAINST STATE and FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OVERREACH?  

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT is nowhere to be found. The Court should have taken up the slack by defining, clarifying the import of the Right codified in the Second Amendment, the PEOPLE’S MOST CHERISHED RIGHT AND POWER.

The U.S. Supreme Court should compel both States and Federal Government to adhere to the strictures of the Right as codified. For without constraints on State and Federal Government, a Free Republic cannot continue to exist—and the people lose their Sovereign Authority over the States and Federal Government. And that opens them up to dependency, subjugation, and control. And that signifies the onset of DESPOTISM AND TYRANNY.

The U.S. Supreme Court has continuously failed to act conscientiously and with alacrity in defense of the rights of the PEOPLE—THE SUPREME AND SOLE SOVEREIGN OF OVER THE NATION AND OVER THE GOVERNMENT—STATE AND FEDERAL.

Finally, at long last, the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT—DID TAKE ACTION TO CARVE OUT THE SINGULAR POWER OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ON THE RIGHT TO ARMED SELF-DEFENSE in THREE LANDMARK CASES, HELLER, MCDONALD, AND BRUEN. And the High Court began to make tentative steps in the matter of protecting and clarifying the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS AS AGAINST PREDATORY MAN AND THE PREDATORY MAN-BEAST OF GOVERNMENT (Both State and Federal).

Yet Predatory Man continues to prey with abandon on innocent Americans, residing and working in many jurisdictions across the Country). And the High Court has made little headway in dealing with recalcitrant, renegade States and in dealing effectively with UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTS OF CONGRESS AND ILLEGAL RULES PROPOUNDED BY an over-zealous ADMINISTRATIVE FEDERAL BUREACRACY that CONTINUES, RELENTLESSLY TO TRAMPLE on and to SHRED AMERICANS’ SACRED RIGHT TO ARMED SELF-DEFENSE.

On June 26, 2008, roughly 217 years after ratification of the BOR the U.S. Supreme Court published its landmark Second Amendment decision in District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783.

Until publication of Heller, the Court consciously, conspicuously, and consistently avoided setting its imprimatur ON THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE NATURAL LAW “RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.”

Yet, notwithstanding the clear and categorical IMPERATIVES OF HELLER and, notwithstanding the clear IMPERATIVES OF MCDONALD THAT CAME TWO YEARS LATER, AND notwithstanding the clear and categorical IMPERATIVES OF BRUEN THAT FOLLOWED TWELVE YEARS AFTER MCDONALD, ROGUE ACTORS, AND ROGUE STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THOSE STATES, have deliberately circumvented those SUPREME COURT RULINGS, and have dismissed the clarifying LEGAL AND LOGICAL REASONING of the HIGH COURT. These entities continue to act against the Court’s rulings, with impunity. And, Americans continue to challenge these unconstitutional State actions and indefensible lower court rulings. A flurry of new cases challenging those unconstitutional state actions and indefensible lower court rulings have come to rest before the U.S. Supreme Court. Yet, what does the High Court do in response? Little to nothing. And so many other misdeeds against the Second Amendment Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms and against the High Court’s rulings respective of that Right.

Granted, the U.S. Supreme Court CANNOT INVOKE its appellate jurisdiction absent A CASE OR CONTROVERSY that comes before it.

And many major challenges to unconstitutional state actions have come before the Court, at no small expense in time and money and effort as Americans challenge unconscionable State actions that plainly infringe the core of the Second Amendment Right and that blatantly defy the rulings of the Supreme Court.

One would think the U.S. Supreme Court, that stood as the only Branch of Government that would in the first few decades of the Twenty-First Century had FINALLY “taken the bull by the horns,” had come to the assistance of the American people and started to staunchly defend Americans’ sacred right.

Yet, since Bruen, the High Court has failed to follow through on its achievements in CLARIFYING and STRENGTHENING the SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO ARMED SELF-DEFENSE.

This does not bode well for Americans, NOR for preservation of the Second Amendment Right.

Congress and a RENEGADE Administrative State Bureaucracy and ROGUE State governments haven’t thrown in the towel.

Searching for loopholes around Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, or simply ignoring the Supreme Court’s rulings, the forces that seek the demise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms are moving ahead steadily.

The American people for their part, have not thrown in the towel. But, apparently, the U.S. Supreme Court has. Why?

This apparent acquiescence by the U.S. SUPREME COURT to State and FEDERAL GOVERNMENT contempt and defiance toward the U.S. Supreme Court is puzzling.

THE HIGH COURT MUST ACT AGGRESSIVELY AGAINST THIS ATTACK ON BOTH A VITAL NATURAL LAW RIGHT AND ON THE COURT’S ARTICLE III AUTHORITY.

The U.S. SUPREME COURT MUST CONFRONT THESE RENEGADE GOVERNMENT ENTITIES AND ACTORS HEAD-ON.

Doing so, would also serve to reinvigorate the U.S. Supreme Court as still a viable THIRD BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, staking out its rightful authority as established in Article III of the Constitution.

That the Supreme Court would, all too often, become a willing or unwilling, but weak tool of one or the other Branch of Government, instead of protecting the interests of the American People—the true sovereign authority in the United States—should give one pause. One is compelled to reflect on what the role of the U.S. Supreme Court is, after all.

Through the passing decades, the High Court seems to have forgotten Marbury vs. Madison that had staked out a clear defining role for itself, DEFINING AND CLARIFYING WHAT THAT ARTICLE III POWER TRULY MEANS.

The U.S. SUPREME COURT SEEMS TO ACT IN fits and starts. And, in matters of the sanctity of the Second Amendment, what had commenced with vigor and resolve has fallen flat.

Failing to follow through with what the Court has started with FORTITUDE AND PURPOSE, places the Second Amendment and the credibility of the Court in a doubtful place. The purport of Heller and McDonald and Bruen will fizzle out, leaving the Second Amendment Right in a worse position than had the Court not taken up these cases at all. Anti-Second Amendment States, and Anti-Second Amendment members of Congress, and the Anti-Second Amendment Administrative State will certainly take notice. Lower Court opinions will perceive these THREE LANDMARK SECOND AMENDMENT CASES AS BUT ANOMALIES AND OUTLIERS, ABERRATIONS, AND ONE-OFFS, and, in time, these cases will cease to have precedential value.

Pro-Second Amendment organizations will go their merry way, taking on new cases without recognizing that, a foundation has been laid FOR ALL THAT FOLLOWS on the Second Amendment right. Each one of those cases proceeds from the one before. Can Antonyuk vs. James be salvaged. We think it can. As it follows directly from Bruen, this case must not be swept under the rug. And the same goes for the Snope case. What is to be gained dealing with new cases, when the salient matters of Heller and Bruen remain attenuated, incomplete, unresolved—simply hanging in Antonyuk and Snope?

THE FOUNDERS OF OUR REPUBLIC WOULD FIND THIS SEEMINGLY CASUAL, LACKADAISICAL ATTITUDE OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT TOWARD THE SANCTITY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT INEXPLICABLE, POSSIBLY INCOMPREHENSIBLE, AND CERTAINLY MYSTIFYING, DISHEARTENING AND ALSO DISMAYING. IN TERMS OF THE CONSEQUENCES TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, WHICH DEPENDS UPON A WELL-ARMED CITIZENRY, THIS ATTITUDE OF THE COURT IS TRULY HORRIFYING. BUT THERE IT IS.

THE Declaration of Independence WAS THE First Document through which America’s First Patriots, proclaimed their refusal to submit to Tyranny. The Document was taken as a Challenge by the British Empire, and one that the Tyrant, George III would meet with force, as America’s First Patriots had expected and they knew their lives were on the line. They met the challenge, and, surprising to the British and to other European nations, and, perhaps, to America’s Patriots as well, they defeated Tyrant. Their victory was resounding, complete.

America’s Patriots then had to grapple with their next major challenge—crafting a Constitution establishing the Nation as a FREE REPUBLIC—a FREE STATE.

IN THAT CONSTITUTION, THE FRAMERS CLARIFIED THAT THE PREEMINENT AND FINAL ARBITER OF THE LIFE OR DEATH OF A “FREE STATE” RESIDES ALONE IN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE  THEMSELVES.

And it may come to pass that, as the sole and supreme sovereign of their Country and Government, Americans may have to assert their sovereignty over rogue governments—a rogue Federal Government and rogue States—when those governments fail the People, devolving into Tyranny. The American People have the means to secure their Country against the Tyranny of Government, whenever and wherever that Tyranny, in their Country, arises.

But, when does Tyranny arise and become intolerable, obligating the people TO RESIST IT—knowing that failure to do so will lead to IRREMEDIABLE OPPRESSION and SUBJUGATION.

And if THAT should happen, then their fate is sealed. FREEDOM AND LIBERTY DISSOLVE AWAY. SERVITUDE, PENURY, AND MISERY BECOME THEIR LOT IN LIFE, NOT ONLY FOR THEMSELVES BUT ALSO FOR THEIR OFFSPRING AND FOR THOSE GENERATIONS OF AMERICANS TO COME.

IT IS TO PREVENT SUCH A DIRE OUTCOME THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS EXISTS.

IF THE PEOPLE HAVE THE CONCOMITANT WILL TO DEFEAT TYRANNY, THEY CAN PREVAIL AGAINST ANY DESPOT, AS THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, CODIFIED IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS GIVES THE PEOPLE THE MEANS TO CARRY OUT THEIR WILL EFFECTIVELY, VANQUISHING TYRANNY.

AMERICAN PATRIOTS HAVE DONE SO BEFORE, AND AMERICA’S PRESENT PATRIOTS CAN DO SO HENCE, IF SUCH BECOMES NECESSARY.

The Founders of our Republic knew that Government—all Government—tends toward Despotism.

Some Governments commence as Despotic regimes.

Others, such as our own, and particularly our own commence as a True and Free Republic that, in time, inexorably, inevitably falls to Despotism, i.e., Tyranny, unless the people prevent Tyranny from growing to the point that it becomes insurmountable.

For Tyranny becomes progressively more difficult to defeat, once it consolidates its authority over the military and police, intelligence apparatuses, and communication networks, and when the engines of commerce and finance work out secret agreements, compacts, and alliances with Government to thwart the WILL of the People and conspire to break their WILL AND CONFISCATE THEIR WEAPONRY.

Power brokers wish to amass more power. And Government is the most powerful of all power brokers.

In our Country, this consolidation of power bespeaks the end of the American people's sovereignty over the Federal Government and rogue State Governments and the Governments’ supremacy over its populace. There are no mechanisms of control baked into government, no checks and balances capable of keeping government from accruing more power and usurping the sovereignty of the American people—taking that sovereignty from the people—and assuming it, unlawfully, and unconstitutionally for itself.

This is axiomatic. And we are seeing it happen here.

If the United States as a FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC  is to remain truly FREE, it can only do so if the people have the will and EFFECTIVE means to prevent that FREE REPUBLIC from becoming DESPOTIC—from becoming a TYRANNY.

One thing and one thing alone has to date prevented a calamity from occurring: the prominence and sanctity and inviolability of our NATURAL LAW “RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.”

NO OTHER NATION ON THE EARTH HAS ANYTHING AT ALL REMOTELY LIKE THIS. NO OTHER GOVERNMENT ON EARTH WOULD DARE ALLOW OR COUNTENANCE THIS. And this point is true of both DESPOTIC REGIMES and REPUBLICS.

Only our COUNTRY is a FREE REPUBLIC in the TRUEST SENSE of the word ‘REPUBLIC,’ for only our Country COMMENCED AS A TRULY FREE REPUBLIC and remains so ALBEIT not easily today. Our Country would have long ago have fallen to tyranny but for our Bill of Rights and especially but for the RIGHT CODIFIED IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

The Founders of our NATION conceived and crafted it as a Constitutional Republic, NOT a Democracy (contrary to what many commentators and politicians say) and that is a good thing. There is a distinction in that—a major distinction—between the two. See, e.g., the articles in legaldictionary.net and usconstitution.net.

Unfortunately, Republics AND Democracies all trend toward dictatorship over time, for, as mentioned, supra, dictatorship is the natural state of and condition of government.

Republics and Democracies ALL collapse into one or another form of DICTATORSHIP. See the article in enorcerna.com.

The Founders of our Republic, the Framers of our Constitution, sought to prevent the onset of dictatorship by establishing THREE CO-EQUAL BRANCHES with delineated, limited, demarcated powers and authority to handle THE PRIMARY governmental functions: LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE, AND JUDICIAL.

This set of checks and balances among the THREE BRANCHES could DELAY the onset of a Dictatorship, but cannot PREVENT IT, ONCE IT HAS TAKEN ROOT.

The basic functions of the Federal  Government within its framework, as stated in the CONSTITUTION, IS TO PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE OF THE NATION AGAINST FOREIGN  ADVERSARIES AND ALSO TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE NATION’S BORDERS.

The basic function of the States is to PROVIDE FOR THE SAFETY OF THE COMMUNITY AND TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF ITS OWN BORDERS.

Beyond these salient powers and concomitant responsibilities of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and THE STATES, they have one more DIRECTIVE, REFERRING NOT TO POWERS EXERCISED BUT, RATHER, TO A MAJOR, CRITICAL CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRAINT ON STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EXERCISE OF POWER.

Both are Constitutionally prohibited from taking action to constrain the NATURAL LAW RIGHTS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

And, thanks to the prescient action of the ANTIFEDERALISTS, we have a FORMAL “BILL OF RIGHTS.” That BILL OF RIGHTS lays out specific parameters beyond which the Federal Government and the States must not transgress. The Supreme Court, among the Three Branches of the Government, can and must positively point out the unlawful encroachment of State and Federal Government when they exceed their authority by inhibiting the exercise of Natural Law Rights that belong solely to the American People.

THE FAILURE of the U.S. Supreme Court to take action whenever a case or controversy comes before it, alleging unlawful encroachment by the STATES or the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT on the core of the BILL OF RIGHTS, has led to these entities taking too many liberties with it.

At least a few Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court have taken actions to mitigate the damage the States and the Federal Government have done to the BOR.

But for the decisive actions of three ASTUTE, CONCERNED members of the Court, the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms would be in even worse disarray today than it already is.

Three Senior Associate Justices, the late eminent Antonin Scalia, and the two remaining senior Justices on the Court, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito applied the brakes on this runaway train.

THE ROBERTS’ COURT IS SHIRKING ITS OBLIGATION TO PROTECT AND DEFEND AMERICANS’ MOST SACRED AND VITAL RIGHT: THE RIGHT TO ARMED DEFENSE AGAINST TYRANNY

Since June 2022, when the third and last landmark Second Amendment case decision came down, the Court, under Chief Justice John Roberts, started to backslide. And this became painfully apparent because it is the Chief Justice who sets the tone and theme of the Court. And Roberts is not up to the task.

Therefore, the Associate Justices must cajole the Chief Justice to act as a few stalwart Justices have done so in the past and as two, only remain today of the original three.

Those original three Associate Justices who stand out as true Patriots include the late eminent Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, and two Senior Associate Justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

They have taken swift and concerted action to defend the citizenry’s most sacred and vital Right—the Right of the people to keep and bear arms. They took the lead. They forced Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy to exercise the Court’s Article III powers.

The result was three Landmark cases—all decided in the space of twelve years, and the first such cases to come down the pike since ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791.

Those three Landmark Second Amendment cases make plain what many scholars and Federal and State Governments fail to perceive to be true due to personal predilections that have overtaken their senses and their intellectual acuity. This is most apparent and egregious when the lower State and Federal Courts set their imprimatur down, supporting unconstitutional State and Federal Government actions.

This failure of the lower courts to take action to prohibit illegal and unconstitutional State and Federal action is morally reprehensible and legally indefensible, and, in matters involving the Second Amendment, this jeopardizes the “SECURITY OF A FREE STATE.”

The security of that Free State is jeopardized when the U.S. Supreme Court refuses to step in to protect it. This occurs when the High Court fails to act and refuses to exercise control over the lesser Federal and State Courts, all of which fall under its purview.

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT MUST CLARIFY, IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, THE MEANING OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT FOR THOSE RECALCITRANT COURTS THAT DELIBERATELY OBFUSCATE THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT, DOING SO TO DENY THE AMERICAN PEOPLES’ EXERCISE OF THEIR NATURAL LAW RIGHT TO ARMED SELF-DEFENSE.

Let’s take a close look at the constituent parts of this Natural Law Right to armed self-defense, as codified in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

There are FOUR in the independent clause.

FIRST, WHAT DOES THE PHRASE “THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE REFER TO? WHO ARE THE “PEOPLE” THAT THE RIGHT MENTIONS?

The right of the people to keep and bear arms refers specifically to the AMERICAN PEOPLE, as INDIVIDUALS (sentient, self-aware, of independent mind and will, with knowledge of good and evil, and capable of action (agency)).

This means that the right to keep and bear arms exists in the individual, inherently. It is not a thing that manifests until or unless an individual serves in a COLLECTIVE, i.e., in a Militia, as THE Collective. The idea of a limitation on the right of the American citizen, in his individual capacity to keep and bear arms, is false. For to suggest otherwise, is to set a limitation on the exercise of the right where none exists. Such suggested limitation contradicts the exclusive right to keep and bear arms, free from constraint. No legal constraint exists in the language of the Second Amendment which, coheres with the concept of a God-Given right that is without constraint or prohibition.

The Dependent clause operates as a qualifier—a reason for the keeping and bearing arms. It serves as both a reminder and warning to the Government and the States to refrain from enacting laws, rules, codes, regulations, edicts or any other Governmental command that denigrates exercise of the right.

SECOND, WHAT DOES THE PHRASE “KEEPING AND BEARING ARMS” MEAN?

The right to keep and bear arms refers to weapons that one can avail himself of immediately and can bear without assistance from other people or conveyance.

[The concept of weapons here therefore refers broadly to personnel weapons (i.e., the weapons each armed citizen easily and capably can bear by himself for himself].

THIRD, WHAT DOES THE WORD, ‘ARMS’ refer to in the phrase, “TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS”?

The weapons here mean MILITARY WEAPONS because such weapons best enable “THE COMMON MAN” to provide for the security of a free state (as these weapons give the citizen soldier the most effective means for confronting and engaging a Tyrant’s forces and toppling an unlawful, treacherous, treasonous regime.

This point contradicts that of the Anti-Second Amendment zealots who proclaim that, “no one (namely, a civilian citizen) needs or should have a ‘weapon of war’ or any ‘military style weapon.’”

These Anti-Second Amendment proponents state and incessantly reiterate this declaration to shut down discussion and argument before it starts.

They don’t perceive or offer this declaration as a proposition to be proved and rebutted, but as an assumption to be accepted and acclaimed as sensible and self-evidently true, though it is not.

The mere existence of an armed citizenry, armed and trained in using military weaponry and able and willing to use it if such becomes  necessary, would give any Government tending toward tyranny, pause, unless the citizenry welcomed Tyranny or had willingly acquiesced to it because they were duped through a massive campaign of deception to ignore the clear signs of true despotism.

FOURTH, “WHAT DOES THE PHRASE, “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” MEAN? This phrase plainly means no one and no entity, especially Government (as the most serious threat) can constrain, impede, deny, or interfere with the citizen’s exercise of this Natural Law Right.

Who, among us, would rationally defend, least of all welcome, government exerting control over his freedom and liberty? Unfortunately, quite a few:

Those elements both inside and outside our Country who not only invite and endorse this but also actively, avidly advance the aim of REPRESSIVE, OPPRESSIVE Government constraint on the individual freedom to defend himself against any predatory threat, including, and particularly, the threat posed by Government.

Most of Americans would not countenance constraint on one’s defense of self against  government domination over one’s life.

The well-armed citizenry, tens of millions of us, equipped with military weapons serves as a formidable force to be reckoned with for any would-be TYRANT.

This explains the Antifederalists insistence on explicit mention of the Natural Law “right of the people to keep and bear arms” in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. The recitation of the right to keep and bear arms serves as a constant reminder to those in Government that the American People are the master over Government and can dissolve it when it no longer serves the interests of the people, and resorts to illegal usurpation of the Citizenry’s Sovereignty over Government.

But for this reminder to government and but for the capability of an exceptionally well-armed citizenry—tens of millions of American Patriots—to overthrow tyranny, recitation of the fundamental, unalienable natural law right to armed self-defense would be unnecessary, because it is otherwise redundant.

For, THE RIGHT to SELF-DEFENSE the Right of one to secure his personal survival against every manner of PREDATOR implies an absolute right to access the most effective means available to ensure one’s survival against a visible threat, by employing a firearm against that threat—say a threat from a beast of prey or predatory man-beast. In these two instances, no explicit recitation of the right of the people to keep and bear arms is needed. For, such Natural Law Right would be implied under the NINTH Amendment AS ONE OF MANY UNENUMERATED NATURAL LAW RIGHTS.

The RIGHT SPECIFIED in the Second Amendment, as an ENUMERATED RIGHT, is required for an especial matter affecting all American Patriots.

The Second Amendment refers specifically to ARMED SELF-DEFENSE NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE.”

The dependent clause in the language of the Second Amendment operates as a qualifier, providing an explanation for inclusion of the Natural Law Right, as an ENUMERATED RIGHT, instead of as an UNEUMERATED RIGHT. 

That Right is directed toward thwart a threat beyond what one confronts typically in nature or in civilization.

But, the threat posed by THE MAN-BEAST OF GOVERNMENT is more nuanced, and more expansive in the damage it inflicts—for the entire body politic is threatened by a Government that devolves into Tyranny.

Why would it take the Supreme Court 217 years to explain the SECOND AMENDMENT comprehensively, meticulously? Is not the language of the Second Amendment plain enough? Surely it is. But naysayers are legion and they deliberately obfuscate the plain meaning to confound the public, to dull its meaning, thereby inviting GOVERNMENT to make inroads on it, to constrain the PEOPLES’ EXERCISE OF IT.  

The Supreme Court is a MAJOR BRANCH of THE GOVERNMENT, BUT, unlike the other BRANCHES, it seems to lack the desire to exercise its unique, AND CRITICALLY IMPORTANT Article III powers, even as the other TWO BRANCHES ARE EAGER to accrue ever more power for themselves AND TO USURP THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Why IS THE THIRD BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT DENIGRATED WITH REGULARITY BY THE PRESS AND BY CONGRESS AND BY MANY OF THE STATES?

Sure, the Supreme Court doesn’t control the “PURSE STRINGS” of Congress and it doesn’t control the powerful MILITARY, FEDERAL POLICE, and INTELLIGENCE APPARATUSES of the Chief Executive.

BUT THE THIRD BRANCH HAS ONE UNIQUE POWER, AS LAID OUT IN ARTICLE III, EVEN IF THAT POWER IS  TACIT.

FOR THAT POWER IS THE SINGULAR SOURCE OF THE COURT’S STRENGTH.

THE JUDICIARY CLARIFIES THE LAW AND CONSTITUTION, SO THE OTHER TWO BRANCHES DON’T GO ASTRAY. IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS AUTHORITY, THE SUPREME COURT ENSURES THE SEPARATION OF POWERS OF ALL THE BRANCHES AND CONSTRAINS THE MISUSE OF AUTHORITY OF THE STATES.

IT CONTROLS THE THOUSANDS OF LOWER FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS. AND, MOST IMPORTANTLY, IT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ENSURE THE SANCTITY OF THE CITIZNERY’S NATURAL LAW RIGHTS.

REGARDING THIS LAST POINT, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS CONTINUITY OF IN ITS COMPLEMENT OF NINE MEMBERS. UNLIKE THE OTHER TWO BRANCHES THE SUPREME COURT IS INSULATED FROM CORRUPTING INFLUENCES. IT IS NOT BEHOLDING TO ANY OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY AND IS THEREFORE BEST SHIELDED FROM BRIBES AND OTHER CORRUPTING INFLUENCES.

THIS ALONE INSULATES IT FROM ANYONE OR ANYTHING THAT MIGHT PREVENT IT FROM EXERCISING ITS SINGULAR POWER OF MAKING CLEAR TO THE OTHER TWO BRANCHES, AND TO THE STATES, WHAT THE LAW IS. THAT IS AN AWESOME POWER.

AND THIS IS AS THE FOUNDERS OF OUR FREE REPUBLIC, THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION, INTENDED.

THUS, CONTRARY TO THE CLAIMS OF SOME COMMENTATORS AND SCHOLARS, THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION NEVER INTENDED THE U.S. SUPREME COURT TO BE A SUBORDINATE BRANCH, MUCH LESS AN UNNECESSARY, REDUNDANT APPENDAGE.

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT ALONE HAS SIGNIFICANT AUTHORITY TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENRY BY TELLING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE STATES TO FORBEAR ACTING TO FRUSTRATE AMERICANS’ EXERCISE OF THEIR FUNDAMENTAL, UNALIENABLE NATURAL LAW RIGHTS.

IN EXERCISING ITS AUTHORITY, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, MORE SO THAN ANY OTHER FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ENTITY, IS CAPABLE OF ENSURING THE SANCTITY OF OUR ELECTORAL SYSTEM.

IT IS BEST SUITED TO SECURING OUR NATION’S LAWS FROM MISUSE AND MISAPPLICATION. AND IT IS BEST EQUIPPED, OF ALL THE BRANCHES, TO PROTECT THE COUNTRY FROM SLIDING INTO TYRANNY.

FAILURE TO EXERCISE ITS POWERS, INVITES TYRANNY.

IF THE SUPREME COURT SHIRKS ITS OBLIGATION TO CONSTITUTION AND PEOPLE, IT FALLS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THEMSELVES, AS LAST RESORT, TO PROTECT THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE.

BUT IF THE PEOPLE MUST RESORT TO REBELLION TO RESIST AND TOPPLE TYRANNY, THAT WILL LEAD TO MASSIVE BLOODSHED. BUT SUCH MAY BE NECESSARY TO SECURE THE PROMISE OF AMERICA’S WAR FOR INDEPENDENCE IN 1776, IF THE SUPREME COURT FAILS US.  

When the U.S. Supreme Court fails to review cases, that it ought to review, and the High Court defers to lower State and Federal Courts, when doing so undermines its authority and credibility, and brings concomitant loss of respect to the entire judiciary, it is, then, not surprising that Congress, and the States, and other entities, treat it as weak, and undeserving  of exercising its Article III.

Obsequious behavior only leads to further defiance by the other two Branches and by the States, and by the lower State and Federal Courts too, which all fall under its purview. And that compounds the problems for the Supreme Court.

And, as the Court’s credibility becomes ever more tenuous, its rulings will be visited with contempt, routinely ignored or given mere lip-service.

A few U.S. Supreme Court Justices are well aware the present Chief Justice, John Roberts, is being unnecessarily accommodating to the States, to the lower courts, and to the other two Branches.

This does nothing to maintain the sanctity of the Constitution, or the Country, or our Citizenry, or the stability of a Free Republic.

Our Republic would have slid dangerously into a state of Tyranny a few decades ago but for the actions of a few stalwart Justices.

The late Justice Antonin Scalia, and the TWO present SENIOR Justices, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, were three Men—American Patriots—who saw our Nation’s concrete foundation against Tyranny beginning to crumble.

They undertook a substantial restoration process to strengthen the bulwark against TYRANNY, by strengthening our Fundamental Natural Law Right, codified in the Second Amendment.

Who in this Country would defend Tyranny? Unfortunately, quite a few: Those elements both inside and outside our Country who not only invite and endorse this Tyranny but actively, avidly advance that objective, to  fruition.

Tens of millions of Americans, ably equipped with military weapons, are in the last analysis the only force capable of preserving a Free Republic.

Two Branches of the Federal Government along with Rogue States know this. That explains why so much time, effort, and money (taxpayer money) has gone into the de facto repeal of and eventual de jure eradication of the Natural Law Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms. There is even serious discussion about doing away with the Constitution altogether or by revising it drastically.

Seeing this occurring in the last ten years demonstrates the importance of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The Three Justices, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito saw this. And recognized that, with the Republic rapidly ceding power to foreign influences, and to shady opportunists in our Country, they realized the importance of bolstering the Second Amendment posthaste.

The FIRST Landmark Second Amendment case, District of Columbia vs. Heller, arose, not because most of the Court wanted to grant review of it, for most of the Court did not.

Only three Justices insisted on taking it up: Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. Not so, any others on the Court.

Chief Justice John Roberts, and Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy would have wished to deny review of it. And the erstwhile Conservative-wing Justice, David Souter, and the liberal-wing Justices, Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stevens, and the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, would wish to avoid reviewing it, as is plain from their vigorous dissents or when they joined in those dissents, as the case shows.  

Three dominant voices on the Court told the “moderate,” pseudo-Conservative-wing Justices, that they would not abide the inexorable and insufferable weakening of the Natural Law Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms.

That’s what they saw occurring and that is what they sought to prevent in a bold decision, proclaiming the sanctity of the Right of the People to Armed Self-Defense.

After decades of Supreme Court complaisance, even docility toward Congress, which had enacted unconstitutional laws—the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, in 1993—the U.S. Supreme Court, through the efforts of three Justices would not abide the death of a Free Republic by slow strangulation of the Natural Law Right to Armed Self-Defense. Heller paved the way. McDonald and Bruen would follow.

And, thereafter Antonyuk and Snope came to the attention of the Supreme Court. BUT NOTHING HAPPENED! THE COURT GREW AMAZINGLY SILENT ON THE TWO MOST IMPORTANT CASES to come up on appeal after Bruen.

Antonyuk follows directly from Bruen. YET—the Court denied review. The making of THE SUPREME COURT’S FOURTH LANDMARK SECOND AMENDMENT CASE came to naught.

Snope follows directly from Friedman. Yet, the Court ultimately denied review of that one as well. Snope had the making of THE SUPREME COURT’S FIFTH LANDMARK SECOND AMENDMENT CASE. The Court delayed review of it when it came up in conference several times. But, in the end, that case also came to naught.

Protection of the Second Amendment has come to a screeching halt!

That means PROTECTION IS BACKSLIDING! WHY? Americans are faced with a sad inference that needs to be drawn, however reluctantly: the capitulation of John Roberts and at least  two of the three Trump Nominees—Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

The Electorate successfully voted Donald Trump to serve his second term, much to the chagrin of legions of powerful forces that seek to destroy our Republic. And they are biding their time until Trump’s second term ends in January 2028, a matter of seconds from the standpoint of political history.

No one has the intellectual capacity together with the incredible fortitude of President Trump who is doing everything in his power in the short time available to get our Country back on track and back to its roots.

In the end, it will be up to the American people to secure a Free Constitutional Republic.

After 250 years of our Nation’s incredible success, will it come to pass that a decisive, final stand of America’s Patriots takes place, commencing July 4, 2029, as those Patriots proceed to do what they can to DEFEND THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE from those FORCES THAT DARE TO CRUSH US, were they to succeed in ensconcing yet another DISGUSTING “BIDEN-HARRIS ABSURDITY” in the Office of the Chief Executive, once again bringing ignominy and humiliation to our Nation and to our People?

Did not the Antifederalists, with preternatural clarity, perceive the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS as the only tenable option remaining to us Americans—OUR “FAILSAFE”—a drastic step BUT ONE necessary to protect a FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC from rupturing once the Nation’s institutions crumble, when the well-oiled engine of society falls into abject Anarchy and ruin, and after a failed Government COLLAPSES of its own ponderous weight, into Tyranny?

In our next article, we will present a list of all the major U.S. Supreme Court cases that came before the Court subsequent to ratification of the Bill of Rights, in 1791. This list of cases will show THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS BEEN uniformly REMISS IN PROTECTING THE SECOND AMENDMENT, until the Court took up Heller in 2028.  

The failure of the Court to review Second Amendment cases that involve an attack on the core of the Right, or, otherwise, deciding the cases wrongly, by finding constitutional government action that deliberately infringes the CORE OF THE RIGHT, does nothing positive to secure the Right, as these cases decisions allow government to infringe that which “shall not be infringed,” in defiance to the clear meaning of the Right. UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTIONS OF CONGRESS, AND OF SOME CHIEF EXECUTIVES (OBAMA AND BIDEN), AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTIONS OFTHE STATES ALL CHIP AWAY AT THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

The bottom line here is that Justice Roberts isn’t the only Chief Justice that has been remiss in promoting the sanctity of the Second Amendment.

The Court has a long history of SHIRKING ITS DUTY TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. ROBERTS IS JUST THE LATEST EXAMPLE OF A COURT DEMONSTRATING LITTLE REGARD FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT, WITHOUT WHICH TYRANNY IS UNAVOIDABLE, AND THE REPUBLIC DIES.