Disarming United States Citizens is Not Possible

Custom Search

    There is lots of fear that Obama is going to call in all the privately owned firearms. Too bad he thinks he can preside over the government of the United States when he doesn't  understand the rules of the job he is sitting on!

     The first thing we need to do on Monday, August 8th, 2011, is for each one of us to contact our representatives in the House and in the Senate, and TELL them (don't just ask!) TELL them to instruct this questionable person -- who may not even rightly be a "president" -- that he has no authority in any case whatsoever to violate the SUPREME LAW OF THIS LAND!  The people here are armed because the law requires it. Our collective liberty is spelled out in the Constitution  - but  our personal liberty is guaranteed in the "Bill of Rights'. Neither Obama, nor anyone else, can call in our privately owned firearms because that issue is way beyond his, or anyone else's, authority.  The "Bill of Rights" is Supreme Law here.  What does it take to have him understand that no state, no person, and no president  can take preeminence over an Amendment in the "Bill of Rights"?  It is way beyond his, or their, authority!   The "Bill of Rights" is not subject to the repeal, revoke, or rescinding process!

   One of our Supreme Court Justices stated: "The very purpose of a "Bill of Rights" was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts....fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." 

If Obama doesn't like it, he can go back to Africa.  If he gives an order to disarm the people in general, or to permit house-to-house searches, the whole country will bear witness to the fact that he has lost his sensibilities, and immediate impeachment proceedings must begin. 

   Liberty and firearms are inseparable! You can't have one without the other! Trying to take away one, is the same as taking away the other! This basic principle was written into the laws of this land!   Doesn't Obama know that a president is obligated to enforce the laws written in the Constitution? For what reason is he trying to misconstrue the real meaning of the Second Amendment of the "Bill of Rights"?   He is forbidden to do any legislating whatsoever in the area of the people's right to arms!

   Obama cannot delegate to himself such unconstitutional power and install repressive and seditious acts without being brought to trial.  What law school did Obama attend?  Was he absent from school on the day this issue was being hammered into the heads of law students? 

   U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Davis (1815 to 1886) told it like this, when speaking of Constitutional law: "No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to  anarchy - or depotism...the theory of necessity upon which it is based is false, for the government within the Constitution has all the powers granted to it, which are necessary to preserve its existence....If Obama continues this un-constitutional quest, it becomes apparent that he is against the fundamental laws of the Constitution!  That would make his oath of office a sham and a mockery. It would also subject him to punitive action by the Congress and the Supreme Court.

    The answer is found in the 16th American Jurisprudence Second Section; 177: "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment; and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.  An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed.....is void....it imposes no duties, confers no rights,  creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it... A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.  An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing law.  No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."