errible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

Tench Coxe, (friend of Madison, member of Continental Congress) Freeman's Journal, 20 Feb. 1778

The Second Amendment to the Constitution reads as follows: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The Second Amendment has been a source of intense political debate throughout American history, even prior to the adoption of the Constitution. It would appear that there were - and continue to be - two schools of thought as to its definition and intent. It seems clear that the framers of our Constitution sought to protect the freedom of individual citizens to defend themselves, their property and their country. Some of the initial militia proposals called for a "select militia" which would be regulated by the government. These proposals were considered to be potentially dangerous by others, including George Washington. They were characterized as undemocratic because a "select militia" would have amounted to nothing less than the creation of a "standing army". Our founding fathers shared great concerns about the issue of standing armies, and this is why proposals calling for government-regulated militias were shot down at the time. The "select militia" was ultimately established and became what is known today as the National Guard. However, the National Guard is NOT the "well-regulated militia" referred to in Amendment II of the U.S. Constitution.

Despite differing positions of people like Baron Von Steuben, a proponent of "select militia", all of the pre-Constitution militia proposals called for what is known as a general duty of all citizens to possess arms. That's right, they called it a general duty. The second amendment continues on to say that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Many academians and special interest groups seem to ignore this part of the amendment - the part which uses the words "the people". That would be you and me. In other words, it is our natural right to possess a firearm and to use it in defense of our selves, families or homes.

This interpretation has been challenged time and time again by those seeking to convince average citizens that defense is best left to "law enforcement" and to the military. Back in the earlier times of this nation, it would have been simply unthinkable to surrender your firearms in the hope that someone else would protect your interests. Yet, today, we swim in a sea of special interests, with many powerful and persuasive voices telling us the Second Amendment does not mean what it means. To systematically disarm a population is to place them in serious jeopardy. Our Founding Fathers knew this all too well, which is why they placed prohibitions within the Constitution. It's safe to assume that these men learned their lessons from the record of history.

Home-Rule Ordinances vs. the U.S. Constitution

For the last two years, I have watched the ongoing battle being waged between a man named Rick Stanley, Denver law enforcement, and the Denver, Colorado judiciary. Stanley is a former Libertarian senatorial candidate for the state of Colorado and has been perhaps the most impassioned, unrelenting and outspoken American in current times on the issue of the second amendment. Denver is one of 76 home-rule municipalities within the state of Colorado. A home-rule municipality, according to the Colorado Municipal League, is one in which "citizens voted to adopt a home-rule charter based on the principle that local citizens should have the right to decide how their local government should be organized and local problems resolved." The purpose of this is to protect a city from state interference, unless the courts decide that a matter has statewide impact. If this is the case, then the state law is said to prevail over home-rule law.

Home-rule would appear to be a tool of citizen empowerment on its face. However, what happens when a home-rule ordinance conflicts with a state constitution or even the federal Constitution? Which law prevails? For example, if the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution tells us that every American citizen has the right to keep and bear arms, and goes on to say that this right shall not be infringed, how can a home-rule city lawfully enact and enforce a local ordinance that clearly violates the federal statute? Rick Stanley is sitting in a Colorado jail at this writing because he refused to abide by Denver's local home-rule ordinance which prohibits people from openly carrying a firearm. Stanley insists that this ordinance violates not only the Colorado State Constitution but also the Constitution for the united States of America.

In Section 8 of the Home Rule provision of the Colorado Constitution, (Article 2, Section 6) it specifically prohibits any home-rule city from making any ordinance that violates a Colorado citizen's rights in the state Constitution. This was affirmed in SB-25, legislation which tells all cities in Colorado - and specifically on the issue of "open carry of a weapon" - that the cities are prohibited from making ordinances that violate state constitutional rights. City ordinances must be in harmony with, not in violation of, the state constitution. So what is Denver's problem with this, exactly? Stanley was not arrested for brandishing his weapon in a threatening manner or for using it in the commission of any crime. He was arrested for having his weapon visibly holstered. He was exercising his natural right to keep and bear arms in a peaceable manner, a provision which is succinctly spelled out within our Bill of Rights.

Rick Stanley's refusal to defer to a home-rule ordinance which he deems unconstitutional (simply because it is) has been a constant thorn in the side of Denver law enforcement and the Denver courts system. Stanley has also challenged the jurisdictional authority of the judiciary to even try his case. He cited the U.S. Constitution in his defense and was pointedly ordered not to refer to it again by one Judge Patterson. It would seem that the Denver Judiciary is getting a little too big for its britches, wouldn't it? Incidentally, the Colorado State Constitution Bill of Rights says:

" Section 13. Right to bear arms.

The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons."

Rick Stanley was not carrying a concealed weapon. The ongoing and escalating debacle in Denver with Stanley, (a successful local businessman as well as a constitutional activist) is relevant to us all. We need to ask ourselves if his situation could happen to any one of us in any state of the Union. Do home-rule ordinances supersede state or federal statutes? Does the Second amendment really apply to every U.S. citizen or can a local municipality override a federal mandate? How much power do local governments actually possess? If a city or town can enact laws that abrogate state and federal laws, then it is conceivable that within the state of Colorado alone, one could travel to 76 different cities and be subject to differing laws from city to city and town to town. How confusing is that? Moreover, how can this be in harmony with the U.S. Constitution - the supreme law of the land? Looking further into the issue of home-rule, it needs to be clear that local governments have limited authority. They do not possess inherent power or authority. Even a home-rule city or town does not have limitless authority to just do as it pleases. City governments obtain their power from state government. They are confined to dealing with local matters only and are confined within the boundaries of their state constitutions. Home-rule ordinances do not free the people of a city or town from their state constitutions nor are they freed of the provisions of the supreme law of the land, the Federal Constitution.

I was curious to know the educated opinion of an academian on this subject, so I asked a professor of political science, Mr. Joseph F. Zimmerman. Professor Zimmerman is currently writing the 2004 Book of the States. He is a noted researcher on the subject of home-rule and related topics. When asked about the Second Amendment and home-rule, Professor Zimmerman replied:

"You are using the National Rifle Association's definition of the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution. You need to read the entire amendment which stipulates " A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Excuse me? The National Rifle Association's definition? Isn't that interesting. As a matter of fact, I've read and re-read the 2nd amendment a number of times and I think it enunciates rather well the spirit and intent under which it was drafted. Call me crazy, but I'm convinced that this amendment says what it means and means what it says. It's a shame human beings invariably feel the need to twist, contort and complicate what would otherwise be a very simple matter. According to Zimmerman, there is more than one definition or version of the 2nd amendment. I'm reminded of a former president who liked to have fun playing with the definition of the word "is". If you recall, "is" does not necessarily mean "is". And now, there are those who would argue that the 2nd amendment does not mean what it says. These must be the same people who think there is more than one version of the truth.

Zimmerman goes on to say " The Militia was renamed the National Guard by a 1916 Act of Congress. The amendment refers to the minutemen of the revolutionary war period or citizen soldiers. The amendment does not mean you have a constitutional right to own a bazooka, a heavy caliber machine gun, or similar weapons." Zimmerman had this to say about home-rule: ".there is no complete "home-rule" for any local government. If a local government had complete home-rule, it would be a sovereign political entity."

So which law prevails and which is the higher authority - a home-rule law or the federal law? The Supreme Court had this to say: "The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution." - Reid v Covert 354 US l, 1957, Supreme Court decision http://www.constitution.org/ussc/354-001a.htm I interpret this decision to mean that the Constitution is forever the supreme law of the land and all levels of government are subject to and confined by the Constitutional provisions and prohibitions of our guiding documents. This is inclusive of home-rule cities and towns all across the nation, including Denver, Colorado, where local government apparently believes it answers to no higher authority than itself.

The rights enunciated within the Bill of Rights are clear and they are applicable to ALL Americans. There is no judge in any of these united States of America - including Denver's Judge Patterson - who has been granted the authority to nullify the Federal Constitution or disallow it in a supposed court of law. This type of behavior is not only the pinnacle of arrogance, but extremely dangerous to all of us. It sets a horrifying judicial standard and a frightening precedent because it bears tremendous potential to be duplicated in courts throughout the country if left unchecked.

As American citizens, we possess fundamental human rights, granted to us by our Maker. We possess the right to defend ourselves and those we love, and to defend our property/land. The 2nd amendment is simple to understand and has no obscure, multiple meanings. If you still harbor doubt about this issue, please consider the unforgettable words of George Washington:

' "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth keystone... The rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour."

~ President George Washington ~ (Address to 1st session of Congress)

In other words, we ARE the Militia. Further Reading: 1. Merrill Jensen, ed., The Documentary of History of the Ratification of the Constitution, vol. 3 at 378. (Madison, Wisconsin).

2. Walter Bennet, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21, 22, 124 (University of Alabama Press, 1975).

3. Noah Webster, "An Examination Into the Leading Principles of the Federal States", at 56 (New York, 1888).

4. Annals of Congress 434 (1789)

5. Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, vol. 2 at 746 (1833). 6. Act of May 8, 1792; Second Congress., First Session, Ch. 33

=====

Freedom had been hunted round the globe; reason was considered as rebellion; and the slavery of fear had made men afraid to think. But such is the irresistible nature of truth, that all it asks, and all it wants, is the liberty of appearing. ~ Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1791 ~

==============================================

Live Free or Die! Liberty in our Lifetime! The Stanley Scoop http://www.stanley2002.org If you wish to unsubscribe, please send a message to webmaster@stanley2002.org with the subject "unsubscribe" from the email address you received it at.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------