Why we need 2nd Amendment Sanctuary from Democrats

James City County will consider a 2nd amendment sanctuary pronouncement. My letter to Ms. Sadler, JCC BOS, giving my full support of said pronouncement. 

Dear Ms. Sadler, I will be out of town on December 10^th, 2019. I will be traveling for business. If the opportunity arises that, I shall be given the right to speak at a later date, then I will do so. In the meantime, I have written what I would have spoken to in regard to our individual rights. If you can please enter into the transcripts of the meeting that would be great. If you wish to read for me that would be great. Good Luck.

James City County has a fitting question to answer this December 10, 2019. Will we the people protect lawful abiding citizens from the constant need of others to deny the constitutional rights of legal abiding citizens? The 2nd Amendment was written deliberately and divided into three parts. Some scholars may argue for two parts, but I would say the 2nd Amendment offers three separate "individual rights" or roles and the Supreme Court agrees with me, or I could say I agree with them. This intended divide would consider its prefatory clause, ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state") and its operative clause ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms") and then closes with the phrase ("shall not be infringed"). All separated by commas.

With getting to the point in mind, let us consider what is at hand. There are two opposing arguments. Argument one: state rights noted with importance and found within the prefatory clause of the 2^nd Amendment. Here we see a case for the protection of state rights from an overzealous federal government. Many states would have never signed the Constitution, states like New York, Rhode Island, and yes, even Virginia had provisions not been made or promises to amend the Constitution with a bill of rights. The 2nd Amendment being the right to “form a militia” if need be is evident to this writer as significant to our founding fathers. After all, it was the 2nd Amendment considered. But the founding fathers did not stop here; the founding fathers went on to write another portion into the 2nd Amendment. "Individual rights" emphasized the operative clause, here we see our founding fathers protecting individual citizens in the ownership, possession, and transportation of firearms. However, our founding fathers did not stop here; they went on to write "shall not be infringed."

In the United States vs. Miller, the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. The Court observed with a distinct purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of militia or public force. "The significance of the militia, the court continued, was that it was composed of civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion." This force, if called upon, is a force that states could rely upon for the defense and securing of laws. A force that "comprised of males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," who, "when called to service".... were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use of the time. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a sawed-off shotgun having a barrel of fewer than 18 inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. What they were saying is, if the weapon is not used in general defense of the country, then it can be regulated.

The governor and his fellow Democrats want to ban the following.

1.   AR-15: A semi-automatic rifle used for hunting in VA and of course is considered a hunting rifle in VA. This same rifle can be used in defense of the state whereby the military and the private citizens use the same ammunition NATO .556 for lawful purposes. Even the Democrats call this weapon "an assault / military rifle and want to ban. But, according to United States vs. Miller, that would be against the law. When a state draws up bills that are against federal law or fall under the protection of our Constitution, we must cast off said government and legally create our own.

2.   Extended magazines: Extended magazines are needed and would be useful to a militia in the protection of our state, county, or city. Extended magazines are part of ordinary military equipment. To ban would be against the law.

After the United States vs. Miller decision, Congress placed more significant restrictions on the receipt, possession, and transportation of firearms. Proposals were made for the prohibitions of firearms altogether. Miller, however, sheds a little light on the validity of such proposals. Miller points out the interest in the "character of the 2md Amendment right” has been burgeoned, and our governor, along with the Democrats, want to destroy our "individual rights" even further.

Justice Thomas, concurring in the Court's invalidation of the Brady handgun violence act, questioned whether the 2nd Amendment bars federal regulation of gun sales, and suggested that the Court might determine "at some future date, Whether Justice Story was correct "that the right to bear arms" has justly been considered, as the palladium of liberties of a republic. A republic minds you; the Democrats want to destroy.

The Supreme Court sided with "individual rights" in or around 2008. The Court in Columbia v Heller confirmed what has been a growing consensus among legal scholars - that the rights of the Second Amendment adhered to individuals. The Court reached this conclusion after a thorough examination of the Amendment, an analysis of the historical use of prefatory phrases in statues, and a detailed exploration of the 18th-century use of the phases found in the Amendment. The Supreme Court went on to consider the phrase "well-regulated militia." This phase did not adhere to state or federal militias but a pool of "able-bodied men." who were available for conscription. The Court reviewed contemporaneous state constitutions, post-enactment commentary, and subsequent case law to conclude, the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms extended beyond the context of militia service to include the right to self-defense.

Using this "individual rights theory," The Court struck down a District of Columbia v. Heller law that banned virtually all handguns and required that any other type of handgun could be prohibited as long as other guns (such as long guns) were available. Another requirement that all firearms be inoperable at all times was found to limit the "core lawful purpose of self-defense."

In McDonald v. Chicago, it found that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment and is thus enforceable against the states. The Court examined whether the right to keep and bear arms is "fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty" or deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition. Relying on Heller, the Court noted common English law of the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and a bulwark against overreaching federal authority. The Court suggested that the right to keep and bear arms has become a valued principal for self-defense.

One might find it interesting, the 14th Amendment of which I have already tied the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect the right of ex-slaves to keep and bear arms. While the dissent might have countered with the equal protection clause, not the due process clause, the plurality also found enough evidence of the then existent concerns regarding the treatment of blacks by state militia to include that the right to bear arms was also intended to protect against generally-applicable state regulation. The Democrats and some presidential candidates are calling for the confiscation of guns nationally in 2019. I might note here, while by the 1850's the perceived threat of the National Government disarming the citizenry had primarily faded, this communist idea has resurfaced, as a means to obtain power over the citizenry of the United States. If not for no other reason, we should consider a 2nd Amendment sanctuary pronouncement.

In closing, our rights to bear AR15’s and extended magazines are protected under federal law and given statute under United States vs. Miller. The rights of the 2nd Amendment adhere to individual rights and not state rights as written with statute District of Columbia vs. Heller. Lastly, has it not become rather obvious, the Democrats want our lawful guns in order to gain power over the citizenry, in order to dictate egregious laws that may further dilute our God given rights. What will our 2^nd Amendment sanctuary look like? You will find the answer in my last paragraph. “The plurality of the Supreme Court acknowledges individual rights to keep and bear arms, arms should be useful to “other pool of men” conscripted into service. Arms are for self-defense, individual rights such as hunting, and above all “shall not be infringed” upon.

Ref. Columbia University of Law