BEWARE – Communicable Disease Ordinances Being Proposed by WI Counties

Covid 19 has brought a whole new way of life for most people all across the world. Very recently a number of WI counties are being encouraged to enact an ordinance dealing with communicable diseases in preparation for what may happen in the near future. New laws are being proposed at the national level, the state level, the county level and city level of government. We must be aware and vigilant to have input on these issues.
Marathon County in Wausau is dealing with a proposed ordinance. Here is a link to information to that proposal.
Walworth County in Elkhorn has also been dealing with a proposed ordinance dealing with communicable diseases & were planning to vote on it June 18th. No update is available on this proposal.
Dodge County in Juneau had a meeting June 16 to discuss a proposed ordinance dealing with communicable diseases which was attended by a number of concerned people. This is a link to a summation by a gentleman in attendance of what took place at the meeting & how the county is proceeding.
LINK TO PROPOSED ORDINANCE FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY – please read this proposal & understand the authority they are wanting to give to the health department and specifically the Jefferson County Health Officer.
LINK TO s. 66.0119 OF THE STATE STATUTES REFERRED TO IN THE ABOVE PROPOSED ORDINANCE
This is a link to the Jefferson County June 19 press release relating to how they plan to proceed.
This is a link to section 252.03 of the state statutes referenced in the above press release.
This is a link to all Jefferson County Supervisors and you can click on the green check mark for each and get the contact information for each supervisor
If you live in Jefferson County please contact your Jefferson County Supervisor and express your concerns. If you live in another county please check with your county supervisor to see if such a proposal is pending there. These proposals will directly impact the citizens of each county.
BOTTOM LINEMuch of what is being proposed is unconstitutional.  The US Constitution and the WI Constitution protect our natural rights to peaceful assembly and to worship as we see fit.  Nowhere does either constitution clarify that these rights are lost in the event of a pandemic.
This ordinance empowers the County Health Officer to, in the name of fighting a disease, “close schools and forbid public gatherings in schools, churches, places of employment, public buildings, private property, and other places to control outbreaks, epidemics and pandemics” and “implement all emergency measures necessary to control communicable diseases and do what is reasonable and necessary for the prevention and suppression of disease including, but not limited to, prohibiting public and private gatherings when deemed necessary to control outbreaks, epidemics, or pandemics“.

While we understand that the government can apply some of these rules to public property and public gatherings, we believe it to be an overreach to apply this to private property.

IS GOV. EVERS IS CREATING A NEW DHS EMERGENCY RULE?

Gov. Evers makes next move in allowing DHS to craft new emergency rule

Evers is proposing a new plan, a 150 day shutdown of the state (5 MONTHS!) followed by a 120 day extension. 270 days total. He is following Wisconsin state law here and this plan will get sent to the JCRAR (Joint Committee for Review on Administrative Rules). The 10 people on this committee (6 Republican and 4 Democrat) will literally hold the direction of our lives in their hands.

Contact them and let them know if you do not want this order imposed on us as a law. We need them to strike down all aspects of this plan.
*NO 150 DAY CONTINUATION
*NO 120 DAY EXTENSION
*NO FORCED MASKS
*NO FORCED TESTING
*NO FORCED VACCINATION
*NO FORCED QUARANTINE
*NO RESTRICTIONS

If the JCRAR rejects Evers’ plan then it dies. We must make sure this happens. They are only going to know how you feel if you ACTUALLY CALL.

Our forefathers literally fought and agonized over decisions that affected their family, their livelihood, their health, and many of them sacrificed everything for FREEDOM. We can manage to make 10 phone calls and send 10 emails!

These are the 10 elected officials you should reach out to:

EMAIL
Rep.Ballweg@legis.wisconsin.gov
Sen.Nass@legis.wisconsin.gov
Rep.Neylon@legis.wisconsin.gov
Sen.Stroebel@legis.wisconsin.gov
Sen.Craig@legis.wisconsin.gov
Sen.Larson@legis.wisconsin.gov
Sen.Wirch@legis.wisconsin.gov
Rep.Quinn@legis.wisconsin.gov
Rep.Hebl@legis.wisconsin.gov
Rep.Subeck@legis.wisconsin.gov

PHONE
(R) Steve Nass 608-266-2635
(R) Duey Stroebel 608-266-7513
(R) Joan Ballweg 608-266-8077
(R) Adam Neylon 608-266-5120
(R) Senator Craig 608-266-5400
(R) Rep Quinn 608-266-2519
(D) Sen Larson (608) 266-7505
(D) Sen Wirch (608) 267-8979 (262) 694-7379
(D) Rep Hebl 608) 266-7678
(D) Rep Subeck (608) 266-7521

WI SUPREME COURT DECISION ON EMERGENCY RULE 28 – THE STAY AT HOME ORDER

This past week the WI Supreme Court invalidated Gov. Evers’ Emergency Order 28 – Safer At Home.

You can read more here:

Wisconsin Supreme Court Says the State’s COVID-19 Lockdown Violated the Rule of Law and the Separation of Powers

The Wisconsin Supreme Court invalidated the order in this ruling: WI Legislature vs Andrea Palm

This ruling is technical in some aspects, but worth reading.  What deserves commentary in this case is the concurring opinions by Justice Rebecca Bradley and Justice Daniel Kelly, and the dissent by Justice Brian Hagedorn.

Justices R. Bradley and Kelly, deal with the broad unconstitutionality of such an order.  We believe they are spot on.  We are saddened that the Republican Party didn’t do all it could to get the law abiding, conservatives, and church going public out to vote and re-elect Justice Dan Kelly.  What a difference his vote has made in this case, and why these elections matter.

Now we come to Justice Brian Hagedorn, and his dissent.  We know many of the RRP have met Justice Hagedorn when he was running for the WI Supreme Court.  He is a good person, who we thought held much of the same philosophical beliefs as many in the RRP.  However, it is apparent he spent too long as the legal counsel to Governor Walker, arguing for the State of Wisconsin, not seeing the forest for the trees.  This case, as Justices R. Bradley and Kelly write in their opinions, is not just about the definition of an “order”or “rule”, but about governmental overreach in authority.

Justice R. Bradley writes in her concurring opinion beginning on page 40:

“Under the Wisconsin Constitution, all governmental power derives “from the consent of the governed” and government officials may act only within the confines of the authority the people give them. Wis. Const. art. I, § 1. The people of Wisconsin never consented to any elected official, much less an unelected cabinet secretary, having the power to create law, execute it, and enforce it.”

In footnote 3 in her opinion on page 41:

“Spurning more than two centuries of fundamental constitutional law as well as the Wisconsin Constitution’s guarantee of liberty, Justice Brian Hagedorn shockingly proclaims “the judiciary must never cast aside our laws or the constitution itself in the name of liberty.” Justice Hagedorn’s dissent, ¶259. Setting aside the self-contradictory nature of that statement, Justice Hagedorn’s 53-page opinion contains no constitutional analysis whatsoever, affirmatively rejects the constitution, and subjugates liberty. The Wisconsin Constitution IS the law——and it reigns supreme over any statute. “The Constitution’s supremacy over legislation bears repeating: ‘the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law’ and ‘a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and . . . courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.’ See Marbury [v. Madison], 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) [137] at 178, 180 [1803].” Mayo v. Wis. Injured Patients and Families Comp. Fund, 2018 WI 78, ¶91, 383 Wis. 2d 1, 914 N.W.2d 678 (Rebecca Grassl Bradley, J., concurring).

The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it. If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power, in its own nature illimitable.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803).”

 

Justice Daniel Kelly writes in his concurring opinion on page 63:

“The court’s opinion ably describes why these provisions do not confer on her the authority necessary to support the Order, and I join it. My purpose in writing separately is to describe why, under our constitutional form of government, the Legislature cannot possibly have given the Secretary the authority she believes she has.”

Justice Kelly goes on to explain the view of DHS Secretary Andrea Palm and why she is wrong on page 63:

“¶89 In the Secretary’s view, the Legislature gave her plenary power to simply “act” without the need of any further statutory or regulatory policy. Her brief candidly asserts there are no statutory or regulatory limitations on her authority to address communicable diseases:

Wis. Stat. § 252.02 is not legislation “enforced or administered by” DHS through issuing Safer-at-Home [Order], and DHS’s actions here did not “implement, interpret, or make more specific” standards that the Legislature designed by statute. Unlike statutes that regulate certain conduct or activities, like food safety or traffic laws, section 252.02, as relevant here, simply empowers DHS to act. Thus, Safer-at-Home is not “enforc[ing]” any legislative requirement . . . .

(Emphasis added.) That is to say, she expressly disavows any suggestion that she is implementing statutory standards. And she not only acknowledges, but affirmatively asserts, that she is not enforcing any statutory requirement. This statute, she says, simply empowers her to “act.” When queried during oral arguments, her attorney said there are no limits on this power, saving only judicial or legislative intervention.

¶90 But our constitution does not confer on any governmental official, bureaucrat, or employee a generalized power to “act.” There are three powers on loan to our government——legislative, executive, and judicial. To the extent governmental officials may act at all, it is only within the context of one of those powers. Therefore, we must discern what type of authority the Secretary exercised when she issued her Order. And then, assuming Wis. Stat. § 252.02 granted the Secretary all the power necessary to issue the Order, we must compare that grant against our basic constitutional structure and the non-delegation doctrine to determine whether the statute impermissibly delegated part of the Legislature’s power to the Secretary.”

 

Justice Kelly goes on to explain the three branches of government and their respective roles.  Justice Kelly also provides the following analysis on Justice Hagedorn’s argument on page 79:

“If § 252.02 enables the Department to confer on itself the power to confine people to their homes, close businesses, etc., then it has quite obviously transferred no small amount of the legislature’s core authority to the executive branch, thereby enabling the Secretary to make up public policy decisions as she goes along. Without that understanding of the Secretary’s authority, the Order could not function. Justice Hagedorn mirrors this error, and even uses it as the organizing principle for his dissent. The whole of his statutory analysis is faulty because he has not discerned that the Order implicitly created, or assumed to exist, a host of public policy decisions.8  Under Justice Hagedorn’s rationale, an executive branch agency is free to make ad hoc policy decisions, so long as they are temporary and acted upon immediately. Nothing in our legal canon supports such an odd proposition.”

And footnote 8 from above:

“Justice Hagedorn’s statutory analysis might be perfectly serviceable if we were considering an executive order implementing previously established public policy decisions. But that is not this case. So, as a functional matter, his analysis is operating on a hypothetical set of facts.”

Justice Kelly addresses the two other arguments on page 82:

“¶116 The Order fares no better under the second principle of non-delegation: “[O]nce [the Legislature] prescribes the rule governing private conduct, it may make the application of that rule depend on executive fact-finding.” Id. Under this rationale, it could conceivably be appropriate for the Legislature to confer on the Secretary the power to confine people to their homes if she finds that such an action is necessary to control the spread of a communicable disease. But no statute or rule confers on her that authority, so the Order cannot be justified as the exercise of executive authority under this principle.

¶117 Nor is the Order salvageable under the third non-delegation principle, which provides that the legislature “may assign the executive and judicial branches certain non-legislative responsibilities.” Id. at 2137. The Secretary, however, insists that Wis. Stat. § 252.02 “simply empowers DHS to act,” and that the Order “embodies the quintessential executive task of deciding how to address, for the time being, the exigency caused by COVID-19,” and that her authority to address that exigency is limited only by judicial or legislative intervention. If accepted, this would work an intolerable inversion in the nature of executive authority, allowing it to swallow almost all of the Legislature’s power. Here’s why.

¶118 If Wis. Stat. § 252.02 makes the Order’s contents entirely executive, a few strategically written statutes would make the legislature a virtual non-entity. What if the legislature instructed the Department of Justice to “issue orders . . . for the control and suppression of [crime]”? Or it enacted a statute that “simply empower[ed] [the Department of Financial Institutions] to act” with respect to the subjects within its purview? Or it charged some agency or other with “the quintessential executive task of deciding how to address, for the time being, the exigency caused by” economic vicissitudes? If the executive’s authority under each of these hypothetical delegations was as staggeringly broad as the Secretary claims for herself under § 252.02, the whole of our lives could be governed exclusively from within the executive branch.

¶119 But none of those hypotheticals would be consistent with the separation of powers for the same reason the Order is not. An agency cannot confer on itself the power to dictate the lives of law-abiding individuals as comprehensively as the Order does without reaching beyond the executive branch’s authority.9

(Footnote) 9 Justice Hagedorn suggests my attention to constitutional boundaries is merely an effort to “try to get around” his observation that “[w]e do not enjoin particular enforcement actions under a facially constitutional statute simply because the statute could be deployed in ways that violate the constitution.” Justice Hagedorn’s dissent, ¶¶249, 248. I have no need to “get around” this observation because in this court we don’t let the tail wag the dog. Justice Hagedorn is concerned about remedies when what we are concerned about is enforcing a structural limitation on the branches’ powers. It would be irresponsible of us not to consider constitutional limitations when we declare what the law is.”

Finally Justice Kelly concludes:

“¶120 The Order may be a brilliantly conceived and executed response to COVID-19. Or maybe it’s not. Either way, that is not the question before the court. Brilliance does not confer authority. Nor does necessity. Our only task in this case was to determine whether Secretary Palm has the authority to issue the Order. We had an unavoidable, non-discretionary, obligatory responsibility to decide that question. And so we have.10 Because I agree with that declaration, I join the court’s opinion. I wrote separately because it is important to establish that, if we agreed with the Secretary’s reading of Wis. Stat. § 252.02, we would have to conclude the statute violated the separation of powers by conferring on the Secretary the power to make laws without going through the rule-making process.11”

 

Rock River Patriots Meeting This Friday November 10th, 2017

The Rock River Patriots are having a meeting in the Community Room at the Dwight Foster Library in Fort Atkinson this Friday November 10th, 2017 at 6:00pm.  The Dwight Foster Library is located at 209 Merchants Avenue.  At this meeting, we will discuss current events and initiatives.

We will be watching a portion of the documentary A Good American, which details a groundbreaking surveillance program, the brilliant mastermind behind it and how a perfect alternative to mass surveillance was killed by NSA-management for money – three weeks prior to 9/11.

We hope to see you all there!

THIS IS WHY WE DON’T SUPPORT THE PATRIOT ACT AND SPYING ON AMERICANS WITHOUT A WARRANT!

When you trade your freedom for security…you get neither.  The government’s primary job is to keep us free.  However, when you trade freedom for security, the government will always end up protecting itself.  President Trump is a threat to the machine.  Judge Napolitano explains…

Napolitano: We have spying everywhere, all the time

Feb. 23, 2017 – 2:51 – Judge Napolitano’s Chambers: Judge Andrew Napolitano explains why America’s spies now have more power than the United States president

Rock River Patriots Meeting This Friday September 11th

The Rock River Patriots will be having a meeting in Fort Atkinson this
Friday September 11th at 6:00 pm in the community room of the Dwight Foster
Library.  The library is located at 209 Merchants Avenue.

At this meeting, we will discuss current events and initiatives.  We will
take time to remember the victims of 09/11/01 and discuss the events of that
day.  Given the events around our nation and world, we will have our annual
emergency preparedness discussion as well.

Hope to see you all there!

Windows 10 Can Collect Your Data For Gov’t Agencies?

Well…Judge for yourself.  From: http://www.activistpost.com/2015/08/windows-10-can-collect-your-data-for.html

Windows 10 Can Collect Your Data For Gov’t Agencies – What to Do

By Heather Callaghan

Windows 10 OS – the ultimate Big Brother?

Of the 14+ million people who have recently installed Microsoft’s new Windows 10, there haven’t been many complaints until now.

The system is said to run more efficiently, but apparently someone only recently read the tome of a service agreement. Let’s just say that Windows 10 goes above and beyond good service and makes sure that you are being a good citizen. Who is the one really getting the upgrade, here?

Continue to site

Happy Independence Day!

From all of us at the Rock River Patriots, we wish everyone a happy Independence Day!

Today is an important day to reflect on Freedom and what it means to each and every one of us.  What are the costs of freedom? What is freedom to you?  Are we still even free?  What are you willing to do in the freedom fight?

What does freedom mean to me?  Here is the transcript of a speech I delivered several years ago at an event.  I know these are feelings echoed throughout the freedom movement.  I know I am not alone when I feel these emotions.

I am one of the members of the Rock River Patriots (RRP) leadership team.

I must admit it was a struggle for me to decide if I wanted to be involved with this event because as many of you know I’m not a fan of either party. I became disillusioned with what I saw as I became a conservative activist by people who are supposed to be on “my side”.  I saw how the leadership of the party attempted to control good honest patriots or play political games. It became obvious many in “leadership positions” in both parties do not have the best interest of the people in mind.

John Adams said: “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”

I would consider myself a constitutionalist.  An even better term would be an individualist, which is the constructive opposite of a collectivist. We are endowed with our rights by our Creator as individuals. As a Christian, I am saved as an individual.  I don’t believe in “the greater good for the greater number”, which is the essence of collectivism.  By doing so, the rights of the individual always end up being sacrificed for some purpose by the government.  Those rights are rarely, if ever, given back.

Even in the context of so-called conservatives, we have collectivism in the party system. Many patriots are afraid to stand up and go against the group because of what will happen from those in “leadership” positions if they do stand up for what is right.  This is something the RRP have personally witnessed in the Wisconsin Legislature, and continues to this day.

Much of what I say applies to both parties.

Both parties are guilty of violating our liberties every day.

The Democrat Party has been doing that by creating the dependency / entitlement / class warfare state.

The Republican Party aided by the Democrats has created a virtual police state to fight the war on terror putting into place measures like the Patriot Act that have been used against ordinary American citizens. Coincidentally, of all the bulk data collection used under the Patriot Act, it has not been used to stop one terrorist attack.

We see many in both parties as different sides to the same BIG GOVERNMENT PARTY. Our goal is not the interests of a party, but about doing what is right, moral, and constitutional.

RRP warned early on about the draconian measures like the Patriot Act being used against ordinary Americans. We were called conspiracy theorists, and told we are part of the tin foil hat club”. They obviously had to attack the messenger, because our message is reasonable. Are we so unpatriotic to ask that the government obey the 4th Amendment and obtain a search warrant? With all of the resources of the government, is it really that difficult?

On that note…I mentioned we have been called Conspiracy Theorists in an effort to make you believe that we are crazy, and our beliefs are not based on any sort of evidence.

What is a conspiracy? A conspiracy is simply an agreement between two or more people to do something. That’s it! History is full of conspiracies!

Look at the government actions in the recent past.  It is full of conspiracies:

Fast and Furious…Arming drug cartels as an excuse to restrict American’s 2nd Amendment Rights.

Benghazi…Letting American diplomats and security personnel die at the hands of groups aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood.  We still don’t know the real story!

The IRS scandal against TEA Party and Patriot Groups…Targeting us because of our religious and political beliefs.

Are all examples of a government out of control!  This is not freedom to me. These are the acts of a nation moving toward a totalitarian system.

Why don’t we have people calling for the abolishment of IRS in light of the scandal? The RRP have seen this abuse first-hand being targeted.

I know I’m not the most perfect person in the world.  God knows I learned long ago how imperfect I really am. I need a Savior because without a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, I would be even worse than I am already.

That brings us back to the whole issue of freedom. What do I think freedom means and where did it originate?

“Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons.” – Ron Paul

The Declaration of Independence spells out the origin of our freedom. The declaration states that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To SECURE these rights governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Our founding fathers had a deep knowledge of history and of natural law. Freedom predates government. Freedom originates from God. Ultimately, God gave us a choice in having a relationship with him. We have the ability to accept his offer of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ or reject it. The Bible tells us “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.”

Our founding fathers understood that man is not fundamentally good, as many in the progressive movement would like you to believe. History proves just how bad man can be, and how government has been used by bad people to do horrendous things. We do not need to look very far back in history to see the millions killed at the hands of repressive governments.

What about the 50 million + abortions that have occurred since Roe v. Wade? Destroying an innocent baby in the womb proves how deeply flawed we all are. Consider the Philadelphia abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell.  His “clinic” was an abortion shop of horrors. Babies were allowed to be born and then Gosnell would snip the spinal cords of these children. This is depravity!

Our founding fathers recognized the primary reason to have government was to secure our liberties. The government’s job is not to keep us safe.  It is to keep us free!

Benjamin Franklin told us those willing to give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither.

He understood (as they all did) that the moment you trade safety for liberty, the government will always end up taking more power and securing itself.

So what does freedom mean to me???

Freedom in its most basic sense, is the ability to live free from government interference into my life.  As long as I am not causing harm to someone else, I should be free to live as I see fit.

Freedom to me is being able to speak out and criticize my government without fear of being audited by the IRS.

Freedom to me is having a populace that is free to investigate the actions of the government without fear that their computers will be hacked by the NSA or journalists be intimidated.

Freedom to me is being able to give as much money as I want to support any organization, candidate, or charity I choose.

Freedom to me as a law abiding citizen is being able to carry a gun open or concealed without a permit.

Freedom to me is being able to own a gun that goes BANG, BANG, BANG with each pull of the trigger instead of just BANG, without jumping through every hoop imaginable.

Freedom to me is being secure in my person, my house, my papers, and my effects and only be subjected to a government search with a warrant signed by a judge.

Freedom to me is being given due process and a fair speedy trial by jury of my peers.

Freedom to me is being able to choose the foods I eat…even if I want to consume raw milk.

Freedom to me is allowing me to keep all the fruits of my labor and not be over-taxed and over-regulated.

Freedom to me is abolishing the IRS and instituting a consumption based tax system.

Freedom to me is being able to engage in commerce wherever and whenever I see fit without government interference.

Freedom to me means I can choose whether or not I want to buy health insurance.

Freedom to me means allowing unborn children the ability to choose what they want to do with their life.

Freedom to me means having a sound monetary system that is not run by a private banking cartel.

Freedom to me is having local control of the educational system, and allowing the parents to decide where their educational dollars go to educate their childen.

Freedom to me is only fighting wars declared by Congress with a defined mission, objectives, and time tables.

“It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad.” – James Madison

So now the question is where do we go from here?

The answer does not exist in the latest greatest personality or hopeful in any political party. As people, we are all fallible. Instead, we need to adhere to the principles of freedom. View every prospective candidate through that lens, and decide based on both their words and actions, if they friends of freedom.  If they have to do formulate agreements and pass bills in secret, they are not a friend of freedom.

Our founders understood that our Constitution is for a moral and religious people is wholly inadequate for any other.

Our first revolution didn’t start by a political party…It started in the pulpits. How many churches are failing their members by telling them what they want to hear instead of what they need to hear?

God fearing men and women pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to do what was right and just. What are you willing to do for your freedom?

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have removed their only firm basis: a conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.” – Thomas Jefferson

Only with God’s help can each one of you fulfill your calling. Only with God’s help will you have the strength to stand against all odds.

What is your choice going to be?

The Second Amendment Explained

Amendment II

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.

In the days when this amendment was written, the militia meant every adult able to bear arms. The militia was not the regular army. The term “regulated” was not a legal term at that time, but a mechanical one. A regulator was any mechanical device used to make something work better. A spin-ball governor was used to “regulate” the speed of a steam engine, as one example. A “Well Regulated” militia meant a militia with all the proper equipment needed to do their job better. That meant good weapons with good sights. After all, what use is a militia if they cannot hit what they are aiming at?

The Second Amendment is not about target shooting or hunting. At the time, hunting was indispensable for survival in the new nation, especially when food crops were unavailable. To deprive the people of their hunting weapons was to condemn them to death by starvation in the winter months. Military commanders of the time viewed hunting weapons as off limits. When Lieutenant Colonel George Monro surrendered Fort William Henry to Major General Louis-Joseph de Montcalm during the French and Indian Wars, the civilian militia serving the British were allowed to take their weapons with them when they left. When the British marched on Concord, triggering the Battles of Lexington and Concord and the start of the American Revolution, it was to seize military arms, not hunting weapons.

By the very inclusion of the terms “militia”, “security”, and “free state” it is clear that the Second Amendment is referring to military arms. The Founding Fathers understood that it was only because the people had been in possession of military arms that they were able to resist the economic enslavement of King George’s Currency Act, created under pressure from the then-private central Bank of England. Absent those arms in the hands of the people, the banker-imposed poverty would have continued indefinitely.

“The refusal of King George 3rd to allow the colonies to operate an honest money system, which freed the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, was probably the prime cause of the revolution.” — Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father

The Founding Fathers, while acknowledging the need for some form of government, knew all too well from thousands of years of human history that government is not automatically the friend of the governed, and had to be kept under tight control.

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.” — George Washington, in a speech of January 7, 1790

Following the Revolution, the Founding Fathers created a nation with power and authority reserved to the people. In order to avoid despotic rule, the government was broken into three separate parts, so that the natural tendency for government to seek more power would be turned against itself and not the people. Strict limits were imposed on the government itself, to keep the government the servant of the people.

The Founding Fathers included the Second Amendment because they understood that any system of government is only as good as the people who are in that government. They understood that political power attracts the very sort of people who should never be allowed to have it. And they understood that no matter how limited government was at its creation, over time all governments tend towards oligarchy, cease to be the servant of the people, and seek to become the masters.

“While the people have property, arms in their hands, and only a spark of noble spirit, the most corrupt Congress must be mad to form any project of tyranny.” – Rev. Nicholas Collin, Fayetteville Gazette (N.C.), October 12, 1789

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” (Thomas Jefferson Papers p. 334, 1950)

In short, the Second Amendment is not about hunting or target shooting. It is and was ever intended to be about protecting We The People from the government of the United States.

The Shotgun – A True Story of Gun Control

The Shotgun – A True Story of Gun Control

by TheLasersShadow

You’re sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.  Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers.  At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.

With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it.

In the darkness, you make out two shadows.  One holds something that looks like a crowbar.  When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire.  The blast knocks both thugs to the floor.  One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.

As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you’re in trouble.  In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless..

Yours was never registered.  Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died.  They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.

When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.

“What kind of sentence will I get?” you ask.

“Only ten-to-twelve years,” he replies, as if that’s nothing.  “Behave yourself, and you’ll be out in seven.”

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper.  Somehow, you’re portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys.  Their friends and relatives can’t find an unkind word to say about them..

Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both “victims” have been arrested numerous times.  But the next day’s headline says it all: “Lovable Rogue Son Didn’t Deserve to Die.”  The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters.

As the days wear on, the story takes wings.  The national media picks it up, then the international media.  The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.  Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he’ll probably win.

The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you’ve been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects.

After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.  The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial.  The charges haven’t been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted.

When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you.  Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man.  It doesn’t take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.  The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened!!!

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England, killed one burglar and wounded a second.

In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.  How did it become a crime to defend one’s own life in the once great British Empire?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903.  This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license.

The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns..

Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987.  Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw.  When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of “gun control”, demanded even tougher restrictions.

(The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland , Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners.  Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns.

The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism.

Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun.

Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, “We cannot have people take the law into their own hands.”

All of Martin’s neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences.  Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities.  Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law.  The few who didn’t were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn’t comply.

Police later bragged that they’d taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns? Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?

WAKE UP AMERICA; THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

“…It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,

tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds..”

–Samuel Adams

If you think this is important, please forward to everyone you know.

Gun Laws that are being proposed in America will eventually cause the same effect here!