Archive for Guns

Constitutional Sanctuaries for Citizens

Sanctuary for Citizens

By James C. Jones, EMT/CHCM

While the term “sanctuary cities” has been used to describe municipalities that have chosen not to cooperate with the Immigration and Control and Enforcement agency (ICE) in the enforcement of America’s laws, the term sanctuary and the now established concept of defiance of federal laws by local governments may be essential to defending legal citizens against unconstitutional violations of their civil and constitutional rights. Most of the candidates running for the presidency in 2020 are strong advocates of gun confiscation and socialist (anti self-reliance) legislation. Draconian gun-laws and other oppressive actions must be anticipated at the state and national levels within the next one or two years. While effective individual and small-group resistance to such unconstitutional and un-American activities has little chance of success, there is a real potential for effective and successful resistance on the local, county and state levels, through American sanctuary resolutions and legislation. In states where so-called “Red Flag” laws have been enacted most of the rural and many of the suburban police departments are simply refusing to enforce them. Some towns and counties have official declared themselves to be “Second Amendment Sanctuaries” in defiance of these laws. Many police officers in urban areas are “pro-gun rights” and the great majority of suburban, small-town and rural police officers are second amendment supporters. They are not going to be knocking down doors and serving warrants on their neighbors and law abiding citizens. They are not going to be welcoming or cooperating with invading federal agents who come to confiscate property and criminalize their friends and relatives. How the federal government would react to massive defiance is difficult to estimate, but the more wide-spread and organized the Constitutional Sanctuary movement is, the more likely they will back-down, without actual violent confrontations. Before the federal government enacts unconstitutional legislation, constitutional sanctuary towns, counties and states need to be declared and well established as a deterrent or the basses for national resistance. The establishment of scores of sanctuary states, thousands fs sanctuary counties, and hundreds of thousands of sanctuary towns will not only serve to protect the second amendment, but would be a revolutionary power shift away from centralized authority and back to local and state level autonomy. The first American Revolution started when the British acted to confiscate local armaments. The people understood that once they had lost control of their personal, and locally owned weapons, the British could enact and enforce any laws and taxes that they chose with impunity. Today’s elitist, and socialist look down on local governments and despise individualism and self-reliance, but by going after the guns they may be (as the British did in 1776) enabling a unified and dare I say, revolutionary response in the form of a massive establishment of sanctuary territories supported by law-abiding and responsible citizens who want nothing more than to have their constitutional and human rights respected.
An American Constitutional Sanctuary movement could and should be established. This could be an official organization or a cooperative effort by multiple pro-freedom organizations. A few of the activities that such a movement could and should initiate would include:
• Establishing networks between sanctuary and pro sanctuary towns, counties and organization.
• Initiating petition drives to encourage states, counties and municipalities to establish pro-sanctuary declarations or legislation.
• Sponsoring email campaigns to encourage candidates at all levels to sponsor and support sanctuary legislation and declarations.
• Creating publicity campaigns to support the constitutional sanctuary concept and candidates
• As anti-freedom legislation becomes more imminent, demonstrations and even civil-disobedience could be necessary.
While to specter of gun confiscation, higher taxation, regulation and centralization should be disheartening to those of us who value our rights to self-reliance, the impending struggle offers the opportunity to unite, energize and win. While a sanctuary is generally defined as a place of refuge it can also serve a basis for resistance and victory. .
The author would propose that Live Free USA official declare its support for all constitutional sanctuaries and enact a formal declaration at the next Annual Meeting.

Live Free and Gun Rights

LIVING FREE and GUN RIGHTS

By James C. Jones, EMT, CHCM and president of Live Free USA

Ultimately, gun rights are about the right to life and freedom.  There is no point in talking about emergency preparedness, survival and self-reliance for an unarmed population.

Live Free USA began as a shooting club in the late 1960s.  By the 1970s guns and gun ownership was under such assault that being a “gun club” in Chicago was impossible. It is probably impossible for any of our readers now to comprehend the level of harassment, persecutions, prosecution and prohibitions imposed on us in those times. It seemed inevitable that we would be forced to use muzzle loaders and cross-bows in defense of our lives and our freedoms. The NRA at that time was not a political force and liberals ran rough-shod over the constitution and anyone who sought to exercise the second amendment rights.  Live Free broadened our activities to include survival education and civil-defense while keeping our gun related activity’s underground.  The acceptability of shooting sports, concealed-carry and military-style rifles today has been achieved through decades of struggle.  Since there are many great gun-rights advocacy groups today, Live Free focuses on our core survival and self-reliance mission, but remembering that the capacity for armed defense and resistance is an essential part of survival and self-reliance, I will enumerate some of our positions related to the issue of so-called military-style rifles that have been so maligned in recent weeks.

The ownership of so-called, military-style rifles with high-capacity magazines has nothing to do with hunting or sports shooting. It’s about citizens maintaining the potential to resist foreign or domestic subjugation and oppression.  This does not imply that owners of such weapons are revolutionary, extremists or members of formal militias. They consciously or subconsciously accept the reality that the freedom and security of their families and future generations depends on maintaining the balance of force between the state and the people.  Owners of these weapons have the upmost respect for the laws and the government, but they do so by choice and responsibility, not by fear and submission.

The major difference between the way American citizens think and the way subjects of other countries think originates from the fact that most other peoples were granted their liberties by the state and still believe that power flows from the state, while Americans fought for their freedoms and know that they are the ultimate source of freedoms and authority.  This difference in origins creates an instinctual propensity to be armed or have access to arms that is not shared by citizens of other nations. It is no coincident that America has the oldest government on the planet and the most individual freedoms.

Ultimately: the right to keep and bear arms” is an extension of the human right to self-protection that exists regardless of written laws.  It follows that one must have the means to exercise that right.  One cannot be expected to defend oneself against an armed assailant or an oppressive despot with anything less than what that assailant or oppressor may have. We could not exercise the right to free speech if we were limited to old printing presses while the government controlled the mass media and the internet.  We could not exercise freedom of religion if it was limited to only ancient texts and methods.  So we cannot effectively exercise the right to keep and bear arms if we are limited to anything less than the best and most modern equipment.

The constitution does not say “hunting being a necessity”, it does not say “the ability to resist crime being important” it says “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”.  There is no ambiguity in this sentence. The second amendment is about military-style arms.  We are guaranteed the right to own, keep and bear military-style arms by the constitution.  The term “regulated” in the eighteens century was defined as well managed or well-maintained, but not regulated by law as the word is used today. The final four words “shall not be infringed” specifically prohibits any form of taxation or governmental action that interferes with this essential right.  The founders did use the generic term ”arms” even though the contemporary “arms” were muzzle-loading muskets and swords.  In fact they were referring to the “military-style” weapons of that time, but these were intelligent, forward thinking man who anticipated advancements and certainly wanted future citizens to “keep and bear” arms that would be equal to those of criminals, invaders and would-be tyrants of the future.

The missus of a right by a few does not justify the prohibition of that right to others.  Trading freedom and responsibility for safety is the poorest bargain a people can make.  Ask the Russians, or the Chines, or the North Koreans or the Mexicans or anyone from a hundred oppressed, depressed and crime-ridden nations that we do not want to live in. The loss of lives caused by a few evil and mentally-ill individuals is truly tragic, but cannot justify turning our back on the freedoms that were bought with the lives and sacrifices of generations of veterans.  Yes, they died for the second amendment as well as our other freedoms and surrendering any of those freedoms is a betrayal of their sacrifices.

In a world spiraling towards increasing political strife, civil disorder, street crime, economic instability, potential epidemics, increasingly severe disasters and terrorist activities, only the most irresponsible and pacified citizen can fail to see their duty to be prepared to meet violent situations in the future.  While the anti-gun movement may be lead (or mislead) by the youth, it is those between the ages of 15 and 25 that may most regret no having access to military-style weapon and ammunition just a few decades in the furfure.  In fact one may want to consider purchasing additional such arms and ammunition to be stored and distributed in the future to the next generations that may desperately need them.

  In Short:  Any action that limits the access to modern, effective military-style firearms to law abiding citizens of the United States is specifically unconstitutional, philosophically un-American, and functional dangerous to the future of life and freedom for us all.