Connect with us


Right to bear arms and States



The Constitution, which sets forth the principle of rule of law, defines what is unconstitutional, and guarantees freedom of speech and other liberties of a Constitutional republic, and also describes the impeachment power. (How many know of the Jewish roots of this document?) Hypocrisy threatens Constitutional government. Could Israel use a constitution like this? More to the point: would a Convention of States save it, or destroy it? (Example: civil asset forfeiture violates the Constitution.) Quick fixes like Regulation Freedom Amendments weaken it. Furthermore: the Constitution provides for removing, and punishing, a judge who commits treason in his rulings. Furthermore, opponents who engage in lawfare against an elected President risk breaking the Constitution.

I am not a Constitutional Scholar but I do have comprehensive reading abilities. With all the new laws popping up nationwide that regulate our right to bear arms, it occurred to me that a basic reading of the Constitution requires that an amendment be passed in order to make these laws constitutionally valid. Therefore, I embarked on a quest to find this amendment, and alas, none could be found. I’m being facetious of course. As a Constitution-carrying American citizen, I am fully aware of the fact that such an amendment does not exist.

However, there are two amendments that make the gun control laws passed by various states constitutionally invalid.

Amendment X: Reserved Powers

Amendment X states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, orto the people.

This amendment clearly stipulates that the states have all powers to enact laws, as long as those laws do not conflict with the Constitution. This amendment is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause, meaning that the Constitution exerts authority (or supremacy) over state laws – or state laws cannot contradict the Constitution. I call it the Trump Clause, meaning that the Constitution trumps state laws if there is a conflict.

Amendment II: Right to bear arms

Amendment II states:

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 gurarntees our right to bear arms - and the States can't interfere with that.

A collection of guns, including the sort of assault firearm that Bonnie Erbe complains of. Photo: user kosheahan (Flickr), CC BY 2.0 License

This amendment has been debated by ideologues that try to twist and pervert its meaning in order to make the public believe they have the right to “infringe” upon this right secured for us under our Constitution. In so doing, they argue the meaning of a well regulated Militia. However, you will not hear them arguing “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” There is good reason for this. The meaning is simple. People (that includes everyone reading this post) have the right under our Constitution to keep and bear arms. “Keep” means right tohold or maintain something in your possession, and “bear” in this instance means to hold or support and transport something – as in “to carry.”

The amendment also makes it clear that this right “shall not be infringed.” Infringed means encroach on somebody’s rights or property: to take over land, rights, privileges, or activities that belong to somebody else, especially in a minor or gradual way.

When you put all of this together, it means that the states do not have the right to take away or encroach upon in any way shape or form our right to possess or to carry arms of any type. Therefore, for all the state gun control laws to be valid, a constitutional amendment rescinding our (the people’s) right to possess and carry firearms or any other kind of arms needs to be ratified. Until that day comes – God forbid! – those who enact such laws are either incompetent legislators and representatives or constitutional criminals. In either case, they should be impeached or at the very least not re-elected to their current position.

And for all those bleeding hearts out there who have bought the argument that gun control laws would have prevented some of the horrific incidents that have become common place in America, let me ask you if you really believe that these laws will deter the type of characters who committed such atrocities? If you do, surely there is nothing that I can say to logically persuade you that you are wrong. However, I can encourage all constitutionally savvy citizens to insist that our three branches of government uphold the Constitution, regardless of their personal ideologies. If they believe something is dramatically wrong, let them go through the amendment process to rectify that wrong. They cannot – however – pervert the Constitution or usurp its dictates. Those that do, do not belong in the people’s house.

<a href="" title="Right to bear arms and States">Right to bear arms and States</a>


Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Website | + posts

RoseAnn Salanitri is a published author and Acquisition Editor for the New Jersey Family Policy Council. She is a community activist who has founded the Sussex County Tea Party in her home state and launched a recall movement against Senator Robert Menendez. RoseAnn is also the founder of Veritas Christian Academy, as well as co-founder of Creation Science Alive, and a national creation science speaker.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

[…] Right to bear arms and States […]

Ted Foster

Ted Foster liked this on Facebook.


You are totally mistaken in assuming the Bill of Rights naturally applies to the states – it mostly does a but that hasn’t always been the case. It’s a legal term called incorporation.

Jim Levandowski

Jim Levandowski liked this on Facebook.


Would love your thoughts, please comment.x