All Federal Gun Control Is Unlawful ~ Publius Huldah

Publius Huldah goes through the history of the federal government’s unlawful actions to regulate firearms in America.

Publius Huldah is a retired litigation attorney who now lives in Tennessee. Before getting a law degree, she got a degree in philosophy where she specialized in political philosophy and epistemology (theories of knowledge).

She now writes extensively on the U.S. Constitution, using the Federalist Papers to prove its original meaning and intent. She shows how federal judges and politicians have ignored Our Constitution and replaced it with their personal opinions and beliefs. She also shows how The People can, by learning our Founding Principles themselves, restore our Constitutional Republic.

More from Publius Huldah here: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/huldah

Comments

  1. Chaser 13 October, 2016, 16:33

    Publius Huldah ask why we don’t elect faithful persons to our congress. NO faithful, rightious people run for office and we are left with voting for the lessor of two evils.

    Reply this comment
    • 5WarVeteran 16 October, 2016, 09:46

      It has always been that way my entire lifetime. Voting for the lesser crook and Richard Nixon was the first.

      Reply this comment
  2. Mac 15 October, 2016, 12:37

    We that are involved with communities like the Oath Keepers need to start educating the citizens about the Constitution, the limits we the people allow the Congress to have power, why the Congress or the President and the Supreme Court has no power outside the 2nd amendment to take our guns or restrict any of our firearms we so choose to have for self-defense.

    Reply this comment
  3. emee 4 March, 2017, 00:34

    Now i know why i hated history… we weren’t told the truth as Miss Publius does… i just gobble this information down… thank you so much.

    Reply this comment
  4. crazy squirrel 6 July, 2017, 07:06

    Topic says all federal gun control laws are unlawful. In fact, ALL gun control laws in the USA are unconstitutional. The Bill of Rights has a pecking order of sorts.

    The 1st amendment is paramount. Then the 2nd amendment (which cannot usurp the 1st amendment and is subordinate to the 1st), and so forth. Not even the 4th and 5th amendments can usurp your natural and constitutional rights or you no longer have those rights. Due process to revoke or limit or remove any rights in the Constitution is illegal. Due process is to ensure that justice is served (example use a gun to rob a bank – due process is for punishing the act of robbing the bank, not using a gun).

    State’s rights do not usurp the previous rights in the Bill of Rights. If they did then state’s could modify and even ignore the 4th, 5th, 6th amendments as will. But they cannot.
    If state’s rights cannot usurp those rights they cannot usurp ANY previous rights in the Bill of Rights.

    All states must agree to the US Constitution before joining the union. This includes the natural (and constitutional) rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – those are addressed by the 9th amendment.

    When in doubt of any right in the Bill of Rights, refer to the 9th amendment for clarification.

    There are NO negative personal rights in the constitution – NONE.

    This means that all those no gun signs on private businesses (that are open to the public – even those who make membership a requirement too) are illegal as well.

    It is an act of treason for any government or business or individual to deny anyone their rights under the Bill of Rights.

    Gun rights revocation for felons, wife beaters (ahem no such thing really under the 1st amendment), certain other crimes, is wholly unconstitutional.

    Under old English common law, the definition of a felony was the commission of a high crime with only two punishments – death or seizure of one’s assets. No jail, no lifetime loss of any rights, no lifetime registration, NOTHING else.

    Fining and jailing and subsequent registration (for certain other crimes) is actually double/triple jeopardy. Being punished multiple times for the same crime is unconstitutional.

    Nothing in the constitution says you forfeit any rights under the constitution. And no law can make you forfeit any rights either – that power is not in the constitution! Not even for the States to have.

    Do you need a background check to exercise ANY other right under the constitution?
    Then why do you need one to exercise the 2nd and 9th amendments?

    If the Feds can revoke your 2nd amendment rights, they can most assuredly revoke ANY other rights they desire.

    Ask yourself this: what would I (you) do if you needed to pass a background check in order to get a fair trial? Or practice your religion?

    Our whole system is badly in need of restoration. Especially our justice system, who’s job is to ensure that the constitution is followed.

    Basically our government is supposed to act in the capacity of managers, not rulers or dictators.

    Taxes are meant to run the basic minimal governmental needs not provide handouts or other benefits.

    Taxing any constitutional right is unconstitutional. So, taxing firearms, ammunition, parts, Driver’s licensing, personal property, etc is as unconstitutional as taxing free speech, freedom of religion, etc.

    Unless the constitution authorizes a particular thing, that ‘thing’ is unconstitutional for the government (but not the people).

    All those who took their Military Oath are in violation of that oath when they do not defend our constitution, and in particular everyone’s right to keep, bear, use, transport (concealed or otherwise everywhere), guns, ammo, their parts, etc.

    Law enforcement violates their sworn oaths the first time they pull someone over, make an arrest for gun possession, and many other ‘crimes’.

    You can distill all laws down to these basic ones:
    Thou shalt NOT lie, steal, kill, cheat, PHYSICALLY maim other men. We need no others laws as everything else is supposed to be permitted. (look up the 10 commandments for reference).

    If someone is so dangerous to the general public as to not be permitted their gun rights, then why aren’t they kept locked up until they can be trusted? And once released from internment, full rights automatically restored, instantly without forms, filings, judges, fees, restrictions, etc.

    If you want your freedoms, then you must allow all others their freedoms as well.

    Clarification: In the Declaration of Independence, the reference to men is the plural of MAN, not to include women. Therefore all women can be as unequal to each other as they see fit.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Your e-mail address will not be published.
Required fields are marked*