Nov 13, 2016 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
In the third of three presidential debates Chris Wallace asked Hillary Clinton if there were any limits on abortion for her. “You have been quoted as saying that the fetus has no constitutional rights. You also voted against a ban on late-term, partial-birth abortions.” She made it clear that she supported Roe v. Wade “so long as the life and health of the mother are taken into account,” including late term abortion.
In response to the same question Donald Trump responded. “Well, I think it’s terrible. If you go with what Hillary is saying, in the ninth month, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby. Now… Hillary can say that that’s OK. But it’s not OK with me, because based on what she’s saying…you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month on the final day. And that’s not acceptable.”
Most media reaction was very critical of Trump saying, as did Hillary in the debate, that late term abortion “did not happen that way” and that the procedure was very rare. It was very dismissive but what was not emphasized is that Trump’s expressed position on abortion is the strongest of any presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan. So who is telling the truth?
First, in the assertion that “the fetus has no constitutional rights,” Hillary is wrong. Reagan correctly gave clarity to this question in his Proclamation of Personhood rendered January 14, 1988, when he wrote that the God-given right to life, identified in the Declaration of Independence as an inalienable right, extended to all humans whether born or not yet born. “That right to life belongs equally to babies in the womb, babies born handicapped, and the elderly or infirm,” he wrote. Moreover, the right to exist, once existing, is defended in the Constitution under the 5th and 14th Amendments that “no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.” Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 requires that the President swear an oath “to preserve, protect, and defend” the Constitution and this includes protecting all persons irrespective of their age.
Reagan ended his proclamation with, “I will take care that the Constitution and laws of the United States are faithfully executed for the protection of America’s unborn children. Upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind and the gracious favor of Almighty God.”
Second, Trump is both wrong and right with respect to his assertion that, “you can … rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month on the final day.” Any review of abortion pictures on the Internet show tiny human body parts separated from the whole body, but these are depictions prior to 26 weeks of gestation when a scalpel was used to cut up the body making it easier to expel, probably not after that time.
The law of the land regarding partial-birth abortion is stated in 18 U.S. Code 1531 and reads. “The term ‘partial-birth abortion’ means an abortion in which the person performing the abortion—(A) deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother or, in the case of breech presentation any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and (B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus.”
In practice, and depicted graphically on the Internet, a physician inserts forceps into the womb guided by ultrasound, grabs an infant leg pulling it into the birth canal and out. When all but the head is outside the mother’s body, scissors are used to make a hole in the back of the infant’s head large enough to insert a tube sucking out the brains and collapsing the skull killing what in a few seconds would be a living baby. The breach method is favored as the baby is killed in the womb rather than outside which feels too much like murder. Apparently, Trump’s graphic description of partial birth abortion is mostly correct, despite media objections.
On a personal note, as my parents were returning from a movie my mother slipped and fell on the ice in front of their home. After assisting mother into the home and onto a bed, dad left to find a doctor and I arrived two months early delivered by my grandmother. Although small I was clearly a human, not just tissue or an unfeeling fetus, at no time in my existence, from conception forward, was I not a human. How can I not defend other preemies my age? And if I had constitutional rights five seconds after my birth how could I not have them five seconds before?
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are supposed to apply to all Americans including Americans almost born and Trump is more right than wrong on the evil of partial birth death. When we finally get Justices that use the Constitution as framed, as promised by Trump, the Constitution will protect even the babies. Then America’s darkest secret will be exposed and removed, and Planned Parenthood will not be secretly selling baby body parts for research.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Oct 28, 2016 | Constitution, Globalism, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
I have not endorsed a presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan because in every election in my lifetime, the prevailing argument has always been the lesser of two evils. But if you are voting for the lesser of two evils aren’t you still voting for evil? As a devout Christian I do not wish to vote for any evil. Outside basic Christian values, I have gravitated to two things that dominate my political loyalty; the Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers, and opposition to what is now called globalism, the transfer of power from nations to regional governments and then to a world government. Political party is not my base for determining truth.
I have never supported the lesser of two evils voting practice because both candidates were “evil” using these barometers. But what if one candidate is many times more “evil” using these criteria than the other? Historically, lying or abuse of power concerns could be exposed in a free press and perpetrators could be removed either by impeachment or in a subsequent election. The nation could recover. But what if we no longer have a “real” free press and one side clearly dominates and excludes information? What if we reached a point in “evilness” that recovery is very unlikely, and a president uses the power of government to punish or silence political opposition, as did Richard Nixon with the IRS?
What if our outgoing president, Barack Obama, already defies the Constitution with executive orders circumventing the law-making powers of Congress and is already using the IRS against Tea Party groups? What if he has politicized the Department of Justice (DOJ) allowing it to overlook irregularities such as the secret tarmac meeting between Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton on an airport runway in Phoenix Arizona over DOJ’s possible prosecution of Hillary. This, and the politicization of the FBI resulting in its subsequent failure to recommend prosecuting Hillary on her 33,000 national security bleach-bit deleted emails as it would have anyone else doing the same thing and giving all those pleading the Fifth Amendment on the email scandal immunity from prosecution. Political corruption is obviously at its highest level in U.S. History. What if justice in this country has already been politicized?
What if the establishment media is also politicized to the point that it is just an extension of the Clinton campaign and only Fox News and talk radio are willing to share the Wikileaks emails, what would be, in any other election, devastating to Clinton? Her voters may never know of these scandals. The New York Times, Washington Post, and Boston Globe are openly Clinton advocates and important feeds to many smaller newspapers as well. The following televised news sources are openly favoring Hillary Clinton for president: CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS and ABC. Could not an election be managed by such media exclusions?
The Obama Administration attempted to silence the email disclosures. Secretary of State John Kerry, on October 18, unsuccessfully used his influence to get the Ecuadorian Embassy in London to cut off Julian Assange’s Internet access putting an end to the transfer of the Clinton incriminating emails flowing therefrom.
If the Obama Administration has corrupted and politicized the IRS, DOJ and FBI and Hillary is his designated replacement, what hope do we have that she will correct these present examples of misuse of power and not continue to use these agencies, and the politicized media, to further defy the Constitution and punish her enemies? None. She benefited from these tyrannies. More likely she will continue their use adding dozens more agencies to the list as evidenced by her assistance in the scandals of the nineties, the last time the Clintons occupied the White House. Millenials have been largely denied coverage on these scandals: Whitewater, Filegate, Cattle Futures, Travelgate, profiting from the Lincoln Bedroom, Chinagate, White House Looting, Pardongate, and using the IRS on adversaries.
No person in America’s political history has had more scandals attributed to him/her than Hillary Rodham Clinton. WND TV, in May 2015, listed the number of passed scandals at 22. Right now there is Benghazi, the 33,000 bleach-bitted security emails, DNC attempts to derail Bernie Sanders, and the Clinton Foundation plus a half dozen others stemming from the WikiLeaks revelations. Scandals follow her like flees on a dog, often two or three simultaneously. There exists nothing that suggests that such will not continue. She has always ridden the fine line between legal and illegal.
Now Trump has many “warts,” is not a particularly religious man, is not politically polished or verbally refined, and is sometimes offensive to those around him, but there lacks concrete evidence that he is any more “evil” than any of his predecessors. So the real issue is not the lesser of two evils but one “evil” verses many “evils” and we cannot assume that we could recover from the damage to the Constitution, the dive into world government, and the resultant compromised Christian ethics that would result in the next four years from a Hillary victory. The disparity of evil between candidates is greater than ever before, which now necessitates our choosing the “evil” of one over the “evils” of the other. In this sense every vote not for Trump is a vote for Hillary. This election may be a matter of saving the Constitution and our national survival. Are non-Trump voters willing to accept responsibility for damage to these entities?
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Oct 16, 2016 | Constitution, Globalism, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Not since Barry Goldwater in 1964 have I seen the establishment turn on one man with a unity and vehemence, as though from the very bowels of Hell, as it has Donald Trump. It’s a full court press consisting of big governments types from both political parties, the establishment press (all networks except Fox), Hollywood moguls such as Steven Spielberg, and the billionaire club notably: David Rockefeller, George Soros, Warren Buffett, Michael Bloomberg, Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg. They all benefit by the billions of dollars from this alliance, and it’s in all of their interests to protect one another and destroy anyone who threatens this money and power flow, thus their warfare on Trump.
They are not all that concerned about the character of Trump—not even his disgusting video—as the character of Hillary, the one they do support, is far more flawed; nor do they particularly care about his sometimes hurtful comments. Bill Clinton is accused of having sexually assaulted women; even raping Juanita Broaddrick, while his wife used her power to punish his victims. As a defense attorney Hillary defended the rapist of a twelve-year-old child, even knowing the perpetrator was guilty, and we all saw the video of her laughing about her success in doing so. With a President Hillary the elite will stay in power so they use their power to minimize her many scandals and maximize Trump’s character flaws. It is as simple as this. They have even allowed her to garner perhaps $300 million after leaving broke from the Whitehouse. She is one of them.
So-called conservatives, like former president George H. Bush, plan to vote for so-called liberals (actually socialists) like Hillary Clinton in this election. Loyalty to this semi-secret combination is very strong.
Virtually all of these elites mentioned can be described as “globalists” or friendly to globalism, a term that emphasizes transferring power from nations to an international body such as the U.N. If successful the Constitution will not be the ruling document and the United States will not be a separate, independent, and sovereign nation. Such eventually spells the end of the United States and liberty as we know it. Even the phrase “open borders,” as used by Hillary (revealed in Wikileak’s October dump), calls for an “open border hemisphere,” implies the same.
What happened to political opposition to globalism? In fact, there never really was much after J.P. Morgan purchased the 25 largest newspapers in 1917 and personally placed an editor at each “paper to insure that all published information was in keeping with the new policy” determined by a new organization that he cofounded with John D. Rockefeller, The Council on Foreign Relations. The CFR is the most powerful special interest group working for world government in the U.S. The New York Times, now leading the charge against Trump, was the most powerful newspaper purchased.
The financial elite have always had consensus on preserving their power and wealth and have always owned most of the mainstream media and both major political parties. The big government, big business, and big media forces that now wish to drop an atomic bomb on Trump because he is opposing them on free trade, open borders, and America first, each sacred to them, are exposing themselves as having always been on the same side. As with Hillary and George H. Bush, they always have had a private message that differed from their public message.
This is why there is so little difference in foreign policy between Democrat and Republican presidents. They get their advisors from the same Wall Street special interest group, The CFR. They all support extensive foreign aid, policing the world with over 900 military bases in other lands, and continual wars without declaration or pre-established end. They all support international trade agreements that undermine the interests of our country and export jobs formerly held by Americans. Despite Republican opposition to open borders such was never effectively stopped when they were in power; the flood of illegals never ended. Finally, the establishment despises nationalism.
On domestic policy the elites all supported the bank bailouts and their management of the money supply through the bankers private Federal Reserve Bank, which they manage. Despite Republicans having the purse power they have allowed Barack Obama to double the national debt. None problem solve with the Constitution as first consideration. They all support problem solving on the federal or international level rather than the state level. Nor do they talk about limited government.
The establishment opposition to Trump certifies that he is not one of them. He will not be controlled by them, as have his predecessors from both parties. Nor will any special interest group control him. This may be the first time in 100 years that this is the case.
Now Trump has many “warts,” is not a particularly righteous man, is not politically polished or verbally refined and is sometimes offensive to those around him, but he still represents the best chance to break free from the 100-year-old elitist secret combination which now has a choke-hold on our government, the Constitution, and liberty itself. Certainly he has a much better chance of doing so than Barry Goldwater, the last presidential candidate that really tried. If he does not score a win this time there may not be another chance.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Oct 4, 2016 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Reports have been surfacing in the non-establishment press of a prison beating of Ryan Bundy by three guards charged with his care. His wife Angie had to take to the radio to get attention to the beating. Apparently Ryan still had a bullet in his arm placed there on January 26, eight months prior, by FBI agents while he was approaching their roadblock in the Oregon arrest. The driver having been fired upon left his truck with hands held high with the intent to surrender to the officers. He was shot dead. The only witnesses were the officers and those they arrested.
Eight months later, on August 9, Ryan was awakened at 5:30 a.m. and told of an impending court hearing. No advanced warning. The story as told by Angie, on the Bryan Hide Show, follows. “You have court.” “You have to come.” “Where are you taking me?” “Can I at least go upstairs and tell my brother what is going on so at least someone knows where I am?” They would not allow him to call his attorney or anyone. Ryan was escorted up the stairs to his brother Ammon. “They are taking me somewhere,” he told him. “They say to court.” “I just want you to know should I not come back.”
As Ryan turned to go back down the stairs the deputy shoved him. He grabbed the stair railing breaking his fall. Two other deputies coming up the stairs began beating on Ryan from below. Ryan’s injuries consisted of a dislocated wrist, broken thumb, and head bruised and cut open. Ammon viewing the attack began banging on his cell door attempting to bring attention to it so that there would be witnesses. Ryan was escorted to a cell in the court building across the street in Portland and left for the remainder of the day in solitary confinement. There was no court, as asserted by the officers.
It is possible that the prosecution wanted the evidence of the bullet received while Ryan was approaching the FBI roadblock removed, with no witnesses other than themselves, because they then could contest the vehicle being fired upon prior to the roadblock. According to Angie they would not allow pictures of the procedure and no paperwork regarding the removal would be given him. His refusal to agree to the “secret surgery” was the probable reason for the beating.
Ammon was able to get a call to his wife who phoned Angie Bundy, and she was able to get the word out to others. The resultant flood of concerned calls was believed to have stopped the so-called secret court hearing. Angie is uncertain whether Ryan received any medical treatment for injuries sustained by the deputy beating.
An in house hearing of the altercation was held August 12 with an employee of the jail serving as judge. Ryan was not allowed to give his side of the story. No attorney was present. No independent or outside source was provided. Cameras were everywhere but officers claim no footage existed of either the beating or the hearing.
Ryan was sentenced to a month in “segregation,” otherwise known as solitary confinement. His trial for initial imprisonment was to begin Sept. 7, but he was to remain in “segregation” until Sept. 17, making preparation especially difficult. It is a 24-hour per day lockdown with only 15 minutes a day to phone his family or shower or to do any other necessities. Angie did not mention whether he was allowed to contact his lawyer during solitary confinement.
Most Americans were sympathetic to the Cliven Bundy Nevada Standoff of April 14, 2016, when the federal government intentionally slaughtered Bundy cattle and proceeded to roundup and remove another 300 to 400 free ranging on public land managed by the Bundy’s for generations—even before the Bureau of Land Management (1946) existed.
For most that sympathy did not follow when Clivan’s two sons Ryan and Ammon decided to assist Dwight and Steven Hammond, father and son, in a similar confrontation with the BLM in Oregon for which they had completed their sentences. A year after their release both were rearrested, reconvicted and re-incarcerated because the federal government did not like the ruling of their own federal judge. The Hammons’ returned to prison peacefully but their neighbors were angry at the injustice.
The Bundy’s, having appreciated the support of the hundreds that had joined them in their previous attempt to protect their multi-generational use of land in Nevada, came in support of the Hammond’s. They soon found themselves in leadership positions in the takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge by Oregon ranchers on January 2. They mistook this action as supportive of getting back to the Constitution.
The nation viewed the Nevada Standoff as a defensive nature, an American family defending their home and property from federal tyranny. The takeover and occupation of the Refuge facility, although not inhabited at the time, was viewed as an aggressive act. The Randy Bundy trial begun Sept. 17, 2016, will decide the penalty for that aggression but it is difficult to justify the pre-trial Bundy beating by the Oregon Sheriff Department. We hope that exposure to this travesty will bring the sheriffs’ to justice. No one should be beat while under the care of the law.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Sep 26, 2016 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
I did not celebrate Constitution Day, September 17, primarily because I did not know how to do so. The Federal Government requires colleges to do something on that day to qualify for Title IV grant monies, which, if people really read the Constitution, they would find no authority for the grant.
Some years back I was asked to give suggestions for a meaningful program. The assigned administer and I pondered several options none of which seemed fitting or particularly meaningful. Still, we should do something—ignorance on this document is appalling and patriotism from those under 25 is virtually dead. Now athletes, making millions, because the document made it possible for their talent to flourish under freedom established by this document, refuse to stand when our national anthem is played. Many do not deserve the much-reduced freedom that is still left from the document.
Where do we start? Virtually no one reads this document anymore and neither major political party feels particular harnessed by it as the Founders intended. Few college courses require it being read in full and few universities have a class specifically dedicated to it—not even law schools. I know no one in my profession that actually had to read the entire document for a Ph. D.
Should I talk about the total disregard of the list in Article I, Section 8 from which the government is limited in making laws? The Founders created the list so that government could not rule wherever it pleased as in other countries. Or perhaps the 10th Amendment which strengthens the argument that all powers not specifically mentioned remain with the states and with the people which is flagrantly violated almost daily by a renegade, constitutionally inept, or ignorant congress.
Should I talk about the separation of powers created by the Founders where one branch made the law, another enforced the law, and yet a third adjudicated the law—a separation that we used to honor. If I did I would also have to talk about the present corruptness of the separation. For the last sixty years an unelected bureaucracy made most federal laws because Congress got lazy and allowed other organizations to fill in the details for them. Now called rules and regulations instead of laws, but they still exact a punishment if a business or individual is out of harmony. The Federal Register, wherein they are housed, adds a half-inch thick of new ones daily.
Also, I would have to mention that presidents make law by executive orders, most with no actual legislative authorization. Signing statements, popularized by the Bush Administration, distort laws passed by Congress by removing portions he disagreed with. The Obama Administration created a new level of administrators called “Czars” (purposely skirting Senate confirmation) to manage areas where no Constitutional authority exists—last count was 34. To all of this Congress remains silent to the abduction of her power.
The Supreme Court also makes law by ruling in such a way as to give existing law new meaning never envisioned in its origin; or by giving its approval to law having no constitutional base—as for example national health care. Justice Clarence Thomas admitted that some Justices attempt to ascertain what the Founders had in mind before ruling; others he admitted, “just make it up.” This certainly would be an interesting presentation. Would enough listen, or even care?
The notion of federalism that the states handle domestic issues and the federal government primarily foreign issues and that they are coequal (like a marriage) neither being master or slave to the other is gone; as is the Constitutional mandate that federal empowerment requires the consent of 3/4ths of the states as stipulated in Article V. This might be a good topic but it would take at least an hour to explain such and some quick student assemblage to fulfill the government mandated requirement would never do. Besides this notion of shared and equal was abandoned in the fifties and sixties and as a result the federal government clearly rules the states who now bow in near total obedience, their palms extended and tongues hanging out, for federal government grants in areas where the federal government has no constitutional authority to give.
States, like individuals, are addicted to the “free” money. Try telling a student body that the “free” college tuition advocated by beloved socialist guru Bernie Sanders and “me too” Hillary Clinton is totally unconstitutional without an amendment to the Constitution and see if you are allowed to finish your required presentation.
There are so many other topics one might cover. The distortion of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution from an intended individual right to have a weapon, whether government approved or not, to only a collective right through a militia, now interpreted as the National Guard, which organization did not then exist. Or, the mutilation of the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments under the National Defense Authorization Act legislation passed by Congress Dec. 2012.
My point!!! The Constitution is a foreign language to most and this ignorance has resulted in our being out of harmony so long. Where do I start? The perversions are almost numberless. Colleges undoubtedly did something to qualify for the Title IV grant on Sept. 17, but were what they did meaningful? I very much doubt that any of the afore mentioned objections were mentioned.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Sep 19, 2016 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
If California is the pace setter state, what has just happened there could soon be at the doorstep of all state legislatures or imposed on all gun owners at the federal level. With one political party significantly dominating all branches of government in California, Democrats effectively control the state. With such power they have passed a litany of new laws on magazines, ammunition, gun registration, ownership and lending firearms. In essence they have shot (excuse the metaphor) so many bullets in the 2nd Amendment as to render it impotent.
All this legislation has resulted despite the clear language in the Constitution prohibiting government infringement on your right to bear arms. The anti-self defense people despise the following language therein found, “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 exists no sentence in the Constitution that was more understood at the time. A militia then was the people and an armed populace was understood to be necessary for a free country in two ways: an armed populace could assist the military against foreign invasion and/or would be in place should the biggest enemy to liberty be ones own government as in the American Revolution against British tyranny.
Certainly, when enacted, there was no thought of restricting type of firearm, amount of ammunition, or where, or who could carry. So its placement as the second most valued freedom in the Bill of Rights had nothing to do with personal safety, or hunting, these were already assumed. Founding documents show it specifically placed right after freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly to make certain that these freedoms were never taken from us. It was aimed (no pun intended) squarely at the government should it become tyrannical as before under the British. But certainly we need have no fear of the government today? Given California’s new gun laws, which follow, perhaps we should.
Background checks on all ammunition purchases within the state will be required under Senate Bill 1235 effect in 2019. As patrons may make several purchases a year this is likely to overwhelm a background system already overwhelmed over gun purchases alone resulting in long delays. The new law also requires all ammunition vendors to submit sales reports to the California Department of Justice for the creation of an ammunition registration system. The anticipated effect for gun rights haters is that smaller outlets will cease selling ammunition because of all the paperwork. But this restriction gets worse, you may not give friends or family members ammunition without going first to a gun store for the gift to be processed. Hereafter it is a crime to “transfer more than 50 rounds of ammunition within a 30-day period.” Should you opt to purchase ammunition in another state you may not bring more than 50-rounds into California unless you are a licensed ammunition vendor.
Self defense advocates are now more restricted in gun ownership and use than ever before. Starting January 2017, “all semi-automatic centerfire rifles that do not have fixed magazines will be illegal if they have a bad ‘feature,’ such as a thumbhole stock, a telescoping or folding stock, or a pistol grip.” Moreover, such weapons may not be transferred as part of an inheritance. California already had a gun law prohibiting the lending of a firearm for more than 30 days between friends or family members. That too is now forbidden. Instead, you and your brother or friend must both go to a gun shop and submit to a background check and 10-day waiting period for him to use it and when it is returned both have to return to the store with a new background check and 10-day waiting period on you the lender.
In California gun magazine sales have been limited to ten rounds for the last 17 years but persons already in possession of magazines exceeding this number could keep them. Now, State Senate Bill 1446 requires the confiscation of all by July 1, 2017. To get rid of them owners may turn them in to law enforcement for destruction, destroy them themselves, remove them from the state and/or sell them to licensed firearms dealers.
Imagine how these restrictions might emasculate citizens in their ability to assist the military against a foreign invasion (as in the case of citizens stopping the British invasion in the Battle of Saratoga) and/or to oppose our own government should it become tyrannical as also happened once before. Our Founders did not deny future generations the same means of resisting tyranny that they used themselves.
All these new laws violate the Second Amendment, which placed bearing arms off-limits to government and used the strongest language possible, “shall not be infringed,” in doing so. If the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is felt to be inadequate for the needs of today the only constitutional option available is another amendment abolishing this one and state approval of another as outlined in Article V of the Constitution, as was the case ending prohibition. Any legislation, state or federal, cannot undermine or destroy an amendment to the Constitution.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
