Keep America safe: In guns we trust

Hmmmmm... I 'll take the opening statement/question one step further:

The writer of an April 28 letter "Silence the gun lobby" asks, "Why haven't we been able to persuade Congress to enact gun laws to protect our children?"

Why won't the liberals leave us alone and quit trying to legislate this inordinate and unjust amount of gun control so that we CAN protect our children unfettered?

"The defence of one’s self, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law. This principle of defence is not confined merely to the person; it extends to the liberty and the property of a man: it is not confined merely to his own person; it extends to the persons of all those, to whom he bears a peculiar relation -- of his wife, of his parent, of his child, of his master, of his servant: nay, it extends to the person of every one, who is in danger; perhaps, to the liberty of every one, whose liberty is unjustly and forcibly attacked. It becomes humanity as well as justice."

- James Wilson,'Of the Natural Rights of Individuals', 1790-1792 (Signed the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution, Congressman, Delegate to the Constitutional Convention and U.S. Supreme Court Justice).
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/OftheNatur...

“The law of nature is immutable; not by the effect of an arbitrary disposition, but because it has its foundation in the nature, constitution, and mutual relations of men and things. While these continue to be the same, it must continue to be the same also. This immutability of nature's laws has nothing in it repugnant to the supreme power of an all-perfect Being. Since he himself is the author of our constitution; he cannot but command or forbid such things as are necessarily agreeable or disagreeable to this very constitution. He is under the glorious necessity of not contradicting himself. This necessity, far from limiting or diminishing his perfections, adds to their external character, and points out their excellency.

“The law of nature is universal. For it is true, not only that all men are equally subject to the command of their Maker; but it is true also, that the law of nature, having its foundation in the constitution and state of man, has an essential fitness for all mankind, and binds them without distinction.

“This law, or right reason, as Cicero calls it, is thus beautifully described by that eloquent philosopher. "It is, indeed," says he, "a true law, conformable to nature, diffused among all men, unchangeable, eternal. By its commands, it calls men to their duty: by its prohibitions, it deters them from vice. To diminish, to alter, much more to abolish this law, is a vain attempt. Neither by the senate, nor by the people, can its powerful obligation be dissolved. It requires no interpreter or commentator. It is not one law at Rome, another at Athens; one law now, another hereafter: it is the same eternal and immutable law, given at all times and to all nations: for God, who is its author and promulgator, is always the sole master and sovereign of mankind."

- James Wilson,[The Works of the Honourable James Wilson, L.L.D.; Chap. III Of the Law of Nature]. Mr. Wilson signed the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. In addition he was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention and a U.S. Supreme Court Justice.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/BOOKS/TheWorksWils...

"The First Law of Nature is that every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war."

- Thomas Hobbs, "Leviathan",(Outline s the Laws of Nature), 1651.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/LawsofNatu...

THAT'S "why".

"No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #78
http://gunshowonthenet.com/FederalistPapers/F...

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."

- Marbury v. Madison, U.S. Supreme Court,[5 U.S.(2 Cranch) 137 (1803).]
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/MarburyvMadi...

"The State cannot diminish the rights of the People."

- Hurtado vs. California, U.S. Supreme Court,[110 U.S. 516 (1884).]

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no right; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."

- Norton v Shelby County, U.S. Supreme Court,[118 US 425,(1886).]

"The court is to protect against any encroachment of Constitutionally secured liberties.”

- Boyd v. United States, U.S. Supreme Court,[116 U.S. 616,(1886).]

"The Constitution is a written instrument. As such its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now. Being a grant of powers to a government, its language is general; and, as changes come in social and political life, it embraces in its grasp all new conditions which are within the scope of the powers in terms conferred. In other words,[Page 199 U.S. 437, 449] while the powers granted do not change, they apply from generation to generation to all things to which they are in their nature applicable. This in no manner abridges the fact of its changeless nature and meaning. Those things which are within its grants of power, as those grants were understood when made, are still within them; and those things not within them remain still excluded."

- Mr. Justice Brewer, U.S. Supreme Court,[South Carolina v. US, 199 U.S. 437 (1905).]

"The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."

“No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”

- Miller v. U.S., U.S. Supreme Court,[319 U.S. 105 (1943).]

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.”

- Miranda v. Arizona, U.S. Supreme Court,[384 U.S. 436 (1966).]

“If the state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity”

- Shuttlesworth v Birmingham, U.S. Supreme Court,[394 U.S. 147 (1969).]

"Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a Constitutional right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the law.”

- Owen v. City of Independence, MO,[445 U.S. 622, 100 S.Ct. 1398, 63 L.Ed.2d 673 (1980).]

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

"A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

- 16th American Jurisprudence, 2nd Edition, Volume 16, Section 177.

Also See:
http://www.familyrightsassociation.com/bin/ca...

Self-Defense and the United States Supreme Court:

Wiggins v. State Of Utah, Oct. Term, 1876.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/WigginsvStat...

Starr v. U.S., May 14, 1894.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/StarrvUS1894...

Thompson v. U.S., Dec. 3, 1894.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/ThompsonvUS1...

Allen v. U.S., April 8, 1895.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/AllenvUS1895...

Beard v. U.S., May 27, 1895.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/BeardvUS1895...

Allison v. U.S., Dec. 16, 1895.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/AllisonvUS18...

Smith v. U.S., March 2, 1896.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/SmithvUS1896...

Brown v. Walker, March 23, 1896.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/BrownVsWalke...

Stevenson v. U.S., April 13, 1896.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/StevensonvUS...

Wallace v. U.S., April 20, 1896.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/WallacevUS18...

Rowe v. U.S., Nov. 30, 1896.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/RowevUS1896....

Patsone v. Com. Of Pennsylvania, Jan. 19, 1914.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/PatsonevPenn...

BROWN v. UNITED STATES, "if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant he may stand his ground and that if he kills him he has not succeeded the bounds of lawful self defence", 256 U.S. 335 (1921).
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/BrownvUnited...

Missouri Pac. R. CO. v. David, U.S. Supreme Court, "He carried a pistol and sawed-off shot gun 'for the purpose of defending himself", Feb. 15, 1932
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/MissourivDav...

Adamson v. People Of State Of California, June 23, 1947.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/AdamsonvPeop...

"It was demanded by a great and overruling necessity...... This great law of necessity-of defence of self, of home, and of country-never was designed to be abrogated by any statute, or by any constitution."

- Mr.[(Formerly Major-General), Benjamin Franklin] Butler, ON THE SIDE OF THE UNITED STATES, EX PARTE MILLIGAN, U.S. Supreme Court, Dec. Term, 1866.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/ExParteMilli...

"Blackstone thought it was important. Blackstone thought it was important. He thought the right of self-defense was inherent, and the framers were devoted to Blackstone. Joseph Story, the first commentator on the Constitution and a member of this Court, thought it was a personal guarantee."

- Justice Scalia,[DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. Dick Anthony Heller] March 18, 2008.
http://gunshowonthenet.blogspot.com/2008/03/d...

Who do you think will have guns if we ban them,which is nearly impossible as I/We will Never surrender our arms.We/I am a veteran and was brought up believing that it was our right and duty to protect US.Do you think that criminals will still have acess?Duh,get a life