There is No “But” in “Shall Not Be Infringed”
By Michael Maharrey
I can’t tell you how many times over the last week or so that I’ve heard somebody say, “I support the Second Amendment, but…”
This is a prime example of the principle that you can pretty much ignore everything a person says before the “but.”
They don’t mean it.
If there is a “but” in a statement of support for the Second Amendment, the person doesn’t really support the Second Amendment.
I can’t emphasize this enough. There is no “but” in the Second Amendment. It simply says, “shall not infringe.”
Period.
End of story.
This leads me to a second important point. I hear stuff like this all the time. “The Second Amendment does not give you the right to own an AR-15.”
This is actually true. It doesn’t give you the right to own an AR-15. The Second Amendment doesn’t give you any rights at all. It actually prohibits the federal government from infringing on a right you already have – the right to keep and bear arms. And yes. That includes an AR-15.
The first 10 amendments are restrictions on the federal government. They really should have called the Bill of Rights the “Bill of Restrictions.” That would have eliminated a lot of confusion.
Here’s the key point: these restrictions on federal power are absolute. There are no exceptions. There are no asterisks. There are no “buts.”
Shall not infringe means shall not infringe!
Keep in mind, even without the Second Amendment, the federal government would have very little authority to enforce firearms regulations. It can only exercise delegated powers, with all other power and authority reserved to the states and the people. We find the only power delegated to Congress relating to weaponry in Art. I Sec. 8 – “arming…the Militia.” The Constitution nowhere authorizes any general federal firearms regulating authority.
Even so, under the original Constitution, the federal government could conceivably regulate firearms in the process of exercising another legitimate power – particularly regulating interstate commerce. The Second Amendment slams that door closed.
…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Infringe – v: Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
Simply put, the federal government may not constitutionally act in any way that limits the right to keep and bear arms.
Michael Maharrey [send him email] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center, where this article first appeared. He proudly resides in the original home of the Principles of ’98 – Kentucky.See his blog archive here and his article archive here. He is the author of the book, Our Last Hope: Rediscovering the Lost Path to Liberty. You can visit his personal website at MichaelMaharrey.com and like him on Facebook HERE
The constitutional arguments are meaningless at this point. Our enemies control the courts, the legislatures and the executive branches of the uSA and the states.
You don’t need anyone’s permission to acquire and use any tool of self defense. So I find the legal arguments in this essay admirable but ultimately of no importance concerning our present state of affairs. The standard advice applies: “Never Give Up Your Guns”
> The standard advice applies: “Never Give Up Your Guns”< To which I might add: Also don't
tell anyone not necessary or that you don't absolutely trust where you have any or if you do.
The militia is every able bodied man and they have to have a gun plus sufficient ammunition. That is still valid today. Jews tried to destroy the US with the bankruptcy act of 1933, where every citizen had to give their gold to the Jews, all land was transferred to the banksters. In 28 USCode 3002 (15) they say clearly that the UNITED STATES of AMERICA is a commercial entity, thus there is no constitutional government animore. The executive has its CEO, Trump these days, the judicial branch has BAR (British accredition registry) trained judges which preside… Read more »
Never trust anyone wanting to disarm you. Politicians proclaiming support for gun control are proclaiming they don’t care about the constitution or the rights of the citizens they want to vote for them. Especially if they cite hoax crimes as the justification for disarming people.