Letter to the Editor

The discussion on the 2nd

amendment is front and center

again. The Biden administration

is saying ignorant, untrue

things, like the 2nd is not absolute,

that the Government has

the right to restrict and abridge

this amendment.

This is false and I’m going

to back that up with all the information

you need to fi ght this

fi ght, so pay attention! Regarding

the Federal Government’s

ability to impose, “reasonable

restraint”, which has now become

its mantra. Supporters of

the 2nd Amendment claim that

they have a constitutional right

to keep and bear arms. Our opponents

counter, even if that was

the case, the Federal government

was granted the general

power to place restraints on the

right. Both of these assertions

are based on the misconception

concerning the document

known as the bill of rights.

When the Bill of Rights was

submitted to the States, it was

prefaced with a pre-amble. As

stated in the preamble, the purpose

of the amendments was to

prevent the Federal govt. from

quote “misconstruing or abusing

its powers”. To accomplish

this, “further declaratory and

restrictive clauses”, where being

recommended. The amendments,

when adopted, DID NOT

create any so called Constitutional

rights or grant the Federal

Govt. any power over any

individual rights, they placed

additional restraints and qualifi

cations on the powers of the

Federal Govt. concerning the

right enumerated in the amendments.

If the 2nd Amendment is red

through the preamble, we fi nd

it was incorporated into the Bill

of Rights as a, “declaratory and

restrictive clause” to prevent the

Federal Govt. from, “misconstruing

and abusing its power” to

infringe on peoples right to keep

and bear arms. Another way

to understand the 2nd Amendment

is to rewrite it through its

preamble; ”Because a well regulated

militia is necessary to

the security of a free State, the

Federal Govt. is expressly denied

the power to infringe on the

PEOPLES right to keep and bear

arms”. The preamble and original

intent of the amendment has

been suppressed by the institutions

of Government because

it would expose their usurpation

of power and perversion of

amendments contained in the

Bill of Rights.

By advancing the myth

that the amendments grant the

American People their individual

rights, the Federal Govt. has

been able to convert enumerated

restraints and qualifi cations

on IT’S power into legislative,

judicial, executive and administrative

power over individual

rights. The Federal Govt. claims

it was granted the Constitutional

Authority to determine the extent

of the individual right enumerated

in the amendment and/

or impose “reasonable restraint

on those rights”. This assertion

is absolutely absurd. The Federal

Govt DOES NOT have the constitutional

authority to ignore,

circumvent, modify, negate or

remove constitutional restraint

on its power by the amendments

or convert them into power over

the individual right enumerated

in the particular restraint.

A denial of power or an enumerated

restraint on the exercise

of power, IS NOT subject to interpretation

or modifi cation by

the entity the restraint is being

imposed upon. The restraint

imposed by the amendments,

which were adopted 4 years after

the Constitution was ratifi ed,

OVERIDE the legislative, executive,

judicial or administrative

powers of the Federal Govt. If

this weren’t the case, the restraints

would be MEANINGLESS

because the Federal Govt.

could simply circumvent, modify,

or remove them. Why would

the States have requested and

adopted enumerated restraints

on the Federal Govt., subsequent

to their ratifi cation of

the Constitution, if the Federal

Govt. possessed the authority to

nullify them? Starting to MAKE

SENSE?

When the Federal Govt. infringes

on one of the rights enumerated

in the Bill of Rights, it

is not violating anyone’s constitutional

rights, it is violating the

additional restraint or qualifi cation

placed on its power, by the

particular amendment where

the right is enumerated. The distinction

between rights and restrictions

is critical; (our rights

are not given by the Fed Gov. our

rights are given by God and are

unalienable, therefore they cannot

be limited or taken away).

As stated in the Declaration

of Independence the American

People have unalienable rights

that come from a higher source

than Government or a written

document. By acknowledging

people have natural rights,

which is bestowed by a creator,

the Founders laid the foundation

before the principal that government

DOES NOT have the

lawful authority to take away

or infringe on those rights. The

principle was incorporated into

the preamble and structure of

the amendments to secure individual

rights from government

encroachment; that is why they

were designed and imposed as a

restraint on the exercise of power.

If the individual rights of

the people had been created by

the constitution, or an amendment

to the document they

would cease to be unalienable

because the right would depend

on the existence of a document.

If the document disappeared, so

would the right. The belief that

individual rights were created

by written document has opened

the door for the Federal Govt.

to claim the power to defi ne the

extent of any right enumerated

in an amendment. This has

transformed the constitutional

restraints placed on the Federal

Govt. into subjective determination

of individual rights by the

institutions of Government. By

failing to understand the difference

between amendments

that create rights and amendments

that impose restraints

on Government, the American

people are watching their individual

rights vanish as they are

reduced to the status of privileges

bestowed by Government

because the constitutional restraints

placed on Federal power

are being replaced by Government

decree. Opponents of the

2nd Amendment always try to

diminish the right enumerated

in the amendment by asserting

that the right is not absolute.

This is just another strawman

argument because the amendment

is about imposing the restraint

on the Federal Govt. concerning

a right; not granting a

right or defi ning the extent of a

right. In addition, a review of the

2nd Amendment shows that the

restraint imposed by the amendment

DOES NOT CONTAIN

ANY EXCEPTIONS “SHALL

NOT BE INFRINGED”. How

much clearer does it have to be?

Jonathan Pitts

4th District Constable,

Lewis County