Tuesday, December 18, 2007

More from the Ghost of Thomas Jefferson

The following was forwarded by Len Savage. The author, in the tradition of PUBLIUS, is unknown.

Once the Founding Fathers had broken the chains of tyranny they realized that what stood before them was a task unequaled in history. Civilizations have always risen and fallen, usually due to the enlightened or misguided paths the leaders chose. Having set the stage for a new civilization guided by the ideals of personal responsibility, honor, and freedom, the men who cast off the oppressors of their time found that creating a nation bound by laws that prohibited a government that set itself apart from the people was a task not easily accomplished.

To express the difficulty they faced to future generations so that their intent and desires would not and could not be questioned, they documented much of their discussions. The prime example is of course the Federalist Papers. Notes from the First and Second Continental Congress provide insight as well. Though these documents do exist and are exquisitely detailed as to the intent of the Founding Fathers, most American citizens do not know or understand what is contained within these historic pages. Sadly, while the technological knowledge base has increased over the centuries, the fundamental understanding of history and civic lessons of the past are being neglected, dooming the United States to follow other civilizations that fell to the burdensome weight of their governments. This lack of education is the leading culprit that places the United States in the dire position it now is.

Recent passage of laws such as the misleadingly named Patriot Act and the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act has subtly eroded away the freedoms recognized in the Bill of Rights. The lack of public outcry to such travesties of justice and freedom is purely shocking.

The men who created this new nation knew that the right to express discontent to the Government was a paramount right that only existed if the ability to vocalize such redress of grievance was reinforced by the capability to physically prevent the Government from taking an action that the citizenry felt compelled to stop. This is the foundation of the recognition of the right to use force to defend life, liberty and freedom. The Founding Fathers outlined this in the Second Amendment with the clear intention, as shown by documentation of the period, to prevent a new dictatorship from occurring in the new United States.

A perfect example of the wisdom of the Founding Fathers in action dates back to the late nineteen-forties. Athens, Tennessee became a battleground when armed citizens prevented election fraud and the foundations of a local tyrant. Yet, how many civics textbooks used in the school systems in our nation have even a single sentence in reference to this small but historically significant event?

The men who stood against tyranny in Athens, Tennessee believed in the words and deeds of the Founding Fathers. Instead of kneeling to the iron fist of a dictator, these men risked their lives to uphold the belief that no man is above the law.

Unfortunately, the events in Tennessee were nearly a decade and a half late. During the nineteen-twenties, the first real nationwide push to dictate restrictions upon the citizens became real. Prohibitionists demonized imbibing of alcohol and successfully barred the practice by forcing their position on everyone, even those who disagreed. Two things of paramount importance happened with the passage of the Amendment. The first thing to occur was the willful disregard of the public to abide by the restriction. This set into motion a new view of the Government and laws in which were passed. The response by the Government was one that haunts the nation to this day. The creation of what would be considered one of the most hated agencies associated with the United States Government came into being. When Prohibition was abolished, instead of learning from the experience, the United States Government attempted to follow the same insane path by passing into law the 1934 National Firearms Act. The publicized goal of this law was to prevent access to machine guns and certain other arms by the criminal element that came to exist due directly to the failed attempt at banning alcohol. A database was created and a tax was imposed on the transfer of machine guns, silencers, and long guns with barrels shorter than a specific length. Though the law was highly unconstitutional, most people remained silent on the matter since the precedent had been set less than a decade before when the citizens ignored Prohibition. This silence was considered approval by a greatly misdirected Congress. A new department came into being solely designed to manage the database and to aid in enforcing the law. Within a few decades, this department would grow to become a vile example of tyranny within the borders of the United States.

When Congress passed the 1968 Gun Control Act, one of the worst blows to the Constitution occurred. A seemingly insignificant phrase contained within the new law set the stage for decades of horror. The law delegated to the Attorney General the power to determine the status of a firearm based upon its sporting suitability. The so-called sporting purpose clause allowed the Attorney General to unconstitutionally interpret the law recklessly and loosely. It wasn't long before the duty of determining sporting purpose was further delegated to the BATF with disastrous results.

Since that time, the BATF has repeatedly re-interpreted the sporting purpose clause to suit its needs of the moment leading to unjust prosecutions and unjustifiable deaths. Instead of addressing those seeking a redress of grievance, Congress has repeatedly ignored complaints from the public and professional firearms community. The result of this has been an emboldening of action by the BATF further infringing upon the rights and freedoms of citizens.

This has culminated to the point where the BATF has openly begun to operate outside the law. Ignoring legal mandate, the BATF is now repeatedly creating evidence using the sporting purpose clause to justify their actions. By using an undefined term called "readily restorable", meaning that a firearm can be made into a machine gun without setting standards for what defines readily, the BATF is now making determinations with no basis in scientific procedures or standards, leaving the public openly questioning what is legal under BATF mandate and what isn't.

To say that choices for Congress and the Presidency are lacking is an understatement. No longer do people of good character and upstanding moral qualities offer to sacrifice their time to perform the civic duty of becoming an elected official. Instead, those who would seek to increase their personal power and glory attempt to command the field. With this appalling situation the citizens must seek justice through the courts. When District of Columbia v. Heller was appealed to the Supreme Court, the possibility of justice prevailing became a possibility leaving the political spectrum behind.

This possibility concerns the BATF greatly. Congress has made itself an accomplice to the illegal actions of the BATF by refusing to address the illegal actions of the agency and when it invoked "National Security" to conceal the committee hearings regarding the confirmation of Mr. Michael Sullivan to the position of Director of the BATFE. Instead of addressing the concerns of the people, Congress has decided to separate itself from the people even further. BATF has for many years lobbied Congress, though highly illegal, for its own ends. Without an opportunity to lobby the Court, the BATFE must now decide on how it will address future issues should it survive intact after the District of Columbia v. Heller decision comes down.

The conduct of the BATFE will most likely be of concern to the Court in their decision making process. At least one Justice is familiar with the process required by the BATFE regarding the NFA. Documentation available through the Congressional Research Staff and other documentation available on the internet regarding the less than appropriate conduct of the BATFE and the unprofessional actions by employees of the BATFE in court and during professional contact with the firearms industry should have a great impact on the Court.

Would the Founding Fathers approve of the nation as it rests today? That is something every citizen must ask. It is not time to water that famous tree while hope still exists. Should that change, undoubtedly the citizens will come to understand what their forefathers knew at Concord, Lexington and not so long ago in Athens.

With warmest regards-
The Ghost of Thomas Jefferson
[More from Jefferson's Ghost]

7 comments:

  1. Sure wish GOTJ had referenced the Anti-Federalist Papers. Federal Farmer and his compatriots are a heckuva lot more in line with the limited-government, states' and peoples' rights school of thought:

    http://www.iahushua.com/hist/AntiFED.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. As usual, loved the post. Seeing as my name says it all, I think the Anti-Federalist papers should have been included as well. Also that the GCA68 was based on the Nazi gun control laws. We live in a land of apathy and ambivalence. The thing I think is most important is that looking back at history nothing lasts forever and always falls apart at some time. I have always felt that the one thing the founding fathers did not include they should have was a "reset" button on the system so that we could replace the system with fresh "real" people from time to time to limit the problems of having people in office for life with connections , etc. you get the idea.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The problem with the reset button is that I think the Founding Fathers thought others like themselves would be in power. They never thought the scum we vote into office today would ever get as far as it does now. . . . I don't think they could even imagine that good men would not want the job or that bad ones could get so dug in without a fight from the population. Guess they didn't realize how cheaply the population sells it's vote

    ReplyDelete
  4. Actually, the Founding Fathers included a reset button, which amazingly enough is also the canary in the mineshaft. The Second Amendment is that button. By recognizing and codifying the Right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, with the additional warning that it is easier to oppose a tyrranical govt when organised, they left the citizens of these united states the option to hit reset when necessary. The amendment is also a canary since once it starts being ignored and subverted you know that the country is firmly on the path to tyrrany.

    My biggest problem with the person writing as TGOTJ is that TJ himself warned us to not put faith in the interpretation of the Constitution by judges. He knew that they were, or were going to be political appointees who would look to their own interests first, and since those interests typically align with the Govt then they are immediately suspect. Not to mention, I expect that he would not believe that there is still time for a peaceful resolution. In fact, I expect that he would be out preaching that it is time to water the tree before the cost gets too high. Though admittedly it may already be too high for many people.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Great piece. Thought I slightly disagree with one small part, and will offer my opinion on the matter:

    "Two things of paramount importance happened with the passage of the Amendment..."

    To me, the two most important things are:

    1. The federal government claimed the power to restrict anything involving alcohol in the country without any Constitutional authority. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I believe this is the first time it created a new power out of thin air -- one beyond the power to tax, but to restrict production, manufacturing of production facilities and tools, distribution, sale and consumption, and the power to seize and destroy private property without due process. In other words, the government gave itself absolute authority on the condition that a molecule of ethyl alcohol could be found.

    2. No one in the federal government ever took any responsibility for the creation of the resultant black market economy, which pumped massive amounts of funding into the coffers of the most violent criminal gangs in history. Well... I assume so because I can't dig up a single story about mass firings or hangings of government officials in the 1930s. This is different than the wisdom that restrictions create black markets. We all know that.

    The first point is the most important to me, unfortunately I'm out of time to elaborate.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I want to correct an error in my previous post. Below is what I wanted to say, however my "but" got in the way:

    "Perhaps I'm wrong, but I believe this is the first time it created a new power out of thin air -- one beyond the power to tax, to restrict production, manufacturing of production facilities and tools, distribution, sale and consumption, and the power to seize and destroy private property without due process. In other words, the government gave itself absolute authority on the condition that a molecule of [drinking] alcohol could be found."

    My apologies for the rushed response. I was more careful with this one.

    Continuing with my comments...

    I need to explain myself at this point, especially my claim that the federal government "created a new power out of thin air" and "without any Constitutional authority". The ability to prohibit manufacture (whatever the legal definition of that term), or sale (likewise -- think of the tax code), or transportation, importation and exportation are powers granted in the Amendment. Not that these things aren't important, but I'm interested in the words "for beverage purposes". The Amendment doesn't explicitly grant the government power to determine the purpose of any object -- nor does the Constitution -- yet there it is.

    I realize that those words may appear as the result of a clumsy attempt by the social engineers to exclude production of alcohol for something other than swallowing by humans for recreation. As clumsy an attempt as my last sentence, which demonstrates the difficulty in narrowly defining the limits of a power. Needless to say, the 18th Amendment certainly didn't narrowly define a new power; it granted several broad ones.

    So... Who determines purpose? How about the owner of a still? I wonder how many of the accused avoided arrest arguing this point. "No Mr. Revenuer, this isn't for drinking, I'm going to rub it on my chest." Applause for anyone who can dig up an authentic report where a Prohibition-era moonshiner was left alone after employing that defense.

    Did the States determine purpose? Where was that codified in the laws of the States when the 18th Amendment was ratified? I'm especially interested in the parts that describe the mechanics of examining an object to exactly determine its purpose in the future. That should be interesting reading. Did the federal agents determine purpose using the (probably fictional) criteria provided by the States, or did they simply take orders from their superiors at the IRS? Where is the public record of IRS agents requesting determination of purpose from States' governments for each individual case, before pursuing suspects?

    Apparently the federal government simply assumed the power to determine purpose.

    There is no way that the government could have exercised this power without the greater result being the damaging of liberty. How can one reasonably argue that a still has a beverage purpose? The maker has no control over the production after it leaves his possession. Likewise with the reseller, who may also sell legal items. How about the transporter or importer? If 95 percent of his shipment isn't liquor for "beverage purposes", does he get 5 percent arrested? Is the vehicle 5 percent seized? Who collects the rent on the store? Who paid for the truck? Who paid for the other items in the shipment? Who depends on the money that the driver earns?

    The government is granted the power to punish people for the possession of an object with a certain purpose, and the government determines the purpose. Without the ability to accurately predict the future, determination of purpose is arbitrary. The government could determine that no purpose is an acceptable purpose. That sounds to me too much like the government defining the limits of its own power. The object has a purpose because a human employs it accordingly. Therefore, determination of purpose is in fact determination of intent. This isn't a slippery slope, it's a sheer drop off of the side of a cliff.

    This is the part where it ties into the politically trendy disarmament movement. Our esteemed guest author has already provided the example of armed Citizens taking the blame for the disastrous results of Prohibition. The illegally exercised power to arbitrarily determine purpose, and therefore determine intent, is why we have to carry knives shorter than four inches, why shotgun barrels have a mandated minimum length, why Thompson Center can't sell certain configurations of their single-shot firearms, why we have discussions about the legally vague term "sporting purpose", and why a shoelace is a fully automatic weapon. These restrictions are disconnected from reality: A shotgun with an 18.5 inch barrel is just as dangerous than one with a 17.5 inch barrel; a Contender is still a single-shot firearm no matter what barrel is attached; the purpose of a gun is determined by how it is used when it is used; a shoelace is only dangerous if you tie it around your neck and pull on both ends really hard, which is exactly what I recommend for disarmers who continually attempt to define a purpose by liberal application of the term "assault weapon". (Like Cynthia McKinney's cell phone, for example.) See, assault is illegal, and the purpose of an "assault weapon" is to assault someone. Therefore people that own "assault weapons" intend to commit the crime of assault. Why not just arrest them now?

    You'd think that the ridiculous legal situations that bad law creates would be proof enough that it's untenable. The disarmament laws at the federal level have a lot in common with Prohibition, except for that part in the Bill of Rights that informs your government that your right to be armed may not be infringed. The 18th Amendment provides an historical example of precisely what the disarmers propose to do with firearms, or any weapon actually. It's no surprise that de facto disarmament produced similar results in the latter half of the 20th Century.

    Perhaps it's time to challenge the federal government's assumed power to determine purpose? Maybe it's time to challenge this belief among the people. Better still, someone with a better understanding could challenge my theory and show me where in the Constitution the federal government is granted the power to determine the purpose of an object.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Purpose.

    Ford F-150 with several extra fuel tanks in the bed: For fueling remote gas-powered devices, or creating a truck bomb?

    Set of Dollar store steak knives: cheap kitchen utensils, or individual stabbing weapons to break the handle off of once inserted?

    Baseball Bat: gift for future sports star, or protection money encouragement device?

    Scalpel: life saving tool, or small throat slitting weapon?

    Handgun: personal protection, or device of mass-murder?

    ReplyDelete

Keep it on topic. Submit tips on different topics via left sidebar Contact Form.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.