By Douglas V. Gibbs
The Founding Fathers learned much from their bitter experience as colonies under the British Empire, and as a nation under the weak structure of the Articles of Confederation. They recognized with solemn contemplation that to stand the test of time the new nation required a central government. Historically, tyranny always rose from the workings of a centralized system, so they understood that granting powers to a central government was volatile and dangerous. A lion that was strong enough to protect, preserve and promote the union, and while also safeguarding State Sovereignty, was needed. The problem with lions, however, is that they eat you if they are not properly restrained. The Constitution was written with limiting principles in order to limit the authorities of the new federal government, while also providing checks and balances to ensure power was not concentrated in a manner that opened up the opportunity for abuse by eager politicians. In addition to the limitations on the federal government, and the checks and balances, was another deterrent to keep the federal government from becoming tyrannical. Being necessary to the security of a free State, an unorganized militia that is in good order must be allowed to keep and bear arms, for the purpose of ensuring the federal government remained within the authorities granted to it. A government that fears the people is a government that behaves. An armed citizenry encourages the government to respect the fundamental rights of the people. An unarmed population removes that encouragement, and enables the government to become a tyranny, reducing the populace to being no more than subjects.
The State militias, during the early years of the United States, were comprised of citizens who furnished their own arms. The presence of the militias allowed a military force to be assembled quickly, since they possessed their own arms, during the Revolutionary War. The right to keep and bear arms was considered by the founders to be a fundamental right, and one that enabled only 3% of the population to defeat the British during The War of Independence. A war that began, we must remind ourselves, at Lexington Green in 1775 where the minutemen stopped the British forces who were marching to Concord to seize our weapons and ammunition.
As a fundamental right connected to the protection of all other unalienable rights, the government is not authorized to take away the right to keep and bear arms. The right to keep and bear arms is a God-given right, and in the opinion of the founders, a necessary right for the purpose making the gun owner available for military service should the need arise to protect the Sovereign State against a foreign invader, or a tyrannical federal government.
The gun culture in America remains strong, making the United States the most heavily armed population on the planet. According to the Geneva-based Small Arms Survey – the leading source of international public information about firearms – the U.S. has the best-armed civilian population in the world, with an estimated 270 million total guns. That’s an average of 89 firearms for every 100 residents.[1]
In nations where the political leaders seek to control the populace, and take away the rights of the people, the first move is always to disarm the public. A national registry is normally the first move, followed by a deliberately provoked crisis that exposes the unregistered gun owners. Once the firearms are confiscated, the opportunity for the government to take away property and freedom follows.
Since the American gun culture is so deeply ingrained, a simple series of gun control laws, and ultimately the confiscation of firearms, is proving to not be as simple as originally thought by anti-gun politicians. Therefore, other strategies are being employed. A massive buy of ammunition by government to create a shortage is currently in place, with plans by some politicians to outlaw certain kinds of ammunition and magazines, and to require purchasers to register each time they purchase ammunition. Registration of ammunition would expose the gun owners that previously refuse to register their firearms.[2]
Taxation is also a method being used to curb gun sales, and to ensure a reduction in gun associated purchases. It is an old axiom that the more you tax an activity, the less you get of it. Meanwhile, the government also stands to create a revenue source, no matter how short lived, that it did not have before.
The taxation effort is through a call to mandate that all gun owners purchase liability insurance. Refusal to purchase the insurance would result in a fine, or punitive tax, to be paid to the federal government. The proposed fine is $10,000.[3]
The federal government claims that they have the constitutional authority to tax as they please. Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 grants to Congress the authority to collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises. The language in that clause of the Constitution is broad, and the taxing power in that particular clause is provided in a general manner. Investigating deeper into the Constitution, however, provides clarity regarding the constitutionality of the punitive gun insurance tax being proposed.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 states that “No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” The Sixteenth Amendment makes obsolete the need for the tax being related to the enumeration of the population, but only in the case of income tax. Otherwise, a direct tax is not allowed by the Constitution. Is not a punitive tax in the form of a fine paid directly by the citizen a direct tax?
In addition to the fact that the government’s appetite for money through taxation is insatiable, the tax, via punitive fine, is being used as a means to infringe upon the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment is clear: The federal government shall not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms - in any way.
For gun owners, the tax man cometh - but beware, for the legality of such a tax, via an originalist view of the United States Constitution, is null and void.
The federal tax man, when it comes to our guns, is unconstitutional, and something we should stand up and fight against - through the system as it exists, of course. That is not to forget, however, that the Second Amendment is also in place so that the citizenry may protect itself from a tyrannical government. Jefferson, after all, believed to protect the tree of liberty, a bloody revolution would need to ensue from time to time.[4]
[1] Madeleine Morgenstern, How Many People Own Guns In America? And is Gun Ownership Actually Declining? - The Blaze; March 19, 2013; http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/19/how-many-people-own-guns-in-america-and-is-gun-ownership-actually-declining/
[2] Associated Press, Ammunition flies off store shelves amid new restrictions, fears - Fox News; April 5, 2013; http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/05/laws-rumors-have-ammo-flying-off-store-shelves/
[3] Doug Powers, Dem proposal: $10k fine for gun owners who don’t have liability insurance - Michelle Malkin; April 2, 2013; http://michellemalkin.com/2013/04/02/dem-proposal-liability-insurance/
[4] Andrew M. Allison, M. Richard Maxfield, K. DeLynn Cook, and W. Cleon Skousen, The Real Thomas Jefferson, (Washington: National Center for Constitutional Studies, 2009), 524
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment