[CENTER][I][B]My June 14, 2011 Email to These [/B][/I][/CENTER]
[CENTER][I][B]5 Congressional Committees and 1 Advisory Committee[/B][/I][B].[/B][/CENTER]
[CENTER][B]Don Hamrick, American Common Defence Review (blog)[/B][/CENTER]
[CENTER][B]● HOUSE & SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEES[/B][/CENTER]
[CENTER][B]● SENATE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS[/B][/CENTER]
[CENTER]● [B]SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AND MERCHANT MARINE INFRASTRUCTURE, SAFETY, AND SECURITY [/B][/CENTER]
[CENTER][B](of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,& Transportation).[/B][/CENTER]
[CENTER]● [B]HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION[/B] [/CENTER]
[CENTER][B](of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure)[/B] [/CENTER]
[CENTER]● [B]U.S. HOUSE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY[/B][/CENTER]
[CENTER]● [B]DHS/USCG NATIONAL MARITIME SECURITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE (NMSAC)[/B][/CENTER]
[CENTER][B]DON HAMRICK COMMENTARY ON [/B][/CENTER]
[CENTER][B][Rep. Lamar Smith (R, TX-21st)]: [/B][/CENTER]
[CENTER][B]Al Qaeda Threat No Reason to Change Gun Laws[/B][/CENTER]
[CENTER]by Mike Lillis, The Hill[/CENTER]
This is not commentary criticizing Mike Lillis of The Hill but my [I]editorial[/I] on Rep. Lamar Smith’s comments advocating the status quo on federal gun control laws in the face of a publicized threat against the United States by an Al Qaeda spokesman. I commend Mike Lillis of the Hill for reporting the news on Rep. Lamar Smith’s remarks affecting the [I]Common Defence[/I] (refer to the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States) of the American people.
Here again, I push the true intent of the Common Defence clause in the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States:
[CENTER][B]PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE PREAMBLE[/B][/CENTER]
[INDENT][INDENT]Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department of the Federal Government, [FN1] the Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution.[FN2] ‘‘Its true office,’’ wrote Joseph Story in his COMMENTARIES, ‘‘is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the Constitution, and not substantively to create them. For example, the preamble declares one object to be, ‘to provide for the common defense.’ No one can doubt that this does not enlarge the powers of Congress to pass any measures which they deem useful for the common defence. [I][U]But suppose the terms of a given power admit of two constructions, the one more restrictive, the other more liberal, and each of them is consistent with the words, but is, and ought to be, governed by the intent of the power; [B]if one could promote and the other defeat the common defence, ought not the former, upon the soundest principles of interpretation, to be adopted?[/B][/U][/I]’’[FN3]
[FN1] Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 22 (1905).
[FN2] E.g., the Court has read the preamble as bearing witness to the fact that the Constitution emanated from the people and was not the act of sovereign and independent States, McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 316, 403 (1819) Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. (2 U.S.) 419, 471 (1793); Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 1 Wheat. (14 U.S.) 304, 324 (1816), and that it was made for, and is binding only in, the United States of America. Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 251 (1901); In re Ross, 140 U.S. 453, 464 (1891).
[FN3] 1 J. STORY, COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES (Boston: 1833), 462. For a lengthy exegesis of the preamble phrase by phrase, see M. ADLER & W. GORMAN, THE AMERICAN TESTAMENT (New York: 1975), 63–118.
[/INDENT][/INDENT]Now, my questions to Rep. Lamar Smith and Congress itself are these:
[INDENT][INDENT]n “What happened to the Common Defence?”
n “In the span of American history when did the Common Defence of, for, and by the People become National Security by the U.S. Government?”
n “When did Congress start ignoring the Second, Fifth Ninth, Tenth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights of the American people to participate in the Common Defence?”
n “And does Rep. Lamar Smith’s remarks as quoted in Mike Lillis’ article in The Hill promote or defeat the Common Defence?”
n "And for the defense of the U.S. merchant marine and U.S. merchant marine personnel when did the U.S. merchant marine stop being an armed force that the U.S. merchant marine personnel now need mercenaries to provide security against Somali pirates? (See also the original documents.)
[/INDENT][/INDENT]These are legitimate questions in defense of the Constitution of the United States. An excerpt from Mike Lillis’ article in The Hill is worth a few comments. The excerpt: “[I]Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said tightening gun laws to address the threat would be to surrender to terrorists at the expense of Americans’ rights[/I].”
My question here is, who are the real terrorists? I mean who is it that aided and abetted the murders of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and ICE Agent Jamie Zapata? Al Qaeda terrorists? They are the BATFE, the Justice Department, and President Obama! See Dave Workman, [I]Dems Circle Wagons on Gunrunner, Float Perennial Gun Ban Agenda[/I], Seattle Gun Rights Examiner, Examiner.com, June 14, 2011.
From Dave Workman’s article about Congressman Darrell Issa’s House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing titled, [I]Obstruction of Justice: Does the Justice Department Have to Respond to a Lawfully Issued and Valid Congressional Subpoena?[/I], Monday, June 13, 2011. Dave Workman’s lead paragraph states:
[INDENT][INDENT][I]Before the dust settled on yesterday’s opening hearing on the controversial Project Gunrunner and Operation Fast and Furious scandal now plaguing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Democrats were already busy with their defense strategy, which once again[/I] [I][U]demonizes American gun owners and their constitutional rights[/U].[/I]
[/INDENT][/INDENT]True to form, the Violence Policy Center (VPC) issued a press release today, June 14, 2011 titled, [I]U.S. Civilian Gun Market has Become a Militarized Bazaar, New Violence Policy Center Study Documents: Widespread Sale of Military-Style Weapons Drives Illicit Traffic to Mexico, Increases Armed Attacks on U.S. Law Enforcement Officers, and Facilitates Mass Shootings[/I], on yesterday’s House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing noted above. VPC, hawking their latest so-called study titled, The Militarization of the U.S. Civilian Firearms Market, June 2011. The VPC study has this bit of propaganda (footnotes omitted):
[INDENT][INDENT]Other trends include aging consumers—the percent of the U.S. population aged 65 and older has grown from 4.1 percent in 1900 to 12.4 percent in 2000. [B][U]Gun owners are older and young people are less likely to buy firearms[/U].[/B] The Christian Science Monitor reported in 2002 that some in the gun industry itself explained that the “fact that the average age of gun owners continues to increase is…more than a statistical quirk tied to aging baby boomers. [B][U]Rather it’s a sign that younger generations see guns differently[/U][/B].” The growing proportion of immigrants in U.S. society also has an impact: “[B][U]America’s increasing immigrant population has less of a tradition with firearms[/U]. . . .[/B]”
[/INDENT][/INDENT]([I]Emphasis is mine[/I].)
From the International Maritime Organization’s steadfast refusal to recognize the individual human right of self-defense for the crew of merchant vessels of maritime nations but only agreeing to shipping companies hiring mercenaries to provide security for the unarmed crew of merchant vessels:
[INDENT][INDENT][INDENT]n MSC.1/Circ. 1404 on “Guidelines to assist in the Investigation of the crimes of piracy and armed Robbery against ships”
n MSC.1/Circ. 1405 on Interim Guidance to shipowners, ship operators, and ship masters on the use of privately contracted armed security personnel (PCASP) [B][[I]i.e. MERCENARIES[/I]][/B] on board ships in the high risk area
n MSC.1/Circ. 1406 on Interim Recommendations for flag States regarding the use of privately contracted armed security personnel[B] [[I]i.e. MERCENARIES[/I]][/B] on board ships in the high risk area
[/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT]To the United Nations Small Arms Treaty (see also Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects; See also Jessica Erdman, Small Arms Trade: Disarmament vs. Regulation, World Politics Review, May 24, 2011) in which Glenn Beck of Fox News says (Start 15m:54s into the video):
[I]“By the way, the U.N. is also working on a small-arms treaty-- which purports to fight terrorism, but if implemented, Second Amendment proponents like me believe that it will only enforce rougher licensing requirements, create more red tape, and possibly an international gun registry. As if terrorists give a flying crap about registering their gun or their machete before they kill you. This will do nothing but make it harder for you to get a gun. Why would you get a gun? [Points to picture of President Obama and adviser Cass Sunstein.] To prepare for tough times. That’s why.”[/I]
To the Organization of American States’ Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of an Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials, and this: Halting U.S. Firearms Trafficking to Mexico: A Report by Senators Diane Feinstein, Charles Schumer, and Sheldon Whitehouse to the United States Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, 112th Congress, 1st Session, June 2011. See also Jim Kouri, Senators See Gun Control as Anti-Terrorism Strategy, Public Safety Examiner, Examiner.com, June 14, 2011. And see Mike Piccione, Back Door Gun Control and Fighting Back, Human Events, June 14, 2011
The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is not only facing nullification threats from the United Nations, the International Maritime Organization, and the Organization of American States, but also home-grown traitors in the United States Senate and President Obama and his Cabinet.
Here is another exerpt from Mike Lillis’ news article:
[INDENT][INDENT]“[I]We’ve seen time and again that terrorists will use anything, including our own rights and freedoms, to plot attacks against innocent Americans[/I],” Smith said in an email. “[I]But simply because terrorists abuse our liberties doesn’t mean that we should limit the rights of law-abiding Americans. On the contrary, to limit our rights is to give in to terrorists and the fear they try to spread[/I].”
[/INDENT][/INDENT]There exists a problem of logic with Rep. Lamar Smith’s comments above.
[INDENT][INDENT]n “[I]Terrorists will use anything, including our own rights and freedoms, to plot attacks against innocent Americans” [/I]
n [I]"Because terrorists abuse our liberties doesn’t mean that we should limit the rights of law-abiding Americans.[/I]
n [I]“To limit our rights is to give in to terrorists and the fear they try to spread[/I].”
[/INDENT][/INDENT]Did the BATFE, the Eric Holder of the Justice Department, Hillary Clinton of the State Department, and President Obama conspire to arm the Mexican Cartel with firearms solded by American FFL gun dealers? See Chris Field, [I]Misfire: Obama’s Scandalous Secret Gun Control Agenda[/I], Townhall.com, June 1, 2011. Each of the 3 bulleted items is exactly what the BATFE has done to the American people. By their own actions and by the logic the BAFTE, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton, and President Obama are terrorists. A shocking thought, isn’t it.
[CENTER][B]Whate will you do to support and defend [/B][/CENTER]
[CENTER][B]the Constitution of the United States [/B][/CENTER]
[CENTER][B]and the Bill of Rights?[/B][/CENTER]