Constitutional Civil Rights Are Not Subject To A Majority Vote

 

The Constitution clearly enumerates the areas where the government has no authority to pass laws, but some legislators believe a 51% majority negates any basic human right they disagree with.
The recent election has resulted in much concern for millions of Virginians regarding the gun control agenda driven by the record spending of $2.5 million dollars from gun control groups funded by New York billionaire Michael Bloomberg.
The narrowly elected Democratic majority, largely from DC suburbs in Northern Virginia, has pre-filed proposed bills such as SB 16 which bans virtually all semi auto rifles and handguns under penalty of a Class 6 felony, based upon arbitrary and exclusively cosmetic appearance features that in no way affect or alter the operation of the federally legal firearm.
There is also no provision for currently owned legal firearms or magazines of an arbitrary size, creating a de facto confiscation. The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia strongly enshrines that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Additionally, there is extensive case law precedent that clearly and explicitly proves that the gun control proposals on so called ‘assault weapons’ are unconstitutional to the United States Constitution and are therefore not enforceable by any government body.
Case Law Precedent against the Constitutionality of Proposed Gun Control Legislation
“The Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes” (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 2008)
The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding, and that this Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States. (Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 2016)
The Second Amendment was incorporated against state and local governments, through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 2010)
“An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” (Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 1886)
“Congress does not have the power to pass laws that override the Constitution.” (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 1803)
It is unconstitutional to require a precondition on the exercising of a right. (Guinn v US 1915, Lane v Wilson 1939)
It is unconstitutional to require a license (government permission) to exercise a right. (Murdock v PA 1943, Lowell v City of Griffin 1939, Freedman v MD 1965, Near v MN 1931, Miranda v AZ 1966)
It is unconstitutional to delay the exercising of a right. (Org. for a Better Austin v Keefe 1971)
It is unconstitutional to charge a fee for the exercising of a right. (Harper v Virginia Board of Elections 1966)
It is unconstitutional to register (record in a government database) the exercising of a right. (Thomas v Collins 1945, Lamont v Postmaster General 1965, Haynes v US 1968)
“If the State converts a right into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right with impunity.” (Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262 1963)
What Happens After Gun Confiscation?
1. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves against their ethnic-cleansing government, were arrested and exterminated.
2. In 1929, the former Soviet Union established gun control as a means of controlling the “more difficult” of their citizens. From 1929 to the death of Stalin, 40 million Soviets met an untimely end at the hand of various governmental agencies as they were arrested and exterminated.
3. After the rise of the Nazi’s, Germany established their version of gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves against the “Brown Shirts”, were arrested and exterminated. Interestingly, the Brown Shirts were eventually targeted for extermination themselves following their blind acts of allegiance to Hitler. Any American military and police would be wise to grasp the historical significance of the Brown Shirts’ fate.
4. After Communist China established gun control in 1935, an estimated 50 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves against their fascist leaders, were arrested and exterminated.
5. Closer to home, Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayans, unable to defend themselves against their ruthless dictatorship, were arrested and exterminated.
6. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves from their dictatorial government, were arrested and exterminated.
7. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million of the “educated” people, unable to defend themselves against their fascist government, were arrested and exterminated.
8. In 1994, Rwanda disarmed the Tutsi people and being unable to defend themselves from their totalitarian government, nearly one million were summarily executed.
9. In 2009, Venezuela banned private ownership of firearms, and less than a decade later the socialist government began massacring their own citizens, starting a civil war.
The total numbers of victims who lost their lives because of gun control is approximately 70 million people in the 20th century. The historical voices from 70 million corpses speak loudly and clearly to those Americans who are advocating for a de facto gun ban. Governments murdered four times as many civilians as were killed in all the international and domestic wars combined. Governments murdered millions more people than were killed by common criminals and it all followed gun control. I am not saying that Richmond is actively preparing to commit mass murder against our fellow citizens, but the proposed laws have a direct coorleation with disarming the populace and rendering them at the complete mercy of the state, which leads to my next point of concern.
Sweeping gun bans are not the only unconstitutional proposals that the narrow Democrat majority enthusiastically seeks to institute. Also on the agenda are red flag laws, or emergency gun confiscation orders.
There are several red flags with the very notion of Red Flag Laws.
Red flag laws allow the government to disregard several Amendments of the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd (right to keep and bear arms), the 4th (protection against unreasonable search and seizures), 5th (right to due process, just compensation, self-incrimination) and the 6th (right to confront accusers, cross-examine witnesses, and to have a public defender). The individuals in question are not permitted to make their case before the court in the form of a rebuttal or defense, the only argument that is heard is that of the petitioner seeking to have firearms taken away.  Secondly, the very success of Red Flag Laws depends entirely upon all parties acting in good faith and that no action taken is politically – or otherwise maliciously ­­– motivated. To insist that this will never occur is simply naive. Thirdly, those that are legitimately mentally unstable will be less likely to pursue treatment if they feel that it will result in confiscation of their property or other forms of legal ramifications. Fourthly, red flag laws are entirely arbitrary. At any time, any individual may petition a court to initiate the process of confiscation for any length of time and they do not require a mental health diagnosis or professional medical opinion to do so. Mere suspicion is enough.
Red Flag Laws are immoral and unjust. They emphasize and exacerbate political hysteria and will do nothing but further widen the canyon of ideological divide. They alienate the mentally ill and are antithetical to the very notions of justice that are enshrined in the United States Constitution.
Case Law Precedent against Proposed Red Flag Laws
The 14th Amendment-
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Red Flag Laws strip law-abiding gun owners of their property and their ability of self defense without due process, assuming guilt until proven innocent, with ample ability for the law to be abused and provides broad immunity for the accuser from recourse. Red flag laws force the victim of the red flag order to rely on law enforcement as their sole means of protection when there is a litany of case law which clearly and repeatedly states that the State and its law enforcement officers have absolutely no duty or requirement  to protect their own citizens.
For Example:
Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686F.2d 616 [1982]
“There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state (or Federal) against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state (gov’t) to let people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order”
Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an oft-quoted District of Columbia Court of Appeals case that held that the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to citizens based on the public duty doctrine.
Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, 7–2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman’s three children by her estranged husband.
DeShaney v. Winnebago County, 489 U.S. 189 (1989), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on February 22, 1989. The court held that a state government agency’s failure to prevent child abuse by a custodial parent does not violate the child’s right to liberty for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Lozito v. New York City; In the spring of 2012, Joseph Lozito, who was brutally stabbed and “grievously wounded, deeply slashed around the head and neck”, sued police for negligence in failing to render assistance to him as he was being attacked by Gelman.In response to the suit, attorneys for the City of New York argued that police had no duty to protect Lozito or any other person from Gelman. On July 25, 2013, Judge Margaret Chan dismissed Lozito’s suit, stating that while Lozito’s account of the attack rang true and appeared “highly credible”, Chan agreed that police had “no special duty” to protect Lozito.
Parkland Students’ Suit against Broward County Dismissed
Judge Beth Bloom dismissed the suit… “The critical question the court analyzes is whether defendants had a constitutional duty to protect plaintiffs from the actions of Cruz,” Bloom wrote. But she determined that “for such a duty to exist on the part of defendants, plaintiffs would have to be considered to be in custody.”
A 2019 study by gun rights advocate John Lott found red flag laws have no significant effect on murder, suicide, the number of people killed in mass public shootings, robbery, aggravated assault, or burglary. There are also multiple documented cases of victims of red flag laws in other states being killed by police in their own homes executing the red flag confiscation order. The risks to peaceful, law abiding gun owners are staggering and entirely unwarranted.
Another bill proposed would mandate “universal background checks” to be performed any time a firearm literally changes hands, whether you are selling a firearm, loaning a rifle to a family member for a hunting trip or just sharing the use of your firearm with friends at the shooting range- all of the previous examples would legally be  considered “transfers”, and thus requiring a federal and state background check to be conducted by a firearm dealer. Looking past the absurdity of this, the only way such a law enforcement would have anything to check against would be a state and national registry of all firearms and who owns them, which is explicitly prohibited by the Firearm Owner’s Protection Act (FOPA) of 1986. FOPA makes it illegal for the national government or any state in the country to keep any sort of database or registry that ties firearms directly to their owner. Universal Background checks would not have prevented or affected any of the mass shooting events in the last several years, and has been admitted as such by prominent congressional Democrats under oath.
Yet another bill proposal would make the ownership of firearm suppressors illegal in the state. Suppressors are already regulated equally to machine guns and hand grenades on the federal level, and have a burdensome application process requiring fingerprinting, submitting photographs and undergoing an extensive background check by the FBI, as well as a $200 tax and a wait time for approval of roughly 9 months to a yea- all of these apply to each item purchased, every time.  These procedures unconstitutionally limit law abiding gun owners who want to purchase the noise reducing device determined by the CDC to be the single most effective hearing protection device for the shooter and which also reduces noise pollution for all people in surrounding areas. As per the CDC report, “The only potentially effective noise control method to reduce students’ or instructors’ noise exposure from gunfire is through the use of noise suppressors that can be attached to the end of the gun barrel”. A silencer or suppressor reduces the sound of a gunshot from 165 decibels, which causes immediate and irreversible hearing damage, to 135 decibels, the equivalent of a jet engine at takeoff.  Some gun control activists claim that noise on shooting ranges isn’t a health issue- the CDC says otherwise, and the report is freely available for anyone interested to read.
There are many proposals that are patently unconstitutional to both the United State’s Constitution as well as the Commonwealth of Virginia’s Constitution. While these laws will likely be challenged in the courts following their rushed passage in the legislature, we citizens, becoming a 2nd Amendment Sanctuary County is the best statement that we citizens have against the astroturfed agenda pushed by massive spending from out of state gun control groups until such time as the courts justly rule against the reckless infringements and Stalinist red flag laws that force us to rely on a government that has no duty to provide for our individual safety and which undermine our natural rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.