|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
What the Second Amendment and Article 16 mean for Vermonters
by Dave Soulia, for FYIVT.com
The right to keep and bear arms is a cornerstone of both American and Vermont values, yet it’s often misunderstood. Many see the Second Amendment and Vermont’s Article 16 as granting a privilege, a legal allowance to carry firearms. But the truth is, these provisions don’t grant a right—they recognize an inherent, natural right to self-defense, affirming it as part of being human. The Constitution doesn’t authorize this right; it restricts government from infringing upon it. This distinction is critical to understanding why these rights must be defended and preserved.
An Inherent Right, Not a Governmental Gift
One of the deepest misconceptions about gun rights is that they come from the government. But the instinct for self-defense, the right to protect oneself, family, and property, predates any government or legal system. It’s a natural right, as ancient as humanity itself. The founders of the United States understood this when they drafted the Second Amendment, and Vermont’s founders echoed this understanding in Article 16 of the Vermont Constitution.
By formalizing these rights in law, the federal and state constitutions don’t create them; they clarify and restrict the government’s power over them. This isn’t about providing a new privilege but about acknowledging a timeless truth and preventing governmental overreach. Both documents serve as boundaries—a reminder that this right is beyond the authority of government.
The Second Amendment and Article 16: A Check on Government Power
The framers were well aware that, throughout history, governments have expanded their power by undermining individual freedoms. The Second Amendment and Article 16 are in place not to empower the government but to restrain it, ensuring that the people retain their inherent right to self-defense. These provisions act as both protections for citizens and warnings to any government that would seek to limit this right.
A Challenge to Anti-Gun Advocates
For those who oppose the right to bear arms, the challenge lies in the consistency of their beliefs. Imagine if anti-gun advocates displayed a sign in their front yard stating, “This household is against gun ownership; there are no firearms here.” While perhaps an unwise action, it brings to light an important question of responsibility. Those who oppose firearms often benefit from the security created by responsible gun owners in their community, much like an unspoken neighborhood watch.
This challenge isn’t just about putting up a sign; it’s about reflecting on the social structure that gun rights create. By publicly stepping away from the protections that responsible gun ownership provides, anti-gun advocates would, in effect, be choosing to forego a level of security that is indirectly offered to everyone in the community.
Misconceptions and the Push for Restrictions
In recent years, a push for restrictive firearm regulations has taken root, often based on the assumption that firearms ownership is a privilege that government can limit. This trend misinterprets the purpose of the Second Amendment and Vermont’s Article 16: they were intended to protect, not grant, an individual’s right. These safeguards against government overreach are shields for citizens, not permissions to be handed out or revoked.
In Vermont, recent firearm restrictions enacted in response to specific incidents, like a potential school shooting in 2018, sparked frustration among many Vermonters who view these as infringements on their inherent rights. For some, these restrictions reflect a broader shift away from personal responsibility and independence. When firearms were common in daily life, respect and responsibility around them were emphasized, and young people were taught to understand these principles at an early age. Many argue that increased restrictions represent not just a drift from gun rights but a lowering of societal expectations and responsibilities.
Responsible Gun Ownership as a Community Asset
Supporters of the Second Amendment and Vermont’s Article 16 contend that responsible gun ownership is a benefit to the broader community. Lawful gun owners play a subtle yet significant role in public safety, as studies suggest firearms are used defensively anywhere from tens of thousands to over two million times a year. Often, no shots are fired; the presence of a firearm and a responsible gun owner is enough to deter crime.
This unspoken protection benefits all, including those who may oppose firearms. By deterring crime, responsible gun owners contribute to a safer neighborhood for everyone. This communal aspect is part of the social fabric in communities that recognize and respect self-defense rights.
Upholding Liberty Through Responsibility
The right to bear arms, as outlined in the Second Amendment and Vermont’s Article 16, is about more than just self-defense; it embodies the balance of liberty and responsibility. This inherent right isn’t granted by any government but exists as part of our humanity. Upholding it requires proactive steps to ensure these freedoms remain understood, respected, and protected.
For Vermonters looking to foster a responsible approach to gun rights, here are some steps to enhance and open up the discussion:
- Promote Education on Responsible Gun Ownership: Schools and community programs can offer resources on firearm safety, handling, and legal responsibilities, fostering a culture of responsibility and informed ownership.
- Encourage Open Community Forums: Regular forums provide safe spaces where citizens can openly discuss gun rights, address misconceptions, and bridge divides, fostering mutual respect.
- Challenge Anti-Gun Advocates to Acknowledge Community Benefits: Ask those opposed to firearms to reflect on how lawful gun owners contribute to community security, potentially helping bridge ideological gaps.
- Support Communication and Conflict Resolution Programs in Schools: Investing in communication skills, conflict resolution, and emotional regulation programs can address root causes of violence, decreasing the need for reactive legislation.
- Advocate for Balanced Media Representation: Encourage media to cover lawful and defensive firearm uses alongside negative incidents, helping the public see responsible gun ownership’s positive impact.
- Engage Legislators on Constitutional Intent: Regularly remind legislators that the Second Amendment and Article 16 exist to limit government’s control over this right, ensuring policy decisions respect the true intent of these provisions.
By taking these steps, Vermonters can actively safeguard their right to bear arms while fostering a community built on respect and responsibility. The goal is to create an environment where freedom coexists with accountability, contributing to a safer, more united society. In defending these principles, Vermonters not only protect their inherent rights but also strengthen the foundations of a free and secure community.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Uncategorized
Next you can cover the right to own private property and the right to hunt and fish in the Vermont constitution. Comment from Richard Day.
Richard, they voted you can no longer do this, the democracy has voted you off the island, they don’t care about your rights or stupid piece of paper. Please comply, or you will be cancelled by Montpelier. Thank you for this.
Of course, we hope you enjoy protecting our democracy!
Thank you for stating the obvious but relatively unknown fact, the right to defend oneself is a natural and not a government given right. Now the same could be said for private property. I should not have to pay a 5.00 bureaucratic excellence fee to register my no trespassing and no hunting signs on my property. This erodes the whole concept of private property. Not on’6 that but one has to pay this fee each year. Does not my deed and clear boundary on my surveyed property not already confer that this is private property? Of course that brings up another sticky problem, that of property taxes. This means I truly do not own my private property since now I must pay taxes on land on which I have already paid taxes upon purchase. This is double taxation in principle, but in fact is worse. Every time the property gets re-valued then I must then pay taxes on an unrealized and market divorced valuation based on the speculation that the market always rises. Most of this tax is used to fund a failing school system, pay off debt not principles on old school bonds etc. and ridiculous programs, and then absurdly good benefits to retired teachers and administrators. This when all this does is to erode my ability to have medical benefits, to have a secure retirement etc. So while this does not directly relate to the topic of gun ownership, it does provide insight into the extreme overreach of government to fund its ever growing bureaucratic enterprise with taxation. We fought a revolution back in the 1700s to reject excessive taxation.
Our elected officials, bureaucrats, both local and Federal plus many young voters have trouble with the concept of ‘Natural Rights’ being granted by God as laid out in the Founding Documents thinking all of rights are given by Government!!
Excellent article, but they don’t care in Montpelier, they are going to just vote away your rights…..
This is why they always say “Democracy”, it’s not an accident, and we need to constantly call them out on the massive deception this truly is. Perhaps we are not operating as a republic in our current government affairs, but our goal should be back to the founding documents.
See a democracy can vote away your rights, a republic defends the rights of a single individual against an entire country trying to take their rights, property or life from them.
Sadly, even those in VTGOP do not call out this travesty on a regular basis. Know this, anyone saying, “protect our democracy” is either a useful idiot or completely evil subversive agent against our Republic.
Below is fun video to watch. Something foreign to our educational system, surely.
we have been dumbed down on purpose, by plan.
Some people just do not get it, as I am not supporting any DEMON O CRY. The two party system have sold out the American people both in Vermont and in Washington. The future will expose the truth and more investigation into the Charlie Kirk murder. We are being exposed to many distractions. Comment from Richard Day.
It’s called having fun, of course you know better, but the discussion and tongue in cheek is for those without the knowledge! Oh yes we must protect our democracy at all costs! lol, we’ve raised complete idiots.
The Vermont Constitution is the restriction on government to protect those God given rights. Comment from Richard Day. There was never a Vermont Constitutional amendment passed that made health care or education a right in this state. Look at the Vermont declaration of rights.
Thank you Mr. Soulia. I don’t remember anybody describing these natural rights so succinctly .
The 2nd Amendment was enumerated in our Bill of Rights by the Constitutional Convention of 1787 to give “We the People” the means to protect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights from those who would take them from us. You can’t take away someone’s right to free speech, freedom of assembly or freedom of religion without first taking away their ability to resist. THE 2nd AMENDMENT DOES NOT GRANT US THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. THE 2nd AMENDMENT PROHIBITS THE GOVERNMENT FROM INFRINGING ON OUR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS – PERIOD! THEREFORE, ALL GUN CONTROL IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ILLEGAL! Government does not give us our rights. Our rights are not given to us by the Constitution. Our rights are given to us by God and are inherent to us as human beings and by the Laws of Nature. These rights that we are born with are affirmed to us by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments of the Constitution and specify what the government can and cannot do to us as citizens of the United States. Government’s only power is the power which is enumerated to it by the Constitution. The federal government, a state, county or town cannot pass a law contrary to the Constitution. Article 6 the Supremacy Clause makes the Constitution the supreme law of the land. Under our Constitution the government is not delegated the authority to legislate, enforce, or adjudicate laws pertaining to the exercise of our rights under the Constitution. The government is not delegated the authority by our Constitution to require the government’s permission to exercise any right affirmed to us under the Constitution. The government is not delegated the authority by our Constitution to compel us to waive our guaranteed 4th Amendment right to be secure from unwarranted interrogation, search, or seizure in the absence of probable cause of criminal conduct. Or compel us to waive our guaranteed 5th Amendment right to due process as a precondition to being allowed (or denied) the exercise of our right to keep and bear arms. This violation of our 4th and 5th Amendment rights happens every time that we are interrogated under penalty of perjury without probable cause that a crime has been committed when we fill out B.A.T.F.E form 4473 to purchase a firearm. The government is not delegated the authority by our Constitution to compel us to waive our 10th Amendment right to a federal government exercising only those powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution, and State governments are prohibited the exercise of any power prohibited to the States by the United States Constitution.
The government is not delegated the authority under the 14th Amendment to make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Government is not delegated by our Constitution the authority to license firearm dealers or operate or fund the most powerful anti-rights government agency on the planet called the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Since no Amendment in the Bill of Rights has been repealed thru Article V or by a National Convention of States, the only legal way to change the Constitution, all existing gun control laws presently violate five Amendments of the Bill of Rights and goes against the settled law of two Supreme Court decisions, Heller vs the District of Columbia 2008 and McDonald vs Chicago 2010. Both decisions affirm that the people’s right to keep and bear arms is an individual right and that citizens are allowed firearms in common use, those small arms or those that operate like them and are issued to our National Guard which comprises of citizen soldiers. In the Second Militia Act of 1792 Congress specified the arms militia members were to have. It was incumbent on militia members to report to training and duty with their own arms and ammo. So one of the primary purposes of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that the militia would not be disarmed by taking away guns from the people who constituted the militia.
The purpose of compelled background checks as a precondition to allowing or denying the transfer of a firearm is to deceive firearm owners and prospective owners into unknowingly waiving their rights guaranteed by the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 10thand 14th Amendments so they will have no rights left to claim when the government decides to register and confiscate our firearms. We have a right to keep and bear arms, not a privilege to keep and bear arms. Our rights are beyond the reach of the government, and no citizen has to ask government permission to exercise a right. Government has no authority delegated to it by the Constitution to deceive its citizens into waiving their rights or acquiescing to the loss of their rights by subterfuge, scam, fraud, or force. DO NOT VOLUNTARILY GIVE UP YOUR RIGHTS!
WE DO NOT HAVE TO OBEY UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS
Supreme Court Decision – Norton v Shelby County 1886
6 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The US. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose, since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.… A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby. No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it. The Supreme Court’s decision is as follows; “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it has never been passed”. Norton vs Shelby County 1886 – 118 US 425 p.442.
“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void”.
Marbury vs Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
Thomas Jefferson: “Whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, it’s acts are authoritative, void and of no force”.
Alexander Hamilton explains unconstitutional law in Federalist No.76; “No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid”.
Now, is the GOVIE of Vermont, whom stole my right to own a 30 round mag for my rifle, in jail???????? Do I need a license to hunt and fish in Vermont????? Do I need to get a permit and pay a bribe to some hack to build a house on my property????? Who owns the wild animals in Vermont????? Comments from Richard Day.