In my previous letter I mentioned the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments in regard to gun laws and gun rights, explaining why citizens of the United States had no gun rights protection under the Second Amendment.
At the time of the Articles of Confederation, prior to the Constitution, all those present were politically equal holding the political status of "the people of the United States" and, as there were then not yet any naturalized citizens, there were no citizens of the United States, that is, no citizens under the immediate Dominion of the federal government.
This posed a dilemma for the "Former Aristocrats" as they formed up the new government under the Constitution, however these "Former Aristocrats" to retain political control over the general population without arousing the resistance and ire of the "Former Commoners"? They decided to design a republic under a CONstitution and write it in such a way as to obfuscate any clear distinction of political class. A more overt distinction of a political hierarchy would come years later, after they had created and established a basic foundation; that is why there were no specified rights in the original CONstitution and that is why Patrick Henry said, in regard to the original CONstitution, "I smell a rat".
In 1854 a suit was filed by Dred Scott, a Negro slave, against his master, suing for his freedom. The case rose to the Supreme Court where in 1857 Chief Justice Tanny wrote:
"The words ‘people of the United States’ and ‘citizens’ are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who… form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the government through their representatives….".
The overall writing of the Dred Scott case clearly indicates that "citizens of the United States" were then considered to be handheld all of the prerogatives of "the people of the United States". I contend that a fair and unbiased analysis of
how it is that we came to be where we are now, as citizens under the direct Dominion of the federal government of the United States, indicates that the holding of the Supreme Court in Dred Scott was an intentional setup for both the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments.
The Thirteenth Amendment unequivocally prohibits involuntary servitude, the Fourteenth Amendment just as unequivocally enables voluntary servitude. The Fourteenth Amendment clearly establishes and defines the political class "citizen of the United States" to be a subservient political status.
Prior to the Thirteenth Amendment, under Dred Scott, every white person born within the claimed boundaries of the United States was politically equal to every other such person - there were no persons who were under the direct dominion of the federal government. The Thirteenth Amendment guaranteed this superior political position to all persons who took the time to pay attention to the words actually written in the amendment instead of the sales pitch words uttered by the politicians who wrote these amendments.
A careful reading of the Fourteenth Amendment will reveal that it does N O T provide at all persons born in the United States are automatically thereby citizens thereof, but only those persons who have, in some manner, volunteered themselves into such subservient status are considered to be such citizens; moreover, nowhere has anyone ever contended that the Fourteenth Amendment negated the prohibition of involuntary servitude as set forth in the Thirteenth amendment! This is part of why there are no gun protections in the Second Amendment for citizens of the United States!
Eric Williams, Yellville
Gun laws cont.