Joe Biden has issued a decree — the “Executive Order on Reducing Gun Violence and Making Our Communities Safer” — ordering officers of the federal government to “undertake efforts” to restrict Americans’ natural right to keep and bear arms.
In his decree, Biden orders his underlings to disarm the people, using the following language taken directly from the executive order:
The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall develop and implement principles to further firearm and public safety practices through the Department of Defense’s acquisition of firearms, consistent with applicable law.
Next, per the executive order issued by the White House of March 14, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of Education “shall undertake efforts to encourage effective use of extreme risk protection orders (“red flag” laws).”
Pay special attention to the agencies tasked with implementing this gun grab: Defense, Justice, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, as well as Education.
Additionally, those same federal bureaucrats shall, per the Biden decree, “expand existing Federal campaigns and other efforts to promote safe storage of firearms.”
This latest fiat issued from the White House represents no more or less than a Proclamation of Rebellion against anyone who would insist upon the protections afforded by the Second Amendment to the natural right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of their lives, liberty, and property.
The order goes on to mandate that the federal bureaucracy expand the waiting period for the purchase of weapons and that the marketing of firearms be put under the watchful eye of the Federal Trade Commission.
Not surprisingly, the White House claims that these new “laws” are necessary to protect the children of America from increasing gun violence. The decree declares:
Every few days in the United States, we mourn a new mass shooting. Daily acts of gun violence — including community violence, domestic violence, suicide, and accidental shootings — may not always make the evening news, but they too cut lives short and leave survivors and their communities with long-lasting physical and mental wounds.
“My Administration has taken action to keep guns out of dangerous hands and especially dangerous weapons off of our streets,” Biden explains further.
Curiously, Biden is doing all he can to put guns into the hands of Ukrainians, while doing all he can to take them out of the hands of Americans.
There are innumerable constitutional violations within the text and tenor of this latest executive edict.
First, in the first line of the executive order, Biden demonstrates his ignorance (voluntary or otherwise) of the separation of powers. He declares:
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby order as follows…
The U.S. Constitution does not vest any authority in the president to issue orders to infringe in any way on the right of the people of the United States to keep and bear arms.
The very first line of the Constitution vests all lawmaking power in Congress. “All” in 1787 meant the same thing it does now: all. If there is a law that the people of the United States are to be duty bound to obey, that law will be made by Congress in pursuance of the powers granted to that body in the Constitution (see Article I and Article VI of the U.S. Constitution).
Therefore, Biden’s claim to be exercising his constitutionally vested authority by issuing this disarmament decree is demonstrably false.
Next, not only does the U.S. Constitution grant no authority to the president to make laws, the Second Amendment to that document expressly forbids even Congress from making laws that would disarm the people. The Second Amendment reads:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
“Infringe” means “to violate, to breach a contract.” That is to say, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be violated by the federal government, not by Congress — the only lawmaking body — nor by the Supreme Court nor by the president, despite his decrees to the contrary.
Now, as for the so-called red flag laws that Biden is ordering be more aggressively — “effectively,” to use his word — enforced, they are per se unconstitutional and do not, therefore, deserve to be treated as law.
As Alexander Hamilton explained in The Federalist, No. 33, any acts of the federal government that exceed its constitutional authority are not laws, but rather they are “merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.”
The disarmament decree issued by the White House on March 14 very clearly and inarguably exceeds the authority granted to the president and violates the Second Amendment’s prohibition against any infringement on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, therefore that decree is merely an act of usurpation and should be treated accordingly.
At least that’s how our Founding Fathers would have treated it.
In his order, Biden claimed that by taking guns off the streets he would be increasing the safety of the people of the United States and reducing the gun violence in this country.
There is a man that was often quoted by our Founding Fathers whose name is forgotten today and who spoke on this very subject. His name is Cesare Beccaria, and he revealed the real result of “laws” purportedly enacted to protect the innocent from gun violence:
The laws of this nature, are those which forbid to wear arms, disarm those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent.
Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance?
Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator; and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty?
It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and the assailants better, and rather encourages rather than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons.
