Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.


Gun Rights Organization Lobbies Roy Moore to Enact Unconstitutional Law Regarding 2nd Amendment

Written by:

Published on: September 13, 2017

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. – Second Amendment, The Constitution for the united States of America.

One simply stated amendment of the Constitution for the united States of America has been so sorely misinterpreted and abused by government that the average individual, including gun rights advocate organizations, does not truly comprehend its meaning.

No governmental entity – Congress, State or local, has any authority to “legislate, regulate, or issue ordinance” that compromises, in any way, the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Yet, the Gun Owners of America are advocating for Congress to pass concealed carry reciprocity and suppressor deregulation through supporting Alabama Supreme Court Judge Roy Moore for election to the US Senate.

Breitbart reported:

Gun Owners of America (GOA) put out a September 11 press release rallying Alabama voters to support Judge Roy Moore for U.S. Senate in order to secure concealed carry reciprocity and suppressor deregulation.

The release quoted GOA Chairman Tim Macy, who said, “Judge Moore has long been an articulate — and uncompromising — champion for gun rights. And he will fight just as hard for gun owners in the U.S. Senate. There are few men I trust more than Judge Moore.”

Reciprocity legislation was introduced in the House on January 3, 2017, and companion legislation was introduced in the Senate. Moreover, legislation removing suppressors from the auspices of the National Firearms Act (1934) was introduced  on January 9, 2017, and pro-Second Amendment stalwarts are now needed to get both pieces of legislation moving. Macy observed, “That’s why we need the Second Amendment Champion Judge Moore in the Senate — to help pass these bills.”

GOA’s rallying cry comes approximately two weeks after the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) endorsed Moore in his bid to unseat Sen. Luther Strange (R-AL).

According to, NAGR director Dudley Brown said, “Judge Roy Moore has proven to be a strict constitutionalist and has given good reason to believe he’ll be a gun rights champion and vocal supporter of the Second Amendment in the U.S. Senate.” He added, “[Moore] opposes expanded Brady Registration checks, calling them a national gun registration. He is also a steadfast opponent of high capacity gun magazine bans and bans on so-called ‘assault weapons.’”

NAGR also stressed that Moore will not be satisfied with simply playing defense for gun rights. Rather, they believe he will be a Senator who seeks the passage of legislation that expands the exercise of Second Amendment rights via the repeal of preexisting gun controls.

On August 4, 2017,  Roll Call reported that Moore was at a Chambers County Republican Club meeting when someone asked about his support of the Second Amendment. Moore said, “We carry,” then pulled a concealed carry revolver out of his wife’s purse.

The question to ask is, “Why does the federal government need to legislate anything regarding the people’s right to keep and bear arms.”

After all, any legislation, rule or regulation from any government entity is outside their authority per the Constitution.  In fact, States requiring a “permit” to conceal carry a firearm are unconstitutional.

Moreover, there should be no need for “the passage of legislation that expands the exercise of Second Amendment rights via the repeal of preexisting gun controls” since any of those laws are unconstitutional.

Likewise, the Second Amendment should be the only item necessary to carry a firearm, concealed or otherwise.

If the republic wants to rid the infringement on the Second Amendment by federal government, the dissolution of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms would be the best solution.

At the State level, residents of each State should advocate for repeal of any legislation that infringes on the right to keep and bear arms, including attacking outlandish local “laws” and ordinances.

The federal government already has its tentacles into the Second Amendment as evidenced by the National Firearms Act, the establishment of the BATF, the Brady laws, and any other pretended legislation by the federal, state and local governments to infringe upon the Second Amendment.

Publius Huldah composed an excellent informative guide regarding this federal bill entitled, “From Duty to be Armed to Permission to Carry.”  Everyone should read it in order to understand what exactly can happen when the federal government sinks its claws into the Second Amendment through “legislation.”

For expediency, here is an excerpt identifying the pitfalls.

Now let’s look at Title 18, US Code, Part I, Chapter 44, which HR 38 proposes to amend.

  1. Title 18, US Code, Part I, Chapter 44 is unconstitutional

It sets up a complex federal regulatory scheme over firearms, every word of which is unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated, and as in violation of the Second Amendment.

HERE it is, look through it (§§ 921-931).

  1. What HR 38 actually does

HR 38 proposes to amend this existing federal regulatory scheme to insert a new provision [to be § 926 D] to require States which have a statute which permits residents of their State to apply for a permit [!] to carry a concealed firearm

to allow persons from other States:

  • who aren’t prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms [!]; and
  • who are carrying a photographic ID issued by a government body [!]; and
  • who are carrying a concealed carry license or permit from the other State [!],

to possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or “destructive device”) which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

So! Even though a State Constitution, such as that for Connecticut, 4 prohibits the State Legislature from making ANY laws restricting firearms (such as imposing requirements for registration, a permit, government issued photo ID), a Citizen of Connecticut who exercises his constitutionally recognized right to carry without registration or a permit or a government issued photo ID, wouldn’t qualify under HR 38 for concealed carry in another State.

To qualify for concealed carry in other States, the Citizen of Connecticut would need his State Legislature to pass a law [which is unconstitutional under the Connecticut and federal Constitutions], so that he could comply with an unconstitutional federal statute [HR 38], so that he could carry in other States which also would have to pass unconstitutional laws imposing permit requirements on those who carry concealed.

Do you see how a God-given right [self-defense] is thus converted into a privilege which is regulated, granted, or denied, by civil government?

HR 38 also provides that any person carrying a concealed handgun in a State under the reciprocity provisions may also carry concealed in the public parts of National Parks and certain other lands under federal control. Lest you think this a gain, consider that: (1) The Constitution doesn’t authorize the federal government to operate national parks and such like, and (2) the federal government has no lawful authority to impose registration requirements for carrying arms anywhere!

  1. What’s the solution?

Read our Declaration of Independence and federal Constitution. Then you won’t fall for unconstitutional gimmicks like HR 38.

The gun rights organizations could perform valuable services to our Country by working for:

  • the repeal of the entire unconstitutional federal regulatory scheme respecting arms;
  • the repeal of all unconstitutional State regulatory schemes;
  • the revitalization of the State Militia to replace the federally controlled National Guard; 5and
  • by providing more classes for Citizens in arms training.

And please stop lobbying for unconstitutional federal legislation!


1 From the late Attorney Richard D. Fry’s email of Dec. 10, 2015 to US Senator Moran, a co-sponsor of SB 498, the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015. Richard, who was my Friend, sent me a copy of his letter.

Pursuant to Article I, § 8, next to last clause, Congress has general legislative powers over the District of Columbia, military bases, dock yards, mints, federal courthouses and post offices, and such other places needed for Congress to exercise its enumerated powers. The exercise of such powers by Congress over these small federal enclaves is restricted by the Bill of Rights – including the 2nd Amendment. So Congress is prohibited from making, for these federal enclaves, any laws which infringe the Right of The People to keep and bear Arms. Congress may properly require individuals visiting federal prisons, the psych ward of military hospitals, the mint, federal courthouses, and such like, to leave their arms in their vehicles. But Congress may not require Citizens to obtain and carry a permit or photo ID as a condition precedent to carrying a firearm.

3 The “Militia of the several States” were creatures of State Statutes – not of the federal government. Dr. Edwin Vieira’s short video shows how the State Militia were replaced by the federally controlled National Guard.

4 The Constitution of the State of Connecticut says at Article I: “SEC. 15. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”

5 See A SERIOUS QUESTION FOR THE NRA, by Dr. Edwin Vieira, re revitalization of the Militia of the several States. Dr. Vieira’s mind is a delight.

As Ms. Publius indicated, this legislation further enhances the federal government’s unconstitutional control over the right to keep and bear arms.

Americans should take heed.

Moreover, gun rights advocates should know better than to support legislation of this nature.

The election of Judge Roy Moore to the Senate would be a positive for this republic because of his constitutional advocacy.

His constitutional views alone should be enough to rally voter support.

Citizen support for Judge Moore should not be based on passing additional unconstitutional legislation;  but, for preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution for the united States of America – meaning ridding the Second Amendment of the claws of the federal government while not allowing further penetration into it.

Become an insider!

Sign up to get breaking alerts from Sons of Liberty Media.

Don't forget to like on Facebook, Google+, & Twitter.
The opinions expressed in each article are the opinions of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Trending on The Sons of Liberty Media

Newsletter SignupStay up to date on the latest news: Sign up for the Sons of Liberty newsletter!

Stay up to date on the latest news: Sign up for the Sons of Liberty newsletter!