All Federal Gun Laws Are Unconstitutional + Yes, I Said It; And I Stand By It

Tim Brown

 Please help support us with cryptocurrency donations. Thank you!

Freedom Outpost’s Constitutional scholar Publius Huldah recently explained why Federal gun laws are unlawful. She noted that the first gun control measures put in place in the United States did not take place until 1927, when Congress banned the mailing of certain weapons. We went from 1776 to 1927, 150 years after our founding, when Congress decided, “We better start disarming the American people.”

Huldah goes through the history of the Federal government’s unlawful actions to regulate firearms in America and she points out that when it started, the Progressives had already begun a takeover. I’ll also note the Federal Reserve had been established in 1913 as well.

In 1938 Congress legislated that gun dealers had to obtain a Federal Firearms Licenses and maintain names and addresses of those they sold their firearms to.

She was sarcastic when she asked if we would ask the current President and Congress for “crumbs,” begging them to let us keep “some of our firearms.”

She called the letter from the Utah Sheriffs Association “shameful” because it begged Obama not to impose restrictions on firearms by executive order, but rather let Congress determine those things.

However, Huldah said that “We must make a principled resistance. To do that, we must learn the applicable principle.” She then pointed her listeners to the Constitution to see whether or not the Federal government can impose such legislation.

Huldah then pointed out that there is a little known fact about the Constitution:

“It is one of enumerated powers only. When “We the people” ordained and established the Constitution, we created the Federal government. It is our creature. We are the creator. It is the creature. It is not our master.”

“The Constitution is so short,” she continued, because all of the powers enumerated to the Federal government are listed in it. “Depending on how you count, we delegated only 21 powers to the Federal government.” Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 1-16 are those powers.

Huldah then courageously pointed out that all laws made by Congress, any restrictions imposed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, any restrictions made by executive order, and all Supreme Court decisions that restrict firearms are unconstitutional. They are unconstitutional because there is no authority to do so.

God is the giver of men’s rights, according to the Declaration of Independence, and the right to defend one’s self and one’s family is not only a right, but it is a duty and responsibility before God, according to the Bible which is a demonstration of our love for others. Therefore, she rightly pointed out that the Second Amendment is not the source of our right. It merely recognizes that the right is to be free from any interference whatsoever to defend ourselves, our families and our communities from attack. “This understanding is as old as human history,” she says.

The Framers of the Constitution understood that arms are the only defense against a Federal government that would seek to overstep its bounds. James Madison, writing in Federalist Paper No. 46, said that the reason the Citizens – the Militia – are armed is to defend ourselves, our families, our neighborhoods, communities, and States from an overreaching, tyrannical federal government.

Here are a couple of things indicate that the Framers of the Constitution understood this idea:

  1. Militia – armed citizens – Second Amendment
  2. Letters of Marque and reprisal – Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 – This gives authority to Congress to authorize privately owned armed ships to make war on the enemies of the United States. An example of such was during the administration of Thomas Jefferson, where a ship was commissioned to make war on the Barbary pirates via a letter of Marque and reprisal from Congress. Also Congress did the same thing against the British.

In other words, the Framers had no problem with the citizens being as heavily armed as the country’s military. “That is because they did not see themselves as our rulers,” Huldah adds.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 gives Congress the authority to demand that able bodied males be armed. It reads:

“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

In 1792, Congress passed “An Act more effectually to provide for the National Defense by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.” This Act required all able-bodied male citizens (except for federal officers and employees) between the ages of 18 and under 45 to enroll in their State Militia, get a gun and ammunition, and train.

Publius Huldah then reminds us that the leading cause of death in the 20th Century was Democide – Death by Government. She ran the list of Soviet run Russia, Communist China, Nazi Germany, Cuba, Cambodia, and North Korea. She pointed out that Communist, Fascist and Islamic dictatorships murdered their own people by the tens of millions. “And do not think that isn’t coming this way,” she warned.

Universal registration leads to confiscation. Confiscation leads to extermination. It always has. Why do you think they are so “Hell bent on disarming us?”

James Madison was clear in Federalist 46 that the citizenry being armed is to fight the Federal government’s tyranny.

“Let’s have no more talk of ‘reasonable restrictions’ and background checks imposed by the Federal government,” Huldah declared.

All Federal government gun and ammunition laws should be nullified, ignored and rendered toothless by the people of the States.

Publius Huldah then reference this essay, “The Coming Day of Burn Barrels and Blessings” in which James Wesley Rawles says:

If congress ever enacts a law mandating the registration and/or a production ban of detachable magazine semiautomatic rifles then you are hereby invited to the town square of your local community. There, burn barrels will be set up and we will publicly burn Form 4473s, FFL Bound Books, state and local registration records, and the sales receipts for every firearm in the United States. On that same day, FFL holders and public officials holding electronic firearms records will simultaneously erase those records, permanently and irretrievably.

Rawles indicates that the use of masks to hide identities would be proper and to cover dealers, they could claim that masked men with guns forced them to do what they did. Simply brilliant!

Huldah then addressed all State and County officers. She called upon them to support their oath, which is to support and defend the U.S. Constitution, according to Article 6, Clause 3. When as a representative of the people you acquiesce to Federal government gun laws of the you are not supporting or defending the Constitution, but rather you are conniving with tyrants against your own people.

“And if you connive with tyrants against your own people so that you can keep your Federal funding, then shame on you for becoming so corrupt that you allow yourself to be bribed with money that your grandchildren will have to pay back,” Huldah resounded.

She also called upon cowardly representatives who have become corrupt to resign their office and let manly men take their place.

While referencing Tennessee issues later in the speech, she did speak to Federal funding and declare that officials shouldn’t worry about “arming their posse” because manly men will arm themselves!

My fellow Americans, the line was drawn a long time ago and many in our country have allowed the Federal government to creep across that line slowly over the years. It is time to say “Enough is enough,” stop them and then push them back in place where they belong. Seriously, I almost feel like saying, “I’m Tim Brown, and I approved this message.” However, we must resist the tyranny coming from Washington and the tyranny forming at our State and local levels that would seek to restrict our ability to own and carry guns. Thank you Publius Huldah for your stand and may the manly men and the womanly women of this country take that same stand.


Yes, I Said It; And I Stand By It

On March 30, radio talk show host Sheila Zilinsky played a pre-recorded interview with me on her radio program. She titled that program The Real Reason They Want Your Guns. Well, it didn’t take long for the good people on the left (including the SPLC) to begin circulating my comments all over the Internet.

Writing for the far-left blog Right Wing Watch, Kyle Mantyla said:

Chuck Baldwin, a right-wing pastor and radio host who was the 2008 Presidential nominee of the Christian Reconstructionist Constitution Party, appeared on Sheila Zilinsky’s podcast over the weekend, where he declared that any Christian who does not own the equivalent of an AR-15 assault rifle has “denied the Christian faith” and is “worse than a heathen.”

Citing a passage from 1 Timothy, Baldwin asserted that every adult has “a duty to provide for your family, but you cannot provide protection for your family without being equipped to do so.”

“Therefore, you must have the means of self-defense,” Baldwin said. “And in our society today, that means a firearm in the similitude of an AR-15. Without that, you are not in a position, you are not even able to protect not just your family and your house, but your neighbors, your community around you; that we, as a community of people—that’s the militia—are given the God-given responsibility to protect our communities. That is a biblical requirement.”

Baldwin called on pastors to preach sermons telling their congregations that “if you are not prepared to defend your family and your neighborhood and your community with the force of arms, you have denied the Christian faith and you are worse than a heathen.”

See the article here:

Chuck Baldwin Says It’s A ‘Biblical Requirement’ For Everyone To Own An Assault Rifle

Of course, in the socialist, anti-freedom minds of left-wing, anti-Second Amendment extremists at Right Wing Watch and the SPLC, the very idea that free people have a Natural duty to defend themselves and their communities fits in the category of “weird” or “far-out.” Then to suggest that the Natural duty of self-defense could be God-given is, to them, even weirder.

I digress for a couple of corrections to Mantyla’s article. First, the Constitution Party (of which I was the Party’s nominee for President in 2008—and during which time I received the endorsement of former Congressman Dr. Ron Paul and many others) is NOT a “Christian Reconstructionist” Party. As with any other political party, the Constitution Party is comprised of people whose views of theology and eschatology cover virtually any and all ends of the spectrum. When I was the Party’s presidential nominee in 2008, I was NOT a Christian Reconstructionist (as commonly defined), nor am I now a Christian Reconstructionist. So, in this regard, Mr. Mantlya needs to do a little more homework.

Secondly, Mantlya also makes the egregious error of all anti-gun journalists, newscasters, reporters, writers, etc., of calling an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle an “assault” rifle. It is NOT an assault rifle. A true assault rifle, such as the M16, M4 carbine, and similar weapons are capable of fully automatic fire. The AR-15 has no selector switch for fully automatic fire. I’m sure Mr. Mantlya—and the rest of the anti-gun media—KNOW the difference, but they love to use this word to try and obfuscate the argument.

But except for Mantlya’s reporting that I said “any Christian”—I have always made exceptions for those folks who because of age or other handicaps are incapable of safely operating an AR-15 rifle—I proudly plead guilty to the article.

Here is the audio clip from what I said on Sheila’s show that Mantyla used in his report:

RWW News: Chuck Baldwin Says It’s A ‘Biblical Requirement’ For Everyone To Own An Assault Rifle

I absolutely, unequivocally, unapologetically, and emphatically stand behind what I said.

Self-defense is a God-given Natural duty. People who have never read a Bible or heard of Jesus Christ have an innate Natural Law written in their hearts that tells them it is man’s right and responsibility to protect and defend their families, loved ones, neighbors, and communities. And, depending on the culture and technology in which man lives, he will naturally use the most effective defense tool in order to fulfill that innate Natural Law. And for those of us who are privileged to live in a technologically modern society, the most effective defense tool available to us is an AR-15-style rifle.

The national news media and public education—along with many politicians and pastors—continue to regurgitate the socialist/fascist Big Government lie that the Second Amendment only protects the private ownership of firearms as it relates to sporting purposes such as hunting and target shooting.

But the Second Amendment is clear: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” is “necessary to the security of a free state.” Therefore, the great purpose of the Founding Fathers for placing the Second Amendment in our Constitution was not to protect the right of people to go hunting or target shooting—or even to simply defend themselves against a common criminal.

The great purpose of the Founding Fathers for placing the Second Amendment in our Constitution was to protect the right and necessity of people to maintain “the security of a free state.” In other words, the great purpose of the private ownership of firearms is to protect the people against tyrannical assaults against their liberties by GOVERNMENT. Such a defense requires the most effective tool (firearm) available. And, today, that tool is an AR-15-style rifle. No other firearm meets that historic (and sacred) qualification.

And as I said on Sheila’s interview, those who understand Holy Writ know that the duty of self-defense is much more than a Second Amendment right; it is a Biblical duty. The Scripture that Mr. Mantlya uses from that interview is I Timothy 5:8:

But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. (KJV)

Providing for one’s house is a divine command. Specifically, the Apostle Paul was addressing the duty of children to provide for the needs of their widowed mothers. And the word “provide” includes the totality of provision: food, clothing, shelter—and safety and security. This is a Christian DUTY.

On the statement, “But if any provide not for his own,” nineteenth-century Bible scholar Albert Barnes (1798 – 1870) writes,

The meaning is, that the person referred to is to think beforehand of the probable needs of his own family, and make arrangements to meet them.

Only a shortsighted fool would not recognize the need to provide safety, security, and the protection of liberty for one’s family and loved ones.

And on the statement, “he hath denied the faith,” Barnes writes:

The meaning is, that he would, by such an act, have practically renounced Christianity, since it enjoins this duty on all. We may hence learn that it is possible to deny the faith by conduct as well as by words; and that a neglect of doing our duty is as real a denial of Christianity as it would be openly to renounce it.

Any Christian who refuses to act on his Natural God-given duty to provide for his own (which, again, by definition MUST include safety and security) has, by his actions, denied the faith.

On the statement, “and is worse than an infidel,” Barnes writes:

The word here does not mean an infidel, technically so called, or one who openly professes to disbelieve Christianity, but anyone who does not believe; that is, anyone who is not a sincere Christian. The word, therefore, would include the pagan, and it is to them, doubtless, that the apostle particularly refers. They acknowledged the obligation to provide for their relatives. This was one of the great laws of nature written on their hearts, and a law which they felt bound to obey. Few things were inculcated more constantly by pagan moralists than this duty.

(Albert Barnes, Notes, Explanatory And Practical, On The Epistles Of Paul: To The Thessalonians, To Timothy, Titus And Philemon, Harper & Brothers, New York, 1849, p201)

Go to any tribe of people, no matter how remote or uneducated, and you will find this Natural Law principle in effect. With the most effective means of self-defense available, these spiritually unenlightened souls will provide safety and security for their own. Accordingly then, rightly does the Apostle Paul accuse Christians who do NOT provide for their own (in all of the ways insinuated in the meaning of the word) of having denied the faith and as indeed being worse than infidels.

Beyond that, the entire body of the Old and New Testaments declare God’s Natural Law of self-defense.

As I have told readers before, my constitutional attorney son and I co-authored a book entitled To Keep or Not To Keep: Why Christians Should Not Give Up Their Guns. This book examines both Testaments of the Bible to show the overwhelming scriptural evidence supporting the Natural Law of self-defense and how Christians are duty-bound to NEVER surrender the means of fulfilling that Natural Law. In the book, we also show how the AR-15-style rifle is the modern tool matching the scriptural requirement for self-defense.

When Jesus instructed His disciples, “And he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one” (Luke 22:36 KJV), He was instructing them to obtain the most modern and effective self-defense tool available to them at the time: the Roman sword. The Greek word for sword in Luke 22:36, 38 is the same word used for sword in Romans 13:4, where Paul is referencing the weapon used by the soldiers of the Roman government: “for he beareth not the sword in vain.”

The AR-15-style rifle today is the twenty-first-century equivalent to the first-century Roman sword. And Jesus told His first-century disciples to sell their clothes if they had to and go buy a Roman sword. To the twenty-first-century Christian that means go buy an AR-15 rifle.

In addition, the story of Abraham and Melchizedek recorded in Genesis 14 and repeated in Hebrews 7 is most germane to this discussion. The divine principles laid down by God in Genesis 14 are some of the most important principles in the entire Bible. Yet, the thorough and truthful teaching of Genesis 14 is almost non-existent in modern pulpits.

I recently brought a message on Genesis 14 entitled A Biblical Portrait Of The Righteousness And Requirement Of Bearing Arms.

This is an extremely important chapter of the Bible, as it establishes several laws and principles given by God. This chapter introduces us to Melchizedek, the king and priest of Jerusalem who blessed Abraham after he had returned from “the slaughter of the kings” in defense of the inhabitants of the city of Sodom. Hebrews 7 retells the story of Genesis 14 and makes it clear that Melchizedek was either Christ Himself or a great type of Christ.

The timing of Christ’s blessing of Abraham—and his establishment of several monumental doctrines for mankind—occurring immediately after Abraham’s armed defense of his family and community is extremely significant—and almost universally ignored and overlooked in modern churches.

As the title of the message states, this is A Biblical Portrait Of The Righteousness And Requirement of Bearing Arms. Bearing arms for self-defense—which in the modern world points to AR-15-style rifles—is both RIGHTEOUS and REQUIRED of us by the laws of God.

Unless you are over sixty years old, it is very likely that you have never heard a message like this before—and with the kind of compromising, watered-down preaching heard in most churches today, if you don’t watch this one, you may never hear one like it in your lifetime. But the truths of this message are undeniable and sacrosanct. And with the way that government—and many churches—are promoting the outlawing and surrendering of AR-15-style rifles, this message is absolutely essential to the understanding of God’s law on this subject—not to mention the survival of liberty in our land.

That people would even question the Natural right and duty mandating the possession and bearing of the most effective and efficient self-defense tool available is demonstrative of just how far down the road of socialism/Nazism/statism America has gone.

By using my common sense, historically and scripturally accurate statements regarding the Natural right to bear the AR-15 rifle as an attempt to discredit me, Big Government shills show the depth to which they will go to try and promote their Big Government agenda. To anti-gun radicals, We the People should be forced to rely on the government to protect us—even though government law enforcers are under no legal obligation to do so. And the thought that a free citizenry would ever need to be protected from government itself never enters their minds.

So, the SPLC and their gaggle of gun grabbers can try to use my statements in Sheila’s interview as an attempt to discredit me all they want. Their philosophical and heretical grandparents did the same thing to Washington and Jefferson.

I STAND BY WHAT I SAID. And I’m very satisfied to know that I am in good company—historically, politically, and spiritually.

© Chuck Baldwin

Olddogs Comments!

Since the security of a free State is totally dependent on the people’s knowledge of our countries history I will go even farther than Chuck and state emphatically that every male in America who refuses to arm his self should be deported and lose his status as an American for life. Send him to China, or Russia and let him depend on them for the safety of his self and family. Unless all Americans understand the history of their country they will be subject to the lies of the media and education industries. If you do not prepare yourself to protect your loved ones, you are not an American, you are a fool and a coward. If that offends you, K.M.A. !!!!!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: