Journal of the Senate of the United States of America,

TUESDAY, July 8, 1856.

...On the question to agree to the amendment reported by the Committee on Territories, viz: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the following:

That, for the purpose of making an enumeration of the inhabitants, authorized to vote under the provisions of this act, an apportionment and an election of members of a convention to form a State constitution for Kansas, as hereinafter provided, five competent persons shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to be commissioners,a majority of whom shall constitute a quorum, for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this act, each of whom, before entering upon the duties of his office, shall take and subscribe an oath or affirmation that he will support the Constitution of the United States, and faithfully and impartially exercise and discharge the duties enjoined on him by this act, according to the best of his skill and judgment, which oath or affirmation shall be administered to them severally, and be duly certified by a judge, clerk, or commissioner of a court of the United States, and filed and recorded in the office of the secretary of the Territory of Kansas.

Just prior to this action by the Senate, the House had the following statement in their Journal of June 28, 1856:

"...And in the just preservation of rights and property, it is understood and declared that no law ought ever to be made or be in force in said Territory that shall in any manner interfere with or affect private contracts or engagements bona fide and without fraud previously proved. And the people of said Territory shall be entitled to the right to keep and bear arms, to the liberty of speech and of the press, as defined in the constitution of the United States, and all other rights of person or property thereby declared and as thereby defined.

  • "Sec. 17. And be it further enacted, That the following propositions be, and the same are hereby, offered to the said convention of the people of Kansas, when formed, for their free acceptance or rejection, which, if accepted by the convention and ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of the constitution, shall be obligatory on the United States and upon the said State of Kansas, to wit:...."

  • Very interesting, wouldn't you agree? Let's dissect this further, and examine it more thoroughly, shall we?

    First: "That inasmuch as the Constitution of the United States and the organic act of said Territory has secured to the inhabitants thereof certain inalienable rights, of which they cannot be deprived by any legislative enactment, therefore..."

    Which goes right in line with the Original Intent of the declaration in the Preamble in the Supreme 'organic' act;

    "...and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...".

    Second: Let's look up the word "inalienable", using Websters 1828 Dictionary:

    "INA'LIENABLE, a. [L. alieno, alienus.]"

    "Unalienable; that cannot be legally or justly alienated or transferred to another. The dominions of a king are inalienable. All men have certain natural rights which are inalienable. The estate of a minor is inalienable, without a reservation of the right of redemption, or the authority of the legislature."

    Hmmmm, that would seem to indicate that it would be an impossibility to lawfully divest a free person of their "right", wouldn't it?

    Third: "which they cannot be deprived by any legislative enactment"

    That one is somewhat SELF-EXPLANATORY, isn't it? But, note how that both "the Constitution of the United States and the organic act of said Territory" were stipulated above. That would seem to indicate that NEITHER the Federal OR the state government(s) have the delegated authority over "the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms", wouldn't it?

    Now let us proceed further down in the above 'amendment', okay?

    Fourth: "nor shall the rights of the people to keep and bear arms be infringed"

    We'll go back to 1828, to see what Mr. Webster says about the word "infringed";

    "INFRING'ED, pp. Broken; violated; transgresses".

    And here we find that any attempt by government to divest a person of their "inalienable rights" is a violation, or transgression, right?

    Fifth: I DON'T SEE THE MENTION OF 'MILITIA', DO YOU? Therefore, it is clearly considered by the 1856 Senate to be THE PERSONAL RIGHT of the INDIVIDUAL inhabitant, isn't it? And, it case you hadn't noticed, this Amendment was enacted and affirmed. Let it not be forgotten that the Senate is one of the branches that make the laws of the United States. The Supreme Court is charged with the duty of interpreting those laws to ensure they are in compliance with the Fundamental Law - the U.S. Constitution. It is impossible that the above Amendment can possibly be misinterpreted in its meaning and intent.

    Finally, let's take a look at the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion the very same year;

    "It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union . . .the full liberty . . .to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

    "More especially, it cannot be believed that the large slaveholding States regarded them as included in the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another State. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

    - Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856).

    Based on the above information, I'll venture to state as irrefutable fact. That, "the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be Infringed", means EXACTLY what was written. And, that ALL 'gun control' 'laws' are NULL and VOID - UNENFORCEABLE. For, ALL such 'laws' are a clear usurpation of authority and therefore UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

    Return to:

    After The Fact

    Also see:

    Right to Keep and Bear Arms -

    Origins

    Precedent

    HOME

     2006 GunShowOnTheNet.com