After reading several articles concerning the latest unconstitutional legislation being pushed by numerous legislators, it has become increasingly clear that gun owners and those who support the constitutional right to keep and bear arms are missing the boat on the use of a tool that is presently available to stop the attack on the 2nd Amendment.

First of all, let me state this before going any further. I do not fully believe that the American public has any choice about who is elected to the only offices the citizens of this nation theoretically place in federal offices through the vote. I believe congressional elections are as controlled as the last presidential election.

Oh, sure, a couple of people are allowed to stay in Congress, such as Ron Paul of Texas, who do speak out on constitutional rights. But, has it changed the overall unconstitutional acts passed by the Republican controlled Congress since the 104th? What I am saying is possibly a few dissenters are allowed to remain, but only for show, since every piece of legislation passed in recent years has been unconstitutional in part or in full. In other words, the "elite" don't care as long as a majority controlled by them remains.

In regards to legislation, all that has been proposed and made public through the efforts of investigative reporters has been unconstitutional. If a bill contains just one line with unconstitutional implications, then the bill is unconstitutional as written and should be thrown in the trash where it belongs. But, that has rarely happened. And when it has happened, the unconstitutional provision was sneaked in or attempted to be sneaked in through another bill or proposal.

While the Republican dominated Congress kept the nation�s focus on Bill Clinton, it was violating the Constitution in bill after bill passed into law. Many writers tried to get people to understand what was really going on but people ignored the obvious. Members of Congress wanting to do away with the Constitution were aided greatly in their quest to establish plenary control over the People.

But, we still have a tool to use that is a peaceful, lawful means of control. It is established by the fact that each and every official of any level of government takes and subscribes to an Oath of Office. The importance of the oath cannot be overstated. It is the pledge that the official will uphold the Constitution for the United States of America, that each will NOT do anything, including voting for passage of bills incorporating unconstitutional provisions, to infringe upon the rights of the individual citizen, that each will defend those rights.

Any high official, including members of Congress, judges, state legislators, and so on can be impeached for violating their oath of office. It is essentially a contract with the people they represent.

For those officials that do not fall under impeachment provisions, there is other legal recourse to remove them from office. The fact is that citizens can file complaints against them based on Title 42, Sections 1981, 1982 (in cases of private property infringements), 1983 (deprivations of rights of under of law), and 1985 (conspiracy to deprive of rights under color of law). (Since this was written, the writer has found also many other Title 18 crimes are committed by officials, such as "extortion" and "racketeering".)

Those who write spend great deals of time researching and then helping to educate people concerning unconstitutional proposals and unconstitutional laws that have already been passed. Other people spend great amounts of time reading and becoming educated while others do neither. Oh, and, yes, there are also the �doers�, those people who take action after becoming educated. Every American citizen falls into one of these categories. It is a matter of personal choice as to which (although it is the duty of those who enjoy the few freedoms we have left to protect those freedoms and to regain those lost).

In the interest of review, Congress, it has no constitutional authority to pass any law outside the duties imposed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. It may pass laws on specific acts or sources of acts originating in property the federal government has plenary jurisdictional control over, or with factual maritime considerations (Missouri, for example, is not a maritime source nor are its citizens under Admiralty/maritime law), or with, the posting of roads for mail delivery, impeachment, and laws affecting the civil rights of citizens.

In regards to the latter, rights are unalienable, self-evident rights secured through the Constitution. Because civil rights laws are in support of the protection of these rights (or should be anyway), the laws are lawful within the 50 states, meaning within the limitations of the Constitution. Others may be applied only in areas of constitutionally established jurisdiction of the federal government. And, Folks, that doesn�t include the 50 States.

"This is all well and good but so what," one might ask. �So what� is that it provides the tool to rid ourselves of any official who under color of law infringes upon the rights of citizens. It gives us, We the People, the power to put them out of office and prevent them from ever obtaining another elected position.

As everyone knows, it is possible to ruin people simply by making an accusation. This has happened to many school teachers accused wrongly of things such as sexual abuse or harassment of students. It didn�t matter that the teacher had not done anything wrong - the accusation was made and a portion of the population believed it, including future schools interviewed.

Clinton is a good example. Whether accusations were right or wrong wasn�t the important aspect. The Republicans ignored the fact that many of them do exactly the same things they accused Clinton of. Their bottom-of-the-line goal was to keep the Republican Party in control and had nothing to do with protecting family values and the like. Thus, their goal was to destroy Clinton (and the Democrat Party by association) whether any accusation every brought about a prosecution, impeachment, settlement out of court, or indictments following his term of office.

Once politicians get a foothold in Congress or other level of government, they do not want to lose it. It makes them a fortune and, even if not a fortune, places them above the law - or so they believe. Because they believe themselves to be above the law or because they don�t know the law, it places them in a very vulnerable position to those ready to attack them through the law.

This includes judges. Judges also do not want to lose their positions of power. Besides it being a very lucrative business for them, their positions give them a sense of being god-like over the people entering their courtrooms.

Under color of law means, in part, that an official proceeds with enforcement of an unconstitutional law even though the official knows the law, statute, edict, or ordinance is unconstitutional (his defense is that he thought he was right - the bogus "clean hands" doctrine>. Continuing to support the unconstitutional law is a act of war against a citizen and the Constitution of the united States of America. The enemy may not be clearly defined (think communism and the foreign powers controlling this nation financially - the Federal Reserve system and its owners), but the enemy is very real.

This entails WAR, make no mistake about it. It doesn�t matter whether a right is removed at the point of a firearm (Waco, Ruby Ridge, and dozens of others) or by an act of legislators - the right is still removed and the people increasingly oppressed into a dictatorship by these victimless crimes.

What we can do is get groups together within states and file suits against any level of state government officials, including political subdivisions, who have passed unconstitutional laws and/or continue to support unconstitutional laws. With enough support, as in a class action lawsuit, any court is likely to consider whether or not it should risk a lawsuit or criminal complaint applied against the court for NOT carrying out any lawfully submitted complaint. Article VI, Clause 2, is part of the basis for actions against a judge for denying rights of citizens under color of law.

Keep in mind - both the officials and the judges are usually elected or, at the minimum, put in office by elected officials. Either way, it is a means of control. Enough public outcry, or legal actions, against the official will result in the response desired, that response being to uphold the rights of the People. In other words, Hold the bastards accountable.

I don�t mention other levels of the federal government since Congress is the only part of the federal government the People have any theoretical power of filling through the vote. Apply control to these people ignoring their responsibilities by taking actions against them for helping pass, or continued support of, unconstitutional laws. Sooner or later, a few of them might wake up. Wake up enough and changes have come about through non-violent means.

In regards to firearm laws, all are unconstitutional except for having an import tax (if imported>placed on them by the federal government. Once this is paid, the federal government hasn�t any power to tell any person in any of the 50 States what firearms (or other arms) he may own, to require registration or licensing of any nature, and so on.

No state, meaning each of the 50 States united under the Constitution, has to respond to any unconstitutional law passed by the federal government as states are sovereign to the federal government and not within its jurisdiction. Not only is each guaranteed a Republican form of government, but the federal government also has the constitutional obligation to protect each against invasion and domestic violence. This is made clear in Article IV of the Constitution. And, it doesn�t matter if it is against a foreign power or a domestic violence. Soldiers and law enforcement personnel would do well to remember this.

Why is this important? Well, guess who is fairly close to home? That�s right - your state legislators and political subdivision officials and agents thereof. The power state legislators have, although they ignore it when it furthers their own hidden agendas, is to do away with any unconstitutional law passed by Congress. It is their duty to remove any unconstitutionally applied federal law to the people they represent directly. Failure to do so is failing to faithfully uphold the duties of their office.

The power the People have, although it is often ignored, is to demand that any unconstitutional law be done away with. If the demand is ignored, then as an individual or group, file a lawsuit against the official/s based on Title 42, Section 1983, and, based on Title 42, Section 1985, that conspiracy between officials resulted in the unconstitutional law being passed and/or supports continued enforcement. (Once again, other Title 18 crimes are often committed by officials.)

Force their impeachment if an impeachable officer. Granted, one is dealing with the government. Government protects government. The media protects government. The only group that doesn�t, or shouldn�t, protect government is the People.

The people are sovereign to the government and sovereign to each other. In other words, the vote cannot do away with the rights of even one citizen. We must understand that each person has unalienable, self-evident rights not to be infringed upon by any other person. These rights are the principles laid down in Mosaic Law, the Declaration of Independence, and secured in the Constitution of the united States of America, the various state constitutions, American Jurisdiction, and thousands upon thousands of rulings supporting the rights of the individual rather than the government.

As sovereigns, there are always means of communicating the truth (watch out for the Republican Congress concerning 1st Amendment rights) It may be done through flyers, posting on bulletin boards, the Internet, friend to friend and acquaintance to acquaintance, signs, group meetings, to name a few. The goal is to get the truth out concerning any official who doesn�t uphold his oath of office. It doesn�t matter whether such a lawsuit goes to term - what matters is the extreme negative publicity created against the official/s.

Officials at the state level (including political subdivisions) depend on the vote or those who supporting them to get the vote. With a concentrated effort by groups, the official, whether he be a legislator, a judge, a court clerk, or whatever, public knowledge of rights being violated and oaths of office ignored, can destroy the official and get him removed from his cushy position.

There is the alternative. Ease their task. Go ahead and allow the unconstitutional laws, including those fueling the bogus wars against drugs and crimes (used to establish control over firearms), to remain in effect in your state along with those officials supporting such laws remaining in office. Silence and complacency of the masses, along with instilling fear in the People, are the governments� most powerful tools, you know.

Or, step up and defeat them through constitutional means, including, but not limited to, using the tools provided in Article VI, clauses 2 and 3. Use the awareness of impending danger against corrupted officials by speaking out through direct actions against the offenders. Instill fear in these enemies of the People with threatened loss of office and/or lawsuits carried out. Use the law to enforce the laws of the land.

If all we continue to do is to write and read about unconstitutional acts by government officials, then, Folks, we might as well take our firearms, along with all our other unalienable, self-evident rights, and throw them in the garbage dump. This is being accomplished, anyway, by not taking direct lawful actions against offending officials.