Appeal Filed in Court Decision Upholding Connecticut’s Gun Ban
Bob Adelmann article: March 5, 2014
I am writing to say that I enjoyed your article (above). I also want to say that the more I read
about rulings by judges based on precedence and interpretations of the Constitution, the angrier
I get. I hope you will read all of my comments and opinions.
I think precedence should be thrown out, period. Each case should be tried on its own merits.
I wouldn’t think my being sent to prison based on a comparison of what I was convicted of
that was compared to what someone else was convicted of sometime in history. The only
information available concerning the case being used to set precedence is what is written
in the records of that trial. Circumstances and conditions relative to the commission of the
crime being compared to, and being used a basis for my conviction (fiction) are not being
considered. In my opinion they should be. I am not the same person as that other person
nor are all of the conditions leading up to and during the period the crimes were committed.
I feel that if precedence was done away with persons suspected of committing crimes
would receive much fairer rulings based solely on the circumstances related to the crime
of which they are suspected and if convicted, receive a penalty related to the crime they
committed, not to that which someone else committed sometime in history.
My biggest complaint is with judges assuming that they have the right to interpret the
Constitution. There only job is to enforce it. Since they were not one of those that
crafted the Constitution they have no idea what was in the minds of the Framers at the
time they created that great document.
The Framers crafted the Constitution in Plain English as it was used at that time. When I
read the Constitution I find just a few words that I have had to ponder over a bit. But,
when those words are taken in context with course of the verbiage the intent becomes
Thus, I feel that no judge or Justice has the right to change the Constitution through
interpretation. They are only to enforce it, as it is written….period!
The Second Amendment does not contain words that need to be defined, or redefined
by some judge or Justice. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of a free people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” That
requirement is clear and to the point and the use of capitalization and the word “shall”
help make it so.
The well regulated Militia is comprised of all males between the ages of 16 and 60 who
through their senses of community and patriotism, and the duty assigned them by the
Framers, stand prepared to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution from all
enemies, both foreign and domestic as necessary to provide for the security of our free
State (country). In order for us, a free people, to do this we must at all times, keep
arms (and the ammunition for their use, arms are no good without it) and be prepared
bear them when it becomes common knowledge that conditions exist that endanger
the Constitution and our society (State, country).
The last bit of the Second Amendment is the part that is being outright abused by
everyone everywhere as much as they can possibly do so. “which shall not be
infringed.” Could not be any clearer. No-one, anywhere, and at any time has the right
to do anything what-so-ever to interfere with citizens of our free State keeping (owning)
arms (firearms, spears, bows and arrows, catapults, cannons, etc., any and all kinds of
armaments) so that they are always at the ready to take up those arms (bear) for
The Framers were extremely intelligent and dedicated men. Many of them suffered
personal deprivations and hardships in order that they craft the perfect foundation
on which to build a free and just country for its free people. The Constitution taken
literally, as written, is the perfect foundation. Any attempts to alter it, by interpretation
or otherwise, cannot be allowed or the foundation will crumble.
There is but one way provided for changing the Constitution, amendment. The process
for doing that is included therein. Congress can draft an amendment which must be
approved by tho-thirds of each, the House and the Senate. Then, it goes to the people
for final approval. Three-fourths of the States have to approve its adoption or it
doesn’t happen. Thus, if Congress wants to change the meaning of some part(s) of
the Constitution, this is the only way it is to be done. Not by interpretation.
Basic meaning, the free people of the United States are to stand ready to organize to
defend it from all enemies, both foreign and domestic through the bearing of Arms
they must keep in their possession and ready at all times. No-one has the power to
change their ability to do so. Rights have been given us by the Creator when he
created us in his image. Amongst those are life, liberty, and property. Since God
has the right to protect himself, that right has passed to us as well. What God has
given us only God can take away. Not some judge or Supreme Court Justice, both
of which are subject to political pressures.
The Framers knew well that men are weak. That when faced by temptations that
are neither guarded nor for which the abuse of carries no penalties, they will eventually
fall to those temptations and our government will run amok. Our government is
about as amok as it can get and still be the People’s government.
We are at the time the real reason for the Second Amendment exists, to provide a
deterrent to their falling to the temptations of power, influence, and personal gain
as well as adopting progressive mindsets and attitudes of superiority over the rest
of us. The “Old Guard” members of both parties are very guilty of this and all must
be deposed and purged from our government in 2014.
Starting fresh by replacing everyone in the House and one-third of those in the Senate
will go along way towards fixing our country. I think that along with the purge we
must only reelect, and elect only those that have demonstrated their allegiance to
God and country by adhering to their oaths of office despite pressures and temp-
tations to do otherwise. These are the people we will need to get the new
House and Senate members off to a right start.
Next, we must limit terms to one as the Framers intended when they did not provide
for multiple terms in the Constitution. History shows us that FDR used his own
interpretation of what a term could be and was elected to four terms, dieing
nearly the beginning of the fourth. Shortly after that the Twenty-second
Amendment was added to limit terms for president to two. That is the only
term limit. The lengths of terms is defined for members of Congress to six
for Senators and two for Representatives. If limits were intended they would
have been included with the specification of terms lengths
Serving multiple terms has come about through permissions assumed by “public
servants” and the failure of the People to enforce the Constitution and limit the
president, and all other “public servants” to one term. No amendment is needed
to limit terms. It is the responsibility of the people to do so at the polls.
I hope you will publicly support “Purge Congress of Career Politicians” idea.
Getting the word out to the “Sheeple” and having them understand that they
are responsible for keeping our government in check. No-one else can do it.
People have got to understand that the reason we elect (consent of the
governed) people to speak in our stead during the conduct of the People’s
business of government is because there are far too many of us spread over
too large an area for all of us to participate. The only purpose those elected
serve is to present the views of those they serve and follow the Constitution
in service of those views. Nowhere and at no time are public servants
endowed with permission to think “for” us. Their opinions are only one
voice, like those of the rest of us.
Multiple terms in office gives those serving the feelings of entitlement and
superiority. They come to feel and act like only they are entitled to tell the
rest of us, who they feel are too stupid to know what our country and
ourselves need, what we need and what should be done. This supports
Obama’s bent on having government control the people.
Dialog needs to change to emphasize civic responsibility of Americans
and the fact that freedom allows personal choice and requires enjoyment
of the results thereof, good or bad. Most important that it is not the
responsibility of government to pick you up and kiss your booboos and
make the hurt all better when you suffer from poor choices. You are
your own responsibility and no-one else’s.
When the government fears the people there is freedom; when the people
fear the government there is tyranny. To preserve the first and prevent the
second, we have the Second Amendment. The People’s safety net for
regaining order when government has run amok. It has run amok!
Thank you for reading my long discourse. I may have wondered off subject
here and their. I am sincerely concerned for America and I learns things
almost every day that intensify my concern.
Keep up the good work,
God Bless You and America!