Guns and the Constitution: Rep. Itse responds to readers on secession bill

 Given 31,000+ page views, “Guns and the Constitution: A legislator finally gets it” apparently struck a responsive note. The piece covered House Concurrent Resolution 6, introduced in New Hampshire by state Representative Daniel Itse, which called for secession by the state under specified instances of federal usurpation of power, including gun control such as HR 45: “Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009.”

And well it should: Beyond immediate concerns over impending gun control such as reimplementation of the federal “assault weapon” ban, Itse’s bill raises questions that have bedeviled Americans since the founding of the Republic: Given a federal government which routinely assumes powers not enumerated by the Constitution, at what point should the States and their citizens say “No!” and when they say “no,” how should they go about it?

The roughly 1,000 comments made by readers to the piece provide insight into the warring camps of those who see no relevance, in today’s society, of the framers and their vision of American government; versus those who see society’s ills as the result of leaving the path the framers forged.

Below are some of those questions and what Rep. Itse has to say in response. Naysayers pronounce him “nuts,” dismissing the possibility of succession as “absurd,” and opining that an armed citizenry couldn’t stand against a modern military.

Supporters, on the other hand, note: “Absolutely the right thing to do. The federal government has overstepped its bounds far too many times. Leave it up to the states,” “It's great to see a legislator actually following his constituency's wishes and holding the federal government accountable for its violations of the Second Amendment,” or, as one reader so succinctly put it, “Honey, pack your s_#%. We're moving to the Sovereign Republic of New Hampshire!”

“All men are born equally free and independent; therefore, all government of right originates from the people, is founded in consent, and instituted for the general good.” -- New Hampshire State Constitution, Part First, Article 1: June 2, l784.

Rep. Itse responds

Reader: “To bring arguments from the 1700s is just ridiculous. The statements were written in a time that couldn't comprehend the type of environment we currently live in.”

Itse: “The times were not actually that different. America was in conflict with the French, and the congress enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts which made it a crime to criticize the government or its officials, allowed the President to have any foreign national deported without a trial or hearing, and increased the time necessary to qualify for citizenship. Jefferson saw the restriction on free speech as a direct broach of the First Amendment which was particularly intended to protect criticism of the government and its officials.”

Reader: “If this rebellion actually happens, part of me will be laughing when they roll the National Guard in to quash it. Someone should put this guy in his place.”

Itse: “There is no planned rebellion. If there is any rebellion, it is in the Federal government breaking the Constitution. The goal is a renewed union within the bounds of the Constitution. As to the National Guard, one of the express purposes of the Militia is to protect the States from invasion by the national government (read Federalist Paper 46). Approximately 25 of the States have State Guards independent of the National Guard.”

Reader: “This is a good resolution. There is a reason why we bear arms. It's to revolt against a tyranny if need be. The United States has a strong foundation in mutiny and breaking free from governments that take too much control and too much away from citizens.”

Itse: “America has the finest design of any government on earth. All of the ills we are currently experiencing are caused by our deviations from that design. One of the strengths of the Union was that the States, though subject to the legitimate laws of the Union, are superior to the Union itself, just as the people subject to the laws of the Union and the States are superior to the States, and therefore, to the Union.”

“The people of this State have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled.” -- New Hampshire State Constitution, Part First, Article 7: June 2, l784.

Rep. Itse is not alone

But perhaps the most gratifying response came from a United States Marine:

“I can safely say that … without the dissolution of the USMC the right to bear arms isn't going anywhere. We may be the only branch the president can order on a whim without congressional approval, but I ask you gentlemen to look at the oath every US Marine takes upon entry to the service. We swear to uphold the constitution first, then el presidente … There is a Marine Captain in charge of the recruiting station in Berkley California [who], when asked about the city allowing protestors to get right on his door step, said the following: "I may not agree with what they are saying but I will die to defend their right to say it."

Thousands of public officials have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution. Rep. Dan Itse counts among the few who actually understand it.

Use this button to send via e-mail:

Copyright © F. Paul Valone All rights reserved
No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, scanning, digitizing or any information storage and referral system, without written permission from the publisher. For reprint permission, contact: fpv@fpaulvalone.com