The Right of Revolution

Good day all. A couple of weeks ago, I was part of a discussion on a forum that drifted into just what a “Militia” was and who was actually part of it in the United States. This was a byproduct on the power of government to regulate private ownership of firearms.

Part of the discussion was whether or not Americans have the right to use arms to remove a destructive government. Here are the some of the remarks that got me thinking about this post. The first one was a question from one poster to another who is also a retired lawyer. He asked:

“Interesting. While I agree that felons that have served their time must be given back their natural rights, what of the rest of us? If we can own a firearm to defend life and property; why can we not legally acknowledge that firearms are also for use if a government becomes “destructive”?”

A very interesting question. The retired lawyer came back with this response.

“I think you probably answered your own question. What government says its citizens have the legal right to overthrow the government? If government said “you have those guns to kill us off at need,” how is that not a defense to a criminal charge of treason, fomenting rebellion or whatever?”

As you can see, the key part of the quote is “What government says its citizens have the legal right to overthrow the government?” Someone else answered that with a cut and past job from the New Hampshire State Constitution, specifically Article 10:

[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

That threw a curveball at the retired lawyer. As far as I and others know, he had never practiced in New Hampshire nor applied to the state Bar to practice here. There would have been no reason for him to study the New Hampshire constitution. He was floored when he read that and I don’t doubt he double checked it online. His response was:

“Holy…A government willing to state the obvious and no wonder your state is the free-est one surrounded all the Peoples Democratic Republics, your politicians know that if they do anything out of line they’re dead and the people who do it are legally covered.”

There was some back and forth from others on the discussion, mostly about how New Hampshire is a beacon of liberty in a sea of moonbattyness. There was also a remark from the original poster of the Article on the fact that New Hampshire is an open carry state, that the process for getting a Concealed Carry Weapon permit is anything but onerous, (Fill out a form, drop it off at the police station, pick up the permit a week or two later and give them $10. No prints, pictures or training required. The fee for a resident is $10), and that New Hampshire is also starting the process of becoming a Constitutional Carry state. (No permit for concealed carry at all) There were also remarks on the weather up here as well.

New Hampshire is apparently unique in the nation for this article in it’s constitution. (At least I’m not aware of other states with anything similar in their constitutions) It has never actually been used, but the threat has always been there. A few years ago, when the Democrats took control of one of the two houses of the legislature, there was an attempt by them to repeal the state’s “Stand your ground” law.

This law had only recently been passed and had never been used as a justification for lethal force. (Hopefully, it never will need to be used either) What they planned to replace it with was something only Michael Bloomberg and the Progressives would love. Basically, rather then being able to defend yourself, you would have a “Duty to Retreat” and if you didn’t, you would be the one put in jail.

There were other parts they were trying to shove through as well. The bill was well received by the Progressive Liberal Fascist Democrats of course, but not by most regular people. There were hearings of course and if memory serves, they were mostly against the attempt to repeal the law. The bill passed very narrowly in the House.

That was when the protest really ramped up. There was at least one well attended rally in Concord, the state Capitol and a fair number of the protestors were armed. Among the speeches were many references to Article 10. The bill went on to the state Senate were it was voted down and tossed into the shredder, where it belonged. In 2014, the House reverted back to Republican control.

Did the references to Article 10 sway any votes? I don’t know, but I would doubt it. Politicians, particularly those on the left, tend to be rather tone deaf when people start talking about using force to remove a bad government in the United States. Still, there have been instances of armed force being used against local governments, the last successful one in Athens, Tennessee in 1946.

Back in ’46, a corrupt local government rigged an election. The recently returned soldiers decided that they didn’t fight a world war to see the same thing happen in this country. They raided a local National Guard Armory and a literal battle took place between them and the local sheriff and his deputies over some ballot boxes. The battle ended when the citizens dynamited the doors and got into the jail and recovered the still sealed ballot boxes before the politicians could stuff them. Here’s a short video of what happened.

[youtuber youtube=’http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5ut6yPrObw’]

The one thing to remember here is the “rebels” won. Even in New Hampshire, if you go against the state or local governments with weapons, you had better win. They can’t charge you with armed revolt thanks to Article 10, but they will hit you with anything else they can think of. Still, the very fact that Article 10 exists shows that the authors of the New Hampshire constitution understood that an armed populace was the final check on a runaway government. Perhaps we should add it to the Federal Constitution as well?

Thatisall

~The Angry Webmaster~

[yasr_visitor_votes size=”medium”]