Welcome to the Reign Bulletin!

Publication Service Explained

Drag Queen Prostitute Invited to Spend Entire Day With Texas Public School Children

Published by the Reign Bulletin on 12-14-2019


There is no line anymore. The line is a dot.

John Salvatore Published 1 on December 13, 2019

The Family Research Council (FRC) reports the Blackshear Fine Arts Academy invited Miss Kitty Litter ATX (real name David Robinson) to spend time with the school’s children even though he was reportedly charged with breaking the law as a prostitute.

According to the FRC, in texts to Roger Grape, the school librarian, Robinson admitted that he might not pass the school background check.

The drag queen reportedly spent the entire day at the school, walking in dressed head-to-toe as a woman at 7:25 am, even though the book-reading was scheduled for 11:00 am. FRC says he didn’t leave until right before the final bell at 2:11 pm.

What part of this makes sense?

Why are they so intent on making boys feminine and girls masculine? How does that help society in any way, whatsoever?


A 10-year-old boy, who is being wildly exploited by his parents, appeared in a photo shoot with a clearly naked man.

Aren’t there laws against this sort of thing?

Young Nemis, whose drag name is “Queen Lactacia,” was shot by photographer Jonathan Frederick Turton for the spread. In one of the shots that did not make the magazine, Nemis, in full drag makeup and a black dress, is posing for a photo with the Season 7 winner of “RuPaul’s Drag Race,” Violet Chachki. In the shocking photo, Violet is wearing nothing but a pair of heels and a small piece of fabric covering his genitals, as seen in the screenshot below:

Child drag queen pictured with naked winner of Rupaul’s Drag Race @Cernovich @PrisonPlanet @allidoisowen @lifttheveil411 @jamiedlux

View image on Twitter

This is supposed to be acceptable in 2019?

Confused kids photographed with naked adults?

Little boys dressing up as over-sexualized adult women?

What the heck is happening in this world?


VA Democrat: Let National Guard Force Counties To Honor Gun Control

Published by the Reign Bulletin on 12-14-2019


(Breitbart) – Rep. Donald McEachin (D-VA) suggests Gov. Ralph Northam (D) can activate the National Guard and use it to force Second Amendment sanctuary counties to honor gun control.

There are dozens upon dozens of Second Amendment sanctuary counties and numerous sanctuary cities too. And the number continues to grow. On December 12, 2019, Breitbart News reported that Northam said Second Amendment sanctuary counties will face “consequences” for refusing to enforce gun control.

The Washington Examiner reports that Rep. McEachin suggested using the National Guard to force compliance.


Above: Rep. Donald McEachin-COMMUNIST TRAITOR

He said, “I’m not the governor, but the governor may have to nationalize the National Guard to enforce the law. That’s his call, because I don’t know how serious these counties are and how severe the violations of law will be. But that’s obviously an option he has.”

Flashback: 22 Virginia Counties Declare Second Amendment Sanctuary Status

Nearly two dozen counties in Virginia have declared Second Amendment Sanctuary status ahead of Democrats taking control of the state legislature in 2020.

Gun control Democrats won the night on November 5, 2019, securing enough seats to take control of the Virginia legislature. On November 8, 2019, Breitbart News reported that Gov. Ralph Northam (D) reacted to the victory by planning a war on guns.

This war includes the implementation of numerous gun controls that have been in place in states like California for decades and have proven impotent to hinder, much less prevent, high-profile firearm-based attacks.

On November 23, 2019, Breitbart News reported that Appomattox, Giles, and Dinwiddie Counties each declared Second Amendment Sanctuary status, but they are not the only ones. WSLS reports that the number of Second Amendment Sanctuary counties is now at 22.

The 19 counties in addition to Appomattox, Giles, and Dinwiddie are:

  • Bland
  • Botetourt
  • Campbell
  • Carroll
  • Charlotte
  • Dickenson
  • Henry
  • King William
  • Lee
  • Madison
  • New Kent
  • Nottoway
  • Patrick
  • Pittsylvania
  • Powhatan
  • Southampton
  • Sussex
  • Washington
  • Wythe



Tazewell County Forms Militia in Response to New Virginia Gun Laws!

Published by the Reign Bulletin on 12-14-2019


Tazewell County Forms Militia in Response to New Virginia Gun Laws
Source: Jim Grant

In response to the wave of proposed anti-gun legislation in Virginia, many of its cities and counties have declared themselves Second Amendment Sanctuaries. One county, in particular, took it a step further at their December 3rd County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting.

In addition to passing their Second Amendment Sanctuary Resolution, the county also passed a Militia Resolution. This resolution formalizes the creation, and maintenance of a defacto civilian militia in the county of Tazewell. And to get a better understanding why the council members passed this resolution, Firearms News reached out to one of its members, Thomas Lester. Mr. Lester is a member of the council, as well as a professor of American History and Political Science.

Firearms NewsCouncilman Lester, what are the reasons behind passing this new resolution, and what does it mean for the people of Tazewell County?

Tom Lester: We understand the implications of this new resolution are potentially enormous, but we also understand the political importance of making the county a Second Amendment Sanctuary.

Declaring our county a Second Amendment Sanctuary is a great first step, however, Virginia is unique because of its constitution. Under Article 1 section 13 of the VA Constitution, VA must maintain a well-regulated militia composed of its people to validate its authority.

This is the political subdivision of legislature from which VA politicians derive authority – an authority expressly stated in the VA constitution.

This subsection makes it the responsibility of counties to maintain a militia, not a National Guard or other standing army.

This is because the purpose of the militia is not just to protect the county from domestic danger, but also protect the county from any sort of tyrannical actions from the Federal government. Our constitution is designed to allow them to use an armed militia as needed. If the (Federal) government takes those arms away, it prevents the county from fulfilling their constitutional duties. But, this is not limited to just our county, but also as part of a network of sister counties showing solidarity for both Virginia’s, and the American Constitution.

As for the people, our Militia Resolution will be funding firearms safety and training for our county’s citizens, the ROTC and the public school systems – as well as the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. These preparations are done to prepare our citizens to be able to become de facto militiamen if need be.

Constitution of Virginia

Article I. Bill of Rights
Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power

“That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”

This is incredible news coming from Virginia, and is likely a move that anti-gun lawmakers and politicians did not expect. While the coming days will likely be difficult for defenders of the Second Amendment in Virginia, it’s reassuring to know there are still staunch supporters willing to stand up the tyrannical actions of anti-gunners in the government. Multiple attorneys are on board, as well as a professor of U.S. government and history.

More than 3,300 truckers are abandoned including some still transporting loads after one of the biggest carriers in the country announces bankruptcy days after execs are charged with fraud!

Published by the Reign Bulletin on 12-12-2019


An Indiana trucking company with nearly 4,000 employees has filed for bankruptcy and shut down all operations leaving drivers stranded all over the country. 

Celadon’s closure comes just days after two former officials were charged in a fraud scheme. 

Celadon Group has faced significant costs related to a federal investigation and must also deal with debt and ‘enormous challenges’ in the industry, chief executive Paul Svindland said in a statement.


Supreme Court leaves in place Kentucky abortion law mandating ultrasounds!

Published by the Reign Bulletin on 12-12-2019


Doctors must perform ultrasounds and have women listen to fetal heartbeats before performing abortions.

The Supreme Court on Monday left in place a Kentucky law, mandating doctors perform ultrasounds and show fetal images to patients before they can perform abortions.

The high court declined, without comment, to hear an appeal brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of the state’s lone abortion clinic.



There is no Federal government, only a Totalitarian or as a group being Totalitarian!

Published by the Reign Bulletin on 12-11-2019


By the Private Attorney Generals Across America: 

Democratic party made America a Democratic Oligarchy because of a flawed bankruptcy 1996 and the Federal Reserve through the UN/IMF/1933 BK to keep same or similar ideologies. The current 1976 INTERdependency changed things and did it again, that is why the city of London gets gets resources from UNITED STATES with the B.A.R. as the head Bar, taking over America for a Rothschild World order using the National Lawyers Guild and the American Bar Association.
Evidence that the IMF/City of London/Federal Reserve, dissolved the Federal Government, which means it doesn’t exist anymore and took over remaking into the Democratic Oligarchy explains why when looking in 42 USC § 15855 all the USC codes are there for Safety and Welfare just like a new writing for another subset of the code intentionally place there…. and now we understand the CFR and this is why Americans are a Communist and currently the Democratic Party in Congress is showing how much they are in charge by throwing Trump out of Office…. because they can…. if Americans let them….

This Congress proceedings tells us all we need to know, as its in the Congressional record and in many many writings

1.)There can be no Federal government, only a Totalitarian or as a group Totalitarian and shows listed in U.S.C.

2.)U.S. was re-made as an Democratic Oligarchy were Congress always resells this Ideology to Americans.

3.)The United States Federal Government is the City of London, Bar (British Accredited Registry), and CFR

4.)They will keep America under the Emergency War Powers FOREVER…

5.)They stole the gold, applied communist conversion on America just like a theft.

6.)Constitutional Republican form of Government now dissolved, thereby were is that union court they want and with constitution it doesn’t exist but seems sometimes the courts will yield to stay out of a fight.
7.)the Bankruptcy have adopted a new form of government for the United States. This new form of government is known as a Democracy, being an established Socialist/Communist order under a new governor for America. This act was instituted and established by transferring and/or placing the Office of the Secretary of Treasury to that of the Governor of the International Monetary Fund. Just described the INTERdependency of 1976. Public Law 94-564, page 8,
8.)Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) make no such promises (really are script), and are not “money” but serve as a money substitute. The Federal Reserve Note is a debt obligation of the federal United States government, not “money?’and is from the new government used from past when another substitute government 1871 (1st occurrence) was being dissolved, nefariously. Federal Reserve notes Constitutionally are Unlawful Constitutional Money substitute.
9.)Their Constitution and Federal government are vacant of the original Constitution of The United States and by Fact, has no Constitutional construction connected to a Real Past Congress from the dissolved in Bankruptcy and is most likely a precipice
from Monarch fights to 1789 and  currently is operating under fake states altered after 1789 constitution and various suggestions
indicate a Roman made up facility as another Roman fiction operating in Lex Foria with Pope Catholic Canons as a Facade.
Where does the Netherlands Charter begin or end?
The dissolved 1933 was the 1871 re-created, and it was dissolved in 1976 moved into IMF.


It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the
Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt,
being bankrupt and insolvent.

H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress m session June 5, 1933 – Joint Resolution To Suspend The Gold Standard
and Abrogate The Gold Clause dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States Governmental Offices, Officers, and Departments and is further
evidence that the United States Federal Government exists today in name only.

The receivers of the United States Bankruptcy are the International Bankers, via the United Nations,
the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. All United States Offices, Officials, and
Departments are now operating within a de facto status in name only under Emergency War Powers.

With the Constitutional Republican form of Government now dissolved, the receivers of the Bankruptcy have adopted a new form of government for the United States. This new form of government is known as a Democracy, being an established Socialist/Communist order under a new governor for America. This act was instituted and established by transferring and/or placing the Office of the Secretary of Treasury to that of the Governor of the International Monetary Fund. Public Law 94-564, page 8,

Section H.R. 13955 reads in part: “The U.S. Secretary of Treasury receives no compensation for representing the United States?’ Gold and silver were such a powerful money during the founding of
the united states of America, that the founding fathers declared that only gold or silver coins can
be “money” in America.

Since gold and silver coinage were heavy and inconvenient for a lot of transactions, they were stored
in banks and a claim check was issued as a money substitute. People traded their coupons as money, or
“currency.” Currency is not money, but a money substitute. Redeemable currency must promise to pay a dollar equivalent in gold or silver money. Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) make no such promises, and are not “money.” A Federal Reserve Note is a debt obligation of the federal United States government, not “money?’

The federal United States government and the U.S. Congress were not and have never been authorized by the Constitution of the United States of America to issue currency of any kind, but only lawful money,
-gold and silver coin.

It is essential that we comprehend the distinction between real money and paper money substitute. One
cannot get rich by accumulating money substitutes, one can only get deeper into debt. We the People no
longer have any “money.” Most Americans have not been paid any “money” for a very long time, perhaps not in their entire life. Now do you comprehend why you feel broke? Now, do you understand why you are
“bankrupt,” along with the rest of the country?

Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) are unsigned checks written on a closed account. FRNs are an inflatable
paper system designed to create debt through inflation (devaluation of currency). when ever there is
an increase of the supply of a money substitute in the economy without a corresponding increase in the
gold and silver backing, inflation occurs.

You’ll Be Speechless When You Realize….THIS IS HAPPENING IN AMERICA!

Published by the Reign Bulletin on 12-10-2019


Sadistic Nazi’s in Maricopa County Arizona

These officers services are the real threat, fire them all and place them in prison for the rest of their lives, they are a danger to society. 

British Parliament adopts the Coercive Acts in response to the Boston Tea Party

Published by the Reign Bulletin on 12-09-2019


Source: LINK

Upset by the Boston Tea Party and other blatant acts of destruction of British property by American colonists, the British Parliament enacts the Coercive Acts, to the outrage of American Patriots, on this day in 1774.

The Coercive Acts were a series of four acts established by the British government. The aim of the legislation was to restore order in Massachusetts and punish Bostonians for their Tea Party, in which members of the revolutionary-minded Sons of Liberty boarded three British tea ships in Boston Harbor and dumped 342 crates of tea—nearly $1 million worth in today’s money—into the water to protest the Tea Act.

Passed in response to the Americans’ disobedience, the Coercive Acts included:

The Boston Port Act, which closed the port of Boston until damages from the Boston Tea Party were paid.

The Massachusetts Government Act, which restricted Massachusetts; democratic town meetings and turned the governor’s council into an appointed body.

The Administration of Justice Act, which made British officials immune to criminal prosecution in Massachusetts.

The Quartering Act, which required colonists to house and quarter British troops on demand, including in their private homes as a last resort.

A fifth act, the Quebec Act, which extended freedom of worship to Catholics in Canada, as well as granting Canadians the continuation of their judicial system, was joined with the Coercive Acts in colonial parlance as one of the Intolerable Acts, as the mainly Protestant colonists did not look kindly on the ability of Catholics to worship freely on their borders.


More important than the acts themselves was the colonists’ response to the legislation. Parliament hoped that the acts would cut Boston and New England off from the rest of the colonies and prevent unified resistance to British rule. They expected the rest of the colonies to abandon Bostonians to British martial law. Instead, other colonies rushed to the city’s defense, sending supplies and forming their own Provincial Congresses to discuss British misrule and mobilize resistance to the crown. In September 1774, the First Continental Congress met in Philadelphia and began orchestrating a united resistance to British rule in America.

The American Revolution against British Gun Control

Published by the Reign Bulletin on 12-09-2019


Source: LINK

By David B. Kopel*

Administrative and Regulatory Law News (American Bar Association). Vol. 37, no. 4, Summer 2012. More by Kopel on the right to arms in the Founding Era.

This Article reviews the British gun control program that precipitated the American Revolution: the 1774 import ban on firearms and gunpowder; the 1774-75 confiscations of firearms and gunpowder; and the use of violence to effectuate the confiscations. It was these events that changed a situation of political tension into a shooting war. Each of these British abuses provides insights into the scope of the modern Second Amendment.

Furious at the December 1773 Boston Tea Party, Parliament in 1774 passed the Coercive Acts. The particular provisions of the Coercive Acts were offensive to Americans, but it was the possibility that the British might deploy the army to enforce them that primed many colonists for armed resistance. The Patriots of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, resolved: “That in the event of Great Britain attempting to force unjust laws upon us by the strength of arms, our cause we leave to heaven and our rifles.” A South Carolina newspaper essay, reprinted in Virginia, urged that any law that had to be enforced by the military was necessarily illegitimate.

The Royal Governor of Massachusetts, General Thomas Gage, had forbidden town meetings from taking place more than once a year. When he dispatched the Redcoats to break up an illegal town meeting in Salem, 3000 armed Americans appeared in response, and the British retreated. Gage’s aide John Andrews explained that everyone in the area aged 16 years or older owned a gun and plenty of gunpowder.

Military rule would be difficult to impose on an armed populace. Gage had only 2,000 troops in Boston. There were thousands of armed men in Boston alone, and more in the surrounding area. One response to the problem was to deprive the Americans of gunpowder.

Modern “smokeless” gunpowder is stable under most conditions. The “black powder” of the 18th Century was far more volatile. Accordingly, large quantities of black powder were often stored in a town’s “powder house,” typically a reinforced brick building. The powder house would hold merchants’ reserves, large quantities stored by individuals, as well as powder for use by the local militia. Although colonial laws generally required militiamen (and sometimes all householders, too) to have their own firearm and a minimum quantity of powder, not everyone could afford it. Consequently, the government sometimes supplied “public arms” and powder to individual militiamen. Policies varied on whether militiamen who had been given public arms would keep them at home. Public arms would often be stored in a special armory, which might also be the powder house.

Before dawn on September 1, 1774, 260 of Gage’s Redcoats sailed up the Mystic River and seized hundreds of barrels of powder from the Charlestown powder house.

The “Powder Alarm,” as it became known, was a serious provocation. By the end of the day, 20,000 militiamen had mobilized and started marching towards Boston. In Connecticut and Western Massachusetts, rumors quickly spread that the Powder Alarm had actually involved fighting in the streets of Boston. More accurate reports reached the militia companies before that militia reached Boston, and so the war did not begin in September. The message, though, was unmistakable: If the British used violence to seize arms or powder, the Americans would treat that violent seizure as an act of war, and would fight. And that is exactly what happened several months later, on April 19, 1775.

Five days after the Powder Alarm, on September 6, the militia of the towns of Worcester County assembled on the Worcester Common. Backed by the formidable array, the Worcester Convention took over the reins of government, and ordered the resignations of all militia officers, who had received their commissions from the Royal Governor. The officers promptly resigned and then received new commissions from the Worcester Convention.

That same day, the people of Suffolk County (which includes Boston) assembled and adopted the Suffolk Resolves. The 19-point Resolves complained about the Powder Alarm, and then took control of the local militia away from the Royal Governor (by replacing the Governor’s appointed officers with officers elected by the militia) and resolved to engage in group practice with arms at least weekly.

The First Continental Congress, which had just assembled in Philadelphia, unanimously endorsed the Suffolk Resolves and urged all the other colonies to send supplies to help the Bostonians.

Governor Gage directed the Redcoats to begin general, warrantless searches for arms and ammunition. According to the Boston Gazette, of all General Gage’s offenses, “what most irritated the People” was “seizing their Arms and Ammunition.”

When the Massachusetts Assembly convened, General Gage declared it illegal, so the representatives reassembled as the “Provincial Congress.” On October 26, 1774, the Massachusetts Provincial Congress adopted a resolution condemning military rule, and criticizing Gage for “unlawfully seizing and retaining large quantities of ammunition in the arsenal at Boston.” The Provincial Congress urged all militia companies to organize and elect their own officers. At least a quarter of the militia (the famous Minute Men) were directed to “equip and hold themselves in readiness to march at the shortest notice.” The Provincial Congress further declared that everyone who did not already have a gun should get one, and start practicing with it diligently.

In flagrant defiance of royal authority, the Provincial Congress appointed a Committee of Safety and vested it with the power to call forth the militia. The militia of Massachusetts was now the instrument of what was becoming an independent government of Massachusetts.

Lord Dartmouth, the Royal Secretary of State for America, sent Gage a letter on October 17, 1774, urging him to disarm New England. Gage replied that he would like to do so, but it was impossible without the use of force. After Gage’s letter was made public by a reading in the British House of Commons, it was publicized in America as proof of Britain’s malign intentions.

Two days after Lord Dartmouth dispatched his disarmament recommendation, King George III and his ministers blocked importation of arms and ammunition to America. Read literally, the order merely required a permit to export arms or ammunition from Great Britain to America. In practice, no permits were granted.

Meanwhile, Benjamin Franklin was masterminding the surreptitious import of arms and ammunition from the Netherlands, France, and Spain.

The patriotic Boston Committee of Correspondence learned of the arms embargo and promptly dispatched Paul Revere to New Hampshire, with the warning that two British ships were headed to Fort William and Mary, near Portsmouth, New Hampshire, to seize firearms, cannons, and gunpowder. On December 14, 1774, 400 New Hampshire patriots preemptively captured all the material at the fort. A New Hampshire newspaper argued that the capture was prudent and proper, reminding readers that the ancient Carthaginians had consented to “deliver up all their Arms to the Romans” and were decimated by the Romans soon after.

In Parliament, a moderate minority favored conciliation with America. Among the moderates was the Duke of Manchester, who warned that America now had three million people, and most of them were trained to use arms. He was certain they could produce a stronger army than Great Britain.

The Massachusetts Provincial Congress offered to purchase as many arms and bayonets as could be delivered to the next session of the Congress. Massachusetts also urged American gunsmiths “diligently to apply themselves” to making guns for everyone who did not already have a gun. A few weeks earlier, the Congress had resolved: “That it be strongly recommended, to all the inhabitants of this colony, to be diligently attentive to learning the use of arms . . . .”

Derived from political and legal philosophers such as John Locke, Hugo Grotius, and Edward Coke, the ideology underlying all forms of American resistance was explicitly premised on the right of self-defense of all inalienable rights; from the self-defense foundation was constructed a political theory in which the people were the masters and government the servant, so that the people have the right to remove a disobedient servant.

The British government was not, in a purely formal sense, attempting to abolish the Americans’ common law right of self-defense. Yet in practice, that was precisely what the British were attempting. First, by disarming the Americans, the British were attempting to make the practical exercise of the right of personal self-defense much more difficult. Second, and more fundamentally, the Americans made no distinction between self-defense against a lone criminal or against a criminal government. To the Americans, and to their British Whig ancestors, the right of self-defense necessarily implied the right of armed self-defense against tyranny.

The troubles in New England inflamed the other colonies. Patrick Henry’s great speech to the Virginia legislature on March 23, 1775, argued that the British plainly meant to subjugate America by force. Because every attempt by the Americans at peaceful reconciliation had been rebuffed, the only remaining alternatives for the Americans were to accept slavery or to take up arms. If the Americans did not act soon, the British would soon disarm them, and all hope would be lost. “The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us,” he promised.

The Convention formed a committee–including Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson–“to prepare a plan for the embodying, arming, and disciplining such a number of men as may be sufficient” to defend the commonwealth. The Convention urged “that every Man be provided with a good Rifle” and “that every Horseman be provided . . . with Pistols and Holsters, a Carbine, or other Firelock.” When the Virginia militiamen assembled a few weeks later, many wore canvas hunting shirts adorned with the motto “Liberty or Death.”

In South Carolina, patriots established a government, headed by the “General Committee.” The Committee described the British arms embargo as a plot to disarm the Americans in order to enslave them. Thus, the Committee recommended that “all persons” should “immediately” provide themselves with a large quantity of ammunition.

Without formal legal authorization, Americans began to form independent militia, outside the traditional chain of command of the royal governors. In Virginia, George Washington and George Mason organized the Fairfax Independent Militia Company. The Fairfax militiamen pledged that “we will, each of us, constantly keep by us” a firelock, six pounds of gunpowder, and twenty pounds of lead. Other independent militia embodied in Virginia along the same model. Independent militia also formed in Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Maryland, and South Carolina, choosing their own officers.

John Adams praised the newly constituted Massachusetts militia, “commanded through the province, not by men who procured their commissions from a governor as a reward for making themselves pimps to his tools.”

The American War of Independence began on April 19, 1775, when 700 Redcoats under the command of Major John Pitcairn left Boston to seize American arms at Lexington and Concord.

The militia that assembled at the Lexington Green and the Concord Bridge consisted of able-bodied men aged 16 to 60. They supplied their own firearms, although a few poor men had to borrow a gun. Warned by Paul Revere and Samuel Dawes of the British advance, the young women of Lexington assembled cartridges late into the evening of April 18.

At dawn, the British confronted about 200 militiamen at Lexington. “Disperse you Rebels–Damn you, throw down your Arms and disperse!” ordered Major Pitcairn. The Americans were quickly routed.

With a “huzzah” of victory, the Redcoats marched on to Concord, where one of Gage’s spies had told him that the largest Patriot reserve of gunpowder was stored. At Concord’s North Bridge, the town militia met with some of the British force, and after a battle of two or three minutes, drove off the British.

Notwithstanding the setback at the bridge, the Redcoats had sufficient force to search the town for arms and ammunition. But the main powder stores at Concord had been hauled to safety before the Redcoats arrived.

When the British began to withdraw back to Boston, things got much worse for them. Armed Americans were swarming in from nearby towns. They would soon outnumber the British 2:1. Although some of the Americans cohered in militia units, a great many fought on their own, taking sniper positions wherever opportunity presented itself. Only British reinforcements dispatched from Boston saved the British expedition from annihilation–and the fact that the Americans started running out of ammunition and gun powder.

One British officer reported: “These fellows were generally good marksmen, and many of them used long guns made for Duck-Shooting.” On a per-shot basis, the Americans inflicted higher casualties than had the British regulars.

That night, the American militiamen began laying siege to Boston, where General Gage’s standing army was located. At dawn, Boston had been the base from which the King’s army could project force into New England. Now, it was trapped in the city, surrounded by people in arms.

Two days later in Virginia, royal authorities confiscated 20 barrels of gunpowder from the public magazine in Williamsburg and destroyed the public firearms there by removing their firing mechanisms. In response to complaints, manifested most visibly by the mustering of a large independent militia led by Patrick Henry, Governor Dunmore delivered a legal note promising to pay restitution.

At Lexington and Concord, forcible disarmament had not worked out for the British. So back in Boston, Gage set out to disarm the Bostonians a different way.

On April 23, 1775, Gage offered the Bostonians the opportunity to leave town if they surrendered their arms. The Boston Selectmen voted to accept the offer, and within days, 2,674 guns were deposited, one gun for every two adult male Bostonians.

Gage thought that many Bostonians still had guns, and he refused to allow the Bostonians to leave. Indeed, a large proportion of the surrendered guns were “training arms”–large muskets with bayonets, that would be difficult to hide. After several months, food shortages in Boston convinced Gage to allow easier emigration from the city.

Gage’s disarmament program incited other Americans to take up arms. Benjamin Franklin, returning to Philadelphia after an unsuccessful diplomatic trip to London, “was highly pleased to find the Americans arming and preparing for the worst events.”

The government in London dispatched more troops and three more generals to America: William Howe, Henry Clinton, and John Burgoyne. The generals arrived on May 25, 1775, with orders from Lord Dartmouth to seize all arms in public armories, or which had been “secretly collected together for the purpose of aiding Rebellions.”

The war underway, the Americans captured Fort Ticonderoga in upstate New York. At the June 17 Battle of Bunker Hill, the militia held its ground against the British regulars and inflicted heavy casualties, until they ran out of gunpowder and were finally driven back. (Had Gage not confiscated the gunpowder from the Charleston Powder House the previous September, the Battle of Bunker Hill probably would have resulted in an outright defeat of the British.)

On June 19, Gage renewed his demand that the Bostonians surrender their arms, and he declared that anyone found in possession of arms would be deemed guilty of treason.

Meanwhile, the Continental Congress had voted to send ten companies of riflemen from Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia to aid the Massachusetts militia.

On July 6, 1775, the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, written by Thomas Jefferson and the great Pennsylvania lawyer John Dickinson. Among the grievances were General Gage’s efforts to disarm the people of Lexington, Concord, and Boston.

Two days later, the Continental Congress sent an open letter to the people of Great Britain warning that “men trained to arms from their Infancy, and animated by the Love of Liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest.”

The Swiss immigrant John Zubly, who was serving as a Georgia delegate to the Continental Congress, wrote a pamphlet entitled Great Britain’s Right to Tax . . . By a Swiss, which was published in London and Philadelphia. He warned that “in a strong sense of liberty, and the use of fire-arms almost from the cradle, the Americans have vastly the advantage over men of their rank almost every where else.” Indeed, children were “shouldering the resemblance of a gun before they are well able to walk.” “The Americans will fight like men, who have everything at stake,” and their motto was “DEATH OR FREEDOM.” The town of Gorham, Massachusetts (now part of the State of Maine), sent the British government a warning that even “many of our Women have been used to handle the Cartridge and load the Musquet.”

It was feared that the Massachusetts gun confiscation was the prototype for the rest of America. For example, a newspaper article published in three colonies reported that when the new British generals arrived, they would order everyone in America “to deliver up their arms by a certain stipulated day.”

The events of April 19 convinced many more Americans to arm themselves and to embody independent militia. A report from New York City observed that “the inhabitants there are arming themselves . . . forming companies, and taking every method to defend our rights. The like spirit prevails in the province of New Jersey, where a large and well disciplined militia are now fit for action.”

In Virginia, Lord Dunmore observed: “Every County is now Arming a Company of men whom they call an independent Company for the avowed purpose of protecting their Committee, and to be employed against Government if occasion require.” North Carolina’s Royal Governor Josiah Martin issued a proclamation outlawing independent militia, but it had little effect.

A Virginia gentleman wrote a letter to a Scottish friend explaining in America:

We are all in arms, exercising and training old and young to the use of the gun. No person goes abroad without his sword, or gun, or pistols. . . . Every plain is full of armed men, who all wear a hunting shirt, on the left breast of which are sewed, in very legible letters, “Liberty or Death.”

The British escalated the war. Royal Admiral Samuel Graves ordered that all seaports north of Boston be burned.

When the British navy showed up at what was then known as Falmouth, Massachusetts (today’s Portland, Maine), the town attempted to negotiate. The townspeople gave up eight muskets, which was hardly sufficient, and so Falmouth was destroyed by naval bombardment.

The next year, the 13 Colonies would adopt the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration listed the tyrannical acts of King George III, including his methods for carrying out gun control: “He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our people.”

As the war went on, the British always remembered that without gun control, they could never control America. In 1777, with British victory seeming likely, Colonial Undersecretary William Knox drafted a plan entitled “What Is Fit to Be Done with America?” To ensure that there would be no future rebellions, “[t]he Militia Laws should be repealed and none suffered to be re-enacted, & the Arms of all the People should be taken away, . . . nor should any Foundery or manufactuary of Arms, Gunpowder, or Warlike Stores, be ever suffered in America, nor should any Gunpowder, Lead, Arms or Ordnance be imported into it without Licence . . . .”

To the Americans of the Revolution and the Founding Era, the theory of some late-20th Century courts that the Second Amendment is a “collective right” and not an “individual right” might have seemed incomprehensible. The Americans owned guns individually, in their homes. They owned guns collectively, in their town armories and powder houses. They would not allow the British to confiscate their individual arms, nor their collective arms; and when the British tried to do both, the Revolution began. The Americans used their individual arms and their collective arms to fight against the confiscation of any arms. Americans fought to provide themselves a government that would never perpetrate the abuses that had provoked the Revolution.

What are modern versions of such abuses? The reaction against the 1774 import ban for firearms and gunpowder (via a discretionary licensing law) indicates that import restrictions are unconstitutional if their purpose is to make it more difficult for Americans to possess guns. The federal Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits the import of any firearm that is not deemed “sporting” by federal regulators. That import ban seems difficult to justify based on the historical record of 1774-76.

Laws disarming people who have proven themselves to be a particular threat to public safety are not implicated by the 1774-76 experience. In contrast, laws that aim to disarm the public at large are precisely what turned a political argument into the American Revolution.

The most important lesson for today from the Revolution is about militaristic or violent search and seizure in the name of disarmament. As Hurricane Katrina bore down on Louisiana, police officers in St. Charles Parish confiscated firearms from people who were attempting to flee. After the hurricane passed, officers went house to house in New Orleans, breaking into homes and confiscating firearms at gunpoint. The firearms seizures were flagrantly illegal under existing state law. A federal district judge soon issued an order against the confiscation, ordering the return of the seized guns.

When there is genuine evidence of potential danger–such as evidence that guns are in the possession of a violent gang–then the Fourth Amendment properly allows no-knock raids, flash-bang grenades, and similar violent tactics to carry out a search. Conversely, if there is no real evidence of danger–for example, if it is believed that a person who has no record of violence owns guns but has not registered them properly–then militaristically violent enforcement of a search warrant should never be allowed. Gun ownership simpliciter ought never to be a pretext for government violence. The Americans in 1775 fought a war because the king did not agree.


Published by the Reign Bulletin on 12-09-2019