THE MOST IMPORTANT LINK:
LIBERTY, COURAGE, AND FIREARMS
Lynne Twist, who is affiliated with the Praxis Peace Institute based in Sonoma, California [www.praxispeace.org] opined, "We often philosophize about the great, unanswered questions in life. It's time we looked instead at the unquestioned answers." I agree.
This essay is, for many, politically incorrect. This is because it takes a hard look at what, for many, is a compelling, unquestioned answer to gun related violence: Privately owned firearms are bad, gun control is good, and the Second Amendment should be ripped from the United States Constitution because it is too dangerous to trust ordinary citizens with registered firearms, let alone unregistered ones, especially modern military type small arms. I do not agree with that unquestioned answer.
Notice the Minuteman armed with a musket painted on the airplane's tail in the above photograph of a rare "Spirit of 76" United States Bicentennial color scheme from 1976.
That paint scheme is official recognition of a fact: The United States was founded by those who loved firearms, who dared to engage in civil disobedience, who were deemed criminals by the English crown, who would have been executed if they had been captured by Red Coats, who used unregistered, privately owned, firearms to win independence from the Crown, and who believed that all human beings had unalienable rights that were a gift to Man from a Creator.
Even though those firearms were single shot muzzle loaders, from the perspective of the King and his Red Coats, they were damnable assault weapons. But, from the perspective of George Washington and his colonial Minutemen, they were Liberty's teeth—a free man's final response to oppression.
The links below discuss in detail the connection between "Liberty," the Constitutional Rule of Law, the First Amendment's right to petition government for redress of grievances, the Second Amendment's right to self-defense with a firearm, the meaning and the significance of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, how the United States Supreme Court has usurped power, why the Judiciary is one of the most dangerous, if not the most dangerous, branches of government, how and why the American people have lost control of their government, how some fellow U.S. citizens feel about this, what all U.S. citizens need to know about this, and what you can do about it if you value Liberty, want to restore Liberty, want to deter Tyranny, want to regain control of your government and hold it accountable without a civil war.
Examples of the Most Important Link
Example No. 1: The American Colonial Revolutionary War
Free men, with courage and a commitment to Liberty, with their hands on unregistered, privately owned, firearms, owned by them, under their control, used those firearms to draw a bead on, to shoot at, to kill, and to defeat the English Crown's Red Coats. That was an act of unthinkable defiance unanticipated by King George, III: Colonial sod busters and shop keepers stood their ground against one of the world's two Super Powers [France being the other one] and these unprofessional citizen-soldiers won.
Example No. 2: German Nazis Versus European Jews
If you were alive in 1935 and at the height of your intellectual powers, do you think you could have accurately predicted which nation, out of over 100, would, in less than ten years, do what Germany did to the world, its neighbors, and to its own citizens who were Jews? Probably not. Germany, during Hitler's rise to power, was one of Europe's most civilized nations and a democracy. Hitler was elected to power to a free election. Free elections, however, do not guarantee a peaceful outcome nor an enduring commitment to the sanctity of human life, private property, and Liberty.
One of the first things Hitler and his Nazis did after gaining political power was this: They demonized Jews, legally banned Jews from owning firearms, and, after they marginalized Jews and defanged them, they committed genocide against them—and others. Hitler and his Nazis did this with the approval of intelligent, highly educated, "civilized" judges who sanctioned genocide as official, legal, public policy per a Nazi Rule of Law. These judges enjoyed Beethoven, Bach, and Wagner, while they knew what the Nazis were doing to Jews.
Hitler and his Nazis had a Rule of Law—theirs. If we take Hitler and his followers at face value, he and they were sincere: They believed it was moral and legal to try to exterminate the Jews because they were Jews. There are at least thirteen important lessons to be learned from this:
1) A majority can elect a tyrant;
2) A person's good intentions are not an assured guarantee of a wise policy nor a good outcome;
3) Ditto for a person's sincerity. A sincere tyrant is still a tyrant;
4) There is a material difference between Rule of Law, Constitutional Rule of Law, and a Constitutional Rule of Law based on core Western-Judaic values—values that place a premium on the sanctity of human life, on human rights, on private property, and of the existence of a Supreme Being as an ultimate source of rights. The now defunct Soviet Union had its own constitution. Communist China has its own constitution. Millions of innocents have been betrayed and butchered by their own governments, each with their own Constitutional Rule of Law;
5) Just because something is legal does not mean it is good or wise or good for you;
6) There is no assurance that a government that is freely elected and that operates under a Constitutional Rule of Law will behave consistent with basic Western-Judaic values. There must be something more to assure peace, mutual respect, the sanctity of human life, respect for private property, a quality of freedom that is worth having, that is worth fighting for to keep;
7) Intelligent, educated, "civilized" judges who operate under a Constitutional Rule of Law are also no assurance that a government will function consistent with basic Western-Judaic values;
8) Many intelligent people who trust their government can end up becoming land fill, lamp shades, smoke, fertilizer, bullet stops, medical experiments, forced labor;
9) People with guns have power;
10) It is foolish to surrender guns—a source of one's power and independence;
11) It is prudent to be suspicious of anyone who wants you to surrender your guns;
12) Ordinary people, including your neighbors, will strip you of your freedoms, steal your property, and shove you behind barbed wire and into a pit or an oven; and
13) It is better to oppose these problems in the beginning while they are small and manageable, before they get out of hand, require lethal force, or any one is murdered under color of law.
Aaron Zelman is an American citizen of the Jewish faith, an ex-U.S. Armed Forces service member, the founder of Jews For The Preservation Of Firearm Ownership [JPFO]. Aaron is one of the most astute, decent human beings I know who is working to restore the Constitutional Rule of Law. Mr. Zelman told me an insightful true story about himself and his relatives. This story illustrates well the difference between looking and seeing. It story also illustrates well what I call the most important link—the one among liberty, courage, and firearms.
Mr. Zelman told me that when he was a youngster at a holiday gathering of his Jewish relatives, he looked at black and white photographs of the Holocaust that were passed around and he made a bold, startling, insightful pronouncement to his elders. Paraphrased, what happened between young Aaron and his elders is summarized below.
"You are wrong!" Aaron said. "Look at these photographs. Everyone who is locked up, behind barbed wires, gaunt, skinny, naked, cold, and imprisoned are unarmed. Everyone who is clothed, well feed, and walking around with a warm coat is armed."
Young Aaron saw. and he comprehended. He made the connection. He drew the most important link. Aaron's relatives, like so many Jews post-World War II, however, drew the wrong lesson from Hitler's Germany: Government should have a monopoly on guns to prevent guns from being used to oppress; people should surrender their guns to government; it is wise to trust government with a monopoly on guns.
If one out of every three European Jewish households had a bolt action rifle, twenty-five rounds of ammunition for it, and a decent marksman with courage, the course of world history would have been radically different.
Example No. 3: Lessons From Imperial Japanese Army Generals and Navy Admirals
A friend who enjoys credibility with me told me that around 1947 he heard something by an American journalist who interviewed surviving Japanese Imperial Army generals and Japanese Imperial Navy admirals. What he told me he remembered went something like this, paraphrased.
"Since you were so successful at Pearl Harbor on December 7th why did you not invade the United States' west coast?," the journalist asked these senior Japanese military leaders.
Their reply was, "We did not know for certain how successful we were on December 7th. The west coast of the United States is far from Japan. We would have had horrible logistical nightmares. We could not have transported that many soldiers to your mainland. We could not supply them well enough for them to penetrate deeply into your heartland. We were convinced that they would not survive for long in your country."
"So, you were afraid of the U.S. military?," the journalist asked.
"No.," the Japanese said. "We had contempt for your military."
"So, what were you afraid of? Why did you believe the soldiers you put ashore would be wiped out if you were not afraid of the U.S. military?," the journalist asked.
"We were afraid of the American deer hunters.," was the reply.
Think about that answer—from hardened, experienced, senior Japanese military leaders.
"American deer hunters" can instantaneously switch purpose and function as an unorganized or organized militia, the U.S. Constitution's built-in, Constitutionally sanctioned, original, homeland security force.
Example No. 4: A Foreign Invasion?
Fast forward to 2004 and beyond. If you were the head of Communist China and if you had the ability to transport a huge army across the Pacific Ocean to North America and/or South America, if you were looking for a place to invade, where would it be prudent for you to invade?
Would any place between Seattle to San Diego look inviting? Encouraging? Like "a soft underbelly"?
Even if you could lick the U.S. Armed Forces and sworn civilian peace officers, you would still have to defeat "the American deer hunters."
In 2004, and into the indefinite future, "the American deer hunter" is the world's largest, most potent, latent, guerrilla force. Only a fool would antagonize this group.
By "American deer hunter" I construe that term to about 1- 15% of the armed American citizenry who will resist any order to surrender their privately owned firearms to anyone for any reason because they know the value of Liberty.
Example No. 5: Liberty's Teeth Can Bite!
What follows is an excerpt from Matthew Bracken's fictional Enemies Foreign and Domestic: A Novel About the Cost of Freedom in the Age of Terror, pages 225-226:
Then Eric Sanderson [a government official who championed more victim disarmament laws] stepped up and planted his own ball on its tee. Ranya [a female Patriot] suck in a deep breath and watched him through the scope as he stepped back and took a practice swing. Then he dug his spikes in, shifting his weight around, his lime-green legs shoulder width apart, his arms in a rigid "V," his face down with the top of his head pointing directly at her.
Ranya slowly exhaled while putting light pressure on the Champion's trigger with the pad on the end of her right index finger. The thin black crosshairs danced ever so slightly in rhythm with her pulse as they quartered the top of Sanderson's head, while he stared straight down at his waiting golf ball. Sanderson was as motionless as a marble statute at the moment that the Tennyson Champion spat out its muffled shot.
The fifty grain lead and cooper projectile was the weight of a dime, and the size and shape of the first half inch of a ball point pen. It left the barrel and the suppressor at almost 3,000 feet per second and covered the distance to Sanderson in 1/5th of a second, hitting him very near the center of the crown of his head while he was bent over. The high velocity hollow-point slug pierced his skull, mushroomed open and shredded into pieces, releasing as much energy as a .44 magnum fired point blank, literally exploding is head as his cranial vault failed to contain the overpressure from the supersonic shockwaves.
The slight sound of the suppressed muzzle blast arrived a half second after Sanderson's head exploded. His three golf partners and the security detail never heard it; their minds were overloaded with the sudden sound and images of flying blood, brain, flesh, hair, and bone. The snap of the supersonic bullet passing over the lake was a loud as a bullwhip's crack and it startled the mallards into sudden flight, but neither this sound nor the flight of the ducks was noticed by the other men, they just stared, slack jawed, at what had been the Attorney General's head.
The fat golfer's heart went into instant tachycardia as they watched Sanderson's body, headless above the exposed jawbone and fountaining blood, crumple forward and bounce once off of the smoothly manicured turf. One of the other men golfing that day, who had served in combat in Viet Nam, hit the ground only a second later, his old survival reactions coming to the fore after lying dormant during three decades of peace.
Example No. 6: Which is Better?
A college co-ed walking from the library to her car at night [or a young mother forced to work a late night shift], is stopped by a thug who holds a knife and makes it clear he is intent on rape. When the police arrive, instead of drawing chalk lines around the thug's victim who was found strangled with her panty hose, they draw chalk lines around the thug who the intended victim perforated with one or two bullet holes.
What is moral about cops arriving to find another dead female, set up for easy plunder, by champions of victim disarmament laws who do not give a damn about anyone's lives but their own?
Why, is it more moral for cops to find another dead female than a dead thug?
A Trade-off is not a Solution
Champions of more victim disarmament laws do not understand, or understand but do not care, that there is an important difference between a trade-off [surrendering X for Y] and a solution [something that comprehensively solves a problem].
Victim disarmament laws are not a solution. They are a trade-off that makes the underlying problems worse.
When a criminal threatens your life, a loaded firearm in your hands is better protection than a cell phone, a Dial 911 call, and a cop who is not available.
When a government turns tyrannical, an armed citizenry with courage and a commitment to restore Liberty by force is better than blind trust that the government will remain benign.
Anyone who tells you you need to surrender your rights for dependence on government to protect you is your enemy. I repeat: your enemy.
The Plea of Tyrants
Alleged necessity has always been the historical plea of tyrants and their useful idiots. When you hear anyone advocate that it is necessary to surrender any right codified in the Bill of Rights to promote the general welfare, that person is your enemy. Regardless of that person's intentions or good faith, that person is your enemy. A well intentioned person can still be, and often is, your enemy.
It is never necessary for an ordinary citizen to surrender Liberty. Never.
Governments' Big Con
Governments in the United States, and "professional" law enforcement communities, have actively participated in Government's Big Con: It is better to trust a cell phone than a loaded side arm for self-defense.
"Dial 911 and live." is a lie. "Dial 911 and die." is more accurate. [Read the relevant recommended reading listed below for more details.]
All governments want to expand their turf, their powers. All department heads, including Police Chiefs and Sheriffs, want a a bigger command, and a bigger budget. One key way to get a bigger command, is to make more and more citizens dependent on them. One way to increase such dependence is to strip people of their right to self defense and defense of others with a gun in a public place.
Indefensible, Hard Core, Government Callousness
The cop who tells you you have no right to carry a loaded firearm in a public place without his or her permission is not your friend. Instead, that person is setting you up to surrender your rights and to be easy prey for criminal plunder. In that sense, that person is your enemy.
The relevant law is this: 1) Cops have no legal duty to respond to a Dial 911 call-none; 2) Cops have no legal duty to protect you from private violence-none, even when they witness it happen; 3) Governments have no legal duty to protect you from private violence; and 4) Cops and governments are personally and institutionally immune, financially and legally, for failing to protect you from private violence.
Cops and governments know this yet, knowing that they lack the assured ability to protect you, too many of them force you to beg them for their permission so you can protect yourself, and, even when you beg, unless you are politically well connected (which most of us are not,) the vast majority will refuse to give you their permission so you can protect yourself-knowing they lack the ability to protect you and are immune for failing to do so! [Read the relevant recommended reading listed below for more details.]
Champions of Victim Disarmament Laws Are Desk Murderers
U.S. Army General Omar Bradley of World War II fame, "the soldiers' general," opined, "We live in an age of nuclear giants and ethical infants. In a world that has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. We've solved the mystery of the atom and forgotten the lessons on the Sermon on the Mount. We know more about war than we know about peace. More about dying than we know about living." I agree.
Question: What is the chain of causation in an act of murder ... or genocide? For example, who murdered European Jews during World War II? If Adolf Hitler never personally shot a Jew or never personally shoved a Jew into an oven was he 100% morally blameless for what his followers did? What about the ordinary German soldier who sat at a desk and filled out the supporting paper work? Or who manned the telephone lines? Or who helped to run the trains? Were any of these Germans who never personally shot a Jew or who never personally shoved a Jew into an oven desk murderers? Paper pusher murderers?
Question: Can a champion of victim disarmament laws be a desk murderer? A paper pusher murderer?
Fast forward to the present. Is a Police Chief who refuses to issue you a CCW [concealed carry] weapon permit, who threatens to arrest you and have you criminally prosecuted for carrying a firearm in a public place without his permission, a desk murderer or a paper pusher murderer because he refused to let you defend yourself and he tipped the scales in favor of the criminal who committed the final act that actually killed you?
What about the courtroom bailiff who will not let you enter a courthouse armed without a CCW permit? Or who will escalate matters and arrest you if he or she catches you with a sidearm without a CCW permit? If you are legally summoned [required] to be in court and you go to the courthouse [or leave it] unarmed because you know you will be searched and arrested if caught carrying a gun without a CCW permit, if you get killed on the way or from the courthouse, is the bailiff who enforced the "no guns policy" at the courthouse a desk murderer or a paper pusher murderer? Independently of whatever the law is for your jurisdiction, does that bailiff have any personal, moral, culpability for supporting a system that forced you to circulate in public, unarmed, vulnerable to criminal plunder—a policy that resulted in your premature, unnecessary, death?
Is it moral or legal or both for government to strip people of their fundamental rights to life and liberty and self-defense, to alter the circumstances in favor of the criminal, to set you up for criminal plunder, in callous, deliberate indifference to your rights? If so, precisely how is it moral? Is it legal? Show me the exact clause in the United States Constitution that grants that power to any federal government employee. Show me the exact clause in any State's Constitution that grants that power to any State [or political sub-division of same] employee. There is no such clause in any such constitutions.
Is not the Second Amendment every U.S. citizens' nation-wide CCW permit? If not, precisely why not?
Those who champion victim disarmament laws are callous, irresponsible, ethical infants. Those who pass such laws or who enforce such laws wield power without conscience. While they do not plunge the knife that kills nor pull the trigger that energizes a bullet that kills, each is the functional equivalent of a desk murder or a paper pusher murderer who participated in a series of events that culminated in setting up good citizens to be easy plunder for ordinary criminals or tyrant wannabees or both.
CLOUD 9 PHOTOGRAPHY's pictures of airplanes is a tribute to these flying weapons of war [or peace or both—depending on one's point of view and whether one is on the receiving end of these weapons or on the dishing-out end.] These pictures are also a tribute to the men and women who conceived, designed, built, flew, and maintained these weapons, a class of people who profess to love individual Liberty under a Constitutional Rule of Law. Hence, CLOUD 9 PHOTOGRAPHY gives formal honor to these weapons of war used in the struggle against tyrannies. These weapons have been used to defeat Hitler and Tojo, to deter Stalin and Khrushchev, and to drive Sadamn Hussein into hiding, and on and on it goes.
The True Nature of Weapons
All of these flying weapons are inanimate. None have lungs. None breathe air. None have a human heart that pumps blood nor a human brain that conceives thought. None have dreams, hopes, fears, aspirations, worries, desires, loves.
These weapons, being inanimate, are not morally good nor bad. They are morally neutral.
Painting the U.S. stars and bars on them and the words "United States Air Force/Navy/Marine Corps/Coast Guard/Army" does not make these inanimate weapons good, just because they are American. Conversely, airplanes designed and built in the now defunct Soviet Union were not inherently bad simply because they had the Soviet red star and hammer and sickle flag painted on them.
These American [and Soviet] designed, built, and flown weapons are no better than, and no worse than, how they are used and why.
If those who operate, service, fly, and command American weapons of war ever turn them against the American people, the proverbial fecal matter will impact everyone. There are no absolute assurances that these weapons of war will never be turned against the American people. Anyone who trusts Government blindly is a fool.
While these airplanes are weapons of war, they do not fuel themselves, they do not load themselves, they do not fly themselves, they do not aim themselves, they cannot form the intent to commit an assault, and they do not pull their own trigger. Even when fully loaded with fuel and ordnance, these flying weapons are 100% incapable of doing anything without human intervention except one thing. Do you know what is that one thing? That one thing is the opposite of committing an assault: They can self-destruct, slowly, via the mechanism of rust.
The same is true of a privately owned firearm, regardless of how sinister or militaristic looking it might appear. No firearm ever formed the intent to commit an assault, loaded itself, aimed itself, nor pulled its own trigger.
Like airplanes and all other weapons, all firearms are inherently morally neutral. A pistol on a cop's hip is neither good nor bad. A cop's pistol does not somehow become bad when on someone else's hip, and good again when back on the cop's hip.
The Real Assault Weapons
Many politicians, however, demonize privately owned firearms as assault weapons. Why? Do they have an agenda? An ulterior motive? Are they brainless bunnies or public serpents? Are they using language as a weapon to attack Liberty, to drive Liberty from the Land? If so, why? Why would they talk this way? Act this way?
The real assault weapons include anyone who wants to defang you for any reason before you misuse a firearm. The real assault weapons are those political whores and their useful idiots who demonize firearms and their responsible, law-abiding owners.
Anyone who tells you your right to arms is too dangerous, and must be ripped out of the United States Constitution, and you must be forced to circulate in public unarmed, defenseless, and set up by government to be easy prey for the criminal element to plunder, is your enemy. Regardless of that person's intentions, that person is your enemy.
The Tyrant's Pattern
Historically, the classic Tyrant's Pattern, for all cultures, all nations, and all time periods, has been consistent with the following steps. 1) Demonize privately owned firearms; 2) Marginalize owners of privately owned firearms; 3) Clamor for the passage of laws to register firearms and their owners; 4) Require the registration of firearms and their owners; 5) Once firearms and their owners are registered, ban privately owned firearms; 6) Once firearms are banned, confiscate them; 7) Once the citizenry is defanged and is unable to resist further oppression, consolidate and expand power by incarcerating or murdering political opponents; 8) To increase their grip on power, impose terror by committing genocide, deny people their rights, and impose oppression; and 9) If a judge or anyone opposed them, have a useful idiot supporter convert their brain to a pink mist.
What Type of an America?
How do you feel about gun free zones? Do you realize that more accurate names for such zones are: Liberty Free Zone or Disarmed Victims Set Up For Easy Plunder Zone?
The Tyrant's Pattern in the United States
Do you see evidence of "The Tyrant's Pattern" in the United States? Do you agree that much of the United States, if not all of it, at some level is now at Step Nos. 5 and 6 above: banning and confiscating at least some privately owned firearms?
How much further down "The Tyrant's Pattern" toward genocide will this nation go?
How much longer will traitors who champion more victim disarmament laws be tolerated?
How much longer will traitors who dare to rip the Second Amendment out of the United States Constitution be tolerated?
How much longer will responsible civilian gun owners tolerate foolish, dangerous, alarming, counter-productive, unconstitutional discrimination against them and their rights?
Once citizens are defanged, how safe will everyone be? From Government? A foreign invader? Terrorists? Ordinary criminals?
Do our own governments now operate as criminal enterprises?
Is the United States federal government the biggest terrorists of all?
Is there any meaningful difference between Democrats and Democrats-lite, aka, Republicats?
When does voting for the lesser of two evils stop being voting for evil?
Who will stand up for what is right? When? To what extent? Is lethal force ruled in or out? Why?
The "Badge of Slavery"
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1856) 60 U.S. 393, is an infamous United States Supreme Court decision. Scott was a black man who sued for his freedom to have himself declared a person entitled to rights, and not someone's property. The United States Supreme Court, at page 417, ruled that Scott was only property and not a citizen. To justify its decision, the majority opinion, in reference to slaves, reasoned in part as follows:
For if they [slaves] were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they [the slave holding states] considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased ...; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public ..., and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State. [Emphasis added.]
Based on this excerpt from Dred Scott, gun control in America has a racist origin. The slave holding states feared armed slaves who would use arms to slaughter slave holding plantation owners to gain their freedom. Hence, the slave holding states passed laws to keep their slaves disarmed and the United States Supreme Court upheld those laws.
Gun control in California also has racist origins. White settlers who moved west into California wanted the upper hand with the native Indians and the Spaniards, Mexicans, and Chinese who were already in California. As the whites grew in number, they used their political clout to discriminate against the types of arms that non-whites could carry. Many Chinese were brought to the United States to help lay the transcontinental railroad and to do low skill grunt work, such as laundry and meal preparation. During the gold rush strike days, many of these Chinese and other non-whites left their jobs, went to the gold fields, struck it rich, and shot back at white claim jumpers. The claim jumpers, who wanted to claim jump without being shot at, got laws passed to disarm non-whites. Criminal predators always prefer to prey on those who are unarmed
In the American South, after the North won the civil war and Lincoln freed the slaves, white bigots continued to pass laws to keep newly freed blacks disarmed. The murderous KKK preferred to attack unarmed blacks who could not shoot back.
How the Democrats Have Changed: JFK to Gore and Beyond
During the JFK/LBJ administrations, the Federal government gave away, free, to rural southern blacks, surplus U.S. Army small arms so they could protect themselves against the KKK. JFK and Hubert Humphrey also publicly praised the militia.
When JFK and Hubert Humphrey praised the militia, were they stupid?
Today, rapid gun grabbers have a stranglehold on the Democratic Party. These gun grabbers champion incessantly more victim disarmament laws that are race neutral. They have to make such laws race neutral to survive the Equal Protection Clause, but, by making such anti-gun laws race neutral, they discriminate against all gun owners of all races. That fact alienates a powerful force in this nation—the armed Caucasian male who places a premium value on Liberty.
Elitists, Sheeple, and Patriots
Those who champion victim disarmament laws [which is a more correct name for gun control] champion laws that are of racist origin and are Nazi inspired. Such champions are Elitist who dare to rip a right enshrined in the United States Constitution out of that document.
American citizens can be divided into three groups: Elitists, Sheeple, and Patriots. A state of cold war exists between such Elitists and those armed Americans who refuse to be defanged.
Sheeple, if they are prudent, will promptly support Constitutionalism [the insistence that Governments and Citizens comply with the Constitution's commands and division of rights and powers,] and, if they decline to do that, at a minimum, they should at least stay clear of the Patriots. Patriots loathe Elitists and hold Sheeple in contempt.
Citizen v. Piss Ant
An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a piss ant, unable to hold the Prince to his promise.
Sheeple are unarmed piss ants. Patriots are armed citizens with courage and a deep commitment to the restoration of Liberty.
Today, the United States is plagued with Elitists. Elitists function and talk like Perfumed Princes who prance and preen with their arrogance, their treason, their gross disrespect for the rights of the common man.
Who is a Slave in 2004 and Beyond?
Using the Dred Scott criteria for citizen versus slave, 148 years after Dred Scott, how many U.S. citizens are a slave?
Tyrant Wannabees Use Language as a Weapon
Herbert Marcuse insightfully opined, "The individual's awareness of the prevailing repression is blunted by the manipulated restriction of his consciousness." I agree.
Anyone who cares about Liberty should be hyper vigilant as to how those who champion victim disarmament laws pervert definitions, concepts, and facts to advance their agenda to repress others without alarming them, to manipulate others against their interests. For example, gun control is the ability to hit the target. But gun control, as used by political whores, is code for people control in the guise of crime control. To permit is to control. Permission is not freedom. People control is the antithesis of liberty. Control is not liberty.
There are many political whores who openly argue that some rights are so dangerous they must be ripped out of the Constitution, disrespected, and not taken seriously. These whores increasingly blatantly discriminate against law-abiding, responsible gun owners. Many of those gun owners are at near zero tolerance for such discrimination. A state of cold war exists between such politicians and such citizens. None of this is hyperbole.
More Domestic Enemies Than Foreign Ones
The United States Constitution has more domestic enemies than it does foreign ones. Many of these domestic enemies hold high office in all branches of government. Many of these domestic enemies are tyrant wannabees or useful idiots for same. All are traitors. All ratchet us down tighter and closer to a civil war.
Politics: A Mere Story?
I will use what follows to illustrate an example of a real person who I experience to be 1) a domestic enemy of the United States Constitution, 2) an Elitist who champions racist origin, Nazi inspired, victim disarmament laws, 3) a disgusting, repugnant, hypocrite or incompetent or both who does not have a comprehensive understanding of rights, the sanctity of human life, the United States Constitution, the value of private property, and the limits of government's legitimate powers, 5) who is clueless about how to achieve peace, 6) who is a traitor and a fraud who has dishonored his sworn oath of office, and 7) who is mentally ill. This man is Larry Robinson, who lives in Sebastopol, California [where I live.]
Mr. Robinson's mind set is representative of much of what is wrong with this nation. This is because this Larry Robinson is a self-appointed Elitist who perverts language, facts, definitions, and ideas to advance his anti-Liberty, anti-Constitutional Rule of Law agenda.
Too many recognize war only as one nation crossing an international border with arms with a hostile intent. There are more subtle ways to wage war, as manifested by this Larry Robinson.
This Larry Robinson is a former mayor of Sebastopol, California, a current Sebastopol city councilmember, a poet, an ecopsychologist [whatever that is,] a champion of same sex marriage, a board member for the Praxis Peace Institute, a Green Party member, and a person who has never publicly supported the idea that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to arms.
This Mr. Larry Robinson has also never publicly criticized Sebastopol Police Officer Robert Smith who told me that he would use lethal force, if necessary, to confiscate all firearms in Sebastopol if ordered to do so. [For more information about what Officer Smith told me, what I told the Sebastopol City Council about this, and how that Council responded, read the relevant materials below under Recommended Readings. Then ask yourselves these questions: Did we fight the Nazi's for this? Who has to go to Afghanistan to find the functional equivalent of the Taliban?]
This Mr. Larry Robinson opined at a public meeting of the Sebastopol City Council that he was like the Founding Fathers because: 1) They believed in a right to life and liberty, and he believes that same sex couples have a right to life and liberty to marry a person of the same sex, and 2) They engaged in civil disobedience relative to the English Crown, and he, by supporting same sex marriage, is also engaged in civil disobedience.
When Mr. Robinson said this, he looked up at the ceiling and reached out with a hand. He acted as if he was grabbing at invisible things in the air. When I witnessed him do that I wondered if he was high on something. Simultaneously, this Mr. Larry Robinson also said something to this effect, paraphrased: 1) He believes that there is a force in the universe made up of electrons, molecules, and atoms that mean that if a person wants to marry a person of the same sex who is willing to marry them he should trust their judgment as to whom they want to marry and not interfere with their judgment nor their rights, and 2) California's law against same sex marriage violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, and, since he supports human rights and the United States Constitution, he believes same sex couples have a right to marry and be free of unconstitutional government discrimination; therefore, he encourages the local Sonoma County official who issues marriage licenses to violate California's ban against same sex marriages and to issue such licences to same sex couples. He also indicated he supported making Sebastopol a community that officially rolled out the "Welcome!" mat for gays and lesbians. He also supported ending all forms of legal discrimination against gays and lesbians.
This Mr. Larry Robinson, however, does not trust any ordinary citizen's decision to carry a loaded firearm in a public place for lawful self-defense, for lawful defense of others, or for defense of the community. This Mr. Larry Robinson believes, inexplicably, that known HIV carriers have rights of privacy, must not be quarantined, and must not be registered in any way, but law-abiding, healthy, heterosexual, responsible, gun owners who are home owners who pay taxes, cannot be trusted with a firearm, must register when they buy one, and must beg the local police chief for his permission to exercise a right enshrined in the United States Constitution. He also believes that the police chief has the right to arbitrarily withhold permission to carry a loaded firearm in public for lawful self-defense.
In this sense, this Larry Robinson has tried to ignore the Second Amendment, re-write it, or rip it out of the United States Constitution.
In this sense, this Larry Robinson, using the Dred Scott criteria for who is a slave, treats his constituents as slaves.
To exacerbate matters, Sebastopol's Sheeple are clueless as to how this Larry Robinson has sheared them of their rights, runs Sebastopol as if it is a semi-benign, plantation or Elitists enclave where Elitists like him, and including him, have suspended those parts of the United States Constitution that they do not like.
This Mr. Larry Robinson of
Sebastopol, California is not like the Founding Fathers. Consider the
following material differences:
The Founding Fathers took the rights to life and liberty seriously by codifying the individual right to arms so one may carry a loaded firearm in public without government's permission required so that one may always retain the pragmatic means to defend one's right to life and to liberty. But, this Larry Robinson is adamantly opposed to ordinary citizens carrying loaded firearms in public to protect their rights to life and liberty—against ordinary criminals or gay bashers or both.
This Larry Robinson actively promotes a worthless sense of peace by giving the criminal element a defacto government guarantee: To the extent that Sebastopol's Sheeple obey what he thinks is the law—or what he thinks the law should be—the criminal element may plunder Sebastopol's Sheeple with assurance that the Sheeple will be unarmed, easy prey.
The Founders also loved wood burning stoves and would never engage in a defacto public confiscation of any private property without paying the property owner the reasonable market price for the private property confiscated for an alleged public purpose. Mr. Robinson, however, voted to ban wood burning stoves that did not burn wood to a certain higher, arbitrarily set level, including stoves that once were approved by the federal government. He also refused to offer any compensation for the private property confiscated for an alleged public purpose. Hence, he has no respect for private property and he violated the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The Founders believed that ordinary citizens had a right to defend human life and property with a gun, but Mr. Robinson thinks that championing the right of some guy to hump and poke some other guy in the rump in wedded bliss is more important than the rights of heterosexuals [plus gays and lesbians] to effective self-defense with a loaded firearm in a public place.
The Founders believed that individual liberty and rights are paramount whereas this Larry Robinson believes that the Individual must surrender his rights to the Collective to promote the alleged public welfare.
The Founders believed that the public welfare is promoted when Individual Rights are upheld against the Collective whereas this Larry Robinson thinks that government's municipal police powers to promote the public welfare, health, and safety permit government to reduce rights to privileges.
The Founders believed in rights whereas this Larry Robinson advocates for the reduction of rights to mere permission, especially for firearm owners not employed by government.
The Founders cherished the maximum amount of individual liberty whereas this Larry Robinson cherishes the maximum amount of government regulation.
The Founders embraced individual
liberty per a Constitutional Rule of Law whereas this Larry Robinson embraces
the United States Constitution selectively and drives Liberty from the
A statesman will tell a story that adheres to the facts, the Constitutional Rule of Law, accepted definitions, the whole truth, and refrains from being disingenuous. A political whore will tell a disingenuous story—any story—devoid of a faithful adherence to the facts and to the law, to advance an agenda.
When I found that attribution to this Larry Robinson in a Praxis Peace Institute publication, knowing what I know about Mr. Robinson, I was not surprised. This Mr. Robinson has never seemed to be deterred by facts nor the law. This Mr. Robinson seems to fancy himself to be smarter than the Founders and empowered to preen when on public display.
I understand that some laws are morally bad and some laws are unconstitutional or both.
Mr. Robinson is entitled to his opinions and his beliefs. He is not, however, entitled to his own facts.
Larry Robinson suffers from blind spots and fractured, disconnected, thinking. His thoughts amount to a cerebral dung hill.
The Second Amendment, how it is worded, the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, and the history of the Bill of Rights, are facts too inconvenient for Mr. Robinson. These facts force him to stoop to disingenuous story telling, which he calls politics.
Politics is not a mere story ... unless one is an unprincipled, conniving, political whore. Larry Robinson, despite his protestations to the contrary, is not experienced by me to be a principled politician who has a clue about how to achieve peace. Instead of advancing the cause of peace, his blatant discrimination against responsible firearm owners and their rights ratchets the community tighter and closer to war.
JFK warned: He who makes peaceful change impossible makes war inevitable.
Larry Robinson and his Useful Idiots think that if they can hijack government in Sebastopol and elsewhere they can advance their agenda and, in effect, rip the Second Amendment out of the United States Constitution.
Larry Robinson has never made it clear to his constituents that he does not give a damn about their lives nor upholding their right to self defense with a gun in public. He withholds from them this truth: His concept of good citizenship is this—When mugged, every citizen has a civic duty to submit and, if it happens, to die, without a complaint nor a whimper, because, to oppose his agenda would expose his disconnect from reality and his callous, deliberate indifference to their rights to life and liberty. Robinson has never made it clear to his constituents that he has set them up to be easy prey for criminal plunder.
Larry Robinson is an Elitist, Freedom Hater, Liberty Thief, Cement Head. Nothing will change his mind. At most, he can be persuaded to shut up, be removed from office, be defied, or be ridiculed.
This Larry Robinson is Mankind's enemy. His commitment to rights of all human beings to life and to liberty is shallow. His idea of one's right to life and liberty is a sham. He pays lip service to these rights. He refuses to acknowledge that for those rights to have value, one must also have the right to have the pragmatic means to enforce one's right to life and liberty—including with a loaded gun in a public place. Citizens must circulate in public, criminals are encountered in public, and cops cannot be everywhere. Cops are too often chalk line drawers, not protectors.
As long as Mr. Robinson strives to tell the story that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to arms and as long as he does not publicly criticize Sebastopol Police Officer Robert Smith for what Officer Smith told me, Larry Robinson is my enemy.
Larry Robinson is mentally ill. He manifested some form of ego deficiency or delusion or both when he compared himself to the Founding Fathers for the reasons he gave. This man is so desperate for recognition he strrrrrreetched for that comparison. He reminds me of the fool who climbed to the top of a tall ladder, stood on the top, and reached too far to one side, before he experienced gravity.
It is imperative that Mr. Robinson's "story" not prevail. Mr. Robinson's story is a perversion of the facts and citizens' entitlement to a maximum amount of individual Liberty. Mr. Robinson wants to tell a story radically different from the one that culminated in the Bill of Rights.
Larry Robinson Spells Hypocrite, Incompetent, and Buffoon
It is somewhat amusing that this Larry Robinson has discovered the Equal Protection Clause in the United States Constitution, has wrapped that clause around himself, and has apparently fell in love with it—selectively, for gays and lesbians but not for responsible firearm owners.
I support the rights of all human beings, I repeat—all, to a maximum amount of individual liberty under a Constitutional Rule of Law. That includes all human beings regardless of their race, their sex, their age, their creed, their nationality, and/or their sexual orientation.
I agree that gays and lesbians have a right to enter into a same sex marriage. That right can be found in the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Hence, I agree with Mr. Robinson that gays and lesbians have a Constitutionally legitimate right to marry a person of the same sex. I do not agree, however, that California's ban against same sex marriage violates the Equal Protection Clause.
Homosexuals and heterosexuals are the opposite of equals.
Generally, the courts have construed [interpreted and applied] the Equal Protection Clause [EPC] as follows: 1) The EPC bars government from discriminating against equals; 2) The EPC does not bar government from discriminating against unequals; 3) As long as there is any rational basis for the discrimination, government may discriminate against unequals to promote whatever government determines is beneficial and to discourage whatever government determines is not beneficial—-as long as there is the slightest rational basis for the discrimination; and 4) If, however, the discrimination involves a "suspect category," such as race, the alleged discrimination is subject to a higher "strict scrutiny test" for justification. In that case, government bears a heavier burden to justify the discrimination.
California's ban against same sex marriage is race neutral: It applies to everyone regardless of their race; thus, the "strict scrutiny" test is not applicable.
Government arguably has a rational basis to discriminate against same sex marriage: 1) Same sex couples, without outside intervention, cannot procreate, and society has a vested interest in encouraging heterosexual couples to procreate; 2) The primary sexual act for gays is the primary means for contacting and spreading AIDS and HIV, a disease which is expensive to treat, is painful, is gut wrenching, is a burden on society and government, threatens society, and for which there is no known cure; 3) There is probably a higher correlation among gay men and pedophile activity; and 4) Government, society, and individuals have a legitimate interest to discourage relationships that spread a disease for which there is no known cure, which drains health care resources, which drives up health insurance premiums, and which seems to correlate with a higher incidence of pedophile activity.
Larry Robinson's reliance on the EPC to justify same sex marriage is misplaced.
What is most peculiar about Mr. Robinson, however, in this context, is this: He sanctions open discrimination against law-abiding, responsible, productive, tax paying, firearm owners. The Second Amendment is on the books. The Second Amendment is part of the Supreme Law of the Land. Sebastopol, California is part of "the land" subject to that Supreme Law. About two thirds of the states have "shall issue" concealed carry weapon permit laws. Vermont and Alaska have no CCW permit laws. In those states, the Second Amendment is everyone's CCW permit. Per the Second Amendment and the Supreme Law of the Land, the Second Amendment is everyone's CCW permit. In Arizona, people can circulate in public carrying in plain view loaded side arms, including in banks. In California, there is no uniform policy among Police Chiefs and Sheriffs as to who is eligible for a CCW permit and what are the standards for issuing a CCW permit. Conclusion: Responsible gun owners in California are discriminated against in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, the Second Amendment, the Ninth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment. Larry Robinson, however, champions the rights of gays to poke other gays in the rump in wedded bliss but not the rights of anyone to self-defense with a loaded firearm in a public place.
I have no problem with gays, lesbians, or heterosexuals carrying a loaded firearm in a public place for lawful self-defense or lawful defense of others or of the community. I loathe gay bashers and racists—anyone who would deny Liberty to another or drive Liberty from the land. Mr. Robinson, however, who has tried to endear himself to gays and lesbians does not really give a damn about their lives. He has been disingenuous with them. He has not told them "the rest of the story." He caters to them to get their votes.
I am waiting to see what happens if and when a homosexual person or a same sex couple [especially of color] asks the local Police Chief for a CCW permit. Or goes to the podium during a Sebastopol City Council meeting and asks that Council about these issues. Or openly declares that he/she/they are exercising their Second Amendment rights in public without a CCW permit. At that point we shall find out how committed Larry Robinson, the entire Sebastopol City Council, and the Sebastopol Police Chief are to the homosexuals' Right to Life, Right to Liberty, Right to Self-Defense, and Second Amendment Right to Arms. I would be shocked, and pleased, if Sebastopol's civil authority took all of those rights for homosexuals seriously without discrimination against heterosexuals.
A Political Story
Ridicule is a potent political weapon. It was developed with devastating effect among European aristocracy for centuries.
After I told a friend how and why Larry Robinson compared himself to the Founding Fathers, my friend sent me the following satire. He doesn't know Robinson, so he doesn't have an opinion about the man, nor does he harbor ill will toward gays and lesbians, but, using satire, he does effectively ridicule Robinson's position and dubious logic.
For myself, there are good and bad among people of all sexual persuasions. Many gays and lesbians are decent people who live honorably, responsibly, and lawfully; many have served this nation well and will continue to do so. Many heterosexuals, on the other hand, are human knuckle draggers or wrecks. I include this satire solely to further attack Larry Robinson's position, reasoning, and disconnect from reality.
What follows is my friend's version of a political "story." This story, along with the facts and the law contained in this essay, is intended to "nuke" the whoppers Larry Robinson loves to tell.
Since Sebastopol City Councilmember Larry Robinson equates himself to the American patriots of 1776, and since he likes to tell political stories, picture the following scene.
Robinson marches up to General George Washington and says, "General, I am here. I have brought the Sebastopol gay and lesbian battalions."
Washington, with a look of incredulity, says, "Say, what? They are what? Where are their arms?"
Robinson: "Their arms are for loving, Sir. We don't believe in those nasty assault weapons that your men and the redcoats are using. We believe in love, mutual respect, tolerance, peaceful co-existence, and compromise. Violence is dangerous and out of date."
Washington: "Well, whatever you, and they, are, I can't use troops without weapons."
Robinson: "Oh, but I have a plan, General. I will march the gay battalion up to the redcoats' right; to their left, I will position the lesbians. On my command, they will begin fornicating, right in front of the redcoats."
Washington: "What? They will do what? Why? Are you crazy? I just prayed to God for victory, and now you show up? (mumbling) ... I must be on the wrong side...."
Robinson: "No, no, General, don't you understand? When my gay and lesbian battalions start fornicating, the redcoats will be shocked and disgusted, just like any normal person. They will start throwing up onto their flintlocks, fouling the priming pans on their evil, nasty, assault muskets, or else they will be laughing so hard they will not be able to draw an accurate bead. While the redcoats struggle to reload their assault muskets and regain their discipline, your troops can sneak up from the side and attack them! But General, we won't do it unless you promise me you will order your troops to throw away those awful assault muskets, and just attack the redcoats with paper spitballs with Dial 911 written on them."
Washington: "Dial 911? What good will that do?"
Robinson: "Exactly, Sir, about the same amount of good it does in Sebastopol, but that's another century. Sorry to confuse the issue, Sir. But what about my plan? Don't you agree that it's foolproof?"
Washington: "I agree that it's proof of fools. The only things these Red Coats understand is force of arms. But I see the way out, here. You say you refuse to participate unless we throw away our assault muskets and pistols? Good. Here's what we'll do: we'll fight the British with our firearms, and you take your gay and lesbian battalions out west, where maybe you can help Custer with the Indians. With any luck, enough of you will move far away from here, maybe out to sunny California, so that I and my armed men can get on about winning this War For Independence. Then we can create a Constitution and Bill of Rights so that you can spend the next two hundred years or so subverting the Constitutional Rule of Law. Bless you all, but somehow, I don't think you are God's answer to my prayers."
Robinson: "Well! I'll show you! I'll run for public office and turn your piety and respect for arms backwards. All right, my wonderful gay and lesbian battalions, on my command, by the numbers, Forn I Cate!"
[Gays and lesbians in unison comply with Robinson's command.]
Washington: "That's it. Men, pick up your flintlocks. Let's get out of here. Get the boats. We'll cross the Delaware. Better to attack the Hessians in the dead of winter, than to stay here in Valley Forge and be repulsed by this unnatural fornication. Anything is better than seeing this!"
And that, boys and girls, is how Sebastopol Councilmember Larry Robinson would have won the War For Independence, and how we have the gays and lesbians to thank for our right to fornicate in same sex wedded bliss.
In World War II, a United States Army Air Corps heavy bombardment wing in Europe lost approximately 1,600 B-24 Liberator bombers in a six month period—each with approximately 10 to 13 crew members. That wing was just one unit.
If the Nazis had won that war and occupied the United States, one of the first thing a German military commander in every community in the United States would have proclaimed is this: Immediately surrender your arms on pain of death.
What I do not comprehend about contemporary Americans is this: If a foreign military commander who occupied our Homeland issued such an order, stark aggression against our Liberty would be recognized for what it is and that commander and his forces would be attacked and decimated. But, when our own homegrown misleaders issue a law that perverts the Supreme Law of the Land and boldly proclaims that no one can carry a loaded firearm in a public place without the damn government's damn permission, Sheeple blindly obey ... forgetting the price paid in blood by all 1,600 of those B-24 Liberator crews and hundreds of thousands of other vets.
Did those vets sacrifice themselves in vain? Are we unworthy of their sacrifice? Their courage? Their commitment to Liberty? Their heroics? For Americans who function as Sheeple, the answer is: "Yes!"
If the Larry Robinson's in our midst want to exercise their rights to be irresponsible, to refuse to defend themselves, and to be totally dependent on a government that has no duty to defend them and no assured ability to do so, that is their right. But, when the Larry Robinson's in our midst want to pervert the law and force their core values on me, in contravention of my right to arms, each and every one of them are invited to self-fornicate, to take their self-defeating, detached from reality, dribble elsewhere, to find a live hand grenade someplace, pull the pin, and hold it to their chests.
Thomas Jefferson's Warning and America's Fig Leaf Wars
Thomas Jefferson warned that we cannot achieve freedom abroad for others by abandoning it at home for ourselves. But, as our governments wage a War Against Drugs, a War Against Crime, a War Against Guns, and a War Against Terrorism, it has four separate fig leaf justifications to wipe its ass with the Bill of Rights, which is Mankind's greatest achievement.
Mankind's Greatest Achievement
The Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution is Mankind's greatest achievement. This is because that Bill did all of this: 1) It placed a finite limit on Governments' powers; 2) It ended a leader's arbitrary, discretionary decision-making regarding certain subjects; 3) It codified what are Man's rights, namely, what is legally "off limits," what no Government, no Society, no Leader, no Majority, no Lawmaker, no Judge, no police officer, no soldier, can legally invade with legal immunity; 4) It empowered U.S. citizens to be free, to live in a state of Liberty, but, only if they have the nerve to be proactive, to assert themselves, to claim their entitlement, the First Entitlement, namely, their unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, buttressed with such specific rights as Free Speech, Privacy, Freedom from Unreasonable Search and Seizure, to Petition Government for Redress of Grievances, the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, the Right to a Jury Trial, the Right to Due Process, and the Right to Arms-to retain the pragmatic means to enforce all of the other rights when Free Speech, Petition, Due Process, and Jury Trial, etc., fail to preserve Liberty per a Constitutional Rule of Law.
Per that Bill, the Individual and his or her rights, are paramount, and everything else is subservient to individual liberty. Governments' primary purpose is to secure these rights, not to reduce them to mere privileges nor to rip them out of the U.S. Constitution.
Governments' Primary Purpose
Do you know what is Governments' primary purpose? Do you know what is its real Constitutional mandate? If not, you have manifested that you are guilty of committing civic malpractice.
The answer to these questions can be found in the second paragraph of the July 4th, 1776 Declaration of Independence.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness ... [Emphasis added.]
Hence, Governments' primary purpose is to secure these rights, not to reduce them to mere privileges nor to rip them out of the U.S. Constitution.
Source of Rights?
What is the source of rights-especially unalienable rights? Do such rights come from Society? Government? A majority? A judge? A city council? Or, from a Creator?
Per what Americans officially celebrate every July 4th, all unalienable rights come from Man's "Creator," not from any mere human being, regardless of title or position.
Does the July 4th national holiday mean something to you? Do you really comprehend the true import of that holiday? Do you understand, believe in, and adhere to the principles declared in that Declaration—or not? Do you give lip service to those principles? Do you profess them on July 4th and spend the rest of the year driving Liberty from the land?
What Good is a Right Without Pragmatic Means to Enforce the Right?
Per the July 4th Declaration Americans have unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Are those meaningful rights? Or are they mere goals? Mere aspirations? Hollow shams? Is that language dribble?
How can anyone enforce their right to Life or Liberty or both without the pragmatic means to make Government, ordinary criminal predators, and your neighbors, take your rights to Life and Liberty seriously?
How can one keep a Tyranny of the Majority from voting to strip you of your rights—once you are defanged?
If Government Can Rip the Second Amendment Out, What is Safe?
Think about this: Any Government powerful enough to rip any right out of the U.S. Constitution is powerful enough to rip any and all of them out. If Governments can rip out the Second Amendment [which codified the individual Right to Arms,] how secure is the Right to Free Speech? To Due Process of Law? To Trial by Jury? To Freedom From Unreasonable Search and Seizure? To freedom from Cruel and Unusual Punishment? How long will these other rights last after the armed citizenry is defanged?
The Order That Should Never be Issued ... Nor Obeyed
Given current trends, it appears inevitable that sooner or later someone will order the U.S. Armed Forces and sworn peace officers, with or without United Nations augmentation, to try to disarm the armed American citizenry.
When that order is given, what will the U.S. Armed Forces do? What will sworn peace officers do? What will the armed American citizenry do?
When that order comes, and it will come, the U.S. Armed Forces and sworn peace officers should stand down, disobey the order, and arrest the son-of-a-bitch who issued the order and those who value Liberty should resist, including the use of lethal force.
Is This Scenario in Our Future?
I do not have a crystal ball. I suspect, however, the following scenario is close to what will happen. The order to disarm the American citizenry will be given. Most citizens will comply. Most of the U.S. Armed Forces and most sworn peace officers will obey that order. A small percentage of the armed American citizenry will surrender their arms, about 1-3% at first, up to about 15% at most, bullets first. The initial resistance will be sporadic. It will spread, culminating in a snarly, brutish war. There will be political assassination. Those who refuse to be defanged will defeat the U.S. Armed Forces, sworn peace officers, and UN forces sent to disarm them. Then, it will be "pay back" time for those survivors who issued the orders, who carried them out, who supported them. Then, there will be a rebirth of Liberty, which will last as long as the survivors of that war remember the price paid in blood for another installment on, and another extension of, a priceless, fragile, commodity—Liberty.
What's It All About-Really?
Years ago a U.S. Marine Corps fighter-attack pilot who I interviewed for a story told me something like this, "What do you think we are training for? This is what: To increase our war fighting skills so we can deter war, and, if we have to fight, we can fight effectively, with professionalism. We want to be able to penetrate the enemy's defenses and avoid having to jettison our ordnance prematurely just to survive and abort the mission. ] If the enemy can force us to jettison our ordnance or to abort the mission, he wins, we lose. We want to be able to get to the target and destroy it on the first mission so we do not have to return again. We want to be effective and efficient. We want to be able to exit the target area without taking a hit, return to base, recover, sleep in our own beds—unharmed, and fly again and again, until we win the war and can go home with our limbs intact."
By analogy, I added this part to my CLOUD 9 PHOTOGRAPHY site because I am not frivolous. There is more to life than airplane pictures.
What I want to do is this: 1) I want to live in Liberty; 2) I want to claim my birthrights, my entitlements, as a U.S. citizen, and I want to make my claim stick—without having to use lethal force; 3) I want to stimulate my fellow citizens to think about these issues and concepts at a much higher level of critical thought; 4) I want to expose people to material that is worth reading because it is important and relevant; 5) I want to stimulate people to appreciate, and to value, Liberty; 6) I want to try to restore Liberty under a Constitutional Rule of Law without having to use lethal force; 7) I want to put an illuminating cerebral spot light on critical, pivotal issues; 8) I want to live to an old age, die of a natural cause, in Liberty; 9) I want to die without ever having to commit an act of homicide for any reason; 10) I want to go out standing on my feet, true to what I believe, to the end; 11) I want to never wear any man's saddle on my back nor feel any man's foot on my neck; 12) If I ever do commit an act of homicide, I want to make certain it was justified and effective; 13) I want to die on the right side of God, not at cross purposes; 14) I want to encourage leaders to stop being misleaders, to stop being Freedom Haters, Liberty Thieves, Control Freaks, and Domestic Enemies of the United States Constitution; 15) I want to help the U.S. Armed Forces and sworn peace officers to understand that should they ever receive an order to disarm the American citizenry they should disobey that order and arrest whomever gave them that order or risk death if they attempt to enforce the order; and 16) I want everyone who values Liberty to think about all of this ultra carefully and make their own decisions.
Hopefully, most of those who take the time to read what is assembled here for their convenience will come down on the side of Liberty and not break faith with the Founding Fathers' gift to us—Liberty.
To summarize, I simply want to get through life without having to jettison any of my rights ... or being involuntarily stripped of same. I will not live without rights just to get along with my Governments and/or my neighbors, just to survive. I will not tolerate being stripped of my rights, of being reduced to slave or piss ant status. While I would regret a civil war, I strongly prefer civil war to mere survival without rights secured by the Constitutional Rule of Law. I know what is the ultimate purpose and application for privately owned arms.
Ways to Fight Tyrants
There are many ways of fighting tyrants. This mini- essay and the recommended reading materials below are a manifestation of one way to fight tyrants without having to resort to lethal force.
The U.S. Armed Forces, in theory, and in practice, provide a shield under which I can operate. Thanks to them, I can get on my soap box. By doing so, I pay tribute to them and thank them for their contributions to the freedoms I exercise.
The Four Boxes of Freedom
Simultaneously, make no mistake about this point. There are Four Boxes of Freedom: The Soap Box, the Ballot Box, the Jury Box, and the Cartridge Box. Those boxes are best used in that order. And the U.S. Armed Forces and sworn peace officers do not have a monopoly on the Cartridge Box. The military has a bigger Cartridge box but every human being is a thin skinned creature.
What It Really is All About
So, what is it really all about? It's not about guns. It's not about hunting Bambi. It's not about target shooting. It is really about this: First, retaining the ability to deter Tyranny, and, when that fails, the ability to restore Liberty, and the most pragmatic way to do that when the first three Boxes of Freedom fail is to use privately owned guns to kill traitors and their useful idiots. Second, it's about retaining the pragmatic ability to insist that Government and the Majority take seriously the difference between power and rights and not color outside the Constitution's bright lines. And third, as a blessed by-product of the first two, it is about Liberty, namely, being able to stand erect, weaned of all dependence on Government's tit, in a lovely State of Liberty, with the deep, serene, satisfaction that one is truly free and one remained true to what he or she believed.
An itemization of stark realities follows:
First, so far, the Soap Box, the Ballot Box, and the Jury Box have failed to be sufficient for citizens to keep the form of government the Framers intended: A limited Constitutionally democratic republic with certain guaranteed rights for all that government(s) and majorities may never invade.
Second, when the first three Boxes of Freedom fail, the only remaining box is the Cartridge Box.
Third, when the only remaining box is the Cartridge Box, then the only remaining choice is submission or rebellion.
Fourth, too many Americans have only a crude, unsophisticated, innaccurate idea of what is our form of government and how it is suppose to work. Their expectations are unrealistic and alarming. Too many think our political system is suppose to function as a pure democracy and any group, once it is able to muster a majority vote, is free to oppress the minority group. That orientation is a manifestation of the dreaded tyranny of the majority and a return to a form of abysmal political dark ages. When the majority functions as the dictator, with government's blessings, such a dictatorship is not benign. A tyrannical majority is not much of an improvement, if any, over two groups of Iraqi's fighting Americans so they can be free to oppress the other group, in the name of their version of freedom. Too many Americans also think they have a right to happiness [instead of a right to pursue happiness,] that government's duty is to make them happy [an intolerable duty!,] that government grants and hand-outs are their entitlement [a perversion of language,] that the government has unlimited funds [warrants an "F" in Econ I,] that the they can rob Peter to pay Paul as long as the government does it for them via taxation [the tyrannical majority in action,] that permission is freedom [the result of government indoctrination and poor thinking skills,] that milk comes from Safeway and not a cow [a manifestation of an insufficient data base!,] and that the unused credit on one's credit card is a measure of one's freedom [a manifestation of myopic, disconnected, detached from reality, "thinking".]
Fifth, in our form of government, in theory, the majority has the right to rule, but only as a faithful fiduciary for the good of all, subject to certain vital Constitutional limitations, checks and balances, while honoring and taking seriously the rights of all to certain rights, including all of those declared and allegedly guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.
Sixth, governments in this nation, at all level, have usurped power, give lip service to the Constitutional Rule of Law, and hide behind Constitutionally illegitimate immunities which make the First Amendment's Right to Petition government for redress of grievances a sham. The United States Supreme Court, via the Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy, has even gotten away with its Constitutionally illegitimate invention that it alone gets to make the final and binding interpretation of what the law means, how it should be applied, and what is and is not Constitutional. Hence, after paying trillions upon trillions of dollars in tax tribute to governments, after fighting major world wars, and after shedding enormous amounts of human blood [the most expensive commodity,] we have achieved only this: We replaced one tyrant [King George] with nine Black Robes who are supreme, not because they are necessarily the best, the brightest, nor the most honest, but because they are legally final, absent civil war or a Constitutional amendment that they uphold.
Seventh, most U.S. citizens are Constitutional illiterates who care more about the state of their lawn than they do Liberty.
Eighth, most U.S. citizens are fixated with their perceived rights and do not give a damn about taking seriously, nor supporting, the rights of others.
Ninth, there are too many U.S. citizens who are domestic enemies of the U.S. Constitution, who are traitors, who are useful idiots for tyrant wannabees, who are making a non-violent restoration of Liberty and the Constitutional Rule of Law too difficult if not impossible, and, as a result, they are making civil war more probable.
Tenth, there is a small percentage of hard core, no compromise, no nonsense, armed, U.S. citizens who are alienated and who have given up hope of being able to change their fellow citizens' erroneous orientations and attitudes via education and tolerance. This hard core group, like the Founding Generation, are boners: They are ramrods, they are firm, they are erect, and they are perfectly willing, able, and ready, with the slightest additional provocation, to begin to slit throats, or assassinate or both, damn the consequences.
If the "Tenth" point triggers revulsion and a mental/emotional vapor lock, tough. Get over it. Think. Stand for Liberty or lie down with tyrannt wannabees and their useful idiots, and face the consequences.
If You Oppose My Right to Arms I do not Give a Damn About Your Opinion
Bitch. Scream. Whine. Protest. Squirm. Scream at me. Mock me. Malign me. Scorn me. Ignore me. Flip me the bird. Cuss me out. I know where I am on history's time line, I know what my rights are, I know what preceded me, and I know how important Liberty is. Your opinions and your feelings are not the controlling law. There is nothing anyone can do to rip out of the Constitution my entitlements as a U.S. citizen.
Make way. Stay clear. You have allowed the U.S. flag to hang like a limp dick. Your flag might be the hedonistic Playboy white bunny on a black field or the white flag of surrender. My flag, down deep, is the coiled snake "DO NOT TREAD ON ME" flag. Liberty may be a cold ember for you but it is a white hot blow torch for me. No one is going to muscle me out of my entitlement as a U.S. citizen without incurring an unlimited measure of resistance from me.
The Fragile Nature of Rights
Rights are not self-enforcing. In the final analysis, when one's fellow citizens do not respect one's meritorious assertion of a right, and when the Judiciary handles rights like a gorilla handles Samsonite luggage, the only rights one really has are those he is willing to kill for to retain.
Those who are unwilling to kill for their vision of how the world should be need a reality check. At some point the time for tolerance, peaceful co-existence, education, the political process, litigation, debate, and jawboning [the exchange of ideas with and without non-violent pressure] ends, and a brief, quiet period exists before what is no longer unthinkable happens.
Choice: Constitutionalism or Civil War
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said,
"Cowardice asks the question—is it safe? Expediency asks the question—is it politic? Vanity asks the question—is it popular? But conscience asks the question—is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular: But one must take it because it is right."
There is more to life than peace or survival. The dead are, in a way, finally, at peace. The imprisoned, in a way, are at peace.
For the living, to be human, to function as a happy human being, there is no substitute for Liberty. Liberty is the necessary pre-condition milieu for the empowerment of all human beings to bloom to the fullest of their potential.
I have declared my position herein: Americans need to support Constitutionalism [functioning faithfully per the Constitution's text] or they need to figure out a way to cope with what arguably appears to be probably inevitable—another civil war.
Decades of governments' usurpation of power and of civic indifference and malpractice by citizens has brought us to the brink of a cold war with our own government and our own neighbors. This cold war can turn hot in an instant, given sufficient provocation. When our governments will not wear their Constitutional collars, and when our fellow citizens function as a tyranny of the majority, the only thing left is submission [go along to get along] or rebellion [to restore Liberty.] For those who really give a damn about Liberty, submission is not, never was, and never will be, an option.
Governments' Army and the Peoples' Army
As long as enough people remain hyper vigilant and refuse to let others drive Liberty from the land, and as long as the U.S. Armed Forces and sworn peace officers refuse to try to disarm the American citizenry, three of society's greatest institutions [the armed forces, sworn peace officers, and the militia] will remain in basic harmony. The first two groups constitute the Government's army. The militia constitutes the People's army. It is imperative that the Peoples' army always remain fanged as a pragmatic check on the Government's army.
I stress these points: 1) Members of both armies are national assets; 2) Leaders need to step forward and work effectively to avoid an open clash between these two armies; 3) There are no irreconcilable differences between these two armies; 4) The members of these armies must be keen to not allow misleaders to pit these two armies against one another without compelling good cause. Instead, these two armies should remain united in the cause of Liberty under a Constitutional Rule of Law; 5) Should either army—the Government's or the Peoples'—take a material step to snuff out Liberty [e.g., the Government's army tries to disarm the armed citizenry or the Peoples' army attempts a preemptive coup without compelling justification] the other should remain faithful to the Constitutional Rule of Law and take whatever position is necessary to restore Liberty per the United States Constitution's commands; and 6) Should the Government's army try to disarm citizens I hope the People's army resists and wins.
The Republic's Death Traps—Set by Our Own Misleaders
Today, we suffer under perpetual, government manufactured, crises—one after another. Simultaneously, we are waging the War Against Crime, the War Against Drugs, the War Against Guns, and the War Against Terrorism. These are wars with no boundaries, wars with no finite, objective, quantifiable, measurable, goals, wars calculated to have no clear victory. These are wars without end, wars calculated to whip the public into hysteria to surrender liberty and the Bill of Right's protections. Each of these wars are phoney. These wars are the Republic's death traps.
The War Against Terrorism is a terroristic War Against Freedom in the guise of being a War Against Terrorism. Gun control is people control in the guise of crime control. People control is control. Control is control. These wars, these death traps, and gun control are horrific political ploys calculated to trick citizens into surrendering Mankind's greatest achievement: the U.S. Bill of Rights.
The Best Way to Achieve Security
The best way to achieve security is to remain faithful to the Founders' and the Framers' vision: to honor the Constitution's bright lines, to take individual rights seriously, and to keep civil authority tied down by the Constitution's chains. When civil authority violates the rule book, the Constitution, the responsible thing for a responsible, free citizen to do, is to object, to stand up, to be heard, and to do his utmost best to responsibly and non-violently, resist civil authority's violation of the rule book.
When society's institutions fail to stop civil authority's insufferable abuse of its powers, it is incumbent upon the militia to fulfill its Constitutionally sanctioned, legitimate role: put the Constitutional collar back on civil authority's neck, and tie it down to a stake with the Constitution's chains, including by force if necessary. If anyone disagrees with the last statement, they should read carefully the July 4th, 1776 Declaration.
The United States has come full circle. The Minutemen who fired upon Redcoats at Concord Bridge put their collective foot down in opposition to the King's alleged Divine Right to rule absolutely and arbitrarily. After the King's Redcoats were defeated, the Framers and the Ratifiers erected a bulwark against absolute and arbitrary rule—the U.S. Bill of Rights. The primary purpose of that Bill was, and is, to deny civil authority the functional equivalent of Divine Right to rule absolutely and arbitrarily. But the rights codified and guaranteed in that Bill are under serious, sustained attack.
To exacerbate matters, civil authority has invented doctrines to undermine the rule book: Judicial Supremacy, Sovereign Immunity, Legislative Immunity, Prosecutorial Immunity. Per these doctrines, and more, civil authority is doing its utmost best to undermine the U.S. Constitution. When the Bill of Rights glue lets go, we are back to the days of Divine Right. Who wants to return to the days of Divine Right?
U.S. Citizens Have an Individual Right to Arms That Is 100% Free of Prior Restraint
The following "line of authority" is binding on all civil authority in the United States, per a proper application of the Doctrine of Stare Decisis [namely, cases with similar facts shall be decided based on earlier case decisions with similar facts.]
Article V of the U.S. Constitution states that all ratified amendments to the Constitution are part of the Constitution.
Article VI, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states that it [the U.S. Constitution] is the supreme law of the land, binding on all state judges, that any state law to the contrary is inferior to it, and laws not made in pursuance of it are inferior to it.
Article VI, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution states that "... the members of the several state legislators shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution; ...." [Emphasis added.] This means that all state legislators cannot Constitutionally pass any law that conflicts with the U.S. Constitution.
The ratification of the U.S. Constitution formed a federal system of government whereby all states joining the Union agreed, with eyes wide open, that the U.S. Constitution, as amended, was the supreme law of the land, binding on all states and all state legislators and judges.
The original U.S. Bill of Rights has its own preamble. The authority for this statement is the U.S. National Archives, which is the United States' official custodian of records. See www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/billrights/. The U.S. Bill of Rights' preamble, in part, states:
The Conventions of a Number of the States having at the Time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a Desire, in Order to prevent Misconstruction or Abuse of its Powers, that further declaratory and restrictive Clauses should be added: And as extending the Ground of public Confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent Ends of its Institution, [Emphasis added.] ....
The U.S. Constitution created a federation of one central government [the federal government] and thirteen state governments [the thirteen original ex-colonies which morphed into being states that knowingly entered into a federation of one central government with multiple state governments.] These fourteen governments formed one federal system of Government.
Federal means a league, or compact, among the states to become united under one central government. This whole concept that the states agreed to is the "Government" referenced in the Bill of Rights' preamble.
The definitive points here are these: (1) the Framers and Ratifiers of the Bill intended to codify laws calculated to guarantee individual rights which would be a restriction on "Government's" [federal and state] powers; (2) this document is titled a "Bill of Rights," not a "Bill of Civil Authority's Additional Powers;" (3) this Bill declares restrictions on civil authority's powers and it codifies unalienable rights; (4) these individual rights were intended "to prevent Misconstruction or Abuse of [Government's—federal and state] Powers;" (5) the intent was to give individuals legal guarantees that Government [federal and state] would not eliminate or infringe the rights codified; (6) the public's confidence in this Government would not be increased if it was understood that the Second Amendment denied an individual right to arms and, instead, granted civil authority a monopoly on arms and the power to disarm citizens; (7) every state that ratified and joined the Union knew that they joined a federal system of government subject to a written Constitution that declared that it was the supreme law of the land, binding on all state judges; and (8) this Bill has been binding on the states from the beginning to date, because that is what the Constitution and the Preamble to the Bill state, that is what the Framers and Ratifiers agreed to, and the Constitution unambiguously and unequivocally declares that it—and all laws "made in pursuance thereof" [as in conformity with it] alone, is the supreme law of the land, which excludes all statutory law, case law, administrative law, and the outcome of any election, that is contrary to the supreme law of the land.
When every state joined the Union, each state knew that the U.S. Constitution declared that it was the Supreme Law of the Land. California, for example, knowingly submitted itself to that Supreme Law.
Article III, Section I of California's Constitution contains a provision which states: "The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land." [Emphasis added.] By force of this provision, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is part of California's law.
The Preamble to California's Constitution recognizes that there is a Supreme Being. It states in part, "the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom,...." Thus, as with the July 4th Declaration of Independence, civil authority acknowledges that God, not civil authority, is the source of unalienable rights.
Article I, Section 1 of California's Constitution declares that "All people are by nature free and independent and have unalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, ... and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy." A necessary corollary of these rights is the practical necessity of having the necessary means to enforce these rights with arms, if necessary; otherwise, these rights are an unacceptable sham.
Article I, Section 6 of California's Constitution declares, "Slavery is prohibited. Involuntary servitude is prohibited except to punish crime." Historically, a key criteria that distinguished the slave from the citizen was the presence or the absence of the right to bear arms.
Section 1 of the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution declares that, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." [Emphasis added.]
The purpose of the Thirteenth Amendment was to abolish slavery, the physical cruelties of slavery, and to eradicate all of badges and incidents of slavery in any and every disguise, which includes being involuntarily disbarred of arms.
Article I, Section 7(a) of California's Constitution declares, "A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws; ...." A necessary corollary of these rights is the practical necessity of having the necessary means to enforce these rights with arms, if necessary; otherwise, these rights are an unacceptable sham.
Article I, Section 9 of California's Constitution declares, "A ... ex post facto law ... may not be passed." All of California's prior restraint legislation against firearms violates this Constitutional provision.
Article I, Section 26 of California's Constitution declares, "The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory and prohibitory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise."
Article XX, Section 3 of California's Constitution contains a provision which states that all of California's civil authority agents, including state judges, are duty bound by solemn oath, which is a precondition for taking their office, to support the U.S. Constitution: "I, ..., do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and ... I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States ... ." It is this oath that is part of the invisible glue that is suppose to hold us together as united Americans, per the Constitutional Rule of Law. Per this oath, the Rule Book that public officials, including judges, are suppose to obey—the U.S. Constitution—is still in effect.
The U.S. Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison (1803) 5 U.S. 137 held that all judges have a duty to uphold and enforce the U.S. Constitution, that any law made in derogation of the Constitution is null and void and need not be obeyed, and that "It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect." Consequently, the clause, "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." [Emphasis added] must be given full effect. This clause codifies and guarantees a right that belongs to the people and this right is 100% free of all forms of prior restraint. The U.S. Supreme Court has declared that every clause in the Constitution must be given its "effect." The logical "effect" of "shall not be infringed" is: all prior restraint against the exercise of the right are unconstitutional.
The U.S. Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) 60 U.S. 393, 417 declared the differences between a free U.S. citizen and a slave relative to the freedoms guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that if slaves were citizens they would be legally eligible to enjoy all of the Bill of Rights' freedoms, including the right "to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
In 1866, after the North won the Civil War, southern bigots still tried to oppress freedmen [recently emancipated slaves.] These bigots wanted to murder freedmen with impunity and keep them legally, politically, economically, socially, and practically oppressed. A majority in the U.S. Congress loathed the idea that the North won the Civil War but it was losing the peace in the sense that southern bigots oppressed freedmen. To stop such oppression, and to legally extend to freedmen all of the U.S. Bill of Rights guarantees, the U.S. Congress passed a series of powerful, far reaching laws that applied to all citizens, regardless of race. The primary intent of these laws was to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibitions against slavery and involuntary servitude by guaranteeing a certain concept of citizenship rights to all citizens, including the right "to keep and bear arms."
The Civil Rights Act of 1866, which survives today as 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a), states, "All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory ... to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property as is enjoyed by white citizens ... ." Congress also passed the Freedmen's Bureau Act of 1866 which protected "the right ... to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, and ... estate, ... including the constitutional right to bear arms ... ." Therefore, for any civil authority to order that any U.S. citizen may not own a firearm nor circulate in public with a loaded firearm without some kind of a government issued permit is tantamount to unconstitutionally imposing an unconstitutional condition of involuntary servitude upon all such citizens. Such an order would be "repugnant to the Constitution" because it would be an unconstitutional prior restraint.
In 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified. Section 1 of this Amendment declared that every U.S. citizen simultaneously enjoys two types of citizenship—federal and state, and that "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." There is a huge historical record that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment viewed citizenship as being vested with a bundle of rights, which included the individual right to arms.
The U.S. Supreme Court declared in 1884 that the U.S. Bill of Rights, in correct legal theory, "have become bulwarks; ... against arbitrary legislation". Hurtado v. California (1884) 110 U.S. 516, 531-532.
United States v. Miller (1939) 307 U.S. 174 held that a firearm that is useful for modern military purposes is protected by the Second Amendment without holding that one must be a government employee or a member of a government regulated military unit as a pre-condition for having, or for exercising, that individual right. Significantly, most privately owned firearms have won wide gun owners' acceptance in the market place because such owners know they have great utility for hunting, home defense, self-defense, defense of community, homeland security, and can be useful for modern military purposes. Such privately owned firearms are the epitome of being a homeland security defense pistol or rifle, etc. Consequently, such firearms are among the type of firearms that are protected by the Second Amendment. But authoritarian, elitists, gun prohibitionists, who champion racists-origin, Nazi-inspired, victim disarmament laws, have engaged in intellectually dishonest "Miller mutilations" to distort Miller's true holding. Most gun prohibitionists cases cite Miller for authority to support their holding, without analysis or, at best, with a shallow, non-persuasive, mis-analysis that flirts with intellectual dishonesty.
A summary of the material facts in United States v. Miller follows. Jack Miller and Frank Layton were criminally charged with illegal possession and transportation of a shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long in violation of a federal law. They defended on the grounds that this law was an illegal attempt to usurp police power reserved to the state and this law violated the Second Amendment. The Federal District Court ruled that this federal law did violate the Second Amendment. Accordingly, the federal judge threw out the criminal charge against these men. The United States appealed. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded this case for further proceedings.
U.S. v. Miller is the last major case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court that focused on the Second Amendment. The decision's language is somewhat cryptic. The Court did not fully set forth its views because it remanded the case for further proceedings.
Significantly, when the United States appealed, no one appeared or argued on behalf of Jack Miller and Frank Layton. Thus, even when the United States attorney faced no opposition on appeal, the United States was unable to, and did not, secure a clear cut, decisive, win.
While it is true that the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the lower court that held in favor of Mr. Miller and Mr. Layton, it reversed only in the limited sense of sending the case back for further proceedings, which is not the same as saying the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to arms.
When this case is properly understood, it stands for these propositions: first, the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to arms which becomes a collective right when armed individuals come together and marshall as a militia, bringing with them arms privately owned by them maintained under their control free of government's prior restraint; second, the Second Amendment protects all hand held firearms, regardless of appearance, power, rate of fire, etc., if it can be demonstrated that they have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."; third, the test for whether a firearm has "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" is a function of the inherent qualities of the firearm, not whether the citizen who owns, controls, or possesses the firearm is a member of some government regulated group; and fourth, per this test, the type of firearms protected by the Second Amendment that citizens have a right to buy, own, possess, control and use, responsibly, are all modern military, hand held, small arms, regardless of their appearance, rate of fire, power, lethality, etc.
The Minutemen enjoyed technological parity, if not superiority, with Redcoats. If the Second Amendment will continue to achieve its primary purpose, to deter government from degenerating into a tyrannical oppressor, armed citizens must retain firepower adequate to cope with government's armed forces and law enforcement personnel. Anyone who disagrees can ask surviving Comanches, Apaches, Navajo, etc. about the pros and cons of losing an arms race with the U.S. Calvary.
Anyone who claims that no federal district court has ever held that the Second Amendment does guarantee an individual right to arms and is a bar to prior restraint regulation is wrong. The federal district court in U.S. v. Miller did exactly that, and because it did, the United States appealed.
Anyone who claims that there is no individual right to arms and, therefore, no individual has standing [a legal requirement for a basis to bring a lawsuit based on a claim of individual injury], is wrong. The U.S. Supreme Court accepted the United States appeal. Significantly, it never held that Jack Miller and Frank Layton lacked standing, which it could have easily done and would have done, if it believed that that was the case.
To help illustrate the undersigned's reasoning-to-result, as stated above, relevant excerpts from this decision are repeated below with the undersigned's additional remarks stated in bold type within brackets. [Note: The numbers inside parenthesis refer to the page number in this case decision where the quoted language may be found.]
(178) In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, [Here is the U.S. Supreme Court's test for what type of arms are protected by the Second Amendment: Does the arm in question have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"? If it does, it is protected as an individual right. Short barrel shotguns were commonly used in the trenches in World War I, so the Court could have ruled in favor of Mr. Miller and Mr. Layton. But neither they nor their attorney contested this appeal and the U.S. attorney was certainly not motivated to introduce evidence that U.S. troops used short barrel shotguns in World War I. Hence, the Court properly decided this case conservatively and declined to rule for Mr. Miller and Mr. Layton in the absence of some evidence on this issue. The Court, therefore, remanded the case for the lower court to hold another evidentiary hearing on this issue. As an appellate court, the U.S. Supreme Court would not hold an evidentiary hearing.] we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. [Here is another test for the type of arms protected by the Second Amendment: if the firearm "is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense." That test, again, gives citizens an absolute right to own and use, responsibly, the exact hand held firearms used by modern infantry, paratroopers and U.S. Marines.] ... .¶With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view. [Gun prohibitionists seize on part of these immediately preceding two sentences to support their contention that the Second Amendment must be interpreted and applied with the end, and purpose, of maintaining a government regulated militia, which they assert is now the modern National Guard; hence, per their view, absence membership in the National Guard, and absence activity that is an official National Guard activity, no one has an individual right to arms. This view is non-meritorious. One of the key qualifiers in these two sentences, in context, is the qualifier "of such forces." What the Court mean by "of such forces" was forces that are not employed by the government, forces that supply their own privately owned firearms. Both of these qualities exclude the National Guard.] ...
¶(179) The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of county and laws could be secured through the Militia—civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion... . ¶[The writings, history and legislation of the time] show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. [Here we have the basis for the important qualifier, "such forces". It is inconceivable and illogical that armed citizens have no individual right to arms if and when, for decades, they "were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves ... ."] ... ¶'Men of republican principles have been jealous of a standing army as dangerous to liberty.' 'In a militia, the character of the laborer, artificer or tradesman, predominates over that of the soldier: in a standing army, that of the soldier predominates over every other character; and in this distinction seems to consists the essential difference between those two different species of military force.' [The militia is the "Peoples' Army," not corrupted by a government pay check. The Armed Forces, the National Guard, the Reserves and Law Enforcement are all forms of the "Government's Army," with the people being at risk of that army being used by Government as an oppressive tool to subjugate the people; hence, by the Second Amendment, the Framers and Ratifiers intended to ensure that the people, not the States, would have a legally enforceable right to arms which shall not be infringed under any pretext.] ... ¶'In all the colonies, as in England, the militia system was based on the principle of the assize of arms. This implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defense.' ...
¶(182) Most if not all of the States have adopted provisions touching the right to keep and bear arms. Differences in the language employed in these have naturally led to somewhat variant conclusions concerning the scope of the right guaranteed. But none of them seem to afford any material support for the challenged ruling of the court below. [Here, the Court was indicating that it did not unconditionally accept the lower court's ruling nor the arguments of the U.S. attorney.] ...
¶(183) We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below and the challenged judgment must be reversed. The cause will be remanded for further proceedings. [The U.S. Supreme Court was unable to accept the lower court's ruling only because of the absence of any evidence about whether short barrel shot guns had any modern use by then current military units or could be of any use to the preservation and effectiveness of a militia—which is composed of individuals who are not primarily soldiers and who supply their own arms; therefore, the Court reversed and remanded with instructions for the lower court to conduct a further evidentiary hearing on the specified pivotal factual issue.]
The undersigned's analysis of U.S. v. Miller is supported by the Fifth Circuit's United States v. Emerson (2001) 270 F.3d 203 decision, which said:
We conclude that Miller does not support the government's [Clinton/Reno era] collective rights or sophisticated collective rights approach to the Second Amendment. Indeed, to the extent that Miller sheds light on the matter it cuts against the government's position... . In undertaking this analysis, we are mindful that almost all of our sister circuits have rejected any individual rights view of the Second Amendment. However, it respectfully appears to us that all or almost all of these opinions seem to have been done so either on the erroneous assumption that Miller resolved the issue or without sufficient articulated examination of the history and text of the Second Amendment. [Emphasis added.]
The U.S. Supreme Court said in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) 319 U.S. 624,
The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections... .¶the task of translating the majestic generalities of the Bill of Rights, conceived as part of the pattern of liberal government in the eighteenth century, into concrete restraints on officials dealing with the problems of the twentieth century, is one to disturb self-confidence. These principles grew in soil which also produced a philosophy that the individual was the center of society, that his liberty was attainable through mere absence of governmental restraints, and that government should be entrusted with few controls and only the mildest supervision over men's affairs. We must transplant these rights to a soil in which the laissez-faire concept or principles of non-interference has withered at least as to economic affairs, and social advancements are increasingly sought through closer integration of society and through expanded and strengthened governmental controls. These changed conditions often deprive precedents of reliability and cast us more than we would choose upon our own judgment... . we act in these matters not by authority of our competence but for force of our commissions. We cannot, because of modest estimates of our competence ..., withhold the judgment that history authenticates as the function of this Court when liberty is infringed. [Emphasis added.]
Johnson v. Eisentrager (1950) 357 U.S. 371 dealt with the rights of captured German POW's who claimed the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, per the U.S. Bill of Rights. Justice Jackson, writing for the majority, stated that if German POW's could invoke the Fifth Amendment, they could invoke the rest of the Bill, which would lead to the absurd result of U.S. soldiers, in obedience to the Second Amendment, being forbidden to disarm the enemy. In context, the U.S. Supreme Court arguably held that the Second Amendment guarantees U.S. citizens an individual right to arms.
The U.S. Supreme Court in Reid v. Covert (1957) 354 U.S. 1 said,
The concept that the Bill of Rights and other constitutional protections against arbitrary government are inoperative when they become inconvenient or when expediency dictates otherwise is a very dangerous doctrine and if allowed to flourish would destroy the benefit of a written Constitution and undermine the basis of our government .....¶It is urged that the expansion of military jurisdiction over civilians claimed here is only slight, and that the practical necessity for it is very great. The attitude appears to be that a slight encroachment on the Bill of Rights and other safeguards in the Constitution need cause little concern. But to hold that these wives could be tried by the military would be a tempting precedent. Slight encroachments create new boundaries from which legions of power can seek new territory to capture. 'It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon.' [Emphasis added.]
The U.S. Supreme Court in Cooper v. Aaron (1958) 358 U.S. 1 held that state officials cannot assert their own good faith as a legal excuse for not respecting the constitutional rights of fellow citizens; the constitutional rights of citizens shall not be sacrificed to violence and disorder caused by state officials; the preservation of public peace cannot be accomplished by laws or ordinances which deny rights created or protected by the federal Constitution; the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the laws applies to all state action in whatever guise it may take; state laws may not nullify indirectly constitutional rights by evasive scheme; the federal constitution is the supreme law of the land; every state legislator, executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath to support that Constitution; no such officer "can war against the Constitution;" if they could, "the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery;" states must exercise their responsibilities consistent with the commands of the federal constitution, which is "our fundamental charter for all of us."
In Griswold v. State of Conn. (1965) 381 U.S. 479, Griswold, a licensed M.D., a Yale Medical School professor and the executive director of a birth control, planned parenthood clinic, was charged with, and convicted, of violating a state statute against distributing contraceptive information to married persons. Griswold defended on grounds of freedom of speech, rights to privacy, and denial of due process. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed, declaring that there are "penumbra" rights within the orbit of the specific rights declared in the Bill of Rights and that the rights declared in the Bill are not exhaustive. The majority said:
The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance... . Various guarantees create a zone of privacy... .¶We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. [Emphasis added.]
Three concurring judges, in the same concurring opinion, said:
... the Framers did not intend that the first eight amendments to be construed to exhaust the basic and fundamental rights which the Constitution guaranteed to the people... . [Emphasis added.]
Gun Prohibitionists insists that the Second Amendment is not a "fundamental right;" therefore, it is not incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment against the States. They fail to explain, however, how they get around this reality: Is it not impossible to exercise any right already deemed to be "fundamental" if one is murdered by a criminal? Hence, why is it not a "fundamental" right to defend one's life with a gun without Civil Authority's permission being required? At a minimum, the Second, Fourth, Ninth, Tenth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments contain the penumbra individual right to carry a firearms for lawful self-defense in a public place without Civil Authority's knowledge and/or approval being required.
In Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, the U.S. Supreme Court at page 459, in reference to "lofty principles" against arbitrary rule, said:
These sentiments worked their way over to the Colonies and were implanted after great struggle into the Bill of Rights. Those who framed our Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ever aware of subtle encroachments on individual liberty. They knew that 'illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure.' ... The [Fifth Amendment] privilege was elevated to constitutional status and has always been 'as broad as the mischief against which it seeks to guard.' ... We cannot depart from this noble heritage... .¶In this Court, the privilege has consistently been accorded a liberal construction. [Emphasis added.]
At page 467, this court said: "We encourage Congress and the States to continue their laudable search for increasingly effective ways of protecting the rights of the individual while promoting efficient enforcement of our criminal laws." [Emphasis added.]
At page 490, the Court was emphatic:
As courts have been presented with the need to enforce constitutional rights, they have found means of doing so. That was our responsibility ... and it is our responsibility today. Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them. [Emphasis added.]
In State v. Dawson (1967) 272 N.C. 535, two dissenting judges made a most insightful statement:
I am unable to understand how a right can be regulated without being infringed. The language of the present Constitution appears to be plain and unequivocal. It does not say that the right to bear arms cannot be infringed except for the promotion of peace and good order in the community. It says the right shall not be infringed. It is immaterial whether this is wise or unwise. That is what the Constitution says. [Emphasis added.]
Congress, in the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986, recognized "the rights of citizens ... to keep and bears arms under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution... ."
In U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990) 494 U.S. 259 the U.S. Supreme Court said this about "the people" as used in the Constitution:
... 'the people' seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by 'the People of the United States.' The Second Amendment protects 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.' and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to 'the people.' ... While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community... . The language of these Amendments contrasts with the words 'person' and 'accused' used in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating procedure in criminal cases. [Emphasis added.]
In a dissent, two judges said:
If we seek respect for law and order, we must observe these principles ourselves. Lawlessness breeds lawlessness... .¶In drafting both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the Framers strove to create a form of Government decidedly different from their British heritage. Whereas the British Parliament was unconstrained, the Framers intended to create a Government of limited powers... The colonists considered the British Government dangerously omnipotent... .Americans vehemently attacked the notion that rights were matters of "'favor and grace,'" given to the people from the Government.....¶Thus, the Framers of the Bill of Rights did not purport to 'create' rights. Rather, they designed the Bill of Rights to prohibit our Government from infringing rights and liberties presumed to be pre-existing. [Emphasis added.]
The U.S. Supreme Court held in Howlett By and Through Howlett v. Rose (1990) 496 U.S. 356 that the U.S. Constitution, as amended by the Bill of Rights, by force of law, per the "Supremacy Clause," is automatically written into every states' laws.
Federal law is enforceable in state courts ... because the Constitution and laws passed pursuant to it are as much laws in the State as laws passed by the state legislature. The Supremacy Clause makes those laws "the supreme Law of the Land," and charges state courts with a coordinate responsibility to enforce that law according to their regular modes of procedure. "The laws of the United States are laws in the several States, and just as much binding on the citizens and courts thereof as the State laws are... . The two together form one system of jurisprudence, which constitutes the law of the land for the State; and the courts of the two jurisdictions are not foreign to each other, nor to be treated by each other as such, but as courts of the same country, having jurisdiction partly different and partly concurrent." ... "[T]he governments and court of both the Nation and the several States [are not] strange or foreign to each other in the broad sense of that word, but [are] all courts of a common country, all within the orbit of their lawful authority being charged with the duty to safeguard and enforce the right of every citizen without reference to the particular exercise of governmental power from which the right may have arisen... . [Emphasis added.] ...
Three corollaries follow from the proposition that "federal" law is part of the "Law of the Land" in the State: 1. A state court may not deny a federal right, when the parties and controversy are properly before it, in the absence of "valid excuse"; 2. The Supremacy Clause forbids state courts to dissociate themselves from federal law because of disagreement with its content or a refusal to recognize the superior authority of its source; 3. These principles are fundamental to a system of federalism in which the state courts share responsibility for the application and enforcement of federal law; 4. The federal law is law in the State as much as laws passed by the state legislature; 5. A State may not relieve congestion in its courts by declaring a whole category of federal claims to be frivolous.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) 505 U.S. 833, 847 discussed the broad parameters of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause and noted that "all fundamental rights comprised within the term liberty are protected by the Federal Constitution from invasion by the States." The Court also recognized that the Fourteenth Amendment extends its protection to, but is not limited by, the rights expressly guaranteed in the U.S. Bill of Rights. Justice Harlan at page 841 stated that the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause included "the right to keep and bear arms ... ." The Court also held that the Fourteenth Amendment protects citizens from State infringements against the "indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty and private property".
United States v. Gomez (1996) 81 F.3d 846 involved these material facts: Steve Gomez, a felon, was promised by government agents that if he cooperated with them as an informant they would keep his identity a secret and protect him if his identity were revealed. These officials revealed his identity, which put his life in serious peril. Mr. Gomez received death threats, learned there was a contract out on his life and his begging of government officials, county officials and two different church officials left him unprotected. Out of desperation, Mr. Gomez took possession of a twelve-gauge shotgun from a friend's house. When found with this gun, he was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. Mr. Gomez defended on the grounds that, given death threats, etc., against his life, his possession of the firearms was legally justified for lawful self-defense. The United States claimed that a felon-in-possession is legally barred from a justification defense. Mr. Gomez countered that Congress did not intend to make ex-felons helpless targets for assassins.
The Ninth Circuit in Gomez held: Mr. Gomez should have been allowed to present a justification defense. In footnote 7, the court cited with approval a law review article that said,
The Second Amendment embodies the right to defend oneself ... against physical attack... . 'The fundamental right to self-preservation, together with the basic postulate of liberal theory that citizens only surrender their natural rights to the extent that they are recompensed with more effective political rights, require that every gun control law be justified in terms of the law's contribution to the personal security of the entire citizenry.' At that point, the Second Amendment might trump a statute prohibiting the ownership and possession of means that would be perfectly constitutional under ordinary circumstances. [Emphasis added.]
Justice Thomas, concurring in Printz v. United States (1997) 521 U.S. 898, 938-939, n.2, wrote, "Marshaling an impressive array of historical evidence, a growing body of scholarly commentary indicates that the 'right to keep and bear arms' is, as the Amendment's test suggests, a personal right."
In In re Englebrecht (1998) 67 Cal.4th 486 a city with a get tough on juvenile gangs attitude passed an ordinance that barred people from "Using or possessing pagers or beepers in any public place." A suspected gang member was arrested with a pager in his possession. This person argued that the ordinance which banned the use and possession of pagers or beepers was unconstitutionally overboard. The city argued that suspected gang members used pagers and beepers to facilitate gang drug sales and to communicate the movements of law enforcement to aid gang members to elude arrest. The District Court of Appeal held that the ban against use and possession of pagers or beepers is unconstitutionally overboard. The court reasoned that since pagers and beepers have "countless, lawful, legitimate and everyday uses, both in the personal sense and professionally" and since they "are not used only for illicit reasons," the ban against them is an overboard and infirm burden on the suspected gang member's right to free speech.
Firearms, like pagers or beepers, are not inherently good or bad. Nearly everything can be used for good or bad. Almost everything can be misused. The courts, however, are much more inclined to uphold infringements against Second Amendment rights than against First Amendment rights, perhaps in the mistaken belief that it is politically and/or professionally safer to be a champion of First than of the Second. But, from a well-informed citizens' perspective, all rights guaranteed by the entire Bill of Rights work best when they overlap and reinforce once another. For example, the First protects Free Speech, but the Second guarantees it, and the First, without the Second, is at the mercy of civil authority's tolerance.
Anyone who thinks that unfettered exercise of Free Speech is less dangerous than unfettered exercise of Gun Rights is mistaken and too simplistic. When a gun goes bang, it makes noise. The gun recoils. There is often some smoke. The bullet hits something. Depending on variables, the consequences could be serious and irreversible. Gravity, however, within less than five seconds, stops the movement of all bullets. Print and electronic means of exercising Free Speech, however, are capable of influencing hundreds of millions for years.
The Founders, Framers and Ratifiers would agree with this decision. They would also accuse the courts of fragmented thinking. They would ask this question: Why do you reject prior restraint on ideas but embrace it against firearms? Do you not realize that the Second enforces the First?
In United States v. Emerson (1999) 46 F. Supp.2d 598 (N.D. Texas) a federal court held that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) is unconstitutional because it allowed a state court to automatically deprive a citizen of Second Amendment rights without particularized findings of the threat of future violence, which made the statute overboard. This court stressed that Second Amendment rights must be taken seriously, like all other rights.
In People v. Camacho (2000) 23 Cal.4th 824, police received an anonymous complaint of a loud party at Mr. Camacho's home. They responded. They did not knock on the front door. Without a warrant, they entered Mr. Camacho's side yard. While standing in Mr. Camacho's side yard, where they did not have a legal right to be, they looked through a window without any covering and saw Mr. Camacho packaging cocaine in his home. They arrested him. He moved to suppress the evidence on the grounds that the police violated his Fourth Amendment privilege against unreasonable search and seizure. The trial court denied his motion and he appealed. The California Supreme Court held that the police violated Mr. Camacho's Fourth Amendment privilege against unreasonable search and seizure in that he had a legally enforceable expectation of privacy as to what he was doing inside his home. The majority opinion concluded with the following:
Finally, although the line we draw today lets an unquestionably guilty man go free, we observe that "constitutional lines have to be drawn, and on one side of every one of them is an otherwise sympathetic case that provokes impatience with the Constitution and with the line. But constitutional lines are the price of constitutional government." [Emphasis added.]
This court's decision is constitutionally unassailable. To their credit, they recognized, and honored, the Fourth Amendment's bar against "unreasonable search and seizures." However, this same court decided Kasler v. Lockyer earlier in the same year, and, in that case, failed to recognize, or respect, another constitutional line—a much brighter line: "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The Second's "shall not be infringed" is an absolute, categorical, no prior restraint, complete bar to all government regulation before a misuse of a firearm. The Second Amendment's bright line bar does not permit any judicial weighing of competing societal interests. The Fourth's "unreasonable search and seizures" bar is much less categorical: it does permit a judicial weighing of what is and is not an "unreasonable" search or seizure.
This court again manifested what appears to be fractured thinking. This court, like so many, loves the Fourth and apparently loathes the Second.
The Fifth Circuit in U.S. v. Emerson (2001) 270 F.3d 203, 264, held that "the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to privately keep and bear their own firearms that are suitable as individual, personal weapons ..., regardless of whether the particular individual is then actually a member of a militia."
Harvard's Laurence H. Tribe, in his American Constitutional Law, 3rd ed., Vol. One, , page vi, wrote:
... an avalanche of scholarly investigation, including my own research on the subject ..., has required me to revisit the meaning of that amendment, ... . My conclusions ... are: ... (2) that the Second Amendment does indeed protect individual rights as well as collective rights ... . [Emphasis added.]
A partial listing of the
"avalanche of scholarly investigation" that Professor Tribe
referenced is stated below. These articles, which are available on line,
are an excellent primer:
"The Supreme Court's Thirty-Five Other Gun Cases: What The Supreme Court Has Said About The Second Amendment" by attorney David B. Kopel, Saint Louis University Public Law Review, 1999. [Available on line. A superb, comprehensive analysis of cases that undermine the Gun Prohibitionists' professionally discredited, collective right, misconstruction of the Second Amendment.]
"What The Framers Intended: A Linguistic Analysis Of The Right To 'Bear Arms,'" by Stephen P. Halbrook, Law & Contemporary Problems, Winter, Vol. 49:1, 151-162 (1986);
"The Embarrassing Second Amendment," by Sanford Levinson, Yale Law Journal, Vol. 99, pp. 637-659;
"Tench Coxe and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 1787-1823," by Stephen P. Halbrook and David B. Kopel;
"The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments: The Framers' Intent and Supreme Court Jurisprudence," by Stephen P. Halbrook;
Testimony of Eugene Volokh [Prof., UCLA Law School] on the Second Amendment, Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Sept. 23, 1998;
"The Commonplace Second Amendment," by Prof. Eugene Volokh, 73 NYU L. Rev. 793 (1998);
"A Critical Guide To The Second Amendment" by Glenn Harlan Reyonlds, 62 Tenn. L. Rev. 461-511 (1995);
"Toward a Functional Framework for Interpreting the Second Amendment" by Scott Bursor, 74 Texas L. Rev. 1125-1151 (1996);
"Clearing The Smoke
From The Right To Bear Arms And The Second Amendment," by Anthony
J. Dennis, 29 Akron L. Rev. 57-92 (1995).
The Origins of the 2nd Amendment: A Documentary History of the Bill of Rights, 1787-1792, 2d Ed., Edited by David E. Young was referred to profusely in the Fifth Circuit's Emerson decision.
The following two articles
illustrate well that too many judges have been sloppy in their legal research
or, in the alternative, arguably, intellectually dishonest in terms of
the Second Amendment.
"The Right to Arms:
Does the Constitution or the Predilection of Judges Reign?" by Robert
Dowlut, 36 Oklahoma Law Review 65-105.
"The Racist Roots of
Gun Control" by Clayton E. Cramer, Kansas Journal Law & Public
Policy, Winter 1995, at 17.
Insights Regarding the Second Amendment
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. —Second Amendment to U.S. Constitution, Ratified December 15, 1791
1. The Second contains two primary clauses: the purpose clause [the first clause] and the right clause [the second clause.]
2. The right clause is a clear confirmation of the peoples' individual right to keep and bear arms which shall not be infringed per any pretext or rationale.
3. Per this right clause, this right is unrestrained as to time and place.
4. This confirmation is a formal codification of a pre-existing legally recognized right which the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers wanted all to adhere to, including—and especially—public officials.
5. While these two clauses are contained in one amendment, the purpose clause does not expressly limit the right clause.
6. The purpose clause is not a complete sentence whereas the right clause, standing alone, can be a complete sentence.
7. The Second does not expressly state that a pre-condition for an individual right to arms is that one must first belong to the "militia" or be a government employee. On the contrary, the Second, in the first clause—the purpose clause—merely states the militia's purpose, and then it goes on to state the right clause, which clearly sets forth arguably one of the brightest bright lines in the entire U.S. Constitution: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
8. To the extent that the true meaning of the Second is unclear to modern Americans, it is only a function of misinformation over time, and resultant lack of knowledge and understanding. We are approximately seven (7) generations removed from 1791 and in general fail to appreciate the core values and world view of the Founders and Framers.
9. Per Article I, Section 8, Clauses 12-16 of the U.S. Constitution, the Founders and Framers granted the federal government—in the Constitution—the power to raise and support a professional, standing army, to provide and maintain a navy, and to call forth, organize, arm, and discipline, the militia. This fact gave rise to another well documented, historical fact: Patrick Henry railed against the proposed U.S. Constitution and would not support it without the addition of a Bill of Rights which confirmed the peoples' rights.
[Patrick Henry's Arguments and Insights]
Patrick Henry argued against ratification of the U.S. Constitution without a Bill of Rights which confirmed the peoples' right to arms, as follows [exact quotes from a Henry speech]:
When government removes your armaments, you will have no power but government will have all power! What will you do when evil men take office?
You are writing this Constitution as if only good men will take office.
When evil men take office, the whole gang will be in collusion. They will keep the people in utter ignorance and steal their liberty by ambuscade [attacked from a concealed point.]
A standing army we shall have, also to execute the execrable commands of tyranny. Your guns are gone! What resistance could be made? Will you assemble and just tell them? Even if you could assemble, how will you enforce rightful punishment when due? Your guns are gone!
My great objection to this government is that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights, or waging war against tyrants. Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies, when our only defense, the militia, is put in the hand of the congress?
Oh, sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only necessary to assemble the people.
Let Mr. Madison [James Madison— "Father of the Constitution"] tell me when did liberty ever exist when the sword and the purse were given up from the people? Unless a miracle shall interpose, no nation ever did, nor ever can, retain its liberty after the loss of the sword and the purse.
The power of the federal courts would swell the patronage of the president. The president will lead in the treason. Your militia will leave you and fight against you... . Your laws on impeachment are a sham and a mockery due to mutual implication of government officials.
Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings—give us that precious jewel and you may take everything else.
The least you can do is guard
this Constitution with a Bill of Rights!
11. The Anti-Federalists' objections to the proposed U.S. Constitution was so pervasive that ratification of the proposed U.S. Constitution was in serious doubt. To achieve ratification, Madison promised the Anti-Federalists that if the proposed Constitution was ratified, he would promptly draft and prosed a Bill of Rights which would declare the peoples' rights.
12. Madison kept his promise. Hence, Madison is credited with being "The Father of the U.S. Constitution" and Henry is credited with being "The Father of the U.S. Bill of Rights."
13. Given this history, especially the Federalists/Anti-Federalists debate over the ratification of the U.S. Constitution with and without a Bill of Rights that confirmed the peoples' rights, it is intellectually dishonest to contend that the right declared in the Second is not an individual right.
14. The Second is found in a document titled "Bill of Rights." It is not entitled "A Bill of Additional Government Powers."
15. Civil authority, in the U.S. Constitution, already had the power to raise an army, a navy, to call forth the militia, and to organize and discipline the militia. Civil authority, therefore, did not need additional power to do the same to be declared in the U.S. Bill of Rights. On the contrary, the primary purpose of the Second was to confirm the peoples' individual rights to arms as a prudent safeguard against civil authority maintaining an army used to impose tyranny and/or to guard against Congress allowing the organized militia to waste away by lack of funding; therefore, the far sighted and politically wise Patrick Henry, demanded a Bill of Rights which included the Second Amendment which expressly declared that: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
16. The Second clearly states that the right recognized belongs to the people, not to the states nor to civil authority nor the army nor the National Guard nor law enforcement.
17. The Second does not state that the "militia" is a "government regulated militia."
18. A militia can be well-regulated without being "government regulated."
19. "Well-regulated" and "government regulated" are not interchangeable and, arguably, they are a contradiction.
20. The referenced militia is the peoples' army, one that does not receive a government paycheck.
21. The National Guard is not the modern equivalent of the militia referenced in the Second. In 1791, there were two types of militias: the select militia [full time, government employed and government paid soldiers] and the militia [civilians who owned their own privately owned and controlled, unregistered firearms who voluntarily marshaled as a self-imposed civic duty per their will when the perceived need to do so arose.] The National Guard is most similar to the select militia, but not the militia.
22. The "individual right" versus "collective right" debate is grossly misleading. The Second Amendment, when properly understood, does not involve an "either/or" choice. It involves both rights: individuals have a right to keep and bear arms and to collectively marshall as a militia.
23. When militia members marshaled, they showed up as civic minded volunteers, with their privately owned, unregistered, firearms, which they took home with them when they disassembled. These traits are not true of National Guardsmen.
24. The last part of the Second ["shall not be infringed."] is vitally important. This part must be taken seriously. This part means this: categorically, no prior restraint-citizens must be judged by their behavior, not by purported fear of what they might do.
25. Those who drafted and ratified the Second knew the Crown's oppressive, arbitrary rule and had felt the heavy-handedness and lethal acts of Redcoats sent to enforce their King's edicts. The "shot heard 'round the world" was fired at Concord Bridge in response to the British march to confiscate arms. The surviving victors who defeated Redcoats did so with privately owned, unregistered, arms. They were not stupid men. They thought and wrote clearly. Can anyone honestly believe that our Founders and Framers would have written into a document titled a "Bill of Rights" the right of civil authority to have a monopoly on arms and the power to disarm the People!? In a form of government that is supposed to be, "by the People, for the People, and of the People"!?
26. The Second Amendment, independently of, and with the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, provides the Constitutional authority necessary for "We, the People" to remain free from slavery and involuntary servitude and plunder by criminals, terrorists, and an abusive civil authority which passes and enforces laws "repugnant to the Constitution." The Second Amendment also gives "We, the People" to insists, with efficacy, that civil authority honor their First Amendment right to Petition for Redress of Grievances, and to exercise their other First Amendment right to believe that God, not civil authority, is the source of their rights.
27. Those who construe the Second to mean that it guarantees only the States a right to have a National Guard [the alleged modern successor to the militia] fail to come to intellectually honest terms with the following problems with their construction:
The Framers and Ratifiers knew the difference between people and state. Example: in the Tenth Amendment, they drew a logical distinction between people and state.
When the Framers and Ratifiers used people in the Second, did they really intend to use state? But, when they used people in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments did they really mean to use people, not state? If so, did they intentionally, or negligently, switched the meaning of people, as used in the Second, to mean state, even though they left no record to that effect? If so, why has no gun prohibitionists found such a record even though many have hunted for such a record for years and have failed to find any record to support their modern contentions?
Did the Framers and the Ratifiers, by the Second, intend to deny themselves a right to arms and to give civil authority a monopoly on arms ... even though they left an abundant record which made clear that they loathed a standing army?
Did the Framers and the Ratifiers put civil authority's power to have a monopoly on arms and to disarm the people in a document that they titled "Bill of Rights"?
Did the Framers and the Ratifiers
think it would promote the public's confidence in civil authority to grant
civil authority a monopoly on arms and the right to disarm ordinary citizens
who never misused arms? Did these people think that civil authority could
be trusted with a monopoly on arms?
Most who champion more victim disarmament laws argue that the militia referred to in the Second Amendment, in modern times, is now the National Guard. This argument is shallow and non-meritorious.
If the militia referred to in the Second Amendment is now the National Guard serious consequences arise from that interpretation. These consequences are:
1) The National Guard and its members now have a right to arms "that shall not be infringed." Reformulated, civil authority has lost control over a huge part of the Governments' army, namely, the National Guard.
2) The idea that the National Guard belongs to the States, is under the control of the states' governors, and is an adequate safeguard to protect the States from abuse by the Federal U.S. Armed Forces, is misleading. That idea is misleading for these reasons: A) All National Guard assets are owned by the federal government; B) All Guardsmen are paid by the federal government; C) The U.S. Supreme Court in Perpich v. Department of Defense (1990) 110 S.Ct. 2418 held that the President, as Commander in Chief, can "federalize" the National Guard to augment the active duty federal forces; D) Based on the Perpich holding, the President has the legal power to strip the States of their so called protection from the feds and use those forces to help subjugate the States; and E) Should ordinary citizens ever be disarmed, the federal government will have a legal monopoly on arms, which is exactly what Patrick Henry warned about, which is why James Madison was instrumental in drafting and ratifying the U.S. Bill of Rights.
More Questions for Champions of Victim Disarmament Laws
Can a right be regulated without being infringed? If so, how?
Are we to believe that the Framers and the Ratifiers did not understand the distinction between right and privilege?
Is the general welfare is promoted when civil authority reduces rights to privileges, which civil authority may arbitrarily deny, condition, or suspend, and has a monopoly on arms?
Is it legitimate for self-appointed Elitists to unilaterally pervert language to interpret away a right, allegedly to promote the general welfare, according to their view of the world and the law or what they think the law ought to be?
When judges interpret away a right, do they merely exercise their alleged right of judicial review without amending the Constitution? If so, where is the historical record that any Founder or Framer intended this result?
Is it prudent to grant the judiciary the absolute, final power to have a monopoly on what the Constitution means, plus judicial immunity so that they are immune for what they do? If so, what prudent person in full control of his or her rational faculties would sign an important contract that granted the other party to the contract the sole, absolute, final, unappealable, unilateral power to determine what the contract means, what are the rights and powers and duties of the parties to the contract?
A Critique of Some Major "Pro-gun Control" Cases
The discussion which follows establishes two sobering facts: first, certain judges have failed to honor this Constitutional bright line: "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.," and second, it is becoming increasingly dangerous and irresponsible for the Judiciary to tell millions of armed, loyal, U.S. citizens that they do not have an individual right to arms.
The life of the law is not logic but experience. If and when the Judiciary clearly tells armed U.S. citizens there is no individual right to arms, and civil authority attempts to disarm ordinary citizens, the Judiciary will realize too late that it failed to manage potential conflict prudently.
Galvan v. Superior Court (1969) 70 Cal.2d 851
San Francisco in 1968 passed a local ordinance that required the registration of all firearms within that city, with certain exceptions. This ordinance penalized the mere possession of an unregistered firearm. John Galvan, a resident, taxpayer and firearm owner in San Francisco, filed a petition that challenged this ordinance. Mr. Galvan contended this ordinance was void because it violated his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, it violated his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, it violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process of law, and the ordinance conflicted with the state's laws regulating firearms, which preempted San Francisco's ability to regulate in this area.
The California Supreme Court, in an unanimous decision, rejected all of Mr. Galvan's contentions. That Court held in Galvan that San Francisco's ordinance is a valid exercise of local police power; it was not preempted by state laws concerning firearms; it did not violate any provision of the United States or California Constitutions; it did not impose an undue burden; urban areas have a legitimate need to regulate firearms more heavily than rural areas; the wisdom of legislation is beyond the competence of the court; for a court to invalidate legislation based on the usefulness or desirability of the law, the law must be not only unwise but unrelated to any legitimate governmental basis; and the powers conferred on the police chief are not arbitrary nor excessive. The Court specifically held, "The claim that legislation regulating weapons violates the Second Amendment has been rejected by every court which has ruled on the question... .It is long since settled in this state that regulation of firearms is a proper police function." But, this Court did not set forth its analysis of the case precedent it cited. To exacerbate matters, much of the alleged authority that it cited does not hold what this Court attributes to that alleged authority.
Historically, The Tyrant's Pattern has always been this: Demonize firearms and all those who own them who are not on the Tyrant's payroll; whip up a public frenzy against firearms and their owners; demand the registration of firearms and their owners while assuring the public that registration is not the forerunner of confiscation; ban all firearms; confiscate all firearms; once the pragmatic ability to resist an insufferable abuse of power—a widespread, armed citizenry, has been defanged, consolidate power by harshly eliminating all opposition or potential opposition; impose total control; and finally, genocide.
Hitler manifested this pattern from the late 1930's to his demise in 1945. Entire forests have been eliminated to publish books, magazines, etc., about Hitler's version of The Tyrant's Pattern and the Holocaust. But only 24 years after the Allies, at great expense in national wealth and human life and staggering sacrifices, defeated Hitler, the California Supreme Court, in an unanimous decision, in a non-persuasive manner, interpreted away the Second Amendment, with little, if any, convincing legal analysis. The California Supreme Court engaged in "string cite" [cited a long list of cases without any legal analysis,] and found that nothing in the U.S. nor the California Constitutions bars the registration of all firearms in a central, government controlled database!
Such registration is a necessary prerequisite for Tyranny and Genocide. But the California Supreme Court, which is suppose to be a major legal bulwark tasked with safeguarding the peoples' liberty, unanimously sanctioned this ordinance! This Court reduced the Second Amendment to a dirt clod and smashed it as if the Court were a 50 ton tank at full speed. In effect, this Court held that it is good public policy to erode Liberty to make it easier for a tyrant to disarm the people by coercing all armed citizens to register their guns and themselves into a central, government maintained, data base.
Has registration of cars and drivers reduced highway carnage?
This firearm and firearm owner data base is not an effective crime control measure. It is a people control measure—an alarming one.
To reach this disturbing result, the Court manifested its wordsmith skills. The Court drew questionable distinctions between registration and licensing and among permit, license and certificate of ownership. The Court gave its blessings to this ordinance's requirement that each owner of a firearm in San Francisco, in order to continue to lawfully possess a firearm in San Francisco, must waive privacy, fill out an extensive form, show the firearm to the police, and pay the police money in order to get a "certificate of ownership" from the chief, even in the absence of any dispute as to who owned what! This form carried Hitler's imprint. This form, in effect, gave Civil Authority all the information it needed to round up responsible firearm owners in that city—to confiscate their guns and to incarcerate and/or murder them. The Court held that this ordinance was a registration law, not a licensing law [as if there is any material difference!,] and the State of California had not preempted such a registration law. At page 860, the Court said, "the Legislature has expressly prohibited requiring a license to keep a concealable weapon at a residence or a place of business." But it got around that by characterizing this ordinance as a registration law. The Second Amendment also makes this California statute unconstitutional.
Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy were both assassinated in the late 1960's, before Galvan was decided. The Court probably would have decided the same way but if these two prominent figures were killed before Galvan was decided, those deaths probably weighed heavily on the judges' minds. Nevertheless, judges are suppose to be objective, analytical and immune to public pressure and the passions of the time.
Fresno Rifle And Pistol Club, Inc. v. Van de Kamp (1990) 746 F.Supp. 1415
The California Legislature passed a law that imposed restrictions on assault weapons, which the Legislature said have such a high rate of fire and such high capacity for firepower that their function as a legitimate sport or recreational firearm is substantially outweighed by the danger that they can be used to kill and injure human beings; therefore, the Legislature is free to regulate assault weapons extensively.
This case was a legal challenge to a California statute that regulated the manufacture and transfer of what the courts now pejoratively call assault weapons. Lead counsel for the plaintiffs was Stephen P. Halbrook, a Second Amendment litigation specialist.
This Court held that the Second Amendment bars an infringement only by Congress or the National Government, and it has no application to the States; the Second Amendment guarantees only a collective right possessed by the States to maintain a militia, not an individual right; the U.S. Constitution has properly left the question of gun control to the States; nothing in the challenged California law violates any part of the U.S. Constitution or the U.S. Bill of Rights; the Second Amendment does not involve any right deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,"; there is no connection between the right to privacy and the right to possess arms; nothing in the challenged law violated anyone's rights—there is no violation of right to privacy, right to defend oneself, right to property, right against self-incrimination.
This decision must have the Founders, the Framers and the Ratifiers spinning in their graves. Their generation would be disgusted with the current generation for tolerating this decision. These judges reached this decision by an analysis that is non-meritorious.
The Second expressly states that "the people," not "the militia," has a right to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.," but this court interchanged the two nouns, and ended up with a result that gutted the Second, that sanctioned the Legislature's unconstitutional grab for raw power.
Citizens who believe that the Second guarantees an individual right to arms free of prior restraint, paid good money to challenge this law in a socially acceptable, non-violent manner. This Court, however, imprudently stiff armed these citizens. To the extent that the courts continue to gut the Second, it motivates citizens to think of another solution to this problem.
Hickman v. Block (1996) 81 F.3d 98
Doug Hickman sued cities, county and officials for denying him a CCW [concealed carry weapon] permit in violation of his Second Amendment right to arms. He argued that Civil Authority has a duty "to regulate gun ownership and use in a 'reasonable' manner."
This Court ruled, however, that anyone who sues invoking federal jurisdiction has the burden to establish his standing to sue; to satisfy that burden, one must satisfy three elements: first, proof that he has suffered injury to a legally protected interest, this injury must be concrete and particularized, and it must be actual or imminent rather than conjectural or hypothetical; second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of; and third, the injury must be redress able by a favorable judicial decision; Mr. Hickman lacked standing [legal basis to show a legal injury] to sue for violation of the Second Amendment because the Second Amendment right to arms is a right held by the states and does not protect the possession of weapons by a private citizen; the States alone stand in a position to show legal injury when this right is infringed; and the Second guarantees only the States' right to keep an armed militia.
To reach this result, this Court relied heavily on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Miller (1939) 307 U.S. 174 and misconstrued it. The Hickman court said:
Consulting the text and history of the [Second] amendment, [the U.S. Supreme Court in Miller] found that the right to keep and bear arms is meant solely to protect the right of the states to keep and maintain the armed militia. In a famous passage, the Court held that
[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that the possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
... The Court's understanding follows a plain reading of the Amendment's text. The Amendment's second clause declares that the goal is to preserve the security of 'a free state;' its first clause establishes the premise that a 'well-regulated militia' is necessary to this end. Thus it is only in furtherance of state security that 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' is finally proclaimed.
... '[i]t is clear that the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right.' ... Because the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the states to maintain armed militia, the states alone stand in the position to show legal injury when this right is infringed... .
Because the right to keep an armed militia is a right held by the states alone, Hickman has failed to show 'injury' as required by constitutional standing doctrine. Accordingly, we have no jurisdiction to hear this appeal. [Emphasis added.]
The Hickman court implies that it limited itself to an objective, "plain reading of the Amendment's text." But, that is not what it did.
This Court is stuck with the Second's text, which is the starting point for analysis because that is what was ratified. Nothing this Court opined changes this objectively verifiable, undisputed, fact: the Second says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." It does not say, "the right of the militia [or the right of the States] to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Additionally, it does not say, "a government regulated militia." Instead, it states, "A well-regulated militia ... ." But the Hickman court, through its non-meritorious analysis, inserted the non-existent word "government" into the text as an adjective of "militia." This change is impermissible. Merely because we live in an age were we are accustomed to heavy government regulation does not mean that "well regulated" means "government regulated." The Second also does not say that in order to have "a right to keep and bear arms, that shall not be infringed.," one must first be a member of the militia nor that the right is limited to militia purposes only.
The debate over an individual versus a collective right is understandable but not compelled. It is axiomatic that in construing the Second, that, to be intellectually honest and to comply with the Rules of Construction, we must go back in time and put ourselves in the position of the Framers and the Ratifiers, and construe the text through their eyes, using their definitions. When we do that we come to terms with these facts: the Framers/Ratifiers hated and feared a large standing army; they lacked the money to pay for one; they wanted "defense on the cheap;" an armed citizenry was widespread; it was universally recognized in their world that the people had an individual right to arms and to keep these privately owned, unregistered firearms under their immediate control; when these people marshaled as a militia, they exercised their individual right to arms collectively, as a militia, to secure a free state; when the emergency was over, they returned to their personal affairs, keeping in their possession their unregistered, privately owned firearms, which they continued to use as an individual right.
All of this well documented history is discussed in detail in United States v. Miller. Inexplicably, however, the Hickman court's allegedly objective, "plain reading" of the Second, citing Miller for authority, reached a result that is 180 degrees of what Miller really held.
And here is a "gotcha": The U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Miller accepted Miller's appeal, heard it and did not bounce Miller on the ground that Miller lacked standing!
From this perspective, one has good cause to entertain questions about the competency of the Hickman judges, about their integrity, about their objectivity, and/or about the quality of their legal research and/or reasoning-to-result.
The Federal Ninth Circuit oversees a huge proportion of the United States' land mass and population. It is irresponsible, and dangerous, for this court, for the reasons it stated, to rule that no ordinary private citizen in its jurisdiction has standing to sue for violation of his or her Second Amendment rights.
There are Four Boxes of Freedom: Soap Box, Ballot Box, Jury Box and Cartridge Box. These boxes are most prudently resorted to in that sequence.
Filing an appeal to pursue a perceived violation of Second Amendment rights is a socially approved, non-violent extension of the Jury Box. There are only three boxes before one gets to the final box—the Cartridge Box.
Courts unconstitutionally, irresponsibly, and dangerously thwarted the rights of Mr. Galvan, the Fresno Rifle and Pistol Club, Inc. and Mr. Hickman. To the extent the courts continue to stiff arm people who want to try to resolve this issue non-violently, the courts may ultimately motivate many citizens to resort to the Cartridge Box.
Compliance with the 5th Amendment
The moment the idea is admitted
into Society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that
there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy
and tyranny commence. Property must be secured or Liberty cannot exist.
If the above discussion regarding the Second Amendment is not convincing, all civil authority in the United States must still comply with the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, all state governments, and their political subdivisions, must also comply with their state analogs to the Fifth Amendment, such as California's Article I, Section 19 of California's Constitution. Consequently, no civil authority in the United States can Constitutionally destroy anyone's private property firearm(s) in the guise of promoting the public's interest without first paying the owner of same the reasonable fair market value for same.
How much more bedrock law are Champions of Victim Disarmament Laws willing to subvert to try to achieve their illegitimate, unconstitutional agenda and goals?
How much more of the U.S. and the California Constitutions is civil authority willing to ignore, destroy, trample, or interpret away, to achieve more Victim Disarmament Law?
Where is it written in the Constitution that protected individual rights must yield to presumed collective rights?
Since no exception exists in the Fifth Amendment, U.S. Constitution or in Article I, Section 19, California's Constitution, for confiscation and destruction of privately owned handguns without payment of just compensation, is it Constitutionally illegitimate to treat a U.S. citizen's right to his firearm(s) as inconsequential and to treat his firearm(s) as condemnable private property without due process of law and compliance with Constitutional provisions?
Is a government's power to destroy a citizen's firearm arbitrary or Constitutional? If arbitrary, it must be rejected-correct? If Constitutional, then a citizen must, at a minimum, be provided a jury trial, and, if civil authority insists upon destroying his firearm(s), it must first pay the citizen "just compensation"—which he is free to use to buy a replacement, per the Second Amendment-correct?
Do those who champion Victim Disarmament Laws manifests irrational fears or tyrannical tendencies or both? Why?
Is the judiciary suppose to protect citizens from civil authority's unconstitutional acts?
If civil authority can destroy a citizen's firearm(s) without paying him just compensation, does it act unconstitutionally? If so, if civil authority can do that, can it also do that to anything and anybody—capriciously? Why?
Must privately owned firearms be to private property under the Second, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments and Article I, Section 19 of California's Constitution what speech is to the First Amendment and Article I, Section 2 of California's Constitution: fully protected under the law?
Must a U.S. citizen be judged by his behavior, per the Constitutional Rule of Law, not by political correctness or social engineering in contravention of the Constitution?
How long should citizens
who are serious about defending the U.S. Constitution against its domestic
enemies tolerate unconstitutional behavior or traitors or both?
Self-Anointed, Freedom Haters, Liberty Thieves, and Anti-Rights Elitists, demonize privately owned firearms. This crowd uses language as a weapon, to pervert, and to interpret away, a vital right. Consider their typical re-write of the Second Amendment.
Civil Authority's regulated A well regulated militia Armed Forces, National Guard, and Law Enforcement, being necessary to secure Civil Authority's power, to the security of a free state, the right of Civil Authority to keep and bear arms, and to disarm citizens, shall not be infringed. the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Classic Definition of a Police State
But civil authority's alleged right to have a monopolistic "right to arms," which "shall not be infringed," is a classic definition of a police state. To exacerbate matters, advocates of more victim disarmament laws do not adhere strictly to logic or to their own corrupt version of the Second. This is because they impose restrictions against the time, place, and type of arms used by the armed forces, National Guard, and law enforcement, which is contrary to "shall not be infringed."
Too Dangerous to be Entrusted With a Firearm ... or With a Gavel?
Parchment barrier Constitutional bright lines and logic have not stopped advocates of more victim disarmament laws, tyrant wannabees and/or their useful idiots. Consider, for example, what an intermediate California appellate court held in a case that dealt with a citizen accused by government of being mentally infirmed and thus too dangerous to be entrusted with a firearm:
"The court will be candid that the Court finds that the nature of these particular assault weapons are inappropriate in the hands of anybody with the least bit of mental imbalance ... ." Rupf v. Yan (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 411, 433, fn 3 [Emphasis added.]
"Appellant argues ... that his return of his firearms is a fundamental right under the Second Amendment ... and that the constitutionality of section 8102 is therefore subject to strict scrutiny review. Clearly this is not so... . regulations of firearms is a proper police function... . 'the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia'" [citing United States v. Miller (1939) 307 U.S. 174, 178.] Rupf v. Yan (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 411, 421
Rupf cites United States v. Miller without any analysis ... and it cites it for a proposition for which Miller does not stand.
The U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Miller, held that if a firearm [not an individual] has "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia," or, if the firearm "is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense," one's right to such a firearm is protected per the Second.
Rupf illustrates well how, between 1791 and 2002, some judicial officers have manifested civic malpractice and how modern Americans are burdened with a too frequent judicial despotism that manifests sloppy legal research or an inexplicable, myopic, hostility toward the Second Amendment and privately owned firearms.
A Conversation With Sebastopol, California City Council Member Bill Roventini
Bill Roventini of Sebastopol, California is an ex-Sebastopol city council member and former Sebastopol major. While still a city council member, he told me something relevant, like this [paraphrased,] "Peter, after one listens to your passion, and feels your intensity, one can entertain doubts about your mental stability, if it would be safe to entrust you with a CCW permit. You are radical."
"Radical in what sense, Bill? What do you mean by radical?." I asked.
"You are intense. Your passion is hot. You cut to the core. You see everything in black and white. It's obvious you have done your homework. But you make some of us feel so uncomfortable. Some of us are afraid of you and what you might do if the chief gave you a CCW permit."
[Smiling.] "I am not surprised by your candor.," I said. "Thank you for your candor. You confirmed some of my suspicions. You need not worry about me asking the chief for a CCW permit. I have no intention of asking for such a permit. I ask about it to learn, to find out how bad things are around here, not to apply for one. Thank you for the compliment that I am a radical. There is nothing wrong with being a radical. The Founders and the Framers were radicals. I am not in their league but I do adhere to their ideas. The very idea that you and others have a concern about my mental stability, sincere or bogus, is interesting. None of you are licensed health care professionals. Even if you were, so what? A person should be judged by their conduct, not by what others fear they might do. Your candor just now confirms why the Framers ended the Second with 'shall not be infringed.' The Framers knew how easy it would be for Freedom Haters and Liberty Thieves to stretch for any fig leaf rationale to strip another citizen of his or her right to arms. Part of the real problem is this: You people are not afraid enough. You are too damn smug and cocky. You wipe your ass with the Bill of Rights and stonewall against demands for reform because you believe you can get away with it and you have enough confidence in my mental stability that I will remain peaceful. All of that is the truth and you know it even if you refuse to admit it. Furthermore, Bill, if you people would simply obey the Constitution's commands, I would not have to press the issue and I would not have good cause to take action against any of you. I have a legitimate complaint and you know it. It is normal, and a sign of excellent mental health and situational awareness, to become proactive and assertive when you know a public servant is functioning as a public serpent."
Mr. Roventini then looked sheepish. There was a moment of quiet. I then took him by the hand and walked him over to a framed copy of his sworn, signed, oath of office to be a city council member. Pointing to that oath with one hand, holding his other hand nicely, and looking at him and that framed document, I firmly told him something like what follows.
"Bill, you have no choice. You ran for office. You won. You took that oath. Here is proof that you took that oath. You sit in that seat subject to that oath. You swore to uphold, to defend, and to support the United States Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I took a similar oath, more than once. Now, do you realize that you and the rest of the council have been functioning as domestic enemies of the United States Constitution? And you call me a radical. How long must I tolerate your fraud on the public? Your political cowardice? Your shenanigans? You tell me you agree with many of my ideas and you are working on reform behind the scenes with the chief. But, I see no results. I want results. I want my entitlement to be taken seriously. I claim my birthright."
Bill Roventini then became agitated, firm, louder, and talked rapidly.
"Listen, Peter, I have held elected office for more years than anyone in Sebastopol's entire history. I am proud of that fact. I have been the mayor. I have been a city council member before. People look up to me and respect me. I am in a difficult position. Too many people disagree with your ideas. I want to be re-elected. Publicly supporting your ideas will hurt my chances for re-election. I am being candid with you. I am sorry. I am so sorry. I just do not have the courage to champion what you want me to do."
"Well, Bill," I said, "thank you again for your candor. You confirmed what I also suspected. You claim you agree with most of my ideas but getting re-elected is more important to you. You will not support my ideas even if you think they are right because you want to get re-elected. Do you know what that makes you, Bill? That makes you a political whore. And that makes me a victim of the tyranny of the majority and of a gutless official who has dishonored his sworn oath who thinks his desire to get re-elected is more important than my birthrights-rights that are enshrined in the United States Constitution, rights that you swore to protect as a condition of sitting your ass in that council chair. And you wonder why I get snarly with you and the others."
Warning: If and when officials like Larry Robinson, Bill Roventini, Dianne Feinstein, Gray Davis, Bill Lockyer, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, and others get citizens defanged, can you imagine the prior restraints they will put on one's exercise of other rights-with the Judiciary's approval—in the name of necessity?
Want to publish something? Once citizens are defanged, the days of "no prior restraint" will eventually be over. Once citizens are defanged, eventually, if one wants to publish something, odds are high that eventually one will have to encounter the following new rules: 1) Submit a draft to a government official for approval; 2) Pay a fee for a review; 3) Submit to a mental health exam paid for by you conducted by an expert selected by government; 4) Change content per the official's demand; 5) Do not exceed an arbitrary page limit; 6) Avoid certain topics, words, and terms; 6) Limit yourself to X number of submissions per Y time frame; 7) Establish your credentials to write about Z; 8) Do not say anything negative about the in-favor Elites; 9) Wait X days or weeks or months for a government censor to finish his or her review; 10) Resubmit a new draft for prior government approval after paying another fee.
Think the above is absurd? That it would never come to that?
Once citizens are defanged how will citizens be able to stop such oppression? With good intentions? Tolerance? Compromise? Wringing one's hands? Singing, "... the answer is blowing in the wind ...."?
Twenty-five years ago who would have thought that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." would ever be declared by a panel of federal appellate judges to mean the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to arms, citizens do not have any right to own or have a firearm, and the Second Amendment guarantees only the States' "collective right" to have a National Guard, which is the militia referenced in the Second?
Digression: Bill Roventini has some wonderful qualities; however, once he made it clear that he would not publicly support my ideas, and he really did not give a damn about my right to defend my life with a gun in a public place, I made it a point to tell those in town who would listen about what Mr. Roventini told me. Mr. Roventini lost the next election by a few votes. I wonder to what extent, if any, I motivated some people to not vote for him. His successor, however, is worse.
Don't Kid Yourself
I once saw a wonderful framed quotation in the office of a California National Guard helicopter pilot's office in Stockton, California. The quotation, paraphrased, went like this:
Do not kid yourself. Integrity cannot be stored up, saved, rationed, and called forth when needed for something important. Never compromise on anything little. If you refuse to tell the truth about something little you create a rut in your character that makes it easier for you to compromise again when you are confronted with something important. Each compromise makes the rut in your character bigger.
Bill Roventini was willing to compromise with my birthright to help himself get re-elected. He had no right, however, to sell me out, to make me a victim of the local tyranny of the majority.
Digression: References are made to Larry Robinson and to Bill Roventini only because they are local politicians who illustrate well how elected officials create problems for their constituents and for themselves when they break faith with the Framers' vision and violate the Constitution's commands. Hence, they are referenced merely as convenient "teaching tools" to explain how fragile Liberty is and how malleable it is in the hands of political whores.
The Great Import of "Shall Not Be Infringed."
The Framers knew how easy it would be for government officials to charge any citizen with being "the least bit of mental imbalance[d]" and how such a charge could be used, and abused, as a fig leaf justification to circumvent the Second Amendment and a citizen's individual right to arms. Hence, to guard against such, the Framers ended the Second with "... shall not be infringed." That ending means a person must be judged based on what he does-his conduct, not based on another's fears of what he might do. Reformulated, "... shall not be infringed." means, literally and categorically, NO PRIOR RESTRAINT, PERIOD.
Every word and every phrase in the United States Constitution is a manifestation of the Framers' deliberate choice between Governments' powers and the Peoples' rights. This is true of how the Second Amendment ends: "... shall not be infringed." "Shall" is a clear, unequivocal, unqualified, absolute, no exceptions permitted, command. "Not" is a clear, unequivocal, unqualified, absolute, no exceptions permitted, negative. "Infringed" means no erosion, no dilution, no suspension, no re-writing, no prior restraint, period. Together, these words—"shall not be infringed"—mean that 1) any form of prior restraint against the individual right to arms is unconstitutional; 2) a person must be judged based on his conduct, not based on anyone's fears of what a person might do; and 3) no one's right to arms may be forfeited nor compromised nor reduced to a mere privilege because others abuse their right to arms and that abuse makes others afraid of the right because they deem it too dangerous to take seriously.
Once any form of prior, so called, or alleged, reasonable restraint, against the individual right to arms is permitted, that right automatically is reduced to a mere privilege and Government has set the stage to defang the armed citizenry which is a dangerous step toward tyranny and genocide.
If the time shall ever come
(which Heaven avert), when men shall be placed in the supreme tribunal
of the country, who entertain opinions hostile to the just powers of the
Constitution, we shall then be visited by an evil defying all remedy.
Our case will be past surgery. From that moment the Constitution is at
an end... . If I live to see that day come, I shall despair of the country...
. I know of no security against the possibility of this evil, but an awakened
public vigilance. I know of no safety, but in that state of public opinion
which shall lead it to rebuke and put down every attempt ... to dilute
the Constitution by creating a court which shall construe away its provisions...
. Let us hope that we shall never see the time when ... the government
shall be found in opposition to the Constitution, and when the guardians
of Union shall become its betrayers.
Great Import of First Amendment's Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances
The right to sue and defend
in the courts is the alternative of force. In an organized society, it
is the right conservative of all other rights, and lies at the foundation
of orderly government.
The issue is The Peoples'
Right to hold government to Constitutional restraint. If they cannot hold
it to account for such violations, then either the Constitution is not
the supreme law, or the supreme law does not bind government. The supreme
law of the land must be as binding on government when government doesn't
like it as it is on citizens whether they like it or not. If either the
people or government do not like certain constitutional clauses the remedy
is to amend the Constitution, not "interpret" it contrary to
its express and contextual meanings. The Constitution contains its own
terms for amendment, and "judicial fiat" is not among them.
That is what the Right of
Petition is. It is the right conservative of all others. It is designed
to bring government to account under the law of the land, or by force
if necessary, for the violation of other rights. It is so powerful that
its free use will prevent the hostilities of war between government and
governed and the mere promise to respect it can restore peace to warring
factions because it is the instrument of justice under law, as between
government and governed. It is intended to subject government to the compulsory
process of law when government does not want to fairly redress the grievance.
It is so important that "law" without it, is "law without
justice," and that is another name for oppression.
Judicial cowardice is not
a very good reason to refuse to support the Constitution.
Prized American Privilege
The assumption that respect
for the judiciary can be won by shielding judges from published criticism
wrongly appraises the character of American public opinion. For it is
a prized American privilege to speak one's mind, although not always with
perfect good taste, on all public institutions. And an enforced silence,
however limited, solely in the name of preserving the dignity of the bench,
would probably engender resentment, suspicion, and contempt much more
than it would enhance respect.
It is the duty of an attorney
to do the following: (a) To support the Constitution and laws of the United
States ... .
Clients are entitled to vigorous,
zealous, and determined representation by counsel.
Leeway to Argue for Change
A litigant must be given
leeway to argue for an evolution of precedent.
Few more daunting responsibilities
could be imposed on counsel than the duty to confront a judge with his
or her alleged ... bias ... . The risk of offending the court and the
doubt whether the problem could be cured by objection might discourage
the assertion of even meritorious claims... . the sources of judicial
authority lies ultimately in the faith of the people that a fair hearing
may be had. Judicial behavior inimical to that necessary perception can
never be countenanced and may well provide a basis for reversal even if
not the product of ... bias.
History Repeats Itself?
To prove this, let facts
be submitted to a candid world. ¶He [King George, III] has refused
his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good...
.¶He has made judges dependent on his will alone ... ¶He has
erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers
to harass our people, and eat out their substance... .¶He has combined
with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution,
and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended
legislation: ... For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial
by jury: ... .¶For taking away our charters, abolishing our most
valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:
What do we mean by the Revolution?
The War? That was no part of the Revolution. It was only an Effect and
Consequence of it. The Revolution was in the Minds of the People, and
this was effected, from 1760 to 1775, in the course of fifteen years before
a drop of blood was drawn at Lexington.
Reflections Upon "Immunities"
The only place where "immunities" is stated in the original U.S. Constitution is Article IV, Sec. 2(1). The judiciary, however, devalued U.S. citizenship when it invented, for itself and for all branches of government, and for many of civil authority's agents—a new immunity. This illegitimate immunity reduces the First Amendment's Right to Petition government for redress of grievances to a sham. Such immunity equals unaccountability. Civil authority, often with the judiciary's support, has placed itself above, and against, the U.S. Constitution and U.S. citizens, who, in theory, are suppose to be the master. Today, however, the master is controlled by his servant—who no longer functions as if tied down by the Constitution's chains. Advocates of more victim disarmament laws are so intent on demonizing privately owned firearms and their owners that they pervert other Constitutional bright lines. Civil authority, including much of the judiciary, has squandered its legitimacy and its credibility. This situation is dangerous. To illustrate, consider what Rupf, in effect, did to re-write Article I, Sec. 19 of California's Constitution.
Private property may be taken or damaged for public use only when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or into court, for the owner. Privately owned firearms shall be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation and without a jury trial.
California's Supreme Court in People v. Camacho (2000) 23 Cal.4th 824, a Fourth Amendment narcotic case opined, "[C]onstitutional lines are the price of constitutional government." But some California judges have manifested disjointed, fragmented thinking. Some judges are willing to enforce Constitutional bright lines that they like [typically arising from the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments] but are apparently unwilling to enforce Constitutional bright lines that they loathe [typically arising from the Second Amendment.] As an example, compare the majority decisions in In re Englebrecht (1998) 67 Cal.App. 4th 486 [dealing with First and Fourth Amendment protections of gangs using pagers] and People v. Camacho, supra, [dealing with a narcotics dealer's Fourth Amendment rights] versus Kasler v. Lockyer (2000) 23 Cal.4th 472 and In re Jorge M. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 866 [both dealing with so-called assault weapons—which treated inanimate objects in a demonic fashion.]
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis warned against such disjointed, fragmented thinking: "If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable." If people knew their history, they would understand why George Washington, the "Father of the Country" and first U.S. President, described privately owned, unregistered firearms as Liberty's teeth. The ultimate, Constitutionally sanctioned, purpose of such arms, is, when everything else fails, to use them to protect life and property, to deter tyranny, and to preserve or to restore Liberty. This is precisely why misguided agents of civil authority, tyrant wannabees or both loathe privately owned, unregistered, firearms.
Reflections Upon "Unalienable Rights"
All U.S. citizens enjoy unalienable rights. The July 4th, 1776 Declaration is this nation's first organic law, the life sustaining root that anchors the Tree of Liberty, of which the U.S. Constitution is the major trunk.
Unalienable means: not transferable to another nor capable of being repudiated, denied, curtailed, suspended, infringed; not created by mortals; inherent to Man because of Man's nature; originating in Nature and/or from a Creator. Citizens' unalienable rights are a gift to them from their Creator. These rights do not come from civil authority. These unalienable rights pre-existed, and survived, the formation of civil authority. These unalienable rights are codified in the U.S. Bill of Rights. The State of California officially recognizes, and sanctions, these concepts. Calif. Const.'s Preamble; Article I, Sec. 1. Every July 4th, we celebrate these concepts on a national holiday—some in earnest, some paying lip service. Unfortunately, too many undermine Liberty the remaining 364 days.
U.S. citizens' unalienable rights include "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" ['76 Dec.] and "enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy." Calif. Const. Article I, Sec. 1. These rights are a sham without the pragmatic means to enforce these rights. An effective means of enforcing rights, to defending life, and to preserving Life, Liberty and Safety, is the retention of privately owned, unregistered firearms in the hands of citizens loyal to the Constitutional Rule of Law.
U.S. citizens also have a right of "liberty of conscience" to believe, and to exercise their belief, in a responsible manner that does not harm another, that a Creator, not civil authority, is the source of their unalienable rights. First Amend., U.S. Const.; Article I, Sec. 4, Calif. Const.
Judicial Review: judges review legislation and render their decision regarding the Constitutionality of the legislation; however, their decision is merely their advisory opinion of what the law is and not legally binding on the co-equal branches of government or "We, the People."
Judicial Supremacy: the U.S. Supreme Court is the final authority as to what is and is not Constitutional. All other branches of government at all levels, and, "We, the People," must obey what the U.S. Supreme Court declares is the law.
Stare Decisis: factually similar cases should be decided similarly in compliance with how higher judges in a jurisdiction decided similar cases and established case law precedents for same.
Judicial Immunity: All judges are 100% immune from suit and/or personal liability for liability in damages for anything they do that is "judicial," regardless of their competency, intent, and/or motivation, including ill will, in conscious disregard of someone's rights.
These concepts, in combination, mean this: the U.S. Supreme Court has placed itself above the Executive, above the Legislature, above the Constitution, and above "We, the People." To exacerbate matters, the U.S. Supreme Court's invention of the Doctrines of Sovereign Immunity, Executive Immunity, Congressional Immunity, and Judicial Immunity means this: first, it has corrupted all branches of government; second, it has reduced the First Amendment's Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances to a sham because civil authority, via the invention of these various immunities, has made itself substantially immune from an effective remedy controlled by "We, the People;" and third, "We, the People" have lost control of civil authority. Consequently, the U.S. Supreme Court, and the rest of the Judiciary, can get away with functioning as Judicial tyrants.
Who would enter into a contract knowing that the contract stated that the other signatory to the contract had the absolute, legally enforceable, sole, unfettered, arbitrary, power to define the contract's terms, to interpret the contract's terms, to determine what the parties' rights, duties, and obligations were, to determine whether there was compliance with, or a breach of, the contract, to declare themselves immune from any liability, and to declare that the other party was in breach of the contract, and had to pay "X" dollars, all without any right of review, of appeal, of release, or relief of any kind?
Is not that essentially what the U.S. Supreme Court, via the Doctrines of Judicial Supremacy, Judicial Immunity, and Sovereign Immunity, done to the U.S. Constitution and "We, the People"?
If so, how can it truly be said, with intellectual honesty, that "We, the People" are sovereign, are civil authority's master, and that we are free?
Reflections Upon "Judicial Despotism"
The California Supreme Court in People v. Birks (1998) 19 Cal.4th 108, at pages 116-117, declared, in reference to the judges who sit on that court, "... we are the final arbiters of the meaning of the California Constitution. If we have construed that document incorrectly, only we can remedy the mistake ...." That is a forceful assertion of the Doctrine of Stare Decisis.
Most judges have declared that they feel professionally obligated to adhere to the Doctrine of Stare Decisis. Stare decisis, however, is a judicially invented doctrine which suffers from serious limitations which some jurists and lawyers have seriously abused to interpret away the U.S. Constitution or to distort it beyond recognition. Stare decisis was never intended to be applied to the Constitution in a manner that judicial interpretation has the effect of amending away a right enshrined in the United States Constitution in the guise of interpretation.
The undersigned took an oath to uphold and support the U.S. Constitution—not what a judge or any panel of judges state is the law. If the undersigned's oath is construed to mean that he is sworn to be blindly obedient to any judge or panel of judges then he [and other U.S. citizens] must submit to a morphing of the Divine Right of Kings into the Divine Right of Judges—to rule, per their caprice, without check, above, and even against, the U.S. Constitution and "We, the People," who are suppose to be ultimately in charge.
To compound matters, the
Judiciary has done the following:
It has invented the Doctrine of Stare Decisis;
It has invented for itself Judicial Immunity, and for other branches of civil authority, or its agents, immunities;
As a result of these doctrines and these immunities, the Judiciary has placed itself above, and against, the U.S. Constitution, the alleged co-equal branches of government, and "We, the People," who are supposed to be in charge.
As a result of this development, the Judiciary has reduced the First Amendment's Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances to a sham. What good is that right when civil authority is immune from its wrongdoing, it determines what the law is, everyone must obey, and judges are immune from suite and/or damages, no matter what they do and/or why they do it?
To solidify its stranglehold on the legal system in this country, the judiciary also tells jurors that they must accept the law as the judge tells them the law is so that they are limited to being a judge of only the facts and not of the facts and the law;
As a result of how all of
these concepts reinforces the Judiciary's power, an ordinary citizen is
unlikely to attain Justice, not only because he does not have a fat wallet
to finance an appeal, but also because his judicial servant too often
dares to function as his judicial master.
What is Power?
Power is the ability to obtain a desired result.
Critical Distinction: Power and Powerful
There is a material distinction between power and powerful. A thermonuclear weapon is powerful, but the commander of same cannot thread a needle with it nor persuade someone to believe what he does not believe, nor to comply with a command, merely because he threatens the use of it ... or even uses it. The ability to create large scale rubble, and even to make the rubble bounce again and again, is not proof that one posses power, as defined. Much of what is powerful is pragmatically useless because it is too powerful.
Is There a Safe Place to Vest Power?
A wise answer to the question is an emphatic, absolute, no.
The Framers' Genius
Those who framed the United States Constitution manifested an astute command of human nature and political genius. It is unlikely that a similar group of such talented individuals with their core values, exemplary skills, courage, and enduring commitment to individual liberty will assemble again, at least not frequently.
The Framers understood the difference between power and powerful. With that distinction in mind, they understood that while King George, III, his Red Coats, and his Royal Navy were, collectively, powerful, they, with the support of rebellious colonials, wielded sufficient power against the powerful to secure their independence.
The Framers manifested political genius by their manifestation of the synergistic effect of all of the following: 1) They knew the difference between power and powerful; 2) They craved independence; 3) They dared to act to achieve what they craved and to push beyond fear; 4) They knew that power existed and would always exist and that there was no safe place to vest power-none; 5) They knew that the only prudent thing they could do to cope with power was to weaken it by dividing it and spreading it around, and to vest various people and institutions with limited measures of power, with the shrewd calculation that power, when divided, would be used to negate, check, and defeat another's abuse of power; 6) They declared that human beings have certain unalienable rights that come from a Creator, which was a radical break from the past; 7) They declared that human beings have a right, and a duty, to rebel when their government becomes insufferably oppressive, which was another radical break from the past; 8) They declared that the Individual and his or her rights is paramount to Government's powers and Society's interests, and the Collective's interests, desires, wants; 9) They believed that human beings have a capacity for both good and bad, and they elected to empower ordinary human beings with much political power and many rights; 10) They elected to trust ultimate political power to "We, the People," trusting that ordinary citizens would rise to the occasion and avoid committing civic malpractice; 11) They codified in the Bill of Rights [and in parts of the original Constitution itself] what are, at a minimum, the rights of all U.S. citizens, all of the time, whether they find themselves in the majority or in the minority; 12) To guard against the excesses and passions of the majority, they created not a democracy, where a simple majority vote is always outcome determinative, but, instead, they created a constitutionally limited, democratic republic, with many built-in anti-majoritarian safeguards, with certain vital, legally enforceable, minimal rights for all, all of the time; and 13) Knowing that a person armed with a loaded firearm and the skill, courage, and determination to use it, wields power, they empowered ordinary folk to have a legally enforceable right to arms "which shall not be infringed." so such folk would retain the power to retain their independence and their rights against a tyranny of the majority, a government that became oppressive, an invading foreign foe, or a common criminal.
Why Do Some People Want to Disarm the American Citizenry?
Tyrant Wannabees know this: Power still comes out of the barrel of a gun. As defined, a virulently pissed off U.S. citizen armed with a firearm, plus the skill and courage to use it effectively, if his desired result is to assassinate an advocate of victim disarmament laws, to resist tyranny, to defeat a foe—foreign or domestic or both—possesses meaningful power and is powerful.
Go back and look at the steps in The Tyrant's Pattern. Before any tyrant can consolidate power and impose tyranny, the Tyrant Wannabee must first defang citizens.
Today's mighty oak is just
yesterday's nut that held its ground.
Dismiss me as a gun nut if that makes you feel better. The term Liberty activist, however, is more appropriate.
I remain smug with the knowledge that the facts and the law are on my side and if you want the guns, you must take delivery bullets first. To the extent that the Elitists, the Gun Grabbers, the Freedom Haters, the Control Freaks, and the Liberty Thieves are unwilling to take delivery, bullets first, they confirm the Founders' and the Framers' wisdom: The most important link is the one between Liberty, Courage, and Firearms.
Real Homeland Security
To Freedom Haters, Liberty Thieves, and Gun Grabbers: Beware! If you push too hard, at least 1-3% of the American Deer Hunters will function as a militia guerrilla force. You will be held accountable or eliminated. That is our story—our message, our warning. Remember the coiled snake "DO NOT TREAD ON ME" flag.
Where Did It Go Wrong?
Most U.S. citizens today know, at some level, that something has seriously gone wrong with how this nation functions, and this nation is dysfunctional and seriously sick. A partial listing of some of the most important things that have gone wrong are stated below.
When the United States Supreme Court, through a series of case decisions announced before the 1861-1865 War Between the States, invented horrific, illegitimate, doctrines and immunities. These Constitutional train wrecks are discussed in detail in John Wolfgram's two law review articles listed below. Per these invented doctrines, the United States Supreme Court made a major power grab that made it the dominant branch of government. As a result of this power grab, instead of living under the tyranny of a King who lives on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, we now live under the tyranny of nine Black Robes who live in Washington, D.C., aka, the Devil's Caldron. To make matters worse, these Black Robes invented immunities for government and its officials. These immunities gut the First Amendment's Right to Petition government for a redress of grievances. A lawsuit against the government is a form of a Right to Petition government for redress of a grievance. But, when such a lawsuit collides with a vast array of immunities that the United States Supreme Court has invented, which government officials hide behind, "We the People" have meaningfully lost control of our government. Periodic free elections do not allow us to regain control. At most, the result of such elections can only change who are the officials elected to office. Free elections, by themselves, will never end the constitutionally illegitimate immunities for government officials that the United States Supreme Court invented.
After the North won the 1861-1865
War Between the States, bigots in the South continued to discriminate
harshly against the Freedmen, recent ex-slaves. The oppression that these
bigots imposed against the Freedmen was so horrible that Ulysses S. Grant,
when President of the United States, was wanted to send a federal army
back into the South to stop these bigots from oppressing the Freedmen.
Grant, however, could not get Congress to support such action. Congress
and the nation did not have the stomach for a resumption of massive blood
letting. Congress did, however, pass the great post-Civil War amendments—the
Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, all of which were race
neutral. The primary purpose of these amendments was to end slavery and
involuntary servitude in the United States, to make the Bill of Rights
binding on the States and their political sub-divisions, to guarantee
every U.S. citizen the right to vote, and to empower Congress to take
whatever action is necessary to enforce the Bill of Rights against the
States and their political sub-divisions. These amendments, in this sense,
became a partial defacto reversal of the United States Supreme Court's
holding in Barron v. City of Baltimore that the Bill of Rights did not
apply to the States. The United States Supreme Court, however, has elected
to enforce the Bill of Rights against the States selectively, via another
doctrine it invented, called "the Doctrine of Selective Incorporation."
Via this Doctrine of Selective Incorporation, the United States Supreme
Court, on a case by case basis, has been determining what rights in the
Bill of Rights it believes are binding on the States. So far, the United
States Supreme Court has not clearly declared that the individual right
to arms guaranteed in the Second Amendment is binding on the States via
the Doctrine of Selective Incorporation. However, Section I of the Fourteenth
The phrase "privileges and immunities" includes, and is broader than, the Bill of Rights. Hence, via the Fourth Amendment, the entire Bill of Rights is binding against the States and their political sub-divisions and the United States Supreme Court's "Doctrine of Selective Incorporation" is non-meritorious. In this sense, the United States Supreme Court has stolen—or taken back—what Congress declared, after a damn bloody five year war. The United States Supreme Court, by refusing to clearly declare that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to arms that is binding on the States and its political sub-divisions is irresponsibly risking another major civil war. Every U.S. citizen enjoys dual American citizenship. Every U.S. citizen is a citizen of the federal government or of the nation and a citizen of the State government or of the State where he lives. It is a logical impossibility for the United States Constitution to be the Supreme Law of the Land, for the Second Amendment to be part of that Supreme Law, and for the Second Amendment to not be binding on the States and its political sub-divisions. Even God, if a logical God, could not persuasively contend that the United States Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, the Second Amendment is part of that Supreme Law, but the Second Amendment is not binding on the States and their is not individual right to arms. Reformulated, government officials who tell us there is no individual right to arms are liars at worse or are incapable of properly interpreting and applying the Supreme Law of the Land.
Too many do not know, or know and do not care, that Article I, Section 8, of the United States Constitution sets out the federal Congress' limited powers, and Congress and the federal government have, for decades, grossly exceeded those powers.
The United States Supreme Court has, for decades, allowed Congress to abuse its power to "provide for the . . . general welfare," as stated in Article I, Section 8 (1). Congress has treated that clause, and a few others, to be a virtual blank check for it to do any damn thing a majority in Congress want to do, despite the expressed limits on Congress' powers as set forth in that Article. When Congress started to do this, and when the United States Supreme Court first started to uphold how Congress abused this clause, James Madison, "the Father of the Constitution," and Thomas Jefferson were still alive. They railed against how Congress and the United States Supreme Court misconstrued that "promote the general welfare" clause. They argued, persuasively, that if the Framers' intent was to grant Congress the power to "promote the general welfare" without restriction, they would have simply written that power, and that power alone, into the Constitution, and stopped. They argued, persuasively, that the "promote the general welfare clause" was a mere general, introductory clause that was intended to be strictly limited by the enumerated [specific, spelled out] powers that were listed in that article.
Too many judges do not function as Guardians of Liberty. On the contrary, too many are political hacks or have an anti-Liberty agenda. Too many are Statists.
Too many elected officials are political whores and not statesmen.
Too many citizens have discovered they can tap into, and rip off, the public treasury by electing candidates who will abuse their power to rob Peter to pay Paul-the voters who elected them to do that. Hence, instead of committing an armed robbery on the street, face to face, these same "decent" citizens, via the ballot box, at election time, function as a gang who vote for "legitimate" thieves who will "legally" steal for them via tweaks to the tax code and more and more invented, bogus, entitlements.
Too many citizens think government is a bottomless money pit with an indefinite supply of money. They are clueless as to what is the source of that money.
Too many citizens have grossly abused their "right to pursue happiness." They have been looking for happiness in the wrong places: The bottom of a bottle, the point of a needle, at the race track, at the casinos, between the legs of another sex partner. When they do not find happiness, they become angry and alienated, and they demand that government make them happy by fixing the problems they caused, or contributed to. But government has no duty to make them happy. Such a duty would be an intolerable, impossible burden.
Too many citizens are lazy. Too many are liars. Too many mismanage their time and money. Too many are horrible parents. Too many make horrible, counter-productive decisions.
Too many elected officials cater to the worse of U.S. citizens to get their votes.
Too many citizens have failed to participate in government. An Ancient Greek once opined something to this effect: He who refuses to govern himself runs the risk of being governed by a fool greater than he.
Too many elected officials really believe they are superior, that they have a monopoly on wisdom, that they are smarter than the Framers.
Too many U.S. citizens do not know what are their rights. When you do not even know what are your rights you cannot even know when your rights are being violated.
Too many U.S. citizens are Sheeple. They are gutless. They are among the walking dead. They tolerate insufferable oppression. They just have not come to terms with that fact. They are enablers: They enable the further destruction of the Constitutional Rule of Law.
Too many citizens accept, uncritically, the "unquestioned answer" that many with an anti-Liberty agenda articulate for the problem of private gun related violence: Guns are bad; the Second Amendment must be ripped from the U.S. Constitution; ordinary citizens not employed by the government have no individual right to arms; Governments must have a monopoly on arms; everyone must be made totally dependent on Governments for their protection against violence.
Too many cops have had no training as to what is "The Nuremberg Principle."
Too many cops now function less as sworn peace officers and more as enforcers or government goons.
Too many cops testilie in court and too many judges, prosecutors, and juries wink and nod at cops who commit perjury.
Too many police departments are becoming too militaristic.
Too many governments in this nation are treating ordinary citizens as if they were, and are, the enemy.
Too many governments in this nation are wiping their ass with the Bill of Rights.
Too many governments, officials, and citizens in this nation discriminate against responsible, law-abiding, hard working, intelligent, educated, home owners who own firearms and use them responsibly.
The governments in this nation
have allowed the militia concept to fade into total non-use, and, some
have wrongfully argued that as a result of that non-use, the National
Guard is the modern militia, and hence, there is no longer an individual
right to arms. This development is precisely what Founder Patrick Henry
predicted, worried about, and railed against, and argued to James Madison,
and that is why James Madison promised that if the Anti-Federalists supported
ratification of the proposed Constitution, once ratified, he-Madison-would
soon thereafter submit a proposed Bill of Rights which would include the
individual right of arms. Note: If you, dear reader, did not know of this
history and/or do not know what an Anti-Federalist is, you are part of
As a sweeping generalization, a comprehensive solution to this nation's major problems must involve a reversal of what is listed above as to what has gone wrong. A partial listing of what must occur, at a minimum, to solve this nation's major problems follows.
The Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy [the United States Supreme Court has an absolute monopoly on the power to declare what is the law, how the law shall be applied, and what is and is not Constitutional] must be scuttled.
The Doctrine of Governmental Immunities for Governments as institutions and for governmental officials individually must be scuttled. Immunities gut the First Amendment's Right to Petition government for redress of grievances. Immunities encourage governments and their officials to be lazy, to abuse their powers, to make horrendous decisions, and to hide behind their immunities. Via immunities, citizens have lost control of their governments and their officials. Free elections only change the actors. Even when the actors change, these damn immunities remain.
Juries should be instructed that they have the power to determine the facts and to judge the law.
All pre-instruction discussion of jury instructions between litigator and trial judge must be conducted in front of the jury.
Litigators and litigants must be empowered to openly argue for jury nullification of the law.
Judges must stop being activists who promote their core values in the guise of interpreting the law. This is true of judges of all political persuasions. Their only legitimate functions are these: To interpret the law, to be a Guardian of Liberty, to protect citizens' rights from governments' abuse of power. It is the Legislatures' job to make the law. It is the Judiciary's job to interpret the law-competently, ethically, and objectively.
Cops must stop testilying in court.
Cops must stop having an Us v. Them mentality.
Judges and prosecutors must stop winking and nodding at cops who testilie.
Police departments must stop becoming militaristic.
Governments and their officials must stop treating ordinary citizens as the enemy or as mere piss ants or as mere cash cows.
Domestic enemies of the United States Constitution who hold public office must be removed from office or, at a minimum, made to feel too uncomfortable to function unconstitutionally.
There must be a binding consensus that the entire Bill of Rights is applicable to, and binding against, all governments in the United States.
There must be a binding consensus that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to arms independent of government employment which "shall not be infringed."
All laws that are a prior restraint against the Second must be repealed as unconstitutional and not enforced.
We must not break faith with the Framers' commitment to a maximum amount of individual Liberty.
Freedom Haters and Liberty Thieves like Larry Robinson of Sebastopol, California must be shouted down in the public market place of ideas and exposed for being pseudo intellectuals, frauds, traitors, and tyrant wannabees or useful idiots for same.
Citizens must learn to value Liberty and know their rights and be proactive and demand that their meritorious assertion of a right be upheld. No Constitution can preserve Liberty if the love of Liberty does not exists behind every ones' breastbone and between every ones' ears.
Citizens must not let political whores divide and conquer them by pitting one so called class against another. Instead, citizens must unite, as a class, against lawmakers and law enforcers who are Statists who function unconstitutionally.
Citizens must support each others' meritorious claim of a right—any right.
Citizens must not give up on the political-legal process. They must be hyper vigilant. They must extend the Constitution a saving hand while there remains time to rescue Liberty.
Racists should be privately and publicly rebuked. The American Constitutional Rule of Law, Christianity, and Capitalism are color blind—or should be.
There must be a consensus that governments' powers to promote the public welfare, health, and safety stops at the Bill of Rights.
There must be a consensus that the choice between Liberty and Security is a false choice. Citizens lose when they chose either. Statists and Tyrant Wannabees win whenever they manipulate citizens to chose either and jettison the other.
There must be a consensus that Liberty and Security are compatible and the best way to achieve a maximum amount of both is to obey the Constitution's commands. When in doubt, as a general rule, the body politic should "err" on the side of Liberty. Life is full of risks. Absolute security is unobtainable. Liberty can be easily destroyed in an imprudent pursuit of security.
The United States, as the world's current only remaining Super Power, must wield its power prudently. It must stop needlessly provoking foreigners to anger against the United States-with or without plausible justification. It must carry and use a Big Stick, but prudently. It must stop playing into the hands of this nation's foreign enemies by doing anything to give those enemies plausible justification to attack the United States and kill innocent human beings. Every member of the U.S. Armed Forces is a precious human being. Each of unique. The term "G.I.," for "general issue," does not mean that these service members are easily replaceable. They are not. They should not be wasted nor sent in pursuit of dubious goals nor used as the world's cop nor ordered into combat for less than compelling reasons that can withstand ultra close scrutiny.
The United States must stop crossing international borders with arms with hostile intent for any rationale that cannot withstand ultra close scrutiny, especially without compelling, objectively verifiable evidence to support such conduct.
Citizens must stop electing political whores.
Political whores must stop trying to win elections by promising raids on the public treasury as phoney entitlements to buy votes.
Political whores must stop squandering public funds.
People must stop abusing the ecology and wasting resources.
Citizens must get realistic and start taking responsibility for their self-destructive behavior and irresponsible decisions. They must come to terms with this: They have the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, but, no one, and no government, has a duty to make them happy. They also have a right to privacy, but, if they engage in self-destructive practices, no one has a duty to rescue them nor to pay for their self-destructive practices or irresponsible decisions.
Citizens must get realistic: When their outgo exceeds their income their upkeep will be their downfall. Government is not their Nanny nor their Sugar Daddy.
Citizens must get realistic: There is no free lunch. The only place where success comes before work is in the dictionary.
Citizens must get realistic: When they need a helping hand they should look first to the end of their arms, not to government.
Citizens must get realistic: They should learn to mature, to turn their stumbling blocks into stepping stones.
Citizens must get serious about the Cartridge Box of Freedom-the final box, arguably, the most important box. If they are serious about enforcing their claim to Liberty, they will buy an accurate rifle and train to make themselves a marksman who can assuredly repeatedly hit a pie pan out to at least 500 yards. They must resolve to be willing to use lethal force to make their claim on Liberty stick. They must steel themselves to the idea of having to kill a gun grabber who wears a cop's uniform or a U.S. Armed Forces uniform. They must never surrender Liberty's teeth. Never. They should read Patrick Henry's "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" speech and heed its wisdom. They must make government officials fear them, but they must function meekly, as defined and explained herein.
Governments must get realistic: While most people are Sheeple, Patriots cannot be controlled nor commanded nor bossed. Instead, Patriots can be inspired. Governments' legitimate powers are finite. Too much regulation is a bad thing. Excessive regulation is like the chief who overcooked the fish—it stinks up the kitchen.
Governments must revive the militia concept, which is articulated in, and sanctioned by, the United States Constitution. The militia, when revived, lends itself to Homeland Security.
Soldiers, Marines, Guardsmen,
Reservists, Airmen, and sworn peace officers must stand down when they
are ordered to defang the armed American citizenry, and they must arrest
the traitor who issued you them defang order.
As a result of this nation's dysfunctional sickness, citizens now have more grievances with governments and our neighbors than they had in 1776. Hence, some citizens now have a legitimate right to rebel, including the use of force. This is because, so far, the first Three Boxes of Freedom have failed to preserve, or to restore, Liberty and the Constitutional Rule of Law, the United States Supreme Court has invented illegitimate doctrines that have made the system permanently seriously ill, and too many support the system, oppressing their neighbors who know their rights and who refuse to yield Individual Rights to the illegitimate demands of Statist and the Collective.
As a consequence, we are close to civil war. Again, none of this is hyperbole.
I am an observer and a messenger who shouts from my Soap Box, Freedom Box No. One. As such, I am one among others who are out on point.
What About God?
I do not have objectively verifiable evidence to support this judgment call; however, this judgment call is probably correct: Most people who believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to arms believe in the existence of a Supreme Being and that they do have unalienable rights that are a precious gift from a Creator, not Government, whereas most people who believe that the Second Amendment guarantees only a State's "collective" right to have a National Guard are probably atheists or agnostics who believe in evolution but not creationism.
I also believe this: There is some kind of a Supreme Being. Creationism is a more persuasive explanation as to how things got started, despite the modern scientific record ... or because of it. Science has not disproved creationism. I also believe there is merit to Darwin's Theory of Evolution with this qualification: Creationism and Evolution are compatible: It started with whatever a Supreme Being created and allowed to evolve. I am also intrigued by this concept: Could it be that the primates, or some branch of them, are some kind of retrograde decedents of mentally inferior human beings? Did evolution work in reverse&3151;or sideways—in some instances—from mentally deficient human beings to some branch of apes—apes that used brawn to compensate for a lack of brains?
I do not believe that the origins of human beings started from a one cell, asexual thing that assembled itself from primordial gases and sludge. To my knowledge, the best scientists of the modern period have been able to clone life but have not yet created it out of nothing—even when they have done their best to create life out of mere matter, any matter of their choosing. I find it difficult to believe that nothing or matter, without something with an intelligence and a plan, created life from non-life or something from nothing. Science might be able to explain what is, but, so far, it has not explained to my satisfaction what came before "what is" and what created "what is."
The theory of evolution, technically, remains a theory, not an absolutely proven fact. I have doubts about this theory being a satisfactory explanation of Man's origins. I think the following odds are nil: A one cell, asexual creature emerges from the primordial gas/sludge; this one cell, asexual thing survives long enough to somehow reproduce itself; the yield of this thing evolves, over eons, through mutations and a "survival of the fittest" to a higher, more complex, prototype male human being, who encounters the prototype female human being, somewhere on Earth's surface, with a circumference of 25,000 miles; both of these prototypes survive adverse weather and predators; these prototypes mate, procreate, and survive long enough to raise a third prototype human being. There are too many improbables in my mind for that theory to be persuasive, even though I know millions of years are supposed to be involved and mutations and "the survival of the fitness" is suppose to explain the evolutionary process. I think the odds are better that a tornado could rip through a junk yard, and the junk could fall back to Earth as a flyable Boeing 747 or even a Concorde.
I think the odds of a creature emerging from the primordial gas/sludge explanation that evolves, over eons, to the prototype male human being, who encounters the prototype female human being, somewhere on Earth's surface, with a circumference of 25,000 miles, in close proximity to each other, both surviving adverse weather and predators, mating, and procreating, and surviving long enough to raise a third prototype human being, are nil. I think the odds are better that a tornado could rip through a junk yard of old cars, and, when the pieces fell back to Earth, a full scale, flyable, Boeing 747 "emerged" from that old clunker junk.
The human male and the human female have different internal and external reproductive "plumbing" parts. The odds of such complicated living creatures evolving from a one cell asexual thing, perfecting those parts over eons, surviving, finding one another on Earth's vast surface, mating, procreating, having everything work, and surviving long enough to raise a third prototype human being who also survives, are long odds.
Evolution offers one explanation for what might have happened after everything was created and got started. It does not, however, convince me that it is a fully satisfactory answer as to how things got started.
I could be wrong. I am not a scientist. My beliefs in this regard are the end product of rational observation, reflective thought, and an intuitive judgment call. There seems to be too much order to the physical world, so much so that for everything to evolve to where it is by mere chance is too difficult to accept. I also think I have, sometimes, a sense of the existence of some kind of a Creator. That sense is mere faith without objectively verifiable evidence.
Simultaneously, I am aware that I am loathed to accept that the concept of unalienable rights as a gift from a Creator is nonmeritorious. If I were to accept that concept, then I must ponder what is the ultimate source of rights if not a Creator? I loathe the idea that Government, Society, a Majority, Judges, my Neighbors, Cops, Soldiers, all mere mortals, like me, are the source of my rights. They are not. No man is my superior. I was not born burdened with a saddle on my back. No man was born with an ass good enough to plop on my back, with spurs on his feet to kick me and with reins in his hands linked to a bit in my mouth, to control me. Maybe that is foolish pride. I prefer to believe it is traced to the Divine Spark of God's gift to me of unalienable rights ... and Liberty.
Since science has not disproved Creationism to my satisfaction, and since no man can prove to me he has an ass good enough to sit on my back, I refuse to let any man ride me into the ground.
Since I believe that all human beings have certain unalienable rights and are made in the image of God, I also believe in the core teachings of Jesus Christ: Love thy neighbor, practice the Golden Rule, honor the Ten Commandments, and the meek shall inherit the Earth. However, it is imperative that one understand correctly the original meaning of meek, as used by Jesus in the Bible to describe even himself. Jesus used meek this way: Meek means great strength held in check, reserved to be used for a higher, more important purpose. By analogy, the United States Air Force use to have a major command called Strategic Air Command. That command was the one charged with the task of achieving deterrence, of maintaining the peace by being able to assuredly deliver nuclear weapons over inter-continental distances. SAC's motto was something like this: PEACE THROUGH DETERRENCE IS OUR MISSION. In a way, that is the militia's unspoken motto: LIBERTY THROUGH DETERRENCE IS OUR MISSION. DO NOT TREAD ON ME/US!
Elitists who advocate for racist origin, Nazi inspired, anti-Liberty, Freedom Hating, victim disarmament laws are fortunate that I believe they are made in the image of God, and they did not evolve from an ape. It is fairly easy to justify killing an ape's descendent when the damn thing oppresses you. It is extraordinarily difficult, however, to justify killing a human being made in the image of God, especially when the justification for the killing is a political-legal dispute. On the other hand, I also believe that I am made in God's image, and any man who dares to strip me of my unalienable rights had better have a compelling justification which is based on my conduct, not my beliefs, not my values, and not his fears of me. Hence, I believe that Liberty's teeth should be used to enforce one's meritorious assertion of a right, but only as a final effort to deter Tyranny and to restore Liberty.
Before resorting to lethal force, other options should be used: Verbal resistance. Civil disobedience. Litigation. Withholding of taxes to starve the public serpents into submission. Monkey wrenching. Shouting down disgusting Tyrant Wannabee slugs or Political Whores. And preparing for civil war—in earnest, so that the righteous meek do inherit the Earth.
Those who think they are a Perfumed Prince or Princess who descended from an ape, that there is no God, that there is no life after death, who covet power, who want to defang the armed citizenry, are well advised to think long and hard about the consequences of what they strive to achieve. There is a hard core of Patriots who have made the decision to terminate them. Those Patriots, to their credit, are manifesting extreme self-restraint, hoping that lethal force will be unnecessary or that more of the population will wake up and catch up to where they are at: "We the People" have been shafted by our governments, and we have better cause to rebel now than did the generation of 1776, and we have a right and a duty to rebel.
What Would Moe Levine Argue?
Moe Levine was a famous attorney and a powerful orator. He once represented a boy who lost both arms in an accident. When the surrounding legal community learned that Mr. Levine was going to give his final argument to the jury in that case, the courtroom was packed to hear his presentation. He told those who showed up they would be disappointed.
Mr. Levine's opening final argument was something like this—all of it.
Members of the jury, thank you for your service.
Today, I had lunch with my client. He ate like a dog.
Mr. Levine then sat down. The jury awarded his client a large sum.
I wonder how Mr. Levine would argue on behalf of citizens for Liberty. I wonder what he would say to Freedom Haters, Liberty Thieves, Control Freaks, Gun Grabbers, Tyrant Wannabees, and their Useful Idiots. Would he say something like this:
Please look down and put a finger tip on any button on your shirt or blouse.
Do you realize that that button makes a perfect aiming point?
Do you want to be shot for being a traitorous dog?
Invitation and Challenge
If anyone thinks they can prove that anything stated herein is false or true, or if they want to share something relevant, they are encouraged to submit their work for consideration to be added to this site in an electronic format suitable for my webmaster to work with efficiently.
Let's put the First Amendment to good use. Let's duke it out here on a cerebral battle field so minds and hearts can be changed peacefully. As citizens, let's work together to take Governments' chains off of us. Let's work together to put a Constitutional Collar on Government and tie that beast down with a strong chain secured to Constitutionalism. Since we have a Constitution, let's obey its commands. Let's honor our combat vets, our military service members, our sworn peace officers, by using responsibly our rights to restore Liberty. Let's prove that we are worthy of the sacrifices of those who came before us and of those public servants who function as faithful public servants and who support our responsible claim to our birthrights.
Many of the recommended reading materials below are controversial. They contain conflicting opinions, many of which are irreconcilable. By recommending that one read these materials I do not intend to signify that I endorse, nor agree with, everything in these materials. I do not. The materials listed below are listed to stimulate thought, to improve one's ability to think critically, to expose one to competing ideas—including ones I believe are nonmeritorious or much worse, and to spotlight important ideas that I believe one needs to know about. Knowing what is in these materials will make one a better human being, a better citizen, and better equipped to restore Liberty, peacefully or violently or both.
Responsibility and Accountability
Each person is responsible for their actions. How they process this information is their responsibility.
Think wisely. Act prudently. Make the restoration of Liberty a priority.
With kindest regards to all,
Recommended Reading and Links
"How The Judiciary Stole
The Right To Petition" by John E. Wolfgram,
"Democratizing The Judiciary"
by John E. Wolfgram,
Taking the Constitution Away From the Courts by Mark Tushnet
Marbury v. Madison: The Origins and Legacy of Judicial Review by William E. Nelson
"Liberty" by Peter
The Mitzvah: For Those Who
Love Freedom—and For Those Who Should by Aaron Zelman and L. Neil
Hope: How Would You Feel
If You No Longer Feared Your Government by Aaron Zelman and L. Neil Smith
When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession by Charles Adams
Burning All Illusions: A Guide to Personal and Political Freedom by David Edwards
How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World: A Handbook of Personal Liberty by Harry Browne
The Story of American Freedom by Eric Foner
The Legacy of the Civil War by Robert Penn Warren
The Triumph of Liberty by Jim Powell
Self Control, Not Gun Control by J. Neil Schulman
The Ethics of Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard
Libertarianism: A Primer by David Boaz
The Idea of Freedom, by Mortimer J. Adler (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1958 [vol 1] and 1961 [vol 2]) [A good historical survey of just what it says.]
On Reading the Constitution
by Laurence H. Tribe & Michael C. Dorf
The Constitution of 1787: A Commentary by George Anastaplo
The Constitution: A Documentary and Narrative History by Page Smith
American Constitutonal Law by Laurence H. Tribe
Constitutional Rights and Powers of the People by Wayne D. Moore
An Introduction to Law and Legal Reasoning by Steven J. Burton
Legal Analysis: The Fundamental Skill by David S. Romantz & Kathleen Elliottt Vinson
A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law by Antonin Scalia
Thinking Like a Lawyer: An Introduction to Legal Reasoning by Kenneth J. Vandevelde
Dynamic Statutory Interpretation by William N. Eskridge, Jr.
Lawyers and Lawsuits: A Guide to Litigation by Robert A. Izard
California Government Code Section 845
Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1112
Dial 911 And Die: The Shocking Truth About the Police Protection Myth by Richard W. Stevens, http://www.jpfo.org/dial911anddie.htm
"Just Following Orders"
by Leroy Pyle
"A Police Perspective
on Gun Control & Political Correctness" by Jim Mortellaro
"An Open Letter to Senator
Dianne Feinstein" by Sergei Borglum Hoff
"Second Amendment Sophistry"
by Michael P. Tremoglie
"The Second Amendment
Is Our Equal Rights Amendment!" by Nancy Herrington
"Vulnerability of a
Disarmed Citizenry" by Alan Asker
"Raging Against Self
Defense: A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality" by Sarah
"Confronting the 'Hoplophobe'"
by Dr. Bill Rogers
"Reasoning With My Peers"
by William B. Rogers, M.D.
"What Should We Tell
Our Patients About Guns?" by William B. Rogers, M.D.
The True Believer by Eric Hoffer
Asking The Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking by M. Neil Browne and Stuart M. Keeley [Superb]
Attacking Faulty Reasoning by T. Edward Damer [Superb]
Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life by Howard Kahane
Invitation to Critical Thinking by Vincent E. Barry and Joel Rudinow
Conceptual Blockbusting: A Guide to Better Ideas by James L. Adams
Elements of Argument: A Text and Reader, ed. by Annette T. Rottenberg
Glossary of Terms" by Alan Korwin,
"Collectivism Will Kill
Us!" by Nicki Fellenzer
"Why Not Give A Little?"
by Nicki Fellenzer
"Turning Schools Into
Victim Disarmament Zones" by Nicki Fellenzer
"What The Hell Is Wrong
With Politicians?" by Nicki Fellenzer
"Is 'Gun Violence' an
Epidemic?" by Nicki Fellenzer
"The Slow, Systematic
Death of the Bill of Rights" by Nicki Fellenzer
"It's Amazing What One
Has To Believe To Believe In Gun Control" by Michael Z. Williamson
Glossary of Terms" by Alan Korwin,
"US Supreme Court Is
Ruled By Global Opinions" by Nicki Fellenzer
A World of Ideas: A Dictionary of Important Theories, Concepts, Beliefs, and Thinkers by Chris Rohmann
The Passion of the Western Mind: Understanding the Ideas That Have Shaped Our World View by Richard Tarnas
The Temper of Our Time by Eric Hoffer
Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics, (another copy); Politics, (another copy); The Athenian Constitution.
Étienne de la Boétie The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude, (another copy).
Nicolo Machiavelli The Prince, (another copy).
Junius Brutus (attributed to Philippe Duplessis-Mornay) A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants.
Thomas Hobbes Leviathan, The Elements of Law Natural and Politic.
John Locke Two Treatises Of Government.
Thomas Paine Common Sense, The Rights Of Man.
Alexis de Tocqueville Democracy in America, or Democracy In America—Volume 1, Democracy In America—Volume 2.
Marquis Caesar Beccaria Bonesaria A Discourse on Public Economy and Commerce.
John Stuart Mill On Liberty, Considerations On Representative Government.
Herbert Spencer The Man versus the State.
Frederick Bastiat The Law
Petr Kropotkin Mutual Aid, (another copy).
L. Neil Smith A New Approach to Social Darwinism.
"Major 'Fighting Issues'"
by Peter J. Mancus,
"Major Firearm Related
'Fighting Issues'" by Peter J. Mancus
How to Argue and Win Everytime by Gerry Spence [Excellent]
"How to Sell Gun Rights"
by Harry Browne
"The Amazing Secret
Weapon of the Gun Control Movement" by Jon Haupt
The Art of War by Sun Tzu
Clausewitz On War by Carl von Clausewitz [The chapter on boldness is excellent.]
Strategy by B. H. Liddell Hart
How Great Generals Win by Bevin Alexander
Masters of War: Classical Strategic Thought by Michael I. Handel
Reflections on a Ravaged Century by Robert Conquest
The Tangled Wing: Biological Constraints on the Human Spirit by Melvin Konner
Ten Theories of Human Nature by Leslie Stevenson and David L. Haberman
The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution by Bernard Bailyn
Toward an American Revolution: Exposing the Constitution and Other Illusions by Jerry Fresia
The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789 by Robert Middlekauff
What Did the Declaration Declare? by Joseph J. Ellis
American Scipture: Making the Declaration of Independence by Pauline Maier
The Business of May Next: James Madison & the Founding by William Lee Miller
The Sacred Fire of Liberty: James Madison & the Founding of the Federal Republicby Lance Banning
Madison on the "General
Welfare" of America: His Consistent Constitutional Vision by Leonard
The Constitutional Thought of Thomas Jefferson by David N. Mayer
What Did the Constitution Mean to Early Americans? edited by Edward Countryman
The Other Founders: Anti-Federalism & the Dissenting Tradition in America, 1788-1828 by Saul Cornel
The Spirit of the Laws by Montesquieu
John Adams by David McCullough
Democracy In America by Alexis
The Minutemen and Their World
by Robert A. Gross
The Minutemen: The First
Fight: Myths and Realities of the American Revolution by John R. Galvin
That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right by Stephen P. Halbrook
To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right by Joyce Lee Malcolm
Origins and Development of the Second Amendment by David T. Hardy
The testimony of UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh on the Second Amendment in front of the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution: http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/beararms/testimon.htm
Freedmen, The Fourteenth Amendment, And The Right to Bear Arms, 1866-1876 by Stephen P. Halbrook
Government By Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment by Raoul Berger
Narrowing The Nation's Powers:
The Supreme Court Sides With The States by John T. Noonan, Jr.
The Fourteenth Amendment: From Political Principle to Judicial Doctrine by William E. Nelson
Tyranny On Trial: The Evidence at Nuremberg by Whitney R. Harris
Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland by Christopher R. Browning
"The 'Nuremberg Principle'"
by Peter J. Mancus,
"A Practical Guide To
Race And Gun Control" by Jim March
Want Your Guns" by Richard W. Stevens
"Racist Gun Control"
by Geoff Metcalf
A law review article by historian Clayton Cramer on the racist roots of gun control: http://www.law.ukans.edu/jrnl/cramer.htm
"Objections to California's
Concealed Carry Weapon Permit Law" by Peter J. Mancus
"The Morality of Gun
Control: What do Gun Control Advocates Really Say?" by Angel Shamaya
"Translating the Denied
Right to Keep and Bear Arms" by Angel Shamaya
"'Gun Rights' is Not
About 'Gun' Rights" by Angel Shamaya,
"Letter From a Criminal"
by Armed Rapist
"Choose To Live: The
Moral Decision to Bear Arms" by Larry Rybka
More Guns Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws by John R. Lott, Jr.
"An Open Letter to American
Jews" by Sarah Thompson, M.D.
"Judaism, Nazis and
Gun Control" by Nicki Fellenzer
The First "Million Mom
"The Million Moms are
Marching in the Wrong Direction" by Harry Browne
"Millions Moms March
Dangerous to Women and Kids" by Liz Michael,
"Deceptions and True
Intentions of the So-Called Million Mom March" by Michael Pelletier,
Note: Given what the judiciary has done to the Second Amendment, if they were plastic surgeons who did a face lift on a man, when they got done with their patient, the poor guy's belly button would be in the middle of his forehead and his penis would be where his nose use to be. That is not hyperbole.
For The Defense of Themselves and The State: The Original Intent and Judicial Interpretation of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms by Clayton E. Cramer
"Reflections Upon the
U.S. Supreme Court's Rejection of Silveira" by Peter J. Mancus
"A Judicial Straight
Jacket" by Larry Rybka
Sweet Land of Liberty?: The Supreme Court and Individual Rights by Henry Mark Holzer
Out of Order: Arrogance, Corruption, and Incompetence on the Bench by Max Boot
Law Without Values: The Life, Work, and Legacy of Justice Holmes by Albert W. Alschuler
Judicial Accountability Initiative
"The Supreme Court Scam"
by Harry Browne
The American Jury Institute
and Fully Informed Jury Association,
The State vs. The People: The Rise of the American Police State by Claire Wolfe and Aaron Zelman, www.jpfo.org/tsvtp.htm
Dependent on D.C.: The Rise of Federal Control Over the Lives of Ordinary Americans by Charlotte A. Twight
Civil War Two: The Coming Break Up of America by Thomas W. Chittum
ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC:
A Novel About the Cost of Freedom in the Age of Terror by Matthew Bracken,
Unintended Consequences by John Ross
[Note: Two separate authors have written approximately 1,700 pages about a scenario that is on the minds of many. Those who demand that Government disarm American citizens should think carefully about the consequences. Both authors are excellent writers. Ross' book goes into more detail about the history of victim disarmament laws in the United States. Bracken might be a slightly better author. Both scenarios are highly plausible. Every champion of victim disarmament laws should heed these accounts.]
"Why I Will Not Obey
California's Gun Registration Edict" by Brian Puckett,
"Terrorism Against Gun
Owners, Civil Disobedience, and Killing" by Brian Puckett,
"Memorandum on Arms
and Freedom" by Brian Puckett,
Christianity and the Constitution: The Faith of Our Founding Fathers by John Eidsmoe
The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness by Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore
Is There A God? by Richard Swinburne
God And Other Minds: A Study of the Rational Justification of Belief in God by Alvin Plantinga
Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell
The Case For Faith: A Journalist Investigates the Toughest Objections to Christianity by Lee Strobel
The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design by Richard Dawkins
More Than A Carpenter by Josh McDowell
Gods and Men: The Origins of Western Culture by Henry Bamford Parkes
Who Needs God by Harold Kushner
When Bad Things Happen To Good People by Harold Kushner
When All You've Ever Wanted Isn't Enough by Harold Kushner
Can Man Live Without God by Ravi Zacharias [Superb!]
The World's Religions by Huston Smith
A Christian Manifesto by Francis A. Schaeffer
The Big Questions: A Short Introduction to Philosophy by Robert C. Solomon
What Does It All Mean?: A Very Short Introduction To Philosophy by Thomas Nagel
Ten Philosophical Mistakes by Mortimer J. Adler
The Problems of Philosophy by Bertrand Russell
Man's Search For Meaning by Viktor E. Frankl
The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation by Matt Ridley
The Evolution of Cooperation by Robert Axelrod
Evolutionary Orignis of Morality edited by Leonard D. Katz
The Origin of the Bible: A Comprehensive Guide edited by Philip Wesley Comfort
the Second Amendment" by Brian Puckett,
"Does a Christian Shoot
to Kill?" by William B. Rogers, M.D.
"Towards A Meek Militia"
by Peter J. Mancus,
"If Patrick Henry Could
Speak to You" by William B. Rogers, M.D.
"Ninth Circuit Declares
War on Gun Owners" by David Codrea
to 'Firearms Instructor' in Four Months" by Susan E. White
"Liberty Versus Authority"
by Peter J. Mancus,
"This Pig Stinks!"
by Peter J. Mancus,
"Letter Faxed to CA
Public Safety Committee" by Peter J. Mancus,
"My Name is Freedom
and I am Very Much Alive!" by Angel Shamaya
"We May Have To Literally
Fight" by Brian Puckett
"The Moment" by
"My Oath" by Nicki
"Why Do I Care?"
by Nicki Fellenzer
"What Women Want"
by Nicki Fellenzer
Band of Legal Buffons" by Nicki Fellenzer
"Have We Forgotten?"
by Nicki Fellenzer
"Government Tanks vs.
Citizens" by Patricia Neill
"They Say, I Say: Terrorism
Debates" by Patricia Neill
"Peter Mancus: Give
Note: The order to shoot to kill was given to two different groups of U.S. Army soldiers—career, professional, "lifers" and draftees. Which group obeyed their orders? Why? The answers might shock you and disturb you.
Four Hours In My Lai by Michael Bilton and Kevin Sim
On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society by Dave Grossman [a U.S. Army Ranger/Paratrooper and psychologist]
Send in the Waco Killers by Vin Suprynowics
Note: Did McVeigh do it? If so, was he driven to do it? If so, was he justified? Is it possible to "justify" his motivation without condoning what he did, assuming he did it? Why? What were his options? Did he exhaust his options? Was the system heavily stacked against him to effectuate meaningful reform without resorting to violence? Why? Did the system leave him no choice but to submit or to resort to violence? Why? Was he given a fair trial? Why? Will there be more McVeigh type incidents? Why? What lessons, if any, did the Government learn from McVeigh? Did it learn the wrong lessons? Why? How will McVeigh be remembered 50 to 200 years from now? Why?
Suggestion: Consider these questions in light of Wolfgram's essays at the beginning about the Right to Petition versus Governmental Immunity and the need to "Democratize" the Judiciary, namely, break its stranglehold lock on being the sole and final interpreter of the law.
American Terrorist: Timothy McVeigh & The Oklahoma City Bombing by Lou Michel and Dan Herbeck
Harvest of Rage: Why Oklahoma City is Only the Beginning by Joel Dyer
Freedom's End: Conspiracy in Oklahoma by James D. Nichols
The Right to Bear Arms: The Rise of America's New Militias by Jonathan Karl
A Force Upon The Plain: The American Militia Movement and the Politics of Hate by Kenneth S. Stern
Gathering Storm: America's Militia Threat by Morris Dees
In God's Country: The Patriot
Movement and the Pacific Northwest by David A. Neiwert
The Ultimate Sniper: An Advanced Training Manual by Maj. John L. Plaster, USAR (Ret.)
The Accurate Rifle by Warren Page
Above The Law: Police and the Excessive Use of Force by Jerome H. Skolnick and James J. Fyfe
Police Violence: Understanding and Controlling Police Abuse of Force, ed. by William A. Geller and Hans Toch
Lies Unmasked)" by David Codrea
The Constitution Society