Skip to comments.Local Wyoming Gun Control Scheme Targets Children’s Rights
Posted on 07/21/2013 6:34:10 AM PDT by marktwain
Wyoming --(Ammoland.com)- The war on freedom is hitting much closer to home, Platte County Wyoming to be exact.
Like you, I am outraged at the actions of President Obama, Harry Reid and Dianne Feinsteins attempt to repeal the Second Amendment.
And just as in Washington D.C. the control freaks are at work right here in Wyoming.
Remember during the last session when WY state educators stormed the capitol in Cheyenne demanding that our pro-gun legislation was killed in committee?
Well now they are scheming at the local level to rob you and me of our God-given rights.
The Platte County School Board and its Republican Majority are using truancy as a way to strip away constitutionally protected rights.
In Wheatland, WY this 9 year old boy was placed on probation for missing 19 days of school even though his mother had approved the absent days (sick days and family emergencies) with the school.
Under the probation orders minor children may not own any firearms and must agree to random urine analysis.
But the state statute reveals this is a misdemeanor and the parents could receive 10 days in jail and/or a $25 fine.
But as if using the same playbook of the Obama administration the local control freaks made truancy their latest crisis, so they could now violate citizens rights.
All involved have ignored current law since one must first be convicted of a felony in order to strip rights to posses firearms.
Of course this is how the anti-gun crowd rolls all the players are in unison with every step maneuvering to crush civil liberties.
To drive their point (control) home, the bad actors will even railroad unsuspecting young children through a system that begins with an overzealous prosecutor, and ends with a heavy handed judge.
But lets not forget, it all started with the Platte county school boards policy Turn them over to the authorities they say.
The elected school board should be ashamed of themselves so far not one single school board member has lifted a finger to stop this egregious trampling of parental rights.
If fact, there are a dozen other families lined up to face the same judicial force.
Like in this photo of the Wheatland couple challenged with the day to day struggles of caring for their severely handicapped little girl could now follow the same path and loss of rights.
It seem that in the eyes of the Platte County School Board nothing else matters, not even breathing tubes and stays in critical care that this family has recently endured.
Just as maddening are the Lawyers that claim we must remain silent because these children are now in the judicial system.
This is the same way the control-program rolls in many others states by treating rights including the Second Amendment with outright contempt.
But we will not be silenced
Last week I personally attended the school board meeting and witnessed their appointed-bureaucrat-superintendent running the show so now the elected board members need to hear from you!
Did I mention that the Superintendent of Platte County Schools was appointed in 2012. And that he applied in Wheatland after his former employer, a Minnesota School, failed to renew his contract that same year.
Please contact Platte County Schools today at (307)322-3175 and demand the school board ends this assault on God-given rights.To Liberty, Anthony Bouchard
Wyoming Gun Owners is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, single-purpose citizens organization dedicated to preserving and protecting the Right to Keep and Bear Arms as guaranteed by Article 1 Section 24 of the Wyoming Constitution and the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Wyoming Gun Owners is the only organization taking action at this levelwith an aggressive program designed to mobilize public support for pro-gun legislation as well as opposition to gun control. www.wyominggunowners.org
The superintendant is a Minnesotan. That is a big part of the problem.
Government schools are the tools of statists. They know most people roll over for anything that is for “the children”.
Are you a ‘SUBJECT’ of ‘THEIR JURISDICTION’
“The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government.”
City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944
1.The accused must be properly identified, identified in such a fashion there is no room for mistaken identity. The individual must be singled out from all others; otherwise, anyone could be subject to arrest and trial without benefit of “wrong party” defense. Almost always, the means of identification is a person’s proper name, BUT ANY MEANS OF IDENTIFICATION IS EQUALLY VALID IF SAID MEANS DIFFERENTIATES THE ACCUSED WITHOUT DOUBT. (There is no constitutionally valid requirement you must identify yourself, see 4th Amendment; also see, Brown v. Texas, 443 US 47 and Kolender v Lawson, 461 US 352.)
2. The statute of offense must be identified by its proper or common name. A number is insufficient. Today, a citizen may stand in jeopardy of criminal sanctions for alleged violation of statutes, regulations, or even low-level bureaucratic orders (example: colorado National Monument Superintendent’s Orders regarding an unleashed dog or a dog defecating on a trail). If a number were to be deemed sufficient, government could bring new and different charges at any time by alleging clerical error. For any act to be triable as an offense, it must be declared to be a crime. Charges must negate any exception forming part of the statutory definition of an offense, by affirmative non-applicability. In other words, any charge must affirmatively negate any exception found in the law.
3. The acts of alleged offense must be described in non-prejudicial language and detail so as to enable a person of average intelligence to understand nature of charge (to enable preparation of defense); the actual act or acts constituting the offense complained of. The charge must not be described by parroting the statute; not by the language of same. The naming of the acts of the offense describes a specific offense whereas the verbiage of a statute describes only a general class of offense. Facts must be stated. Conclusions cannot be considered in the determination of probable cause.
4. The accuser must be named. He/she may be an officer or a third party, but some positively identifiable person (human being) must accuse; some certain person must take responsibility for the making of the accusation, not an agency or an institution. This is the only valid means by which a citizen may begin to face his accuser. Also, the injured party (corpus delicti) must make the accusation. Hearsay evidence may not be provided. Anyone else testifying that they heard that another party was injured does not qualify as direct evidence.
5. The accusation must be made under penalty of perjury. If perjury cannot reach the accuser, there is no accusation. Otherwise, anyone may accuse another falsely without risk.
6. To comply with the five elements above, that is for the accusation to be valid, the accused must be accorded due process. Accuser must have complied with law, procedure and form in bringing the charge. This includes court-determined probable cause, summons and notice procedure. If lawful process may be abrogated in placing a citizen in jeopardy, then any means may be utilized to deprive a man of his freedom, and all dissent may be stifled by utilization of defective process.
“The essential elements of due process are notice and an opportunity to defend.” Simon v Craft, 182 US 427.
“one is not entitled to protection unless he has reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer. The mere assertion of a privilege does not immunize him; the court must determine whether his refusal is justified, and may require that he is mistaken in his refusal.” Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479 (1951)
7. The court must be one of competent jurisdiction. To have valid process, the tribunal must be a creature of its constitution, in accord with the law of its creation, i.e., Article III judge.
Lacking any of the seven elements or portions thereof, (unless waived, intentionally or unintentionally) all designed to ensure against further prosecution (double jeopardy); it is the defendant’s duty to inform the court of facts alleged for determination of sufficiency to support conviction, should one be obtained. Otherwise, there is no lawful notice, and charge must be dismissed for failure to state an offense. Without lawful notice, there is no personal jurisdiction and all proceedings prior to filing of a proper trial document in compliance with the seven elements is void. A lawful act is always legal but many legal acts by government are often unlawful. Most bureaucrats lack elementary knowledge and incentive to comply with the mandates of constitutional due process. They will make mistakes. Numbers beyond count have been convicted without benefit of governmental adherence to these seven elements. Today, informations are being filed and prosecuted by “accepted practice” rather than due process of law.
See, Corpus Juris Secundum (CJS), Volume 7, Section 4, Attorney & client: The attorney’s first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the client, and wherever the duties to his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter. Clients are also called “wards” of the court in regard to their relationship with their attorneys.
Corpus Juris Secundum assumes courts will operate in a lawful manner. If the accused makes this assumption, he may learn, to his detriment, through experience, that certain questions of law, including the question of personal jurisdiction, may never be raised and addressed, especially when the accused is represented by the bar. (Sometimes licensed counsel appears to take on the characteristics of a fox guarding the hen house.)
Jurisdiction, once challenged, is to be proven, not by the court, but by the party attempting to assert jurisdiction. The burden of proof of jurisdiction lies with the asserter. The court is only to rule on the sufficiency of the proof tendered. See, McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178 (1936). The origins of this doctrine of law may be found in MAXFIELD v. LEVY, 4 U.S. 330 (1797), 4 U.S. 330 (Dall.) 2 Dall. 381 2 U.S. 381 1 L.Ed. 424
Jurisdiction, once challenged, is to be proven, not by the court, but by the party attempting to assert jurisdiction. The burden of proof of jurisdiction lies with the asserter. The court is only to rule on the sufficiency of the proof tendered.
See, McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178 (1936).
The origins of this doctrine of law may be found in
[B]MAXFIELD v. LEVY, 4 U.S. 330 (1797), 4 U.S. 330 (Dall.) 2 Dall. 381 2 U.S. 381 1 L.Ed. 424 [/B]
Am I the only one who found this article disjointed and hard to follow? Where did the gun rights of a 9 year old come in? Skipped from truancy to gun rights to ? I do know that Superintendents come and go, and they can cause major problems in whatever locale they find themselves for a few years.
What makes this issue a double whammy is the fact that Wyoming doesn’t have a statute of limitations if you even have a misdemeanor. ANYTHING you do there stays on your record for LIFE.
Bounce a check? You can’t even get a license to be a candy striper.
Wyoming has serious issues. Don’t bring your families there unless you want to ruin their lives for the rest of their lives.
Public education to one of the first sins of statism committed in our country and is the source of most of the impetus toward the growth of statism in our country. Let's strike at the root of statism.
You’re not the only one. That’s why I’m wading through the comments - to see if anyone else understood the point the author was trying to make.
I’m *guessing* that, once convicted of truancy, the child is now banned from owning guns. (Don’t know if this is only while a minor or if they’re trying to make it a life-time ban. I *think* that it’s until the kid is an adult.)
Yeah, I’d love to be up in arms, but I’m not sure what I’m supposed to be outraged about! lol!
There must be too many holes in Jackson.
“Am I the only one who found this article disjointed and hard to follow?”
Not at all! I expect better of Mr. Bouchard. I am not exactly sure what sanctions are being employed.
It sounds as if the school is trying to extend zero tolerance to its student’s homes, but I am not sure.