Posted on 10/05/2007 3:39:13 PM PDT by processing please hold
This report hopes to assist in protecting the right of the people to keep and bare arms, individually and collectively, for the safety of the individual, and for the safety of the nation. There are certain fundamental laws and principles over which public officials have no authority to alter or to deny--not even if they profess to have acquired the 'consent of the governed'. In this case, prohibiting possession and use of arms is not possible, because those rights which have been endowed upon man by the Creator are unalienable, and nor revocable by mankind. The purpose of this report is to show how 'consent of the governed' has become abused, and how government officials in the lead state with the help of change agents had set out to destroy the essential and unalienable right of the people to keep and bare arms, by setting into motion unauthorized and unlawful procedures and then pretend that they operated under the 'consent of the governed'.
(Excerpt) Read more at libertygunrights.com ...
The 9th circuit needs to be disbanded for the sake of the country. Or at least filled with "Americans".
Some on this forum inanely support that position. -- Fancy that.
That's something I'll never agree with. Fancy that. ;)
For now we’re members of the NRA but we aren’t going to renew our membership. We’re still looking for an alternative.
Right around now, some 18,000,000 snipers are actively engaged in live-fire, live-target war games. Each operates individually or in cells, has his own weapons, ammo, comms, cammo, food, etc. That the operation is code-named "Deer Season" does not minimize the capabilities demonstrated and practiced.
A German general once asked a Swiss leader "we have 400,000 crack troops poised to invade your country. Your country has a mere 200,000 able men. What will your people do?"
The Swiss leader shrugged and said "shoot twice and go home."
I'm sure Don Kilmer is with you. Is Geoff Metcalf still working on it?
Way back in the Clinton Regime my spouse and I worked some gun shows with the SVNRAMC getting names on petitions. One huge, gruff guy in line to get in told me we didn't need to amend the CA constitution because the USA Constitution covered it and that should be enough. I agreed with him but added that people kept using "a well constituted militia..." to cloud the issue even though the militia is all of us and that a CA amendment would remove that liberal loophole (phony though it was) once and for all. He didn't say a word, but he got out of line and went right over to the tables with the petitions. Thereafter I started with, "Even though the US Constitution ..."
Of course, if the Supremes uphold the right as an individual right as we expect they will, everyone should be covered. As long as a treaty with the UN is not sneaked through that would supersede the Constitution.
We moved out of CA right about the time the SVNRAMC turned into something else and I never really knew what happened. I know the group is still active and a wonderful group of people and I wish you all the best from Arizona.
You are right as far as morality in a right vs. wrong concept is concerned. The FF made it clear our rights came from our Creator not government.
Unfortunately, from a legal standpoint that is not the case. Legality is definitely not the same as justice or right and can be manipulated by knaves to enslave fools. Unfortunately, due to decades of dumbing down in the schools and a general diffuse but continual PR attack on fundamental concepts of right and wrong, we've got way too many fools. The danger is real.
I knew that name looked familiar to me but I couldn't place it. I started looking back through some of my bookmarks on the second and sure enough, this is where I saw the name before.
http://www.saveourguns.com/gunalerts.htm
Here's the pdf on the case.
I was at a meeting where two agents from the CA DOJ spoke. They assured us all that they agreed with us that the US Constitution assured our RKBA and that they were as glad as we were...blah, blah, blah.
Someone asked them if a CA law were passed that required confiscation, would they do it? Yup, they would. How could they reconcile the contradiction? "Our job is not to make or interpret the laws. Our job is to enforce them. It's up to the elected legislature to make law and the courts to interpret. We are required to enforce..."
I don't know how many would resign or how many would jack-boot right in to "do their job", but I agree with you:
There is a line. There are people who will fight when that line is crossed. Sure, some registered arms would be meekly handed over. That won’t be anywhere close to all of them. The question is: who cares more? the bureaucratic agents who ultimately just want their paycheck and go home to watch TV & play golf? or the citizen who isn’t going to go quietly? which group outnumbers the other?
Also agree with your observation that after RR and Waco, there had been no further such attempts until the rapidly backed off on Katrina incidents:
...indications are someone reminded someone else that extreme badness would occur if they continued.
WRT which group outnumbers the other: in my calls and emails regarding Shamnesty I reminded them that 84% of 300 million people was a lot of people to cross.
The people, of course. But their right to keep and bear arms is protected as part of a militia.
In the cases I cited, the 9th Circuit Court illustrated this by citing that the defendants in those cases "lacked standing" -- meaning the defendants, as individuals, couldn't seek the protection of the second amendment because the second amendment protected the ability of a state to form a citizen's militia. A state would have to bring a second amendment case against the federal government.
"both federal and state are cherry picking which laws on which arm has the power to enforce"
Excellent observation.
The Bill of Rights, as written, was a restriction only on the federal government. States were free to limit speech, search without a warrant, establish their own state religion, etc. And they did.
Starting around the early 1900's, activist U.S. Supreme Courts starting selectively applying the Bill of Rights to the states (a process known as "selective incorporation").
Today, all of the amendments are "incorporated" with the exception of the 2nd and 3rd Amendments, the grand jury indictment clause of the 5th Amendment, and the 7th Amendment.
And that spelled the end of federalism -- one set of rules now applies to everyone. Some statists on this forum who believe in centralized government think this is a good thing. Every state, for example, must allow free speech.
The downside to this is that five justices on the U.S. Supreme Court define "speech". If they say nude dancing is protected "speech", then every state must allow it.
Or, if they say abortion is a right to privacy (found in a penumbra of an emanation of numerous amendments to the U.S. Constitution), then every state must allow it.
Given that, are you looking forward to the day when the second amendment is incorporated and these yahoos get to define "arms"? Or "keep"? Or "bear"?
So everyone not in the militia can gotohell as far as gun ownership is concerned? Pardon my french.
meaning the defendants, as individuals, couldn't seek the protection of the second amendment because the second amendment protected the ability of a state to form a citizen's militia.
So they're parsing the meaning of the second to fit their agenda?
A state would have to bring a second amendment case against the federal government.
Will the state do that? I won't be holding my breath.
Thank you for all the information.
Given that, are you looking forward to the day when the second amendment is incorporated and these yahoos get to define "arms"? Or "keep"? Or "bear"?
NO!
Here it is.
Is our civilian police allowed to work together, train, or hold joint exercises with our military? Aren't they supposed to never mix like that? Does our Constitution allow it?
Frankly, that’s nutter talk.
I'll put this thread in with my 2nd for further reference on the case.
Nope. It only means that if you're not in a well regulated state militia the second amendment does not protect your RKBA.
Your individual RKBA is protected by your state contitution. Even if it isn't protected by your state constitution (six state constitutions do not), that doesn't mean you're not allowed to keep and bear arms. It just means the right is not protected and state laws MAY be written to limit that right, assuming the citizens of the state concur.
Millions of Californians keep and bear arms legally and constitutionally, even though the California state constitution doesn't protect that right.
Very interesting site. Bookmarked! Thank you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
