>If the unit accepted you as legitimate then I see no reason why the men wouldnt obey your orders.
>The top Generals in the Pentagon have accepted Zero as being legitimate, so to them his orders are legitimate.
The question is not that of obedience but that of *lawfulness*.
Consider this State Statute: http://www.conwaygreene.com/nmsu/lpext.dll/nmsa1978/9c0/f2c0/f478/f4a0?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0 [NMSA 30-7-2.4 Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises; notice; penalty.]
If people obey it makes no impact on its lawfulness, but the State Constitution does; the State Constitution says this:
Art II, Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.]
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear
arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and
recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing
herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.
No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident
of the right to keep and bear arms.
So then, if I were to open-carry my .45 Glock around the University Campus would I be a lawbreaker?
If I would be, then why? [The constitution prohibits laws abridging my use of arm “for security and defense.”]
Not being a lawyer I don’t feel capable of arguing for or against it. I do know there is laws for some that others can ignore. Rep. Charlie Rangell comes to mind. He get’s humiliated where you and I would be serving hard time.
Obama is a key component of the plan for a New World Order.