What!? What!?
It's an UNLAWFUL arrest!
Ok, so let's go with a SPECIFIC example.
I live in New Mexico, our State Constitution says the following:
| 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. (As amended November 2, 1971 and November 2, 1986.) |
| Art II, Sec. 4. [Inherent rights.] |
|---|
| All persons are born equally free, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, among which are the rights of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and of seeking and obtaining safety and happiness. |
Inherent —adjective
1. existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute: an inherent distrust of strangers.
2. Grammar. standing before a noun.
3. inhering; infixed.
Inalienable —adjective
not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated: inalienable rights.
Liberty —noun, plural -ties.
1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.
4. freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint: The prisoner soon regained his liberty.
5. permission granted to a sailor, esp. in the navy, to go ashore.
6. freedom or right to frequent or use a place: The visitors were given the liberty of the city.
7. unwarranted or impertinent freedom in action or speech, or a form or instance of it: to take liberties.
8. a female figure personifying freedom from despotism.
—Idiom
9. at liberty,
a. free from captivity or restraint.
b. unemployed; out of work.
c. free to do or be as specified: You are at liberty to leave at any time during the meeting.
(Definitions #1, #3, #4 are the possibly relevant definitions.)
Now because the State has recognized that "defending life and liberty" is an inseparable and non-repudiatable right of "All Persons" the state has recognized the "defending of [a person's] freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint [possibly due to an arbitrary or despotic government control]" as such. Note now that there are NO QUALIFICATIONS laid upon that defense; it is NOT "defending life and liberty, except in those cases wherein deadly force is, or might be, used."
It is now proven that your statement "There is no where in the Country that permits the use of deadly force to resist an unlawful arrest. Hence, if you do so, you will ALWAYS be a criminal in the eyes of the law." is false.
Having now proved that one can (at least in New Mexico) legally defend one's own freedom; I return to the case on which we originally started: that of illegal arrest. New Mexico has a State Statute "NMSA 30-7-2.4. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises; notice; penalty" which [obviously] makes it illegal for one to carry a firearm on university premises... the law itself, however, is in direct conflict withthe State Constitution which says "[n]o law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense."
The state statute actually abridges the rights of the Citizens [who live in on-campus housing] to either keep OR bear arms! That's right, according to this law they cannot keep, in their home, a firearm; though they could legally keep it in their vehicle that assumes that they possess a vehicle.
So then, is an arrest for violation of NMSA 30—7—2.4 legal?
How can it possibly be legal? (The statute itself is illegal!)
The question becomes, would the State honor its own Constitution and allow me my freedom if I defended my Liberty with the use of deadly force or would it call and convict me as a murderer? If a murderer, why?
In fact, to help you out, let's look at the Crime "Murder."
| NMSA 30-2-1. Murder. |
|---|
| A. Murder in the first degree is the killing of one human being by another without lawful justification or excuse, by any of the means with which death may be caused: (1) by any kind of willful, deliberate and premeditated killing; (2) in the commission of or attempt to commit any felony; or (3) by any act greatly dangerous to the lives of others, indicating a depraved mind regardless of human life. Whoever commits murder in the first degree is guilty of a capital felony. B. Unless he is acting upon sufficient provocation, upon a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion, a person who kills another human being without lawful justification or excuse commits murder in the second degree if in performing the acts which cause the death he knows that such acts create a strong probability of death or great bodily harm to that individual or another. Murder in the second degree is a lesser included offense of the crime of murder in the first degree. Whoever commits murder in the second degree is guilty of a second degree felony resulting in the death of a human being. |
You haven't proven anything. You rambled a bunch of nonsense and made conclusory statements.
The fact is, in your State, your contentions are nothing but rambling fantasy:
"Self-help measures undertaken by a potential defendant who objects to the legality of the search can lead to violence and serious physical injury. The societal interest in the orderly settlement of disputes between citizens and their government outweighs any individual interest in resisting a questionable search. United States v. Ferrone, 438 F.2d 381, 390 (3rd Cir. 1971), Cert. denied, 402 U.S. 1008, 91 S.Ct. 2188, 29 L.Ed.2d 430 (1971). Accord, State v. Hatton, 116 Ariz. 142, 568 P.2d 1040 (1977); State v. Miller, 282 N.C. 633, 194 S.E.2d 353 (1973). One can reasonably be asked to submit peaceably and to take recourse in his legal remedies... We hold that a private citizen may not use force to resist a search by an authorized police officer engaged in the performance of his duties whether or not the arrest is illegal. The question remains whether the use of force in resisting a search pursuant to an illegal arrest constitutes a battery upon a police officer acting in the “lawful discharge of his duties,” as set forth in s 40A-22-23... A police officer who makes an arrest should not lose all his authority if the arrest is subsequently judged to be unlawful. Police officers must be free to carry out their duties without being subjected to interference and physical harm." New Mexico v. Doe, 583 P.2d 464, 467 (N.M. 1978).
You can throw a tantrum if you like, but the fact is, the law does not support the nonsense that you are rambling here. And we both know that you don't actually believe your own rambling either. If you think you are right, why don't you go open carry on the premises of a University? Then make your case in Court? If you are so sure that the statute is illegal, why don't you prove it?
Ah, because we both know that you don't actually believe the tripe you are posting here.
If you REALLY believed what you were saying, you'd live according to those beliefs.