Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

DENVER VS. THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
Stanley for U.S. Senate Campaign ^ | December 15, 2001 - Bill of Rights Day | N/A

Posted on 12/15/2001 6:23:07 PM PST by LibertyRocks

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

December 15, 2001

NEWS RELEASE

STANLEY FOR U.S. SENATE
Web site http://www.stanley2002.org
CONTACT: Michelle Konieczny, 303.329.0481
EMAIL: Michelle@stanley2002.org

===========================================================

DENVER VS. THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

(DENVER - 5:45 PM) At 12:15 pm today, December 15, 2001, Rick Stanley, Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate, was arrested by the Denver police for insisting that his constitutional right to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed. After delivering a speech detailing the reasons for his actions (attached, below), Rick performed an act of civil disobedience by openly carrying a loaded weapon, in a holster, in violation of Denver Revised Municipal Code section 38-117.5(b). Stanley believes that this city ordinance is unconstitutional. It infringes citizens' rights protected by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is also in direct violation of Article II, Section 13 of the Colorado constitution.

Duncan Philp, another true patriot determined to protect the right of all citizens to keep and bear arms, was also arrested for carrying a weapon openly. At present, both Mr. Philp and Mr. Stanley are being held in the Denver City Jail awaiting booking.

Mr. Paul Grant, a lawyer specializing in constitutional law who has argued several cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, will be representing these men. Rick will demand a jury trial. He fully intends to demonstrate that this ordinance is unconstitutional, and that it cannot legally be enforced.

============================================================


(This copy of Rick's speech is available on the web at http://www.stanley2002.org/borspeech.htm )

Saturday, December 15, 2001, is the 210th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. In honor of this auspicious occasion, Rick Stanley delivered the following speech.

Rick also violated the Revised Municipal Code of the city and county of Denver, chapter 38-117.5(b), which prohibits the open carry of deadly weapons within the city limits. Rick wants to prove that this ordinance is unconstitutional. But he can't sue the city until he's been "damaged" by the ordinance. That is why he engaged in this act of civil disobedience: to obtain "standing" to sue the city for violating his constitutionally protected rights.

WHAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT MEANS

Good afternoon, and thank you for coming. It would appear I don't stand alone. (Rick brandishes a "Star Wars" toy gun.) This is what Denver will allow me to defend myself with. (Rick shoots rubber flying discs at the crowd. The crowd rolls on the ground with hilarity, and roars its approval.)

My name is Rick Stanley. I'm a Libertarian candidate for the office of United States Senator. I'm here today to celebrate the 210th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. More specifically, I want to tell you what the Second Amendment means to me, and, more importantly, what it means to America. I want to discuss the many ways in which our sitting government is destroying the Second Amendment. And I want to tell you what you can do to restore our Second Amendment rights.

The Bill of Rights is the crown jewel in the Constitution of the United States. And the Second Amendment is the linchpin of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment says, "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."

Why did our forefathers add this provision to the Constitution? Well, they had direct experience with a tyrannical government. Just eight years before the Bill of Rights was ratified they had concluded peace with Great Britain, successfully ending their seven-year War for Independence. To understand the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, we must remember the basic political philosophy on which our nation was founded. That philosophy is set out brilliantly in the
Declaration of Independence. I'm sure those stirring words are familiar to all of you.

"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 secure their Safety and Happiness."

Now, it should be obvious that the people's right to alter or abolish a government that has become destructive of its basic ends would not mean much if the people didn't actually have the means to carry out the alteration. In other words, the Declaration of Independence wouldn't really say much without the Second Amendment. The people have the right to alter or abolish their government. And the people have another right -- to keep and bear arms. These two rights are essentially the same thing. The founding fathers knew this. When they wrote the Constitution,they hoped the government they were framing would always remain true to the purposes for which it had been instituted. But they had studied history, and they were wise, so they knew it was very likely that the government of the United States would become onerous and oppressive at some time in the future. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness were, to them, the most important possessions any one can hold. And so they very wisely included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights. They hoped that their descendants would never again be forced to overthrow an evil government. But they knew it might happen, so they inserted an escape clause in our Bill of Rights.

Today, 210 years after the Bill of Rights became part of the Constitution, the Second Amendment is in tatters. Let's stop and think, for a moment, of the many ways in which this current unconstitutional government has infringed our right to keep and bear arms.

- Counting state, local, and federal laws and regulations, there are now over 20,000 separate rules regulating the use , possession, and transfer of firearms. Most of those rules are patent infringements of this most basic human right, to keep and bear arms in self-defense.

- The federal government has adopted many laws which violate the Second Amendment. Automatic weapons are subject to a special tax. People who want to buy or sell guns are required to ask for permission. Guns with large magazines are prohibited. Every one of these restrictions is an infringement of your right to keep and bear arms.

- Federal law also includes prohibitions against certain kinds of ammunition. Specifically, "armor-piercing" bullets are illegal. Guns with very short barrels are also illegal. The net effect? The very types of guns and ammunition the American people must have to defend our country against a self-proclaimed military dictator are not freely available. But they should be! And they must be, if freedom is to endure.

- State and local laws in many jurisdictions prohibit concealed carry. People who wish to carry a concealed weapon are required to obtain a license, or permit. In many cities these licenses are never issued. People can apply for them, but the government won't issue them.

The Second Amendment does not say that people can apply for permission to keep and bear arms. It says that you have the right to keep and bear arms. It does not say "except for concealed weapons." It says that you have the right to bear arms. It's your right, and so it must be your choice. You -- not the government -- can decide what kind of gun you need, and when you need it, and how you want to carry it. As long as you use it only for lawful purposes -- for self-defense -- the government has absolutely no lawful authority to restrict your Second Amendment right.

- Here in Denver the city council has adopted a particularly odious piece of legis lation known as Chapter 38-117.5(b) of the Revised Municipal Code. This unconstitutional piece of garbage says that citizens are not allowed to bear arms within the city limits. The traitors on the city council passed this ordinance even though they knew all about the Second Amendment. They knew all about Article II, Section 13 of the constitution of Colorado, which says, "The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, and property, ... shall be called in question."

Why did they pass this unconstitutional ordinance? Because they don't care about you, or your rights, or the Constitution. They only care about power over other people -- obtaining it, extending it, and grasping it. They want to run your life. And they know that you might resist them if you have a gun. They're not ready to say you can't even own a gun. Not yet. But they do say that you can't carry it with you. Small steps. Infringements. Tyranny -- an inch at a time.

Unlike the Denver city council, I care about the Constitution. I believe that your rights, and my rights, and everybody's rights, are important. An unconstitutional enactment is not a law. Today I am challenging this unconstitutional ordinance by violating it deliberately and peacefully. But before I do that and the Denver police take me into custody, I want to tell you what you can do to make the Second Amendment a living, breathing reality once again.

- Elect Libertarians to public office. If you're not registered to vote, go out and register. Vote for Libertarians every chance you get. They're all about defending the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

- Join my campaign team. I am a candidate for the office of U.S. Senator. The election will be held next November. My campaign team is already hard at work. But it's pitifully small, and under-funded. Join my team, and help elect me to the U.S. Senate so I can start fighting for your rights at the federal level. You can talk to David Bryant or Michelle Konieczny -- they're here today. Or visit my web site the next time you're online: www.stanley2002.org.

Help spread the word about what has happened here today all across America. I am issuing a public call for monthly public demonstrations in support of the Bill of Rights. The Second American Revolution has already begun. It is time to spread it to every state in America.

Today I am taking a stand against an unconstitutional city ordinance. There are thousands of unconstitutional laws on the books today. Now is the time to force their repeal. We need to hold another rally here in Denver in January, and in February, and every month after that, until all the unconstitutional laws have been repealed. And we can't just do it in Denver. We need support in this effort from people all across the country.

I am calling upon citizens all across America to join the Second American Revolution. Organize a rally in your hometown. Set one up in the capital city of your state. Speak out against all the unconstitutional laws this sitting government has enacted. And don't stop there. Do it again, and again, and again -- until all the unconstitutional laws have been repealed.

When these rallies are happening regularly, in every capital city of every state in America, the politicians will have to sit up and listen. They know they have been passing unconstitutional laws. They don't want to listen when Libertarians say that what they're doing is wrong. Well, dammit, the time for whispering is behind us. We have got to shout our message from the rooftops, before it's too late. If we don't act now, our last best chance to preserve liberty in America will be lost. Do not let that happen!

- I know that there are many militia groups in America. The politicians and their media lapdogs have been poking fun at them for years. You militia members deserve respect. You know more about the Second Amendment, and what it truly means, than all the politicians inside the Beltway put together.

It is time for all the militia groups in America to band together. The battle for liberty can still be won with ballots, not bullets. But the danger is imminent. The recently enacted "Patriot Act" is a direct assault upon the entire Bill of Rights. The traitors in Washington are getting bolder. We must be ready to defend our liberty with all the force at our command, if they push it that far.

I'm calling out today for the formation of a new Second American Revolution militia, to embrace all the militias across America.

I've already read you part of the Declaration of Independence -- the most familiar part. Now I'd like to read the next two sentences, the part the politicians want you to forget about.

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." Think about the "Patriot Act." Think about the thousands of unconstitutional laws this sitting government has enacted. It is a long train of a buses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object: to reduce you, and me, and all Americans, under absolute Despotism.

It is our right, it is our duty, to throw off this unconstitutional government. I'm ready to do my duty. Are you?

##30##


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440441-460461-480481-500 last
To: Libloather
I don't own a handgun.
481 posted on 12/17/2001 9:27:31 PM PST by Verax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 470 | View Replies]

Comment #482 Removed by Moderator

Comment #483 Removed by Moderator

To: alien2
I understand the context. It's called straw man.

Trying out new vocabulary words I see. Have you gotten to rock head yet?

484 posted on 12/17/2001 10:06:52 PM PST by VA Advogado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 482 | View Replies]

Comment #485 Removed by Moderator

To: Bad~Rodeo
No Bravo Sierra here, just a modest proposal. Read it for yourself:

Firearms Restoration Act

I wish it were proposed in the House and Senate and came to the floor for a vote so they could all go on record specifically regarding the 2nd amendment ... not as if though the majority of them haven't already.

486 posted on 12/17/2001 10:41:35 PM PST by Jeff Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
It's not tyrranical, it's simply self-defense.

Libertarianism's capacity for sophistry is limitless.

487 posted on 12/17/2001 11:06:24 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 466 | View Replies]

Comment #488 Removed by Moderator

To: alien2
Rock head? I don't understand.

Thank you for your honesty.

489 posted on 12/18/2001 2:45:53 AM PST by VA Advogado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 485 | View Replies]

To: Chemist_Geek
What's this, 'Agree with us or we'll come for you'? Hmm, sounds awfully tyrranical. Or is that something only the government can be; Libertarian mobs cannot be tyrranical, by definition?

Traitors to freedom have been known to be hanged and shot in the past. I suggest you stick to chemistry. To be safe, all you have to do is abide by the US Constitution and the freedoms and liberties associated with it. Any prob with that?

490 posted on 12/18/2001 5:58:34 PM PST by takenoprisoner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 463 | View Replies]

To: alien2
any more than I defend the Constitution

You're not generally required to unless you join the armed forces, or become elected to public office as example. Though it is generally acceptable for an American to believe in and honor it. Regardless, enjoy your free ride.

491 posted on 12/18/2001 6:25:31 PM PST by takenoprisoner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 488 | View Replies]

To: VA Advogado
You operate on a very flawed theory, as do most here.
Then the upside would have to be, most here think you operate from a very flawed theory. The clowns you so respectfully refer to as "Legislators", could give a rats a$$ about anything you or I bring to them, without first testing the political wind. They are without honor, why should I or any other citizen expect any defference from them? Take a lesson from the left (shouldn't have far to reference), they get their wheels greased by getting in everyones face. If this guy chooses to get in Denver's face, more power to him. Blackbird.
492 posted on 12/19/2001 8:31:09 AM PST by BlackbirdSST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: BlackbirdSST
why should I or any other citizen expect any defference from them?

I'm not saying you should. You are clearly a dishonorable citizen. One of those 'in' the wagon like Phil Gramm used to say, that the rest of us have to carry. An america hater. But this legislature is part of your government. It responds if you choose to engage it. You choose not to. You lose.

493 posted on 12/19/2001 2:43:31 PM PST by VA Advogado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 492 | View Replies]

To: VA Advogado
why should I or any other citizen expect any defference from them? I'm not saying you should. You are clearly a dishonorable citizen. One of those 'in' the wagon like Phil Gramm used to say, that the rest of us have to carry. An america hater. But this legislature is part of your government. It responds if you choose to engage it. You choose not to. You lose. What, are you 12 years old? How do you make the leap to me being clearly dishonorable? Since Phil Gramm hasn't held a non govt job for the better part of 40-50 years, I should look to him for what's honorable. Don't think so lackey. If you don't think in my 40+ years of being on this earth I haven't had opprtunity to petition "my Govt" then you've exposed yourself to be more of a maroon than I had you pegged for. If there is excess load in the wagon, it's not from me or mine slick, never been in the wagon. You are so full of crap opinion it's pathetic. Come back with some more mental giant stuff. Blackbird.
494 posted on 12/20/2001 4:55:12 AM PST by BlackbirdSST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 493 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
Here's the only "Gun Legislation" I am willing to support: The Firearms Restoration Act

I would add a couple of clarifications:

  1. Per the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which permits enslavement of convicted criminals, states may forbid or restrict firearm ownership of convicted felons, either indefinitely or for a term of years which may exceed the prison term, if such restriction is imposed as part of the sentence.
  2. Per Congress' power to ensure that full faith and credit is given to state judicial actions, any restriction imposed by a state court persuant to (1) shall be effective throughout all of the United States for a period of seven years from the person's release from prison. Possession of a firearm in any state other than the one where the restriction was imposed shall be a federal offense punishable by a fine and prison term of up to $25,000 and five years, but not more than would have been enforced in the state where the restriction was imposed.
Given the sections of the Constitution cited, I think those "gun control" restrictions would fully pass constitutional muster.
495 posted on 05/17/2002 5:49:52 PM PDT by supercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Iron Eagle
Scalia, speaking to a small group of Thomas More members at my law school said, "The Constitution is a nice puff-piece, but it ain't the law."

Did he misspeak, or did you misquote?

496 posted on 05/17/2002 5:51:16 PM PDT by supercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 453 | View Replies]

To: yooper
If the judicial system follows the law, he will lose. If it follows the Constitution, he will win. It is important here to make the point that it is the law which is unconstitutional. That's what these two guys are trying to demonstrate by going to jail.

An unconstitutional statute [or act, ordinance, or regulation] is not law; it is void from the moment of inception, not merely from the moment it is struck down.

The ordinance in this case is unconstitutional; it is therefore not a law. To use the term "law" to describe such an ordinance is to grant it legitimacy it does not rightly possess.

497 posted on 05/17/2002 5:53:38 PM PDT by supercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
The second amendment does not have any exceptions for concealed carry, nor for carry in cities, or most anywhere.

This is IMHO debatable, and it's really best not to push the issue. Given that some of the state constitutions at the time the U.S. Constitution was ratified had RKBA provisions that explicitly stated that concealed carry was not protected, I see no alternative but to accept one of three things:

  1. The Constitution was intended to void state restrictions on concealed carry.
  2. The Constitution was intended to apply to the federal government only, thus not conflicting with state restriction of concealed carry.
  3. The Constitution was intended to require that all governments allow a practical means of carrying weapons, but not necessarily to allow them to be concealed [though if open carry is forbidden de jure or de facto, concealed carry must then be permitted].
While many here would prefer (1), I really don't think that's consistent with the federal-state balance struck on other issues. The question then becomes whether (2) or (3) is a better interpretation of original intent. Given that there is nothing in the text of the Second Amendment which restricts its application to the federal government, I think (3) is the more plausible interpretation.

To be sure, I think the Fourteenth Amendment "equal protection" clause renders suspect many types of "may issue" concealed-carry permit systems. I do not think there would necessarily be any constitutional problem, however, with a state law which forbid concealed carry by anyone and everyone, including police, politicians, and bodyguards. On the other hand, I doubt such a law would get passed.

498 posted on 05/17/2002 6:01:38 PM PDT by supercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Bad~Rodeo
He will win....

IANAL, but IMHO that depends whether he attempted to raise the following two factual issues:

  1. He was carrying the firearm for self-defense.
  2. His pistol was of a type suitable for use in a well-functioning militia.
Precedent requires (1) for state-constitution challenges and (2) for federal constitution challenges. To be sure, these should not normally be difficult facts to show, and it's fine (actually good) if the judge deliberately prevented the lawyer from introducing them. Nonetheless, attempting to produce them may be a key requirement for securing a remand.

When seeking a remand after a conviction, it is necessary to show not only that mistakes (or worse) were made, but that they may have materially affected the outcome of the trial. Since precedent in state and federal court requires the above facts for constitutional RKBA defenses, if the defendant didn't attempt to raise them the appeals court might hold that even a fair judge and jury would not have accepted that defense.

499 posted on 05/17/2002 6:07:07 PM PDT by supercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: supercat
Oh my!!! I did misquote!! He said "the declaration of Independence is a nice puff piece, but it's not the law."

My apologies.

Good catch!

500 posted on 05/20/2002 4:05:57 PM PDT by Iron Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 496 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440441-460461-480481-500 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson