Calaveras County Safe Again (ATF at it Again!)

http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=4458 ^ | 4/29/05 | Jeff Knox

[P_A_I]

Calaveras County Safe Again

By Jeff Knox (Manassas, VA, April 27)

The people of Calaveras County – the remote central California mining region made famous by the gold rush of 1849 and the jumping frogs of Mark Twain – can breath easier now that Richard Wilmshurst has been brought to justice. Wilmshurst was convicted last month of illegal possession of a machinegun and illegal possession of "Assault Weapons" in California. The judge sentenced Wilmshurst to three years probation and ordered that he dispose of his "arsenal". Wilmshurst, by the way, is a car dealer and land speculator with a law degree, a federal firearms import license, and a class 3 license. This could be the Second Amendment case we've been waiting for or it could be another case of a white-hat taking a fall because white-hats are easier targets than black-hats.

Wilmshurst's troubles began in January of 2003 when an ATF agent performing a routine inspection of his import inventory mentioned that a couple of the guns were not legal for Californians to own. Wilmshurst wasn't worried; the guns were within the umbrella of his import business and were intended for distribution outside the state of California for sale to law enforcement.

In February, officers from the California Department of Justice Firearms Enforcement Division, using information obtained from ATF, staged raids on Wilmshurst's home and Angel Camp car dealership. The raids were conducted in full "storm-trooper" fashion with black "ninja" suits, heavy body armor, and true assault weapons. This being "people friendly" California, the assault force included a medic to monitor 69-year old, stroke survivor, Wilmshurst's blood pressure as they dumped the contents of his safe and confiscated every gun he or his businesses owned.

Even though it is a violation of federal law for information obtained from records generated in compliance with import license regulations to be used directly or indirectly as evidence against the licensee, the judge refused to hear arguments that the warrants were illegal and that all evidence seized was inadmissible. Instead, he barred any mention of federal law in the courtroom and instructed the jury that if the prosecutor proved that Wilmshurst was in possession of the firearms in question (something that Wilmshurst never denied), that the jury must return a guilty verdict.

The guilty verdict was summarily returned and last week, Wilmshurst was sentenced to three years probation and, as a convicted felon, ordered to dispose of all of his firearms.

The judge in the case – who happens to be the same judge that ruled against Wilmshurst in a property case currently on appeal – expressed dismay that Wilmshurst is showing no remorse for his crimes… Wilmshurst is planning to appeal the conviction and has filed suit against the Attorney General of California for violating federal law in conducting the raid and for violating Wilmshurst's civil rights under the Second Amendment.

The Firearms Coalition is bringing the Wilmshurst case to the attention of Second Amendment scholars and firearms civil rights organizations in hopes of generating "friend of the court" briefs and perhaps getting Mr. Wilmshurst the specialized legal assistance this case clearly deserves.

We will keep you posted as the case develops. In the meantime, let this be a reminder: Your white hat is no defense against aggressive police, prosecutors, and judges. There are many things that Richard Wilmshurst would rather be doing with his time, money and midnight oil. Cross your T's and dot your i's…

Yours for the Second Amendment,
Jeff

Jeff Knox Director of Operations The Firearms Coalition

[Allosaurs_r_us]

See paulsen's post at #89

 

These were rights which the federal government could not violate. The states, of course, were free to do so, provided it didn't violate their respective state constitutions. Examples of this abound.

 

I see what you mean. This kind of thinking is the reason we had a civil war, was it not? The South wanted to keep slavery among other things and the North abolished it with the Constitution.

 

He states in this excerp that the States can violate Federal Law.

 

Totally rediculous. It is completely opposite of what he writes. Looks like a moonbat to me.

[robertpaulsen]

The City of Chicago, and other major cities like New York and Washington, DC, ban the ownership and possession of firearms within city limits. Isn't that against the 2nd amendment in your opinion?

Then how do the get away with it?

We're supposed to have Equal Protection of the laws. You can't have laws that only apply to some citizens. I live in Illinois. Why can't I conceal carry? Where's my 2nd amendment protection?

How many more examples do you want? 10? 20? I can give them to you. What's your answer?

[P_A_I]

Allosaurs_r_us wrote:

I see what you mean. --  
-- He states in this excerp that the States can violate Federal Law.

States can indeed refuse to obey invalid federal law. --
Paulsens position is much worse, -- he contends that States can violate the US Constitution & BOR's.

And even on this small thread he has those who support him. There are a lot more on FR..

[P_A_I]

robertpaulsen wrote:

-- how do the get away with it?
Why can't I conceal carry? Where's my 2nd amendment protection?

All levels of government in the USA are determined to ignore the 2nd Amendment.
- And are supported by people like you.

That's how they "get away with it" robby.

[Allosaurs_r_us]

I live in Illinois. Why can't I conceal carry? Where's my 2nd amendment protection?

 

Probly right where you left it. By electing officials that trash your rights you are leaving your constitutional protections by the wayside. If you don't have the "jewels" to take these people to task don't come here and try and make sense out of it by interpreting our Constitution to fit your explanation or your lack of defending yourself.

 

All of the examples you can come up with are do to citizens believing their government is enacting laws "for the greater good". That includes NY City and Washington DC. Now tell me it worked out for the "greater good".

 

I live in Idaho, we don't elect people who wish to diminish our rights. What is your excuse?

 

"When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns". Sound familiar? I'll lay odds the criminals don't worry about conceal carry laws. What do you think?

[robertpaulsen]

So both of you are saying that the laws are violating the U.S. Constitution. All these laws, all the cities and states, are all in violation of the the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution and nobody has lifted a finger to do anything about it?

That makes sense to you? That's your claim? I don't suppose you can back this up?

You know I can back up my claim. What does that tell you? Tells me I'm right and you two are whack jobs.

[P_A_I]

robertpaulsen wrote:

So both of you are saying that the laws are violating the U.S. Constitution. All these laws, all the cities and states, are all in violation of the the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution and nobody has lifted a finger to do anything about it?

Lots of people have been fighting these infringements since day one. -- Many more, like you, support the gun grabbers.

That makes sense to you? That's your claim? I don't suppose you can back this up?

The 2nd is part of the "Law of the Land", as specified in Article VI. Thats my 'backup' you refuse to face.

You know I can back up my claim. What does that tell you?

Your refusal to acknowledge the clear words of Art. VI tells me you have no real backup.

Tells me I'm right and you two are whack jobs.

Personal asides are always another of your amusing 'backups' when your argument fails.

[PackardClipper]

The US legal system now has little to do with Justice. Stay as far away as possible. The only hope is more jury nullification until things turn around.

I agree. Under Clinton/Reno, I called the Justice Dept. "The Armed Wing of the Democrat Party". Alas, it's more of the same with this administration, with maybe slightly different targets.

We rightly scream about trial lawyers, but they can't put us in jail or shoot us. The trial lawyers' alter image - politically ambitious prosecutors and Giuliani wannabes at Justice, are the immediate threat to our remaining liberties.

[robertpaulsen]

"Lots of people have been fighting these infringements since day one."

Oh yah, lots and lots. Why every day there's a lawsuit against a city or government, people demanding their second amendment rights. You can't open a newspaper, magazine, surf the web, watch TV, or listen to the radio without hearing about at least a dozen new lawsuits at all levels in our legal system.

Right now, there's how many second amendment cases at the USSC? None, you say? Well then, at the federal appellate court level? Again none, you say? In any federal court, anywhere in the country? None?

Well, what's the largest second amendment case going on right now at any of the state supreme courts? Any one. Pick one and we'll discuss it.

Yeah they're fighting them. At their keyboards, like you, telling everyone not to worry, the second amendment will protect them.

Isn't Sarah marching today? Shouldn't you be there with her?

"as specified in Article VI. Thats my 'backup' you refuse to face."

Then you're in trouble. The U.S. Constituion is a contract between the states and the federal government. Article VI simply acknowleges that fact by saying that it will be the law of the land, binding each party to their respective duties and responsibilities. The second amendment is only binding on the federal government. Article VI reaffirms that fact, not changes it.

[Dead Corpse]

Keep me posted. If there is a Legal Defense Fund being set up for this guy, I want to contribute.

Let's hope the NRA doesn't undercut us on this one too like they did with Silviera.

[P_A_I]

Lots of people have been fighting these infringements since day one.

Oh yah, lots and lots. Why every day there's a lawsuit against a city or government, people demanding their second amendment rights. You can't open a newspaper, magazine, surf the web, watch TV, or listen to the radio without hearing about at least a dozen new lawsuits at all levels in our legal system. Right now, there's how many second amendment cases at the USSC? None, you say? Well then, at the federal appellate court level? Again none, you say? In any federal court, anywhere in the country? None? Well, what's the largest second amendment case going on right now at any of the state supreme courts? Any one. Pick one and we'll discuss it. Yeah they're fighting them. At their keyboards, like you, telling everyone not to worry, the second amendment will protect them. Isn't Sarah marching today? Shouldn't you be there with her?

Your pitiful efforts to deny that millions of people are NOT fighting for their RKBA's is ludicrous. -- Sarahs proud of you though.

The 2nd is part of the "Law of the Land", as specified in Article VI. Thats my 'backup' you refuse to face.

Then you're in trouble. The U.S. Constituion is a contract between the states and the federal government.

And the people. -- Strange you keep forgetting it's "right of the people" that shall not be infringed.

Article VI simply acknowleges that fact by saying that it will be the law of the land, binding each party to their respective duties and responsibilities.

The relevant part says:
"-- every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding. --"

The second amendment is only binding on the federal government. Article VI reaffirms that fact, not changes it.

You're simply in denial about the clear words of the Constitution itself. Dream on.

[Ken H]

If he can somehow get the 2nd amendment to apply to the states (currently is doesn't, thank God), and if he can get five liberal justices of the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that, say, concealed carry is not protected by the second amendment and is in violation of some right to peaceful existence (or some such nonsense) then concealed carry would be banned across the U.S.

Concealed carry is not currently protected by the Second Amendment in the eyes of the Federal courts.

Now suppose the court does rule that concealed carry violates some penumbra from the Constitution. The incorporation status of the Second Amendment would have zero effect on the application of such a ruling. State CC laws would be overturned whether the Second was incorporated or not.

You have given an invalid reason to oppose incorporation.

[P_A_I]

Keep in mind.
If a federal amendment applies to the states, then whatever five justices of the U.S. Supreme Court says it means, that meaning then applies to all the states. For good OR bad.

Now, gun grabbers love this concept.

It they can somehow get the 2nd amendment to apply to the states (currently is doesn't, thank God), and if they can get five liberal justices of the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that, say, --
--- concealed carry is not protected by the second amendment and is in violation of some right to peaceful existence (or some such nonsense) --

-- then concealed carry would be banned across the U.S.
89 paulsen


____________________________________



Ken H wrote:

Concealed carry is not currently protected by the Second Amendment in the eyes of the Federal courts.

Now suppose the court does rule that concealed carry violates some penumbra from the Constitution.

The incorporation status of the Second Amendment would have zero effect on the application of such a ruling.
State CC laws would be overturned whether the Second was incorporated or not.

You have given an invalid reason to oppose incorporation.

---

Paulsens reasoning to suppose the 2nd ~needs~ 'incorporation' is invalid.

Thus, - his whole imagined scenario that a concealed carry "penumbra" could be found, much less issued, is far fetched at best.
Any effort by the USSC to deny that the plain words of the 2nd can be infringed by any level of government in the USA will immediately plunge this country into a Constitutional crisis of a scale unknown since the civil war.

The USSC is well aware that they cannot decide this issue any other way than to find the 2nd un-infringeable.
We have an impasse. The Court will continue to avoid the issue unless forced.
-- That is the true gun grabbers agenda, to continue to allow 'regulations' at all levels. Paulsen supports that agenda.

[Robert_Paulson2]

It was a she agent, I thought I read.


"... she notified the state of her findings."

[editor-surveyor]

"This could be the Second Amendment case we've been waiting for or it could be another case of a white-hat taking a fall because white-hats are easier targets than black-hats."

This case is neither.

The obviously anti-gun judge erred, and the conviction will almost cetainly be reversed, but no second ammendment issue will be at stake. This is simply a case of a judge disregarding clear statute law.

.

[editor-surveyor]

Crazy Judge ping!

[editor-surveyor]

While I agree that the title failed to fully address the nature of the case, or article, The ATF did break federal law by sharing the info.

[P_A_I]

I doubt that the CA supremes will reverse, and I don't see how the Ninth will want to decide against the CA Attorney General.
It could go to the USSC. - I hope. --- You don't?

[Ken H]

"Marshaling an impressive array of historical evidence, a growing body of scholarly commentary indicates that the "right to keep and bear arms" is, as the Amendment's text suggests, a personal right."

Mr. Justice Clarence Thomas, Printz

[editor-surveyor]

"I doubt that the CA supremes will reverse..."

I don't even think that it will have to go that far; the evidence was clearly inadmissable, and the jury was improperly advised. This is a big boner on the judge's part. It's just not a 2nd ammendment issue to any greater extent than any other gun case is.