Posted on 04/29/2005 5:23:31 PM PDT by 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
The current situation is that concealed carry (CC) is protected by the constitutions of the states which authorize it. If challenged, the State Supreme Court would weigh the two rights (the clear state constitutionally protected right to CC vs. some penumbra'd right that is violated). Worst case is that a negative CC decision would only affect that state.
At the federal level, we could have five liberal justices on the USSC ruling on no federally protected right to CC vs. some penumbra'd right that is violated). No chance. There, a negative ruling affects all states.
If USSC declares CC unconstitutional, all CC laws are struck down. The State Supreme Court would have no say in the matter.
Me too. Someone post where we can send this guy some money.
Tells me I'm right and you two are whack jobs.
What the hell does this mean? If this country relied on idiots like this the Brits would still have control.
This guy just refuses to believe it is his own fault he has lost his rights.
Typical!
Society today is a society of victims isn't it? Can't be his fault can it?
Suppose USSC rules CC not federally protected, and that it violates another part of the Constitution. All State CC laws are voided.
Suppose USSC rules that CC is federally protected, and that it also violates another portion of the Constitution. That presents a bit of a paradox, doesn't it? As schizophrenic as such a ruling would be, State CC would fare no worse for being federally protected vs not being federally protected.
Having seen the lack of result from any sort of attempt at discussion with him, I'm not responding to P_A_I, but I'm willing to state it clearly here that I am in agreement with Mr. Paulsen, and note that it happens rarely so I'm pleased as punch to have him on my side for once. The Constitution shouldn't extend to state action, because when it does, it inevitably results in more problems than it solves. Better 50 little governments f up than one huge government leviathan, expansive in its jurisdiction, get to determine what they do, what they're allowed to do, and rule them all. Better that every good conservative move out of California, sick of that state government's oppressive nature, before the federal government decide to move in to make it conservative, because as soon as the feds have the power to make a state conform one way, they will damn sure use that power to make it conform any way they see fit.
I am a libertarian. I see any big government given power as a threat, and especially when that power is given for a good reason, and especially when that government is the biggest we've got. The 2nd Amendment is a great restatement of what the law should be in every state, and most do have some state constitutional guarantee of the basic right of human beings to bear arms in their own defense, a right granted to them not by government but by virtue of their Creation. But in the states that don't have such a clear guarantee as the 2nd, or the ones that ignore clear constitutional guarantees, the federal government should not be the power that stops the state action taking away guns: the people should be.
At some point, you cannot rely upon government to stop what you should be stopping, as a citizen of the Republic and your State.
Where the U.S. Supreme Court has 'incorporated' Bill of Rights guarantees as fundamental, it has still resulted in nightmarish expansion of federal power. Only it comes under the guise of regulating state action at the federal level to restrict STATES from restricting those rights. Think college admissions, school busing, etc. Were the Supremes to rule that CC is federally protected, it could then go further and conceivably say that it was only protected at the level that the federal government currently protects CC, for example, to the level of the feds' current protections on federal property and government installations. And to my understanding, the level of "protection" of the right to bear arms on federal property is minimal for the average citizen.
Further, where the federal government becomes involved under the guise of its power to protect anything, it nearly always becomes an activist for complete bastardization of whatever it's protecting. Think the EEOC (equal protection under the law--if you're a member of an approved minority class!) or the OSHA (helping improve worker safety--by making it so you won't get HIRED!).
You'll need to amend Article III. Sec. 2.:
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction."
http://www.frogtown.org/jubilee.shtml
I was on the "Junior Fair Board" in my youth! (Our primary job was to provide frogs for the people that wanted to jump them and didn't bring their own...we kept them under the stage).
Clearly you are not familiar with CA DOJ's attempt to block the sale of millions of dollars in transferable NFA items from Stembridge Gun Rentals a fews years ago!
They were foiled only because Stembridge had already gotten the guns out of Kali. before the AG could seize them.
Kali. claimed that state law forbade the guns being sold outside the state, but they would never have allowed them to be sold IN state either.
The PC Gun Grabbers at Kali. DOJ wanted to grab and destroy them all, with ZERO compensation.
Oh, okay. I'll do that. But as long as we're deciding who amends what section of the Constitution, you'll need to amend this section to make sure it states clearly that the federal government gets to judge the states in that instance:
Amendment X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Of course, the Supreme Court can always judicially amend the document and that amendment to mean nothing, if you'd like, with whatever it considers good intentions in mind. That is, after all, what it's done since Marbury.
I heard a little about this some time ago, my brother told he was to be on the jury, but got out of it as he could not afford to be out of work for the lengthy time the trial was expected to last.
If he had remained the judge probably would have become familiar with "Jury Nullification". It's a damn shame no one still on the jury exercised that right.
So, the message is: No business shall be located in CA that sells or services weapons for law enforcement. Would like to know how CA LEO's are going to feel about driving to Nevada to have their MP5 serviced.
You are wearing the tinfoil hat correctly.
Let's take the Michigan Law School case. IIRC, the USSC basically said that diversity of the student body was a compelling enough reason for the state funded law school to temporarily override the Equal Protection Clause.
How would you have voted on that case?
Were the Supremes to rule that CC is federally protected, it could then go further and conceivably say that it was only protected at the level that the federal government currently protects CC, for example, to the level of the feds' current protections on federal property and government installations. And to my understanding, the level of "protection" of the right to bear arms on federal property is minimal for the average citizen.
Suppose the Court incorporates the Second Amendment, ie, it now applies to all States. The Court also rules that the Second Amendment protects State militias, but affords no protection at all to individuals.
How would that change the current legal status of the RKBA for any citizen?
Can you give me any scenario where a negative USSC decision on the Second Amendment would weaken the RKBA from where it now stands?
Further, where the federal government becomes involved under the guise of its power to protect anything, it nearly always becomes an activist for complete bastardization of whatever it's protecting. Think the EEOC (equal protection under the law--if you're a member of an approved minority class!) or the OSHA (helping improve worker safety--by making it so you won't get HIRED!).
I haven't looked it up, but I'd bet OSHA was passed under the Commerce Clause using the substantial effects test. Not sure about EEOC, but my guess is that it was either under the Commerce Clause or General Welfare Clause.
robertpaulsen says (and I think he's right) that every federal gun law was passed under the Commerce Clause.
There are several active "Class 3' NFA dealers in Kali.
Hollywood uses a lot of NFA items in their movies, machine guns, flash grenades, destructive devices, etc.
In fact, ATFE allows Hollywood to complete temporary NFA transfers via Fax in only 24 hours, while "citizens" in NFA legal states have to wait months.
Something smells with this case, for one thing I know that it is illegal for the ATFE to share "confidential tax information" with the state of Kali.
His federally registered NFA items are privileged information.
The "judge" in this case is a true Kali. thug, totally unconcerned with upholding our constitution.
Amendment X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
A delegated power is therefore not reserved to the States. Wasn't the Supreme Court delegated original jurisdiction in cases in which a State shall be a party by Art.III Sec.2?
Of course, the Supreme Court can always judicially amend the document and that amendment to mean nothing, if you'd like, with whatever it considers good intentions in mind. That is, after all, what it's done since Marbury.
Justice Clarence Thomas has said the Commerce Clause substantial effects test has had the effect of swallowing the Tenth Amendment.
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.