A common misconception is that every "authority" is a legitimate authority; if, for example, a county Sheriff is in another state he does not have the jurisdiction to perform an arrest (other than the citizen's arrest open to all citizens) precisely because his authority is bound to his county. — Likewise, my home State of New Mexico has the following statute:
30-7-2.4. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises; notice; penalty.Now, the above is actually unlawful, you see the State Constitution says the following:
A. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises consists of carrying a firearm on university premises except by:
(1) a peace officer;
(2) university security personnel;
(3) a student, instructor or other university-authorized personnel who are engaged in army, navy, marine corps or air force reserve officer training corps programs or a state-authorized hunter safety training program;
(4) a person conducting or participating in a university-approved program, class or other activity involving the carrying of a firearm; or
(5) a person older than nineteen years of age on university premises in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance, for lawful protection of the person's or another's person or property.
B. A university shall conspicuously post notices on university premises that state that it is unlawful to carry a firearm on university premises.
C. As used in this section:
(1) "university" means a baccalaureate degree-granting post-secondary educational institution, a community college, a branch community college, a technical-vocational institute and an area vocational school; and
(2) "university premises" means:
(a) the buildings and grounds of a university, including playing fields and parking areas of a university, in or on which university or university-related activities are conducted; or
(b) any other public buildings or grounds, including playing fields and parking areas that are not university property, in or on which university-related and sanctioned activities are performed.
D. Whoever commits unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.
Art II, Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.]Which makes 30-7-2.4 unlawful because that statute would make it unlawful to keep firearms in student housing by the Citizen. — the statute is presented as being the law, and enforced as if it were so, but that does not make it a proper law. In a like manner we have "authorities" which have no legitimate authority other than what is assumed; as an example: by what right can the ATF regulate arms considering that the Constitution specifically prohibits infringements on the right of people to keep and 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.
What we have, for much of the federal government, is the equivalent of a Mexican gang showing up and declaring itself the authority over the people/states — sure, they did it sneakily and over the course of a century, but many of the claims have exactly the same Constitutional weight as the Mexican gang: Just because they claim that they are kings does not make them kings, just because they are big and scary and operate under color of law (and protection by the government from you) does not mean that they REALLY have the authority that they claim that they do.
I've been told that the term submit
in the new testament is a military term meaning know your place
(i.e. in formation). What we have now is a government that continually and arrogantly steps out of its lawful place (as defined by the Constitution) — now, if they reject the law, can they legitimately claim protections under the law? If, as an agent of the government, they refuse the lawful limitations placed upon the government, is it wrong to punish them? (The NSA, for example, in its domestic espionage has made the Fourth Amendment of no effect; and indeed even colludes with other agencies to work around the limits of the fourth amendment in bringing things to trial. Should they be given a pat on the back, or be prosecuted as criminals?)
BIG OL' BUMP ...
“Mexican gang.” That’s good, descriptive and accurate.
Brilliant post. Judges cannot say black is white and expect us to go along with it, just as they can’t say that the Constitution requires gay marriage and abortion. It’s time to stop consenting to their nonsense.