Friday, February 05, 2016

Hey Obama, (you treasonous p.o.s), put THIS in your pipe and smoke it....

U.S. Representative Joseph Rainey, [was the first African American to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the first African American to preside over the House.] “These men said that they were willing to surrender the few arms they had . . . Did they expect from Gen. Butler any more than is accorded to them by the constitution? I ask whether they had not as much right to bear arms as Gen. Butler or anybody else. . . . I ask you, citizens of the United States, would you stand it? . . . Are you not going to allow us any right of self-defence? In the name of my race and my people, in the name of humanity, in the name of God, I ask you whether we are to be American citizens, with all the rights and immunities of citizens, or whether we are to be vassals and slaves again? I ask you to tell us whether these things are to go on, so that we may understand now and henceforth what we are to expect.”, July 21, 1876

The REAL U.S. v. Miller et al decision of 1939 - before the U.S. Supreme Court committed overt TREASON against We The People....



United States v. Miller et al., U.S. District Judge Heartsill Ragon, “The court is of the opinion that this section is invalid in that it violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, U.S.C.A., providing, “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.”, Jan. 3, 1939

The only possible conclusion that can logically be arrived at....

In D.C. v. Heller the court held:

   "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

   Then the court also states:

   "The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

   How can that possibly be the case when We The People's Constitution states in the "restrictive clause" of Amendment II:

   "the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed."

   In Heller the court acknowledges Cruikshank, which states in part:

   “The people of the states do not ask congress to protect the right, but demand that it shall not interfere with it. Has anything since occurred to give congress legislative power over the subject matter? [NO, it most certainly has NOT.]. . . Grant that this prohibition now prevents the states from interfering with the right . . . Power to enforce the amendment is all that is given to congress. If the amendment is not violated, it has no power over the subject. . . . . in their right to bear arms…”

   How is it that the court not understand:

   “The people of the states do not ask congress to protect the right, but demand that it shall not interfere with it. Has anything since occurred to give congress legislative power over the subject matter?"

   And the States are forbidden from exercising 'power' over the right as well:

   "Grant that this prohibition now prevents the states from interfering with the right"

   That being the actual FACTS of the matter. WHERE did this 'power' magically appear from that suddenly gave the Federal and State governments the 'power' to 'regulate' or "infringe"?

   It is my firm contention that they both have NO Constitutionally delegated 'power' to do ANYTHING about our right to keep and bear arms. Other than to provide punishment for misuse or abuse of that right. Other than that, they BOTH are EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN from interferring with the right in ANY way, shape or form. And both our Constitution, and prior [correct] U.S. Supreme Court decisions confirm that contention. The only possible conclusion that can logically be arrived at. Is that the 'court' is being deliberately deceptive, and aiding and abetting in the infringements.

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Waite: "The right of bearing arms for lawful purposes must be seen to by States, the constitution simply providing that Congress shall not infringe it . . . The only obligation of the United States is to see that the States do not deny the right.”

New Orleans Republican, Re: U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Waite in U.S. v. Cruikshank et al, “The right of bearing arms for lawful purposes must be seen to by States, the constitution simply providing that Congress shall not infringe it; the sovereignty to protect lives and property lies exclusively in the States. The fourteenth amendment prohibits States from depriving any person of certain rights . . . The only obligation of the United States is to see that the States do not deny the right.”, March 27, 1876

[Quoting U.S. Supreme Court Justice Story] “The fundamental maxims of a free government seem to require that the rights of personal liberty and private property should be held sacred. At least no court of justice in this country would be warranted in assuming that the power to violate and disregard them..."

The New Orleans Democrat, New Orleans Mayor Edward Pilsbury, [Quoting U.S. Supreme Court Justice Story] “The fundamental maxims of a free government seem to require that the rights of personal liberty and private property should be held sacred. At least no court of justice in this country would be warranted in assuming that the power to violate and disregard them, a power so repugnant to the common principles of justice and civil liberty, lurked under any general grant of legislative authority . . . The people ought not to be presumed to part with rights so vital to their security and well being.” [A MUST READ ARTICLE], Jan. 18, 1876

10-11-1875: Sheriff A.T. Morgan, “However, the negro is a citizen, he is a man. As such he has an equal right with his white neighbor’s to bear arms in his own defence and in defence of his liberties.”

The Daily Clarion, Sheriff A.T. Morgan, “However, the negro is a citizen, he is a man. As such he has an equal right with his white neighbor’s to bear arms in his own defence and in defence of his liberties.”, Oct. 11, 1875

10-3-1875: “the judiciary is often corrupt and owns for its master the political party of the day . . . the corruption of political parties. . . . or the right to bear arms. . . . a preference for those which for centuries so oppressed mankind..."

New Orleans Republican, “the judiciary is often corrupt and owns for its master the political party of the day . . . should abandon the inheritance which the fathers of the republic have bequeathed them, it would seem proper that they inquire whether every effort has been made to preserve those principles pure as when they were first delivered . . . For suppose we grant the corruption of political parties. . . . or the right to bear arms. . . . We have made a text of this article, because it is an open attempt to propagandize a contempt for our own institutions, and a preference for those which for centuries so oppressed mankind that they have been compelled to cross an ocean and hide themselves in a wilderness to escape.”, Oct. 3, 1875