Sunday, April 29, 2007

"All the means of Self Defence"....

Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 4
John Hancock to the Colonies

Gentlemen, Philada. June 7th. 1776. I am commanded by Congress to transmit you the enclosed Resolves, and to request your immediate Attention to the same.(1)

The Article of Lead is so essentially necessary to us at this Juncture, and is withall so scarce, that no Pains should be spared to procure it. The Situation of the United Colonies will be extremely deploreable if we depend entirely upon the Importation of it. Every People should have, within themselves, all the Means of Self Defence. To the Bounty of Providence we owe it, that America has these in the greatest Plenty. Let us not therefore be wanting to ourselves, but faithfully and dilligently cultivate those Means; and I trust we shall, ere long, baffle the most malicious Schemes of our enraged & implacable Enemies.

You will readily perceive the great Importance of the enclosed Resolve, wherein the Congress earnestly recommend to you to remove every Thing out of the Way, that could enable our Enemies to prosecute their Plans of Violence agt. us. It is indeed so apparently the Advantage of Individuals to remove their Stock & grain, that in this Instance, their Interest, & that of the Public are one & the same. I have the Honour to be, Gentlemen, you most obed. & very hble Svt. J. H. Prest.

LB (DNA: PCC, item 12A). 1 See the June 3 resolves respecting lead mines and the removal of "stocks, grain, and meal" from areas threatened by British invasion in JCC, 4:413-14.

Saturday, April 28, 2007

Criminals don't register their guns; why should we?

Ran across the article titled in the headline, and thought it more than worthy of attention. Especially when considering the credentials of the author. Following are some pertinent quotes, (emphasis added), from this very timely piece;

“...Giving the government more information about our lives and the guns we own does nothing to stop criminals with guns, who will disregard gun registration requirements just as freely as they disregard the life, liberty and property of their victims....”

“...After all, personally owned firearms have been used to stop school shootings. Five years ago at Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Va., a disgruntled law student killed two faculty members and a student and wounded three others. But in this case, the killer was eventually restrained and held captive for police by two courageous law students who each retrieved their own handguns from their vehicles....”

“...Our Founding Fathers believed that, as Alexander Hamilton once said, "the Supreme Being ... invested (man) with an inviolable right to personal liberty and personal safety." Supreme Court Justice James Wilson - a signer of both the Declaration and the Constitution - wrote that taking the life of an attacker is allowed "when it is necessary for the defence of one's person or house," and that this "great natural law of self-preservation cannot be repealed, or superseded, or suspended by any human institution."”

“The right to keep and bear arms is not just a means of protecting life, but also an indispensable safeguard of our liberties against oppressive government. History has indeed proved what every oppressive government knows, from Nazi Germany to communist China: You must take away the people's guns before you can take away their rights and liberties. Our Founding Fathers enshrined in the Second Amendment that this right of the people "shall not be infringed" because "the security of a free state" requires a "well-egulated militia."”

“...To begin to surrender, in the wake of the events at Virginia Tech, one of our most valuable rights, the inalienable right of self-defense, is unwise and dangerous. Our right to keep and bear arms not only keeps us free, it keeps us safe....”

- Roy Moore, Former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice, April 28, 2007.[Criminals don't register their guns; why should we?. Article in The BirminghamNews.]

Former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore is the president of the Foundation for Moral Law and author of "So Help Me God."

Now that has got to be one of the best modern opinions from an eminent legal authority that I've yet seen. We can only hope that the very astute former Justice's colleagues take it to heart, and mind....

Friday, April 27, 2007

State v. Kerner, "To deprive him of bearing any of these arms is to infringe upon the right guaranteed to him by the Constitution.", May 11, 1921

A few quotes from this somewhat decent judicial decision of the North Carolina Supreme Court;

...The Constitution of this state, section 24, art. 1, which is entitled, "Declaration of Rights," provides, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," adding, "nothing herein contained shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons or prevent the Legislature from enacting penal statutes against said practice." This exception indicates the extent to which the right of the people to bear arms can be restricted; that is, the Legislature can prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons but no further. This constitutional guaranty was construed in State v. Speller, 86 N.C. 697, in which it was held that the distinction was between the "right to keep and bear arms" and the "practice of carrying concealed weapons." The former is a sacred right based upon the experience of the ages in order that the people may be accustomed to bear arms and ready to use them for the protection of their liberties or their country when occasion serves. The provision against carrying them concealed was to prevent assassinations or advantages taken by the lawless; i.e., against the abuse of the privilege....

...But the ordinary private citizen, whose right to carry arms cannot be infringed upon, is not likely to purchase these expensive and most modern devices just named. To him the rifle, the musket, the shotgun, and the pistol are about the only arms which he could be expected to "bear," and his right to do this is that which is guaranteed by the Constitution. To deprive him of bearing any of these arms is to infringe upon the right guaranteed to him by the Constitution....

...It is dangerous to minimize these guaranties based upon the wisdom of the ages which have been imbedded in our organic law....

...The usual method when a country is overborne by force is to "disarm" the people. It is to prevent the above and similar exercises of arbitrary power that the people, in creating this government "of the people, by the people and for the people," reserved to themselves the right to "bear arms," that, accustomed to their use, they might be ready to meet illegal force with legal force by adequate and just defense of their persons, their property, and their liberties, whenever necessary. We should be slow indeed to construe such guaranty into a mere academic expression which has become obsolete....

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Well now, what have we here....

It appears that the NRA is preparing to Negotiate our God-given Natural and Inalienable Right Away - again. Ran across this Newsweek article titled; "Taking Aim at Mental Health Records". Following are a few excerpts from the article by Michael Isikoff, dated April 24, 2007:

"But Lapierre nonetheless says the group is now working with longtime ally Rep. John Dingell, Democrat of Michigan, on a bill to ensure that mental-health records—such as the December 2005 court order directing Cho to receive a psychiatric evaluation—are entered into a FBI database that is used for background checks of gun buyers....."

“"Our position on this is crystal clear: If you are adjudicated by a court to be mentally defective, suicidal, a danger to yourself or to others, you should be prohibited from
buying a firearm,” said LaPierre, who oversees the powerful gun lobby’s political operations. “The federal law is pretty clear on this. He [Cho] should have been in the [FBI] data base.”"

- quoting NRA Executive V.P. Wayne LaPierre.

Then comes the icing on the cake, from Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D - NY) and her dealings with the NRA;

"...McCarthy told NEWSWEEK that she was pleasantly surprised to hear of the NRA’s public position, noting that an executive of the Gun Owners of America had met with House Republicans this week to gin up opposition to her measure. “I have a feeling that this is their [the NRA’s} way of showing they can be moderate,” she said. (A McCarthy aide said that when the congresswoman's staff members met with NRA lobbyists last January about her proposed measure, the NRA officials said they would not publicly support it unless language was added that would eliminate the existing ban on interstate purchases of firearms. No such language has been added, the aide said.)"Still, McCarthy said today she thought LaPierre’s public statement would buck up House Democratic leaders who have been extremely averse to any measure that might be labeled as gun control. “Their knees are shaking constantly,” McCarthy said about her party’s leaders in the House. “They are scared of anything that might be controversial on gun issues.”"
I'm sure that it's not just me that feels that we obviously have a problem here.....
However, there was one bright spot from the article;
“This looks like an enormously expensive, extremely intrusive, extremely stigmatizing approach to a tragic situation,” Dr. Nada Stotland, vice president of the psychiatric association, the largest group representing the nation’s psychiatrists, said of the McCarthy bill. “It is unconscionable to restrict people’s civil rights because they have a medical illness....”

Way to go, Doc! You have helped in partially revising my previous opinion of the medical profession! Although Doc, I do have to tell you that it is a Natural Inherent Right, not a "civil" one....

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Now this, I like....

"Man is a cestui que trust, not a slave. His right is God-given. Its power is Divinely intrusted for the conservation of his right. All the theories of Hobbes and his utilitarian followers, which place his title to liberty in the will of the Body-politic, or by the grace of government (Hobbes' Leviathan), or of Rousseau and others, which deduce them from a real or hypothetical contract made for him by a dead ancestry or by himself, or implied from his acquiescence, are alike false and fatal to his interests. Deriving his title from God, his claim is higher than the power of all governments. His right precedes its power; and power is God-given to guard God-given right. Man is placed by God in wardship to the Body-politic as his guardian — and the guardian's power is legitimate only when it protects, and is ultra vires when it impairs the right of the man."

- John Randolph Tucker, L.L.D., "The Constitution of the United States, A Critical Discussion of its Genesis, Development, and Interpretation", 1899. (Grandson of St. George Tucker, author of "Blackstone's Commentaries", 1803. The first commentary on the Constitution of the United States).

Thursday, April 19, 2007

Here's your chance to vote for our 'unalienable' Right;

Will college shootings change minds on either side of the debate?
(From MSN)
Click on (top) link to cast you vote!
Current results;
Which do you support?
More gun control 32%
More gun rights 54%
Neither 14%
83950 responses, not scientifically valid, results updated every minute.

Monday, April 16, 2007

Virginia Tech Shooting; Worst School Shooting Ever?

Found the link to the article linked here on Keep and Bear Arms. According to the article;
BLACKSBURG - At least 22 people, (possibly as high as 32(?) according to later updates from various news sources), were killed today in two shootings at Virginia Tech, the school said. Dozens more were being treated at area hospitals....
A very sad event to say the least. And, those who are concerned with our unalienable right, all know what is going to happen next. The 'guns' of course will be blamed. And the call for a 'ban' or further restrictions will be cried for loudly. And this, rather then blaming the person that perpetrated the atrocity.

What I am going to propose will probably ruffle a few feathers, but the TRUTH always does.

First, the fault lies in the errant "Gun Free School Zone" policy. The right and duty of Self-Preservation is the First Law of Nature. And, according to Thomas Jefferson in his 1824 leter to John Cartwright. It is not only our "Right", but our "Duty to be at all times armed". To Wit;
"Its principles and forms had entered little into our former education. We established, however, some although not all its important principles. The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved), or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press."

- Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright. [Washington ed. vii, 356. <>. 1728. CONSTITUTIONS (American), Characteristics of. -- JCE1728. The Modern English Collection at the University of Virginia Electronic Text Center.]
My contention, is that had there been a number of individuals on the campus whom were armed. As was the clear intent of the men that founded this nation. That the death toll would have been much less. And perhaps, the only one whom would have perished would have been the perpetrator himself....

The blame lies squarely upon our governmental servants that have allowed the perversion of our inalienable right. And, the perverse learning institution(s) that carry into effect the "Gun Free School Zone" policy. The really sad part about this, is that the Virginia legislature had just refused to pass a bill that might have prevented this from happening. Our servants have totally laid aside "the Trancendent laws of nature and of natures God". (See Federalist #43 By James Madison). Which are the very laws that ALL American government are based upon. Our government(s), and the people that have pushed for the infringement of our "unalienable right" are the ones directly responible for this carnage.

What we really need here in America, is a return to following Original Intent. Rather than following the edicts of those whom have subverted it. I contend, that until We The People insist upon the return of our government following the established guidelines found in our Constitution. We shall continue seeing events such as the horrible one at Virginia Tech.

The guidelines really are quite simple;

"I here close my examination into those natural rights, which, in my humble opinion, it is the business of civil government to protect, and not to subvert, and the exercise of which it is the duty of civil government to enlarge, and not to restrain. I go farther; and now proceed to show, that in peculiar instances, in which those rights can receive neither protection nor reparation from civil government, they are, notwithstanding its institution, entitled still to that defence, and to those methods of recovery, which are justified and demanded in a state of nature.

"The defence of one’s self, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law. This principle of defence is not confined merely to the person; it extends to the liberty and the property of a man: it is not confined merely to his own person; it extends to the persons of all those, to whom he bears a peculiar relation -- of his wife, of his parent, of his child, of his master, of his servant: nay, it extends to the person of every one, who is in danger; perhaps, to the liberty of every one, whose liberty is unjustly and forcibly attacked. It becomes humanity as well as justice."

- James Wilson, from a series of lectures given between 1790 and 1792, 'Wilson, Of the Natural Rights of Individuals', in 2 The Works of James Wilson 335 (J.D. Andrews ed. 1896).

The law of nature is immutable; not by the effect of an arbitrary disposition, but because it has its foundation in the nature, constitution, and mutual relations of men and things. While these continue to be the same, it must continue to be the same also. This immutability of nature's laws has nothing in it repugnant to the supreme power of an all-perfect Being. Since he himself is the author of our constitution; he cannot but command or forbid such things as are necessarily agreeable or disagreeable to this very constitution. He is under the glorious necessity of not contradicting himself. This necessity, far from limiting or diminishing his perfections, adds to their external character, and points out their excellency.

The law of nature is universal. For it is true, not only that all men are equally subject to the command of their Maker; but it is true also, that the law of nature, having its foundation in the constitution and state of man, has an essential fitness for all mankind, and binds them without distinction.

“This law, or right reason, as Cicero calls it, is thus beautifully described by that eloquent philosopher. "It is, indeed," says he, "a true law, conformable to nature, diffused among all men, unchangeable, eternal. By its commands, it calls men to their duty: by its prohibitions, it deters them from vice. To diminish, to alter, much more to abolish this law, is a vain attempt. Neither by the senate, nor by the people, can its powerful obligation be dissolved. It requires no interpreter or commentator. It is not one law at Rome, another at Athens; one law now, another hereafter: it is the same eternal and immutable law, given at all times and to all nations: for God, who is its author and promulgator, is always the sole master and sovereign of mankind."

- James Wilson, [The Works of the Honourable James Wilson, L.L.D.; Chap. III Of the Law of Nature]. Mr. Wilson signed the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. In addition he was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention and a U.S. Supreme Court Justice.

"It is not only vain, but wicked, in a legislator to frame laws in opposition to the laws of nature, and to arm them with the terrors of death. This is truly creating crimes in order to punish them."

- Thomas Jefferson, The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, 1900 - 4538. LAWS OF NATURE, Opposition to. -- JCE4538. Note on Crimes Bill. Washington ed. i, 159. Ford ed., ii, 218. (1779).

Friday, April 13, 2007

RE: NRA: The largest civil-rights group ever

Ran across the article linked in the headline at Keep and Bear Arms. It is written by Sandy Froman, the current President of the NRA, and posted on WorldNetDaily. The opening portion of the article reads as follows;

I am the president of the largest civil-liberties organization this nation has ever seen . . . . With our 136-year history and almost 4 million members, the National Rifle Association of America is the oldest and largest civil-rights organization in the history of the United States.
I would have to heartily disagree with those statements. The first reason being, is that it is a gross error of the facts. The American Right to Keep and Bear Arms, is a PRE-EXISTENT NATURAL RIGHT. This is shown with crystal clarity by a very knowledgeable, and highly respected, legal authority here;

"The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."

- William Blackstone, 1 Commentaries on the Laws of England 136, 1765–1769.

That was the British-American Right as it existed BEFORE the establishment of the United States Constitution. Which guaranteed to ALL British American subjects, (that were Protestants), the right of "having arms". And, this applied regardless of what colonial state they resided in.

Mr. James Madison clarifies the distinction of "Rights" here;

"In some instances they assert those rights which are exercised by the people in forming and establishing a plan of Government. In other instances, they specify those rights which are retained when particular powers are given up to be exercised by the Legislature. In other instances, they specify positive rights, which may seem to result from the nature of the compact. Trial by jury cannot be considered as a natural right, but a right resulting from a social compact which regulates the action of the community, but is as essential to secure the liberty of the people as any one of the pre-existent rights of nature."

- James Madison, June 8, 1789 House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution 8 June.

Further clarification is provided by yet another highly respected legal authority of early American law. He makes the distinction very clear, as to the difference between the right of the British-American subject. And, how the Right was radically improved for the new American Citizen;

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government...."
"....This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty....The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."

"...In America we may reasonably hope that the people will never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of their liberty..."

- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries, (1803).

The difference between the Right, before and after ordaining the Constitution, is thus made absolutely clear.

This is how the difference between a "civil" right, and a Natural Right is defined by;
"Civil rights are distinguished from "human rights" or "natural rights". Civil rights are rights that are bestowed by nations on those within their territorial boundaries, while natural or human rights are rights that many scholars claim ought to belong to all people."

- Civil rights Vs. human rights or natural rights
In addition, our Right was looked upon by the founders as one granted to us by our Creator - NOT government. And, "shall NOT be infringed" means exactly that which was written. Another fact which the NRA seems to have trouble comprehending;

NRA Supported the National Firearms Act of 1934, by Angel Shamaya, March 29, 2002 (Article as posted on Keep and Bear Arms).

JPFO's Vs. NRA's stance on our Right, Nov. 20th, 2006

An organization that doesn't know the difference between a 'civil' right, and a Natural Right. Especially, one that has long been known as "The First Law of Nature". Can hardly be counted upon, or trusted, to represent the inalienable right of all American citizens. There are other organizations that are far more knowledgeable of the facts, and more deserving of our support.

"This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins."

- Ben Franklin

Well, some politician's at least say it right....

The right is absolute … government has no authority to forbid me from owning a firearm … the debate is not about guns. It is about freedom.”

- Cal. State Sen. Tom McClintock, 6/9/2001.

“The fundamental force behind the Second Amendment is to empower the people and give them the greatest measure of authority over the tyranny of runaway government.”

- U.S. Rep. Bob Schaffer, 2002.

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

T.J. - Diffusion of Knowledge Bill...

"[While] certain forms of government are better calculated than others to protect individuals in the free exercise of their natural rights, and are at the same time themselves better guarded against degeneracy, yet experience hath shown that, even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."

- Thomas Jefferson, The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, 1900 - 3537. GOVERNMENT, Perversion. -- JCE3537 Ford ed., ii, 220. (1779).

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Dec. 3, 1867 message to U.S. House and Senate....

"If the authority we desire to use does not come to us through the Constitution, we can exercise it only by usurpation; and usurpation is the most dangerous of political crimes. By that crime the enemies of free government in all ages have worked out their designs against public liberty and private right. It leads directly and immediately to the establishment of absolute rule; for undelegated power is always unlimited and unrestrained."

- President Andrew Johnson, Dec. 3, 1867 message to U.S. House and Senate. [Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, 1789-1873.]

Sunday, April 08, 2007

Well now, what have we here;

Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States,
MONDAY, February 4, 1833.

"...That the constitution of the United States is not a treaty or compact between sovereign States, but a form of government emanating from, and established by, the authority of the people of the United States of America...."

"...Resolved, That, in cases of gross and intolerable oppression, which, in a Government like that of the United States can be little else than a hypothesis, the natural right of self-defence remains; but which must, in the nature of things, be an appeal to arms, and subject to all the consequences of resistance to the constituted authorities. In such a case, the measure is revolutionary, and the result remains in the hands of the A. Almighty.

"Resolved, That the Convention of South Carolina can have no other or greater right to annul or resist the laws of Congress, than any assemblage of an equal number of individuals in any part of the United States; nor can any assemblage, however large, have any other or greater right for such a purpose, than belongs to each individual citizen, considered as a constitutional measure...."

Now, THAT is very interesting, yes?