Special Arizona Gun News
1. Armed Minutemen in April
Tons of front-page coverage on immigration crimes is plastered on Arizona newspapers, but the media have generally refused to report that the Minutemen, armed and ready, will be watching for illegal border crossers for the full month of April (starts tomorrow, April 1). Details on "Secure Our Borders" at http://www.minutemanhq.com/. If you decide to actually drive down for a day or two you will never forget the experience.
.
The Minuteman project is a pure First Amendment exercise, though the media hides this fact from you. People are using the right to assemble, on land they have a right to be on, and speaking into cell phones to alert federal Border Patrol agents of suspicious activity. That's it. First Amendment only. There is a 100% no-contact-with-illegals policy or you're thrown out.
.
Many volunteers go armed because
1-It's your constitutional right; 2 - It's perfectly legal; 3 - It's a good idea -- what better place to be armed than in a neighborhood where thousands of people are illegally streaming through EVERY DAY. Because of the 100% no-contact policy, you are required to abandon your post if illegals come toward you, so guns remain holstered. Fail to obey that rule and you're off the project immediately with no wiggle room. Standard state rules on self defense apply (see the new 2006 edition of The Arizona Gun Owner's Guide for details).
2. Meet Minuteman Leader Chris Simcox in Phoenix
.
Simcox will be the featured speaker at libertarian Ernie Hancock's "Breakfast Club" on Sat., April 1, at Coco's Restaurant, N. side of E. Cactus Rd., just W. of Tatum Blvd. Doors open at 7:30 a.m., delicious all-you-can-eat breakfast, $10 admission, program wraps up by 10 a.m. Meet the man who started it all in a casual face-to-face setting.
.
3. Arizona Self Defense Bill (SB1145) Needs Support
.
Self defense means nothing if the law is stacked against you, as it currently is in Arizona. Using deceit and trickery, the law was changed by prosecutors to make you guilty unless you can prove your innocence -- the exact opposite of the American way. I know, it's hard to believe but true. Now, Senate Bill 1145 can fix that, and YOU can make a big difference. Get all the details from the hottest civil rights group going, the Arizona Citizens Defense League, http://www.azcdl.org/, or write them at info@azcdl.org.
.
To have more effect in the gun-rights issues in Arizona, use the blue "Tactics That Work" button on my home page.
.
PLUG:New guide for restoring lost gun rights -- "Brady Denial."2006 Traveler's Guide, and AZ Guide, on my website.
Coming real soon -- gun guides for Oregon and North Carolina.
.
Contact: Alan Korwin
BLOOMFIELD PRESS
"We publish the gun laws."
4718 E. Cactus #440
Phoenix, AZ 85032
602-996-4020 Phone
602-494-0679
FAX1-800-707-4020
Orders - http://www.gunlaws.com
E-Mail: alan@gunlaws.com
Call, write, fax or click for a free catalog.
.
If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you're reading this in English, thank a veteran.
Friday, March 31, 2006
RTP Lawsuit Update: Powerful Amicus Brief Filed...
March 28, 2006
.
California attorney John Wolfgram, in conjunction with the Constitutional Defender Association and attorney Cyrus Zal, recently submitted an Amicus brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, DC arguing on behalf of the We The People Foundation plaintiffs in the landmark Right-to-Petition lawsuit, We The People vs. The United States, case No. 05-5359.
.
Wolfgram, a Vietnam veteran and constitutional scholar, penned the Amicus (friend of the Court) brief arguing that our form of government, based upon the sovereignty of the People, requires that it must be held accountable to the People through the substantive First Amendment Right of Petition. In his brief, Wolfgram succinctly reviews for the court the historical basis for the Right, particularly its roots in the Magna Carta of 1215.
.
Wolfgram argues that the Right of Petition includes the Right to subject and force government into a compulsory and effective legal process through the judiciary -- just as the law would subject any other party.
.
Although Wolfgram does not extensively address the matter of withholding taxes to secure just Redress, he does go to some length to remind the court that while Magna Carta explicitly provided for lawful, violent rebellion to secure effective Justice, the purpose of such declaratory language was not to "legalize" rebellion per se, but to insure that the King understood it was through the threat and demonstration of pending violence that substantive Justice could peacefully be secured. Hence, by analogy, the real purpose of our Second Amendment in relation to the Petition clause is revealed.
.
Wolfgram argues that it is within this historical and legal framework -- aimed toward the furtherance of a "more perfect union", (and as a much preferred alternative to violence), that the peaceful withholding of taxes from a government unwilling to subject itself to the compulsory process of law and to be held reasonably accountable for its usurpations of power must, without reservation, be considered fully justified.
.
As Wolfgram cites from the U.S. Supreme Court, "The right to sue and defend in the courts is the alternative of force. In an organized society, it is the right conservative of all other rights, and lies at the foundation of orderly government." Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R, 207 U.S. 142, 148 (1907).
.
In the end, Wolfgram concludes compellingly that the 800-year history and very existence of Western Civilization might not have been possible but for the capstone Right to Petition.
.
Our many thanks to John Wolfgram and Cyrus Zal for contributing this unique perspective for the consideration of the U.S. Court of Appeals and the People of this nation.
.
Click here to read Wolfgram's Amicus brief.
.
Click here to read Wolfgram's previous law review article, "How the Judiciary Stole the Right to Petition"
.
We The People
.
(Additional Note: It has occured to me. That perhaps this is an appropriate time for The People of the U.S. to rise in support of Mr. John Wolfgram's 'throwing down of the gauntlet'). Following is the contact form for the court; http://www.uscourts.gov/contact.html
.
.
California attorney John Wolfgram, in conjunction with the Constitutional Defender Association and attorney Cyrus Zal, recently submitted an Amicus brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, DC arguing on behalf of the We The People Foundation plaintiffs in the landmark Right-to-Petition lawsuit, We The People vs. The United States, case No. 05-5359.
.
Wolfgram, a Vietnam veteran and constitutional scholar, penned the Amicus (friend of the Court) brief arguing that our form of government, based upon the sovereignty of the People, requires that it must be held accountable to the People through the substantive First Amendment Right of Petition. In his brief, Wolfgram succinctly reviews for the court the historical basis for the Right, particularly its roots in the Magna Carta of 1215.
.
Wolfgram argues that the Right of Petition includes the Right to subject and force government into a compulsory and effective legal process through the judiciary -- just as the law would subject any other party.
.
Although Wolfgram does not extensively address the matter of withholding taxes to secure just Redress, he does go to some length to remind the court that while Magna Carta explicitly provided for lawful, violent rebellion to secure effective Justice, the purpose of such declaratory language was not to "legalize" rebellion per se, but to insure that the King understood it was through the threat and demonstration of pending violence that substantive Justice could peacefully be secured. Hence, by analogy, the real purpose of our Second Amendment in relation to the Petition clause is revealed.
.
Wolfgram argues that it is within this historical and legal framework -- aimed toward the furtherance of a "more perfect union", (and as a much preferred alternative to violence), that the peaceful withholding of taxes from a government unwilling to subject itself to the compulsory process of law and to be held reasonably accountable for its usurpations of power must, without reservation, be considered fully justified.
.
As Wolfgram cites from the U.S. Supreme Court, "The right to sue and defend in the courts is the alternative of force. In an organized society, it is the right conservative of all other rights, and lies at the foundation of orderly government." Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R, 207 U.S. 142, 148 (1907).
.
In the end, Wolfgram concludes compellingly that the 800-year history and very existence of Western Civilization might not have been possible but for the capstone Right to Petition.
.
Our many thanks to John Wolfgram and Cyrus Zal for contributing this unique perspective for the consideration of the U.S. Court of Appeals and the People of this nation.
.
Click here to read Wolfgram's Amicus brief.
.
Click here to read Wolfgram's previous law review article, "How the Judiciary Stole the Right to Petition"
.
We The People
.
(Additional Note: It has occured to me. That perhaps this is an appropriate time for The People of the U.S. to rise in support of Mr. John Wolfgram's 'throwing down of the gauntlet'). Following is the contact form for the court; http://www.uscourts.gov/contact.html
.
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Seems CRYSTAL clear to me....
"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE
TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
.
"The means, says the gentleman, (Mr. Madison), must be commensurate to the end. How does this apply? All things in common are left with this government. There being an infinitude in the government, there must be an infinitude of means to carry it on. This is a sort of mathematical government that may appear well on paper, but cannot sustain examination, or be safely reduced to practice. The delegation of power to an adequate number of representatives, and an unimpeded reversion of it back to the people, at short periods, form the principal traits of a republican government. The idea of a republican government, in that paper, is something superior to the poor people. The governing persons are the servants of the people. There, the servants are greater than their masters; because it includes infinitude, and infinitude excludes every idea of subordination. In this the creature has destroyed and soared above the creator. For if its powers be infinite, what rights have the people remaining? By that very argument, despotism has made way in all countries where the people unfortunately have been enslaved by it. We are told, the sword and purse are necessary for the national defence. The junction of these, without limitation, in the same hands, is, by logical and mathematical conclusions, the description of despotism."
.
- Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention, (06/14/1788)
.
"That paper ought to have declared the common law in force." (Amendment VII)
.
"These are prohibited by your declaration of rights."
.
- Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention, (06/16/1788).
.
Witness:
"In the course of our inquiry, we find many infringements and violations of the foregoing rights, which, from an ardent desire, that harmony and mutual intercourse of affection and interest may be restored, we pass over for the present, and proceed to state such acts and measures as have been adopted since the last war, which demonstrate a system formed to enslave America."
"Resolved, N.C.D. That the following acts of Parliament are infringements and violations of the rights of the colonists; and that the repeal of them is essentially necessary in order to restore harmony between Great Britain and the American colonies, viz.:"
.
"The several acts of 4 Geo. 3, ch. 15, and ch. 34. -- 5 Geo. 3, ch. 25. -- 6 Geo. 3, ch. 52. -- 7 Geo. 3, ch. 41, and ch. 46. -- 8 Geo. 3, ch. 22, which impose duties for the purpose of raising a revenue in America, extend the powers of the admiralty courts beyond their ancient limits, deprive the American subject of trial by jury, authorize the judges' certificate to indemnify the prosecutor from damages, that he might otherwise be liable to, requiring oppressive security from a claimant of ships and goods seized, before he shall be allowed to defend his property, and are subversive of American rights."
.
- DECLARATION OF COLONIAL RIGHTS: RESOLUTIONS OF THE FIRST CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, OCTOBER 14, 1774
.
(See also; The Rights of the Colonists - I. Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men, Samuel Adams, November 20, 1772).
.
"They ought to be restrained Within proper bounds. With respect to the freedom of the press, I need say nothing; for it is hoped that the gentlemen who shall compose Congress will take care to infringe as little as possible the rights of human nature. This will result from their integrity. They should, from prudence, abstain from violating the rights of their constituents. They are not, however, expressly restrained. But whether they will INTERMEDDLE with that PALLADIUM of our Liberties or not, I leave you to determine."
.
- Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention, (06/16/1788)
.
"The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic Usurpation of Power by rulers. The Right of the Citizens to Keep and Bear Arms has JUSTLY been considered, as the PALLADIUM of the Liberties of The Republic; since it offers a strong moral check AGAINST the Usurpation and Arbitrary Power of rulers; and will generally...ENABLE the PEOPLE to RESIST and TRIUMPH OVER THEM."
- Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833
.
Once again, The Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall NOT be Infringed!
.
The proofs are innumerable and irrefutable! These people, whom are supposed to by Our public servants, are NOT doing their jobs correctly. We The People are the ones which pay their salaries. It is our duty to demand Justice and the return of Our God-given Right, as it was Intended by the Founders!
.
TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
.
"The means, says the gentleman, (Mr. Madison), must be commensurate to the end. How does this apply? All things in common are left with this government. There being an infinitude in the government, there must be an infinitude of means to carry it on. This is a sort of mathematical government that may appear well on paper, but cannot sustain examination, or be safely reduced to practice. The delegation of power to an adequate number of representatives, and an unimpeded reversion of it back to the people, at short periods, form the principal traits of a republican government. The idea of a republican government, in that paper, is something superior to the poor people. The governing persons are the servants of the people. There, the servants are greater than their masters; because it includes infinitude, and infinitude excludes every idea of subordination. In this the creature has destroyed and soared above the creator. For if its powers be infinite, what rights have the people remaining? By that very argument, despotism has made way in all countries where the people unfortunately have been enslaved by it. We are told, the sword and purse are necessary for the national defence. The junction of these, without limitation, in the same hands, is, by logical and mathematical conclusions, the description of despotism."
.
- Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention, (06/14/1788)
.
"That paper ought to have declared the common law in force." (Amendment VII)
.
"These are prohibited by your declaration of rights."
.
- Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention, (06/16/1788).
.
Witness:
"In the course of our inquiry, we find many infringements and violations of the foregoing rights, which, from an ardent desire, that harmony and mutual intercourse of affection and interest may be restored, we pass over for the present, and proceed to state such acts and measures as have been adopted since the last war, which demonstrate a system formed to enslave America."
"Resolved, N.C.D. That the following acts of Parliament are infringements and violations of the rights of the colonists; and that the repeal of them is essentially necessary in order to restore harmony between Great Britain and the American colonies, viz.:"
.
"The several acts of 4 Geo. 3, ch. 15, and ch. 34. -- 5 Geo. 3, ch. 25. -- 6 Geo. 3, ch. 52. -- 7 Geo. 3, ch. 41, and ch. 46. -- 8 Geo. 3, ch. 22, which impose duties for the purpose of raising a revenue in America, extend the powers of the admiralty courts beyond their ancient limits, deprive the American subject of trial by jury, authorize the judges' certificate to indemnify the prosecutor from damages, that he might otherwise be liable to, requiring oppressive security from a claimant of ships and goods seized, before he shall be allowed to defend his property, and are subversive of American rights."
.
- DECLARATION OF COLONIAL RIGHTS: RESOLUTIONS OF THE FIRST CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, OCTOBER 14, 1774
.
(See also; The Rights of the Colonists - I. Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men, Samuel Adams, November 20, 1772).
.
"They ought to be restrained Within proper bounds. With respect to the freedom of the press, I need say nothing; for it is hoped that the gentlemen who shall compose Congress will take care to infringe as little as possible the rights of human nature. This will result from their integrity. They should, from prudence, abstain from violating the rights of their constituents. They are not, however, expressly restrained. But whether they will INTERMEDDLE with that PALLADIUM of our Liberties or not, I leave you to determine."
.
- Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention, (06/16/1788)
.
"The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic Usurpation of Power by rulers. The Right of the Citizens to Keep and Bear Arms has JUSTLY been considered, as the PALLADIUM of the Liberties of The Republic; since it offers a strong moral check AGAINST the Usurpation and Arbitrary Power of rulers; and will generally...ENABLE the PEOPLE to RESIST and TRIUMPH OVER THEM."
- Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833
.
Once again, The Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall NOT be Infringed!
.
The proofs are innumerable and irrefutable! These people, whom are supposed to by Our public servants, are NOT doing their jobs correctly. We The People are the ones which pay their salaries. It is our duty to demand Justice and the return of Our God-given Right, as it was Intended by the Founders!
.
.
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Excuse me, S.C.O.T.U.S., can you give us an explanation for this? NOW!
Houston, WE HAVE A PROBLEM:
.
AND SOMEBODY BETTER HAVE A REAL GOOD EXPLANATION! -
"Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the People is SUPERIOR to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in OPPOSITION to that of The People, DECLARED IN THE CONSTITUTION, the judges ought to be governed by the LATTER rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the FUNDAMENTAL LAWS, rather than by those which are NOT fundamental."
.
"But in regard to the interfering acts of a superior and subordinate authority, of an original and derivative power, the nature and reason of the thing indicate the converse of that rule as proper to be followed. They teach us that the prior act of a superior ought to be preferred to the subsequent act of an inferior and subordinate authority; and that accordingly, whenever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former."
.
"It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature. This might as well happen in the case of two contradictory statutes; or it might as well happen in every adjudication upon any single statute. The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body. The observation, if it prove any thing, would prove that there ought to be no judges distinct from that body.
.
If, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices, since nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty.
.
This independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humors, which the arts of designing men, or the influence of particular conjunctures, sometimes disseminate among the people themselves, and which, though they speedily give place to better information, and more deliberate reflection, have a tendency, in the meantime, to occasion dangerous innovations in the government, and serious oppressions of the minor party in the community. Though I trust the friends of the proposed Constitution will never concur with its enemies, 3 in questioning that fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness, yet it is not to be inferred from this principle, that the representatives of the people, whenever a momentary inclination happens to lay hold of a majority of their constituents, incompatible with the provisions in the existing Constitution, would, on that account, be justifiable in a violation of those provisions; or that the courts would be under a greater obligation to connive at infractions in this shape, than when they had proceeded wholly from the cabals of the representative body. Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act. But it is easy to see, that it would require an uncommon portion of fortitude in the judges to do their duty as faithful guardians of the Constitution, where legislative invasions of it had been instigated by the major voice of the community.
.
But it is not with a view to infractions of the Constitution only, that the independence of the judges may be an essential safeguard against the effects of occasional ill humors in the society. These sometimes extend no farther than to the injury of the private rights of particular classes of citizens, by unjust and partial laws. Here also the firmness of the judicial magistracy is of vast importance in mitigating the severity and confining the operation of such laws. It not only serves to moderate the immediate mischiefs of those which may have been passed, but it operates as a check upon the legislative body in passing them; who, perceiving that obstacles to the success of iniquitous intention are to be expected from the scruples of the courts, are in a manner compelled, by the very motives of the injustice they meditate, to qualify their attempts. This is a circumstance calculated to have more influence upon the character of our governments, than but few may be aware of. The benefits of the integrity and moderation of the judiciary have already been felt in more States than one; and though they may have displeased those whose sinister expectations they may have disappointed, they must have commanded the esteem and applause of all the virtuous and disinterested. Considerate men, of every description, ought to prize whatever will tend to beget or fortify that temper in the courts: as no man can be sure that he may not be to-morrow the victim of a spirit of injustice, by which he may be a gainer to-day. And every man must now feel, that the inevitable tendency of such a spirit is to sap the foundations of public and private confidence, and to introduce in its stead universal distrust and distress.
.
That inflexible and uniform adherence to the rights of the Constitution, and of individuals, which we perceive to be indispensable in the courts of justice, can certainly not be expected from judges who hold their offices by a temporary commission. Periodical appointments, however regulated, or by whomsoever made, would, in some way or other, be fatal to their necessary independence. If the power of making them was committed either to the Executive or legislature, there would be danger of an improper complaisance to the branch which possessed it; if to both, there would be an unwillingness to hazard the displeasure of either; if to the people, or to persons chosen by them for the special purpose, there would be too great a disposition to consult popularity, to justify a reliance that nothing would be consulted but the Constitution and the laws.
.
There is yet a further and a weightier reason for the permanency of the judicial offices, which is deducible from the nature of the qualifications they require. It has been frequently remarked, with great propriety, that a voluminous code of laws is one of the inconveniences necessarily connected with the advantages of a free government. To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them; and it will readily be conceived from the variety of controversies which grow out of the folly and wickedness of mankind, that the records of those precedents must unavoidably swell to a very considerable bulk, and must demand long and laborious study to acquire a competent knowledge of them. Hence it is, that there can be but few men in the society who will have sufficient skill in the laws to qualify them for the stations of judges. And making the proper deductions for the ordinary depravity of human nature, the number must be still smaller of those who unite the requisite integrity with the requisite knowledge."
.
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #78
.
What have you to say for yourselves S.C.O.T.U.S.? Why have you allowed the blatant TRANSGRESSIONS against our Right?
.
.
AND SOMEBODY BETTER HAVE A REAL GOOD EXPLANATION! -
"Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the People is SUPERIOR to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in OPPOSITION to that of The People, DECLARED IN THE CONSTITUTION, the judges ought to be governed by the LATTER rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the FUNDAMENTAL LAWS, rather than by those which are NOT fundamental."
.
"But in regard to the interfering acts of a superior and subordinate authority, of an original and derivative power, the nature and reason of the thing indicate the converse of that rule as proper to be followed. They teach us that the prior act of a superior ought to be preferred to the subsequent act of an inferior and subordinate authority; and that accordingly, whenever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former."
.
"It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature. This might as well happen in the case of two contradictory statutes; or it might as well happen in every adjudication upon any single statute. The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body. The observation, if it prove any thing, would prove that there ought to be no judges distinct from that body.
.
If, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices, since nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty.
.
This independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humors, which the arts of designing men, or the influence of particular conjunctures, sometimes disseminate among the people themselves, and which, though they speedily give place to better information, and more deliberate reflection, have a tendency, in the meantime, to occasion dangerous innovations in the government, and serious oppressions of the minor party in the community. Though I trust the friends of the proposed Constitution will never concur with its enemies, 3 in questioning that fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness, yet it is not to be inferred from this principle, that the representatives of the people, whenever a momentary inclination happens to lay hold of a majority of their constituents, incompatible with the provisions in the existing Constitution, would, on that account, be justifiable in a violation of those provisions; or that the courts would be under a greater obligation to connive at infractions in this shape, than when they had proceeded wholly from the cabals of the representative body. Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act. But it is easy to see, that it would require an uncommon portion of fortitude in the judges to do their duty as faithful guardians of the Constitution, where legislative invasions of it had been instigated by the major voice of the community.
.
But it is not with a view to infractions of the Constitution only, that the independence of the judges may be an essential safeguard against the effects of occasional ill humors in the society. These sometimes extend no farther than to the injury of the private rights of particular classes of citizens, by unjust and partial laws. Here also the firmness of the judicial magistracy is of vast importance in mitigating the severity and confining the operation of such laws. It not only serves to moderate the immediate mischiefs of those which may have been passed, but it operates as a check upon the legislative body in passing them; who, perceiving that obstacles to the success of iniquitous intention are to be expected from the scruples of the courts, are in a manner compelled, by the very motives of the injustice they meditate, to qualify their attempts. This is a circumstance calculated to have more influence upon the character of our governments, than but few may be aware of. The benefits of the integrity and moderation of the judiciary have already been felt in more States than one; and though they may have displeased those whose sinister expectations they may have disappointed, they must have commanded the esteem and applause of all the virtuous and disinterested. Considerate men, of every description, ought to prize whatever will tend to beget or fortify that temper in the courts: as no man can be sure that he may not be to-morrow the victim of a spirit of injustice, by which he may be a gainer to-day. And every man must now feel, that the inevitable tendency of such a spirit is to sap the foundations of public and private confidence, and to introduce in its stead universal distrust and distress.
.
That inflexible and uniform adherence to the rights of the Constitution, and of individuals, which we perceive to be indispensable in the courts of justice, can certainly not be expected from judges who hold their offices by a temporary commission. Periodical appointments, however regulated, or by whomsoever made, would, in some way or other, be fatal to their necessary independence. If the power of making them was committed either to the Executive or legislature, there would be danger of an improper complaisance to the branch which possessed it; if to both, there would be an unwillingness to hazard the displeasure of either; if to the people, or to persons chosen by them for the special purpose, there would be too great a disposition to consult popularity, to justify a reliance that nothing would be consulted but the Constitution and the laws.
.
There is yet a further and a weightier reason for the permanency of the judicial offices, which is deducible from the nature of the qualifications they require. It has been frequently remarked, with great propriety, that a voluminous code of laws is one of the inconveniences necessarily connected with the advantages of a free government. To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them; and it will readily be conceived from the variety of controversies which grow out of the folly and wickedness of mankind, that the records of those precedents must unavoidably swell to a very considerable bulk, and must demand long and laborious study to acquire a competent knowledge of them. Hence it is, that there can be but few men in the society who will have sufficient skill in the laws to qualify them for the stations of judges. And making the proper deductions for the ordinary depravity of human nature, the number must be still smaller of those who unite the requisite integrity with the requisite knowledge."
.
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #78
.
"The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our Constitution, and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth..."
- The U.S. Supreme Court, Cohens v. Virginia (1821)
.What have you to say for yourselves S.C.O.T.U.S.? Why have you allowed the blatant TRANSGRESSIONS against our Right?
.
See also;
.
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
For those intent on Usurpation, here is food for thought:
"Among the natural rights…are these: First, a right to life;
Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to
support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident
branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation,
commonly called the first law of nature.
All men have a right to remain in a state of nature as long as they please;
and in case of intolerable oppression, civil or religious, to leave the
society they belong to, and enter into another.
When men enter into society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a
right to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions and
previous limitations as form an equitable original compact.
Every natural right not expressly given up, or, from the nature of a social
compact, necessarily ceded, remains.
All positive and civil laws should conform, as far as possible, to the law
of natural reason and equity."
""Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty," in matters spiritual
and temporal, is a thing that all men are clearly entitled to by the eternal
and immutable laws of God and nature, [418]as well as by the law of nations
and all well-grounded municipal laws, which must have their foundation in
the former."
"In the state of nature every man is, under God, judge and sole judge of his
own rights and of the injuries done him. By entering into society he agrees
to an arbiter or indifferent judge between him and his neighbors; but he no
more renounces his original right than by taking a cause out of the ordinary
course of law, and leaving the decision to referees or indifferent
arbitrators.
In the last case, he must pay the referees for time and trouble. He should
also be willing to pay his just quota for the support of government, the
law, and the constitution; the end of which is to furnish indifferent and
impartial judges in all cases that may happen, whether civil,
ecclesiastical, marine, or military.
[419] The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on
earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but
only to have the law of nature for his rule."
- Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists (November 20, 1772)
_______________________________________________________
"As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions."
- James Madison, National Gazette Essay, 27 March 1792
_______________________________________________________
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from ANY who might ATTEMPT to ABUSE THEM, which would include their own government.”
- George Washington - Speech of Jan. 7, 1790,
in the Boston Independent Chronicle, Jan. 14, 1790
_______________________________________________________
"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."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803)
_______________________________________________________
Preamble, in part, to the Bill of Rights attached to The United States Constitution:
"The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further DECLARATORY and RESTRICTIVE clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public CONFIDENCE in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution:
..."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."
DECLARATORY clause; "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,"
RESTRICTIVE clause; "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
How can a clearly outlined RIGHT be regulated or broken down and subjected to the whim of a few?
Would that not be considered as Infringement?
Are not you sworn to uphold and defend The Constitution of The United States of America? The TRUE law of the land?
Setting aside the various Repugnant 'rulings' of the supposed courts of justice. Which repugnant rulings, are in reality, best described in legal terms as;
"SUMMUM JUS EST SUMMA INJURIA." (The rigor of the law is the height of oppression).
"COMMUNIS ERROR FACIT JUS." (Common error repeated many times makes law).
That lawmakers are, either not cognoscente of these FACTS, and/or are not overturning these Constitutionally Repugnant and TREASONOUS decisions is horrifying. One can then only reasonably assume that lawmakers are in agreement and, in fact, are complicit to these Usurpations. How can they, with any type of common decency, hold out that they are serving the best interests of their constituents? -
'We want to take away, limit or regulate you into being defenseless subjects of the state. We desire that you are totally dependent upon us for your security and protection. Just give us a call if you need help. (Sorry if we don’t make it in time, for we are very busy you see), and there is nothing you can do about that either. For you will have no recourse in the event of damage or loss. Deal with it.'
Is that not the same as saying;
'We want complete control, and for you to be placed under our arbitrary rule. And subjected to our decision of what is deemed right and wrong. And that this is for your own 'common good'. If you don’t like it, tough.'
What kind of Freedom and Liberty is that?
What part of 'Shall NOT be Infringed' is NOT understood?
Consider the government success rate at our borders. Reflect as well, on their resounding victory in the war on drugs and domestic crime. It is my contention, that it is way past time for we the people to DEMAND the return of TRUE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. The Framers of the Constitution so clearly defined the way. And that, our supposed representatives return to doing their Constitutionally delegated duties! And this, while there is yet time remaining to do so!
"Those Essential RIGHTS of mankind without which LIBERTY cannot exist."
- Richard Henry Lee
Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to
support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident
branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation,
commonly called the first law of nature.
All men have a right to remain in a state of nature as long as they please;
and in case of intolerable oppression, civil or religious, to leave the
society they belong to, and enter into another.
When men enter into society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a
right to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions and
previous limitations as form an equitable original compact.
Every natural right not expressly given up, or, from the nature of a social
compact, necessarily ceded, remains.
All positive and civil laws should conform, as far as possible, to the law
of natural reason and equity."
""Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty," in matters spiritual
and temporal, is a thing that all men are clearly entitled to by the eternal
and immutable laws of God and nature, [418]as well as by the law of nations
and all well-grounded municipal laws, which must have their foundation in
the former."
"In the state of nature every man is, under God, judge and sole judge of his
own rights and of the injuries done him. By entering into society he agrees
to an arbiter or indifferent judge between him and his neighbors; but he no
more renounces his original right than by taking a cause out of the ordinary
course of law, and leaving the decision to referees or indifferent
arbitrators.
In the last case, he must pay the referees for time and trouble. He should
also be willing to pay his just quota for the support of government, the
law, and the constitution; the end of which is to furnish indifferent and
impartial judges in all cases that may happen, whether civil,
ecclesiastical, marine, or military.
[419] The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on
earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but
only to have the law of nature for his rule."
- Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists (November 20, 1772)
_______________________________________________________
"As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions."
- James Madison, National Gazette Essay, 27 March 1792
_______________________________________________________
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from ANY who might ATTEMPT to ABUSE THEM, which would include their own government.”
- George Washington - Speech of Jan. 7, 1790,
in the Boston Independent Chronicle, Jan. 14, 1790
_______________________________________________________
"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."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803)
_______________________________________________________
Preamble, in part, to the Bill of Rights attached to The United States Constitution:
"The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further DECLARATORY and RESTRICTIVE clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public CONFIDENCE in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution:
..."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."
DECLARATORY clause; "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,"
RESTRICTIVE clause; "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
How can a clearly outlined RIGHT be regulated or broken down and subjected to the whim of a few?
Would that not be considered as Infringement?
Are not you sworn to uphold and defend The Constitution of The United States of America? The TRUE law of the land?
Setting aside the various Repugnant 'rulings' of the supposed courts of justice. Which repugnant rulings, are in reality, best described in legal terms as;
"SUMMUM JUS EST SUMMA INJURIA." (The rigor of the law is the height of oppression).
"COMMUNIS ERROR FACIT JUS." (Common error repeated many times makes law).
That lawmakers are, either not cognoscente of these FACTS, and/or are not overturning these Constitutionally Repugnant and TREASONOUS decisions is horrifying. One can then only reasonably assume that lawmakers are in agreement and, in fact, are complicit to these Usurpations. How can they, with any type of common decency, hold out that they are serving the best interests of their constituents? -
'We want to take away, limit or regulate you into being defenseless subjects of the state. We desire that you are totally dependent upon us for your security and protection. Just give us a call if you need help. (Sorry if we don’t make it in time, for we are very busy you see), and there is nothing you can do about that either. For you will have no recourse in the event of damage or loss. Deal with it.'
Is that not the same as saying;
'We want complete control, and for you to be placed under our arbitrary rule. And subjected to our decision of what is deemed right and wrong. And that this is for your own 'common good'. If you don’t like it, tough.'
What kind of Freedom and Liberty is that?
What part of 'Shall NOT be Infringed' is NOT understood?
Consider the government success rate at our borders. Reflect as well, on their resounding victory in the war on drugs and domestic crime. It is my contention, that it is way past time for we the people to DEMAND the return of TRUE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. The Framers of the Constitution so clearly defined the way. And that, our supposed representatives return to doing their Constitutionally delegated duties! And this, while there is yet time remaining to do so!
"Those Essential RIGHTS of mankind without which LIBERTY cannot exist."
- Richard Henry Lee
Monday, March 27, 2006
Here we go again....
Had posted a reply to a comment that was left on an article I had submitted on Free Market News Network.
.
Thought my response would solve the misconceptions the person obviously had. But, apparently, it wasn't enough. Leif Rakur decided to contend the evidence, yet again. Here, in part is his supposition;
.
"While the Supreme Court has since incorporated many of the provisions of the Bill of Rights through the 14th Amendment to make them applicable against the states, the Second Amendment is not one of those rights. Here are additional passages from additional U.S. Supreme Court decisions saying that the Second Amendment does not apply against state governments."
.
What follows is my response to Leif's newest comment:
.
You reference the Marshall quote of Barron v. City of Baltimore (1833). Which is somewhat baffling. How can a judge reverse himself in 27 years? (United States v. Burr 1807). The body of the Constitution didn't change in that period. Which causes one to wonder. Just what was the age of the judge at the time of his 1833 decision? Surely can give one food for thought, couldn't it? What was the judge’s mental capacity? Was he senile? Not in full control of his mental faculties? Why would he reverse himself in such fashion?
.
What causes further incomprehension, is when the preamble of the Bill of Rights is taken into consideration;
.
"The Conventions of a number of the STATES having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;"
.
Now, why would the states insist upon the addition of the Bill. And then, be satisfied when the Supreme Court denies the implementation of it? I was not aware the Supreme Court had such power. It is truly amazing! That such a small and limited judicial body can turn the whole Constitution into "just a g-ddamn piece of paper"! I had always thought their job was to properly interpret - not disregard and, in effect, negate the law of the land. Why don't you show me in the Federalist Papers, where the Court was granted such power?
.
Oh, and by the way. Here are the correct legal terms for Marshall's 1833 decision, as well as for all of the other Constitutionally repugnant decisions that you referenced;
.
"SUMMUM JUS EST SUMMA INJURIA."
.
"COMMUNIS ERROR"
.
Why don't you look those up, get a translation, and then, get back with me, OK?
.
You also might want to take a look at the following links while your at it;
.
1689 Bill of Rights
.
The Rights of The Colonists
.
Declaration of Causes and Necessity for Taking Up Arms
.
On these documents you'll discover how the Right was preexisting to the Constitution. And, that the intentions, of the Anti-Federalists, was for SECURING these Right(s). Rights, they viewed as so important, that Mr. Richard Henry Lee referred to them as "Those essential Rights of mankind without which Liberty cannot exist." And, as it turned out, Mr. Madison later agreed with them on the matter. Which FACT, can be shown here;
.
"It will be a desirable thing to extinguish from the bosom of EVERY MEMBER of the community, ANY apprehensions that there are those among his countrymen who wish to DEPRIVE them of the LIBERTY for which they VALIANTLY FOUGHT and HONORABLY BLED. And if there are Amendments desired of such a nature as will NOT INJURE the Constitution, and they can be ingrafted so as to give SATISFACTION to the DOUBTING part of OUR FELLOW-CITIZENS, the friends of the Federal Government will evince that SPIRIT of deference and concession for which they have hitherto been distinguished....We ought NOT TO DISREGARD their inclination, but, on PRINCIPLES of amity and moderation, CONFORM to their wishes, and EXPRESSLY DECLARE THE GREAT RIGHTS OF MANKIND SECURED UNDER THIS CONSTITUTION." - James Madison,
.
Debates on the Bill of Rights, House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution, (8 June , 21 July , 13 , 18-19 Aug. 1789 Annals 1:424-50, 661-65, 707-17, 757-59, 766 [8 June]).
.
Here is another bit of information for you to consider; The Right
.
Interesting isn't it, Leif? Especially when you consider Madison's use of 'MANKIND', rather than states. You don't suppose Madison was intending its application for just a select group of 'mankind', do you? Seems to me, that 'MANKIND' is somewhat all inclusive. But, that's just me, right?
.
Must admit. I’m somewhat perplexed as to why someone would argue in defense of more or perverse government control! Indeed, it is VERY puzzling.
.
Even more puzzling, is why does many in the government(s), want to limit, restrict or keep Rightful gun ownership out of the hands of citizens? Especially since the Framers of the Constitution placed it there as a means for the people to ward off a tyrannical government? Now, why do you suppose they'd do that?
.
Thought my response would solve the misconceptions the person obviously had. But, apparently, it wasn't enough. Leif Rakur decided to contend the evidence, yet again. Here, in part is his supposition;
.
"While the Supreme Court has since incorporated many of the provisions of the Bill of Rights through the 14th Amendment to make them applicable against the states, the Second Amendment is not one of those rights. Here are additional passages from additional U.S. Supreme Court decisions saying that the Second Amendment does not apply against state governments."
.
What follows is my response to Leif's newest comment:
.
You reference the Marshall quote of Barron v. City of Baltimore (1833). Which is somewhat baffling. How can a judge reverse himself in 27 years? (United States v. Burr 1807). The body of the Constitution didn't change in that period. Which causes one to wonder. Just what was the age of the judge at the time of his 1833 decision? Surely can give one food for thought, couldn't it? What was the judge’s mental capacity? Was he senile? Not in full control of his mental faculties? Why would he reverse himself in such fashion?
.
What causes further incomprehension, is when the preamble of the Bill of Rights is taken into consideration;
.
"The Conventions of a number of the STATES having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;"
.
Now, why would the states insist upon the addition of the Bill. And then, be satisfied when the Supreme Court denies the implementation of it? I was not aware the Supreme Court had such power. It is truly amazing! That such a small and limited judicial body can turn the whole Constitution into "just a g-ddamn piece of paper"! I had always thought their job was to properly interpret - not disregard and, in effect, negate the law of the land. Why don't you show me in the Federalist Papers, where the Court was granted such power?
.
Oh, and by the way. Here are the correct legal terms for Marshall's 1833 decision, as well as for all of the other Constitutionally repugnant decisions that you referenced;
.
"SUMMUM JUS EST SUMMA INJURIA."
.
"COMMUNIS ERROR"
.
Why don't you look those up, get a translation, and then, get back with me, OK?
.
You also might want to take a look at the following links while your at it;
.
1689 Bill of Rights
.
The Rights of The Colonists
.
Declaration of Causes and Necessity for Taking Up Arms
.
On these documents you'll discover how the Right was preexisting to the Constitution. And, that the intentions, of the Anti-Federalists, was for SECURING these Right(s). Rights, they viewed as so important, that Mr. Richard Henry Lee referred to them as "Those essential Rights of mankind without which Liberty cannot exist." And, as it turned out, Mr. Madison later agreed with them on the matter. Which FACT, can be shown here;
.
"It will be a desirable thing to extinguish from the bosom of EVERY MEMBER of the community, ANY apprehensions that there are those among his countrymen who wish to DEPRIVE them of the LIBERTY for which they VALIANTLY FOUGHT and HONORABLY BLED. And if there are Amendments desired of such a nature as will NOT INJURE the Constitution, and they can be ingrafted so as to give SATISFACTION to the DOUBTING part of OUR FELLOW-CITIZENS, the friends of the Federal Government will evince that SPIRIT of deference and concession for which they have hitherto been distinguished....We ought NOT TO DISREGARD their inclination, but, on PRINCIPLES of amity and moderation, CONFORM to their wishes, and EXPRESSLY DECLARE THE GREAT RIGHTS OF MANKIND SECURED UNDER THIS CONSTITUTION." - James Madison,
.
Debates on the Bill of Rights, House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution, (8 June , 21 July , 13 , 18-19 Aug. 1789 Annals 1:424-50, 661-65, 707-17, 757-59, 766 [8 June]).
.
Here is another bit of information for you to consider; The Right
.
Interesting isn't it, Leif? Especially when you consider Madison's use of 'MANKIND', rather than states. You don't suppose Madison was intending its application for just a select group of 'mankind', do you? Seems to me, that 'MANKIND' is somewhat all inclusive. But, that's just me, right?
.
Must admit. I’m somewhat perplexed as to why someone would argue in defense of more or perverse government control! Indeed, it is VERY puzzling.
.
Even more puzzling, is why does many in the government(s), want to limit, restrict or keep Rightful gun ownership out of the hands of citizens? Especially since the Framers of the Constitution placed it there as a means for the people to ward off a tyrannical government? Now, why do you suppose they'd do that?
Sunday, March 26, 2006
ACTION ALERT: SB 1145 (self-defense; home protection)
The following is copied in its entirety from an Arizona Citizens Defense League (AzCDL)
Action Alert:
.
One of the most important bills in the last decade, SB 1145, which restores "innocent until proven guilty" in self-defense situations, is in jeopardy of being gutted in the House Rules committee.
Information on SB 1145 can be found here:
.
http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=SB1145
.
SB 1145 (self-defense; home protection) restores the presumption of innocence in cases of self-defense. On February 13, 2006, amendments adopted by the Senate Judiciary Committee changed this "castle doctrine" bill into the most significant legislation ever introduced affecting anyone faced with a self-defense situation in Arizona. The text of SB 1145 as amended can be found here:
.
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/47leg/2r/bills/sb1145s.pdf
.
Present law, passed in 1997 without proper discussion or debate, places the burden of proof on the VICTIM in self-defense cases. You are now in effect guilty unless you can prove your own innocence. You must admit to the underlying criminal conduct, and then demonstrate that the guilt you admitted is false, by proving you were justified. It is a prosecutor's dream and the public's worst nightmare. A criminal now has better legal protection than a person who claims self-defense after an attack: http://tinyurl.com/bn5ks
.
SB 1145 enjoys broad bipartisan support. It passed Senate by a unanimous (28-0) vote. On March 16, 2006, SB 1145 passed the House Judiciary committee by a vote of 6-3 and was referred to the Rules committee.
.
Opponents to YOUR right to be "innocent until proven guilty" are pressuring the Rules committee chairman, Representative Bob Robson ( http://www.azleg.gov/MembersPage.asp?Member_ID=51 ) to amend SB 1145, gutting the provisions that restore YOUR right to be "innocent until proven guilty" in a self-defense situation.
.
We must not let this happen!
.
Rules committee members, especially Chairman Robson, need to be contacted by YOU and told that SB 1145 must be referred out of the Rules committee without amendments to the House Committee of the Whole (COW).
.
Below are the email addresses and telephone numbers of the committee members. Following that is a sample letter to cut-and-paste into an email message.
.
Bob Robson (R) - Chairman - brobson@azleg.gov - (602) 926-5549
Bob Stump (R) - Vice-Chairman - bstump@azleg.gov - (602) 926-5413
Phil Lopes (D) - plopes@azleg.gov - (602) 926-3278
Linda Lopez (R) - llopez@azleg.gov - (602) 926-4089
Gary L. Pierce (R) - gpierce@azleg.gov - (602) 926-3163
Doug Quelland (R) - dquelland@azleg.gov - (602) 926-4639
Pete Rios (D) - prios@azleg.gov - (602) 926-5761
Stephen Tully (R) - stully@azleg.gov - (602) 926-5977
James P. Weiers (R) - jweiers@azleg.gov - (602) 926-4173
.
Representative Robson especially needs to hear from you.
.
Below is a sample letter to cut-and-paste into an email message.
============================================================
Dear Representative (Name):
.
The Arizona Citizens Defense League (AzCDL) has informed me that SB 1145 is under consideration by your committee. I strongly urge you to vote the bill out of committee with a recommendation for passage by the full House.
.
SB 1145, a "Castle Doctrine" bill, is modeled after legislation recently passed in Florida and introduced this year in many states. It bolsters the right of self-defense against violent criminal attack. However, the most critical component of this legislation was adopted as a Senate committee amendment. SB 1145 restores the burden of proof in self-defense cases to the state, where it appropriately rested from Arizona's territorial days until a change was quietly inserted into the Omnibus Criminal Code Bill of 1997. This change in the law runs contrary to one of the basic tenets of the American justice system – a citizen is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, a belief held dear for centuries. The current burden of proof in self-defense cases is unjust by every objective measure, evidenced by the fact that only one other state has a similar provision, and must be corrected immediately.
.
Prosecutors enjoy the current law because it makes their jobs easier. The current system favors the conviction of an innocent citizen rather than the release of the guilty. This is contrary to the foundation of the American justice system.
.
Imagine one of your constituents being attacked by a knife-welding robber outside a bank ATM. She responds by drawing her gun. The robber flees. She calls the police and reports the incident. The police respond and take her statement and her gun. The robber is located nearby, walking along the street, but no knife is found. He tells police he is glad to see them because a woman just pointed a gun at him without provocation outside the nearby bank.
.
Here is what the prosecutor is faced with: If the robber is charged, the State must prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, based entirely on the victim's testimony. A unanimous jury verdict is required. That means the prosecutor must work to prove a case. But, if the prosecutor charges the victim, her statement and her gun establish an aggravated assault, thereby satisfying the State's burden. The prosecutor has no further work to do. The robber's testimony further establishes that the victim pointed a gun at him "without provocation." The victim must prove that she was justified to act in self-defense based entirely upon her testimony. She must convince each juror that she acted justifiably. The robber's extensive prior criminal record is inadmissible to prove that he attacked the victim or that she acted in self-defense. It's a "slam-dunk" for any prosecutor in our current system where legal protection for the innocent was ripped from State law in 1997.
.
To stop scenarios like that from continuing to happen, you must support the passage of SB 1145 in its current from.
.
Opponents of SB 1145 will claim that, if passed, it will be impossible to convict gang members of violent crimes because they will claim self-defense. Prosecutors have yet to explain how 48 other states are surviving the scourge of gangs while their states bear the burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, in self-defense cases. They weakly claim that Arizona is different that other states. While this may be true of the weather, it is false as it relates to the justice system. Gang affiliation can be introduced into evidence. Many jurors, no doubt, consider this. The most significant problem with prosecuting gang crimes is finding willing witnesses, not the burden of proof.
.
Again, I ask for your support and vote on this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Your Name
Street Address
City, AZ zip-code
(telephone number)
.
==================================
These alerts are a project of the Arizona Citizens Defense League (AzCDL), an all volunteer, non-profit, non-partisan grassroots organization. Join today!
AzCDL – Protecting Your Freedom
http://www.azcdl.org/html/join_us_.html
Action Alert:
.
One of the most important bills in the last decade, SB 1145, which restores "innocent until proven guilty" in self-defense situations, is in jeopardy of being gutted in the House Rules committee.
Information on SB 1145 can be found here:
.
http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=SB1145
.
SB 1145 (self-defense; home protection) restores the presumption of innocence in cases of self-defense. On February 13, 2006, amendments adopted by the Senate Judiciary Committee changed this "castle doctrine" bill into the most significant legislation ever introduced affecting anyone faced with a self-defense situation in Arizona. The text of SB 1145 as amended can be found here:
.
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/47leg/2r/bills/sb1145s.pdf
.
Present law, passed in 1997 without proper discussion or debate, places the burden of proof on the VICTIM in self-defense cases. You are now in effect guilty unless you can prove your own innocence. You must admit to the underlying criminal conduct, and then demonstrate that the guilt you admitted is false, by proving you were justified. It is a prosecutor's dream and the public's worst nightmare. A criminal now has better legal protection than a person who claims self-defense after an attack: http://tinyurl.com/bn5ks
.
SB 1145 enjoys broad bipartisan support. It passed Senate by a unanimous (28-0) vote. On March 16, 2006, SB 1145 passed the House Judiciary committee by a vote of 6-3 and was referred to the Rules committee.
.
Opponents to YOUR right to be "innocent until proven guilty" are pressuring the Rules committee chairman, Representative Bob Robson ( http://www.azleg.gov/MembersPage.asp?Member_ID=51 ) to amend SB 1145, gutting the provisions that restore YOUR right to be "innocent until proven guilty" in a self-defense situation.
.
We must not let this happen!
.
Rules committee members, especially Chairman Robson, need to be contacted by YOU and told that SB 1145 must be referred out of the Rules committee without amendments to the House Committee of the Whole (COW).
.
Below are the email addresses and telephone numbers of the committee members. Following that is a sample letter to cut-and-paste into an email message.
.
Bob Robson (R) - Chairman - brobson@azleg.gov - (602) 926-5549
Bob Stump (R) - Vice-Chairman - bstump@azleg.gov - (602) 926-5413
Phil Lopes (D) - plopes@azleg.gov - (602) 926-3278
Linda Lopez (R) - llopez@azleg.gov - (602) 926-4089
Gary L. Pierce (R) - gpierce@azleg.gov - (602) 926-3163
Doug Quelland (R) - dquelland@azleg.gov - (602) 926-4639
Pete Rios (D) - prios@azleg.gov - (602) 926-5761
Stephen Tully (R) - stully@azleg.gov - (602) 926-5977
James P. Weiers (R) - jweiers@azleg.gov - (602) 926-4173
.
Representative Robson especially needs to hear from you.
.
Below is a sample letter to cut-and-paste into an email message.
============================================================
Dear Representative (Name):
.
The Arizona Citizens Defense League (AzCDL) has informed me that SB 1145 is under consideration by your committee. I strongly urge you to vote the bill out of committee with a recommendation for passage by the full House.
.
SB 1145, a "Castle Doctrine" bill, is modeled after legislation recently passed in Florida and introduced this year in many states. It bolsters the right of self-defense against violent criminal attack. However, the most critical component of this legislation was adopted as a Senate committee amendment. SB 1145 restores the burden of proof in self-defense cases to the state, where it appropriately rested from Arizona's territorial days until a change was quietly inserted into the Omnibus Criminal Code Bill of 1997. This change in the law runs contrary to one of the basic tenets of the American justice system – a citizen is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, a belief held dear for centuries. The current burden of proof in self-defense cases is unjust by every objective measure, evidenced by the fact that only one other state has a similar provision, and must be corrected immediately.
.
Prosecutors enjoy the current law because it makes their jobs easier. The current system favors the conviction of an innocent citizen rather than the release of the guilty. This is contrary to the foundation of the American justice system.
.
Imagine one of your constituents being attacked by a knife-welding robber outside a bank ATM. She responds by drawing her gun. The robber flees. She calls the police and reports the incident. The police respond and take her statement and her gun. The robber is located nearby, walking along the street, but no knife is found. He tells police he is glad to see them because a woman just pointed a gun at him without provocation outside the nearby bank.
.
Here is what the prosecutor is faced with: If the robber is charged, the State must prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, based entirely on the victim's testimony. A unanimous jury verdict is required. That means the prosecutor must work to prove a case. But, if the prosecutor charges the victim, her statement and her gun establish an aggravated assault, thereby satisfying the State's burden. The prosecutor has no further work to do. The robber's testimony further establishes that the victim pointed a gun at him "without provocation." The victim must prove that she was justified to act in self-defense based entirely upon her testimony. She must convince each juror that she acted justifiably. The robber's extensive prior criminal record is inadmissible to prove that he attacked the victim or that she acted in self-defense. It's a "slam-dunk" for any prosecutor in our current system where legal protection for the innocent was ripped from State law in 1997.
.
To stop scenarios like that from continuing to happen, you must support the passage of SB 1145 in its current from.
.
Opponents of SB 1145 will claim that, if passed, it will be impossible to convict gang members of violent crimes because they will claim self-defense. Prosecutors have yet to explain how 48 other states are surviving the scourge of gangs while their states bear the burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, in self-defense cases. They weakly claim that Arizona is different that other states. While this may be true of the weather, it is false as it relates to the justice system. Gang affiliation can be introduced into evidence. Many jurors, no doubt, consider this. The most significant problem with prosecuting gang crimes is finding willing witnesses, not the burden of proof.
.
Again, I ask for your support and vote on this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Your Name
Street Address
City, AZ zip-code
(telephone number)
.
==================================
These alerts are a project of the Arizona Citizens Defense League (AzCDL), an all volunteer, non-profit, non-partisan grassroots organization. Join today!
AzCDL – Protecting Your Freedom
http://www.azcdl.org/html/join_us_.html
Friday, March 24, 2006
The Sweet Smell of VICTORY!...
"IT WILL BE A DESIRABLE THING TO EXTINGUISH FROM THE BOSOM OF EVERY MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY, ANY APPREHENSIONS THAT THERE ARE THOSE AMONG HIS COUNTRYMEN WHO WISH TO DEPRIVE THEM OF THE LIBERTY FOR WHICH THEY VALIANTLY FOUGHT AND HONORABLY BLED. AND IF THERE ARE AMENDMENTS DESIRED OF SUCH A NATURE AS WILL NOT INJURE THE CONSTITUTION, AND THEY CAN BE INGRAFTED SO AS TO GIVE SATISFACTION TO THE DOUBTING PART OF OUR FELLOW-CITIZENS, the friends of the Federal Government WILL EVINCE THAT SPIRIT of DEFERENCE and CONCESSION for which they have hitherto been distinguished....WE OUGHT NOT TO DISREGARD THEIR INCLINATION, BUT, ON PRINCIPLES OF AMITY AND MODERATION, CONFORM TO THEIR WISHES, AND EXPRESSLY DECLARE THE GREAT RIGHTS OF MANKIND, (NOT MILITIA!), SECURED UNDER THIS CONSTITUTION."
- James Madison, Debates on the Bill of Rights,
House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution, (8 June , 21 July , 13 , 18-19 Aug. 1789 Annals 1:424-50, 661-65, 707-17, 757-59, 766 [8 June]).
.
POINT AND MATCH!
.
PUT THAT IN YOUR PIPE AND SMOKE IT, YOU USURPING ILK!
- James Madison, Debates on the Bill of Rights,
House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution, (8 June , 21 July , 13 , 18-19 Aug. 1789 Annals 1:424-50, 661-65, 707-17, 757-59, 766 [8 June]).
.
POINT AND MATCH!
.
PUT THAT IN YOUR PIPE AND SMOKE IT, YOU USURPING ILK!
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
In reply to respone on 'That Sweet Lady of Liberty' posted on FMNN
Had written an article posted on 3/20/2006 at Free Market News Network titled 'That Sweet Lady of Liberty'.
.
There was a comment left by Leif Rakur in reply to the article. Which is as follows;
.
"Writing of the Second Amendment, you say that "the proper use of federal authority, would be to enforce that Right" against "Constitutionally repugnant local/state law." However, David, state and local governments are under no legal obligation to even acknowledge the existence of the Second Amendmenmt when legislating. The U.S. Supreme Court has always held that the Second Amendment is a restraint against federal legislation only, not against that of state and local governments."
.
It is my Civic DUTY to inform Leif of any misconception held, concerning the True Law of the land. My response follows;
.
Hello,
Leif Rakur - On the contrary. The United States Constitution IS the Supreme Law of the Land PERIOD:
.
This FACT is reinforced HERE;
.
United States v. Burr - 25 Fed. Cas. 55, no. 14,693 C.C.D.Va. 1807 Marshall, Chief Justice, delivered the opinion of the court as follows:
.
"But in regard to an act of assembly, which is found to be in collision with the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, I take the duty of the judiciary to be exactly the reverse. By becoming parties to the federal constitution, the states have agreed to several limitations of their individual sovereignty, to enforce which, it was thought to be absolutely necessary to prevent them from giving effect to laws in violation of those limitations, through the instrumentality of their own judges. Accordingly, it is declared in the fifth article and second section of the federal constitution, that "This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be BOUND thereby; any thing in the laws or constitution of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
.
And HERE;
.
Eakins v. Raub 12 Serg. & Rawle 330 Pa. 1825
.
"This is an express grant of a political power, and it is conclusive to show that no law of inferior obligation, as every state law must necessarily be, can be executed at the expense of the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. It may be said, these are to furnish a rule only when there is no state provision on the subject. But, in that view, they could with no propriety be called supreme; for supremacy is a relative term, and cannot be predicated of a thing which exists separately and alone: and this law, which is called supreme, would change its character and become subordinate as soon as it should be found in conflict with a state law. But the judges are to be bound by the federal constitution and laws, notwithstanding any thing in the constitution or laws of the particular state to the contrary. If, then, a state were to declare the laws of the United States not to be obligatory on her judges, such an act would unquestionably be void; for it will not be pretended, that any member of the union can dispense with the obligation of the federal constitution; and, if it cannot be done directly, and by a general declaratory law, neither can it indirectly, and by by-laws dispensing with it in particular cases. This, therefore, is an express grant of the power, and would be sufficient for the purposes of the argument; but it is not all.
.
By the third article and second section, appellate jurisdiction of all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States, is reserved to the federal judiciary, under such regulations as congress may prescribe; and, in execution of this provision, congress has prescribed regulations for removing into the Supreme Court of the United States, all causes decided by the highest court of judicature of any state, which involve the construction of the constitution, or of any law or treaty of the United States. This is another guard against infraction of the limitations imposed on state sovereignty, and one which is extremely efficient in practice; for reversals of decisions in favour of the constitutionality of acts of assembly, have been frequent on writs of error to the Supreme Court of the United States.
.
Now, a reversal implies that it was not only the right, but the duty of the inferior court to decide otherwise; for where there is but one way of deciding, there can be no error. But what beneficial result would there be produced by the decision of a state court in favour of a state law palpably unconstitutional? The injured party would have the judgment reversed by the court in the last resort, and the cause would come back with a mandate to decide differently, which the state court dare not disobey; so that nothing would eventually be gained by the party claiming under the law of the state, but, on the contrary, he would be burdened with additional costs. I grant, however, that the state judiciary ought not to exercise the power except in cases free from all doubt, because, as a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States lies to correct an error only in favour of the constitutionality of the state law, an error in deciding against it would be irremediable. Anticipating those who think they perceive in this, exactly what I have censured in those who assume the existence of the same power in respect to laws that are repugnant to the constitution of the state, but restrict the exercise of it to clear cases, I briefly remark that the instances are not parallel; an error in deciding against the validity of the law, being irreparable in the one, and not so in the other.
.
Unless, then, the respective states are not bound by the engagement, which they have contracted by becoming parties to the constitution of the United States, they are precluded from denying either the right or the duty of their judges, to declare their laws void when they are repugnant to that constitution.
.
The preceding inquiry may perhaps appear foreign to the point immediately before the court; but, as the act of 1815 may be thought repugnant to the constitution of the state, an examination of the powers of the judiciary, became not only proper but necessary.
.
Then, laying the constitution of the state out of the case, what restriction on state sovereignty is violated by at once repealing any of the saving clauses in the statute of limitations? Those restrictions are contained in the first article and tenth section of the constitution of the United States..."
.
Leif, just because laws have been perversed or ignored, does not provide just cause for abandonment of them. In fact, it should be a grave cause for concern by every American Citizen! It is OUR Constitution, which includes the Bill of Rights!
The Constitution of The United States of America IS the Supreme Law of The Land. In addition to that, the People are confirmed as being the "Ultimate Legitimate Authority" of OUR U.S. Constitution, as indicated in the Federalist Papers. The Federalist bears weight and substance, in that, it was the method employed by the Framers, of selling the idea of a Constituted Federal Republican system of government to We The People. It is the unequivocal RIGHT of EVERY U.S. citizen to Keep and Bear Arms. And that RIGHT was NEVER supposed to be Infringed upon - by ANYONE, ANYWHERE. Anything REPUGNANT to OUR CONSTITUTION is NULL and VOID! Of course, that is IF THE COURTS WERE WORKING AS THEY WERE REQUIRED TO DO.
.
The INTENDED system is THE TRUE system, ANYTHING CONTRARY to it, is PERVERSION!
.
There was a comment left by Leif Rakur in reply to the article. Which is as follows;
.
"Writing of the Second Amendment, you say that "the proper use of federal authority, would be to enforce that Right" against "Constitutionally repugnant local/state law." However, David, state and local governments are under no legal obligation to even acknowledge the existence of the Second Amendmenmt when legislating. The U.S. Supreme Court has always held that the Second Amendment is a restraint against federal legislation only, not against that of state and local governments."
.
It is my Civic DUTY to inform Leif of any misconception held, concerning the True Law of the land. My response follows;
.
Hello,
Leif Rakur - On the contrary. The United States Constitution IS the Supreme Law of the Land PERIOD:
.
This FACT is reinforced HERE;
.
United States v. Burr - 25 Fed. Cas. 55, no. 14,693 C.C.D.Va. 1807 Marshall, Chief Justice, delivered the opinion of the court as follows:
.
"But in regard to an act of assembly, which is found to be in collision with the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, I take the duty of the judiciary to be exactly the reverse. By becoming parties to the federal constitution, the states have agreed to several limitations of their individual sovereignty, to enforce which, it was thought to be absolutely necessary to prevent them from giving effect to laws in violation of those limitations, through the instrumentality of their own judges. Accordingly, it is declared in the fifth article and second section of the federal constitution, that "This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be BOUND thereby; any thing in the laws or constitution of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
.
And HERE;
.
Eakins v. Raub 12 Serg. & Rawle 330 Pa. 1825
.
"This is an express grant of a political power, and it is conclusive to show that no law of inferior obligation, as every state law must necessarily be, can be executed at the expense of the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. It may be said, these are to furnish a rule only when there is no state provision on the subject. But, in that view, they could with no propriety be called supreme; for supremacy is a relative term, and cannot be predicated of a thing which exists separately and alone: and this law, which is called supreme, would change its character and become subordinate as soon as it should be found in conflict with a state law. But the judges are to be bound by the federal constitution and laws, notwithstanding any thing in the constitution or laws of the particular state to the contrary. If, then, a state were to declare the laws of the United States not to be obligatory on her judges, such an act would unquestionably be void; for it will not be pretended, that any member of the union can dispense with the obligation of the federal constitution; and, if it cannot be done directly, and by a general declaratory law, neither can it indirectly, and by by-laws dispensing with it in particular cases. This, therefore, is an express grant of the power, and would be sufficient for the purposes of the argument; but it is not all.
.
By the third article and second section, appellate jurisdiction of all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States, is reserved to the federal judiciary, under such regulations as congress may prescribe; and, in execution of this provision, congress has prescribed regulations for removing into the Supreme Court of the United States, all causes decided by the highest court of judicature of any state, which involve the construction of the constitution, or of any law or treaty of the United States. This is another guard against infraction of the limitations imposed on state sovereignty, and one which is extremely efficient in practice; for reversals of decisions in favour of the constitutionality of acts of assembly, have been frequent on writs of error to the Supreme Court of the United States.
.
Now, a reversal implies that it was not only the right, but the duty of the inferior court to decide otherwise; for where there is but one way of deciding, there can be no error. But what beneficial result would there be produced by the decision of a state court in favour of a state law palpably unconstitutional? The injured party would have the judgment reversed by the court in the last resort, and the cause would come back with a mandate to decide differently, which the state court dare not disobey; so that nothing would eventually be gained by the party claiming under the law of the state, but, on the contrary, he would be burdened with additional costs. I grant, however, that the state judiciary ought not to exercise the power except in cases free from all doubt, because, as a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States lies to correct an error only in favour of the constitutionality of the state law, an error in deciding against it would be irremediable. Anticipating those who think they perceive in this, exactly what I have censured in those who assume the existence of the same power in respect to laws that are repugnant to the constitution of the state, but restrict the exercise of it to clear cases, I briefly remark that the instances are not parallel; an error in deciding against the validity of the law, being irreparable in the one, and not so in the other.
.
Unless, then, the respective states are not bound by the engagement, which they have contracted by becoming parties to the constitution of the United States, they are precluded from denying either the right or the duty of their judges, to declare their laws void when they are repugnant to that constitution.
.
The preceding inquiry may perhaps appear foreign to the point immediately before the court; but, as the act of 1815 may be thought repugnant to the constitution of the state, an examination of the powers of the judiciary, became not only proper but necessary.
.
Then, laying the constitution of the state out of the case, what restriction on state sovereignty is violated by at once repealing any of the saving clauses in the statute of limitations? Those restrictions are contained in the first article and tenth section of the constitution of the United States..."
.
Leif, just because laws have been perversed or ignored, does not provide just cause for abandonment of them. In fact, it should be a grave cause for concern by every American Citizen! It is OUR Constitution, which includes the Bill of Rights!
The Constitution of The United States of America IS the Supreme Law of The Land. In addition to that, the People are confirmed as being the "Ultimate Legitimate Authority" of OUR U.S. Constitution, as indicated in the Federalist Papers. The Federalist bears weight and substance, in that, it was the method employed by the Framers, of selling the idea of a Constituted Federal Republican system of government to We The People. It is the unequivocal RIGHT of EVERY U.S. citizen to Keep and Bear Arms. And that RIGHT was NEVER supposed to be Infringed upon - by ANYONE, ANYWHERE. Anything REPUGNANT to OUR CONSTITUTION is NULL and VOID! Of course, that is IF THE COURTS WERE WORKING AS THEY WERE REQUIRED TO DO.
.
The INTENDED system is THE TRUE system, ANYTHING CONTRARY to it, is PERVERSION!
Bliss v. Commonwealth
12 Littell 90 Ky. 1822
.
This was an indictment founded on the act of the legislature of this state, "to prevent persons in this commonwealth from wearing concealed arms."
.
The act provides, that any person in this commonwealth, who shall hereafter wear a pocket pistol, dirk, large knife, or sword in a cane, concealed as a weapon, unless when travelling on a journey, shall be fined in any sum not less than one hundred dollars; which may be recovered in any court having jurisdiction of like sums, by action of debt, or on presentment of a grand jury.
.
The indictment, in the words of the act, charges Bliss with having worn concealed as a weapon, a sword in a cane.
.
Bliss was found guilty of the charge, and a fine of one hundred dollars assessed by the jury, and judgment was thereon rendered by the court. To reverse that judgment, Bliss appealed to this court.
.
2. In argument the judgment was assailed by the counsel of Bliss, exclusively on the ground of the act, on which the indictment is founded, being in conflict with the twenty third section of the tenth article of the constitution of this state.
.
That section provides, "that the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned."
.
The provision contained in this section, perhaps, is as well calculated to secure to the citizens the right to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, as any that could have been adopted by the makers of the constitution. If the right be assailed, immaterial through what medium, whether by an act of the legislature or in any other form, it is equally opposed to the comprehensive import of the section. The legislature is no where expressly mentioned in the section; but the language employed is general, without containing any expression restricting its import to any particular department of government; and in the twenty eighth section of the same article of the constitution, it is expressly declared, "that every thing in that article is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate; and that all laws contrary thereto, or contrary to the constitution, shall be void."
.
It was not, however, contended by the attorney for the commonwealth, that it would be competent for the legislature, by the enactment of any law, to prevent the citizens from bearing arms either in defence of themselves or the state; but a distinction was taken between a law prohibiting the exercise of the right, and a law merely regulating the manner of exercising that right; and whilst the former was admitted to be incompatible with the constitution, it was insisted, that the latter is not so, and under that distinction, and by assigning the act in question a place in the latter description of laws, its consistency with the constitution was attempted to be maintained.
.
3. That the provisions of the act in question do not import an entire destruction of the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, will not be controverted by the court; for though the citizens are forbid wearing weapons concealed in the manner described in the act, they may, nevertheless, bear arms in any other admissible form. But to be in conflict with the constitution, it is not essential that the act should contain a prohibition against bearing arms in every possible form--it is the right to bear arms in defence of the citizens and the state, that is secured by the constitution, and whatever restrains the full and complete exercise of that right, though not an entire destruction of it, is forbidden by the explicit language of the constitution.
.
If, therefore, the act in question imposes any restraint on the right, immaterial what appellation may be given to the act, whether it be an act regulating the manner of bearing arms or any other, the consequence, in reference to the constitution, is precisely the same, and its collision with that instrument equally obvious.
.
And can there be entertained a reasonable doubt but the provisions of the act import a restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms? The court apprehends not. The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; and such is the diminution and restraint, which the act in question most indisputably imports, by prohibiting the citizens wearing weapons in a manner which was lawful to wear them when the constitution was adopted. In truth, the right of the citizens to bear arms, has been as directly assailed by the provisions of the act, as though they were forbid carrying guns on their shoulders, swords in scabbards, or when in conflict with an enemy, were not allowed the use of bayonets; and if the act be consistent with the constitution, it cannot be incompatible with that instrument for the legislature, by successive enactments, to entirely cut off the exercise of the right of the citizens to bear arms. For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise.
.
We may possibly be told, that though a law of either description, may be enacted consistently with the constitution, it would be incompatible with that instrument to enact laws of both descriptions. But if either, when alone, be consistent with the constitution, which, it may be asked, would be incompatible with that instrument, if both were enacted?
The law first enacted would not be; for, as the argument supposes either may be enacted consistent with the constitution, that which is first enacted must, at the time of enactment, be consistent with the constitution; and if then consistent, it cannot become otherwise, by any subsequent act of the legislature. It must, therefore, be the latter act, which the argument infers would be incompatible with the constitution.
.
But suppose the order of enactment were reversed, and instead of being the first, that which was first, had been the last; the argument, to be consistent, should, nevertheless, insist on the last enactment being in conflict with the constitution. So, that the absurd consequence would thence follow, of making the same act of the legislature, either consistent with the constitution, or not so, according as it may precede or follow some other enactment of a different import. Besides, by insisting on the previous act producing any effect on the latter, the argument implies that the previous one operates as a partial restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms, and proceeds on the notion, that by prohibiting the exercise of the residue of right, not affected by the first act, the latter act comes in collision with the constitution. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution.
.
4. Hence, we infer, that the act upon which the indictment against Bliss is founded, is in conflict with the constitution; and if so, the result is obvious--the result is what the constitution has declared it shall be, that the act is void.
.
And if to be incompatible with the constitution makes void the act, we must have been correct, throughout the examination of this case, in treating the question of compatibility, as one proper to be decided by the court. For it is emphatically the duty of the court to decide what the law is; and how is the law to be decided, unless it be known? and how can it be known without ascertaining, from a comparison with the constitution, whether there exist such an incompatibility between the acts of the legislature and the constitution, as to make void the acts?
.
A blind enforcement of every act of the legislature, might relieve the court from the trouble and responsibility of deciding on the consistency of the legislative acts with the constitution; but the court would not be thereby released from its obligations to obey the mandates of the constitution, and maintain the paramount authority of that instrument; and those obligations must cease to be acknowledged, or the court become insensible to the impressions of moral sentiment, before the provisions of any act of the legislature, which in the opinion of the court, conflict with the constitution, can be enforced.
.
Whether or not an act of the legislature conflicts with the constitution, is, at all times, a question of great delicacy, and deserves the most mature and deliberate consideration of the court. But though a question of delicacy, yet as it is a judicial one, the court would be unworthy its station, were it to shrink from deciding it, whenever in the course of judicial examination, a decision becomes material to the right in contest. The court should never, on slight implication or vague conjecture, pronounce the legislature to have transcended its authority in the enactment of law; but when a clear and strong conviction is entertained, that an act of the legislature is incompatible with the constitution, there is no alternative for the court to pursue, but to declare that conviction, and pronounce the act inoperative and void. And such is the conviction entertained by a majority of the court, (Judge Mills dissenting,) in relation to the act in question.
.
This was an indictment founded on the act of the legislature of this state, "to prevent persons in this commonwealth from wearing concealed arms."
.
The act provides, that any person in this commonwealth, who shall hereafter wear a pocket pistol, dirk, large knife, or sword in a cane, concealed as a weapon, unless when travelling on a journey, shall be fined in any sum not less than one hundred dollars; which may be recovered in any court having jurisdiction of like sums, by action of debt, or on presentment of a grand jury.
.
The indictment, in the words of the act, charges Bliss with having worn concealed as a weapon, a sword in a cane.
.
Bliss was found guilty of the charge, and a fine of one hundred dollars assessed by the jury, and judgment was thereon rendered by the court. To reverse that judgment, Bliss appealed to this court.
.
2. In argument the judgment was assailed by the counsel of Bliss, exclusively on the ground of the act, on which the indictment is founded, being in conflict with the twenty third section of the tenth article of the constitution of this state.
.
That section provides, "that the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned."
.
The provision contained in this section, perhaps, is as well calculated to secure to the citizens the right to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, as any that could have been adopted by the makers of the constitution. If the right be assailed, immaterial through what medium, whether by an act of the legislature or in any other form, it is equally opposed to the comprehensive import of the section. The legislature is no where expressly mentioned in the section; but the language employed is general, without containing any expression restricting its import to any particular department of government; and in the twenty eighth section of the same article of the constitution, it is expressly declared, "that every thing in that article is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate; and that all laws contrary thereto, or contrary to the constitution, shall be void."
.
It was not, however, contended by the attorney for the commonwealth, that it would be competent for the legislature, by the enactment of any law, to prevent the citizens from bearing arms either in defence of themselves or the state; but a distinction was taken between a law prohibiting the exercise of the right, and a law merely regulating the manner of exercising that right; and whilst the former was admitted to be incompatible with the constitution, it was insisted, that the latter is not so, and under that distinction, and by assigning the act in question a place in the latter description of laws, its consistency with the constitution was attempted to be maintained.
.
3. That the provisions of the act in question do not import an entire destruction of the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, will not be controverted by the court; for though the citizens are forbid wearing weapons concealed in the manner described in the act, they may, nevertheless, bear arms in any other admissible form. But to be in conflict with the constitution, it is not essential that the act should contain a prohibition against bearing arms in every possible form--it is the right to bear arms in defence of the citizens and the state, that is secured by the constitution, and whatever restrains the full and complete exercise of that right, though not an entire destruction of it, is forbidden by the explicit language of the constitution.
.
If, therefore, the act in question imposes any restraint on the right, immaterial what appellation may be given to the act, whether it be an act regulating the manner of bearing arms or any other, the consequence, in reference to the constitution, is precisely the same, and its collision with that instrument equally obvious.
.
And can there be entertained a reasonable doubt but the provisions of the act import a restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms? The court apprehends not. The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; and such is the diminution and restraint, which the act in question most indisputably imports, by prohibiting the citizens wearing weapons in a manner which was lawful to wear them when the constitution was adopted. In truth, the right of the citizens to bear arms, has been as directly assailed by the provisions of the act, as though they were forbid carrying guns on their shoulders, swords in scabbards, or when in conflict with an enemy, were not allowed the use of bayonets; and if the act be consistent with the constitution, it cannot be incompatible with that instrument for the legislature, by successive enactments, to entirely cut off the exercise of the right of the citizens to bear arms. For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise.
.
We may possibly be told, that though a law of either description, may be enacted consistently with the constitution, it would be incompatible with that instrument to enact laws of both descriptions. But if either, when alone, be consistent with the constitution, which, it may be asked, would be incompatible with that instrument, if both were enacted?
The law first enacted would not be; for, as the argument supposes either may be enacted consistent with the constitution, that which is first enacted must, at the time of enactment, be consistent with the constitution; and if then consistent, it cannot become otherwise, by any subsequent act of the legislature. It must, therefore, be the latter act, which the argument infers would be incompatible with the constitution.
.
But suppose the order of enactment were reversed, and instead of being the first, that which was first, had been the last; the argument, to be consistent, should, nevertheless, insist on the last enactment being in conflict with the constitution. So, that the absurd consequence would thence follow, of making the same act of the legislature, either consistent with the constitution, or not so, according as it may precede or follow some other enactment of a different import. Besides, by insisting on the previous act producing any effect on the latter, the argument implies that the previous one operates as a partial restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms, and proceeds on the notion, that by prohibiting the exercise of the residue of right, not affected by the first act, the latter act comes in collision with the constitution. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution.
.
4. Hence, we infer, that the act upon which the indictment against Bliss is founded, is in conflict with the constitution; and if so, the result is obvious--the result is what the constitution has declared it shall be, that the act is void.
.
And if to be incompatible with the constitution makes void the act, we must have been correct, throughout the examination of this case, in treating the question of compatibility, as one proper to be decided by the court. For it is emphatically the duty of the court to decide what the law is; and how is the law to be decided, unless it be known? and how can it be known without ascertaining, from a comparison with the constitution, whether there exist such an incompatibility between the acts of the legislature and the constitution, as to make void the acts?
.
A blind enforcement of every act of the legislature, might relieve the court from the trouble and responsibility of deciding on the consistency of the legislative acts with the constitution; but the court would not be thereby released from its obligations to obey the mandates of the constitution, and maintain the paramount authority of that instrument; and those obligations must cease to be acknowledged, or the court become insensible to the impressions of moral sentiment, before the provisions of any act of the legislature, which in the opinion of the court, conflict with the constitution, can be enforced.
.
Whether or not an act of the legislature conflicts with the constitution, is, at all times, a question of great delicacy, and deserves the most mature and deliberate consideration of the court. But though a question of delicacy, yet as it is a judicial one, the court would be unworthy its station, were it to shrink from deciding it, whenever in the course of judicial examination, a decision becomes material to the right in contest. The court should never, on slight implication or vague conjecture, pronounce the legislature to have transcended its authority in the enactment of law; but when a clear and strong conviction is entertained, that an act of the legislature is incompatible with the constitution, there is no alternative for the court to pursue, but to declare that conviction, and pronounce the act inoperative and void. And such is the conviction entertained by a majority of the court, (Judge Mills dissenting,) in relation to the act in question.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Personal Rights VS. Property Rights
And Mr. Richard Henry Lee has the ANSWER;
.
"THOSE ESSENTIAL RIGHTS OF MANKIND WITHOUT WHICH LIBERTY CANNOT EXIST."
.
"the RIGHT of THE PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
.
IN FACT, HIS STATEMENT IS WORTHY OF REPETITION;
.
"THOSE ESSENTIAL RIGHTS OF MANKIND WITHOUT WHICH LIBERTY CANNOT EXIST."
.
"THOSE ESSENTIAL RIGHTS OF MANKIND WITHOUT WHICH LIBERTY CANNOT EXIST."
.
"THOSE ESSENTIAL RIGHTS OF MANKIND WITHOUT WHICH LIBERTY CANNOT EXIST."
.
"THOSE ESSENTIAL RIGHTS OF MANKIND WITHOUT WHICH LIBERTY CANNOT EXIST."
.
"THOSE ESSENTIAL RIGHTS OF MANKIND WITHOUT WHICH LIBERTY CANNOT EXIST."
.
"THOSE ESSENTIAL RIGHTS OF MANKIND WITHOUT WHICH LIBERTY CANNOT EXIST."
.
"THOSE ESSENTIAL RIGHTS OF MANKIND WITHOUT WHICH LIBERTY CANNOT EXIST."
.
"THOSE ESSENTIAL RIGHTS OF MANKIND WITHOUT WHICH LIBERTY CANNOT EXIST."
.
"THOSE ESSENTIAL RIGHTS OF MANKIND WITHOUT WHICH LIBERTY CANNOT EXIST."
.
Once AGAIN, "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
Sunday, March 19, 2006
In God We Trust?...
.
It would behove ALL Citizens,
especially Patriots to view these...
.
Click the linked title or In GOD We Trust
For "The American Flame" Click 'July 4 Version'
Please, wait for it to Load...
Then “Click to play”
Friday, March 17, 2006
ORIGINAL INTENT;
This is how many of those in government and big business view We The People;
AND;
The Original Intentions, of the Founders, for our government was;
In order to help protect We The People from;
Now, since it's so readily apparent that government is NOT fulfilling its Obligated duty. We need;.
TO ASSURE THE RETENTION OF OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, AND GET DIFFERENT;
AND;
In order to keep us from winding up here;
Are you starting to get the picture?Thursday, March 16, 2006
That sweet Lady of Liberty....
Was reading an article by Lady Liberty titled DOING NOTHING ABOUT EVERYTHING found on Free Market News Network. Lady Liberty does some excellent writing and gets her point across. And you for sure, don't want to be under the focus of her dissecting microscope. She is very efficient with that sharp scalpel of hers.
.
That Lady Liberty has risen up in defense of our fellow compatriot, Angel Shamaya is commendable. Angel DESERVES the recognition justly due him. For, he has labored long and hard at restoring and securing our Second Amendment Right. Hope that all will continue in offering Angel the support needed.
.
Anyways, while reading the aforementioned article, I came across her following statement;
.
"But even bad laws that are changed don't always work out for those caught up in one law enforcement dragnet or another. For example, California has legalized the use of marijuana for medical reasons. Some cultivation is permitted for personal use under that law. Yet federal authorities have destroyed the plants of those who are growing their own medicine, and have arrested some of those who dare to legally treat their ailments with the drug."
.
And a thought hit me right between the eyes, (thank you Lady Liberty....for your writing has proven thought provoking as well).
.
Now, I ask you. Tell me what you see in the above writing that jumps out at you? Is it the part about bad laws? The law enforcement dragnet? Legal medical marijuana? The use of the marijuana by those whom are ailing? There are a number of valid different points that bear reasoning upon. But the previously referenced 'points' are not what grabbed my attention. No.
.
What hit me, with such striking force, is the selective enforcement exercised by that of the federal authorities. The federal government, obviously thinks it has the authority necessary to control the use of marijuana. And believing itself to have that authority, (Which, according to the Federalist Papers, they do indeed have authority to override local and state laws that are repugnant to the U.S. Constitution). The Federal, duly exercised that delegated authority, (the use of medical marijuana, being morally right or wrong, is not the issue here in this article). But, rather, the point being that the Federal saw fit to override, what it perceives to be a Constitutionally repugnant local/state law to the Union.
.
Think on it a little bit, and I bet you can see where I'm going with this.
.
Now, We The People have a Right. That Right is enumerated in the Bill of Rights. It is the Second Right outlined in that Bill. Namely, in part, The Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall NOT be Infringed. Correct?
(Yes, there are some who would argue this FACT. To these people, all I have to say, is contact me. And, I'll be more than willing to back it up with so much FACT. That you'll wish you had NOT contacted me).
.
Getting back to the subject at hand. I, for one, have not found ANYTHING in the Constitution that directly touches upon the issue of drugs. And mood or mind altering drugs have been around since the beginning of mankind, so our Founders were obviously aware of them. So, it would seem that the federal has no Constitutionally legal authority at all concerning the issue.
.
On the contrary, what I have found, is an insurmountable amount of evidence, that concisely and irrefutably shows The Right of The People To Keep and Bear Arms. And, that the proper use of federal authority, would be to enforce that Right.
.
Bearing the aforementioned in mind. The thought that had such an impact on me was this. The federal saw fit to exercise its Constitutionally delegated authority, however right or wrong, to NEGATE a local/state law. A law that it perceived as being repugnant, even though there is no foundation for that supposition. Logic would then reason to follow, that since the federal is aware, that it has the authority to step in and override a repugnant state law. Why are they NOT DOING THE SAME, IN ENFORCING A CLEARLY DEFINED RIGHT?
.
Can someone offer me logical reasoning for this? Can it possibly be a GROSS OVERSIGHT on the part of the federal? That can hardly seem to be the case. No, what it provides is clear cut PROOF that the federal government is complicit, at all levels, in the Infringements upon the American citizens Right to Keep and Bear Arms. And, that the federal, SELECTIVELY ENFORCES the LAWS that THEY deem worthy of being enforced! Rather than following the Principles of the U.S. Constitution!
.
Is there any other sound explanation that can be offered?
.
That Lady Liberty has risen up in defense of our fellow compatriot, Angel Shamaya is commendable. Angel DESERVES the recognition justly due him. For, he has labored long and hard at restoring and securing our Second Amendment Right. Hope that all will continue in offering Angel the support needed.
.
Anyways, while reading the aforementioned article, I came across her following statement;
.
"But even bad laws that are changed don't always work out for those caught up in one law enforcement dragnet or another. For example, California has legalized the use of marijuana for medical reasons. Some cultivation is permitted for personal use under that law. Yet federal authorities have destroyed the plants of those who are growing their own medicine, and have arrested some of those who dare to legally treat their ailments with the drug."
.
And a thought hit me right between the eyes, (thank you Lady Liberty....for your writing has proven thought provoking as well).
.
Now, I ask you. Tell me what you see in the above writing that jumps out at you? Is it the part about bad laws? The law enforcement dragnet? Legal medical marijuana? The use of the marijuana by those whom are ailing? There are a number of valid different points that bear reasoning upon. But the previously referenced 'points' are not what grabbed my attention. No.
.
What hit me, with such striking force, is the selective enforcement exercised by that of the federal authorities. The federal government, obviously thinks it has the authority necessary to control the use of marijuana. And believing itself to have that authority, (Which, according to the Federalist Papers, they do indeed have authority to override local and state laws that are repugnant to the U.S. Constitution). The Federal, duly exercised that delegated authority, (the use of medical marijuana, being morally right or wrong, is not the issue here in this article). But, rather, the point being that the Federal saw fit to override, what it perceives to be a Constitutionally repugnant local/state law to the Union.
.
Think on it a little bit, and I bet you can see where I'm going with this.
.
Now, We The People have a Right. That Right is enumerated in the Bill of Rights. It is the Second Right outlined in that Bill. Namely, in part, The Right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall NOT be Infringed. Correct?
(Yes, there are some who would argue this FACT. To these people, all I have to say, is contact me. And, I'll be more than willing to back it up with so much FACT. That you'll wish you had NOT contacted me).
.
Getting back to the subject at hand. I, for one, have not found ANYTHING in the Constitution that directly touches upon the issue of drugs. And mood or mind altering drugs have been around since the beginning of mankind, so our Founders were obviously aware of them. So, it would seem that the federal has no Constitutionally legal authority at all concerning the issue.
.
On the contrary, what I have found, is an insurmountable amount of evidence, that concisely and irrefutably shows The Right of The People To Keep and Bear Arms. And, that the proper use of federal authority, would be to enforce that Right.
.
Bearing the aforementioned in mind. The thought that had such an impact on me was this. The federal saw fit to exercise its Constitutionally delegated authority, however right or wrong, to NEGATE a local/state law. A law that it perceived as being repugnant, even though there is no foundation for that supposition. Logic would then reason to follow, that since the federal is aware, that it has the authority to step in and override a repugnant state law. Why are they NOT DOING THE SAME, IN ENFORCING A CLEARLY DEFINED RIGHT?
.
Can someone offer me logical reasoning for this? Can it possibly be a GROSS OVERSIGHT on the part of the federal? That can hardly seem to be the case. No, what it provides is clear cut PROOF that the federal government is complicit, at all levels, in the Infringements upon the American citizens Right to Keep and Bear Arms. And, that the federal, SELECTIVELY ENFORCES the LAWS that THEY deem worthy of being enforced! Rather than following the Principles of the U.S. Constitution!
.
Is there any other sound explanation that can be offered?
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Here's one, from a man we do not hear much from...
"Take time to deliberate;
but when the time for action arrives,
stop thinking and go in."
.
- Andrew Jackson,
7th US President, 1767-1845
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Well, now this is INTERESTING....
Found this little 'jewel' while doing some research. It was submitted, anonymously, to eHow. The link to the article can be accessed by clicking the title. It is difficult to ascertain if it was subversively written by a 'Pro-Gunner', as a ruse. Or, by a very ignorant Anti. (My guess is that it is a very well-versed 'Pro', that does an excellent job)! Either way, it provides some insight to what is going on in the war on our Freedom and Liberty:
.
"34,000 per year by eHow Friend
One of the most important things is to learn how to manipulate statistics to prove what you want. For instance, it's not enough to say that 1.3 or 1.4 children (age 0-12, or pre-teens) die per day from gun-related accidents. Expand the statistical bins to include not-only accidents, but at-risk youths involved in gang- or drug-behavior, and even young adults engaged in criminal activities. By extending the age limit for children to only 17 and including gang-related deaths, you can increase the statistic to 4.86 a day, as long as you ignore that fact that the at-risk children in this age range are usually breaking free from the family units, and generally starting to hang out with older, often troubled youths. By using larger statistical bins and by blurring the age ranges, especially the upper ends, you can easily statistically include children up to age 24. As long as you don't include that the vast majority of these gun-deaths are intentional gang- or drug-related activity, you can inflate the number up to 13 children per day, as many anti-civil rights groups have been able to do. Keep from mentioning that these are not accidental gun-deaths, and you can make the statistic sound truly impressive.
Another handy tool is to lump numbers without any analysis. At all costs, ignore or discourage analysis of the numbers. For instance; use diversion or even shouting if someone points out that over half (56%) of the 34,000 gun deaths per year includes suicides that would have taken place regardless of whether a firearm was involved or not. Stress that if guns weren't available, those gun deaths wouldn't have happened, rather than noting that those troubled individuals would have still have taken their own lives using drugs, asphyxiation, strangulation, intentional drowning, jumping from high places, etc.
Even if the person you are arguing with will not concede that firearm suicides are still gun deaths, even if they would have happened anyway, do not pursue the argument that if guns were really readily available, there would have been many more suicides -- this patently false, and even news media reporters will not follow it.
When exposed to someone who is armed with facts, it is best to disengage rather than discuss. Once someone starts using facts, you will only lose. One anti-gun activist mistakenly followed the argument of 34,000 gun deaths per year in a public place and wound up debating someone who resorted to facts in a cowardly fashion. Before the activist was aware, the audience had heard that the 19,000 would have committed suicide regardless of the method, and that number was lost as a valuable statistic. Unfortunately, the activist did not use diversion, emotion, shouting down his opponent, or any other method of regaining command of the situation, and instead continued to debate. After learning that the 34,000 should really have been 15,000, the crowd was then exposed to another uncomfortable fact that actually over 2/3's of the remaining number (15,000) were actually judged to be justifiable homicide, self-defense, or police defensive killings. The activist was then put in the uncomfortable position of trying to defend the appropriateness of allowing innocent citizens or police being murdered instead of defending themselves. As you can imagine, the crowd immediately realized the stupidity of this position, and the activist lost the second round. Unfortunately again, the activist decided to pursue the remaining 5,000 gun deaths and was again castrated by the facts when the person he was debating pointed out that the great majority of that number was actually criminal-on-criminal gun violence, and only a small percentage was actually gun violence against innocent people.
But, engaging in a discussion in which the opposition resorted to facts, our side lost and lost heavily. Any time an opponent starts to bring up actual facts, or resorts to phrases like "according to the FBI's UCR..." (unified crime report), or "if you look as the actual numbers...", your best bet is to divert the discussion into a one-sided shouting match, call the other person a baby-killer or a Nazi, or start making gratuitous assertions like "No one needs a machine gun to hunt deer!" Providing that you weren't talking about hunting in the first place, the opponent will then be forced into denying your attacks and you can then mount other straw-man attacks like "blood will run in the streets" or "allow 7-year-olds to bring guns to school!" With any luck, you can get the crowd caught up in mindless emotion and keep them from returning to logic and facts for the remainder of the discussion (or at least until you can sneak out).
In the event that you haven't lined up a media pawn from the beginning, immediately after the press shows up, start shouting that the opponent is in favor of children getting shot in their cribs and jump from one emotional appeal attack to another. It won't matter that you're making it up totally, the press is used to it and they will mainly be interested in the crowd response. Believe me, they are on your side and they will appreciate your attacks, often quoting you fully in their stories and taking only the smallest quote fragments from your opponent, out of context, for their stories."
.
"34,000 per year by eHow Friend
One of the most important things is to learn how to manipulate statistics to prove what you want. For instance, it's not enough to say that 1.3 or 1.4 children (age 0-12, or pre-teens) die per day from gun-related accidents. Expand the statistical bins to include not-only accidents, but at-risk youths involved in gang- or drug-behavior, and even young adults engaged in criminal activities. By extending the age limit for children to only 17 and including gang-related deaths, you can increase the statistic to 4.86 a day, as long as you ignore that fact that the at-risk children in this age range are usually breaking free from the family units, and generally starting to hang out with older, often troubled youths. By using larger statistical bins and by blurring the age ranges, especially the upper ends, you can easily statistically include children up to age 24. As long as you don't include that the vast majority of these gun-deaths are intentional gang- or drug-related activity, you can inflate the number up to 13 children per day, as many anti-civil rights groups have been able to do. Keep from mentioning that these are not accidental gun-deaths, and you can make the statistic sound truly impressive.
Another handy tool is to lump numbers without any analysis. At all costs, ignore or discourage analysis of the numbers. For instance; use diversion or even shouting if someone points out that over half (56%) of the 34,000 gun deaths per year includes suicides that would have taken place regardless of whether a firearm was involved or not. Stress that if guns weren't available, those gun deaths wouldn't have happened, rather than noting that those troubled individuals would have still have taken their own lives using drugs, asphyxiation, strangulation, intentional drowning, jumping from high places, etc.
Even if the person you are arguing with will not concede that firearm suicides are still gun deaths, even if they would have happened anyway, do not pursue the argument that if guns were really readily available, there would have been many more suicides -- this patently false, and even news media reporters will not follow it.
When exposed to someone who is armed with facts, it is best to disengage rather than discuss. Once someone starts using facts, you will only lose. One anti-gun activist mistakenly followed the argument of 34,000 gun deaths per year in a public place and wound up debating someone who resorted to facts in a cowardly fashion. Before the activist was aware, the audience had heard that the 19,000 would have committed suicide regardless of the method, and that number was lost as a valuable statistic. Unfortunately, the activist did not use diversion, emotion, shouting down his opponent, or any other method of regaining command of the situation, and instead continued to debate. After learning that the 34,000 should really have been 15,000, the crowd was then exposed to another uncomfortable fact that actually over 2/3's of the remaining number (15,000) were actually judged to be justifiable homicide, self-defense, or police defensive killings. The activist was then put in the uncomfortable position of trying to defend the appropriateness of allowing innocent citizens or police being murdered instead of defending themselves. As you can imagine, the crowd immediately realized the stupidity of this position, and the activist lost the second round. Unfortunately again, the activist decided to pursue the remaining 5,000 gun deaths and was again castrated by the facts when the person he was debating pointed out that the great majority of that number was actually criminal-on-criminal gun violence, and only a small percentage was actually gun violence against innocent people.
But, engaging in a discussion in which the opposition resorted to facts, our side lost and lost heavily. Any time an opponent starts to bring up actual facts, or resorts to phrases like "according to the FBI's UCR..." (unified crime report), or "if you look as the actual numbers...", your best bet is to divert the discussion into a one-sided shouting match, call the other person a baby-killer or a Nazi, or start making gratuitous assertions like "No one needs a machine gun to hunt deer!" Providing that you weren't talking about hunting in the first place, the opponent will then be forced into denying your attacks and you can then mount other straw-man attacks like "blood will run in the streets" or "allow 7-year-olds to bring guns to school!" With any luck, you can get the crowd caught up in mindless emotion and keep them from returning to logic and facts for the remainder of the discussion (or at least until you can sneak out).
In the event that you haven't lined up a media pawn from the beginning, immediately after the press shows up, start shouting that the opponent is in favor of children getting shot in their cribs and jump from one emotional appeal attack to another. It won't matter that you're making it up totally, the press is used to it and they will mainly be interested in the crowd response. Believe me, they are on your side and they will appreciate your attacks, often quoting you fully in their stories and taking only the smallest quote fragments from your opponent, out of context, for their stories."
Monday, March 13, 2006
Yes, Virginia, there ARE still respectable Big Businesses....
Received this from a good friend of mine. Am convinced SEARS needs to be REINSTATED as the BIG KID on the block. They are, after all, upholding TRUE American values.
.
Witness:
.
Subject: Sears
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 11:04:54 EST
Amazing, a company actually and publicly supporting our troops(!)
.
I assume you have all seen the reports about how Sears is treating its reservist employees who are called up? By law, they are required to hold their jobs open and available, but nothing more. Usually, people take a big pay cut and lose benefits as a result of being called up...Sears is voluntarily paying the difference in salaries and maintaining all benefits, including medical insurance and bonus programs, for all called up reservist employees for up to two years. I submit that Sears is an exemplary corporate citizen and should be recognized for its contribution.
Suggest we all shop at Sears, and be sure to find a manager to tell them why we are there so the company gets the positive reinforcement it well deserves.
Pass it on.
So I decided to check it out before I sent it forward. I sent the following email to the Sears Customer Service Department: I received this email and I would like to know if it is true. If it is, the Internet may have just become one very good source of advertisement for your store. I know I would go out of my way to buy products from Sears instead of another store for a like item even if it was cheaper at the other store.
Here is their answer to my email......................
Dear Customer:
Thank you for contacting Sears.
The information is factual. We appreciate your positive feedback. Sears regards service to our country as one of greatest sacrifices our young men and women can make. We are happy to do our part to lessen the burden they bear at this time.
Bill Thorn
Sears Customer Care
webcenter@sears.com
1-800-349-4358
.
Please pass this on to all your friends, Sears needs to be recognized for this outstanding contribution and we need to show them as Americans, we do appreciate what they are doing for our military!!!!!!!!!!!
.
Verified By Snope.com
.
UPDATE:
.
COLD FURY has a rather lengthy list of businesses that are employing simular principles as Sears.
.
Witness:
.
Subject: Sears
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 11:04:54 EST
Amazing, a company actually and publicly supporting our troops(!)
.
I assume you have all seen the reports about how Sears is treating its reservist employees who are called up? By law, they are required to hold their jobs open and available, but nothing more. Usually, people take a big pay cut and lose benefits as a result of being called up...Sears is voluntarily paying the difference in salaries and maintaining all benefits, including medical insurance and bonus programs, for all called up reservist employees for up to two years. I submit that Sears is an exemplary corporate citizen and should be recognized for its contribution.
Suggest we all shop at Sears, and be sure to find a manager to tell them why we are there so the company gets the positive reinforcement it well deserves.
Pass it on.
So I decided to check it out before I sent it forward. I sent the following email to the Sears Customer Service Department: I received this email and I would like to know if it is true. If it is, the Internet may have just become one very good source of advertisement for your store. I know I would go out of my way to buy products from Sears instead of another store for a like item even if it was cheaper at the other store.
Here is their answer to my email......................
Dear Customer:
Thank you for contacting Sears.
The information is factual. We appreciate your positive feedback. Sears regards service to our country as one of greatest sacrifices our young men and women can make. We are happy to do our part to lessen the burden they bear at this time.
Bill Thorn
Sears Customer Care
webcenter@sears.com
1-800-349-4358
.
Please pass this on to all your friends, Sears needs to be recognized for this outstanding contribution and we need to show them as Americans, we do appreciate what they are doing for our military!!!!!!!!!!!
.
Verified By Snope.com
.
UPDATE:
.
COLD FURY has a rather lengthy list of businesses that are employing simular principles as Sears.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)