« More on injunction against park CCW | Main | out of action »
Time for some laughs
While doing some online research I came across some webpages that were most amusing, in the wake of the Heller decision.
"The best indication of what any law, including a Constitutional provision, means, is what the courts say it means. Our federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have spoken plainly and unanimously on the meaning of the Second Amendment. .... The perniciousness of the pro-gun forces, particularly the NRA, is not that they disagree with the courts, but that they lie to their members and to the public about what the law says. The success of the NRA and similar organizations in their disinformation campaign is evident in the fact that so many otherwise reasonable citizens believe that the Second Amendment, despite its reference to the militia, guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. No-one knows that the highest federal courts in the land have consistently held that the Second Amendment is only a right held by the states against the federal government."
"How the NRA Rewrote the Constitution", Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting:
"The Hickman case is the most recent in an unbroken chain of federal decisions, spanning 60 years, ruling that the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to possess firearms. .... Winless pitchers and hitless hitters seldom make the big leagues. Why should serious journalists continue to print as presumptive truth the NRA's view of the Second Amendment, when its record in the courts is no wins and all losses?"
Violence Policy Center (time to update your webpage, guys):
"In short, the federal courts have consistently given the Second Amendment a collective, militia interpretation. Moreover, no gun control measure has ever been struck down as unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds. "
16 Comments | Leave a comment
Heh. I'm sure they're all just falling all over themselves hastening to update those pages. They'll get right on that.
Man, I guess I keep having trouble translating into English that expression, "the people."
But I reserve my right to be frightened people write stuff like that in public.
RECRUITING FOR THE OPEN CARRY MOVEMENT! (WWW.OPENCARRY.ORG)
ANSWER ME THIS!
FEDERAL QUESTIONS
28 U.S.C. § 1331
FEDERAL LAW: 46 U.S.C. § 2103, “The Secretary of Homeland Security has general superintendence over the merchant marine of the United States and of merchant marine personnel insofar as the enforcement of this subtitle is concerned and insofar as those vessels and personnel are not subject, under other law, to the supervision of another official of the United States Government. In the interests of marine safety and seamen’s welfare, the Secretary shall enforce this subtitle and shall carry out correctly and uniformly administer this subtitle. The Secretary may prescribe regulations to carry out the provisions of this subtitle.”
FEDERAL QUESTIONS:
(1) What role does merchant marine personnel (a.k.a., Able Seamen under 46 U.S.C. § 7306(a)(3) have in homeland security under the general superintendence of the Secretary of Homeland Security when Able Seamen are required to have Small Arms training in the 9mm Baretta, 12ga Shotgun, and the M14 Rifle in accordance with OPNAVINST 3591.1E, “WATCH STANDER SMALL ARMS RE-CERTIFICATION COURSE, dated February 20, 2007, and Military Sealift Command's SMALL ARMS TRAINING & QUALIFICATION GUIDE, MSC APMC Fire School & Training Center East; Freehold, as a prerequisite for employment aboard U.S. Government vessels as it impacts the Second Amendment rights of seamen?
(2) Do merchant marine personnel who receive federal firearms training have the federal right to Open Carry in intrastate, interstate, nautical, and maritime travel?
(3) Is there a compulsory obligation upon the U.S. Coast Guard to protect the Second Amendment rights of seamen by adding a Second Amendment endorsement on the MERCHANT MARINER’S DOCUMENT (i.e., NATIONAL OPEN CARRY HANDGUN) in accordance with the MERCHANT MARINERS DOCUMENTS PILOT PROGRAM, Section 611 of the COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 2004, Public Law No. 108-293 (“The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating may conduct a pilot program to demonstrate methods to improve processes and procedures for issuing merchant mariners' documents.”) (Section 217 of that law adds new Subsection (y) to 14 U.S.C. § 93 for “GENERAL POWERS OF THE COMMANDANT” which states: “after informing the Secretary, make such recommendations to the Congress relating to the Coast Guard as the Commandant considers appropriate.”); PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT, 44 U.S.C. § 3501-3521; NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING PROCEDURE, 5 U.S.C. § 561 through § 570a; NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING, 33 C.F.R. § 1.05-60; FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT, 5 U.S.C. Appendix. § 8. Responsibilities of Agency Heads?
(4) Is the right travel with the Second Amendment right to openly keep and bear arms incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment so as to apply to the States as well as the United States?
(5) Did the U.S. Coast Guard wrongfully retaliate against my First Amendment right for my advocacy for Second Amendment rights of seamen?
(6) Did the federal courts wrongfully deny my Seventh Amendment right to a civil jury trial over my Second Amendment rights as a seaman?
"...the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to possess firearms..."
In as much as the Bill of Rights doesn't confer ANY rights, but rather acknowledges pre-existing inalienable rights, while restricting gov't intrusion on same, this is technically correct... Too bad Mr. Howard Friel doesn't have a clue as to the fundamental nature of the Bill of Rights. If he did, he might not go around looking the fool by drawing conclusions and writing papers that are diametrically opposed to the obvious truth as regards the individual right to arms.
Question: Can anyone prove that the term, State, as used in the Second Amendment, is not "state of being"? It would seem that a free state of being would be even better than simply a free state (body-politic) and to that I would agree that to maintain a free state of being the body of the people should be well trained in the function and use of Arms. Note this is NOT firearms but all Arms.
Dominus providebit!
The best indication of what any law, including a Constitutional provision, means, is what the courts say it means. Our federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have spoken plainly and unanimously on the meaning of the Second Amendment. ....
Of course, they are incorrect as the Courts being subordinate to the Constitution cannot legitimately determine the meanings of any of the parts.
It goes like this:
Who's in charge? The Creator or the created? The answer is always that the Creator is in charge. Then between the Constitution and We the People, who is the Creator? We the People!! So We the People are superior to the Constitution. Next between the Constitution and the branches of government, who is the Creator? And the answer is The Constitution. In fundamental law theory, the recognition is given that the subordinate cannot define the superior. Thus neither the courts nor congress nor the president may define any piece or part of the Constitution. The sole authority over the meaning of the Constitution lies with the superior, We the People. Blackstone stated it thus:
For, whenever a question arises between the society at large and any magistrate vested with powers originally delegated by that society, it must be decided by the voice of the society itself: there is not upon earth any other tribunal to resort to.
Sir William Blackstone, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book I, Chp3, pg.205/6
Why do the People not know this? Because the government run schools have inculcated lies (brain-washed) the people. One must break free of the chains of one's education, study the same sources the Founders studied and then study the founding documents. Once one does so with the idea of Creator/created (Superior/subordinate) in mind, one will be able to fully grasp who is is charge. Our public servants have also changed the perception by calling themselves our leaders. They are NOT leaders. We hire those SOBs to do OUR bidding. But governmental entities, through lies, half truths, and outright usurpation, have left the populace ignorant.
Tiochfaidh ar la!
Question: Can anyone prove that the term, State, as used in the Second Amendment, is not "state of being"?I'm not sure what it proves but it's interesting to note that Madison's original version used the word "country" and Congress changed it to "state"
"The Hickman case is the most recent in an unbroken chain of federal decisions, spanning 60 years, ruling that the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to possess firearms.
By this logic if I were to walk up to you and punch you in the face everyday and you did nothing, after a while it'd be ok!
I always find it both amusing and frustrating that web sites like those never allow comments.
I guess they can't tolerate the rebuttals that they know are sure to come.
What's conspicuously missing is any claim that Heller represents even the tiniest change in militia law. Reams of academic verbiage and dicta from gun cases claimed that the 2nd Am is a feature of militia law only. So where is the slightest comment by any of the collective theorists about the effect of Heller on militia caselaw? If they believed their own theory, Heller represents as radical a change of militia law as it did individual rights law.
"The Dred Scott case is the most recent in an unbroken chain of federal decisions, spanning 60 years, ruling that the Constitution does not confer an individual right to slaves to be treated as citizens of the United States."
If you think that's funny, Since his election, Ubama has turned into Jimmy Carter faster than it took for Jimmy Carter to turn into Jimmy Carter!
Those who take no interest in Politics end up being ruled by their inferiors.
Critic: Congress DID NOT change it to state. The folks putting the Constitution together WERE NOT the Congress. Duh!
Much of what Mr. Madison desired was repudiated by the others in the Convention. It appears that using Madison's writings for information in understanding things is erroneous. One might do better to order the 23 vol set that I have, the Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution from UW- MAdison or a set of Eliot's Debates. Another small book would be Meigs (1900) where he covers many of the things that failed such as having a select militia (i.e. national guard)which was voted down three times.
It may have been the Committee on Style or Mr. Ellsworth that changed the word country to state since Mr. Ellsworth got all references to Nation and National removed because the US is NOT a nation and the government is NOT national. The US is a Union of 50 free and independent nations. The only reason people believe otherwise is because people have been brainwashed by reciting the Pledge.
Critic: My profound apologies concerning Madison's country v state and Congress. My brain was on a different topic, that of the spending clause rather than the 2nd.
Again, my apologies.
Dominus providebit!
The biggest laugh for me was this quote from "How the NRA Rewrote the Constitution":
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, ruling that the Second Amendment offers no constitutional protection for individual ownership or purchase of a firearm, unless related "to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated [state] militia."
Whence cometh "[state]"? It sure the heck isn't part of Miller. Yup, in order to make his point, Howard Friel had the gall to actually edit the text of a SCOTUS decision to match his thesis!
This isn't bias, it's fraud.