Dear Mr. Codrea:This is what I sent back:
Thank you for your comments on the human space flight requirements. This rule, including its security requirements, underwent coordination and review within the executive branch. It was reviewed and approved by the Executive Office of the President.
Your comments will be placed in the docket.
Sincerely,
Laura Montgomery
Laura Montgomery
Senior Attorney
Office of the Chief Counsel
Federal Aviation Administration
(202) 267-3150
Dear Ms. Montgomery,When John Ashcroft penned his "individual rights" opinion, it made headlines around the world. Terms like "sea change" were thrown about, and we were told how significant the opinion was for gun rights. The Bradys went nuts. 18 state attorneys general followed suit and drafted their own letter of concurrence. And this was used to tremendous advantage to convince gun owners to throw their support behind the Bush administration.
Thank you for your reply. You did not say who in the executive branch signed off on the security requirements, but I must assume they would not authorize policy that conflicts with the chief executive's direction and approval. Just so I don't misconstrue the position you appear to have articulated, am I to understand that the president of the United States considers the Second Amendment to be a "collective right," and the "individual rights" opinion AG Ashcroft stated during his tenure is not the official position of the Bush administration? And who in the executive branch approved the requirements on behalf of the president?
Sincerely,
David Codrea
But now we have it from one of the top attorneys in that administration that the "collective rights" language "was reviewed and approved by the Executive Office of the President."
Ladies and gentlemen, most will not realize this, but this is news, and it is significant. But chances are, this insignificant blog is the only place where you will learn of it, which means most gun owners will not.
14 comments:
I will summarize this on my blog and link to your post as I hope everyone else does. This is truly unbelievable. Thank you for continuing to pursue the matter.
Ditto, all 3 readers will see it over on mine.
I'm just a bit worried now about what this might mean for people like H"W" Fincher should it get to the court as it is now. Also, given the stated support for an AWB renewal and the congress as it is I think bad times are comin'.
"We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable self-evident; that all men are created equal,& independent; that from that equal creation they derive in they are endowed by their creator with equal rights some of which are certain [inherent &] inalienable rights; that among which these are the preservation of life,& liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government shall becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, & to institute new government, laying it's foundation on such principles & organising it's powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety & happiness...."
- Thomas Jefferson, John & Samuel Adams and Benjamin Franklin,
Declaration of Independence, First Draft & Reported Draft, June 28, 1776.
"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."
- William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829).
There is (very limited) delegated authority to suspend Habeus Corpus. There is EXPRESS RESTRICTION against transgressing against NATURAL RIGHTS.
Such acts would be just cause for Revolutionary remedies....
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."
- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137 (1803).
"These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other. Truth, no less than decency, requires that the event in every case should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents." - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, PARA I, 4th - 8th Sent.
"But, if you exert the means of defence which God and nature have given you, the time will soon arrive when every man shall sit under his own vine and under his own fig-tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid."
- AN ADDRESS OF THE CONGRESS TO THE INHABITANTS OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
May 8th, 1778
Posted on my blog too and I put a link at the Other Side Forum and a comment over at Airborne Combat Engineer.
Hopefully word should spread around the blogosphere pretty quick.
Anyone a member of The High Road or any other gun boards?
Well, that's pretty much it for either party for me. Neither one has a clue as to what the Constitution reall is anymore, so neither one gets my vote.
I remember hearing that Bush said, "It's just a G D piece of paper!", but I could never get anyconfirmation. This certainly argues in favor of his having actually said it.
Thanks folks.
Jay.Mac: Yeah, it's on THR and also on KABA. I sent it to WorldNetDaily, but no luck, which disappoints because I think that would be the perfect place to bust this open. It sure wouldn't hurt if a few of you decided to contact them independently on covering this.
Please continue spreading the word on this--it's a significant story with far-reaching implications for gun owners whether the "authorized journalists" recognize it or not. If you don't have a blog, just email the link to gun owners you know, and also contact other gun blogs you frequent and ask them to help swarm this, and as Jay.Mac said, post this to forums. One problem I have is the time I have for my activism is spent researching and writing--I just don't have time to promote this properly if I'm to get the other work done (I have important updates on the Fincher case I'm working on for today's release), so to those of you who visit WarOnGuns regularly--please help me spread the word whenEVER you think what is posted here merits it.
I doubt I'll hear back from Laura Montgomery until the new year (if at all) and will update as warranted.
My two readers will know about it over at The Subversive.
It's over on www.dirtydozensbunker.com, too.
Think this might have anything to do with the Fincher case?
Perhaps once the media picks up on it, if they do, the "fine" folks at the top want to come off as "not so extreme" to the soccer moms and sheeple?
Looks like a "play with words" on
the part of the controllers to me.
Obfuscate and conquer.
Keep your eye on that "V", and the
one at the end of the barrel also.
Non lawyers are so cute when they try to talk law.
But not as cute as anonymous posters who snipe from the shadows and perpetuate the fraud that free citizens are too obtuse to read plain English or understand what their rights are.
Yo, Braveheart--give us YOUR interpretation, you so smaht...
There is only one right mentioned in the constitution (as amended) that can be legitimately construed as a 'collective' right -- the 'right to vote'.
Every other use of the word 'right' indicates individual liberties that a government may not justly abridge.
An interesting right is that of trial by jury. There is no right to serve on a jury (which is the exercise of government power over individuals); it is the right of the parties to a controversy to have the case tried by their peers, rather than a class of lords.
Similarly, the 'right to vote' is not the right to be a voter, but the right to have the laws under which one may be tried either enacted directly by one's peers (where referenda are used) or to have the legislators empowered to make those laws chosen by that electorate of common men. It is only a 'collective right' because of the poor phrasing as if it were a right of the voter qua voter.
The Second Amendment was written by men aware of the feudal tradition that certain arms were only allowed to the nobility, the same exalted class empowered to mete out low justice upon the peons. While it's true that having other common men armed enhances my personal security, it's really a stretch to construe RTKBA as 'collective'.
Doing a great job, brother. Thought I'd ramble on it and say so.
Post a Comment