In an order on Monday, without explanation or comment, the Court rejected a civil rights lawsuit brought by the Calguns Foundation and the Second Amendment Foundation. [More]
This business of "no historical authority suggests that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to sell a firearm" is subversive nonsense. As
Edwin Vieira has noted:
All militiamen (except conscientious objectors) were to be provided with “small arms”: long guns and pistols. Those who were financially able purchased their arms in the free market, then possessed them as private property in their homes at all times. Those with insufficient means were supplied with firearms the Militia or some other governmental body usually procured in the market, in most instances retaining possession of those arms whilst enrolled. This reliance on a permanent private market for firearms guaranteed that most militiamen, through their own efforts, could always obtain firearms suitable for both collective and individual self-defense, and forestalled tyranny by precluding rogue public officials from monopolizing the production, distribution, and possession of firearms.
I did not see that
argued.
6 comments:
Well, the first problem I see is that it's a "civil" rights lawsuit. Civil are not "natural" rights, like the right to defend yourself, or to keep and bear arms (which ARE protected by the 2nd Amendment from infringement by the FEDERAL government). A civil right is something that a GOVERNMENT grants - or denies - at its whim (or political pressure, as in this case). The Petitioners are CORPORATE PERSONS, not men and/or women. They are LICENSED by the state/county/city corporations - and ARE SUBJECT to their corporate policies. A NATURAL right, i.e. to buy or sell whatever s/he wants to for a living, is exercised by a man or woman. A corporation (or partnership, association, etc. - all of which are PERSONS in statutory law) has no "right" to buy or sell as it pleases, because it is created by a higher authority of another corporation.
When a MAN or a WOMAN who sets up shop in his or her own home, whether in a residential district or next to a school or wherever, and resists the city's (and ATF's) legal pressure and threats to either apply for a "license" to do "business" or face arrest and confiscation of his or her PRIVATE PROPERTY, only THEN will somebody have legal standing in a court to sue for denial of their Constitutionally protected rights.
And that quote about there being no historical authority suggesting a 2nd amendment protection of an INDIVIDUAL'S "right" to sell a firearm is probably correct - because an "INDIVIDUAL" is never defined as a man or woman in statutory law. In fact, I've NEVER been able to find a definition for an "individual" by itself, as that word. Obviously it is a single "something". But I've never seen what that something is - because they don't seem to relate it to another thing, like a corporation, or a trust or anything else they call a "person".
I know this is all semantics, but that's exactly what statutory law is - semantics. And the attorneys who know what they're doing are very crafty at designing this stuff to make it as uninterpretable by the layman as possible. That's why the Courts make rulings and we don't comprehend how or why they do so. It's basically because the uninitiated don't know what the LEGAL meanings of THEIR terms of art are. Their objective is confusion of the unwashed masses and boy do they achieve that. When someone who has the money to take a case all the way - BY HIMSELF, WITHOUT BEING "REPRESENTED" by an attorney - and has the comprehension of the words and makes the CLAIM of INFRINGEMENT of his rights under the 2nd amendment (not "violation" or "denial"), then the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case IN COMMON LAW and make the decision accordingly. As long as these little corporations called "persons" keep making "appearances" being represented by ATTORNEYS (officers of the Courts), then these sort of decisions will keep getting handed down and certiorari will be denied.
If these people would look up the words in a LAW dictionary, instead of Webster's, maybe they'd comprehend what they're doing wrong - and quit begging the states/counties/cities for permission to do something they already have a right to do.
-MM
"Affirmative Action" is getting closer and closer - almost time to start ....
God help us!
Ma Duce
MM-- I've seen such arguments for years, including adding stuff like gold-fringed flags, admiralty courts and spelling things in ALL CAPS. What I have not seen is anyone who makes them then successfully applying them in the real world.
Everyone making such arguments lives under the same infringements the rest of us do. It seems that if it "worked," we'd have some people able to demonstrate how they have made themselves legally immune and everyone would soon follow suit.
So the question now becomes, out of all the people advocating this, why not? Or is there a case that we can all see for ourselves where an individual has obtained an exemption from a concealed carry permit law, or a semiauto ban or anything else?
[reply pt 1]
David, first, please excuse my quotes or capitalization of the specific terms I draw attention to, as these are the ones I want to stand out so anybody reading them will notice and, perhaps, do as I suggest and compare them in legal dictionaries, statutes and case law. Hopefully they will see the pattern.
Examples - as to "private" vs "public", public means government. When a statute says something about the public interest, it means in the interest of government, not all the rest of us people. WE are the private sector. "Residential" is a commercial term - means the folks in that area or type of housing as generating taxes for the government (usually property taxes) so they have a "public interest" in what goes on there. Because the titles to all of those lands have been stolen by governments, nobody is sitting on PRIVATE LAND, anymore, so their "real estate" is now commercial property and any activity on it can be regulated. That's why a government can dictate what kind of business can be "operated" on it, just as the other kind of obvious commercial property. Therefor my gunsmith/FFL friend in Grand Junction CO was told by the city (even though the ATF was fine with it) that he could run his gunsmithing business out of his house in a residential area.
To counter this kind of thing a man in the Orlando, Florida area, Steve Emerson, has apparently done enough research on how property titles were unlawfully converted by county tax assessor's office (because they're in the physical possession of the recorder's office) and used for their own purposes. He confronted his own county on the issues, threatened to take them to court and got his property taken off the tax rolls, as well as those of a few friends. His story can be heard on YouTube on a couple of different channels, the Bo and Rocko show being one of them. His property is now PRIVATE LAND instead of REAL PROPERTY, and therefor when the county says he can't put up solar power on his land and tell the electric company to remove their equipment, he can tell the county where to stick it because they no longer have jurisdiction over the activity on HIS land. He can also run whatever kind of business he wants on it, so long as it doesn't infringe on any of his neighbor's natural rights - ordinances can't be applied to him anymore.
Somebody else who comprehends the concept of private vs public, and specifically private property rights, as well as the difference between a man and a person, is Karl Lentz, who also has many interviews (mostly other people's interviews of him or talks/lectures he's done in groups) posted on YouTube. His focus is on the legal meanings of words, the lawyer's terms of art, just as was that of the late Harry Coombs (a.k.a. The Informer) and his research associate James Montgomery.
What they're talking about is the comprehension of the legal meaning of statutorily defined words and the proper use (and sometimes avoidance of their use) when dealing with government corporation employees and officers. Example: I avoid the word "understanding" for a reason, because it is often used in the legal sense in man-judge encounters (i.e. when the judge asks if you "understand", meaning are you subject to, or "stand under" the charges against you).
[reply pt2]
The reason you haven't seen any cases where the so-called Patriot arguments have been successful is because #1. they generally don't know (comprehend) the meanings
of the words they're using in court, #2 they don't know the nature of the court they're in, #3. how to challenge the jurisdiction of the commercial court, #4. have no idea what jurisdiction means, much less how to move a court from commercial to common law jurisdiction where a person or defendant with NO natural rights and is considered a commercial entity now becomes the accused or a man WITH natural rights, #5 how to proceed from there, if the administrator actually knows his/her role and sees that the man knows what he's doing, and then allows the court to be moved into its common law jurisdiction.
I'd be willing to bet that most so-called judges have never been taught the difference and, if they have, know anything about the common law. An administrator I went before a few years ago didn't even know that, according to state statute, ALL courts in this state are also common law courts. He was obviously unaware as he looked around at his court officers after I asked him if the court can be moved into common law jurisdiction. None of them had a clue. There's an old guy in Montana, Ernie Tertelgte, (YouTube videos can be found using sear terms Living or free man on the land), who comprehends most of the concepts involved and almost has his court procedures down. Heck, the judge in one of his cases even admitted to someone else off camera that he was right, except that he "stepped across the threshold" into her jurisdiction and started arguing the case before the jury (seems the judge knew what is really going on). Karl Lentz could give him some pointers on how to move the court into common law, rather than commercial jurisdiction. The guy SEEMS crazy to most people, BECAUSE HE COMPREHENDS THE CONCEPTS - where most viewers/commenters on the YT channels don't. The court administrator does.
Once people mentally "get" the concept that the corporate governments have crafted a whole world of commerce, and then taught us to believe we're in it, then they'll also "get" how to stop misapplying corporate terms to themselves and remove themselves from the corporate jurisdiction where they have no NATURAL rights. But I'm looking at a world where 99.999+ % of the people have been subjected to government brain laundries we call public school. If that wasn't enough, we have been watching TV for 70 years now and have been subjected to commercials and programming that uses those very corporate terms 24/7 so that we no longer know the difference between, for example, traveling and driving - even though we can see the progression of the meanings and change in the use and application of those two very different words in state statutes over the decades. People simply don't know, are literally ignorant, of what's been done to them over the last 100+ years or so.
[reply pt 3 of 3]
So I'm not surprised that you haven't seen any of the so-called "Patriot" arguments succeed. I haven't, either, because although they were pointing in the right direction, they didn't know the meanings of most of the words they're using in court, much less the procedures or basic legal concepts. Their hearts are engaged but their minds aren't. I know of only one man who correctly argued a no driver's license and no registration case correctly. He lost the no insurance part probably because he (like most of us) was as yet unaware that because he didn't have the physical title to what he thought was his car, the state owns it and they CAN require we insure "their VEHICLE". Jacquie Figg in California has that part of the corporate scam figured out and TRAVELS without a driver's license, and is slowly educating and getting the local cops and courts to leave her alone. Look her up on YT. There are a few successful people out there, but they have all taken the time to READ and comprehend what they're reading, using LAW dictionaries, reading some statutes, case law, and figuring out that they are not what the governments have tricked us into believing for so long.
Eventually a few people will figure out how this applies to our rights to self defense and use of whatever weapons are appropriate to the time, as enumerated in the 2nd amendment and referenced by the 10th. The reason those guys in California lost their case is because they are a partnership, a licensed business, a corporation, and corporations don't have natural rights. Their probable remedy is to disincorporate, revoke their signatures on the business license application, find a piece of property that they can pay for (and pay off any government liens against it) remove their property from the tax rolls, and start selling their own PRIVATE collection of arms. That way it would be their own PRIVATE activity, and not some commercial, regulated business. As to how they'd work out the ATF license (or if they'd even want to have one at that point) I haven't thought that part through yet, but there was a way BEFORE the ATF came along, so there should be a way now. They would have to procure any arms as private men, not as some corporation. A partnership does not have to be incorporated, as it is a private contractual relationship. As soon as you involve the state or any level of government, you're losing control of your own private affairs.
-MM
Post a Comment