Respect for the "law" - from Liberty for All

[braindead0]

Posted here , kinda long...


Respect for the "law"
by Ed Lewis


"If you have 10,000 regulations, you destroy all respect for the law."
- Winston Churchill


Strange that Mr. Churchill thought 10,000 regulations would destroy all respect for the law. Wonder what he would think of a country that has - what - maybe 2,000,000 regulations?

One might think that legislators in the United States and the united States of America have nothing to do but make regulations. That is their job but regulations regulating what?

Is it their job to determine what is best for we individual American Citizens? Or is it their job to make regulations regulating the regulators, to manage the finances lawfully gained, and those who knowingly and willingly volunteer to be regulated as in becoming franchised?

There are currently - or so one reads in many sources - 20,000 regulations covering firearms. And, if many ignorant people have their way, one final regulation will eventually be made - complete confiscation.

Are any of the regulations "law"?

Well, the Constitution for the United States of American says "no". The constitutions for the many states say "no". If fact, no regulation about firearms is "law". Why aren't they? It is because no regulation in opposition to the Constitution is law - it is null and void from its inception. This has been ruled many times in dozens of cases and is stated clearly in American Jurisprudence but anti-gun factions don't really care about the Constitution, justice, nor the positive effect firearms have against crime and - supposedly - tyranny.

Read these cites from cases that have never been overturned. Such are important because States and political subdivisions in writing unconstitutional ordinances take their lead from whatever the federal government gets by with. This includes such things as income tax, property tax, firearm regulations, invasive city ordinances on private property, invasive ordinances on family life, and etcetera.

"... The United States has no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty or eminent domain, within the limits of a state or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly granted..." [Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S.C. 212, 221, 223]

"... the states are separate sovereigns with respect to the federal government." [Heath v. Alabama. 474 U.S. 82]

What these cites mean is that the federal government has specified jurisdiction and that no regulation made by Congress can apply outside that jurisdiction.

So, in the matter of firearm regulations, none apply outside the jurisdiction of the federal government. This jurisdiction includes within the District of Columbia, federal employees working within the states (what the heck are they doing outside their jurisdiction/), federal enclaves including military posts, and territories of the United States, including the States of the United States (island states, not the states of the union).

Can a state make any regulation concerning firearms? Nope. Each agreed to abide by the Constitution and Article VI assures this. They have no more authority to break the supreme law of the land and the regulations meant to govern all artificial entities than we do to break the law of not interfering with the rights of others (the only crime we can actually commit is to harm another natural person or his property).

We must understand that the key to controlling government is to control government.

The people elected to serve us are elected to serve us, not special interest groups.

Their job is to assure that government does not infringe upon unalienable rights.

However, government has done what should never have been permitted - it has established false governments - de facto governments - that are applying Admiralty law (law of the high seas) on our soil and equity law when no contract exists between Americans and the government. Any valid contract must be entered into willingly, knowingly, and voluntarily.

The government (all levels) has also done the same as has been done by every tyrant - it uses force to make people comply with its edicts.

Thus, we have "Don't obey our firearm regulations and we'll take all your valuable firearms, accuse you of being an illegal firearms dealer, drug dealer or terrorist, and then throw your butt in jail, fine you, take your home, and all your belongings."

[braindead0]

This is effectively declaring:

"Good citizens obey us because we are enforcers of laws. You are NOT a good citizen since you insist on your unalienable rights as a human being of God's creation rather than obeying our regulations. Not only that, we will get away with it since the courts work with us in the removal of and/or violations of your rights. So, disagree with us and we'll either beat the crap out of you, drag you off in chains, try and convict you, or maybe we'll save time and just shoot you until you are dead."

What is wrong with this could fill a book - a book that would never be published because the government would censor it. Oh, maybe not directly, but by threatening publishers who might publish it. In this sense, it really isn't much different than the burning of books, removal from libraries, forcing bookstores to quit selling it, and other flagrant forms of censorship (denial of 1st Amendment rights).

Anyway, Missouri's Constitution says this in Article I, the Bill of Rights (emphases are mine):

Powers of the people over internal affairs, constitution and form of government.

Section 3. That the people of this state have the inherent, sole and exclusive right to regulate the internal government and police thereof, and to alter and abolish their constitution and form of government whenever they may deem it necessary to their safety and happiness, provided such change be not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.

Now read this, also in Article I:

Independence of Missouri--submission of certain amendments to Constitution of the United States.

Section 4. That Missouri is a free and independent state, subject only to the Constitution of the United States; that all proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States qualifying or affecting the individual liberties of the people or which in any wise may impair the right of local self-government belonging to the people of this state, should be submitted to conventions of the people.

Okay, now bear with me. Missouri - just as did your state - became a state by the people and government of agreeing to be subject to the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution is actually "for" the United States of America but that is another matter.

Every amendment to the Constitution becomes part of the Constitution according to Article V. Thus, when states agreed to be subject to the Constitution, they also agreed to all amendments.

The 2nd Amendment says this:

"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."

Regardless of what anti-gun nuts say - including those holding public office - the founders were quite clear that they meant the Militia is the people. This is well documented and anything to the contrary is pure fabrication.

The 2nd Amendment says clearly and simply that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't qualify this in any manner and if it isn't qualified - such as "openly" or "unconcealed" or the caliber or what have you - then the requirement does not exist. It doesn't even state firearms - it states "arms".

Thus, any weapon may be kept and carried in whatever way a man or woman wants - concealed, openly, on the roof of their private property, in a utility trailer, or wherever.

In conjunction with this, you see, is that private property is not under the control of government. It is private and subject only to owner's use of - as long as he doesn't harm another man or woman or damage their property by the use of his.

So, when is the first time the writer found that Missouri legislators violated the Constitution about firearms? How about Section 23 of the Bill of Rights (Article I of Missouri's 1875 edition of the Constitution). The title of the section tells you the Constitution for the United States of America is about to be violated.

Right to keep and bear arms--exception.

Section 23. That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.

And so the door is opened through an unconstitutional provision right in the Bill of Rights of Missouri for legislators to regulate - unlawful though it may be.

One might call this the "give an inch and they will take a mile" provision. You see, Constitution of 1825 - the one accepted for statehood - stated in Article XIII, Clause 3:

"…and that their right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the state cannot be questioned"

Thus, legislators added the exception and whether the people knew - and knew the implications - is beyond the knowledge of this writer. What is not beyond the knowledge of this writer, though, is that the phrase "but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons" is repugnant to the Constitution. It is therefore null and void.

But because the people making up the state do not confront the legislators, judges, and other executive and judicial officials, not only are laws against concealment enforced, but also so are the thousands of federal firearm control regulations.

Municipalities - cities and counties - then add on any ordinance they want and enforce them through coercion. And it often results in outright theft of private property.

But, then, this is what always happens when the people allow legislators to make regulations without control and constant vigilance by concerned people. Seemingly innocent provisions and for-the-good-of-the-people provisions are allowed to stand while the people remain ignorant of who or what the regulations actually apply to and the ultimate effects of the regulation.

Thus, government entities - from the smallest city government to the massive federal government - come up with regulations that cannot be constitutionally applied to the people. However, the people are forced into compliance. Or, their own ignorance of liberty causes them to obey and support the hundreds of thousands of regulations meant only for artificial entities or other jurisdictions.

Thus, we find that government is lawless. And it started with encroachments of a minor nature based on assuring safety and taxing in the form of excise tax on imported goods, for example. The corruption of the Constitution and liberty developed into a way of life for the government. It is now perpetuated solely by the use of coercive force against "free" people unparalleled in the history of the world.

Judges and prosecutors of de facto laws have become a most despicable bunch of felons that should be horse whipped, tarred and feathered, tried for treason by the people, and then hung by the neck until they are dead, preferably right on the courthouse steps. None deserve respect any more than the shadiest of robbers and killers.

Law enforcers - once known as peace officers and friends of the people - are now nothing more that government sanctioned terrorists set loose on the people with the intents to force people into compliance with "laws" (therefore, forcing changes in the form of approved government), and to generate revenues for the State, including the political subdivisions of.

Treason is all they know. Heck, some are so stupid they don't even know they conspire against the people; that they are in fact traitors to America. But - even if not aware of their treason and other crimes - they also know that the people will not go to the same extent as the law enforcers do - the use of arms openly against them. At least, not yet.

Contempt for the law and government is, however, spreading. There are undercurrents that are reaching the conscious level in hundreds of thousands of Americans, that the thousands of freedom-robbing frauds against the American people by out of control governments must be halted or this union of states - America - will be destroyed.

"Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself." - Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis in Olmstead v United States, 277 U.S. 438 1928

One day a few Americans - perhaps more than a few - are going to crack. The government will eventually lay on the people the straw that will break the proverbial camel's back. It is bound to happen because - as warned by Mr. Justice Brandeis - the government is breeding nothing but contempt for the law. Something will give.