Criminals Don't Obey Gun Laws

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

This was written by Max Sloan and I thought it was a good read.
This is for all FIREARMS owners and those that oppose firearms.

Today, 27 JULY 2012, we have renewed calls for "Gun Control" from both the United Nations and a few U.S. Congressmen.

U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer said yesterday he wants "..... rational gun control". He and the other few Congressmen just do not get it. The PEOPLES Bill of Rights, Second Amendment, clearly states "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Chipping away at the Second Amendment by "Ration Gun Control" or "Reasonable Gun Control" or "Common Sense Gun Control", as they also like to use, is INFRINGEMENT any way you look at it.

The U.S. President erroneously claimed two days ago that the Second Amendment is about hunting and target practice. He also said "I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals. That they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities".

At the United Nations, Negotiators are working to put final touches on a treaty regulating trading in small arms. Treaty opponent John Bolton, who was President George W. Bush's ambassador to the U.N., wrote that gun control advocates "hope to use restrictions on international gun sales to control gun sales at home."

Mitt Romney hasn't specifically addressed the treaty but broadly opposes what he sees as overreach by the U.N. on many fronts. "I'm not willing to give the United Nations sovereignty in any way or form" over U.S. citizens or law, Romney said July 18.

Romney also gave his now famous two faced opinion adding "I'm willing to talk there."

So where is the truth and where are the PEOPLES RIGHTS when it comes to the Second Amendment ?

First, we will look at U.S. v Miller , a Supreme Court Case from 1939.

Miller had been convicted of violating the 'National Firearms Act' of 1934 by his possession of a regulated firearm. He appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

The details of the case are mostly unimportant except when the Court gave it's rational for the decision. In the opinion, it clearly describes the MILITIA.

The Second Amendment -
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.

The court - "Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion" and "that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."

The Court also addressed the question - Is the Militia the Military, the Army, Troops ?

The court - "The Militia is set in contrast with Troops which the States were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion."

So .... we now clearly know who the Militia is and it's purpose.

THE MILITIA IS CIVILIANS, CAPABLE OF ACTING IN CONCERT FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE.

Continued on second page.

Anonymous said...

PAGE 2 CONTINUE...

Why ? Simply because the short barreled shotgun at question is not "ordinary military equipment"

The meaning is clear.

A GUARANTEED SECOND AMENDMENT WEAPON IS ANY PART OF

1. - ORDINARY MILITARY EQUIPMENT

and

2.- THAT COULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE COMMON DEFENSE.


Now ... we have who the militia is and which weapons they will use (for the common defense). How do they get such weapons and what else goes along with the Second Amendment Right ?

The court - In service of the militia .... "these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
and "The possession of arms also implied the possession of ammunition, and the authorities paid quite as much attention to the latter as to the former."

Meaning ?

Clearly, you own and supplied the weapons and you also possessed ammunition. This affirms the "keep and bear" language of the Second Amendment and discredits those that would restrict ammunition to the People.

To those that would restrict certain weapons to the People, if not ban them altogether, note that the weapons the militia is GUARANTEED TO OWN are ones IN COMMON USE AT THE TIME and are ORDINARY MILITARY EQUIPMENT.

We now look at a more recent Supreme Court decision, District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to (within) the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well.

This is actually an expansion of thought as to the Second Amendment meaning, covering those not in service to the Militia with the Rights of the Amendment, that is, The People.

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

To the tyrants that would Ban, Restrict and or Limit Second Amendment arms to THE PEOPLE, understand this:

It is from WE THE PEOPLE that this nation is founded. It is from WE THE PEOPLE that our RIGHTS are enumerated in the United States Constitution Testamentary Trust and the Bill of Rights. It is for all THE PEOPLE that the Framers and Ratifiers at the beginning of this nation counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to the Nation's system of ordered liberty.

Your efforts to INFRINGE upon our Rights, our Liberty, will be counted as a violation of your oath of office and you are noticed that you may peacefully retire from office immediately. Stay and your professional immunity is lost on your violation and continued stay and you do so at your own risk.

Do not expend your time or the Peoples Treasury on taking away our rights. Pay attention to the Health Safety and Welfare of the Nation and it's People. Go after those who would have an unlawful purpose to their actions, for there is where you will find the real threat. In most cases simply facilitate and enforce existing laws.

Remove the cloud of threats to our Liberty. The War Powers Act, the Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act and any distinction where the People's Liberty and Freedom are threatened.

Finally.

We the People, in order to provide for the common defense, self-defense and ordered liberty, claim our rights to purchase, own, keep an bear all arms of ordinary military equipment in common use today and in the future for lawful purpose. So say we all.

Anonymous said...

INCORRECT CUT IN PAGES. SEE CORRECTION BELOW, PLEASE, SORRY....

Anonymous said...

Correct second Page.....Sorry!
Now let's discover which ARMS these CIVILIANS are to have.
I will post the exact words from the Court's opinion and the explain the subtleties of the opinion.
The court - "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

Where the Court explains that there is a GUARANTEED SECOND AMENDMENT WEAPON, the Court in absence of evidence cannot say that this weapon is one that enjoys such a guarantee. It also cannot find that "this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense".

Why ? Simply because the short barreled shotgun at question is not "ordinary military equipment"

The meaning is clear.
A GUARANTEED SECOND AMENDMENT WEAPON IS ANY PART OF

1. - ORDINARY MILITARY EQUIPMENT

and

2.- THAT COULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE COMMON DEFENSE.


Now ... we have who the militia is and which weapons they will use (for the common defense). How do they get such weapons and what else goes along with the Second Amendment Right ?

The court - In service of the militia .... "these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
and "The possession of arms also implied the possession of ammunition, and the authorities paid quite as much attention to the latter as to the former."

Meaning ?

Clearly, you own and supplied the weapons and you also possessed ammunition. This affirms the "keep and bear" language of the Second Amendment and discredits those that would restrict ammunition to the People.

To those that would restrict certain weapons to the People, if not ban them altogether, note that the weapons the militia is GUARANTEED TO OWN are ones IN COMMON USE AT THE TIME and are ORDINARY MILITARY EQUIPMENT.

We now look at a more recent Supreme Court decision, District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to (within) the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well.

This is actually an expansion of thought as to the Second Amendment meaning, covering those not in service to the Militia with the Rights of the Amendment, that is, The People.

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

To the tyrants that would Ban, Restrict and or Limit Second Amendment arms to THE PEOPLE, understand this:

It is from WE THE PEOPLE that this nation is

To be continued on page 3

Anonymous said...

PAGE 3 Continued
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

To the tyrants that would Ban, Restrict and or Limit Second Amendment arms to THE PEOPLE, understand this:

It is from WE THE PEOPLE that this nation is founded. It is from WE THE PEOPLE that our RIGHTS are enumerated in the United States Constitution Testamentary Trust and the Bill of Rights. It is for all THE PEOPLE that the Framers and Ratifiers at the beginning of this nation counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to the Nation's system of ordered liberty.

Your efforts to INFRINGE upon our Rights, our Liberty, will be counted as a violation of your oath of office and you are noticed that you may peacefully retire from office immediately. Stay and your professional immunity is lost on your violation and continued stay and you do so at your own risk.

Do not expend your time or the Peoples Treasury on taking away our rights. Pay attention to the Health Safety and Welfare of the Nation and it's People. Go after those who would have an unlawful purpose to their actions, for there is where you will find the real threat. In most cases simply facilitate and enforce existing laws.

Remove the cloud of threats to our Liberty. The War Powers Act, the Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act and any distinction where the People's Liberty and Freedom are threatened.

Finally.

We the People, in order to provide for the common defense, self-defense and ordered liberty, claim our rights to purchase, own, keep an bear all arms of ordinary military equipment in common use today and in the future for lawful purpose. So say we all.

Anonymous said...

bravo

Anonymous said...

People commit crime with legally obtained weapons all the time.

Robert Hood said...

Just because the apple tree grows one bad fruit, the entire tree should be cut down right? I hate mass punishment. From school, to the military, to being a government contractor, everyone's answer is mass punishment. Its not effective leadership, it's lazy leadership.