Minuteman Monthly Newsletter Issue 27 October 2002 Welcome to the 27th monthly edition of the newsletter for SaveTheGuns.com. Please feel free to forward this newsletter to your gun club and shootin' buddies. --------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- Minuteman Monthly Quotes of the Month "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." Sigmund Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanalysis "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe." Noah Webster 1758-1843 "Let us not hear that (registration) is a prelude to the confiscation by the government of hunting rifles and shotguns, there is no reason to confiscate legally owned firearms." Canadian Justice Minister Allan Rock (Months later, confiscation became part of Canadian law.) "He who shall introduce into public affairs the principles of Christianity, will change the face of the world." Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- SaveTheGuns.com Safety Tip of the Month Use the utmost in caution when reloading centerfire ammunition. Don't allow yourself to become distracted. Concentrate completely on the task at hand, and most importantly, stay organized and label everything. Follow the ammunition tables exactly, do not experiment unless you are a very experienced or expert reloader. Reloading your own ammunition can be a fun and rewarding hobby. You can save yourself a whole bunch of money if you shoot a lot. Please be aware that the chance of a double powder charge or uncharged cartridge case increases greatly if you choose reloads over factory ammunition. Safety should top your list, when reloading!!! -------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- This Month's Issue is a long one. It is a guest commentary by a Patriot named Ed Lewis. Visit the Ed Lewis Archive of commentaries at http://www.patriotist.com/elarchive.htm September 20, 2002 Will all jackasses please stand up? I find it appalling as usual when politicians don’t read whatever it is that allegedly supports what they say. And it’s even worse when they are attorneys. My lord, the amount of disinformation spread around by these people who are bound and determined to have plenary rule over the people within their political arenas would choke a horse. Recently, California’s Attorney General, Bill Lockyer, had this to say in a letter to David Codrea, co-founder of Citizens of America: Lockyer said that while his duty is to enforce the laws of his state and the nation, ‘the responsibilities of my office do not permit me to independently interpret the state and federal Constitutions or the statutes written pursuant to those Constitutions.’ (Reported by Jon Dougherty, WND, September 20, 2002) Well, now, this sounds great. This means the man understands that he as an official cannot interpret law, a fact that escapes most officials involved with de facto laws, including law enforcers, attorneys, officials, and judges, particularly if the latter three are Bar attorneys. But, what this also means he will rely on case law which is not law in reality to support his interpretations, no matter what he says. All attorneys do that and so do all we people determined to put out the truth. With that in mind, the article by Dougherty led with this statement from Lockyer: "The right of individuals to keep and bear arms may have some validity on the federal level, but states have a right to regulate and ban firearm ownership among the people." He then went ahead to say this: "The Second Amendment limits only the powers of the federal government, not those of the states; and the 'right to keep and bear arms' under the Second Amendment is not an individual right to possess firearms, but a collective right of the States to keep and maintain a 'well-regulated militia.'" Mr. Dougherty then reported that Lockyer cited in support of his conclusion a 1939 U.S. Supreme Court ruling [United States v. Miller], and two U.S. 9th Circuit Court rulings [Hickman v. Block (1995) and Fresno Rifle Club v. Van de Kamp (1992)]. Crap, this man’s reasoning is so lousy it is hard to determine where to begin. Okay, first let’s take this statement, that the right of individuals to keep and bear arms may have some validity on the federal level, but states have a right to regulate and ban firearm ownership among the people. Now, correct me if I am wrong but isn’t this man saying that the Constitution for the uniting of the States only applies on the federal level, that the Constitution is null and void as far as the American people living in California and other states are concerned. You see, if State Governments can regulate any enumerated right specifically protected from government interference by an amendment which becomes part of the Constitution per Article V then States can make any law they wish. Self-evident rights those inherent rights of all Americans are down the tubes for you folks living in California since Lockyer has effectively declared California is not a state of the union. His job under such a condition, Californians, is NOT to protect the rights of the people, but to enforce the laws of the State of California laws that he apparently believes do not have to comply with the U.S. Constitution. Oath of Office California (the state that is not a federal enclave) At this point while trying to get over my seething at the ignorance of elected officials, particularly those trained for the Bar, the realization hit me that Lockyer: (1) either lied when he subscribed to his Oath of Office; (2) he didn’t take and subscribe to an oath as prescribed by the US Constitution; or (3) the oath he did take was not the oath required of public officials in the United States of America. Also, we must consider whether California requires an Oath of Office to be taken and subscribed to the U.S. Constitution. This is due to the potential of California NOT being under the mandates of the U.S. Constitution. The only way this can be is if it is not a state. If it is a state, then of course the requirement to uphold the Constitution will be clearly stated. Well, I was rather surprised by Lockyer’s apparent attitude as California’s Constitution does require an Oath be taken and subscribed to. This is required in Article 20, Section 3: SEC. 3. Members of the Legislature, and all public officers and employees, executive, legislative, and judicial, except such inferior officers and employees as may be by law exempted, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: Either the Oath required will be in support of upholding the U.S. Constitution or it won’t. If the mandates of amendments apply federally but not within California, then one would presume there will NOT be a reference to the U.S. Constitution or said another way officials would not be required to uphold it. Hopefully I have made myself clear on this. Just in case I haven’t, federal laws apply only within the jurisdiction of the US Government but not within the several states. Therefore, if the 2nd and all other amendments by being a part of the Constitution apply only federally, then there isn’t any reason for a California state official to uphold the Constitution. Before I go on, I want to thank Angel Shamaya of Keep And Bear Arms for having posted the Oaths of all 50 states. He has saved me a great deal of time in researching such matters. If you wish to read about the oaths required by every state, please click on this link: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcInfoBase.asp?CatID=266 Whew, it’s a long Oath so maybe Lockyer has just forgotten what it says or lost track of its meaning. Or maybe he couldn’t figure out what it meant but signed it anyway just so he could get paid. I don’t know but I do know something is wrong when an official essentially says a State does not have to comply with an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Anyway, here is the oath Lockyer should have taken and subscribed to (also from Section 3 of Article 20, California Constitution): "I, ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter. "And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means except as follows: ___________________________________________________________ (If no affiliations, write in the words "No Exceptions") and that during such time as I hold the office of ___________________________________ I will not advocate nor become (name of office) a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means." And no other oath, declaration, or test, shall be required as a qualification for any public office or employment. "Public officer and employee" includes every officer and employee of the State, including the University of California, every county, city, city and county, district, and authority, including any department, division, bureau, board, commission, agency, or instrumentality of any of the foregoing. Source: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_20 Hmm, now this is strange if one believes Lockyer is right. The very first paragraph requires not only that all officials will support and defend the Constitution of the United States but that each will also bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States. Why in the world must he bear faith and allegiance to the Constitution for the United States of America and swear to support and defend it if it affects only federal jurisdictional areas, as Lockyer seems to believe? Or is it possible that a state may be a state of the union with elected/appointed officials being excepted from infringing upon inherent rights as they wish? In other words, does the U.S. Constitution give them an out from sticking to the limitations inherent in the Constitution? Keep in mind, of course, that we are talking about constitutional Republics, commonwealths, and sovereign nations making up the union known as the constitutional United States of America. We are not talking about shadow States known as federal enclaves via the Buck Act of 1940 and a whole bunch of other fraudulently applied acts by the Federal and State Governments. The fraudulent de facto State Governments, with their de facto laws affecting their own creations, are part of the US Federal Government Corporation and are shadow (fictional) States of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. People living in the shadow State of the UNITED STATES live in CALIFORNIA (CA), not the constitutional state of California (Cal.) Anyway, Lockyer was supposed to subscribe to the above. And what does the Constitution for the United States of America say about officials and abeyance of the Constitution? I am going to type this slowly so that maybe Lockyer can keep up. I realize it’s rough to understand, especially for Bar trained officials. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. Article VI, Clause 3, U.S. Constitution Have I read this wrong? Doesn’t it say that essentially all officials, particularly those dealing with law in some form, are bound by oath to support the Constitution? But, this isn’t all. Article VI, Clause 2 says this: This Constitution shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Furthermore, in reference to the amendment, Article V which Lockyer must support, defend, and bear faith and allegiance to says that amendments, once ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths (3/4) of the several States, do become part of the Constitution. The Second (2nd) Amendment I realize many people have gotten through school even universities without being able to read or comprehend what is read. One wouldn’t think a Bar trained de facto law attorney could but one never knows, what with the age of computers and extremely sophisticated cheating being upon us. Is it possible the 2nd Amendment is not clear enough for this class of special privileged honored nobility (also unconstitutional as all must be equal in the eyes of God and the law) to read and understand? You be the judge: 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. Of course it is possible I am the dunce. But doesn’t this say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Doesn’t this mean that no manmade law may interfere with this right? Or have I missed a phrase, such as except by any of the several States that wish to remove the defenses of the people or except by California when it becomes a state. Also, does it say that only people in a military, paramilitary, or other government -sponsored group may keep and bear arms? Or does it specifically mandate it is the people’s right? Does it say there is any training required? Or any licenses? Or other fees? Or the caliber or type of arms that may be kept and carried by a man, woman, or child? Yes child. I started hunting when I was eight and bought my first firearm when I was 11 by myself with my own money I had earned. And, I walked around town with it unmolested by law enforcers. Of course, then enforcers of de facto laws were merely peace officers that left people alone unless one harmed another person or his property. THE MILITIA Please understand this. Bar trained attorneys (not all lawyers are members of the Bar) and other officials trying to get our defenses against government away from us are going to say the militia is only the military. Christ, what a load of crap that is. Here are just a couple of the founders’ own definitions for the militia: I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them. George Mason (during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution - 1788) "A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms, to preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms . . . " Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters From the Federal Farmer 53 (1788). Is there any other way to make it clearer than the manner in which Mason and Lee have phrased it? I don’t think so but it seems many officials are extremely hardheaded or maybe just dense. I don’t know but the issue seems to never go away. So, here are the observations of a few more of our forefathers. One could probably find a thousand statements concerning keeping and bearing arms but with most officials and anti-gun nuts, it wouldn’t make any difference. "The said Constitution be never construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." Samuel Adams, during Massachusetts's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788). "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution (1776). "Americans need not fear the federal government because they enjoy the advantage of being armed, which you possess over the people of almost every other nation." James Madison, "The Federalist 46 (1788). "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in their government." --Thomas Jefferson "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764), the foundation of modern criminology. "Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property . . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War (1775). "The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution Proposed BV the Late Convention (1787). "Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self-defense." John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America (1787-1788). "(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." --James Madison, The Federalist Papers "False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crime." --Cesare Beccaria, quoted by Thomas Jefferson "Suppose that we let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal: still it would not be going to far to say that the State governments with the people at their side would be able to repel the danger...half a million citizens with arms in their hands" --James Madison, The Federalist Papers (Note: A half a million then is equivalent to perhaps a 100 million or more now). So, why is there a question concerning the intent of the Second Amendment, our last defense against a tyrannical government? Our forefathers ratified the Second Amendment based in part on the ideas stated by these men. It is quite clear that the meaning of the 2nd Amendment was to never allow government to interfere with the people of this country being armed or any infringement whatsoever put on the right to keep and bear arms. This means no restrictions whatsoever on keeping and bearing arms. However, this does not mean that one can use the weapon in ways that endanger others who are innocent of any acts against the carrier, such as target practicing in town, shooting it up in the air not knowing where the bullet will fall, robbing people, and other actions that create immediate dangers to other people or that harm them. Common sense sorely lacked by officials tells us what can and should be regulated. UNITED STATES v MILLER Idiots trying to control the people and to distort the meaning of the 2nd Amendment often cite a case that is quite likely one of if not the most misquoted cases to exist. This is the 1939 case of United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)(USSC+). Jon Dougherty made me aware of this case quite some time ago in one of his WND articles. Interesting that the statements he referred to came from a deputy attorney in you guessed it California. Deputy Attorney General Tim Rieger made similar distinctions when he stated, ‘Since 1937, the Second Amendment, as you all know, in the United States Supreme Court case Miller, it’s been interpreted to say, let’s be fair, that the right to keep and bear arms, is not personal, but instead lies with the militias of the states. The bottom line is, Miller says that, and all cases except Emerson in the Texas District Court, have basically follow suit. (World Net Daily, July 20, 2000, Jon Dougherty, California expanding laws on ‘assault weapons’...) I have acquired three rules in order to assure accuracy in my own thinking and subsequent writings. These rules are: 1. My presumption is that officials lie. This is fairly common knowledge so no big deal. Exposing the lie will expose the fraud. 2. The second is that never believe what any attorney says. Bar attorneys are trained to slam it home to us using de facto legal crap and not the law of the land. Hell, they would be out of business if they used the law of the land in their cases, most of which would never exist to begin with if the Constitution were upheld. For a crime to exist there must be a victim and the defendant must be indicted by a Grand Jury of his peers. Or the sovereign in dispute agrees to settle the dispute in a common law court. Furthermore, most seem to NOT be very well versed in Constitutional law common law that is as they do their thing in Admiralty/equity courts, not common law courts of Article III of the Constitution. One I had to face didn’t even know an American Citizen living in his community must be given a trial by a jury of twelve unless he agrees otherwise in a city ordinance case and that the City Attorney may not act as prosecutor in these cases. And this was the attorney retained by the City as the City Attorney. At any rate, the vilest of attorneys knowingly manipulate and make their money from de facto laws (regulations) rather than defending and upholding de jure laws of right when they know it is not righteous to do so. Some simply act out of ignorance not stupidity but ignorance of natural law. And, of course, attorneys lie which is also fairly common knowledge. 3. No matter how tired or how much of a bother it is, any case cited by an official or attorney making a point must be read. See (1) and (2) These rules have served me well. I searched and searched but couldn’t find the case for the year 1937. This was when I first started learning how to get around on the Internet, find cases, and was learning how to read decisions. Anyway, I finally thought what if he didn’t have the year right? It turned out the case was in 1939. You see, Rieger never even got the year right. That told me right away he hadn’t read the case and was just spouting something he had heard from or written by some other attorney or official. At this point, we must remember justices are people and that people have varying opinions. This is made clear by this case. First, here is the background of this appeal case. This is copied and pasted directly from the case linked at: _______________________________________________ http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&v ol=307&page=174 _______________________________________________ An indictment in the District Court Western District Arkansas, charged that Jack Miller and Frank Layton 'did unlawfully, knowingly, willfully, and feloniously transport in interstate commerce from the town of Claremore in the State of Oklahoma to the town of Siloam Springs in the State of Arkansas a certain firearm, to-wit, a double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230, said defendants, at the time of so transporting said firearm in interstate commerce as aforesaid, not having registered said firearm as required by Section 1132d of Title 26, United States Code, 26 U.S.C.A. 1132d (Act of June 26, 1934, c. 757, Sec. 5, 48 Stat. 1237), and not having in their possession a stamp-affixed written order for said firearm as provided by Section 1132c, Title 26, United States Code, 26 U.S.C.A. 1132c (June 26, 1934, c. 757, Sec. 4, 48 Stat. 1237) and the regulations issued under authority of the said Act of Congress known as the 'National Firearms Act' approved June 26, 1934, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the United States.' 1 [307 U.S. 174, 176] Thus, we find the indictment was against Jack Miller and Frank Layton for transporting a double-barrel 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long from Oklahoma to Arkansas without having registered it under Federal Income Tax codes and not having a stamp-affixed written order for it, as allegedly required by the National Firearms Act, Title 26, the Internal Revenue Code. Following the indictment, a demurrer alleged that the National Firearm Act is not a revenue measure but an attempt to usurp police power reserved to the States, and is therefore unconstitutional. Also, the demurrer alleged that the Firearm Act offends the inhibition of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The District Court held that section 11 of the act violates the Second Amendment and accordingly sustained the demurrer and quashed the indictment. Therefore, the cause in United States v Miller, et. al. is by direct appeal. Thus, the District Court upheld the 2nd Amendment right of the defendants to carry the firearm. And, concluded: The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon. As one can see, the court did not rule, ...that the right to keep and bear arms, is not personal, but instead lies with the militias of the states. It merely stated it could NOT say for certain that the weapon was protected by the 2nd Amendment. Besides that, the fact that the case was remanded is ignored. And, for good reason if one is anti-2nd Amendment. Justice Reynolds had this to say in determining the eventual status of the appeal, the case in question. In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel length 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. Now, let’s look at this. Initially, the court determined that the weapon was a valid weapon to be protected under the 2nd Amendment that is the defendants were exercising their 2nd Amendment rights and the indictment was quashed. The appeal was made in order to affect this decision in the manner the plaintiff wished. The case discussed a specific weapon, a shotgun that had its barrel shortened to less than 18 inches and no other. Therefore, any ruling is in regards to this weapon, not the 2nd Amendment and the militia being the whole of the people. The appeal court ruled that it could not make the determination as to whether the weapon could be one of ordinary use by the military (which actually has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment). I don’t know where so-called 'experts' in government such as elected officials came from (probably Bar attorneys who cheated their way through law school or took a dumb-ass pill in order to qualify for their jobs), but the Opinion of the Court delivered by Justice J. McReynolds reversed the initial court’s decision and remanded the case. This means it was sent back to the first court for further proceedings. In the words of Justice Reynolds: "We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below and the challenged judgment must be reversed. The case will be remanded for further proceedings." In other words, all the appeal court decided was that the issue needed further review by the lower court, not that the 2nd Amendment applied only to the military and the militia as being the military. Anti-gun idiots use the musings of the court in regards to the militia. That’s all. -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Minuteman Monthly Subscribers and SaveTheGuns.com Members Your rights are why I'm here. Please help by buying a bumper sticker. http://www.savetheguns.com/bumper_stickers.htm Thank you for registering as a Minuteman Monthly Newsletter Recipient. ________________________ If you don't want this newsletter or the legislative alerts anymore, just send me an E-mail with "Unsubscribe MMM" in the subject line to: info@savetheguns.com Thanks, Marc Owner/Founder www.savetheguns.com