In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Cuttin' through the Bull #103 From the Barrel of a Gun
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Cuttin' through the Bull #103From the Barrel of a Gun Copyright c 2002 By Ray Thomas 02.18.02
On December 15, 2001, Rick Stanley, Libertarian candidate for the Senate from Colorado, at a Bill of Rights rally near the state capitol, strapped on a loaded gun, right out in the open while making a speech and was immediately arrested, handcuffed, and taken to the city jail. He asks these questions: "Did I hurt anyone with my actions? Did I violate another person's rights, or damage or steal someone's property? No. Can they arrest me when I have not broken a constitutional law? Yes. They can, and they did, and I am the proof of that fact. Besides infringing my Second Amendment rights, the arrest also violated my right protected by the Colorado constitution, Article II, Section 13, which guarantees to every person the right to keep and bear arms in defense of person, home, and property. Apparently the Constitution does not apply in Denver, because the city council and mayor of Denver are in fact enforcing an unconstitutional, and therefore illegal, law." They were able to do it because they are all armed, and have the appearance of legality. They did it in violation of the law of the land, the Constitution of the United States, as well as the Constitution of the State of Colorado. But they got away with it simply because nobody stopped them. Nobody would have been able to stop them without igniting a firefight because they all believe what they did was legal and they are willing to kill to defend it. But it is not legal, and if they did kill in defense of that act, they would be murderers. Even the act of arresting this man makes criminals of them all because to arrest him is to limit his right to freedom, which is unlawful detention. Will anybody "bring them to justice" because of this outrage? Not likely. This situation is merely one in many thousands of cases where armed people enforce unconstitutional, and therefore illegal laws, thus violating the law themselves. And nobody does anything about it because they don't want to upset the "status quo." The largest majority of people have been convinced that this action is not a violation of the law of the land. Many of them haven't even been taught about the Constitution or what its one purpose is: to limit the power of government. Communist dictator Mao Tse Tung once wrote: "power grows out of the barrel of a gun." He was roundly criticized (outside of China, of course) by those who didn't believe it was true anywhere except within a totalitarian dictatorship. But he was right -- and it is true wherever the people allow it to be true by allowing those with guns to make the rules for the rest of us "with no controlling legal authority." We have such an authority, you say. The United States Constitution, you say. Why then, is that Constitution routinely ignored by those pledged to uphold it? Why is that august document so "toothless" and "impotent" that the government is able to ignore it and make unconstitutional law after unconstitutional law? Why then was the U. S. House of Representatives allowed to pass (in the dead of night, a time when most bad law is made) the so-called "Campaign Finance Bill?" A bill that if it becomes law will violate the First Amendment of the Constitution by limiting the freedom of speech of all Americans (except the news media)? Why do we have to worry that the Senate will similarly pass this bill, that the president will sign it into law, and that the Supreme Court will not declare it unconstitutional? Why should such worries even be an option? Why isn't there a system in place to make sure that no unconstitutional law can ever be enacted and enforced? Why is the process for having a law declared unconstitutional so long, and so expensive that it is a massive and expensive undertaking to mount a constitutional challenge? Why are such laws allowed to be "on the books" and enforced for many years? Many of them for so long that no one even questions them any more? The United States Supreme Court has said: ""The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Such an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it..."A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby." (Sixteenth AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE Second Edition, Section 256, page 177) Justice William O. Douglas has said: "When a legislature undertakes to proscribe the exercise of a citizen's constitutional rights it acts lawlessly and the citizen can take matters into his own hands and proceed on the basis that such a law is no law at all." But you try it. You'd be in jail so fast it would make your head swim, just as was Senate candidate Rick Stanley. This being said, why is no one undertaking to attack the bigger picture? Rick Stanley is attacking the narrow concept of the freedom of the right to keep and bear arms according to the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. But what about the wider problem of the process of ignoring the Constitution to the extent that thousands of illegal, unconstitutional laws are being daily enforced upon the people of this country? Just one example of unconstitutional laws now being enforced are "Ex Post Facto," or "retroactive" laws. Laws that make what you do today legally, illegal tomorrow, allowing you to be punished for doing something that was legal when you did it. The Constitution is very specific about these laws: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 3, of the United States Constitution). How then does the government and the various legislatures get away with ignoring this in many thousands of cases, the most recent notable example being Bill Clinton's retroactive tax increase, one of his first acts as president? How do retroactive laws get passed routinely if it is prohibited by a simple, one-sentence item in the Constitution? Easy. They just ignore it and no one says anything about it. And there is no easy process to call attention to it or prohibit such laws from being passed and enforced. To create a "constitutional question" costs a lot of money and takes a lot of time. And any unconstitutional law that has not been declared unconstitutional is presumed to be constitutional while government acts as if it is and enforces it. The very first Federal Income Tax law was an unconstitutional retroactive law. Fortunately, they came to their senses a year later and repealed it, replacing it with what we have now. But there is even a question right now as to the legality of the process used to pass that law. One organization is even now trying to force the Internal Revenue Service to prove its right to exist in a public forum. It is resisting and I'm sure planning to take action against those in that organization who are making it hard for them. One thing is for sure: they will not appear and attempt to justify their existence. They think they're "above all that." That "We, the People" don't have the right to question them. They claim the income tax is voluntary. But you just try and not pay it and see how fast the guns come out. The point is, it never seems to matter whether a given law is, or is not constitutional. If they just go out and enforce it under force of arms, it might as well be. The effect is the same. And they will go on enforcing these illegal laws and the illegal regulations they lead to, as long as we continue to allow it. We need to come up with a system that every new law must go through that guarantees that no unconstitutional law will ever be enforced upon the populace. The current one, where the law is enforced until or unless it is challenged is no good. It has created a system where unconstitutional laws have become so ingrained in the society that to get rid of them is unthinkable. This is bad, and must be changed. One idea is to force each now law to go through a period of time when it is boldly and completely advertised in places where everybody can see it, while people are allowed to file petitions to have it declared unconstitutional at government expense. Not at the expense of the individuals involved. This should be done before it is ever enforced upon anybody. And if it is declared unconstitutional, it should be scrapped. Then and there. No arguments. If anybody wants to try again, they should have to start from scratch and the system that has been declared unconstitutional should not be allowed to be a part of the new bill. Office holders, elected or appointed, who violate their oaths of office, which includes a pledge of support for the Constitution, should be punished, even to the extent of being removed from office. If this were done, they would not be so quick to pass unconstitutional laws. Maybe they'd even start reading them before voting on them. http://www.sierratimes.com/02/02/18/raythomas.htm
On December 15, 2001, Rick Stanley, Libertarian candidate for the Senate from Colorado, at a Bill of Rights rally near the state capitol, strapped on a loaded gun, right out in the open while making a speech and was immediately arrested, handcuffed, and taken to the city jail. He asks these questions: "Did I hurt anyone with my actions? Did I violate another person's rights, or damage or steal someone's property? No. Can they arrest me when I have not broken a constitutional law? Yes. They can, and they did, and I am the proof of that fact. Besides infringing my Second Amendment rights, the arrest also violated my right protected by the Colorado constitution, Article II, Section 13, which guarantees to every person the right to keep and bear arms in defense of person, home, and property. Apparently the Constitution does not apply in Denver, because the city council and mayor of Denver are in fact enforcing an unconstitutional, and therefore illegal, law." They were able to do it because they are all armed, and have the appearance of legality. They did it in violation of the law of the land, the Constitution of the United States, as well as the Constitution of the State of Colorado. But they got away with it simply because nobody stopped them. Nobody would have been able to stop them without igniting a firefight because they all believe what they did was legal and they are willing to kill to defend it. But it is not legal, and if they did kill in defense of that act, they would be murderers. Even the act of arresting this man makes criminals of them all because to arrest him is to limit his right to freedom, which is unlawful detention. Will anybody "bring them to justice" because of this outrage? Not likely. This situation is merely one in many thousands of cases where armed people enforce unconstitutional, and therefore illegal laws, thus violating the law themselves. And nobody does anything about it because they don't want to upset the "status quo." The largest majority of people have been convinced that this action is not a violation of the law of the land. Many of them haven't even been taught about the Constitution or what its one purpose is: to limit the power of government. Communist dictator Mao Tse Tung once wrote: "power grows out of the barrel of a gun." He was roundly criticized (outside of China, of course) by those who didn't believe it was true anywhere except within a totalitarian dictatorship. But he was right -- and it is true wherever the people allow it to be true by allowing those with guns to make the rules for the rest of us "with no controlling legal authority." We have such an authority, you say. The United States Constitution, you say. Why then, is that Constitution routinely ignored by those pledged to uphold it? Why is that august document so "toothless" and "impotent" that the government is able to ignore it and make unconstitutional law after unconstitutional law? Why then was the U. S. House of Representatives allowed to pass (in the dead of night, a time when most bad law is made) the so-called "Campaign Finance Bill?" A bill that if it becomes law will violate the First Amendment of the Constitution by limiting the freedom of speech of all Americans (except the news media)? Why do we have to worry that the Senate will similarly pass this bill, that the president will sign it into law, and that the Supreme Court will not declare it unconstitutional? Why should such worries even be an option? Why isn't there a system in place to make sure that no unconstitutional law can ever be enacted and enforced? Why is the process for having a law declared unconstitutional so long, and so expensive that it is a massive and expensive undertaking to mount a constitutional challenge? Why are such laws allowed to be "on the books" and enforced for many years? Many of them for so long that no one even questions them any more? The United States Supreme Court has said: ""The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Such an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it..."A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby." (Sixteenth AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE Second Edition, Section 256, page 177) Justice William O. Douglas has said: "When a legislature undertakes to proscribe the exercise of a citizen's constitutional rights it acts lawlessly and the citizen can take matters into his own hands and proceed on the basis that such a law is no law at all." But you try it. You'd be in jail so fast it would make your head swim, just as was Senate candidate Rick Stanley. This being said, why is no one undertaking to attack the bigger picture? Rick Stanley is attacking the narrow concept of the freedom of the right to keep and bear arms according to the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. But what about the wider problem of the process of ignoring the Constitution to the extent that thousands of illegal, unconstitutional laws are being daily enforced upon the people of this country? Just one example of unconstitutional laws now being enforced are "Ex Post Facto," or "retroactive" laws. Laws that make what you do today legally, illegal tomorrow, allowing you to be punished for doing something that was legal when you did it. The Constitution is very specific about these laws: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 3, of the United States Constitution). How then does the government and the various legislatures get away with ignoring this in many thousands of cases, the most recent notable example being Bill Clinton's retroactive tax increase, one of his first acts as president? How do retroactive laws get passed routinely if it is prohibited by a simple, one-sentence item in the Constitution? Easy. They just ignore it and no one says anything about it. And there is no easy process to call attention to it or prohibit such laws from being passed and enforced. To create a "constitutional question" costs a lot of money and takes a lot of time. And any unconstitutional law that has not been declared unconstitutional is presumed to be constitutional while government acts as if it is and enforces it. The very first Federal Income Tax law was an unconstitutional retroactive law. Fortunately, they came to their senses a year later and repealed it, replacing it with what we have now. But there is even a question right now as to the legality of the process used to pass that law. One organization is even now trying to force the Internal Revenue Service to prove its right to exist in a public forum. It is resisting and I'm sure planning to take action against those in that organization who are making it hard for them. One thing is for sure: they will not appear and attempt to justify their existence. They think they're "above all that." That "We, the People" don't have the right to question them. They claim the income tax is voluntary. But you just try and not pay it and see how fast the guns come out. The point is, it never seems to matter whether a given law is, or is not constitutional. If they just go out and enforce it under force of arms, it might as well be. The effect is the same. And they will go on enforcing these illegal laws and the illegal regulations they lead to, as long as we continue to allow it. We need to come up with a system that every new law must go through that guarantees that no unconstitutional law will ever be enforced upon the populace. The current one, where the law is enforced until or unless it is challenged is no good. It has created a system where unconstitutional laws have become so ingrained in the society that to get rid of them is unthinkable. This is bad, and must be changed. One idea is to force each now law to go through a period of time when it is boldly and completely advertised in places where everybody can see it, while people are allowed to file petitions to have it declared unconstitutional at government expense. Not at the expense of the individuals involved. This should be done before it is ever enforced upon anybody. And if it is declared unconstitutional, it should be scrapped. Then and there. No arguments. If anybody wants to try again, they should have to start from scratch and the system that has been declared unconstitutional should not be allowed to be a part of the new bill. Office holders, elected or appointed, who violate their oaths of office, which includes a pledge of support for the Constitution, should be punished, even to the extent of being removed from office. If this were done, they would not be so quick to pass unconstitutional laws. Maybe they'd even start reading them before voting on them. http://www.sierratimes.com/02/02/18/raythomas.htm