• About
  • Books
  • Contact
  • Education Resources

PERRIN LOVETT

~ Deo Vindice

PERRIN LOVETT

Tag Archives: 14th Amendment

Fake Sex, Lies, and Red Tape

13 Wednesday Apr 2016

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Fake Sex, Lies, and Red Tape

Tags

14th Amendment, America, Constitution, due process, Fifth Circuit, Fourth Amendment, freedom, God, government, insanity, law, Ninth Circuit, police, rights, Ted Cruz, Texas, The People, War

Perrin’s definition of government: (Noun) (originating around 10,000 B.C. in Hell) A collection of psychopathic control freaks hell-bent on minding everyone else’s business at gun point. This lowly institution is good for killing people, enriching bankers, and not much else.

Show me a government, any government, and I’ll show you a murder of monstrous, freedom-crushing maniacs. Meddlesome at best, Satanic at worst, an unfit concept long passed over by civilization.

Texas once had a law banning the sale of dildos – not making that up. One woman was actually prosecuted after holding a sales party at her home. Several adult entertainment businesses sued the State claiming a Fourteenth Amendment Due Process violation. See: Reliable Consultants, Inc., et al. v. Earle and The State of Texas, 517 F.3d 738, Slip Op. 06-51067 (5th Cir., 2008). The Fifth Circuit struck down the law and struck a blow for individual freedom (as corny a freedom as may be…).

The Texas Solicitor who argued (in vain) against the sale of rubber weapons of mass destruction was none other than Presidential candidate Ted “Glen Beck’s Man Crush” Cruz  – he the victor of the recent Colorado GOP non primary. I’m not sure how much tax money he wasted on the case (Federal Court ain’t cheap rent). He did obviously waste the time of the Judges, earning himself a 2-1 overthrow. Teddy declined to take the case higher. Lonely housewives breathed easier. Or, rapidly. Something.

The Fifth Circuit took down Texas’s law in as much because of Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. at 578 (2003) (a la Bowers v. Hardwick) as because the government presented no evidence of any legitimate state interest necessitating such an idiotic, overbearing, busybody ban in the first place. More on legitimacy in a moment. The Court held: “The State’s primary justifications for the statute are “morality based.” The asserted interests include “discouraging prurient interests in autonomous sex and the pursuit of sexual gratification unrelated to procreation and prohibiting the commercial sale of sex.” Reliable, Id. at Slip 10.

Perhaps recognizing that public morality is an insufficient justification for the statute after Lawrence, the State asserts that an interest the statute serves is the “protection of minors and unwilling adults from exposure to sexual devices and their advertisement.” It is undeniable that the government has a compelling interest in protecting children from improper sexual expression. However, the State’s generalized concern for children does not justify such a heavy-handed restriction on the exercise of a constitutionally protected individual right. Ultimately, because we can divine no rational connection between the statute and the protection of children, and because the State offers none, we cannot sustain the law under this justification.

Id, at 11 (double emphasis added).

The State and Teddy came to battle with no factual evidence and a shaky “moral” legal argument. Morals are good. Their best in their place. Many are upset by the notion that one cannot legislate morality. A ruling like this is salt in their wounds. Their reaction is evidence of their own lack of morality, of a substitution of the Divine with the positive. God will handle matters related to morality. He does not need help from Texas or any other band of liars and thieves. Speaking of morality and Ted Cruz, Ted now advocates carpet bombing. Incinerating civilians is much more moral than selling a vibrator; God will surely agree.

The moment has come! Let’s look at the Texan idea that the state as an interest in banning sex toys in order to protect children and promote procreation (making up our evidence, if needed, as the State provided none). Law professors and black-robed priests prattle on about various standards of state interests – to be weighed against human freedoms or rights. Compelling, rationally related, important, legitimate – all artful when written out in a brief but still bullshit. I care, here, about the factor of legitimacy, real legitimacy. When talking about people (women one would hope) who use these…devices it becomes obvious they are the sorts who are not interested, at the time, in procreation. They’re looking for a little fun. They’re minding their own business behind closed doors.

Government is not content to leave anyone alone, that much is clear. What, really, honestly, is a state’s interest in procreation, children and humans in general. There is no guaranteed supply of people; no state is just entitled to subjects. In their absence the state would have no one to govern, to boss around. Therein lies the interest. Children are future taxpayers to the state. They are future speed trap victims. They are future cannon-fodder to march off to war. It’s immoral from the state’s perspective to withhold future victims, victims who might be needed to carry out such morality as a carpet bombing run.

The other week another opinion came out a different Court of Appeals on a different topic. Whereas the Fifth Circuit got Reliable right, the Ninth missed the Constitution on searches and seizures in United States v. Magallon-Lopez, ___F.3d___, Slip Op. 14-30249 (9th Cir., March 31, 2016). Different results for freedom but both cases highlight the hateful, demented existence of government.

In Magallon-Lopez the famously liberal Ninth Circuit sided with the police state. “The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that police officers can lie to suspects in regards to a traffic stop — even when no violation has occurred. The ruling essentially gives police officers carte blanche to stop anyone they want for absolutely no reason — merely acting on a hunch.” Matt Agorist, Court Rules Police Can Legally Make Up Lies to Pull People Over to Fish for Criminal Behavior, The Free Thought Project, April 11, 2016.

The criminal subject matter of Magallon is as unpopular as that of Reliable was silly. Defendant Magallon was a meth peddler, unwelcome in most communities. Still, we play the cases we are dealt. Both actions revolve around universal rights and are only brought to light by their subject participants. Both demonstrate government will do anything to abrogate liberty.

The defendant, who did not and could not seriously contest the existence of reasonable suspicion for stopping the car, contended that the stop violated the Fourth Amendment because the officer who pulled him over deliberately lied when stating the reason for the stop, and the reason the officer gave was not itself supported by reasonable suspicion. Rejecting this contention, the panel wrote that so long as the facts known to the officer establish reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory stop, the stop is lawful even if the officer falsely cites as the basis for the stop a ground that is not supported by reasonable suspicion. The panel concluded that in light of the information obtained during the stop, the officers had probable cause to seize the car.

Magallon-Lopez, Id. at Slip 2 (Summary)(emphasis added).

Magallon and a friend were suspected by the DEA of running drugs. This was known to local Montana police who initiated a traffic stop. The asserted reason for the stop was an improper lane change – a flat lie. The vehicle was seized and searched, meth was found, and the occupants arrested. Again, the police only knew that other police suspected the defendant of carrying drugs (these are illegal for the same specious reasons sex toys were in Texas). The arresting officers had no actual knowledge of real criminal activity. Therefore they lied. And, lying is okay as long as it is done by the government. Given this new standard I may have to refresh How to Interact with the Police – best to just live your life completely in a basement somewhere.

So much for the Fourth Amendment. The Court withheld a ruling on Due Process grounds (really, they did enough). No dissent in this case, just a concurrence which noted that Montana officers are statutorily bound to disclose their (real) reasons for arresting someone. Lying and breaking the law are okay so long as committed by servants of the state.

A “God-fearing” conservative desiring war over privacy. Former “liberals” selling out liberty for lies and lawlessness. No, one doesn’t need a government for this – an insane asylum would be enough.

Intimitated.org.

By the way: this is post number 450. Rolling!

Don’t Drone Me, Bro!

07 Thursday Mar 2013

Posted by perrinlovett in Uncategorized

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

14th Amendment, 9/11/2001. 12/7/1941, Americans, army, Austin Rhodes, banksters, Big Club, capitalism, children, Clay Whittle, Constitution, Cornfield County, corporatism, Daivd Koresh, drones, due process, Eric Holder, feds, Fifth Amendment, filibuster, GA, government, guilt, idiots, innocence, JAG, Jesus Christ, King John, law, law enforcement, lies, Magna Carta, murder, Natural Law, poor bird, Posse Comitatus Act, Rand Paul, Ron Paul, Scott Dean, Senate, sheriff, tanks, taxes, Texas, the Devil, The Empire, Thomas More, Waco massacre

This post rambles from subject to subject.  Be forewarned.

Drones…

Just last night I thrilled you, my dear readers, with a few news stories concerning the law.  While Attorney General Eric “Fast and Furious” Holder refuses to prosecute super-rich banksters for criminal wrong-doing, he has no problem using drones to murder “ordinary” Americans for any reason or no reason.  Well, in his defense, He said the drones would only be used to thwart catastrophic events like the 9/11/2001 or Pearl Harbor attacks.  I don’t believe him.  It doesn’t matter since he’s not in charge of when the triggers are squeezed. 

This morning I was listening to the radio and had the privilege of hearing my friend Austin Rhodes (WGAC, 580 AM, Augusta) give his morning commentary.  He initially praised Senator Rand Paul (Ron’s son) for his filibuster yesterday which targeted the administration’s dystopian law enforcement policies.  Then he surprised me.  He, playing devil’s advocate, asked if a drone strike on David Koresh (remember him?) in 1993 would have prevented the later bloodshed at Koresh’s Seventh Day Adventist Church in Waco, Texas.  At first I was indignant but then I realized the value of his question.  The ultimate answer is “who knows?”  No-one does for certain.

It is my opinion that the government was out to get Koresh and his senior worshippers and would have slaughtered them all anyway.  Austin and I disagree on the nature of the events that unfolded in Waco twenty years ago.  That’s the beauty of America, we can agree to disagree.

There was much disagreement in early 1993, regarding the pre-assualt on the church.  For instance, the warrant obtained by the Imperial stormtroopers was defective.  Perhaps they could not decide on what, if anything, was wrong with Koresh and Co.  That might explain the defects in the law sited to obtain the warrant.  The local Sheriff and the State of Texas disagreed with the feds that crimes were being committed in the church.  A JAG officer (military attorney), when asked about the legality of deploying military assets for this domestic law enforcement “operation,” disagreed with his inquirers.  He reported the scheme was illegal, a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, etc.  The first Stormtroopers on the scene must have disagreed about the wisdom of carrying communication devices in case something went wrong, whether to open fire immediately upon exiting their horse trailer (official police version), and whether the church members would return fire.

In the end, the dissenters were silenced.  The rest is history.  As I recall the Empire had several grounds for the War in Waco: 1) income tax evasion; 2) illegal drugs; 3) illegal firearms; and 4) the abuse of children.  I think they eventually proved the tax count as they can prove that against almost anyone due to the psychotic nature of our tax laws and regulations.  I think there was no evidence of the guns or drugs – any existing specimens would have been destroyed in the government’s fire.  As for the children, while I recall some survivors insisted there had been some sort of impropriety, most (all?) of the children were killed in the fire or crushed to death beneath the Army’s 70-ton tank.  Some may have been shot by snipers.  Anyway, there wasn’t a lot of evidence after the fact.

Still, none of this answers Austin’s question.  I’ll pose a question which is easy to answer definitively: Would a drone strike on Rev. Koresh been legal?  Two questions, really – Would the drone strike have been ethical?  The answer to both questions is a certain “NO!” 

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution is clear – “No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”  (Emphasis added).  The Fourteenth Amendment backs up the Fifth’s Due Process provision.  These concepts date back the Magna Carta in 1215.  The truth is eternal, it remains the same in 1215, 1791, 1993, or 2013.  The theory is that if the government wants to kill someone, they must adhere to a certain process.  We generally refer to the key part of the process as a trial (Jury, evidence, and stuff).  The theory jives with what that crazy carpenter, Jesus Christ, talked about twelve centuries before King John admitted his authority was not arbitrary.

For those of you who might have heard Austin and taken his question as a simple endorsement by mistake, how about this: Would Sheriff Whittle’s use of a drone against Scott Dean saved us the trouble and expense of a trial?  He was convicted, after all, by twelve wise citizens.  The fact of his innocence and his accuser’s later recantation are irrelevant for this discussion.  For those of you fortunate enough not to live in Cornfield County, Scott Dean was a County Commissioner.  He adopted some girls.  One of the girls, a teenager with a history of lying in court, accused him of a heinous crime.  He denied any guilt but was convicted none the less.  He went to prison.  Then, his lying adopted daughter, safely out of the country, admitted she made the story up and Dean was in fact innocent.

Since the recent revelation of Dean’s innocence I’m sure the twelve men and women who sent him to prison have the utmost difficulty sleeping at night.  Can you imagine the Sheriff’s guilt and shame had he used a drone instead of the law?  Natural Law and its proper extensions in the corporeal world are important.  “I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”  Saint Thomas More, A Man For All Seasons, 1966.

Due Process of law is a Natural Right to which every person is entitled when human laws exist.  This was obvious to earlier generations of Americans.

Too Big…

In my recent second installment of Slavery In America, https://perrinlovett.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/slavery-in-america-part-ii-of-iii/, I mentioned the Big Club members who are invested in our modern plantation.  The giant banks are charter members of the club.  I mentioned their immunity from criminal prosecution last night.  It seems they are too big to fail, too big to jail, and they are rapidly sucking up all the wealth in this country.  See this story: http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/corporatism-a-system-of-control-designed-by-the-monopoly-men-of-the-global-elite.  It’s about “corporatism,” the fascists’ bastardization of capitalism.  It’s an excellent article from an eye-opening site.

It Could Be Worse…

We could all be stuck in a cage and abandoned at the car wash…

0307131156a

(This poor guy was!  He was happily adopted though!)

Yeah, ramblin more than normal… 🙂

The Second Amendment

04 Monday Mar 2013

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 17 Comments

Tags

10th Amendment, 14th Amendment, 19th Century, 1st Amendment, Alexander Hamilton, America, Anti-Federalists, arms, Articles of Confederation, attorneys, Bill of Rights, blasphemy, British Empire, Brutus, CLE, collecting, collective rights theory, Congress, Constitution, Constitutional Convention, Constitutional Law, D.C., D.C. Court of Appeals, D.C. v. Heller, D.C. v. Parker, Declaration of Independence, District of Corruption, Dred Scott v. Sandford, duty, English common law, federal, Federalist Papers, forty-fifth Congress, Founders, free state, freedom, God, government, governor, gun control, Gun Control Act, Harvard, history, hunting, incorporation, King George, Laurence Silberman, Laurence Tribe, law, law school, legal profession, libertarians, Liberty, Lord Bacon, MacDonald v. Chicago, Mariens, militia, Miller, National Firearms Act, National Guardindividuals, Natural Law, organized, Pennsylvania Minority, politicians, Posse Comitatus, powers, professional military, rebellion, rifles, rights, Robert Yates, Roman Republic, Second Amendment, self-defense, shotgun, slavery, sports, States, Supreme Court, Tacitus, The People, Thomas Jefferson, ticks, trojan horse, Tudors, tyranny, unorganized, Vietnam, Virginia Convention, Washington, William Kimmel, worship

This is a follow-up to some of my recent columns, Posse Comitatus, A Short History of Gun Control in America, and others.  The Second Amendment and its subject matter have been in the news recently as part of the never-ending “debate” over gun control.  The Amendment has also received special attention from the U.S. Supreme Court twice in the past five years. 

My purpose here is to explain what the Amendment means and what most commentators (even pro-firearms authors) miss in their reading and application.  Even if you do not own guns or have an interest in them, this issue affects you and your Liberty.  Somewhere in the writing process I realized I should have divided this into several segments.  My apologies for the heft of the article.  Sadly, I didn’t even get to add in half of what I should – maybe a book is in order?  certainly a follow-up’s follow-up.

“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.”  Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1791)(entirety). 

minutemen-revolutionary-war-11

(Minutemen staring down British Regulars.  Google Images.)

The Second Amendment has absolutely NOTHING to do with hunting, sport shooting, and weapon collecting.  Those activities are important and are rights which derive from Natural Law.  However, they are ancillary to the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.  Ancillary also are the issues of self-defense and defense of others and of property from attacks by common criminals.  They to are the absolute rights of the People (absolute, under appropriate circumstances).  However, none of these things, which are commonly attributed to the true nature of the 2nd Amendment and gun ownership, fall under the actual purpose of the Amendment.

There are two primary reasons why the 2nd Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights.  First, the Founders wanted a heavily armed population so that the nation and the constituent States might be well defended from foreign or outside aggression and invasion.  Second, and most important, the Founders wanted the People heavily armed in order to overthrow or repel the State governments or the federal, national government in the event said government ever became tyrannical in nature and operation.  The true purpose of an armed people is to resist tyranny.  This is not only the right of the People, it is also their solemn duty.

Politicians do not like being reminded of this fact these days.  Perhaps their guilty consciences get the better of them given the nature of modern government – as close to tyrannical as just about any in history.  For reasons given herein and, those which I plan to elaborate on in a future column about arms, the ticks have little to fear.  As I have written elsewhere, most humans like to be controlled.  In the absence of fair masters, they will take any master that comes along.  I hope you, by your nature or by reading this article, are a member of the few who prefer freedom to slavery.  Your existence makes the tyrants sweat.

For the longest time the Second Amendment was largely written off by the legal “profession.”  When I was in law school I was told the Amendment (and a few others) didn’t really exist.  I found this strange.  The Amendment was there in the text of the Constitution and its plain language made perfect sense (the 10th Amendment was the same way).  Try as I could, I could never locate the provision which allowed for the murder of babies.  The law school community regards this right, in blasphemy, as if it had been written by God himself. 

Then again, law school has little to do with the law.  The one thing that was not required reading in my Constitutional law classes was the Constitution.  No mention was made of the natural underpinnings of the Constitution.  It’s no wonder most attorneys emerge from this environment without the slightest knowledge of whence our laws are derived.  I was different, I always am.  I read the old documents and inquired as to why certain things were included and excluded textually.  I read a lot.  At the time, the only legal textbook in print which even mentioned the 2nd Amendment was the one compiled by Laurence H. Tribe of Harvard law fame.  His mention was very brief, but at least he had the curtsey to include it at all. 

Most Consitutional law education focuses on two things: 1) the supreme power of the government and; 2) a few pet rights with plenty of case law material for professors to quote (the 1st Amendment, for instance).  I also have columns underway to explain both the Constitution (briefly) and the convoluted subject of Constitutional law.  You’ll have to wait for those.

As I said, the 2nd Amendment received little official attention for many years.  Early in our history and it that of our English forebears, the concept of a well armed population was well enshrined.  It was taken as a given that men would be armed.  The Founders went the brave extra step and set the armed people as defenders of their own Liberty against the heinous forces of organized government. 

Thomas Jefferson was rightly fearful of the problems posed by a standing government army.  The Declaration of Independence was full of accounts of the crimes committed by King George through his armies.  The mandate for a militia rather than a professional army found its way into the Articles of Confederation, Article 4.  While armies are allowed under the Constitution, they are supposed to be limited to a two-year duration, they were meant as an emergency measure.  U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8.

In the debates leading to the Constitutional Convention, both the Federalists (in favor of the Constitution) and the Anti-Federalists (fearful of a strong central government) denounced the practice of standing armies as grave threats to liberty. 

Writing for the Federalists Alexander Hamilton, himself not the greatest proponent of decentralized liberty, reiterated the common saying of the time that standing armies “ought not be kept up, in time of peace.”  Federalist, No. 26.  In No. 28 Hamilton asked mockingly, against the fact of armed State militias, when could the federal government ever amass a sufficiently threatening army?  As Monday morning’s historical quarterback, I suppose the answer was “in about 200 years.”  Hamilton also thought the two-year budgetary limitation placed on the army would render it ineffective for tyrannical purposes.  Federalist, No. 24.  Out of the pocket again, we now have a standing army fighting numerous “wars” despite the absence of a federal budget for four years.

The Anti-Federalists were equally fearful of a central army.  In his Tenth Letter, January 24, 1788, “Brutus” (most likely New York judge Robert Yates) warned of two dangers presented by a standing army.  First, it could be used by leaders against the people in order to usurp power.  Second, the armies themselves could “subvert the forms of government, under whose authority they were raised…”  As examples he cited the once free and constitutional Roman Republic and British Empire. 

Interestingly, the Second Amendment could have contained anti-army language.  The Virginia Convention proposed a Bill of Rights (June 27, 1788), which would have had the second amendment as seventeenth.  It would have read: “That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in times of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as circumstances and protection of the community will admit, and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”  I rather like that.  The Pennsylvania Minority had put forth a similar proposal on December 18, 1787. 

During the forty-fifth Congress, Rep. William Kimmel of Maryland, author of the Posse Comitatus Act, echoed the sentiments of the Founders as he quoted Tacitus, “Is there any escape from a standing army but a well-disciplined militia?”  7 Cong. Rec. 3579.  He also quoted Lord Bacon, who remarked of the Tudor years of English history, a “mercenary army is fittest to invade a country but a militia to defend it.”  Id.  Many were the quotes from members of the House and Senate on similar points.

The issue faded as the 19th Century progressed because it was still taken for granted that free people should be armed.  As I noted in Gun Control, the States and the federal government from this period to the present, began to enact various illegal, and progressively worse restrictions on gun ownership.  The 2nd Amendment did make appearances in law and court cases though during this period of general dormancy.  I will discuss two such cases here.

In Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), the Supreme Court ignobly affirmed black slaves were property as opposed to people.  However, the Court’s reasoning touched on the 2nd Amendment.  If slaves were considered human beings, then they would be entitled to human rights – such as the right to bear arms.  This case gave silent acknowledgment to the 2nd Amendment, which law professors somehow overlooked or wrote off.  It also slaps their Supreme Court worship in the face.  The fallibility of their god also seems lost on them. 

In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Supreme Court held the 2nd Amendment only protected firearms with militia “value.”  Mr. Miller was arrested for illegal possession of a short-barreled shotgun, one of the weapons regulated under the UnConstitutional 1934 National Firearms Act.  I always thought this case made some sense.  If the only guns protected are those of use to the militia or the military, then it would seem the people have a right to own those types of weapons.  And, if they are entitled to own those, why not allow them all lesser guns (like short-barreled shotguns).  Subsequently, shotguns of reduced length came in useful to the army GIs and Marines in Vietnam and other tight, uncomfortable places. 

The delusional legal community took Miller  to mean something else, something only a law professor could belive – that the 2nd Amendment protects a government’s “right” to keep arms.  The deliberate misinterpretation of Miller during the last half of the 20th Century gave rise to the idiotic “collective rights” theory, an impossibility in and of itself.  The theory lead to the belief of leftists and statists alike that the 2nd Amendment gave the government the “right” to organize a body such as the National Guard.  This was ludicrous.  Only individual persons have rights.  Individuals with rights can join together in the exercise of those rights, but the rights themselves never acquire group status.  The status certainly never transcends from the people, individually speaking, to the government.  Governments have powers, not rights. 

The point was finally clarified (as if such a plainly worded sentence needs clarification…) by the U.S. Supreme Court in two cases early in our current Century.  In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) the high Court overturned D.C.’s illegal law restricting handgun ownership.  The Court also held the Second Amendment did in fact confer upon the people a fundamental right to keep and bear arms.  The collectivists were crushed.  The Court actually noted the Natural Law right of self-defense.  The law professors were confused.  The opinion limited its reach to federal laws and enclaves (like D.C.) and appended certain language regarding “traditional” uses of firearms.  The Court also made notable mention of the proper relationship between the people and the militia, but they did not reach my ultimate conclusion from Miller. 

In my humble but professional opinion (I are a Constitutional and firearms law litigator person, after all), the legal opinion rendered by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in its earlier hearing and decision of Heller, D.C. v. Parker, 478 F.3d 370 (2007)(Parker was then a co-plaintiff with Heller and several others), was a far better recitation of the 2nd Amendment, its meaning and origins.  Judge Laurence Silberman went to great lengths to explain the original meaning of the “militia” and its prerequisite condition of an armed people.  I will comment on this subject a little later, in my own words.

I met Judge Silberman at a legal education luncheon (CLE) in 2008, while Heller was pending the Supreme Court.  I thanked him for his contribution.  However, as is so often my way, I was disgruntled that afternoon and made my usual sarcastic comments to kick off the meeting.  CLE’s do that to me.  Imagine paying a good sum of money for a decent lunch which you can’t enjoy because some dude or dudette is babbling on about the law.  Anyway, I recall referring to D.C. as “the District of Corruption.”  I did this before a small gathering of government attorneys and government-dependent attorneys.  Judge Silberman gave me a nervous chuckle, the rest of the crowd was aghast at my … honesty.

Anyway, the 2008 opinion was good enough of a start.  Two years later the Court added to the new body of 2nd Amendment law.

In MacDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010) the Court, in striking down an illegal Chicago law, “incorporated” the effect of the Second Amendment to the States, via the 14th Amendment.  Many libertarian scholars are dubious of the theory of incorporation but I will not touch on that here other than to say the 2nd Amendment must be respected by the States.  This makes sense, as far as it goes, as no entity may legitimately violate fundamental human rights.  The Court also included some dangerous language in the decision, particularly regarding the possibility laws may place “reasonable restrictions” on firearms ownership.  The reference may prove a trojan horse for gun owners, especially in light of those restrictions already in place (NFA and GCA) which are now taken for granted.  I do not take them so and I have no faith in government to keep any additional restrictions “reasonable.”

Other, newer cases are working their way through the courts, generally with good success.  I think the Amendment is finally getting some of the respect it deserves.  I also don’t think Congress will act to rashly regarding new restrictions, yet, even in the face of the ridiculous hysteria raised of late. 

I began by stating the Second Amendment is about the people resisting government tyranny.  I do not advocate herein the violent overthrow of the government.  Such action, even if warranted, would likely end in disaster.  Besides, given the suicidal tendencies of the federal and most state governments, such action would seem pointless.  I said “even if warranted” because once any government exceeds its scope and purpose to the point it becomes a threat to, rather than a defender of, the Liberties of the People (the only real reason for the existence of government), then again, it is the right and duty of the people to shrug off such tyranny.  When such action is taken legitimately, it is not an act of rebellion.  In fact, at such point, it is the government which is in rebellion and deserving of correction.  This may be subject matter for another future column.

The Founders, being highly suspicious of standing armies in the service of a central government, determined to set up a militia as a proper alternative.  A “militia” is merely the organization to some degree of all the armed men in a jurisdiction.  Every State in the Union still maintains a militia, completely separate from the National Guard.  The militia of a given state is generally divided into two classes – the “organized” militia and the unorganized.  The organized consists of members of the State defense force, whatever it may be termed.  These are voluntary citizen forces under control of the Governor.  They are generally neutered these days but retain the ability to become a combat ready force.  The unorganized force consists of all able-bodied males (and certain females) between certain ages (adults, generally).  I am a proud member of the unorganized Georgia militia!

These militias are primarily at the disposal of the States and can only be utilized by the federal government in certain cases.  The main point of this system is that the weapons are supposed to be in the hands of the people, not the government.  This is specifically true regarding infantry weapons.  A militia member should, today, be able to report for duty with any weapons available to a modern infantryman.  This would include fully automatic rifles (including SAWs) and shoulder launcher systems (Stingers, etc.).

We currently are restricted from such weapons, illegally, by the NFA and the GCA and amendments.  Also, as a counter to my central premise of militia dominance, the federal government has done a terrible job regulating the militias.  The States have all but abdicated their independence and authority to Washington.  Washington has also taken advantage of this situation by raising and maintaining huge standing, professional military forces in perpetuity.  This is all contrary to the intent and the language of the Constitution.  The American people have also undergone a dramatic transformation.  Regarding these instant issues, the populace tends to regard militias as dangerous bands of domestic terrorists while literally worshipping the federal Imperial military.  How many yellow ribbon decals have you seen promoting the militia?

This leads me to my final point, the concept that so many people miss regarding the Second Amendment.  Most historical analysis has focused on the “militia” preface and the “right of the people” action clause, or both together (see Judge Silberman).  What everyone seems to miss is the “security of a free state.”  A state, according to the Founders and their wisdom could only be preserved by an armed people serving as the militia.  The key word here is – “FREE.”  Given the decline of liberty, seemingly demanded by the people, can we be said to live in a free state anymore?  If we do not, is anything else important?  I would, of course, answer affirmatively.  I’m not so sure about my fellow countrymen.  This may provide material for a future column.  Your thoughts?

A Short History of Gun Control In America

02 Saturday Mar 2013

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

14th Amendment, 16th Amendment, 17th Amendment, 1913, 1986, 19th Century, 20th Century, Adolph Hitler, America, ATF, bigots, blacks, British, Browning, citizens, Civil Rights Act, Class III, colonial, Constitution, crime, Europeans, Federal Reserve, firearms, Founders, government, gun control, guns, history, indians, jews, King George, KKK, LBJ, Liberty, machine guns, military, militia, murder, National Firearms Act, National Gun Control Act, Natural Law, Nazi Gun Law, New York City, news, plantation, police, poor, Posse Comitatus, racists, Revolutionary War, Ronald Reagan, Second Amendment, self-defense, slaves, standing army, Tammany Hall, tax slaves, taxes, theives, Thomas Jefferson, tyrants

Guns have been in the news again and again lately.  The guns I am writing about are the privately owned guns of our citizens.  Sadly, these patriotic men and women have not glorified for the millions of lives they save every year, usually without firing a shot.  Rather, the entire institution of gun-ownership has been demonized by the media and the lowlifes of the political class based on a tiny number of sensationalized murder cases.  This phenomenon happens from time to time and is always accompanied by a call for more gun control.

Before I get to control and its history, I want to address the most dangerous guns in America and elsewhere – publically owned or government guns.  These weapons pose a true threat to the health and security of our citizens and potentially pose a dire threat to our civil liberties and freedom.  Governments throughout history have proven themselves to be the least trustworthy possessors of weaponry.  In the 20th century alone governments murdered more than 200 million innocent victims with their military weapons.  I cannot speak for the rest of the world, but in America we need to seriously confront this lethal problem.

The Founder’s were naturally distrustful of an armed government, particularly a standing government army.  That is why they placed stringent restrictions on the army and, at the same time, embedded the right of the people to possess arms as a check against government tyranny.  I am  working on a series of columns along these lines which will compliment my previous article Posse Comitatus, https://perrinlovett.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/posse-comitatus/. 

Ultimately, I will reach the conclusions that we need to abolish all control laws which are directed against private citizens, we need to return to the militia model of defense, we should abolish our standing armies (this is a rather unpopular idea, for all the wrong reasons), and we need to disband or disarm the most of the police forces in America.  Those remaining law enforcement officers which might survive should return to their Natural Law function – protecting the rights of the people, as opposed to carrying out the edicts of the state.  For now, I will concern myself with giving you a brief education about gun control in the United States.

Where did the idea of gun control come from?  I’m not sure when and where it first originated, though I have an idea the concept has been around longer than firearms themselves.  A few gun control advocates are earnestly interested in stopping crime and helping people.  Most are not. Essentially, the majority of gun controllers are the same breed of would-be tyrants who have plagued mankind for eons.  First I imagine they demanded rock control, then sword control and now, gun control.  It is really all a scheme to deprive people of their natural rights of self-defense and self-preservation.  Tyrants do not like armed people.  Armed people are dangerous to tyrants.  Personally, I like the idea of endangered tyrants.  Perhaps we could, in the near future, save a couple and place them on display at zoos.  To hell with the rest.  “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”  – Thomas Jefferson.

Gun control was present during the colonial period of American history.  White Europeans attempted to limit the availability of firearms to groups like slaves and native American indians.  Just before and during the Revolutionary War, the British attempted to disarm the entire rebellious population.  Their theory was that unarmed people would have a much harder time ousting the red-coat armies. 

Independent American gun control first began after the nation was freed of King George.  In early America gun control was first initiated in against blacks, both slaves and free men.  Racist tyrannical whites did not want the downtrodden slaves or free blacks to defend themselves.  Armed slaves might just free themselves, after all.  This process derived from various State laws which outright forbid blacks from owning guns.  The KKK was an early gun-control advocacy organization (a fomer-day Brady campaign, if you will).  The injustice was nominally cured by the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1868).  I say nominally, because the States found clever ways to circumvent the new Acts.  The favored trick was to tax gun sales so as to price the poor (which usually included blacks) out of the gun market.  As I will demonstrate shortly, rather than stamp out this hideous policy, the feds later adopted it.

So far in our history gun control has only affected “undesirable” populations – slaves, blacks, and the poor.  In the late 19th Century New York City enacted a ban on the concealed carry of firearms by just about everyone.  This new law was designed to protect pick-pockets and thieves, key constituents of Tammany Hall and the Democrats of the city (birds of a feather…).  It seems Boss Tweed’s cronies got too many complaints from their thieving electorate about people with concealed weapons thwarting robberies.  As far as I know, this was the first color-blind ban on concealed weapons.  New York has ever been a nest of nobility.

In the early 20th Century most Americans (except blacks and the poor here and there) were free to own whatever type of weapons they both desired and could afford to purchase.  I have read the true statement that any child who wanted one and had the money to pay for it, could mail-order a Browning .50-caliber machine gun and have it delivered to their home.  Yet, mysteriously, there was little crime in this far away “wild west” America.  Crime seemed to come along later with heavy federal regulation of firearms.  Numerous studies have definitively linked the two. 

As I noted earlier, the federal government enacted legislation which imposed a tax and registration on the ownership of certain types of firearms.  This first occurred with the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934, 26 U.S.C. 53.  This law was part of the overall scheme to deprive Americans of fundamental civil liberties.  I have previously noted the dread year of 1913, with the creation of the Federal Reserve and the ratification of the 16th and 17th Amendments.  Like plantation slaves, tax slaves with weapons pose a risk to their masters.  Americans may have seen a rise in violent crime through the 20th Century because their “leaders” emulated the gun laws of well-known criminals. 

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms.”  – Adolph Hitler.

adolf-hitler

(Adolph Hitler, gun control proponent.  Google Images.)

On November 11, 1938 Hitler and his government enacted sweeping gun-control legislation, the Weapons Act of 1938.  This Act was aimed at a particular subject “race” – jews.  “Jews … are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.”  1938 Nazi Act, Section One.  The rest of the Act made possession of weapons by jews criminal, with proscribed punishments. 

On October 22, 1968 President Lyndon “Bane of Freedom” Johnson signed into law the National Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968, 18 U.S.C. 44.  This Act imposed additional infringements on the ownership of guns.  It was allegedly imposed as a crime-fighting measure however, it was obviously intended to further limit the availability of weapons to the law-abiding members of society.  Crime exploded in tis aftermath.  Many scholars have properly analogized the GCA to the Nazi Act of 1938, with “Jews” being removed.  The GCA was also pushed into law by racists who wanted to further discriminate against blacks.  By this time, the bigots knew better than to simply switch the word “black” in place of “jew.”  The result was the same – more disarmed Americans.

Both the NFA and the GCA are policed by the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (the AFT).  Both are blatant violations of the Second Amendment.  Every year, when not supplying military weapons to the Mexican drug cartels, the ATF wasted millions or billions of taxpayer dollars setting up sting operations in order to oppress otherwise innocent Americans through enforcement of these illegal laws.  I have represented several of these poor persons in court.

Of course, gun control has grown by leaps and bounds in and out of the federal government in the ensuing decades.  There has been a great deal of push-back against these laws, but the main pillars of disarmament still stand.  Things keep getting worse.  In 1986, arch-“conservative” Ronald Reagan signed into law a tax reform bill which, among other things, capped the supply of “class III” firearms.  Class III weapons are those such as fully automatic guns and destructive devises (military-grade weapons).  This, again, has had the effect of pricing these weapons beyond the means of most people.  It also deprives us access to modern weaponry.  It is virtually impossible to obtain a post-1986 weapon without spending hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars (one must become a dealer or a manufacturer to do so). 

Thus, Americans are denied access to the very weapons we need the most, those which can be effectively used to thwart government aggression, including mis-use of the standing army.  The Founders were on to something.

m4

(The Second Amendment is not about duck hunting.  Google Images.)

I could run on for another 1500 words or more with this subject.  Instead I will stop here and provide more information in my upcoming columns on the Second Amendment and related articles. In the meantime, do not heed the siren’s call for more gun controll, we need a good deal less.  Guns Up!

Perrin Lovett

FREE Ebook!

The Substitute – my first novel

NOTE! Much better, revised edition coming ASAP!

The Happy Little Cigar Book

Buy From Amazon! The perfect coffee table book!

Perrin On Politics

FREE E-book! Download now~

Right-Minded Social Media For Normal People

Freedom Roasters Coffee AND Apparel

Ritin’ @ Reckonin’

Archives

  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • June 2012

Prepper Post News Podcast by Freedom Prepper (sadly concluded, but still archived!)

Have a Cup!

Perrin’s Articles and Videos at FREEDOM PREPPER (*2016-2022)

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • PERRIN LOVETT
    • Join 39 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • PERRIN LOVETT
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

You must be logged in to post a comment.