Tag Archives: Constitution

Concealed Carry on Private Property (and Related Issues)

16 Wednesday Dec 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Americans love guns and with good reason. Every year over a million lives are saved in this country because we are an armed people. We have guns. No one is going to take them from us. Period. The fascist left knows this. The nitwit politicians know this. More common criminals know it. ISIS is going to learn it sooner or later.

In the wake of the ISIS attack in San Bernardino and the brewing Sharia in the Whitehouse the people are buying more guns than ever. This year black Friday was flat except for firearms sales. Broken record after broken record.

People are carrying their guns – everywhere, everyday. If you are a criminal or a terrorist in America, know that hunting season has opened. You will be safer elsewhere.

Daily, it seems to me, I hear more and more of my friends talking about securing a concealed carry permit from their state governments. In Georgia, twenty years ago, one out a hundred citizens had a permit. Now they are more common than driver’s licenses. My mom has one.

I am philosophically opposed to the concept of these permits. What other natural and Constitutional right requires a permission slip? Imagine if they offered or required permits for speech, worship, or freedom from warrantless searches. As a practical matter I have conceded this is one of the state’s games it’s okay to play. Just don’t take it so seriously.

Don’t get too attached either. State after state is beginning to follow Vermont’s lead. They are concerning to me these slips are unnecessary and illegal. It’s called Constitutional carry. Small matters really.

As part of the growing concealed carry discussion I have seen several mentions of certain private establishments that do not welcome armed patrons. Friends on Facebook vow not to support such places. I tend to agree with them.

Buffalo-Wild-Wings-Gun-Free

Buffalo Wild Wings.

A question sometimes posed to me is how much legal weight these business notices carry. The answer is “it depends.” One must consult the law of one’s local jurisdiction.

In Georgia a “no guns allowed” sign is just a sign. It has no legal authority. Every outside door at my local mall has a little picture of a crossed out pistol. Maybe this means long guns only? It doesn’t matter. The worst they can do is ban you from their property. That’s their right as the owner. I can respect it. However, for most men, being banned from a shopping mall is more of a reward than a punishment. The mall I reference is the kind of place I will only enter if I am armed.

There’s a much better, more upscale mall a few hours away in Charlotte. It hosts a fine Cigar shop and fewer thugs. The sign there reminds shoppers not to leave their guns behind in their cars. It is an indirect encouragement to bring them inside.

The law in North Carolina is different too. There signs prohibiting guns on private property do carry legal consequences. A violation of such notice constitutes misdemeanor criminal trespass.

If you carry, you need to know the law. Or, at least, some of it. We have over 23,000 gun laws in the U.S. (all of these serve as no deterrent to criminals and terrorists). Compliance or even comprehension is virtually impossible. Luckily it matters very little.

If you carry concealed and your weapon is well concealed, then no one will know about it. Many public places require passage through metal detectors. Avoid the hassle. Don’t go to these places. The visit usually features payment of a tax or some other unpleasantry anyway.

As for all other locations, just keep the weapon hidden from view and don’t mention it. Everyone will be happy. Mind that if you walk in the grocery store sporting an AR-15 on a tactical sling you may rouse suspicion even if you break no laws. Use a little judgment.

This all reminds me of a conversation I had years ago at an NRA national firearms law seminar (in Charlotte or Pittsburgh I think). These courses feature expect analysis of popular legal issues. There are as exciting as any other law program. Those of us from gun friendly state sir and listen to the horror stories told by colleagues from communist jurisdictions.

That particular time a friend from Massachusetts went on and on about how restrictive are the Bay State’s gun laws. During a recession I approached him laughing. I told him I visit New England regularly and I regularly carry a gun. I informed him I had found a way around all of the restrictive laws. “How?!,” he asked. I smiled and said, “I break them.”

He sputtered and said I could be charged with something. I slapped him on the shoulder and said I knew a good attorney.

Take my car for example. I have been stopped by the police maybe five times in life and not at all in the past ten years. I have never been searched. Any search would have found me heavily armed. But, it never happened. Odds are it never will. Compliance with unjust laws out of fear is a mere phantom. It may be safely ignored as Aquinas suggested.

Note that encourage not the breaking of the valid law. Rather, I adhere strictly to and encourage strict adherence the law of the law. By keeping and bearing armed, the people, the militia, maintain the security of the free state.

IMG_20151115_142637057

Molon labe.

Piracy, Counterfeiting, and Treason

23 Monday Nov 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This article was featured on The Perrin Lovett Show (with usual amateur production, etc.).

The United States Constitution sets forth a very few enumerated powers for the federal government – 18 to 30 or so, depending on how one reads the text.Several others could be imagined given a certain degree of lucidity. The modern law and political crowd obviously has a very vivid imaginations.

“Our” government now involves itself in literally everything. The pretense of following the Constitution was long ago dropped in favor of a do-all, end-all, all things for all people nanny state. This proves, as Lysander Spooner noted toward the end of the 19th Century, the abject failure of the Constitution. Either it enabled the growth and development of the current system or it was powerless to prevent it. Either way a lost cause for the liberty-minded.

Amongst those few, ancient powers were the prohibition and prosecution of but three specific crimes. Others, a few, could, again, be imagined based on the surrounding text.

Insanity, rather than imagination, best describes the current vast expanse of federal criminal “justice.” Today there are something like 10,000 crimes in the federal code – not all of them are even contained in Title 18, criminal laws. If you have a system where laws escape their designated place, you then have a problem. Worse, the various federal administrative agencies – none of which are found in the Constitution – write a bazillion regulations every year. Many of these carry quasi-criminal penalties.

One gets the idea that any and everything is illegal in America. It is. Possessing a “short” lobster is illegal. Owning a flower banned by a foreign government is illegal. Installing a toilet with a decent sized water tank is illegal.

Few of these laws were enacted to preserve order or to protect the public. Rather, they are intended to promote the government’s over the populace. The people seem to approve. That is, until they find themselves on the wrong side of a federal courtroom.

The average American commits three felonies a day – usually with no intent. Most of these go unprosecuted. Most are never known. Even if a violation is disclosed it is rarely acted upon. It would be impossible to persecute 300 million citizens on a regular basis. Unnecessary too. Prosecution is selective at best. It’s designed to make examples to keep the people in line.

Again, it started out with but three crimes. All the rest were left to the states for enforcement by statute or under our English heritage of common law. While a few cases of the three original varieties occasionally come up, these crimes are almost completely committed, these days by the government itself.

Counterfeiting

“The Congress shall have the power …To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States.” U.S. Const., Art. I, Section 8.

You, dear reader, must be familiar with the concept of the counterfeiter. It’s some dude in a basement with a press and green ink or a high-end color copier, who manufactures fake twenties for use at the supermarket. This does happen. However, it is dwarfed by the scheme enacted by the government in 1913 through the Federal Reserve Act.

That Act created the modern central banking system. One of those thirty or so enumerated powers in the old parchment authorized only Congress to create currency. Said currency was to be based only upon the determined value of gold or silver. It was thus real money, linked to something of intrinsic value.

Via the Act Congress abdicated its authority to a private banking cabal. They were literally given a monopoly to print money. A tenuous link was, then, in place which, on the surface, to the Constitution and the gold standard. The Act’s original language stated the new federal reserve notes could be redeemed at any time for either “lawful currency” or precious metals. It was a sly admission the new notes were something other than lawful. Funny almost but deadly.

This cozy arrangement allows the government an endless supply of debt by which to prop up its income tax scheme and bottomless spending. The tax also, conveniently, came along in 1913. Like a plan or something.

The cabal benefits by being able to loan themselves and their friends an infinite amount of money. You may read all about this process, dubbed the “Mandrake Mechanism” in G. Edward Griffin’s The Creature from Jekyll Island.

The downsides for you are several. First, you endure the loss of Constitutional government – lost to a despicable gang of criminals. Second, you loss buying power to inflation. The more of something there is, the less each individual unit is worth. The more money the Fed prints, the less the money you have buys. Prices rise accordingly. Incomes are always the last to increase; they are perpetually behind the curve.

The Treasury still has the ability to print real money in addition to the Fed’s funny notes. The last time it did so was in the 1960s in a bid to boost currency circulation. The gold link was weakened during the great depression (by a Democrat administration) and severed entirely in the early 70s by Richard Nixon (a Republican) (2 parties, remember…).

Piracy

“The Congress shall have the power … To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations…” U.S. Const., Art.I, Section 8.

This was a serious issue for the young Republic, being tied to European trade. It’s still an important issue. Ask Captain Phillips about piracy in the 21st Century. Again, however, the actions of the central government eclipse anything done by the hook and parrot set.

The government does not roam the seas looking for vessels to raid. Well, actually, they do. Most of their pillaging and plundering is conducted on land though. Piracy is synonymous with stealing. What doesn’t the government steal?

They get your money through taxes, fees, and insidious inflation. They get your flowers, short lobsters, milk, and produce. They get your arms, legs an lives through their endless wars. They get your children with their mandatory non-education system. They get it all. Pipe up too loudly about this theft and they bring out the guns – piracy. Everything, everywhere, everyday.

Treason

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason…” U.S. Const., Art. III, Section 3.

With the exception of the “Civil” war the government does not conduct military operations against itself. Sometimes one wishes the opposite. They do occasionally make war on us: whiskey tax protesters, poor coal miners, displaced veterans, Indians, those of Japanese ancestry, churches, etc.

The real crime they commit – constantly – is giving aid to our enemies. Any enemy they can find so long as the free people suffer. Piracy and counterfeiting (see above) are two good examples. Another example is the absolute infidelity to the limits of the Constitution. Yet again, the majority of the people seem okay with the ridiculous overextension of state authority – so long as they get (or are at least promised) some goodies.

A great example from the news of late is the American warfare/welfare policy concerning Islamic terrorism. The military trots around the globe in search of crazed radicals. Rather than defeating them, they stir the boiling pot. This allows for wholesale spending of the fiat money. It also gives them graft to loot. It also angers the hell out of already dangerous peoples.

As if that isn’t bad enough Washington then imports as many “refugees” to the States as it can locate. Screening be damned, they have a Civilization to wreck.

If any outsider attempted such unimaginable terror, it would be considered an act of war. As is, I view it as an act of Treason. The people may not go along with this one much longer. Not when Paris-style theater and sporting outings become the norm. Not when Sharia law emerges from the 7th century into places like Dearborn and Omaha.

What if anything can be done? I think reform is not an option. Many of my conservative friends want a “return to the Constitution.” That means going back to a document that was roundly ignored the first time. At best, it would reset the clock. This time around there’s no assurance the demise (eternal) would take so long to happen. They could just use history as a blueprint.

Congress, the President (any President), and their friends in beaurocracy and banking are non to eager to give up all that power and fun. The Courts have long since rubber stamped the insanity. It’s all okay because of the Necessary and Proper Clause, or the Welfare Clause, or the Santa Clause, or … Just because it just is.

Years ago, during a federal firearms case, I asserted the government’s lack of authority over firearms law as a defense for my client. I moved the court to dismiss the charges for lack of standing. I reminded the judge about Article One enumeration. I waived a copy of the parchment around like a fan. As I spoke there was a stunned silence. Attorneys are not supposed to uphold the law as I did literally.

My motion was denied instantly. My client took a plea deal and voided any chance of an appeal. Any appeal would have failed anyway. Law and order minus the law part.

These are not only my experience. Ted Cruz, whom I’m told is running for President, accessed the White House of ‘Counterfeiting Immigration Documents’

Given what we know about government, they probably did. They’re obviously getting away with it. This was a story about immigration too. Perhaps the merging of Treason and counterfeiting.

Speaking to Fox News following a federal judge’s decision to temporarily halt President Barack Obama’s executive action on immigration, the potential Republican presidential contender said the commander in chief is ignoring federal law.

“One of the things it points out is the president has claimed, rather absurdly, that the basis of his authority is ‘prosecutorial discretion.’ That he’s simply choosing not to prosecute 4.5 million people here illegally,” Cruz told Fox News. “But what the district court concluded, quite rightly, is they’re doing far more than that. The administration is printing work authorizations. It is affirmatively acting in contravention of federal law. Basically, what its doing is counterfeiting immigration documents, because the work authorizations its printing are directly contrary to the text of federal law. It is dangerous when the president ignores federal law.

…

“We’re not going to disregard this federal court ruling,” Obama said, but he added that administration officials would continue to prepare to roll out the program.

We’re not going to ignore the law, we’ll just not abide by it. To hell with it… That, in a nutshell, is the government. What can be done? Not much right now. For starters though we could all cease to hold the state up on a pedestal of honor. The gallows would be more appropriate. Stop legitimizing the monsters. Shun the long enough and maybe they will go away.

Peterpan2-disneyscreencaps_com-1915

Arrrrrrr. Ye taxes and short lobsters I shall have! Disney.

Gator Aid

09 Monday Nov 2015

Posted by in News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on Gator Aid

Tags

, , , , , ,

This morning’s coffee is struggling to power up my brain. So it is that my daily perusing of the news is a little off, maybe jaded.

For a few sleepy minutes I thought about commenting on this week’s university stupidity. I guess I just did… Missouri is having racial issues of unclear origin. Sad. At Yale, bastion of the vaunted Ivey League, students had difficulty with their own Halloween costumes. Very sad. Officials at Yale, Cornell, Syracuse, Vassar and Oberlin want to destroy Constitutionally protected rights. That may or may not have anything to do with costumes or racism. Pathetic.

I tire extra early this week of the same old American idiocy. You may look at the above links if you care.

Instead! I implore you to watch this cool video! It’s not everyday ones sees a giant alligator at Home Depot.

217

Channel 2, Houston.

A small, possibly insane woman wrestled down the magnificent 800 pound beast in a Houston suburb. Cue BOC’s Godzilla! With the help of a police officer, a dude(tte?) with a rope, and a forklift, the little lady got the dinosaur off to a new home far away from the annoying Christmas displays, lumber, and toilet parts of modern suburbia.

It’s a reminder that, despite the persnickety, ever offended higher “education” crowd, there are still some real Americans left. That, and some fable-worthy animals.

See you later, alligator!

Freedom: Waiving or Waving?

01 Sunday Nov 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Freedom: Waiving or Waving?

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Living in Georgia and having practiced law here a while I know something more about the legal and political environment of the State. In general, it is a broken mess. Yet, every once in a while, something good emerges from the murk of Peach State mediocrity. Recently, a federal judge held Georgia’s unconstitutional garnishment statute a violation of due process. Now, the State Supreme Court has aimed the same barrels at Georgia’s DUI law.

DUI laws, like drug laws (and most laws), are a failure. They do not deter dangerous driving. The continually high numbers of DUI arrests attest to this fact. The true intent should be to punish or prevent harm to the innocent. Other, ancient laws, grounded in Natural Law, can already do that.

The real purposes of modern DUI laws are three-fold:

One, they generate revenue for the useless government.

Two, they allow that government a degree of control over the people. In a free society it should be the other way around.

Third, these laws placate the ignorant, the state-worshipping, and those aggrieved few desperate for corrective action.

Failure aside, some hold dear to DUI enforcement (and not just the MADD moms).  Part of this is reasonable.  Most people drive and are potentially at risk of encountering an intoxicated motorist. Drunk drivers can afflict harm or death on others which is a bad thing. Other crimes are far worse but are much harder to understand or relate to – treason, currency debasement, suicidal immigration, toxic foreign policy, etc. Those evils are not quite so “in your face.” Still, if any crime is to be prosecuted, the enforcement must be carried out with respect for natural rights. The balancing is precarious but necessary if arbitrary tyranny is not a thing desired.

Georgia law states that by possessing a driver’s license and operating an automobile one automatically and impliedly consents to roadside sobriety and other tests in the case of a suspected DUI. An officer will read a driver an implied consent warning (they all carry little script cards) which, ultimately, gives the driver two choices. One, consent and forgo the rights against unwarranted searches and against self-incrimination. Two, refuse and suffer a suspension of the driver’s license – to the detriment of the right to freely travel.

The right to travel being universal, no state should issue permits for the same. States should also never place a person in a position of choosing which of his freedoms to sacrifice for the expediency of the government. There are proper investigative methods to solve crimes but usually the lazy state is dependent on the suspect’s cooperation or acquiescence. A man from a large metro-Atlanta county put an unusual spin on these concepts as part of his DUI defense.

John Williams was stopped in Gwinnett County for suspicion of driving under the influence. The officer read Williams his consent warning. Williams allegedly consented to a blood test which showed he was, in fact, legally intoxicated. The test would be the State’s primary evidence. Accordingly, Williams filed a motion to suppress the test results. He argued he was too intoxicated at the time, as demonstrated by the test results, to give his consent knowingly. “The defendant wasn’t actually capable of an informed waiver of his constitutional rights,” William’s attorney argued.

The trial court denied the motion but the Supreme Court held such argument must be considered given the importance of a suspect’s intelligent interaction with the legal system.

Catch twenty-two! Prosecutors are now in the position of arguing a DUI defendant was sober – sober enough to waive his critical Constitutional rights in a situation with serious (jail) consequences. If a man is so sober concerning important legal decisions why would he not also be sober enough to operate an automobile?

Caution Sign Isolated On White - Political Corruption Ahead

Thinkstock, Getty Images.

As a freedom advocate I do not hold much hope this ruling will have any lasting effects.  Trial judges and prosecutors could question the State’s witness as to whether he was satisfied, at the time, the defendant truly understood what he was doing. The General Assembly, ever eager to maintain control over its minions while providing them with the appearance of safety, could similarly change the wording of the implied consent warning.

I’ve seen such catches fall out in the government’s favor before.  I’ve heard a state psychologist testify a defendant was utterly insane.  So crazed he was a threat to society and himself and, thus, should be held without bond. So psychotic he lives in his own world, detached from ours. But, just for a brief second, while allegedly committing a crime, he knew and understood what he was doing. This happens all the time in America, a place from which honest reasoning has departed.

If the government maintains its war on intoxicated drivers (and it will), then it should rely on independently gathered evidence – evidence which does not involve the suspect’s compromised cooperation. Even better the state could concern itself with real crimes and the victims thereof.  If a drunk driver causes property damage or physical harm to another, there are many ways to address the malfeasance. Best of all, government being as failed as any of its laws, it could merely go away.

The best scenario will not happen anytime soon. Government’s hate to admit their failure just as much as they hate you and your rights.

An Empire Not A Corporation

29 Thursday Oct 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on An Empire Not A Corporation

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Pat Buchanan wrote a great book – A Republic Not An Empire, (2002). I wrote this piece to answer something which troubled me from time to time. There is a theory out there in internet-land the United States is a giant corporation. It’s based on the same whimsical thinking that drives lottery sales and horoscopes.

Contrary to what you may read on Facebook the United States is not a corporation. Your birth certificate is not a stock certificate. You will not get rich by cashing in on the national debt. You might go to prison or worse but no money will come of it.

I’ve seen this enough to respond. It’s really a minor issue but I thought I should address it. I see the posts on Facebook from time to time. Posts like this:

The UNITED STATES of AMERICA is a corporation.

“The UNITED STATES of AMERICA is a corporation.Go to the UNITED STATES CODE (note the capitalization, indicating the corporation, not the Republic) Title 28 3002 (15) (A) (B) (C). It is stated unequivocally that the UNITED STATES is a corporation.”

I did look at the law; not what it says or means. The mis-cited law only has to do with the government hiring attorneys for debt collection and similar purposes. See: 28 USC 3002. Boring, yes; Constitution shattering, no.

The theory also revolves around The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, 16 Stat. 419 (1871). Yet, all this law did was regulate the governance of the District of Columbia. Such is one of the very few explicit powers granted Congress by the Constitution, Art. I, Sect. 8, CLS. 17.

Never have I met anyone in person who openly espoused this theory. And, I visit with quite a few conspiracy theorists. Should you meet such a person, humor them – unless they try to involve you in a scheme to collect on your shares or something. That road leads to prison or the poorhouse.

TinFoilHatArea

It’s a scam. Google.

Here’s a more in-depth look at the claim: Text of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, The Daily Render, 2009. That’s really not worth reading and not worth quoting. It does shed light on the theory though. Why conceive of such fancy?

It seems simple. We do face some major problems today with “our” government. The theorists posit the U.S., in a state of disarray, bankrupted itself out of existence. In the place of the old republic those 19th Century geniuses left us with a national corporation. You, by birth, are a stock holder citizen and entitled to some vast sum of money based on the current national debt.

While the root rests on some disturbing truth, the rest is rubbish.

Some people really believe all of this. Part of the faith comes from a real realization that something is fundamentally wrong with America today. Part is based on tv-induced naivety and ignorance. Part on greed

This does not make sense economically. In order to cash in your “stock” – if everyone did, the only solution would be to print so much more funny money the currency would be worthless. So much for your shares. This fanciful belief makes the real problem even worse.

Let me briefly explain what the U.S. really is. The nation, following the too good success of the loose Confederation, was formed into a Constitutional Republic. Allegedly the rights of the free people were protected and the powers of the new government limited. Somewhere we fell off the wagon and those ideas were reversed. Both the authorities and the people were corrupted.

Today, the Constitution is an ignored artifact stuck away in a museum. Buchanan’s book aside the U.S. has degenerated into Empire, now approaching the late stages thereof. It’s an Empire without an emperor. Specifically, the political power is uneasilly split between ochlocracy (mob rule) and oligarchy (rule by the elite). The elite keeps the mob happy with handouts and spectacles and the mob keeps re-electing the elite. Cozy if crazy.

I’ve said before this country has owners – banks, insurance companies, and other well-connected entities. But their ownership is less like a corporation and more like a plantation. The mob plays the part of the slaves, stupidly trading their sacred freedom for false security and debased entertainment.

What to do? The corporate angle is too good to be true. Don’t believe it. Instead, believe in yourself and put your faith in a Higher Power. Whatever its form, if enough of us ignore the government long enough, it will go away.

Free Speech Free Zones

24 Saturday Oct 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Free Speech Free Zones

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A long time ago the government pretended its constraint under the Constitution. It was to be neutral regarding religion. It supposedly did not treat the people like criminals unless they actually were. It begrudgingly consented to the armament of the citizenry. It allegedly allowed people to voice their opinions, even if the expressed notions were unpopular. Those days are behind us.

Today there remains but a paper pretense of freedom in America.

A Colorado judge just ruled that a political Facebook post was impermissible “free” speech.

A state judge has ruled that a Facebook post by Liberty Common School amounts to an illegal campaign contribution to a Thompson School District board candidate.

In August, the Fort Collins charter school shared with its Facebook followers a newspaper article about a parent of a student running for a board seat in the neighboring school district. Liberty Common’s principal, former Colorado Congressman Bob Schaffer, then shared the post and called candidate Tomi Grundvig an “excellent education leader” who would provide “sensible stewardship” of Thompson.

Nick Coltrain, The Coloradoan, Oct. 22, 2015.

The judge said the violation was “minor,” but that [T]he school’s action was the giving of a thing of value to the candidate, namely favorable publicity…”

A Colorado law professor, one Scott Moss, was rightly alarmed by the ruling: “I don’t buy that under the First Amendment speech about a candidate can be deemed a contribution … Is speech valuable? Yes. But that’s not a basis for restricting core political speech.”

Naturally speaking, the good professor is correct. Legally and politically, he would have been correct in the former United States. Not today. Not in modern Colorado. Not in modern, post-Constitutional America.

I warned of this in postings prior. The particular judge in this case was likely just doing his job.  Rather than being a “judicial activist,” he was simply carrying out a bad law. Bad governments enact bad laws, historically. As governments all become debased, the outcome is always the same – the people are stifled. In a representative government this usually occurs at the people’s bidding. Odd, yes. Whatever Colorado election law rests at the heart of this ruling likely mirrors current federal law in spirit and/or form.

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (“The McCain–Feingold Act”), Pub.L. 107–155, 116 Stat. 81, 2 U.S.C. 431 et seq. and blah, blah, blah (effective January 1, 2003) set new limits on political speech.  This First Amendment nullifier was the brainchild of Republican Senator John McCain and signed into “law” by Republican idiot George W. Bush (who, at the time, admitted he did not understand what he was signing).

The Supreme Court later upheld the speech crushing effects of the Act in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93 (2003).  The gist of the opinion was that as the issues were political in nature and the two political branches had approved, the Court would simply defer to the esteemed wisdom of Congress and the White House.  They seem to forget all about the rights of the People and that thing … the um … the Constitution maybe? Whatever…

In his raging dissent Justice Scalia noted that modern elections were already so complex that only the well-connected and well-funded were safe to engage in them with any hope of success. He blasted the Act as limiting the speech of the people – their only remaining tangible connection to the process. So long as they comply with the Byzantine laws, the moneyed interests are free to support any candidate they choose. The little people, usually poor financially and in legal knowledge are now constrained to even voice political support.  Scalia noted that of all free speech political speech is the most important in a free society.

Of course, this might matter if we still were a free society.  We are not. Fred Reed succinctly nailed down the problem as to the political:

Democratic? As Stalin had show trials, America has show elections. These serve to distract the public while keeping them away from issues of importance. Who do you vote for if you want to end the wars, halve the military budget, end affirmative action, get the government out of family life, control criminal minorities who burn cities, and slap down NSA?

Fred Reed. Emphasis mine.

I love Reed’s work.  This particular gem of an article concerns more than just electoral politics – it explains the pitiful state of thinking (or lack thereof) across the whole American landscape.

2820722052_34312f65a5

About the half of it.  Google.

Election season is once again upon us.  It’s always election season it seems. Daily, I see many of you voicing support for this or that candidate on Facebook and elsewhere. Be careful what you say lest you commit the “minor” violation of free speech.  Me, I need not worry.  I never support any candidate. I support freedom.

 

 

 

Five Easy Steps To Start a Civil War

07 Wednesday Oct 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Five Easy Steps To Start a Civil War

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Austin Bragg wrote a hilarious satirical essay over at Reason: How to Create a [Individually-owned] Gun-Free America in 5 Easy Steps: Guns – and the Second Amendment – won’t just disappear. There’s a video too.

The last part of Step 5 gets to the problem:

The rest you have to take.

You’ll need the police, the FBI, the ATF or the National Guard—all known for their nuanced approach to potentially dangerous situations—to go door-to-door, through 3.8 million square miles of this country and take guns, by force, from thousands, if not, millions of well-armed individuals. Many of whom would rather start a civil war than acquiesce.

So inevitably gun violence, which is currently at a historic low, will skyrocket.

Or, we could just have freedom.

Money Vultures Panic in Georgia

01 Thursday Oct 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Happy October the first!  I cover a lot of legal issues here.  Many of them are bad – like the New Jersey Supreme Court’s recent ruling that the police no longer need a warrant to search your vehicle.  Fourth Amendment be damned.

However, I am so happy to report good news!  For the economically disadvantaged among us (many and growing) and those in danger of joining them (most of the rest) the news doesn’t get much better than this:

Last month a Federal Judge struck down Georgia’s debt collection garnishment law as Unconstitutional!  See also: here and here.

The Judge was Marvin Shoob, whom I know from experience to be a class act and one of the fairest jurists around.

Tuesday’s ruling by U.S. District Senior Judge Marvin Shoob said the statute violated constitutional guarantees of due process by not giving debtors enough notice about the sorts of funds that are exempt from garnishment and how to claim those exemptions. He said the statute also didn’t provide a procedure to adjudicate exemption claims quickly enough.

Although the ruling rests on protecting the rights of individual consumers whose funds may be protected from creditors, it could affect all sorts of garnishments, including those that arise from business disputes and child support orders. Lawyers are debating whether simple changes in forms and procedures can allow garnishments to proceed prior to any legislative fix or further court ruling.

“People are panicking,” said Harriet Isenberg, who co-chairs the creditors’ rights section of the State Bar of Georgia.

Alyson Palmer, Collections-Lawyers-Scramble-After-Garnishment-Law-Is-Struck, Fulton County Daily Report, September 10, 2015.  

Good.  Let them panic.  They deserve it for a change as do their money-changing masters.

The subject case stemmed from a judgment collection action by a major credit card company against a poor man in Gwinnett County.  I know these cases well. When I was a law clerk I reviewed hundreds of them – each the same.  The banks file suit with no evidence whatsoever that any debt is owed and in 90% of their cases they win a default judgment.

It’s a terrible shame.  They don’t have any proof.  One or two Request for Admission questions and these cases would be dismissed.  The poor don’t know. The banks (and the State) don’t care.

Once the bank has a default judgment they file a wage or bank garnishment in an attempt to recover some of their (proof-less) monies.  As Judge Shoob points out the garnishment procedure is as crooked as the rest of the process.

As an aside, even if these banks could prove they had loaned money in the first place, I still wouldn’t feel bad for them losing it.  It never really existed, being a product of the Federal Reserve’s illegal funny money ponzi scheme.  More on that another time.

For now the banksters and their vulture collection agents will have to comply with the law.  Otherwise, “using a statute that has been declared unconstitutional to seek collection of consumer debt arguably would violate the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.”  Daily Report, supra. That means the bank would end up owing and facing stiff penalties.  Ha!

Banks and other large companies run the State of Georgia.  They will have this ruling nullified somewhere and soon.  There’s even talk of a special session of the ordinarily do-nothing General Assembly in order to bring the law into compliance with the Constitution.  Imagine that.

For now the banksters are feeling the panic their ancient predecessors felt when a certain Street Preacher ran them out of the Temple.  The rest of us are feeling a little relief.  Thank you Judge Shoob.

Gunning For Votes: A Look At Candidate Positions On The Second Amendment

20 Sunday Sep 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Last week Donald Trump added a white paper to his presidential election campaign materials: PROTECTING OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.  Until then The Donald had been a one note Donny – his note was all immigration reform.  I decided to make a professional examination of his paper.  Then I decided to review the positions of major candidates from all parties on the subject of the Second Amendment.  Not all of them, of course; there is something like 170 Republicans seeking the party’s nomination.  I don’t have that kind of time.  Trump gets the spotlight.  Not because he’s Trump but because he published a white paper.

Now, this examination draws together two concepts which, for me, are diametrically opposed: I love and cherish firearms rights and all individual freedom; I detest electoral politics and government in general.  Herein, though, I attempt to keep a neutral attitude towards the subject.  You will soon realize my failure.

“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).  I have expounded, in great detail, on the Second Amendment.  While a part of the Federal Constitution, establishing another government to plague mankind, the Second Amendment is the part that embodies the spirit of natural self-preservation, a branch of Natural Law.  It embodies protecting oneself from small-scale, “ordinary” predation as well as from the tyranny brought about by politics.

Politics involves the people setting themselves up for disaster one election at a time.  It’s usually a contest to see who is the biggest and worst rat – the rats usually win.  “The most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity.”  J.R.R. Tolkien, 1943 The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien.

Let’s get started with…

The Republican Field

Donald Trump

Trump begins his dissertation: “The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period.”  He soon forgets the infringement and the period and explains why some abridgment is okay.

trump

donaldjtrump.com.

Well, he doesn’t throw The 2A under the bus immediately:

The Constitution doesn’t create that right – it ensures that the government can’t take it away. Our Founding Fathers knew, and our Supreme Court has upheld, that the Second Amendment’s purpose is to guarantee our right to defend ourselves and our families. This is about self-defense, plain and simple.

That’s his way of kinda sorta acknowledging Natural Law.  I might add, here, that it’s not just about self-defense.  It’s also about tyranny prevention and resolution – through armed and extreme measures if necessary.  The Founding Father knew about that too; The Supreme Court wouldn’t exist without it either.

Trump then moves on to enforcing “the laws on the books.”  That’s great so long as those laws are valid – most are not.  “We need to get serious about prosecuting violent criminals,” Trump says.  He gives examples of local violent crimes.  The man is not running for any local office but for President of the United States.  There are only two (potentially) violent federal crimes mentioned in that Constitution nobody reads: piracy and treason.  And, those are almost exclusively committed (alone with counterfeiting), these days, by the federal government itself.

States and localities should enforce laws that prevent violence against the innocent or which punish such violence.  My view is if a man commits a violent crime, then he should be prevented from further interaction with society, either via a prison sentence or a well placed shot.  This approach would necessarily remove him from the pool of persons capable of bearing arms.  Otherwise, the issue of crime is as completely removed from the Second Amendment discussion as violent crimes are removed from federal jurisdiction.

Speaking of well placed shots … Trump advocates self-defense.  That’s good!  He boasts, “that’s why I have a concealed carry permit, and that’s why tens of millions of Americans have concealed carry permits as well.”  That’s bad!  Who needs a “permit” from anyone (least of all from political and bureaucratic rodentia) to exercise a right??  Free people must be free to arm themselves if they like, without any government involvement – infringement if you will.

Trump wants to fix our broken mental health system.  Again, that’s great.  It’s also not part of his desired employment as set forth in Article Two of the Constitution (I keep coming back to that thing…).  I assume he means using his personal financial and celebrity status to help the mentally ill.  For that I commend him.  Otherwise, like crime mental health is irrelevant to the Second Amendment.

He gets back to guns: “Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice. The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own.”  By itself this is his piece de resistance! However, he immediately murkifies the white right out of his paper by praising federal background checks (infringement) and by advocating a national carry permit (we have that now, it’s called the Second Amendment).  He also says driving a car is a privilege, not a right but that is another can of white papers.

The Donald ends by praising the military (yes, he’s running as a Republican) and proclaiming the rights of servicemen to carry arms.  I wonder if he caught the word “militia” in the text of The 2A?  The militia is the people. The people have the right to arms.  Trump’s military is the national standing army, known bane of freedom and limited to a two-year duration by that Constitution (am I dreaming all this????).

If pressed I don’t think trump would stand he forceful claim about people owning the firearm of their choice.  Suppose my choice is belt-fed and electrically operated.  Who Donald permit that or would he fire me? I don’t care to find out.

Carly Fiorina

Carly doesn’t have a white paper though she has much better looks that Trump (sure he would agree).  Her Second Amendment views may be found on her website, including a video from Fox News!

She notes that her husband has a government permission slip to carry a gun and she thinks that is fine and Constitutional.  I don’t think she’s read the document nor does she grasp the concept of a right.

Rand Paul

Dr. Paul is the son of Dr. Ron Paul, the man who should be President now. Outside of the Libertarians (see below), Rand has the best stance of The 2A.

As President, I vow to uphold our entire Bill of Rights, but specifically our right to bear arms.

Those who support the second amendment must also vehemently protect the Fourth Amendment. If we are not free from unreasonable and warrantless searches, no one’s guns are safe.

I will not support any proposed gun control law which would limit the right to gun ownership by those who are responsible, law-abiding citizens.

In the White House, I will remain vigilant in the fight against infringements on our Second Amendment rights.

Excellent!  However, to be true to his word, Rand would have to seek to repeal numerous federal laws in place now (NFA, ATF, 1986 “tax” act, etc.).  He’s also right about protecting rights in tandem.  That’s really the only valid reason to have a government.  He must also know that, sadly, every government in human history has immediately departed from this objective.  This trend will not abate anytime soon, Rand or no.

Jeb Bush

Yeah.  Another Bush.  Bush number three.  Not to worry, there’s a Clinton down below (not like that, Bill…).

I could not find an issue statement from George…er…Jeb’s website.  I did find an interesting exchange between the former governor and Stephen Colbert on The Late Show:

Stephen Colbert: Well, the right to have an individual firearm to protect yourself is a national document, in the Constitution, so shouldn’t that also be applied national…

Jeb Bush: No. Not necessarily…There’s a 10th amendment to our country, the Bill of Rights has a 10th amendment that says powers are given to the states to create policy, and the federal government is not the end all and be all. That’s an important value for this country, and it’s an important federalist system that works quite well.

Once again the comedian gets it right, the politician wrong.  Bush is aware of the tenth but not the second? Firearms and defense are universal rights not just national rights.  The right to self-preservation exists even in the absence of any government (imagine that for a minute..aaahh).  Bush didn’t even get number 10 quite right; “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”  Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1791)(entirety).

This means the federal government is strictly limited to those very few powers specifically written in the Constitution.  The States have some power outside the scope of the federal leviathan – concerning violent crime for example.  And, The People themselves retain political power.  By the way, government is a mix of powers and rights. The body politic is empowered only insofar as it may preserve the rights of the individual.  None of this power, federal, state or personal may (legitimately) infringe the freedoms of the people.  Illegitimately, it happens all the time.  Use your personal power – save us from another Bush presidency.

The Democrats

The days of Zell Miller and Sam Nunn being behind us, many write off the donkey party as wholly anti-gun.  Anti-freedom is more accurate.  They are generally a mirrored image of their anti-freedom elephant counterparts. Losing my objectivity, yes.

Hillary Clinton

Clinton.  Yes, one married to that other Clinton.  Like so many leftists, Hillary couches firearms issues in backwards thinking and words.  To her guns in private hands are bad and result in bad things.  Instead of “firearms rights” she talks about “gun violence prevention.”

“I don’t know how we keep seeing shooting after shooting, read about the people murdered because they went to Bible study or they went to the movies or they were just doing their job, and not finally say we’ve got to do something about this.”  Hillary, August 27, 2015.  Part of her something would be reinstating the assault weapons ban.  That would be infringement as prohibited by the Second Amendment.

Like Hillary I too deplore violence.  That’s why I support a ban on government.

Bernie Sanders

Bernie’s list of issues is devoid of anything for or against the Second Amendment.  I glanced over it and it rather reminded me of Karl Marx, maybe with a friendly Vermont bent.  Moving on…

Joe Biden

Crazy Joe is apparently just about to get into the race.  He has no papers or issue statements yet.  However, some of his positions on guns may be found here and here.  Mind you, should he enter the race, his positions are subject to magically change depending on who he’s talking to.  Buyer beware.

Despite having voted against gun rights in the past, at a press conference in 2013 Biden enthusiastically demonstrated his prize, imaginary shotgun for reporters.  Trump has a point about mental illness.

Libertarians

Americans love their “two-party” system despite its none-existence.  We all tend to forget about the lovable, pot-loving Libertarians.  In addition to legalizing (decriminalizing, geesh) whacky tobacky, the LP is pretty decent on gun rights as far as it goes…

Darryl Perry

Darryl Perry is running for President.  He has a list of issues in his platform among which is “Self Defense.”  “As a Life Member of the Second Amendment Foundation, I support the right to privately own and possess firearms or any other weapon deemed appropriate for self-defense.”  Perry.

Deemed appropriate by whom, Mr. Perry?  “Deemed appropriate” sounds like the talk of the permit set.  What about offensive weapons designed to rid the people of a tyrant.  Ah.  That would go against the LP’s pledge, “I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.”

That’s fine and dandy during civilized times.  But, suppose there’s a government on the loose?  What then?  Defense?  Defense against government is best accomplished by government prevention, which may require a little initiation of force – see the American Revolution, Thomas Jefferson, New Hampshire Constitution, etc.

Gary Johnson

Mr. Johnson was the LP candidate during the 2012 election.  No word on whether he’s in for this bout.  Nonetheless I have included his position.

“I don’t believe there should be any restrictions when it comes to firearms. None.” Johnson, April 20, 2011, Slate Magazine.  If he means firearms for the people, then that’s the best Second Amendment support statement of the 21st Century.

The only way to improve on a position like that is to declare there should be no government.  None.  But that would deprive us of white paper analysis and fun articles like this one.  Cheers!

***Note*** Nothing in the preceding article should be construed in any way as supporting any candidate for any office.  Perrin Lovett does not support government (outside of theoretical discussion and fun poking).

Liberty, Death, or Something In Between?

09 Wednesday Sep 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Liberty, Death, or Something In Between?

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Much, over the long years, has been made of freedom and the unnecessary curtailing thereof. Consider the following quotes:

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Patrick Henry, Richmond, VA, 1775.

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Benjamin Franklin.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H.L. Mencken.

I think I have quoted all of these lines before. They are worth repeating.  John W. Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute has a terrific article along similar lines on the false security based demise of freedom in 21st Century America:

‘Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death’: The Loss of Our Freedoms in the Wake of 9/11.

What began with the passage of the USA Patriot Act in October 2001 has snowballed into the eradication of every vital safeguard against government overreach, corruption and abuse. Since then, we have been terrorized, traumatized, and acclimated to life in the American Surveillance State.

The bogeyman’s names and faces change over time, but the end result remains the same: our unquestioning acquiescence to anything the government wants to do in exchange for the phantom promise of safety and security has transitioned us to life in a society where government agents routinely practice violence on the citizens while, in conjunction with the Corporate State, spying on the most intimate details of our personal lives.

Whitehead.

The good news is that as the American Empire collapses under its own weight, things will get better for the free people. The bad news is that things will be painful along the way. Of course, for the sheep, the unaware, and the unfree, things will get worse and stay worse. In any event, I think Henry had it right.