No. Not really.
In fact, this is really a test to see if people actually do read beyond the title of a blog post. I wanted to find something that would set you off emotionally as a title; after all, people writing articles on contract law (or something else where an amendment is present) say something about a "Second Amendment" and the gun loons are all over them like flies on shit.
That's because most people (I'll admit to it as well sometimes) don't really read beyond the first few lines of a blog post. This is to see if you can get beyond the title.
In fact, given what people say about what I write, I can tell you don't actually read my posts. You definitely don't look at my sources.
Also, you people claim that "A well-regulated militia" has nothing to do with the rest of the Second Amendment, while it's actually the most important part of it since it announces the purpose. IT EVEN SAYS IT'S NECESSARY!!!
You would think a title has something to do with the post--wouldn't you? Are you saying the first part of the Second Amendment was some sort of sick trick pulled by the founders?
Part of me is interested in what the comments to this will be, whether you will actually read this far and see this really has nothing to do with banning guns.
Or whether your emotions will overpower any intellect you possess and start saying things about "banning guns": even though that really has nothing to do with this post.
It's really a test to see if you are actually paying attention more than anything else.
My guess is that you aren't, which explains a lot about our interactions.
In fact, you people are more than willing to make fools of yourself for me that it doesn't take too much prompting.
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
Isn't Fox News Guilty of Treason?
Legal dictionary
Treason
The betrayal of one's own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies.
The Treason Clause traces its roots back to an English statute enacted during the reign of Edward III (1327–1377). This statute prohibited levying war against the king, adhering to his enemies, or contemplating his death. Although this law defined treason to include disloyal and subversive thoughts, it effectively circumscribed the crime as it existed under the Common Law. During the thirteenth century, the crime of treason encompassed virtually every act contrary to the king's will and became a political tool of the Crown. Building on the tradition begun by Edward III, the Founding Fathers carefully delineated the crime of treason in Article III of the U.S. Constitution, narrowly defining its elements and setting forth stringent evidentiary requirements.
Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information. If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies, aid and comfort has been given.
The betrayal of one's own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies.
The Treason Clause traces its roots back to an English statute enacted during the reign of Edward III (1327–1377). This statute prohibited levying war against the king, adhering to his enemies, or contemplating his death. Although this law defined treason to include disloyal and subversive thoughts, it effectively circumscribed the crime as it existed under the Common Law. During the thirteenth century, the crime of treason encompassed virtually every act contrary to the king's will and became a political tool of the Crown. Building on the tradition begun by Edward III, the Founding Fathers carefully delineated the crime of treason in Article III of the U.S. Constitution, narrowly defining its elements and setting forth stringent evidentiary requirements.
Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information. If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies, aid and comfort has been given.
The value of life
In the golden triangle of heroin production there was a saying that life was worth US$2.50, the price of a bullet.
That's what the US is fast becoming:
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution says:
[N]or shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .
Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:
[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .
Now, who are you saying doesn't respect the Constitution? I guess that doesn't apply to private actions.
And the right and value of life for people who are actually alive? Nonexistant.
That's what the US is fast becoming:
Clerk arrested for shooting alleged beer thief
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution says:
[N]or shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .
Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:
[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .
Now, who are you saying doesn't respect the Constitution? I guess that doesn't apply to private actions.
And the right and value of life for people who are actually alive? Nonexistant.
Why you might want to consider using Ubuntu
I know you people love monopoly, robber baron capitalism. Deep down, you probably love Bill Gates for taking something which should have been in the public domain (Xerox PARC invented windows, but refused to patent it) and is now charging you an arm and a leg for the privilege of using it.
If you are a real sucker (and given you actually believe the Second Amendment has nothing to do with a "well-regulated militia" despite its being "necessary to the security of the free state")--you probably are and you may even have bought his shitty "Office" software.
I give you this:
Anyway, when you buy something which the European Union has whacked with competition fines for manipulating the marketplace and think is really good, you are helping fund gun control!
Get something that is free instead: http://www.ubuntu.com/download
Of course, given the name and it sounds like something Barack Obama would use (the French Gendarmerie Nationale do as well), you will happily go along supporting a robber baron who has no interest in your needs or concern.
I should also add that Ubuntu is "open sourced", which means that it was designed as a collective effort (collectivism/socialism/communism).
So, your choice is monopoly, robber baron, capitalism which supports gun control or Collectivist which may or may not support gun control (but, most civilised and intelligent people see a need for regulating firearm ownership).
But, you've been doing that anyway by being a sucker and voting for candidates who oppose "gun control".
I love seeing your brains explode.
If you are a real sucker (and given you actually believe the Second Amendment has nothing to do with a "well-regulated militia" despite its being "necessary to the security of the free state")--you probably are and you may even have bought his shitty "Office" software.
I give you this:
Bill Gates, wife donate $1M to gun initiative
The dude has more money than god and he only gives $1M.Anyway, when you buy something which the European Union has whacked with competition fines for manipulating the marketplace and think is really good, you are helping fund gun control!
Get something that is free instead: http://www.ubuntu.com/download
Of course, given the name and it sounds like something Barack Obama would use (the French Gendarmerie Nationale do as well), you will happily go along supporting a robber baron who has no interest in your needs or concern.
I should also add that Ubuntu is "open sourced", which means that it was designed as a collective effort (collectivism/socialism/communism).
So, your choice is monopoly, robber baron, capitalism which supports gun control or Collectivist which may or may not support gun control (but, most civilised and intelligent people see a need for regulating firearm ownership).
But, you've been doing that anyway by being a sucker and voting for candidates who oppose "gun control".
I love seeing your brains explode.
Monday, August 25, 2014
Going Armed to the Terror of the People
If people are going to try and claim that there is some form of "Second Amendment right" to carry a weapon in public outside the context of actual militia service (like it or not, Presser v. Illinois, 16 U.S. 252 [1886] seems to be quite on point that it is not protected).
This is a common law offense. Common law made it clear that it was contrary to law to go about in public. , "the offence of riding or going armed with dangerous or unusual weapons, is a crime against the public peace, by terrifying the good people of the land; and is particularly prohibited by the statute of Northampton, 2 Edward 3d, ch. 3d, upon pain of forfeiture of the arms and imprisonment during the Kings pleasure."
It is hard to imagine a right that would somehow contradict prohibited and antisocial activity. Indeed, the crime of Going Armed to the Terror of the People consists of the following elements:
Element (1). In State v. Huntly, 25 N.C. 418 (1843), the court held that any gun is an unusual and dangerous weapon for purposes of this offense. Huntly, 25 N.C. at 422. In that case it was argued that a gun cannot constitute an unusual weapon, “for there is scarcely a man in the community who does not own and occasionally use a gun of some sort.” Id. The court rejected that argument, concluding: “A gun is an ‘unusual weapon,’ wherewith to be armed and clad. No man amongst us carries it about with him, as one of his every day accoutrements–as a part of his dress–and never we trust will the day come when any deadly weapon will be worn or wielded in our peace loving and law-abiding State, as an appendage of manly equipment.” Id.
Element (4). The offense of affray involves fighting in public to the terror of the people. For purposes of that offense, cases hold that if members of the public experience fear, the “to the terror of the people” element is satisfied. In re May, 357 N.C. 423, 428 (2003). In an unpublished case involving a charge of going armed to the terror of the people, the North Carolina Court of Appeals found this element satisfied where the defendant shot his gun while driving closely behind another vehicle on a public highway. State v. Toler, 716 S.E.2d 875 (N.C. App. 2011) (unpublished) (rejecting the defendant’s argument that his actions were not “to the terror of the people” where the only people involved were those in the victim’s car, and stating: “We find this to be substantial evidence that this behavior was intended to be to the terror of the people and was in fact to the terror of the people. The fact that a limited number of witnesses testified regarding Defendant’s actions does not change the character of those actions.”).
In other words, if one causes fear in the general public then you are guilty of this offence.
As I said before, William Rawle explained this in relation to the Second Amendment in his treatise "A View of the Constitution of the United States", 125--26 1829 (2d ed.):
Presser was doing what open carry advocated do these days and walking about claiming his Second Amendment right to bear arms in public. He was not engaging in menacing activity (although the common law does not really require actual menace, the mere fact one is carrying a weapon in public is enough to prove menace). To be quite frank, Presser is the gun rights fanatic's worst nightmare.
I would add that any "incorporation" issue is also addressed in this decision by pointing out that the Second Amendment right DOES apply to the states if they were to abridge the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of militias under the aspect of Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 & 16, not private uses.
As US v. Miller said, [it is] With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view. Which means, as William Rawle pointed out, the first and second clauses of the Second Amendment are corollaries and must be considered together.
There is no right to go about armed outside the context of national service and the law should not be misinterpreted to say there is. Additionally, one cannot claim a right to terrorise people.
See also:
This is a common law offense. Common law made it clear that it was contrary to law to go about in public. , "the offence of riding or going armed with dangerous or unusual weapons, is a crime against the public peace, by terrifying the good people of the land; and is particularly prohibited by the statute of Northampton, 2 Edward 3d, ch. 3d, upon pain of forfeiture of the arms and imprisonment during the Kings pleasure."
It is hard to imagine a right that would somehow contradict prohibited and antisocial activity. Indeed, the crime of Going Armed to the Terror of the People consists of the following elements:
A person guilty of this offense
(1) arms himself or herself with an unusual and dangerous weapon
(2) for the purpose of terrifying others and
(3) goes about on public highways
(4) in a manner to cause terror to the people.
Element (1). In State v. Huntly, 25 N.C. 418 (1843), the court held that any gun is an unusual and dangerous weapon for purposes of this offense. Huntly, 25 N.C. at 422. In that case it was argued that a gun cannot constitute an unusual weapon, “for there is scarcely a man in the community who does not own and occasionally use a gun of some sort.” Id. The court rejected that argument, concluding: “A gun is an ‘unusual weapon,’ wherewith to be armed and clad. No man amongst us carries it about with him, as one of his every day accoutrements–as a part of his dress–and never we trust will the day come when any deadly weapon will be worn or wielded in our peace loving and law-abiding State, as an appendage of manly equipment.” Id.
Element (4). The offense of affray involves fighting in public to the terror of the people. For purposes of that offense, cases hold that if members of the public experience fear, the “to the terror of the people” element is satisfied. In re May, 357 N.C. 423, 428 (2003). In an unpublished case involving a charge of going armed to the terror of the people, the North Carolina Court of Appeals found this element satisfied where the defendant shot his gun while driving closely behind another vehicle on a public highway. State v. Toler, 716 S.E.2d 875 (N.C. App. 2011) (unpublished) (rejecting the defendant’s argument that his actions were not “to the terror of the people” where the only people involved were those in the victim’s car, and stating: “We find this to be substantial evidence that this behavior was intended to be to the terror of the people and was in fact to the terror of the people. The fact that a limited number of witnesses testified regarding Defendant’s actions does not change the character of those actions.”).
In other words, if one causes fear in the general public then you are guilty of this offence.
As I said before, William Rawle explained this in relation to the Second Amendment in his treatise "A View of the Constitution of the United States", 125--26 1829 (2d ed.):
"This right ought not, however, in any government, to be abused to the disturbance of the public peace.While some people would like to claim that carrying weapons in public is covered by the Second Amendment, Presser v. Illinois, 16 U.S. 252 [1886]
An assemblage of persons with arms, for an unlawful purpose, is an indictable offence, and even the carrying of arms abroad by a single individual, attended with circumstances giving just reason to fear that he purposes to make an unlawful use of them, would be sufficient cause to require him to give surety of the peace. If he refused he would be liable to imprisonment."
It cannot be successfully questioned that the state governments, unless restrained by their own constitutions, have the power to regulate or prohibit associations and meetings of the people, except in the case of peaceable assemblies to perform the duties or exercise the privileges of citizens of the United States, and have also the power to control and regulate the organization, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations, except when such bodies or associations, are [116 U.S. 252, 268] authorized by the militia laws of the United States. The exercise of this power by the states is necessary to the public peace, safety, and good order. To deny the power would be to deny the right of the state to disperse assemblages organized for sedition and treason, and the right to suppress armed mobs bent on riot and rapine.Although, one thing that the Presser court made clear was that the Second Amendment right was tied to militia service and that carrying weapons outside that context was not covered by the Amendment.
The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of congress or law of the state authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject.As I have said before, I'm rather surprised that Presser has been neglected in Second Amendment jurisprudence. Although, maybe surprise is the wrong word to use since this decision so clearly supports the "Civic Right" interpretation of the Second Amendment by pointing out that the right to bear arms is only protected when it relates to militia service.
Presser was doing what open carry advocated do these days and walking about claiming his Second Amendment right to bear arms in public. He was not engaging in menacing activity (although the common law does not really require actual menace, the mere fact one is carrying a weapon in public is enough to prove menace). To be quite frank, Presser is the gun rights fanatic's worst nightmare.
I would add that any "incorporation" issue is also addressed in this decision by pointing out that the Second Amendment right DOES apply to the states if they were to abridge the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of militias under the aspect of Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 & 16, not private uses.
As US v. Miller said, [it is] With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view. Which means, as William Rawle pointed out, the first and second clauses of the Second Amendment are corollaries and must be considered together.
There is no right to go about armed outside the context of national service and the law should not be misinterpreted to say there is. Additionally, one cannot claim a right to terrorise people.
See also:
Huey P. Newton Gun Club Stages Open Carry Rally Through Dallas
Guns dot com
A group of some 30 African-American gun rights advocates marched in South Dallas Wednesday evening to promote self-defense and protest police shootings.
The newly formed group, calling themselves the Huey P. Newton Gun Club after one of the founders of the 1960s Black Panther party, open-carried rifles and shotguns on their evening walk along Malcom X and Martin Luther King boulevards. The peaceful activists, clad in black, according to the Dallas Morning News, chanted “Black Power” and “Justice for Michael Brown” along their route.
“We think that all black people have the right to self-defense and self-determination,” said Huey Freeman, a march organizer. “We believe that we can police ourselves and bring security to our own communities.”
Quote of the Day
“A gun is an ‘unusual weapon,’ wherewith to be armed and clad. No man amongst us carries it about with him, as one of his every day accoutrements–as a part of his dress–and never we trust will the day come when any deadly weapon will be worn or wielded in our peace loving and law-abiding State, as an appendage of manly equipment.
State v. Huntly, 25 N.C. 418, 418 (1843)
Actual passage from the decision:
The bill of rights in this State secures to every man indeed, the right to "bear arms for the defence of the State." While it secures to him a right of which he cannot be deprived, it holds forth the duty in execution of which that right is to be exercised. If he employ those arms, which he ought to wield for the safety and protection of his country, to the annoyance and terror and danger of its citizens, he deserves but the severer condemnation for the abuse of the high privilege, with which he has been invested.
"It has been remarked, that a double--barrelled gun or any other one, cannot in this country come under the description of "unusual weapons," for there is scarcely a man in the community who does not own and occasionally use guns of some sort. But we do not feel the force of this criticism. A gun is an "unusual weapon," wherewith to be armed and clad. No man amongst us carries it about with him, as one of his every day accoutrements-as a part of his dress-and never we trust will the day come when any deadly weapon will be worn or wielded in our peace loving and law-abiding State, as an appendage of manly equipment. But although a gun is an "unusual weapon," it is to be remembered that the carrying of a gun per se constitutes no offence. For any lawful purpose-either of business or amusement-the citizen is at perfect liberty to carry his gun. It is the wicked purpose-and the mischievous result-which essentially constitute the crime. He shall not carry about this or any other weapon of death to terrify and alarm, and in such manner as naturally will terrify and alarm, a peaceful people."
State v. Huntly, 25 N.C. 418, 418 (1843)
Actual passage from the decision:
The bill of rights in this State secures to every man indeed, the right to "bear arms for the defence of the State." While it secures to him a right of which he cannot be deprived, it holds forth the duty in execution of which that right is to be exercised. If he employ those arms, which he ought to wield for the safety and protection of his country, to the annoyance and terror and danger of its citizens, he deserves but the severer condemnation for the abuse of the high privilege, with which he has been invested.
"It has been remarked, that a double--barrelled gun or any other one, cannot in this country come under the description of "unusual weapons," for there is scarcely a man in the community who does not own and occasionally use guns of some sort. But we do not feel the force of this criticism. A gun is an "unusual weapon," wherewith to be armed and clad. No man amongst us carries it about with him, as one of his every day accoutrements-as a part of his dress-and never we trust will the day come when any deadly weapon will be worn or wielded in our peace loving and law-abiding State, as an appendage of manly equipment. But although a gun is an "unusual weapon," it is to be remembered that the carrying of a gun per se constitutes no offence. For any lawful purpose-either of business or amusement-the citizen is at perfect liberty to carry his gun. It is the wicked purpose-and the mischievous result-which essentially constitute the crime. He shall not carry about this or any other weapon of death to terrify and alarm, and in such manner as naturally will terrify and alarm, a peaceful people."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)