The American Ruling Class

[dutchdivco]

Ocasionally, you DO see 'glimmers'

Saw an interview last night, with the Police Chief, of Chicago; the very city Lamestream media keeps harping on, because of all the 'gun violence'.

He said when he met with o'bummer, what HE was 'urging' was NOT more gun control laws, but enforcement of existing laws; specifically the FEDERAL laws regarding convicted felons purchasing weapons, (even filling out the form, for a 'background check' is, in and of itself, an 'offence') POSSESING weapons, (also a punishable offence) and 'straw purchasing' weapons FOR those who wouldn't pass a background check, which is ALSO a punishable crime.

He went on to state that virtually all of the murderers they arrest, in Chicago, HAVE criminal records with felony convictions, and so if these laws were aggressively prosecuted (By Holders In-Justice dept., my addition here) these murders could have been avoided.

Also saw a recent interview with the Police Chief of Boston, (another 'Big city' which is experiencing this increased 'gun homicide', along with a rural sherriff. They both were denigrating the need for assault weapons ban, OR 'high capacity magazine' ban. Boton Police chief said "I don't know what an 'assautl weapon' is, as i have never seen a good definition. What I do know is the vast majority of the murders we are investigating, not only in Boston but around the country, are perpetrated with a handgun, usually a semi-automatic, generally 9mm caliber. (hence, he was saying, an 'assautl weapons ban' will do NOTHING to 'curb gun violence').

So, at least SOME of the Police chiefs are starting to talk back, and counter this lie that the O'bummer admin is putting out, that "They have met with police chiefs from around the country, and they are pleading with O'bummer and Biden FOR this legislation. And, SOME of this is getting into the media; not NEARLY enough. Perhaps we who support gun rights should be writing/calling our police chiefs, and urging them to speak up?

The one that really gets me is the statement that "Our Law Enforcement are being out-gunned",....Do they really think we didn't all see the pictures of the police at Sandy Hook all 'rambo'd up' with their 'assault rifles' and body armour? If a small town in Conneticut has such equipment for THEIR police, isn't it pretty obvious that the Police are NOT being 'out-gunned', even if the 'bad guys' WERE using assault weapons, which they aren't?

Oh, and by-the-by; 99% of the time, the weapons being aimed at, fired at, and shooting Police officers? Handguns, usually semi-auto's, most often 9mm.
NOT 'assaut rifles'. Even Dormer, who was 'going to war' with the LAPD; MOST of the officers he shot, he shot with a handgun. I BELIEVE only the last 2, when he was 'holed up' in the cabin, MAY have been with a rifle.

And, this makes sense; if you want to shoot someone from a considerable distance, you use a rifle; MOST gun homicides and Police shootings are at close range, where a rifle is NOT the ideal weapon, not even an 'assault' rifle.

Ahh, what a bunch of crap! The Press SHOULD be 'calling them' on all these lies, but (for the most part), they aren't!

But, as I say, apperently SOME of these police chiefs are getting pissed, at being used by O'bummer etc., and are starting to speak up. Just wish more people could hear them. Enforce the laws, already on the books, in order to keep guns out of the wrong hands, Holder.Jim

[dutchdivco]

Rick

The NRA, (and others) have been quoted as saying there were 70,000 people who were denied guns, due to 'failing' a background check, and only 40 were prosecuted. Did thos 40 have lousy lawyers, who didn't KNOW about this decision, or, if you fill out the application, are you somehow 'waiving' your right to protection from self-incrimination? Just curious,...as that is a strange but apperently true ruling. From a 'Constitutional' view, makes sense, tho.

I THOUGHT the law said that for a convicted felon to even ATTEMPT to purchase a firearm, was a violation of the law, and that their signature on the form was simply used as clear 'evidence' of their intent.

In addition, POSSESION, regardless of HOW they got it, of a firearm is a seperate 'offence', I believe.

Oh, and ironically, the whole Taurus Judge, etc. shows the 'difficulty' of outlawing specific weapons, like a shotgun with a barrel less than 16 1/2" long.
BATF defines a 'shotgun' as being a 'smoothbore', i.e. without rifling. So, manufacturer makes a PISTOL, with say,.. a 3" or 6" barrel, and puts rifling in the last 1/2 inch. So, its NOT a 'shotgun', its a PISTOL, because it has rifling!

Laws are RE-active, NOT Pro-active, and are most workable/enforceable when they focus on BEHAVIOR, not inanimate objects. Prohibition, the drug laws, gun control the focuses on banning specific weapons, etc. are all examples of bad laws, which attempt to focus on innanimate objects, rather than behavior. Such laws fail to recognise the re-active nature of laws; they are NOT like 'orders' from Capt. Picard; "Make it so".Jim

[rickoff]

Sign petition to stop Internet taxes

An all out effort is now underway in both the US Senate and the United Nations to control and tax the Internet. As explained by Rand Paul:

"Statists in Congress have introduced S. 336, the National Internet Tax Mandate. Of course, the tax-and-spenders sponsoring the bill mislabeled it the 'Marketplace Fairness Act.' This dangerous bill would hand the federal government massive new controls over state tax policies and set the stage for government at all levels to take another helping of your money via the Internet.

Now the one-world socialists at the United Nations want in on the action, as well. Just a few months ago, the U.N. drafted a new 'Telecommunications Treaty' to impose restrictive regulations, global CENSORSHIP, and a massive new tax on all Internet operations. If ratified by the United States Senate, the United Nations' Telecommunications Treaty – designed to take effect in 2015 – could give control of the Internet to U.N. bureaucrats.

Go here now to read and sign Rand Paul's petition telling Congress NO INTERNET TAXES!

[rickoff]

The NRA, (and others) have been quoted as saying there were 70,000 people who were denied guns, due to 'failing' a background check, and only 40 were prosecuted. Did those 40 have lousy lawyers, who didn't KNOW about this [U.S. Supreme Court's 1968 Haynes v. U.S. decision], or, if you fill out the application, are you somehow 'waiving' your right to protection from self-incrimination? Just curious,...as that is a strange but apparently true ruling. From a 'Constitutional' view, makes sense, though.

Since it is against the law for a felon to possess a gun, attempting to register one would in fact alert authorities to the fact the felon is breaking the law and in effect does waive and negate the felon's 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. To exercise a 5th Amendment right, one would have to refuse to provide such incriminating evidence, and that is what their 5th Amendment right is all about. Hence, this is why the Haynes v. US decision was a proper one.

[rickoff]

Sign Audit The Fed petition now!

Go here to sign the petition found below:


Audit the Fed Petition
To my Congressman and Senators

Whereas: Since the Federal Reserve was created in 1913, our dollar has lost 97% of its value; and
Whereas: The Federal Reserve's "print-now-ask-questions-later" policies are driving the costs of housing, food, gasoline, higher education and medical care sky-high; and
Whereas: Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke's “QE4” - dubbed “QE infinity” - is pumping more than $85 BILLION per month into our economy; and
Whereas: Audit the Fed (S. 209/H.R. 24) would EXPOSE the corruption and cronyism at the Fed and stop Ben Bernanke’s economic snake oil “solutions” from wrecking our fragile economy.
Therefore: As your constituent, I URGE you to support Audit the Fed (S. 209/H.R. 24) at every opportunity.

[5150]

If I could make one of those funny demotivational pictures on a black background it would have a picture of Julian Assange and then say in large letters




Wikileaks

Then the text under it would read something like this:

Helping Obama to keep his campaign promise of having the most transparent administration in history by posting secret government documents and information for public review

[5150]

Since it is against the law for a felon to possess a gun, attempting to register one would in fact alert authorities to the fact the felon is breaking the law and in effect does waive and negate the felon's 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. To exercise a 5th Amendment right, one would have to refuse to provide such incriminating evidence, and that is what their 5th Amendment right is all about. Hence, this is why the Haynes v. US decision was a proper one.

Are you saying the US Supreme Court said criminals do not have to register guns or ownership?

But it doesn't address a felon in possession of a of a gun. That's is still a crime that doesn't allow for that same argument. I mean what is the argument of a felon having a gun in the first place? Protection?

or is this law just for those felons who had their gun rights restored?

[FuzzyTomCat]

DICK ACT of 1902 - Protection Against a Tyrannical Government

Bill of Rights - Second Amendment - 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

DICK ACT of 1902 - CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) - Protection Against a Tyrannical Government.

The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.

The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.

The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.

Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, "the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States."

The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.

During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada. The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.

The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states. Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.

Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states: "The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States." In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, "that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it."

"This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose. Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power."

The Honorable William Julian Gordon
Congressional Record, House, Page 640 - 1917
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
DICK ACT OF 1902 (Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654) - FORBIDS GUN CONTROL

Library of Congress LCCN Permalink 96190993

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://wramsite.com/profiles/blogs/e...f-june-28-1902

[aljhoa]

Bill of Rights - Second Amendment - 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

DICK ACT of 1902 - CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) - Protection Against a Tyrannical Government.

The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.

The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.

The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.

Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, "the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States."

The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.

During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada. The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.

The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states. Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.

Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states: "The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States." In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, "that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it."

"This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose. Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power."

The Honorable William Julian Gordon
Congressional Record, House, Page 640 - 1917
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
DICK ACT OF 1902 (Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654) - FORBIDS GUN CONTROL

Library of Congress LCCN Permalink 96190993

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://wramsite.com/profiles/blogs/e...f-june-28-1902

Our Representatives in Congress cannot be aware of this!

Do you really believe this? Do you think that just because there is a vacuum of silence concerning these matters, that they do not exist? Rest assured, your members of Congress are fully aware of the situation and their place in it. Instead of answering to the true authority, (the People), they answer to those that actually own them. They answer to the CORPORATION OF THE UNITED STATES, their true masters!
The Corporation Of The United States Of America Is It True? We Are Not Under Common Law?

Al

[dutchdivco]

5150

Are you saying the US Supreme Court said criminals do not have to register guns or ownership?

But it doesn't address a felon in possession of a of a gun. That's is still a crime that doesn't allow for that same argument. I mean what is the argument of a felon having a gun in the first place? Protection?

or is this law just for those felons who had their gun rights restored?

No, This ruling of the SCOTUS does not apply only to those felons who have had their rights restored. The right we are talking about is a right against being compelled to make a self-incriminating statement, (in essence, being 'compelled' to confess), NOT the right to possess a firearm.

And whether the 'self incriminating' statement is in writing, or verbal, and whether its before or after the fact, (according to this ruling), it cannot be COMPELLED.

But yes, a convicted felon, who hasn't had his rights restored is STILL prohibited from owning a firearm; he just can't be COMPELLED to admit it.

So, if he's 'pulled over' by the Law, and asked "Do you have a firearm in the car" he can remain silent. Actually, IF the officer has already 'run his name' thru, and its come back indicating he IS a convicted felon, the officer really would have to mirandise him, BEFORE asking him if he has a firearm in the vehicle.
Thing is, I DON'T know if refusing to answer such a question would be legally acceptable 'probable cause' to search the vehicle, or not.

IF this question is especially relevent to YOU, (and based on what you have SAID of your 'criminal record'), and if you WANT to own a firearm, I would seriously explore having your 'civil rights restored', and your record 'expunged', and THEN you can legally own a weapon. Meantime, you MIGHT want to get a blood test, to test you iron levels, and copper to zinc levels. In all but 5 states, you can order such a test, yourself, (without a Dr.'s order), and its NOT very expensive. If you are low in iron, and/or have a high Copper to Zinc ratio, it is easily 'corrected' with inexpensive supplements, and MAY go far to insuring you don't end up behind bars, again.

Hope this isn't 'out of line', but a suggestion which MAY be beneficial? Jim

[dutchdivco]

My 'take', on the Constitution

(For what its worth, which probably isn't much).
The first part spells out those powers and authorities specifically 'reserved' to the Federal gov't, and delineates which part of the Fed. Gov't, (Executive, Legislative, Judicial) has authority; Congress declares war, but Executive is Commander in Chief, etc. It then says something like "all OTHER powers, not specifically addrssed above, devolve to the states, and to the PEOPLE.
It then goes on to enumerate 10 specific rights which are reserved to the people.Right to freedom of expression (free speech), freedom of worship (Freedom of religion), and of coarse right to keep and bear arms. These are NOT 'collective' rights, but individual rights; its not only organised free speech, reserved to newspapers, etc. or freedom of worship being reserved to 'organised' religion i.e. churches.And so, despite the emphasising the importance of a militia to retaining a 'free state', the second amendment IS an individual right, as the SCOTUS recently affirmed.

And yes, as the forefathers forsaw, there has been a steady erosion away from what they envisioned; a steady erosion of individual liberty, and away from the original intent; Federal Gov't being 'able' to call up Nat'l guard, and conscript (draft) citisens, creation of the Fed, the list goes on and on. Its a slow, gradual process of corruption. There have always been, and will always be, those who will try to 'game' the system; criminals, on the one hand, and Politicians and 'influence peddlers' on the other. The Criminals are SLIGHTLY more Honest about it; they clearly ignore the law.The others are 'slyer'; they work THRU the existing system, manipulating it to suit there own ends.
No REAL difference, in the end, tho. Except criminals get caught,and do time, far more often than the Pol's and influence peddlers.
Human nature; 'we' are our own worst enemy, and there IS no 'answer'.Jim

[rickoff]

Are you saying the US Supreme Court said criminals do not have to register guns or ownership?

That's basically what the decision amounts to, because only felons who cannot legally possess a firearm are excluded from gun registrations which are mandatory to everyone else. The reason they are excluded being the felon's 5th Amendment right to avoid self incrimination. This is why a felon cannot be prosecuted for failure to register a gun, or for failure to admit to a police officer that he is armed. When asked, though, he could not say "no." He would have to say something like, "Per my 5th Amendment rights, I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me." At that point the officer would suspect that you probably do have a weapon, but would not know for sure. Unless he had seen, or responded to a report of, your car speeding away from the scene of an armed robbery, or a drive by shooting, or something else that would indicate that you are armed, he would not have probable cause to search you or your vehicle. Of course a crooked cop would find a way to get around that, though.

[aljhoa]

... only felons who cannot legally possess a firearm are excluded from gun registrations which are mandatory to everyone else.

"Fringe Element" Discrimination



Al

[5150]

IF this question is especially relevent to YOU, (and based on what you have SAID of your 'criminal record'), and if you WANT to own a firearm, I would seriously explore having your 'civil rights restored', and your record 'expunged', and THEN you can legally own a weapon. Meantime, you MIGHT want to get a blood test, to test you iron levels, and copper to zinc levels. In all but 5 states, you can order such a test, yourself, (without a Dr.'s order), and its NOT very expensive. If you are low in iron, and/or have a high Copper to Zinc ratio, it is easily 'corrected' with inexpensive supplements, and MAY go far to insuring you don't end up behind bars, again.

Hope this isn't 'out of line', but a suggestion which MAY be beneficial? Jim

well regardless of what the law says I will always have access to a gun. I might not have it in my personal possession where I can get into a wreck with the law but I have a gun handy if I need it. I wont adhere to any gun laws and if that makes me a habitual criminal so be it. Yea I would like to follow the law but when the law becomes to burdensome then I just say to heck with it.

as for the iron or copper or zinc levels, no I am not offended or upset if you're
suggesting I might be off balance in some ways. I know I am.

id even be open to talking here publicly about it because it might help you have some insight to how I think

[5150]

That's basically what the decision amounts to, because only felons who cannot legally possess a firearm are excluded from gun registrations which are mandatory to everyone else. The reason they are excluded being the felon's 5th Amendment right to avoid self incrimination. This is why a felon cannot be prosecuted for failure to register a gun, or for failure to admit to a police officer that he is armed. When asked, though, he could not say "no." He would have to say something like, "Per my 5th Amendment rights, I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me." At that point the officer would suspect that you probably do have a weapon, but would not know for sure. Unless he had seen, or responded to a report of, your car speeding away from the scene of an armed robbery, or a drive by shooting, or something else that would indicate that you are armed, he would not have probable cause to search you or your vehicle. Of course a crooked cop would find a way to get around that, though.

crooked cops.... do they come any other way?