| Author | Post |
|---|
orthzar
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 09:14 pm |
|
I have been considering this for the past month, and seeing that Independence day is approaching, I must decide soon.
I realize that 10 years or $10,000 are the possible consequences. I also realize that Freedom is not free.
If I am confronted by a police officer and brought to court, I would follow the guidelines of this article:
http://www.lawfulgov.org/proact.htm
If no officer bothers me on the walk, then so be it. Regardless, my goal is to go to court to challenge Penal Code Title 10 Sec. 46.02 (a-1) (1), if not all of Section 46.02. I would defend my action as being Constitutionally guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, which is that an individual's right to be armed shall not be infringed.
I would also remind the Jury that they have the authority to nullify an act if they deem that act to be unlawful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void" Marbury v Madison 5 US (2Cranch) 137, 174, 176 (1803)
My case would hinge upon my right to be armed. The Constitution declares that the right of the people to be armed shall not be infringed. I combine 'to keep and bear' into 'be armed', to point out that being armed, regardless of manner, is Constitutionally protected. Banning and licensing are two simple methods of infringing upon rights.
Also, the Constitution is a contract between the States through which they delegate certain powers to the Federal Republic, and in return, the Federal Republic must protect the States and the People of the United States of America. Being a citizen of the USA, I enjoy various protections of my rights, of which the right to be armed is clearly safe-guarded by 2A.
I see the risk of unconstitutional imprisonment will be present, but I also remember that liberty is an invigorating contest and not an entitlement program.
What do ya'll think?
|
lockman
State Researcher
| Joined: | Sat Aug 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | Elgin, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 697 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 09:26 pm |
|
| Is 2A incoopoated in th 5th circuit? Is the Texas Constituion strong on 2A as to reasonably risk a felony?
|
Shawn
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 24th, 2006 |
| Location: | Missouri USA |
| Posts: | 369 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 10:21 pm |
|
orthzar wrote: I have been considering this for the past month, and seeing that Independence day is approaching, I must decide soon.
I realize that 10 years or $10,000 are the possible consequences. I also realize that Freedom is not free. (Your correct, Good Luck!)
If I am confronted by a police officer and brought to court, I would follow the guidelines of this article:
http://www.lawfulgov.org/proact.htm
If no officer bothers me on the walk, then so be it. Regardless, my goal is to go to court to challenge Penal Code Title 10 Sec. 46.02 (a-1) (1), if not all of Section 46.02. I would defend my action as being Constitutionally guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, which is that an individual's right to be armed shall not be infringed.
I would also remind the Jury that they have the authority to nullify an act if they deem that act to be unlawful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
(I hope the court lets you do that)
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void" Marbury v Madison 5 US (2Cranch) 137, 174, 176 (1803)
My case would hinge upon my right to be armed. The Constitution declares that the right of the people to be armed shall not be infringed. I combine 'to keep and bear' into 'be armed', to point out that being armed, regardless of manner, is Constitutionally protected. Banning and licensing are two simple methods of infringing upon rights. (Correct, how much money do you have?)
Also, the Constitution is a contract between the States through which they delegate certain powers to the Federal Republic, and in return, the Federal Republic must protect the States and the People of the United States of America. Being a citizen of the USA, I enjoy various protections of my rights, of which the right to be armed is clearly safe-guarded by 2A. (applied to the states through the 14th amendment and article 6) Please read U.S. vs. Miller. First Texan to try it....learn from his mistake.
I see the risk of unconstitutional imprisonment will be present, but I also remember that liberty is an invigorating contest and not an entitlement program.
What do ya'll think? (Again, Good Luck)
|
DKSuddeth
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon May 8th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bedford, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 639 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 12:19 am |
|
I hope you're going to OC a long gun, because if you go with a handgun I fear you will be arrested, charged, and end up on trial. If you have the money to afford a super attorney and are willing to suffer the consequences of a conviction, then I wish you all the luck in the world.
The problem you will face is this:
Jury trial will convict you. Richardson and North Dallas, mostly liberal and pro conceal carry, will not care that 46.02 violates the 2nd Amendment. You are a criminal waiting to happen unless you have your CHL. You will never be allowed to present the idea of Jury Nullification to 12 people judging you.......let me repeat that. You will NEVER be allowed to argue nullification to a jury. The judge will strike that argument, remind the jury that he decides what the law is and means and that the jury is only their to decide on facts of the case.
You can request a bench trial and argue marbury v. madison, murdock v. PA, and US v Emerson til the cows come home. A state court judge is going to convict you because his superiors have not instructed him that the 2nd Amendment has been incorporated via the 14th Amendment.
You can take your convictions up to the Appelate courts and argue those same where you MIGHT have a better chance of succeeding.......after thousands of your dollars have been spent on defense.
The 5th circuit might be gun friendly, but they are also sticklers for stare decisis, which is why they decided Emerson the way that they did.
good luck if you do. I'll be rooting for you.
|
jarodm20
Lone Star Veteran
| Joined: | Mon Jul 7th, 2008 |
| Location: | West Texas, USA |
| Posts: | 98 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 06:34 am |
|
Well now that I know what jury nullification is (I had a good read on wikipedia), I hope that if you do get charged with a crime, the members of the jury are aware of this power and that they have the conviction to use it, though the judge would likely try to remove them for it. I suggest everyone read the article on Jury Nullification and remember it when you are picked one day for jury duty.
I must say Orthzar, I'm very impressed that you have the conviction to actually stand up for your rights, risking financial loss and imprisonment, instead of just talking about it like myself and others. I'll be praying for you.
|
GWbiker
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Mar 21st, 2008 |
| Location: | Tucson, Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 527 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 06:43 am |
|
orthzar wrote: I have been considering this for the past month, and seeing that Independence day is approaching, I must decide soon.
I realize that 10 years or $10,000 are the possible consequences. I also realize that Freedom is not free.
If I am confronted by a police officer and brought to court, I would follow the guidelines of this article:
http://www.lawfulgov.org/proact.htm
If no officer bothers me on the walk, then so be it. Regardless, my goal is to go to court to challenge Penal Code Title 10 Sec. 46.02 (a-1) (1), if not all of Section 46.02. I would defend my action as being Constitutionally guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, which is that an individual's right to be armed shall not be infringed.
I would also remind the Jury that they have the authority to nullify an act if they deem that act to be unlawful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void" Marbury v Madison 5 US (2Cranch) 137, 174, 176 (1803)
My case would hinge upon my right to be armed. The Constitution declares that the right of the people to be armed shall not be infringed. I combine 'to keep and bear' into 'be armed', to point out that being armed, regardless of manner, is Constitutionally protected. Banning and licensing are two simple methods of infringing upon rights.
Also, the Constitution is a contract between the States through which they delegate certain powers to the Federal Republic, and in return, the Federal Republic must protect the States and the People of the United States of America. Being a citizen of the USA, I enjoy various protections of my rights, of which the right to be armed is clearly safe-guarded by 2A.
I see the risk of unconstitutional imprisonment will be present, but I also remember that liberty is an invigorating contest and not an entitlement program.
What do ya'll think?
I wish you the best of luck. It's a confusing mess over there.....
I've read the Texas 1876 Bill OF Rights, as section #23 stated the "Legislature could regulate wearing of firearms to prevent crime". Must have been a hell of a lot of crime in Texas in 1876.
Section #1 stated the Texas 1876 Bill OF Rights is......"Subject only to the Constitution of the United States". Uh, I guess they missed that part of the 2nd amendment: "Keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Think I'll stay in Arizona...
|
KBCraig
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | Northeast Texas |
| Posts: | 1680 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 07:31 am |
|
orthzar wrote: I realize that 10 years or $10,000 are the possible consequences. I also realize that Freedom is not free.
Well, no, the penalties are nowhere near that strict. UCW is a Class A misdemeanor, maximum penalty 1 year in jail.
Here is the law:
Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:
(1) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or
(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control.
(a-1) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun in a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control at any time in which:
(1) the handgun is in plain view; or
(2) the person is:
(A) engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic;
(B) prohibited by law from possessing a firearm; or
(C) a member of a criminal street gang, as defined by Section 71.01.
(a-2) For purposes of this section, "premises" includes real property and a recreational vehicle that is being used as living quarters, regardless of whether that use is temporary or permanent. In this subsection, "recreational vehicle" means a motor vehicle primarily designed as temporary living quarters or a vehicle that contains temporary living quarters and is designed to be towed by a motor vehicle. The term includes a travel trailer, camping trailer, truck camper, motor home, and horse trailer with living quarters.
(b) Except as provided by Subsection (c), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(c) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if the offense is committed on any premises licensed or issued a permit by this state for the sale of alcoholic beverages.
Sec. 46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY.
(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
( . . . )
(3) is traveling
If you want to play the loophole game, you could park two vehicles that you own or control, a block apart, and walk continuously back and forth directly between them while OCing. The Motorist Protection Act of 2007 allows non-CHLs to carry concealed in their cars, but there's no requirement that the gun be concealed while en route to the car.
Or, you could use the traveling exemption, or the exemption for engaging in, or being en route to, a sporting activity requiring use of the gun. You can legally OC while going to the firing range.
|
orthzar
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 07:20 pm |
|
lockman wrote: Is 2A incoopoated in th 5th circuit? Is the Texas Constituion strong on 2A as to reasonably risk a felony?
Because the Constitution is a contract between the States, all States of the Union are bound by it. My dad was surprised when I told him that, and he conveyed to me that that idea made a lot of sense to him. If the Constitution is not a contract, however, then not one single State is bound to the Union, and no Union currently exists between the States.
This idea that the Consitution is contractual is likely fearsome to Liberals and activist judges, because this means that every part of the Constitution is de facto incorporated to the States, including the Bill of Rights.
As far as U.S. vs. Miller, Miller failed to show up at court and was later killed. I plan on showing up to court. So if I make it to court, then I am already better off than Miller. Also, Rosa Parks won her case despite many other people losing similar cases before hers.
I probably should mention that I am 19 years old and currently own a shotgun, a rifle, and a cap-and-ball revolver, all of which are far too large to conceal. In other words, my only handgun is a hog leg and I am too young to buy a CHL.
I plan to represent myself in court. I plan on being a belligerent claimant in person:
The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a fighting clause. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It can not be retained by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in person. The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral suasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand, simply loses the protection. Once he testifies to part, he has waived his right and must on cross examination or otherwise, testify as to the whole transaction. He must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus.
--US v Johnson, 76 F. Supp 538, 540 (1947).
Any action against anything of despotic nature should involve the belligerent and steadfast efforts of the just. Passive resistance is for hippies. (Note: Gandhi seems to me to have been actively resistant not passive.)
Thanks KBCraig for correcting me. I don't remember exactly where I got the 10 years/$10,000 thing, but upon reading what a Class A misdemeanor is, I am now confident that no matter the outcome, I will never be called a felon.
I wonder if Governor Perry would be interested in supporting me. Someone on this forum mentioned that Perry was pro-OC. Nothing like having a State Governor on your side to aid your case.
I just want to be armed without the threat of jail time.
|
Chili
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 08:12 pm |
|
How does that old saying go? A person who represents himself has a fool for a client.
 Kidding
I actually filed suit pro se in family court and won custody of my son.
That said, good luck. I don't know if I would be willing to make that decision now, let alone at 19 with my entire adult life ahead of me.
Being a Texan I sure would be thrilled to benefit from your work. :p
|
DopaVash
Founder's Club Member
| Joined: | Fri Apr 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | Houston, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 304 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 09:31 pm |
|
I admire your courage, however, with the question of incorporation of 2A under 14A looming in the courts as it is, this is a fight that would be best had at a latter date. The Supreme Court of the US will almost certainly incorporate 2A, judging from Heller. Sotomayor won't change anything, considering who she's replacing. If you're going to man up and fight the system, choose your battles wisely. You have all our support, but, you're still fighting the behemoth, and you're going to need all the help you can get.
|
cloudcroft
Activist Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 02:32 am |
|
"How does that old saying go? A person who represents himself has a fool for a client" -- Chili
No, it doesn't go that way, it goes "A LAWYER who represents himself...
So if you're not a lawyer this does not apply, even if that saying WERE true.
orthzar will be fine...
-- John D.
Last edited on Sat Jun 27th, 2009 02:36 am by cloudcroft
|
orthzar
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 09:01 am |
|
DopaVash wrote: I admire your courage, however, with the question of incorporation of 2A under 14A looming in the courts as it is, this is a fight that would be best had at a latter date. The Supreme Court of the US will almost certainly incorporate 2A, judging from Heller. Sotomayor won't change anything, considering who she's replacing. If you're going to man up and fight the system, choose your battles wisely. You have all our support, but, you're still fighting the behemoth, and you're going to need all the help you can get.
I believe it was Thomas Paine that said, "What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that gives everything its value."
I agree that I should be choosing my battles wisely. However, letting someone else fight my battles instead of me sounds like cowardice. Additionally, "almost certainly" is not sufficient reason to stand by and hope for success. My dad said that I should "pray like it depends on God, and work like it depends on me."
I don't remember who said this, but I believe it goes like this: "who can fail when they have God on their side?"
"The strength and power of despotism consists wholly in the fear of resistance."(Thomas Paine) I take that to mean that the despotism has strength and power so long as the people are afraid to resist it.
"Tolerance is the last virtue of a dieing society."(Aristotle) I refuse to tolerate what is utterly repugnant to my very manhood. Whosoever tolerates despotism of any kind holds their manhood to be cheap and worthless.
I will demand that the court prove that the free exercise of a single right constitutes a crime and that the free exercise of being armed is also a crime. If the court is unable to prove that, then no charges may be held against me. No loopholes, no analogies, and no complicated arguments are necessary. I would have the jury and, hopefully, some of my fellow Americans as my witness, if the court shows any corruption by declaring anything short of acquittal on all charges.
cloudcroft wrote:
"How does that old saying go? A person who represents himself has a fool for a client" -- Chili
No, it doesn't go that way, it goes "A LAWYER who represents himself...
So if you're not a lawyer this does not apply, even if that saying WERE true.
orthzar will be fine...
I wonder if our Founding Fathers had this kind of confident support back in 1776.
cheers, my countrymen
|
cloudcroft
Activist Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 05:06 pm |
|
orthzar,
Yes, America has gotten soft, the "men" emasculated and the "women" masculated (and many kids smart-assed delinquents). Look at all the fools mourning the death of that pervert gayboy pedophile Michael Jackson for example (good riddance)...that says plenty of "America" nowadays. Shameful. No wonder we are a global joke and hated in many places...and too often the ridicule is well-deserved.
As for the courts you will be facing, perhaps the burden of proof will be on YOU to show you DO have a right to carry, not the courts having the burden of proof to show you DO NOT, so you might not legally be able to demand THEY prove anything. If you CAN demand they do that, then good, but if the burden of proof is on you, you have much more work to do (and legal expense).
Regardless, I agree with your sentiments 100%. And I believe that the "permit system" has been illegal (in every state that has one) since EVER SINCE DAY ONE (how many decades ago was that?) and don't know WHY it has not been seriously challenged in all this time. And sorry anti-gun states such as Hawaii -- which do not allow OC but have a "may issue" CC system (yet they never issue so they may as well not have ANY legal way to carry) -- how THAT has been allowed to stand all this time, either.
I agree with you that all this is JUST PLAIN WRONG and it DOES need to be changed, but I gave up long ago on anything changing "within the system." Yes, I have thought a FEDERAL test case is needed -- as we need pro-gun freedoms to apply NATION-WIDE, not just in SOME states, since ALL Americans should have the same rights) -- but "justice" is so perverted (upside down) in this country I have doubts re: getting what's RIGHT recongized and made into law will ever happen. So I've come to think that only a Culture War (or Civil War II) would bring about REAL "change" even though I don't see Americans -- I mean the weak-willed watered-down versions we have today comparred to those in our Founding Fathers' days -- ever standing up and doing that on the RKBA issue or any other important issue (like moral issues). I've only see "conservative" protests about finances (Tea Parties) so apparently, as long as most "conservative" Americans have their finances in order, they don't care about other issues. Sad.
Whatever, if you proceed with your noble quest, think it through and try to anticipate all responses (tactics) the courts will use so you can have plans re: how you will handle them. Be careful out there and I admire you for putting yourself (personal freedom and finances) on the line.
-- John D.
Last edited on Sat Jun 27th, 2009 05:13 pm by cloudcroft
|
Willing_2_B_Free
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 27th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 08:30 pm |
|
The Constitution of the United States is ONLY a "valid" as the Moral Constitution of its citizens. Enough said on that point.
Will you be disclosing the location in advance?
Also, wouldn't your arrest need to be the whole point? Otherwise you have created no opportunity for change.
If you are actually serious, there should be an advanced press release so that you could be arrested as soon as you appeared with the weapon. Thereby preventing an accusation of any other "crime" having taken place.
Would you like to speak with an attorney regarding how to conduct yourself throughout the entire ordeal?
I would suggest having a video/camera crew there to cover the entire event from start to finish.
Thoughts?
|
cloudcroft
Activist Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 09:14 pm |
|
True:
“Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” -- John Adams.
...which means we are in big trouble nowadays since things have gone downhill in that respect since his time.
-- John D.
|
orthzar
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 06:41 pm |
|
cloudcroft wrote:
As for the courts you will be facing, perhaps the burden of proof will be on YOU to show you DO have a right to carry, not the courts having the burden of proof to show you DO NOT, so you might not legally be able to demand THEY prove anything. If you CAN demand they do that, then good, but if the burden of proof is on you, you have much more work to do (and legal expense).
Remember, I am innocent until proven guilty. If the court holds that I am guilty and must prove my innocence, then the court is truly corrupt. "Guilty until proven otherwise" is the mindset of a bureaucracy, which is how the police departments, at least in the cities, tend to think and work.
After reading an article in a Cowboy-related magazine, it is on. The artcile showed that the men of the range were true men. No one held their freedom over them to jump at, which is what the Texas Legislature is doing, they just acted freely and morally. Cowboys did not fear death or even ridicule.
I will walk from my house to the Burger Street near the intersection of Beltline and 75. It is a crying shame thay I, of all people, am the first to publicly challenge the State's ban on OC by acting against it.
|
cloudcroft
Activist Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 10:58 pm |
|
I think that "Innocent until proven guilty" became mere words long ago...along with "liberty and justice for all."
-- John D.
Last edited on Sun Jun 28th, 2009 10:59 pm by cloudcroft
|
DopaVash
Founder's Club Member
| Joined: | Fri Apr 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | Houston, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 304 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 01:14 pm |
|
Your stark Idealism will get you in trouble. That's not to say that one shouldn't be an idealist; true idealism is something this country lacks in a major way. However, one's actions should never be strictly based on idealism alone. Actions must be done with pragmatism and reason, or else the push back will damage whatever cause you champion.
If you feel it a cowardice to not wait out the ruling on incorporation, then perhaps you should get involved in that cause.
There's no cowardice in waiting a short period of time to increase your chances of success.
|
orthzar
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 07:11 pm |
|
OK, thanks to ya'll for your kind responses, and to the authors of any and all future responses. I believe I now know how I will go about OC'ing legally and lawfully, though it may not be on Independence Day.
If this works, then I will never have to fear the police when I OC. I haven't written out the precise process yet, but I will in effect be using contract law to produce an Open Carry license for me and me alone, which I might apply wherever I go in America, not including private property of course. This should sound absurd to anyone with "modern sensibilities", but you don't have to worry about my safety. I promise you that I will be fine.
Again, I have not actually done anything yet, and besides what I plan on now doing will be perfectly legitimate, because I would be in contract with the State of Texas to Open Carry a handgun. I know it is absurd, but just think for a minute. If two or more entities enter into a contract with each other, all are lawfully bound by that contract. So then I will enter into contract with the State of Texas(I don't know the exact person or office yet, probably the Office of the Governor of Texas), which will, in final effect, lawfully hinder anyone from preventing me from OC'ing in public.
For ya'll's viewing pleasure, I will provide a copy of the contract here once I have it prepared to send off to some part of the State of Texas.
For some strange reason, I find this very amusing. It was almost starring me in the face. Just enter into contract.
Cheers, my countrymen
|
orthzar
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 30th, 2009 09:28 pm |
|
orthzar wrote: OK, thanks to ya'll for your kind responses, and to the authors of any and all future responses. I believe I now know how I will go about OC'ing legally and lawfully, though it may not be on Independence Day.
If this works, then I will never have to fear the police when I OC. I haven't written out the precise process yet, but I will in effect be using contract law to produce an Open Carry license for me and me alone, which I might apply wherever I go in America, not including private property of course. This should sound absurd to anyone with "modern sensibilities", but you don't have to worry about my safety. I promise you that I will be fine.
Again, I have not actually done anything yet, and besides what I plan on now doing will be perfectly legitimate, because I would be in contract with the State of Texas to Open Carry a handgun. I know it is absurd, but just think for a minute. If two or more entities enter into a contract with each other, all are lawfully bound by that contract. So then I will enter into contract with the State of Texas(I don't know the exact person or office yet, probably the Office of the Governor of Texas), which will, in final effect, lawfully hinder anyone from preventing me from OC'ing in public.
For ya'll's viewing pleasure, I will provide a copy of the contract here once I have it prepared to send off to some part of the State of Texas.
For some strange reason, I find this very amusing. It was almost starring me in the face. Just enter into contract.
Cheers, my countrymen
The quoted post is merely an idea. I guess I am flip-flopping on something that I should not be.
More or less, I now declare a call to arms. The only true crime is the infringement on the life, liberty, property, or rights of another living soul. Every ban on OC or CC is a statute that no human is bound to obey. If you pay the fine, you are admitting that another human can be a superior authority to you, when that is not possible.(first line in Wikipedia page on Fines) Only God is superior to you, and all humans are equal to you so long as you do not infringe on the life, libert, property, or rights of another living soul. Demand that everyone, including police, to talk across to you, not donw to you.
I will repeat it. I declare a call to arms. OC or CC everywhere you go, except on private property which the owner has told you to not enter.
Since the only sign of liberty is to be armed, the unarmed are not free. I promise you that I will die free, one way or another, with or without support. You are only truely free, if you are armed.
Therefore from this post on, I will be armed. So, watch out, I will enforce my rights with some sort of arm, likely a gun. I know that my life is worth defending; is yours?
I read this article,
http://keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3195
and it was very helpful. The next arm I will purchase will be a .38 special revolver. I just need to find a used one.
Enforce your liberty, my countrymen.
|
Current time is 10:35 am | Page: 1 2 3   |
|
|
|
