Simply Triggers
Advertise on Northwest Firearms
Defensive Arts
Oregon Rifleworks
HighLine Firearms
Oregon Arms & Ammunition
Gun Deals
J&B Firearm Sales
Southwest Firearms
Buster Beaver Cerakote
Low Price Guns
Sporting Systems
What???

I know you're not really going to read this. It's the ceremonial song and dance we do just before the allegations of arrogance, know it all, etc. are made to cover up the fact that you aren't up to date on your history. This ain't my first rodeo.

In order to understand gun Rights, you have to understand the whole topic of Rights (or more accurately unalienable Rights) versus "rights" that are actually mere privileges to be doled out by the government. When you interact with judges, attorneys, and especially legislators you have to know the differences, the nuances, and be able to argue them.

High school civics teaches that there are three branches of government: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. They are all co -equals, blah, blah, blah. Clean the blackboard. That's B.S. You have FOUR branches of government: Legislative, Executive, Judicial, and the mainstream media. The mainstream media makes and controls the narrative. They control the other branches of government. The United States Supreme Court unilaterally set themselves up as the final arbiters of what the law is back in 1803 (IIRC) in a case called Marbury v. Madison. To this date, not even Jesus himself has challenged the high Court on this. Sooo... by extension, judicial rulings take precedence over statutes themselves. What the courts say the law is, IS what the law means and IS. All else is secondary to this unequivocal fact.

If you and I walk into a courtroom and you have 50 layman dictionaries to prove your case and I come with a Blacks Law Dictionary and a couple of standing precedents from court cases, you are going to lose. ALL judges know this and, at the end of the day, while your legislators may or may not know the law, they know the Judicial branch of government rules the roost. So, here are the Cliff's notes. Follow the law:

By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}​

The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

Let us define this word unalienable a bit more closely and then talk about it:

Unalienable -Incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred. (Blacks Law Dictionary online)

So, let us recap:

You have Rights that preceded the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution

Those Rights are natural, inherent, absolute, unalienable, and God given (regardless of whether you acknowledge a God or not)

Those unalienable Rights are not transferable

Now, let me give you another court ruling:

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

According to Wikipedia:

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms_in_the_United_States

In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence
. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

So, let me see:

1) The Right to keep and bear Arms exists

2) The Right is not dependent upon the Second Amendment for its existence

3) In 1875 the United States Supreme declared both 1 and 2 to be the law

4) The high Court had the opportunity to over-rule the state precedents in the above decision (Cruikshank), but didn't

5) So, by law, the FIRST time the United States Supreme Court upheld the Second Amendment, it had been declared to be inherent, natural, God given, unalienable, absolute, irrevocable and above the law.

FACT: The Constitution of the United States does not give the United States Supreme Court the authority to alter their decisions once they have interpreted the law. To do so would be legislating from the bench. The reality is, that is exactly what the United States Supreme Court did. How did the high Court get away with it and what does Heller REALLY say? I will answer that IF you really want to know, but one more civics lesson. In order to circumvent the Constitution and change the law, the high Court usurped powers which is another long explanation. But, you need to know what George Washington said with regards to the process the United States Supreme Court used:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." Farewell Address 1796

Would you like to continue this conversation?

Conversation? I think you already explained your intent in your opening paragraph. I certainly don’t need to be lectured on the history of the United States; especially not how it pertains to the 2nd Amendment.

Keep fighting the good fight against those who would seek to do the 2nd Amendment harm, I honestly appreciate your efforts! I see you reside in Georgia, so I will say (in good humor of course), perhaps your lectures will be more applicable there so those two Senate seats don’t stay blue forever! ;)
 
You know @Melman is a troll right ? There is no way the posts he made in this thread are anything other than troll posts to get a response.
I don't know if I would call it a troll, however, it refers to Trump voters as 'you guys lost' which leads one to conclude it is not one of 'you guys' who voted for Trump...and this can only mean it voted for Biden/Harris or maybe Pat Paulsen...as a way to stick it to the status quo
 

Lesliet

Messages
926
Reactions
1,584
@The Resister , I would love to hear more from you about the Heller decision and related subjects. So far, your explanations have been at about the right level
for my being able to understand them, without getting so into the legalese that they would become incomprehensible. Any thoughts on what IS effective at combating and resisting those who would take away our essential liberties?
 
Messages
364
Reactions
416
Conversation? I think you already explained your intent in your opening paragraph. I certainly don’t need to be lectured on the history of the United States; especially not how it pertains to the 2nd Amendment.

Keep fighting the good fight against those who would seek to do the 2nd Amendment harm, I honestly appreciate your efforts! I see you reside in Georgia, so I will say (in good humor of course), perhaps your lectures will be more applicable there so those two Senate seats don’t stay blue forever! ;)

Ten paragraphs is a lecture? What constitutes a discussion? A tweet?
 
Messages
364
Reactions
416
Nowadays yeah...there is a reason twatter and others place a character limit. Try posting a video on FB longer than 60 seconds and see who actually watches....aint nobody got time for dat!

This site bills itself as a discussion board. Fakebook, twitter, etc. are silly social media sites that don't allow for much discussion. Have you ever posted on a REAL discussion board? The average major news article I read each morning is over 35 paragraphs long. My longest posts rarely go over 12 paragraphs. How can you adequately discuss topics with two sentences and a grunt?

The gun control debate is an in depth subject that crosses many other subjects. The Second Amendment, being part of the Bill of Rights is affected by the precedents being set in all the other cases involving any of the other nine amendments. If a precedent affects the Fifth Amendment, it could easily be applied to the Second. But, we have to limit the comments to the Second Amendment. If Biden wants to outlaw guns, most people are all in. The rest will simply ignore him.
 

Xaevian

Messages
2,144
Reactions
5,397
What???

I know you're not really going to read this. It's the ceremonial song and dance we do just before the allegations of arrogance, know it all, etc. are made to cover up the fact that you aren't up to date on your history. This ain't my first rodeo.

In order to understand gun Rights, you have to understand the whole topic of Rights (or more accurately unalienable Rights) versus "rights" that are actually mere privileges to be doled out by the government. When you interact with judges, attorneys, and especially legislators you have to know the differences, the nuances, and be able to argue them.

High school civics teaches that there are three branches of government: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. They are all co -equals, blah, blah, blah. Clean the blackboard. That's B.S. You have FOUR branches of government: Legislative, Executive, Judicial, and the mainstream media. The mainstream media makes and controls the narrative. They control the other branches of government. The United States Supreme Court unilaterally set themselves up as the final arbiters of what the law is back in 1803 (IIRC) in a case called Marbury v. Madison. To this date, not even Jesus himself has challenged the high Court on this. Sooo... by extension, judicial rulings take precedence over statutes themselves. What the courts say the law is, IS what the law means and IS. All else is secondary to this unequivocal fact.

If you and I walk into a courtroom and you have 50 layman dictionaries to prove your case and I come with a Blacks Law Dictionary and a couple of standing precedents from court cases, you are going to lose. ALL judges know this and, at the end of the day, while your legislators may or may not know the law, they know the Judicial branch of government rules the roost. So, here are the Cliff's notes. Follow the law:

By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}​

The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

Let us define this word unalienable a bit more closely and then talk about it:

Unalienable -Incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred. (Blacks Law Dictionary online)

So, let us recap:

You have Rights that preceded the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution

Those Rights are natural, inherent, absolute, unalienable, and God given (regardless of whether you acknowledge a God or not)

Those unalienable Rights are not transferable

Now, let me give you another court ruling:

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

According to Wikipedia:

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms_in_the_United_States

In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence
. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

So, let me see:

1) The Right to keep and bear Arms exists

2) The Right is not dependent upon the Second Amendment for its existence

3) In 1875 the United States Supreme declared both 1 and 2 to be the law

4) The high Court had the opportunity to over-rule the state precedents in the above decision (Cruikshank), but didn't

5) So, by law, the FIRST time the United States Supreme Court upheld the Second Amendment, it had been declared to be inherent, natural, God given, unalienable, absolute, irrevocable and above the law.

FACT: The Constitution of the United States does not give the United States Supreme Court the authority to alter their decisions once they have interpreted the law. To do so would be legislating from the bench. The reality is, that is exactly what the United States Supreme Court did. How did the high Court get away with it and what does Heller REALLY say? I will answer that IF you really want to know, but one more civics lesson. In order to circumvent the Constitution and change the law, the high Court usurped powers which is another long explanation. But, you need to know what George Washington said with regards to the process the United States Supreme Court used:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." Farewell Address 1796

Would you like to continue this conversation?
And if all that is true, and I am not saying it isn't, then why are we where we are now? I can answer that for you.

American governance is really not constrained by a Constitution, it is constrained by people. And people are weak willed and weak minded by and large.

That should bring us to the question that actually matters:
"Where do we as a nation go from here?"

Note carefully the question is not, " how can we correct this?" You already answered that in a round about fashion that correction is not possible within the current, modern US government concept.
 
Messages
364
Reactions
416
And if all that is true, and I am not saying it isn't, then why are we where we are now? I can answer that for you.

American governance is really not constrained by a Constitution, it is constrained by people. And people are weak willed and weak minded by and large.

That should bring us to the question that actually matters:
"Where do we as a nation go from here?"

Note carefully the question is not, " how can we correct this?" You already answered that in a round about fashion that correction is not possible within the current, modern US government concept.

I answered the question; however the response was deleted by the moderators who said we can only discuss the gun issue. The problem is you have to talk about non-gun related legal issues to get to the HOW the courts changed the Constitution 180 degrees opposite of what it was irrefutably intended to mean relative to gun Rights.

Our gun Rights are inextricably intertwined in a complicated maze of courts interpreting words to meet their interpretations; courts that legislated from the bench; illegal actions taken by Congress and the Senate that were unconstitutional - and actions from all branches of government done through fraud, misrepresentations, outright lies, and force. Where we go from here is a legitimate question. Those who want that answer could PM me.
 

Dr Prepper

Messages
749
Reactions
736

View attachment 832022
"ready to be forged"
good luck with that.. maybe if you put in under the new stumpulus package, that might turn it into tin foil we can all wear as hats! because we are TOTALLY crazy loons. :s0120:
 

Dr Prepper

Messages
749
Reactions
736
I answered the question; however the response was deleted by the moderators who said we can only discuss the gun issue

ill be QUITE frank, im going to get REAL sick of this REAL quick!
maybe we should think about boycotting our own forum to get the point across how DIRE this is actually needed. we NEED to talk about this. the forum i can take it or leave it, if its not a "open" forum.
and i certainly wont be donating another RED cent till this is made clear in a open statement.
i support gun rights and i support total freedom of speech 100%
see how long your "firearm" forum last without any significant freedoms to back it up, if people don't wake up you wont have either.
 
Messages
364
Reactions
416
I hate the ATF and completely disagreed with Donald Trump when he basically secured the ban on bump stocks; that being said, saying "...thanks to Donald Trump" in regard to Joe Biden's actions is a bit of an overreaction. Joe Biden would be attempting this regardless of whether or not Trump banned bump stocks.

Also, what Trump did, did not in any way set a legal precedent that would allow Joe Biden to literally reclassify actual firearms through Executive Orders. Of course this won't stop him from trying! Nonetheless, it makes no sense to deflect Biden's actions back to Trump.

There is a difference between a precedent and a legal precedent. Trump set a precedent that you can rule via Executive Orders and implement gun control that was once thought to be within the domain and jurisdiction of the legislature. So, yes, Trump DID set the precedent.
 
There is a difference between a precedent and a legal precedent. Trump set a precedent that you can rule via Executive Orders and implement gun control that was once thought to be within the domain and jurisdiction of the legislature. So, yes, Trump DID set the precedent.

You and I have already had a back and forth on this; not sure why you just brought it up again!

I think we both agree that the current administration is actively pursuing restrictions against the 2nd Amendment! Let us focus our fight where it belongs!
 
Messages
364
Reactions
416
You and I have already had a back and forth on this; not sure why you just brought it up again!

I think we both agree that the current administration is actively pursuing restrictions against the 2nd Amendment! Let us focus our fight where it belongs!

Right and if you focus on reclaiming your unalienable Rights; support the charter. The charter spells out why the Right to keep and bear Arms is an unalienable Right. Current holdings by the United States Supreme Court have made it plain: while you may have an individual right (sic) to keep and bear arms, the government can determine that only flintlocks are legal. The holding reduced the Right to a mere privilege. The United States Supreme Court has dismantled the Constitution. That is a fact you cannot overcome by filibustering and hopefully this response won't get deleted because I'm prohibited from giving you 20 examples of how the Constitution has no legal relevance in American courtrooms. I'm limited to the Second Amendment.

You don't have the votes in Congress; you don't have the votes in the Senate and you have a madman for President. You will either access and read the information and do the research OR you will waste your time in vain. I have history and the law on my side. You have this high hope of retaking control of Congress with Republicans that will sell you out for ten cents on the dollar because they don't understand the concept of unalienable Rights.
 

joken

Messages
2,426
Reactions
3,295



$$$ Link
So if a criminal takes a stolen gun and effectively removes the serial number it becomes a ghost gun too, doesn't it? This is all political theater IMO. If these jerks were serious they don't they make illegally trying to buy a gun a federal offense since states rarely prosecute. 4% of illegal applications were prosecuted nationwide in 1999 IIRC.
 
Right and if you focus on reclaiming your unalienable Rights; support the charter. The charter spells out why the Right to keep and bear Arms is an unalienable Right. Current holdings by the United States Supreme Court have made it plain: while you may have an individual right (sic) to keep and bear arms, the government can determine that only flintlocks are legal. The holding reduced the Right to a mere privilege. The United States Supreme Court has dismantled the Constitution. That is a fact you cannot overcome by filibustering and hopefully this response won't get deleted because I'm prohibited from giving you 20 examples of how the Constitution has no legal relevance in American courtrooms. I'm limited to the Second Amendment.

You don't have the votes in Congress; you don't have the votes in the Senate and you have a madman for President. You will either access and read the information and do the research OR you will waste your time in vain. I have history and the law on my side. You have this high hope of retaking control of Congress with Republicans that will sell you out for ten cents on the dollar because they don't understand the concept of unalienable Rights.

I know that the 2nd Amendment is an unalienable right, and I have done plenty of research into the history of firearms and firearms legislation in America. Furthermore, I am a frequent exerciser of my 2nd Amendment right; hence why I am here, on Northwest Firearms!
 
Messages
364
Reactions
416
I know that the 2nd Amendment is an unalienable right, and I have done plenty of research into the history of firearms and firearms legislation in America. Furthermore, I am a frequent exerciser of my 2nd Amendment right; hence why I am here, on Northwest Firearms!

You and I are in agreement that the Second Amendment is an unalienable Right; however, the United States Supreme Court effectively rescinded the Bill of Rights and made them mere privileges. The move was unconstitutional on so many levels. So, you are not going to change that dynamic with voting only. I wish I could lie to you and tell you something different, but that is the hard, cold truth. Right now, in any court of law in America the Second Amendment isn't worth the paper it's written on save of saying you have a Right to keep and bear Arms. If the feds determine that is a flintlock, then flintlock it is.
 
Messages
7,129
Reactions
14,043
The Miller SCOTUS decision pretty much said that "military arms"(or "Arms suitable for military/militia use") were under protection of the 2nd Amendment, and that the NFA ban on unlicensed Short Barrel Shotguns were "constitutional"... although why no one brought up the machine gun issue as that is most assuredly a military weapon, I'll never quite understand :rolleyes: the defendent, Mr. Miller had died by the time SCOTUS issued their decision.

Edit. Also, now that the US Military have been issuing and using Short Barreled Rifles and the like (M4 carbine, XM177 Commando to name two versions) for quite a while (since Vietnam), one should bring up the Miller point and say that requiring NFA registration and taxes of military arms aren't constitutional if one says that 2A only applies to military arms as opposed to hunting arms. But if one says the 2A only applies to "common arms" as defined by Heller, then again, NFA should be repealed/tossed out on the basis of the Miller decision. Of course, SCOTUS will never go that way
 
Last Edited:
Messages
364
Reactions
416
The Miller SCOTUS decision pretty much said that "military arms"(or "Arms suitable for military/militia use") were under protection of the 2nd Amendment, and that the NFA ban on unlicensed Short Barrel Shotguns were "constitutional"... although why no one brought up the machine gun issue as that is most assuredly a military weapon, I'll never quite understand :rolleyes: the defendent, Mr. Miller had died by the time SCOTUS issued their decision.

Edit. Also, now that the US Military have been issuing and using Short Barreled Rifles and the like (M4 carbine, XM177 Commando to name two versions) for quite a while (since Vietnam), one should bring up the Miller point and say that requiring NFA registration and taxes of military arms aren't constitutional if one says that 2A only applies to military arms as opposed to hunting arms. But if one says the 2A only applies to "common arms" as defined by Heller, then again, NFA should be repealed/tossed out on the basis of the Miller decision. Of course, SCOTUS will never go that way


The United States Supreme Court will never rule that way because they made it unequivocally clear that in their minds, your Second Amendment Rights are not "Rights" as we understand them, but mere privileges that the government gives us and regulates according to the whims of other branches of the government. What the government gives, government is free to regulate and take away. We have to reign in the federal government and force them to make good on the guarantees and protections OR withdraw our consent to be ruled by tyrants.
 
Messages
364
Reactions
416
@The Resister , I would love to hear more from you about the Heller decision and related subjects. So far, your explanations have been at about the right level
for my being able to understand them, without getting so into the legalese that they would become incomprehensible. Any thoughts on what IS effective at combating and resisting those who would take away our essential liberties?

My computer went down earlier and I do not see where I responded to you on the board. I'm being repetitive in my response, but believe me the answer is on this board, so the only thing I can do is repeat what I have been saying:

The United States Supreme Court has determined that you have a "right" to keep and bear Arms. What people fail to understand in the Heller and follow McDonald holding is that the government can limit what kind of firearm you own to mean a flintlock. AND, if you have to understand the most important part:

When the United States Supreme Court said the word "right" in the Heller decision, they were NOT talking about a Right as you and I would understand it. If you are a constitutionalist, you understand that the Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right that preexisted before the Constitution was ratified. The United States Supreme Court in Heller and the McDonald holdings claims that the high Court is bestowing "rights" (which means government given privileges to them) and the Second Amendment is "incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment." That is their exact words. The Fourteenth Amendment is NOT about any unalienable, natural, inherent, irrevocable, absolute Right that preexisted and is above the law (as all the prior precedents on this issue were decided). The high Court is saying you have the right (but they mean revocable privilege) so they do not acknowledge the Right to keep and bear Arms - just a privilege that they can take on a whim.

Sooo.... the government has violated the Constitution and they've done it so many times and on so many issues that we do NOT have a real Constitution. Since the Constitution is a "social contract," then you, being a party to the contract, can demand specific performance. In this case, you DEMAND that the government acknowledge your Rights and you rescind your consent to be governed by that contract.

The way to do that is to become a signatory and supporter of The Charter and Proclamation of the Rights of Man. That is step one. The charter is NOT a petition; it is NOT a Constitution; it does NOT create any new form of government. It is you removing yourself from a broken contract. As it pertains to gun Rights, you would not comply with the unconstitutional and unconscionable laws that Biden is about to force on you. But, the charter is just a start. Think of it as being closely akin to the Declaration of Independence. This is your Right, your Duty, and an obligation. It is the only way you can reclaim your Rights. The charter covers quite a number of subjects so I'd say, access and read it along with any conversations you may find relating to it - or ask me in PM.
 
Oregon Arms & Ammunition
Southwest Firearms Forum
Sporting Systems
Copeland Custom Gunworks
Advertise on Northwest Firearms
NW Custom Firearms
Project Appleseed
Cerberus Training Group

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Top Bottom