Are there any MEN left in America?!: HERE
Gun control is ‘for the children‘: HERE
The ‘Minutemen Are Turning In Their Graves’: HERE
Hat tip: Duane
Now that we – the American citizens -- are to obey the gun control laws -- who is made to feel like – treated like a criminal?
[...] The FINAL word on gun control: HERE [...]
What a loser crybaby traitor Marxist we Have for a President…sounds like a flock of wah-wahs!
encroachment, infringement, diminishment, nor abrogation of ANY Secured Liberty are grievances to be addressed by petition…Simply refuse to comply…
Step 1…do NOT panic…just remember;
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803):
This is one of the leading cases in the history of the U.S. The opinion of the court was “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law; Clearly for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme was illogical; for certainly the supreme law would prevail over any other law, and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme law would be the basis for all laws, and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law. It would bear no power to enforce, it would bear no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as though it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded by a court of law. No courts are bound to uphold it, and no citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a mere nullity or a fiction of law, which means it doesn‟t exist in law.”
Norton v Shelby County, 118 US 425:
An unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protections, it creates no office, it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436:
Where rights secured by the constitution are involved there can be no rule or law making legislation which would abrogate abolish them.
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105:
The premise of this case is clearly established; NO STATE MAY CONVERT A SECURED LIBERTY INTO A PRIVILEGE ISSUE A LICENSE AND FEE FOR IT, AND REQUIRE YOU TO HAVE THAT: OTHERWISE YOU COMMITTED A CRIME.
Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 373 U.S. 262:
if the state does convert your right into a privilege and charge a license and a fee for it you can ignore the license and fee, and engage in the right with impunity. That means they can‟t punish you…they have to let you go.
U. S. v Bishop, 412 U. S. 346:
sets a standard for what constitutes a criminal violation in terms of willful intent. Willfullness is one of the elements which is required to be proven. In any criminal element you have to prove that 1. You are the party, 2. That you had a method or opportunity to do a thing, and 3. That you did so with a willful intent. Now, when we get to willful intent, willful is defined as an evil motive or intent to avoid a known duty or task under the law with immoral uncertainty. Obviously you have decided that you have relied on the United States Constitution, and you have relied on the decisions of the supreme court. So could you have willfully done any deed or crime? Obviously not. So this case stipulates that you have a perfect defense for the element of willfulness. Since the burden on the prosecution is to prove that you did willfully and knowingly avoid a known duty or task under the law with immoral certainty he cannot perform that task, because you obviously have your constitutional immunity to that.
The bottom line is this: They cannot compel you to have a license or pay a fee for the exercise of your right. And if they do, you can ignore the license and engage the right with impunity. That means they can‟t punish you. And since you have a perfect defense for the element of willfulness, punish you. They have to dismiss, don’t have a cause of action.
Recap of relevant SCOTUS cases:
All laws which are repugnant to the constitution are null and void Marbury v Madison 5 U.S. 137
Where rights secured by the constitution are involved there can be no rule or law making legislation which would abrogate abolish them Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436
An unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protections, it creates no office, it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed Norton v Shelby County 118 US 425
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute though having the form and name of law in in reality no law, but is totally void. 16 Am Jur Vol. 2, sec 177, 256
Officers of the court have no immunity from liability when violating constitutional rights Owen v. City Of Independence , 445 U.S. 622, and Maine v Thiboutot, 448 U.S.124
No state shall convert secured liberties into privileges and issue a license and a fee for it Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105
If the state does convert your liberty in to a privilege you can engage in that right with impunity. Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 373 U.S. 262
The court is to protect against any encroachment of constitutionally securities Boyd v United States, 116 US 616
Constitutional rights must be interpreted in favor of the citizen Bryars v United States, 273 U. S. 28
Step 2: smile and stay prepared.
[...] The final word on gun control: HERE [...]
[...] The final word on gun control: HERE [...]
Thank you, I have recently been searching for info approximately this topic for a long time and yours is the greatest I’ve came upon so far. However, what in regards to the bottom line? Are you certain in regards to the source?|What i do not understood is in reality how you’re now not really much more well-appreciated than you may be now. You are so intelligent.
Your email address will not be published.
You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Send news tips to: Sad Hill
Order Now: HERE