Orlando Shooting SHOULD Have Been Stopped

It is highly unlikely the Orlando shooting could have been prevented.  Even though the perpetrator had caught the attention of the FBI, so have tens of thousands of other people.  Out of all of these “possibles,” however, only a tiny fraction are ever moved up to “probables,” and only a small fraction of those ever go on to commit a crime.  Sometimes, the FBI’s hard work pays off, and they stop bad things before they happen, catching, for example, a bomb-maker in the act of making their bomb.
That, however, is the exception, rather than the rule.
In fact, most people who commit shooting sprees have never appeared on the FBI’s radar.  What the FBI cannot do is put the 99%+ of their “possibles” who would never have gone on to commit a crime behind bars.  “But we can deny them guns, right?”  Legally, yes.  Realistically, no.  Furthermore, that act alone may be what sends them over the edge, either from “possible” to “probable,” or worse, from either category to the category perpetrator.
The level of heinous behavior that deprives the innocent (until proven guilty) of their fundamental rights, including the right to keep and bear arms, is relegated to totalitarian governments such as existed under Hitler and Stalin.  Not only is fundamentally opposed by freedom-loving people throughout the world, but it flat out does not work.  I, for one, am sick and tired of watching brain-dead idealists impose “solutions” that miss by a mile while depriving honest, law-abiding American citizens their God-given and Constitutionally-protected rights.
Meanwhile, it remains highly doubtful the Orlando shooting could ever have been prevented.  It most certainly could, however, and should have been stopped.
The problem with the Orlando shooting wasn’t that the perpetrator was armed.  That is simply not a viable, achievable objective, and countries which try wind up leaving most of their citizenry in an unarmed, defenseless state.
The problem with the Orlando massacre is that of the more than 300 Americans who were present, NONE of them were armed. If only ONE American citizen attending the event had armed, they could have taken out the mass shooter.  If five had been armed, they almost certainly would have taken out the mass shooter.

This situation has been repeated time and time again throughout all mass shootings, including Orlando, Virginia Tech, Newtown, San Bernardino, Fort Hood, and Aurora. In every instance, not ONE of the intended victims was armed.  

Being unarmed in the presence of a mass shooter DOES NOT WORK.  Just look what happened in Norway:  One mass shooter.  Seventy-seven dead.  Why?  Because not a single one of the victims and many more people subject to Breivik’s attacks were armed.  They were unarmed.  They were defenseless, and they suffered the worst fate because of it.  

If that’s not a wake-up call, I don’t know what is.  

How many more wake-up calls must we suffer before those in power actually wake up and smell the coffee?  Before they realize that disarming the populace has ALWAYS resulted in a significant increases in violent crime?

Being unarmed DOES NOT WORK, America.

It doesn’t work in America.  It doesn’t work in Norway.  It doesn’t work in Nigeria, Chad, Niger, and northern Cameroon, where Boko Haram have killed 20,000 and displaced 2.3 million from their homes.  It did not work in Nazi Germany, when Hitler largely disarmed the general populace, restricting ownership of firearms to “…persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit” i.e. card-carrying members of the Nazi Party.  Disarmament has not worked in the United Kingdom, where violent crime rose 250% after they disarmed the general populace.  Sure, it reduced firearm murders, but what Piers Morgan and the others refuse to tell you is that the overall murder rate increased.

An armed populace, however, does work.  During the last thirty years, firearms laws have been relaxed in nearly every state.  Also during that time, crime has dropped —  a lot — but the drop always followed the relaxation of firearms laws.

The trend in gun control relaxation began in the mid-1980s, but the overall trend in violent crime peaked around 1991, from nearly 800 per 100,000 population to less than 400 per 100,000.  That’s half, a huge reduction, throughout which firearms laws continued to be relaxed.  Put simply, the relaxation of gun control laws resulted in more American citizens being armed.  As a direct result, violent crime is about half of what it is today as compared to thirty years ago.

Being unarmed has never worked.  It never will.  Disarming Americans is a direct violation of our God-given, Constitutionally supported and protected rights.  Our Founding Fathers established the Second Amendment’s “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” for outstanding reasons, most notably of which is that a well-armed populace is the best deterrent against criminal activity.

Armed American citizens are the solution.  Just look at the attempted Islamic mass shooting at the Mohammed cartoon event in Texas. Result: The two mass shooters were STOPPED.  They were SHOT DEAD, most notably, before they were able to fire into the crowd of attendees. As disquieting as this may sound to some, if they had not been stopped via armed intervention, there were some 200 people attending the event who would have suffered grievous harm if not death.  Many would have been killed.  Many more would have been injured.  All would have been emotionally scarred for life.
Various opinions claiming “armed citizens have never stopped a mass shooting” appear after every mass shooting.  They largely stem from a false claim made on the Mother Jone’s website just after the Newtown massacre.  Their “study” claims that out of 62 of the mass shootings that occurred over the last 30 years (1982-2012), “in not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun.”
There are two glaring problems with Mother Jones’ “study.”
First, when armed civilians are present, they often stop mass shootings before it becomes a mass shooting.  The FBI defines mass murder as murdering four or more persons during an event with no cooling-off period between the murders.  A mass shooting, on the other hand, simple involves multiple victims of gun violence.  However, the U.S. Congressional Research Service has adopted the FBI definition for mass murder.
Second, whatever criteria Mother Jones used in their “study” has failed the reality test.  In fact, there have been twelve mass shootings stopped in their tracks by armed U.S. citizens:
1. Pearl High School:  Perpetrator Luke Woodham opened fire at his high school, killing two students and injuring seven others before being stopped by Assistant Principle Joel Myrick with his .45 caliber handgun.  Myrick lost valuable time responding because he was forced to retrieve his firearms from his vehicle due to the school’s “no firearms” policy and standing as a “gun-free zone.”
2. Parker Middle School:  The 14-year-old perpetrator opened fire at a high school dance, killing one teacher, wounding another teacher and two students.  James Strand, the owner of the banquet hall where the dance was being held stopped the shooter when he confronted him with his shotgun.
3. Appalachian School of Law:  The perpetrator killed the dean, a professor, and a fellow student, wounding three others, before being stopped by an armed law student, an off-duty sheriff’s deputy, and an off-duty police officer.  All three lost valuable time responding because they were forced to retrieve their firearms from their vehicles due to the school’s “no firearms” policy and standing as a “gun-free zone.”
4. New Life Church:  The perpetrator killed two members of the church, wounding 3, before being stopped by Jeanne Assam with her personal concealed firearm.  The perpetrator fired at her, missing her.  She returned fire, stopping the perp.
5. New York Mills AT&T Store:  The perpetrator fired inside the store.  Donald J. Moore drew his own personal weapon and stopped the gunman, killing him before he could murder the list of employees he planned to kill as he’d written on the list he was carrying with him.  Only one employee was wounded.
6. Sullivan Central High School:  The perpetrator entered the high school, but was stopped at gunpoint by a school resource officer and held for ten minutes.  When the perpetrator started firing, he was shot and killed.  No others were harmed.
7. Freewill Baptist Church:  The perpetrator pulled a shotgun from his truck and approached the church.  Aaron Guyton, the pastor’s grandson, spotted him and locked the doors.  After the perp kicked in the doors, Guyton stopped him, holding him at gunpoint while two members of the church took him to the ground.
8. Clackamas Town Center Mall:  The perpetrator opened fire in the busy food court, killing two people and seriously wounding a third before being stopped by Nick Meli who drew his own firearm on the gunman, when then retreated and killed himself.
9.  Mystic Strip Club:  The perpetrator entered the club and opened fire, wounding one bouncer and a waitress.  The other bouncer stopped the perp by drawing his own handgun and killing him.
10. Austin, Texas Construction Site:  The perpetrator irately opened fire on his co-workers.  The foreman stopped the perp when he opened fire on him.  Only the perp and the foreman were injured.
11. Cache Valley Hospital:  The perpetrator entered the hospital and began making demands while holding two handguns.  When the perp racked the slid on one of his handguns, he was stopped by two corrections officers who shot him dead.
12. Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital:  The perpetrator, a patient at the psychiatric hospital, killed his caseworker and wounded his doctor.  The doctor stopped the shooter by drawing his concealed handgun and shooting the perp dead.
In any given year, armed U.S. citizens stop anywhere between 650,000 and 800,000 crimes.  Many of those are violent crimes.  Some of those involved armed shooters.  We will probably never fully know just how many of those perpetrators would have created another mass shooting had they not been stopped by an armed U.S. citizen.
When well-meaning but idealistic and/or delusional idiots establish so-called “gun-free zones,” those zones become a hotspot for violence and aggression, a favorite target of the criminally insane.  More than three-fourths of all mass shootings this century have occurred in gun-free zones, despite the fact that such zones occupy way less than 10% of the places frequented by the people.
The solution to this madness is clear:  Stop establishing “gun-free zones.”  Even in countries where “everyone is disarmed,” there ain’t no such animal.  The idea that disarmament will keep people safe is repeatedly proven as fiction, and dangerous fiction, at that.
Our Founding Fathers wrote “the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” into the U.S. Constitution for a REASON, people. It was to keep blithering idiots from stripping Americans of the ability to DEFEND themselves.

UN Arms Trade Treaty

A lot of fear-mongers are claiming the UN Arms Trade Treaty “takes effect” today (Christmas Eve).  In fact, this “treaty” has UN Arms Trade Treatyabsolutely zero effect on our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Here’s why:

1.  Our Constitution mandates treaties adhere to a simple yet rigorous legislative and governmental process.  No matter who in our government signs a treaty, if the treaty didn’t go through the appropriate review and approval process, it is NOT binding in any way shape, fashion, or form.

2.  Our nation remains sovereign.  No treaty may usurp any portion of our Constitution without a Constitutional amendment to that effect.  Thus, even if a treaty were to go through the appropriate review and approval process, if that treaty violates the Constitution, the treaty remains null and void.

Finding evidence which supports these claims is both simple and straightforward.  In fact, we need look no further than the Constitution itself.

The Treaty Review and Ratification Process

Article. II. Section 2. of the U.S. Constitution governs the process by which the President can make a treaty:

“He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…”

Did the President seek and obtain both the advice and the consent of the Senate?  Did two-thirds of the Senate concur?  Both of UN Arms Trade Treatythese requirements must be present before the President or his designee can legally sign a treaty.  On the day John Kerry signed this treaty, the Senate had been consulted, and their advice was a big fat “NO,” with a majority voting in opposition to the treaty.  Thus, neither Kerry nor Obama had obtained the consent of the Senate.  Furthermore, not only did two-thirds of the Senators present not concur, the majority of the Senators vehemently opposed the treaty.

In addition, there is serious doubt among Constitutional scholars that the President can appoint anyone to sign a treaty on his UN Arms Trade Treatybehalf without express, written authorization to do so.  General Douglas MacArthur had such authorization.  On September 2, 1945, MacArthur accepted the formal Japanese surrender aboard the battleship USS Missouri, thus ending hostilities in World War II.  John Kerry most certainly did not have any such authorization.

Regardless, neither Obama nor Kerry had either the consent or the a two-thirds concurrence of the Senate.  Therefore, Kerry’s signature on the treaty is invalid, null and void, and without any lawful authority or substance.

The Amendment Proposal and Ratification Process

Article. V. of the U.S. Constitution governs the process by which Amendments are proposed and ratified:

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

Put simply, this clause requires the following for all Amendments to the Constitution:

1.  Two-thirds vote from both houses of Congress (or two-thirds of the state legislatures)

2.  Ratification by three-quarters of the state legislatures (or three-quarters of a Constitutional Convention).

3.  All Amendments are valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution.

Thus, even if Obama and Kerry had the advice and consent, along with a two-thirds concurrence of the Senate, the treaty would still be invalid simply because it violates our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.  As the Second Amendment clearly states, “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  The UN Arms Trade Treaty infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  It is therefore Constitutionally null and void.

The key thing to remember here is to never allow anyone to tell you otherwise.  When the entire populace of the United States of America knows its Constitution and the rights and freedoms respected and protected therein, no amount of government chicanery can take that away from them.

Know your rights!  Stand up for them, not merely often, but always!

It’s called FREEDOM, people, and it is very, very good.

UN: Control Ebola or Face an “Unprecedented Situation”

As reported by Fox News on October 15, 2014, the United Nations has issued an ultimatum to the United States of America: Control Ebola or face an unprecedented situation.

What the UN means by “unprecedented situation” can be found on the UN website (http://un-influenza.org/?q=content/un-response),ebola in their response plan for the Avian Flu, under Objective 6: Continuity Under Pandemic Conditions: “Ensuring the continuity of essential social, economic and governance services, and effective implementation of humanitarian relief, under pandemic conditions.”

UN World Control

Reading between the lines, as well as observing their response throughout other nations, this includes the mandatory implementation of the UN’s other agendas, most notably confiscating all firearms for the “safety of all response workers.”

Similar indications can also be found on the World Health Organization’s website, in their Global Alert and Response (GAR) whopage (http://www.who.int/csr/en/): “Coordinate and support Member States for pandemic and seasonal influenza preparedness and response.”

Again, reading between the lines, the WHO brings the doctors, while it’s parent organization, the UN, brings the muscle.

This is further echoed in their August 28, 2014 Ebola Response Roadmap (http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/131596/1/EbolaResponseRoadmap.pdf?ua=1).

This document clearly states it’s purpose on page 5: “To assist governments and partners in the revision and resourcing of country-specific operational plans for Ebola response, and the coordination of international support for their full implementation.”

While they tie their “country-specific operational plans” to the “Ebola response,” the fact remains that an OPLAN is an OPLAN. It’s an Operational Plan. That’s military lingo for how an organization intendeds to accomplish its mission, and their specific intent for the United States of America comes through rather glaringly in Objective 2 on the same page:

2. To ensure emergency and immediate application of comprehensive Ebola response intervention in countries with an initial case(s) or with localized transmission.

The key activity of Objective 2: “Coordinate operations and information across all partners, and the information, security, finance and other relevant sectors.

The most alarming aspect of this document, however, involves their definition of “security:”

Security: where necessary, and particularly in areas of intense transmission and short term extraordinary containment measures, national/local authorities must plan for and deploy the security services necessary to ensure the physical security of Ebola facilities. National/local authorities must give particular attention to ensuring the security of the staff working in Ebola treatment centres, Ebola referral/isolation centres, laboratories and, if required, for teams working at the community level to conduct surveillance, contact tracing and safe burials.”

I have no problem with ensuring the security of Ebola treatment facilities. The question is, under Obama’s management, will it ever stop there? What legislation is in place to prevent overbearing law enforcement from pulling the same crap as the New Orleans Police Department pulled on American citizens immediately following Hurricane Katrina?

Since Day 1 at their training academies, American law enforcement officers have been taught to “control, control, control.” When you put them into a widespread situation, many of them are overwhelmed. They fall back on their training without any regard for the Constitutional implications that what they’re doing is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. It might be suitable for a localized riot. It is NOT suitable for widespread chaos. This was most dramatically exhibited when SWAT teams busted down door after door after door in Boston immediately after the marathon bombing.

Did they respect our Constitutional rights? No. THEY BLEW RIGHT PAST THEM.

Again: What U.S. Federal Legislation is in place to ensure that NEVER happens again? What penalties are in place for local, county, state, and federal law enforcement officers, as well as augmenting forces like the National Guard, to prevent them from crossing the line?

Comments within the document such as “repurpose existing programmes [sic] to support control efforts” with respect to “security” indicate they have ZERO intention of respecting our Constitution.

un gun controlWhat’s next?  The widespread confiscation of firearms “for your safety?”

Here’s a thought: Instead of assuming Americans are idiots, let’s try another route: Education. Let Americans do what we do best: Control ourselves.

In 2012, immediately following the Mountain Shadows flare-up of the Waldo Canyon fire, I and all other residents of my apartment complex were denied access to our domiciles for five full days, despite the fact that residents in homes on either side of us were allowed to return after just TWO days. We were told it was for our “safety,” despite the fact we were no less safe than those homeowners.


Again, Congressman Lamborn: What legislation, specifically, do you have in place to ensure these rampant denials of our Constitutional rights NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN?

With few exceptions, We the People are perfectly capable of controlling ourselves. We’re well aware of the risks to both ourselves and others, regardless of what Obama is saying to the contrary.

All we need are clear and unambiguous guidelines. We don’t Obama lying to us in pathetic and misinformative attempts to calm our nerves. Older generations grew up during the Cold War. Younger generations watch The Walking Dead every week. Let’s get real!

As a retired USAF Officer, I remain well-trained in CBRNE operations. Most of my neighbors do not have my training, but given the fact this is a military town, there are a LOT of us scattered throughout the community who do.

Even those who are untrained, however, know the risks. If they’re told to limit travel for food and work, use hand sanitizer or wear and discard gloves, keep their shoes in the garage, and wipe down all doorknobs and other touched surfaces with a soap/water/bleach solution, I’m pretty darn sure they can handle that!

I can’t help but wonder if this is the beginning of the end of the United States of America.

By refusing to close our borders and by bringing in infected individuals, Obama is INVITING a UN takeover of our country. He’s long been looking for a way to either ditch or circumvent our Constitution, and I believe he may very well have found it.

UNLESS, of course, laws exist which clearly limit the scope of his many executive orders, most of which were drafted during his first term, yet clearly targeted to give him absolute dictatorial authority over our nation in times of crises — whether those crises were unavoidable, or, as many of us believe, manufactured by Obama himself.

On October 15, Dr. Ben Carson said, “We’ve known for a long time that [Ebola] has this kind of potential. That’s the reason that several weeks ago I said it was a real mistake to bring infected people in to this country in any way.”

Indeed it was. Yet Obama continues to allow it.

My question to you, Sir, is WHY?


Commentary on the Las Vegas Shootings

While indeed tragic, this incident was incredibly and exceptionally rare. Blaming this on the political right wing, however, is like blaming the Manson murders on California. Those of us leaning to the right absolutely abhor criminal activity. Manson was a psycho. These perps were psychos. They are not representative of the political right in any shape, form, or fashion, and any insinuation to the contrary is utterly brain dead, not to mention irresponsible and reckless. Furthermore, categorizing the right as “anti-government” is also completely insane. We love the government, provided the government plays by the rules. Those rules are delineated in our U.S. Constitution and its amendments, and are designed for our protection against an overbearing and abusive government.  When politicians refuse to play by the rules, we exercise our Constitutional authority and vote them out of office. It’s just that simple.

Same thing goes for law enforcement. The vast majority of law enforcement officers play by the rules. Unfortunately, as clearly evidenced by hundreds of YouTube videos, some do not. Those who don’t follow the rules are not “the law.” They are BREAKING the law, trampling on both your and my Constitutional rights and freedoms in the process. Such “bad cops” absolutely MUST be suspended, investigated, and probably fired by their organizations, as they represent a threat to society. When they break the rules, they’re no longer “serving and protecting,” but “violating and abusing.”  If the departments can’t police their own, then we vote out the mayor and members of the town or city council — whoever is covering up for bad cops.  If the situation warrants, we sue, in the hopes that a monetary settlement, combined with the judge’s commentary, will remind the city and its citizens what is considered acceptable by society, and what is not.

Again, this tragic event underscore the need for educating the public as to what conservatives REALLY believe. You’ll find no better summary than Bill Whittle’s multi-part series entitled, amazingly enough, “What We Believe.” You can watch either in parts, or in one full episode, below:

[embedplusvideo height=”332″ width=”442″ editlink=”http://bit.ly/1nBix2l” standard=”http://www.youtube.com/v/Z0vh-TZ6SNg?fs=1″ vars=”ytid=Z0vh-TZ6SNg&width=442&height=332&start=&stop=&rs=w&hd=0&autoplay=0&react=1&chapters=&notes=” id=”ep3546″ /]

Letter to Dr. Ted R. Bromund

Dear Dr. Bromund:

I read with interest your article, published today, entitled “UN Arms Treaty will be menace to US for years to come.”

As one who has taken an oath of office to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic,” I noted with dismay your opinion that there’s some kind of “loophole” with respect to being bound not to violate the treaty’s “object and purpose.”  This line of thought is in error.  While we may voluntarily choose to adhere to a treaty after it’s been signed, our nation is under no international or legal obligation to do so, particularly if the treaty was signed in violation of the Constitution’s requirements for treaties.

Here’s why:

1)  Our Constitution is very simple, straightforward, and has been published worldwide since before the ink dried on the last signature.  Each and every nation around the world, as well as various bodies of international cooperation, such as the United Nations, are not only privy to it, but employ experts who’re able to inform the organization as to exactly what each and every provision really means.

2)  The part about Senatorial “advice and consent” isn’t “commonly said.”  It is LAW.  In fact, it’s Constitutional law, the Supreme Law of the Land.” (Article VI of the U.S. Constitution)  “[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.”  (Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution; emphasis mine).

Put simply, no President, nor any duly appointed representative, can make or sign a legally binding treaty without concurrence of two thirds of the Senate.  Doing so is a direct and heinous violation of the Constitution, and the trust as well as representational authority of the American People.  In fact, Kerry’s signing of the U.S. Arms Treaty without such concurrence is an impeachable offense, not only for Kerry, but for Obama as well, for Obama directed him to do so.

3)  Any law violating a higher law is null and void.  That’s the way our system of justice, based on English Law, has been practiced, and here in America, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.  There is no higher law.  This legal precept has been upheld in numerous federal court decisions and several Supreme Court decisions.  Some people falsely believe that people have to follow all laws unless and until they’re proven un-Constitutional.

The courts have repeatedly ruled otherwise, even to the point of holding law enforcement agencies, municipalities, states, and even the federal government both civilly and criminally liable for having passed or trying to enforce an un-Constitutional law.

In fact, no U.S. citizen or law enforcement officer is under any obligation whatsoever to either follow or enforce a law which violates the Constitution.  The same goes for executive orders, whether they’re issued by the President of the United States or the town mayor.  Congress makes law, not the President.  State legislatures make law, not the Governor.  City/Town councils make law, not the mayor/administrator.  Contrary to popular misconception, his executive orders do NOT “carry the weight of law,” unless they’re empowered by a Constitutionally-abiding piece of legislation authorizing them in the first place AND the executive orders are themselves fully commensurate with all provisions of the Constitution and its 27 Amendments.  If Obama’s executive orders fail either of these tests, they are null and void, unenforceable under our system of justice.

Furthermore, every U.S. citizen, military officer, law enforcement officer, and civil officer, at local, state, and federal levels, every person who has ever taken an oath of office to support and defend our Constitution has a DUTY to stand firm against ANY measure from on high, regardless of its source, which violates the Constitution.

The oath of office was implemented as one of the checks and balances in our nation, so that no individual in any position of authority would ever allow their loyalty to their superior at any level to eclipse that of their loyalty to the nation itself.  This single measure has kept more tyrannical and freedom-hating legislation in check than any other.  The only time it doesn’t work is when those who’ve been elected or appointed to offices of public trust renege on their oaths of office.  In the military, that can result in a courts martial.  Sadly, when enough public officials refuse to adhere to their oaths of office, it corrupts the entire system, because they will vote along party lines instead of their sworn oath to the country.

The Constitution, Dr. Bromund, is more than the Supreme Law of the Land.  It’s our nation’s life blood.  When the citizens and leaders of our nation adhere to the Constitution, our nation stands.  When they depart from it, our nation falls, and if they do so willingly or knowingly, it’s “adhering to their Enemies,” and therefore treason. (Article III, Section 3)


PS:  Link to the Official Transcript of the U.S. Constitution at the Library of Congress:  http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

Colorado Apartment Building VIOLATES Tenants Constitutional Rights



This is NOT legal under either Colorado State Law (Colorado Revised Statutes) or U.S. Federal law. In fact, it violates several provisions of various laws.

Specifically, landlords in Colorado can only render contracts null and void based on items which are themselves prohibited by law, such as illegal drugs. They can place reasonable restrictions on other items such as pets and satellite dishes, as those items can result in additional expenses for the landlord and change the overall ambiance of the complex.  The U.S. Constitution, however, expressly forbids authorities from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.  To wit:  “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  It doesn’t say “may not.”  It doesn’t say “should not.”  It says “shall not.” Furthermore, in District of Columbia vs Heller, the Supreme Court upheld the right of the people to keep firearms in their homes.

All federal courts and the Supreme Court have already ruled that the lawful exercise of your right to keep and bear arms does NOT infringe on the rights of others. Specifically, they’ve said if the firearm is properly carried under state law i.e. you’re not brandishing it, then no one else’s rights are being violated. People do not have any right to be “free from seeing something they find either scary, alarming, or offensive.” This includes sayings on a t-shirt, the color of someone’s hair, or a firearm. The courts have ruled that the lawful carry of a firearm is not legal grounds for “alarm” any more that would be a picture of a spider on someone’s shirt.  If spiders offend, scare, or alarm others, that’s unfortunately, but the truth remains that the Constitutional rights of the people shall not be infringed.

The landlord has NO legal right or cause to evict, and inclusion of this restriction in the lease violates Colorado State law, Federal landlord/tenant/leasing laws, and the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution itself.

Finally, the “federal building” argument does not apply.  The only “federal building” exceptions involve buildings where the federal government provides services to the public at large. It does NOT extend to residential areas. Here’s why: The area inside the resident’s home is protected under Supreme Court decisions Heller and McDonald. Furthermore, the common-use areas enjoyed by all the tenants are legally governed under “joint tenancy” laws. Even though the property may be owned by a landlord, that doesn’t give the landlord the right to violate the Constitutional rights of the individuals who live there, regardless of whether the landlord is Joe Citizen or Uncle Sam. The tenants retain the same rights in “joint tenancy” areas as they would in the front yards of homeowners, with few exceptions. One such exception is that they cannot plant their own flowers or erect structures. They can, however, set up a beach chair on the grass and lay out in the sun. Properly covered, of course.  If the keeping and bearing of arms is allowed by law, as it is in this case, the building’s owners can NOT violate those rights.

UPDATE 1:  I sent this layman’s brief to Will Ripley of 9News and others in the local politburo.  Don’t know how much my assessment helped, but I’m happy if it helped.

UPDATE 2:  We WON!  Link.  The Douglas County Housing Partnership, who has authority to overturn Ross Management’s actions, said:  “This board does not support any action that infringes on an individual’s rights and will not allow Ross Management to implement these changes. The mission of the Douglas County Housing partnership is to preserve and develop safe, secure, quality housing while providing housing choices for those who have few.”  A spokesperson for the Denver Housing Authority said, “It’s unconstitutional to prohibit the legal possession of a gun or a firearm on public housing property.”

On an interesting side note, the owners of Ross Management have given $9,000 to Democrats.  Zip to any other political party.  Naturally, this explains a lot.

Tyranny: Obama Signs Gun Control Treaty

Tyranny is raising its head yet again in the Obama administration, as well as in Congress.

Obama can sign the International Gun Control Treaty on Monday, June 3, 2013 if he wants to, but it is illegal for him to do so.  Furthermore, another forty-six U.S. Senators support subjugating our Constitution under the authority of the United Nations.

This is tyranny.  It is also patently un-Constitutional.

Obama cannot legally sign the treaty unless two, and only two, concurrent exceptions are in existence, simultaneously:

– Only upon the Advice and Consent of the Senate

– Two-thirds of the Senate must approve

Source: “[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…” – U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2.

For Obama to even sign the treaty without the advice and consent of the Senate, and with the concurrence of two-thirds of their members, is a violation of Constitutional law.  This provision exists to prevent any single individual, not merely including the President, but especially the President, from obligating the entire country to be bound to treaty, unless it is within the will of the People for him to do so, as expressed through their representatives in Congress.

Countless surveys have proven it is NOT within the will of the People to enter into an International Gun Control Treaty, much less gun control at all.  Even the Democrat-controlled Senate flat-out rejected Obama’s post-Sandy Hook gun-control measures.  You think two-thirds of them will support this?  Heck no!  They will not, hence Obama’s illegal end-run around Congress.

Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court has jurisdiction to declare any and all treaties un-Constitutional, either by content of the treaty (infringement on the right to keep and bear arms), or by violation of procedure (without the Senate’s advice, consent, and 2/3 approval):

Source: “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;–to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party…” – U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2

Obama's Illegal Treaty
The Face of Tyranny

It would be nice, however, and very helpful, if Congress passed a public resolution reaffirming the Constitution’s mandates concerning treaties.  The public has a right to know that their government will not tolerate tyranny, rogue elements such as Obama going off half-cocked and fully illegal, regardless of his reasoning or justifications.  Such authority is expressly denied by our Constitution in order to prevent tyranny in our country.  The Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the rest of her amendments exist first and foremost to protect us from precisely the sort of tyrannical action Obama promises to commit on Monday, June 3, 2013.

The President, Congress, the Supreme Court, indeed the entire country are all bound by the Constitution. It’s not a “guide.” The President has no option to do an end run around Congress, regardless of how urgent or dire he deems a situation. Our Constitution is the “supreme law of the land.” Violating it is a misdemeanor, at best. Violations of certain rights are often considered felonies.

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” – U.S. Constitution, Article VI

Finally, Congress has the power to impeach Obama should he violate these provisions:

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” – U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 4

The House files impeachment charges against the President: “The House of Representatives … shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” – U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section II

The Senate tries impeachments of the President, and may convict on 2/3 vote: “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.” – U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 3

The consequences of being convicted of impeachment are, at the very least, removal from office, but may be far more severe: “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” – U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 3

The Glory of our Nation

Regardless of Obama’s justification or reasoning, his signing the treaty also violates the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constition, “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  The treaty is an infringement.  As such, even if he did have 2/3 approval of the Senate, it would still be un-Constitutional!

There is no pardon for tyranny, and the President cannot pardon himself from impeachment! “[The President] shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” – U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2.

We are all bound by both duty and honor to fight Obama’s tyranny!