I wrote the following letter to my state representative. I’ll share the response with you when it arrives, and will let you know if it doesn’t.
I’m writing you today concerning a point of Constitutional law I recently uncovered that appears to put much of Colorado’s licensing efforts in a dim light. In particular, I’m licensed by the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office to carry a concealed handgun, and fully understand all the privileges and restrictions associated with that permit. However, I’m also a student of both the words and wisdom of our Founding Fathers, and know full well they never intended any right be reduced to a privilege or subject to license.
I recently came across two U.S. Supreme Court decisions along these lines and wanted to run them by you:
“No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.” (Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105)
“If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” (Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262)
Here’s our Founding Father’s take on the issue: “…the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” (Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution) That seems abundantly clear to me.
Here’s my take on the issue: All concealed carry “permits” are licenses of a right (liberty). The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) that such licenses are illegal. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 373 U.S. 262 (1963) that citizens “can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” Combined with fact that the Second Amendment clearly states the act of keeping and bearing arms is a right seems to withdraw all wiggle room for law enforcement to behave otherwise, unless the legal examiner or legislator ignores either the Constitution or the U.S. Supreme Court decision.
Thus, my question to you: Which States are willing to stand by the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court decisions which support it? More specifically, when will Colorado stop violating the U.S. Constitution and these U.S. Supreme Court decisions and instead correctly join with the ranks of those states who have passed “Constitutional Carry” laws?
As of July 1, 2015, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Vermont and Wyoming are considered constitutional carry states. In Wyoming’s case, permitless carry is for residents only; non-residents must have a permit to carry a concealed handgun in that state. Maine will join the list in October 2015.
If I’m not mistaken, these decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court cover the much large issue of licensing efforts in general. What other Constitutionally-guaranteed rights are illegally treated as “privileges” under Colorado law? What steps will you take to restore Colorado law to a more lawful basis commensurate with “the supreme Law of the Land?” (Article VI, U.S. Constitution)
Addendum: Our Founding Fathers had GOOD REASON to ensure that our Second Amendment was ratified WITHOUT RESTRICTION. In fact, as it stands, it specifically PROHIBITS ANY AND ALL restrictions: “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”
Second Amendment – NO RESTRICTIONS!
Why? Because it says so. That’s why. Out.
What the hell is wrong with these people???
STOP BLAMING OTHERS. It doesn’t matter WHAT other people say about you. You’re not in third grade any more, Juanito. Grow up!
You live in the United States of America, Juan Williams, a nation of FREEDOM, particularly freedom of speech, where We the People remain free to discuss, deride, and even condemn pretty much everything under the Sun.
Think of it as quality improvement. By getting the word out about lying, murderous lunatics like the two knuckleheads who got THEMSELVES killed, it is our most sincere hope that more Americans will begin carrying arms, as is their Constitutional right, in order to deter violent behavior if possible, and defend themselves against the developing storm of lunatics who are not deterred.
If you believe this is somehow Pamela Geller’s fault, Juan, you haven’t been listening to what she has said. YOU are one of those lunatics. YOU are to blame for perpetuating this nonsense, at least in part, by encouraging them to take violent action in response to something as petty as an offense. YOU are to blame for having such incredibly thin skin while encouraging others to have similarly thin skin.
YOU need to take responsibility for your own words, and how they may have emboldened someone to the point where they were willing to use deadly force to combat the unspeakable horror of a simple CARTOON.
In closing, I would like to say this, as I’ve said it often: The First Amendment protects the Second, and the Second Amendment protects the First.
Regardless of your station in life, if you encounter something which is un-Constitutional, just say, “NO.” It’s the absolute best thing you can do for your country!
If it’s un-Constitutional, just say, “NO.” After all the Constitution is “the supreme Law of the Land.” Any federal, state, county, or municipal law which violates the Constitution is null and void.
If it’s un-Constitutional, just say, “NO.” The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that no citizen is under any obligation to follow any law which violates the Constitution. In fact, you have a duty to oppose it any way you can.
If it’s un-Constitutional, just say, “NO.” Each and every civil, military, and law enforcement officer throughout the land has a sworn duty to “support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.” That duty is higher than all other duties. If a law is un-Constitutional, you not only have the option to ignore it. You have a duty to ignore it. You have the duty to refuse to enforce it, even under direct orders to the contrary. That’s WHY you swore your oath of office, so that you would be one of the many checks against tyranny in our country.
We the People remain free only because we’ve stood firm against tyranny, countering attempts to control us in violation of our Constitutional rights. Our Founding Fathers were wise enough to incorporate many checks and balances against tyranny throughout our society, above and beyond the tricameral system at the top.
Here’s an example: Let’s say Congress passes a blatantly un-Constitutional law, the President signs it, and the Supreme Court claims it’s Constitutional, even though We the People clearly see right through their tyrannical hijinks.
What can we do?
First, if you’re a citizen, refuse to follow it. The Supreme Court has already ruled you’re under no obligation to follow it.
Second, if you’re a law enforcement officers, refuse to enforce it. In fact, it’s your sworn duty to refuse any action which violates the Constitution.
Third, if you’re a voter, change your vote to someone other than whoever passed and signed that law. Better yet, find someone who will overturn it.
Forth, educate others. Share this message of hope and freedom with others!
Fifth, if the bastards refuse to follow the rules, if they attempt to take tyrannical, unlawful, un-Constitutional control of our government, move in and move them out. While all defeated incumbents should have the grace to vacate their office, we might come upon a time when they won’t, at least not without a little encouragement.
Above all else, remember: This is OUR country. Our government works for us, not the other way around. We remain a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people.
It’s high time we started acting like it.
I was originally opposed to Ted Cruz on this point, as it appeared he was railing against Net Neutrality.
Here’s what Net Neutrality has looked for the last 30 years, since the mid-1980s, back when the Internet was known as Darpanet:
Internet Service Providers (ISPs) charged one price for each bandwidth tier. For example, $30 for 3 Mbps; $65 for 25 Mbps, etc.
The put reasonable caps on total bandwidth per month, which was ok, such caps prevent abuses and keep the prices lower for the rest of us.
Prices are set by the market, and free market competition keeps prices reasonable. When prices become outrageous, it opens the doors to more competition, which usually appears as either more bandwidth for the same price, or the same bandwidth at lower prices, while maintaining the same quality at lower prices.
Obama’s version of Net Neutrality, however, is to “reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act,” and he would have to power to back up his restrictions with the long arm of the Department of Justice.
Title II outlines the granting and licensing of broadcast spectrum by the government, including a provision to issue licenses to current television stations to commence digital television broadcasting, the use of the revenues generated by such licensing, the terms of broadcast licenses, the process of renewing broadcast licenses, direct broadcast satellite services, automated ship distress and safety systems, and restrictions on over-the-air reception devices.
Obama wants strict controls and regulations on content providers, but he’s not limiting his aspirations to traditional Internet sources. He wants to control mobile devices, too, and he wants to control all aspects of what you can see and hear on your mobile device, as well as what you can send.
Under Obama’s plan, each and every individual in the United States of America, if not the world, would be regulated as a “broadcaster.” The business ramifications of this would be extreme:
As noted by J.D. Tuccille (2014), “In a 2001 examination of decades of antitrust policy for the Cato Journal, George Bittlingmayer, now at the University of Kansas, wrote that “It turns out that whatever the ability of antitrust to lower prices and increase output in theory or in isolated circumstances, one actual effect of antitrust in practice may have been to curtail investment.” In particular, he attributed low investment in the late 1950s and early 1960s to “aggressive antitrust and related initiatives””
Much of the incredible innovation that has occurred over the last twenty years would grind to a halt. Many of the current services you enjoy may very well become illegal if Obama gets his way, and because they would fall under the strong arm of the FCC, if ISPs refused to comply with the new rules, they would simply be shut down.
As Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier noted, “This changes a relentlessly innovative and growing part of our economy into one that must wait for permission for any new ideas.” Most companies cannot afford to sit idly by, waiting on approval from the federal government. That’s largely what killed the U.S.S.R. Companies would bail left and right for greener pastures. Put simply, the Internet would start looking like a redneck road sign at the end of a lean hunting season.
The deleterious impact on innovation, however, isn’t the half of it. Since every producer of content, including those who blog or video blog would now be regulated by the FCC, they would be as subject to abuse by the FCC as conservative groups have been abused by the IRS in recent years. Although Obama specifically stated some limits in his proposal, five years of history have clearly and rather incessantly reminded us of the miniscule value of Obama’s promises.
Before implementing yet another Obama”care” fiasco, take a look around you. Sure, ISP prices are higher than we want. Their revenue models have reached the end of their useful lives, and they’re beginning to make some changes. However, alternative sources of programming blitzed pass them like a kid chasing down an ice cream truck on a hot August afternoon. Both Google and AT&T are laying the infrastructure for the future in the form of fiber. We are not in trouble here, folks. For around $25 a month, I enjoy programming from the top three on-demand sources: Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon. That’s far more content that would ever have time to watch. My Ooma IP phone allows me to make unlimited local and long-distance calls for $3.85 a month. E-mail services are robust and free, as are some blogs and website hosting services.
It doesn’t GET any better than this, folks. We are enjoying the benefits of unbridled innovation in the form of reasonable prices and a massive selection of content and services.
Obama wants to change all that. Whatever you do, don’t let him!
Tuccille, J. D. (2014). Obama’s scheme to regulate the U.S. into ‘net neutrality’ nirvana could kill broadband. Reason.com. Retrieved from http://reason.com/blog/2014/11/13/obamas-scheme-to-regulate-us-into-broadb
He was born January 17, 1937, but you’re probably saying, “Who is Ed Mezvinsky?” and “Why should I care?”
Bear with me for a minute, as the answer has to do with Hillary Clinton’s run for the 2016 elections, and a great deal more. The “more” part will boggle your mind.
Ed Mezvinsky is a former Democrat congressman who represented Iowa’s 1st congressional district in the United States House of Representatives for two terms, from 1973 to 1977. He sat on the House Judiciary Committee that decided the fate of Richard Nixon.
He was outspoken saying that Nixon was a crook and a disgrace to politics and the nation and should be impeached.
He and the Clintons were friends and very politically intertwined for many years.
Ed Mezvinsky had an affair with NBC News reporter Marjorie Sue Margolies and later married her after his wife divorced him.
In 1993, Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky, then a freshman Democrat in Congress, cast the deciding vote that got President Bill Clinton’s controversial tax package through the House of Representatives.
In March 2001, Ed Mezvinsky was indicted and later pleaded guilty to 31 of 69 counts of bank fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud. He had embezzled more than $10 million dollars from people via both a Ponzi scheme and the notorious Nigerian e-mail scams (yes, he’s “that guy”). He was found guilty and sentenced to 80 months in federal prison.
After serving less than three-quarters of that time, he was released in April 2008. He remains on federal probation. To this day, he still owes $9.4 million in restitution to his victims.
About now you are saying, “So what!”
Well, this is Marc and Chelsea Mezvinsky. Ed Mezvinsky is Chelsea Clinton’s father-in law. Chelsea married his son.
Has anyone heard any mention of any of this in any of the media? No?
Gee… I wonder why…
If this guy was Jenna or Barbara Bush’s, or better yet, Sarah Palin’s daughter’s father-in-law, the news would be an everyday headline and every detail would be reported over and over. The liberal rags, however, are owned by the same corrupted cabal to which the Clintons, the Mezvinskys, and Soros belongs.
People are already talking about Hillary as our next President, and there is a distinct possibly Chelsea will run in the future. The headlines are already proclaiming, “How Hillary Clinton won the 2014 midterms.”
Apparently, the cycle of the rich and corrupt never ends.
The Democrat’s ongoing scheme is simple: Promise anything to the masses in order to keep being reelected, then abuse the power of their office to line their own pockets, the pockets of their friends, and the pockets of people and companies who funded their campaigns — at your expense.
Lying and corruption seem to make Democrat candidates more popular, yet Democrats who are repeatedly suckered into voting for them keep wondering when they’re going to get their slice of the pie.
The answer is, “Never, so long as you keep allowing yourself to be suckered in to voting for Democrats.” If the Democrats have you on a hook, and want to keep you on that hook, the only only solution is to get off the hook. Stop voting Democrat.
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.” – Thomas Jefferson
“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” – Abraham Lincoln