In a major victory for gun rights advocates, a federal appeals court on Thursday sided with a broad coalition of gun owners, businesses and organizations that challenged the constitutionality of a Maryland ban on assault weapons and other laws aimed at curbing gun violence.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit said the state’s prohibition on what the court called “the vast majority of semi-automatic rifles commonly kept by several million American citizens” amounted to a violation of their rights under the Constitution.
Well, almost outstanding. The judge seriously erred when he said, “In our view, Maryland law implicates the core protection of the Second Amendment — the right of law-abiding responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” That’s not quite the “fundamental right” our Founding Fathers penned into the Constitution via our Second Amendment.
Chief Judge William Traxler erred when he limited the scope of understanding to “in defense of hearth and home.” A “hearth” is the floor in front of a fireplace, where families of old would gather for dinner, usually cooked over that fireplace, and while away the evening hours basking in its warmth, discussing the day, and playing.
Our Second Amendment knows no such bounds, either on location or type and size of arms.
The Constitution states that all ratified amendments become a part of the Constitution. Thus, the Constitution states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
This prohibition against the right of the people to keep and bear arms is absolute. It’s application isn’t limited to a specific government entity. It applies to everyone. Furthermore, it’s scope isn’t limited, either. For example, it’s not limited to “hearth and home,” but rather applies every where a free man may travel.
It’s not even limited to “firearms.” Our Founding Fathers chose the term, “arms,” even though knew exceedingly well that the term “firearms” was a type of arms that used a rapidly-burning powder to discharge a projectile. A sword is also a type of arms, as is a club, mace, hatchet, machete, and knife. They are all “arms.” Thus, any restriction — infringement — on their size, length, weight, caliber, action, mechanism, or capacity constitutes an infringement, and an un-Constitutional one, at that.
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.
Marc and Chelsea are in their early thirties and purchased a 10.5 million dollar NYC apartment (after being married in George Soros’ mansion).
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
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.
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)
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
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
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!
The face of tyranny has settled here in Colorado. His name is Hickenlooper, and his minions are in the House: Court, Duran, Exum, Fields, Fischer, Foote, Ginal, Hamner, Hullinghorst, Kagan, Kraft-Tharp, Labuda, Lee, Levy, May, McCann, McLachlan, Melton, Mitsch Bush, Moreno, Pabon, Peniston, Pettersen, Primavera, Rosenthal, Ryden, Salazar, Schafer, Singer, Tyler, Williams, Young, Speaker.
His minions are in the Senate, too:: Aguilar, Carroll, Giron, Guzman, Heath, Hodge, Hudak, Johnston, Jones, Kefalas, Kerr, Newell, Nicholson, Schwartz, Steadman, Todd, Ulibarri, President.
If you see ANY of these names on the ticket, please vote for someone else! That includes Hickenlooper, of course. He MUST GO. He has absolutely NO desire to preserve any of the rights, traditions, or heritage of Coloradans. These anti-Constitutionalists have NO business crafting and passing unlawful legislation i.e. legislation which violates the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Colorado. They are ignoring the will of the people,* and trampling on ALL rights — yours, mine, and ours.
*Will of the People (from the Denver Post):
1. Are the Democrats in the Colorado legislature overreaching the bounds of their authority?
a. 23,353 (89.3%) say, “Yes, they are ignoring a large segment of the electorate.”
b. 2,422 (9.3%) say, “No, it is the will of the voters who elected them.
2. Assuming State House Bill 1224, which limits gun magazines to 15 rounds, will become law, how would you vote on a 2014 ballot measure to overturn it?”
a. 64,262 (70.1%) say, “I oppose the limit and would vote to overturn the bill.”
b. 27,216 (29.7%) say “I support the limit and would vote to uphold the bill.”
Additionally, here’s a list of the 20 Republicans who voted to fund Obamacare. These senators want voters to know they oppose Obamacare, but they aren’t willing to do what is necessary to actually stop it. They give lip service to conservative principles, but won’t take the necessary steps to deliver what’s best to the American people.
PLEASE VOTE THEM OUT!
Alexander (R-TN) – Running for re-election in 2014
Cochran (R-MS) – Running for re-election in 2014
Collins (R-ME) – Running for re-election in 2014
Cornyn (R-TX) – Running for re-election in 2014
McConnell (R-KY) – Running for re-election in 2014
TWO SUPREME COURT DECISIONS THE ANTI-GUNNERS DON’T WANT YOU TO SEE
January 15, 2013
There are two Supreme Court rulings that directly relate to the current anti-Assault Weapon issue everyone needs to be reminded of.
The first is United States v. Miller 1939. Miller possessed a sawed-off shotgun banned under the National Firearms Act. He argued that he had a right to bear the weapon under the Second Amendment, but the Supreme Court ruled against him. Why? At the time, sawed-off shotguns were not being used in a military application, and the Supremes ruled that since it didn’t, it was not protected. Even though Miller lost that argument, the Miller case set the precedent that protected firearms have a military, and thus a legitimate and protected Militia use. The military now uses shotguns regularly, but not very short, sawed-off shotguns, but an AR-15/AK-47 type weapon is currently in use by the military, therefore it is a protected weapon for the Unorganized Militia, which includes just about every American citizen now that both age and sex discrimination are illegal. (The original Militia included men of age 17-45) Therefore any firearm that is applicable to military use is clearly protected under Article II, and that includes all those nasty-looking semi-automatic black rifles, including full 30 round magazines. Please see: http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/miller.htm .
The second important case is that of John Bad Elk v. United States from 1900. In that case, an attempt was made to arrest Mr. Bad Elk without probable cause, and Mr. Bad Elk killed a policeman who was attempting the false arrest. Bad Elk had been found guilty and sentenced to death. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Bad Elk had the right to use any force, including lethal force, to prevent his false arrest, even if the policeman was only trying to arrest him and not kill him. Basically, the Supremes of the day ruled that as a citizen, you have the right to defend against your civil rights being violated using ANY force necessary to prevent the violation, even if the offending party isn’t trying to kill you.
The Miller decision clearly includes AR-15/AK-47 type weapons as having a military application. The Bad Elk decision means that if the government tries to confiscate your AR-15/AK-47, or arrest you for having one, you can kill the offenders on the spot, even if they are not trying to kill you.
I didn’t make these decisions; the United States Supreme Court did.