Please take note of this paragraph which demonstrates, once again, that guns reduce violent crime:
“The fact is, violence has decreased, safety is up, and the only place you can’t do that is Corps land,” the Oklahoma lawmaker said. “Corps land has more visitors, more rapes, more murders . . . than we ever had in the parks, but we can’t for some reason — for some reason they don’t want us to be able to express our Second Amendment right.”
Tonight’s Guest on the Friends of Liberty Radio Show will be Tim Grandy.
The Show is scheduled for 6:00 PM Pacific Standard Time.
Tim was arrested for not having his car registered and for driving without a license. He challenged the courts claiming that under the Ninth Amendment, the right to travel was one of the unalienable rights that were not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Tim maintained that he was not a driver and that he was merely a traveler and was not subject to the California Vehicle Code. He asserted that vehicles are used in commerce and that cars that are not used in commerce are not subject to the Department of Motor Vehicles. Tim’s case was dismissed and Tim’s courage and tenacity paid off.
To listen to the show live go to http://www.blogtalkradio.com/friendsofliberty
To speak to the guest and/or the host call 1-347-884-9499.
Visit The Constitution Club at: http://constitutionclub.ning.com/?xg_source=msg_mes_network
U.S. Supreme Court
OWEN v. CITY OF INDEPENDENCE, 445 U.S. 622 (1980)
445 U.S. 622
OWEN v. CITY OF INDEPENDENCE, MISSOURI, ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Argued January 8, 1980.
Decided April 16, 1980.
A municipality has no immunity from liability under 1983 flowing from its constitutional violations and may not assert the good faith of its officers as a defense to such liability. Pp. 635-658.
While reading the above, Owen v. City of Independence, I ran across a footnote that I found particularly interesting.
The footnote indicates that all public servants, elected or appointed, are liable for error when violating a citizens rights under Federal Law. Here, in Footnote 25, we have a unique opinion that makes even LEGISLATORS liable.
[Footnote 25] See, e. g., Globe 305 (remarks of Rep. Arthur) (“But if the Legislature enacts a law, if the Governor enforces it, if the judge upon the bench renders a judgment, if the sheriff levy an execution, execute a writ, serve a summons, or make an arrest, all acting under a solemn, official oath, [445 U.S. 622, 644] though as pure in duty as a saint and as immaculate as a seraph, for a mere error in judgment, they are liable. . .”); id., at 385 (remarks of Rep. Lewis); Globe App. 217 (remarks of Sen. Thurman).
Do you see it? “But if the Legislature enacts a law…” and all that follows… “THEY ARE LIABLE.”
Here is a remedy for every bad law, every encroachment made and liberty stolen. If we hold them liable for what they have done and seek restitution … we may be able to roll back their ever advancing infringement on our rights which are guaranteed by the Supreme Law of the Land: The Constitution.
The public servants that believe they have immunity because they are following some “law” or “regulation” need to be put on notice that there is no such immunity for their error. This can be an important part of our arsenal in the protection of our Liberty. But I believe this process would hinge on specific use of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It would be essential to include all pertinent writings regarding the intent of the founders for the particular right protected in order to establish without doubt that the Federally Protected Right has been violated.
Can State Representatives be held liable for violation of rights protected under Federal Law (the Constitution)? Why not? Could we not hold all responsible and file claim seeking remedy? Could a single case filed against a State Representative result in a recall with a special election? The possibilities are endless.
It is my belief that this could be a greater weapon when used LOCALLY to keep city, town and county public servants in line with the Constitution. As this remedy may be applied much easier locally and as it gains momentum it can then be applied to State officials. But this can be used immediately and effectively in all situations involving Law Enforcement Officers.
Your comments and ideas are appreciated.
In the gun control debate there is one particularly annoying thing the pro gun control lobbyists are very good at doing: citing statistics and giving no reference for them. Piers Morgan has made a huge deal about the crime rate in America but fails to mention that crime has dropped by 50% from 2009 to 2011. Meanwhile, in the U.K., where they have strict gun control (NO GUNS!!), the violent crime rate is rising off the charts.
Of course, there are other annoying things the pro gun controllers do, such as using the term “assault” weapon for small caliber, single shot weapons. But let us address the important topic of Crime Rates to show that as private gun ownership rises – crime rates fall.
Watch this and check the numbers:
From his own lips:
Received this link from a good friend. Thought I would post the video here for my readers. Enjoy!
Let us “conspiracy nuts” now remind you that we have been consistent concerning this issue. And as the naysayers keep on naysaying the proofs of this fact keep stacking up.
Let me say this once again, Loud and Clear, for all those that are having a difficult time hearing it:
Barack H. Obama is not eligible to hold the Office of the President of the U.S.
And his wife offers yet another proof by admitting Obama’s home country is “Kenya”.
Don’t believe it? Hear it for yourself:
Nullification in the Bluegrass State?
By Michael Boldin
View all 3 articles by Michael Boldin
Kentucky Joins Movement to Resist Abuses of Commerce Clause, 2nd Amendment
In states around the country, there’s a growing movement to address and resist two of the most abused parts of the Constitution — the Commerce Clause and the 2nd Amendment. Already being considered in a number of state legislatures, and passed as law in Montana and Tennessee this year, the Firearms Freedom Act (FFA) is a state law that seeks to do just that.
The latest to join the FFA movement? Kentucky. Pre-filed for the 2010 legislative session, HB87 seeks to “Create new sections of KRS Chapter 237, relating to firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition that are made in Kentucky, marked made in Kentucky, and used in Kentucky, to specify that these items are exempt from federal law”
While the FFA’s title focuses on federal gun regulations, it has far more to do with the 10th Amendment’s limit on the power of the federal government. The bills in state houses contain language such as the following:
“federal laws and regulations do not apply to personal firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition that is manufactured in [this state] and remains in [state]. The limitation on federal law and regulation stated in this bill applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured using basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported into this state.”
Some supporters of the legislation say that a successful application of such a state-law would set a strong precedent and open the door for states to take their own positions on a wide range of activities that they see as not being authorized to the Federal Government by the Constitution.
The principle behind such legislation is nullification, which has a long history in the American tradition. When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.
All across the country, activists and state-legislators are pressing for similar legislation, to nullify specific federal laws within their states.
A proposed Constitutional Amendment to effectively ban national health care will go to a vote in Arizona in 2010. Fourteen states now have some form of medical marijuana laws – in direct contravention to federal laws which state that the plant is illegal in all circumstances. And, massive state nullification of the 2005 Real ID Act has rendered the law nearly void.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH
Supporters say the growth of such a movement is long overdue.
“For far too long elected officials and unelected bureaucrats at the federal level have passively forgotten or actively neglected the Tenth Amendment that guarantees rights not enumerated in the Constitution be left to the individual states,” said Minnesota State Rep. Tom Emmer, who introduced an FFA in his state. “The willful disregard of the Tenth Amendment in relation to a citizen’s right to bear arms isn’t the only constitutional infringement that we should be worried about, but it is one that has been singled out by the new administration.”
“Enough is enough,” urged Tennessee State Senator Mae Beavers. “Our founders fought too hard to ensure states’ sovereignty and I am sick and tired of activist federal officials and judges sticking their noses where they don’t belong.”
In October, the Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) filed a lawsuit in federal court in Missoula, MT to validate the principles and terms of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA).
“We feel very strongly that the federal government has gone way too far in attempting to regulate a lot of activity that occurs only in-state,” explained MSSA President Gary Marbut. “The Montana Legislature and governor agreed with us by enacting the MFFA. It’s time for Montana and her sister states to take a stand against the bullying federal government, which the Legislature and Governor have done and we are doing with this lawsuit. We welcome the support of many other states that are stepping up to the plate with their own firearms freedom acts.”
Even the most ardent supporters suggest that the real test will come if the federal courts rule against the FFA. Will they give up at that point, or will they follow in the footsteps of medical marijuana activists around the country?
The latter faced down nearly the entire federal apparatus — federal agencies who didn’t recognize state law, countless federal raids and arrests, and a Supreme Court that ruled against their cause in 2005. Even with such stacked odds, they persisted in their state-level efforts, and today, enough states have medical marijuana laws that the federal government is unable (or unwilling) to oppose them.
Only time will tell if gun rights activists have the same courage.
Copyright © 2009 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.