Dear Editor:
Re: Peruta v. County of San Diego. 10-56971, June 9, 2016
Extraterrestrial aliens, must have stolen my brain!
I read the above ruling TWICE, all some 80 plus pages.
Not mentioned in this ruling is the fact that the conventions of some of the states, DEMANDED a Bill of Rights and the right to keep and bear arms, or they would not ratify the Constitution!
Not mentioned is South – 59 US 396, where the Supreme Court ruled that no person within the borders of the USA, has any expectation of protection from crime by the government! Also, the still unanswered MILLER – 307 US 174 ruling, where the Supreme Court asked Miller to provide proof that sawed off shotguns, rifles and machine guns and silencers, were part of the ordinary military equipment, or COULD contribute to the common defense.
Then the insanity of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, citing disarmament laws from under the sovereign English monarchy, as if those laws upon the British SUBJECTS now applies to the Sovereign citizens under the Constitution.
“No such ideas obtain here; at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects….. and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.” @ pg 472 CHISHOLM v. STATE OF GA., 2 U.S. 419
Contra, how can any court cite laws upon subjects from English law, to have the same meaning here under the Constitution where the Citizens are the SOVEREIGNS!
Bass-ackwards!
EVERYTHING that is in the 9th Circuit ruling citing disarmament of the SUBJECTS, is REVERSED to the Citizens under our Constitution and of NO STANDING to the Citizens of this nation. From pg.23 to pg. 32 of the 9th’s ruling, they give us examples of how SUBJECTS under the monarchy, had NO RIGHT to bear arms.
How does that apply to the Citizens of the USA? We are the Sovereigns with all Sovereign rights.
Once again I have proven that the study or understanding of laws in NOT “Rocket Science”.
The affirmed INTENT of any right is the full and total lawful exercise thereof by the Sovereign Citizens of this nation as is their constitutional right. As the physical MEANS of lawfully exercising a right— concealed firearms—grow in number, so TOO does the RKBA to keep and bear such firearms.
For this or any court to say that inalienable rights are “allowed” by artificial entities such as a “State” or “law enforcement” public servants, is insanity of the first water.
So if a “State” legal fiction or a “law enforcement” legal fiction is not created, the RKBA does not exist? The RKBA is a “conditional” inalienable right dependent upon TWO existing legal fictions!
Preposterous!
There is not a “need” or “good cause” to exercising an inalienable, constitutional right.
Rights ARE! Only the unlawful exercise of a right can be punished and maybe such right restricted to further use by a convicted person of same.
Rights under the Constitution, are INTENDED to be fully exercised in all lawful manners…..even concealed carry anywhere in the USA.
This ruling makes me be ashamed to be an American and so this ruling should be tossed upon the DUNGHEAP of history as being a good example of unlimited ignorance about inalienable rights.
Repeat after me …………To “regulate” a thing, is TO PUT IT IN GOOD WORKING ORDER AND FUNCTION, FREE OF ANY UNNECESSARY CONDITIONS OR RESTRICTIONS…..CONCEALED CARRY IN PUBLIC!
Please notify TGM if you see some ET aliens using my brain as a hockey puck somewhere, I need it back to keep my ears apart.
Don Schwarz
Stoughton, MA.
