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.
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.
Both of these cases are standing law to this day.
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.
Carl F. Worden
- The Archives of Carl F. Worden
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment