Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

North Carolina ‘Emergency Powers’ Gun Ban Axed

April 2, 2012 by  

North Carolina ‘Emergency Powers’ Gun Ban Axed
SAF.ORG
The Second Amendment Foundation helped to get an unConstitutional North Carolina gun law overturned.

The Second Amendment Foundation secured a victory in North Carolina for gun rights last week when a Federal judge did away with a rule that gave the State power to ban firearms and ammunition outside the home during a declared emergency.

The case, Bateman v. Purdue, was brought by the Second Amendment Foundation, Grass Roots North Carolina FFE and three individual plaintiffs against Governor Beverly Purdue and Reuben F. Young, secretary of the State’s Department of Crime Control and Public Safety.

Federal Judge Malcolm J. Howard ruled that “the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is not strictly limited to the home environment but extends in some form to wherever those activities or needs occur.”

“Under the laws at issue here, citizens are prohibited from engaging, outside their home, in any activities secured by the Second Amendment,” Judge Malcolm wrote in his opinion. “They may not carry defensive weapons outside the home, hunt or engage in firearm related sporting activities. Additionally, although the statutes do not directly regulate the possession of firearms within the home, they effectively prohibit law abiding citizens from purchasing and transporting to their homes firearms and ammunition needed for self-defense. As such, these laws burden conduct protected by the Second Amendment.”  

Sam Rolley

Staff writer Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After learning about many of the biases present in most modern newsrooms, Rolley became determined to find a position in journalism that would allow him to combat the unsavory image that the news industry has gained. He is dedicated to seeking the truth and exposing the lies disseminated by the mainstream media at the behest of their corporate masters, special interest groups and information gatekeepers.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “North Carolina ‘Emergency Powers’ Gun Ban Axed”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • http://libertycandle.wordpress.com colonialrevolutionary

    It’s nice to see NC liberals get smacked on gun infringement, but why do they always use the 2nd amendment from the federal Bill of Rights? We have our own amendment in the NC declaration of rights that protects our right to keep and bear arms…..The federal BoR was meant to restrict the FEDERAL governments infringements upon the states to govern themselves on these matters. Not hard to understand, and a little investigation into history proves this. What are we going to stand on when the SCOTUS decides that the federal 2nd amendment doesn’t really protect our right to self-defense beyond a .22 cal. or maybe even a baseball bat?
    I am happy that NC cannot tell me I can’t carry in the event of an emergency, but I wish it would have been struck down properly.

    • http://talonspoint.wordpress.com Talon’s Point

      Actually the founders intended for the federal government to step in to such issues if they are stepping in to protect individual liberty from an over reaching state government. Otherwise yes, they are to stay out of state affairs.

      • http://teamlaw.org Jazzabelle

        You are mistaken, TAlon’s Point. The Founders never believed that. Our Constitution wasn’t even interpreted that way until after the 14th Amendment was ratified, after the Civil War.

      • http://talonspoint.wordpress.com Talon’s Point

        On the contrary Jazzabelle. It was recognized early on that the federal government has a role in as much as it must assure protection of the God given rights expressed in the Constitution as John Adams so eloquently reminded us “You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; right derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.”

        While is was clear the federal government was given few powers and rightly so, it’s primary power was specifically to protect those rights from attack without and within, including from states determined to strip you of those rights.

        Sadly, under your contention a state could violate your constitutional rights and it would not be anyone’s business. You are unknowingly arguing for the justification of the days of slavery of blacks and second class citizenship of women. The very principle of individual rights demands necessary action to protect or restore them, including federal action if required.

        Do not confuse this with what is happening now, ie the federal government injecting itself into every action of states and their respective citizens.

        Hope this helps.

      • Dennis48e

        Jazzabelle If the feds can make freedom of speach or “seperation of church and state” apply to the states they can make any part of the bill of rights apply to them.

      • http://teamlaw.org Jazzabelle

        Yes, Adams and the rest of the Founders believed that rights were God-given; that doesn’t prove your point. The Constitution created a federal government and that government’s role was to govern itself, not the states or the people unless the Constitution explicitly granted that power.

        Talon’s Point wrote: “While is was clear the federal government was given few powers and rightly so, it’s primary power was specifically to protect those rights from attack without and within, including from states determined to strip you of those rights.”

        That is simply incorrect. First of all, legislative intent is the principle that if the legislature considered certain language and then voted against it, their intent was obviously that such meaning be excluded from the meaning of the law. Consider some of Madison’s proposed language for the Bill of Rights that would have specifically applied them to the states, and the fact that Congress rejected his language in favor of language that, just like the rest of the Constitution, only applied to the federal government. It might also be illustrative for you to compare the Supreme Court cases Barron v. Baltimore (pre-14th Amendment) to Gitlow v. New York (post-14th Amendment).

        Talon’s Point wrote: “Sadly, under your contention a state could violate your constitutional rights and it would not be anyone’s business. You are unknowingly arguing for the justification of the days of slavery of blacks and second class citizenship of women. The very principle of individual rights demands necessary action to protect or restore them, including federal action if required.”

        No, nothing about the principle of individual rights demands that the federal government (or any government) do anything at all. That’s why we have the government that we have: because some governments trample those rights, and our Founders didn’t want ours to do so. But at the same time, our Founders recognized that the federal government they had created couldn’t be trusted any more than any other government. So they limited its role to governing itself, leaving the states and people to govern themselves.

        It doesn’t help your argument to make an issue of slavery, since the Constitution originally spoke about slavery in specific terms, protecting its legality at the federal level. Therefore the whole issue is irrelevant to the point you are making. As for women, there was never anything in the Constitution that prohibited them from voting. A worthwhile question to ask yourself would be, “If it wasn’t possible for people to change state laws against female suffrage, how were they able to pass a federal Constitutional amendment guaranteeing women’s right to vote?” Don’t the same people (state legislators) vote on both sets of laws (state laws and proposed Constitutional amendments)? (Yes.)

        You massively overstate your case when you say, “Sadly, under your contention a state could violate your constitutional rights and it would not be anyone’s business.” Of course it would be someone’s business. It would be my business and the business of everyone who lives in my state. And if we want to get things changed, all we need to do is raise awareness within our state (not the whole country), and we only need to drive a few hours to our state capitol to talk to our politicians, instead of caravaning 20 hours to Washington, D.C. to lobby people who couldn’t care less about the people in some other state that they don’t even represent. Change is easier–and cheaper–at the state level, which keeps more power in the hands of regular people. That’s how our Founders designed it.

        Also, you give away your true assumptions when you talk about a state violating my “constitutional rights.” There’s no such thing as Constitutional rights. The Constitution doesn’t have the capacity to give rights, take rights away, or transfer rights from one party to another. All the Constitution does is require the federal government to stay out of my way as I exercise my God-given rights. In other words, the Constitution guarantees me that the federal government must protect my God-given rights–from whom or what? From the federal government. That’s all. Everything else is left to the states and the people.

        Dennis48e wrote: “Jazzabelle If the feds can make freedom of speach or “seperation of church and state” apply to the states they can make any part of the bill of rights apply to them.”

        That’s right; and they can do that now, thanks to the 14th Amendment. Tellingly, both of your examples (freedom of speech and “separation of church and state”) were accepted to only apply to the federal government before the Civil War. States commonly instituted state religions and banned certain types of literature before the 14th Amendment was ratified. That was accepted back then because people actually understood the Constitution.

      • http://talonspoint.wordpress.com Talon’s Point

        Dear God Jazz. You are arguing in circles. You are clearly proposing the the federal government was created as a group of state yet has no impact upon those states. Don’t come whining to the internet or anywhere outside of your state should your gun rights or free speech be under assault by your state government. I neither want to hear it nor will you have a moral right to complain.

        ugh

      • http://teamlaw.org Jazzabelle

        How am I arguing in circles, Talon’s Point? I made a straight-forward argument for the original meaning of our Constitution, the same argument our Founders made. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s circular.

        Talon’s Point wrote: “You are clearly proposing the the federal government was created as a group of state yet has no impact upon those states.”

        That is a bizarre exaggeration. I said no such thing. Obviously, the federal government has a role and a purpose, or else the Constitution would never have been written. Why don’t you go read it and find out for yourself what the federal government’s role and purpose is?

        “Don’t come whining to the internet or anywhere outside of your state should your gun rights or free speech be under assault by your state government. I neither want to hear it nor will you have a moral right to complain.”

        Aside from the whining issue (I try not to whine regardless of circumstances), you’re being rather harsh. Why would you deny me the same forms of redress you enjoy under the 14th Amendment? I didn’t say I disagreed with that amendment or the federal level of protection it confers. I only made a historical point about the original meaning of our Constitution and how it changed as a result of the 14th Amendment. You seem to be taking this conversation very, very personally for some reason.

      • absolutely amazed

        Who is going to protect to walk down the street without the fear of a deranged madman carrying a gun shooting me. How many of these bloggers have their heads screwed on straight – It worries me a lot and look what happened in Oakland today.

      • http://talonspoint.wordpress.com Talon’s Point

        Jizz. I take personal insults “Go read the Constitution yourself” as a badge of honor. I have read it. Your contentions are circular because you want to claim rights of the individual that cannot be protected by the individual except in coordination with other individuals in the form of armed insurrection as a singular recourse based on your view of the Constitution.

        Again, under your contention, if a state thwarts the constitutional rights of an individual the other state, in the form of the federal government, have zero say to protect constitutional rights of a fellow citizen of the U.S. If so, SCOTUS was created for little more than addressing commerce between states and certainly cannot rule on any matter of individual rights as it would usurp the authority of the sate.

        So again, if you find yourself having your rights taken away, intellectual honesty demands you not raise the issue in a forum such as this as it would violate a simple principle of keeping it within your state. Certainly do not file any legal appeals beyond your state Supreme Court. Your only recourse under your own interpretation is to take up arms (good luck with that.)

        You contend that all you have to do if faced with the usurpation of your rights at the state level is take a little jaunt to your state capitol, really? And what when that doesn’t work? Accept your chains instead of calling on fellow American. Good luck with that as well.

      • Vicki

        Let’s look at the Bill of Rights in particular to see what we can of Talon’s and Jazzabelle’s points.

        The First Amendment says “CONGRESS shall make no law……..”
        So clearly the First Amendment was only to limit Congress.

        The 2nd Amendment says The RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

        No limits on what government entity it would be restricting. Read the others 3-8 all have the same lack of restriction on what government entity it restricts. Thus it is restricting all government, Federal, State, Local.

        Let’s look at the 10th amendment
        “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
        Most people think that the prohibitions to the states are just article 1 section 10 and with good reason since article 1 section 10 is labeled “Powers prohibited of States”.

        However the Bill of Rights was added AFTER the writing of the Constitution Article 1 section 10. They are amendments after all.

        So clearly the founders intended that 2-8 restrict ALL government.

        Amendment 9 reaffirms that there are MANY MANY rights belonging to the people (not states, PEOPLE) and that a few of the rights were listed in the Bill of Rights did not mean that there were no other.

        10 Reaffirms that states AND people have powers and that SOME powers were forbidden to states even if people wanted to give states those powers. This is why states do not have the power to coin money (article 1 section 10) and do not have the power to deny you a speedy and public trial (6th amendment).

        http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

      • Vicki

        absolutely amazed says:

        Who is going to protect to walk down the street without the fear of a deranged madman carrying a gun shooting me. How many of these bloggers have their heads screwed on straight – It worries me a lot and look what happened in Oakland today.

        Obviously neither the police nor the law will protect you. Prima Facie evidence in your very specific worry. What happened in Oakland today happened in a town in a state where open carry is illegal. Concealed carry is only with a permit which is nearly impossible to get. On a campus which is by federal law a gun free zone.

        SO who is going to protect you? You better. And you better find a legal way to let all those law abiding citizens around you carry too. Never can tell when a deranged madman might try and shoot you. If you are surrounded by unarmed people and are unarmed yourself then NO ONE is going to save you. Well God might but you may not believe in God.

        A little reminder from a survivor of a mass shooting.
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvTO-y-B2YM
        Gun Free Zones KILL people.

      • http://teamlaw.org Jazzabelle

        Talon’s Point wrote: “Your contentions are circular because you want to claim rights of the individual that cannot be protected by the individual except in coordination with other individuals in the form of armed insurrection as a singular recourse based on your view of the Constitution.”

        I have never said that, and I don’t believe in armed insurrection. There’s nothing to insurrect against, anyway. You ought to stop putting words in people’s mouths, Talon’s Point; this site is full of conspiracy hacks, and they’ll start assuming that you’re an Alinsky disciple or a federal plant if you start accusing people of believing in “armed insurrection as a singular recourse” when that hasn’t been any part of the conversation up to this point.

        You say you’ve read the Constitution? I can’t tell. When I suggest you read it, I really don’t care if you take it as an insult or a badge of honor. It wasn’t inteded to be either one. It was simply a suggestion based on your obvious lack of understanding of it. If you don’t want people to think that you haven’t read the Constitution, you’ll have to display a better understanding of it, and then people won’t have any reason to think that. It’s true that educated people can have a difference of opinion regarding what any document means, but the key word there is “educated.” Your comment suggested that if protecting individuals’ rights (including from the states) wasn’t the purpose of the federal government, then the federal government couldn’t possibly have any legitimate effect on the states. In that context, it was quite rational to suggest that you go read the Constitution to see what the federal government’s role vis-a-vis the states was designed to be.

        Talon’s Point wrote: “Again, under your contention, if a state thwarts the constitutional rights of an individual the other state, in the form of the federal government, have zero say to protect constitutional rights of a fellow citizen of the U.S. If so, SCOTUS was created for little more than addressing commerce between states and certainly cannot rule on any matter of individual rights as it would usurp the authority of the sate.”

        First, the federal government isn’t a state, as the word “state” is used in the Constitution. Some definitions of “state” would include the American Republic, but we are talking about the Constitution, so we need to remember that the Constitution was written to create a government of which existing states were to be members; the federal government that was created by the Constitution was NOT intended to be an equal “member” of itself. Now that we’ve got that out of the way, you claim, “under your contention, if a state thwarts the constitutional rights of an individual the other state, in the form of the federal government, have zero say to protect constitutional rights of a fellow citizen of the U.S.” Yes, that was true when the Constitution was written. As I’ve had to remind you several times now, the 14th Amendment changed that. (Exceptions, of course, would be any individual rights that were specifically mentioned in the Constitution; obviously, those would have fallen under the authority of the federal government to protect, but most individual rights weren’t (and still aren’t) specifically mentioned in the Constitution.) As for the Supreme Court, yes, “SCOTUS was created for little more than addressing commerce between states.” That part of your sentence is absolutely accurate. You do, however, go a little overboard when you finish with, “and certainly cannot rule on any matter of individual rights as it would usurp the authority of the s[t]ate.” Again, that was the original situation, which no longer applies. Your sentence would be correct if it were recast in the past tense.

        Talon’s Point wrote: “So again, if you find yourself having your rights taken away, intellectual honesty demands you not raise the issue in a forum such as this as it would violate a simple principle of keeping it within your state.”

        I don’t accept the rest of your arguments and assumptions in this thread, but even if I did, your statement that I just quoted would only hold true if my state passed a law against discussing the denial of rights on an Internet site that might be read by people outside the state. Since my state has not passed such a law, your statement is meaningless, quite on top of the prior issue that the 14th Amendment made it unlawful for any state to pass such a law. You keep forgetting that this is a historical issue, don’t you?

        Talon’s Point wrote: “Certainly do not file any legal appeals beyond your state Supreme Court.”

        If I lived before the 14th Amendment was ratified, I wouldn’t. Not only that, I wouldn’t have been ABLE to.

        Talon’s Point wrote: “Your only recourse under your own interpretation is to take up arms (good luck with that.)”

        Now, this is just a gross failure of imagination, Talon’s Point. You SERIOUSLY can’t think of any other recourse (even under the interpretation that you impute to me, which I have never claimed or even addressed)? That’s got to be embarassing for you, but I guess some people are quicker than others to assume that violence is necessary.. *shrug*

        Talon’s Point wrote: “You contend that all you have to do if faced with the usurpation of your rights at the state level is take a little jaunt to your state capitol, really? And what when that doesn’t work? Accept your chains instead of calling on fellow American. Good luck with that as well.”

        More irrelevancy. More putting words in my mouth that I didn’t say. More utter lack of imagination in finding real solutions. You don’t really want to be having this conversation, do you?

      • http://talonspoint.wordpress.com Talon’s Point

        Jazz says “I have never said that, and I don’t believe in armed insurrection. ” Oh but that is its logical conclusion thus your circular argument. If fellow citizens cannot come to your aid via federal court that IS your singular option (.)

        Jazz says “Talon’s Point; this site is full of conspiracy hacks, and they’ll start assuming that you’re an Alinsky disciple or a federal plant if you start accusing people of believing in “armed insurrection as a singular recourse” when that hasn’t been any part of the conversation up to this point.”

        I could care less what conclusion of my comments one makes or intends to infer. They stand on their merits. You want to make arguments without having the reader take them to their logical conclusion. Maybe that works with most. Not I ;-)

        Jazz says “I don’t accept the rest of your arguments and assumptions in this thread,” So? You continue to argue that each state is utterly sovereign without admitting it. Again under your contention your liberty is ultimately at the discretion of the majority in your state. That is democracy not a republic. You argue you can just run down to the state capitol and correct it. With what? Logic? Thus pitchforks is the reasonable conclusion.
        You say I am not using imagination http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4sUPvDZfog whatever that is. Fact is either you have a solution or you don’t. If you have one express it. Otherwise your only solution is those proverbial pitchforks and your frustrated that I am pointing out what you don’t want to openly admit.

        There is a reason we a republic of states. One of those reasons is so we have group remedies to address local tyranny though is creates the risks of national tyranny we are now observing. I know you don’t think so. I’ll put it in simple terms as follows:

        If your state decided citizens who came here from Iran posed a sufficient threat that they be disarmed and rounded up, under your contention, those citizen have no right of due process beyond their state’s remedies in an environment where the state has already determined those remedies do not apply to this group. Under your logic (being polite) there is nothing the fellow citizens of the remaining 49 states (56 if you’re Obama) can do to restore their rights. In essence if the Iranian’s cannot defend themselves (thus the natural conclusion of force as your singular option) then they are screwed. “Turn off the cameras, move on, there is no story here folks.”

        Now translate Iranian to NRA gun owner.

        Again, if a state determines to usurp your rights you, under your own reasoning, have two options (i once said one) 1) accept it, 2) use force. Note: My examples have always presupposed the exhaustion of polite remedies. You want to avoid the logical conclusion by inferring there are polite remedies.

        So, of the two of us only one of us actually recognizes peaceful remedies and that person is me.

        Feel free to have that last word and a nice day.

      • http://teamlaw.org Jazzabelle

        Vicki wrote: “Let’s look at the Bill of Rights in particular to see what we can of Talon’s and Jazzabelle’s points. The First Amendment says “CONGRESS shall make no law……..”
        So clearly the First Amendment was only to limit Congress.”

        So far, you are correct, Vicki.

        Vicki wrote: “The 2nd Amendment says The RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”

        The Second Amendment has a fascinating legislative history, and you haven’t done it justice. It would be fun to explain it all to you, but it would be pretty far afield from the point you’re trying to make, so I’ll restrain myself. :-) I’ll just say that the Second Amendment is in the middle of a more complex relationship between state and federal governments than the other amendments are, so we really can’t extrapolate from the Second Amendment to the others.

        Vicki wrote: “No limits on what government entity it would be restricting. Read the others 3-8 all have the same lack of restriction on what government entity it restricts. Thus it is restricting all government, Federal, State, Local.”

        This is a mistake that may have been engendered by Talon’s Point’s insistence on treating the historical issue under discussion as a current legal issue. Right now, the rights mentioned in the amendments to the Constitution are applicable against the states due to an interpretive doctrine called “incorporationism,” which arose as a result of the 14th Amendment. You may have learned about this in a civics or government class.

        However, when the Constitution was written and ratified, there was no 14th Amendment. This thread is really about the original meaning of the Constitution. To help clarify that matter, remind yourself what the Constitution is. It is a contract between the states. Does a contract have the ability to compel behavior outside its scope? No; how could it? Here’s an example: let’s say that you and I agree that I will buy a piece of real estate from you. So you and I sign a sale agreement, which is a contract. It specifies that the Act of Sale will be handled by a particular title company, but before that happens, the property and my earnest money will be held in trust by an escrow company, during which time there will be an appraisal of the property and title research will be performed, and perhaps various other things. This is pretty typical of a real estate transaction. Now, in this case, the various companies that we hire to carry out these contracted tasks will be established companies that you and I don’t need to create in order to carry out our contract. The Constitution was a little bit different because it actually needed to create an entity–the federal government–in order to implement its terms. But in other respects, the Constitution was a lot like our real estate contract: the contract is between the two of us (or between the several states), and both contracts require us (or the states) to create or hire separate entities in order to carry out the terms of the contracts. Now, what would happen if we went to get the appraisal done, in accordance with the terms of our real estate contract, and the appraisal company rep showed up and said, “Well, the property is worth $200,000. And by the way, it’s illegal for you to plant tomatoes anywhere on this property once you buy it. Vicki, we’re taking your son, since he happens to be here, and we’re going to send him off to fight some meaningless war in a foreign country. Oh, and all of you had better start using fluourescent light bulbs immediately. If I hear that you’ve bought or used incandescent light bulbs, I’ll have a SWAT team sent to your house, and you’ll be sorry. So don’t even make me raise the issue.”

        We’d laugh at that imbecile, right? Tomatoes, warfare, and light bulbs have absolutely nothing to do with our private contract, and they are completely outside the authority of the contract to compel from either one of us. The appraisal company is our agency, hired to carry out our contract, and it doesn’t have any authority to perform any action or make any requirement of either one of us unless that is expressly stated (either in our contract with each other or in our service contract with the appraisal company). The same limitation applies to the federal government; it can’t do anything outside the scope of the contract that created it. It certainly can’t go making up additional terms for the contract and dictating them to the parties (the states) that created the contract.

        But, the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution now, so there IS some authority for the federal government there, right? Let’s look at the wording, as you suggested. Aside from the religion part of the First Amendment, which begins “Congress shall make no law…” , the amendments don’t make any mention of which levels of government are affected by them. Does this mean that they bind the parties to the contract (the states)? There is a parallel in a real estate contract: usually the contract will have some sort of escape clause if the appraisal turns out wildly different from the agreed-upon sale price. For example, if I agreed to pay $240,000 for your property, but the appraisal came in at $200,000, I might be able to cancel the contract based on language like, “If the appraised value is more than 5% of the contracted price different from the contracted price, this Agreement may be terminated without penalty.” Notice that (in this example) the contract doesn’t say WHO has the power to terminate the agreement. Could it be argued that the appraisal company rep has the power to terminate the agreement, even if both you and I wanted to proceed regardless? No, that would be silly. You and I have a contract; we can sue each other to enforce it or to try and get out of it, but the appraisal company has no role in that process. It is merely our agent and has to do what we tell it to (subject to the terms of our contracts). It worked exactly the same way with our federal Constitution before the 14th Amendment was rafitied. The states had a contract between them; the federal government was simply their agency to fulfill the contract. It had no role to enforce the contract between the states, except where the contract explicitly authorized the agency (the federal government) to do so. (Interestingly, state governments work pretty much the same way. State constitutions are contracts among the inidividual people of the state, and the state government is the agency created by the state constitution for the purpose of fulfilling the contract among the people. It’s interesting to note that “the people” are NOT parties to the federal Constitution; the states are.)

        So, having that context, let’s return to your statement: “No limits on what government entity it would be restricting. Read the others 3-8 all have the same lack of restriction on what government entity it restricts. Thus it is restricting all government, Federal, State, Local.”

        By now, you probably realize that you’ve asked the wrong question by talking about which governments are “restricted” by the amendments. The real question is what is “allowed” to the federal government, not what an entity is “restricted” from. In a contract, all parties and their agencies are automatically restricted from exercising any power over the others that isn’t authorized by the contract. (Refer to our activist appraisal company for the example.) The pro-Constitution “Federalists” were against adding the Bill of Rights to the Constitution; not because they didn’t believe in those rights, but because they knew that, legally speaking, the amendments weren’t necessary. How could the federal government possibly regulate citizen speech when that authority hadn’t been given to the federal government in the contract (the Constitution)? It couldn’t; therefore, why bother to state it explicitly? But, desipte that logic, some people (and states) were uncomfortable creating a government that WASN’T specifically restrained in those ways, so they insisted on creating an explicit bill of rights that would ensure that the federal government couldn’t trample on the rights of individuals or states. As you correctly pointed out, “Amendment 9 reaffirms that there are MANY MANY rights belonging to the people (not states, PEOPLE) and that a few of the rights were listed in the Bill of Rights did not mean that there were no other.” This was necessary to state so that nobody could make the assumption that, if the Founders had intended a certain right to be protected, they would have mentioned it.

        Let’s look at a corollary of your statement. It’s a fact that the amendments, at the time they were ratified, applied only against the federal government. But does that mean that states could regulate speech, restrict the right of self-defense, etc? No, it doesn’t; remember, in a contract, all parties and their agencies are automatically restricted from exercising ANY power over the others that isn’t authorized by the contract. Do the people of a state have a contract? (Yes, the state constitution.) Does a state constitution give the state the power to trample on individuals’ rights? (No, it can’t; a contract doesn’t have the legal capacity to transfer rights from one party to another without the specific consent of that party; therefore, like the federal Constitution, state constitutions were written to govern the governments they created, not the people.) So, could it be lawful for a state to violate one of the rights listed in the federal Bill of Rights? (No, a state cannot lawfully do so; but not because the rights are listed in the federal Constitution; rather, a state cannot lawfully violate them because they are inherent in the people; they existed before the federal Constitution and before all the state constitutions; the Founders believed those rights were given by God, not any level of government, and it is beyond the lawful capacity of government to violate them, even if there is technically a “law” on the books somewhere authorizing some government to do so; such a law is prima facie invalid and unenforceable. These are things that were so obvious to our Founders, and they took them so much for granted, that it didn’t even occur to them to write them in the constitutions they created. Sadly, we have lost this belief in our day, and now people cling to their “Constitutional rights” as if the Constitution were the actual source of their rights and if something happened to the Constitution, those rights could be lost.)

        You went on to quote the Tenth Amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Are you beginning to see how this wording backs up my point?

        Vicki wrote: “[The Tenth Amendment] Reaffirms that states AND people have powers and that SOME powers were forbidden to states even if people wanted to give states those powers. This is why states do not have the power to coin money (article 1 section 10) and do not have the power to deny you a speedy and public trial (6th amendment).”

        You’re close; very close. Yes, some powers are forbidden to states even if people wanted to give states those powers. But not because they are enumerated in the federal Constitution. Those powers are forbidden to the states because ALL government authority comes from the people. The government cannot do anything, cannot acquire the ability to do anything, that the individual people cannot do. And the individual people do not have the authority to trample on each other’s God-given rights. THAT is the reason that no level of government can lawfully get the authority to do it.

        As far as your examples go, coining money was a power that the states agreed to give up and delegate to the federal government. The people had already delegated that power to the states, and the states agreed (in their contract with each other) to further delegate that power to the federal government and cease performing it themselves. But the trial issue is different. You are talking about incorporationism again, which is based on the 14th Amendment.

      • http://teamlaw.org Jazzabelle

        Talon’s Point, you might want to read my answer to Vicki in this thread. It might clear up a lot of your confusion.

        You wrote:
        “Jazz says “I have never said that, and I don’t believe in armed insurrection. ” Oh but that is its logical conclusion thus your circular argument. If fellow citizens cannot come to your aid via federal court that IS your singular option (.)”

        Calling that a “logical conclusion” is a bit of a stretch. Why would you call something a “logical conclusion” if it resulted in a “circular argument?” Because it’s YOUR conclusion and you’re trying to impute it to me? You’re arguing with a straw man; I don’t know if you realize that or not.

        As I’ve repeatedly pointed out, “fellow citizens” CAN and DO come to people’s aid via federal court. They gained that ability with the 14th Amendment. How many times do I need to say it? LOL.

        You wrote:
        “Jazz says “I don’t accept the rest of your arguments and assumptions in this thread,” So? You continue to argue that each state is utterly sovereign without admitting it.”

        No, Talon’s Point, the states are not sovereign, and I have never argued that they are. They gave up any pretence at sovereignty when they ratified the Constitution. The PEOPLE are sovereign. (See Chisholm v. Georgia) You seem to have been exposed to some of the weird patriot myths regarding sovereignty and other things, and you seem to assume that I believe in all of these strange ideas. I don’t know why you would think that when I’ve never argued for any of them. Broaden your horizons a little, Talon’s Point. Read some *actual* law, not the regurgitated fallacies and lies of people who are trying to get your money.

        As I told you before, the federal government has a distinct role vis-a-vis the states. I recommended that you read the Constitution to figure out what it was. Apparently you did not heed my recommendation. That’s your choice, but right now I’m too bored with your willful ignorance to bother holding your hand through an explanation of what’s in the Constitution. Either read it or don’t, it’s up to you. If you want to know what sovereignty means, go read my response to Vicki in this thread. Although I didn’t use the word “sovereignty,” I described it so that the average person could understand how it applies in American law. I guess we will see if you’re as smart as the average person (if you bother to read it).

        You wrote:
        “Again under your contention your liberty is ultimately at the discretion of the majority in your state. That is democracy not a republic.”

        No, I have never said that, and I don’t believe it. You’re right, that would be a democracy, which isn’t our form of government. As I said above, your confusion about what I believe on this point would be best addressed by reading my reply to Vicki.

        You wrote:
        “You argue you can just run down to the tate capitol and correct it. With what? Logic? Thus pitchforks is the reasonable conclusion. You say I am not using imagination http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4sUPvDZfog whatever that is. Fact is either you have a solution or you don’t. If you have one express it. Otherwise your only solution is those proverbial pitchforks and your frustrated that I am pointing out what you don’t want to openly admit.”

        This is getting funny. You want me to think of solutions for you? Here are some:
        1. Give up all your government-issued licenses and fulfill (and thus exit) all your contracts with the government. It’s not really the government, anyway. You’ve traded your God-given rights for privileges that also give the state the contractual power to strip you of a large number of rights that you would otherwise retain. The vast majority of “injustice,” whether federal, state, or local, is performed with the contractual permission of the victim. That’s why the victim is often legally unable to sue for redress. Take yourself out of that category, and you will solve lots of injustice before it happens.
        2. If it happens anyway, it’s unlawful. The terms of a contract can’t be enforced against someone who hasn’t signed the contract, and if a government agent tries to do so, he has broken the law. You don’t have to bear the expense of suing the agency; it’s possible to just go after the individual perpetrator with a quo warranto action.
        3. In order to do #1 and #2 correctly, you will have to know something about the law. You can’t make a coherent argument in court if you’ve never bothered to learn anything about how the law works. So, make a focused study of whatever legal topic is at hand for you; make sure you’re doing things correctly; and then expect to win. It’s people who don’t understand the law who are always screaming about the government doing illegal things. Truly unlawful activity on the part of the government is actually quite rare; the problem is people who don’t know the situation at hand and start thinking that the injustice they see could happen to them; but then they STILL don’t study the law to find out whether that’s true or how to prevent it. Preventing it is pretty simple, conceptually. Teach yourself how. And while you’re at it, learn what to do if your prevention doesn’t work. That requires a basic working knowledge of the law. I recommend teamlaw.org as a good place to start.
        4. If you’re too lazy to learn anything about the law, but you have money, you can hire an attorney to sue the perpetrators and the agencies that employ them. It’s not as effective as doing it yourself, and you have to operate within the corporate-governmental system which is the source of most of the injustice to begin with, but you could always try. This option would include suing up through the federal courts, as allowed by the 14th Amendment. (Did I mention that people have that option, now that the 14th Amendment has been ratified?)
        5. If you’re too lazy to learn anything about the law, but you want results anyway, talk to people. Win in the court of popular opinion. Eventually that will translate into changed laws. You might have to wait awhile, but hey, you chose this route.
        6. If you’re too lazy to learn anything about law and you’re too lazy to talk to people, but you still want to have the warm, fuzzy feeling that you’re doing something about the world’s problems, write letters to your representatives. Oh, and vote.

        I could probably think of a few more, but those should keep you busy for awhile. Of course, if you followed these suggestions, you’d have to find a parking spot for your pitchfork, and I know you’ve been itching to use it all day. Well, there are pros and cons to everything.

        You wrote:
        “If your state decided citizens who came here from Iran posed a sufficient threat ….”

        Read my reply to Vicki.

        You wrote:
        “Now translate Iranian to NRA gun owner.”

        Read my reply to Vicki.

        You wrote:
        “Again, if a state determines to usurp your rights you, under your own reasoning, have two options (i once said one) 1) accept it, 2) use force. Note: My examples have always presupposed the exhaustion of polite remedies. You want to avoid the logical conclusion by inferring there are polite remedies.”

        Obviously there are polite remedies. I just listed several. Are you trying to deny that polite remedies exist? Your paragraph doesn’t even make sense. Are you sure you’re using the word “inferring” correctly?

        If we can agree that polite remedies exist, then obviously you need to exhaust them before resorting to your preferred method of insurrection (pitchforks?). But even in the modern world, with our 14th Amendment and federal courts, it’s still possible to exhaust the available “polite remedies.” I don’t see how having access to federal courts will prevent violence from people who are determined to have it. Maybe that’s why you’ve been going on about pitchforks all day?

    • Reader

      I think the point of appealing to the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution instead of appealing to a state constitution revolves around a few simple things. 1. It is a Federal Court. 2. Appealing to the US Constitution makes the verdict binding on all states and similar state laws (especially since state laws are not allowed to violate the US Constitution). If the case was decided by virtue of the NC Constitution, the verdict would NOT apply to South Carolina, Michigan, Texas, California, etc. By ruling based on the US Constitution and not the North Carolina State Constitution, the ruling leads to effectively striking down such restrictions in EVERY state.

      On a side note: The Supreme Court cannot restrict to a baseball bat, as ‘keep and bear arms’ has always, and still does, define guns. As for limiting self-defense to a .22, don’t think they could manage that, either. A .22 is pretty much completely ineffective for self-defense against a moderately determined attacker. Extreme precision and close range (or sheer dumb luck) required for killing or incapacitating, and some people are not stopped short of those options.

      • JKlapper

        As a LEO I know of told a perp with a 22, “If you shoot me with that thing, and I find out about it…”

      • absolutely amazed

        A first class case of self defense in Oakland today – he got seven of them straight away, dead instantaneously, but three survived. I’m sure they looked at him in a weird way, a real threat to be sure. Had he gone to target practice, or used hollow points, or used his AK47 instead, he’d finished them all off, I’m sure.

      • Vicki

        absolutely amazed your bias is showing.

      • Vicki

        Reader says:

        On a side note: The Supreme Court cannot restrict to a baseball bat, as ‘keep and bear arms’ has always, and still does, define guns.

        The arms in “keep and bear arms are NOT just guns. Swords, knives, bayonets (a kind of knife), clubs (a baseball bat would be a kind of club), and every other terrible implement of the soldier is what the founders meant. They even said so.

        “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
        —Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788. ”

        http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html

  • revnowwhilewecan

    So sad that this had to even on a docket to hear in the first place. Thank goodness more and more judges are seeing the light. IMHO the judges on the lower level courts are going to be the one that ultimately same this country from power hungry feds who are trying to strip of us of our “nature born rights”. These judges are fortunately just far enough outside the elitists’ circle to keep our once great nation with a slim chance of being retained by our citizens. Unfortunately, I feel it’s only when people are being trained or bused of to “re-education” camps that most will realize what’s really going on in our country. DHS is preparing for some sort of uprising. No conspiracies, just putting the pieces together bit by bit and starting to see the big portrait come together.
    I couldn’t find the link on brasschecktv but the bought 450 .40 cal bullets?? For the “homeland defense”? Really?

    • Sirian

      revnowwhilewecan,
      I agree with you, but when it comes to even the lower level local jurisprudences will that actually be enough to fully stop it in it’s tracks? Perhaps, but it remains one of their prize areas of concern that they will not relinquish easily. As long as we are a land of laws, they will continue to slowly but surely chip away at the limit to the power reach they have been going for. Keep your fingers crossed, keep them crossed tightly.

    • Joe H

      Rev,
      i think that was 450 MILLION .40 cal bullets.

  • TIME

    Keep in mind it was also the NC Gov who was floating the idea last year that the 2012 elections should be delayed if not outright canceled..

    Now what are you folks in NC going to do about this special Gov you have?

    PEACE and LOVE.

    • http://www.ifonlyphotos.com Alex Frazier

      Actually, we need to remember to keep bringing that up. When I first heard about it months ago, I was furious. I’m in SC, so there’s nothing I can do at the polls. But that [offensive word removed] needs to go, just for having the gall to suggest such a thing.

      As for the rest, the judge was off in one small matter. It’s not the wording or restrictions of the law that were a second amendment problem. It’s the existence of the law in the first place. That right is to be uninfringed.

      • 45caliber

        Alex:

        “As for the rest, the judge was off in one small matter. It’s not the wording or restrictions of the law that were a second amendment problem. It’s the existence of the law in the first place. That right is to be uninfringed.”

        You are quite correct. However the judges always fail to point that part out. I think they are hoping they can encourage the politicians to try again.

    • http://folkartist.wordpress.com Libertytrain

      purdue isn’t running for a second term.

  • T. Jefferson

    Another win for freedom.

  • Pingback: Anonymous

  • http://personalliberty.com/2012/03/31/spiking-obamacare/ littlebill24

    It’s about time our courts and judges get on the right side of our freedoms and rights of the consitution. And now if only the SUPREME COURT JUDGES would get on the rights and freedoms of the people to own and bear arms And that we are not under the rule of the UNITED NATIONS and that we under the rights and the laws of the FREEDOMS OF THE REPUBLIC OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNDER THE CONSITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE U.S.A.

    • tg sherman

      I cannot add anything more to that!! Excellant!

      Tom in Milton, WI

    • castaway

      Are we really? It appears that the Constitution is nearly null and void. Even speaking of it gets lots of laughs from politicians, and local authorities. From the noise I hear, is most do not even give a rip about the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, unless they can find a statement in it to help their cause.

      As far as the constituion is concerned, I have the right to buy any gun any time, anywhere I choose. No infringments! I could wear it unhidden, anywhere, and anytime.

      In addition, we recently lost a good part of our rights in the 1st Amendment. Very important rights to be sure. Those in power regard the constitution as a barrier to go around, until it can be totally destroyed. Same goes for the Bill of Rights.

      It is also my opinion that unless millions of Americans are willing to die for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and our Republic as nation, It will all be lost in less than 4 years.
      Also it will not be long before any of us can be arrested and sent to (Siberia,or the North American version) for being a political disident.

      • http://www.ifonlyphotos.com Alex Frazier

        Truth be told, castaway, you could indeed buy any gun, anywhere, any time, and carry it wherever you chose, in any way you chose. It is your right to do so. And any legal troubles that might arise from you exercising that right can be overcome.

        It all boils down to who wants to make the fight. I can get the gun laws of Illinois overturned if I don’t mind spending several years in jail and spending a small fortune in legal fees. Their laws can’t hold up to Constitutional scrutiny. They would be defeated in the end. But it has to go to trial, then to appeals, then to who knows what court until it makes it to the state level supreme court, etc., until it finally makes it to the Supreme Court of the United States. Assuming that they’ll hear the case, your conviction would be overturned.

        So you can fight the establishment. But it’s expensive and time consuming, and they are counting on the fact that they have the force of arms and the power of inconvenience and bottomless resources. You have no gun, have to sit in jail, and have to go bankrupt … just to exercise the right that should already be protected.

        And when it’s all over, you won’t be able to sue anyone, because they are all exempt from civil action.

      • http://teamlaw.org Jazzabelle

        Or you could approach the matter administratively, before an issue ever arose….and get the federal corporation to admit they can’t regulate you. It’s not a walk in the park, but it’s a lot easier than the method you just described. And if you do it right, there’s no risk of jail time. If I were you, I’d visit teamlaw.org and poke around a bit, especially their forum.

      • Vicki

        There have been several 2nd amendment cases taken all the way to SCOTUS. Expensive yes but all you need is standing. You don’t have to break the law (civial disobedience) but you do have to be materially affected. That is what happened in the Heller case and in the Mac Donald case.

        The Heller case established that the 2nd covers an INDIVIDUAL personal right.
        The MacDonald case established that the 2nd is enforceable against the states.

        So now all we have to do is get SCOTUS to establish the definitions of “Shall”, “not”, “be” and “infringe(d)”.

  • FreedomFighter

    Resistance is not futile.

    Laus Deo
    Semper Fi

    • Sirian

      HA, you’re anti-Borg FF, how dare you. . . ;)

    • 45caliber

      FF:

      Hemingway was a mercenary for about 30 years, writing his books between battles.

      He was asked by a reporter why he fought, considering that he could have been killed. I love his reply:

      “There are worse things than dying while fighting for freedom. And if you don’t fight for it, you’ll learn what every one of those things are.”

      • FreedomFighter

        Love that one, thanks.

        Laus Deo
        Semper Fi

      • Doc Sarvis

        I thought Hemingway was an ambulance driver and journalist in various conflicts. I don’t thing he fought.

      • Doc Sarvis

        it should read “…think he fought.”

      • 45caliber

        Doc:

        Hemingway was given the rank of general in several conflicts, particularly one in China. They don’t give that rank to ambulance drivers. He definately fought at nearly all ranks at one time or another. Besides, ambulance drivers were generally local … those didn’t need to know how to fight, they only needed to know how to drive. I think your information was wrong.

      • Doc Sarvis

        45c
        Here is my information:
        From http://www.ernest.hemingway.com/journeystowar.htm
        “With regard to timing, war was one of the areas in which history accomodated Hemingway-his lifetime spanned four major wars, three of which he saw close-up, though never as a soldier, and he often embroidered his war experiences for presentation to the home audience to make them look as “soldierly” as he possibly could.”
        And; “The war was an ocean away, and the domestic attitude toward it was shaped by patriotic songs, jingoistic slogans and romantic stories of faraway Europe. Nineteen year-old Ernest Hemingway wasted no time in creating the image for the folks back home of himself as Warrior.”
        And; “In what must have been a particularly galling moment for him, Hemingway, at the risk of losing his reporter’s credentials and being expelled from France, had to appear before a military panel and deny ever having taken part in any actual fighting himself.”

      • Vicki
  • Brian L

    I’m in CLT and have a gun at home but I’ve never done any hunting…BUT I would never infringe upon the hunters or anyone else’s rights to own and carry a gun! It is a second amendment issue and I can’t see how anyone, Judge or not, can object to it particularly on the basis of ‘wording’…

    • castaway

      Easy, we have allowed them to become so powerful, they can do what they want. In addition, they do not respect our Constitution, or the Bill of Rights. The public is so dumbed down, they will allow the politicians to do nearly anything, as we are now witnessing.

  • ranger hall

    Amazing how they can spend time making up these stupid Laws to start with, Anyway 5 Stars to the People of NC.
    Power to the People.

  • Tee

    Crazy, simply crazy, hopefully, you child(ren) will not find those guns or use them on you!

    • 45caliber

      Tee:

      That’s why you train the child(ren) when they are small to know what a gun and is how to be careful with it.

      • Randy G

        Absolutely, When I was young & my father was in the D.C. Police He kept a loaded gun in the house & My sister & I never played with it, even though 14hours of 21 in prime time TV was westerens.

      • Joe H

        45,
        Tee speaks like a person totally ignorant of the facts of life. I have been around guns from five years old and never “played” with a gun as a kid. My father taught me a respect for them. I first fired a .22 at five and went on from there. I now not only have a respect for guns, but a “love”, as well. I probably shouldn’t have said that as now she will try to make me out to be some kind of gun nut.

      • Vicki

        I got my first hands on training with firearms at age 8. 12 gauge shotgun. Bit overpowered for me. A 410 would have been a MUCH better choice. Hated shotguns for years till I went skeet shooting with friends and they talked me into trying it again. It doesn’t kick anywhere near as hard as I remember :)

        As for firearm safety I can’t tell you when cause I was so young that age had no meaning. It was defiantly well before I was 8. The single most important rule I remember and it still is the one rule that if you NEVER break you will not shoot someone by accident. And I do mean NEVER. You could break every other safety rule and if you never break this one you will never shoot someone or thing that you don’t intend to.

        The single rule? Never point the muzzle at anything you don’t want to shoot.

    • Steve E

      When I was growing up. We had a guns sitting up in the corners of several rooms in our house. Mainly for shooting snakes and varmints on the farm. The house was full of kids and adults and everyone knew about firearm safety. When I was 10 years old, and If I saw a poisonous snake or opossum in the hen house, I would grab the .22 rifle, load it, and go shoot the critter (they eat the chicken eggs) It was no big deal. Nothing like the good old days.

      • 45caliber

        Steve:

        Exactly. We did the same. In fact, in that area of Arkansas (Ozark Mountains) (yes, I was a hillbilly) kids of five knew how to load and aim a gun. Most had their first gun (a .22) by the time they were six.

        We had a neighbor about ten years ago that had a pit bull that started killing everything he could get his teeth into. He killed pets, etc. and was barely headed off when he tried to attack a toddler. We had several cats that the dog kept killing (mostly kittens). I saw his master throw a dead cat into the back of his pickup to haul off. I walked out and said, “My kids (who were about 14/15) don’t like their pets being killed by your dog.” He bragged, “My dog is a hunting dog. He doesn’t know any better.” So I said, “Yes, I understand. He thinks it’s okay. But my kids don’t. They have a .22 leaning up against the door in the front and the back watching for your dog to get into our yard again. And if he does, I don’t think he’s going to get out again.”

        Thirty minutes later he was building a pen for his dog.

      • Joe H

        45,
        now THAT is something that pisses me off! A stupid humanbeing getting a good dog into trouble. That guy should have been taken out and horse whipped!!! There is no such thing as a bad dog, only bad owners!!

    • castaway

      That all depends of what kind of bull(offensive word removed) they are taught in school. Many have already been trained as socialists, and with all the idiologies that go with it.

    • WILDFIRE460

      “Tee says:
      April 2, 2012 at 10:37 am

      “Crazy, simply crazy, hopefully, you child(ren) will not find those guns or use them on you!”

      Raise your child(ren) to be responsible of their actions and know the consequences of their actions, raise them to have common sense and you will not have to worry the children irresponsibly using a gun on another human unless as a last resort to self defense to where their life is in danger. More specifically and basically, unless you have a gun pointed at you, you do not point a gun at another.

      All my sibling’s and many of my friends as well as myself had all been through hunter safety courses as children. Taught how to handle guns responsibly and the do’s and don’ts of guns. I was 10 years old when I took my hunter safety course and begun hunting and handling firearms. My father taught me and corrected me if I was handling the gun improperly such as during loading and unloading the weapon or when turning toward a person the barrel of the weapon should always be toward the ground in case of a misfire and what have you.

      These days, when kids and adults alike get into scuffles with other people, and get beat down usually due to their own actions and arrogance, many of their first reactions is to go home or someplace to acquire a gun and hunt out and seek revenge using a gun. This is due to their lack of common sense, lack of personal responsibility of their actions and most importantly lack of sound parental guidance.

      Younger generations these days that are having children do not know or have common sense or personal responsibility or know the boundaries between “right and wrong”.

      Some simple examples such as parents complain their children are over weight and/or obese. “Its McDonalds fault because the parents are feeding their kids mcnuggets 5 nights a week, therefore mcdonalds should pay restitution”. Rather than the parents taking responsibility for their Childrens unhealthy eating habits. Spilled hot coffee in your lap while driving, blame your stupidity and clumsiness on the the Company that handed you the coffee rather than taking responsibility for your own actions. Everyone knows coffee is served hot, furthermore, while driving shouldn’t be drinking anyway. As taught in drivers Ed. Hands at 10 and 2, not hand at 10 and other hand on hot coffee – cell phone or craming a cheese burger down the throat or putting on make up or knee at 6 and both hands texting.
      People crash their cars after leaving a bar sloppy drunk and blame the bar tender for serving them to much alcohol as they demanded. Rather than taking responsibility for their own actions of drinking and driving.

      A male child brainwashed and misguided since the age of 2 yrs old to dress and play with female toys grows up confused thinking he is a girl and wants to join “girlscouts”, but can’t because he is not the correct gender for that organization. Sue the organization because your child is confused of his identity and does not fall within the realm of the rules and regulations of the organization. How did that child acquire girls clothes since the age of 2 yrs old? How did that child get his hands on girl toys instead of boys toys? “Parental guidance” That persons child is gender identity is confused because his parents wanted and guided their son to be a daughter. Now wants to blame organizations for their ignorant and incompetent parenting for not guiding their child according to that childs gender.

      A child that is short and skinny or even tall and skinny, or simply has no or less athletic skill than that of other children gets rejected from being on the football team because he or she would get creamed on the field by bigger and stronger children. Sue the school for oppressing your child because his or her physical genetics are unequal to that of other students. Rather than simply realizing and accepting that their are certain things each individual can and cannot do based on their skill, talent, physical build / size so on. Parents of a special needs child sued a school because their child was not picked from the football try outs line up.

      Point is, it all starts with sound parental guidance as well as sound teachings of a person being responsible for their self and knowing that their actions can carry consequences and to accept those consequences rather than blaming others for their short comings, if they cross the boundaries of right and wrong, teaching and guidance to be able to decipher the difference between realistic and fairy tale, fact and fiction, truth and lie and one of the biggest lack in society being common sense and simply common courtesy for others around them.

      If you have to worry about your child getting their hands on a gun and using it against you. You yourself have failed as a responsible parent to guide and teach that child right from wrong. Those are the parents that will blame other sources for their failed parenting such as: its the video games fault or the movies fault for teaching my children violence. No, it is the parents fault for not teaching the child difference between reality and fantasy.

      These type of parents will blame government for not making laws to ban this and that rather than teaching their children right and wrong and will never admit that their failed parenting of their childs future rather blame the government failure to make laws to deter the children from doing the wrong thing while oppressing others rights and liberties. Easier to blame government for your failure than taking personal responsibility for your own ignorance and laziness to properly guide your children.

      No wonder Government feels they need to step in to everyones lives these days and tell them what they can and cannot do, because they (younger generations) cannot think for them self what is right and wrong anymore.

      • John Battle

        Wildfire460, thanks so much for your excellent comment. I loved reading it, and you place the blame, and the solution, squarely where it belongs — with the parents, not other organizations or the government.

      • Joe H

        WILDFIRE460,
        I’m 61 years old, have a perfect driving record, and I agree with you on everything but the coffee. I drink coffee while i drive but I carry it in a travel mug, put a couple of ice cubes in it to cool it, and only take drinks of it when there is not a car near me. I have never had an accident, not even a parking ticket. the biggest part of the problem lies in the lack of judgement! The lack of it is in taking a sip of the coffee when there is a car right next to you and you drift into their lane doing it. It is in taking a sip, spilling super hot coffee in your lap, thus swerving all over the place. It’s all in how the person does something that makes it dangerous. to give you an example, I have four vehicles and my wife and I pay under 500.00 a year in insurance. two of thse vehicles are less than five years old.

      • mellie torre

        Amen and AMEN!

      • absolutely amazed

        As best I can tell, parents aren’t doing a very good job of it – quite a few shot dead today.

      • http://Aol CommonSense4America

        WHOA there boy!!! Your beginning to sound a lot like me. Congrats!!!

  • castaway

    I simply do not find what happened in North Carolina, a big deal, when you consider what is happening nation wide.It is not telling us much about the big picture. Hillary reportedly signed the aggrement with the UN, and it will be very interesting to see what happens.

    It is appauling that we are now in the middle of a conspiracy to turn the United States, into a socialist (offensive word removed) hole, with less freedom, and rights than the countries of China and Russia.

    • Joe H

      castaway,
      If you are truly worried about that treaty, be sure to let your reps know. it has to be ratified by them!!

  • castaway

    When I have a comment that is under scrutiny, I know it is the end of my 1st Amendment Rights. Pure and simple. Good luck to all.

    • http://boblivingstonpl.wordpress.com Bob Livingston

      Dear castaway,

      You have three comments currently in moderation. All contain expletives. That is the reason they are “under scrutiny.” Comments containing expletives are removed and/or edited, at my instruction. Expand your vocabulary and you will have fewer comments go to moderation.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

    • http://talonspoint.wordpress.com Talon’s Point

      First amendment rights do not extend to private property, of which this in essence is. If you think it does please post your home address and we will all come inside and say whatever we want for as long as we want. Be patient though, some of us can be long winded ;-)

    • Vicki

      castaway says:

      When I have a comment that is under scrutiny, I know it is the end of my 1st Amendment Rights. Pure and simple. Good luck to all.

      Since the scrutiny you are talking about is not from the government (they are supposedly watching everything we type btw so you might need to worry) it is not the end of your 1st amendment rights. This newsletter is not Congress and it is not a government entity so your rights are intact. You just can’t swear here. I would not let you swear in my house either.

      • http://folkartist.wordpress.com Libertytrain

        I have to agree with you strongly on this. There is a great misunderstanding of what Free Speech is in this Country – it doesn’t entitle you to utter every foul word every place just because one wants to, or one’s vocabulary is lacking or because one apparently has an inability to think and speak without using foul language – :)

  • castaway

    It is really depressing to be witnessing the death of The United States of America, as I type this. What is in store for our children and grand children. People of future generations, will talk about Americans of the early 21st century as being too cowardly to stop the conspiracy to destroy their nation. That is if they are able to read anything about this time period. I suspect most everything will be destroyed and or re-written with propaganda.

    You maybe think I am radical, but you wait and see what is coming your way. I see most of you still believe in the Vote, the tooth fairy, santa claus, and the Easter Bunny. Good Grief Children!!!

    • FreedomFighter

      They need to start the civil war, what the trigger will be I dont know, when they do, victory will be for the American people

      They will fire the first shot, it will be the first nail in the coffin of tyranny.

      Laus Deo
      Semper Fi.

      • Doc Sarvis

        Sure sounds like you are asking others to fight your battles.

      • FreedomFighter

        Here you go Doc,

        “Game Over, Atheists Lose”

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXGKVii83mg&feature=plcp&context=C4803690VDvjVQa1PpcFOZF7M71ctO6qKIT7HkO6UscwkwbCmud7g=

        I try to do what God demands of me.

        Laus Deo
        Semper Fi

      • Doc Sarvis

        The dude’s got a big hat but, President Obama is a Christian and atheists as well as people of various faiths occupy both Republican and Democratic parties and conserviative and liberal persuasions.
        From watching the video on your link I do not see how this speaks to my point.

      • http://naver samurai

        Obama bin Laden is not a Christian, so stop lying about that Doc. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • absolutely amazed

        So your god wants you to shoot em up, as I gather. I’m not sure he/she is a god I would want much to do with. Certainly couldn’t find him anywhere in the New Testament, but surely in the Old.

      • Doc Sarvis

        Samurai
        I’m not lying.

      • http://naver samurai

        If anyone says Obama bin Laden is a Christian, they are lying. Enough said! FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

  • FreedomFighter

    Obama To Push Gun Ban In Name of Trayvon!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6NPoVfQOvk&feature=uploademail


    The system will stop at nothing to disarm the American people!

    They must disarm the American people to complete the totalitarian takeover of America and enslavement of the American People.

    When your children ask “daddy why are we slaves”

    What will you say to them?

    Laus Deo
    Semper Fi

    • WILDFIRE460

      Not surprising for Obama, Hillary and Holder to try to use one instance to try to push their agenda on 307+ millions citizens.

      Until a thorough and proper and non biased competent investigation is completed. They really can’t push anything which is likely to blow up in their face if the findings of facts ends up showing that Zimmerman was in fact being attacked and his life was threatened. As some evidence is tickling out, it is looking more and more like a legitimate self defense case. Time will tell, Liberals and Dems are quick to jump to conclusions and play race cards to push their agenda when it serves their purpose.

      • 45caliber

        You are right. BUT … if it comes out that Zimmerman was in the right, they won’t admit it. At best, the story will simply fade away. I still expect to see the Feds press charges against Zimmerman for “violation of civil rights” even if he is in the right. They want a guilty verdict to justify all their actions now

    • TIME

      FF,

      Look for more shootings to take place over the next number of months.
      I would not be shocked to see something happen weekly if not daily for the next six or more months to posion the well of public opinion, as in spin more rhetoric.
      As the truth of these matters will never be told by the media’s that are all 100% controlled.

      All of these events will be done by extreme zelots who are of the fallen within Satans order.

      Anyone who looks into the Zionist / Rothchilds, the Bank of London, the Royal family as well the Progressive movment also known as the TRC / G 20 / CFR / G 8 as well as the NWO movment, plus all of the 13 Bloodlines they are all connected by the same strings.
      Thats why its so hard for people to grasp who’s doing what, etc.

      The De Facto Corp. known as the “United States Inc.” is a big member within this Cult of Personality’s thats why we have the United Nations in New York, who else has their headquarters there.
      The CFR, The TRC, and the Rothschilds interest as well as the US brothers in this movment The Rockefellers. Look into when they were still in Europe, and what their plans were; just How strange is it that they wanted a One World Order under Satan. Its all in print.

      There can be only one outcome that the criminal bankers and NWO Thugs will allow, that will be the complete and total ban of all guns in this nation as in no guns in the hands of its citizens. Up is down – down is up,Green is Red and Red is Green. I think you will get the
      meaning of that.

      BTW — Your quote is just so apropo…

      Peace and Love

      • Vicki

        Like the several well publicized shootings in just the first 3 months of this year culminating in the April 2nd mass shooting in Oakland Calif.

        All just too convenient. I remember quite a few high profile shootings in the 1990s around the time of the assault weapons (ugly guns) ban. Same thing here.

  • Herbert

    You must remember they will not go away they will be back they do not want you armed.

  • MARC

    One guy way up above hit the “nail on the head’ – shall NOT be infringed seems to be beyond CONgresses understanding. Hmmmm, they and judges serve during Good behavior. So IF they propose an “Anti- Bill of Rights statute” or a judge rules against the Bill of Rights = grounds for removal.
    Hmmmm. Layers for the 2nd Amendment Foundation and the NRA NEED to look at that more closely.
    We need to get tough with these totalitarian ***holes.

  • MA

    They want to take all guns away from United States Citizens. Just like all the other Eliteist countries of the world. That way they can do whatever they like to you. Corral you like a beast into cages – feed you the very worst food supplied by yours truly FDA and friends. Experiment on you with more and more powerful drugs – you aren’t buying enough from the constant ads being run on every station and on the radio. Your children’s will work and turn over all to their gov’t. You will be watched 24/7 and monitored every single second of every day. They will RF chip you – probably without your consent just like they are forcibly sterilizing a great portion of the women of the planet. Good or Evil – which will you choose.

  • boyscout

    24/7 surveillance monitoring is already here, and has been. Don’t hide arms, wear sidearms !

  • Charles Barfield

    No surprise that the Govenor who suggested that maybe we should “Suspend Elections for awhile” would be against citizens rights to be armed.

  • mellie torre

    ANY LAW INFRINGING UPON THE RIGHT OF ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS “UNCONSTITUTIONAL”.

    So, that means that any and all laws preventing any and all Americans from keeping and bearing arms is…UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

  • T Jackson

    Glad someone caught up with The Commonwealth of Kentucky! Although we did not have to go through any federal court, our state constitution states that the government can not nor will they take any firearms from the citizens of the state. Think it has been in there forever.

  • BlackwingA520

    Ask a Holocaust survivor. NEVER give up your firearms. You have a GOD given RIGHT to be able to protect yourself. If they think I am going to just hand over my firearms because they say so, come and try to take em’! Liberty or death, not debatable to me!

  • remnard

    the feds nor the states provide the right to bear arms. self preservation is a God given right, and comes from our creator. . We have to stop using this verbage that the second amendment or local state constitutions “give us” the right to bear arms to protect ourselves. if they give it to us, they can take it away. the second amendment is nothing more than an affirmation of this inalienable right.

  • Joe

    jazzabelle,

    The supremacy clause has always been a part of the Constitution. It makes the Constitution the Supreme Law of the Land above all state and local law. The Constitution guarantees us the right to bear arms, and the supremacy clause guarantees that no state or local government can take that right away. We did not need the 14th Amendment to stop states from infringing on the Bill of Rights because the supremacy clause already served that purpose.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.