kl-20040821-gun rights and the constitution

Subject: Gun Rights and The Constitution Issue: Gun Rights Date: August 21, 2004 Author: Ken Larsen Ken Larsen, Personal Choice candidate for Governor, chats about gun rights. ************* ___Ken___ >> The Constitution has not stood the test of time. It is virtually >>non-existent in America today. The state has no constitutional authority >>to regulate the individual ownership of arms. ___Mel___ >In 23 fully adjudicated cases, the ruling has been the same. The state >chooses the weapons, and can regulate what is owned by its militia and >citizens. These rulings start with Miller (SC case) and go to one decided >last year. ___Ken___ The phrase, "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," does not say, like the First Amendment, "Congress shall not infringe the right to keep and bear arms." It clearly says nobody has the power to infringe that right. It clearly forbids the states to infringe that right, just as the 6th Amendment guarantees the right to a jury in state trials. This provision is universal and the comment about having a well-regulated militia is a reason, not a limitation. The Constitution is the Constitution. It is not the whims of the black-robed tyrants. ___Mel___ >You might not like those rulings, but they have been consistent, and over >a long period of time. In other words, you have a nice theory, but you >need to try again. ___Ken___ The fact that our government has ignored the clear meaning and intent of the Constitution does not change things. ___Ken___ >> Again, from the Utah State Constitution ___Mel___ >What the Utah constitution says is not relevant to federal rules, per se >(in other words, if there is a conflict, the US constitution wins.) ___Ken___ Yes. Where there is conflict between the Constitutions, the US wins. Where there is conflict between the US Constitution and the whims of the courts, the Constitution wins again. ___Ken___ >> "The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security >>and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as >>for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed. ___Mel___ >See comment above. The right is infringed by the US constitution. So, >any fed rule, the Utah citizens have to live with. ___Ken___ The Utah citizens are not bound by any unconstitutional statute or ruling. Fully-informed juries should be taking care of that. ___Ken___ >> but nothing herein shall prevent the Legislature from defining the >>lawful use of arms." ___Mel___ >In other words, the legislature can restrict guns. What this means is >that the first phrase is all window dressing to make the "any gun I want >to own at any time" crowd happy. The second phrase says "ignore the first >phrase". ___Ken___ The legislature can outlaw the discharge of a firearm in city limits, except for defense. They can define the gun used in deer hunting. They cannot restrict what you choose to own for self defense. Doing so would violate the first phrase. The powers given to the Legislature by the second phrase do not include the power to violate the first. In all cases, the constitution wins. And, of course, the US Constitution is supreme. The Utah Constitution cannot give the Utah Legislature the power to violate the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. ___Ken___ >> The US and Utah Constitutions give each individual in Utah the right to >>decide for themselves what kind of arms they will own. ___Mel___ >Oh come now. Lets get the emotion out of it. The US constitution does no >such thing. The fed rules must be lived by the citizens of Utah, and >California, and everywhere else. ___Ken___ This has nothing to do with emotion or wishful thinking. It is based on simple logical reading of plain English. ___Mel___ >And, the legislature of Utah regulates arms (they do all the time). ___Ken___ And some of those regulations are plainly unconstitutional and therefore null and void. ___Mel___ >So, lets try logic and law here, not emotion. ___Ken___ Let's read the English according to the rules and dictionaries of plain English, not the twisted rulings of tyrants. ___Ken___ >> The people have not surrendered that right to government. ___Mel___ >Sorry, the US constitution, as adjudicated 23 times, says you are wrong. >You might want to be right, but you are not right. ___Ken___ 23 wrongs do not make a right. ___Ken___ >> Part of the purpose of the Constitution is to limit the powers of >>government. ___Mel___ >Absolutely correct. This is the biggest part of it. ___Ken___ Well, maybe the biggest. I would not discount the machinery for establishing government. ___Ken___ >> I refute Marbury v Madison (1803). ___Mel___ >You can also refute that the sun rises in the east if you want. I like >your passion, but you must understand that there are laws you might not >like that you have to live by (and I am guessing you do). Your reasoning >would let me own a shoulder fired missile launcher, fully armed. ___Ken___ It's not about passion, except my passion for logic and justice. If you accept Marbury v Madison, you take the crowns from the heads of the sovereign people and place them on the heads of the Justices of the Supreme Court. You acknowledge a reversal from a free republican government to a royal monarchy similar to the one from which our Founders declared their independence. The Supreme Court did not establish the Constitution. We, the people did. They are just as bound by its language as any other officer in the government. We do not take an oath to obey the Supreme Court. They take an oath to obey our Constitution. If they want to infringe our right to keep and bear arms without violating their oaths of office, let them propose an amendment and then let the people ratify it. Yes, my reasoning would let you own a shoulder fired missile launcher, fully armed. In fact, the plain language of the Constitution would let you own an F-16 fighter jet, armed with nuclear missiles. Of course, the government is authorized to require you to own whatever arms you choose in a way that does not unreasonably endanger others, just as fireworks and other explosive manufacturers are required to insure reasonable distance from subdivisions and other safety features. ___Ken___ >> As Governor of Utah, I will order the end of the enforcement of any law >>that infringes the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms. ___Mel___ >And, if you do so, and that right is exercised, the feds just might arrest >your citizens if they violate federal law, and you if you do. And, you >will no longer be governor. ___Ken___ If I enforce unconstitutional laws, I will be in violation of my oath of office. I will keep my oath and let the consequences follow. If I cannot keep my oath, I should resign, rather than live a fraud. ___Mel___ >I like your passions. My suggestion is that your stance is not one that >will be electable. You sound like a former Alabama governor standing in >the schoolhouse door. And, you sound even more like the mayor of San >Francisco allowing gay marriages in defiance of state law (which was >struck down just last week). Might make you popular among those who do >not respect law, but is not a good long term strategy. ___Ken___ The possibility that the people will not support their Constitutions is no reason for me to join them. I will not initiate fraud for anyone's vote. Yes, I am passionate about doing things right. Being right has always been more important to me than winning. Yes, I will stand at the school house door if the feds try to violate the powers of the State of Utah, as guaranteed in the Tenth Amendment. Yes, I will order all county clerks to issue marriage licenses without discriminating on the basis of sex or number of partners, as required by the 14th Amendment. Yes, I will order the end of the enforcement of the drug war in Utah and I will order the arrest of any federal agent who comes to Utah to violate the civil rights of Utahns to choose their own harmless personal pursuits of happiness, as protected by the 9th Amendment. I have no respect for unconstitutional laws, no matter what the courts say. If you want me to obey the courts when they violate the Constitution, then work to amend my oath of office. ___Ken___ >> America is not a dictatorship of the Judiciary. I will not tolerate, in >>Utah, the enforcement of any federal infringements of the rights of >>Utahns to keep and bear arms. ___Mel___ >Then you will be in jail. ___Ken___ I regret that I have but one life to risk for my Constitution. Why shouldn't politicians accept the same risks any soldier takes when he fights for right? If the people of Utah are ready for me, putting me in jail won't matter. If they are not ready, putting me in the Governor's office won't matter. ___Ken___ >> Everyone please forward this to everyone in Utah who cares about gun rights. ___Mel___ >The only problem is that at least one of the people this might be >forwarded to actually understands the constitution and the SC rulings, and >will result in nothing. You are pandering to the uninformed (not a bad >strategy short term, terrible strategy long term). The press will skewer >you as just another Utah nut. They love it when Utah makes news. Happens >a lot, and on this issue even. ___Ken___ Anyone who is truly informed will realize all the Founders support my conclusions. There is an official way to amend the Constitution and it does not include rulings by the Court. I will not be intimidated by media skewers. I may not be PC, Politically Correct, but I am CC, Constitutionally Correct. Respectfully, Ken Larsen, Candidate for Governor, Personal Choice Party __________________________________________________________________________________ Subject: Gun Rights and The Constitution --- Part 2 Date: August 22, 2004 >> ___Ken___ >> The phrase, "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," >>does not say, like the First Amendment, "Congress shall not infringe the >>right to keep and bear arms." It clearly says nobody has the power to >>infringe that right. It clearly forbids the states to infringe that >>right, just as the 6th Amendment guarantees the right to a jury in state >>trials. This provision is universal and the comment about having a >>well-regulated militia is a reason, not a limitation. The Constitution >>is the Constitution. It is not the whims of the black-robed tyrants. >___Mel___ >You, one more time, ignore the 23 fully adjudicated federal cases. My >comment once more is that you are trying real hard, but you need to try >again. ------ I am not ignoring them. I am repudiating them. You are ignoring the Constitution. What part of "shall not be infringed," do you not understand? How can the Constitution limit the government if part of the government gets to nullify such a clear phrase without an amendment? The Constitution did not crown the Supremes and we should stop bowing before them. > >> ___Ken___ >> The fact that our government has ignored the clear meaning and intent of >>the Constitution does not change things. > >___Mel___ >Your interpretation varies with 200 years of rulings that count. ------ My interpretation is not my interpretation. It is the clear reading of clear English. Anyone who can read English knows I am right and the Court is wrong. You would have to believe that Dred Scott was not a person to support the court's nullifications of the 2nd Amendment. >___Mel___ >Ignoring them does not make them go away, nor does it change them. It is >real easy. Take a clearly illegal gun by federal laws, say an Uzi. Load >it. Walk into the nearest FBI office, and say you have a fully loaded Uzi, >and want to be arrested. Then, file your case. You can make lots of >newspapers in Utah that way, and can run the rest of your campaign from >behind bars. It makes for great pictures. You would get more votes in >Utah that way. ------- If I had lived in Nazi Germany and I introduced myself to a Gestapo agent as a Jew and he arrested me and put me in a concentration camp, I guess that would prove to you that the Holocaust was okay? Especially if a German Court ruled that I should go. After all The Court Uber Alles. > >___Mel___ >Of course, you would also find out that your interpretation is not shared >by the federal judiciary, and probably would be in for major jail time. ------ We already agree that the federal judiciary does not agree with me on this issue. They are wrong. Not because I say so, but because the Constitution says so. > >> ___Ken___ >> Yes. Where there is conflict between the Constitutions, the US wins. >>Where there is conflict between the US Constitution and the whims of the >>courts, the Constitution wins again. > >___Mel___ >The courts are the interpreters of the constitution. Mel Tungate is not >the interpreter, and neither is some candidate for the governor of a >state. Sorry, neither of us has that privilege. ------ Every officer of government has the privilege, the right and the duty to interpret the Constitution and abide by it. Of course we do not always agree. That's why we have checks and balances. No law can be enforced until all three branches of the government and a jury of the people agree. If the Legislature thinks it is unconstitutional, they don't pass it. If the Executive thinks its unconstitutional, they don't enforce it. If the Judicial thinks its unconstitutional, they don't convict. If the Jury of the people doesn't like it for any reason, including unconstitutional, they don't convict. The Governor of Utah is the Executive of the State. It is his duty to prevent the execution of any law he deems unconstitutional. The Courts cannot compel the Executive to enforce any more than the Executive can compel the Courts to convict. In every case, the cards are stacked to favor the accused. Our system is based on the belief that it is better to acquit 10 guilty men than to convict one innocent. >> ___Ken___ >> The Utah citizens are not bound by any unconstitutional statute or ruling. > >___Mel___ >Your statement is ludicrous. We are all bound by the law. ------- Some patriots have said it is our duty to disobey unconstitutional laws. If a law violates the Constitution, it is not a law, but an abuse of power and it is the duty of the people to oppose such abuses. And, when the abuses become intolerable, it is the duty of the people to overthrow the government. Read the Declaration of Independence. It is not the duty of the people to roll over and play dead when the government usurps unconstitutional powers. It is folly to trust our freedoms to the Courts. They are part of the government. They must obey the Constitution. How can the Constitution limit them if they get to say what it means? That is nonsense. The Courts do not have the authority to order a governor to enforce a law he believes is unconstitutional. If I am elected Governor of Utah, the infringement of the right of the people to keep and bear arms will stop until after my impeachment. > >> ___Ken___ >> Fully-informed juries should be taking care of that. > >___Mel___ >Juries are instructed by judges who inform them of the law. ------- Yes. In my trial for cruising State Street I was denied a jury. One of the arguments against my right to a jury was that I had stipulated the facts and wanted a ruling that the law was unconstitutional. The City Prosecutor argued and the judge agreed that juries only get to judge the facts, not the law. Thus, the main purpose of juries, to protect the people from abusive government, has been lost. That's why I said the Constitution is no longer in force. They have ignored it when they want and the people have slept. In the intent of the Founders, a Jury could refuse to convict for any reason, especially if they decided by themselves that the law was unconstitutional. Thus, they were to be the final peaceful defenders of the Constitution. If I were in a jury, I would not convict anyone for violating any unconstitutional law, including ownership of an Uzi. I would tell the whole government, including the Supreme Court, to go to Hell. That would be my right and my duty as a juror, just as obeying the Constitution, as written, not as interpreted, will be my right and my duty when I am Governor. > >> ___Ken___ >> And, of course, the US Constitution is supreme. The Utah Constitution >>cannot give the Utah Legislature the power to violate the 2nd Amendment >>of the US Constitution. > >___Mel___ >Thank you for stating this. > >> ___Ken___ >>>> The US and Utah Constitutions give each individual in Utah the right >>>>to decide for themselves what kind of arms they will own. >> >> ___Mel___ >>>Oh come now. Lets get the emotion out of it. The US constitution does >>>no such thing. The fed rules must be lived by the citizens of Utah, and >>>California, and everywhere else. >> >> ___Ken___ >> This has nothing to do with emotion or wishful thinking. It is based on >>simple logical reading of plain English. > >___Mel___ >You did not handle the fed rules part of my statement. ------- Unconstitutional "Fed rules" are null and void. We obey them for the same reasons we give our wallet to the street mugger with a gun in our face. > >> ___Mel___ >> >And, the legislature of Utah regulates arms (they do all the time). >> >> ___Ken___ >> And some of those regulations are plainly unconstitutional and therefore >>null and void. > >___Mel___ >Then, file a case. And, if you file it in federal court, you will lose. ------ Of course I will lose in federal court. Until the people restore the Constitution, we are all victims of this abuse. One way the people can work to restore the Constitution is to elect a Governor who is ready to keep his oath to defend the Constitution. > >> ___Ken___ >> Yes, my reasoning would let you own a shoulder fired missile launcher, >>fully armed. In fact, the plain language of the Constitution would let >>you own an F-16 fighter jet, armed with nuclear missiles. > >___Mel___ >Only if you ignore the first phrase of the amendment. You are >passionate, but wrong. And, allowing each citizen to have F-16 fighters >is not conducive to a well ordered society, let alone a well ordered >militia. ------- I am not ignoring the first phrase. I have already recognized it as a reason, a justification, for the second phrase. It is not and was never intended to limit the second phrase. It does not say, "the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms." The People is every one of us. There is no way a student of proper English would twist it as the Courts have. I'm not going to argue that allowing you ownership of an F-16 is a good idea. The Constitution is not perfect by a long shot. I might support your effort to amend the 2nd to allow government infringement of the ownership of certain arms, such as an F-16. One problem with such an amendment is that Congress would never support it, because it would show that the current infringements are not authorized. > >> ___Ken___ >> Of course, the government is authorized to require you to own whatever >>arms you choose in a way that does not unreasonably endanger others, just >>as fireworks and other explosive manufacturers are required to insure >>reasonable distance from subdivisions and other safety features. > >___Mel___ >Again, not correct. This was tried in court also, and the ruling was that >the government cannot require you to own a gun. ------- Sorry for the miscommunication. I did say "whatever arms you choose" which could include bare fists only. My point was that the government could require reasonable safety rules for the arms you own, not that the government could require you to own a weapon. Personally, I am a pacifist. I do not put my trust in physical violence. I do not own a gun. If I were required by law to own a gun I might go to jail first. I would certainly challenge the constitutionality of such an edict. > >> ___Mel___ >>>And, if you do so, and that right is exercised, the feds just might >>>arrest your citizens if they violate federal law, and you if you do. >>>And, you will no longer be governor. >> >> ___Ken___ >> If I enforce unconstitutional laws, I will be in violation of my oath of >>office. I will keep my oath and let the consequences follow. If I >>cannot keep my oath, I should resign, rather than live a fraud. > >___Mel___ >What you are saying here is that you would not enforce laws which you, >Ken, believe are unconstitutional. Unfortunately, you do not get to >decide which rules you are to enforce, nor how to interpret them. You are >not judge, jury, and executioner. ------- Actually, as Governor, I will be the executioner. I can refuse to execute whom I will. Impeachment or assassination are the only ways to restore your unconstitutional laws. >___Mel___ >They are three branches of government, not one. If you are elected, and >you have a shoulder fired missile in your arms, and that is known, you >will be arrested. And, you sound just like a nut in a state that gets >lots of national press for being the home of nuts. ------- I have no desire to get arrested for anything. If elected, I will simply do my constitutional duty. No circus nuts. > >___Mel___ >We do not need any more elected officers who do not understand and abide >by the law. We have too many now. ------ What we really need are more elected officers who understand and abide by the Constitution. We have too few now. > >> ___Ken___ >> The possibility that the people will not support their Constitutions is >>no reason for me to join them. I will not initiate fraud for anyone's >>vote. > >___Mel___ >And that is exactly what you are doing. ------- Fraud is when you say something you do not believe. I have not initiated fraud in our exchange. > >> ___Ken___ >>Yes, I will order all county clerks to issue marriage licenses without >>discriminating on the basis of sex or number of partners, as required by >>the 14th Amendment. > >___Mel___ >And, you will be ruled to be out of order ( again, that one [ elected >officials that violate laws ] has hit the courts many times ). ------ And any such court ruling will be out of order. Each branch has full veto power over any law. The Governor is the Executive Branch. My refusal to enforce a law I believe is unconstitutional does not violate any constitutional law. All the judges in the world cannot prevent me from checking their abuse of power. Neither could I prevent them from checking my abuse of power if I decided to charge innocent people. > >> ___Ken___ >> Yes, I will order the end of the enforcement of the drug war in Utah and >>I will order the arrest of any federal agent who comes to Utah to violate >>the civil rights of Utahns to choose their own harmless personal pursuits >>of happiness, as protected by the 9th Amendment. > >___Mel___ >Arresting federal agents? Good luck. Why not just shoot them on sight? >Why would any voter take you seriously? ------ Shooting them might be a good idea, but it would violate the 5th Amendment requirement for due process. And, if I had been mayor of a town in Nazi Germany, I would have ordered the local police to defend our Jews, by taking the Gestapo agents to court. And, if some Canadian Mounties came to Utah to enforce Canadian laws on Utahns, they would have the same authority as American agents coming to enforce the unconstitutional war on drug users. I realize my ideals are a bit Quixotic, but I can't think of any other peaceful way to restore the Constitution to which I have pledged my allegiance. As I read and understand the Constitutions, federal agents waging drug war in Utah are criminals. How can I, as Governor, keep my duty to defend the people and not arrest the agents? I don't know what the outcome will be, but if we don't face this awkward dilemma now, it will only get more awkward as the tyranny progresses. > >> ___Ken___ >> I regret that I have but one life to risk for my Constitution. > >___Mel___ >You need to change this to "I regret that I have but one life to risk for >my interpretation of the Constitution". An interpretation that is clearly >not correct. ------- I respect your right to your interpretation of the Constitution. If you are elected to public office, I would expect you to uphold your interpretation. I would not insist that you accept mine, or anyone else's. > >> ___Ken___ >> Anyone who is truly informed will realize all the Founders support my >>conclusions. > >___Mel___ >Thanks for the laugh. I think I am well informed. Your conclusions are >not correct for reasons fully explained. > >> ___Ken___ >> I may not be PC, Politically Correct, but I am CC, Constitutionally Correct. > >___Mel___ >That is funny. ----- Actually, it's quite tragic. I am truly sorry we disagree. I suspect you would be a good person to work with. Ken