Guns, Privacy, and Probable Clause

In a news report covering the single incident that is prompting Culver's, a restaurant chain, to look into their firearms policies, an underemphasized detail was revealed that left me wondering just how routine trampling civil rights is.

The story is that several members of an organization of Wisconsinites who advocate the open carrying of firearms, Wisconsin Carry, went out for dinner at Culver's in Madison while using their Constitutional rights to bear arms. One ignorant but well-meaning woman called the police.

Once they arrived, the first thing the officers did was demand identification from the group, on threat of citation; all but two consented to the unlawful orders.

"Two of the individuals would not produce identification, saying they didn't need to because they're law-abiding citizens," said [Police spokesman] DeSpain. The officers said, 'That's probably the case but we'd like to check it out.'"

Oh, you'd like to check it out?

Very well... check it:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." ~Fourth Amendment to the Constitution

Ergo, with the arrest of a presumably innocent person, which has been already defined by the Supreme Court as seizure, for not producing papers on command, especially considering the fact that the officers themselves admit they thought it probable that the men were not in violation of any laws, the police were usurping their authority as law enforcement officers. Why they have not been relieved of their handcuffs for frivolous and false arrest, I don't know. There were no warrants for their papers, there were no warrants for their arrest, and police admit there was no suspicion of crime.

Not only that, but the police should have ignored the call, as it was, by its very nature, a non-emergency call, which was placed due to the ignorance of law by a bystander, something that the 911 operator should have made clear. It is absolutely legal to openly carry a firearm, though some unlawful legislation prohibits it in some cities. I used to be supportive of concealed carry permits, as I thought, erroneously, concealed carry was not covered by the Second Amendment, as concealing is the opposite of bearing. But the nature of the Second Amendment, as a good friend and I discussed (and I subsequently recanted my opinion on CCP's), is not to establish our right to keep and bear arms, but to restrict the government's encroachment thereof. Therefore, it is not given to the government to regulate the purchase, ownership, transference, or carrying of firearms, open or concealed.

So, the police had it wrong on two counts, in what turned out to be a relatively high-profile incident, but how many times a day does this occur? Why are our police so uneducated on the law? Why are our citizens so afraid of guns in the hands of fellow citizens, when police are just as susceptible to error and poor judgment as the Average Joe? I can tell you, it has been by design that slaves are trained to shriek at the sight of another slave being armed.

It is our right, it is our duty, and it is our essence as freeborn Americans to protect and defend our inheritance of rights like men, standing erect, stalwartly and with uncompromising resolve, with all sincerity and sobriety.

On Underwear Bombs and Airport Security: Cui Bono?

No mention of this little dandy in the media (emphasis added to quotations):

"A passenger who boarded Northwest Airlines Flight 253 in Amsterdam with attempted plane bomber Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab says the would-be terrorist had no passport and was aided by a sharp-dressed man who claimed Mutallab was a Sudanese refugee, just one of a plethora of startling inconsistencies surrounding an incident that has led to ramped up security and increased levels of harassment in airports." ~Infowars.com

Yes, I'm ready to call this one an inside job. By whom? I don't know, you take a wild guess.

"I am grateful to the passengers and crew aboard Northwest Flight 253 who reacted quickly and heroically to an incident that could have had tragic results. The Department of Homeland Security immediately put additional screening measures into place- for all domestic and international flights- to ensure the continued safety of the traveling public. We are also working closely with federal, state and local law enforcement on additional security measures, as well as our international partners on enhanced security at airports and on flights." ~Janet Napolitano

Since Richard "the Shoe-Bomber" Reid brought us "sockfeet security" at airports, what will Umar "Flammable Underwear" Mutallab add to the TSA's constantly updated repertoire of screening devices? I'm sure it will involve those highly controversial yet oh-so necessary x-ray machines which allow airport security to view your naked body, thus violating your 4th Amendment right to be secure in your persons. No, nothing is sacred in the post-9/11 world, or had you forgotten?

Cui bono? Who stands to gain from this? You're all smart, every one of you; who do you think stands to gain from underwear attacks?

A hint: it's not Umar.

Executing the Laws II

"As we reported yesterday, the Marine Corps Air and Ground Combat Center has dispatched uniformed and presumably armed (we have no confirmation of the latter) soldiers to assist the California Highway Patrol (CHP) in the operation of unconstitutional sobriety checkpoints in San Bernardino County, California, the largest county in California and the country (San Bernardino County is directly east of Los Angeles)." ~Infowars.com (Emphasis mine.)

This is in gross violation of the laws of this nation. This injustice only stands as proof of the blatant disregard for all law by those we would call "Authorities".

Firstly, on the issue of sobriety checkpoints in general, the random and warrantless searches of lawful American motorists' persons and private property without probable cause is undoubtedly illegal.

The 4th Amendment in the Bill of Rights, which was ratified 217 years ago today (the 15th), states in full:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Those who engage in these activities argue that it is state-law that they can perform such warrantless searches.

May I direct their attention to Article VI, Section II of the U.S. Constitution:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Emphasis added.

Secondly, concerning the issue of members of the U.S. Military engaging in the enforcement of civil law, this violates the oft mentioned Posse Commitatus Act:

"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

They might try to defend themselves by saying that the Marines are not a part of the Army or Air Force, but are a detachment of the Navy, which is not covered by Posse Commitatus. That would be silly and not in keeping with the nature of the law.

How far will it go?

In Defense of Free Speech

Alex Jones is a radio talk show host and documentary film maker based in Austin, Texas. He is a paleo-conservative, and he investigates political and social figureheads around America in order to uncover the inner workings of American and likewise global political structure.

While I don’t agree with him on many things, I do respect him and trust him as a news source. He claims and appears to be a Christian, and he frequently mentions the God of the Bible on his radio show.

Michelle Malkin is one of the people that Alex Jones has investigated, and he isn’t exactly thrilled about her.

Malkin wrote a book, “In Defense of Internment” in 2004, explaining why she thinks Americans should be put in camps due to their “ethnicity”. She compares and defends the internment of U.S. citizens during WWII with the modern “War on Terror”. She also defends the governments use of un-Constitutional measures to "ensure our safety".

It is unquestionably illegal and un-American to lock up legal citizens simply because of their ancestry. While I understand the reasoning for it in the past, there is no excuse for it, then or now. Just my opinion, but I think I’m right.

Alex Jones confronted Michelle Malkin on her controversial views at the DNC protests. The exact details are sketchy, and I don't want to get any of the facts or timelines wrong, so I’ll let the videos speak for themselves. These videos are taken from different angles.

To be honest, I saw Malkin on FOX News years ago, and I always liked her seemingly "conservative" views, but this was before I knew about her Fascist ideologies.

Lex or Rex?

The Article Six, Clause 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause.

The text is as follows: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in
the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

Now, I admit that the wording is a bit confusing in places, but I used a dictionary (Thank you, Webster!), and I deciphered the lawyer talk.

It means, in a nutshell, that any law made along the guidelines of the Constitution is to be obeyed as the Supreme Law of the Land. However, any law contrary to the Constitution is not law, and is effectively null and void. This is not my interpretation, this is Webster’s.

The first thing that comes to my mind when discussing “illegal laws” is the idea of “Roadblock Checkpoints”. These are roadblocks, set up by local law enforcement, that stop absolutely everyone that passes by on that street without reasonable cause; they are then asked for papers, questioned, drug-tested, and usually set free.

These checkpoints are defended as legal, but what does the Supreme law of the Land say?

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” ~Fourth Amendment

So:
People are free from unreasonable searches and seizures except by warrant based on probable cause, sworn to by Oath, and describing the things to be searched for and the persons or things to be seized.

Or:
Sheriffs demand identification, question you about where you're coming from and where you're going, in some cases mandatory drug tests are performed, and they decide whether you may or may not continue to your destination, all without any cause whatsoever.

Hmm.

Nope, roadblocks are not Constitutionally lawful. [NULL AND VOID]

Has it Become Destructive of These Ends?

I never like to just post a link to a story, but I feel that there is a time and place for everything.

I would only like to say that this is sensitive topic that no one seems to care about, which makes it all the more serious.

And I feel words alone cannot describe the sobering emotions that things such as this bring into one's mind.

Never in America?