THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 255, January 18, 2004

"Life Goes On ...."


[Letters to the editor are welcome on any and all subjects. To ensure their acceptance, please try to keep them under 500 words. Sign your letter in the text body with your name and e-mail address as you wish them to appear.]


Letter from Alan R. Weiss

Letter from E.J. Totty

Letter from Sunni Maravillosa

Another Letter from Sunni Maravillosa


Re: Lux Lucre R.I.P.
http://www.webleyweb.com/tle20040111.html

Kerry Pearson / Lux Lucre Memorial Fund UPDATE

As of Friday, January 16th at 10:15am, the fund is up to $764.94 (once PayPal has deducted their fees). I have no idea how much Louise Wilson, Kerry's sister, has received via direct mail. If you paid by PayPal, we received it. Its all going to the family via Louise. I am sending her a check in this amount today.

Your generosity and kindness in honoring Kerry is astonishing! Lux Lucre would have been proud to know that the Libertarian and Firefly communities "take care of their own."

Keep on flying,

Alan R. Weiss, for
The Kerry Pearson/Lux Lucre Memorial Fund
alan@ebenchmarks.com


Dear Editor/Mr. Ed,

Re: Free Hunter!
http://www.webleyweb.com/tle253-20040104.html

In searching the various court cases and verdicts regarding RKBA, invariably most of the courts rely upon some long ago rendered judicial opinion(s) to sustain their own personal prejudices, inasmuch that the sitting justices don't have to do much work—intellectually speaking—to render an otherwise critical assessment of the case at hand.

What I personally find to be the most corrupt opinion of all time, was that rendered in the Dred Scott case.

Throughout the history of mankind, Judicial perfidy has shown itself as not at all uncommon when compared to everyday events otherwise as in politics.

Chief Justice Taney and his fellow henchmen, set the ball rolling which ultimately lead to more shit hitting the fan.

The perfidy I speak of—in Taney's case—is that his assessment was that humans of African descent had no rights, merely that they were thought to be animals, i.e., 'not human.'

Speaking out the other side of his mouth, Taney then expounded at length concerning the right to keep and bear arms as one of the primary tenets of the USC—but it applied to only those of the 'white' persuasion. I note that he specifically avoided mentioning the American Indians. The point? The idea of the "Indian Nations" as mentioned SPECIFICALLY in the USC.

Not mentioned either, were the indentured servants who bought their way to the new world—even after the USC was ratified. However, once their term of service expired, those people too became citizens in the new land (if they owned property), but they nonetheless still had those rights which they could rely upon.

Now, both Jefferson and Franklin spoke of Africans as humans, and the United States did conduct trade with several African nations. That being the case, the United States conducting trade with those people—of sovereign nations—was at odds with Taney's assessment, as one simply does not conduct trade with animals.

For example: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/african/afam003.html

It was a paramount intellectual disconnect to assert that Europeans could emigrate—and become bona fide citizens, but those of Black African descent could not.

In any case, along the way others alluded to some unique notion that the Bill of Rights was a set of constraints which applied only to the Federal Government, and not to the States.

I can easily point out that such a contention is so seriously flawed, as to be totally laughable, and supremely ludicrous in its essence.

The United States Constitution is (or at least it was) a legal document which delineated the division of powers between the several states and the federal government. As it stood originally— unamended, it was completely governed by Art. VI, Section 2: The supremacy clause. That is, it was a dual constraint against both the states and the federal government regarding allocation of powers.

Neither could the federal government pursue a course of action which was not specified as legal, but neither could the states declare that something in their individual constitutions diminish the powers specified in the USC.

Now comes the 'Bill of Rights' which amends the USC.

But it is important to remember that amendments to a legal document —unless directly addressing a specific aspect already discussed within the original document, or which speak to a specific aspect not already mentioned as being an additional item—have totality in their in their effect throughout that document.

This is to say that since NO SPECIFIC statement was inserted in any part of the 'Bill of Rights' delineating that those particular amendments applied ONLY to the federal government, then Art. VI, section 2 was operative to all the amending articles.

This is to say that upon ratification, each of those then applied completely to the states through Art. VI.

That the First Art. of Amend. specifically forbids the Congress from encroaching upon the freedoms so mentioned, does not in the least limit its constraints to just the federal government.

A very careful analysis of that would show that although the US Congress is specifically mentioned, that it would be a totally faulted premise to presume that the States could do what the federal Congress could not, as how could the people peaceably assemble and petition their government for a redress of grievances if the individual states declared that no such right existed?

If the contention was that the 'Bill of Rights' applied only to the federal government, then the people would all have to travel to Washington, D.C. to do just that! In which case, that place would— or should be—the freest place in the nation.

So, to neatly synopsize, any contention that specific articles of amendment do not apply to the 'people,' can be shown to be without merit.

In the first case, the people are the source of all political power, and in the second have delineated certain protected rights by a set of amendments which are applicable throughout the land by dint of Art. VI.

Any question regarding just 'who' the 'people' are, is neatly dispensed with by carefully noting that only four terms are used in the USC to describe who or what is being discussed: The People, The States, the Indian Nations, and The United States.

The first is directly the individual citizens, the second and the third are the political entities of the sovereign states wherein the respective people reside, and the last is the corporate entity of the federal government.

Subsequent emphasis is provided in the Tenth Art. of Amendment.

This is further emphasized by the 14th Art. of Amendment, which states in no uncertain terms that previous allusions regarding 'incorporation' are now dispelled.

Any argument to the contrary, regarding the subject of privately held arms, can easily be dismissed by reference to the debates which preceded the 14th amendment's passage in the Congress, prior to being sent to the States for ratification.

I refer specifically to a book titled Freedmen, The Fourteeth Amendment, And The Right To Bear Arms, 1866-1876, by Stephen P. Halbrook (Praeger publishing, 1998), which discusses the matter of RKBA at great length.

Additionally, since no subsequent amendment to the USC has addressed the matter of privately held arms, and since the founders did not seek to in any way disarm the people of even the most modern firearms of the period—including privately held cannon, then any law—state or federal, which diminishes the right to arms by the lawful citizen (who has not been adjudged by due process as legally disabled) is without legal force. Inferior laws do not negate the supreme law of the land.

My last contention is supported by the 18th Art. of Amendment, as evidence that in order to limit a right, an amendment is necessary, and that in itself is the ONLY legal premise upon which a judge may rely, as it serves at THE one specific precedent in Constitutional Law, where a right protected under the Ninth Art. of Amendment, was limited—legally.

In no case does the USC mention alcoholic beverages and their consumption as being a 'Right of the People.'

However, the 'right of the People to keep and bear arms' IS expressly defined.

To presume then, that an amendment is needed to limit a right not even mentioned, whereas to dissemble at length regarding an enumerated right? That is the absolute depth of the worst of perfidy.

Federal law predicated upon constitutional premise, neither exceeds nor equals the constitution.

Any questions?

In Liberty,
E.J. Totty
ejt@seanet.com


Re: Free Hunter!
http://www.webleyweb.com/tle253-20040104.html

Hello everyone,

I'm sorry it took so long, but we have new pages up at the Liberty Round Table site regarding the Hunter project.

First, the home page has been streamlined a bit, and has links to the new pages toward the bottom. Lobo and I will be adding information to that page as we receive it, so if all you want are information updates that's the page to bookmark.

http://www.libertyroundtable.org/projects/freehunter/

I added a "contributions" page detailing all the ways folks can currently get money to Hunter to help with his expenses. KeepAndBearArms still doesn't have their page up (or made public, anyway), so credit card donations aren't possible still, but checks, MOs, cash, e-gold, and PayPal are all covered by trusted individuals/organizations.

http://www.libertyroundtable.org/projects/freehunter/contributions.html

A "news" page has been added, as a repository for news stories and commentaries. (If I've missed anything—I thought there was another NH news story—please let me know.)

http://www.libertyroundtable.org/projects/freehunter/news.html

So far today, no news from Hunter or his lawyers, so I can't give any updates. I will as soon as we hear anything. I *know* the lawyer had motions to file with the court first thing this morning, but I don't know how long it might take the court to act on them.

The amount of support continues to roll in across the web—thanks in large part to you all. It means more to us than you probably know. Thank you.

Sunni Maravillosa
sunni@free-market.net


Re: Free Hunter!
http://www.webleyweb.com/tle253-20040104.html

Free Hunter: Update on Hunter; and Thanks
By Sunni Maravillosa
January 10, 2004
http://www.ThePriceOfLiberty.org/04/01/10/hunter.htm

The wheels of justice turn ever so slowly, it's said, and progress in Jeffrey "the Hunter" Jordan's case is no different. His SUV and its contents have been released from the Ohio Highway Patrol, but there's no word on their condition, nor even if the truck is drivable. Fortunately, the date of his return has been moved back from 1/9 to 1/12, and he will be going through Ohio to pick up his property and return home to New Hampshire this weekend. Thanks in large part to support from concerned freedom lovers, Hunter will have funds on hand to rent a vehicle to return home should that be necessary.

Support for Hunter has been pouring in at an unexpected rate. Many individuals have given very generously to his legal defense fund. Others have helped spread the word across the internet to many firearms groups and forums, among libertarian activists, and just about everywhere there might be interest, it seems. Lawyers and law students have offered pro bono assistance of varying sorts. Other individuals have volunteered to research relevant statistics on firearm use and crime, especially relating to Ohio and comparisons pre- and post-CCW law enactment.

The willingness of so many individuals to help Hunter is very encouraging, but not totally surprising. He's supported many RKBA organizations, with donations of both time and money, for years. He's written on gun-related topics for several web publications, has taken a good amount of training, and is a good instructor and gunsmith himself. We've been trying to keep Hunter updated with all the support he's getting, and his lawyer sends along Hunter's sincerest thanks for all that each of you has done to help.

Many of you knew that a revised Ohio concealed carry bill has recently been approved by the legislature. Governor Taft has signed the bill, and it will go into effect on April 2. While that doesn't mean Hunter will be let off, it will have to weigh on the jurors' minds that what they are considering jailing a man for doing in December will most likely be a legal activity in Ohio at the time of the trial.

It is a testament, not only to Hunter, but to the freedom community that we have pulled together so quickly and so well to help a fellow liberty lover who's facing a very challenging path. I'd like to specifically thank Matt Gaylor who immediately came to Hunter's rescue when Don Lobo Tiggre heard of his arrest and was out of range to help himself. Matt has been invaluable, both in Ohio and around the country, in keeping individuals updated on news. Mary Lou Seymour has also been instrumental in spreading the word through her Rational Review Freedom Action of the Week, and email updates. Claire Wolfe and Debra Ricketts have been wonders—Claire has sent word far and wide; both of them have donated generously and offered their PayPal and e-gold accounts as means to accept contributions of those types.

Despite the cat-herding jokes and the frustrations that can accompany dealing with individuals who insist on doing things their way, this crisis demonstrates very clearly how peaceful, voluntary action works to accomplish tasks. That's what the Liberty Round Table is all about, and that's what Hunter, as a Knight Defender of the LRT, has embodied for years. Thank you all, from Hunter, Don Lobo, and myself.


Help Support TLE by patronizing our advertisers and affiliates. We cheerfully accept donations!


Next
to advance to the next article
  Table of Contents
to return to The Libertarian Enterprise, Number 255, January 18, 2004