San Francisco Voters Approve Handgun Ban

jimmythesaint said:

<BEST Kang and Kodos VOICE>

Soon my brother, soon they will be ripe for the plucking

muah ha ha haaaaa

</VOICE>

Click to expand...

A coalition led by the National Rifle Association has said it plans to challenge the initiative in court, arguing that cities do not have the authority to regulate firearms under California law.

Click to expand...

bigtaco said:

so when someone attacks me i'm supposed to call the police. why? because they have guns and authority to tell the attacker to stop.

Click to expand...

Baby Gorilla said:

Sort of religious, sort of worldly debate here.

When I was pursuing law enforcement, I believed "the law was the law" and all that jazz.

When I went to law school, I learned the finer points of "what really is the law" and how to determine what "law" applies and is valid. I also, to my dismay, learned that the whole legal system is essentially bought and paid for before most of us were ever born....imposing the will of a few on the masses by deceit, abuse, and manipulation.

So, how do you all deal with the issue? I'll paint an obvious debate going on in our nation....

Driving, is it a RIGHT or a PRIVILEDGE?

Only RULE for this debate (if one develops). You must back your position with FACTS, not OPINIONS. Your facts must be based on tangible EVIDENCE.

The Federal Courts have ruled....

"First, it is well established law that the highways of the state are public property, and their primary and preferred use is for private purposes, and that their use for purposes of gain is special and extraordinary which, generally at least, the legislature may prohibit or condition as it sees fit." Stephenson vs. Rinford, 287 US 251; Pachard vs Banton, 264 US 140, and cases cited; Frost and F. Trucking Co. vs. Railroad Commission, 271 US 592; Railroad commission vs. Inter-City Forwarding Co., 57 SW.2d 290; Parlett Cooperative vs. Tidewater Lines, 164 A. 313"

There is much more than this, but sufficient to say that multiple states and Federal courts recognize that travel (by motorized vehicle) on the public roads for PERSONAL affairs cannot be denied or regulated by the issuing or requirement of a "driver's license."

Other court rulings affirm the licensing and regulation IS permitted when a person makes their living off the roads (commercial drivers).

It is established that this is so because the right of locomotion by the means of the day is an inalienable right.

By definition, "inalienable" means the government cannot restrict, pass laws regulating, etc. because the rights of the people are not subject to government regulation.

So, how does it come to pass that all of us have a driver's license?

Well, here's the basic way it happens.

You cannot be regulated where an inalienable right is concerned. You can, however, freely CONTRACT to exchange your right for a conditional prviledge.

Now, here's the questions for everyone (cops included :wink....WHEN YOU APPLIED FOR YOUR DRIVER'S LICENSE, WERE YOU TOLD IT WAS ONLY REQUIRED FOR COMMERCIAL OPERATORS? WERE YOU TOLD THAT OPERATING A VEHICLE FOR PRIVATE PURPOSES WAS A RIGHT AND THAT BY ACCEPTING A DRIVER'S LICENSE YOU WOULD BE TRADING A RIGHT FOR A PRIVILEDGE? WERE YOU EVER TOLD THAT ANY CONTRACT ENTERED VIA FRAUD AND DURESS IS UNENFORCEABLE?

I'd guess none of you were told that. When I was trained as a deputy, nobody told me anything more about the law then what they wanted me to enforce. The clerks at the DMV clearly don't know anything beyond what they are told to tell the customers. So, who are you trusting to tell you what the "law" is? Do you have a duty to obey the "law" if you discover that what they claim the law is really is a fraud?

I find this interesting because cops I've known who are avid gun rights people not only don't support gun control laws, but they tend to horde weapons and ammo and will not hesitate to shoot a fellow officer if that day comes that the government orders that all civilian-owned guns are illegal. Interesting position from someone who is sworn to uphold the law. However, what I've noticed is that because these people have an interest in that area of law, they've read more than what they were taught at the academy or their training personnel and find out that the hierarchy of law (Sovereign Citizens, Constitution, primary sources of law, secondary sources of law, etc.) establish that the right to own a weapon is superior to the many laws illicitly pushed upon the people.

I've learned that just because they put it in a law book doesn't make it valid law. The problem with most people (not just law enforcement types) is that they think law=valid. That's not true. The government cannot pass laws on many issues, but they do, and they get away with it because the legal system is not only corrupt but very expensive if you want to try and fight the "law" to have the correct rule of law asserted.

***

When I was disgusted in law school with how the legal system was owned by the super rich for their own benefit, I asked a pastor how do you deal with a law you don't agree with.

His reply was, "You obey the law unless it contradicts God's law."

The problem is, the world has basically two forms of government. Government that rules by consent of the governed, or thugs with guns...people who hold power solely by threat of violence.

America is supposed to be a government created by the Sovereign State Citizens...given sufficient power to manage finite enumerated affairs.

Is that what you see anymore? Where is the "social contract" between me as a Sovereign and the state? Every time I deal with the state, they are calling all the shots, ready to impose fines and imprisonment upon me if I don't do thing THEIR way. I read the law and find that the state takes power left and right illegally, but because they have the guns, they seem to get no resistance.

***

I point all this out for a reason.

Some people (Christian and non-Christian) are bucking the system. Refusing to follow laws they know are illicitly imposed....after doing the research to establish the fact that the current "law" was imposed by force or by fraud. Some go the whole route of not paying taxes, not having a driver's license, and for a large part, the state leaves them alone.

Working in a law office, I see that there is no justice in the court system....a cop says the defendant did it, no evidence to support the alleged crime, and the judge and prosecutor want to send him to prison for something they can't prove. The man's defense attorney is given no resources and hardly any money to defend him, and juries are conditioned to think that if you are called before the court, you MUST have done something wrong. We've gone from the presumption of innocence to the presumption of guilt.

Appeal a conviction? The appeals courts would just as soon let you rot in jail. By time we might get one man's conviction overturned he will already have served his sentence.

If the true "law" that can be established by the records of what is the "law" say you don't owe taxes, don't need a driver's license, can't be searched without a warrant, cannot be held without due process, what duty do we owe (as Christians) to abide by "laws" that work to the contrary? Should any police officer (especially a Christian one) enforce laws that are based upon a special interest group's effort to impose their will on the many in total disregard for that the law really says?

***

Something to think about next time a cop, government clerk, lawyer, or even a "judge" tells you the law says one thing or another. All of them are trained in the law only so far as their teachers want them to have knowledge.

Just so you know, if you want to know how to establish that you don't legally have to pay taxes, it's in the IRS code. Of course, the truth is concealled under thousands of pages of regulations. The IRS would say you are a "taxpayer." The truth is, if you really dig for what the IRS defines as a "taxpayer" in their own rules, you are not a taxpayer. What gets you every April 15 are three factors: (1) You believe their lie and file a return and pay the extortion; (2) You fear the power they have to seize and prosecute you if you don't pay what they claim you owe; and (3) When you file a tax return, you are stating UNDER OATH that you owe what the return claims you owe....negating any claim that you don't owe the taxes except for the defenses of fraud and duress.

How much of our "law" is imposed on us by means of lies and threat of violence? Do we owe a duty to laws imposed that way?

Click to expand...