TWO SUPREME COURT DECISIONS THE ANTI-GUNNERS DON’T WANT YOU TO SEE

Friday, January 18, 2013

TWO SUPREME COURT DECISIONS THE ANTI-GUNNERS DON’T WANT YOU TO SEE

by jcscuba

Jim Campbell, Citizen Journalist, Oath Keeper, and Patriot.

As anti-gun zealots like Dianne Feinstein and others of her Marxist ilk continually do, they deceive.

By continually calling in error assault weapons which are in fact semi-automatic weapons, and not fully automatic as she continually describes, she may have doomed her proposed legislation.

Please visit, "SO WHAT IS AN ‘ASSAULT RIFLE’ REALLY? WE LOOK AT THE DEFINITIONS AND HOW THE TERM IS ‘DEMONIZED’'

The two cases decided by the Supreme Court below would seem to blow Feinstein's and Obama's position out of the water.

That she does!

When they aren't busy deceiving We the People they tend to leave out factual relevant facts which don't fit their agenda.

Are there any members of the media willing to do some hard journalism and provide us with factual information or will we forever be mired in media cover ups and Government lies.

Not likely to give a rats ass about any assault weapon ban. Feinstein and the left don't seem to get this concept.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it, I'm J.C. and I approve this message.

There are two Supreme Court rulings that directly relate to the current anti-Assault Weapon issue everyone needs to be reminded of.

The first is United States v. Miller 1939. Miller possessed a sawed-off shotgun banned under the National Firearms Act. He argued that he had a right to bear the weapon under the Second Amendment, but the Supreme Court ruled against him.

Why? At the time, sawed-off shotguns were not being used in a military application, and the Supreme Court ruled that since it didn't, it was not protected. Even though Miller lost that argument, the Miller case set the precedent that protected firearms have a military, and thus a legitimate and protected Militia use.

The military now uses shotguns regularly, but not very short, sawed-off shotguns, but an AR-15/AK-47 type weapon is currently in use by the military, therefore it is a protected weapon for the Unorganized Militia, which includes just about every American citizen now that both age and sex discrimination are illegal.

(The original Militia included men of age 17-45) Therefore any firearm that is applicable to military use is clearly protected under Article II, and that includes all those nasty-looking semi-automatic black rifles, including full 30 round magazines.

The second important case is that of John Bad Elk v. United States from 1900. In that case, an attempt was made to arrest Mr. Bad Elk without probable cause, and Mr. Bad Elk killed a policeman who was attempting the false arrest.

Bad Elk had been found guilty and sentenced to death. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Bad Elk had the right to use any force, including lethal force, to prevent his false arrest, even if the policeman was only trying to arrest him and not kill him.

Basically, the Supremes of the day ruled that as a citizen, you have the right to defend against your civil rights being violated using ANY force necessary to prevent the violation, even if the offending party isn't trying to kill you.

Both of these cases are standing law to this day.

The Miller decision clearly includes AR-15/AK-47 type weapons as having a military application.

The Bad Elk decision means that if the government tries to confiscate your AR-15/AK-47, or arrest you for having one, you can kill the offenders on the spot, even if they are not trying to kill you.

I didn't make these decisions; the United States Supreme Court did.