Welcome Guest
( Log In | Register )
The time is now 7:29 am
You last visited January 19, 2017, 5:39 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Two Supreme Court Decisions The Anti-Gunners Don't Want You To See

Published:

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

Posted By: RumorMail [Send E-Mail] Date: Saturday, 19-Jan-2013 14:52:39

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

Carl F. Worden

January 15, 2013

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 Supremes 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.

Carl F. Worden

http://www.appleroguetimes.com/two_supreme_court_decisions_the_.htm

Entry #308

Comments

1.
Comment by winnnr - January 20, 2013, 9:27 am
In wake of all those slaughtered people do you think it's still safe for them to be in society? If they are, only police should be using them, not the populous.
Common sense would be to get rid of them. There are far too many nuts out there that can get their hands on them. Nobody needs that kind of gun accept the police and the military.
2.
rdgrnrComment by rdgrnr - January 20, 2013, 1:57 pm
@winnr
Unbelievable. You're the perfect stooge.
I hope you never have to watch your family pay the ultimate price for that kind of thinking while you stand there absolutely helpless, hopeless and clueless like you are now. Unf---ingbelievable.
3.
CajunWin4Comment by CajunWin4 - January 20, 2013, 4:11 pm
Their is far more dangerous things people could use vehicles , improvised explosives and gases . Just to name a few . Any they are a lot eaiser to aquire and make then Guns !!!! My rifles and pistols are my Constitutional Rights , their was muder and mayham going on before the Sandy incident and tradegy with guns and rifles every day . Check out the facts its the People on Medications ( Psychatric Care ) that has committed 90% of the Murders of this type . If , I have a rifle or pistol on the table its not killing you or causing you any harm .
But , Once I decide to take up that Rifle/Pistol and use it . It's not the Pistol/Rifle that doing the Killings its the person using the Weapon. The weapon is just an exstension of that Person using it .. Prosecute and Demonize   the Person not Weapon !!!
4.
Comment by winnnr - January 20, 2013, 4:56 pm
@rdgrnr What are guns made for? To kill! Who needs that many rounds for practice to go hunting? If they use that many rounds whatever they're hunting would be torn up so bad what good would it be? Seems to me you're the perfect stooge. You've been watching too much faux news on the propaganda station.
I pray that God helps you find compassion for people instead of guns.

You must be a Lottery Post member to post comments to a Blog.

Register for a FREE membership, or if you're already a member please Log In.