NRA's Brief in Emerson

B

bookkie

New member
Emerson case, I finally found the NRA's Brief in support of Emerson.
http://www.nraila.org/show.cgi?page=/research/20000120-SecondAmendment-001.shtml

After reading it, all I can say is that my dues are being well spent. They tear the gov's brief to pieces.

After reading most of the brief's in this case, both the defense the the prosecutions, if the courts overturn Emerson and/or the SC refuses to address the issue once again, then it is my opinion that the second amendment is dead. It will also show to me that our court system is no longer legitimate. For you see the evidence for a personal holding presented by the amicus brief's in support of Emerson is so overwhelming that for the court to rule against them would prove conclusively that they base their rulings on political belief's and not the rule of law.

If this should happen I will fight back in the only way I know how. I will stop paying income taxes, both state and federal. I've thought about this quite a bit. It will cost me my CPA license, as I had to sign a sworn statement to uphold the tax code. But I can not think of any other way, besides force, to effect change. If we got enough people to take what they would normally pay in taxes and to contribute those funds to say the NRA, GOA, SAF etc. We could effect some change very quickly. It would not only weaken our adversary's but also strengthen our friends.

Let's be honest, in this country money is the source of power to our government. If we the citizens took away this power by refusing to pay taxes. It would not take long to effect change. Even a small group of less than 10% of the population would do some serious damage. Also, there is a large group of tax protestors who would be on our side.

Everyone's thoughts? Suggestions? OK... here is your chance to flame the Bookkie... I will not take offense to any comments.

Thanks,



------------------
Richard

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
 
B

Brett Bellmore

New member
I agree, it's a very well written brief, and best of all, it IS brief, so it might get read.

------------------
Sic semper tyranus!
 
D

DC

Moderator Emeritus
Hey Brett..
What does Ernst over at Potomac say? :)

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
B

bookkie

New member
DC:

GEE has not had much to say lately... seems he is on another one of his breakdowns. Either that or he is off writting a response. Don't have to read it as I know what it will say.... The NRA's 'Armed Citizen Gorillas' are out to get him.. :)



------------------
Richard

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
 
B

Brett Bellmore

New member
This just in from GEE:

"The NRA gives much convoluted legal support to the basic arguments of the District Court. What is important here is that when the defense attorneys for Emerson saw the arguments against the Second Amendment defense they apparently realized that the Second Amendment was not any help to their client. Emerson will very likely be decided on other issues. When it really gets down to it the armed populace fantasy that has been formulated in the law journals over the past twenty years is not a defense that any lawyer will want to argue in court. We can hope that the Fifth Circuit will still find some excuse to take up the Second Amendment and provide some enlightenment. How the defense and the court treats this case is a news story. The NRA can find relief that the outcome will not be reported in the "rabidly, anti-gun" Washington Post. The NRA will still be able to engage in its business as usual of small-minded, cynical, obstructionist politics to have its armed populace fantasy by defeating legislation."

Naturally, when GEE posted the NRA's brief, he couldn't just post it straight; He's interpolated about two to three times it's verbage in his own editorial comments. Drafting all the snide comments is what's been keeping him so busy. A few examples:

"The fundamental issue which the NRA does not address is whether or not the individuals who possess the right to "keep and bear arms" are citizens under law and government or individual sovereigns, laws unto themselves, in the State of Nature which is the state of anarchy. The Framers of the Constitution understood the difference. The NRA does not. There is no indication that any member of Congress or any candidate on the presidential campaign trail understands the difference either. That is not a reason why we cannot ask them to explain the difference."

"If Laurence Tribe cannot explain the difference between citizenship under law and government and individual sovereignty in the State of Nature which is the state of anarchy, he ends up discredited in a long professional career."

"The first thing this government has to decide is that it is a government and that it maintains the capacity and the means to defend itself from the "armed citizen guerrillas" who would outflank it. The first thing the NRA has to do is give up the absurd proposition that the purpose of all those guns in private hands is to maintain a balance of power between an armed populace and any and all government."

Ah, but you get the idea; GEE's still selling the line that if the government can't arbitrarilly disarm people, we're living in a state of anarchy... And if every constitutional scholar in the country thinks otherwise, they're blithering idiots.

------------------
Sic semper tyranus!
 
B

Brett Bellmore

New member
But his most entertaining interpolation is this one, inserted into the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms amicus:

"There is no indication from the historical record from the 19th century or the 1930s that the Congress or the states had any understanding of what the right to keep and bear arms meant consistent with the original meaning and intend of the Second Amendment which was about military organization. The confusion has to be cleared up now through rational informed public debate that involves public office holders and the news media. Of this debate there is none. It is very clear, however, that recent enactments of Congress listed below have been much influenced by lobbying from organizations like the CCRKBA which claims 58 members of Congress on its Advisory Board. The provisions indicated here have been written into laws dating from the 1960s exactly so they can be asserted in court. It is a sophisticated strategy which has no opposition."

You get that? The fact that every last source from the founding up to the creation of the gun control movement a few decades ago agrees with us, JUST PROVES THAT THEY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE SECOND AMENDMENT. MADISON didn't understand the Second amendment, if GEE is to be believed. Only GEE understands it.

------------------
Sic semper tyranus!
 
D

DC

Moderator Emeritus
Yeah...
I see he is still stuck on that "individual sovereign" thing. Always demand s an answer about that and will obfuscate until he gets one. Actually its an interesting and rather amusing trait...dismiss anything if it doesn't answer that, and only a god or a loon can pull that off

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
D

DC

Moderator Emeritus
G

Gwinnydapooh

Retired Screen Name
Looney Tunes indeed.

His analysis of Heston's Harvard speech is REALLY interesting. Basically, Heston said that the founders intended to create a citizenry which would be armed and ready to change or destroy the gov't if it became oppressive.
GEE or whatever the hell his name is says that this is wrong because it creates a "permanent pre-revolutionary state" of armed citizens ready to destroy their government. Doesn't it sound like he just restated the original argument? What kind of twit thinks that repeating someone's position is a rebuttal?
Then he goes on to say that it's even more foolish because in Heston's vision, the gun owners don't actually revolt, they just serve as a counter to tyranny. He says this amounts to limbo.
Think this through! You don't have the right to bear arms; that's all in your imagination. You certainly cannot justify such a right by claiming to be a check on an oppressive government, because that means you're disloyal citizens. But if you go ahead and get on with the business of overthrowing the government, you have the justification for the right to bear arms--but the act of revolt makes you disloyal . . .
That's enough of that.
 
B

bookkie

New member
Welcome to the twilight.... I mean GEE zone...



------------------
Richard

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
 
J

Johan762

New member
So bookkie:

You proposed that we no longer pay income taxes. How do we do that? As far as I know, they withold a certain amont from my paycheck every two weeks that goes to the IRS. It's not like we get to write the IRS a check every month or so (which we can then refuse to do). But if a certain amount of our pay is AUTOMATICALLY deducted from our paycheck every payday, how are we suppose to "refuse" to pay taxes? Please enlightened me.

Johannes
 
B

bookkie

New member
Just fill out a new W-4 with your employer claiming 99 dependents.



------------------
Richard

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
 
D

Dennis Olson

New member
Bookie,

Be very careful with your advice here!

Claiming more than 13 EXEMPTIONS on a W-4 form results in a notfication being sent from the employer to the IRS.

Your BEST BET for tax freedom is either to "write off" the portion that the gov't takes (by NOT filing an income tax form), or becoming an INCORPORATED ENTITY, which is ENTIRELY responsible for submitting their own "claimed" income to the feds.

BTW, it is legal to NOT FILE a tax return, but it is ILLEGAL to file a FALSE one.

Hmmmm......?
 
B

bookkie

New member
Sorry, I do want to make it clear that I am not giving anyone any advice here. Or suggesting that they do anything illegal. That is each individuals choice. No matter how you do it, if you do not pay your income taxes with the intent going in to not pay, this is tax fraud and is punishable by fines and/or prison time.



------------------
Richard

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
 
J

John/az2

New member
Futo Inu,

I didn't hear of your evaluation of this man's challenge about taxes.

www.anti-irs.com

------------------
John/az

"The middle of the road between the extremes of good and evil, is evil. When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
 
C

ctdonath

New member
The brief is excellent, powerfully and concisely declaring the individual right...even "extreme" weapons - listed as machineguns, short-barrelled shotguns, and silencers - are deemed completely legal to own, just with some additional steps to prevent ownership by felons.

The only quirk is the spontanious reference to "Barry Kemp - TV Producer" at the start of IV.B.
 
C

ctdonath

New member
Bookie-
Methinks your tax-witholding response is a non-sequitor. Taxation issues are a whole nother realm worthy of separate fervent activity; mixing the two just obfuscates both issues. Follow successful history: the events at Lexington were over gun control, while the Boston Tea Party was over taxation of said tea. Arms confiscation was not met with a tea party, nor was excessive taxation met with a shot heard round the world.
 
F

Futo Inu

New member
bookie, I agree with everything you're saying. Let's be sure to remember a couple of things though.

1. Even if Mr. Emerson loses initially in the 5th or the Supreme, the case should nevertheless be remanded for further proceedings to allow Emerson to establish that his Beretta is suitable for military use (reasonable relationship). Remember, Judge Cummings dismissed the indictment altogether, which is of course the way it should be, but doesn't jive well with the dicta of Miller, which implies that the defendant must present some evidence of the nature of the protected weapon. So don't lose heart if initial loss, unless remanded with instructions in favor of the gov't, or a clear holding that no indiv. right exists. Many important SC cases have been decided only upon the second or third appearance at the SC level. This is due to the fact that the SC deems the issue important, so keeps granting cert, yet they are constitutionally prohibited from deciding any issue not actually in controversy. So they decide only what they have to, then remand for further proceedings.

2. Next, remember that the likely outcome IS in fact in favor of an indiv. rights theory, as this is clearly the prevailing theory in legal scholarship. HOWEVER, this is the FIRST of three major hurdles, and is in fact the "shortest" of those hurdles. The second hurdle is the EXTENT of the right, which is the really big one IMO because Mr. Larry Tribe has stated in his treatise something like MOST regulations ("gun control") would be upheld, which is total and complete bullcrap because when a right is a fundamental right, all restrictions are subject to "strict scrutiny", which is a very onerous burden on the gov't to PROVE that the gun control restriction in question is actually necessary to accomplish a compelling gov't interest, in which case the social science IS relevant in trying to shoot down gun control under strict scrutiny. Clearly the right was deemed "fundamental" by the FFs. The third big hurdle is whether the right acts as a prohibition on state regulation under the 14th Amendment incorporation doctrine. The evidence here is also overwhelming that the 2nd IS indeed incorporated, but this turns on the same question as hurdle 2, which is: "Is the right (RKBA) FUNDAMENTAL?" Since it is, this question should also be answered in the affirmative, but I worry MUCH more about these second and third hurdles than the first. Hopefully, though, Emerson will answer question #1 (indiv. or not) at the SC level (and MAYBE Emerson will also decide #2). THEN, a firestorm will be created, and we can focus on finding a good test case to answer hurdle #3 (a state restriction), and #2 if still necessary. If the SC finds the RKBA fundamental, then both 2 and 3 SHOULD be affirmative (strict scrutiny AND applies to the states as well).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top