Legal Reality Changing the Conversation

 

2 January A.D. 2017 [GMT]

On the 2d, let's talk The Second (Amend.)

At the link of the note (below) forwarded is a discussion about a recent ruling in the 4th Circuit that upholds restrictions regarding "firearm" ownership and transfer / commerce.

What the Supremes confirm in the Heller ruling,

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf (all 157 pages)

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/ (syllabus)

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/opinion.html (ruling)

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/dissent.html
(Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting.)

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/dissent2.html  
( Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, and Justice Ginsburg join, dissenting.)


is that while there is a right to self-defense, and that while that right absolutely extends to protection of one's home, there is not an unlimited right to ownership or possession of certain (types of) self-defense systems.

If what we're talking about is a "right," then how can it be limited, at all?

We get the analogy about screaming, "Fire!" in the movie theatre.   We have a "right" of "free speech," but we don't have a "right" to cry, "Wolf!" where there is no wolf.

So, in general, even if it's a "right," it's not necessarily something that is completely beyond limitation or control.

Thus, what about various forms of self-defense could ever possibly, legitimately, be limited?   And, in our present legal reality, if we're looking at the self-defense systems, instead of the medium of exchange, we're still missing the entire point.

In all matters regarding The Second Amendment, what we'll read judicially and in the controlled press is the marketing.   Here's an example.   Criminals are not supposed to have easy access to self-defense systems, because they are inclined to use them offensively rather than defensively.  

(Therefore, we get the communist insanity that suggests rendering all self-defense systems "illegal," there'll be no more use of them offensively.   We have a whole new set of stats coming from Australia proving that the communist way of thinking is marketing for promotion of (organized) criminal activity.)

https://startpage.com/do/dsearch?keyword=australia%20gun%20control   (generic search)

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-guns-idUSKCN0XP0HG (promoting gun control) (notice the focus on "mass shootings," which are still not ruled out by this author as matters of Manchurian candidates -- thus, train/trigger some whack job; promote gun ban legislation; prohibit any more whack job activity; market, "See, it works!" Then, bring in the assault forces to the now disarmed population, and just watch what happens.   The criminals subject to "limitation" by the private ownership / use of various self-defense weapons are those holding office, as well as their "armies."   "Mass shootings" are fabricated means of attacking the notion of national self-defense; they were no "mass shooting" incidents circa 1770s, 1780s, when the notion of a militia independent from "government" control was in mind.   What existed then still exists today, and it's called tyranny.   While weapons can't protect us from ourselves (we're pagan and therefore under Judgment of God), it's still the case that as we transition out of our paganisms and into a more God-responsive way of thought, word, and deed, these weapons can sure protect us from criminals who are holding office with the intent to destroy this nation.)

Keep in mind, also, that Australia started as a British prison colony.   As noted in that article, in Australia there simply never was a notion of self-defense against government, i.e., a Second Amendment concept.

http://www.sciencealert.com/20-year-review-of-australia-s-gun-laws-has-one-clear-finding-they-work (same communist, anti-gun marketing)

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2016/0623/Why-Australia-isn-t-a-model-for-US-gun-control

http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/10/21/australia-admits-gun-buyback-failure-amnesty/   (proof that the statement in that first two articles above is just plain false -- there have been "mass shootings" in Australia since the "gun ban" was put into effect (so promptly after a "mass shooting"))

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/13/gun-controlled-australia-gun-control-pushed-fight-rising-gun-crime/   (there's a material difference between mass shootings and criminal conduct, and the real problem is still diverted when the focus is on crime and not on criminals holding office and controlling "armies")


Here's another general example of marketing.   The "transportation" laws exist for the safety of all motorists.  

While some argue that the "transportation" regulations render use of the public roads "safer," those who have basis for asserting claims against "18 wheeler" owners / operators, and flaming buses, and the like, will confirm that no number of regulations prevented the events that landed them in the hospital, and etc.   The point here is that it's not the existence of published language that makes the roads "safer" via "transportation" regulation.   What makes the roads "safer" are the lawsuits against those who don't bother to keep their equipment up to minimum standards, and where a company has no assets and no insurance, then even lawsuits are not sufficient to motivate some self-responsibility toward others using those same public roads.

In other words, we're not ever likely to hear the reality about how and where and when these "regulations" just don't cut the mustard, and that's because the marketing used to cover the reality breaks down when the matter is studied into.   It's marketing that is sufficient for hiring people into positions where they get to "enforce the law," and since that group of people are more likely to be interested in the exercise of power than in the scam to which they've been seduced into active participation, the reality remains hidden in the morass of the bureaucracy.

The point about self-defense systems, then, is simply this.   There's an agenda, and what we'll hear "popularly" is the rhetoric supporting the agenda.  

Note, again, that the marketing about the Australian gun control law is the non-existence of "mass shootings."   Not only is that a false statement but also that angle is just so fabricated as a deliberate distraction as to be nauseating.   Gun control isn't about limiting false-flag mass homicide events, because the black ops people are already not limited by restraints of law.   Gun control is about control, namely control of the people by the criminals who hold office (or by the criminals who black male or extort control out of the office holders) and who, thereby, control "armies."   While use of self-defense systems arises in the instant of the criminal episode, the militias existed as congregations of "force" intended to be used against "organized crime" perpetrated in the name of "government."

At the end of the day, what we won't hear is that the defendant in that matter recently decided by the 4th Circuit, who was suckered into that weapons purchasing and selling plan, used "funny money" as the means of both buying and selling.   What we won't hear is that the regulations regarding self-defense systems "work" for the sole reason that what is being regulated aren't the self-defense systems but rather the transactions in which "funny money" may be used or not.

From the BNP Paribas matter, where that long-time French banking house was clobbered to the moon and back, it's not that they were brokering a deal with one or more nations on the restricted list (because they are associated with "t e r r o r i s m").   What BNP ran into is the reality that "funny money" just can't be used for certain and various transactions.   It happens that "funny money" just can't be used for deals involving Cuba.   It wasn't the apparent support of "t e r r o r i s m"   that got BNP Paribas into hot (and expensive) water.   The problem is that they used "funny money" to do it.   What BNP ran into was not a restriction on who may trade what with whom but rather a restriction on what that particular medium of exchange may be used to do or not.

One of these days, it'll come to mind that it's the "funny money" that's the problem.  

One of these days, those genuinely serious about coming to terms with the limits on what may and may not be "regulated" in the marketing context of "illegal weapons" will get out of the NRA state of mind (which promotes the notion that political participation is "the answer") and get into the Scriptural state of mind (which promotes, in part, the reality that God teaches His people to use "honest weights and measures").

One of these days, what will come to mind and stay there long enough for the reality to take hold is that when "we" abandoned honest weights and measures circa 1965, we abandoned God as the King, which position is that of Legislator, and opted, instead, for the bramble, which is the banking cabal.   By abandoning honest weights and measures, we abandoned the Common Law.   By using "funny money," we have said, in effect, that our "legislature" is the banking cabal.   Because the banking cabal provides the medium of exchange, the banking cabal is the de facto legislature.   As our de facto legislature, the banking cabal supplies the "end user license agreement," which we see, in terms of the analogy to all this anti-First-Amendment treatment by face book and goo gle, and these EULA-based anti-American influences crop up all the time, these days. For so long as we use "funny money" in our businesses, then we may be compelled, for example, to trade with customers or clients we don't really want in the first place.   Wedding cakes comes to mind as an example.

So, what is the Supreme Court saying, and what is the Fourth Circuit saying, without ever really being so plain as just to say it?   What are good Sheriff Arpaio and good Chief Justice Moore both missing? What are the "birthers" ("constitutionists") generally, missing?   What these Courts are saying, and what the "constitutionists" are missing is that for so long as we use the "funny money," these "restrictions" on purchase (and use) of self-defense systems is very much going to remain.   What the judicial rulings are very unlikely ever to state, so as not ever to provide or extend "permission to think," is that what got this particular defendant in this recent 4th Circuit ruling into hot water with the undercover investigation is his use of the "funny money."   "Everything" else about that discussion is the cover story for matters that operate "federally," as in "by agreement."   That guy can't argue "no commercial nexus," because there is one, because he used "funny money."

There are several things to consider when it comes to buying and selling self-defense systems, and this author covers those on an individual consultation basis.   Both the buyer and the seller have to be on the same page, or there's going to be a problem.   Only those ready, willing, and able to get the whole of the reality in mind are in a position to do the path blazing that may very well be still in front of us in this particular category of limitations on "rights."   Said another way, manufacturers of self-defense systems really need to be early in this re-learning activity, so as then to teach their customers, so that parties on both sides of the transactions are 100% cognizant of the differences between that which is subject to regulation where the medium of exchange is "funny money" and that which is simply beyond the reach of "funny money" regulation.

Said another way, there's more to this than just teaching the manufacturers to start trading solely in terms of honest weights and measures, i.e., anything but "dollars" and "funny money," be it paper or plastic.   That's the ultimate barrier, but until both the seller and the buyer have the whole scenario in mind, they'll be subject to being tripped up by a very pugnacious communist energy that persists in the national system, which has been the "banking cabal's" system since 1965.

What we have, at present, in the way of a "government" isn't going to change.   "Drainin' the swamp" sounds really great, but for so long as we use the "funny money," we're going to render that task effectively impossible.   We are our own worst enemies, and we'll continue to be just exactly that for so long as we play the "blame game," i.e., looking everywhere except the mirror for the cause of this nation's problems (which same person in that same mirror is also the solution).   We'll see that some of what Trump / Pence want / intend to change will be very difficult to change.   It's not that they don't want to.   It's that "we" in this nation are preventing it, and we're preventing it by continuing to use the "funny money."

It's not the self-defense systems that are subject to regulation.   What's subject to regulation is the use of the "funny money."   There is no political solution to this commercial problem.   There's nothing, for example, that the NRA can do, until they figure out that the solution is with the teaching of the manufacturers (and the buyers) that it's the use of the "funny money" that's the problem.   And, what they'll start doing that will start contributing to a solution is getting out of Washington, completely and forever, getting out of all the Statehouses, completely and forever, and getting into the board rooms of the manufacturers, teaching them about the differences between what we used to have as a medium of exchange, namely a system based on honest weights and measures, which system brought with it the Common Law, and what we presently use as a medium of exchange, which may be used, or not, as the supplier of that medium of exchange "dictates."   There will come a time when this teaching will be self-evident and obvious, and this author looks very much forward to that day.   Yes.   It really is just that simple.

May God intervene in the minds and hearts of those throughout this nation, especially among those who are willing to risk their lives for the betterment and protection of those in this nation, and show us all that because we've abandoned His system of honest weights and measures, we've thereby also abandoned His Laws, i.e., the Common Law, leaving the supplier of the "funny money" as the de facto source of legislation as to what may and what may not be done in transactions using "funny money."

Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
Dallas Texas

Subscribe / unsubscribe:  
Legal Reality Email Resource page: http://home.earthlink.net/~track21_comm/LegalReality/

NOTE Subject: 4th Circuit on Heller
See: https://mdappblog.com/2016/12/27/fourth-circuit-proves-infertile-ground-for-heller-expansion/
NOTICE: Harmon L. Taylor, Legal Reality, unknown authors and presented entities are not affiliated with Freedom School.

NOTICE: If anything in this presentation is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification.

Presentation Copyright© 2003, 2018
All Rights Reserved

H O M E