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

[telluwhat]

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

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

by 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.

by Carl F. Worden

[unforgiven]

<munch>

[98Z5V]

Bravo.  <thumbsup>

[planeflyer21]

There was a case out of NYC.  NYPD sent like 30 officers (many of them SWAT) to arrest a person.  He shot and killed quite a few IIRC.  His lawyer was that tall skinny dude with a skullet.  Got off on if it was just an arrest warrant, why did they need 30 cops?

Every single one, 100% of the Branch Davidians charged with the murder of federal agents in Waco was acquitted of murder/homicide charges.  A couple of weapon charges stood against 2 if IRC.  100% won their lawsuits against the feds for excessive use of force/abuse under badge of color.

I'd hate to be in that situation but it is good to know that someone may be on my side and see it my way.

If I survive.

Jon

[Magwa]

The Miller case was won at the local federal level the feds appealed the verdict to the supreme ct but miller was gone,or dead and the local lawyer who won the case did not even send a brief to the supreme ct, so Millers side was NOT represented at the appeal if it had been there is no doubt they would have won again because they did use shotguns in the civil war and the first world war!