The Second Amendment, Section 1983, assault weapons, and the Courts: the view of a non-gun owning civil rights lawyer

“Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
George Washington

I do not own a firearm, never have, and have no intention of doing so.  They scare me.  I think I’m left-handed, too, which seemed to be a problem the few times I did shoot them.  I agree, however, in every respect, with the view as fairly expressed by our one truly qualified founding father in the field.  It should be modified, and brought forward, to include the right of the people to own assault rifles, and even machine guns, so long as the restraint of evil interference is the goal.

The popular debate misses the mark – the MSNBC brand-second-amendment-supporters-as-the-paranoid-black-helicopter-crowd, or the NRA/Fox canned-line-contrived-by-monied-interest-crowd – and it misses the mark because it misses the meaning, and why, as with all other things covered on this site, it is the courts – fair and honest courts – that hold the key to striking the proper balance to maintain peace, order, and security in our society.

This is not a statement of policy, just the opinion of one writer, but we must, in this debate, err on the side of the caution so clearly and deliberately expressed by General Washington.  It is, after all, evil with which we are concerned.  In a nation, however, with a justice system fairly administered, guns and the absolute right to own them, without qualification, registration, or other than reasonable use restriction (i.e., a municipal ordinance or criminal statute banning shooting them in cities, towns, and the like, except in defense) is irrelevant to the debate, which does nothing but distract from the real social ills that have people all over America, like no other country, killing each other.  It is not in the nature of man to go around killing other men, and no gun is going to change that.  We are otherwise creating the conditions where people kill, some, perhaps, deliberately.

When we talk of the justified use of guns in popular social and political debate, we talk about them in terms of protecting “life,“ and “property,” and have wide agreement that their use is fully protected when in defense of those principles.  Though I don’t need to hear Joe Scarborough say “Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas have told us that we have a right to own a shotgun and a handgun to protect our families and property,” one more time, because he uses it in a misguided way, the fact is he is right (not about his view of the edicts Scalia issues from the bench), but that we can own a handgun and a shotgun for those purposes.  Where that leaves all those poor souls in Chicago, and on the streets of cities across America, in this gun debate, a much more enduring problem, is for another day, unfortunately, if one comes.

What General Washington was discussing, and what the Second Amendment is concerned with is “liberty,” which somehow seems to be the forgotten Constitutional right in this debate.  Our exalted founding fathers, who exercised their political will to construct our Constitution around the institution of slavery (a will we have failed, as a people, to carry out to its moral conclusion), also declared, properly, in this writer’s view, in the Declaration of Independence, that man is endowed by his creator, God, Allah, Yahweh, with “inherent and inalienable” rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” i.e., they are sacred, and signify our bond, alone, to our creator.  When there is risk that those bonds with our creator may be broken, our civil laws and codes provide for the justified use of all appropriate force to meet the threat.  Liberty is of no different quality or character of our bond with our creator, it is the essence of life itself, and everything our soldiers have fought and died for, and its defense is of no different character, legally or factually.

The “life” and “property” defense cases are typically very easy – was there a threat, and was the response appropriate to meet it.  Courts can administer these fairly easily, and maintain an appearance of order in a civilized society.  The case where a rogue and dishonest, sheriff, on the other hand, comes down a driveway with a bogus warrant, or gains entry onto your property under false pretenses, and you shoot him in the leg, lest he succeed in taking you away in handcuffs, while maybe a little different on the conscience, should not be any different analytically.  This is, in essence, what gun rights activists posit.  The gun restrains evil interference with the liberty with which you are endowed by your creator.  It’s nothing but an extension of the same physical force that would allow you to refuse to submit to a request to extend your hands so they can be cuffed.

To characterize this as “black helicopter” thinking is dishonest, and more.  I, personally, have sat in depositions and trials with police officers, often representing police officers who dared challenge them, who I have no doubt would abuse their power and exceed all authority, and enter houses, and violate people’s rights if there was no check, in the individual, to match their power on more than some rudimentary level – they’ve done it already.  Lest the reader get distracted by the Scarborough “but Scalia said we can own a handgun and a shotgun to protect ourselves and families,” I am stressing that these things take on an entirely different meaning when dealing with your government, and the visceral reactions that people have to them, and the internal struggle that goes on over wanting to believe the very best in the people to whom you have entrusted power, and the enduring struggle it is to try to overcome that evil does, indeed, exist, in its most Machiavellian form.

These things also take place on a gradient.  There are one sheriff towns with one bad sheriff, and ten police officer boroughs, with 3 bad ones, and 7 that turn the other way, and they all have guns.  There are good police officers and forces across America, to be sure, and I apologize to all of those fine police officers who I have represented along the way, but just like Judges and lawyers, my experience is that there are far too many that are not.  The opportunity for intrusions on our liberty are magnified in modern society, as is the temptation for abuse of power.  The tendency is for people to submit to that power and authority, even when used excessively or oppressively, and to go to jail, leave the house, or otherwise agree to cede your liberty, rather than risk further loss.  This is why recourse to the courts for restraint and remedies is essential.

Now, to the so-called “extreme” “black helicopter” argument, it is, frankly, shocking that this is passed off and reviled as paranoid imagination.  We just went through two suspect, some mainstream theorists say contrived, wars that drained our nations till to the point of near economic collapse.  If you add to that collapse, which we are all preparing for the coming of, daily, and, perhaps, a dirty bomb in LA or New York by some rogue nation that harbors terrorists, and uses terror, which, ala the Patriot Act, etc, we are told is a daily threat, there may be a rush and grab for power that may be the last – the immense military power of the United States of America in the hands of who is in power at the time, whenever that time comes.

With the collapse of the United States at risk, which, as we are told, is a daily thing, it is so dishonest as to be highly suspect that the media resoundingly brand the gun rights advocates as black helicopter paranoids.  The public comments of that NRA fellow appear to be contrived nuttiness to feed right into the frenzy to “soften,” slowly and deliberately, legislators and the public to in incremental intrusion on their Second Amendment rights.  Who knows what may happen if a Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Eric Cantor, or some other Koch brother “frog”/Dick Cheney water-carrier, ever gets power.  While these frogs may be kissed, and become the leaders of the people’s hopes and dreams that support them, right now they are frogs, and all we hear about from them is gloom and doom, and cliffs, and austerity, and sequestration.  When is this God-forsaken “Reagan revolution” going to stop?  They are at a tipping point, and are desperately gasping at the last straws of power, in this writer’s view – and they are in the vast, vast, vast minority.

Rachel Maddow just broadcast a documentary credibly positing that political leaders to whom our futures have been entrusted in the past may well have duped an entire nation into committing the lives of our sons, daughters, and fellow citizens, and the heroic servants themselves, to a completely contrived cause creating the very circumstances behind the near-collapse.  Having your guns – your machine guns, and assault weapons, with high magazine counts, canisters, calibers, and the like – would certainly seem to be a high priority on the minds of people capable of such things, and registration databases would point them right to where they need to go.  If they come with that state of mind, under my purely legal scenario, and facts that are reasonably conceivable, you would have a completely justified legal right to shoot them, and kill them, if necessary.

These things don’t need to be done with black helicopters, and it was very suspicious the way Alex Jones was uniformly vilified in the popular media for suggesting that drones could be used to kill American citizens, when just a week or so later, a memo authorizing exactly that, without judicial review, was released.  There are various networks in place in law enforcement, the masons being one, that allow the power to be executed on a very local level, and centrally controlled from above.  I know this from many cases, too.  The handgun and the shotguns that, in Joe Scarborough’s view, Justice Scalia has bestowed upon man as his natural right, simply won’t mean much in any scenario beyond the one-horse town, and there just aren’t many of those anymore.

42 United States Code Section 1983 (“Section 1983” as it is commonly known), is a statue, that, in one of Don Bailey’s iterations, is “ordained by God himself.”  Indeed, before resort to the gun, as outlined above, stands Section 1983, a civil law enforcement statute, used primarily in the federal courts, but also applicable in state courts.  It allows American citizens to sue officials who act “under color of law” for violations of their constitutional rights – to restrain them, and to seek remedies for them.  In modern America, the quintessential Section 1983 suit would be when a sheriff comes and arrests you and takes your property on a bogus or fraudulent mortgage claim reduced to judgment by a court beholden to the bankers (sorry, Condoleeza, education is not the civil rights issue of the 21st century, yet).  They come with guns, en masse, and take property, and arrest people, and, short of shooting them when they come – there is evidence of it right on this site, some that I witnessed – the courts must be open to redress these grievances in a proper due process proceeding, with hearings, and witnesses, and proper documents, and the like.  Whistleblower cases, i.e., reporters of official fraud and corruption, are another common Section 1983 case, and one Don Bailey has committed his professional life as a lawyer to more than any other (Ms. Rice hasn’t mentioned these either – See the Garcetti trilogy).

If there is one thing that is made clear on this site, it is that there is a fundamental failing in the courts of the United States to protect your constitutional rights.  These Courts understand this.  I have made suggestions on this site, and they have watched, and they know exactly what I’m saying – that they are deliberately, through the most nefarious of plans, creating an environment where no attorney ever will bring a Section 1983 claim again, or suffer the abuse that Don Bailey and I have suffered, or have your pro se case swept behind a wall of obfuscation that no reasonable, even intelligent, American citizen, will ever understand.  The courts, in failing to enforce their Constitutional mandates, are becoming the vehicles through which official oppression is allowed to corrupt endlessly, and the fillers of the bankers over-stuffed coffers – all at the expense of your individual life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness – it is that simple, and we will lay it out in endless detail, and give you every opportunity to understand it for yourself, and I will teach you through my case, which I intend to re-file.

As far as I know, other than Switzerland, America is the only country with fairly liberal gun ownership protections, for assault-type weapons.  I believe America is the only country in the world with a civil enforcement law that stands between man, his gun, his rights, and his God.  An evil influence is behind what is happening in the Courts, however you define and give face to that term, but there is no moral goodness known to man by which the conduct of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court, and those surrounding the Don Bailey proceedings are anything other than that – evil.

I don’t submit that God himself gave us guns, though appear so-inspired, nor that they are the only defense we have against official oppression and abuse on the scales we have seen.  God endowed us with minds, hearts, voices, and wills, too, and you must use them to see that the rights that bind God and man – life, liberty, and the pursuit of YOUR happiness – are being eroded, drastically, through the very institutions conceived to protect them but, as you will see through my lawsuit, are specifically designed to suppress them.  The gun is a mere technological extension of our carbon-based selves through which to exert our power, our will, thoughts, and ideas, and that is what the Pennsylvania Civil Rights Law Network is all about.  If they are going to take away Section 1983, and they effectively are, and I’ve written about the Supreme Court Garcetti trilogy, and other things, then we need to have institutions built by the people to serve as a check to protect, through political will, and moral duty, against the resort to guns, as the only alternative.  I did hear, after all, that Haliburton has been building some mass internment camps out in Dick Cheney’s stomping grounds somewhere.  I don’t think he’s in the cattle business, and it doesn’t sound like a place where there’s much liberty.

Lest anyone think that this writer has forgotten about those children and their protectors in Sandyhook, it is the tears that I shed, and sickness that I felt, too, that compels me as a civil rights lawyer to speak what I have to speak.  People with mental illnesses, on drugs made in laboratories by people who aren’t studying the conditions of society, and companies that are connected as deeply as any other “person” into this corrupt, chronyist state of affairs, are doing the killing.  They have been oddly timed and spaced, geographically, in recent years, and there also appears to be a video game connection.  I understand they wear head phones when they play these things for hour after hour, day after day, and get all kinds of suggestions about killing, and expressions of the exertion of raw power.  Somewhere in this mix has to be why these poor, ill, Americans are killing innocent people all over the country.  These drugs are bad, and Dr. Stefan Kruszewski knows all about that.

I had a case for a fellow in the United States Army named Kurtis Arman, that I was never able to get going – he is a brave and brilliant man, and he was used for experimental drug treatment when he was a soldier – he was a programmed assassin, and killed a man when things went wrong.  I’d have to confirm the exact facts.  When he was in prison, he had some emergency surgery, and a capsule was removed from his leg, which was used to put the drugs in through which his behavior was controlled, through various environmental signals, and things of that nature.  I have pictures, and all of the documents.  My message, first, is to EA – it is time for you to move on what you have, and thank you for what you have done.  My message second is that there are some very real issues that need to be looked at before people start giving away their guns, and compromising the rights of hundreds of millions of Americans to protect their liberty as they deem fit as the panacea for a plague committed by a very “select” few mentally ill people.

As to the President, I voted for him, and believe he has done a great job given the hatred he is up against, which is appearing more and more contrived itself, and, frankly, the “we need a vote” line, repeated, over and over and over the way it has been, is just very irresponsible, and a bit suspect itself.  We don’t need a vote, we need some societal solutions for these institutional ills, and mass injustices – we need people to look up from their ipads, and iphones, and take some time away from the phony sense of fulfillment they get from their face books, and they need to see what is going on, and how it is a moral decay with which we are involved.  The wisdom of the one founding father who learned his lessons in an actual battle for freedom, with guns, needs to be honestly and thoroughly discussed and debated before this direct encroachment – one vote for now, even, softens the political climate for further erosion down the very near road.

I express my power with the mind and will God gave me, and intend to magnify it with this great equalizer we call the internet, and place a call out for all to do the same.  Guns scare me.

SirLeroy – I was paying just enough attention – if you’re still out there.

Thank you.

One thought on “The Second Amendment, Section 1983, assault weapons, and the Courts: the view of a non-gun owning civil rights lawyer”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.