Published by the San Diego Rifle and Revolver Association
Contributor Commentaries
What to Tell The 'Birthers' Bashers
Friday, 31 July 2009 12:55 | Author: Mario Apuzzo |
[Editor's note: Mario Apuzzo is the lead attorney in the Kerchner v Obama case. Like the Cook v Good case, Kerchner seeks to confirm the credentials of de facto President Obama as it pertains to the requirements of Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution. The case alleges that Congress, the president, and various levels of government failed to properly validate Obama's claims to natural born status, thus placing the US military and the nation in jeopardy of a Constitutional crisis. It is the opinion of the editorial staff of Gun News Daily that it is not unreasonable to demand that government officials do their duty, uphold the Constitution, validate the president's credentials-- and if he is found to be ineligible to hold the office, to be removed; if he found to be eligible, to be sustained. --But we have the right to know.]
What to tell the 'Birther' Bashers?
You are poorly informed on the constitutional issue involved with Obama's eligibility to be President.
The primary issue is whether Obama is an Article II "natural born Citizen," not whether he was born in the U.S. When drafting the eligibility requirements for the President, the Founding Fathers distinguished between "Citizen" and "natural born Citizen" in Article II, sec. 1, cl. 5 and in Articles I, III, and IV of the Constitution. Per the Founders, while Senators and Representatives can be just “citizens,” after 1789 the President must be a "natural born Citizen."
The Founders wanted to assure that the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military, a non-collegial and unique and powerful civil and military position, was free of all foreign influence and that its holder have sole and absolute allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the U.S. The “natural born Citizen” clause was the best way for them to assure this.
The distinction between "citizen" and "natural born Citizen" is based on the law of nations which became part of our national common law. According to that law as explained by Vattel in his, The Law of Nations, a "citizen" is simply a member of the civil society. To become a "citizen" is to enter into society as a member thereof. On the other hand, a "natural born Citizen" is a child born in the country of two citizen parents who have already entered into and become members of the society.
Vattel also tells us that it is the “natural born Citizen” who will best preserve and perpetuate the society. This definition of the two distinct terms has been adopted by many United States Supreme Court decisions. Neither the 14th Amendment (which covers only "citizens" who are permitted to gain membership in and enter American society by either birth on U.S. soil or by naturalization and being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States), nor Congressional Acts, nor any case law has ever changed the original common law definition of a “natural born Citizen.”
Congressional Acts and case law, like the 14th Amendment, have all dealt with the sole question of whether a particular person was going to be allowed to enter into and be a member of American society and thereby be declared a "citizen." Never having been changed, the original constitutional meaning of a "natural born Citizen" prevails today. It is this definition of "natural born Citizen" which gives the Constitutional Republic the best chance of having a President and Commander in Chief of the Military who has sole and absolute allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the United States.
By satisfying all conditions of this definition, all other avenues of acquiring other citizenships and allegiances (jus soli or by the soil and jus sanguinis or by descent) are cut off. I call this state of having all other means of acquiring other citizenships or allegiances cut off unity of citizenship which is what the President must have at the time of birth.
Obama's father was born in Kenya when it was a British colony. When he came to America, he was probably here on a student visa and he never became a legal resident of the U.S. or an immigrant. He had no attachment to the U.S. other than to study in its prestigious educational institutions which he did for the sole purpose of returning to Kenya and applying his learning there for the best interests of that nation. In fact, when he completed his studies, he did return to Kenya and worked for its government.
If Obama was born in Hawaii, at best, he is a U.S. "citizen" under the 14th Amendment and federal statute. But he is not a "natural born Citizen" under the Constitution, for at the time of his birth under the British Nationality Act 1948 his father was a British subject and Obama himself through descent was also a British subject. Obama has himself admitted to the controlling effect of the British Nationality Act 1948 on his birth. Additionally, in 1963, both his father and Obama also became Kenyan citizens when Kenya obtained its independence from Great Britain.
Obama was born with multiple allegiances (at birth both U.S., if born in the U.S., and British, and also acquired Kenyan citizenship at age 2). Obama also obtained Indonesian citizenship when he was adopted by his step-father in Indonesia at age 6. The Founders would not have allowed such a person who was not born with sole allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the United States to be President and most importantly, Commander in Chief of the Military.
We the People have too many "natural born Citizens" in our country, the largest group of citizens by far, from whom to pick to risk jeopardizing the best interests of the United States by allowing a person born with conflicting allegiances and loyalties to be President and Commander in Chief of our Military. There simply is no sound reason for risking America’s national security, welfare, and ultimate preservation by allowing a non-"natural born Citizen" to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. To permit it is a violation of Article II of our Constitution, the supreme law of our land.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq
Request to Depublish People v. James
Monday, 27 July 2009 16:05 | Author: Ralph Weller |
The California Legal Action Project, a joint venture between the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA), today filed a letter with the California Supreme Court urging the Court to order the decision in the case of People v. James to be depublished so that it would not be binding precedent nor citable authority.
The James case held that California’s so-called “assault weapon” law was not unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The case was not correctly litigated, and much of the factual evidence that should have been introduced to address the issues raised by the United States Supreme Court in its decision from June 2008 in Heller v. District of Columbia was not considered. The Heller case confirmed that the Second Amendment does in fact protect a fundamental individual right to keep and bear arms.
For additional information see Calgunlaws.com (Registration Required)
Who Stands for the Sovereign?
Wednesday, 08 July 2009 16:00 | Author: William M Lolli |
Sovereign Immunity versus the Constitution
In the continuing saga of multiple court cases trying to get to the bottom of the origins and credentials of President Barack Obama, attorney Mario Apuzzo of the case Kerchner v Obama et al [ http://puzo1.blogspot.com/ ] is currently crafting a response to Defendents Barack Obama and the US Congress’ Motion to Dismiss.The Kerchner v Obama et al case is unique in that both Barack Obama and the Congress are being sued for the failure to properly vet and certify Barack Obama’s documentation which would qualify him for presidential eligibility under the Constitution’s Article 2 Section 1 requirement that the holder of the office of President retain “Natural Born” status as an American citizen.
Congressman Brian Bilbray on the Obama Birth Certificate Issue
Tuesday, 07 July 2009 16:20 | Author: William M Lolli |
My July 4, 2009, 20 Minutes with Congressman Brian Bilbray on the Subject of Barack Obama’s Natural Born Status
As I have reported previously, since as early as March of 2008, I and others have been contacting the office of Congressman Brian Bilbray of the 50th Congressional District in California, to ascertain his position on the Natural Born Status of Barack Obama, as stated in Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution.
{sidebar id=6}
Repeated efforts of letters, emails, phone calls and a petition with 67 signatures failed in acquiring any answer from him. The only constructive contact was from Jeffrey Post, a staff assistant with his Washington DC office, in which Mr. Post acknowledged that Mr. Bilbray had a policy of no comment and no position on the subject, and directed us to a sub-standard CRS report used as the factual basis for Mr. Bilbray’s position of ‘no position’.
As a nation, we should be ashamed that a $1.12 billion agency exists to restrict constitutional rights.
9/6/09 - The roots of the ATF go back to 1789 as the tax collector for imported spirits. The ATF under different names maintained that primary mission as a tax collector up until around 1968.
In 1934 the agency was known as the Alcohol Tax Unit, (ATU) reporting to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (IRS in those days). The ATU spent a brief stint under the FBI during prohibition but was transferred back to the revenue bureau within a few years. Its mission was to collect taxes related to firearms transactions as a result of passage of the Federal Firearms Act in 1934 as well as taxes on alcohol and tobacco. The ATU remained part of the IRS throughout passage of the 1968 Gun Control Act at which time duties of firearm enforcement were added to the unit along with explosives investigations. In 1970 the Alcohol Tax Unit was renamed the Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms Division. It is important to note that prior to this time, very little in the way of firearms related investigations were conducted by the ATU. Prior to 1968 virtually no laws existed restricting the transfer of a firearm from person-to-person or dealer-to-person. Hence, no gun laws meant no violations, smuggling, or illegal transfers of firearms. Prior to the Gun Control Act of 1968, the ATF was not much more than a tax collection agency for the IRS.
The ATF division remained under control of the IRS until 1972 when it was transferred to the Treasury Department and transitioned from a tax collection agency into a law enforcement agency. In 2003 ATF was transferred from Treasury to Homeland Security. At the same time Treasury formed the Alcohol, Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, while law enforcement duties went to the ATF under Homeland Security. Two bureaucracies were created out of one. In addition, Homeland Security tacked on the “E” for explosives. The official name of ATF today is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, & Explosives (BATFE).
The BATFE has grown at an alarming rate since its inception in 1972. Its 2010 budget request is $1,120,000,000, a $66.5 million increase over 2009. That’s $1.12 billion dollars for an agency whose budget has grown an average of $30 million every year since 1978. 72% of its budget is dedicated to firearm regulation enforcement, or over $800,000,000. How much was spent prior to the 1968 Gun Control Act? Not much other than to collect excise taxes in support of the 1934 firearms law. The balance of ATF’s budget is dedicated to alcohol and tobacco enforcement. Despite what we may think, the F portion of ATF is a relatively new function.
For those who say we need the ATF to enforce gun regulations, let’s go back prior to the 1968 Gun Control Act.
If you or I were purchasing a firearm in 1967, we could go to most any Sears store and buy a rifle off the shelf with a minimal amount of paperwork. In essence, it was not more than a receipt for payment of the rifle. If we didn’t feel like going to Sears, we could order it through their catalog and a week or so later it would arrive in the mail. Handgun purchases were not much different.
The concept of gun trafficking was unheard of in those days. There were no background checks, no waiting periods, and virtually no restrictions other than on fully automatic firearms as a result of the 1934 restrictions. Firearm thefts from gun stores and homes were rare. Gun related crimes were far below anything we see today, and murder rates were as much 2 to 5 times less than today. Home invasions weren’t invented yet, neither were car hijackings. Drug use was not widespread and gang related killings were limited to occasional inner city stabbings. When people talk about the quiet 1960’s, it was going on far longer than before the sixties. The U.S. was a very low-crime country from our very beginning up until the very early 1970s with the exception of during the prohibition on alcohol early last century. During that time the murder rate spiked as criminal elements fought over control of illegal distribution of alcohol. Sound familiar?
Then along came gun control laws and restrictions. The Democrats, in particular Senator Thomas Dodd, heavily promoted the 1968 law as a juvenile crime reduction bill. Thomas Dodd was eventually censured in the Senate for diverting political campaign funds to his personal account, then spending the money. If the name is familiar, he is the father of Senator Chris Dodd, who is also an advocate of limiting gun rights. His father was eventually defeated in 1970 with his seat taken by Lowell Weicker.
And are we better off since GCA-68? Crime statistics would say no. Are we better off with the thousands of gun laws enacted nationwide since GCA-68? Again, the answer would be no. Violent crime rose over the 41-year period without regard to strict gun control laws enacted during that time.
So, let’s get rid of the gun laws.
The idea of eliminating gun restrictions would seem incredibly outlandish to a significant portion of Americans today. Most have been so conditioned by our government that ownership of guns creates crime, if elimination of gun laws were placed on a referendum for voters, it would likely go down in defeat. Yet, history proves that unrestricted gun rights were quite prevalent for the majority of our history during which we experienced relatively low levels of crime.
But what of criminals you ask? If gun availability were unrestricted, then criminals would obtain guns. Criminals obtain guns today despite the myriad of restrictions and laws. If 2% of the population has criminal tendencies, does it make sense to place restrictions on the other 98%? A significant number of felons that are restricted from owning guns are jailed for illegal possession of weapons anyway at some point in their careers. That law doesn’t have to change. What needs to change is the never-ending pursuit of politicians creating laws that frankly do not reduce crime but affects the 98% of the population that aren’t criminals.
Politicians have convinced Americans that if they can accept inconvenience, limits, restrictions, and in some cases outright bans, that somehow the 2% that are criminals will end their criminal activities and seek gainful employment. Criminal acts and law-abiding citizens, by definition, are not remotely related to one another. The idea that a criminal will turn over a new leaf because you purchased a firearm legally with a mountain of paperwork, background checks and a waiting period is preposterous on its face. More-so the notion that banning certain firearms from legal ownership by law-abiding citizens reduces crime is even more ridiculous. If 98% of the population is law-abiding and won’t commit a crime with their firearm, does it stand to reason that preventing them from owning that firearm will reduce crime? Well of course not. The belief that it will reduce crime is driven by anti-gun nonsense that suggests the mere ownership of a firearm will induce a law-abiding citizen to commit a crime. Restrictions on law-abiding citizens have no affect on crime whatsoever.
But, what would become of the ATF if firearms were traded, sold and otherwise distributed without restrictions? We do know this. Our government has an insatiable appetite for money. As long as Americans consume alcohol and cigarettes that are taxed far beyond reason, there will be smuggling and trafficking of those items to circumvent the law. The ATF can shrink in size and dedicate the balance of its resources for chasing tax-evading cigarette smugglers and moonshiners until politicians come to their senses and realize that they themselves are the cause of crime, not criminals. The investigations into bombings and terrorism should go to the FBI where it rightfully belongs.
Will Americans and politicians ever come to their senses on eliminating the labyrinth of gun laws? It’s unlikely. We unfortunately are byproducts of our environment. Our environment has been filled with crazy propaganda made up of illogical ideas and notions. A famous American once said ‘there’s a sucker born every minute,’ and we have a few million to prove this point. Too many Americans have accepted illogical ideas as fact.
If Americans only thought about it for five minutes, they would realize how utterly ignorant they have been. Meanwhile, we gainfully employ 5000 people for $1.12 billion a year at the ATF.
Some demand ever-increasing restrictions on the law-abiding, under the assumption that we need to protect us from ourselves. And, for each law that is created, creates the opportunity for someone to violate the law, increasing crime, therefore increasing expenditures to fight crime, which were not crimes prior to the law. This is not a prescription for common sense. However, we are not known as a nation with common sense when it comes to gun laws.
End the Fear of Your Government
As an example, if you plowed around the pro-gun blogs lately, you’ve seen discussion on open-carry. Open-carry advocates walk around with unloaded firearms on their hips in a display of protest for overly restrictive gun rights in California. The protesters are pointing out the difficulty, and in some communities how impossible it is to obtain a conceal-carry permit. They want CCW laws changed to “shall-issue” like the majority of the states.
Well now, does it surprise anyone to read how otherwise pro-gun advocates are saying open-carry demonstrations should be stopped? They are foolish they say. They say if you continue to demonstrate the California legislature will act to eliminate the right. Well, as someone so eloquently put it: ‘What good is a right if you can’t exercise it?’ That’s an outstanding response that is simple to understand. It bears repeating. What good is a right if you can’t exercise it?
Despite being “pro-gun” some have vehemently chastised the open-carry demonstrators. Why? It’s fear of the government. They fear their government and the legal retribution that legislators can muster once they are perceived as being mocked or having their noses tweaked by the very laws they created. In other words, they fear punishment from politicians. They feel the need to placate them. They give them a level of respect that defies the fact that they are anti-constitutionalists. The very people they placate don’t believe you have any gun rights.
Is that how we should live our lives? Should gun owners live in fear of what politicians might do to us? And what does it matter to gun owners who disagree with the open-carry demonstrators if the legislature passed a law banning it? Those who disagree wouldn’t exercise their right anyway, so they have lost nothing. ‘Oh, wait a minute they’ll say.’ It might be a problem in the courts if they ban open-carry in California. I have to laugh at some of these people. Those who will not fight for what is right, live in fear.
The open-carry debate is a classic example of how some gun owners have fallen into the trap of fear.
Ending America’s restrictive gun laws is not a prescription for chaos. We’ve proven that for 170 years prior to GCA-68 and the myriad of gun laws implemented since then. We didn’t need the ATF prior to 1972 to enforce gun laws, because we didn’t have any. We focused on the criminals in those days, not the 98% who are law-abiding. Our system of government has degraded from dealing with the exceptions of our society to implementing laws with a ‘one-size-fits-all’ mentality. This is socialism, not a representative republic based on the principle of individual rights.
In this country we are free to succeed, or if we choose, to not succeed. In this country we have a right to choose how we live our lives. We have the right to address our grievances with the government. We have the right to civil discourse and voice our displeasure. Most importantly, we have the right to change our government and those elements within it that don’t serve our interest of maintaining individual rights. And, each of us has the right to do it individually or as part of a group of like minded citizens.
If we are to rebuild this country as it was originally intended, we need to eliminate those laws that infringe on an individual’s right to live as they so desire. That should be the mission of our government. If a law restricts our ability to live out our lives unmolested by government, it does not deserve to be a law.
As a nation, we should be ashamed that a $1.12 billion agency exists with almost 75% of its resources dedicated for the purpose of restricting constitutional rights under the guise that it makes us safer as a country. It is an abomination to our Constitution and an affront to our civil rights. It’s time to get the “F” out of ATF.
Contributor Commentaries
Contributor's Commentaries