“The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff.”

Welcome to Amerika, the statist theocracy that grants limiting titles of nobility (license) to a certain select few that chose to bear arms inconspicuously and, legislates restrictive commandments as to the how, why, where, when, how many, what kind, etc. to the rest of the parishioners. The sheriff in such tyrannous land, has no responsibility (that of protection or otherwise) to any of the theocracy's parishioners or to any sovereign of a once representative republic while, subjecting all within his domain to the Legislature's and his will, even those of titled privilege.

The quote says it plain as day.

There's a new Marshall in town. The name's Napolitano. And the law is whatever she says it is. And as far as she's concerned...we won't be "secure" until we're all bound and gagged.

Yes, if only we were permitted to cite cases prior to 1934 in court today... (we aren't)

Damn Governor Clements used to tell us here that he had to veto our right to carry concealed guns because Texas sherrifs and police chiefs told him to. I can find one kind word for Gov. Bush, he did sign the bill for us to carry our concealed weapons.

Archer, I'm continuing to look for that precedence. I've ask a couple law professors at different law schools where that came from. They acknowledged, that was the case but, they didn't know where it came from or why.

There must be some ruling somewhere prior to 1934 that would embarrass or make null and void some piece of legislation in place today, and they don't want it briught up.

I will try to find out the specific details but I believe it is because there is no longer a common law jurisdiction since matters of common law involve substance and ownership. By using commercial paper as negotiable instruments instead of lawful money, we haven't actually acquired any property nor paid any debts -- we have merely been trading the liability of paying the debts of the nation since we use debt coupons (promissory notes known as Federal Reserve Notes) for trade. Common law arguments cannot be used in commercial courts, and since there are no more common law courts, the only 'law' being enforced is colorable law, i.e. commercial law. The rules for commercial courts are different than cases in common law. Since we are not acting in our own sovereign capacity, we are but wards of the state -- the debilitated state of a sovereign. According to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC -- the set of statutes lawyers call 'law') people are 'corporations' and corporations are 'persons' thus debilitating further the status of a living breathing human. We are but straw men, 'corpses' in law as far as commercial law goes. As well, the courts in the US today are in fact admiralty/maritime courts in which the judge is like the captain of a ship in international waters and can render any decision and punishment whether a jury agrees or not. The gold-fringe on the flag in a courtroom indicates this jurisdiction, and all one has to do is enter that court and your permission to be judged in that manner is granted to the court, i.e. the judge. That is why you may not use constitutional arguments in court nor quote any founder or case that states the jury's right to judge both the law and the facts. Using promissory notes for trade has many implications -- the first and foremost is the liability for the debt for which the note represents.

Excellent Archer, yep. Those of the profession that I've talked to, of course, can't go where you just did - even though its the truth. I've written this before but to support what you just said, all the new birth certificates say in very fine print (as a water mark behind the naked eye visuals), "SECURITY PAPER, BANK NOTE" , then gives the regional bank to whom are entrusted. You need merely get a new birth certificate, scan it, and enlarge it enough to see the fine print. Other than that, I can't find the exact edict that so defines the judges actions. I don't think it was just an oral edict given in some star chamber some where. I'll keep looking.

I'm stunned! Myself and one other person are the only two I knew of that were aware of the distinction in law described by Mike and Archer. It's the same in Canada. Man if people only knew...

Carlton, Canada also adopted their fiat dollar in 1913 at the same time as the US -- and the same folks were involved. Since these commercial jurisdictions indeed already existed separately from the common law jurisdiction, once we accepted 'promises' as a medium of exchange, we were forced into the statutory jurisdiction in which these commercial negotiable instruments are governed -- before fiat currency (which is actually a form of debt liability trading), these 'bonds' were primarily used by investment bankers and commercial paper speculators, and thus laws were drawn up to regulate the practice. (i.e. an IOU does not transfer ownership of property until the debt is paid -- since our currency is in fact debt, nothing is ever actually being 'owned' BUT we are liable for the use of the property as it is not ours.) So if we do not truly own our property or even our own 'money,' who does? The issuer of the debt, obviously -- it is theirs, and ultimately, it always will be -- we don't buy anything, we 'rent' it (with strings attached)! Taken a step further, using the Roman civil law as the example, when we stopped using real money, we agreed to play in a fixed Monopoly game, and we apparently agreed through various contracts with the government to waive our rights and become either protected wards of the commercial state or government employees and thus subject to the reams and reams of rules and statutes for governing corporate and government entities. That is why so many in the honest money movement remind us that by returning to true Constitutionally protected Common Law, we do not have to follow most of the 'rules' coming from the legislators that claim they are merely empowered by the commerce clause or 'federal zones'. By every right, and even our own (real) laws declare it, each of us is an individual sovereign -- not a dictator as Waffler would corrupt the meaning, but one who is free and responsible for his/her own life and thus NOT subject to the statist theocracy (as Mike puts it) which assumes our dependency and servitude. You are free, not a straw man, no matter what anyone tells you. Now all we have to do is re-learn how to live free and avoid being conned into becoming slaves.

Bliss vs COMMONWEALTH ( No law Passed , nor can be passed to make it a crime to conceal or openly carry a survival sidearm) , Cockrun Vs The State Tex 24 at 402 "402". "THE REST OF THE STORY"= "WHERE RIGHTS SECURED BY THE TRUTH ARE INVOLVED THERE AND HERE CAN BE NO ( NO ) LAW MADE WHICH WOULD DENY THEM", Miranda v. Arz,384 US 436, 491; 86 S Ct 1602; 16 L Ed 2 d 694 (1966) "YOUR RIGHTS STARTED BEFORE POLICE STATE TURNED HIS RED & BLUE LIGHTS ON, NOT WHEN HE READS THEM TO YOU....PUT YOUR KEYS INTO YOUR POCKET, TELL HIM FLAT OUT, ' OFFICER I DO NOT CONSENT TO A SEARCH OF MY VEHICLE' he may tear up your car,the dogs mouth on every nice thing, germs ect. they will not put things back in order nor pay to repair it, keep cops out period TO BEGIN WITH, GOOGLE " BUSTED:The Citizens Guide To Surviving Police Encounters" THEN GOOGLE "NEVER TALK TO A COP" NOTE even lawyers have went to prision being innocent having talked to a cop. TIP: WHILE CARRYING OPEN CARRY USE TWO BELTS,..YOUR GOING TO HAVE TO GO TO THE RESTROOM SOONER OR LATER. #2 NEVER PLACE YOUR GUN ON TOP OF YOUR CAR, SOME 10 YEAR WILL BE PLAYING WITH IT AND YOU SHALL HAVE TO BUY ANOTHER GUN, "GET SMART"

REMEMBER: THE REST OF THE STORY! . WHERE RIGHTS SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION ARE INVOLVED THERE CAN BE NO [ MEANS HAVEN'T BEEN ONE MADE YET] THERE CAN BE NO LEGISLATION WHICH WOULD ABRIGE,DENY,ABROGATE,BLOCK,HINDER,KILL OR STOP THEM" NOTE THEM MEANS PLURAL.

THE REST OF THE STORY IS FOUND IN . Miranda v ARZ ,384 US 436,491,; 86 S Ct 1602; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966),, "WHERE RIGHTS SECURED BY ..... THERE CAN BE NO LEGISLATURE WHICH CAN PASS A LAW THAT WOULD PROHIBIT ANY UNALIENABLE RIGHT [SURVIVAL SIDEARMS IS A RIGHT] " A RIGHT REQUIRES NO PERMISSION" A PERMIT TO CARRY CONCEALED IS IN VIOLATION= FEEdom versus FREEdom . Bliss Vs COMMONWEALTH = CONCEAL CARRY LAW IS A VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTION=FEEdom, there be not "FEELIBERTY" BUT FREE WITHOUT CHARGE OF MONEY=FREEdom YEH!