Inalienable Right? Or State Granted Privilege?January 5, 2004
Presented By Susan Callaway, Editor
All of the criminals (official and otherwise) can breathe a sigh of relief now that one more well armed self defense advocate has been separated from his weapons, and may eventually be separated from all of society if the government has its way. It all revolves around several of the bogus "laws" that are imposed on those who would defend themselves and others from attack. "Gun control;" that insidious idea that simply makes more and more people defenseless victims and slaves who can't resist.
Jeff "Hunter" Jordan lives in New Hampshire, a relatively free state that has not yet joined the mad rush to disarm its citizens. Recently he ventured to visit relatives in another state and, on the way home, ran afoul of police in Ohio. His crime? They say he was "speeding," but the mere sight of an ammo magazine on his belt turned it into a second amendment nightmare. He had not harmed or threatened anyone, but was immediately arrested and his belongings confiscated. He wasn't even allowed to take a change of clothes.
Then came the sensational stories of the whole affair in the media, painting this man as some sort of monster, even suggesting that his home made car alarm control was some sort of "detonator." Even many of the message boards in the "freedom community" had harsh words for anyone who would "break the law," meaning "rock the boat." Those who are content to live by any unjust, moronic "law" the power mongers wish to impose on them are welcome to do so, but they should not consider themselves free men or women.
Rather than try to tell the story myself, I will present two items; a "letter to the editor" and an article that has been sent to me. Read it and weep -- or read it and get mad as hell so you can join the fight. The slave chains are closing in on us fast.
More will be posted as often as possible. Save this Liberty Round Table page as a source of ongoing updates.
This from the LRT web page:
A legal defense fund has been set up. KeepAndBearArms.com has agreed to accept the funds for Hunter and manage the account. They'll be setting up a web page soon to take donations online, but folks who would like to send a check can do so now.
Checks should be made out to "KeepAndBearArms.com," with the
memo stating "Hunter's Defense," and sent to:
Editor, Mansfield News Journal
Sir: Your recent article on the speeding arrest of a tourist from the highly- civilized and freedom-loving state of New Hampshire, and the subsequent charges against him for keeping firearms on his person while in transit to the homes of relatives with Christmas presents in his vehicle, causes me to comment as follows: A few days ago a resident of New Hampshire, where firearms are still legal, was stopped for speeding while traveling through Ohio. This fellow happened to be armed and was carrying weapons in his vehicle. His crime? Speeding. That is all. He had not harmed anyone, nor had he threatened anyone with any of his weapons. He has no criminal record. He is not a criminal. He is a sports shooting enthusiast. He is also an excellent marksman. Was he, therefore, doing anything wrong by carrying his personal weapons in his personal vehicle?
We think not. And yet, he has not only been arrested for carrying his personal weapons on his person and in his personal vehicle, the press has sensationalized the story and, with the help of the police, has painted this poor, innocent, non-violent, hard-working man as a threat to society and as a criminal.
Because this fellow refused to be denied his right to carry arms. Because this fellow is right. Because, as we all know, firearm restrictions are not about safety or saving lives: these firearm restrictions are about leaving a population defenseless against the same government that has handed us the USA PATRIOT ACT of 2001: the same government that has taken from us the free and lawful ability to > exercise one right after another. The same government we have seen in action at Kent State, Smithville, Arkansas; Waco, Texas; and Ruby Ridge, Idaho.
Here is a private citizen, a peaceful and peace-loving man, a hard worker and an honest tax-paying citizen, who will now be subjected to the worst of imaginable indignities because he chose to continue to believe in his freedom and the sovereignty of his person and his rights.
What will happen now?
The police and local press will continue to sensationalize this event, and will struggle with all their resources to make this poor free man look like a criminal and a dangerous person. Imagine: in a few years, when weapons laws across the country once again recognize our right to defend ourselves and to own and carry weapons as and when we choose, this poor man would no longer be a criminal, just as he would not have been a criminal a few years ago. He has not changed, and his actions have not changed: the laws imposed by power-hungry governments have changed.
Nevertheless, while the police and press try to do their self-appointed job of taking away our civil rights, many of us will be working behind and in front of the scenes to cause justice to be rendered.
The New Hampshire gentleman should be allowed to pay his speeding ticket and be on his way home, to a state where the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution still holds its meaning, and where people still believe in civil rights for individuals.
Liberty and Justice for All,
handgun defendant depends upon protections afforded by jurors
Many laws continue to be on the books which are out of date, discriminatory, unfair or unconstitutional. Despite recent legislative action to pass a concealed carry law, it has not yet been signed by the Governor of Ohio. As a result, Ohio still has no provisions for concealed carry permits, nor reciprocity with other states. There is a remedy which is readily available to all Ohioans, as well as all Americans, . For centuries, the essence of trial by jury has been that jurors have the power to vote their conscience in pursuit of justice. If a juror believes that a law is unjust, or is being unfairly applied, that juror may vote "not guilty" regardless of the evidence.
Juries were never intended to be a rubber stamp for the charges brought by the government, but rather a group of independent citizens, coming together to exercise their independent judgment and conscience. They should ask whether justice is being served if they blindly follow the judge's instructions on the law and enforce a bad law. Our second president, John Adams, said this of jurors: "It is not only his right, but his duty ... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."
If our courtrooms functioned under rules of absolute honesty, the judges would tell jurors of their power and responsibility at the beginning of every jury trial. Or , alternatively, judges would allow attorneys to truthfully tell the jury that their judgment is their own, that no one can tell them how to vote, and to inform juries that they have the inherent power to consider the merits, validity and applicability of the law, including the sentencing laws. It is a travesty for our court system to allow prosecutors to weed out prospective jurors who indicate they might be inclined to vote according to conscience.
It has come to my attention that Jeffrey Jordan has recently been arrested while driving across Ohio, on the way home from visiting relatives, for having concealed handguns on his person. He had a concealed carry permit from his home state, New Hampshire. He is guilty of nothing more than seeking to protect himself from assailants he might encounter on this or any trip. Given that there is a highway sniper which the Ohio authorities have yet to apprehend, a reasonable person would be prepared to undertake self defense. Let's hope the prosecutor has sense enough to dismiss charges. Otherwise, the correct application of the law will to be up to the jurors.
Your "letters to the editor" are welcome. Please send them to email@example.com