| |
03/19/10
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
January
22, 2007 After doing some research on Sinema and reading her bio, it is obvious to me that she is just another left wing socialist who is a legend in her own mind. In her imperial arrogance, Sinema apparently believes her statute trumps the Arizona Constitution. Fortunately for the people of Arizona, when it comes to firearms, that is not the case. The right to keep and bear arms is clearly acknowledged in Article II, Section 26 of the Arizona Constitution:
Compare this constitutional provision with her proposed legislation:
Under the Arizona Constitution, every individual, irrespective of whether they are "affiliated with a local, state or federal law enforcement entity" has the right to "bear arms in defense of himself or the state," and that right cannot be impaired by a general statute because the Constitution is superior to any statute passed by the Arizona Legislature. Ms. Sinema's legislation is clearly an attempt to circumvent this constitutional provision. If an individual was in possession of a firearm for any purpose other than the two-mentioned section 26 of the Arizona Constitution, then this constitutional provision would not apply. Ms. Sinema's legislation, if it passes, could create a trap for the unsuspecting citizen. This bill, by its wording and omissions, establishes the presumption that if an individual is patrolling to detect illegal activity while in possession of a firearm, that the individual is not "bear[ing] arms in defense of himself or the state." Even though the prosecution bears the burden of proof in a criminal proceeding, an individual ensnared by this law might, if he or she attempted to present a defense, be put in the position of refuting the presumption imposed by the statute. This would be akin to proving a negative after the fact, which would an impossible burden to overcome. If I was an Arizonian who intended to patrol to help detect illegal activity and intended to carry a firearm, assuming this legislation passes, I would make sure I took steps to negate this presumption before the fact. I would prepare a declaration, signed under penalty of perjury, that I only keep and bear arms in defense of myself and the State of Arizona pursuant to section 26 of the Arizona Constitution. The declaration would be notarized and I would have it published in a local newspaper just like an individual does when he or she is operating a business under a fictitious name. This would constitute public notice. FN-1. I would also have a friend send a copy of the declaration and newspaper to the local district attorney and attorney general of Arizona. FN-2. As long as my conduct did not deviate from my declaration, the burden of proof as to my conduct and the truthfulness of my declaration would be on the government agent or entity claiming otherwise. What would the government say at trial? The people are sorry, your honor, but we do not have any facts to show that John Doe was carrying a firearm in a manner inconsistent with his declaration and section 26 of the Arizona Constitution. That would be the day! If Ms. Sinema and her ilk in the Arizona Legislature were true to their constitutional oath of office, there would be no need for private citizens to patrol to help detect illegal activity in the first place. The acknowledgement by Sinema that private individuals are performing this function is an admission that the State of Arizona has failed to protect its people. Unfortunately, socialist intellectuals like Ms. Sinema are too high and mighty to let a little thing like the Arizona Constitution and their oath of office get in their way of political ideology. I hope the people of Arizona who tirelessly patrol their border with Mexico will, if this legislation passes, conduct themselves in a manner that gives Ms. Sinema and her fellow reprobates in the Arizona Legislature a lesson in the superiority of the State Constitution. Footnote 1-I would take this action even if the legislation does not pass as an insurance policy for the unknown. Footnote 2-Always have a third party send important documents to government because they can be called as a witness to testify as to what was sent-when it was sent-and to whom it was sent. Third party mailers should always keep copies of the documents sent and proof of mailing. Avoid personally sending certified mail in such cases. I had a friend who sent the government important documents and they denied getting them. Even though he had sent them certified mail return receipt requested, and it showed they received the mailing, the judge sided with government because he said my friend could not prove what documents were in the envelope. For the full story on this issue and more information about Ms. Sinema's views go to: Law would make Minutemen guilty of 'domestic terrorism' Read Ms. Sinema's official bio, (take some antacid).
Robert
Greenslade focuses his writing on issues surrounding the federal government
and the Constitution. He believes politicians at the federal level, through
ignorance or design, are systematically dismantling the Constitution in
an effort to expand their power and consolidate control over the American
people. He has dedicated himself to resurrecting the true intent of the
Constitution in the hope that the information will contribute, in some
small way, to restoring the system of limited government established by
the Constitution.
If you are interested in finding out more about the Constitution, take a look at this book. I use it in many of my articles and it is the best book I've found on this subject. Bob Reprint of the 1868 edition. ''Perhaps the ablest analysis of the nature and character of the federal government that has ever been published. It has remained unanswered.'' This review of Judge Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States is perhaps the ablest analysis of the nature and character of the Federal Government that has ever been published. It has remained unanswered. Indeed, we are not aware that any attempt has been made to challenge the soundness of its reasoning. The great vise of Judge Story and the Federalists consisted in desiring the clothe the federal government with almost monarchical power, whereas the States had carefully and resolutely reserved the great mass of political power for themselves. The powers which they delegated to the federal government were few, and were general in their character. Those which they reserved embraced their original and inalienable sovereignty, which no state imagined it was surrendering when it adopted the constitution. Mr. Madison dwelt with great force upon the fact that ''a delegated is not a surrendered power.'' The states surrendered no powers to the federal government -- they only delegated them. 160 pages. |
The ·2004 Declaration of Independence The Constitution and YOU Part 1 The Constitution and YOU Part 2 The Constitution and YOU Part 3 Even God is Engaged in Interstate Commerce The Second Amendment and the Preamble to the Bill of Rights Another Look at the Wording of the Second Amendment Are the Constitutions of the Several States Unconstitutional? Massachusetts' Mandatory Health Insurance Bill Is Unconstitutional No Senator Clinton - Government is the one Squeezing Consumers From the Another Usurpation of Power in the Name of Patriotism Department "Newspapers in Education" needs an Education on the Constitution and Second Amendment If Women have the Right to an Abortion then I have the Right to Own a Firearm Complete Archives for Robert Greenslade
| ||||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
