Comment: Serious Discussion:

(See in situ)


Serious Discussion:

Why give relevence to illegal laws? To me, this [Senate Bill 1733] would instigate others who do not care for the Constitution, or those who simply want to abolish it. Why not open/conceal as you wish in any state, as granted by the Constitution? NO law, local, state or federal, can supercede the Constitution, which is the "LAW OF THE LAND".

--

"When the law takes effect, Oklahoma will become the 15th state to "allow" people to openly carry firearms "with a license". Those 15 states include Utah, Iowa, New Jersey and Connecticut. Several other states, including Arizona, New Mexico and Nevada, have even more permissive laws that allow the carrying of unconcealed firearms without a license. All but six states and the District of Columbia allow some form of open carry, said John Pierce, founder of OpenCarry.org."

--

Carl Miller:

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). This is one of the leading cases in the history of the U.S. The opinion of the court was “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law; Clearly for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme was illogical; for certainly the supreme law would prevail over any other law, and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme law would be the basis for all laws, and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law. It would bear no power to enforce, it would bear no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as though it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded by a court of law. No courts are bound to uphold it, and no citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a mere nullity or a fiction of law, which means it doesn‟t exist in law.”

Now let me give you an example in today‟s timing as to how effective this is: This argument is so effective that it literally nullifies the Brady Bill, it nullifies the crime bill that takes away the right of the people to keep and bear arms on these 19 weapons that turn into 159 weapons, it stops the 666 bill that just went through that they‟re trying to take away the 4th Amendment, Because they have no
power to pass a law that‟s in conflict with the United States Constitution, and it‟s automatically null and void of law from its inception; not from the day you go to court and brand it as unconstitutional.

A lot of people think they have got to go to court and brand it unconstitutional. But if you know your arguments and you can show your arguments, most of the time you will win.

Norton v Shelby County, 118 US 425: An unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protections, it creates no office, it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.

Murdock v Penn clearly established that no state could convert a secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it.

Shuttlesworth v Birm. Said that if the state does convert your right into a privilege and charge a license and a fee for it you can ignore the license and fee, and engage in the right with impunity. That means they can't punish you…they have to let you go.

http://privateaudio.homestead.com/CARLTEXT.pdf

2014 Liberty Candidate Thread: http://www.dailypaul.com/287246/2014-liberty-candidate-thread

2016 Potential Presidential Candidates: http://alturl.com/mt7tq

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul