Comment: Counties Have the Right and Should Nullify.

(See in situ)

Counties Have the Right and Should Nullify.

There are several things wrong with this California state action.

1.) Are These People Free?
2.) Are these People Peaceable?
3.) Are the Guns their property?
4.) Can the police take rights from one person from the crimes or prior mental issues of another?
5.) Can they prevent (disarm) one from protecting ones self from others, including from a spouse (who may be actually insane)?

Here are some Rights Based issues from Founders Quotes:

1.) Part of the proposed Virginia Constitution, in 1776.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

2.) Samuel Adams, Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution Ratification convention in 1788:

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are "PEACEABLE" citizens from keeping their own arms."

3. Absolute Rights of the Colonists 1772.

Samuel Adams: "...Thirdly, The supreme power cannot Justly take from any man, ANY "PART" of his property without his CONSENT, in person OR BY HIS REPRESENTATIVE.--

These are some of the FIRST PRINCIPLES of natural law & Justice, and the GREAT BARRIERS of all FREE STATES, and of the British Constitution in particular. It is utterly irreconcileable to these PRINCIPLES, and to many other fundamental maxims of the COMMON LAW, common sense and REASON, that a British house of commons, should have a right, at pleasure, to give and grant the property of the Colonists.

4 and 5:

Absolute Rights of the Colonists 1772.

Samuel Adams:

1st. Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men.--

Among the Natural Rights of the Colonists are these

First. a Right to Life;
Secondly to Liberty;
thirdly to Property;

(Fourthly) together with the Right to support and defend them in the BEST MANNER they can--Those are EVIDENT Branches of, rather than deductions from the DUTY of "SELF PRESERVATION", commonly called "THE FIRST LAW OF NATURE"--


Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788:

GEORGE NICHOLAS: "....But, says he, who is to determine the extent of such powers? I say, the same power which, in ALL WELL-REGULATED COMMUNITIES (Counties Can Rule), DETERMINES THE "EXTENT" OF LEGISLATIVE POWERS. If they exceed these powers, the "JUDICIARY" WILL declare it "VOID", or else "THE PEOPLE" will have a "RIGHT" to "declare" it "VOID".

(APP: This Common Law principle applies in states as well as federal)

"...But the"COMMON LAW"is"NOT EXCLUDED".There is"NOTHING" in "that paper"(APP Note: referring to the US Constitution being considered) to warrant the assertion. ..."

"...A bill of rights is only anacknowledgment of the "PREEXISTING CLAIM TO RIGHTS IN THE PEOPLE". They BELONG TO US AS MUCH as if they had been inserted in the Constitution...."



This cases should be weighed by county courts which are "Well Regulated Societies". If cases regarding "mental" issues are exaggerated and or unfounded, halted by the County courts.

Condemning free men or their families, because of past crimes or difficulties, into a human state for which they cannot even defend themselves, is both unconstitutional and is like hanging a "no gun zone" on their house;

Are they going to disarm their neighbors as well? Family members or friends a mile away? ten miles? In the next state? Simply because they could by proximity or relation COULD make guns "available"? You may not Think so; But with this false and arbitrary reasoning, they could certainly attempt it.

This can easily be seen to lead The State into Determining that they have the power to blur the difference between someone being Mad as Insane; with someone who is Mad "as in Infuriated" and willing to defend his right to bear arms; Which is all peoples Duty.

Declaration of Independence:

"...But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their RIGHT, it is their DUTY, to THROW OFF such government and to provide new guards for their future security."

Such a blurring of these lines can only be seen as a means to take firearms from the latter so that the people cannot resist Tyranny and Usurpation in Government without being labeled "mentally unstable".

This type of excuse by the state of California to pass laws masquerading Regulatory LAWS for "PEACE" "SAKE" which are actually Laws for the INFRINGEMENT upon the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS is an OLD TYRANNICAL PLOY:

John Locke states it clearly in this way:

John Locke #228. "But if they who say it lays a foundation for rebellion mean that it may occasion civil wars or intestine broils to tell the people they are absolved from obedience when ILLEGAL ATTEMPTS are made upon their LIBERTIES OR PROPERTIES, and may oppose the unlawful violence of those who were their magistrates when they (the government) invade their properties, CONTRARY TO THE TRUST put in them, and that, therefore, this doctrine is not to be allowed, being 'so destructive to the "PEACE" of the world';

>>> they may as well say, upon the same ground, that honest men may not oppose ROBBERS OR PIRATES, because this may occasion disorder or bloodshed.

If any mischief come in such cases, >>> it is not to be charged upon him who "defends his own right", but "ON HIM" that "invades his neighbour's".

If the innocent honest man must quietly QUIT ALL HE HAS FOR "PEACE SAKE" to him who will lay violent hands upon it, I desire it may be considered "WHAT KIND OF PEACE" there will be in the world which consists only in violence and rapine,

and which is to be maintained "ONLY FOR THE BENEFIT" OF ROBBERS AND "OPPRESSORS".

Who would not think it an admirable "PEACE" "BETWIXT THE MIGHTY AND THE MEAN", when the lamb, without resistance, yielded his throat to be torn by the imperious wolf? ..."

American Patriot Party.CC

Educate Yourself. Educate Others.

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.