Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > Maryland 2A Issues
Don't Have An Account? Register Here

Join MD Shooters

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 5th, 2015, 10:18 AM #51
boundlessdyad's Avatar
boundlessdyad boundlessdyad is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: HoCo
Posts: 17,102
boundlessdyad boundlessdyad is offline
boundlessdyad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: HoCo
Posts: 17,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by BAZYRKYR View Post
First of all...our rights are NOT granted by the Constitution for they preexisted it. However, our most important rights are simply enumerated in the Constitution within the unamendable first 10 Amendments which are known as the "Bill of Rights". And you're wrong...traveling is a right not a privilege. As is keeping (owning and/or possessing) and bearing (wearing and/or carrying) arms and ANY restriction on any of our rights is unconstitutional. In fact the systematic way in which they continually violate our rights is tantamount to making war on the people and thus treason. They can fraudulently claim that license fee's aren't taxes but they are and they are unconstitutional (even if fees & taxes weren't the same they'd still be unconstitutional)....

Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748 (1970)
“Waivers of Constitutional Rights, not only must they be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness.”

Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
"No state may convert a secured liberty into a privilege, and issue a license and fee for it."

Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham 373 U.S. 262 (1963)
"If the state does convert a right into a privilege and issue a license and charge a fee for it, you can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right with impunity."

....but where they get you is that you apply (beg) for permission do that which is already your right to do. Of course you are coerced into doing this out of fear and are under duress because you do not want to be kidnapped, imprisoned, or summarily executed by ignorant & overzealous Cops that making it fraudulent. That said....

Butz v. Economou, 98 S. Ct. 2894 (1978); United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. at 220, 1 S. Ct. at 261 (1882)
"No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law (actual Constitutionally authorized law), and are bound to obey it."

Brookfield Co. v. Stuart, (1964) 2, 34 F. Supp. 94, 99 USDC, Washington, D.C.
"An officer who acts in violation of the United States Constitution ceases to represent the government."

Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.
“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.”

State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260
“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.”

Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.
“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.”

Adams v. State, 121 Pa. 16, 48 S.E. 910
"One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance."

State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100
“Each person (in the common vernacular) has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.”

Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. reaffirmed in John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529.
“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.”

The Government(s) presumes they have the right to do whatever they wish until you challenge them which is costly and devastating to career & family to do so they assume you won't or that you are to ignorant to know how. When you do not challenge them they claim you have given them "tacit consent" because it is your duty to know the law, but again, this is a fraud because they are operating in an admiralty statutory jurisdiction, outside of the Constitution, putting people under a soft form of martial law (which the gold fringed American flag puts you on notice of...it's called the law of the flag)where Statutes & Codes are enforced under color of law (even Constitutional common law has been codified) because the Republic know as The United States of America and the de jure state governments have been dissolved. Which is why they ignore the Constitution, bill of rights, and almost all Supreme Court decisions regarding our rights unless it fits their unconstitutional anti-Christian, anti-White, and anti-American agenda. You see...there are at least 3 classes of citizens/Citizens (note the capitalization). There are Federal U.S. citizens (a class of citizens created for emancipated Negros by the fraudulent 14th amendment to whom the Constitution and Bill of Rights do not apply), State/STATE citizens (who also have no Constitutional rights), and state Citizens (the Sovereignty aka the People who reserve all rights). "State" and/or "STATE" signifies the corporate trust (though "State" is supposed to signify the de jure state government...ie the Republic...but they have been laying dormant since December 20th 1860 when South Carolina seceded from the Federal Government thereby cause a dissolution of that government which to reform lawfully & Constitutionally needed a national referendum which never happened) and "state" signifies the land.

Chisholm v Georgia, 2 Dall. 440, at pg 471 (1793)
"...at the revolution the Sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects ......and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty."

Dredd Scott v Sandford, 60 US 393, at pg 404 (1856)
"The words "people of the United States" and "citizens" are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the "sovereign people," and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of the sovereignty."

Lansing v Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9,20 (NY).
"People of a state are entitled to all rights, which formerly belong to the King by his prerogative."

Yick Wo v Hopkins, 118 US 356, at pg 370; (1886)
"…., while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts."

Yick Wo v Hopkins, 118 US 356, at pg 370; (1886)
"Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; ….."

DeLima v. Bidwell 182 U.S. 179 (1900) The Constitution is not a physical substance. It is in the nature of a grant or power, or what would be termed in private law a power of attorney. A real constitution is a grant of rights or powers by a sovereign. The sovereign cannot be limited, for he is the source of all law.

People v Herkimer, 4 Cowen (NY) 345, 348 (1825)
"The people or sovereign are not bound by general word in statutes, restrictive of prerogative right, title or interest, unless expressly named. Acts of limitation do not bind the King or the people. The people have been ceded all the rights of the King, the former sovereign,.....It is a maxim of the common law, that when an act is made for the common good and to prevent injury, the King shall be bound, though not named, but when a statute is general and prerogative right would be divested or taken from the King (or the people) he shall not be bound."

Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt, 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997. (1854)
"It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states."

Billings v. Hall (1857)
"Under our form of government, the legislature is not supreme ... like other departments of government, it can only exercise such powers as have been delegated to it, and when it steps beyond that boundary, its acts, like those of the most humble magistrate in the state who transcends his jurisdiction, are utterly void."

Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 155 (1966), cited also in Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649.644
"Constitutional 'rights' would be of little value if they could be indirectly denied."

Juilliard v. Greeman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884)
Supreme Court Justice Field, "There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States... In this country, sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution, entrusted to it. All else is withheld."

Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1
"All rights and safeguards contained in the first eight amendments to the federal Constitution are equally applicable."

Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425 (1886)
"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."

Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44, 7; 8 S. Ct. 568, 2 L. Ed. 2d 603 (1958)
"...in our country the people are sovereign and the government cannot sever its relationship to them by taking away their citizenship."

Sherar v. Cullins, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973)
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights."

Simmons v. UNITED STATES, 390 U.S. 377 (1968)
"The claim and exercise of a Constitution right cannot be converted into a crime"... "a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law".

Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579
"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125 (1958) Reaffirmed in Zemel v. Rusk 33 US 1 (1965)
"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment."

Schactman v. Dulles, 96 App DC 287, 293
"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal Iiberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution."

Hurtado v. California :: 110 U.S. 516 (1884)
"The State cannot diminish rights of the people."

Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22 (1923)
"the assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice."

Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133,147
"Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment."

American Jurisprudence 1st. Constitutional Law
"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."

STATE v. Johnson, 243 P. 1073, 1078.
"...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion..."

Spooner v. McConnell, 22 F 939, 943:
"The sovereignty of a state does not reside in the persons who fill the different departments of its government, but in the People, from whom the government emanated; and they may change it at their discretion. Sovereignty, then in this country, abides with the constituency, and not with the agent; and this remark is true, both in reference to the federal and state government."

Glass v. Sloop Betsey (1794)
"... Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people"

US Supreme Court in 4 Wheat 402:
"The United States, as a whole, emanates from the people ... The people, in their capacity as sovereigns, made and adopted the Constitution ..."

US Supreme Court in Luther v. Borden, 48 US 1, 12 LEd 581:
"... The governments are but trustees acting under derived authority and have no power to delegate what is not delegated to them. But the people, as the original fountain might take away what they have delegated and intrust to whom they please. ... The sovereignty in every state resides in the people of the state and they may alter and change their form of government at their own pleasure."

And this is just scratching the surface....

If you look at ALL State & Federal laws you will see that the "law" (Statutes, Code, Rules, and Regulations being unlawfully & illegally enforce under color of law) only applies to persons, individuals, partnerships, associations, trusts, entities, or corporations and occasionally it will mention the terms "human beings", "natural persons", and "legal persons" all of which are fictitious legal entities. I don't know about the rest of you but I can say the 100% certainty that I am a man formed in the image of Yahweh (the God of the Holy Scripture...the 66 books know today as the Holy Bible) and a co-heir with Jesus Christ and thus I am none of those other things.

American Law and Procedure, Vol 13, page 137, 1910:*
"This word `person' and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding to the word in all the phases of its proper use ...* A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested ... not an individual or physical person, but the status, condition or character borne by physical persons ...* The law of persons is the law of status or condition."

US Supreme Court in Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe 442 US 653, 667 (1979):
"In common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing the word are ordinarily construed to exclude it."

US Supreme Court in U.S. v. Cooper, 312 US 600,604, 61 SCt 742 (1941):
"Since in common usage the term `person' does not include the sovereign, statutes employing that term are ordinarily construed to exclude it."

US Supreme Court in U.S. v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258, 67 SCt 677 (1947):
"In common usage, the term `person' does not include the sovereign and statutes employing it will ordinarily not be construed to do so."

US Supreme Court in US v. Fox 94 US 315:
"Since in common usage, the term `person' does not include the sovereign, statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it."

U.S. v. General Motors Corporation, D.C. Ill, 2 F.R.D. 528, 530:
"In common usage the word `person' does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing the word are generally construed to exclude the sovereign."

Church of Scientology v. US Department of Justice (1979) 612 F2d 417, 425:
"The word `person' in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings., see e.g. 1, U.S.C. para 1."

Perry v. U.S. (294 US 330) (1935)
"In United States, sovereignty resides in people ... the Congress cannot invoke the sovereign power of the People to override their will as thus declared."


WAKE UP MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS...OUR NATION IS DEPENDING ON IT!!!!

Lamentations 5:1-9 (KJV)

1 Remember, O Lord, what is come upon us: consider, and behold our reproach.
2 Our inheritance is turned to strangers, our houses to aliens.
3 We are orphans and fatherless, our mothers are as widows.
4 We have drunken our water for money; our wood is sold unto us.
5 Our necks are under persecution: we labour, and have no rest.
6 We have given the hand to the Egyptians, and to the Assyrians, to be satisfied with bread.
7 Our fathers have sinned, and are not; and we have borne their iniquities.
8 Servants have ruled over us: there is none that doth deliver us out of their hand.
9 We gat our bread with the peril of our lives because of the sword of the wilderness.


Hosea 4:1-6 (KJV)
1 Hear the word of the Lord, ye children of Israel: for the Lord hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land, because there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land.
2 By swearing, and lying, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery, they break out, and blood toucheth blood.
3 Therefore shall the land mourn, and every one that dwelleth therein shall languish, with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven; yea, the fishes of the sea also shall be taken away.
4 Yet let no man strive, nor reprove another: for thy people are as they that strive with the priest.
5 Therefore shalt thou fall in the day, and the prophet also shall fall with thee in the night, and I will destroy thy mother.
6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.
Good post. Great research.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
boundlessdyad is offline  
Old July 5th, 2015, 10:34 AM #52
BAZYRKYR's Avatar
BAZYRKYR BAZYRKYR is offline
Freedom Fighter
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Harford County
Posts: 17
Images: 5
BAZYRKYR BAZYRKYR is offline
Freedom Fighter
BAZYRKYR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Harford County
Posts: 17
Images: 5
Thanks...I appreciate it.
BAZYRKYR is offline  
Old July 5th, 2015, 02:58 PM #53
esqappellate's Avatar
esqappellate esqappellate is offline
President, MSI
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,315
esqappellate esqappellate is offline
President, MSI
esqappellate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by UNcommon Arms View Post
SB281 HQL = unconstitutional tax on civil right????


Why wouldn’t the SB281 {HQL provision} lawsuit challenge the unconstitutionality of “licensing a civil/constitutional right.” SCOTUS 1943 Murdoch v Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, has settled that issue - ruling that requiring the purchase of a license was an unconstitutional tax in the free exercise of a constitutional right.

I’m a simple man so… please enlighten me.
Read the attached Kwong opinion for a better idea of what we are up against. Now, the HQL is actually worse than the NYC license fee. Here it is the license fee, the training costs, the fingerprinting fee, the background check fee and of course, the live fire requirement. You put all that together, you have a severe obstacle to the exercise of the right. We need an otherwise fully qualified person (no felons please) plaintiff that actually was deterred by all this from purchasing a handgun. Anyone know anyone? Please, I am quite serious. Bonus points for intercity Baltimore.
Attached Images
File Type: pdf kwong.opinion.pdf (298.8 KB, 38 views)
__________________
This may sound like legal advice, but it isn't. Don't rely on it. Hire your own counsel.
esqappellate is offline  
Old July 5th, 2015, 05:13 PM #54
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 4,009
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: WV
Posts: 4,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by esqappellate View Post
Read the attached Kwong opinion for a better idea of what we are up against. Now, the HQL is actually worse than the NYC license fee. Here it is the license fee, the training costs, the fingerprinting fee, the background check fee and of course, the live fire requirement. You put all that together, you have a severe obstacle to the exercise of the right. We need an otherwise fully qualified person (no felons please) plaintiff that actually was deterred by all this from purchasing a handgun. Anyone know anyone? Please, I am quite serious. Bonus points for intercity Baltimore.
Will the court pull this scheme: if the plaintiff pays the fees, he's obviously not severely burdened. If he doesn't pay the fees, he doesn't have standing?
press1280 is offline  
Old July 5th, 2015, 05:15 PM #55
boundlessdyad's Avatar
boundlessdyad boundlessdyad is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: HoCo
Posts: 17,102
boundlessdyad boundlessdyad is offline
boundlessdyad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: HoCo
Posts: 17,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by esqappellate View Post
Read the attached Kwong opinion for a better idea of what we are up against. Now, the HQL is actually worse than the NYC license fee. Here it is the license fee, the training costs, the fingerprinting fee, the background check fee and of course, the live fire requirement. You put all that together, you have a severe obstacle to the exercise of the right. We need an otherwise fully qualified person (no felons please) plaintiff that actually was deterred by all this from purchasing a handgun. Anyone know anyone? Please, I am quite serious. Bonus points for intercity Baltimore.
If the representation is Pro bono, I may be able to get one of the senior citizens in my wife's family to be a plaintiff. All live in Baltimore city, all are minority, men and women.

I also have plenty of clients that match the above.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
boundlessdyad is offline  
Old July 5th, 2015, 05:46 PM #56
Schipperke Schipperke is offline
.
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 14,456
Schipperke Schipperke is offline
.
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 14,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by UNcommon Arms View Post
SB281 HQL = unconstitutional tax on civil right????
Fairly sure that exact argument is somewhere in here, where Puerto Rico's scheme involved paying for a license to own.
Attached Images
File Type: pdf PR_Guns.pdf (6.68 MB, 38 views)
Schipperke is offline  
Old July 5th, 2015, 06:52 PM #57
joppaj's Avatar
joppaj joppaj is offline


Sheepdog
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Silver Spring
Posts: 32,054
joppaj joppaj is offline


Sheepdog
joppaj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Silver Spring
Posts: 32,054
I'm closing this thread since people keeping asking the OP questions and he is banned.
__________________
Winterseed Rifleman

If you must make a compromise to carry a concealed handgun, compromise on fashion, not the firearm.
joppaj is offline  
Closed Thread

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > Maryland 2A Issues

Tags
2nd amendment, hql, unconstitutional tax


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2018, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service