Codrea: Another Glorious Post-Heller Victory


“…What they in turn should expect is that, robed elitists and their intentional torturing of the clear proscription “shall not be infringed” notwithstanding, the Second Amendment will ultimately mean what uncompromising men with guns say it does.”

Yup.

And by the way, the fundamental human right to self-defense and the tools needed for same pre-existed the Second Amendment.

Just as did the fundamental human right to private property.

The United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights did not create a single fundamental human right.

Remember that.

14 responses to “Codrea: Another Glorious Post-Heller Victory

  1. Uncompromising men with guns! Where have all the cowboys gone?

  2. Jimmy the Saint

    “The United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights did not create a single fundamental human right.”

    The elites and their minions agree wholeheartedly, but for very different reasons.

  3. Forget the courts. Soros owns Roberts. Let the NRA play those games. As Codrea says, our Gun Rights – like all our other Rights – depend on our willingness to shoot the gun-grabbers.

  4. “People can note all thay like that no right was created in the Bill of Rights, but it’s a cold comfort when you get a felony rap for unlawful carrying.”

    Cold comfort or not, when facing a jail sentence for illegal (not unlawful per the Supreme Law of the Land) carry, the crux of the issue is glaringly clear in the original sentence as stated by the original post quoted from: “Rights which go unexercised wither and die. The person so arrested has already chosen to surrender that right by not doing what the tag line used here and on many other blogs insists the citizenry do: RESIST!

    Limitations on governmental intrusion on the exercise of rights were ‘created’ in the BoR. All rights are inalienable. We can’t give them away. The only thing we can do is play a game of trading the degree with which we might exercise a right for relief from a penalty or some sort or ‘reward’ by those we put in power to rule us. A related example would be the trade off when securing a “license” to carry. The applicant pays something to the state, who archive the decision to permit or not, issues a ‘trip ticket’ that must be re-issued from time to time and guarantees the state residual income. For those who decide not to participate in the exercise by refusing to surrender their natural, God-given right of self-defense by any means available, they face the risks associated with rule by a police state.

    If Marbury means anything regarding laws repugnant to the Constitution being null and void (which I believe it doesn’t, as based on the purposeful refusal to recognize the precedent set by that case from the government and the purposeful refusal to act upon that precedent by the People themselves), the correct response would be that the unlawful attempt at arrest for ‘illegal’ carry would be met the same way an unlawful attempt to enter a home during the wee hours would be met.

    But it won’t.

    • An honest subfield of biology studies the ever-shifting balance of military power between predator and prey. When the prey becomes better at defense, the balance shifts and there are fewer predators, because some predators are killed and some predators get out of the predator business. The average American with the average American moral values has produced the current tyranny, by acting like prey each day.

      If a million net taxpayers decided to withhold paying taxes pending the outcome of some legal case they brought, it would crash the dollar, which would ruin the Bad People’s logistics. If you actually wanted liberty you could arrange that result by New Year’s. Or do you still think you’re going to vote your way to prosperity?

      • Cassandra (of Troy)

        Anonymous/29Nov12@13:24,

        Funny how nature manifests itself in human behavior despite the protestations of humanity’s exceptionalism from same made by many in religion & science. Whether the predator & prey have legs or not doesn’t seem to matter overmuch nor apparently does mental capacity or sophistication, the hunters remain so & act in reasonably predictable ways as does the hunted w/ the only serious difference between how that relationship’s played out in animal & human society being the latter can counter its instinctual programming at will.

        Cassandra (of Troy)

    • Here’s such a legal case: the total federal, state, and local tax burden, and the IRS in particular, does what troops quartered in your home do: eat up all your savings and micromanage your economic life. This result is prohibited by the third amendment.

      Of course it would be thrown out of court five minutes after it was filed, but it’s not the point to persuade the government to concede it is wrong. The point is to show third parties that the defendants have the morally stronger case, and the government shouldn’t be obeyed. Meanwhile, the non-paid taxes are in coins out of the system so they can’t easily be seized, and there are too many participants to put them all in jail.

  5. It’s all a trade-off. I work nights, alone, in an office located in ‘banger territory, and in a Mexifornian County where you cannot get legal carry. For a while I brought my Glock with me, but then it struck me that in so doing I was in more danger from the Cops than from the Brown Brigade…so I stopped and now “obey” the “law”. But when things detriorate to a point where I fear the ‘Bangers more than the cops, I’ll start “illegally” carrying again. And if a regime enforcer interferes with my Natural Right to protect myself, I’ll kill him…or him me.

  6. As I’m sure you know, Trainer, the Indiana Supreme Court even ruled that a citizen doesn’t have the “right” to defend himself against an ILLEGAL police intrusion. Some legality; some rights.

    Here’s a brain teaser. In an island society of 1,000 people where a woman bears a child and EVERY person on the island believes the baby should be sacrificed on some altar…does that baby still have a right to live?

    Almost everyone will answer “yes” based on some external granting of that right, usually God-given though some (often atheist) intellectuals will come up with different rationalizations. But God, not to mention the reality of the situation, also renders us with Free Will, whereby we each decide such matters with NO higher source, not even God Himself. Even the most devoutly religious holds this as inviolable…God may grant that Free Will, but God doesn’t usurp it.

    The point is not that such rights don’t exist–there’s still such a thing as right and wrong anyway, even in a context of Free Will. The point is rather, “Then what are we talking about?” On that island, if there’s NO person who believes the baby ought to live, and we take the island in complete isolation, then what could possibly be the referent of that baby’s “right to live”?

    This is the problem with ALL “epistemic existents”…they exist ONLY in individual minds, and this is so irrespective of anything that God, or any other power, grants us. The reason it’s so important is not because of the imaginary baby–every decent soul will grant that he has a right to live–but because of the nature of so many other such conceptual existents, from morality to justice to external governance…and yes, even to Liberty itself.

    We say that two people “share values,” but that’s a little misleading. They share the instantiation or manifestation of certain values, but the valuing itself is ALWAYS done in the individual mind and so is ALWAYS a creation of that mind, and that mind alone. God can’t save us from this fact, nor its accompanying responsibility. IMO it is THIS responsibility that men have been trying to evade forever, and it’s THE reason they put themselves in chains.

    That’s my ramble for today. I never tried epistemology here, but I thought I’d give it one shot.

    • We can measure this; the humans who are not trying to evade responsibility for themselves are libertarians. In my opinion, freedom education can only reach those who are, but don’t realize they are, libertarians; it can’t convert the statists at any practical rate because you’re asking them to give up their religion. Therefore, defending freedom will always be up to the libertarians, and only the libertarians.

      • The problem with libertarians, especially the college/hipster brand of libertarian, is they’re in it mainly for the promise of legalized weed smoking and because it’s a way to rebel against their parents’ mores. Scratch the surface and your typical new-age libertarian is just a socialist who only cares about the evils of statism when it comes to restrictions on the only two liberties they really care about – the freedom to smoke-up and have irresponsible sex without consequences, and to a lesser extent, gay marriage.

    • Cassandra (of Troy)

      Jim Klein/29Nov12@13:57
      RE: That IN law

      I remember when the legislation was proposed, debated, passed, & signed into law by Daniels, here’re 3 views of it.

      First, a lawyer’s opinion,:

      Court Says No Right to Resist Cop’s Unlawful Home Entry
      http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/2011/05/24/court-says-no-right-to-resist-cops-unlawful-home-entry/

      Next, COPBLOCK.ORG weighs in,:

      Right to resist police passes Indiana house, but before you get excited…..
      http://www.copblock.org/13886/right-to-resist-police-passes-indiana-house-but-before-you-get-excited/

      Now, Radley Balko’s take,:

      Myths and Misconceptions About Indiana’s New Self-Defense Law
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radley-balko/myths-and-misconceptions-_b_1596846.html
      (LOTS of cites)

      Here’s the IN Sup Ct’s decision,:
      http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05121101shd.pdf

      And here’s the law.:
      http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar41/ch3.html

      Yep, that was fun to watch, the cops/their media sycophants, the anti-2A cultists, the legal community, thughuggerz, various pols, as well as run of the mill hysterical idiots were going full tilt bats**t & pumpin’ out “those RIGHT-WING NRA gun nut cop hating militias wanna KILL COPS & WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE HORRIBLY IN A HAIL OF DUM-DUM SATURDAY ASSAULT NIGHT SPECIAL WEAPON BOWLITS, AAAAAAAAAAGH!” BS in Deep Water Horizon amounts, & those like Mark Matis were salivating over the possibilities of what they heard the law would mean, i.e., ‘open season on LE’. As you can see, just about everyone was disappointed by what the law actually turned out to be, myself included.

      But that’s okay, it could’ve been a LOT worse, such as LE getting a total pass to do what they will w/o ANY consequences other than those certain people levied on them. One good thing was/is that it exposed LE’s eagerness for conducting raids & their cavalier attitude toward ‘collateral damage’ from same, but basically the whole deal’s a wash in practical terms. The fear generated in LE at the prospect of getting what they’d been giving was nice though, kinda let ’em know that there’s a price to pay for ‘oopsies’ & that more than they realized are happy to collect.

      And that, imo, is a VERY good thing!

      Cassandra (of Troy)

  7. “…robed elitists and their intentional torturing of the clear proscription “shall not be infringed” notwithstanding, the Second Amendment will ultimately mean what uncompromising men with guns say it does.”

    Exactly right, David. I wrote an article about this fact here:
    http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2008/tle459-20080309-04.html

    As to rights, I’m not a believer in them:
    http://strike-the-root.com/life-without-rights
    It is will that we should be talking about, not the imaginary rights.