Make your own free website on Tripod.com
« February 2010 »
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
and now, Benton?
Chamish
Constitutional
Economy, what's left of
General politics
general rant/rave
Kennewick Illegal
Legal actions
Richland illegal
Seattle illegal
Second-Amendment
WA Illegal
WA media anti 2A bias
Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
RSS Feed
View Profile
Dave's 2A Blog
Sunday, 14 February 2010
WARNING-WARNING- DANGER-DANGER Initiatives I-1059, 1060, 1061, 1062, 1063, 1064, 1065
Topic: Constitutional

GREAT ideas behind them, but these Initiatives are so POORLY WRITTEN as to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL themselves, or void, or subject to attack in the Courts.

 READ THEM CAREFULLY BEFORE SIGNING THEM. Read them on the front page here:

http://second-amendment.tripod.com 

 Yes, there is ample word-smithing and joking around on this Blog, but that is all set aside now for the following statement:

"There is a SERIOUS lack of English literacy, communications and critical thinking skills in the State of WA and that is evident in these Initiatives."

Recall in grade school when wed turn a paper in and the Teacher would say:

"I know what you mean, but youre not writing it clearly..." 

Thats the problem with these Initiatives, they are copy-cats of other proposals (Intra-State firearms in Montana) but are so loaded up with useless verbage and un-Constitutional provisions to render them, in my opinion, MORE DANGEROUS than the mess we have now.

Example from I-1065, Greenhouse gas Initiative

 "(5) "Toxic greenhouse gas" means any greenhouse gas that multiple
confirmatory scientific studies have proven beyond a reasonable doubt
is directly toxic to life under normal circumstances."

Whats wrong:

a.) There is no such thing as "greenhouse gasses" because that presumes the greenhouse effect is correct, thus the term. Vague, contradictory, void

b.) CO sub-2 IS TOXIC, try BREATHING IT for a few minutes. A "few minutes" is all you can breathe it, then ye shall be DEAD, because CO-2 is DEADLY TOXIC to humans:

Websters: 

Main Entry: 1tox·ic Pronunciation: \ˈtäk-sik\Function: adjective

1 : containing or being poisonous material especially when capable of causing death or serious debilitation <toxic waste> <a toxic radioactive gas> <an insecticide highly toxic to birds>

HUMANS CANNOT LIVE WHEN BREATHING CO-s therefore it is TOXIC. Since CO-2 is TOXIC, the language of this Initiative is null and void.

Example from I- 1059:

"(1) Any law-abiding citizen of Washington state has the right
under the United States and Washington state Constitutions to protect
themselves"

 NO, THEY DO NOT, because NEITHER CONSTITUTION grants Rights to Citizens. HAVE YOU READ THEM? If Rights are granted by the Constitutions, then the C.s can be AMENDED to remove those rights. EXTREMELY DANGEROUS. BOTH Constitutions FORBID Government from INFRINGING, they DO NOT GRANT RIGHTS.

READ THEM. 

another dangerous provision:

"(2) Any law-abiding citizen of Washington state has the right to
defend himself or herself, unless he or she is in the act of
committing a crime, without interference from federal or state
agencies."

Dangerous because:

a.) law is now presuming to grant rights, which it has no power to do

b.) all it takes to circumvent this is to declare possession of Arms a Crime and the Cities in WA are already attempting to do that - this is what Pre-Emption is about.

another:

 "(3) Law-abiding citizens of Washington state shall not have their
firearms, ammunition, or other means of ensuring their constitutional
rights of self-defense waived,"

Poorly written, the subject is incorrect. The premise is limiting the Fed from action in the State, but the subject is the WA Citizen. Again, THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, it is simply referenced in the Constitutions as something that Government SHALL NOT INFRINGE UPON.

The "law abiding" phrase is also dangerous, all thats needed to circumvent that is to declare all Citizens who own/possess firearms as criminals and this is voided. And again, the CITIES in WA State are trying to do that RIGHT NOW.

This one is particularly poorly written (I-1062)

"(1) The tenth amendment to the United States Constitution
guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to
the federal government elsewhere in the Constitution and reserves to
the state and people of Washington certain powers as they were
understood at the time that Washington was admitted to statehood in
1889. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract"

W-R-O-N-G. Have we ever READ the Tenth Amendment?

a.) It is not "tenth amendment" it is Tenth Amendment. We CAPITALIZE the Proper names of persons, places and things. We have people ILLITERATE of the rules of English crafting legislation! It is "States", not "states."

b.)  Powers are DELEGATED, not GRANTED. WORDS MEAN THINGS.

c.) powers are NOT granted to the "federal government"  - GO TRY TO FIND A "FEDERAL GOVERNMENT" in the Constution! IT IS NOT THERE. It is "not delegated to the United States." To cite "federal government" defeats the Constitutions and this Initiative because it re-defines the Constitution into something the Framers did not intend. The Constitution forbids certain actions on the United States, whether it is expressed in a federal government or not.

d.) why re-write the Tenth Amendment? Why not just CITE IT DIRECTLY.

"(2) The ninth amendment to the United States Constitution
guarantees to the people rights not granted in the Constitution"

IT DOES NOT. HAVE YOU EVER READ IT?   IM reading it right now, and the ORIGINAL, NOT A MADE UP VERSION. Here it is, QUOTED, not my opinion:

"The ENUMERATION in the Constitution of certain rights..."

IS NOT a creation of a right, it ENUMERATES  RIGHTS that exist elsewhere.

Heres another danger:

" (4) The second amendment to the United States Constitution
reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right
was understood at the time that Washington was admitted to statehood
in 1889, and the guaranty of the right is a matter of contract
between the state and people of Washington and the United States..."

Since when do the Constitutions hinge on UCC? Contract? I dont think so!

A contract is a legal construction. Our Constitutions are NOT bound by LAW.

"(5) Article I, section 24 of the Washington state Constitution
clearly secures to Washington citizens, and prohibits government
interference with, the right of individual Washington citizens to
keep and bear arms."

 NO, the Constitutions prohibit Government from INFRINGING, not "interfering." All it takes to circumvent this game is to define "interfering" in a way that is pleasing to the gun grabbers and  this is void.

"NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. (1) A personal firearm, a firearm accessory,
or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in
Washington and that remains within the borders of Washington is not
subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration,
under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce."

 Yeah, tell us something we dont know already. That protection ALREADY EXISTS, therefore there is NO PLACE for law to stick its nose in the matter.

"The authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms,"

Since WHEn does the WA Legislature have the authority to circumvent the US Constitution and tell Congress, elected of, by and for the People, what its authority is? That topic is already defined in the US Constitution. Why state the obvious?

This is UNCONSTITUTIONAL in iteself:

" (2) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to:
(a) A firearm that cannot be carried and used by one person;
(b) A firearm that has a bore diameter greater than one and one-
half inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a
propellant;
(c) Ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion
of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or
(d) A firearm, other than a shotgun, that discharges two or more
projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing
device." 

This prohibits frangible ammunition, which is currently not regulated.

WHERE IN EITHER CONSTITUTION ARE THERE LIMITS ON THE NUMBER, TYPES or CAPACITIES OF THE ARMS THE PEOPLE BEAR?

They dont exist, and this is PROOF that these Initiatives are created by Subversives, for they act to SUBVERT BOTH CONSTITUTIONS:

Main Entry: sub·vert Pronunciation: \səb-ˈvərt\ Function: transitive verb


Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French subvertir, from Latin subvertere, literally, to turn from beneath, from sub- + vertere to turn — more at worth


Date: 14th century

1 : to overturn or overthrow from the foundation : ruin
2 : to pervert or corrupt by an undermining of morals, allegiance, or faith

The FOUNDATION of our Nation is /are the Constitutions, and these initiatives attack BOTH CONSTITUTIONS and attempt to subvert their limitations on government by placing the C.s within control of Law, where the GUN GRABBERS IN OLYMPIA can tear it down.

DANGER 

 Its not good enough to say that a Toyota accelerated and caused an accident, we have to say "why" and fix the problem. Here, the fixes are simple:

1.) Eliminate the attempts by whomever wrote these Initiatives to re-write History and sound intelligent, and just limit the wording to the matters at hand

2.) REPEALING ALL FIREARMS laws in required, because they ALL INFRINGE.

3.) Without flowerly language, dont play games with Sherriff First, just set it out straight:

'No Feds in our Sherriffs jurisdiction" without his permission. PERIOD.

4.) These Initiatives are as USELESS as existing Laws which dont work, because they carry no penalties for Govt violating them. Place specific, substantial CRIMINAL PENALTIES in them for anyone trampling on Citizens Rights.

You can tell these are bad Initiatives by two methods:

1.) the anti freedom gun grabbers in the Legislature will not object to them

2.) The CONSTITUTIONS ARE WITH RESPECT TO INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. These initiatives are not. They are about the States Rights, and the STATE HAS NONE. RIGHTS ARE RESERVED TO THE PEOPLE, NOT AN INCORPORATION UNDER LAW CALLED THE "STATE OF WASHINGTON."


Posted by Dave at 10:55 AM PST
Updated: Sunday, 14 February 2010 11:52 AM PST

View Latest Entries