From the January 2007 Idaho Observer:
The clause of all persecutions
All across the spectrum of political viewpoints, from liberal to conservative, one thing they agree on is the abuse of the "commerce clause" in the Constitution to create the federal police state and destroy state Sovereignty and the Individual Rights of The People.
There is also widespread understanding that it is the federal Courts who are at the root of this problem for their failure to uphold the Constitution, or rather their direct subversion of it to institute their own social engineering agenda. In cases like U.S. v White Plume 447 F.3d 1067 (8th Cir. 2006), Senior Circuit Judge C. Arlen Beam writes: "[Defendants/Appellants] ask this court to be the first to find that farming and, by extension, farming hemp, is a fundamental right subject to strict scrutiny protection under the Fifth Amendment..."
If ever there was a more fundamental purpose for property rights at common law, it is the right to farm ones own food and clothing and building materials since the concept of "private" property ever came into existence, yet neither Judge Beam nor our Supreme Court have ever recognized this fact or much of the rest of the purposes and premises for the Ninth Amendment protections which apply to Rights which We The People preserved for ourselves.
Instead, Judge Beam writes: "We must refuse to infringe on the legislative prerogative of enacting statutes to implement public policy. The problems of public policy are for the legislature and our job is one of interpreting statutes, not of drafting them."
So, it is clear that the courts are no longer interested in our rights, but rather now act only as extensions of the executive branch and fully abdicate their true fundamental purpose as our guardians. In this way, they act by neglect of their duty, to be rubber stampers of wildly-treasonous usurpations of our Rights and subversions of our true form of government. The "commerce clause" is now expanded to allow persecution of the people if ANYTHING you "use" or "possess" involved the crossing of State lines at any time.
U.S. v. Smith 459 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2006) upheld an expansion of the federal jurisdiction in a pornography case to prosecute someone because the camera and/or film or their components crossed state lines prior to their entirely intrastate use to take pornographic pictures.
Soon, if not already, we will see the case which grants federal jurisdiction simply because the shoes you wear were made in China.
Norman David Somerville
Commerce clause prisoner, Lexington, Kentucky
From the May 2007 Idaho Observer:
Court affirms 2nd Amendment confers individuals’ right to keep and bear arms
Decision gives Unmistakable Tyranny Project a boost
BELLEVUE, WashingtonThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied a petition from the District of Columbia for a hearing of Parker v. District of Columbia [D.C. Cir., No. 047041] before the full court was "right and proper," said Alan M. Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation. "This is a strong signal that the D.C. Court of Appeals, which is the second most powerful court in the country, feels the original ruling by Senior Judge Laurence H. Silberman is solid," Gottlieb stated. "It is now up to the district to accept the ruling and begin the process of licensing handguns to be kept legally in district residences, or to appeal the case to the Supreme Court."
The Parker case has become the most significant Second Amendment case in the nation’s history, because for the first time, a gun control law was struck down on the grounds that it violated the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Judge Silberman’s ruling found that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to bear arms that goes beyond service in a militia. "The time is long past due for the Supreme Court to hear a case that has such gravity in terms of the Second Amendment and its true meaning," Gottlieb observed. "For almost 70 years, a state of confusion has existed over whether the Second Amendment protects an individual’s civil right, as we are certain it does, rather than affirming some convoluted ‘collective right’ of the states to form militias. That interpretation has been carefully fabricated over the years by anti-gun zealots whose ultimate goal is to strip American citizens of their firearms rights.
"We think this question must be answered," he continued, "to forever silence those gun control extremists who have been misinterpretingwe believe deliberatelythe 1939 U.S. v Miller case in an on-going effort to destroy the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights, and the foundation for liberty in this country. This appears to be the right case, and this is certainly the right time."
The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nations oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. On behalf of American gun owners, SAF previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco. SAF also filed lawsuits against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.
Note: At the request of 2nd Amendment prisoner Norman David Somerville, The IO sent Judge Silberman a copy of "Unmistakable Tyranny" (go to www.inmatehope.com and click on "publications)) in December, 2006. Somerville compiled and edited Unmistakable Tyranny, a compendium of historical and contemporary opinions and rulings by authoritative bodies to answer the question, "Does the 2nd Amendment confer individuals’ right to keep and bear arms or does it provide a collective right held by the state?"
Unmistakable Tyranny proves that the right belongs to individuals and is not to be "infringed" upon by the state. Until Judge Silberman’s March 9, 2007 ruling (upheld under appeal by the full court May 8, 2007) the federal judiciary was consistently upholding "collectivist right" claims argued by the U.S. Department of Justice. Did Unmistakable Tyranny have any bearing on Judge Silberman’s ruling? Has the fact that key jurists, politicians, attorneys, 2nd Amendment prisoners and activists have received copies of Unmistakable Tyranny contributed to the court’s about face on the people’s right to defend themselves?
It is hard to say, though the timing is interesting.
One could say that the 2nd Amendment issue is "ripe" for the Supreme Court: In the wake of the Virginia Tech massacre, people are beginning to think that responsible, law-abiding people should be armed because the streets are obviously not safer when only cops and criminals have guns. Consider being part of the Unmistakable Tyranny Project. (see page 24)
From the April 2006 Idaho Observer:
The Unmistakable Tyranny Project will soon have a website. Currently, anyone wishing to contact the Project can email us at email@example.com. We are seeking a couple extra helpers to answer emails and service the website. There is also the opportunity for contributions of research material to include in the Compendium (a compilation of right-to-keep-and-bear-arms-related documents) so if anyone has something they feel is especially important in the proof of Individual Rights under the Second Amendment, please contact us immediately with your information.
If people email their inquiries to their U.S. Congressmen and U.S. Senators regarding Individual Rights versus collective rights theory, please feel free to send a copy of your emails to the Project. We will attempt to keep track of which Congressmen and Senators are ducking the issue and not answering their constituents. Good Quality COLOR scans of letters from U.S. Congressmen and U.S. Senators or other Government Officials, either currently in office or formerly in office, can be emailed to the Project. It is best to use the U.S. mail to send copies of important letters since email may be overflowing in our email box. The address is Norman David Somerville, c/o PO Box 940, Worthington, Ohio 43085.
This is a very popular issue to deal with. The website will soon have a copy of the documents included in the Compendium and, shortly thereafter, we will begin posting the letters from Congress which we have received. The first 200 letters we receive will likely be included in the printed version of The Unmistakable Tyranny Compendium which will be served on the Federal Judges and Congressmen. The website will also have some information on Federal Rules of Evidence which may allow others to use the Compendium as evidence in their defense in court. Thank you very sincerely for the great article you wrote about The Unmistakable Tyranny Project in your last issue.
Norman David Somerville
From the March 2006 Idaho Observer:
Whose 2nd Amendment rights shall not be infringed?
Norman David Somerville is serving time in federal prison for violating some gun law though he did not use guns in the commission of a real crime. Is he "guilty" of a criminal act or wrongfully imprisoned? The answer depends upon whether or not the U.S. Constitution is the law of the land and if the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers individuals’ rights to keep and bear (possess) firearms or grants a collective right for the states to keep, bear and possess firearms. In pursuit of a definitive answer for contemporary times, Somerville has been methodically building a portfolio of evidence to prove his belief that the Second Amendment confers an individual right for citizens to keep, possess and bear arms. He has organized an impressive compilation of his evidence into a bound volume. Soon, he plans to forward copies of the evidence to members of the federal judiciary. But first, he wants to collect from members of Congress their answers to a simple question: "Whose rights to keep and bear arms are guaranteed by the Second Amendment: Those of law-abiding citizens individually or those of the states generally?" We have been corresponding with Somerville on this project and his plans have been carefully considered. We expect a definitive point of law will result from this 2nd Amendment project where previous attempts have merely generated political opinions.
THE UNMISTAKABLE TYRANNY PROJECT
This project aims to reconcile the difference between what our U.S. congressmen, U.S. senators, U.S. presidents, history books and media commentators over the first 150 years or more of our national history have said regarding the meaning of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution versus what the federal judges are now claiming. Is the Second Amendment conferring an "individual" right to the People, or is it granting a "collective" right to the states and NO RIGHTS whatsoever to the People to possess arms? Please contribute to this project by writing ALL U.S. senators and representatives in your state and ask them the following question:
"Does the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confer an individual right to the People to keep and bear (possess) firearms or does the Second Amendment only grant to the several states a collective right to keep and bear (possess) firearms?"
Please forward good quality copies of your query letters and the congressional reply letters to:
N. David Somerville
c/o PO Box 940
Worthington, Ohio 43085.
Your reply will be used as evidence to resolve this question. Anyone who already has a letter from a U.S. senator or representative which clearly states that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to the People is urgently requested to send good quality copies to the address indicated. Please do your part to contribute to this project to restore the rights granted to the People. Your efforts will benefit all the People. Thank you for your Patriotism.
~Norman David Somerville
Larry E. Craig 3/12/06
United States Senate
520 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-1205
Dear Senator Craig:
Does the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confer an individual right to the People to keep and bear (possess) firearms or does the Second Amendment only grant to the several states a collective right to keep and bear (possess) firearms?
PO Box 457
Spirit Lake, Idaho 83869
[Note: This letter, on Idaho Observer letterhead, was also sent 3/13/06 to the rest of the Idaho congressional delegation: Sen. Mike Crapo, Rep. Butch Otter and Rep. Mike Simpson. (DWH)]