Supreme Court Case - D.C. v. Heller

Commentary by Norman David Somerville -

APRIL 20, 2008: The Supreme Court heard Oral Arguments in the D.C. v. Heller case on March 18, 2008. Click on the link to read what the Justices and the attorneys said. My-appeal in the Sixth Circuit is being held in abeyance pending issuance of the Opinion in the Heller case. When the Supreme Court rules that the Second Amendment IS IN FACT securing an INDIVIDUAL :RIGHT to keep and bear Arms, than I may finally have an actual appeal of my so-called `conviction" for keeping and bearing Arms. The Sixth Circuit has been a founding sponsor of the Collective Rights Theory and has been a vehement proponent of it; this reflects their typical anti-Constitutional, anti-Bill of Rights, anti-Original Intent jurisprudence of the last several decades. Though their attitudes towards the Rights of the People will doubtless never change, the basis for their tyrannical opinions will have to be shaken up just a little in order to accommodate the true Original Intent of our Founding Fathers under the Individual Right understanding of the Second Amendment. I have no doubt that they will work feverishly under the 'new' (NOT!!!) understanding of the Second Amendment to claim that the statute I was convicted of violating is still constitutional. From reviewing the Supreme Court transcript, it is clear that all parties acknowledge that machine guns, i.e. assault rifles with automatic fire (like AK-47s, M-16's, L1A1's, etc.) are the Lineal Descendants of the Founding Father's muskets, and as such SHOULD have protection under the Second Amendment as the standard "commonplace" Arms of the Militia of the People. Unfortunately, you will also read that all parties are trying very hard to twist all the meanings of the words, YET AGAIN, to try to find some way to make it appear justifiable to continue banning these Arms in the hands of the People. Justice Scalia, often touted as an "Originalist", led the charge to attack machine guns and subvert the Founder's true intent under the Individual Rights understanding. Scalia tried to use the "commonplace" to claim it was unusual for the People to possess machine guns, and thus they should reasonably be banned. If it were not for 70 years of TREASON under the Collective Rights Theory allowing the Congress to violate and RAPE the Second Amendment, then indeed we would surely have machine guns just as commonly held by the People as "assault rifles" which have been reverse engineered to remove their selective-fire/full-auto capability. Even with 'laws' like 18 USC 922(o), the People have machine guns anyway, in very large numbers, despite Scalia's anti-Originalist rhetoric. The Associated Press recently compiled figures from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), reported in THE LONE STAR ICONOCLAST ( April 2, 2008 issue, page 4, shows the BATFE seized over 8,500 AK-47 machine guns LAST YEAR ALONE. If we all accept the fact that the Police State only touches the surface of the illegal things held by the People, such as mega-tons of illegal drugs, then it is reasonable to figure that there are many MILLIONS of machine guns held by the American People (in patriotic defiance of their treasonous government). If we accept the truth, then machine guns are really quite commonplace. Of the 100 or so people in the Michigan Militia who were aware of or involved with the machine guns in my case, none of them ever felt they were "uncommon". Justice Scalia is noted in a book by Joe Conason entitled "IT CAN HAPPEN HERE" (ISBN 978-0-7394-8645-0) on pages 71-72, as being an Idol of the Federalist Society membership and also of being willing to shift the Ideology and argumentation of Original Intent to suit the whimsy of the Republican Regime. It is clear from the Supreme Court transcript that Scalia is showing his true colors as a Fascist NeoCon undercover agent while clothing himself in Originalist pretense. Justice Breyer is already known for his hatred of Original Intent in his book "Active Liberty", so his attacks on the Individual Rights and Arms ownership were not surprising. When Justice Kennedy pressed for some admission that it was "reasonable to ban a shipment of machine guns" in interstate commerce, its easy to see that the Court is trying to continue to use the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section A3, Clause 3) to trump the Second Amendment despite the well understood fact that the Amendments are supposed to be superior to the Constitution, afterall, they "amend" it, and were put in place to protect the People from just such abuses. Even the Emerson decision in the Fifth Circuit concluded that the Founding Fathers would have never thought it proper to use the Commerce Clause to abridge keeping and bearing Arms under the Second Amendment. Recently the Sixth Circuit issued an Opinion in US v. Baylor Case No. 07-3002, wherein Judge Surheinrich admits in his Concurrence Opinion that: "The effect of our Court's rulings is that every local robbery of a business in the United States is a Federal Crime. However, I cannot believe that this is what the Founding Father intended." Persistence in the abuse of the Commerce Clause to extend the power of the Federal Government to treasonous lengths is now a hallmark of federal jurisprudence and Congressional Legislation.

* * * * * * * * * *