N O R M A N
D A V I D
S O M E R V I L L E
Ron Paul's

SECOND AMENDMENT PRISONER "GUILTY" OF OWNING GUNS

‘‘No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements).’’
— Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution
(with his note added), 1776. Papers 1:353

MY COMMENTARY ON THE D.C v. HELLER CASE
SOMERVILLE v BOP WIN !
MOTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT
Email Me here
or Write Me Snail Mail to:

Norman David Somerville
11612-040 Younity
Federal Medical Center
P.O. Box 14500
Lexington, KY 40512

UNMISTAKABLE
TYRANNY BOOK
Read what the press is saying about my book "UNMISTAKABLE TYRANNY" click here Click here
PETITION FOR
IMPEACHMENT
Download the Petition and make your stand against judges violating their constitutional oaths
PRESS
"ORGANIZED CRIME"
IN FEDERAL COURTS
Misconduct Complaint
CONGRESSIONAL
LETTERS
Check out my documentation of Organized Crime in the U.S. District Court for The Western District of Michigan and the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals
ELLIOT-SENATOR BUNNING
PRO SE APPELLANT'S
BRIEF - 6th Circuit
MY FAVORITE LINKS
MY AFFIDAVIT
MY CARTOONS
2255 MEMORANDUM
Commentary on D.C. v. Heller caselaw
MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT
Update on D.C. v. Heller caselaw

  George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and our many founding fathers are characterized by our modern U.S government and police state sub-agencies as Terrorists because the founders fought to give the people freedom, liberty, and honest government -- principles which our current government is desperate to destroy.

Please download Unmistakable Tyranny. It is a compendium of documents and my review of case law showing how the People's Second Amendment rights to Keep and Bear ARMS have long been stolen by treasonous federal judges through rulings based on pure fraud known as "Collective Rights Theory".

Please print, sign, and circulate a Petition to impeach federal judges who promoted the treasonous fraud of Collective Rights Theory and file it with your U.S. Congressman.

Our founding fathers intended for the people to Keep and Bear ARMS for their defense as well as to "resist and throw off a tyrannical government". Do we have a tyrannical U.S. Government today?  Can we the people "legally" possess ARMS capable of "resisting" the U.S. Government?  It's pretty clear why the U.S. Government doesn't obey what the U.S. Constitution says or what the people want then isn't it.

Recently the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit confirmed that the Second Amendment does protect an individual right of the people which is meant to provide for the ability to "resist and throw off a tyrannical government" by force of ARMS.  See Parker, et al v. D.C. (2007). Many honest congressmen and historians agree with this. If the people have the right to throw off a tyrannical government, then they have a right to possess the ARMS to do so, as our founders intended.  What do you think?  If we have the right to throw off such a tyrannical government, then do we also have the right to contemplate it and discuss it with others?  What do you think?

Currently, no American has any more “RIGHTS”to own ANY ARMS, or guns, than convicted felons.  What do you think about this?  Write me.

A special thank you to all my friends who have written and supported me and the Unmistakable Tyranny Project.  Special thanks to Republic Broadcasting Network for their support. Special thanks also to Rick Stanley and friends for their support.

PLEASE JOIN THE UNMISTAKABLE TYRANNY PROJECT TODAY!

RESTORE THE PEOPLE'S RIGHTS UNDER THE SECOND AMENDMENT!

CONTACT THE IDAHO OBSERVER NEWSPAPER WWW.IDAHO-OBSERVER.COM TO JOIN THE PROJECT.

PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO THE IDAHO OBSERVER NEWSPAPER

YOU CAN IMMEDIATELY SUPPORT THE PROJECT BY COPYING THIS NOTICE AND POSTING IT IN YOUR BLOG OR ON YOUR WEBSITE OR ANY MESSAGE BOARD!

UNMISTAKABLE TYRANNY

A compendium documenting the Tyranny and Treason of the United States federal judges willfully subverting the lawful form of government and defense of the United States and the theft of rights retained by the people under the Second Amendment.

Download this book for free by clicking here or by going to somerville.inmatehope.com

For a printed copy for yourself or Second Amendment prisoner, or to join the unmistakable tyranny project, please contact the Idaho Observer newspaper ad: www.Idaho-observer.com

PLEASE SUPPORT IMPEACHMENT OF ALL FEDERAL JUDGES WHO PROMOTE THE TREASONOUS FRAUD OF "COLLECTIVE RIGHTS THEORY".  PLEASE SIGN AND CIRCULATE A PETITION.

The U.S. Supreme Court addresses the Rule of Stare Decisis in Neal v. U.S., 516 US 284, 133 L.ed.2d 709, 719.:(1996):

Our reluctance to overturn precedents derives in part from institutional concerns about the" relationship of the Judiciary to Congress. One reason that we give great weight to Stare Decisis in the area of statutory construction is that "Congress is free to change this Court's interpretation of its legislation." Illinois  Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 US 720, 736, 52 L Ed 2d 707, 97 S.Ct 2061 (1977). We have over­ruled our precedents when the intervening development of the law has "removed or weakened the conceptual underpinnings from the prior decision, or where the later law has rendered the decision irreconcilable with competing legal doctrines or policies." Patterson v. McLean Credit  Union, 491 US 164, 173, 105 L Ed 2d 132, 109 S Ct 2363 (1989) (citations omitted). Absent those changes or compelling evidence bearing on Congress' original intent...our system demands that we adhere to our prior interpretations of statutes.

As a matter of law, the Supreme Court has determined that Stare Decisis precedents may be overturned when Congress has acted to change the Court’s interpretation of its legislation, and when the intervening development of the law has removed or weakened the conceptual underpinnings from the prior decision, and when later law has rendered the Stare Decisis decision irreconcilable with competing legal doctrines or policies. These are, in fact and law, "exceptional circumstances" defined by the Supreme Court.

As noted by Somerville in his 2255 Motion, the PLCAA, codified at Title 15 USC § 7901(a)(1), (a)(2), reads:

§ 7901. Findings; purposes

(a) Findings. Congress finds the following:

(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Consti tution provides that:the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Consti­tution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.

The Stare Decisis decision which this district court defends, (Bournes), claims the "collective rights theory" of the Second Amendment. In the PLCAA, as noted above, as a matter of enacted law, "Congress has acted to change th[e] Court's inter­pretation of its legislation." The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has ONLY ONE MEANING; it has had that SAME MEANING since the Constitution was adopted. When Congress claims the above "individual rights" meaning of the Second Amendment, such a meaning MUST stretch all the way back to its adoption in 1789. As such, this same meaning is intended to be applied to all of the Congress' enactments, including the enactment of 18 USC § 922(o).

When Congress enacted the PLCAA, it did so knowing full well how the Courts, such as the Sixth Circuit, were interpreting the Second Amendment:

Congress is presumed to be aware of existing legal precedent and to take it into consider­ation when it enacts legislation. Cannon v.  University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 696-97, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 195758, 60-L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).

Kaufman v. Carter, 952 F.Supp. 520, 530.(W.D. Mich. 1996). enacting the Individual Rights meaning of the Second Amendment into its legislation, Congress deliberately acted to change the  Court's interpretation of its legislation AWAY from the "collec­tive rights theory" interpretation.

This enactment of Congress (15 USC § 7901(a)(2))'has rendered the Stare Decisis decision irreconcilable with this com­peting legal doctrine. The courts must reconcile upholding 18 USC § 922(o) using the collective- rights theory, with upholding 15 USC § 7901 et seq, using Individual Rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment has only ONE meaning. By enacting 15 USC § 7901(a)(2), the Congress has removed or weakened the conceptual underpinnings from the prior Stare Decisis decision in Bournes.

Where have we ever seen Congress enact and codify a collective rights theory interpretation of the Second Amend­ment in Findings used to interpret its "gun control" legislation? Congress has clearly acted to change the Court's interpretation of its legislation.

In cases where statutory precedents have been overruled, the primary reason for the Court's shift in position has been the intervening development of the law, through either the growth of judicial doctrine or further action taken by Congress. Where such changes have removed or weakened the conceptual underpinnings from the prior decision ,…,or where the later law has rendered the decision irreconcilable with competing legal doctrines or policies,..., the Court has not hesitated to overrule an earlier decision. (citations omitted)

Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 US 164, 173, 105 L.Ed.2d 148. The Supreme Court has said that further action taken by Congress in the development of the law, (such as the enactment of the PLCAA), is a primary reason to overrule an earlier decision. The Patterson opinion propounds this even further:

Another traditional justification for overruling a prior case is that a precedent may be a positive detriment to coherence and consistency in the law,..., or because the decision poses a direct obstacle to the realization of important objectives embodied in other laws,...

Patterson 105 L.Ed.2d at 148. The Sixth Circuit's Bournes precedent, based upon its U.S. v. Warin (6th Cir. 1976) precedent, both of which are based on "collective rights theory", are a positive detriment to coherence and consistency in the law and they pose a direct obstacle to the realization of important  objectives embodied in other laws, such as the PLCAA.

* * * * * * * *

Among the most frightening aspects of the Parker v. D.C. opinion by Senior Judge Laurence H. Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, is this portion from 478 F.3d 394-395:

Miller's definition of the "Militia," then, offers further support for the individual right interpretation of the Second Amendment. Attempting to draw a line between the ownership and use of "Arms" for private purposes and the ownership and use of "Arms" for militia purposes would have been an extremely silly exercise on the part of the First Congress if indeed the very survival of the militia depended on men who would bring their commonplace, private arms with them to muster. A ban on the use and ownership of weapons for private purposes, if allowed, would undoubtedly have had a deleterious, if not catastrophic, effect on the readiness of the militia for action. We do not see how one could believe that the First Congress, *395 when crafting the Second Amendment, would have engaged in drawing such a foolish and impractical distinction, and we think the Miller Court recognized as much.

* * * * * * *

To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for

activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be bared from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.

The opinion above devastates the Brady type gun-banners and the Federal judges who have been subverting the Second Amendment with the FRAUD of 'collective rights theory'. This truth, if widely publicized in the corporate mainstream government propaganda machine would destroy years of public brainwashing that gun possession is bad. The references to a tyrannical government as one of the purposes for the people bearing arms must strike fear in the federal alphabet mafia's like BATF.

It certainly is curious why it has taken 70 years for this matter to come to the Supreme Court, in a case such as D.C. v. Heller 07-290. One reason may easily be seen in the deceptive activities of the National Rifle Association. Most folks, like me, were raised to believe that the NRA was THE organization that was out to defend the people from the tyrannical depredations of the people's rights by the Congress and the Courts. However, a review of these matters shows that the NRA has been no dedicate proponent of the Second Amendment. The WIKIPEDIA website that the Involvement of the National Rifle Asscolation acted as an OBSTRUCTION-to the case of Parker v. D.C. which brought the fine opinion above from Judge Silberman in favor of the people's Individual Rights protected by the Second Amendment. The website is quoted as follows as of 11/3/2007:

District of Columbia v. Heller

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Shelly Parker, et al. v. District of Columbia and Adrian M. Fenty

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Argued December 7, 2006

Decided March 9, 2007

Full case name: Shelly Parker, Dick Anthony Heller, Tom G. Palmer, Gillian St. Lawrence, Tracey Ambeau and George Lyon v. District of Columbia and Adrian M. Fenty, Mayor of the District of Columbia
Citations: 478 F.3d 370, 2007 WL 702084
Docket #: 04-7041
Prior history: Lawsuit dismissed, 311 F.Supp.2d 103 (D.D.C. 2004)
Subsequent history: Certiorari granted, hearing in March, 2008.
Holding
The statutes as applied are unconstitutional.
Court membership
Circuit Judges Karen L. Henderson, Thomas B. Griffith and Laurence H. Silberman
Case opinions
Majority by: Silberman
Joined by: Griffith
Dissent by: Henderson
Laws applied
U.S. Const. Amend. 2; D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4), § 22-4504, § 7-2507.02

Shelly Parker, et al. v. District of Columbia and Adrian M. Fenty, 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007), appeal pending sub nom. District of Columbia v. Heller and Shelly Parker, et al. v. District of Columbia and Adrian M Fenty), is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit became the first federal appeals court in the United States to strike down a firearm ban for reasons based on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the second to interpret the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right to firearms for private use. The first case interpreting the Amendment as providing protection of an individual right was United States v. Emerson 5th Cir. (2001).

The 2-1 decision in Parker struck down parts of the District of Columbia Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, which is a local law enacted pursuant to District of Columbia home rule. The law is controversial because it limited the ability of residents to own side arms (excluding those grandfathered in by registration prior to 1975). This law restricted residents, except active and retired law enforcement officers, from owning handguns, while also requiring that rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded, disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock."[1]

In April 2007, the District and Mayor Adrian Fenty petitioned for a rehearing from the full court of appeals on the grounds that the ruling creates inter- and intra-jurisdictional conflict.[2] On May 8, 2007, the Federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit denied the request to rehear the case, by a 6-4 vote.

Supreme Court review

Both the defendants and the plaintiffs petitioned the United States Supreme Court to hear the case. The questions posed for review by the petitioner (the District of Columbia) differed significantly from those posed by the respondent (Heller). The District of Columbia's petition stated that the question presented was, "Whether the Second Amendment forbids the District of Columbia from banning private possession of handguns while allowing possession of rifles and shotguns." Heller replied that the question was broader, to wit, "Whether the Second Amendment guarantees law-abiding, adult individuals a right to keep ordinary, functional firearms, including handguns, in their homes." As discussed below, the Supreme Court adopted neither question, but came closer to the question posed by Heller in framing the question to include review of the District's prohibitions against possession of all types of firearms, and not just handguns.

On September 4, 2007 the District of Columbia and Mayor Fenty petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn a portion of the lower court's ruling. The Washington Post noted that most legal experts believed the Supreme Court would likely accept the case. Now that the Court has granted certiorari, this will likely be the first time since the 1939 case United States v. Miller that the Supreme Court has directly addressed the scope of the Second Amendment.[3]

On September 10, 2007, five of the original plaintiffs in the case cross-petitioned the Supreme Court to reinstate their legal claims against the District. The appellate court ruling held that of the original six plaintiffs, only Heller had the necessary standing to challenge the law. The five plaintiffs other than Heller now ask that the court restore their case against the district. [4]

On November 20, 2007 the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.[5] The court has rephrased the question be decided as follows:

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?

It is expected that the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case in March 2008, and will publish its decision in the summer of 2008.

Summary of the circuit court decision

The Court first addresses whether appellants have standing to sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in section II (slip op. at 5–12). The Court concludes that Heller (who applied for a handgun permit but was denied) has standing.

Essentially, the appellants claim a right to possess what they describe as "functional firearms", by which they mean ones that could be "readily accessible to be used effectively when necessary" for self-defense in the home. They are not asserting a right to carry such weapons outside their homes. Nor are they challenging the District's authority per se to require the registration of firearms.[6]

The Court's summary of its substantive ruling on the right protected by the second amendment is given on page 46 of the slip opinion (at the end of section III):

To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.

The Court concluded that "Once it is determined - as we have done - that handguns are 'Arms' referred to in the Second Amendment, it is not open to the District to ban them" while at the same time allowing reasonable regulation: "That is not to suggest that the government is absolutely barred from regulating the use and ownership of pistols. The protections of the Second Amendment are subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment."

Involvement of the National Rifle Association

The attorneys involved in litigating the case have stated that the NRA acted as an obstruction. Attorney Alan Gura has commented on the NRA's "sham litigation" to have Parker consolidated with NRA controlled litigation, and stated that "the NRA was adamant about not wanting the Supreme Court to hear the case".[7] Cato Institute senior fellow Robert Levy, co-counsel to the Parker plaintiffs, has stated that the Parker plaintiffs "faced repeated attempts by the NRA to derail the litigation."[8]

Elaine McArdle wrote in the Harvard Law Bulletin that the case may have been crafted with the help of proponents of the individual-rights view of the Second Amendment to be a straightforward case that would be difficult for the Supreme Court to avoid hearing." The NRA did eventually support the litigation by filing an amicus brief with the Court arguing that the plaintiffs in Parker had standing to sue and that the D.C. ban was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.[9]

Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, has indicated support of federal legislation which would repeal the D.C. gun ban rendering the Parker case moot, and effectively eliminate the possibility that the case would be heard by the Supreme Court.[10]

Involvement of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is opposed to the arguments made by the plaintiffs in Parker, and filed amicus briefs against those arguments in both the District and Circuit courts.

Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign, has suggested to D.C. that it modify its gun laws rather than appeal to the Supreme Court. [11] Helmke has written that if the Supreme Court upholds the Circuit court ruling, it "could lead to all current and proposed firearms laws being called into question." [12]

Summary of dissent

In dissent, Judge Henderson wrote:

To sum up, there is no dispute that the Constitution, case law and applicable statutes all establish that the District is not a State within the meaning of the Second Amendment. Under United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, the Second Amendment's declaration and guarantee that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" relates to the Militia of the States only. That the Second Amendment does not apply to the District, then, is, to me, an unavoidable conclusion.[13]

Commentary

Various experts have expressed opinions on this decision.

Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe contends that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, and predicted that if Parker is reviewed by the Supreme Court "there’s a really quite decent chance that it will be affirmed."[9]

Duke Law School Professor Erwin Chemerinsky argued that the District of Columbia's handgun laws could be justified even under an "individual rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment, and that the ruling therefore had "no basis in constitutional law" and that the ruling does not answer the question as to the level of scrutiny to be used in evaluating gun control laws. Chemerinsky believes that the regulation of guns should be treated similar to other regulation of property under modern constitutional law and be allowed so long as it is rationally related to achieving a legitimate government purpose.[14]

Cato Institute senior fellow Robert Levy, co-counsel to the Parker plaintiffs, agreed with the court's ruling but describes that his interpretation of the Second Amendment would not preclude all governmental regulation of private ownership of weapons:

Even the NRA concedes that you can’t have mad men running around with weapons of mass destruction. So there are some restrictions that are permissible and it will be the task of the legislature and the courts to ferret all of that out and draw the lines. I am sure, though, that outright bans on handguns like they have in D.C. won’t be permitted. That is not a reasonable restriction under anybody’s characterization. It is not a restriction, it’s a prohibition.[15]

Involved attorneys

Walter E. Dellinger of the law firm O'Melveny & Myers will argue the city's side before the Supreme Court. Mr. Dellinger will be assisted by Thomas Goldstein of the Akin Gump law firm, Robert Long of the Covington and Burling law firm and D.C. Solicitor General Todd Kim. The law firms assisting the city are working pro bono.[16]

Alan Gura, of the the DC Based law firm Gura & Possessky, is lead counsel for Mr. Heller and will be arguing on his behalf before the Supreme Court.[17] Bob Levy, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and Clark Neily, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, are his co-counsel.[18]

References

  1. ^ "D.C. Asks Supreme Court to Back Gun Ban" by Robert Barnes and David Nakamura, The Washington Post, September 4, 2007
  2. ^ Petition for rehearing en banc for the District of Columbia
  3. ^ "D.C. Asks Supreme Court to Back Gun Ban" by Robert Barnes and David Nakamura, The Washington Post, September 4, 2007
  4. ^ " Citizens in Gun Challenge Ask Supreme Court to Reinstate Their Case Against the District of Columbia" Press Release, September 10, 2007
  5. ^ "High Court to Hear D.C. Gun Ban Case" by Robert Barnes, Washington Post November 20, 2007
  6. ^ Page 4 of the decision
  7. ^ NRA Had High Court Misgivings, Debra Cassens Weiss, ABA Journal, July 30, 2007
  8. ^ Levy, Robert A. "Should Congress or the courts decide D.C. gun ban’s fate?", The Washington Examiner, April 3, 2007.
  9. ^ a b Lawyers, Guns and Money, Elaine McArdle, Harvard Law Bulletin
  10. ^ Opening Shots, Jennifer Rubin, National Review Online, March 29, 2007
  11. ^ Washington Gun Ban Under Fire, Associated Press
  12. ^ Taking Aim at Judicial Activism, Helmke's blog at bradycampaign.org
  13. ^ Page III-17 of dissent.
  14. ^ A Well-Regulated Right to Bear Arms, Erwin Chemerinsky, The Washington Post, March 14, 2007]
  15. ^ Interview: The Way of the Gun, Leigh Ferrara, MotherJones.com, April 19, 2007
  16. ^ Gary Emerling. "Fenty arms self with new lawyer to defend gun ban", Washington Times, 2008-01-05
  17. ^ Linda Greenhouse. "Justices to Decide on Right to Keep Handgun", New York Times, 2007-10-21
  18. ^ "DCGunCase.com - About Us". 

Other references

External links

It should be clear that the American people have been deceived by the NRA, which seems to have its own interests operating ahead of the people it supposedly represents. The NRA is, according to the article above, currently working STILL, to derail the Supreme Court's opportunity to rule on the Second Amendment. If the collective rights theory vs. individual rights ordained under the Constitutions Original Intent is settled, then the NRA has no more purpose for existence. Their influence and sponsorship of vile and insidious legislation like the popularly known "VETERAN'S DISARMAMENT ACT" House Bill HR 2640, would come to an end, and so many of the Congress' gun-banning members would lose their best ally in the theft of the People's Rights. If you want to see TRUE supporters and defenders of the Second Amendment, look to the SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION which defended MR. Warin in the 1976 case of U.S. v. Warin in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, or Gun Owners of America. Its time to drop your NRA membership and join an organization that truly has our Second Amendment rights at heart instead of their own personal political power games.

I would also like to note that as my own case progresses thru the §2255 Motion, the government's attorney(s) have responded with the usual deceptions. My own MEMORANDUM (linked above for download) shows the importance and significance of the Opinion from Parker v. D.C., but the Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Michigan characterizes the Parker case as:

Petitioner alleges as Ground One of his 2255 Motion that 18 U.S.C. §922(o)(1) is unconstitutional. Petitioner relies upon the decision in Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F. 3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007). Parker, was a challenge of the District of Columbia's gun control statute which basically put a blanket ban on possession of handguns. The D.C. Circuit Court found the blanket ban unconstitutional. The Parker, court, however, said nothing about possession of machineguns. (18 U.S.C. §922(o)(1)), and certainly did not say that the federal prohibition against possesion of machineguns is unconsti­tutional.

This same issue was raised by Petitioner in both of his previous appeals, and the Court of Appeals denied this claim in both 05-1475/05-2441 and in 06-1734. Petitioner's claim should therefore be denied based on the law-of-the-case doc­trine, United States v. Moored, 38 F.3d 1419, 1421-22 (6th Cir. 1994) (a district court is precluded from revisiting an issue that was either expressly or implicitly decided by an appellate court).

You will notice that Parker is in no way only a case bearing upon handguns, and this matter is laid out in the HOLDINGS of the Parker court. Parker HELD that the Second Amendment is an INDI­VIDUAL RIGHT and you notice that the Asst. U.S. Atty. dares not even mention that; in fact, he runs for a procedural bar because he knows his case is totally DESTROYED if he must deal with the actual MERITS of the Petitioner's challenge, MERITS which the Parker Court CONFIRMED as noted above. The AUSA would like to make a monkey's ass out of the Judge just one more time before the Supreme Court rules on the Heller case. It is also good to note that when the 6th Circuit refused to give De Novo review to the Petitioner's Second Amendment challenge, they did so in violation of their own precedent/doctrine established in U.S. v. Suarez,"263 F.3d 468, 476 (6th Cir. 2001); this doctrine incor­porates the "due respect" command/doctrine often referred to by the 6th Circuit, which comes from the Supreme Court's various opinions, but particularly U.S. v. Morrison (2000); the 6th Circuit paid absolutely NO RESPECT to the passage of the Protec­tion of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and REFUSED to even acknowledge the statutory provisions at 15 U.S.C. §7901(a) - naturally it was just as convenient for the 6th Circuit to ignore such laws as it was for the U.S. Attorney, because if they did have to pay attention to this law, as they are supposed to, then once again, it would DESTROY their case against me. So, they violate their own precedents and rules as the need requires in order to impose their tyranny.

To press the issue just a little further, and show just how disingenuous and what a dis-service to the ends-of justice the AUSA's argument is regarding Parker, here is the Question pre­sented to the Supreme Court for review in the appeal in Heller:

"Do following provisions--D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02-- violate Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?

(underline emphasis added)

Now, if this case only involves handguns then where does the "and other firearms for private use" come into the case? And, why does the issue of 'state-regulated militia' come into the case except

to facilitate an answer to the INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS issue once and for all (as if the Founders and Framers did not say it all clearly enough to begin with).

* * * * * * * * * * *