Second Amendment Author and Attorney Documents Lethal Government Actions

By David Codrea

Hardy is a recognized authority on the right to keep and bear arms, as well as an accomplished author, documentarian and attorney.
David Codrea in his natural habitat.

USA – -(Ammoland.com)- “Skyhorse Publishing is about to release my next book, which is devoted to great and fatal government-caused disasters. The title is …. ‘I’m From the Government, and I’m Here to Kill You: The Human Cost of Official Negligence,’” attorney and author David T. Hardy informed AmmoLand Shooting Sports News Thursday. “Texas City, the Tuskegee Syphilis study, Ruby Ridge, Waco, Fast and Furious, the VA hospital scandal – time after time, government employees kill Americans by negligence, stupidity, or agency corruption, and time after time they escape all legal accountability.”

Hardy’s should be a familiar name to longtime readers of this columnist’s work. His contributions to advancing the right to keep and bear arms have been chronicled extensively on The War On Guns blog, which has over the years featured numerous posts on his numerous books, his groundbreaking “In Search of the Second Amendment” documentary, his observations on the Of Arms & the Law blog, and his legal work, including cases and law review articles.

By way of complete disclosure, Mr. Hardy has represented my interests in legal actions to obtain information from the government and is part of what a U.S. Attorney who came on board during the Obama administration has pejoratively described as “a tangled web of connections between a small cadre of firearms activists.”

I’ll offer one other stipulation, just to make sure all cards are on the table so that any recommendations I make can be viewed with the appropriate skepticism the words of everyone with an agenda (admitted or otherwise) should be: I haven’t read the book.

Now available for pre-order.

That’s because it hasn’t been released yet.

“The publisher informs me that the book may be released 1-2 weeks before the official Amazon release date of October 10,” Hardy advises. “Amazon will begin shipping as soon as they receive the books, and October 10 only reflects the publisher’s guarantee that Amazon will have them by that date come hell or high water. The publisher tries to beat that date by a week or two.”

So why make noise about it now?

Because you can pre-order it. And because with some authors, I have confidence and faith based on past experience. So I’d like to start the buzz on this immediately, to prime gun owner rights advocates to be ready for the release by learning about the book now. As such, here are some resources you are invited to check out (and to share with those you think would be interested):

Note the website includes links to pre-order form Amazon and Barnes & Noble.

Also see:

Hardy's book is already attracting great reviews.

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

  • 65 thoughts on “Second Amendment Author and Attorney Documents Lethal Government Actions

      1. Shhhhhhhh… We aren’t supposed to say that name.

        Aside from that, Yes. The level of stupidity sure fits. I get the feeling he is a left coast junkie posting close to midnight over there. At least that is what I have gleaned based on his post times. It fits the time zone. I’ve been having fun frightening him with facts and common sense, but it may be time to stop all that. So here is a suggestion.

        Instead of superman, why don’t we call him Super Dud, since he was dead on arrival (As far as his posts go)

        1. Sounds about right to me. Perhaps he should remember the old adage, “Better to remain silent and be thought of as a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”

          1. Keep in mind, nothing is confirmed yet Joe. We have suspicions, and a Modus Operandi so far. Certain things like his tucking tail when confronted with concrete facts for example.

            In any case, right now, the more he talks the more proof we have, and the more opportunity to obliterate stated stupidity through factual evidence.

            1. @Wild Bill

              Not really. I’ve just studied psychology since a condition I have causes me to read and study constantly(Remember an old show called “The Pretender”? It’s kind of like that). Since it doesn’t shut off, I opted to turn a curse into a strength.

              It becomes really easy after a while, and causes no ends of fits for people like Clark Kent(superdud), the now retired canadian philosopher Geoff Smith, and others.

              By the by, I see XX has popped back up again. Wonder what he did to get off probation this time. He seems to have an unhealthy jealousy over your military service.

            2. @Oldvet
              True, but when you combine that with sentence structure, relative time as you pointed out, and little ticks or quirks it begins to fall into place. It is like a fingerprint. Sure, it can be mimicked to some extent, but most of the trolls here can barely grunt and fart at the same time.

              Just my two cents.

            3. @The Rev, that is like being jealous of a mule or some other beast of burden. I have to say, though, that I would be proud to hand the Teen Snot a short 2 x 4 and a gallon of diesel fuel, and put him on detail burning the $hit of any of our talented and skillful soldiers.

        2. @Rev …I have also ask him several questions , never got an answer. Wonder if he could tell me what disease a ham was cured of. Or if his wife still beats him?

          1. @Oldvet
            I use the latter all the time, though often I reword it to say the guy is beating his wife because of the stigma attatched. Most people can’t hold a straight face when you begin saying “Why are you avoiding the question, do you still beat your wife?” That first instinct is to defend yourself and say “I don’t do that”, and it completely ignores what the question actually was. When it is finally explained to them what a “Loaded Question is”, they stop trying to argue emotions with me.

            As for the hams, that’s easy.. Diabetes. You see, they are addicted to sugar. First it was honey, then brown sugar. The last couple years they have been on a Coca Cola and Doctor Pepper binge, often soaking in the stuff for hours like they are at a spa. It’s very tiring work I tell you.

            1. @Rev …Yes I reversed it just for him, since he probably only has a mommy. Thinking I feel a Oedipus complex, may explain his dislike of Wild Bill sensing a strong father figure.

            2. @Oldvet

              Yeah, except I don’t think he would understand the whole premise of a self fulfilling prophecy.

            3. @oldvet, extra team extra snot will have to look somewhere else for his father, wherever that fellow might be.

            4. My last should read, “… extra teen extra snot…” Either I fat fingered it or that sneaky little spell check ba$tard changed it quick like.

            5. @xx …I saw your post about a black militia coming out to keep the peace. If a black or any militia were out to keep the peace, I would say hell yeah. I would stand with such a militia just like I stood with black veterans!! That’s what we have been trying to tell you, it’s what’s in the heart and mind that matters!

    1. The below appearing paragraph is excerpted from the above article. Please take particular note of the quotation, from an unnamed U.S. Attorney. Speaking of “tangled webs”, how come no mention of the at least equally tangled web of connections that exists between those Anti Gun Activists, or is one to accept that “tangled webs” are to be found only among pro gun/pro gun rights people, or “activists”. By the way, while I could wrong here, how come it seems that this unnamed U.S. Attorney seems to attach a pejorative ring to the term “activist”, when such persons hold a view differing from the view he or she seems to hold?

      By way of complete disclosure, Mr. Hardy has represented my interests in legal actions to obtain information from the government and is part of what a U.S. Attorney who came on board during the Obama administration has pejoratively described as “a tangled web of connections between a small cadre of firearms activists.”

    2. I am ashamed to say that the government I swore to uphold and defend against all enemies both foreign and domestic has been going down the wrong road for far too long. I gave 20 years to my country, it has left me. I left my country because it left me, and now reside abroad. Until things change I shall never return.

      1. @Eaglesnester, Well, be ashamed no more! You never swore an oath the uphold and defend the government. Your oath was to “…defend the Constitution of the United states against all enemies, foreign and domestic…”! Those domestic enemies of the Constitution could end up being the people in the Congress, the Justices of the Supreme Court, the members of the Department of Homeland Security, FEMA, BLsM, the governor of Califirnia, the KKK, or the either of the political parties. You did not swear any oath to defend any of those a$$holes.

        1. @ Lower case gil, I am sure not but you did not say if you were pro-Second Amendment Civil Rights or against out God given Second Amendment Civil Rights, and that little bit of information would impact our answer.

            1. @WB… Sammy is growing like a weed . He gets mad at me when I have to leave him alone. He will find something to chew up. Maybe only a paper towel but something I have recently He likes to take my bath towels into the back yard etc. etc.

            2. @WB… Oh the not so little fart is smart, I caught him taking a towel the other day. He couldn’t take it thru the doggy door, so he went out then reached back inside and pulled the towel out.

          1. @WB…I wouldn’t name a dog Gil…now. If I had one named Gil I’d shave his butt and teach him to walk backward, then I would change his name.

      1. I’m sure you meant clinton and or obama. Maybe you meant obama hold overs from obama and clintons, in Trumps administration. President Trump to date has not had anyone killed like the clintons, obama or the democrap party. Just stating the facts and also the fact you are misguided or just a dumbass both of which are possible.
        Just another antifa, commy, islamist supporter or member you are.

    3. Just now placed my order for Mr. Hardy’s book. Thanks, David, for the heads up.
      I’ve heard too many times from government agencies of all levels, “We don’t have to answer to the people. We work for the government.” And, far more often than not, that’s exactly the case.
      [W3]

      1. Quoted eedjit above fails to recall that government ARE the people, and people ARE government. His fatal mistake, rampant in government employy circles, is the failure to realise that, since WE write his checks, he IS acccountable to us.

        Only by holding their feet to the fire will this change. And books like this, weritten by men like this, and announced by men like David, can be powerful tools to promote that foot holding……..

        1. So you can write a check to your church as an offering. Does that mean your pastor/priest/rabbi is accountable to you? THINK before you post. And LEARN TO SPELL CORRECTLY!

          1. Stupid analogy! Government works for the people as an employee whereas your pastor/priest/Rabbi are in business for themselves ONLY!

            1. maybe YOURS does, but mine works for God… does His bidding regardless of what the people want for themselves… I might add he takes no salary, but works for his own living. He is NOT a hireling as yours seems to be. Not a stupid analogy at all. The honourable pastor/etc is NOT accountable to the people in that congregation, but to the God whom he directly serves. Should he hear from his people? Yes. But ONLY after he’s been busy about understanding what his true Boss is saying……

              Government, on the other hand, get their money from us (and certainly NOT a freewill offering.. it is taken at the point of a gun. Don’t think so? Try withholding what they claim is due…. and SEE who comes round to “readjust” your thinking and spending habits, and whilst you are examining his rather expensive and cute costume, make sure you check out what is mounted outside his clothing on his right hip. And some folks make jokes about the “fleecing of the flock”………

            2. @JH, I think that the exact opposite is true. Federal government judges, politicians, and high-level bureaucrats begin their federal government position with ordinary finances, and end their careers with extraordinary wealth. My pastor on the other hand, drives a Hyundai and will die a financially poor man. And religion is voluntary. The government is not voluntary.

          2. @Tio N, That is the problem: they are not accountable to We the people. What federal judge, bureaucrat, or politician can we recall when we find out that lobbyists have promised them jobs after they have created regulations beneficial to their corporation or donated millions to their campaign fund in exchange for beneficial tax laws, or made a ruling to their benefit?

          3. @Clark Kent

            Care to follow your own advice?

            “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” ~ The Declaration of Independence

            As you can see, from the very beginning of this nation our founding fathers/Framers held the government to be accountable to the ordinary citizen. Not just one government though, any and all types. So, in the spirit in which you have been self documenting your own apparent foolishness across Ammoland since you made landfall…..

            Think before you post.

    4. All government to the local level is no different than the Mafia. It’s just legalized extortion and murder. With the mafia it’s illegal. You may say that can’t be but every day you see it on the news. Police get away with murder, but not just them it’s at all levels to those that the government allows to carry weapons as part of their job. As far as the extortion, well I’m sure everyone has heard of speed traps and a Search Road Blocks. How about cities having to meet budget or new equipment, best way is to sic the police on the unsuspecting citizens. Forfeiture Laws, immenent domain laws. I could go on and on but I think you get the picture.

      1. So why don’t YOU become and police officer and show us all how it SHOULD be done? In other words, PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

        1. @ Clark kent
          Didn’t you tell Tionico to “Learn how to Spell”?

          Would you like to learn how to construct a proper sentence before further posts?

    5. It’s about time someone told this story. I have not seen first hand anyone who died at the hands of Federal bureaucrats, but I have seen dozens of cases where people’s lives were ruined at the hands of not just incompetent, but vindictive Federal bureaucrats. I’ve see Federal bureaucrats take bribes and use their authority to destroy public and private lands and property. I’ve listened to Federal bureaucrats brag about how they destroyed someone and how they wasted money because, “It’s only tax dollars and no one gives a damn what we do with it”. All of this I’ve seen and reported “through channels” and not a single individual working for the Federal government who has committed felony crimes openly, with enough evidence, including witnesses to convict in any court in the country, has ever gone to jail or been fined for their actions. I hope this book results in shutting this ongoing travesty of justice down or at least in the “draining of the bureaucratic swamp” to some extent.

      1. “I have not seen first hand anyone who died at the hands of Federal bureaucrats”

        Look up “Lavoy Finicum” any where (YouTube, Facebook, etc.).

          1. Yup. It was Oregon’s new governess, so sitting under VERY suspicious circumstances, that ordered Oregon State Police to “assist” the feds… illegal, I believe, and it was they who fired the known rounds that ended Mr. Finicum’s life. One County Sheriff was a part of that illegal ambush, and, it is now known, in spite of his adamant denials he DID in fact fire his duty weapon at Mr. Finicum at the same time. I haev not seen solid evidence as to whether any of his rounds hit or contributed to Mr. Finicum’s death, but he DID fire…. contrary to Department oolicy. Then lied about it.

            As far as I know, naught has been brought to bear upon any of these officers.

            One small “funny” thing: Mr. Finicum’s alledged nine mm handgun was not found until QUITE a bit later… his friends declare he was NOT armed, and there was no weapon in his hands as he exited the truck to draw fire away from his passengers, all of whim had previously been fired upon at an earlier also illegal roadblock/ambush.

            “Hi, we’re from the government and we’re here to kill you”, indeed!!! The PERFECT title for this book.

            1. Hey, D.A. and I do not mean district attorney, that happend under obama, you must be thick in the cranium.
              Did not happen under President Trump.
              The would be king obama your hero was on his self appointed illegal throne.
              No I do not mean anything about his birth certificate ( false as it may be), but the fact that one of his parents was not a American citizen as required by the Constitution and upheld, by the supreme court of the United States in 1928,( year may be off but decision is not ).
              One day, we will see your hero’s,the obama bunch, the clinton bunch and all those in both party’s the helped them, either directly or indirectly (doing nothing to try and stop them) violate the laws of our nation, in handcuffs and facing the strictest penalties required by law for the crimes of,Treason, murder, and dereliction of duty among just a few of the charges. Their commy, islamist, fascist, and socialist friends will be with them, for violating the same laws.
              Semper Fi!

            2. @Terry
              On Citizenship, most of our understanding of Law at our founding came from Blackstone’s Law by William Blackstone. There are people who are continually trying to dispute this and claim Emer de Vattel’s concepts as the source, but Vattel was Swiss, and the Framers were English, and would have been well studied and influenced by Blackstone. I have not seen any concrete evidence to support Vattel as the authoritarian on our citizenship clause.

              Now, the difference is this. Blackstone stated only one parent was needed to pass on citizenship to a child. Vattel claimed both parents had to be Citizens. This is very easy to understand if you understand the people claiming Vattel’s legitimacy, they want to say some people are not citizens.

              The point I am making is regardless of what the supreme court has ruled on, they have been mucking up the constitution for two hundred and twenty years, continuously getting decisions wrong when the answer is as plain as day. As sad as it is to say, Obama would have citizenship because of his mother, regardless of where he was born. The only question to that end for anyone who is worried about whether or not he could legally be president stems from his time in Indonesia and their laws for attending school, when he came back to the US and attended college the way in which he applied(Did he apply for non-resident aid, so forth and so on), and whether or not he ever renounced his citizenship.

              So can we please put the dog that Hillary Clinton created to bed? And on that note, +2 to strict punishment for politicians breaking the law.

            1. @ Revelator: you may be generally correct about Blackstone’s greater infliuence.. but don’t discount the FACT that they who framed our government had just been through a war with their former overlords, and had sen, firsthand, many instancs of divided loyalty within femilies and households. Recall, as well, that the world had recently witnessed a number of instances where a king and queen were of different natiinality, and there had been cases of divided loyalty within the same royal household, and some wars even touched off due to this. The Framers very wisely decided that, for our Chief Executive, it would be best to eliminate, as far as possible, any possiblility of such division of loyalty. By imposing the requirement of “Natural Born Citizen”, and defining that as the child of two citizen parents, the likelihood of this was minimised. When one considers the kinyun in light of this requirement, the wisdom of our Founders is clearly shown.

              Few realise this, bit it seems that a house divided is what led directly and proximally to the match touching off the powderkeg of the War for Independence. The COlonists had been aware for at least a decade that war was coming… and not looking forward to it. George Three had placed General Thomas Gage as not only the CinC of the British Regulars in North America, but also made him “governor” over all the colonies. THEN sent him orders to begin disarming the COlonists. Three “powder raids” of varying semi-success had occurred, and Gage had planned a new one targetting Lexington and Concord, and to include the “bagging” of two “agitators” with secret warrants to arrest them and ship them to England for rigged trials and near certain execution (Sam Adams, Joh n Hancock, who were both staying in Lexington, i in hiding against Gage’s discovery and capture).

              Seems General Gage was married to a COlonial woman, Margaret. The day before the new poder raid, he had confided this news to only two people…. the officer who would lead the raid, and his Wife Margaret. Margaret was quite close to Dr. Joseph Warren, a physician of Boston, where they lived. It is known she saw him that afternoon. It is also known that it was Dr. Warren summoned two Boston acivists to his home/office that evening. Paul Revere and William Dawes. It was those two who left Boston at about nine PM to warn the people in the areas targetted for the powder raid early the morning of the 19th. It is also known that General Gage, very soon after these events, sent his Wife Margaret to live in England, and she never did return to her beloved America.

              Divided loyalty was a benefit in this situation. The Framers realised it could just as well work against our security. Thus they set the higher bar for the one office that was most critical.. president. Any congressman or judge could do plenty of damage, but would be minimised by the existence of many like office holders. But a traitorous president? What defense could be in place to protect against such treachery? We very nearly saw that worked out on the world stage with our most recent chief executive. We are still trying to eliminate the harms perpetrated upon us by that traitorous creature.

              Side note: there are requirements for children born abroad of American parent(s) in order to establish natural born status upon return to the US. It is a declaration of foreign birth, and is supposed to be filed witih the State Department within I think it is six months of the birth. Ted Cruz, born in Canada of an American mother and CUban father did not have this document filed on his behalf. It would have mooted his foreign birth and established beyond doubt the intention of his being US citizen from birth. Of course, his Cuban national Father irrevocably renders him NOT a NBC. o such document was filed for Obamaa Junior, either. This, together with his British biological father (at least, according to his claims) renders Obama ineligible. I think Bobby Jindal and Mary Landrieu fall into the same category.

              Cacn’t cite it, but there is a very early SCOTUS case where natural born citizenship is defined as a side issue to the case. Happersett, if I recall. It clearly states born HERE of TWO US citizen parents.

            2. @Tionico

              I would like for you to bear with me for what I am about to write, because it is going to be a good amount, and I ask that you read it thoughtfully and carefully.

              I’m going to lay out a few main points for why I stated what I stated, the first of which is a disclaimer.

              1. I am not dismissing anything, least of all whether or not the Framers may have been influenced by other sources. I’ll go into detail shortly.

              2.There is evidence to back up what I am saying when it comes to the Single Parent vs Two Parent Question.

              3. I will cover Supreme Court Stupidity

              4. I will explain the definitions and difference between the two types of citizens.

              I shall start out by stating the basis of what I said before, with a little Historical background. Sir William Blackstone was at time considered to be the foremost expert on English law in the early and mid 1700’s, primarily because the Study of Law had languished in England. His work on the subject to compile every fact and theory he could on the law became the compendium which was the basis for legal teaching and scholarly work in the English speaking world at that time. more than 1000 copies had been imported and sold by 1771, so within a one to two year interval. In 1772, demand was high enough that local publication began here in the Colonies. Blackstone’s Law was so popular in fact that it was compared as being only second to the Bible, and Edmund Burke stated in in 1775 that nearly as many of Blackstone’s Commentaries had been sold in America compared to England.

              Blackstone’s work, particularly on the concept of Natural Rights, and Natural Law was the fundamental building block behind our Declaration of Independence, the limited powers in the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. His work is the core of the founding father’s belief system and began prior to the War of Independence. This is why the claim that they would have ignored his work after the war is particularly erroneous. Of even more interest is the fact that Blackstone was a staunch loyalist to the crown and argued against the Colonies. I can guarantee you that if he read the Declaration of Independence, he realized that he is the one who caused the War of Independence by giving the Colonists a legitimizing reason for rebelling against the English king. Like it or not, His influence on the founders was established and ingrained before the war, was instrumental in the consideration of our founding documents, and was the basis for our nations first courts in legal matters from local jurisdiction to the Supreme Court. Don’t believe me? Pick up a copy and read it side by side with our founding documents. It’s plain FACT.

              Ah, now to my favorite part, the historical evidence. First, for the two parent rule to be a requirement, it must be a mandated requirement and extends to every case. That is the definition of a requirement. The Truth is, historically many children of single citizen parents were recognized as natural born. In cases of a single mother or father it was almost unilaterally given, or in cases of unmarried couples, the side of the mother won out. If the father was of foreign citizenship status then a hearing may have been required to decide if the child could be a natural born citizen based on the situation present at the time, but in most cases was still granted. Now, the argument for the mother being the progenitor also has a point dating back to English and Colonial law. Unborn Children were protected by law in England and the Colonies as innocents, including in criminal cases. Three cases in fact are direct evidence of this if you want to look them up. Two are tied together in English law, those of Ann Bonny and Mary Read, and for Colonial Law look no further than the case of Elizabeth Procter of Salem Massachusetts. So, Birth being tied to citizenship was essential, but location was not(Especially given the mode of transportation during that time where you may not be able to make it back to the states in time.)

              There were other rules in place of course, for example, the single parent had to have been a US Citizen for more than five years, at least two of which had to have been in residence within the United states after the age of 14. This was at the founding of our nation. It is the original intent and application. So to recap, you can’t have a two parent requirement if it was never required at the beginning under our constitution. Arguing that “No It has to be there to prevent divided loyalties…” does not change the fact that it didn’t exist and was never applied that way until later, and I will show some reasons why. First and foremost, it did not stop divided loyalties during our civil war. second, birthright tied directly to location was not instituted in the constitution until the 14th amendment. That being said, on to the Supreme Court.

              Laws of Stupidity….
              Ok, I have been on record here arguing against the stupidity of the supreme court and it’s numerous “Interpretations” of the constitution absent of reality. I have quoted and discussed at length points raised by Thomas Jefferson, who wrote to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall..
              “You seem, to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.”

              It is interesting the number of people here who like to point to the supreme court and say “But they said so!!!” when arguing their opinions, completely oblivious to the fact that the supreme court went off the rails around 1800 after only one decade into our new government. They have been getting it wrong and making a mess of things for over two centuries, just as much as the politicians.

              Ok, so where and how do we trace our laws and understanding back to a source. Once again, what were the requirements for our founders on being “Natural Born”. First, lets get the elephant out of the room. “But the Constitution says…” This is a classic case of the Chicken and the Egg. Who constituted a citizen at the inception of the Constitution in 1789? Who Constituted a Citizen at the end of the War of Independence? Was it limited to the roughly 3% who fought for independence out of our population? Were some loyalists or neutral parties included? Of course they were, anyone who stayed and prescribed to our system at that point was a Citizen. Not all were born here, but “Loyalty” during the war did not figure into it. So what is the Divided Loyalty you are alluding to? Divided loyalty as it is worded in your comment is the nature of Dual Citizenship, not the status of Natural born Citizenship. Quote “Divided loyalty was a benefit in this situation. The Framers realised it could just as well work against our security. Thus they set the higher bar for the one office that was most critical.. president” General Gage’s wife not withstanding, she was his legal wife and a subject of the crown as were all Colonials at the time. Remember, we rebelled! Thomas Gage was a british military officer, as the Husband of his wife, it would be expected she would stay with him including after the war living in England. Furthermore, the nature of using that as an example of divided loyalty neglects two facts. A. She may have been a Loyalist. B. There was no constitution, and no Citizenship as of yet at that time.

              Since there was no parameter set by the constitution, what understanding would the founding fathers have used or been familiar with?

              We can trace the most logical example back to a law from 1708, in which it stated “The children of all natural born subjects born out of the ligeance of Her Majesty Her Heirs and Successors shall be deemed and adjudged to be natural born subjects of this Kingdom to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever.”

              This was repealed in 1711 by the Tories to say “All Children born out of the Ligeance of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, or which shall hereafter be born out of such Ligeance, whose Fathers were or shall be natural-born Subjects of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, at the Time of the Birth of such Children respectively … are hereby declared to be natural-born Subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, to all Intents, Constructions and Purposes whatsoever.”

              Now why am I bringing up the Tories? Because William Blackstone was one. Now I already touched on Citizenship from birth passing through the mother, but here is what Blackstone had to say regarding fathers and what constituted Natural born Citizens regardless of place of birth or a second parent.

              “But by several more modern statutes … all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.”

              There we go, back to William Blackstone’s commentary on the subject which provided our founders with their background view on law prior to forming our constitution.

              Since we have no established the law, what cases or situations arose in history to negate or deprive citizenship? Racism. The constitution does not mandate that Citizenship be race neutral. In fact, while I referenced the 14th amendment earlier, that only prescribed to blacks. Hispanic, Chinese, German, Irish, Italian… All were disparaged against at one point or another. Further than that, in the 1870’s southern states and at times our Supreme court began subverting the 14th amendment. How? One of the most common ways was to deny citizen ship if “Both Parents, Grandparents, Or Lineages came from Citizens.” If your daddy was not a Citizen, or your mom’s dad, you were not a “Natural Born citizen.” At various points in our history, this has come up through laws, court cases, and the general stupidity of elected officials and populace alike. However, if you want to point to the courts, I can list serveral cases where people born hear and living almost their entire lives in foreign lands maintain Natural Born Citizen ship based on William Blackstone’s teaching which was applied in 1844(Lynch v. Clarke, Dominions and Allegiance~See Below) and 1939(Perkins vs. Elg)

              The courts have also messed things up on these occasions, though not all cases will be documented or listed here by me, these are examples.
              1. Lynch vs Clarke, yep the same one as above. The clause in the Constitution was supposed to prevent this, as she was born to two Alien parents. This is the case where we get the justification in the courts for “anchor Babies”. The justice stated that though she had never lived as, or been an American in her life she was Natural Born based on location to parents who were not permanent residents.

              There is also Zimmer v. Acheson, Citizen Father, non citizen mother.
              Ruled in favor due to “Laws in force at time of his birth”

              And Montana v. Kennedy, Citizen Mother, non Citizen father
              Ruled against because of “Laws in force at time of birth” and that the law correcting this was “Not Retroactive.” although if said individual had been born at that time they would have ruled in favor of.

              As I said, the patchwork quilt of laws and judicial interpretations made a royal mess of things.

              So we are presented with that Dichotomy right of the bat. The intent of the Constitution’s law, with the constitutional right of citizenship born under the Dominion and Allegiance of the United States. How the court should have ruled to legitimize both arguments instead of opposing and cancelling definitions would have been to recognize that people not within residency or having denounced their citizenship while raising their children in foreign lands as a foreign national negates natural born citizenship, but allows for naturalized citizenship if the parents had been legal residents and not visiting, legally or illegally. This would have solved most of the issues we have today while respecting the rights of Citizenship with the Requirements of office. As stated before however, Judges typically have trouble looking past their own noses and often substitute opinion for fact.

              I will now disclaim my own opinion, even stating what I have just said, and state that I do not believe that any child born to temporary status parents, disavowing parents raising them abroad, or illegally by aliens not here legally should not receive any form of citizenship status as they do not have the connection to the united states or the belief system that makes it work. It is my belief that a Citizen is someone born to a Citizen Parent(s), has spent a significant portion of their childhood here, or tied to the US as a Citizen(Foreign workers, children of ambassadors with passports and such), and not holding dual citizenship. But that is my opinion, not what the law or Blackstone stated on the matter. Now onto the Definitions.

              Divided Loyalty- The idea that a person may have allegiances to two or more nations. Parental nationality does not figure into this. Where and how a person is raised does, as does the individual holding dual citizenships.

              Natural Born Citizen- Someone born within the Confines of the United states to legal residents, or a citizen(s) of the United states. This includes births in Territories, at sea, in foreign lands during trips, service, or work stays of non permanent status.

              Naturalized Citizen- A foreigner who has gone through the process of becoming a US Citizen, maintaining residence and living under the law of the land. Their children will be Natural Born, being born to a citizen of the united states.

              Dominion- Area of control or influence.

              Allegiance- owing to. Citizens residing in foreign lands but still maintaining citizenship status, and or subject to our nation’s laws and regulations.

              I understand this is a lot to take in. If you would like to continue this little debate, please go ahead. This is just a primer for me.

              I do want to ask a favor of you however. Please cite for me, where in the constitution it states that Citizenship requires both parents when born abroad, as that was the crux of your argument. Should you do this, part two from me will cover Obama and some of the reasons why he is a US Citizen despite my not liking it at all, the history with his father, mother, and the INS.

            3. Yeah, I already noticed Several Errors in my very long comment which as of now is not yet posted. Chalk it up to late night writing and pain management. Sadly my self editing is not with me tonight.

              I just hope the length of the post does not break Ammoland or its server. If it does I will have to post it in parts.

      2. Ruby Ridge, Wounded Knee, Brach Davidian, three more off the top of my head. I’d wager if you still don’t under stand the readers here can fill a page for you.

        1. What I meant was that I personally (as in was present at the event) had not witnessed anyone’s death, but I have seen in person with my own eyes multiple felonies being committed over the years. Believe me I am aware of all the dead by the hands of Federal agents/employees and have even met and spoken with Randy Weaver and several people who were present at Waco, but I wasn’t there personally is what I meant.

            1. Not In other words, in my words, not yours. Geez. I’ll try to write slower and use smaller words for you. I witnessed first hand (I was there in person, got it?) felonies, multiple (many) being committed (done) by Federal employees. Is that plain enough for you? Understand now? I wasn’t at Waco or Ruby Ridge, but I believe they happened and I spoke with people who were there.

        2. Ruby ridge. Yep… While the idiots got involved in the Nationalist movement by going to a few meetings, the FBI was giving a “Shoot to kill, do not try to take this guy alive” order under the Clinton administration, even if he was unarmed and not considered a threat. Instead, his wife and almost his baby got shot through a door, ending her life. Their oldest son as well I think.

          And all after a “Botched” sting operation by an ATF agent trying to entrap him into illegally modifying a shotgun. The reason for the sting? He refused to go undercover for the ATF on a gun sting against his neighbors. Just for those who didn’t know.

          Great post Oldvet

    6. I’ve known Dave Hardy for decades as both a friend and a Constitutional Lawyer. He never writes anything about the Government that won’t make the hair on the back of your neck stand on end. I doubt this will be any exception. I look forward to reading it.

    7. I just pre-ordered a copy … and as I use Amazon Smile, I also just generated another donation to the Second Amendment Foundation.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *