Home Resident Killed by Maryland Police Trying Confiscate His Guns

Gun Confiscation Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans
Home Resident Killed by Maryland Police Trying Confiscate His Guns: FILE PHOTO

Anne Arundel County, Maryland – -(AmmoLand.com)- Foxbaltimore.com is reporting that a Maryland resident was killed by police as they tried to enforce a “Red Flag Gun Confiscation Order” at 5:17 am in the morning on Monday, November 5th, 2018.

Information is incomplete at this time but according to Fox Baltimore;

“Anne Arundel County Police are investigating an officer-involved shooting that occurred Monday morning in Ferndale.

Police spokesman Jacklyn Davis said officers responded to 103 Linwood Avenue at around 5:15 a.m. to serve an “emergency risk protective order,” also known as the red flag order.

The man answered the door armed with a handgun and a struggle ensued as officers attempted to disarm the man, Davis said.

During the struggle, the man’s handgun discharged and police fired shots, Davis said.

Davis says no Anne Arundel County officers were injured in the struggle. The suspect was pronounced dead on scene.”

Maryland Governor Hogan disregarded veto requests and signed “red flag” bill (HB 1302) in Spring of 2018. Under that bill as it became law, virtually anyone can ask a law enforcement officer to file an ex parte petition with a state district court judge or commissioner and allege that the gun owner poses an immediate danger to himself/herself or others because (and only because) he or she possesses firearms. If the court issues the order, the police can show up on the doorstep and seize the person’s firearms without notice or warning.

All it takes is a family member, dating partner, or roommate to claim that someone is a danger to themselves or others to have his or her Second Amendment rights stripped away by a secret court hearing.

Right advocates predicted that this new movement of taking your rights with Red Flag Orders might have deadly consequences and called for vetos of this law and others in multiple states.

  • 205 thoughts on “Home Resident Killed by Maryland Police Trying Confiscate His Guns

    1. If you live in a state which has been taken over by nazi thugs it is time to get out. States like maryland and california are opening themselves up for mass shootings by criminals who obtain guns illegally and kill a lot of innocent people. States where everybody owns a gun make it very hard for criminal murderers who are let out by liberal judges and obtain guns illegally to harm anyone. The liberals know this but don’t care because their goal is to do what all dictators do, take away your ability to defend yourself and then take away your freedom and put you in a concentration camp or go to your house and murder you in an attempt to steal your guns. Let the stupid voters in maryland get killed by these scum politicians and their mass murderer friends until they wake up and realize that by voting for a far left communist they are signing their death warrant!

    2. If due process had been followed, instead of in secret, so the gun owner would know beforehand, and had a opportunity to defend against the action in court, this death could have been avoided. It is why i think Red flag laws without due process, is unconstitutional. I hope this case goes to Federal court.

    3. These ‘red flag’ laws should send up a red flag to all gun owners. If anyone can just call the police and have them come out and confiscate your weapons everyone is at risk of losing them. Until the snowflake, anti-gun activist, or housewife has to appear before a judge and risk committing perjury the calls will be made. Until the judges act based on facts, not on an abundance of caution or anti-gun sentiment the warrants will be issued. It won’t be long until every gun owner is embroiled in a legal battle for the return of their weapons, and I’m sure the authorities will be held harmless for lost or damaged goods seized. Thanks NRA, for endorsing these ridiculous laws.

      1. Has an action at law, aka a law suit been filed against the police? Has any sort of court action been instituted against the originator of the problem? I do not know how much success would be achieved by either of the above mentioned, however it seems worth having a look at, this being my view of the thing.

    4. Here’s how you deal with laws like this. Get the name and address of every police officer, judge ect and file a complaint. When they are overcome then the law will be ignored.

      1. The law should have never been enacted as written. Whoever is registering the fear of potential violence should have to stand in front of the judge and make their case, not make a simple phone call to police, that way if it’s discovered that the claim was false the accuser will have to stand trial for perjury. A crazy girlfriend called the police on my neighbor, my neighborhood was full of squad cars and cops were everywhere with their rifles slung. My neighbor was walked out of his house, cuffed and put into a squad car. The police questioned him and determined that he was no danger, it was a false accusation. He has to live with the humiliation of the whole event and overcome the disdain shown by his other neighbors. Meanwhile the girlfriend just walks away.

        1. Maybe you could get the names of all the police officers and then call and report that they have a gun and may be a danger to someone

          1. Joe, yes I have read that suggestion elsewhere. I suspect that a judge would automatically dismiss such a case because the accused is a LEO – don’t expect fair/just treatment. That does not mean that the LEO isn’t a danger, just not typically to him or other LEOs. However there was that case several years ago, I believe in CA, where an officer did kill other officers and he was hunted down and killed.

        2. @joefoam, Cities have lots of money. If their police make an illegal arrest, then it can be like winning the lottery. The key is a skillful and avaricious lawyer. Consult, “Causes of Action” vol. 9 at 42 USC 1983.

          1. That’s one option, however municipalities have enacted laws to protect themselves from such lawsuits. It is a long, arduous task to take on the gov’t. You’ve heard the phrase ‘you can’t fight city hall’ I’m sure. And if you are dead it really doesn’t matter does it?

            1. @joe, Well, the municipalities can not protect themselves from federal lawsuit, and it is true that it takes a long time, but the rewards are great.
              A fellow close to me prosecuted his reverse-discrimination lawsuit for ten years (including the appeal) and three months. He had to spend $18,000 of his own up front, but received $300,000, a forced promotion, and back additions to his retirement plan.
              If the plaintiff is dead, then it does not matter, but his estates and relatives can to punish the offending municipalities on his behalf.

    5. I do not know how many judges, LEOs, and politicians consider all armed citizens as Red Flags; I do know that there are to many. People that hold their rights against them are also deemed Red Flag “deplorables” best eliminated.
      Then disarmament would be less dangerous. Defendants are told that they knew or should have known the results of their acts. LEOs are aware of this.

      1. Seems that altogether to many judges, law enforcement types and politicians fail to realize that there are more of us, the citizenry whose patience they sorely try, than there of them, and quite possibly that the sorely tried patience, above mentioned, is best left unstrained, a concept that seemingly has escaped their attention. Regarding the serving of warrants at 5 AM, who is the idiot who wrote the manual on such proceedure, and is the demonstrated failure of common sense a prerequisite for obtaining such employment?

        1. Dammit, people, it’s “TOO many, not “to many”! “To many liberals, the Maryland gun confiscation law seems reasonable.’

          That alone should make you shy of using the word “to” improperly. It’s your language; do you want the Chinese being more proficient in it than you are?


          1. William, with tablets and “smart” phones, they frequently auto-correct after you have spelled the word. I have noticed where I missed auto-corrections on posts, too. We are just human, but the technology isn’t.

        2. they don’t care, it is in play by design,we will be dancing with the devil soon , or should i say,- the music is about to start .Remember the war on drugs, the motives were all noble and then there were needed for more autonomy and more power and guess where it is today, with asset forfeiture and all that now can be exposed to the clutches of such system, from the use and miss-uses, error or not they will get it any way. Finally we all-r- potential suspects of something ,it is all a matter of perspective or circumstances, apply that to the ”red flag” strategy and you will see where it is going fast .dominance by force and elimination of all threat by denial of self defense or possession of deemed illegal property..

    6. Seems like many in law enforcement are eager to have a confrontation. The simple and safe way would have been to quietly wait for the person to go out of the house (for food, job, etc). The worst plan is try and force their way into his home with many police AND the person having arms available.

    7. Re the numerous adverse comments seen on the latest in Lawenforcement Escapades out of Maryland, I wonder as to the following. How many come from Maryland residents, and perhaps even more important, how did the complaining parties vote in elections past?

        1. Terence Miller

          My technical as in engineering background leads me to pose the following question. Please think carefully prior to answering, assuming that you might be capable of providing an adult response. EXACTLY what sort of action do you recommend? Note, adult discussion, if you are capable of such, is preferable to childish imprecations and shouting.


          1. So what EXACTLY does your background have to do with this subject? Are you trying to impress the readers of this blog with your expertise in engineering? Are you one of the elitist snobs that want to dictate how everyone conducts their lives? You are more than willing to specify how we are respond to your comments, what else do you want to control? As for how the incident was handled, if the reports are true, and the man had laid down his weapon, the police had deescalated the situation and it should have ended. However the police allowed the situation to escalate into a shootout, not what they are tasked to do.

            1. I have no desire to exercise any control over whatever it is that you do or say, so long as it does not impact me. I simply stated that I would hope a discussion could be had, absent personalities entering therein. Unfortunately, that might not be the case here. I leave the soap box to you.

      1. I agree with Terence. The odds of positively affecting one’s own outcome by voting have to be less than the odds of winning the lottery, worse still, are the odds of being able to even predict what vote will positively affect ones outcome.

        Voting is what the ruling class created to pacify the masses and to accept being ruled again, after the masses figured out that the define right of kings is hogwash. The purpose of voting, today, remains to prevent the people from revolting and ending the state.

        1. Joe:

          Noting that you find the political process, voting for instance useless, correct me if I’m wrong, what do you suggest instead.

          1. I suggest an American (or a worldwide rather) spring. Let’s peacefully overthrow the states of the world by refusing to participate. A state is a criminal organization. We don’t need a criminal state to be proud of our people. The state is not us. The state is not America.

            There have been places, like Ireland, that have lived stateless with a civilization for 1000+ years. While European countries were constantly overthrowing one another and their people were living with parasite kings, Ireland was stable and their society operated in a non-coercive way.

            Taxation is theft. Steal from someone, a portion of their output for an extended time and it becomes slavery. Those services the government “provides” with stolen money can be purchased voluntarily by people who want them. Those services people don’t want don’t have to be purchased at all. It’s a huge savings when you consider how much unnecessary stuff the government does compared to the necessary stuff and how much waste they do when doing the necessary stuff.

            Yes, stateless Ireland eventually did fall to an invasion, however, it outlasted almost all the states of Europe at the same time. They all fell too and they fell over and over.

      2. Excellent comment. I agree, how did those who are getting the boot up their keesters vote. Everytime I read about things like this occurring, I also ask myself, how did that individual and their family vote?
        As far as T.M. comments, that is exactly the problem, putting their heads in the sand and bitch and moan. We have to vote, we have to vote as a block, no matter what only vote for pro-gun Republicans. Or, we will get the government we deserve, much like Maryland and etc. Votes do count and I aint no Sheep for stating this. I notice that those who holler about sheep this or sheep that, don’t vote all they do is bleat and guess what animal bleats? Keep going Alan.

        1. I’m not sure if voting is working anymore. This last election, I feel there was major voter fraud committed and its ongoing. How the hell do these democrats keep finding ballots that only are for democratic candidates!?!

    8. @law abiding citizen, here is THE LAW :
      Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest

      “Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

      “An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

      “When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

      “These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

      “An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

      “Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

      “One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

      “Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all … it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

      As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197).

      You are also within your rights not to answer any questions without a lawyer present, and if possible, to demand a video recording be made of the entire encounter that you or your lawyer keep as evidence, so that federal prosecutors can’t get away with charging you with making false statements to a government investigator and testilying about what you said


      1. You can cite chapter and verse all you want, but the fact remains a judge signed a warrant, it was executed and will certainly occur again. The cops will be let off as they were ‘only doing their jobs’.

        1. “Only doing our jobs” = “Only following orders” – the same defense the Nazi soldiers presented when captured at the concentration camps.


    10. I believe the term Qualified Immunity might come to mind here, otherwise known as yet another legislative miscarriage, putting it politely, likely more politely than is deserved. Seems as if there is a lot of important information lacking here though.

    11. My thought is this… if armed, uniformed and recognizable police officers come to your home, hear them out and cooperate with their demands. Once the situation is deemed “safe”, then demand an explanation. If the officers aren’t cooperating, then request a supervisor and demand an explanation. Once explained, if you dont agree, say no more and contact an attorney.

      The field police officers are between a rock and a wall, what are they supposed to do, refuse a lawful legal order from a supervisor? If it’s an illegal arrest, then you’ve got grounds for legal action.

      Any misconduct, error in the law, any act committed with malice can be corrected, the only thing that cannot be undone is death.

      There’a a lot of tough talk on these type of posts, there’s also a lot of anti LE “violent” talk and even talk of death for LE officers. But until you’re in the shoes of a LE field officer, you have no understanding of what they go through.

      A law is a law, if you dont like the law, then become an activist and have that law amended or removed. Place fault where it belongs, with the legislative branch of your local or federal government and make a difference. No law is set in stone, all law is amendable and qualified for removal, but it wont do it on it’s own, we, the people have to make it happen.

      And this site isnt helping matters by attaching a photo which has nothing to do with this incident, that photo only misleads the reader.

      1. Seizure of guns due to red flag laws are /the same as an arrest. This gun owner was not subject to arrest. As many other said and you either didn’t bother to read or chose to ignore, when dealing with a seizure of property warrant officers should call in advance to talk to the individual not show up in the early morning like you are looking for 1 of America’s Most Wanted.

        If you’re going to preach get the crux of the matter right. And without details of what happened your hypothetical assertions are a waste of time and space.

      2. There is most certainly something in what you mention. That said, it strikes me that we still come back to the following. The individual retains basic rights until, based on proven actions, they have demonstrated otherwise. Seems to me that in this case, as well as to many others, such demonstration is conspicuous by it’s absence. As to claims by line police officers that “we were following orders”, that sort of dodge didn’t go very far at the post WW2 war crimes trials. It shouldn’t go very far today either.

      3. Well, we don’t know IF that picture goes with this story…..but using a sledgehammer to knock on one’s door is not a ‘visit by the police where you will get a chance to “hear them out” and be able to cooperate with them.

      4. law abiding citizen, one thing you fail to understand is that with a warrant, there will not be time given for discussion and understanding. You comply or they bust in. Since the officers knew he was armed, and they were there because he was supposedly dangerous, you believe they would be “reasonable” and take time to “discuss” the warrant with him?

        They saw he was armed and immediately got their buck cheeks puckered, attacked him, then shot him – exactly as those opposed to this law stated would happen.

        The photo isn’t misleading, it clearly states it is a “file photo”. Also at 5 am in Maryland when this happened it would be dark outside, not daylight as in this photo. I seriously doubt their a reporters taking pictures when police raid, serve warrants, homes, especially “dangerous” law-abiding citizens.

        One other aspect of warrant raids is that the police destroy your home in the search for whatever it is on the warrant. You will not be recompensed for the clean-up, repair and replacement of whatever they destroy.

        The comments that you believe are outrageous are in reaction to the outrage of gunning down a lawful citizen for the sole reason of legally carrying a firearm in one’s own home. That is quite disturbing and if one is in a “red flag” state, it could happen to any one of us. That is very disturbing and outrageous. None stated they were going to go out and shoot police, only that police might die serving these warrants – especially now that the news reports that they kill the citizen to who’s home they arrive at – government sanctioned murder.

        The thoughts are of how one would react to a knock on the door early in the morning. As armed citizens, we probably would have a firearm in our hand and be killed by scared police, just as this man was. Many warrants have resulted in citizens being killed by scared police. This law just gives them immunity for the killing since they are there because the citizen was “armed and dangerous”.

      5. They deserve to be shot and they will be. No, the photo is right on. It depicts the police state and their real mind set. The “rank and file” are very rank and LIKE what they are doing. They get to steal and keep peoples property. There is a click in every cop shop that is the worst of the worst and will do any dirty deed. That is who was on that mans front porch at 5:15 am . A swine with a mission and a killer…a pack of murderers. I have been doing radio for decades. This is the same old police state run by the communists that we know and warn people about. It should and will start a war. Good, it is needed. We will buy more ammo. It is 1977 and 1989 all over again. Liberty1775

      6. A law is not a law if it violates the Constitution of the United States. Just another excuse to dearm the American people, and take us into Socialism/Communism…

      7. Thing about that is too many people impersonating officers to make this applicable. The police should have backed off when he answered the door with a firearm. He is in his own home … If he then becomes threatening towards the officers then they have the right to deadly force. Calmly present the warrant and go from there. This was a breach and clear mission.

    12. Our local Sheriff, shortly after Obama’s election, (and subsequent discussions re gun confiscation) made a point of telling all federal law enforcement officers – who trained at the one local gun range. The only gun range in the county. He reminded them that, should they embark on no-knock raids in an effort to confiscate guns, it would behoove them to do so in a more pleasant manner. Reminding them that the same men who belonged to the same gun club they trained at, interacted with, and often were neighbors with, knew where their wives & kids were virtually 24/7. And should there be any “unfortunate” deaths at the hands of ATF, FBI, DHS agents they might want to consider the safety of their loved ones.
      Not that the Sheriff was advocating, or suggesting, that their neighbors would turn against the fed’s families as a means of retribution. But that, depending on the level of violence and unfair, unlawful, & unconstitutional acts perpetrated upon his country’s citizens, it may well come to that. And should the feds go that far, they’d receive no assistance from his SO. Though every attempt would be made to protect their lived ones, as they’re but innocent bystanders in all this.
      Our county has the nation’s highest percentage of CCW holders, at 44%. Is very rural. Conservative to a fault – not counting the ‘transplants’ from elsewhere currently populating the ever-growing number of bedroom communities to the metro area. NO ONE wants to see violence of any kind visited upon anyone. Especially if it’s done in an unfair, unjust manner. The scope of such new laws be damned. “Feel good” legislation, often poorly executed, makes for tragic consequences. And the good people of this nation will only tolerate so much.
      The current crop of “Progressives” have no use for the Constitution, or Bill Of Rights, believing them to be quaint old documents written by dead white men that have outlived their purpose. And don’t address the complexities of today’s modern world. Constitutionalists would argue that those documents, if followed – and understood – properly, give this nation virtually all it needs to survive. And that the real problem stems from the fact that powerful forces have been chipping away at those founding documents, and their principles, since before the ink had dried on the parchment.
      The time may well be coming when every citizen will need to choose which side they ally with. And that includes the military & the myriad local, state & federal law enforcement agents. Will they uphold the oath they took? Or will they continue to violate that oath by carrying out the dictates of “Progressive” politicians? To each and everyone of us, I say, “Choose wisely.” The future of the Republic may well rest upon your decision.

    13. So I have seen nothing mentioned about who reported the victim. Who the hell gave this mans information to the court and why? The individuals who reported should be having a day in court to face the family of the victim.

      The man had a legal right as Kavanaugh did to face his accusors. This was a violation of the victims right to due process along with his 2nd amendment right.

      1. It does seem that, absent clear and convincing evidence that the victim was in fact a danger to himself and/or others, the person reporting him as such should be vulnerable to a wrongful-death or wrongful-endangerment suit by the surviving family. If the reporter was a private citizen, there should be no “immunity” theory protecting them.

      2. I think it said someplace that it was his sister. They apparently had a disagreement, she called the police and this was the outcome.

      1. I experienced some police brutality first hand when I lived there at the hands of a Baltimore County ‘officer’ who started beating on me because he thought I was somebody else (whom he had it in for).

        The best police Maryland has are its State Troopers. I never had a bad experience with any of them.

        The police departments of Baltimore City and the surrounding counties though, do seem to have more than their fair share of individuals on a power trip (and who likely couldn’t get a job doing anything else) who have NO business having deadly authority.

        I was born and raised in Baltimore, but I left the last week of 1992 and haven’t been back since.
        It was the best decision I ever made.

    14. I liked the INTENT of the law to disarm someone who is showing violent intent but I to have a sister in law who has banned me from coming into her home with a gun because she says it is not safe and feels unsafe sad that they show up at 5am to enforce the warrant

    15. After discovering it was the police, “he put his gun down.” Although, still possibly fatal to have held onto it, EVERYONE should choose to “hold onto it,” and send the absolute clear message that ‘removing our “property,” without due process, is going to get DEADLY, and NOT just on one side!

    16. Go watch the mini series “AmeriKa” on youtube. It was NEVER allowed to be rerun anywhere on TV. Not on cable, satellite or network. Then go watch the Russian movie “The Checkist” with subtitles. Get a copy and share. What you see there is what they have planned for here if the leftists finnish what they have started. Organize, arm,equip and train as militia for mutual defense. You will need it. Liberty1775

    17. The 2nd Amendment is but one of 10 Bill of Rights within the Constitution, and its original intent was not just so you could go hunting or protect ones own sss from bad guys, blacks and savage Indians, it was meant to protect the whole Constitution and limit Government Individuals and groups of individuals from within and outside i from abusing the Constitutional powers.
      Screw the malitia, not since days when peoples malitia was quelled in early days of founding stomped by Feral Armies under Presidential orders has there been any Bill of Rights abuses seen a malita uprising.
      Seemingly a great amount of gun owners forgot original intent, and cannot count higher than 2, as for years they let a once limited Constitution be abused.
      As Thomas Jefferson once wrote a friend, it is not the law but the intent of law that matters.
      Laws that made one have to get permission first in order to purchase, and then apply throuh local law bodies then Federal for yet another permit to conceal, is not the intent of 2nd of bill of rights,
      We surrendeed BILL OF RIGHTS for a listing of conditoons in order to posess a fire arm for bill of rights to defend our own butts.
      So many gun owners, in the past, mainly males, have always raved over Militarism and Martial arms and today we seem to support the Police Forces being militarized, what other outcome could be expected.
      This nation was not founded upon by a “Will or Actions” o but was instituted by the few who understood the “Spirit of Law”.
      There is nothing written in Constitution that says a law has to be “Fair or Just”, except in the taking of proerty which is a dollar figuredetermined not by corttof law but by those who are doing the taking.
      It is far far too late to talk of Rights under a Constitution that no longer exist.
      That it no longer exist is not the Fault of those seated in the Mighty Halls of power in Fed State Munivipal and County powers, we, nce americans of ideals, willingly elected those powers to them, and now reap what we sowed.
      Today for means of comfort seem to of forgotten , An abuse of Rights of even one single American is an abuse to all.
      We move to another state where we recieve permission to protect own butts and gloat, leaving vast mumbers of Americans ass to float in wind.
      So go vote Republican or Democrat who you think best that will allow you to protect your butts and vote in approval of a system that denies a Right. and is way outside of Intent at founding.
      Just think you can even vote ymail in comfort from home, and look up what Spirit of Law you violate that Franklin spoke of.
      Stand and salute a flag that no longer represrnts ideals you dare not try to uphold, there is one term best describes such conduct by an individual, “Hypocrite”!

    18. That “law” treasons the 2nd, 4th and 5th amendments of their sworn oaths and is and act of treason under 18 USC 2381 therefore CANNOT BE and NEVER WAS LAW.

      Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 p. 442
      “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

      Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 155 (1966), cited also in Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649.644
      “Constitutional ‘rights’ would be of little value if they could be indirectly denied.”

      Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 426, 491; 86 S. Ct. 1603
      “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no ‘rule making’ or legislation which would abrogate them.”

      Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973)
      “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”

      Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968)
      “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime”… “a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law”.

      West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnett, (1943).
      “One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

      Murdered they mean…..
      By treasonous home invading felons and domestic enemies……
      Should have killed them all…..
      Would have been a completely justified killing of domestic enemy traitors and felons violating their sworn oaths.

      1. that is without the3e funniest and most ludicrous misunderstanding of the law I have ever read. thank you – I’ll laugh all day over that.

      2. AMEN!! (We – and all who agree with us on this forum – are now “on their list.”) There is also a RULE in Volume 17 (page and paragraph numbers for which I have forgotten) of American Jurisprudence (the RULE BOOK for courts, judges and lawyers) that also declares, like Norton v. Shelby County cited above, that a law that is unconstitutional is null and void from its’ inception and that no person can be tried or convicted under it, no court or official can charge, prosecute or convict under it AND that its’ unconstitutionality DOES NOT DEPEND UPON a court/Supreme Court ruling – because an oppressive government or court can simply refuse to rule on and reverse it – and that the people themselves can deem and declare it to be so (jury nullification, which tyrants fear and try to convince people that they don’t legally have the power to do!).

        1. I found the proper citation (it’s been nearly 25 years since I last saw it, so I beg the pardon of all who read the above comment/reply). The correct reference is American Jurisprudence, 2nd Edition, Vol.16, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

          It can be found by typing the above into most any search engine.

      3. As you point out, it is not even laws and the intent of laws that rule. It is what a society allows to happen. We allow lawlessness and elect leaders who promote lawlessness, and then we expect the laws to mean something? I understand that the Soviet constitution allowed for freedom of religion. Uh, yeah. Clearly, it is not the words on paper than matter, but the substance of the human spirit. If Americans decide to be submissive wimps, the tyrants won’t need to worry a bit what laws and the Constitution say. (Oh, change that from future to present perfect — it is what we have been doing, for quite a long time, now.)

      4. With a view to the above court findings, how is it that the off nding parties, they being the police, will likely get away, without a hair out of place here?

    Leave a Comment 205 Comments

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