I was originally going to explain why everyone is afraid to even discuss the import of the peoples’ right to bear arms. But it is now clear that I first need to show you an example of how “we the people” get tricked into discussing certain “exceptions” and “tests” that the supreme court simply dreams up out of thin air.

I showed you in my last post how the correct analysis of any issue relating to the PEOPLES’ right to bear arms never even GETS to the second amendment BECAUSE there is NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT GRANTS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ANY AUTHORITY TO REGULATE WHAT ARM’S THE PEOPLE CAN “BEAR”. If you haven’t read my piece on that then GO READ IT because I will be assuming you already understand this CRITICAL point.

So how did we get to this point of “needing” to discuss all sorts of distinctions between military use and hunting and self defense etc. when discussing THE PEOPLES’ rights under the “2nd amendment”? I am going to show you just ONE of the S. Ct. cases where they created one of the “tests”.

Once you see it, you will understand a lot more about the entire scam they run on you. Once you see what happened in that case, you will see what a bunch of propagandist those on the court and in the government media education complex are, and how they have used GAME THEORY on you once again to put you in “the wrong box”.

Here is the language where the entire “military application” concept involving the 2nd amendment “began”. It is from a 1939 supreme court case called “Miller”. And THAT is the case where they stopped letting THE PEOPLE have sawed off shotguns, even though the police and military still use them all the time.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

When you read that language you are clearly left with the impression that the court is referencing some “well worn” court “standard” about needing to show that possession “has some reasonable relationship” to preserving a militia etc. And in fact that very STANDARD is NOW ASSUMED in all legal arguments and is used by CONGRESS and the ATF to JUSTIFY TAKING YOUR GUNS and ammo.

There are probably volumes written on this “standard” or “test” I just showed you. Here is the “honorable” justice stevens writing in the “venerable” Washington Post in the mid 2000’s about the alleged state of the law and its supposed history.

For more than 200 years following the adoption of that amendment, federal judges uniformly understood that the right protected by that text was limited in two ways: First, it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes…. in 1939, the court unanimously held [in the Miller case] that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that sort of weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated Militia.”

It sounds impressive and convincing. And it is, unless you LOOK INTO THE DETAILS of what he is REFERRING TO, which they KNOW you won’t . And they KNOW the media will NEVER INFORM YOU EITHER. lol So what exactly was the Miller case? since that case is supposedly the genesis of what looks to be a pretty important “rule” which has justified a LOT of federal gun control laws.

Miller grew out of a 1938 prosecution of two bootleggers (Jack Miller and Frank Layton) for violating the National Firearms Act by possessing a sawed-off shotgun without having paid the required federal tax. The federal district court dismissed the indictment on the grounds that the National Firearms Act violated the Second Amendment. Did you CATCH THAT?? They WON at the trial court. The court found that the federal act was UNCONSTITUTIONAL because it violated the 2nd amendment.

So what happened next? Miller and Layton were never heard from again. That’s right, they TOOK off. They were bootleggers, lol. Exited stage left as they say. So if that’s the case then how did the case get to the supreme court? Simple, the government took a DIRECT APPEAL bypassing the appellate courts.

But wait, how does that work? how in the world can you have an appeal and an argument and an alleged “decision” on a constitutional issue that affects ALL the people, when ONLY THE GOVERNMENT MAKES AN APPEARANCE AND FILES A BRIEF? That doesn’t make any sense. Especially when you REMEMBER that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is not only who the RIGHT is a protection FROM, but it is also the party who is arguing the case AND THE PARTY HEARING AND DECIDING THE CASE. This sounds like the kind sham kangaroo BS they ran in Stalinist Russia. Ahh, now you’re seeing what YOUR “just-a-system” actually is my brainwashed friend.

There was no BRIEFING OTHER THAN THE GOVERNMENT’S when the court “heard the case”. What a FRAUD. When there was counter briefing at the trial court the FEDS LOST. And remember the way Stevens, and the court itself in its opinions refers to “Miller”. You WOULD NEVER KNOW ANY OF THIS. They talk about the “unanimous decision” as though it was REAL. lol Are you seeing this? Do you see how they commit this transparent fraud on the people by dreaming up new “restrictions” on the peoples’ rights and actually “make a constitutional ruling” without there even being any DEFENSE FOR THE PEOPLE. It is laughable to call this a “justice” system.

This is the great “protection” you get from the constitution and the “court”. Then those in charge crank up their propaganda machine after the decision and act as though it was a real case and that the “law made” is legitimate. Just go look yourself. It is like I try and tell you all the time. They hide in plain site, lol.

If, in Miller, they had just been REstating a long standing rule about “military use” as Stevens clearly IMPLIES with his 200 year comment, then at least that would be a hell of a lot LESS damning. But that is NOT the case. Far from it. MILLER takes what the court had held in the past, and turns it on its head. It creates this bogus “military standard” out of whole cloth. For Stevens to imply or claim that “Miller” was just restating a “long standing” rule is what in polite circles they call doing “mental gymnastics”. Most people just call it lying.



So let me show you one of the VERY few cases that dealt with FEDERAL restrictions on guns for the people BEFORE MILLER. Let me give you the BACKGROUND on the case. I want you to see how the facts could probably NEVER be more outrageously IN FAVOR of limiting the peoples rights and yet STILL the court did not find for the Feds. And I want you to see that this case does not say ANYTHING about any “military use” standard. It is a SUPREME court case I discussed in the previous article, U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).

During Reconstruction Congress criminalized private conspiracies to violate civil rights under something referred to as the Enforcement Acts. Congress was especially concerned about the disarming of “freed blacks” by the Ku Klux Klan and similar gangs. So are you getting the idea? Federal law to keep people from abusing recently freed blacks. Pretty STRONG motivation IF there is ANY authority. Here’s what happened to give rise to the case.

After a rioting band of whites burned down a Louisiana courthouse which was occupied by a group of armed blacks (following the disputed 1872 elections), the whites and their leader, Klansman William Cruikshank, were prosecuted under the Enforcement Acts. Cruikshank was convicted of conspiring to deprive the blacks of the rights they had been granted by the Constitution, including the right peaceably to assemble and the right to bear arms.

So what happened? The Supreme Court held the Enforcement Acts unconstitutional.



Do you see this? The Supreme Court held that Congress did not have the authority to limit the right to bear arms by the citizens even in a CASE LIKE THIS. Here is the pertinent part of the court’s opinion once again.

The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called…”internal police.” — U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

Do you see what a bunch of DISINGENUOUS propagandists the “justices” are for failing to inform the people of the facts of “MIller” and then IGNORING THIS CASE? There is no 200 year history of some “military purpose” standard BEFORE the FRAUD of the MILLER case. What “justice” stevens said in his op ed is just a complete load of crap. He doesn’t care a wit about lying directly to the people. And why would he. He is unelected, untouchable and working to EXPAND the power of the ONLY ENTITY that could EVER REMOVE HIM from office, HIS EMPLOYER the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Do you see the con people? You can NEVER EVER have a system where an entity is in charge of LIMITING ITSELF. That makes NO SENSE. Yet THAT is what the people have been told MAKES our system SO GREAT. Man they must laugh their ASSES OFF THAT PEOPLE believe something THAT stupid.

I am going to show you one more example of Supreme court language, in what is called “dicta”, which is nonetheless DIRECTLY ON POINT, that the honorable “justice” stevens was apparently UNaware of or perhaps “forgot” when he said that for 200 years that “federal judges uniformly understood that the right protected by that text… applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes…” And remember, there really are no other supreme court cases discussing FEDERAL gun laws restricting the PEOPLES’ RIGHTS to keep and bear arms before Miller in the 1930’s, because Congress hadn’t passed any laws like that since IT KNEW IT HAD NO AUTHORITY and the court had CONFIRMED THAT FACT.



Here’s some language from the Supreme Court from the mid 1850’s.

The powers of the Government and the rights and privileges of the citizen are regulated and plainly defined by the Constitution itself….It has no power of any kind beyond it… the Federal Government can exercise no power over his person or property beyond what that instrument confers, nor lawfully deny any right which it has reserved. A reference to a few of the provisions of the Constitution will illustrate this proposition.

So far this sounds a lot like the POINT I MAKE all the time and MADE in my last article. Now read the rest.

For example, no one, we presume, will contend that Congress can make any law in a Territory respecting the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people of the Territory peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for the redress of grievances.

Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel anyone to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding.

These powers, and others in relation to rights of person which it is not necessary here to enumerate, are, in express and positive terms, denied to the General Government... Scott v. Sandford

Do you see? There was no 200 year history of some made up “military use” exception/standard etc. The Court just invented it 1939 in a case where there was NO OPPOSITION TO THE GOVERNMENT. And now, everyone runs around as though it is real and legitimate and “the law”.

Honestly people if you don’t see that those in charge laugh at you, you are willfully BLIND. Hell, I laugh at you. lol I have told you that the Feds do whatever they want. The whole idea of a “constitution” and “limits” and rights is a fairy tale they tell you to keep you on the reservation. The real rule is that those who wield the guns under the color of law do as they care to do and those on the other end suffer what they must.

The 3 branches of THE SAME ENTITY are collaborating to incrementally eliminate your right to bear arms as fast as they can. IT ISN’T complicated.

Okay my fellow inmates, I’m done for today. I hope you have learned something today. The lessons from history are there to be heard, if you simply open your ears.

“Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.” —Thomas Jefferson

“When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” — Thomas Jefferson

Now for something a bit on the lighter side. I want to show you what a REAL hero looks like . A visionary! lol, This cat has taken the lesson of the brilliant 16th century political philosopher Mr. Boetie to heart. IF the PEOPLE in this country had half the brains and balls that this cat does, they’d already be free. Here is the advice Boetie gave more than 500 years ago!

Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.

— Étienne de la Boétie



Watch the video. This cat makes Gandhi look like an amateur at peaceful resistance in this short clip. lol. Enjoy my fellow inmates.

That’s all for now my Brainwashed Brethren. I hope you learned something. Take care, live in the light and tell someone about the TRUTH about the law.