red

THAT'S REALLY BAD AS IT PERTAINS TO GUNS AND OWNERSHIIP RIGHTS

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."

A couple of links located at Drudge Thursday, September 12, 2019

CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE = TAKING WITHOUT A WARRANT
RED FLAG LAWS = TAKING WITHOUT A WARRANT

CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE = SUMMARY DENIAL OF SECURED RIGHTS WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW
RED FLAG LAWS = SUMMARY DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS OF RIGHTS WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW

CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE = INVERSION OF DUE PROCESS - YOU HAVE TO PROVE YOU'RE INNOCENT
RED FLAG LAWS = INVERSION OF DUE PROCESS - YOU HAVE TO PROVE YOU'RE INNOCENT.

CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE = PUNISHMENT BEFORE TRIAL
RED FLAG LAWS = PUNISHMENT BEFORE TRIAL

MARTIAL LAW = YOU'RE GUILTY BASED ON A MERE ALLEGATION AND HAVE TO PROVE YOU'RE INNOCENT

Samuel Adams
"Now what liberty is this when property can be taken without permission."

Richard Henry Lee (January 20, 1732 - June 19, 1794) was an American statesman and Founding Father from Virginia best known for the Lee Resolution, the motion in the Second Continental Congress calling for the colonies' independence from Great Britain.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
President Thomas Jefferson

"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege."
Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

"The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."
Senator Hubert H. Humprey (D-Minnesota)

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
Mahatma Gandhi

"The one weapon every man, soldier, sailor, or airman should be able to use effectively is the rifle. It is always his weapon of personal safety in an emergency, and for many it is the primary weapon of offense and defense. Expertness in its use cannot be overemphasized."
General Dwight D. Eisenhower

"Before God I swear this is my creed: my rifle and myself are the defenders of our country. We are the masters of our enemy. We are the saviors of my life. So be it until victory is America's and there is no enemy, but peace!!
From "My Rifle", by Major General W.H. Rupertus, USMC, Commander, 1st Marine Division

"The American Revolution was a beginning, not a consummation."
Woodrow Wilson, 28th President of the United 'States (1856-1924).

...to disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them..."
George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States."
Noah Webster, "An Examination into the leading Principles of the Federal Constitution." in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States , at 56 (New York, 1888).

"... if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?"
Delegate Sedgewick, during the Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail ... Johnathon Elliot, ed., Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol. 2 at 97 (2d ed., 1888).

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46, at 243-244.

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear private arms."
Tench Coxe, in "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution." under the pseudonym, "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 Col. 1.

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all the world would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived the use of them..."
Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 (1894)

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d Ed. Philadelphia, 1836.

WHO'S IN CHARGE? WHO'S THE BOSS? WHO'S THE EMPLOYER?

"The ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone."
James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.

[2] The people of the State of California are supreme and have the undoubted right to protect themselves and to preserve the form of government...
Steiner v. Darby (1948) 88 Cal.App.2d 481

WHY THE GUN IN CIVILIZATION

Constitution of the State of California

1849

We the people of California, grateful to Almighty; God for our freedom: in order to secure its blessings, do establish this Constitution.

Article I: Declaration of Rights

Sec. 1.

All men are by nature free and independent, and have certain unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty: acquiring, possessing and protecting property: and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime (except in cases of impeachment, and in cases of militia when in actual service, and the land and naval forces in time of war, or which this state may keep with the consent of Congress in time of peace, and in cases of petit larceny under the regulation of the legislature) unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury; and in any trial in any court whatever, the party accused shall be allowed to appear and defend in person and with counsel, as in civil actions. No person shall be subject to be twice put in jeopardy for the same offence; nor shall he be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

This enumeration of rights shall not be construed to impair or deny others, retained by the people.

Amendment 2
The Right to Bear Arms

A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Amendment 5
Protection of Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property

No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

Amendment 8
Excessive Bail, Fines, and Punishments Forbidden

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment 9
Other Rights Kept by the People

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

It would be CRUEL and UNUSUAL to confiscate/take/seize the PROPERTY of the PEOPLE by their EMPLOYEES in absence of DUE PROCESS OF LAW (warrant, day in court, compensation).

Contrary to what you believe, the police have no duty to protect you from your neighbor! You are your FIRST LINE of defense.

(a) A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services.

...the Due Process Clause did not impose upon the State an affirmative duty to provide petitioner with adequate protection.

First, the court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not require a state or local governmental entity to protect its citizens from "private violence, or other mishaps not attributable to the conduct of its employees."

But nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors.   The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State's power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security.   It forbids the State itself to deprive individuals of life, liberty, or property without "due process of law," but its language cannot fairly be extended to impose an affirmative obligation on the State to ensure that those interests do not come to harm through other means.

Consistent with these principles, our cases have recognized that the Due Process Clauses generally confer no affirmative right to governmental aid, even where such aid may be necessary to secure life, liberty, or property interests of which the government itself may not deprive the individual.

If the Due Process Clause does not require the State to provide its citizens with particular protective services, it follows that the State cannot be held liable under the Clause for injuries that could have been averted had it chosen to provide them.

...the State had no constitutional duty to protect Joshua.
DESHANEY v. WINNEBAGO CTY. SOC. SERVS. DEPT., 489 U.S. 189 (1989)

Although Balistreri was injured seriously enough to require treatment for injuries to her nose, mouth, eyes, teeth and abdomen, the officers did not offer Balistreri medical assistance.

Balistreri claims that defendants breached a duty to protect her imposed by the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, and further claims a violation by defendants of her right to be free from excessive use of force and unlawful searches and seizures by police.

There is, in general, no constitutional duty of state officials to protect members of the public at large from crime. See Martinez v. California, 444 U.S. 277, 284-85, 100 S.Ct. 553, 558-59, 62 L.Ed.2d 481 (1980); Ketchum, 811 F.2d 1243, 1247 (9th Cir.1987); Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616, 618 (7th Cir.1982).   However, such a duty may arise by virtue of a "special relationship" between state officials and a particular member of the public. Ketchum, 811 F.2d at 1247; Escamilla v. Santa Ana, 796 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir.1986).
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department (1988) 901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir.)

The right (on which see McDonald v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479, 482-85 (1985)) has never been understood to be a right to police assistance, or for that matter to any governmental assistance, services, or largesse.   As the Supreme Court held in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 195-97 (1989), and we have repeated many times, the Constitution, insofar as it creates or protects liberties, is (with immaterial exceptions) a charter of negative liberties. River Park, Inc. v. City of Highland Park, 23 F.3d 164, 166 (7th Cir. 1994); K.H. Through Murphy v. Morgan, 914 F.2d 846, 848-49 (7th Cir. 1990); Jackson v. City of Joliet, 715 F.2d 1200, 1203-04 (7th Cir. 1983); Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616, 618 (7th Cir. 1982); Pinder v. Johnson, 54 F.3d 1169, 1174 (4th Cir. 1995) (en banc); Alston v. Redman, 34 F.3d 1237, 1247 (3d Cir. 1994); David P. Currie, "Positive and Negative Constitutional Rights," 53 U. Chi. L. Rev. 864 (1986).   It creates areas in which the government has to let people alone; it does not entitle them to demand services, such as police protection.
Eyrle S. Hilton, IV v. City of Wheeling, et al. (2000) No. 99-3727, In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

The Arizona Superior Court had concluded that the duty of defendants to arrest the reckless drivers was a duty owed to the general public and not to the deceased occupants of the oncoming vehicle. The Arizona Supreme Court agreed.

The Court, however, does not agree that defendants owed a specific legal duty to plaintiffs with respect to the allegations made in the amended complaint for the reason that the District of Columbia appears to follow the well-established rule that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection.

This uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen. Turner v. United States, 248 U.S. 354, 357-58, 39 S. Ct. 109, 110, 63 L. Ed. 291 (1919); Rieser v. District of Columbia, supra.

Accordingly, courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community. E.g., Trautman v. City of Stamford, 32 Conn.Supp. 258, 350 A.2d 782 (1975); Henderson v. City of St. Petersburg, 247 So.2d 23 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1971); Massengill v. Yuma County, supra, and Riss v. City of New York, supra. Dereliction in the performance of police duties may, therefore, be redressed only in the context of a public prosecution and not in a private suit for money damages. Massengill, supra.
Warren v. District of Columbia (1981) 444 A.2d 1

W. Va. Code, 29-12A-5(a)(5) [1986], which provides, in relevant part, that a political subdivision is immune from tort liability for ‘the failure to provide, or the method of providing, police, law enforcement or fire protection[,]’...

Recently, this Court succinctly explained the public duty doctrine in this way:

Under the public duty doctrine, a government entity or officer cannot be held liable for breaching a general, non-discretionary duty owed to the public as a whole. “Often referred to as the ‘duty to all, duty to no one’ doctrine, the public duty doctrine provides that since government owes a duty to the public in general, it does not owe a duty to any individual citizen.” [John Cameron McMillan, Jr., “Government Liability and the Public Duty Doctrine,” 32 Vill. L. Rev. 505, 509 (1987) (footnotes omitted)]. Generally, no private liability attaches when a fire department or police department fails to provide adequate protection to an individual.
BOWDEN v. MONROE COUNTY COMMISSION, AND PATRICIA GREEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY, (2017) No. 16-0597, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

106 YEAR OLD WOMAN GUARDING HER HOME

California Demonrat calls for expansion of red flag laws: Employers, co-workers & teachers can petition to take away your guns