1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Who Was That Fat Lady?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Husker1911, Oct 12, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Husker1911

    Husker1911 Member

    Mar 24, 2005
    Omaha, NE. Alright, Lincoln on Game day Saturdays.

    An extremely worthy essay.

    Who Was That Fat Lady?
    By Edgar J. Steele

    "America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." -- Claire Wolfe, "101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution" (1999)

    "They have treated me and others like me with utter contempt. They have confiscated our property and put people in maximum-security prisons over ownership of fender washers, claiming they were unassembled silencer parts. ... They have shot a man's wife in the head because his gun's buttstock was too short. ... They burned 90 people alive over a disputed two hundred dollar tax." -- John Ross, "Unintended Consequences" (1996)

    "It ain't over until the fat lady sings." -- Old Southern American saying (concerning church service)

    "It ain't over 'til it's over." -- Yogi Berra (1973)

    It's over. The fat lady has sung. Elvis has left the building. The great American experiment finally fizzled on December 1, 2003, when the US Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from a 9th Federal Circuit decision which gutted the Second Amendment. It was a nice run - over two hundred years - but all good things must end...I guess...at least, that's what they say.

    We all know how saying nothing sometimes can be among the most profound of statements. Ask any husband. Nowhere is silence so profound as when offered by the Supremes. And, never has their silence been so overwhelming as on December 1, 2003. That's when the US Supreme Court issued its ruling, refusing to hear an appeal in the case of Silveira vs. Lockyer. That made Silveira the law of the land, you see.

    Here's the background, briefly: California's legislatively-crafted "assault weapon" ban was stronger than the national ban. Both bans essentially outlaw any rifle that looks like it means business, regardless of capability -- I kid you not, cosmetics really is the upshot of these bans. Silveira sued in a losing attempt to overturn the more-stringent California ban. Silveira unsuccessfully appealed up through the legal system to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Next stop: US Supreme Court, which now has "denied cert," which means it allows the ruling below to stand.

    Here's the real kicker, though. Silveira doesn't just nationalize the California definition of assault weapon. In Silveira, the 9th Circuit Court made the following pronouncement: there is no individual right to bear arms contained within the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

    That means that no American citizen, since December 1, 2003, has a fundamental right to possess a firearm.

    You heard me right. You no longer have a right to own a gun.

    Mind you, here is the Second Amendment, in full: "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."

    Not just some people, but the people. You and me, in other words.

    And it's a fundamental (God-given) right, therefore the government can't mess around with it...ever. "Unalienable rights," was how the Declaration of Independence described these fundamental rights. Unless we let it. We just did, by tolerating this sort of behavior from our government.

    Mind you, the Ninth Circuit Court's judges didn't just come out and say you don't have a right to a gun. They did it in legalese: they merely "affirmed" a prior decision of their own, in which they said as much.

    So, the US Supremes affirm the ruling of a lesser court (by silence, thereby making it the law of America, nonetheless, because contrary rulings from other jurisdictions will not be tolerated), which affirmed its own prior ruling, which says you have no right to own a gun. Like thieves in the night, with stealth, the black-robed dictators steal your rights. All this silence and misdirection clearly tells you how they feel about what it is they are doing. Yet, they go ahead and do it anyway. And the average American is too stupefied to know any better...or, worse, care. No, it does get worse: many who care and understand actually applaud this result.

    The ground now has been set for blanket bans and confiscation. What? Cold, dead fingers, you say? Yeah, sure. When martial law is declared, hardly anybody will resist.

    What? Martial law never will be declared in America, you say? Yeah, right. Just wait until the next Reichstag Fire....er....terrorist event which occurs on US soil. The smart money is betting that happens within a month or two, by the way.

    Some will ask, "What's the big deal, anyway? Guns are no match for government munitions these days, anyway. Guns really are good only for hunting. Who needs hunting, with the Safeway just down the street?"

    Here's my response, which echoes that of America's founding fathers: The Second Amendment's guarantee of the individual's right to bear arms actually comprises the teeth of the Constitution; what enables us to enforce the provisions of the Constitution against an out-of-control government.

    "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..." Sound familiar? It should. It is from the second paragraph of the American Declaration of Independence.

    Furthermore, small arms are scarcely outmoded. One need look only to the debacle occurring in Iraq at this moment for the proof of that statement.

    And as for the Safeway? America's supply line is about 3 days long - no more, certainly. In a crunch, you can bet that all the publicly-available food will disappear overnight...into government hands, for consumption exclusively by "our leaders." Safely tucked away in all those nice, little underground shelters they built for themselves with our tax money in recent years.

    Does the current system of elections in America constitute "Consent of the Governed?" Scarcely. Hardly anybody votes these days, it seems. We realize that any candidate allowed to run for office already has been vetted by the real powers that be. You think Howard Dean will be any different from Bush II? Really? Nobody who could make a difference will make a difference because such a person is not allowed to run for office...at any level.

    The single best piece of commentary I have seen on the Silveira case is by another lawyer: "Reflections Upon the U.S. Supreme Court's Rejection of Silveira" by Peter J. Mancus. http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Mancus/silveira.asp) His is a passionate and brilliant, albeit lengthy, article worthy of your time. Among Mr. Mancus' observations:

    "What value is the 'right to petition to redress grievances' or to file a lawsuit (which is a form of the right to petition government for a redress of a legitimate grievance) when the petition or lawsuit or both crashes into the solid legal wall of government immunity or the government refuses to hear the petition (lawsuit) or refuses to take it seriously or refuses to apply the applicable law correctly? That is what happened with Silveira at the Federal 9th Circuit...

    "How viable is the 'right of self-defense' if you must first beg government's permission to defend your life with a gun, when government thinks it has the power to withhold its permission, with immunity, and to criminally prosecute you if it catches you packing a gun without its permission?...

    "(T)he entire purpose of the U.S. Bill of Rights was to take away government's unfettered discretion, but, guess what, government now claims it has that very discretion that the Framers intended to deny to government, and, to exacerbate matters, government now hides behind its immunities when it commits wrongdoing, and, still worse, it has the gall to accuse citizens of hiding behind their rights and being "gun nuts" or worse when they refuse to go along to get along...

    "We are on an increasingly steeper slope toward a free fall into tyranny. The U.S. Supreme Court's rejection of Silveira made that slope steeper-much steeper. That fact is simply not appreciated by some...

    "I am afraid that a violent confrontation with our own Government(s) looms ahead...

    "We are in a downward spiral toward some flashpoint where a hardcore of no-nonsense "no more" constitutionalists will press the issue and not submit to perceived, insufferable oppression...

    "I know 'the gun solution' (political assassination, open rebellion, etc.) is fraught with peril and inadequate and morally complex and legally illegal. But, what is left? When we peacefully claim our birthrights, peacefully pursue a lawsuit to the U.S. Supreme Court and are stiff-armed while we point to what is written in the Constitution, we are mocked, scorned, ridiculed, rebuffed, ignored, dismissed, and rejected...

    "(I)t is not about guns. It never was about guns. It is really about this: 1) liberty; 2) ordinary citizens retaining a legally enforceable right to retain the most efficient, pragmatic means to enforce the rest of their rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution-privately owned, registered or unregistered, firearms; 3) holding government accountable; 4) keeping government from indefinitely blowing through Constitutional red lights, violating the Constitution's commands; 5) forcing government to wear its Constitutional collar, connected to a Constitutional chain, staked firmly into the bedrock of Constitutional law.

    "Now, when government slips that Constitutional collar and refuses to put it back on and wear it compliantly and honor the Constitution's commands, with the judiciary's blessings, what then?

    "How does one make a snarly, robust, active, gargantuan government wear a collar it does not want to wear? How does one get close to the beast's teeth and claws to put on that collar and survive?...

    "Before Silveira and now with Silveira, the peaceful, legal way was tried...It failed because the Black Robes and the system failed...

    "Currently, the United States is not led, run, nor operated per its own Constitution's rules and commands. Our governments are out of control, and we, the People, have lost control of our own governments...

    "When Governments succeed in manipulating us to focus on, and to chose between, Security versus Liberty, they win. They win because the instant we choose either, we forfeit the other, and we will inevitably lose what we chose. We especially lose when we choose Security. That choice makes us too dependent on Governments to protect us. Governments cannot protect us in all ways at all times. Governments can, and do, however, use this issue to manipulate us against ourselves, to surrender more Liberty so it can increase its powers over us and tie us down with its chains rather than we tie it down with the Constitution's chains..."

    Keep in mind that Mr. Mancus, like myself, is a lawyer. He well appreciates what he dare not say aloud concerning judges and our government, on pain of being disbarred. Outspoken as are both he and I, still we are incapable of advocating things that you might legally advocate.

    It is not yet illegal to bury weapons, so I can in all seriousness advise you to bury those you previously acquired "off paper," via private sales. Do it properly, with ammunition and in well-sealed, watertight containers. Be innovative and bury them where metal detectors will not ferret them out. Keep a couple, the ones for which the dealer ran background checks, to hand to the nice soldiers who inevitably will come to your door, gun registration lists in hand. At that point, it will be illegal for me to tell you to withhold any guns from the government, so the guns you bury today will be an issue only between your conscience and yourself.

    Oh...and I don't know who that fat lady was, either. All I know is that, as she left the stage, I saw she was wearing a yarmulke.

    "I didn't say it would be easy. I just said it would be the truth." - Morpheus

    Copyright ©2004, Edgar J. Steele

    Forward as you wish. Permission is granted to circulate among private individuals and groups, post on all Internet sites and publish in full in all not-for-profit publications. Contact author for all other rights, which are reserved.

  2. Eightball

    Eightball Member

    May 31, 2005
    Louisville, KY
    Not good.
  3. Handgun Midas

    Handgun Midas Member

    May 21, 2006
    Northern Kentucky
    So did he just blame everything on the jews or what?
  4. Lucky

    Lucky Member

    Jul 12, 2005
    Calgary, near Rocky Mountains - Canada
    If the fat lady singing means the opera is ending, then that would probably be more symbolic that she's a sort of tripwire. So the reference is probably a WW2 reference, saying look what happens, or look at what we're repeating.
  5. Rem700SD

    Rem700SD Member

    Dec 8, 2005
    South of Houston, TX
    Ginsberg reference? What is a yarmulke anyway?
  6. quazi

    quazi Member

    Jun 7, 2006
    I'm not a lawyer, nor am I an expert on firearms laws, so if I'm wrong about something, please correct me.

    In United States v. Emerson the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the Right to Bear Arms was an individual right. Then later in Silveira v. Lockyer the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that there was no individual right to own firearms. The Supreme Court has declined to address either case, letting the contradiction stand. Wouldn't this mean that the Second Amendment is not truly gutted yet, and its fate is up in the air? Or since Silveira v. Lockyer is the most recent, it trumps U.S. v. Emerson? Or is there an individual right in some parts of the country, but not others?

    And now I must go scratch my head and wonder what Alaska is still doing in the Ninth Circuit.
  7. DKSuddeth

    DKSuddeth Member

    Feb 19, 2006
    Bedford, TX
    The 9ths ruling only affects those in that circuit. The 5ths affect those of us in that circuit. Before Emerson, all of the other circuits followed each other, meaning that for the last 70 years the circuits have continually undermined and rewritten the 2nd Amendment. The issue with the Silveira case was that on request to rehear enbanc, no less than 6 justices on that panel wrote seperate dissenting opinions, all stating that the individual rights view of the Second Amendment should be upheld. It also allowed the worst ever authored opinion by Justice Reinhardt to be entered in to history with Reinhardt using the most obfuscated terms and definitions in the history of our nation in an attempt to eradicate the individual rights view.
  8. twency

    twency Member

    Aug 26, 2003
    Err, um, no.
    This breathless description is misinformed and hyperbolic at best, and blatantly false at worst.

    To quote wikipedia on the subject of certiorari:
    I stopped reading the posted article partway through, because I found the tone tiring. However, since my attention was drawn to it by other posters, I'll add that this:
    sets all kinds of alarms ringing in my head. It's hard to be certain from the context (Lucky's interpretation is different from Handgun Midas's) but it sure comes across as an anti-semitic statement to me. No thanks.

    Next post please.
  9. hillbilly

    hillbilly Member

    Jul 10, 2003
    www.CONSPIRACYPENPAL.com is the website at the bottom.

    I think that's the only part of this drivel that's really revealing when you read it.

  10. Sistema1927

    Sistema1927 Member

    May 21, 2004
    "Land of (dis)Enchantment"
    I am going to buy more stock in ALCOA.
  11. orangelo

    orangelo member

    Jun 19, 2006
    I didn't know rosie o donut was Jewish.
  12. Augustwest

    Augustwest Member

    Jan 23, 2003
    Southern New England
    Really not a worthy essay.

    I am and was displease with the USSC for declining Cert. in Silveira, but Mr. Steele's diatribe is full of misinformation. And the yarmulke comment? Not cool.
  13. Keith Wheeler

    Keith Wheeler Member

    Dec 6, 2005
    Edgar J. Steel who wrote this is a trial lawyer who often works for Aryan Nations and their ilk.

    He's not a good ally in the "High Road" fight to preserve RKBA for all:

  14. Sergeant Bob

    Sergeant Bob Member

    Dec 25, 2002
    The Swamps of Goldwater, MI
    Defensive Racism
    by Edgar J. Steele

    Methodically constructing the case for acknowledging the racial differences embedded in our DNA, to which he refers as “culture gone to seed,” Steele blows the cover off the conspiracy for the New World Order which is turning America into a police state and rendering her electoral process meaningless.

    As the world relentlessly marches into World War III, the plans of the elite for America’s subjugation to third-world status will falter, with America breaking apart along racial lines.

    Steele conjures the vision of a New America, rising Phoenix-like from the ashes and resurrecting the principles of liberty and personal freedom upon which she originally was founded, all the while charting a clear, easy to follow path for the individual through the coming chaos.

    Bold, powerful and persuasive, Defensive Racism weaves a compelling argument to deal with racial differences we all recognize, yet pretend not to notice.

    Selected Book Reviewer Comments:

    Billy Roper (Chairman, White Revolution): "...you’ll learn everything you need to know about the last century of world history in one chapter, "World War III," more than you would in three or four graduate-level History courses... I got more out of his chapter “Money’s End Game: Depression II” than I ever did from college...

    Defensive racism is contrasted with "offensive racism," which is practiced due to feelings of hatred or superiority towards other races. Politically-correct Leftists see no difference between "defensive" and "offensive" racism, but thinking Americans do, and aversion to the label of "racist" keeps many quality individuals from joining the White Nationalist movement.

    Michael C. Piper (AFP correspondent, Author of Final Judgment and The High Priests of War): "An eye-opening and honest, no-holds-barred look at race relations in America today...a remarkable tapestry...will stimulate lively and thought-provoking discussion...this is an author who has an uncanny ability to lay out the bottom line in a folksy, engaging fashion" (more) "...one of this country's most eloquent voices for a rational approach to the most difficult issues facing America today...should be read by as many Americans—and people worldwide—as possible."

    "A commanding presence on the podium and equally effective at the keyboard, Steele is able, in simple, yet eloquent, language to convey what might be perceived as 'controversial' - dare we say even 'inflammatory' - opinions about difficult topics in modern American life. Steele refers to the status of race relations, the problems stemming from rampant and uncontrolled immigration and the belligerent flexing of political muscle by the adherents of Zionism who arrogantly reign supreme over their paid and blackmailed political henchmen in elective and appointive offices.

    Bold, powerful and persuasive, Defensive Racism weaves a compelling argument to deal with racial differences we all recognize, yet pretend not to notice.Methodically constructing the case for acknowledging the racial differences embedded in our DNA, to which he refers as “culture gone to seed,” Steele blows the cover off the conspiracy for the New World Order which is turning America into a police state and rendering her electoral process meaningless.

    As the world relentlessly marches into World War III, the plans of the elite for America’s subjugation to third-world status will falter, with America breaking apart along racial lines.

    Steele conjures the vision of a New America, rising Phoenix-like from the ashes and resurrecting the principles of liberty and personal freedom upon which she originally was founded, all the while charting a clear, easy to follow path for the individual through the coming chaos.

    Selected reader comments:

    "You gave me a stimulating punch of Anglo-Saxon patriotism." -- Cdr. Steve Edson, 12/13/04

    "Defensive Racism is a literary educational masterpiece. A hot arrow, a fiery dart, whose target is sure to be squared, bull's-eye and should be read by every free thinking White man, woman and child all across the globe. Indeed destined to be, the cure for blindness." -- Pastor Morris L. Gulett, http://www.churchofthesonsofyhvh.org, 11/4/04

    "...not just a dry rehash of genetic racial differences or subversive Jewish influence in America but an entertaining and easy-to-read book about current situations that affect us all." -- Paul Grove, 11/12/04

  15. Justin

    Justin Moderator Emeritus

    Dec 29, 2002
    My evil reptoid overlords have decreed that I should close this thread, because if the truth gets out, it will spoil their plans for world domination.
  16. Coronach

    Coronach Moderator Emeritus

    Dec 20, 2002

    (sorry. I had to) :D
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page