Gavin Newsom
(AP Photo/Jeff Chiu)
Previous Post
Next Post

California politicians are abusing their legislative authority to draft political reprisal bills. Left coast lawmakers want to pass a law allowing the state’s attorney general, city or county attorneys, or anyone regardless of whether they suffered harm, to sue the maker or seller of a firearm that was illegally used to inflict harm.

It’s a bill that California’s Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom called for and one that Democratic state Sen. Robert Hertzberg was glad to deliver with SB 1327. It specifically targets precursor parts used to build personally-made firearms – or so-called “ghost guns” – and Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) along with .50-caliber rifles.

Gov. Newsom admitted this legislation was a form of political reprisal. Worse yet, the bill attempts to open the floodgates against the firearm industry simply because he despises that gun makers provide the means for law-abiding citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

The frustrating part is that Gov. Newsom and his gun control allies in California’s legislature are openly mocking their own voters. They’re using the authority granted to them by voters to abuse the legislative process to score cheap political points with their special-interest gun control donors. They know they can get away with it, too. Elected officials operate under qualified immunity that protects them from civil lawsuits.

So when President Joe Biden bellows from The White House Rose Garden about wanting to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which bars these frivolous lawsuits against firearm businesses for the criminal actions of non-associated third parties, he purposefully misleads the American public.

Joe Biden angry speech
President Joe Biden speaks in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, Monday, April 11, 2022, to announce a final version of his administration’s ghost gun rule. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

Politicians can’t be sued for the harmful laws they write. But what if they could?

Crime Victims

What if crime victims could sue Gov. Newsom, or even President Biden, for failing to enforce the laws that protect communities?

The question is relevant, especially in California. District Attorney George Gascón has drawn the ire of law enforcement and citizens alike for his soft-on-crime approach to even violent criminal offenders. Convicted gang member Luis Angel Hernandez bragged he was going to have Gascón’s name tattooed to his face for his lenient sentencing policies, after he was charged with shooting and killing a delivery driver in a 2018 armed robbery.

Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascon (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)

Gascón is facing a recall from voters with 350,000 of the required 567,000 signatures collected with more than two months left before the deadline. A full 98 percent of Los Angeles prosecutors support this recall, according to the Los Angeles Association of Deputy District Attorneys (LAADDA).

The worst outcome for Gascón is he’s out of a job. But what if victims of crimes could sue him for the damages they suffered because of his inactions?

Firearm Industry

What if business owners or corporations could sue lawmakers for intentionally maligning, harming or enacting laws that do irreparable damage to their ability to conduct business? What if those companies, like the firearm industry, were Constitutionally-protected and politicians like Gov. Newsom intentionally ignored that to drive those companies out of business?

Gun makers and retailers would have a case against California for the state’s Unsafe Handgun Roster that sets in motion a slow-rolling handgun ban. The law was first enacted in 2001 and required handguns be certified for three specific safety requirements.

In 2013, that requirement was updated to include all semi-automatic handguns to have microstamping technology built into any firearm brought to market. That’s winnowed down the number of handguns available for Californians from 967 models when the law was implemented by then-Attorney General Kamala Harris to less than 250 when the same models with different paint schemes are taken into account.

Kamala Harris
(AP Photo/Jeff Chiu)

Since microstamping is technologically unfeasible, this is a law specifically enacted to deprive firearm businesses of their ability to sell a lawfully-made and Constitutionally-protected product. A similar argument could be made for California’s ban on traditional hunting ammunition.

ammunition microstamping
By Microstamper at en.wikipedia, CC BY 2.5, Link

State lawmakers are enacting these laws as a means of reprisal against the firearm industry. They know the requirements for microstamping are unachievable and the ban on hunting ammunition throughout the state is devoid of justifying scientific data. It’s a way of making it increasingly difficult to serve California customers.

Gun Owners

What about gun owners left defenseless against criminal home invaders because of intentionally-discriminatory laws depriving them of their right to keep and bear arms? California lawmakers banned adults under the age of 21 from purchasing any firearm, without meeting strict exceptions. That enacts an age-based gun ban for adults over 18 who are fully-vested in their civil rights — except for their right to lawfully purchase a firearm.

A photographer with the Los Angeles Police Department, far right, documents the remains of a crime scene in Beverly Hills, California.  (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)

Fredrick Wesley was recently arrested in Stockton, Calif., for a home invasion in which left one adult dead and another wounded. Inside the home were three children, ages 10, 12 and 9, as well as an 18-year-old. California law bars that 18-year-old from purchasing a firearm to protect himself and his family.

California lawmakers won’t have to answer to that 18-year-old for denying him the ability to protect his family. They also won’t have to pay for damages inflicted on them since they are protected by qualified immunity. The same qualified immunity these liberal politicians want to strip away from police officers.

California’s lawmakers aren’t held accountable for wielding their legislative and executive authority, no matter how harmful it is to their own citizens. If they could be dragged into court and made to answer for their specious laws, they might not be so quick to weaponize their authority against Californians and the firearm industry.


Larry Keane is SVP for Government and Public Affairs, Assistant Secretary and General Counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. “What if Politicians Could Be Sued for the Harm Caused By Their Dangerous Policies and Unconstitutional Laws?”

    The founders were not ignorant of this thought. The matter was debated, and the risk considered reasonable, lest the law be used to shut down government by causing elected officials to be entirely consumed by myriad and unending private law suits.

    • “lest the law be used to shut down government by causing elected officials to be entirely consumed by myriad and unending private law suits.”

      …and the Leftist Scum ™ are experts in lawfare, the weaponizing of laws to attack their enemies, us… 🙁

      • “…and the Leftist Scum ™ are experts in lawfare, the weaponizing of laws to attack their enemies, us…”

        Yep, anything can be twisted in order to serve evil.

    • It’s the people who keep voting for self serving scumbags like newsom. And as long as voters remain ignorant Gun Control zealots like newsom can do as they please. The only way around it is exposing newsom for what he is and defining Gun Control by its history for the history illiterate masses. They understand words like racism and genocide. What they don’t know is Gun Control goes hand in hand with all of it.

      Unfortunately all such effort to educate flies out the window when knee jerk gun owning nitwits on this forum and other forums wager on what race the perp is in a headline making shooting. Someone of color ventures onto this site and reads such wagering finger pointing crap they leave pronto with a very wrong impression of the people who defend The 2A. In the end newsom and company have not lost a vote and The Second Amendment lost another potential supporter.

      • “It’s the people who keep voting for self serving scumbags like newsom.”

        Indeed. As Pogo stated, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”

    • Agree. This article presents a provocative concept in the headline and then goes on to include zero legal or constitutional analysis. Lame.

  2. I’m confident the Leftist Scum ™ will expend every effort to find ways to use that against us… 🙁

    Edit :

    How cool! the site code converts specific strings of letters into hypertext! 🙂

  3. Much as I’d like to see it happen – this is just a pipe dream. A better route now is if politicians pursue anti-Constitutional policies is to take the policy to court, get the policy ruled unconstitutional, THEN go after the politician to have him/her removed from office for violating their oath. If someone can explain to me why that hasn’t happened anywhere yet, I’m all ears. Otherwise, like the article said, these guys are like a treadmill; one gets shot down and they just enact new ones that now have to be fought in the court all over again. Let’s cut this short and start getting these clowns removed from office so, just maybe, politicians will see what is happening and think long and hard before they introduce possible anti-Constitutiona policies. Just IMHO…

    • Never going to happen, because Officials have almost absolute immunity from acts committed within the scope of their official duties. The courts have no interest in actually testing that because they enjoy the same immunity.

    • Okay, once again now, I know I pound the shit out of this. But it is because the pervasive ‘brainwashing’ is so frighteningly embedded almost to a point of religious intransigence causing way too many who should know better to be trapped in their own mind prison. And this article exemplifies this. Violating ones Oath is one one thing. But because almost ALL politicians are liars. It’s a toothless, unenforcible censurship.

      But committing a serious Felony Criminal ACT against the Citzenry as a whole. Is a different issue.

      Taking them out of office is our prerogative and duty and must be done in any case for the general salvation of our American way of life this coming midterm elections cycle. The visionary and quite historically pragmatic Framers set it up that way, purposely. We don’t have a ‘Democracy’. We have a REPUBLIC. Which means Of the people For the people and By the people. No Statist or Fascist Dictatorships, No theocracies, No Communist Socialiism, Royalist Kingdoms, or Corporatacracies.

      Our guaranteed rights of egalitarian liberty and justice are clearly written in Constitutional stone.

      But what gets me is that we are so dumbed down with a deep state manipulated status quo that everything can be ‘remedied’ with still more unnecessary laws or endless, virtually useless, litigations…that we can’t tell assholes from bullet holes anymore?

      FORGET ALL this Bullshit lawsuits nonsense. All we have to do is get some non-feckless criminal justice leadership, supply them with some testesterone supplements if required, and HAVE them Criminally INDICT all these blatently obvious Statutory Deprivation of Rights violators under USCC Felony charges 18-241-242. One example on a Fox News Clip of anybody who introduces, or signs a Bill , or votes for, or enforces an illegal gun control law being led into court in cuffs and shackles and I’ll bet that even hearing the term ‘Gun Control’ after will cause most Anti-2nd/A politicians to have instant Hershey Squirts in their panties.

      These are real Felony deprivations of rights, folks. Not any ‘what if” fantasies as hoped for in the above article.

      There was no problemo with the Feds charging the Floyd debacle cops with 18-241-242 Deprivation of rights felonies. Even after they were already convicted of murder charges. The reason they dropped the 18-242 indictment was because they wouldn’t be able to prove intent. How could you prove deprivation of Rights for not providing medical necessities when an ambulance was already on its way? And the officers were not expertly trained in diagnosis or advanced paramedic skills?

      But there would be no doubt of proving intent to deprive us of our 2nd/A rights when they continuously specifically state they are ‘indending’ and acting in furtherence of the crime with actionable efforts for the restricting, prohibiting, and deprivation of our uninfringeable firearms rights? No fucking jury in the world could ever say NOT guilty?!

      We better get our heads screwed on correctly before we strip the threads and never be able to tighten it down again?

      • You make some good points, but have you read that “deprivation” law? TTAGers cite it all the time, but it doesn’t say what people think it says.

  4. If that were the case, there would be a lot of broke politicians spending their days in court! Pretty attractive scenario, eh??

  5. Voters everywhere need to decide what is more important. Do they want Liberty? Or do they want “bread and circuses”? In some states they have chosen the latter. Legalize drugs. Legalized gay marriage. The option of not having to get married when having children. The government will simply pay, you to stay single, and have as many children as you want. All sexual Liberation made legal. And “free stuff” from the government.
    In exchange for the loss of basic civil rights.

  6. I know there was much talk about removing qualified immunity from police but to be honest all politicians, federal, state and local should have no immunity to their own laws. Pass a bad law and they have to pay, individually. Pass a law that restricts civil rights and not only pay but repeal the law. It should be possible to sue these politicians into abject poverty forcing them into using their own money before they just vote to cut a check from the treasury. Every politicians should enter into office strapped with lawsuits before they even propose some new law.

    I would like to start here before going after police and the people in our communities.

    • Our system of a democratic republic was designed to be run by honest, moral people that are serving a term or two in service to their country. We have only corrupt, immoral, self serving politicians that want to get rich and remain in power all their lives. That’s why it’s not working.

  7. Reparations for families of people killed or raped by illegals and for businesses and homes damaged during the BLM summers of love would be a good start.

    The wokeys are so worried about sending checks to people who are generations removed from damages they’ve never known when we have people suffering the affects of government folly in the present tense.

  8. Technically you can sue the government but only if they allow it. However all that does is waste your resources. you spend the money to fight it in court while your tax dollars are spent to fight you in court. then if you happen to win in court the government takes your tax dollars and pays a settlement, then raises taxes to pay for it. the worst that may happen to them is they have to find another job.

    if I am a government employee and if I as an individual break the law then I can and should be held accountable in a court of law for that breach, however if my agency orders me to break that same law then there is nothing that anyone can do and I can be terminated for not following orders.
    Now I know some people will claim that I can make a whistle blower complaint however I only receive that protection if there is a “gross” violation of the law and in this case “gross” violation is decided by the very same people I logged the complaint against.

    I completely understand why Snowden did what he did, the Constitution means nothing to the government in the name of National Security and National Security is whatever the government says it is.

    • Yes, exactly. Civil lawsuits against politicians may be a “dream”, but they fall far short of actual justice – holding criminal politicians to the same standards as non-politician criminals.

      If I were caught depriving you of your lawfully acquired gun, I would be charged with one count of that crime. If deprive ten people, there would be ten counts (or a number equal to the number of guns I stole). If a politician – not a person operating on the edge of the law, but one who swore an oath and accepted tax dollars to uphold the law – deprives millions of their rights, he should be liable for that many counts of the crime.

      • In theory you are absolutely correct, but do you think the courts would every even entertain that?
        How about asset forfeiture laws that can be used to seize your property without ever charging you with a crime?
        How about extreme protection orders in which the court can begin proceedings against you without ever telling you?

        There are countless examples of the Government and officials breaking the law with impunity and the courts start doing Olympic level mental gymnastics to justify it as “in the public’s best interest”

        • I freely admit it’s farfetched to hope for justice “because it’s the right thing to do”, and reliance on courts (lawyers) to hold politicians accountable out of a pure sense of duty even more so. People talk about the Founding Fathers’ wisdom in basing their checks and balances on self-interest rather than on blind faith in human goodness. While they failed to give the Constitution “teeth” (IMHO because they shared belief in self-evident truths and didn’t anticipate the degree to which society moved in a different direction – a separate discussion unto itself), it’s still the right place to start. If the law prescribed consequences for rights violations, each politician would have as many potential prosecutors, hostile jurors, and executioners (figuratively) as he has political rivals. The prospect of being called to account at the end of one’s term (a feature of many classical constitutions) would hang over every constitutionally-questionable proposal like the Sword of Damocles. Hell, a simple requirement to reference every proposed bill to a corresponding power specified in the Constitution (as proposed IIRC by Paul Ryan, drawing ridicule from Pelousy) could work wonders.

          Given that the basis for “constitutionality” today is often construed as “BS made up by left-wing activists starting in the sixties”, it’s probably too late at this stage to put more tools in politicians’ toolboxes.

  9. Politicians can be sued now. Anyone can be sued for anything. Making it stick is the problem. But if someone could successfully sue, say, Gavin Newsom, he’d be dependent on complementary hair gel.

  10. The only way to deal with these people is vote them out. They must be defeated.

    This is our shot at defeating communism. Passed generations fought hard and many lost their lives, all for the freedom that is this nations legacy. This is not racist or any other -ist. We owe it to ourselves, our countrymen both passed and future, and we owe it to our children.

    I have one dream for this place and that is freedom.

  11. The gangster criminals that set up this country i.e. the corrupt Founders were greed monger criminals who set up a corrupt Oligarchy that was designed to be firmly entrenched and untouchable in regards to being held liable for anything and in most cases their corruption allows them to hang on to power for life.

    There are three groups of people in Capitalvania, the upper 1 percent who use the politicians as their personal prostitutes so they can rape the public blind and exempt themselves from ever paying any taxes and we have the worker drone troglodyte slaves who are beaten unconscious and arrested for any minor or trivial offence and of course it is they that must pay the taxes to run the county

    In conclusion the Capitalvanians and their prostitute Politicians are above the law and you the worker slave are not and you are expendable.

    • dacian the fake but also a Dunderhead. If you don’t like this country, you are free to leave and live in a place more conducive to your thoughts.

      • He cannot leave. No place, such as France, a socialist state, will allow him to move there. They need productive workers to tax the crap out of to pay for their nanny state.

        Thanks to mental illness dacian is unemployable and a drain on the tax payer.

      • to Walter the Beverly Hillbilly.

        I have no intention of leaving because we Socialists are winning.

        • dacian, the Dunderhead, “winning”? Winning what? Look out for November. You Leftists are in for a shellacking like you have never had before. You are not just a Dunderhead, but delusional as well.

  12. Most people are convinced that Cities, politicians, District Attorneys and Judges are immune from criminal prosecution and civil actions if they’re acting in “good faith”. WRONG! If they deprive anyone of their secured constitutional liberties – they have no such immunity! So says the SCOTUS in three cases (re: Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 [municipalities], Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1 [politicians], Hafer v Mello, 502 U.S. 21 [officers of the court]).

    The importance of Scalia’s/the SCOTUS’ opinion in the Heller case is that it recognizes that the U.S. Constitution protects “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms…” and that that right is fundamental and individual. That fact opens the door to both suits of equity and criminal charges against ANYONE who conspires to deprive us of a right that is secured by the Constitution under the color of law (re: 18, USC, 241 [conspiracy]), and/or then deprives us of that right (re: 18, USC, 242). 18, USC, 241-2 allow anyone stripped unlawfully of a right that is secured by the U.S. Constitution to file federal felony criminal charges against those responsible. If one can prove that he/she has the right, he/she can then send ANYONE who deprives them of that right to Leavenworth.

    Suit of equity then come into play for the fact that ALL civil servants take oaths the defend the constitution (a compact) when they take office. If they then violate the terms of the compact that they’ve sworn to uphold in any way, willfully or not, they are liable to those they’ve damaged by their actions. Recourse is found under 42, USC, 1983 (Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights). What’s cool about section 1983 is that it works both for recovering damages and as a punitive tool. This means that you can sue ’em for everything they’re worth as punishment for violating your rights.

      • Umm, Seems pretty straight forward to me. You tell me – what did I miss?

        “Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both;  and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;  and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.”

        • B.Zerker,
          You (and several others here – and in practically every discussion of laws and rights on TTAG) cited the law as if it categorically prohibits deprivation of rights under color of law. It does not. The part you missed is

          on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race

          In other words:
          -It is not only not a violation of this law to deprive a native-born white American of his rights,
          -It is also not a violation to deprive an alien or minority of rights unless it is “on account” [i.e. specifically because] of his color or alien status.

          In other words, as long as an unjust law applies equally to everyone, the fact that it deprives us of rights is not outlawed or punishable by this law.

        • “Suit of equity then come into play for the fact that ALL civil servants take oaths the defend the constitution (a compact) when they take office. If they then violate the terms of the compact that they’ve sworn to uphold in any way, willfully or not, they are liable to those they’ve damaged by their actions. Recourse is found under 42, USC, 1983 (Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights). ”

          Gee Wally.

          Gotta wonder why the pro-gun organizations haven’t figured out that line of attacking 2A infringements.

        • Sam,
          I believe the answer to your question is that since the 1910s (the beginning of the progressive era) that the government run educational has dumbed (some of) us down to the point that we trust the government and that the majority of Americans no longer believe that the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law that binds government to prescribed limits. That colorable law, because it’s modern, is somehow superior to and supplants the supreme law. That is the lie that we’ve been indoctrinated by the educational system to believe. Sadly, those indoctrinated in this belief are some of the modern Judges. But, contrary to their indoctrination, any statute that seeks to be “the law of the land” must “… be made in pursuance thereof;…”, and must be in harmony with the supreme law (re: Article VI, paragraph 2) to be valid (re: Marbury v Madison, 5 US 137).

          Fact: all anti-gun laws are repugnant to the express command contained in the Second Amendment to government that states: ‘the right of the people to keep (own) and bear (carry, possess on one’s person) Arms, shall not be infringed.’ by said government. To “war on” a self-executing provision of the supreme law is an overt act of treason (Cooper v Aaron, 358 US 1).

          42, USC, 1983 is a law that is “in pursuance thereof” making it valid and a tool in the arsenal of the pro-gun groups. Why they haven’t used it I cannot say. One rule of using Sec. 1983 is that only a damaged party can initiate the complaint and it can only be against the individual(s) that did the damaged. Who knows, maybe now that the Heller decision has recognized the fact that the Second Amendment is a fundamental and individual right that is secured by the Constitution, it might one day be used against the gun-grabbers. I know I’d use it!

  13. No government is going to outlaw itself. Ultimately, it’s the people, not the law, which must hold an abusive/tyrannical state to account.

    • “Ultimately, it’s the people, not the law, which must hold an abusive/tyrannical state to account.”

      Just stop that. I don’t come here to have the truth about individual responsibility shoved in my face.

      I’m just trying to live my life, and have no time for forcing elected officials out of office simply because the are not serving the nation well. Let some lawyer do that…they get paid for it.

      • Yes Jethro , the man who claims to be independently wealthy, and now you admit you do not have enough money to even buy the most commonly available truck in the U.S.

        • Even discounting the mental illness you suffer from, herr dacian, you are a moron.

          And when did I ever claim to be wealthy? Maybe to a basement dweller like you having my finances in order and being debt free appears to be something special.

          Wealthy is like your fascist masters, gates, bloomberg and soros.

        • Although it will not pass the censors because the censors let people insult me but when I reply they censor me here goes anyway. I will paraphrase what you called me yesterday Jethro “You are a lying sack of shit” as you have made this claim on more than on occasion.

        • dacian, the Dunderhead, It is not an “insult” when we rightly identify you for what you are. We can’t help if it you are a “…lying sack of shit”. You have been caught repeatedly twisting the truth to fit your perverted agenda.

          For your edification, Jethro is a fine name.


  15. Larry should consult with a California attorney before spouting off. California legislators
    DO NOT have a qualified immunity for legislative acts, legislators have absolute immunity from damage suits based on legislative acts.

    Further, his screed on the microstamping law (as onerous as that law is) is inaccurate. The law came into effect when Kamala Harris, in her capacity as Attorney General for the State of California, “certified” that microstamping technology was “generally available.” She was partially correct–there was a technology available–but the law required a stamp in two places, and the experimental machine only put a stamp in one place, on the spent primer. (On top of that, the microstamper on the end of the firing pin wears out quite rapidly.) So yeah, she was wrong, but at this point it is too late to quibble about it.

    Finally, an 18 year old cannot purchase a firearm, it is true, but an 18 year old may receive a rifle or shotgun firearm through gift or bequest. Possession of “concealable” weapons is prohibited.

    • “California legislators DO NOT have a qualified immunity for legislative acts, legislators have absolute immunity from damage suits based on legislative acts.”

      Really, “absolute immunity” ?????

      I know for a fact that the SCOTUS differs with your opinion:

      “The US Supreme Court ruled that public Officials (Judge are not exempt) who cause “Unauthorized Deprivations” lose their Eleventh Amendment Protection and are subject to suit for damages under 42 USC 1983. The key is negligence: acting in excess or without authority or jurisdiction or failing to act when required to do so.” (Hafer v Mello, 502 US 21)

      Are not legislators “public Officials”? If they enact “colorable” legislation that is repugnant to a provision of the U.S. Constitution and thereby “void” because of its repugnance (re: Marbury v Madison, 5 US 137), and as a result of their actions people are damaged (deprived of their rights), is there no remedy and recourse? Damn straight there is and it’s called a “Civil Suit For The Deprivation Of Rights” under Tile 42, USC, Section 1983. And if I’m not mistaken, Hafer was a case that originated in California.

  16. What if… Breaking the supreme law of the land was considered for the treason that it is. I don’t think we’d have any gun control.

  17. “What if… Breaking the supreme law of the land was considered for the treason that it is.”

    Treason is a specific, defined act, not an opinion anchored on political views.

    Article III, Section 3, Clause 1:
    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

  18. @B.Zerker

    If your line of thinking was a viable legal strategy, such would have already resulted in a landmark decision of such thunderous implication it would have stopped the slide into chaos that is now “the law”.

    One must ponder why your approach has yet to be argued before the SC. The reason for the lack of attempt is not because the idea has not been thoroughly analyzed, and pursued as a viable shield against rogue government. (same as “shall not be infringed”)

  19. We’ll see Sam. I have a number of Sec. 1983 suits in the pipeline against the officers of two NM courts for their willful disregard of Constitutional mandate. Not to mention I’m hittin’ for treason also. These suits don’t deal with Second Amendment infringements, but rather Article III violations. If it goes my way, it will be landmark and carry “thunderous implications”! You’ll probably never hear about it because they’ll most likely either pay me off and hit me with a gag order, or they’ll disappear me. But as they say, no balls, no babies.

    • Good on ya’, mate. Puttin’ yourself on the line. Outcome will be very interesting.(Unless, of course, you die of old age while the suits are “in the pipeline”.

      • Howdy Walter,
        Here’s how – When each state joined the union, it bound itself to each and every provision of the U.S. Constitution. This is specified in Article VI, paragraph 2: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in in pursuance thereof; … or which shall be made… shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

        1) Article III, Section 2, paragraph 2, clearly dictates that: “In all Cases… and those in in which a State is a Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” (If you didn’t know, “original Jurisdiction” means the jurisdiction to hear the case in the first instance.)

        2) Article III, Section 2, paragraph 3, clearly dictates that: “The Trial of all Crimes… shall be by Jury”.

        3) Amendment XIV, Section 1, clearly dictates that: “… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law…” (“Due process of law” is clearly defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. as: “A course of legal proceedings… for the enforcement and protection of private right. To give such a proceeding any validity, there must be a tribunal competent by its constitution…).

        4) The NM Constitution, Article II, Section 1 – “The state of New Mexico is an inseparable part of the federal union, and the constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.”

        I was issued a “Criminal Complaint” and in the absence of a bona fide complainant (an injured party), the State of NM declared itself the “Plaintiff” (a party) and proceeded to adjudicate its case against me in an inferior tribunal that did not possess lawful jurisdiction in violation of a clear mandate of Article III, Section 2. It did so in bench trial (no jury) which is another clear violation of Article III, Section 2. The NM Judiciary clearly did not provide me with lawful “due process of law” (as defined by Black’s Law Dictionary, the book that they use to define terms), which is a clear violation of Amendment XIV.

        Should I not expect positive performance on the compact(s) that rule the judiciary’s actions? Do I not possess that right? I believe that I do under Amendment IX. What allows NM, or any State, to violate, with impunity, constitutional mandates in favor of inferior codes (not laws) that are repugnant to the dictates of the “supreme Law”? Codes that are “contrary” to the provisions of two constitutions and therefore “notwithstanding” in law.

  20. Thanks, I pretty sure I’ve got ’em by the balls – and regarding dying of old age prior to satisfaction – to paraphrase Jose Jimenez (The Right Stuff) – ‘Oh, I hope not.”

  21. “…to paraphrase Jose Jimenez (The Right Stuff) – ‘Oh, I hope not.” ”

    I remember that bit from way back when steve allen would interview Jimenez.

    • You probably date me then, Steve Allen was before my time. I’m only 60. I learned about Bill Dana’s comedy routine playing Jose Jimenez from the movie The Right Stuff.

  22. Yes, Bill Dana goes way back, way back. He put out a coupla “records” (usually album diameter) as Jimenez. Likely would not be allowed to perform today. Probably can’t relate, but there was a time that comedy albums were the reason for getting a party together, sitting in a living room, den or rec room, and just listening to the audio. Other popular acts were Cosby, Mel Brooks,and Smothers Brothers. What made it all work was that you weren’t distracted by looking for physical moves, or facial expressions, so the whole impact was in word delivery.

  23. There is chronic “crisis” in the supply of tar/feathers and fence rails in this nation. Perhaps the CDC morons could address this.

  24. Better idea: What if leftist politicians like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer were prosecuted under the same financial fraud laws that sent Bernie Madoff to prison?

    Madoff stole $65 billion from his victims, but he was nobody compared to leftist office-holders.

  25. Yet that same 18 year old in Fresno, last year at age 17 could have been on patrol in the sandbox with a fully automatic S.A.W. under his arm. And, indeed, even while in basic training he could have had possession of a fully automatic S.A.W. as a squad automatic rifleman but off duty, he couldn’t buy a .22 caliber pistol for home protection, nor own one of the many “modern sporting rifles” here in the Peepuls Dimokaratic Reepublik of Kallyfornicadia.

  26. they want cops to be sued for anything they do that a liberal- left thinks is wrong, so indeed why not a politition by anyone who thinks they messed up. P.S a liberal- left is a person that is so open minded, their brain falls out.

Comments are closed.