REGARDING THE GOVERNMENT’S INFRINGEMENT
UPON THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
WHEREAS, the Declaration of Independence declares that We the People have, by Divine delegation, the Right to create and institute governments to serve the People and protect their unalienable Rights, and
Constitution for the United States creates such a government, and that
such document specifically enumerates the limited nature and extent of
delegated powers that such government has, and
“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” and
WHEREAS, the Revolution
of 1776 and subsequent birth of our Republic was made practically
possible through the People’s direct exercise of the Rights embodied
within the Second Amendment, and
WHEREAS, the Right of
all Individuals to protect and defend themselves, their families, and
their Rights against the men and governments that would seek to harm
them or deprive them of their Rights is itself, a Natural, unalienable
WHEREAS, on August 9, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit erred, in relying on two inapposite decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States and holding that the Government does not have to listen or respond to Petitions for Redress of Grievances from the People, and
WHEREAS, on February 22, 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States committed treason to the Constitution by refusing to hear the First Amendment case, We The People v. United States (case No. 07-681), calling for a judicial declaration -- for the first time in history -- of the Rights of the People and the obligations of the Government under the “accountability clause” of the Constitution – that is, the last ten words of the First Amendment.
WHEREAS, all men are created equal and are endowed by their "Creator" with certain unalienable rights, and
WHEREAS, if the Creator has, in fact, gratuitously provided, equipped and enriched the People with Rights, it follows that those Rights belong to the People and to the Creator, and it follows that any affront to the Constitution (as when government violates an unalienable Right) is an affront to the Creator, and
WHEREAS, if our Rights come from the Creator, only the Creator can frustrate, deny or defeat those Rights -- that is, government cannot abridge what God alone has manifest and bestowed upon the People, and
WHEREAS, the Constitution of the United States of America is a strongly worded, Divinely inspired, set of principles expressly intended to govern the government, not the People, and
WHEREAS, by the terms and provisions of the written Constitution, the People have expressly established their government and empowered it to act in only certain ways, while purposely and patently restricting and prohibiting it in other certain ways, and
WHEREAS, the Constitution of the United States of America guarantees to every American citizen and to those lawfully on our soil, the unalienable Rights to Life, Liberty, Property, Privacy and to Due Process of Law as well as other Rights, enumerated or not, and
WHEREAS, the Constitution prohibits and restricts the federal Government from infringing upon those Rights, and
WHEREAS, each of the Constitution’s prohibitions and restrictions on government’s authority is, in fact, another unalienable Right enjoyed by every American citizen and to those individuals lawfully upon our soil, and
WHEREAS, the People of
this nation are entitled, by the Right specifically enumerated by the
Second Amendment, to Keep and Bear Arms for the defense of their Life,
Property, and Liberty, as well as the Right to Abolish the Government by
Force should they so deem necessary, as well as the protection of their
other Constitutionally protected unalienable Rights,
WE THE PEOPLE find ourselves, once again, in the position of having to admit that in every stage of our oppression we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms, our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury, and that a Government that ignores its People is unfit to be the ruler of a free People.
WE THE PEOPLE, by and through the
unalienable Right guaranteed by First and Ninth Amendments to the
Constitution of the United States of America, instruct the President
and each member of Congress to honor their oaths of office and their
constitutional obligation by responding to this Petition for Redress,
providing formal, specific answers to the questions contained herein,
WE THE PEOPLE reaffirm the
essential principle underlying our system of governance, as expressed by
the Founders, that “If money is wanted by Rulers who have in any
manner oppressed the People, they may retain it until their
grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without
trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public tranquility” and
“how efficacious its [the privilege of giving or withholding our money]
intercession for redress of grievances and establishment of rights, and
how improvident would be the surrender of so powerful a mediator. ”
1. Admit or deny that the Magna
Carta signed June 15, 1215 established the primary legal and philosophical
foundation for the system of Law, limited governance and Natural Rights
enjoyed for centuries as the English Common Law and English Bill of Rights
inherited and embraced by our Founders.
“If we, our chief justice, our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security, and the offence is made known to four of the said twenty-five barons, they shall come to us - or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice - to declare it and claim immediate redress. If we, or in our absence abroad the chief justice, make no redress within forty days, reckoning from the day on which the offence was declared to us or to him, the four barons shall refer the matter to the rest of the twenty-five barons, who may distrain upon and assail us in every way possible, with the support of the whole community of the land, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon. Having secured the redress, they may then resume their normal obedience to us.”
5. Admit or deny that Section 61 of the Magna Carta in effect, recognizes and provides for the Natural and inherent Right of the People, if necessary, to physically attack and seize the officers and property of the government in order to secure Redress against the government’s transgressions upon the Rights of the People.
6. Admit or
deny that Section 61, in part, essentially articulates the Right of the
People to Petition their government for Redress of Grievances and to use
violent force, if necessary, to secure such Redress.
9. Admit or
deny that the Second Amendment, unlike any other amendment,
explicitly, and unambiguously, states that the “right of the
people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
12. Admit or deny that the U.S. Supreme Court in Hurtado v People of California, 110 U.S. 516, 530-537 (1884) held that the Rights enumerated in Magna Carta are Individual Rights and that certain Rights must remain outside the control of government if government is to be controlled:
“The Constitution of the United States was ordained, it is true, by descendants of Englishman, who inherited the traditions of English law and history; . . . ¶ The concessions of Magna Carta were wrung from the King as guaranties against the oppression and usurpations of his prerogative. . . . ¶ In this country written constitutions were deemed essential to protect the rights and liberties of the people against the encroachments of power delegated to their governments, and the provisions of Magna Carta were incorporated into Bills of Rights. They were limitations upon all the powers of government, legislative as well as executive and judicial . . . . ¶ Applied in England only as guards against executive usurpation and tyranny, here they have become bulwarks also against arbitrary legislation; but, in that application, as it would be incongruous to measure and restrict them by the ancient customary English law, they must be held to guarantee not particular forms of procedure, but the very substance of individual rights to life, liberty, and property. . . . ¶ Due process of law is process according to the law of the land. . . . ¶ According to a recognized canon of interpretation, especially applicable to formal and solemn instruments of constitutional law, we are forbidden to assume, without clear reason to the contrary, that any part of this most important amendment is superfluous. . . . ¶ Due process of law . . . refers to that law of the land which derives its authority from the legislative powers conferred upon Congress by the Constitution of the United States, exercised within the limits therein prescribed, . . . . ¶ It is not every act, legislative in form, that is law. Law is something more than the mere will exerted as an act of power. . . . Arbitrary power, enforcing its edicts to the injury of the persons and property of its subjects, is not law, whether manifested as the decree of the monarch or of an impersonal multitude. And the limitations imposed by our constitutional law upon the action of the governments, both State and national, are essential to the preservation of public and private rights, notwithstanding the representative character of our political institutions. The enforcement of these limitations by judicial process is the device of self-governing communities to protect the rights of individuals and minorities, as well against the power of numbers, as against the violence of public agents transcending the limits of lawful authority, even when acting in the name and wielding the force of government. . . . ¶ ‘It must be conceded that there are such rights in every free government beyond the control of the State. A government which recognized no such rights, which held the lives, the liberty, and the property of its citizens subject at all times to the absolute disposition and unlimited control of even the most democratic depository of power, is after all but a despotism. It is true it is a despotism of the many, of the majority, if you choose to call it so, but it is nevertheless a despotism. . . .” [Emphasis added.]
13. Admit or deny that in 1513 Niccolo Machiavelli penned the The Prince, which contains the following in Chapter 14 regarding the possession of arms:
“. . . being unarmed makes you despised. . . . between an armed and an unarmed man there is no comparison whatsoever, and it is not reasonable for an armed man to obey an unarmed man willingly, nor that an unarmed man should be safe among armed servants; since, when the former is suspicious and the latter are contemptuous, it is impossible for them to work well together”. [Emphasis added.]
14. Admit or deny that our Founders relied directly upon their natural Rights to abolish government via force in the Declaration of Independence:
15. Admit or deny that in delegating certain limited authorities to governments to raise armies and perform police functions the People could not delegate a power to the government that they themselves did not possess first as Individuals.
16. Admit or deny that the word
“militia” as used in the Constitution, refers generically to the body of
privately armed citizens of the several states.
“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was
to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political
controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials
and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.
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.” West
Virginia State Bd. Of Educ. v. Barnette, (1943) 319 U.S. 624, 638
“The Bill of Rights is applicable to
investigations as to all forms of governmental action. Witnesses cannot be
compelled to give evidence against themselves. They cannot be subjected to
unreasonable search and seizure. Nor can the First Amendment freedoms of
speech, press and religion, or political belief and association be
“These sentiments worked their way over to
the Colonies and were implanted after great struggle into the Bill of
Rights. Those who framed our Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ever
aware of subtle encroachments on individual liberty. They knew that
‘illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing by
silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure.’ .
. . The [Fifth Amendment] privilege was elevated to constitutional status
and has always been ‘as broad as the mischief against which it seeks to
guard.’ . . . We cannot depart from this noble heritage. . . . ¶ In this
Court, the privilege has consistently been accorded a liberal
construction.  . . . ¶ We encourage Congress and the States to
continue their laudable search for increasingly effective ways of
protecting the rights of the individual while promoting efficient
enforcement of our criminal laws.  . . . ¶ As courts have been
presented with the need to enforce constitutional rights, they have found
means of doing so. That was our responsibility a . . . and it is our
responsibility today. Where rights secured by the Constitution are
involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate
them. ” Miranda v. Arizona(1966),384U.S.436
“Where rights secured by the Constitution
are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would
“. . . The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined . . . . ¶ It is urged that the expansion of military jurisdiction over civilians claimed here is only slight, and that the practical necessity for it is very great. The attitude appears to be that a slight encroachment on the Bill of Rights and other safeguards in the Constitution need cause little concern. But . . . [s]light encroachments create new boundaries from which legions of power can seek new territory to capture. ‘It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. Moreover we cannot consider this encroachment a slight one. Throughout history many transgressions by the military have been called ‘slight’ and have been justified as ‘reasonable’ in light of the ‘uniqueness’ of the times. We cannot close our eyes to the fact that today the peoples of many nations are ruled by the military.” Reid v. Covert, (1957) 354 U.S. 1, 17, 39-40
25. Admit or deny that the following quotes from our Founders all support the contention that it is a fundamental Right of every citizen to be armed and that it is this Right that is protected without infringement by the Second Amendment:
“Americans [have] the right, and
advantage of being armed 'unlike
citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the
people with arms.”
26. Admit or deny that one can carry
a concealed weapon without manifesting criminal intent or
infringing upon the Rights of others?
“For if they [slaves] were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they [the slave holding states] considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the Negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased ...; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public ..., and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.” [Emphasis added.]
28. Admit or deny that the U.S. Supreme Court in Bailey v. Alabama (1911) 219 U.S. 219, 241 held that a Constitutional provision that is expressly prohibitory in its language (as for example the 15th Amendment’s prohibition on the impairment of the Right to contract) is “self-executing”, operating proprio vigore, requiring no legislation to implement it or make it complete.
“While the Amendment was self-executing, so far as its terms were applicable to any existing condition, . . . . As was said in the Civil Rights cases: ‘By its own unaided force and effect it abolished slavery . . . . the Amendment is not a mere prohibition of state laws establishing or upholding slavery, but an absolute declaration that slavery or involuntary servitude shall not exist in any part of the United States.’ . . . ¶ The full intent of the constitutional provision could be defeated with obvious facility if, through the guise of contracts under which advances had been made, debtors could be held to compulsory service. It is the compulsion of the service that the statute prohibits, for when that occurs the condition of servitude is created, which would be no less involuntary servitude . . . . ¶ What the State may not do directly it may not do indirectly . . . . we must consider the natural operation of the statute here in question . . . ., and it is apparent that it furnishes a convenient instrument for coercion which the Constitution and the act of Congress forbid…” “[Emphasis added.]
29. Admit or deny that state or
federal laws that are a prior restraint against the exercise of the Second
Amendment Right and seek to regulate the use or possession of arms such as
concealed carry weapon permit laws, mandatory background checks, mandatory
registrations, mandatory purchase limits, mandatory arms design feature
restrictions, “gun free zones”, etc. are, therefore, by the “unaided force
and effect” of the Second Amendment itself, automatically, null and
void and unconstitutional.
32. Admit or deny that in deciding
US v. Miller, the U.S. Supreme Court merely remanded the case back to
the District Court for further evidentiary proceedings, and that contrary
to widespread belief, the Court did NOT rule that Second Amendment
does not guarantee an Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
34. Admit or deny that the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Emerson (2001) 270 F.3d 203 rebuffed the government’s assertion that the Second Amendment is a “collective right”
“We conclude that Miller does not support the government’s collective rights or sophisticated collective rights approach to the Second Amendment. Indeed, to the extent that Miller sheds light on the matter it cuts against the government’s position. . . . In undertaking this analysis, we are mindful that almost all of our sister circuits have rejected any individual rights view of the Second Amendment. However, it respectfully appears to us that all or almost all of these opinions seem to have been done so either on the erroneous assumption that Miller resolved the issue or without sufficient articulated examination of the history and text of the Second Amendment.” [Emphasis added.]
35. Admit or deny that Justice
Thomas, concurring in Printz v. United States (1997) 521 U.S. 898,
938-939, n.2, noted that “Marshaling an impressive array of historical
evidence, a growing body of scholarly commentary indicates that the ‘right
to keep and bear arms’ is, as the Amendment’s text suggests, a personal
“. . . an avalanche of scholarly investigation, including my own research on the subject . . ., has required me to revisit the meaning of that amendment, . . . . My conclusions . . . are: . . . (2) that the Second Amendment does indeed protect individual rights as well as collective rights . . . . [Emphasis added.]
42. Admit or deny that the federal government regulates firearms traffic into, from and within the United States by enforcing the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, the National Firearms Act (NFA), 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53, and the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), 22 U.S.C. 2778.
43. Admit or deny that the authority to administer and enforce these laws rests with the Secretary of the Treasury.
44. Admit or deny that the GCA (18 USC, Chapter 44) was enacted for the purpose of keeping firearms out of the hands of those not legally entitled to possess them because of age, criminal background, or incompetence.
45. Admit or
deny that 18 USC Section 922 (g) establishes the criteria by which
a person may legally purchase or possess a firearm under federal law.
48. Admit or deny that under 18 USC 922 (g), any American who has been convicted of a state misdemeanor crime involving domestic violence is barred forever from possessing a firearm.
49. Admit or
deny that 18 USC 922 (n) makes it a federal felony for American citizens
who have only been indicted, but not convicted, of a felony level
crime to possess, purchase or sell a firearm.
“The GCA makes it unlawful to engage in a firearms business without a license. 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(1), 923(a). Federal firearms licensees are generally prohibited from transferring firearms to persons who do not reside in the State where the licensee's premises are located. 18 U.S.C. 922(b)(3). Nonlicensees are generally prohibited from acquiring firearms outside their State of residence or transferring firearms to nonlicensees who reside out-of-State. 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5).”
52. Admit or
deny that the legal term “nonlicensee” is intended to encompass ordinary
individual American citizens.
54. Admit or deny that the GCA seeks to regulate and limit the exercise of a Constitutional Right to the state of residence of a citizen.
55. Admit or deny that regulating commerce within a state is the regulation of intra-state commerce.
56. Admit or deny that Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution provides ONLY for federal regulation of inter-state commerce, and essentially prohibits federal regulation of intra-state commerce.
57. Admit or deny that by attempting to regulate firearms commerce within a state, the federal government is violating the Constitution.
58. Admit or deny that under 18 USC 922, it is a federal felony for an American citizen living in one state to sell a firearm to a citizen of another state, even if such transaction is non-commercial in nature.
59. Admit or
deny that federal firearms laws are routinely enforced within non-federal
zone areas inside the 50 several states.
62. Admit or deny that the Supreme Court in U.S. v Lopez 514 US 549 (1995) struck down the Gun Free School Zones Act because the Act did not directly regulate a commercial activity nor contain a requirement that the possession be connected to interstate commerce.
63. Admit or deny the Lopez ruling was essentially a Supreme Court mandate strictly defining the limits of federal legislative jurisdiction and federal police power inside the fifty states.
64. Admit or deny that despite the ruling in Lopez, Congress revised the Gun Control Act (GCA) at 44 USC 922 (q)(2) to now reference “interstate commerce”, specifically:
65. Admit or deny that under this provision, an American citizen can be charged with a federal firearms felony if a federal prosecutor claims even a tangential, or far-reaching affect the possession has upon interstate commerce or asserts a linkage between the firearm and its movement in interstate commerce, no matter how minimal, removed or far-fetched the prosecutor’s factual assertions may be.
66. Admit or
deny that despite the holding of the Supreme Court in Lopez, which
specifically attacked the fallacious nature of the federal Government’s
argument claiming that mere possession of a firearm substantially affected
interstate commerce, and despite the Court’s stern warning regarding the
encroachment of federal police powers within the several states and the
substantial risks such encroachments posed for the Republic, the Congress
nonetheless revised the GCA to make it a federal crime to possess a
firearm near a school.
68. Admit or deny that Article 1, Section 8 clause 17 of the Constitution limits the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the United States government to specific geographical locations:
“To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings”
69. Admit or deny that the Supreme court held in Caha v. United States, 152 U.S. 211, 215, 14 S.Ct. 513 (1894) that [federal] "legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears" and that "The laws of Congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government."
70. Admit or deny that in June 1957,
the United States government published a work entitled Jurisdiction
Over Federal Areas Within The States: Report of The Interdepartmental
Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the
States, Part II, and therein, the Committee stated:
"The Constitution gives express recognition to but one means of Federal acquisition of legislative jurisdiction -- by State consent under Article I, section 8, clause 17... Justice McLean suggested that the Constitution provided the sole mode for transfer of jurisdiction, and that if this mode is not pursued, no transfer of jurisdiction can take place," Id., at 41.
"It scarcely needs to be said that unless there has been a transfer of jurisdiction (1) pursuant to clause 17 by a Federal acquisition of land with State consent, or (2) by cession from the State to the Federal Government, or unless the Federal Government has reserved jurisdiction upon the admission of the State, the Federal Government possesses no legislative jurisdiction over any area within a State, such jurisdiction being for exercise by the State, subject to non- interference by the State with Federal functions," Id., at 45.
"The Federal Government cannot, by unilateral action on its part, acquire legislative jurisdiction over any area within the exterior boundaries of a State," Id., at 46.
"On the other hand, while the Federal
Government has power under various provisions of the Constitution to
define, and prohibit as criminal, certain acts or omissions occurring
anywhere in the United States, it has no power to punish for various other
crimes, jurisdiction over which is retained by the States under our
Federal-State system of government, unless such crime occurs on areas as
to which legislative jurisdiction has been vested in the Federal
71. Admit or deny that prior to December 2002, the Rule 54(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FRCP) defined an “Act of Congress” as:
"Act of Congress" includes any act of Congress locally applicable to and in force in the District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a territory or in an insular possession."
72. Admit or deny that in December 2002, Congress rewrote the FRCP deleting the definition of “Acts of Congress” from the federal statutes.
73. Admit or deny that the Gun Control Act, at 44 USC 921(a)(2) defines the legal terms “interstate commerce” and “State” as:
(2) The term “interstate or foreign commerce” includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone).
74. Admit or deny that 44 USC 921 includes NO statutory definition which would indicate that the federal GCA statutes are enforceable upon non-federal territory inside the borders of the fifty states of the Union.
75. Admit or deny that all Federal
and State statutes, court case precedents and local municipal
76. Admit or deny that the Second Amendment codifies a vital Fundamental Right that the First Congress intended, in perpetuity, to be a material restriction on the limited powers that the original Constitution granted to Congress.
77. Admit or deny that in 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control and from 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
78. Admit or deny that in 1911, Turkey established gun control and from 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
79. Admit or deny that Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
80. Admit or deny that China established gun control in 1935 and from 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
81. Admit or deny that Guatemala established gun control in 1964 and from 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
82. Admit or deny that Uganda established gun control in 1970 and from 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
83. Admit or deny that Cambodia established gun control in 1956 and from 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
84. Admit or deny that 56 million defenseless people were rounded up and exterminated by their governments in the 20th Century because of gun control.
85. Admit or deny that in the first 12 months that gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender their firearms, 640,381 personal firearms were turned in and were destroyed by the Australian government, costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.
86. Admit or deny that in the first 12 months that gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender their firearms, Australia-wide, homicides went up 3.2 percent, Australia-wide assaults went up 8.6 percent and Australia-wide armed robberies went up 44 percent.
Admit or deny that in the first 12 months that gun owners in Australia
were forced by new law to surrender their firearms, in the state of
Victoria alone, homicides with firearms went up 300 percent, an indication
that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not.
“If money is wanted by Rulers who have in
any manner oppressed the People,
89. Admit or deny that one of the most precious Rights the People enjoy is a government strictly limited by written Laws and that where Law is found to be wanting, no man can be Free.
Last updated March, 2008