Disarming America’s Heroes

February 21, 2013 By 13 Comments

Fallujah Iraq Dec 8 2004 1 Disarming Americas Heroes

How would you feel if you received a letter from the U.S. Government informing you that because of a physical or mental condition that the government says you have, it is proposing to rule that you are incompetent to handle your own financial affairs? Suppose that letter also stated that the government is going to appoint a stranger to handle your affairs for you at your expense? That would certainly be scary enough but it gets worse.

What if that letter also stated: “A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition. If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L.No. 103-159, as implemented at 18, United States Code 924(a)(2).”?

That makes is sound like something right from a documentary on a tyrannical dictatorship somewhere in the world. Yet, as I write this I have a copy of such a letter right in front of me. It is being sent by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of America’s heroes. In my capacity as Executive Director of the United States Justice Foundation (USJF) I have been contacted by some of these veterans and the stories I am getting are appalling.

The letter provides no specifics on the reasons for the proposed finding of incompetency; just that is based on a determination by someone in the VA. In every state in the United States no one can be declared incompetent to administer their own affairs without due process of law and that usually requires a judicial hearing with evidence being offered to prove to a judge that the person is indeed incompetent. This is a requirement of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that states that no person shall “…be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law…”.

Obviously, the Department of Veterans Affairs can’t be bothered by such impediments as the Constitution, particularly since they are clearly pushing to fulfill one of Obama’s main goals, the disarming of the American people. Janet Napolitano has already warned law enforcement that some of the most dangerous among us are America’s heroes, our veterans, and now according to this letter from the VA they can be prohibited from buying or even possessing a firearm because of a physical or mental disability.

Think about it, the men and women who have laid their lives on the line to defend us and our Constitution are now having their own Constitutional rights denied. There are no clear criteria for the VA to declare a veteran incompetent. It can be the loss of a limb in combat, a head injury, a diagnosis of PTSD, or even a soldier just telling someone at the VA that he or she is depressed over the loss of a buddy in combat. In none of these situations has the person been found to be a danger to themselves or others. If that was the case than all of the Americans who have suffered from PTSD following the loss of a loved one or from being in a car accident would also have to be disqualified from owning firearms. It would also mean that everyone who has ever been depressed for any reason should be disarmed. In fact, many of the veterans being deprived of their rights have no idea why it is happening.

The answer seems to be it is simply because they are veterans. At the USJF we intend to find the truth by filing a Freedom of Information Act request to the Department of Veterans Affairs to force them to disclose the criteria they are using to place veterans on the background check list that keeps them from exercising their Second Amendment rights. Then we will take whatever legal steps are necessary to protect our American warriors.

The reality is that Obama will not get all of the gun control measures he wants through Congress, and they wouldn’t be enough for him anyway. He wants a totally disarmed America so there will be no resistance to his plans to rob us of our nation. That means we have to ask who will be next. If you are receiving a Social Security check will you get one of these letters? Will the government declare that you are incompetent because of your age and therefore banned from firearm ownership. It certainly fits in with the philosophy and plans of the Obama administration. It is also certain that our military veterans don’t deserve this and neither do any other Americans.

 

Contact Michael Connelly:

mrobertc@hotmail.com

Michael Connelly blog

www.usjf.net

Constitutional Law Alliance

 

 

 

 

Related posts:

  1. “Peaceful Secession” Movement Won’t Give Us Two Americas, But What’s The Downside? If secession could only be achieved by force of arms…
  2. Obama Lays Groundwork To Begin Disarming America Last night, at a memorial service for the twenty children…
Filed Under: Featured Stories, Floyd Reports Tagged With: ,

Standing Our Ground

January 8, 2013 By 2 Comments

Tea Party SC Standing Our Ground

It’s time for a reality check. The election is over; and according to the results, the majority of the people residing in this country voted to abolish our Republican form of government and trash the Constitution. They voted for virtually unlimited government, redistribution of wealth through higher taxes, limits on individual liberties, and out of control spending and debt. They voted to end the free market economic system and place an unmanageable burden on their own children and grandchildren so they can collect their free stuff now.

The leftists in this country now feel that they are in a position to do what they have wanted to do for decades: impose their elitist views on the population and take control of how we live, what we do, what we think, and what God we can worship. They are confident that they can succeed in destroying our country and our way of life for good because they have a President in the White house who is committed to establishing himself as a dictator. They also control the schools, the universities, the mainstream media, many of the courts, the United States Senate, and most of the largest cities in the country.

The left believes that this is their moment in history when they impose their will on the American people, the time when we all submit to their will and become compliant subjects who will acknowledge their intellectual superiority and march in lockstep to the beat of their corrupt drummers. They truly believe this, and yet they are very frightened. They are frightened of a document called the Constitution, most specifically of the Bill of Rights and the 2nd Amendment.

The elitists like Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Diane Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, and their lackeys in academia, the news media, and Hollywood are cowards. They are willing to lie, cheat, and steal to get what they want; but they are not willing to pick up a weapon and fight for what they profess to believe. They will rely on others to do that.

Yet, they know that in order to be successful, they must take an important step and disarm the American people. They must abolish the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution; and they must do it now. The effort has already begun, and it is an all-out assault. Bills are being introduced in the House and Senate to ban so-called assault weapons, certain magazines, various types of ammunition, and certain handguns. This is all supposed to be an effort to protect our children from another Sandy Hook tragedy.

That is where the reality check comes in. The left has always been willing to exploit tragedy to get its way. All of this proposed legislation is just window dressing to lay the ground work for the ultimate goal of outlawing the private ownership of all firearms in the United States. Once that is accomplished, the government will move to confiscate all of those in private hands.

That is why the Obama administration is purchasing millions of rounds of ammunition for federal bureaucracies, and FEMA and DHS are training thousands of people to engage in urban warfare. Not urban warfare against foreign or domestic terrorists, but against American citizens who attempt to exercise the 2nd Amendment rights that have been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. In fact, the left is already calling for the people who believe in gun rights to be declared terrorists and arrested not only for supporting the 2nd Amendment, but also for exercising our 1st Amendment rights.

This is not an obscure conspiracy theory, but is happening now. It is for real. I have people telling me that it will never happen because these bills will not pass Congress. I agree that with an all-out effort, we can defeat the legislation in the House of Representatives; but Obama and the left plan to simply bypass Congress and impose gun control by Executive order and by signing the UN Small Arms treaty.

Therefore, our most critical battles may be in the Courts. For over 38 years, I have defended the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution both in and out of the courtrooms. As the new Executive Director of the United States Justice Foundation (USJF), I will make sure that the foundation is in the forefront of the fight.

This is not just a battle that we must win; this is the war that will decide the fate of our nation. We cannot compromise, and we cannot surrender. The 2nd Amendment was placed in the Constitution to ensure that the American people would be able to defend themselves against any future government that sought to become a tyranny. That is what is happening now, and we must not give up our weapons.

A friend and fellow veteran just forwarded a quote by the great Russian writer and patriot Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, who said this about the lack of resistance to the communist takeover of his country:

And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else at hand?…

The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If……if……We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more—-we had no awareness of the real situation…….We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.

Enough said. Fight back now!

Michael Connelly blog

www.usjf.net

Constitutional Law Alliance

Photo credit: formatted_dad (Creative Commons)

Related posts:

  1. A Ground-Up Strategy For Tea Party Victory by Michael Oberndorf As a conservative, I am appalled by…
  2. Immigration Reform And The Search For Middle Ground “The terms on which foreigners may be admitted to the…
Filed Under: Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , , ,

A Real Constitutional Law Professor’s Take On The NDAA

February 28, 2012 By 2 Comments

Constitution A Real Constitutional Law Professors Take On The NDAA

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), recently adopted by Congress
and signed into law by Barack Obama, contains language that has raised substantial
Constitutional questions by civil libertarians on both the political right and on the political left.
The bulk of the lengthy legislation deals with the routine authorization for military spending by
the Pentagon, including items such as military pay, veterans’ benefits, weapons procurement,
etc. Such legislation must be passed on a regular basis if the United States military is to
continue to operate.

However, in the U. S. Senate version of the legislation, S.1867, there are sections
dealing with the detaining of people suspected of being involved with terrorist organizations or
any groups engaging in, or planning, hostile actions against the United States. These suspects
can be arrested by American military forces and detained indefinitely, without formal charges
being filed, and without trial, until the “hostilities” end. The term hostilities refers to the
general war on terror, not to specific military actions, such as those in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Therefore, there is no end in sight to the possible period of detention. This is the version that
was ultimately passed by the full Congress.

The question is, does the law allow members of the United States armed forces to
detain American citizens, including those arrested in the United States, without granting them
due process? The language in the bill is unclear, at best. In section 1031, the first paragraph
states:

“(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary
and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public
Law 107–40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain
covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of
war.”

The legislation then provides a definition of the individuals covered by the legislation:

“(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that
occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or
associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition
partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly
supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.”

The legislation goes on to provide various options for dealing with the individuals
arrested pursuant to the authority provided to the President. It states:

“(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a person under the law of war as

described in subsection (a) may include the following:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities
authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the
Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)).

(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful
jurisdiction.

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other
foreign country, or any other foreign entity.”

The next section of the law is 1032, and it requires the military to detain certain
individuals that fall under the definition of the act. Critics point out that the language is so
broad that American citizens can fall under the provisions of the act, and can be detained
indefinitely, without the Constitutional protections provided to them under the 5th and 6th
Amendments to the U. S. Constitution. In other words, there would be no due process, no
right to a speedy trial, no right of habeas corpus, and no right to a trial by jury.

However, supporters of the law, including some members of Congress, point
to additional language in the same section of the law that they say protects the
Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens. The specific provisions state:

“(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody
under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military
custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United
States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the
extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.”

The problem is that when the language is carefully read, it becomes clear that this
does not exempt U.S. citizens from being detained without due process, but only says
that it is not required under the previously cited provisions. The decision of whether an
American citizen can be detained indefinitely, without being formally charged, or tried, is,
therefore, left in the hands of one person, the President of the United States.

Giving the President of the United States, or anyone else, this kind of authority
over American citizens was something that the framers of the U. S. Constitution, and,
specifically, the Bill of Rights, were trying to prohibit. Yet it appears that this law is doing
what the founders of our country feared. One of the problems is that it has been done
before. U.S. citizens of Japanese descent were interred by the U.S. government after the
Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The detention was the result of Executive Orders issued
by then President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

There were numerous challenges in the courts to the detention orders, and several
cases reached the U.S. Supreme Court, including Yasui v. United States, 320 U.S. 115

(1943), Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81 (1943), Ex parte Endo, or Ex parte
Mitsuye Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (1944), and Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214
(1944). In all of these decisions, the court upheld the right of the government to place
curfews on Japanese Americans, to exclude them from certain areas, and to place them in
internment camps. These decisions were later considered a mistake, and, in the 1980’s,
when evidence was uncovered that the government had been aware that there was no real
threat, but withheld that information from the courts, the decisions were overturned.

The latest case involving the detention of U.S. citizens by the military is Hamdi
v Rumsfield 542 U.S. 547 (2004). Yaser Isam Hamdi was born in the United States,
and, then, his family moved to Saudi Arabia. He was captured in Afghanistan during the
U.S. invasion in 2001 and held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as an enemy combatant. He
challenged this status in court, and, in a plurality decision, the Supreme Court Justices
ruled that U.S. citizens, even when arrested in foreign countries, and designated as enemy
combatants, must be provided with an opportunity to have the legality of their detention
decided in a civilian court.

This case would appear to settle this issue, but Congress has used language in NDAA
that appears to be an attempt to circumvent this ruling. In addition, Congress has conferred
the power to order long term detentions of U.S. citizens on an occupant of the White House
that has repeatedly expressed his willingness to ignore the Congress, the courts, and even
the U. S. Constitution itself. This establishes a dangerous situation for Americans.

The new law also appears to repeal, or at least modify, the Posse Comitatus Act, that
was passed in 1878 at the end of post Civil War reconstruction. That law is designated as
18 USC 1385, and it prohibits the states of the union, and local governments, from using
members of the U.S. Army for law enforcement purposes. It was later amended to include
the Air Force, and the Marines, and the Navy are under the same prohibitions, by order of
the U. S. Department of Defense. If the critics of NDAA are correct, and members of the
United States military can make arrests of U.S. citizens in the United States, then it appears
that the intent of the Posse Comitatus law is negated.

In conclusion, the language in the bill appears to be deliberately vague and confusing,
and many members of Congress seem to be unaware of what they were actually voting for.
However, that does not lessen the impact of a law that gives the President extraordinary
powers to violate the Constitutional rights of American citizens. If Congress can’t be
convinced to amend the law to remove those provisions, then the courts must be asked to
declare the provisions unconstitutional.

This post originally appeared on Usjf.net and has been reprinted with permission.

Related posts:

  1. President Obama Needs To Prove His Constitutional Eligibility To Be Commander-in-Chief Last week, I entered Walter Reed Army Hospital to notify…
  2. Overlooked Language In NDAA (H.R. 1540 & S. 1867) The Internet has been literally burning up over the National…

Filed Under: Featured Stories, Floyd Reports Tagged With: