Help support alternative media by visiting our advertisers

Ninth Circuit Contradicts Bunkerville Prosecution

The Federal court system seems to nullify the jury process

Ninth Circuit Contradicts Bunkerville Prosecution

Ninth Circuit Contradicts Bunkerville Prosecution

“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.” – Second Amendment

by Shari Dovale

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that all Americans have the right to carry firearms, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

The case stemmed from a Hawaii resident being denied twice in 2011 as he sought to carry a handgun. Hawaii gun control laws have held that the Constitution only protects that right at home.

Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain wrote in his opinion that “for better or for worse, the Second Amendment does protect a right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.”

However, this is in direct contradiction to the prosecution’s arguments throughout the US v. Cliven Bundy et al case.

During the first Bunkerville trial, Judge Gloria Navarro said that anytime a person is open-carrying a weapon and a law enforcement officer happens to see that weapon, then that is evidence of a threat to the officer and is considered assault.

This is inconsistent to the US Constitution’s Second Amendment, and the State laws of Nevada, as well as numerous other states, which allow for the open carry of firearms.

Additionally, just last week, on July 18th, AUSA Daniel Scheiss argued during the sentencing hearing for Micah McGuire that just the act of having a holstered weapon in public constitutes an act of violence.

The Federal Court system seems to be proving that they are not about enforcing the law. They are attempting to “Legislate from the Bench” or make law that suits them.

Gun control has been a hot topic in this country with the left, or progressives, becoming frustrated at the lack of laws defending their stance. Hence the push to voice their opinions in the courtroom and punish citizens for exercising their Second Amendment rights.

Todd Engel was charged with, but not convicted of, firearms charges in this case. However, he was sentenced based on the indictment, not based on the convictions.

According to the statements by the judge, this is how the Federal court system works. You can be charged with multiple crimes, convicted of one or two of those crimes, yet sentenced for all of them if the jury was not able to reach a unanimous verdict.

In essense, that seems to nullify the jury process. It certainly does not imply an “Innocent Until Proven Guilty” belief.

 

Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: cash.me/$RedoubtNews

8 Comments on Ninth Circuit Contradicts Bunkerville Prosecution

  1. The United Stateshas not been acting as a “Constitutional Government” for some years. All States are now Corporations, and use statute legislation. To learn what happened after the “Civil War”, and1913, then 1933-4,
    and later 1954, go the the site: Anna Von Reitx, learn the issues, and while this is initially confusing “even for me” as an analyst, stick with the learning.
    Trump is aware of some of this, as a, wealthy business man, and is for the citizen. He is trying to unravel this mess of Global connections. That is why some 90% of the new is negative. If he wins, we win or individual lives back, if he loses, the country, and the world loses. The FED, CFR, Sovialists / Communists / UP your ggame, Liberals / basically the left,are infected by the moneyed elite. WE are the government, WE have to drive the opportunity to move forward.

  2. “The United Stateshas not been acting as a “Constitutional Government” for some years.”

    Not since 1789.

    “A federal, or rather a national city, ten miles square, containing a hundred square miles, is about four times as large as London; and for forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings, congress may possess a number of places or towns in each state. It is true, congress cannot have them unless the state legislatures cede them; but when once ceded, they never can be recovered. And though the general temper of the legislatures may be averse to such cessions, yet many opportunities and advantages may be taken of particular times and circumstances of complying assemblies, and of particular parties, to obtain them. It is not improbable, that some considerable towns or places, in some intemperate moments, or influenced by anti-republican principles, will petition to be ceded for the purposes mentioned in the provision. There are men, and even towns, in the best republics, which are often fond of withdrawing from the government of them, whenever occasion shall present. The case is still stronger. If the provision in question holds out allurements to attempt to withdraw, the people of a state must ever be subject to state as well as federal taxes; but the federal city and places will be subject only to the latter, and to them by no fixed proportion. Nor of the taxes raised in them, can the separate states demand any account of congress. These doors opened for withdrawing from the state governments entirely, may, on other accounts, be very alluring and pleasing to those anti-republican men who prefer a place under the wings of courts.

    “If a federal town be necessary for the residence of congress and the public officers, it ought to be a small one, and the government of it fixed on republican and common law principles, carefully enumerated and established by the constitution. it is true, the states, when they shall cede places, may stipulate that the laws and government of congress in them shall always be formed on such principles. But it is easy to discern, that the stipulations of a state, or of the inhabitants of the place ceded, can be of but little avail against the power and gradual encroachments of the union. The principles ought to be established by the federal constitution, to which all states are parties; but in no event can there be any need of so large a city and places for forts, etc. , totally exempted from the laws and jurisdictions of the state governments.

    “If I understand the constitution, the laws of congress, constitutionally made, will have complete and supreme jurisdiction to all federal purposes, on every inch of ground in the United States, and exclusive jurisdiction on the high seas, and this by the highest authority, the consent of the people. Suppose ten acres at West Point shall be used as a fort of the union, or a sea port town as a dockyard: the laws of the union, in those places, respecting the navy, forces of the union, and all federal objects, must prevail, be noticed by all judges and officers, and executed accordingly. And I can discern no one reason for excluding from these places, the operation of state laws, as to mere state purpose for instance, for the collection of state taxes in them; recovering debts; deciding questions of property arising within them on state laws; punishing, by state laws, theft, trespasses, and offenses committed in them by mere citizens against the state law.

    “The city, and all the places in which the union shall have this exclusive jurisdiction, will be immediately under one entire government, that of the federal head, and be no part of any state, and consequently no part of the United States. The inhabitants of the federal city and places, will be as much exempt from the laws and control of the state governments, as the people of Canada or Nova Scotia will be. Neither the laws of the states respecting taxes, the militia, crimes of property, will extend to them; nor is there a single stipulation in the constitution, that the inhabitants of this city, and these places, shall be governed by laws founded on principles of freedom. All questions, civil and criminal, arising on the laws of these places, which must be the laws of congress, must be decided in the federal courts; and also, all questions that may, by such judicial fictions as these courts may consider reasonable, be supposed to arise within this city, or any of these places, may be brought into these courts. By a very common legal fiction, any personal contract may be supposed to have been made in any place. A contract made in Georgia may be supposed to have been made in the federal city; the courts will admit the fiction. . . . ”

    Richard Henry Lee
    6th President of the United States of America in Congress Assembled
    Writing in opposition to the National (1789) Constitutional (criminal) usurpation by “legal fiction.

  3. Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention
    1788 Elliot
    [6 June]

    George Mason:
    “Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence; and by that clause (so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws. Now, suppose oppressions {442} should arise under this government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of those powers; could not Congress, under the idea of providing for the general welfare, and under their own construction, say that this was destroying the general peace, encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press? Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square, when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury?”

  4. Patrick Henry: “Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is radical in this transition; our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished: And cannot we plainly see that this is actually the case? The rights of conscience, trial by jury, liberty of the press, all your immunities and franchises, all pretensions to human rights and privileges, are rendered insecure, if not lost, by this change, so loudly talked of by some, and inconsiderately by others.”

  5. Stupidly and servilely the people of American have give up rule of law based upon a common fraud known as legal fiction. That has been a losing battle since 1789, sorry to say the Revolutionary War was lost in the hearts and minds of the American people, and the criminal usurpers include all the so called “Federalist Party” members like George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, and even James Madison.

    Dupes are not patriots.

  6. Shari-I heard you on the radio-Sovereign Minds-last Sunday. I think we can help get the message out about Todd Engel. We can produce large 8×5 inch postcards with a message like FREE TODD ENGEL. Many people down here in Northern California are following this travesty with Todd and others. Check out our website VoicesofLibertyPostcards.com Who do you think would be the best people to send the postcards to? Here is my phone number if you would like to talk about this. 530-246-9706

  7. “During the first Bunkerville trial, Judge Gloria Navarro said that anytime a person is open-carrying a weapon and a law enforcement officer happens to see that weapon, then that is evidence of a threat to the officer and is considered assault.”

    On information and belief:
    How many American lives are MORE at risk, because an idiot “judge” opens its mouth and violates the rights of ALL Americans?
    How many police officers have been wrongly trained, based upon the words of an out of line “judge”?
    Can and will errant training be rescinded?

    IMPEACHMENT is overdue!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*