Peter J. Mancus on Silveira

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:00:00 GMT
From kaba:
"Attempting to solve social and moral problems with legislation is like putting deodorant on when you really need a shower". -- Angel Shamaya

From smith2004:

"All the things we fought against in World War II; our own government is doing to us today." -- Ken Valentine's Dad

From trt-ny:

"It has long, however, been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression...that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary;...working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped." -- Thomas Jefferson

Kim du Toit - Quote Of The Day - an hilarious quote about Queen Hillary from Kim's daughter. Hahahahaha. [kimdutoit]

An Email from a Captain in Iraq purports to be a first-hand report of President Bush'es Thanksgiving visit to U.S. troops in Iraq. As you well know, I'm no fan of this war or of Mr. Bush, but these boys were mighty happy to see him. [scopeny]

Peter J. Mancus at - Reflections Upon the U.S. Supreme Court's Rejection of Silveira - long, but well worth reading. From Angel Shamaya's introduction: [publicola]

I understand why Peter Mancus is openly, candidly talking about how America's last choice to put the blooming police state in check might sadly one day involve lethal force against civil authorities. I do not like hearing about it, or talking about it -- and I especially deplore having to face up to the facts as he's so eloquently done yet again. Read his message below and see if you can find anything he says that is not true. I tried to pick it apart, and, unfortunately, I'm having a tough time disagreeing with his general message. And that's a truly tragic shame. We're not supposed to be having this conversation. Lots of men died to assure that we didn't. But here we are again -- witnessing and/or experiencing many of the very same abuses, usurpations, violations and infringements that happened in the walkup to the shot heard 'round the world. Only now, with technology, the modern day redcoats are far more lethal than they were in 1776, and far better armed than any who would dare raise Hell against them. Like all sane, rational people, I deeply desire a peaceful solution; I've got over four double-time years' worth of circles under my eyes and lines in my face to prove it. Yet I now have one more very logical reason to realize I've been engaging in wishful thinking.
from Mr. Mancus' article:
Arguably, the most perverted key rule is this one: Immunity for government and its agents who abuse their powers and who disrespect citizens' rights. Example: the First Amendment's "right to petition government for redress of grievances" sounds wonderful. It is lovely. Ditto for the ban against ex post facto laws, and the entire Bill of Rights. But the core, corrosive, corrupting, over-all-arching problem, is this: None of these rights are self-enforcing nor worth anything when a) Citizens are too gutless to demand that their peaceful assertion of rights be honored, and b) Government has passed laws that make its Executive, its Legislature, its Judiciary, and its sworn peace officers, immune for their wrongdoing in contravention of citizens' rights.

What value is the "right to petition to redress grievances" or to file a lawsuit (which is a form of the right to petition government for a redress of a legitimate grievance) when the petition or lawsuit or both crashes into the solid legal wall of government immunity or the government refuses to hear the petition (lawsuit) or refuses to take it seriously or refuses to apply the applicable law correctly?


We live in a perverted, disingenuous nation full of callous, cavalier, self-righteous, constitutional illiterates, in and out of government, who are dangerous and oppressive. Despite the best efforts of some of the best people I know (their passion, sustained commitment, critical, cerebral energy, delayed gratification, sacrifice, etc., ) I have serious reservations if any of us, including myself, individually or in the aggregate, have accomplished anything meaningful in terms of "the big picture" or of delaying open armed conflict with our own governments.


Let me put it another way: Who would sign a contract with another person when the contract said that the other person gets to determine what the rules are, gets to change the rules arbitrarily, without being held accountable, gets to unilaterally interpret and apply the rules, and gets to force you to obey his rules, and you must obey his unilateral interpretation of his rules because that is one of his rules? And he has a monopoly on force?

Now, who feels free?

Free to pay taxes? Of course? Free to obey? Of course? Free to carry a firearm in a public place, responsibly, without government's permission, for the lawful exercise of the basic right of self-protection or lawful protection of another, to protect your hide from a criminal predator? If you do not feel free to do that, why? How free are you?

If you do not feel free to do that, do you sense that something is seriously wrong?

Do you sense that Government has violated your expression of Nature's First Law--the Law of Self-Preservation?


We are deep into a cold war with our own governments -- governments which inexplicably persist with violating their own rules and hiding behind their immunities while demanding that citizens blindly obey their crimes which they call laws.


If a foreign occupying force did to us what our own government is currently doing to us we would resort to arms to stop the oppression and reduce the invader to maggot meat. Yet, we tolerate what our government is doing to us. Examples: Our governments have set us up to be easy prey for criminal plunder; have denied us the most basic right to defend our lives without their permission, which they callously withhold, and imprudently confirm--or assert--that we do not have a constitutional right to retain the pragmatic means to enforce our rights, namely, unregistered, privately owned, firearms.


Can homicide be justified for a noble purpose? Adolf thought so. Can an anti-Adolf think likewise, with compelling justification? I think so. Patrick Henry thought so. So did tens of thousands or more of the people who brought America out from under the yoke of British tyranny not so long ago.

Everyone who signed the July 4th Declaration knew the king would not let them go in peace. They knew when they signed that they would have to be willing to commit homicide and encourage and equip others to do so if they were going to successfully enforce their declaration. Who finds it difficult to think of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, etc., as killers of human beings? I do not. People need to get realistic. The Founders were, in the eyes of the Crown, criminals, outlaws, and murderers.


The situation reminds me of a story a friend recently sent me. The story went like this: An air traffic controller received a pilot's request for clearance to 60,000 feet. The controller radioed back, "And what makes you think you can get to 60,000 feet?" The pilot radioed back, "I am requesting clearance down to 60,000 feet." The pilot flew an SR-71 Blackbird super spy plane. My point is: Too many do not fully comprehend that many in "the patriot movement" are above 60,000 feet in commitment and they will use Liberty's teeth as a last ditch method to avoid Total Tyranny and to restore the Constitutional Rule of Law. When they function that way, they will discharge their Constitutionally sanctioned duty, as an organized or unorganized militia, even if only as a militia of one, replicated tens of thousands of times or more throughout the nation.

I am profoundly sad. I foresee what a few who implement a lethal force offense can do. I reference what recently happened in the Washington, D.C. area when just two people apparently functioned as one sniper team. Imagine what many more snipers could do around the nation if they targeted those who championed more victim disarmament laws.


I have read many decisions on the First and Fourth Amendment by 9th Circuit judges who do not share my views on the Second Amendment. Their views on the First and Fourth are excellent. Reading their decisions on the those amendments is deeply satisfying and comforting. Their decisions convince me they are highly intelligent, articulate, extraordinarily logical and persuasive, and, for those amendments, they are superb Guardians of Liberty. Their views on the Second, however, are appalling. To go from one of their First/Fourth Amendment decisions to one of their Second Amendment decisions is like going from an A+ student's term paper to a D- student's term paper, from Madison to Stalin. I do not understand why these judges seem to have such an abrupt, illogical disconnect. I suspect it turns on power: They know that a man with a loaded firearm is empowered to kill a would-be oppressor. Can it be that simple?


Why is the U.S. Supreme Court's rejection of Silveira really important?

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


The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to prevent, not to redress, government's abuse of its powers and violation of our rights. Rights, however, are not self-enforcing. It takes an air breathing human being, a Patrick Henry type, to breathe life into a right, to make it spring into life, to jump off a dusty law book's page, to vibrate and scream, "Hey, you! Yes! You! You, the oppressor, I am talking to you! Look at me. Take me seriously. Now! Or take my bullet--an instant from now," and, if rebuffed again, pull the trigger, terminate that problem on the spot, and move on to the next problem.

A right delayed is a right denied. A right delayed is not a right at all. A right delayed is a hollow sham, a cause of action for a lawsuit that will be verbally and conceptually machined gun to death in court by government lawyers, witnesses, and Black Robes.


For each of us who has had our rights denied on the spot, think about what would have happened if each of us had instead pressed hard the barrel of a loaded gun against the chest of the government official who oppressed us. What would the outcome have been then? Only God knows what would have happened. I suspect that an important message would have been sent, and some in government would react by becoming more oppressive while some would have heard the message, lightened up, and started to take rights seriously, if only out of fear that their lights would be terminated by an energized hunk of metal.


Power still comes out of the barrel of a gun, but only for those with the courage and skill to convert that latent power to actual kinetic power.


1) Governments' municipal police power to regulate firearms cannot Constitutionally be used to circumvent nor to trump the U.S. Bill of Rights;

2) That police power stops at the foot of the Bill of Rights;

3) That police power crashes into, and destroys itself, against what is arguably one of the Constitution's clearest, absolute, unequivocal, bright lines: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.";

4) That language is really three Constitutional commands--First, Right of the People; Second, To keep and to bear arms; and Third, Shall not be infringed;

5) The declaration of that right coupled with "shall not be infringed" means this: Governments in this nation do not have any Constitutionally legitimate right to engage in any kind of prior restraint regulation of anything having to do with privately owned, controlled, possessed, carried, used, sold, bought, transferred, or manufactured firearms, period, end of discussion, except, perhaps, arguably, in one narrowly limited context: The maintenance of a Militia, namely, making suggestions to Militia members as to what type of arms and ammunition to possess, to train with, to standardize on, and/or maintaining records as to who has what for the strictly limited purpose of maintaining a well organized formal Militia.

Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk - GOP Abandons Conservatives - the Republican Party proved in spades, with the passage of the newest giveaway program, that they are just Democrats in drag. True conservatives no longer have a home in that party.

The Medicare prescription drug bill passed by Congress last week may prove to be a watershed event for political conservatives in America. This latest expansion of the federal government, potentially the largest in our nation's history, is firmly in keeping with the failed New Deal and Great Society programs of the utopian left. This leaves true conservatives, who believe strongly in limited government and identify with the Goldwater- era Republican party, wondering whether they still have a political home in the modern GOP. In the eyes of many conservatives, today's GOP simply has abandoned its limited-government heritage to buy votes and gain political power in Washington.

The unfortunate truth is that the Bush administration, aided by a Republican congress, has increased spending more in three years than the previous administration did in eight. Federal spending has grown by more than 25% since President Bush took office. The federal government now spends roughly $21,000 per household every year, up from $16,000 just 4 years ago. Columnist Cal Thomas, in a recent article entitled "The Embarrassing GOP," raises an excellent question: "How much of that $21,000 could you spend that would produce better results for yourself and your family?"

Mike Vanderboegh at - The Window War - one way to let the political parties know that gun owners are serious. Illegal property damage, but no one gets hurt. Fiction. I believe I've linked to this before, but it's worth re-reading. Maybe wrapped around a rock is a good way to deliver those Bill of Rights copies to some of the recipients. Naw. I prefer the mail and a box of tacks.

Brian Morton at Baltimore City Paper - L'Etat, C'est Moi - a few examples of John Ashcroft's selective enforcement of the law in pursuit of his political ideations. [trt-ny]

WTSP, Tampa Bay's 10 - Man charged with shooting friend's attacker freed - more on the release of Melvin Spaulding, including a video of a newscast segment. One of the terms of his release is that he cannot carry a gun. Bastards! If those punks hurt him, it's on the heads of the local "authorities". [highroad]

Curtis Krueger at the St. Petersburg Times - Fame, and a public defender, for shooter - the latest story in the Melvin Spaulding case. One of the perps is claiming that they weren't beating Mr. Spauldings friend when he fired his gun.

The Sheriff's Office apparently believed someone was striking Lowe, because late Monday deputies arrested three of the young men, Moore, Palm and James Curtis Ganoe, 18, on misdemeanor battery charges in connection with the confrontation. Moore already was in jail at the time, because of a separate battery charge and an outstanding warrant.

The Pinellas-Pasco State Attorney's office is reviewing the cases of Spaulding and the three alleged assailants, before deciding whether to file formal charges against them.

On Wednesday, Spaulding went inside his trailer, which has cactuses and a Confederate flag out front, and played for a reporter the recorded message from a Good Morning America producer. He also showed off some of his prized possessions: charcoal drawings of Elvis and John Wayne in wood frames he built himself, and his green- eyed, golden-haired cat.

Although the arrest rattled him, he said he thinks he has a good public defender who will fight for him. He even had kind words for the deputies who arrested him, and those who dealt with him at the county jail. He said they were "100 percent, very, very nice."

Pinellas-Pasco Public Defender Bob Dillinger, meanwhile, said, "I would look forward to defending Mr. Spaulding because I think he did what needed to be done and what every citizen has a right to do, which is defend themselves or others."

He cautioned that "you can't just shoot at somebody because they're pushing you or something." But when someone is being seriously threatened and endangered, "that's a whole different ball game."

Curtis Krueger at The St. Petersburg Times - Man jailed after gunshot stops fight - this is the original story, an AP excerpt of which was passed all over the web.

Bob Dalzell at the St. Petersburg Times - Man who shot to save a friend deserves a medal - indeed. There are a number of other letters here about the Melvin Spaulding case, all supporting Mr. Spaulding and berating the "authorities". [publicola]

Kim du Toit - Smart Gun, Stupid Move - Kim tears Taurus a new asshole. [kimdutoit]

Add comment Edit post Add post