Monday, November 28, 2016

The Good Shepherd Jesus VS. The Wolves

Jesus the Christ very firmly declared that He was the "Good Shepherd". What then does such a person do when wolves attack to take away or kill the sheep, lambs and (Like myself) "old goats" of his flock? Why, any good shepherd will use his rod and staff (Both weapons!) or, like the Psalmist David some other weapon (eg A projectile weapon called the sling) to drive away or, better yet to prevent future predation, kill the wolves. The good shepherd will realize that it is useless to "reach out" to wolves or to forgive them as they remain what they are and that without mercy or consideration of the rights of the shepherd or his charges NOR any willingness to reform even if "forgiven". Jesus described himself as such to a People who knew exactly what a "Good Shepherd" would do when His flock was attacked.

Today, those wolves who attack Jesus' flocks are usually: Those who obey the horrid teachings of the false prophet Mohammed; Aggressive "secular humanists" (ie Atheists) who use the force (Too often of civil law) to inflict their goals upon Christians and other believers; And, that especially rabid sub-group, those who perform elective abortions and those who support them.

Those of us who are willing to be "Assistant Good Shepherds" (Or even sheep/guard dogs) in the defense of the flocks of innocents should recall what good shepherds do as to predatory wolves! Attack and destroy!

Sunday, November 13, 2016

Shall Not Be Infringed"

Very rarely I reproduce an entire blog entry of another person. I made this exception as the present and future (eg Supreme Court Nominations) will often be focused on the Second Amendment and its "shall not be infringed" clause which is one of the two/three most severe limits to governments in our Constitution and in The Bill Of Rights.

                                Helpfully yours,
                                                 James Pawlak

David E. Young

Autobiographical Statement
Constitutional scholar and recognized authority on Founding Era Second Amendment developmental history and documents. Author of The American Revolutionary Era Origin of the Second Amendment's Clauses, published in the Journal on Firearms & Public Policy (2011). Editor of The Origin of the Second Amendment: A Documentary History of the Bill of Rights in Commentaries on Liberty, Free Government and an Armed Populace 1787-1792, which was cited over one hundred times in the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals US v Emerson decision and six times in the U.S. Supreme Court's recent District of Columbia v Hellerdecision. Author of The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms: A Definitive History of the Second Amendment, the first period documented book length treatment of the Second Amendment.


The Meaning of 'Shall Not Be Infringed'

UPDATED Monday, October 19, 2015

As a result of Second Amendment dispute, it has been suggested that to infringe relative to the fundamental right to keep and bear arms means only to completely destroy the right, and that extensive "reasonable" regulations are legitimate and do not infringe the right. As an example, it has been claimed that a complete ban on certain types of firearms is a “reasonable” regulation and would not violate the "shall not be infringed" restrictive language. A contrary understanding is that infringe means to encroach upon or narrow the right in any way and that the purpose for the "shall not be infringed" language was to prevent regulation of the right.

An excellent method for determining how extensive the Bill of Rights protection based on the verb "infringe" was intended to be in the Founders' view is to rely on historical examples. What can be gleaned from their own use of this term in relation to other Bill of Rights proposals? Here are some of them.
James Madison's Usage
The Second Amendment's 
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" language is exactly what was proposed as the first clause of the amendment by James Madison on June 8, 1789. In addition to that "infringe" based language, Madison also included this freedom of religion related protection in his Bill of Rights proposals to Congress: “nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.” [The Origin of the Second Amendment p.654]Assuming that Madison's intention in preventing religious liberty from being “infringed” was to allow for considerable "reasonable" regulation by the federal government is illogical. In fact, it is clear that the intent of such language was to prevent any interference whatsoever by the government in such matters. The later change to “Congress shall make no laws” language buttresses this period understanding of "infringe" based protection.

Samuel Adams' Usage
Another person who used "infringe" in bill of rights proposals for the Constitution was Samuel Adams in the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention. He attempted to protect freedom of the press and religion with this proposal: that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience”. [OSA p.260] It is unthinkable that such usage by Adams indicated an intention to allow extensive reasonable regulations of freedom of the press and religious beliefs. Instead, such language was certainly intended as the strongest of limits upon government actions, just as in Madison's case with his infringe based restrictive proposals to Congress regarding freedom of religion and the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Congressional Amendments Committee Usage
There is other informative period Bill of Rights related use of "shall not be infringed" language often overlooked today due to gun control advocates' historical arguments diverting away from the Second Amendment's actual Bill of Rights history. The Committee of Eleven, to which Madison's proposals were submitted by Congress, accepted his original use of "infringed" relative to freedom of religion as well as his "shall not be infringed" language relative to the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Committee also added Madison's original Second Amendment restrictive language ("shall not be infringed") to other First Amendment rights – freedom of speech - freedom of the press - the right of peaceable assembly - the right to apply for redress of grievances. All of these, including Madison's inviolable” freedom of the press and his right of the people to speak, of which they shall not be deprived or abridged” [OSA p.654], were re-stated by the Committee as rights that shall not be infringed”. [OSA p.680] Once again, it does not appear that such period usage indicated the Committee members understood that religious beliefs could be subjected to extensive reasonable regulations, or that they used "shall not be infringed" with the intention that it would condone extensive and reasonable regulation of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right of peaceable assembly, the right to apply for redress of grievances, or the right to keep and bear arms.
Interpreting this restrictive "infringe" based language in the manner that some advocates of gun control do for Second Amendment usage removes all meaning of the terminology and completely destroys any protective intent of the provision. Such interpretations leave the intended protected rights to be regulated exactly like any other subject placed under the government's power. Such views of the language completely ignore the developmental history of the Bill of Rights, a history that is remarkably well documented because the need for a U.S. Bill of Rights was publicly and privately discussed for more than two full years prior to Congress' proposal of the U.S. Bill of Rights amendments.
Shall Not Be Infringed - Shall Make No Laws
Another interesting period fact is that the style of restrictive language ultimately used in the First Amendment – "Congress shall make no law" - was previously found mostly in Second Amendment related proposals.
The Pennsylvania Minority supported a proposal that: “no law shall be passed for disarming the people, or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals". [OSA, p.151]

The New Hampshire Ratifying Convention adopted proposals related to the subsequently adopted First and Second Amendments that stated:"XI. Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or to infringe the rights of conscience.
XII. Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion". [OSA, p.446]

The restrictive language of New Hampshire's amendment protecting religious freedom contains not only the very words later used as restrictive language in the First Amendment but also the very strongest of restrictions that is based on the verb "infringe". It is inconceivable that infringe was intended in New Hampshire's religious freedom amendment as intended to allow any regulation whatever.
The Strongest Possible Restrictive Language
First and Second Amendment protections were always given the very strongest possible restrictive language – no law shall be passed – shall make no law – inviolable – not be deprived or abridged – not be restrained - shall not be infringed - nor shall the right be infringed - shall make no laws touching - shall make no laws to infringe. The Second Amendment's “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" language was clearly not intended to allow for extensive reasonable regulation. Rather, it was intended to prevent all laws and regulations that would result in the people being deprived, abridged, restrained, narrowed, or restricted in the exercise of their fundamental right to keep and bear arms.

"Due Process" In Administrative Hearings


  1. Right to prior notice-of/access-to the: “Charges” against the citizen; Law/rules/regulations alleged to be violated; The names and other identifying information of all witnesses who have provided testimony or other evidence; Documents/physical-evidence as to the “charges”.
  2. The right to compel personal testimony of witnesses and to have that testimony given on oath/affirmation (Allowing for criminal or civil punishment for perjury/false-swearing if such is inflicted).
  3. The right to a hearing before a neutral hearing examiner.
  4. The right to a written decision from that examiner.
  5. The right to appeal any such decision to a court-of-law based on the facts, the law and state and federal constitutions.

The above should/must apply to "disciplinary" hearings conducted by universities/colleges!

Friday, November 11, 2016

18-21 Year Old Citizens & Guns

At 78-years I am more than confused than is usual by the following.
1. Those 18-years (***) of age are : Are able to vote; Manage their own financial and personal affairs; If males, are liable to The Draft; Are automatically liable to criminal prosecution (Some at earlier ages) if accused of crimes; And, can enter into and be held responsible-for civil contracts.
2. Yet, they and others under 21-years of age are not allowed to purchase hand-guns or, were otherwise allowed, to obtain a permit/licence to carry concealed weapons.
3. Why do legislators, university officials and other officials AND judges fail to understand that the Founders of our Republic meant exactly what they stated when they included the "Shall Not Be Infringed" clause in the Second Amendment to our nation's Constitution?
4. From where is the legal authority for public university authorities to limit and infringe-upon citizens (***), both under and over 21-years old, full rights under The Bill Of Rights to keep and bear arms on university properties?
5. If some student or other persons disarms themselves in obedience to such public OR private school restrictions and is then murdered or injured for wont of such arms as would otherwise, allow effective-and-immediate self-defense, is that university liable for real (And punitive?) damages[If a state school, does that "violation of civil rights under color of law" negate any legal protections, under some "Sovereign Immunity" rule",  against such damages?

*** Properly excluded from such rights are those who have been found, but only by a court-of-law and only after full "due process-of-law", who: To be felons who lose such rights for such periods-of-time as prescribed by laws; Those found mentally incompetent to manage their affairs; And, specially, those who have been found too dangerously mentally ill to "keep and bear arms".

Post 2016 Election


The number of “Sour Grapes” losers who deny the validity of the election of Mr. Donald Trump as our next President are only a very small and Fascist minority of those  who are unwilling to submit to the constitutional laws of our Democratic Republic.

They do confirm the wisdom of the Founders which used the allocation of US Senate seats and the Electoral College as a bar to mob rule---As so clearly represented by mobsters who inflicted obscenities when politely-and-publicly asked, “Did you vote?”.


Can any President pardon a person who has not yet been found guilty of a crime? Can a presidential pardon be issued without identifying the crime(s) pardoned?

Wednesday, November 09, 2016

"Safe" Nations For Those Leaving USA

These countries currently have no extradition treaty with the United States:
Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Armenia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, the Central
African Republic, Chad, Mainland China, Comoros, Congo (Kinshasa), Congo (Brazzaville), Djibouti, Equatorial
Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Indonesia, Ivory Coast, Kazakhstan,
Kosovo, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Libya, Macedonia, Madagascar, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands,
Mauritania, Micronesia, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal,
Niger, Oman, Qatar, Russia, Rwanda, Samoa, São Tomé & Príncipe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia,
Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu,
Vatican, Vietnam and Yemen.

Sunday, November 06, 2016

Mass Gun Killings & Armed Citizens

As far as there is a definition of a "mass killing", it is: "Mass murder (sometimes interchangeable with "mass destruction") is the act of murdering many people, typically simultaneously or over a relatively short period of time. The FBI defines "mass murder" as murdering four or more persons during an event with no "cooling-off period" between the murders.

Therefore, when questioning if armed citizens (ie Not regular peace officers) stopping mass killings it should be remembered that:
1. If some armed citizen stops a killer or potential killer before s/he reaches four murders, it is now not credited to such a stopping; And,
2. Many completed mass shooting-killings occur in "No Guns/Other-Weapons Allowed" places where law-abiding citizens (Who might otherwise lawfully carrying weapons) have left them behind.

Some Mayors/Pols Vs. Guns

A.Mayor Ray Nagin takes the dive   
 Posted by David Hardy · 9 July 2014 02:50 PM
      Former New Orleans mayor (and former poster child for Mayors Against Illegal Guns) just got ten years in prison on his corruption conviction.

      The judge "departed downward" from the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which would have called for a 15-20 year sentence. A judge can do that, although the government (in this case) can appeal. The prosecutor "compared Nagin's crimes with those of other public officials who drew stiff sentences, including former Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick (28 years), former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich (14 years) and former Birmingham, Alab., mayor Larry Langford (15 years)." Kilpatrick and Langford were members of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and Blagojevich was about as antigun as is imaginable