Why bother obeying a "law" that isnt actually a "law"? The 2nd amendment VERY CLEARLY PROHIBITS the govt from making ANY LAW about firearms...
Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many Citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights due to ignorance.
--US. v. Minker, 350 US 179 at 187
An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.
--Norton v Shelby County, 118 US 425, 442
The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a fighting clause. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It can not be retained by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in person. The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral suasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand, simply loses the protection. Once he testifies to part, he has waived his right and must on cross examination or otherwise, testify as to the whole transaction. He must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus.
--US v Johnson, 76 F. Supp 538, 540 (1947).
In plain language, the belligerent claimant in person looks like anyone else, with one big exception: he does not "go along to get along". He steadfastly refuses to meet unconstitutional mandates and the misguided social expectations that flow from those void mandates. He consistently encourages others to stand up for themselves and to band together for their common preservation, and he lives a life of integrity: he is a fine example to all those who meet or see him of what it means to be truly American.
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.
An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
-- Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)
Keep this in mind when your friends and family, or your elected officials tell you that “it’s the law, you have to." If that law is arbitrary to the constitution, if it renders you subject to illegal or unconstitutional laws and acts it is in fact, null and void. Keep this in mind when the courts rule in favor of corporate interests knowingly violating the rights and protections afforded the people as described in the Constitution. Almost without exception, every law that has been passed by one administration and congress after another in the last twenty years has substantially violated and reduced the rights of Americans.
One of the gravest mistakes made by Americans today is the mistake of assuming that because congress passed a piece of legislation and the president signed it, the violations of rights and liberties, the assaults on the American people under the guise of [national security] or other created crisis are justified or legal.
You have guaranteed rights only so long as you defend them from encroachment by the government.
