JUDICIAL NOTICE
NO AUTHORITY GRANTED
My question is, which nobody seems to be challenging in all these court cases is, where does it say that the People gave subject matter jurisdiction to the Legislative branch, State or Federal to regulate our right to keep (open or concealed) and bear arms?
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED seems pretty clear to me that there is NO AUTHORITY GRANTED.
So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men.
— Voltairine de Cleyre (1886-1912)
The Three Primary Absolute Rights from the Laws of Nature: Personal Security, Personal Liberty, and Private Property.
The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident:
That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;
Both Blackstone and Story identified three primary absolute rights derived from the laws of nature: personal security, personal liberty, and private property. These rights form the bedrock of this Nation, America and are protected by the supreme law of the land under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Ninth Amendments.
1. Personal Security: Blackstone described personal security as the individual’s right to life and bodily integrity, free from harm or unlawful intrusion. He observed:
“The right of personal security consists in a person’s legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his health, and his reputation.” (Commentaries, Book I, Chapter 1, p. 125).
2. Personal Liberty: Personal liberty, according to Blackstone, is the freedom to move and act without arbitrary restraint, unless by due course of law. He wrote:
“Personal liberty consists in the power of locomotion, of changing situation, or removing one’s person to whatsoever place one’s inclination may direct; without imprisonment or restraint unless by due course of law” furthermore, “that it is a right strictly natural; that the laws of England have never abridged it without sufficient cause; and, that in this Kingdom it cannot ever be abridged at the mere discretion of the magistrate, without the explicit permission of the laws. Here again the language of the great charter is that no free man shall be taken or imprisoned, but by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.” (Commentaries, Book I, Chapter 1, p.130-131).
Story expanded on this by emphasizing the importance of constitutional safeguards against arbitrary arrest or detention, principles reflected in the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement.
3. Private Property: Private property rights ensure mankind can own, use, and enjoy their possessions without undue interference.
Blackstone observed:
“the third absolute right, inherent in every Englishman, is that of property: which consists in the free use, enjoyment, and disposal of all his acquisitions, without any control or diminution, save only by the laws of the land.” and “The laws of England are therefore, in point of honor and justice, extremely watchful in ascertaining and protecting this right.
Upon this principle the great charter has declared that no freeman shall be diseased, or divested, of his freehold, or of his liberties, or free customs, but by the judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land. And by a variety of ancient statutes it is enacted, that no man’s lands or goods shall be seized into the King’s hands, against the great charter, and the law of the land; and that no man shall be disinherited, nor put out of his franchises or freehold, unless he be duly brought to answer, and be forejudged by course of law; and if anything be done to the contrary, it shall be redressed, and holden for none.” (Commentaries, Book I, Chapter 1, p. 134-135).
Story aligned with this view, noting that protection of property is a cornerstone of constitutional liberty. The Fourth Amendment reinforces this by requiring particularity in warrants and preventing arbitrary seizures of property.
The Law of Nations by Emer de Vattel reinforces these principles, asserting that natural law obligates governments to respect the liberty and property of their citizens. Vattel wrote:
Nations being composed of men naturally free and independent, and who, before the establishment of civil societies, lived together in the state of nature,—nations or sovereign states are to be considered as so many free persons living together in the state of nature.
It is a settled point with writers on the natural law, that all men inherit from nature a perfect liberty and independence, of which they cannot be deprived without their own consent. In a state, the individual citizens do not enjoy them fully and absolutely, because they have made a partial surrender of them to the sovereign. But the body of the nation, the state, remains absolutely free and independent with respect to all other men, all other nations, as long as it has not voluntarily submitted to them. (Law of Nations, Book I, Preliminaries, § 4 p. 68).
As men are subject to the laws of nature,—and as their union in civil society cannot have exempted them from the obligation to observe those laws, since by that union they do not cease to be men,—the entire nation, whose common will is but the result of the united wills of the citizens, remains subject to the laws of nature, and is bound to respect them in all her proceedings. And since right arises from obligation, as we have just observed (§3), the nation possesses also the same rights which nature has conferred upon men in order to enable them to perform their duties. (Law of Nations, Book I, Preliminaries, § 5 p. 68).
It is the duty of a nation to afford to its citizens the enjoyment of their rights, both natural and civil, and to maintain them inviolate.” (Law of Nations, Book I, Chapter II, § 15).
The cited sources are an authoritative and well-regarded resource for history and tradition as well as the fundamental law and common law relating to the Laws of Nature. The Defendant in err asserts that the Laws a Nature as a body of Law/Unalienable Rights is relevant to the interpretation and application of statutory language in the context of this case.
WHEREFORE, Defendant in err respectfully requests this Honorable Court to take Judicial Notice of the foregoing facts and principles as they are matters of historical and legal record, not subject to reasonable dispute, and essential to the administration of justice in this matter.
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... No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it.