Re: Denied Illinois FOID card

More | Report Post

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974) stated
that "when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal
Constitution, he "comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is
in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to
the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity
from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States." [Emphasis supplied in
original]. By law, a judge is a state officer. The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private
individual (in his person). VIOLATION OF OATH OF OFFICE In Illinois, 705 ILCS 205/4 states "Every
person admitted to practice as an attorney and counselor at law shall, before his name is entered
upon the roll to be kept as hereinafter provided, take and subscribe an oath, substantially in the
following form: 'I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be), that I will support the
constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Illinois, and that I will
faithfully discharge the duties of the office of attorney and counselor at law to the best of my
ability.'" In Illinois, a judge must take a second oath of office. Under 705 ILCS 35/2 states, in
part, that "The several judges of the circuit courts of this State, before entering upon the duties
of their office, shall take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation, which shall be filed
in the office of the Secretary of State: 'I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that
I will support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State of
Illinois, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of judge of ______ court, according to
the best of my ability.'" Further, if the judge had enlisted in the U.S. military, then he has
taken a third oath. Under Title 10 U.S.C. Section 502 the judge had subscribed to a lifetime oath,
in pertinent part, as follows: "I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support
and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I
will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; ...". The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "No
state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without
violating his undertaking to support it.". Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958). Any
judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that
Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. The judge is engaged
in acts of treason. Having taken at least two, if not three, oaths of office to support the
Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Illinois, any judge who has
acted in violation of the Constitution is engaged in an act or acts of treason (see below). If a
judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S.
200 (1888), he/she is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason.
TREASON Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged
in an act or acts of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406
(1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821) What is the penalty for
treason? Any judge or attorney who does not report the above judges for treason as required by law
may themselves be guilty of misprison of treason, 18 U.S.C. Section 2382.

On 1/14/08, -- wrote:
> On 1/14/08, Guns wrote:
>> In the State of Illinois, a judge must take a second oath of office. Under 705 ILCS 35/2
>> states, in part, that "The several judges of the circuit courts of this State, before entering
>> upon the duties of their office, shall take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation,
>> which shall be filed in the office of the Secretary of State:
>>
>> 'I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of
>> the United States, and the constitution of the State of Illinois, and that I will faithfully
>> discharge the duties of judge of ______ court, according to the best of my ability.'"
>>
>> So your stament is incorrect concerning federal constitution, because the judge raised his
> hand
>> and swore he would protect the Federal constitution.
>
>
> As US courts currently interpret the 2nd amendment it is not applicable to the various states.
> States may make any laws regarding the control of firearms as they see fit to. This has always
> been the case.
>
> However a case before the Supreme Court this term challenges the long held view of the 2nd
> Amendment as a state right rather than a personal right.
>
> When our country was formed the big concern was that the federal government not have absolute
> power over state governments in all matters. The concept of dual sovereignty was developed.
> Certain matters the federal government has absolute authority over and certain maters are
> reserved for state control. The US Constitution always applies to the federal government and
> usually applies to state governments with some exceptions. The 7th amendment is one example of
> where the Constitution does not apply to states. The 7th Amendment applies to US Federal Courts
> but not state courts. In State court the 7h Amendment does not compel a trial by jury in a
> civil case. The following is the 7th Amendment:
>
> "In Suits at common law, where the value
> in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars,
> the right of trial by jury shall be preserved,
> and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise
> re-examined in any Court of the United States,
> than according to the rules of the common law."
>
> Now a person might think that all courts in the US must give a person a trial by jury in a civil
> matter. Not so! This part of the Constitution only applies to the federal government not state
> governments.
>
> Likewise the 2nd Amendment only applies to the federal government not state governments. Dual
> sovereignty is extremely difficult to understand so don't feel alone in your misunderstanding.
> Until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, the 2nd Amendment does not restrict states from making
> their own gun control laws.