TENNESSEE CONSTITUENT PLACES STATE LEGISLATORS ON NOTICE
February 7, 2014
Honorable Senator Overbey, Representative Carr and Representative Farmer,
I understand that each of you took an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States.
Two of you, as practicing Attorney’s and members of the State Bar in Tennessee (Overbey and Farmer), I would presume fully and completely understand how the right to Govern flows as decided when the Union won the Civil War. States do not have the right to supersede Federal Law and establish Slavery, as Slavery was abolished by the Federal Government. This issue is well settled as our Nation went to war over State rights to adopt laws not consistent with Federal Law, and history reflects that the Union won. This understanding is a simple concept. State and Local Governments do NOT have the right to infringe on my Federal Rights.
Or, do you believe that my Local or State Government can enslave me in violation of Federal Law?
Surely your response to the above is an astounding NO.
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
You took an oath to uphold the Second Amendment quoted above. To assure that I am not misunderstanding the words in the above I provide;
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
• a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army.
• all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.
ORIGIN late 16th cent.: from Latin, literally ‘military service,’ from miles, milit-‘soldier.’
verb (infringes, infringing, infringed) [ with obj. ]
actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright.
• act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: his legal rights were being infringed | [no obj. ] : I wouldn’t infringe on his privacy.
ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: from Latin infringere, from in- ‘into’ + frangere, ‘to break.’
noun (pl. oaths |ōTHs, ōT͟Hz| )
1 a solemn promise, often invoking a divine witness, regarding one’s future action or behavior: they took an oath of allegiance to the king.• a sworn declaration that one will tell the truth, esp. in a court of law.
2 a profane or offensive expression used to express anger or other strong emotions.
under oath having sworn to tell the truth, esp. in a court of law.
ORIGIN Old English āth, of Germanic origin; related to Dutch eed and German Eid.
When you took your oath of office what it a “profane or offensive expression used to express anger or other strong emotion”? The ordinary citizen believes that when you took your oath that you undertook “A solemn promise, often invoked in a divine witness, regarding one’s future action or behavior.” (Are you Christians and did you take your oath before God stating, “So help me God”?)
As I believe that your oath was the later, please explain to me how and under what authority you voted to allow any local Government in Tennessee to have the right to infringe on my rights as outlined in the 2nd Amendment of the United States?
Under what authority did you vote to allow any Government to infringe on my right to keep and bear arms and thereby infringe upon my Second Amendment Right, a Federal Mandate and in so doing violate your own oath of office?
I would appreciate the respect of a reply that outlines any misconceptions I may have as to allow me to obtain the benefit of the complete protection of the application of the Law in preserving your oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and my rights contained therein.
Please consider this notice as a matter of Law that I and many other I know will not respect any legislation that infringes upon my Federal Rights as the same is not Constitutional or legal.
Remember that only III% of the Colonist took up arms and gained our independence from England. Very few need not be sheep to effect change.
As a side note, please review McDonald v. Chicago. As I understand, the United States Supreme Court in McDonald struck down Chicago’s gun ban and also incorporated the decision against all Fifty States. Not reported in the mainstream media, but I believe the true reason for the Gun debate being waged by the Liberals and the RINO’s in Washington and in various States. Again, Unconstitutional actions. The Federal Law supersedes State and Local Law.
Bobby C King