AR: Man arrested for open carry in Bald Knob

Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S.
1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958)

Note: 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.

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”. See also In Re Sawyer,
124 U.S. 200 (188); 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).

Hoffsomer v. Hayes, 92 Okla 32, 227 F. 417
“The courts are not bound by an officer’s interpretation
of the law under which he presumes to act.”

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137,
180 (1803)

“… the particular phraseology of the constitution of the
United States confirms

and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all
written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is
void, and that courts,as well as other departments, are bound by that
instrument.” “In declaring what shall be the supreme
law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned; and not
the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall
be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank”. “All
law (rules and practices) which are repugnant to the Constitution are
VOID”. Since the 14th Amendment to the Constitution states “NO
State (Jurisdiction) shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the rights, privileges, or immunities of citizens of the
United States nor deprive any citizens of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law, … or equal protection under the law”,
this renders judicial immunity unconstitutional.

Davis v. Wechsler , 263 US 22, 24.
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can
be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be
converted into a crime.”

Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489.
“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of
this exercise of constitutional rights.”

DICK ACT of 1902
CAN’T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN)

THE TRUMP CARD ENACTED BY CONGRESS FURTHER ASSERTING THE SECOND AMENDMENT AS UNTOUCHABLE

The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.

The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.

The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.

Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, “the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States.”