INALIENABLE

or

UNALIENABLE
We hear a lot, lately, of the inalienable rights of citizens in the United States. However, there is a difference between inalienable and unalienable rights. Although the definitions which appear below seem to belie the point, there is a most decided difference between the two. Before we begin our discussion, let's define our terms. Inalienable Adj. not alienable; not transferrable to another or capable of of being reputable: inalienable rights. (dictionary.com); Inalienable is defined as incapable of being surrendered or transferred; at least without one's consent.[Morrison v. State, 252 S.W.2d 97, 101 (Mo. Ct. App. 1952) (definitions.uslegal.com); : incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred <inalienable rights> (merriamwebster.com); Not transferable; impossible to take away. (Nolo's Plain English Law Dictionary). Unalienable incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred.

Inalienable rights are rights which may be sold, transferred, or otherwise abrogated with the consent of the owner of those rights. So, is it possible that a man may sell his life to another for a sum? Not legally, therefore, life is unalienable. To argue otherwise is to argue the right of murder. May a man sell his liberty? If you believe that voluntary slavery is acceptable then you might also claim that this is acceptable. You would be wrong. Jefferson included the concept of liberty as an unalienable right for a reason it is objectionable to God for any man to voluntarily sell himself into slavery. Is happiness a God given right? Not at all. It is the pursuit of happiness which is God-given. It is the right of all men to pursue that which makes them happy. Art, athletics, farming whatever makes a man happy it is his right to pursue that. However, one's right in a piece of art, one's land which he farms, one's automobile, the pay one receives for his labor all of these are property and the right of ownership is inalienable. I.e., one's right of possession in these items is not subject to be taken, transferred or otherwise surrendered, but the property itself may be sold or surrendered but only with the consent of the owner. This specifically means that there is no right of government to eminent domain or forced seizure if that government refuses to abide by the owner's determination of just compensation. It

is the owner who determines what just compensation is to be derived from any property transaction with government not the government. Otherwise, there would be no right to property. Unalienable rights are a reference to Natural or Absolute law. In declaring the rights of men, Thomas Jefferson wrote his famous line in the Declaration of Independence We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Jefferson was referring to those rights bestowed on all men, everywhere, of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are unalienable rights, not bestowed on men by men. Not rights granted of government to the governed. These are rights given of God, Himself, to all men. They are a gift from God which is precisely why they are unalienable rights. At what point, however, does an American citizen lose his rights, if at all? Consider - a man commits murder which results in his arrest, trial, and conviction with a sentence of death. Wait a minute! Life is an unalienable right, you might argue. True enough. Where, then, did the authority to execute a man for a crime originate? From God. God granted life, and it is within His power to take that life not Man's. Under God's law, any man who murders (not kills there's a difference) forfeits his life for that act. It is not the government which has decided to execute the murderer, God has decided to execute the murderer. This is where capitol punishment derives from, the acceptance and desire to conform to God's law. It is not men doing the taking of life, it is God doing the taking using men to carry out His law. Likewise, any conviction which results in the loss of liberty or the forfeiture of property obtained through illegal means (theft, robbery, fraud, etc.). This is the point of the argument that states progressives (read that liberals or Republicrats) deny God and His law. They deny Natural law. By denying God's law, they claim the right to make law in His stead. Laws which are more pleasing to them. Laws which consolidate their power. Laws which restrain and enslave the citizens. The sad fact is, though, those laws are far more binding than any of God's laws. If one needs proof of that statement, one needs only to read a few law books (pick one from local, state, and federal codes). Look at the extent to which men have gone to control the lives of others. They have gone so far as to claim themselves to be God and to deny His rights to others. They are, however, the first to scream about the loss of their rights. It is this failure to identify the source of rights that causes such confusion and misunderstanding in regard to what constitutes unalienable and inalienable rights as opposed to government authority and power. Herein, then, lies the question - are American citizens who have been convicted of a felony still American citizens? How many convicted felons are there who cannot vote. How many convicted felons cannot own a firearm? How many convicted felons cannot hold public office? Unless they have applied for restoration of their rights they can do none of these things and, if they make the attempt, subject themselves to further punishment. But, wherein, in the Constitution is there any claim that those convicted of felonies lose their unalienable or inalienable rights. Have you ever heard of a convicted robber agreeing to be barred from the right of due process? How about the right to security in one's own home, once released from prison? How absurd to argue such a point. The argument that commission of the crime carries with it the undeclared waiver of such

rights is specious, deceitful, misleading, and an outright lie. Does that not identify the true source of such arguments and the loyalty of those who are working to destroy what God has given? Historically, once a felon was released from prison the state was required to restore to him his horse (or a horse, as the case may be, since his may have been eaten or simply died by the time he released), saddle, firearms, ammunition, and clothing. In some cases, they were even required to provide him a stake, usually some amount of a gold piece, to get started in rebuilding his life. Argue, if you wish, but as late as the late 80's, the State of Florida, as just one example, had just this type of law on its books. And they were forced to comply with it, too. The point is that the concept of stripping a convicted felon of his rights based on a the political motivations of some insignificant politician seeking to make himself relevant and re-electable is a fairly recent innovation in law. For the past several months there has been much noise over the right of American citizens to keep and bear arms. There has been much controversy over whether the President has the authority to prevent any American citizen from purchasing firearms and ammunition without any restrictions imposed on that right by government. The 2 nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads: 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. A parsing of the amendment will provide a better understanding of its intent. A well regulated Militia, - the Militia was and is composed of individual citizens. It is immaterial whether any firearms and their accoutrements were provided by the State or by the individual. Here, the point is made that a Militia, not just any Militia, but a well regulated Militia is referenced. It is a matter of organization. It is a matter of discipline. It is a matter of efficiency, effectiveness, and practicality. Militias are state organizations, not federal. Nowhere in the Constitution was the federal government authorized, delegated, or otherwise ceded the authority to regulate the formation or control of any state's militia, much less their right to arms. being necessary why necessary? What is necessary about a well regulated Militia? It was thoroughly argued prior to the ratification of the Bill of Rights that the purpose of militias, manned by individual citizens, was to respond to tyranny by government. It is the responsibility of individual citizens, it is their duty (see the Declaration of Independence), to put down tyranny by government. to the security herein, is partly defined the purpose of a well regulated Militia. That purpose is to secure. To prevent harm. To ensure the safety of those the Militia is charged with securing.

of a free State, - we now know what is to be secured a free State. Not a tyrannical State. Not the life, power, authority, wealth, or prestige of a select few or even of one President. It is the securing of a free State which is the purpose of the Militia. Any other State is not to be tolerated much less secured. the right it is an unalienable right of men to be able to arm themselves for the purpose of protecting the freedom of the State. Inherent in that responsibility is the right to protect themselves, their families, their property, and their right to living in a free State. It is not a right subject to the limitations imposed on that right by men. It is an unalienable right in that it is a right which directly correlates to life. It is not a right subject to any limitations imposed on it by law. It is an unalienable right. It is not a right subject to any limitations imposed on it by the courts. It is an unalienable right. of the people the people who are the members of the Militia; the people who are the citizens; the people who are the sovereign authorities of the government. It is the people who have formed the government. It is the people who have the vested interest in ensuring that the government does not overstep its authority and power. It is the people who will restrain the government or replace it at their choosing. to keep to own; to possess arms. Keeping denotes the right, authority, and power to purchase those arms and all things necessary for their upkeep and operation, including ammunition. Individuals are empowered, they possess the right, to keep what arms they purchase. and there is more than just the right to own. There is more than the right to possess. In addition to the right to keep is the right to bear in addition to the right to keep arms, there is the right to bear them. It is the right to carry them about ourselves in any forum in which we wish to place ourselves. It is the right to bear them in any manner we deem appropriate to our needs. This right extends to the right to carry those arms concealed, hidden, packed away, if need be, or in the open for all to see. arms, - what we are rightfully given the authority, by God, to keep and bear. Arms, weapons, the type of which is our choice. shall it is an imperative limitation. It is not conditional. It is not elective. It is a demand for compliance to the amendment. There is no alternative. It matters not what courts may deem the definition of the word to be, it is a specific requirement of performance. not be there is no alternative. The unalienable right is NOT to be interfered with. There is no limit to the limitation. It is NOT to be. It does not limit infringement to any particular branch or level of government. It is inclusive. It is all inclusive. No ordinance, statute, law, rule, regulation, policy, procedure or other form of governance may be used to infringe the right. Period.

infringed. - interfered with, infringed, broken, contravened, encroached, intruded upon, invaded, meddled with, or transgressed. No infringement is acceptable. None. No infringement is tolerated. None. It does not matter from which office the infringement originates. Neither Executive, Legislative, nor Judicial may infringe. There is no tolerance for incremental or other divergence from the imperative. No law local, state, or federal which prevents, limits, or otherwise infringes with the right of ownership of a firearm and its attendant accessories (including ammunition) is constitutional. Therefore, no such law is legitimately enforceable and all citizens (convicted felons or not) have the right to resist any effort at enforcement with use of force, up to and including deadly force, if need be. Many laws seek to incrementally erode the rights of citizens. Many irrelevant politicians seek to boost their potential through the concept of increased safety at the hands of government and raise the hue and cry over more and more laws they claim will protect their constituents. They conveniently fail to inform the people that the law enforcement function of government has no duty to protect any citizen (CASTLE ROCK v. GONZALES (04-278) 545 U.S. 748 (2005) 366 F.3d 1093, reversed.). It is the right of every citizen, regardless of their background, to be able to protect themselves, their families, and their property at all times. The right of protection does not stop at one's property line. It does not end with a felony conviction. There is no limit to that right. Some will complain that to permit all citizens to arm themselves without the oversight of government is to invite those of uncontrolled temperament to act out their aggressions with the aid of weapons. It is a simple matter. It has been demonstrably proven, time and again, that where the right to carry is not infringed, violent crime if not crime in general tends to fall. Additionally, it is incumbent upon citizens to be held accountable for their actions. This is, again, something that the liberals are chipping away at personal responsibility. According to them, society is responsible for all individual actions, therefore, society must pay for any transgressions of the individual, especially where firearms are involved. This is nothing more than a chimera intended to confuse in order to further reduce citizens to absolute control of government. But if all citizens who choose to exercise their right to keep and bear arms and are held personally accountable for their actions in using those arms the abuse of the right will become less and less of an occurrence. Do not make the mistake of accepting alleged laws against unalienable and inalienable rights as being legitimate simply because some wide striped politician claims it to be so. It is immaterial how such a false law was passed. It is immaterial if some politician, police chief, sheriff, street cop, or black robed priest either collectively or individually - push their dreams of Nazi control and deems it his prerogative to infringe on your right to keep and bear arms. Man up. Stand up. Be accountable. Fight back.

The Swamp Fox

22Jan13