Monday, May 14, 2007

Sent the following to AZ. Governor Janet Napolitano;

Ran across an article over this last weekend on Keep and Bear Arms titled "Bill to Carry Concealed Weapons Without Permit Heads to Gov.". It kept coming into my mind that I should do something about it. However my mind was on another matter/project and I kept dismissing the recurring thought. And this hasn't been the first time this, or a very similar bill has surfaced recently in Arizona.

Another person that frequents Keep and Bear Arms had wrtten to me previously. And, advised how that the Arizona Constitutional Convention of 1910 had specifically mentioned Concealed Carry. I remember filing it away and thinking that might be useful some day. Well, "some day" arrived at around 2:30 this morning. Had awakened after being asleep a couple of hours. And the first thought that came into my mind with extreme clarity. Was that I needed to do something about that Bill that was headed to the governor.

Remembering what the fellow 'gunnie' from KABA had advised me. I did a search on the net and came up with what follows. As it so happens, this information was on the Second Amendment Foundation website. Which I then forwarded to Gov. Janet Napolitano;

The following is excerpted from;


By Robert Dowlut

Mr. Dowlut, a member of the District of Columbia bar, received his J.D. from Howard University School of Law. He is an army veteran. His military duties included service as a paratrooper with the 82nd Airborne Division and, while doing his undergraduate work, with the 12th Special Forces.

"...Article II, section 26 of the Arizona Constitution guarantees the following:

""The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men."

"This guarantee should be interpreted according to rules of construction established by the Arizona Supreme Court. A right explicitly guaranteed in Arizona's Declaration of Rights is deemed to be fundamental."A constitutional right must be construed liberally to carry out the purposes for which it was adopted. Every doubt about the sweep of a constitutional guarantee must be resolved in favor of a right or liberty. When the words of the constitutional guarantee are clear, judicial constructions neither required nor proper.

Courts are not at liberty to impose their views of the way things ought to be, otherwise no recorded word, no matter how explicit, could be saved from judicial tinkering. In the event of an ambiguity, records of the Arizona constitutional convention are given great weight.

"The rules are clear. Nevertheless, Arizona courts have paid no attention to these well-established rules when construing Arizona's guarantee to possess or bear arms. Despite Arizona's clear guarantee to bear arms for self-defense, the Court of Appeals held that only arms used in civilized warfare are protected.

"Theoretically, this means a person may not possess an oriental club but may possess a bazooka. The court's narrow interpretation of the term "arms" has been criticized.

"A page of history is worth more than a volume of idle speculation or even logic. The adoption of Arizona's guarantee to bear arms is well documented. The records of the 1910 Constitutional Convention [Pages 678, 679] reveal the framers intended that a ban on the concealed carrying of arms would constitute an impairment. Besides the proposal adopted, five other proposals surfaced in the convention. The alternative proposals would have allowed the state to regulate the wearing of arms to prevent crime or to ban concealed carrying. They were not adopted.

"The framers specifically voted down two efforts to amend the present guarantee in such a fashion that the concealed carrying of arms could be banned. This was done in the face of impassioned pleas from a former Chief Justice of the Territorial Supreme Court (who initially wanted no guarantee to arms) and a former Speaker of the Territorial House of Representatives that six-shooters and knives should not be worn under the shirt or under the coat.

"The concealed carrying of arms was even described as a vile and pernicious practice. The arguments were not heeded. The arguments in those debates sound like a typical modern-day argument over the right to bear arms. To ignore the clear intent of the framers would be the equivalent of ignoring the Federalist and Elliott's Debates when construing the national Constitution. The records of the Arizona Constitutional Convention clearly reveal that the framers envisioned a broad right to bear arms...."

Ma'am, our Right is God-given, inherent and inalienable:

afforded Us by God & Nature

“Agreed to found our Rights upon the Laws of Nature....”

"the overruling law of self preservation"

'for the common defence' (?)

"Rights of the citizen declared to be --"

"The Right to Self Defense"

Why are our clear rights, and wishes being ignored? Either we are free sovereign citizens or we are not. If not, please advise how this came about and why. And, what you plan on doing to rectify the matter.


E. David Quammen



Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home