Founded 2004      NJIAT

Declaration of Independence, Constitution & Bill of Rights

Declaration of Independence
Moses (c. 1300's B.C.)-Prophet
& Judge of the Israelites-with two
Tablets on the East Face of the
United States Supreme Court Building
Ten Commandements on front bronze
doors of the United States Supreme
Court building
19th century sculpture of Lady Justice with no blindfold and book in the Czech Republic. The Swiss Reformers symbolized Lady Justice with no blindfold and her sword pointing to the open Bible at her feet--the Reformers believed Revealed law (sola scriptura) is the only way for a nation to have moral laws. Natural (i.e. secular) law was a fraud--the pagans always had a blindfolded Lady Justice.
United States Supreme Court

Christianity and the Constitution book by John Eidsmoe

Christianity and the Constitution: The Faith of Our Founding Fathers

By John Eidsmoe - Baker Book House (1995) - Paperback - 480 pages - ISBN 0801052319

In this book, Dr. Eidsmoe shows clearly how most of our founding fathers were not secular men, as we often hear today. He explains how the influence of Calvinism gave rise to our republican form of government. He also documents how our founding fathers embodied several biblical principles in the Constitution. This book is recommended for anyone who wants to learn about our nation's truly Christian heritage, which has been virtually expunged by the secular revisionists. - from the Forward.

 

What is the correct way to interpret the Constitution?

The Founders' Biblical philosophy remained the unquestioned standard for law and government until the turn of the 20th century. A different philosophy started to emerge in the mid-twentieth century among judges and educators, which was rejected by the founding fathers. This different philosophy was often termed "relativism" or "pragmatism" that means there are no absolute standards and man is the measure of all things (what is right or wrong)--it is also called "secular humanism".  When the "progressives" apply this to law, they call it "legal positivism"--it is another word for "relativism". (Legal positivism was developed by Dean Christopher Columbus Langell of Harvard in the 1870's and followed by Dean Roscoe Pound, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., and others, has been the predominant philosophy taught in law schools during the 1990's.) John Eidsmoe--a retired Lt. Colonel in the Air Force, Constitutional scholar and law professor--summarizes "legal positivism" as follows:

  1. There are no objective, God-given standards of law, or if there are, they are irrelevant to the modern legal system.

  2. Since God is not the author of law, the author of law must be man; in other words, law is law simply because the highest human authority, the state, has said it is law and is able to back it up by force.

  3. Since man and society evolve, therefore law must evolve as well.

  4. Judges, through their decisions, guide the evolution of law (Note again: Judges "make law").

  5. To study law, get at the original sources of law, the decisions of judges; hence most law schools today use the "case law" method of teaching law.

There is even a movement worse than the one mentioned above called "legal realists". They openly admit using the legal system to promote their own ends/agenda--the Critical Legal Studies movement is one aspect of "legal realism".

The Constitution is suppose to be interpreted, judged--according the founding fathers--only against the specific, self-evident wording of the Constitution, that is the original intent. Alexander Hamilton (01/11/1755 -07/12/1804) one of the Founding fathers and 1st United States Secretary of the Treasury stated the following in Federalist #81 about how to interpret the Constitution:

There is not a syllable in the plan [the Constitution] which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution. (emphasis added).

James Kent (1763 - 1847) an American jurist, legal scholar and Chief Justice of the New York State Supreme Court also explained that the Judiciary compare a law only to "the true intent and meaning of the Constitution".

Jury Nullification

Yes, juries in a civil or criminal case have the power to judge the facts and the law in a particular case. If a juror believes the law is unjust and unconstutional, the juror can and has the authority to ignore it--in other words, nullify the law. The whole concept of a jury nullification goes back to the Magna Carta (1215)--this limited the corrupt power of the king's courts. This was an important element in our common law. The United States would not even have freedom of press without jury nullification. Do you remember the Zenger trial of 1735? Jury nullification was also practiced in trials of abolitionists, who were prosecuted for helping slaves escape and to drinkers during the Prohibition era. It does not matter what instructions a judge gives to the juries, they still retain the power to apply the law or discregard it in the case. A quote from John Adams (second President of the United States (1735 - 1826), "It is not only of law, but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." (See the website titled Fully Informed Jury Association.)

Helpful articles on the Constitution and Bill of Rights

LibertyNewsNetwork--a news organization that defends the Constitution.
http://www.libertynewsnetwork.tv

Renew America, click link for Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist Papers, Communist Manifesto, etc. http://www.renewamerica.com/documents_menu.htm

For more information on the Constitution click the side bar .

Note: This is why it is important to appoint "Strict Constructionist" judges.

Legal References--Abbreviations for New Jersey Law, U.S. and PA

1. et seq ("and the following") 2. C.F.R (Code of Federal Regulations)

3. N.J. (New Jersey Supreme Report) 4. N.J.A.C. (New Jersey Administrative Code)

5. N.J.S. (New Jersey Statutes) 6. N.J.S.A (New Jersey Statutes Annotated)

7. N.J.Super (New Jersey Superior Court Reports) 8. U.S.C. (United States Code)

9. U.S.C.A. (United States Code Annotated) 10. 18 Pa C.S. & 6111 (Title 18, PA Crime Codes, Section)

The two sites below have official government links to PA and NJ Firearms Law and other areas

  1. Firearms Owners Against Crime—PA Pro-Gun Political Action Committee that has Voter’s Guides by County, PA Laws under Title 18 & great pro 2nd Amendment links.
    www.foac-pac.org
  2. AllStays Travel--New Jersey and other states Gun Laws and Travel
    3. www.allstays.com

Should Natural Rights/Natural Law in the Legal profession be rejected even if they were included in the Declaration of Independence?

Yes, according to Dr. Robert A. Morey (world renowned philosopher and theologian) natural law has caused great harm to Western civilization, especially the United States. Dr. Morey states the following about “natural rights” and “natural law” in Colonial America from his book entitled The Bible, Natural Law, and Natural Theology: Conflict or Compromise?, Chapter 11, Pages 19 & 20 < http://faithdefenders.com >

Colonial America

This exposes the ugly side of Colonial America. We have conveniently forgotten that the “natural rights” found in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights and other documents from that period did not extend to women, children, slaves or Native Americans. Not even all white males had these rights. Only land holders were allowed to vote!

When modern Natural theologians pine for the “good old days” of Colonial America, I cringe. It means the suppression of women and the enslavement of non-whites. It means slave ships, whips, shackles, auction blocks, raping of women, selling of children, forced labor, torture, and other horrors. No, they were not the “good old days.” The historical reality is that Natural Law did not give natural rights to all people. It always fought against extending rights to all people.

The Abolitionist Preachers

It took preachers with a Bible in one hand and a gun in the other to abolish slavery and to extend rights to all people regardless of race or creed. The leaven of Scripture finally worked its way through society and brought an end to slavery. The Civil War was not the beginning, but the end of that process.

There was one American church denomination that was always opposed to slavery. Susan B. Anthony (1820-1906) commented in one of her fiery speeches, The Scotch Covenanters or Reformed Presbyterians is the only evangelical church in all the nominally free states of the North that can consistently claim freedom from all sanction of, or compromise with slavery, “the sum of all villainies.” The Old Scotch Covenanters refuse church fellowship not only to slave-holders, but to churches that fellowship slave-holders.

What about Darwinism’s influence on law?

If the theory of evolution is adopted over creation by God, the human law is not longer subject to God. To quote Dr. Augusto Zimmerman (Brazilian-born and an internationally known legal scholar who teaches at Western Australia’s Murdoch University):

As a result of Darwinism, many lawyers embraced the doctrine of legal positivism and interpreted law as a mere result of sheer force and social struggle. Consequently, law was reduced to a mere managerial skill used in the service of social engineering, which is the dominant view in the legal profession today…

Dr. Augusto further explains,

Many judges believe that their countries’ constitutions should be interpreted as if they were “living documents”, instead of being understood according to their original meaning. This apparently ‘progressive” view of law regards the constitution of liberal democracies such as Australia and the United States as old-fashioned document that should be regularly “revised” and “updated”, according to the “enlightened” decisions of a few unelected judges. So the “rule of law” is replaced by the “rule of judges”.

What were some of the arguments used by early advocates of a “living constitution”?

  • Pro-slavery leader Alexander H. Stephens (1812 – 1883), who was a barrister from Georgia and Vice-President of the Confederate States, describes pro-slavery Confederation as a “progressive society”.
  • Nazis legal theorists stated that the legal system should not be based on fixed rules of law but evolve in a continuous flow as a “living law—they were very progressive and acting on “evolutionary science”.
  • After Hitler’s Third Reich, many legal theorists argued that the Nazi laws were valid under legal positivism.1
1Sarfati, J, Law and Creation, Creation, pgs. 16-17,vol. 31, No. 2, March-May 2009 < http://creation.com >

 

Qualifications for President of the United States and What a Natural-Born Citizen Is

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution stipulates presidential eligibility, requiring the nation's elected cheif to be a "natural born citizen."

The clause states: "No person except a natural born citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

The Supreme Court did address the meaning of "natural-born citizen" in Article 2, Section I of the Constitution in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874). Chief Justice Waite stated:

The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.

According to this standard, Republican Senator Marco Rubio of Florida , Republican Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and President Barack Obama would not qualify. The President's parents would only have to be U.S. citizens at the time or his or her birth, not natural-born citizens. It has to be both parents.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution specifically defines "citizen" but not "natural-born citizen."

The word "natural-born citizen" is only used in the presidential requirement clause.

What about Obama's Qualifications?

The legislative and judicial bodies of the U.S. government have held no formal discussions, nor did they conduct a single formal investigation into whether Obama is eligible to serve under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Congress did, however, question the "natural born" qualifications of Obama's 2008 presidential opponent, Republican Sen. John McCain.

The scion of distinguished U.S. naval officers, McCain was born to two American parents in the Panama Canal Zone. On April 30, 2008, the U.S. Senate sought to answer the question by passing a nonbinding resolution, which states, "Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it resolved, that John Sidney McCain, III, is a 'natural born citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States."

The resolution clearly determined "natural born" to mean born of two parents who are U.S. citizens.

An excerpt from WorldNetDaily article dated 10/02/11 titled: Debate is over! He's not natural born

So there is no avoiding the fact thatallmembers of the U.S. Senate know what natural born citizen means, that John McCain is one, and that Barack Hussein Obama isn't.

The McCain resolution was based upon the official legal opinion of Tribe & Olson,posted here in pdf form. The Tribe & Olson opinion states clearly:

We conclude that Senator McCain is a "natural born Citizen" by virtue of hisbirth in 1936 to U.S. citizen parents who were serving their country on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone. The circumstances of Senator McCain's birth satisfy the original meaning and intent of the Natural Born Citizen Clause, as confirmed by subsequent legal precedent and historical practice.

The Tribe & Olson opinion was based upon an in-depth legal review of all related historical legal decisions since the formation of our country. But it all begins with a statement made on March 26, 1790 in 104 FIRST CONGRESS. SESS. II. Cn. 4. 1790:

"[T]he children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens:"

Once again, no matter the birth place of John McCain or any other child born of U.S. parents, whether born beyond sea, in or out of the limits of the United States territory – thenatural born child of U.S. parents "shall be considered as natural born citizens."

....Every member of the U.S. Supreme Court and every half-intelligent member of the U.S. Congress knows what natural born citizen is, what the U.S. Constitution requires for the offices of president and vice president, and that Barack Hussein Obama II is not eligible or otherwise qualified for the office he currently holds by way of the most massive fraud ever perpetrated on the American people...

Read the following two articles for further information:

Debate is over! He is not natural born

Washington reinterprets constitutional eligibility

Natural Born Citizen Defined by our Framers

In order to understand what was meant by natural-born citizen, one has to go to the first law that the U.S. Congress passed in 1790 defining the natural-born citizen. The Naturalization Act of 1790 did not accept a person a natural-born citizen if they were born on U.S. soil, but only referred to parentage: "The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States," the Act states, "shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."

The following people offered a definition on natural-born citizenship:

1. Representative John Birgham of Ohio, the main framer of the Fourteenth Amendment states, ..."United Sates of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is...a natural born citizen."

2. The Law of Nations by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel in 1758 was used by many of our founding fathers as a source of understanding of law, which was established in the Constitution of 1787. His treatise in Book 1, Chapter 19 states, "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself other wise than by the children of the citizens, those childern naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights....In orher to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."

The meaning of natural-born citizen will either not be discussed or the people will be lied to by your major media outlets, but there are many legal cases that support the above definition. Wikipedia has unfortunately sanitized its site of the true definition of natural-born citizen after the release of President Obama's birth certificate. Also, there has been no investigation by the major media outlets on the authenticity of the birth certificate. For further information see articles by WorldNetDaily entitled Authors:Even Hawaii birth won't make Obama eligible (April, 28, 2011), Bombshell: U.S. Government questioned Obama citizenship in 1966 (May 9, 2011), That bogus birth certificate (May 12, 2011) , Criminal Complaint Filed with FBI over Birth-Certificate "Forgery" (June 5, 2011) and Ex-CIA: "Forged Document Released as Birth Certificate (June 15, 2011).

Say "No" for a Con-Con

There are serious consequences for state-initiated constitutional conventions. Article V states that Congress, "on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments." Amendements is plural. Yes, the Constitution authorizes the consideration of more than one amendment at such a convention. History backs this up. When the 16th Amendment (the individual income tax), the 17th Amendment (direct election of U.S. Senators), and the 18th Amendment (prohibition of alcohol) were passed by Congress (all three Amendments were very harmful to the Republic), they still were ratified by three-fourths of the states. It should be noted that the promotion of the 18th Amendment was in response to the Carry Nation's Movement and was condemned by Dr. Machen and many other fundamentalist Christians as being in conflict with Scripture. Alcohol in moderation is biblically permissible and not sin.

In the event that the U.S. had a constitutional convention and state legislatures opposed any new Amendments or new constitution at the convention, the Congress has the power under Article V to circumvent the State Legislatures. They can authorize special state conventions to ratify a new constitution or new Amendments. This was the case in 1933 when Congress wanted to repeal prohibition through the 21st Amendment--Congress authorized state conventions to ratify the 21st Amendment and repeal the 18th Amendment otherwise it would not have passed. Many states such as Utah were staunchly opposed to its repeal.

A constitutional convention would open the opportunity to abolish our constitutional republican form of government. Tell your elected officials to enforce the constitution through nullification of unconstitutional federal laws and interpret the constitution by its original intent.

What about the Partriot Act Extension?

S. 990 extended for four years three provisions of the Patriot Act that were set to expire. The three provisions are: 1. The "roving wire tap" provision that allows the federal government to wiretap any number of a suspect's telephone/Internet connections without specifying what they will find or how many connections will be tapped; 2. the "financial records" provision that allows the feds to seize "any tangible thing" that has "relevance" to an investigation; 3. the "lone wolf" provision that allows spying on non-U.S. citizens without a warrant. These provisions violate the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which requires that no warrants be issued "but upon probable cause" (a much highter standard than "relevance"), and that warrants must contain language "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be siezed."

Under the Patriot Act, the FBI can issue warrants called "National Security Letters" without going to a judge. This provision never expired.

All law enforcement personnel should have opposed the extension of the Patriot Act--your oath is to the U.S. Constitution, not to your superior or pay check. The so-called "War on Terror" is lost if the U.S. Constitution is destroyed or gutted. Why is the border not being sealed? Many retired Federal Agents have spoken out about this and many other issues at anti-terrorism symposiums.

What about The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)?

This is one of the most disgraceful pieces of legislation ever passed--it was approved by the House of Representatives (283 - 136) and the Senate (86 - 13) on Dec. 15, 2011. Since this bill labels all of America a "battlefield" in the "War on Terror", it can hold American citizens without charges or a trial for an indefinite detention. It will also allow the Pentagon to treat the Internet as a 'battlefield". So any dissent on the internet could be quashed. This bill gives the president enormous powers under section 1021 to arrest and jail people, by use of the military, without due process (see the 5th & 6th Amendment).

The use of admiralty courts (military tribunals) and the applying the laws of war to the colonists and the infamous Star Chamber in English history was the reason the Founding Fathers made sure that international laws of war would apply only to foreign enemies--they can now be applied to American citizens. The Article II Treason Clause establishes for non-military citizens to be tried in a civilian court. Also, international laws do not trump our Bill of Rights. One of the causes for the American Revolution was the denial of the right to a jury trial. Every member of Congress that signed this bill should be thrown out of office. It has nothing to do with "Homeland Security."

TheHill.com posted this report quoting Dr. Ron Paul [a Republican Congressman in the 14th district in Texas, who served in the United States Air Force as a flight surgeon (1963 to 1965) and the U.S. Air National Guard (1965 to 1968)] and stated the following: "GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul warned that the National Defense Authorization Act, which was passed by Congress this month, will accelerate the country's 'slip into tyranny' and virtually assures 'our descent into totalitarianism.'

President Barack Obama has signed this bill (NDAA) from his vacation rental in Kailua, Hawaii making this his last official act in 2011. Two retired four-star Marine generals wanted the president to veto the bill in a New York Times op-ed stating it is "misguided and unnecessary." Osama bin Laden was just handed a victory with the passage of this bill.

Historical note: In 1933, the German Reichstag passed the Enabling Act, granting to Adolf Hitler the expansive powers that helped create his ruthless dictatorship. The NDAA gives similiar powers to the President and for much the same reason: the protection of the people.

The priviledge of a writ of habeas corpus (dervived from the Latin for "you may have the body") guaranteed by Article I, Section 9 of the Constitutition has now been suspended. Now a U.S. citiizen does not have the right to due process of law and the right to know what charges are being made against him. The concept of habeas corpus formed a large part of the Anglo-American jurisprudence since the 14th century and the principles can be found in the Magna Carta written in 1215.

A quote from Alexander Hamilton (writing as a Publius) from The Federalist, No. 84:

The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus, the prohibition of ex post facto laws, and of TITLES OF NOBILITY, to which we have no corresponding provision in our Constitution, are perhaps greater securities to liberty and republicanism than any it contains. The creation of crimes after the commission of the fact, or, in other words, the subjecting of men to punishment for things which, when they were done, were breaches of no law, and the practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny.

Unfortunately, tyranny is being implemented little by little by the oligarchy currently ruling on Capitol Hill.

Is Administrative Law Constitutional?

Administrative law "allows for the creation of public regulatory agencies" and "contains all the statutes, judicial decisions and regulations that govern them." In other words, it allows bureaucracies to create a body of law and then implement their powers and duties in the form of rules, regulations, orders, and decisions.

Where did the adminstrative law originate from? The Progressives, who disdain the Constitution as inefficient, founded the administraive regime in order to overturn the Constitution. The origins of administrative law came from Germany to America. They considered government a benevolent deity, not the enemy the founders of America feared. This was the philiosophy of Nazi Germany--the State is supreme. In the 1870s, many U.S. citizens were attracked to German universities for advanced degrees in economics that promoted this philosophy.

Is administrative law constitutional? No. It is a abdication of the legislature not doing its job. This is why agencies escape general scrutiny when they saddle industries with many burdens and regulations. So in addition to the three branches of government, you also have bureaucracies intertwined in the three branches of government. An agency can write laws a la Congress and enforce them like the excutive and the coup de grace adjudicates like a court. (It should be noted that administrative law through regulatory agencies has also been detrimental in destroying the father's authority in the home and family--unfortunately, the law enforcement community no longer knows the difference between law, with its checks and balances, and the policies and procedures that are in administraive law; administrative law gets its authority from statutes, not the Constitution.)

For further information see The New American magazine, Sept. 5, 2011 edition entitled The Second Set of Books by Becky Akers <www.thenewamerican.com>

Restraining Orders Out of Control

When the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 sponsored by Senator Joseph Biden (D-Del.) and Senator Barbara Box (D-Calif.) and was signed into law by President Clinton, it took a bad system and made it worse.  The act provided federal money to foment more dissension between the sexes and funnels money to certain favored programs.  It also instructs local police to make more arrests and coordinates interstate enforcement of abuse-protection orders. The act is highly discriminatory and gives financial, political, legal advantage to women in the family court.  There have been several versions of the act passed in intervening years.  (Supporting the Biblical definition of a family and its obligations and duties of a husband and wife is far more effective in preventing violence against women.)

A listing of major problems with the Violence Against Women Act of 1994:

  • An applicant can get a domestic-abuse restraining order for almost any reason.
  • Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting (RADAR) issued a report that stated that it is as easy to get a restraining order as a fishing or hunting license—RADAR states: “The law defines almost any interpersonal maladjustment as ‘domestic violence,’ the courts then establish procedures to expedite the issuance of these orders.”
  • Many women use the restraining order option for ulterior motives, such as to get custody of children without a court hearing, quick eviction hearing, added advantage in divorce and revenge.
  • There are no rules of evidence, burden of proof, cross examination, no jury when an applicant files a restraining-order—the woman can come to court secretly and just state she feels fearful. One woman even filed a complaint for against her husband for kicking a plastic cooler while leaving the house after he found that she was having an adulterous relationship—she filed a total of 14 false criminal complaints about violations of the order.
  • There were 4,796 emergency protective-orders petitions issued in West Virginia in 2006; an estimated 80.6 percent “are false or unnecessary” and cost the state $18,200,000 according to professor of accountancy Benjamin P. Foster, Ph.D, CPA, CMA.
  • Women commit abuse more than men and this is confirmed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. There report states: “In non-reciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70 percent of the cases. Reciprocity was associated with more frequent violence among women, but not men.”
  • Restraining orders violate and interfere with Second Amendment rights. The state’s laws require that a defendant surrender all guns and ammunition (it is not only a state crime, but a federal one under this act).  Many law enforcement officers and military police had to take a desk job because their wives’ got a restraining order against them and thus lost their right to carry a weapon—this is a disgrace.
  • Restraining Orders Out of Control
  • NJ Alimony Reform
  • The Feminist Movement has caused the Undermining of Due Process of Men--PDF

The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 and all subsequent acts should be immediately repealed.  Many of the liberal politicians and (many conservative politicians pressured by the feminists) in both parties are responsible for the passage of this highly discriminatory and family destroying act.  Please lobby your Congressmen and Senators to repeal these laws.

Gregory A. Hessian, J.D. “Restraining Orders Out of Control” New American (August 4, 2008): 12-17

 

Listen to G. Gordon Liddy on Radio America
from 10:00 AM to 3:00 PM EST—live streaming.

The New Atheism
The G. Gordon Liddy Show
G. Gordon Liddy—When I was a Kid this was a Free Country
Join the NRA Today
The County Sheriff—America’s Last Hope
Second Amendment Foundation

Fair Use Notice: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. [NJIAT (a NJ Nonprofit Education Corporation) does not profit from the information on website and is not affiliated with any political party--NJIAT makes material available to students and non-students free of charge.]