Time: Sat Nov 29 07:25:14 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA17985
	for <pmitch@smtp-local.primenet.com>; Sat, 29 Nov 1997 06:55:58 -0700 (MST)
	by smtp03.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA14235;
	Sat, 29 Nov 1997 06:55:40 -0700 (MST)
 via SMTP by smtp03.primenet.com, id smtpd014223; Sat Nov 29 06:55:33 1997
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 06:51:46 -0800
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Sheriff Richard Mack and the Unconstitutionalm Brady Bill

>I found the following viewpoint by former Sheriff Mack 
>to be enlightening.  It seems that Clinton has 
>absolutely NO respect for the Constitution even when 
>the SC rules on the unconstitutionality of the Brady 
>Bill.  Another reason to IMPEACH him.  FWIW, Richard 
>Mack is LDS.  What say ye?
>Dr. Douglas W. Schell
>Professor of Business and Economics
>The University of North Carolina- Pembroke
>1709 Crest Dr.
>Aberdeen, NC 28315
>(910) 944-5757 (home)
>(910) 521-6463 (office) 
><---- Begin Forwarded Message ---->
>Volume 1, Item 5, 8 November 1997
> The following article was recently printed in the 
>"Sentinel of Freedom",2790 Wrondel Way, #41, Reno 
>Nevada.  It was written by Richard I Mack, theSheriff 
>who brought suit against the Federal Government over 
>the "BradyBill".  His quote of the final decision of 
>the Supreme Court on the case,as written by Supreme 
>Court Justice Antony Scalia is one of the best we
>have seen, and should be used to take out many other 
>federal regulations.  
>                      By: Richard I. Mack
>     On June 27, 1997 the United States Supreme Court 
>ruled the Brady bill to be unconstitutional.  The story 
>was covered in every newspaper and in every radio and 
>television broadcast across the country.  President 
>Clinton called a press conference, ordered the Attorney 
>General and  Secretary of the Treasury to find a way 
>around the ruling and asked our nation's law
>enforcement to continue the background checks 
>voluntarily.    Then, of course, subsequent to this 
>landmark decision, the sabios of the media began
>the onslaught of editorials to convince Americans that 
>the ruling was merely a change in legal verbiage, and 
>besides a moral  victory for the NRA, the ruling was 
>otherwise meaningless.
>       Does the Supreme court really deal in 
>meaningless cases?  Why out of the thousands of cases 
>to cross its desk would the highest court in the
>land agree to hear a meaningless case?  Or would it be 
>that some misinformed columnists missed the point of 
>the most powerful and monumental decision ever? 
>     Would it interest Americans to know how much the 
>Brady background checks cost in tax dollars?  Would it 
>help us to know how many of the "250,000" some odd 
>"felons" denied  handguns pursuant to Brady checks were
>actually arrested, prosecuted or fined?  Is anyone 
>concerned why we have 250,000 felons on the streets in 
>the first place?  Has the cost effective analysis shown 
>the Brady checks to be a worthwhile law enforcement 
>     Are these valid questions?  Probably, but the 
>Brady ruling had nothing to do with funding, taxes, 
>statistics, crime reduction or national security.  This 
>lawsuit was based entirely on State sovereignty, States
>rights, and the Tenth Amendment.  Sarah Brady was 
>correct when she said that we "renegade Sheriffs" did 
>not file a Second Amendment challenge as part of the 
>suit.  The Brady bill did not affect us, as Sheriffs, 
>on the Second Amendment grounds one iota. Gun shop 
>owners and citizens could mount such a challenge.
>      Our lawsuit against the Brady bill comes down to 
>one key issue, does the federal government have the 
>right and authority to compel States to comply with 
>federal mandates and directives?  We, the plaintiffs in 
>this case, maintain that the federal government has no 
>jurisdiction or constitutional authority to order 
>Sheriffs in this country to do anything.  
>     To answer to the BATF or to be controlled by the 
>federal bureaucracy is not exactly the Sheriff's role. 
>The lawsuit against the Brady Bill was actually born 
>out of our own frustration with an out-of-control 
>federal government.  Our concerns were purely 
>constitutional.  You remember the constitution, the 
>document the founders devised to protect and safeguard
>     The Washington Times reported that the most 
>curcial and critical cases are historically decided by 
>the Supreme court at or near the end of each year's 
>term.  The Brady bill decision was released on the very 
>last day. The Associated Press said this "ruling marked 
>a bitter defeat for President Clinton".  These news 
>reports seemingly stray far away from the editorialists 
>who declared this ruling to be meaningless. 
>     The Supreme Court was sharply devided on the case, 
>both numerically and philosphically.  Five Judges 
>agreed that the Brady bill was unconstitutional and 
>that Congress had exceeded its authority in passing
>it.  Four other justices dissented and said the Brady 
>Bill was appropriate and within federal supremecy 
>     The opinion for the majority was written by 
>Justice Scalia who said, "The constitution protects us 
>from our own best intentions.  It divides power among 
>sovereigns and among the branches of government 
>precisely so that we may resist the temptation to 
>concentrate power in one location as an expedient 
>solution to the crisis of the day."  In other words the
>constitution cannot be sacrificed "For the Children", 
>or to save us from our own stupidity.  Today's 
>legislatures have replaced their constitutional
>oaths with good intentions and benevolent purposes 
>which serve one purpose, their own selfish agendas. 
>     Scalia's final paragraph reads, "The Federal 
>Government may neither issue directives requiring the 
>States to address particular problems nor command the 
>State's officers, or those of their political 
>subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal 
>regulatory program.  It matters not whether
>policy making is involved and no case-by-case weighing 
>of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands 
>are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional 
>system of dual sovereignty." 
>     This ruling is one of the most powerful and 
>monumental decisions released by the Supreme Court in 
>modern history.  On the other hand, this decision will 
>be meaningless, if we do not have elected officials who 
>will keep their word to protect and defend it.  If your 
>Governor, Attorney General, Mayor, City Council, Board 
>of Supervisors and especially your Sheriff, do not 
>possess the integrity or the intestinal fortitude to 
>stand for the Constitution and use this Brady bill 
>ruling to benefit the cause of freedom, then it will 
>indeed remain a meaningless decision.  However, if
>such is the case, then this ruling will not only be 
>meaningless, but the entire Constitution as well.  The 
>Constitution is no stronger than the hands that are 
>there to protect it. 
>(Note from the Editor of the "Sentinel of Freedom":  
>Richard Mack gave his all for us on this one.  It cost 
>him everything he had including his job, but he won it 
>for us.  It's our turn now.  For a $10.00 or more 
>donation, Richard will send you an autographed copy of 
>this landmark decision.  Make your donation payable to 
>"Richard I. Mack" and send it to the: Sentinel of
>Freedom 2790 Wrondel Way #41 Reno, Nevada 89502. 
> They will be forwarded immediately to help him get 
>back on his feet.
>Thank you!
>To subscribe or unsubscribe, email:
>     majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com
>with the message:
>     subscribe ignition-point email@address
>     unsubscribe ignition-point email@address
>----- End Included Message -----

Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris      : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
B.A.: Political Science, UCLA;   M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
website: http://supremelaw.com       : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best 06
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone 07
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this 08
_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall 10
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
======================================================================== 12
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] 13


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail