Time: Thu Nov 28 09:50:45 1996
          with NJE id 9893 for AZRKBA@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU; Thu, 28 Nov 1996
          08:32:14 -0700
          V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 9718; Thu, 28 Nov 1996 08:32:13 -0700
          Thu, 28 Nov 96 08:32:13 MST
          by primenet.com (8.8.3/8.8.3) with SMTP id IAA27778 for
          <AZRKBA@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU>; Thu, 28 Nov 1996 08:35:55 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID:  <2.2.16.19961128163427.2a7f9cc0@mailhost.primenet.com>
Date:         Thu, 28 Nov 1996 08:34:27 -0800
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject:      Defenseless victim zone
To: Multiple recipients of list AZRKBA <AZRKBA@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU>

At 08:21 AM 11/28/96 -0500, you wrote:
>AZ>The University of Arizona is an institution
>AZ>authorized by the Arizona State Legislature,
>AZ>whose members are bound strictly by their
>AZ>oaths of office to support the Constitution
>AZ>for the United States of America, as lawfully
>AZ>amended.  See Article VI, Clause 3.  As such,
>AZ>that Legislature is prohibited from infringing
>AZ>upon the Second Amendment, which is the
>AZ>supreme Law of Our Land, pursuant to the
>AZ>Supremacy Clause.  See Article VI, Clause 2.
>AZ>If the Arizona State Legislature would like to
>AZ>repeal the Second Amendment, it must follow
>AZ>the provisions of Article V in that Constitution.
>AZ>Deprivations of fundamental Rights guaranteed by
>AZ>the U.S. Constitution are felonies in violation
>AZ>of Title 18, United States Code, Section 242.
>
>AZ>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>
>
>AZ>At 09:00 PM 11/27/96 -0500, you wrote:
>AZ>>My wife works at the U of A.  Last friday she got a memo in her paycheck
>AZ>>envelope.  It was to inform all employees of the new regulation that
>AZ>>prohibits all weapons on the campus.  So now Tucson has another
>AZ>>defenseless victom zone.
>AZ>>
>AZ>>Russ
>
>It wasn't the state legislature that did it.  It was the board of
>regants.  They passed it as a rule in the code of conduct.
>
>Russ

I understand.  But we are talking about the
principle of "authority" here.  The Arizona
Legislature has no "authority" to authorize
the UofA's Regents to issue a rule, or code
of conduct, which flatly violates the fundamental
law in America. Without that "authority", the
Regents are violating the supreme Law and
they are showing their willingness to deprive
Citizens of their fundamental Rights by doing
so.  The remedy here is to Petition superior
court for an Order to the Regents to show cause
why their "rule" does not violate the Second
Amendment.  This would be a civil action.
Imagine if the Regents issued a rule that
all students must attend school on cold winter
days without any clothes.  Would they have any
"authority" to issue such a rule?  The answer
is obvious:  security of our lives is of
paramount importance.  Think of firearms as
clothing.

/s/ Paul Mitchell

====================================================================
[Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @]
[65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.]
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win]
We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding.
Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan
====================================================================

      

Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail