From the February 2002 Idaho Observer:

Due process or prosecution of federal agenda to disarm the American people?

PHOENIX -- After nearly two years of defending himself in federal courts, a jury found gun-kit maker Bob Stewart guilty of several federal gun law violations January 24, 2002. Though Stewart never missed a court date or was ever untimely with court filings, Federal Judge Roslyn O. Silver ordered that he be taken into custody immediately to await sentencing.

By all accounts Stewart is a good man who believes that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are important. To Judge Silver, such beliefs are anti-government sentiments that constitute a danger to society and thus he was handcuffed and taken to jail. The entire story has been excellently chronicled at www.keepandbeararms.com.

To read Stewart's story is to understand that the federal government, through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and the federal judiciary, is prepared to lie, twist the law, manufacture evidence and ignore due process to gain a high-profile gun-confiscation conviction. Do the ends justify the means? The ends are total disarmament of the American people. Does that end give the federal government the right to pervert its system of justice to obtain convictions?

Brilliant brief wasted on agenda-driven court

OMAHA, Neb. -- On behalf of Bob Stewart, Citizens Against Corrupt Law Enforcement Chairman Harold Raymond, III, filed an Amicus Brief with the U.S. District Court of Arizona. The 11-page brief is one of the most legally logical documents ever produced in support of every law-abiding American's 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Though the federal court prefers not to confuse the law and history with a politically-motivated disarmament agenda, The Idaho Observer felt compelled to publish excerpts from the brief in honor of its author and his intent.

“Although most Americans don't realize it, each and every 'Gun Control' law on the books today is, in reality, null, void and possesses no real power or authority under 'color of law,' nor the U.S. Constitution itself,” Raymond began after commenting that to restrict the possession of firearms of any type under the federal interstate commerce clause is, “nothing but quasi-legal quackery...”

The 2nd Amendment provides that, “...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Article I, Section 9 (which also prohibits the collection of a direct tax like the income tax on our wages) states, “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”

In legal contemplation, since neither the 2nd Amendment nor Article I, Section 9 have been repealed, they are still in full force and effect. “In other words, it is a concurrent prohibition on the several states and the federal government...[to]...pass bills of attainder or ex post facto laws purporting to establish gun control.”

“The Militia Act of 1792 and the Dick Act of 1902 [neither of which have been repealed] negate and make of no effect every gun control law, ordinance and regulation ever passed.”

The intent of the 2nd Amendment and subsequent acts to support it are clear. Similarly, the present agenda which is attempting to undermine the right to keep and bear arms, is also clear.

“The intention [of the 2nd amendment and supporting acts] was to maintain a well-equipped and prepared body of armed Citizens ready to come up against a standing army which a future tyrant might use against the people...”

Conversely, the intent of laws intended to deny the Citizens' right to keep and bear arms is to prevent them from being able to stand up against (present?) tyrants.

“Before a standing army [such as the BATF] can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can, on any pretense, be raised in the United States,” observed Noah Webster (1758-1843).

Jewish, Catholic and Protestant doctrine all recognize that the right to self defense is natural and inborn and that we have the right to defend ourselves against aggression of any kind.

“There is no such thing as federal gun laws. 'No powers can be exercised by the Congress which are prohibited by the Constitution, or which is contrary to its spirit.'” ~Congressional Record, Feb. 16, 1900, page 2290

Gun laws are not in the interest of public safety. They are an engine of oppression.