We are "Kickin' the Tires, lightn' the fires, Stirrn' the melting pot of America and the World, You are listening to The Watchman On Warn Radio!"
 The Truth, One Hope, One Salvation Go HERE! |
 Living Waters, Psalms of the Watchman, Go HERE! |
WIBR/WARN: This video does not in any way endorse any religious or denominational view. This video is a good speech on freedom and the approach of Communism, socialism, and destruction of America. The time of the speech is 1965 and Benson who was Secretary of Agriculture from 1953-1961. Benson was a member of the Latter Day Saints. As those ‘enemies of America’ were trying to destroy America at that time, Ezra Benson urges people to stand up and awaken. So too, we today must also know the task of taking over America seems to be in full swing. NO matter the denomination or religious belief, loss of American freedoms are all our concern! No matter whether you go to church, believe in the LORD, or not, Freedoms are your concern. It doesn’t matter! The time is now! Editor
Ezra Taft Benson – Stand Up for Freedom – great speech on Freedom
Read about ‘At the Sight of a Gun’
By Chris Smith on JBS article ‘ At the Sight of a Gun’ found in part below quote.
This is pretty good case why the courts should reexamine there findings for jury trials.
Look at the money this one person had to pay to be found not guilty… Yes, justice is for those who have the cash, and i am thankful this guy had the money.So let us look at this for a minute or longer if i so choose to rattle on.
I do not agree from reading this article that the police were justified in pulling Guns on this fellow… As one who has had a gun pulled on him by the police in Gillette and crammed in the back of my head, for not telling a cop who my friend was. I will defend the right of a person to protect himself, his family, and his property from these kind of cops who act out of line. “you take that to say what you will”
So why the case for a jury trial? Well, that’s simple. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury. That is a partial to the Sixth amendment. Pretty straight forward as i read it. I am confused how a group of really educated men can believe that it is to mean, you only get a jury when its a serious criminal matter. For me the key word is “ALL” but we have to remember I didn’t go to collage, so forgive my ignorance of the definition for “ALL”
In a case of this nature, where no jail time seemed not to be a possibility, and probably only a fine.. I think i can safely say this is another law written to profit.
This is a case that does evolve around property and relates to another “right” guaranteed. The second the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.. Then by all means this person should be allowed to be heard by a jury of his peers. He was however being charged with a crime against his fellow man.
So we have a judge who should go back to 5th grade and reread the 5th amendment. nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Again pretty straight forward. So it was the finding of the court that this person was found “NOT GUILTY”, and he doesn’t get his property back, and he could again face more charges, OK I’ll say it “REALLY” .
How about the ninth amendment, The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Now this amendment is a little lesser known but equally important, again i am not a graduate of “lesser common cents” I mean collage “sorry”. However as i read the ninth, it is to mean that we have more “rights” then stated in the constitution or in the bill of rights.
So as i see it this guy has been violated, and as you see now everyday you wake up, somebody is trying to take away your right to be “free”.
If the other party was so offended then he should have taken civil action against this person… Let him spend his own money to violate somebody’s GOD GIVEN RIGHTS, and not waste taxpayer money and the POLICE as a CLUB to get somebody to follow your wishes. After all to be offended you have to take that burden….
At the Sight of A GUN!
“Don’t move. Put your hands up.”
[source-http://www.jbs.org/index.php/news-feed-archive/4525]
Those are the words Brad Krause of West Allis, Wisconsin, heard on an August afternoon in 2008, in his own completely fenced-in back and side yard while he was busy planting a tree, with a holstered handgun on his hip. Krause complied with the officers’ commands quietly and without incident, and was taken into custody on a disorderly conduct charge 45 minutes later. The police seized the gun, holster, and ammunition, giving Krause no receipt.
The whole affair began when a neighbor phoned the local police station and inquired whether it was legal and safe for a homeowner to have a holstered gun at his side. He said during the call: “I just don’t appreciate a guy walking around with a gun in his yard and this isn’t the first time I talked to him about it but he’s still doing it.”
When asked in court why he called the police, the neighbor repeated several times that he was not concerned for himself or about Krause shooting anyone. Instead, in court he said: “I was concerned about the thing going off. I couldn’t see why he was carrying it,” while doing yard work. When asked by prosecuting attorney Jenna Merten whether it was causing a disturbance in the neighborhood, neighbor Donald Dykstra responded emphatically, “no.”
This is an important case for gun rights in Wisconsin. Technically, Wisconsin is an open-carry state. Established law indicates that it is a legally protected right. Steven Cain, the attorney representing Krause notes, “The law in Wisconsin really only limits concealed carry,” as Wisconsin is only one of two states that has not formally granted to its citizens the ability to carry concealed weapons.
In the previous case of Wisconsin v. Hamdan, a case with some similarities to the Krause case, Wisconsin governor Jim Doyle, who was the state’s attorney general at the time, wrote: “A person lawfully in possession of a firearm will always retain the ability to keep the firearm in the open – holding the weapon in the open, keeping the weapon in a visible holster, displaying the weapon on the wall, or otherwise placing the weapon in plain view.”
Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson concurred that Wisconsin law, “Does not prevent anyone from carrying a firearm for a security, defense, hunting, recreation, or other lawful purposes. Rather it limits the manner of carrying weapons, by requiring that a weapon that is on a person or within a person’s reach not be concealed.”
So why was Brad Krause charged with disorderly conduct for carrying a gun in his own backyard? Why did law enforcement react the way they did? And why did officers who arrested Krause approach him with guns drawn?
On the witness stand during the trial, Police Officer Andrew Matter outlined his reasons for going in with guns drawn before even speaking to Krause in an interesting exchange between himself and attorney Merten during the initial hearing.
To Read the rest:
[source-http://www.jbs.org/index.php/news-feed-archive/4525]
WIBR/WARN Disclaimer and Fair USE:
This material is here for your education and edification. The WIBR/WARN online websites do not agree with all material,news articles, and other stories we put up. We urge you to research, study, and show yourself approved unto God, a Workman that needeth not be ashamed. We also urge you to Fast, Pray, and seek the LORD on all matters.
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 understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. 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.
Related posts:
