Arrested? What on Earth for?
Statement by Rick Stanley - January 25, 2002


January 25, 2002


Stanley for U.S. Senate Campaign
Web Site:
Contact: Jim Frye, (303) 329-0481
Home & Voice Mail: 303.360.5421

The following statement of editorial opinion is offered for your use by Rick Stanley, Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate.


Arrested? What on Earth for?
by Rick Stanley

Why would anyone try to get arrested? For me, it was a no-brainer. This Denver municipal ordinance chapter 38-117.5(b) is unconstitutional. An ordinance that
tries to place itself above the federal constitution, as well as the state constitution, is illegal and an abomination. This ordinance must be stricken down. I decided to be arrested for wearing a gun for all to see in a holster at my hip. Only in Denver, Colorado. So, Ive been arrested, must stay in jail for 27 hours and now I have this huge court ordeal confronting me to get this unconstitutional ordinance overturned. Did I mention that a Libertarian lawyer had volunteered to handle the case for free because it was for such a good cause, and then two weeks before court told me that he needed to charge me because he needed the money to support himself? I explained that none of us were doing this for the money. No. Wrong. He is.

Lest you think I am nuts, I am providing some law that backs up my point. The Secnd Amendment of the Bill of Rights guarantees the right of all American citizens to keep and bear arms. The Colorado constitution Article II, Section 13, guarantees every person's right to keep and bear arms in defense of person, home and property. Two very prestigious and important documents which absolutely refute the Denver municipal charge of unlawful carrying of a weapon. Who says unlawful? Denver. The Denver that is higher than state and federal law? Yes, that Denver.

OK. We have established that the national constitution and the state constitution are a higher authority than Denver. Case closed. Should be, but let's beat a dead horse.

Case law. The way judges decide cases based upon past history. The following
cases have never been overturned and are quite germane to this case:

Marbury vs Madison {5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)} wherein the supreme court stated that All laws which are repugnant to the constitution are null and void.

Miranda vs Arizona {384 US 436 p. 491} wherein they stated: Where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.

In Norton vs Shelby County {118 US 425 p. 442} the justices stated An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no right; it imposes no duties; affords no protection, it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.

Note the legal reference 16th American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 177, late 2d, section 256, stating:

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

Does the City or State have the authority and power to regulate over the Constitution?

Schick vs. United States {(1904) 195 US 65, 49 L. Ed. 99, 24 S. Ct. 826} clearly says no:

If there is any conflict between the provisions of the Constitution [enumerated powers to make law] and the provisions of the Amendments [Bill of Rights], Amendments MUST control.

On October 16, 2001, in United States vs. Emerson, the United States Court of
Appeals for the fifth circuit said:

The constitution protects the right of individuals, including those not then actually a member of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to privately possess and bear their own firearms, such as the pistol involved here, that are suitable as personal individual weapons.

The implications of the Emerson case are especially important today. On September 11, we learned that the state cannot defend us against all acts of terror or crime. It is imperative, therefore, that we be able to defend ourselves. A disarmed society, because its citizens are defenseless, tends to adopt police state tactics. Thats why law-abiding inner-city residents, disarmed by gun control, beg for government protection against drug gangs despite the terrible violations of civil liberties that such protection entails -- like curfews and anti-loitering laws. An individual right to bear arms is thus prophylactic: it reduces the demand for a police state.

Rick Stanley is a Libertarian Candidate for U.S. Senate from Colorado
( Stanley is a Denver businessman with 27 years' experience serving the construction, plant maintenance and fleet maintenance industries. He is currently the owner and CEO of Stanley Fasteners and Shop Supply.


Denver vs. The U.S. Constitution


This web site paid for by Stanley for Senate. All rights reserved.
Email the - Email the