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