PIML 96052204 / Forwarded to Patriot Information Mailing List: Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 22:52:41 -0700 From: jon.roland@the-spa.com (Jon Roland) Subject: ATF Director Magaw Reveals Mental Flaw The following message was send to all U.S. newspaper editors known to have an email address: ============================================================================ 1731 Howe Av #370 Sacramento, CA 95825 5/20/96 Dear Editor: In the May 19 issue of Parade magazine, in the article "Can John Magaw Save The ATF?", by Peter Maas, ATF Director Magaw is quoted as making a statement that provides the key to understanding how the tragedies of Ruby Ridge and Waco came about. He is quoted, "I'm not going to interpret the Second Amendment. The ATF is simply in the business of enforcing and regulating existing law." Similar statements were made by those accused of war crimes at the Nuremberg Tribunal, in defense of their actions as "just following orders". Like other government officials, Mr. Magaw once took an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." He obviously doesn't have a clue what that oath means. Persons subject to the jurisdiction of a country have the duty to not only obey its laws, but to help enforce them. If two laws or other official acts are in conflict with one another, then it is their duty to determine which is superior to the other and to obey and help enforce the superior one. In a constitutional system, there is a basic law that is supreme over later statutes, which must be based on it and consistent with it. Those which are not are null and void from inception. They don't exist. And nonexistent laws can't be enforced. To try to enforce nonexistent laws is itself against the law. It is a deprivation of civil rights, and that is a violation of 18 USC 242, which makes it a felony to deprive someone of his rights under color of law. Mr. Magaw violates his oath of office when he fails to determine that the statutes he is enforcing are incompatible with the Constitution, and therefore null and void, and that his enforcement of them is itself a criminal act. It is not a defense that it is up to judges or superiors to determine whether such statutes are constitutional. It is up to him, and to each of us, to make that determination for any official act with which we may become involved. Interpretation of the Constitution, according to the intent of its Framers, is everyone's job. No person who takes a position like that of Mr. Magaw is qualified to hold an office of trust under the Constitution of the United States. As long as such men hold official positions, more tragedies will occur, and the divide between the government and the people will widen and deepen. --Jon Roland 916/927-4935 http://constitution.org/ ======================================================================= Visit our Web site under its new domain name - http://constitution.org/ If you need help setting up your own Web site, call us at 916/927-4935. ======================================================================= * Patriot Information Mailing List * http://constitution.org/piml/piml.htm * A service to help inform those who have an active interest in * returning our federal and state governments to limited, * constitutional government * Send messages for consideration and possible posting to * butterb@sagenet.net (Bill Utterback). * To subscribe or unsubscribe, send message with subject line * "subscribe patriot" or "unsubscribe patriot" * Forwarded messages sent on this mailing list are NOT verified. * See World's Smallest Political Quiz: www.self-gov.org/quiz.html * Libertarian is to LIBERTY as librarian is to library (DePena) * PIML grants permission to copy and repost this message * in its entirety with headers and trailers left intact.