Are there parts of the Bill of Rights which still apply?

[Mark C]

A friend of mine, and also Constitution-oriented talk show host in times past, used to like to hold up a copy of that once "Supreme Law" and say, "You know, there are actually PARTS of this document which STILL APPLY!"

There are, of course, less and less of them each and every day.

I frequently suggest to those who cling to the fantasy of an America which no longer exists in the way most assume, that those who follow YHVH, and His Word, should seek to understand what it means to "come out of her", so that we may not be partakers in the plagues (and judgment) which is to come. As with most shocks, people tend to react first with denial, then anger.

And while the claim that the Bill of Rights still actually exist, at least in part, within these former united States is increasingly hard to defend, new abuses still shock us as they are revealed - to the point where people refuse to believe they are possible, and must be the sole domain of "conspiracy theorists" and other folks soon to be rightfully imprisoned as terrorists or other threats to the burgeoning Police State.

So while it has been obvious for a generation or more that the Second Amendment is a dead letter (after all, if "shall not be infringed" can still apply in a nation with multiple tens of thousands of "infringments" -- from licenses and taxes, permits to prohibitions, from federal to local levels of government -- what is the point of even bothering to write down those words?) most people still try to hang on to some illusions about the First.

So have a look at this:

"When Cameras Are Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Have Cameras!"
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/nestmann4.1.1.html

 

[Seth]

I understand the idea of people not wanting their conversations recorded....private citizens at least. But the idea that you can't record your interaction with the police, is abhorrent. A police is an actor of the state, the state should be transparent, and has no right to privacy (except perhaps national security). If the citizens involve give consent to taping, that should be the end of it. I'm surprised Oregon would be on of the states that have a law like this.

 

[Paul not the apostle]

the bill of rights does not apply in the "federal zone", which is washington dc or the territories, and never has, and does not apply to "public officers" engaged in activity on behalf of their "public office".

anyone with a SSN is a "public officer" doing business for their "public office" and is a resident of, and domiciled on, federal territory, which is why the beast gov acts like you have no rights, cause you don't have them, legally speaking.

the only people (not persons...there is a difference) that have any of these rights are free people, sovereigns that have not contracted away their rights to the "corporate" united states. in order to live free in the manner that is consistent with the way this country was founded, people have to unvolunteer from socialist security and not accept gov contracts or privileges, and reinstate your sovereignty.

the below link is 26 pages of explanation of the above info, which everyone should read, or at least every HOH. it details how the federal government has tricked the populace into waiving rights.

http://sedm.org/Forms/AvoidingFranch/SSNotEligible.pdf