I came to a major realization, regarding my incessant search for truth, about three years ago during the Iranian "hostage" situation...not the Carter-Regan era debacle, but the arrest of British sailors and Marines in the Persian Gulf by the Iranian navy. If one wishes to find an absolute fact, the best way to find it is to confront two polar opposite points of view and see what they agree on. The sky is blue, the grass is green, and gravity probably exists. Keep reading, you'll eventually see where I'm going with this...
I was attempting to explain to my cousin about the difference between "privileges" and the inherent rights of man the other night, although I'm not absolutely certain that he understood them...because, for some reason, he still wants to be a cop! He has this very odd fascination with arresting child molesters, which leads me to believe he may have been "inappropriately touched" by a gym teacher in his youth. Whatever.
He feels that the need to bring murderers, rapists, thieves, robbers, and destroyers of property to their meeting with justice far outweighs the egregious raping of the inherent rights of a man that have been authorized, codified, and financed via our state governments, so that these abuses may take place at the hands of our uniformed police...and I, quite simply, disagree with him.
As I have stated numerous times, there are certain inherent rights of man that are granted not by a political charter or official government document, but rather granted by our creator and are bestowed upon us by the mere nature of our birth and joining of the human race.
Those rights include being able to enjoy one's life, liberty, and property as one sees fit to do so, provided the exercise of these rights DOES NOT interfere with the right of another to do the same. Along with these three rights, one also has an inherent right to defend his ability to enjoy these rights using whatever necessary means, up to and including ending the life of anyone who threatens these rights. That fourth portion was covered rather well in Heller case, in which the Supreme Court of the United States declared the Second Amendment right to "Keep and Bear arms" to be an *INDIVIDUAL* right. You'll notice that I emphasized that in all manner possible using the technology at hand, because the inherent right of defending ones' other rights is essential to exercising ones' other rights.
My dear beloved cousin brought up the notion of municipalities invoking their own legislation, and I am most certainly in praise of the idea that local rule is the best rule...unless it violates the natural rights of man. Upon reading his explanation of certain legislation, I reminded him of the fact that we do not live in a democracy, but rather a constitutional republic. Even though the state may have legalized the violation of a man's inherent rights, as the state of Texas did when they outlawed the right to resist an illegal arrest (Texas Penal Code 38.03(b)), the inherent right to resist an unlawful arrest is guaranteed by the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Two days ago (April 20, 2009), the federal Appeals Court for the Ninth Circuit described the idea of an "inherent right". The published opinion is 43 pages long, but worth every minute you may spend reading it. The originating case was in reference to the Second Amendment, but the opinion issued was centered around whether the 2A applied to only the federal government or the states as well, due to the doctrine of incorporation.
The court ruled that the right to defend ones' self was an inherent right, predating the United States Constitution.
It effectively nullified TPC 38.03(B), because the right to defend ones' self against unlawful detention is an inherent right that also predates the United States Constitution.
So, what does that mean, Billiam? Yeah, that's right...IF A COP ARRESTS ME IN AN UNLAWFUL MANNER, I AM AUTHORIZED BY MY INHERENT RIGHTS (AND THE NINTH CIRCUIT OF APPEALS) TO CAP HIS PORK ASS IF NO OTHER MEANS OF RESISTANCE TO SAID UNLAWFUL ARREST ARE AVAILABLE.
That's something you should look at, considering the amount of legislation on our books that also currently violate our natural and inherent rights.
I'm the type of person that would rather challenge opponents in an open and recorded forum, because I know all too well what happens when events are judged based solely upon the evidence of word-of-mouth testimony and one party to the conflict is an "authority figure"...so I prefer to do my "shooting" with a camera, where cops are involved. In this manner, the police have done most of the "shooting" for me via dashboard cameras, but I'll still do a little bit of "shooting" of my own, because I don't like having to wait seven months for the evidence to surface due to "technical difficulties".
It should also be known, however, that my vehicle currently rolls down the highway pursuant to TPC 46.02(2), and I'm not the only one. I speak for myself when I say that it is better to let the evidence present itself in a court of law when challenged by those wearing the badge...and I certainly don't speak for everyone who lawfully travels with a loaded and unlicensed handgun underneath the seat of his Oldsmobile. I have no control over the actions of others.
Back to what I was saying earlier about "universal truths", my opinions and the opinions of the Ninth Circus of Appeals are typically on complete and total opposite ends of the spectrum. For instance, they repeatedly insisted that the right to keep and bear arms was a "collective" right, due to the "militia" clause of the Second Amendment. However, when hit with the hard facts of the Heller case, they were forced to recognize that not only was the right to defend ones' freedom an inherent right, but it was also an INDIVIDUAL right. To find the truth, find what opposing sides agree on...and there you have it.