"Concept" or God-Given Right?

"It's time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense..."

These words were spoken by USAG Eric Holder during his address to the NAACP following the George Zimmerman verdict, and they vividly illustrate the mindset to which the leaders of the Danbury Baptists referred in their letter to then-President Thomas Jefferson:

"...and such had been our laws and usages, and such still     are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as       inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the            expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are           inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be             wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and     gain under the pretense of government and religion should    reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order         magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order..."

In the views of such people, we have no inalienable rights; we have privileges that have been granted by a magnanimous government - privileges that are as easily taken away as given.   And as was acknowledged by the leaders of the Danbury Baptists, such a view is inconsistent with our status as FREEMEN.

Mr. Holder needs to reacquaint himself with the Bill of Rights.  Its name is exactly what it seems to be, a list of rights - HUMAN RIGHTS - granted as inalienable rights by the God who created us in His image.  The Second Amendment of the Constitution, as delineated by the Bill of Rights, provides for our defense against a government that has escaped the chains of the Constitution.

Frederic Bastiat, in his manuscript, The Law (Copyright © 2007 by the Ludwig von Mises Institute), explains it this way:

"It is not because men have made laws, that personality, liberty, and property exist. On the contrary, it is because personality, liberty, and property exist beforehand, that men make laws. What, then, is law? As I have said elsewhere, it is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Nature, or rather God, has bestowed upon every one of us the right to defend his person, his liberty, and his property, since these are the three constituent or preserving elements of life; elements, each of which is rendered complete by the others, and that cannot be understood without them. For what are our faculties, but the extension of our personality? and what is property, but an extension of our faculties?

If every man has the right of defending, even by force, his person, his liberty, and his property, a number of men have the right to combine together to extend, to organize a common force to provide regularly for this defense.

Collective right, then, has its principle, its reason for existing, its lawfulness, in individual right..."

Collective rights are the corporate expression of God-given individual rights.  And as they are God-given, they reflect the very nature of God.  This is of the utmost importance, because, in reflecting the unchangeable nature of God (Malachi 3:6, "For I the Lord do not change..."), the rights themselves are also unchangeable - inalienable.  If, then, we collectively have the right to defend ourselves from our own government (as guaranteed by the Second Amendment), it follows that we have the individual right to defend ourselves from other individuals as well. 

Self-defense, then, is not a concept.  It is a God-given, inalienable right granted to us as the image bearers of God by virtue of the fact that we are created in His image.  In numerous verses throughout the scriptures, God tells us that He will defend His name and His character.  God has the right to His own defense; as image bearers, we share that right.

The right to self-defense is one of the foundational principles upon which our country was founded.  It is one of the chief differentiating factors that separates American law, with its protection of the rights of the individual, from British common law, which subjugates the rights of the individual to the rights and claims of the crown.  It is common law that delineates the so-called duty to retreat.  It is American law that upholds the right of the individual to stand his or her ground when they are where they have a legal right to be and they are committing no crime.

Concept?  No.

Inalienable, God-given RIGHT.

Potter Park Zoo in Violation of ADA and Michigan State Civil Rights/Disability laws...

We are going to war. 

We took our son to Potter Park Zoo in Lansing, MI, this afternoon (07/21/13) for his birthday. When we got to the entrance, they would not permit us to enter the zoo with our son's autism assistance dog without first requiring proof of certification as an assistance dog, as well as proof of all immunizations being up to date. Then, after verifying all of that, we would have had to be accompanied by a guide who would tell us where we could and could not go in the park. The only other option offered was to leave our son's assistance dog in our vehicle - and it was a warm day today. We were given a copy of the park's policy only after we were making our way back to the parking lot.

Now, we like Potter Park Zoo. It is a wonderful facility. 

It also happens to be PUBLICLY OWNED/FUNDED facility - meaning that they must be in full compliance with both federal and state civil rights/disability laws. The ADA specifically states that their policy is illegal, as demonstrated in the revised ADA requirements for service animals:

"WHERE SERVICE ANIMALS ARE ALLOWED

Under the ADA, State and local governments, businesses, and nonprofit organizations that serve the public generally must allow service animals to accompany people with disabilities in all areas of the facility where the public is normally allowed to go…

INQUIRIES, EXCLUSIONS, CHARGES, AND OTHER SPECIFIC RULES RELATED TO SERVICE ANIMALS

When it is not obvious what service an animal provides, only limited inquiries are allowed. Staff may ask two questions: (1) is the dog a service animal required because of a disability, and (2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform.  Staff cannot ask about the person’s disability, require medical documentation, require a special identification card or training documentation for the dog, or ask that the dog demonstrate its ability to perform the work or task.

Allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals. When a person who is allergic to dog dander and a person who uses a service animal must spend time in the same room or facility, for example, in a school classroom or at a homeless shelter, they both should be accommodated by assigning them, if possible, to different locations within the room or different rooms in the facility.

A person with a disability cannot be asked to remove his service animal from the premises  nless: (1) the dog is out of control and the handler does not take effective action to control it or (2) the dog is not housebroken. When there is a legitimate reason to ask that a service animal be removed, staff must offer the person with the disability the opportunity to obtain goods or services without the animal’s presence…

People with disabilities who use service animals cannot be isolated from other patrons, treated less favorably than other patrons, or charged fees that are not charged to other patrons without animals. In addition, if a business requires a deposit or fee to be paid by patrons with pets, it must waive the charge for service animals."

(Source: http://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm)

I tried to explain what both Michigan disability laws and the ADA have to say about this, but they insisted that the park's policy was the primary consideration - regardless of the requirements of the law.

I am at war. I want to make clear that I do not hold the admissions or security employees responsible for what happened. However, I will have some things to say to the zoo's policy makers. To that end I will be contacting media, legislators, and anyone else I can think of until Potter Park Zoo brings its policies in line with the ADA and Michigan civil rights/disability laws. The security guard with whom I spoke, who is also the father of a special needs child, told me that the park has done this many times over the years.  We have taken our son's assistance dog to Boulder Ridge Wildlife Park in Grand Ledge, MI, and to John Ball Zoo in Grand Rapids, MI, without any trouble whatsoever, so this is a first for us.

To say that our son was disappointed would be an understatement. He doesn't usually voice his feelings in his own words; he did so tonight.

***     UPDATE     ***

Autism Assistance Dog Turned Away From Zoo

We are thanking the Lord for the outcome with Potter Park Zoo. The zoo is reviewing and will be re-writing their service animal policy to bring it in line with ADA and Michigan civil rights/disability laws. It has essentially been acknowledged that the chances of a certified, disciplined, controlled, inoculated service animal outside the enclosure of zoo animals passing on disease to those animals is essentially non-existent. And when you stop to think that zoo animals are in constant, close contact with rodents, birds, and other carriers of harmful organisms that actually go in to the enclosures, the argument really didn't hold up.

We received a call from the director of the zoo just before the broadcast apologizing for the zoo's refusal to allow Bryce into the park and for the policies that violate the ADA, specifically those that require patrons to provide documentation of a service animal's certification and health record. They have assured us that we will be contacted when their policies have been re-written, and they have invited us back to the park.

Finally, we would like to thank Joe LaFurgey of WOOD TV for the role he and his camera man played in this. Thank you for your time, effort, and the quality of your report. You have helped open the doors of this zoo to patrons who would otherwise be denied entrance.

Holder Lashes Out at SYG Laws in the Wake of the Zimmerman Verdict - Yet Another Straw Man...

At an NAACP rally this past week, AG Eric Holder lashed out at the Stand Your Ground (SYG) laws that have been enacted in 22 states.

"These laws try to fix something that was never broken," Holder said at the Orange County Convention Center. "There has always been a legal defense for using deadly force if - and the 'if' is important - no safe retreat is available. But we must examine laws that take this further by eliminating the common sense and age-old requirement that people who feel threatened have a duty to retreat, outside their home, if they can do so safely" (Holder lashes out at SYG laws

There are three very basic flaws in Holder's arguments.

 First, the US Supreme Court has upheld the basic right to self defense in numerous cases, most notably Heller. Self defense is a right; there is no duty to retreat. So once again the good AG is trying to create a legal duty where none exists.

Second, the Zimmerman trial was never about SYG; it was the self-same self defense plea to which Holder refers in his speech. Holder states that citizens have a duty to retreat, yet the jury determined that Zimmerman was unable to retreat. Therefore, he was entitled to his use of lethal force to preserve himself from great bodily harm and death.

But the most important ramification of Holder's speech is this: Holder made the statement, "... people who feel threatened have a duty to retreat..." The context of this statement is Holder's stated contention that Zimmerman exercised his right to employ lethal force before making an adequate attempt (whatever THAT is) to retreat.

 Now, the prosecution's testimony was that MARTIN was the threatened party. Zimmerman was following him, and according to testimony from Martin's girlfriend, Martin felt threatened. The logical conclusion, therefore, under Mr. Holder's argument, would be that MARTIN should have been the one with the duty to retreat - which we know did not happen.

But that isn't what Holder said.

He said that it was ZIMMERMAN who had the duty to retreat.

This poses a real problem for his contention that Martin was the victim. In the light of his stated argument that the victim/defender has the duty to retreat, one can only draw one conclusion: if Zimmerman had the duty to retreat, then MARTIN was the aggressor.

In other words, Mr. Holder just declared Martin to be the aggressor and Zimmerman the victim/defender.

 Thank you, sir, for clearing that up for us. You just confirmed the jury's verdict.

 Now leave our SYG laws, which played absolutely no part in this case, alone.

Conservative Black Leaders Give their input on the Zimmerman Verdict...

Black Conservatives Analyze Aftermath of Zimmerman Case

Washington, D.C. - Members of the Project 21 black leadership network are analyzing the legal aspects of the George Zimmerman verdict and commenting on the implications: