Outpost of Freedom blog

Camp Lone Star — A Favorable Ruling?

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
May 26, 2015

On March 30, Massey attended a hearing with testimony that was discussed in Camp “Lone Star — The Setup – Get Massey“. At the end of that hearing, since the government had not responded directly to the existing “Motion to Dismiss”, Judge Hanen allowed the Prosecutor until April 10, and the Defense until April 17, to file supplemental motions.

Massey’s attorney, Louis Sorola, submitted a First Supplement to Opposed Motion to Dismiss Indictment. However, rather than just arguing “case law”, though some was included, he ventured into the realm of “substantive law”, arguing two points with regard to the Constitution, and not just previous decisions.

Massey wanted to challenge jurisdiction, though he was too late to do so, having pled “not guilty”. He also wanted to question the constitutionality of the charges against him, for a number of reasons — most significantly, those discussed in “Camp Lone Star – Massey & The Clash of Laws“. However, his former attorney, Ed Cyganiewicz, refused to take the battle to the courtroom, preferring to go along with the game of “let’s make a deal”. Fortunately, Massey’s insistence in fighting, rather than just giving in, caused Cyganiewicz to withdraw from the case.

Providence, then, provided his next attorney, Mr. Louis Sorola. Sorola listened to Massey, and Massey provided him a copy of an article, Liberty or Laws? “Felon in Possession of a Firearm” is Not Legal or Lawful“, which addressed, among other questions, what Massey refers to as the “has-had” argument and the “equal justice” argument.

Sorola, faithful to his client (unusual, nowadays), did research, found that the “has-had” argument had not been argued, and then prepared the “First Supplement…” (linked above), and served it on the Court and Judge Hagen within the time allowed.

Word came back that after receiving the “First Supplement…”, the courthouse was “abuzz”. Apparently, Hagen was taken aback, and had no idea just how to deal with this new stick in the federal spokes.

The Argument

Let’s first look at the wording of the “felon in possession” statute, 18 USC § 922 (g), that is pertinent to the argument.

“to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.”

That is it. The question is what does “has” mean, as written in the statute.

Now, we will look at the “has-had” argument (paragraph #4), from the “First Supplement…”:

The word “has”, as opposed to the word “had” was used in the statute. “Has” is the third person singular, present indicative, verb meaning active in the action just completed, where “had” is past tense and participle of the verb have, meaning in a previous situation. So, if one were the direct recipient, then the word “has” would be appropriate. However, if it were expansive, intended to include any firearm shipped in interstate commerce, then “had” would be the proper verb. The use of “had” would have meant to include any and all that “had” been so transported any time prior

Keep that in mind as we visit the “equal justice” argument “(paragraphs #14, 15), again from the “First Supplement…”:

[I]f you live in a state that manufactures a firearm, then you can possess it, as it has not been involved in interstate commerce. However, if you have ammunition that was manufactured in another state, then you are guilty because of the ammunition. If you live in a state that manufactures both weapons and ammunition, you can possess those “firearms” and ammunition. However, if you live in a state that manufactures one, the other, or neither, then you may have but one, or none. That seems to give preference to one state over another.

Further, this absolutely defies the concept of equal justice; it would defy the concept of Article IV, § 2, which states, “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all of the Privileges and Immunities of the Citizens of the several States.” It would mean that if one moved to another state, with what was legal, from the federal standpoint, in the state from which he began, he would be a criminal in the other state.

Before we look back to put some perspective on our argument, let’s visit another provision of the Constitution, not included in the argument, but relevant to our consideration, is Article IV, § 4:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…”

Under the authority so guaranteed, Texas enacted their own “felon in possession” statute, many decades ago. It provides that:

Sec. 46.04. UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF FIREARM.

(a) A person who has been convicted of a felony commits an offense if he possesses a firearm:

(1) after conviction and before the fifth anniversary of the person’s release from confinement following conviction of the felony or the person’s release from supervision under community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision, whichever date is later;

So, one “commits an offense”, unless his sentence for a felony, and any other supervision, etc., is five years, or more, behind him. Texas recognizes that the right to bear arms is restored when one has rehabilitated himself, and “stayed clean” for five years.

So, the Texas statute is in conflict with 922 (g) if we accept that “has” means “had”, and the impediment, the prohibition of possession, was not limited to the act of commerce, but was applicable to the rest of one’s life.

And, the “equal justice” provision, Article IV, § 2, is in conflict with 922 (g) if we accept that “has” means “had”, in that the application would be solely dependent upon the state that one lived in, rather than any sense of justice..

However, if we consider that “has”, as written, means “has”, as written and intended, and improperly applied in the “administration” of that law by the government, then there is no conflict between 922 (g) and either Article IV, § 2, or the right of Texas to enact laws under “a Republican Form of Government”.

* * *

Since April 20, when the court first received the “First Supplement…”, Massey and Sorola have been waiting, anxiously, for Judge Hanen’s ruling on the motions before it. Now Judge Hanen is busy dealing with the Department of Justice and their deceitful practice of defying his order in the Amnesty case, but after 4 weeks, there was still no ruling.

It seems that if Judge Hanen were going to rule against Sorola’s motions, it would be a no-brainer to simply rule, and get on with the trial. However, there was nothing except a very loud SILENCE from the Court, until May 20, when Judge Hanen delivered a rather interesting “Order“. The order indicates that Hanen still has to rule on two motions before the Court, and opens the door for another round of paperwork, (amendments to the previous positions), giving until May 29 to answer. He does cite the recent Henderson v. United States decision out of the Supreme Court, and though he finds that there is no “impact on the pending motions”, he leaves the door open, to allow the Prosecution every latitude.

Massey’s apprehension in quite understandable. He has been wearing an “ankle bracelet” since November 12, 2014, and has been under “Home Detention”, since that time (See “Camp Lone Star – Cruel and Unusual Punishments – Before Conviction“. His last motion was submitted on April 20, and so a month later, he finds that there will be nine more days of agonizing waiting for the ruling that will determine whether the Constitution and the laws of the State of Texas are supreme, or if Administrative Rules and Regulations override them.

So, why is Judge Hanen waiting so long to rule? Denying the motions would be such a simple task, though ruling that “Felon in Possession” is, well, unconstitutional, is not so easily accomplished. There is a likelihood that the government, facing such a loss, would appeal. Most judges prefer to not have a decision overturned by a higher court, so if he is going to grant the Motion to Dismiss, he apparently afforded every opportunity for the Prosecutor to attempt a challenge to the position presented in the “First Supplement…”, thereby minimizing the possibility of a successful appeal. And, of course, knowing that the government does not like to have its authority challenged, it might well be a career ending decision for Hanen to make. However, if others are willing to give their lives for the Constitution, then to end one’s career for such purpose is an act worthy of a true patriot.

Further, Judge Hanen has not rescheduled the planned June 4 Jury Selection, nor the Pre-Trial Conference, set for June 2, leaving just one working day from the final motions to trial start. This would lend one to believe that his intention is to rule in favor of the Motion to Dismiss Indictment, unless the government can scrape together a non-existent argument in opposition to “has-had” and “equal justice”. In which case, the trial would have to be scheduled even further down the road to allow for preparation.

It does appear that when Judge Hanen does pick up his gavel, it will come down declaring freedom for KC Massey, and a quandary for the government, as all those who have been convicted, or even pled guilty to “Felon in Possession” may have pled, or been convicted, of a non-crime.