David posted yesterday about the new gun ban at the capitol in Virginia.
I commented: “to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them” must be a personal, rather than a societal, mandate.”
Thomas Dowling commented “Diplomatic Carry is a new level of autonomy, of personal sovereignty” and provided a link to the concept of Diplomatic Carry.
This caused me to consider how one might use the concept of Diplomatic Immunity to “to assume … the separate and equal station” that I alluded to above.
I propose the following:
Establishment of
Diplomatic Immunity
within the geographic boundary
claimed by the United States
and the several States therein
Whereas the national government known as the United States and the local governments of the several States have evolved to disregard the constraints of their original authority and to disrespect the enumerated rights of individuals born to and living upon the soil within their borders;
And whereas such individuals have patiently petitioned legislators for redress of grievances suffered from this evolution without success and without hope of remedy;
Many have declared their homesteads to be common-law sanctuaries operating as freeholds within the hostile environment of a foreign legislative domain.
Longstanding and clear instructions posted at the boundary of such properties indicate a resolve to live unencumbered by the external State, despite the practical fact that the individuals living therein are coerced by force of arms to make periodic feudal rent payments to the surrounding State.
To avoid potential conflict between the sovereign claim of the external State, and the rejection of said claim by individuals living within a freehold, any and all travel, commerce and individual intercourse across the boundary will be conducted as a Diplomatic Mission of the freehold.
Individuals conducting Diplomatic Missions into territories outside the freehold will carry a Diplomatic Identity which (1) testifies the bearer agrees to engage in no common-law crime while outside the freehold, and (2) instructs agents of the external State to grant the bearer immunities afforded to foreign diplomatic personnel.
The US Department of State provides instruction to law enforcement on the respectful treatment of Diplomatic and Consular Immunity.
Included in the above document are examples of the type of Diplomatic ID cards that one might create for the Diplomatic Missions of their freehold.
Seeing a lot of discussion regarding what is “law” and whether those claiming it have any sort of legitimacy to exert it. One interesting bit of wisdom I read is that anytime a body passes a “law” even a minor one they do with the understanding they’re giving the hat tip to others to enforce it with up to and including lethal force.
The diplomatic immunity angle is interesting, but to think you could get the State Dept., the embodiment of the leftist, statist, a Deep State, if there ever was such a thing I’d folly.
Rather, people can have all the immunity from whatever State is claiming “authority” that they’re willing to take recognizing that it will be necessary to exert deadly force to do so.
I endeavor to always make a clear distinction between “law” (common law and customary law) and the legal fiction employed by the legislative domain. Please don’t confuse them.
I don’t believe for a minute that the US State Department would formally recognize a claim of diplomatic immunity such as I’m proposing. In fact the document I referenced above clearly states: “The United States, as a matter of policy, does not normally accept as diplomatic agents its own nationals…”
However, “normally” is the operative term. I propose ‘pushing the envelope’ by presenting a confusing but non-fraudulent document to LEO and other agents of the State. There are clear risks associated with such behavior, but there is also opportunity non-lethal dialog at such encounters. Confusion is a useful tactic of clandestine behavior.
As you indicated above, people can have “all the immunity … they’re willing to take …”
John Ainsworth has his own identification card which has had limited success on the local level with driving. Not paying state and federal taxes because of questioning their legal standing also is a success. Maybe it should be the “united States”.
I knew someone who frustrated the living crap out of badge monkey during a traffic stop by not speaking English (spoke Ethiopian) and pretending to be helpful and trying to be compliant. For example, looking puzzled while he demanded ID and then showing a lightbulb moment face and excitedly handing him a magazine. He stormed away red faced and left.
Does Diplomatic Carry supercede property rights, or is that privilege still only afforded to “officials?”
I cannot speak for the legislative domain, only for my policy and practice.
I reserve and enforce my right to eject anyone from my property for any reason at any time. This is irrespective of the specific issue related to the carry of arms. Any action otherwise would be an admission that I do not control my property.
When I visit another individual and they do not accept my peacefully carried arms on their property, I depart promptly. I have no desire to further associate with them. They have clearly indicated their philosophical bias and tacitly stated they do not trust me
Deputies have commented on the postings at the border of my property, but to date they have had no cause to harass me and, when present on my property, have treated me with respect.
I wonder if the “government” would use this to suspend any government pensions and social security. If so, I wonder if we could use this to not pay state and federal taxes.
[personal disparagement deleted]
I contacted Alan Korwin (the OG/OP of the diplomatic carry concept). I am hoping he will reach out to you and the others linked in the article. He is not terribly net-active, so I wouldn’t be surprised not to hear further from him, but I’d love to know if he ever followed through with his original promised extended analysis of the concept.
Diplomatic carry is a “right” given to you by a government. The second amendment is a Right that pre-exists regardless of government that simply states it shall not be infringed upon. Why would you pick the lesser “right”. Either maintain your freedoms or go home.
We are in agreement. Diplomatic Carry is a privilege granted by a government, not a Right.
Diplomatic status claims immunity from the legislative domain of that government.
When government infringes upon mans’ pre-existing human Right, why would you not take the opportunity to mess with the heads of LEO and the courts by claiming the same privileges and immunities that are granted to foreign nationals?
Claiming the immunity is a point of departure to challenge the infringement.
Our life as US Citizens is either as valuable/equal as a visiting diplomat in Our country or it is not.
The answer is self-evident!
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,” — Our Declaration of Independence