No products in the cart.


Active LEO Speaks Out on the NY unSAFE Act

by Mert Melfa Media

Poughkeepsie Police Officer: “I REFUSE TO ENFORCE THE NY SAFE ACT”!

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.  You can 
donate HERE.





  1. First, thank you for your stand!

    I do not agree with all of it because you only support PART of the US Constitution.

    Here is some information that you might not be aware of, and I have seen this/these “change(s)” in my lifetime. Understand that this next comment has happened to you also, to all of us.

    Bertrand Russell,1953: “… Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible…” (“The Impact of Science on Society”, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1953)

    You do not understand freedom because you have never lived with it.

    Colin Greenwood, from the study “Firearms Control”, 1972: “No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less when there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted criminal or lunatic, could buy any type of firearm without restriction. Half a century of strict controls on pistols has ended, perversely, with a far greater use of this weapon in crime than ever before.”

    Consider that when the “bad people” know that every house is not only armed, but trained in the use of those arms. Do you think they will be entering? Are you aware that is why Japan did not attack the USA (because knowing that Americans were armed and knew how to use them meant that for every foot of ground gained was going to cost lots).

    Then your comment about driving shows how much you, and a LOT of others, have been dumbed down in what you have been taught, grown up around. Traveling by any means is a Natural Right that is supposed to be protected by ALL who serve within our governments. The ONLY vehicles and drivers that require registration of any type is commercial. Yeah, really. Read on here. Before you say that the governments – state and federal – built the roads, consider that it was all built with the MONEY from the PEOPLE. It was not money just from those who serve within government. Then also consider that it is a constitutional requirement that the feds build postal roads, using the people’s money, that were to get mail across the country as quickly as possible.

    For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal. Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:

    CASE #1: “The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.” Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

    CASE #2: “The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

    It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.

    CASE #3: “The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.” Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

    CASE #4: “The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right.” Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

    “As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. Government — in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question — is restricting, and therefore violating, the people’s common law right to travel.

    This means that the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts, and those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is overwhelming in determining that to restrict the movement of the individual in the free exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions. That means it is unlawful. The revelation that the American citizen has always had the inalienable right to travel raises profound questions for those who are involved in making and enforcing state laws. The first of such questions may very well be this: If the states have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions — such as licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name just a few — on a citizen’s constitutionally protected rights. Is that so?

    For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination of this very issue. In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly:
    “The state cannot diminish rights of the people.”

    And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60, “Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void.”

    Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point — that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people?

    Other cases are even more straight forward:

    “The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.” Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24

    “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.

    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights.” Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946

    We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the Constitution itself answers our question – Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason? The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:
    “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;…shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary not one word withstanding.”

    In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law: “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…”

    Our system of law dictates that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people. These are:
    1. by lawfully amending the constitution, or
    2. by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.

    Some of the confusion on our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted and volunteered into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law and must acquire the proper permits and registrations. There are basically two groups of people in this category:

    1. Citizens who involve themselves in commerce upon the highways of the state. Here is what the courts have said about this: “…For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways…as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege…which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion…” State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073. There are many court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the right of the citizen to travel and a government privilege and there are numerous other court decisions that spell out the jurisdiction issue in these two distinctly different activities. However, because of space restrictions, we will leave it to officers to research it further for themselves.

    2. The second group of citizens that is legally under the jurisdiction of the state are those citizens who have voluntarily and knowingly waived their right to travel unregulated and unrestricted by requesting placement under such jurisdiction through the acquisition of a state driver’s license, vehicle registration, mandatory insurance, etc. (In other words, by contract.) We should remember what makes this legal and not a violation of the common law right to travel is that they knowingly volunteer by contract to waive their rights. If they were forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the state’s powers, the courts have said it is a clear violation of their rights. This in itself raises a very interesting question. What percentage of the people in each state have applied for and received licenses, registrations and obtained insurance after erroneously being advised by their government that it was mandatory?

    Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming informed about this important issue and the difference between privileges and rights. We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state licenses and vehicle registrations have no knowledge of the rights they waived in obeying laws such as these that the U.S. Constitution clearly states are unlawful, i.e. laws of no effect – laws that are not laws at all. An area of serious consideration for every police officer is to understand that the most important law in our land which he has taken an oath to protect, defend, and enforce, is not state laws and city or county ordinances, but the law that supersedes all other laws — the U.S. Constitution. If laws in a particular state or local community conflict with the supreme law of our nation, there is no question that the officer’s duty is to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

    Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling — discussed earlier — in mind before issuing citations concerning licensing, registration, and insurance: “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489. (Right to Travel, By Jack McLamb (from Aid & Abet Newsletter)

    Understand that I too also believed that because we used a car we must register, but that was because, like you and all else, I was lied to. I was lucky and a friend challenged me to prove that I was right. It is my belief that the American people, the enforcers, those that serve within the US Military HAD to be dumbed down so that our nation could be destroyed from within. WE would understand and react appropriately if a military, etc attacked us from outside, but we did not/do not recognize the incremental attacks that we have been under for about 100 years. The one thing that stands in the way of world domination was the USA, the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution in particular. That is why you no longer here much about the US Constitution except from “nutcases” like me. That is why you even here those who represent us in government at all levels refer to our government as a”democracy”, when they KNOW because they are REQUIRED to take an Oath to the US Constitution (and some to both that document and their own state’s Constitution) that we are a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.

    That is why I keep saying that no enforcer – LE or military should be following any order that deviates from those two documents at all until we replace the swamp or we lose our nation. It really is going to be up to the enforcers, civil and military, to NOT follow unlawful orders of any type. Understand that the person who issues those orders may also be “dumbed down” and actually believe that it is a right thing to do, when it is the actions of a domestic enemy. It really is critical for you, for all of us, to know exactly what is allowed, forbidden.

    Understand that concerning weapons it has been made clear that there is no limit on the type, how many, etc that any person can own, not LAWFULLY. Actions, are different, one cannot go commit a crime with any type of weapon and that is a LAWFUL arrest. Though the US Constitution does requires the people to train, or pay a fine if not going to be trained as the Congress requires the military to train.

    Thomas Jefferson: “A right to property is founded in our natural wants, in the means with which we are endowed to satisfy these wants, and the right to what we acquire by those means without violating the similar rights of other sensible beings.”

    Thomas Jefferson: “Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the author of nature.”

    Thomas Jefferson: “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”

    James Madison warned us about kind of government that exercises arbitrary power: “That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures…” Essay on Property, 1792 and Madison calls this exercise of arbitrary power, “the most compleat despotism.”

    Harry Browne, 1996 USA presidential candidate, Libertarian Party: “…The Bill of Rights is a literal and absolute document. The First Amendment doesn’t say you have a right to speak out unless the government has a ‘compelling interest’ in censoring the Internet. The Second Amendment doesn’t say you have the right to keep and bear arms until some madman plants a bomb. The Fourth Amendment doesn’t say you have the right to be secure from search and seizure unless some FBI agent thinks you fit the profile of a terrorist. The government has no right to interfere with any of these freedoms under any circumstances.”

    God above, there is so much more, please start researching, reading this all for yourself. This protects YOUR property, your life also. Because if we lose our constitutional republic, you, me, all of us will ‘be allowed’ to own nothing, not even the clothes on our back. Some person will decide if we live or die, and I am sure I will be one chosen to be lined up to die. But I prefer that choice over the destruction of our constitutional republic. What say you?
    This is a cartoon, but it will assist in understanding our government, your part within it. I expect it, and others like it, to be removed soon.

    George Washington: “A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”

    Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878): “To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm … is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.”

    Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859): “The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the “high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.”

    Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822): “For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution.”

    Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846): ” `The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.”

  2. Anyone see this, Asm Dipietro on the New York Assembly floor 3,2 million for the NY Safe act and Cuomo’s secret police force?Is this not in your face Treason.Could we not get a Grand Jury investigation on this?Watch this 7 min video.This is what we are up against.Don’t think this is only a NY problem,This tyrant will be running for US president next term.

  3. I had an interesting discussion with a new member of my local northeastern Indiana Oath Keepers group at our monthly meeting this past Sunday. We were essentially discussing what measures can be taken to either halt this transformation away from a democratic representative republic or at least slow it down. He said his primary concern is that too many generations of Americans have been indoctrinated through our public education system to accept a gradual loss of freedom in exchange for being cared for by the government, that when the generations born between the 30’s and the 60’s are gone, the country will simply default to a collectivist society, disarmed and herded into major metropolitan areas, much like present day China. I’m having a difficult time convincing myself that he’s wrong. The simple fact that what is commonly referred to as The Liberty Movement (Tea Party, Oath Keepers, Three Percenters, state militias, patriot groups, etc.) attracts very few young people would seem to bear his concern out. I saw a quote a while back to the effect that, “if you don’t know what your rights are, you won’t know when you’ve lost them,” and I think that applies to a significant number of Americans younger than 50.

    So the question is, what percentage of Americans, say, teenagers to age 50 have such a strong yearning for freedom and an understanding of what it will take to maintain it, that they would be willing to actually fight and risk their lives for it? In the last 60 years, the number of privately owned firearms in this country has gone from approximately 70 million to around 350 million, and yet the number of households that own firearms is declining, but still around 100 million. I have no idea what percentage of those households keep firearms primarily for hunting as opposed to self defense and a hedge against a tyrannical government. I’m sure there’s a lot of overlap. If the offspring of those families inherit their parents’ views on freedom, then our republic is in good shape. If a significant of those young people turn those guns over to the government when their parents die, then I guess they deserve the kind of society they’ll end up with.

    1. “… transformation away from a democratic representative republic…”

      Navy Jack, we have one (1) democratic part of our government, and lawfully, only a portion of that part is democratic in its nature, that is elections. The United States of America is a Constitutional Republic with the definition of its governments in writing within the US Constitution. That document also lays out in writing exactly what duties those that serve within our governments have, what authority (powers) those that SERVE WITHIN that branch or named in writing offices are ALLOWED TO USE to do those duties, etc. It is NOT arbitrary at all.

      What the difference is now between when that document, those documents (state Constitutions) were created is what TOOLS are used to do those duties, and much corruption, usurpation.

      It is time NOW, to know exactly what the Oath we are all under means. What our duties are concerning it and the positions we occupy. The Oath requires that first and foremost, before the duties of the position we occupy, before orders of superiors (if any), we “SUPPORT AND DEFEND” the US Constitution, our own state’s Constitution (when we are in state gov). We are NOT doing so, but we need to start soon or we gave our nation, our liberty, our children’s liberty and future away to some very evil people.

      1. Cal,

        A couple things; you have me confused with Navy Jack. I’m better looking, so I don’t know how you could have made that mistake. Second, you’re right, I should have described our form of government as a constitutional representative republic, but I was unaware that it is actually spelled out in the constitution. The only place I could find where it’s mentioned is in Article IV, Section 4 where it says:

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

        But you are correct, and words mean things. Progressives are wizards at transforming the meaning of words to suit their agenda. Today’s students are generally taught that we are a democracy, which actually explains many of our current problems.

      2. To Cal and Spook, that is exactly why I try to use the actual terms from the Constitution. Often times describing what they mean, especially when mixing it up with a progressive.

        As Cal nearly illuminated, there are remedies in the Constitution even before Article 5, or the “Bill of Rights.” We just need to step up and enforce them.

Comments are closed.