Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
| When my fist clenches, crack it open Before I use it and lose my cool When I smile, tell me some bad news Before I laugh and act like a fool |
|
The Who, Behind Blue Eyes |
First off, Happy New Year to one and all. Today is 1/1/1, the beginning of a new century and a new millennium. It's also my first day on the wrong side of the law. Why am I now a "bad man"? Because I was a formerly law-abiding gun owner who lives in California. At the stroke of midnight this morning, my State government made me an outlaw.
I own a semi-automatic rifle that takes a detachable magazine. It also has a thumbhole stock which makes it illegal to own without a registration under SB23. To be specific, it's a Kalishnikov pattern rifle, the MAK-90. As such, the trigger is set too far forward to simply install a more benign looking stock. Under the terms of SB23, that gun should have been registered with the State by midnight last night.
So why didn't I register it?
On a philosophical level, I objected to the notion that I should have to pay a fee to exercise my civil rights as recognized in the U.S. Constitution. But your car is registered. Yes, it is, but I can find no place in the Constitution where I am guaranteed the right to keep and drive a car. My guns are the only pieces of property that I own that are explicitly protected by the Constitution.
On a practical level, even if I accepted the idea of registering one's civil liberties, I know from history that I'd be a fool to register with the State of California. Or any State, for that matter! Here in the Golden State, many gun owners registered their so-called assault guns with the State under the terms of the Roberti-Roos law. The old State Attorney General once told gun owners that a specific variant of the SKS rifle was legal under that law. When the RINO wanted to be Governor, he changed his mind. He made those guns illegal. Those who wrote the Department of Justice asking if Roberti-Roos applied to their SKS Sporters later received letters from Dan Lungren telling them that they must surrender their guns, destroy them, or move them out of State. Lungren also had a policy of allowing Roberti-Roos guns to be registered after the deadline in the law. The courts told him that he couldn't do that. The current Attorney General, Bill Lockyer, refused to appeal that case. That same AG is now sending out letters to those who registered late telling them to hand over their guns.
Of course, these are not blanket gun confiscation orders being mailed out with the registration list as a mailing list. These are specific guns under specific situations. But that doesn't mean that gun registration lists haven't been used in the past to grab guns. In New York City, semi-auto rifle owners were asked to register their guns. They were promised that their guns would never be confiscated. They were lied to. The registration rolls were used as a source of correct addresses to send out the confiscation orders. California has also promised to never confiscate our registered guns.
...just like New York did.
Not enough of a precedent for you? How about Nazi Germany before the War? They also required gun owners to register their guns. They later confiscated those guns. During the war, the Nazis used the gun registration lists of conquered territories to round up and liquidate gun owners. In many other places, despotic regimes first required gun owners to register their arms and then used the lists to kill them. Uganda, Cambodia, Armenia, Guatemala, Russia... The list is a long and bloody one. The disarmed are soon the arrested and then they are soon the dead. Gun registration can be hazardous to your health.
So what will I do? There's probably some way to modify the stock so that I'll have neither a pistol grip nor a thumbhole stock (both SB23 Bozo-no-nos!), but the gunsmithing would cost more than the gun did! I just can't bring myself to pay $500 or more to tinker with a $130 gun. And even if money were no object, why should I mutilate my property to comply with a law that is so clearly unconstitutional?! And let's be honest, the point of this law isn't to have me comply with it; it's to have me be stupid enough to register the gun to confiscate it later. SB23 is designed to separate me from my Constitutional rights! So for now, I'll simply pretend that the law doesn't exist.
Ignoring the law has some obvious consequences. The first is that I might get caught. To prevent that, I'll have to forego taking the gun hunting or to a public shooting range. If I do shoot it, I'll probably have to go out to the boonies and think about things like how far I can see approaching vehicles and alternate routes out. (What fun!) For hunting, I do still have other guns that are still legal out here. If I'm arrested, I'll lose my freedom. By preventing my arrest, I'm losing other freedoms. I'm losing out either way, but this way, I still have that practical little gun.
So for now, my MAK is sitting in my gun cabinet, just like it was yesterday. It's still got a 30 round clip in it, just like it did yesterday. And it's still mine, just like it was yesterday.
...and as I hope it will still be tomorrow and for a lot of tomorrows after that!
If any other CA gun owners wish to relate their own views on this law as it affects their own gun collections, I suggest that you pick your words carefully. You never can tell who's lurking out there.
You hang in there, "bad man". Resistance is NOT futile!
Welcome to FR.
Glad to see you thumbed your nose at Kalifornia law....
I didn't vote for our governer in California. I disagree with almost everything our legislature does. But I try to respect them, even though it's very difficult. And I try to live within the laws of the state. I do not knowingly break laws, if I can help it.
In my opinion the demand that these weapons be registered is a violation of the United States Constitution. You haven't changed a thing. You are the same citizen you were yesterday. But because of a legislature out of control, you are now in volation of their law. That is unreasonable.
Let's face it, hardly any crime is perpetrated with the type of weapon you mentioned. I can only remember one instance in the last thirty years where one was used during a crime in this state. Even then I don't believe it was the exact same weapon.
The citizens of this state are under seige by our legislature. They are going farther and farther outside the constitution to exact their will upon the good citizens of this state. I sympathize with you. As I understand it, more people adopted your stance that didn't.
If the state of California wants it's citizens to honor the laws of the state, they should honor the US Constitution.
I do not support anyone coming to this site to announce they are breaking the law. I do sympathize with your plight. I do think we should exercise our right to make sure every person who voted for this new law be removed when they stand for election the next time. But I think it's important that Jim's site not become known as a place where people are proud of breaking the laws of this state, even if I agree with you completely, and I do.
Hah! Another article to copy and distribute on public transportation in CA. I've started a practice of printing stuff out with eye-catching background (confidential, private, etc) to leave for fellow readers on the bus, train, bookstore, library, bar, etc. Good quote for a lead in - will be noticed in San Francisco...Molon Labe! (I wish I knew how to pronounce it right).
The US Constitution overrides all state law.The only people breaking the law is the California government by imposing a fee on a right.Is anyone imposing a fee on your right to speak?Governments love to turn rights into privileges for more revenue.This is about money not guns.I say this man is living within the law and he should promote and expose the silly UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws of California!Stand up or be stood on,take your choice.
If he wants to stand up, I would support that and did. But it occurs to me that it's better for this site to avoid the appearance of being a haven for lawbreakers.
Look, we agree about what he did. I would support a group of people joining for a class action law suit naming every person who voted for that monstrosity. As a matter of fact, the Attorney General for California is required by law to uphold the Constitution of the United States. A simple notification submitted to him should require him to launch an investigation and prosectuion for people trying to deny civil rights to California citizens. If he doesn't follow through, he could be named as a felon co-conspirator.
Those who seek to deny civil rights to fellow citizens are felons. I believe prison terms are rather severe. Something like ten years in prison and a five thousand dollar fine is a likely term for those found guilty of this infraction.
It would get swatted down at the US Supreme Court level. Like it or not, the courts are the ultimate arbiters in our legal system... if the US Supremes say "black is white" then the rest of the gummint will bow down before them and say "Yes sirs and madams."
Our real rights are in God, not in any nation's constitution. The Bible is clear that we must obey the government unless it tells us to sin.
Does the CA Attorney General have to be asked in some formal way, like a writ of mandamus? What an interesting new sport - I wonder what the ACLU would say, esp. since the rights in question are specifically affirmed.
Bears some consideration.
It would get swatted down at the US Supreme Court level.
Except...what happened to Emerson? And a win on the basis would be a win for everyone, whereas a loss would probably turn on a technicality, or maybe state's rights.
Hello, illegal_in_CA.
The gun laws in this country are starting to verge on the irrational. Various arguments being used against gun ownership do not seem linked to reality. How do the gun control nuts claim there is a history of mass violence using guns in this country, and then totally ignore the historical facts of governmental abuse? This has always perplexed me as illogical.
As for gun ownership, being a former member of the Acton Minutemen (civil defense agency today), I cannot fathom how these beliefs could have ever come into existence in this country. The patriots that stood fast at the Concord bridge in order to protect the arms from the British (delaying action really), would be shocked and dismayed to hear that such laws have come to pass within these United States. To freely hand over our arms would be a contradiction to everything the framers believed in. It would be, and is, a slap in the face for any service man or woman, that served to protect this nation and the freedoms we have enjoyed since the post revolutionary times.
At times, civil disobedience is not just warranted, but a citizens duty. (paraphased from Henry David Thoreau )
Help, please, to track down a quote from a Supreme Court Justice, paraphrased here:
An unconstitutional law creates no obligation, establishes no office...
Sorry I didn't engrave that one in stone when I first came across it.
Well, welcome anyhow... here's a site from up north with similar ideas:
-Canadian Grassroots resistance--
-Connecticut-based GunSafe-grassroots RKBA-
-Keepandbeararms--New & Agressive
-TheFiringLine--Tech info, good forum
-the Second Amendment Foundation
-The National Firearms Association- a Canadian Perspective
"Total Resistance" by von Dach Bern ( 5th printing Feb. 1981 by Paladin Press ) ISBN # 0-87364-021-7
I've told this book can be found at:
and possibly here:
A state government does not have a right to take away our guaranteed rights under the U.S. constitution. By your biblical standard, the thirteen colonies were wrong to defy the king of England, wrong to fight a revolution and wrong to set up their new, free country.
Just as a military officer does not have to obey an UNLAWFUL order, we have the right and DUTY to disobey an unconstitutional law.
I will do the same thing when my time comes to become an outlaw.
The state of California had no right to pass such a law and the governor of the state has no right to enforce it. If he attempts to use force to enforce this law, I will be watching the evening news for the interesting results.
"That which is not just is not law."
Originally printed in the anti-slavery newspaper The Liberator.
Seems to fit this situation as well
Dr. Martin Luther King was lionized, and rightly so, for fighting for basic human rights.
Charlton Heston, Larry Pratt, and millions of ordinary citizens are demonized when they do so. Why?
bttt
Well, some of us long-time 'outlaws' who said if you let the gov't outlaw rights that aren't specifically enumerated but exist just the same, in name of the greater good, it will just be a matter of time before the greater good is above even those rights specifically enumerated, were right.
I don't own any of those types of guns, nor do I live in Cali. so it don't affect me right?
No such thing as an unconstitutional law is there?
Perhaps you should read the first volume of "Gulag Archipeligo" hopefully as a free man. Give em hell.
For your edification and legal file:
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury ~vs~ Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)"When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda ~vs~ Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.
"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton ~vs~ Shelby County, 118 US 425 p. 442.
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment, not merely from the date of the decision branding it.
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177, late 2d, Sec 256.
Tsk,tsk,tsk...so what are you saying? We are only obligated to obey the laws with which we agree? I'm shocked, nay, outraged, that this type of promotion of the criminal class is allowed at FR. iiCA, you MUST obey the law. If you don't like it, work to change it - oh, I know, some good people may get themselves caught up in the "system" in the meantime, but if they're disobeying the law, then they're not really good people after all, are they?
The US Constitution overrides all state law.
Excuse me? Yes, we all know that the U.S. Constitution is the "supreme law of the land", but only within its limited sphere of authority. The U.S. Constitution is supreme only in conflicts between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;-- between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects. Did you not read this part?
Amendment XThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
How ' bout this one," I say all users/possessors of banned weaponry should be summarily executed"!
They use those weapons to kill our children!
Society has the right to be safe from weapons of mass destruction!
Should we be allowed to own nuclear bombs?
Look, all I'm saying is that there are pleny of guns for this guy to choose from, all of them approved by the state. Why does he have to have THIS gun? Does he have some kind of "problem" or something?
You say
I do not support anyone coming to this site to announce they are breaking the law.
But earlier you said
In my opinion the demand that these weapons be registered is a violation of the United States Constitution.
An unconstitutional law is not a law, is it?
It is an old principle that if the law contradicts itself, so that it is not possible to obey it, then the state may not prosecute people by making use of the contradiction. But this is not quite the case here, Rather, we have a situation where one law says you MAY do X, and another law says you MUSTN'T do X. The first law is a permission rather than a prohibition, so the state may argue that it is possible not to violate the law simply by not doing X. But in fact the law that says one may do X protects one from prosecution for doing X, so such an argument is clearly saying that the second law nullifies the first.
This would be correct if the second law were either from a higher jurisdiction, or from the same jurisdiction and a later date. (Thus, if the federal Constitution is amended to prohibit owning slaves both later State laws allowing it, and interpretations of the unamended text of the Constitution as permitting it, can't be valid.) But in this case, the second law is from a lower jurisdiction, so it has no force. illegal_in_CA may properly apply the Constitution to himself in this case, he doesn;t have to wait for a judge to back him up. (Of course, he will have to appeal to a federal court if he is caught and arrested by California, but if they find that the CA law is unconstitutional they can't find any punishment of him for violating it Constitutional.)
In fact, his case is even stronger because the text of the Constitution says that his right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed -- so the CA legislature is directly prohibited from passing the law they did. Not only did their law violate they Constitution, they personally did by passing it.
Har! Selfish, selfish, selfish!
There are plenty of forums out there. Why did you select THIS one? I think the goverment should investigate your choice of this website and possibly deny you the ability to speak here. After all, free speech is a privilege, not a right.
Did you not read this part?
"When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda ~vs~ Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.
How ' bout this one," I say all users/possessors of banned weaponry should be summarily executed"!
They use those weapons to kill our children!
Society has the right to be safe from weapons of mass destruction!
I do hope that you are joking about this one .... but if you are not then you are among the sad misguided peoples with no sense of reality that demand that my rights be removed by someone other than yourself.
Are you willing to be shot at, injured and killed for your beliefs ? If so, then please ... come take my guns and God help us (but they will need it more) when our guns DO become weapons.
If you are being facetious or sarcastic then by all means have a nice day :)
"Appy New Year" AP,
Hey, I'm just exercising my First Amendment rights, and there ain't a thing the government can do abou
Ron,
Where were you when the article was posted about how fast people's cars would go? I believe even Jim posted on that one.
BTW, we went through your trash cans. You should be ashamed. Why would any man pay $200 to be spanked by a Janet Reno look-a-like?
Is there a reward for your apprehension?
A bump for fine writing, and IMHO, perfect logic.........
Yeah, you get a three-day weekend for turning in your fellow Kalifornian.
The Bible is clear that we must obey the government unless it tells us to sin.
"Resistance to tyrants is OBEDIENCE TO GOD."
--
Thomas Jefferson
You raise an interesting point. Here is what I want to know. If the source of our rights is God, and it is, when we obey the government over God is that not a sin? Should we not follow our moral law as laid down by God and turn upon the out of control men of confiscatory power? Does God not warn of this in the Bible, and indeed our Founding Fathers also?
At this point, although I am a law abiding citizen I have to wonder when that will change. Who was it that said, "The more laws written, the more corrupt the Republic?" Should we not go on the offensive after all this time?
Obeying your government today is like slapping God in the face and throwing out the Bible. Look around you. I refuse to obtain a permit .....period. Therefore I do not own a gun. Should I have one, I would carry illegally because it is NOT a privilege to be taxed, regulated, etc. My right to defend myself is God-Given. Who the h*ll do these folks think they are to try and take it away?.....God?
There is still the machinery of "due process of law" to deal with. This means, in practice, the judicial branch is king (short of God, of course, which as was noted above is the ultimate source of rights and responsibilities). If you rebel against the executive branch of the government enforcing an "unenforceable" law, you still suffer the consequences, until the courts have spoken and annulled the law formally. Due process cuts both ways! It's not just something that criminal suspects can invoke to get themselves off the hook when the government violates it.
You really need to do some work on your sense of humor!
Of course I'm joking, you see I'm a libertarian, we believe that the US Constitution is sacrosanct, the Supreme Law of the Land. That means all rights must be protected jealously, even rights we consider repugnant, such as the right for homos to be homos, the right for folks to be druggies, prostitutes to ply their trade etc, etc, as long as no one else is directly harmed.
You know...all those non specifically enumerated rights that make the individual sovereign in America.
The Bible is clear that we must obey the government unless it tells us to sin.
Your government sins on your behalf every single day.
Howdy, illegal. Don't worry liberals are always shooting themselves in the foot. Take for instance the following story from down in Mobile, Alabama, where the city fathers have removed the Confederate Battle Flag from their City Seal:
In Mobile, Alabama, 'Watch Night' is celebrated by Blacks who fire weapons in the air, according to black Mobile City Councilmen Fred Richardson and Clinton Johnson, as reported by the Mobile Press Register of 31 Dec 2000. This so-called tradition is apparently accepted by the Mobile Police Department as a law enforcement spokesman for that city, DaVon Grey, tells revelers to "...not shoot in the air but point them into the ground." The Mobile City Police spokesman, DaVon Grey, failed to point out that it is a violation of that city's law to discharge a firearm within Mobile's city limits carrying a fine up to $500 and one year in jail.
I can't seem to discover how many folks were treated for gunshot wounds to the feet. But I'll keep trying.
Now... what I'm wondering... is this: can white folk discharge firearms within the Mobile City limits without fear of prosecution on Robert E. Lee's Birthday January 19th? If they can't... can we sue for equal rights?
Since Waco they haven't been my gov't. I've been voting against the evil bastards and speaking agin 'em ever since.Thats why I couldn't support W, he's one 'o them.
Find that in the Bible now, OK?
If you rebel against the executive branch of the government enforcing an "unenforceable" law, you still suffer the consequences, until the courts have spoken and annulled the law formally.
Agreed. Does that mean good men should do nothing?
WARNING:
It is dangerous to be right
when your Government is wrong.
Find that in the Bible now, OK?
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not murder.
Thou shalt not bear false witness.
Perhaps you think these things do not apply to government.
Civil disobedience isn an American tradition!
You have cited a Common Law docrine. Such a law is not a bad law it is a non law. (Blackstone Volume I.)
When the RINO wanted to be Governor, he changed his mind.
He made those guns illegal.
For hunting, I do still have other guns that are still legal out here.
Look, all I'm saying is that there are pleny of guns for this guy to choose from, all of them approved by the state.
Why does he have to have THIS gun?
A state constitution or a state law cannot be in conflict with the US Constitution.Did you know that!I doubt it.Keep reading.
Ditto.
You are correct!I cannot believe that people are not aware that state laws cannot be in conflict with Constitutional law!The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
Your 1st day as a proven Patriot you mean.
Not all guns have banned-yet. My question is at what point do we resist?
Do not look to the California Supreme Court for relief. The state of California has no provision in it's Constitution affirming the right to keep and bear arms. Thus it has been stated the legislature has plenary power in this field.
Do not look to the U.S. Supreme Court for relief. The Second Amendment has been held NOT to apply to the States under the incorporation doctrine. Further, the argument that the Second applies only to Militia's NOT to individuals is triumphant.
Do not look to the California legislature for relief. It is composed of a majority of people who have the strongest motives for disarming the people.
So we are back to deciding at which point the people resist?
And if you vote against the people you speak of and they are reelected?
Our real rights are in God, not in any nation's constitution. The Bible is clear that we must obey the government unless it tells us to sin.
That's true... but on the civil side, we have a government of laws, not of men. When laws and men conflict, laws win. When laws conflict with each other, the higher law prevails. So how do you obey the Biblical standard in this case?
By following the highest law in the land: The Constitution.
”…but if they're disobeying the law, then they're not really good people after all, are they?”
I assume you had tongue firmly in cheek. Without good people disobeying the law, there would be no change. When a person is arrested under an unjust or unconstitutional law, the appeals process is the way to change the law. An appellate court will – hopefully – overturn this law.
You, and other state-declared "outlaws" like you in fascist Kalifornia, must band together to support each other during the persecution which is to come.
The "gun war" will be every bit as effective as the "drug war", IMHO, meaning that it will ultimately fail utterly, while simultaneously destroying civil rights...
Why shouldn’t he have it? It was legal at time of purchase, last I heard retroactive laws are a no-no in this country. I would like to own an M14A2 –for old time’s sake; it is what I carried in Viet Nam. I would also like to own an AK47 and an SKS (original, no imitation) for the same reason – except I was on the receiving rather than the dispensing end.
Why do people “need” V8 engines? Why do people “need” SUVs? Why do people “need” two or three extra bedrooms?
I think you're on to something, sir.
Well done patriot.
Jefferson in his writings is behind you 100% along with many other brothers and sisters in FR.
I hope for a court case to end up in the USSC that will end this insane and out right disregard for our Constitution.
Because it is the Bill of Rights, not the bill of needs.
Because we used to live in a land of liberty.
Because as long as I honor everyone elses rights, I can.
Just because.
Yes, it is, but I can find no place in the Constitution where I am guaranteed the right to keep and drive a car.
And nowhere in the Constitution is permitted the Federal Government the right to impede your right to travel. At the state level it is only if you "drive", which in legal parlance translates to "operating a motor vehicle", which in turn implies the use of "public domain" for profit that you must apply for a "license", i.e. a "privilege".
In other words, your right to travel is as basic a right as your right to defend yourself. If you use the public domain for the purpose of making a living, i.e. driving a bus, driving a taxi, driving an eighteen-wheeler, then you are seeking a privilege that requires registration and licensing.
If, on the other hand, you are merely travelling from point A to point B then you are exercising your inherent right to travel...so no license or registration is required. If you do not apply for a license then you are no longer subject to the state's motor vehicle act. If you do apply, even if not applying for privilege, then you inadvertently assume all the legal requirements of a commercial operator.
FREEDON IS A CHOICE!
Bump for later.
God be with us.
But your car is registered. Yes, it is, but I can find no place in the Constitution where I am guaranteed the right to keep and drive a car.
Bad example. In most states, anyone, of any age, whether a convicted felon, or even an 8 year old drug addict, can buy, own, and posses an automobile. There is no waiting period, and no limit to the number of automobiles you can buy in a month, or day. By comparing cars and guns, I wish it was as easy to buy a gun as it is a car.
The only licensing or registration requirement is in driving on public roads, which is actually more a source of revenue for the building of the roads for cars to drive on, same as the gas tax used to be. I dont know of any state that limits the owning and bearing of cars, or simple possession.
I love it when guncontrol freaks try to compare automobiles and cars. The licensing of cars is more akin to the carrying of guns, i.e., CCW's, but the mere ownership of cars is an example of total freedom.
And cars kill more than guns do, even though there are several hundred million more guns.
I wonder how the state legislators feel about mortars?
" If he attempts to use force to enforce this law, I will be watching the evening news for the interesting results."
Exactly. Passing a law is one thing; enforcing it is an entirely different matter. Let's see 'em try.
If I still lived in CA (and it's articles like this one that make me glad I left, unfortunately...), I'd do the same thing. I'd shut my mouth (as far as the State is concerned) and keep my weapon. What are they going to do? Execute a house-by-house, State-wide weapons search? I don't think so. It IS an un-Constitutional law. Keep your gun......and to your neighbors, etc., just keep quiet about it.
I'm working to keep myself from turning into Illegal_in_NJ.
But if the time comes, I will be making decisions similiar to the one you made. Screw the naysayers, and stay well.
What will you do when JimRob is served a subpoena by the CA Franchise Tax Board (Controlling legal authority here)for the names of Freepers living in CA? Your new screen name is no guarentee of anonimity.
You are not the outlaw, the government of california is. And I can't say what they deserve for their crime or this thread would be deleated.
I disagree. Unjust laws should be violated. The law is a farce used to legitamize evil. The only laws that are truly important are obvious.
Why does he have to have THIS gun?
For precisely the same reason that the gun-grabbers must have THIS gun. It is an AK-47 variant, and as such is the most battle tested and proven small arm in the world. It was the primary arm used by the Afghanis to repel the Soviets, and a huge factor in our defeat in Vietnam.
People with these arms are indeed bad, bad men. That is why governments fear this weapon.
I believe the gun-grabbers have under estimated the resolve of gun owners, when the gathering begins we will see.
Look, all I'm saying is that there are pleny of guns for this guy to choose from, all of them approved by the state. Why does he have to have THIS gun? Does he have some kind of "problem" or something?
But the state has decided that THIS gun has no usefull purpose. The state is the final arbiter of which guns have a legitimate use and which ones don't. This gun is Schedule I. Let the war on (some) guns commence!
"..and if I swallow anything evil/put your finger down my throat.."
More from the opening Who song.
Why THIS gun? Because it's MY gun. It's MY property and it's MY right to own it. If I have abused that right to own it and caused harm to others, then I shouldn't be allowed that right, but I haven't abused that right. I'd like to know how I've harmed a soul by merely owning it. I don't use it to rob banks. I don't do drive-bys. I'm not a gangbanger flashing it to terrorize others into silence. What harm am I doing with it that the State should rob me of it?
If the source of our rights is God, and it is, when we obey the government over God is that not a sin?
God is not the source of our rights. Armed people willing to die for the rights they demand are the source of our rights. In Europe individual rights first hit the books as a tug of war between kings and nobles. The reason the kings recognised the rights of the nobles was because the nobles were armed and dangerous.
"Let the war on (some) guns commence!"
I say let the war on some speech begin. Any one speaking out against the government should be jailed. Any person desiring to say certain words that have been deemed to have no social value should have to obtain a permit and pay a fee, pass a background check, for the children's sake.
The Bible is clear that we must obey the government unless it tells us to sin.
In our peculiar Republic, We the people are the government. Should we forget that, it would be as a dog returning to its vomit. Our electees and appointees are the guardians of our Constitution -- our employees. No royalty or divine right to rule here.
Since Waco they haven't been my gov't. I've been voting against the evil bastards and speaking agin 'em ever since.Thats why I couldn't support W, he's one 'o them.
I was speaking agin em long before that.
Is there a reward for your apprehension?
I'm apprehensive...do I get a reward? :)
Money talks bullshit walks. we have come to this sorry situation because the gun grabbers are willing to spend large amounts of money to get their candidates elected. The rest of us post messages on web sites like this which while informative accomplih little without further action. How many of you have ever sent money or donated time to a pro gun candidate? Probably very few. Until people are willing to get involved with money and time the wealthy libs will continue to win. Not to mention the fact that many laws are passed today just to set up class action lawsuits which benefit trial lawyers who are the biggest contributors to liberal politicians. A self sustaining corrupt system with total power as the ultimate goal. Start organizing and writing checks. That is the only way to stop this.
There is a book that all concerned Patriots needs to get, and share with family and friends. Pray you never need to use the knowledge, but if such a time comes, it will be too late to get the book: "Total Resistance" by von Dach Bern ( 5th printing Feb. 1981 by Paladin Press ) ISBN # 0-87364-021-7
Excellent book, is in my library, along with: Target Switzerland. However, Total Resistance is more about fighting off an occupying army. Still, a must read for everyone.
Your new screen name is no guarentee of anonimity.
It's also no guarantee that he lives in Kalifornia.
Howdy, Outlaw.Check out THIS!
I'm not "proud" of breaking any laws. Remember: I didn't become an outlaw; I was made an outlaw. My behavior (owning an ugly gun) was legal and generally recognized as reasonable and socially acceptable at 11:59 pm on December 31, 2000. At midnight, the State declared it illegal. But nothing about that act of owning an ugly gun magically changed at midnight. The US Constitution didn't turn into a pumpkin!
I believe the gun-grabbers have under estimated the resolve of gun owners, when the gathering begins we will see.
I doubt we'll see any type of 'gathering' of unregistered or 'illegal' firearms. That's too dangerous, confrontational and likely to provoke a reaction they don't wish to deal with.
Unfortunately these regulations are not likely to be overturned by any court. They'll stay on the books and be used to coerce plea-bargains from those of us unlucky enough to find ourselves confronted with it.
Public school children will encouraged/rewarded for informing on their parents and neighbors. Toll-free 'snitch' hotlines will be promoted in the media., etc..
Population disarmament will be carried out by a 'war-of-attrition'. There will be a few selected high-profile highly publicised test cases where the gov't is assured of an easy win to establish precident. It'll be 'interesting times' ahead..
Civil disibedience, on a grand scale, may be the least violent answer to this current problem in California.
You are not alone...
"We will not go quietly into the night."
Not meaning to suggest that you break any more
laws....BUT.....
I would suggest that, if things start to look like even
your 'legal' weapons will be confiscated, you might report
a 'break-in'....Geez! What a shame! All of your guns have
been stolen! And of course, now, you can't even go out and
'replace' them....
Boy, I could see myself now....really ticked off that some
slimebag crook would have the nerve to steal all of my
collection, plus that new cd player and sterio!
Big Brother will make criminals of us all before it's
over.....just wait and see.
Peace
Lapcat from Houston
Is there a reward for your apprehension?
Yes! You get a year's supply of Cheez Wiz. Or is that the punishment I get. Lemme get back to you on that.
Excuse me? Yes, we all know that the U.S. Constitution is the "supreme law of the land", but only within its limited sphere of authority.
Thank you, you beat me to it, and explained it better than I could have.
Like it or not, folks, the Second Amendment only protects you from FEDERAL interference to your right to keep and bear arms. If you want protection from your own state, you'll have to look to your state constitution.
Not only is this the way our system of governments (federal, state, and local) and constitutions (US and state) work, and have always worked, but the US Supreme Court also explicitly said as much in _US v Cruikshank_:
The particular amendment [First Amendment] now under consideration assumes the existence of the right of the people to assemble for lawful purposes, and protects it against encroachment by Congress. The right was not created by the amendment; neither was its continuance guaranteed, except as against congressional interference. For their protection in its enjoyment, therefore, the people must look to the States. The power for that purpose was originally placed there, and it has never been surrendered to the United States.California has no clear right to keep and bear arms in its state constitution, nor has it shown any willingness to protect such a right anyway.The second and tenth counts [of the lawyers' brief] are equally defective. The right there [in the Second Amendment] specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow- citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called... the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,' [powers] 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constitution of the United States."
--U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Waite, writing in U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
My advice would be to leave that socialist hell-hole and move to any of the many states that have an explicit right to keep and bear arms in their state constitution, AND which believe in upholding it. Texas is nice, for example.
"Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's and unto God that which is God's." Yes, I have considered the moral implications of ignoring this law. If it was just me that I had to consider, then perhaps i would be in the wrong morally. But there are others. If I obey an illegal law, wouldn't that encourage the writing of more illegal laws? Wouldn't I then be harming others by participating in corrupt government? That TJ quote comes to mind.
Very well written. I was watching a report on the news last night about this, and no one has the courage to ask the question: What is the purpose of gun registration if it will not be used for the sake of confiscation?
Very well written. I was watching a report on the news last night about this, and no one has the courage to ask the question: What is the purpose of gun registration if it will not be used for the sake of confiscation?
How many of you have ever sent money or donated time to a pro gun candidate? Probably very few.
You might want to rethink that, Willy. I would bet that there are more than a few NRA FReepers here.I also bet there are scores of us here who have donated, both financially and with time and effort, to support pro-second Amendment candidates.
Do not look to the California Supreme Court for relief. The state of California has no provision in it's Constitution affirming the right to keep and bear arms. Thus it has been stated the legislature has plenary power in this field. Do not look to the U.S. Supreme Court for relief. The Second Amendment has been held NOT to apply to the States under the incorporation doctrine. Further, the argument that the Second applies only to Militia's NOT to individuals is triumphant. Do not look to the California legislature for relief. It is composed of a majority of people who have the strongest motives for disarming the people. So we are back to deciding at which point the people resist?No, I can't look to the CA Supreme Court. They're only about one step removed from the Flordia Supremes. They recently ruled that equal protection doesn't apply to guns since guns aren't persons. In doing this, they ruled that property rights are non-existant because the property itself has no standing and this trumps the rights of the property owner. Nor can I look to the socialists in the Legislature. They wrote this piece of trash!
As to the US Supremes, they've never ruled on the 2nd Amendment. They are not the authors of the "State Militia" interpretation and they've cited the 2nd Amemdment as an example of an individual liberty. If and when Emerson gets to them, we may see a ruling that will help bring an end to my days as an outlaw.
As to "resistance", do you imply armed conflict? I hope not. It's a scary time when people talk about revolution. I don't think that we're at that point and I pray that we never will get there. However, when enough people start to think that way, it will happen. Laws like this do not make that outcome less likely.
and, hence, a tyranny was born...
BTTT!
What harm am I doing with it that the State should rob me of it?
Sanctions based on potential harm to others are a hallmark of the American legal system. In fact, we spend upwards of $16 billion annually at the Federal level, kicking in doors and shooting unarmed 11 year-olds all along the way, in order to prevent harm that might be done.
Why THIS gun? Because it's MY gun. It's MY property and it's MY right to own it. If I have abused that right to own it and caused harm to others, then I shouldn't be allowed that right, but I haven't abused that right. I'd like to know how I've harmed a soul by merely owning it. I don't use it to rob banks. I don't do drive-bys. I'm not a gangbanger flashing it to terrorize others into silence. What harm am I doing with it that the State should rob me of it?
Yes, we're with you man!
I have now. Thanks.
That says it all. `
What will you do when JimRob is served a subpoena by the CA Franchise Tax Board (Controlling legal authority here)for the names of Freepers living in CA? Your new screen name is no guarentee of anonimity.
I could be wrong ... I could be very wrong.... but something tells me about the time that he gets this warrant his server has a FATAL error and the hard drives are scourged. FR comes up a bit later that day and EVERYONE has to register for new membership and JimRob 'apologizes' for the failure of a his generous service.
At least I hope that's about how it would play out.
Hello new guy here, lurk from time to time. Excellent article glad to see you excercising your freedom. I would like to make a point and comment on something you said in an otherwise great post.
You wrote:
>>On a philosophical level, I objected to the notion that I should have to pay a fee to exercise my civil rights as recognized in the U.S. Constitution. But your car is registered. Yes, it is, but I can find no place in the Constitution where I am guaranteed the right to keep and drive a car. My guns are the only pieces of property that I own that are explicitly protected by the Constitution.<<
I would like to point out that there is no place that explicitly protects the right to keep and bear "guns" either, It says "arms". Now lets understand the Constitution grants no rights it simply protects already established natural God given rights. The right to bear arms for self defense existed before the constitution and is one of the most fundemental of natural rights. The right to travel freely is also a fundemental right. Even though not explictly mentioned in the constitution therefore it would fall under the 9th amendment. What's the point? The point is the right to bear arms is not limited by the means of how the right is excercised as long is it doesn't violate the natural rights of others. IOW it doesn't matter what type of arms, therefore guns are covered and the limits imposed by the socialist government are in violation of that right. The same applies to the right to travel. If I have the right to travel it is not limited by the means of excercising the right. IOW if I have a right to travel on horse with no registration how does travel by car limit my right to travel by imposing registration? The answer is it doesn't. Folks if you believe they have the right to impose registration for cars then they have a right to register guns under the same logic. Its that simple!
backwoods
"I'd do the same thing. I'd shut my mouth (as far as the State is concerned) and keep my weapon. What are they going to do? Execute a house-by-house, State-wide weapons search? I don't think so. It IS an un-Constitutional law. Keep your gun......and to your neighbors, etc., just keep quiet about it."
Absolutely correct!
What of the 14th amendment. I've wondered why someone doesn't move to Vermont, where there is no requirement for a CCW permit and a collection of weapons that Kalifornia has banned, then move with all his posessions to Kalifornia and when he is arrested, make an "equal protection" federal case. If I can defend myself in Vermont, with the weapons of my choice, without the need for a special "permit" to carry those weapons, then I should be able to carry in any state under the "equal protection" guarantee of the 14th amendment.Excuse me? Yes, we all know that the U.S. Constitution is the "supreme law of the land", but only within its limited sphere of authority.Thank you, you beat me to it, and explained it better than I could have.Like it or not, folks, the Second Amendment only protects you from FEDERAL interference to your right to keep and bear arms. If you want protection from your own state, you'll have to look to your state constitution.
Look, all I'm saying is that there are pleny of guns for this guy to choose from, all of them approved by the state. Why does he have to have THIS gun?
"Hey, there are plenty of religions for people to choose from, all approved by the state, why do they object when we say they just can't be Jewish? Why does he have to have THIS religion?"
Anti-gunners are trying to win by the "salami slice" method. They slice off one gun model, or one class of guns, at a time. Each time they say, "hey, there are still plenty of legal guns for you to own, you don't need THIS illegal-baby-killing-assault-weapon-that's-only-good-for-drive-by-shootings, do you? Don't be unreasonable."
Repeat, repeat, repeat, until the only gun you can have is a heavily regulated, highly neutered, single-shot, low-caliber, drastically licensed gun no better than a toy. Think I'm being melodramatic? Try buying a gun in England -- America adopted its right to keep and bear arms from early English laws. Then little by little, England's long tradition of the armed citizen was whittled away until today it's all but gone. "But hey," the English authorities say, "you're still allowed to have SOME guns, so what's your beef? You just need to store and use them at a registered gun club, no need to keep them at home..."
Once you surrender ONE "slice", you've given up the ability to fight the NEXT slice "on principle", since you already abandoned that principle without a fight last time...
For one of the best arguments against the "let 'em have a slice" gun control tactics, read http://www.firstnethou.com/dcd/covey/covey_pfp.html
I hope that we won't have to have any convenient accidents. (I rather like my usual screen name!) I've taken measures to ensure that JimRob can sing like a canary without bring any harm my way. I also doubt that the Franchise Tax Board will care enough about me to spend the money needed to print up a subpeona.
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I heard of a guy in NJ which also requires registration of assault rifles. He had an unregistered AR15.
Following a burglary in which his guns were stolen, the cops were at his house. Unknown to him the AR15 had not been taken and was still in a closet.
His young son spoke up and said, "Look daddy! they missed one!" His life changed big time. Because he didn't have a record he was given probation. However, his ability to legally own a firearm is gone.
Be careful. You never know what can trip you up.
Good point. The 14th Amendment has been used in other areas, such as free speech and voting rights, to impose upon the States the requirements of the Federal Constitution. The doctrine is called "incorporation". Its purpose is to prevent the States from robbing the people of their Federal rights.
Section 256. Generally.
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, whether federal [29]
or state, [30] though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law,
[31] but is wholly void, [32] and ineffective for any purpose; [33] since
unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely
from the date of the decision so branding it, [34] an unconstitutional law,
in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed.
[31] Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as
it would be had the statute not been enacted. [36] No repeal of such an
enactment is necessary. [37]
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, [38] confers no rights, [39] creates no office, [40] bestows no power or authority on anyone, [41] affords no protection, [42] and justifies no acts performed under it. [43] A contract which rests on an unconstitutional statute creates no obligation to be impaired by subsequent legislation. [44]
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law [45] and no courts are bound to enforce it. [46] Persons convicted and fined under a statute subsequently held unconstitutional may recover the fines paid. [47]
A void act cannot be legally inconsistent with a valid one. [48] And an unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. [49] Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. [50] Since an unconstitutional statute cannot repeal or in any way affect an existing one, [51] if a repealing statute is unconstitutional, the statute which it attempts to repeal remains in full force and effect. [52] And where a clause repealing a prior law is inserted in an act, which act is unconstitutional and void, the provision for the repeal of the prior law will usually fall with it and will not be permitted to operate as repealing such prior law. [53]
The general principles stated above apply to the constitutions as well as to the laws of the several states insofar as they are repugnant to the Constitution and laws of the United States. [54] Moreover, a construction of a statute which brings it in conflict with a constitution will nullify it as effectually as if it had, in express terms, been enacted in conflict therewith. [55]
An unconstitutional portion of a statute may be examined for the purpose of ascertaining the scope and effect of the valid portions. [56]
The numbers in [brackets] are footnotes that refer to court decisions.
When time permits we will post this excerpt on a separate page with
footnotes hyper-linked. Until then you can look them up in the American
Jurisprudence at any law library.
How often I've stated that I'll get the first two or three when "they" break into my house to confiscate whatever "thay" think I have in my house which might be dangerous to society....all they're gonna find is what is dangerous to idiots breaking into my house.
I've said this hoping it will never occur, but it appears about to begin on the left coast. God bless you, "illegal" - resistance is not only "not futile", it is absolutely necessary!
This is another sad day in Amerika. Hopefully, the US constitution will be allowed to prevail, and violence will not be needed to defend our "God-given right[s]"!
Bump to you.
"Look, all I'm saying is that there are pleny of guns for this guy to choose from, all of them approved by the state. Why does he have to have THIS gun? Does he have some kind of "problem" or something?"
That's exactly the point, why should a law-abiding citizen seek Government permission to exercise a Constitutional Right? What if there was Freedom of Speech, just so long as you chose from among Government approved words? What would your opinion be then, I wonder?
Partner, thanks for that link to TFIJA-- I'll add it to mine. One of those things I firmly believe is a cornerstone of American-style justice!
See #94.
I think the barrel is filled with cheese whiz and allowed to set.[snicker]
"Look, all I'm saying is that there are pleny of guns for this guy to choose from, all of them approved by the state. Why does he have to have THIS gun? Does he have some kind of "problem" or something?"
Hitler & Friends just loooooooooooved people like you, ya know.
Look carefully at what you wrote. You cannot possibly be serious. Don't the words "approved by the state" send up HUGE red flags in your world? in your mind? Hello???!!!
Also, I must assume you haven't watched the libs for the past, oh, say, 30+ years when you say "why does he have to have THIS gun?" Today, it's "this" gun. They get away with that, then tomorrow it's "that" gun. After that, it's "the next" gun. Pretty soon, you won't be allowed to keep a go**amned slingshot. Think I'm being ridiculous? Read your history; you'll see I'm not.
Sorry, but folks like you just make me shake my head in wonder..........
I feel your pain! I will never freely surrender my sacred, God-given rights. From: another instant outlaw. COLOR ME BAD!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAA!!
I fully expected a "government cheese" response. I am heartened to see a free-market, cheese-like substance instead.
I think Wolfie's been laying it on a bit thick today. (With a trowel on occassion!!) He seems to understand exactly what my "problem" is.
Why does he have to have THIS gun?
Why did Rosa Parks HAVE to have a seat in the front of the bus when there were seats available in the back? The state law of the time said she had to move to the back, yet she defied it
The Blacks who staged sit-ins at Southern lunch counters were violating their state "seperate-but-equal" laws. There were other places they could go for lunch
Martin Luther King spent some time in Birmingham Jail for violating the laws of Alabama
And certain people in Germany commited FELONIES under German law by harboring fugitive Jews. I'm sure you would have disapproved of their actions, saying they should have just "worked within the system". I'm sure a petition to Uncle Adolph would have been well received.
When the govt can ban certain guns which are functionally no different than certain un-banned guns, if the precedent is allowed to stand, then they can ban ANY gun. At what point do you protest and practice civil disobedience?
I have argued (mistakenly) that states cannot deny rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. First_Salute showed me the error in my thinking. You (and he) are correct. A state can deny any of our fundamental rights that they think they can get away with. The U.S. Constitution clearly says "Congress shall make no law..."
...although this recent SCOTUS decision on the Florida election may have changed all that.
I bet you would not take $1,000 for that $130 rifle. When I was young I grew up on a citrus farm and the fruit from across the fence always seemed to taste sweeter. I'll bet that rifle shoots straighter as well!
"What will you do when JimRob is served a subpoena by the CA Franchise Tax Board (Controlling legal authority here)for the names of Freepers living in CA? Your new screen name is no guarentee of anonimity."
"I could be wrong ... I could be very wrong.... but something tells me about the time that he gets this warrant his server has a FATAL error and the hard drives are scourged. FR comes up a bit later that day and EVERYONE has to register for new membership and JimRob 'apologizes' for the failure of a his generous service.
At least I hope that's about how it would play out.
107 Posted on 01/02/2001 12:51:27 PST by Centurion2000"
Unfortunately, they would probably serve JimRob and the Server host simultaneously. A software trigger to dump the member ID/profile files might not have time to execute. The FR Server, soon to be servers, is/are not physically in JimRob's possession/location.
This is a very open (and monitored) forum and discretion is prudent.
The alternate ID is clever but probably still traceable. In the future consider having the alternate ID Freepmail your statement to someone else(outside CA) and asking them to post it for you.
Be well my friend.
I'm shocked! A law breaker! The next thing, I suppose that you are going to tell us that you smoke tobacco products!
My advice is to move from that Godforsaken state.
The Bible is clear that we must obey the government unless it tells us to sin.
The government tells me that I may not speak publicly because I am black. Failure to speak publicly is not a sin. By your logic, I must not speak in public, as it is illegal for me to do so.
California is a beautiful state! It is just full of Liberals!
about fighting off an occupying army.
Exactly...
BTTT
"You might want to rethink that, Willy. I would bet that there are more than a few NRA FReepers here.I also bet there are scores of us here who have donated, both financially and with time and effort, to support pro-second Amendment candidates."
You can count one here. Me. I am a life member of NRA and SAF. I contribute--frequently--to other pro-gun groups. CCRKBA, CRPA, JPFO, GOA, et al.
--Boris
"'I'd do the same thing. I'd shut my mouth (as far as the State is concerned) and keep my weapon. What are they going to do? Execute a house-by-house, State-wide weapons search? I don't think so. It IS an un-Constitutional law. Keep your gun......and to your neighbors, etc., just keep quiet about it.'
Absolutely correct!"
The problem is, many of us are already on their "list." Me, for instance. I vocally support the Second Amendment and have been published numerous times in both L.A. papers. "They" know I have guns--because I defend the right to own them and because I have admitted owning them. You are correct. Keeping quiet--shutting up--would be safer. But you cannot defend your rights by shutting up.
Besides the "boiled frog" approach of incrementalism, they rely on "the comfort factor." What is that?...
I have a nice job, a pleasant home, a good car, enough to eat, etc. I am single so I cannot include a family. Suppose I did have a family as well.
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the Jolly Roger, and begin slitting throats."
--H.L. Mencken
Yes...but think of everything you have to lose.
That is what "they" rely upon. And that is what made the Founders great. The Founders had homes, families, lives, jobs. They risked it all--in many cases lost it all--in the cause of Liberty.
Sometimes I despair, when I consider how little of that is left in our land. Then I come to FR and am a little refreshed.
--Boris
"Unfortunately, they would probably serve JimRob and the Server host simultaneously. A software trigger to dump the member ID/profile files might not have time to execute. The FR Server, soon to be servers, is/are not physically in JimRob's possession/location."
I am not an expert in such matters, but The Cryptonomicon makes an excellent read.
--Boris
Woo Hoo! Thanks so much, I'll print it out and put on my gunsafe.
"An unconstitutional act is not law;
it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection;
it creates no office;
it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
Norton ~vs~ Shelby County, 118 US 425 p. 442.
BTTT!!
According to our Declaration and the subordinate document the Constitution...the source of our rights is the Almighty. We maintain those rights with arms. But our right to defend comes from God and not the arms themselves. At least in this country.
"I do not support anyone coming to this site to announce they are breaking the law. I do sympathize with your plight. I do think we should exercise our right to make sure every person who voted for this new law be removed when they stand for election the next time. But I think it's important that Jim's site not become known as a place where people are proud of breaking the laws of this state, even if I agree with you completely, and I do. "
I agree... Next time post it in a hypothetical situation. Or write up a fable.
The law is obviously un-Constitutional and Gray Davis and Diane Feinswine are Communists. I can't state this fact enough.
On another note, make sure you post through a proxy server. If you search the net for "free proxy servers" you should be able to come up with a few. If not just head to your local Community College or Library (wear a hat). My humble privacy advice!
"By your biblical standard, the thirteen colonies were wrong to defy the king of England, wrong to fight a revolution and wrong to set up their new, free country."
What Biblical standard? Certainly not in The Holy Bible. I don't think Jesus would want us to be oppressed by tyrants =]
""All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury ~vs~ Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
"When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda ~vs~ Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.
"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton ~vs~ Shelby County, 118 US 425 p. 442.
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment, not merely from the date of the decision branding it.
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177, late 2d, Sec 256. "
BUMP!
Great post brityank
"Tsk,tsk,tsk...so what are you saying? We are only obligated to obey the laws with which we agree? I'm shocked, nay, outraged, that this type of promotion of the criminal class is allowed at FR. iiCA, you MUST obey the law. If you don't like it, work to change it - oh, I know, some good people may get themselves caught up in the "system" in the meantime, but if they're disobeying the law, then they're not really good people after all, are they?"
You MUST OBEY THE LAW! ZIG HEIL! ZIG HEIL!
bttttt
Against my better judgement, I registered some of my AB23 guns,
and moved others out of the State.
I know it is unconstitutional,
but I don't want to be a test case and go to jail.
I read somewhere that they aren't after this generations guns. Our kids and grandkids will NEVER be able to own or shoot an AR15. They want to make it so onerous to own a gun that people won't go to the trouble.
Licenses, registrations, permits, mandatory range time, exams, safety classes, safety demonstrations.
This all is on the CA legislature's plate right now. They hate us, folks.
On the good side, my wife and I are looking for out of state employment....
The US Constitution overrides all state law.Apparently not in California, the DOJ has stated that there is NO constitutional right to own any weapon in California. (ala Miller, 1938) It is not in our state constitution.
Are you speaking of the Miller case in 38 that went to the SC,I hope not.The AG in Ca. can say anything he wants but the US Constitution overides all.Talk is cheap and AG's do a lot of it because of political pressure.The SC would ask the AG if he or she is on some kind of weed!All you have to do is take it to the courts and keep rolling to protect your rights.Take a look at the Emerson case in the 5th circuit court and see what the US government AG's had to say about the 2nd.Sounds like the AG in Ca. is taking the same position but the problem is the 3 judge panel made them look pretty silly.
And now all the power problems in california are trickling out to the surrounding states. Why to go you bleeding heart tree huggers. SB
If the AG is trying to use the Miller case he better read it again because the 5th circuit court already said that it has nothing to do with the 2nd.
All you have to do is take it to the courts and keep rolling to protect your rights.
The California rifle and pistol assn is fighting it in the courts. BUT, they lost fighting the original Roberti-Roos AW ban last year, and the CA Supreme court ruled that the R-R AW law compelling registration of assault weapons was legal. Hence, AB-23 is also "legal" in the eyes of the State.
Get it into the Federal courts.They will take it because it is a Constitutional issue.
wolfie are you that guy who is always going 55 on the interstate. Thank God I dont live there or I would be an outlaw also.
'From my cold dead hands'...I'm with you BRO'!
Thank you.
"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
But your a** will still go to jail.
i guess that means the founding fathers were outlaws and for that i am grateful
so when they have outlawed everything except spitballs and straws will you still stand on your quicksand? get real Kalifornia is the liberals wet dream of a perfect society. but as usual (as demonstrated by the current rolling blackouts) what liberals want for us all will only lead to chaos.
"...we must obey the government....etc"
Is this not what the Jews did in Hitler's Germany. Perhaps they should have resisted rather than "obeying" all the way to the Extermination Camps!
All I'm saying is that this an "unconstitutional law is not binding" stance will make for interesting conversation with your cell-mate, but it isn't good for much else.
Yeah, I'm sure it'll impress HELL out of the California equivalent of the BATF when THEIR jack-booted thugs batter down your door at 2 am some morning, preemptively shoot your dog, hogtie you and the Mrs., cuff the kiddies, torch the lock off your safe and haul your "illegal" weapons to the chop saw.
More of us had BETTER get INTO the belly of the beast (meaning the upcoming mass meetings of the parties) or the country club morons now controlling the beast will continue to have their way with us.
It's dirty, dangerous work but it MUST BE DONE if you wish to remain relatively free. The alternative is to try to TAKE THAT FREEDOM BACK BY FORCE, WITH BLOOD down the road. Not a good option.
LIKE HELL IT CAN’T!
Here are some quotes from some founding fathers on the topic, Dr. David Yeagley, Comanche Indian and Mel Gibson:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
[
Top
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Self Search
|
Add Bookmark
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC |