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.