In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Civil Disobedience....A Trend or A Tenet???

ComengetitComengetit Member Posts: 1,170 ✭✭✭✭✭
I believe this man and several of us could enjoy a beer and a nice long chat, he has his head on straight. I think his message applies to us all and he is right, the time is now, in Kalifornication. I wonder just how many will disobey? Read that line again, "I wonder just how many will DISOBEY? Disobey????? Since whan do we gave ruler in which we must obey? Every MF day I tell yah, every day we get closer to the inevitable showdown and it wouldn't be a bad idea for this to occur while our troops are all a bit busy. Plus in a time of war, I think them far less likely to obey any order having to do with American citizens. This was written in 1999 but I feel it applies more today than it did then.

Why I Will Not Obey California's Gun Registration Edict
by Brian Puckett

(Sent directly to the California Governor)

A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE SITUATION

The Democrat-controlled government of California has recently issued two edicts, one that bans ownership of SKS rifles with detachable magazines and requires their surrender to the state, and one that bans buying, selling, or lending of so-called "assault weapons" and that requires present owners of such arms to register them. The edicts take effect January 1, 2000. For all those who have in the past stated that, "When the state starts confiscating guns, then I'll know it's time to fight back," that time in California will be January 1, 2000.

Many people oppose registration because it precedes confiscation. Indeed it does, as those who were foolish enough to register their SKS's are now discovering. However, that is a practical reason to oppose registration, not a legal reason. And while avoiding confiscation is tangentially a moral reason to oppose registration, neither is it a legal reason. Refusing to obey a law because of what might happen or what has happened in other cases will not stand up in court. But there is a reason not to register or turn in any firearm that is practical, moral, and legal.

TWO QUESTIONS TO ANSWER

As regards the Second Amendment, determining the constitutionality of the California edicts mentioned above forces the examination of two basic questions. One, which arms are protected by the Second Amendment? And two, is registration an "infringement" of the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms? Fortunately, answering these questions is not a difficult or mysterious task. But they should be answered thoroughly.

WHAT IS THE BILL OF RIGHTS?

The Bill of Rights is not separate from the Constitution but is an integral part of it, as are all the other amendments. However, the Bill of Rights is special in that - like sections of the Declaration of Independence - it contains many of the core philosophical underpinnings of our government (especially Amendments 1, 2, 9, and 10). Therefore, it is easily the most important part of the U.S. Constitution. The rest of the Constitution, along with most of the remaining Amendments, deals primarily with the mechanics of putting this philosophy into effect in the form of a republic.

In the original document that we call the Bill of Rights, the Bill's ten enumerated items are listed as "articles". Those familiar with the history of the Constitution are aware that these articles were not afterthoughts, but were crucial elements whose written inclusion in the Constitution was insisted upon before certain states would agree to ratification of the preceding text. Because of this, a powerful case can be made that none of these first ten articles may be modified or revoked, because that would alter the fundamental philosophy underlying the Constitution and would violate the original agreement among the states.

THE PURPOSE AND MEANING OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT

The laws of the pre-U.S. colonies and the writings of the Founders clearly reveal that they, like all civilized humans, embraced the personal, common-law right of self-defense and property defense. The Founders' writings, such as the Federalist Papers, also clearly reveal their belief that self-defense includes defending oneself against a government gone bad. In fact the evidence shows that this latter item is a primary reason they included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights, and the reason for the Second Amendment's reference to the militia - the "army of citizens" (as opposed to the regular army).

The Second Amendment specifies the right of the people to keep and bear arms. If the people are to keep and bear them this must include, at the very minimum, personal arms - that is, arms that a single individual may carry and employ. For hundreds of years prior to the writing of the Constitution, the Western world's most advanced and cherished personal arm had been the firearm. Furthermore, the firearm is the sole arm continually singled out in the Founders' writings. Owning firearms was a right exercised in North America long before the existence of the United States.

TO MEAN ANYTHING, RIGHTS MUST INCLUDE ASSOCIATED NECESSITIES.

For any given right, it is meaningless to affirm that right if the tools or necessities of effecting that right are prohibited. Consider our Bill of Rights:

It is meaningless to affirm the First Amendment's right to free exercise of religion if people are prohibited to own Bibles, Korans, or Torahs.

It is meaningless to affirm the First Amendment's "freedom of the press" if people are prohibited to own printing presses (or today's electronic methods of mass communication).

It is meaningless to affirm the Third Amendment's right to refuse to lodge a soldier in one's home, or the Fourth Amendment's right to be secure in one's home, if people are prohibited from owning their own home.

It is meaningless to affirm the Sixth Amendment's right to defense counsel if people are prohibited to use their own or public money to pay for an attorney's services.

And it is beyond meaningless - it is absolutely absurd - to affirm the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms if people are prohibited from owning arms. Applying the above-mentioned general principle of rights to the Second Amendment, it would be correct to state that it is meaningless to affirm the right to self-defense if people are prohibited from owning the tools or necessities of self-defense.

For example, consider elderly people, women, the physically handicapped, small-statured men, or anyone who is not a master of unarmed combat being faced with a large, or muscular, or armed assailant, or multiple assailants. It happens every day in this country. It is absurd, illogical, illegal, and inhumane to uphold their right to self-defense while prohibiting them from owning the most portable, easy to use, proven, and inexpensive of instantly effective self-defense tools - guns.

WHICH ARMS ARE PROTECTED BY THE SECOND AMENDMENT?

Along with "the people", the Second Amendment specifically mentions the militia, consisting of armed citizens not enlisted in any regular military corps - the "citizen army". The militia's purpose is, as its name implies, a military one. The militia was - and still may be - pitted against other military forces. That was true in pre-U.S. North America, it was true during the Revolutionary War, and it is true today.

If the militia may be pitted against regular soldiers, whether of a foreign invader or of a tyrannical domestic government, then it follows automatically that at a minimum the citizens comprising the militia must possess personal arms (as opposed to large or crew-served arms like cannon) equal to those of the opposing soldiers. Equal personal arms means, of course, those that include all design features, capabilities, and ergonomics that make a military firearm suitable for modern battle. If this is not the case then there is no point in having a militia, as it will not pose an effective fighting force. For example, the extreme inadequacy of bolt action rifles in combat against semiautomatic arms is well known. But the Founders' firm insistence upon having an effective militia is absolutely clear from their numerous writings on the subject and from the existence of the Second Amendment itself.

That being so, military-pattern firearms are obviously protected by the Second Amendment. Therefore any restrictive legislation on military-pattern firearms, or on military design elements of other firearms, is completely contrary to the word and spirit of the Second Amendment and is therefore flatly unconstitutional. [U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)completely supports this.]

REGISTRATION IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH RIGHTS

Consider the situation if a state declared that it was perfectly legal to own a Bible - or a copy of the Koran or the Talmud - but that you had to register it in order to keep and use it. Now, what if you did not register it - would you lose the right to own and read it? Of course not. The very idea is absurd. Under the laws of this nation you have the right to worship as you please. As we have seen, that right automatically includes articles necessary or associated with the right, such as books, crucifixes, stars of David, yarmulkes, and so forth.

In exactly the same way, if the state suddenly required registration of printing presses, would the owner of a press lose his right to own or use it by not filling out a registration form? Of course not. The right would still exist. No piece of paper affects it.

In exactly the same way, one does not have to register one's vocal cords, bullhorn, typewriter, pens, pencils, computers, movie cameras, etc, to exercise the right of free speech (or stated in modern terms, the right of uncensored communication). Under the Constitution, if a state issued an edict demanding registration of such things that rule would be invalid as law. Your right to use them would still exist, completely unaffected.

In exactly the same way, prior registration of one's body, home, address, papers, possessions, etc, is not necessary in order to enjoy the Constitutional right to protection from unreasonable searches and seizures of one's person, house, papers, and effects. These various physical things are automatically included, automatically protected by the right.

In exactly the same way, one does not have to register anything or fill out any forms in order to have the Constitutional right to a speedy public trial. It is automatic.

Now consider the situation if you do not register a gun. Is the Second Amendment somehow instantly suspended? Did it vanish? Do you somehow lose the right to keep and bear arms? Certainly not.

If you can lose a "right" by not filling out a piece of paper, then it is not a right. It is a privilege granted by the government, which is a different thing altogether. In the area of government, a privilege is a special permission or immunity granted by a government, it is generally related to the use of some public facility (such as driving on the streets, or using the public library) and it may be suspended or revoked even for minor infractions or misdemeanors.

In sum: Rights do not require government registration, certification, or approval, and are not subject to any form of taxation - otherwise they are not rights, they are privileges granted at the discretion of the government, controlled by the government, and revocable by the government.

REGISTRATION IS MORE THAN AN INFRINGEMENT

The Second Amendment reads. "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The question may be asked, "Is registration of a particular gun truly such a burden that it can be called an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms?"

To begin with, if we were speaking of registering religious items or communications devices, none but socialists would dare ask such a question. Yet the Second Amendment directly follows the amendment concerned with the free exercise of religion and freedom of the press. The Second Amendment holds a place of priority in the Bill of Rights, which is primarily a list of inalienable personal rights.

But to answer the above question - Yes. Registration is absolutely an infringement, on at least three grounds. In fact, we will see that the rights versus privileges issue makes registration far more than a mere infringement.

Information. Registration of a firearm gives the government information that can be used (and has been used, and is being used right now) to confiscate that firearm or to pinpoint its owner for weapon seizure, fining, incarceration, or execution. Having the government in possession of this information is directly contrary to the Second Amendment's intent to ensure that citizens always possess the means to overthrow the government should it become corrupt or tyrannical.

Government control. Allowing the government to seize a citizen's firearm, or to suspend, revoke, or diminish a citizen's ability to defend life, family, property, and country for paperwork omissions or errors, for regulatory violations, for minor infractions of the law, for misdemeanors, or arguably for anything less than conviction for a major crime of violence is also directly contrary to the intent of the Second Amendment. This is because virtually all citizens have committed, or will commit, one or more of the listed non-violent errors listed above, whereas the entire point of the Second Amendment is to place this same citizenry's right to keep and bear arms (and therefore the right of self-defense) out of the government's grasp.

Right versus privilege. Critically relevant to all our rights, is that any edict that attempts to convert a right into a state-granted privilege by imposing prior requirements - such as registration - before it may be exercised goes far beyond mere "infringement" of that right; it becomes an attempt at outright abrogation of the right.

Therefore the state's demand to comply with the requirements of such an edict - no matter how physically easy compliance is - imposes not some mere inconvenience on the individual. It imposes the enormous moral, ethical, intellectual, and spiritual burden of denying the existence of the right.

It does not matter if the state demands that one simply tap one's nose five times in succession in order to be able to keep and bear a particular gun. This would still be a state-mandated prior requirement. Compliance would indicate tacit denial of the validity of the Second Amendment, and denial of the right it protects. Compliance would encompass an implicit acceptance of the right as a mere privilege, which is directly contrary to both the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment.

APPLYING THESE CONCEPTS TO CALIFORNIA'S EDICT

The argument against registration of, and restrictions on, military-style firearms may be approached by two logical paths that reach the same conclusions:

1. If the supreme law of the nation protects a personal right to keep and bear arms (which it does) then the failure to comply with a state mandate to fill out some registration form cannot revoke this, or any other, right. If the right to keep and bear arms cannot be revoked (and it can not be), then the right to keep and bear militia arms, which are the very arms implicitly referred to in the Founders' writings and in the Second Amendment itself, cannot be revoked. If the right to keep and bear militia arms cannot be revoked (and it can not be) then we may own and use any military-pattern individually portable firearm, all of which are practical militia arms. If that is the case (and it is), then any restrictive legislation based on militarily useful design elements of such firearms is flatly unconstitutional.

2. If the supreme law of the nation protects the personal right to keep and bear arms (which it does), then the right to keep and bear militia arms, which are the very arms implicitly referred to in the Founders' writings and in the Second Amendment itself, certainly exists. If that is the case (and it is), then we may own and use any military-pattern individually portable firearm, because all are practical militia arms. If that is the case (and it is), any restrictive legislation based on the militarily useful design elements of such firearms is flatly unconstitutional. If that is the case (and it is), then the failure to comply with a state mandate to fill out some registration form cannot revoke this right.

Again, the same situation prevails with all the personal rights in the Bill of Rights. That is, no state mandate requiring registration - either of oneself or of things directly associated with a right - can be a prerequisite or condition of exercising a right, nor can it affect that right in any way. If it does, then the right has been unconstitutionally declared a state-controlled privilege.

SUMMARY

As we see from the above, no American can be legally compelled to register any militarily useful individual arm. That includes pistols, revolvers, carbines, semi-autos, military-style guns, hunting guns, self-defense guns, pump guns, lever guns, bolt guns, black powder guns, scoped guns, .50 caliber guns, .338 caliber guns, .30 caliber guns, .223 caliber guns, etc. All have been used, or are being used, as individual military arms, and therefore are implicitly referred to by the Second Amendment's militia clause.

Moreover, no American can be legally compelled to register any firearm of common design or function because the Second Amendment does not protect only guns that are useful in military affairs; it protects all guns. The militia reference is clearly meant as one important reason for protecting the right which follows: the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The Second Amendment says simply "arms", which imposes no quantity or design limits. It says "bear", which in its narrowest sense would still include all firearms capable of being carried and used by one person. Therefore, under the supreme law of the land, the right to own one or several of any type of individually portable firearm exists permanently, inherently, automatically, without prior approval or conditions.

RELATED ISSUES

1. Indiscriminate weapons-those whose effects are difficult to direct upon, or confine to, a discrete target (such as flamethrowers, fragmentation bombs, chemical and biological weapons, mortars) etc.-are arguably excludable from the full protection of the Second Amendment as posing an unreasonable danger to friend and foe alike.

2. Individually portable machine guns are clearly allowed under the wording of the Second Amendment. However, under certain specific circumstances their employment might arguably be said to encroach into the area of indiscriminate weapons. Therefore, it is arguable that some extra care might be taken in the use of these firearms, but that any restrictions imposing an effective ban on their general ownership or general use would be unconstitutional. As this is a highly specific, highly debatable subject, it will not be, and need not be, delved into here.

Aside from the debatable exceptions of 1. and 2. above, absolutely no individually portable firearm of common design or function may be determined to be an indiscriminate weapon under any circumstances, nor to pose an unreasonable danger. This is because a ban on such a firearm could "logically" be extended to all other firearms of similar design and function (exactly what is occurring with California's edicts now), which would completely vitiate the Second Amendment. Thus, the 1994 Federal "assault weapon" ban and magazine capacity limit are both completely unconstitutional.

REGISTRATION-YOUR DECISION AFFECTS ALL RIGHTS

If a military pattern firearm, the firearm most suited to the militia mentioned in the Second Amendment, is not protected by the clear wording of the Second Amendment, then there is no meaning to the Second Amendment.

If there is no meaning to the Second Amendment, there is no reason to infer meaning in the rest of the Bill of Rights.

If converting the Second Amendment into a privilege by means of a registration edict is not the maximum "infringement" of that right, then nothing is.

If converting the Second Amendment into a privilege by means of an edict is possible, then it is possible to do so for any other right.

Therefore, regarding the Second Amendment, refusing registration affirms the right to own a militia firearm. It affirms the right to keep and bear all personal arms. It affirms the validity of the rest of the Bill of Rights. It affirms that attempting to convert the Second Amendment into a privilege is the maximum infringement of that right. It rejects a state's power to convert any right into a privilege. And lastly it affirms the validity of the Constitution, and the rule of law, not men.

DEMANDING OR COMPLYING WITH REGISTRATION IS BETRAYAL

Article VI of the Constitution designates the Constitution as the supreme law of the United States, and specifically states that it prevails over all state constitutions and statutes. Further, Article VI requires all legislative, executive, and judicial officers of the U.S. government and of the state governments to take an oath to obey the Constitution. Some of these officials may hate firearms and the power they give to the citizenry, but that is irrelevant - they must treat the Second Amendment as they would the rest of our Bill of Rights.

All state officials - judges, representatives, law enforcement officials - know these facts, but many are corrupt and ignore them. Their sworn word means nothing to them, nor does the Constitution, nor do the rights of the constituents for whom they work unless it suits their own political agenda. It is against this conscienceless species of human that decent Americans must continually fight, in California and in the rest of the United States.

If you believe you have the right to keep and bear proper militia arms in order to defend yourself, your family, your home, and your country, and if you believe this right is recognized in the Bill of Rights, then you cannot register or turn in any firearm whatsoever. You may rationalize it any way you wish, but if you register a firearm you are implicitly agreeing with the proposition that your right to own that firearm is nonexistent, and that such ownership is dependent upon permission from the government. Registration equals betrayal of yourself, your family, your ancestors, your birthright, your country, and your Constitution. Period.

A PERSONAL POSITION

Every new illegal gun control edict issued, and every day that existing illegal gun control edicts continue to be enforced, brings inexorably closer the time when firearms owners will train their guns on the politicians, judges, and other officials who have misled the rest of the public into giving up their sacred and ancient rights. A desire to avoid this terrible tragedy motivates my own actions regarding the Second Amendment and the rights it protects.

For nearly twenty years I have legally owned a militia rifle possessing the characteristics of the socialists' so-called "assault weapon". Now my right to own this arm, a right that has existed far longer than the two centuries-plus that this nation has existed, is suddenly being challenged by corrupt politicians. But I vehemently reject any infringement of my rights. I will never register this or any other firearm. Nor will I ever turn it in, nor will I ever alter any characteristic or attachment to it.

I will never again concern myself with legislation about pistol grips, bayonet lugs, high-capacity magazines, flash suppressors, threaded barrels, folding stocks, pre- or post-ban manufacture, or any other irrelevant detail of my firearms.

I will certainly not do as the NRA Members Councils suggest on their internet site, which is to saw off the pistol grip of one's AR-style rifle to make it "legal". Understand this: in America it is already legal. I sometimes wonder whether the socialists will issue an edict requiring all firearms to have a pink ribbon tied to the barrel, just to get a belly laugh as the panicked descendants of once-proud American patriots scurry to comply.

California's current governor, attorney general, and legislators who voted for these edicts can undoubtedly find thugs as corrupt and anti-American as themselves to send to my home. I vow not to physically interfere with their illegal activities, because I wish to see this matter in court. I hope that other men and women will join me in this public declaration of civil disobedience, because it would be best to have ten thousand civil disobedience cases in court, not just mine. But I understand why, in this day and age of brutal, ethics-free "public servants", citizens are reluctant to make themselves a target of the state. Fortunately, the citizens of California and other states demanding registration can strike a powerful blow for humanity simply by refusing to comply.

SEIZE THIS OPPORTUNITY

To those of you who whine, complain, and talk, talk, talk about your loss of freedom - I say now is the time to do something. There are few times in an average man's life when the occasion presents itself to take part in history. Here and now is such a time. This refusal to submit to tyranny is not simply about firearms. It is about human rights, it is about the rule of law, and it is about the continuance of this great nation. To what better use will you ever put you life than to stand up for these things? Will you look back on this moment and say, "I wish I had done something", or will you step forward and seize this chance?

With the government having grown so powerful and corrupt, defying it is frightening. It is especially frightening because many Americans seem fairly content right now. But the feelings of the apathetic mass are irrelevant. They have never figured in history, and never will. The apathetic mass will go along with whatever system exists. It is the freedom-loving individual who, although part of a much smaller group, has guided every free nation toward the light.

Freedom is not maintained without taking risks and making sacrifices, without fighting for it. This has always been true, throughout history. If you are afraid to take a stand against this tyrannical government, if you excuse yourself by saying you must "take care of my family first", I say thank God there were men in the past who understood the priority of freedom.

Look at your children. Is it more important that they have an uninterrupted flow of plastic toys and the soft luxuries of modern American life, or that they grow up as free men and women, with all inherent rights and responsibilities? I say any man who does nothing while even a single basic freedom he has enjoyed is stripped from his offspring - a freedom secured by the blood of others - deserves no offspring.

As I said, I will turn in no firearms, ever. I will register no firearms, ever. My right to own and use firearms predates the Constitution. It existed before the corrupt socialists in Washington and Sacramento came to office, and it will exist forever afterward. The Second Amendment simply recognizes this right. I do not know where my civil disobedience will lead, but I am certain where the slavishness and cowardice of compliance will lead. I refuse to take part in this foul business of registration. I hope that you refuse also. If we stand together we will set fires of freedom burning across America.

Mr. Puckett is a free-lance writer whose past work includes articles on U.S. foreign, domestic, and military policy for the Houston Post. His firearms and Second Amendment articles have appeared in the magazines Handguns, Combat Handguns, Guns and Ammo, SWAT, Police, and numerous other publications. He is the author of the essay "A Plan to Restore the Second Amendment", appearing in an upcoming issue of Handguns Magazine. He is a co-founder of the gun rights resource organization GunTruths (http://www.guntruths.com) and the gun rights media action organization Citizens Of America (http://www.citizensofamerica.org). Mr. Puckett believes that much of the annual slaughter of Americans by criminals can be blamed directly on those who advocate gun control, and that any politician who advocates gun control neither trusts his constituents nor cares about their lives or property. The above statement/essay is an expression of his opinions alone. He may be contacted regarding this article at [email protected] . Put the word RESISTER in the subject line. You can read more of Mr. Puckett's work at http://www.guntruths.com/Puckett/brian_puckett.htm






There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?

Comments

  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    This guy has my respect. Not only is he disobeying illegal law, but he has no problem letting the world know why, and in detail, which is unarguable.

    [^]

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.

    "Mirror Mirror on the wall. Who's the ugliest one of all?"

    -Janet Reno, the Butcher of Waco.
  • pickenuppickenup Member Posts: 22,845 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    A little more by Brian Puckett.

    WHAT ARE RIGHTS?

    by Brian Puckett
    Co-founder, Citizens of America

    The position that rights do not exist.

    One view holds that there is no such thing as a "right". This view holds that there are only claims to the ability to freely engage in certain actions, and that such claims are enforced only by force itself. It should be pointed out that this is not the same as saying "might makes right". Rather it is saying "might determines what is", whether it is right or not.

    Logically and practically there is much to recommend the above view. It reflects what is obvious in real life. For example, the overwhelming majority of a society may believe - and claim repeatedly - that every human has the right to own property, travel freely, speak freely, bear arms, engage in free commerce, etc., but if the majority will not or can not enforce that claim, it means nothing. For example, claims of such rights had zero effect on the lives of those living in the former Soviet Union, nor does it affect the lives of people living in dozens of other countries right now.

    The position that rights do exist

    Most humans reject the view that there is no such thing as a right. The reason lies in the seemingly instinctive (and completely understandable) view that, for example, having another person steal from you, or murder you, or enslave you, or to physically harm you without cause is wrong. Therefore the concept of a right not to be stolen from, enslaved, etc., has come into being.

    And unless a person believes he is entitled to be treated differently from the rest of humanity, then logically the converse must be true: everyone else has a right not be stolen from, enslaved, etc.

    Inherent ("God-given") rights versus derivative rights

    There is no objective proof that the position that basic rights exist is correct. The nearly universal acceptance of this position rests on the above-mentioned "instinctive feeling", practical application, and/or faith-based (religious) assertions of rights that oppose certain "wrong" acts.

    These basic human rights, which are few in number and which vary from era to era and place to place, are considered natural or inherent rights. Religious people might call them God-given rights. To understand how much even these natural rights have varied historically, consider that the right to hold slaves existed in certain societies well into modern times, and that the Aztec civilization believed it was the right of Aztec priests to sacrifice human beings to their gods.

    Rights which are prescribed by law - which could be considered to be derived from inherent rights, or derived from a particular legal system - are derivative rights. They vary considerably around the world. An example of such a right would be the U.S. Constitution's right of those accused of crimes to undergo a trial by jury, or the right to reject the quartering of soldiers in one's home.

    Definition of a right

    Because most of humanity - even humanity ruled by tyrants, and usually even the tyrants themselves - agrees that rights exist, we will adopt that view in this study.

    Simply put, the basic definition of a right is a morally and legally unrestrictable option (choice). The option (choice) with which rights are associated is invariably the option to engage in some act or activity (series of related acts). For example, the right to self-defense is the morally and legally unrestrictable option to defend oneself against an unprovoked, or illegal, or immoral physical attack.

    With respect to rights, maintaining a personal status quo must be considered an act. For example, consider the right to be free of unprovoked attack on our person by another human; using our definition, that may be stated as the unrestrictable option to maintain the status quo of our * condition. And of course owning something is an act - the act of holding as property.

    Because of the way we define a right, it is important to note that, logically, any acts (or activities) associated with exercising a right require absolutely no permission. "Permission" indicates that there is some person or entity which may restrict the choice to engage in the associated acts or activities. But since a right is an unrestrictable option to engage in acts or activities, such restriction is logically incompatible with the definition.

    Some believe that rights are absolute. What that means in practical terms has never been made clear, by any source, to this writer. For any right claimed to be absolute, an example of exercising that right can be found or hypothesized which no sane person or society would allow. If no sane person or society would allow it, then it cannot be either legally or morally acceptable, and is therefore outside the definition of a right.

    Let me give a simple example: the right to self-defense is one of the most fundamental and accepted of rights. Now consider person A who says to person B, "I swear to you, I'm going to kill you with my hands in thirty seconds". Person B absolutely believes person A, and knows person A is capable of carrying out his stated mission since he has killed others. So in response, person B picks up a club and kills person A before A makes any overt hostile move. Now, A was certainly defending his life, or at least his health, and if his right to self-defense is absolute, he should not be charged with a crime. But in real life he might well be, because the circumstances of exercising a right are an essential factor. There is no absoluteness.

    Here is another example: Person A and person B are engaged in a quarrel. B - a known bully - clearly started the quarrel. The quarrel moves from words to blows with the fist. Person A manages to get B, the bully, down on the ground and begins smashing B's head into the pavement. B fears his skull is about to be crushed, reaches out and picks up a rock, and smashes A in the head, killing him. Now, B was certainly defending his life, or at least his health, and if his right to self-defense is absolute, he should not be charged with a crime. But, again, in real life he might well be. Again, the circumstances of exercising a right are considered. Again, there is no absoluteness.

    Consider the right to worship as one pleases. Most people would claim that this is an absolute right. But if it is absolute, does it include human sacrifice? No, it does not - though it did in certain places at certain times. Does it include sacrificing animals? In the industrialized western world it generally does not. Does it include harming any animal? If the answer is no, then leather-bound Bibles, Torahs, or Korans are not allowed, since leather comes from killing animals. Does it include harming any of God's living creations? If the answer is no, then the paper on which Bibles and such are printed are not allowed, since trees are cut down to produce the paper. For a more pedestrian example, does the right to worship allow a church full of people to sing loudly late into the night, keeping the neighbors awake? Of course not. Clearly, the right to worship as one pleases is not absolute.

    These sorts of examples can be found for any right. Again, it has never been made clear by anyone what the meaning of an absolute right is. All depends upon circumstance. It is not enough to simply claim that rights, in themselves, exist somewhere in some abstract state, in some pure and absolute form. That is utterly meaningless. So I will not engage in debate as to whether rights are absolute, and will confine this study to my above basic definition, which will be further clarified below.

    Animal rights

    Rational humans agree that lions in the wild have the natural right, any time they wish, to kill and eat other animals. And rational humans would agree that humans, whether in the wild or in society, have no right, any time they wish, to kill or eat other humans. Thus there is apparently a difference between animal rights and human rights.

    Human rights

    The difference is that in order to remain within the dictates of current religions, and/or for our societies to function, we correctly define human rights humanely. In fundamental terms, that would be stated as: No right encompasses (1) non-defensive acts involving direct or highly probable harm to another human being, nor does a right encompass (2) non-defensive acts involving any degree of probability of substantial harm to the public or society."

    In part one of the definition, the words "encompassing direct or highly probable harm to another human being" are clear in meaning. But it may not be clear why part two of the definition changes from harming another human being to harming the public or society, especially since "public" is another way of saying many human beings collectively and "society" is another way of saying the system under which many humans live together. And it may not be clear why the adjective substantial is used.

    The reason for the change in terms can be clearly seen by substituting the words public or society in the second part of the definition of a humane right with the words used in the first part - another human being - and leaving out the adjective substantial. Then the second part of our definition of a humane right would be: ".(2) nor does a right encompass acts involving any degree of probability of harm to another human being". If we enforced that definition of a right, there would effectively be no rights at all, and much human activity would come to a halt. For example, there would be no driving on freeways, no police force, no airlines, no heavy industry, no military training, etcetera ad infinitum, because all of those activities produce some probability of harming another human being.

    Society must allow some degree of probability of harming another human being in order to function. But it cannot allow such harm if it would affect many people at once, and/or if that harm would be substantial. At bottom, substantial harm means "far outweighing the benefit to both individuals and society in general from allowing the act under consideration".

    For example, consider whether the right to own personal property extends to allowing a citizen to store a hunk of plutonium in his home in some city. The probability of any individual home burning to the ground is extremely low, but if this particular home were to burn, plutonium particles could be scattered over an area of tens or even hundreds of square miles, resulting in the eventual deaths of tens of thousands of people and rendering the affected land uninhabitable for hundreds or even thousands of years. So even though the probability of harm coming to another human may be extremely low, society does not extend the definition of the right to own personal property to encompass the act of storing plutonium at home. This is because the benefits to society of allowing the act, both in terms of (1) personal utility to citizens who want to own plutonium for whatever reasons, and in terms of (2) defining the right own personal property as broadly as possible, are far outweighed by the potential harm in allowing it.

    To sum up: when the word right is used from this point on, it means a humanely defined right, or one that accords with this definition: A right is a morally and legally unrestrictable option to engage in acts or activities that never encompass direct or highly probable harm to another human being, nor that ever encompass any degree of probability of substantial harm to the public or society.

    Limitation of rights for rational and compelling reasons

    If we accept the above basic definition of a humane right, then there is no such thing as legally limiting a right. This is because any action that falls within the definition of that right, which we are saying is legally unrestrictable, must automatically be legal, and therefore cannot be legally limited. Thus a right can only be illegally limited - that is, violated or infringed. Note: the sole generally accepted exception is curtailment of rights during wartime or an extreme national emergency, and even that depends upon the written law and specific circumstances of the state or country. For example, the legality of limiting the right to freedom of religion in wartime would be highly debatable.

    But it is common in matters of law to say "to limit a right" and mean that such limitation is legal. That is because "to limit" is quicker and easier to say than "to legally determine that certain actions associated with a right fall outside the defined parameters of a right". Therefore when speaking of rights, we will use the term limit to mean a logical, legal determination about that right, and we will use violate or infringe when we mean an illegal action concerning a right.

    Determining "Harm"

    Generally speaking it is agreed that societies can and should limit any act - whether it is considered a right or not - performed by a person or group of people if that act directly harms another human or creates a situation in which harm to other humans is highly probable. Therefore societies will automatically find themselves occasionally determining whether or not some activity falls outside the scope of a previously recognized right. (Of course the issue of what constitutes harm or probable harm will be the basis of this determination.)

    For example, people in the U.S. have the right to speak freely and to speak to the masses (freedom of speech and of the press). But if this speech takes the form of libel or slander, it is rational and of compelling public interest to prohibit these rights from sheltering the originator of such libel or slander from a lawsuit. The same might be said of transferring national security secrets.

    Another example: we have the right to work, to own private property, to raise our children as we see fit, and to be secure in our homes and possessions. But if a person chose to manufacture nitroglycerine in his family dwelling in a crowded neighborhood, and to store that nitroglycerine in an open vat in his back yard, and let his children play near that vat of nitroglycerine, society would rationally decide that all of those activities had gone beyond the point where they were encompassed by the abovementioned rights.

    Government versus rights - an eternal conflict

    Allowing government officials alone to define when an activity transgresses the "harm" restrictions regarding rights, or allowing any narrowing at all of the scope of activities associated with a right, puts that right on a slippery slope to oblivion. This is because those who work for the government automatically tend to usurp as much social power as possible, and the ability to limit human activities is a key component of social power. The key to this dilemma is to very strictly limit the definition of harm and the calculation of highly probable.

    When the government restricts any activity that does not directly harm another person, or which does not create a condition of high probability of harm another person, or which will not produce substantial harm to the public or society, or which actually makes society safer, then government violates its fundamental mandate to maintain as free a society as possible within the constraints of reasonable safety. In the case of U.S. federal government, such restrictions may violate an actual legal mandate - the Constitution's Ninth Amendment, which states that rights not specifically listed in the Constitution are not necessarily non-existent, and are not necessary limitable by the government. In sum, restrictions of non-harmful or beneficial activities is certainly immoral, and government infringement of recognized rights is incontestably both immoral and illegal.



    Brian Puckett is the Founder and Director of Citizens of America, a non-profit pro-gun media organization dedicated to waking people up through use of the radio and print ads. Visit their website at http://www.CitizensOfAmerica.org. See other articles from Mr. Puckett in his archive at http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com/Puckett.



    The gene pool needs chlorine.
  • DonldDonld Member Posts: 741 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    This guy's good.
  • KYfatboyKYfatboy Member Posts: 859 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Very good read, agree with wolf though. More than 200 words, they start crossing to my vision.quote:Originally posted by Comengetit
    I believe this man and several of us could enjoy a beer and a nice long chat, he has his head on straight. I think his message applies to us all and he is right, the time is now, in Kalifornication. I wonder just how many will disobey? Read that line again, "I wonder just how many will DISOBEY? Disobey????? Since whan do we gave ruler in which we must obey? Every MF day I tell yah, every day we get closer to the inevitable showdown and it wouldn't be a bad idea for this to occur while our troops are all a bit busy. Plus in a time of war, I think them far less likely to obey any order having to do with American citizens. This was written in 1999 but I feel it applies more today than it did then.

    Why I Will Not Obey California's Gun Registration Edict
    by Brian Puckett

    (Sent directly to the California Governor)

    A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE SITUATION

    The Democrat-controlled government of California has recently issued two edicts, one that bans ownership of SKS rifles with detachable magazines and requires their surrender to the state, and one that bans buying, selling, or lending of so-called "assault weapons" and that requires present owners of such arms to register them. The edicts take effect January 1, 2000. For all those who have in the past stated that, "When the state starts confiscating guns, then I'll know it's time to fight back," that time in California will be January 1, 2000.

    Many people oppose registration because it precedes confiscation. Indeed it does, as those who were foolish enough to register their SKS's are now discovering. However, that is a practical reason to oppose registration, not a legal reason. And while avoiding confiscation is tangentially a moral reason to oppose registration, neither is it a legal reason. Refusing to obey a law because of what might happen or what has happened in other cases will not stand up in court. But there is a reason not to register or turn in any firearm that is practical, moral, and legal.

    TWO QUESTIONS TO ANSWER

    As regards the Second Amendment, determining the constitutionality of the California edicts mentioned above forces the examination of two basic questions. One, which arms are protected by the Second Amendment? And two, is registration an "infringement" of the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms? Fortunately, answering these questions is not a difficult or mysterious task. But they should be answered thoroughly.

    WHAT IS THE BILL OF RIGHTS?

    The Bill of Rights is not separate from the Constitution but is an integral part of it, as are all the other amendments. However, the Bill of Rights is special in that - like sections of the Declaration of Independence - it contains many of the core philosophical underpinnings of our government (especially Amendments 1, 2, 9, and 10). Therefore, it is easily the most important part of the U.S. Constitution. The rest of the Constitution, along with most of the remaining Amendments, deals primarily with the mechanics of putting this philosophy into effect in the form of a republic.

    In the original document that we call the Bill of Rights, the Bill's ten enumerated items are listed as "articles". Those familiar with the history of the Constitution are aware that these articles were not afterthoughts, but were crucial elements whose written inclusion in the Constitution was insisted upon before certain states would agree to ratification of the preceding text. Because of this, a powerful case can be made that none of these first ten articles may be modified or revoked, because that would alter the fundamental philosophy underlying the Constitution and would violate the original agreement among the states.

    THE PURPOSE AND MEANING OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT

    The laws of the pre-U.S. colonies and the writings of the Founders clearly reveal that they, like all civilized humans, embraced the personal, common-law right of self-defense and property defense. The Founders' writings, such as the Federalist Papers, also clearly reveal their belief that self-defense includes defending oneself against a government gone bad. In fact the evidence shows that this latter item is a primary reason they included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights, and the reason for the Second Amendment's reference to the militia - the "army of citizens" (as opposed to the regular army).

    The Second Amendment specifies the right of the people to keep and bear arms. If the people are to keep and bear them this must include, at the very minimum, personal arms - that is, arms that a single individual may carry and employ. For hundreds of years prior to the writing of the Constitution, the Western world's most advanced and cherished personal arm had been the firearm. Furthermore, the firearm is the sole arm continually singled out in the Founders' writings. Owning firearms was a right exercised in North America long before the existence of the United States.

    TO MEAN ANYTHING, RIGHTS MUST INCLUDE ASSOCIATED NECESSITIES.

    For any given right, it is meaningless to affirm that right if the tools or necessities of effecting that right are prohibited. Consider our Bill of Rights:

    It is meaningless to affirm the First Amendment's right to free exercise of religion if people are prohibited to own Bibles, Korans, or Torahs.

    It is meaningless to affirm the First Amendment's "freedom of the press" if people are prohibited to own printing presses (or today's electronic methods of mass communication).

    It is meaningless to affirm the Third Amendment's right to refuse to lodge a soldier in one's home, or the Fourth Amendment's right to be secure in one's home, if people are prohibited from owning their own home.

    It is meaningless to affirm the Sixth Amendment's right to defense counsel if people are prohibited to use their own or public money to pay for an attorney's services.

    And it is beyond meaningless - it is absolutely absurd - to affirm the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms if people are prohibited from owning arms. Applying the above-mentioned general principle of rights to the Second Amendment, it would be correct to state that it is meaningless to affirm the right to self-defense if people are prohibited from owning the tools or necessities of self-defense.

    For example, consider elderly people, women, the physically handicapped, small-statured men, or anyone who is not a master of unarmed combat being faced with a large, or muscular, or armed assailant, or multiple assailants. It happens every day in this country. It is absurd, illogical, illegal, and inhumane to uphold their right to self-defense while prohibiting them from owning the most portable, easy to use, proven, and inexpensive of instantly effective self-defense tools - guns.

    WHICH ARMS ARE PROTECTED BY THE SECOND AMENDMENT?

    Along with "the people", the Second Amendment specifically mentions the militia, consisting of armed citizens not enlisted in any regular military corps - the "citizen army". The militia's purpose is, as its name implies, a military one. The militia was - and still may be - pitted against other military forces. That was true in pre-U.S. North America, it was true during the Revolutionary War, and it is true today.

    If the militia may be pitted against regular soldiers, whether of a foreign invader or of a tyrannical domestic government, then it follows automatically that at a minimum the citizens comprising the militia must possess personal arms (as opposed to large or crew-served arms like cannon) equal to those of the opposing soldiers. Equal personal arms means, of course, those that include all design features, capabilities, and ergonomics that make a military firearm suitable for modern battle. If this is not the case then there is no point in having a militia, as it will not pose an effective fighting force. For example, the extreme inadequacy of bolt action rifles in combat against semiautomatic arms is well known. But the Founders' firm insistence upon having an effective militia is absolutely clear from their numerous writings on the subject and from the existence of the Second Amendment itself.

    That being so, military-pattern firearms are obviously protected by the Second Amendment. Therefore any restrictive legislation on military-pattern firearms, or on military design elements of other firearms, is completely contrary to the word and spirit of the Second Amendment and is therefore flatly unconstitutional. [U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)completely supports this.]

    REGISTRATION IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH RIGHTS

    Consider the situation if a state declared that it was perfectly legal to own a Bible - or a copy of the Koran or the Talmud - but that you had to register it in order to keep and use it. Now, what if you did not register it - would you lose the right to own and read it? Of course not. The very idea is absurd. Under the laws of this nation you have the right to worship as you please. As we have seen, that right automatically includes articles necessary or associated with the right, such as books, crucifixes, stars of David, yarmulkes, and so forth.

    In exactly the same way, if the state suddenly required registration of printing presses, would the owner of a press lose his right to own or use it by not filling out a registration form? Of course not. The right would still exist. No piece of paper affects it.

    In exactly the same way, one does not have to register one's vocal cords, bullhorn, typewriter, pens, pencils, computers, movie cameras, etc, to exercise the right of free speech (or stated in modern terms, the right of uncensored communication). Under the Constitution, if a state issued an edict demanding registration of such things that rule would be invalid as law. Your right to use them would still exist, completely unaffected.

    In exactly the same way, prior registration of one's body, home, address, papers, possessions, etc, is not necessary in order to enjoy the Constitutional right to protection from unreasonable searches and seizures of one's person, house, papers, and effects. These various physical things are automatically included, automatically protected by the right.

    In exactly the same way, one does not have to register anything or fill out any forms in order to have the Constitutional right to a speedy public trial. It is automatic.

    Now consider the situation if you do not register a gun. Is the Second Amendment somehow instantly suspended? Did it vanish? Do you somehow lose the right to keep and bear arms? Certainly not.

    If you can lose a "right" by not filling out a piece of paper, then it is not a right. It is a privilege granted by the government, which is a different thing altogether. In the area of government, a privilege is a special permission or immunity granted by a government, it is generally related to the use of some public facility (such as driving on the streets, or using the public library) and it may be suspended or revoked even for minor infractions or misdemeanors.

    In sum: Rights do not require government registration, certification, or approval, and are not subject to any form of taxation - otherwise they are not rights, they are privileges granted at the discretion of the government, controlled by the government, and revocable by the government.

    REGISTRATION IS MORE THAN AN INFRINGEMENT

    The Second Amendment reads. "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The question may be asked, "Is registration of a particular gun truly such a burden that it can be called an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms?"

    To begin with, if we were speaking of registering religious items or communications devices, none but socialists would dare ask such a question. Yet the Second Amendment directly follows the amendment concerned with the free exercise of religion and freedom of the press. The Second Amendment holds a place of priority in the Bill of Rights, which is primarily a list of inalienable personal rights.

    But to answer the above question - Yes. Registration is absolutely an infringement, on at least three grounds. In fact, we will see that the rights versus privileges issue makes registration far more than a mere infringement.

    Information. Registration of a firearm gives the government information that can be used (and has been used, and is being used right now) to confiscate that firearm or to pinpoint its owner for weapon seizure, fining, incarceration, or execution. Having the government in possession of this information is directly contrary to the Second Amendment's intent to ensure that citizens always possess the means to overthrow the government should it become corrupt or tyrannical.

    Government control. Allowing the government to seize a citizen's firearm, or to suspend, revoke, or diminish a citizen's ability to defend life, family, property, and country for paperwork omissions or errors, for regulatory violations, for minor infractions of the law, for misdemeanors, or arguably for anything less than conviction for a major crime of violence is also directly contrary to the intent of the Second Amendment. This is because virtually all citizens have committed, or will commit, one or more of the listed non-violent errors listed above, whereas the entire point of the Second Amendment is to place this same citizenry's right to keep and bear arms (and therefore the right of self-defense) out of the government's grasp.

    Right versus privilege. Critically relevant to all our rights, is that any edict that attempts to convert a right into a state-granted privilege by imposing prior requirements - such as registration - before it may be exercised goes far beyond mere "infringement" of that right; it becomes an attempt at outright abrogation of the right.

    Therefore the state's demand to comply with the requirements of such an edict - no matter how physically easy compliance is - imposes not some mere inconvenience on the individual. It imposes the enormous moral, ethical, intellectual, and spiritual burden of denying the existence of the right.

    It does not matter if the state demands that one simply tap one's nose five times in succession in order to be able to keep and bear a particular gun. This would still be a state-mandated prior requirement. Compliance would indicate tacit denial of the validity of the Second Amendment, and denial of the right it protects. Compliance would encompass an implicit acceptance of the right as a mere privilege, which is directly contrary to both the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment.

    APPLYING THESE CONCEPTS TO CALIFORNIA'S EDICT

    The argument against registration of, and restrictions on, military-style firearms may be approached by two logical paths that reach the same conclusions:

    1. If the supreme law of the nation protects a personal right to keep and bear arms (which it does) then the failure to comply with a state mandate to fill out some registration form cannot revoke this, or any other, right. If the right to keep and bear arms cannot be revoked (and it can not be), then the right to keep and bear militia arms, which are the very arms implicitly referred to in the Founders' writings and in the Second Amendment itself, cannot be revoked. If the right to keep and bear militia arms cannot be revoked (and it can not be) then we may own and use any military-pattern individually portable firearm, all of which are practical militia arms. If that is the case (and it is), then any restrictive legislation based on militarily useful design elements of such firearms is flatly unconstitutional.

    2. If the supreme law of the nation protects the personal right to keep and bear arms (which it does), then the right to keep and bear militia arms, which are the very arms implicitly referred to in the Founders' writings and in the Second Amendment itself, certainly exists. If that is the case (and it is), then we may own and use any military-pattern individually portable firearm, because all are practical militia arms. If that is the case (and it is), any restrictive legislation based on the militarily useful design elements of such firearms is flatly unconstitutional. If that is the case (and it is), then the failure to comply with a state mandate to fill out some registration form cannot revoke this right.

    Again, the same situation prevails with all the personal rights in the Bill of Rights. That is, no state mandate requiring registration - either of oneself or of things directly associated with a right - can be a prerequisite or condition of exercising a right, nor can it affect that right in any way. If it does, then the right has been unconstitutionally declared a state-controlled privilege.

    SUMMARY

    As we see from the above, no American can be legally compelled to register any militarily useful individual arm. That includes pistols, revolvers, carbines, semi-autos, military-style guns, hunting guns, self-defense guns, pump guns, lever guns, bolt guns, black powder guns, scoped guns, .50 caliber guns, .338 caliber guns, .30 caliber guns, .223 caliber guns, etc. All have been used, or are being used, as individual military arms, and therefore are implicitly referred to by the Second Amendment's militia clause.

    Moreover, no American can be legally compelled to register any firearm of common design or function because the Second Amendment does not protect only guns that are useful in military affairs; it protects all guns. The militia reference is clearly meant as one important reason for protecting the right which follows: the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

    The Second Amendment says simply "arms", which imposes no quantity or design limits. It says "bear", which in its narrowest sense would still include all firearms capable of being carried and used by one person. Therefore, under the supreme law of the land, the right to own one or several of any type of individually portable firearm exists permanently, inherently, automatically, without prior approval or conditions.

    RELATED ISSUES

    1. Indiscriminate weapons-those whose effects are difficult to direct upon, or confine to, a discrete target (such as flamethrowers, fragmentation bombs, chemical and biological weapons, mortars) etc.-are arguably excludable from the full protection of the Second Amendment as posing an unreasonable danger to friend and foe alike.

    2. Individually portable machine guns are clearly allowed under the wording of the Second Amendment. However, under certain specific circumstances their employment might arguably be said to encroach into the area of indiscriminate weapons. Therefore, it is arguable that some extra care might be taken in the use of these firearms, but that any restrictions imposing an effective ban on their general ownership or general use would be unconstitutional. As this is a highly specific, highly debatable subject, it will not be, and need not be, delved into here.

    Aside from the debatable exceptions of 1. and 2. above, absolutely no individually portable firearm of common design or function may be determined to be an indiscriminate weapon under any circumstances, nor to pose an unreasonable danger. This is because a ban on such a firearm could "logically" be extended to all other firearms of similar design and function (exactly what is occurring with California's edicts now), which would completely vitiate the Second Amendment. Thus, the 1994 Federal "assault weapon" ban and magazine capacity limit are both completely unconstitutional.

    REGISTRATION-YOUR DECISION AFFECTS ALL RIGHTS

    If a military pattern firearm, the firearm most suited to the militia mentioned in the Second Amendment, is not protected by the clear wording of the Second Amendment, then there is no meaning to the Second Amendment.

    If there is no meaning to the Second Amendment, there is no reason to infer meaning in the rest of the Bill of Rights.

    If converting the Second Amendment into a privilege by means of a registration edict is not the maximum "infringement" of that right, then nothing is.

    If converting the Second Amendment into a privilege by means of an edict is possible, then it is possible to do so for any other right.

    Therefore, regarding the Second Amendment, refusing registration affirms the right to own a militia firearm. It affirms the right to keep and bear all personal arms. It affirms the validity of the rest of the Bill of Rights. It affirms that attempting to convert the Second Amendment into a privilege is the maximum infringement of that right. It rejects a state's power to convert any right into a privilege. And lastly it affirms the validity of the Constitution, and the rule of law, not men.

    DEMANDING OR COMPLYING WITH REGISTRATION IS BETRAYAL

    Article VI of the Constitution designates the Constitution as the supreme law of the United States, and specifically states that it prevails over all state constitutions and statutes. Further, Article VI requires all legislative, executive, and judicial officers of the U.S. government and of the state governments to take an oath to obey the Constitution. Some of these officials may hate firearms and the power they give to the citizenry, but that is irrelevant - they must treat the Second Amendment as they would the rest of our Bill of Rights.

    All state officials - judges, representatives, law enforcement officials - know these facts, but many are corrupt and ignore them. Their sworn word means nothing to them, nor does the Constitution, nor do the rights of the constituents for whom they work unless it suits their own political agenda. It is against this conscienceless species of human that decent Americans must continually fight, in California and in the rest of the United States.

    If you believe you have the right to keep and bear proper militia arms in order to defend yourself, your family, your home, and your country, and if you believe this right is recognized in the Bill of Rights, then you cannot register or turn in any firearm whatsoever. You may rationalize it any way you wish, but if you register a firearm you are implicitly agreeing with the proposition that your right to own that firearm is nonexistent, and that such ownership is dependent upon permission from the government. Registration equals betrayal of yourself, your family, your ancestors, your birthright, your country, and your Constitution. Period.

    A PERSONAL POSITION

    Every new illegal gun control edict issued, and every day that existing illegal gun control edicts continue to be enforced, brings inexorably closer the time when firearms owners will train their guns on the politicians, judges, and other officials who have misled the rest of the public into giving up their sacred and ancient rights. A desire to avoid this terrible tragedy motivates my own actions regarding the Second Amendment and the rights it protects.

    For nearly twenty years I have legally owned a militia rifle possessing the characteristics of the socialists' so-called "assault weapon". Now my right to own this arm, a right that has existed far longer than the two centuries-plus that this nation has existed, is suddenly being challenged by corrupt politicians. But I vehemently reject any infringement of my rights. I will never register this or any other firearm. Nor will I ever turn it in, nor will I ever alter any characteristic or attachment to it.

    I will never again concern myself with legislation about pistol grips, bayonet lugs, high-capacity magazines, flash suppressors, threaded barrels, folding stocks, pre- or post-ban manufacture, or any other irrelevant detail of my firearms.

    I will certainly not do as the NRA Members Councils suggest on their internet site, which is to saw off the pistol grip of one's AR-style rifle to make it "legal". Understand this: in America it is already legal. I sometimes wonder whether the socialists will issue an edict requiring all firearms to have a pink ribbon tied to the barrel, just to get a belly laugh as the panicked descendants of once-proud American patriots scurry to comply.

    California's current governor, attorney general, and legislators who voted for these edicts can undoubtedly find thugs as corrupt and anti-American as themselves to send to my home. I vow not to physically interfere with their illegal activities, because I wish to see this matter in court. I hope that other men and women will join me in this public declaration of civil disobedience, because it would be best to have ten thousand civil disobedience cases in court, not just mine. But I understand why, in this day and age of brutal, ethics-free "public servants", citizens are reluctant to make themselves a target of the state. Fortunately, the citizens of California and other states demanding registration can strike a powerful blow for humanity simply by refusing to comply.

    SEIZE THIS OPPORTUNITY

    To those of you who whine, complain, and talk, talk, talk about your loss of freedom - I say now is the time to do something. There are few times in an average man's life when the occasion presents itself to take part in history. Here and now is such a time. This refusal to submit to tyranny is not simply about firearms. It is about human rights, it is about the rule of law, and it is about the continuance of this great nation. To what better use will you ever put you life than to stand up for these things? Will you look back on this moment and say, "I wish I had done something", or will you step forward and seize this chance?

    With the government having grown so powerful and corrupt, defying it is frightening. It is especially frightening because many Americans seem fairly content right now. But the feelings of the apathetic mass are irrelevant. They have never figured in history, and never will. The apathetic mass will go along with whatever system exists. It is the freedom-loving individual who, although part of a much smaller group, has guided every free nation toward the light.

    Freedom is not maintained without taking risks and making sacrifices, without fighting for it. This has always been true, throughout history. If you are afraid to take a stand against this tyrannical government, if you excuse yourself by saying you must "take care of my family first", I say thank God there were men in the past who understood the priority of freedom.

    Look at your children. Is it more important that they have an uninterrupted flow of plastic toys and the soft luxuries of modern American life, or that they grow up as free men and women, with all inherent rights and responsibilities? I say any man who does nothing while even a single basic freedom he has enjoyed is stripped from his offspring - a freedom secured by the blood of others - deserves no offspring.

    As I said, I will turn in no firearms, ever. I will register no firearms, ever. My right to own and use firearms predates the Constitution. It existed before the corrupt socialists in Washington and Sacramento came to office, and it will exist forever afterward. The Second Amendment simply recognizes this right. I do not know where my civil disobedience will lead, but I am certain where the slavishness and cowardice of compliance will lead. I refuse to take part in this foul business of registration. I hope that you refuse also. If we stand together we will set fires of freedom burning across America.

    Mr. Puckett is a free-lance writer whose past work includes articles on U.S. foreign, domestic, and military policy for the Houston Post. His firearms and Second Amendment articles have appeared in the magazines Handguns, Combat Handguns, Guns and Ammo, SWAT, Police, and numerous other publications. He is the author of the essay "A Plan to Restore the Second Amendment", appearing in an upcoming issue of Handguns Magazine. He is a co-founder of the gun rights resource organization GunTruths (http://www.guntruths.com) and the gun rights media action organization Citizens Of America (http://www.citizensofamerica.org). Mr. Puckett believes that much of the annual slaughter of Americans by criminals can be blamed directly on those who advocate gun control, and that any politician who advocates gun control neither trusts his constituents nor cares about their lives or property. The above statement/essay is an expression of his opinions alone. He may be contacted regarding this article at [email protected] . Put the word RESISTER in the subject line. You can read more of Mr. Puckett's work at http://www.guntruths.com/Puckett/brian_puckett.htm






    There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?


    Traveling from the west, unto the east. Insearch of that which was lost, but with my endavors, and his assistance, I am hopeful, of finding.
  • Wagon WheelWagon Wheel Member Posts: 633 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Patriot Act abuse and Civil disobediance:

    Next Stop: Big Brother;

    She knew she had the right to refuse to show ID! ACLU jumped all over this. (I'm still waiting for them to come to Schiff's defence.)

    http://www.papersplease.org/davis/index.html


    Proud to be an American!
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    When Mohatma Gandhi was at odds with oppressive British gov't, he prescribed civil disobedience over armed revolution. In his judgment, the people were not pushed against the wall, yet, because if they were, Gandhi would have known to switch gears to fight mode.

    Our Forefathers did the same thing. Shays' Rebellion, Boston Tea Party, defiance of local gun kontrol edikts... they knew when the time was right....

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.

    "Mirror Mirror on the wall. Who's the ugliest one of all?"

    -Janet Reno, the Butcher of Waco.
Sign In or Register to comment.