Open Letter to the Oregon House of Representatives: Planning on voting for "Universal Background Checks"? The NRA is the least of your personal worries. The Law of Unintended Consequences, Armed Civil Disobedience, and Lex Talionis.
NOTE: I would be indebted if readers will forward this to anyone they think might benefit from it, especially firearms rights activists in Oregon and blogs and websites read by them. -- Mike.
An Open Letter to the Oregon House of Representatives: Planning on voting for "Universal Background Checks"? The NRA is the least of your personal worries. The Law of Unintended Consequences, Armed Civil Disobedience, and Lex Talionis.
-----Original Message-----
From: georgemason1776@aol.com
To: Rep.JeffBarker@state.or.us; Rep.PhilBarnhart@state.or.us; Rep.GregBarreto@state.or.us; Rep.BrentBarton@state.or.us; Rep.CliffBentz@state.or.us>; Rep.DeborahBoone@state.or.us; Rep.PeterBuckley@state.or.us; Rep.KnuteBuehler@state.or.us; Rep.BrianClem@state.or.us; Rep.JohnDavis@state.or.us; Rep.MargaretDoherty@state.or.us; Rep.SalEsquivel@state.or.us; Rep.PaulEvans@state.or.us; Rep.ShemiaFagan@state.or.us; Rep.LewFrederick@state.or.us; Rep.JoeGallegos@state.or.us; Rep.VicGilliam@state.or.us; Rep.DavidGomberg@state.or.us; Rep.ChrisGorsek@state.or.us; Rep.MitchGreenlick@state.or.us; Rep.JodiHack@state.or.us; Rep.CedricHayden@state.or.us; Rep.DallasHeard@state.or.us; Rep.KenHelm@state.or.us; Rep.PaulHolvey@state.or.us; Rep.ValHoyle@state.or.us; Rep.JohnHuffman@state.or.us; Rep.MarkJohnson@state.or.us; Rep.BillKennemer@state.or.us; Rep.AlissaKenyGuyer@state.or.us; Rep.BettyKomp@state.or.us; Rep.TinaKotek@state.or.us; Rep.WayneKrieger@state.or.us; Rep.AnnLininger@state.or.us; Rep.JohnLively@state.or.us; Rep.CaddyMcKeown@state.or.us; Rep.SusanMclain@state.or.us; Rep.MikeMcLane@state.or.us; Rep.NancyNathanson@state.or.us; Rep.MikeNearman@state.or.us; Rep.RobNosse@state.or.us; Rep.AndyOlson@state.or.us; Rep.JulieParrish@state.or.us; Rep.CarlaPiluso@state.or.us; Rep.BillPost@state.or.us; Rep.DanRayfield@state.or.us; Rep.TobiasRead@state.or.us; Rep.JeffReardon@state.or.us; Rep.GregSmith@state.or.us; Rep.BarbaraSmithWarner@state.or.us; Rep.SherrieSprenger@state.or.us; Rep.DuaneStark@state.or.us; Rep.KathleenTaylor@state.or.us; Rep.JessicaVegaPederson@state.or.us; Rep.JimWeidner@state.or.us; Rep.GeneWhisnant@state.or.us; Rep.GailWhitsett@state.or.us; Rep.JenniferWilliamson@state.or.us; Rep.CarlWilson@state.or.us; Rep.BradWitt@state.or.us
Sent: Sat, May 2, 2015 9:23 am
Subject: Planning on voting for "Universal Background Checks"? The NRA is the least of your personal worries. The Law of Unintended Consequences, Armed Civil Disobedience, and Lex Talionis.
Dear Legislator,
In the interest of full disclosure, I am an unindicted criminal. For the past two years, my friends and I have been breaking the state firearm laws of Colorado, Connecticut, New York, Maryland and, most recently, the state of Washington, that were passed in the wake of Sandy Hook. In those states where standard capacity magazines were banned, we have smuggled in such forbidden items in defiance of those laws. We have hardly made a secret of it. We want the authorities to arrest us. To date, they have not dared. In Connecticut and New York, the non-compliance rates on the registration of firearms and magazines are estimated to be as much as 85% to 90%. In New York, county sheriffs have put the state police on notice that if they try to enforce the SAFE Act in their jurisdictions that THEY will be arrested, not their intended victims. The authorities of those states have made noises that they will enforce these unconstitutional laws. But again, to date THEY HAVE NOT DARED.
In Washington state, Michael Bloomberg bought himself a "universal background check" law much like the one you are about to pass. In response, two thousand of that state's uncompromising firearm owners gathered on the steps of the state capitol in Olympia -- armed to the teeth -- and defied Bloomberg's law despite threats that they would be arrested if they did. The rally, one of the largest pro-firearm rights demonstrations ever held in Washington, came off without a hitch and the "lawbreakers" were complimented by the state police afterward for the professional way that they conducted themselves. I know, I was there. Why did they not enforce Bloomberg's law? Because they did not dare. In June, a firearms expo will be held in Yakima by the group Liberty For All -- a background-check-free gun show -- testing further the resolve of the state authorities to enforce a plainly unenforceable law. Will they dare? We will find out, because WE WILL NOT COMPLY.
The lesson of the past two years is clear for anyone paying attention to see -- THERE IS NO UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW THAT CAN BE PASSED THAT CANNOT BE DEFIED, RESISTED, EVADED, SMUGGLED IN VIOLATION OF AND COMPLETELY NULLIFIED BY ARMED CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE.
And that includes the state of Oregon.
This is dangerous ground, truly dangerous ground. But it is not ground that we chose. All the law abiding firearm owners of this country wish is to be left alone. But collectivist control freaks like Michael Bloomberg will not leave us alone. Still, pass what laws they like, they cannot escape from the Law of Unintended Consequences. In Connecticut, the state legislators who voted for their Intolerable Act discovered that when I posted on my blog, Sipsey Street Irregulars,
a list of their names, home addresses, phone numbers and email addresses. I discovered something from their hysterical reaction -- people who like to put other people on lists (you know, like the bill you are considering on Monday) do not react well when they themselves get put on a list.
Which brings us to you, today. The NRA has sent out a
legislative alert. You will no doubt be contacted by many, many outraged citizens. Let me reassure you, this is the least of your personal worries. What you must remember is that we understand intimately, even if you choose to ignore it, that the velvet lies of your "good intentions" are wrapped around the iron fist of the threat of state violence against those who do not comply. Now this is true of any law you pass -- all are backed up by the threat of arrest and incarceration and, yes, death at the hands of the state police if anyone resists your good intentions and refuses the honor of arrest and incarceration. The thing is, we are not your average criminals. In fact, we are not criminals at all, no matter if the last election has placed you in the position of power to declare us so. However, if you make us criminals, we will be the very best, most successful criminals we can be. For we will not comply.
For there is a difference, as I have said in speeches in the past, between "the law" and the rule of law as codified by the Founders' Republic in the Constitution. Our natural, God-given and inalienable rights are not subject to negotiation, dilution, diminution or infringement, by you or anyone else. For us, it is the height of cruel irony that those of us who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law find ourselves required to become "lawbreakers" to remain in fidelity to that oath. Again, this is not ground we chose. Michael Bloomberg and his collectivist fellow travelers, domestic enemies of the Founders' Constitution, picked this ground. It is ground we have sworn to fight on, and if need be, die on. The question before you today is this: Is it ground that YOU are prepared to actually fight and die on? If we resist your 'good intentions," how many of us are you willing to see dead in order to enforce your will upon us? And once we and our families begin dying at the hands of the state police you send to our doors, can you blame us if your victims return the favor to the people who sent killers operating under color of law?
This is not ground we chose. It is deadly dangerous ground. By your votes on Monday, we will discover if it is ground that YOU choose for Oregon. But kindly remember the words of John Locke, who wrote them nearly a century before the Founders wrote the Constitution:
“Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience and are left to the common refuge, which God hath provided for all men, against force and violence.”
For there is another law, ancient and unyielding, available to the lowliest slave, and that is Lex Talionis -- an eye for an eye. And history shows that the distance between laws like the one you are considering passing on Monday and Lex Talionis is often unexpectedly short and frequently taken in mortal error. For as the ancient Chinese warned, "Be careful what you wish for, you may get it." Or, put differently, the rule of law protects you from us far more than it protects us from you and your tyrannical intentions.
Again I ask, how many of us are you willing to see dead to enforce your "benevolent" will upon us? Understand in advance, if you wish to enforce such a law, you will have to kill us. FOR WE WILL NOT COMPLY. We will greet it with the same tactic that we used to nullify every such law passed since Sandy Hook -- armed civil disobedience. And who do you suppose, after the bodies are all stacked up and the butcher's bill calculated, that history will judge to be guilty for passing such a dangerous, unenforceable "law" that is absolutely destructive of the constitutional rule of law? Us? Or the people who passed it?
Sincerely,
Mike Vanderboegh
PO Box 926
Pinson, AL 35126
14 comments:
Mr. Mike: As a 12+-year resident of the Peoples Democratic Socialist Republic of Oregon, I can pretty much tell you what will happen. They law will be ignored. The Red-Diaper-Doper-Babies in Salem can pass all of the laws they want. They key is enforcement.
Oregon State Police control the "backround checks" when a firearm is purchased from an FFL dealer. It is all automated and it still takes forever due to the volume of sales ever since Sandy Hook. If you go to the website of the Oregon Firearms federation, you will find that several Oregon sheriffs have told the legislature, in so many words, to pound sand. Oregon is broke due to the socialist policies of several years involving huge taxpayer-funded freebies and retirements to the tax-termite public employees. The Leviathan cannot enforce this to any great degree.
Briebart just published an article today on the several-thousand CA residents who legally cannot own firearms and are still walking around with them due to the incompetence and inertia of the perfumed princes and princesses in Sacramento.
This feel-good, Bloomberg-financed posturing by the collectivist in Salem will just lead to open defiance. And, OSP are no fools. They will not try to bell the cat. They want to live to spend all of their PERS freebies.
Still waiting for those "Constitutional Sheriffs" in NYS to interfere with the equally un-Constitutional Sullivan Laws...
I wonder how much revenue Colorado lost from MagPul leaving that state? I wonder how much revenue Oregon would lose if Leupold left that state? And how police would feel if Leupold opted to sell no scopes to them if they worked in Oregon?
-MM
Well said, Mike, and hopefully well received. Or at least received. Hard lessons and dire times between The People and their would-be masters seem closer to inevitable all the time, but I certainly appreciate your efforts to avoid them.
Mike, have you considered this yet? I would love to read your thoughts about it.
Years ago, members of the uniparty were feeling the heat of the pushback by those deciding to form their voting habits based on Individual Liberty, and when it looked like a libertarian style "party" was really starting to rise, they decided to infect it in order to delegitimize it. Make it a mockery. The Tea Party gatherings scared them - so they crafted Occupy in order to head "coming and STAYING". This facilitated the Republican Party coopting the Tea Party movement while the democrat party targeted the organization attempts via the IRS.
AND NOW, via the race card, they attempt to delegitimize the "we will not comply" attitude and organization with ferguson and its offspring morphed there in Baltimore.
What are your thoughts on this progression? Coincidence? Me just seeing something that's not really there? And on that note, your letter going to those addresses kinda struck me this way -
To every address listed it's like.....the person listed -dot- OR-dot-US. It really IS them OR US!!
America has once again reached US versus THEM....them being government lackeys of course.
Do you think what we are witnessing in Baltimore is a deliberate attempt to delegitimize resisting the JBT factor? An attempt to instill fear into people on the level that we must endure JBT or be subject to feral animals rioting and looting?
Just a request regarding the thoughts of a fella I find intriguing on matters of political propaganda. Many don't see it or want to see how deep it runs. Maybe you could add this angle to your agitation letters? Let them know we see right through that part of their game too.
Mike
III
Interesting piece on the use of a Fusion center (justified on the basis of finding terrorists) to track Baltimore protesters.
http://phasezero.gawker.com/inside-the-military-police-center-that-spies-on-baltimo-1700670585
Outstanding article, mike! Everyone needs to donate to this blog to keep things like this going. As a former comie, he understands how the psychology of forcing the state to be the bully and enforce laws against the common man - which is why they wisely back down and refuse rather than stir up the hornet's nest of the average people being woken up.
I think that it is worth keeping Article VI of the Constitution in mind here.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
There are two relevant points here. First, legislative acts which fundamentally contradict the Constitution ARE NOT LAW. The second point, which I have highlighted, is that any person who is NOT bound by their oath to the Constitution is categorically disqualified from serving in the State (or Federal) governments in any official capacity. The text does not say "parrot an Oath" or "feign an Oath" or "betray an Oath", but "be bound by Oath".
Anyone whose actions are not substantially constrained by adherence to their oath to the Constitution cannot legitimately exercise authority either to make, enforce, or adjudicate the laws. I think that this is a point which deserves some attention, because even if at some future point we are called upon to violate laws, at this point we are only ignoring the unconstitutional edicts of those who have no authority under the Constitution.
This is not a conflict between two equally valid but opposed assertions. The Constitutional limitations on government are completely valid, in accordance with the Declaration of Independence and the actual history of the Revolutionary War. The claim to exercise governing authority under the Constitution, while directly and unambiguously contradicting the Constitution and thus being ineligible to hold office, is completely invalid.
We must make clear, not that we are breaking the laws because they are intolerable, nor even that we breaking the laws because those making the laws broke them first, but that we are not breaking any laws because no authority exists to make any such laws.
Yes, we are willing to kill and die to defend the Constitution of the United State of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Yes, that may at some point involve violating some laws which are valid under the Constitution, having been passed by legislators who were bound by oath to the Constitution. Yes, we are willing to face the consequences of such acts. But no, we are not now engaged in breaking any laws, but only disregarding the lawless diktats of those who have no valid authority under the Constitution.
Lex Talionis: a subsidiary of 100 Heads Life and Casualty
Mike this is your next t shirt item...Lex Talionis with an AR at either end on a 45 degree angle.
Geez, AaronW, have a little patience, will ya?
They'll get to it as soon as they can, it's only been 104 years you know.
Hi Mike,
Again you hit the nail squarely on "The Head!!" The scope and bearing of your thought is clear and concise. The only "problem" is in the "mind of those Oregon Reps. to whom you direct it!!" Can they rationally read your words and understand them for the Truth that you speak?? Only time will tell. My thought is that they are so grounded in their Marxist beliefs that it will take one hell of a "Herr Docktor" to lead them to the light, "And," there is still the reality that,"They have to take that 'First' step!"
'Your Man in Louisiana,
Got Gunz??,
III%,
skybill-out
Thank You for speaking for all of us. We are the largest military in the world, because they can't take our guns. We are ready to fight and to die for our freedom and hopefully the stupid politicians will figure that out.
I live in Oregon and I know how the people feel here. If they want our guns, they need to give their guns away too.
I've said all along, and to this day keep reminding everyone who is waiting for neutered republicans and/or decisions from complicit courts, to reverse the unconstitutional laws passed in CT and NY. The one action that stopped talk of confiscation in CT, and prevented talk of confiscation from starting in NY - is the letter sent to CT state police and the list of home addresses for CT lawmakers who voted for the unconstitutional laws - and then the resulting very creepy "3%ers WE ARE EVERYWHERE" youtube video spreading the list!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6ICoHUFgkA
Progressive Socialist democrats ENJOY infringing rights of citizens who sit and wait to see what they will eventually be "allowed", and do nothing more than grumble about it! (Thus signalling that they will begrudgingly accept, and comply with, whatever fate is "dictated" upon them.)
3%ers - WE ARE EVERYWHERE!!!
Post a Comment