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.
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
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:
â€œWhenever 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.â€
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