Questions and Answers IV

[Parts I, II and III]

Mr. Licht continues:

I acknowledge that I am a paranoid nut case and I do not trust the state (particularly the current GENERATION of self serving one world "alleged representatives" selling out our children in every way at every opportunity)

I cling to these beliefs being aware that forty states have passed Shall Carry laws and being fully informed about the "castle doctrine" laws. But isn't it possible that "Shall Carry", i.e. "Shall Register" may just be a ruse to determine where all the guns are and that with the stroke of a pen they could use those lists as the basis for confiscation? Again, I know I am an unreasonable "nut case" but if anything is possible and history repeats itself....repeatedly.......?

Someone once said just because you're paranoid doesn't mean "they" aren't out to get you, and in the case of gun owners, it's obvious there are those who would like to see us eliminated.

I don't think permit lists are needed to ID gun owners, what with Form 4473s kept by dealers and the "supposedly" purged instant background check files, but I don't doubt they could be used as a supplement.

To me, the danger of permitting--and the reason I refuse to even apply for one (even though I couldn't get one in LA County if my life depended on it), is that it establishes the legal and social expectation that government permission to keep and bear arms is a legitimate concept for which there is (here comes that term again) a "compelling state interest."

I know some view it as incremental progress that will prep society to the concept of armed citizens. I view it as a prior restraint and an illegitimate erosion of "shall not be infringed." Rights are not permitted. License is not liberty. And I've taken no small amount of flack for this position, which is definitely in the minority, even among Second Amendment advocates.

Mr. Licht again:

Instead of keeping high paid lobbyists going (a la Wayne La Pierre) would it be more prudent to tell our children that confiscation is inevitable, do not cooperate? Wouldn't it be more effective to rally those that would fund these (arguably) gun control organizations (like the NRA) that are raking in millions compromising away our gun rights routinely and incrementally - particularly by pretending we have to ask permission instead of saying "storm the capitals" and "Shall not be infringed" has it’s plain meaning?

I don't believe wholesale (as opposed to localized) confiscation is inevitable, although I can envision scenarios where it would be tried. I think that entirely depends on whether or not we who believe in the Second Amendment are successful at informing/educating a critical mass of fellow citizens to the point where to do so would become so intrusive and widespread that it would outrage more than just a few hard core gun activists. Because, face it--right now a 3:00 AM raid netting an "arsenal" and a "militia extremist" and "thousands of rounds of ammunition" is greeted with a sigh of relief from most of our neighbors and countrymen.

On the next point, I've never been shy about taking on NRA management when I believed it needed to be done--from Project Exile to "gun-free schools" to setting up members for gun registration to--just today--yet another story on undeserved grades for politicians, and more. I do have some ideas for reform, but admit that whether that's even possible is a debatable premise.

But rallying those who fund NRA to an alternative effort means we're gonna need a rallying point--and I just don't see how to get that message out to millions of gun owners without a professional organization "raking in millions."

I'll have more to say on potential NRA reforms, as well as why I believe they are symptomatic of detachment and abdication of personal responsibility--which is the main reason we're in the fix we're in on all fronts, and why "storming the capitals" is hardly an option at the present time.

But look at how long this is already. We still have more of Mr. Licht's initial letter to address over the coming week before it's time to start tying everything together...

New Rules

Dave Licht sent me an email and agreed I could share it.

Hi David -

I hope you are well.

Are you aware of a new rule that requires ALL guns being shipped into california to be individually pre authorized by the state? Apparently dealers (starting May?) have to call the doj and get a number before each gun is shipped into the state.

Can you say "no more gunbroker.com transactions in california"? Can you say "no more buying guns out of state and avoiding the california sales taxes"? Can you see the end of private transactions in california?

I just sold a pistol (via private party transfer) in kalifornia and dealing with the ffl / gun store was a complete insult. The dealer (that was required to officiate the sale) took an hour to complete the transaction (despite my arriving with the completed paperwork) and the idiot told me if I did not like it not to come back! (Buy my stuff but don't bother me to make just $25 doing your transaction)

When I go to gun stores I see mostly (seemingly unemployed) lookers taking up the counter space and bar stools for hours at a time and buying nothing. I find it hard to believe gun stores can afford to insult anybody let alone people that may buy something......anything.

This is the gun business in kalifornia - take it or leave it, pay more for it, grovel to do it and be thankful for getting it. The state may be F**K'D up and need changing but when the gun dealers become willing, obedient unapologetic stooges for the state they don't deserve the business. This state lap dog mentality may be acceptable to people who buy one gun every 5 years or so but not to people buying 6 a month. The gun business should leave california and private gun buyers and sellers should say enough is way to much and defy the laws en mass.

I am just ranting but a gun collector can not compete living in kalifornia with collectors living in other states and gun dealers are becoming unworthy of the business.

Thanks

Dave Licht

Californians Need Not Apply

Dave Licht has written a protest letter to Caspian Arms, which requires gun dealers to complete an affidavit attesting:

Pursuant to California’s 2001 DANGEROUS WEAPONS CONTROL ACT, section12125, paragraph a, I hereby declare that the Caspian Arms pistol receiver(s) I am purchasing will not be sold in California, will not be kept for sale in California, will not be exposed for sale in California or given as a gift or loan within the state of California.

They have another affidavit for "Only One" exceptions:

Pursuant to California’s 2001 DANGEROUS WEAPONS CONTROL ACT, Chapter 1.3 Unsafe Handguns, section 12125, subdivision 4, I hereby declare that the Caspian Arms pistol receiver(s) I am purchasing are to be legally transferred to sworn member of Law Enforcement or the Military as described in subdivision 4.

The company, of course, can point to California law necessitating these actions. Mr. Licht points to the industry example set by Ronnie Barrett.

Why do they do it? Probably because the business helps keep them in business.

How many others do the same? I don't know. I'm relying on knowledgeable WoG visitors to educate us all.

What should you do about it?

Contact them if you want them to know your views, and/or if you're interested in what they have to say.

Questions and Answers VI

[Parts I, II, III, IV and V]

This is the last post directly responsive to Mr. Licht's questions, observations and challenges. But it will by no means be the end of this discussion, which I intend to begin addressing next week, with further explorations into what hasn't worked, what has, and what may.

When he originally wrote to me, I knew that to give him thoughtful responses would take much more time than I could spare in a one-on-one, and if I was going to put the time into a reply that was worth the effort, it needed to be done in this open forum. I've actually been meaning to address the questions he raised for a while now, so Mr. Licht's timely email provided both a catalyst and a framework to begin that effort.

Here's the balance of his initial query:

I know you are a fan of "the prisoner". We ARE living in the village. More so all the time and on an accelerating path. But you and I, and a few pockets here and there are "not prisoners, we are free men! Or by our actions, are we?

What do you think?

I am asking your personal opinion for my own interest and direction and I will NOT republish your response.

He touched on an affectation of mine, but an inspiration, nonetheless. If you're unfamiliar with "The Prisoner," it was a TV series from the 60's about a secret agent who quit in anger from his agency. He is kidnapped and awakens in a fantastic locale known as "the Village," a gilded cage where his captors are constantly subjecting him to surveillance and subterfuge in a quest for "information."

The thing is, he doesn't know "whose side" his inquisitors are on--are they the foreign enemy, pumping him for state secrets, or is it his own government, that is, his domestic enemy, trying to determine what he knows and what he may have disclosed?

As in star Patrick McGoohan's previous series, "Secret Agent," they've given him a number and taken away his name, referring to the captive protagonist as "Number Six."

But the thing about Number Six, and what confounds his tormenters, is no matter what they throw at him, he never gives up. Each episode, he defies and rebels and attempts to escape, always seeking creative ways out of his trap, relying on himself, his intellect, his resourcefulness and daring to reclaim his liberty.

And each episode he is thwarted, betrayed, recaptured. But he never allows himself to be broken. When one idea fails him, he comes up with another, commits himself to it, and gives it his all. For the sake of his freedom.

That strikes me as a pretty fine ideal to strive for.

There is a way out of the box. Stick around and we can try to find it.

In the coming weeks we can look at lawsuits and gun groups and militias. We'll look at politics and education. We'll confront apathy and lack of resources and critical mass.

Just as I tied the responses together under "Questions and Answers," I'll come up with a unifying title for the next leg of the series--perhaps "Escaping the Village."

And as they say there on parting, "Be seeing you."

Questions and Answers III

Before proceeding, it would probably be a good idea to read Part I and Part II if you haven't already.

Mr. Licht continues:

I am asking sincerely as a newly minted (though not born yesterday) attorney that wants to make the second amendment (and the constitution) the law of the land for my children (and yours). Everywhere I look I don’t see it as a practical reality. As much as I want to believe in the second, it seems like a mass delusion (or worse) a cynical use of the concept for pure fund raising hype with no expectation (by the professional promoters) that there is any argument to win.

We should all be familiar with the letter John Ashcroft wrote to the NRA proclaiming "[L]et me state unequivocally my view that the text and the original intent of the Second Amendment clearly protect the right of individuals to keep and bear firearms."

That was bold language for a sitting attorney general. It filled the "pro-gun" community with hope. It evidently aligned their interests with those of the Republican party, especially when the treasonous record of Democrats in general on the Second Amendment is considered.

Often overlooked is the footnote Ashcroft added, a seemingly innocuous "*Your actual mileage may vary" kind of statement that, on the surface, would not create too much concern with conservative "law and order" gun-owning voters:

Of course, the individual rights view of the Second Amendment does not prohibit Congress from enacting laws restricting firearms ownership for compelling state interests, such as prohibiting firearms ownership by convicted felons, just as the First Amendment does not prohibit shouting “fire” in a crowded movie theater. As Samuel Adams explained at the Massachusetts ratifying convention, the proposed Constitution should”never [be] construed . . .to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”

With all due respect to Mr. Ashcroft, he's describing a prior restraint on the Second Amendment and a response to an act for his First Amendment example. So he's talking apples and oranges, but most people never noticed. Besides--you can yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

What this does is justify the feds being in the "gun crime" business, even though there is no enumerated Constitutional authority delegated to them in this area by We the People. Further, it reflects a belief that the unambiguous "shall not be infringed" from the Bill of Rights is trumped by the open-ended and amorphous standard of "compelling state interest," a term found nowhere in the Constitution, and which can be twisted and contorted as much as, say, the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Republican Kool-Aid vendor Hugh Hewitt--a man with an awesome understanding of Constitutional law as practiced by "the establishment"--practically admitted as much when blogger Publicola called in to his program. "Intermediate scrutiny," Hewitt pronounced, is the best gun owners can hope for on the Second Amendment.

From a political "pragmatism" perspective, and as much as this may infuriate us, he's probably right. If we rely on "the system," with the current state of gun owner awareness, involvement and commitment, we'll be left with the Second (Class) Amendment from the Bill of Rights (Lite).

This means practically every "gun control" edict will find justification for being upheld. What judge won't find a "compelling state interest" to license gun owners, or register them, or subject citizens to the prior restraint of background checks, or permitting (and prohibiting!) the acceptable manner, places and conditions for bearing arms, concealed or otherwise. Certainly a "compelling state interest" can be found to keep "weapons of war off our streets," thus securing the National Firearms Act and FOPA '86, and blocking further inroads against GCA '68...

This is the door Ashcroft left open--one that would allow his boss and his successor to both proclaim support for renewing the "assault weapon" ban. But it was not his footnote that got the attention, was it? Gun owners almost had an orgy over the "sea change" in attitude-- without asking what in practice had really changed.

We tested Mr. Ashcroft's sincerity with a petition you may have seen circulating a few years back. Without going into a lot of detail, which you can catch up on here, we stated grievances of California gun owners who have had their rights unlawfully abridged, specifying the violations in detail. The theory was, had any other right been abused by local or state governments, such as the rights of minorities to vote, or to enjoy full lawful use of public accommodations, etc., the Justice Department would be quick to send a team down to enforce "the supreme law of the land" by which all subordinate political entities are supposedly bound.

Did we think this was really going to happen? We'd have been floored, but we thought it important to separate rhetoric from (lack of) deeds--if we were being sold a bill of goods, that is, Ashcroft mouthing support for 2A with no action offered or taken, we'd at least be able to point out that we were being played.

Over the course of the year the "Ashcroft Petition" was promoted, we managed to get over 30,000 gun owners to sign on from every state of the union. Understand we did this with no budget or donation requests, strictly as part time volunteers--and this was not an Internet petition, but one that required actual signatures. Over the course of the year we mailed several large boxes of signed petitions to the AG, along with cover letters summarizing our project and reminding him of our previous correspondences. The only acknowledgment we ever received was a non-responsive reply from the chief of the Terrorism and Violent Crime Section--a curious and chilling person to assign such a project to, we thought...

There's more to this story, of course, including professional representatives of the most prominent "gun lobby" group discouraging members from signing the petition because we who promoted it were "wild-eyed extremists." The bottom line is, we were small fries. Bush support for the AWB notwithstanding (hell it was touted as a clever ploy to appeal to "moderates"), gun owners danced to the Lee Atwater tune--who else were they gonna vote for?

While paying for the privilege?

"Fund raising hype" ? I guess a cynical person would start to have some questions...

You'll note I haven't come up with any solutions yet. I'm still working on defining the problem, and have the rest of Mr. Licht's email to address.

More to come...

Questions and Answers

I received the following email and got permission to share it:

Dear David,

I hope you are well.

First, I want to apologize for the length of this question / screed.

I re-upped my Guns mag subscription for the sole purpose of supporting your column.

I am 48, 4 kids 9- 22, married 24 years, self employed 30 years having built 4 notorious businesses still in operation today. A couple of post grad degrees and recently graduated from law school. I’ve interned for a senior partner at (one of) the top criminal / (constitutional) law firms in the country for the last year and a half.

I plan to take the kalifornia Bar exam and specialize in firearms and 4th amendment law defending "law abiding citizens" charged with gun possession and other "crimes".

I grew up in a hoplophope family. I was a gun fanatic since Roy Rogers, Bat Masterson, John Wayne, etc., etc., blah, blah, blah. I bought my first "legal" gun at Buchanans gun shop on College Avenue in Berkeley at 10:05 on my 18th birthday. I was standing at the door waiting for him to open. Gun Shop in Berkeley? (he’s been closed and gone for 25 years).

My kids all shoot and hunt. (Look for my 9 year old to be an Olympic contender)

This is a long way of saying that I am a forever believer in the second amendment and I want to believe in it. I want my children to grow up free. I frame EVERY argument in my life in terms of the freedom of my children and their future families. But now I have gone to Law school and I have worked in a top law firm (as an intern) and everywhere I turn the people with the experience in the trenches that I respect tell me that the second amendment is NEVER the argument.

I continually talk to experienced, smart, creative attorneys that I respect who tell me there is no second amendment. Yesterday I had a long talk with the partner I work for and he told me to "forget the second amendment, it was poorly written, it’s been completely de-balled. U.S. gun laws are entirely statute driven and it has been increasingly thus since "U.S. v Miller" in 1938. He said with the exception of "U.S. v Lopez" there are no meaningful constitutional arguments for inalienable gun rights. The courts have routinely upheld restrictions on possession and ownership particularly local ordinances.

I should throw in that these are seriously constitution believing, gun owning, gun in the top desk drawer attorneys with years of experience, not the bRADY BUNCH.

This is a very long way of asking YOU, in your opinion, is there any point any more in the second amendment or is it just a fund raising dog and pony show? Has the second amendment been rendered entirely symbolic? What basis do YOU see for ever demanding rights under the second amendment? (And yes I am watching "Parker")

I am asking sincerely as a newly minted (though not born yesterday) attorney that wants to make the second amendment (and the constitution) the law of the land for my children (and yours). Everywhere I look I don’t see it as a practical reality. As much as I want to believe in the second, it seems like a mass delusion (or worse) a cynical use of the concept for pure fund raising hype with no expectation (by the professional promoters) that there is any argument to win.

I acknowledge that I am a paranoid nut case and I do not trust the state (particularly the current GENERATION of self serving one world "alleged representatives" selling out our children in every way at every opportunity)

I cling to these beliefs being aware that forty states have passed Shall Carry laws and being fully informed about the "castle doctrine" laws. But isn’t it possible that "Shall Carry", i.e. "Shall Register" may just be a ruse to determine where all the guns are and that with the stroke of a pen they could use those lists as the basis for confiscation? Again, I know I am an unreasonable "nut case" but if anything is possible and history repeats itself....repeatedly.......?

Instead of keeping high paid lobbyists going (al la Wayne La Pierre) would it be more prudent to tell our children that confiscation is inevitable, do not cooperate? Wouldn’t it be more effective to rally those that would fund these (arguably) gun control organizations (like the NRA) that are raking in millions compromising away our gun rights routinely and incrementally - particularly by pretending we have to ask permission instead of saying "storm the capitals" and "Shall not be infringed" has it’s plain meaning?

Wouldn’t it be more meaningful for us to promote the compact made with US by the Founders when they pledged "Our lives our fortunes and our sacred honor" that your children and mine would live free? With regular pitchfork parties at the "government houses". Are U.S. Citizens sooooo gutless that they will not stand up to a government that works for them? Are we a nation of girls? (Rhetorical questions, I know). Maybe we should be shaming the masses instead of hyping them on the second. What is your view? (Is it time to contemplate the need or the inevitability of having to "water the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots")?

Isn’t it long past time for civil disobedience and non cooperation? Isn’t it time to teach your (our / all) children that confiscation is inevitable. It’s a deliberate plot against the populace. That citizens should never cooperate, register or report? Shouldn’t second amendment focused organizations and publications start promoting non registration, parents buying for their children so the children are never "on record", acknowledging that the government has already so far overstepped their authority that they can not be trusted and to act defensively for the future safety of our children and our country? i.e. REALITY.

If the minders won’t mind the borders at the minimum when in excess of 70% of the population is demanding to close the borders - why should any thinking person believe the government, bent on one worldism will ever protect the constitution or the citizens god given inalienable rights to anything?????

Shouldn’t we be screaming that totalitarianism is coming at light speed? Instead of this constant fund raising subterfuge that the second amendment will someday form the basis of a winning lawsuit that will set the U.S. back on a constitutional course and abolish all gun laws, blah, blah, blah, blah, promote the myth? Isn’t this just delusion and masturbation and mental disorder????

If we keep up all this sound and fury promoting an argument that can never move the reality forward and we are just flailing about chanting a mantra that is effectively a political divide and conquer and slight of hand strategy to dilute and pacify / pussify the electorate.........Aren’t we mentally ill? Or DUMB????

Are we passing the point of no return where in the second amendment (and many of the others, 1st, 4th, 5th, etc..), no, the Constitution will be stolen from our children without a shot being fired by the absolute worthless, embarrassing, self serving, pandering, lowest common denominator dunderheaded "alleged representatives" from top to bottom, petite totalitarians and soccer moms and the lowest common denominator educational / indoctrination system "we" have built?

Have we be been completely screwed by the "greatest generation" who having won WWII, sat on their fat assess and voted entitlement and totalitarianism into this country and hope to party till the lights go out and save the bill for their grandchildren and die before they have to see the damage they have delivered their future generations?

I know you are a fan of "the prisoner". We ARE living in the village. More so all the time and on an accelerating path. But you and I, and a few pockets here and there are "not prisoners, we are free men! Or by our actions, are we?

What do you think?

I am asking your personal opinion for my own interest and direction and I will NOT republish your response.

No hurry. I appreciate and value your considered opinion.

Again, I apologize for the length of this "question".

Thank you for your time David.

Dave Licht

It will take time to do justice to Mr. Licht's thoughtful observations and questions, and I doubt I'll be able to do it all in one sitting (and get anything else done). I hope to be able to respond to some, possibly all of his points, over the course of this week.

In the mean time, if you think you have value to add to the discussion, well, that's why we have a "Comments" section...

We're the Only Ones Promising Enough

Please know that as a City, we are doing all we can to ensure that the community remains safe. [More]

Anybody reading a special relationship with a legal duty in all that...?

[Via Dave Licht]

Let's Review the Bidding

A hive insect queen intends to order owners of "in common use at the time" militia-suitable magazines to "Turn 'em all in, Mr. and Mrs. California." (Interesting, this Opposite Day egalitarian-against-power-sharing has got an exemption for "sworn" officers. I guess we're not supposed to pay attention to what they're swearing to.) [More]

Petition to the rescue!  Oh, and send money. Thing is, it will go to the same people who have made California tops in Brady ratings. The majority is supposed to be scared when they know their seats are only becoming more secure?

And the other thing is, the head of the group behind the petition is out there using his influence to stump for Grover Norquist, whose amnesty/pathway to citizenship actions will politically turn the rest of the country into one big "Golden State."

No?

If you think not, maybe you're the one who can produce that "credible data" none of the other apologists have been able to come up with so far.

[Via Dave Licht]

We're the Only Ones Healing and Self-Reflecting Enough

A South Carolina sheriff accused of punching a woman in the face at his home has said he is taking a leave of absence to heal and self-reflect. [More]

Yeah, nothing quite gets those calming alpha waves oscillating for me like remembering physically weaker people I've pummeled, and I'm just an amateur.

Funny -- the story doesn't say if his guns were confiscated.

[Via Dave Licht]

This Means You

"Six days from now, we can defeat the brutal white supremacist forces of anti-Semitism, anti-immigrant nativism, and racism," says the famed socialist. "We can hold accountable the cold-hearted monsters... [More]

And you know what we do with monsters. Let enough of them win and they'll change that to "vermin."

[Via Dave Licht]

And Let the Punishment Fit the Crime

Only a criminal would illegally carry a concealed firearm without a permit in any jurisdiction where that was illegal. [More]

Where have we seen that attitude before?

Yes, he would rather you were dead.

[Via Dave Licht]

The Worldwide Ceder in Sports

ESPN Forbids Discussion Of Chinese Politics When Discussing Daryl Morey's Tweet About Chinese Politics [More]

It doesn't surprise me.

They've got Tegridy!

[Via Dave Licht]

Meanwhile, Across the Pond in Piers Morgan Paradise

Two young teenagers were shot in broad daylight in London on Sunday, the day after another teen was fatally gunned down, police said, as the British capital grapples with a surge in violent crime. [More]

As noted before, we ain't seen nothin' yet.

[Via Dave Licht]

UPDATE: And another...

[Via Roger J]

Life Imitates Art

EXCLUSIVE: PRIVATE COMPANY OFFERING “CONTRACT AIR SUPPORT” USING MILITARY JET FIGHTERS LOCATED IN LAKELAND, FL WHERE LIVE AIR-TO-AIR MISSILE WAS JUST FOUND [More]

A private air force?  Hey, I used to read those comics (and more)...

There's a lot more to this story that meets the eye, including what must have been intentionally done and by whom to bypass controls on that missile.

[Via Dave Licht]

Mini-Mike

[More]

[Via Dave Licht]

Self-Entitled Little Hoggs

#MarchForOurLives Student Protesters Leave Their Trash for Someone Else to Clean Up [More]

I prefer #MarxForOurLives.  And yeah, someone has always cleaned up after them, so why should this be any different?

As for Hogg, talk about an aptronym.

[Via Dave Licht]

This We May Simply Call the No-Pointy Other End

The Dissident Frogman educates "authorized journalists" about "bullets" in an hysterical video.

[Via Dave Licht]

Surrendering to Extortion

Attorney General Eric Schneiderman was able to hammer out the provisions with 23 operators — who run more than 80% of gun shows in the state ... [More]

I'd say do business with the <20% who haven't caved, but the majority of gun owners are content to let the state rape them -- and not just in New York.

Think I'm being overly harsh with a group overwhelmingly populated by do-nothing bellyachers and out-and-out quislings undermining the efforts of a handful of valiant, serious activists?

"We" could have the right to keep and bear arms secured by lunch were that not true.

[Via Dave Licht]

We're the Only Ones Locking Down Enough

Police issued a lockdown of homes and cellphone usage in an Oakley neighborhood Saturday, in an apparent attempt to issue an arrest warrant on a suspect... [More]

Talk about Opposite Day "progressive" security of a free state! They can not only paralyze you, they can render you deaf, mute and blind.

[Via Dave Licht]

Meet the Press

 Sheriff Grady Judd Gets HEATED !! [Watch]

I want to know who the argumentative "reporter" is.

[Via Dave Licht]