I will save everybody the trouble of having to wait to call in on "Let's Talk Guns" on WS Radio to ask questions.OK, now my turn.
I have been fighting to save our Second Amendment rights since 1976. Gun Owners of California and Gun Owners of America are the oldest pro-gun political action committees in the country and have been fighting for over 33 years to protect our rights.
It would be nice if folks who have questions about what they read in the press would take the time to call the source if they have any questions. But I guess cracks and comments are protected by the First Amendment...
GOC believes that the Second Amendment is inviolable. Law-abiding citizens shouldn't even have to go through background checks or waiting periods. These laws mean that the government is in essence granting a license to it's citizens to exercise a right if they can be proven to meet certain criteria and you and I know that depending on who is in power that criteria can change.
Our Founding Fathers also gave us a system where we, as citizens could impact the laws that are passed if we don't like them. That is what we do. We do not advocate breaking the law but instead work to change the laws that are unconstitutional.
If anybody has an issue with any of the political actions that we have taken in the past 33+ years feel free to let me know.
For any other specific questions please feel free to contact me at samp@gunownersca.com . I would be happy to respond.
By the way, if anybody is interested you can go to either GOA's website http://www.gunowners.org/ or our website to read the Amicus Curiae we wrote regarding the Heller vs. DC case that is before the US Supreme Court.
If the court declares the Second Amendment an individual right in any way, we will change much of our focus to fighting all of the gun control laws on the books in court.
Thank you for allowing me to respond.
With all due respect, your past legislative activities or your support for Heller are not at issue here. I focused on one very narrow objection to a quotation attributed to you. The statement I called into question was:
Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California, said he hopes the technology puts an end to a nettlesome problem. Too often, he said, people unaware that past convictions barred them from owning guns would buy one and not be stopped, then face state enforcement. Paredes said the group has "no real objection" to the system.Pretty much the way most blogs work, we take newspaper articles or such and comment on relevant opinions. GOC posts links to many news articles on your site--do you vet every one to make sure no one has been misquoted? And why would you expect private inquiries when you make public comments? I don't for what I say.
"The law has to be obeyed," he said. "If you don't like the law, you work to change it."
Your public comments affect more than you, and as such, deserve a public airing, as opposed to private emails most will never be privy to.
Were you misquoted? You didn't say so. If you were, have you written a letter to the Tri-Valley Herald demanding a retraction and correction?
Your rebuttal comment here indicates you meant every word of it. Which means, and I don't want to put words in your mouth, so feel free to correct me--if California bans guns, your position will be to encourage your members to turn them in and work on changing the majority demographics.
That's a contradiction from your stated belief that "GOC believes that the Second Amendment is inviolable." You just showed us that it is, and that your position is to proclaim your submission to the violation.
Chest-thumping about how pro-gun you are aside, that to me is not leadership. That's surrender. And I just can't motivate myself to follow a self-proclaimed leader into defeat.
So no, I don't think your reply to my post should end the discussion, either here or on your radio show. I think that discussion ought to be just getting started.
Now I understand as a lobbying group, you can't be out there preaching civil disobedience, and I wouldn't expect you to jeopardize your access to the legislature. What gets me is, you went out of your way to affirm mandatory obedience when it wasn't necessary to do so.
That's what I took exception to, and still do. Your only message when you get a microphone in front of you ought to be against gun control and for freedom.
Instead you call for obedience and then tell me you're a leader. Man, I sure am glad Rosa Parks waited around for lobbyists to change things, aren't you?
So how about before we get any deeper we get a simple "yes" or "no": Did the newspaper article misquote you? Should we ask the reporter and post his reply?
And finally, Sam, yes, "cracks and comments are protected by the First Amendment."
Those of us fighting on a different front aren't so off-handedly dismissive of that.
You have total freedom to say whatever you want here to demonstrate why I am wrong.
13 comments:
David:
I appreciate your candor and criticism. And most of all I appreciate the passion with which you have been an outspoken defender of the Second Amendment.
I believe it is good to have sincere folks who feel free to keep a check on those of us who lead organizations to make sure that our message is faithful to the Second Amendment.
Let's discuss the situation here in California and if you think that my position is incorrect I am very willing to consider changing that position.
Presently, it is illegal for persons who have felony and certain criminal misdemeanors on their record from owning a firearm. (Some folks never realized that their misdemeanor conviction was a disqualifier and, BTW, there is a process where many of these folks could get their rights restored and their records cleaned.) Some of these folks have purchased firearms with the tacit approval of the Department of Justice because their background checks came back clear. The DOJ did not find the criminal records because the record keeping system was incapable of coordinating all of the separate systems used be the state government. We're talking criminal records and nothing else like medical records, etc. That put these folks with prior records in more jeopardy because they were prohibited people who now purchased guns. Even though we passed a law in CA that allows anybody to go through the background check process with no prejudice just to see if their record is clear according to CA DOJ, the system was not comprehensive.
Now that DOJ has upgraded the system in CA they have found that they have allowed thousands of people with prior felonies and criminal misdemeanors to purchase guns.
These are the people that are having to deal with the DOJ. The system is now upgraded so that DOJ will catch these prohibited folks before they buy guns instead of after they have committed another crime buy buying a gun.
From my perspective, the ideal process that is faithful to the Second Amendment would be for people to be able to buy any firearm they want, from anybody, anywhere and force the government to figure out how to go after prohibited people after they have acquired guns. In this way, the government wouldn't be granting law-abiding citizens what is in essence a license to exercise a right but still go after folks who break the law. The responsibility would not be placed on the citizen to prove he is law-abiding but for the government to prove that he is not. In our system, we are innocent until proven guilty, and no one is guilty until after they have committed a crime and have been judged by trial and jury.
Although I have great skepticism with the DOJ in CA, I have not heard of a single case where they have called on a law-abiding citizen with a clean record.
(Please forgive all of the typos in the prior submission. Too much coffee I guess...Thank God for Spell Checker.)
Sam Paredes
Am I seeing this picture incorrectly? I am open to hearing yours and anybody else’s perspective on this. I am also very willing to modify my approach if I am convinced that somehow I am not being true to the Second Amendment.
I look forward to your comments.
(corrected submission)
Hey Sam,
That's quite a ramble you posted.
You still haven't answered the simple question we seek clarification on....
Were you misquoted, or not, sir?
I was not misquoted!
"people to be able to buy any firearm they want, from anybody, anywhere and force the government to figure out how to go after prohibited people"
Non sequitur, there are no prohibited people if they can buy anything, anytime. Is is amazing how few people understand the simple phrase, "shall not be infringed".
He was not misquoted. Well, you can't get much clearer than that. Such a shame.
"We do not advocate breaking the law but instead work to change the laws that are unconstitutional."
"The law has to be obeyed," he said. "If you don't like the law, you work to change it."
There is a serious problem here: An act of the legislature that is "unconstitutional" is not a law. It imposes no obligation and grants no privilege. That is not to say that violating it is not hazardous: it is. However, while you probably should not tell people to ignore it, you should most definitely quit explicitly telling people to obey it.
My advise: tell people it is a violation of the constitution and leave it at that while you work to get "official" recognition of that status. Let people make up their own minds about the degree of respect they are willing to give unconstitutional "laws". (For me that would be zero, although I may not be particularly blatant about it in any particular case.)
Sam, thanks for clarifying that for us. Not misquoted...
It's no wonder your State is in such a quandry, sir.
I'm glad you aren't my representative here on the right coast!
I would still point out Sam that everything done in the Holocaust wss legal. It not only was approved by the law but required by it.
Would you hold that those laws were rightfully obeyed and should have been?
"The law has to be obeyed. If you don't like the law, you work to change it."
That's the only reason I blogged on this.
It all comes back to the mandatory obedience assertion, and I hope the reaction here will give you pause to consider the next time you have an opportunity to speak to the media.
Those with access to the media have a louder voice than everyone else. That means when you speak, we are affected.
Other points have been raised, but like I said, that's not why I brought this up, so I don't want to get into a tangential debate--today.
For this one singular point, I think Bob R summed it up as well as can be said in his comment above, and I'll leave it at that.
[the wording] "...of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle...that a law repugnant to the constitution is void."
(Marbury vs. Madison, 1803)
Void - of no legal effect. (i.e., it is as if the so-called "law" does not even exist.)
It is a very simple algorithm:
First, we follow the constitution.
Second, we follow those laws that likewise follow the constitution.
All others paths may be ignored.
PICTURE
Gun-owners obeying gun-laws; police just following orders.
C.H.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
Post a Comment