skip to main |
skip to sidebar
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
No comments:
Post a Comment