There’s complying, and then there’s complying

There’s complying, and then there’s complying

California gun owners are continuously placed in the precarious position to comply with the law or be sent to jail or prison if caught exercising their rights. Some will shout “MOLON LABE” or “I WILL NOT COMPLY” to these unconstitutional infringements of their rights, which is an understandable position to take, however make no mistake – the state has the power to imprison you, and you will stand alone when they take you away. Think Eric Parker, the man on the bridge.

Nobody will ride to your rescue or stand side by side with you in armed resistance if or when you’re arrested for your crimes against state dictates. Chances are it’ll be during a traffic stop or a domestic dispute, or a nosy neighbor or somebody ratting you out, or a house fire in which your contraband is discovered by authorities. It won’t be house by house doorkicking; it’ll be non-compliers getting picked off one at a time, and that fear will keep people in compliance.

There are those who admonish others for complying with the law, and again it’s understandable.

But there’s two kinds of compliance: complying with the government’s intent of the law, and complying by finding liberty in the law. Choosing the “finding liberty” option shouldn’t invite admonishment.

Take for example the latest California “assault weapons” ban that redefined what a “fixed magazine” meant in order to ban the sale, manufacture, importation, and transfer of fixed magazine rifles equipped with a “bullet button” that required a tool in order to release the 10 round magazine, and required firearms equipped with bullet buttons currently owned to be registered as “assault weapons”.

Complying with the government’s intent of the law would be to register your firearm as an assault weapon and comply with all the restrictions and regulations that go along with that including never being able to transfer it to anyone in the state, including your own children upon your death, meaning it would force your next of kin to relinquish it to the state or a licensed gun dealer with a Dangerous Weapons Permit, or sell it out of state. To this, the sentiment “DO NOT COMPLY” is 100% applicable.

And, as a general rule, do not tell the state you own something they’ve already banned but promised you could keep, because like +10 round magazines, they already made it their intent that they want to break that promise.

But then there’s complying by finding liberty in the law, or as statists call it a “loophole”. Read the literal words of the law and find out what it DOESN’T say you can’t or must do.

2017 is seeing the rise of the “featureless” revolution. Granted, this option has been around for awhile, but more people are opting for a fixed stock, no pistol grip, no forward pistol grip, no flash hider, and… no freaking grenade launcher…, and a standard magazine release rather than the other option in which your magazine is considered legally fixed if it requires you to disassemble the action to remove the magazine.

Both of these options are complying by finding liberty in the law and will keep you out of jail without giving up your rights or your property. Don’t admonish those who comply by finding liberty in the law; they should be celebrated. Reward those people and businesses who risk capital to help California gun owners keep their firearms unregistered. Shot Show was full of new and innovative ways for Californians to give the state government a collective finger.

It’s much easier to support the cause from outside a cell than inside with charges against you. If there’s a simple way to still get or keep what you want, do it and stay out of jail. Yes, it’s stupid, everyone agrees it’s stupid, but do it anyway.

And yes, there may not be ways to find liberty in all the new laws. If you choose to not comply at all, the sentiment is understandable.

Just remember, if you’re finally fed up and you run outside screaming “LIBERTY OR DEATH”, dual wielding, wearing a chest rig, and nobody else is… it’s not time yet, and you’re on your own.

I give you The Sacramento Bee

I give you The Sacramento Bee

It’s the little things in life that can give you the most pleasure. One of those things is watching your critics twist themselves into pretzels, stating things like, “words such as ‘tyrant’ are flung all-too casually around the internet” while their headline is literally “a gun-rights blogger’s tyranny“. Another is enjoying the irony of it all, especially coming from The Sacramento Bee.

While I’m ecstatic the decision went in my favor getting a preliminary injunction against the state for violating my First Amendment rights, there was a particular line in the decision that tickled me to no end.

The state argued that the Tyrant Registry would have been taken down by WordPress because it violated the Terms of Service, but provided no evidence that’s what happened. However, my team DID provide evidence that it was the state that initiated the take down.

The line, “Publius, somehow cognizant of the Office’s demand…” is what I’m referring to.

I would have never known the state threatened WordPress with legal action if they didn’t remove the Tyrant Registry, but a writer for The Sacramento Bee inadvertently tipped me off.

State lawyer wants legislators’ addresses removed from pro-gun blog

I asked WordPress for a copy of the take down letter, and so began the lawsuit against the state for violating my First Amendment rights.

In my best Hans Gruber imitation, “You ask for a miracle, I give you The Sacramento Bee.”

Thank you, Sacramento Bee. If it weren’t for you, none of this would have happened.

What ABC 7 should do with CCW info

What ABC 7 should do with CCW info

It’s come to my attention that ABC 7 News has obtained the names and cities of every concealed carry permit holder in Contra Costa County from the Sheriff’s Office, which the office is legally obligated to provide.

In a county of 1.13 million people, only 317 lucky individuals aren’t denied their fundamental right to self defense and preservation outside the home by County Sheriff David Livingston.

It would be interesting to see if these 317 lucky individuals are in any way connected to the Sheriff, which I hope would be the only reason ABC 7 News would request this information, or for some similar type of investigation. A Sheriff using his position of power to benefit his friends and supporters while denying a basic and fundamental right to every other citizen of Contra Costa County would be an outrage.

However, if the purpose of obtaining this information by ABC 7 News is to publicly release the names and full addresses (which isn’t hard to find out once you have a name and a city, believe me if anyone knows this it’s me) of concealed carry permit holders in Contra Costa County for whatever reason, the way The Journal News did to permit holders in 2012, that didn’t go over very well.

I sincerely hope ABC 7 News will be using this information for real investigative journalism against political corruption rather than as a tool to harass people lawfully exercising their 2A rights the way news team members of ABC 7 News lawfully exercise their 1A rights.

Victory for the Tyrant Registry!

Victory for the Tyrant Registry!

A statement regarding our victory in Doe Publius and Derek Hoskins v. California Legislative Counsel Diane Boyer-Vine:

First and foremost I’d like to thank Brandon Combs of Firearms Policy Coalition for not only fighting for our fundamental right to keep and bear arms, but for his unwavering desire to see liberty as a whole upheld by the Constitution, as it was intended. I’d also like to thank the Coalition and all its members, the lawyers at Benbrook Law Group, and of course Eugene Volokh for the gravitas he brought to this case.

This is not just a win for myself, but a win for freedom of speech and political protest, and most importantly a win for those Californians who have had their civil rights and liberties violated by our state legislators for simply wanting to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear arms. The court has sent a message that the State cannot threaten or force the removal of political speech aimed directly at the laws they force on the rest of us.

The purpose of the Tyrant Registry is clear: if legislators are going to confiscate our rights, liberty, and property without due process, if they’re going to then register us for trying to retain or exercise our rights, then we’re going to register them as tyrants with the people whose rights they’ve violated.

Much like the Sex Offender Registry, this common sense tyrant registration addresses a public safety hazard alerting the public of tyrants who have violated the civil rights and liberties of people in their communities, if these tyrants actually reside at their declared addresses within their districts, which many don’t (State Senator Kevin de Leon). Any journalist worth their salt may want to look into that.

Tyrants will not be insulated from the people they claim to represent but happily rule over. I’m looking forward to republishing and updating the Tyrant Registry, however for the sake of liberty I wish it never had to exist at all.

Impeach the black robed tyrants

Impeach the black robed tyrants

The unelected and historically unaccountable government appointed lawyers of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals declared that a type of firearm that has never been used in any war is a “weapon of war”, and that Second Amendment protections of the preexisting right to keep and bear arms does not extend to weapons of war, or apparently to weapons never used in any war.

Never mind that our Founders’ muskets were weapons of war, or percussion cap revolvers and repeating rifles were weapons of war, or our grandfathers’ M1 Garands and 1911s were weapons of war, or that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect the people’s right to keep and bear arms not just as a means of personal defense and preservation but as a final check and balance against government tyranny, the unelected and unaccountable government appointed lawyers of the 4th Circuit have declared that the people have no right to any arbitrarily defined “weapons of war” to resist government tyranny, nor do they define what exactly is the purpose then of the Second Amendment.

If it doesn’t make sense, it’s because it’s not supposed to.

The belief or idea that the judicial branch is politically neutral and independently reviews and interprets the constitutionality of laws is and has always been a fairy tale. Each side hopes to stack the court in their political favor, and in this case it’s the only power one side of the aisle has left.

They’ve lost the Presidency, the Senate, the House, over 1000 state and local seats, only hold 18 governorships with a mere 6 states having a majority in both state chambers and governorship; all they have left are the courts packed with unelected and unaccountable government appointed lawyers who can make up and interpret the law and the Constitution according to their personal policy preferences and political ideology. There’s a new term for this, it’s called “so-called judges”. We used to call them activist judges, legislating from the bench.

Paraphrasing and expanding upon Stalin’s “it doesn’t matter who votes, it’s who counts the votes that matters” – it doesn’t matter what the law or Constitution states, it’s who interprets what the law or Constitution states that matters.

This is the only muscle the political left can flex to institutionalize their agenda, whether their conduct, rulings, or opinions comply with the Constitution or not. They have no other power at this point, so we get rulings like this one out of the 4th Circuit.

They have violated their oath to support and defend the Constitution in favor of their personal political ideology and have used their power to violate the rights and liberties of the citizens of South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, and Maryland. While these unelected government appointed lawyers may feel safe and comfortable in their black robes at their bench, and while they may historically be unaccountable, the political tides are changing.

And to be blunt, they just told a few southern states that comprise of 31.2 million people what kinds of guns they have no right to own.

Judges serve at the consent of Congress, and that consent ought to be revoked. Each of these unelected government appointed lawyers should rightfully be impeached, and if the Senate doesn’t currently have the votes to ensure this happens, then it’ll make a great 2018 campaign platform. Out of the 25 Democrat Senators up for reelection, 18 come from states that Trump won.

It’s time to clean out the judiciary of “so-called judges” starting with the 4th Circuit and continuing through the 9th Circuit. The usurpation of our rights, and the seizing of power that belongs to Congress, the President, and the people, needs to come to an end.

In the meantime, the people will have to brace themselves for the fallout of this decision, and we can hope for impeachments, or hope Congress passes a Second Amendment Protection Act stating what we have a right to, or hope this case goes to the Supreme Court where it can be overturned.

Whatever the future holds, the people’s rights exist whether a majority of unelected and unaccountable government appointed lawyers say they do or not. Just as a restraining order is just a piece of paper, the Constitution is just a piece of parchment. But it’s how we defend it that matters.

Brown and Newsom are deadly wrong about gun violence

Brown and Newsom are deadly wrong about gun violence

What reduces gun violence? No matter what side of the issue you fall on pertaining to guns or crime, everyone wants the same thing – to reduce not just gun violence, but all violence. It’s the methods in which we disagree, and being wrong has deadly consequences.

On Monday, February 20th, a police officer in Whittier, CA was shot and killed during what he thought was a routine traffic accident. The person whom this officer was trying to help just murdered his cousin, stole a car, and smashed into someone else.

If you followed the 2016 election and listened to Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom discussing his support of Proposition 63 (which banned the possession of +10rd magazines and created a license and background check scheme for ammunition) he stated, “We have significantly reduced the gun murder rate because of our progressive gun policy. [California has seen a] 56 percent decline in the gun murder rate since we started to step up and step in and lead the nation in common sense gun safety laws, background checks, restricting large-capacity clips and the like.”

And he had to repeat this talking point every time he had an interview:

“Since 1993, we’ve seen a 56 percent decline in gun-related deaths in the state because of California’s progressive gun safety measures.”

So just to make it clear in case his repetition hasn’t done that yet, Gavin Newsom believes it’s gun control that prevents criminals from getting guns and murdering people.

Then there’s Governor Jerry Brown. Also in the 2016 election, he threw his support behind Proposition 57, which he stated, “focuses law enforcement on serious violent crime, stops wasting costly prison space on non-violent people who can be rehabilitated, and directs savings to programs with a proven track record of stopping the cycle of crime.”

This isn’t Governor Brown’s first time supporting a prop that releases so called “non-violent” offenders onto society; he also supported Prop 47 in 2014. He also signed into law AB 109 which released a lot of “low level” criminals.

And a police officer was just murdered by a known gang member who was released early from prison, using a gun and ammo he was barred from possessing. Because as we know, criminals don’t follow the law.

“So what are you saying, there should just be no laws? Make crime legal because they’re going to do it anyway?” No, that’s the kind of thing Brown, Newsom, and apparently over 60% of Californians supported and voted for when they approved Prop 47 and 57, and look what it’s gotten us. That murderer’s cousin and that police officer are dead and another officer is wounded, and if anyone else besides the murderer is to blame, it’s Brown, Newsom, and the people who voted for them and these propositions. They set this habitual victimizer free on society to murder these two people.

There is only one way to reduce or prevent violent crime, and that’s to make sure people with a predisposition toward victimizing others aren’t loose among a civilized society victimizing them.

Newsom claims the dramatic decrease in the murder rate since 1993 is due to California’s strict gun control measures, but in reality (where Newsom doesn’t live) it was the people voting for Prop 184 in 1994, the “Three Strikes” law, that kept habitual victimizers locked up and not out among us committing violent crimes that was responsible for the decrease in the murder rate.

It was Three Strikes that reduced the gun violence, not gun control laws.

Unfortunately for CA, by the weakening the Three Strikes law with Prop 36 in 2012, and the overall reducing of sentences and penalties with Prop 47 in 2014 and Prop 57 in 2016 and the subsequent release of habitual victimizers, we’re going to see violent crimes back on the rise because those who are disposed to committing violent crimes will be out walking among us in greater numbers.

California will not learn this lesson and will continue to focus on making good gun owners into criminals for not giving up their rights and liberties, while registered tyrants like State Senator Bob Hertzberg and Assemblyman Rob Bonta put forward bills that seek to ease bail requirements because, currently, bail “keeps people locked up for being poor”.

It can be argued that crimes with no victims shouldn’t be crimes, and laws pertaining to those should be repealed. Legalizing liberty could go a long way towards easing the burden on our criminal justice system. However, crimes that do have victims should have harsher penalties, and these serial victimizers should be locked up longer so they can’t be out, say, murdering their cousin, stealing a car, crashing into someone else, and murdering a police officer.

States have no rights to deny rights

States have no rights to deny rights

Now that Donald Trump is President, Democrats in states like California have suddenly rediscovered their mantra of “States’ Rights”, in which they believe as long as they’re in the majority they can use “States’ Rights” to deny people who reside in “their State” of rights they disagree with, the way Democrats did in the pre-emancipation proclamation era, or the way Democrats did in the pre-civil rights era, or the way Democrats did in the pre-voting rights era, or…

Of course they’re not alone; denial of rights is a bi-partisan thing. But it’s “fun” to point it out when they did, and continue to do.

California has even hired the help of former U.S. Attorney General Eric “Fast and Furious” Holder at a whopping $25,000 per month to defend itself from an evil and oppressive Trump-run Federal government poised to exercise force against the delicate progressive utopian flower.

“Having the former attorney general of the United States brings us a lot of firepower in order to prepare to safeguard the values of the people of California,” said Kevin de León, the Democratic leader of the CA Senate.

A value Kevin de León believes needs safeguarding is the “state’s right” to deny its people the right to keep and bear arms… sorry, “enact common sense gun safety measures”.

The problem with “States’ Rights” is… it doesn’t exist.

“How can you say that?! Tenth Amendment! Tenth Amendment!!!”

Ok, repeating yourself doesn’t make something say something it doesn’t say, just like shouting “Separation of Church and State!” doesn’t mean the First Amendment says that either… but let’s keep our focus on so-called “States’ Rights”.

Here is your Tenth Amendment:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Notice anything missing? The Tenth Amendment was about delegation of power, not rights. It states that the United States, the federal government, only has specific powers that the Constitution gives it the authority to do and also denies it from doing, and that all other powers belong to the individual States or the people.

It’s not splitting hairs. Words have meanings, at least they used to. States don’t have rights; States have power, and the power of a State is also limited and controlled by each State’s Constitution. And every single State’s primary role is to protect the rights and liberties of the people.

States don’t have a right or authority to deny people their rights under the Tenth Amendment, because States don’t have rights – people do. Some of these rights are protected by the U.S. Constitution and State Constitutions, but as the Ninth Amendment also states:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

It doesn’t take a constitutional scholar to understand the meaning of these things, but maybe a modern interpretation is what’s needed: “just cuz we say people have these rights that we wrote down here, doesn’t mean they don’t have other rights too, and you can’t take those rights away either just cuz we didn’t write them down, bruh.”

States have the Tenth Amendment power to pass laws and enact policies to run their individual States the way they see fit to locally respond to the needs of its people, but not at the expense of the rights of the people. That is where the line is drawn, or is supposed to be drawn.

A power also delegated to the United States federal government is to guarantee a State doesn’t deny people their rights – the Fourteenth Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875):

“The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a State from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and from denying to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, but it adds nothing to the rights of one citizen as against another. It simply furnishes an additional guaranty against any encroachment by the States upon the fundamental rights which belong to every citizen as a member of society. The duty of protecting all its citizens in the enjoyment of an equality of rights was originally assumed by the States, and it still remains there. The only obligation resting upon the United States is to see that the States do not deny the right. This the Amendment guarantees, but no more. The power of the National Government is limited to the enforcement of this guaranty.”

The right to keep and bear arms is a right that exists without any government stating that it does. If there was no government at all, if there was no Second Amendment, you still have a right to arms. This is what the Ninth Amendment conveys, but luckily the right to arms was recognized as important enough to write down. All our Constitution does though is state that the federal government can’t infringe upon that right, nor can a State.

But they both do, they have done, and, in California’s case, continues to do.

It is the duty of the United States government to make, enforce, and uphold laws against States that infringe upon our rights. It is not an unjust federal encroachment upon State power to do this. While some say they don’t want the federal government exercising power against a State because of the precedent it’ll make against “State’s Rights”, in their next breath they’ll want California gun laws overturned by the Supreme Court – which is as much part of the federal government as Congress and the Presidency.

There are constitutional ways for the legislative branch to make, and for the executive branch to enforce, laws that protect the rights of the people in States that infringe upon them. The people don’t have to wait for 5 out of 9 unelected government appointed lawyers to do so.

Right now, we have a once in a lifetime opportunity to federally protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It’s been nearly 90 years since the House, Senate, and the Presidency were held by Republicans, a party which purportedly touts their support of gun rights; it’s time they exercise their constitutionally delegated powers against States that deny people their rights under the false notion of “States’ Rights”.