Last November voters in Washington State passed ballot initiative I-594 (Initiative Measure No. 594), which requires background checks whenever firearms change hands.
This weekend, in defiance of the new law, supporters of the Second Amendment organized an arms expo in Yakima, WA. Participants are invited to sell or barter guns without any background checks. The event opened yesterday, and is continuing today.
Below is the statement made by Mike Vanderboegh yesterday at the opening of the event:
I’d like to speak to you about the uniqueness of what we are doing here today and the efforts we are making to deal with this unprecedented event and how it effects the way we’re handling the competing interests of the participants and the press. First of all, I’d like to thank y’all for coming and taking your courage in your own two hands and braving the uncertainties to be here. In looking out at you I see the Founders’ descendants, only the Founders didn’t have to deal with the modern surveillance state. There were no cameras at the Boston Tea Party, the Green Dragon Tavern where the Sons of Liberty met was not bugged by the secret political police of Ministry of Homeland Security, the Committees of Correspondence did not have their communications photographed by the Royal Mail, General Gage did not possess surveillance drones and Captain Parker was not plagued by agents provocateurs within his own ranks working for the King and determined to discredit the Patriot cause by goading them into firing first. It is fortunate for us that King George did not possess these instruments of tyranny. But the fact of the matter is that Barack Obama and his minions do possess them. So when you come here today, you are, I believe, exhibiting every bit as much courage as the Founders, for you do face these threats and still you refuse to comply. By your very presence here today, you are sending the message: WE WILL NOT COMPLY WITH THE INSTRUMENTS OF OUR OWN SLAVERY.
But how does this new reality impact us? You are here. The press is, or will be, here. But the fact of the matter is that there’s gonna be some good old fashioned Sons of Liberty tyranny-breakin’ goin’ on here today and the event organizers are doing their best to balance the competing interests of the participants and the press. How? Well, first of all we have a First Amendment area set up for the press. We will be providing folks for them to interview throughout the day but they will not be allowed to roam freely in the event area. They will, I am sure, try to interview folks going in and coming out of the venue. Whether you talk them or not is strictly up to you. But I would urge caution because remember, there’s going to be some tyranny-defyin’ goin’ on here and anything you say, your identity, even your presence, may later be of interest to an unscrupulous state prosecutor who wants to enforce unconstitutional laws. The other thing is that there are groups out there — and the Southern Poverty Law Center comes first to mind — who specialize in masquerading as press, or who circulate through crowds at these events, asking provocative questions whose answers they can later use out of context to discredit people. Pretending to be participants, they take surveillance photos that they will later provide to their symbiotic agents of social control in the FBI and the DHS. This should come as no surprise. It is what they do. It is not for nothing that we in Alabama call them the Southern Preposterous Lie Center. But you should expect that. They are collectivists therefore they are liars. It is who they are. You might as well blame a rattlesnake for biting. But the thing is, they are not as noble as the rattlesnake because they give you no warning before striking. These folks are copperheads, people, pretending to be what they are not, so be advised.
As for the real press, this situation puts them at some risk as well. Anything they do here today, interviews, picture taking, video, may later haul them before a grand jury. This is a direct danger to their First Amendment rights to do their job without threat or interference. So as much as they might chafe under the restrictions of the First Amendment zone, I hope they understand that we’re trying to look out for their own interests as well as yours. After all, at the Bundy Ranch the press agreed to a First Amendment zone so it’s not the first time they’ve experienced this. So it’s not as great a challenge as, say, asking Hillary Clinton a serious question about Benghazi, or anything.
So, that being said, we will proceed as best we can to have a great event today, to celebrate our rights and responsibilities as free American citizens, and to nullify with our defiance Mike Bloomberg’s hateful unconstitutional law, purchased at the cost of his millions. American jurisprudence has long held that an unconstitutional law is null and void. But by your presence here today, you will nullify I-594 more directly and immediately. If it is later found to be “officially” unconstitutional, it will be redundant — FOR YOU HERE WILL HAVE NULLIFIED IT LONG BEFORE. And may God bless you for having the courage to be here. Somewhere, Sam Adams and all the Founding generation are smiling.
NBC Right Now posted this news report yesterday evening:
TAMPICO, WA- Even though Washington State passed a law expanding background checks on those trying to buy and sell guns, there’s some organizations who aren’t accepting the regulations within I-594. We spoke with some organizers who are hosting a gun expo and don’t plan to comply with the gun law.
A group called “Liberty for All”, is hosting an arms expo, where you can buy and sell guns freely.
They told us this afternoon it’s important for them to have this event, even though it’s against the law.
“Well, the importance of having an event like this is really about enforcing the constitution. The Washington state constitution says the right to bare [sic] arms shall not be impaired and impaired means to diminish and to reduce in any way. And we view 594, the passage of that and the result of Washington code as an impairment of the right to keeping bare [sic] arms. In the fact that it impairs our ability to buy and sell fire arms.” Said Sam Wilson of Liberty for All.
For a small fee, you can camp on site for the whole weekend at the Yakima arms expo. In addition to live music, food, and seminars, there’s a few speakers scheduled to appear. One of those speakers told us, they’re not going to comply with I-594
“We’ve always been forbearing in this. They passed a law and we backed up. Grudgingly, but we backed up. What we’re saying here today is, we’re done backing up, deal with it!” Says Mike Vanderboegh.
As controversial as this topic may be, Sam Wilson wants the skeptics to know that this event isn’t meant to be taken as a threat.
“Really, the one thing we’ve stressed all along is that this is peaceful. This is not any kind of threat or violence. This is a peaceful exercise of constitutional rights”
The arms expo is all day today and all day tomorrow and we were told that they’re expecting a big turnout.
The misspelling of “bear” as “bare” in the quote of Sam Wilson made me wonder if the person who transcribed the quote originally for NBC was semiliterate or was intentionally misspelling it to somehow discredit the speaker (which is absurd, because you can’t misspell the spoken word). I clicked through to the original story to see and it had the correct spelling of “bear”; perhaps NBC corrected this with the update they did the following day of their original post.
Vermont’s progressives tried such a law this past winter. Needless to say there was a large turnout in Montpelier over it. Needless to say it went down in flames. My state rep. literally lives around the corner from me and I sent her an e-mail stating I have my father’s guns after he passed and my son will have mine and my father’s when I pass. Most of my firearms were purchased used through private sale with no records and I have sold guns the same way and will continue to do so dealing only with those I know and consider reputable. Should this bill had passed I would have become a criminal and would continue in that criminal behavior and I informed her of that. Bless her she is pro hunting, pro second amendment. If you go on You-Tube Gun Owners of Vermont and the Ethan Allen Institute have videos on this bill up as well as the debate. Be warned the Ethan Allen Institute is a hard site to find due to the number of sites using the Ethan Allen mane.
When it comes to ‘criminality’ one must always remember this:
The holocaust was law.
Anne Frank was a criminal.
I do have a bit of trouble with this concept. To wit, Mike Vanderboegh didn’t protest when automatic weapons required the owners to have a license. He didn’t protest when mentally ill people, if certified so by a doctor, were forbidden to have firearms. He didn’t object that firearms dealers were required to have a license and to do background checks.
Mike would probably not sell a gun to someone just over from Saudi Arabia, but since he objects to any firearms regulation at all (or so it seems), he could not complain too loudly when someone else did. He would not complain when someone fresh from Mexico buys a gun, or better yet, multiple guns, from an individual with no background check.
I’m pointing out that if you take the second amendment literally, with no qualifications allowed, you’re getting into some sticky territory. Does he object to the gun laws, say, in Texas, where you’re allowed to carry a concealed handgun, but only if you pass a rather rigorous background check. Or, would he prefer to have the lurker who broke into my locker have the legal right to carry a handgun, at least up to the time he actually gets arrested…or shot?
Sorry, but you’re going to have to convince me that putting any restrictions whatsoever on the sale of firearms is unconstitutional.
My own view is that the amendment means what it says: the people (who constitute the militia) have the right to bear arms under some regulation. When the regulation becomes focused on denying the right to bear arms, as in the city of Chicago or Washington DC, it becomes unconstitutional.
I agree that requiring a background check to inherit guns or pass them between family members is unreasonable. I’m not so sure it’s unconstitutional. The Constitution cannot protect us from all stupid laws. Truthfully, I’m not very at ease with the idea that anyone can sell guns to anyone, no further questions asked.
A wee quibble with your assessment. I somehow doubt Mr. Vanderboegh was in a position to speak out against the Automatic weapons legislation that was passed under the Roosevelt administration in 1934. The nomenclature involved in the “control” of weapons by both Federal and State authority is important, and the failure to recognize this leads to a great deal of extraneous discussion. This issue of nomenclature is perpetuated in the “assault weapon” squishy phrasing that persists today. It serves to muddy the waters and manages to scoop up, in the landslide, other words, like inviolable. Placing restrictions on any amendment will always open the doors to placing restrictions upon others. As much as the desire to protect life may drive the modification of an amendment, when writ large, ANY amendment may be construed to be worthy of modification.
Thank you. I appreciate your correction.
I understand your concerns and those of MCin, that the power to place implicit amendments on Constitutional provisions is the power to change them. But, the obverse side of the coin is to allow convicted felons and illegal immigrants to legally own and possess firearms. Gangs would be able to openly arm themselves…not that they don’t now, but at least if they’re arrested with firearms now, they can be imprisoned.
Are you willing to allow homeless loiterers to legally carry firearms, not to mention convicted felons who have served out their term of parole?
I think the two provisions of the second amendment are “right to bear arms shall not be infringed” and “well-regulated”. If one provision is allowed to override the other, you have reinterpreted the Constitution.
I think state provisions meant to harass gun owners or place onerous restrictions on them are clearly unconstitutional. But, if you have a Supreme Court that doesn’t enforce the Constitution, a President that at best ignores the Constitution, and an electorate that doesn’t care, what can you do?
I’m not unsympathetic to the intent of arms expo, but I can’t forget that the logical consequence is that virtually anyone can own and carry a firearm.
>> regulation becomes focused on denying the right to bear arms <<
The Supreme Court can be trusted to fawn over any regulations. They'll wring their hankies, no doubt. But, as usual, where rights are concerned, the Court will always think of something "reasonable" to justify regulation an restriction. The idea that the SCt gives a damn abou liberty is just ludicrous. That freak freak Ginsburg can't even bring herself to push the Constitution to foreigners. And you look to the court for some kind of insight into what is reasonable/
The problem here is nothing to do with firearms, it is to do with ‘who policies the police’
Can we now trust our governments? Do government officials keep their oaths to uphold the constitution?
This is a non-violent way of saying ‘enough is enough’ the whole object of the 2nd amendment is to provide a militia to ultimately backstop government overreach into tyranny.
It is a sobering exercise to note that ‘gun control’ always preceded the wholesale, government inspired, massacres of the 20th century.
Ronald : The Constitution is there to protect us from our own best intentions, and The ten interlocking, mutually self supporting amendments we call our bill of rights are an explicit “Hands Off !” whose purpose is to prevent abuse by the government. As Prospero points out, tampering with any of the ten is like pulling bricks out of a foundation – a brick here, a brick there, and soon the entire structure is threatened. Neither Mike, nor I, was around to protest the 1934 NFA. We were just kids when the -68 background check, licenced dealer laws were enacted. I have never understood the concealed-carry bugaboo. Criminals will conceal their weapons regardless of any law, but, to them, the chance of being shot by surprise – when Elmer Fudd suddenly has them at gunpoint – is a deterrent even the most dimwitted thug can understand. In the context of 2A, “Well Regulated” is meant to mean well organized, efficient, effective. It does not mean restricted by the Govt. Yes, all of our rights are subject to abuse, But the real, unsaid purpose of these universal background check laws is to create a backdoor firearms registration. What’s wrong with registration you say? Ask the German Jews who obediently registered their guns in the Weimar Republic, and ten years later had police banging at their door, registration list in hand.
Neil W.,
I appreciate your reply. But the more I get into the debate, the more I think the Constitution supports my view.
The leftists want the throw away the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The gun rights people, or some of them, want to throw away the phrase “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”.
I take the phrase “well regulated Militia” to not be “extensively regulated Militia” but “intelligently regulated Militia”. Any law that prevents a law-abiding citizen from owning an appropriate weapon is unconstitutional. But, it is in the framework of the Constitution that the state can sensibly screen people and weapons.
Let me give another example. Does the state have an interest in investigating, and intervening, when a Tamerlane Tsarnaev, a US citizen, begins collecting gunpowder, ball bearings, and pressure cookers?
In Texas, you don’t get a concealed handgun license unless you pass a rigorous background check. There are indeed many Elmer Fudds running around with concealed guns and more power to them. I feel safer for it, although I don’t carry one myself.
In the past few weeks I’ve been stopped several times. No problem. But, if I had been illegally carrying a firearm, I’d be in jail. So, a concealed handgun license, sensibly enacted and administered, puts the police in support of an armed, upright citizenry.
As far as the Jews in the Weimar Republic, reading a history of the Nazi takeover, “A Small Town in Germany” (out of print and not at Amazon, so don’t try to find it), I saw that the Nazis dissolved literally all civic organizations once they took power. Anyway, the police came for all the Jews, gun owners or not. That was not a distinction.
By the way, I never argued about registration one way or another. So, you put words in my mouth on that topic.
My view is that the Constitution provides a guide. If the organs of government ignore the Constitution and the people don’t care, there is very little recourse other than to leave or revolt. And, if you revolt, by definition, you won’t end up with a representative government, since you are revolting against one.
Your use of the term “Elmer Fudds” for citizens who carry concealed suggests that you view their right to do so as vaguely ridiculous.
Too, this is a time of troubles, where the president has the stink of communism about him and the Republican leaders and would be presidential contenders are like trained seals. The federal government is bloated, immune to voter protest, deceitful, and oppressive. Yet, under these circumstances you are willing to entertain the idea that in this climate if in no other free men can take comfort in the knowledge that there will only be “reasonable” gun regulation.
“Your use of the term “Elmer Fudds” for citizens who carry concealed suggests that you view their right to do so as vaguely ridiculous.”
Wrong!!!!
I was just picking up on the terminology of Neil W. who takes your point of view. His point was that an armed “Elmer Fudd” may not look threatening, but is capable of defending himself…and the possibility that any Elmer Fudd may be armed serves as a deterrent to attackers. And I agreed with him
I wish someone would answer the question I posed, rather than giving me vague generalizations:
“Are you willing to have 18-year old gang members, homeless paranoids, and racist jihadis legally stockpile and carry handguns, rifles, and automatic weapons?”
“Are you willing to have 18-year old gang members, homeless paranoids, and racist jihadis legally stockpile and carry handguns, rifles, and automatic weapons?”
I’ll answer it. Or, rather, I’ll point out some implicit, unexamined premises behind your question.
The main question, from the point of view of a libertarian-leaning small-government conservative, is: Who decides who doesn’t deserve to own or carry a gun?
The issue is not whether guns should be sold to dangerous psychopaths and terrorists. Of course they shouldn’t.
But the entity that decides which people fall in those categories is the State. And the State has already determined that patriotic people who revere the 10th Amendment and fly the Gadsden flag are likely to be “right-wing terrorists”. And military veterans are considered questionable, because they probably have PTSD, which makes them dangerous if armed.
In other words, the State seems to think people like me and my veteran friends are “terrorists” and “psychopaths”. Under the proposed regime, we would be among the first to be denied the right to own guns.
That’s the reason why I oppose any regulations on the ownership of firearms.
The big question, as in all matters that involve State action, is:
WHO DECIDES?
Thanks. I understand your use of “Elmer Fudd.” It is safe to start your car once again.
Gangbangers and jihadis will always acquire and use firearms. They are indifferent to all attempts at control.
Homeless paranoids are likely to have problems that don’t require firearms for their solution. My contact with homeless people of any kind suggests that such people would not be able to afford the purchase of a firearm or would have other more urgent uses for limited funds. Moreover, one just doesn’t hear of homeless “gun criminals.” It’s paranoids with homes that are a threat.
In life we all accept that some activities are so valuable that they must be permitted or encouraged even though large numbers of people are killed or hurt as a result. Automobile travel, e.g. One old statistic was that 50,000 people died on the roads annually. I don’t recall the toll for Sandy Hook but if it was 20 dead and nine dead in Charleston, 29 dead is a much smaller number than 50K and the right that is vindicated is infinitely more precious than mere driving.
But our selective “let no sparrow fall” fixation, which you appear to share, distorts the whole “debate” about our right to bear arms. The left is enamored of this approach (and here I do not include you) in particular where the demonic nature of leftist excess in the modern world is concerned. The U.S. lynched 4,000+ blacks and whites in its history and is defamed therefor as a filthy, loathsome, corrupt country, whereas the Soviets alone blew through that number of murders in two to four days of their 70-year history.
And, bottom line, yesterday no gun killed anyone and 90,000,000 gun owners didn’t either.
Now, please explain who you think is qualified to limit our right and what about our fedzilla of today, in particular, gives you confidence that new federal gun measures would be restrained and “reasonable.”
Liberty is dangerous and risky.
Slavery is safe and secure.
Those who choose security of slavery will lose everything else as well.