To comply or not to comply
Gun owners may soon have to decide whether they will comply with federal anti-gun laws.
In the past, when the topic of whether gun owners should comply with tyrannical federal anti-gun laws was broached, it led to theoretical discussions about boat accidents, cold dead hands or burying rifles in the back yard.
Nowadays, with an anti-gun House, Senate and White House, the discussions have become much more serious.
It’s getting all too real.
Alan Gottlieb, Founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, said Sunday night on Armed American Radio that a bill from Sen. Dianne Feinstein that would ban “assault weapons” is gaining traction.
Mr. Gottlieb is “concerned.”
When Mr. Gottlieb is concerned, we should definitely make ready.
And Sen. Dianne is not the only threat.
President Joe Biden has long had gun buy-backs as a major part of his anti-gun agenda. It’s still there on his campaign website for anyone to see.
There’s another, more accurate term for the buy-backs Joe has planned — confiscation.
Those who don’t line up like lemmings to hand over their firearms could have them confiscated if the President and his supporters get their way.
Also, this week we expect to see more anti-gun legislation introduced in D.C., including expanded background checks. And don’t forget, mandatory background checks only work if there’s mandatory registration.
Do you see what we’re up against?
High stakes
To be clear, I would never advise anyone on whether they should violate any law — local, state or federal. It’s an extremely personal decision, but it’s definitely time to start the discussion.
The stakes are incredibly high — life altering, in fact.
Noncompliance with a federal law could result in felony charges, which would prohibit legal gun ownership.
Noncompliance could be inadvertently discovered, either through a traffic stop, by a nosy neighbor or through other means.
Noncompliance could result in the loss of all of your firearms, not just the ones that scare Sen. Dianne.
And noncompliance could cost you a lot of money, and the loss of your freedom.
On the other hand …
I’ve long believed that any bill — especially one from DiFi — that instantly criminalizes law-abiding Americans is tyranny.
Americans have a duty to resist tyranny — in all its forms — especially when the source is an 87-year-old commie from California who doesn’t care about the Constitution.
I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution, and my commitment to this oath didn’t end when I ETS’d. It’s as valid today as it was when I took it at 18.
Therefore, I see noncompliance as a duty, because to do otherwise would be a violation of my oath, since these laws are clearly an attack on the Constitution and our constitutional rights.
And history has shown us that once a right is relinquished, it’s nearly impossible to get it restored.
Look at what the poor folks living in California, New Jersey and New York have to put up with now — they can’t even own an AR unless it’s equipped with bullet buttons, fixed mags and other trash.
We can’t afford to allow that to happen at a federal level, because it would impact all of us.
We’ve already seen what happens in New Jersey and other states, when the pols passed gun laws the public viewed as too restrictive — nothing. No one turns them in, and there’s nary a mention of the citizens’ noncompliance in the media.
This scares the hell out of the politicians, because it strips them of their perceived power. They’ve become far too complacent anyway, and most listen more to special interest groups than they do their own constituents.
You can probably guess what I’ll do if, God forbid, I ever have to make the decision whether to comply with a tyrannical anti-gun law.
My hope with this column is to get you thinking and to start a conversation — to arm the gun community with information about both courses of action: compliance or noncompliance.
As always, thanks for your time.
Lee
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
~Excerpt from the Declaration of Independence
Nice excerpt I’ve read it many times over the years, it’s like a warning shot fired over the bow letting those that disagree with it there will be consequences. The question is what are we gonna do? It’s been talked about in depth on all the program podcast and social media but I’ve never heard an definitive answer. I think everyone knows the answer and everyone is afraid to say it out loud. “ from my cold dead hands” is just what it will be if you go in alone. Noncompliance in large groups stand a chance of making a statement, in that group there needs to be a leader who can bring it together and also in the group men and women in uniform, sheriff, city police, state police national guardsmen and hundreds if not thousands of law abiding citizens, even politicians. Lee you have a large audience, you started a conversation now speak out and continue.