Here at Guns of Texas we firmly support the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

"No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason 
for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, 
as a last resort, to protect themselves against
tyranny in government."  -Thomas Jefferson

Why I WILL NOT Obey California’s Gun Registration Edict

by Brian Puckett

PLEASE READ THE LAST TWO SECTIONS FIRST.)

 A brief summary of the situation
The Democrat-controlled government of California has recently issued two edicts, one that bans ownership of SKS rifles with detachable magazines and requires their surrender to the state, and one that bans buying, selling, or lending of so-called "assault weapons" and that requires present owners of such arms to register them. The edicts take effect January 1, 2000. For all those who have in the past stated that, "When the state starts confiscating guns, then I'll know it's time to fight back," that time in California will be January 1, 2000.

Many people oppose registration because it precedes confiscation. Indeed it does, as those who were foolish enough to register their SKS’s are now discovering. However, that is a practical reason to oppose registration, not a legal reason. And while avoiding confiscation is tangentially a moral reason to oppose registration, neither is it a legal reason. Refusing to obey a law because of what might happen or what has happened in other cases will not stand up in court. But there is a reason not to register or turn in any firearm that is practical, moral, and legal.

Two questions to answer
As regards the Second Amendment, determining the constitutionality of the California edicts mentioned above forces the examination of two basic questions. One, which arms are protected by the Second Amendment? And two, is registration an "infringement" of the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms? Fortunately, answering these questions is not a difficult or mysterious task. But they should be answered thoroughly.

What is the Bill of Rights?
The Bill of Rights is not separate from the Constitution but is an integral part of it, as are all the other amendments. However, the Bill of Rights is special in that-like sections of the Declaration of Independence-it contains many of the core philosophical underpinnings of our government (especially Amendments 1, 2, 9, and 10). Therefore, it is easily the most important part of the U.S. Constitution. The rest of the Constitution, along with most of the remaining Amendments, deals primarily with the mechanics of putting this philosophy into effect in the form of a republic.

In the original document that we call the Bill of Rights, the Bill’s ten enumerated items are listed as "articles". Those familiar with the history of the Constitution are aware that these articles were not afterthoughts, but were crucial elements whose written inclusion in the Constitution was insisted upon before certain states would agree to ratification of the preceding text. Because of this, a powerful case can be made that none of these first ten articles may be modified or revoked, because that would alter the fundamental philosophy underlying the Constitution and would violate the original agreement among the states.

The purpose and meaning of the Second Amendment
The laws of the pre-U.S. colonies and the writings of the Founders clearly reveal that they, like all civilized humans, embraced the personal, common-law right of self-defense and property defense. The Founders’ writings, such as the Federalist Papers, also clearly reveal their belief that self-defense includes defending oneself against a government gone bad. In fact the evidence shows that this latter item is a primary reason they included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights, and the reason for the Second Amendment’s reference to the militia-the "army of citizens" (as opposed to the regular army).

The Second Amendment specifies the right of the people to keep and bear arms. If the people are to keep and bear them this must include, at the very minimum, personal arms-that is, arms that a single individual may carry and employ. For hundreds of years prior to the writing of the Constitution, the Western world’s most advanced and cherished personal arm had been the firearm. Furthermore, the firearm is the sole arm continually singled out in the Founders’ writings. Owning firearms was a right exercised in North America long before the existence of the United States.

To mean anything, rights must include associated necessities
For any given right, it is meaningless to affirm that right if the tools or necessities of effecting that right are prohibited. Consider our Bill of Rights:

It is meaningless to affirm the First Amendment’s right to free exercise of religion if people are prohibited to own Bibles, Korans, or Torahs.

It is meaningless to affirm the First Amendment’s "freedom of the press" if people are prohibited to own printing presses (or today’s electronic methods of mass communication).

It is meaningless to affirm the Third Amendment’s right to refuse to lodge a soldier in one’s home, or the Fourth Amendment’s right to be secure in one’s home, if people are prohibited from owning their own home.

It is meaningless to affirm the Sixth Amendment’s right to defense counsel if people are prohibited to use their own or public money to pay for an attorney’s services.

And it is beyond meaningless-it is absolutely absurd-to affirm the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms if people are prohibited from owning arms. Applying the above-mentioned general principle of rights to the Second Amendment, it would be correct to state that it is meaningless to affirm the right to self-defense if people are prohibited from owning the tools or necessities of self-defense.

For example, consider elderly people, women, the physically handicapped, small-statured men, or anyone who is not a master of unarmed combat being faced with a large, or muscular, or armed assailant, or multiple assailants. It happens every day in this country. It is absurd, illogical, illegal, and inhumane to uphold their right to self-defense while prohibiting them from owning the most portable, easy to use, proven, and inexpensive of instantly effective self-defense tools-guns.

Which arms are protected by the Second Amendment?
Along with "the people", the Second Amendment specifically mentions the militia, consisting of armed citizens not enlisted in any regular military corps-the "citizen army". The militia’s purpose is, as its name implies, a military one. The militia was-and still may be-pitted against other military forces. That was true in pre-U.S. North America, it was true during the Revolutionary War, and it is true today.

If the militia may be pitted against regular soldiers, whether of a foreign invader or of a tyrannical domestic government, then it follows automatically that at a minimum the citizens comprising the militia must possess personal arms (as opposed to large or crew-served arms like cannon) equal to those of the opposing soldiers. Equal personal arms means, of course, those that include all design features, capabilities, and ergonomics that make a military firearm suitable for modern battle. If this is not the case then there is no point in having a militia, as it will not pose an effective fighting force. For example, the extreme inadequacy of bolt action rifles in combat against semiautomatic arms is well known. But the Founders’ firm insistence upon having an effective militia is absolutely clear from their numerous writings on the subject and from the existence of the Second Amendment itself.

That being so, military-pattern firearms are obviously protected by the Second Amendment. Therefore any restrictive legislation on military-pattern firearms, or on military design elements of other firearms, is completely contrary to the word and spirit of the Second Amendment and is therefore flatly unconstitutional. [U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) completely supports this.]

Registration is incompatible with rights
Consider the situation if a state declared that it was perfectly legal to own a Bible-or a copy of the Koran or the Talmud-but that you had to register it in order to keep and use it. Now, what if you did not register it-would you lose the right to own and read it? Of course not. The very idea is absurd. Under the laws of this nation you have the right to worship as you please. As we have seen, that right automatically includes articles necessary or associated with the right, such as books, crucifixes, stars of David, yarmulkes, and so forth.

In exactly the same way, if the state suddenly required registration of printing presses, would the owner of a press lose his right to own or use it by not filling out a registration form? Of course not. The right would still exist. No piece of paper affects it.

In exactly the same way, one does not have to register one's vocal cords, bullhorn, typewriter, pens, pencils, computers, movie cameras, etc, to exercise the right of free speech (or stated in modern terms, the right of uncensored communication). Under the Constitution, if a state issued an edict demanding registration of such things that rule would be invalid as law. Your right to use them would still exist, completely unaffected.

In exactly the same way, prior registration of one's body, home, address, papers, possessions, etc, is not necessary in order to enjoy the Constitutional right to protection from unreasonable searches and seizures of one's person, house, papers, and effects. These various physical things are automatically included, automatically protected by the right.

In exactly the same way, one does not have to register anything or fill out any forms in order to have the Constitutional right to a speedy public trial. It is automatic.

Now consider the situation if you do not register a gun. Is the Second Amendment somehow instantly suspended? Did it vanish? Do you somehow lose the right to keep and bear arms? Certainly not.

If you can lose a "right" by not filling out a piece of paper, then it is not a right. It is a privilege granted by the government, which is a different thing altogether. In the area of government, a privilege is a special permission or immunity granted by a government, it is generally related to the use of some public facility (such as driving on the streets, or using the public library) and it may be suspended or revoked even for minor infractions or misdemeanors.

In sum: Rights do not require government registration, certification, or approval, and are not subject to any form of taxation-otherwise they are not rights, they are privileges granted at the discretion of the government, controlled by the government, and revocable by the government.

Registration is more than an infringement
The Second Amendment reads. "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The question may be asked, "Is registration of a particular gun truly such a burden that it can be called an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms?"

To begin with, if we were speaking of registering religious items or communications devices, none but socialists would dare ask such a question. Yet the Second Amendment directly follows the amendment concerned with the free exercise of religion and freedom of the press. The Second Amendment holds a place of priority in the Bill of Rights, which is primarily a list of inalienable personal rights.

But to answer the above question-Yes. Registration is absolutely an infringement, on at least three grounds. In fact, we will see that the right versus privilege issue makes registration far more than a mere infringement.

    Information. Registration of a firearm gives the government information that can be used (and has been used, and is being used right now) to confiscate that firearm or to pinpoint its owner for weapon seizure, fining, incarceration, or execution. Having the government in possession of this information is directly contrary to the Second Amendment’s intent to ensure that citizens always possess the means to overthrow the government should it become corrupt or tyrannical.

    Government control. Allowing the government to seize a citizen’s firearm, or to suspend, revoke, or diminish a citizen’s ability to defend life, family, property, and country for paperwork omissions or errors, for regulatory violations, for minor infractions of the law, for misdemeanors, or arguably for anything less than conviction for a major crime of violence is also directly contrary to the intent of the Second Amendment. This is because virtually all citizens have committed, or will commit, one or more of the listed non-violent errors listed above, whereas the entire point of the Second Amendment is to place this same citizenry’s right to keep and bear arms (and therefore the right of self-defense) out of the government’s grasp.

    Right versus privilege. Critically relevant to all our rights, is that any edict that attempts to convert a right into a state-granted privilege by imposing prior requirements-such as registration-before it may be exercised goes far beyond mere "infringement" of that right; it becomes an attempt at outright abrogation of the right.

Therefore the state’s demand to comply with the requirements of such an edict-no matter how physically easy compliance is-imposes not some mere inconvenience on the individual. It imposes the enormous moral, ethical, intellectual, and spiritual burden of denying the existence of the right.

It does not matter if the state demands that one simply tap one’s nose five times in succession in order to be able to keep and bear a particular gun. This would still be a state-mandated prior requirement. Compliance would indicate tacit denial of the validity of the Second Amendment, and denial of the right it protects. Compliance would encompass an implicit acceptance of the right as a mere privilege, which is directly contrary to both the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment.

Applying these concepts to California’s edict
The argument against registration of, and restrictions on, military-style firearms may be approached by two logical paths that reach the same conclusions:

1. If the supreme law of the nation protects a personal right to keep and bear arms (which it does) then the failure to comply with a state mandate to fill out some registration form can not revoke this, or any other, right. If the right to keep and bear arms can not be revoked (and it can not be), then the right to keep and bear militia arms, which are the very arms implicitly referred to in the Founders’ writings and in the Second Amendment itself, can not be revoked. If the right to keep and bear militia arms can not be revoked (and it can not be) then we may own and use any military-pattern individually portable firearm, all of which are practical militia arms. If that is the case (and it is), then any restrictive legislation based on militarily useful design elements of such firearms is flatly unconstitutional.

2. If the supreme law of the nation protects the personal right to keep and bear arms (which it does), then the right to keep and bear militia arms, which are the very arms implicitly referred to in the Founders’ writings and in the Second Amendment itself, certainly exists. If that is the case (and it is), then we may own and use any military-pattern individually portable firearm, because all are practical militia arms. If that is the case (and it is), any restrictive legislation based on the militarily useful design elements of such firearms is flatly unconstitutional. If that is the case (and it is), then the failure to comply with a state mandate to fill out some registration form cannot revoke this right.

Again, the same situation prevails with all the personal rights in the Bill of Rights. That is, no state mandate requiring registration-either of oneself or of things directly associated with a right-can be a prerequisite or condition of exercising a right, nor can it affect that right in any way. If it does, then the right has been unconstitutionally declared a state-controlled privilege.

Summary
As we see from the above, no American can be legally compelled to register any militarily useful individual arm. That includes pistols, revolvers, carbines, semi-autos, military-style guns, hunting guns, self-defense guns, pump guns, lever guns, bolt guns, black powder guns, scoped guns, .50 caliber guns, .338 caliber guns, .30 caliber guns, .223 caliber guns, etc. All have been used, or are being used, as individual military arms, and therefore are implicitly referred to by the Second Amendment’s militia clause.

Moreover, no American can be legally compelled to register any firearm of common design or function because the Second Amendment does not protect only guns that are useful in military affairs; it protects all guns. The militia reference is clearly meant as one important reason for protecting the right which follows: the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment says simply "arms", which imposes no quantity or design limits. It says "bear", which in its narrowest sense would still include all firearm capable of being carried and used by one person.

Therefore, under the supreme law of the land, the right to own one or several of any type of individually portable firearm exists permanently, inherently, automatically, without prior approval or conditions.

Related issues
1. Indiscriminate weapons-those whose effects are difficult to direct upon, or confine to, a discrete target (such as flame-throwers, fragmentation bombs, chemical and biological weapons, mortars) etc.-are arguably excludable from the full protection of the Second Amendment as posing an unreasonable danger to friend and foe alike.

2. Individually portable machine guns are clearly allowed under the wording of the Second Amendment. However, under certain specific circumstances their employment might arguably be said to encroach into the area of indiscriminate weapons. Therefore, it is arguable that some extra care might be taken in the use of these firearms, but that any restrictions imposing an effective ban on their general ownership or general use would be unconstitutional. As this is a highly specific, highly debatable subject, it will not be, and need not be, delved into here.

        Aside from the debatable exceptions of 1. and 2. above, absolutely no individually portable firearm of common design or function may be determined to be an indiscriminate weapon under any circumstances, nor to pose an unreasonable danger. This is because a ban on such a firearm could "logically" be extended to all other firearms of similar design and function (exactly what is occurring with California’s edicts now), which would completely vitiate the Second Amendment. Thus, the 1994 Federal "assault weapon" ban and magazine capacity limit are both completely unconstitutional.

3. The issue of a firearms seller determining the legal status of a potential buyer is separable from the issue of registration, and need not be dealt with here. Suffice it to say that the primary legal principle involved is declaring it a crime to sell or give a firearm to anyone who is legally-that is, legal in accordance with Constitution-prohibited from owning a firearm. Registration need not be, and may not Constitutionally be, part of any firearm sale or transfer.

Registration--your decision affects all rights
If a military pattern firearm, the firearm most suited to the militia mentioned in the Second Amendment, is not protected by the clear wording of the Second Amendment, then there is no meaning to the Second Amendment. If there is no meaning to the Second Amendment, there is no reason to infer meaning in the rest of the Bill of Rights.

If converting the Second Amendment into a privilege by means of a registration edict is not the maximum "infringement" of that right, then nothing is.

If converting the Second Amendment into a privilege by means of an edict is possible, then it is possible to do so for any other right.

Therefore, regarding the Second Amendment, refusing registration affirms the right to own a militia firearm. It affirms the right to keep and bear all personal arms. It affirms the validity of the rest of the Bill of Rights. It affirms that attempting to convert the Second Amendment into a privilege is the maximum infringement of that right. It rejects a state’s power to convert any right into a privilege. And lastly it affirms the validity of the Constitution, and the rule of law, not men.

Demanding or complying with registration is betrayal
Article VI of the Constitution designates the Constitution as the supreme law of the United States, and specifically states that it prevails over all state constitutions and statutes. Further, Article VI requires all legislative, executive, and judicial officers of the U.S. government and of the state governments to take an oath to obey the Constitution. Some of these officials may hate firearms and the power they give to the citizenry, but that is irrelevant-they must treat the Second Amendment as they would the rest of our Bill of Rights.

All state officials-judges, representatives, law enforcement officials-know these facts, but many are corrupt and ignore them. Their sworn word means nothing to them, nor does the Constitution, nor do the rights of the constituents for whom they work unless it suits their own political agenda. It is against this conscienceless species of human that decent Americans must continually fight, in California and in the rest of the United States.

If you believe you have the right to keep and bear proper militia arms in order to defend yourself, your family, your home, and your country, and if you believe this right is recognized in the Bill of Rights, then you cannot register or turn in any firearm whatsoever. You may rationalize it any way you wish, but if you register a firearm you are implicitly agreeing with the proposition that your right to own that firearm is nonexistent, and that such ownership is dependent upon permission from the government. Registration equals betrayal of yourself, your family, your ancestors, your birthright, your country, and your Constitution. Period.

A personal position
Every new illegal gun control edict issued, and every day that existing illegal gun control edicts continue to be enforced, brings inexorably closer the time when firearms owners will train their guns on the politicians, judges, and other officials who have misled the rest of the public into giving up their sacred and ancient rights. A desire to avoid this terrible tragedy motivates my own actions regarding the Second Amendment and the rights it protects.

For nearly twenty years I have legally owned a militia rifle possessing the characteristics of the socialists' so-called "assault weapon". Now my right to own this arm, a right that has existed far longer than the two centuries-plus that this nation has existed, is suddenly being challenged by corrupt politicians. But I vehemently reject any infringement of my rights. I will never register this or any other firearm. Nor will I ever turn it in, nor will I ever alter any characteristic or attachment to it. I will never again concern myself with legislation about pistol grips, bayonet lugs, high-capacity magazines, flash suppressors, threaded barrels, folding stocks, pre- or post-ban manufacture, or any other irrelevant detail of my firearms.

I will certainly not do as the NRA Members Councils suggest on their internet site, which is to saw off the pistol grip of one's AR-style rifle to make it "legal". Understand this: in America it is already legal. I sometimes wonder whether the socialists will issue an edict requiring all firearms to have a pink ribbon tied to the barrel, just to get a belly laugh as the panicked descendants of once-proud American patriots scurry to comply.

California's current governor, attorney general, and legislators who voted for these edicts can undoubtedly find thugs as corrupt and anti-American as themselves to send to my home. I vow not to physically interfere with their illegal activities, because I wish to see this matter in court. I hope that other men and women will join me in this public declaration of civil disobedience, because it would be best to have ten thousand civil disobedience cases in court, not just mine. But I understand why, in this day and age of brutal, ethics-free "public servants", citizens are reluctant to make themselves a target of the state. Fortunately, the citizens of California and other states demanding registration can strike a powerful blow for humanity simply by refusing to comply.

Seize this opportunity
To those of you who whine, complain, and talk, talk, talk about your loss of freedom-I say now is the time to do something. There are few times in an average man's life when the occasion presents itself to take part in history. Here and now is such a time. This refusal to submit to tyranny is not simply about firearms. It is about human rights, it is about the rule of law, and it is about the continuance of this great nation. To what better use will you ever put you life than to stand up for these things? Will you look back on this moment and say, "I wish I had done something", or will you step forward and seize this chance?

With the government having grown so powerful and corrupt, defying it is frightening. It is especially frightening because many Americans seem fairly content right now. But the feelings of the apathetic mass are irrelevant. They have never figured in history, and never will. The apathetic mass will go along with whatever system exists. It is the freedom-loving individual who, although part of a much smaller group, has guided every free nation toward the light.

Freedom is not maintained without taking risks and making sacrifices, without fighting for it. This has always been true, throughout history. If you are afraid to take a stand against this tyrannical government, if you excuse yourself by saying you must "take care of my family first", I say thank God there were men in the past who understood the priority of freedom.

Look at your children. Is it more important that they have an uninterrupted flow of plastic toys and the soft luxuries of modern American life, or that they grow up as free men and women, with all inherent rights and responsibilities? I say any man who does nothing while even a single basic freedom he has enjoyed is stripped from his offspring-a freedom secured by the blood of others-deserves no offspring.

As I said, I will turn in no firearms, ever. I will register no firearms, ever. My right to own and use firearms predates the Constitution. It existed before the corrupt socialists in Washington and Sacramento came to office, and it will exist forever afterward. The Second Amendment simply recognizes this right. I do not know where my civil disobedience will lead, but I am certain where the slavishness and cowardice of compliance will lead. I refuse to take part in this foul business of registration. I hope that you refuse also. If we stand together we will set fires of freedom burning across America.

* * *

Brian Puckett is a free-lance writer whose past work includes articles on U.S. foreign, domestic, and military policy for the Houston Post. His firearms and Second Amendment articles have appeared in the magazines Handguns, Combat Handguns, Guns and Ammo, SWAT, Police, and numerous other publications. He is the author of the essay "A Plan to Restore the Second Amendment", appearing in an upcoming issue of Handguns Magazine. He is a co-founder of the gun rights resource organization GunTruths (www.guntruths.com) and the gun rights media action organization Citizens Of America (www.citizensofamerica.org). Mr. Puckett believes that much of the annual slaughter of Americans by criminals can be blamed directly on those who advocate gun control, and that any politician who advocates gun control neither trusts his constituents nor cares about their lives or property. The above statement / essay is an expression of his opinions alone. He may be contacted regarding this article at guns1776@earthlink.net. Put the word RESISTER in the subject line.

Editor's Note: Charlton Heston addressed the topic 'Winning the Cultural War' at the Harvard Law School Forum, February 16, 1999. Here is the text of that speech:

By Charlton Heston

I remember my son when he was 5, explaining to his kindergarten class what his father did for a living. "My Daddy," he said, "pretends to be people." There have been quite a few of them. Prophets from the Old and New Testaments, a couple of Christian saints, generals of various nationalities and different centuries, several kings, three American presidents, a French cardinal and two geniuses, including Michelangelo.

If you want the ceiling re-painted I'll do my best. There always seem to be a lot of different fellows up here. I'm never sure which one of them gets to talk. Right now, I guess I'm the guy.

As I pondered our visit tonight it struck me: if my Creator gave me the gift to connect you with the hearts and minds of those great men, then I want to use that same gift now to re-connect you with your own sense of liberty ... your own freedom of thought ... your own compass for what is right.

Dedicating the memorial at Gettysburg, Abraham Lincoln said of America, "We are now engaged in a great Civil War, testing whether this nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure."

Those words are true again. I believe that we are again engaged in a great civil war, a cultural war that's about to hijack your birthright to think and say what resides in your heart. I fear you no longer trust the pulsing lifeblood of liberty inside you ... the stuff that made this country rise from wilderness into the miracle that it is. Let me back up. About a year ago I became president of the National Rifle Association, which protects the right to keep and bear arms. I ran for office, I was elected, and now I serve ... I serve as a moving target for the media who've called me everything from "ridiculous" and "duped" to a "brain-injured, senile, crazy old man." I know ... I'm pretty old ... but I sure thank the Lord ain't senile. As I have stood in the crosshairs of those who target Second Amendment freedoms, I've realized that firearms are not the only issue. No, it's much, much bigger than that. I've come to understand that a cultural war is raging across our land, in which, with Orwellian fervor, certain acceptable thoughts and speech are mandated.

For example, I marched for civil rights with Dr. King in 1963 -- long before Hollywood found it fashionable. But when I told an audience last year that white pride is just as valid as black pride or red pride or anyone else's pride, they called me a racist.

I've worked with brilliantly talented homosexuals all my life. But when I told an audience that gay rights should extend no further than your rights or my rights, I was called a homophobe.

I served in World War II against the Axis powers. But during a speech, when I drew an analogy between singling out innocent Jews and singling out innocent gun owners, I was called an anti-Semite.

Everyone I know knows I would never raise a closed fist against my country. But when I asked an audience to oppose this cultural persecution, I was compared to Timothy McVeigh.

From Time magazine to friends and colleagues, they're essentially saying, "Chuck, how dare you speak your mind. You are using language not authorized for public consumption!"

But I am not afraid. If Americans believed in political correctness, we'd still be King George's boys-subjects bound to the British crown.

In his book, "The End of Sanity," Martin Gross writes that "blatantly irrational behavior is rapidly being established as the norm in almost every area of human endeavor. There seem to be new customs, new rules, new anti-intellectual theories regularly foisted on us from every direction. Underneath, the nation is roiling. Americans know something, without a name is undermining the nation, turning the mind mushy when it comes to separating truth from falsehood and right from wrong. And they don't like it."

Let me read a few examples. At Antioch college in Ohio, young men seeking intimacy with a coed must get verbal permission at each step of the process from kissing to petting to final copulation ... all clearly spelled out in a printed college directive.

In New Jersey, despite the death of several patients nationwide who had been infected by dentists who had concealed their AIDS --- the state commissioner announced that health providers who are HIV-positive need not. .. need not ... tell their patients that they are infected.

At William and Mary, students tried to change the name of the school team "The Tribe" because it was supposedly insulting to local Indians, only to learn that authentic Virginia chiefs truly like the name.

In San Francisco, city fathers passed an ordinance protecting the rights of transvestites to cross-dress on the job, and for transsexuals to have separate toilet facilities while undergoing sex change surgery.

In New York City, kids who don't speak a word of Spanish have been placed in bilingual classes to learn their three R's in Spanish solely because their last names sound Hispanic.

At the University of Pennsylvania, in a state where thousands died at Gettysburg opposing slavery, the president of that college officially set up segregated dormitory space for black students.

Yeah, I know ... that's out of bounds now. Dr. King said "Negroes." Jimmy Baldwin and most of us on the March said "black." But it's a no-no now.

For me, hyphenated identities are awkward ... particularly "Native-American." I'm a Native American, for God's sake. I also happen to be a blood-initiated brother of the Miniconjou Sioux. On my wife's side, my grandson is a 13th-generation Native American ... with a capital letter on "American."

Finally, just last month ... David Howard, head of the Washington D.C. Office of Public Advocate, used the word "niggardly" while talking to colleagues about budgetary matters. Of course, 'niggardly' means stingy or scanty. But within days Howard was forced to publicly apologize and resign.

As columnist Tony Snow wrote: "David Howard got fired because some people in public employ were morons who (a) didn't know the meaning of 'niggardly,' (b) didn't know how to use a dictionary to discover the meaning, and (c) actually demanded that he apologize for their ignorance."

What does all of this mean? It means that telling us what to think has evolved into telling us what to say, so telling us what to do can't be far behind. Before you claim to be a champion of free thought, tell me: Why did political correctness originate on America's campuses? And why do you continue to tolerate it? Why do you, who're supposed to debate ideas, surrender to their suppression?

Let's be honest. Who here thinks your professors can say what they really believe? It scares me to death, and should scare you too, that the superstition of political correctness rules the halls of reason.

You are the best and the brightest. You, here in the fertile cradle of American academia, here in the castle of learning on the Charles River, you are the cream. But I submit that you, and your counterparts across the land, are the most socially conformed and politically silenced generation since Concord Bridge.

And as long as you validate that ... and abide it ... you are-by your grandfathers' standards-cowards. Here's another example. Right now at more than one major university, Second Amendment scholars and researchers are being told to shut up about their findings or they'll lose their jobs. Why? Because their research findings would undermine big-city mayor's pending lawsuits that seek to extort hundreds of millions of dollars from firearm manufacturers.

I don't care what you think about guns. But if you are not shocked at that, I am shocked at you. Who will guard the raw material of unfettered ideas, if not you? Who will defend the core value of academia, if you supposed soldiers of free thought and expression lay down your arms and plead, "Don't shoot me."

If you talk about race, it does not make you a racist. If you see distinctions between the genders, it does not make you a sexist. If you think critically about a denomination, it does not make you anti-religion. If you accept but don't celebrate homosexuality, it does not make you a homophobe.

Don't let America's universities continue to serve as incubators for this rampant epidemic of new McCarthyism. But what can you do? How can anyone prevail against such pervasive social subjugation?

The answer's been here all along. I learned it 36 years ago, on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C., standing with Dr. Martin Luther King and two hundred thousand people.

You simply ... disobey. Peaceably, yes. Respectfully, of course. Nonviolently, absolutely. But when told how to think or what to say or how to behave, we don't. We disobey social protocol that stifles and stigmatizes personal freedom.

I learned the awesome power of disobedience from Dr. King ... who learned it from Gandhi, and Thoreau and Jesus and every other great man who led those in the right against those with the might.

Disobedience is in our DNA. We feel innate kinship with that Disobedient spirit that tossed tea into Boston Harbor, that sent Thoreau to jail, that refused to sit in the back of the bus, that protested a war in Vietnam.

In that same spirit, I am asking you to disavow cultural correctness with massive disobedience of rogue authority, social directives and onerous law that weaken personal freedom.

But be careful ... it hurts. Disobedience demands that you put yourself at risk. Dr. King stood on lots of balconies. You must be willing to be humiliated ... to endure the modern-day equivalent of the police dogs at Montgomery and the water Cannons at Selma. You must be willing to experience discomfort. I'm not Complaining, but my own decades of social activism have taken their toll on me. Let me tell you a story.

A few years back I heard about a rapper named Ice-T who was selling a CD called "Cop Killer" celebrating ambushing and murdering police officers. It was being marketed by none other than Time/Warner, the biggest entertainment conglomerate in the world. Police across the country were outraged. Rightfully so-at least one had been murdered. But Time/Warner was stonewalling because the CD was a cash cow for them, and the media were tiptoeing around it because the rapper was black. I heard Time/Warner had a stockholders meeting scheduled in Beverly Hills. I owned some shares at the time, so I decided to attend.

What I did there was against the advice of my family and colleagues. I asked for the floor. To a hushed room of a thousand average American stockholders, I simply read the full lyrics of "Cop Killer" -- every vicious, vulgar, instructional word.

"I GOT MY 12 GAUGE SAWED OFF
I GOT MY HEADLIGHTS TURNED OFF
I'm ABOUT TO BUST SOME SHOTS OFF
I'm ABOUT TO DUST SOME COPS OFF..."

It got worse, a lot worse. I won't read the rest of it to you. But trust me, the room was a sea of shocked, frozen, blanched faces. The Time/Warner executives squirmed in their chairs and stared at their shoes. They hated me for that. Then I delivered another volley of sick lyric brimming with racist filth, where Ice-T fantasizes about sodomizing two 12-year old nieces of Al and Tipper Gore. "SHE PUSHED HER BUTT AGAINST MY ...."

Well, I won't do to you here what I did to them. Let's just say I left the room in echoing silence. When I read the lyrics to the waiting press corps, one of them said "We can't print that." "I know," I replied, "but Time/Warner Ìs selling it."

Two months later, Time/Warner terminated Ice-T's contract. I'll never be offered another film by Warners, or get a good review from Time magazine. But disobedience means you must be willing to act, not just talk.

When a mugger sues his elderly victim for defending herself ... jam the switchboard of the district attorney's office. When your university is pressured to lower standards until 80 percent of the students graduate with honors ... choke the halls of the board of regents. When an 8-year-old boy pecks a girl's cheek on the playground and gets hauled into court for sexual harassment ... march on that school and block its doorways. When someone you elected is seduced by political power and betrays you ... petition them, oust them, banish them. When Time magazine's cover portrays millennium nuts as deranged, crazy Christians holding a cross as it did last month ... boycott their magazine and the products it advertises.

So that this nation may long endure, I urge you to follow in the hallowed footsteps of the great disobediences of history that freed exiles, founded religions, defeated tyrants, and yes, in the hands of an aroused rabble in arms and a few great men, by God's grace, built this country.

If Dr. King were here, I think he would agree.

Thank you.

Will you fight for your guns?

Guns and Ammo
Stephen Weaver

Freedom's Last Stand
Are You Willing To Fight for Your Guns?

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriot and tyrants". -Thomas Jefferson

By Stephen Weaver

During the latter stages of the Rhodesian Bush war, in the late 1970's a particularly salient tactical point was demonstrated to those with eyes to see. Embattled Rhodesia, fighting for its very life and ostracized by virtually the entire world, quietly adopted a policy change for its armed forces. As a result, the selector switches on thousands of FN-FAL rifles were deliberately switched from the full-auto mode to semi-automatic as a matter of standard procedure. The reason was the shortage of ammunition brought about by international sanction efforts. The effects were startling in that nothing changed as far as battle outcome in spite of a better-armed and equipped enemy in increasingly superior numbers penetrating Rhodesia from three fronts. The communist-trained and supplied terrorists maintained the full auto mode with their AK-47s right up until the end. When the final battles came the outnumbered and outgunned Rhodesians had never lost a single encounter; rather, their demise came at the negotiation table-which is a point for deep reflection.

What this proves is that semi-auto fire is a match for full-auto in the hands of determined and committed personnel fighting for home and hearth. As we stand today with the threat of legislation banning the possession and/or manufacture of semi-automatic weapons, we had best pause and consider this carefully. A ban of so called assault rifles today will become a ban on your Remington 1100 tomorrow -- bet on it. The Second Amendment has been dealt numerous and severe infractions in multiple, localized instances over the past half-century. But never before has it faced the broad onslaught we now see. The avowed goal of those in our very government is to strip us of our rights under the Second Amendment. Should this occur, however, it will ultimately be our fault, not theirs. The reason for this is the Second Amendment. As an American in the middle of my fourth decade in this life I, like many others, look around in utter shock and dismay at the rapid unraveling of our culture. I've managed to get to this point in life without running afoul of our laws even once. I am not associated with or an adherent to any group espousing supremacist views, Nor do I advocate the violent overthrow of the government... at this point in time. I will confess to holding numerous politically incorrect attitudes, however.

I've been fortunate to be able to live abroad in several countries, which has given me a good deal of perspective from which to speak, But, I speak as an American whose family has been in this country since before the revolution. Now I look at the fast-approaching tomorrow when I may be legislated a criminal for what is my legal right today. This is because I own a couple of semi-automatic weapons. One of them was bequeathed to me by my late father and was purchased by him in the middle 1920's -- insidious weaponry indeed! Yet I face the possibility that I could wake up one day and be a felon unless I immediately turn in these weapons. This is something I will not do.

Those words are not written lightly or without the awareness that someone will read them that I would rather not have reading them. Nevertheless I am compelled to write this, under my own name, because I cannot, in good conscience, keep quiet on the issue. Should such legislation pass in this country, I do expect the possibility that I might not live for any great period of time there after. For at that point I will bear arms against the so-called government of that day. I will do so if I have to do it alone and I will do it for several very good and legal reasons.

It is legal, now, for me to write and for this to be published because we have a First Amendment. We have that because some vestiges of the Constitution are still intact. Right behind our freedom of speech and freedom of religion our forefathers placed a second pillar of this republic, the right to bear arms. In many ways it has supported and still does support the rest. I'll not go into a long discourse about the legal basis for our Second Amendment rights. That's been done by better legal minds than mine and is readily available to the inquiring mind. I'll suffice to say that, in the succinct words of a bumper sticker, "The Second Amendment ain't about duck hunting." What it is about, is our culture, our country and our whole way of life I'll not give that up without a fight.

The late Christian theologian Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer once made a statement that has stuck with me for many years: "If there is no final place for civil disobedience, then the government has been made autonomous, and as such, it has been put in the place of the Living God." The thrust of what Dr. Schaeffer has said here is as relevant to the secular as it is to the Christian audience he addressed. In a nutshell, if you don't have a defensible bottom line, you've just made the government your personal god. The context of the discourse from which this quote was taken was the rule of law in our culture. In the American expression of western culture the rule of law is embodied in the Constitution of the United States, of which the Second Amendment is an integral part. To an American, then, this is our relevant bottom line, from a secular governmental perspective. In the words of the Constitution itself, Article VI, Section 2: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance, thereof ... shall be the supreme law of the land."

The Second Amendment is a part of the Constitution and is not in the authority of Congress to alter save by an amending process as submitted to the states. No 51-49 vote can legally supersede it. All powers in our Constitution are delegated at three levels: Federal, State and the People. This is where our Second Amendment rights lay, with the people. Very simply, Congress would be breaking the supreme law if it infringed on our Second Amendment right. It does not have that legal power and never has. Neither do the courts. Banning semi-autos is a clear infringement in the same way I would handle it when encountered in the form of some dirtball on the street. I'm not in the habit of handing over my guns to any criminal, regardless of title or elected office.

This too is an American attitude older than our Republic. It was essentially a British gun-grabbing attempt that ignited our Revolution. The lessons of Lexington and the conviction of Concord are sorely needed in out time. The Declaration of Independence has a lot to say about the reasons to dispose of government. And none of them are to be taken lightly. In this writer's opinion we are far beyond the of tyranny, which the minds of Jefferson, Washington and Madison decided was their bottom line. If we are not now on the verge of a similar point, with similar actions presenting themselves as strong possibilities, then we have tacitly declared Jefferson and company criminals, and their subsequent government illegitimate. But history has shown this is decidedly not the case; the greatest experimentation in government has not been a complete failure. We've just let our elected government and its bureaucracies slip from the "chains" that Mr. Jefferson knew were the proper abode for all government.

It is not time to scrap our Constitution, it is time to reinstate it as the lawful rule in this country. That is best done with the Constitution itself.

Either we take the preamble of our Constitution seriously or we submit to the illegitimate and illegal actions of our elected officials as god in our lives. Our forefathers gave us a great gift: "We the People in Order to ...secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity [that's us] do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The Founders are gone, but what they gave us is still alive enough to save the "blessings of Liberty" if we've the courage to use it. It is to this point that I write these words and sign them with the intent of pledging my life, any other free Americans left who will do likewise?

There are those who will honestly question the need to draw such a line at this point. In rebuttal to that I'll point to the example of Rhodesia and the great concern of our founders over standing armies with the need to have an equally armed Militia. We cannot hope to prevail against a tyrannical government armed with fully automatic weapons when we are reduced to bolt actions or worse. We can prevail with our semi's, and they know it -- from behind every tree and rock, in a wholly American expression of "don't tread on me." You see, it is not street crime driving the anti-gunners, it is the complete disarmament of the American populace. If they've taken our semi's, they'll eventually get the rest without risk. Do I know what I'm suggesting here? Yes, I do.

I am speaking of the specter of civil war while adamantly hoping it can be avoided. It is true that one shot could ignite a civil war under such a scenario but if so, as a Lexington, it would be a "shot heard round the world". Because if it were to occur our goal ought to be the reinstitution of the Constitution and the rule of law in our unraveling society. Further, it should be taken to the doors of those instigating such illegal acts that might precipitate a civil war; their vote for such a bill will mean they are to be put on trial for treason and conspiracy to violate our civil rights. This would include the president who signs it and perhaps the newspaper columnists and broadcast media who rail for its passage.

In the words of Sir Winston Churchill, whose mother incidentally was an American, "Still if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.' To those who would consider burying their semi's in the backyard, I suggest a careful consideration of these words. We are nearly at a critical crossroads in the course of this nation. What we bequeath to our children (our posterity) should be no less than what was given us, the chance to live as free men and women. Will you act when this critical moment arrives, or bow at the feet of your newfound god-feet that would soon be found to be wearing jackboots when they come to kick in your unprotected door?