Subj: Fwd: [apfn] Is It Treason or an Act of WAR?: CA Retro Gun Laws Unconsttutional?
Date: 9/3/00 1:55:54 AM Pacific Daylight Time

Is It Treason or an Act of WAR?


Duncan McRae

Recently the State of California enacted sweeping retroactive gun laws that criminalize the ownership of previous legally purchased and registered firearms. The State Attorney's office is using the gun sales registration records to target law-abiding citizens for felony arrest and property confiscation. More frightening than the act of jailing otherwise law-abiding citizens and confiscating their property, is the fact that the California State's Attorney and the California State Supreme Court have ruled that upon the State's Attorney sole desecration, the office can prohibit private ownership of any firearm it identifies and make the possession them a felony. When the question of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights was argued, the State Supreme Court stated the citizens of California are not protected under the provisions of the US Constitution because these rights were not expressly defined in California's State Constitution. If that is so, Californians no longer enjoy our democracy and the protection guarantees of: 1) Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 of the Constitution, and 2) the Second Amendment, 3) the Fourth Amendment, 4) the Fifth Amendment, and 5) the Ninth Amendments to the Constitution

The Second Amendment has been argued that it is the individuals right to keep and bare arms. Until this argument is overturned by the US Supreme Court and the Constitution so amended, it shall remain a point of argument. My argument against the California Law is not a Second Amendment issue. Their law and enforcement of it has trashed the US Constitution.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 of the Constitution states: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. In short, it is unconstitutional to pass any law that prohibits any previously legal action and make it retroactive. The California Law is unconstitutional because it revokes a previously viable and legal defense (non-restricted ownership) to an occurrence (possession) that take place after the passing of the law.

The Fourth Amendment protects US citizens and legal aliens from unreasonable search and seizures. The State of California is now using the gun purchase records to pursue seizure and criminal prosecution of otherwise law-abiding citizens for possessing previously legal firearms. This practice has been up-held as a further violation of constitutional rights. There is further argument that the laws are so vague that determining what is now illegal is nearly impossible for both law enforcement and citizen alike.

The Fifth Amendment protects US citizens from indictment of a crime without a grand jury. No need for that under the new California law and enforcement. It also insures that citizens will not be deprived of property without due process. In other words, there will be no forfeiture without a trial. California law does not see the need for that inconveniences either. The Amendment further protects individuals against self-incrimination. Here is the irony. The Supreme Court has ruled that a prior felon can not be imprisoned when caught possessing a prohibited firearm when the police use the records of the sale to identify him. The sales records have been ruled inadmissible because they constitute self-incrimination. If the method of gathering evidence is tainted, then the evidence is inadmissible. Thus, repeat felons have walked. It appears the citizens of California don't have the basic rights of a convicted repeat felon.

Is California's new gun policy treason, act of war, or successful declaration of State's Rights? Maybe it is just another tax disguised as a criminal asset forfeiture law. If this law is upheld as a State's Rights issue, then let us call upon our South Carolina State Legislature to begin rolling back all un-funded Federal mandates dictated over the past thirty years. The Confederate States were required to swear a loyalty oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States at the end of the Civil War This must not have been requirement of later statehood.

Unlike California, the South Carolina State Constitution protects its citizens from the formation of a State dictatorship by the elite. Article 3 stipulates: "The privileges and immunities of citizens of this State and of the United States under this Constitution shall not be abridged, nor shall any person be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. "

If the government and citizens of California are not governed or protected by the rule of law guaranteed by the Constitution, then I believe we all should write our Senators and Representatives to have them stop all future Federal funding for California. If California has successfully withdrawn from the Union and it now out from under the citizen's rights guaranteed by the US Constitution, then California should not receive Federal funds or government contracts. Also, California should be condemned as an outlaw State until such time as it affords its citizens the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. If the California Dictatorship of the Elite is allowed to spread, we will be a conquered nation. If a foreign army entered South Carolina and suspended the Constitution rule of law for its population, we would declare the action an act of war. What is subversion of the rule of law from within? IT IS TREASON and should be treated as such.

Write your State and Federal representatives. Put a stop to state sponsored TREASON! FREE CALIFORNIA! Stop our tax dollars from supporting a dictatorship of the elite! Boycott California products.