Many of you know if the Rally in Washington State

[PAMedic=F|A=]

http://www.examiner.com/article/satu...ights-advocacy

“Gun Owners Prepare for Arrest at WA State Capitol,” Kit Lange of The Patrick Henry Society reported Monday. “Liberty activists and gun owners organized by Liberty for All and The Patriots Stand are converging at the WA State Capitol in Olympia on Saturday at a rally meant to protest and violate new rules imposed by the legislature banning open carry in public viewing galleries.”

Lange was referring to the Our Capitol Our Rights response to politicians closing off open carry of firearms in the legislature. Armed activists will be going there this weekend to test the new rule by disobeying it.

Among those going is my friend and colleague, citizen journalist, blogger, public speaker, activist and founder of the “Three Percent” movement, Mike Vanderboegh. There has been no shortage of criticism for the actions and intentions of the open carriers, and by that I mean from the “pro-gun” side. I have had doubts of my own about the wisdom of Mike participating in the event, which I expressed to him in a private email, and consented to allowing him to post it for others to read and comment on.

Many of those doubts have since been partially allayed by seeing some concerns addressed, particularly that legal counsel has been identified and potential consequences understood, that funding is being established to help with legal costs, and that communications are being set up to provide real time information to offsite monitors and interested parties as events unfold.

The thing is, what I think, or what you think is a moot point as far as Saturday’s planned actions are concerned. Regardless of sentiments, fears, cautions and warnings, it’s “Game on,” and the activists will not be deterred. This is the new paradigm all of us, but especially the "gun groups," need to get used to, because it effectively nullifies any "compromises" some may be inclined to agree to. Ultimately, people are going to choose to obey or disobey edicts they know to be wrong, and to decide if they wish to confront those denying them their rights and property. Once the decision is made, our approval and agreement over tactics don't matter. Nothing we say or do is going to stop it. Once the decision is made, we can condemn them as extremists who make us all look bad, as some are doing, or we can remind ourselves that the real extremists are those who disregard oaths, deny rights and force their will on others with life-destroying consequences.

Besides, to doctrinaire monopoly of violence cultists, “extremist” is a term used by “progressive” apparatchiks as a weapon against good Americans who believe in the right to keep and bear arms. "Moderates" in the pro-gun camp inclined to repeat that charge against determined open carriers need to be reminded that it will be leveled against them soon enough the next time they promote or oppose a bill.

We would also do well to remind ourselves that civil disobedience is a time-honored tradition in this country, which itself was founded first in petitioning, then in disregard, defiance, resistance and rebellion. Henry David Thoreau wrote the seminal work on the matter, and we've seen it used with varying degrees of success throughout our history, notably in the demand for civil rights for all.

There's a growing movement that's getting sick and damned tired of all the posturing and games, while rights we clearly understand are ours are being denied by self-serving oathbreakers as citizens are intimidated and punished for exercising them. Some people are through asking. They're going to start taking back, especially where listening to the lawyers and the lobbyists has failed.

Like it or not, that's what's happening.

Look at the untold hundreds of thousands of gun owners, who simply wish to be left alone but who are adamant in demanding their rights, and who have thus refused to register their guns as ordered in places like California, New York and Connecticut.

Look at how “authorities” know their demands have been ignored for all to see, and wish some of their impulse control-challenged media sycophants would stop calling attention to their impotence, and instead catch on to a self-imposed code of silence on mass “scofflaw” roundups that the major anti-gun groups seem to have adopted. Look at how government agents backed down from armed citizens at the Bundy Ranch. Look at how Oath Keepers maintained their armed rooftop vigils, despite unlawful police orders to stand down.

Look at the resolve of Washington’s “I Will Not Comply” activists.

“We are asking for people to come and stand with us, whether that be armed openly, concealed, or even unarmed,” rally leader Kit Lange explained. “Those who enter the gallery while open carrying will be arrested for criminal trespass (a misdemeanor); however, concealed carry is still ‘allowed’ (although the state patrol has said they will be checking permits). Those who wish to stand do NOT have to be arrested; they are welcome to come concealed and take pics/video, or simply serve as witnesses to what's happening.

“We do ask that those who come understand that responsible, respectful conduct is necessary,” Lange continued. “Obviously safe firearm handling (muzzles up at all times) is necessary; we are also asking that those who choose to be arrested do not physically resist. We will act with principle and calm. We are standing for our liberty and will adhere to the catechism of the Three Percent: we do not shoot first and we do not target innocents. We are simply there to force the issue of infringement. Those who choose to act irresponsibly or attempt to incite violence will be on their own.”

This is a new paradigm for gun rights activism those of us used to doing things the old way are going to need to get used to. A critical mass of Americans is fed up suffering under intolerable acts imposed on them by corrupt bureaucracies, administrations, courts and enforcers, and they’re putting all of us on notice they will not comply, they will not obey and they will not disarm.

Expect to see more of this, regardless of what we see on Saturday, or perhaps because of the confidence or outrage the events of the day will bring. Expect to see it in places where the old ways have failed, and people who understand a right delayed is a right denied find that unacceptable, and cause for immediate defiance.

Some will no doubt come back with the observation that this will only antagonize “authority,” and the response will be more restrictions, like we've recently seen happen in Olympia. That may be true, but it can also backfire, as those intent on reclaiming what is theirs are determined to simply not obey, regardless of what retaliatory measures are passed and signed into... well, it’s not really “law” if it infringes, is it?

As gun owners who advocate for the right to keep and bear arms, we are each of us faced with a choice, and one we can no longer put off. We can join our voices to those condemning these demonstrators as radical extremists, that is, the same people who would call us that, or we can support the peaceable armed protesters, even if their actions make us uncomfortable, and even, especially, if this new reality scares us.

It wasn't gun owners who pushed things to this point. Some -- a few for now, but one that appears to be growing -- aren't about to be pushed back or over, or kept from advancing to where they know they have a right to be.

[PAMedic=F|A=]

Tweets from the event: Galleries have been locked in advance, website states they are open 7 days a week for tours. Delivering list of grievances in morning!

No arrests were made...complete success. Delvered a list of grievances to the govenor and posted on gallery doors.

https://twitter.com/libertybosworth/...52472025853952

https://twitter.com/libertybosworth/media


Saturday, February 7, 2015
"Do we submit? Or will we resist?" My Speech to the "Our Capitol, Our Rights: A Rally for Freedom." 7 February 2015.
The reason why men enter into society, is the preservation of their property; and the end why they chuse and authorize a legislative, is, that there may be laws made, and rules set, as guards and fences to the properties of all the members of the society, to limit the power, and moderate the dominion, of every part and member of the society: for since it can never be supposed to be the will of the society, that the legislative should have a power to destroy that which every one designs to secure, by entering into society, and for which the people submitted themselves to legislators of their own making; whenever the legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge, which God hath provided for all men, against force and violence. Whensoever therefore the legislative shall transgress this fundamental rule of society; and either by ambition, fear, folly or corruption, endeavour to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people; by this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who. have a right to resume their original liberty. . . -- John Locke, Second Treatise, section 222, 1689.


My name is Mike Vanderboegh and I have come here to these wintry grounds from the much warmer great free state of Alabama to stand beside you as I did in December in your resistance to the growing tyranny in this state – and it IS a tyranny, there is no other word that applies so well. From I-594, Michael Bloomberg’s billionaire-bought, demonic bastard child, to the new anti-firearm laws being promulgated by collectivist politicians behind these walls, to the latest diktat about firearms in the House and Senate galleries – it IS a tyranny that has a voracious appetite for your traditional liberty, for your property, an appetite that comes with the state-sanctioned threat of violence to your lives if you do not comply.
As I noted when I spoke on the steps of the Connecticut state house almost two years ago now – it is an established principle of American jurisprudence that an unconstitutional law is void – it has no effect. But I also noted that the tricky part for those of us who wish to maintain our liberties is how to make that point when all the levers of power in a state – the executive, the legislative and the judicial – are in the hands of people whom the Founders would call “domestic enemies of the Constitution.” And as I don’t need to tell you, there are people behind THESE walls who fit that description.
For we are divided today – as the Founders were themselves divided from their fellow countrymen – along the stark lines of the answer to the fundamental question: Does the government serve the people or do the people serve the government? It is a simple question. It is the most basic of questions. And the answer is either one or the other. It cannot be both. It cannot be compromised. Who serves whom? That is what we are here today, in some small part, to discover.
Other speakers will give you details of what led to this seemingly silly and inconsequential argument over whether citizens can bear firearms in the galleries of the House and Senate. They will explain why it is neither silly nor inconsequential. They will tell you how this began last summer with public insults and threats on the part of the leadership of the WA state legislature. They will explain how this move on the part of these “authorities” is contrary to law and to past practice of long-standing and how it is an offense to liberty. But I would like to explain why I’M here. Why I continue to stand by the uncompromising firearm-owning citizens of Washington state. Why indeed I have done the same thing in other states from Connecticut to Colorado.
How DO we maintain our liberties when all the levers of power are in the hands of the domestic enemies of the Constitution? Well. I’ll tell you. WE SIMPLY REFUSE TO BE COMPLICIT IN OUR OWN VICTIMIZATION.
The citizens of Connecticut answered that question with armed civil disobedience. They simply refused to obey the law demanding that they register their semi-automatic rifles and even, if you can believe the absurdity of it, that they register the standard capacity magazines that those rifles use – and there were and are literally MILLIONS of them. They accepted the fact that their own state had just declared them Class D felons – They accepted it and then they quietly and politiely – with their silent non-compliance – told the Connecticut politicians to TAKE THEIR LAW AND GO STRAIGHT TO HELL!
Over one hundred thousand citizens of CT have been staring at their state authorities -- essentially over the muzzles of those proscribed rifles – and daring the state to come and take them. They have nullified that law by their resistance for two years now . . . AND THE POLITICIANS DON’T KNOW WHETHER TO DEFECATE OR GO BLIND. Despite their promises to the citizen disarmament lobbyists that they pandered to they are not enforcing the law BECAUSE THEY ARE FRIGHTENED TO DEATH OF WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN IF THEY DO.
Of course the fact that I published the names, home addresses and phone numbers of the politicians who voted for this Intolerable Act on my blog, Sipsey Street Irregulars, may have had something to do with their reluctance. (WINK.)
You know, it’s a funny thing. Collectivist tyrants like to put people on lists but they get real nervous when someone returns the favor. That’s a lesson that some of the folks behind those walls ought to internalize – for the good of us all.
And like Connecticut, you Washingtonians have learned that tyranny can be voted in by a majority. But as I pointed out in my speech on these grounds in December, that doesn’t make it right, it doesn’t make it constitutional, it doesn’t make it any part of the rule of law in a republic that the Founders would recognize. As I said then, it doesn’t matter if a common criminal comes into to your home to rob you, kill you and victimize your loved ones or if a majority of your neighbors vote to have the same thing done to you. The crime is the same – indeed it is worse if a government does it because official violence is so much more total, overwhelming and remorseless.
Just ask the victims of every collectivist government massacre of the 20th Century. From the Turkish genocide of the Armenians 100 years ago, to the planned famines and gulags of Stalin, the Holocaust of Hitler, the “Great Leap Forward” of Mao, to the killing fields of Pol Pot’s Cambodia – governments have butchered hundreds of millions of innocents in their impersonal hatreds – always with the excuse that they have the right to remake humanity, to punish “wrong thinking,” to remove inconvenient opposition – AND THEY DO IT ALL IN THE NAME OF “THE LAW.”
The law. Almost every evil is excused by the perpretrators by claiming they are executing “the law.” The demons in human form in the Middle East today who crucify children and burn people to death in iron cages claim to do so in the name of their chosen “law.” To call murder “the law” does not excuse it, nor make it anything other than murder. To call tyranny “the law” does not make it right, nor does it make it any less tyrannical – even if it is voted into existence by a majority or promulgated by so-called “democratically elected representatives.” But, if the crime is the same, then the remedy is the same.
The Founders knew this, both from their study of history and from their own experience. We make much today about our rebellion against King George the Thrid as if the British monarchy was the entire problem but the fact of the matter was that King George sat at the head of a PARLIAMENTARY TYRANNY – one very similar in many respects to what goes on behind these walls here, today.


Kevin Phillips, in his book 1775: A Good Year for Revolution, points out that the British tyranny was first and foremost a PARLIAMENTARY tyranny. In the aftermath of The Glorious Revolution of 1688 he argues, “Parliament was now more absolute than a king had ever quite been under common law.” He writes:
“Under Britain’s constitution, the one-time common law rights of Englishman, in earlier days invocable against ROYAL transgressions, no longer applied as against PARLIAMENT. Most Americans of the Patriot faction, however, still cherished an older . . . view rooted in the old common law. That English liberty could be asserted against ANY institutional transgressor. A few British lawyers still agreed with the old interpretation . . . Similarly, in America many Tories upheld complete Parliamentary sovereignty. But on the whole, the two peoples separated by the Atlantic held different views of the British constitution and the extent to which it did or did not not still enshrine common law verities about tyrants and the rights of Englishmen. If the tyrants were in Parliament, even the rights of Englishmen were no longer assured.” -- pp. 209-210
Today, as we stand here in the 21st Century, we can see that the de facto descendants of those 18th Century English parliamentary tyrants today inhabit the Washington state house, as well as other state houses and governors’ mansions around the country. They tell us, “Do what we say” -- regardless of law, regardless of the common practice enshrined since Washington statehood, regardless even of common sense -- “Do what we say or we will use the violence of the state to bend you to our will.”

And why do they do this? Because they can. It is as simple as that. They do it because they think that in ordering the people of Washington state to do their will, that you will obey. They do it because they believe that they have the right to do it. Their tyranny, as the Founders feared, is of the elected variety. But it is tyranny nonetheless.
Why do they do this? They do it also because they are scared. They understand better than anyone – for they look their appetites in the mirror every morning when they wake up. They know who they are and what they are about and that they know they no longer trust the people – if they ever did – with the means of self defense against common criminals or against them. They are frightened that you have figured out their game – that you have reasonably concluded that I594, the additional anti-self defense laws that they are pushing, this latest diktat about the House and Senate galleries – all of it. They are frightened because you now understand that this is about THEIR appetites for YOUR liberty, for YOUR property, that indeed this is about THEIR ability to deny YOUR ability to defend your very lives no matter where or when that need may arise. And we know in the light of recent experiences in Mumbai and Paris, in Australia and Canada, and yes, in Kansas and Fort Hood and New York City, that THAT need can arise anywhere, anytime. And they would rob you, in their fear of firearms in OUR hands, of the means to resist the truly evil.
This isn’t about “common sense gun safety” as they claim. This is about control – their control of a government monopoly of violence over the people. They don’t want to hear any dissent from you in the peanut galleries, so they will silence you. BUT THEY WILL SILENCE YOU IF, AND ONLY IF, YOU ALLOW THEM TO DO IT. Will you allow them to silence you? Will you?
They hide behind their priveleges, this new parliamentary tyranny, this self-appointed Mandarin class of our so-called “betters” – they hide behind their alleged “purviews” and “parliamentary priveleges” and expect their designated bully boys of the Washington State Police to make you knuckle under – or else.
It is not THEIR precious butts they put on the line with their unconstitutional diktats – oh, no, never their own – no, they misuse the good men and women of the Washington State Police to do that. For they are at heart cowards, and they know it. And they are right to be right about that one thing – firearms in the hands of the people scare them. They are as allergic to them as Dracula is to crucifixes and for the same reason – they get in the way of tyrannical appetites.
We see here today on this miserable winter day in Olympia Washington – so seemingly distant from the struggles of the Founders in 1775 yet so very, eerily, close – that the Founders were right. Tyranny can be voted in by a majority as it was with I594. Tyranny can also come from a duly-elected parliament or state legislature. The test for us is – do we submit? Or will we resist?
Will we insist upon our God-given, inalienable and natural rights as free Americans? Or will we submit to tyranny? The answer that has been rediscovered over the past two years in places as diverse as Connecticut and Colorado, Texas and Maryland, New York and, yes, right here in Washington state, is armed civil disobedience – disciplined, determined, well thought out and precisely executed armed civil disobedience. In all those places unconstitutional laws have been nullified – rendered null and void as American legal practice has long agreed that they should be.
We engage in armed civil disobedience not to provoke violence but to prevent it. We are willing to risk being shot for OUR principles. The question is, what are our alleged leaders willing to risk to satisfy THEIR appetites for OUR liberty, OUR property, indeed, our very lives? That is the question that armed civil disobedience seeks to focus their attention on. This is not new in American history. From Capt. Parker at Lexington Green to the Battle of Athens, Tennessee in 1946, to the Deacons for Defense and Justice during the civil rights movement, armed civil disobedience has been resorted to by the citizenry when all other means of redress failed.
What they asked of tyrants in their time, we ask of tyrants in ours. Are your appetites – your unconstitutional laws – worth the taking of our lives to you? What is your power worth to you? What is your power to order the rest of us about, on whatever flimsy pretext you choose – not in obedience to any rule of law that the Founders would understand, not in any constitutional fashion – but what is your power to bend the rest of us to your will worth to you? What are your appetites worth to you? We just simply want to be left alone. Unlike you we don’t seek to compel anyone to do anything. But we will not be compelled ourselves by you. Not for just an appetite. Not for just a pretense of legitimacy.
So we stand here today on our traditional rights as free Americans, as free Washingtonians. We stand where the Founders expected us to stand – insisting upon those rights paid for in blood and tears by the generations before us.
We stand here, risking all, as they did. We stand here, insistent, as they would have. We stand here, disciplined, determined, insistent, refusing to knuckle under to tyranny of any kind, no matter how petty.
We stand here, today, and I am humbled beyond words for the privelege of standing here with you.
May God save the Founders’ Republic.

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogsp...resist-my.html

[PAMedic=F|A=]

Much is being made of Mike Vanderboegh calling an unsafe demonstrator a “moron” in a preliminary talk he gave before his main speech yesterday at the Washington State Capitol in Olympia. Contrary to some of the arguments being made, using that term for someone who ignored specific gun handling cautions is not equivalent to others who have invoked the word "extremist."

Mike Vanderboegh defies I-594 as he delivers a speech in Olympia.
tuck0411 (YouTube video screenshot)
Some of the detractors of yesterday’s actions are missing something big here in the rush to disparage and condemn actions they don't agree with. And yes, no argument, more edicts may be enacted as retaliation against hard core protests by oath-breaking political opportunists we all ought to recognize as the true extremists. The thing is, these defiant citizens are going to disobey any future edicts, too. What government enforcers do after that will determine the reactions of those who will not obey them.

We've moved into new territory, or more precisely, been moved into it whether we want to go or not. And the only thing those who disagree with such direct tactics can do about it is side with the antis, the same people who would call them extremists.

Another argument is the pile-on by anti-gun readers and "reasonable" gun owners in comments to press accounts.It should not be a surprise most of those condemn Saturday’s actions. Most gun owners probably will too, at least for now. The defiant ones don’t call themselves Three Percenters for nothing.

There were plenty of good people in 1771, those objecting to heavy-handed disregard of their rights, but still trying to work the system, who thought the similar-sized handful of impatient and angry people throwing tea into Boston Harbor were radical extremists who hurt the cause, and made them all look bad. But looking back, it's doubtful public sentiment could have been galvanized without such "impatient" patriots setting the necessary tone though actions many disapproved of. And today's protesters haven't even approached that level of defiance and resistance -- yet.

I don't have a crystal ball, but I believe disparaging and dismissing what we saw yesterday will not serve those doing so well, especially since there is nothing you or I can do about dissuading further such demonstrations.

I'm not kidding when I say "new paradigm." Dismiss that if you like, and maybe you'll be right and I'll be wrong. If you have an alternative plan for where many are at now -- such as those faced with the choice to obey and register or disobey and be a felon -- it would be nice if you shared it. Those currently at risk are not inclined to be patient with a right denied.

Here's a challenge for those who would condemn activists whose line in the sand is ahead of theirs: Deconstruct and fisk Mike's speech. Avoid the ad hominem and take it on point-by-point. After you read and listen to it.

http://www.examiner.com/article/vand...dvocate-divide

[bogey1]

I read about it in my local paper today. No arrests It said they were selling hats to raise money for bail if they got arrested. They sold out.. I hope to see more of this down the road.

[Philbert]

The open carry ban happened because people were open carrying rifles Chipotle style into the Capitol.

Hopefully this doesn't derail the legislative attempts to exempt licensed individuals from the requirements of the "universal background checks".

[PAMedic=F|A=]

I read about it in my local paper today. No arrests It said they were selling hats to raise money for bail if they got arrested. They sold out.. I hope to see more of this down the road.

There were no arrests because they were not allowed to break the law.

The Doors to the capitol rotunda were shut and locked, which has never happened before. To break the law they would have had to enter the rotunda.

The open carry ban happened because people were open carrying rifles Chipotle style into the Capitol.

Hopefully this doesn't derail the legislative attempts to exempt licensed individuals from the requirements of the "universal background checks".

What's the PAFOAer quote? Many support the right, few support the practice?

[Philbert]

What's the PAFOAer quote? Many support the right, few support the practice?

It was a planned protest with the aim of supporting pro gun politics. When engaging in planned political protests, the actions that are a wise idea are a tiny subset of what you are legally allowed to do. That is true of guns or any other issue.

Do you think this was a good strategy for helping sway legislators? The public?



http://www.kplu.org/post/tense-momen...-house-gallery

Note the guy in the background is wearing a mask. Do you think masked men with rifles is a good way to influence the political process?

ETA: Another pic of the gas mask man



http://www.oregonlive.com/today/inde...s_activis.html

[bogey1]

It was a planned protest with the aim of supporting pro gun politics. When engaging in planned political protests, the actions that are a wise idea are a tiny subset of what you are legally allowed to do. That is true of guns or any other issue.

Do you think this was a good strategy for helping sway legislators? The public?



http://www.kplu.org/post/tense-momen...-house-gallery

Note the guy in the background is wearing a mask. Do you think masked men with rifles is a good way to influence the political process?

I'm all for carrying guns and what not, but to handle one in public like you're ready to throw down, that's not going to go over too well. And the guy with the mask, whats up with that Stay home if you're going to be a pussy.

[Curmudgeon]

There were no arrests because they were not allowed to break the law.

The Doors to the capitol rotunda were shut and locked, which has never happened before. To break the law they would have had to enter the rotunda.




What's the PAFOAer quote? Many support the right, few support the practice?

[PAMedic=F|A=]

It was a planned protest with the aim of supporting pro gun politics. When engaging in planned political protests, the actions that are a wise idea are a tiny subset of what you are legally allowed to do. That is true of guns or any other issue.

Do you think this was a good strategy for helping sway legislators? The public?



http://www.kplu.org/post/tense-momen...-house-gallery

Note the guy in the background is wearing a mask. Do you think masked men with rifles is a good way to influence the political process?

ETA: Another pic of the gas mask man



http://www.oregonlive.com/today/inde...s_activis.html

Perhaps he has a legitimate fear of being targeted by the IRS? the ATF? DEA?

IF we lived in a society that still had a rule of law & a belief in the 4th amendment, a belief in the right of assembly, it would be harder to discount your arguments. Given that it okay to use mace on college students on a sidewalk, murder cattle being legally grazed according to the laws of the State, record every conversations every American is having in real time, including on documents kept privately on computers & not uploaded publicly - When the Chairman and CEO at Gallup expresses public concern that publishing honest employment figures well get him "disappeared" - it is amazing that anyone allows their face to be seen.