Originally published on our website July 21, 2000

The following letter was sent to Mr. Michael Small, Manager, State of CA Justice Department, Firearms Division. It is in response to a letter from Mr. Small, informing me that citizens have no Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms, as far as the State of California is concerned. --M.Y.

Thursday, July 20, 2000

State of California Department of Justice Firearms Division P.O. Box 820200 Sacramento, CA 94203-0200

ATTN: Mr. Mike Small, Manager Firearms Licensing and Permits Section

Dear Mr. Small:

Thank you for your recent response to my letter concerning the State of California's alleged right to infringe on the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

In your reply, you state that "The Department considers California firearms related statutes constitutionally valid with respect to the Second Amendment, based on United States Supreme Court promulgations that the Second Amendment does not extend to state restrictions on firearms."

Promulgations? Quite frankly, not being a legal eagle, I had to get out the dictionary and look up the fancy word. My American Heritage Dictionary says it means: "To make known, a public decree, to put a law into affect by formal public announcement."

First of all, your letter suggests that my father and grandfather were liars or ignorant of their Constitutional Rights. My father served Honorably in the United States Marine Corps and well knew what he was serving for.

Secondly, your portent of your letter seems to totally disregard the writings of the Founding Fathers, with respect to the Second Amendment and the need for the "whole body of the people" to be armed, not just for hunting or protection of family and property, but most importantly, to protect themselves from the tyranny of government.

Now, sir, you folks up their in Sodom on the Sacramento may think that many of us fell off the turnip truck at some time in our lives. In my own case, this is totally untrue, since I have never seen a turnip truck and can't stand turnips. So, I decided to dig out my copy of the 1982 "Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-Seventh Congress, Second Session." The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch of Utah was the Chairman.

Toward the end of the report is the Appendix / Case Law.

"The United States Supreme Court has only three times commented upon the meaning of the second amendment to our constitution."

The first comment, in DRED SCOTT, indicated strongly that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right; the Court noted that, were it to hold free blacks to be entitled to equality of citizenship, they would be entitled to keep and carry arms wherever they went.

"The second, in Miller, indicated that a Court cannot take judicial notice that a short - barreled shotgun is covered by the second amendment -- but the Court did not indicate that the National Guard status is in any way required for protection by that amendment, and indeed, defined "militia" to include all citizens able to bear arms".

"The third, a footnote in Lewis V. United States, indicated only that 'these legislative restrictions on the use of firearms' -- a ban on possession by felons -- were permissible."

The report goes on to say that "These three comments constitute all significant explanations of the scope of the second amendment advanced by our Supreme Court."

Under "20th Century Cases", I find the following of interest:

State V. Blocker, 291 OR. 255, -- -- --P.2d -- -- -- (1981) "The statute is written as a total proscription of the mere possession of certain weapons, and that mere possession , insofar as a billy is concerned, is constitutionally protected."

State V. Kessler, 289 OR, 359, 614P.2d, at 95, at 98 (1980) "We are not unmindful that there is current controversy over the wisdom of a right to bear arms, and that the original motivations for such a provision might not seem compelling if debated as (p.15)a new issue. Our task, however, in construing a constitutional provision is to respect the principles given the status of constitutional guarantees and limitations by the drafters; it is not to abandon these principles when this fits the needs of the moment."

"Therefore, the term 'arms' as used by the drafters of the constitutions probably was intended to include those weapons used by settlers for both personal and military defense. The term 'arms' was not limited to firearms, but included several hand carried weapons commonly used for defense. The term 'arms' would not have included cannon or other heavy ordnance not kept by militia-men or private citizens."

Next, I turned to a collection of quotations from the men who wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson

"Americans need not fear the federal government because they enjoy the advantage of being armed, which you possess over the people of almost every other nation." James Madison

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms...To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms..." Richard Henry Lee

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason

"...The said Constitution be never construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." Samuel Adams

So you see, Mr. Small, we are in a quandary here. The Founding Fathers of this nation made it quite clear that they intended for the "whole body of the people" to keep and bear arms. The Founding Fathers also made it very clear that the "whole people" are the "militia" and, most certainly not a government military agency.

The following quote seems to describe the relationship between the honest people of this State and this Republic, versus the governments, thereof:

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance." --Alexander Hamilton: 28 pg206 - Federalist Papers

Now, sir, would you dare to suggest that the Constitution, or the Second Amendment has been rewritten since 1982?

Do you dare to suggest that the United States Senate Sub-Committee, made up of legal scholars, did not know of what it wrote in the report?

I'm permanently disabled from spinal cancer, so spend a great deal of time on the Internet these days. While this is by no means a threat of any sort, I can assure you that the State of California and the United States Government are "cruising for a bruising".

There are at least 80 million gun owners in this nation and most of them have absolutely no intention of registering their firearms, obtaining licenses to own them or adhere to any of the other infringements the would-be-police-state would dare to impose in violation of our God-given and Constitutional Rights. The courts have made it clear that no government has the right to take that which is a God-given and / or Constitutional Right, try to turn it into a "privilege", and then license and tax it. That is EXACTLY what the State of California has been doing for many years.

Nor, do they intend to turn in the so-called "assault weapons", which by their very definition, are specifically required by every person in order to defend themselves from the tyranny of government, of which you, sir, are a part.

In your previous message, you failed to cite these so-called Supreme Court "promulgations" which the State of California claims authorizes the state to infringe on our Constitutional Rights. Would you kindly do so now?

Back during the Vietnam War, Jane Fonda and many others proved the saying that "if it prosper, none dare call it treason!" Our felon-in-chief has brought a whole new meaning to treason in high places and much of the congress of the United States has jumped aboard that wagon from hell.

Your boss, the members of the California Legislature, Governor Red Davis and the rest of the gun grabbers have so distinguished themselves as well.

It is my own, personal opinion, Jefferson's admonition concerning the necessity of a bloody revolution every few years to clean out the scalawags and traitors in order to keep our Republic, is long, long overdue to be carried out.

Sincerely,

Mel Young