THE PROFESSIONAL FACE OF EVIL
A Verbal Confrontation with California DOJ Lackeys
(A compilation of interviews with Brian Puckett, David Codrea, and Charles
Carner)
by Angel Shamaya
Director, KeepAndBearArms.com
AS: First, tell me the basics -- who, what, when, where.
BP: The NRA Members Council of Ventura County East held a public meeting in
a restaurant's conference room in Simi Valley, California [about 30 minutes
from Los Angeles] on July 13. The featured guest was one Randy Rossi, who
is the Director of the California Department of Justice Firearms Division,
who is engaged in enforcing the new regulations that support SB23. Now,
SB23 is the state edict that bans the purchase or sale of any center-fire
rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and also has at least one other
designated cosmetic features or attachment, including a thumbhole stock, a
pistol grip, a forward grip, a flash suppressor, or a folding stock.
AS: Who came to this meeting?
BP: I'd guess there were about 150 citizens, mostly the Simi Valley NRA
people. Rossi arrived with two other unmemorable lackeys. There were also
some uniformed Simi Valley police officers present, presumably to protect
the DOJ employees in case the public became violent. I attended the meeting
with writer/director Charles Carner and writer David Codrea.
AS: What was the purpose of the meeting?
BP: The stated purpose was to ask technical questions about California's
new militia rifle ban and the requirement that owners of such guns register
them. Of course they're actually registering themselves, to be identified
when militia rifle confiscation extends beyond the current confiscation of
SKS rifles.
AS: So what happened?
BP: The meeting started with an introduction by California's State
Representative of the NRA, whose name I won't mention. He put on a
revolting display of fawning over and boot-licking the DOJ employees. He
was clearly pleased that they had allowed him to work with them in
disarming us. He couldn't say enough good things about them, calling
"honorable" and the like. Keep in mind that these men are actively engaged
in taking away our right to buy and sell militia rifles, and who are
preparing to imprison or kill any citizens who don't obey this illegal
edict and register themselves - perhaps some of the citizens in that very
room. It's worth noting that the NRA Member's Council thoughtfully provided
table space for a pile of California DOJ's Assault Weapon Registration
Applications. I suppose they'll provide table space for the DOJ's Bible
registration or computer registration cards at the next meeting. We'll have
to wait and see.
AS: You sound a bit angry at these NRA people.
BP: No! Not at the members. Most of them are good and decent citizens. Most
don't yet realize that the NRA's current management - La Pierre, Baker,
Heston, and state NRA representatives like this one - are working hand-in
hand with the Government to disarm us through laws like SB23 and "Project
Exile".
AS: For the benefit of those who don't know, what is "Project Exile"?
BP: Project Exile is an NRA management program that calls for the strict
enforcement of all current gun control laws. This includes every law that
we have spent time and money over the last few decades to prevent being
passed, including the 1994 Crime Bill outlawing the manufacture and sale of
new over-ten-round magazines and certain militia rifles, called "assault
weapons" by our enemies. All of these rifles function identically to dozens
of other militia rifles. When I say militia rifles, I mean any rifle that
is useful to the militia, which includes all military-pattern rifles. In
any case, "Project Exile" is supposed to be directed against criminals, but
of course every one of these laws can be used against any American citizen.
And that is happening right now. For this, LaPierre gets a reported $20,000
a month plus expenses.
AS: We both have strong feelings on that, of course, as do the leaders of
scores of other major gun rights organizations, like GOA and JPFO. Our
statement on "Project Exile" and the list of those who are adding their
voices to ours is on the KeepAndBearArms.com website. But back to the
meeting. What happened after the DOJ people were introduced?
BP: One of them - I believe it was Rossi - began droning on about he and
his fellow DOJ employees didn't have to come meet with this group, that
they were doing it because they cared about us and didn't want us, or any
gun dealers, to be put "in harm's way" by this law. In other words, the
servants had deigned to appear before us - the people who pay their
salaries - and we should be damned grateful for that. And we should be
aware of their concerned that we citizens would be imprisoned or shot to
death for exercising our Constitutionally-protected rights.
AS: Very thoughtful.
BP: Very. This sort of blather seemed to go on forever, but I suppose it
was only ten or fifteen minutes. One of the DOJ spokesmen stated that in
U.S. v Miller the Supreme Court established that the only protected right
in the Second Amendment had to do with the right of states to form
militias, and that this was now the National Guard-two lies in a row. In
other words, we have no right as citizens to keep and bear arms.
AS: How did the crowd react to this?
BP: There were a couple of unprintable shouts from the audience. As for
myself, the first time I spoke was when one of the DOJ lackeys stated that
our DROS [Dealer's Record Of Sale, or gun purchase records] records had
been destroyed required by law. I asked out loud, "Who believes that?"
AS: How did the DOJ people respond?
BP: They insisted that the records didn't exist.
AS: And then what happened?
BP: There were a couple of technical questions on this unconstitutional
law, SB23, with incomparably irrelevant and boring answers from the
government people. One of them repeatedly stated how "complex" or
"complicated" this law was. I raised my hand and Mark Bell, the moderator
of the event, pointed to me. I stepped into the center aisle while another
man finished asking his question.
AS: What did you ask the DOJ employees?
BP: I don't know every word I said, but I wrote down the actual question
before coming so I wouldn't have to rely on my memory during a stressful
moment. I said, "You keep saying this "law" [SB23] is complicated, but it's
very simple. The Democrats in the California legislature and the governor
have passed a "law" intended to take away our militia rifles. But everyone
here knows that's unconstitutional. So here's my question. Because everyone
understands that many patriots - including active and retired police
officers -will not register their militia rifles and therefore are in
danger of being arrested, prosecuted, and sent to prison by you and your
co-workers, or if they resist of being murdered by government thugs with
whom you work hand in hand; and because most Americans would shun taking
part in such state terrorism, my question is this: were you offered any
extra pay, or material rewards, or a higher government position for
betraying your countrymen, your Constitution, and your country?"
AS: And how did they respond?
BP: Blandly, calmly. I had expected one of them to come at me with his
fists to defend his honor, but of course they have no honor to defend so
that didn't happen. The DOJ employees began mouthing words to make
themselves feel better about betraying their country. When I grew tired of
that I held up one of the "Assault Weapon Registration Applications" and
said "Here's one of your applications to register my militia rifle, with a
space on it for my thumbprint. Here's what I think of it." I tore it up and
tossed it to the floor.
AS: What was the reaction of the people in the room, the NRA members, to
all of this?
BP: There was some applause and shouts of support, but I think many of them
were shocked to hear someone talk to their servants that way. Even though
these servants intended to disarm, imprison, or kill them. Many in the
audience seemed passive, as though they were watching something on
television. I don't blame them. It's not something one sees at most
meetings.
AS: Then what occurred?
BP: This Rossi character stated that he and the other DOJ employees had
served their country in law enforcement and in the military and were doing
what they thought was right. I said, "Regardless of what you've done in the
past, you are now betraying your country." There were some more talk from
the DOJ people but I turned around and walked to the back of the room to
wait for David and Charlie.
AS: (To David Codrea) David, what was your question to the DOJ
representatives?
DC: As Brian was tearing up his registration form, I was standing behind
him. I raised my hands so the room could see me following suit and tore up
mine. When Brian moved to the back of the room I said, "My name is David
Codrea. I'm from Redondo Beach. I'm speaking only for myself, as a free
American with unalienable rights endowed by my Creator. I added this to my
prepared statement, because when Brian was speaking, one woman found it
necessary to proclaim that "He doesn't speak for all of us!" True, I
thought, only for the Patriots in the room. I wish I'd had the presence of
mind to state that out loud.
I then asked the DOJ overlords, "If we defy your terms of dictated
surrender, how many SWAT raids do you estimate it will take to crush and
destroy us? And how many patriots, including military and police personnel
and their family members, are you and your masters in Sacramento willing to
imprison or murder enforcing this treasonous edict?"
AS: What was the response?
DC: The DOJ flack standing at the microphone said, "None," which is a
transparent lie, as the California Attorney General has pledged to
vigorously enforce both Roberti-Roos and SB-23, and they spent much of the
evening telling us how they intended to do so. In essence, this liar,
acting in his official capacity as a law enforcement official, told a crowd
of citizens at a public meeting, in direct response to a specific question,
that they have no plans to enforce the law and prosecute resisters. As the
Members' Council had a camcorder running during the meeting, I hope they
save the tape as evidence should some hapless citizen be prosecuted because
he took this agent at his word.
I pointed out that I had also torn up my registration form, and that copy
was the only one I would submit to them - not true, since I later decided
to reassemble and frame it. I said, "Here's where I draw the line in the
sand," and added, "if you do decide to raid my home, my kids' rooms are in
the front of the house, so just knock and show your warrant and I won't
resist. There's no need for an Elian-style raid."
AS: David, I think this point is really important for gun owners to
consider. Would you please explain your position a bit?
DC: I mean I'm not going to engage in a firefight in my home with my
children present. I ain't stupid, I know my limitations, and I'm not going
to commit suicide or volunteer my wife and kids for martyrdom. Besides
which, contrary to how the media portrays us, gun owners are the most
peaceable folks I've ever known, and the thought of resorting to violence
goes against who we are and how we live our lives.
I'm committed to using every moral means of redress available to fighting
tyranny, and that may even include paying a penalty for engaging in civil
disobedience. But I want to make it clear that we are the people who simply
want to live unmolested and free- it is these agents of tyranny who employ
coercion, who use force and intimidation and violence to impose their
dictates. God forbid they don't push free people to the point where they
start pushing back, because the consequences will be terrible. If and when
things devolve to that point where there is no recourse but to take up
arms, it would be wiser to choose the time and place rather than have it
thrust on you.
AS: Understood. And then?
DC: I had said my piece, so I joined Brian at the rear of the room to wait
for Charlie to speak. He came after a couple of other people, one of whom
was an older gentlemen, a patriot, who stated that he wasn't going to
comply with the law.
AS: (To Charles Carner) Charlie, what happened when your turn to ask a
question came?
CC: I stated my name and said that I was a free American and a member of
the unorganized militia and took my second amendment rights very seriously.
I noted that at least two of the three DOJ men were military veterans, then
I asked "Have you always been traitors to our country and its constitution,
or did you become traitors when this unconstitutional and illegal edict was
passed?"
AS: What was the response?
CC: One of them replied that anyone who did not comply with these
regulations would be a traitor. I noted that he had repeatedly stated "I
didn't write the law, I just enforce it. I don't question my orders, I
carry them out," . This prompted me to reply, "How is that different from
what the Nazis did?" This guy said, "The Nazis dissolved their courts." Of
course he didn't know his Nazi history any better than his American
history. I said, "That's incorrect, everything the Nazis did was legal."
The questions which followed mine didn't continue in the "rabble-rousing"
vein, but were all of a technical nature. David, Brian and I stayed for a
few more minutes and then left the room.
AS: What was your overall impression of the meeting?
CC: To me, the most striking things about the evening were 1) how calmly
and nonchalantly the DOJ reps presented their disarmament program, and how
little distressed they were by our aggressive questions, and 2) how meekly
the NRA members present accepted this savage blow to their constitutional
rights. There were a few dark, defiant mutters - but generally speaking,
the DOJ will encounter very little resistance to their scheme. If I recall
correctly, compliance with Roberti-Roos was around 15%. Sadly, I think that
compliance with this far more onerous and ominous edict will be much
higher.
AS: (To David Codrea) David, do you think this meeting accomplished
anything?
DC: I do. I think it put the DOJ on notice that they just may have signed
up for more than they can handle. Brian, Charlie and myself, while now no
doubt at increased risk for daring to identify ourselves and speak up
publicly, represent untold thousands of decent citizens who believe as we
do. They have to know that for every outspoken citizen that they harass,
tens of thousands more are going to figure the odds are worth taking their
chances with, and that freedom is worth taking risks for.
It also put the NRA reps on notice that there are a growing number of gun
activists who are simply sick of their ****, and tired of their engineering
compromises with agents of evil. These guys acted like it was an honor to
be included in the application of disarmament laws- all the talk of which
reminded me of philosophers arguing about how many angels can dance on the
head of a pin. Discussing the technical aspects of a gun ban misses the
wider point that the entire ban is an abomination, and that the only proper
response is not to fine tune it, but to defy it. It's like they're pleased
that they were consulted to decorate the cattle cars - really, they
reminded me of nothing so much as the Judenrat, selling their people out to
certain death in their pathetic attempt to appease the Nazis. As an NRA
Life Member, I expect better from my organization's management, especially
when you consider the principled-sounding rhetoric about defending
inalienable rights that they employ in their fund raising efforts.
AS: (To Brian Puckett) Brian, how do you feel about this event now that
it's over?
BP: It left a bad taste in my mouth, seeing these robotic people
reiterating almost the same words as the Nazis after World War II. "We are
only following orders." The DOJ employees repeatedly stated that
California's legislators had passed the laws and they were simply enforcing
them - the same way the Nazis passed laws persecuting the Jews that were
enforced by men identical to these. By their own words, it follows that if
the California legislature passed a law prohibiting Blacks from coming
outside after eight PM, these men would enforce them. Very depressing. As
if nothing has been learned by history, as though we have to start all over
again in this country.
AS: Brian, you wrote "Why I Will Not Obey California's Gun Registration
Edict" which is posted on the KeepAndBearArms.com website, among other p
laces including your own website. With that in the background, and now this
incident, are you worried at all about your personal safety? About them
coming after you to make an example of you, or doing something illegal?
BP: I have thought about it and I'm aware it could happen, but I don't
dwell on it. I've been warned by friends in law enforcement that they might
try something underhanded or physical, so I'm watchful for that when I'm in
public.
AS: Anything else?
BP: Just that I was struck by the emptiness of these men. No patriotism, no
respect for their oath to support and defend the Constitution, no
integrity. They have the current California socialist political system and
law enforcement and the judicial establishment on their side, all the
"official" power, and that made them feel superior. To them, even a good
citizen - someone who has always obeyed the law, supported law enforcement,
so forth- is now automatically a "puke" if they own militia rifles and
refuse to register themselves. They think any citizen who disobeys this
illegal California edict and exercises his rights is no different from the
criminals. We're all just dirtbags, and you can see it in their faces. And?
AS: And?
BP: I just want to draw a distinction between these sort of soulless hacks
and regular police officers. We know from poll after poll, from informal
testimony, and from anecdotal evidence that most regular officers support
the right to bear arms. They know good citizens carrying guns lower the
crime rate, making their jobs easier and safer. And they know they will be
retired some day and they will want to own guns - including militia rifles.
And I think most of them love their country and respect the Constitution.
So the regular patrolmen are basically on our side. The DOJ people were
something else. What, I can't say.
And one final thing. We'll never see the end of firearm bans and
registration and so forth until the Supreme Court rules correctly on the
Second Amendment, so we must push for a ruling now. If the court doesn't
rule according to the historical and moral meaning of the amendment, or
refuses to rule, then we are left with no options but re-asserting our
rights by force. And we will.
A Verbal Confrontation with California DOJ Lackeys
(A compilation of interviews with Brian Puckett, David Codrea, and Charles
Carner)
by Angel Shamaya
Director, KeepAndBearArms.com
AS: First, tell me the basics -- who, what, when, where.
BP: The NRA Members Council of Ventura County East held a public meeting in
a restaurant's conference room in Simi Valley, California [about 30 minutes
from Los Angeles] on July 13. The featured guest was one Randy Rossi, who
is the Director of the California Department of Justice Firearms Division,
who is engaged in enforcing the new regulations that support SB23. Now,
SB23 is the state edict that bans the purchase or sale of any center-fire
rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and also has at least one other
designated cosmetic features or attachment, including a thumbhole stock, a
pistol grip, a forward grip, a flash suppressor, or a folding stock.
AS: Who came to this meeting?
BP: I'd guess there were about 150 citizens, mostly the Simi Valley NRA
people. Rossi arrived with two other unmemorable lackeys. There were also
some uniformed Simi Valley police officers present, presumably to protect
the DOJ employees in case the public became violent. I attended the meeting
with writer/director Charles Carner and writer David Codrea.
AS: What was the purpose of the meeting?
BP: The stated purpose was to ask technical questions about California's
new militia rifle ban and the requirement that owners of such guns register
them. Of course they're actually registering themselves, to be identified
when militia rifle confiscation extends beyond the current confiscation of
SKS rifles.
AS: So what happened?
BP: The meeting started with an introduction by California's State
Representative of the NRA, whose name I won't mention. He put on a
revolting display of fawning over and boot-licking the DOJ employees. He
was clearly pleased that they had allowed him to work with them in
disarming us. He couldn't say enough good things about them, calling
"honorable" and the like. Keep in mind that these men are actively engaged
in taking away our right to buy and sell militia rifles, and who are
preparing to imprison or kill any citizens who don't obey this illegal
edict and register themselves - perhaps some of the citizens in that very
room. It's worth noting that the NRA Member's Council thoughtfully provided
table space for a pile of California DOJ's Assault Weapon Registration
Applications. I suppose they'll provide table space for the DOJ's Bible
registration or computer registration cards at the next meeting. We'll have
to wait and see.
AS: You sound a bit angry at these NRA people.
BP: No! Not at the members. Most of them are good and decent citizens. Most
don't yet realize that the NRA's current management - La Pierre, Baker,
Heston, and state NRA representatives like this one - are working hand-in
hand with the Government to disarm us through laws like SB23 and "Project
Exile".
AS: For the benefit of those who don't know, what is "Project Exile"?
BP: Project Exile is an NRA management program that calls for the strict
enforcement of all current gun control laws. This includes every law that
we have spent time and money over the last few decades to prevent being
passed, including the 1994 Crime Bill outlawing the manufacture and sale of
new over-ten-round magazines and certain militia rifles, called "assault
weapons" by our enemies. All of these rifles function identically to dozens
of other militia rifles. When I say militia rifles, I mean any rifle that
is useful to the militia, which includes all military-pattern rifles. In
any case, "Project Exile" is supposed to be directed against criminals, but
of course every one of these laws can be used against any American citizen.
And that is happening right now. For this, LaPierre gets a reported $20,000
a month plus expenses.
AS: We both have strong feelings on that, of course, as do the leaders of
scores of other major gun rights organizations, like GOA and JPFO. Our
statement on "Project Exile" and the list of those who are adding their
voices to ours is on the KeepAndBearArms.com website. But back to the
meeting. What happened after the DOJ people were introduced?
BP: One of them - I believe it was Rossi - began droning on about he and
his fellow DOJ employees didn't have to come meet with this group, that
they were doing it because they cared about us and didn't want us, or any
gun dealers, to be put "in harm's way" by this law. In other words, the
servants had deigned to appear before us - the people who pay their
salaries - and we should be damned grateful for that. And we should be
aware of their concerned that we citizens would be imprisoned or shot to
death for exercising our Constitutionally-protected rights.
AS: Very thoughtful.
BP: Very. This sort of blather seemed to go on forever, but I suppose it
was only ten or fifteen minutes. One of the DOJ spokesmen stated that in
U.S. v Miller the Supreme Court established that the only protected right
in the Second Amendment had to do with the right of states to form
militias, and that this was now the National Guard-two lies in a row. In
other words, we have no right as citizens to keep and bear arms.
AS: How did the crowd react to this?
BP: There were a couple of unprintable shouts from the audience. As for
myself, the first time I spoke was when one of the DOJ lackeys stated that
our DROS [Dealer's Record Of Sale, or gun purchase records] records had
been destroyed required by law. I asked out loud, "Who believes that?"
AS: How did the DOJ people respond?
BP: They insisted that the records didn't exist.
AS: And then what happened?
BP: There were a couple of technical questions on this unconstitutional
law, SB23, with incomparably irrelevant and boring answers from the
government people. One of them repeatedly stated how "complex" or
"complicated" this law was. I raised my hand and Mark Bell, the moderator
of the event, pointed to me. I stepped into the center aisle while another
man finished asking his question.
AS: What did you ask the DOJ employees?
BP: I don't know every word I said, but I wrote down the actual question
before coming so I wouldn't have to rely on my memory during a stressful
moment. I said, "You keep saying this "law" [SB23] is complicated, but it's
very simple. The Democrats in the California legislature and the governor
have passed a "law" intended to take away our militia rifles. But everyone
here knows that's unconstitutional. So here's my question. Because everyone
understands that many patriots - including active and retired police
officers -will not register their militia rifles and therefore are in
danger of being arrested, prosecuted, and sent to prison by you and your
co-workers, or if they resist of being murdered by government thugs with
whom you work hand in hand; and because most Americans would shun taking
part in such state terrorism, my question is this: were you offered any
extra pay, or material rewards, or a higher government position for
betraying your countrymen, your Constitution, and your country?"
AS: And how did they respond?
BP: Blandly, calmly. I had expected one of them to come at me with his
fists to defend his honor, but of course they have no honor to defend so
that didn't happen. The DOJ employees began mouthing words to make
themselves feel better about betraying their country. When I grew tired of
that I held up one of the "Assault Weapon Registration Applications" and
said "Here's one of your applications to register my militia rifle, with a
space on it for my thumbprint. Here's what I think of it." I tore it up and
tossed it to the floor.
AS: What was the reaction of the people in the room, the NRA members, to
all of this?
BP: There was some applause and shouts of support, but I think many of them
were shocked to hear someone talk to their servants that way. Even though
these servants intended to disarm, imprison, or kill them. Many in the
audience seemed passive, as though they were watching something on
television. I don't blame them. It's not something one sees at most
meetings.
AS: Then what occurred?
BP: This Rossi character stated that he and the other DOJ employees had
served their country in law enforcement and in the military and were doing
what they thought was right. I said, "Regardless of what you've done in the
past, you are now betraying your country." There were some more talk from
the DOJ people but I turned around and walked to the back of the room to
wait for David and Charlie.
AS: (To David Codrea) David, what was your question to the DOJ
representatives?
DC: As Brian was tearing up his registration form, I was standing behind
him. I raised my hands so the room could see me following suit and tore up
mine. When Brian moved to the back of the room I said, "My name is David
Codrea. I'm from Redondo Beach. I'm speaking only for myself, as a free
American with unalienable rights endowed by my Creator. I added this to my
prepared statement, because when Brian was speaking, one woman found it
necessary to proclaim that "He doesn't speak for all of us!" True, I
thought, only for the Patriots in the room. I wish I'd had the presence of
mind to state that out loud.
I then asked the DOJ overlords, "If we defy your terms of dictated
surrender, how many SWAT raids do you estimate it will take to crush and
destroy us? And how many patriots, including military and police personnel
and their family members, are you and your masters in Sacramento willing to
imprison or murder enforcing this treasonous edict?"
AS: What was the response?
DC: The DOJ flack standing at the microphone said, "None," which is a
transparent lie, as the California Attorney General has pledged to
vigorously enforce both Roberti-Roos and SB-23, and they spent much of the
evening telling us how they intended to do so. In essence, this liar,
acting in his official capacity as a law enforcement official, told a crowd
of citizens at a public meeting, in direct response to a specific question,
that they have no plans to enforce the law and prosecute resisters. As the
Members' Council had a camcorder running during the meeting, I hope they
save the tape as evidence should some hapless citizen be prosecuted because
he took this agent at his word.
I pointed out that I had also torn up my registration form, and that copy
was the only one I would submit to them - not true, since I later decided
to reassemble and frame it. I said, "Here's where I draw the line in the
sand," and added, "if you do decide to raid my home, my kids' rooms are in
the front of the house, so just knock and show your warrant and I won't
resist. There's no need for an Elian-style raid."
AS: David, I think this point is really important for gun owners to
consider. Would you please explain your position a bit?
DC: I mean I'm not going to engage in a firefight in my home with my
children present. I ain't stupid, I know my limitations, and I'm not going
to commit suicide or volunteer my wife and kids for martyrdom. Besides
which, contrary to how the media portrays us, gun owners are the most
peaceable folks I've ever known, and the thought of resorting to violence
goes against who we are and how we live our lives.
I'm committed to using every moral means of redress available to fighting
tyranny, and that may even include paying a penalty for engaging in civil
disobedience. But I want to make it clear that we are the people who simply
want to live unmolested and free- it is these agents of tyranny who employ
coercion, who use force and intimidation and violence to impose their
dictates. God forbid they don't push free people to the point where they
start pushing back, because the consequences will be terrible. If and when
things devolve to that point where there is no recourse but to take up
arms, it would be wiser to choose the time and place rather than have it
thrust on you.
AS: Understood. And then?
DC: I had said my piece, so I joined Brian at the rear of the room to wait
for Charlie to speak. He came after a couple of other people, one of whom
was an older gentlemen, a patriot, who stated that he wasn't going to
comply with the law.
AS: (To Charles Carner) Charlie, what happened when your turn to ask a
question came?
CC: I stated my name and said that I was a free American and a member of
the unorganized militia and took my second amendment rights very seriously.
I noted that at least two of the three DOJ men were military veterans, then
I asked "Have you always been traitors to our country and its constitution,
or did you become traitors when this unconstitutional and illegal edict was
passed?"
AS: What was the response?
CC: One of them replied that anyone who did not comply with these
regulations would be a traitor. I noted that he had repeatedly stated "I
didn't write the law, I just enforce it. I don't question my orders, I
carry them out," . This prompted me to reply, "How is that different from
what the Nazis did?" This guy said, "The Nazis dissolved their courts." Of
course he didn't know his Nazi history any better than his American
history. I said, "That's incorrect, everything the Nazis did was legal."
The questions which followed mine didn't continue in the "rabble-rousing"
vein, but were all of a technical nature. David, Brian and I stayed for a
few more minutes and then left the room.
AS: What was your overall impression of the meeting?
CC: To me, the most striking things about the evening were 1) how calmly
and nonchalantly the DOJ reps presented their disarmament program, and how
little distressed they were by our aggressive questions, and 2) how meekly
the NRA members present accepted this savage blow to their constitutional
rights. There were a few dark, defiant mutters - but generally speaking,
the DOJ will encounter very little resistance to their scheme. If I recall
correctly, compliance with Roberti-Roos was around 15%. Sadly, I think that
compliance with this far more onerous and ominous edict will be much
higher.
AS: (To David Codrea) David, do you think this meeting accomplished
anything?
DC: I do. I think it put the DOJ on notice that they just may have signed
up for more than they can handle. Brian, Charlie and myself, while now no
doubt at increased risk for daring to identify ourselves and speak up
publicly, represent untold thousands of decent citizens who believe as we
do. They have to know that for every outspoken citizen that they harass,
tens of thousands more are going to figure the odds are worth taking their
chances with, and that freedom is worth taking risks for.
It also put the NRA reps on notice that there are a growing number of gun
activists who are simply sick of their ****, and tired of their engineering
compromises with agents of evil. These guys acted like it was an honor to
be included in the application of disarmament laws- all the talk of which
reminded me of philosophers arguing about how many angels can dance on the
head of a pin. Discussing the technical aspects of a gun ban misses the
wider point that the entire ban is an abomination, and that the only proper
response is not to fine tune it, but to defy it. It's like they're pleased
that they were consulted to decorate the cattle cars - really, they
reminded me of nothing so much as the Judenrat, selling their people out to
certain death in their pathetic attempt to appease the Nazis. As an NRA
Life Member, I expect better from my organization's management, especially
when you consider the principled-sounding rhetoric about defending
inalienable rights that they employ in their fund raising efforts.
AS: (To Brian Puckett) Brian, how do you feel about this event now that
it's over?
BP: It left a bad taste in my mouth, seeing these robotic people
reiterating almost the same words as the Nazis after World War II. "We are
only following orders." The DOJ employees repeatedly stated that
California's legislators had passed the laws and they were simply enforcing
them - the same way the Nazis passed laws persecuting the Jews that were
enforced by men identical to these. By their own words, it follows that if
the California legislature passed a law prohibiting Blacks from coming
outside after eight PM, these men would enforce them. Very depressing. As
if nothing has been learned by history, as though we have to start all over
again in this country.
AS: Brian, you wrote "Why I Will Not Obey California's Gun Registration
Edict" which is posted on the KeepAndBearArms.com website, among other p
laces including your own website. With that in the background, and now this
incident, are you worried at all about your personal safety? About them
coming after you to make an example of you, or doing something illegal?
BP: I have thought about it and I'm aware it could happen, but I don't
dwell on it. I've been warned by friends in law enforcement that they might
try something underhanded or physical, so I'm watchful for that when I'm in
public.
AS: Anything else?
BP: Just that I was struck by the emptiness of these men. No patriotism, no
respect for their oath to support and defend the Constitution, no
integrity. They have the current California socialist political system and
law enforcement and the judicial establishment on their side, all the
"official" power, and that made them feel superior. To them, even a good
citizen - someone who has always obeyed the law, supported law enforcement,
so forth- is now automatically a "puke" if they own militia rifles and
refuse to register themselves. They think any citizen who disobeys this
illegal California edict and exercises his rights is no different from the
criminals. We're all just dirtbags, and you can see it in their faces. And?
AS: And?
BP: I just want to draw a distinction between these sort of soulless hacks
and regular police officers. We know from poll after poll, from informal
testimony, and from anecdotal evidence that most regular officers support
the right to bear arms. They know good citizens carrying guns lower the
crime rate, making their jobs easier and safer. And they know they will be
retired some day and they will want to own guns - including militia rifles.
And I think most of them love their country and respect the Constitution.
So the regular patrolmen are basically on our side. The DOJ people were
something else. What, I can't say.
And one final thing. We'll never see the end of firearm bans and
registration and so forth until the Supreme Court rules correctly on the
Second Amendment, so we must push for a ruling now. If the court doesn't
rule according to the historical and moral meaning of the amendment, or
refuses to rule, then we are left with no options but re-asserting our
rights by force. And we will.
