🚀 go-pugleaf

MORE LETTERS...

PRO has received a couple of letters in response to our publication
of first part of the Sonia Crawley letter:

Dear PRO,

Sonia Crawley has hit the nail on the head. The illegal, forced
application of licensing (and permitting) to every aspect of our
lives has ALREADY BEEN USED TO REMOVE OUR FREEDOM.
Under the constitution, the government and it's agents can only
serve our needs and protect our rights.  But once rights are
surrendered under the legal "contract" of licensure, the licensee
becomes a regulatable entity or legal "person".  The controllers of
legal persons are the same government agents who are required by
law to be the servants of free people.  This maxim applies to all
areas of licensure.
It is the gun dealer's license that makes the dealer a regulatable
entity, not the activity of buying and selling guns.  Once one has
the license, he is controllable (regulatable) under the "contract".
NOW, the BATF can make regulations that are clearly unconstitutional
if applied against free people, and apply them against the licensee.
It is the carrier's permit that places the gun owner under "carry
regulations", not the Constitutionally protected act of carrying
personal protection in any manner he or she chooses.
The confusion over the issue comes from the fact that the courts
enforce all regulations as though they were law (which they are
not), and enforce all regulations against all live bodies, as
though the government can control free people in the same manner as
it can control licensees.  This is not Constitutional, legal or
conscionable.
The same applies to the driver's license. The courts have
acknowledged many times that there is and absolute, unregulatable
right for the free person to travel on the highways, roads, etc.
The license can only be required of COMMERCIAL users of the roads
for trade, commerce or hire.  The illegal demand that everyone get
and have a current "valid" driver's license is simply a method for
the government to circumvent  the fact that they cannot regulate
free people.
The fact that the driver's license is also being as a government ID
card only shows that, once the regulators get general compliance,
they will use the new tool to carry the matter farther from
freedom.
As proof of the above, look at the legal aspects of flying.  Though
everyone incorrectly calls a Private Pilot Certificate a "license",
it is not.  It is a one-time, life-long 'proof of competence'.  In
private aviation, as long as the pilot is not being paid for taking
friends for a ride and not carrying passengers or other people's
property for hire, he carries this Certificate of competence, not
a license.
     The commercial pilot on the other hand, since he is using
public facilities for profit, and since his activities in the
aviation business will have and effect on the general public, the
public needs an assurance that the person is capable and competent.
Commercial pilots, then , can be and are required to be licensed.
     The trick that has been used in all this is broadly labeled
fraud.  No license or "contract" is legal or enforceable if fraud
was involved at any point.
     The licensure (and permitting) fraud is two-fold:
     1. The licensee is never informed that a contract must be
freely and knowingly entered into or it is invalid.  People are
told they MUST get a license to ... (own a gun, carry a gun, travel
the roads, fix "your own" house, etc.)
     2. The licensee is never informed that he or she is
surrendering valuable, God-given rights to the regulation power of
government agents.  A license or permit is the trick under which
the police and other agents who are sworn to serve free people come
to be controllers of people.
     The trick is to demand that free people surrender their
freedom, but not tell them that they are doing so when they get the
supposedly required license.  The rest of the trick is for the
government, from the regulators and the cops, to the lawyers and
courts to ACT AS THOUGH everyone entered into these contracts and
surrendered their rights WILLINGLY.
     Under the Constitution, free people have God-given rights that
the government was formed to protect.  Servants are not empowered
to remove those rights, let alone replace them with artificial
rules and regulations.
     As to cancellation, remember that a contract that is entered
under false pretenses is void from the time one party (you or I)
notifies the other party (the government or regulating agency) of
the fraud involved.

          Donald M. Smith
          Waynesburg, PA.

                 _______________________

And also...

Dear PRO:

     Received the current issue a few days ago and must write to
commend both Sonia Crawley for what she's written about some ways
we are being inveigled into various infringements of our rights,
and you for including it, albeit in part.  Please continue with
what remains of her letter.
     Sonia Crawley has obviously done her homework and done some
serious "thinking through" about where we are and how we got there
- and where we will end up if we don't get on the stick.
     My biggest fear is not the "antis" at all; it is the so-called
"gun lobby" about 99% of which are well meaning but too gullible.
[They say]...that what we need to do to "solve" the problem of not
being able to carry legally for self defense  or other peaceful
purpose, is to pay them to organize us even better so we can
prevail when we follow their lead and demand that our legislators
provide us some relief - in the form of licensing us to do that
which the Constitution clearly says we can already do, and which
clearly proscribes infringement of that right, i.e., licensing.
Yet, what is the current "agenda" of the Gun Lobby professionals?
Universal permit-to-carry laws even in Vermont where none is
required!  We've been organized: all the groups, all the magazines,
march in lockstep.  Not to demand restoration of our rights through
rescinding the infringing statutes, but to demand new infringement
which, in theory at least, will then allow us to exercise our right
once the State has granted us that privilege, and we all get
fingerprinted, photographed, profiled, competency tested, etc. and
pay the State for licensing us.  Never mind that this right was
secured for us, paid in blood, 200 years ago by Patriots who would
be looking around to see if there were still any traitors left to
hang, if they were here to inspire us today and give us direction
and purpose.

And please, get the rest of Sonia Crawley's letter into print as
soon as possible.

Robert G. Wheaton
San Antonio, TX

[Editors:  As long-time PRO members know, PRO has had some major
differences of opinion with the Washington "Gun Lobby" and do not
consider ourselves "in lockstep" with them.  Nevertheless, unless,
like Neal Knox you move to Washington D.C. and take on the members
of Congress yourself, we are all pretty much dependent upon them to
defend our rights at the national level.  Despite criticism, we
would clearly be in a real pickle today without the work they have
done.
PRO members seem to be split on the carry-permit issue.  Some are
worried about giving away rights as described above, some are
worried about being on a government list of names that can be used
for later confiscation (as in New York City) and some support the
measure to be out from under fear of arrest for carrying concealed.
Ohio is one of the states without carry licenses and does permit
concealed carry in certain circumstances (say, taking large sums to
the bank).  The courts, however, have been constantly attempting to
narrow the circumstances under which a "prudent" man would be
armed.  One answer obvious from the above letters would be for the
"gun lobby" rather than supporting carry-licenses, should support
a life-time firearm competency certificate as in private aviation.
This certificate (not a license) shows that the holder can safely
handle dangerous equipment (firearms) and at the same time does not
show that he owns a gun (as a private pilot certificate does not
show you own a plane). Thus, violent felons would not only be
prohibited from buying a gun but also from operating it.]


This is from:
    dennis@bluemoon.rn.com
---- The Soviet Union Died, But the Communists Live On ----