imported post
I am most definitely NOT a convicted felon, nor am I a fugitive from the law. I have sufficient documentation and personal references that my identity is NOT in doubt to any reasonable person. I am not looking for anonymity, or to be "untraceable". I WANT the government to know I am armed, so that the rest of my rights will be respected. My life is an open book, more so than most, though apparently still not open enough for the criminal fascist government control freaks.
I have a valid U.S. Passport. I have certified copies of my birth certificate. There are public school and university records. I have vehicle title and registration documents. I have fingerprints, which will match perfectly those the government already has on file.
If necessary, I could show up every day at a Notary Public for the period required for establishing legal residency, and have the notary certify my continuous presence in the state for that period. I could phone the DOJ every day and the phone records would show the calls originating in California. I could take a photo of myself standing in front of a Post Office, holding a daily newspaper, every day for the required time period. Etc, etc.There are lots and lots of ways to prove my identity and residency. So why does California only permit two? Because both of them create a demand for an SSN that the law would otherwise prohibit, while the other methods would not!
But why should I send in $20 to pre-screen and waste weeks or months of my time waiting for determination, only to have to do it all over again at purchase? Am I not to be presumed innocent before guilty? Why doesn't the government have to prove anything to me first?
If they say I have the right to keep and bear firearms, then I want them to prove it to me by allowing me to do so, otherwise, why should I believe them? The government always says one thing out one side of its mouth, and the opposite out the other. It is not to be believed, nor trusted.
No, I do not need to waste $20 and up to 3 months of my time "pre-screening" when I KNOW to an absolute undisputable certainty, and can easily provethat I have a RIGHT to keep and bear firearms.
I do not have or use a Social Security Number,which the SSA says no law requires me tohave in order to live and work in my own country, the USA.
I do not have a California Driver's License or I.D. Card, which no law requires me to have to live and work in the USA, including California. Both documents require providing the Social Security Number, which no law requires me to have, in order to obtain, creating an indirect "requirement" that would otherwise be prohibited if it were made directly.
Again, I am in 100% full legal possession of my rights, including those under the 2nd Amendment.
So how is it that the government can ASSUME that I am not in full possession of my rights, subject to me availing myself of one of their many privileges? Isn't some level of evidence, such as Probable Cause, or Reasonable Suspicion, necessary to deprive a Citizen of a fundamental Right?
Because Social Security is a privilege, The Social Security Number may be demanded only when the demand is avoidable, such as when applying for a government granted benefit, or other PRIVILEGE, such as an unemployment claimor a driver's license. To avoid the demand, all one needs to do is not avail oneself of the applied-for privilege.
But my RIGHT to keep and bear arms is NOT a privilege. IT IS A RIGHT. This is why on the federal forms, it says the Social Security Number is OPTIONAL. If they were to demand the number, it would be struck down in the courts as unconstitutional. Believe me, if they even thought for a moment they could demand the SSN for firearms purchses, they would. That they make it optional means there is a very good legal reason why they are FORCED to do so.
The Socialist state of California is doing nothing less than an end run around the Constitution by requiring and allowing only forms of identification that in turn require the use of the SSN, making all gun purchases in that state dependent upon a privilege. Any right that is made subject to a privilege, is no longer a right, but a privilege. It is no different than the government unilaterally declaring that Citizens no longer have gun rights, because under this program, they don't, all they have is a privilege, which the government has every right to deny or rescind, at any time.
I might add that when the refusal to "voluntarily" avail oneself of a state privilege carries with it as a consequence the loss of a fundamental right, then that privilege is no longer "voluntary". It is made mandatory by the unacceptable cost of not "volunteering", which is the loss of rights.
What the government wants, AT ALL COSTS, IS FOR THE ENTIRE POPULATION TO BE ENUMERATED and unarmed, and all our former rights be made subject to providing the number, converting them to privileges.What the government wants is to eliminate ALL inalienable rights, and replace them with privileges, wholly subject to their control. This is the only reason the Social Security Number exists at all, and we are the worst kind of fools for thinking we could bite into the danglingcarrot,tie ourselves to that system, through the number, and not lose our rights, and perhaps everything else we hold dear.
What amazes me most is that so-called gun rightsactivists are not outraged and all over this issue. They say they support individual gun rights, but then they go tepid and limp when it comes to the SSN being so easily connected to exercising the right, which effectively destroys the right and turns it into a mere privilege, which government can thengrant, deny, or rescind on the whim of any petty bureaucrat.
I think people need to study closely the definitions of the words "right" and "privilege" and really come to a clear understanding of the difference, because I suspect that most Americans no longer even know the difference, and that is whay we are losing our rights.
