So, Who Is Going To Move To A Free State?

Just curious.

Are you going to take this laying down, or are you actually going to put your job, money, comfort zone etc, above your rights?

California is a free State. The people only need to learn how the statutes DO NOT apply to them except by CONSENT.
If the sites below exist, how is it that the people are having their rights trampled?
It is by CONSENT. When the people learn how and apply non-consent we will see less trampling and more exercising.

...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed... -The Declaration of Independence


CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE 3527. The law helps the vigilant,
before those who sleep on their rights.

"A statute does not trump the Constitution."
People v. Ortiz, (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th at p. 292, fn. 2
Conway v. Pasadena Humane Society (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 163

A statutory privilege cannot override a defendant's constitutional
right. People v. Reber, (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d. 523 [223 Cal.Rptr.
139}; Vela v. Superior Ct, 208 Cal.App.3d. 141 [255 Cal.Rptr. 921],
however, "the judiciary has a solemn obligation to insure that the
constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial is realized. If
that right would be thwarted by enforcement of a statute, the state
...must yield."
Vela v. Superior Ct., 208 Cal.App.3d. 141 [255 Cal.Rptr. 921

Obviously, administrative agencies, like police officers must obey
the Constitution and may not deprive persons of constitutional rights.
Southern Pac. Transportation Co. v. Public Utilities Com., 18 Cal.3d 308
[S.F. No. 23217. Supreme Court of California. November 23, 1976.]

Now that the checkers game is lost, who is staying to play chess?

All true Lawful Aim. The question is which 2A rights organization will challenge the Mulford Act and AB144 in light of Nordyke, Heller, and McDonald?




I hear crickets.

Done and done . My new house is in Montana.

stainless1911 said:

Just curious.

Are you going to take this laying down, or are you actually going to put your job, money, comfort zone etc, above your rights?

Click to expand...

I'll be staying.
It's interesting watching the reinstatement of the 2nd ammendment. I just hope I won't be too old to take advantage of it.

Lawful Aim said:

California is a free State. The people only need to learn how the statutes DO NOT apply to them except by CONSENT.
If the sites below exist, how is it that the people are having their rights trampled?
It is by CONSENT. When the people learn how and apply non-consent we will see less trampling and more exercising.

Click to expand...

If the cites exist, the people are having their rights trampled on because the citations are not being recognized in court as a valid defense to ignoring the statutes, wrongfully or not.

Are you so confident that the courts will recognize such citations that you would be willing to engage in statute violations in the presence of statute enforcement officials, and claim non-consent?

Why does there need to be a challenge to unconstitutional statutes when the people only need to be educated in expressing and retaining their inalienable rights.
A Republic form of government requires the people to be active in it, less it be taken over by those with self interests. Waiting on attorneys to accomplish a task to which the subject matter ultimately rests upon the people only keeps the people in perpetual wait.

Here is an informative audio interview with successful attorney who has never utilized his BAR card. The initial audio theatrics may be skipped but is also inspiring.
http://www.republicsg.info/audios/20111009_FSC.mp3
If he doesn't need a BAR card, why would we need one or utilize one who does?

QUOTE=Felid`Maximus;1625994]If the cites exist, the people are having their rights trampled on because the citations are not being recognized in court as a valid defense to ignoring the statutes, wrongfully or not.

Are you so confident that the courts will recognize such citations that you would be willing to engage in statute violations in the presence of statute enforcement officials, and claim non-consent?[/QUOTE]

The point isn't to enter court with case cites as those cites are only a guide and pertain to the case they ride with. The case cites are a guide to indicate that somewhere along the way the people are giving consent to be governed by statute. The key is to discovering when and where this occurs and then making the appropiate corrections.

Kalifornia is NOT a free state, it is used by free states as a warning, in analogies, and is otherwise teased and despised by most of the rest of the country. I do not knowingly even do business with folks in the Peoples Republik of Kalifornia, nor will I ever set foot there, short of a hot war.

Remember the Alamo.

Fight to the last man. I'm staying.

Armed to the teeth, and fight to the death, however I'll still be exercising my peaceful remedies first. I'm staying and stepping up even farther.

Are you saying that California is not a free state because of the statutes that have been implemented? What if the people realize that the statutes do not apply to them?

California remains a free republic as long as there are remedies and recourse. Remedies and recourse exist including such that are non-violent. It is a matter of educating the people and the people exercising them.

That remedy might take 40 years. That isnt freedom.

What remedy are you referring to? I'm referring to the people being educating in exercising immediate remedy.

RE remedy.

A law protecting the right, case law, lawsuit, whatever it takes to re instate your now non existent RKBA.

When almost 50% of the people are beholding to the government for food, money etc they will continue to vote in the people that away your right and give the government more control and more power.

I love my country but fear its government.

Let me explain to you

The USA is actually a corporation

We are just employees of the corporation

We have to play by the corporation rules or we are ousted...jailed.. or imprisoned

That is the facts..We cannot change it......so now you know the truth

SUCKS doesn't it

Lawful Aim said:

California is a free State. The people only need to learn how the statutes DO NOT apply to them except by CONSENT.
If the sites below exist, how is it that the people are having their rights trampled?
It is by CONSENT. When the people learn how and apply non-consent we will see less trampling and more exercising.

...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed... -The Declaration of Independence


CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE 3527. The law helps the vigilant,
before those who sleep on their rights..]

Click to expand...

Lawful Aim,

Here's where I see your strategy failing. I will say first that I agree with many of the points you have made over time. But,,,,
The law that is written is only adhered to by those who can defend it. The courts here in California will abandon the written law, or interpret it to suit their needs. Many of the plainly written constitutional protections, declarations, and gaurantees, are not defended by any omnipitent being; just mere men. Corruptable, weak, and fallible men. So when you show them the escape clauses, and they have no plain answer for them, they will write one so complicated that it will justify it. Then, all you have is a higher court that will be borne of the same cloth as the lower one. When court fails, it is back to survival of the fittest. You have been betting on legalities and fair hearings, and although much of that has been extended to some of you, were your strategy to catch on, the heirarchy will punt, leaving you with no options. Right now the courts have dismissed the defenses you and yours have tendered because they are not worthy of their time. When it is, and the stakes are higher, they will put you through the wringer, with motions, hearings, and rulings that will build a permanent pathway to their firm and forever decision.
I have seen this already from some associates, although not had it happen to me. I've seen jury trials denied even though it's a right declared under California Constitution.
They just give 34 pages of reference and case law that somehow made it all plausible to assume that that right didn't mean what it said. Likewise for many other rights. Unless something turns up that the court fears will entangle some other precedent, they can twist and turn to defend the crown. I do like that you make the lower courts squirm and hide. That's as it should be. But the big boys deal in power, and when the castle is threatened they will throw you in irons or deprive you at will. This gun issue is one that is near and dear to them, and you're not going to deter them with tomfoolery, which is how they'll call it.