Gov. Jerry Brown,
I am writing to you because recently you decided to infringe on the inherent right to self-ownership and sovereignty by passing legislation contained within 6 bills (AB 1135, AB 1511, AB 1695, SB 880, SB 1235, and SB 1446). As a resident of California, I feel it is my duty to vocalize truth when bureaucrats like yourself are so lost in a haze of political nonsense, you can’t seem to understand your own pathetic impotence. I start to wonder about the mental fortitude of your ilk. I sometimes wonder if you are all just morons who have completely lost touch with reality or completely sinister and evil by the simple fact that you think that you can control that which is not your right to control nor is it possible to control. Perhaps you had the best of intentions when you decided to use the giant gun you are currently the trigger man for, the State, to enforce these laws. That is the hilarious arrogance and irony of morons like you seeking to control guns through the apparatus of the state. You and those like you that think that this is somehow “anti-gun” are simply fooling yourself. You said “My goal in signing these bills is to enhance public safety by tightening our existing laws in a responsible and focused manner, while protecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners,”. But are you making us safer and are you protecting rights? Should that even be your job?
Let’s take SB 1446 as an example. This bill is a “Statewide confiscatory ban on all lawfully possessed standard-capacity ammunition feeding devices that hold more than 10 rounds”. The double standard, arrogance, and hypocrisy of such a bill is simply off the charts because how do you think “confiscation” is going to be enforced? By men with guns that work for you and the State (and probably have magazines that hold more than 10 rounds). They will use aggressive force if need be to take the innocuous items you don’t like from peaceful citizens who obtained said items legally. This is because you are part of what is nothing more than a gang of thieves writ large; government. You and your fellow bandits unjustly claim the exclusive right to initiate violence against the rest of us serfs in the name of “protecting” us. But you are not made from a finer clay than I; so how do you, Mr. Brown, claim the exclusive right to use violence to get your way within the completely arbitrary borders on a map that distinguish the State of CA? Was it because you were “democratically” elected? How does that work? On your own you could not use violence to keep peaceful people from purchasing particular items but if enough of the mob gets behind you the mystical rituals of statist political ceremony endows you, and those in power like you, with demigod like abilities us lesser mortals are not privy to? The concept is laughable. You are nothing more than a leader of a gang who is himself subservient to the gang in DC.
But the logic that you have the right and justified power to initiate violence against people like myself thanks to the mob backing you is laughable. It would be like me acknowledging that I do not possess the right to use your 4,147 square-foot, $2,595,000 dollar home without your permission. Yet, if a large enough group gets behind me and votes that I can infringe your property without your consent, I now possess the moral, ethical and legitimate authority to use your home without your permission and decide how you use it. That is the exact kind of stupid and moronic logic behind these bills you just passed. Yet you are so drunk on statism you probably refuse to acknowledge this because deep down, you and those like you that seek dominance over their fellow man, believe yourselves to be “special” and above the laws and rules you set for us lesser mortals to play by. Again, your arrogance is sickening.
I wonder, Mr. Brown, if you have ever heard of the legal term called “Estoppel”? You are a lawyer after all so it must have come up at some point for you. In case you have forgotten, estoppel is “A legal principle that bars a party from denying or alleging a certain fact owing to that party’s previous conduct, allegation, or denial.” We can probably both agree that we each own our bodies. If you don’t believe that, the mere point of disagreement hinges on the assumption that you are in control of your body and I am in control of mine (otherwise debate and argumentation would be pointless). We would go into the argument with the assumption and premise that self-ownership exists therefore to argue against it is counter productive since doing so only proves that which you seek to disprove. If we all own ourselves it is logical to conclude that we own our labor and the fruits of our labor (so property) because in order to express that self-ownership we just established, you need to be able to control tangible things in the real world. Therefore, it is logical to argue that infringing on the person or property of others through violence (which is what your laws do) is inherently unjustified and illegitimate.
This brings us to estoppel and its link to lex talionis justice. As I said, it is a legal term you should be familiar with that limits what an individual can and cannot say they are entitled to based off of previous actions and statements. As an example let us use the crime of assault. Tim assaults Jim and is now brought before a court after being found guilty to receive his punishment. Tim could argue from multiple points that his punishment (the force used against him by the court and authorities) is unjust because it is itself force. But he would be estopped from making such a claim because of his previous actions (assaulting Jim), therefore he could not argue that the force now used against him as either punishment or forced compensation is unjust.
Perhaps Tim could argue that he has since changed his mind and that assault (the initiation of violence) is now wrong in his eyes but it wasn’t when he assaulted Jim. But this still forces him to condemn his previous action of assaulting Jim, therefore, he still cannot escape the justice and compensation and justice due his victim. Perhaps Tim can argue that he believes that only he can use violence and no one else can, therefore, the force used against him by the court as punishment for his violence is unjust. But Tim is arguing for society to accept a norm (that only Tim can use violence), but in order for a norm to be successfully argued and accepted, it must first be shown to be universal to everyone. “Only Tim can use violence” is not universal to everyone therefore it is not a norm and again he is estopped from logically putting forth such an argument. Essentially, the concept of estoppel is attempting to find consistency and this is why it is such a valuable legal concept.
Let us apply it your gun control legislation now which is merely unjust and unlawful attempts at controlling the property of others (remember the above line of logic regarding self ownership and property). Say Bob owns the now prohibited items you have just outlawed (even though he originally obtained them legally). Bob refuses to hand over his ammunition feeding devices because they are his property and he has really committed no crime yet. This is because true crimes need a victim and just owning feeding devices does nothing towards violating the rights, lives, and property of others. So what do you and your goons do? You go after Bob and you use violence in order to take his property away (his magazines and other ammunition feeding devices). Through understanding estoppel we come to an interesting conclusion here. Bob could argue that he has the right to use force to defend himself from you and your goons that arrive on his doorstep for him and his property. Sure you could try and estopp Bob from making such a claim, but Bob’s complaint against you is that you are initiating violence against him and his property and punishing him when Bob himself has not initiated violence against anyone else thus he has not violated anyone else’s rights. It would actually be you and your pathetic order following goons who would be estopped from making the claim that Bob cannot defend himself from your unjust uses of force against him and his property. Bob probably does not have the real world power to defend himself from you and you thugs, but the mere fact that he is justified in defending himself highlights how unjust and illegitimate your position is in enforcing such legislation. Therefore, you have no rights to actually enact any kind of gun control what-so-ever! I will leave you with an excerpt from the writing of Lysander Spooner. I think it adequately describes sociopaths like yourself who are in power.
“It is true that the theory of our Constitution is, that all taxes are paid voluntarily; that our government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily entered into by the people with each other. … But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: ‘Your money, or your life.’ And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat.
The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful. The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber.
He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a ‘protector,’ and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to ‘protect’ those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful ‘sovereign,’ on account of the ‘protection’ he affords you. He does not keep ‘protecting’ you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villainies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.” 
You and all those in positions of authority like you, are worse than a highway bandit. And I encourage all the gun owners in California to simply ignore your unjust and hypocritical laws and even defend themselves from your thugs should you sic them on them. As I have just demonstrated, it is perfectly within our rights as sovereign individuals to protect ourselves from common thieves and bandits like you.
- Doherty, B. (2016, July 01). Governor Jerry Brown Signs Six, Vetoes Five Gun-Right Restricting Bills. Retrieved July 02, 2016, from http://reason.com/blog/2016/07/01/governor-jerry-brown-signs-six-vetoes-fo
- Cooper, J. J. (2016, July 1). California Governor Signs Stringent Gun Bills, Vetoes Others. Retrieved July 02, 2016, from http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/california-governor-signs-stringent-gun-bills-vetoes-40292929
- Gilmore, B. (2016, April 21). For $2,595,000, you can have Gov. Jerry Brown’s Oakland hills home. Retrieved July 02, 2016, from http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_29790835/jerry-and-anne-gust-browns-home-oakland-sale
- Estoppel. (n.d.). Retrieved July 02, 2016, from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/estoppel
- Spooner, L. (1870). The constitution of no authority. Boston: The Author.