PDA

View Full Version : has anyone come with a generic letter for the hearing?


chris
07-09-2006, 10:26 PM
just wanting to know if anyone has come up with a generic letter for this hearing in august? i think someone said this before in another thread. also this would be a great time to have one. start sending the letters in. i cannot however print one here and send it. since a printer is not accessable to me. but i think the DOJ needs to flooded with letters and let them know we mean business.

bwiese
07-10-2006, 12:18 AM
Why do you wanna tilt your hand so early?

Inundate them later - 1st wk of August.

chris
07-10-2006, 12:56 AM
no. i was only bringing up the idea of doing so. this would be a time to make drafts and changes to such drafts now instead of waiting till the last minute. forward thinking on our part will help our cause would it not? get the bugs out of the letters before we flood them with letters. that is all i was saying.

bwiese
07-10-2006, 2:31 AM
no. i was only bringing up the idea of doing so. this would be a time to make drafts and changes to such drafts now instead of waiting till the last minute. forward thinking on our part will help our cause would it not? get the bugs out of the letters before we flood them with letters. that is all i was saying.

No, the issues are obvious to the clear-thinking. Others can take their guidance later. No need to give DOJ more prep time.

FreedomIsNotFree
07-10-2006, 3:31 AM
No, the issues are obvious to the clear-thinking. Others can take their guidance later. No need to give DOJ more prep time.

I agree. Knowing how the DOJ monitors this site we must not help them with their position. Look at what happened with the listing of the OLL's. I have it on good authority that the DOJ was actually going to list until they heard Xeno and tenpercent saying that they had to....:rolleyes: Ok....the last part I made up/././

6172crew
07-10-2006, 6:12 AM
+1, we didnt do ourselves any favors last time when we helped them fix the memos.

Just work on your letter in private ask a member you trust in private.

techmci
07-10-2006, 6:26 AM
How do we know who to trust?

tenpercentfirearms
07-10-2006, 6:36 AM
Trust no one! All your base are belong to us!

glen avon
07-10-2006, 7:27 AM
No, the issues are obvious to the clear-thinking.

that does not sound very nice. you are implying the OP is addled. :(

glen avon
07-10-2006, 7:32 AM
+1, we didnt do ourselves any favors last time when we helped them fix the memos.

ya well the purpose of notice and comment is to help the agency fix regulation.

as to another post above, this is not a case where inundating the agency at the last minute helps. this is not a matter of changing a legislator's mind through sheer numbers. a last minute flood of comments only makes it more difficult for the agency to effectively respond to the comments.

a flood of generic form letters will not be effective. they will be replied to generically and not substantively considered. one big dismissive response.

Blacktail 8541
07-10-2006, 8:16 AM
Well put Glen, Key talking points would be very helpful to us less than clear thinking populance.

sac7000
07-10-2006, 9:40 AM
a flood of generic form letters will not be effective. they will be replied to generically and not substantively considered. one big dismissive response.

Not to be negative but I'm wondering if the total head count of calguns forum readers is significant enough to even marginally create a 'flood' of letters. Remember, there are many pro-gun people who have yet to encounter the OLL issue or are even aware of it.

6172crew
07-10-2006, 10:16 AM
ya well the purpose of notice and comment is to help the agency fix regulation.

as to another post above, this is not a case where inundating the agency at the last minute helps. this is not a matter of changing a legislator's mind through sheer numbers. a last minute flood of comments only makes it more difficult for the agency to effectively respond to the comments.

a flood of generic form letters will not be effective. they will be replied to generically and not substantively considered. one big dismissive response.

1. Im not sure the regulation is broken and why the DOJ thinks it needs to be fixed. I like it the way it is now, ("need to to remove"). If the AG/DOJ wants to stop the sales of OLLs then thee can always list. Im not about to help the DOJ fix what isnt broken.

2. The first set of memos were there to confuse us, and stop the sale of the receivers and I still think we did a good job of clearing the air on what was legal and what wasnt -even if the DOJ themselves didnt do anything to help us understand and stay clear of the wrong side of the law.

3. Im already expecting them to reply to any letter in a generic fashion, what makes anyone think differently? Every letter Ive seen on this board has been generic and at times go against each other (Eagle arms lowers).

The DOJ can just help themselves on this one.:rolleyes:

bwiese
07-10-2006, 10:54 AM
1. Im not sure the regulation is broken and why the DOJ thinks it needs to be fixed. I like it the way it is now, ("need to to remove"). If the AG/DOJ wants to stop the sales of OLLs then thee can always list. Im not about to help the DOJ fix what isnt broken.

It's interesting that DOJ has to write a new regulation to supposedly 'clarify': if it's so unclear that new regulation needs to be written to achieve their goal, their orig interpretation they're insisting upon is moot/no force. (That's why there are no arrests - as opposed to things like the M96 seizure of 2+ yrs ago.)


2. The first set of memos were there to confuse us, and stop the sale of the receivers and I still think we did a good job of clearing the air on what was legal and what wasnt -even if the DOJ themselves didnt do anything to help us understand and stay clear of the wrong side of the law.

Yes, these were "F.U.D." memos designed to quell market activity. It's interesting and significant that they did not come out in a formal signed DOJ Firearms Div. bulletin, with its elaborate formatting and descriptiveness (and generally better clarity of writing).


3. Im already expecting them to reply to any letter in a generic fashion, what makes anyone think differently? Every letter Ive seen on this board has been generic and at times go against each other (Eagle arms lowers).


These letters may but likely won't be acknowledged individually. Their comments, where appropriate, will have to be considered and commented upon in the process. Showing that there are 'side effects' unacknowledged or casually dismissed by DOJ will be important for possible subsequent court/OAL battles.

Blacktail 8541
07-10-2006, 10:56 AM
The DOJ can just help themselves on this one.:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]


It is not about helping the DOJ, it is about stopping them from makeing more and possably damaging changes to definitions.

6172crew
07-10-2006, 11:06 AM
The DOJ can just help themselves on this one.:rolleyes:


It is not about helping the DOJ, it is about stopping them from makeing more and possably damaging changes to definitions.[/QUOTE]

I agree but we dont want to give them 6 weeks to think of another way to bend us over.

The DOJ reads this board and comes up with ways to screw us, lets not help them by discussing our concerns with enough time for them to change the game plan once again.

This "Permantly" attached crap is just a lame as the memos they issued and will mean just as much here in a month or 2....IMHO.:cool:

bwiese
07-10-2006, 11:25 AM
It is not about helping the DOJ, it is about stopping them from makeing more and possably damaging changes to definitions.

I agree but we dont want to give them 6 weeks to think of another way to bend us over.
[/QUOTE]


Thanks, 6172crew. Some people apparently want to give these guys prep time.

Public arguing against unsigned, unenforceable informal memos is one thing.

We don't need to let their staff work proceed at a pace they determine. The more flaws that occur, the more it's in our favor (generally speaking).

jemaddux
07-10-2006, 4:39 PM
I agree but we dont want to give them 6 weeks to think of another way to bend us over.



Thanks, 6172crew. Some people apparently want to give these guys prep time.

Public arguing against unsigned, unenforceable informal memos is one thing.

We don't need to let their staff work proceed at a pace they determine. The more flaws that occur, the more it's in our favor (generally speaking).[/QUOTE]


Or you can wait like you want and then the letters all sit in the mail room like they want and then state no one really wrote anything about this. They don't need time to think about this. They have already decided this is how its going to be and thats that. Your always saying to wait and wait, well look what waiting has gotten us. Nothing but more problems for those of you that haven't kept up with everything. Its time to bring the fight to them. I have already wrote letters, customers have written letters, along with law enforcement. You figure if you were to send a letter out today, it would take a week to get to there to the office, another couple days to get out of the mail room and into the office and you would be lucky if they opened anything for a while. Now, get this closer to the 16th and it will be sitting there after everything is said and done, that will sure do use a lot of good. Do what you want but my opinion is and has been to start flooding them with letters and show that they have one hell of a fight in thier hands.

6172crew
07-10-2006, 4:54 PM
Or you can wait like you want and then the letters all sit in the mail room like they want and then state no one really wrote anything about this. They don't need time to think about this. They have already decided this is how its going to be and thats that. Your always saying to wait and wait, well look what waiting has gotten us. Nothing but more problems for those of you that haven't kept up with everything. Its time to bring the fight to them. I have already wrote letters, customers have written letters, along with law enforcement. You figure if you were to send a letter out today, it would take a week to get to there to the office, another couple days to get out of the mail room and into the office and you would be lucky if they opened anything for a while. Now, get this closer to the 16th and it will be sitting there after everything is said and done, that will sure do use a lot of good. Do what you want but my opinion is and has been to start flooding them with letters and show that they have one hell of a fight in thier hands.

Nobody is stopping you from sending a letter, have at it. I think you have a point but I dont think giving them a 6 week heads up on why fixing a magazine has issues that should be addressed is the right thing to do.

As a matter of fact call your local NRA councel and ask them what they have planned and how you can help, that is what I did.

My guess is in a couple of weeks we will see some action and yes the NRA is involved and after listening to them I am going along with the plan they have set up.

bwiese
07-10-2006, 5:03 PM
Thanks, 6172crew. Some people apparently want to give these guys prep time.

Public arguing against unsigned, unenforceable informal memos is one thing.

We don't need to let their staff work proceed at a pace they determine. The more flaws that occur, the more it's in our favor (generally speaking).


Or you can wait like you want and then the letters all sit in the mail room like they want and then state no one really wrote anything about this. They don't need time to think about this.

They are required to address appropriate issues raised in letters relevant to regulatory changes. This is part of the formal regulatory update process. A lot of this is midlevel staff dealing with all this and, as we have seen, many of them don't have great tech knowledge, AW law legal knowledge (some don't even know Harrott details) or even DOJ past positions.

Hold your horses boys, another week or two.

If the letters arrive before the closing date in August their issues within have to be addressed.

jemaddux
07-10-2006, 5:56 PM
They are required to address appropriate issues raised in letters relevant to regulatory changes. This is part of the formal regulatory update process. A lot of this is midlevel staff dealing with all this and, as we have seen, many of them don't have great tech knowledge, AW law legal knowledge (some don't even know Harrott details) or even DOJ past positions.

Hold your horses boys, another week or two.

If the letters arrive before the closing date in August their issues within have to be addressed.


Do you really need to go into the topic of what they are suppose to do and what they really do? We all know what they are "SUPPOSE TO DO" but as we have seen over and over again they try to be beyond the rules to get what they want. They were "SUPPOSE" to get an updated list but as we all know where that ended up.

Now, how hard would it be for them to say they only got a hand full of letters? It would be really easy if you were to send them two weeks before. Now, you send letters now and in two weeks you call and confirm they got your letters and again verbally let them know this is important. Now if they say well we only got a few letters we can call them on it saying this was also discussed on the phone.

You do what you want. As I see things to wait would be very silly with the games they have played in the past. They already think they have this battle won and that they don't need our help. Bill I've asked you a couple times now and haven't seen an answer. Other people have said they are going to be there, are you going to be there or not? Just curious.

bwiese
07-10-2006, 6:14 PM
Do you really need to go into the topic of what they are suppose to do and what they really do? We all know what they are "SUPPOSE TO DO" but as we have seen over and over again they try to be beyond the rules to get what they want. They were "SUPPOSE" to get an updated list but as we all know where that ended up.

Well, this is different, you are confusing situations. There was no real legal obligation forcing them to list, other than to 'stop all this'. They let it run too long and are trying other things. There ARE indeed formal Office oif Admin. Law requirements for comment periods etc. for new regulations. Questions posed must be answered, perhaps not on an individual basis, but unique, relevant questions must be answered. If they don't follow those steps the regulation can be voided. (Irrelevant questions could be answered in bulk with, "The issue of 2nd amendment questions has been dealt with in the Kasler decision, and is irrelevant to this discussion."


Now, how hard would it be for them to say they only got a hand full of letters?

Well, unfortunately gun people are cheapskates. Pay the buck or so extra for return receipt/certified, etc.

Furthermore, you'll know if you see your issue(s) dealt with. There likely will be multiple people covering the same ground and that will generate one response.


It would be really easy if you were to send them two weeks before. Now, you send letters now and in two weeks you call and confirm they got your letters and again verbally let them know this is important.

I doubt they can track letters like this or spend time answering. They answer in the process and formal response, not onsey-twoesy. This is not like asking a DOJ person "Is X a legal reciever?" and getting a custom personal letter sent to you.


Now if they say well we only got a few letters we can call them on it saying this was also discussed on the phone.

You've just transferred deniability from the letter to the phone call. At least the letter has return receipt. Phone call? You coulda been on music on hold.

You do what you want. As I see things to wait would be very silly with the games they have played in the past.

I honestly don't think they know some things that we know. Interdepartmental miscommunication, lack of skilled staff, etc. Let's take advantage of that and not give them time to work.

They already think they have this battle won and that they don't need our help.

Actually I think they're fighting a delaying tactic just so Big Bill is out of office.


Bill I've asked you a couple times now and haven't seen an answer. Other people have said they are going to be there, are you going to be there or not? Just curious.

I have posted several times here that yes indeed I will be there with extensive material, much of which will be in the letter I send before. I'm prepping two spiels, one for "5 minutes or under" and one for a longer time (more detail). Getting this on the record is important (transcripts).

glen avon
07-10-2006, 6:20 PM
well, I don't want to step on any toes here, but I will say this much:

right in front of me, I have a stack of comments, and responses thereto.

some of the things I actually get paid to do are to deal with comments and responses. and notices. now, I realize this doesn't hold a candle to the expertise one acquires as an internet legal and political analyst, but it is what it is. I know what good comments are, and I know what bad comments are. I know what effective comments are, and I know how to write them.

my original advice is absolutely and incontrovertibly correct. well-placed. appropriate. germane. and effective, too. it is the result of training, expertise, work product, smarts, advice, experience, and all those other little things which don't impress Internet Machiavellis nearly as much as they should.

I have stayed away from this whole notice and comment controversy because I expect to disagree with too many other opinions, becoming personally frustrated beyond any benefit I might contribute to this situation. but I am weak....

good luck to you all. I recommend you take my advice.

xenophobe
07-10-2006, 6:25 PM
Generic letters are a waste of time. PERIOD.

If you're going to go through the trouble of addressing and stamping an envelope, at least have the nerve to write your own letter stating why YOU don't think their proposed change is valid.

Why?

1) Because for every original argument, they have to address it.

2) A generic letter does not need to be addressed. It'll make the trash can before being considered. The first letter will be considered, the rest will be ignored.

3) Mass mailings have no effect unless there is a yes/no vote. There is no yes/no vote here. This is propsed rule making, NOT asking your representitive to take action for/against specific legislation.

4) Flooding the hearing with repetitive, generic letters may accidentally cause a valid original letter to get tossed in the trash. This alone should be cause enough NOT to send in generic letters. Don't give them a reason to throw letters in the trash. Regardless of what anyone says, repeating the same sentence over and over will not affect a proposed rulemaking comment, of which... hundreds of letters would only need ONE comment. Hundreds of original and unique views will require hundreds of unique responses by the DOJ.

5) Keep each letter to a minimum. IF you have a dozen different points, write a half-dozen letters. Letters with more than one valid response might only gather attention from the first point written. Expect, one letter, one DOJ response in the comment period. Also, keep comments as brief and to the point as possible. If your point is confusing or too long, it may be dismissed as too long or confusing.

Ford8N
07-10-2006, 7:06 PM
Generic letters are a waste of time. PERIOD.

If you're going to go through the trouble of addressing and stamping an envelope, at least have the nerve to write your own letter stating why YOU don't think their proposed change is valid.

Why?

1) Because for every original argument, they have to address it.

2) A generic letter does not need to be addressed. It'll make the trash can before being considered. The first letter will be considered, the rest will be ignored.

3) Mass mailings have no effect as to a yes/no vote. There is no yes/no vote here. This is propsed rule making, NOT asking your representitive to take action for/against specific legislation.

4) Flooding the hearing with repetitive, generic letters may accidentally cause a valid original letter to get tossed in the trash. This alone should be cause enough NOT to send in generic letters. Don't give them a reason to throw letters in the trash. Regardless of what anyone says, repeating the same sentence over and over will not affect a proposed rulemaking comment, of which... hundreds of letters would only need ONE comment. Hundreds of original and unique views will require hundreds of unique responses by the DOJ.

5) Keep each letter to a minimum. IF you have a dozen different points, write a half-dozen letters. Letters with more than one valid response might only gather attention from the first point written. Expect, one letter, one DOJ response in the comment period. Also, keep comments as brief and to the point as possible. If your point is confusing or too long, it may be dismissed as too long or confusing.



Good advice.

dhl
07-10-2006, 7:52 PM
Hello,

Has anyone given thought to asking pro-gun legislators to boogie on up to Sacto' and give the DOJ the opinions of the citizens they represent at the hearing?

Joe

xrMike
07-10-2006, 8:30 PM
now, I realize this doesn't hold a candle to the expertise one acquires as an internet legal and political analyst, but it is what it is.Heheheheh, funny stuff right there... :D

Pthfndr
07-10-2006, 8:35 PM
First off...

Well, this is different, you are confusing situations. There was no real legal obligation forcing them to list

How come when Bill says this it's ok. But when I said the EXACT same thing last year I got called all sorts of names?

Ok, enough for that.

How many of you people even went to one of the several public hearings the DOJ held prior to implementing SB23 to hear comments about the various definitions? Any of you? I went to 2.

The DOJ will address NOTHING at the hearings. They are only there to let people speak and take notes. The only response you will get after talking is "thank you". No one on the hearing panel will discuss with you your opinion. No one on the hearing panel will argue with any point you have to make. All they do is record the comments for later evaluation.

They also will not respond to any of the written comments sent in. Period.

Waiting 6 weeks to "inundate" them with letters will hurt more than help because they most likely have a limited time to process all the written and verbal comments and make any changes to the rules.

You want to think they are out to screw us, fine. But the sooner we send written comments covering all the bases, on what would work and what would not, with good logical arguments, the better chance we have of the DOJ actually writing some reasonable definitions.

6172crew
07-10-2006, 8:49 PM
Hello,

Has anyone given thought to asking pro-gun legislators to boogie on up to Sacto' and give the DOJ the opinions of the citizens they represent at the hearing?

Joe

Yea, I have asked one and really havent heard anything back. Id like to see the DA who is sueing the DOJ there in Aug.

BTW just found out Im on a cruise that week....going to get married.:o :cool: :D

bwiese
07-10-2006, 8:49 PM
First off...
How come when Bill says this it's ok. But when I said the EXACT same thing last year I got called all sorts of names?


Yes, correct, some folks here got "required to list" confused with "ability to list". I think I mentioned this back then too but it whiffed by some folks.

The DOJ will address NOTHING at the hearings. They are only there to let people speak and take notes. The only response you will get after talking is "thank you". No one on the hearing panel will discuss with you your opinion. No one on the hearing panel will argue with any point you have to make. All they do is record the comments for later evaluation.

Yes, this is true. There will be no debate. But we wanna get on the record about various side effect 'submarine regulation' that will occur (OAL-upsetting).


They also will not respond to any of the written comments sent in. Period.


True. They will address them in an analysis document (like we saw on SB23 definitions) by subject/issue, not by person. If 20 people say the same thing, it will be dealt with just once. Tom, Dick and Harry won't be responded to individually.


Waiting 6 weeks to "inundate" them with letters will hurt more than help because they most likely have a limited time to process all the written and verbal comments and make any changes to the rules.

I think there are a few things they haven't thought about, and that we shouldn't tilt our hand too soon. This appears to be handled by midlevel staff.

Flooding with 10,000 letters is useless. But reflecting a level of concern from a variety of people is appropriate.


You want to think they are out to screw us, fine. But the sooner we send written comments covering all the bases, on what would work and what would not, with good logical arguments, the better chance we have of the DOJ actually writing some reasonable definitions.

If they weren't out to screw us, they'd leave things be or (best yet) list. Given their seizure of Milpitas lowers, raid-like audits in Dec and Jan of OLL FFLs in CA, the memos-without-force, etc. our chain is certainly being jerked. This ain't a normal regulatory situation.

Actually the only reasonable-without-side-effects thing they can do is leave the status quo. If they move in any of several other directions it may well help us.

Furthermore I don't want cross-leakage into 2728.

bwiese
07-10-2006, 8:59 PM
well, I don't want to step on any toes here, but I will say this much:

my original advice is absolutely and incontrovertibly correct...
good luck to you all. I recommend you take my advice.

Glen I do actually in general agree with what you are saying.

I am not an advocate of 'flooding' with paper. I just think some delay before tilting our hand is prudent. I'm not sure a couple of thousand letters "this violates our 2A rights" or "it makes our guns unsafe" will be useful one way or another except to fill the crackpot file.

6172crew
07-10-2006, 9:06 PM
If they weren't out to screw us, they'd leave things be or (best yet) list. Given their seizure of Milpitas lowers, raid-like audits in Dec and Jan of OLL FFLs in CA, the memos-without-force, etc. our chain is certainly being jerked. This ain't a normal regulatory situation.

Actually the only reasonable-without-side-effects thing they can do is leave the status quo. If they move in any of several other directions it may well help us.

Furthermore I don't want cross-leakage into 2728.

Ed Zachary! They have made it clear they are out to do anything but allow us to build our rifles. The gal in charge is a moonbat, left wingnut,wig with a chinstrap, anti-gunner and that is a fact.

edited to add: Im not sure she has a chinstrapped wig or not.

SemiAutoSam
07-10-2006, 9:12 PM
Ive had a bit of help from some of my SOT friends and will be sending my letter in friday via USPS registered mail.

I have made points mostly along the same lines.

dhl
07-10-2006, 9:16 PM
Oh, c'mon man! Get your priorities straight! ;)

BTW just found out Im on a cruise that week....going to get married.:o :cool: :D[/QUOTE]

SemiAutoSam
07-10-2006, 9:40 PM
Married ?

Have you done it before or are you a first timer heheh

Before you do this horrable thing just consider the definition of a license.

5 Reasons Why Christians Should Not Obtain a State Marriage License

by Pastor Matt Trewhella

Every year thousands of Christians amble down to their local county courthouse and obtain a marriage license from the State in order to marry their future spouse. They do this unquestioningly. They do it because their pastor has told them to go get one, and besides, "everybody else gets one." This pamphlet attempts to answer the question - why should we not get one?

1. The definition of a "license" demands that we not obtain one to marry. Blackís Law Dictionary defines "license" as, "The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal." We need to ask ourselves- why should it be illegal to marry without the Stateís permission? More importantly, why should we need the Stateís permission to participate in something which God instituted (Gen. 2:18-24)? We should not need the Stateís permission to marry nor should we grovel before state officials to seek it. What if you apply and the State says "no"? You must understand that the authority to license implies the power to prohibit. A license by definition "confers a right" to do something. The State cannot grant the right to marry. It is a God-given right.



2. When you marry with a marriage license, you grant the State jurisdiction over your marriage. When you marry with a marriage license, your marriage is a creature of the State. It is a corporation of the State! Therefore, they have jurisdiction over your marriage including the fruit of your marriage. What is the fruit of your marriage? Your children and every piece of property you own. There is plenty of case law in American jurisprudence which declares this to be true.

In 1993, parents were upset here in Wisconsin because a test was being administered to their children in the government schools which was very invasive of the familyís privacy. When parents complained, they were shocked by the school bureaucrats who informed them that their children were required to take the test by law and that they would have to take the test because they (the government school) had jurisdiction over their children. When parents asked the bureaucrats what gave them jurisdiction, the bureaucrats answered, "your marriage license and their birth certificates." Judicially, and in increasing fashion, practically, your state marriage license has far-reaching implications.

3. When you marry with a marriage license, you place yourself under a body of law which is immoral. By obtaining a marriage license, you place yourself under the jurisdiction of Family Court which is governed by unbiblical and immoral laws. Under these laws, you can divorce for any reason. Often, the courts side with the spouse who is in rebellion to God, and castigates the spouse who remains faithful by ordering him or her not to speak about the Bible or other matters of faith when present with the children.

As a minister, I cannot in good conscience perform a marriage which would place people under this immoral body of laws. I also cannot marry someone with a marriage license because to do so I have to act as an agent of the State! I would have to sign the marriage license, and I would have to mail it into the State. Given the Stateís demand to usurp the place of God and family regarding marriage, and given itís unbiblical, immoral laws to govern marriage, it would be an act of treason for me to do so.

4. The marriage license invades and removes God-given parental authority. When you read the Bible, you see that God intended for children to have their fatherís blessing regarding whom they married. Daughters were to be given in marriage by their fathers (Dt. 22:16; Ex. 22:17; I Cor. 7:38). We have a vestige of this in our culture today in that the father takes his daughter to the front of the altar and the minister asks, "Who gives this woman to be married to this man?"

Historically, there was no requirement to obtain a marriage license in colonial America. When you read the laws of the colonies and then the states, you see only two requirements for marriage. First, you had to obtain your parents permission to marry, and second, you had to post public notice of the marriage 5-15 days before the ceremony.

Notice you had to obtain your parents permission. Back then you saw godly government displayed in that the State recognized the parents authority by demanding that the parents permission be obtained. Today, the all-encompassing ungodly State demands that their permission be obtained to marry.

By issuing marriage licenses, the State is saying, "You donít need your parents permission, you need our permission." If parents are opposed to their childís marrying a certain person and refuse to give their permission, the child can do an end run around the parents authority by obtaining the Stateís permission, and marry anyway. This is an invasion and removal of God-given parental authority by the State.

5. When you marry with a marriage license, you are like a polygamist. From the Stateís point of view, when you marry with a marriage license, you are not just marrying your spouse, but you are also marrying the State.

The most blatant declaration of this fact that I have ever found is a brochure entitled "With This Ring I Thee Wed." It is found in county courthouses across Ohio where people go to obtain their marriage licenses. It is published by the Ohio State Bar Association. The opening paragraph under the subtitle "Marriage Vows" states, "Actually, when you repeat your marriage vows you enter into a legal contract. There are three parties to that contract. 1.You; 2. Your husband or wife, as the case may be; and 3. the State of Ohio."

See, the State and the lawyers know that when you marry with a marriage license, you are not just marrying your spouse, you are marrying the State! You are like a polygamist! You are not just making a vow to your spouse, but you are making a vow to the State and your spouse. You are also giving undue jurisdiction to the State.

When Does the State Have Jurisdiction Over a Marriage?

God intended the State to have jurisdiction over a marriage for two reasons - 1). in the case of divorce, and 2). when crimes are committed i.e., adultery, bigamy. etc. Unfortunately, the State now allows divorce for any reason, and it does not prosecute for adultery.

In either case, divorce or crime, a marriage license is not necessary for the courts to determine whether a marriage existed or not. What is needed are witnesses. This is why you have a best man and a maid of honor. They should sign the marriage certificate in your family Bible, and the wedding day guest book should be kept.

Marriage was instituted by God, therefore it is a God-given right. According to Scripture, it is to be governed by the family, and the State only has jurisdiction in the cases of divorce or crime.

History of Marriage Licenses in America



George Washington was married without a marriage license. So, how did we come to this place in America where marriage licenses are issued?

Historically, all the states in America had laws outlawing the marriage of blacks and whites. In the mid-1800ís, certain states began allowing interracial marriages or miscegenation as long as those marrying received a license from the state. In other words they had to receive permission to do an act which without such permission would have been illegal.

Blacks Law Dictionary points to this historical fact when it defines "marriage license" as, "A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry." "Intermarry" is defined in Blackís Law Dictionary as, "Miscegenation; mixed or interracial marriages."

Give the State an inch and they will take a 100 miles (or as one elderly woman once said to me "10,000 miles.") Not long after these licenses were issued, some states began requiring all people who marry to obtain a marriage license. In 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act (they later established the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act). By 1929, every state in the Union had adopted marriage license laws.

What Should We Do?

Christian couples should not be marrying with State marriage licenses, nor should ministers be marrying people with State marriage licenses. Some have said to me, "If someone is married without a marriage license, then they arenít really married." Given the fact that states may soon legalize same-sex marriages, we need to ask ourselves, "If a man and a man marry with a State marriage license, and a man and woman marry without a State marriage license - whoís really married? Is it the two men with a marriage license, or the man and woman without a marriage license? In reality, this contention that people are not really married unless they obtain a marriage license simply reveals how Statist we are in our thinking. We need to think biblically. (As for homosexuals marrying, outlaw sodomy as God's law demands, and there will be no threat of sodomites marrying.)

You should not have to obtain a license from the State to marry someone anymore than you should have to obtain a license from the State to be a parent, which some in academic and legislative circles are currently pushing to be made law.

When I marry a couple, I always buy them a Family Bible which contains birth and death records, and a marriage certificate. We record the marriage in the Family Bible. Whatís recorded in a Family Bible will stand up as legal evidence in any court of law in America. Early Americans were married without a marriage license. They simply recorded their marriages in their Family Bibles. So should we.

bwiese
07-10-2006, 9:42 PM
oh sweet geezus...

jdberger
07-10-2006, 9:58 PM
You can always count on Mr. Sam....

However....and this is total thread veer....... (and Bill, you might appreciate this)...........

What is the State doing sanctioning a religious rite? Separatioon of Church and State and all that 1A stuff.....



now back to your regularly scheduled program....

Pthfndr
07-10-2006, 10:10 PM
For those who weren't around (for what ever reason, it doesn't matter what) for the public comment hearings the DOJ held for SB23, which were largely for what determines a pistol grip, a tool, and flash hider, I'd like to give my thoughts since I attended the hearings.

First off, many of the attendees went because they heard about it on AR15.com or other gunboards that were around then. There weren't many. A lot of people thought the best approach would be to 1) protest outside the hearings, and 2) spew a bunch of pro 2A rhetoric inside, and 3rd but last, actually present logical arguments about the proposed definitions.

I will say here and now, we (yes I was one of them) were completely wrong about including the first two. There was so much talk on the net about protesting that the DOJ moved the hearings in Sacramento to a larger facility because they were expecting such a large crowd based on what they read on the net. I was told that personally, at the hearing, by one of the DOJ higher ups. The turn out was actually pretty pathetic.

Armed security, which was provided by the CHP - both uniformed and plain clothes, was highly visible. And over whelming. Some even got up to speak only so they could say it was even excessive. Bordering on a police state. They - the DOJ - were concerned that some people might come armed.

We had to go through metal detectors, and bags/purses were subject to search. No signs, banners, displays, etc were allowed in. Inside, the room was literally ringed with security personel.

Sadly, at Sacramento at least, we probably only had around 100 people attend. I heard the turn out in L.A. was much better.

When the meeting started the panel foreman said a sign up sheet was being passed out. If you wanted to speak you signed up. They would call you name to let you know it was your turn to speak, or if you were "on deck".

Some people spoke well on the technical aspects of the proposed ruling - including someone from the NRA. Some people just got up to rant about the governement. No one was allowed to setup visual aids. Most peole were not well prepared to speak and had nothing in writing. They did it off the cuff and sounded like back woods people trying to explain something technical of which they had little knowledge. Some people got up to speak twice and did both. Yours truly included. The DOJ panel listened patiently to everyone and thanked them for their input, even though some people came right out and called them nazis and such.

IIRC, they told us up front the meeting was being recorded and I seem to remember seeing cameras. A very few times someone on the panel would ask a question of the speaker to clarify something they said. I saw several of the panel take notes at times.

In speaking with a DOJ person during the lunch break he told me the DOJ knew how we felt, politically speaking, and didn't really care about that. They really did want to hear comments about the proposed definitions and how they should be written because that's what they were supposed to do, their job. They already had their own ideas, but they are not all knowing and really did need the input. (side bar: I don't know how many of you know how close CA came to eliminating ALL semi auto mag rifles because of the pistol grip thing just because manufacturers had been referring to the wood stocks with "pistol grip" for a long time)

Intially after the meeting a lot of people were patting themselves on the back and feeling good about how "we showed them" by speaking out about our gun rights and such. In retrospect, we probably looked like a bunch of blathering idiot gun nuts. We did not go about it in the most productive way.

In summary:

A huge turnout for the hearings for visual support would be great. But we do not need 100, 200, or 300 people to get up and all say the same thing about what "permanent" is or isn't. We need a select group of knowledgeable people who can lay out the technical and legal aspects of the issue to speak. To present our collective minds. To present alternative means for the DOJ to enforce the law in a manner consistent with legislative intent, BUT that will allow US to get the most we can.

If you plan to speak, have what you want to say in writing. Nothing sounds worse than someone trying to wing it and saying "um" and "uh" a lot. Don't ramble, don't stray from the topic. Be concise and to the point. For those who plan to speak, make sure you bring at least one extra copy of your written presentation to give to the DOJ.

For those who wish to submit something in writing I would suggest contacting those on the board who seem to be in the know on the technical and legal aspects. Ask them for an outline of ideas and put it in your own words.

MaxQ
07-10-2006, 11:02 PM
So that people don't panic on August 17th, this is a rough timeline of the SB23 related DOJ regulatory update actions of 1999-2000. I'm not saying the current CCR update period will be as long, or have two additional comment periods, but I'll put money on nothing changing in August, 2006!

Initial Public Comment Period: December 31, 1999 - February 28, 2000

Sacramento Hearing: February 24, 2000
Los Angeles Hearing: February 28, 2000

First 15 Day Comment Period: May 10 - 30, 2000

Second 15 Day Comment Period: July 12 - 31, 2000

Regulation Effective Date: December 5, 2000

Keep in mind that there were a greater number of issues in those proposed regulatory actions than in today's. Also, the Kasler decision on August 16, 2000, and subsequent Kasler list, extended the DOJ's processing time. Nonetheless, it was seven months from the beginning of the initial comment period until the end of the second 15 day comment period.

bwiese
07-10-2006, 11:12 PM
Pathfinder...

What you wrote is overall excellent advice.

For those that will be speaking in Sacto meeting, I urge you to prep your remarks (and time them in a practice run - you may only have 5 minutes).

Ford8N
07-11-2006, 6:27 AM
For those who weren't around (for what ever reason, it doesn't matter what) for the public comment hearings the DOJ held for SB23, which were largely for what determines a pistol grip, a tool, and flash hider, I'd like to give my thoughts since I attended the hearings.

First off, many of the attendees went because they heard about it on AR15.com or other gunboards that were around then. There weren't many. A lot of people thought the best approach would be to 1) protest outside the hearings, and 2) spew a bunch of pro 2A rhetoric inside, and 3rd but last, actually present logical arguments about the proposed definitions.

I will say here and now, we (yes I was one of them) were completely wrong about including the first two. There was so much talk on the net about protesting that the DOJ moved the hearings in Sacramento to a larger facility because they were expecting such a large crowd based on what they read on the net. I was told that personally, at the hearing, by one of the DOJ higher ups. The turn out was actually pretty pathetic.

Armed security, which was provided by the CHP - both uniformed and plain clothes, was highly visible. And over whelming. Some even got up to speak only so they could say it was even excessive. Bordering on a police state. They - the DOJ - were concerned that some people might come armed.

We had to go through metal detectors, and bags/purses were subject to search. No signs, banners, displays, etc were allowed in. Inside, the room was literally ringed with security personel.

Sadly, at Sacramento at least, we probably only had around 100 people attend. I heard the turn out in L.A. was much better.

When the meeting started the panel foreman said a sign up sheet was being passed out. If you wanted to speak you signed up. They would call you name to let you know it was your turn to speak, or if you were "on deck".

Some people spoke well on the technical aspects of the proposed ruling - including someone from the NRA. Some people just got up to rant about the governement. No one was allowed to setup visual aids. Most peole were not well prepared to speak and had nothing in writing. They did it off the cuff and sounded like back woods people trying to explain something technical of which they had little knowledge. Some people got up to speak twice and did both. Yours truly included. The DOJ panel listened patiently to everyone and thanked them for their input, even though some people came right out and called them nazis and such.

IIRC, they told us up front the meeting was being recorded and I seem to remember seeing cameras. A very few times someone on the panel would ask a question of the speaker to clarify something they said. I saw several of the panel take notes at times.

In speaking with a DOJ person during the lunch break he told me the DOJ knew how we felt, politically speaking, and didn't really care about that. They really did want to hear comments about the proposed definitions and how they should be written because that's what they were supposed to do, their job. They already had their own ideas, but they are not all knowing and really did need the input. (side bar: I don't know how many of you know how close CA came to eliminating ALL semi auto mag rifles because of the pistol grip thing just because manufacturers had been referring to the wood stocks with "pistol grip" for a long time)

Intially after the meeting a lot of people were patting themselves on the back and feeling good about how "we showed them" by speaking out about our gun rights and such. In retrospect, we probably looked like a bunch of blathering idiot gun nuts. We did not go about it in the most productive way.

In summary:

A huge turnout for the hearings for visual support would be great. But we do not need 100, 200, or 300 people to get up and all say the same thing about what "permanent" is or isn't. We need a select group of knowledgeable people who can lay out the technical and legal aspects of the issue to speak. To present our collective minds. To present alternative means for the DOJ to enforce the law in a manner consistent with legislative intent, BUT that will allow US to get the most we can.

If you plan to speak, have what you want to say in writing. Nothing sounds worse than someone trying to wing it and saying "um" and "uh" a lot. Don't ramble, don't stray from the topic. Be concise and to the point. For those who plan to speak, make sure you bring at least one extra copy of your written presentation to give to the DOJ.

For those who wish to submit something in writing I would suggest contacting those on the board who seem to be in the know on the technical and legal aspects. Ask them for an outline of ideas and put it in your own words.


Excellent advice. It's really not helping the cause if some pot bellied camo dressed guy rambles on about something that has nothing to do with the hearing.

6172crew
07-11-2006, 6:30 AM
Pathfinder...

What you wrote is overall excellent advice.

For those that will be speaking in Sacto meeting, I urge you to prep your remarks (and time them in a practice run - you may only have 5 minutes).
+1

Its nice to have SB23 Vets around. Thanks PF!:)

glen avon
07-11-2006, 10:48 AM
...via USPS registered mail.

why registered? certified is better.

bwiese
07-11-2006, 11:04 AM
why registered? certified is better.

Yes, but for these purposes I believe just Return Receipt may be good enough (i.e., antidumping deterrent).

jemaddux
07-11-2006, 1:48 PM
why registered? certified is better.


Remember people that these letters are going to a P.O. Box and they might not sign for them. Don't be supprised if they don't.

SemiAutoSam
07-11-2006, 3:15 PM
why registered? certified is better.

And why do you make this claim ?

glen avon
07-11-2006, 3:20 PM
because registered is under lock and key and costs more to take forever. no certification card sent back to you. registered is appropriate for valuables.

certified is faster, cheaper, and you get the delivery card. ask the postman, he will tell you.

glen avon
07-11-2006, 3:21 PM
Remember people that these letters are going to a P.O. Box and they might not sign for them. Don't be supprised if they don't.

they don't have to. my taxes are sent certified, to a post office, but I get a card back.

SemiAutoSam
07-11-2006, 3:21 PM
Glen
You can send registered mail with the little green card also.

glen avon
07-11-2006, 3:37 PM
not exactly. can't use the little green card, but you can get delivery confirmation. effectively the same thing, but not the little green card. still, it costs more and takes longer.

SemiAutoSam
07-11-2006, 3:45 PM
not to be a stickler but I just called my local post office to be sure Of what ive stated here and im told that you can use the green card that they send back to you with both certified and registered mail.

You can also use Signature confrimation and Delivery confrimation im told.

From the horses mouth so to speak

glen avon
07-11-2006, 3:52 PM
not stickling, the facts are the facts. I thought differently, but you can't argue with what the PO says. thanks for the clarification.

chris
07-11-2006, 10:54 PM
i had no idea the ****torm this post would cause. the points i can derive from the response vary from arogant to informative and those people know who they are. i only posted this to maybe help those who are not very good at writing letters and get some help. some have posted this here and i thank you for that.

the person who attended the SB23 hearings your post was great. but we need to show a physical presence there. that would be great. also what i have seen here is that we are own worst enemy right now. we need to get our **** together. remember guys what is at stake here.

this is very important. if we don't get together now then we are so screwed it's not even funny. i made this post to hopefully start some preperation on this matter. it's better to plan ahead that wait till the last minute.

i hope that alot of people show up to the hearing and those who wish to speak do so. someone has posted to have it writing do so. if you need help i'm sure someone here cdan help you PM them and ask. try to start now and get bugs out early and show up with a good written comment for you to read from.

sorry for the ****storm this post created.

Mod-edit: the profanity filter is there for a REASON. Swapping one letter out of a word doesn't mean it's ok to post it!