California's Latest Assault On Your Rights

Under AB 1014, Your Guns Can be seized, Your Home, Car and Office Searched On Nothing But Hearsay - And Weeks, Months or Years Before You Get Your Day In Court.

Take Action Now

If you thought that California legislators are really interested in learning from the Isla Vista rampage near UC Santa Barbara - think again.  Even though the failure was ENTIRELY that of the mental health system - and people were killed and severely injured with knives, cars and guns - and even though a simple field commitment would have cost him his guns. California Dems are focusing 100% on more gun laws.

In a response typical of the gun control movement - and even though anyone under a restraining order is already banned from owning or even touching a gun - California legislators are proposing a new - and completely unnecessary "gun violence restraining order".

Under current law, anyone who is the subject of a restraining order is already forbidden to own, possess or even touch a firearm.  The same is true of anyone who has been committed for mental health care.  In fact, anyone sent in for a 72 hour mental health evaluation - commonly known as a 5150 hold - looses all gun rights for five years EVEN IF THEY ARE RELEASED IMMEDIATELY because the concerns are determined to be completely unfounded.  Having spent 10 years in EMS and having transported well over a thousand people on these holds, I can tell you that it doesn't take much to get placed on one.  

Yet because the police failed to do anything even close to a simple and complete investigation, this didn't happen I the Isla Vista incident and so far we have six murders - three killed with knives and three killed with guns.  Shouldn't we take action aimed at preventing all such deaths, not just murders committed with guns?  Shouldn't we focus upon getting the mentally unstable the help they need as well as preventing them from legally buying or owning guns?  THE TRUTH IS, WE ALREADY HAVE ALL THE LAWS WE NEED TO DO THAT - WE JUST NEED TO USE THEM.

Yet for some reason, the Democrats in Sacramento seem to only care about those killed with guns.  If they cared about the people killed and assaulted with both guns and knives, as well as those struck by the murderer's car, they would do something about mental health.  They could provide for better training for police officers so that they can do a better job of determining who needs to be sent in on a hold.  The failure of police officers to recognize the mentally ill and send them in for evaluation was the primary factor in the Giffords shooting, the Navy Yard shooting and several other high profile shootings as well.  Why is this not being addressed?  Why is the first move always to go after guns - even in states like California where virtually every item on the gun control wish list is already the law?

Could it be that those who want guns to be banned are afraid that if any action is taken on other fronts - such as mental health and better security - that fewer of these incidents would take place?  Are they concerned that it then might be harder to pass even more restrictive gun laws?  One has to wonder.

So how bad is it?  What would this bill do?

1) Anyone, EVEN IF THEY DON'T KNOW YOU, can simply say that they believe you are a threat to yourself, or others.  Absolutely no evidence of any kind is required - simply a statement that they feel threatened will do fine.  Anyone could read a pro-gun rights post online, or see pictures you have posted on Facebook, see an NRA sticker on your car, or see you bringing guns home from the range.  Your anti-gun rights neighbor could see you unloading your cased guns and "feel threatened" simply because you own them.  His or her feelings would be all that was needed to get one of these new "firearms restraining orders". 

As Brandon Combs, president of CAL-FFL pointed out,  "There’s no criminal or civil penalty for filing false or vexatious reports and no provision for the recovery of damages and someone’s loss of rights. AB 1014 would make it open season on California gun owners.”

My experience tells me that very few of these requests will be turned down by judges - because the "safe" thing to do is grant them all.  No judge will want to be the person who failed to issue such an order - and have the subject then shoot someone.

What might support the court’s issuance of a “Gun Violence Restraining Order” under AB 1014? How about this: “recent acquisition of firearms or other deadly weapons.” Just to make sure you’re getting this, let’s recap: if AB 1014 becomes law, exercising your Second Amendment rights is evidence that you shouldn’t have them. Yes, it’s that ridiculous.

2) Government would then be required to seize all of your firearms and you would be forbidden to ever own firearms again.

3) You do get a hearing - but government has two weeks to even schedule it.  There is no requirement that it be held promptly.  If there are many asking for hearings - if, for example, anti-gun rights groups are encouraging people to file for such orders against their gun owning neighbors - you might have to wait months to years.

4) Eventually, if you can afford a good lawyer, a good psychiatrist (who is willing to risk saying you are not a threat - good luck with that), an investigator and other expert witnesses you MIGHT be able to PROVE that you can be trusted with guns.  THAT'S RIGHT - BECAUSE THIS IS A "CIVIL MATTER" THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU TO PROVE THAT YOU ARE NOT A THREAT - YOU HAVE NO PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, AND "REASONABLE DOUBT" IS NOT ENOUGH FOR YOU TO WIN .

5) If you are a poor person, or even middle class, you won't be able to afford to even try to keep your gun rights.  A mere, unfounded accusation by someone you may not even know, by someone you probably will not even be able to learn the identity of without hiring a lawyer, WILL RESULT IN YOU LOOSING YOUR GUN RIGHTS FOR LIFE.

What is the real purpose of this special restraining order?  After all, those committed or even sent in for mental health evaluation, are already forbidden to own firearms - as is anyone who is the subject of a restraining order.  So, if this is the case, again: What is the REAL purpose of this proposed law?

The only possible motivation for such a law is to create as many "prohibited persons" as possible - by providing a path to do so with even fewer safeguards than either the mental health laws or those regarding conventional restraining orders.  (Which are already being abused.)  In other words, it exists for the sole purpose of depriving people of their constitutional rights with  little evidence or cause - in fact, mere hearsay would be enough.

This bill will also have a chilling effect upon free speech.  How?  Simple: Gun owners will become very cautious about letting people know they own guns, out of fear that someone will "feel threatened" and file for one of these orders.  They will stop posting pro-gun rights thoughts on social media sites, NRA stickers will come off of cars, and gun owners will certainly not invite others to go shooting with them.  Once again, you can be sure that this is just what the backers of this bill want.

When government begins to uses tactics like this to deprive people of their Constitutional rights, can they really be trusted to stop with the issue of guns?  Can such people be trusted with the rest of our rights?  I think not!  We need to send them a message that we won't let them do this without a fight.

TAKE ACTION ASAP TO STOP THIS OUTRAGE - THEY ARE RAMMING THIS THROUGH AS FAST AS POSSIBLE.

All you have to do is click on the image above to be taken to the Firearms Policy Coalition AB 1014 action page.  They will send your email of opposition to your elected representatives in the state House and Senate.  They do ask for contributions - but it is not required (Just uncheck the box next to "Yes").  The most important thing is to register your opposition - that said, yes I gave them a few bucks to help the cause.

Email Governor Jerry Brown

Governor Brown came through for us last year by vetoing several extreme anti-gun rights bill.  This year, he may be our best hope to stop the most radical gun bill ever: AB 1014.

Suggested email, fax, letter wording - change the words and addressee as needed:

Dear Gov. Brown,

As I am sure you are aware, in response to the Isla Vista rampage, a new and radical measure has been proposed: AB 1014.

THIS LAW IS NOT NEEDED: Given that existing law provides for firearms prohibitions any time a person is sent by police for a mental health evaluation (commonly known as a 5150), as well as anyone placed under a restraining order or order of protection, and anytime someone is committed by the courts for mental health treatment - it is hard to see the need for this law.  If someone is so much of a threat that their firearms must be seized before a hearing is ever held, WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD WE NOT SEND THEM IN FOR MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION ON A 5150 HOLD?  Such action provides for all the firearm prohibitions AND takes them off the streets, preventing them from using an illegally obtained firearm or other weapons to harm others AND gets the person the help they need.

THIS LAW IS WRITTEN TO BE ABUSED:  Anyone could file for one of these "firearms restraining orders" simply by saying that they "feel threatened" by - for instance - the fact that their neighbor owns guns.  Few judges are going to risk denying any requests for these restraining  orders.  So, on little to nothing more than hearsay, government then descends upon them, searching their home and seizing their legally owned firearms.  A hearing does not even need to be scheduled for two weeks - and might be months away.  The average person who poses no threat will not have the funds to hire a lawyer and expert witnesses needed to prove their innocence.  They will loose their 2nd Amendment rights upon the word of one person who make or may not be correct in their assessment of their sanity.  It's very clear that this is the real goal of the legislation.

As Brandon Combs, president of CAL-FFL pointed out,  "There’s no criminal or civil penalty for filing false or vexatious reports and no provision for the recovery of damages and someone’s loss of rights. AB 1014 would make it open season on California gun owners.”

THIS LAW WILL HAVE A CHILLING EFFECT UPON FREE SPEECH: If this law passes and is signed, gun owners will begin to keep their gun ownership secret AND stop publicly speaking about gun related issues in order to avoid becoming the subject of an AB 1014 firearms restraining order.

This entire idea is a bad one in any form.  Should it reach your desk, I strongly urge a veto.

Sincerely,


Please take a few minutes to stop this horrible bill from becoming law!  Thank you!

Isla Vista Shooting Reveals Failure of Mental Health System - Not Gun Laws

Gun Laws Won't Work Until We Fix The Mental Health System

Predictably, the Isla Vista mass shooting has triggered more calls for increased gun control laws - most of which would be struck down as unconstitutional.  Never mind that the reality is that California has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation - most people outside the gun community don't know this anyway.  Let's take a look at the real reason why these highly restrictive gun laws failed to stop this med man from buying a firearm LEGALLY.  (We will never know if he could have bought one illegally, on the black market.)

California has restrictions on those under mental health care that far exceed the federal restrictions.  Federally, in order to be denied a firearm you have to be committed to mental health care (in patient or out patient) by a court, against your will.  In California merely being sent in for evaluation by a police officer or a doctor triggers a five year prohibition - regardless of the outcome of the evaluation.

Because of my background in EMS, I am very familiar with this system.  Most of these 5150 holds (the legal reference for a forced mental health evaluation) are generated by cops in the field.  Most of these officers lack the training to evaluate mental health cases - so they error towards caution and place holds on many people who are not mentally ill in hope of not missing someone who is.  Even so, they still fail to send people in who really need help.

Such was the case here.  According to NBC LA, the shooter in this incident had three prior contacts with law enforcement in the weeks leading up to the shooting.   Most disconcerting, one of these contacts was generated by his parents, who expressed concerns over videos he had placed online.   Deputies did make contact with the shooter, but they failed to view the videos.  They also failed to enter his room - the killer himself wrote that if they had, his intentions would have been clear.  He was able to convince them that a hold was not required.  Had they sent him in for evaluation, this fact alone would have caused him to fail a background check - and resulted in his guns (which were registered) being seized.

Additionally, he was under the care of a prominent psychiatrist in 2012 - although it may not be fair to assert that he missed something.

Sadly, this is not the first time we have seen the mental health system fail to stop a mass shooter.  The shooter in Giffords tragedy had over 20 law enforcement contacts for bizarre behavior so bad that he was thrown out of his junior college - yet not one of these cops sent him in for evaluation.  The Navy Yard shooter also had contact with law enforcement shortly before the shooting for - you guessed it - bizarre behavior.  The Colorado theater shooter was under the care of psychiatrist at the time of the shooting.  In the Newtown shooting, the shooters mother had attempted - unsuccessfully - to have him committed.  The laws in Connecticut made this practically impossible. 

Background checks for firearms purchases are dependent upon good information.  Too many felony convictions and mental health commitments are not making it into the database.  Both gun rights and gun control groups have expressed concern about this - yet nothing is done about it.  Instead, the focus is almost exclusively upon passing more restrictive gun laws.

What measures will keep the mentally ill from buying guns legally?

1) An accurate database - federal law enforcement funding to the states should be tied to 100% of mental health commitments and felony convictions being reported to the FBI for inclusion in the NICS database.

2) Law enforcement officers must receive more training in recognizing mental illness.  Failing this, selected officers should receive more training and be called by the first responding officers  when there is any indication of mental illness.  Law enforcement is the front line of defense against the violent mentally ill - it's time we realized this fact.

3) Mental health practitioners need to be educated regarding gun laws and what triggers a prohibition upon firearms ownership.

The Supreme Court has twice held that there is a civil right to own firearms in "common use" - including handguns.  A ban is not possible.  What is possible - and specifically allowed in the ruling - is a ban upon the mentally ill owning firearms.  We already have laws to this effect - but they are useless when the mental health system fails. 

Bloomberg and the NRA: A Study in Contrast

Which One Really Represents A Grass-Roots Movement?

As most readers will know, Billionaire Michael Bloomberg has pledged 50 Million Dollars to "fight the NRA".  The first battle took place at the NRA Annual Meeting in Indianapolis.  The contrast between the two groups was dramatic.

Bloomberg brought two of his "owned and operated" "AstroTruf" groups: Mom's Demand Action and Every Town For Gun Safety.  Nowhere to be seen was his previous front line group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns - which was plagued by resignations and felony convictions among its' members, not to mention the theft of services from the City of New York.

Bloomberg's Mom's Demand Action brought the larger group of protesters - estimated at about 100-200 persons.  They were lead by their full time paid Chairperson and were bused in at Bloomberg's expense.  There also have been reliable reports that all of their travel expenses and lodging were also paid for.  They stayed for one hour - just long enough to enable sympathetic media to take a few pictures and do some interviews.  Then they left.

Every Town For Gun Safety also made an appearance - with about 25 protesters.  This group admitted that these "protesters" were also on an all expenses paid trip.









So, these protests - which have been portrayed as significant and ground breaking grass roots movements in the left wing media - involved about 200 (or less) paid protesters.  (PROTECTED BY PAID AND ARMED SECURITY GUARDS!)

I must say that, given their funding, I am not impressed.

Contrast this with the NRA:

The NRA has 5 Million Members - everyone of which has PAID TO JOIN.  Most pay $25.00 per year in dues - but many have paid $500.00-1000.00 to become life members.  In addition to it's members, the NRA has between 10 and 20 Million supporters who donate a few dollars a year.  In addition, two other gun rights groups - the Gun Owners of America and the Citizens Committee For The Right To Keep and Bear Arms each have over 750,000 paid up members.

The NRA Annual Meeting drew nearly 70,000 members - every one of which paid for their own travel and lodging. 

Contrast the above picture of the protesters with these taken at the Annual Meeting.

The NRA is often accused (falsely) of being an organization that is run by the "evil gun makers".  Even if this were true, why was the NRA able to draw 350 times as many people - all of whom paid their own way?




No matter what you may think of the NRA, the gun rights movement or gun owners - the fact is that the NRA and the larger gun rights movement is the largest grass roots civil rights movement in existence today.  The NRA has responded to Bloomberg's 50 Million Dollar assault with this video:

PRETTY MUCH SAYS IT ALL - GAME ON!

If You Can't Sell Gun Control As Gun Control - Just Call It Gun Safety

50 Million Buys A Lot of Lipstick
But A Pig By Any Name Is Still
A Pig!

Would you by a product sold by a company that continually changed it's name and the reason you should buy the product?  What if you found out that their sales tactics were highly deceptive?

Such is the case with many gun control advocates, and with former NYC Mayor Bloomberg in particular.  Picking up where groups like the "National Coalition to Ban Handguns" left off, he first established  "Mayors Against Illegal Guns".  After a largely unproductive 2013, in which the Colorado lawmakers who served as his agents were quickly recalled, and in which the organization lost many of it's mayor members when they figured out the organization was really about making guns illegal - not going after criminals and crime guns - Mayor Bloomberg decided that it was time for a change.

He first started "Mom's Demand Action" - that's right, a male billionaire decided to start an "Astroturf" women's group.  However, in spite of all his money, the organization has struggled to get going.  Perhaps the fact that gun ownership is quickly rising among women has something to do with the slow start.......

Now he has started another phony "grass roots" organization: Every Town For Gun Safety.  Now, what could possibly be wrong with a group with "gun safety" in it's name?  Actually, quite a bit if the real goal is not to promote the safe use and storage of firearms - but instead to make it as hard as possible to own a firearm.

Those of us who live in California know all about this.  Twenty plus years ago, we were sold a bill of goods labeled the "Safe Handgun List".  Now our anti-gun rights attorney general is using that law, with a few amendments, to basically ban all semi-auto handguns from the state. 

The common thread is that when public opinion is against gun bans and against gun control, they will listen and maybe even support many of the same measures if you call them "gun safety" laws.  After all who could possibly oppose gun safety?

Of course, it's still the same organization - following links to the Mayors Against Illegal Guns website results in a redirect to the Every Town for Gun Safety site.  It's also the same tactics.  They kicked things off with this disgusting video:

In addition to showing horribly unsafe behavior by children (which other kids may imitate), it tries to create the impression that there is a crisis with huge numbers of children finding improperly stored firearms and killing each other with them.  Of course, this is a complete lie.

First, we have to gain some perspective.  Just how common are firearms accidents among children?  How does the risk from firearms compare to other risks?

So, are firearms a common way children are accidentally killed?  Thank God, the answer to that question is NO.

Are firearms accidents involving children under 14 on the rise, or are they falling?  Answer: They are dropping like a rock.

From the National Safety Council: "Unintentional firearms deaths also declined in 2007 for the second year in a row, falling to a new record low."   Nationwide, the annual number of fatal firearm accidents among children has decreased 89% since 1975.  The rate of fatal accidents involving children is less than TWO PER ONE MILLION HOUSEHOLDS in which both firearms and children are present. 1

In the United States since 1930: The population has more than DOUBLED - the number of privately owned firearms has more than QUINTUPLED - and the annual number of accidental firearms deaths has DECREASED 80%  The fatal firearm accident rate has fallen to a new all-time LOW — down 94% since the all-time high recorded in 1904.

"But I heard that the firearms death rate among children was much, much higher."  I am sure you did.  Gun control groups boost their figures by including people up to age 18 and in one case, age 25 in their "child gun death" figures.  They also include homicides, suicides and even young gang-bangers shot by each other or cops in their totals.  Of course, Bloomberg's organization recently got caught including one of the Boston bombers as a "victim of gun violence" - he was shot by police.

These facts that can be confirmed by consulting sources like the National Safety Council, the ATF and the Department of Justice.  WHILE ONE ACCIDENTAL DEATH IS ONE TOO MANY, THERE IS NO GUN SAFETY CRISIS - FATAL GUN ACCIDENTS HAVE DROPPED DRAMATICALLY IN RECENT YEARS.  Bloomberg is attempting to deceive you.


The next question is: What happened to cause this amazing increase in gun safety?  The answer is simple: The NRA happened.

Yep, the NRA has been working hard on the gun safety issue for decades - long before there was a national gun law debate.  Their thousands of instructors and safety officers (of which I am one) work hard to teach gun safety.  The NRA's rules (insert link) are used in every hunter safety course and by every police force.  They are distributed with every firearm sold in the US.  They are even used as the basis for the safety test the State of California requires me to pass before I am allowed to legally buy a gun.  Even honest critics of the NRA's stand on gun laws - be they to the right or the left of the organization - will concede that the NRA has done an outstanding job of promoting gun safety.

So, what does the NRA have to say about gun storage?

"Store guns so they are not accessible to unauthorized persons."

"Many factors must be considered when deciding where and how to store guns. A person's particular situation will be a major part of the consideration. Dozens of gun storage devices, as well as locking devices that attach directly to the gun, are available. However, mechanical locking devices, like the mechanical safeties built into guns, can fail and should not be used as a substitute for safe gun handling and the observance of all gun safety rules."

Does sound like the NRA is in favor of leaving loaded guns laying around where kids can find them?  Of course not!  The NRA promotes safe storage of firearms - and has done so for decades.


More than this, since 1988, the NRA has run a program that teaches kids what to do if they DO run across an improperly secured firearm.  The Eddie Eagle program has taught 18 million kids four simple things to do if they find a gun:  STOP!  Don't Touch.  Leave the Area.  Tell an Adult.

Check out this video:

This program does not promote firearms or teach anything about their use.  It is 100% dedicated to decreasing the chance that a child finding an improperly stored or abandoned firearm will hurt themselves or others with it.  It has been adopted by hundreds of school districts across the country.

So, who in the world could be opposed to this?

Gun control groups, of course!  Such as the Brady organization and Violence Policy Center - both of which have spoken out against it.  Now, these very same people - funded by Bloomberg - are trying to sell unconstitutional gun control laws by calling them "gun safety" laws.

Why are they doing this?  Well, first (in the 1970-80s) they were really honest about their goals.  They wanted to ban guns and said so up front.  They lost that argument in both the Supreme Court and the court of public opinion.  Then they presented themselves as gun "control" organizations (1990-2013) - while still working to ban guns.  When the public realized that none of the proposed measures would have stopped ANY of the 2012 shooting incidents, they wanted nothing to do with their gun bans.  So now they want you to believe that they are not a GUN BAN organization, they are not a GUN CONTROL organization, they are now simply a "GUN SAFETY" organization.

Excuse me if I don't believe them.  I have been watching these organizations for over 40 years and the most common characteristic among them is dishonesty.  It's too bad that 50 Million Dollars can fund so many lies.....

1 - Accidental child gun deaths computed as follows:  Number of gun owning households, according to polls = 39% (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/01/09/Poll-Household-Gun-Ownership-On-Rise) This is likely under reported by at least 6-12%: (See http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/guns-present-polling-conundrum-1223/) So let's assume an actual rate of 45% of households owning guns.

The number of households in 2007 was approximately 211,000,000.  In 2010, 28.3% of households had children.  Since these figures likely include children up to age 18, let's adjust them downward to compensate.  Thus we come up with an estimate that 22% of US households have children age 0-14 years.   So, our final figure for gun owning households with children under 14 is 20,889,000

So, in 2007, the fatal firearms accident rate among gun owning households is 40/20889000 or less than two fatalities per million gun owning households with children.

Additional sources:

National Safety Council http://www.nsc.org/Documents/Injury_Facts/Injury_Facts_2011_w.pdf

Fact sheet with sources:
http://www.shootata.com/portals/0/pdf/FIREARMS_ACCIDENTFACTS_USF2007.pdf

Gun control groups opposing the Eddie Eagle program:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/nras-eddie-eagle-doesnt-f_b_572285.html

http://www.vpc.org/studies/eddiecon.htm

Breaking News: Terrorists Attack Government Troops in Massachusetts

Dozens of deaths and hundreds of casualties reported on both sides as members of a so-called "civilian militia" attempt to keep illegal arms and ammunition.

BOSTON, April 19 -- National Guard units seeking to confiscate a cache of recently banned military-style assault weapons, and ammunition that were reportedly being held at a National Guard armory, were ambushed today by elements of a para-military extremist faction. 

Military and law enforcement sources estimate that 72 people were killed and more than 200 others were injured before government forces were compelled to withdraw.

Speaking after the clash, the Massachusetts Governor declared that the extremist faction, which was made up of local citizens, has links to a radical right-wing tax-protestors movement. The governor also blamed the extremists for recent incidents of vandalism directed against internal revenue offices.

The governor, who described the group's organizers as "criminals," issued an executive order authorizing the summary arrest of any individual who has interfered with the government's efforts to secure law and order or enforce the new gun-control laws and the military-style weapons ban.

The government raid on the extremist's arsenal followed refusal by the local citizenry to turn over recently outlawed military-style weapons after the governor had issued a ban on military-style assault weapons and ammunition earlier this week. This decision followed a meeting in early April between government and military leaders at which the governor authorized the forcible confiscation of illegal arms. One government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, pointed out that "none of these people would have been killed had the extremists obeyed the law and turned over their weapons voluntarily."

Government troops had initially succeeded in confiscating a large supply of
outlawed weapons and ammunition. However, troops attempting to seize a second cache of arms and ammunition in Lexington were met with resistance from the heavily-armed extremists who had been tipped off regarding the government's plans.

During a tense standoff in Lexington's town park, National Guard Colonel Francis Smith, commander of the government operation, ordered the armed group to surrender and return to their homes. The impasse was broken by a single shot, which was reportedly fired by one of the right-wing extremists. Eight civilians were killed in the ensuing exchange.

Ironically, some of the local citizenry blamed government forces rather than the extremists for the civilian deaths. Before order could be restored, numerous armed citizens from surrounding areas had descended upon the guard units. Colonel Smith, finding his forces overmatched by the armed mob, ordered a retreat. Smith said his forces will return with reinforcements.

Massachusetts Governor Thomas Gage has called upon all citizens to support the state/national joint task force in its effort to restore law and order. It is still the governors intention to disarm and prosecute those who have resisted the military-style arms ban and other 'sensible' restrictions.

The governor has also demanded the surrender of those responsible for planning and leading the attack against the government troops. The public is asked to immediately report directly to local authorities if they locate Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, or John Hancock. These men have been identified as "ringleaders" of the extremist faction and they remain at large. 


Adams, Hancock, and Revere are considered armed and extremely dangerous.

Political Persecution Could Never Happen Here, Right?

Imagine that you decide to exercise your civil rights and become politically active.  You decide to found an non-partisan organization dedicated to making sure that voter fraud does not affect our elections.  Who could possibly be opposed to that?  Who wouldn't be in favor of that?

Well, the answer those questions appears to be the Obama administration and the Democratic party.  Consider what happened to a woman from Texas who did just that:

First, the IRS gave her the "special conservative organization" treatment when she applied for non-profit status.  A decision was delayed for years while she was sent more and more questions.  Of course, this meant that her donations were much lower than they would have been if people could deduct them.  This, of course, meant that she was not able to do as much as she might have done to fight voter fraud.  Excuse me for thinking that this was to point all along.

Many groups got the same treatment but the Obama administration saved their best treatment for this poor woman (Ms. Engelbrecht) - who runs a small business, as a very small part of its' business, is involved in the firearms industry.  In addition to the IRS withholding a decision, the federal government did the following:

The FBI's domestic terrorism unit contacted her six times - supposedly because someone "they were watching" had attended the same Tea Party meetings that she attended.

The IRS audited her business - and when they could find nothing wrong there, they audited her personal returns.

OSHA conducted a surprise inspection and audit of her business.

The EPA showed up too, because "Someone called in a compliant".

"Congressman, I wish I had better answers,"
ATF Director B. Todd Jones

Perhaps most frightening of all, the ATF - which was in the news with its' "Fast and Furious" scandal - conducted two surprise inspections - something usually reserved for those suspected of illegal gun trafficking.

Number of times ANY of these agencies had ever contacted Ms. Engelbrecht or any of her associated companies before she established "True the vote" and applied for non-profit status? ZERO.

Of course, we are supposed to believe that all of this is a coincidence.  If it wasn't surely the mainstream media would be telling us how this is a massive abuse of executive power.  They would surely never hush up a story that could at best be a huge embarrassment to the Obama administration and at worst lead to his impeachment.  Or would they?

There is one more question that must be answered: Why is the Obama administration and the Democratic party so afraid of anything or anyone who wants to investigate or control voter fraud?  Why would they be in favor of it continuing - unless that is how they are winning elections?

References:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/02/06/True-the-Vote-Founder-on-IRS-I-Was-Targeted-Because-of-My-Political-Beliefs

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/02/07/true-the-vote-president-catherine-engelbrecht-slams-irs-abuse-weaponizing-of-government-n1791240

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/17955-the-irs-targeting-of-catherine-engelbrecht

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/atf-director-wish-i-had-better-answers-about-atf-agents-probing-tea-party?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Marketing&utm_term=Facebook&utm_content=Facebook&utm_campaign=ATFTeaParty

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/atf-director-wish-i-had-better-answers-about-atf-agents-probing-tea-party?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Marketing&utm_term=Facebook&utm_content=Facebook&utm_campaign=ATFTeaParty

Your Right To A CCW Permit Should Not Depend On Your Address

In a recent article entitled "Want a concealed gun in California? Head north", SF Gate reported on the issue of concealed carry.   In this article, San Francisco Police Chief Greg Suhr made it clear that he thinks concealed carry is a bad idea.  He made it clear that he doesn't think citizens can handle the responsibility involved.  He also doesn't think that trained and licensed citizens can handle the responsibility - and that they don't need to, since the SFPD's average response time is 4 minutes.  Apparently the chief has never heard the proverb that when seconds count, the police are only minutes away - or he doesn't care that all too often getting there in four minutes isn't good enough in the vast majority of violent crimes.  The sad reality is that when you are unable to defend yourself you may not even be able to make the call that starts that 4 minute clock before you are dead.

Listening to Chief Suhr, one would think that his opinion is based in fact - however nothing could be further from the truth.  His opinion is rooted not in fact, but in politics.  The reality is that none of his opinions find support in the nation's 25 years of experience with citizen concealed carry.

43 states currently issue permits to anyone meeting objective training and background check standards.  The only state in the continental US West of the Mississippi that doesn't do so?  CALIFORNIA.  Number of these states that have turned into the "Wild West"? ZERO.  This includes such cities and metropolitan areas as Seattle, Portland, Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, Oklahoma City, Austin, New Orleans, Little Rock, Saint Louis, Boise, Spokane and Las Vegas.  Apparently Chief Suhr believes that San Francisco residents are less competent than the good people who live in these cities.

Additionally is has been over two years since the Sheriff of Sacramento County began recognizing "self defense" as good cause - effectively issuing permits in the same way as in  the states and cities above.  Did you miss the massive increase in homicide and other crimes that resulted?  Of course you did - BECAUSE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.   It didn't happen in my home county (El Dorado) after the same policy was implemented a year earlier.

We now have over 25 years experience with citizen concealed carry - and NONE of the predictions made by anti-gun rights activists has come true.  A study done in Texas showed that permit holders were less likely to commit crimes or be involved in a bad shoot than police officers.  This fact becomes even more significant when one considers that there are between five and ten times as many permit holders as police officers.  If the predictions of the anti-gun rights crowd were true, then blood should be running in the street.

While the anti-gun rights crowd can point to very few incidents involving concealed carry permit holders, those of us on the gun rights side of the discussion can point to many cases in which crimes have been stopped and lives have been saved.  This convinced a former LA cop - now chief in Detroit that he had been wrong in his opposition.   Chief James Craig went public with his support for citizen concealed carry in January.  He was promptly condemned by gun control advocates and many politically appointed police chiefs.  He was mocked - in spite of the fact that a 2013 study of 15,000 line police officers showed that 91% supported citizen concealed carry.  THAT'S RIGHT - 9 OUT OF 10 LINE COPS SUPPORT "SHALL ISSUE" CCW PERMITS.  IT'S THE POLITICALLY APPOINT CHIEFS (LIKE CHIEF SUHR)  WHO OPPOSE IT. 

Chief Craig did not have to wait long to be vindicated.    In less than three months there have been ten self-defense shootings - most involving CCW permit holders defending themselves against armed attackers.   There were no cases of criminals taking their guns away and using them against the owners.  There were no cases of the CCW holders shooting innocent people by mistake.  There were also no cases where the shootings were found not to be justified.  In short, in ten self defense shootings the armed citizens made zero mistakes.

Are ten self defense shootings a good thing?  No, a good thing would be zero defensive shootings (because they were not necessary) - but ten defensive shootings resulting in dead or wounded criminals is better than 10 incidents in which law abiding victims were killed instead.  That is the only choice these law abiding citizens were given - and they chose life. Chief Greg Suhr  and many others like him feel that they have the right to remove that choice.