[jimpeel]

Read the letter HERE (http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/Item.asp?ID=3632)

Discussion on the letter HERE (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=65622)

KeepAndBearArms.com Alert

February 19, 2004
Late evening breaking story...

KABA Writer Investigated for Questioning Civil Authority

Police say Investigation "Ongoing"

"Did you know that writing a rhetorical letter to the civil
authorities in California challenging their hypocrisy results
in a police investigation that includes not only calls from
detectives but two black and white police cruisers coming
to your home?"

"That's what happened to longtime gun rights activist and
professional writer David Codrea this week. What follows
is a link to the investigation-inspiring letter, a detailed
description of what transpired and a description of how
trying to get our own answers from the investigators
resulted in unwillingness to respond to our simple,
reasonable inquiry." ...

FULL STORY HERE:

http://KeepAndBearArms.com/information/Item.asp?ID=3637


COMMENT ON THIS SITUATION

What do you think about having the First Amendment Police
knocking on your door for the high crime of asking questions
in defense of gun rights? We'd love to hear from as many
people as possible.

Therefore, this story is also the first item on the Newslinks
page listed below:

http://KeepAndBearArms.com/news/nl/disp.asp?d=2/20/2004

Click "Post Comments" and speak your mind. Feel free to do
so anonymously if you so choose.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Heh heh he...

This is really funny, in a scary and disturbing sorta way. Tyranny at it's finest...

The SF municipal leadership blantantly violates sate law in full view of the nation. Then they harass a man for performing the perfectly legal act of voicing his oppinion about it.

It's as if they're saying: "We are the rulers here, and we'll break the law whenever we want. You are a trifling peasant, and you're not even allowed to obey they law if we don't like you!"

So much for the rule of law...

[kbr80]

My question is: Why do incidents like this surprise you?

[Jim Diver]

Just shows what a crappy city SF really is.

The city violates the law and no one tries to stop them. You speak out against them and they send cops to your door.

It's a shame the 89 quake did not swallow SF into the earth.

[Pendragon]

It is interesting to see the authorities in CA begin to rise up and claim at least a modicum of despotic power.

They have really been getting their house in order the past decade or so and it seems the past year or two, they have been realizing that they are actually in charge - fully in charge and that they can do just about whatever they want without fear of repercussions - as long as they do it to the right people at least.

[M1911Owner]

It's a shame the 89 quake did not swallow SF into the earth.Better watch your mouth there, Jim--that could be interpreted as a threat! You might just disappear in the middle of the night.

;)

[gunsmith]

The moron leftie Green Party tried to portray this friend of Billy. C & Al oGre
as a "right wing conservative" . The SF Repulican Party played along and endorsed this nazi wannabe thug! :barf:

I feel we would have been better off with an incompetent greenie then this well heeled nazi thug.

Stay tuned for no comment by the SF Republican Party and same from the media.:cuss:

[Boats]

Undoubtedly, the following passage is what got the SFPD on the case:

You have shown progressive thinking and tolerance for that which the majority condemns. So I was thinking of coming up to San Francisco and exercising my right to keep and bear arms, maybe showing up at City Hall with a state-banned AR-15 and a couple 30-round magazines, and also carrying several pistols concealed without a permit.

Well intentioned or not, rhetorical or not, the emphasized passage all but declares its author to be in possession of a firearm "banned" by state law and openly ponders breaking another law on CCW without a permit whilst at SF City Hall.

Perhaps this was not the wisest choice of words to a governmental authority which has in the past experienced the assassination of its mayor and a city supervisor? I'm not surprised that Codrea got called on by the authorities, if for no other reason than to merely confirm his standing as a "peaceable citizen" and not being a whacko.

[geekWithA.45]

if for no other reason than to merely confirm his standing as a "peaceable citizen" and not being a whacko.


ACHTUNG! ROUSE!

Ve haf information you might be a whacko. Ve are here to convirm your schtanding as und "peacable citizen". Papers, bitte!

[FPrice]

stated my concerns very well, probably more concisely than I could have.

Look, I agree with David on his major points. I am strongly against what SF is doing (we are facing our own problems here in the People's Commonwealth) and I support the right of every honest citizen to keep and bear arms.

But threatening, however mildly it is couched in nice, peaceable language, to show up with loaded firearms can be construed as a threat and was most likely designed to provoke such a response so that David and his supporters could then claim persecution when this was investigated.

Congratulations David and KABA. I think you provoked exactly the response you wanted. Now let's see how it's used against us.

[Boats]

ACHTUNG! ROUSE!
Ve haf information you might be a whacko. Ve are here to convirm your schtanding as und "peacable citizen". Papers, bitte!

Nothing compares to having to endure a Sergeant Schultz impression before my second cup of coffee. Geek--been living in New Jersey too long now?

Breathless hyperbole aside, until we hear from Codrea that he was rousted in the middle of the night, ordered to don his patched clothes symbolizing him as one of those persecuted gunowners, stuffed into a boxcar and transported to a camp in the Bay area, can we lay off the Nazi references? The comparison is silly.

[whm1974]

Breathless hyperbole aside, until we hear from Codrea that he was rousted in the middle of the night, ordered to don his patched clothes symbolizing him as one of those persecuted gunowners, stuffed into a boxcar and transported to a camp in the Bay area, can we lay off the Nazi references? The comparison is silly.

Come to think of it, haven't there been a few gun owners arrested in the middle of the night in the PRK and PRNJ a few years ago? Recentlee in the PRK, police were search houses of people that brought legal M96 rifles from a gun shop but that they thought were ilegal.

So no the comparison isn't silly.

Bill Meadows

[Boats]

Yes, the comparison is silly. Invoking the Nazis is a losing strategy in an internet argument, and an even bigger loser in the real world.

[dischord]

Invoking the Nazis is a losing strategy in an internet argument, and an even bigger loser in the real world. I have to agree. It pleases only those who already agree with you. It causes those on the fence or who disagree with you to dismiss you immediately no matter how valid and logical the rest of your argument.

This happens even if the Nazi comparison is valid -- it doesn't matter if you are correct; you nonetheless render yourself ineffective.

FWIW: I agree that there is nothing shocking that Codrea's statement was construed as a potential threat meriting investigation. He should have taken care to phrase it in a manner that absolutely could not be construed that way. He should have written something like, "While I am not actually intending to do this, what if I were to...."

[Werewolf]

Congratulations David and KABA. I think you provoked exactly the response you wanted. Now let's see how it's used against us.
And that my friends is exactly the attitude that will eventually result in the gun grabbers getting their way and US losing our right to keep and bear arms.

A principled and standup for what's right man makes a political statement - an aggressive political statement well within his 1st amendment and natural right to do so and what does the pro-gun community worry about? How will it be used against us.

PEOPLE! NO MATTER WHAT WE DO SOMEONE WILL TURN IT AGAINST US!

We are pro-gun for pity's sake. Sheep don't like guns - period. Sheep don't like anything that can turn them into food! Deal with it! If we are to retain our right to be armed then we must be aggressive in both word and deed. We must write, we must march but for some reason that just doesn't happen very often.

Neither the peace protestors, the legalize drug crowd, the pro/anti abortion folks nor the anti-gunners have a problem with being vocal and visual - why do we? [sigh...] WHY DO WE?

[dischord]

Neither the peace protestors, the legalize drug crowd, the pro/anti abortion folks nor the anti-gunners have a problem with being vocal and visual - why do we? [sigh...] WHY DO WE? Well, in this case, they did not make statements about maybe showing up at city hall with guns.

No matter how well intentioned Codrea's statement, he screwed up.

If he had said he might show up at city hall with a knife, the authorities would not be knee-jerk anti-knife if they checked him out.PEOPLE! NO MATTER WHAT WE DO SOMEONE WILL TURN IT AGAINST US! True, but that doesn't excuse Codrea's statement and it certainly doesn't mean the police were unjustified in checking out a guy who said he might bring guns to city hall.

[Cosmoline]

I'd feel a lot more comfortable writing such a letter from an Alaska address than Redondo Beach. It's not a free state, hasn't been for many decades.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Some of you folks are unbelievable!

Codrea never, ever took any action that could be considered illegal. He wrote a letter! He compaired violating the state marriage laws to violating the state gun laws. The former is happening wantonlyon the steps of city hall. Codrea speculates about the latter. The authorities therefore ignore the lawbreakers and investigate the man who is fully complying with the law.:scrutiny:

The worst the authorites can claim is that this man was thinking about showing up at city hall with a rifle or a pistol. It's clear from his letter that he never intends to act on this thought; the statements were obviously hypothetical and rhetorical in nature.

Since when has idle thought been a crime??? Comparisons of naziism may be out of line, but Orwellian comparisons certainly are not.

Until you can explain to me how justice is being served here, quit blaming Codrea! He doesn't deserve this attention from the police, and he certainly doesn't deserve your criticisms.

[glocksman]

Eugene Volokh (http://volokh.com/2004_02_15_volokh_archive.html#107725596508312328) has an interesting commentary on the case.

Well, saying that it's a rhetorical letter is assuming the conclusion. The police might strongly suspect that the letter is rhetorical, but it's hard to tell that for sure. And if it isn't rhetorical -- if the writer does want to show up with those guns -- and the writer also wants to do something with those guns when he shows up, then we could have a bad scene.

If you were a responsible, freedom-loving police officer, would you just say "Nah, sounds like nothing to me"? Or might you think it's worth some more investigation? The letter-writer writes, as a follow-up, "I do find it bizarre that civil authority is so fearful of an armed citizenry that if they feel there is any chance of it happening, their response is to send armed men." Why is it so bizarre? Armed citizens have at times done quite a bit of damage, including to a past Mayor of San Francisco. That's not reason to disarm them or throw them in jail for writing letters -- but it is reason to look closely at people who say they want to carry an arsenal to city hall.

Of course, people can point out that even investigation -- in this case, a phone call from the San Francisco police, and two police cars sent to the person's home, which left after they confirmed that the S.F. police had talked to him -- can be disquieting to the target. Some people might decide not to write letters like that (letters which I think should be and are fully constitutionally protected against suppression) for fear of drawing the police department's attention. No doubt about that.

But freedom of speech can't mean freedom from even disquieting investigations based on your speech. You can't be convicted for that letter; you can't be fined for it; but the police are entitled to talk to you to see whether you seem like an upstanding citizen (which by all accounts the author is) or someone who seems like a John Hinckley, and who therefore bears closer watching. Extremist groups are entitled to express their views; but I certainly hope that the police are investigating them more closely to see whether there might be extremist action, and not just extremist speech, in the offing. Likewise even for perfectly reasonable people who make statements that are also of the sort sometimes made by unreasonable people. It's part of the police department's job to investigate a bit more closely to see whether the speaker seems reasonable or unreasonable.

This having been said, I stress again that Codrea is entitled to write his letter, and not get actually legally punished for it. If there's any attempted punishment (and I know that there have been some incidents where speakers have been punished based on alleged threats that probably didn't merit punishment), I'll gladly speak up in his defense. Likewise, he's certainly entitled to publicize the police department's actions; it's probably good that he's doing so.

I just won't feel too bothered by what the police did, at least based on the account that the site provides.

Food for thought.

[dischord]

Codrea never, ever took any action that could be considered illegal. He wrote a letter! No, he did nothing illegal. Yes, he simply wrote a letter. Nonetheless, he should have known that when you write that you might show up at a government office with a gun, you will get checked out.

Such reaction is nothing new. Such reaction has nothing to do with the RKBA. If he had said something similar 30 years ago and had said “knife” instead of “gun,” the reaction would have been the same.

To be shocked at the police reaction takes breathtaking naivety or willful ignorance.

[jimpeel]

Since when has idle thought been a crime???Since we made thinking a crime; or have you forgotten "hate crimes" legislation? How about "conspiracy" like Jose Padilla; where the government has yet to show that he had any co-conspirators, held any materials to commit the crime, attempted to glean any of those materials, or did anything other than think about making and detonating a "dirty bomb?

Prognosticating, clairvoyant prosecutors regularly prosecute people for their thoughts, now.

[dischord]

Since we made thinking a crime; or have yopu forgotten "hate crimes" legislation? How about "conspiracy" like Jose Padilla where the government has yet to show that he had any co-conspirators, held any materials to commit the crime, attempted to glean any of those materials, or did anything other than think about making and detonating a "dirty bomb? Codrea has been charged with no crime. He simply was checked out and apparently cleared. To compare what happened to him with instances where people were criminally charged is not valid.

[bjengs]

Let's clear this up a little here. I think no one should be surprised that Codrea got checked out; the letter is very forward. But,

Does anyone think that it was right for him to be checked out?

[Orthonym]

Yes, I know Mr. Horowitz has exposed the murderousness (and murders) of some of their senior founding members.

How... Ever...

They did have a point, at least according to the statements they made to the public, which were something like (IIRC) "Policemen would be more polite, circumspect, and honest, if every police car were followed at all times by a car full of private, solid citizens with shotguns." Well, they WEREN'T solid citizens, but that doesn't kill their argument.

I think there was a movie made about the BPs which showed Scary Urban Negroes asserting their right under Federal and California's laws openly to carry their weapons anywhere, yea even into the State Capitol when the Legislature was in session. Did that actually happen?

I believe some of the laws were changed right shortly afterwards.

[dischord]

Does anyone think that it was right for him to be checked out? Simply checked out? Sure, why not? Geeze-o-peeze, I'm a libertarian, but I can't find anything wrong with this. He wasn't checked out because of his dissenting views; he was checked out because he made statements -- no matter how hypothetical -- about taking a gun to a government office at the same time he made statements critical of the government officials working in that building.

What would you do if some stranger roundly criticized you and then said he might come march around your workplace with a gun?

The idea of supposed intimidation of free speech by the cops seems misplaced, even in my libertarian opinion.

Cripes, I can't believe I'm actually defending the actions of SF nanny-staters. :barf:

[jimpeel]

What would you do if some stranger roundly criticized you and then said he might come march around your workplace with a gun?If all he did was march, I wouldn't care if he was dragging around a howitzer like Jesus with the cross. No crime in that.

[dischord]

If all he did was march, I wouldn't care if he was dragging around a howitzer like Jesus with the cross. No crime in that. I serously doubt that you'd just shrug and go about your business if a person sent you a personally critical letter that also said he might come by with a gun.

:) all around, by the way.

[FPrice]

"Does anyone think that it was right for him to be checked out?"

Why not? He made a statement that was a direct challenge and what could be considered to be a veiled threat to public officials:

[quote] "So I was thinking of coming up to San Francisco and exercising my right to keep and bear arms, maybe showing up at City Hall with a state-banned AR-15 and a couple 30-round magazines, and also carrying several pistols concealed without a permit.

Yes, I know, it will be a violation of California laws, but you've shown that you're willing to disregard those when it serves your goals. And because I am a peaceable citizen, I should easily meet Judge Warren's criterion that no immediate damage would be done by allowing this.

So what do you think, if I visit your city and proudly display my lifestyle choices, can I count on your support? As a private citizen, don't I have as much right to disregard laws I find reprehensible as you public officials? Isn't that what equality is supposed to be all about, where no class of citizen enjoys privileges and immunities not extended to all?

How about it? You wouldn't have me arrested, would you?" [unquote]

Checked out? Yes.

Apprehended and arrested? No.

What he did could be considered to be the verbal equivalent of brandishing. He came very close to yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater.

For those who would argue (a la Headless Thompson Gunner and jimpeel) that Codrea was only "Thinking" in his letter, this is only so much bovine garden fertilizer. He implied doing this I believe to get a response. There are other ways he could have worded his letter, but he chose a very provocative comparison.

As I said before, I feel that he may have hoped for such a response in order to portray himself as a "victim".

This whole forum is based upon "responsible" gun ownership. Codrea's actions strain the definition of responsibllity.

[jimpeel]

It was an "If I did what you've done -- but at some different level to which you don't approve -- would you treat me as you have treated yourselves?" letter. Nothing more.

It was not an "Why I oughta come up there and blow your friggin' brains out!" letter.

Know the difference; because it is quite obvious that the SF Mayor's office doesn't.

It must be nice to be able to break the law with impunity and be praised for doing so.

[alan]

The material is somewhat lengthy, so I'm simply posting a link for interested parties to utilize.

Re this SFPD "investigation" are those California idiots taking lessons from the USSC??

Here is the link:

http://keepandbeararms.com/information/Item.asp?ID=3637

[Mark Tyson]

Here's the phrase that got him in trouble:

So I was thinking of coming up to San Francisco and exercising my right to keep and bear arms, maybe showing up at City Hall with a state-banned AR-15 and a couple 30-round magazines, and also carrying several pistols concealed without a permit.

If you ask me, it was stupid to write this. I can see it being interpreted as a threat, especially in blissninny central. He should have known better.

[Waitone]

So when will SF toss all the voices and heads that suggested the same course of action (maybe not the same level of detail).

If a writer's ink is a threat to state security, then a voice and a head are just as threatening.

BTW it ain't over. SF by its actions and CA by its lack of action has set off down a path just covered in footfalls. It will take time to be resolved but during that time CA is just eat up with aggrieved individuals and groups which now have state permission to simply ignore the law.

CA sowed the wind and will now reap the whirlwind.

[4v50 Gary]

There's nothing to see here folks. Move along. ;)

And if there was no investigation and a threat was carried out, a bigger stink would follow. What transpired was a basic threat assessment to ascertain whether a whacko was on the loose or not. I'm sure Walsh was satisfied that he wasn't dealing with a looney-tune. Once he verifies David Codrea's credentials, he'll write it off as a no-threat.

Now, as I've said again, there's nothing to see here folks. Move along. :p

[Brian Dale]

It must be nice to be able to break the law with impunity and be praised for doing so.Practice makes perfect, Jim. They've been at it a long time.

I'm somewhat astounded to see all of the comments that remark, "but he wrote about bringing a GUN! To CITY HALL!!! And people have been KILLED there." Well, yes. People have been killed, everywhere, from time immemorial. That's why some carry weapons: it's not safe here on Earth.

If the fantasy I was fed in grade school were true, then we could all show up peacably anywhere we liked, with whatever individual weapons we chose, and City Hall wouldn't be permitted to enforce their opinions about our possessions. I'm not going to try it, ever, because I'd get stomped, imprisoned, and maybe killed as well.

The Constitution is one of the most beautiful pieces of literature that I've ever seen. Maybe someday it'll be non-fiction. Remember to vote.

[Harry Tuttle]

Politocrats have no appreciation for sarcasm, you really need to use all the tricks,
dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire

Bluntly threatening to carry a gun to their HQ
will always be exploited as a terroristic threat.

it is always better to threaten to prod them with a soft cushion (http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/paulfitz/spanish/script.html)

[geekWithA.45]

Interesting....I wonder what EXACTLY they thought the threat was? Where they thinking Codrea was a whacko "take down the mayor" shooter,

or were they _really_ worried about the possibility of a LOT of peaceable people showing up with their arms?

Hmmmm.....

[Preacherman]

Duplicate threads merged.

[TheBluesMan]

You said, "I can see it being interpreted as a threat."

Re-read it again:So I was thinking of coming up to San Francisco and exercising my right to keep and bear arms, maybe showing up at City Hall with a state-banned AR-15 and a couple 30-round magazines, and also carrying several pistols concealed without a permit.
Can the passive state of keeping and bearing a thing be considered a threat? If so, then I have been threatened at the range and in the field hundreds of times...

I know that you don't believe it was a threat and you stated that only the "blissninnies" in SF would consider it such, but I don't want anyone to get the mistaken impression that talking about bearing arms is a threatening behavior.

[Mark Tyson]

No no, I meant it could be interpreted as a threat by people in the SF area. They're not used to law-abiding people bearing arms openly or otherwise. Also remember that the SF mayor's office actually suffered an attack by a derranged man one time back in the 70's, when Feinstein was mayor. I believe he shot 2 people. I can see the SF cops saying "hmm, we ought to check this guy out just to be sure." They did and saw that he's just a law-abiding guy expressing his displeasure with the government.

Personally I agree with the author of the letter, but he should have been more tactful expressing himself.

[jimpeel]

Also remember that the SF mayor's office actually suffered an attack by a derranged man one time back in the 70's, when Feinstein was mayor. I believe he shot 2 people.And thus began the "Twinkie Defense" as the perp claimed that he was mentally unstable because he ate too much sugar through the consumption of junk food. The jury BELIEVED HIM:what: and he went to prison for a few years. He got out and committed suicide.

I always wonder why these deranged killers always get the order of events incorrect. They need to commit suicide first and then go on their killing spree. If we could just convince them to change the order ...

But for that simple act, DiFi would still be an obscure SF City Councilman.

[Publicola]

Well i've addressed some arguments made by those who either thought Mr. Codrea getting checked out was no biggie or that his point was off a bit. Y'all can take a look at it here (http://publicola.blogspot.com/2004_02_15_publicola_archive.html#107741583297371288)

One thing I will point out is that what Mr. Codrea was talking about was merely carrying a firearm. Yes, he had the potential to cause harm but he had not actually caused harm. He stated in his letter that he was peacable & would meet a judges' standard for not causing any immediate harm.

& for cryin' out loud - if y'all are afraid of a person carrying a firearm openly or concealed in a public place when he's shown no harmful intent then please, please tell me how you're not really anti-gun (NRA membership wouldn't get you out of that charge - hell, it'd probably reinforce it).
We're talking about a man exercsing his first amendment Right (freedom of speech) about his 2nd amendment Right (carrying arms) & yet you think it's acceptable for the cops to pay him a visit?

BTw, the Black Panthers did carry rifles & shotguns into the Cali assembly. This was pre-68 IIR & you can imagine what kind of hissy was thrown over that because Cali didn't have any laws against it at the time. Something similar happened in Colorado Springs a while back.

But look, whether it was rhetorical or not, Mr. Codrea discussed carrying firearms. I would have hoped that one of the key points of considering yourself pro-gun was that you were for people carrying guns.

Now keep in mind that he wasn't just "checked out". It's still being investigated. & has anyone thought of what would have happenned if Mr. Codrea had asserted his 5th amendment Rights when talking to the cop on the phone (who was asking potentially incriminating questions)? You think he wouldn't have been picked up & held on suspicion of some charge or another? or that a search warrant wouldn't have been issued for his home to make sure he didn't have one of those evil banned guns?

but as usual, the pirahna-like nature of some gun owners will o more harm to the pro-gun movement than any accusations by the anti's ever could.

One last thing: an analogy between the soviet union would have been perhaps a bit more apt than one to Nazi Germany, but the German accent types so much better than Russian! :cool:

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

If you take that one paragraph alone, a threat MAY be implied. However, if you read that paragraph in the context of the entire letter, then there is no threat.

SFPD is moving to the next level of LE activity necessary for a police state.

Get back in your closet. How dare a gun owner threaten to exercise his rights :fire:

[Hedger]

Aha... If one addresses a comment to a judge, indicating an intent, albeit rhetorical, to come on over to the courthouse and give the judge a little visit involving firearms.... yup, most LEO Chiefs would probably send someone over to knock on a door. Not kick the door in, just a "knock and talk"... see whats up, which, by the way, is perfectly legal and has been since the dawn of this country.

Unfortunately people have the incorrect perception that it is illegal in some fashion for the police to come to your house and knock on your door, or to talk to you when you may not want them to. Generally, such conduct is not illegal as long as the police do not invade constitutionally protected zones of privacy. I hear it all the time. "That cop is harassing me"... "Why do you say that?.... "I was minding my own business and he came up and started asking me questions for no reason...."

I think the author could have made the same point without the "courthouse visit" language. Most LEOs I know are pro-gun rights and they don't appreciate numbskulls of any political persuasion making their lives miserable.

Being "pro-gun" doesn't automatically make one a genius (I may be living proof)... and every right we enjoy, such as "free speech", carries a corresponding obligation to exercise the right wisely. If we exercise our First Amendment rights with the concern and care we handle those God gave us under the Second Amendment, the world might be a better place.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[alan]

Mark Tyson & Jimpeel:

Re your mention of the San Francisco City Hall shooting, Harvey Milk was one of the victims, I believe the other might have been Mayor George Moscone, not sure, the shooter was an ex cop, or he might still have been on some police force at the time.

Jim:

Re DIFI, and her status as an obscure City Council Woman, it was Board of Supervisors, but more important than that, while a member of the board, or perhaps while she was Mayor, I think she might have been, it's not all that important, she was more of less instrumental in pushing through a piece of city legislatioin dealing with firearms. City legal counsel warned her against so doing, but she went ahead. The law was passed, legal action was brought, which the city had to defend against, to the expense of the taxpayer, the city lost.

Seems as if for that particular piece of daring-do, DIFI was rewarded with a seat in the U.S. Senate, and so it goes in the land of OZ, sometimes known as The Left Coast, sometimes known as California.

[jimpeel]

I think the author could have made the same point without the "courthouse visit" language.Of course he had to use the "courthouse visit" language. That's where all of this is taking place.

Remember, he is taking the firearms argument to the same level as the homosexual level of argument. Read the following for the context.

Dear Mayor Newsom (gavin.newsom@sfgov.org), Judge Warren (wsuperiorct@sftc.org) and Acting Chief Fong (sfpdpbaf@pacbell.net),

Mayor, I see you are authorizing city employees to perform homosexual marriages, Judge Warren, you are allowing them to proceed, and Chief Fong, you are allowing California law, as enacted by a vote of the people, to be publicly and repeatedly broken without making any arrests.

I'm not commenting on that issue, per se, so much as observing that you are all three instigating and abetting the violation of that law.

Judge Warren, you went so far as to state that you couldn't issue a restraining order to halt the marriages because, as Reuters reported, "there was not enough evidence presented showing that immediate damage would be done by allowing them."

Which leaves me with an interesting dilemma. Here he prefaces the argument by pointing out the fact that they have, in concert, violated the laws of the state and refused to do anything about it. He is telling them that they have aided and abetted each other in this process; and by so doing have entered into a conspiracy to break the law.

You see, I also belong to a group that is forced by social prejudices to keep a low profile—often times to hide my choices and practices lest I suffer disapproval and ultimately, life-threatening persecution by the state.

I am a gun owner and I live a gun owner life style. He is stating here that he is, by virtue of his lifestyle, a social pariah, just as homosexuals also claim.

I don't know if I was born with a tendency to be this way, or if it was an acquired disposition. All I know is, I don't see why I should be forced to change. Truth be known, I like owning guns, and am happy with who I am. I hope I suffer no repercussions by "coming out of the safe," but I just can't hide the truth any longer. He is doing here the equivalent of "Mom. Dad. I'm Gay." except in his case he is saying "Mom. Dad. I'm a gun owner." I.e. it is his "coming out".

We gun owners have been living and working among you. Our kids go to school with yours. We may be your doctor, or minister, or your child's teacher. We may even work in city administration, or the courts, or on the police force. And we are sick of being abused for simply being who we are, all because of hoplophobic* prejudice and fear. We don't see any reason why we should have to put up with it any more. Again the equated homosexual argument of "I'm just like you, I've been among you, you never noticed me." But instead of "Yes, I'm your doctor, minister, your child's teacher; and I'm Gay" He is saying "Yes, I'm your doctor, minister, your child's teacher; and I'm a gun owner."

Which brings me back to my dilemma and the reason I am writing you. His intro to the equation.

You have shown progressive thinking and tolerance for that which the majority condemns. So I was thinking of coming up to San Francisco and exercising my right to keep and bear arms, maybe showing up at City Hall with a state-banned AR-15 and a couple 30-round magazines, and also carrying several pistols concealed without a permit. Here he is saying that they are acting in opposition to the majority and have invited those who wish to to come to city hall to be married. He is saying "Am I invited too? I also act in opposition to the majority through my behavior as a lawful firearms owner. Can I come to city hall also?"

Yes, I know, it will be a violation of California laws, but you've shown that you're willing to disregard those when it serves your goals. And because I am a peaceable citizen, I should easily meet Judge Warren's criterion that no immediate damage would be done by allowing this. Here he equates his firearms carry as an equivalant crime of violating California law. He is doing nothing more than demonstrating his rights as a citizen under the equal protection of the law; just as the homosexual community is doing.

So what do you think, if I visit your city and proudly display my lifestyle choices, can I count on your support? As a private citizen, don't I have as much right to disregard laws I find reprehensible as you public officials? Isn't that what equality is supposed to be all about, where no class of citizen enjoys privileges and immunities not extended to all? Here he is saying "Will you absolve me of any responsibility for violating the law as you have absolved each other from any responsibility for violating the law? Will you treat me as an equal; or will you treat me as a pariah? Am I equal to you; or are some more equal than others?"

How about it? You wouldn't have me arrested, would you? Here he asks them flat out "Will you have me arrested for the same transgressions as yours; or will you give me the same pass you have given each other?"

Please let me know if I have your support. Here he is asking for a response; and we all know what response he got, now, don't we? They answered every one of his questions with deeds, not with words.

[jimpeel]

I was merely making the point that if the Milk / Moscone shooting hadn't happened, she would not have been thrust into the limelight, would likely not have been Mayor, and would not have become a Senator. It is unfortunate for the country that when it came to her debates with Pete Wilson, she told the truth on raising taxes. She told the voters that there would be no choice but to raise taxes. Wilson said that he would never raise taxes. The voters voted for, and elected, Wilson who, within a few months of taking office, raised taxes.

She went on to screw up the entire country instead of only screwing up California.

All because of one wacked out Twinkie eatin' psycho.

[Hedger]

Your analysis of the commentary is right on, no doubt about it. The article is well reasoned and written. That, however, is not the point.

You did not ask whether the author was correct. You asked whether the author should be under police investigation because of what he said.

Maybe you should analyze what I said with the same degree of interest.

I suggested that we should not be surprised he came under police scrutiny given the fact that the author stated an intention? desire? of commiting potential crimes involving firearms on government property against government officials:

So I was thinking of coming up to San Francisco and exercising my right to keep and bear arms, maybe showing up at City Hall with a state-banned AR-15 and a couple 30-round magazines, and also carrying several pistols concealed without a permit.

I also suggested that the author could have made the same points without making the above comments. I can think of at least a hundred other ways of saying the same thing that probably would not bring a visit from a bubbletop. The author seems like a bright guy, I'm sure he could have also done so.

I further suggested that just because we are pro-gun doesn't mean everything we may say or do will be intelligent in hindsight. Being pro-gun doesn't automatically make you good, smart or handsome. Being good and smart makes you good and smart. Handsome is something others can worry about.

I also opined that pro-gunners should think about what they say on the topic with the same care they handle their weapons. We enjoy Second Amendment rights... that doesn't mean its a good idea to go out in the middle of the street at 2:00 a.m. in your neighborhood and discharge your weapon in the air just to hear the noise and celebrate your Second Amendment freedoms (unless you live in Arkansas ).

Do we HAVE to be careful in exercising First Amendment rights? Nope, we probably don't. Should we? IMHO, yes.

[HunterGatherer]

I suggested that we should not be surprised he came under police scrutiny given the fact that the author stated an intention? desire? of commiting potential crimes involving firearms on government property against government officials:I'm sorry, but I do see the "commiting potential crimes involving firearms on government property" part, but IHNFI where you are seeing the "against government officials" part. Are you suggesting/stating that it is a crime to offend the sense of decorum of a government official by showing up at their building with a gun? Is it something of a crime to let them see a gun in the hands of a serf? Does it hurt their widdle feelings? Is that really a crime?

What sort of freak show are they running down there?


:cuss:

[gunsmith]

Sure it will get you charged with something or other,but in CA it is perfectly
legal to carry an unloaded firearm any where except the usual places, ie city hall.

AR15's are legal if you purchased it and registered it prior to the ban.

If I had the $$ to fight it out in court,I would go ahead and pass out that letter in front of SF silly hall with a shot gun slung over my shoulder.

If you guys/gals want to fund my case/lawyer fees and will help in securing a new job, I would be glad to do it!

[FPrice]

" but as usual, the pirahna-like nature of some gun owners will o more harm to the pro-gun movement than any accusations by the anti's ever could."

Which is EXACTLY the point we are making about Mr. Codrea. His actions could do more to harm to our cause.

But I have a feeling this discussion is going no where. The KABA folks will continue to insist that they did nothing wrong (which is basically true) but their tactics will tend to provide ammunition (pun intended) for anti-gun forces.

[Tempest]

Which is EXACTLY the point we are making about Mr. Codrea. His actions could do more to harm to our cause.

But I have a feeling this discussion is going no where. The KABA folks will continue to insist that they did nothing wrong (which is basically true) but their tactics will tend to provide ammunition (pun intended) for anti-gun forces.

This is so pathetic and so cowardly, I hardly have the words to express it! God forbid someone step out on a limb and push the limits to protect OUR BASIC RIGHTS! God forbid someone rocks the boat of tyranny. God forbid a writer speaks his opinion!

Your type would rather have gun owners known as people who quietly sit there and cower in a corner than people who stand up for principles. Your type would rather celebrate not losing all of our rights at once, than take a chance fighting to restore them. And then you have the gall sit there and condemn those who aren't as pathetic and cowardly as you?

A rhetorical, satirical article brings down a police investigation on the head of the writer, and you condemn him for rocking the boat? You apparently have about as much respect for the First Amendment as you have for the Second Amendment, and to me that looks like it's not too much. You apparently just want to condemn KABA and Angel for being everything you are afraid to be: principled, independent and courageous. And instead of standing aside and letting those who can and are willing to fight the battle for our rights do it, you try and shoot them down.

David and Angel aren't even here to defend themselves, and haven't been for a long time. And yet, you perpetuate the cowardly act of lobbing grenades at them while they cannot even answer your pathetic jibes. Is THAT the type of image you want gun owners to perpetuate - cowards who would condemn allies for doing what they are too weak, too cowardly and too morally lacking in integrity to do? Do you really want America to view gun owners as compliant automatons who would toe the line and bow to tyranny?

That's exactly what Sarah Brady and her ilk want, and that's exactly what your message is giving them.

Who would do more harm to our cause - the people fighting to restore our rights WITHIN THE TIGHT CONFINES OF THE LAW, willing to fight, push the envelope and unwilling to compromise away our rights...

...or the people who sit quietly on the sidelines, obey unconstitutional laws, bow to tyrants and keep their fingers crossed that all of their rights won't go away all at once, while spitting on those who are unwilling to take the coward's way out?

If you don't approve of our tactics, you are perfectly entitled to your opinion. But fact remains, we're fighting for you too, so if you can't be supportive, at least have the common goddamn courtesy of not stabbing us in the back every opportunity you get. We face enough opposition from the enemies of freedom, without having to deal with cowardly backstabbing from those who supposedly support our rights.

[dischord]

Nicki,

That was uncalled for.

I consider myself a friend of Angel's, but I don't agree with KABA in this instance. Those of us in this thread who see a problem have expressed our opinions in a respectful manner to Angel, Codrea and KABA.

We'd appreciate the same courtesy.

So lay off the vitriol and ad hominem jabs, OK?

[Tempest]

It's called "self defense." Most of us here tend to support it, except for when attacking others behind their backs.

David did nothing wrong. He wrote a satirical article, and he got the law investigating him for it. Agree with him? OK. Disagree with him? OK. But attacking KABA, Angel and David for being detrimental to our cause and "giving ammunition" to our enemies is a slap - and a disgusting one at that.

Uncalled for? Standing up for your friends, who are unable to even reply to the unwarranted slap, when they are being unjustly accused of harming our cause is uncalled for? Sorry, but I venemently disagree.

[dischord]

Standing up for your friends, who are unable to even reply to the unwarranted slap, when they are being unjustly accused of harming our cause is uncalled for? Well, then why don't you explain to people how it is unwarranted and unjust rather than simply lashing out with nothing but vitriol and ad hominem attack. :)

BTW, have Angel and Codrea been banned from THR -- what do you mean by "unable to respond"? In any event, this public forum is not behind their backs.

[Tempest]

Since Angel Shamaya, director of KABA, is banned from THR but is being attacked here, I hope it's OK to post one thing he chose to share:

Some people are of the mindset that merely suggesting that you are "thinking about" expressing your rights to civil authority makes you a bad person, and a danger to the movement.

While I find such a conflicted belief genuinely sad and shallow, I respect such people's right to believe such a thing, of course.

I suspect those same people will continue to attack and castigate, no matter what we do. Some people's capacity to wear blinders and cower in fear and political correctness is truly monumental.

Fortunately, we do not govern KeepAndBearArms.com by the want to please moderates, nor to pacify those who belittle the acts of courage they could not themselves produce.

I did read this entire thread. I'd like to have responded to jimpeel's post (page 2, the post with the first word in bold: "Hedger"). My response to him, if I weren't banned from this place where I'm frequently attacked, would have been:

"Mr. Peel, your statement to Hedger is so cogent, sound and correct, it was a true pleasure to read. You give me hope that patriotism will survive the kind of people your post was designed to enlighten. Keep being yourself. You honor our nation's Founders mightily."

[Chuck Jennings]

David is on Gun Talk with Tom Gresham right now. You can listen to the live feed at

http://www.kbnp.com/

The archives are here if you missed it live:

http://www.guntalk.com/archives/

[Brian Dale]

Thanks, jimpeel.

Thanks, Publicola.

Thanks, HunterGatherer & gunsmith.

Thanks, Nicki.

Thanks, Angel.

[TheBluesMan]

This thread is closed while I review the posts more closely and contact a few members.

I will most likely re- open it in a little while.

Hang tight, folks.

Thanks,

-Dave

[TheBluesMan]

Upon further review... The play stands as called.

I'm gonna leave it closed.

Feel free to open another thread on this topic, but *ALL* personal attacks will be beget grievous consequences. :fire: