jimpeel
Member
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.
KABA Writer (David Codrea) Investigated for Questioning Civil Authority
- Thread starter jimpeel
- Start date
- Status
FPrice
Member
"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:
Why not? He made a statement that was a direct challenge and what could be considered to be a veiled threat to public officials:
jimpeel
Member
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.
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
Member
is some dictatorship pretending to be California?
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
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
Member
Here's the phrase that got him in trouble:
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.
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
Member
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.
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.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2002
- Messages
- 22,510
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.
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.
Brian Dale
Member
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
Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2003
- Messages
- 3,093
no one expects the Spanish Inquisition
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
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
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
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.....
or were they _really_ worried about the possibility of a LOT of peaceable people showing up with their arms?
Hmmmm.....
Preacherman
Member
Duplicate threads merged.
TheBluesMan
Senior Member
Mark Tyson
You said, "I can see it being interpreted as a threat."
Re-read it again:
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.
You said, "I can see it being interpreted as a threat."
Re-read it again:
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
Member
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.
Personally I agree with the author of the letter, but he should have been more tactful expressing himself.
jimpeel
Member
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
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.
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
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!
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!
7.62FullMetalJacket
Member
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
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
To Be Expected
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.
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.
alan
Member
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.
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
Member
Hedger
Remember, he is taking the firearms argument to the same level as the homosexual level of argument. Read the following for the context.
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.
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.
He is stating here that he is, by virtue of his lifestyle, a social pariah, just as homosexuals also claim.
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".
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."
His intro to the equation.
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?"
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.
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?"
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?"
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
Member
alan
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.
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.
The Point?
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:
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.
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:
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
member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2004
- Messages
- 379
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?
gunsmith
member
Legal to carry gun in front of city hall!
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 $$ to fight it out in court,I would go ahead and pass out that letter in front of SF silly hall with a shot gun slung over my shoulder.
If you guys/gals want to fund my case/lawyer fees and will help in securing a new job, I would be glad to do it!
Sure it will get you charged with something or other,but in CA it is perfectly
legal to carry an unloaded firearm any where except the usual places, ie city hall.
AR15's are legal if you purchased it and registered it prior to the ban.
If I had the $$ 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
Member
" 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.
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.
- Status