All posts by Michael

Veterans Rights Slipping Away at Legislatures’ Hands

Freedom From Government

The Vanguards of Liberty

In recent years there has been a large push on gun ownership and Veterans have been at the forefront of this push. Legislatures have focused on two groups of service members and prior military personnel to take their Second Amendment rights away with no recourse for these men and women, who served their country proudly.

Firearms ownership is one of American’s rights under the Second Amendment, giving citizens the right to bear arms. This is unless you are a former military service member, who has suffered a traumatic brain injury (TBI) or have been treated for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Then according to legislatures like Senator Chuck Schumer and President Obama these former service members should be placed on a list that forbids them from owning and purchasing firearms.

There have been as many as 127,000 veterans placed on the Federal gun registry criminal check system, which means if they want to purchase a weapon, they will be turned down. These individuals who have fought for this country using much higher grade weapons and been thoroughly trained in firearms use, compared to the average weekend shooting range gun owner. But, hiding behind the Brady Act legislatures have found a way to keep these men and women from owning guns and in effect taken away veterans Second Amendment rights.

The message this is sending to military service members and past active duty military personnel is if you seek treatment for a TBI or PTSD it will take away your Second Amendment rights. It no longer matters that these men and women  put their life on the line, did multiple tours in places like Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan lawmakers have the final say in whether you are capable of owning firearms or not. After all liberals sitting in Washington, who have never worn the uniform know better than the veteran whether they should have the rights that our forefathers deemed to be the right of every American citizen.

Resource:

Veterans at Risk of being Stripped of Second Amendment Rights: http://civilrights.ehlinelaw.com/veterans-risk-stripped-second-amendment-rights/

Leland Yee withdraws from California Secretary of State Race

Leland Yee plans to withdraw his candidacy from the California Secretary of State, after being one of 26 people charged in gun trafficking and murder for hire.  According to Yee’s attorney Paul Demeester said, Yee has made no decision about his Senate seat and plans to plead not guilty to the federal charges.

Mayor Ed Lee of San Francisco read the 137 page complaint against Yee and the other people charged in the scheme and said it was like something found in a mystery novel, but they are verified. The complaint states that meetings took place in a San Francisco restaurant between Yee and an undercover FBI agent, where Yee said he could the weapons they wanted and the person he was acquainted with had the things they wanted.

California Senators in Washington Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein are both calling for Yee to resign his seat as a California senator. Senator Feinstein stated that the allegations against Yee are shocking and it is clear that he has lost the confidence of his colleagues.  The California State Senate voted on Friday 28-1 to suspend Senator Leland Yee from the Senate after his indictment this week.

Yee along with two other Democrat’s Senator Ron Calderon, who is facing federal corruption charges and Rod Wright who was convicted of Voter fraud and perjury will retain his annual base pay if he is suspended of $95,291 dollars per year. Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg Friday planned to seek a constitutional amendment to deny the pay to suspended lawmakers.

Court of Appeals Rules against California Concealed Handgun Rules

Freedom From Government

The Vanguards of Liberty

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on a lawsuit involving how concealed weapons permits are issued in California and the rules making it difficult for residents to obtain a permit. The court ruling was a split decision of 2 to 1 in which the three judge panel determined that California counties requirements for citizens to show more than simple self defense as a reason for a law abiding resident to obtain a concealed weapons permit was in violation of their 2nd Amendment rights to bear arms.

Siding with the state of California concealed handgun permits is The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence an advocacy group based in Washington, D.C. who is hoping for the decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision to be overturned. According to the Brady Center’s spokesman Jonathan Lowy, they filed a brief as a “friend of the court” in this lawsuit. This brief was submitted to the court requesting that it uphold the current policy that is in force in the state of California currently. Lowy stated that the there was no history or precedent to support the decision that will put the public at risk with people having the right to carry concealed weapons in public places, when law enforcement officials have decided against issuing a permit, because the applicant did not show good reason or was not qualified to obtain the permit.

Prior to this ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California residents were prohibited from carrying a weapon without obtaining a concealed weapons permit, which is not uncommon regulations in states. The reason that the California regulations were determined a violation of individuals Second Amendment Rights was due to the rules used by law enforcement officials that required proving there was a reason to obtain the permit that was for reasons beside just the common reasons of self defense. Along with this were other requirements of showing good moral character, having “good cause” to request the permit and taking a training course. In the state of California the sheriff’s departments and police chiefs in most cases required the applicants for concealed weapons to show there was a real danger for their application or other reason.

This the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this was against the applicants Second Amendment Rights, requiring the applicant to show more than self defense as a reason to obtain a concealed weapons permit. Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain wrote that the right to bear and carry a firearm by lawful purposes of self defense was a citizen’s rights and that the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department wanting applicants to show special causes such as a restraining order to receive a concealed weapons permit infringes on their Second Amendment right to bear arms in self defense.

The judge stated that according to a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court ruling of 5 to 1, the requirements were too strict and in disagreement with that decision. The 2008 case involved a handgun ban in Washington, D.C. that denied residents from being allowed to own weapons for self defense and to possess a gun in their home. This ruling by the 9th Circuit of Appeals reversed a lower court decision and ordered the judge to rule in favor of the applicants. This could result in the case being requested to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, because of the conflicting rulings, according to attorney Chuck Michel, who represents the San Diego County residents who filed lawsuit to change the California concealed weapons permit policy the way it was being enforced in their county. This decision on Thursday was in conflict with three other federal appeal court rulings in which similar regulations have been upheld in California for concealed weapons permits.

Michel filed the lawsuit on behalf of the San Diego County residents in 2009 and was pleased with the ruling by the court. The lawyer said he will not be surprised if the U.S. Supreme Court does hear the case with conflicting rulings and other lawsuits that were similar filed in other locations in the country.

In another ruling, Judge Sidney Thomas wrote that people carrying concealed handguns in public, who are required to show “good cause” will limit the number of permits of individuals that can legally carry a firearm in public. This would still allow people with just cause to legally carry a handgun that may be necessary for self defense. The judge then wrote that reducing the number of concealed weapons would reduce the risk to the public.

Sheriff Bill Gore and the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department have several options they could choose from after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision. The department rejected making any comments other than to state the are consulting with their attorneys. The sheriff and sheriffs department could request the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals seat an 11 special of judges to rehear the case. The department may decide to petition the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case and rule on it or they could stand by this ruling and change department policy. San Diego County Sheriff’s Department, Sheriff Bill Gore made no comment on the case and if it will be ongoing or if they will change the requirements.

Citations:

News Story: http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2014/02/13/federal-court-tosses-californias-concealed-weapons-rules/

Court of Appeals Opinion on Conceal Carry – Peruta: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/02/12/1056971.pdf

San Francisco Bans Standard Capacity Mags and Other Protected Activities

Punishing Law Abiding Citizens for Political Gain

Chiu Enemy of Liberty

Well there is certainly a lot to write about lately.  San Francisco politicians led by Supervisor Chiu, just voted to make it a crime to possess standard capacity magazines that are already legal to own it the State. They also voted to make it illegal for minors to go the rifle range with a supervising parent, even though shooting is part of our heritage passed on from father to son. But of course, it is perfectly ok to teach alternative lifestyles and have little boys and girls shower and pee together in California public schools.

What the board seems to not comprehend, is that measures like this create new crimes, and thereby make, law abiding citizens into criminals. I am looking to partner up with a local firm to sue the City of San Francisco for Civil Rights violations for what we at SLA consider to be egregious, treasonous conduct by the SF Board of Supervisors. Check out the PDF of the vote here. Obviously, there is a pre-emption issue. But if we can find the right judge, we could possibly use this as an opportunity to restore American Second Amendment rights to their proper place in a civil society.

Recall The Politicians

Even liberals and socialists are starting to get it.  The Second Amendment is there for a reason.  Depriving law abiding citizens of their Second Amendment rights and duties, is only a testing ground.  Once the statists roll over that right, it will be all the easier to roll over another.  This is the battleground.  Moving away is not the solution.  We must stand and fight people like fugitive Leland Lee and the other members of the immoral majority currently “ruling” in San Francisco.  Quoting a poster over at Calguns: “San Francsisco has merely adopted the Liberal line: cops and criminals get to defend themselves with 30 round magazines, but you crappy civilian taxpayers – your lives are only worth 10 rounds.”

Who To Recall

Join the fight to recall supervisors: Chiu, Cohen, Campos, Lee and Mar, rubber stamps for the enemies of freedom. We encourage locals to organize and start gathering signatures right away.

Sources:

High-capacity ammo ban approved by S.F. Board of Supervisors: http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/high-capacity-ammo-ban-approved-by-sf-board-of-supervisors/Content?oid=2609466

 

 

Enemies of Freedom or Friends of the Republic?

Patriot Washington

patriot hero

Depending on what side of politics you are on and what you feel about groups believing that being an American entails certain rights, these groups can mean many things to many people. On the one side the Oath Keepers and Three Percenters are considered by people like Dianne Feinstein and Senator Leland Yee, to be part of an anti-government extremist movement.

Feinstein Says “Turn in Your Guns”


But those who are not discredited politicians, who know the history of America, believe these groups are Americans who want to ensure our rights are not infringed upon, and as American citizens our rights are not taken away.  Who these groups  really are, is a loose confederation of people, from lawyers to janitors, taking a stand to voice their concerns about our freedoms and governmental policies that would infringe on our rights.

The Farce and the Truth

The Oath Keepers was formed in March of 2009 and led by Nevada attorney Stewart Rhodes and the Three Percenters were formed in the latter part of 2008. The opposition likes to tout that this group is based on an inaccurate Revolutionary War statistic, claiming that only 3 percent of the American population took part as combatants in the Revolutionary War and that they represent three percent of the American gun owning populations who are against being disarmed.

The actual Three Percenters was an idea by Mike Vanderboegh, who says that approximately three percent of the population fought for liberty at any given time during the Revolutionary war, with about 250,000 men serving during the war, but there was no more than 90,000 who served at any one time. This is based on historian’s account of the colonial population of 2,500,000 to 3,000,000, with 40 to 35 percent of the population in the thirteen colonies supporting the fight for liberty, while between 15 to 20 percent remained loyal to the British Crown and 35 to 45 percent of the colonists tried to remain neutral. The Three Percenters promote liberty, freedom and a constitutional government that is governed by law. The opposition would have the public believe that this group is extremists, rather than law abiding citizens that want the government to work the way it was designed to work for the people.

The Oath Keepers held their first national conference in Las Vegas, Nevada October 24-25, 2009, with approximately one hundred people in attendance. The group states they have two thousand dues paying members, though the opposition likes to claim that they are a much smaller group. This difference of opinion makes the opposition feel more secure in their thinking that our freedoms could not be encroached upon by big government.

Labels Placed on Organized Groups

The opposition likes to make claims that these two groups are conspiracy theorists and are anti-government extremists, who since President Obama took office send a message that the federal government has plans to take away rights of American citizens. They claim the groups are approaching the military and law enforcement and asking that if the U.S. government creates a police state to remember they swore an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution from foreign and domestic enemies.

What is being reiterated by the opposition is the fact that every military service member’s oath does include protecting the country from enemies both foreign and domestic, which military personnel take seriously without any intervention from any groups. This is promoted by the opposition about the Oath Keepers and the Three Percenters in an effort to fool the public into thinking these groups are not looking out for the best interest of the country. When in reality these groups do not promote disdain for the country, but rather to make the public aware that the government works for the people and does have laws they must abide by.

The opposition would also have the public believe that the Oath Keepers website promotes untruths, such as claiming an active duty soldier was wearing a group patch on his arm and in addition patches for the Three Percenters. These groups do have their own insignia, like every other group in history, though the patches that soldiers wear on their uniforms distinguish their rank, unit and other identifying information per their branch of the military. This is a basic snow job by the groups that oppose the Oath Keepers and Three Percenters message and politics, but what’s more it is a way of taking the public’s eye off what they don’t want people to know. Issues like sending military troops into Syria and other current issues.

One of the things the Oath Keepers planned in 2009 was to put together care packages for the active duty service members who were deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, between Veterans Day (November 11th) and Bill of Rights Day (December 15th). In these packages it was claimed by the opposition that there would be an Oath Keepers patch and DVD in each package. They attempted to make this sound like less than a valiant effort in supporting the troops. What they neglected to say is that any organized groups sending packages include their information, so the service members know where the packages came from and who is supporting their efforts.

The claims are non-ending with those opposing these two groups as anti-government, which is far from the truth. These groups support a government that works within its bounds for the good of the people, not the good of the government. They came out with derogatory comments about what they refer to as anti-government extremist groups, and included the Tea Party in this when on September 12, 2009 the Three Percenters and the

Oath Keepers had an event at the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington D.C. because at the same time the Tea Party rallied in the city protesting issues they have with the way the government and administration is handling issues that affect the country. The opposition would have people believe this has gone on since the day that President Obama took office. These groups only interest is in how the country is running, the national debt, the economy, ensuring American’s rights are protected and that the government works for the people, rather than for themselves.