In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
KABA Writer Investigated for Questioning Civil Aut
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
KABA Writer Investigated for Questioning Civil Authority
Police say Investigation "Ongoing"
from Angel Shamaya
Director@KeepAndBearArms.com
February 19, 2004
KeepAndBearArms.com -- 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.
Before you read this, you should know a little bit about David Codrea. He lives in Redondo Beach, California with his wife and two young sons. He's been active in the gun rights community for over a decade. He's a professional gun writer for such magazines as Guns & Ammo, most recently published in their HANDGUNS Feb/March 2004 issue. He's a featured writer for KeepAndBearArms.com and has held a seat on KABA's Advisory Board for years. He co-founded Guntruths.com and the now disbanded pro gun media-campaigning organization, Citizens of America. He spearheaded the Petition for the Enforcement of the Second Amendment and was one of a handful of insiders helping hone and tighten the legal writing done in the Silveira v. Lockyer Second Amendment lawsuit the U.S. Supreme Court recently refused to hear. David Codrea cares about freedom, and he works within the confines of "the system" to help defend gun owners and their rights.
Earlier this week, Codrea wrote a letter to San Francisco's Mayor, a superior court judge and the SFPD acting police chief. The letter was rhetorical in nature and pointed out the inconsistency in San Fran's civil enforcement strategies. Civil authorities are sitting by while thousands of same-sex marriages are performed in contravention of State law. In his letter, to point out the hypocrisy of ignoring some laws while enforcing others, Codrea rhetorically (and humorously, might I add) asked what would happen if he chose to violate a different law -- the ban on carrying a firearm for self-defense. Read the letter for yourself, right here: http://KeepAndBearArms.com/information/Item.asp?ID=3632 .
As a result of that letter, SFPD launched an investigation of Codrea that included a call from an inspector at SFPD and a visit to his home by police in his local California community. According to SFPD, it is "an ongoing investigation." What follows is a description of Codrea's experience, in his own words. Below that is a description of additional research done on behalf of KeepAndBearArms.com in an attempt to determine what exactly has happened here -- and why.
DAVID CODREA'S OWN WORDS:
I was at work yesterday afternoon when my wife called me. There was a message on our answering machine from "Inspector Walsh" of the San Francisco Police Department asking me to call and leaving his number. Of course it was about the letter, so I called him back, curious to know what he wanted, but mindful that I should be extremely careful speaking to the police. First, I checked the internet, to make sure the area code and prefix number he gave matched SFPD's.
I got his voicemail, found out his first name was "Peter," and left a message, saying I assumed he was calling in response to my satirical article, and gave him my cell phone number. He called me back within 5 or 10 minutes.
I should explain that the following is my best recollection. The words won't exactly match what was said, but the intent will. I assume it is standard procedure for him to have recorded the call -- I didn't ask and he didn't volunteer. Perhaps he will correct any misstatements or faulty recollections on my part.
I also debated internally whether I should call him at all, or only speak through an attorney. I decided I would try handling things by myself first, as I had done nothing criminal -- plus, I figured if I escalated it to legal formalities, they could opt to do the same, and I didn't want to have cops show up at the time and place of their choosing, especially if it would impact my livelihood.
He said he was, indeed, calling about the letter, and explained that it was routine to investigate communications where a potential threat existed because they get all kinds of letters, emails and calls from all kinds of people. He said he got the "gist" of what I was saying in my letter, but wanted to follow up with me.
He asked if I owned an AR-15. I replied that if I did, I'd not be inclined to answer that question and waive my Fifth Amendment rights, and if I had something to hide, why wouldn't I just lie about it? But then I told him I wouldn't lie to him, and said "No," which is the truth.
He asked if I intended to come to San Francisco armed and enact the scenario in my letter. I told him of course not, that my letter was obviously rhetorical and designed to point out the hypocrisy and lawlessness of San Francisco government ignoring state laws that they don't want to obey, yet using the law to enforce those, such as disarmament edicts, that they perceive being to their advantage.
He asked if I had communicated with anyone else, received any emails from supporters who might want to join me in coming armed to SF City Hall (and generally waive my Fourth Amendment rights). I told him "No," and that if I ever received a communication from someone urging me to engage in illegal activities I would assume that person to be an agent provocateur trying to entrap me.
I told him that a check of my published writings would prove to him that I have always gone out of my way to urge people to use lawful and peaceful means of redress, even when it looks like the system is abandoning us, and mentioned my involvement in the Silveira case.
I also remember telling him that the point of my letter was to attack the lawlessness of the mayor's and other officials' actions, and really had nothing to do with any philosophical position on gay marriage, and that I encouraged gays to realize that they have a right to keep and bear arms to protect their lives and liberty.
I told him my questions in the letter were obviously rhetorical, that I was obviously making a point, and he again admitted he got the "gist" of it, but asked what if someone else didn't, and acted on it.
I told him there is a lot of emotion being generated over Mel Gibson's upcoming "The Passion of the Christ," and I really hoped no altercations broke out between protestors and moviegoers, but that it wouldn't be Gibson's fault if they did -- that we can't be afraid to express strong and controversial political statements because someone might misinterpret our intent and act improperly.
He explained several times that it was just routine to follow up on things like this, that his job was apolitical, and they just have to investigate. I told him I understood that, and hoped he also understood what a chilling effect a police response to political speech created.
He indicated I did not sound like a threat and sounded "intelligent".
I was left with the impression that they were probably not going to put much more energy into it -- although I would be surprised if they haven't checked my background, records and gun purchases, and wouldn't be surprised if a judge didn't consider the circumstances probable cause to tap into my phone and internet. But anyone who is an activist is an automatic target, especially if it's about something that scares the hell out of civil authority (people with guns!!!), and I've felt there's probably a good chance the government has been doing that for some time.
He told me he had also asked the Redondo Beach Police to drop a message off at my home as backup to the message he left on my machine, so to just ignore the message they delivered. We then said our goodbyes.
The tone throughout was polite, but guarded. There was a bit of fencing going on, he probing to see if I sounded like a threat or to see if I could be prodded into saying anything incriminating, and me trying my best to protect my interests yet still present myself as candid and truthful.
My wife called me about an hour later to say that the RBPD had sent two black and whites to our house. Two officers came to the door. She informed them I had already spoken to the Inspector. One officer called into dispatch and they confirmed this and left.
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. It also confirms my opinion of the corrupt gangsters in charge of San Francisco's city government -- ready to use the force of law to advance their agenda, but publicly flout the law when it doesn't.
David Codrea
Codrea4@adelphia.net
February 18, 2004
OUR OWN INVESTIGATION
On behalf of KeepAndBearArms.com, I asked Brian Puckett to contact Peter Walsh -- the officer who conducted the phone interview of David Codrea regarding his article. We published Codrea's letter, and we have a vested interest in this matter. After all, we publish the email addresses of various public servants from time to time, encouraging The People to share their thoughts. We'd like to know if doing so is now considered justification for investigations being launched against our members.
Puckett called Walsh and left a message on the afternoon of Feb. 17. He left another message on the morning of Feb. 18. He finally received a callback on Wednesday afternoon from an SFPD employee in the public relations department. Puckett wasn't sure if it was an officer or not.
The SFPD "public relations" person indicated that he couldn't answer any questions about the case since it was an "ongoing investigation."
"I made certain we were talking about David Codrea," reports Puckett, "to which he responded in the affirmative. I was able to ask two general questions, but he wouldn't answer any questions that remotely touched on this investigation."
Among the general questions Puckett asked that the SFPD official was willing to answer: "What is the Special Investigations Division?" of which Peter Walsh is a member.
The response was that they "investigate protection [security?] matters, bomb threats, gang related matters, and hate crimes."
The only other question SFPD's "public relations" person would answer is this: "If a person were investigated by the Special Investigations Division, how could that person find out what the final results were, or get any documents related to that investigation?"
The response was that he would have to "contact the investigating officer". "Peter Walsh, in this case?" asked Puckett. And the SFPD PR guy said yes.
According to Mr. Puckett, per SFPD's public relations department, the intent of the SFPD interview of Codrea -- and the subsequent visit by two black and whites at Codrea's home -- was, supposedly, "to determine if Codrea was threatening someone in San Francisco." Again, read the letter if you haven't done so, and decide for yourself if the letter genuinely merited such strong-arm tactics: http://KeepAndBearArms.com/information/Item.asp?ID=3632
QUESTIONS WE WOULD LIKE ANSWERED
Following are the questions Brian Puckett wanted to ask, most of which were stonewalled:
1. Exactly what is the special investigations unit? (This question was more or less answered.)
2. Who ordered the investigation?
3. Who asked that the Redondo Beach black and white units be sent to Mr. Codrea's house?
4. Why were two units sent?
5. Why would Redondo Beach take time out for such a questionable mission on the word of a distant police dept.?
6. Did the SFPD actually view this as a credible threat to someone?
7. Is any further investigation of this writer contemplated? (This has been answered as it is claimed to be an "ongoing investigation".)
8. Is this investigation of the kind that SFPD might have a writer's or reporter's -- or specifically Mr. Codrea's -- phone or phones tapped?
But civil authorities who send police cars to your house for writing a rhetorical letter don't have to answer questions, apparently -- even when their actions amount to harassment and intimidation.
CALLING ALL CARS...
On a personal note, since San Francisco police are in the mood to investigate armed political activist-writers around here -- with all the extra time they have while ignoring massive group violations of state laws -- I'd like to invite them to read the following and respond:
Message to Police & Other Law Enforcement Personnel from KeepAndBearArms.com
http://KeepAndBearArms.com/information/Item.asp?ID=1377
That was published in our "Messages to Police Officers" archive on 9/12/2000 and has not been edited since. So much time has passed I don't recall if I authored it or if it was a joint effort between myself and others. But I certainly take full responsibility for it. And I look forward to reading a thorough and thoughtful response from anyone associated with the San Francisco Police Department -- especially acting police chief Fong, Peter Walsh and San Francisco's new mayor.
Finally, on behalf of myself, David Codrea and KeepAndBearArms.com, I want to make one thing very very clear. Codrea's letter to the San Francisco investigation-launchers was not a statement about whether or not California's law banning same-sex marriages is right or wrong. If that had been his intent, we would not have published it; the issue is too divisive to get into considering that it's not our issue. Sexuality issues are not our issues, nor will they ever be our issues. Our issue is the right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their loved ones, their community, the state and our nation. Our Inclusion Policy is very clear. The gun rights community is divided enough as it is without trying to get everyone to agree on not only gun rights but a host of other things. In conclusion, as you read our Inclusion Policy, just know this: David Codrea inspired it, and the text was taken from a very similarly-worded policy of inclusion he created for Guntruths.com. The KeepAndBearArms.com Inclusion Policy has been published at the following page for two or three years now, and it will stay there as long as we exist: http://KeepAndBearArms.com/about/inclusion.asp.
Angel Shamaya
Founder/Executive Director
KeepAndBearArms.com
Director@KeepAndBearArms.com
(928) 522-8833
THE OFFENDING LETTER
David Codrea's letter to San Fran's finest is reprinted here for ease of access:
Disregarding Laws We Oppose
An Open Letter to San Francisco Civil Authority
By David Codrea
codrea4@adelphia.net
February 16, 2004
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.
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.
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.
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.
Which brings me back to my dilemma and the reason I am writing you.
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.
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?
Please let me know if I have your support.
Sincerely,
David Codrea
* Credit and gratitude to the peerless Col. Jeff Cooper for coining this term.
http://keepandbeararms.com/information/Item.asp?ID=3637
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878<P>
Police say Investigation "Ongoing"
from Angel Shamaya
Director@KeepAndBearArms.com
February 19, 2004
KeepAndBearArms.com -- 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.
Before you read this, you should know a little bit about David Codrea. He lives in Redondo Beach, California with his wife and two young sons. He's been active in the gun rights community for over a decade. He's a professional gun writer for such magazines as Guns & Ammo, most recently published in their HANDGUNS Feb/March 2004 issue. He's a featured writer for KeepAndBearArms.com and has held a seat on KABA's Advisory Board for years. He co-founded Guntruths.com and the now disbanded pro gun media-campaigning organization, Citizens of America. He spearheaded the Petition for the Enforcement of the Second Amendment and was one of a handful of insiders helping hone and tighten the legal writing done in the Silveira v. Lockyer Second Amendment lawsuit the U.S. Supreme Court recently refused to hear. David Codrea cares about freedom, and he works within the confines of "the system" to help defend gun owners and their rights.
Earlier this week, Codrea wrote a letter to San Francisco's Mayor, a superior court judge and the SFPD acting police chief. The letter was rhetorical in nature and pointed out the inconsistency in San Fran's civil enforcement strategies. Civil authorities are sitting by while thousands of same-sex marriages are performed in contravention of State law. In his letter, to point out the hypocrisy of ignoring some laws while enforcing others, Codrea rhetorically (and humorously, might I add) asked what would happen if he chose to violate a different law -- the ban on carrying a firearm for self-defense. Read the letter for yourself, right here: http://KeepAndBearArms.com/information/Item.asp?ID=3632 .
As a result of that letter, SFPD launched an investigation of Codrea that included a call from an inspector at SFPD and a visit to his home by police in his local California community. According to SFPD, it is "an ongoing investigation." What follows is a description of Codrea's experience, in his own words. Below that is a description of additional research done on behalf of KeepAndBearArms.com in an attempt to determine what exactly has happened here -- and why.
DAVID CODREA'S OWN WORDS:
I was at work yesterday afternoon when my wife called me. There was a message on our answering machine from "Inspector Walsh" of the San Francisco Police Department asking me to call and leaving his number. Of course it was about the letter, so I called him back, curious to know what he wanted, but mindful that I should be extremely careful speaking to the police. First, I checked the internet, to make sure the area code and prefix number he gave matched SFPD's.
I got his voicemail, found out his first name was "Peter," and left a message, saying I assumed he was calling in response to my satirical article, and gave him my cell phone number. He called me back within 5 or 10 minutes.
I should explain that the following is my best recollection. The words won't exactly match what was said, but the intent will. I assume it is standard procedure for him to have recorded the call -- I didn't ask and he didn't volunteer. Perhaps he will correct any misstatements or faulty recollections on my part.
I also debated internally whether I should call him at all, or only speak through an attorney. I decided I would try handling things by myself first, as I had done nothing criminal -- plus, I figured if I escalated it to legal formalities, they could opt to do the same, and I didn't want to have cops show up at the time and place of their choosing, especially if it would impact my livelihood.
He said he was, indeed, calling about the letter, and explained that it was routine to investigate communications where a potential threat existed because they get all kinds of letters, emails and calls from all kinds of people. He said he got the "gist" of what I was saying in my letter, but wanted to follow up with me.
He asked if I owned an AR-15. I replied that if I did, I'd not be inclined to answer that question and waive my Fifth Amendment rights, and if I had something to hide, why wouldn't I just lie about it? But then I told him I wouldn't lie to him, and said "No," which is the truth.
He asked if I intended to come to San Francisco armed and enact the scenario in my letter. I told him of course not, that my letter was obviously rhetorical and designed to point out the hypocrisy and lawlessness of San Francisco government ignoring state laws that they don't want to obey, yet using the law to enforce those, such as disarmament edicts, that they perceive being to their advantage.
He asked if I had communicated with anyone else, received any emails from supporters who might want to join me in coming armed to SF City Hall (and generally waive my Fourth Amendment rights). I told him "No," and that if I ever received a communication from someone urging me to engage in illegal activities I would assume that person to be an agent provocateur trying to entrap me.
I told him that a check of my published writings would prove to him that I have always gone out of my way to urge people to use lawful and peaceful means of redress, even when it looks like the system is abandoning us, and mentioned my involvement in the Silveira case.
I also remember telling him that the point of my letter was to attack the lawlessness of the mayor's and other officials' actions, and really had nothing to do with any philosophical position on gay marriage, and that I encouraged gays to realize that they have a right to keep and bear arms to protect their lives and liberty.
I told him my questions in the letter were obviously rhetorical, that I was obviously making a point, and he again admitted he got the "gist" of it, but asked what if someone else didn't, and acted on it.
I told him there is a lot of emotion being generated over Mel Gibson's upcoming "The Passion of the Christ," and I really hoped no altercations broke out between protestors and moviegoers, but that it wouldn't be Gibson's fault if they did -- that we can't be afraid to express strong and controversial political statements because someone might misinterpret our intent and act improperly.
He explained several times that it was just routine to follow up on things like this, that his job was apolitical, and they just have to investigate. I told him I understood that, and hoped he also understood what a chilling effect a police response to political speech created.
He indicated I did not sound like a threat and sounded "intelligent".
I was left with the impression that they were probably not going to put much more energy into it -- although I would be surprised if they haven't checked my background, records and gun purchases, and wouldn't be surprised if a judge didn't consider the circumstances probable cause to tap into my phone and internet. But anyone who is an activist is an automatic target, especially if it's about something that scares the hell out of civil authority (people with guns!!!), and I've felt there's probably a good chance the government has been doing that for some time.
He told me he had also asked the Redondo Beach Police to drop a message off at my home as backup to the message he left on my machine, so to just ignore the message they delivered. We then said our goodbyes.
The tone throughout was polite, but guarded. There was a bit of fencing going on, he probing to see if I sounded like a threat or to see if I could be prodded into saying anything incriminating, and me trying my best to protect my interests yet still present myself as candid and truthful.
My wife called me about an hour later to say that the RBPD had sent two black and whites to our house. Two officers came to the door. She informed them I had already spoken to the Inspector. One officer called into dispatch and they confirmed this and left.
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. It also confirms my opinion of the corrupt gangsters in charge of San Francisco's city government -- ready to use the force of law to advance their agenda, but publicly flout the law when it doesn't.
David Codrea
Codrea4@adelphia.net
February 18, 2004
OUR OWN INVESTIGATION
On behalf of KeepAndBearArms.com, I asked Brian Puckett to contact Peter Walsh -- the officer who conducted the phone interview of David Codrea regarding his article. We published Codrea's letter, and we have a vested interest in this matter. After all, we publish the email addresses of various public servants from time to time, encouraging The People to share their thoughts. We'd like to know if doing so is now considered justification for investigations being launched against our members.
Puckett called Walsh and left a message on the afternoon of Feb. 17. He left another message on the morning of Feb. 18. He finally received a callback on Wednesday afternoon from an SFPD employee in the public relations department. Puckett wasn't sure if it was an officer or not.
The SFPD "public relations" person indicated that he couldn't answer any questions about the case since it was an "ongoing investigation."
"I made certain we were talking about David Codrea," reports Puckett, "to which he responded in the affirmative. I was able to ask two general questions, but he wouldn't answer any questions that remotely touched on this investigation."
Among the general questions Puckett asked that the SFPD official was willing to answer: "What is the Special Investigations Division?" of which Peter Walsh is a member.
The response was that they "investigate protection [security?] matters, bomb threats, gang related matters, and hate crimes."
The only other question SFPD's "public relations" person would answer is this: "If a person were investigated by the Special Investigations Division, how could that person find out what the final results were, or get any documents related to that investigation?"
The response was that he would have to "contact the investigating officer". "Peter Walsh, in this case?" asked Puckett. And the SFPD PR guy said yes.
According to Mr. Puckett, per SFPD's public relations department, the intent of the SFPD interview of Codrea -- and the subsequent visit by two black and whites at Codrea's home -- was, supposedly, "to determine if Codrea was threatening someone in San Francisco." Again, read the letter if you haven't done so, and decide for yourself if the letter genuinely merited such strong-arm tactics: http://KeepAndBearArms.com/information/Item.asp?ID=3632
QUESTIONS WE WOULD LIKE ANSWERED
Following are the questions Brian Puckett wanted to ask, most of which were stonewalled:
1. Exactly what is the special investigations unit? (This question was more or less answered.)
2. Who ordered the investigation?
3. Who asked that the Redondo Beach black and white units be sent to Mr. Codrea's house?
4. Why were two units sent?
5. Why would Redondo Beach take time out for such a questionable mission on the word of a distant police dept.?
6. Did the SFPD actually view this as a credible threat to someone?
7. Is any further investigation of this writer contemplated? (This has been answered as it is claimed to be an "ongoing investigation".)
8. Is this investigation of the kind that SFPD might have a writer's or reporter's -- or specifically Mr. Codrea's -- phone or phones tapped?
But civil authorities who send police cars to your house for writing a rhetorical letter don't have to answer questions, apparently -- even when their actions amount to harassment and intimidation.
CALLING ALL CARS...
On a personal note, since San Francisco police are in the mood to investigate armed political activist-writers around here -- with all the extra time they have while ignoring massive group violations of state laws -- I'd like to invite them to read the following and respond:
Message to Police & Other Law Enforcement Personnel from KeepAndBearArms.com
http://KeepAndBearArms.com/information/Item.asp?ID=1377
That was published in our "Messages to Police Officers" archive on 9/12/2000 and has not been edited since. So much time has passed I don't recall if I authored it or if it was a joint effort between myself and others. But I certainly take full responsibility for it. And I look forward to reading a thorough and thoughtful response from anyone associated with the San Francisco Police Department -- especially acting police chief Fong, Peter Walsh and San Francisco's new mayor.
Finally, on behalf of myself, David Codrea and KeepAndBearArms.com, I want to make one thing very very clear. Codrea's letter to the San Francisco investigation-launchers was not a statement about whether or not California's law banning same-sex marriages is right or wrong. If that had been his intent, we would not have published it; the issue is too divisive to get into considering that it's not our issue. Sexuality issues are not our issues, nor will they ever be our issues. Our issue is the right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their loved ones, their community, the state and our nation. Our Inclusion Policy is very clear. The gun rights community is divided enough as it is without trying to get everyone to agree on not only gun rights but a host of other things. In conclusion, as you read our Inclusion Policy, just know this: David Codrea inspired it, and the text was taken from a very similarly-worded policy of inclusion he created for Guntruths.com. The KeepAndBearArms.com Inclusion Policy has been published at the following page for two or three years now, and it will stay there as long as we exist: http://KeepAndBearArms.com/about/inclusion.asp.
Angel Shamaya
Founder/Executive Director
KeepAndBearArms.com
Director@KeepAndBearArms.com
(928) 522-8833
THE OFFENDING LETTER
David Codrea's letter to San Fran's finest is reprinted here for ease of access:
Disregarding Laws We Oppose
An Open Letter to San Francisco Civil Authority
By David Codrea
codrea4@adelphia.net
February 16, 2004
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.
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.
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.
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.
Which brings me back to my dilemma and the reason I am writing you.
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.
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?
Please let me know if I have your support.
Sincerely,
David Codrea
* Credit and gratitude to the peerless Col. Jeff Cooper for coining this term.
http://keepandbeararms.com/information/Item.asp?ID=3637
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878<P>
Comments
Quote "When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions."
IF YOU DON'T LIKE MY RIGHTS - GET OUT OF MY COUNTRY (this includes politicians)
Greg
Former
USMC
ANGLICO