I recently wrote in my Federal Way Mirror column, The Firearms Lawyer, that Federal Way’s Tea Party leader is a lady named Robin Caldwell- an African-American. Robin- also a member of our Federal Way GOP precinct organization- is first of all an American who happens to be a mixture of African, native-American and European ancestry. She is also a conservative libertarian. Despite my affiliation with Robin, however, the usual suspects called me a right wing demagouge (sic) and labeled my description of recent events as racist, ignorant editorializing masquerading as fact!

The article touched on the subject of how the NAACP allegedly lobbied the DOJ to dismiss charges against the New Black Panthers for intimidating voters with a weapon at a polling place.

King Samir Shabazz, the poll watcher with the night-stick, was penalized by not being allowed to return with a weapon to the polling places in 2012:

A recent Media Matters investigation has debunked charges that the Obama administration withdrew criminal charges against the Panthers (in fact, the Bush administration decided not to pursue criminal charges, with Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez testifying that the Bush Justice Department “determined that the facts did not constitute a prosecutable violation of the criminal statutes"; a civil lawsuit was filed in the last days of the Bush administration, and a judgment won by the Obama Justice Department in May 2009).

The Vice Chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Abigail Thernstrom, recently said on CBS’ “Face the Nation", “We have no direct evidence that [the NBP activist) actually intimidated anybody, stopped them from voting.”

“I think the evidence is extremely weak,” Thernstrom told CBS anchor Bob Schieffer. “If the Justice Department chooses - and I would be delighted if it did so - to send to us, for instance, somebody who is at that alleged brown bag meeting in which [Deputy Assistant Attorney General] Julie Fernandez said, ‘We don’t prosecute cases [against] blacks …’ fine. I’m an evidence girl, really. I want evidence.”

Despite the fact that evidence was forthcoming, Thernstrom continues to impugn the integrity of her fellow Commissioners by alleging that the Republican members of the Commission are simply trying to damage President Obama.

“My fellow conservatives on the commission had this wild notion they could bring Eric Holder down and really damage the president,” Thernstrom said in an interview with POLITICO. She makes such allegations but nevertheless admits in several places that the question of whether the voter intimidation case could be successfully prosecuted is arguable. Her point is that DOJ prosecutors dismissed the case in good faith but why does she question the good faith of her colleagues on the Commission?

Thernstrom claims to think very highly of J. Christian Adams. But he is the whistleblower that testified as to Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes informing DOJ personnel that the Voting Section was not going to bring cases against black defendants for the benefit of white victims.

Thernstrom has recently been backing away from some her statements made on “Face the Nation".

See Thernstrom’s Reply to Andrew McCarthy; National Review Online.

The “politicalized” commissioners that Thernstrom criticized for wanting to take down Obama were largely reacting to Adams’s testimony- and to the Obama Administration’s ongoing campaign to impede efforts to find out out who talked to whom about dismissing the NBP charges.

The real issue is not whether the jack-booted racist NBP thugs were ever a threat to the voting process but whether thugs with suits and brief cases will obey the law and disclose what is really happening behind the scenes or hide a questionable agenda behind some variation on the claim of Executive Privilege. When the Bush Administration asserted Executive Privilege the news media used enough ink to drain an ocean discussing imminent threats to the Constitution.

Thernstrom also indicated at various times that she needed direct evidence. The record of proceedings before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is replete with direct evidence from eye-witnesses who testified before the Commission that both Black Panthers, including the one against whom the Justice Department dismissed its case, were physically threatening a poll watcher and the two Black Panthers acted as a team, in concert, at the polling place.

On the issue of voters, Hill testified as follows:

QUESTION: How were third parties reacting to the presence and the actions of the Panther members?

HILL: People were put off when – there were a couple of people that walked up, a couple of people that drove up, and they would come to a screeching halt because it’s not something you expect to see in front of a polling place. As I was standing on the corner, I had two older ladies and an older gentleman stop right next to me, ask what was going on. I said, ‘Truthfully, we don’t really know. All we know is there’s two Black Panthers here.’ And the lady said, ‘Well, we’ll just come back.’ And so, they walked away.

Hill was then questioned about that testimony by Commissioner Thernstrom:

THERNSTROM: But otherwise, did you see anybody at the polling place who obviously intended to vote, and didn’t end up voting because of the presence of the New Black Panther Party members?

HILL: It was two women and a gentleman….They stopped right at the corner of the driveway, circular drive, where I was standing on the phone, and they said, ‘What’s going on?’ Truthfully, I didn’t really have a good answer for them…But at that exact moment in time, those people were not going near that doorway, and ma’am, I’m not as well versed as you are in these civil rights issues, but they were intimidated.

Bartle Bull, another poll watcher testified:

BULL: One of them was waving a baton like that, slapping against his hand, pointing at people. And several people –I was more or less at the end of the driveway, and several people began to walk up the driveways, saw these guys, and then went back and didn’t go on to vote.

QUESTION: Did the individuals that you saw turn around, those were people that you believed were coming to vote?
BULL: Oh, yes, yes. That’s the only reason you walk along that long block on the pavement, and then go in the long driveway. And several walked in, saw this at the door, and walked back out the drive.

No voters came forward to testify that they were intimidated. The nature of intimidation is that when people drive away and don’t vote, they are not likely to come back to testify against racists that exhort their followers to “kill cracker babies”- especially when the potential witnesses live in the same neighborhood as the New Black Panthers. But it is also illegal to intimidate poll watchers. The testimony is arguably not the best at this time but it is important to keep in mind that the government already had taken a default against the NBP and the individual defendants because the defendants never appeared for court!

In a letter dated July 14, 2010, Gerald A. Reynolds, Chairman of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, wrote to Assistant Attorney General Perez:

Regrettably, in the face of the Department’s intransigence regarding the Commission’s investigation and its unwillingness to enforce the Commission’s lawful and longstanding subpoena… Mr. Adams was forced to resign before he could comply with the Commission’s subpoena for his testimony.

J. Christian Adams, the career DOJ attorney that resigned because of the Department’s intransigence, testified that member’s of DOJ’s Voting Section management indicated to him that senior political Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes informed them that the Voting Section is “in the business of doing traditional civil rights work,” and “cases are not going to be brought against black defendants [for] the benefit of white victims.”

According to Mr. Reynolds, the testimony indicated that Fernandez stated that if somebody wanted to bring these cases, it was up to the U.S. Attorney, but the Civil Rights Division wasn’t going to be bringing them. (Testimony of Mr. Adams, July 6, 2010 USCCR Hearing Trans. at 61-63.)

Thus, notwithstanding Abigail Thernstrom’s credentials as a Bush appointee to the Commission, her representations that DOJ’s dismissal of the case is “small potatoes” are suspect. U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) recently wrote to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) requesting a hearing on the investigation into voter intimidation.

Sen. Graham’s letter stated:

In sworn testimony, Mr. Adams confirmed that various political appointees overruled a unanimous recommendation by six career DOJ attorneys that prosecution of members of the NBPP should continue. Mr. Adams testified that within the DOJ Civil Rights Division, “not only was their open hostility toward equal enforcement in a colorblind way of the voting rights laws… Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes instructed Civil Rights Division attorneys that they would not pursue voter intimidation cases involving black defendants and white victims.”

According to Sen. Graham:

According to the USSCR, both men “hurled racial epithets at whites and blacks alike, taunting poll watchers and poll observers who were there to aid voters.” Long time civil rights attorney Bartle Bull was at the polling place that morning and called the incident “the most blatant form of voter intimidation” he had ever seen. Despite DOJ having won a default judgment in this case, political appointees voluntarily dismissed several of the defendants. Furthermore, against the defendant brandishing a nightstick, DOJ sought only an injunction, which bars him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a Philadelphia polling place for the three years.

Many Senators and Congressman, as well as members of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission have expressed the same concern that Sen. Graham expressed concerning DOJ’s ongoing attempts to stonewall subpoenas:

Unfortunately, the Department of Justice continues to stonewall the USCCR by refusing to honor the subpoena issued for Christopher Coates, former chief of the Voting Rights Section. It is imperative that you schedule a hearing immediately so we can determine the validity of these claims and whether DOJ, as Mr. Adams testified, “abetted wrongdoers and abandoned law-abiding citizens.” Given the importance of this oversight matter, we believe that holding a hearing on this issue should take priority over other Committee business.

Thus, every indication is that these allegations will become toxic for the Obama administration. Of course it all depends on which party controls Congress after November!

The “mainstream” media’s position on who is “playing the race card” oscillates between a sort of moral equivalency argument to it is Republican and Tea Party activists that are fueling dangerous racial hostilities. The NAACP went on the offensive and said that the Tea Partiers should take responsibility for elements of the movement that display racist signs at Tea Party protests.

Conservative Andrew Breitbart responded by releasing a video of a U.S. Department of Agriculture official talking about how she did not give a white farmer “the full force of what I could do” to save his farm. She “took him to (a white lawyer) so that one of his own kind would take care of him.” The USDA forced her to resign without giving her a chance to explain that she eventually became good friends with the white farmer and his family.

Meanwhile, other Conservatives got hold of e-mails from a liberal online journalist forum called JOURNOLIST. Messages were exposed in which a journalist proposed to report that people like Karl Rove are racist in order to help the Obama administration’s agenda.

One of Eric Holder’s first pronouncements when he became the U.S. Attorney General was that America needs to have a dialogue about race. The national conversation is going swimmingly!

But someone needs to tell Holder that the Progressive tradition of race-baiting in order to gin up populist enthusiasm for big government can only go so far in an era where the people have alternatives to getting our news from big media outlets. The Tea Party goes to Washington, DC on August 28.

Maybe Robin Caldwell will give the Administration and its proxies the message! The American people are ready to deliver the message in November that race is no longer the ticket for those that want to turn back the clock on American’s freedom.

The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) may have decided the most important gun case in history on June 28, 2010. A previous landmark 2008 gun case, DC vs. HELLER, held that the Constitution actually meant what the Founding Fathers thought they meant when they drafted it! The Bill of Rights only began to be applied to the states due to the 14th Amendment, enacted after the Civil War to protect newly freed citizens from the tyranny of Southern regimes that deployed de jure force of law and de facto intimidation to perpetuate slavery.

In MCDONALD VS. CHICAGO, the Court acknowledged that the 14th Amendment aims at firearms restrictions enacted against Blacks and enforced by armed white mobs often via the noose-end of a rope! Otis McDonald, the 76 year-old African-American Plaintiff in the case, is a neighborhood activist targeted because he stood up to thugs that lay claim to the streets of Chicago.

Chicago required registration in order for Mr. McDonald to keep a hand gun in his home but also prohibited the registration of handguns. Thus, McDonald sued Chicago and declared independence from a de facto ban on handguns.

The criteria upon which SCOTUS determined that the right to keep and bear arms applies against state governments relates to whether gun rights are fundamental to a civilized society. Amazingly, Mayor Richard Daley, thinks that disarming citizens in the City of the Big Shoulders is just a “common sense” measure because other civilized nations also have enacted severe gun control laws.

Judging by the high murder rate in Chicago, Mayor Daley’s “common sense” may seem like blatant racism to black people like Otis McDonald. Just as Daley’s father defied Martin Luther King by displaying his middle finger to Civil Rights marchers in front of City Hall in Chicago, Chicago’s current machine boss has vowed to keep fighting to keep guns out of the hands of honest people.

Chicago is busy attempting to thwart gun ownership with new legal barriers and the Mayor urged countries like Mexico to sue the U.S. gun industry in the World Court!

Washington has a firearms preemption law that prevents municipalities from enacting gun laws that are more restrictive than laws enacted by the state legislature. Expect to see lawsuits challenging California laws against semi-automatic rifles; i.e., “assault weapons” that look like fully-automatic M-16s.

Washington State’s legislature has recently considered enacting assault weapon bans similar to the one in California. The Second Amendment protects “militarily useful” firearms. Future court decisions may protect us against folks like our own Sen. Kline (another former SDS affiliate who graduated into state politics) by deciding in the future that the Second Amendment protects “assault weapons“. Military style semi-autos, high-capacity magazines and/or .50 caliber rifles- legal in Washington and most other states- are all prohibited in California.

The Obama administration is presently moving toward a UN Treaty on Small Arms and expects the courts might uphold executive orders backed up by international treaty commitments that would arguably preempt the U.S. Constitution. Abridging Americans’ gun rights is now one of the most important planks in the agenda of the United Nations and one reason Supreme Court nominations launch battles that become hotly contested fire fights!

Christian Legal Society loses case

On the same day the McDonald decision came out, the Court issued the Christian Legal Society vs. Martinez (UC Hastings) decision that removed an important cultural and legal landmark. The Christian Legal Society encourages Christian law students to remain faithful to Christ. The pressure to conform to certain standards of “professionalism” can be intense in law school.

Clubs have always been defined by the ability to determine their own membership but the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law has policies that force the organization to accept officers and voting members who hold beliefs and engage in conduct that opposes CLS’s purpose of developing Christian character in law students and providing Christian outreach and witness on campus. Therefore, the law school, located in San Francisco, takes a position that is very unusual for most universities and thereby inhibited the group’s ability to define and express its message.

Justice Kennedy voted with the majority in erasing a strong legal principle militating in favor of putting all campus groups on an equal playing field in which each group decides its own criteria for determining membership qualifications. CLS was seeking special treatment, according to the majority. Does this mean that all clubs on campus must now allow new members when the new members are opposed to the fundamental principles for which the group stands? Do Jewish campus groups have to let Hamas sympathizers join? Must socialist clubs allow members from Young Americans for Freedom?

While some Americans ask why some of us use the harsh language of “partesian” warfare, citizens in nations that have lost their freedom are looking at what Americans will do next as the land of the free struggles to remain free.

The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed DC v Heller in a five to four landmark decision last year. Justice Scalia firmly placed the Court’s decision, which knocks down Washington DC’s ban on firearms within the bedrock of the Founding Fathers’ original intentions; i.e., the decision sets forth a principle scorned by tyrants over the centuries. It is in the people that the power of governmental force resides. The government’s use of deadly force ultimately derives from an individual’s duty to protect herself or himself, one’s family and neighbors.

The fact that the discussion of self-defense is usually framed in terms of rights is, perhaps, unfortunate in that Americans can easily become exhausted by the perpetual yapping about “rights“. We have welfare rights, immigration rights, First Amendment right to purvey obscenity. The “right” to keep and bear arms is first of all a duty. Many states, especially in the Eastern U.S., still have laws on the books requiring men of certain ages to have a military weapon and suitable ammunition in specific quantities in order to be ready to perform militia service:

That is what Congress did in the first militia Act, which specified that “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia.” Act of May 8, 1792, 1 Stat. 271.

Ironically, many of the states that still have such laws on the books will see state and local restrictions on gun ownership challenged as a result of Justice Scalia’s bold enunciations. The Court has recognized an ancient truth that the ancient commonwealths of Israel, Athens, Rome and England (to name a few) took for granted. Free men should own weapons. Those that refuse will not remain free for long. As late as WW II, the authorities called out armed civilians to patrol the East Coast to prevent possible invasions.

The habits of training and handling personal firearms breed a culture of respect for life, habits of steady minded courage, craftsmanship, patience and skill along with appreciation for history and the role of the individual and families in shaping history.

With the Founders’ values and principles in mind, it is worth reflecting on the context of the decision. Yesterday, the Court in another five to four decision, Kennedy v Louisiana, referenced evolving standards to institutionalize a “consensus” that capital punishment for violent child rapists offends decency. In both cases, there were four solid justices lined up in favor of looking to the Founders’ intentions against four justices that regularly look to vague extra-Constitutional concepts such as international norms, foreign precedent and “consensus“. These paradigm shifts in the court evolve in synchronicity with the evolution of elitist morality that has so often been legislated upon those of us that are not law professors or enablers of the American mandarin class.

Judges like Justice Ginsburg, a former ACLU counsel, will normally confront the violent rape of a child with a certain amount of equanimity. After all, in her world, shaping public policy is a priest-like and arcane activity, requiring esoteric power to construe the direction of evolving standards and articulate a mysterious consensus about which mere mortals are unaware.

Rather than attempt to amend the Constitution from the bench as the dissenters would, Justice Scalia’ majority opinion in the Heller case began squarely with the plain meaning of the terms employed by the framers of the Bill of Rights:

“Keep and bear Arms.” We move now from the holder of the right—“the people”—to the substance of the right: “to keep and bear Arms.” Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary(1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828).”

Justice Scalia went on to define what it means to keep and bear arms:

We turn to the phrases “keep arms” and “bear arms.” Johnson defined “keep” as, most relevantly, “[t]o retain; not to lose,” and “[t]o have in custody.” Johnson 1095. Webster defined it as “[t]o hold; to retain in one’s power or possession.” No party has apprised us of an idiomatic meaning of “keep Arms.” Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”

Thus, when the Constitution was drafted, the right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects. Scalia quotes Blackstone, the great expounder of the common laws of England. Blackstone’s Commentaries “constituted the preeminent authority on English law for the founding generation….” The English Bill of Rights inspired, to a large degree, the U.S. Bill of Rights and, according to Blackstone, self defense and the right to be armed was “one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen”. See 1 Blackstone 136, 139–140 (1765). Contemporary authorities concurred.

The Heller decision also presents incisive history lessons related to the nature of the organized & unorganized militia, concepts that were familiar to many at the time that the Federalists were trying to win over anti-Federalists who feared standing armies and the despotism that was associated with strong central government:

There are many reasons why the militia was thought to be “necessary to the security of a free state.” See 3 Story §1890. First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large standing armies unnecessary—an argument that Alexander Hamilton made in favor of federal control over the militia. The Federalist No. 29, pp. 226, 227 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.

Thus, Justice Scalia states, “It was understood across the political spectrum that the (Second Amendment) right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down.”

Many of the state constitutions at the time of the Founders used Second Amendment keep and bear arms language in a manner that clearly demonstrated an intent to recognize that individual ownership and use of firearms was encompassed by the term. Scalia cites Pennsylvania’s Declaration of Rights of 1776:

“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the state . . . .” §XIII, in 5 Thorpe 3082, 3083 (emphasis added).

The majority opinion goes on to point out that many colonial statutes required individual arms-bearing for public-safety reasons— such as the 1770 Georgia law that “for the security and defence of this province from internal dangers and insurrections” required those men who qualified for militia duty individually “to carry fire arms” “to places of public worship.”

The Court cites St. George Tucker’s version of Blackstone’s Commentaries for the proposition that:

The right to self-defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine the right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” He believed that the English game laws had abridged the right by prohibiting “keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game.”

Another famous Constitutional scholar wrote:

One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offence to keep arms, and by substituting a regular army in the stead of a resort to the militia.” A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States §450 (Story).

The Court cites one of my favorite authors, firearms lawyer Stephen Halbrook, to illustrate that “in the aftermath of the Civil War, there was an outpouring of discussion of the Second Amendment in Congress and in public discourse, as people debated whether and how to secure constitutional rights for newly free slaves. See generally S. Halbrook, Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms, 1866–1876 (1998):

Yet those born and educated in the early 19th century faced a widespread effort to limit arms ownership by a large number of citizens; their understanding of the origins and continuing significance of the Amendment is instructive. Blacks were routinely disarmed by Southern States after the Civil War. Those who opposed these injustices frequently stated that they infringed blacks’ constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Needless to say, the claim was not that blacks were being prohibited from carrying arms in an organized state militia.”

The majority opinion discussing the legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment quotes a joint Congressional Report that described how after the Civil War “in some parts of [South Carolina], armed parties… without proper authority, engaged in seizing all firearms found in the hands of the freemen. Such conduct is in clear and direct violation of their personal rights as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, which declares that ‘the right of the people to freedmen of South Carolina have shown by their peaceful and orderly conduct that they can safely be trusted with fire-arms, and they need them to kill game for subsistence, and to protect their crops from destruction by birds and animals.”

The view was common right after the Civil War that newly freed black citizens held a constitutional right to bear arms. The viewpoint expressed in these statements “was widely reported and was apparently widely held.”

For example, “an editorial in The Loyal Georgian (Augusta) on February 3, 1866, assured blacks that “[a]ll men, without distinction of color, have the right to keep and bear arms to defend their homes, families or themselves.”

“It was plainly the understanding in the post-Civil War Congress that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to use arms for self-defense.”

Justice Stevens’ dissent strains to reach new apogees of linguistic sophistry. It is like listening to President Clinton split hairs about what the meaning of “is” is:

“[K]eep and bear arms” thus perfectly describes the responsibilities of a framing-era militia member. This reading is confirmed by the fact that the clause protects only one right, rather than two. It does not describe a right “to keep arms” and a separate right “to bear arms.” Rather, the single right that it does describe is both a duty and a right to have arms available and ready for military service, and to use them for military purposes when necessary. Different language surely would have been used to protect nonmilitary use and possession of weapons from regulation if such an intent….”

The dissent lectures the majority on the principle of stare decisis; i.e., the principle that a court should not lightly set aside prior precedent. Citing Miller, Justice Stevens argues that the holding relates the right to keep and bear arms to military matters.

Belying the dissent’s reliance on Miller, there was no party briefing the case for the other side in Miller. The Miller Court ruled that the distinction between the sawed-off shotgun possessed unlawfully by the defendant in that case and a militarily useful weapon should be the basis for upholding the National Firearms Act that outlawed certain kinds of weapons. That is as far as the Miller court went. Nevertheless, from 1939 until now the Miller case has been cited to deny individuals any standing to enter the courthouse door and seek redress state, local or federal policy render us defenseless. See United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939).

In 2003, the usual Supreme Court suspects cried, “Stare decisis be damned and full speed ahead with the global social agenda!” All in the name of melding our institutions with the evolving international consensus. That was the case where the Court overturned its own seventeen year old precedent, negating its previous opinion upholding states that outlaw sodomy between adults.

Think of all the cities like Chicago and Washington, DC that have disarmed their citizens, a citizenry that has seen children raped, the streets held by thugs and armies of drug dealers. Citizens fear what used to be called “hue and cry”. Well, now the mayors, like Seattle’s Mayor Nickels and the Mayor of the other Washington, are making the hue and cry.

See full text of Heller decision.

MANILA, Philippines - President-apparent Sen. Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III said yesterday that he was not in favor of a total gun ban in the Philippines because it might not be the answer to the crime situation. The Philippine National Police (PNP) initiated a recent ban on carrying weapons away from the home. Gun bans seem to be imposed during most election seasons.

Trying to ascertain who is giving the orders in the Philippine government can sometimes be as confusing as watching Pres. Obama deal with the oil spill! Nevertheless, powerful forces are pushing to disarm the Philippine population, at least when they are away from home.

“Away From Home” permits are so expensive that only the rich can afford them and permits to keep firearms in the home are renewed annually for about $100.00 for each weapon! “Away From Home” permits that work like concealed carry licenses in the U.S. cost about $200.00 per year on top of the other fees! Just to keep a gun in your home requires a psychological examination and enough red tape to choke a caribow- the Philippine water buffalo that still accomplishes much of the work done by tractors in more industrialized nations.

There are also limits on how many weapons of different calibers Pinoys can own. One small caliber pistol- e.g. .22 caliber- one small caliber rifle and one high power pistol and one high power rifle. If you don’t have an Away From Home permit, you have to make arrangements with the police in advance just to transport your unloaded weapons to the range!

Almost every time there is an election the national police and/or the President (by executive order) temporarily bans weapons outside the home and roadblocks go up with inspections to enforce the bans. Sometimes the ban is short lived and other times the temporary ban goes on indefinitely! If you have friends in high places, however, it probably just isn’t a big deal!

Aquino, supposedly a gun enthusiast, wants empirical data not just from the Philippines but other countries as well to see whether a total gun ban is an effective tool to combat crime.

The country only has 250,000 security forces to protect some 100 million Filipinos, according to Aquino. In Southern Mindanao, Islamic rebels have recently invaded villages and taken local people hostage during battles with the AFP. Additionally, Communist NPA rebels are still active in the mountains and many provincial and rural areas. Given this situation, Aquino said the response time would be much slower.

He is not inclined to support a total gun ban because the records showed that crimes related to licensed firearms comprised only one percent.

Aquino said it would be better to consider proposals for stricter enforcement of laws banning the carrying of firearms outside of residences and promised to research statistics from the Philippines and other nations. People applying for permits to own guns should attend mandatory classes before being granted the privilege to bring their weapons outside their homes, “Noynoy” Aquino suggested.

“Gun ban is a law that says you cannot bring your firearm outside your residence. Who will follow that? People who are law-abiding. Who are the targets of the criminals?”

He said that if laws are rigidly enforced, good police work can solve crimes committed by outlaws. Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel, advocates banning guns on the streets “to ensure peace”. According to Aurea Calica (writing for the Philippine Star), Sen. Pimentel announced, “Stricter gun ban on streets needed, not compulsory sex education in schools.” Said like a true politician!

Only the members of the Philippine National Police (PNP) and the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) should be allowed to carry firearms! The police and military often become involved in corrupt dealings with the rebels and other criminal organizations so it is not surprising that disarming the population would seem attractive. It sounds like America if we substitute corruption of the police and military with corrupt dealings between U.S. labor unions and the corrupt Chicago-style political machine that reigns in Washington, DC.

The NPA assassins, or “Sparrows“, reportedly deploy 1911 style .45 pistols with grip safeties taped down. The Sparrow team approaches a vehicle that is stopped in traffic. The weapon is worn inside the wasteband under the belly. One hand inside the pants pocket pushes the weapon upward into the other hand and the executions occur with a well-practiced outward snap of the arms in traffic at busy times of the day.

Some local governments support citizen paramilitary forces such as the Civilian Home Defense Force and its successor, the Citizen Armed Forces Geographical Units that carry out extra-judicial executions against the rebels and others deemed sympathetic to rebel activities (allegedly including left-wing activist priests).

According to Human Rights Watch, the vigilante assassinations performed by groups like Alsa Masa against the rebels enjoy popular support because of the misery that the rebels have inflicted on many Filipinos. Motorcycles seem to be a popular means of eliminating rebels, drug dealers and criminals, including children that commit street crime in places like Davao City, according to Human Rights Watch.

Clearly the issues confronting the Philippines are difficult for those of us living under fairly stable social arrangements. The conscience is shocked if it is true that killing street children is condoned. On the other hand, many of the Sparrow assassins are very young. Every one must receive a trial. The extra-judicial killings promote rumors that government forces paticipate in terrorist attacks. Accusations are also rampant that the leftists attack their own sympathizers and then blame attacks on government troops.

Thus, the deception makes it hard to know who is behind much of the violence but disarming the people will not solve the problem because the government’s forces and the rebels will continue to commit for legitimacy. The government’s claims can gain legitimacy by means of strict rule of law and due process, not by banning weapons.

The PNP is pushing for a permanent gun ban after implementing a temporary total ban on Jan. 10, 2010. 3,000 people, including 200 government employees, have been arrested since the Commission on Elections ordered the ban from Jan. 10 to June 9, according to PNP statistics.

The Gunless Society of the Philippines has nothing against responsible gun owners. It iis against the carrying of guns in public places, however. Does this sound familiar to U.S. gun owners?

The Peaceful, Responsible (pro-gun) Owners of Guns think the proposals are “impractical and unrealistic”. But Malacañang (the counterpart to our White House) directed PNP Director Gen. Jesus Versoza to make sure that all sides are heard and all opinions are weighed.

A final decision on whether or not to lift the total gun ban is promised for next week or perhaps after an upcoming summit. Time parameters can get as fuzzy as the lines of authority in Phillipine politics but certain lawyers’ and judges’ groups pressed Gen. Versoza to lift the total gun ban next week. Could these developments be an indication that another coup attempt is brewing?

Executive Secretary Leandro Mendoza, a former PNP chief, stated, “In the summit, we expect the pros and cons to be heard.” Mendoza said. “In my experience, the issue is really equally divided on both sides. The decision is not easy to make.” He claims to see merit in the argument of legal gun owners that a total ban would only benefit criminals who do not care about regulations.

Do the police actually make the laws in the Philippines? Some folks are expressing strong opposition and threaten to file suit against the PNP if it insists on a gun ban extending beyond June 9, 2010.

“We are not only fighting to allow us to carry our firearms but to protect our lives,” said lawyer Banjo Navarro III, A2S5 Coalition interim spokesman. Indeed, Philippine journalists have been assassinated in numbers that compare with countries like Iraq and Russia. On Nov. 23, 2009, 31 journalists were killed at one time in a massacre in Mindanao. Sadly, political assassination will remain a way of life in the Philippines.

Republished from the Federal Way Mirror/The Firearms Lawyer

Jun 03 2010, 4:35 PM · UPDATED

Over the past several years, I have attended several firearms training programs and have begun teaching firearms law classes in Federal Way.

One thing I have learned is that anyone who thinks he or she will get a medal for killing a perpetrator is sorely deluded. If the public often suspects that officers have killed suspects because of racial prejudice or malice, how will the public view armed citizens? The question often arises as to whether shooting to wound would be preferable than shots that are apt to kill. Is it realistic to require anyone to attempt nonlethal shots?

When Vice President Joe Biden was asked about a “minimum force” bill that would require officers to shoot an assailant in the arm or the leg, the VP called the legislation a “John Wayne Bill” because officers cannot reasonably be expected to shoot like they do in Hollywood. See “No-Kill Bill Surfaces in New York.”

In 2009, a Federal Way police officer shot and wounded an assailant armed with a knife. Because of the fact that the belligerent and naked man was charging the officers, the Federal Way officers’ training required them to aim for center of body mass.

There are no circumstances where officer training would require shooting at the arms or legs. Even if officers could achieve such unrealistic training standards, the unreasonable risk to the officer - and the risk of wounding an innocent bystander - makes “shooting-to-wound” an impractical standard for law enforcement or armed civilians.

Training in use of lethal force almost always involves discussions of cases like the Amadou Diallo case in New York City. Mr. Diallo, struck by at least 19 bullets, was apparently reaching for something in his pocket. Officers thought he was reaching for a weapon. New York lawmakers reacted to the Diallo case and others like it by proposing the legislation requiring that officers deploy the minimum amount of force needed to control a suspect. See Sean Bell.

Graham v. Connor, the benchmark U.S. Supreme Court decision on police use of force, recognizes that gunfights are “tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving.” When an officer’s life or that of a third party is in jeopardy, the decision as to whether or not to shoot is based on the reasonable man standard. The three targets for a reasonably prudent man or woman confronted with armed force are center of body mass, the pelvis and the head. The center of the chest is preferable under most circumstances because such a target minimizes many risks, including the risk of missing the target. The target is often shooting back!

Even two or three shots to the heart or the brain do not ensure that an opponent will stop returning fire. Many departments, including Federal Way, are beginning to focus on shooting under low-light situations and use various simulated shooting scenarios to develop officers’ ability to react while assessing situations.

There are no shoot-to-wound laws proposed in Washington state. Nevertheless, Hollywood myths can influence juries and review boards. Lawyers and journalists are also susceptible to the John Wayne syndrome. The solution lies in educating the public so that all the issues are clearly understood.

Israel presently faces an indictment in the court of world opinion because of the allegation that the IDF deployed unjustified lethal force against “peace activists” when it boarded the MAVI MARMARA. Nine activists were killed including a U.S. citizen with dual Turkish citizenship. Would Tea Party activists armed with steel poles and grenades, knives and possibly guns be identified as peace activists?

Egypt and Israel’s blockade against Gaza prevents Iranian missiles and other weapons from entering Gaza. Egypt and Israel have waged war with the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas (the terrorist group that rules Gaza) for longer than most nations even recognized the existence of Islamic terrorism. Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood are the same organization with different names.

It is clear that approximately forty Turkish activists on board the MAVI MARMARA attacked IDF personnel. The IDF boarding was clearly within well-recognized rules of international maritime law and the IHH attack was clearly premeditated.

“I am going to be a martyr. I dreamed about it,” a Turkish activist reportedly told his family before leaving to join the flotilla.

Forty people on board the MAVI MARMARA armed with slingshots, knives, stun grenades and steel poles attacked IDF personnel forcing the IDF boarding party to deploy weapons. Despite the grave threat to the IDF, the international media and the world community are ready to convict Israel of massacring peaceful demonstrators.

Some key people that are ideologically close to President Obama are involved in IHH- Van Jones and Bill Ayers are two such individuals and so is Jodie Evans, co-founder of Code Pink.

The FREE GAZA MOVEMENT denies the allegation of an extremist presence on the Turkish ship. “Every person on that boat was a civilian. The terrorists on board those boats belonged to Israel,” a spokeswoman exclaimed.

Despite the spokeswoman’s indignant protest, however, Jean-Louis Bruguiere, a French counterterrorism magistrate who testified at the Ahmed Ressam trial in Seattle, states otherwise. IHH played an “important role” in the Millenium bomb plot- an Al Qaeda affiliated operation.

According to the Christian Science Monitor, Bruguiere testified at trial that Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups were previously linked to IHH in financing and other assistance to jihadists headed to Bosnia, Chechnya, and Afghanistan. The Turkish government unearthed weapons, explosives, and bomb making instructions in a 1997 raid.

Is IHH still linked to Al Qaeda? Whatever the answer turns out to be, the symbiotic relationship between Islamic extremism and the radical left has been longstanding.

Bruguiere is renowned for tracking down Carlos the Jackal, a professional Communist assassin known to have worked for radical Palestinian groups.

Thus, Mssr. Bruguiere would have had opportunity to closely observe how the radical left coalesced with radical Palestinian movements during the Seventies when modern Islamic terrorism was barely recognized by the news media. Bruguiere now coordinates tracking of terrorist financing for a joint European/American program.

Since 1948, Israel has been surrounded by predatory neighbors just waiting for the first signs of weakness.

The war against “Zionist aggression” will continue to be aided and abetted by an international media-government complex that has willingly lent itself to leftist manipulation for many years.

Meanwhile, the ship RACHEL CORRIE, named after the Evergreen College student killed by a bulldozer in Israel in 2003, is awaiting instructions.

Would the news media have called Ms. Corrie an anti-Semitic racist if she had also been standing in front of the Congressional bulldozer called Healthcare Reform?

I recently suggested in my column, The Firearms Lawyer, that I write for the FEDERAL WAY MIRROR that violent crime has increased in Phoenix. Apparently it has actually gone down! But Arizona’s violent crime rate is nevertheless still well above the national average and Phoenix and Tucson compare particularly unfavorably with most other U.S. cities!

A recent Wall Street Journal story shows that crime has actually been going down over most of the U.S. “For the first quarter of 2010, violent crime was down 17% overall in the city (of Phoenix), while homicides were down 38% and robberies 27%, compared with the same period in 2009.”

Despite the fact that the violent crime rate has gone down in Phoenix, the murder rate was 2.4 times the national average in 2003. The murder rate from 2008 to 2009 has dropped 26.2 percent. In 2003, Phoenix was ranked number seventeen in the U.S for violent crime with Tucson number eighteen.

Using statistics going back to 1985, Phoenix’s highest murder rate was in 1994, when there were 231 murders. The city had 1,076,108 people, and a murder rate of 21.5 murders per 100,000 residents. The highest total number of murders was in 2003, when there were 241 murders. Thus, the decrease in crime is measured from fairly high benchmarks established during the years when illegal immigration went from being a river to a virtual flood.

The Phoenix rate for murder probably still lags behind cities like Chicago and Detroit, however. According to the Washington Times, “The latest figures show that Chicago had racked up 122 homicides for the year (2010), exceeding the 116 killings over the comparable period in 2009, a very bad year… It’s no coincidence that the Windy City is already the U.S. gun-control capital.”

Arizona, on the other hand, is a very gun-friendly state. None of the above can tell us whether the murders are being committed by people that are in Arizona illegally or whether more or less guns would impact violent crime statistics positively or negatively!

Would Arizona’s violent crime rate be higher or lower if Arizona adopted a draconian prohibition on firearms such as exists within the Windy City’s boundaries? One thing we know for sure- making it easier to come here illegally breeds contempt for the law!

“Liberal” gun-grabbers use statistics to argue that less crime cries out for more gun control (i.e., guns not necessary) and then cry for more restrictions when violent crime increases. One minute the gun-toting rednecks are “paranoid“; the next moment private possession of firearms is responsible for fomenting a wave of sociopathic mayhem!

Banning guns as Chicago has done, is a form of legalistic anarchy!

The perception is that illegal aliens in Phoenix are perpetrating a great deal of violent crime. Some folks in Arizona apparently believe that the failure to police the border is threatening the social fabric of their state. I would be interested to know how violent crime rates for Seattle, Tacoma and Federal Way compare to Arizona cities like Phoenix and Tucson.

It is self-evident that the Second Amendment determines that the citizens should be able to decide whether to carry a gun without the government dictating the answer to that question for us.

Additionally, the fact that journalists around the world are constantly targeted for violence suggests that even if the rate of violent crime were to plummet to zero percent, a blogger or journalist that discusses subjects like terrorism, Mexican cartels and active shooters could become a target for the kind of people about whom he or she writes. Or someone that writes about Scientology for that matter- or in favor of abortion! And what if you just happen to witness a violent crime in a city where the crime rate is low and the person that is accused and prosecuted decides to kill you in order to prevent you from testifying?

In the U.S., we have seen a few isolated attacks against journalists such as the attack against Chauncey Bailey. Bailey was allegedly gunned down by Black Muslims in Oakland, California after he exposed criminal activity. The statistics manufactured by pro-gun advocates often don’t prove much more than that if you like statistics you will always find some numbers that suit your purposes!

Well-documented evidence shows that the cartels are smuggling immigrants in from Mexico and warehousing people, often against their will, in houses within Phoenix. The number of kidnappings reported in Phoenix, which hit 368 in 2008 is down. According to a May 25, 2010 article in the Wall Street Journal, police officials don’t have exact figures. But some professional security forecasters predict that kidnapping is predicted to spread beyond Phoenix. We know that the crime of rape increased in Phoenix amd kidnappings are the highest in the U.S. and higher than most places in the world!

Even though the violent crime rate is apparently going down, a violent predator may come looking for you just because you said something (or saw something) that someone doesn’t want law enforcement to know about. The First Amendment freedom to speak the truth as we see the truth becomes very hollow indeed when the sociopaths are looking for you. Statistics will not protect you or me or our friends and loved ones from violent predators in Seattle, Federal Way or Phoenix! Another statistic I would like to see is how many violent crimes are committed in Seattle by illegal immigrants that have been protected from deportation by means of Seattle’s status as a “sanctuary city.” There have recently been several well-publicized rapes committed in Washington state- allegedly by individuals in the U.S. illegally.

According to the Second Amendment Foundation and Joe Waldron:

“The Northwest has a particular problem with violent illegal aliens. The last three peace officers killed in eastern Washington all died at the hands of illegal aliens. An illegal alien named Hector Francisco Diaz killed a man in Everett last November (2006). Prosecutors in Snohomish County won’t charge him with murder because they believe he acted in self-defense, but he remains in jail on drug trafficking charges.

We love and respect every tribe and tongue and nationality. America is not centered on an ethnic group. We hold to a secular creed (the U.S. Constitution) that has its roots in the great religious truths pertaining to individual liberty, economic freedom and limited government under the restraints of just laws applied equally.

We don’t know whether life in the U.S.A. will deteriorate or improve. Nor is exercising your Constitutional duties by speaking out as an involved citizen, being vigilant, training with weapons and remaining armed a guarantee of security!

The watchman watches in vain unless God stands guard over the city.

We presented our third class in Federal Way on Wednesday, May 12, 2010 at Federal Way City Hall. We had 16 participants most of whom are volunteers with our local police department and/or volunteer emergency personnel. The May class focused on Washington law and the use of lethal force to protect your home and family.

We are available to meet with your neighborhood group, church or business and present a seminar specially tailored to your needs.

We will customize a presentation for your group or business organization anywhere in Washington State. We can help you develop a threat response plan for your church and will provide legal training for your family members or volunteers. We recently presented the class at Holmes harbor Rod & Gun Club on Whidbey Island in February and almost thirty people attended.

Our motto is think like a man of action and act like a man of thought. Speak cautiously and politely and only use deadly force after you have thought through everything carefully. Apply cautious reasoning powers to each situation but start doing so now, not when you are faced with a decision in which you may have seconds to save your own life or the lives of your loved ones!

We have a message and a curriculum that relates to overcoming threats of violence by a combination of intelligence, moral persuasion, physical courage and deadly force if necessary.

The cost for the class is $49.00 but still only $79.00 for a couple.

Magna Charta

We emphasize development of good legal and tactical reasoning- reasoning that will allow you to understand your situation more accurately if you are ever faced with the necessity of confronting lethal force.

Remember, every principle must be applied by means of thoughtfully contemplating the moral, legal and tactical issues engendered by the subject matter. There are no answers that are always right in every situation.

Marty Hayes, the founder of Firearms Academy of Seattle was our guest speaker for February. Marty discussed the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network, FAS and how training protects us legally from accusations that we are acting without knowledge of the legal rules pertaining to use of lethal force. Marty stayed for the three hour class and participated in our discussions, including almost an hour of informal discussion after class was dismissed. Marty has many years experience as an LEO, police instructor and as an instructor of armed citizens. Everyone, including me, learned a great deal from the time spent together.

Classes include but are not limited to:

1. Who should carry;

2. Concealed carry and open carry options, including Washington State case law pertaining to unlawful display of a weapon;

3. How to carry your weapon;

4. Deploying deadly force;

5. When and where to go with your weapon;

6. How to interact with law enforcement before, during and after an incident;

7. Threat response planning for home & business;

8. Stress psychology;

9. Preparing for the aftermath of a justified self-defense scenario.

We expect everyone to take notes! Keep your class notes and materials. Your firearms training materials may someday become necessary to document a life or death decision to use deadly force if you need to defend yourself in court. The stakes will be high- before, during and after a violent confrontation. After the gunfight, however, the thugs may be wearing suits and carrying brief cases!

Keep your class notes sealed in your gun safe or some other secure location so that you have documentation in court for every decision you make during a violent encounter.

Learning is facilitated by asking the right questions and participating in lively and informative discussions. Most of the issues that arise do not have clear answers but in the event that you are confronted with a threat of death or grave bodily harm, the choices become fairly simple. Only use deadly force when you are confronted with deadly force that is an imminent threat to you or an innocent person that is in your immediate presence.

Medical marijuana activist pollinates gun politics | Firearms Lawyer

By MARK KNAPP

Federal Way Mirror/The Firearms Lawyer
Apr 06 2010

Steve Sarich, the Kirkland medical marijuana activist who was wounded by a shotgun blast in the face and the arm, used guns to stop a home invasion last month.

According to King County, his paperwork authorizing him to use and grow marijuana for medical reasons was enough to deny him the possession of weapons.

After the attempted March 15 robbery, the police took Sarich’s weapons. When he went to buy a shotgun and pistol to replace weapons taken by the police, the National Instant Check System (NICS) denied his gun transaction. Federal law prohibits “unlawful users” of controlled substances from buying guns. Mr. Sarich has no criminal record.

After a previous burglary, the King County Sheriff’s office sent a police report to the NICS, the FBI unit that determines who can possess guns. Possession of a medical drug card is sufficient to establish an inference of current drug use, according to the sheriff’s office records unit.

The Code of Federal Regulations defines an unlawful user or person addicted to any controlled substance as follows:

A person who uses a controlled substance and has lost the power of self-control with reference to the use of controlled substance; and any person who is a current user of a controlled substance in a manner other than as prescribed by a licensed physician.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms as well as NICS look at evidence of recent use or possession of a controlled substance. In Sarich’s case, the fact that he has publicly advocated on behalf of medical marijuana users, and operates in areas that test the limits of U.S. drug laws, raises the issue of targeting by local and federal officials.

Joseph Stalin bragged that he could find a crime to convict any Soviet citizen. He made the claim knowing that the Soviet criminal code contained so many varieties of economic crime that anything could be contraband. Even as the pendulum progresses toward more liberal marijuana laws, people like Sarich are being targeted for home invasion and robbery.

Three years ago, Sarich’s former Everett home was raided by state law enforcement officials who seized more than 1,000 plants. Even though King County referred the case to the Department of Justice, charges were never filed. But Sarich has now used not one, but two guns to defend his home.

I wonder which way the pendulum is swinging for gun owners when so-called Christian militia members are in federal custody on gun charges and for allegedly conspiring to kill police officers. The Department of Justice has shown the world that Karl Rove and Co. used Islamic terrorism to justify conduct that Obama Inc. believes was illegal.

Just after National Health Care was enacted despite public outrage, the federal government exposed rightist conspiracies to commit murder. Anyone that plans to kill innocent people should be prosecuted. But the new theme pollinating mainstream news outlets is that Tea Party activists, Sarah Palin and talk radio are propagating the climate of violence.

Every citizen is in the crosshairs of government when laws are enforced selectively.

The Deacons for Defense and Justice formed in the Deep South during the 1960s.The Deacons exercised armed self-defense and often operated in conjunction with other civil rights organizations. Local law enforcement, state authorities and the Ku Klux Klan often enforced Jim Crow laws with impunity in places where the federal government was ineffective or unable to intervene.

Larry Pratt points out that, although Hill does not deal with the lack of Scriptural support for segregation, Jim Crow laws and segregation were very clearly a set of laws in conflict with Scripture. Exodus 12:49 requires that the same law apply to everybody alike. The black self-defense group did not engage in any theological debates over whether the use of lethal force in self-defense is Biblical. (See Larry Pratt: What Does the Bible Say About Gun Control? The Deacons’ practical self-defense approach did not square with national leadership’s stated views on the direction to be taken by the Civil Rights Movement but nevertheless contributed immeasurably to the ultimate success of the larger civil rights effort.

“The goal of black self-determination and black self-identity—Black Power—is full participation in the decision-making processes affecting the lives of black people, and recognition of the virtues in themselves as black people.”

Stokely Carmichael wrote of the Deacons:

“Here is a group which realized that the ‘law’ and law enforcement agencies would not protect people, so they had to do it themselves…The Deacons and all other blacks who resort to self-defense represent a simple answer to a simple question: what man would not defend his family and home from attack?”

Proponents of non-violence had previously protected themselves with guns. Fannie Lou Hammer confessed that she kept several loaded guns under her bed. Robert F. Williams armed his local NAACP branch. The NAACP and the federal government were not happy with Williams’ stance but Martin Luther King Jr. also employed armed bodyguards and had guns in his house during the early stages of the Montgomery Bus Boycott in 1956.

The Klan strategy to intimidate African Americans included burning five churches, destroying a Masonic hall, a Baptist center, and murdering innocent victims- often women and children. Jonesboro, Louisiana was the scene of much of the violence in 1964.

Because of state and federal governments’ failure to protect African-Americans, men in Jonesboro, Louisiana, led by Earnest “Chilly Willy” Thomas and Frederick Douglas Kirkpatrick, founded the Deacons to protect civil rights workers, their communities and their families, against the Klan violence. The Jonesboro chapter later organized a Deacons chapter in Bogalusa, Louisiana.

The Jonesboro chapter initiated a regional organizing campaign and eventually formed 21 chapters in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. The militant Deacons’ confronted the Klan in Bogalusa and forced the federal government to enforce the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Many of the original Deacons were war veterans with combat experience and the Deacons galvanized federal law enforcement by the very real threat that the Deacons would kill Klansmen in self-defense.

Ernest “Chilly Willy” Thomas understood that things were secured by force rather than moral appeal. According to Lance Hill, “Thomas was eager to work with CORE, but he had reservations about the nonviolent terms imposed by the young activists.” Thomas and others would guard the Jonesboro community in the day with their guns concealed and carried their guns openly during the cover of night to discouraged any type of Klan activity.

The Deacons became involved with the wider Civil Rights Movement during the 1966 March Against Fear. Stokely Carmichael urged that the Deacons be used as security for the march. Akinyele O. Umoja states, “Finally, though expressing reservations, King conceded to Carmichael’s proposals to maintain unity in the march and the movement. The involvement and association of the Deacons with the march signified a shift in the Civil Rights Movement, which had been popularly projected as a ‘nonviolent movement.”’

Akinyele O. Umoja suggests that ideological shifts in the movement were becoming apparent even before the March Against Fear. An alliance between CORE and the Deacons around 1965 and the support of armed self-defense by many southern-born Black people is a significant aspect of the civil rights movement that has been ignored by white and black historians. Additionally, a significant portion of SNCC supported armed self-defense. Local Southern blacks knew violence that was up close and personal. The national leadership, on the other hand, steered a wider agenda that included gaining support from Northern white liberals and mainstream media outlets.

The Deacons worked with other groups that practiced nonviolence and provided armed guards so that the NAACP and other groups could maintain their nonviolent stance. According to Lance Hill, author of The Deacons for Defense: Armed Resistance and the Civil Rights Movement:

“The hard truth is that these organizations (i.e., SNCC, CORE, and SCLC) produced few victories in their local projects in the Deep South— if success is measured by the ability to force changes in local government policy and create self-governing and sustainable local organizations that could survive when the national organizations departed…The Deacons’ campaigns frequently resulted in substantial and unprecedented victories at the local level, producing real power and self-sustaining organizations.”

According to Hill, the Deacons were the true resistance that enforced civil rights in areas of the Deep South. Many times it was locally armed communities that laid the foundation of equal opportunity for African-Americans. National organizations played their role by exposing problems; local organizations and individuals implemented change and were not intimidated by whites who wanted to enforce and perpetuate segregation. Without these local organizations employing armed self-defense not much would have changed, according to Hill.

An example of how armed force changed the civil rights equation took place in early 1965. Black students picketed the local high school. They were confronted by hostile police and fire trucks with hoses. A car of four Deacons emerged and in view of the police calmly loaded their shotguns. The police ordered the fire truck to withdraw. Lance Hill observes that this was the first time in the Twentieth century “an armed black organization had successfully used weapons to defend a lawful protest against an attack by law enforcement.”

Another example from Hill:

“In Jonesboro, the Deacons made history when they compelled Louisiana governor John McKeithen to intervene in the city’s civil rights crisis and require a compromise with city leaders—the first capitulation to the civil rights movement by a Deep South governor.”

The Deacons kept their membership secret to avoid terrorist attacks on their supporters. The tactics of the Deacons attracted the attention and concern of the FBI which produced more than 1,500 pages of relatively accurate records on the Deacon’s activities, largely through numerous informants close to or even inside the organization.

The information herein is a summary of an article about the Deacons at Wikipedia.