Federal Way Firearms Law Site

A police officer that had been directing traffic in Federal Way walked over and introduced himself to me last year while I was out campaigning.

The officer previously served duty as a sniper with an infantry unit in Iraq. I will not use his name because I have heard terrorists have been known to track certain personnel that served in the war on terror and anything an officer says publicly is scrutinized by the department.

I recently saw the officer in front of his house and asked him what kind of rifle he used for sniper duty. He used the M24 — a Remington 700 in .308.

The Remington 700s (and Winchester 70s) were popular hunting rifles in the early 1960s when Marine snipers like Carlos Hathcock started ordering them by mail right out of the catalogues to counter snipers killing U.S. troops in Vietnam. Prior to the Vietnam War, a war ended and the U.S. allowed its sniper programs to fall into disrepair.

After World War II, most army snipers used scoped regular-issue rifles with match-grade barrels. These were often M1 Garands in 30.06 and M14 rifles in .308. Even after the Korean War and Vietnam there was no real dedicated sniper platform.

Introduced in 1988 as the Army’s designated sniper weapon system, the M24 is a bolt-action rifle with a heavier barrel than standard deer rifles and a very expensive trigger system. But the bolt-action M24 is difficult to load quickly for close-quarter combat situations that can suddenly develop in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The M14 (aka M21) rifle is making a comeback; i.e., the semi-automatic .308 standard issue that soldiers used during the Vietnam War. I was surprised to learn that a variant of the M14 is deployed as a sniper rifle.

Sniper tactics for infantry troops conducting urban warfare are probably conducted quite a bit differently than the way Gunnery Sergeant Carlos N. Hathcock II operated.

Incidentally, there are probably 10 or 20 books at Borders Bookstore about snipers and they all tell Hathcock’s amazing story. Apparently there is a great deal of interest in the subject; books, movies and documentaries are continuing to appear and sniper stories involving Iraq, Afghanistan and other hot spots are just beginning to be told!

When participating in shooting activities like 600 yard CMP practice at the Paul Bunyan Club in Puyallup, I found that many of the riflemen (and women) shot the same weapons discussed above. I started out with an M1 Garand with a match barrel that the club lent to me and eventually started shooting a semi-automatic version of the smaller caliber M16 (sometimes referred to as an AR15). The M16 is the weapon that most U.S. soldiers carry today.

I have heard that many more officers across the country now carry pistols while off duty. Officers that used to only wear their weapons at work a few years ago are purchasing additional personal weapons. More officers are also encouraging their wives, husbands and children to learn gun-handling skills. But local officers don’t talk “on the record” about such matters — especially when they know that what they tell me can end up in The Mirror!

We are looking for verification as to whether officers keep AR15 rifles in their personal vehicles while off-duty. Many armed citizens report keeping a rifle with them. A word of caution: long rifles and shotguns need to be unloaded inside or on a vehicle but the beauty of many military rifles is that you can load 30 rounds (or more) as quickly as you can get to your weapon. Increasing threats to law enforcement officers, their families and the public make it feel like we are headed into rough waters.

Recently, Seattle and Federal Way have experienced officer-involved shootings. An assailant can run up and kill an officer with a knife or other deadly weapon from 21 feet before an officer can react. Trained officers make sure that assailants can’t close the gap.

I always take the opportunity to discuss various armed self-defense issues with police officers and the commanders and chiefs. The brass avoid saying anything that might impact public relations and officers have to be sensitive to their chain of command. But most officers (and commanders) that I talk to appreciate trained citizens who take the trouble to wear a weapon responsibly. They can’t always tell us publicly what is on their minds. Nevertheless, all of us (whether we pack or don’t pack) should let our officers in Federal Way know that we appreciate the tough circumstances they confront every day. Some of them, like my neighbor, have come directly from the War on Terror to protect us right here at home.

By MARK KNAPP
Federal Way Mirror; The Firearms Lawyer
Aug 20 2010, 12:40 PM · UPDATED

My wife and I regularly walk the BPA Trail in Federal Way, or even take a few power laps around the inside of The Commons Mall on a rainy winter day. We once tried to slog our way to Camp Muir, right below the glacier on Mount Rainier. We were forced to turn around when we were engulfed by a whiteout at 8,000 feet.

The challenge to gain the freedom of the hills eventually calls, however. Some nearby climbs that I recommend are Mailbox Peak, which is too arduous for all but the highly motivated, and Granite Peak, which offers some great views. But Mount Si is probably our favorite. Four miles of uphill effort climax in a landscape that is rugged with a “Haystack” on the top that invites the adventurous walker to scramble up a precipitous rock face.

The reward is a view of the surrounding countryside that is startling. Your fellow hikers will be mostly congenial, but you may want to discover the old Mount Si Trail because the main trail gets crowded during nice weather. The old Mount Si trail is not marked, nor is it maintained.

A few years ago, I hiked it in about two hours. The old trail is shorter than the other trail, but also steeper. We had the trail to ourselves much of the time. Light mist turned into cold, wet wind at the top. Make sure to have rain gear, extra clothing and appropriate shoes. Carry your ten essentials. In recent times, many hikers have added self-defense equipment to their list of things to pack.

Two-legged varmints and not grizzlies are a realistic concern on King County trails. A warning alongside the trail notifies hikers that an attacker recently assaulted a female trail worker with a stun gun on Tiger Mountain. The woman repulsed the attacker. A mother and daughter hiking on the Pinnacle Lake Trail near Granite Falls were both shot in the head four years ago on July 11, 2006.

Whoever killed the 56-year-old mother and her 27-year-old daughter are still at large. Random violence is unusual in Washington state. Nevertheless, the potential for violence lurks alongside our nation’s trails. A debate about guns has been raging within the forums of outdoor enthusiasts. Federal law now permits carrying in Mount Rainier National Park, provided that you follow Washington state law. But don’t wear your gun into a visitor center or other park buildings inside the park.

Many will choose a light 9-mm like the Walther P99 that I carried on our Mount Si adventure. Make sure your belt, holster and hardware are comfortable with your pack and other gear by taking some shorter hikes near home before you tackle Mount Si.

I am still not sure how to travel comfortably in grizzly country. Stay tuned! I recently bought a .44 magnum hand cannon at the gun show in Puyallup. I’ll have my Original Dirty Harry Holster soon, but it may be more comfortable with a three-piece suit than with a backpack.

As I anticipated, one of our congenial local liberals logged onto the online Mirror and commented as follows:

Mark Knapp represents the clearest (and most present) danger to residents of Federal Way. This man is a walking, talking argument for strong gun control.

I expected the reaction above because someone previously made an online comment referencing my having delusins “of being Clint Eastwood, John Wayne and George Karl Rove Bush"! When I asked how much gun control is needed, I received the following reply:

Handguns should be outlawed, and hunting rifles strictly regulated (i.e., you shouldn’t be able to pick one up at Big 5).

I wonder where we would buy our hunting rifles- from the government? I have observed after following these comments over a period of months that “liberals” never express any compassion for the victims of violent crimes and terrorist threats.

Somehow- no matter how original and independent I try to be- I always end up expressing the same racist opinions that constitute “Fox News talking points“, according to more than one of these critics!

Mark Knapp lives in his little Glenn Beck fantasy world and dreams up new bogeymen with such regularity it is almost comical. His tough guy “bring it on” swagger is the sign of a narcissistic troll that has delusions of being Clint Eastwood, John Wayne and George Karl Rove Bush. He promotes racial and religious tensions with his weekly fantasies. And yes, I would not be suprised if he manufactured his own terrorist hit list to advance his right wing fear and smear capaign. Every village has to have an idiot and I think it is pretty clear who that is in Federal Way.

I do appreciate the avid following, however. At least someone reads my articles in the Federal Way Mirror. I have to love the liberals inspite of my Neanderthal and bigoted outlook! Nevertheless, I am disappointed that I have not appeared on a terrorist hit list yet.

STANDING GUARD AT THE WALLS OF THE CITY

On September 29, 2010, the City of Federal Way will present an Urban Disaster Preparedness session. It will be at 6:30 PM at City Hall:

The topics on which we hope to provide a complete report are expected to include:

• Water storage considerations. What to store water in, and for how long. How much to store and various methods to make water safe to drink. Rotation and other emergency uses of water will be cover as well.

• Food storage considerations. How to create an emergency food storage system. The types of foods ideal for emergency storage, health and sanitation concerns, rotation ideas.

Presentation is free but registration is required and will be taken up to September 29. To register or for more information, contact Ray Gross, ray.gross@cityoffederalway.com.

253.835.2712.

Last year Nandell Palmer hosted an event honoring unsung heroes. We honored men and women that raise families, nurture churches and encourage others. The program included song, dance, oratory and a feast that Nandell and his family prepared and served themselves!

We are asking everyone in and around Federal Way to think about how we can honor our First Responders. We also need to honor men and women like a JAG officer I know that had to leave his business for a year and assist as an active-duty military lawyer helping soldiers at Fort Hood in Texas. We now realize that stateside duty is just as dangerous as going to Iraq or Afghanistan.

Every place is a danger zone! Modern tactical doctrine has evolved to the point where recognizable fronts and uniformed armies have been replaced with committed packs of warriors that randomly circulate in small teams looking for opportunities. Thus, a teacher, a firefighter or a janitor may need to be just as vigilant as a member of our special forces in Afghanistan!

The potential for danger is all around us every day, not just during an obvious catastrophe. This is why churches and pastors may be the most important key to getting ready for future events. The sense of community that already exists in churches requires that pastors, priests and rabbis- even imams and other leaders- train those within our various spiritual communities so that we do not just react to crises. Every business organization should be discussing these issues and begin creating a plan. Get into CERT training and classes provided by the City, state and federal governments and recognize First Responders that labor among you.

Many of us already have extra food and emergency supplies. None of us are able to take all the steps necessary to prepare for every contingency. We depend on each other. The beginning of good government is when neighbors voluntarily pool resources in order to provide for each other’s well-being and for the common defense.

Historically, public order starts with volunteerism. A militia is formed. We divide into specialties and lose the sense of duty to protect our own family. Eventually a strongman starts using force to extort goods and services from his neighbors and the people have to take the intitiative again by making our voices heard and preparing to confront violence with or without help from the surrounding community. The police and even your neighbors may be overwhelmed during a big disaster.

Every Thanksgiving, I appreciate America’s Biblical roots, the U.S. Constitution and the freedom to talk and write about such things. I also appreciate the professionals that have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution and stand guard over the City!

The Philippine National Police recently decided not to ban Filipino citizens from carrying pistols in public. The PNP issued and enforced a six-month ban during the last presidential election with a proposal to make the ban permanent. President Benigno Aquino took office on June 30, 2010 and very diplomatically pointed out why the ban was not an answer to crime in the Philippines. The previous president, an anti-gun advocate, was severely discredited when the Ampatuans, her political machine in the Maguindanoa area of Mindanoa, allegedly committed a massacre against the Ampatuan dynasty’s political opponents.

The new president is reported to be an avid sports shooter and clips on YouTube show him using a semi-automatic pistol with great skill at a target shooting competition.

President Aquino, the Supreme Court chief justice and other influential figures have been frequent visitors to gun shows in recent years, according to Philippine gun rights activists. Experts at the gun shows lecture on legal aspects of gun ownership, sports shooting and how to maintain a firearm.

In the Philippines, any citizen that can afford the relatively expemsive fees can get a license to own a conventional gun, subject to a police clearance and other security checks. The law allows people to carry guns outside their homes if they can prove to police they may need to use it in self-defence. Lawyers, judges, businessmen and even journalists walk the streets with guns.

There are about 1.3 million licensed firearms in the Philippines, with 600,000 in the hands of private citizens and the rest held by the military, police and other law-enforcement agencies, according to police estimates.

There is roughly one firearm in circulation for every 40 Filipinos when you count all the weapons for which there are no permits.

The PNP sought an extension of a six-month ban on carrying guns in public. Every time there is an election a ban gets imposed but after the last election the PNP proposed a permanent ban- at least on “Away From Home” permits.

The national police backed down because trying to disarm the population would be nearly impossible.

“Noynoy” said last spring 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.

When the Philippine National Police (PNP) initiated the ban on carrying weapons away from the home it was difficult to ascertain who was giving the orders in the Philippine government. This can sometimes be as confusing as watching Pres. Obama deal with an oil spill!

Nevertheless, powerful forces were pushing to disarm the Philippine population, at least when 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 are much like concealed carry licenses in the U.S. but cost about $200.00 per year on top of the annual fees required just to own each firearm! Keeping 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!

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 said that if laws are rigidly enforced, good police work can solve crimes committed by outlaws. Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel, on the other hand, advocated 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!

The police, politicians 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 relatively 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 should 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 (and vice versa).

All 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 compete for legitimacy. The government’s claims can only gain legitimacy by means of strict rule of law and due process, not by banning weapons.

The PNP was 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 said it had has nothing against responsible gun owners. It is 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 thought the proposals were “impractical and unrealistic”. But Malacañang (the counterpart to our White House) directed PNP Director Gen. Jesus Versoza to make sure that all sides were heard and all opinions weighed.

Certain lawyers’ and judges’ groups pressed Gen. Versoza to lift the total gun ban.

Executive Secretary Leandro Mendoza said. “In my experience, the issue is really equally divided on both sides. The decision is not easy to make.” He claimed 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 Filipinos threatened to file suit against the PNP if it insisted 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.

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 continued 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 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.

DOJ only sought an injunction against the defendant brandishing a nightstick. The injunction bars him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a Philadelphia polling place for 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 the ridiculous claim that 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 so well that I recently proposed a beer summit be held in Federal Way!

The ‘Beer Summit’: President Barack Obama, right, and Vice President Joe Biden, left, have a beer with Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr., second from left, and Cambridge, Mass. police Sgt. James Crowley in the Rose Garden of the White House, July 30, 2009.

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.

If predictions hold true that many Democrats are about to be swept out of power, then the NBP story may take on a new life after November!

The following information is summarized from the STRATFOR GLOBAL INTELLIGENCE REPORT. Entitled “FANNING THE FLAMES OF JIHAD” by Scott Stewart, the report discusses al Qaeda’s attempt to galvanize lone wolf terrorism or leaderless resistance by reaching out to English speaking individuals already located within the U.S. and other English speaking countries.

Information that is presented in an article such as this one always seems to be about New York City or somewhere other than Seattle. Everything discussed herein is happening right now in Seattle. You will not read about it until arrests take place or terrorists kill innocent people because of the legal and political repurcussions that occur when the media starts naming people or identifying radical mosques. The threat is more than just the threats that CAIR or some other “civil liberties” group will take legal action, however.

Al Qaeda’s goal is to radicalize Muslims and to provide English speaking Muslims information that will motivate and equip individuals and groups that operate without top-down communications to conduct low-technology attacks using guns, knives and vehicles such as automobiles. Training for such attacks does not require travel abroad or a great deal of coordination.

On July 11, 2010, al-Malahim Media, the media arm of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), published the first edition of its new English-language online magazine “Inspire”. INSPIRE’S editor is probably a U.S citizen who was born in Saudi Arabia. Samir Khan reportedly went to Yemen in 2009.

The magazine is geared towards making the Muslim a mujahid,” according to the editor. INSPIRE was released by al-Malahim and AQAP, AL QAEDA IN THE ARABIAN PENINSULA, the organization that has assumed the vanguard position on the physical battlefield over the past year. AQAP is frequently mentioned in Western media because of several attacks or attempted attacks in the West. Al-Malahim is exploiting media attention in order to reach English-speaking Muslims, including other members of the U.S. military with profiles similar to that of Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter.

Inspire praises Fort Hood shooter Maj. Nidal Hasan and failed Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as examples for all jihadists to follow:

“We call on every Muslim who feels any jealousy for their religious beliefs to expel the polytheists from the Arabian Peninsula, by killing all of the crusaders working in embassies or otherwise, and to declare war against the crusaders in the land of the Prophet Muhammad — peace be upon him — on the ground, sea and air. And we call on every soldier working in the crusader armies and puppet governments to repent to Allah and follow the example of the heroic mujahid brother Nidal Hassan [sic]; to stand up and kill all the crusaders by all means available to him.…”

Thus, be prepared for more attacks such as the Christmas Day Bomber’s attempt to bring down a jetliner in 2009.

Inspire carried a reproduction of a statement purportedly authored by Osama bin Laden earlier this year titled “The Way to Save the Earth” that criticizes U.S. policy regarding climate change and calls for economic jihad against the United States.

An interview with AQAP leader Nasir al-Wahayshi provided al-Wahayshi the opportunity to reinforce several points he has been making for months now regarding his call for jihadists to conduct simple attacks using readily available weapons:

“My advice to my Muslim brothers in the West is to acquire weapons and learn methods of war. They are living in a place where they can cause great harm to the enemy and where they can support the Messenger of Allah.” Al-Wahayshi continued “…a man with his knife, a man with his gun, a man with his rifle, a man with his bomb, by learning how to design explosive devices, by burning down forests and buildings, or by running over them with your cars and trucks. The means of harming them are many so seek assistance from Allah and do not be weak and you will find a way.”

In March 2010, American-born spokesman for al Qaeda, Adam Gadahn, advised jihadists to strike targets to them with simple assaults and urged his audience to not “wait for tomorrow to do what can be done today, and don’t wait for others to do what you can do yourself.”

These calls are part of a move toward a leaderless resistance model of jihadism. The devolution of the jihadist threat from one based on al Qaeda the group to a broader threat based primarily on al Qaeda franchises and the wider jihadist movement this shift will involve more attacks such as the Times Square bombing attempt, the Fort Hood shooting and the June 1, 2009, Little Rock shootings.

“Open Source Jihad” is the term that AQAP uses to refer to leaderless resistance. The resource material is intended to allow Muslims to train at home instead of risking travel abroad.

Cartoon Controversy

Jihadists have not allowed the issue of cartoons to die down over the last five years. Jihadist response to the cartoons has resulted in riots, arsons, deaths. The Stratfor article cites the 2008 bombing of the Danish Embassy in Islamabad and an attack in January 2010 by a jihadist armed with an axe and knife who broke into the home of Jyllands-Posten newspaper cartoonist Kurt Westergaard in Denmark and allegedly tried to kill him. The Kashmiri militant group Harkat-ul-Jihad e-Islami (HUJI) also dispatched American operative David Headley to Denmark on two occasions to plan attacks against Jyllands-Posten and Westergaard in what HUJI called “Operation Mickey Mouse.” According to Anwar al-Awlaki:

“This effort, the effort of defending the Messenger of Allah, should not be limited to a particular group of Muslims such as the mujahidin but should be the effort of the ummah, the entire ummah… Assassinations, bombings, and acts of arson are all legitimate forms of revenge against a system that relishes the sacrilege of Islam in the name of freedom.”

Inspire includes a “hit list” that includes people like Westergaard who were involved in the cartoon controversy and other targets such as Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who produced the controversial film Fitna in 2008; Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who wrote the screenplay for the movie Submission (filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, the director of Submission, was murdered by a jihadist in November 2004); and Salman Rushdie, author of the book THE SATANIC VERSES.

Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris was added to INSPIRE’s hit list due to her proposal to have a day where “everybody draws Mohammed”. Norris was responding to threats against an animated television program, South Park. The program angered Muslims because of a brief scene in an episode that lampooned the Prophet.

The al Qaeda magazine aims squarely at Molly Norris, who has been warned by the FBI that she is on al Qaeda’s hit list. Her “anti-Islamic” cartoons appeared in City Arts Magazine. Oddly, the Huffington Post talks about the threat but I must have missed something in the Seattle Times? See also Molly Norris; Huffington Post.

A Seattle Times editorial published July 10, 2010 gives Norris kudos for being satirical and prolific. You would think Norris just draws cartoons in order to call attention to “contemporary social oddities“. I found one editorial in the Seattle Times that scolded Norris for failing to think before she exercised her freedom of speech!

According to the Stratfor report:

One other thing the magazine seeks to accomplish is to help make the jihadist training experience better for English speakers who seek to travel to jihadist training camps abroad. There have been anecdotal reports of Westerners who have traveled to get training and who have not had positive experiences during the process — and of at least one Somali-American who was executed after expressing his desire to leave an al Shabaab training camp and return home. In light of this problem, AQAP includes an article in Inspire titled “What to Expect in Jihad” and designed to reduce the “confusion, shock and depression” that can be experienced by trainees at such camps. The article also provides a list of things to bring to the training camp, including a friend to help ease the loneliness, and recommends that aspiring jihadists learn the local language.

The Stratfor Intelligence report concludes that AQAP intends to support leaderless resistance as a way to attack the West, something AQAP has had some difficulty doing itself. The attacks with automatic rifles in Mumbai, India and the jihad attack by Major Nidal Malik Hasan could have been stopped more quickly with considerable less loss of life if armed personnel had been present to deploy standard active shooter protocols.

An additional problem is the failure to identify lone shooters like Hasan as jihadists. The fact that the lone individuals (sometimes with mental illnesses) or small disconnected groups are not directly communicating with top-down organizational structures (like al Qaeda) results in media reports and official confusion that clouds the issue for a public that is not aware of the leaderless resistance model and how effectively it can work, albeit without the huge potential for destruction that occurred on September 11, 2001. The case of the lone shooter, a Muslim terrorist of Pakistani origins named Naveed Afzal Haq, who killed one and wounded five others at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, is a case in point.

Read more: Fanning the Flames of Jihad | STRATFOR

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.

Federal Way High School ROTC Programs Build Character

By Mark S. Knapp

Federal Way School District’s retiring superintendent Tom Murphy gets kudos for obtaining results. But educators and parents tend to compare their local schools favorably to other schools. Just as most folks dislike politicians or lawyers but tend to favor their own local officials and personal attorney, most people deny that their own local schools may be failing their students. Raising the issue of an “achievement gap” can get a critic labeled as a crank or worse.

Former school board member Charlie Hoff suggested at a recent board meeting that we should challenge parents of unsuccessful kids to motivate underachieving students. He cited a study by anthropology professor, John U. Ogbu, that suggests how- even in affluent communities where only well-to-do families reside- African-American students are underachieving:

“No matter how you reform schools, it’s not going to solve the problem,” he said in an interview. “There are two parts of the problem, society and schools on one hand and the black community on the other hand.”

Ogbu’s conclusions relate to a study of blacks in Shaker school district, equally divided between blacks and whites. Black students have lagged behind whites in grade-point averages, test scores and placement in high-level classes. In 1997, black parents invited Prof. Ogbu to examine the district’s 5,000 students to analyze the achievement gap. Ogbu’s stated:

“What amazed me is that these kids who come from homes of doctors and lawyers are not thinking like their parents; they don’t know how their parents made it. They are looking at rappers in ghettos as their role models, they are looking at entertainers. The parents work two jobs, three jobs, to give their children everything, but they are not guiding their children.”

Such ideas do not endear Charlie to many Federal Way residents — especially those that formulate educational policy. But we cannot improve students’ futures without talking honestly about race, unions, politics and parents in ways that are going to make some professional educators look down their noses.

I recall telling a pastor in Southern California that our churches would attract and retain youth if we challenge kids to prepare for life the way we train soldiers. I suggested that the teenagers in the backseat, three boys that spent most of their time playing video games, should learn to shoot.

One of the youngsters, a 15-year-old sophomore, suddenly announced: “I already do that! I am in Marine ROTC and we go to Camp Pendleton every summer where I shoot targets at 500 yards.”

I asked whether others in his ROTC unit could shoot as well and was surprised to learn that they all could shoot bull’s-eyes at that distance.

Thomas Jefferson wrote to his teenage nephew:

“As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives (only) moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks.”

Thus, I think Jefferson’s educational policy would have young men and women shooting alongside adults. The curriculum could include navigation and other survival skills that impart a sense of purpose, leadership and responsibility. Team sports provide some of these qualities. But nothing carries quite the quality of discipline and calm purpose that comes with handling a gun.

I didn’t ask the pastor’s nephew about his grades. Japanese-American cultural attitudes probably motivate him in ways that many Americans lack. For example, most of the kids that participate in our Kiwanis Club’s high school Key Clubs are Asian-American kids. They volunteer for many activities and acquire scholarships and character.

Two Federal Way high schools have ROTC. Opposition to ROTC programs on high school and college campuses is intense in some parts of the country. I am not sure how many JROTC programs exist in Seattle area high schools; the next closest programs to Federal Way are in Lakewood and Tacoma.

One local principal reportedly changed his mind when he saw the positive results. Two Federal Way high schools are presently without ROTC programs.

I understand that the only time the Junior ROTC memebers handle firearms is when they drill with World War II vintage M1 Garands- still possibly the most effective battle platform ever designed. If we have such weapons available in Federal Way it is almost criminal not to get some of our students (starting with Air Force Junior ROTC members) out to the range shooting them.

We invite feedback from students, PTA, educators and any folks that care about youth, schools and military preparedness. I am told that any proposals for actual shooting programs (rather than the marching in formation with military weapons that presently occurs in our local JROTC program) has almost no chance of getting onto the Federal Way agenda.

Many Boy Scouts still get out to the range and shoot but that is because the BSA is not subject to the deadly bureaucratic gauntlets that exist in our public school systems.

In fact, many American schools still have shooting ranges that are now used for storing excess junk. There was a time that shooting sports were an accepted extra-curricular activity promoted and cherished in high schools around the nation. Justice Scalia recalls how he would transport his .22 caliber rifle back and forth to school on the New York City subways. Now he would be rushed by a SWAT team! Just speaking out about legitimate gun issues on campus can get a student in hot water.

Cost is one objection to ROTC programs, but football, basketball and hip-hop teams are expensive, too. The Air Force picks up part of the tab but the Federal Way School District also bears some of the cost.

Do playing ball and hip hop produce as much character as the discipline of shooting sports? Is character just a feel-good word deployed to raise funds for sports programs? Our communities and the nation’s security depend on character in tomorrow’s leaders. Let’s aim for ROTC in all our high schools.

Dear Citizen Activists,

Community activists need to appear at a King County Council meeting to speak out on the record regarding the County Executive’s illegal power to ban guns pursuant to King County Code. The fact that SAF has a case pending against North Carolina regarding the issue of emergency power to ban guns during emergencies makes things ripe for action.

See King County’s emergency powers.

A really big is necessary to knit Seattle’s activists together. The event will take some really good organizational skills to host a big all-day event with speakers like Massad Ayoob and Dave Workman. Bellevue firearms attorney and civil litigator David Newman is also a good resource (he teaches classes on gun law). Volunteers can obtain my e-mail address at www.firearms lawyer.net.

My choice for a feature speaker would be journalist Knute Berger who looks like Allen Ginsberg’s little brother and writes about Bell Town and Seattle politics.

The folks in Bell Town will love him! He writes favorably about guns and even “packs heat” on occasion- I think. We could have the event in Bell Town, get the CITIZENS ON PATROL group to participate and charge admission.

Massad Ayoob may be available; he is now affiliated with the ARMED CITIZEN LEGAL DEFENSE NETWORK. This will be a chance for a number of citizen activist groups to promote each others’ causes and benefit our communities. We may decide to plan a two-day seminar later on if we can get this one off the ground.

Incidentally, Dave Poling appeared before the Yakima City Council by himself and got the Council to repeal three laws that violated state preemption. Yakima repealed the illegal power to ban guns during emergencies- just one of the three laws taken off the books! He is doing almost the same thing with the Yakima County Council. Gene Beasley and I wrote letters to the City of Federal Way; In January, 2009, Federal Way repealed all three laws that violated our state firearms preemption statute.

Mr. Newman and I filed a tort claim notice on the Port of Seattle on behalf of an open-carry client and the Port changed its policies to conform with state law. Concealed and open carry are now permitted outside and away from the metal detectors.

The point is that a few of us can make a world of difference just by encouraging each other to stand for what is right! Bell Town seems like the perfect venue!

I still have to read PUGETOPOLIS by Knute Berger if he responds to this missive and gives me his slant on things! I never met Knute in person so he may not look like Allen Ginsberg at all. Nevertheless, he is a Seattle institution of sorts. His BLOG article about Seattle’s Wild West days is a great example of “Mossback’s” writing skills and views on weaponry.

Armed citizens in Pugetopolis are ready for something like this!

Sincerely,

Mark S Knapp, Attorney