According to a recent Wall Street Journal article, Ciudad Juárez is ground zero in Mexico’s war against drug cartels.

After gunmen blasted away at a taxi and killed two men and a woman, the army and police were unable to obtain information from any of the witnesses:

Capt. Velásquez scrambled to the site of the killings, where the gunmen had already vanished. He and his men yelled questions at dozens of eyewitnesses: How many killers were there, what kind of car did they drive? “Not one person said a word. Not even what direction they had gone,” says Capt. Velásquez, 42. “Executions here happen at any time, at any place. That terrifies the population. They don’t trust anybody. And they don’t talk.”

Mexico’s powerful drug cartels and affiliated gangs are battling for control of the city and President Felipe Calderón has sent 7,000 soldiers and 2,000 federal police to stop the urban warfare. The residents of Mexican war zones like Juarez are helpless as murder rates soar in Mexico, a nation where all guns are illegal:

In 2008, 1,600 people were killed in drug-related hits. This year, more than 2,500 have died. By some estimates, Juárez’s approximately 165 deaths per 100,000 residents make it the murder capital of the world. That compares with 48 violent deaths per 100,000 residents of Baghdad.

In the Philippines, possession of guns is much more highly regulated than in the U.S. Nevertheless, well-armed rebel groups, bandits, politicians and ordinary people obtain all kinds of weapons, including home-made military style weapons that are often just as effective as those possessed by police and military personnel anywhere in the world.

Last November, a Maguindanao politician’s son, Andal Ampatuan, Jr., allegedly participated in a massacre in Ampatuan township. Local gunmen, allegedly including six officers and the Maguindanao provincial police chief and his deputy, diverted vehicles containing journalists and the wife, two sisters, an aunt and several supporters of Ampatuan’s rival. The Ampatuan clan has previously provided heavy political support to Philippine President Arroyo.

Ampatuan’s political opponent, Vice Mayor Esmael Mangudadatu of Maguindanao’s Buluan township, sent several female family members along in the convoy in the belief they would not be harmed. The convoy was forced to a secluded location where fifty-seven were hacked, raped and shot, then buried in a brave that had been prepared with earth moving equipment in advance. At least thirty journalists were among the dead.

The point of these anecdotes is to show that an armed citizenry is always in a more powerful position when armed. Keeping and bearing arms makes citizens disciplined, vigilant and alert to danger whether it is from domestic political factions, criminal organizations or foreign enemies.

Mexico’s government has waged war with the drug cartels by militarily occupying many areas within Mexico:

Mr. Calderón’s war on drug gangs has defined his presidency so far. Within months of his 2006 inauguration, he dispatched the army to states where drug-related violence was on the rise, calling powerful drug cartels a threat to national security. Three years later, some 45,000 troops—about a quarter of the army—patrol areas ranging from Ciudad Juárez to Mr. Calderón’s home state of Michoacán.

Jorge Tello, Mexico’s National Security adviser, stated that Mexico has done more to fight drugs and violence in Ciudad Juárez than any other place in Mexico. Many residents of Ciudad Juárez are demanding an end to the military occupation. Soldiers cover their faces with black balaclavas in order to conceal their identities from the narcotistas. The government deploys .50 caliber machine guns during patrols.

Despite machine guns and constant patrols, the local Juárez Cartel, the Aztecas and a cadre of corrupt cops and ex-cops called La Linea oppose rival gangs acting on behalf of Joaquin Guzman that aim to take over the drug trade in Juarez; namely the Artistic Assassins and the Mexicles. The gangs simply observe the timing of the patrols and then change the time and locations of their attacks accordingly.

The drug gangs have diversified and extortion has provided a new motivation to increase the body counts:
The extortion wave has spread to funeral homes. Last month, an assassin and his driver parked in front of the Funeraria del Refugio, a squat, yellow building on a crowded street. The killer walked in, interrupting a funeral, and locked mourners in the bathroom, yelling that he had come to collect a protection payment. He then executed the funeral home’s manager, police and eyewitnesses say. The next day, the men returned and burned down the funeral home.

Former soldiers, known as “Zetas” are the Gulf Cartel’s enforcers. They decapitate rivals and law enforcement officers. Another deserter from the Mexican army is Manuel Aponte. A former lieutenant in the army, he deserted in 2004 and is now a top lieutenant for Joaquin Guzman, the cartel leader.

Another example of dysfunctional government intervention is the United Nations. The UN is allegedly involved with joint military operations in the eastern Congo that have resulted in the deaths of 1,400 civilians. The United Nations urgently needs “a new approach to protect civilians,” according to a Human Rights Watch report.

Human Rights Watch researchers describe “girls being summarily killed after being raped, and other victims being tied together before their throats were slit”.

The presence of about 19,000 United Nations peacekeepers has not only failed to protect women and children from rape, torture and murder but actually may have aided and abetted the slaughter, according to a number of reports, including one report in the New York Times.

Seattle is known as a congenial, outdoorsy city. When I was coming of age in Chicagoland, Eliott Ness still symbolized the forces of reform standing in the gap against 1930’s gangsters like Al Capone. The story that was often missed by television viewers was that gangsters in Chicago joined forces with corrupt public officials during Prohibition. They even bought and paid for the police! Prohibition spawned vicious killers like Al Capone. The banning of alcohol also spawned early attempts at gun control:

The repeal of Prohibition in 1933 ended most of the gang violence. But without waiting to evaluate the effects of the repeal of the alcohol ban, Congress passed the National Firearms Act of 1934.

As introduced, the National Firearms Act requirement would have strictly regulated not only machine guns and sawed-off shotguns, but also pistols and revolvers. Attorney General Homer Cummings conceded that the Second Amendment precluded an outright ban on possession and instead sought registration of these firearms under the guise of a tax measure, in a ploy similar to the Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act, which mandated doctors’ prescriptions and justified that by saying it was the only way the government could keep track of narcotics sales for tax purposes.

It is not like that in Seattle but we do have corrupt groups like ACORN that are still making inroads in Washington state and Washington, DC! Despite a consent decree that keeps ACORN operatives from being involved in most election activities, a representative of King County Elections told me that ACORN is nevertheless being allowed to engage in some local election activities.

As a kid in Chicago, I read the true story of “The Untouchables”. I wondered why honest merchants and others cowed by murder and mayhem did not join together and stand against corruption. Many merchants and working people enjoyed Al Capone’s products, services and largesse. Some honest folks were too terrified to speak out or busy trying to hold onto jobs controlled by the Chicago machine, just like some more or less honest politicians that were forced to make compromises. It almost sounds like modern times!

Pervasive corruption exists today in the modern Windy City. In fact, the more “progressive” a city’s politics become, the more corrupt the politicians seem to get! I think of Mayor Daley’s father standing on the steps and giving the finger to Martin Luther King when the Freedom Marchers passed City Hall. Well-connected contractors got rich while poor black people lived in mile after mile of rat-infested high-rises without elevators that worked. Many of the projects were made out of substandard concrete.

But white contractors, white trade-unionists and white bag-men got rich along with an assortment of Mayor Daley’s other cronies. All the graft ensured that garbage was collected in some neighborhoods in Chicago’s black Southside- the precincts where certain preachers returned the vote to Daley’s Machine. Northern industrial cities like Chicago, with a history of segregation, also seem to be the cities that enact aggressive gun control laws and maintain the highest murder rates.

The picture above is Cabrini Green on the Chicago’s North Side. I often walked past it when I was a kid:

Cabrini-Green was so feared by the Chicago Police during the 1990s that many refused to enter the complex for fear of their lives. Several officers reported that once inside the complex they had been verbally abused and spat upon, and had rocks smashed through their patrol car windows. Many others had been shot.

An unanticipated result of the steel fencing installed to secure the previously open gangways was that it became difficult for police to see through the steel mesh from outside; in 1970, two policemen were killed by snipers.

Anti-gun cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco also have a shameful history of crimes against minorities resembling the pattern of racism in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other big cities. Some of the earliest widespread efforts at gun control were Jim Crow laws enacted in the Deep South to disarm black people. Meanwhile, whites continued to exercise the constitutional right to own guns.

Many governments are working under the auspices of UN programs to disarm citizens. Even some Western Washington politicians seem to look to a nebulous UN agenda in their attempts to violate state gun laws, ban assault weapons and create sanctuaries for illegal aliens.

In some under-developed countries, governments have virtually declared war on their own people in efforts to ban guns. Uganda is one example of extreme violence perpetrated by the Ugandan government against selected tribes that hold onto their guns as protection in the midst of appalling ethnic conflict that is all too often enmeshed with governmental policies.

Many of the worst human rights violators around the world sit on UN committees that condone violence against Israelis or those of other ethnic and national origins. You could almost say that the world has become a mirror image of Chicago in the days of Al Capone- or today for that matter! The dictators around the globe are like the aldermen that receive favors for keeping their neighborhoods in line. Every now and then, we hear about genocides (sometimes after the UN disarms the victims as it did in Rwanda) that remind us of the Valentine’s Day massacre, when gangsters dressed like cops gunned down Capone’s Irish rivals on the North Side.

In November, over 57 people campaigning against an incumbent were shot, raped and hacked to death- see Massacre in Philippines- including at least 30 journalists. Although there is no evidence of UN involvement, the alleged perpetrators are the incumbent’s family, friends and local police that supported President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. See also how the UN aids and abets atrocities in East Congo.

The mob or your friendly UN representative may one day come to your town to persuade you that they just want to “make your place safe from unfortunate accidents.” Do you believe them as they give your child a stick of gum and assure you, “It sure would be a shame if anything happened to such a cute kid?”

Do you trust politicians in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and the UN to make decisions about your ability to defend your family? For that matter, how many of the politicians in King County would you trust with your life?

The Washington Times recently ran the following editorial:

Last week’s slaughter at Fort Hood Army base in Texas was no different - except that one man bears responsibility for the ugly reality that the men and women charged with defending America were deliberately left defenseless when a terrorist opened fire.

Among President Clinton’s first acts upon taking office in 1993 was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases. In March 1993, the Army imposed regulations forbidding military personnel from carrying their personal firearms and making it almost impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers in the U.S. for personal protection. For the most part, only military police regularly carry firearms on base, and their presence is stretched thin by high demand for MPs in war zones.

After talking to a veteran and reviewing some forums on such matters, it seemed that the assertions in the article may not bear up under scrutiny. For example:

“I spent 23 years in the military under about 6 presidents and I can’t recall anyone walking around US bases (been through many of them on my way here and there) armed unless they were MPs or DOD cops, or troops about to deploy (in which case they would be on their way somewhere, and ,,, the live ammo would still be in the crates until they reached wherever it was they were going to use it). I don’t recall anyone strutting around with side arms just for the hell of it.”

We have finally located Army Regulation 90-114, the 1993 regulation which limits carrying of weapons for law enforcement and security personnel within military installations. Despite the Clinton administration’s limitations upon MP’s and other LEOs on base, the regulation nevertheless provides for law enforcement personnel to carry weapons to:

(1) Conduct law enforcement activities including cases or investigations of espionage, sabotage, and other serious crimes in which DA programs, personnel, or property are involved and investigations conducted in hazardous areas or under hazardous circumstances.

(2) Protect classified information, systems, or equipment.

(3) Protect the President of the United States, high ranking Government officials, DOD personnel, or foreign dignitaries.

(4) Protect DOD assets and personnel.

(5) Guard prisoners.

d. DA military and civilian personnel may be authorized to carry firearms for personal protection when the responsible intelligence center identifies a credible and specific threat against DA personnel in that regional area. Firearms will not be issued indiscriminately for
that purpose. Before individuals are authorized to carry a firearm for personal protection under this regulation, the authorizing official must evaluate—

(1) The probability of the threat in a particular location.

(2) The adequacy of support by DA or DOD protective personnel.

(3) The adequacy of protection by U.S. or host nation authorities.

(4) The effectiveness of other means to avoid personal attacks.

Thus, officers of field grade rank or higher, or civilian equivalent of GS-12 or above may authorize the carrying of firearms and the Secretary of the Army has authority to authorize carrying for personal protection within the continental United States. And yes! It is hard to believe that we don’t trust soldiers with guns on an Army base when we trust these very same men in Iraq and Afghanistan:

“In states where legal concealed carry is an accepted practice, American service members need to be allowed to carry a gun for self-defense – on post and off – because the global war on terror has changed the risk level they live with each and every day.

The global war on terror has changed the way America fights our wars and has changed the risk level our service members are forced to endure. Letting soldiers have the same rights afforded to civilians when it comes to carrying a concealed handgun is a reform that is well past due.”

See also How Many Died Because of Ban?

The Washington Times article refers to research showing that when folks are armed the damage caused in active shooter situations will be more limited. This is because a “major factor in determining how many people are harmed by these killers is the time that elapses between the launch of an attack and when someone - soldier, civilian or law enforcement - arrives on the scene with a gun to end the attack.”

The article goes on to claim that all the public shootings in the United States in which more than three people have been killed have occurred in places where concealed handguns have been banned.

A 23 year old Islamic convert killed one soldier and wounded another outside a recruiting center in a jihad attack in Little Rock, Arkansas:

A 23-year-old man upset about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan opened fire from his truck at two soldiers standing outside a military recruiting station here on Monday morning, killing one private and wounding another, the police said. According to the New York Times (June 1, 2009):

The gunman, identified by the police as Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad of Little Rock, fled the scene and was arrested minutes later a short distance from the recruiting station, in a bustling suburban shopping center. The police confiscated a Russian-made SKS semiautomatic rifle, a .22-caliber rifle and a handgun from his black pickup truck.

The NYT article goes on to explain that bomb threats and vandalism against recruiting offices are not uncommon. For example, in 2008, a bomb exploded at a military recruitment center in Times Square. Thus, our troops are in as much risk at home as they are on foreign battlefields. Rather than blame it on President Clinton, we should focus on enabling soldiers and sailors to carry weapons openly on base (and openly or concealed off base as permitted by local and state laws; i.e., with a Concealed Pistol License where and when required. It even makes sense to provide some special training that will qualify personnel to carry on base. By arming more qualified personnel on and off base, the military will advance the objective of keeping our men and women safe while they protect us from our nation’s enemies.

Where are your loyalties- to the UN? To the religion of humanism? Or are you looking toward traditional values of individual freedom, U.S. sovereignty and inalienable rights that are founded on Biblical principles? The Scripture speaks of covenant responsibilities that God requires of people that would be free (like the duty to defend life, liberty and property as set forth in the U.S. Constitution)- not “rights” bestowed by the State!

Do you know that the concept of a written Constitution itself was a development that grew out of the practices of the early American religious colonies? The Pilgrim fathers (and mothers) consciously entered into covenants (compacts, mutual promises or contracts) that imitated the Old and New Covenants (i.e., Old and New Testaments). The Old Testament abounds in examples of covenants between God and man and between people within the ancient social framework of Israel. The fact remains that a people that are covenant keepers will be strong and prosperous.

The Pilgrims were dissenting religious believers that were originally from England. These Separatists first attempted to create a community of believers in Nottinghamshire village of Scrooby around 1606.

The west side of St. Wilfrid’s Church in Scrooby showing the spire at the north end. This is the parish church where William Brewster attended services until he separated from the Church of England. Photo by Alice C. Teal.

Their objective was to practice their faith without being contaminated by the elitist and worldly culture that surrounded them in England. In order to avoid the reality of being imprisoned for worshipping in their homes, the Scrooby Separatists fled to Amsterdam.

The Netherlands was a Calvinistic stronghold that had struggled for years against Spanish invasions launched on behalf of the Catholic Church. Amsterdam was very tolerant toward various religious groups. In fact, Amsterdam had already become very commercialized and prostitution, alcoholism and other vices were on display as much as the religious freedom that the Pilgrims sought. The Ancient Brethren, another group of English Separatists that had immigrated to Amsterdam earlier, lost many of their children to the worldly atmosphere of Amsterdam.

The realization that Amsterdam could easily corrupt their own community, the Pilgrims moved to Leiden:

After a brief stay in Amsterdam, where they were dismayed by the discord within other immigrant English congregations, the Pilgrims were granted permission to settle in the cloth manufacturing city of Leiden. They lived there under the religious leadership of Pastor John Robinson for twelve years gathered openly as a church. However, life in a foreign country was not without problems. The only occupations open to most immigrants were poorly paid, and they found themselves growing old in poverty. The twelve-year truce between Holland and Spain was to end in 1621, threatening a resumption of hostilities. Also troublesome to the Separatists were the hardships endured by their young people, who were forced by circumstance to work at exceptionally hard jobs. Others were assimilated into the Dutch culture, leaving their parents and their community profoundly disturbed.

The impovershed community began looking to Virginia (the whole Eastern seaboard of the North American continent) as a place of refuge where they could carve out a Scriptural way of life free of the commercial culture and vice with which they struggled in Holland and England. They approached the Virginia Company that had funded Jamestown.

They informed prospective investors that they hwere industrious, frugal and “knit otogether in a sacred bond’ by their hardships in Amsterdam. Apparently the investors agreed that the Pilgrim experience inured to thir “mutual good” and funds were provided for the tiny band to set sail for what became the Plymouth Colony:

A group of English investors known as the “merchant adventurers” financed the voyage and settlement. They formed a joint-stock company with the colonists in which the merchants agreed to “adventure” (risk) their money, and the settlers to invest their personal labor, for a period of seven years. During that time, all land and livestock were to be owned in partnership; afterwards the company would be dissolved and the assets divided.

In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the first major case involving the important issue of whether the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. The landmark case originated in Washington, DC where, like Chicago and other cities, law abiding citizens were not allowed to defend themselves against lawless criminals! Since Heller v DC was decided, cities all over the land are changing their laws ro conform to the Second Amendment.

The Washington, DC case has provided the legal basis for a series of cases to percolate through the courts. The United Nations and domestic gun ban advocates will be seeking a worldwide treaty banning small arms (firearms are already prohibited to private citizens in all but a few nations). Will the U.S. join the consensus of dictators all over the world by bending our Constitution to “international norms“?

The roots of our American Constitutional order are buried in ancient Israel’s covenant with Yahweh! We need to be careful today what kind of laws, covenants and treaties we make as a people.

A people that recognize their heritage in God and that are grateful for blessings every day (not just on Thanksgiving) will prosper and remain free.

Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.

Proverbs 22:28 (King James Version)

Suzerain- Main Entry: su·zer·ain
Pronunciation: \ˈsü-zə-rən, -ˌrân; ˈsüz-rən\

Function: noun

1 : a superior feudal lord to whom fealty is due: overlord;

2 : a dominant state controlling the foreign relations of a vassal state but allowing it sovereign authority in its internal affairs.

Jeremy Rabkin, a professor of law at George Mason University School of Law, recently authored an article published in Imprimis called “The Constitution and American Sovereignty”. In the article, Rabkin explains how the concept of national sovereignty, as we understand it today, developed during the Seventeenth century along with nationalism.

Abraham Lincoln defined sovereignty as “a political community without a political superior”. Thus, sovereignty isn’t so much about power as it is about authority and legitimacy. Rabkin notes that:

“… in medieval Europe… the defining character of that period was overlapping authority and a lot of confusion about which authority had primary claims. No one had to think about defining national boundaries. This became an issue only in the modern era, when interaction between different peoples increased.”

In the course of arguing that the King of France did not owe allegiance to the Holy Roman Empire, Jean Bodin, a French jurist of the late 16th century, also advocated religious toleration, protection for personal property, rule of law and representative government. According to Rabkin, Bodin was in favor of free trade and his natural law theories recognized God as the source of legal authority.

Not coincidentally, the law of nations (i.e., international law) also began to develop at this time as a result of expanded commercial activities, maritime pursuits and the pursuit of war by European monarchs and princes.

Rabkin discusses how the U.S. Constitution provides that treaties will be “the supreme Law of the Land”. Treaties are binding on the states; nevertheless, to be valid, a treaty must be consistent with the Constitution. Thus, the Constitution preempts and supersedes treaties. As Alexander Hamilton explained, “A treaty cannot change the frame of the government” because it is the Constitution that authorizes the government to make treaties in the first place. The historical consensus, now under attack, has been that a treaty violating the Constitution violates the authority which provides legitimacy for the treaty in the first place:

Today there is no longer a consensus regarding the principle that legislative and legal authority cannot be delegated to international tribunals or commissions and this has become a contentious issue. There is strong legal precedent, however, prohibiting Congress from delegating its power to legislate to an international body.

Delegation of judicial power is also a point of contention. Can the rights of American citizens in the U.S. be determined by foreign courts? Such delegation of the judicial power violates Article 3 of the Constitution. Judicial power “shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”

In the case of Medellin v. Texas, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court considered an International Court of Justice ruling. A Mexican national that violently raped and murdered two girls in Texas had the right to receive counsel from the Mexican consulate under the 1963 Vienna Convention. Despite a ruling that Texas could not execute a convicted murderer, the U.S. Supreme Court held that treaty provisions were diplomatic in nature and did not bind the sovereign State of Texas.

Rabkin points to the European Union and its European Court of Justice, originally established to interpret disputes about treaty provisions between sovereign European nations, in order to illustrate how rapidly loyalties can shift to supra-national bodies. Wasn’t the dissension about the war in Iraq largely a national schism over whether the Bush Administration or the United Nations was to decide international policy relating to Iraq? In the 1970s, the Court of Justice held that conflicts between treaty provisions and national constitutions would be resolved in favor of the treaty provisions and EU members accepted the idea that a treaty takes precedence over national constitutions.

A proposed UN Climate Change Treaty waiting in Copenhagen for the President to sign in December may soon test whether the Court will hold to its previous ruling in favor of non-delegation of legislative power.

This week the NRA, Second Amendment Foundation and others filed suit against the City of Seattle for violating the Washington state firearms preemption law. Dave Workman describes how this local gun battle is a part of a larger war looming, as the campaign to subject the American people to a UN gun treaty gets under way:

“As former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr writes today on his blog, there is an international battle over gun rights unfolding in the United Nations, and one in Seattle that has been well-covered….

International gun prohibitionists have been pushing the United States to sign an arms trade agreement for several years. With Barack Obama in the White House and Hilary Clinton at State, this could happen. Barr’s column is a “must read” for anyone interested in that controversy. He calls it the “Perfect Storm” for the UN gun control agenda.”

Rabkin asks whether being an American will mean just being part of some abstract humanity. Should we put our faith in words? “What about the idea that as long as we say nice things about humanity, everyone will feel better and we’ll all be safe?” Many states, anticipating the UN push to ban our guns, are already enacting firearms sovereignty provisions in order to erect a fence between a new federal-internationalist tyranny and the people’s right to keep and bear firepower. Meanwhile, Mayor Nickels defies state law and acts like a soon to be deposed satrap in his own feudal principality of Seattle.

In February, 2007, before most of us thought candidate Obama would be the next President, J.R. Dunn suggested in an American Thinker article that a global religious creed may be the only chance for world governance to overcome U.S. resistance to any variety of global suzerainty. The key to promoting such schemes (floating around since before the founding of the ill-fated League of Nations) is a messianic figure that can usher such a secular religious crusade into institutional existence:

In the Fifties and Sixties, Huxley and the CIA were experimenting with LSD, while Aldous’ uncle, Julian Huxley, was busy promulgating a social agenda that sounded vaguely like the utopian, mushroom-eating societies favored by his nephew, Aldous. Julian’s counter-intelligence, propaganda apparatus was headquartered at UNESCO, where he was head of the UN religious mission. In “Religion Without Revelation”, Julian Huxley identified the sense of the numinous (feelings of awe and religiosity) and announced that a universal world religion was needed in order to incorporate such profound feelings….

He advocated enlistment of the media outlets as the best method for converting masses of humanity in every nation to the new secular religion. Thus, by making spiritual feelings (i.e., numinosity) available to everyone without the need to look to higher authority (i.e., Biblical revelation) the world can dispense with feelings of guilt or other negative reactions resulting from moral degradation, loss of human life and diminished expectations of human dignity that have been washing to shore since Huxley began his mission in the 1940s. Now we see all this along with an evangelical-style face in a neo-Progressive wave being financed by George Soros, a billionaire intelligence operative who works at levels that are apparently deeper than most folks realize.

According to one description of Rudolf Otto’s thinking (the German scholar who popularized the concept of numinosity):

Otto describes the numinous as an awe-filled encounter with ultimate reality (UR). UR is designated by Otto as a mysterium tremendum and a majestus as it is experienced as a powerful sentient force, worthy of utmost respect. It inspires not only awe, but also fear. While the subject is urgently attracted to this ineffable source of creation, it may in some instances frighten, humble and ‘purify.’ Otto also notes subjects may perceive some sense of creaturely wretchedness and unworthiness, standing naked, as it were, in the face of a great and powerful, “wholly other”(16) UR-Creator-God.

See C. G. Jung and Numinosity

This definition of numinosity is fairly close to the way in which C. G. Jung defined it and the context in which Julian Huxley used the term in “Religion Without Revelation". Huxley, the founder of UNESCO, envisioned a future synthesis of Communism with Capitalism.

Finally, notwithstanding our digressions into the semantics of numinosity we are back to Rabkin’s most startling thesis:

Where does this trend away from the sovereignty of national constitutions lead? I do not think the danger is a world tyranny. I think that idea is fantastical. Rather what it will lead to, I think, is an undermining of the idea that national governments can protect people, with the result that people will start looking for defense elsewhere. We saw this in an extreme way in Iraq when it collapsed into chaos before the surge, and people looked for protection to various ethnic or sectarian militias. A similar phenomenon can be seen today in Europe with the formation of various separatist movements. We’re even hearing loud claims for Scottish independence. And it’s not surprising, because to the extent that Britain has surrendered its sovereignty, Britain doesn’t count for as much as it used to. So why not have your own Scotland? Why not have your own Wales? Why not have your own Catalonia in Spain? And of course the greatest example of this devolution in Europe is the movement toward Muslim separatism. While this is certainly driven to a large extent by trends in Islam, it also reflects the fact that it doesn’t mean as much to be British or to be French any more. These governments are cheerfully giving away their authority to the EU. So why should immigrants or children of immigrants take them seriously?

If the world ever looks to supra-national insitutions for protection, I am convinced there will be a recognizable world religious movement with new religious symbolism representing the power and authority of the new “majestus“. Some Bible teachers have predicted a synthesis of Catholicism and Islam may occur. As events in the religious world shift before your eyes, ask yourself- in what will your grandchildren grow up believing and whom will they serve?

How many years have we listened to the talking class bemoan the fact that most of us know more about what happens in the Middle East than we know about our own local governments? Suddenly the internet and cable TV have created an explosion of engaged citizens and the political class is worried! In between Tea Parties and disrupting Town Meetings, citizen activists all over the State of Washington are investigating county and local governments that have enacted emergency power provisions that violate RCW 9.41.290, the Washington State preemption statute.

For example, the City of Yakima just amended certain local laws that were in violation of the state preemption law. Then we discovered to our dismay that the Council had retained the following:

Chapter 6.06

EMERGENCY POWERS OF MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER

(7) An order prohibiting the possession of firearms or any other deadly weapon by a person (other than a law enforcement officer) in a place other than that person’s place of residence or business;

Such statutory provisions are in direct violation of the state preemption statute:

The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality.

RCW 9.41.290

King County Code presently includes the following:

B. Upon the proclamation of an emergency by the executive, and during the existence of such emergency, the executive may make and proclaim any or all of the following orders:

9. An order prohibiting the carrying or possession of firearms or any instrument which is capable of producing bodily harm and which is carried or possessed with intent to use the same to cause such harm; provided that any such order shall not apply to peace officers or military personnel engaged in the performance of their official duties;

King County Code 12.52.030 (9)

Note that the King County emergency gun ban even goes beyond banning guns outside homes and businesses. Apparently the King County Council claims the power to ban guns in your home- just like the authorities in New Orleans that went from house to house, disarming terrified residents that had already been abandoned by police and other authorities during a time when the citizens of New Orleans desperately needed protection from looters and roving gangs of thugs.

HB 1832 has been stuck in the House Judiciary Committee for more than a few years. The proposed legislation would prohibit government gun grabs during emergencies but has little chance of being reported out of committee unless irate Washington State voters start raising a hue and cry!

Contact your local law enforcement and city and county lawmakers if such a law has been enacted where you live and contact us to let us know what responses, if any, that you receive. We have been involved professionally with clients and citizen activists in successfully advocating changes in both the Federal Way and Yakima codes by simply informing honest public servants that some local laws are illegal. Federal Way is now one hundred percent in compliance with state law.

On September 1, 2009, the City of Yakima discussed three statutes that were in violation of RCW 9.41.290, the Washington State preemption statute. Thanks to Dave Poling’s hard work and testimony, the Council decided to Amend its city ordinances in order to repeal certain restrictions including the “power” to ban guns during emergencies.

See VIDEO starting at minute 5:35.

Emergency bans on weapons raise liability issues. When local governments claim powers that that can lawfully only be invoked by the governor and/or the state legislature, federal and state civil remedies are available to citizens that are harassed (such as by gun confiscation). See Video (fast forward to last five or ten minute segment).

Thus, the real issue is liability if an emergency gun ban is invoked, a municipality confiscates guns lawfully carried by citizens and the victims of the confiscation subsequently take legal action. Even the Governor may incur liability if she confiscates weapons during an emergency where there are federal emergency funds coming into the state. City, county and state officials should consider the legal fees and costs incurred by New Orleans when guns were confiscated in the aftermath of Katrina. The issues raised at the Yakima City Council meeting relate to Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution, RCW 9.41.290 State Preemption and RCW 43.06.010(12) in which the Governor has sole power and duty to proclaim an emergency in Washington State.

Leaving emergency powers laws on the books until challenged can be a costly decision. The Yakima City Council already recognized that state law preempts local laws in all matters pertaining to firearms when it removed two other illegal statutes from the books at the same meeting during which legal counsel made the comments referenced above.

You can ascertain much about the status of firearms laws in various localities and other information at www.OpenCarry.com.

The Governor has emergency powers that enable her to ban guns outside the home during a state of emergency:

RCW 43.06.220

State of emergency — Powers of governor pursuant to proclamation.

(1) The governor after proclaiming a state of emergency and prior to terminating such, may, in the area described by the proclamation issue an order prohibiting:
(e) The possession of firearms or any other deadly weapon by a person (other than a law enforcement officer) in a place other than that person’s place of residence or business;

While the above referenced state law is not in violation of the state preemption statute, residents of Washington state should be considering the way in which residents of New Orleans experienced a massive gun confiscation during the emergency following Hurricane Katrina. See NRA vs New Orleans.

The NRA and many state legislators all over the United States have worked to enact laws preventing just such a confiscation in other states. Nevertheless, in Washington state, we are at the mercy of the Governor because, although there is proposed legislation modeled after the NRA endorsed legislation, it is unlikely it will ever get reported out of committee.

As indicated above, states, counties and local governments may be sued under the Stafford Act if gun confiscation laws are enforced during an emergency for which a state or local government is receiving federal funds:

Private rights of action

(1) In general

Any individual aggrieved by a violation of this section may seek relief in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress against any person who subjects such individual, or causes such individual to be subjected, to the deprivation of any of the rights, privileges, or immunities secured by this section.

(2) Remedies

In addition to any existing remedy in law or equity, under any law, an individual aggrieved by the seizure or confiscation of a firearm in violation of this section may bring an action for return of such firearm in the United States district court in the district in which that individual resides or in which such firearm may be found.

(3) Attorney fees

In any action or proceeding to enforce this section, the court shall award the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs.

42 USC Sec. 5207 (01/08/2008)

See video: Gun Confiscation in New Orleans.

WHY THE SECOND AMENDMENT MATTERS

Last year (2008), the Supreme Court of the United States (hereinafter SCOTUS) ruled that Americans have an individual right to keep and bear arms. Why does the decision in DC V HELLER matter to city-dwellers like you and I that live or work in Federal Way and have almost no place in our lives for hunting, target shooting or toting a pistol as we go about our busy routines?

The fact that the Washington State Constitution already guarantees Washingtonians protection if we choose to possess firearms also raises the issue of what was, if any, the HELLER decision’s impact on residents of our local communities. Any law-abiding U.S. citizen of sound mind (twenty-one or older) can obtain a Concealed Pistol License in Washington State. You can even keep and wear a weapon in your own home or business without obtaining a CPL. So why does DC V HELLER matter in the Evergreen State?

To answer the question we need a nutshell course on Second Amendment jurisprudence. When the federal government first got involved with regulating guns pursuant to the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). In the 1939 case of UNITED STATES V MILLER, SCOTUS took up the issue of whether the NFA’s prohibition against sawed-off shotguns violated the Second Amendment. The MILLER court decided the issue by analyzing whether sawed-off shotguns are militarily useful. Ever since that time gun control advocates, law professors and even a minority of Supreme Court justices in the HELLER dissent have been able to point to United States Circuit Court precedents in which the decisions cited the MILLER case and rejected claims that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. Thus, prior to recent times, a majority of legal scholars and even our own Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have taken the position that the “people” that have the right to keep and bear arms are the states; i.e., the U.S. Constitution only protects a state’s right to maintain a militia.

Pro-gun folks advocate that MILLER only dealt with the issues in a very oblique fashion for a number of reasons, including the fact that the only representatives that appeared to argue the issues in MILLER were the government lawyers! Because the defense did not appear, there was arguably no way for the judges to hear both sides of the issues. It is worth noting that, despite the assertion in the MILLER opinion declaring that sawed-off shotguns have no military usefulness, short barreled shot-guns were very much in use as trench guns in WW I.

It can be argued that the HELLER case is actually the first case in which SCOTUS has dealt directly with the issue of who has standing to assert the right to keep and bear arms. The HELLER decision almost guarantees that many more Supreme Court decisions will follow. Because Washington, DC is not a state there are bound to be cases that decide whether the states are obligated to abide by the Second Amendment and what restrictions are reasonable for the states and the federal government to enact. Keep in mind that many rules dealing with firearms are administrative and are buried deep within arcane intricacies of local, state and federal bureaucracies.

Those of you that resent rampant militarism, the Founding Fathers are on your side! The legislative history of the Bill of Rights reveals that the Founders were conflicted about the wisdom of permitting standing armies that could be used against the people to usurp American’s civil rights. The Federalists compromised with the anti-Federalists by leaving the size of the military up to the President and Congress. By keeping the people armed, Americans would be prepared if the government neglected the national defense and, at the same time, the people would have recourse in the event that the new federal government ran roughshod over our liberties. You have to say one thing for those old boys- they were radical!

Dick Heller, an armed security guard for a government agency, was prohibited under Washington, DC’s draconian gun laws from possessing a gun in his home, even though the United States Government entrusted him to guard life and the U.S. Government’s property. Because he challenged and overturned the DC gun ban, cities like Morton Grove, Illinois are already revising their gun laws to permit at least some private possession of guns within their city limits.

History has demonstrated that the federal government, states and local governments can and will enact laws that deprive individuals and states of the ability to take control of our own destinies. The Interstate Commerce Clause has been invoked to justify economic regulation and federal incursions into almost every area of our lives. Presidents can enter into all kinds of treaties and there are many legal scholars prepared to argue that treaties may be valid even without going through the cumbersome process entailed by the plain meaning of the U.S. Constitution. My Constitutional law professor taught me that treaties supersede the Constitution!

Consider also that in the very near future, you will be hearing a great deal about a proposed UN Treaty that is being touted as a “common sense” agenda to limit trafficking in small arms- a solution to international terrorism and other criminal activities. The only problem is that everywhere we look in the world, the thugs in high places are busy building up arsenals, while the honest folks are mostly disarmed- except in the United States of America.

The DC v Heller case makes it far more difficult for the executive branch of the federal government, Congress or a federal judge interpreting an international treaty to undermine the protection that Washingtonians enjoy under various state laws.

In a very real sense, the Second Amendment helps to protect our First Amendment rights. But guns have no inherent ability to guarantee that we will remain a free people. Vigilance and prayer must secure liberty.

In conclusion, you should take a final look at a not-so-apparent but self-evident truth. The right to protect our loved ones does not come from a constitution or other legal document. Protecting our families and communities from violence is not really even a right! It is a duty that is placed on us by God. The soccer-mom or senior citizen that might be carrying a concealed pistol often represents as much of a deterrent to violent crime as a six foot, two-hundred pound police officer. Why? Because predators never know where and when the armed citizen may respond with deadly force!

STOPPING DOMESTIC GUN OWNER ABUSE

Firearms were used in 54 percent of the state’s domestic violence-related homicides since 1997. The Tacoma News Tribune states that abusers used firearms in 232 of 430 deaths that resulted from domestic violence between Jan. 1, 1997, and June 30, 2008. These statistics must cause all of us to be concerned.

See State Report Takes On Domestic Violence, By Stacey Mulick.

Statewide in the last two years, 68 women, men and children were killed in domestic violence incidents; 33 victims were shot. Should we look at how the criminal justice system can take further steps to get the weapons out of the hands of convicted abusers?

Under the 1996 Lautenberg Amendment and Washington state law, people convicted of domestic violence, including law enforcement officers and members of the military, are not allowed to possess firearms- no exceptions for police and military. These laws make it difficult to attract and retain personnel! Even authorizing a soldier to handle a weapon while stateside puts his command at risk of criminal prosecution.

Domestic violence laws like the federal Lautenberg Amendment make recruiting and retention of police and military personnel difficult. At one time there were exceptions for police and members of the military:

“For more than thirty years, the Gun Control Act of 1968 has provided the basic framework for gun control in the United States.” The law prohibited convicted felons from possessing firearms, but it provided an exception for members of the government, such as police and military members. This new Amendment, however, does NOT include such a provision. If, however, an officer is convicted of a felony version of domestic violence, the exception applies and the officer may continue to possess a weapon for the performance of his duties.

Since the Lautenberg Amendment became effective, officers who are convicted of a misdemeanor version of domestic violence are prohibited from possessing firearms, even on duty. This inconsistency in the statute has left police and military administrators in a difficult situation regarding the assignment of officers who are affected, although the number of officers affected has been relatively low. This statute also reaches back to prior convictions and applies them to prohibit officers from possessing firearms today, even when they have lawfully been armed officers for years.”

Thus, there are still exceptions that apply for military and police where DV protection orders have been entered and, ironically, where the DV conviction is a felony and not a misdemeanor!

§ 925. Exceptions: Relief from disabilities

(a)(1) The provisions of this chapter, except for sections 922 (d)(9) and 922 (g)(9) and provisions relating to firearms subject to the prohibitions of section 922 (p), shall not apply with respect to the transportation, shipment, receipt, possession, or importation of any firearm or ammunition imported for, sold or shipped to, or issued for the use of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision thereof.

The impact on recruitment and retention becomes evident once you realize how little it takes to get arrested for domestic violence when a mandatory arrest staute is in place. Mandatory arrest laws enacted in Washington and many other states make officers liable for any mistakes that result from exercise of discretion in making arrests for domestic violence. Thus, almost any hearsay accusation or circumstantial evidence (such as a case in which an officer responds to a 911 caller that was just driving by) can result in an arrest, no-contact orders and a chain of legal events that becomes so complicated and bewildering that defendants often feel that pleading guilty is their only choice.

The “victim” often pleads with the prosecutors to drop the case and a great deal of pressure, including threats of prosecution against the victim, are often employed in order to gain the testimony of the “complainant witness ” that may have never initiated the complaint at all. The State has sole control over whether to proceed with the charges in Washington State and in King County and Seattle rarely dismisses cases even when the “victim” is vehemently denying that any assault ever occurred.

Even when a woman denies that an assault has occurred her husband or boyfriend is prone to be arrested, jailed and charged despite the responding officers’ common sense determinations. This is because of the technical fact that probable cause exists and failure to arrest makes officers liable for any mistaken judgment that results in death or injury to the “victim“.

Every officer, prosecutor and criminal defense lawyer is familiar with the problem of how unfair the system is to men. Nevertheless, no politician, prosecutor or judge is going to position himself or herself to look soft on domestic abusers! The coalition of DV activists in Western Washington is ferocious to any official that crosses their agenda:

A police officer having probable cause to believe that a person has committed or is committing a felony shall have the authority to arrest the person without a warrant. A police officer may arrest a person without a warrant for committing a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor only when the offense is committed in the presence of the officer, except as provided in subsections (1) through (10) of this section….

© The person is sixteen years or older and within the preceding four hours has assaulted a family or household member as defined in RCW 10.99.020 and the officer believes: (i) A felonious assault has occurred; (ii) an assault has occurred which has resulted in bodily injury to the victim, whether the injury is observable by the responding officer or not; or (iii) that any physical action has occurred which was intended to cause another person reasonably to fear imminent serious bodily injury or death. Bodily injury means physical pain, illness, or an impairment of physical condition. When the officer has probable cause to believe that family or household members have assaulted each other, the officer is not required to arrest both persons. The officer shall arrest the person whom the officer believes to be the primary physical aggressor. In making this determination, the officer shall make every reasonable effort to consider:

(i) The intent to protect victims of domestic violence under RCW 10.99.010;

(ii) the comparative extent of injuries inflicted or serious threats creating fear of physical injury;and

(iii) the history of domestic violence between the persons involved.

RCW 10.31.100

“This degree of statutory control leaves the officers with little discretion, imposing a duty upon the officers to make arrests in most cases. The result is that officers make arrests in marginal situations, essentially because they are “afraid not to. Officers tend to err on the side of the statute’s demand for an arrest, even when they believe an arrest is unnecessary.”

See Impact of Domestic Violence On Law Enforcement.

Nickels Missing; Seattle Finds Smoking Gun Dec 17, ‘08 1:14 AM

by Mark S. Knapp, Federal Way

Subsequent to publishing the following article, Nickels issued his edict. He is now out of office and his successor and the City of Seattle are battling at least two legal actions that the City cannot expect to win:

Mayor Nickels wrote to the Speaker of our State House of Representatives, Hon. Frank Chopp, on May 4, 2006. Greg Nickels stated:

“State law preempts any and all local regulations related to firearms. Our hands are tied at the local level and we are unable to adopt any local laws to protect our residents from gun crime.”

-Mayor Greg Nickels, May 4, 2006.

For several months after the Mayor Nickel held public hearings on his plans to ban guns on City property, he seemed to know that the legal action ready to be filed by the Second Amendment Foundation in Bellevue, Washington can seriously hurt the City. Then in March, 2009, the Mayor’s office indicated that the edict will go into effect on a yet to be announced date. See Workman.

During his nonappearance at the public hearings held to air his edict banning carry of weapons on most city premises and parks, the Mayor clearly created an unrebuttable presumption that he has delusions of grandeur that are more characteristic of Cook County political personalities than the traits we see in our Seattle politicians.

Maybe guilty of malfeasance and violation of his oath to uphold the Constitution by reason of insanity will be his plea? Official misconduct to deprive citizens of privileges and immunities is a form of reckless disregard of the Mayor’s official duties and oath of office, according to one retired Coast Guard member. “Gun free zones don’t work,” the indignant citizen proclaimed as he stood there, still a watchman on the stormy sea of liberty. This theme was repeated by several speakers until finally one impassioned lady cried, “The reason we keep repeating ourselves is because you guys just don’t hear us!” The people of Mumbai seem to have heard the message better thsn the Mayor.

I read in the newspaper this week that a guy in Mexico makes a little boat that stays right below the water and leaves no heat signature because the exhaust pipes are under water. They cost a million dollars but drug dealers buy them up faster than the government can eliminate them. A terrorist could never bring a crew to Seattle like that? Those guys only know how to handle weapons of mass destruction like nukes and crude biological stuff. They would never get in an underwater boat and come to a friendly town like Seattle where everybody except Weyerhauser Corporation loves trees. But then again, the boat has a range of 2,000 some miles…. I digress.

According to FBI crime statistics, there were 9,000 hate crimes in 2007 and 41% of those crimes occurred in public buildings such as the Seattle City Hall. Back in 2008, the Mayor announced that he had legal authority to ban weapons on City property. That is when the public hearings occurred. Since then, the number of approved applications for Concealed Pistol Licenses has increased and so have gun sales in King County.

Yvonne Ward, a civil rights lawyer that represents crime victims, was present at the hearing and told the City of Seattle exactly why Mayor Nickels’ gun ban will make victims more vulnerable to men that prey on women. The Mayor’s edict victimizes women twice by making criminals of those that disobey the law.

Ms. Ward, an Asian-American leader who definitely carries, was among many that provided public comment and then asked, “Where is Mayor Nickels?” The Mayor was conspicuously absent. The hearing, held on Bill of Rights Day, was replete with doctors, retired veterans, academics (including a UW professor emeritus) and victims of violent crimes- all opposed to Nickels’ decree.

One of the few that favored the ban claimed to speak for the Jewish Federation insisting that disarming honest people on City property is a “common sense” way to stop hate crimes like the shootings that occurred at the Federation’s Seattle headquarters. I asked the speaker wouldn’t he be safer having armed citizens nearby? He abruptly cut off the discussion with me in the hallway.

A survivor of the same hate crime (committed by a menatlly ill person of Middle Eastern ancestry who became agitated when Israel went into Lebenon a few years ago) said her niece was also a victim. She also stated that she is a board member of Washington Ceasefire. These were some of the few that favored the gun ban. Several speakers made reference to Hitler and Lenin’s outspoken support for gun control, the point being that all dictators share the same sentiments as Washington Ceasefire.

Joe Waldron came from sunny Florida to point out that if you lock your weapon in the car in order to comply with the Mayor’s edict you run the risk of getting your weapon stolen like Gil Kerlikowske- the former Seattle PD Chief’s gun was stolen from his vehicle and is now a potential instrumentality of criminal violence on the streets! Evidently the Obama Administration overlooked little problems like the lost gun and the fact that his son has a drug problem. He is now slated to be the nation’s new drug chief!

Speakers favoring responsible self-defense included self-professed “liberals” and gay people that are opposed to becoming victims. A rape victim stated that she would be terrified to walk in a Seattle park near her home without concealed carry. Many fathers also expressed safety concerns about taking their families to parks without the ability to protect their kids. Judges and prosecutors might also have concerns about their own personal safety traversing City property but none were present to testify. In Seattle, many folks use Metro and cannot lock their weapons in the car to enter property belonging to Mayor Nickels. You may or may not be surprised how many lawyers carry- for good reason.

One of these days I would like to write an article analyzing the statistical probability that ethnic minorities will be victims of violent crime compared to statistics for non-minority Caucasians. Of over 150 people present from many races and backgrounds, there must have been twenty that favored the Nickels Gun Ban.

Most of those that favored the change seemed to be spokespersons from Ceasefire. They used words like illogical to characterize armed self-defense. Hmmmmm….

See Video: Public Hearing.

Yakima Mayor Edler recently announced that he joined Mayor Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG). Yakima is dealing with a string of gang-related shootings that have rocked the City of Yakima. MAIG’s Mission Statement declares:

“We support the Second Amendment and the rights of citizens to own guns.”

The anti-gun mayors’ group does not support the right to bear arms, however. MAIG has stated that “a policy that is appropriate for a small town in one region of the country is not necessarily appropriate for a big city in another region of the country.”

Many of the positions taken by MAIG around the U.S. violate our Washington State Constitution and RCW 9.41.290 which “fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation” within Washington State. Thus, our state firearms preemption law prohibits local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law.

Yakima’s City Council recently decided to repeal two illegal firearms restrictions that violate state preemption law.

A nineteen year old man was shot dead during an argument yesterday (September 17, 2009) at the Federal Way Transit Center. There have been previous shootings there, including the death of an innocent bystander.

Federal Way’s neighboring mayor, Pete Lewis of Auburn, and other Washington mayors presumably join Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) to combat violent crime and make cities like Auburn safer.

According to MAIG, more than 450 mayors from big cities and small towns across the country have joined the coalition. MAIG claims that it just seeks common sense solutions that may vary for different localities but MAIG’s real agenda (possibly unknown to well-intentioned mayors like Mr. Lewis- but unlikely at this point in time) is to restrict folks from exercising many of our gun rights, gradually removing the ability of citizens to stop violent crimes immediately by armed self-defense.

Legislation supported by MAIG includes repealing the Tiahrt Amendment which provides for trace data to be provided to law enforcement and prosecutors but prohibits providing firearms information for lawsuits aimed at closing down gun manufacturers and gun shops. The NRA and The Fraternal Order of Police oppose releasing such data as releasing some of the data could jeopardize officer’s lives.

Mayor Bloomberg would restrict people on the terror watch list from buying or owning guns. Earlier this year, Homeland Security warned that some of our troops returning from combat zones pose a potential terrorist threat.

Do we want our returning servicemen and women placed on a watch list and losing their right to keep and bear arms? Once on the list, many Americans have found that there is no way to get off of it- even where the government admits a mistake has been made.

Mayor Nickels of Seattle, a founding member of MAIG, announced again that he is prepared to proceed with an illegal gun ban on city premises despite the certainty that he will soon be leaving office (he did not make it past the primary due to the unpopular style of his governance in the Emerald City). Despite Washington’s firearms preemption law and an imminent legal challenge that Seattle cannot win, Seattle’s lame-duck mayor is foisting huge legal expenses on Seattle’s taxpayers. Isn’t it less expensive to simply punish violent predators to the maximum extent of the law? But Nickels, like a few of Seattle’s other anti-gun politicians now in Washington, DC, is feathering his own nest in hopes of a salaried position with MAIG or even a position in the Obama Administration.

See Dave Workman.

MAIG is against HR 2296 and S. 941 which would clarify the standards and improve the process for imposing penalties related to intentional violations of federal gun laws. MAIG’s opposition is apparently because the proposals are not hard enough on simple paperwork mistakes that can presently result in the BATF harassing and even closing down legitimate gun dealers!

MAIG’s present goal in Washington State is apparently to remove the so-called “gun show loophole”. The argument (shown to be false by Department of Justice statistics) is that, since people can buy guns at gun shows without a background check, many criminals are purchasing guns at gun shows. The Washington Arms Collectors, the organization that hosts many gun shows in Washington, requires that only WAC members (all of whom have passed background checks) can purchase weapons at gun shows. Dealers still have to perform NICS checks at gun shows just like they do in their regular place of business.

Under present Washington law, private parties can presently buy or sell weapons away from gun shows without any background check. Will MAIG want legislation closing the private party loophole next?

Efforts to prevent the existence of any loopholes work better in totalitarian societies. Laws already enacted need to be enforced more strictly before we give up our freedom. Let’s make society safer by making things harder for the predators, not for law abiding gun owners.

You can find out whether your mayor is a member of MAIG with the handy NRA list from the NRA-ILA. The following Washington mayors (as of August 20th, 2009) are involved in this anti-civil rights organization:

Mayor Peter B. Lewis
Auburn, WA

Mayor Cary Bozeman
Bremerton, WA

Mayor Greg Nickels
Seattle, WA

Mayor Bill Baarsma
Tacoma, WA

Mayor Royce Pollard
Vancouver, WA

Mayor David Edler
Yakima, WA

RE: OPINION LETTER RELATING TO IMPLEMENTATION OF
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS’ SAFETY ACT

I. PURPOSE

The following opinion answers questions related to questions raised by the WASPC as to whether a municipal law enforcement agency exposes itself to additional liability by certifying retired law enforcement officers as having met Criminal Justice Training Commission standards for firearms qualification. The purpose of the LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS’ SAFETY ACT OF 2004 (18 U.S.C. Sec. 926B and 926C) is to supplement active law enforcement personnel in order to deter crime and prevent terrorist activity. The federal law accomplishes this by anticipating that additional armed law enforcement personnel that have already been trained will be present within each jurisdiction as officers travel from one jurisdiction to another while on business, vacationing or for any other reason.

The Act authorizes retired officers and active police officers from outside of each jurisdiction to carry a concealed firearm within each and every jurisdiction of the United States; thus, increasing the likelihood that an armed officer will be present if deadly force is presented on the roads or in any other location where the traveling officer from outside a given jurisdiction may be. The retired officer must qualify annually per the standards that officers are required to meet for firearms proficiency within the agency from which he or she retired. For a retired officer to carry a weapon in all fifty states, the federal statute requires:

“… a certification issued by the State in which the individual resides that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the State to meet the standards established by the State for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm.”

Emphasis added.

The LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS’ SAFETY ACT OF 2004 is an aid to law enforcement and the public that costs the state or the federal government very little because the training has already been provided at the state level and each retired officer essentially becomes a volunteer who must pay the cost of maintaining his/her qualifications at the state and/or local level.

RCW 36.28A.090 reads in part:

Firearms certificates for qualified retired law enforcement officers.

(1) The purpose of this section is to establish a process for issuing firearms certificates to residents of Washington who are qualified retired law enforcement officers for the purpose of satisfying the certification requirements contained in the federal law enforcement officers safety act of 2004 (118 Stat. 865; 18 U.S.C. Sec. 926B and 926C).

(2) The Washington association of sheriffs and police chiefs shall develop a firearms certificate form to be used by local law enforcement agencies when issuing firearms certificates to retired law enforcement officers under this section.

(3) A retired law enforcement officer who is a resident of Washington may apply for a firearms certificate with a local law enforcement agency. The local law enforcement agency may issue the firearms certificate to a retired law enforcement officer if the officer:

(a) Has been qualified or otherwise found to meet the standards established by the criminal justice training commission for firearms qualifications for active law enforcement officers in the state; and…

II. ISSUES

A. Does the LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS’ SAFETY ACT OF 2004 (hereinafter the Act) provide an opportunity for citizens and law enforcement agencies across the United States to acquire additional security at little or no additional cost to state, local and federal governments in taxpayer funds and potential liability?

B. Does qualifying and certification of a retired officer incur more potential liability than qualifying active police officers?

C. Is there a reasonable basis not to implement the provisions of state and federal law outlined above based on potential liability or any other issues?

III. ANALYSIS

A well known police organization has actively advocated that police agencies in Washington State not certify retired officers under RCW 36.28A.090 because of alleged liability issues. As a general rule licensing and permitting does not incur liability absent exceptional circumstances or a so-called “special relationship” with a person or group who is adversely impacted by improper certification at a level below that of the policy-making decision to develop such a process. Washington courts apply the “public duty doctrine” in order to determine whether a decision is at a policy-making level and therefore immune from liability claims.

Even at the “mechanical” level where a police firearms instructor determines whether official standards have been met, there needs to be a specific individual or group relying on the testing officials determination (as opposed to the public at-large in order to create a potential for liability. Since no such relationship exists when an officer or retired officer qualifies, the alleged potential for liability does not exist. Those advocating against certification of retired officers need to answer two questions:

1. Is the basis of the alleged potential for liability based on ageism?

2. Where is the evidence of any liability against local law enforcement agencies based on certification that an officer has qualified under state standards for firearms proficiency?

Most jurisdictions, including Washington State, already provide for retired officers to qualify and continue carrying within the state. This would be similar to issuing a concealed carry permit. Thus, the question can be formulated- Where again is the evidence of any agency incurring liability by issuing concealed carry permits or by any qualifying retired officers to carry a weapon within the State of Washington and why should carrying outside the state increase the potential for such alleged liability?

The answer to all of the questions raised above is that the potential for increased liability is virtually non-existent. The true rationale behind the position that some groups are taking is a political agenda that seeks to maintain the myth that armed private individuals cannot deter crime or protect themselves or the public; i.e., an anti-gun agenda.

Where there is no “special relationship” creating a duty to a class of people that have relied on a permit, potential liability does not exist. The courts in Washington look to the manner and extent of contact between the government official and the member of the public in order to decide whether such a special relationship exists. The courts also look to how explicit any assurance is made to the specific class of persons that may rely on a permit, license or certification. J& B DEV. CO. V. KING COUNTY, 100 WN.2D 299, 669 P.2D 468 (1983).

In J & B Development, the court held that a breach of a governmental duty owed only to the public as a whole cannot be the basis for a cause of action. See also RCW 4.96.010. Prior to J & B DEVELOPMENT, the Washington legislature had abolished most governmental immunity. In J & B Development, a building inspector was held to have a duty to the builder based on the special relationship created by issuance of a negligent building permit. The governmental entity breached a duty owed to the plaintiff as an individual rather than to the public at large.

The Public Duty Doctrine provides an exception to the general rule in Washington. The general rule is that the state and its subdivisions can be sued on any basis for which a private citizen may be sued. See RCW 4.96.010. Despite the waiver of sovereign immunity contained in RCW 4.96.010, the Public Duty Doctrine requires that a claimant suing a governmental agency or municipality must establish the breach of a duty owed by a governmental entity specifically to an individual or group making a claim. See WASHINGTON STATE’S 45-YEAR EXPERIMENT IN GOVERNMENTAL LIABILITY, by Michael Tardif & Rob McKenna. Seattle University Law Review, Vol. 29, Fall 2005.

The act of testing and issuing a certificate is in the nature of a “ministerial” or “operational” function. Nevertheless, the fact that the Washington State Legislature has provided that “…The qualification required under [subsection] (3)(a) of this section may be performed by the local law enforcement agency or by an individual or entity certified to provide firearms training” creates a discretionary, policy-making characteristic to an agency’s certification under state law. See RCW 36.28A.090. Thus, the discretion involved in creating a local certification process decision brings the decision under the immunity provided by the Public Duty Doctrine.

The fact that 18 USC 926(c) and the above referenced state law are promulgated for broad public safety purposes and not for the purpose of creating a duty to specific class eliminates liability for the decision. Therefore there is no valid argument that potential liability exists by certifying that retired officers have met the standards of the Criminal Justice training Commission. On the other hand, the benefit to the national public may be immense. The benefit to the people of Washington State accrues as armed police officers from other states travel in Washington; i.e., the benefit is derived from reciprocation as sister states implement the Act.

It is a well recognized principle of tort law that a fundamental element of actionable negligence is the existence of a duty owed by the person charged with negligence to the one injured. E. McQuillin, SUPRA. To be actionable, the duty owed must focus on the one injured, not on the public at large. To sustain an action against an individual, it is necessary to determine whether one is under a duty to a claimant as opposed to the general public. Similarly, to sustain an action against a municipality it is necessary to decide whether a municipality is under a general duty to a nebulous public or whether that duty has focused on the claimant.

J & B Development, supra.
The rationale of the “public duty doctrine” has historically been (1) prevention of excessive governmental liability and (2) the need to avoid hindering the governing process. Nevertheless, in J & B Development, the court stated:

“…the “public duty doctrine” has a third logical application in tort litigation. A duty to the public in general is usually considered a duty to no one in particular (I.E., the “public duty doctrine"). When considered in combination with the “special relationship” rule, however, it becomes a mechanism for focusing upon whether a duty is actually owed an individual claimant rather than the public at large. The “special relationship” rule is in fact the focusing tool. Assum(ing) a county voting registrar has a duty to refrain from registering nonresidents… it would be difficult, if not impossible, for an individual citizen to recover in tort against the County for the negligent violation of that duty.”

No liability is presented where the act, omission, or decision to certify involves a basic governmental policy, program, or objective. The act of a county or municipality exercising discretion explicitly provided by state law requires the exercise of a basic policy evaluation, judgment, and expertise on the part of the agency. Said discretion is essential to the realization of federal and Washington state policy; and is within the proper authority and duty of law enforcement agencies.

The act of an agent of a governmental entity shown to have been done in an arbitrary and capricious manner, or decided upon without considering the facts involved, may not be classified as a discretionary function and is not entitled to exemption from liability.
The fact that the state legislature has provided authority via RCW 36.28A.090 for local municipalities to implement federal law for the benefit of the public at-large raises an issue as to whether liability can exist where a certificate is issued in an arbitrary and capricious manner and foreseeable harm results. In the unlikely event that a court identifies a duty predicated on the requisite special relationship, any potential liability would be no greater than that which presently exists by certifying active police officers for duty.

“The state of Washington, whether acting in its governmental or proprietary capacity, shall be liable for damages arising out of its tortious conduct to the same extent as if it were a private person or corporation.” See EVANGELICAL UNITED BRETHREN CHURCH V. STATE, 67 Wn.2d 246, 253, 407 P.2d 440 (1965) (it is necessary to determine where, in the governmental process orthodox tort liability stops and the act of governing begins).

According to EVANGELICAL CHURCH, at page 254:

“Liability cannot be imposed when condemnation of the acts or omissions relied upon necessarily brings into question the propriety of governmental objectives or programs or the decision of one who, with the authority to do so, determined that the acts or omissions involved should occur or that the risk which eventuated should be encountered for the advancement of governmental objectives.”

EVANGELICAL CHURCH at page 255 states four preliminary questions that are relevant to determining whether an act was a discretionary governmental process:

(1)“Does the challenged act, omission, or decision necessarily involve a basic governmental policy, program, or objective?

(2) Is the questioned act, omission, or decision essential to the realization or accomplishment of that policy, program, or objective as opposed to one which would not change the course or direction of the policy, program, or objective?

(3) Does the act, omission, or decision require the exercise of basic policy evaluation, judgment, and expertise on the part of the governmental agency involved? (4) Does the governmental agency involved possess the requisite constitutional, statutory, or lawful authority and duty to do or make the challenged act, omission, or decision?”

IV. CONCLUSION

Therefore, in view of the federal and state mandates that confer discretionary governmental authority to implement certification, municipal law enforcement agencies are immune from liability. The arguments that are advanced related to potential liability are either disguised prejudice against retired officers (based on age) or are based on biases against private citizens being armed. After all, the rationale of the LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS’ SAFETY ACT OF 2004 is that armed citizens can make a difference, a rationale that runs directly contrary to the “consensus” that citizens with weapons are more of a danger to themselves or others than to the bad guys.

To be entitled to immunity, the state must make a showing that such a policy decision, consciously balancing risks and advantages, took place. The author’s opinion herein can be particularly relied on by Washington State municipalities and law enforcement agencies due to the fact that the Legislature clearly made the decision to implement the certification process a local determination within the discretion of municipal governments.

It goes without saying that refusal to clearly look at the benefits set forth herein may frustrate an inexpensive public safety initiative with the potential for resulting loss of life. Such irresponsible public administration would raise the specter of real political liability in light of the potential for mass shootings and future terrorist acts that predictably may involve small arms.

See also a MESSAGE from Durango, Colorado’s Police Chaplain.

Have you ever noticed how everybody claims to honor our veterans? Even the anti-war activists that despised President Bush proclaim that they “support the troops”. Such “support” is often expressed as concern about the levels of Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome experienced by returning veterans.

Veterans often deal with high levels of stress due to a number of factors. The public’s perception, fostered by the New York Times, that veterans may harm themselves and others can contribute to stress. A spokesperson for a local mental health provider that works with the VA and veterans recently told me that veteran’s gun rights are nothing compared to the need to ensure that vets do not blow their brains out. Why should a veteran trust such professionals who regard Constitutional rights with such a cavalier attitude?

Returning veterans are justifiably upset. Legislation has already been proposed at the federal level to deprive those with PTSD of their gun rights based only upon the assessment of a doctor. At present, the only procedure for depriving an individual with mental health issues of the right to possess firearms is a finding of mental illness by a judge. There are many anti-gun zealots (many in government) that believe the road to hell is paved with such safeguards!

Veterans considering counseling for mental health issues are asking whether medical providers may be required to disclose mental health records to government bureaucrats at some point in time. Aren’t disgruntled veterans with guns the people that Homeland Security told us fit the profile for lone-wolf terrorists? The healthcare system, including the private sector, is on its way to a brave new world of uniform record-keeping that will interface electronically with the federal healthcare system.

Many doctors (especially within the public health sector) are already asking patients questions dealing with whether the patient has guns in the home, how guns are stored and whether trigger locks are utilized. Once the federal government gets involved with the allocation of medical resources, all kinds of safety issues suddenly become relevant because of the economic interest that the government has in allocating scarce hospital beds.

Although there are HIPAA laws that keep such records confidential, the federal government has passed many laws that are buried in thousands of pages of legislation already passed so quickly that even the sponsors of such laws have not had a chance to read them. I advise veterans and others not to seek counseling from mental health professionals where the federal government can gain access to any records- now or in the future.

Studies indicate that returning veterans experience stress at least partly due to reactions from family and friends that imagine a propensity for violence on the part of a veteran; i.e., the perceptions of others toward the vet. Ironically, our modern repugnance to any armed force is at least partly due to complacency bred by peace and freedom for which our warriors fought, killed and died. One antidote to PTSD is deep religious faith that recognizes and honors the values demonstrated by warriors on the battlefield.

We encourage reading all the Massad Ayoob articles. Go to the links herein and click on one of articles; there is a list of links to Ayoob’s articles about dealing with threatening situations at:

XML:

Ayoob is an eminent firearms author and lecturer trained in law and police work. Mr. Ayoob trains law enforcement, military and civilians in combat shooting skills and teaches at the Firearms Academy of Seattle (in Onalaska, Washington) every year.

If you think that small arms are not likely to be deployed as deadly instrumentalities of terror by jihadist or other terrorist teams read the following:

Armed Intrusions and Building Occupations

“Attackers using small arms are a growing threat. Even “routine” workplace shootings can prove disastrous for business continuity. A single disgruntled employee with no training, no accomplices, no support, and with little reconnaissance and preparation has been able in the past to penetrate a variety of workplaces, systematically murder workers, and wreak havoc on businesses.”

One such case occurred in a mall in Omaha and another earlier in the year in Salt Lake City, killing eight and five, respectively. Most of these tragedies occur in so- called “gun-free zones". Imagine what multiple coordinated, trained and well-equipped terrorist teams might be able to accomplish with detailed support and advance planning if they hit at the same time in several strategic locations.

“The prospect of a business office or campus takeover, a media spectacle hostage crisis, or instances of mass murder cannot be ruled out in the coming years.” (From Anticipating Terror Threats by Robert C. Chandler, Ph.D.)

XML:

The above-referenced Disaster Resource website is designed for business managers and disaster planning professionals. It contains many excellent articles for busibess management. The Chandler article makes an excellent point relating to how carefully the potential for attacks against business operations has been quantified by insurance actuaries since 911.

Those that are in denial about the potential for further attacks like the WTC attacks are already paying for potential damage in the cost of insurance premiums, directly or passed on via the price of goods and services. The economics of the insurance industry are far less susceptible to political manipulation than Fox News audiences, CNN viewers or, for that matter, MoveOn.Org enthusiasts.

Another good link is to the Firearms Academy of Seattle, Inc. which now offers a UTAH concealed firearm permit that is good in 27 states- and it only costs $85.00 to take the class which does not include the permit fee of $65.25.

http://www.firearmsacademy.com/utpermit.htm

FAS offers classes at almost every level of shooting from basic safety to advanced tactical and combat shooting with most types of firearms. Massad Ayoob is a regular lecturer at the Academy which includes legal professionals among its instructors. The law of armed defense is one of the primary components of the FAS course work.

I recently attended the Lethal Force Institute for four days and will discuss the details of the training at this site in the near future. Two days of classroom lecture pertaining to the legal elements of armed defense were followed by two days of hands-on firearms training with Ayoob and several other instructors providing excellent guidance.

We started in the classroom with detailed discussion as to when a reasonable person is justified in using deadly force. The equal force that is reasonable for a civilian is quite different than the necessary force deployed by a police officer. Carrying in public is a privilege so it is necessary for armed citizens to understand the legal and physical limitations presented in real life situations.

We are not forces of good battling forces of evil but men and women that are imperfect. It is important that as an armed citizen you are not provoking a disturbance in any way. The person that may end up confronting you in a parking lot or other public place has a family and wants to live as much as you do. The best way to confront an angry person is with calm well-measured words but if that other person is presenting deadly force and demonstrating to you that you are in jeopardy, you should not hesitate to stop that individual from taking the opportunity to separate you from your family and those that you love.

The circumstances that justify presenting deadly force are immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to innocent person(s). Any consent to enter into mutual combat negates innocence on your part and makes you part of the problem rather than part of the solution to the threat of criminal violence. Your words should be chosen carefully, for example, if another driver confronts you in a road rage incident.

If an unarmed attacker assaults you, lethal force is not justified without disparity of force. In other words, you cannot present your weapon if another man attcks with his bare hands- even if he is bigger than you! The bottom line is that you still have to know how to fight. If someone tries to take your weapon from its holster, the equation changes considerably.

There was recently a case in Sturgis, South Dakota where a Hell’s Angel (or several Hell’s Angel’s) had a police officer on the floor and may have been trying to take his weapon when he shot one of his attackers. The fact that the Seattle Police Officer (who was in Sturgis for some extra-curricular motorcycle activity) was on the floor where a boot can deliver a crushing blow, in and of itself put him in jeopardy of death or grave bodily harm.

When you add the fact that there were probably three attackers and they were allegedly attempting to remove his weapon, it is not hard to anticipate that he will probably not be charged with any crimes related to discharging his weapon. A Hell’s Angel went to the hospital and it remains to be seen whether there will be more to the story.

In the legal world every rule has its exceptions. The discussion herein is not intended to impart the details of when to use lethal force. Our only goal is to encourage taking a class because no amount of reading is going to prepare you to fight for your life on the street or in the legal aftermath of a firefight. One thing is certain, at some point you will have to articulate your decisions after the fact and your decisions and statements pertaining to why you decided as you did will have consequences that will determine a great deal about your future. Although most attorneys (including this one) will advise you to remain silent, it is important to identify yourself as the victim of an assault and make sure the officers know who the witnesses are and that you feared for your life. It may also be important to identify potential evidence (e.g., weapons and/or spent casings).

Officers understand the importance of not talking unnecessarily right after undergoing so much stress. Police officers are taught to wait until they can speak with their attorneys after a shooting incident and they will respect your decision to wait until your attorney can be present.

The criteria in determining whether to use lethal force is to look at the assailant’s ability to produce death or grave bodily harm based on what you know at the time that you are forced to make the decision. In other words, even if an attacker is coming at you with no weapon in his hands, you may have a medical condition or know of some previous history on the part of the assailant that puts you in reasonable fear that he will injure you to the point of producing death or grave bodily harm (e.g., he is known to you to be prone to weapons produced from concealment and he kills or maims his victims). On the other hand, if there is any way to avoid taking a life, take the option that spares a life even if that means letting an assailant or intruder in your home run away.

Women are usually considered to lack the upper body strength to defend against a male attacker and so use of deadly force may be justified for a female under circumstances where a smaller, weaker man would be expected to defend without use of a weapon.

Opportunity must also be present. A man with a baseball bat that is 100 yards away from you does not have the opportunity to hurt you no matter how much he verbally threatens to hurt you. On the other hand, an athletic individual with a knife or other contact weapon can run twenty feet and cut you before you can react.

We ran drills in the Lethal Force class and it only takes slightly over a second for a determined assailant to reach you. Unless you are exceptionally well-trained and have quick reflexes, your reaction time (ability to make the decision to draw and shoot) is probably over two seconds. You may hit center of body mass with one or more rounds and be killed by the momentum of a knife-wielding assailant’s body charging at you.

See Jihad.

Ability, opportunity and jeopardy are the criteria. Three men with sheath knives on their belts walking past you on the street have the ability and opportunity to produce death but the mere fact that they are approaching you on the sidewalk does not indicate jeopardy without more. On the other hand, if one of them takes out a knife and demands your wallet… well, it is just possible that you are in jeopardy!

Normally the police will apprehend burglars soon enough and you and I do not have the training to deal with holding an intruder for the police. The “experts” that claim that most burglars are not armed are wrong and when the perpetrators are in the penitentiary they have all day long to practice furtively producing weapons and disarming people like you and I that have some training but not enough.

If you think you are dealing with someone that is determined to come back and harm you and your family and feel that you have to hold them at gunpoint you should not appoach them and you should stay behind cover. Have someone else call, the police and provide your description to the 911 operator along with the fact that you are holding the intruder at gunpoint.

If at all possible, stay in a safe room in the event that a home invasion is occurring and call the police rather than exposing yourself to an intruder that has the tactical advantage (and maybe several friends to back him up). We cannot go beyond the information already provided herein because much of the training information could be used against honest people.

Remember that if you ever have to make such a decision, you are making a split-second decision that you will have to live with the rest of your life. If you hesitate or make the wrong decision, your life may end right at that critical place and time. If you panic and draw your gun where no jeopardy exists, the mere fact that three men on the street had the opportunity and ability to hurt you will not get you out of charges of displaying a weapon with the intent to intimidate or even more serious charges.

So spend the time and money to get trained now. You cannot gain the training you need to exercise your privilege to carry a weapon in public just from a website or a book. The fact that people like you and I are willing to learn from professionals is evidence that we take our responsibilities as armed citizens very seriously and that we are facing the risks honestly.

Please forward our site to friends. Family and friends serving overseas and at home in the armed forces need to know that we appreciate their role in keeping the rest of us safe. Please keep us informed.

In closing, we also need to let members of the armed forces know that we agree with their mission and appreciate their ongoing fight for our freedom. Without our police and armed forces, we could not debate the issues and say almost anything we damned-well please without getting our heads sawed off with a blunt scimitar. The people of Iraq and other countries are also starting to experience peace and freedom from terrorism due to the efforts of our fighting men and women.

Bear in mind that the watchman watches in vain unless God guards the city.

Federal Way recently had an unfortunate incident where a law enforcement officer (LEO) shot at a man that was threatening the officer with a gun that looked like a real gun; shooting the subject would have been justified. But why did the officer shoot twice and miss?

Officers are trained not to shoot unless an opponent presents deadly force. An officer is trained to aim for center of body mass. The primary objective is to stop an opponent from inflicting death or grave bodily harm. If the LEO hesitates or misses, the risk is that the officer or bystanders will become victims. The fact that the Federal Way incident occurred at a strip mall raises the issue of bystanders being hit by the LEO’s shots. The officer missed his shots. This raises the issue of whether the officer would be alive had the subject been carrying a real gun.

LEOs justifiably hold Monday morning quarterbacks, including many lawyers, in disdain. Every time an LEO shoots at an assailant, no matter how justified, lawyers reconstruct every moment before, during and after the shooting. A few thoughts on training are in order, nevertheless.

LEO firearms training starts with the LEO’s desire to return alive to loved ones at the end of the shift! Although officers must meet basic proficiency standards, many of them have never fired a shot in self-defense. Many competent “civilians” can and do take the time to become trained and acquire gun handling skill that equals or exceeds the average LEO’s skill.

Consider the effect on motor skills as adrenaline starts pumping along with the heavy first trigger-pull that commonly causes LEOs to jerk the first shot with some semi-automatics under stress. Studies have proven that officers and civilians that participate in exercises simulating real-life scenarios have a much better chance of surviving a gun fight. Competitions that combine speed, movement, shooting from cover and multiple targets create the stress necessary to increase LEO and civilian survivability.

Studies show that mistaken shootings are more likely to happen in low light. Shooting an innocent subject as he presents his identification may be blamed on racism when lack of low-light training is to blame. How many departments have a house where officers can shoot at targets in a darkened environment? It is unlikely such opportunities are available unless the LEO pays for private training.

FWPD trains its LEOs beyond the minimal levels required by law enforcement; neverthless, a defensive handgun class like the one at the Firearms Academy of Seattle teaches civilians and LEOS how to survive without incurring legal liability and the experience will enhance your appreciation for LEOs protecting us on the street. Marty Hayes told me that it is not uncommon for LEOs to attend FAS as a unit at their own expense. Whether or not you are an LEO, you owe it to your family to remain alive. If you are a civilian with a CPL and exercise your right to bear arms, you are responsible to know the laws, be safe and be proficient.

A recent study by the Washington State Board for Judicial Administration (BJA) provides information to help protect our courts from violence. The BJA, co-chaired by Grant County District Court Judge Janis Whitener-Moberg and King County Superior Court Judge Steven C. González, adopted Public Safety Standards for Washington State Courthouses in July 2007.

The Standards provide guidance for courts of all sizes in all parts of Washington for implementing security training, screening, weapons policy, use of force, alarm systems, key card access, threat assessment and facility design.

Additionally, the Administrative Office of the Courts assisted to develop a comprehensive system for reporting and tracking security incidents across the state. The incidents that have been reported in the last two years are striking, both in number and scope of threat and attack, according to Judge González.

Increased presence of law enforcement is one of the primary issues on which our courts need to focus.

Weapons screening stations should have:

• Adequate room for people to congregate inside, out of the weather, without being so crowded as to present additional security problems.

• A magnetometer, x-ray equipment, and hand-held magnetometers for backup screening.

• A duress alarm to summon additional help if needed.

• Closed circuit television monitoring of the access point.

• Adequate staffing of at least two trained staff to monitor traffic flow and at least one officer with a weapon to observe and respond to emergencies.

• Access to a private area to conduct more thorough searches using same gender personnel.

Emphasis added

Federal Way Municipal Court has one unarmed security guard at the metal detectors. Two armed bailiffs are usually busy transporting prisoners; Federal Way personnel with whom I have spoken are concerned for their own safety, the safety of judges, attorneys and other parties such as defendants and witnesses, as well as the public.

Indeed! The metal detector ensures that only an occasional LEO inside the courthouse is armed but also ensures that an intruder that can get past the unarmed security officer will be in an almost gun free environment. If such a scenario seems far-fetched then why do we have the metal detectors? In fact, Judge González states, every kind of threat, including threats to prosecutors and judges are on the upsurge and numerous judges, attorneys and other persons have been gunned down in the courtrooms of the United States.

Sudden violence has erupted in King County courts, too!

If we ask folks to disarm in order to enter the courthouse, we need to take reasonable precautions against foreseeable threats. The presiding judge can take some leadership on such issues and should be doing so.

In the entrance to the Thurston County District Court there are usually two attendants, both experienced LEOs, always with sidearms. In the Kitsap County Courthouse there are often three officers, always armed. In neighboring Fife there is an armed security officer at the metal detectors and always an armed bailiff in the courtroom. The prosecutor is also armed.

Many judges are also armed, according to well-placed sources. King County Superior Court and the King County District Courts station armed sheriff’s deputies along with unarmed security guards at the metal detectors.

Of course, there are also other courts in our area that choose to remain in denial as to the level of threat confronting those of us that enter the courthouse doors.

Any public official, including a judge, should be willing to sacrifice some of his or her salary in order to provide an armed presence at the entrance to our courthouse. Any city council member that is willing to sacrifice the safety of the public in order to solve the current budget crisis should be voted out of office.

See it for real: Video of man with AK-47 invading a courthouse.

By Mark S. Knapp, Attorney at Law

In 1994, Congress enacted a ban on assault weapons. President Clinton declared that such semi-automatic weapons were “built only for the purpose of killing people.” In the estimation of President Clinton and the United States Congress, Americans did not need such weapons to hunt and practice marksmanship. In 2004, the ban expired because its supporters could not show any impact on crime.

Americans increasingly favor owning light, semi-automatic rifles that fire many rounds (one pull of the trigger at a time) for competition and other purposes like protecting our children from predatory criminals. What makes assault weapons (AW) distinctively different from other semi-automatic weapons?

Automatic weapons that fire more than one shot with one pull of the trigger are already prohibited under federal law. Politicians seeking to gradually eliminate gun ownership know that the ability to create a banned category of weapons provides politicians with power to expand an Assault Weapon Ban to all semi-automatic weapons or even to weapons that hold more than ten rounds.

Thus, politicians recognize that by creating a list of characteristics defining certain weapons as illegal, firearms can be regulated out of existence. Many people think that pistols have no legitimate purpose. Is it true, however, that firearms with “legitimate” hunting and sporting purposes are the only weapons that Americans should be allowed to possess?

The men that drafted the Constitution had an intense debate that was finally settled by leaving the question of standing armies and military preparedness to the executive and legislative branches of the state and federal governments. In the event that inadequate attention to security issues put national security at risk, it was decided that the people themselves should be ready to take up arms to protect the Republic. On the other hand, the question of how to curtail a tyrant from controlling a large standing army was also addressed by providing for an armed populace.

The Second Amendment secures other liberties like the right to express dissent and to be free from governmental intrusions while enjoying privacy in our homes. State and federal legal cases resound with the precept that militarily useful weapons, not sporting goods, are what the U.S. and state constitutions provide for. Laws that required citizens to have a working rifle, suitable for military purposes and a prescribed amount of ammunition were common until modern standing military forces became the rule. Semi-automatic versions of the M-16, determined to be militarily useful by the United States government, are deployed every weekend as rifles of choice in competitions all over the State of Washington and the U.S.

10 USC 311 defines the militia as consisting “of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and… under 45 years of age….” The U.S. Constitution distilled legal wisdom from the classical world of Greece and Rome and Biblical Israel. Politicians were just as prone to disarming citizens in former times as they are today. The ancient despots stripped your weapons and there you stood- a slave. The moderns put you to sleep in lukewarm water while gradually turning up the heat.

See Wayne LaPierre video

Dave Workman’s piece about sixty-five House Democrats that oppose renewal of the AWB:

Gun prohibitionists are crowing that a federal judge on March 19 blocked a rule change allowing concealed carry in national parks.

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, a Bill Clinton appointee, issued a preliminary injunction that the National Rifle Association says it will quickly appeal.

An apparently giddy Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, was quoted by the Associated Press noting, “We’re happy that this headlong rush to push more guns into more places has been slowed.”

Darned right he’s happy, but this has nothing to do with public safety or even the lengthy process under which the rule was adopted late last year. Contrary to what the Brady camp and its allies who sued to stop this rule are claiming, this change was not “sudden” or a “last minute bone” thrown to the evil “gun lobby.” This process took a couple of years and went through an extended public comment period last year, and the gun ban lobby knows it. Public comments were being taken as far back as last spring, and everyone had a chance to weigh in, and was even extended an additional 30 days at the request of opponents like Kurt Repanshek.

But, as it has now occurred to 65 Democrat members of the House of Representatives, the gun ban lobby is pretty good at stretching a falsehood (truth has nothing to do with it!). Read this letter in pdf form, courtesy the National Rifle Association.

‘The gun control community has intentionally misled many Americans…’

See Dave Kopel’s article for more about threat of “assault weapons” to police officers.

In February, 2008, the Dallas Morning News reported that CIUDAD JUÁREZ, Mexico and Nuevo Laredo were competing for the tiltle of bloodiest border city.

In the first two months of 2008, Juárez had 72 murders – most of them tied to the drug cartels. They are the result of a bloody fight for control of drug distribution routes to U.S. cities, including several cities in the State of Washington.

On June 6, 2009, a shoot-out that erupted in Acapulco left 18 dead. According to the LA Times, a war occurred when army officials received an anonymous tip and arriving troops came under fire at a house in the western section of Acapulco:

“The army said 16 gunmen and two soldiers died during the gunfight. Some news media reports said the gunmen belonged to the Beltran Leyva drug-trafficking gang, based in the northwestern state of Sinaloa, but they could not be immediately confirmed.

Soldiers later recovered 49 rifles and handguns, 13 grenades and two grenade launchers, the army said. The cache held more than 3,000 rounds of ammunition.”

Every authority on the subject has been predicting that such violence is about to cross the border into the U.S. About the time that Mexican officials discovered eight bodies buried at a Juárez warehouse, an El Paso Times/News Channel 9 poll showed that 64 percent of El Paso residents feared that Juárez violence would spill into the U.S. The two cities, just across the Rio Grande from each other, have close cultural ties.

In Nuevo Laredo, the cartels have killed at least one journalist, a city council member and a police chief on the job just seven hours before he was gunned down. Additionally, the cartels had created a list of police officers marked for death. Many of the LEOs on the list have already been killed along with scores of other officers that were not on the list.

According to the Dallas Morning News articles, the Nuevo Laredo news media “self-censor” much of the news they report about the cartels because of fear that more journalists will be assassinated. “We’re reporting maybe 15 percent of what’s happening in our city,” said Alfredo Quijano, editor of the newspaper, whose building has received bomb threats. The fact that reporters in Mexico only reporting body counts and refuse to investigate official corruption that enables the cartels raises the issue of whether U.S. news media are also intimidated.

“We’re seeing the importation of Nuevo Laredo-style violence being unleashed to take control of this important gateway,” said a senior U.S. law enforcement official, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “The … magnitude, the brutality, the type of violence, this is what we now call Nuevo Laredo-style. It’s a proven strategy aimed at intimidating the public, law enforcement, the media.”

If Laredo style intimidation is coming to King County, our American gun culture may be the best barrier to prevent the epidemic of murder, kidnapping and robbery that all the authorities have predicted will surge across the border. According to a recent CNN story, “the cartel’s tentacles and those of its chief rival, the Gulf cartel, already reach across the border and into metropolitan areas such as Atlanta, Georgia; Chicago, Illinois; Seattle, Washington; St. Louis, Missouri; and Charlotte, North Carolina.”

In March, 2009, thirty-two-year-old Alfonso Ibanez-Martinez, a Mexican national operating near Tacoma, was convicted of conspiracy to distribute heroin. The Seattle DEA says Ibanez-Martinez has ties to the drug community in Michoacan, Mexico. Other major cartels like the Sinoloa and Tijuana also funnel drugs up I-5 into Seattle – a major distribution point before they head east to states like Wisconsin, Tennessee and North Carolina, according to King5.com.

CNN cited DEA Agent Joseph Arabit’s March, 2009 testimony before a subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee. “No other country in the world has a greater impact on the drug situation in the United States than Mexico does,” said Arabit, who heads the DEA’s office in this year’s border hot spot, El Paso, Texas. CNN’s map pinpointing drug traffic by cartel indicates that all the major Mexican cartels operate in and around Seattle and King County, including Renton, Federal Way & Bellevue. See where Mexican cartels are in the U.S.

The Justice Department’s National Drug Intelligence Center reported in December, 2008 that Mexican drug traffickers can be found in more than 230 U.S. cities.

Once again, drug war casualties are mounting on the Mexican side at a record pace in 2009 – more than 1,000 during the first three months of the year, Arabit said. See who the key players are » Since the same cartels are competing for turf in the Seattle area, violence seems inevitable.

Law enforcement officials and analysts told CNN that “it is only a matter of time before innocent people on the U.S. side get caught in the cartel crossfire.”

Although the cartels previously tried to avoid direct confrontation with U.S. law enforcement, Sinaloa cartel leader Guzman’s instructed his soldiers to shoot-to-kill- U.S. law enforcement officials included according to Los Angeles Times sources and intelligence memos.

Additionally, Stratfor, a Texas-based security consulting firm that helped to research Guzman and researches security risks, has been warning that the recent trend of cartel related kidnappings in Phoenix and Tucson will soon spread out to other localities within the U.S. and that the kidnapping business will not just continue targeting cartel members and their families.

Some neighborhoods in Phoenix have now become warehouses where the cartels hold illegal immigrants for ransom money. The economics of the “global market place” militate in favor of increased diversification The cartels have already begun to recognize the prospect of increasing revenue by kidnapping Americans.

Highways move the drugs. Nuevo Laredo is close to the Interstate 35 corridor, and Juarez has easy access to I-10, a major east-west interstate. I-25 runs north to Denver, Colorado. Tijuana is also conveniently near I-10 and I-5, which heads north all the way to the Canadian border via Seattle and Tacoma.

The violence involves beheadings, gun battles like the recent firefight in Acapulco. Mass graves and arms caches have been discovered and police and public officials have been gunned down in broad daylight. Recruitment banners in the streets display the open contempt that enforcers have for the authorities.

“From what we’ve seen, the Zetas have taken over the Gulf cartel,” analyst Stewart said. “In violent times, soldiers tend to rise to the top.” These soldiers are incredibly well-armed, police learned after a November raid that resulted in the arrest of top Zeta lieutenant Jaime “Hummer” Gonzalez Duran.

It was the largest weapons seizure in Mexican history – 540 rifles, including AK-47s; 287 grenades; two rocket launchers; and 500,000 rounds of ammunition.

Many of the Zetas are former Federales that walked away from their units taking their weapons with them. Even small towns are being taken over by groups like MS-13, an international network that uses the machete in order to increase brand recognition for the violent force which is the gang’s stock in trade.

There have also been reports that gangs have smuggled Middle Eastern terrorists across the border and that the cartels are menacing U.S. law enforcement at the border.

If the reports are true that the cartels and gangs like MS-13 are about to expand their operations into kidnapping for ransom and other activities, the U.S. population should be prepared.

But there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order.

Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir.1982)

The men that drafted the United States Constitution acknowledged that human government eventually degenerates into tyranny apart from three related sources of law. The concept of natural law stems from the recognition that everything in the universe, including mankind, reveals something of the character of its Creator.

The concept of natural law is foreign to many of our modern scientists, educators, lawyers and even theologians due to the fact that much of the modern belief system is founded on the premise that everything happens randomly and that reason itself has nothing to do with the processes that we observe in our environment. Thus, according to many modern law professors, law is whatever the courts deem it to be.

A second source of law for the Founders was the law of Scripture. For years, it has been conventional wisdom to declare that the men that drafted the U.S. Constitution were deists; i.e., they believed that that a divine intelligence created the universe and then set it to operate like a clock without any intervention on the part of the Creator. The facts show that most of the Founders believed that the God of the Bible wants to be known by mankind and rewards those that diligently seek Him.

The Founders believed that the Scripture reveals things that God wants us to know about Him and about how to relate to God and each other. People that declare that we “should not mix religion with politics” don’t understand the Bible or history or the Constitution.

The Founders prayed during their deliberations, quoted the Scripture and made reference to “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” in the Declaration of Independence. Such phrases have a distinguished pedigree and were very familiar to men like Thomas Jefferson who had studied the common law of England via Blackstone, Coke and Bracton.

Bracton has been called the “Father of the Common Law” who wrote a treatise in the thirteenth-century dealing with the third source of law referenced by the Founders; i.e., English common law. Most of the thinkers that developed common law principles were, like Bracton, learned in church law and Roman law. In the time of King James I, Coke confronted the King’s lawyers in an ongoing controversy as to whether the law was whatever the king says it is or whether the English people possessed inalienable rights that were revealed in nature, the Scripture and English common law.

The debate reached a focal point when Parliament raised an army to do battle with King Charles I during the English Civil War (1642-48). By 1776, men like John Locke and Sir William Blackstone had firmly placed English legal thinking within a system that squarely opposed the classical Greek and Roman traditions that dominated most of European thinking by that time. See the Ninth Circuit’s Nordyke case decided April 20, 2009.

Although God’s laws have been recognized from the earliest times in the history of Catholic and Protestant thought, the tendency to subvert Judeo-Christianity by reinventions of Aristotle and Plato constantly threatened to subvert freedom. Even the bargain that Europe and America struck with the slave traders was posited upon Neo-Platonic thought. Puritan bred New Englanders and their counterparts among evangelical English Christians made up the ranks of Abolitionists that fought the slave trade because it marred the image of God to deprive a fellow man of freedom.

Blackstone also acknowledged what he called municipal or civil law in areas where God has allowed freedom to adopt rules that deal with areas that do not have an intrinsic relationship to God’s character. For example, the prohibition against murder stems from who God is; i.e., the value that God places on human life. The prohibitions in the Law of Moses against theft are a recognition of property rights; i.e., that the Lord has placed some of his dominion (or lordship; i.e., qualities of sovereignty) in each individual.

A law governing the export of wool to a foreign country, on the other hand, cannot be said to violate a moral law. A law that would require the taking of an innocent life is a quite different matter than, for example, an excise tax on imported petroleum or tea.

But this brings us to a question to which lawyers and philosophers and politicians have devoted many volumes. From where do we derive rights? The concept of inalienable rights was as little understood in ancient times as it is by most of us today. The pagan Greeks and Romans owned slaves and could dispose of their slaves as they wished because of the belief that a man’s superiority allowed him to sell, sodomize or even kill his slave.

Human worth was relative to one’s position in government and the thinking of men like Plato and the other classical philosophers reflected an elitist view of society. Thus, within the classical/pagan world view, all men were inherently unequal. Therefore, the prevailing assertion that the Founders drafted a document that represents a stream of Enlightenment thought and/or Greco-Roman jurisprudence should be rejected.

From the time of the Gregorian Reform in 1075, scholars conducted a systematic inventory in order to correlate and unify every area of knowledge so that government and law and theology and science reflected the truth of God’s Word. It was during that time that the concept of property as a right became firmly recognized.

A right (ius) or dominium was also recognized as a meritum (legal claim). Over the years leading up to 1789, various orders within the Catholic Church (e.g., Dominicans) and Protestant theologians like John Calvin continued to recognize rights as rooted in God’s command to mankind to take dominion over the environment. Thus, man has a duty to establish good government, to respect other men and women’s property and to protect life.

To forfeit one’s own life by not defending against physical attack is not permitted except in unusual circumstances where the duty to obey a higher calling demands that we lay down our duty to defend our God-given life, dignity, property and freedom.

From the foregoing basic discussion of the origin of rights, it may seem like such controversies belong to theoretical study of ancient philosophy. The fact is that the same controversy goes on to today. Current events announced in newspaper headlines reflect an underlying discussion as to the character of American government and whether it should be more like European government. The role of government in the economy has been a big issue, especially since the 1930s. For example, there are controversies over whether it is appropriate to encourage citizens to defend their families with armed force while so much senseless gun violence is committed every day. The recent shootings in Binghamton, NY are a case in point.

Beyond all the statistics and arguments, we can say with certainty that, even though we live pursuant to a “social contract” where compromise is inevitable, certain rights are inalienable. We cannot enter a contract to give up (or alienate) our right to defend our families and should disband a government that violates human dignity by wantonly killing the innocent, including religious or ethnic minorities.

If this seems too abstract, then take note of the fact that the twentieth-century witnessed socialism spread across much of the globe. Whether totalitarian socialism manifests as tribal warfare in Rwanda, the Khmer Rouge killing fields in Cambodia, National Socialism and corporate statism in the midst of the Germany Holocaust or Fascism, Bolshevism or something else- statist ideology is one of the most salient features of the 1900s- i.e., genocide.

Natural law was often referred to as “the law of nations” and international law is still premised upon precepts and principles that have consciously been developed from common law principles.

Hugo Grotius was a Dutch lawyer who laid the groundwork for a systematic understanding of international law as a unified field of knowledge. He started with the recognition that inalienable rights are an inherent characteristic of man’s dignity which derives from God having created mankind in His own image. Nevertheless, Grotius compromised with the spirit of his age (and the humanistic philosophies of Plato and Aristotle that informed the Enlightenment). By doing so, he opened up the Calvinistic commercialism of the Netherlands to the evil of slave trading.

The idea that the Second Amendment means something different than what the Founding Fathers wrote when they drafted the Constitution is another aspect of the same controversy. The idea that the Constitution means whatever the courts say it means coexists with theologians that declare that the Bible means whatever individuals interpret it to mean; the Scripture, however, declares about itself that Scripture is not for private or personal interpretation- each of us has the responsibility to submit our understanding to each other, to previous generations and to what God himself proclaims about his Word within the context of all the Scripture. By the same token, when we interprete the Constitution we should look to what the drafters meant to say; i.e., their intent.

Underlying the “spirituality” of many mainstream theologians is a pagan escape from reason that says man must create a sense of order on his own in a universe that has no order higher than a mystic pantheism that cannot be explained but must rather be sensed by a “leap of faith”. Some call this Christian existentialism; others prefer to call it mysticism. To anyone that cares about freedom, the jargon of such modern philosophers and theologians are the semantics of incipient statism.

David Kopel has written an article, “To Your Tents, O Israel,” in which he examines the Scriptural roots of the Second Amendment and then looks at the Biblical roots of the men and women that made America. By removing much of this history from our schools, educators have set us up for tyranny. Just as the Books of the Law were removed from Israel until rediscovered by Josiah, we Americans need to rediscover the Scriptural roots of our U.S. Constitution. Read and then weep in repentance for what we have been so busy forfeiting.

The Firearms Academy of Seattle provides training for “civilian” and professional shooters that covers most aspects of tactical shooting. The classes also provide basic safety and educate citizens in most of the legal aspects pertaining to armed self defense and concealed carry. Marty Hayes, the founder of FAS, has an extensive law enforcement background.

I attended an FAS handgun class last year. Massad Ayoob will be lecturing again and also provides hands on training at the FAS campus in Onalaska. None of this information is new for many Washington shootists but the news is that Marty Hayes has started a legal network in order to assist members that need advice and encounter legal problems involving self defense and related issues:

On March 19, 2008, just a little less than two months after the foundation of the Armed Citizens’ Legal Defense Network, LLC, the funding arm of the Network was incorporated as a non-profit foundation, with the Washington Secretary of State, under the name of Armed Citizens’ Legal Defense Foundation.

The idea is that when you join the organization some of the revenue from the membership fees is set aside in the above referenced nonprofit as a defense fund for members that get into legal difficulty as a result of exercising his or her responsibility to defend themselves or others.

Incidentally, issues relating to armed self-defense are often discussed in terms of rights; i.e., Constitutional rights, Second Amendment, etc. It is important to remind ourselves occasionally that defense of one’s self and others is a moral imperative just like providing for our families and being good neighbors. Many followers of Christ are convinced that Christ taught his followers to lay down the sword and practice pacifism. This is a misunderstanding.

The Lord was a Jew and understood the Jewish heritage of warfare. When he said to put down the sword, he went on to explain that he was laying down his life willingly. The failure to understand that the Lord was laying down his lawful ability to defend himself is also a failure to understand the meaning of why he had to die in a public execution. At the time of Jesus’ arrest, he stated that he could call down legions of angels to protect him from his persecutors.

Christ’s followers are instructed to lay down rights and even responsibilities under certain circumstances, such as when he said to let the dead bury the dead. When we are called to make way for higher priorities than personal duty we may leave a good paying job in order to serve as missionaries or sacrifice our well-being to serve a loved one. Love has no higher meaning than a man or woman laying down his or her life for a brother or sister.

Would any person advocate that there is a moral imperative to submit to rape or torture or watch your children be taken from you by evil-doers? Shockingly enough, some church people teach that a woman who takes the life of a rapist in order to prevent a rape in progress is violating the Scriptural mandate to respect and preserve life.

Additionally, even if you have an abstract belief in the Second Amendment or that self-defense is a God-given natural right/responsibility, you need to prepare ahead of time by taking the necessary steps to obtain a Concealed Pistol License and a weapon and to get trained (if you plan to protect youself with a weapon). Most folks tell me they would defend their families if it becomes necessary.

Nevertheless, many of those same people with whom I speak seem to think that they will know in advance when the time comes that a weapon is necessary. There is not normally enough advance warning to go home and get a weapon, let alone to go through the waiting periods and other red tape involved to purchase a gun when and if the time comes that you need to deploy armed self-defense. Incidentally, unarmed self-sefense also requires training but is not an extremely viable option for many people.

If leaders and theologians within the church world teach that women should submit to rape rather than use a weapon against an assailant, is it any wonder that the politicians and lawyers are so confused? My theology teaches me that those that are Followers of Christ hold the keys and have the authority to powerfully influence public policy. Many churches teach that the goal is to get as many people saved as possible, build churches and then hold on until we get to heaven. Such an understanding is just a little short of the mark!

One of the purposes of this website is to exhort Christian folks to take an activist stance and exert the wisdom that is in the Scriptures in a way that shows that we have answers. Being as wise as a snake and as innocent as a dove is good counsel. Preparing for the legal aftermath of a justified shooting also shows wisdom. You don’t want to go to court with your brother-in-law that normally practices corporate law any more than you would want a lawyer reciting a bunch of Scriptures to the judge.

Start making preparations now to retain a lawyer or make arrangments to have legal counsel available in the event that you are ever called upon to use deadly force.

See Combat Weaponry in the Book of Luke.

Send us an e-mail if you want more information about the Armed Citizens’ Legal Defense Network: knapp.m@comcast.net or call (253) 661-1252.

The fact that detainees are often subjected to a judicial process under the UCMJ or similar procedures administered by military tribunals has caused a great deal of heartburn in some quarters. The fact is that every military lawyer has a professional code of ethics that constrains him or her to represent clients zealously and that requires remaining free from any command influences. Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift probably sacrificed his military career in order to comply with the professional code of zealous, ethical conduct- i.e., the same code under which private civilian lawyers work.

Additionally, the separate JAG chain of command and the separate ethical rules incumbent upon JAG lawyers make the military defense counsel as independent and committed as the best private counsel and probably considerably more aggressive.

Part of the reason for this is because of the quality of lawyers that are attracted to military service where the profit motive is almost nonexistent. Most of the lawyers that volunteer for active duty JAG service can earn much more money in the private or civilian public sectors. The reserve officers already work in private and civilian government jobs but choose to serve in the military knowing full well that the possibility of being sent to Iraq for at least a year is very high.

Thus,in an environment where younger, lower ranked officers are making decisions that used to be made by majors, the counsel of the able JAG lawyer becomes critical. The only control over the JAG officer’s advice is via the JAG chain of command. The command is made up of lawyer-soldiers that share a very high level of integrity.

Rule of law is at the heart of fighting asymmetrical warfare because the concept of justice is what burns in every human being’s heart- even the jihadist’s. The most hardened enemy will justify his actions based on some sense of having been wronged that proceeds out of a concept of justice. The rules of engagement and other concepts that sound theoretical within the concept of media discussions or on a blog are not at all abstract to the man or woman who is being terrorized by militias in Iraq or warlords in Afghanistan.

For example, the military defense lawyers that represent detainees (and they have been taking cases to the U.S. Supreme Court repeatedly) are displaying U.S. style rule of law to the whole world. It makes a difference in the places where there are hearts and minds to be won. There are many U.S. citizens that just can’t see it. Too bad that more journalists can’t take off their negative-tinted glasses and see things through the lense of how much our system of laws has to offer the world.

Such commitment to law is going to be tested severley if a WMD incident occurs within the U.S. Homeland. Ralph Vartabedian, in the Los Angeles Times, dated January 6, 2008 states:

About every three days, unknown to most Americans, an elite team of federal scientists hits the streets in the fight against nuclear terrorism. The deployments are part of an effort since 2001 to ratchet up the nation’s defenses.

More than two dozen specialized teams have been positioned across the nation to respond to threats of nuclear terrorism, and as many 2,000 scientists and bomb experts participate in the effort. Spending on the program has more than doubled since it was launched.

And an evolving national policy aims to create a system of nuclear forensics, in which scientific analysis could quickly identify the source of a nuclear attack or attempted attack. A key report on nuclear forensics is due next month.

[Teams of weapons designers, physicists could be the last hope of staving off nuclear attack]

If a nuclear device explodes the pressure to remove our civil liberties, including the Second Amendment, will be intense. There will be gangs, mobs of scared, hungry Americans and possibly foreign elements exploiting the situation. Terrorist teams are reportedly already in the U.S. waiting for the “perfect” day.

Who will be interpreting the rules of engagement during an extended conflict with terrorists within our homeland? You can count on JAG lawyers making many important decisions at the operational level. The President and FEMA and the state governors will be deciding who defines the rules, up to and including martial law in which due process and even the Writ of Habeas Corpus are suspended. In plain English, the President will have absolute authority if martial law is declared and habeas corpus and due process are suspended. The military, a foreign power or some outside entity (like the United Nations or NATO) could become involved in a way that is extraneous to the U.S. Constitution- a hypothetical scenario, to be sure.

According to many Constitutional law professors, the treaties (like NATO treaties) by which the United States has compromised its chain of military command, supersede the U.S. Constitution. We need to hope and pray that there is a generation of officers, including JAG lawyers, that remain loyal to the U.S. Constitution. There is justifiable concern in many quarters about how the chain of command will operate during an international emergency (think of NATO where the U.S. command structure is integrated with foreign command systems).

How many elected politicians seem to have the bedrock of honor and integrity that is on display by our armed forces every day? Look at Gov. Rod Blagojevich in Illinois, for example, or Seattle’s Mayor Nickels.

We are presently depending on government legal counsel to decide where our right to privacy stops and national security begins in ways of which we are hardly aware:

The counterterrorism efforts are becoming routine. Scientists in specially equipped helicopters and airplanes use radiation detectors to scan cities for signs of weapons. They blend into crowds at major sporting events, wearing backpacks containing instruments that can identify plutonium or highly enriched uranium.

If the many layers of federal defense against nuclear smuggling break down, these unarmed weapons designers and physicists, along with experts from the FBI, could be the last hope of staving off a catastrophic attack.

They are supposed to rush up to a ticking nuclear explosive (or a “dirty” bomb, which would disperse radioactive material) and defuse it before it’s too late— a situation often depicted by Hollywood that seems less fictional every year.

…Majidi and Krol say extensive planning and exercises have clarified the lines of authority.

The forensics study is trying to assess how authoritative the United States could be in attributing a nuclear device to a particular source and in making its case to the American public and the rest of the world. Davis said it was hoped that nuclear forensics could determine the size of a detonation within one hour; the sophistication of the bomb design within six hours; how the fuel was enriched within 72 hours; and the peculiar details of national design—“Does this look like a Russian, a Chinese, or a Pakistani device, or something we have never seen before?”—within a week.

It goes without saying that civilian and military lawyers will be involved at every level of the decision tree right down to the rules of engagement where justice will be executed against those that would decide to test the resolve of the United States.

Citizens at the grassroots will also be making some decisions. Americans are known for cooperating with duly constituted leaders and we appreciate government officials. There are sheep and wolves and sheepdogs that prepare for the day that we can attack the wolves and protect the sheep. Our heritage as a people indicates that Americans will be prepared in a crisis.

The rule of law is always at the heart of every conflict. Governing ourselves by our respect for law is a habit and a way of life that is also a strength. We need to seek out leadership that is committed to the principles of the Founding Fathers, including the Second Amendment (rst Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights).

We need integrity and loyalty to the oath to uphold the United States Constitution- not commitment to social and economic change. All politicians took that oath. Without the honor and integrity of our JAG force, we can quickly become like those failed countries where we are presently so busy building institutions of government. There has to be a remnant, like the JAG officers, that stand in the gap.

See Rule of Law.