Virtually every person such as James who has concerns about the Second Amendment (or in some other cases, outright hate for it) fully respects the First Amendment.
In particular, good honest investigative journalists regardless of their political orientation are highly respected people. We also have a lot of laws on the books specifically to make their jobs easier, such as public access to campaign finance records, laws supporting public access to government records (Federal Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) or state-level equivelent) and the like.
But, what happens when amateur or professional activists/journalists actually *use* such laws, and run into a crook? Especially when they investigate law enforcement, in states where access to legal gun carry ("CCW") permits are under the personal control of sheriffs and police chiefs?
In Alabama, a professional investigative journalist ran head-on into this question, and posted the following:
I am a local journalist in Alabama, and I am a CCW holder. Although, that may change if I have to renew the my license with my local sheriff. (Follow the link and read my story to find out what I mean.The story will be up for one week. It will be removed on midnight Wednesday, May 16.)
The article in question was titled "Deputy is violating law - Mayor pardons deputy..."
Source:
http://www.packing.org/news/article.jsp/3508
Here in California, I investigate the wrongdoing committed by sheriffs and police chiefs in the handling of CCW permits issued on a "discretionary basis".
In 1994, Sacramento County sheriff's deputies busted a drunk name of James Colafrancesco, who threatened somebody with a gun in a verbal argument over a parking spot. While arresting him, they realized he was a construction company executive and holder of one of the rare CCW permits issued by their own sheriff; in questioning him about the permit, Colafrancesco answered:
"It is all political. It is a big political game. I am a major contributor of Lou Blanas [then UnderSheriff, now Sheriff] and Glen Craig [Sheriff at that time], and they gave me a concealed weapons permit. They told me not to screw around, and not to mess it up, and I have tried real hard not to. You can call Mo Bailey [#3 man in the department]. You can call Lou Blanas. They know I am a good guy. They know that I would never point my gun at anyone."
Actual scanned police report on the incident:
http://www.equalccw.com/colafrancescopapers.pdf
Naturally, that got my attention. So over the last couple of years, several activists in this field have filed California Public Records Act Requests for the CCW issuance records by this sheriff. All were ignored, including mine, and including a request by NRA attorney Chuck Michel.
Then I got an interesting idea - I hooked up with a local reporter for a small paper, explained what was up, and got HIM to file a request, on the assumption that the sheriff would take a reporter more seriously.
Sure enough, the reporter's request netted at least a partial list of the sheriff's permitholders - 250 names.
I ran those names past sheriff Blanas' campaign contribution records, and came up with $105,000 in direct links between the permitholders and his campaign financing, another $75k or so in "indirect links" (family, business associated of campaign contributors scoring the permits).
I showed that to the reporter...who then chickened out of any follow-up inquiries or reporting on the subject.
Now, do you understand why I'm showing you these cases?
It's because
you do not have any first amendment rights unless you also have the right to self defense. While speaking out is your right, it can also get you killed. You therefore need to be able to "lock'n'load" to meet the potential threat and if the threat is serious enough, an AR15/M16/AK47 or similar "battle rifle" could very well be a sane part of your preparations.
That's why the Bill Of Rights was written as a unit. Each right bolsters and supports the others. The right to free speech allows criticism of crooks in government; the right to arms gives you the right to SURVIVE making such criticism.
Lookit: the rise of civilized, limited government came about during the era of guns.
This wasn't an accident. Guns allow the common man to rise up against a rotten government; without guns, the people are at the mercy of a professional warrior class. Study Japanese history for a horrifying look at where that leads: in the Samurai period, members of the warrior class had the
right to kill anyone of any other class, on a whim. There was actually a term used for the practice of testing your brand new sword on the first peasant that walked by. While admittedly uncommon, just the fact that there was a NAME for that is one
hell of a good reason not to give governments a monopoly on force!!!
Finally, be very wary of anybody eager to pass a law to disarm you or take action to that effect. They are NOT your friends.
In 1873, a group of local police in Louisiana disarmed local blacks, led by a cop name of Cruikshank. Rather than tell you what happened next, I'll quote from the official US Congress constitutional history page:
The Supreme Court decided the case of United States v. Cruikshank in 1876. The case grew out of a brutal massacre of blacks in the little Louisiana town of Colfax.
In Colfax whites burned the court house and murdered an unknown number of blacks. After the U.S. Army restored order, a federal grand jury indicted 72 white men. The United States Attorney brought nine to trial and won a conviction against William Cruikshank and two others.
Normally the federal government does not prosecute persons charged with murder. Control of ordinary crime has traditionally been the job of the states. In this case the U.S. Attorney used the 1870 Enforcement Act. This law makes it a crime for two or more persons to band together with intent to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen.
The Supreme Court threw out the convictions of Cruikshank and his cohorts. As it had in the Slaughterhouse Cases, the Court acted to protect states' power. "Every republican government," Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite wrote, "is in duty bound to protect all its citizens." He then added, "That duty was originally assumed by the States; and it still remains there."
Source:
http://www.constitutioncenter.org/sections/history/19th.asp
If it's not clear yet: Cruikshank and his co-conspirators clearly violated the black's rights to arms under the 2nd Amendment,
in order to violate their 1st Amendment right to free speech, their 14th Amendment right to equal protection and their 15th Amendment right to vote. And according to the US Supreme Court in 1876, only a state could put a stop to it. This decision ensured the Klan would have free reign for generations.
But gun control isn't racist today, is it?
In California, where gun carry permits are of the aforementioned "discretionary" type, your odds of obtaining a CCW permit vary radically by county. If you're in the half of the state with a county-level black population below the state average number of blacks, your odds of having a permit and a gun legally concealed on your person are
five times higher than if you're a resident of a county with a black population above the state average. See also this page for the data and statistical breakdown:
http://www.equalccw.com/ccwdata.html
In 1995, the Fresno Bee newspaper tallied up the 2,500 CCW permits in that county and analyzed them for Hispanic last names; they found a 3% Latino permit issuance rate in a county that is
44% Hispanic per US census data.
Full text of the story:
http://www.equalccw.com/fresnobee.html
In conclusion: nobody that wants to disarm you is your friend. Government attracts personalities that desire control over other people, and stripping people of self defense is the ultimate expression of that control. Every single effort to eliminate self defense is a violation of basic human rights and there are an increasing number of people who realize it, and will fight that FIRST by any possible legal/political means.
