American Flag flying upside down as signal of DISTRESS

2/2004

Dear Mayor Newsom, Acting Police Chief Fong, and The Honorable Judge Warren:

Today's www.keepandbeararms.com has an article about a San Francisco police officer and police officers in Southern California who conducted an investigation of one Mr. David Codrea triggered by an email that he sent to each of you that asked each of you rhetorical questions. That article quotes a representative of the San Francisco Police Department as stating that that investigation is "on going." Amazing! Since when does a non-threatening email warrant any official police investigation? Are we still living in the Land of the Free, the Home of the Brave? Have the Stars and Stripes morphed into the Stars and Bars?

For what it is worth, I have a BA With Honors in Political Science from U.C. Riverside and a J.D. from the School of Law, U.C. Davis. I am an ex-criminal prosecutor. And from 1972 to date I have been a licensed member of the State Bar in good standing.

I remember vividly how positively oriented I was toward the judiciary and to sworn peace officers when I graduated from law school in 1971. Looking back, I was incredibly naive and uninformed.

Since we are busy, must prioritize, have severe time constraints, and limited attention spans, I will keep this short and go directly to my bottom line(s).

I know little about each of you and/or your positions on relevant issues and/or your reasons for same. I also appreciate the difference between a person and a person's position, plus the difference between a person's private convictions and public position.

None of what follows is intended to be an attack on either of you personally nor on any of your positions.

I am simply expressing my objection to the San Francisco Police Department investigating David Codrea because of his referenced email.

I wish each of you well. I harbor no animosities. Generally, however, I am disgusted with major trends in this nation, in this state, in San Francisco, and where I live. "Disgusted" is far too mild.

Mr. Codrea's letter to you was, and is, excellent. He is intelligent. Articulate. Logical. Persuasive. He excelled at putting a well focused cerebral spotlight on what is going on in San Francisco and in this state. I concur with his reasoning 100%.

I object, unequivocally, intensely, and strenuously, to anyone in law enforcement contacting Mr. Codrea for anything arising from the email he sent you. Grounds: Chilling effect on his responsible exercise of a First Amendment right [and hence, on others, too, by implication] and a waste of limited public resources and officers' time that would be much better spent narrowly focused on real crime, not Mr. Codrea's intelligent, responsible, appropriate use of a vital right enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

Simultaneously, since one or more persons in civil authority apparently believes it is their legitimate function to investigate Mr. Codrea, and that such an investigation is justified, I urge each of you to do a Google search on my name [Peter J. Mancus] and read ultra carefully what I have written about Liberty, the Constitutional Rule of Law, the Second Amendment, and holding government accountable. I also urge you to do a Google Search to find and to read a certain law review article: "How The Judiciary Stole The Right To Petition" by John Wolfgram. Read. Learn. Think.

As sweeping generalizations, I believe this:
  1. The United States Constitution has more domestic enemies than foreign ones;
  2. Far too often a courthouse is where Liberty under the Constitutional Rule of Law is murdered by governments' agents under color of law;
  3. Too many judges are not the Guardian of Liberty, and their black robes symbolize the spread of a virulent version of a legal bubonic plague--statism and collectivism, which is driving Liberty from the land and is allowing a tyranny of the majority to defecate on this nation's core principles, reducing the individual and individual rights to legal irrelevancies and expendable anachronisms;
  4. Words are, sadly, far too plastic and far too malleable;
  5. The Second Amendment does guarantee an individual right to bear arms which shall not be infringed, which is binding on the states and their subdivisions;
  6. David Codrea, Angel Shamaya [Director of KeepAndBearArms,] Brian Puckett [part of KABA's brain trust] and/or I [and others,] at any moment, can discuss intelligently the Second Amendment with any one in the entire world, hold our own exceptionally well, and convince most listeners that the Second Amendment does guarantee an individual right to arms;
  7. ". . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." is, arguably, as clear, as strong and as unequivocal a "bright line" that anyone can create with words that separates government's powers from the people's rights . . . and this is especially true when one factors in the Bill's preamble when construing the Second;
  8. The Second is every American's CCW permit;
  9. All laws that purport to place a prior restraint on the manufacture, sale, transportation, distribution, purchase, possession, ownership, and/or carrying of any form of a firearm are unconstitutional, period;
  10. California's CCW laws are unconstitutional;
  11. Any one who tells you that you must beg them for their permission to carry a firearm for lawful self-defense or defense of others and/or waive privacy and/or pay a fee, etc. is an enemy. Hence, Gray Davis, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, most California legislators, most of California's police chiefs and sheriffs, and many judges are enemies . . . and elitists;
  12. Peace officers come in various varieties--sworn peace officer, law enforcement officer, enforcer, government goon, sociopath, and useful idiots for tyrant wannabees;
  13. Just as Saddam was dethroned, some judges need to be pulled off the bench;
  14. Most politicians are, at best, political fecal matter;
  15. This nation has broken faith with the Founders' and the Framers' vision;
  16. We were not united before 9-11 and we are even less united now;
  17. The choice between Liberty and Security is a false one. The two are not mutually exclusive. The best way to achieve the best reconciliation of the two and the most of both is to always "err" on the side of Liberty;
  18. Many cops today are "enforcers" or worse, meaning they will enforce anything to protect their income stream;
  19. There is a small, absolute, no compromise, hard core of citizens in this nation who have this firm mind set: No more Ruby Ridge's! No more Waco's!, and this hard core is the nucleus, or catalyst, for the world's largest, latent, guerrilla force--one committed to restoring the Constitutional Rule of Law by force of arms, if necessary, as a last, desperate, final effort to negate Tyranny;
  20. This nation's sheeple do not recognize the aggression that is being waged against them and their rights by language perversion as a weapon. The only aggression they comprehend is one nation crossing an international border with arms; and
  21. The odds are high that civil authority will make a tragic misstep that will trigger a civil war in this nation, and an armed citizenry will win that snarly, brutish, war. . . .
The devil is in the details and in the definitions. Again, words are plastic. . . .

There seems to be a high correlation among folks who love to tweak the definition of marriage so gays and lesbians can legally "marry" while simultaneously tweaking "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" to mean "the right of the states to keep and bear arms." Amazing! I have contempt for intellectuals who attempt, via words, illegitimate re-definitions, and/or historical revisionism, to take a glove made to fit the right hand off that hand, turn it inside out and make it fit the left hand. The seams show and expose the dishonesty, the illogic, the fallacy, the fraud.

I have zero tolerance with those who flaunt our laws and who champion same sex marriage while also championing, whether they realize it or not, racist origins, Nazi inspired, elitist, victim disarmament laws--which is a much more accurate description for gun control.

I intensely loathe Freedom Haters, Liberty Thieves, and Elitists, especially those who flaunt our laws and selectively tweak definitions in self-serving ways, while breaking faith with the Framers' vision.

I support:
  1. The greatest measure of individual liberty for all [regardless of race, sex, age, creed, and/or sexual orientation] per the Constitutional Rule of Law--all of the time, every second of 24/7;
  2. Civil authority functioning Constitutionally; and
  3. We, the People, holding civil authority accountable and retaining the pragmatic means to do that--unregistered, privately owned, firearms.
I have more faith in a loaded Remington Model 700 in my hands, with my courage, my conviction, my marksmanship skills, and my sense of justice, to do justice, than I do with most cops, most police chiefs, most judges, and most juries. This is because I know where I am on history's time line, and I know that because I have done my homework. I know the price paid over 8,000 years of human history to achieve "civilization" under a Constitutional Rule of Law. And I know when civil authority is waging war against my rights, which come from God, not from civil authority.

I also concur with Patrick Henry: Be hyper vigilant. Guard with jealousy Liberty. Look askance at anyone who approaches the flame of Liberty. Be prepared and willing to keep that flame burning, no matter what.

I equate a San Francisco police officer investigating Mr. David Codrea because of the email he sent you as akin to someone getting too close to snuffing out the flame of Liberty. Back off! Stop this nonsense. Have you no real crime to solve, to deter, in San Francisco?

To the extent that any of you are alarmed by Mr. David Codrea's responsible exercise of his First Amendment rights, and/or think the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms that is binding on the states and/or that I or anyone must beg some police chief or sheriff for his or her permission to carry a firearm for lawful self-defense and/or lawful defense of another, we are in a state of cold war, you are my enemy and you are a domestic enemy of the United States Constitution.

Unlike most political whores, I make it a point to make myself clear as to where I stand.

To the extent any of you might experience mental vapor lock arising from anything written here or elsewhere, you need a reality check.

This is still the United States of America. California and San Francisco are still a part of the Union. To the extent any of you try to reduce the Stars and Stripes to the Stars and Bars those who are serious about Liberty will show you their colors: The "DON'T TREAD ON ME" banner.

It is extraordinarily hypocritical for San Francisco's civil authority to violate California's marriage laws for the reasons given to allegedly justify same while at the same time having a long established reputation [infamous to my way of thinking] of championing more unconstitutional victim disarmament laws. That leadership excels at manifesting bizarre attitudes arising from disjointed thinking, selective focus, and self-serving re-definitions, using language perversion as a peaceful but hostile weapon of aggression against vital rights.

If the commander of a foreign army posted in Union Square in San Francisco an edict that no one may have a firearm in a public place without his permission, most Americans would be incensed, many would disobey, and many would initiate war with that invading army. But, Acting Chief Fong [and her many predecessors] have, in effect, via California's CCW laws, done the same thing. I see no material difference whether the edict is posted by the commander of a Japanese, a German, a Soviet, or a Red Chinese Army as opposed to a home grown police chief.

Individually and collectively [with a possible/probable (?) exception for Judge Warren (his thoughts regarding issuing an injunction, etc., may very well be legally well supported),] your conduct has probably slightly ratcheted us closer to civil war. This is because these San Francisco shenanigans [violating California's marriage laws, CCW laws, and creating a needless chilling effect on the exercise of First Amendment rights] expose exceedingly well how civil authority is hypocritical and has forfeited its legitimacy.

David Codrea, in my judgment, has an absolute Constitutional right to come to San Francisco with a loaded firearm and to circulate in public with same, without any one's damn permission required. Ditto an unlimited number of others. To permit is to control, and control is the antithesis of Liberty. You folks are supposed to be public servants, not public serpents.

If that scenario [Mr. David Codrea or more circulating in San Francisco armed without your permission] scares any of you, I say this:
  1. It is far better that you be afraid of an armed citizenry bold enough to dare to exercise a vital right than the citizenry be afraid of you and
  2. As long as you function Constitutionally those arms in the hands of citizens who respect you because you function constitutionally are your best insurance policy that you will never be removed from office illegally [via a coup or by a foreign invader, etc.]
A powerful, compelling argument can be made that San Francisco, this state, and this nation would be much better off to the extent that millions of citizens did simultaneously exercise their Second Amendment rights, especially in the core major urban areas. But too many senior cops, politicians and judges in this state want cops to have a monopoly on arms on the streets. But, the Constitution was written to make the nation a place where individual liberty flourishes, not where the streets are safe for cops.

Today, all cops are volunteers. Their retirement pay is among the best for any occupation, especially in California. Statistically, very few cops are killed on the job. Fishermen have a much higher death rate.

When the streets are safe for cops they are unsafe for citizens.

Any cop who is against citizens being armed on the streets without a damn CCW permit should undergo an attitude adjustment or quit.

Most cops are not protectors. Often, they are, at best, chalk line drawers. Many are badge heavy, constitutionally illiterate, mislead, undertrained, and warped. Too many function as an occupying force rather than as peace officers who are constitutionally sensitive. Many wipe their ass with the Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments.

And, too many judges and prosecutors routinely wink and nod at officers' testilying in court.

Questions: Since the Ninth Circuit held that there is no individual right to arms, when, if ever, is local/state civil authority going to order the confiscation of all individually owned firearms? Who has the audacity to issue that order? To try to enforce it?

If you want to heal your city, this state, and this nation, at a minimum, do this: Keep the faith with the Framers' vision. Construe the Second Amendment as guaranteeing an individual right to arms. Roll back all forms of prior restraint laws against firearms and their owners. Do not be a Freedom Hater nor a Liberty Thief. Read and obey the Constitution's commands. Honor the Peoples' rights--all of them. Manifest integrity. And stop issuing worthless San Francisco same sex marriage licenses. Such licenses have the utility of a used condom after the first use of same.

With kindest regards, I remain,
Sincerely,
Peter Mancus

To return to our home page, click: