I, James A. Smith, Sr. declare as follows.

1.                  I have first hand personal knowledge of all facts declared herein, and, if called to testify, I could and would testify competently as to these facts of my own personal knowledge.

2.                  I am a U.S. citizen. I was born in Petaluma, California on August 26, 1950. I have never renounced U.S. citizenship.

3.                  I have never been adjudicated to be incompetent.

4.                  I am not subject to a guardianship nor a conservatorship.

5.                  I have never been arrested for nor convicted of a felony. My criminal record is limited to a few moving violations.

6.                  I have never been accused of handling a firearm in an unsafe, rude, angry, threatening, negligent, or criminal manner.

7.                  I know the basic rules of safe firearm handling practices, and I adhere to them strictly.

8.                  It is my understanding that I am eligible to legally buy a firearm, even in California.

9.                  My natural biological father is Albert Otto Smith, Jr. My natural biological mother is Marion Estella Smith. I have one son, James Albert Smith, Jr., and I have one daughter, Sarah Myshell Ward. I have no other children. These human beings constitute my entire immediate living family. I am divorced. I exclude my ex-wife as a member of my immediate family.

10.              I am a twice honorably discharged U.S. Air Force jet engine mechanic.

11.              When I twice joined the U.S. Air Force, on each occasion, I took a sworn oath to uphold, support, and defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I was serious when I took that oath. I experience that oath to be an on-going, serious, moral and legal obligation. No one has ever relieved me from that oath. I am unaware of any mechanism in our society, in our government, in our armed forces that allows me to be relieved from that oath. That oath, to me, once taken, is perpetual. I do not want to be relieved from that oath. I like the oath I took. I love the genuine, Original Constitutional Rule of Law. I loathe the phoney, contrived, perverted, never ending, Crisis Rule of Law.

12.              When I was in the U.S. Air Force I received formal, and refresher training, on the Model 1911 .45 caliber ACP semi-auto pistol, plus training on safe firearm practices.

13.              The Model 1911 pistol is a slightly larger, heavier version of the Colt Commander which is merely a smaller, lighter version of the Model 1911.

14.              It is my understanding that the Model 1911 pistol was the standard issue pistol for the U.S. Armed Forces from approximately 1911 to the mid-1980's.

15.              Model 1911 pistols are prominently displayed in recent war movies as Saving Private Ryan, We Were Once Soldiers, and Windtalkers.

16.              The Model 1911 is a brilliant, highly effective, design--a classic, which is still highly formidable and useful. Any modern military, armed forces, National Guard, law enforcement, and/or militia unit equipped with Model 1911 pistols, or any of its variants, such as the Colt Commander, would be superbly equipped with pistols that would make a significant, positive contribution to the unit’s war fighting effectiveness, both offensive and defensive.

17.              In November, 2000, I was interviewed by Remy Molalis [spelling?] at San Marco Nursing and Rehabilitation in Walnut Creek, California, for a Maintenance Assistant position. During my initial job interview with Mr. Molalis, who is a Filipino-American, Mr. Molalis asked me how many Filipino females I had been intimate with when I was stationed in the Philippines. My truthful answer was “None.” I had just gotten married and my wife was with me in the Philippines. Mr. Molalis told me I was overqualified for the job but he hired me any way. After about six months, I told Mr. Molalis I wanted, and I needed, a raise. Mr. Molalis’ response was negative. Shortly thereafter, I did get a raise. Soon after that, Mr. Molalis made the employment a hostile environment for me. Mr. Molalis started to blame me and accuse me of things without cause. Mr. Molalis, and the business administrator, Dorothea Carlin, changed in their attitudes toward me and made my work experience there unduly stressful. On December 18, 2001, at the beginning of my shift, on that day, at around 9:00 a.m., I got into a verbal dispute with Mr. Molalis, which he initiated with more unfounded accusations against me.  I did not like Mr. Molalis’ periodic, continuous, snide remarks, unwarranted accusations, and engineered hostile work environment. After being on the receiving end of another one of Mr. Molalis’ unwarranted verbal beratings, I tossed a crescent wrench down on a telephone book which was on his desk, and I walked out of his office. Mr. Molalis followed me out and said he was tired of dealing with me and I “was freed--go home!” I then asked him what he meant by “freed”, and if he meant I was fired. Mr. Molalis did not answer my question. Instead, he grabbed, and held, my left biceps and drew back with his right hand, as if he was going to hit me. Mr. Molalis  then lowered his hand and let me go. When I turned around to leave, I saw two staff nurses and Karen Ansil, the Director of Nurses, in our immediate presence, walking toward us. Ms. Ansil asked me what was wrong. I told her that Mr. Molalis had “freed me” and that I knew I should not have hired on there because of his strange question of me during the job interview as to how many Filipino women I had been intimate with. Mr. Molalis then started to laugh. He claimed that I tired to hit him. I then said, “That Filipino . . . .” As soon as I said, “That Filipino,” the two nurses said I could not say, “That Filipino.” I then said something to this effect, “Why don’t I just go home, put a gun to my head, and pull the trigger?” I said that because I was not allowed to finish my statement, and I thought my free speech rights were being denied. At that time, I was thinking this is my country, I did not like anyone attempting to put a gag in my mouth, I can say anything I want, and I was thinking about Patrick Henry’s statement, “Give me Liberty or give me death.”

18.              When I said, “Why don’t I just go home, put a gun to my head, and pull the trigger?,” I was not suicidal. I had no intent to commit suicide. My remark was, and is, stupid. It was a manifestation of my frustrations with Mr. Molalis, his injustice toward me, and my dislike for being subjected to the nurse’s political correctness. My remark did not communicate accurately what I was thinking nor what I intended to communicate. What I really had in mind was this: I did not like the unequal status between my superior and myself, and his constant saying to me every darn, snide, provocative remark he wanted to make, but I could not say what I wanted to say. I had had it with Mr. Molalis’ hostile work environment, with his unfair orientation toward me, and being told what I could and could not say, while Mr. Molalis was getting away with, and had been getting away with, saying many things about me that were, and are, false.


19.              Dorothea Carlin was not an eye-witness as to what happened between Mr. Molalis and I on December 18, 2001.

20.              I did not have a firearm with me at my former place of employment on December 18, 2001, and I did not show a firearm to anyone at that time and place.

21.              After I left my ex-place of employment on December 18, 2001, I went home. I started to clean my house, I ate, and I started to figure out what I was going to do to find a new job since I had just been fired. Before going home, I did not see any of my family relatives anywhere on that day. Later in the day, I received a telephone call. The caller said he was an officer with the Walnut Creek Police Department. This person asked me many questions about my verbal altercation with Mr. Molalis at work. This officer was very antagonistic toward me, which made me somewhat upset. He kept me on the telephone quiet a while, which annoyed me.

22.              While I was talking on the telephone with this Walnut Creek police officer, City of Pittsburg Police Officers Sgt. Canchola, Officer Terry and Officer Sanchez arrived at my residence; they entered my residence without my consent. One of these officers, Officer Sanchez, immediately handcuffed me, which made me more upset. I had just been fired. I was subjected to political correctness at work. A Walnut Creek PD officer antagonized me on the telephone. Pittsburg PD officers entered my home without a warrant and immediately handcuffed me. Officer Sanchez told me they did that to me for their safety because they got a report that I had told my family earlier that day that I was going to commit suicide with a gun.


23.              What Officer Sanchez told me, was, and is, 100% false. Looking back, I strongly suspect that what really happened is this: After I left the San Marco Nursing and Rehabilitation in Walnut Creek, someone there, motivated with a genuine concern about my welfare or by a sinister agenda to cause trouble for me or possibly a fear that I would return to harm someone on my ex-employer’s premises, called the Walnut Creek Police Department and told that department something about what happened between me and Mr. Molalis earlier in the day. Or, perhaps someone else who wanted to cause trouble for me, called the Walnut Creek Police Department about me and that call, if it occurred, just happened to coincide with my dispute with Mr. Molalis. Or, somehow, whatever the alleged caller to the Walnut Creek Police Department said got distorted beyond recognition. This is because the flow of information was from the alleged initial caller to Walnut Creek PD to Pittsburg PD dispatch to Pittsburg PD officers in the field. In that sense, the story I was told by the Pittsburg Police Department Officers who came to my residence was probably far removed from whatever the Walnut Creek Police Department was originally told about me, if they were told anything about me.

24.              Exhibit A attached hereto is a true and correct copy of Walnut Creek PD’s December 18, 2001 11:33 a.m. report from Dorothea Carlin at San Marco Nursing and Rehabilitation where I use to work. Per this report, Ms. Carlin called Walnut Creek PD and reported “an employee had an argument with his supervisor about 15 ago and had a wrench and hit it on the desk. Also made other threatening comments. Subject left in American made tan colored p/u.” I drove an American made tan colored pick-up on that day. Nothing in this


report states that I showed a firearm or that I threatened to commit suicide. Nothing in this report mentions my family.

25.              Exhibit A was provided to me by the Assistant City Attorney for the City of Pittsburg.

26.              On December 18, 2001, at my residence, City of Pittsburg Police Department Sgt. Canchola said that their dispatcher had gotten a report that I had, in the presence of my family members, threatened to commit suicide. The truth, however, is that on that day I had not seen any of my family members anywhere that day, and I had not threatened to commit suicide, in or out of, the presence of any of my family members. When Sgt. Canchola told me what he did, I responded with something to this effect, “My family? Their [that’s] crazy!” I was shocked by what Sgt. Canchola told me. None of it was true. By “Their crazy!,” or “That’s crazy!” I meant what Sgt. Canchola said the dispatcher told him was, and is, “crazy,” not that my family members are crazy. My family members are not crazy.

27.              Sgt. Canchola, on December 18, 2001, at my residence, then asked me about what guns, if any, I had at my residence. I told him I had a few handguns and a few rifles, and I told him where all of my firearms were. Sgt. Canchola took only one of these firearms into his custody: my Colt Commander, Model 1911 variant, .45 ACP semi-auto pistol. Against my will, Sgt. Canchola made arrangements to have me transported to the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center in Martinez and did in fact have me so transported. Sgt. Canchola said he was placing me under a Welfare & Institutions Code § 5150 72-hour hold for a psych evaluation. I was then involuntarily transported to the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center in Martinez.

28.              Upon my arrival at the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center in Martinez, I was interviewed, screened, and evaluated by California licensed, government employed, mental health care providers who were a psychologist and a psychiatrist. After approximately two hours of evaluating me, these California licensed, government employed, mental health care providers determined that I was not a harm to myself, that I was not a harm to anyone, that I was not gravely disabled, that the entire situation was a gross misunderstanding, that it would be wrong to detain me any further at that facility, and they decided to, and did, release me later on December 18, 2001, at approximately 4:30 p.m. I was released after being there, and first seen, in approximately two hours.

29.              Upon my release from this mental facility, I returned home, without incident. Once home, I looked for and found all of my other firearms that all of the City of Pittsburg police officers knew existed at my home but left there--inexplicably!

30.              Exhibit B attached hereto is a copy of a “Mental Health Discharge & Instructions” form that was given to me on December 18, 2001 at 16:30 [4:30 p.m.] when I was released from Contra Costa Health Services, Contra Costa Regional Medical Center.

31.              Exhibit C attached hereto is a copy of a Contra Costa County Sheriff Office’s report that shows that they received a report on December 18, 2001, at 17:01 [5:01 p.m.] that I was released from the county hospital psych ward.

32.              Exhibit C was provided to me by the Assistant City Attorney for the City of Pittsburg.

33.              December 18, 2001 was approximately six months ago. For approximately six months, I have had access to firearms. I still have not committed suicide. I have not attempted to commit a crime with any firearm. I have not threatened anyone with a firearm. I have not used any firearm in a rude, dangerous, angry, threatening, criminal and/or negligent manner.

34.              On or about January 17, 2002, I received documents from the City Attorney for the City of Pittsburg that that office, on behalf of the City of Pittsburg Police Department, had filed in the Superior Court of California in and for the County of Contra Costa a “NOTICE OF PETITION AND PETITION SEEKING JUDICIAL DETERMINATION RE RETURN OF FIREARM OR DEADLY WEAPON; AND DECLARATION OF CITY OF PITTSBURG POLICE OFFICER JOE TERRY IN SUPPORT THEREOF,” pursuant to Welfare & Institutions Code § 8102, Case No. NO2--0068.

35.              This notice, among other things, states, “. . . a petition in this Court seeking a hearing on whether the return of certain firearms and ammunition to you would be likely to result in a danger to you or others. . . .” [Emphasis added.] 

36.              In the City of Pittsburg’s Petition itself, which is signed by Carol L. Victor, Assistant City Attorney, Attorney for Petitioner, City of Pittsburg, Ms. Victor, stated the following:

. . .

5. On December 18, 2001 City of Pittsburg Police Officer Joe Terry responded to a call that James Smith, Sr. (“Respondent”) was threatening suicide. Dispatch had been advised that Respondent was in an argument with his family in Walnut Creek. He told his family that he was leaving and going to commit suicide with a handgun that he kept in his truck. Respondent showed family members a loaded magazine to a handgun. Upon arrival at Respondent’s residence, police located a .45 caliber Colt Commander and magazines in the vehicle. Due to Respondent’s condition, Officer Terry placed Respondent on a mental evaluation hold pursuant to Welfare & Institution Code Section 5150. . . .

7. Welfare & Institutions Code Section 8102(c) provides that upon release of Respondent after he has been detained or apprehended for examination of his mental condition, the confiscating law enforcement agency may initiate a petition in superior court within thirty days of the Respondent’s release to determine if the firearm or other deadly weapon should be returned to Respondent. Such determination is based upon the likelihood that return of the firearm or deadly weapon will result in endangering the Respondent or other persons.

8. Respondent was released from Contra Costa Regional Center on December 18, 2001. (Declaration of Joe Terry.)

9. Based upon the facts involved in this incident, the Police Department believes that the return of the confiscated firearms is likely to present a danger to Respondent or others. . . .

WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that this Court determine whether the return of the confiscated firearm to Respondent should be granted in this matter and to make such orders as is appropriate. [Emphasis added.]


37.              I have reviewed a copy of the documents filed by the City Attorney for the City of Pittsburg in the case of CITY OF PITTSBURG v. James Smith, Sr., Contra Costa County Superior Court Case No. NO2--0068. These documents include the “PETITION SEEKING JUDICIAL DETERMINATION RE RETURN OF FIREARM OR DEADLY WEAPON; AND DECLARATION OF CITY OF PITTSBURG POLICE OFFICER JOE TERRY IN SUPPORT THEREOF.”

38.              The City of Pittsburg, and its Police Department, confiscated my Colt Commander, in violation of my rights. Now, they want to obtain a court order to destroy my Colt Commander without paying me just compensation for my private property. Under the facts declared above, this situation is absurd, intolerable, and unconstitutional.

39.              My Colt Commander is my strongly preferred handgun of choice for reliable, effective, self-defense and defense of others in close encounter situations.

40.              I describe my Colt Commander as follows: (a) Its serial number is 70SC32662; (b) the manufactuer is Colt; (c) the caliber is .45 ACP; (d) the finish is satin nickel; (e) it was bought used circa 1975-1976 for about $185.00; (f) it was a straight factory production handgun when bought used; (g) its condition when bought in 1976-1976 was good; (h) it has remained a 100% factory gun with no after market gunsmith work done to it; however, it currently has non-commercial, handmade, plain [no engraving,] wood panel grips--one oak and one black walnut; (i) it has had a substantial number of rounds fired through it; (j) it remains fully functional and accurate and it feeds live cartridges, fires live cartridges, and ejects spent casings problem free, reliably and consistently; (k) it is free of rust; (l) it shows normal wear and tear as to fit and finish [e.g., holster scuff marks, etc.]; (m) it has no obvious, nor large, blemishes to the finish, etc., other than evidence of normal wear and tear; (n) I might have engraved my driver license number or social security number on the pistol’s grip in an area where it would be covered by the wood grips attached to the pistol’s metal grip.

41.              The current reasonable fair market value of this Colt Commander is $600.00.

42.              I have three magazines for my Colt Commander. The current reasonable fair market value of the Colt magazine is $25.00. The current reasonable fair market value of the two U.S. G.I. .45 ACP magazines is $17.50 each.

43.              If the City of Pittsburg, and its Police Department, want to destroy my Colt Commander, they can do so under two conditions: first, they pay me $600.00 for the pistol, $60.00 for the three magazines, ten cents for each cartridge they confiscated, and the entire fees and taxes it will cost me to buy a new, high quality Model 1911 pistol to replace the one they confiscated, and, second, I personally witness my Colt Commander being destroyed.


44.              I insist upon these conditions because: (a) I have a right to just compensation arising from civil authority confiscating my private property per its police power to promote public health and safety; (b) if this gun is destroyed, I want to use my “just compensation” to buy a replacement; (c) I want to discourage the City of Pittsburg and its Police Department from abusing its powers against ordinary citizens like me; and (d) I want to see my Colt Commander physically destroyed to make sure that it does not end up in the possession of some police officer who, directly or indirectly, abused W&I C §§ 5150 and 8102, or who directly or indirectly benefitted from such abuse. Reformulated, I do not want civil authority to engineer this situation so that it ends up  ripping off my Colt Commander to my detriment and to some officer’s illegitimate benefit.

45.              Page one, paragraph 2, of City of Pittsburg Police Officer Joe Terry’s declaration in the above referenced case states:

On December 18, 2001, I was dispatched to 30 Oakbrook Place in the City of Pittsburg. Dispatch had been advised that Respondent James Smith Sr. (“Respondent”) had been in an argument with his family in the City of Walnut Creek. He told his family that he was leaving and was going to commit suicide with a handgun that he kept in his truck. Respondent reportedly showed family members a loaded magazine to a handgun.


46.              On December 18, 2001, none of my immediate family members lived in Walnut Creek.

47.              On December 18, 2001, I did not have an argument with my family in Walnut Creek--or anywhere, I did not tell any family member that I “was leaving,” I did not tell any of my family members that I “was going to commit suicide with a handgun,” and I did not show any family member, nor anyone, “a loaded magazine to a handgun.” Attached to my


opposition brief are sworn declarations from all of my immediate family members who individually and jointly corroborate what I declared above in Nos. 46 and 47.

48.              On December 18, 2001, I was not contemplating suicide, at least not before City of Pittsburg Police Officers contacted me and for some reason unknown to me, interjected that idea, forced themselves upon me, and transgressed against my Liberty because

of the alleged assignment they got from some dispatcher.

49.              On December 18, 2001, I was basically happy, even though I was disgusted with Mr. Molalis. Suicide was far removed from my contemplation before these City of Pittsburg Police Officers crossed my path and made me think about what they attributed to me. I insist that what Officer Joe Terry reported about me is, and was, a 100% false attribution.

50.              My immediate family and I  are a close family unit. We are a loving family. We  communicate with each other frequently and fairly openly. I have never threatened suicide in any fashion in or outside the presence, or hearing, of any relative. I would not threaten to commit suicide and communicate that to any immediate family member. I am too responsible to do that to any of my family.

51.              I am not suicidal.

52.              I have owned firearms for decades. I am responsible with firearms.

53.              I have no intent to harm myself or anyone with a firearm.

54.              Since December 18, 2001, I have owned, controlled, and had immediate access to several firearms. I do not need my Colt Commander Model 1911 that the City of Pittsburg Police Department confiscated and holds against my will to commit suicide. I can commit suicide with any of the other firearms that I have. I am also still legally eligible to buy an identical Colt Commander Model 1911 and many other firearms. There is also always the Golden Gate Bridge, poison, an automobile, a rope, etc.

55.              Americans today can be categorized as falling into one of three categories: the self- Anointed, Sheeple, and Patriots.

56.              Many of the Anointed tend to be elitists control freaks who have a wet dream: rid the  world of non-government owned firearms. The State of California is plagued with this type, especially in civil authority.

57.              Sheeple are citizens who cower before the Anointed who have hijacked civil authority and who function as an unconstitutional gang, a gang who refuses to stay within the Constitution’s bright lines.

58.              Patriots are U.S. citizens who are loyal to the real Rule of Law, the original Constitutional Rule of Law. Patriots have a zero tolerance for how the Anointed persists in perverting the Constitutional Rule of Law so that Liberty contracts as civil authority’s unconstitutional powers expand. Patriots hold the Anointed and Sheeple in contempt.

59.              I experience Welfare & Institutions Code § 8102 to be unconstitutional. This is because it is an unconstitutional infringement against my inalienable Rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, and my First, Second, Ninth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, plus their California analogs.

60.              I experience Carol R. Victor, Assistance City Attorney, City of Pittsburg, to be among the self-proclaimed, elitists, Anointed, control freaks. Ditto for the City of Pittsburg Police Officers who confiscated my Colt Commander Model 1911 pistol.


61.              Ms. Victor has stated, “9. Based upon the facts involved in the incident, the Police Department believes that the return of the confiscated firearms is likely to present a danger to Respondent or others.” What facts?

62.              Here are some stubborn, stark, facts that Miss Victor, Sgt. Canchola, Officer Terry, Officer Sanchez, and the City of Pittsburg have self-servingly, and conveniently, overlooked:

1.                  The apparent caller who called in the alleged story appears to be Dorothea Carlin, who was not, and is not, a percipient witness.

2.                  Anyone can make such a call and allege anything--literally anything that they make up for any agenda or purpose. So what? Zero weight should be given to this call.

3.                  Sgt. Canchola, Officer Terry, and Officer Sanchez have totally failed to elaborate upon what was my “condition” that justified them denying me my Liberty and/or confiscating my Colt Commander and/or trying to get my Colt Commander destroyed. They have not stated any factual specificity based on their own personal knowledge. They handcuffed me immediately. Consequently, they did not observe me long enough to witness me doing anything that would justify denying me Liberty. They rushed to judgment and jumped to conclusions that are worthless and cannot withstand close scrutiny. Their sweeping generalizations and ill formed conclusions are inadequate. Before rights are denied, especially Constitutional rights, sufficient factual specificity must be demonstrated. The burden of proof is on civil authority, not me.


4.                  Sgt. Canchola, Officer Terry, and Officer Sanchez are not licensed mental health care providers.

5.                  Sgt. Canchola, Officer Terry, and Officer Sanchez do not have any expertise regarding mental health.

6.                  Sgt. Canchola, Officer Terry, and Officer Sanchez confiscated only one firearm from me after I told them where my other handguns and rifles were. If Sgt. Canchola, Officer Terry, and Officer Sanchez were truly sincere in their alleged belief that due to my unspecified “condition,” that I was an undue harm to myself and/or others or that I was gravely disabled, why did they confiscate only one firearm, the best one--the Colt Commander--and leave the rest in my home for me to have access to same upon my release from the “mental ward”? Did Sgt. Canchola, Officer Terry, and/or Officer Sanchez confiscate only the Commander because this whole darn “legal” proceeding is a charade, a sham, a concocted mechanism for someone within the City of Pittsburg Police Department to misuse the so called “civil justice system” to rip me off of my best handgun under the guise of protecting me from myself and/or others? Did Sgt. Canchola, Officer Terry, Officer Sanchez or some other officer, covet my Colt Commander?

7.                  Either I was suicidal on December 18, 2001 or I was not. If I was suicidal, Sgt. Canchola, Officer Terry, and Officer Sanchez should have confiscated all of my firearms. If I was not suicidal, they should have not denied me my Liberty, they should have left me alone, and they should not have confiscated any firearm. Either way, Sgt. Canchola, Officer Terry, and Officer Sanchez did not do their job properly. Their failure to do their job properly undermines their credibility in this matter. They have manifested a lack of professionalism.

8.                  The City of Pittsburg’s petition is based entirely on two things: a report from Dorothea Carlin and a police report by a cop who reported factual distortions to my detriment and a gross generalization [my alleged “condition”], with a total lack of factual specificity. But Ms.  Carlin’s report is worthless; it falls below the statutory tests for a 72-hour hold, which is a pre-requisite for a section 8102 basis for destroying my Colt Commander. And the only sworn declaration being used against me, Officer Terry’s, lacks factual specificity. Officer Terry is also only a youthful, inexperienced, beat cop, not a licensed mental health care provider. His mental health care credentials are zero, absolutely zero.           

9.                  The sworn declarations of my father, my mother, my adult son, my adult daughter, and my self are of record in this proceeding. These declarations  squarely contradict what was allegedly said to a law enforcement dispatcher about me.

10.              The government employed, government licensed, mental health care providers who Sgt. Canchola, Officer Terry, and Officer Sanchez had evaluate me--the ones with true, relevant, expertise, the ones who are not employed be me--evaluated me and released me in about two hours. And they released me after Pittsburg PD told them about my alleged threat to commit suicide with a firearm, knowing that Pittsburg PD wanted them to hold me for 72-hours. But those facts, apparently, are not good enough for Ms. Victor, Sgt. Canchola, Officer Terry, and Officer Sanchez, and/or the City of Pittsburg and its Police Department. Despite those facts, Ms. Victor, at the urging of Pittsburg PD, went ahead and filed her petition to have my Colt Commander destroyed, which tested my commitment to the Constitution and my principles.

11.              Officer Joe Terry and Miss Victor both admit that I was released from the “mental ward” on the same day I was sent there. Officer Terry has made that admission under oath. But still, these people apparently claim they have an fear about what I might do.

12.              Miss Victor is not a licensed mental health care provider.           

13.              [The odds are high that] The Honorable David Flinn is not a licensed mental health care provider, but California’s perverted laws purport to give him sole decision-making authority in this case.

14.              Before, on, and after, December 18, 2001, I never used a firearm in any manner that was rude, angry, threatening, dangerous, harmful to me, harmful to anyone, reckless, criminal, and/or negligent.

15.              From December 18, 2001, to date, I have owned, possessed, controlled, and had immediate access to several firearms, and I remain eligible to buy firearms, yet I still have not committed suicide with a firearm, I have no intention of committing suicide with a firearm, and I have not used any firearm in any manner that is rude, angry, threatening, dangerous, harmful to me, harmful to anyone, reckless, criminal, and/or negligent.

16.              My Colt Commander is an excellent handgun which has high utility value for any modern military, law enforcement and/or militia use. Consequently, my right to that handgun is an individual, Constitutional right, per the Second Amendment, per the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Miller (1939) 307 U.S. 174 wherein that court held that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to firearms that have characteristics that make them useful for any modern military, law enforcement and/or militia use.           

17.              Per the Second Amendment, I do not have to yield to any condition offered to me by the Honorable David Flinn or any City Attorney to have my Colt Commander returned to me forthwith.

18.              If Miss Victor and/or Sgt. Canchola, Officer Terry, and Officer Sanchez believe they have any objectively verifiable facts that contradict what I allege to be the facts, I challenge them to produce those facts forthwith, and, in the alternative, absent such facts, to fold their cards and to support my demand to have my Colt Commander returned to me forthwith without any precondition imposed.

19.              Dr. Mark Falls, a licensed Clinical Psychologist in Santa Rosa, California did a mental health examination of me on December 26, 2002, and he signed a statement under penalty of perjury, attached hereto, that I am not an unreasonable harm to myself or to others, I am not gravely disabled, and it would not be dangerous to return my Colt Commander to me forthwith without any pre-condition imposed.

63.              Liberty, at its core, is about being free of prior restraint.

64.              The Honorable David B. Flinn has offered to return directly to me my Colt Commander  if I would only promise him that I would not commit suicide with it. I appreciate Judge Flinn’s concern for my welfare. I could have easily made such a promise. I refused to make such a promise. This is a matter of principle. I refuse to submit to any prior restraint or pre-condition against my rights. I experience Judge Flinn’s conditional offer to be an unconstitutional infringement against my rights.

65.              If I wanted to use this pistol to commit suicide, I could have simply promised Judge Flinn anything to get the pistol back. Such a promise would have saved me attorney fees, and expert witness fees, that to date far exceed the fair market value of this pistol. Instead, however, I freely, and proudly, elected to support, and to defend, this vital Constitutional bright line: “. . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” I believe that my principled position is Constitutionally correct, which is why I will not submit to any infringement against my Second Amendment and/or inalienable rights.

66.              I do not know what Judge Flinn’s sanction against me would be if I did commit suicide with this pistol. I simply know that, as a matter of deeply felt principle, I will not accept any pre-condition for the return of my pistol.

67.              The Court’s concern for my welfare is unwarranted and does not justify an infringement against my Constitutional and inalienable rights.

68.              Assistant City Attorney Carol R. Victor offered to give my Colt Commander back to me, subject to preconditions: it would be given to my parents, who had to agree to hold it and keep it from me for two years, and they had to agree to other conditions. Neither my parents nor I would agree to Ms. Victor’s proposal. This is because her proposal is also an unconstitutional infringement of my rights, and it is an insult.

69.              Linda L. Daube, City Attorney for the City of Pittsburg, and Carol R. Victor, Assistant City Attorney for the City of Pittsburg, are females. As such, Ms. Daube and Miss Victor are anatomically equipped to be prostitutes. That, however, does not make them prostitutes. Nor do they present undue risks of being prostitutes. Most reasonable people would agree that they should remain at large to circulate freely in open society, free of prior restraint, even though they are equipped to be prostitutes, to be carriers of venereal disease and the AIDS/HIV virus, etc. Most reasonable people would agree that society, civil authority, the City of Pittsburg, the City of Pittsburg Police Department, Sgt. Canchola, Officer Terry, Officer Sanchez, the Honorable David Flinn, I, and all others, must take the risk that while Miss Daube and Miss Victor are equipped to be prostitutes, they will not  function as one--they will not spread a deadly disease, corrupt the morals of males, be a bad example for other females, be used as a tool of organized crime, etc.

70.              The Honorable David Flinn is equipped to be a sexual predator. That fact, however, does not make the Honorable David Flinn a sexual predator. Nor does Judge Flinn present an undue risk of being a sexual predator. Most reasonable people would agree that Judge Flinn should remain at large to circulate freely in open society, free of prior restraint, even though he is equipped to be a sexual predator . . . and even though other adult males function as sexual predators. Most reasonable people would agree that society, civil authority, the City of Pittsburg, the City of Pittsburg Police Department, Sgt. Canchola, Officer Terry, Officer Sanchez, Miss Daube, Miss Victor, I, and all others, must take the risk that while the Honorable David Flinn is equipped to be a sexual predator [and a defacto carrier of the dreaded HIV/AIDS virus and venereal disease, etc., and he might murder a victim to keep a victim from identifying him,] he will not function as one, and we


all must take the risk that the Honorable David Flinn will continue to function as a law-abiding citizen.

71.              The Honorable David Flinn, Miss Daube, Miss Victor, Sgt. Canchola, Officer Terry, Officer Sanchez, I, my family members, and most reasonably constituted, well informed, U.S. citizens, would not entertain the idea of it being required that they ask civil authority for its permission to attend church, or which church, or how often, or to write an opinion-editorial, nor about the length of the editorial, the subject matter of the editorial, nor the frequency of how often they can write such an editorial. Similarly, as a matter of principle, in support of Constitutional brights lines, and in defense of, Constitutionalism, I am not about to yield to any precondition offered to me by the Honorable David Flinn and/or any attorney for the City of Pittsburg as a condition to get my Colt Commander back from the City of Pittsburg Police Department.

72.              In this case, I have intentionally taken a position that is based on intense, heartfelt, logical, principle. This principle is of vital importance to me, to our nation, and to the judiciary of this nation. The core essence of this principle is: I insist that civil authority wear its Constitutional chains, that it remain tied down by the Constitution’s chains, that it honor my Constitutionally legitimate assertion of my right to be free of civil authority’s unconstitutional assertion of its illegitimate power over me, and that civil authority has a law-imposed duty to honor my asserted, Constitutionally legitimate right to not have to submit to any pre-condition to have my Colt Commander returned to me.

73.              I stress that my position in this case is based on principle, not practicality.


74.              I stress that I knowingly, intentionally, and freely rejected a practical resolution of this dispute between me, the City of Pittsburg’s City Attorney, and the City of Pittsburg’s Police Department.

75.              It is not my intent to wrap myself in the American flag; however, I believe all of the following statements are true about me: I am a loyal U.S. citizen; I am a stable, productive member of society; I have a right to my beliefs; my beliefs are well grounded in history, in reality, and in law; I am in touch with reality; I am not an

unreasonable risk of harm to myself and/or to others; I am not gravely disabled. I have a right to be free of punishment merely because I believe what I believe; and I am a patriot.

76.              To help the Court understand my orientation, and my position based on principle, I hereby elaborate, with specificity, what I believe are the unique, distinguishing criteria of a  patriot [in the true American or United States context.] These criteria, in my judgement, follows. A patriot is:

A.            One who believes in the true, original, Constitutional Rule of Law, as envisioned by, and as ratified, by the Founders, Framers and Ratifiers of the United States.

B.            One who persistently supports the true, original, Constitutional Rule of Law.

C.            One who objects to the unconstitutional beliefs and behavior of others who do not support the true, original, Constitutional Rule of Law.

4.                  One who demands that civil authority functions Constitutionally by honoring the Constitution’s bright lines, namely, the U.S. Constitution’s and the U.S. Bill of Rights’ written demarcation between civil authority’s power and citizen’s rights. Examples of such Constitutional bright lines are: from the First Amendment, “. . . Congress shall make no law . . . .” and from the Second Amendment, “. . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” A Constitutional bright line is an easily discernable line, barrier, and wall, constructed of words, which sets forth what is permissible and what is not permissible, which should be, and must be, honored.

5.                  One who is a stickler about honoring all Constitutional bright lines. [This is because Patriots understand that the price of having a Constitutional government is the requirement, and the practice, of honoring such lines, even when the body politic is under stress, regardless of the nature, the source, or the intensity of the stress, and the risk arising from honoring such bright lines.]

20.              One who will not “go along to get along” with civil authority if a condition for doing so is supporting or participating in unconstitutional behavior.

21.              One who responsibly, as part of the loyal opposition, tells civil authority and its agents it, and they, are wrong, when it and they, are wrong, when it, and they, function unconstitutionally.           

22.              One who insists that civil authority and its agents remain tied down by the Constitution’s chains.

23.              One who believes that the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Bill of Rights are vitally important.

24.              One who believes that it is important for ordinary citizens to support the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Bill of Rights, especially when they have a legitimate,


meritorious disagreement with civil authority and its agents about how those documents are interpreted and/or applied.

25.              One who understandably, and reasonably, becomes disappointed, frustrated, and outraged when they feel that civil authority and/or its agents do something wrong and/or unconstitutional, against them, and then hide behind illegitimate immunities that civil authority invented for itself and its agents to make itself and its agents immune from legal and/or financial liability for their wrongdoing.

26.              One who believes that, as a result of civil authority’s inventions of many broad immunities for itself and its agents, civil authority has illegitimately elevated itself above, and against, the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Bill of Rights, and ordinary citizens, and, in that sense, ordinary citizens, who are suppose to be the masters of public servants, have lost control of civil authority and its agents, which allows civil authority and its agents to run amok.

27.              One who believes that the First Amendment’s Right to Petition civil authority for redress of meritorious grievances is vital to the well being of the nation, but, unfortunately, civil authority, via the judiciary, invented, expanded, and irresponsibly enforces, a wide variety of Constitutionally illegitimate immunities which have the effect of reducing the Right to Petition, and many other rights, especially those which are out of favor with civil authority and/or a majority, to a sham. This is because the Right to Petition is worthless to the extent that civil

authority and its agents are immune from being held accountable for their unconstitutional behavior.

28.              One who believes that the United States is not a democracy, where mob rule in the guise of a majority reigns.

29.              A democracy is literally “one man one vote; majority rules; no restraints; whatever the majority wants, the majority gets.” As so defined, in a democracy, five wolves, three sheep, and two lambs decide what to eat . . . and who survives. In a democracy, the unrestrained majority is free to arbitrarily vote to incarcerate and to execute everyone whose last name starts with . . . “F.”--too bad for the Honorable David Flinn!

30.              One who believes that a majority is often mean-spirited and flat out wrong or both.

31.              One who, correctly, believes that the United States, technically and legally, is a Constitutionally limited democratic republic with certain rights guaranteed for all citizens which are off limits and beyond the control of all forms of civil authority, with or without the support of the majority, and are also off limits and beyond the control of the majority. Under this form of government, five wolves cannot eat three sheep and two lambs. Under this form of government, the sheep and the lambs can co-exist with the wolves. Under this form of government, the lambs and the sheep are protected by the Constitution’s bright lines and guaranteed rights. Under this form of government, even the wolves, when they become old, sickly, slow, and gravely disabled, are protected from the young, vibrant, sheep--who might hate their guts.

32.              Our form of government is not a democracy because we have many built in countermajoritarian safeguards. Examples of such countermajoritarian safeguards are: The Doctrine of Separation of Powers, a Bicameral Legislature, the Electoral College, staggered elections for the Bicameral Legislature, the executive’s Veto Power, and the right to a jury trial.

33.              One who believes that the rights stated in the U.S. Bill of Rights are binding on all levels of civil authority, regardless of any decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to the contrary, and that the rights declared in the U.S. Bill of Rights are a minimum statement of the rights retained by those U.S. citizens who are bold enough to claim, and to enforce, their rights.

34.              One who understands that rights are not self-enforcing, and that instead, one ultimately has only those rights for which one is willing to fight for, to die for, and to kill for, if necessary to enforce those rights when others will not comply with their duty to honor one’s meritorious assertion of a legitimate right.

35.              One who believes that from 1776 to date, Americans have succeeded only in swapping one despot, King George, III, for a Judicial Aristocracy, at best, or a Judicial Despotism, at worse.

36.              One who believes that the Judiciary has failed in its responsibility to make civil authority and its agents honor the Constitution’s and the Bill of Rights’ bright lines.

37.              One who believes that there are limits as to how much alarming, unconstitutional, treasonous behavior citizens must tolerate.

38.              One who believes that currently, increasingly, much of civil authority and its agents act in a manner that is approaching being insufferable or already is insufferable.

39.              One who believes that it is imperative that ordinary citizens support, and defend, the Constitution’s bright lines; otherwise, we will continue our free fall toward tyranny in the guise of pursuing security.

40.              One who believes that when civil authority and/or its agents transgress across those bright lines, civil authority, and its agents, must adjust, yield, and return to those bright lines.

41.              One who believes that it is imperative that ordinary citizens not acquiesce to, nor adjust to, nor accept, civil authority and its agents, unconstitutional violations of the Constitution’s bright lines.

42.              One who believes that non-violent, logical resistance to civil authority’s unconstitutional behavior is not anti-social, is not anti-government, and is not deviant behavior, but, instead, is noble, vital, praiseworthy, and necessary to

maintain a Constitutionally healthy and proper balance between civil authority’s power and citizens’ rights.

43.              One who believes that non-violent, logical resistance to civil authority’s unconstitutional behavior is not the foundation for, nor an indicator of, mental illness.

44.              One who believes that the function of a good citizen is to keep the government from falling into error, or into further error, and to extend the government, and the Constitution, a saving hand, while there is still time to achieve a peaceful, non-violent resolution of all disputes between government and Patriots.


45.              One who is alarmed by the evidence that civil authority is trying to unify and consolidate power under one head, which is contrary to diversification and separation of power, which is a core, bedrock political-legal principle of the original U.S. Constitution, as envisioned, and as intended by, the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers.

46.              One who becomes angry, and sad, when civil authority and its agents, distort the truth, hide the truth, and lie, while expanding civil authority’s power unconstitutionally.

47.              One who believes that Liberty is more important than security.

48.              One who believes that, in the final analysis, given all alternatives, the only true security can be found in a sound, mature, sustained, commitment to            

Constitutional Liberty, regardless of all internal and/or external pressure to deviate from that commitment to Constitutional Liberty.

49.              One who believes that anyone who undermines Liberty to achieve security is a fool, is dangerous, is a tyrant wannabe and/or a useful idiot for a tyrant wannabe.

50.              One who believes that necessity is the plea of all wannabe tyrants and of full fledge, dangerous, political T-Rex Tyrants and their useful idiots.           

51.              One who believes that it is unwise, reckless, and dangerous to surrender Liberty in exchange for security. This is because that trade-off sooner or later results in tyranny and a police state.

52.              One who opposes the arbitrary exercise of power, the unconstitutional exercise of power, tyranny, and a police state.

53.              One who believes that real patriotism involves something more than sticking a U.S. flag or a decal of same on one’s vehicle after September 11, 2001 and/or submitting to any of civil authority’s unconstitutional encroachments against Liberty, regardless of the rationale for such encroachment.

54.              One who believes in the core principles of the July 4th, 1776 Declaration of Independence which were codified in the U.S. Bill of Rights.

55.              One who believes that these core principles include the following concepts: Man has a Creator; Man has certain inalienable rights; these inalienable rights originated from, and come from, the Creator--not civil authority; these inalienable rights are the Creator’s gift to Man; these inalienable rights pre-existed the formation of groups, society, civil authority, the U.S. Constitution, and they survive the formation of groups, society, civil authority, the U.S. Constitution; among, but not limited to, these inalienable rights, are Man’s Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness; that the sole legitimate purpose of civil authority is to protect, and to secure, these rights, to take these rights seriously, and to honor same, without infringing upon same and without  regulating any of them to the point that they are reduced to being a sham or a privilege that civil authority may arbitrarily withhold at its whim; that there is a material difference between a right and a privilege.

56.              One who will not let civil authority reduce a right to a privilege.



57.              One who believes that civil authority’s Constitutionally legitimate power to try to promote the alleged general welfare [whatever that is!] stops, cold, at any and all of the Constitution’s and the Bill of Rights’ bright lines.

58.              One who believes that the general welfare is not promoted when rights are gutted and reduced to privileges, which civil authority may arbitrarily withhold at its whim, when ordinary folk are disarmed and reduced to easy plunder by ordinary criminals, and any gang, that hijacks civil authority and ends up perverting the real Rule of Law, the true, original, Constitutional Rule of Law.

59.              One who believes that it is impossible to regulate a right by imposition of prior restraints against the right without infringing against it.

60.              One who believes that Mankind’s greatest achievement is the U.S. Bill of Rights.

61.              One who believes that the single thing that makes the United States great, if she is still great, is a slavish, across the board, rigorous enforcement of, the Bill’s bright lines, especially when the nation is under severe stress, such as that arising from the events of September 11, 2001.

62.              One who believes that without the Bill of Rights being taken seriously, the United States is reduced to being only a glorified, post-industrial state, modern equivalent of a Third World Banana Republic, as in, “anything goes,”

everything is arbitrary, and the “old shit” is periodically replaced with a new load of  “crap,” ad nauseam.

63.              One who believes that July 4th has been reduced to a sham, an excuse to goof off, to pollute the air with fireworks, and to commercially exploit patriotism in an ugly, insidious, shallow manner. This is because on every July 4th, as a national holiday, we profess to reaffirm the core principles of the July 4th Declaration of Independence, but we end up spending the other 364 days of the  year undermining Liberty and blurring or transgressing against vital Constitutional bright lines, to our severe detriment.

64.              One who believes that Liberty is losing and security is winning, which is setting the stage for overt hostilities between civil authority’s control freak Anointed and Patriots.

65.              One who believe that the Anointed, who have a “control freak/for your own good” mentality, and Patriots, are potential mortal foes.

66.              One who believes that a corollary to the inalienable Rights to Life and to Liberty, necessarily, is the right to retain the pragmatic means to enforce those rights, including, if necessary, with deadly force, in legitimate acts of self-defense or defense of others; otherwise, the inalienable Rights to Life and to Liberty are a sham.

67.              One who will not let these vital inalienable rights--these gifts from the Creator, be reduced to a sham.

68.              One who will not let civil authority become the sole source of rights nor the final arbitrator of rights.

69.              One who understands that mere physical survival without certain rights is not an existence worthy of a noble human being.


70.              One who understands the true nature of firearms, namely, firearms are inanimate tools incapable of human thought, incapable of forming the intent to commit an assault, incapable of loading themselves, aiming themselves, or pulling their own trigger; firearms are morally neutral, no better and no worse than the use to which they are put.

71.              One who understands that firearms have mortal enemies: rust, ignorance, apathy, disinformation, politicians, control freak Anointed, and those who covet raw power.

72.              One who understands that, as a last ditch measure to preserve Liberty and to resist tyranny, the ultimate, Constitutionally sanctioned, purpose of privately owned firearms in the hands of Patriots is this: to be Liberty’s Teeth, to be Tyrant Terminator Tools, and to be the Patriots’ Final Argument.

73.              One who understands that privately owned, unregistered, firearms have major political enemies. This is because firearms are a vitally necessary, pragmatic tool to preserve Liberty by stopping a wannabe tyrant and his or her useful idiots.

74.              One who understands well the historic, and classic, Tyrant’s Pattern has been, and remains, this: Demonize firearms and their owners; muster popular support to register and to ban firearms and to marginalize their owners; register firearms and their owners; ban firearms; confiscate firearms; destroy firearms; once the population is disarmed, consolidate power by incarcerating those who oppose a consolidation of power; and eliminate all likely opposition by imposing genocide.

75.              One who sees objectively verifiable evidence that the Tyrant’s Pattern is being played out, increasingly, in the United States, and in California, in the year 2002.

76.              One who has a bottom line, an “or else,” who will not suffer this Tyrant’s Pattern indefinitely.

77.              One who believes that firearms, ideas, newspapers, magazines, books, email, plays, novels, movies, etc., should be treated 100% the same: no prior restraint! Post misuse punishment is constitutionally legitimate. Prior restraint is unconstitutional.

78.              One who agrees with this line from the July 4, 1776 Declaration: “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.” [Emphasis added.]

79.              One, who upon learning, for example, that 500,000 Communist Chinese troops landed on California’s coast, would pick up a firearm, ammunition, and rush to the coast to defend the nation, our way of life, our Constitutional Rule of Law . . . and would do so with, or without, civil authority’s permission.

77.              I assert that my right to recover my confiscated Colt Commander without having to yield to any pre-condition is 100% consistent with rights that I claim are inalienable, Constitutional, and fundamental.

78.              The Second Amendment codifies my fundamental, individual right to arms--to keep and to bear, which shall not be infringed. This right is fundamental for the reasons that follow.

1.                  Fundamental, per Webster, where appropriate, means this: 1. Serving as, or being an essential part of, a foundation or basis; basic; underlying; 2. of, pertaining to, or affecting the foundation or basis; 3. being an original or primary source; 4. a basic principle, rule, law, or the like that serves as the groundwork of a system; an essential part.

2.                  Right, per Webster, where appropriate, means this: 1.Something that is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.; 2. that which is morally, legally, Constitutionally or ethically proper; 3. a moral, ethical, or legal principle considered as an underlying cause of truth, justice, morality, or ethics; 4. that which is in accord with fact, reason, or propriety; 5. the opposite of privilege.

3.                  The fundamental law of this nation is the July 4th Declaration, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Legally, no one can get more fundamental than those laws.

4.                  The July 4th Declaration declared the existence of inalienable rights which came from a Creator, not civil authority. Among these rights are the Rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. The logical corollary to these rights is the right to enjoy the pragmatic means to enforce these rights; otherwise, these great inalienable rights are a worthless sham.

5.                  The right to self-defense is the right to preserve bodily integrity and to prevent trespass and harm to one's body. As a practical matter, preserving bodily integrity is the foundation, the platform of all rights.            

6.                  Dead people have no rights. It is impossible for a corpse to exercise any of the other rights already deemed to be fundamental by the U.S. Supreme Court and binding on the states.

7.                  Rights are irrelevant to a corpse.

8.                  It is axiomatic that a pre-requisite to the ability to exercise any right is that one must first be alive . . . and preferably not maimed nor incapacitated by a criminal. Example: It is difficult to exercise free speech or kneel in church or go to a polling place when a criminal murdered you, busted up your face, stabbed you, broke your leg, or made you an invalid.

9.                  One of the best ways to preserve these rights is to carry a sidearm for lawful self-defense and lawful defense of others. It is difficult to enjoy life and to pursue happiness when one is reduced to the status of being unarmed, vulnerable prey by oppressive laws that attempt to strip one of human dignity.

10.              Per this nation's fundamental law, all human beings are born with inalienable rights, which are a gift from a Creator to Man. This gift pre-existed, and survived, the formation of society and civil authority. Human beings retain these rights even after society and civil authority are formed.

11.              The Second Amendment's Right to Arms has a First Amendment Right to Freedom of Religion component. This is because the July 4th Declaration asserts that Man's inalienable rights are derived from a Creator, and the First Amendment guarantees Freedom of Religion. For those who believe--like I do-- that the ultimate source of their rights is a Creator, and that their Rights to Life, Liberty and to Arms are a gift from a Creator, civil authority's laws against carrying a weapon in a public place for lawful self-defense without a concealed carry weapon [CCW] permit are a Constitutionally infirmed infringement against Freedom of Religion in addition to being a Constitutionally infirmed infringement against the Right to Arms.

12.              Freedom of Religion has already been deemed to be a fundamental right. Atheists, agnostics, and Statists cannot legitimately force their views upon those who believe that a Creator, and not civil authority, is the ultimate source of all rights--including Second Amendment rights.

13.              Per this nation's fundamental law, civil authority forfeits its legitimate authority, breaks the social contract, and becomes oppressive the instant it tries to deny Man the inalienable right to carry a weapon for lawful self-defense to preserve bodily integrity . . . or to confiscate a firearm via subterfuge.

14.              No citizen has a legitimate duty to suffer any trespass against his or her bodily integrity nor to die merely to promote the alleged general welfare nor to surrender any right merely to promote the alleged general welfare.

15.              The core of our system is simple: first, the individual is more important than the group; second, so called collective rights do not trump individual rights; third,  lawful self-defense--including with a firearm, is perfectly legitimate; fourth, people must be judge by their behavior, not by what others fear they might do; fifth, elitists and the unwashed are equal before the law; sixth, the Constitution’s chains anchors civil authority to the Constitution’s bright lines that separate civil authority’s power from citizens’ rights; and finally, Liberty is more important than security.


16.              The general welfare is not promoted by stripping law-abiding, competent citizens of their inalienable and Constitutional rights and coercing them to circulate in public as unarmed, vulnerable prey.

17.              Civil authority's power to promote the general welfare stops cold, 100%, at the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment's “...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Hence, the right to self-preservation does not require getting anyone's permission or license first. The entire CCW permit concept and system, therefore, is 100% Constitutionally infirmed and totally illegitimate. That system is an unequivocally clear prior restraint infringement against the right, which purports to reduce the right to a privilege.

18.              Any civil authority that purports to deny an otherwise law-abiding citizen who has no criminal history, no mental illness history and no recent history of substance abuse the fundamental right to carry a weapon in a public place for lawful self-defense, without a CCW permit, illegitimately transgresses upon that citizen's inalienable and Constitutional rights. That transgression substantially devalues U.S. citizenship. That transgression is tantamount to civil authority's attempt to reduce citizens to the status of property, bondage, and prey. That process involves this reality: Citizens are reduced to subjects which are further reduced to property which are reduced further to piss ant status. That process is insufferable. That process is a manifestation of civil authority's contempt for citizens, for their rights, for their status as human beings, for the dignity to which they are entitled.


19.              Per our nation's fundamental law, the right to lawful self-defense with a weapon in a public place is already codified in the Second Amendment.

20.              This is a right that belongs to the people, which civil authority cannot infringe with any pre-condition on the exercise of that right. The Bill of Rights, with its Preamble, makes this point unequivocally clear. That Bill's rights are restrictions on civil authority, not on citizens. Hence, this right is in effect all of the time.

21.              In addition to these fundamental laws, we also have the significance of the 1868 14th Amendment. That amendment was designed to force the states to honor the Bill of Rights, which was part of the normal “privileges and immunities” enjoyed by each U.S. citizen, as explained by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 1856 Dred Scott case. Those who spearheaded the drive for the ratification of the 14th Amendment repeatedly made it specifically clear that they were trying to secure for the freedmen [recently emancipated slaves] all the rights enjoyed by Caucasians, among which was the right of a freedman to self-defense with a firearm in a public place. The 14th Amendment made the right to carry a concealable, hand held weapon, including a sidearm, a personal civil right to lawful self-defense in a public place, for freedmen and for Caucasians. [Read Akhil Reed Amar's The Bill of Rights, ISBN 0-300-07379-8, and Stephen P. Halbrook's Freedmen, The Fourteenth Amendment, And The Right To Bear Arms, 1866-1876, ISBN 0-275- 96331-4.]

22.              A right is something one can exercise in private, without having to get anyone's permission first, and without even having to disclose to anyone that one is, or is not, exercising the right. A right, and what one does, or does not do with it, is one's business and no one else's business, as long as one does not abuse the right. A right is also 100% immune from all forms of prior restraint and infringement. Civil authority can legitimately, and Constitutionally, punish, after the fact, behavior that is an abuse of the right. Civil authority cannot, however, legitimately, and Constitutionally, impose prior restraints on the exercise of the right. Such prior restraints reduce a fundamental right to a privilege.

23.              To permit is to control. To permit is to convert a fundamental right to a privilege.

24.              When civil authority insists upon reducing fundamental rights to privileges, it  reduces a constitutionally limited democratic republic with certain guaranteed rights for all to a police state where all rights are in peril or are non-existent. That process does not increase citizens' confidence in civil authority. Instead, that process severely alienates well-informed citizens and those who value Liberty.

25.              How one exercises a right becomes a legitimate concern to civil authority only when one's behavior regarding that right actually harms another. Neither civil authority, nor anyone else, has any legitimate basis to complain about the responsible, non-harmful exercise of any right. This includes otherwise law-abiding citizens who merely carry a weapon in a public place for lawful self-defense or lawful defense of others without a CCW permit. The key is: what is the citizen's behavior, not whether he or she also carries a piece of government issued paper called a permit.


26.              Life is full of risks. Civil authority and citizens must be willing to take risks with Freedom, Liberty, and the original Constitutional Rule of Law. The alternative is Oppression, Tyranny, and Any Rule of Law. The risks associated with Oppression, Tyranny, and Any Rule of Law outweigh those associated with Freedom, Liberty, and the original Constitutional Rule of Law.

27.              It is axiomatic that lawful defense of one's self, one's family, one's loved ones, and one's fellow citizens, in a public place, is an innate right of all mammals, which is, and has long been, recognized throughout the world.

28.              Most animals come equipped with natural means of self-defense, e.g., claws, teeth, powerful tail, thick skin, keen senses, extreme agility. Human beings, however, lack such natural weapons. To deny human beings the right to carry a suitable weapon to preserve bodily integrity is to deny human beings an ability

already extended to dogs and other mammals and reduces human beings to a status below animals.

29.              Civil authority's victim disarmament laws are illogical, counterproductive, dangerous and seriously Constitutionally infirmed. Example: Civil authority professes to believe that human beings are higher than animals and are entitled to equal protection of the laws. Civil authority, however, has out done itself by making a gross mockery of these concepts. This is because civil authority has inexplicably passed victim disarmament laws which have created a multi-tiered system of Authoritarian Elites and Citizens Reduced to Piss Ant Status. Example: Authoritarian Elites [law makers and senior law enforcement personnel, etc.] decide who is, and who is not, according to them, worthy enough to be trusted with a CCW permit to protect their hide with a firearm in a public place.

30.              To dishonor or to frustrate the basic, powerful, involuntary, human instinct for self-preservation is to dishonor humanity itself.

31.              Civil authority does not own citizens. Civil authority manifests a gross form of statecraft malpractice when it passes or enforces victim disarmament laws that rail against the inborn, powerful instinct for self-preservation. This is especially true when civil authority knows that it cannot assuredly protect citizens, and, to exacerbate matters, it protects itself by passing laws that make it immune for its

 failure to protect citizens while purporting to deny citizens the right to protect themselves.

32.              The right to preserve one's life against aggression [unjust initiated force] is the highest and foremost right of any human being. This is underscored by the extremely powerful, inborn instinct for self-preservation. To make that right a pragmatic reality, one must have the right to use an effective tool to preserve life against unjust aggression. A person who carries a sidearm has one of the most effective tools for preserving one's life against unjust aggression [which is precisely why cops carry sidearms.]

33.              To deny, to compromise, or to infringe upon a person's right to carry a sidearm is to undermine or to eliminate that person's ability to enjoy, in a meaningful way, the right to preserve his or her life and to prevent illegal transgressions against his or her bodily integrity which can have grave, long lasting consequences. No one, repeat no one, and no civil authority, has the legitimate right, nor power, to undermine nor to eliminate, an otherwise law-abiding citizen's right to preserve his or her life.

34.              Since carrying a weapon concealed tends to improve a person's likelihood of successful preservation of one's life, concealed carry is included within the general right to be armed.

35.              All living organisms evolve to some degree. Evolution is an on-going modification and adaptation to changed circumstances. In that sense, evolution is a form of self-defense. The inherent need to adapt, to survive, to defend, is an indisputable fact of life. Adaptation is indispensable to the survival of any living thing and any living species. These facts are true of one-celled organisms and of multi-celled organisms. Life, via evolution, prolongs itself by defending against external threats. Biological mechanisms involuntarily pass this self-defense mechanism on to their descendants.

36.              Nature does not draw arbitrary lines and impose arbitrary standards. Only foolish human beings pass laws that rail against one of nature's strongest instincts: the instinct for self-preservation. Nature has allowed most species to develop, and to perfect, ingenious methods of self-defense for survival, individually and as a species. Human beings, as a higher form of life, have developed more sophisticated tools. Among these tools are laws and weapons, including sidearms. Without both [laws and weapons], human life is easily defeated.


37.              Humans need weapons to defend life when laws fail to deter crime that threatens human life.

38.              Weapons carried in public will always be needed to defend human life because criminals, who, by definition, do not obey laws, will always exist and will always commit criminal acts, especially against those they perceive as being unarmed and vulnerable to plunder.            

39.              When human life is defeated, human life is killed, evolution stops, and extinction occurs.

40.              Defense of one's self, one's family, and one's possessions, with any tool available, is totally consistent with eons of life-sustaining evolution. Thus, lawful self-defense with any weapon is truly fundamental for survival as is a hospitable environment, nourishment, and propagation.

41.              A concealed defense is normal in nature as is any other life-sustaining capability. To deprive an organism of a concealed defense equates with deprivation of food or air. Rattlesnakes, honey bees, squids, mushrooms, and ordained ministers all have concealed defenses that are not readily visible to the casual observer. Concealed defenses are among one of nature's ways of deterring, and, if necessary, defeating, an assailant.

42.              Additionally, all of the following is also true: There is no correlation between concealed carry and criminal intent nor criminal behavior. One can carry concealed without criminal intent. Concealed carry gives law-abiding citizens three major advantages over those who harbor criminal intent: the advantage of surprise; the ability to defeat an attack once initiated; and the advantage of deterrence because criminals do not know who is armed and they prefer to plunder those who are disarmed. Society, law enforcement, and civil authority reap substantial benefit from law-abiding citizens who personally shoulder the responsibility of lawful self-defense with a sidearm.

79.              Rights are not self-enforcing. Rights are merely concepts on a printed page in a dusty law book on a shelf until someone with the audacity, the boldness and the guts insists that those rights be re-affirmed, honored and respected. Most people, however, lack the ability, the desire or the resources to enforce their rights. Too many citizens think potatoes come from a box, milk comes from Safeway and freedom is free.

80.              Freedom is not free. It is pricey. It is expensive to secure, to defend and to maintain.

81.              For too many citizens, their only concept of freedom is how much can they buy at the store. We are buying ourselves into Tyranny. The mechanism for this dynamic is simple: too many citizens are Sheeple. They are civically dead, meaning they are too oblivious, too apathetic, too uninformed or misinformed, too gutless to claim their Liberty, their birthright. I am not Sheeple! I am Patriot!

82.              By this declaration, per my position, which is deeply rooted in principle and intense devotion to the Constitutional Rule of Law, I claim my birthright as a U.S. citizen: the return of my Colt Commander to me, forthwith, without any precondition imposed.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

83.              My attorney, Peter Mancus, wrote this declaration for me. It captures well what I wanted to communicate to this Court.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing in true and correct, and that this declaration was made in Sebastopol, California on June 28, 2002.


James A. Smith, Sr.