to the United States Constitution

To begin with , I just want to explain to you that I'm not a raving gun nut wanting to shoot up everything in sight. Nor do I wish to overthrow the government of the United States . I have always cherished and believed in the Amendments to and the Constitution of the United States of America and the freedom that has been set forth  by those documents. Over the last two hundred years millions of men and women have given their lives for the Constitution and its Amendments.  I abhor what some of our politically correct politicians are trying to do to the Amendments of the Constitution. Especially to the Second Amendment .

I have been a Peace Officer in the State of California   for twenty four  years. I started my career as a Reserve Deputy Sheriff for Sacramento County. I was then sworn in as a full time Police Officer for the City of Woodland , where I worked for several  years. I then went back to work for Sacramento, again as a fully sworn  Deputy Sheriff , where I still work. The views that I have put to print here are mine alone. Nothing that's printed here is the official   view  of the Woodland Police Department or the Sacramento Sheriff's   Department.

In the twenty two  years, I have worked in Patrol, Jails, Work Release Facility and as a Bailiff at the Sacramento County Courthouse. As a patrol officer , I have been involved in handling all types of calls for service. From the simple call of petty theft up to armed robbery and homicide. The first   thing a peace officer realizes is that cops are re-active to crimes and are not pro-active. Which means that 99.9% of the time we get there after a violent  crime has been committed and not before or  during the violent crime. Nor are we able to stop a violent crime from being committed just by our presence in the area.  After we arrive its our job to secure the crime scene, give  first aid to the victims (if needed),  interview witnesses, if at all possible to arrest the criminal and then to write the reports. Usually the criminals are not stupid enough to  hang around, so we (patrol officers) usually turn over to the detectives the job of finding and  arresting the suspects.

The second thing a peace  officer realizes is that criminals  only prey on citizens  that they know can't defend themselves. Criminals  will not even attempt to burglarize or rob someone if they know that the citizen could possibly be armed and that the criminal  could become injured or killed. If you are into statistics then you should check out the statistics that the Federal Government puts out every year, state by state. You will notice that the states and cities that have very restrictive guns laws have the highest crime rates. New York City, New York  and Chicago, Illinois are good examples of high crime areas with restrictive gun laws. If the good citizens are unable to protect themselves with a hand gun  then the criminals  know they have easy pickings. If you check out the statistics  for the State of Florida where every law abiding citizen has the right to carry a concealed weapon and many do, you will see that the crime rate has dropped from 35% to 40% , in some areas. Criminals are not stupid ,  just sociopaths  and lazy  and do not care about any other human being but themselves.

Most peace officers believe that every law abiding citizen should have the right and ability to carry a concealed hand gun. Most officers believe that before the citizen is to be allowed to carry a cancelable  hand gun, that citizen should be highly trained in its use, knowledgeable  in all applicable Penal Code and Liability laws and hand gun safety procedures.The training should be set up by an agency like the Peace Officers Standards and  Training Bureau.  The same state agency that sets standards and training for peace officers. But, the State, County or City should not make it so restrictive that no one but the politically/financially  connected are able to obtain a  concealed weapons permit.

One of the things that I wonder about and can't figure out , is why the News Services (Newspaper and Television Corporations) are so against the Second Amendment. Can you imagine how much screaming, gnashing of teeth and fighting a news organization would do if some group or organization tried to change or dismantle the First Amendment. I have sat in court, as a bailiff, several times, listening to attorneys for one newspaper or another, demanding that they have the First Amendment right  to the  accessibility to some government paper that the government does not want them to have. Or, the First Amendment right to keep  secret the persons name who   supplied the information for their stories. Over the years I have seen newspaper men/women and editors go to jail, for contempt of court,  for not supplying the information that the government demanded. These same News Organizations should be fighting mightily for the Second Amendment. Because if the Second Amendment can be trampled on, changed or dismantled entirely, why can't  the First Amendment. Or for that matter any other Amendment to the Constitution or the Constitution its self.  I have seen numerous defense attorney's screaming that their clients Fifth, Eighth and every other Amendment  rights, have been violated. But, they heartily believe that the Second Amendment should be changed and that no one should be allowed to own or possess any type of firearm.

In my 54 plus years, I can't count the number of countries that  I have seen lose their Constitution and Freedom due to a political organization or  Military take over . The first act of the new GOVERNMENT is to suspend the Constitution, the freedom of speech (newspapers etc) and to place martial law on its citizens.   You are wrong if you believe that this can never happen here. It's easier to take something away from a person if it's a little bit at a time. You don't realize how much is gone until it's all gone. Which is happening right now to the good people of  the United States. 

In 1994 Bill Clinton offered this idea: "When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly... that they would work for the common good, as well as for the individual welfare.... A lot of people say there's too much personal freedom. When personal freedom is being abused, you have to move to limit it."

He believes that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is "RADICAL". The framers of the Constitution wrote it with the idea that "We the people had God Given Rights." It looks like Clinton believes that the Government has the God Given Rights and We the People don't exist. He want's to limit our freedoms starting with the 2nd Amendment .

So if you believe in the God Given Right to be Free, the Constitution and its Amendments, for  Gods sake fight for ALL of them and not just the politically correct ones or one day they will all be gone.

One of the best organizations, fighting hard, trying to protect the 2nd Amendment  is the National Rifle Association  (N.R.A.). There are several other state rifle organizations that are also  fighting for the 2nd Amendment.  I respectfully  request that you join the National Rifle Association or a local state rifle association. If you don't fight for the 2nd Amendment  through the National Rifle Association , I guarantee we will lose our right to own any weapon , just like what has happened in Australia.

                                                       WHAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT REALLY SAYS                                                                               By Chuck Klein

(The below article was reproduced from the January 2002 GUNS AND AMMO MAGAZINE. I thought since so many people (especially the anti-gunners) are giving their views on the Second Amendment that I would add this article to my web site. Hopefully it will help you understand what the Second Amendment really stands for and means.)                       (Web Master)

The purpose and reason for establishing America was clearly spelled out in the Declaration of Independence with words and phrases such as:..." laws of nature and nature's God....all men are endowed by their Creator...unalienable rights...."We were doing away with a system of government control, to one of rule of law by individual dominion. Though some matters, such as those listed under the Articles of the Constitution, are best left to government supervision, all other affairs, as evidenced by the Bill of Rights, are at the pleasure of the individual citizen. Had the authority of who can keep and bear arms been designated as a state or federal right, it would have been included in Articles I or II of the Constitution.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT:    A well regulated militia.......

The instrument is saying that it is desirable to have available a militia (whose body of able-bodied men subject to a call into military service), and that this body of men be "well regulated" (marksmen). This was only a wish because under the Constitution (Article I, Section 8) the government is powerless to maintain a standing army. Therefore, and in order to be sure that the "militia" is available should it be  necessary to raise  an army, it would be better for everyone if the "militia" were not only armed, but carried their arms with them.

In those early days the people feared attack from   foreign powers, criminals or savages. Today, though the people are not under threat of foreign invasion, they are still subject to assault by terrorists and criminals, savage or otherwise.

......being necessary to the security of a free state.....

One reason for the controversy of the Second Amendment is because, erroneously, some have insisted that "the right to keep and bear arms" is a state right (as in Ohio, Texas and Florida) and not an individual right. However, it is clear that "free state" means a free America. The word "state" means nation/country, as in "the State of Israel" or "the Arab States" or "Secretary of State." In other words, the nation can best form an army and navy if its militia are not restricted from keeping or bearing arms. The meaning  is obvious; the Constitution acknowledges the right to keep and bear arms, while at the same time encourages the individual citizen to keep and bear arms for personal security as well as against insurrection or foreign invasion.

There is no mandate, provision or article in the Constitution requiring the government  -  state or federal  -  by any means or in any form, to provide protection for the individual citizen. In fact, the contrary is true. Numerous Supreme Court rulings have reiterated the premise that the government's only duty is to protect the citizens, per se. The only constitutional reference to physical protection  is the Federal Government's guarantee to protect the states "against invasion; and.... domestic violence" (ARTICLE 4, SECTION 4).   The state's (Indiana, Iowa, etc.) might need their own "state's guard" for protection against a federal government run amuck. However, their needs, though real, might be counter to the individual citizen's needs and fears, which includes the possibility that both the state(s) and the nation might, together, conspire against the individual citizen.

....the right of....

These three words signify that the right is pre-existing (intrinsic). The framers not only acknowledged this inherent right to keep and bear arms, but went on to say this pre-existing and natural liberty shall not be infringed. The Second Amendment, without these three words, is only an acquired power, and as such is subject to interpretation and/or repeal.

....the people to keep and bear arms....

It does not say the "state"...It says," the right of the "people." The Bill of Rights is about the people's (individual) rights, not about the states' rights (which are outlined in Articles I, III, IV). If the framers had intended the prerogative to arm to be a states; right (such as Ohio, Texas, etc.) the Second Amendment would have read something like: The power of the state to arm its militia shall not...."  As to the Federal Government, they already had the means and power to arm citizens (raise armies) and didn't need an amendment to tell themselves, the states or anyone else not to infringe upon their exclusive authority.

....shall not be infringed.....

"Shall" is mandatory. It does not mean "maybe" or at someone's (or some agency's) discretion. The Constitution, in particular its first Ten Amendments, acknowledges certain individual rights and guarantees. One such pledge and warranty not granted is the individual's right to expect the government to protect him. The framers believed that because the individual had the right to keep and bear arms, there was no need for the government to be saddled with that additional responsibility.

WHICH "PEOPLE" HAVE THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS?

In 18th-Century England, only the aristocratic ruling class was empowered to defend honor and country. However, the framers of our Constitution clearly gave little thought to anyone other than the common man as the defender of family, property or country. This concept of all men being full citizens and having the right and obligation to serve and protect was unique to America.

An American citizen, circa 1785, was considered to be any white male, over the age of 21 (and not a felon). The idea of civilian gun control was unconscionable. It is also inconceivable that a Thomas Jefferson or a James Madison would refuse to take a musket away from a drunk, a child, or someone conspicuously deranged. Had one been able to ask these learned men about the inherent conflict of such a restrictive action, they most  likely would have replied with words to the effect that drunks or mental incompetents were, at least , temporarily not citizens. A child was, of course, not a man and a felon had forsaken certain rights of citizenship.

With the ratification of the 13th, 14th, and 19th Amendments, all of age Americans were recognized as full, free, ruling-class citizens. Arms possession was, and still is, the signature of being a free citizen. It was and is most assuredly not a right for the mentally inept, a child, a felon or a substance abuser.

                                                                                        END OF ARTICLE

These courageous words spoken by Darrell Scott are powerful, penetrating and deeply personal. There is no doubt that God sent this man as a voice crying in the wilderness. The following is a portion of the transcript:

Since the dawn of creation there has been both good and evil in the heart of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of  violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers.

The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel, out in the field. The villain was not the club he used. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain's heart. In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not her to represent or defend the NRA because I don't believe that they are responsible for my daughter's death. Therefore, I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel's murder, I would be their strongest opponent. I am here today to declare that Columbine was not  just a tragedy it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room. Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves.

I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best. This was written way before I knew I would be speaking here today.

Men and women are three part beings. We all consist of body, soul and  spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice and hatred to rush in and wreck havoc. Spiritual influences were present within our educational systems for most of our nation's history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact. What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God and in doing so, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine's tragedy occurs politicians immediately look for a scapegoat, such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws. Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts. Political posturing and restrictive legislation are not the answers. The young people of our nation hold the key. There is a spiritual awakening taking place that will not be squelched! We do not need more religion! We do not need more gaudy television evangelists spewing out verbal religious garbage. We do not need more million dollar church buildings built while people with basic needs are being ignored. We do need a change of heart and humble acknowledgment that this nation was founded on the principle of simple trust in God! As my son, Craig,  lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered, before his very eyes, he did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right! I challenge every young person in America and around the world, to realize that on April20, 1999 , at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God given right to communicate with Him. To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA, I give to you a sincere challenge. Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first stone! My daughters death will not be in vain. The young people of this country will not allow that to happen.

                                                                                     END OF ARTICLE

The below two articles came from the January   2002 Guns and Ammo Magazine.

                                                                COURT OF APPEALS DEFINES 2ND AMENDMENT                                                                                                    by Jeff John

The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has defined the Second Amendment to the Constitution as an individual right of a citizen to keep and bear arms . The appeals court ruled that the foundation of current anti-gun laws is based on a flawed interpretation of the 1939 U.S. Supreme Court decision in U.S. vs Miller. Later appellate courts then concluded that the Second Amendment is a collectivist right rather than an individual right.

In upholding a lower court's interpretation of the Second Amendment against the government in U.S. vs Emerson, Judge William Garwood (a Reagan appointee) writing for the majority, said, "We agree with the district court that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to privately keep and bear their own firearms that are suitable as individual, personal weapons, and are not of the general kind or type excluded by Miller, regardless of whether the particular individual is then actually a member of a militia."

The court also said, "That does not mean that those rights may never be subjected to any limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions or restrictions."

Perhaps the tide is beginning to turn.

                                                                                           END OF ARTICLE

                                                      PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES IN CALIFORNIA            

RKBA columnist David Codrea and the staff at      http://www.keepandbeararms.com      have put together a petition asking Attorney General, John Ashcroft, enforce the Constitution of the United States in a civil-rights action against the state of California. California is accused of violation the Constitutions Second Amendment with the passage of recent gun-control legislation. The petition cites specific examples of California's failure to enforce the Second Amendment at the state's legislative, executive and judicial branches of government, as well as the failure of federal judiciary- up to and including the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals-to remedy the situation.

Why should Americans in other states care what happens to California gun owners? Although California doesn't have the most repressive anti-gun laws in the nation, it is the most populous state in the Union and often influences nationwide trends in legislation. So it is important that the petition start here.

Recent comments by the state's most anti-gun legislators let Californians know that recent legislation is only a start. This petition asks Ashcroft to do nothing more than his duty. That he has been sympathetic to the true meaning of the Constitution is unquestionable. If it is ever able to begin, such redress must start now.

The  petition can be edited to work in other states through substitution of names, and the inclusion of specific instances of Constitutional violations by a given state's branches of government and failure of the federal judiciary to redress. It's about time we gunowners got pro-active instead of reactive in the Second Amendment fight.

You may down load a copy of the petition in Microsoft Word, Adobe Acrobat PDF or as an HTML file off the internet at:    http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Petition/#a15 .       To acquire a copy by mail, send $1 to author David Codrea, Dept. GA, P.O. Box 4152, Redondo Beach, Ca 90277.