On March 6, 2022, the AP identified the deceased father as 39-year-old David Mora and noted that he “was in the country illegally.”
Moreover, Mora was “under a restraining order that barred him from possessing a firearm.”
Mora was out on bail at the time he opened fire in the church. He had been arrested five days prior “on charges of resisting arrest, battery on a police officer and driving under the influence.”
The New York Postreports that Mora “was arrested on Feb. 23 for driving under the influence, assaulting an officer and medical staff.”
According to the Post: “ICE issued a detainer — a request that the suspect be held until the agency can transfer him into custody and put him into deportation proceedings. However, due to California’s ‘sanctuary state’ law, authorities say they were barred from holding him or communicating with ICE about his release and he left on bail on a $15,000 bond.”
AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio and a Turning Point USA Ambassador. Follow him on Instagram: @awr_hawkins. Reach him at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. You can sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.
Legislators in half a dozen states are considering measures to roll back requirements that gun owners obtain permits and training before carrying concealed weapons, as Republican politicians race to show their support for gun rights ahead of primary and midterm elections this year.
But as the bills progress through state House and Senate chambers, they are running into new and increasingly vocal opposition from an unexpected source: Law enforcement organizations who say allowing more people to carry weapons would add to an already troubling spike in gun crimes.
In the nearly two decades since Alaska became the first state to allow concealed weapons without a permit, 20 others have joined in to scrap their rules. This year, legislators in Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Indiana and Nebraska are considering their own versions.
“When it comes to the Second Amendment in Nebraska, it’s an issue that really hits home,” said state Sen. Tom Brewer, a conservative member of his state’s nonpartisan legislature and the bill’s chief sponsor. “You still have an obligation to have safe operation training. And I think people with any degree of responsibility or intelligence are going to understand that.”
Ohio legislators have already passed a similar bill; Gov. Mike DeWine (R) has not said whether he will sign it.
“It is going to promote lawlessness. I think that there will be people who carry weapons concealed for the purpose of being vigilantes. I think that it is not very well thought out for very high populated counties such as Hamilton County,” Ohio’s Hamilton County Sheriff Charmaine McGuffey said in an interview. “To vote for people to be able to concealed carry without a license, without any training, without any documentation, it makes it exponentially harder for law enforcement to prevent gun crimes.”
McGuffey, whose county includes the city of Cincinnati, is one of a handful of prominent law enforcement officials to testify or speak out against the proposed legislation. Gary Wolske, the president of the Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio, wrote an op-ed critical of the law in the Columbus Dispatch.
The sheriff of Lincoln, Neb., testified against his state’s proposed version. In Alabama, the state Sheriffs Association held a press conference outside the statehouse to detail their opposition. Mobile, Ala., Sheriff Sam Cochran last year fired one of his deputies, state Rep. Shane Stringer (R), who introduced the bill in the legislature.
Stringer did not respond to multiple requests for comment. But he told the Alabama Political Reporter last year he was proud of his bill.
“After dedicating my life and career to law enforcement, losing a job because I stand in support of Alabama gun owners is certainly surprising, but nothing will discourage me from defending the constitutional guarantees promised to all of us as American citizens,” Stringer said.
Brewer, the Nebraska senator, said law enforcement is by no means universally opposed to his bill.
“I’ve got 13 counties in my district and every sheriff there supports it,” he said in an interview.
Supporters of the measure call it “constitutional carry.” Opponents and gun safety activists call it “permitless carry.”
“Constitutional carry codifies into law the fundamental right to defend yourself when outside of the home,” said Amy Hunter, a spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association (NRA). “Law-abiding Americans should not have to pay additional fees to exercise their fundamental right to defend themselves and their families.”
Opponents of the laws say they would put more weapons on the streets at a time when gun crimes are already on the rise, underscoring law enforcement’s opposition to the bills.
“There are communities across the country that are already really struggling with the crisis of gun violence,” said Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action, a gun safety organization. “Law enforcement are saying lawmakers are just ignoring their concerns.”
Gun safety groups point to studies published in academic journals and by the National Bureau of Economic Research that show states that weaken firearm permitting systems subsequently experience an increase in homicide and violent crime rates.
“Poor decisionmaking happens, and unfortunately, if you’re carrying a weapon and you make a poor decision in a very elevated and high stress situation, the repercussions and ramifications of that are tremendous,” McGuffey said. “People in the general public don’t understand generally how poorly most people shoot.”
Gun rights supporters point to their own studies to make the case that guns are most frequently used outside the home. Hunter, the NRA spokesperson, highlighted a study showing three-quarters of defensive gun uses occurred outside of a gun owner’s house.
“Self-defense situations can arise anywhere, any time, and without warning,” Hunter said in an email.
Intraparty politics likely increase pressure to approve permitless carry laws for some Republicans. In Ohio, DeWine faces a challenge later this year from ex-Rep. Jim Renacci (R), who has cast himself as a staunch backer of former President Trump ahead of the May 3 primary.
But McGuffey said she would continue to press DeWine to veto the legislation.
“If you oppose it and veto it, Gov. DeWine, you may never know the lives you will save,” McGuffey said. “But if you pass this bill, there’s a great likelihood that you will know the lives you didn’t save. Those names will live in infamy.”
David Allen Mather, better known as Mysterious Dave, was born on August 10, 1851, to Ulysses and Lycia Mather. Dave had come from a family of seafaring lawmen in Massachusetts, and his ancestors had been rugged English sailormen of the Seven Seas.
Mather was proud of his English heritage, and it was common to see him dressed in royal blue and red, even when he got older. Some of his immediate family members were also lawmen in Massachusetts, from whom Mather acquired the desire to become a lawman himself.
A smallish man with square but frail shoulders, dark eyes, and a mustache, Mather was a man of few words, which gained him the nickname “Mysterious Dave.”
Though Mather had aspirations to be a lawman, he, like so many other officers of the Old West, rode both sides of the fence, sometimes on the side of the law and, just as often, riding with outlaws.
By the time Mather was 16, his parents were dead, so he and his brother, Josiah, headed west. Around 1873, Mather became involved in cattle rustling in Sharp County, Arkansas. In 1874, Mather made his first appearance in Dodge City,Kansas, where he frequently returned as a lawman and an outlaw.
About this same time, Mather was often seen about the saloons of Denver, Colorado, always with twin Colts bulging under his coat. He keenly watched the players at the faro, blackjack, and poker tables, but he never gambled himself.
Mobeetie, Texas, early 1900s
By 1878, Mather had found his way to Mobeetie, Texas, and into the company of Wyatt Earp, where one suspiciousness account related that the two ran a con game peddling “gold” bricks to the naïve citizens of Mobeetie.
In 1879, Mather hooked up with outlaw Dutch Henry Born, the leader of a horse-stealing ring operating in a vast area from Kansas to eastern Colorado and New Mexico and the Texas Panhandle. Mather was arrested with Henry Born but was later released. He was soon picked up for complicity in a train robbery near Las Vegas, New Mexico, but was acquitted. Afterward, Mather was appointed as a Deputy Las Vegas Marshal, becoming part of the notorious Dodge City Gang terrorizing Las Vegas, New Mexico.
Las Vegas, New Mexico Saloon
On January 22, 1880, T.J. House, James West, John Dorsey, and William Randall were parading about town, sneering, laughing, and looking for trouble. When they entered the Close & Patterson Variety Hall, Marshal Joe Carson asked them to check their guns, but they refused. A wild gunfight ensued, and Carson was killed immediately, while Deputy Dave Mather killed Randall and dropped West. John Dorsey, though wounded, and T.J. House managed to escape.
On February 5, the whereabouts of Dorsey and House were learned; they were at the home of Juan Antonio Dominguez in Buena Vista, 30 miles north of Las Vegas. A posse comprised of J.J. Webb, Dave Rudabaugh, and five other men surrounded the home and called for the men to surrender. Dorsey and House complied after assurance of protection from the citizens of Las Vegas was given. However, this assurance would mean very little, as, within hours of the men being placed in the Old Town Jail, vigilantes relieved the jailers of the prisoners. Taking them to the windmill on the Plaza to hang, Mrs. Carson opened fire on the men, depriving the lynchers of their opportunity.
After Marshal Carson’s death, Mather was appointed the Las Vegas Marshal. However, Mather soon moved on again after being accused of “promiscuous shooting” in his capacity as marshal. Next, he was known to have served for a short time as Assistant Marshal in El Paso, Texas. However, after an altercation in a brothel in which Mather was slightly wounded, he returned to Dodge City, where he was hired as Assistant City Marshal.
AD
Dodge City in the late 1800s
By the time Mather returned to Dodge City, the existence of gambling, drinking, prostitution, and dance halls, often in open violation of the law, had heated up as a major town issue. The “Dodge City War” in the spring of 1883 was followed by pressure from the Santa Fe Railroad to clean up their town. The reform-minded and status quo factions were still feuding when David Mather accepted the Dodge City Assistant Marshal position. Before long, Mather also became the co-owner of the Opera House Saloon on Front Street.
Thomas Nixon
Because of its prominent downtown location, the city council objected to Mather’s decision to turn the Opera House Saloon into a dance hall and soon passed an ordinance banning all dance houses. However, the council took no action against another dance hall owned by Thomas Nixon, allegedly because of its remote location. For several months, Nixon and Mather battled to put each other out of business.
In 1884, the city government replaced Mysterious Dave with Nixon as the Assistant Marshal, and the feud brewing for several months came to a head. On the evening of July 18, 1884, Nixon drew a gun and fired at Mather but only sprayed him with a few splinters. Three days later, Mather approached Nixon from behind and fired four bullets into his back, killing him instantly. Later, Mather was heard to say, “I ought to have killed him six months ago.”
Although Mather was acquitted of Nixon’s murder, he killed another man the following year and was run out of town by Marshal Bill Tilghman. After serving as city marshal in a few small towns in Kansas and Nebraska, Mysterious Dave moved to San Francisco, California, where he took a ship to Vancouver.
Some reports say he soon enlisted in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, proving his prowess by showing what he could do with a pair of six guns and a horse. Allegedly he was still seen in the royal blue and red as late as 1922, but those reports have been refuted, and his true fate is unknown.
Tombstone, AZ –-(Ammoland.com)- The police killing of Amir Locke while executing a warrant in Minneapolis, has once again drawn attention to the dangerous and often deadly use of violent surprise tactics in the service of search and arrest warrants. While the common refrain is a call-to-end use of “no-knock” warrants, those are not the only warrants that are a problem. Some warrants authorize police to breach the door directly after knocking or announcing. Too often a warrant that authorizes “dynamic entry” creates more problems than it solves – for both police and the public.
Few details are available in the case of Amir Locke beyond the badge cam videos, but the basics are clear. Using a key from management, police quietly entered the apartment of Locke’s cousin to serve a warrant in a homicide case. The cousin was absent, but Locke, who was visiting, was asleep on the couch.
As officers entered, they began yelling their typical litany of contradictory commands:
“Police – Warrant!”
“Get on the Ground!”
“Show your hands!”
“Don’t move!”
…and so on, and kicked the couch where Locke was sleeping, the 22-year old emerged from beneath a blanket with a pistol in his right hand. At this point, an officer fired several shots, killing him.
The shooting was probably justifiable from the officer’s viewpoint, as he perceived the threat of a gun, but Locke was probably startled and confused, and also justified in grabbing a gun at the violent invasion.
Had Locke been in a less helpless position and somehow been able to fire at masked men coming into the apartment and rousting him from his sleep, there is ample precedent for a finding of self-defense. A dynamic entry puts the rights of the officers and the right of occupants of a home in direct conflict resulting in a situation where both sides can claim a justifiable use of deadly force.
In other words, a raid can create a free-fire zone. Also, for the record, it is not at all uncommon for criminal home invaders and drug rip-off crews to impersonate police as they are assaulting a home.
As mentioned, Locke was not a resident of the apartment, nor was he named in the warrant. Conflicting statements have come out regarding his possession of the pistol, but the consensus is that it was legally owned by Locke and that he might have had a concealed carry permit. Regardless of other details, unless Locke was a “prohibited person” under federal or state law – which it appears he was not – then his possession of a handgun in a home would be completely legal.
The police request for a “no-knock” warrant has not been published, and the reasoning for the alleged demand for one has not been made clear. A 17-year old cousin, brother to the tenant of the apartment where Locke was killed, was later arrested in connection with a January 10 homicide. That cousin lived in a different apartment in the same building but was known to frequent his older brother’s apartment, so police had warrants for both apartments.
The teen cousin is on probation for a previous shooting, raising questions about the efficacy of the Minneapolis justice system?
Protests calling for a ban on the use of “no-knock” warrants, erupted in Minneapolis as news of the killing spread. Of course, Minneapolis was the epicenter of the 2020 protests and riots after the death of George Floyd. During those protests, which went international, another name was frequently mentioned, that of Breonna Taylor, who, like Amir Locke, was killed by police serving a warrant regarding someone else.
Locke and Taylor are just the most prominent, recent examples among many around the country, several of which I have written about in the past. At about the same time that Breonna Taylor was killed, a 21-year old man named Duncan Lemp was also killed by police executing a “no-knock” warrant in Maryland. Lemp was the target of the warrant, based on suspicion that he might possess an illegal rifle. Not that there was any indication that he had, or intended to use the rifle in a crime, just that he was thought to be in possession of one that has been banned in Maryland.
Unlike the Amir Locke case, there is no body-cam footage of the incident, apparently because the police union demanded exemption from body-cam requirements during SWAT raids. Officials said this policy would be revised. They have also never released the name or record of the officer who actually pulled the trigger. A subsequent investigation (by the police) cleared the police of any wrongdoing.
The main difference between the killing of Breonna Taylor and Duncan Lemp, is that Lemp was a Caucasian from an upper-middle-class family, and an outspoken constitutionalist, while Taylor was Black and working class. Police killing a “rich White kid” did not feed the current narrative, so coverage of Lemp’s case never gained traction outside of “right-wing” circles. Had Duncan Lemp been a Black man, you can bet that his killing would have been headline news, and protests would have ensued. But that’s a discussion for a different time.
The key takeaway right now from these tragedies is not about race. It’s about critically flawed police procedures, and the lack of accountability, both for police who carry out the flawed raids, and the judges who authorize them.
It needs to be said that my default position is to support the police. Members of my family and several close friends have served and currently serve in law enforcement ranging from patrol officer to county sheriff to federal agent. No small part of my opposition to reckless warrant service stems from a concern for officer safety. As pointed out above, under Castle Doctrine rules, an officer serving a warrant in a dynamic entry can face an armed homeowner who can justify use of deadly force. Until a homeowner can verify that the people attacking him are law enforcement officers with a duly sworn warrant, he is under no obligation to allow them entry into his home.
Unfortunately, the number of “dynamic entries” is rising. According to Professor Peter Kraska, of Eastern Kentucky University, the number of “no-knock” and “quick-knock,” SWAT-style raids for serving warrants nationwide, soared from around 3,000 per year in 1981, to over 60,000 per year today.
While I believe there are some very limited circumstances where a “no-knock” or “announce and enter,” or similar “dynamic entry” type of warrant can be justified, those circumstances should be limited to situations where speed is essential because innocent lives are at risk. The risk of destruction of evidence is a specious argument. Commercial quantities of drugs or other contraband won’t flush, and smaller quantities aren’t worth the trouble or the risk.
Tightening rules around dynamic entry warrants is not the best solution. History shows that police can be very creative at working around such restrictions, while still obeying the letter – if not the spirit – of the law. I believe that a better solution is to inject a healthy helping of accountability into the mix. Those requesting, authorizing, and executing warrants in a high-risk manner need to take on a share of the civil risk.
The police officer who swears out the warrant, the senior officer who signs off on it, the judge who issues the warrant, and the officers who execute it, all need to lose some or all of their qualified immunity if the raid goes sideways. Everyone in the legal chain trail of a warrant authorizing high-risk tactics should bear personal, legal liability for anything that goes wrong. If an innocent or a police officer is killed or injured, if the wrong house is hit, the wrong door kicked, or a dog killed unnecessarily, there must be a personal price to pay by everyone involved. If each individual involved has his own skin in the game it might focus minds more on the possible dangers and risks involved in kicking in doors in the middle of the night.
This isn’t a Black thing, a White thing, or a Blue thing. It’s a right and wrong thing. It’s also a Constitution thing.
The Fourth Amendment states:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
While an argument can be made that these warrants are issued “upon probable cause, supported by Oath,” it’s a safe bet that the framers wouldn’t consider battering rams and flash-bang grenades as “reasonable.” The vast majority of the time, there’s a better way, and police, judges, and prosecutors need to be motivated to find that better way, and stop these tragedies. The time has come for less adrenaline-charged tactics. What’s so urgent? Set a perimeter. Order pizza.
About Jeff Knox:
Jeff Knox is a second-generation political activist and director of The Firearms Coalition. His father Neal Knox led many of the early gun rights battles for your right to keep and bear arms. Read Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War.
The Firearms Coalition is a loose-knit coalition of individual Second Amendment activists, clubs and civil rights organizations. Founded by Neal Knox in 1984, the organization provides support to grassroots activists in the form of education, analysis of current issues, and with a historical perspective of the gun rights movement. The Firearms Coalition has offices in Buckeye, Arizona and Manassas, VA. Visit: www.FirearmsCoalition.org.
I’m baffled to have received a few messages from readers, suggesting that my article yesterday titled “Self-defense under a justice system that’s no longer on your side” went too far in suggesting that, in certain jurisdictions, we might need to be very careful to leave no evidence behind if we’re forced to defend ourselves, because the law enforcement and justice system authorities there are biased towards the lawless and against the law-abiding.
I don’t think it went too far at all. In fact, I think I pulled my punches too much, if people are still laboring under the misapprehension that the rule of law is still intact throughout these United States. I have news for them. It isn’t.
Please consider the impact of far-left-wing, progressive District Attorneys (DA’s) that have been elected to office in various urban centers (usually with the assistance of massive funding from George Soros and organizations that distribute his support). Consider Seattle, WA; Portland, OR; Philadelphia, PA; Baltimore, MD; Chicago, IL; New York, NY; St. Louis, MO . . . it’s a long list. In those jurisdictions, how many rioters and violent demonstrators have been arrested by police, only to be released without charge by local DA’s? You can research the news reports and other sources for yourselves. I’m sure that by now, the total must run well into four figures across the country. They’re sending a very public message. If you do something illegal, but politically correct, you’ll get off scot-free.
Police forces across the country, particularly those in riot-plagued areas, are losing officers hand over fist as they hand in their retirement papers, or resign and seek employment in areas that appreciate law and order. However, the left-wing authorities in such areas are making it as difficult as possible for them to do so. In some cases, they’re trying to assert their authority over neighboring law enforcement agencies as well, to ensure that they control all police activity affecting their residents.
The latest example comes from Seattle, which is a city so large that it effectively controls King County in Washington state through its voters. Many Seattle PD police officers have resigned, and some have joined the King County Sheriff’s Office, where they continue to serve the people of their communities – but out from under the control of SPD and those in authority over it. Now comes news that the left-leaning King County Council is to ask voters in a referendum to give it greater authority over the Sheriff’s Office, including making the incumbent an appointed rather than an elected leader, abolishing checks and balances that prevent the Sheriff’s Office being politicized, and ignoring the role of the sheriff as defined in state law. It’s very clear why they’re doing this. The thought of a law enforcement agency that’s outside their control is anathema to them. They want to make sure that the KCSO becomes as politicized as the SPD is already. Would you feel “protected and served” in King County if they get their way? I know for sure I wouldn’t.
I agree that many of our police forces have overstepped the mark, and need to be reined in. I’ve said as much in these pages often enough. However, the “bad cops” who do that are, I think, outnumbered by the “good cops” who want to maintain law and order, and in doing so serve the communities where they live. How are those cops being treated by the authorities? In most cases, they’re being described publicly as part of the problem. Talk of “defunding the police” is a slap in the face to their law enforcement authority, and emboldens those who hate them. No, hate is not too strong a word. When BLM activists chant, on camera, “Pigs in a blanket! Fry ’em like bacon!”, I submit there’s only one way to understand those words – and it’s not as an invitation to a peaceful neighborhood game of tiddlywinks.
Progressive, far-left-wing DA’s are openly siding with anti-police activists these days. Just look at Philadelphia, where the Soros-supported and -supporting DA has threatened criminal charges against federal law enforcement officers that the President is sending to his city. He’s trying to intimidate them before they even arrive. Look at the reaction of various progressive, far-left-wing mayors who’ve protested the (entirely lawful) actions of Federal officers in defending Federal property against rioters in their cities.
In many ways, such “in-justice system” officials are fouling their own nests, and the jurisdictions where they operate. Consider St. Louis, where it’s emerged that a senior prosecutor in the DA’s office actually instructed a police crime lab to tamper with evidence. He then allegedly used the altered evidence to bring charges. That’s a felony under color of law – but did he care? Like hell he did! If I were a defense attorney, I’d be rubbing my hands in glee at the thought of calling for the dismissal of all charges against my client(s) on the grounds of egregious prosecutorial misconduct. Whether or not that’ll happen is up to local courts, of course. One wonders how objective and non-partisan they are. I suspect we’ll soon see. Meanwhile, I can only refer readers to my article yesterday. Do these events in St. Louis help to illustrate why I wrote it? They should.
Consider a pro-police rally in Denver, CO last weekend that was attacked by anti-police activists. It’s now emerged that the police commander on scene gave a “stand down” order and allowed the attack to continue, rather than protect the peaceful demonstrators against the thugs. Impartial policing? Protecting and serving? Law and order? Well, so much for that . . .
Michelle Malkin was one of the speakers at that rally. She comments:
The America you grew up in is not the America we live in now.
One nation under God? Ha.
Land of the free? Ha.
Domestic tranquility? Ha.
Equal protection under the law? Ha.
The right to bear arms? Ha.
Freedom of speech? Association? Peaceable assembly? Ha. Ha. Ha.
It’s not “socialism” or “communism” under which we suffer. Our dangerously chaotic, selectively oppressive predicament is more accurately described as “anarcho-tyranny.”
. . .
The toxic combination of “pandemic panic” and “George Floyd derangement syndrome” has thoroughly destroyed the home of the brave. It is a paradise for the depraved and dictatorial.
Anarcho-tyranny is how rioters can shut down highways and byways on a whim without fear of arrest, while commuters trying to escape the window-smashing barbarians obstructing traffic are charged with “assault”—as poor Jennifer Watson of Denver, Colorado, was this week.
Where do the police stand in this regime? It pains me to say it, but those of us who have backed the blue so loyally and vocally can no longer do so under the assumption that the blue will back us.
. . .
It was rank-and-file cops in Denver who watched as my patriotic friends and I tried to hold a Law Enforcement Appreciation Day this past Sunday and were besieged by Black Lives Matter and antifa thugs who had declared that their sole intent in invading our permitted celebration was to “shut us down.” I livestreamed the chaos as pro-police attendees were beaten, including the organizer Ron MacLachlan, who was bloodied in the face and head just a few feet from me by black-masked animals. One antifa actor wielded her collapsible baton just inches from me.
. . .
If we had brandished or used our weapons in self-defense, we’d be facing felony assault charges—as armed citizen Steven Baca is in Albuquerque, New Mexico, at the hands of another Soros-subsidized district attorney.
If any of our men had tried to peel the female antifa thugs off of MAGA ladies who were assaulted, they’d be charged with battery, too—just like Baca.
. . .
So the message is loud and clear. When push comes to bloody shove in end-stage America, under the rule of the anarcho-tyrants, we, the law-abiding, are the enemy. Those in uniform sworn to protect and serve will turn their backs on us because their bosses don’t answer to the public. They protect and serve the mob.
Our justice system has, in far too many jurisdictions, become an Augean stable of corruption, disrespect for the law and partisan political prosecutions. In some cases, District Attorney’s offices may be so far gone that they can’t be cleaned up at all. The only solution may be to fire the entire staff en masse, and start from the beginning with new, non-partisan appointees.
Meanwhile, those of us who are law-abiding citizens and refuse to be intimidated by thugs, rioters and criminals, find ourselves between a rock and a hard place. The letter of the law, and its spirit as traditionally understood, give us the right to defend ourselves, our loved ones and our property (subject to greater or lesser restrictions, depending on where we live). The new, far-left-wing, progressive administrators of our justice system don’t give a damn about that. They want to intimidate us into abandoning our legal rights and allowing the mob to ride rough-shod over us.
If we refuse to permit or tolerate that, we will be targeted by such officials. They’ll try to make examples of us to intimidate others. Witness what’s happening to the McCloskeys in St. Louis. Their actions were entirely justifiable under law – so much so that the State’s Attorney-General has filed suit to quash the charges brought against them by the local DA. However, the DA didn’t care about the law, only about radicalizing the system of justice she administers and making the McCloskeys into an example to all those who object.
By observing [the] precautions [that I recommended], law-abiding citizens fearing persecution from a law enforcement system that’s become biased and one-sided can help to make unjust, partisan charges against them much harder to bring, and even more difficult to prove. Sadly, in this day and age, in some jurisdictions, that’s no longer a far-fetched, remote possibility.
If you live in a jurisdiction dominated by such left-wing parasites, you need to very seriously consider leaving before it’s too late. Some of them are, I think, already too far gone to save. Among them I’d include all the cities I cited in the third paragraph of this article, plus a large number of others. Is your life worth the risk that remaining there poses? Only you can answer that question. In my case and my wife’s, we voted with our feet, as have many others of our acquaintance. If you think you can’t afford to leave, due to lower salaries and other inconveniences, I can only ask . . . what makes you think you can afford to stay?
For anyone who believes in the rule of law, events over the past few months have been a horrifying eye-opener. It’s now very clear that in parts of our country, the rule of law no longer applies – or does so selectively, depending on your political views and/or the color of your skin. A few recent examples:
Seattle police reportedly failed to respond to many calls for law enforcement support from in and around the so-called “CHOP” protest zone. When asked about this, the chief of police denied it, saying that if a call was an “important emergency 911 call” they would respond – but, in the absence of a responding officer, who’s to say what’s important or an emergency? It certainly appears that, if you were a law-abiding citizen in or near CHOP, you were on your own. However, if you used legitimate, legal force to defend yourself in the absence of law enforcement, would you care to guess who politically-correct local prosecutors would go after? Would it be the “protester” attacking you, or you for defending yourself? I think we all know the answer.
A woman caught in a demonstration in Fredericksburg, VA called 911 for help after rioters jumped on her car. The 911 operator refused to send assistance, telling her the demonstration was a “sanctioned event” and advising her to call City Hall to complain.
A couple in St. Louis, MO held firearms as they ordered protestors off their private property – fully in accordance with Missouri law. The local DA, a far-left-wing sympathizer elected with the massive financial assistance of George Soros, has now brought charges against the couple rather than those illegally on their property. The state’s Attorney-General immediately filed suit to dismiss the charges, acknowledging that they were politically motivated on the part of the local DA.
I could cite many more examples, but those will suffice to make the point. There are now parts of the USA where the rule of law is no longer in effect, or at best is selectively enforced. They tend to be (but are not always) areas dominated by left-wing, progressive politics. Sadly, that includes most of America’s larger cities.
In some such areas, if you legally and legitimately defend yourself against unjustified, illegal attack (particularly from “protesters” or “demonstrators”, no matter how criminal their conduct), you are at least as likely as your attacker to face charges. This is usually a politically motivated decision, aimed at discouraging others from defending themselves – or, as the progressive left views it, “taking the law into your own hands”. In many jurisdictions, the law explicitly recognizes our right to self-defense – but the left is determined to obscure that, and if possible nullify it through politically motivated lawsuits and criminal charges. (Hello, St. Louis.) If they can bankrupt enough honest citizens through court costs and lawyers’ fees, and whip up emotions against them through biased, one-sided press releases, they think they’ll intimidate others into shutting up and obeying them.
This is very bad news for all those of us who are determined not to be a victim; who are adamant that we will not be intimidated by the mob, and are prepared to defend ourselves against it if necessary. If “demonstrators” walk down our street, see our car parked in front of our home or a business, and trash it or set it on fire to “send a message”, in many areas we will be expected to let them get away with it, and leave any response to the authorities – even if the latter can’t be trusted to respond at all. (Hello, Seattle. Hello, Portland.) If something like this happens to you, and you defend yourself against your attackers, it’s likely you’ll be charged – not them.
Therefore, allow me to explain a few points about self-defense, and defense of your property, in areas where doing so might get you into trouble. I learned these lessons the hard way in areas of unrest, rioting and violence on another continent, as regular readers will understand. They kept many honest people alive and out of jail, and they may help you to do likewise.
In general, one can only be convicted of a crime on the basis of evidence. That may be eyewitness testimony, or surveillance video, or tests of bullets and cartridge cases found at the scene of a crime, or DNA evidence extracted from one’s clothing, or anything like that. In the absence of evidence, it’s very hard for the authorities to convict a suspect of anything. Therefore, if you suspect that efforts may be made to convict you of a crime even if you haven’t committed one, it’s a case of “the less evidence, the better”.
You can’t do much about eyewitnesses, particularly if they can’t be trusted to tell the truth. I won’t even try to address that problem here, except to note that false testimony is a very real risk, particularly in politicized, riotous areas. You should stay as far away from them as possible! Also, note that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Witnesses can be “coached” by law enforcement or prosecutors to say whatever they want them to say. We won’t be able to counter that in the absence of countervailing witness testimony – something that may not be available. A lot will also depend on how biased the jury may be. If they’re all politically correct locals, and we’re portrayed by the prosecution as an “outsider”, or painted as a “racist” or “reactionary” or “conservative” . . . you get the picture.
As far as other evidence is concerned, the first thing is to look for what might provide it in your neighborhood, or areas that you frequent. Are there security cameras on businesses or buildings overlooking where you might have to act? (Don’t forget innocuous-looking devices such as smart doorbells in residential areas – video from them has been used to catch criminals.) What about cameras mounted on light poles or buildings to cover the street? Many big cities now have thousands of them in law-enforcement-monitored networks, as well as gunfire location systems to detect when and where firearms are used, and send responding officers straight there. If you use a firearm to defend yourself, you may be recorded on video and audio by such systems, providing evidence that may be used to identify, arrest and convict you. Therefore, if you might have to take such action, you’ll need to take that into account – particularly by avoiding areas where those are major concerns, or remaining as concealed as possible, or making yourself hard to recognize, while doing what’s necessary and exiting the area.
(Law enforcement is already voicing concerns that face masks, mandatory in many areas thanks to the COVID-19 pandemic, will stop facial recognition systems from working correctly. I imagine large, dark sunglasses in combination with a face mask will render one almost unrecognizable. See? Even pandemics have upsides! However, facial recognition isn’t the only risk. Gait analysis can also be used to identify you in security camera footage. There are ways to defeat such analysis, but we don’t have space or time to go into them here.)
Of course, you may be fortunate enough to find yourself in an area where someone has disabled such systems. A camera with paint sprayed on its lens can’t record anything. A gunfire location system with non-functional microphones can’t hear anything – particularly after silenced .22 rifles have been used to shoot the microphones. Gang-bangers in many inner-city areas, both in the USA and abroad, routinely use such measures to protect themselves from surveillance. Extraneous interference can also temporarily disable such systems. For example, during the recent July 4th celebrations, there were reports that fireworks going off in close proximity to gunfire location systems, and in large quantities, confused their sensors and operators so much that they could no longer perform their primary function.
If you’re forced to use a firearm to defend yourself, forensics experts can tie bullets at a crime scene to your weapon, and therefore to you. Bullets will have marks on them from the feed ramps and rifling of your weapon. However, bullets may not be recovered; or, even if they are, they may have deformed to such an extent that such marks are no longer clear (e.g. hollow- or soft-point ammo that expands and/or fragments in the body). Cartridge cases from semi-auto weapons are far more of a forensic threat. They will show the impact of the firing pin on the primer; scratches from steel magazine lips during the loading and feeding process; marks from the chamber walls; and more scratches and marks from the extractor and ejector after firing. Both bullets and cartridge cases may bear the fingerprints and/or skin oils and flakes of the person who loaded them into a firearm (although wiping the round carefully before it’s loaded, and using gloves while doing so, will remove most of those traces).
The obvious answer is not to leave cartridge cases behind. However, you may not have time to look for them before you have to leave. Revolvers don’t eject them automatically, which may be a useful advantage. AR-15’s and similar weapons can be fitted with so-called “brass catchers” to collect empty cases as they’re ejected, like this one.
Some models (see, for example, this one) don’t require a rail mount; they use a strap with a hook-and-loop fastener to secure themselves, allowing them to be used with almost any long gun, even some shotguns or lever-action rifles. I would regard brass catchers as an absolutely essential precaution in any area of the USA bedeviled by a “politically correct” law enforcement and/or prosecution environment. (They’re also very useful if you want to stop hot cartridge cases from hitting other people, for example at a shooting range with other shooters next to you, or if you may have to fire your weapon from within a vehicle and don’t want hot brass bouncing around inside.)
By observing such precautions, law-abiding citizens fearing persecution from a law enforcement system that’s become biased and one-sided can help to make unjust, partisan charges against them much harder to bring, and even more difficult to prove. Sadly, in this day and age, in some jurisdictions, that’s no longer a far-fetched, remote possibility.
(EDITED TO ADD: I’ve written a follow-up article answering readers’ questions and going into more detail. Please read it in conjunction with this one.)
A recent sweep targeting prohibited persons led investigators to make 13 arrests and confiscate a sizable number of guns. (Photo: California Office of the Attorney General)
California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced the results of a 5-day sweep led by the California Department of Justice, or DOJ, that targeted 51 prohibited persons. The state arrested 13 people and seized 114 firearms and 49,148 rounds of ammunition during the sweep.
The sweep was focused on Los Angeles County using California’s Armed and Prohibited Persons System, or APPS.
“California’s Armed and Prohibited Persons System is a critical tool that makes the work of cracking down on illegal gun ownership and possession possible,” said Bonta. “Last week, using APPS and working together with our law enforcement partners in Southern California, our teams removed 114 firearms from individuals who are no longer legally allowed to own or possess firearms or ammunition.”
“Collaborative efforts like these increase our success in taking guns out of potentially dangerous hands, reducing gun violence, and keeping our neighborhoods safe,” said Bonta.
“A great display of local and state partners coordinating and cooperating to ensure prohibited persons aren’t in possession of firearms,” said LAPD Chief Michel Moore. “The LAPD supports and maintains a relationship with our local partners as well as California DOJ to accomplish this mission on a daily basis.”
The California DOJ’s Bureau of Firearms, or BOF, worked with officers representing the Azusa Police Department, the Los Angeles Police Department, the LAPD, the Pasadena Police Department, the Pomona Police Department, the Los Angeles County Probation Department, and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.
“We are thankful to all the partner agencies of the operation and proud to have been a part of getting dangerous guns off the streets,” said Los Angeles County Probation Chief Deputy Karen Fletcher. “Working together, we helped make Los Angeles safer thanks to all those who put their lives on the line daily and the hard-working members of our probation team.”
“Pasadena Police Department is excited about partnering with the California Department of Justice in an effort to stop gun violence,” said Interim Pasadena Police Chief Cheryl Moody. “This collaboration will certainly benefit those communities most impacted by individuals who illegally possess or use firearms.”
Following leads from 439 cases, agents and officers seized 55 handguns, 19 rifles, 15 shotguns, 17 “assault weapons” and eight “ghost guns” in addition to ammunition and magazines. The sweep follows an earlier operation in the Bay Area that netted 30 firearms, resulting in eight arrests.
