Pro gun writer subject of police investigation

[-..__...]

http://keepandbeararms.com/information/Item.asp?ID=3637

KABA Writer Investigated for Questioning Civil Authority

Police say Investigation "Ongoing"

February 19, 2004

KeepAndBearArms.com -- Did you know that writing a rhetorical letter to the civil authorities in California challenging their hypocrisy results in a police investigation that includes not only calls from detectives but two black and white police cruisers coming to your home?

That's what happened to longtime gun rights activist and professional writer David Codrea this week. What follows is a link to the investigation-inspiring letter, a detailed description of what transpired and a description of how trying to get our own answers from the investigators resulted in unwillingness to respond to our simple, reasonable inquiry.

Before you read this, you should know a little bit about David Codrea. He lives in Redondo Beach, California with his wife and two young sons. He's been active in the gun rights community for over a decade. He's a professional gun writer for such magazines as Guns & Ammo, most recently published in their HANDGUNS Feb/March 2004 issue. He's a featured writer for KeepAndBearArms.com and has held a seat on KABA's Advisory Board for years. He co-founded Guntruths.com and the now disbanded pro gun media-campaigning organization, Citizens of America. He spearheaded the Petition for the Enforcement of the Second Amendment and was one of a handful of insiders helping hone and tighten the legal writing done in the Silveira v. Lockyer Second Amendment lawsuit the U.S. Supreme Court recently refused to hear. David Codrea cares about freedom, and he works within the confines of "the system" to help defend gun owners and their rights.

Earlier this week, Codrea wrote a letter to San Francisco's Mayor, a superior court judge and the SFPD acting police chief. The letter was rhetorical in nature and pointed out the inconsistency in San Fran's civil enforcement strategies. Civil authorities are sitting by while thousands of same-sex marriages are performed in contravention of State law. In his letter, to point out the hypocrisy of ignoring some laws while enforcing others, Codrea rhetorically (and humorously, might I add) asked what would happen if he chose to violate a different law -- the ban on carrying a firearm for self-defense. Read the letter for yourself, right here:

http://KeepAndBearArms.com/information/Item.asp?ID=3632


The story gets even more interesting....


VINDICTIVE RETALIATION FOR EXPOSING A GUN BIGOT:
Hate Mailer Claims to Have Initiated FBI Investigation

February 23, 2004

from Angel Shamaya
Executive Director, KeepAndBearArms.com
[e-mail]

KeepAndBearArms.com -- After we published the hateful anti-gun death wish of a Canadian "academic", hurled at one of our writers, we notified the sender of the hate mail that we had published it. His response to our writer was to retaliate by turning his victim in to the FBI. The death-wishing "academic" alleges that he has contacted the FBI, presumably to bring more police pressure down on someone for the high crime of writing a rhetorical, humorous email.

Below is the alleged email sent to the FBI by an anti-gun wisher of death:

-----Original Message-----
From: "Craig Levine" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 4:00 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: HOMOSEXEUAL MARRIAGE AND GUN OWNERSHIP!!

Dear Mr. Codrea,

This is to inform you that the Sacramento Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigations has been contacted regarding your statements which you have admitted are yours. In particular:

" ... I was thinking of coming up to San Francisco ... maybe showing up at City Hall with a state-banned AR-15 and a couple 30-round magazines, and also carrying several pistols concealed without a permit."

- Craig

http://keepandbeararms.com/information/Item.asp?ID=3640

******************

My spin on this... while Mr. Coderas mailing his "rhetorical" scenario
might have been unwise at worst (especially post 9/11), and that the police have no sense of humor or irony, he does raise an interesting point. That is, why is it acceptable to turn a blind eye to one groups rights being violated but treat another groups rights with threat of arrest?

Another issue is Mr. Levins involvement in this.

His 'tolerance' of gun-owners is telling.

I have little-to-no patience for gun-nuts.

As is his paranoia.

I suspect that Mr. Codrea is one of many who have been posting off-topic trolls in sci.astro.amateur recently, and who have been posting messages under other's names i.e Rod Mollise, Sam Wormley etc.



And please, confine or restrain any comments about Angel Shamaya or the KABA website; I'm not interested in the messenger, I'm interested in the message.

[boobooday]

1. Star-crossed lovers

Somewhere, a drunken Ann Coulter is doing her best Alanis Morrissette imitation, singing, "it's like meeting the man of my dreams . . . "

How sad they can never be together. They could have had some good times rhetorically killing liberals and blowing shit up.

http://www.wgoeshome.com

[-..__...]

3. Thanks for that insightful and well thought out response.

I'm going to think about it next time I feel like "blowing shit up"... rhetorically that is.

[Vogon_Glory]

2. I'll Bet He Voted For Dubya, Too

I'll bet Mr Codrea campaigned and voted for Dubya and now it's dawning on him that he helped install one of the most authoritarian-minded, secretive, vindictive administrations in decades.

I hope Mr Codrea is happy with the fruits of his labors.

:evilgrin:

[FeebMaster]

5. How do you know he even voted?

Why would someone who is pro-gun vote for a republican anyway?

[Vogon_Glory]

6. From My Experience on My Other ISP

From my experience on my previous ISP's message boards, the most vicious anti-Clinton, anti-choice, anti-progressive posts came from self-professed Second Amendment enthusiasts who also claimed themselves to be proud "conservatives."

Frankly, I would enjoy watching people of that ideological stripe finding that their avatars are turning around and coming after them. I still harbor some hard feelings and I'd enjoy the schadenfreude.

[FeebMaster]

7. If you say so (nt)

...

[alwynsw]

4. Once again a legal gun owner is dragged through the mud.

While I personally think that gay marriages are a fair and equitable thing, Mr. Codrea was justified in his comparison. Gay marriage is the unfortunate victim of it's own success and publicity. I sincerely doubt that this is the only current law being broken by SF residents that is not being prosecuted. It is however, the one that is nationwide news. It's tough to make a point strongly if the general public is unaware of or apathetic to either of the issues involved.

Shame on the local police for their harrassment of Mr. Codrea and by extension, his family. It would seem that a thorough top to bottom house cleaning at the copshop is in order.

[enki23]

10. silly

anyone who thinks there is anything more than the most shallow comparison between issuing illegal marriage licenses and going on a shooting spree is probably not really worth responding to, i'll grant. but nobody said everything you do has to be worth doing. so i'll respond anyway.

you're comparing what, if it were actually carried out, would be actively threatening a violent act, to something which (illegal or not) is completely nonviolent. the comparison is completely invalid. every justice system in the world, since prehistory, has made distinctions among severity of offenses. issuing unsanctioned marriage licenses is not on par with shooting people. the investigation, such as it may have been, would have been to determine whether what appeared to be an implied threat of violence really *was* a threat. as it seems unlikely that it was a real threat, i doubt he will be facing any charges. that isn't to say it's impossible, just unlikely.

whatever the facts of this matter may be, however, pretending that all "illegal" acts are somehow equally threatening to society is the most asinine idea i've heard all day. and that's saying something.

[Columbia]

11. Read a little more carefully

There was never any implied or unimplied threat of violence. The only threat was a possible act of civil disobediance in regards to carrying concealed weapons (highly restrictive in CA, unlike in most other states) and "assault" weapons (also highly restricted, unlike most other states).

Although without looking closely, gay marriage and these acts of disobediance may seem to be quite different, in actuality, they both concern basic civil rights and should be regarded in the same esteem.

[Hrumph]

13. Wha... WHAT???

Simply going armed is not a violent or even threatening act. Some of us are armed every day of the week and have never threatened anyone.

Mr. Cordrea's comparison is valid. Either the Government enforces its laws or it doesn't. But to be selective in which laws are inforced and which ones aren't is not only hypocritical, but an afront to the principals on which this nation was founded.

[enki23]

14. oh bullshit.

when you threaten to grab a small arsenal and head for a state building, and that threat finds its way into the hands of the state, they're going to take it as a potential threat. expecting anything else would be naive in the extreme.

now again, has he been arrested or charged with anything over it?

[MrBenchley]

15. Instructive to see who the RKBA crowd defends, isn't it?

Especially since so many of them are in another thread moaning and pissing about how "evil" Democrats are.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=42201&mesg_id=42201

[happyslug]

8. Confusing "positive" and "negative" laws again.

One concept of the law is whether a law is "Negative" or "Positive" in implementation. A "Negative" law is a law that does not require any action by the state. For example a gun ban, which by itself requires NO action by the state. If the State decides NOT to enforce its own gun ban there is little one can do about it. For Example in the 1920s Governor Smith of New York told the Federal Government he was NOT going to help them enforce prohibition. If the Federal Government wanted to enforce the Prohibition Act the Federal Government would have to do it themselves, the state of New York was NOT going to help them.

Another example of a refusal to enforce a "negative law" was the refusal of US Justice Department starting in the late 1980s to enforce the ban on Commercial Banks dealing with the stock market. Banned by Federal Law since the Depression, but the Banks wanted to get back into loaning money to stock brokers. The Justice Department said Congress will repeal the law anyway so we will NOT enforce it. Took another 5-6 years for Congress to actual lift the ban, but in that time period the law was NOT enforced.

Negative laws do require positive enforcement but in the absence of such positive enforcement the law is as useless as if it was never passed.

On the other hand a "Positive" law is a law that requires the action of the state. For example granting marriage license (or even gun permits).

The difference is fundamental in that if a Government decides NOT to enforce its "negative" laws, in effect the Government has repealed those laws. For a negative law can be on the books and NOT enforced for years or even decades (Look at the various Anti-sodomy laws on the books in many states, convictions were rare if ever, an example of lack of enforcement of a "negative" law.) Failure to enforce a "negative law" is a way for the Executive to repeal a law it dislikes but that the legislature does not want to repeal. Done to often and tends to bring shame on the law, if you are NOT willing to enforce a law repeal it, not just ignore it.

Now, often, The states and the Federal Government pass laws they know will NOT be enforced. These are almost always "Negative laws" i.e. would require active enforcement which the state or feds just do not provide funds for. These laws are passed to keep certain groups happy and Can stay on the books for decades without a single case of enforcement. Another example of bad laws make all laws look bad.


On the other hand a "Positive" law requires the act of the State (or other governmental body) and failure to enforce it requires an positive act by the state to violate the law.

The Granting of Homosexuals marriage licenses is in violation of state law and is an example of violating a "Positive Law". The law is clear, to be married you must have a license and that license must be issued by the state. No license no marriage. Who may get a license is also clear by the terms of the law. For the state to violate the law it must do so knowingly AND openly.

This is similar to the cases where County Sheriff's have refused to issue gun permits even through permitted (or even required) by law. If the sheriff dislikes the law he should ask that it be repealed not just ignore it. The same with what is happening in SF, if the Mayor does not like the statute he should ask the State Legislature to change the law, not violate it.

I can see not enforcing a Negative law, the real intention of the legislature may be that it never be enforced, but to violate a POSITIVE law, is uncalled for. People are depending on an act of the Executive to perform a positive act within the limits sets forth by the Law. The right to do selective enforcement of a Positive Law can mean the Executive can issue or not issue anything it wants, notwithstanding what the laws requires. This is lawlessness, it is the grabbing of legislative power by the Executive. Why does not the Mayor says "I am the state" like King Louis XIV said when he grabbed the legislative power and formed his dictatorship.

I can live with non enforcement of negative laws, for such non-enforcement does not mean the legislature has lost all power to the Executive, but the failure to enforce a POSITIVE law means that the Executive is concentrating all power in his hands and that should be avoided.

[MrSandman]

9. The response to this writer was not harsh enough...

The City of San Francisco should have been placed on heightened terror alert and FEMA and grief counselors mobilized to pre-positioning points. If there had been a orchestrated movement, how many may have suffered.<sarcasm off>

[MrBenchley]

12. TOO frigging funny....

The guy is an armed loony, threatening to attack city hall over gay marriage...and the gun nuts want to snivel because the cops showed up?

"You have shown progressive thinking and tolerance for that which the majority condemns. So I was thinking of coming up to San Francisco and exercising my right to keep and bear arms, maybe showing up at City Hall with a state-banned AR-15 and a couple 30-round magazines, and also carrying several pistols concealed without a permit. "


Yeah, there's the kind of guy the Democrats should be pandering to...NOT