What ABC 7 should do with CCW info

What ABC 7 should do with CCW info

It’s come to my attention that ABC 7 News has obtained the names and cities of every concealed carry permit holder in Contra Costa County from the Sheriff’s Office, which the office is legally obligated to provide.

In a county of 1.13 million people, only 317 lucky individuals aren’t denied their fundamental right to self defense and preservation outside the home by County Sheriff David Livingston.

It would be interesting to see if these 317 lucky individuals are in any way connected to the Sheriff, which I hope would be the only reason ABC 7 News would request this information, or for some similar type of investigation. A Sheriff using his position of power to benefit his friends and supporters while denying a basic and fundamental right to every other citizen of Contra Costa County would be an outrage.

However, if the purpose of obtaining this information by ABC 7 News is to publicly release the names and full addresses (which isn’t hard to find out once you have a name and a city, believe me if anyone knows this it’s me) of concealed carry permit holders in Contra Costa County for whatever reason, the way The Journal News did to permit holders in 2012, that didn’t go over very well.

I sincerely hope ABC 7 News will be using this information for real investigative journalism against political corruption rather than as a tool to harass people lawfully exercising their 2A rights the way news team members of ABC 7 News lawfully exercise their 1A rights.


Victory for the Tyrant Registry!

Victory for the Tyrant Registry!

A statement regarding our victory in Doe Publius and Derek Hoskins v. California Legislative Counsel Diane Boyer-Vine:

First and foremost I’d like to thank Brandon Combs of Firearms Policy Coalition for not only fighting for our fundamental right to keep and bear arms, but for his unwavering desire to see liberty as a whole upheld by the Constitution, as it was intended. I’d also like to thank the Coalition and all its members, the lawyers at Benbrook Law Group, and of course Eugene Volokh for the gravitas he brought to this case.

This is not just a win for myself, but a win for freedom of speech and political protest, and most importantly a win for those Californians who have had their civil rights and liberties violated by our state legislators for simply wanting to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear arms. The court has sent a message that the State cannot threaten or force the removal of political speech aimed directly at the laws they force on the rest of us.

The purpose of the Tyrant Registry is clear: if legislators are going to confiscate our rights, liberty, and property without due process, if they’re going to then register us for trying to retain or exercise our rights, then we’re going to register them as tyrants with the people whose rights they’ve violated.

Much like the Sex Offender Registry, this common sense tyrant registration addresses a public safety hazard alerting the public of tyrants who have violated the civil rights and liberties of people in their communities, if these tyrants actually reside at their declared addresses within their districts, which many don’t (State Senator Kevin de Leon). Any journalist worth their salt may want to look into that.

Tyrants will not be insulated from the people they claim to represent but happily rule over. I’m looking forward to republishing and updating the Tyrant Registry, however for the sake of liberty I wish it never had to exist at all.

Impeach the black robed tyrants

Impeach the black robed tyrants

The unelected and historically unaccountable government appointed lawyers of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals declared that a type of firearm that has never been used in any war is a “weapon of war”, and that Second Amendment protections of the preexisting right to keep and bear arms does not extend to weapons of war, or apparently to weapons never used in any war.

Never mind that our Founders’ muskets were weapons of war, or percussion cap revolvers and repeating rifles were weapons of war, or our grandfathers’ M1 Garands and 1911s were weapons of war, or that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect the people’s right to keep and bear arms not just as a means of personal defense and preservation but as a final check and balance against government tyranny, the unelected and unaccountable government appointed lawyers of the 4th Circuit have declared that the people have no right to any arbitrarily defined “weapons of war” to resist government tyranny, nor do they define what exactly is the purpose then of the Second Amendment.

If it doesn’t make sense, it’s because it’s not supposed to.

The belief or idea that the judicial branch is politically neutral and independently reviews and interprets the constitutionality of laws is and has always been a fairy tale. Each side hopes to stack the court in their political favor, and in this case it’s the only power one side of the aisle has left.

They’ve lost the Presidency, the Senate, the House, over 1000 state and local seats, only hold 18 governorships with a mere 6 states having a majority in both state chambers and governorship; all they have left are the courts packed with unelected and unaccountable government appointed lawyers who can make up and interpret the law and the Constitution according to their personal policy preferences and political ideology. There’s a new term for this, it’s called “so-called judges”. We used to call them activist judges, legislating from the bench.

Paraphrasing and expanding upon Stalin’s “it doesn’t matter who votes, it’s who counts the votes that matters” – it doesn’t matter what the law or Constitution states, it’s who interprets what the law or Constitution states that matters.

This is the only muscle the political left can flex to institutionalize their agenda, whether their conduct, rulings, or opinions comply with the Constitution or not. They have no other power at this point, so we get rulings like this one out of the 4th Circuit.

They have violated their oath to support and defend the Constitution in favor of their personal political ideology and have used their power to violate the rights and liberties of the citizens of South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, and Maryland. While these unelected government appointed lawyers may feel safe and comfortable in their black robes at their bench, and while they may historically be unaccountable, the political tides are changing.

And to be blunt, they just told a few southern states that comprise of 31.2 million people what kinds of guns they have no right to own.

Judges serve at the consent of Congress, and that consent ought to be revoked. Each of these unelected government appointed lawyers should rightfully be impeached, and if the Senate doesn’t currently have the votes to ensure this happens, then it’ll make a great 2018 campaign platform. Out of the 25 Democrat Senators up for reelection, 18 come from states that Trump won.

It’s time to clean out the judiciary of “so-called judges” starting with the 4th Circuit and continuing through the 9th Circuit. The usurpation of our rights, and the seizing of power that belongs to Congress, the President, and the people, needs to come to an end.

In the meantime, the people will have to brace themselves for the fallout of this decision, and we can hope for impeachments, or hope Congress passes a Second Amendment Protection Act stating what we have a right to, or hope this case goes to the Supreme Court where it can be overturned.

Whatever the future holds, the people’s rights exist whether a majority of unelected and unaccountable government appointed lawyers say they do or not. Just as a restraining order is just a piece of paper, the Constitution is just a piece of parchment. But it’s how we defend it that matters.

Brown and Newsom are deadly wrong about gun violence

Brown and Newsom are deadly wrong about gun violence

What reduces gun violence? No matter what side of the issue you fall on pertaining to guns or crime, everyone wants the same thing – to reduce not just gun violence, but all violence. It’s the methods in which we disagree, and being wrong has deadly consequences.

On Monday, February 20th, a police officer in Whittier, CA was shot and killed during what he thought was a routine traffic accident. The person whom this officer was trying to help just murdered his cousin, stole a car, and smashed into someone else.

If you followed the 2016 election and listened to Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom discussing his support of Proposition 63 (which banned the possession of +10rd magazines and created a license and background check scheme for ammunition) he stated, “We have significantly reduced the gun murder rate because of our progressive gun policy. [California has seen a] 56 percent decline in the gun murder rate since we started to step up and step in and lead the nation in common sense gun safety laws, background checks, restricting large-capacity clips and the like.”

And he had to repeat this talking point every time he had an interview:

“Since 1993, we’ve seen a 56 percent decline in gun-related deaths in the state because of California’s progressive gun safety measures.”

So just to make it clear in case his repetition hasn’t done that yet, Gavin Newsom believes it’s gun control that prevents criminals from getting guns and murdering people.

Then there’s Governor Jerry Brown. Also in the 2016 election, he threw his support behind Proposition 57, which he stated, “focuses law enforcement on serious violent crime, stops wasting costly prison space on non-violent people who can be rehabilitated, and directs savings to programs with a proven track record of stopping the cycle of crime.”

This isn’t Governor Brown’s first time supporting a prop that releases so called “non-violent” offenders onto society; he also supported Prop 47 in 2014. He also signed into law AB 109 which released a lot of “low level” criminals.

And a police officer was just murdered by a known gang member who was released early from prison, using a gun and ammo he was barred from possessing. Because as we know, criminals don’t follow the law.

“So what are you saying, there should just be no laws? Make crime legal because they’re going to do it anyway?” No, that’s the kind of thing Brown, Newsom, and apparently over 60% of Californians supported and voted for when they approved Prop 47 and 57, and look what it’s gotten us. That murderer’s cousin and that police officer are dead and another officer is wounded, and if anyone else besides the murderer is to blame, it’s Brown, Newsom, and the people who voted for them and these propositions. They set this habitual victimizer free on society to murder these two people.

There is only one way to reduce or prevent violent crime, and that’s to make sure people with a predisposition toward victimizing others aren’t loose among a civilized society victimizing them.

Newsom claims the dramatic decrease in the murder rate since 1993 is due to California’s strict gun control measures, but in reality (where Newsom doesn’t live) it was the people voting for Prop 184 in 1994, the “Three Strikes” law, that kept habitual victimizers locked up and not out among us committing violent crimes that was responsible for the decrease in the murder rate.

It was Three Strikes that reduced the gun violence, not gun control laws.

Unfortunately for CA, by the weakening the Three Strikes law with Prop 36 in 2012, and the overall reducing of sentences and penalties with Prop 47 in 2014 and Prop 57 in 2016 and the subsequent release of habitual victimizers, we’re going to see violent crimes back on the rise because those who are disposed to committing violent crimes will be out walking among us in greater numbers.

California will not learn this lesson and will continue to focus on making good gun owners into criminals for not giving up their rights and liberties, while registered tyrants like State Senator Bob Hertzberg and Assemblyman Rob Bonta put forward bills that seek to ease bail requirements because, currently, bail “keeps people locked up for being poor”.

It can be argued that crimes with no victims shouldn’t be crimes, and laws pertaining to those should be repealed. Legalizing liberty could go a long way towards easing the burden on our criminal justice system. However, crimes that do have victims should have harsher penalties, and these serial victimizers should be locked up longer so they can’t be out, say, murdering their cousin, stealing a car, crashing into someone else, and murdering a police officer.

States have no rights to deny rights

States have no rights to deny rights

Now that Donald Trump is President, Democrats in states like California have suddenly rediscovered their mantra of “States’ Rights”, in which they believe as long as they’re in the majority they can use “States’ Rights” to deny people who reside in “their State” of rights they disagree with, the way Democrats did in the pre-emancipation proclamation era, or the way Democrats did in the pre-civil rights era, or the way Democrats did in the pre-voting rights era, or…

Of course they’re not alone; denial of rights is a bi-partisan thing. But it’s “fun” to point it out when they did, and continue to do.

California has even hired the help of former U.S. Attorney General Eric “Fast and Furious” Holder at a whopping $25,000 per month to defend itself from an evil and oppressive Trump-run Federal government poised to exercise force against the delicate progressive utopian flower.

“Having the former attorney general of the United States brings us a lot of firepower in order to prepare to safeguard the values of the people of California,” said Kevin de León, the Democratic leader of the CA Senate.

A value Kevin de León believes needs safeguarding is the “state’s right” to deny its people the right to keep and bear arms… sorry, “enact common sense gun safety measures”.

The problem with “States’ Rights” is… it doesn’t exist.

“How can you say that?! Tenth Amendment! Tenth Amendment!!!”

Ok, repeating yourself doesn’t make something say something it doesn’t say, just like shouting “Separation of Church and State!” doesn’t mean the First Amendment says that either… but let’s keep our focus on so-called “States’ Rights”.

Here is your Tenth Amendment:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Notice anything missing? The Tenth Amendment was about delegation of power, not rights. It states that the United States, the federal government, only has specific powers that the Constitution gives it the authority to do and also denies it from doing, and that all other powers belong to the individual States or the people.

It’s not splitting hairs. Words have meanings, at least they used to. States don’t have rights; States have power, and the power of a State is also limited and controlled by each State’s Constitution. And every single State’s primary role is to protect the rights and liberties of the people.

States don’t have a right or authority to deny people their rights under the Tenth Amendment, because States don’t have rights – people do. Some of these rights are protected by the U.S. Constitution and State Constitutions, but as the Ninth Amendment also states:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

It doesn’t take a constitutional scholar to understand the meaning of these things, but maybe a modern interpretation is what’s needed: “just cuz we say people have these rights that we wrote down here, doesn’t mean they don’t have other rights too, and you can’t take those rights away either just cuz we didn’t write them down, bruh.”

States have the Tenth Amendment power to pass laws and enact policies to run their individual States the way they see fit to locally respond to the needs of its people, but not at the expense of the rights of the people. That is where the line is drawn, or is supposed to be drawn.

A power also delegated to the United States federal government is to guarantee a State doesn’t deny people their rights – the Fourteenth Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875):

“The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a State from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and from denying to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, but it adds nothing to the rights of one citizen as against another. It simply furnishes an additional guaranty against any encroachment by the States upon the fundamental rights which belong to every citizen as a member of society. The duty of protecting all its citizens in the enjoyment of an equality of rights was originally assumed by the States, and it still remains there. The only obligation resting upon the United States is to see that the States do not deny the right. This the Amendment guarantees, but no more. The power of the National Government is limited to the enforcement of this guaranty.”

The right to keep and bear arms is a right that exists without any government stating that it does. If there was no government at all, if there was no Second Amendment, you still have a right to arms. This is what the Ninth Amendment conveys, but luckily the right to arms was recognized as important enough to write down. All our Constitution does though is state that the federal government can’t infringe upon that right, nor can a State.

But they both do, they have done, and, in California’s case, continues to do.

It is the duty of the United States government to make, enforce, and uphold laws against States that infringe upon our rights. It is not an unjust federal encroachment upon State power to do this. While some say they don’t want the federal government exercising power against a State because of the precedent it’ll make against “State’s Rights”, in their next breath they’ll want California gun laws overturned by the Supreme Court – which is as much part of the federal government as Congress and the Presidency.

There are constitutional ways for the legislative branch to make, and for the executive branch to enforce, laws that protect the rights of the people in States that infringe upon them. The people don’t have to wait for 5 out of 9 unelected government appointed lawyers to do so.

Right now, we have a once in a lifetime opportunity to federally protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Historically, it isn’t often that the House, Senate, and the Presidency are held by Republicans, a party which purportedly touts their support of gun rights; it’s time they exercise their constitutionally delegated powers against States that deny people their rights under the false notion of “States’ Rights”.

Contact House 2A Caucus Members

Contact House 2A Caucus Members

House Republicans have formed the Congressional Second Amendment Caucus, headed by US Rep Thomas Massie.

“Caucus members will lead efforts in the House of Representatives to pass meaningful firearms legislation and protect Americans against infringements of the Second Amendment,” the group said in a statement.

Congress has the authority under the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution) to pass Federal laws that preempt and supersede State gun control laws.

Contact these Congressmen and tell them to use their authority to stop states from infringing on our rights by passing Federal laws that protect our right to common and modern arms, AND to repeal federal gun control laws already on the books (NFA34, GCA68, FOPA86, Brady93).


Thomas Massie (TN)
Enter zip code: 41101 + 7663
Use his office address & phone #:
1700 Greenup Ave
Ashland, KY 41101
DC Office (202)225-3465
Ashland Office (606)324-9898
LaGrange Office (502)265-9119
North Kentucky (859)426-0080


Jeff Duncan (SC)
Enter zip code: 29625 + 1505
Use his office address & phone #:
303 West Beltline Blvd
Anderson, SC 29625
DC Office (202) 225-5301
Anderson Office (864) 224-7401
Laurens Office (864) 681-1028


Ted Yoho (FL)
Enter zip code: 32606 + 6593
Use his office address & phone #:
5000 NW 27th Court
Gainesville, FL 32606
DC Office 202-225-5744
Gainesville Office 352-505-0838
Orange Park Office 904-276-9626


Brian Babin (TX)
Enter zip code: 77536 + 2747
Use his office address & phone #:
203 Ivy Avenue
Deer Park, TX 77536
DC Office (202) 225-1555
Deer Park Office (832) 780-0966
Orange Office (409) 883-8075
Woodville Office (844) 303-8934


Paul Gosar (AZ)
Enter zip code: 85118 + 2902
Use his office address & phone #:
6499 S. Kings Ranch Road
Gold Canyon, AZ 85118
DC Office (202) 225-2315
Gold Canyon (480) 882-2697
Prescott (928) 445-1683


Mark Meadows (NC)
Enter zip code: 28792 + 5027
Use his office address & phone #:
200 N. Grove Street
Hendersonville, NC 28792
DC Office (202) 225-6401
Henderson Office (828) 693-5660


Ken Buck (CO)
Enter zip code: 80109 + 7548
Use his office address & phone #:
900 Castleton Rd
Castle Rock, CO 80109
DC Office (202) 225-4676
Castle Rock Office (720) 639-9165
Greeley Office (970) 702-2136


Alex Mooney (WV)
Enter zip code: 25301 + 1749
Use his office address & phone #:
405 Capitol Street
Charleston, WV 25301
DC Office (202) 225-2711
Charleston Office (304) 925-5964
Martinsburg Office (304) 264-8810


Justin Amash (MI)
1500 E. Beltline Ave SE
Grand Rapids, MI 49506
Office (616) 719-1935


Jody Hice (GA)
Enter zip code: 31061 + 6238
Use his office address & phone #:
3015 Heritage Road
Milledgeville, GA 31061
DC Office (202) 225-4101
Monroe Office (770) 207-1776
Milledgeville Office (478) 457-0007
Thomson Office (770) 207-1776


Dave Brat (VA)
Enter zip code: 23060 + 6743
Use his office address & phone #:
4201 Dominion Blvd
Glen Allen, VA 23060
DC Office (202) 225-2815
Glen Allen Office (804) 747-4073


Warren Davidson (OH)
Enter zip code: 45373 + 3282
Use his office address & phone #:
12 S. Plum St
Troy, OH 45373
DC Office (202) 225-6205
Troy Office (937) 339-1524
West Chester Office (513) 779-5400


Scott Perry (PA)
Enter zip code: 17325 + 1101
Use his office address & phone #:
22 Chambersburg St
Gettysburg, PA 17325
DC Office 202-225-5836
Adams Co Office 717-338-1919
York Co Office 717-600-1919


James Comer (KY)
Enter zip code: 42167 + 1548
Use his office address & phone #:
200 N Main St
Tompkinsville, KY 42167
DC Office (202) 225-3115
Tompkinsville Office (270) 487-9509


Fax Blast

(502) 265-9126
(859) 426-0061

(202) 225-3216
(864) 225-7049
(864) 681-1030


(202) 226-0396
(832) 780-0964
(409) 886-9918

(202) 226-6422
(828) 693-5603

(202) 225-5870
(970) 702-2951

(202) 225-7856

(616) 719-1943

(202) 226-0776
(478) 451-2911
(770) 266-6751

(202) 225-0011
(804) 747-5308
(540) 507-7019

CA legisexuals utterly shocked by their duties

CA legisexuals utterly shocked by their duties

It seems our representatives in the State Senate and Assembly need a reminder of their primary duties. Not that they care, but the people as their boss should.

It’s not that difficult to point out what these duties are either. For you Senators, it’s literally emblazoned above your Chamber:

The Senate’s motto. “Senatoris est civitatis libertatem tueri”, or if you’ve never had the curiosity to find out what those omnipresent words hovering above you translate to, “It is the duty of the Senators to protect the liberty of the citizens”.

Yes, it actually says that in the California State Senate Chamber, where liberty goes to die and is considered a dangerous loophole that must be closed. It would be funny if it wasn’t so tragic; irony may have to take the week off.

Maybe the problem is that it’s in Latin; while it may look pretty and seem all enlightened, it’s completely meaningless to anyone else looking at it, like tattoos of Chinese characters that were so popular in the 90s. Perhaps the recent repealing of English Only education will offer an opportunity for Latin to make a resurgence, but I don’t think that’s what Latinos had in mind.

For you Assembly Members, your motto is, “Legislatorum est justas leges condere”, or “It is the duty of legislators to pass just laws”.

To us, the people who have never victimized anybody but can be arrested, prosecuted, and convicted of crimes we knowingly or unknowingly break everyday by exercising our rights and liberties due to laws you’ve passed, we can legitimately, categorically, and unequivocally state that you have utterly failed at your primary duties: protecting liberty and passing just laws. You haven’t just failed, you’ve actively taken it upon yourself to be openly hostile to liberty and justice. It’s proudly in your political platform.

And somehow you keep your job. I guess it says more about your boss than it says about you, but not much.

We’ve obviously just had an election in which the new State Senate and Assembly will take office December 5th. To our new Senators and Assembly Members, welcome! I’d like to take this opportunity to highlight and acknowledge a few of you.

Congratulations, CA 29th District State Senator Josh Newman (D), for defeating Ling-Ling Chang (R), a registered tyrant and backstabber. Tyranny knows no party, but I’d rather see a tyrant coming from the front than the back. I see that you’re a veteran and support veteran causes. I hope you’re sensitive to the fact that veterans really hate being told to fight and kill to protect our freedoms back at home only to see the freedoms they fought and killed for being stripped away by your colleagues. And you should already know veterans by and large like their guns. Be wise with your supermajority, follow the Senate’s motto, and you won’t earn a place on the Tyrant Registry like your predecessor.

A big congratulations to the registered tyrant formerly known as Assemblywoman Toni Atkins (D), who recently has identified as a State Senator, for coming out and being fully embraced and accepted by her constituents as a Trans-Senator. Your wife Jennifer must be very proud and supportive of your brave decision. Though we will refer to you by your new label “Senator” while you are transitioning, make no mistake, you are what you are: a registered tyrant.

By far, she isn’t the first openly Trans-Senator; Kevin de Leon also transitioned in 2010 from an Assembly Member to Senator.

As a matter of fact and opinion based on observation, most Assembly Members dabble with transitioning to Senator, but may not get the support, acceptance, or attention they’re craving. The biggest argument against term limits is these legisexuals jump in and start writing a bunch of laws as quickly as they can to make a name for themselves, so when they’re termed out they can transition to the next office and so on. We’ve seen a steady increase in gun laws since term limits were implemented in California, not to say term limits are the only reason for this but likely a contributing factor.

Finally, to Assembly Member Heath Flora (R), the newcomer who bested Ken Vogel (R) for the open 12th District seat… bro, do you even lift? You do? Well then… if you plan on working with your Democrat colleagues to “get things done”, be sure to limit your “doing” to things like building dams instead of “doing” us out of our rights and liberties. Your district of which I’m a citizen doesn’t support the policies of SF or LA, and I’d really hate to have a backstabber as my representative. If I seem a little overly hostile, it isn’t you; I’m just a “one bitten, twice shy” kind of guy. Good luck with the legisexuals and tyrants you’ll be surrounded by; hopefully it doesn’t rub off on you.

To the rest of you legisexuals and tyrants: at least attempt to recognize your duties. Tread carefully… not that your boss seems to care, but I do. And I’ll be watching.