Wednesday, February 3. 2010
Alex Jones Crashes Austin Pro Gun Rally, Then Lies About It On His ShowWednesday, January 27. 2010
Alex Jones Berates Local Activist and Hijacks Gun Rights Rally in AustinSaturday, January 16. 2010
Obama’s Favorite For Supreme Court Justice Sunstein Wants To Ban Guns, Free Speech
Steve Watson
Prison Planet | Cass Sunstein, president Obama’s appointee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and the man who outlined a plan for the government to infiltrate “conspiracy groups” in order to undermine them, is in direct line for a promotion to Supreme Court Justice.
Sunstein, already in an advanced position of power in the White House as Regulatory czar, has already called for strict restrictions on gun ownership, an internet “Fairness Doctrine”, and an effective ban on free speech where dissenting opinions to those of the government are expressed.
Suntein’s name was on various shortlists to replace Justice David Souter last year following his retirement, and prior to the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor. Sunstein’s name was also touted for the Supreme Court before Obama even took office in November 2008.
His close personal relationship with Obama should set alarm bells ringing for anyone who values the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, particularly as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, now aged 75, is likely to take retirement soon following illness, and with Justice John Paul Stevens now aged 90.
Sunstein and Obama go way back from their faculty days at the University of Chicago law school and are firm friends. Sunstein worked as an advisor to Obama during his presidential campaign and was drafted into the White House soon after Obama won the election.
As Obama’s “Information Czar”, Sunstein effectively interprets the law for the Executive. Sunstein operates in a similar, but much more elevated, role to that of former Justice Department lawyer John Yoo, who infamously re-interpreted the law to legally sanction torture under the Bush Administration.
As we highlighted in our article yesterday, Sunstein has outlined plans for the government to infiltrate “conspiracy groups”, including the 9/11 Truth Movement, in order to undermine them via postings on chat rooms and social networks, as well as real meetings.
Sunstein has effectively penned the blueprint for a Cointelpro “provocateur” style program to silence what have become the government’s most vociferous and influential critics.
The specifics of the plans must be read in full in order to gauge their extreme nature and the threat Sunstein poses to the freedom in America.
On page 14 of Sunstein’s January 2008 white paper entitled “Conspiracy Theories,” he proposed that “under imaginable conditions” the government “might ban conspiracy theorizing” and could “impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.”
In effect, Obama’s information czar wants to tax or ban outright, as in make illegal, opinions and ideas that the government doesn’t approve of.
Sunstein’s definition of a “conspiracy theorist” encompasses those who question manmade global warming and, most bizarrely, anyone who believes that sunlight is healthy for their bodies.
Presumably if Sunstein had been in power in the latter middle ages he would have attempted to tax and then ban the work of Galileo Galilei for subscribing to the theory that the Earth was not the centre of the universe and that it actually revolved around the Sun.
When he’s not going after those evil sunlight lovers, Sunstein advocates Internet censorship via enforced and regulated links in news pieces to opposing opinions.
Sunstein himself later retracted that proposal, explaining that it would be “too difficult to regulate [the Internet] in a way that would respond to those concerns”, and admitting that it was “almost certainly unconstitutional.”
Sunstein has also called for the re-writing of the First Amendment, and has even proposed a mandatory celebration of tax day in America.
His views on the Second Amendment have also raised serious concerns. In his book “Radicals in Robes,” he wrote: “[A]lmost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine.”
Sunstein is on record attacking the Second Amendment. Watch in the following clip as he says “The Supreme Court has never suggested that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to have guns.”
Given his extreme actions and stated intentions, Cass Sunstein should be forced out of office and barred from practicing law with immediate effect. If president Obama has his way, however, we may very soon see his good buddy Sunstein elevated to the highest judicial position in the country.
Prison Planet | Cass Sunstein, president Obama’s appointee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and the man who outlined a plan for the government to infiltrate “conspiracy groups” in order to undermine them, is in direct line for a promotion to Supreme Court Justice.Sunstein, already in an advanced position of power in the White House as Regulatory czar, has already called for strict restrictions on gun ownership, an internet “Fairness Doctrine”, and an effective ban on free speech where dissenting opinions to those of the government are expressed.
Suntein’s name was on various shortlists to replace Justice David Souter last year following his retirement, and prior to the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor. Sunstein’s name was also touted for the Supreme Court before Obama even took office in November 2008.
His close personal relationship with Obama should set alarm bells ringing for anyone who values the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, particularly as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, now aged 75, is likely to take retirement soon following illness, and with Justice John Paul Stevens now aged 90.
Sunstein and Obama go way back from their faculty days at the University of Chicago law school and are firm friends. Sunstein worked as an advisor to Obama during his presidential campaign and was drafted into the White House soon after Obama won the election.
As Obama’s “Information Czar”, Sunstein effectively interprets the law for the Executive. Sunstein operates in a similar, but much more elevated, role to that of former Justice Department lawyer John Yoo, who infamously re-interpreted the law to legally sanction torture under the Bush Administration.
As we highlighted in our article yesterday, Sunstein has outlined plans for the government to infiltrate “conspiracy groups”, including the 9/11 Truth Movement, in order to undermine them via postings on chat rooms and social networks, as well as real meetings.
Sunstein has effectively penned the blueprint for a Cointelpro “provocateur” style program to silence what have become the government’s most vociferous and influential critics.
The specifics of the plans must be read in full in order to gauge their extreme nature and the threat Sunstein poses to the freedom in America.
On page 14 of Sunstein’s January 2008 white paper entitled “Conspiracy Theories,” he proposed that “under imaginable conditions” the government “might ban conspiracy theorizing” and could “impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.”
In effect, Obama’s information czar wants to tax or ban outright, as in make illegal, opinions and ideas that the government doesn’t approve of.
Sunstein’s definition of a “conspiracy theorist” encompasses those who question manmade global warming and, most bizarrely, anyone who believes that sunlight is healthy for their bodies.
Presumably if Sunstein had been in power in the latter middle ages he would have attempted to tax and then ban the work of Galileo Galilei for subscribing to the theory that the Earth was not the centre of the universe and that it actually revolved around the Sun.
When he’s not going after those evil sunlight lovers, Sunstein advocates Internet censorship via enforced and regulated links in news pieces to opposing opinions.
Sunstein himself later retracted that proposal, explaining that it would be “too difficult to regulate [the Internet] in a way that would respond to those concerns”, and admitting that it was “almost certainly unconstitutional.”
Sunstein has also called for the re-writing of the First Amendment, and has even proposed a mandatory celebration of tax day in America.
His views on the Second Amendment have also raised serious concerns. In his book “Radicals in Robes,” he wrote: “[A]lmost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine.”
Sunstein is on record attacking the Second Amendment. Watch in the following clip as he says “The Supreme Court has never suggested that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to have guns.”
Given his extreme actions and stated intentions, Cass Sunstein should be forced out of office and barred from practicing law with immediate effect. If president Obama has his way, however, we may very soon see his good buddy Sunstein elevated to the highest judicial position in the country.
Tuesday, October 13. 2009
Schwarzenegger Signs Ammo-Regulation Bill
By Bob Egelko
SF-Gate | People buying ammunition in California will soon have to be thumb-printed and dealers will have to keep records of sales, under legislation that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law.
After vetoing similar bills three times since 2004, Schwarzenegger signed AB962 by Assemblyman Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, on Sunday, saying he now believes it will promote public safety.
The measure is California's first statewide regulation of ammunition sales. It survived close votes in both the Assembly and state Senate and strong opposition from gun-rights organizations, which succeeded in stripping a provision that would have required sellers of more than 50 rounds of ammunition a month to be licensed by the state.
Starting in July 2010, the new law will require dealers to keep records of handgun ammunition sales for at least five years, and store the bullets securely out of customers' reach.
Like gun transactions, all ammunition sales will have to be face-to-face, a requirement that will force online buyers to arrange delivery of ammunition to a seller in California. Another provision makes it a crime to knowingly sell or give ammunition to someone who cannot possess it legally, including felons, gang members and the mentally ill.
As of February 2011, all ammunition-buyers will have to provide a driver's license or other state identification and a thumbprint.
De León said Monday that the bill gives police "a valuable tool to crack down on armed, dangerous criminals and gang-bangers in our communities."
Opponents said the restrictions would burden gun owners and dealers without impeding criminals.
"Ammunition or ammunition purchaser registration, in any form, serves only to infringe upon the rights of law-abiding citizens," Gun Owners of California said while the bill was before the Legislature.
In signing the bill, Schwarzenegger said local governments that require record-keeping for ammunition sales have enabled police to arrest many illegal purchasers. Local governments that regulate ammunition sales include San Francisco, Oakland, Tiburon and Contra Costa and Marin counties.
"Utilized properly, this type of information is invaluable for keeping communities safe," Schwarzenegger said.
___
Among other regulations, AB 962 would:
SF-Gate | People buying ammunition in California will soon have to be thumb-printed and dealers will have to keep records of sales, under legislation that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law.After vetoing similar bills three times since 2004, Schwarzenegger signed AB962 by Assemblyman Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, on Sunday, saying he now believes it will promote public safety.
The measure is California's first statewide regulation of ammunition sales. It survived close votes in both the Assembly and state Senate and strong opposition from gun-rights organizations, which succeeded in stripping a provision that would have required sellers of more than 50 rounds of ammunition a month to be licensed by the state.
Starting in July 2010, the new law will require dealers to keep records of handgun ammunition sales for at least five years, and store the bullets securely out of customers' reach.
Like gun transactions, all ammunition sales will have to be face-to-face, a requirement that will force online buyers to arrange delivery of ammunition to a seller in California. Another provision makes it a crime to knowingly sell or give ammunition to someone who cannot possess it legally, including felons, gang members and the mentally ill.
As of February 2011, all ammunition-buyers will have to provide a driver's license or other state identification and a thumbprint.
De León said Monday that the bill gives police "a valuable tool to crack down on armed, dangerous criminals and gang-bangers in our communities."
Opponents said the restrictions would burden gun owners and dealers without impeding criminals.
"Ammunition or ammunition purchaser registration, in any form, serves only to infringe upon the rights of law-abiding citizens," Gun Owners of California said while the bill was before the Legislature.
In signing the bill, Schwarzenegger said local governments that require record-keeping for ammunition sales have enabled police to arrest many illegal purchasers. Local governments that regulate ammunition sales include San Francisco, Oakland, Tiburon and Contra Costa and Marin counties.
"Utilized properly, this type of information is invaluable for keeping communities safe," Schwarzenegger said.
___
Among other regulations, AB 962 would:
• Ban all mail-order and Internet sales of handgun ammunition.
• Prohibit the retail sale, the offer for sale or the display of handgun ammunition in a manner that allows ammunition to be accessible to a purchaser without assistance of a vendor or employee.
• Require that the delivery or transfer of ownership of handgun ammunition occur in a face-to-face transaction, with the deliverer or transferor being provided bona fide evidence of identity of the purchaser or other transferee.
That evidence of identity, which must be legibly recorded at the time of delivery, includes:
• The right thumbprint of the purchaser or transferee.
• The date of the sale or other transaction.
• The purchaser’s or transferee’s driver’s license or other identification number and the state in which it was issued.
• The brand, type and amount of ammunition sold or otherwise transferred.
• The purchaser’s or transferee’s signature.
• The name of the salesperson who processed the sale or other transaction.
• The purchaser’s or transferee’s full residential address and telephone number.
• The purchaser’s or transferee’s date of birth.
Monday, July 13. 2009
Cele Castillo ordered to report to federal prison
By Bill Conroy
The Narcosphere | Iran/Contra whistleblower Celerino Castillo is being sent directly to jail in the aftermath of his encounter with the buzz saw of Texas justice.
Despite being represented by an attorney, Robert E. De La Garza, who has been suspended by the State Bar of Texas for misapplying clients’ funds, the federal judge in Castillo’s case, at the urging of the government prosecutor, determined that there is no evidence of Castillo’s defense being tainted by the stink of ineffective assistance of counsel.
The fact that the same attorney’s son is facing federal gun charges, similar to those brought against Castillo, also has been deemed by the judge to be little more than an “inference” of a conflict of interest on the part Castillo’s attorney. Hence, the judge, at a hearing held Friday, July 10, 2009, in federal court in San Antonio, Texas, ruled that Castillo is not likely to succeed in the appeal of his conviction now pending before the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
As a result, the judge — after extending in mid-February Castillo’s report-to-prison date by some four months due to the very same ethical concerns raised about his attorney — did an about face at the July 10 hearing and ordered that Castillo report to prison on July 30 — to begin serving a 37-month sentence for violating federal firearm regulations, a sentence enhanced due to the judge’s apparent belief that Castillo sold weapons in Mexico.
Castillo, a self-proclaimed gun enthusiast who frequents gun shows, concedes he did sell some legally purchased guns absent the proper federal paperwork. However, he stresses none of those weapons were sold to prohibited purchasers (i.e., convicted felons) and he vehemently denies that any of those guns were sold in Mexico — nor is there any convincing evidence to the contrary, beyond prosecutorial inference, that has been produced by the state.
Castillo, as well as other law enforcers who spoke with Narco News, contend the federal prosecutor in the case turned Castillo’s paperwork violation (selling legally purchased weapons without a firearms-dealer permit) into a federal arms-trafficking case as payback for his whistleblowing activity — for exposing the CIA and White House’s complicity in arms- and narco-trafficking as part of the Iran/Contra scandal that played out during the administration of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
The key to the severity of the prison sentence meted out to Castillo — who is a former DEA agent and decorated Vietnam veteran with no prior criminal record — is that the prosecutor in his case argued, and the judge seemed convinced, that Castillo was likely trafficking weapons in Mexico — and by implication to members of narco-trafficking cells.
But Narco News recently obtained documents (letters now filed with the Department of Justice) that allege the judge in Castillo’s case was mislead about the trafficking charges by the prosecutor in the case — which was initiated under the reign of U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton (a “dear friend” of former president George W. Bush), who recently left the post to take a job in the private sector.
Those documents also show that after the federal judge, W. Royal Furgeson Jr., was made aware of that allegation, he chose to chastise Castillo for bringing those charges to his attention outside the proper channels. Subsequently, Furgeson then revoked Castillo’s bail at the July 10 hearing and ordered him to report to prison to serve out an extreme sentence based on the allegedly misleading — possibly perjured — statements advanced by the federal prosecutor, Mark T. Roomberg.
The Allegations
On Oct. 22, 2008, Judge Furgeson sentenced Castillo to 37 months in prison after Castillo accepted his second plea deal with the prosecutor, Roomberg. The first set of charges against Castillo had to be dismissed because the government determined after the fact that they had applied the law improperly .
Castillo says he agreed to plead out a second time (to dealing firearms without a license) under the threat of multiple additional counts being brought against him by the government if he did not sign on the dotted line, and because his attorney, De La Garza, assured him that under the new plea deal he would retain his DEA and other benefits and he would receive a light sentence as a first-time offender — likely probation.
However, at the sentencing hearing on Oct. 22, 2008, after that second plea deal was signed, the prosecutor Roomberg came at Castillo with teeth bared, arguing that not only did Castillo sell firearms without a license, but that he likely was engaged in illegal arms trafficking — indicating to the judge that Castillo had been less than cooperative in disclosing to whom he had sold the weapons.
In fact, Castillo says the government had no evidence that he had sold guns to anyone, other than his own admission, and he stresses that his lawyer, De La Garza, did provide Roomberg with the full name of the individual who purchased the guns.
Castillo lays all of this out in a letter sent to Judge Furgeson (dated May 1, 2009, and recently obtained by Narco News). That same letter, including evidence to back up the allegations, Castillo says, also has been delivered to the Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General and to the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division. In addition, Castillo says he wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder making him aware of the allegations of prosecutorial misconduct in his case as well.
From Castillo’s letter to the judge:
Castillo explains that in De La Garza’s notes from a meeting he had with Roomberg on June 26, 2008, is the name of the individual who purchased the weapons. Castillo says De La Garza told him that Roomberg was provided with that individual’s full name and address at that meeting, as the attorney’s notes reflect, and that Roomberg that day ran the individual’s address through the Internet to generate a map of that address.
In addition, Castillo claims the federal agents in his case seized his cell phone, and that the individual’s contact information was in the contact list on that phone, as well as a record of calls made to the individual. He contends Roomberg also would have had access to that information.
In his letter to Judge Furgeson, Castillo includes excerpts from Roomberg’s argument before the judge at the Oct. 22, 2008, sentencing hearing, which, he claims, proves that Roomberg misled the judge.
From the Oct. 22 hearing transcript, according to Castillo’s letter to Judge Furgeson:
De La Garza told Narco News in a recent phone interview that if he were called to testify in a hearing about Roomberg’s actions, he would testify, that, in his opinion, “Roomberg misrepresented the facts at the sentencing and the judge was mislead” as a result.
And Castillo, in his letter to Judge Furgeson [as well as those delivered to DOJ], makes clear that he believes Roomberg’s actions in his case do merit an investigation:
Sir, there are several serious issues that needs to be address because I was told that they would not be address in my appeal process. My public defender [Judy F. Madewell] has decided to appeal my case on the grounds of “ineffective representation.”
… One of the most significant concerns is Assistant United States Attorney Mark ROOMBERG’S prosecutorial misconduct.
… In the last hearing, you commented that it was despicable for someone to take guns into Mexico, which I certainly agree and it was well taken. However, what I find most despicable, in my own opinion, is that ROOMBERG, an officer of the court, and who took an oath to protect the Constitution of the United States, made a mockery of your court.
On April 10, 2009, my official complaint against the government was hand carried by two veteran’s organization, Americas Last Patrol and a member of American G-I Forum, to the Office of Inspector General and the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice. I am requesting for an inquiry of how my case was handle by the prosecution. However, I am still fearful that the old guard is still present and will protect ROOMBERG.
Narco News previously attempted to contact Roomberg for comment on Castillo’s case, leaving a message on his answering machine. To date, Roomberg has not returned the call.
Judge Furgeson replied to Castillo’s letter outlining the allegations against Roomberg in a letter dated May 20, 2009, which states simply:
You have an appointed lawyer to represent you. You must communicate to me through her. It is not proper to write directly to me.
Castillo’s attorney, Judy Madewell, and Roomberg were cced a copy of Judge Furgeson’s reply to Castillo.
Castillo points out that the only reason he wrote directly to the judge in his case is because his attorney, Madewell, declined to bring up the issue of prosecutorial misconduct in his appeal or in proceedings before Judge Furgeson.
Madewell declined to comment for this story.
Process over truth
At a hearing held before Judge Furgeson on Feb. 19, 2009, Roomberg again alleged that Castillo sold guns “to people that he didn’t know and couldn’t even really identify” and also alleged that two of the guns sold by Castillo “have now been found in Mexico.” Roomberg provided no serial numbers for those weapons and alleged in his brief for the court that one of those weapons was a PS 90 assault rifle.
Madewell, in her rebuttal at that hearing, pointed out to the court that in “the government’s response [brief] they mention two guns, one of which was an FN PS 90 assault rifle, but if you look in [Castillo’s] plea agreement or the indictment, there’s no such weapon indicated [included].”
Castillo says the PS 90 is an earlier version of the FS 2000 rifle, which is referenced in the indictment. However, he claims if that is the weapon Roomberg claims was found in Mexico, then he can prove the prosecutor again mislead the court.
“That rifle is still in the United States, and if there is an official inquiry into this matter, that weapon will be produced,” Castillo says.
And again, at the recent hearing on July 10, in which Castillo’s bail was revoked and the judge ordered him to report to prison on July 30, Roomberg again made statements that seem intended to convince the judge that Castillo had sold guns to narco-traffickers in Mexico.
“It is bad for the United States for the defendant [Castillo] to remain out n bond when he is guilty … and he sold guns that are illegal and dangerous … and used to shoot people with body armor, police, down there [in Mexico] who are fighting the war on drugs,” Roomberg stated at the July 10 hearing.
But in the courtroom that day, the issue of prosecutorial misconduct was not on the table. The judge was considering only whether Castillo should remain free on bond based on what Castillo’s attorney, Madewell, had raised as an issue in her brief now pending before the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, and that was the issue of the alleged misconduct by Castillo’s attorney, De La Garza.
The judge conceded that De La Garza had never informed the court of the fact that, while representing Castillo, he was facing disciplinary action from the Texas State Bar for allegedly misappropriating clients’ funds — and that his law license was to be suspended effective Nov. 1, 2008. The judge also conceded that an “inference” of a conflict of interest exists due to the fact that De La Garza’s son, Andrew, was facing federal firearms charges at the same time the attorney was representing Castillo — and that at least one of the agents involved in Castillo’s case also was active in the son’s case (though Castillo claims it was, in fact, two agents).
However, in the end, Judge Furgeson determined that there simply was not enough evidence in the existing court record to show that there was an “actual” conflict of interest that would lead the appeals court to find that De La Garza provided ineffective assistance of counsel.
“I believe it is not likely that [Castillo’s] appeal [before the Fifth Circuit] will result in a reversal or new trial based on the record as it exists,” Furgeson said at the July 10 hearing. “… Ms. Madewell has made a heroic effort, but she is hamstrung because of the record [in the case]. Therefore, I’m going to revoke the bond, and I’m going to set the report date [to prison for Castillo] for July 30. There will be no further bond for the appeal.”
And so it ends for Castillo. He must now report to the federal penitentiary at the end of the month, and fight on with his appeal behind bars — absent his benefits and under the threat of harm that confronts all former law enforcement agents behind prison walls.
But the allegations of prosecutorial misconduct in his case are surely not resolved.
If, as Castillo claims, De La Garza did provide Roomberg with the full name and address of the individual who purchased the weapons from Castillo, and that individual is a U.S. citizen who was not prohibited from making those purchases, as Castillo contends, then it appears Roomberg likely did mislead the court.
On the other hand, if Roomberg argues that De La Garza failed to provide that name (which appears in his attorney notes), then it would seem that Roomberg is establishing a fact that would lend credence to the claim now on appeal before the Fifth Circuit — that De La Garza did, in fact, provide Castillo with ineffective assistance of council. (Roomberg clearly convinced the judge to dole out a stiff sentence to Castillo based on the contention that he did not cooperate with the prosecution, that he did not provide the full name of the purchaser, and that he likely did traffic weapons in Mexico).
It seems to be a Catch 22 for the prosecution, but in the U.S. justice system, at least in the Western District of Texas, the truth seems to matter less than protecting the process.
And in this case, to date, Castillo appears to be little more than another cog on the conveyor belt of that tortured process, destined for the buzz saw — another stat in the prosecution’s hat regardless of the facts.
Now, that’s change we can believe in.
Stay tuned ….
Related:
Cele appeared in the acclaimed documentary American Drug War, in it he exposes the CIA drug running carried out under Bush Sr during the Iran-Contra affair.
Celerino Castillo
Despite being represented by an attorney, Robert E. De La Garza, who has been suspended by the State Bar of Texas for misapplying clients’ funds, the federal judge in Castillo’s case, at the urging of the government prosecutor, determined that there is no evidence of Castillo’s defense being tainted by the stink of ineffective assistance of counsel.
The fact that the same attorney’s son is facing federal gun charges, similar to those brought against Castillo, also has been deemed by the judge to be little more than an “inference” of a conflict of interest on the part Castillo’s attorney. Hence, the judge, at a hearing held Friday, July 10, 2009, in federal court in San Antonio, Texas, ruled that Castillo is not likely to succeed in the appeal of his conviction now pending before the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
As a result, the judge — after extending in mid-February Castillo’s report-to-prison date by some four months due to the very same ethical concerns raised about his attorney — did an about face at the July 10 hearing and ordered that Castillo report to prison on July 30 — to begin serving a 37-month sentence for violating federal firearm regulations, a sentence enhanced due to the judge’s apparent belief that Castillo sold weapons in Mexico.
Castillo, a self-proclaimed gun enthusiast who frequents gun shows, concedes he did sell some legally purchased guns absent the proper federal paperwork. However, he stresses none of those weapons were sold to prohibited purchasers (i.e., convicted felons) and he vehemently denies that any of those guns were sold in Mexico — nor is there any convincing evidence to the contrary, beyond prosecutorial inference, that has been produced by the state.
Castillo, as well as other law enforcers who spoke with Narco News, contend the federal prosecutor in the case turned Castillo’s paperwork violation (selling legally purchased weapons without a firearms-dealer permit) into a federal arms-trafficking case as payback for his whistleblowing activity — for exposing the CIA and White House’s complicity in arms- and narco-trafficking as part of the Iran/Contra scandal that played out during the administration of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
The key to the severity of the prison sentence meted out to Castillo — who is a former DEA agent and decorated Vietnam veteran with no prior criminal record — is that the prosecutor in his case argued, and the judge seemed convinced, that Castillo was likely trafficking weapons in Mexico — and by implication to members of narco-trafficking cells.
But Narco News recently obtained documents (letters now filed with the Department of Justice) that allege the judge in Castillo’s case was mislead about the trafficking charges by the prosecutor in the case — which was initiated under the reign of U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton (a “dear friend” of former president George W. Bush), who recently left the post to take a job in the private sector.
Those documents also show that after the federal judge, W. Royal Furgeson Jr., was made aware of that allegation, he chose to chastise Castillo for bringing those charges to his attention outside the proper channels. Subsequently, Furgeson then revoked Castillo’s bail at the July 10 hearing and ordered him to report to prison to serve out an extreme sentence based on the allegedly misleading — possibly perjured — statements advanced by the federal prosecutor, Mark T. Roomberg.
The Allegations
On Oct. 22, 2008, Judge Furgeson sentenced Castillo to 37 months in prison after Castillo accepted his second plea deal with the prosecutor, Roomberg. The first set of charges against Castillo had to be dismissed because the government determined after the fact that they had applied the law improperly .
Castillo says he agreed to plead out a second time (to dealing firearms without a license) under the threat of multiple additional counts being brought against him by the government if he did not sign on the dotted line, and because his attorney, De La Garza, assured him that under the new plea deal he would retain his DEA and other benefits and he would receive a light sentence as a first-time offender — likely probation.
However, at the sentencing hearing on Oct. 22, 2008, after that second plea deal was signed, the prosecutor Roomberg came at Castillo with teeth bared, arguing that not only did Castillo sell firearms without a license, but that he likely was engaged in illegal arms trafficking — indicating to the judge that Castillo had been less than cooperative in disclosing to whom he had sold the weapons.
In fact, Castillo says the government had no evidence that he had sold guns to anyone, other than his own admission, and he stresses that his lawyer, De La Garza, did provide Roomberg with the full name of the individual who purchased the guns.
Castillo lays all of this out in a letter sent to Judge Furgeson (dated May 1, 2009, and recently obtained by Narco News). That same letter, including evidence to back up the allegations, Castillo says, also has been delivered to the Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General and to the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division. In addition, Castillo says he wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder making him aware of the allegations of prosecutorial misconduct in his case as well.
From Castillo’s letter to the judge:
ROOMBERG made a federal case that I had not documented any names of the people [to whom] I had sold guns. I was given 4 point [sentencing enhancement] for trafficking because ROOMBERG had once again lied.
… My attorney once again assured me that there was no reason why Your Honor [Furgeson] would not place me on probation, because I had no previous criminal record plus my health issues [a chronic heart condition and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder] would be brought under consideration. He stated that in the worst scenario, I would get one year, (home confinement)….
… ROOMBERG also knew exactly whom the guns went to because the [federal] agents had followed me when I delivered the shotguns. Two agents, from two different agencies [ATF and ICE] have written reports [REPORT OF INVESTIGATION] to that effect with the full name and telephone numbers of the individual who took custody of the guns. Now may there be no mistake that the individual who took custody of the guns did in no way shape or form break the law by taking custody of the guns. He was not a prohibited person and the government knew this to be a fact.
… I know that if Your Honor had heard the truth; I would have probably fallen into the probation level of the federal guidelines. Now I can prove that ROOMBERG lied to Your Honor, with DE LA GARZA’S handwritten notes and the two agents’ reports.
Castillo explains that in De La Garza’s notes from a meeting he had with Roomberg on June 26, 2008, is the name of the individual who purchased the weapons. Castillo says De La Garza told him that Roomberg was provided with that individual’s full name and address at that meeting, as the attorney’s notes reflect, and that Roomberg that day ran the individual’s address through the Internet to generate a map of that address.
In addition, Castillo claims the federal agents in his case seized his cell phone, and that the individual’s contact information was in the contact list on that phone, as well as a record of calls made to the individual. He contends Roomberg also would have had access to that information.
In his letter to Judge Furgeson, Castillo includes excerpts from Roomberg’s argument before the judge at the Oct. 22, 2008, sentencing hearing, which, he claims, proves that Roomberg misled the judge.
From the Oct. 22 hearing transcript, according to Castillo’s letter to Judge Furgeson:
Roomberg:
The defendant — and normally I don’t discuss this in open court – but the defendant raised the issue that he spoke with us and told us the person who he bought and sold most of these guns to. The defendant gave us a nickname and a general area, nothing that we can do anything with.
… We would love to know who these people were; we would love to have had Mr. Castillo tell us more than just a nickname and a general area where this person lived. He didn’t. And if he [is] dealing all these firearms with this person and can’t give us more than a nickname, then I don’t know how he’s identified that person.
… This person who has dealt the majority – what he just said in court, the majority of these guns he only knows by a nickname and a general area where they live and… so it’s our position that he had reason to believe these were going to be – the transfers were unlawful or that who they were going to would … dispose of firearms unlawfully… Again, we’re talking about the defendant who’s dealing these guns out of McAllen right there on the border. The types of guns are the FN 5.7 and the P 90, which are the assault rifles.
Castillo, in the letter to Judge Furgeson, makes the following allegation concerning Roomberg’s representations [above] to the judge at the Oct. 22 sentencing hearing:
ROOMBERG addressed to the court that the government had no idea who the guns went to and that they only had a nickname to go by. ROOMBERG intentionally, knowingly, and recklessly lied to the court. ROOMBERG lied about the P90 rifle. This weapon is nowhere to be found in my case. He just plain made up this allegation.
As a result of Roomberg’s allegedly misleading statements to Judge Furgeson, Castillo argues, the judge was led to believe that some of the guns at issue were, in fact, sold to narco-traffickers in Mexico, resulting in the judge imposing a much more severe sentence — which, besides the 37 months jail term, also resulted in Castillo losing his DEA and other benefits, despite Roomberg and De La Garza’s promises to Castillo to the contrary.
De La Garza told Narco News in a recent phone interview that if he were called to testify in a hearing about Roomberg’s actions, he would testify, that, in his opinion, “Roomberg misrepresented the facts at the sentencing and the judge was mislead” as a result.
And Castillo, in his letter to Judge Furgeson [as well as those delivered to DOJ], makes clear that he believes Roomberg’s actions in his case do merit an investigation:
Sir, there are several serious issues that needs to be address because I was told that they would not be address in my appeal process. My public defender [Judy F. Madewell] has decided to appeal my case on the grounds of “ineffective representation.”
… One of the most significant concerns is Assistant United States Attorney Mark ROOMBERG’S prosecutorial misconduct.
… In the last hearing, you commented that it was despicable for someone to take guns into Mexico, which I certainly agree and it was well taken. However, what I find most despicable, in my own opinion, is that ROOMBERG, an officer of the court, and who took an oath to protect the Constitution of the United States, made a mockery of your court.
On April 10, 2009, my official complaint against the government was hand carried by two veteran’s organization, Americas Last Patrol and a member of American G-I Forum, to the Office of Inspector General and the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice. I am requesting for an inquiry of how my case was handle by the prosecution. However, I am still fearful that the old guard is still present and will protect ROOMBERG.
Narco News previously attempted to contact Roomberg for comment on Castillo’s case, leaving a message on his answering machine. To date, Roomberg has not returned the call.
Judge Furgeson replied to Castillo’s letter outlining the allegations against Roomberg in a letter dated May 20, 2009, which states simply:
You have an appointed lawyer to represent you. You must communicate to me through her. It is not proper to write directly to me.
Castillo’s attorney, Judy Madewell, and Roomberg were cced a copy of Judge Furgeson’s reply to Castillo.
Castillo points out that the only reason he wrote directly to the judge in his case is because his attorney, Madewell, declined to bring up the issue of prosecutorial misconduct in his appeal or in proceedings before Judge Furgeson.
Madewell declined to comment for this story.
Process over truth
At a hearing held before Judge Furgeson on Feb. 19, 2009, Roomberg again alleged that Castillo sold guns “to people that he didn’t know and couldn’t even really identify” and also alleged that two of the guns sold by Castillo “have now been found in Mexico.” Roomberg provided no serial numbers for those weapons and alleged in his brief for the court that one of those weapons was a PS 90 assault rifle.
Madewell, in her rebuttal at that hearing, pointed out to the court that in “the government’s response [brief] they mention two guns, one of which was an FN PS 90 assault rifle, but if you look in [Castillo’s] plea agreement or the indictment, there’s no such weapon indicated [included].”
Castillo says the PS 90 is an earlier version of the FS 2000 rifle, which is referenced in the indictment. However, he claims if that is the weapon Roomberg claims was found in Mexico, then he can prove the prosecutor again mislead the court.
“That rifle is still in the United States, and if there is an official inquiry into this matter, that weapon will be produced,” Castillo says.
And again, at the recent hearing on July 10, in which Castillo’s bail was revoked and the judge ordered him to report to prison on July 30, Roomberg again made statements that seem intended to convince the judge that Castillo had sold guns to narco-traffickers in Mexico.
“It is bad for the United States for the defendant [Castillo] to remain out n bond when he is guilty … and he sold guns that are illegal and dangerous … and used to shoot people with body armor, police, down there [in Mexico] who are fighting the war on drugs,” Roomberg stated at the July 10 hearing.
But in the courtroom that day, the issue of prosecutorial misconduct was not on the table. The judge was considering only whether Castillo should remain free on bond based on what Castillo’s attorney, Madewell, had raised as an issue in her brief now pending before the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, and that was the issue of the alleged misconduct by Castillo’s attorney, De La Garza.
The judge conceded that De La Garza had never informed the court of the fact that, while representing Castillo, he was facing disciplinary action from the Texas State Bar for allegedly misappropriating clients’ funds — and that his law license was to be suspended effective Nov. 1, 2008. The judge also conceded that an “inference” of a conflict of interest exists due to the fact that De La Garza’s son, Andrew, was facing federal firearms charges at the same time the attorney was representing Castillo — and that at least one of the agents involved in Castillo’s case also was active in the son’s case (though Castillo claims it was, in fact, two agents).
However, in the end, Judge Furgeson determined that there simply was not enough evidence in the existing court record to show that there was an “actual” conflict of interest that would lead the appeals court to find that De La Garza provided ineffective assistance of counsel.
“I believe it is not likely that [Castillo’s] appeal [before the Fifth Circuit] will result in a reversal or new trial based on the record as it exists,” Furgeson said at the July 10 hearing. “… Ms. Madewell has made a heroic effort, but she is hamstrung because of the record [in the case]. Therefore, I’m going to revoke the bond, and I’m going to set the report date [to prison for Castillo] for July 30. There will be no further bond for the appeal.”
And so it ends for Castillo. He must now report to the federal penitentiary at the end of the month, and fight on with his appeal behind bars — absent his benefits and under the threat of harm that confronts all former law enforcement agents behind prison walls.
But the allegations of prosecutorial misconduct in his case are surely not resolved.
If, as Castillo claims, De La Garza did provide Roomberg with the full name and address of the individual who purchased the weapons from Castillo, and that individual is a U.S. citizen who was not prohibited from making those purchases, as Castillo contends, then it appears Roomberg likely did mislead the court.
On the other hand, if Roomberg argues that De La Garza failed to provide that name (which appears in his attorney notes), then it would seem that Roomberg is establishing a fact that would lend credence to the claim now on appeal before the Fifth Circuit — that De La Garza did, in fact, provide Castillo with ineffective assistance of council. (Roomberg clearly convinced the judge to dole out a stiff sentence to Castillo based on the contention that he did not cooperate with the prosecution, that he did not provide the full name of the purchaser, and that he likely did traffic weapons in Mexico).
It seems to be a Catch 22 for the prosecution, but in the U.S. justice system, at least in the Western District of Texas, the truth seems to matter less than protecting the process.
And in this case, to date, Castillo appears to be little more than another cog on the conveyor belt of that tortured process, destined for the buzz saw — another stat in the prosecution’s hat regardless of the facts.
Now, that’s change we can believe in.
Stay tuned ….
Related:
Cele appeared in the acclaimed documentary American Drug War, in it he exposes the CIA drug running carried out under Bush Sr during the Iran-Contra affair.
Wednesday, June 3. 2009
Federal Court Says States Can Regulate Guns
By Jess Bravin
Wall Street Journal | A federal appeals court in Chicago ruled today that the Second Amendment doesn't bar state or local governments from regulating guns, adopting the same position that Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Barack Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court, did when faced with the same question earlier this year.
Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court cited the Second Amendment to strike down a handgun ban adopted in 1976 by the Washington, D.C., City Council. The court, by a 5-4 vote, found that the amendment protected from federal infringement an individual right to "keep and bear arms."
The decision applied only to the District of Columbia, a federal enclave that is not a state. It left open whether the amendment also limits the powers of state government.
A string of 19th century Supreme Court decisions limited application of the Bill of Rights to state governments. During the 20th century, the Supreme Court held that certain constitutional rights, but not the Second Amendment, could be enforced against the states.
Gun-rights groups challenged ordinances in Chicago and Oak Park, Ill., as unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court's decision last year. A federal district judge rejected their arguments, a decision affirmed Tuesday by the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Writing for a three-judge panel, Judge Frank Easterbrook observed that an 1886 Supreme Court decision limited the Second Amendment to the federal government. While that decision might be a "fossil," the lower courts have no power to overrule a Supreme Court opinion even if they suspect the high court may be inclined to do so itself. It was "hard to predict" what the Supreme Court would do should it consider the question in future, Judge Easterbrook wrote.
Judge Easterbrook and the two other Seventh Circuit judges were all appointed by Republican presidents. Judge Easterbrook wrote that they agreed with an unsigned Second Circuit opinion that in January rejected a Second Amendment challenge to a New York state law barring possession of nunchuka sticks, a martial arts weapon. That panel, in New York, included Judge Sotomayor and two other judges appointed by President Bill Clinton.
In San Francisco, however, a Ninth Circuit panel earlier this year held that the Second Amendment applies to state governments, even as it upheld a local ordinance banning guns from county property. One judge was appointed by a Republican president, the other two by Democrats.
Were they to follow the Ninth Circuit's reasoning, Supreme Court "decisions could be circumvented with ease," Judge Easterbrook wrote. "They would bind only judges too dim-witted to come up with a novel argument."
The split among the circuits increases the likelihood that the Supreme Court will step in decide the Second Amendment's application to state weapons laws.
If confirmed to the Supreme Court, Judge Sotomayor would not be bound by prior high court decisions and could provide her own analysis of the Second Amendment's application.
Read the ruling here
Sunday, March 22. 2009
Draconian Gun Law Guts 2nd Amendment PrivacyBy Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars | A shocking new gun control law recently introduced in Albany County is being labeled the most draconian piece of anti-second amendment legislation yet seen. The law requires buyers of all ammunition, even shotgun pellets, to provide their drivers license, state their purpose for buying the ammunition, and have the information retained and accessible by law enforcement for no less than 10 years.Anyone buying rounds or shells, even .22s, for hunting or target shooting in Albany State, New York, would have to provide ID, declare the gun and have its serial number registered with the seller. Based on the information provided by the buyer as to the purpose of buying the ammunition, the seller could block the purchase.
The bill is known as “Local Law Number A For 2009″ ( PDF File) and was introduced at the Albany State Legislature on March 3rd.
Gun groups have slammed the law as the first step towards backdoor registration of rifles and shotguns.
Such detailed information would provide authorities with a voluminous database of gun owners and would be the perfect “red list” used to target gun owners in the event of a declaration of martial law, which many have forecast could occur following a total economic collapse or a biological terrorist attack.
As Fred Lebrun writes in the Times Union, “Anyway you look at it, this amounts to yet another unreasonable assault on lawful gun owners and hunters without any logic behind it except to harass. It’s ludicrous.”
“Not to mention that this flies in the face of a long tradition in this state, and in nearly all other states, of not registering long guns – that is, rifles or shotguns. These are not weapons typically used in crimes or the illegal gun trade, anyway.”
The bill is part of a wider trend of draconian gun control legislation that has been introduced on the national level since the 111th Congress began.
The most disturbing bill nationally is H.R. 45, which would require a federal license for all handguns and semiautomatics, including those already possessed by gunowners. The legislation would also, “Require handgun and semi-auto owners to be thumbprinted at the police station and to sign a certificate that, effectively, the firearm will not be kept in a place where it would be available for the defense of the gun owner’s family,” according to the Gun Owners of America website.
Friday, February 20. 2009
Iowa National Guard to Train for Gun Confiscation
By Butch Heman
Daily Times Herald | The Carroll National Guard unit will train on urban military operations by holding a four-day exercise at Arcadia.
The purpose of the April 2-5 drill will be to gather intelligence, then search for and apprehend a suspected weapons dealer, according to Sgt. Mike Kots, readiness NCO for Alpha Company.
Citizens, law enforcement, media and other supporters will participate.
Troops will spend Thursday, April 2, staging at a forward operations base at Carroll. The next day company leaders will conduct reconnaissance and begin patrolling the streets of Arcadia to identify possible locations of the weapons dealer.
The primary phase will be done Saturday, April 4, when convoys will be deployed from Carroll to Arcadia. Pictures of the arms dealer will be shown in Arcadia, and soldiers will go door to door asking if residents have seen the suspect.
Soldiers will knock only at households that have agreed to participate in the drill, Kots noted.
“Once credible intelligence has been gathered,” said Kots, “portions of the town will be road-blocked and more in-depth searches of homes and vehicles will be conducted in accordance with the residents’ wishes.
“One of the techniques we use in today’s political environment is cordon and knock,” Kots explained. “We ask for the head of the household, get permission to search, then have them open doors and cupboards. The homeowner maintains control. We peer over their shoulder, and the soldier uses the homeowner’s body language and position to protect him.”
During this phase of the operation, troops will interact with residents and media while implementing crowd-control measures and possibly treating and evacuating injured persons.
The unit will use a Blackhawk helicopter for overhead command and control, and to simulate medevacs.
The drill will culminate in the apprehension of the suspected arms dealer.
Alpha Company will conduct a review of the drill on Sunday, April 5.
A meeting to give residents more information and accept volunteers will be held 7 p.m. Monday, March 2, in the Arcadia American Legion hall.
Kots said the exercise will replace Alpha Company’s weekend drill for April.
“We have a lot of extended drills this coming year,” he added.
In addition to surveillance, searching and apprehension, the exercise will also give the troops valuable experience in stability, support, patrol, traffic control, vehicle searches and other skills needed for deployment in an urban environment.
“This exercise will improve the real-life operational skills of the unit,” said Kots. “And it will hopefully improve the public’s understanding of military operations.”
The pre-drill work with residents is as important at the drill itself.
“It will be important for us to gain the trust and confidence of the residents of Arcadia,” said Kots. “We will need to identify individuals that are willing to assist us in training by allowing us to search their homes and vehicles and to participate in role-playing.”
“We really want to get as much information out there as possible, because this operation could be pretty intrusive to the people of Arcadia.”
A concerned citizen talks about military exercises in Iowa.
Sunday, February 15. 2009
“Pork” Stimulus Bill Could Ban Guns for Millions of Americans
Once the government has access to computerized psychiatric records, the stage will be set for using that database to take away the gun rights of those with Alzheimer’s, those with ADD, and those with PTSD.
But now that some of the details are finally starting to leak out of Washington, Gun Owners -– and a lot of other analysts -– are beginning to look at the fine print. And some of it is particularly scary.
Of particular concern to gun owners are sections 13101 through 13434 of HR 1, which would set up the infrastructure to computerize the medical records of ALL AMERICANS in a government-coordinated database.
True, the bill doesn’t mandate that the data will be in a giant computer under the Oval Office. But it does mandate that your medical records be reduced to a computerized form which is available to it in a second.
This it would do by establishing a National Coordinator for Health Information Technology –- tasked with, among other things, “providing information to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care.”
It should be scary enough that a government bureaucrat is directed by statute to try to influence your doctor’s decisions with respect to your medical care.
But of even greater concern to gun owners is the fact that a government-coordinated database (which government can freely access) will now contain all records of government-provided and private psychiatric treatment -– including, in particular, the drugs which were prescribed.
Remember last year’s “NICS Improvement Act” otherwise known as the Veterans Disarmament Act? This law codified ATF’s attempts to make you a prohibited person on the basis of a government psychiatrist’s finding that you are a “danger” –- without a finding by any court. Well, roughly 150,000 battle-scarred veterans have already been unfairly stripped of their gun rights by the government.
But people who, as kids, were diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder… or seniors with Alzheimer’s… or police with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder… or people who are now theoretically covered by the new law… these people have, generally, not suffered the consequences of its sanctions YET. And the chief reason is that their records are not easily available to the government in a central, easily retrievable, computerized form.
The bailout bill would change all of that. It would push increasingly hard to force your private psychiatrist or government-sanctioned psychiatrist to turn over your psychiatric records to a massive database. This would be mandated immediately if your doctor does business with the government.
This would supposedly save Medicare money in connection with medical treatment. And, the sponsors insist, they would work very hard to protect your privacy.
But this turns the concept of “privacy” on its head. The privacy which is MOST important is privacy from the prying eyes of government –- not privacy of government data against the prying eyes of others. After all, many government data bases have been hacked in recent years, with mountains of information stolen.
So, once the government has access to these computerized psychiatric records, the stage will be set for using that database to take away the gun rights of those with Alzheimer’s, those with ADD, and those with PTSD.
ACTION: Write your two senators. Urge them to vote against the bailout bill (HR 1) until it is stripped of provisions which would turn your psychiatric records over to a central government-coordinated database against your will without you getting your day in court.
You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center to send your Senators the pre-written e-mail message below.
- Prewritten Letter -
Dear Senator:
I am particularly concerned about sections 13101 through 13434 of the new bailout bill (HR 1). These sections would set up the infrastructure to computerize the medical records of ALL AMERICANS in a government-coordinated database, including psychiatric records.
It is scary enough that a government bureaucrat is directed by statute to try to influence my doctor’s decisions with respect to my medical care.
But of even greater concern to gun owners is the fact that a government-coordinated database will now contain all records of government-provided and private psychiatric treatment.
Last year’s “NICS Improvement Act” codified ATF’s attempts to make a person a prohibited person on the basis of a government psychiatrist’s finding that he is a “danger” –- without a finding by any court. Well, roughly 150,000 battle-scarred veterans have already been unfairly stripped of their gun rights by the government.
Now, this new government-coordinated database threatens the gun rights of people who, as kids, were diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder… seniors with Alzheimer’s… police with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder… and many other law-abiding Americans.
Please vote against cloture on HR 1 until this provision is removed.
Sincerely,
Tuesday, December 9. 2008
Gun Control: Protecting Terrorists and Despots
By Ron Paul
Prison Planet | Tragically, over the Thanksgiving holiday, the world was reminded how evil and cruel people can be. According to emerging accounts of the events in India, about a dozen well-armed and devastatingly well-trained terrorists laid siege on the city of Mumbai, killing almost two hundred people, and terrorizing thousands.
Regardless of the reasons, the indiscriminate shooting on masses of unarmed and defenseless people is chilling and reprehensible. How were these terrorists able to continue so long, relatively unchallenged, killing so many?
India’s gun laws are her business, of course. However, once the shock of these events and the initial reaction of fear passes, Americans should take away a valuable lesson about real homeland security and gun control from this tragedy.
Gun control advocates tell us that removing guns from society makes us safer. If that were the case why do the worst shootings happen in gun free zones, like schools? And while accidents do happen, aggressive, terroristic shootings like this are unheard of at gun and knife shows, or military bases. It bears repeating that an armed society truly is a polite society.
The fact is that firearm technology exists. It cannot be uninvented. As long as there is metalworking and welding capability, it matters not what gun laws are imposed upon law-abiding people. Those that wish to have guns, and disregard the law, will have guns. Gun control makes violence safer and more effective for the aggressive, whether the aggressor is a terrorist or a government.
History shows us that another tragedy of gun laws is genocide. Hitler, for example, knew well that in order to enact his “final solution,” disarmament was a necessary precursor. While it is not always the case that an unarmed populace WILL be killed by their government, if a government is going to kill its own people, it MUST disarm them first so they cannot fight back. Disarmament must happen at a time when overall trust in government is high, and under the guise of safety for the people, or perhaps the children. Knowing that any government, no matter how idealistically started, can become despotic, the Founding Fathers enabled the future freedom of Americans by enacting the second amendment.
In our own country, we should be ever vigilant against any attempts to disarm the people, especially in this economic downturn. I expect violent crime to rise sharply in the coming days, and as states and municipalities are even more financially strained, the police will be even less able or willing to respond to crime. In many areas, local police could become more and more absorbed with revenue generating activities, like minor traffic violations and the asset forfeiture opportunities of non-violent drug offenses. Your safety has always, ultimately been your own responsibility, but never more so than now. People have a natural right to defend themselves. Governments that take that away from their people should be highly suspect.
Recent Comments