Sebastopol, CA Mayor and City Council
Sebastopol, CA City Manager
Sebastopol, CA City Attorney
Sebastopol, CA Chief of Police
All Sebastopol, CA Police Officers

Dear Sebastopol, California Civil Authority:

Cerebral Round Table. All addressees have a seat of honor at the cerebral round table that exists in my mind. No one is at the head of this table because it is round. All enjoy an equal place at this table.

[Ex-] Police Chief Dwight Crandall’s Attitude Toward CCW [Concealed Carry Weapon] Permits. A few years ago, about three years before he retired, Chief Crandall told me in absolute, clear terms that the chances of him issuing me a CCW permit were, for all practical purposes, nil, regardless of how well I jumped his hurdles to get such a permit. In effect, Chief Crandall coerced me to remain unarmed, vulnerable and easy prey for criminal assailants. Simultaneously, Chief Crandall knew that per California’s law, he had no duty to defend me, he is legally immune for failing to defend me and he is legally immune if he exercised his discretion and issued me a permit and I misused a firearm while a permit holder.

Simultaneously, Chief Crandall hyped to the public "law enforcement’s big lie": rely on Dial 911. Dial 911 is a big lie because law enforcement has no duty to defend, is legally immune for failing to defend and a cheap .38 special is a more assured means of self-defense than an expensive cell phone.

I promptly complained about Chief Crandall’s "zero issuance" attitude about CCW permits to the then existing City Manager and City Attorney. Both were 100% hostile to my complaint. Both told me that the law says I have a right to a gun in my home and my work place and "that is good enough." I failed to understand, and still fail to understand, how that bold pronouncement protects me from the criminal element when I circulate in public places, which I have to do.

As a consequence of being given the bum’s rush by the then existing local civil authority, I invested at least one thousand hours preparing myself to vindicate my rights in a lawful manner.

Bill of Rights Resolution. On December 15, 1998 [I could be wrong about the year,] the Sebastopol City Council held one of its official public meetings. That date happened to fall on the anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Bill of Rights. That document was ratified on December 15, 1791. At this meeting, I asked the Council to approve a five page proposed Bill of Rights resolution that I prepared. Everything in that document is historically, legally and factually correct. Part of that document praised law enforcement officers for their priceless contribution to preserving Liberty.

Council member Ken Foley, in a forceful manner, opined that what I wrote was "inflammatory," and he would vote for the document only after it was gutted. Mr. Foley labeled exact quotes from the U.S. Constitution and exact quotes from U.S. Supreme Court decisions about the importance of the U.S. Bill of Rights "inflammatory." Mr. Foley also labeled a paragraph that asked the Council to take a pledge to not pass any ordinance that conflicts with the Bill of Rights as being "inflammatory."

Mr. Foley appeared to be hostile, and unwilling, to take the pledge I asked the Council to take. No Council member manifested a willingness to take that pledge. No one, except me, spoke in defense of what I wrote.

Council member Robert Anderson, at this meeting, said the following: [paraphrased] he was surprised about what I wrote, he believed that most of his constituents did not believe in what I wrote and he believed that it was his duty as a council member to carry out the will of what he perceives to be the will of a majority of the voters in Sebastopol.  I told Mr. Anderson that his comments strongly suggest that his remarks telegraph that he did not understand his sworn duty or our form of government or both; that everything I wrote in the proposed Bill of Rights day resolution was factually correct and more importantly, the majority that technically still counts is the one that came together on December 15th, 1791, that ratified the US Bill of Rights, and what he thinks a local majority wants is irrelevant and not controlling; the local majority compared to the December fifteenth 1791 majority is like a pinprick on an elephant's hide. Mr. Anderson seems to believe, erroneously, that our form of government is a pure democracy, meaning, that the unfettered will of the majority is always outcome determinative. If that is the case, he was and is wrong. There is nothing warm or cuddly about a "pure democracy".  A pure democracy can be, and too often is, indistinguishable from mob rule, the tyranny of the majority, and dictatorial rule. Historically, too often majorities have been wrong, vicious, and they have inflicted horrific cruelty upon hapless minorities.  The Founding Fathers knew this and as a result hated a "pure democracy" form of government.  The form of government they gave us (or created for us) is the following: a Constitutionally limited democratic republic with certain guaranteed rights for everyone that are off-limits and beyond the reach of government or the majority or both.  As a result of this form of government, we have many countermajoritarian safeguards built into our form of government. Some major examples of these countermajoritarian safeguards are: the division of power among the three official branches of government, the executive, legislature and judiciary; the veto power; staggered elections; bicameral houses of legislation (Senate and House of Representatives;) the electoral college; two unofficial branches of government [media and armed citizenry (which is not on the government payroll and therefore cannot be corrupted by being dependent on a government paycheck)] and the Bill of Rights.

The Council passed the gutted version of what I wrote on a vote of 3 to 2. Council member Kathy Austin voted "No." Council member Robert Anderson "Abstained."

This exchange occurred within 30 minutes of the Council pledging allegiance to the U.S. flag. The Council’s manner of handling this resolution did not inspire confidence.

When I observe our Council take the pledge of allegiance to the flag, I think of a scene in the movie "Back to Bataan." A Japanese Army officer orders a Filipino school principal to haul down the American flag flying over the school. The principal refused. The officer hung the principal by the ropes on the flag pole. That flag was not the Filipino’s flag. I wonder how deep is your commitment, your allegiance to our flag, your oath of office, our way of life, the Constitutional Rule of Law. I wonder if you are receptive to reducing the Bill of Rights to Bill’s rights?

I also often think of a scene from "Twelve O’Clock High." Gregory Peck is a no nonsense officer who takes command of a U.S. Army Air Corps B-17 unit in England. This unit’s combat effectiveness is terrible. Everyone is feeling sorry for themselves. The previous commander loves his men too much to see them killed. Everyone acts like their hide is special and they have good cause to slack off. The Gregory Peck character tells the bomber crews this [paraphrased]: "I have reviewed the personnel files of each of you. I have had a plane painted with nose art. The nose art says ‘The Leper Colony.’ I am putting the worst man for each crew position in that plane. If you want to get out of ‘The Leper Colony,’ shape up. I will then yank you out of that plane and replace you with the next worse man for that position. If you are afraid of dying, I have a tip for you. Consider yourselves already dead. I own you. Stop feeling sorry for yourselves. You have a job to do. Do it. We will not keep going back to the same targets to bomb them again and again. Consider yourselves already dead. Suck it up. Press on. Put the bombs on target." How is this excerpt relevant? I am so disgusted with our Council that I have placed its members in a "Leper Colony," at least in my mind. Also, I am so committed to maximizing my Liberty, that on the issues I raise, I consider myself already dead. There is only one thing I have to do in my life that I cannot get out of, and that is die. I will never wear any one’s yoke before I die.

Hard Statistical Data Regarding Strong Social Benefits Arising From a Large Number of Citizens Carrying Concealed Weapons. A few months ago I provided the Council, the City Manager, the City Attorney and the Police Chief with a photocopy of pages 158-165, Chapter 8, "Some Final Thoughts," from John R. Lott, Jr.'s More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, ISBN 0-226-49363-6. Mr. Lott is probably this nation's most foremost, recognized expert on the social benefits and drawbacks of liberal versus restrictive CCW laws. Mr. Lott is also not affiliated with the National Rifle Association. Significantly, Mr. Lott's findings, as reported in what I gave to local civil authority, prove that Police Chief Gordon Pitter's "zero issuance" policy is the opposite of what reduces serious, violent crime. To date, however, no one in local civil authority has expressed any interest whatsoever in these facts, and, no one in local civil authority has offered any evidence to contradict Mr. Lott's facts. Why? Is local civil authority not interested in proven, effective means to reduce crime? Is local civil authority not interested in facts? Does local civil authority make important policy decisions without due regard for the facts?

I gave local civil authority a copy of what I specified above because it is vital to the welfare of our community. But it would appear that local civil authority is uninterested and/or does not want to be confused with facts.

I also gave local civil authority this succinct summary of Mr. Lott's findings because much of my thoughts on the subject is theoretical, and Mr. Lott's work and his factual findings strongly support my theory: the best approach is to expand individual liberty and to contract governments' powers.

Genocide. In recent months, I complained, in writing and verbally, to the Council, the City Manager and the Police Chief about a conversation that I had with a Sebastopol Police Officer. This officer told me, in effect, that if he were issued the order to confiscate all arms within the city’s limits, he would enforce that order, and he would be willing to use lethal force to enforce that order [e.g., he would murder under color of law Louie Lunchbuckets and Susie Seamstresses who had the moxie to refuse to surrender their firearms; this officer would go door to door, household to household, visiting his draconian "police services" to each fireside in slavish, blind obedience to following his unconstitutional orders.]

This officer said he would do this for these reasons: it is an order, he is a cop, his job is to enforce orders and the law and he wants to collect his retirement benefits.

We fought Nazis for this?  Is this officer a ticking bomb? Is this his idea of a "police service"? No one in their right minds wants this "service"!

This officer also told me that after being a cop for 25 years he has not had any training in the Nuremberg Principle. Think about that. In "progressive" and "advanced" California, after 25 years, no leader in law enforcement has seen fit to make formal training in the Nuremberg Principle part of the required training for law enforcement officers before they are issued a badge, a uniform and a gun! [And senior law enforcement personnel have the gall to impose [on me and others] piled on, obnoxious preconditions for the issuance of a CCW permit! The Nuremburg Principle is online HERE - "I was only obeying orders" doesn't work as a defense.]

I asked the Council to acknowledge this officer’s right to express his opinion, and to not punish him, but to condemn the opinion and to make mandatory training in the Nuremberg Principle part of the training curriculum for all Sebastopol Police Officers. I said this officer is misinformed, under informed, inadequately trained and a potentially dangerous loose cannon. To date, no one on the Council supported my requests for reform.

I addressed the Council about this issue two times at public meetings. To date, I am not aware of the Council taking any affirmative or constructive measure that is responsive to my concern. It appears that the Council has elected to stonewall and/or circle the wagons around this officer and the local police department.

Constructive Meeting. On the positive side, I had one lengthy in person meeting with City Manager David Brennan and Police Chief Gordon Pitter. During that meeting, we discussed my concerns about the Council some day ordering arms confiscation within city limits, my conversation with this officer and the import of the Nuremberg Principle. Mr. Brennan and Chief Pitter expressed a willingness to make training in the Nuremberg Principle part of the curriculum for all Sebastopol Police Officers. I loaned Chief Pitter an authoritative book that sets forth the Nuremberg Principle.

Kathy Austin’s Admission. Recently, ex-Councilmember Kathy Austin told me that on December 15, 1998, she voted against my proposed Bill of Rights Day resolution because she was new to the council, she was inexperienced, she was nervous, Ken Foley spoke forcefully against it and she did not know how to cope with Ken Foley. [Think about this: Ms. Austin at that time was a recently sworn-in, new council member.  As such, she had recently taken an oath of office to uphold, support and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic; however, within 30 days of taking that oath, when council member Ken Foley publicly declared that exact quotations from the US Constitution were "inflammatory," including Article VI from the US Constitution (which contains the Supremacy Clause,) at that time Mr. Foley arguably manifested his willingness not to recognize the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land, even though he, also, took an oath of office to uphold, support and defend the US Constitution. In context, Mr. Foley's incredible pronouncements arguably suggest that when he took that oath of office, he might not have been sincere and he might have acted in a disingenuous manner. But, Kathy Austin did not stand up to Mr. Foley's strong demeanor and his dubious characterizations of exact quotations from the very document they both swore to uphold and defend as being "inflammatory." The behavior, individually and jointly, of each council member at that meeting, did not inspire confidence in me that any of those council members had a comprehensive understanding of the ramifications of their oath of office, the limits on their powers, and their duty to stay within those limits and really uphold, support and defend the Constitution, against all enemies foreign or domestic, including each other if that proved to be the case. I hate to think how Kathy Austin would have voted on something really important if someone applied pressure to her beyond how she experienced Mr. Foley at that meeting. To me, when you run for office, get elected, take the required oath of office, it is your sworn duty to dig in your heels firmly and do everything reasonably and humanly possible to "support and defend" the US Constitution; otherwise, if you cannot do that, or are unwilling to do that, either do not run for public office, or, if you hold public office, you should resign.]

Chief Pitter’s Attitude Toward CCW [Concealed Carry Weapon] Permits. On November 21, 2000, I went to the Sebastopol Police Department to request a CCW permit application form. I saw Chief Pitter there, in his dark blue uniform, with about 6-8 large, pretty, gold stars on his collar and a semi-auto pistol on his hip with two armed officers in his presence inside this fortified, well constructed, secured, building. A lady told me that they did not have any such forms because Chief Pitter had already made up his mind to not issue such permits to anyone; therefore, they did not have the form I requested. I was told that since Chief Pitter did not intend to issue any permits it was pointless to have any application forms on site.

When told this, I was inwardly disgusted and outwardly calm. Chief Crandall would at least give out the application form. Chief Pitter, however, would not even give out this form.

This time, however, I now had a few years of self-education regarding relevant law and history between my ears. I asked this lady to confirm if the man I thought was Chief Pitter was Chief Pitter. She confirmed that I accurately recognized Chief Pitter in the back of the building. I told this lady that I understood what she said was Chief Pitter’s "zero issuance" policy, that my position was that that policy is illegal and if Chief Pitter was not careful, he "would buy a lawsuit." I then asked this lady to please tell the Chief what I said and ask the Chief to please come to the window to speak to me. She said she would and she asked me for my name, which I gave to her.

I watched this lady approach the Chief and talk to him. This lady returned to the bullet proof window and told me that Chief Pitter would not come to the window to talk to me. Chief Pitter did not come to the window, and he did not talk to me.

I experienced Chief Gordon Pitter’s behavior to be rude, unprofessional, condescending, and arrogant. I did not like being told again [first by Crandall and now by Pitter] that, in context, they had no duty to protect me, they are immune for failing to protect me, I had to beg them for their permission to use a gun responsibly to protect myself and if I waive rights, beg and pay hefty fees to exercise a Constitutional right, they would not give me their permission to use a gun responsibly to protect myself.

Think about what follows. Police Chief Pitter, at that time, gave me in effect the "bum's rush" treatment.  In context, he did so knowing all of the following: he is a public servant [serpent?,] I am a local resident taxpayer, there are many armed citizens in the community who retain the pragmatic power to deliver him a serious comeuppance, and the Bill of Right is still on the books. Yet, while wearing his pretty gold stars on his collar and his semi-auto on his hip, while in a fortified building, all paid for by servile taxpayers, he manifested the tendencies of a lord, as if Sebastopol has been reduced to a serfdom and I am one of his serfs. This arrogant bureaucrat forgot some key facts: he is a public servant; some of the public will never be servile; some of the public remains armed and they know what the ultimate real purpose of those arms are - they are Liberty's Teeth; and the Bill of Rights is still on the books and that Bill overrides his local policies.

Chief Gordon Pitter, like everybody else, is not above the law.  Yet a female subordinate in his department told me that Chief Pitter made a decision not to issue CCW permits to anyone; therefore, they did not have CCW permit application forms on-site because it was pointless to have any because he intended not to issue any CCW permits to anyone.  California's CCW law is an unconstitutional infringement on 2nd Amendment rights which guarantees an individual right to arms, which is part of the supreme law of the land.  As bad as that state law is, in violation of the supreme law, Chief Gordon Pitter per what his female subordinate attributed to him, was not even willing to obey California's unconstitutional CCW law.  Chief Pitter's "zero issuance" policy is contrary to state law and a binding California appellate decision in Salute vs. Pitchess 132 Cal. Rptr. 345, 61 Cal. App. 3d 557 (1976) which describes any policy that does NOT make an "individual determination and investigation into every applicant's case" as "an abuse of, and not an exercise of, discretion".  My key point here is: we now have multiple layers of governments' undue burdens that pervert and invert the law of self defense, that preceded all forms of government, and we have representatives and senior law enforcement personnel who perpetuate and make worse this insufferable situation.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights gave special, favorable treatment to only five tangible things: persons, private houses, a person's papers, a person's effects, and arms.  In the 4th Amendment, a bright constitutional line was drawn around private houses, people, personal papers, and personal effects. This "bright line" protects people and these things against "unreasonable search and seizures" "but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation. . . ." A judicial officer must weigh the evidence presented to that officer to determine if there is sufficient "probable cause" before issuing to a law enforcement officer an arrest warrant or a search warrant or both instructing the officer to seize a specified person or his papers or his personal effects or search his residence. This Constitutional "bright line" provides a substantial, but less than complete, degree of protection from government's intrusiveness into private lives.

There is a Constitutional "bright line" that is 10,000-fold brighter than "probable cause" and "unreasonable search and seizure." This bright line is the brightest Constitutional "bright line"; it is the most absolute; it is the most unequivocal; it is the least compromising; it does not require a judicial officer to weigh anything; considering what is "unreasonable" is eschewed by this Constitutional "bright line". This bright line is found in the 2nd Amendment: ". . .the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." "[S]hall" is mandatory. "[N]ot" is clearly and unequivocally negative which allows for no exceptions and no "weighing" of what is reasonable or unreasonable. "[I]nfringed" means preconditioned, diluted, compromised, repealed, etc.

When construing (interpreting and applying) the Second Amendment, the word "infringed" cannot be ignored.  But gun prohibitionists ignore that word to achieve a bastardized construction of the 2nd Amendment contrary to what the Founding Fathers intended. When due weight is fairly given to "infringed" the 2nd Amendment must be applied to mean that all forms of gun control laws that seek to regulate the manufacture, sale, purchase, transfer, possession, ownership, or otherwise lawful use of any handheld arm, regardless of the appearance or capability of the arm in question, are an unconstitutional prior restraint of guaranteed individual 2nd Amendment rights to handheld arms.

Gun prohibitionists are stuck with the text of the Second Amendment. Structurally, the 2nd Amendment appears in a document titled "Bill of Rights." The document is not titled "Bill of Privileges." "[I]nfringed" is in the text. Gun prohibitionists cannot re-write this Amendment by adding "government" before "well-regulated," and they cannot delete "militia" or convert "militia" to mean the armed forces, the national guard and/or law enforcement. The "militia" in the 2nd Amendment is roughly synonymous with "the people." Furthermore, "the militia" has unique characteristics: they own their own arms; they retain these privately owned firearms under their private control; they are not on governments' payroll; they regulate themselves; they choose their own leadership; and they choose their own arms to carry. The armed forces, the national guard, and law enforcement do not share any of these characteristics. "[T]he militia" is "the people's army" -- a pragmatic counterpoint to governments' army: the armed forces, national guard and law enforcement, whose members can be corrupted by the government paycheck they draw and retirement benefits they covet.

My key points here follow. The Founding Fathers imposed this unyielding, absolute, bright line, "shall not be infringed," because they knew that maintaining an armed citizenry independent of government control is absolutely vital to preserving individual liberty. They knew that the trend is for governments' powers to expand while individual liberty and rights contract. They wanted to deny, absolutely, categorically, and forever, all governmental pretense, justification, or rationale for infringing on the individual right to arms. This includes promoting "the general welfare" of the public by regulating or banning firearms. Many gun prohibitionists erroneously believe that the concept of "promote the general welfare" gives them the unfettered power to regulate or ban firearms. This notion is absolutely incorrect. If this notion were correct, everyones' "rights" would hinge on civil authority's arbitrary and changing ideas of what promotes "the general welfare." If "promote the general welfare" was the only measure of the scope of governments' powers, there would literally be no check on governments' powers. Such powers would be extremely elastic and ever-expanding and there would be no off-limit, immune-from-regulation, individual rights. If that were the case, there would be no need for a written constitution that sets forth governments' powers and no need for a Bill of Rights. In that case, all we would need is a one-sentence document that states the following: "Those in power have the unfettered right to do anything they want, in their absolute discretion, to promote the general welfare, and no individual rights exist."

"Promote the general welfare," to the Founding Fathers, meant the following: government should get out of the peoples' way and trust the people to self-regulate. Today, however, power-hungry politicians sieze upon the "promote the general welfare" clause to try to justify their near-deathgrip on regulating everything in the telephone book from "A" to "Z". These power-hungry politicians loathe anything in the constitution that limits their powers. Even though they take an oath to "uphold, support and defend the constitution," when they are confronted with a constitutional provision that is a red-light obstacle, they blow right through the intersection against the red.

Judging by how the gun prohibitionists who have a lock on the State of California and how Sebastopol Police Chief Gordon Pitter have imposed multiple layers of unconstitutional, illegal, undue burdens regarding the CCW permit concept, the Founding Fathers' concern about how governments' powers would expand and how individual liberties would contract, was, and is, well justified. I hate to think how oppressive, arrogant, condescending, and insufferable, Sebastopol Police Chief Gordon Pitter would become should the 2nd Amendment be interpreted away or repealed and an armed citizenry did not have the pragmatic means to tell him, firmly, wear the Constitutional collar and stay in your place or we will break your damn neck.

Heed the wisdom of this quotation attributed to Thomas Jefferson: "In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

Sebastopol Police Chief Gordon Pitter's egregious, unnecessary, counter-productive, and piled-on CCW policy standards are a classic example of the kind of "mischief" the 2nd Amendment was intended to prevent.

[Ed Note by Jim March: interested parties should also pay attention to the California Supreme Court in CBS vs. Block 42 Cal.3d 646 1986 (complete text and a brief analysis), wherein the court held that abuses and illegality in the CCW issuance process was both possible and likely and ordered the issuance records made public to expose corruption and/or abuse of the CCW laws, and Guillory vs. Gates from the 9th Circuit, 731 F.2d 1379 (1983) which held that constitutional equal protection principles and 42USC1983 govern CCW issuance and that therefore the discretion is not "totally unfettered".  Taken together, these plus Salute should give any city government that manages a police agency with CCW issuance powers serious concern about potential legal liability.]

I immediately prepared a memo to the Council about this and presented my experience to the Council that evening at its November 21, 2000 council meeting. I told the Council to get Chief Pitter "under control" or "fire him." I also said I intended to sue over this issue. I meant it then, and I still mean it.

In about a week, I received in the mail a copy of the CCW permit application form with a cover letter which purported to be signed by Chief Pitter. I experienced this letter to be a CYA letter. I suspect that but for my complaint to the Council, Chief Pitter would not have sent me this form.

On December 5, 2000, I again went to the Sebastopol Police Department’s headquarters. This time, I asked for a copy of the Chief’s policy about issuing CCW permits. This is a separate statement that I am entitled to by law. A dispatcher immediately telephoned the Chief. During the next 20 minutes, I waited and watched as Chief Pitter photocopied something. Chief Pitter then gave me a copy of his written policy about issuing CCW permits. I have read this statement carefully. I experience Chief Pitter’s policy statement to be egregious, illegal and unconstitutional. That experience reinforces my intent to sue.

City Council’s December 5, 2000 Meeting. I attended the Council’s December 5, 2000 meeting. I saw and heard the following at that meeting: Out-going Council member Kathy Austin [defeated in recent election] and retiring mayor Ken Foley made good speeches which manifested wisdom. This wisdom included the practical necessity of representing the interests of all constituents. These speeches praised City staff members for their competency, hard work, dedication, thoroughness, etc.; all "old Council" members engaged in sharing kind remarks and handing out symbols of appreciation for dedicated service, etc.; Council member Robert Anderson, at my request, recognized me to speak. I made a point to publicly compliment out-going Ken Foley. I stressed that while he and I did not get off to a good start, I deeply appreciated his fairness in calling upon me at public meetings so I could participate during the "public comment" section of the meetings, and I was also appreciative of the amount of time he gave me to address the Council, even when I used some of that time to take him to task.

The two new Council members, Green Party members Craig Litwin and Sam Spooner, were administered and took their sworn oath of office. I listened carefully to the administration of that oath. When I heard it end at ". . . which I am about to enter.," I thought to myself that that did not sound like the complete oath, it sounded about 50% too short, based on my recall of what is required by California’s Constitution [based on a book published by the California Legislature Assembly that I had recently studied].

The three Green Party members [incumbent Larry Robinson and newly elected and sworn in Mr. Litwin and Mr. Spooner] then deviated from tradition and voted as a bloc to make Mr. Robinson Sebastopol’s new mayor.

The three "Greenies" also made speeches that manifested wisdom. Mr. Robinson talked about the importance of achieving a "sustainable community." The youthful Mr. Litwin talked about ideas that I will pigeon hole as "fuzzy warm" concepts that sound nice but avoid making hard, tough choices.

During a break, Mr. Litwin and Mr. Spooner, to their credit, approached me, shook my hand and opined that they expected to have many future conversations with me.

During that break, Council member Anderson discussed with me my November 21, 2000 memo to the Council and Chief Pitter about what happened between me and Chief Pitter on that day. It seemed to me that based on what Mr. Anderson told me, he still had not yet read a 80-page document I gave the Council about six to eight weeks earlier titled "Treachery Versus Liberty." If my impression is correct, I was happy that Mr. Anderson was passed over and not made the new mayor. [When I take the time to write something for the Council and/or to show up to address them, I want them to digest my inputs.]

When this break was over, Mayor Robinson resumed the meeting, went to the "public comments" part of the meeting, indicated he wanted to limit comments to 5-minutes and he recognized me as the first speaker.

I told the Council the following: I wished them well and hope they achieve success, as defined by me; I could be wrong, but I think the oath the Greenies took is not the complete oath; the City Attorney should check on that, and, if I am correct, I want the new members to take the complete oath; the U.S. Bill of Rights is more important than the deed to their home; the Bill of Rights was ratified on December 15, 1791, they should think about that in ten days when December 15 rolls around and they should think about that again, ten days later, when they celebrate Christmas because the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights guarantees them the right to celebrate Christmas; I voted against Kathy Austin because she voted "No," against my proposed Bill of Rights resolution two years earlier; if the entire old Council was up for re-election, I would have voted against all incumbents because all refused to take the pledge not to pass any law that conflicted with the Bill of Rights; if the new Council tries to undermine the Bill of Rights, they would have to deal with me; in that case, I welcomed them to "the Land of No Slack;" and I briefly discussed my on-going experiences with Chief Pitter; I told the Council that they should get Chief Pitter "under control" or "fire him" or face the consequences for allowing him to get away with his CCW policy that I experience to be egregious.

Oath of Office. Attached as exhibits are exact copies of Mr. Litwin's and Mr. Spooner's oath of office that they took on December 5, 2000. Also attached as an exhibit is a complete, exact copy of Article 20, Section 3 from California's Constitution, which, on its face, sets forth the required oath of office.

The Sebastopol oath is compared to the California Constitution's version here.

I checked with three "authoritative" legal sources to determine what is the complete, current wording of Article 20, Section 3 from California's Constitution. These sources are: first, the State of California's official Internet site; second, the latest book published by the California Legislative Assembly that purports to contain an accurate copy of the California Constitution as last amended through November 3, 1998, and the most recent [about six weeks old] CD-ROM disk from Access Law with the California Constitution on it. [Access Law gets its data from the State of California.] These three "authoritative" sources are in 100% agreement: the required oath is about 100% longer than the one that Mr. Litwin and Mr. Spooner took on December 5, 2000. When I opined at the December 5, 2000 Council meeting that Mr. Litwin and Mr. Spooner might not have taken the complete, required oath, I was referencing in my mind my recall of Article XX, Section 3, as I remembered it from the above referenced book published by the California Legislature Assembly. The content of Article XX, Section 3, as contained in the book, reinforced my memory 100%.

On the other hand, the issue of whether Mr. Litwin and Mr. Spooner did, or did not, take the required oath, remains open for further, more precise determination, at least in my mind. My reasoning-to-result for this tentative decision follows. I have done some additional research on this issue. That research is not completed. However, I did learn that the California Supreme Court, in Vogel v. County of Los Angeles (1967) 68 Cal.2d 18, 22, in reliance on U.S. Supreme Court decisions, held that about half of the oath contained in Article XX, Section 3 is unconstitutional because that part violates the First Amendment. On the other hand, I also found a line of cases that said a public employer does have a right to precondition public employment on requiring all public employees to take a sworn oath that they will not resort to force to overthrow the government. If Vogel, a 1967 decision, is still "good law," I do not understand why the California Legislature Assembly and the State of California's official Internet site are still reporting out of date, incorrect information. I do not have the time to complete this legal research. At a minimum, however, it now reasonably appears to me that Mr. Litwin and Mr. Spooner may, or may not, have taken the proper, required oath.

Since Sebastopol has a city attorney, I urge the Council to instruct our city attorney to promptly do comprehensive legal research on this issue and promptly report his findings, recommendations and reasoning-to-result. If Vogel has been reversed, and/or if, for any reason, what the California Legislature Assembly reports in its most recent "authoritative" book is correct, that the attached exhibit regarding what is the alleged, required oath of office, it would then appear that Mr. Litwin and Mr. Spooner did not take the required oath. If that is the case, the required oath, as reported by the California Legislature Assembly, is clear. There is nothing ambiguous about ". . . shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmations: . . . ." "[S]hall" is mandatory--no exceptions. "[T]he following oath" is specific.

Based on the above, I hereby make the following formal requests:

1. The City Attorney promptly determine what is the required oath and share his findings with the Council and me;

2. If Mr. Litwin and Mr. Spooner did not take the required oath, that they take the required oath promptly;

3. If any other City officers, elected officials, department heads, and/or all other employees who are required to take the oath as specified in the attached exhibit, per Article XX, Section 3, have not yet taken this required oath, that they all do so promptly;

4. That if anyone on the City's payroll has to take a different oath [the required oath] to be in compliance with California's Constitution, then they should all do so. If that is the case, I request that this be done within the next two weeks;

5. If it is determined that people have taken the wrong oath and they must take a different, required oath, I request that I be provided with a copy of the new oaths that everyone took shortly after those oaths are administered and taken. Should anyone not take the required oath [if a new oath is required] within two weeks, as a resident of this city, I object to any and all persons on the city's payroll being paid any money from public funds until they take the required oath. Furthermore, if there is any unnecessary delay in anyone taking the required oath, when they are paid, I want their paycheck to reflect a pro rata deduction for the amount of time they were employed without taking the required oath.

Recommendations. Before Civil Authority presumes that it is wise enough and/or competent enough to regulate me, to tell me how to live, to coerce me into surrendering my rights, to coerce me to remain unarmed and vulnerable to criminal assailants, Civil Authority should manifest competency. It can start with determining what is the correct oath to be administered, administering the correct oath, and making certain that all required persons take the correct oath within the time specified. If the wrong oaths have been taken, Civil Authority has made a serious error and should diligently correct this error. It should also study carefully pages 158-165, Chapter 8, "Some Final Thoughts," from John R. Lott, Jr.'s More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, ISBN 0-226-49363-6, and it should then ask Police Chief Gordon Pitter to respond on the merits to Mr. Lott's factual findings.

Tentative Confirmation of Good Cause For Lack of Confidence in Civil Authority. If I am correct that the correct oath was not administered to Mr. Litwin and Mr. Spooner, the following is true: this City’s employees did not determine what is the correct oath to administer to the new council members; this City did not administer the correct oath to the new council members; the new council members have not taken the correct oath; no one in city government picked up on this error; it took an outsider to detect this error; these facts make one wonder how many other things the city has done wrong, and continues to do wrongly, which have not been detected.

Questions. These facts, if they are facts, present these questions: was the failure to administer the correct oath negligent or intentional?; if intentional, what ulterior gains, if any, exist?; if the old council members did not take the correct oath, are they entitled to keep their compensation?; are the laws they made legally binding?; if police officers are required to take this oath, and they took the wrong oath, are the arrests they made legal?; are the convictions that arose from those arrests legal?; who was monitoring the store?; are the constituents getting their money’s worth from our public servants?

Lessons Learned. In the future, when I address the Council, when I say X and someone else says Y, the Council might be well advised to give due weight when I say X, regardless of who says Y.

Patience Exhausted. The Council meets publicly, on average, twice per month. Hence, the Council has meet approximately 46-48 times since I first addressed the Council and discussed the Bill of Rights. After two years, the Council still has not fully addressed my concerns. You have mismanaged and wasted golden opportunities to resolve issues important to me. If you would at least once spend as much time discussing the issues dear to me that you do discussing the nitty gritty of municipal concerns, we would not be in a state of cold war. Recommendation: Put the issues I raise on the Council’s agenda, open to the public, and let us discuss these issues in depth in a rational manner and try to resolve them ASAP to avoid litigation.

Police Chief Gordon Pitter’s CCW Permit Policy Standards. Attached is a copy of the document that Chief Pitter gave me on December 5, 2000. This is a statement of his standards for issuance of a CCW permit. I submit that Chief Pitter's "standards" for issuance of a CCW permit are an egregious, excessive, uncalled for, unnecessary, violation of my inalienable and constitutional rights; these "standards" are an unconstitutional undue burden on my right to make a private decision to defend my life with a firearm in order to preserve my right to maintain my bodily integrity, free of criminal assault. Per these "standards," I submit Chief Pitter has lost touch with reality, and he has piled on too many egregious invasions of my rights of privacy, etc., and he attempts to precondition my right to maintain my bodily integrity with his unconstitutional demands that I waive too many vital, cherished, Constitutional rights.

Objections to Chief Pitter’s CCW Permit Policy Standards. Attached is a copy of my "written for laypersons" objections to Chief Pitter’s CCW permit policy standards. (Chief Pitter's current draft policy manual that was handed to Peter is hyperlinked here, and Peter's formal objections are linked here, or see table of attachments below for both of these and more...)

Please read these two documents carefully, compare them and think.

I do not intend to jump Chief Pitter’s hurdles. I experience these standards to be illegal, to be unconstitutional and to be a denial of my inalienable and Constitutional rights. He either yields or you fire him or I will sue to vindicate my rights, and those of others.

Famous Sebastopol. Sebastopol is on the verge of having two reasons for being nationally famous: first, we are the second community in U.S. history to have a Green Party majority in executive control, and second, an ex-Deputy District Attorney [me] told Police Chief Gordon Pitter to make a choice: wipe your ass with your CCW permit application form or continue to wipe your ass with the Bill of Rights; if you make the wrong choice, Patriots will take you to court.

Choice: The Yoke Versus The Constitutional Collar. I will never wear Chief Pitter’s yoke. I will never recognize his unconstitutional power grab: his attempt to convert a right into a privilege. I will never be servile. I will never be docile. I will never submit to his CCW policy. Instead, I will work to place a Constitutional Collar around his neck, and yours. I will do my best to drive a Bill of Rights stake through Civil Authority. I will do this with the help of many who agree with me. The only questions are: will each of you wear that collar voluntarily or will you be forced to wear that collar? What will be the outcome of this contest? How much will this contest cost? Can this rift be mended so the contest can be avoided?

Reflections Upon "Sustainable". Mayor Larry Robinson spoke eloquently and wisely about the desirability, and the necessity, of achieving "a sustainable community." But to have "a sustainable community," each member of the community must have the right to make a private decision, without undue burden, to carry a firearm for lawful self-defense to preserve bodily integrity. It is difficult, if not impossible, to exercise Constitutional or inalienable rights, or to contribute to a community to make it "sustainable," when one is dead or severely injured due to a criminal assault.

Exposure of Chief Pitter’s "Zero Issuance" Policy. Police Chief Gordon Pitter has, in effect, given the criminal element the following guarantee.

Import of the U.S. Bill of Rights. When you know, and understand, the history that preceded the U.S. Bill of Rights, and the Preamble to the U.S. Bill of Rights, you will conclude that that Preamble and those rights are restrictions on you. Burn that concept into your brain. Do not try to regulate and/or interpret away my rights. [The exact wording of the preamble to the US Bill of Rights is contained in my "Treachery Versus Liberty" manuscript which city clerk Holly Fiori has. The Preamble is also available on the web at the US national archives - (click here for text).]

Warning. My rights are off limits to your policies and regulations. Stay well clear of violating my rights. Honor my rights in spirit and in deed.

Import of Your Oath of Office.. By taking your oath of office, you are legally, morally and ethically duty bound to honor, as a faithful fiduciary, the rules of our system of government. You must function as a faithful fiduciary. Should you function as a faithless fiduciary, you will be held accountable.

No Multiple Choice. The Ten Commandments and the Bill of Rights are not multiple choice. You cannot take your oath of office and then proclaim, "I propose that we do this [contrary to the Bill of Rights.]"

Chain of Command. Who is at the top of your secular chain of command? In our system of government, per the correct chain of command, the higher one advances in government, the lower they go on the correct chain of command. Since I am not a government official, I remain part of the ruling class. This is because I am one of millions "of the people" who sit at the top of your chain of command. As such, I am one of your masters. You are one of my public servants. Never forget that fact nor this correct chain of command.

"Treachery Versus Liberty" Manuscript. City Clerk Holly Fiori has on disk a 80-page document I wrote, "Treachery Versus Liberty." I gave this to her about eight weeks ago. She told me she made copies for each of you [exclusive of the police officers and the new council members.] I have a sense that most of the addressees of this letter have not read this document. I strongly recommend that each of you read this document. Should you fail to read this document, your ignorance of vital issues, reasoning and laws that impact your duties and power is self-inflicted. I will not let you exploit self-inflicted ignorance.

Is Arms Confiscation in Our Future? If any of you entertain the idea of trying to confiscate arms from otherwise law-abiding citizens within the city’s limits, you should disassociate yourself from all such aspirations. Forget it. Do not go down that road. Such a move will be fiercely contested. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve "a sustainable community" when arms confiscation is contested.

Special Message For Sebastopol’s Police Officers. Sebastopol Police Officers, on the assumption that you function as a peace officer, loyal to your oath of office, and that you refuse to become an enforcer [someone who will enforce any law, regardless of its constitutionality,] everyone of good will deeply appreciates you and hopes you enjoy a good, long, happy life. If you are a peace officer, thank you for your service to the community.

Our system of government has five branches: three official [executive, legislative and judiciary] and two unofficial [the media and the armed citizenry.]

Two of our society’s most valuable, national assets are: peace officers and the unorganized militia.

If Civil Authority allows Government to degenerate into a Gang it then becomes the legal and the moral responsibility of the unorganized militia to enforce the Constitutional Rule of Law. Understand that millions of armed citizens believe this concept and are committed to it.

Any superior who orders you to turn against the unorganized militia is your enemy. Never turn your guns against the unorganized militia. Heed this firm instruction: If you ever receive an arms confiscation order, do the following--arrest all who issued you the unconstitutional order; obey the Nuremberg Principle; stand down; refuse to execute the order.

If you cannot survive economically while you stand down, spread the word. I predict that the unorganized militia will do its utmost best to provide for you and your loved ones’ basic needs while the struggle endures. I also predict that when the struggle is over, the unorganized militia will wipe out debts you incurred during the struggle to preserve Liberty and the Constitutional Rule of Law.

I cannot speak officially or authoritatively for the unorganized militia; however, I am confident that when the struggle is over, enlightened and appreciative leaders within the unorganized militia will reward you for your loyalty to the Constitution if you stand down and refuse to enforce an unconstitutional order.

The unorganized militia does not draw a paycheck from Civil Authority; therefore, the unorganized militia cannot be corrupted by that paycheck; therefore, the unorganized militia is the peoples’ army, loyal to the people and the Constitutional Rule of Law.

Never let your dependency on a Government paycheck undermine your professionalism, your integrity and your sworn oath to uphold, support and defend the U.S. Constitution.

Never think of a responsible, armed citizen and/or a member of the unorganized militia as "a gun nut." Do not pigeon hole and/or demonize good citizens who are willing to risk their lives to enforce the Constitutional Rule of Law.

Taxpayer Supported Heresy? I have been informed that throughout our nation some jurisdictions require their law enforcement officers to take many hours of formal training in the Bill of Rights and this training stresses that citizens have an individual right to arms. I am also informed that there are a growing number of jurisdictions were rookie, and experienced, law enforcement officers are being trained, at taxpayer supported institutions, that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to arms; therefore, law enforcement officers can legally disarm citizens. I submit that the "no individual right" school of thought is heresy and legally incorrect. Those who spread this heresy are alienating the spiritual heirs of the Founding Fathers and the Minutemen who stood tall against Redcoats to redress grievances.

Non-Air Breathers Versus Air Breathers. The law deems all governments to be "a person" with the right to contract, to sue and to be sued. That government is a person is a legal fiction. Government does not have a heart beat, does not have lungs, does not breathe air and does not bleed blood. Nevertheless, governments go to extreme lengths to assure their continued existence. Human beings, on the other hand, are air breathers. Air breathers have what governments do not: a heart beat, lungs, blood, emotions, memory, etc.

It is absurd for a non-air breather, which cannot be killed because it is not alive, to coerce air breathers to remain unarmed and unable to defend themselves with a gun against predators.

Dividing Families. Do you have any idea how much Gun Prohibitionists’ policies have divided tens of thousands of American families over how to cope with victim disarmament laws? Do you have any idea how many steadfast citizens have stood up to heart-broken, torn, crying, pleading, worried, afraid, servile spouses? Spouses who demand that their spouse withdraw from this struggle? How many spouses have told their spouses that they will not back down, that they will stand up to Government’s demand for more victim disarmament laws? That they will fight to the death, if necessary, to preserve individual liberty?

Do you have any idea how much Chief Pitter’s "zero issuance" CCW policy is intensely despised and loathed?

Do you have any idea that armed, determined citizens have made the decision to rebel and are prepared to do so?

Do you realize it is difficult to achieve "a sustainable community" when families are hemorrhaging over this issue?

Do you realize that citizens who love their spouses and their children who refuse their spouses’ gut wrenching plea to "stand down," when they go on armed offense, will attack you unmercifully should you be identified as an advocate of victim disarmament laws?

Psyche Unable to Cope. Do you realize that your psyche probably cannot handle the horrific harm that lies ahead if you do not immediately steer the ship of state with a hard turn toward Liberty?

Suggestion: Walk around town. Try to imagine life here during, and after, civil war. Think!

Personal Courage. Freedom is not free. Do not be weak like Kathy Austin. Do not be weak in discharging your duties. Do not participate in the devaluation of U.S. citizenship. To the extent you tolerate and/or encourage a dilution of rights, you make it imperative that others manifest extreme courage to persevere those rights and the value of U.S. citizenship.

Resistance and Traction. Resistance to a Patriot is traction. A Patriot draws strength from resistance and will drive whomever undermines Liberty into the mud.

The Price of Enforcing Line Drawing. The South drew a line of segregation and paid a dear price to enforce that line. Gun Prohibitionists have drawn a line of victim disarmament laws. Gun Prohibitionists are on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of the human spirit, the wrong side of the law. I predict they are on the verge of paying dearly for the line they have drawn. Patriots will not acquiesce to the Gun Prohibitionists’ attempt to re-define Liberty, to change the rules, to relocate the goal line.

Ancient Wisdom That Still Rings True. There is not much that is new in terms of the relationship between Liberty and Authority. That is an eternal, epic struggle.

Attached are excerpts from the writings of wise, classical thinkers. Please read these excerpts carefully and think.

Exhibit A: From Machiavelli’s The Prince, circa 1530's. Commentary: Machiavelli in this passage insightfully put his finger on the precise dynamics of what is going on between Gun Prohibitionists and armed Patriots.

Exhibit B: From Sidney’s Discourses Concerning Government, circa 1650. Commentary: The Founding Fathers relied heavily on Sidney for justification to rebel. This passage, reformulated and simplified, is incredibly simple: Tell Government it is coloring outside the lines. If it is a good Government, the rulers will say "Thank you for bringing our error to our attention.," and the Government, if good, will get back in line. If it does not, you have exposed a bad government and you have a right to rebel.

Exhibit C: From Beccaria’s On Crimes and Punishment, circa 1764. Commentary: Beccaria was the world’s leading criminologist when he wrote this. His insight and opinion is enduring and persuasive.

Exhibit D: Patrick Henry’s "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" Speech, 1775. Commentary: This speech is grossly misnamed. A more accurate title would be: "Honor My Claim to Liberty or I Vow to Kill You Before I Get Any Weaker." [This is not a threat. Just a reminder of an eternal truth and that sod busters and innkeepers defeated professional Redcoats.]

Twenty-One Recommendations to Avoid a Catastrophic Tragedy.

No. 1: Understand and acknowledge the difference between cause and correlation. Flies do not cause garbage. Forks do not cause people to become fat. Banks do not rob themselves. Cars do not drive drunk. Guns do not pull their own trigger. Law abiding armed citizens are not criminals. Guns are not synonymous with crime. Guns are inherently morally neutral and are tools to be used for good or for evil. But the fact that a tool or any instrument can be misused by a bad person is not good cause to demonize it or over regulate it or ban it.

No. 2: Do not demonize firearms and responsible, law-abiding citizens.

No. 3: Do not discriminate against firearms and responsible, law-abiding citizens.

No. 4: Speak out against an emerging, new hate crime: the demonization of firearms and responsible, law-abiding citizens and the loose association of such citizens with criminals and the blaming of such citizens for what criminals do and the failure of gun prohibitionists and law enforcement to keep the criminal element under control.

No. 5: Recognize that our national, annual July 4th celebration has become a farce and a day to goof off. It is absurd to celebrate independence, freedom and Liberty on July 4^th with colossal fire works displays and grand speeches and then spend the other 364 days of the year severely undermining what we profess to believe on July 4^th. Since independence, freedom and Liberty are truly worthy of celebration on July 4^th, those values remain worthy of celebration in our daily lives every day of the year. Trust freedom. Do not let terrorists and criminals and low grade tyrant wanabees win by tolerating, or encouraging, the erosion of vital rights in the name of "crime control."

No. 6: Recognize that gun control in the name of crime control is people control, and, ultimately, control, period. And control is the opposite of Liberty.

No. 7: Realize that registering, fingerprinting, photographing and disarming all law-abiding armed citizens would not disarm nor control a single criminal. Instead, it would only serve to make good people subject to more control and easy plunder by Government and traditional criminals. Instead, such victim-disarmament laws implement "the tyrant's pattern": demonize guns and their owners, register guns and their owners, ban all the privately owned guns, confiscate all privately owned guns, solidify absolute power in a government that has degenerated into a gang, impose genocide to eliminate all opponents, or potential opponents and to rule by terror. Appreciate this correlation, which probably also has a cause and effect relationship: The United States, which is the most free nation in the world, also has the largest percentage of armed citizens.  Those armed citizens retain the precious birthright given to them by the Founding Fathers: they retain arms which they can use to hold the Prince to his promise, certain rights are off-limits and beyond the control of government or majority or both. If government or majority or both try to gut the Bill of Rights and succeed, the "Social Compact" [the ratification of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights] is broken; in that case, government no longer holds power legitimately and the "the People" are no longer duty-bound to obey government because government, as a result of the broken Social Compact, is illegitimate.

No. 8: Realize, and accept, that, per Constitutional rules, when you exercise municipal police powers to promote public health, safety and morals, you must regulate minimally when your rules seek to regulate the exercise of a fundamental right, which includes the individual right to arms which shall not be infringed.

[Ed. note by Jim March: This "individual rights" view of the 2nd Amendment has received recent scholarly review; the latest version of Professor Lawrence Tribe's textbook series in constitutional law backs the "standard model" view that "the people" who have the right to free speech in the 1st Amendment are the same class of "the people" as those who have a right to "keep and bear arms" in the 2nd Amendment.  Tribe is best known as a liberal law professor at Harvard and Al Gore's head legal counsel today.  Professor Akhil Reed Amar of Yale recently published a scholarly work titled "The Bill Of Rights" (1998) which goes even further: in addition to supporting the "standard model" with Tribe, Amar provides quotes from the authors and debaters of the 14th Amendment that make clear that of the post-Civil-War rights that were being stripped of newly freed blacks in the South, the right to arms was the most widely violated by civil authorities, usually just before a Klan raiding party blew through and murdered the newly freed blacks.  It is absolutely clear that the authors and ratifiers of the 14th intended to apply the entire Bill of Rights to the states to correct this and other abuses, and that a series of US Supreme Court decisions of the late reconstruction period were deliberately wrong for racist reasons just like Dredd Scott, such as the Slaughterhouse cases. Law Professor Stephen Halbrook laid out the same case in his 1984 work "That Every Many Be Armed" in more detail but along exactly the same lines Amar later walked. In Texas, Judge Cummings in US vs. Emerson recently supported the "standard model" in a case now before the 5th Circuit and is widely expected to prevail at the US Supreme Court level; it provides a compact overview of the latest scholarly thinking in the field - the full decision is linked here and this is a Federal Judge talking, not an NRA publicity agent. Attorney Peter Mancus is on MUCH firmer ground here than your average California liberal would give him credit for.]

No. 9: Realize, and accept, that Police Chief Gordon Pitter’s CCW permit policy is an egregious, undue burden that grossly and unnecessarily converts a right to a privilege.

No. 10: Rule minimally and gently. Do not destroy Liberty. Yield. Or be uprooted.

No. 12: Trust freedom. Do not think you are wiser than the Founding Fathers.

No. 13: Do not overcook the fish. [You will ruin a good catch, you will stink up the place and the pan will be hard to scrub clean.]

No. 14: Realize that today, yesterday, and the day before, 83 million armed U.S. citizens did not shoot anyone.

No. 15: Realize that control is an illusion. You are in control, up to a point, because responsible citizens allow you to be in control. That is a high honor. Power delegated to you is not power surrendered by me.

No. 16: Do not abuse that honor. Function as a faithful fiduciary loyal to the Constitutional Rule of Law.

No. 17: A community is the people, not the infrastructure. Since Police Chief Pitter cannot protect "the people", you need to let "the people" protect themselves without undue burden. Thus, you need to order forthwith Police Chief Pitter to substantially reduce the amount of undue burden in his CCW policy.

No. 18: A prerequisite for "a sustainable community" is this: every member of the community must have the right to sustain their existence, to preserve their bodily integrity, and that fact demands recognition that every member has a right to carry a firearm in a public place for lawful self-defense.

No. 19: Recognize that the criminal element is deterred by armed citizens; therefore, armed citizens make a major, constructive contribution to the security and welfare of the "sustainable community."

No. 20: Recognize that there is no inherent conflict between peace officers having guns and responsible, armed citizens being armed in a public place. Peace officers and responsible armed citizens reinforce each other and the "sustainable community" benefits. A responsible citizen will not become more responsible merely because he or she has one of Chief Pitter’s CCW permits in their purse or wallet; a criminal will not stop his or her criminal acts merely because he or she does not have one of Chief Pitter’s CCW permits.

No. 21: Read "Treachery Versus Liberty" by Peter Mancus. [City Clerk Holly Fiori has a copy of it on disk. I am sure she will provide you with a copy upon request.] If you do not read this manuscript, your ignorance is self-inflicted. Self-inflicted ignorance is not a civic virtue; it is a manifestation of your dereliction of your duty, your apparent laziness and your apparent unwillingness to be exposed to information that can, and will, enlighten you if you will approach it with an open mind loyal to your sworn oath of office.

In Conclusion. I hope the above helps you to rule wisely.

With kindest regards, I remain,
In Liberty, for Liberty,
Sincerely,

Peter J. Mancus

Sebastopol oath of office compared to the official version

Current CCW policy manual, Sebastopol PD

Peter's objections to CCW

Exhibit A: Quote from  Machiavelli’s The Prince, circa 1530's.

Exhibit B: From Sidney’s Discourses Concerning Government, circa 1650.

Exhibit C: From Beccaria’s On Crimes and Punishment, circa 1764.

Exhibit D: Patrick Henry’s "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" Speech, 1775.

The Nuremburg Principle

Judge Cummings' decision in US vs. Emerson releasing Dr. Timothy Emerson from gun charges due to the 2nd Amendment.

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights, from the National Archives

Salute vs. Pitchess 132 Cal. Rptr. 345, 61 Cal. App. 3d 557 (1976)

California Supreme Court in CBS vs. Block 42 Cal.3d 646 1986 (complete text and a brief analysis)

Guillory vs. Gates from the 9th Circuit, 731 F.2d 1379 (1983)
-------------------
Web layout and editing by Jim March, webmaster, "Equal Rights for CCW Home Page" and lead plaintiff in a Federal CCW lawsuit (March vs. Rupf, et al) in Contra Costa County currently before Judge William Alsup, Federal District Court in San Francisco.