No products in the cart.


CA Gun-Free School Bill Separates Oath Keepers from ‘Only Ones’

ScreenHunter_12 Sep. 15 14.44
The Brady Campaign wants Jerry Brown to widen the “us” vs. “them” gulf between “Only Ones” and We the People through the “progressive” doctrine of unequal protection. Portrait: State of California / Quote: “Animal Farm” by George Orwell

“We applaud the California Assembly today for passing SB 707, priority legislation of the California chapters of the Brady Campaign that will help keep concealed, loaded guns off of California university and college campuses and K-12 school grounds,” the Brady Campaign stated in a Sept. 1 press release. “We call on Gov. Jerry Brown to sign the legislation to protect our students.”

That’s hardly surprising.  When the antis talk about “common sense gun safety laws,” what they really mean is citizen disarmament, with “bearing arms” reserved exclusively for agents of the monopoly of violence. They want law enforcement personnel to be the “Only Ones” with guns, and they rely on oath-breaking cops to make sure their will is enforced.

For those new to the term, it’s something I’ve been using for years, not to bash all cops, but to illustrate when those of official status, rank or privilege, both in law enforcement and in some other government position, get special breaks not available to we commoners, particularly (but not exclusively) when they’re involved in gun-related incidents. It had its genesis in a video of a DEA agent telling a roomful of school children he was “the only one … professional enough” to carry a gun, and who then shot himself in the foot trying to holster his weapon.

Over the years, without even intending to, and most of the time based on reader tips, I’ve amassed quite a  collection of news accounts that directly contradict the gun-grabber contention that police are the “only ones” moral and capable enough to be trusted with guns. A while back, an article of mine published by Oath Keepers pointed out the arrogant hypocrisy of a political top-level LEO who has proven himself both untrustworthy and committed to keeping you disarmed while he keeps his guns.

Equally unsurprisingly, politically-motivated discrimination was a transparently unconstitutional pot-sweetener built into SB 707, in order to gain support from the retired police officer lobby: They will be exempt from the new law. It will only apply to us mundanes, and that includes retired military — sorry guys, thank you for your service, but you’re just not considered “qualified.” The ex-cops are good with that as long as they get theirs, and the hell with any pretense of equal protection.

And while NRA joined with anti-gun cop organizations like the Fraternal Order of Police and the International Union of Police Associations to cheer on the “Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act” permitting nationwide concealed carry for “qualified” LEOs and retired LEOs, some of us were asking since when does someone with a seat at an exclusive banquet worry about the people who don’t rate an invitation?

Here are a few questions for those who consider themselves to be “peace officers” first:

If a citizen who was not threatening anyone in any way let you know they were peaceably keeping and bearing arms without a permit, would you arrest them?

If the answer is “Yes,” how is that consistent with your oath?  How does that not make you an “Only One”?



David Codrea blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance (, and is a field editor/columnist for GUNS Magazine. Named “Journalist of the Year” in 2011 by the Second Amendment Foundation for his groundbreaking work on the “Fast and Furious” ATF “gunwalking” scandal, he is a frequent event speaker and guest on national radio and television programs.



  1. Mr. Codrea;
    Conservative High Schools, and kindred institutes of higher education must still exist.
    They publish school newspapers.
    Can you get articles included in each issue?
    I realize critical thinking, annotated, lucid and succinct is endangered and luridly unpopular – but the result of seeing OK, TTAG, and others defended by student editors and private school boards is a worthy endeavor.
    Your steadfast challenges to the Only Ones, to the imperial bureaucracies large and small are a potent, unsweetened, welcomed investigative body of work.
    Nils carborundum est.

    1. Probably not– no time to chase after them and I’m already tapped out in terms of existing commitments and priorities. There’s a lot of sausage-making that goes on behind the scenes before one of these pieces gets published. The best I can suggest is interested parties keep an eye on such things and submit corrections to editors when they think they’re appropriate — if they find relevant rebuttals from one of my columns, that would make me very happy. Sorry, only one of me with so many hours in the day, and I can only do so much, but thanks for the vote of confidence.

  2. Aligning with the theme of this article are these two blurbs I found on the Wikipedia page titled ‘California Gun Laws’-

    ‘Some argue that the California system for CCW issuance fosters systematic discrimination of applicants, as it has been publicized that numerous celebrities and government officials have been issued CCW licenses in cities and counties where the general public have been consistently denied.’

    ‘In some of the more restrictive cities and counties, licenses tend to be issued mainly to “Friends of the Sheriff” (or Police Chief), celebrities and campaign donors.’

  3. Seems to me that if these retired officers has any integrity they would have refused any offered exemption and worked against the bill until it was at least extended to cover honorably discharged veterans as well.

    “Good for me but not for thee” is not the way America is supposed to work.

    OTOH, if they had any integrity they would never have worked for a California law enforcement organization long enough to retire in the first place.

  4. ““Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act” permitting nationwide concealed carry for “qualified” LEOs and retired LEOs, . . . since when does someone with a seat at an exclusive banquet worry about the people who don’t rate an invitation?”

    I’m of mixed mind as to the creation of a 3’rd and subsequent classes. America was supposed to be class-less; to consist of but a single class of citizens. Encroachment on the 2A created 2 classes: the “squires” of the state; and, commoners. Now comes a 3’rd class under LEOSA. Is 3 classes better or worse than 2?

    The 3’rd class opens the door to comparing membership in the 3’rd (privileged) class to membership in the 2’nd (privileged) class and the 1st (un-privlidged). In what ways is the 3’rd like/unlike the 2’nd? In what ways is the 3’rd like/unlike the 1st? The irrationality of these comparisons make less sense than those between the 2’nd compared to the 1st.

    E.g., retired LEOS have no duty to pursue and arrest; so, they are more like us commoners vs. active-duty LEOs. Prison guards do not carry guns as part of their job description nor are they trained like police. Again, guards are more like us commoners vs. active-duty LEOs.

    If any distinction whatsoever is justified, shouldn’t it be based upon an objective standard such as one’s demonstrated skill or knowledge? E.g., if an amateur IDPA has skills and knowledge comparable to a LEO isn’t the amateur as qualified as the LEO? We wouldn’t distinguish, for example, between licensing a government employee who drives an 18-wheeler or railroad engine vs. a private citizen who has the demonstrable knowledge and skill.

    So, go ahead: make as many exceptions as you like! Allow political cronies; judges; prosecutors; men-of-means; the guards who protect the property of men-of-means. And then explain how it is that all these exceptional people lacking skill or knowledge are privileged beyond commoners who ARE skilled and knowledgeable.

    We will make our case to the voters. See if the voters can perceive any wisdom in the division of our society into – not just 1 – but many classes.

  5. The Second Amendment (and most of the rest of the Bill of Rights) are dead issues to law enforcement in California.

    1. What is not being stated here is that those actions are Treason being used by those that SERVE WITHIN the Ca government against the people of the state of California, the California Constitution, the US Constitution, and the American people as a whole.

      When force is used against the very same people to “enforce” those unlawful “laws”/regulations/etc it IS *Terrorism.

      It is time to stop sidestepping the real issues and call them exactly what they are. They are under Oath to support and defend the US Constitution and all that is in Pursuance thereof it, and the California Constitution. To NOT keep that Oath is at least one felony and the crime of Perjury.

      Show me in the US Constitution where registration of a right is lawful and required. It is not. Matter of fact the Nuremberg Trials make registration of the population for any reason a crime because it makes it easier on Traitors to locate and “dispense” of undesirables.

      Madison: “Because the Bill violates that equality which ought to be the basis of every law, and which is more indispensible, in proportion as the validity or expediency of any law is more liable to be impeached. If “all men are by nature equally free and independent,” [Virginia Declaration of Rights, art. 1] all men are to be considered as entering into Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights.”

      Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105: “No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.”

      Brookfield Construction Company V. Stewart 284 F Sup. 94: “An officer who acts in violation of the constitution ceases to represent the government.”

      *28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.

      It is important to understand that when Dr. Vieira says that those who do not keep their Oath no longer are lawfully in the position they occupy within our government is true; and that they must be removed and replaced by someone who WILL do the duty constitutionally as required. Understand that they are doing what was FORBIDDEN to them to do, and they promised on they (nonexistent) honor and took personal responsibility for their actions while in office with that Oath..

      Dr. Edwin Vieira: “This has nothing to do with personalities or subjective ideas. It’s a matter of what the Constitution provides…

      The government of the United States has never violated anyone’s constitutional rights…
      The government of the United States will never violate anyone constitutional rights, because it cannot violate anyone’s constitutional rights. The reason for that is: The government of the United States is that set of actions by public officials that are consistent with the Constitution. Outside of its constitutional powers, the government of the United States has no legitimacy. It has no authority; and, it really even has no existence. It is what lawyers call a legal fiction.

      … the famous case Norton v. Shelby County… The Court said: “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties. It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

      And that applies to any (and all) governmental action outside of the Constitution…”
      What are the defining characteristics of a limited government? They are its disabilities; what it does not have legal authority to do. Look at the First Amendment… What does it do? It guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion. But how does it do that? I quote: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press” etcetera. “Congress shall make no law;” that’s a statement of an absence of power. That’s a statement of a disability.”

      Replace all of them and sort them out in the courts that are overseen by NEW replacement judges except for the very few that kept their Oath.

      1. Any unconstitutional actions by government may not carry the force of law and can be ignored only at your peril. Government uses brute force to enforce any dictate they can conceive, a violation of their granted power or not.
        We do and have allowed this infringement on our Freedom and Rights and we justifiably fear government enforcement as it can and does involve imprisonment or death to any offender.
        What are our choices? The Ballot box has proven to be compromised, the Soap box is used to target those who stand on it to challenge tyranny. Do we run and hide, comply or resort to use the third box?

      2. “brute force to enforce any dictate they can conceive”

        So do gangs/mafia, etc.

        One always has choices when faced with brute force.

        Here in the USA we actually have a document that tells us exactly what to do on those occasions, and what we MUST do to see that those occasions NEVER arise again (where we are ruled by brute force). It is the US Constitution.

        It requires of all people who do NOT serve within the governments – state and general – to be trained as the US military is required to be trained by Congress and ALL people not in governmental service be the Militia of each state to aid in the defense of anywhere that they are needed, or to be called upon by the state or the general government when needed statewide or nationally.

        It is also important to realize that the Militia, when employed in the service of the United States or of their state, shall receive the same pay and allowances, as the troops of the United States or of the states when called into action.

        One must join up or start their state Militia and it is important to realize that the Militia is governed by the US Constitution itself and all that is in Pursuance thereof it, plus the Constitution of their state.

        Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers 28: “The militia is a voluntary force not associated or under the control of the States except when called out; [when called into actual service] a permanent or long standing force would be entirely different in make-up and call.”

        John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States: “To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.”

        Hope this helps you to understand that no military unit whatever it is called can ever be the Constitutionally REQUIRED Militia, only the people themselves can and are – active or not.

  6. “…I am committed against every thing which, in my judgement, may weaken, endanger, or destroy [the Constitution]…, and especially against all extension of Executive power; and I am committed against any attempt to rule the free people of this country by the power and the patronage of the Government itself.” Daniel Webster

    Our right to keep and bear arms was secured in the Constitution long ago by men who fully understood the effects that time and future generations would place on it. We tend to look at our right to keep and bear arms in ways that are counter productive and not in a way that conforms to the “probable one in which it was passed.” Our framers wanted citizens to be able to defend this nation, themselves and their families as well as being able to hunt. We 2nd Amendment supporters need to stop fighting among ourselves. It isn’t a right just for cops or for elites. Just as you have a right to pen your opinions on this forum, you have the right to strap your pistol to your side and bear it. Throughout this country. From state to state. Our argument shouldn’t be with fellow supporters but, with a government like the one in California that uses all extension of Executive power to rule over the people in their attempt to usurp our right.

  7. @MarkPA ” Prison guards do not carry guns as part of their job description nor are they trained like police. Again, guards are more like us commoners vs. active-duty LEOs.”

    Excuse me??? I doubt that many LEO’s that have never been Correctional Officers (first) could enter a medium/maximum security prison on day one and think they have the system by the balls. If they do Mark, that’s arrogance that will get YOU killed.

    Police recruits should (FIRST) be trained by real professionals that deal with incredibly dangerous inmates by going through Correctional training, then spend a minimum of 6 months on the job, getting their cohonies in-order, BEFORE going into thug neighborhoods with a gun.

    WE had to mingle and control approximately 200 inmates (By ourselves) in a POD living area with nothing more than a radio and a pen. And ironically….the pen was more powerful than a Glock.

    With several wanting you dead, and a few that would kill you if you blink wrong, the training we received kept us alive. Shanks (knives) and box cutter blades were often hidden and available at any given time.

    The Correction Officer receives arms training and uses arms in the towers and other areas.

    The local police officer receives nearly the same training, except for dealing with hundreds of criminals at any particular time. He/she is then thrown into the street with a buddy, and without prior training in a state prison system, the stress factor must be out the window….thus, the term “trigger happy” is often the only solution in their mind.

    Learning how to deal with criminals requires a talent that does not require killing them as they run away.

  8. This is ridiculous. When will people realize that criminals do not obey the law. If passing laws were effective, then why do we still have a war on drugs?

Comments are closed.