Notes from the Resistance...
Unless you want to see a federal prison from the inside, you'll follow the laws scrupulously, and you're Johhny StraightArrow, as far as everyone in your effing life knows, or that anyone, anywhere, can ever prove. [More]
There's a lot to be said for the Gray Man.
Sgt. Garcia! Join me for some wine?
I am briefly checking in from my hiatus to convey some very sad news.Charles SawdersHere is the Hanner Funeral Service visitation page link. Then click here to sign the register book.
65, of Doddridge, Ark., died Monday, July 19, 2010, in Vivian, La.
Mr. Sawders was born March 4, 1945, in Bakersfield, Calif. He was a pipe fitter and a Baptist.
Survivors include his wife, Cathy Williams Sawders of Doddridge; three sons, Hunter Sawders of New Jersey, Christopher Sawders of Brownswood, Texas, and Steven Turner of Doddridge; three daughters, Shelly Bowen of East Dorsett, Vt., Veronica Jenkins of Comanche, Okla., and April Doeppers of Omaha, Neb.; his mother, Fran Boon of Duncan, Okla.; one brother, Jack Boon of Florida; one sister, Cherri Quinn of Portales, N.M.; 12 grandchildren; three great-grandchildren; and a number of other relatives.
Services will be 10 a.m. Friday at Olive Branch Methodist Church, Doddridge, with the Rev. Walter Burnett officiating. Burial will be in Olive Branch Cemetery under the direction of Hanner Funeral Service.
Visitation will be 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. today at the funeral home.
Online registration is at hannerfuneralservice.com.
You may leave memories and comments that become part of the obituaries by registering and logging onto this site.
I looked at your poll today. But I did not participate. The reason for my not participating is because the poll only offers a choice without a difference.As I noted last Tuesday and on other occasions, one of the simplest and easiest things gun owners can do is spread the word--share links with fellow gun owners via emails, on blogs, on forums...
I propose you do a profile and perhaps an interview with Jim Deakin who is challenging McCain for the Senate seat. As we know McCain is a Republican in name only and a conservative by no stretch of the imagination. The man does not even believe in the Constitution.
Contrarily, Deakin appears to understand the Constitution and to believe in it. I draw your attention to David Codrea and his Gun Rights Examiner column on the internet and Mr. Deakin's answers to a questionnaire that has been used more and more often by citizens trying to plumb the depths of candidates' commitment to liberty for the average citizen. Mr. Deakin acquits himself well.
Please check out Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea and the appropriate column. I think you will find that Mr. Deakin deserves some exposure. As it now stands, I would bet that more people throughout the nation know Mr. Deakin is a candidate in the race from reading that column than Arizonans who have never heard of him because no one mentions his candidacy or his views. Silence is our enemy. It is your enemy. You know enough history to know that. Please correct this oversight.
A Lincoln County woman shot and killed a man who attempted to enter her home. [More]Compare the reticence and remorse this woman feels in a completely justifiable act of self-defense, compared to, say, the sadistic eagerness of this Sarah Brady Paradise "Only One" who can't wait to stick "an MP-5 into your [child's] face" for playing with a toy.
The light of truth of our position on arms shines through every column.That's a pretty good testimonial.
20 Jan 07
U.S. District Judge Jimm Larry Hendren
United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas
Sir:
As an American citizen who is deeply concerned about the state of liberty and the lack of rule of law in this land I have been following the Fincher case. This nation was wrested away from a ruling elite that ruled by whim and the myth of moral superiority of the highborn. Because of the reasons for our departure from our mother country we established the rule of law, not whim. Those rules reserved and guaranteed rights embodied in the Supreme Law of the Land , The Constitution of the United States of America. Government was guaranteed no rights in that document, but were granted certain powers in order that the state be able to honor its duty to the citizen in protecting the reserved and guaranteed rights bestowed by Nature and Nature's God upon the citizen.
Therefore, when I read that you had stated in public, on the record, that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual right and not a collective right, I was pleased beyond measure. I thought to myself, "Finally an honest sitting judge, who will rule based on law." That thought did not sustain me long. For the very next day, after your meeting with representatives of the prosecution, you reversed yourself. Which brings me to some questions for later in this missive.
I know you did not attend and graduate law school without ever learning that the Constitution of the United States of America was and is the Supreme Law of the Land. Further, I contend that you could not have graduated law school without ever learning that the jury is charged with judging not only the facts of a case, but also the law under which charges are brought. Were you to try to deny having ever learned that, your already suspect integrity would be revealed by its absence.
I can believe that you graduated law school and never learned that the courtroom belongs to the jury, not the judge, not the state, not the prosecutor and not the defense. The jury owns the courtroom, they are the highest power in that room, at all times. As stated previously, I can believe you graduated without that ever being revealed to you by your instructors. Such is the nature of arrogance in many that attain offices of honor. Many believe that they are imbued with a moral and universal superiority that places them above others and often simply ignore the truth if it does not please them. The fallacy of the judge owning the courtroom is one such manifestation of this arrogance. So while I can believe you were never taught that in law school, simply because the fiction of a judge owning the courtroom must be protected if the abuse of juries and the jury system is to be sustained, I cannot understand how you were able to study law and the history of the law and not discover the truth on your own. I suspect that it is an ignorance of convenience on your part.
The judge is a referee. His job is to keep the proceedings fair and in the bounds of the law. The judge has a duty not to be an advocate. A duty you have miserably failed in Fincher.
It has been ruled and upheld many times that a judge is not required to inform a jury of its duty and right to judge the suitability of the law under the Constitution. While it may not be legally required of him, it is certainly a moral obligation if justice is to prevail in our nation. When a judge declines to apprise a jury of its entire duty, but deigns to apprise it partially of its duty, he has become an advocate, and has shown his disrespect for justice.
I could cite cases and rulings that uphold everything I have stated above. I could cite quotations and writings of founders and jurists who have stated in eloquent terms the principles you have violated. I could do that, but I believe it would be pointless. I do not believe I have engaged an honest and principled man who has a different point of view, or who only needs to see the proofs that he has ruled wrongly, to set his path aright. I believe I am addressing a man who already knows all the things I have addressed here. I believe that man knew he was wrong when he disallowed the jury in Fincher to hear what the law, especially the Supreme Law of the Land, had to say, before directing the jury to a guilty verdict.
So here are the questions for you I mentioned above.
What was your price? What was offered you in that meeting with representatives of the prosecution that seems to have caused a complete reversal of what you had stated only the day before? Was it reward? Was it threat if you did not cooperate?
To sum it up in one question, "What price treason?"
Absolutely sincerely,
Charles H. Sawders
Doddridge, Arkansas
The judge made a great ruling. Guns should be restricted when ever and where ever possible.This is a comment to yesterday's Gun Rights Examiner post from the "Portland Enureti...uh...Progressive Examiner." Talk about a poor reflection. Hey, I don't get to choose who they let say what.
Bringing a concealed gun into a national park is simply ridiculous. I do not want some trigger happy yahoo packing a gun into a park where me and my family might be spending time.
The fact that commentators on this site are all for breaking the law reflects poorly on the gun rights movement, and only confirms the suspicion that restrictions on gun ownership is a positive for society. [More]
Last week I was reading a column by National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea about the new draconian legislation introduced by some liberal idiot from Illinois (that seems to be the state's greatest export).FatWhiteMan feels he's being suppressed by a guy SayUncle had harsh words for.
I couldn't help but to notice the unusual number of comments left on this particular column and took a look. The bulk of the comments seemed to be in response to another National Examiner Columnist. [More]
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.Click on the title link for a slide show.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
City officials have agreed to return hundreds of firearms that police officers confiscated in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, part of a deal to resolve a lawsuit filed by gun lobbying groups.Good on them. Kudos and congratulations. At the risk of sounding less than properly appreciative, here's hoping I lose a bet with myself about the press releases each group puts out...
The settlement agreement filed Tuesday in federal court calls for the National Rifle Association and Second Amendment Foundation to drop their case if the city follows a plan for returning guns to owners who had them seized by police after the Aug. 29, 2005, hurricane.
The Second Amendment Foundation assisted NRA in the legal battle against Mayor Ray Nagin and the City of New Orleans.That was the right thing to do. Now didn't it feel good?
Well, uh, yeah Paul. You don't expect "Authorized Journalists" to be, like, government watchdogs or anything, do you...? Or champions of the First Amendment...?A point that needs to be raised:
"This plaque and two others just like were sent to the Lawrence Police Department over the weekend. This image has been altered at the request of thepolice department to take out other wording engraved on the plaque, as it isevidence in an investigation.
Jim Patten / Staff photo"Found here.
This is no different than Soviet "journalism." Investigation my eye, the sender knows exactly what was on them, as do the police. Just who are they hiding it from?You are correct, there is no cause for investigation. However, the more disturbing problem is the complicity of the newspaper in covering up what is really going on here.
The hit dog yelps the loudest.
"Using the agency's own standards, this agent should be headed to the slam," wrote straightarrow on the blog managed by Ryan Horsley at Red's Trading Post in Idaho.I guess now that he's hit the big time, he won't have time for us, the little people, any more...
"Because it was left in a TSA secured area for anyone to pick up, anyone who found it was a prohibited person due to location," he said...
Continued straightarrow, "No matter whether the firearm gets sent to the FTB, this officer made a 'willful' illegal transfer of a firearm to a prohibited person or persons. … She willfully went to the restroom, she willfully removed her firearm from her person and she willfully departed sans firearm. When should we expect the indictment and the expert government witnesses to tell a judge to trust them, she is guilty and he doesn't need to know anymore?"
