Firearms in Fountain Valley

For all of my adult life I have been a proponent of liberty, and a strong proponent of the firearms rights spelled out in the US Constitution.  For decades I have been part of the gun rights movement, which seeks to repeal unconstitutional gun laws.

Fountain Valley, like many other locations in southern California, has illegal, unconstitutional laws in place preventing people from exercising their constitutional rights.  The key restrictions are based on the California handgun law put in place in the 1920s. At the time it was enacted it was specifically racist in intent and in application.  In the past California was a horribly racist place. The 14th amendment, guaranteeing equality to all, was not passed in this state until 1958.  Interracial dating was prohibited until 1958.  Racial discrimination lawsuits from Orange County were at the US Supreme Court as late as 1970.

Until earlier this year, when the McDonald decision came down, the official position of the State of California was that the whole Bill of Rights, and the 14th Amendment, did not apply to the  State of California!  The McDonald case was the last battle of the US Civil War, and California was on the loosing side.  Sadly, the official position of the City of Fountain Valley remains that the Bill of Rights does not apply in the City of Fountain Valley.

Knowing that the State of California would loose on this point, for several years I have been working with the City Council in an attempt to cause the City to come into compliance with the US Constitution. Despite my efforts, the policies of the City continue to violate the Constitution.

Why?  Mostly because men and women of a certain age are ignorant and uninterested in learning the law.  For a short period in US history, say from 1950 to 1990, there was an educational fad which sought to write the 2nd Amendment out of the US Constitution.  The idea was that the 2nd Amendment had something to do with hunting, or perhaps military service.  There never was any truth to this idea, and it has been thoroughly disproved, culminating in a 9-0 loss at the US Supreme court.

But those educated when this fad was in place still cling to the idea, and seek to implement it as policy on the Fountain Valley City Council.  These individuals are not inherently bad, just ignorant and lazy.

Deprivation of civil rights under color of authority is the proper legal term what has been going on, and what is going on now.  The Fountain Valley City Council refuses to obey the US Constitution, refuses to require the police chief to follow the US Constitution, and specifically requires the police chief to follow the policy of the sheriff of Orange County.  That policy is also unconstitutional.

By actively taking a position obstruct exercise of civil rights by citizens of Fountain Valley, the City Council is creating a huge liability problem.  Both the city and each member of the City Council is liable for unlimited damage.  The federal statute that applies specifically pierces the concept of sovereign immunity and makes each member of the City Council personally liable.

All this so as to keep in place an unconstitutional policy!

When elected to the Fountain Valley City Council, one of my first and highest priorities will be to change this unconstitutional policy and thus reduce the city’s liability exposure.   I will sponsor and pursue  a policy to change Fountain Valley to a “shall issue” city and request a map be produced showing all the 1000 foot anti-civil-rights zones around schools.

Fountain Valley should be in the vanguard of civil rights, not fighting a rear-guard action to keep in place unconstitutional racist laws from nearly a century ago.

Posted in Election 2010, Election Q&A, Fiscal Mess, RKBA | Leave a comment

California Budget 2011: Previews of Failure

The recently-passed state spending plan is already in grave danger. The danger is due not to the fantasies in the existing spending plan, but there certainly is plenty to worry about.

The plan is in danger because the Democrat leadership of the California Senate has already announced that the next governor will be pressured to reverse the cuts! (See  The state is already in debt to the tune of hundreds of billions, there is no economic turnaround seen any time soon, the state Constitution requires a balanced budget, and the head of the Democrats plans to increase deficit spending as soon as possible.

Out here in the real world, where people pay taxes, conduct of the sort that is common in the California Senate would result in people being put in prison.  But the elected officials are unconcerned about breaking laws.

The current spending plan does not consider the sharp reduction in tax revenue that will happen when the temporary taxes expire.  Remember those taxes proposed by the Governator and approved by the voters so we could fix the budget once and for all?   That was just two years ago. The budget was never balanced, the reserve never built up, and no structural changes were even proposed.  All we got was another two years of spending and lies.

Sacramento needs a radical dose of reality.

Posted in California Budget, Election 2010, Fiscal Mess | Leave a comment

California Adventure: Budget Fantasyland

California Adventure: Fantasyland Budget
October 12, 2010

The spending plan recently passed by California Assembly and Senate, then signed by the Governor consists mainly of fantasy and nonsense. Today on KFI, one host described the budget as assuming the State was going to win 5 billion in Las Vegas.

That is about correct.

The State Legislative Analyst condemned the spending plan.  Not only is it unrealistic, it was passed too late in the year to avert IOUs.

There is no downside when the Legislature and Governor commit frauds like these.  They get paid anyway.  The only people that suffer are taxpayers.

Posted in California Budget, Election 2010, Fiscal Mess | Leave a comment

Propositioning the Electorate

Proposition 19: Legalizes Marijuana
Vote Yes.
Although I am not fan of drug use, the War on Drugs is very expensive and has lead to a militarization of local police.  As a fan of liberty, I cannot be a fan of the War on Drugs.  Your neighbors will not suddenly become stoners!  In California anybody that wants marijuana can already get it.

As a scholar of the US Constitution, I have yet to hear any elected official provide a Constitutional explanation of the current drug prohibition.  When the people decided to prohibit the citizens from using a single drug, alcohol, an amendment to the Constitution was required.  To remove the prohibition, another amendment was required. Yet those in Washington tell us now that somehow the regulation of all drugs by the Federal government does not require an amendment to the Constitution.

Proposition 20: Citizens Redistricting Expanded
Vote Yes.
Gerrymandering of congressional districts has been common practice since the US was formed.  It has always been reprehensible.  Prop 20 should reduce the practice.

Note: A vote for Prop 27 is a vote against Prop 20!

Proposition 21: Car Tax for State Parks
Vote No.
This is yet another tax increase.   The tax will raise about $500 million, but it only costs $250 million to run the parks.  The rest goes into the general fund to be misspent.

Proposition 22: Fight Fungibility
No opinion yet.

Proposition 23: Suspend AB 32
Vote Yes.
There is no such thing as Man-Made Global Warming, there never was any such thing, and it is unlikely there will ever be any such thing.  The earth has been warming slowly since the end of the last ice age, and it continues to warm very slowly.

Carbon dioxide is a plant food, not a pollutant.  Cold climate is much more detrimental to human health than warmth and sunshine.

Proposition 24: Raise Taxes
Vote No.
Taxes are unfair to those that work!  The more you work, the more unfair taxes are.  Miserable poverty for all is certainly fair, but not what any rational person wants.  We do not need another method of raising taxes.

Proposition 25: 2/3 Budget Vote
Vote No.
California already taxes us too much and spends too much.  Passing a law that makes it easier for the Legislature to spend more is not going to fix the chronic overspending in Sacramento.

Proposition 26: Taxes are Taxes, not Fees
Vote Yes.
The California Legislature would like to rename every tax as a fee, and then declare the tax rate in the state to be zero.  Prop 26 calls a tax a tax, and requires a 2/3 vote of the Assembly to raise taxes.

Proposition 27: Citizens Redistricting Eliminated
Vote No.
We need less gerrymandering, not more of it.  Prop 27 is a vote to let the politicians continue to draw district boundaries so as to ensure their own re-election.
Note: A vote for Prop 27 is a vote against Prop 20!

For further information, see the official guide at

Posted in California Budget, Election 2010, Election Q&A, Fiscal Mess, Propositions | Leave a comment

Q & A From Orange County Pro-Family Candidate Campaign

October 6, 2010
Answers to questions from Orange County Pro-Family Candidate Campaign


General comment: Leading questions abound and are not easy to answer in the format provided by the OCP-FCC.  As always, I am answering in full.

1) I oppose tax increases at the city, county, special district, state and federal levels.  We that pay taxes pay too many and too much already.

2) Rights are inherent in man, and not something that can be granted by government.  No government at any level has any sort of giant tureen from which it can ladle out “rights”.  This question is an indirect question about Prop. 8, and about hate crime laws.  I do not support either Prop. 8 or hate crime laws.  In the case of hate crime laws, crime is crime and we do not need extra layers of law. In the case of Prop. 8, the goal is to grant homosexuals extra privileges under law, effectively side-stepping the 14th Amendment. It seems to me we created the 13th Amendment exactly to get rid of this sort of problem.

More generally, I support getting the government completely out of the business of legislating marriage.

3) Although I am not a fan of abortion, Fountain Valley already has enough zoning laws.  Local and state laws governing medical facilities should be applied to abortion clinics.  Abortions is way more than just a choice: it is at least a medical procedure.

4) Obscenity laws have their place — especially when it comes to graffiti — but my direct experience with the Fountain Valley city attorney leads me to believe he is hostile to the whole Bill of Rights.  As a result, I would not want to instruct him to even brush his teeth, for I am not sure what the results might be.

Law enforcement should enforce the laws of the city, or the laws of the city should be repealed.  In practice, and by state law, in Fountain Valley the PD has no particular requirement to enforce any law or statute.  The only requirements for the Fountain Valley PD are to 1) process CCW applications, and 2) respond to calls alleging domestic violence.   By state law the City Council can set policy, but cannot force the local PD to enforce any particular law or statute.

5) The internet has let the porn genie out of the bottle, and it will be difficult to change the situation.   Sale of pornography on private property, as a business, is already regulated some.  If the question asks about sale of porn at a private residence, say as part of a yard sale, I cannot agree to regulating occasional sales of legal merchandise at yard sales.

Vending machines selling porn should not be readily accessible to minors.  Any such law will likely be impossible to regulate, and thus void, due to the sale of porn through the internet.  Does a sale of photo-realistic synthetic porn to a minor with a modern cell phone have any legal control?  Can it?

6) Yes, I support such a law, but not for the purpose you might expect.  The 2nd Amendment protects a fundamental right to keep and bear arms, yet the California has a 1000′ rule, prohibiting the exercise of fundamental rights.  If we are to eliminate parts of the Bill of Rights due to school proximity, perhaps we can eliminate more of it.  For example, perhaps nobody can speak or pray within 1000′ of a school.  Or perhaps all houses within 1000′ of a school can be used to house police, or police dogs, or police vehicles.

Sales of pornography to minors is already regulated.

We need to get rid of all 1000′ rules.

7) Again yes, but not for the reason you might expect.  No city employee should have health care benefits or life insurance coverage paid for by the city.

8) Again yes, and again not for the reason you expect.  It is not the duty, obligation or need of the state or local government to provide health care. (Caveat: active enrollment in the California State Military Reserve, which IS NOT the National Guard, should provide some sort of medical care.)  The purpose of government is to secure the liberties of the people.  Providing health care to minors does not support the purpose of the government.

Public health laws should apply for students, but abortion is not a procedure associated with what is generally been known to be a public health threat.

9) Like it or not, the US is a Christian nation: the men that founded it made this quite clear.  Fountain Valley is a subvention of the US, so it is a natural consequence that there might be religious artifacts or monuments in the city.   The US Constitution does not guarantee freedom from religion, only freedom of religion.   No.

10) Easy.  Yes.  Marriage is the bond between one man and one woman.

11) This question is a bit vague.  What is the context? City employees?  Long-term employees of registered businesses?  Should the guy installing my water heater be required to get a drug test from me, since I am paying him?

In the general sense, I do not support mandatory drug testing.  But being a public servant is not the general case.  I do not condone, encourage, or tolerate drug use.  As a tax payer, I want my public servants to be working hard all the time, so it is OK for the city to check for use of drugs.  (Note that within living memory certain civil service positions required the use of amphetamines so more work would be done.)

12) This is a complex question.  For certain observant Muslims, killing Christians, raping boys and female genital mutilation are “religious activities”; for some native Americans, spending time high on peyote is a religious activity; for Rastafarians, spending weeks high on marijuana is a religious activity.  As an employer, these are activities I might want to discourage.

Non-debilitating, non-criminal actions of a religious or political nature are generally OK.

13) Badly worded question.  There is a place for curfews where there is a clear problem.  Yet curfew and truancy laws should not be so strong as to prevent a child from going to the funeral of a parent.

14) No simple answer here.  Recall that what is now the United States was settled by a ethnic group whose religious practices defied civil law.  Certainly the Jews in Nazi Europe did oppose and defy civil law.  Anti-slavery activists in the antebellum south certainly were religious and certainly did violate civil law for the purpose of protecting an ethnic group.

In the United States today we have way, way, way too much law.  We should always support those that want to expand freedom by minimizing law and the state.

I oppose activities, be they religious or secular, where the purpose of those activities is to destroy the United States as it was founded.  Sharia law, from what I have read, does seek to destroy the United States.

15) I am not a fan of euthanasia.  As a public servant, the question of who is paying comes up very quickly.  Is the public paying for health care?  If so, as a public servant I must keep in mind that death is, by far, the cheapest form of health care.  This is not a simple matter to decide.  Should 10,000 taxpayers each be required to work an extra day a month for 5 years to keep one person alive for 3 months?   My answer is no — productive people should not be required to provide unlimited-cost care for those at the end of life.

There are other dimension to consider.  What if the person being kept alive is not a citizen?   What if the extra work required to create the wealth to keep one person alive reduces the life expectancy of all the workers?   In that case, preventing euthanasia reduces life expectancy.

“Natural death” is hard to define.  Just as crude oil is pure, natural and 100% organic,  one can argue that murder by beating is a natural death.  Nature is brutal and violent.

Overall I am in favor of laws that protect human life and prohibit euthanasia.

16) Physician-assisted suicide is hard to square with either Christian or Muslim beliefs, but is permitted by other religions.  The term “justified” implies some form of justice, which generally implies some sort of wrong was committed.

In that narrow sense, where a criminal decides the best form of justice would be suicide, I support that idea.

If the question should have read “permissible” in place of “justified”, I am not completely against physician-assisted suicide in the case of terminal illness.  But then one has to consider just what is a terminal illness, since we all end up dead eventually.

As a public servant, the question eventually gets around to money. Is the public paying for the practice?   If so, I oppose paying for the practice, so I am against the practice.   The public should not pay for medical care.

17) Both life and death begin at conception.   The unborn are not just “choice”.   The current scheme, where a mother has total discretion, but accidents or violent crime can result in a murder or manslaughter is idiotic.   A father should have some say in the abortion procedure.  So yes.

Posted in Election 2010, Election Q&A | Leave a comment

More Budget Nonsense, early October

It is early October, about 100 days after the required deadline,and there is still no budget for the State of California.  This past weekend word leaked out there is a proposed spending plan.

The plan is for more of the same.  As outlined in the OC Register,Investors Business Daily, Bloomberg and other places, the plan calls for tax increases, wishful thinking, borrowing, unicorn farts and pixie dust.

Neither the Governor nor the Legislature wants to do the hard work of cutting spending to fit the current tax structure.  Instead, the proposal assumes the Federal government will give California a large grant, and that sales tax revenue will increase.  If the US House of Representatives switches to majority control in November, it seems  unlikely California will get a multi-billion dollar grant. But perhaps such a grant will be jammed through during a lame duck session.  The House will not be sending grant money before the election because the House is no longer in session.  Where will the increased sales tax revenue come from?   Nobody knows.  Look in the same place one finds pixie dust.

The tax increases are in the form of delayed tax reductions.  The reductions were negotiated as part of the last budget go-around. A delay in reduction is the same as an increase because business and personal plans were made based on future costs.  The future costs have changed.

A realistic budget was not proposed during the January Fiscal Emergency, or before the deadline set forth in the California Constitution, or before the Assembly session ended.  So why should anybody expect a budget now?  The State is fiscally bankrupt, so the only currency is political in nature.  As part of the “budget deal”, what is being done to screw the taxpayers?  We cannot yet tell.

The best result would be no spending plan.   The current proposal, from what is known, is more of the same crap that got us into the financial hole we are in now.  The people now in Sacramento are the source of the problem and have shown themselves to be incapable of creating a solution.

Perhaps the next Governor and the next Legislature will be better, but do not count on it.

Posted in California Budget, Entitlement, Fiscal Mess | Leave a comment

Failures of Proposition 58

Proposition 58: What Happened?

The behavior of the Legislature has not changed in a decade.  As a body, the Legislature is uninterested in working on the problems faced by the State, is incapable of creating a State budget, and feels free to ignore the laws of the State.

In 2004 we passed Proposition 58, The California Balanced Budget Act, in an attempt to force the Legislature to do its job.  Clearly Prop. 58 is a failure, as the State has not had a single on-time budget since it passed.  Today the situation is worse: we have a rogue legislative body, and ineffective executive, and a State Constitution that is routinely ignored by those sworn to uphold and defend it.   We have no state budget, and no prospect for a state budget any time this year.

Proposition 58 failed because it had no teeth.  At the time of passage, there was already a requirement in the State Constitution that a balanced budget be passed.  The Legislature ignored the existing requirement with no fear of any consequences.  Now the Legislature ignores more of the State Constitution with no fear of any consequences.  The Legislature ignores the requirement that no legislation can be acted on during a Prop. 58 Fiscal Emergency by declaring the existence of a second, parallel session of the Legislature.  There is no wording anywhere in the State Constitution that provides for multiple parallel sessions of the Legislature. Certainly there is no form of punishment for such behavior, so it goes on.

Proposition 58 has another weakness.  The Legislature can, in a proclaimed Fiscal Emergency, declare that anything at all is a balanced budget, and sent it to the Governor.  The Legislature can send a menu from the local Denny’s, or a dictionary, or a roll of toilet paper to the Governor, and declare that a balanced budget has been passed.  The Governor must then examine the roll of toilet paper, and show that it is not a balanced budget.   In the mean time, the Legislature goes on to act on other bills.

Recall that Proposition 58 was passed by the voters as a Constitutional Amendment exactly to stop this sort of nonsense.   Check the details yourself; the original Voter Information Guide is still on-line

There are two obvious solutions to this mess.  First, we can elect honest, hard-working men and women that will put aside partisan  bickering, obey the State Constitution, and do the hard work that needs to be done.  Do not hold your breath while waiting for this to happen.  The second option is to modify Proposition 58 to provide for real punishment.

The California Legislature has shown that is not interested in obeying the law, so the punishment must be effective at changing the behavior of individual legislators.   Nothing will be more effective at changing an individual’s behavior than the death penalty.  It is hard to envision anything else that might be effective.  I propose that for each day a balanced budget is late, one member from the Assembly and one member from the Senate should be selected randomly and be brought to the Capitol building then hung from the neck until dead.

This proposed modification of Prop 58 would assure on-time balanced budgets.  Is there any other method that would do so?

Posted in California Budget, Election 2010, Fiscal Mess, Propositions | Leave a comment