Category Archives: By The Book

Sandy Hook Commission advises taking firearms from “bad” people

By Doug Book, editor

The 16 members of Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy’s Sandy Hook Advisory Commission have completed their report on the December, 2012 murder of 26 children and adults at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown.  And as might be expected from a hand-picked group of “healthcare professionals, public safety professionals and academics” their recommendations—offered in a 250 page anti-gun rights treatise—will have little to no effect preventing the next lunatic killing at will in one of Connecticut’s widely publicized Gun Free Zones.

“We support the concept of firearm registration,” writes the editorial board of the CT Post, “though that would not have prevented the deaths of 20 first graders and 6 educators in Sandy Hook because the shooter used weapons legally bought and owned by his mother.”

But effective or not, the mandatory registration of every privately owned firearm in Connecticut is to be the necessary starting point for “tougher gun control laws.” Just think how well the law requiring mandatory registration of “assault weapons” has worked in the state. Implemented immediately after the Newtown murders, some 50,000 owners of semi-auto rifles have foolishly registered their weapons in the past 2 years. Yet an estimated 400,000 have refused to make their rifles and rights easy prey for liberal politicians. And by the way, state officials have still not decided whether to enforce, ignore or repeal this unconstitutional statute.

So how has the Governor’s Advisory Commission recommended the state anticipate the hidden agenda of psychopaths like Adam Lanza? “Tougher gun laws, better mental health programming to treat troubled school kids and mandatory locks inside classrooms are, according to the CT Post, among the key recommendations in the final report.” Door locks. Such inspiration! Such vision! Along with Gun Free Zones the State will proudly warn miscreants of  Door Locks in the coming year. Certainly that must discourage the most determined mass murderer.

It may be some time before the Commission’s report can be thoroughly appreciated for what it is, but in the interim here are a couple of nuggets which must frighten even the least dedicated believers in the right to keep and bear arms. Along with the mandatory registration of all firearms, the laser imprinting of ammunition for tracing purposes and the restriction of ammo buyers to those calibers chambered for one of their licensed guns, the report includes “some 95 recommendations on mental health, the physical security of schools and most controversially, guns.”

One of the more interesting provisions on mental health states: “Any person seeking a license to sell, purchase or carry any type of firearm in the state should be required to pass a suitability screening process.” The process would not be limited to mental health diagnoses as noted by the panel as, “certain individuals are not suited to own, possess, or use firearms.”

And who will have the privilege of defining “not suited?” First there will be state judges, “…who should be given the power to order temporary confiscations of gun, ammunition and carry permits from a person who is the subject of a restraining order.” Then come family members who may, based upon current “feelings” tell authorities that Uncle Henry is acting strange and that Henry has 10 or 15 rifles, pistols, all kinds of stuff. That will summon police to Henry’s house where, upon the passage of Commission recommendations into law, SWAT team members may be deployed to round up all of Henry’s weapons. Naturally Henry will be given the opportunity to recover them, should he be able to convince anti-gun liberals in the bluest of states that owning a dozen or so firearms is neither illegal nor crazy. Best of luck, Henry.

Perhaps 2 million or more gun owners have proudly and publicly refused to abide by the Safe Act in New York or the “Assault Weapons” registration law in Connecticut. May we expect the political powers in Hartford to learn from the lesson of their “Assault Weapons” boondoggle; that gun owners will not be intimidated by thugs who pass unconstitutional laws?

“We’re balking at taking the next step, which is literally taking guns out of the hands of bad people,” said Commission Chair,  Hamden Mayor Scott Jackson.  It’s easy for the brave Mayor to talk about taking guns from “bad” people. He won’t wind up looking down the bore of a 30 06 when the gun’s law abiding owner refuses to let it be stolen in the middle of the night by one of Mayor Jackson’s officers.

And these are not “bad” people, Mr. Mayor. They just have very bad laws enacted by arrogant, liberal politicians.


Get your free PDF of Coach’s book “Crooks Thugs& Bigots: the lost, hidden and changed history of the Democrat Party.” If you don’t know the truth all you’ll have are Democrat lies. Just ask at  

Disarm young Blacks says Bloomberg. It’s for their own good

By Doug Book, editor

Be it New York’s former mayor Michael Bloomberg, Chicago’s Rahm Emanuel or the Windy City’s decades of the Mayors Daley, Democrat politicians have shown no genuine interest in Blacks apart from the support they are expected to deliver on Election Day. Like a 2 year old at a dinner party, it is the proper and expected role of big city minorities to be seen—if absolutely necessary—but certainly not heard.

Unfortunately, Blacks are bound to be seen and heard when 400 to 500 murders are committed each year on Chicago’s West and South sides. That’s the sort of trend that causes panic in the Mayor’s office, for although the vast majority of victims of black criminals are also black, it is only a matter of time until white neighborhoods are affected. And whether in Chicago or New York, that may eventually result in the most unacceptable crime of all; a Democrat mayor being tossed from office!

But former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has the answer. Zeroing in on black males aged 15 to 25, Bloomberg has decided that “cities need to get guns out of this group’s hands and keep them alive.”  Ninety Five percent of murders are committed by this “specific category,” claims Bloomberg. So just disarm these people and society will be doing a great favor to minorities across the nation. That is, the killers will be spared facing a bullet from police or hostile gang members one day and other blacks, who make up the majority of victims, may also live to see old age.

It’s a win-win any way you look at it.  And all it requires is sending SWAT teams into black neighborhoods for the purpose of confiscating weapons.  Simple. And best of all, no one will complain; or at least no one of any particular importance. After all, as a lifelong leftist Bloomberg will not face charges of racism. And  SWAT team members will be removing weapons—and probably the occasional black thug—from the streets. The Obama/Schumer/Feinstein gun grabbing gambit come true and all for the greater good, exactly as the left likes to represent its most devious and reprehensible activities. Michael, you’re a genius.

But it’s funny Bloomberg didn’t put his plan into action while he was Mayor. Certainly he had ample time, what with the number of legal and illegal terms of office he purchased over the years. And surely the risk of annoying a few black voters with the 3:00 A.M. demolition of their front door wouldn’t dissuade Bloomberg from doing something so important, so utterly for the good of his subjects.

Do us all a favor, Mr. Bloomberg, and accompany one of your SWAT teams as they enforce your vision of the greater good on Chicago’s South Side. It might wind up being the greatest service you could provide for the American people.


Get your free PDF of Coach’s book “Crooks Thugs& Bigots: the lost, hidden and changed history of the Democrat Party.” If you don’t know the truth all you’ll have are Democrat lies. Just ask at  





Supreme Court decides police don’t need to obey the law, don’t need to know what it says

By Doug Book, editor

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be searched.”  The 4th Amendment

In December of last year, the Supreme Court continued a decades-long tradition of chipping away at 4th Amendment rights by ruling that police may violate those rights “…if the violation results from a “reasonable” mistake about the law…”

In the case of Heien v The State of North Carolina, police sergeant Matt Darisse stopped a vehicle he considered “suspicious” because one of three tail lights was faulty. While writing a warning ticket, he then “became suspicious” of vehicle occupants and “their answers to his questions.” When vehicle owner Nick Heien gave Sergeant Darisse permission to search the car, the officer discovered cocaine. Heien was arrested and charged with trafficking.

Heien’s defense presented evidence to the trial court that the State of North Carolina requires a vehicle be equipped with only one working “stop lamp.” As Heien’s car was clearly in compliance, the defense argued that the traffic stop was an “objectively unreasonable” act on the part of Officer Darisse and that, according to the law, it should not have taken place. The defense then moved that evidence of the seized cocaine be suppressed on Fourth Amendment grounds.

But in an 8-1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the officer’s “…mistaken understanding of the law was reasonable and thus the stop was valid.” After all, “…the Fourth Amendment requires government officials to act reasonably, not perfectly…” wrote Chief Justice Roberts for the majority.  

But Roberts is wrong and his “nobody is perfect” quip is not an acceptable excuse for ignorance of the law or a violation of constitutional rights. In fact it is when testing the limits of 4th Amendment protections that law enforcement must be most exacting in its methods and practices.

In 1891, the Supreme Court wrote: “No right is held more sacred or is more carefully guarded by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law.” The Heien Court can hardly claim that the law held “clear and unquestionable authority” when it was only misinterpretation and incorrect application of the law that resulted in Heien being charged with a crime.

In its decision, the Supreme Court held that Sergeant Darisse had acted in a “reasonable manner” and was therefore permitted an error in the application of state law.

But as the lone member of the court to believe the drug evidence should have been suppressed, Justice Sotomayor wrote in her dissent:  “The meaning of the law is not probabilistic in the same way that factual determinations are. Rather, ‘the notion that the law is definite and knowable’ sits at the foundation of our legal system.” Moreover, the court has never before “taken into account an officer’s understanding of the law, reasonable or otherwise,”  Sotomayor continued.

It’s a dangerous practice that a court should rule ignorance of the law provides no excuse except for those whose job it is to impose legal standards on the rest of us. And how disturbing will it be when judges across the country follow the lead of this Supreme Court by ruling that the day must be won in criminal proceedings by those whose claims and actions are most reasonable whether they happen to be legal on not.


Get your free PDF of Coach’s book “Crooks Thugs& Bigots: the lost, hidden and changed history of the Democrat Party.” If you don’t know the truth all you’ll have are Democrat lies.

Just ask at  

A.G. Eric Holder ends Equitable Sharing scheme; theft of $3 billion from American citizens


By Doug Book, editor

Thirty years ago, the practice of Civil Asset Forfeiture was implemented by the federal government as a means of confiscating cash and assets, principally from drug dealers. But since 9/11, this method of punishing criminals has been used to literally steal billions in legally owned wealth from law abiding Americans.

In 2008, the Department of Justice began emphasis on that part of the Asset Forfeiture law called Equitable Sharing,  a scheme whereby money confiscated from citizens–usually by police–would be divided between state and federal governments. Legal permission for this extraordinary method of “profit sharing” was provided in the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. And there has been a great deal to share as “thousands of local and state police agencies have made more than 55,000 seizures of cash and property worth $3 billion.”

But on Friday of last week, this despicable, government approved scheme of stealing wealth from the American people  apparently came to an end as Attorney General Eric Holder “barred local and state police from using federal law to seize cash, cars and other property without warrants or criminal charges.”

Coach is Right published the article which follows in September of last year. It explains Equitable Sharing and the methods of those who took full advantage of its terms.

Police steal $100’s of Millions from innocent Americans in “Stop and Seize” scams

September 16, 2014

By Doug Book, editor

After 9/11, the federal government “…called on police to become the eyes and ears of homeland security on America’s highways.” But as this new, more aggressive agenda of seeking out suspicious individuals was embraced by officers as part of their interdiction training by the federal government, their policing behavior turned out to be worlds removed from the historically reassuring promise to “protect and serve” the American public.

For law enforcement officers throughout the nation were eagerly learning and practicing the fine art of “policing for profit,” that is, the method of questionable legality by which money and assets are stolen from generally guileless American citizens taught since childhood that police may be trusted.

In 2008, the Department of Justice decided to expand civil asset forfeiture with a program known as “Equitable Sharing.” Though originally used to separate drug dealers from their assets and cash, since 2001, Equitable Sharing has been employed by the nation’s police to score $2.5 Billion in cash and assets from citizens “who were not charged with a crime and without a warrant being issued.” It is a high-dollar confiscation scam which is painfully easy to operate and, to ensure the successful practice of which, law enforcement has been dealt every trump. How can billions be confiscated, in large part, from law abiding drivers?

Police are instructed to pull over a car for any violation, real or imagined. While issuing a warning or a ticket, the officer is directed to “study [the driver or passengers] for signs of nervousness, including…clenched jaws or perspiration.” Police are then taught to look for “supposed indicators of criminal activity, which can include such things as trash on the floor of a vehicle, abundant energy drinks or air fresheners hanging from rear view mirrors.” Unbelievable.

It will be after the reading of these meaningless indicators of guilt  that the officer will ask permission to search the vehicle. A refusal by the driver may cause drug sniffing dogs to be summoned, a thoroughly illegal use of the driver’s time as has already been determined by the Supreme Court. But how many Americans will be aware of such legal decisions guaranteeing their rights?

Drivers across the nation have been found in possession of thousands of dollars in cash. It’s their own money, lawfully acquired, but police immediately conclude that it represents the ill-gotten gains of a drug sale. The money is confiscated on the spot and the driver must now prove that the cash was acquired in a legal manner should he ever wish to enjoy its return. 

For being a Civil rather than Criminal procedure, no charges need be brought, no warrants issued and no evidence of guilt compiled by police. And as the victims of such robberies will not have their day in court to prove their innocence, the only resort left to them is to prove the money theirs, lawfully owned and lawfully earned.

Unfortunately, given the cost of hiring attorneys to fight Big Brother, over 60% of victims of these crimes will never retrieve their money. And for those who choose to fight, it is usually mandatory that they sign away their right to sue!

And now the question becomes, Why? Why would the most corrupt Attorney General in the nation’s history put an apparent end to such a lucrative scheme? How does it benefit Holder and how does it benefit his boss in the White House?





Courageous NBC talking heads call Charlie Hebdo magazine a “Triumph for Free Speech,” then loudly refuse to show the cover!


from Weasel

The Charlie Hebdo Magazine printed an unprecedented 3 million copies on Tuesday, far outpacing the number of magazines turned out in the usual run. The large printing, which once again featured Muhammed’s mug on the cover, sold out in no time.

NBC News called the massive Charlie Hebdo printing a “Declaration of Defiance” and a “Triumph for Free Speech,” even as the news network carefully distanced itself from the story by loudly proclaiming to Religion of Peace bomb throwers that the network was NOT showing the magazine cover. Apparently NBC didn’t want to be confused with those who would actually take a stand for free speech.