Veteran Owned Accident Firm Fights For Your Personal Injury Rights.
Free Phone Consultation. No Win - No Fee.
CALL (213) 596-9642

Month: February 2015

Firearms Open Carry Laws in California

Attorney Michael Ehline openly carrying and shooting USMC Colt M45
Attorney Michael Ehline openly carrying and shooting USMC Colt M45

By Attorney Michael P. Ehline, Esq. In the past, California permitted individuals to carry unloaded firearms in public, with the condition that the weapon remained empty, was displayed in plain sight, and only if the individual was not in a prohibited area. The designated prohibited areas, by these laws, included government buildings, school zones (under the California Gun Free School Zone Act), and post offices. So you could not open carry there.

Here is an example a police officer enforcing the Constitution in a positive manner.


The Recent Anti Second Amendment Laws

The California “open carry” gun rights law would see drastic changes on January, 1, 2012, when the California Assembly Bill 144 went into effect. This law made it illegal to openly carry unloaded handguns.

California Penal Code Section 26350 outlines this in detail, which describes openly carrying an unloaded handgun in specific public places, is now a misdemeanor offense. (Source.)

The new legislation is complicated for the individuals, who are exercising their Second Amendment right to bear arms, by lawfully carrying their firearms. The Second Amendment provides gun owners protection from being wrongfully harassed, arrested or prosecuted, for carrying a legal firearm, but the California legislature is controlled by radical leftists, who have little use for the Constitution.

If the time comes that you find you are in trouble for legally carrying your gun, we can help you in this situation. We defend the rights of individuals, who have been accused of allegedly violating the California gun laws and specialize in this area of the law. We have a complete understanding of the California “open carry” laws and how alleged criminal conduct in this area occurs.


Understanding the California “Open Carry” Laws

What “open carry” means is that an individual is carrying a legal firearm in plain sight. California law has never expressly authorized the ability to carry a weapon openly. The legality of this practice was premised on the fact that it was not prohibited by any existing California state laws. But this has changed, with the endorsement of California Penal Code 26350.

One important factor is a new law only applies to handguns and not to rifles or shotguns. This leaves several avenues for gun activists to continue to have the ability to practice their support, even with the limitations the enactment of the law. Law abiding gun owners should have the capacity to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms openly.

Openly Carrying Serves Two Purposes, the First is Believed by These Individuals:

  • This is an effective way to prevent becoming a victim of a violent crime.
  • It is a belief that when an individual who possesses a firearm visually, will not be forced into a position that they would need to use their weapon.

Open carry laws in California do not apply to assault weapons .[liberals in the legislature think any weapon that looks scary is an assault weapon]. And these are prohibited from being openly carried under Penal Code Section 12280. And this is California’s law against possessing assault weapons or other types of destructive devices. These are prohibited under Penal Code 12303. This section prohibits the possession of destructive devices.


Politics and Open Carry

In 2004 the Unloaded Open Carry (UOC), movement began, and has gained momentum over the years. There are currently 38 states that have variations of this law and every state has UOC activists.

Anti Freedom AG
Human trash.

Eric Holder, Anti Second Amendment Activist

In the state of California, these activists often gather in public places for “meet-ups,” which include restaurants and Starbucks in particular. When these gatherings occur, some people who openly carry will wear tape recorders, and possibly video recorders. In some cases, they may have a lawyer present at this gathering of enthusiasts. What they are attempting, is to passively invite an altercation with law enforcement, to challenge their legal rights in court.

These group meetings are a way to protest the California legislation that relates to concealed weapons permits, by the activists. Individuals who are for open carrying of firearms argue that the state only issues the concealed weapons permit to people who are “well connected” and deny the applications of ordinary citizens.


Permission to Open Carry

Individuals who are not prohibited from possessing firearms that fall in the “excluded” category include, but are not limited to:

Anyone under the age of 18, who are minors.

Individuals who are a potential threat to themselves or other people, and individuals diagnosed with a mental disorder. People who have been convicted of a felony, and are prohibited from possessing, owning, purchasing or receiving firearms, under California’s Penal Code Section 12021 are covered under the “felon with firearm” law.

Handguns, shotguns, and rifles can be openly carried, as long as the individual has not been legally barred from owning, or possessing firearms. Ammunition or magazines must be carried:

Openly, such as in a holster

Carrying of an unloaded magazine in the gun

So this will help in avoiding the legal issue of having a concealed or partially concealed magazine, which would be considered an illegally concealed weapon. The open carry laws in California apply both to weapons you carry on your person and the Firearms that are openly possessed in a vehicle or motorcycle. When passing through a school zone, you are required to place your weapon in a locked case, which complies with Penal Code 12026.1 PC.

Understanding Other Illegal Acts

Violation of the California Penal Code 12025 PC, “carrying a concealed weapon” law, you will have no protection by the open carry laws. Open carry is the right to carry a firearm openly in public. In specific circumstances, numerous other California gun laws will prohibit the carrying of a firearm legally. It is important to ensure you are not violating any of these other statutes when carrying a gun.
The California gun laws include, but are not limited to:

Carrying Concealed and Loaded Weapons

What about when you are going to and from the gun range, or gunsmith, for example? California Penal Code 12012 PC is the state’s code for the carrying of a concealed weapon law, and if you violate this code, then you will not be protected by the open carry laws. This is because of open carry is the carrying of a firearm plainly and openly in public.

Firearms are considered unloaded when the ammunition for the weapon is in a separate storage compartment. Then you are permitted to carry the unloaded gun and ammunition unless it is used in a felony. Then it is legally considered a loaded weapon, even when the ammunition is carried separately.

The law permits residents to carry a loaded weapon, under specific situations, including the following, but not limited to:

In your home

  • On private property

Certain businesses, in which you have at least a “possessory” interest in, and have the right to exclude others from it, or control the activities within it. So if a police officer stops you, and even if it is in a location that is not prohibited from opening carry a firearm, you are obligated to allow them to inspect your weapon, so they can make sure it is not loaded. Failing to do this, will give the police officers probably cause to arrest you.
What cannot Be Done

California Penal Code 417 PC states that even when you are compliant with the open carry laws in the state, your weapon is unloaded, as well as visible, in a location where it is legal; you may not use the weapon to intimidate or threaten any person. It is likely if you pull your firearm in a threatening, angry or rude manner that prosecutors will charge you with a crime.

Ehline Law Firm PC

633 West 5th Street #2890,
Los Angeles, CA90071

(213) 596-9642


Sat-Sun: Closed
By appointment only.


Michael Ehline –

Bullet Tax Proposed by California Law Makers Ties Mental Illness to Lawful Firearms Ownership

By attorney Michael P. Ehline, Esq.– The state of New York passed a law in January that restricts firearm sales, and there has been a ban barring ammunition magazines that hold more than seven bullets. But this is in addition to the bill passed in 2000, in which so-called “assault weapons,” were banned. Also, guns owned by mentally ill people, all of whom are considered a threat [even if their illness is not threatening], can be seized. In other words, if you go to the doctor in for depression, you may get a knock at the door from a stack of G-man demanding your privately owned firearms.

Awareness and prevention of senior citizen neglect
The attorney round table

We have seen a pattern that was explained by Obama confidante, Rahm Emanuel. “Let no crisis go to waste.” 1 The liberal wing of the democrat party for years, has been trying to reduce our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms to “hunting”, and then ultimately, to nothing at all.

Mr. Janet Reno

This was echoed by Attorney General Janet Reno:

“Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.[Emphasis.] Janet Reno U.S. Attorney General – 1993-12-10 (Source.)

Fast and Furious Efforts to Blame Private Gun Stores for Mexican Gun Violence

Anti Second Amendment Extremist

Communist, Anti American, Eric Holder

Then years later, the anti-gun advocate, Attorney General Eric Holder, a former employee under Janet Reno, set up the top-secret Operation Fast and Furious. 2. But unlike the Bush “Operation Gun Runner,” Obama did not notify the Mexican government it was using U.S. private gun dealers to funnel guns into Mexico and arm the drug cartels. Remarkably, Obama and Holder then tried to blame private gun stores in the States for the violence in Mexico. And then U.S. border agents were ambushed and murdered3, allegedly with a “Fast & Furious” automatic firearm. Obama then ended that strategy. And he instead took executive privilege in a cover-up akin to Watergate. Make no mistake about it; their goal is to disarm the law abiding citizenry of all weapons.

California Democrats Actions Are Comparable to King George of 1776

The tyranny of the left, is comparable to King George’s attempt to disarm the colonists 4, when he was instituting his unfair taxes upon the people and property owners of the colonies. History repeats itself again. Two tax, spend and waste, Democratic state lawmakers in California, have proposed a bullet tax5, Assemblyman Roger Dickson of Sacramento and Rob Bonta of Oakland. Let them know how you feel.

The 5 Cent Per Bullet Tax Inexplicably Ties Ownership of Bullets to Mental Illness and Creates Impression Guns Should Fund “Mentally Ill” Programs

This is how disgusting and insidious these so called “lawmakers” are. And this would be no different than using cigarette taxes to fund a gay parade. There is zero reason to use Draconian bullet taxes to fund mental illness programs unless Democrats are trying to make the public think that people who own guns are probably right wing crazies who should be locked up. They seek to create a link between legal ownership of firearms and mental illness, and at the same time, “pricing out” law abiding gun owners from obtaining ammo at a reasonable price.

So after destroying the California economy, and scaring away Fortune 500 companies, leftists, here Dickson, proposed a bill that would impose a 5 cent tax per bullet sold, which would be used to expand a program that screens children for mental illness. The Bonta proposal is for a bill that would aid law enforcement in California cities with the highest violent crime rates.

Currently, the father is not allowed to live in the same house as the children, for a mother to receive welfare checks. So we have kids growing up with no fathers, and into a life of professional unemployment and crime.

There is a third bill that would require ammunition dealers to have licenses and have to report all sales. These are a few of the bills among the nine that have been proposed for gun violence, since the Newtown, Connecticut mass school shooting, the Oak Creek, Wisconsin shootings and the Aurora Colorado shootings.

Anti Gun Rights Democrats Have a Super-Majority

Democratic supermajorities control both chambers and the bullet tax increase will need a two-thirds majority vote by the legislature or a public referendum. Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner a Democrat from Berkeley said we have numerous safeguards in place currently to purchase guns, and it is easier to buy bullets for them, than buying alcohol, some types of cold medicine and cigarettes.

As Stated by Attorney General Reno – Ban on Weapons is the Ultimate Goal

Most left wing Democrats I have met, have never served in the military, and are knee-jerk reactionaries. Here is another dumb thing California did. In 1989 California was the first state to ban assault weapons, after an elementary school in Stockton was sprayed with bullets from an AK-47 killing five children and wounding 29 others. I was lucky enough to have lived in California before welfare voters took over the state. But the DHS references an M-16 as a “Defense Rifle.” Thus, these semi-automatic non-military versions civilians have should be called “civilian defense weapons.” Try passing a “Civilian Defense Rifle” ban and see how far you get. There is still no legal definition of “assault weapon,” other than it looks “scary”. As stated above, Janet Reno admitted the goal is disarmament of law abiding people. So, they are using the scary weapon argument as the first step in programming the citizenry to waive their rights.

The Federal Ban on Civilian Self Defense Rifles of 1994 Has Expired

One of the other mass shootings occurred in California in a San Diego McDonalds restaurant in 1984, when a gunman killed 21 people. There were 23 executive orders by President Barack Obama, who has proposed the U.S. assault weapon ban be revived and mandate background checks for all gun buyers. Several of the executive orders include the maximum prosecution of gun crimes, and more access to government data for the background checks. Vice President Joe Biden has headed an administration review of gun policies and has made it a major effort to promote the new gun legislation.

California Democrats have proposed strengthening the “assault weapon” ban in the state, by limiting who may get a permit. Also, this includes requiring safe storage of weapons in homes where anyone lives that is prohibited from possessing guns. They propose to extend the waiting periods to purchase firearms and ending a provision allowing possession of assault weapons that were purchased before the ban.

Firearms and Mental Health

Republicans in California have proposed their bills, which raise the penalties for gun crimes, including the illegal purchase, selling or possessing a firearm. These bills include more severe penalties for state parole for those convicted, rather than county probation, and higher spending on a database of convicts. There would also be a limiting of information for concealed weapon permit holders that will be available to the public.

One of the other proposals is to give counties more control over mental health funds. In any event, we can all see that the Second Amendment is threatened. All Obama needs is one more liberal justice, and our God granted rights to defend our families as well as tyrannical government, will be stripped from us, the militia. We the People are the Militia, from age 16 onwards. The left’s bullet tax is nothing more than a non-rationally based law, designed to expunge and extinguish, step by step, a common law right of the people to defend against tyranny and criminal acts. If an unfair law extinguished your rights, and you were injured contact Ehline Law Firm PC.

Drones and Privacy

Combat attack drone
combat drone isolated on white background

The use of drones could be innocent, or for nefarious reasons. They could be something as simple as taking aerial photos of a sunset over the beach, and the not so innocent use of this kind of high-tech device could be used to snoop on someone inside of their house. Attorney Michael Ehline is intrigued with the issues the use of drones brings to mind and the legal complications.

The unmanned aerial craft was used by government agencies and the military, to fight terrorism and to conduct domestic surveillance for years. Now, this could change, with private companies like Amazon seeking FAA approval for their “Prime Air” program that made the recent news. The Amazon website claims the use of these aerial devices would be used to deliver online merchandise, comparing it with pizza delivery.

Private citizens are not left out of the equation, with some being intrigued and others who have been hobbyists of this kind of technology. One of these people are Santa Barbara resident Cliff Baldridge, who is a tech-savvy aficionado and everything Google expert. He has used radio controlled vehicles for approximately three decades and uses the aircraft for good.

Mr. Baldridege believes he is an expert and uses drones to capture aerial footage of Santa Barbara vistas and then posts them on his Santa Barbara Arts TV page on YouTube. The pictures are taken with an AR Drone 2.0, which he has modified to hold a GO Pro HD camera and using the modified technology enable Mr. Baldridge to have access to stunning images and video he said. He also said that without the utilization of the drone he would never be able to capture these images.

Personal injury lawyer Michael Ehline, who writes a legal blog said Mr. Baldridge must be careful how he uses drones and the film. The legal professional stated that there could be two legal issues with the use of these aircraft, the right to privacy and the FAA. Mr. Ehline said that even if all of the FAA licensing rules are followed, the penal code is another issue and that will include the reasonable expectation of privacy.

Recording in public places under California law is permitted unless the reasonable expectation of privacy gets violated. An example would be people at the beach who are not aware they are on tape would be a violation of the law, while at the same time videoing a police officer making an arrest is legal.

This type of technology gives Mr. Ehline pause since he believes it is possible shortly that legislators and judges will agree with the use of government drone use. But of course, they will restrict private citizen’s use of the aircraft. He said that it would not be unforeseen for law enforcement to argue they have the right to use drones to record, but at the same time take that ability out of the hands of the ordinary citizen. Mr. Ehline adds that in California the stance taken by the courts is a pro-government position.

District Attorney Joyce Dudley and a Santa Barbara representative made a statement for the News-Press that to their knowledge the use of drones is not being used. Mr. Ehline still sees the use of these aerial vehicles could quickly become an invasion of privacy and said law enforcement should be held accountable and went on to say how nice it would be to have a drone capture a police stop recording the incident.

He cited the case of Rialto, where police misconduct was reduced by 80 percent when police officers were systematically recorded on the job. In this situation, the officers carried cameras that were recording their actions and with drones it could keep less than admirable officers acting within the law. The other issue is that it could provide the government with a of using surveillance without a warrant. Even the drones planned to be used by Amazon could be tapped into and companies like Amazon, who are attempting to get approval for enhanced business opportunities could decide to go along with requests by the government for drone information to gain that support.

The current private drone use regulations include:

  • Flying below 400 feet.

Mr. Baldridge said that the guidelines for recreational and hobbyists are outlined in 1981 circular and state that model aircraft should be operated in areas that have a “sufficient distance from populated areas” and says the craft should not be flown above 400 feet.

  • Keep the aircraft in sight.

The owner is required to keep their drone in sight to avoid endangering others and to avoid charges of recklessness.

  • Privacy.

Mr. Baldridge said that there is a general expectation of privacy in public and he has not heard of any cases in Santa Barbara where people are concerned about their privacy. He said that when this craft is over 50 feet in the air, it is as high as a palm tree, filming public scenery and landscape, rather than being low enough to look in someone’s windows that could violate privacy.

According to District Attorney Dudley, she does not know of any current lawsuits of private done use.
The FAA is working to establish rules to include drone use in national airspace, which is going slowly and the agency has reported being behind schedule in developing standards and will not meet a September 2015 deadline. Transportation Department Inspector General, Calvin Scovel III stated the deadline would not be met at a House Transportation aviation subcommittee in February.

The California Assembly has drone-related legislation pending, AB 2306 is scheduled to be heard by the committee Tuesday, after being introduced last month. The proposed bill reads, that it is the intent of the Legislature to establish legislation to prohibit the use of unmanned aircraft systems to invade a person’s privacy.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, spoke out about a personal incident with a drone that has made her question her backing of the NSA surveillance program in the past about personal privacy. Sen. Feinstein said on 60 Minutes that she was in her home and there was a demonstration outside, when she went to look out the window there was a drone outside the window.

She said this made her question what benefit there was to society to have drone use and when is it considered stalking or invade privacy. She wondered how close to a home is a drone permitted to be. The legal part of drone regulation remains to be discovered and what will the California legislation consider an invasion of privacy.

Other Sources:


Drones story 3-24(1)

In California, Public Recording of Public Servants is Legal If There Was No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

Michael Ehline U.S. Supreme Court.
Attorney Michael Ehline. The Motorcycle Rider’s friend.

By Michael P. Ehline, Esq. – First, let me start off by saying that I love the police and that many of my Marine Corps. Brothers are now Deputy Sheriffs or CHP. I am pretty sure at least one Redondo Beach K-9 cop is also an inactive Marine. So the bad things I am about to say about bad cops, are about BAD Cops, not the good ones. In the Corps, we called them “sh+*birds.”

Now that is out of the way, let’s delve into the law. First, we will discuss the recording of non-police, so we can get a baseline and basic understanding of California privacy laws and then we will go to the police. So, in California, if you record a private person, and they don’t know, you are in trouble. This remains true even if in public, or even a semi-public place such as out on the sidewalk, bike path, or eating establishment. So if the individual you are taping does not have “an objectively reasonable expectation no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation” you are in trouble.

And this is determined on a case by case basis, based upon the reasonableness of the conditions. So this means you cannot simply assume that you are not breaking the law, when you make a recording of a person, under such circumstances.


Failsafe When Recording Private Citizens – Get Consent First

The Law:

The statute applies to “confidential communications” — i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation. See Flanagan v. Flanagan, 41 P.3d 575, 576-77, 578-82 (Cal. 2002). A California appellate court has ruled that this statute applies to the use of hidden video cameras to record conversations as well. See California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal Ct. App. 1989).

In California, always try and get the consent of all parties before recording them, especially if it is reasonable to assume their communications might be “private” or “confidential.” In addition to subjecting you to criminal prosecution, a violation could also trigger the California wiretapping law in a civil lawsuit for damages by the victim(s). (See also Cal. Penal Code § 637.2.) California’s wiretapping law requires “two-party consent.” In California, in is a criminal act, to record or eavesdrop on confidential communications, like private phone calls, private chats, without the consent of all parties to the conversation. (See Cal. Penal Code § 632.) See also


Recording of Public Meetings:

In California, all public meeting are legally allowed to be recorded. This means you can videotape them unless the state or local body holding the meeting determines that the recording disrupts the proceedings by noise, illumination, or obstruction of view. (Cal. Gov’t Code § 11124.1(a); Cal Gov’t Code §§ 54953.5(a),-.6.) *To learn more, see the “The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press’s Open Government Guide: California.” (Click Here.)


Ok, So Can I Record Cops?

The answer is not a simple yes or no, but in California, it is well-settled law that with exceptions, yes, you can record cops. But you can only film the police while they are on duty, and you can’t interfere with their official duties. (So look for bad cops trying to get in between the reporter and blocking their cameras, and then charging the photographer with resisting or obstructing them!)

Otherwise, cops are treated under the law as private citizens, subject to the same protections above, as anyone else. Other jurisdictions agree. The First Court of Appeals stated that is ok for the general public to videotape employees, e.g., police officers, while they are working. This decision took place after cops were piecemeal arresting citizens who were recording them and the stories were run on television news channels.


In California Can I Record The Police With Video?

The internet, especially Youtube, has shown both the good and the bad side of the police, especially the TSA goons at the airports. Many agencies, although having received multiple citizen complaints against certain rogue officers, simply chose to act as though there was not a problem with their personnel ignoring their sacred oath(s). These are other ones that do not make it to the internet, because no one is there to exercise their First Amendment Rights, or the recorder gets stomped or confiscated and erased.


Here is An Example of Bad Cops:


Here is an Example of a Good Cop:

In the examples above, in video one, you see a man filming a police officer fiddling with his cell phone, and the police threatening to arrest him for filming an event. They have surrounded the man and lied to him, telling him he needs an attorney, and they then attacked him, destroyed his property, demanding that he not record the police. Conversely, in the second video, you also see a nice cop who understands the law of “open carry,” and who also obviously does not object to the future Youtube video.

So this may freak you out. Two cops were doing the reverse of one another. The question is, how legal is it to film the police in public? There have been some individuals, who have been prosecuted for filming the police. The reason this was able to be done, is because they were charged using old wiretapping laws, or with Penal Code Section 148, (resisting, obstructing, delaying…).


When All Else Fails Penal Code Sec. 148

PC Sec. 148 is the favored section bad cops use to charge people who the police had just violated, such as civil rights violations and excessive use of force. It is a common practice by bad cops to charge someone they just beat, or violated, with a crime, so they can get leverage in a future civil case if they are sued, and give the police union some firepower when they are trying not to get terminated for being a bad cop.

If an arrested criminal defendant pleads out to the false charge (no contest, not guilty, etc.) out of fear, or for lack of money to pay a lawyer, or are “strong-armed” by the public defender, etc., the officer can later argue reasonable force or methods were used. And that is res judicata, etc. in any future civil rights lawsuit. This is the favored method they historically have used, and it is very effective at restricting the unalienable rights of the sovereign (you).


Seal Your Coffin With Outdated Wiretap Laws – Really?

Now, these old wiretap laws were enacted in the past to prevent the recording of private conversations. District attorneys faced with prosecuting anyone arrested by police for filming, have only been able to find wiretapping laws to nail the citizen or try and use obstruction charges above, but as a pre-text and punishment. Obviously unjust and Orwellian right? Well, Courts agree!


Enter Alvarez

This attitude by overzealous prosecutors was forcibly changed recently, with actions of the U.S. Supreme Court, when they chose not to hear the pleas of the ACLU v. Alvarez. The court left in place a ruling by a U.S. Federal Appeals Court ruling, which declared the Illinois wiretapping laws used for the filming of police was a violation of the individuals First Amendment Rights. Amen!

This was a decision that makes sense and is right, but UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh said there will still be problems. Professor Volokh expressed in a recent television interview, those police officers are not even sure what the law is, and this can lead to your arrest when you disobey the officer ordering the filming be stopped. He said the worst thing that can happen is being taken to the station, where you would be released a few hours later.


Filming our Public Servants Helps Keep them Honest

The good news is law enforcement officials are protecting citizens Constitutional rights. One example of this occurred during Thanksgiving weekend at an airport in Albany. A grassroots movement was there informing travelers about the dangers of TSA body scanner and filmed the encroaching pat-downs at the Albany International Airport. One airport official demanded the activists stop shooting, show their identification and get arrested for breaking the law.

Local law enforcement was called to the scene, where the sheriff told the airport official that the activists were not breaking the law, and he could not arrest them or order them to show their identification. This is no surprise since the Sheriffs almost universally understand that many federal enforcement officials trample on individual rights as a matter of course.

The sad part about this is not all members of law enforcement will behave in this manner as did the Shire of the Reef above. In most cases, threats of arrest and intimidation by law enforcement is usually enough to make the activist or individual stop filming. The one thing to remember, it is legal to film the police.


How Not To Get Charged With Obstructing or Delaying

Do stand far enough away from the officer to allow him or her to feel safe. Do not run, at or stand close to an officer who is performing their duties, if, in any way, you provide a physical barrier to them. Do be respectful. They are not your enemy. Let them know that you are exercising your First Amendment Right to film. And tell them if they feel you are a threat, to tell you right away. That way you can alter any perceived behavior, to make them feel safe in the performance of their duties, short of you not exercising your right to record them.



Orwell Was Right About Mind Control?

Human Mind Control
Electro magnetic brain control?

New research released this month could have large effects on how the future is written. For a long time, non-fiction and fiction writers like George Orwell have warned against subliminal and unconscious efforts to manipulate people’s opinions. And now according to one study, the use of magnetic waves could create artificial thoughts and decisions similar to Orwell’s predictions.

The Government Can Use Magnetic Waves to Control Your Brain?

The UK Express reported on the amazing developments. The experiment included the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation or TMS. And this was done to change the subjects’ thought processes. In the results released, the patients changed their beliefs in God and how to treat migrants flowing into Europe. The experiments centered around the posterior medial frontal cortex.

The results were just stunning. Even after being reminded of the effects of death, which often lead to people turning to religion, the respondents still reported lower faith after undergoing the experimental treatment. The results were published in the Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. So this appears to be one of the first major successful attempts to sway people’s thinking and thoughts.

Israelis Can Even Control Maternal Instincts?

This followed a similar study conducted by Israeli scientists. This research is covered by the UK Daily Mail here. Researchers, in that case, pinpointed a part of the brain that helped control maternal instincts. They also believed that the same region could control aggression and other hard-wired parts of the brain. Science Daily reported on an effort that resulted in the part of the brain that controls dreams to be shut off. No matter how you look at it, these technologies are growing very rapidly.

  • Can this Technology Be Misused?

There are safeguards in place in labs, universities, and among governments to avoid the misuse of such technology. But the imperfect nature of these systems and human nature make it clear that eventually this type of treatment could fall into the wrong hands and be expanded. Scientists have just one shot at opening Pandora’s box.

They’d better be sure they want to find out what’s inside. Civil Libertarians like attorney Michael Ehline have been warning parents about state run mind control programs like Common Core, and the forced unionization of public school teachers for years.

“The similarities between post Weimar Germany and the modern U.S. education system are strikingly similar,” says Ehline.

Ehline went on to state that “scientific mind control was probably unnecessary. It appears that the only thing standing in the way of the total Nazification of America and other countries are those voices in the desert. These are those calling for a return to a Constitutional Republic. However, many Progressives and Statists would argue that people need to be controlled by government for “the greater good.” What is your opinion? Sound off.

Maps – Directions

Let’s work

Ehline Law Firm
Personal Injury Attorneys, APLC

633 W 5th St #2890
Los Angeles, CA 90071

Personal Injury News

Stay Informed