HomeJoinMissionAbout UsLinksActivism

ABOVE THE LAW?

"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's
permission when we require him to obey it."
Theodore Roosevelt, Message 1904

Nicki Fellenzer

A few days ago, Armed Females of America leadership asked me to reply to an inquiry by someone using the handle of "Ranger" and purporting to be a police officer asking why AFA does not support H.R. 218.(the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act) As National Spokesperson for this organization, I formulated a reply to this inquiry. What transpired can only be called ludicrous and, to an extent, frightening.

It’s true police officers put their lives on the line. They face dangers. Many of them are at risk every time they put on a uniform. I have nothing but respect for the law enforcement community. The numerous letters of support Armed Females of America has received from peace officers around the country are gratifying and duly appreciated.

But there are some out there who soil the very badge they wear. They are oath-breakers. They are petty tyrants, traitors to the US Constitution, irrational, illogical, immature, self-absorbed children who chose this noble profession in order to wield their power over the “little folk.” These are the police officers to be feared. These are the police officers who foster distrust and discord between the police and the people they have sworn to protect and serve. These are miserable mediocrities who engage in vain chest-pounding about how brave, how heroic and how special they are, while they exert their considerable force over the people who they believe are less deserving, less special and less brave than they are.

I urge you to decide for yourself which type of cop engaged in the following exchange.

The initial inquiry was simple enough.

-----Original Message-----
From: *******@aol.com [mailto:*******@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 2:28 PM
To: afa@armedfemalesofamerica.com
Subject: why do you oppose H.R.218

All I can say is become a Police Officer, walk in his or her shoes for at least 20 years then we'll see if you still oppose this bill. After having served in the NYC Police Dept. for 20 yrs.I have dealt with individuals that would scare the hell out of the villian in your worst nightmares. If I hadn't been a Police Officer I only would have heard about these people. Once again people don't know when they don;t know.

AFA leadership wanted me to reply not only in my capacity as National Spokesperson, but also as the wife of a police officer, who fully supports our right to keep and bear arms. My reply is below in full:

-----Original Message-----
From: Nicki Fellenzer [mailto:nicki_f@verizon.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 5:19 PM
To: carmaaz@armedfemales.com
Cc: *******@aol.com
Subject: Re: why do you oppose H.R.218
Dear Sir,

We appreciate and respect police officers and the job they have to do, but as the wife of a federal police officer who agrees this bill is elitist at its core, I must vehemently disagree with you that this bill is a good idea.

You say you have dealt with villains of our worst nightmares. I believe you. However, if you have to face them, so do disarmed civilians when you are not around to protect them. Violent villains do not just exist to harm police officers. They exist to harm us all. Why should you be more privileged than the rest of us to defend yourself against them? Why should your family get the privilege of an armed protector at their side, while the family of a computer programmer or chef can only hope that a law enforcement officer is nearby to protect them should a violent thug threaten their life?

As a police officer, my husband appreciates the ability to carry concealed anywhere in the country. However, he also realizes that he cannot be there to defend everyone at all times. He feels very privileged to be able to defend himself and his family no matter where we travel, but he also recognizes that it's unfair that others cannot do the same. He's thrilled that he will be able to defend us from villains of his nightmares all over the country, but he's concerned that if I travel alone, I will not have the ability to do the same. He recognizes that my life is just as precious as yours and his, and he wants me to have the same right as you and he to protect that life no matter where I am.

We don't oppose this bill because we want to disarm police officers, sir. We oppose it because a fundamental right is a right that must be exercised by everyone, not just a select few. Otherwise, it ceases to be a right, and becomes merely a privilege that only the elite get to enjoy.

Sincerely,
Nicki Fellenzer
National Spokesperson
Armed Females of America

The next morning I had two emails in my Inbox - one from AFA leadership and one from this alleged “police officer.” Ranger’s response made me laugh at its pretentiousness, arrogance and lack of logic. The AFA message frightened me. Apparently Mr. Police Officer emailed AFA leadership his justification for why he believes special treatment for police officers is a good idea, and they were appalled and revolted at this man’s gall - much like I was when I read his mail. AFA leadership wrote, “Holy crap, Nicki is this guy for real? Or am I missing something here? Police officers are above the law!” What followed was the message below:

-----Original Message-----
From: *******@aol.com [mailto:*******@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 8:32 PM
To: carmaaz@armedfemales.com
Subject: Re: why do you oppose H.R.218

One more thing, we are held above the law because we enforce the law, they( the powers)hold us to a much higher degree than John Doe, therefore there should be compenstion at the end of the tunnel, if we make it that long. Oh yea you could still say so what what does that mean that I'm better than you, absolutely not, it's not a question whether my life is more important than yours or my families the question is who has a better chance of being in grave danger, a PO or retired PO or John or Jane Doe. You will have to answer that one. I suggest you become a Police Officer in NYC then We'll talk. Sincerely Ranger

So let’s get this straight. Ranger thinks he deserves special privileges because of the job he chose. He believes he is above the very law he is sworn to enforce and believes he’s somehow special for choosing a profession that purports to hold him to a higher standard than most of us “mortals.” Because he believes that he faces grave danger during the performance of the duties he voluntarily accepted as part of his job, he believes he is more entitled than the rest of us to defend himself. And he believes his job entitles him to receive special dispensation in not being subject to the same laws as the rest of us.

Talk about elitist!

I was repulsed by the very nature of what he wrote, and I decided to include a reply to this bit of Orwellian rhetoric in a later reply.

The second message of the day -- the one from Ranger -- came in the form of rambling self-aggrandizement and conceited, vituperative slams.

From: *******@aol.com
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 23:22:02 EDT
Subject: Re: why do you oppose H.R.218
To: nicki_f@verizon.net

With all due respect you are totally washed up.

#1 As far as you being the wife of a Federal Police Officer is a very honorable position, but the truth is he holds no candle to a NYC Police Officer, I have worked along side many FBI agents during my career, and was very surprised with their deficiences in handling the common "street thug". Granted most of these guys have degress in law but I too have aBachelor of Science degree.

#2 As for dealing with villians of our worst nightmares- I don't know how or where you live, but if I were not a PO I never would have come into contact with this environmental specie. I worked very hard at two jobs to live in an upper middle class neighborhood. Sure, we get our common burglars but not the type of person I'm speaking of here, these people as you should know do not travel far from where they live, but they will from time to time attempt to locate an old arresting officer.

#3 You say why should I be more privileged than you, I shouldn't, but then again who will protect my wife and children from an old arrestee when he comes calling to even up the score.If you were not in law enforcement having to take someone's freedom away from them for sometimes many many years, why should they want to look you up when they don;t even know you exist? On the last note, plain and simple I and many many other PO's feel that after putting our lives on the line for 20 yrs. for perfect strangers we DO DESERVE that little extra something. If you feel so strongly about this then I would suggest take the exam, take your physicals, psychologicals etc. become a PO and see what it's like, for only those that walk in our shoes really know. And don't hand me some nonsense about your husband being a PO because he can tell you story after story but it's not the same, YOU MUST EXPERIENCE THIS FOR YOURSELF.

On a personal note, I have no intension of carrying my pistol out of state, in fact if I can sign a waiver indicating my intensions that would be fine with me, but the choice should be there for those that feel differently. As far as I'm concerned the only threat is within my geographical area.I hope this clears things up a bit, but I cannot understand why anyone other than a PO would need a carry permit especially for 50 states.

Again, note the “I’m not only better than you, more privileged than you and more entitled than you to exercise my rights, but I’m also better than your husband, because I’m a New York police officer and he’s a lowly fed!” attitude that permeates this ramble. I also copied these exchanges to several Second Amendment rights activists, to keep them apprised of this dialogue. My replies below in blue to each of his points:

From: "Nicki Fellenzer" <nicki_f@verizon.net>
To: <*******@aol.com>
Subject: Re: why do you oppose H.R.218
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 09:42:29 -0400

"#1 As far as you being the wife of a Federal Police Officer is a very honorable position, but the truth is he holds no candle to a NYC Police Officer, I have worked along side many FBI agents during my career, and was very surprised with their deficiences in handling the common "street thug". -- With all due respect sir, your sense of superiority and conceit is staggering! My husband is not an FBI agent, but an actual police officer. And I'm quite sure he's just as capable at handling street thugs and even terrorists as you are.

"#2 As for dealing with villians of our worst nightmares- I don't know how or where you live, but if I were not a PO I never would have come into contact with this environmental specie." -- I have lived in Brooklyn, Philadelphia, Baltimore and the DC area. I have experienced rape and violence and been unable to protect myself because I didn't have "the privilege" of being able to carry a handgun. Your assertion that you face more violence than I do daily is correct, but that certainly does not preclude me from having said experiences or facing said violence. Point is you are able to protect yourself with the most effective weapon on the market today. I was not. You were able to stop the violent thugs you face. I was not. I was raped because I was defenseless. And you have the gall to claim special status??!?!

".#3 You say why should I be more privileged than you, I shouldn't, but then again who will protect my wife and children from an old arrestee when he comes calling to even up the score.If you were not in law enforcement having to take someone's freedom away from them for sometimes many many years, why should they want to look you up when they don;t even know you exist?" -- Again - you miss the point. No one wants to disarm you. No one wants to place you at the mercy of armed thugs. I certainly do NOT! But I do want the same right to protect myself as you have. THAT is the point. This isn't about disarming you. This is about your having the right to protect your life and the lives of your family than anyone else does. Are the lives of you and your family worth more than ours? Do you believe this is right or fair? Answer the question.

"On the last note, plain and simple I and many many other PO's feel that after putting our lives on the line for 20 yrs. for perfect strangers we DO DESERVE that little extra something." -- Well, gee, sir. On one hand you assert the jeopardy of your line of work is, how you face armed thugs every day, how your family may be in danger, and you justify special privileges for you and your ilk with these facts. But in the same breath, you claim that being able to protect our lives and our families is merely a "little extra something." Which one is it, sir? Is the ability to protect your life crucial, or is it just "a little extra something?"

"If you feel so strongly about this then I would suggest take the exam, take your physicals, psychologicals etc. become a PO and see what it's like, for only those that walk in our shoes really know. And don't hand me some nonsense about your husband being a PO because he can tell you story after story but it's not the same, YOU MUST EXPERIENCE THIS FOR YOURSELF." -- I DID! But in the end I made a choice to serve my country in the United States Army instead of joining the Baltimore police force. Does this make me less than deserving of exercising my constitutional rights than you? Does this make my life less worthy than yours of defending? I doubt that.

"On a personal note, I have no intension of carrying my pistol out of state, in fact if I can sign a waiver indicating my intensions that would be fine with me, but the choice should be there for those that feel differently." -- With all due respect, your personal INTENTIONS are completely irrelevant to the conversation. The bottom line is you CAN, and the rest of us CAN'T. You may carry anywhere in the country. You have the right to defend yourself and your family anywhere in the country. Meanwhile the rest of us can only pray that you are around to protect us. And chances are, you will not be. Is that fair? Is that just? Answer the question.

"As far as I'm concerned the only threat is within my geographical area." -- Then carry there, as you are well entitled to do. But if you believe you are safe from armed thugs as soon as you leave your geographical area, I urge you to reconsider.

"I hope this clears things up a bit, but I cannot understand why anyone other than a PO would need a carry permit especially for 50 states." -- It's not a Bill of Needs. It's a Bill of Rights.

One last point, sir. I am absolutely APPALLED at your contention that you are somehow above the law! The following statement you made to Armed Females of America "One more thing, we are held above the law because we enforce the law, they( the powers)hold us to a much higher degree than John Doe, therefore there should be compenstion at the end of the tunnel, if we make it that long" shows how little understanding you have of the law and the role you play in its enforcement. How DARE you claim to be above the law! This shows to me your true colors. It shows me your Orwellian outlook of "some animals are more equal than others." How DARE you claim a special exemption from the laws you swore to enforce? Do you truly believe that the people you have sworn to protect and serve are somehow inferior to you? This is quite possibly the most telling thing about your motives for wanting this bill passed. You want special privileges by virtue of the profession you freely chose, fully knowing its dangers. You want to be superior to the people whom it is your job to protect. You want a monopoly on force, and I find this repugnant and fascist to the core!

According to the NYPD website, your core values should be:

* Protect the lives and property of our fellow citizens and impartially enforce the law.
* Fight crime both by preventing it and by aggressively pursuing violators of the law.
* Maintain a higher standard of integrity than is generally expected of others because so much is expected of us.
* Value human life, respect the dignity of each individual and render our services with courtesy and civility.

For your information, sir, maintaining a higher standard of integrity does not equate to being "above the law." Believing yourself to be "above the law" does not equate to "impartiality." You were hired to serve the people who must abide by these laws. It's absurd to believe yourself to be worthy of exemptions from the laws by which the people who employ you must abide! Believing yourself to be "above the law" opens doors to violations of the law - the very laws you were hired to enforce. How can citizens trust you to protect them - how can they trust you to impartially enforce the law if you fell that the law should be applied differently to you and your fellow officers?

Justice, by its very nature, is blind. Justice does not recognize profession, color, race, religion or any other physical difference. Justice only recognizes the law and the moral objective standards of right and wrong. When you apply special standards to the members of one profession, class, color, race, etc., you rip the blindfold off justice and destroy those objective standards of right and wrong that are part of the moral fabric of any civilized society.

If you do that, what kind of society will you create?

Nicki Fellenzer
National Spokesperson
Armed Females of America

His next message told me how sorry he was - as if his sympathy somehow could save me (or any other disarmed victim) from rape or violence - but he informed me once again how much better and more deserving he is to exercise his rights. He asserted that the reason he’s more privileged is because it was his job and had the temerity to compare a fundamental right to making a car purchase! Notice also the smarmy and supercilious show of sympathy and braggadocio all in one rambling message. My emphasis added.

Original Message -----
From: ******@aol.com
To: nicki_f@verizon.net
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 11:10 AM
Subject: Re: why do you oppose H.R.218

Good Morning, I have read your comments with great interest and sorrow. I am truly sorry for you having been a victim of serious crime numerous times. I honestly wish I had been there to help you. That's unfortunate, very unfortunate. I would just like to keep this short. I was able to protect myself with the most effective weapon on the market today for one(1) reason and only one reason.....I WAS A POLICE OFFICER.That is it in a nutshell, If i were a car salesman I would be purchasing my vehicles at invoice price or possibly below that, that is one of the pet peeves of THAT JOB. I know the phone company gives discounts to their employees, that is a pet peeve with THAT JOB. etc.etc. It sounds to me you want your cake and eat it too. Life unfortunately doesn't work that way. Who am I to fight for a discount on a new car when I'm not a salesman, who am I to argue the point of a discount on my phone bill etc. etc. are you getting my point. Like I said earlier try to get into some line of Police Work, it's never to late, then maybe then you would be granted full carry in all 50 states. I am sure the management would have no objection of you carrying all over the country if that was your line of work. I really don't think the Gov't is trying to penalize you, it's just the two go hand in hand. COP CARRIES GUN. That is all.Nothing more nothing less. As far as conceit, you couldn't be more wrong, I realize you do not know me but I am the farthest thing from conceit. Oh and by the way I was issued 3 combat crosses, in case you don;t know what that is, a Police Officer receives a combat cross if he's involved in a shooting. I was involved in three of them and on all occassions I killed the assailant. It's not a pretty picture. I went before the Grand Jury and all the shootings were deemed clean and justified. Believe me there is a reason why the President passed this bill. I wish you well in your fight but I don't think they will ever give you full carry in all 50 states, and honestly I believe in the future they will take this privaledge away from the Police Officers. Maybe their right I don't know. But if they did I know a knife could be a pretty darn good defensive weapon, I've seen some pretty nasty stabbings over the years. When I was a rookie one of the first encounters I had was in Brooklyn, at the Bergen St. Subway station, a Male Black approached me staggering and holding his stomach, there was blood all over, almost pouring out of him, I immediately grabbed him and held from falling down, I laid him down gentlycalled for a bus(ambulance) and proceeding to put slight pressure on the wound. Before the bus arrived, he was dead. He was looking up at me with blood coming from his mouth, and sort of gurgled. That was it. EMS pronounced him DOA on the spot. We ropped off the area and made a crime scene, canvassed the area for possible witnesses etc. No one knew anything or saw anything, to my knowledge that case was never closed. I know I rambled but my point is a knife can do wonders. When you get dealt lemons in life, make lemon aid. I do wish you well with your plight, but please don't hold your breath. Sincerely Ranger

He, then, followed this gem up with more “sage” advice:

----- Original Message -----
From: *******@aol.com
To: nicki_f@verizon.net
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 11:12 AM
Subject: Re: why do you oppose H.R.218

One more thing, your fighting fire with water, sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. Get involed in Law Enforcement and your fight is over.

My reply was simple:

From: "Nicki Fellenzer" <nicki_f@verizon.net>
To: <*******@aol.com>
Subject: Re: why do you oppose H.R.218
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 11:18:00 -0400

I appreciate your sentiments, and I want to briefly say one thing only:

The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right that is a direct, rational and logical consequence of the right to life, liberty and property - fundamental rights that belong to human beings merely by virtue of us being human beings. * "A right that cannot be defended is a right in name only", and ergo the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental in its nature. The right to buy a car at a lower price is NOT a right, but a privilege and a perk of the job. The comparison is disingenuous and misleading.

Have a nice day. Be safe and watch your six.

Nicki

I also replied to his follow-up message with the following:

From: "Nicki Fellenzer" <nicki_f@verizon.net>
To: <*******@aol.com>
Subject: Re: why do you oppose H.R.218
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 11:27:41 -0400

A knife is one of the tools of a chef. Does that mean that only chefs get to possess them, and in order to use said knife, I need to become a chef?

A race car is the tool of a race car driver. Does this mean that I cannot own one if I so choose, just because I'm not a race car driver? Must I become one?

You're again missing the point. Armed Females of America does not desire to see an elite class of citizens who are more privileged to defend themselves than others by mere choice of their professions. I certainly do not want to join said elite class. Its mere existence is abhorrent to me.

Nicki

Not understanding the subtle hint that I considered this conversation over, Ranger followed up with the typical playground slam of someone incapable of rational debate.

----- Original Message -----
From: *******@aol.com
To: nicki_f@verizon.net
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 12:14 PM
Subject: Re: why do you oppose H.R.218

ALL THIS NONSENSE ABOUT AN ELITE CLASS. YOUR JEALOUSY CERTAINLY OUT SHINES YOUR INTELLIGENCE

At this point I realized that conversation with this person was useless, so I did the only thing that was in my power to do. I told him this conversation was over and provided a definition of “elitist” for him, so he could consider what I said:

From: "Nicki Fellenzer" <nicki_f@verizon.net>
To: <*******@aol.com>
Subject: Re: why do you oppose H.R.218
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 12:20:28 -0400

I see you are incapable of intelligent discourse, so you resort to childish name calling and playground tactics to divert attention from your inability to respond to even the simplest, most direct questions and points. I feel sorry for the people of New York.

Please do not contact me again until you have something of substance to say. I don't have the time or patience for petty insults.

“we are held above the law because we enforce the law...”
-- *******@aol.com

e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism Pronunciation Key
n.

The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class. e·lit ist adj. & n.

Now, if you recall, I mentioned earlier in this essay that I copied a few Second Amendment rights activists to keep them in the loop about this exchange. I will not mention the name of the correspondent who was so appalled by this discourse, that he felt compelled to write Ranger and tell him that he had lost this debate. The name of the activist is not important, but the essence of his message was: Ranger’s position is elitist and disgusting. Intellectually and logically he has no leg to stand on.

Apparently, Ranger didn’t appreciate being informed of his fascist ways. So he lobbed the following (confirming in the process that government decisions are rarely based in intelligence and logic), even though I had already asked him to stop emailing me:

----- Original Message -----
From: *******@aol.com
To: nicki_f@verizon.net
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 12:24 PM
Subject: Re: why do you oppose H.R.218

DEAR NICKI, YOUR FRIEND SEEMS TO THINK INTELLIGENCE PLAYS A ROLE IN THE GOV'T DECISION TO CARRY IN 50 STATES. IT DOESN'T BELIEVE ME. THIS NEW BILL HAS MORE TO DO WITH TERRORISM THAN ANYTHING. IF THE GOV'T REALLY HAD IT THEIR WAY NO ONE EXCEPT ACTIVE POLICE OFFICERS AND THE MILITARY WOULD BE CARRYING WEAPONS. WAY TOO MANY OF THESE FIREARMS DO WIND UP IN THE HANDS OF MALICIOUS PEOPLE. YOUR GROUP HAS WAY TO MUCH ANGER TO BE CARRYING A FIREARM, LET ALONE THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY. I PERSONALLY WOULD NOT GRANT YOU OR YOUR ORGANIZATION PERMISSION TO CARRY. YOUR JEALOUSY IS CLOUDING YOUR MIND

Here you have a typical tool of tyranny spouting the same tired and well-beaten platitudes Sarah Brady and crew spew on a daily basis. We disagree with him and his ilk, ergo, we must be dangerous. We are passionate about our cause, so we must be mentally disturbed. And if we’re dangerous and mentally disturbed, we must be disarmed. And like all would-be armed oppressors and ignorant imbeciles, he has the gall to claim that rights are GRANTED to us peons by the likes of him and his statist compadres.

Revolting?

Yes.

Sick?

Definitely.

Twisted?

Absolutely.

This was not a rational human being with whom I wanted to continue the conversation. So once again I attempted to end the exchange. But to no avail.

From: "Nicki Fellenzer" <nicki_f@verizon.net>
To: <*******@aol.com>
Subject: Re: why do you oppose H.R.218
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 12:24:59 -0400

Dear Ranger, neither you nor the statist, fascist tyrants you support have any authority to GRANT rights. You would do well to learn this.

Good bye.

At this point you should note the following:

I had hinted at my desire to end the conversations, and told him directly to stop writing me on another.

My third attempt to end the discourse was a short “Good Bye.”

And yet, Ranger emailed me again. But this time, he reverted to playing the victim. He assumed the role of the wronged, hurt party by implying that I would somehow attempt to harm his property, that I was irrational, and dangerous and asserting his anxiety at my attitude. Here, again, we see typical emotionalist rhetoric and attempts to paint gun owners as dangerous and irrational for asserting our rights. He can’t win with logic, so he reverted to the “I’m making sense and you’re an irrational bully” routine.

----- Original Message -----
From: *******@aol.com
To: nicki_f@verizon.net
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: why do you oppose H.R.218

PLEASE DON'T SEND ME ANY BUGS OR VIRUSES. I JUST DELETED YOUR MAIL WITHOUT EVEN OPENING IT. DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME. YOU NEED TO CALM DOWN, YOU SOUND VER IRRATIONAL. IF YOU WERE MY PARTNER FOR THE DAY, I WOULD DEFINATELY ASK FOR A CHANGE, YOUR AGGRESSIVENESS IS DANGEROUS. ONCE AGAIN IF YOU WERE A POLICE OFFICER YOU WOULD SEE THIS. MY ADVICE TO YOU IS STAY CALM AND THINK CLEAR,YOU MAY EVEN SEE THE ERROR OF YOUR WAYS AND COME TO YOUR SENSES

My fourth attempt at ending the conversation was brief:

From: "Nicki Fellenzer" <nicki_f@verizon.net>
To: <*******@aol.com>
Subject: Re: why do you oppose H.R.218
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 12:27:02 -0400

I will repeat again. Do not contact me. Next attempt will have you reported to AOL.

I was gratified to note that ranger did not contact me again. He did, however, contact AFA leadership and accuse them of “harassing” him, after his name and badge number were requested in order to report him and his statements to his superiors:

-----Original Message-----
From: *******@aol.com [mailto:*******@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 1:36 PM
To: carmaaz@armedfemales.com
Subject: Re: why do you oppose H.R.218

I HOPE YOU REALIZE THAT HARASSING SOMEONE VIA LETTER , PHONE, OR INTERNET YOU HAVE JUST INCREASED THE CHARGE FROM HARASSMENT WHICH IS A VIOLATION TO AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT WHICH IS A CRIME, IN FACT A CLASS A MISD. MY CONVERSATION WITH YOU OR YOUR DERANGED FRIENDS ARE OVER FOR GOOD. YOU AND YOUR FRIENDS ARE MENTALLY UNSTABLE. IN NYC WE CALLED YOUR TYPE EDP'S, EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED PERSON,ANOTHER WORDS A PSYCHO. I HAVE SEEN MALE POLICE OFFICERS DISARMED BY SUSPECTS, BUT WITH THE GRACE OF GOD NO SHOTS WERE FIRED. I HAVE SEEN FEMALE POLICE OFFICERS FREEZE UP JUST BY BEING YELLED AT. WE THE PEOPLE DON'T NEED ANY FIREARMS TAKEN AWAY BY FORCE BY ANOTHER WOMAN WITH A BIG MOUTH BUT NOT THE MUSCLE TO BACK IT UP. THIS IS OVER, THE END. ONE MORE THING, BEFORE I TOOK POLICE ACTION IF POSSIBLE I WOULD GIVE SOMEONE NOT ONE BUT TWO WARNINGS, YOU HAVE HAD YOUR SECOND WARNING. GUESS WHAT SUGAR BRIDGES I'M LONG RETIRED.GO IN PEACE

This man is an embarrassment. He is an embarrassment to his profession and he shames the very badge he claims as a source of pride and privilege. He’s irrational, elitist and dangerous. He does not understand the importance of the position he holds (or held, as he claims to be retired) or its true meaning. He simply holds his power posture as a perk which he can exploit. He attempts to force the badge to make him honorable, instead of doing honor to the badge.

His assertion that he and his brethren are ABOVE THE LAW should be a clarion call to every patriot, every lover of freedom and every American to be vigilant and be wary. These are the types of petty, power-hungry tools tyrants use to oppress their subjects and ultimately destroy their freedom.

And this is the type of person who has a monopoly on force in New York City - a man who claims he is above the law.

* Without consciously thinking about it, I quoted one of my favorite articles on self defense to "Ranger" -- Ilana Mercer's "No right of self-defense in Blair's barbaric Britain" (hyperlink http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33945) Thanks to Ilana for providing a quote that stuck in my mind.


MESSAGE TO THE READERS: I have not included any email addresses, except my own and that of AFA in this article. Despite my contention that my correspondent is a repugnant human being, I don’t want his Inbox littered with hate mail or admonishments. If you have a comment to make, please either send it to me, or directly to AFA. We will publish it. This man obviously visits and reads the material published on our website. He will get your message loud and clear.

Comment on this article: comments@armedfemales.com

Scroll down for Comments

Nicki Fellenzer

Nicki is a US Army veteran, who spent nearly four years in Frankfurt, Germany on active duty at the American Forces Network. She is a former radio DJ and news anchor and a Featured Writer and Newslinks Director for Keepandbeararms.com. She is also a former contributing editor to the National Rifle Association's newest monthly magazine, Women's Outlook and she is currently the contributing editor to Concealed Carry Magazine and writes occasionally for the Libertarian Party. She resides in Virginia with her family. We are also proud to have Nicki as regular contributor to Armed Females of America and to speak for Armed Females on our position against gun control and freedom issues.


Copyright © 2004 by Armed Females of America. All rights reserved. Permission to redistribute this article for noncommercial purposes is hereby granted, provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety and appropriate credit given.

e-mail this article

Back to Top

This is in regards to Ranger, the highly delusional supposed ex cop who has written a diatribe that gives all Law Enforcement Officers a bad name.

First of all, a Federal Law Enforcement Officer has jurisdictional rights over NYPD. Period. Your assertion that FBI Agents not knowing how to handle a common street thug is absurd and ludicrous in the extreme. Anyone who has ever attended any training at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (otherwise known as FLETC) and the FBI Training Center, in Quantico, VA has more thorough training and understanding of what it means to be a police officer. NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. If you believe you are, then you have been watching way too many Steven Seagal movies on late night tv. Our job is to uphold the law, with the highest amount of integrity and vigilance. We are to exemplify what a law enforcement officer is. From your spit shined shoes, to your uniform, to the care and maintenance of your equipment. You have to maintain that image to the public, because YOU are what they see, you are supposed to be the epitome of what a police officer is. You Sir, are not anything of the sort. You embarass me and every other police office with your hubris and demeaning manner. I doubt you were ever a Police Officer, and if you were, I would take a serious look at your bank accounts to see if you were one of the many NYPD officer who were on the take. Frank Serpico did a fine job of rooting bastards like you out. Guess he missed you.

I believe that concealed carry for cops is a good start. All law abiding citizens should be allowed to carry nationwide, after the proper training of course. Why not? It is a fundamental right, guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, endowed by our Creator. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to have their respective heads examined.

And Sir, if you had any idea what the Ranger moniker meant, you would never be able to use it. A RANGER is a soldier of the highest order, one of our elite troops. A person of the highest moral fiber, and one that all Americans should look up to with pride at what can be accomplished in this great nation.

This is what RANGER means -

R - Recognizing that I volunteered as a RANGER, fully knowing the hazards of my chosen profession. I will always endeavor to uphold the prestige, honor and high esprit de corps of my Ranger Regiment.

A - Acknowledging the fact that a Ranger is a more elite soldier who arrives at the cutting edge of battle by land, sea or air. I accept the fact that as a RANGER my country expects me to move further, faster and fight harder than any other soldier.

N - Never shall I fail my comrades. I will always keep myself mentally alert, physically strong and MORALLY STRAIGHT and I will shoulder more than my share of the task, whatever it may be. One hundred percent and then some.

G - Gallantly will I show the world that I am a specially selected and well trained soldier. My courtesy to superior officers, neatness of dress and care for equipment shall set the example for others to follow.

E - Energetically will I meet the enemies of my country. I shall defeat them on the field of battle for I am better trained and will fight with all my might. Surrender is not a RANGER word. I will NEVER LEAVE A FALLEN COMRADE TO FALL INTO THE HANDS OF THE ENEMY AND UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WILL I EVER EMBARASS MY COUNTRY.

R - Readily will I display the intestinal fortitude required to fight on to the RANGER OBJECTIVE and complete the mission, though I be the lone survivor.

RANGERS LEAD THE WAY!!

You Sir, could not lead your ass away from a doughnut shop.

KDB III
Department of Homeland Security
US Customs and Border Protection


Dear Armed Females:

I just finished reading carefully Nicki's new article about her exchange with "Ranger," who claims to be a retired New York City police officer.
My assessment of this article follows:

1. Nicki:

Intellect: A+ [A Grand Slam!]
Logic: A+
Persuasiveness: A+
Clarity: A+
Critical thinking skills: A+
Constitutional soundness: A+

2. Ranger:

Critical thinking skills: D-
Attitude: F-
Grammar: D+
Character/integrity: D-
Professionalism: F
Domestic enemy of U.S. Constitution: B+

3. Importance of article: A+

This exchange between "Ranger" and "Nicki" frames core issues well and presents invaluable insights to those who harbor "Ranger's" despicable, Constitutionally dysfunctional, attitudes.

Strongly suggest you set up your Homepage to spotlight this article indefinitely. It is a priceless contribution that should open many peoples' minds and motivate many to work to achieve that for which Nicki advocated.

--Peter J. Mancus


Dear Nicki-

After reading this article it gave me chills. It's hard to believe that police officers are out amongst us and have know clue about the law, history, facts and figures. I would like to know how many innocent people this officer has sent to prison. This is the kind of guy that would embellish to no end just to save face. I wonder if the people that are supposedly after him or doing so because he violated their rights? I was in the submarine navy fighting for our rights as Americans and little did I know that our rights were being taken away from us here at home. I enjoyed your professional replies to this rogue cop, I'm just glad I didn't read this before I went to bed! Please look for a reply from (war1776) you will find it interesting. Keep up the good work.


With highest regards

R.W.T.

President
Truckee Sportsmens Assoc.

GOA and NRA life member


You could not have done any better with the NYC cop. He is a hysterical, ignorant, arrogant elitist. I only hope he has not passed on his genetic material.

I don't often think to visit your site. I think that has something to do with the fact I am male. Ergo, I don't often find myself thinking in terms of feminine titles. Now, having said that, I must apologize for my ignorance. There is nothing gender specific about the logic and principle that is so consistently displayed on the site. From this point hence, I shall bookmark this site.

Your writing is eloquent, your logic elegant. Thank you.

C.S.


Nicki.

I just read your dialog with “Ranger”. It is indeed frightening, but it also accurately reflects the position most of the antigun lobby, that the Second Amendment applies only to the Government and Law Enforcement. I just visited the Brady Campaign website where their latest press release is:

TO RESTORE SANITY ON GUN ISSUE,
BRADY CAMPAIGN, MILLION MOM MARCH
ENDORSE JOHN KERRY FOR PRESIDENT

Their chief indictment of President Bush is, “ ... President Bush. Every time he’s had a choice, he has sided with the gun lobby and against law enforcement and the victims of gun violence.”

Their reason for endorsing John Kerry is ,” Senator John Kerry has consistently supported sensible gun laws throughout his career in public service. As a prosecutor and as a legislator he has been a leader, working with law enforcement officials on efforts to reduce gun violence.”

They are consistently careful leave rights American Citizens out of the dialog. They frequently include “Law Enforcement Officials” or “Police Chiefs” as supporters of Gun Bans. It seems to me that the push is for a “Classical Police State” in the worst sense.

Thanks for Keeping Up the Fight for Freedom

P. H.


I read your history of correspondence with Ranger.

I'm equally apalled at this attitude by a serving or retired police officer, but I can't say I am really surprised. I'd like to believe that this kind of man is a very small minority in police work.... but I don't.

I believe police are indoctinated with an "us vs them" mentality, and to an increasing degree they are predisposed to treat us all like we are just "uncaught criminals".

Police are conditioned to dominate, they have a NEED to dominate. It is a short step from dominating to intimidating, another short step to bullying.

I do not think that any police officer, chosen at random, is ever very far away from shooting any citizen, and planting a drop gun in his hand.

T. L.
Albuquerque


Nicki.

I just read your dialog with “Ranger”. It is indeed frightening, but it also accurately reflects the position most of the antigun lobby, that the Second Amendment applies only to the Government and Law Enforcement. I just visited the Brady Campaign website where their latest press release is

TO RESTORE SANITY ON GUN ISSUE,
BRADY CAMPAIGN, MILLION MOM MARCH
ENDORSE JOHN KERRY FOR PRESIDENT

Their chief indictment of President Bush is, “ ... President Bush. Every time he’s had a choice, he has sided with the gun lobby and against law enforcement and the victims of gun violence.”

Their reason for endorsing John Kerry is ,” Senator John Kerry has consistently supported sensible gun laws throughout his career in public service. As a prosecutor and as a legislator he has been a leader, working with law enforcement officials on efforts to reduce gun violence.”

They are consistently careful leave rights American Citizens out of the dialog. They frequently include “Law Enforcement Officials” or “Police Chiefs” as supporters of Gun Bans. It seems to me that the push is for a “Classical Police State” in the worst sense.

Thanks for Keeping Up the Fight for Freedom

Paul H.


nicki: Thank you for making your correspondence with this guy available to us "little people". Loved your answerss and the way you kept your cool. mark


Mrs. Fellenzer,
I read your article describing your exchange with "Ranger". I was not at all surprised by his attitude. I work for A major Sheriff's Department in southern California. I am a non-sworn public officer, which means I carry a gun on duty and perform most of the same tasks that sworn deputies do. I am supervised by and work closely with police officers from my own department and other agencies in the L.A. area. You must understand that there is definitely an elitist attitude amongst many police officers. While I share your sentiments regarding my respect for police and the tough job they (we) do, I can provide a unique perspective on the us vs. them mind-set which most police share.

I have been trained to the exact same level as sworn personnel when it comes to arrest and firearms. I have to qualify and maintain proficiency with my weapons just like the sworn personnel. I have been in many situations where I have had to use my weapon to affect an arrest. I have been in fights and I have taken many felony suspects to jail. However I am considered a wanna-be, rent-a-cop in my department. The average citizen does not realize just how low they are in the food chain in the mind of many cops. Almost every agency looks at other agencies as inferior. Hell, even in my own department, if a deputy did field training at a slow station they are immediately dismissed as inexperienced and sub-standard. If your a federal police officer, a county safety police officer, or any one of the many police designations in L.A County which are not working the mean streets, you are nothing in the eyes of the elite cops. If the cops think other cops are losers, how do you think they see you?

Although I and many of my fellow officers have used our departmentally issued firearms in the line of duty to effect arrests of violent felons, we are required to lock-up our weapons every night before going home. I and my partners are prohibited from carrying concealed weapons off-duty. Most of my fellow officers work in extremely violent neighborhoods, yet we are forced to travel home unprotected. I know exactly how the average citizen in California feels.

Although we have fought for the right to carry concealed we are always denied on the basis that we are not sworn and really have no need to be armed. No different from the accountant or the cook in the eyes of the law. Yet politicians, judges, attorneys and the high profile people somehow merit the protection of a CCW.

I know that police officers have to maintain a level of awareness and suspicion when encountering the public during the course of their duty. But I also know first-hand that cops see you and even me, as the enemy. I have even heard officers say that they are glad that the general public can't carry guns, because what fun would it be if everyone could carry. It truly saddens me when I see a police officer confiscate and either arrest or cite-out for a misdemeanor an otherwise law abiding citizen, caught with a handgun in their vehicle or on their person. To be put through the legal system just for wanting to make it home safely every night is immoral. My Sheriff's department badge and civilian I.D. won't get me a cup of coffee at local police station let alone out of trouble if I attempted to carry off-duty. The attitude in CA law enforcement is that only (sworn) police carry guns. Everyone else needs to dial 911.

Now I'm certainly not accusing every police officer of this attitude. And there is a percentage who are pro-CCW for civilians. But I am pointing out that it permeates the majority of the law enforcement community here. And is not helped by the liberal political hacks.

In my opinion law enforcement suffers from the mis-conception that they are truly protectors of the public. While most would like this to be true, it just isn't. We will only rarely stop a crime in progress. Anti-gun elitist politicians prop-up law enforcement officers as god-like heroes who are so well trained, that the average citizen could never hope to match their ability to thwart criminal attack. You must be joking! The average police officer can barely re-qualify each tri-mester at my department. I know private security guards who are more proficient and train harder with their firearms than veteran cops. And I'm not exaggerating. People need to speak-up and take back their right to self-defense through the second amendment. Until then we are all at the mercy of the criminals who are enabled by the out of touch members of our legislature.

I am requesting that my name and department be kept confidential for obvious reasons. Thank you Ma'am.

Sincerely,

******************


Hi Nicki,

Boy, this is wonderful stuff. And I especially like this conclusion of yours …

“And like all would-be armed oppressors and ignorant imbeciles, he has the gall to claim that rights are GRANTED to us peons by the likes of him and his statist compadres.”

Of course the @#$ do grant us the right to carry. Where I live (PA) I had to beg the local county sheriff for a permit to carry. His job, according to PA law, was to make sure I was of sound character (he calls you into his office for a one on one interview.) It’s sole a judgement call.

Keep up the great work and keep your powder dry,

Bob L.

from Hermitage, PA


Dear Armed Females:

I just finished reading Nicki's exchange Ranger. I feel that Nikki was correct in almost every respect. I believe everyone who has not surrendered his or her constitutional rights should be allowed to
carry a weapon anywhere in the United States.

There are 2 points not (or lightly) considered here.

1) If as an off duty police officer early in my life I had not been carring a firearm I would not
be writing this I would be DEAD! Along with this I have encountered people I have arrested 4 states away form home or anywhere I have been a police officer over the last 30 years.

2) This law is one little dent in the gun control and they have for many years took little bites out of our freedom in attempt at a total ban through so many little bites that it becomes total. We need to do the same and anyone we can get exempted needs that exemption until everyone falls under one.
Roger


We have learned that the nobility -- that is, Congress and other high officials -- are exempt from gun control laws they impose on us.
We have seen argument that no one below the rank of knight -- Blue Knight, that is: police officer -- should be allowed to own guns, period, much less have the right to carry them in public.

If there was ever any doubt that we are returning to a feudal society in which peons have only the rights their lords grant them, this should remove it.

A culture in which only the government and its employees are allowed to own weapons is a police state. Whether that police state is right-wing Fascist or left-wing Communist does not matter at all. Indeed, that's a scale that circles around to meet itself in a place as far opposite as possible from human and civil rights. People who put forth that view are brothers and sisters of Hitler, Stalin and Osama bin Ladin.

They agree with human monsters like Hitler's right hand man:

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA. Ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State." - Heinrich Himmler

"All military type firearms are to be handed in immediately. . . The SS, SA, and Stahlhelm give every respectable German man the opportunity of campaigning with them. Therefore anyone who does not belong to one of the above named organizations and who unjustifiably nevertheless keeps his weapon. . . must be regarded as an enemy of the national government." - SA oberfuhrer of Bad Tolz, March, 1933


Stahlhelm. German for "Steel Helmet," referring to the coal-scuttle, Darth Vader helmet Nazi soldiers wore. Those who used the iron fist to lower everyone else besides the inner Nazi Party to slavery or, at best, fearful survival. Those who personally executed hundreds of people not deemed worthy to breathe air. There was the Master Race, and then there were the "Untermenschen," the subhumans, who existed only to serve. When their usefulness was exhausted, they were executed and cremated along with any record of their having existed.

The Nazis were so sure history would approve that they documented it all. They really expected to be the victors who would write those history books. They thought they were doing the world a favor.

Apparently they are still with us in spirit, even among our self-styled protectors. Who will protect us from them?

The letter writers Nicki Fellenzer tried to reason with are examples of the thugs the Nazis and others valued so highly. The "us vs. them" mentality; being designated "elite:" Those are tools oppressors use to influence the weak-willed and easily led. That's the wolves whispering to the sheepdogs: "You want to be like me."

No offense meant to wolves, who after all have been the victims of lots of bad press -- much like gun owners -- or to the many police officers and government officials who recognize and value, and work to preserve, our rights.


J.C.
Free America


Nicki:

I admire you for your straightforwardness on this subject. Let me say right off that I don't like cops. I am not a criminal but a retired military man who has worked with and around cops all over the world, including INTERPOL, and I have never seen an honest one - not one. Now get mad at me if you will, but I am 74 years of age, been all over the world with the military, served throug four or five wars and have never asked for any special priviliges of government.

First and foremost, Article I, Section 9 of the U. S. Constitution strictly forbids the granting of "titles of nobility" by government. If one doesn't know what a title of nobility is, and relatively few do, it means to grant privileges to one person, or a group of persons, that are not shared by the common citizens. In the case of "peace" officers they have no more authority or due any more respect than the citizen, who can also arrest and detain any law breaker - including cops - under the power of citizen's arrest.

This had to be in order to be excluded from the title of nobility clause of the Constitution. I put my butt on the line by volunteering for the military. My enlistment oath did not give me any special privileges nor guarantee me any special protection laws, and I did not expect any, as I thought I was doing a duty for the country. I have known many, many cops, of near all nationalities, and I can {again} vouch that I have never see an honest one. A cop nine times out of ten "volunteer" for their positions so that they can wear a gun, lord it over the citizens at large, and expect favoritism because of their new positions. The police, of whatever status, are a national army for the protection of the citizens. They know the hazards of their game just as I did when I joined the military. When a soldier gets killed he can be given a military funeral, from his own kind, and the thing is forgotten. The cop expects all citizens to bow down, grieve over the thieving bastard, and enact special laws to keep him from getting killed. It takes a special breed of crud to expect this, and, unfortunately, only the crud volunteer for this "service," and the hiring authorities know this, expect it, and make special considerations to compensate for this.

Now, this army of ingrates expect special laws to add to its status as titles of nobility. In 1818, the state of Virginia was the last needed state
to ratify the original 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which automatically made it a law of the land. That amendment, which now has been "lost" to history, made those accepting titles of nobility subject to loss of American citizenship. Now, lawfully, we have a quarter of the population who are eligible for this loss, including judges, lawyers, and all others who have snubbed their noses at the Constitution to line their own pockets.

Take my word for it, although I won't live to see it, but in the not too far future citizens will be at war with these would be "elite" nobility, and
their masters, and will be hanging from every public utility pole and tree. The attempted disarming of this nation proves beyond any doubt what
the elite have in mind for us. Their ends are near.

R. E.


Hi Nicki,
After reading your "Above the law" article posted in the Sierra Times, you can believe you have a new fan. I don't know how often I've heard a Law Officer reply that he "was the law" when challenged about the legality of his actions. Please keep up the good work. It always pleases me to see another thorn in Big Brothers side.

T. L.
Nakina,NC

PS
Since I'm a male I don't think I can join yoiur organization, but let me know how I can help...


I am active in many police fraternal organizations, some as follows: Past Trustee of New York State Fraternal Order of Police, current Area Representative of the Law Enforcement Alliance of America and the National Police Defense Foundation as a Regional Delegate.

Please know I spoke at the first Mother's Day SAS rally in Washington DC.

As a decorated 20 year law enforcement officer from New York City, I too know the dangers each officer faces on the streets plus the hostile liberal political atmosphere each of us face here in New York, citizens as well as police officers. In 1968 thanks to a national gun control law passed by the house then, all of us lost our basic freedom to purchase and carry firearms intrastate. Especially airline pilots and as you know highjackings on American airlines became commonplace until the devastation of 9/11. A a law enabling pilots to carry hanguns on board airlines has become the law of the land since this horrific event to which I have lost personal friends both police officers and civlians. I am so tired of the anti-gunners and their spin.

I and many law enforcement officers I know have risked our careers coming forward testifying on the behalf of law-abiding gun owners Nationwide as the farce of gun control being effective in curtailing crime, reducing domestic violence and youth violence. The correlation of reducing terrorism or even the thought of international public safety based on gun control is even more ludicrous crime as well as gun crime is way up in Europe. I have published many articles on our behalf, addressed legislators in three states, even been invited to colleges and universities as a guest speaker on the issue of the Second Amendment.

Law enforcement in general had a golden opportunity to install at least our Second Amendment rights as HR 218 was signed into law this past June. Liberal anti gunners were crying the same old battle cry of "Innocent bystanders being shot or cries of cops not meeting various state criteria's on the use of deadly physical force will cause unfair hardship on the officers and their departments due to frivolous law suits and prosecution based on excessive use of force while off duty in another state."

I say lets see in the next several years how 218 impacts society in general, I and other cops who have been there supporting Second Amendment rights will always remain doing so. I cannot speak for the elitist value of 218 other being critical of it on face value may anger some law enforcement officers and that in itself accomplishes nothing at all.

At some point along with states which have CCW laws will clearly define gun control as a complete failure ... I look forward one day soon, all law abiding citizens/government will once again embrace the Second Amendment as clearly defined by this nation's founding fathers.

Lets not let this divide as we move to become closer, gaining ground is our main objective.


R. J. R.
Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 149

Back to Top