Do not use Safety Deposit Boxes


According to in-house memos now circulating, the DHS has issued orders to banks across America which announce to them that “under the Patriot Act” the DHS has the absolute right to seize, without any warrant whatsoever, any and all customer bank accounts, to make “periodic and unannounced” visits to any bank to open and inspect the contents of “selected safe deposit boxes.”

Further, the DHS “shall, at the discretion of the agent supervising the search, remove, photograph or seize as evidence” any of the following items “bar gold, gold coins, firearms of any kind unless manufactured prior to 1878, documents such as passports or foreign bank account records, pornography or any material that, in the opinion of the agent, shall be deemed of to be of a contraband nature.”

DHS memos also state that banks are informed that any bank employee, on any level, that releases “improper” “classified DHS Security information” to any member of the public, to include the customers whose boxes have been clandestinely opened and inspected and “any other party, to include members of the media” and further “that the posting of any such information on the internet will be grounds for the immediate termination of the said employee or employees and their prosecution under the Patriot Act.” Safety deposit box holders and depositors are not given advanced notice when failed banks shut their doors.

If people have their emergency money in a safe deposit box or an account in a bank that closes, they will not be allowed into the bank to get it out. They can knock on the door and beg to get in but the sheriff’s department or whoever is handling the closure will simply say “no” because they are just following orders.

Deposit box and account holders are not warned of the hazards of banking when they sign up. It is not until they need to get their cash or valuables out in a hurry that they find themselves in trouble.

Rules governing access to safe deposit boxes and money held in accounts are written into the charter of each bank. The charter is the statement of policy under which the bank is allowed by the government to do business. These rules are subject to change at any time by faceless bureaucrats who are answerable to no one. They can be changed without notice, without the agreement of the people, and against their will. People can complain but no one will care because this is small potatoes compared to the complaints that will be voiced when the executive order that governs national emergencies is enforced.

That order allows the suspension of habeas corpus and all rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights.

A look at the fine print of the contract signed when a safety deposit box is opened reveals that in essence the signer has given to the bank whatever property he has put into that deposit box. When times are good people will be allowed open access to their safe deposit box and the property that is in it. This also applies to their bank accounts.

But when times get really bad, many may find that the funds they have placed on deposit and the property they thought was secured in the safe deposit box now belong to the bank, not to them. Although this was probably not explained to them when they signed their signature card, this is what they were agreeing to.

During the Great Depression in the early 1930’s people thought that many banks were going to fail. They were afraid they would lose their money so they went in mass to take it out, in what is known as a run on the banks. The government closed the banks to protect them from angry depositors who wanted their money back. Throughout history, governments have acted to protect the interests of banks and the wealthy people who own them, not the interests of depositors or box holders.

In a time of emergency, people will have no recourse if access to their safe deposit box and bank accounts is denied. If they are keeping money in a bank that would be needed in an emergency or in a time when credit is no longer free flowing, they may not be able to get it out of the bank. The emergency may occur at night or on a weekend or holiday when the bank is closed.

The solution is to take emergency cash or valuables out of the safe deposit box or bank account and secure them somewhere else, like in a home safe. An even better idea may be to close the safe deposit box account completely, letting someone else entertain the illusion of safety.

Americans have learned a few things since the Great Depression. They now have the FDIC to liquidate any failed banks.

The FDIC promises to set up a series of dates and times when safe deposit box renters can access their boxes by appointment to remove their property and surrender their keys. The FDIC also promises to mail bank customers an announcement of the dates for such events and include a question and answer page that addresses safe deposit box access.

The people have the FDIC to give them back the money they had on deposit that they were unable to get out of any failed bank that carries FDIC insurance. Sheila Bair, head of the FDIC, promises that depositor`s money will be available in 24 hours or less. But people should remember that the FDIC is just another bureaucracy, and it`s probably best not to rely on a bureaucracy in an emergency.




Note: We’ve been asked to site sources for this article but we did not write it, the source in which it came from is at the top. Also see this,

The results are in: More guns sold mean fewer guns deaths, injuries


(NaturalNews) It isn’t a firearms statistic that liberal progressives and gun
banners like California Sen. Dianne Feinstein will want to hear but it’s true
nonetheless: According to the most recent statistics, the more guns that have
been sold in the Golden State, the fewer gun deaths and injuries there have

According to the state’s office of the Attorney General, gun
dealers sold around 600,000 guns last year, nearly double the 350,000 sold in
2002, according to figures compiled by department officials.

During the
same period of time, however, “the number of California hospitalizations due to
gun injuries” fell by some 4,000 a year to roughly 2,900, a drop of about 25
percent, “according to hospital records collected by the California Department
of Public Health,” the Sacramento Bee reported.

Meanwhile, the
attorney general’s office said, the number of deaths from firearms fell from
3,200 a year to about 2,800, an 11 percent decline, according to California
health department figures.

“Most of the drop in firearm-related injuries
and deaths can be explained by a well-documented, nationwide drop in violent
crime,” the paper said.

California’s example is being repeated all
over the country

There’s more. Data show that the number of injuries
and death in the state caused by accidental discharge of firearms has fallen as
well, suggesting as one explanation, perhaps, that instruction in the use of
firearms may have improved (Note: California allows concealed carry of handguns,
but is much more restrictive than most other states, according to

There are some caveats to the California figures,
the SacBee reported. For one, state figures track gun sales, now gun
ownership, meaning the state treats “a family’s first gun purchase the same as a
collector’s twelfth.” Secondly, gun sales in California
reached their zenith in the mid-1990s, when violent crime also

What is going on in California is being repeated all over the
country – again, to the chagrin of gun-banning politicians, Hollywood types,
academics and the mainstream media, the latter of which barely reports the

Gun-related violent crime has also steadily fallen in
Virginia over the past six years, though the sale of firearms has risen
dramatically, “according to an analysis of state crime data with state records
of gun sales,” the Richmond

The total number of guns bought in the Old
Dominion climbed significantly – 73 percent – from 2006-2011. When you factor in
the increase in state population, firearms sales per 100,000 residents rose 63
percent, still a substantial increase.

But higher numbers of guns has not
translated into more violent gun crime. As in California, gun
crime has fallen in Virginia, dropping 24 percent over the same period. When
adjusted for the population increase, gun-related offenses fell by more than 27
percent, from 79 crimes per 100,000 in 2006 to 57 crimes in 2011 (Note: Virginia
has much less restrictive carry laws than does California).

The numbers
contradict what Americans are being told by the gun controllers and banners;
that more guns in circulation
equals more violent, gun-related crimes, notes Virginia Commonwealth University
Prof. Thomas R. Baker, who compared the state’s crime data for the
aforementioned timeframe with gun-dealer sales estimates obtained by the

Concealed carry is helping to lower crime, deaths

“While there
is a wealth of academic literature attempting to demonstrate the relationship
between guns and crime, a very simple and intuitive demonstration of the numbers
seems to point away from the premise that more guns leads to more crime, at
least in Virginia,” said Baker, who specializes in research methods and
criminology theory and has an interest in gun issues, the paper said.

control advocates refused to accept the reality of the data, but those who
understand the effects of more Americans accepting responsibility for their own
self-defense weren’t surprised.

“My opponents are constantly saying, ‘If
you got more guns on the street, there’s going to be more crime.’ It all depends
on who has the handgun,” said Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia
Citizens Defense League and an avid gun rights supporter. “As long as it’s going
into the hands of people like you or me, there’s not going to be a problem.
Criminals are going to continue to get their guns no matter what.”

Miller, the editorial page editor for the Washington Times, pointed out
in June that the drop in gun crime and armed violent criminal action has
directly coincided with a rise in the number of states that allow concealed
, an assertion backed by FBI crime data.

“If the gun grabbers
were right, we’d be in the middle of a crime wave, considering how many guns are
on the streets,” she wrote.

NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam made a
similar connection.

“This is not a one-year anomaly, but a steady decline
in the FBI’s violent-crime rates,” he told Miller. “It would be disingenuous for
anyone to not credit increased self-defense laws to account for this