From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #147 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Monday, June 8 1998 Volume 02 : Number 147 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 7 Jun 98 09:23:35 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heads Up #88 (fwd) On Jun 07, Doug Fiedor wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Heads Up A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia June 7, 1998 #88 by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net - --------------------------------------------------------------------- Previous Editions at: http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/list-hu.htm and http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html - --------------------------------------------------------------------- CLINTON GOES TO CHINA As the suspect-in-chief flies off to continue relations with his second most famous campaign contributor, Clinton may be about to learn a new political word: Blackmail. Communist China's President Jiang Zemin sees Santa Claus coming in the form of Bill Clinton. But, in this case it's Jiang who's making a list and checking it twice. And a very expensive list it will be. For instance, Jiang has already said he will seek a pledge from Clinton that the U.S. will not interfere with Red China's dealings with Taiwan. Red China wants Taiwan back in the communist fold. Soon. And now they have a military strong enough to force that -- as long as we stay out of it. And, evidently, the Clinton Administration will. Last week, the South China Morning Post reported Jiang as saying: "The US side has very clearly pledged not to support . . . the independence of Taiwan or its re-admittance into international organizations." And sure enough, word is that White House aides have already started indicating informally that Washington does not support Taiwanese independence or its re-entry into the UN. So, what's the quid pro quo here? What will Clinton get in return for giving up Taiwan to communist dictators? China will not give Clinton up, that's what. We already know that one laundering route for illegal Chinese campaign funds the Democratic National Committee accepted ran through Ted Sioeng of Indonesia. Sioeng, an operative of the world's largest producer of cigarettes -- Pagoda Red Mountain, which is a Chinese government-owned tobacco company -- ponied up at least $400,000 in illegal funds. The Senate hearing report says that Ted Sioeng "worked, and perhaps still works, on behalf of the Chinese government," and that $200,000 of the $400,000 given to the Democrats by Sioeng and his family was directly "funded by transfer from overseas accounts." Ted Sioeng just happens to be a close friend of Mochtar and James Riady, who own the infamous Lippo Group. Both Riadys are friends of Clinton from the Arkansas days. They are also, interestingly enough, partners with the communist Chinese military in at least two major ventures. So, the Riadys felt confident to help by acting as go between for at least that $400,000 contribution. And, as of now, the Riadys and Sioeng are all suspected of serving as intelligence agents for Beijing. Cozy, isn't it? So, if Clinton does not give up Taiwan, it would be very easy for the communist Chinese government to give up Clinton. There's more, though. A lot more. Already indicted for money laundering Chinese funds to the Democratic National Committee campaign war- chest are Johnny Chung, Maria Hsia and Yah Lin "Charlie" Trie. Conveniently, while James Riady lived in California, he had close ties with Maria Hsia -- who is best remembered for laundering money in conjunction with Al Gore at the California Hsi Lai Temple fund-raiser. Hsia has also worked for a People's Republic of China diplomatic post in the U.S. Riady saw contributions to U.S. political campaigns as a way of advancing his family's Asian business concerns. Huang served as Riady's lieutenant for political matters and Hsia provided Riady and Huang with access to Democratic politicians -- a number of Democratic politicians over the years. The Buddhist temple proved to be a ready cash cow for campaign funds that they milked often. That was all quite illegal, of course. But, there was Al Gore anyway. Johnny Chung is now in the news for admitting that he received $300,000 from Red Chinese Army Colonel Liu Chao-ying, who also happens to be an executive with a Chinese government owned aerospace company. Her father was China's chief general, and a member of the politburo. He wanted American technology. Chung introduced Liu to Clinton at a California fund-raiser. Charlie Trie, of course, is another Arkansas friend of Bill. Trie, along with his good buddies John Huang and Johnny Chung, were responsible for contributing at least $2.2 million in illegal campaign contributions, much of it coming from foreign businessmen with strong ties to the government of Communist China. Friend of Bill, John Huang, was the head of U.S. operations for the Riady's Lippo Group before Clinton installed him as a mid-level Commerce Department official. Huang was said to enjoy extraordinary access to Clinton. And as part of the Commerce Department, he attended dozens of briefings and was privy to all types of classified information -- all along maintaining close ties to the Lippo Group. Along with Maria Hsia, Huang set up the fund-raiser at the Hsi Lai Temple near Los Angeles, where they laundered $140,000 in illegal campaign funds with Al Gore. The Riadys have been friends and supporters of Clinton since his days as Arkansas governor. At the same time, as the Thompson Senate Governmental Affairs Committee report on campaign finance abuses states, the Riadys: "have had a long-term relationship with a Chinese intelligence agency." Yeah. And as always happens when a number of government officials are involved in wrongdoing, the specific intelligence information on which the report's conclusions are based are said to be withheld from the document 'to protect sources and methods' used to gather it. In other words, the dirt was swept under that huge carpet of "national security" so the voters will not learn exactly how filthy some in government actually are. The FBI and CIA have agreed on a watered down report, but the Justice Department does not want even that released to the American public. However, we did learn that the Riadys relationship with Chinese intelligence is primarily "based on business interests." Which means that the Riadys trade communist Chinese assistance for business opportunities "in exchange for large sums of money and other help," like spying and compromising politicians. Just as an aside here: If this very same scenario had happened back in the 1960's with agents of the Soviet Union involved, rather than communist Chinese agents as are today, dozens of Americans and Russians would still be buried deep in some federal prison. Yet today, the Department of Justice performs a slip-shod investigation only including the periphery players, no one is in prison, and no elected officials are under investigation. And, to date, Janet Reno refuses to appoint an independent counsel for this matter. Knowing all this, and knowing that Communist China's President Jiang Zemin knows all this as well as the activities of a couple dozen other Chinese nationals involved in campaign money laundering, Clinton goes to China. Therefore, expect the whole of the Chinese wish list to be filled. -- For more information, visit the Senate campaign finance report at: http://www.senate.gov/~gov_affairs/sireport.htm PROPOSED AMENDMENTS Over the past two years we have pointed out numerous inconsistencies between the "original intent" of the authors of our Constitution and the actions of today's central government. Even when we consider that the "shall nots" in the Constitution have been interpreted down to "maybe nots," there are still gross inconstancies between the written text and the actions of government. This makes understanding the law of the land very difficult for the average American citizen, and needs to be corrected. Over the years we, along with thousands of others, have asked numerous elected officials why they do not obey the Constitution, and have never received an adequate reply. The fact is, were government to follow the Constitution to the letter, 90 or more regulatory agencies would instantly disappear, hundreds of federal programs would end, and the central government would lose much of it's power over the American people and State and local governments. Therefore, those in Washington have no intention of ever again obeying the Constitution. And, unless we the people are ready for civil war, we may as well quit asking. That being said, perhaps we should take another approach. Below are proposals for a few simple amendments to the Constitution of the United States. These amendments would go far in adjusting our Constitution to better reflect the way today's central government is actually operated. Towards that end, we suggest that all readers copy this text and send it to their three Members of Congress: ** Congress shall take careful notice of the limits on legislative authority enumerated in the Constitution, except that Congress may also legislate on those matters it determines could or would help a segment of the American people. ** The right of the people to move about in society and function as they please unimpeded by police shall not be violated, except at airports and other public areas where police feel the necessity to stop and search citizens. ** Certain controls being immediately necessary to the internal control of the people of the United States, the President may unilaterally legislate instantly by executive order. ** The timely collection of tax moneys being necessary for the efficient operation of the central government, the safeguards guaranteed the people by the Constitution shall not apply to tax collectors. ** State and local governments being incompetent in the stewardship of their regional areas, all land management shall be controlled by the central government. ** A well organized state requiring that crimes against government be enforced to the fullest extent of the law, government shall always brandish arms superior to those allowed the people. ** The expediency of the police being necessary to a perfectly controlled society, a well armed paramilitary standing federal police force shall be maintained. ** Technical issues requiring control being above the competency of Members of Congress, the executive regulatory agencies shall unilaterally legislate in the form of rules and regulations. ** Government agents shall respect the Constitutional rights of all citizens equally, except in those matters where legislation or regulation or executive orders have suspended or altered specific Constitutional rights. ** Challenging candidates being difficult to beat in a fair election, the incumbent shall be authorized to accept campaign contributions from those with business before government. ** The restraints of the Constitution impeding the investigation of crimes in some circumstances, policing agencies shall unilaterally impose fines in the form of asset forfeiture on suspects not able to be charged with a crime. ** All tax moneys collected shall be used to benefit the citizens of these United States, except for that part of the budget the legislative and/or executive branch determines shall be given to foreign governments and/or multinational businesses and organizations. ** The central government shall respect all Constitutional rights in respect to all citizens, except that the President may suspend all or part of the Constitution at any time by emergency executive order. ** The American people being unable to shop intelligently, the central government shall regulate all products and the means of commerce. ** Local school boards having demonstrated an inability to conform to proper education standards, the federal government shall regulate all schools. ** A well regulated citizenry being necessary to the security of the state, the authority of government shall not be questioned. GUNS: ONE ASPECT OF THE PROBLEM In our form of government, it is said that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the United States Supreme Court is the interpreter of that law. Originally, all law enforcement agencies and other departments of government were required to follow the opinions of the Supreme Court as if they were the written text of the Constitution. That system worked rather well until Franklin D. Roosevelt became president. FDR's fights with the Court are legendary, and it is because he ultimately won over the Court that we now have strict central government control of everything. Nevertheless, legally speaking, all departments of government are to honor all Supreme Court opinions. One would think that the legal-eagles at the Justice Department would know this, and they do. However, when Justice does not wish to honor the opinions of the Supreme Court, they just ignore them. A case in point is the Brady Act. Last year in "Printz et al v. U.S." (95-1478, 1997) the Court said that the central government may not require that county sheriffs and other public officials perform background checks to screen purchasers of handguns. "We held in 'New York' [91-543, 1992] that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State's officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the State's officers or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case-by-case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty." That lasted about two weeks. Then the central government, through the Justice Department and the BATF, requested that the Brady checks be completed anyway. And, in most areas of the country, they still are. Now comes the next step in oppressive gun control. The Attorney General announced it in the Federal Register of June 4, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 107) http://www.jya.com/doj060498.txt "The 'Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act' (Brady Act), requires the Attorney General to establish by November 30, 1998, 'a national instant criminal background check system that any [firearms] licensee may contact, by telephone or by other electronic means in addition to the telephone, for information, to be supplied immediately, on whether receipt of a firearm by a prospective transferee would violate section 922 of title 18, United States Code, or State law.' "The United States Department of Justice is publishing a proposed rule for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to establish policies and procedures for ensuring the privacy and security of this system and to implement a NICS appeals policy for persons who have been denied the purchase of a firearm because of information in the NICS they believe to be erroneous or incorrect. Specifically, this rule will detail policies for validating NICS data, storing, accessing, and querying records in the system, retaining and destroying NICS information, and correcting erroneous data in the system. "Written comments must be received on or before September 2, 1998. "All comments concerning this proposed rule should be mailed to: Mr. Emmet A. Rathbun, NICS Project Manager, Federal Bureau of Investigation, CJIS Division, Module C-3, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306-0147." Telephone number: (304) 625-2000." The problem is, the central government has no Constitutional authority to do this. "U.S. v. Lopez" (93-1260, 1995) was right on target here: "To uphold the Government's contention that [the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990] is justified because firearms possession in a local school zone does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce would require this Court to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional Commerce Clause authority to a general police power of the sort held only by the States." When an object is no longer in interstate commerce, it may not be regulated by the central government. And anyone of reasonable intelligence would quickly realize that your local gun shop is not an interstate commerce concern any more than is the neighborhood restaurant frying up chicken that was purchased from a vender who originally bought them in another state. However, based on past history, we must believe that the Justice Department is serious about these new oppressive rules. When Randy Weaver altered the length of a couple gun barrels about a half-inch shorter then government allows, the Justice Department came to kill him -- and did kill members of his family. And the massacre at Waco was brought about simply because government agents "suspected" the church residents neglected to pay the required $200 tax on weapons they were "thought" to possess. These gun control laws are but an outward sign of the malignancy permeating the central government. When we add willful disobedience of the Constitution and indifference to Court opinions to the mounting evidence of numerous large government concentration camps and the fact that rogue Army and Marine units are practicing attacking American citizens, it appears that we have a serious problem looming. This, in turn, is evidenced by the attitudes expressed in recent statements of the President and Attorney General. Today, they freely, publicly, and without question, label Americans who support our Constitution as anti-government extremists. THE RESULT OF STUPID LAWS You can't help but feel sorry for those kids. I mean, how would you like to be a seven or eight year old kid and moved to a different country, with different customs and a new language? Bummer. Then, how about they tell you that you have to go to school anyway, that it's the law. Worse yet, you know that you're going to stay in the new country, but the teachers teach you in the old- country's language anyway. That's got to be scary. Damn stupid, too. As a child growing up in the old neighborhood, most neighbors spoke a language other than English. It was Polish next door and with most of my friends. At the little market on the corner, it was Italian. One friend stumbling with English was from Germany, another was from the French area of Canada. We had a number of Russians around and even a family from Turkey. But, in school, we all -- no matter what nationality our parents were -- struggled to diagram those very same complex sentences in English. No student ever got a break on that. I can still remember the teacher's words when once there was a minor protest: "You are here. You will learn proper English." And so we did. So, by 12 years old, we all had a working command of the English language. Not perfect, of course -- we were still kids, after all. But every kid in the neighborhood knew all the words to at least a dozen patriotic songs and the Fats Domino, Bill Haley and Elvis songs. And there were no accents to be heard among the young teen set. We took pride in that. Better yet, when the next wave of immigrants came they were encouraged to learn English even faster. It was the same with prayer in school. We did it. Every day. Just after the Pledge of Allegiance. We all had to say the words to the Pledge of Allegiance, and we took turns leading the class for that. But no one even had to say the words to a prayer if they didn't wish. Everyone was expected, however, to stand and bow their head. That prayer was never a problem for any of us because there was an accepted rendition that (we thought) was used by all. That is, till a substitute teacher said it differently one day. We laughed. But, that turned out to be a good thing, too. Kids asked questions of parents, priests, ministers and rabbis. And, from that we learned new things about other people. I guess the point of all this is to relate that once upon a time there was a better way. Government schools were actually local school board and PTA run schools that supported the neighborhood. When someone wanted to bow their head and say Grace at lunch, the polite response from those of us who did not say Grace very often was to stop eating and respect their moment. This everyone did -- as long as the person saying Grace didn't take too long about it. And even when the Jewish kids did something differently, no one ever said anything because every Polish and Russian kid in the neighborhood knew all about the Warsaw Ghetto. It took government to change this relationship. Generally, when I was a kid, if you spoke a language other than English in front of people who could not understand what you were saying, someone might smack you up-side the head for being impolite. However, if you bothered someone's religion, getting smacked was probably a sure thing. That was called meanness, and not tolerated. I took government meddling to change that. When I was a young adult traveling, they called people visiting a foreign country the ugly Americans when they could not speak the language. Today, people from those very same countries come here and refuse to learn English. So I ask: What shall we call them? If we are to keep an English speaking country, all government business must be conducted in English only. That includes the issuing of all licenses, voting, and especially teaching in government schools -- extracurricular tutoring excepted. And, if we are to keep a country with freedom of religion, government must not even comment on the issue. Else, we have some sort of hybrid. Hundreds of students of many nationalities still remember Mrs. Sharon's English class, Mr. Gazley's American government class and our Principal, Mrs. O'Hara, leading a prayer and enforcing discipline with a stern kindness not often found lately. There was no need for them to be our nationality or religion. That was not important to anyone. It was simply because they were outstanding teachers that everyone prospered. Times have changed, but not for the best. -- End -- [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Jun 98 12:19:34 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Another Poll (fwd) On Jun 07, Ronald W. Hambrick wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Here's another poll we ought to concentrate on: http://www.worldnet.att.net/poll/survey.html [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Jun 98 23:39:15 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Gun Violence Prevention Act--Brady II (fwd) On Jun 8, R.J.K. wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTHY TO INTRODUCE COMPREHENSIVE LEGISLATION TO KEEP FIREARMS OUT OF THE HANDS OF CHILDREN At a press conference on Wednesday, May 6, 1998, Sarah Brady and Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY-4) were joined by four mothers who have lost a child to gun violence. At that time, Representative McCarthy announced that she will be introducing, in the next few weeks, a comprehensive piece of legislation that will address all areas of concern about children's access to firearms. This legislation will be introduced in mid-June. Please call your Representative and demand that he/she denounce this draconian legislation. The Gun Violence Prevention Act--Brady II Brady II is a comprehensive approach to enacting gun confiscation. Brady II will stem the flow of guns and ammunition by: a) Requiring the licensing of handgun owners and the registration of all handgun transfers, including private sales; b) Limiting handgun purchases to one per month; c) Strengthening the dealer licensing system so that "kitchen table" dealers will be put out of business; d) Requiring that ammunition be sold only through licensed dealers, and that it only be sold to license holders; and e) Requiring that licensed dealers sell only at their place of business--thereby reducing the number of guns sold at gun shows. Brady II will deter possession of guns by high-risk persons by: a) Adding new categories of prohibited buyers--convicted spouse and child abusers; b) Prohibiting transfer of handguns to and possession by minors under the age of 21 and maybe up to 24; c) Imposing criminal penalties on gun owners who leave guns accessible to children under the age of 16; d) Making it more difficult for convicted felons to legally own a gun; e) Requiring an arsenal license for those who are stockpiling guns and ammunition. Brady II will prevent unintentional shootings by: a) Requiring safety training as a condition of receiving a license; b) Holding parents responsible for proper storage of their weapons--and holding them liable when they do not; and c) Requiring gun manufacturers to install certain safety features in every gun--including load indicators and magazine safeties. Brady II will restrict the distribution of guns and ammunition designed for crime by: a) Prohibiting the low-quality, easily concealable handguns known as Saturday Night Specials, the gun most often used in crime; and b) Halting the sale and manufacture of non-sporting ammunition, like the "Dragon's breath" bullet, and large caliber bullets. Brady II will strengthen enforcement of existing federal laws by: a) Allowing gun violence victims to sue gun law violators in federal court for damages caused by gun dealers selling guns to prohibited buyers; b) Requiring registration of handgun transfers so that traces of guns used in crime will no longer result in dead ends; c) Closing the loophole that allows the unregulated sale of firearm parts; and d) Requiring common carriers to check a dealer's license before delivery. Licenses (or permits, as they are often called) are issued by governments for purposes of regulating the transfer or possession of a handgun or firearm. License or permit holders may be issued a simple permit or a card, similar to a driver's license, which contains a picture ID and other identifying data, including address and date-of-birth. The license may be generally applicable to all handguns or firearms or may be limited to a specific gun. Licenses may be issued for life or for a limited period ((e.g. 2 years (both subject to revocation)). Licensing requirements may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. They may include such things as age limitations; proof of residency (which stops buyers and gunrunners from going interstate); fingerprint identification; a firearms safety test or course; and a criminal and/or mental health background check(s). The length of time required to obtain a license may vary. Licensing also makes it possible to regulate private or secondary transfers of handguns or firearms. The licensing requirement of Brady II ensures that even private purchasers will be subject to a background check, and that those who sell handguns to unlicensed individuals are breaking federal law. Gun owners, will be required to record any subsequent sale of the gun. Under Brady II, any person selling a handgun without recording and reporting the sale will be subject to prosecution. Registration is just the first step towards confiscation. Today, eleven states provide for the registration of handguns or firearms: Hawaii North Carolina Maryland Oregon Michigan Pennsylvania Mississippi South Carolina New Hampshire Washington New York These laws may prevent law-abiding citizens from having access to guns and there could be an attempt to disarm residents in these states or the united States with full registration if the president declares it. Registration applies to a specific handgun or firearm. Registration will require owners of handguns or firearms register them by serial number and description with local and/or state police. Registration, will not be limited to the registering of handgun or firearm transfers. Under this stricter approach, handguns or firearms are registered when they are sold or otherwise transferred. Information on the sale or transfer, including the name and address of the purchaser, is sent to local or state police by the dealer (if done through a gun store) or by the individual seller. The required registration of all handgun transfers, together with full licensing, will make it possible to identify and prosecute those who illegally sell or transfer guns to criminals, youth and other prohibited purchasers. Requiring the registration of secondary transfers allows for faster tracing of weapons used in crimes and puts "straw purchasers" and illegal gun dealers at risk of criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits for selling guns to prohibited purchasers. Brady II raises the fee (presently $200 for 3 years) for Federal Firearms Licenses (FFLs) to $1,000 per year--an increase that would reduce substantially the number of FFLs while giving the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) the additional resources needed to adequately regulate gun dealers. Today there are only 240 ATF inspectors to monitor the activities of more than 280,000 federally-licensed gun dealers. Brady II also imposes stricter requirements on gun dealers. Dealers would be required to: 1) make all sales from their licensed business premise, stopping the sales from car trunks and "kitchen tables;" and 2) carry liability insurance to cover damages resulting from the wrongful or negligent transfer of a handgun. Brady II will reduce citizens from buying or possessing firearms. It will require the buyer of a handgun to get a license, pass a safety test, and record any subsequent sale, but that's no different or burdensome than what we ask of those who want to drive a car. This will keep guns out of the hands of children, convicted felons and those who have a history of domestic violence. Look at what we have done over the past twenty-five years to reduce automobile deaths. We tightened up the licensing requirements for drivers. We built safer cars and safer highways. And we prosecuted drunk drivers. As a result, the auto fatality rate dropped by 36 percent. And we can do the same thing with firearms. We can license gun purchasers, we can build safer guns, and we can vigorously prosecute those who illegally sell guns to children and criminals. And that will save lives. These minimum standards do not stop states from maintaining or establishing stricter standards or requirements. This is how each state measures up, according to Handgun Control, Inc. Each state was carefully rated both for the existence of five types of legislation that protect children from guns, and also for the comprehensiveness and effectiveness of that legislation. The five types of legislation include: 1) Carrying Concealed Weapons law 2) Juvenile Handgun Possession law 3) Juvenile Handgun Sale/Transfer Prohibition law 4) Child access prevention law 5) "Local Rights" law, or "Preemption" Alabama -- D Alaska -- D-minus Arizona -- D Arkansas - -- D California -- B Colorado -- C Connecticut -- B Delaware - C Florida -- C-minus Georgia -- D Hawaii -- B-minus Idaho -- D Illinois - -- B Indiana -- D Iowa -- B-minus Kansas -- B-minus Kentucky -- F Louisiana -- F Maine -- D Maryland -- B-minus Massachusetts -- B+ Michigan -- D+ Minnesota -- C Mississippi -- D Missouri -- C Montana - -- F Nebraska -- B-minus Nevada -- D+ New Hampshire -- D+ New Jersey - -- B New Mexico -- C New York - C North Carolina -- C-minus North Dakota -- D Ohio -- C Oklahoma -- D Oregon - D Pennsylvania -- D Rhode Island -- C South Carolina -- D+ South Dakota -- D Tennessee -- D+ Texas -- D Utah -- D Vermont -- D-minus Virginia -- C Washington -- C-minus West Virginia -- D Wisconsin - C+ Wyoming -- F More information will be available at the website, http://www.handguncontrol.org - - - - UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES _____________________________________ Laws that forbid the carrying of arms, disarm only those who are incline to obey the law. - - [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Jun 1998 06:47:01 -0500 From: Jacques Tucker Subject: Joe Farah on the Second Make http://www.worldnetdaily.com your home page, and support Joe Farah and his crew! http://www.worldnetdaily.com/btlines/980608.btl.semi_auto_assau.html - ------------------ Monday, June 8, 1998 The semi-automatic assault media The following column was adapted from remarks Farah delivered to the National Rifle Association Convention in Philadelphia yesterday. PHILADELPHIA -- Three months after I took over as editor of the Sacramento Union, then, in 1990, the oldest daily in the West, Howard Kurtz, the media critic of the Washington Post wrote the first column his paper had ever devoted to my paper in its 145-year history. Kurtz's intentions were to sound the alarm on a dangerous development in California's state capital. It seemed a daily newspaper was marching to the beat of its own drummer -- not playing by the rules established in elite and secret conclaves at Columbia University or in studies commissioned by the Gannett Foundation or the Pew Charitable Trusts. One of Kurtz's biggest gripes with me was the fact that I banned the use of the term "assault weapon" from the pages of the Sacramento Union. Instead of this phrase, our reporters and editorial writers would be required to be more precise in their language. Did they mean "semi-automatic weapons"? Did they mean "fully automatic weapons"? Or were they simply referring to guns that looked real mean? What this little anecdote illustrates is that the traditional role of the press as watchdog of government has been stood on its head. Today, the watchdogs of the press are more likely to be guarding their industry's own politically correct mythologies and pathologies. The fact is that the establishment press in this country is constantly bombarding our senses with lies about guns. Even worse is the way it carefully and systematically censors real news that could actually end up saving the lives of Americans. For instance, when was the last time you read a story in your local newspaper or saw a TV news report about someone who used a gun defensively and effectively? I can't remember the last time. Yet, such incidents occur some 2.5 million times a year. How often have you heard this argument against gun ownership? Friends or relatives are the most likely killers -- or, more precisely, 58 percent of murder victims are killed by relatives or acquaintances. According to the broad definition of "acquaintances" used in the FBI's reporting, most victims are, indeed, classified as knowing their killer. However, using such definitions, the FBI includes drug buyers killing drug dealers, cabdrivers killed by first-time customers, gang members killing other gang members, prostitutes killed by their clients, etc. When such non-acquaintance killings are actually taken out of the equation, it turns out only 17 percent of murder victims were either family members, friends, neighbors or roommates. Who's cooking the numbers? And why? The media have also whipped up a lot of hysteria about concealed handgun permits. The perception has been created that, if such permits were made more readily available, there would be shoot-'em-ups at every street corner in America. The fact of the matter is that millions of people already have concealed handgun permits. Yet only one permit holder has ever been arrested for using a concealed handgun after a traffic accident and that case was ruled self-defense. If you believe the major media, you would think that a household gun is more likely to kill you or a member of your family than an intruder. Once again, lies, damn lies and statistics. Overwhelmingly, people killed in their homes are killed by intruder's guns, not their own. No more than 4 percent of gun death victims can be attributed to the homeowner's gun. We hear a lot from the news media about "rights" -- both real and imagined. Yet, one of America's actual, constitutionally guaranteed rights is under assault by the media as never before. The press responds to gun issues in Pavlovian-style, with semi-automatic, rapid-fire disinformation. The government knows better, the media tell us. Individuals can't be trusted to make intelligent and mature decisions about protecting themselves, the press claims. We'd all be a lot safer if there were fewer guns around, they suggest. It makes you wonder: Why is a class of people who make their living under the protections of the First Amendment, so willing to give up our rights under the Second Amendment? - ------------------ Joseph Farah is editor of the Internet newspaper WorldNetDaily.com and executive director of the Western Journalism Center, an independent group of investigative reporters. - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #147 *************************