From: chardy@es.com (Charles Hardy) Subject: [behanna@fast.net: ALERT: AFL-CIO spending $35 million to re-elect Clinton] Date: 19 Jul 1996 14:39:36 -0600 Any of you who either belong to a union or know someone who does, may find the following of interest. I don't belong to any unions and so don't know where any of the local ones stand on issues or candidates that may impact our RKBA. For those of you who do, it sounds like it may be worthwhile to find out where your dues money is going and maybe get a little of it back. ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- ALERT: AFL-CIO spending $35 million to re-elect Clinton and Oust Freshmen Republicans While I am not a fan of *everything* the freshman class has done, I must say they have been better for our gun rights. AFL-CIO has committed to spending $35 million of its members' dues to re-electing Clinton and to ousting freshmen Republicans. By federal regulation, members who disagree with this stance are entitled to a refund of the portion of their dues that goes to the PAC. I have transcribed and put onto my web site materials that will help to do this. If you print the five pages indexed here in order from your WWW browser to a laser printer, you'll get camera-ready copy. Please spread this material as widely as possible (NRA-ILA and GOA have already been contacted). See http://www.users.fast.net/~behanna/aflcio.html Chris BeHanna Director, New Jersey Self Defense Coalition NJ-RKBA List Maintainer P.O. Box 239 behanna@syl.nj.nec.com (W) Milford, NJ 08848-0239 kore wa NEC no iken de gozaimasen. behanna@fast.net Lon Horiuchi: Will Murder Women for Food PGP 2.6.1 public key available Only in America can a homeless veteran sleep in a cardboard box while a draft dodger sleeps in the White House. ----END FORWARDED MESSAGE---- -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on these | topics, I'm sure I'm not the one he | would have express it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@es.com (Charles Hardy) Subject: CCW "reforms" Date: 20 Jul 1996 16:53:16 -0600 I've just arrived back in State after my extended stay in the PRofMass. I seem to have arrived just in time to hear a little in the media about proposed "reforms" to the CCW law which would prohibit CCW in schools, churches and businesses. I also keep hearing talk about some statment made by the LDS church regarding guns and churches. Can anyone on the list update me? Specifically, would the proposes ban CCW in all churches and businesses or simply allow those churches and businesses that wanted to prohibit CCW to do so? How did the hearing turn out? I'm guessing the UTEA is all in favor of banning CCW in schools and we're probably screwed on that unless a large number of teachers, administrators (right?!?!?), others who work in schols, or parents can be found to speak out. Is a CCW holder going to be in violation every time they drop off or pick up Susie at school? Thanks for any info. -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on these | topics, I'm sure I'm not the one he | would have express it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@es.com (Charles Hardy) Subject: Re: CCW "reforms" Date: 20 Jul 1996 17:15:21 -0600 I also meant to ask if anyone had the actual text of the LDS statement on guns and churches. thanks -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on these | topics, I'm sure I'm not the one he | would have express it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson Subject: LSAS Files 2nd Amendment case: Please read Date: 20 Jul 1996 17:21:56 -0600 (MDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Associated Conservatives of Texas , Johnson Mike <102052.3716@compuserve.com> The Ninth Circuit Attacks Another Personal Freedom A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit recently held in Hickman v. Sherman Block, et al. (96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3934) that the Second Amendment is an anachronism intended only to protect states' "right" to maintain militias. This means that, despite what you think, and what the Second Amendment says, you really do not have a right to own firearms. The Lawyer's Second Amendment Society has contacted many of the most notable constitutional scholars. Although there is a "down side" to appealing this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, there appears to be a general consensus that now is the time, and this is the case. I. Why Hickman should be appealed. Over the years, many in the gun-owning community have debated the wisdom of bringing a Second Amendment case before the Supreme Court. The concern has been that the Court may rule once and for all that the Second Amendment guarantees a state's right, rather than a right which may be exercised by individual Americans. This is a justified concern. The Court has had several opportunities to consider whether the Amendment guarantees a personal right, but it has failed to do so. Most notably, in Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove (1982), the Supreme Court refused to hear a case in which the trial and appellate courts both upheld a township's ban on handgun ownership. The result: the ban remained law. However, we must know where the Court stands. If it rules against us, then we will have to let the Court know we do not recognize its authority to eliminate an enumerated right. It will then be incumbent upon us to champion yet another of our essential civil rights. This may call for nonviolent civil disobedience. It may require all of us to face the personal risks of speaking out. On the other hand, while we have been waiting for the "right case" to bring before the Supreme Court, anti-gunners rammed the so-called "assault weapon" ban and 10-round magazine limit through Congress, they enacted the Brady law, and countless new and onerous state and local anti-gun laws are on the books. It will not end until, and if, the Supreme Court finally acknowledges the Second Amendment means what it says; namely, that individual Americans have a right to keep and bear arms. The longer we wait, the more difficult it will become to prevail. The LSAS thinks the Hickman case is the "right" case to bring before the Court. As explained below, the Ninth Circuit's reasoning in the case is dubious at best, and the case is fraught with factual mistakes. This will make it all the more difficult for the Supreme Court to uphold the decision. Hickman directly confronts the personal right issue -- the Ninth Circuit said there isn't one. But with gun control looming as one of the primary issues of the 1990s, the LSAS believes the Supreme Court cannot run from this issue forever. it will eventually have to confront it head on. II. The Hickman case. In Hickman, Douglas Hickman brought an action against various Southern California cities after his applications for a permit to carry a concealed weapon were denied. Hickman argued the denials of his applications were a violation of his right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court's summary judgment for the defendants on the grounds Hickman did not have "standing" under the Second Amendment. The Court held, "...the Second Amendment is a right held by the states, and does not protect the possession of a weapon by a private citizen." On a superficial level, this seems to make sense because the Amendment refers to a "well regulated Militia." But after further consideration, which is obviously necessary when Americans' rights hang in the balance, it becomes clear the decision is wrong. III. State's don't have "rights." People do. The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Note the Amendment does not say states may keep and bear arms. Rather, it refers to "people." In US v. Verdugo-Urquidez, the Supreme Court recently held the term "people" used in the Bill of Rights means that "class of persons who are part of the national community...." Since the "class of persons who are part of the national community" simply means American citizens, the Second Amendment can be clarified as follows: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of American citizens to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This simple exercise makes it abundantly clear individual American citizens -- and not the states -- have the right to keep and bear arms. States are not living beings. They cannot enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under Article I of U.S. Constitution, and the 10th Amendment, states merely exercise "powers." By contrast, only individuals can exercise the fundamental qualities of life called "rights." Thus, a "collective" or "state's" right is not a right, but a "power." Since the Second Amendment guarantees a "right," by definition, that right may be exercised only by individuals. The 10th Amendment also tells us the Framers said "state" when they meant "state," and "people" when they meant "people." It is ludicrous to suggest the Framers had such poor command of the English language they could not distinguish between "people" and "states." If true, the Court's suggestion in Hickman that the Second Amendment was intended only to provide for state militias is a well-kept secret, because not a single shred of evidence from the Constitutional Convention betrays this intent. By contrast, there is a plethora of evidence which makes it abundantly clear the Framers intended a personal right. Indeed, a ruling such as Hickman would have been unthinkable, almost treasonous, in the 1780s. Indeed, the Framers were themselves armed with state-of-the-art military weapons. And we know what happened to the British on their way to Concord to seize the American colonialists' weapons and powder: the British confronted the local militia in Lexington and touched off the Revolution. Virtually all academic research regarding the Second Amendment has concluded the Amendment was intended to recognize an individual right. Even the American Bar Association acknowledged in its 1965 article, "The Lost Amendment," that the Amendment guaranteed an individual right (although, bowing to political pressure, the ABA now espouses the "states' right" theory). Nonetheless, the Court in Hickman suggested a "plain reading" of the Second Amendment somehow reveals the Framer's true intent that states, and not the people, have the right to own arms. It certainly requires some questionable mental gymnastics and dubious logic to reach this conclusion. One wonders if the courts would have such a difficult time understanding the syntax of the Second Amendment, if the First Amendment read as follows: "A well informed Congress, being necessary to a free country, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed." It is also curious that, despite the simple language in the Second Amendment, courts refuse to acknowledge it guarantees an individual right, while they have no trouble finding a "fundamental," yet unwritten, right of privacy floating around somewhere in the nebulous "penumbra" of the Constitution. IV. How has the Supreme Court read the Amendment? In Cruikshank v. U.S. (1875) and Presser v. Illinois (1885), the Supreme Court stated the Second Amendment did not create a right. Rather, it concluded the Amendment recognized the people's pre-existing right to keep and bear arms. This distinction is critical. The right of the people to keep and bear arms existed before the Bill of Rights was ratified, it exists now, it will always exist, and it is inalienable. It is also significant that in Cruikshank and Presser, the Court noted the Second Amendment precluded Congress, but not the states, from enacting gun control laws. This superficially appears to give states the green light to enact gun control. It also seems to support the Hickman decision. However, Cruikshank and Presser were decided prior to the advent of the "Selective Incorporation Doctrine" in 1897 (in Chicago V. & Q.R. Co. v. Chicago), whereby the Court began applying the Bill of Rights to the states via the 14th Amendment. There is also a curiously revealing error in Footnote 10 in Hickman. The Court stated: "... the Second Amendment is not incorporated into the Bill of Rights. (citation)" [emphasis added] To the contrary, the Second Amendment is undeniably an integral part of the Bill of Rights. Presumably, the Court meant the Amendment has not yet been incorporated to the states, but this "Freudian slip" speaks volumes about the true political agenda behind the Hickman decision. V. What about the reference to the Militia? In concluding the Second Amendment only guarantees a state's right to maintain a militia, the Court in Hickman relied primarily upon U.S. v. Miller (1939). In Miller, the defendant was charged with violating the 1934 National Firearms Act's ban on "sawed off" shotguns. Miller defended on the grounds the Act violated his Second Amendment right. The trial court rightly threw out the statute, and the U.S. appealed to the Supreme Court. Miller apparently died shortly thereafter. (It appears the Court in Hickman did not carefully read Miller because it erroneously stated Miller had been convicted at trial, rather than acquitted, and that Miller, rather than the U.S., was the appellant.) Thus, when the matter was heard before the Supreme Court, only the U.S., the appellant, was present to offer evidence. The Supreme Court therefore had no alternative but to rule in accordance with the government's evidence. The Court ultimately held that, without evidence indicating a sawed off shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." The Court in Hickman latched onto this passage from Miller. However, this passage does not establish a state's "right." It simply means Americans have the right to own military weapons to insure the existence of a pool of armed citizens from which a militia can be drawn. This makes good sense because during the Revolutionary era, every city and township maintained its own militia consisting of all able bodied males between 18 and 45. A militia could exist only if all the citizens were armed. Moreover, in the context of the 1770's, the term "well regulated" meant "well disciplined" or "well drilled." The term did not mean regulated by the state. Similarly, the Court's suggestion in Hickman that the National Guard is the modern day equivalent of the militia is incorrect. Were the National Guard synonymous with militias, then every state is in violation of Art. I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which forbids the states from maintaining armies in peace time. Under the Ninth Circuit's interpretation, the portion of the Amendment which actually recognizes the right is rendered meaningless surplusage. This is an absurd result. VII. Have any gun control laws been invalidated? The Court in Hickman noted no individual has ever established a personal right under the Second Amendment. If true, are we then to ignore the Amendment's plain meaning because no court has acknowledged that meaning? Courts make mistakes all the time. In Plessy v. Ferguson (1897), the Supreme Court held the "separate but equal" doctrine was consistent with the 14th Amendment. Fifty years later, in Brown v. Board of Education it reached the opposite conclusion. As evidenced by the infamous Dred Scott decision, the Court even accepted slavery for nearly 100 years. The point is, our rights exist independent of the very government against which the Bill of Rights is asserted. That's why they are called "rights." If government has the power to take away rights, are they really rights? To be sure, the Supreme Court may properly determine if restrictions on a right are reasonable, since no right is absolute. But no governmental body, including the judiciary, has the authority to repeal rights. Otherwise, could we not repeal the 13th Amendment and reinstate slavery? It would have been more logical and consistent with the Constitution, had the Court in Hickman acknowledged the Second Amendment guarantees a personal right. Then, it would be a comparatively simple matter to determine which "reasonable limitations" apply, yet still let us achieve the purpose of he Second Amendment. If the Supreme Court allows Hickman to stand, it will be a prescription for disaster. It will be perhaps the only time in history in which the courts abrogated an enumerated right. Americans will not take kindly to such an overt, aggressive and blatantly illegal governmental attack on their freedoms. VIII. What you can do to help. The experts with whom the LSAS conferred estimate the cost of appealing the Hickman case to be approximately $50,000. Unfortunately, with fires already burning on the social, political and other legal fronts, the large pro-gun organizations are already spread to thinly to foot this bill. For this reason, the LSAS has established a trust fund to pay the costs associated with bringing this case before the Supreme Court. Well-known pro-gun attorney Don Kates, who wrote the "amicus brief" in the Hickman case, has agreed to write the appellate brief. The LSAS is asking every gunowner in America to contribute at least $5, and businesses to contribute at least $100, to defray these costs. Contributors of $30 or more will receive a membership in The Lawyer's Second Amendment Society, which includes a subscription to its newsletter, The Liberty Pole. Any surplus funds generated will go to the LSAS, which is a non-profit corporation [501(c)(4)], to be used to fund other pro-gun legal challenges. Contributions are not tax deductible. We actually have little to lose. As it is, Congress, the courts, and most legislatures are already proceeding on the assumption that the Second Amendment protects only a "state's right." This is why we have some 20,000 gun control laws nationwide, including the Brady law and the "assault weapon" ban. If we lose, then we are merely back where we started; namely, in the political arena where such national groups as the NRA have proven so effective. But, the problem with the political arena is, gunowners must constantly spend money to try to influence politicians, just to protect what should be recognized as an inalienable right. What happens if Clinton gets re-elected and the Republicans lose control of Congress? On the other hand, if we win, the benefits are myriad. In a nutshell, a win would cut off gun control at the knees. The debate would change from whether we have a right, to what limitations on that right are "reasonable." Everyone can afford a nominal $5 contribution; look at it as a "small price to pay" to protect one of our most cherished and important freedoms. Please make checks payable to "The LSAS Trust Fund," and mail them to: The LSAS 18034 Ventura Blvd., No. 329 Encino, CA 91316. Telephone: (818) 734-3066. Tim Casey, tcasey@clark.net, http://www.clark.net/pub/tcasey/firearms.html "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." --Thomas Jefferson ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scott Bergeson Subject: Second-amendment arguments Date: 20 Jul 1996 17:23:39 -0600 (MDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Posted to texas-gun-owners by ghanka@bindview.com (Hanka, Greg) Greets -- In the whole silly debate over whether or not "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" really means "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", let's not forget three important acts of congress... * The Freedmen's Bureau Act of 1866 (14 Stat. 176-77, 1866), which passed with more than a 2/3 majority and provides: "the right ... to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, and the acquisition, enjoyment, and disposition of estate, real and personal, including the constitutional right to bear arms, shall be secured to and enjoyed by all the citizens of such State or district without respect to race or color or previous condition of slavery." The same two-thirds of Congress adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ..." Senator Jacob Howard, when introducing the amendment, explained that its purpose was to protect "personal rights," such as "the right to keep and bear arms," from State infringement. (quoted from Cong. Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session 2764-65, 1866) * The Property Requisition Act of 1941 (55 Stat. 742, 1941) authorized the President to requisition property from the private sector on payment of fair compensation. The Act included the following: Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed -- (1) to authorize the requisitioning or require the registration of any firearms possessed by any individual for his personal protection or sport (and the possession of which is not prohibited or the registration of which is not required by existing law), ... [or] (2) to impair or infringe in any manner the right of any individual to keep and bear arms ... Explaining the Property Requisition Act, the House Committee on Military Affairs provided the following statement: "In view of the fact that certain totalitarian and dictatorial nations are now engaged in the willful and wholesale destruction of personal rights and liberties, our committee deems it appropriate for the Congress to expressly state that the proposed legislation shall not be contrued to impair or infringe the constitutional right of the people to bear arms ... There is no disposition on the part of this Government to depart from the concepts and principles of personal rights and liberties expressed in our Constitution." (quoted from H.R. Rep. No. 1120, 77th Congress, 1st Session 2, 1941) * The Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986 (18 U.S.C. s921 et seq.). That legislation provides: CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS -- The Congress finds that -- (1) the rights of citizens -- (A) to keep and bear arms under the second amendment to the United States Constitution; (B) to security against illegal and unreasonable searches and seizures under the fourth amendment; (C) against uncompensated taking of property, double jeopardy, and assurance of due process of law under the fifth amendment; and (D) against unconstitutional exercise of authority under the ninth and tenth amendments; require additional legislation to correct existing firearms statutes and enforcement policies; and (2) additional legislation is required to reaffirm the intent of the Congress, as expressed in section 101 of the Gun Control Act of 1968, that "it is not the purpose of this title to place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trap shooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity, and that this title is not intended to discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes." (All from "Congress Interprets the Second Amendment: Declarations by a Co-Equal Branch on the Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms", by Dr. Stephen P. Halbrook, Tennessee Law Review, Spring 1995, Volume 62 Number 3) So, it would seem that there are real laws already on the books that reaffirm the Second Amendment's obvious intent...not unlike the two bills that our stalwart supporter Rep. Stockman is trying to pass as we speak. Though I don't like to see my inalienable rights alienated and then granted back as priveleges, such laws are (if nothing else) bricks in our house. One other thing: the next time some zeeb tries to tell you that a handgun is "a very poor method of self-defense", ask him: - why statistics show guns used for defense result in the lowest victim injury rates of _any_ method of self-defense (*), - why every policeman in the country carries and uses a handgun as his or her first line of defense, and - what alternate method of self-defense he therefore proposes. Unfortunately for us, a mound of emotion can obscure a mountain of fact. Eternally, Greg Hanka http://www.bindview.com/~ghanka * I have these statistics in an excel chart with nice graphs at http://www.bindview.com/~ghanka/firearms/crimes.xls. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: righter@aros.net Subject: Utah Gun laws Date: 29 Jul 1996 17:24:43 -0600 Hello again! A while ago, you asked about the CCW problems going on in Utah and about the results of the meeting. I finally caught up with all this. The meeting was flooded with pro-gun people. No final recommendation was agreed upon. A bill is being introduced to ban guns from schools, churches, and to allow private businesses to ban guns if they so choose. Further, there will be immunity from civil suits should a patron be killed or injured as a result of being disarmed. If you'd like full details, send me a fax number or snail mail address. I'm attempting to organize for a law similar to the one in AZ (I believe) which requires those who post "no guns" to provide safe storage for their patron's weapons and which makes businesses responsible and liable for the safety of their clients/customers who check guns. If you'd like to help, let me know. Also, if you have a copy of this bill or similar ones, please let me know how I can obtain a copy. Thanks! Sarah Sarah Thompson, M.D. Dedicated to ALL Civil Liberties The Righter The Demo-Cans have betrayed us! PO Box 271231 Vote Libertarian! Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231 Harry Browne for President 801-966-7278 - fax & voice mail righter@aros.net http://www/aros.net/~righter/welcome.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@es.com (Charles Hardy) Subject: Re: Utah Gun laws Date: 29 Jul 1996 17:34:40 -0600 On Mon, 29 Jul 1996, righter@aros.net posted: >Hello again! > >A while ago, you asked about the CCW problems going on in Utah and about the >results of the meeting. I finally caught up with all this. The meeting was >flooded with pro-gun people. No final recommendation was agreed upon. > >A bill is being introduced to ban guns from schools, churches, and to allow >private businesses to ban guns if they so choose. Further, there will be >immunity from civil suits should a patron be killed or injured as a result >of being disarmed. > >If you'd like full details, send me a fax number or snail mail address. > >I'm attempting to organize for a law similar to the one in AZ (I believe) which >requires those who post "no guns" to provide safe storage for their patron's >weapons and which makes businesses responsible and liable for the safety of >their clients/customers who check guns. If you'd like to help, let me know. > >Also, if you have a copy of this bill or similar ones, please let me know how >I can obtain a copy. > >Thanks! > >Sarah Thank you. My snail mail address is: Charles Hardy 1338 Foothill #184 SLC, UT 84108 I'd love to help in any way possible. I spent 6 months living in Arizona last summer and fall. Their open carry law is really nice. :) I never ahd a single business ask me to surrender my openly carried .45 or to leave. The usual reaction from clerks and such ranged from mild interest to positive support. Only people who ever showed open displeasure or concern at the presence of my weapon were the police. Their law does appear to require any public "business" whether privately owned or government run, to offer to take possession of a weapon (check it) while the owner is on their premises if they don't want the owner to carry the weapon. In practice, this has not been enforced on private businesses. However, due to the gutsy actions of a few individuals, many government buildings now routinely will check a weapon without too much hassle. If you'd like, I can put you in touch with some of these people or even dig up copies of their posts to AZRKBA and repost to this list as examples of what is possible. -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on these | topics, I'm sure I'm not the one he | would have express it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Larry Larsen Subject: Re: Utah Gun laws Date: 29 Jul 1996 20:28:36 -0600 righter@aros.net wrote: > > Hello again! > > A while ago, you asked about the CCW problems going on in Utah and about the > results of the meeting. I finally caught up with all this. The meeting was > flooded with pro-gun people. No final recommendation was agreed upon. > > A bill is being introduced to ban guns from schools, churches, and to allow > private businesses to ban guns if they so choose. Further, there will be > immunity from civil suits should a patron be killed or injured as a result > of being disarmed. > > If you'd like full details, send me a fax number or snail mail address. > > I'm attempting to organize for a law similar to the one in AZ (I believe) which > requires those who post "no guns" to provide safe storage for their patron's > weapons and which makes businesses responsible and liable for the safety of > their clients/customers who check guns. If you'd like to help, let me know. > > Also, if you have a copy of this bill or similar ones, please let me know how > I can obtain a copy. > > Thanks! > > Sarah > > Sarah Thompson, M.D. Dedicated to ALL Civil Liberties > The Righter The Demo-Cans have betrayed us! > PO Box 271231 Vote Libertarian! > Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231 Harry Browne for President > 801-966-7278 - fax & voice mail > righter@aros.net > http://www/aros.net/~righter/welcome.html I would like a copy please, and thanks. -- Larry S. Larsen P.O. Box 417 Santa Clara, Ut. 84765 larsenl@tcd.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@es.com (Charles Hardy) Subject: [greggt@INDIRECT.COM: Column, July 24 (fwd)] Date: 30 Jul 1996 10:08:36 -0600 For your reading enjoyment ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED JULY 24, 1996 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz Sean Gabb for president Let us compare two position statements which recently crossed my desk on a single issue: gun control. Bob Dole, the big-government boot-licker and until lately chief tax collector for the police-welfare state, spoke at the Virginia State Police Academy in Richmond on July the ninth. He took the occasion to renounce, revoke and slink cravenly away from previous Republican promises to repeal Sen. Dianne Feinstein's unnatural sexual assault on the spirit and substance of the Second Amendment, the so-called "assault weapons ban." "We've had a ban on so-called assault weapons," the former senator droned to the assembled cadets, "but let's be realistic. Of the 17 weapons that were specifically outlawed, 11 are already back on the market in some other form. So what I say, let's move, that we've moved beyond the debate, in my view, over banning assault weapons. ... We've got to move beyond banning assault weapons. And instead of endlessly debating which guns to ban, we ought to be emphasizing what works and what's been tried in the great state, the Commonwealth of Virginia and other states. And we've seen here what works (is) an instant check on handguns, shotguns, rifles, all guns, period. All guns, period." "We're very happy that Citizen Bob Dole now supports the assault weapons ban," preened Bob Walker, legislative director of Handgun Control Inc. "But where was Sen. Bob Dole when we really needed him?" Still evolving, apparently. Meantime, Sean Gabb, one of Britain's few firearms rights activists (cea01sig@gold.ac.uk), writes from London that he was approached by Simon Wells, a producer for the appropriately-named (as it turns out) Chameleon Television in Leeds, about appearing for five minutes on a program about gun control. "A similar piece would be filmed with a Mr. Bernstein of an anti-gun group. Both pieces would then be shown on the 17th of July and be followed by a studio debate," Mr. Gabb reports. "Rather looking forward to this, I wrote a draft script and faxed it off to Mr. Wells. He went quiet for a few days, and then came back to me to cancel my appearance." What was it that Mr. Gabb proposed to say in only five minutes, that apparently can't be allowed even on an independent TV station in Leeds? This: "Let me begin by saying that I believe in the right of adults to be able to walk into a gun shop and, without showing any licence or proof of identity, buy as many guns and as much ammunition as they can afford. I also believe that adults should be free to keep guns at home and carry them about in public, and use them in defence of their life, liberty and property. "I am not saying this because I am a gun owner: I am not nor ever have been. I say it because I believe that the right to self-defence is a fundamental human right, comparable to freedom of speech and association. Anyone who is denied this right - to keep and bear arms - is to some extent enslaved. That person has lost control over his life. He is dependent on the State for protection. "Of course, most people watching me will say that I am mad. Do I want a society where every criminal has an gun, and where every domestic argument ends in a gun battle? "The short answer is no. The longer answer is to say that more guns do not inevitably mean more killings. ... Great Britain had no gun controls before 1920, and very low rates of armed crime. Today, Switzerland has few controls, and little armed crime. Those parts of the U.S. where guns are most common are generally the least dangerous. ... "Focusing on professional crime, gun control is plainly a waste of effort. Criminals will always get hold of guns if they want them. At most, it needs a knowledge of the right pubs to visit. All control really does it to disarm the honest public, and let the armed criminals roam through them like a fox through chickens. ... "But let us move away from armed burglars and rapists and the occasional lone psychopath. We need guns to protect us from the State. Far from protecting us, the State is the main aggressor. A low estimate puts the number of civilians murdered by states this century at 56 million - and millions of these were children. In all cases, genocide was preceded by gun control. How far would the Holocaust have got if the Jews in Nazi Germany had been able to shoot back? How about the Armenians? The Kulaks? The Chinese bourgeoisie? The Bosnians? In all previous societies, guns and freedom have gone together. I doubt if our society is any different. "Laugh at me. Call me mad. Call me evil. But just remember me when your loved ones are being raped, or mugged, or dragged off never to be seen again - and you, as an obedient, disarmed little citizen, can do nothing about it." Don't feel so bad, Sean. I don't think they would have aired it on American TV, either. Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at vin@intermind.net. The web site for the Suprynowicz column is at http://www.nguworld.com/vindex/. *** Vin Suprynowicz vin@intermind.net "Next year in Galt's Gulch!" ----END FORWARDED MESSAGE---- -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on these | topics, I'm sure I'm not the one he | would have express it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@es.com (Charles Hardy) Subject: [mongoose@INDIRECT.COM: Republicans Turn Tail -- Again] Date: 30 Jul 1996 10:24:41 -0600 Wonder if our own Senators and Rep should see this as well? ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- NEWT GINGRICH TAKES A RIDE ON THE VON KLINTON EXPRESS By L. Neil Smith Special to _The Libertarian Enterprise_ I saw House Speaker Newt Gingrich on TV this afternoon, declaring that, in the light of the recent event in Atlanta, he, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, and Republican Narcolepsy Poster Boy Bob Dole had changed the useless lumps of tissue they use for minds, with regard to certain unconstitutional provisions they had previously managed to keep out of Bill Clinton's so-called terrorism legislation. One of those provisions calls for "roving wiretaps": if someone they can credibly claim to believe _might_ be a terrorist happens to visit you for one reason or another -- perhaps because _they_ sent him -- they can tap your phone. Another calls for "propellant taggants", chemical additives to black and smokeless gunpowder which, in certain loads might cause your weapon to hangfire or blow up, but what the hell, they don't want you to have guns anyway, and after all, as Julia Child or Mussolini or somebody put it, you can't make an omelette without breaking _heads_. There were other provisions, but a haze of outrage seems to have erased them from my memory. It's the oldest political scam in the book, and (with the apparent commendable exception of movie star and Tennessee Senator Fred Dalton Thompson) these spineless cretins in the GOP fell for it. Pick some handy enemy scapegoat (Libya or Iraq) or _create_ one (Libertarians or the militia), then goad them until they assassinate someone or blow something up. If you're really impatient, assassinate someone or blow something up _yourself_. Then tell everyone across the fruited plain and from sea to shining sea that -- for their own safety -- the whole country is now in protective custody. You can find it in the Bible, Machiavelli, or the doctrines of the Red Brigades. (Which is why I always thought that any voyages Young Bubba may have made to _Italy_ back in the 1960s might be far more significant than his infamous pilgrimage to Moscow). And still that trio of whimpering dribblers Newt Gingrich , Lott, and Dole fell for it. I gotta say, it never fails to amaze me how few brains or guts Republicans always turn out to possess. The craven idiots had a good thing going -- the "Republican Revolution" of 1994 -- yet they acted every minute afterward as if they were still in the minority. They let the whorish left-leaning mass media determine the level of discourse, the topics to be discussed, and the context they'd be discussed in. They let traitors in their own ranks screw up their agenda. They let themselves get caught up in trivial pseudo-issues and forgot the greater principles that were the reason voters had elected them. In short, as the revised saying goes, the Republicans "snatched defeat from the jaws of victory" and left everyone who supported them _exposed_ to the tin-pot two-for-a-penny fascist bully-ragging of William Jefferson Blythe Clinton. Or, as Sinclair Lewis referred to him in _It Can't happen Here_, "Buzz Windrip". (Didn't think we'd recognize you, did you, Bill?) The first ten Amendments to the Constitution obviously don't mean much to Newt Gingrich . (I seem to recall that he tried to have them suspended a few years ago, "for the duration" of the War on Drugs.) If they did, he'd never have tried to substitute what Rush Limbaugh (if Rush ever used _both_ halves of his brain) would call the "phoney-baloney plastic banana good-time rock'n'roll" Republican Contract with America for them. Deriving his "core beliefs" from polls and focus groups exactly the same way Clinton does, Newt Gingrich has forgotten -- if he ever knew -- certain basic facts ... What's right doesn't change overnight, even in Atlanta. What's right _never_ changes. Back when this was a free country, America worked. Now that it's a police state, it doesn't. There is no known instance in history in which a dangerous mess was made any better by "emergency measures" like hiring more thugs, passing more laws, or curtailing people's freedoms. There's a reason for that: peace, progress, and prosperity in _any_ civilization arise solely from individual human action. And humans must be _free_ to act. It ain't brain surgery, Mister Newt , or rocket science. When people are no longer free to act -- when they have no real investment in maintaining civilization -- civilization collapses. See the former Soviet Empire. Or the Reconstruction South. Or the South Bronx. If Newt Gingrich can't comprehend that, if he can't _keep_ the solemn oath he once took "to uphold and defend the Constitution against _all_ enemies, foreign and domestic", if he can't stand up to round-heeled propagandists masquerading as journalists, to white trash in the White House, or their goose-stepping orcs in black Kevlar, he should do the honorable thing: declare an end to the hollow sham his "Republican Revolution" has become, resign from the office he holds under false pretenses, slink back to Georgia, and start shoving soft-boiled eggs and milk-toast into his toothless, empty head like the harmless old grannie he increasingly resembles. I'll say it once again for the benefit of any Republicans in the audience. Maybe they can find somebody to read it for them, or at least explain the big words. What's right doesn't change overnight. What's right _never_ changes. Back when this was a free country, America worked. Now that it's a police state, it doesn't. =================================== L. Neil Smith's award-winning first novel, _The Probability Broach_, which has long been out of print, will be republished by TOR Books this October. Permission to redistribute this article is herewith granted by the author, provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety, and appropriate credit given. Readers are especially urged to forward this article to Newt Gingrich , who desperately needs to read it. ------------------- Chairman ------------------------------------------ Mike Dugger When in doubt, vote 'em out Armed and SAFE! Legalize Freedom - ELECT Libertarians ----------- Arizona Libertarian Party --------------------------------- ----END FORWARDED MESSAGE---- -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on these | topics, I'm sure I'm not the one he | would have express it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@es.com (Charles Hardy) Subject: [mongoose@INDIRECT.COM: Harry Browne blasts Dole] Date: 30 Jul 1996 10:56:27 -0600 ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- FYI NEWS RELEASE 2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100 ===== HARRY BROWNE ===== Washington, DC 20037 Libertarian for President For immediate release: July 16 1996 for information call: (202) 333-0008 Bill Winter, Director of Communications RADIO ADS ON OLIVER NORTH SHOW BLAST BOB DOLE FOR BACKPEDALING ON ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN Libertarian candidate Harry Browne sets sights on "betrayed" gun owners WASHINGTON, DC -- Fans of the Oliver North radio program in 116 cities across the USA will hear Bob Dole blasted this week for flip-flopping on the assault weapons ban. The attacks are the opening salvo of a nationwide advertising campaign from Libertarian Party presidential candidate Harry Browne. "We want to reach conservatives who feel betrayed by Bob Dole's abandonment of the Second Amendment," explained Browne campaign director Sharon Ayres. "Dole figured he could sell out gun owners because they had nowhere else to go. Well, in 1996, they have somewhere to go: They can vote for Harry Browne." The advertisements stake out Browne's position as a fervent defender of the Second Amendment, and sharply criticize Dole for backpedaling on his promise to repeal the so-called assault weapons ban. They will run on the popular, syndicated right-wing talk show host's program during the week of July 15th to 19th. In one of the advertisements, Browne says: "Repeal the assault weapons ban now. Repeal the Brady Bill now. I'm Harry Browne, Libertarian candidate for President, saying government doesn't work and government gun control doesn't work. "Gun control disarms honest Americans while leaving guns in the hands of violent criminals. Bill Clinton is proud of the assault weapons ban, and Bob Dole refuses to repeal it. Bill Clinton is proud of the Brady Bill, and Bob Dole refuses to repeal it. If the right to keep and bear arms matters to you, Harry Browne is your candidate for President." The advertisements also give a toll-free number for more information about the Browne campaign and the Libertarian Party (800) 682-1776. Explaining his no-compromise position on gun issues, Browne said, "Gun control laws don't reduce crime, but passing them gives politicians another soap-box opportunity to pose as crime-fighters. Conservative politicians act tough by repealing the Bill of Rights, while liberal politicians act tough by outlawing weapons. Neither action reduces the crime rate. But both allow politicians to feel self-righteous, and both undermine our freedoms." ------------------- Chairman ------------------------------------------ Mike Dugger When in doubt, vote 'em out Armed and SAFE! Legalize Freedom - ELECT Libertarians ----------- Arizona Libertarian Party --------------------------------- ----END FORWARDED MESSAGE---- -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on these | topics, I'm sure I'm not the one he | would have express it.