From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Gun Control Research - Hard Data 1/2 Date: 04 Aug 1997 16:44:00 -0700 From the Heartland Institute (Palatine, IL) .....http://www.heartland.org 1. There is no relationship between the number of privately owned guns and the amount of violent crime in the United States. Between 1973 and 1992, the number of privately owned firearms in the United States increased 73 percent--from 122 million to nearly 222 million. The number of privately owned handguns increased by 110 percent, from 37 million to 78 million, and the rate of gun ownership increased by 45 percent. But during this same period, the national homicide rate fell by nearly 10 percent. Moreover, areas with relatively high gun ownership rates tend to report relatively low violent crime rates, and vice versa. 2. There is no relationship between gun control laws and violent crime. Studies purporting to show a negative relationship between gun control and violent crime are plagued by serious methodological weaknesses, including the failure to control for confounding factors, selective use of data, and failure to measure the real impact of gun laws on the rate of gun ownership. Criminologists Gary Kleck and E. Britt Patterson sought to overcome these methodological weaknesses in a comprehensive 1993 study that covered all forms of gun violence, encompassed every large city in the nation, and assessed all major forms of gun control in the U.S. All told, Kleck and Patterson analyzed the impact of 19 kinds of gun control measures on six categories of violence. In ninety of the resulting 102 relationships, gun control laws had no significant negative effect on violence. 3. Are gun control laws effective? Data from the City of Chicago cast further doubt on the effectiveness of gun control laws. The City of Chicago's 1982 gun control ordinance is one of the most restrictive gun control measures in the country. Still, data compiled every year by the Chicago Police Department show that the number of murders in the city ebbs and flows with little respect for gun control laws. For example, the number of murders in the city started falling before passage of the city's 1982 gun control ordinance. Five years later, the number of murders in the city began to climb steadily. By gun control's tenth anniversary in 1992, the number of murders in the city was back where it had been a decade before gun control. 4. Why do gun control laws fail? First, by focusing almost exclusively on handguns, gun control laws encourage the substitution of other weapons. These may be much more deadly (as are shoulder weapons) or more likely to result in injury if the victim resists (as are knives). So long as the underlying motivation to do harm is present, gun control laws can affect only the choice of weapon, sometimes with deadly results. Second, most handgun violence is perpetrated by criminals who, due to previous run-ins with the law, are already forbidden by law to possess firearms, and who face serious punishment for the crimes they commit. Controlling the behavior of this cohort through additional gun control legislation is nearly hopeless. Third, gun control laws are more likely to disarm the general public than the criminal element. Most criminals acquire their guns on the illegal market, where background checks and waiting periods are not enforced, and they are willing to pay a higher price for a gun because they plan to use it. The law-abiding majority, on the other hand, is more likely to postpone purchasing a firearm if gun control laws make the purchase less convenient or more expensive. Italian criminologist Cesare Beccaria described the end result over 200 years ago: "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants." 5. What do we do about crime and violence? As David Kopel has written, "We are now reaping the consequences of 30 years spent talking about guns rather than doing something effective about poverty and hopelessness." As long as some people have little or nothing to lose by spending their lives in crime, dispositions to violence will persist--and increasingly strict gun controls will do little if anything to improve matters. Millions of Americans in the poorest neighborhoods of large and medium-sized cities are caught in the scissors of poor employment prospects (due to low-quality schools, welfare dependency, family disintegration, etc.) and growing opportunities in the illegal drug trade, resulting from the nation's ever-more-vigorous War on Drugs. All too often, crime appears to be a wise choice. The upward spiral of violence in our large and medium-sized cities will persist until we start thinking about how to strengthen families, foster individual responsibility, and repair the educational institutions of inner cities. #### ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: More on Australia 1/2 Date: 04 Aug 1997 16:44:00 -0700 Forwarded on Mon, 28 Jul 1997 by Patricia Neill Folks, this is Mike Johnson with Mike Johnson News. Here's an excellent post on what's happening Down Under, and what the Aussies are doing about their gun grab. Very interesting. Thanks Mike for asking, and for posting the Tasmania First reply. Patty I have continued digging around to find out what is happening in Australia. One gentleman that I got into a message exchange with is the Secretary of the Tasmanian Firearms Owners Association. Some of the comments that he had to make were quite interesting. Especially the method that they have chosen to try to deal with the problem peacefully, as apparently things have not yet reached the point over there that revolt is needed. The message that I sent to the gentleman initially reads as follows: ============================================================================ Over here in America we're getting all kinds of rumors as to what the situation with regards to privately owned firearms is in the great land down under. Stories of door to door search and seizure operations and confiscations of firearms in your part of the world have been reported. Quite simply, I would like to know what, if anything, is actually going on. Is there anything especially heinous happening? Or will that not be clear until the latest amnesty runs out? Speaking of which, when will the amnesty run out as I have heard several different dates mentioned? Is there anything that you think you could use our admittedly limited ability to help you all on? One of the reasons that I'm especially curious as to all this is that I have actually had the opportunity to have visited Tasmania. I enjoyed the few days that I got to spend there. I liked the scenery, the friendliness of the natives, and the excellence of the local brews . I'd hate to think that anything especially obnoxious was happening to you all. Eagerly and curiously awaiting a reply. - Mike Johnson ============================================================================ Mike, thanks for your firearms situation query. Rumours are the very devil. I suggest you check out the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia Web Site at http://www.ssaa.org.au which covers all Australia. I am secretary of the Tasmanian Firearms Owners Association with our own small web site at http://globec.com.au/~owend. We have started up a political party the "Tasmania First party" as lobbying now seems to be almost totally non-productive. I have added an attachment in rich text format that is the Presidents Report after NINE months of the party's existence. Going into politics seems to be the answer in Tasmania at least. Nil Corborundum Barstardum John Presser John C Presser 1 Forensic Biology Section Government Analytical & Forensic Laboratory, 20 St Johns Ave, New Town, Tasmania 7008, Australia e-mail jcp@pc635.dchs.tas.gov.au phone 61 362 785 611, fax 61 362 785 693 2 Secretary, Tasmanian Firearms Owners Association PO Box 229, Glenorchy, Tasmania 7010, Australia email jpregafl@mail.mpx.com.au, phone 0419 553 705, fax 61 362 750 251 http:/www.vision.net.au/~njessup/tfoa/tfoahome.html 3 President, Tasmania First Party PO Box 608, Glenorchy, Tasmania 7010, Australia email jpregafl@mail.mpx.com.au, phone 0419 553 705, fax 61 362 722 332 4 Aust Disputed Paternity & Forensic Science Laboratory Consultancy Services GPO Box 1384, Hobart 7001, Australia email jpregafl@mail.mpx.com.au, phone 0419 553 705 ============================================================================ Presidents Report 1996 - 1997 28/6/97 From State registration in September 1996, Tasmania First has been the fastest growing political party in Australia, ever. As of yesterday, the party has Federal Registration. This is only the beginning for Tasmania First and an auspicious beginning it is. This great party arose from the State and Federal government dictatorship over firearms laws in 1996. Our lobbyists were pointedly ignored and demonised. When we threatened to go political, we were told "you have not got the nouse to get together and form a political party, despite your seven city block rally numbers". Later we were told "you will not last 6 months". Well it is now twelve months and Tasmania First is going from strength to strength. There are many good people who are intimidated by the prospect of being part of a political party. Let me assure you Tasmania First is in good hands and the task of putting our members into Parliament in both Houses can be accomplished. One of the major reasons we can do this is the huge decline in party member support for Labor and especially for the Liberal party. There is a vast political desert out there just waiting for Tasmania First to step out and occupy. We do not have to push any party aside, the ground is empty! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Gun Control Research - Hard Data 2/2 Date: 04 Aug 1997 16:44:00 -0700 NRA-ILA FAX ALERT 11250 Waples Mill Road Fairfax, VA 22030 Phone: (800) 392-8683 Fax: (703) 267-3918 E-Mail: GROOTS@NRA.org Vol. 4, No. 31, August 1, 1997 AMERICA DESERVES HONEST RESEARCHERS Too often, biased researchers use federal tax dollars to finance their "studies" which are then formulated into research propaganda purportedly justifying more "gun control." Pro-gun, freshman Congressman Robert Aderholt (R-AL) wants to hold these researchers accountable for the claims they make by requiring anyone seeking public funding for their research to publish a disclosure plan for the release of the data used in their studies. This week, NRA-ILA's goal of trying to reform the status quo which allows taxpayer-funded researchers to shield the data they collect at taxpayers expense from independent review suffered a setback. As you know, there is a committed group of anti-gun researchers working with, and funded by the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control who have made a practice of refusing to release the data on which they base what are, invariably, anti-gun conclusions. This week, Aderholt was unsuccessful in attaching an amendment to the House Appropriations Treasury Postal bill to require that all public researchers release their data within 90 days of first public use of the results. Most taxpayers would be surprised to know that such data is not made routinely available to others for corroboration and re-analysis despite the fact that according to a recent Roper poll, more than 80% of the public supports such review. Readers of this alert may remember that after University of Chicago Professor John Lott's ground-breaking study on the positive crime-reducing effects of state right to carry laws, his study came under heavy scrutiny by the anti-Second Amendment and anti-self defense community. Lott made all research data available to anyone interested, and while no other study on the subject has been as thoroughly analyzed, Lott's results remain solidly affirmed. It should be noted that while honest researchers such as Dr. Lott welcome such scrutiny, others, particularly those who appear to be trying to further a politically-motivated agenda, do not. For instance, one anti-gun researcher, Arthur Kellerman of Emory University, has used more than 2 million dollars of public funds over the last several years, yet took more than three years to release data for one of his more controversial studies, despite the repeated attempts by both Members of Congress and the research community alike to gain access to his data. NRA-ILA will continue working with other like-minded groups to make a research disclosure policy the rule, and we need your help. We ask that you contact House Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Livingston (R-LA) and ranking member David Obey (D-WI) and ask them to support this much needed, common sense reform. Also, please call your U.S. Congressman at (202) 224-3121 and suggest that this matter deserves congressional scrutiny, and that the "Disclosure of Certain Federally-Sponsored Research," should be considered. Remember: the public's right-to-know is essential for good government. Yours in Freedom, Running with the pack!! Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~alphashewolf FREEDOM'S VOICE: http://www.proaxis.com/~alphashewolf/free.htm GUARDIANS' CORNER: http://www.proaxis.com/~alphashewolf/guard.htm =================================== QUOTE: "Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." -- George Washington =================================== QUOTE: "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws." -- Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: More on Australia 2/2 Date: 04 Aug 1997 16:44:00 -0700 If we had an election now, how many seats would Tasmania First win? Polls tell us, that up to eleven seats of the 35 in the Tasmanian House of Assembly would be ours. The voting intention return in the Tasmanian Firearms Owners "Facts & Furphies" V4/1 shows the strength of the firearms owners vote. The recent Legislative Council election for Derwent also indicates about 10 seats. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Will Frank on his showing in Derwent and to thank those party members who helped in Will's campaign. I think it would be appropriate to ask Will to address us briefly this evening on the experience he has gained from contesting the Legislative Council seat of Derwent. What does 10 Tasmania First seats mean? It means that our original plan based on the premise we would be a minority party holding the balance of power, need revision. The likely makeup of the Lower House is 10 Liberal, 10 Labor, 4 Greens and 11 Tasmania First. A majority of 18 is required to govern. Therefore, as in New Zealand, Tasmania First must consider a coalition government with one of the major parties. We must also consider requests from existing parliamentarians who might want to join Tasmania First. We would benefit from their political experience. The distribution of our members across Tasmania is as follows: Lyons 30% Bass 21% Denison 19% Franklin 18% Braddon 12% Many times we have all heard the words "If Tasmania First produces sound policies, I will vote for your candidates". The area of policy development is of critical importance to the success of Tasmania First. We now have a booklet of policies for consideration. At this point, I would like to thank David Pickford for his considerable input as chairman of our policy committee. Our thanks also to Peter Stokes for the production of the Tasmania First policy booklet. One of the more difficult tasks assigned to me as President during our first year was to organize indemnity insurance. This has now been achieved. The only hiccup is that any public street rally undertaken by Tasmania First must have prior approval from the insurers. A new constitution for Tasmania First has now been drafted with the assistance of a party member who is a solicitor. This document will be presented for approval to this AGM. It is imperative that Tasmania First be seen to be more than a copy of the existing political parties of the old mould. As Harry Evans, the Clerk of the Australian Senate has said, "The need for reform is not so much in the institutions of Government as in political parties. Political parties have become narrowly based, factionalised, undemocratic oligarchies controlled by too few people, closed to public view but open to manipulation and outright corruption." Remember the 18th century American proverb "the restraint of government is the true liberty and freedom of the people." Remember also "when the government fears the people you have freedom, when the people fear the government you have tyranny." What we are seeing today is the revolt of the neglected. Ordinary Australians now realise that the country has been led to a series of dead-ends. They are now in revolt against the political class, whatever its party appearance. Mr. Howard, and before him Mr. Keating have at various times claimed that "the settings are now right" to give us a drop in unemployment a year from now. These statements have been made so often, that they are no longer believed. Despite the fact that we have the most efficient farmers in the world, the agricultural sector is still losing money. Small country towns are collapsing, and 30 families shut the farm gate for the last time, EVERY WEEK. 21,000 bankruptcies are forecast for 1996/97, up from the 17,340 for 1995/96. The harsh truth is that the central idea is all wrong. Our established political parties are captives of the same deflationary economic theory, which after the speculative mania of the late 1920's, multiplied the unnecessary miseries of the Great Depression of the 1930's. This same blind ideology operates today, through:- the credit monopoly of the private banks, the balancing of government budgets by selling off every marketable public utility, and cutting vital government services, most cruelly demonstrated in the ever growing queues for hospital beds, by continuous "downsizing" in staff numbers and reductions in real wages for the ordinary worker. It is time we "downsized" the established political parties. The trouble with Mr Howard's "settings" and they would be Labor's were they in office, is that for 15 years they have been made in the interests of the wrong people. Not for the ordinary Australian, but for the foreign investors. That is the core of the matter. Without a radical change of direction, the Australia we know is doomed. I urge you to vote for all Tasmania First candidates on your ballot paper before any other candidates. I implore you to support the Tasmania First Party. We will lead this State out of the wilderness with a government that is:- OF the everyday people of Tasmania FOR the everyday people of Tasmania BY the everyday people of Tasmania. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: AT&T + Benton Foundation = Gun Control Date: 04 Aug 1997 22:50:00 -0700 On Mon, 4 Aug 1997 22:39:14 -0400 (EDT) Steve sent the following: I used to work for Charles Benton -- of Benton Foundation fame, but NOT for their Leftist Foundation. He is the son of the late Senator Benton, dead for some time now. Charles' wife, Marjorie Benton, is the main contact as far as I know. She's was/is the political activist, anyway. If you want to make a graeter impact, you might consider writing to her directly at her home in Evanston, IL (Sheridan Place, as I recall -- but look it up in 847 directory assistance). Or, find the Benton Foundation web page and send a letter to her at that address. A well done letter is worth 100 marginal ones. Best to ya'll Steve ======================================= Forwarded Message: AT&T has joined the "Anti-Gun Lobby"; Americas largest and most wealthy long distance carrier has donated THREE MILLION DOLLARS to help fund the Anti-Gun wackos who would take away the rights afforded us by people with more brains then them. Maybe it's time to "reach out and touch" the dolts at AT&T to let them know that you are not behind their efforts. Let them know that passage of restrictive legislation will not effect "bad guys" AT&T is linked to the countrys # 1 group of anti gun wackos at HCI (handgun control Inc) as well as The Benton Foundation. Their primary target is private gun ownership. Ads promoting the program are paid for by AT&T and are headlined: "We're Fighting for the Children" ... I guess they will be using bows and arrows -- just dropped my AT&T service. They can be reached at http://www.kidscampaign.org -- tell 'em what you think about their efforts. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Re: Cook's Town Meetings Date: 05 Aug 1997 08:46:12 -0600 On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, DAVID SAGERS posted: >### -- The crime meeting is from 7 to 8:30 p.m. Aug. 6 at the Salt Lake >County Commission Chambers, 2001 S. State St., North Building. >Panelists include Salt Lake County Sheriff Aaron Kennard and Salt Lake >City Police Chief Ruben Ortega. Prior obligatons will keep me from attending the "crime" meeting. Anyone planning on going and asking Ortega some tough questions about officer "throw em on the ground first and ask questions later" Bell? -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on | these things I'm fairly certain 801.588.7200 (work) | I'm not the one he'd have express it. "Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people." -- Aristotle. Quoted by John Trenchard and Walter Moyle "An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy" [London, 1697] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Unconstitutional Theories "Justifying" Federal Gun Control 2/2 Date: 07 Aug 1997 13:27:00 -0700 It is important to understand that the word regulate was applied to commerce in the sense of making regular rather than controlling. In an early case where the Commerce Clause was at issue, Justice Marshall in the Gibbons steamboat case, noted that had the Clause been intended to affect all economic activity, it would not have been included in the enumerated, or limited, powers section of Article One Section 8. Thus, the Commerce Clause affects interstate trade which involves more than one state. The idea was that Virginia could not tax Maryland tobacco to the point that it was kept out of its Commonwealth, and similarly, so that Maryland could not do the same. Justice Thomas put it this way in his Lopez opinion: "...the power to regulate `commerce' can by no means encompass authority over mere gun possession, any more than it empowers the Federal Government to regulate marriage, littering, or cruelty to animals, throughout the 50 States. Our Constitution quite properly leaves such matters to the individual States, notwithstanding these activities' effects on interstate commerce." Thomas went on to explain that, as an enumerated power, the Commerce Clause of Article I Section 8 cannot be used to justify a universal police power of the federal government: After all, if Congress may regulate all matters that substantially affect commerce, there is no need for the Constitution to specify that Congress may enact bankruptcy laws, cl. 4, or coin money and fix the standard of weights and measures, cl. 5, or punish counterfeiters of United States coin and securities.... Put simply, much if not all of Art. I, Sec. 8 (including portions of the Commerce Clause itself) would be surplusage if Congress had been given authority over matters that substantially affect interstate commerce. An interpretation of cl. 3 that makes the rest of Sect. 8 superfluous simply cannot be correct. To put it another way, the Court is now saying that they believe that the Tenth Amendment has to be observed. As Joe Sobran put it in a column in The Washington Times (May 30, 1995): "From now on, the court will be debating basic principles. The federal government will have to walk through the metal detector of the 10th Amendment." In the Wickard case, the Supreme Court agreed with the argument that even though farmer Filburn's wheat was not purchased nor sold in interstate commerce, the very fact that he did not enter interstate commerce negatively affected interstate commerce. With this totalitarian view of the reach of government, there was no limit to what the federal government could do. In many areas of social life, using this distorted interpretation of the Commerce Clause, Congress stepped up its suffocation of many kinds of private activity. Firearms were no exception. Finally, in the 1995 Lopez decision, the Court has begun to return to constitutional government. Lopez was arrested at a Texas school for having a gun and thus violating the federal prohibition on having a firearm within 1000 feet of a school. The Court held that whatever the policy merits of the measure, the Congress had no authority to enact such a law. (Regarding the policy issue, the most constitutionally consistent approach would be to make it illegal to have a gun at a school for the purpose of committing a violent crime. This would put the burden on the criminal by, in effect, adding an additional penalty to whatever other violent crime was committed. The burden would not go on the decent people, such as students who target practice with teams, parents who are going to or from hunting, and teachers and other adults who have a concealed carry permit for self-defense. Such a policy also assumes that criminals will violate any law that we pass, so the law should target only criminal behavior, and not criminalize good behavior.) A proper understanding of the Commerce Clause indicates that the most the federal government can do in the firearms area is to keep one state from using taxation to adversely treat firearms which are made in another state and are for sale in the first state. As Justice Thomas put it in his opinion concurring with the majority in the Lopez case, the central issue of the wrong turn by the Court over the last 50 years was not being addressed head-on in Lopez, but it needs to be soon. If the Court were to be consistently constitutional, all federal gun control legislation, starting with Roosevelt's 1934 National Firearms Act, would be thrown out. This could actually happen in view of the five federal courts which have now held another federal gun control law to be unconstitutional on similar grounds to that of Lopez. Five sheriffs have sued successfully under the Tenth Amendment holding that Washington had no authority to force them to carry out a background check under the Brady Law. This argument points right back to Article I Section 8 where we have already found that there is no authority given to the federal government for gun control legislation. If the United States is to return to a lawful, constitutional national government, one of the sure signs of that return will be the removal of the decades-long imposition of federal gun laws. **************************************************************** Chris W. Stark Gun Owners of America - Texas Representative e-mail: gunowner@onramp.net Visit our Web Page at: http://rampages.onramp.net/~gunowner **************************************************************** "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." John Hancock, Author - The Declaration of Independence, January 18, 1777 To unsubscribe from this mailing list, DISREGARD ANY INSTRUCTIONS ABOVE and go to the Web page at http://www.maillist.net/rightnow.html. New subscriptions can also be entered at this page. If you cannot access the World Wide Web, send an e-mail message to RightNow-Request@MailList.Net and on the SUBJECT LINE put the single word: unsubscribe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Unconstitutional Theories "Justifying" Federal Gun Control 1/2 Date: 07 Aug 1997 13:27:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Unconstitutional Theories "Justifying" Federal Gun Control by Larry Pratt Executive Director Gun Owners of America Much of this century has been a time when the federal government has ignored the limitations imposed on it by the Constitution. Recent cases decided by the by the Supreme Court indicate that the Justices are beginning to once again take the Constitution and their oath of office seriously. As Justice Clarence Thomas put it in the recent Lopez case, "our case law has drifted far from the original understanding ..." of the Constitution. While there were wrong turns before this century, much of the unconstitutional rule from Washington dates back to the Great Depression and its war on crime and war on the bank crisis. There were many unconstitutional theories of government pursued to justify the power grab by Washington. One of the theories was to run an end run around constitutional limitations by entering into a treaty that would require passage of legislation accomplishing what, without the treaty, would have been unconstitutional. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's administration was an active participant in the Disarmament Conference of 1934. Roosevelt sought Senate ratification of an Arms Traffic Convention but was unsuccessful. Had the treaty been ratified, Roosevelt would have obtained the alleged authority to have Congress infringe on the right to keep and bear arms pursuant to the treaty powers of Article VI, paragraph 2. Roosevelt then shifted to the unconstitutional, non-existent doctrine of emergency powers to justify enactment of gun control at the federal level. Calling for a War on Crime and Gangsters, Roosevelt persuaded Congress to pass a series of bills federalizing various crimes and compelling the registration of machine guns and sawed-off shotguns and rifles. The formula "War on Whatever" became a decades long federal government weapon for usurping powers not delegated to it. Nowhere does the Constitution give the President or the Congress the power to federalize state crimes or enact gun control legislation -- not even in a national emergency. One reads the Constitution in vain for such a delegation of authority by "We, the People" through the several states. Very instructive on this point are the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 which were written by Thomas Jefferson. The federal government in 1798 enacted a law making it illegal to criticize a federal official (the Sedition Act). Kentucky and Virginia passed resolutions declaring that the national law was unenforceable in their states. These are among the arguments that Jefferson made in the Kentucky resolutions: ...whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: ...that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself;...each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress. Jefferson went on to spell out that the only powers to punish crime delegated to the federal government were 1) treason, 2) counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, 3) piracies and 4) offenses against the law of nations. In this context, Jefferson cited the Tenth Amendment as providing a limit to any expansion of authority for punishing crime by the federal government. He quoted it verbatim in the Kentucky resolutions: "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Jefferson addressed an argument in the Kentucky Resolutions that we still hear to this day. Namely, that Congress has the authority to pass all laws which shall be necessary and proper for doing whatever it does. Jefferson described this abuse of the "necessary and proper" clause as going, to the destruction of all limits prescribed to their power by the Constitution: that words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers, ought not to be so construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument... A parallel argument is derived from the "supremacy" clause of Article VI. This clause makes treaties and laws passed by Congress the supreme law of the land. Jefferson is pointing out that the federal government is not empowered to take the limited powers it has been granted and convert them to unlimited powers that would destroy the nature of the Constitution. Similarly, the "general welfare" clause in Article I, Section 8 can hardly be a grant of unlimited power of action for the Congress since the section is one limiting the powers of Congress. Jefferson made this particular argument in his opinion against the national bank in 1791. It is the Commerce Clause that has become the most popular pillar of unconstitutional authority for federal gun control. It is interesting to note that in the early part of the twentieth century it was considered necessary to amend the Constitution to ban alcoholic beverages. After the bloating of the Commerce Clause to justify federal involvement in anything and everything following the key 1946 Supreme Court decision Wickard v Filburn, it was not felt to be necessary to amend the constitution to infringe something specifically named and protected -- like arms -- in the Constitution. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Anti-Gun Conference Date: 07 Aug 1997 13:27:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Is this a nefarious convention that we pro-second amendment folks should be aware of and pay attention to before it is too late? Well, whats a little chicannery among gun-grabbers? Found this on a anti-gun web-site [not given - Scott]. This according to the web-site is their intention for their meeting as you see it here. 4th Annual Citizens' Conference to Stop Gun Violence September 12, 13, 1997 Washington, DC Convened by The Educational Fund to End Handgun Violence The Episcopal Diocese of Washington The Violence Policy Center Americans are uniting to reduce gun violence. Across the country, there is a growing grassroots movement consisting of diverse groups of people working to reduce firearm death and injury. This conference is the only national meeting that has as its focus the needs of grassroots activists and provides an opportunity for concerned citizens to learn from one another about successful initiatives and programs that reduce gun violence. 1997 Objectives 1. Education Seminars are tailored to meet the needs of the most seasoned activists as well as those new to the movement. Seminar topics will include: basic statistics, important publications and resources that every advocate should have, the true meaning of the Second Amendment, the rudiments of firearm technology, and current federal and state legislation. Also, gun violence prevention activists will learn about pro-gun organizations and the links between the gun culture and the militia movement. 2. Organizing Techniques After becoming familiar with gun violence issues, activists need to organize. Seminars will instruct participants how to start an organization, the fundamentals of organizing, and fundraising. 3. Successful Initiatives Once organized, activists can pursue successful initiatives. The conference will teach proven strategies which activists can replicate, such as anti-violence initiatives which involve young people, and efforts to hold the gun industry accountable through firearm litigation. Tentative Schedule Friday, September 12 8:00AM - 12:00PM Registration 9:00 - 10:00AM Keynote Address 10:30AM - 12:00PM Choice of Seminar 12:30 - 2:00PM Lunch 2:30 - 4:00PM Choice of Seminar 4:30 - 6:00PM Choice of Seminar 6:30- 8:00 Dinner - Keynote by Scott Harshbarger, Attorney General of Masachusetts (invited) Saturday, September 13 8:00 - 11:30AM Registration 9:00 - 10:00AM Keynote by Ellen Miller of Public Campaign 10:15 - 11:45AM Networking and Exchange of Materials 12:00 - 1:30PM Lunch - Keynote on Firearms Litigation by A. Kennon Goff III, Esq., Chairman, Association of Trial Lawyers of America Defective Firearm and Ammunition Subgroup 2:00 - 3:30PM Choice of Seminar 3:45 - 5:15PM Choice of Seminar 5:30 - 6:30PM Closing Remarks Seminar Topics (Partial List) The Second Amendment Anti-Violence Programs for Young People Gun Shows: Tupperware Parties for Criminals Help For Survivors: The Role of Victims in Advocacy The Gun Lobby: Who, What, Where, and Why Federal and State Legislation Concealed-Carry Laws: So What Is the Evidence? Fund-raising Hands Without Guns, a Youth Anti-Violence Program How to Start Your Own Nonprofit Beginning Organizing Guns 101 Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Firearm Statistics, Publications, and Resources, But Didn't Know Who to Ask Firearms Litigation Gun Culture and Its Links to the Militia Movement The Nexus Between the International Small Arms Trade and Gun Violence in the U.S. Featured Speakers Addison K. Goff, Goff & Goff A. Kennon Goff, Goff & Goff Chip Berlet, Political Research Associates Scott Carpenter, Peace Action of Washington Sue Glick, Violence Policy Center Natalie Goldring, British American Security Information Council Dennis Henigan, Center to Prevent Handgun Violence Josh Horwitz, Educational Fund to End Handgun Violence John Johnson, Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence JoAnn Karn, Hands Without Guns Robin Katcher, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Dan Kotowski, Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence Jens Ludwig, Georgetown University and Northwestern/University of Chicago Poverty Center Ellen Miller, Public Campaign Luis Montes, Teens on Target Kristen Rand, Violence Policy Center Michael Robbins, Help for Survivors Andres Soto, Pacific Center for Violence Prevention Anja Speerforck, Social Action Leadership School Joe Sudbay, Handgun Control, Inc. Josh Sugarmann, Violence Policy Center Tom Vanden Berk, Help For Survivors Garen Wintemute, Violence Prevention Research Program, University of California at Davis Conference Registration Information Please Register before September 5, 1997. A registration form must be completed for each participant. If you have any questions about registration or would like more information about the conference, please call Desmond Riley at 202-530-5888 ext. 24. Fees The conference registration fee is $80.00 per person. The fee includes lunch of Friday and Saturday, dinner on Friday, and all conference materials. Please register before September 5, 1997. Please send your completed registration with a check or money order payable to: The Educational Fund to End Handgun Violence 1000 16th St. NW Suite 603 Washington, DC 20036 Scholarships Requests for scholarship assistance to attend the conference will be considered if submitted in writing to the Educational Fund by August 15, 1997. For more information, please call Desmond Riley at 202-530-5888 ext. 24. If you are unable to attend, but wish to make a tax-deductible donation to the conference's scholarship fund, please make your check payable to the Educational Fund to End Handgun Violence and send to the address listed above. Hotel Accommodations The 4th Annual Citizens' Conference to Stop Gun Violence will be held at the Holiday Inn on Capitol Hill, 415 New Jersey Avenue NW, Washington DC 20001. Reservations must be made through the hotel. Please call (800)-638-1116 or (202)-638-1616 and mention you are attending the 4th Annual Citizens' Conference to Stop Gun Violence. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: New FCO on the way soon, but meanwhile... -Forwarded Date: 08 Aug 1997 13:11:15 -0700 Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA07117; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 03:08:49 -0600 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) id EAA23971; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 04:51:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma023943; Fri Aug 8 04:50:25 1997 Message-Id: <199708080801.AA27729@crl9.crl.com> Errors-To: listproc@fs1.mainstream.com Reply-To: fco@Mainstream.net Originator: fco@mainstream.net Sender: fco@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Firearms Coalition Online -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- See an important new development in the NRA controversy at http://www.crl.com/~cknox/nra.html Do you expect your NRA officers and directors to disclose their financial dealings with NRA and its vendors? They won't unless you make'em! This is the most important change to the Bylaws in ten years. Sign and turn in by September 20. Instructions on the petition. Chris -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBM+rUriGz4I2lBJDFAQE/KAP9E90hS+PANzrx6t7XxmJ7sJPmfKKO+AiL xXhxbxKYabRO5xkbp+d3Als76EKaY9mJCLETDFl0OW+N35SDJnUE8ZMEQ9GA12c5 phhCx+8big06QKlwjBIXBfF/VAIS/PldZNwnOsSflh5TILxhIpc03R3ZD6gAOrSK rlTAKKjiHW0= =nxCh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To receive the Online Firearms Coalition Bulletin send mail to listproc@mainstream.com containing in the message body: subscribe fco Coming soon! http://www.nealknox.com http://www.crl.com/~cknox/fco.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Dear Ms. Metaska: -Forwarded Date: 11 Aug 1997 15:46:22 -0700 Received: from THIOKOL.COM by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA09467; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 08:36:51 -0600 Received: from UTAH-Message_Server by THIOKOL.COM with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 11 Aug 1997 08:41:44 -0600 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Dear Ms. Metaska: Dear Tanya Metaska: This letter is to protest NRAs approval of the inclusion of a requirement for firearms dealers to offer trigger locks at their place of business in S. 10, the Juvenile Justice Bill. You even called this a victory that the bill was passed without any anti-gun amendments. True, it was a compromise to avoid a more egregious abuse of my rights by Sen. Kohl, but once again you have compromised my rights. Please understand that Americans want the government out of their lives, not a series of compromises that erode our civil rights. We need a NRA that has the courage to stand up and say that what is happening is wrong, and the American people deserve and demand better. We need a NRA that will take a firm stand against bills that are wrong. Instead of just trying to tame down bad bills, we need a NRA to insist that bills return freedom to Americans, that put control on the Federal government. We need a NRA that honestly represents his constituents. Individuals and groups that believe only they know how to "make the world safer for children" or how to preserve a minor subset of an obscure, insignificant rodent, year after year propose and vote for legislation that ignores our civil rights and restricts our liberties. These bills generally start off asking for extensive and wide ranging reforms and restrictions. When these bills are proposed NRA negotiates and compromises, and by the end of the day only a portion of the original bill passed, we only lost a few liberties. However, the next day guess who is at it again? The same "we know best" crowd with another bill - only bigger, and more invasive. Again our NRA negotiates and compromises, and by the end of the day only a portion of the original bill passed, we only lost a few more liberties. Day after day this process continues and after a number of years the small losses of freedoms turn into an avalanche of repression. Instead of our NRA negotiating and compromising with unlawful and unconstitutional proposals, why aren't these bills and their supporters laughed off Capitol Hill? Why are they taken seriously? In the future please consider NRA members, your constituents, and uphold your oath to defend the Constitution rather than allowing it to be whittled away by small compromise after small compromise. Sincerely, Neil. Sagers 1205 North Quincy Avenue, #2 Ogden, Utah 84404 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Carjacking law in LA Date: 14 Aug 1997 14:23:12 -0600 Of interest to some, I'd guess. From the Desnews: Louisiana law says it's OK to gun down carjackers [Image] [Image] [Image] Last updated 08/14/1997, 12:01 a.m. MDT Associated Press NEW ORLEANS — A motorist confronted by a carjacker can legally kill the attacker under a new Louisiana law taking effect this week. The "Shoot the Carjacker" law makes such a killing justifiable homicide. The measure drew scant opposition as it moved through the Legislature earlier this year. The final vote in the state House was 93-3; the Senate passed it 34-0. It was sponsored by state Rep. Emile "Peppi" Bruneau of New Orleans, which was hit by a rash of carjackings in late 1996 and early 1997, many committed by gangs who stole vehicles to go on robbery sprees. Among the victims was Erika Schwarz, the 1996 Miss Louisiana and the first runner-up in the Miss America pageant. Her car was taken by a gunman who accosted her as she pulled into her driveway last December. The vehicle was found after police received an anonymous tip. Under the measure, which takes effect Friday, the person who does the killing would have to be inside the car being carjacked and would have to reasonably believe the alleged intruder was attempting to use force. The intended carjacking victim also would have to hold a permit for a concealed handgun. The number of people applying for gun permits is far below original estimates, state police said last week. State police expected 40,000 people to seek the statewide permits. But only 6,500 people had applied and 5,800 had been awarded since the state began issuing the permits 10 months ago. [Image] [Image] and the Tribune: [Image] [Image] Thursday, August 14, 1997 [Image] [Image] Louisiana Motorists Get License to Kill Carjackers THE ASSOCIATED PRESS BATON ROUGE, La. -- Motorists who fear their lives are in danger will be able to kill carjackers under a Louisiana law that takes effect Friday. All states have some sort of law that allows self-defense, but the Louisiana measure appears to be the first to focus specifically on carjacking, legislators said. The law was passed by the Legislature in June. The license to kill is drawing fire from critics. ``Essentially, it's just a law that allows you to kill car thieves,'' said Bert Garraway of the public defender office in Baton Rouge. ``As is usually the case, the Legislature overreacted.'' Proponents say the law is needed. ``We had three cases where victims of violent incidents were charged initially for defending themselves,'' said Sandy Krasnoff, director of the advocacy group Victims and Citizens Against Crime. ``Victims should not be hassled by the legal system -- if they manage to live through it.'' A young advertising executive was raped and killed in a carjacking in New Orleans just before Mardi Gras this year. Businesses in the French Quarter put signs in their windows saying ``Crime and noise are killing the Quarter.'' The new law permits motorists to use deadly force. It doesn't specify what means they may use. But because of the popularity of guns in Louisiana, the measure became known as the ``Shoot the Carjacker'' law. Rep. Peppi Bruneau, the New Orleans Republican who drafted the bill, noted that the burden is on the carjack victim to prove that he or she has been threatened with bodily harm. [Image] [Thursday Navigation Bar] [Image] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on | these things I'm fairly certain 801.588.7200 (work) | I'm not the one he'd have express it. "The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by rule of construction be conceived to give the Congress the power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." -- William Rawle, 1825; considered academically to be an expert commentator on the Constitution. He was offered the position of the first Attorney General of the United States, by President Washington. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: DISARM REGULATORS Date: 18 Aug 1997 17:48:57 -0700 Heads Up A Weekly edition of News from around our country August 15, 1997 #48 by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net Previous Editions at: http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html DISARM REGULATORS When an old friend, who is a career federal bureaucrat above the "GS" level, called one afternoon last week to chit-chat, I should have realized there may have also been an ulterior motive. He was, after all, calling from work. About ten minutes into the conversation he asked why this publication is so hard on the people working for the federal regulatory agencies. 'Because they are there, and should not be,' I wanted to answer. But I did not. Instead, I played the game, began my own opening gambit, and turned it around so he was on the defensive. "How many search warrants did your agency serve these past few weeks?" I eventually asked. "A few," he reluctantly answered. "How many with guns drawn and agents looking and acting like a SWAT team?" I then inquired. "That is for the protection of the agents. . . . . ." he tried to jive me. Uh huh. Sure. Lately, even FEMA and EPA started doing that. Where once, regulators came in dressed in normal business attire, now they bring a "team" wearing bullet proof vests and brandishing military-style guns. Reports are that a FEMA team "raided" a county flood management office recently, vested and guns at the ready. They even brought along a search warrant. Except that the only thing on the warrant was the judges signature and the word "sealed." They confiscated box- loads of public documents -- documents that were always available for anyone in the world to walk in and read. And, of course, they terrified (or is it terrorized?) the staff working the office in the process. Same with the EPA. Nowadays, if they visit a business suspected of spilling hazardous materials, they often bring along a SWAT team and act like they're going after a gang of armed bank robbers. Just a few years ago, that type of thing was handled by one man carrying nothing more ominous than a notebook. This is called lack of respect. It's the "them" against "us" mentality. Each year, the federal government ramps-up the aggression level. Today, many federal regulators act like they have absolutely no respect for the American public. Sure, they are not all like that -- yet. But, how many of these reports do we need before we voters start putting pressure on elected officials to get them stopped? IRS used a SWAT team to "take over" a day care center, kids and all. FDA brought along a SWAT team to "raid" a vitamin store. The BLM brought an armed posse to confront two hunters. Fish and Wildlife delivered a SWAT team by armed military choppers. Yet, in none of these cases was any wrongdoing ever proven. The problem is, neither was any of these agencies punished for use of excessive force (or stupidity!). Clearly, these people are out of control. It's our fault, too. These are, after all, public servants. Therefore, we can, with a little effort, have them fired. Federal agencies like FEMA, EPA, BLM and OSHA do not need guns. There are only a few real federal police agencies: Marshals, DEA, FBI and BATF immediately come to mind. These other agencies are only regulatory and tax collection agencies. Worse yet, for the most part, these armed regulators are people with no firearms training. Police academies last at least ten or twelve weeks. Many of the armed federal bureaucrats confronting American citizens do not even have ten or twelve minutes firearms or police training. In fact, some of them never even had a firearms safety course. Yet, in some cases, they're carrying fully automatic weapons. This is not good! For the safety of the American public, all federal regulatory agencies should be completely disarmed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [LP RELEASE: Texas & Ruby Ridge Killings] Date: 19 Aug 1997 11:02:57 -0600 Of some interest to some here.... ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY 2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100 Washington DC 20037 For release: August 19, 1997 For additional information: George Getz, Deputy Director of Communications Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222 E-Mail: 76214.3676@CompuServe.com Bring Marine and FBI killers to justice, demands outraged Libertarian Party WASHINGTON, DC -- It's now legal for Marines to use high-powered M-16 assault rifles to kill American high school students and for FBI sharpshooters to gun down mothers holding their infant daughters -- without worrying about any criminal penalties, the Libertarian Party charged today. "In America today, your innocence is no guarantee that you won't be killed by your own government," said the party's national chairman, Steve Dasbach. "And incontrovertible proof of guilt is no guarantee that military personnel or FBI agents will be charged with any crime." Dasbach's comments were part of an outpouring of outrage that followed the decision late last week by a grand jury in Texas not to prosecute a Marine corporal who shot dead an 18-year-old high school student, and by the Justice Department not to file charges against four FBI agents involved in the killing of Vicki Weaver at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in 1992. "These two decisions show that the government is more concerned about protecting the military and the FBI from justice than protecting innocent civilians from death," charged Dasbach. The two cases -- while separated by five years and involving different government agencies -- are graphic examples of why so many Americans fear their government, said Dasbach. In Redford, Texas, Esequiel Hernandez, Jr. -- a "shy, hard-working" young man, according to neighbors -- was gunned down by a four-man squad of U.S. Marines in May as he grazed his herd of 45 goats on his family's farm. He was the first American killed by U.S. soldiers on U.S. soil as part of the War on Drugs. The grand jury ruled that the Marines were acting in self-defense when they shot Hernandez -- despite overwhelming evidence that the high school sophomore never saw the camouflaged Marines in the first place. "This grand jury has sent a deadly message: Anything goes in the War on Drugs," said Dasbach. "This so-called war has become a military shooting war -- with M-16 assault rifles pointed directly at American citizens." The grand jury's ruling caused a firestorm of criticism; charges of a military cover-up; and demands for a Justice Department investigation because of numerous inconsistencies in the "official" version of the events. The military claims that Hernandez opened fire with his antique .22 rifle on the four Marines, who were lurking in the scrub brush while on a covert drug-surveillance mission. In response, they stalked Hernandez for several hundred yards, and Marine Corporal Clemente Banuelos killed him with a single shot from a high-powered M-16 assault rifle. According to Texas Rangers, Hernandez was shot in the side, while facing away from the Marines. Hernandez lay bleeding -- his red blood pouring into the dusty gray hillside near the Rio Grande River -- for 22 minutes before the Marines called for emergency aid. The young victim had never been suspected of or arrested for any criminal or drug-related activity. After the shooting, the Pentagon pulled 240 military personnel from the border area, and said the policy of using the U.S. military in covert anti-drug efforts on American soil was "under review." "Was the military upset over the death of an innocent civilian?" asked Dasbach. "No. The Pentagon was concerned because the Marines might face criminal penalties for gunning down a high school student." In fact, after the grand jury was convened, Pentagon spokesman Navy Lt. Cmdr. Scott Campbell complained that counter-drug operations "are not fair to the members of our armed forces," because it exposes them to "legal liability." In response, the Pentagon said it will ask border states like Texas, California, Arizona, and New Mexico to sign "status of forces" agreements with the federal government, which limit U.S. troops' liability to local criminal law. Such an agreement would be similar to those the U.S. government signs with foreign nations where American troops are stationed. The case involving the FBI dates back to 1992 -- to the bloody shootout at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, between the FBI and white separatist Randy Weaver. During that standoff, an FBI sharpshooter killed Vicki Weaver as she stood in the doorway of their mountain cabin, holding her 11-month-old daughter in her arms. After Randy Weaver surrendered, FBI officials destroyed documents that detailed the bureau's unorthodox "shoot to kill" orders, and one agent currently faces jail time for that cover-up. But the Justice Department ruled last week that it would not bring criminal charges against four other senior FBI officials, and ruled that the FBI gunman who fired the fatal bullet did not commit a "civil rights" violation by killing Vicki Weaver. "No wonder Americans are so concerned about violent crime," said Dasbach. "They see criminals in our Armed Forces and in the FBI committing murder and walking away without punishment -- while their victims lie in their graves. "But Esequiel Hernandez, Jr. and Vicki Weaver aren't the only victims here. The belief that in America, justice will prevail has also been mortally wounded. The only cure: For the judicial system to take immediate steps to bring the killers of these innocent Americans to justice," he said. In addition, Dasbach said the federal government should immediately demilitarize the War on Drugs, to make sure that another Redford, Texas-style killing does not occur. Specifically, he recommended: * Decommission the 8,000 military personnel and thousands of National Guard troops who are participating in anti-drug missions on U.S. soil, or reassign them to national defense tasks. * Immediately terminate all military spending on the War on Drugs. * Demilitarize the U.S./Mexico border. * File criminal negligence charges against the military commanders who sent heavily armed, poorly trained Marines onto private property, putting American civilians at risk of death. "By taking these steps, some good can come from the tragic death of Esequiel Hernandez, Jr.," said Dasbach. "The U.S. government can use this opportunity to stop waging war against its own citizens -- and, instead, wage a war for justice." # # # ----END FORWARDED MESSAGE---- -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on | these things I'm fairly certain 801.588.7200 (work) | I'm not the one he'd have express it. LOCK, STOCK, AND BARREL - This phrase, denoting the whole thing, the entirety of it all, is an old expression, used as early as the American Revolutionary War. It comes from the three principle parts of a [muzzle loading] firearm: the barrel, "the pipe down which the bullets are fired," the lock, "the firing mechanism," and the stock, "the wooden handle to which the other parts are attached." Together, lock, stock and barrel referred to the entire gun and the phrase are now used to suggest the whole of anything. -- M.T. Wyllyamz; 1992; published by Price, Stern, Sloan, Los Angeles. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [Washington Times Editorial: "That's No Justice"] Date: 21 Aug 1997 11:33:39 -0600 Of some interest... ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- The Washington Times Opinion August 20, 1997 EDITORIAL That's no Justice If one private citizen had set up another on weapons-possession charges, sent him the wrong court date to appear, shot his 14-year-old son in the back and killed him, and gunned down his wife as she stood in the doorway holding a baby, one would expect law-enforcement officials to take it pretty seriously. And so, no doubt, they would. When the feds themselves pull the trigger, however, it's a whole other story. Last week, the Justice Department announced it was dropping its investigation into the shooting deaths of a Ruby Ridge, Idaho, woman and her 14-year-old son without filing any charges against the federal agents who took part in the fatal siege. U.S. Attorney Michael Stiles, who led a 2-year inquiry into the 1992 shootings, said in a statement there was insufficient evidence to warrant criminal or civil charges in the case. The announcement was carefully timed for a late-summer Friday afternoon when no one was around to hear it, which is one measure of the agency's confidence in it. The Justice Department hastened to add that subjects of the investigation would still be exposed to internal "discipline," as if to show that the rule of law somehow still applies to the people entrusted to enforce it. Please. The family members who died hadn't been charged, much less convicted of any crime. Could anyone but a government sniper acting on government orders get away with killing them and face only "discipline?" The trouble started when federal officials tried to turn a man named Randall Weaver into an informant on a fringe political group with which they thought he had some connection. They pressed him repeatedly to sell them an illegal, sawed-off shotgun, and when finally he did, they charged him with federal gun crimes. The feds thought Mr. Weaver would cooperate with their undercover campaign and turn informant, but he refused and was charged. Problem was that the feds sent him the wrong court date. When Mr. Weaver didn't show up, they spent the next year and a half preparing for an assault on his Idaho cabin. Approaching the Weaver family cabin in August 1992, U.S. marshals stumbled on 14-year-old Sammy Weaver's dog and killed it. Sammy, not realizing who the marshals were, fired in their direction and ran. In the ensuing gun fight, one of the marshals shot Sammy in the back, killing him. A Weaver family friend returned fire, killing Marshal William Degan. In came the FBI, which promptly shot Randy Weaver as he went to see his son's body. Operating on illegal and unconstitutional "shoot-on-sight" orders, an FBI sniper, Lon Horiuchi, then shot Mrs. Weaver in the head as she stood in the doorway holding her infant child. Since that time, Randy Weaver and friend Kevin Harris have been acquitted on all federal murder charges. The federal judge presiding over the Weaver case blasted the FBI for its "callous disregard for the rights of the defendants and the interests of justice." The federal government has also settled a civil suit filed by Randy Weaver and his daughters by paying them $3.1 million. To date the only federal official prosecuted for what happened is FBI official Michael Kahoe, who pleaded guilty to obstructing justice after the fact by destroying key documents. That's it. FBI Director Louis Freeh has acknowledged that the Weaver case was a waste of time and resources from the beginning. Ultimately, of course, it turned out to be much worse. Some may downplay what happened to the Weavers because the reclusive family allegedly had odd political and religious ideas. But odd ideas are not a capital offense or crime here. Not yet anyway. The more serious concern is that there is a two-tiered system of justice evolving in this country -- one for the governed and another for their governors. That's an idea more repellent than anything Randy Weaver could have imagined. By its inaction, the Justice Department is making that idea a reality. ----END FORWARDED MESSAGE---- -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on | these things I'm fairly certain 801.588.7200 (work) | I'm not the one he'd have express it. "The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some others them aside... Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; ... the weak will become the prey to the strong." -- Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 (1775). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: PLEASE FORWARD TO AUSTRALIA Date: 30 Aug 1997 21:47:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reply-To: liberty-and-justice@pobox.com Paul Mitchell, private attorney general on behalf of the People of the United States of America, makes this unsolicited recommendation to the People of Australia, jointly and severally, to entertain an immediate and unconditional moratorium on the surrender of all firearms, until such time as a lawful national referendum can be scheduled, and implemented, on the question now before you. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Paul Mitchell Counselor at Law, federal witness, and private attorney general At 12:03 PM 8/30/97 -0400, you wrote: Dear Fellow Patriot: I have tried to limit my e-mails recently to only items which pertain to the main thrust of The American Resistance Movement, with the IRS being the starting point. However, I am making an exception due to the significance of this information. I recently wrote to an Austrailian on my mailing list asking for an "on the scene account" of what was going on in Australia with gun control. His account shows that the Australians have guts and there is going to be a showdown as early as October 1, 1997 if the Police go door to door as they have promised to do. The writer says that only 5% of the guns have been bought back, turned in, etc. in some of the states. Notice where the money comes from to buy the guns: The criminal government raises taxes (stealing it from everybody) and then pays gun owners SEVERAL TIMES what the guns are worth. We need to study the history of gun control in Australia so that we can avoid further infringements here! Here is the information: Terry, Thanks for assistance. Here's the scoop on Australian gun control. The Australian Federal Government as you know mandated a turn-in of any semi-automatic shoulder weapon (all semi rifles and shotguns) and banned pump shotguns as well. To assure greater compliance, the Feds here created an elaborate "buy-back" scheme that allocated millions of dollars to fund the buy-back. To generate the funds, the Feds increased the tax levy that individuals pay for the Federal health care benefit by 1%. Gun owners have been offered several times what their guns are worth to assure greater compliance. So, if you own a FAL pattern rifle (commonly made here at the government "Lithgow" arsenal for the Australian army and called SLR's or L1A1's), you'd be offered $2500 for this rifle. I had considered buying one, but the same rifle is selling in the U.S. for about $700. Even parts for banned weapons are fetching considerable sums. In addition, the Fed here is offering complete amnesty to anyone turning in previously banned or unregistered firearms. Large numbers of machine guns and semi-auto rifles, previously illegal are coming out of hiding. The money offered is irresistable to many. However, the scheme has been rated an overall failure, and has many nervous as to what the next step will be. Here's why...... Several Australian states didn't require gun registration over the previous years. States such as New South Wales and Queensland registered the gun owner and not the weapons he or she purchased. In these states, the numbers of banned weapons sold is known, but not to whom. THERE ARE NO FEDERAL GUN CONTROL RECORDS HERE, gun registration and licensing had always been controlled by the individual states. The numbers of banned weapons being turned in in those states which didn't have gun registration records has been DISMAL. There are no official estimates, but many gun stores estimate that the turn-in of banned weapons is probably less than 5%. The reason why this concerns many is due to what the government is pondering as their "next step." Several states have openly stated that door-to-door gun round-ups are next. The policemen (whom I come here to train) are extremely concerned about this, as many are openly sympathetic regarding the rights of gun owners and believe the gun laws are absurd. Deadlines for the turn-in vary from state to state, but the last deadline appears to be the one set by the state of West Australia, which is October 1st, 1997. What each state government does from then is open to speculation, but many believe the Federal government will be publicity sensitive to any major upheaval prior to the 2000 Olympic Games being held in Sydney. There is word that New Zealand is considering a similar gun buy-back scheme that will be patterned after the Australian model. Stay tuned... ===== CONGRESS NEEDS TO KNOW NOW THAT WE WILL BE EVEN LESS COOPERATIVE THAN THE AUSTRALIANS. IF THEY TRY TO TAKE OUR GUNS THERE WILL BE MASSIVE RESISTANCE AND MAJOR LOSS OF LIFE. COULD THIS EVER BE JUSTIFIED AS MAKING US SAFER? Terry W. Stough http://members.aol.com/TWStough/main.htm The American Resistance Movement (770) 641-9042 ====== Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night email: : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.