Conference back40::soapbox

    in the great state of south dakota gun laws are as follows:
    
    POSSESSION:
    	- no permit required to possess a shotgun, rifle, or handgun
     	- anyone 18 or older, not a convicted felon, drunkard, or drug
    	  abuser may possess
    	- anyone under 18, in accompanyment of a legal guardian, may 
          possess firearms
    
    PURCHASE:
    	- anyone 18 or older may purchase a shotgun, rifle, or handgun
     	  subject to same restrictions as possession
    
    CARRYING:
    	- the local police cheif or sheriff has authority to grant a LTC
    	- anyone 18 or old can obtain a LTC by submitting a request to 
          the local chief or sheriff
    	- the local chief or sheriff MUST issue a LTC permit within 5 days
          to those requesting provinding they meet the same restrictions
          for possession and purchase (which all prohibits such to mentally
          ill folks)
    	- the LTC permit is good for four years and costs $6
    
    PUNISHMENT
    	- anyone committing a felony or attempting such while using any
          firearm, and convicted in a court of law, will serve a MINIMUM
     	  10 year sentence. "the court shall not place on probation, reduce
    	  or eliminate the sentence of any person convicted of such an
     	  armed offense".

    I think everyone should follow Haag's lead, live in one state and keep
    your guns in another.  
    

            <<< Note 21.1 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>


	Add:

	There will be no restriction on the type or capacity of firearms
	that a person, who meets the criteria, may purchase or possess

Jim

    
    How about a nice little Canon?

    
    Another candidate for the little (R) repeat symbol, just like the
    abortion topic.

	gun control sux...

           <<< Note 21.4 by CALDEC::RAH "the truth is out there." >>>

    
>    How about a nice little Canon?

	I like them. I have an AE-1 with a couple of spare lenses.

	;-)

Jim

    I AM ONE FOR ULTIMATE GUN CONTROL!!!
    
    
    I feel that it is a SAD SHAME if one can't hit the Bulls eye,  say
    at 25 yards, with a pistol or revolver.  And IF they can't hit
    the target at 100 yards with a good or even bad rifle.
    
    Gun control it the ability to hit your target!
    
    YES !!!  I BELIEVE!!!
    
    
    Re: last few..I am in the MARKET for a Canon as well.  I am looking
    for a Sharps 40-110 or even a 50-140.  
    
    
    Sin-te-da
    
    

    .4:
    
    The Pachebels probably are the best known, but if you do a bit of
    digging...
    
    Dick

 
                         ARMIES OF CHAOS
-
     Before anyone proposes more gun control, he or she should know 
about a simple, deadly weapon 4 times as powerful as Dirty Harry's 
legendary .44 Magnum -- and at least twice as concealable -- that 
_can't_ be controlled.  
     This simple, deadly weapon can be made by anyone -- even a 
child -- with unpowered hand tools in an hour's time using $5 worth 
of materials, most of which are available around the house anyway.  
In traditional form it's reusable an unlimited number of times, and 
modern plastics have rendered its disposable version electronically 
undetectable.  You can clear a room with such a weapon (more of a 
hand-held directional grenade than a gun -- sort of a recycleable 
Claymore mine) and it's just one of hundreds of similar time-proven 
designs.  
     Complete instructions for building this simple, deadly weapon 
could be given in half the space I'm using here and not require a 
single illustration.  Or it could be done as a line-drawing and not 
require a word.  Either way, the results would Xerox splendidly and 
reduce, for effortless distribution, to the size of a 3X5 card.  
     No, I'm not making this up.  
     Self-styled liberal academics and politicians generally suffer 
an ancient Greek prejudice against the manual trades and often fail 
to comprehend what it means, with respect to banning weapons, that 
we're a nation of basement lathe-operators.  Americans unknowingly 
tend to follow Mohammed's precept that, whatever a person's station 
in life, he or she should also do something manual, if only to stay 
grounded in reality.  And if there's any lingering doubt about the 
ease of basic weaponscraft, ask the Israelis who, early in their 
nation's history, turned out submachineguns little more complicated 
than what I'm discussing here, in automotive garages lacking even a 
lathe.  
     Civilized restraint precludes my describing the weapon in any 
greater detail here.  Many gun enthusiasts will know by now exactly 
what I refer to, anyway.  It's in everyday use in much of the Third 
World, especially where governments foolishly believe that they've 
outlawed weapons.  But that, of course, is impossible -- unless the 
same governments want to try repealing the last 1000 years of civil 
engineering.  
     Now suppose somebody went ahead and wrote out those easy-to-
follow instructions, made that line drawing, or simply Xeroxed it 
from any of 100 sources already in print.  Suppose the plans for a 
reusable, undetectable weapon 4 times as powerful as a .44 Magnum 
and twice as concealable began circulating on every junior high 
school campus in America.  Or suppose they were simply sent to the 
media who can never resist giving viewers step-by-step directions 
for committing a crime -- even as they bemoan the terribleness of 
it all.  
     So what, you say.  So this:  within hours, every self-styled 
liberal academic and politician extant would begin to weep, wail, 
and whimper (the only thing they're really good at) and before the 
media-amplified screaming was over -- but after the legislature had 
met -- we'd find that the rights protected by the First Amendment 
(not created or granted, mind you, only recognized and guaranteed) 
are no more secure than those supposedly protected by the Second.  
Free expression would be trampled under without another thought or 
a moment's hesitation by the same jackals, vultures, and hyenas 
currently leading the stampede to outlaw weapons -- using exactly 
the same excuses.  
     When Xerox machines are outlawed, only outlaws will have Xerox 
machines.  
     Human rights are indivisible because there's really only one 
-- the right to remain unmolested by the government or by anybody 
else.  Those who threaten one right threaten them all -- and aren't 
really "liberals" by any definition of the word.  Suppressing the 
human right to own and carry weapons is a step toward suppressing 
the human right to read, write, and think.  Ask Canadians, for whom 
censorship is a fact of daily life, and for whom certain "assault" 
books (many of them published by Paladin Press) are on the "hafta 
smuggle it in" list.  
     The same thing can and will happen here.  Haven't we had ample 
warning in the way self-styled liberals, assisted by the corrupt 
media, suppress their opposition on these and other issues?  Or in 
their willingness to present lies as truth while the truth is 
called a lie?  Or in the fact that elected officials who advocate 
gun control -- which is a felony -- are still at large instead of 
behind bars where they belong?  The very existence of a gun control 
lobby gives the lie to any claim they make to liberalism.  The word 
"liberal" itself is false advertising, and the question arises, why 
do we go on applying it when the word "fascist" is so much more 
appropriate?  
     A popular bumper sticker proclaims that "GUN CONTROL IS PEOPLE 
CONTROL".  More to the point, and far more sinister, gun control is 
MIND control.  The relationship only begins with ludicrous attempts 
by self-styled liberals to convince a population protected by the 
Second Amendment that the Bill of Rights doesn't mean what it says.  
Weapons consist of more than machined steel or wood, cast aluminum 
or plastic.  As John M. Browning or Sam Colt would tell you, their 
second-most vital component is an idea.  (The first, for better or 
worse, is the will to use them.)  Without that idea behind it, all 
the steel, wood, aluminum, and plastic in the world doesn't make a 
weapon.  
     Those who would outlaw weapons must first outlaw the knowledge 
of weapons.  And those who would outlaw the knowledge of weapons 
must outlaw knowledge itself.  
     Similarly, civilization consists of more than just impressive 
public buildings and a battery of arbitrary rules.  Its continued 
existence depends absolutely on the day-to-day good will of each 
and every individual.  History (especially recent Soviet history) 
proves that this good will depends on how well individual rights 
are respected.  Alienate the individual, lose his good will, and 
you lose civilization itself.  
     Think I exaggerate?  Take another look at Beirut, Los Angeles, 
or the World Trade Center.  
     Every day we learn again how dependent we've been all along on 
individual self-restraint.  Self-styled liberals label this lesson 
"terrorism" because it makes them feel better and helps them to 
forget until tomorrow.  But it doesn't matter what they call it.  
In sufficient numbers, disaffected individuals become armies of 
chaos, reducing whole civilizations to archaeological rubble.  And, 
as with most violence in our culture, it is self-styled liberals 
who will make it happen here.  
-
L. Neil Smith
Author:  THE PROBABILITY BROACH, THE CRYSTAL EMPIRE, 
HENRY MARTYN, and (forthcoming) PALLAS
LEVER ACTION BBS (303) 493-6674, FIDOnet: 1:306/31.4
Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus
NRA Life Member
 
My opinions are, of course, my own.


Article: 10975
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Path: dbased.nuo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!csn!yuma!williams.lance.colostate.edu!cathy
From: cathy@longs.LANCE.ColoState.EDU (Cathy Smith)
Subject: Armies of Chaos -- L. Neil Smith
Sender: news@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU (News Account)
Message-ID: <cathy.28.733798167@longs.LANCE.ColoState.EDU>
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1993 00:49:27 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host: williams.lance.colostate.edu
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523
Lines: 123
 
Posted by Cathy Smith FOR L. Neil Smith
 

                THE ATROCITY ENGINEERS
-- L. Neil Smith, Denver RKBA Rally, April 18, 1993 --
 
Years ago, I watched a broadcast advertised as "news" in which a
citizen was about to read a part of the Bill of Rights to a gaggle of
Colorado politicians holding ILLEGAL HEARINGS with the intent of
further suppressing the INDIVIDUAL right to own and carry weapons. 
 
The hearings were illegal, among other reasons, because the
COLORADO constitution warns us that the individual right to own
and carry weapons is NOT to be called into question -- which, of
course, was the publicly-expressed purpose of the hearings. 
 
We've learned the hard way that the media -- TV, radio, newspapers --
never cover this issue with anything resembling fairness, accuracy, or
for that matter, intelligence. This particular day was no exception.
Before the citizen had even begun to read what the SUPREME LAW
OF THE LAND has to say about the individual right to own and carry
weapons, an inane commentator's feeble-minded voice-over cut him
off.
 
Now an educated and reflective individual, better aware of history and
the world around him than the average mass media reporter,
understands that the Second Amendment was drafted SPECIFICALLY
to discourage authoritarian ambition within the government. By now,
he also understands that expressions like "assault weapon" are
AUTHORITARIAN CODE for the hardware which best meets that
specification.  
 
Thus an educated and reflective individual, better aware of history and
the world around him than the average mass media reporter, refuses to
surrender his "assault weapon" -- whatever laws are passed to
intimidate him -- because, for instance, he never wants to see his
country taken over by militaristic thugs, as happened earlier this
century in Germany. 
 
"But that's ancient history", the mass media simper (and to them, it is),
"such events have nothing to do with NOW." Very well then, an
educated and reflective individual, better aware of history and the
world around him than the average mass media reporter, refuses to
surrender his "assault weapon" because he never wants to see his
whole community driven from their homes and MARCHED TO
DEATH on country roads, as happened not too long ago in Cambodia. 
 
"But that was far away", the mass media simper, "such events have
nothing to do with REAL CIVILIZATION." Very well then, an
educated and reflective individual, better aware of history and the
world around him than the average mass media reporter, refuses to
surrender his "assault weapon" because he never wants to see his
children or his neighbors' children dragged into the street to have their
arms and legs BROKEN by uniformed goons, as has happened in
Palestine under "civilized" Israeli occupation. 
 
"But those are unique circumstances," the mass media simper, "such
events have nothing to do with AMERICA." Very well then, an
educated and reflective individual, better aware of history and the
world around him than the average mass media reporter, refuses to
surrender his "assault weapon" because he never wants to see entire
square blocks of his hometown BOMBED INTO ASHES by police
helicopters, as happened a while back in Philadelphia. 
 
Furthermore, an educated and reflective individual, better aware of
history and the world around him than the average mass media
reporter, refuses to surrender his "assault weapon" because he knows
that politicians ANYWHERE are capable of ENGINEERING such
atrocities. For 60 bloodsoaked centuries they've demonstrated
EXACTLY what they're capable of, time and time again. 
 
Down the line, from power-hungry federal "czars" to publicity-hungry
county sheriffs, the ATROCITY ENGINEERS are out of control,
justifying their latest crimes against the Bill of Rights with a phony
"War on Drugs" which the mass media -- no more socially responsible
than in the days of William Randolph Hearst -- WHIPPED UP FOR
THEM in the first place. The plain, inconvenient truth is that a century
ago, when today's illegal drugs were as easily and cheaply available as
aspirin, there wasn't any "drug problem". Not until the atrocity
engineers CREATED one. 
 
Thus an educated and reflective individual, better aware of history and
the world around him than the average mass media reporter, refuses to
surrender his "assault weapon" because he never wants to be
MURDERED IN HIS OWN HOME in a hailstorm of gunfire and
grenades because the vice squad got the wrong address -- or simply
because he told a cop he wanted to be LEFT ALONE. That's
happened more than once in Colorado. As I speak, it's happening in
Waco, Texas. Somewhere in America it happens every day. 
 
And now, with their slanted coverage of "assault weapons" and other
Second Amendment issues, the mass media have handed the atrocity
engineers another opportunity -- though they may not realize it yet,
and by the time they do, it'll be too late. When the day comes that
they're covering a story which authorities don't WANT covered, and a
tiny, palm-sized .25 caliber "assault weapon" is conveniently
"discovered" in some reporter's camera bag or glove box, I hope they
remember that I warned them it could happen. I doubt they will.
Neither their memory nor their attention-span seems that long. 
 
The maintenance of civil order and social democracy is in our hands.
It has been there all along. It was never anywhere else. In a nationwide
study, Don Kates at the St. Louis University School of Law found that
the police succeed in wounding or driving off criminals only 81% as
often as armed civilians do -- and are 15% more likely to be wounded
or killed themselves. FIVE TIMES as many cops shoot some innocent
individual in the process as civilians do. 
 
The maintenance of civil order and social democracy is in our hands.
It has been there all along. It was never anywhere else. "We the
people" were naive and lazy to believe that anything important can
safely be entrusted to "authorities" and "experts" through elections, or
any other process. Self-defense against individual criminals -- or
criminals sanctioned by the state -- can no more be delegated to
somebody else than eating can, or sleeping, or any other bodily
function. History warns us that delegated responsibility becomes
POWER and that power is inevitably abused. 
 
The maintenance of civil order and social democracy is in our hands.
It has been there all along. It was never anywhere else. If civil order
and social democracy are to be restored to America, the emphasis must
be on enforcing the Bill of Rights -- on Bill of Rights
ENFORCEMENT. We must take that power out of the hands that have
abused it and break it down, BREAK IT DOWN, into units so small it
can no longer be called "power", but simply "responsibility" -- which,
unlike power, comes not from the barrel of a gun, but from the mind
and heart of the individual behind it.
 
L. Neil Smith
Author: THE PROBABILITY BROACH, THE CRYSTAL EMPIRE,
HENRY MARTYN, and (forthcoming) PALLAS
LEVER ACTION BBS (303) 493-6674, FIDOnet: 1:306/31.4
Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus
NRA Life Member
 
My opinions are, of course, my own.
 

Article: 12220
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Path: dbased.nuo.dec.com!e2big.mko.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!ames!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!csn!yuma!cathy
From: cathy@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Cathy Smith)
Subject: THE ATROCITY ENGINEERS -- L. Neil Smith
Message-ID: <Apr19.130751.61566@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>
Sender: Cathy Smith
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 13:07:51 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host: blanca.lance.colostate.edu
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523
Lines: 136
 
Posted by Cathy Smith for L. Neil Smith
 

    
    wow. that sounded like the Gnostic One turned gunnut.

From:	US4RMC::"best-rkba@Mainstream.com" 18-NOV-1994 19:15:24.86
To:	Multiple recipients of list <best-rkba@Mainstream.com>
CC:	
Subj:	BEST-RKBA digest 147

			    BEST-RKBA Digest 147

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) CARRYING CONCEALED FIREARMS (CCW) STATISTICS by alerts@gatekeeper.nra.org (NRA Alerts)
  2) With CCW, Florida's Homicide Decreases While National Average Soars by alerts@gatekeeper.nra.org (NRA Alerts)
  3) NEWS BRIEFS and QUOTABLE QUOTES ON NRA CLOUT by alerts@gatekeeper.nra.org (NRA Alerts)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Topic No. 1

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 22:01:35 -0500
From: alerts@gatekeeper.nra.org (NRA Alerts)
To: best-rkba@Mainstream.com, press-release@gatekeeper.nra.org
Subject: CARRYING CONCEALED FIREARMS (CCW) STATISTICS
Message-ID: <9411180301.AA14191@gatekeeper.nra.org>


            CARRYING CONCEALED FIREARMS (CCW) STATISTICS

Violent crime rates are highest overall in states with laws
severely limiting or prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms
for self-defense. (FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 1992)

-    The total Violent Crime Rate is 26% higher in the
     restrictive states (798.3 per 100,000 pop.) than in the
     less restrictive states (631.6 per 100,000).

-    The Homicide Rate is 49% higher in the restrictive states
     (10.1 per 100,000) than in the states with less
     restrictive CCW laws (6.8 per 100,000).

-    The Robbery Rate is 58% higher in the restrictive states
     (289.7 per 100,000) than in the less restrictive states
     (183.1 per 100,000).

-    The Aggravated Assault Rate is 15% higher in the
     restrictive states (455.9 per 100,000) than in the less
     restrictive states (398.3 per 100,000).

Using the most recent FBI data (1992), homicide trends in the 17
states with less restrictive CCW laws compare favorably against
national trends, and almost all CCW permittees are law-abiding.

-    Since adopting CCW (1987), Florida's homicide rate has fallen
     21% while the U.S. rate has risen 12%.  From start-up 10/1/87
     - 2/28/94 (over 6 yrs.) Florida issued 204,108 permits; only
     17 (0.008%) were revoked because permittees later committed
     crimes (not necessarily violent) in which guns were present
     (not necessarily used).

-    Of 14,000 CCW licensees in Oregon, only 4 (0.03%) were
     convicted of the criminal (not necessarily violent) use or
     possession of a firearm.

Americans use firearms for self-defense more than 2.1 million times
annually. 

-    By contrast, there are about 579,000 violent crimes committed
     annually with firearms of all types.  Seventy percent of
     violent crimes are committed by 7% of criminals, including
     repeat offenders, many of whom the courts place on probation
     after conviction, and felons that are paroled before serving
     their full time behind bars.

-    Two-thirds of self-protective firearms uses are with handguns.

-    99.9% of self-defense firearms uses do not result in fatal
     shootings of criminals, an important factor ignored in certain
     "studies" that are used to claim that guns are more often
     misused than used for self-protection.
-    Of incarcerated felons surveyed by the Department of Justice,
     34% have been driven away, wounded, or captured by armed
     citizens; 40% have decided against committing crimes for fear
     their would-be victims were armed.
                                                                         
                         OTHER CCW FACTS

     With adoption of CCW by Arizona, Tennessee and Wyoming in
early 1994, 19 states have CCW laws requiring the issuance of
permits to carry concealed firearms for self-defense to citizens
who meet fair and reasonable state standards.  Vermont, which ranks
near the bottom in violent crime rates year-in and year-out, allows
firearms to be carried concealed without a permit.

     In recent years NRA successfully fought for the adoption of
favorable CCW laws now on the books in Florida (1987), Idaho (1990,
amended 1991), Mississippi (1990), Montana (1991), and Oregon
(1990).  In recent legislative sessions, proposals for similar CCW
laws have progressed in Alaska, Colorado, Missouri, Oklahoma and
Texas.

     Anti-gun forces oppose CCW with a variety of arguments,
ranging from deliberate  misrepresentations of commonly available
crime data to "studies" pretending to show that private ownership
of firearms leads to death and injury rather than providing
protection to the owner.

1.   Firearms ownership opponents claim that "violent crime" went
up in Florida since that state enacted CCW legislation in 1987, a
misleading statement for multiple reasons:

-    Florida's homicide rate has declined 21% since adopting CCW in
1987.

-    No comparison of aggravated assault, robbery, and rape (99.3%
of Florida violent crimes) beginning before 1988 is valid,
according to the Florida Dept. of Law Enforcement.  In 1988,
Florida changed its method of compiling crime statistics.

-    In Florida, as in the U.S., more than 70% of violent crimes do
not involve guns.  Violent crime rates, therefore, don't
necessarily reflect violent gun-related crime trends.  According to
the most recent FBI Uniform Crime Reports (1992), nationwide
firearms were used in the four violent crimes that make up the
total "Violent Crime" category, as follows:  Aggravated Assault
(58% of violent crimes) -- firearms used in 25%; Robbery (35% of
violent crimes) -- firearms used in 41%; Rapes (6% of violent
crimes) -- firearms used in an estimated 5%-10% (survey data); and
Homicides (1% of violent crimes) -- firearms used in 68%.

     In Florida: Aggravated Assaults (64% of violent crimes) --
firearms used in 25%; Robberies (30% of violent crimes) -- firearms
used in 37%; Rapes (4% of violent crimes) -- firearms used in an
estimated 5%-10% (survey data); and Homicides (0.7% of violent
crimes) -- firearms used in 61%.

2.   Anti-gunners cite "studies" they claim show that firearms kept
at home are "43 times more likely" to be used to kill family
members than be used for self-defense.  (Other "studies" claim
different ratios.)  The 43:1 claim, based upon a small-scale study
of Kings County (Seattle) and Shelby County (Memphis), is a fraud,
because it counts as self-defense gun uses only those cases in
which criminals were killed in the defender's home.  Approximately
99.9% of all defensive gun uses are not fatal shootings, however --
criminals are usually frightened off, held at bay, or non-fatally
wounded.  Also, many defensive firearms uses occur away from home. 
Further, suicides were counted as "family member killings" in the
"study," elevating that number more than 500%.  Unfortunately, some
of these "studies" are funded with taxpayer dollars, through grants
from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a division of
the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services.
--
This information is presented as a service to the Internet community
by the NRA/ILA.  Many files are available via anonymous ftp from
ftp.nra.org and via WWW at http://www.nra.org

Be sure to subscribe to rkba-alert by sending:
subscribe rkba-alert Your Full Name
as the body of a message to rkba-alert-request@NRA.org

Information can also be obtained by connecting to the NRA-ILA GUN-TALK
BBS at (703) 934-2121.

------------------------------

Topic No. 2

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 22:03:13 -0500
From: alerts@gatekeeper.nra.org (NRA Alerts)
To: best-rkba@mainstream.com, press-release@gatekeeper.nra.org
Subject: With CCW, Florida's Homicide Decreases While National Average Soars
Message-ID: <9411180303.AA14240@gatekeeper.nra.org>


    With CCW, Florida's Homicide Decreases While National Average Soars
                     Homicide Rates Per 100,000 Pop.

       AREA                1987*               1992                % CHANGE

       Florida             11.4                9.0                 -21%
       U.S.                8.3                 9.3                 +12%

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, F.B.I. Uniform Crime Reports
* Florida adopted CCW in 1987.


                  CCW Permits in Florida Issuance Rates

Population                                           13,277,000

% of Floridians                                      All - 62.7%
Who Own Guns                                         Male - 68.8%
                                                     Female - 57.3%

# of Floridians                                      8,325,000
Who Own Guns

# of Permit Applications                             239,411

Permits Issued                                       227,569

Permits Revoked Due To                               18 (0.008%)
Crime With Firearm Present


During the 6-1/2 year period from 10/01/87 (start-up date) through
05/31/94, 227,569 CCW permits have been issued -- 69% new permits;
31% permit renewals.  Less than one-quarter of 1% of permit
applications have been rejected due to an applicant's criminal
history; less than two-tenths of 1% have been rejected due to an
"incomplete application."  Two hundred permits (less than one-tenth
of 1%) have been revoked because a permit holder committed some
kind of a crime, though not necessarily a gun-related or violent
crime. Only 18 (less than 0.008%) permits have been revoked because
a permit holder committed a crime (not necessarily violent) in
which a firearm was present, though not necessarily used.

By contrast, the FBI reports that each year there are about 46,000
gun-related violent crimes (assaults, robberies, homicides and
rapes) in Florida.

Florida CCW Permit Source: Florida Department of State
--
This information is presented as a service to the Internet community
by the NRA/ILA.  Many files are available via anonymous ftp from
ftp.nra.org and via WWW at http://www.nra.org

Be sure to subscribe to rkba-alert by sending:
subscribe rkba-alert Your Full Name
as the body of a message to rkba-alert-request@NRA.org

Information can also be obtained by connecting to the NRA-ILA GUN-TALK
BBS at (703) 934-2121.

------------------------------

Topic No. 3

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 22:02:44 -0500
From: alerts@gatekeeper.nra.org (NRA Alerts)
To: best-rkba@mainstream.com, press-release@gatekeeper.nra.org
Subject: NEWS BRIEFS and QUOTABLE QUOTES ON NRA CLOUT
Message-ID: <9411180302.AA14219@gatekeeper.nra.org>

November 17, 1994

                         NEWS BRIEFS

       The New York Times will list Guns, Crime & Freedom on its 
bestseller list Nov. 20th -- the book will be ranked 13th on  the
paper's list for hard-cover non-fiction, according to a report in
the Washington Times today.

                 QUOTABLE QUOTES ON NRA CLOUT

       "The National Rifle Association...rebounded with a vengeance
Tuesday (Nov. 8th) when at least a dozen of the gun-control
supporters in Congress it had targeted were defeated by candidates
who oppose weapons restrictions," reported Hearst News Service in
the Portland Oregonian (11/10/94).

       "Though only one of the many forces in Tuesday's (Nov. 8th)
political watershed election, the 3.5 million member NRA made an
impression in political circles that could again drive home the
value of its goodwill -- or the power of its ire," reported the Los
Angeles Times (11/10/94).

       "Those folks have mastered the art of influencing federal
elections," said Mike Casey of the Democratic Congressional
Campaign Committee (LA Times, 11/10/94).

       "They [NRA members and gun owners] alone may have well made
the difference in this election," said Sen. Harris Wofford
reflecting on his loss to Rick Santorum in the Pennsylvania U.S.
Senate race (AP, 11/12/94).

       "NRA opposition hurts" declared US News & World Report while
describing one lesson for incumbents to learn following the upset
defeat of 8-term incumbent anti-gun Rep. Mike Synar (formerly D-OK)
(10/3/94).

       "Their [NRA's] grassroots effort is the best.  They are alive
and well," said retiring Rep. Bill Hughes (D-NJ) (Richmond Times
Dispatch, 8/15/94).

       "As candidates who backed gun control legislation fell one by
one across the nation Tuesday night, the National Rifle Association
re-emerged as a high caliber political force that politicians cross
at their own peril," reported The Hill on Nov. 10, 1994.

       "Don't buck the NRA, or you'll pay -- as for instance,
Oklahoma's Dave McCurdy paid," said columnist William Raspberry
(11/14/94?)

       "After suffering big defeats in Congress this year on handgun
control and a ban on certain assault rifles, the National Rifle
Association made good on its promise not to get mad but to get
even," reported the Washington Post.
--
This information is presented as a service to the Internet community
by the NRA/ILA.  Many files are available via anonymous ftp from
ftp.nra.org and via WWW at http://www.nra.org

Be sure to subscribe to rkba-alert by sending:
subscribe rkba-alert Your Full Name
as the body of a message to rkba-alert-request@NRA.org

Information can also be obtained by connecting to the NRA-ILA GUN-TALK
BBS at (703) 934-2121.

------------------------------

End of BEST-RKBA Digest 147
***************************

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from inet-gw-3.pa.dec.com by us4rmc.pko.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA01656; Fri, 18 Nov 94 19:13:37 -050
% Received: from n8ino.mainstream.com by inet-gw-3.pa.dec.com (5.65/10Aug94) id AA00882; Fri, 18 Nov 94 16:09:40 -080
% Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by n8ino.mainstream.com (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id QAA25221; Fri, 18 Nov 1994 16:51:21 -0500
% Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 16:51:21 -0500
% Message-Id: <199411182151.QAA25221@n8ino.mainstream.com>
% Errors-To: listproc@Mainstream.com
% Reply-To: best-rkba@Mainstream.com
% Originator: best-rkba@mainstream.com
% Sender: best-rkba@Mainstream.com
% Precedence: bulk
% From: best-rkba@Mainstream.com
% To: Multiple recipients of list <best-rkba@Mainstream.com>
% Subject: BEST-RKBA digest 147
% X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
% X-Comment: Right to Keep and Bear Arms "Best of" list

    
    
    Can't be.  

    	While I tend to avoid gun discussions because I simply have
    	no passion for it one way or the other, I had a few questions
    	as I read through some of these here.
    
    	I don't see how the Constitution protects UNLIMITED ownership.
    	It merely says "keep and bear".  If the government wants to
    	limit you to 100 (for instance) or fewer arms, while you cannot 
    	have 101, you can still have 99, and that satisfies "keep and
    	bear".  If the government wants to say that you cannot own
    	x-type, y-type, and z-type firearms, you can still "keep and
    	bear" a-type through w-type, which would still seem to satisfy
    	the constitution.
    
    	My concern with the above thinking, though, is that if the
    	govenrment manages to prohibit more than 100, and limit the
    	types you can own, will they then be able to continue to
    	chip away and limit you to 99, then 50, then 10, then 1?
    	Will they be able to also prohibit w-type, then v-type, etc.,
    	until you can only own a-type?  Ownership limited to only 
    	one a-type arm could still be argued to satisfy the Constitution.
    
    	I can see (and maybe even support) limitations, but only if I can
    	see that the limitations are limited.  And still that doesn't
    	address my concerns of "only the outlaws will have guns".
    
    	I do agree that something is wrong in this society in the area
    	of gun ownership (and I do not pretend to know what it is) but 
    	I believe that we as a society have not even come close to 
    	properly addressing the problem.  I think it will come from some 
    	currently unconsidered and innovative direction/idea.

    
    
    y knot? :)
    

    > I don't see how the Constitution protects UNLIMITED ownership.
    
    The Constitution says "keep and bear".  Since is doesn't explicitly
    limit the number or types of "arms" (not tanks and nukes, but
    handguns/rifles/shotguns) it is unlimited.  
    
    
    > If the government wants to limit you to 100 (for instance) or fewer
    > arms,
    
    This is pretty simple really.  If the gov't were allowed to limit, it
    would say it.  Since it doesn't, the gov't _can't_ do it.
    
    The problem with society, imo, is we have 2 issues:
    #1: A breakdown of values.  Seeing life as cheap and lack of respect
    for others.
    #2: A failure with out legal system which allows bad people to remain
    in contact with society.  If we removed the small percentage of people
    who commit many of the crimes from society, common sense would say
    that crime will fall. 

    	>I don't see how the Constitution protects UNLIMITED ownership.
    	>It merely says "keep and bear".  If the government wants to
    	>limit you to 100 (for instance) or fewer arms, while you cannot 
    	>have 101, you can still have 99, and that satisfies "keep and
    	>bear".  If the government wants to say that you cannot own
    	>x-type, y-type, and z-type firearms, you can still "keep and
    	>bear" a-type through w-type, which would still seem to satisfy
    	>the constitution.
    
    the big problem with this line of thinking is that it assumes the
    government has anybusiness interpreting the constitution and mandating
    some kind of restrictions based on their understanding. bad news for
    sure.

              <<< Note 21.17 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Oracle-bound" >>>

>    	I don't see how the Constitution protects UNLIMITED ownership.
>    	It merely says "keep and bear". 

	It says a bit more than "keep and bear". It also guaruntees that
	the right to "keep and bear" shall not be infringed.

	Limitations on number or type are certainly infringements.

Jim

    <<< Note 21.18 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly" >>>

>    The Constitution says "keep and bear".  Since is doesn't explicitly
>    limit the number or types of "arms" (not tanks and nukes, but
>    handguns/rifles/shotguns) it is unlimited.  

Why not tanks and nukes? I'm not for gun control primarily because I 
haven't seen any persuasive evidence that it would limit crime. But this 
statement, which I'm sure most reasonable NRA-types would agree with, 
exposes a logical inconsistency. If the second is intended to preserve our 
ability to overthrow a bad tyranny, then we'd need some pretty heavy fire 
power. But if you see the danger of putting that kind of destructive power 
into unregulated general population, why can't others see the danger of 
military assault rifles without being labels gun-control freaks? What's 
more, since the 2nd says "right to bear arms" - not bear guns - what gives 
you the right to interpret your sacred original intent so loosely? You mean 
the constitution is flexible for you, but not for me?

Just curious.

    re: Note 21.21 by USMVS::DAVIS
    
    Define "Arms".  Arms is different than "guns".  I may be incorrect
    in including "not tanks".  I suppose I could buy a good surplus sherman
    if I had the cash available.  What I'd do with it, I don't know -
    prolly get smoked real quick by a Abrams or Maverick if I tried to
    move on the gov't in a threatning maner.
    
    Try to buy a weapon of that sort, there is no requirement for any
    weapons vendor to sell you anything, even if you can afford it.
    
    Mr. P put it good.  "...Shall not be infrindged".  Limiting the number
    or types of arms is certainly infringement and thus in violation of
    the 2nd Amendment.
    
    

    Of course, economics are their own limitus.  Not everyone can afford
    100 firearms (I certainly can't).  And even if everyone did own 100
    guns, rather than 2), what differece would it make?  Even if one went
    nuts, he could only use 2 firearms at a given time (at least with any
    accuracy, assuming he is equally trained with right and left hand, and
    is using handguns or something easily used one-handed).  Seems kinda silly 
    to limit the number of firearms a person can own.  
    
    Of course, this is beside the point that any limitations go against the
    Second, wich says that the right to keep and bear arms...."shall not be
    infringed".  Limiting the number or type of firearms is certainly an
    infringement.
    
    Two firearms or two-thousand...what's the big deal?  Of course, the
    term "arsenol" is widely used by the media today to instill fear and
    other negative emotional responses towards gun-ownership.
    
    -steve

RE               <<< PEAR::DKB100:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
>                          -< Soapbox.  Just Soapbox. >-
>================================================================================
>Note 37.146                 Susan Smith Murders Sons                  146 of 146
>GAAS::BRAUCHER                                       12 lines  30-NOV-1994 15:47
>                                  -< But... >-
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Why don't we argue this where it belongs.
    
>    It is not logical to conclude that all the Second means is that
>    those the government decides are to be armed should be armed,
>    because such power existed without the Second - see the enumerated
>    powers of Congress.  The Second cannot logically be construed to mean
>    that an ordinary citizen has no right to arms.  

  I don't think anyone is claiming that the 2nd amendment says that. I am
saying that the Constitution says nothing at all about unregulated individuals
having arms and as such it's an issue left to Congress.

  What the Constitution does cover is the right of citizens to form well
regulated militia and to possess arms for that purpose.

  George

    
    In terms of a militia, which the Constitution says can be called out
    in case of rebellion or invasion, the term "well-regulated" clearly
    means, "well acquainted with what they have to do" as opposed to
    "running around like a headless chicken".  In other words, the
    Founders considered it a positive good that Americans knew how to
    shoot, and wanted every adult male to know how.  So they wanted
    everybody to go practice shooting, or at least not be prevented from
    doing so by the government.
    
      bb

  No it was more than that. The town fathers of the time insured that the
colonists knew how fight as an army by organizing companies of militia with
a Captain, other officers, and enlisted ranks and by training them as an
army.

  The closest thing we have today to the Militia known to the Founding Fathers
would be the national guard with the big difference being that they were
under control of the cities and towns rather than the state government.

  George

    Gawge,
    
    In the good old days it was 
    Minuteman - Militia - Continental Army.
    
    The militia often didn't care too much for dying, so they often split.
    A minuteman on the other hand was defending his home, family and
    livelyhood.
    
    Today it's
    "me" - National Guard - US Armed forces.
    Witness the NG (some of them) when called up for Desert Storm.  "Hey
    man, this is a <r.o.>ing WEEKEND JOB!!  or "I'm just doing this so I
    can go to school!!!"  :^O
    I on the other hand would fight like a you know what if my family
    or home were threatened.
    
    Time goes on, but it's still the same story.

    
    what would you do, try to shoot the MIRV out of the sky?
    
    

RE    <<< Note 21.27 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly" >>>

>    The militia often didn't care too much for dying, so they often split.
>    A minuteman on the other hand was defending his home, family and
>    livelyhood.

  That may well be but the 2nd amendment does not say "The Minuteman being
necessary to the security of a free State ...", it says "A well regulated
Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ...". 

  So it appears that the right of the people to have a National Guard is
protected by the Constitution but the right to be an independent minute man
is not.

  Again, the founding fathers knew about all of this, if they had wanted both
the individual and the militia to be armed it would have been easy for them to
say that in the 2nd amendment.

  They did not, they only guaranteed the right to bear Arms to the militia.

  George

    George said the Constitution does not say anything about unregulated
    individuals.
    
    This is a key point.  In the Constitution, it doesn't really say
    anything about individuals at all, so he's correct.
    
    The point George is missing, is that the Constitution is meant to
    regulate the federal government.  It is not meant to regulate people.
    
    And the regulation in the 2nd states that the federal government shall
    not infringe upon the right to bear arms.  It then becomes a matter of
    determining what "infringe" means.

    
    doesn't the amendment say "the right of the People"?
    
    if it does, that pretty much means individuals.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the poeple to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now, to get away from the emotionalisim, let's do a simple substitution:

A well regulated car club, being necessary to transportation, the right of the
poeple to keep and own cars, shall not be infringed.

Now no matter how I parse the above statement, I do not see the need to actually
be a member of a car club to own a car; in fact, it seems to me that what it
does by giving people the right to own cars is to create a pool of people that
know how to operate cars that can be recruited into a car club.

                                  Roak

    Re: .32
    
    I don't think "transportation" and "the security of a free State" are
    analogous when it comes to justifying something.

Re: <<< Note 21.33 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>

>>    Re: .32
    
>>    I don't think "transportation" and "the security of a free State" are
>>    analogous when it comes to justifying something.

Is there something else you'd like to plug in there?  What goes there won't
effect the outcome, but have at it if you've got a better suggestion.

                              Roak

There has been a lot of discussion about whether or not the militia, as
interpreted today, means the national guard.

There is no qustion that the founders considered a federal government to
be the greatest potential danger to the people, hence the 2nd amendment.

Other replies in this note alluded to the idea that the National Guard is
under the control of the state.

The National Guard may be maintained by the state, but remember: the lines
of national defense are 1) the armed services, 2) the reserves, and 3) the
national guard.

The national guard is ultimately controlled by the feds, and can be called 
out AGAINST the state. Remember Kennedy and George Wallace?

The bottom line: The National Guard IS THE FEDS. Interpreted this way, the
2nd can be read as giving the right to the people to join the federal armed
services. I don't think this is what the founders intended.

    Re: .34
    
    >Is there something else you'd like to plug in there?
    
    I'm not sure there's much comparable to the security of a free State,
    at least where "security" refers to security against foreign invasion. 
    (One could argue that, a sufficient revenue stream being essential to
    the non-physical security of a free State, the right to levy taxes
    should not be infringed -- but one probably wouldn't.)

    Chelsea, they were talking about freedom from oppression, and the
    authors and those who ratified the amendment were well aware that the
    federal government was capable of oppression.
    
    A study of the writings of the FF will clearly show they intended to
    empower the people against the federal government as a final check in
    the series of checks and balances.  You may think I'm a whacko, but I
    have a belief that were it not for the lawful proliferation of weapons
    in this country, we would be experiencing far worse assaults on our
    liberty right now.  I think that the groundswell of rebellion against
    the government in the last few years has had a damping effect on the
    Washington power grab.  

  <<< Note 21.35 by DECWET::LOWE "Bruce Lowe, DECwest Eng.,  DTN 548-8910" >>>
                            -< re: national guard >-

>There is no qustion that the founders considered a federal government to
>be the greatest potential danger to the people, hence the 2nd amendment.

I don't pretend to be a constitutional authority, but I believe the FF's 
rightly considered tyrrany -- be it by individuals, governments (state or 
fed), or "the majority" -- as the greatest threat. Although the right has 
siezed the constitution as an excuse to limit federal beaurocracy, it seem 
to me that the checks and balances spelled out in the constitution flow up 
and down the chain. Yeah, given their experience in England, the FF were 
probably especially wary of cenralized power, but most likely that meant 
someone trying to declare himself king, not some nebulous accumulation of 
power and usurpation of rights by an elected representative government.

MadMike may have been right that a take-over here would be untenable, 
because of the numbers of armed people among us. But as far as I'm 
concerned, it's a moot point, because the FF had the good sense to design a 
government in which that would be impossible in any case. The militia bit, 
I think, is intended to enable 18th-century america to respond quickly to
foreign threats from remote fronteirs and pockets of tyranny as they
spring within the republic.

But what do I know?

    
    Who is the militia ?  You are, George.  Bill Clinton can call you
    out in case of Rebellion or Invasion.  I hope you well-regulate
    yourself when he does.
    
      bb

    
    it may be solace to some that for the next two years gun control
    probably won't ever make it to the floors of either house for
    consideration.
    
    jeff

RE              <<< Note 21.30 by ODIXIE::CIAROCHI "One Less Dog" >>>

>    The point George is missing, is that the Constitution is meant to
>    regulate the federal government.  It is not meant to regulate people.
>    
>    And the regulation in the 2nd states that the federal government shall
>    not infringe upon the right to bear arms.  It then becomes a matter of
>    determining what "infringe" means.

  No I am not missing that point and you are blowing smoke to say that 
"infringe" is the key point.

  The 2nd amendment says:

   "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."

  Regardless of how you interpret "infringed", this is saying that the Federal
Government can not take away the right for people to bear arms to form a
well regulated militia.

  It says nothing about the Federal Government taking away the right for the
people to bear arms for any other reason.

  George

RE  <<< Note 21.35 by DECWET::LOWE "Bruce Lowe, DECwest Eng.,  DTN 548-8910" >>>

>The bottom line: The National Guard IS THE FEDS. Interpreted this way, the
>2nd can be read as giving the right to the people to join the federal armed
>services. I don't think this is what the founders intended.

  If you think back to 1776, this is not all that different than the way the
militia was used by the founding fathers. 

  Companies of militia would practice under control of a Captain appointed by
the town fathers, but during the Revolutionary war, they joined forces under
George Washington who was designated by the Continental Congress under the
Articles of Confederation to fight against the British. 

  It was not at all uncommon for the militia to be called to service by the
Federation and this was well known to the politicians at the Constitutional
Convention since it was Washington himself that presided over that meeting. 

  George 

    .41
    
>  Regardless of how you interpret "infringed", this is saying that the Federal
>  Government can not take away the right for people to bear arms to form a
>  well regulated militia.
    
    meowski, it's too bad you didn't learn to understand the english
    language properly in school; i don't relish teaching it to you now. 
    
    the second amenedment does NOT say "the right of the people to keep and
    bear arms TO FORM A WELL REGULATED MILITIA shall not be infringed." 
    
    the first part of the sentence can be recast to read "Because a well
    regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State," and
    that is a REASON for the prohibition on infringment, not a
    QUALIFICATION of it.  the sentence says unambiguously, "because this,
    then that."  and "that" is an UNQUALIFIED prohibition on governmental
    infringement of the people's right to keep and bear arms.

                      <<< Note 21.26 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  The closest thing we have today to the Militia known to the Founding Fathers
>would be the national guard with the big difference being that they were
>under control of the cities and towns rather than the state government.

	The National Guard is SPECIFICALLY not the militia as reffered
	to in the Constitution OR in the Militia Act of 1790.

	They are also not under the control of the State governments. 
	They are FEDERAL troops.

Jim

RE    <<< Note 37.157 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>George, Why do you keep ducking my question? 

  What question? I'm looking at your note but I see no question.

>If your analysis is correct,
>	then you MUST have some logical reasoning showing that only ONCE 
>	in FORTY ONE uses of the term "people", the FFs intended to convey
>	a collective right. 

  Because in this instance they qualified their statement with the phrase

   "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
   State,... "

That is not done anywhere else.

  Notice that the 1st amendment does NOT say "Political discussions being
necessary to the security of a free state, Congress shall make no law abridging
the freedom of speech". Had they said that then Judge Bork might have had
a point. But he was wrong because it simply says "Congress shall make no law
abridging the freedom of speech" without qualification. 

  By contrast unlike the other amendments, the 2nd amendment does have a
qualification. 

  George

RE     <<< Note 21.44 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	The National Guard is SPECIFICALLY not the militia as reffered
>	to in the Constitution OR in the Militia Act of 1790.
>
>	They are also not under the control of the State governments. 
>	They are FEDERAL troops.

  No, they are state troops under control of the Governor of that state. Like
the militia of 1776, they are called up by the Federal Government in time of
emergency.

  George

                      <<< Note 21.46 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  No, they are state troops under control of the Governor of that state. Like
>the militia of 1776, they are called up by the Federal Government in time of
>emergency.

George, You are incorrect. The NG is an adjunct to the Federal armed
	forces. The can be USED by the States but ultimately the
	control of those forces are in the hands of the DoD.

	Without going into all of the legalities (you can look up the
	enabling legislation if you want) ther is a simple test.

	Find a National Guardsman in uniform. Look at the emblem
	under his pocket. It clearly states US Army. It does NOT
	say Massachusetts Army.

Jim

                      <<< Note 21.45 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  By contrast unlike the other amendments, the 2nd amendment does have a
>qualification. 

	George, it is NOT an qualification, it is a (singular) explaination.
	One of many explainations. CAn you explain why the words "for the
	common defense" were deleted from the original draft? CAn you
	explain why the words "the right of the states to form militias"
	was not used instead?

	Look up the Militia Act of 1790 and check SPECIFICALLY for the
	words "unorganized militia". Then get back to us.

Jim

  So fine, they have a U.S. Army emblem but they are under the control of the
Governor. It is the Governor that calls out the National Guard to settle
problems that can not be handled by police. 

  As for the militia of 1776, they were coordinated by General of the Armies
George Washington who was in command of the Army under control of the
Continental Congress.

  So it would appear that both the militia of 1776 and the National Guard
were some times controlled locally and some times controlled by the army.

  Emblem or no emblem,
  George

            <<< Note 21.33 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>

>    I don't think "transportation" and "the security of a free State" are
>    analogous when it comes to justifying something.

	You are arguing the importance (or at least relative merit) of
	the phrasing. Roak is offering a sematical analysis of the
	phrasing. The importance issue is not germane to a discussion
	of the sematics.

Jim

RE     <<< Note 21.48 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	George, it is NOT an qualification, it is a (singular) explaination.

  Well that's your interpretation and you are entitled to it. I interpret it
differently.

>	One of many explainations. CAn you explain why the words "for the
>	common defense" were deleted from the original draft? CAn you
>	explain why the words "the right of the states to form militias"
>	was not used instead?

  What difference does it make? If what you say is true then there was always
some sort of qualification referring to an organized fighting unit and the
uncontrolled use of fire arms by individuals was not considered.

>	Look up the Militia Act of 1790 and check SPECIFICALLY for the
>	words "unorganized militia". Then get back to us.

  Why? What would that prove?

  George

                      <<< Note 21.49 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  So fine, they have a U.S. Army emblem but they are under the control of the
>Governor. 

	In a conflict between the orders of the Governor and the orders
	of the President, which set of orders is the Guard required to
	follow?

	There is case law on this issue. Then tell us who "controls" the
	Guard.

Jim

RE     <<< Note 21.52 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	In a conflict between the orders of the Governor and the orders
>	of the President, which set of orders is the Guard required to
>	follow?

  Most likely the Federal Government just as back in Washington's time they
fought for the Confederacy.

  George

                      <<< Note 21.51 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  What difference does it make? If what you say is true then there was always
>some sort of qualification referring to an organized fighting unit and the
>uncontrolled use of fire arms by individuals was not considered.

	A great deal of difference. It shows that a QUALIFIED RKBA, relating
	ONLY to "the common defense" (the purpose of the militia) was
	considered AND rejected. It points to a regognition of an INDIVIDUAL	
	right to keep and bear arms.

>  Why? What would that prove?

	Well to start with it would prove that you are willing to be educated
	rather than to wallow in your ignorance. It would also show you that
	your concept of the militia in the late 18th Century is in error.

Jim

    re: Note 21.55 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL
    
    Jim, you were going good for a while.  Under the Articles of 
    Conferderation in 1777, the 13 colonies formed a confederacy.
    Just like the South did in the 1860's.  

RE     <<< Note 21.54 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	A great deal of difference. It shows that a QUALIFIED RKBA, relating
>	ONLY to "the common defense" (the purpose of the militia) was
>	considered AND rejected. It points to a recognition of an INDIVIDUAL	
>	right to keep and bear arms.

  No, it shows that a QUALIFIED (what the blazes is RKBA?) relating to ONLY
"the common defense" was considered AND rejected and replaced by a "well
regulated militia". So individuals had the right to keep and bear arms as
long as they were "well regulated".

>	Well to start with it would prove that you are willing to be educated
>	rather than to wallow in your ignorance. It would also show you that
>	your concept of the militia in the late 18th Century is in error.

  That's a good one. No, you are wrong. Regardless of what a military act of
1790 might say, the use of the militia in the time leading up to that act was
as a citizen army unit and it was well trained and regulated.

  There is no evidence that the term "militia" referred to someone taking a
weapon out on their own, completely independent of any organization, to blast
tin cans in his back yard. And while that may have been allowed, it was not
referred to as "militia".

  George

    <<< Note 21.56 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly" >>>
>                                 -< Carefull >-

	You're right. Goes to show what "common" useage will do.
	I've deleted.

Jim

    .57
    
>   There is no evidence that the term "militia" referred to someone taking a
> weapon out on their own, completely independent of any organization, to blast
> tin cans in his back yard. And while that may have been allowed, it was not
> referred to as "militia".
    
    that's where you're wrong.  there is no direct evidence because it was
    not considered necessary to say it explicitly.  the average citizen of
    the colonies owned at least one firearm, and those firearms had gotten
    good use for hunting and defense from disgruntled natives.  it was one
    of the axioms of that time that people simply KNEW how to use firearms
    because that knowledge was essential to survival.  that assumption was
    "unwritten" into the second amendment.

                      <<< Note 21.57 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>>	Well to start with it would prove that you are willing to be educated
>>	rather than to wallow in your ignorance. It would also show you that
>>	your concept of the militia in the late 18th Century is in error.

>  That's a good one. No, you are wrong. Regardless of what a military act of
>1790 might say, the use of the militia in the time leading up to that act was
>as a citizen army unit and it was well trained and regulated.

George,	First you argue that the use of the term "militia" means a certain
	thing when the 2nd Amendment was written. I point you to a Federal
	Law that was written 3 years later and you tell us that this law
	is irrelavent? The Act describes, in some detail, the militia, its
	makeup, its purpose, its use. Hardly irrelevant to a discussion on
	what the term "militia" meant to the writes of the BoR.

>  There is no evidence that the term "militia" referred to someone taking a
>weapon out on their own, completely independent of any organization,

	Uh, yes there is. Read the Act. Look for "unorganized militia".
	You will find such evidence there.

Jim

    From 1780, The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
    (John Adams, James Bowdoin, and Samuel Adams wrote this Constitution)
    
    PART the FIRST.
    Art. XVII.  The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for
    the common defence.  And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous
    to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of
    the Legislature; and the Military power shall always be held in
    exact suborrdination to the Civil authority, and be governed by it.--
    
    
    BTW, if the 2nd amendment talked about "militia" you might have stretch
    to say there is an individual right to bear arms.  But it only talks
    about a "well regulated militia".
    
    
    On your silly argument on why the draft of "for the common defense" was
    changed, therefore you conclude the framers explicitly considered and
    rejected a restriction on this right, I'll ask you a simple question.
    
    Let's look at the Mass Constitution again.
    
    PART the FIRST
    Art. I.  All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural,
    essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reconed the right
    of enjoying and defending their Lives and Liberties; that of acquiring,
    possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and
    obtaining their safety and happiness.--
    
    
    Now, you'll rathole this quickly because you'll say that obviously Art.
    I. gives citizens of Mass the unrestricted right to bear arms -- it does
    not.  Avoid that rathole for the moment.  My question to you is simple:
    
    
    The framers of the US Constitution originally considered -- AND REJECTED
    -- the phrase "Life, Liberty, and the persuit of Property" and replaced
    it with "Life, Liberty, and the persuit of Happiness."
    
    Do you conclude that the framers therefore considered and rejected the
    right to puersue property?
    
    								-mr. bill

    pursue

RE     <<< Note 21.60 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>I point you to a Federal
>	Law that was written 3 years later and you tell us that this law
>	is irrelavent? The Act describes, in some detail, the militia, its
>	makeup, its purpose, its use. Hardly irrelevant to a discussion on
>	what the term "militia" meant to the writes of the BoR.

  Ok fine. Does that definition extend to meaning any person doing what
ever they want to do? I doubt it. And even if it does, the Constitution
doesn't just say "militia", it says "well regulated militia".

>	Uh, yes there is. Read the Act. Look for "unorganized militia".
>	You will find such evidence there.

  Well "unorganized militia" are not covered by the 2nd amendment. It refers
only to "well regulated" militia.

  George

re: .61 & Mr.Bill.
    
>     Avoid that rathole for the moment.  My question to you is simple:    
    
>    The framers of the US Constitution originally considered -- AND REJECTED
>    -- the phrase "Life, Liberty, and the persuit of Property" and replaced
>    it with "Life, Liberty, and the persuit of Happiness."

    Amendment 5 says, in part:
    "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without DUE PROCESS
    OF LAW;..."  my emphasis.

    Paragraph 2 in the Declaration of Independance says:

    "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all me are created 
    equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
    Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of
    Happiness...  That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive
    of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish
    it, and to institute new Government..."
    
>    Do you conclude that the framers therefore considered and rejected the
>    right to puersue property?

I conclude you are wrong.

    The State Constitution can't violate the Federal Constitution.
    Anything not explicitly prohibited in the Constitution for the USA
    is up to the States to decide.  Amendment 10.
    It sounds like the Mass Constitution can be seen as "somewhat
    infringing" upon an *individuals* unalienable Right to bear Arms.

    <<< Note 21.61 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>    The framers of the US Constitution originally considered -- AND REJECTED
>    -- the phrase "Life, Liberty, and the persuit of Property" and replaced
>    it with "Life, Liberty, and the persuit of Happiness."
 
	Where did they do this? I cannot find the phrase "Life, Liberty, 
	and the persuit of Happiness." anywhere in mu copy of the
	Constitution.

	And you call my argument "silly"? That's rich.

Jim

                      <<< Note 21.63 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  Ok fine. Does that definition extend to meaning any person doing what
>ever they want to do? I doubt it. And even if it does, the Constitution
>doesn't just say "militia", it says "well regulated militia".

	The definition describes the various militias. Read the Act.

>  Well "unorganized militia" are not covered by the 2nd amendment. It refers
>only to "well regulated" militia.

	The Act is the description of the various militias. The act was made
	law 3 years after the 2nd Amendment was written. Your claim that
	they are unrelated is specious.

Jim

RE     <<< Note 21.66 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

  Now you are ducking my question.

  Does the act define a "well regulated militia" as a guy with a gun doing
what ever he feels like doing?

  George

                      <<< Note 21.49 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>   So fine, they have a U.S. Army emblem but they are under the control of the
> Governor. It is the Governor that calls out the National Guard to settle
> problems that can not be handled by police. 

    Not that it really matters when discussing the 2nd Amendment, but the 
    National Guard is under the control of the Federal Government.  The 
    Supreme Court made this ruling a few years ago in a suit filed by 
    Governor Dukakis of Massacchusetts.

    .67
    
    > Does the act define...
    
    jim keeps trying to get you to do your own research, and you keep
    dodging.  perhaps you fear that if you really read the act you'd have
    to admit that you were wrong.  i understand how such an admission could
    be a bitter pill to swallow.

    
    Look who's ducking!!!
    
    Dick Binder? You are much too gracious.... Have you noticed that ski is
    completely avoiding your replies? He'd rather stick with lawyerese than
    attempt to refute your english lesson to him...
    

RE               <<< Note 21.69 by SMURF::BINDER "vitam gustare" >>>

>    jim keeps trying to get you to do your own research, and you keep
>    dodging.  perhaps you fear that if you really read the act you'd have
>    to admit that you were wrong.  i understand how such an admission could
>    be a bitter pill to swallow.

  No, jim wants me to do his research.

  He's using the old tactic "I read this book once that says my way is right,
go read it and you will see that it proves my point". What a great way to
derail a debate. If you can't prove your point hound people into ending the
debate while chasing them off to a library.

  Nuts, if you want to bring in evidence, you do your own research. When ever
I want to use an outside source to prove a point I enter a quote and give a
reference.

  Now for the question you keep ducking, does your reference define a "well
regulated militia" as one guy going off on his own or not?

  It's your job to use your references to make your case, not mine.

  George

                      <<< Note 21.67 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  Does the act define a "well regulated militia" as a guy with a gun doing
>what ever he feels like doing?

	No, it defines his responsibilities relating to militia service.

	Read the Act.

Jim

                      <<< Note 21.71 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  No, jim wants me to do his research.

	No, I've done my research. All I have suggested is that YOU
	do some. As a kindness I have suggested a place for you to
	start.

>If you can't prove your point hound people into ending the
>debate while chasing them off to a library.

	This is as opposed to YOUR process of debate which consists
	of "Because I said so."?

Jim

Re     <<< Note 21.72 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	No, it defines his responsibilities relating to militia service.
>

  Well then it doesn't apply.

  My argument is that the 2nd amendment only protects the right to bear arms
for militia service, not for general use. If your act only defines "well
regulated" as meaning militia service then that proves my point not yours
that the 2nd amendment does NOT protect the private and unregulated use of fire
arms. 

>	Read the Act.

  Why? Again, you are the one claiming it proves your point, you do the
research.

  Claiming that I am wrong because I haven't read your reference is like me
saying "you are wrong, I saw a line in 'War and Peace' that clearly backs up
my point, go read 'War and Peace' and you'll see I'm right".

  Boy wouldn't that be a great way to win an argument. Once the opposition is
buried in a 1200 page novel they'll never come back to bother you.

  George

re: .74 (George)

>  Boy wouldn't that be a great way to win an argument. Once the opposition is
>buried in a 1200 page novel they'll never come back to bother you.

Well, yes, but if it's the book that you're arguing over, then it sure
would help if you'd READ it, no?

Oh, and where did you get your 18th century definition of "regulated"?
You seem to be slipping, and using today's definition.  Please remedy;
it'll change your arguments.

\john

    
    
    	As I believe that the right to keep and bear arms IS a right of
    every law-abiding citizen, I also believe that it doesn't matter what
    the meaning of the first part of the amendment is. The amendment only
    recognizes our right and in the case of the 2nd, expresses a reason.
    The need for any kind of militia can be debated forever, but the right
    of the people does not go away with the changing of the circumstance.
    If the people had the right to bear arms in the 18th century, they
    still have it now, until you change the amendment.
    
    ed

  Boy, talk about ducking and weaving. Gun nuts will do anything to disrupt a
debate when it comes to the issues. 

  So far here's the way I sum up this debate. 

  My claim is that if you read the Constitution it clearly states that the
right to bear arms is related to having a well regulated militia. No other
amendment gives a reason or condition and can thus be interpreted broadly but
the 2nd clearly does prefix the right to bear arms with militia duty. 

  My opposition is saying "you're wrong, go read my book which I claim proves
my point but don't asks me to quote my own source because ... because", and
"well 200 years ago people needed Kentucky long rifles to hunt rabbit so today
they must need semi-automatic weapons for something even though the 2nd
amendment doesn't say anything about the private use of fire arms." 

  You guys are sucking wind, can't you debate a little better than that? 

  George 

>  Boy, talk about ducking and weaving. Gun nuts will do anything to disrupt a
>debate when it comes to the issues. 
>

 You haven't raised any.  So we can't duck any.  And I own no guns.

>
>  So far here's the way I sum up this debate. 
>
>  My claim is that if you read the Constitution it clearly states that the
>right to bear arms is related to having a well regulated militia.

 This is preposterous.  It says no such thing in English grammar.  And it
 would be easy to say what you claim it intends, then as now.  But it doesn't.

> No other
>amendment gives a reason or condition and can thus be interpreted broadly but
>the 2nd clearly does prefix the right to bear arms with militia duty. 
>

 That is true of the Bill of Rights, yes.  Not true of the document as a
 whole, (for example, see patents).  Explanatory prefixes have no
 such meaning as you suggest, in English, in law, or in the meaning of the
 framers.

>
>  My opposition is saying "you're wrong, go read my book which I claim proves
>my point but don't asks me to quote my own source because ... because", and
>"well 200 years ago people needed Kentucky long rifles to hunt rabbit so today
>they must need semi-automatic weapons for something even though the 2nd
>amendment doesn't say anything about the private use of fire arms." 

 There are no hunting rights in the Constitution.  The arms are meant for
 use against humans.  You don't need any outside sources, but since you
 claim the English means something besides what it says, we give examples
 from the time that show that's what it meant then, as it does now.

>  You guys are sucking wind, can't you debate a little better than that? 

 I do breath deeply after reading your arguments, George.  They are
 breathtaking in ignoring what is directly in front of your nose.

  bb

re: Note 21.74 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI
    
>  My argument is that the 2nd amendment only protects the right to bear arms
>for militia service, not for general use. If your act only defines "well
>regulated" as meaning militia service then that proves my point not yours
>that the 2nd amendment does NOT protect the private and unregulated use of fire
>arms. 

No, it acknowledges that the fact that a well regulated, (prepared) "militia" 
(all able bodied men...) is essential to the preservation of Liberty, and
as such, the individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Someone else (roak?) mentioned in here something about cars as a comparison.
Someone else came back (and others probably thought) and said (snotty voice)
"well they didn't have cars back then... how could they know?".

Well, they had horses, and you didn't have to register, insure and do all
sorts of other stuff (government inspection that the horse is ok) to use a 
horse.  
***BUT***
If you trampled over someone WITH your horse, you were in serious trouble.

INDIVIDUALS were answerable to common law.  If you blew someone head off,
you were in big trouble.  If you acted irresponsibly and hurt someone you
were in trouble.  Therefore, people had a tendancy to MTOFB, something
you don't see these days because everyone else is minding our business for
us.

These are individual, government recognized rights, granted by our Creator 
(as you personally see Him), and unalienable BY our government.  Our 
Founding Fathers are probably spinning in their graves for mentioning the
words "militia" in the 2nd Amendment.  Back then it was understood, and
as Jim is constantly saying, and as I said the 97th Congress said, it is
an INDIVIDUAL God given right.  

Harp on Militia, spin it any way you want.  Maybe it's time to force the
issue to the supreme Court and see how they feel about it.  Of course, 
"both sides" of the debate don't want to see this because they don't
have any balls.

                      <<< Note 21.74 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  My argument is that the 2nd amendment only protects the right to bear arms
>for militia service,

	Please point out the word "because" in the wording of the 2nd.

>  Claiming that I am wrong because I haven't read your reference is like me
>saying "you are wrong, I saw a line in 'War and Peace' that clearly backs up
>my point, go read 'War and Peace' and you'll see I'm right".

	Pointing out that I am wrong based simply on your own interpretation
	of the phrasing is a lot worse. At least I've given you on outside
	source that backs up my claim. You have offered nothing other than
	your own misinterpretation.

	Your reluctance to check out the source says volumes about you.
Jim

    
    In ski's mind, he just won another towel....
    
    
    
      Crying that is...
    

                 THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT

                       by J. Neil Schulman

     If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up
Carl Sagan, right?  And if you wanted to know about desert
warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwartzkopf, no
question about it.  But who would you call if you wanted the top
expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second
Amendment to the United States Constitution?

     That was the question I asked Mr. A.C. Brocki, Editorial
Coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and
formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers -- who
himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on
English usage in the Los Angeles school system.  Mr. Brocki told
me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of
journalism at the University of Southern California and the
author of \American Usage and Style: The Consensus\.

     A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of
Professor Copperud's expertise.

     Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for
over three decades before embarking on a distinguished seventeen-
year career teaching journalism at USC.  Since 1952, Copperud has
been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of
journalism for \Editor and Publisher\, a weekly magazine focusing
on the journalism field.

     He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary,
and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an
expert.  Copperud's fifth book on usage, \American Usage and
Style: The Consensus\, has been in continuous print from Van
Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the
Association of American Publishers' Humanities Award.

     That sounds like an expert to me.

     After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which
I introduced myself but did \not\ give him any indication of why
I was interested, I sent the following letter:

                               ***
"July 26, 1991

"Dear Professor Copperud:

     "I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as
an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second
Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the
intent from the text.

     "The text of the Second Amendment is, '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.'

     "The debate over this amendment has been whether the first
part of the sentence, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary
to the security of a free State," is a restrictive clause or a
subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause
containing the subject of the sentence, "the right of the people
to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

     "I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take
into consideration issues of political impact or public policy,
but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its
meaning and intent.  Further, since your professional analysis
will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences
of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be
a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind
with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath
to support, if necessary."

     My letter framed several questions about the text of the
Second Amendment, then concluded:

     "I realize that I am asking you to take on a major
responsibility and task with this letter.  I am doing so because,
as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the
actual meaning of the Second Amendment.  While I ask that your
analysis not be affected by the political importance of its
results, I ask that you do this because of that importance.

"Sincerely,

"J. Neil Schulman"

                               ***

     After several more letters and phone calls, in which we
discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we
never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second
Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor
Copperud sent me the following analysis (into which I've inserted
my questions for the sake of clarity):

                               ***

     [Copperud:] The words "A well-regulated militia, being
necessary to the security of a free state," contrary to the
interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitute
a present participle, rather than a clause.  It is used as an
adjective, modifying "militia," which is followed by the main
clause of the sentence (subject "the right," verb "shall").  The
right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for
maintaining a militia.

     In reply to your numbered questions:

     [Schulman: (1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the
right to keep and bear arms \solely\ to "a well-regulated
militia"?;]

     [Copperud:] (1) The sentence does not restrict the right to
keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the
right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a
positive  statement with respect to a right of the people.

     [Schulman: (2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear
arms" \granted\ by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the
Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep
and bear arms, and merely state that such right "shall not be
infringed"?;]

     [Copperud:] (2) The right is not granted by the amendment;
its existence is assumed.  The thrust of the sentence is that the
right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a
militia.

     [Schulman: (3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear
arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia is,
in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that
condition is not existing, is the statement "the right of the
people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" null and
void?;]

     [Copperud:] (3) No such condition is expressed or implied.
The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to
depend on the existence of a militia.  No condition is stated or
implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and
to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the
security of a free state.  The right to keep and bear arms is
deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.

     [Schulman: (4) Does the clause "A well-regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State," grant a right
to the government to place conditions on the "right of the people
to keep and bear arms," or is such right deemed unconditional by
the meaning of the entire sentence?;]

     [Copperud:] (4) The right is assumed to exist and to be
unconditional, as previously stated.  It is invoked here
specifically for the sake of the militia.

     [Schulman: (5) Which of the following does the phrase "well-
regulated militia" mean: "well-equipped," "well-organized,"
"well-drilled," "well-educated," or "subject to regulations of a
superior authority"?]

     [Copperud:] (5) The phrase means "subject to regulations of
a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the
writers for civilian control over the military.

     [Schulman: If at all possible, I would ask you to take into
account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that
sentence was written two-hundred years ago, but not to take into
account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors,
unless those issues can be clearly separated.]

     [Copperud:] To the best of my knowledge, there has been no
change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the
meaning of the amendment.  If it were written today, it might be
put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security
of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be abridged."

     [Schulman: As a "scientific control" on this analysis, I
would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of
the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

     "A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security
of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books,
shall not be infringed."

     My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would
be,

     (1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence,
and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second
Amendment's sentence?; and

     (2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict "the
right of the people to keep and read Books" \only\ to "a well-
educated electorate" -- for example, registered voters with a
high-school diploma?]

     [Copperud:] (1) Your "scientific control" sentence precisely
parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

     (2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates
or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.

                               ***

     Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he
placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I
made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be
used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

     So now we have been told by one of the top experts on
American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the
United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep
and bear arms, forbidding all government formed under the
Constitution from abridging that right.

RE     <<< Note 21.81 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	Pointing out that I am wrong based simply on your own interpretation
>	of the phrasing is a lot worse. At least I've given you on outside
>	source that backs up my claim. You have offered nothing other than
>	your own misinterpretation.

  The way debates work is that when you want to prove a point you provide
your own documentation. If you feel that source X backs up your point then
you say "source X says 'quote quote quote quote quote'" and you give a
reference. You don't just say "source X backs up my point, go read it to
understand why.

>	Your reluctance to check out the source says volumes about you.

  Your reluctance to provide quotes from your own source says volumes about
the fact that you are just trying to derail this debate rather than coming
up with evidence.

  George

    I think Mr. Meowmixski is all done when he gets to .83.

    
    debating skills aside meowski, what do you have to say about .83?
    
    jeff

RE  <<< Note 21.83 by PERFOM::STANLEY "Like a surfer riding a tidal wave..." >>>

>     So now we have been told by one of the top experts on
>American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the
>United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep
>and bear arms, forbidding all government formed under the
>Constitution from abridging that right.

  No that's not what he said. You've drawn the wrong conclusion from your own
expert witness. Notice he says:

   "[the clause] is used as an adjective, modifying "militia," which is
   followed    by the main clause of the sentence (subject "the right,"
   verb "shall").  The  right to keep and bear arms is asserted as
   essential for maintaining a militia."

  Notice, not for "private use", for "maintaining a militia". While it doesn't
say the government can restrict private use it doesn't say they can't.

  Then he goes on to say:

         [Copperud:] (2) "The right is not granted by the amendment;
    its existence is assumed.  The thrust of the sentence is that the
    right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a
    militia."

  Notice once again, the right is preserved for the sake of ensuring a militia,
not for insuring private use.

  Throughout that discussion it talks about preserving "the right" but that
"right" always comes back to being the right to have a militia, not the right
to go blast cans in the back yard.

  George

    Christ, I can't believe this.

    
    Like the Energizer bunny...
    
    "The right" is "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms", George, or RKBA
    for short.  There is no right to form a militia.
    
      bb

    
    He probably debates these things with his lawyer friend whilst in the
    sack...
    

I normally wouldn't do this but since the idjit keeps saying provide your own 
sources.

The next reply is very long but is the United States Senate Judiciary
commitee study on the Second which shows that the 2nd _IS_ an individual 
right.

Amos

The following text (next three "replies") constitute a report issued by the
U.S.Senate (your tax dollar at work!) on the intent and meaning of the second
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. This report is
dated 1982, issued by the 97th Congress second Session

The first "reply" is the actual body of the report as issued. It's about 1,000
lines long. The concluding paragraph is about line 971 (at least in my file in
emacs before the notes system chews on it).

The second "reply" is the appendix "Case Law" in the original document, and the
gist of the Senate investigation into the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Fire-
arms' enforcement [and interpretation] of, variously, the National Firearms Act
of 1934, the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, and the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Typos in the above two are probably mine in transcribing the original text.

The third "reply" is the essay "The Fourteenth Amendment and the Right to Keep
and Bear Arms: The Intent of the Framers" by Stephen P. Halbrook. It is one of
eight "other views" submitted to be included in the original Senate Report.

This text I snarfed off of the Internet a while ago. I misremember who gets
credit [blame] for it . . .

97th Congress
 2d Session		   COMMITTEE PRINT




     T H E   R I G H T   T O   K E E P   A N D   B E A R   A R M S

			       ________


				REPORT
				of the
		   SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
				of the
		      COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
			 UNITED STATES SENATE
		        NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS
			    SECOND SESSION



	    <Emblem: Eagle with shield clenching shock & arrows>


			     FEBRUARY, 1982


	Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

				 ____

		    U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
88-618 O
			WASHINGTON : 1982

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents,
U. S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402




		       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

		STROM THURMOND, South Carolina, Chairman
CHARLES McC. MATHIAS, Jr., Maryland	JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
PAUL LAXALT, Nevada			EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah			ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ROBERT DOLE, Kansas			HOWARD M. METZENBAUM, Ohio
ALAN K. SIMPSON, Wyoming		DENNIS DeCONCINI, Arizona
JOHN P. EAST, North Carolina		PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa		MAX BAUCUS, Montana
JEREMIAH DENTON, Alabama		HOWELL HEFLIN, Alabama
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
		Vinton DeVane Lide, Chief Counsel
		Quentin Crommelin, Jr., Staff Director



		    SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION

		ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman
STROM THURMOND, South Carolina		DENNIS DeCONCINI, Arizona
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa		PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
		Stephen J. Markman, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
		Randall Rader, General Counsel
		Peter E. Ornsby, Counsel
		Robert Feidler, Minority Counsel




			    C O N T E N T S

			       _________


Preface, by Senator Orrin G. Hatch, chairman, U.S. Senate Judiciary
  Committee, Subcomittee on the Constitution, from the State of Utah
Preface by Senator Dennis DeConcini, ranking minority member, U.S.
  Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, from
  the State of Arizona
History: Second amendment right to "keep and bear arms"
Appendix: Case law
Enforcement of Federal firearms laws from the perspective of the
  second amendment
Other views of the second amendment:
  Does the Second Amendment mean what it says?, by David J. Steinberg,
    executive director, National Council for a Responsible Firearms
    policy.
  National Coalition to ban handguns, statement on the Second Amend-
    ment, by Michael K. Beard, executive director, and Samuel S. Fields,
    legal affairs coordinator, National Coalition to Ban Handguns.
  Historical Bases of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, by David T. Hardy,
    partner in the Law Firm Sando & Hardy.
  The Fourteenth Amendment and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms: The
    Intent of the Framers, by Stephen P. Halbrook, PH. D., attorney and
    counselor at law.
  The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution Guarantees an
    Individual Right To Keep and Bear Arms, by James J. Featherstone,
    Esq., General Counsel, Richard E. Gardiner, Esq., and Robert Dowlut,
    Esq., Office of the General Counsel, National Rifle Association of
    America.
  The Right to Bear Arms: The Development of the Americal Experience,
    by John Levin, assistant professor, Chicago-Kent College of Law,
    Illinois Institute of Technology.
  Standing Armies and Armed Citizens: An Historical Analysis of The
    Second Amendment, by Roy G. Weatherup, J.D., 1972 Standford Univer-
    sity; member of the California Bar.
  Gun control legislation, by the Committee on Federal Legislation, the
    Association of the Bar of the City of New York.

  [[Note: Forget it - if you wanna see all these "other views", go buy
    the book! I'm tired of typing!  --RDH]]




			     P R E F A C E

			       ________

	   "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of
	the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, espe-
	cially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee,
	Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of
	the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first
	Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.)
	   "The great object is that every man be armed . . . Every-
	one who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the
	Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitu-
	tion.)
	   "The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans pos-
	sess over the people of all other nations . . . Notwithstand-
	ing the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of
	Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources
	will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people
	with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights,
	in his Federalist Paper No. 26.)
	   "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." (Second Amendment to the
	Constitution.)

   In my studies as an attorney and as a United States Senator, I
have constantly been amazed by the indifference or even hostility
shown the Second Amendment by courts, legislatures, and com-
mentators. James Madison would be startled to hear that his recog-
nition of a right to keep and bear arms, which passed the House by
a voice vote without objection and hardly a debate, has since been
construed in but a single, and most ambiguous, Supreme Court
decision, whereas his proposals for freedom of religion, which he
made reluctantly out of fear that they would be rejected or nar-
rowed beyond use, and those for freeedom of assembly, which passed
only after a lengthy and bitter debate, are the subject of scores of
detailed and favorable decisions. Thomas Jefferson, who kept a
veritable armory of pistols, rifles and shotguns at Monticello, and
advised his nephew to forsake other sports in favor of hunting,
would be astounded to hear supposed civil libertarians claim fire-
arm ownership should be restricted. Samuel Adams, a handgun
owner who pressed for an amendment stating that the "Constitu-
tion shall never be construed . . . to prevent the people of the
United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own
arms," would be shocked to hear that his native state today im-
poses a year's sentence, without probation or parole, for carrying a
firearm without a police permit.
   This is not to imply that courts have totally ignored the impact
of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights. No fewer than
twenty-one decisions by the courts of our states have recognized an
individual right to keep and bear arms, and a majority of these
have not only recognized the right but invalidated laws or regula-
tions which abridged it. Yet in all too many instances, courts or
commentators have sought, for reasons only tangentially related to
constitutional history, to contrue this right out of existence. They
argue that the Second Amendment's words "right of the people"
mean "a right of the state"--apparently overlooking the impact of
those same words when used in the First and Fourth Amendments.
The "right of the people" to assemble or to be free from unreason-
able searches and seizures is not contested as an individual guaran-
tee. Still they ignore consistency and claim that the right to "bear
arms" relates only to military uses. This not only violates a consist-
ent constitutional reading of "right of the people" but also ignores
that the second amendment protects a right to "keep" arms. These
commentators contend instead that the amendment's preamble re-
garding the necessity of a "well regulated militia . . . to a free
state" means that the right to keep and bear arms applies only to a
National Guard. Such a reading falis to note that the Framers used
the term "militia" to relate to every citizen capable of bearing
arms, and that Congress has established the present National
Guard under its power to raise armies, expressly stating that it
was not doing so unders its pwer to organize and arm the militia.
   When the first Congress convened for the purpose of drafting a
Bill of Rights, it delegated the task to James Madison. Madison did
not write upon a blank tablet. Instead, he obtained a pamphlet
listing the State proposals for a bill of rights and sought to produce
a briefer version incorporating all the vital proposals of these. His
purpose was to incorporate, not distinguish by technical changes,
proposals such as that of the Pennsylvania minority, Sam Adams,
or the New Hampshire delegates. Madison proposed among other
rights that "That right of the people to keep and bear arms shall
not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the
best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous
of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in
person." In the House, this was intially modified so that the
militia clause came before the proposal recognizing the right. The
proposals for the Bill of Rights were then trimmed in the interests
of brevity. The conscientious objector clause was removed following
objections by Elbridge Gerry, who complained that future Congress-
es might abuse the exemption to excuse everyone from military
service.
   The proposal finally passed the House in its present form: "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.:" In this form it was submitted into the Senate, which
passed it the following day. The Senate in the process indicated tis
intent that the right be an individual one, for private purposes, by
rejecting an amendment which would have limited the keeping and
bearing of arms to bearing "For the common defense".
   The earliest American constitutional commentators concurred in
giving this broad reading to the amendment. When St. George
Tucker, later Chief Justice of the Virginia Supreme Court, in 1803
published an edition of Blackstone annotated to American law, he
followed Blackstone's citation of the right of the subject "of having
arms suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are al-
lowed by law" with a citation to the Second Amendment, "And this
without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the
case in the British government." William Rawle's "View of the
Constitution" published in Philadelphia in 1825 noted that under
the Second Amendment: "The prohibition is general. No clause in
the Constitution could by a rule of construction be conceived to
give to Congress a 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 re-
straint on both." The Jefferson papers in the Library of Congress
show that both Tucker and Rawle were friends of, and corre-
sponded with, Thomas Jefferson. Their views are those of contem-
poraries of Jefferson, Madison and others, and are entitled to spe-
cial weight. A few years later, Joseph Story in his "Commentaries
on the Constitution" considered the right to keep and bear arms as
"the palladium of the liberties of the republic", which deterred
tyranny and enabled the citrizenry at large to overthrow it should
it come to pass.
   Subsequent legislation in the second Congress likewise supports
the interpretation of the Second Amendment that creates an indi-
vidual right. In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress de-
fined "militia of the United States" to include almost every free
adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by
law to possess a firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition
and military equipment. This statute, incidentally, remained in
effect into the early yeats of the present century as a legal require-
ment of gun ownership for most of the population of the United
States. There can be little doubt from this that when the Congress
and the people spoke of a "militia", they had reference to the
traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms,
and not to any formal group such as what is today called the
National Guard. The purpose was to create an armed citizenry,
which the political theorists at the time considered essential to
ward off tyranny. From this militia, appropriate measures might
create a "well regulated militia" of individuals trained in their
duties and responsibilities as citizens and owners of firearms.
   If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation
should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of
crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so
after a century and a half of trying--that they must sweep under
the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910
period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, the
attempst at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976--establishes
the repeated, complete and inevitiable failure of gun laws to control
serious crime.
   Immediately upon assuming chairmanship of the Subcommittee
on the Constitution, I sponsored the report which follows as an
effort to study, rather than ignore, the history of the controversy
over the right to keep and bear arms. Utilizing the research capa-
bilities of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, the resources of
the Library of Congress, and the assistance of constitutional schol-
ars such as Mary Kaaren Jolly, Steven Halbrook, and David T.
Hardy, the subcommittee has managed to uncover information on
the right to keep and bear arms which documents quite clearly its
status as a major individual right of American citizens. We did not
guess at the purpose of the British 1689 Declaration of Rights; we
located the Journals of the House of Commons and private notes of
the Declaration's sponsors, now dead for two centuries. We did not
make suppositions as to colonial interpretations of that Declara-
tion's right to keep and bear arms; we examined colonial newspapers which
discussed it. We did not speculate as to the intent of the framers of
the second amendment; we examined James Madison's drafts for it,
his handwritten outlines of speeches upon the Bill of Rights, and
discussions of the second amendment by early scholars who were
personal friends of Madison, Jefferson, and Washington and wrote
while these still lived. What the Subcommittee on the Constitution
uncovered was clear--and long-lost--proof that the second amend-
ment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the
American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for
protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms. The summary
of our research and findings forms the first portion of this report.
   In the interest of fairness and the presentation of a complete
picture, we also invited groups which were likely to oppose this
recognition of freedoms to submit their views. The statements of
two associations who replied are reproduced here following the
report of the Subcommittee. The Subcommittee also invited state-
ments by Messr. Halbrook and Hardy, and by the National Rifle
Association, whose statements likewise follow our report.
   [[Above-mentioned "private" views not included.   -RDH]]
   When I became chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitu-
tion, I hoped that I would be able to assist in the protection of the
constitutional rights of American citizens, rights which have too
often been eroded in the belief that government could be relied
upon for quick solutions to difficult problems.
   Both as an American citizen and as a United States Senator I
repudiate this view. I likewise repudiate the approach of those who
believe to solve American problems you simple become something
other than American. To my mind, the uniqueness of our free
insitutions, the fact that an American citizen can boast freedoms
unknown in any other land, is all the more reason to resist any
erosion of our individual rights. When our ancestors forged a land
"conceived in liberty", they did so with musket and rifle. When
they reacted to attempts to dissolve their free institutions, and
established their identitiy as a free nation, they did so as a nation
of armed freemen. When they sought to record forever a guarantee
of their rights, they devoted one full amendment out of ten to
nothing but the protection of their right to keep and bear arms
against government interference. Under my chairmanship the Sub-
committee on the Constitution will concern itself with a proper
recognition of, and respect for, this right most valued by free men.

					Orrin G. Hatch,
						Chairman,
				Subcommittee on the Constitution.
   January 20, 1982.



   The right to bear arms is a tradition with deep roots in Ameri-
can society. Thomas Jefferson proposed that "no free man shall
ever be debarred the use of arms," and Samuel Adams called for
an amendment banning any law "to prevent the people of the
United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own
arms." The Constitution of the State of Arizona, for example, rec-
ognized the "right of an individual citizen to bear arms in defense
of himself or the State."
   Even though the tradition has deep roots, its application to
modern America is the subject of intense controversy. Indeed, it is
a controvery into which the Congress is beginning, once again, to
immerse itself. I have personally been disappointed that so impor-
tant an issue should have generally been so thinly researched and
so minimally debated both in Congress and the courts. Our Su-
preme Court has but once touched on its meaning at the Federal
level and that decision, now nearly a half-century old, is so ambigu-
ous that any school of thought can find some support in it. All
Supreme Court decisions on the second amendment's application to
the States came in the last century, when constitutional law was
far different that it is today. As ranking minority member of the
Subcommittee on the Consititution, I, therefore, welcome the effort
which led to this report--a report based not only upon the inde-
pendent research of the subcommittee staff, but also upon full and
fair presentation of the cases by all interested groups and individ-
ual scholars.
   I personally believe that it is necessary for the Congress to
amend the Gun Control Act of 1968. I welcome the oportunity to
introduce this discussion of how best these amendments might be
made.
   The Constitution subcommittee staff has prepared this mono-
graph bringing together proponents of both sides of the debate over
the 1968 Act. I believe that the statements contained herein pre-
sent the arguments fairly and thoroughly. I commend Senator
Hatch, chairman of the subcommittee, for having this excellent
reference work prepared. I am sure that it will be of great assist-
ance to the Congress as it debates the second amendment and
considers legislation to ammend the Gun Control Act.

					Dennis DeConcini,
				      Ranking Minorty Member,
				Subcommittee on the Constituion.
   January 20, 1982.




HISTORY: SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO "KEEP AND BEAR ARMS"

   The right to keep and bear arms as a part of English and
American law antedates not only the Constitution, but also the
discovery of firearms. Under the laws of Alfred the Great, whose
reign began in 872 A.D., all English citizens from the nobility to
the peasants were obliged to privately purchase weapons and be
available for military duty.[1] This was in sharp contrast to the
feudal system as it evolved in Europe, under which armament and
military duties were concentrated in the nobility. The body of
armed citizens were known as the "fyrd".
   While a great many of the Saxon rights were abridged following
the Normal conquest, the right and duty of arms possession was
retained. Under the Assize of Arms of 1181, "the whole community
of freemen" between the ages of 15 and 40 were required by law to
possess certain arms, which were arranged in proportion to their
possessions.[2] They were required twice a year to demonstrate to
Royal Officials that they were appropriately armed. In 1253, an-
other Assize of Arms expanded the duty of armament to include
not only freeman, but also villeins, who were the English equiva-
lent of serfs. Now all "citizens, burgesses, free tenants, villeins and
others from 15 to 60 years of age" were obliged to be armed.[3]
While on the Continent the villeins were regarded as little more
than animals hungering for rebellion, the English legal system not
only permitted, but affirmatively required them, to be armed.
   The thirteenth century saw further definitions of this right as
the long bow, a formidable armor-piercing weapon, became increas-
ingly the mainstay of British national policy. In 1285, Edward I
commanded that all persons comply with the earlier Assizes and
added that "anyone else who can afford them shall keep bows and
arrows".[4] The right of armament was subject only to narrow
limitations. In 1279, it was ordered that those appearing in Parlia-
ment or other public assemblies "shall come without all force and
armor, well and peaceably".[5] In 1328, the statute of Northampton
ordered that no one use their arms in "affray of the peace, nor to
go nor ride armed by day or by night in fairs, markets, nor in the
presence of the justices or other ministers".[6] English courts con-
strued this ban consistently with the general right of private arma-
ment as applying only to wearing of arms "accompanied with such
circumstances as are apt to terrify the people".[7] In 1369, the King
ordered that the sheriffs of London require all citizens "at leisure
time on holidays" to "use in their recreation bowes and arrows"
and to stop all other games which might distract them from this
practice.[8]
   The Tudor kings experimented with limits upon specialized
weapons--mainly crossbows and the then-new firearms. These
measures were not intended to disarm the citizenry, but on the
contrary to prevent their being diverted from longbow practice by
sport with other weapons which were considered less effective.
Even these narrow measures were shortlived. In 1503, Henry VII
limited shooting (but not possession) of crossbows to those with
land worth 200 marks annual rental, but provided an exception for
those who "shote owt of a howse for the lawefull defens of the
same".[9] In 1511, Henry VIII increased the property requirement
to 300 marks. He also expanded the requirement of longbow owner-
ship, requiring all citizens to "use and exercyse shootyng in long-
bowes, and also have a bowe and arrowes contynually" in the
house.[10] Fathers were required by law to purchase bows and
arrows for their sons between the age of 7 and 14 and to train
them in longbow use.
   In 1514 the ban on crossbows was extended to include fire-
arms.[11] But in 1533, Henry reduced the property qualification to
100 pounds per year; in 1541 he limited it to possession of small
firearms ("of the length of one hole yard" for some firearms and
"thre quarters of a yarde" for others)[12] and eventually he re-
pealed the entire statute by proclamation.[13] The later Tudor
monarchs continued the system and Elizabeth added to it by creat-
in what came to be known as "train bands", selected portions of
the citizenry chosen for special training. These trained bands were
distinguished from the "militia", which term was first used during
the Spanish Armada crisis to designate the entire of the armed
citizenry.[14]
   The militia continued to be a pivotal force in the English politi-
cal system. The British historian Charles Oman considers the exist-
ence of the armed citizenry to be a major reason for the modera-
tion of monarchical rule in Great Britain; "More than once he
[Henry VIII] had to restrain himself, when he discovered that the
general feeling of his subjects was against him. . . . His 'gentlemen
pensioners' and his yeomen of the guard were but a handful, and
bills or bows were in every farm and cottage".[15]
   When civil war broke out in 1642, the critical issue was whether
the King or Parliament had the right to control the militia.[16] The
aftermath of the civil war saw England in temporary control of a
military government, which repeatedly dissolved Parliament and
authorized its officers to "search for, and seize all arms" owned by
Catholics, opponents of the government, "or any other person
whom the commissioners had judged dangerous to the peace of this
Commonwealth".[17]
   The military government ended with the restoration of Charles
II. Charles in turn opened his reign with a variety of repressive
legislation, expanding the definition of treason, establishing press
censorship and ordering his supporters to form their own troops,
"the officers to be numerous, disaffected persons watched and not
allowed to assemble, and their arms seized".[18] In 1662, a Militia
Act was enacted empowering officials "to search for and seize all
arms in the custody or possession of any person or persons whom
the said lieutenants or any two or more of their deputies shall
judge dangerous to the peace of the kingdom".[19] Gunsmiths were
ordered to deliver to the government lists of all purchasers.[20]
These confiscations were continued under James II, who directed
them particularly against the Irish population: "Although the
country was infested by predatory bands, a Protestant gentleman
could scarcely obtain permission to keep a brace of pistols."[21]
In 1668, the government of James was overturned in a peaceful
uprising which came to be known as "The Glorious Revolution".
Parliament resolved that James had abdicated and promulgated a
Declaration of Rights, later enacted as the Bill of Rights. Before
coronation, his successor William of Orange, was required to swear
to respect these rights. The debates in the House of Commons over
this Declaration of Rights focused largely upon the disarmament
under the 1662 Militia Act. One member complained that "an act
of Parliament was made to disarm all Englishmen, who the lieu-
tenant should suspect, by day or night, by force or otherwise--this
was done in Ireland for the sake of putting arms into Irish hands."
The speech of another is summarized as "militia bill--power to
disarm all England--now done in Ireland." A third complained
"Arbitrary power exercised by the ministry. . . . Militia--imprison-
ing with reason; disarming--himself disarmed." Yet another
summarized his complaints "Militia Act--an abominable thing to
disarm the nation. . . ."[22]
   The Bill of Rights, as drafted in the House of Commons, simply
provided that "the acts concerning the militia are grievous to the
subject" and that "it is necessary for the public Safety that the
Subjects, which are Protestants, should provide and keep arms for
the common defense; And that the Arms which have been seized,
and taken from them, be restored."[23] The House of Lords
changed this to make it a more positive declaration of an individu-
al right under English law: "That the subjects which are Protes-
tant may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions
and as allowed by law."[24] The only limitation was on ownership
by Catholics, who at that time composed only a few percent of the
British population and were subject to a wide variety of punitive
legislation. The Parliament subsequently made clear what it meant
by "suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law". The poorer
citizens had been restricted from owning firearms, as well as traps
and other commodities useful for hunting, by the 1671 Game Act.
Following the Bill of Rights, Parliament reenacted that statute,
leaving its operative parts unchanged with one exception--which
removed the word "guns" from the list of items forbidden to the
poorer citizens.[25] The right to keep and bear arms would hence-
forth belong to all English subjects, rich and poor alike.
   In the colonies, availability of hunting and need for defense led
to armament statues comparable to those of the early Saxon
times. In 1623, Virginia forbade its colonists to travel unless they
were "well armed"; in 1631 it required colonists to engage in target
practice on Sunday and to "bring their peeces to church."[26] In
1658 it required every householder to have a functioning firearm
within his house and in 1673 its laws provided that a citizen who
claimed he was too poor to purchase a firearm would have one
purchased for him by the government, which would then require
him to pay a reasonable price when able to do so.[27] In Massachu-
setts, the first session of the legislature ordered that not only
freemen but also indentured servants own firearms and in 1644 it
imposed a stern 6 shilling fine upon any citizen who was not
armed.[28]
   When the British government began to increase its military pres-
ence in the colonies in the mid-eighteenth century, Massachusetts
responded by calling upons its citizens to arm themselves in defense.
One colonial newspaper argued that it was impossible to complain
that his act was illegal since they were "British subjects, to whom
the privilege of possessing arms is expressly recognized by the Bill
of Rights" while another argued that this "is a natural right which
the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of
Rights, to keep arms for their own defense".[29] The newspaper
cited Blackstone's commentaries on the laws of England, which had
listed the "having and using arms for self preservation and de-
fense" among the "absolute rights of individuals." The colonists
felt they had an absolute right at common law to own firearms.
   Together with freedom of the press, the right to keep and bear
arms became on of the individual rights most prized by the colo-
nists. When British troops seized a militia arsenal in September,
1774, and incorrect rumors that colonists has been killed spread
though Massachusetts, 60,000 citizens took up arms.[30] A few
months later, when Patrick Henry delivered his famed "Give me
liberty or give me death" speech, he spoke in support of a proposi-
tion "that a well regulated militia, composed of gentlemen and
freemen, is the natural strength and only security of a free govern-
ment. . . ." Throughout the following revolution, formal and infor-
mal units of armed citizens obstructed British communication, cut
off foraging parties, and harassed the thinly stretched regular
forces. When seven states adopted state "bills of rights" following
the Declaration of Independence, each of those bills of rights pro-
vided either for protection of the concept of a militia or for an
express right to keep and bear arms.[31]
   Following the revolution but previous to the adoption of the
Constitution, debates over militia proposals occupied a large part of
the policital[[sic]] scene. A variety of plans were put forth by figures
ranging from George Washington to Baron von Steuben.[32] All of
the proposals called for a general duty of all citizens to be armed,
although some proposals (most notably von Steuben's) also empha-
sized a "select militia" which would be paid for its services and
given special training. In this respect, this "select militia" was the
successor of the "trained bands" and the predecessor of what is
today the "national guard". In the debates over the Constitution,
von Steubon's proposals were criticized as undemocratic. In Con-
necticut one writer complained of a proposal that "this looks too
much like Baron von Steubon's militia, by which a standing army
was meant and intended."[33] In pennsylvania, a delegate argued
"Congress may give us a select militia which will, in fact, be a
standing army--or Congress, afraid of a general militia, may say
there will be no militia at all. When a select militia is formed, the
people in general may be disarmed."[34] Richard Henry Lee, in his
widely read pamphlet "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the
Republican" worried that the people might be disarmed "by model-
ling the militia. Should one fifth or one eighth part of the people
capable of bearing arms be made into a select militia, as has been
proposed, and those the young and ardent parts of the community,
possessed of little or no property, the former will answer all the
purposes of an army, while the latter will be defenseless." He
proposed that "the Constitution ought to secure a genuine, and
guard against a select militia," adding that "to preserve liberty, it
is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms
and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."[35]
   The suspicion of select militia units expressed in these passages
is a clear indication that the framers of the Constitution did not
seek to guarantee a State right to maintain formed groups similar
to the National Guard, but rather to protect the right of individual
citizens to keep and bear arms. Lee, in particular, sat in the Senate
which approved the Bill of Rights. He would hardly have meant
the second amendment to apply only to the select militias he so
feared and disliked.
   Other figures of the period were of like mind. In the Virginia
convention, George Mason, drafter of the Virginia Bill of Rights,
accused the British of having plotted "to disarm the people--that
was the best and most effective way to enslave them", while Pat-
rick Henry observed that "The great object is that every man be
armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun".[36]
   Nor were the antifederalist, to whom we owe credit for a Bill of
Rights, alone on this account. Federalist arguments also provide a
source of support for an individual rights view. Their arguments in
favor of the proposed Constitution also relied heavily upon univer-
sal armament. The proposed Constitution had been heavily criti-
cized for its failure to ban or even limit standing armies. Unable to
deny this omission, the Constitution's supporters frequently argued
to the people that their universal armament of Americans made
such limitations unnecessary. A pamphlet written by Noah Web-
ster, aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, observed

	   Before a standing army can rule, the people must be
	disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe.
	The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws
	by the sword, because the whole body of the people are
	armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of
	regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the
	United States.[37]

   In the Massachusetts convention, Sedgwick echoed the same
thought, rhetorically asking if an oppressive army could be formed
or "if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of Freeman, who
know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?"[38]
In Federalist Paper 46, Madison, later author of the Second Amend-
ment, mentioned "The advantage of being armed, which the
Americans possess over the people of all other countries" and that
"notwithstanding the military establishments in the several king-
doms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources
will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with
arms."
   A third and even more compelling case for an individual rights
perspective on the Second Amendment comes from the State de-
mands for a bill of rights. Numerous state ratifications called for
adoption of a Bill of Rights as a part of the Constitution. The first
such call came from a group of Pennsylvania delegates. Their
proposals, which were not adopted but had a critical effect on
future debates, proposed among other rights that "the people have
a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own
state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and
no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any or them,
unless for crimes committed, or a real danger of public injury from
individuals."[39] In Massachusetts, Sam Adams unsuccessfully
pushed for a ratification conditioned on adoption of a Bill of Rights,
beginning with a guarantee "That the said Constitution shall never
be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of
the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the
United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own
arms. . . ."[40] When New Hampshire gave the Constitution the
ninth vote needed for its passing into effect, it called for adoption
of a Bill of Rights which included the provision that "Congress
shall never disarm any citizen unless such as are or have been in
actual rebellion".[41] Virginia and North Carolina thereafter called
for a provision "that the people have the right to keep and bear
arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the body of the
people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defense of a
free state."[42]
   When the first Congress convened for the purpose of drafting a
Bill of Rights, it delegated the task to James Madison. Madison did
not write upon a blank tablet. Instead, he obtained a pamphlet
listing the State proposals for a Bill of Rights and sought to pro-
duce a briefer version incorporating all the vital proposals of these.
His purpose was to incorporate, not distinguish by technical
changes, proposals such as that of the Pennsylvania minority, Sam
Adams, and the New Hampshire delegates. Madison proposed among
other rights that:

	   "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not
	be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being
	the best security of a free country; but no person religious-
	ly scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render
	military service in person."[43]

In the House, this was initially modified so that the militia
clause came before the proposal recognizing the right. The propos-
als for the Bill of Rights were then trimmed in the interests of
brevity. The conscientious objector clause was removed following
objections by Elbridge Gerry, who complained that future Congress-
es might abuse the exemption for the scrupulous to excuse every-
one from militia service.
   The proposal finally passed the House in its present form: "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." In this form it was submitted into the Senate, which
passed it the following day. The Senate in the process indicated its
intent that the right be an individual one, for private purposes, by
rejecting an amendment which would have limited the keeping and
bearing of arms to bearing "for the common defense".
   The earliest American constitutional commentators concurred in
giving this broad reading to the amendment. When St. George
Tucker, later Chief Justice of the Virginia Supreme Court, in 1803
published an edition of Blackstone annotated to American law, he
followed Blackstone's citation of the right of the subject "of having
arms suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are al-
lowed by law" with a citation to the Second Amendment, "And this
without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the
case in the British government".[44] William Rawle's "View of the
Constitution" published in Philadelphia in 1825 noted that under
the Second Amendment

	   The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution
	could by a rule of construction be conceived to give to
	Congress a 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."[45]

   The Jefferson papers in the Library of Congress show that both
Tucker and Rawle were friends of, and corresponded with Thomas
Jefferson. This suggests that their assessment, as contemporaries of
the Constitution's drafters, should be afforded special considera-
tion.
   Later commentators agreed with Tucker and Rawle. For in-
stance, Joseph Story in his "Commentaries on the Constitution"
considered the right to keep and bear arms as "the palladium of
the liberties of the republic", which deterred tyranny and enabled
the citizenry at large to overthrow it should it come to pass.[46]
   Subsequent legislation in the Second Congress likewise supports
the interpretation of the second amendment that creates an indi-
vidual right. In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress de-
fined "militia of the United States" to include almost every free
adult male in the United States. These persons were obliged by
law to possess a firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition
and military equipment.[47] This statute, incidentally remained in
effect into the early years of the present century as a legal require-
ment of gun ownership for most of the population of the United
States. There can be little doubt from this that when the Congress
and the people spoke of a "militia", they had reference to the
traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms,
and not to any formal group such as what is today called the
National Guard. The purpose was to create an armed citizenry,
such as the political theorists at the time considered essential to
ward off tyranny. From this militia, appropriate measures might
create a "well regulated militia" of individuals trained in their
duties and responsibilities as citizens and owners of firearms.
   The Second Amendment as such was rarely litigated prior to the
passage of the Fourteenth Amendment. Prior to that time, most
courts accepted that the commands of the federal Bill of Rights did
not apply to the states. Since there was no federal firearms legisla-
tion at this time, there was no legislation which was directly sub-
ject to the Second Amendment, if the accepted interpretations were
followed. However, a broad variety of state legislation was struck
down under state guarantees of the right to keep and bear arms
and even in a few cases, under the Second Amendment, when it
came before courts which considered the federal protections appli-
cable to the states. Kentucky in 1813 enacted the first carrying
concealed weapon statute in the United States; in 1822 the Ken-
tucky Court of Appeals struck down the law as a violation of the
state constitutional protection of the right to keep and bear arms;
"And can there be entertained a reasonable doubt but that the provi-
sions of that act import a restraint on the right of the citizen to
bear arms? The court apprehends it not. The right existed at the
adoption of the Constitution; it then had no limit short of the
moral power of the citizens to exercise it, and in fact consisted of
nothing else but the liberty of the citizen to bear arms."[48] On the
other hand, a similar measure was sustained in Indiana, not upon
the grounds that a right to keep and bear arms did not apply, but
rather upon the notion that a statute banning only concealed car-
rying still permitted the carrying of arms and merely regulated
one possible way of carrying them.[49] A few years later, the Su-
preme Court of Alabama upheld a similar statute but added "We
do not desire to be understood as maintaining, that in regulating
the manner of wearing arms, the legislature has no other limit
than its own discretion. A statute which, under the pretense of
regulation, amounts to a destruction of that right, or which re-
quires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the
purpose of defense, would be clearly unconstitutional."[50] When
the Arkansas Supreme Court in 1842 upheld a carrying concealed
weapons statute, the chief justice explained that the statute would
not "detract anything from the power of the people to defend their
free state and the established institutions of the country. It prohib-
its only the wearing of certain arms concealed. This is simply a
regulation as to the manner of bearing such arms as are specified",
while the dissenting justice proclaimed "I deny that any just or
free government upon earth has the power to disarm its citi-
zens.[51]
   Sometimes courts went farther. When in 1837, Georgia totally
banned the sale of pistols (excepting the larger pistols "known and
used as horsemen's pistols") and other weapons, the Georgia Su-
preme Court in Nunn v. State held the statute unconstitutional
under the Second Amendment to the federal Constitution. The
court held that the Bill of Rights protected natural rights which
were fully as capable of infringement by states as by the federal
government and that the Second Amendment provided "the right
of the whole people, old and young, men, women, and boys, and not
militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not
merely such as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed,
curtailed, or broken in on, in the slightest degree; and all this for
the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying of
a well regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a
free state."[52] Prior to the Civil War, the Supreme Court of the
United States likewise indicated that the privileges of citizenship
included the individual right to own and carry firearms. In the
notorious Dred Scott case, the court held that black Americans
were not citizens and could not be made such by any state. This
decision, which by striking down the Missouri Compromise did so
much to bring on the Civil War, listed what the Supreme Court
considered the rights of American citizens by way of illustrating
what rights would have to be given to black Americans if the Court
were to recognize them as full fledged citizens:

	   It would give to persons of the negro race, who are
	recognized as citizens in any one state of the Union, the
	right to enter every other state, whenever they
	pleased. . . . and it would give them full liberty of speech
	in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its
	own citizens might meet; to hold public meetings upon
	political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they
	went.[53]

Following the Civil War, the legislative efforts which gave us
three amendments to the Constitution and our earliest civil rights
acts likewise recognized the right to keep and bear arms as an
existing constitutional right of the individual citizen and as a right
specifically singled out as one protected by the civil rights acts
and by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, against in-
fringement by state authorities. Much of the reconstruction effort
in the South had been hinged upon the creation of "black militias"
composed of the armed and newly freed blacks, officered largely by
black veterans of the Union Army. In the months after the Civil
War, the existing southern governments struck at these units with
the enactment of "black codes" which either outlawed gun owner-
ship by blacks entirely, or imposed permit systems for them, and
permitted the confiscation of firearms owned by blacks. When the
Civil Rights Act of 1866 was debated members both of the Senate
and the House referred to the disarmament of blacks as a major
consideration.[54] Senator Trumbull cited provisions outlawing
ownership of arms by blacks as among those which the Civil Rights
Act would prevent;[55] Senator Sulsbury complained on the other
hand that if the act were to be passed it would prevent his own
state from enforcing a law banning gun ownership by individual
free blacks.[56] Similar arguments were advanced during the de-
bates over the "anti-KKK act"; its sponsor at one point explained
that a section making it a federal crime to deprive a person of
"arms or weapons he may have in his house or possession for the
defense of his person, family or property" was "intended to enforce
the well-known constitutional provisions guaranteeing the right in
the citizen to 'keep and bear arms'."[57] Likewise, the debates over
the Fourteenth Amendment Congress frequently referred to the
Second Amendment as one of the rights which it intended to
guarantee against state action.[58]
   Following adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, however, the
Supreme Court held that that Amendment's prohibition against
states depriving any persons of their federal "privileges and immu-
nities" was to be given a narrow construction. In particular, the
"privileges and immunities" under the Constitution would refer
only to those rights which were not felt to exist as a process of
natural right, but which were created solely by the Constitution.
These might refer to rights such as voting in federal elections and
of interstate travel, which would clearly not exist except by virtue
of the existence of a federal government and which could not be
said to be "natural rights".[59] This paradoxically meant that the
rights which most persons would accept as the most important--
those flowing from concepts of natural justice--were devalued at
the expense of more technical rights. Thus when individuals were
charged with having deprived black citizens of their right to free-
dom of assembly and to keep and bear arms, by violently breaking
up a peaceable assembly of black citizens, the Supreme Court in
United States v. Cruikshank[60] held that no indictment could be
properly brought since the right "of bearing arms for a lawful
purpose" is "not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it
in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
Nor, in the view of the Court, was the right to peacefully assemble
a right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment: "The right of the
people peaceably to assemble for lawful purposes existed long
before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. In
fact it is and has always been one of the attributes of citizenship
under a free government. . . . It was not, therefore, a right granted
to the people by the Constitution." Thus the very importance of the
rights protected by the First and Second Amendment was used as the
basis for the argument that they did not apply to the states
under the Fourteenth Amendment. In later opinions, chiefly Press-
er v. Illinois[61] and Miller v. Texas,[62] the Supreme Court ad-
hered to the view. Cruikshank has clearly been superseded by
twentieth century opinions which hold that portions of the Bill of
Rights--and in particular the right to assembly with which Cruik-
shank dealt in addition to the Second Amendment--are binding
upon the state governments. Given the legislative history of the
Civil Rights Acts and the Fourteenth Amendment, and the more
expanded views of incorporation which have become accepted in
our own century, it is clear that the right to keep and bear arms
was meant to be and should be protected under the civil rights
statutes and the Fourteenth Amendment against infringement by
officials acting under color of state law.
   Within our own century, the only occasion upon which the
Second Amendment has reached the Supreme Court came in
United States v. Miller.[63] There, a prosecution for carrying a
sawed off shotgun was dismissed before trial on Second Amend-
ment grounds. In doing so, the court took no evidence as to the
nature of the firearm or indeed any other factual matter. The
Supreme Court reversed on procedural grounds, holding that the
trial court could not take judicial notice of the relationship be-
tween a firearm and the Second Amendment, but must receive
some manner of evidence. It did not formulate a test nor state
precisely what relationship might be required. The court's state-
ment that the amendment was adopted "to assure the continuation
and render possible the effectiveness of such [militia] forces" and
"must be interpreted and applied with that end in view", when
combined with the court's statement that all constitutional sources
"show plainly enough that the militia comprised all males phys-
ically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. . . .
these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by them-
selves and of the kind in common use at the time,"[64] suggests
that at the very least private ownership by a person capable of self
defense and using an ordinary privately owned firearm must be
protected by the Second Amendment. What the Court did not do in
Miller is even more striking: It did not suggest that the lower court
take evidence on whether Miller belonged to the National Guard or
a similar group. The hearing was to be on the nature of the
firearm, not on the nature of its use; nor is there a single sugges-
tion that National Guard status is relevant to the case.
   The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms therefore,
is a right of the individual citizen to privately posses and carry in
a peaceful manner firearms and similar arms. Such an "individual
rights" interpretation is in full accord with the history of the right
to keep and bear arms, as previously discussed. It is moreover in
accord with contemporaneous statements and formulations of the
right by such founders of this nation as Thomas Jefferson and
Samuel Adams, and accurately reflects the majority of the propos-
als which led up to the Bill of Rights itself. A number of state
constitutions, adopted prior to or contemporaneously with the fed-
eral Constitution and Bill of Rights, similarly provided for a right
of the people to keep and bear arms. If in fact this language creates
a right protecting the states only, there might be a reason for it to
be inserted in the federal Constitution but no reason for it to be
inserted in state constitutions. State bills of rights necessarily pro-
tect only against action by the state, and by definition a state
cannot infringe its own rights; to attempt to protect a right belong-
ing to the state be inserting it in a limitation of the state's own
powers would create an absurdity. The fact that the contemporar-
ies of the framers did insert these words into several state constitu-
tions would indicate clearly that they viewed the right as belonging
to the individual citizen, thereby making it a right which could be
infringed either by state or federal government and which must be
protected against infringement by both.
   Finally, the individual rights interpretation gives full meaning to
the words chosen by the first Congress to reflect the right to keep
and bear arms. The framers of the Bill of Rights consistently used
the words "right of the people" to reflect individual rights--as
when these words were used to recognize the "right of the people"
to peaceably assemble, and the "right of the people" against unrea-
sonable searches and seizures. They distinguished between the 
rights of the people and of the state in the Tenth Amendment. As
discussed earlier, the "militia" itself referred to a concept of a
universally armed people, not to any specifically organized unit.
When the framers referred to the equivalent of our National
Guard, they uniformly used the term "select militia" and distin-
guished this from "militia". Indeed, the debates over the Constitu-
tion constantly referred to organized militia units as a threat to
freedom comparable to that of a standing army, and stressed that
such organized units did not constitute, and indeed were philo-
sophically opposed to, the concept of a militia.
   That the National Guard is not the "Militia" referred to in the
second amendment is even clearer today. Congress has organized
the National Guard under its power to "raise and support armies"
and not its power to "Provide for organizing, arming and disciplin-
ing the Militia".[65] This Congress chose to do in the interests of
organizing reserve military units which were not limited in deploy-
ment by the strictures of our power over the constitutional militia,
which can be called forth only "to execute the laws of the Union,
suppress insurrections and repel invasions." The modern National
Guard was specifically intended to avoid status as the constitution-
al militia, a distinction recognized by 10 U.S.C. Sec 311(a).
   The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and
wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the
United States, as well as its interpretation by every major com-
mentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification,
indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private
citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.

	REFERENCES

   1. Charles Hollister, Anglo-Saxon Military Institutions 11-42
(Oxford University Press 1962); Francis Grose, Military Antiquities
Respecting a History of the British Army, Vol I at 1-2 (London, 1812)
   2. Grose, supra, at 9-11; Bruce Lyon, A Constitutional and Legal
History of Medieval England 273 (2d. ed. New York 1980)
   3. J. J. Bagley and P. B. Rowley, A Documentary History of England
1066-1540, Vol 1 at 155-56 (New York 1965)
   4. Statute of Winchester (13 Edw. I c. 6). See also Bagley and Rowley,
supra at 158.
   5. 7 Ed. I c. 2 (1279).
   6. Statute of Northampton (2 Edw. III c. 3).
   7. Rex v. Knight, 90 Eng Rep. 330; 87 Eng Rep. 75 (King's Bench, 1686).
   8. E. G. Heath, The Grey Goose Wing 109 (London, 1971).
   9. 19 Hen. VII c. 4 (1503).
  10. 3 Hen. VIII c. 13 (1511).
  11. 64 Hen. VIII c. 13 (1514).
  12. 33 Hen. VIII c. 6 (1514).
  13. Noel Perrin, Giving Up the Gun 59-60 (Boston, 1979).
  14. Jim Hill, The Minuteman in War and Peace 26-27 (Harrisburg, 1968).
  15. Charles Oman, A History of the Art of War in the Sixteenth
Century 288 (New York, 1937).
  16. William Blackstone, Commentaries, Vol. 2 at 412 (St. George
Tucker, ed., Philadelphia 1803).
  17. "An Act for Settling the Militia," Ordinances and Acts of the
Interregnum, Vol. 2 1320 (London, HMSO 1911).
  18. 8 Calendar of State Papers (Domestic), Charles II, No 188, p. 150.
  19. 14 Car. II c. 3 (1662).
  20. Joyce Malcolm, Disarmed: The Loss of the Right to Bear Arms in
Restoration England, at 11 (Mary Ingraham Bunting Institute, Radcliffe
College 1980).
  21. Thomas Macaulay, The History of England from the Accession of
Charles II, Vol. II at 137 (London, 1856).
  22. Phillip, Earl of Hardwicke, Miscellaneous State Papers from 1501-
1726, vol. 2 at 407-17 (London, 1778).
  23. J. R. Western, Monarchy and Revolution: The English State in the
1680's, at 339 (Totowa, N.J., 1972)
  24. Journal of the House of Commons from December 26, 1688, to October
26, 1693, at 29. (London, 1742). The Bill of Rights was ultimately
enacted in this form. 1 Gul. and Mar., Sess. 2, c. 2 (1689)
  25. Joyce Malcolm, supra, at 16.
  26. William Hening, The Statutes at Large: Being a Collection of All
the Laws of Virginia from the First Session of the Legislature in 1619,
at pp. 127, 173-74 (New York, 1823).
  27. Id.
  28. William Brigham, The Compact with the Charter and Laws of the
Colony of New Plymouth, 31, 76 (Boston, 1836).
  29. Oliver Dickerson, ed., Boston Under Military Rule, 61, 79
(Boston, 1936).
  30. Steven Patterson, Political Parties in Revolutionary Massachusetts,
at 103 (Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1973).
  31. See Sprecher, The Lost Amendment, 51 A.B.A.J. 554, 665 (1965).
  32. The most extensive studies of these militia proposals are John
McAuley Palmer, Washington, Lincoln, Wilson: Three War Statesmen (New
York, 1930); Frederick Stern, Citizen Army (New York, 1957); John
Mahon, The American Militia: Decade of Decision 1789-1800 (Univ of
Florida, 1960).
  33. Merrill Jensen, ed., The Documentary of History of the Ratification
of the Constitution, vol 3 at 378 (Madison, Wisc.).
  34. Id., vol. 2 at 508.
  35. Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the
Republican, at 21, 22, 124 (Univ. of Alabama Press, 1975).
  36. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia, . . .
taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 (2d
ed. Richmond, 1805).
  37. Noah Webster, "An Examination into the Leading Principles of the
Federal Constitution . . .", in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Consti-
tution of the United States, at 56 (New York, 1888).
  38. Johnathan Elliott, ed., Debates in the Several State Conventions
on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, vol. 2 at 97 (2d ed., 1888).
  39. Merrill Jensen, supra, vol. 2 at 597-98.
  40. Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850); 2 B.
Schwartz, the Bill of Rights 675 (1971).
  41. Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union of the
American States, at 1026 (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1927).
  42. Id. at 1030
  43. Annals of Congress 434 (1789).
  44. St. George Tucker, ed., Blackstone's Commentaries, Volume 1
at 143 n. 40, 41 (Philadelphia, 1803).
  45. William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2d ed.,
Philadelphia, 1803).
  46. Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, vol. 2 at 746 (1833).
  47. Act of May 8, 1792; Second Cong., First Session, ch. 33.
  48. Bliss v. Commonwealth, 12 Ken. (2 Litt.) 90, 92 (1822)
  49. State v. Mitchell, (3 Black.) 229.
  50. State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 35 Am. Dec. 44 (1840).
  51. State v. Buzzard, 4 Ark. 18, 27, 36 (1842). The Arkansas Constitu-
tional provision at issue was narrower than the second amendment, as it
protected keeping and bearing arms "for the common defense." Id. at 34.
  52. Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846).
  53. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 691, 705.
  54. The most comprehensive work in this field of constitutional law is
Steven Halbrook, the Jurisprudence of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments
(Institute for Humane Studies, Menlo Park, California, 1979), reprinted in
4 George Mason L. Rev. 1 (1981).
  55. Cong. Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Sess., pt. 1, p. 474 (Jan. 29, 1866).
  56. Id. at 478.
  57. H.R. Rep. No. 37, 41st Cong., 3d sess., p. 3 (1871).
  58. See generally Halbrook, supra, at 42-62.
  59. Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (L873).
  60. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876).
  61. Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886).
  62. Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894
  63. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 175 (1939).
  64. Id. at 178, 179.
  65. H.R. Report No. 141, 73d Cong., 1st sess. at 2-5 (1933).
================================================================================
                  -< Appendix: Case Law;  BATF investigation >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



				APPENDIX

				CASE LAW

   The United States Supreme Court has only three times com-
mented upon the meaning of the second amendment to our consti-
tution. The first comment, in Dred Scott, indicated strongly that
the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right; the Court
noted that, were it to hold blacks to be entitled to equality of
citizenship, they would be entitled to keep and carry arms wherev-
er they went. The second, in Miller, indicated that a court cannot
take judicial notice that a short-barrelled shotgun is covered by the
second amendment--but the Court did not indicate that National
Guard status is in any way required for protection by that amend-
ment, and indeed defined "militia" to include all citizens able to
bear arms. The third, a footnote in Lewis v. United States, indicat-
ed only that "these legislative restrictions on the use of fire-
arms"--a ban on possession by felons--were permissable[[sic]]. But since
felons may constitutionally be deprived of many of the rights of
citizens, including that of voting, this dicta reveals little. These
three comments constitute all significant explanations of the scope
of the second amendment advanced by our Supreme Court. The
case of Adam v. Williams has been cited as contrary to the princi-
ple that the second amendment is an individual right. In fact, that
reading of the opinion comes only in Justice Douglas's dissent from
the majority ruling of the Court.

   The appendix which follows represents a listing of twenty-one
American decisions, spanning the period from 1822 to 1981, which
have analysed right to keep and bear arms provisions in the light
of statutes ranging from complete bans on handgun sales to bans
on carrying of weapons to regulation of carying by permit sys-
tems. Those decisions not only explained the nature of such a right,
but also struck down legislative restrictions as violative of it, are
designated by asterisks.

20th century cases

   1.  *State v. Blocker, 291 Or. 255, -- -- --P.2d-- -- -- (1981).
   "The statue is written as a total proscription of the mere posses-
sion of certain weapons, and that mere possession, insofar as a billy
is concerned, is constitutionally protected."
   "In these circumstances, we conclude that it is proper for us to
consider defendant's 'overbreadth' attack to mean that the statute
swept so broadly as to infringe rights that it could not reach, which
in the setting means the right to possess arms guaranteed by
sec 27."
   2.  *State v. Kessler, 289 Or. 359, 614 P.2d 94, at 95, at 98 (1980).
   "We are not unmindful that there is current controversy over
the wisdom of a right to bear arms, and that the original motiva-
tions for such a provision might not seem compelling if debated as
a new issue. Our task, however, in construing a constitutional
provision is to respect the principles given the status of constitu-
tional guarantees and limitations by the drafters; it is not to aban-
don these principles when this fits the needs of the moment."
   "Therefore, the term 'arms' as used by the drafters of the consti-
tuions probably was intended to include those weapons used by
settlers for both personal and military defense. The term 'arms'
was not limited to firearms, but included  several handcarried
weapons commonly used for defense. The term 'arms' would not
have included cannon or other heavy ordance not kept by militia-
men or private citizens."
   3.  Motley v. Kellogg, 409 N.E.2d 1207, at 1210 (Ind. App. 1980)
(motion to transfer denied 1-27-1981).
   "[N]ot making applications available at the chief's office effec-
tively denied members of the community the opportunity to obtain
a gun permit and bear arms for their self-defense."
   4.  Schubert v. DeBard, 398 N.E.2d 1339, at 1341 (Ind. App. 1980)
(motion to transfer denied 8-28-1980).
   "We think it clear that our constitution provides our citizenry
the right to bear arms for their self-defense."
   5.  Taylor v. McNeal, 523 S.W.2d 148, at 150 (Mo. App. 1975)
   "The pistols in question are not contraband. * * * Under Art. I,
sec 23, Mo. Const. 1945, V.A.M.S., every citizen has the right to keep
and bear arms in defense of his home, person, and property, with
the limitation that this section shall not justify the wearing of
concealed arms."
   6.  *City of Lakewood v. Pillow, 180 Colo. 20, 501 P.2d 744, at 745
(en banc 1972).
   "As an example, we note that this ordinance would prohibit
gunsmiths, pawnbrokers and sporting goods stores from carrying
on a substantial part of their business. Also, the ordinance appears
to prohibit individuals from transporting guns to and from such
places of business. Furthermore, it makes it unlawful for a person
to possess a firearm in a vehicle or in a place of business for the
purpose of self-defense. Several of these activities are constitution-
ally protected. Colo. Const. art. II, sec 13."
   7.  *City of Las Vegas v. Moberg, 82 N.M. 626, 485 P.2d 737, at 738
(N.M. App. 1971).
   "It is our opinion that an ordinance may not deny the people the
constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms, and to that extent
the ordinance under consideration is void."
   8.  State v. Nickerson, 126 Mt. 157, 247 P.2d 188, at 192 (1952).
   "The law of this jurisdiction accords to the defendant the right to
keep and bear arms and to use same in defense of his own home,
his person and property."
   9.  People v. Liss, 406 Ill. 419, 94 N.E. 2d 320, at 323 (1950).
   "The second amendment to the constitution of the United States
provides the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed. This of course does not prevent the enactment of a law
against carrying concealed weapons, but it does indicate it should
be kept in mind, in the construction of a statue of such character,
that it is aimed at persons of criminal instincts, and for the preven-
tion of crime, and not against use in the protection of person or
property."
   10. *People v. Nakamura, 99 Colo. 262, at 264, 62 P.2d 246 (en
banc 1936).
   "It is equally clear that the act wholly disarms aliens for all
purposes. The state . . . cannot disarm any class of persons or
deprive them of the right guaranteed under section 13, article II of
the Constitution, to bear arms in defense of home, person and
property. The guaranty thus extended is meaningless if any person
is denied the right to posses arms for such protection."
   11. *Glasscock v. City of Chattanooga, 157 Tenn. 518, at 520, 11
S.W. 2d 678 (1928).
   "There is no qualifications of the prohibition against the carry-
ing of a pistol in the city ordinance before us but it is made
unlawful 'to carry on or about the person any pistol,' that is, any
sort of pistol in any sort of maner. *** [W]e must accordingly hold
the provision of this ordinance as to the carrying of a pistol
invalid."
   12. *People v. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922).
   "The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all per-
sons to bear arms is a limitation upon the right of the Legislature
to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaran-
teed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the
sheriff."
   13 *State v. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921).
   "We are of the opinion, however, that 'pistol' ex vi termini is
properly included within the word 'arms,' and that the right to
bear such arms cannot be infringed. The historical use of pistols as
'arms' of offense and defense is beyond controversy."
   "The maintencance of the right to bear arms is a most essential
one to every free people and should not be whittled down by
technical constructions."
   14. *State v. Rosenthal, 75 VT. 295, 55 A. 610, at 611 (1903).
   "The people of the state have a right to bear arms for the
defense of themselves and the state. *** The result is that Ordi-
nance No. 10, so far as it relates to the carrying of a pistol, is
inconsistent with and repugnant to the Constitution and the laws
of the state, and it is therefore to that extent, void."
   15. *In re Brickey, 8 Ida. 597, at 598-99, 70 p. 609 (1902).
   "The second amendment to the federal constitution is in the
following language: '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.' The language of section 11, article I
of the constitution of Idaho, is as follows: 'The people have the
right to bear arms for their security and defense, but the legisla-
ture shall regulate the exercise of this right by law.' Under these
constitutional provisions, the legislature has no power to prohibit a
citizen from bearing arms in any portion of the state of Idaho,
whether within or without the corporate limits of cities, towns, and
villages."

19th century cases

   16. * Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54
(1878).
   "If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed
men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the
penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of con-
stitutional privilege."
   17. *Jennings v. State, 5 Tex. Crim. App. 298, at 300-01 (1878).
   "We believe that portion of the act which provides that, in case
of conviction, the defendant shall forfeit to the county the weapon
of weapons so found on or about his person is not within the scope
of legislative authority. * * * One of his most sacred rights is that
of having arms for his own defence and that of the State. This
right is one of the surest safeguards of liberty and self-preserva-
tion."
   18. *Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 8 Am. Rep. 8, at 17 (1871).
   "The passage from Story shows clearly that this right was in-
tended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed
to and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not
by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights."
   19. *Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846).
   "'The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."
The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and
boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every descrip-
tion, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be
infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and
all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and
qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the secu-
rity of a free State."
   20. Simpson v. State, 13 Tenn. 356, at 359-60 (1833).
   "But suppose it to be assumed on any ground, that our ancestors
adopted and brought over with them this English statute, [the
statute of Northampton,] or portion of the common law, our consti-
tution has completely abrogated it; it says, 'that the freemen of this
State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common de-
fence.' Article II, sec. 26. * * * By this clause of the constitution,
an express power is given and secured to all the free citizens of the
State to keep and bear arms for their defence, without any qualifi-
cation whatever as to their kind or nature; and it is conceived, that
it would be going much too far, to impair by construction or
abridgement a constitutional privilege, which is so declared; nei-
ther, after so solumn an instrument hath said the people may
carry arms, can we be permitted to impute to the acts thus li-
censed, such a necessarily consequent operation as terror to the
people to be incurred thereby; we must attribute to the framers of
it, the absence of such a view."
   21. Bliss v. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13
Am. Dec. 251 (1822).
   "For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibit-
ing the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing
such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the
latter must be so likewise."
   "But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the
right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and
complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if
any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the
part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done,
it is equally forbidden by the constitution."

   The following represents a list of twelve scholarly articles which
have dealt with the subject of the right to keep and bear arms as
reflected in the second amendment to the Constitution of the
United States. The scholars who have undertaken this research
range from professors of law, history and philosophy to a United
States Senator. All have concluded that the second amendment is
an individual right protecting American citizens in their peaceful
use of firearms.

			    BIBLIOGRAPHY

   Hays, THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, A STUDY IN JUDICIAL MISINTERPRE-
TATION, 2 Wm. & Mary L. R. 381 (1960)
   Sprecher, THE LOST AMENDMENT, 51 Am Bar Assn. J. 554 & 665 (2 parts)
(1965)
   Comment, THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS: A NECESSARY CONSTI-
TUTIONAL GUARANTEE OR AN OUTMODED PROVISION OF THE BILL OF
RIGHT? 31 Albany L. R. 74 (1967)
   Levine & Saxe, THE SECOND AMENDMENT: THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, 7
Houston L. R. 1 (1969)
   McClure, FIREAMRS AND FEDERALISM, 7 Idaho L. R. 197 (1970)
   Hardy & Stompoly, OF ARMS AND THE LAY, 51 Chi.-Kent L. R. 62 (1974)
   Weiss, A REPLY TO ADVOCATES OF GUN CONTROL LAW, 52 Jour. Urban
Law 577 (1974)
   Whisker, HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT AND SUBSEQUENT EROSION OF
THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, 78 W. Va. L. R. 171 (1976)
   Caplan, RESTORING THE BALANCE: THE SECOND AMENDMENT REVISIT-
ED, 5 Fordham Urban L. J. 31 (1976)
   Caplan, HANDGUN CONTROL: CONSTITUTIONAL OR UNCONSTITUTION-
AL?, 10 N.C. Central L. J. 53 (1979)
   Cantrell, THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, 53 Wis Bar Bull. 21 (Oct. 1980)
   Halbrook, THE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE SECOND AND FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENTS, 4 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 1 (1981)




	    ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL FIREARMS LAWS FROM THE
		PERSPECTIVE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT

   Federal involvement in firearms possession and transfer was not
significant prior to 1934, when the National Firearms Act was
adopted. The National Firearms Act as adopted covered only fully
automatic weapons (machine guns and submachine guns) and rifles
and shotguns whose barrel length or overall length fell below
certain limits. Since the Act was adopted under the revenue power,
sale of these firearms was not made subject to a ban or permit
system. Instead, each transfer was made subject to a $200 excise
tax, which must be paid prior to transfer; the identification of the
parties to the transfer indirectly accomplished a registration pur-
pose.
   The 1934 Act was followed by the Federal Firearms Act of 1938,
which placed some limitations upon sale of ordinary firearms. Per-
sons engaged in the business of selling those firearms in interstate
commerce were required to obtain a Federal Firearms License, at
an annual cost of $1, and to maintain records of the name and
address of persons to whom they sold firearms. Sales to persons
convicted of violent felonies were prohibited, as were interstate
shipments to persons who lacked the permits required by the law of
their state.
   Thirty years after adoption of the Federal Firearms Act, the Gun
Control Act of 1968 worked a major revision of federal law. The
Gun Control Act was actually a composite of two statutes. The first
of these, adopted as portions of the Omnibus Crime and Safe
Streets Act, imposed limitations upon imported firearms, expanded
the requirement of dealer licensing to cover anyone "engaged in
the business of dealing" in firearms, whether in interstate or local
commerce, and expanded the recordkeeping obligations for dealers.
It also imposed a variety of direct limitations upon sales of hand-
guns. No transfers were to be permitted between residents of differ-
ent states (unless the recipient was a federally licensed dealer),
even where the transfer was by gift rather than sale and even
where the recipient was subject to no state law which could have
been evaded. The category of persons to whom dealers could not
sell was expanded to cover persons convicted of any felony (other
than certain business-related felonies such as antitrust violations),
persons subject to a mental commitment order or finding of mental
incompetence, persons who were users of marijuana and other
drugs, and a number of other categories. Another title of the Act
defined persons who were banned from possessing firearms. Para-
doxically, these classes were not identical with the list of classes
prohibited from purchasing or receiving firearms.
   The Omnibus Crime and Safe Streets Act was passed on June 5,
1968, and set to take effect in December of that year. Barely two
weeks after its passage, Senator Robert F. Kennedy was assassinat-
ed while campaigning for the presidency. Less that a week after
his death, the second bill which would form part of the Gun Con-
trol Act of 1968 was introduced in the House. It was reported out of
Judiciary ten days later, out of Rules Committee two weeks after
that, and was on the floor barely a month after its introduction.
the second bill worked a variety of changes upon the original Gun
Control Act. Most significantly, it extended to rifles and shotguns
the controls which had been imposed solely on handguns, extended
the class of persons prohibited from possessing firearms to include
those who were users of marijuana and certain other drugs, ex-
panded judicial review of dealer license revocations by mandating a
de novo hearing once an appeal was taken, and permitted inter-
state sales of rifles and shotguns only where the parties resided in
contiguous states, both of which had enacted legislation permitting
such sales. Similar legislation was passed by the Senate and a
conference of the Houses produced a bill which was essentially a
modification of the House statute. This became law before the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, and was therefore
set for the same effective date.
   Enforcement of the 1968 Act was delegated to the Department of
the Treasury, which had been responsible for enforcing the earlier
gun legislation. This responsibility was in turn given to the Alcohol
and Tobacco Tax Division of the Internal Revenu Service. This
division had traditionally devoted itself to the pursuit of illegal
producers of alcohol; at the time of enactment of the Gun Control
Act, only 8.3 percent of its arrests were for firearms violations.
Following enactment of the Gun Control Act the Alcohol and To-
bacco Tax Division was retitled the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
Division of the IRS. By July, 1972 it had nearly doubled in size and
became a complete Treasury bureau under the name of Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
   The mid-1970's saw rapid increases in sugar prices, and these in
turn drove the bulk of the "moonshiners" out of business. Over
15,000 illegal distilleries had been raided in 1956; but by 1976 this
had fallen to a mere 609. The BATF thus began to devote the bulk
of its efforts to the area of firearms law enforcement.
   Complaint regarding the techniques used by the Bureau in an
effort to generate firearms cases led to hearings before the Subcom-
mittee on Treasury, Post Office, and General Appropriations of the
Senate Appropriations Committee in July 1979 and April 1980, and
before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Senate Judici-
ary Committee in October 1980. At these hearings evidence was
received from various citizens who had been charged by BATF,
from experts who had studied the BATF, and from officials of the
Bureau itself.
   Based upon these hearings, it is apparent that enforcement tac-
tics made possible by current federal firearms laws are constitu-
tionally, legally, and practically reprehensible. Although Congress
adopted the Gun Control Act with the primary object of limiting
access of felons and high-risk groups to firearms, the overbreadth
of the law has led to neglect of precisely this area of enforcement.
For example the Subcommittee on the Constitution received corre-
spondence from two members of the Illinois Judiciary, dated in
1980, indicating that they had been totally unable to persuade
BATF to accept cases against felons who were in possession of
firearms including sawed-off shotguns. The Bureau's own figures
demonstrate that in recent years the percentage of its arrests
devoted to felons in possession and persons knowingly selling to
them have dropped from 14 percent down to 10 percent of their
firearms cases. To be sure, genuine criminals are sometimes pros-
ecuted under other sections of the law. Yet, subsequent to these
hearings, BATF stated that 55 percent of its gun law prosecutions
overall involve persons with no record of a felony conviction, and a
third involve citizens with no prior police contact at all.
   The Subcommittee received evidence that the BATF has primarily
devoted its firearms enforcement efforts to the apprehension, upon
technical malum prohibitum charges, of individuals who lack all
criminal intent and knowledge. Agents anxious to generate an
impressive arrest and gun confiscation quota have repeatedly en-
ticed gun collectors into making a small number of sales--often as
few as four--from their personal collections. Although each of the
sales was completely legal under state and federal law, the agents
then charged the collector with having "engaged in the business"
of dealing in guns without the required license. Since existing law
permits a felony conviction upon these charges even where the
individual has no criminal knowledge or intent numerous collec-
tors have been ruined by a felony record carrying a potential
sentence of five years in federal prison. Even in cases where the
collectors secured acquittal, or grand juries failed to indict, or
prosecutors refused to file criminal charges, agents of the Bureau
have generally confiscated the entire collection of the potential
defendant upon the ground that he intended to use it in that
violation of the law. In several cases, the agents have refused to
return the collection even after acquittal by jury.
   The defendant, under existing law is not entitled to an award of
attorney's fees, therefore, should he secure return of his collection,
an individual who has already spent thousands of dollars establish-
ing his innocence of the criminal charges is required to spend
thousands more to civilly prove his innocence of the same acts,
without hope of securing any redress. This of course, has given the
enforcing agency enormous bargaining power in refusing to return
confiscated firearms. Evidence received by the Subcommittee related the
confiscation of a shotgun valued at $7,000. Even the Bureau's own
valuations indicate that the value of firearms confiscated by their
agents is over twice the value which the Bureau has claimed is
typical of "street guns" used in crime. In recent months, the aver-
age value has increased rather than decreased, indicating that the
reforms announced by the Bureau have not in fact redirected their
agents away from collector's items and toward guns used in crime.
   The Subcommittee on the Constitution has also obtained evi-
dence of a variety of other misdirected conduct by agents and
supervisors of the Bureau. In several cases, the Bureau has sought
conviction for supposed technical violations based upon policies and
interpretations of law which the Bureau had not published in the
Federal Register, as required by 5 U.S.C. Sec 552. For instance, begin-
ning in 1975, Bureau officials apparently reached a judgment that
a dealer who sells to a legitimate purchaser may nonetheless be
subject to prosecution or license revocation if he knows that that
individual intends to transfer the firearm to a nonresident or other
unqualified purchaser. This position was never published in the
Federal Register and is indeed contrary to indications which
Bureau officials had given Congress, that such sales were not in
violation of existing law. Moreover, BATF had informed dealers
that an adult purchaser could legally buy for a minor, barred by
his age from purchasing a gun on his own. BATF made no effort to
suggest that this was applicable only where the barrier was one of
age. Rather than informing the dealers of this distinction, Bureau
agents set out to produce mass arrests upon these "straw man"
sale charges, sending out undercover agents to entice dealers into
transfers of this type. The first major use of these charges, in
South Carolina in 1975, led to 37 dealers being driven from busi-
ness, many convicted on felony charges. When one of the judges
informed Bureau officials that he felt dealers had not been fairly
treated and given information of the policies they were expected to
follow, and refused to permit further prosecutions until they were
informed, Bureau officials were careful to inform only the dealers
in that one state and even then complained in internal memoranda
that this was interfering with the creation of the cases. When
BATF was later requested to place a warning to dealers on the
front of the Form 4473, which each dealer executes when a sale is
made, it instead chose to place the warning in fine print upon the
back of the form, thus further concealing it from the dealer's sight.
   The Constitution Subcommittee also received evidence that the
Bureau has formulated a requirement, of which dealers were not
informed that requires a dealer to keep official records of sales
even from his private collection. BATF has gone farther than
merely failing to publish this requirement. At one point, even as it
was prosecuting a dealer on the charge (admitting that he had no
criminal intent), the Director of the Bureau wrote Senator S. I.
Hayakawa to indicate that there was no such legal requirement
and it was completely lawful for a dealer to sell from his collection
without recording it. Since that date, the Director of the Bureau
has stated that that is not the Bureau's position and that such
sales are completely illegal; after making that statement, however,
he was quoted in an interview for a magazine read primarily by
licensed firearms dealers as stating that such sales were in fact
legal and permitted by the Bureau. In these and similar areas, the
Bureau has violated not only the dictates of common sense, but of 5
U.S.C. Sec 552, which was intended to prevent "secret lawmaking" by
administrative bodies.
   These practices, amply documented in hearings before this Sub-
committee, leave little doubt that the Bureau has disregarded
rights guaranteed by the constitution and laws of the United
States.
   It has trampled upon the second amendment by chilling exercise
of the right to keep and bear arms by law-abiding citizens.
   It has offended the fourth amendment by unreasonably search-
ing and seizing private property.
   It has ignored the Fifth Amendment by taking private property
without just compensation and by entrapping honest citizens with-
out regard for their right to due process of law.
   The rebuttal presented to the Subcommittee by the Bureau was
utterly unconvincing. Richard Davis, speaking on behalf of the
Treasury Department, asserted vaguely that the Bureau's priorities
were aimed at prosecuting willful violators, particularly felons ille-
gally in possession, and at confiscating only guns actually likely to
be used in crime. He also asserted that the Bureau has recently
made great strides toward achieving these priorities. No documen-
tation was offered for either of these assertions. In hearings before
BATF's Appropriations Subcommittee, however, expert evidence
was submitted establishing that approximately 75 percent of BATF
gun prosecutions were aimed at ordinary citizens who had neither
criminal intent nor knowledge, but were enticed by agents into
unknowning technical violations. (In one case, in fact, the individual
was being prosecuted for an act which the Bureau's acting director
had stated was perfectly lawful.) In those hearings, moreover,
BATF conceded that in fact (1) only 9.8 percent of their firearm
arrests were brought on felons in illicit possession charges; (2) the
average value of guns seized was $116, whereas BATF had claimed
that "crime guns" were priced at less than half that figure; (3) in
the months following the announcement of their new "priorities",
the percentage of gun prosecutions aimed at felons had in fact
fallen by a third, and the value of confiscated guns had risen. All
this indicates that the Bureau's vague claims, both of focus upon
gun-using criminals and of recent reforms, are empty words.
   In light of this evidence, reform of federal firearm laws is neces-
sary to protect the most vital rights of American citizens. Such
legislation is embodied in S. 1030. That legislation would require
proof of a willful violation as an element of a federal gun prosecu-
tion, forcing enforcing agencies to ignore the easier technical cases
and aim solely at the intentional breaches. It would restrict confis-
cation of firearms to those actually used in an offense, and require
their return should the owner be acquitted of the charges. By
providing for award of attorney's fees in confiscation cases, or in
other cases if the judge finds charges were brought without just
basis or from improper motives, this proposal would be largely self-
enforcing. S. 1030 would enhance vital protection of constitutional
and civil liberties of those Americans who choose to exercise their
Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
================================================================================

         -< Fourteenth Amendment and the RKBA; Intent of the Framers >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS: THE
INTENT OF THE FRAMERS  

             By Stephen P. Halbrook  

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. QU.S
Const. amend. II.  

. . . No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of United States; nor shall any state
deprive any person of life liberty, or property without due process of law
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws. QU.S. Const. amend. XIV, 1.  

If African Americans were citizens, observed Chief Justice Taney in
Dred Scott v. Sandford,[l] "it would give to persons of the negro
race . . . the full liberty of speech . . .; to hold public meetings
upon Political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they
went.[2] If this interpretation ignores that Articles I and II of
the Bill of Rights designate the respective freedoms guaranteed
therein to "the people" and not simply the citizens (much less a
select group of orators or militia), contrariwise Dred Scott followed
ante-bellum judicial thought in recognizing keeping and bearing arms
as an individual right[3] protected from both federal and state in-
fringement.[4] The exception to this interpretation were cases hold-
ing that the Second Amendment only protected citizens[5] from
federal, not state,[6] infringement of the right to keep and bear
arms, to provide judicial approval of laws disarming black freemen
and slaves.  

Since the Fourteenth Amendment was meant to overrule Dred Scott by
extending individual constitutional rights to black Americans and by
providing protection thereof against state infringement,[7] the question
arises whether the framers of Amendment XIV and related enforcement
legislation recognized keeping and bearing arms as individual right on
which no state could infringe. The congressional intent in respect to the
Fourteenth Amendment is revealed in the debates over both Amendments
XIII and XIV as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Anti-KKK Act of
1871, and the Civil Rights Act of 1875. Given the unanimity of opinion
concerning state regulation of privately held arms by the legislators
who framed the Fourteenth Amendment and its enforcement legislation,
it is surprising that judicial opinions and scholarly articles fail to
analyze the Reconstruction debates.[8]  

A. ARMS AND SLAVERY  

Having won their national independence from England through armed
struggle, post-Revolutionary War Americans were acutely I aware that the
sword and sovereignty go hand in hand, and that I the firearms technology
ushered in a new epoch in the human I struggle for freedom. Furthermore,
both proponents and opponents I of slavery were cognizant that an armed
black population meant  

the abolition of slavery, although plantation slaves were often trusted
with arms for hunting.[9] This sociological fact explained not only the
legal disarming of blacks but also the advocacy of a weapons culture by
abolitionists. Having employed the instruments for self-defense against
his pro-slavery attackers, abolitionist and Republican Party founder
Cassius Marcellus Clay wrote that " 'the pistol and the Bowie knife' are to
us as sacred as the gown and the pulpit."[10] And it was John Brown who
argued that "the practice ; of carrying arms would be a good one for the
colored people to adopt, as it would give them a sense of their
manhood."[ll]  

The practical necessities of the long, bloody Civil War, demanding every
human resource, led to the arming of blacks as soldiers. While originally
they considered it a "white man's war," Northern authorities by 1863 were
organizing black regiments on a wide scale. At the same time, black
civilians were forced to arm themselves privately against mob violence.
During the anti-draft riots in New York, according to a Negro newspaper of
the time, "The colored men who had manhood in them armed themselves,
and threw out their pickets every day and night, determined to die
defending their homes.... Most of the colored men in Brooklyn who remained
in the city were armed daily for self-defense."[12]  

Toward the end of the war Southerners began to support the arming and
freeing of slaves willing to fight the invaders, and the Virginia
legislature, on passing a bill providing for the use of black soldiers,
repealed its laws against the bearing of arms by blacks.[13] One opponent
of these measures declared: "What would be the character of the returned
negro soldiers, made familiar with the use of fire-arms, and taught by us,
that freedom was worth fighting for?"[14] Being evident that slaves plus
guns equaled abolition, the rebels were divided between those who
valued nationhood to slavery and those who preferred a restored union
which might not destroy the servile condition of black labor.  

As the movement began before the end of the war for the complete
abolition of slavery via the Thirteenth Amendment, members of the U.S.
Congress recognized the key role that the bearing of arms was already
playing in the freeing of the slaves. In debate over the proposed
Amendment, Rep. George A. Yeaman (Unionist, Ky.) contended that whoever
won the war, the abolition of slavery was inevitable due? to the arming of
blacks:  

Let proclamations be withdrawn, let statutes be repealed, let our armies
be defeated, let the South achieve its independence, yet come out of the
war . . . with an army of slaves made freemen for their service, who have
been contracted with, been armed and drilled, and have seen the force of
combination. Their personal status is enhanced.... They will not be returned
to slavery.[15]  

At the same time, members of the slavocracy were planning to disarm the
freedmen. Arguing for speedy adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment,
Rep. William D. Kelley (R., Penn.) expressed shock at the words of an
anti-secessionist planter in Mississippi who expected the union to restore
slavery. Kelley cited a letter from a U.S. brigadier general who wrote:
"'What,' said I, 'these men who have had arms in their hands?' 'Yes,' he said,
'we should take the arms away from them, of course.' "[16]  

The northern government won the war only because of the arming of the
slaves, according to Sen. Charles Sumner (R., Mass.) who argued that
necessity demanded "first, that the slaves should be declared free; and
secondly, that muskets should be put into their hands for the common
defense.... Without emancipation, followed by the arming of the slaves, 
rebel slavery would not have been overcome."[17]  

B. THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866  

After the war was concluded, the slave codes, which limited access of
blacks to land, to arms, and to the courts, began to reappear in the form of
the black codes,[18] and United States legislators turned their attention
to the protection of the freedmen. In support of Senate Bill No. 9, which
declared as void all laws in the rebel states which recognized inequality
of rights based on race Sen. Henry Wilson (R., Mass.) explained in part: "In
Mississippi rebel State forces, men who were in the rebel armies, are
traversing the State, visiting the freedmen disarming them, perpetrating
murders and outrages on them...."[19]  

When Congress took up Senate Bill No. 61, which became the Civil Rights
Act of 1866,[20] Sen. Lyman Trumbull (R., Ill.), Chairman of the Senate
Judiciary Committee, indicated that the bill was intended to prohibit
inequalities embodied in the black codes, including those provisions
which "prohibit any negro or mulatto from having fire-arms.''[21] In
abolishing the badges of slavery, the bill would enforce fundamental
rights against racial discrimination in respect to civil rights, the rights
to contract, sue and engage in commerce, and equal criminal penalties.
Sen. William Saulsbury D., Del.) added: "In my State for many years, and I
presume there are similar laws in most of the southern States, there has
existed a law of the State based upon and founded in its police power
which declares that free negroes shall not have the possession of f;rearms
or ammunition. This bill proposes to take away from the States this police
power...." The Delaware Democrat opposed the bill on this basis,
anticipating a time when "a numerous body of dangerous persons
belonging to any distinct race" endangered the state, for "the State shall
not have the power to disarm them without disarming the whole
population."[22] Thus, the bill would have prohibited legislative schemes
which in effect disarmed blacks but not whites. Still, supporters of the
bill were soon to contend that arms bearing was a basic right of
citizenship or personhood.  

In the meantime, the legislators turned their attention to the Freedmen's
Bureau Bill. Rep. Thomas D. Eloit (R., Mass.) attacked an Opelousas,
Louisiana ordinance which deprived blacks of various civil rights,
including the following provision: "No freedman who is not in the military
service shall be allowed to carry firearms, or any kind of weapons,
within the limits of the town of Opelousas without the special permission
of his employer . . . and approved by the mayor or president of the board of
police."[23] And Rep. Josiah B. Grinnell (R., Iowa) complained: " A white
man in Kentucky may keep a gun; if a black man buys a gun he forfeits it
and pays a fine of five dollars, if presuming to keep in his possession a
musket which he has carried through the war."[24] Yet the right of blacks
to have arms existed partly as self-defense against the state militia
itself, which implied that militia needs were not the only constitutional
bases for the right to bear arms. Sen. Trumbull cited a report from
Vicksburg, Mississippi which stated: "Nearly all the dissatisfaction that
now exists among the freedmen is caused by the abusive conduct of this
militia."[25] Rather than restore order, the militia would typically "hang
some freedman or search negro houses for arms."[26] As debate returned
to the Civil Rights Bill, Rep. Henry J. Raymond (R., N.Y.) explained of the
rights of citizenship: "Make the colored man a citizen of the United States
and he has every right which you or I have as citizens of the United States
under the laws and Constitution of the United States . . . He has a defined
status, he has a country and a home a right to defend himself and his wife
and children, a right to bear arms ...."[27] Rep. Roswell Hart (R., N.Y.)
further states: "The Constitution clearly describes that to be a republican
form of government for which it was expressly framed. A government . . .
where 'no law shall be made prohibiting a free exercise of religion,' where
'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed;'
..."[28] He concluded that it was the duty of the United States to guarantee
that the states have such a form of government.[29]  

Rep. Sidney Clarke (R., Kansas) referred to an 1866 Alabama law providing:
"That it shall not be lawful for any freedman, mulatto, or free person of
color in this State, to own firearms, or carry about his person a pistol or
other deadly weapon."[30] This same statute made it unlawful "to sell,
give, or lend fire-arms to ammunition of any description whatever, to any
freedman, free negro, or mulatto. . . ."[31] Clarke also attacked Mississippi,
"whose rebel militia, upon the seizure of the arms of black Union Soldiers,
appropriated the same to their own use."[32]  

Sir, I find in the Constitution of the United States an article which
declares that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed." For myself, I shall insist that the reconstructed rebels of
Mississippi respect the Constitution in their local laws ....[33]  

Emotionally referring to the disarming of black soldiers, Clarke added:  

Nearly every white man in that State that could bear arms was in the
rebel ranks. Nearly all of their ablebodied colored men who could reach
our lines enlisted under the old flag. Many of these brave defenders of the
nation paid for the arms with which they went to battle.... The
"reconstructed" State authorities of Mississippi were allowed to rob and
disarm our veteran soldiers . . . .[34]  

In sum, Clarke presupposed a constitutional right to keep privately held
arms for protection against oppressive state militia.  

C.THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT  

The need for a more solid foundation for the protection of freedmen as
well as white citizens was recognized, and the result was a significant
new proposalQthe Fourteenth Amendment. A chief exponent of the
amendment, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (R., Mich.), referred to "the personal
rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments of the
Constitution, such as freedom of speech and of the press, ... the right to
keep and to bear arms...."[35] Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment was
necessary because presently these rights were not guaranteed against
state legislation. "The great object of the first section of this
amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel
them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees."[36]  

The Fourteenth Amendment was viewed as necessary to buttress the
objectives of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Rep. George W. Julian (R., Ind.)
noted that the act  

Is pronounced void by the jurists and courts of the South. Florida makes it
a misdemeanor for colored men to carry weapons without a license to do
so from a probate judge, and the punishment of the offense is whipping
and the pillory. South Carolina has the same enactments . . . Cunning
legislative devices are being invented in most of the States to restore
slavery in fact.[37]  

It is hardly surprising that the arms question was viewed as part of a
partisan struggle. "As you once needed the muskets of the colored persons,
so now you need their votes," Sen. Sumner explained to his fellow
Republicans in support of black suffrage in the District of Columbia.[38]
At the opposite extreme, Rep. Michael C. Kerr (D., Ind.) an opponent of black
suffrage and of the Fourteenth Amendment, attacked a military
ordinance in Alabama that set up a volunteer militia of all males between
ages 18 and 45 "without regard to race or color" on these grounds:  

Of whom will that militia consist? Mr. Speaker, it will consist only of the
black men of Alabama. The white men will not degrade themselves by
going into the ranks and becoming a part of the militia of the State with
negroes.... Are the civil laws of Alabama to be enforced by this negro
militia? Are white men to be disarmed by them?[39]  

Kerr predicted that the disfranchisement of white voters and the above 
military measure would result in "a war of races."[40]  

D.THE ANTI-KKK ACT  

Although the Fourteenth Amendment became law in 1868 within three
years the Congress was considering enforcement legis lation to suppress
the Ku Klux Klan. The famous report by Rep. Benjamin F. Butler (R., Mass.)
on violence in the South assumed that the right to keep arms was
necessary for protection against the militia but also against local law
enforcement agencies. Noting instances of "armed confederates"
terrorizing the negro, the report stated that "in many counties they have
preceded their outrages upon him by disarming him, in violation of his
right as a citizen to 'keep and bear arms,' which the Constitution
expressly says shall never be infringed."[41] The congressional power
based on the Fourteenth Amendment to legislate to prevent states from
depriving any U.S. citizen of life, liberty, or property justified the
following provision of the committee's anti-KKK bill:  

That whoever shall, without due process of law, by violence,
intimidation, or threats, take away or deprive any citizen of the United
States of any arms or weapons he may have in his house or possession for
the defense of his person, family, or property, shall be deemed guilty of a
larceny thereof, and be punished as provided in this act for a felony.[42]  

Rep. Butler explained the purpose of this provision in these words:  

Section eight is intended to enforce the well-known constitutional
provision guaranteeing the right in the citizen to "keep and bear arms," and
provides that whoever shall take away, by force or violence, or by threats
and intimidation, the arms and weapons which any person may have for
his defense, shall be deemed guilty of larceny of the same. This provision
seemed to your committee to be necessary, because they had observed
that, before these midnight marauders made attacks upon peaceful
citizens there were very many instances in the South where the sheriff of
the county had preceded them and taken away the arms of their victims.
This was specially noticeable in Union County, where all the negro
population were disarmed by the sheriff only a few months ago under the
order of the judge . . .; and then, the sheriff having disarmed the citizens,
the five hundred masked men rode at night and murdered and otherwise
maltreated the ten persons who were in jail in that county.[43]  

The bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee, and when later reported
as H.R. No. 320 the above section was deletedQprobably because its
proscription extended to simple individual larceny over which Congress
had no constitutional authority, and because state or conspiratorial action
involving the disarming of blacks would be covered by more general
provisions of the bill. Supporters of the rewritten anti-KKK bill continued
to show the same concern over the disarming of freedmen. Sen. John
Sherman (R., Ohio) stated the Republican position: "Wherever the negro
population preponderates, there they [the KKK] hold their sway, for a few
determined men . . . can carry terror among ignorant negroes . . . without
arms, equipment, or discipline." [44]  

Further comments clarified that the right to arms was a necessary
condition for the right of free speech. Sen. Adelbert Ames (R. Miss.)
averred: "In some counties it was impossible to advocate Republican
principles, those attempting it being hunted like wild beasts; in other, the
speakers had to be armed and supported by not a few friends."[45] Rep.
William L. Stoughton (R. Mich.) exclaimed: "If political opponents can be
marked for s;laughter by secret bands of cowardly assassins who ride
forth with impunity to execute the decrees upon the unarmed and
defenseless, it will be fatal alike to the Republican party and civil
liberty." [46]  

Section 1 of the bill, which was taken partly from Section 2 of the Civil
Rights Act of 1866 and survives today as 42 U.S.C. 1983, was meant to
enforce Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment by establishing a remedy
for deprivation under color of state law of federal constitutional rights of
all people, not only former slaves. This portion of the bill provided:  

That any person who, under color of any law, statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage of any State, shall subject, or cause to be
subjected, any person within the jurisdiction of the United States to the
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities to which . . . he is
entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States, shall . . . be
liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other
proper proceeding for redress. . . .[47]  

Rep. Washington C. Whitthorne (D. Tenn.), who complained that "in having
organized a negro militia, in having disarmed the white man," the
Republicans had "plundered and robbed" the whites of South Carolina
through "unequal laws," objected to Section 1 of the anti-KKK bill on these
grounds:  

It will be noted that by the first section suits may be instituted without
regard to amount or character of claim by any person within the limits of
the United States who conceives that he has been deprived of any right,
privilege, or immunity secured him by the Constitution of the United
States, under color of any law, statute, ordinance regulation, custom, or
usage of any State. This is to say, that if a police officer of the city of
Richmond or New York should find a drunken negro or white man upon the
streets with a loaded pistol flourishing it, &c., and by virtue of any
ordinance, law, or usage, either of city or State, he takes it away, the
officer may be sued, because the right to bear arms is secured by the
Constitution, and such suit brought in distant and expensive tribunals.[48]  

The Tennessee Democrat assumed that the right to bear arms was
absolute, deprivation of which created a cause of action against state
agents under Section 1 of the anti-KKK bill. In the minds of the bill's
supporters, however, the Second Amendment as incorporated in the
Fourteenth Amendment recognized a right to keep and bear arms safe from
state infringement, not a right to commit assault or otherwise engage in
criminal conduct with arms by pointing them at people or wantonly
brandishing them about so as to endanger others. Contrary to the
congressman's exaggerations, the proponents of the bill had the justified
fear that the opposite development would occur, i.e., that a black or white
man of the wrong political party would legitimately have or possess arms
and a police officer of the city of Richmond or New York who was drunken
with racial prejudice or partisan politics would take it away, perhaps to
ensure the success of an extremist group's attack. Significantly, none of
the representative's colleagues disputed his assumption that state agents
could be sued under the predecessor to 1983 for deprivation of the right to
keep arms.  

Rep. William D. Kelly (R., Penn.), speaking after and in reply to Rep.
Whitthorne, did not deny the argument that Section 1 allowed suit for
deprivation of the right to possess arms, but emphasized the arming of the
KKK. He referred to "great numbers of Winchester rifles, and a particular
species of revolving pistol" coming into Charleston's ports. "Poor men,
without visible means of support whose clothes are ragged and whose
lives are almost or absolutely those of vagrants, are thus armed with new
and costly rifles, and wear in their belts a brace of expensive pistols."[49]
These weapons were used against Southern Republicans, whose
constitutional rights must thereby be guaranteed by law and arms.  

However, like Congressman Whitthorne, Rep. Barbour Lewis (R., Tenn.) also
decried the loss of state agent's immunity should the bill pass: "By the
first section, in certain cases, the judge of a State court, though acting
under oath of office, is made liable to a suit in the Federal Court and
subject to damages for his decision against a suitor, however honest and
conscientious that decision may be; and a ministerial officer is subject to
the same pains and penalties...."[50] Tennessee Republicans and
Democrats alike thus agreed that what is today 1983 provided an action
for damages against state agents in general for deprivation of
constitutional rights.  

Debate over the anti-KKK bill naturally required exposition of Section 1 of
the Fourteenth Amendment, and none was better qualified to explain that
section than its draftsman, Rep. John A. Bingham (R., Ohio):  

Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by
the first section, fourteenth amendment of the Constitution may be more
fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of
citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to
the constitution of the United States. Those eight amendments are as
follows:  

ARTICLE I  

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.  

ARTICLE 11  

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....
[Amendments III-VIII, also listed by Bingham, are here omitted.]  

These eight articles I have shown never were limitations upon the power
of the States, until made so by the Fourteenth Amendment. The words of
that amendment, "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," are
an express prohibition upon every State of the Union.... [51]  

This is a most explicit statement of the incorporation thesis by the
architect of the Fourteenth Amendment. Although he based the
incorporation on the privileges and immunities clause and not the due
process clause as did subsequent courts of selective incorporation, Rep.
Bingham could hardly have anticipated the judicial metaphysics of the
twentieth century in this respect. In any case, whether based on the due
process clause or on the privileges and immunities clause, the legislative
history supports the view that the incorporation of Amendments I-VIII
was clear and unmistakable in the minds of the framers of Amendment
XIV.  

In contrast with the above legal analysis, some comments on the
enforcement of the Fourteenth Amendment returned to discussion of
power struggle between Republicans and unreconstructed Confederates.
While Republicans deplored the armed condition of white Southerners and
the unarmed state of black Southerners, Democrats argued that the South's
whites were disarmed and endangered by armed carpetbaggers and negro
militia. Thus, Rep. Ellis H. Roberts (R., N.Y.) lamented the partisan
character of KKK violence: "The victims whose property is destroyed,
whose persons are mutilated, whose lives are sacrificed, are always
Republicans. They may be black or white...." Of the still rebellious whites:
"Their weapons are often new and of improved patterns; and however
poor may be the individual member he never lacks for arms or
ammunition.... In many respects the Ku Klux Klan is an army, organized and
officered, and armed for deadly strife."[52]  

Rep. Boyd Winchester (D., Ky.) set forth the contrary position, favorably
citing a letter from an ex-governor of South Carolina to the
reconstruction governor regretting the latter's "Winchester-rifle speech"
which "fiendishly proclaimed that this instrument of death, in the hands
of the negroes of South Carolina, was the most effective means of
maintaining order and quiet in the State."[53] Calling on the governor to
"disarm your militia," the letter referred to the disaster which resulted
"when you organized colored troops throughout the State, and put arms
into their hands with powder and ball, and denied the same to the white
people."[54] The letter proceeded to cite numerous instances where the
"colored militia" murdered white people. According to Rep. Winchester, it
was the arming of blacks and disarming of whites which resulted in white
resistance. "It would seem that wherever military and carpetbagger
domination in the South has been marked by the greatest contempt for law
and right, and practiced the greatest cruelty toward the people, Ku Klux
operations have multiplied." [55]  

An instance of black Republican armed .resistance to agents of the state
who were in the Klan was recounted in a letter cited by Rep. Benjamin F.
Butler:  

Then the Ku Klux fired on them through the window, one of the bullets
striking a colored woman . . . and wounding her through the knee badly. The
colored men then fired on the Ku Klux Klanux, and killed their leader or
captain right there on the steps of the colored men's house.... There he
remained until morning when he was identified, and proved to "Pat Inman,"
a constable and deputy sheriff. . . . [56]  

By contrast, Rep. Samuel S. Cox (D., Ohio assailed those who "arm negro
militia and create a situation of terror," exclaimed that South Carolinians
actually clamored for United States troops to save them from the rapacity
and murder of the negro bands and their white allies," and saw the Klan as
their only defense: "Is not repression the father of revolution?" The
congressman compared the Klan with the French Jacobins, Italian
Carbonari and Irish Fenians.[57] Rep. John Coburn (R., Ind.) saw the
situation in an opposite empirical light, deploring both state and private
disarming of blacks. "How much more oppressive is the passage of a law
that they shall not bear arms than the practical seizure of all arms from
the hands of the colored men?"[58]  

The next day Rep. Henry L. Dawes (R., Mass.) returned to a legal analysis
which again asserted the incorpor.ation thesis. Of the anti-Klan bill he
argued:  

The rights, privileges, and immunities of the American citizen, secured to
him under the Constitution of the United States, are the subject-matter of
this bill....  

. . . In addition to the original rights secured to him in the first article of
amendments he had secured the free exercise of his religious belief, and
freedom of speech and of the press. Then again he has secured to him the
right to keep and bear arms in his defense. [Dawes then summarizes the
remainder of the first eight amendments.] . . .  

. . . And still later, sir, after the bloody sacrifice of our four years' war,
we gave the most grand of all these rights, privileges, and immunities, by
one single amendment to the Constitution, to four millions of American
citizens....  

. . . [I]t is to protect and secure to him in these rights privileges, and
immunities this bill is before the House.[59]  

Rep. Horatio C. Burchard (R., Ill.), while generally favoring the bill insofar
as it provided against oppressive state action, rejected the interpretation
by Dawes and Bingham regarding the definition of "privileges and
immunities," which Burchard felt were contained only in Articles IV, V,
and VI rather than I-VIII. However Burchard still spoke in terms of "the
application of their eight amendments to the States,"[60] and in any case
Dawes had used the terms "rights, privileges and immunities." The
anti-Klan bill finally was passed along partisan lines as An Act to 
Enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.[61]  

E. THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1875  

After passage of the anti-Klan bill, discussion concerning arms persisted
as interest developed toward what became the Civil Rights Act of 1875,
now 42 U.S.C. 1984. A report on affairs in the South by Sen. John Scott (R.,
Penn.) indicated the need for further enforcement legislation: "negroes
who were whipped testified that those who beat them told them they did
so because they had voted the radical ticket, and in many cases made them
promise that they would not do so again, and wherever they had guns took
them from them."[62]  

Following the introduction of the civil rights bill the debate over the
meaning of the privileges and immunities clause returned. Sen. Matthew H.
Carpenter (R., Wis.) cited Cummings v. Missouri,[63] a case contrasting the
French legal system, which allowed deprivation of civil rights, "and
among these of the right of voting, . . . of bearing arms," with the
American legal system, averring that the Fourteenth Amendment
prevented states from taking away the privileges of the American
citizen.[64]  

Sen. Allen G. Thurman (D., Ohio) argued that the "rights, privileges, and
immunities of a citizen of the United States" were included in
Amendments I-VIII. Reading and commenting on each of these amendments,
he said of the Second: "Here is another right of a citizen of the United
States, expressly declared to be his rightQthe right to bear arms; and this
right, says the Constitution, shall not be infringed." After prodding from
John A. Sherman (R., Ohio), Thurman added the Ninth Amendment to the
list.[65]  

The incorporationist thesis was stated succinctly by Senator Thomas M.
Norwood (D., Ga.) in one of the final debates over the civil rights bill.
Referring to a U.S. citizen residing in a Territory, Senator Norwood stated:  

His right to bear arms, to freedom of religious opinion freedom of speech,
and all others enumerated in the Con stitution would still remain
indefeasibly his, whether he remained in the Territory or removed to a
State.  

And those and certain others are the privileges and immunities which
belong to him in common with every citizen of the United States, and
which no State can take away or abridge, and they are given and protected
by the Constitution .  

The following are most, if not all the privileges and immunities of a
citizen of the United States:  

The right to the writ of habeas corpus; of peaceable assembly and of
petition; . . . to keep and bear arms [emphasis added]; . . . from being
deprived of the right to vote on account of race, color or previous
condition of servitude.[66]  

Arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment created no new rights but
declared that "certain existing rights should not be abridged by States,"
the Georgia Democrat explained:  

Before its [Fourteenth Amendment] adoption any State might have
established a particular religion, or restricted freedom of speech and of
the press, or the right to bear arms [emphasis added] . . . A State could
have deprived its citizens of any of the privileges and immunities con-
tained in those eight articles, but the Federal Government could not. . . . . .
And the instant the fourteenth amendment became a part of the
Constitution, every State was at that moment disabled from making or
enforcing any law which would deprive any citizen of a State of the
benefits enjoyed by citizens of the United States under the first eight
amendments to the Federal Constitution.[67]  

In sum, in the understanding of Southern Democrats and Radical
Republicans alike, the right to keep and bear arms, like other Bill of
Rights freedoms, was made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth
Amendment.  

The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment and of the civil rights acts of
Reconstruction, rather than predicating the right to keep and bear arms on
the needs of an organized state militia, based it on the right of the people
individually to possess arms for protection against any oppressive
forceQincluding racist or political violence by the militia itself or by
other state agents such as sheriffs. At the same time, the militia was
understood to be the whole body of the people, including blacks. In
discussion concerning the Civil Rights Act of 1875, Sen. James A Alcorn
(R., Miss.) defined the militia in these terms: "The citizens of the United
States, the Posse comitatus, or the militia if you please, and the colored
man composes part of these."[68] Every citizen, in short, was a
militiaman. With the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, the right and
privilege individually to keep and bear arms was protected from both state
and federal infringement.[69]  

REFERENCES  

1. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 15 L. Ed. 691 (lX57).  

2. 15 L. Ed. at 705 [emphasis added]. And see id at 719.  

3. Protection of the "absolute rights of individuals" to personal security,
liberty and private property is secured in part by "the right of bearing
armsQwhich with us is . . . practically enjoyed by every citizen, and is
among his most valuable privileges, since it furnishes the means of
resisting as a freeman ought, the inroads of usurpation." I Henry St. Geo.
Tucker, Commentaries on the Laws of Virginia 43 (1831) (reference to U.S.
Constitution). And see St. Geo. Tucker, I Blackstone, Commentaries 144 n.
40 (lst ed. 1803), W. Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-26 (1829); 3
J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 74fi (1833), Bliss vs. Com-
monwealth, 2 Litt. (Ky.) 90, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822); Simpson vs. State, 13
Tenn. Reports (5 Yerg.) 356 (1833); Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243 (1846). Cf.
State v. Buzzard, 4 Ark, 18 (1843).  

4. W. Rawle, supra note 3, at 125-26, stated: The prohibition is general. No
clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived
to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious
attempt could be made under some general pretence by a state legislature.
But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it,
this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both. Similarly, it
was stated in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 250-51 (1846):  

The language of the second amendment is broad enough to embrace both
Federal and state governmentsQnor is there anything in its terms which
restricts its meaning.... Is it not an unalienable right, which lies at the
bottom of every free government? And see cases cited at 68 C.J. Weapons
4 n 60 (1934).  

According to II J. Bishop, Criminal Law 124 (3rd ed. 1865): "Though most
of the amendments are restrictions on the general government alone, not
on the States, this one seems to be of a nature to bind both the State and
National legislatures." Approved in English v. State, 35 Tex. 473 (1872).
For an analysis of U.S. Supreme Court cases related to whether the Second
and/or Fourteenth Amendments prohibit state action which infringes on
keeping and bearing arms, see S. Halbrook, The Jurisprudence of the Second
and Fourteenth Amendments, IV George Mason L. Rev. (1981).  

5. State v. Newson 27 N.C. 203, 204 (1844), Cooper v. Savannah, 4 Ga. 72
(1848).  

6. State v. Newson 27 N.C. 203, 207 (1844). Cf. cases cited at fi8 C.J.
Weapons 5, n. 19 21,22,8,n.37,40(1934).  

7. "What was the fourteenth article designed to secure? . . . [T]hat the
privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States shall not be
abridged or denied by the United States or by any State; defining also,
what it was possible was open to some question after the Dred Scott
decision, who were citizens of the United States." Sen. George F. Edmonds
(R., Vt.), CONG. GLOBE, 40th Cong., 3rd. Sess., pt. 1,1000 (Feb. 8, 1869).  

8. While it "cannot turn the clock back to 1868 when the Amendment was
adopted," Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483, 492 (1954),
the Supreme Court is compelled to interpret Amendment XIV and
Reconstruction legislation in accord with the Congressional intent.
Lynch v. Household Finance Corp., 405 U.S. 538, 549 (1972); Monell v. Dep't.
of Social Seruices of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) ("fresh analyis
of debate on the Civil Rights Act of 1871," id 665, justified overruling
Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 [1961]). Cf Fairman, Does the Fourteenth
Amendment Incorporate the Bill of Rights? The Original Understanding, 2
Stanford L. Rev. 5, 44-45, 57-58, 119-20 (1949) (while contending that
the Bill of Rights in general was not intended to apply to the states, cited
references to the Second Amendment in congressional debates support
incorporation).  

Though beyond the scope of this study, the history of the prohibition of
arms possession by native Americans or Indians or presents a parallel
example of the use of gun control to suppress or exterminate non-white
ethnic groups. While legal discrimination against blacks in respect to
arms was abolished during Reconstruction, the sale of arms and
ammunition to "hostile" Indians remained a prohibition. E.g., 17 stat. 457,
42nd Cong., 3rd Sess., ch. 138 (1873). See also Sioux Nation of Indians v.
United States, 601 F. 2d 1571, 1166 (Ct. Cl. 1979): "Since the Army has
taken from the Sioux their weapons and horses, the alternative to
capitulation to the government's demands was starvation . . ." The federal
government's special restrictions on selling firearms to native Americans
were abolished finally in 1979. Washington Post, Jan. 6, 1979, A, at 11,
col. 1.  

9. See State v. Hannibal, 51N.C. 57 (1859), State v. Harris, 51 N.C. 448
(1859), D. Hundley, Social Relations in our Southern States 361 (18fiO).
Blacks were experienced enough in the use of arms to pay a significant,
though unofficial, role as Confederate soldiers, some even as
sharpshooters. H. Blackerby, Blacks in Blue and Gray 1-40 (Tusculoosa,
Ala. 1979); J. Obatala, Black Confederates, Players 13 ff. (April, 1979). In
Louisiana, the only state in the Union to include blacks in the militia,
substantial numbers of blacks joined the rebellion furnishing their own
arms. M. Berry, Negro Troops in Blue and Gray, 8 Louisiana History 165-66
(1867).  

10. The Writings of Cassius Marcellus Clay 257 (H. Greeley ed. 1848).  

11. DuBois, John Brown 106 (1909).  

12. J. McPherson, The Negro's Civil War 72-73 (1965). While all may be
fair in love and war, experiences during the conflict suggest that
deprivation of one right is coupled with deprivation of others. When the
secession movement began, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and enstated
the disarming of citizens and military arrests in Maryland and Missouri. In
the latter state, the death penalty was enstated by union officers for
those caught with arms, and after an order was issued to arm the militia
by random seizures of arms, the searches provided the occasion for
general looting. See 3 War of the Rebellion 466-67 (Series l) and 13 id. at
506 R. Brownlee, Gray Ghosts of the Confederacy 37, 85, & 170 (L.S.U.
1958). The situat;on became so harsh for Northerners themselves that the
Northern Democratic Platform of 1864 declared in its fourth resolution
against the suppression of free speech and press and the denial of the
right of the people to bear arms in their defense. E. Pollard, The Lost
Cause 574 (1867).  

13. 61 The War of the Rebellion, ser. 1, pt. 2, 1068 & 1315 (1880-1901), R.
Durden The Gray & The Black 250 (1972).  

14. R. Durden, supra note 13, at 169.  

15. Cong. Globe, 38th Cong., 2nd Sess., pt. 1, 171 (Jan. 9, 1865).  

16. Id 289 (Jan. 18, 1865).  

17. Id, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 1, 674 (Feb. 6 1866). But see id. at pt. 4,
3215 (June 16, 1866) (allegation by Rep. William E. Nibiack (D., Ind.) that
the majority of Southern blacks "either adhered from first to last to the
rebellion or aided and assisted by their labor or otherwise those who did
so adhere.").  

18. DuBois, Black Reconstruction in America 167, 172, & 223 (New York
1962).  

19. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 1, 40 (Dec. 13, 1865).  

20. Civil Rights Act, 14 Stat. 27 (1866). A portion of this act survives as
42 U.S.C. 1982: "All citizens of the United States shall have the same
right, in every State and Territory as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof
to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal
property."  

22 . Congj Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 1, 474 (Jan. 29, 1866).  

23 Id 517 (Jan. 30 1866)  

24 Id 651 (Feb. 5, ;866).  

25. Id. 941 (Feb. 20,1866).  

26. Id.  

27. Id., pt. 2,1266 (Mr. 8,1866).  

28. Id 1629 (Mar. 24,1866).  

29 Id 3  

30 Id 1838 (Ap. 7,1866).  

31. Id 32. Id. 33. Id. 34. Id. 1839. Ironically, Clarke's home state, Kansas,
adopted measures to prohibit former Confederates from possessing arms.
Kennett & Anderson at 154.  

35. Cong. Globe 39th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 3, 2765 (May 23, 1866).  

36 Id 2766. Itaiics added  

37 Id, pt. 4, 3210 (June 16, 1866).  

38. Id., 2nd Sess., pt. 1, 107 (Dec. 13,1866).  

39. Id., 40th Cong., 2nd Sess. pt. 3, 2198 (Mar. 28, 1868).  

40. Id.  

41. 1464 H.R. REP. No. 37, 41st Cong. 3rd Sess. 3 (Feb. 20, 1871).  

42. Cong. Globe, 42nd Cong., 1st Sess. pt. 1, 174 (Mar. 20, 1871). Introduced
as "an act to protect loyal and peaceable citizens in the south . . .", H.R. No.
189.  

43 H R. Rep. No. .37, supra note 26, at 7-8.  

44 Cong. Globe, 42nd Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 1,154 (Mar. 18,1871).  

45. Id. 196 (Mr. 21,1871).  

46. Id. 321 (Mr. 28,1871).  

47. Id., pt. 2, Appendix, 68. Passed as the Enforcement Act, 17 Stat. 13
(1871), 1 survives as 42 U.S.C. 1983: "Every person who, under color of any
statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or
Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United
States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation
of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and
laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in
equity, or other proper proceedings for redress." The action for conspiracy
to deprive persons of rights or privileges under 42 U.S.C. 1985 derives
from the same act.  

48 Cong Globe, 42nd Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 1, 337 (Mr. 29, 1871).  

50 Id 385 (Ap. 1,1871) 51 Id, pt. 2, Appendix, 84 (Mr. 31,1871). 52. Id., pt.
1, 413 (Ap. 3,1871). 53. Id. 422 (Ap. 3, 1871). 54. Id. 55. Id. Nathan Bedford
Forrest told Congressional investigators in 1871 that the Klan originated
in Tennessee for self defense against the militia of Governor William G.
Brownlow. N. Burger and J. Bettersworth, South of Appomattox 129, 132
and 137 (1959). Still, two years before, Forrest denounced Klan
lawlessness because "the order was being used . . . to disarm harmless
negroes having no thought of insurrectionary movements, and to whip both
whites and blacks." C. Bowers, THE TRAGIC ERA 311 (1929). The outrages
in turn allegedly furnished "a plausible pretext for the organization of
State militias to serve the purposes of Radical politices." C. Bowers at
311. Carpetbagger controlled militias were deeply involved in political
violence to innuence elections, and were blamed for infringing on their
opponents' constitutional rights to free speech and to keep and bear arms,
among numerous other abuses. E.g., C. Bowers at 439 and passim; 0.
Singletary, Negro Militia and Reconstruction 35-41, 74-75 (1963).  

56. Cong. Globe, 42nd Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 1, 445 (Ap. 4, 1871).  

57. Id. 453.  

58. Id. 459. 59. Id. 475-76 (Ap. 5, 1871). [Emphasis addedl. 60. Id., 2,
Appendix 314. 61 17 Stat. 13, 42nd Cong., 1st Sess., ch. 22 (1871). 62
1484 5. Rep. No. 41, 42nd Cong., 2nd Sess., pt. 1, 35 (Feb. 19, 1872). 
63. Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. 277, 321(1866). 
64. Cong. Globe, 42nd Cong.,  

A better analogy has come my way; this was sent to me by private mail, the
original author is unknown:

   A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free
   State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be
   infringed.

Now, anyone want to argue that this statement restricts the right to keep and
read books to only the well-schooled?  Or that the act of allowing "the people"
to keep and read books results in a well-schooled electorate?

                                Roak

George,	You seem to have missed extracting a few of the other statements.
	Here, I'll help you.


>     [Copperud:] (1) The sentence does not restrict the right to
>keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the
>right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a
>positive  statement with respect to a right of the people.

	Notice the phrase "does not restrict".

>     [Copperud:] (3) No such condition is expressed or implied.
>The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to
>depend on the existence of a militia.  No condition is stated or
>implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and
>to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the
>security of a free state.  The right to keep and bear arms is
>deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.

	Notice the phrases "not said by the amendment to depend on 
	the existence of a militia", "No condition is stated or
	implied" and "The right to keep and bear arms is deemed 
	unconditional by the entire sentence".

Jim

    Roak,
    
    Your a day late and a dollar short.  Go see .83.
    
    GeorgeM:  You selectively picked apart .83.  You will notice the
    person is answering the QUESTIONS position.  The questioner, several
    times, tries to twist the questioning, but the answer is the same.
    
    The right (to keep and bear arms) is assumed.  It came from somewhere
    else.  It can't be infringed upon by the gov't.  It can however be
    used to maintain a well regulated militia, but doesn't exist for
    that reason only.
    
    The person acknowledged "well regulated militia" is a force answerable
    to superior powers, i.e. civilian control of the military.

    C'mon George...
    
    
    
    WE WANT SOME GD TOWELS COMING THIS WAY!!!!!!!

Re: <<< Note 21.95 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly" >>>

>>    Your a day late and a dollar short.  Go see .83.

Saw it; excellent.  I just liked the analogy better than the one I originally
presented.

                            Roak

RE      <<< Note 21.91 by PEAKS::OAKEY "The difference? About 8000 miles" >>>

>   A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free
>   State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be
>   infringed.
>
>Now, anyone want to argue that this statement restricts the right to keep and
>read books to only the well-schooled?  Or that the act of allowing "the people"
>to keep and read books results in a well-schooled electorate?

  Now you are defeating yourself with your own evidence. Notice this is NOT
what was written in the Constitution regarding the right to a free press. What
they did write was: 

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or 
 prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or 
 of the press; ..."

  Unlike the 2nd amendment, there are no qualifiers, just a simple statement
that there should be no restrictions on speech or press. 

  George

Re: <<< Note 21.95 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly" >>>

>>    Your a day late and a dollar short.  Go see .83.

Duh.  Upon closer reading I now see that the quote I used was included.  Now I
know what you were getting at!

                                Roak

Gotta go down fighting!  It's "You're" not "Your" :-)

Re: <<< Note 21.98 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>>  Now you are defeating yourself with your own evidence. Notice this is NOT
>>what was written in the Constitution regarding the right to a free press.

I never said it was.  Did the point of that posting escape you that easily?

                              Roak

RE     <<< Note 21.94 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	Notice the phrase "does not restrict".

  No one is saying that the 2nd amendment restricts the right of people to
possess arms for other use. In fact it says absolutely nothing about the right
of the people to possess arms for other use.

>	Notice the phrases "not said by the amendment to depend on 
>	the existence of a militia", "No condition is stated or
>	implied" and "The right to keep and bear arms is deemed 
>	unconditional by the entire sentence".

  Yes, the "right to bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence"
and in fact it says nothing at all about the "right to bear arms" exclusive
of the militia.

  In other words what it is saying, according to this expert is:

   - In the case of supporting a militia, the public has the right to bear arms

   - In all other cases, it says nothing one way or the other about the right
     to bear arms.

  George

    
    <--------
    
     IYNSHO.....
    

A few key excerpts. I don't see how one could conclude, from these, anything
other than an individual right.

>     [Schulman: (1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the
>right to keep and bear arms \solely\ to "a well-regulated
>militia"?;]
>
>     [Copperud:] (1) The sentence does not restrict the right to
>keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the
>right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a
>positive  statement with respect to a right of the people.

>     [Schulman: (3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear
>arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia is,
>in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that
>condition is not existing, is the statement "the right of the
>people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" null and
>void?;]
>
>     [Copperud:] (3) No such condition is expressed or implied.
>The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to
>depend on the existence of a militia.  No condition is stated or
>implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and
>to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the
>security of a free state.  The right to keep and bear arms is
>deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.

>     [Schulman: (4) Does the clause "A well-regulated Militia,
>being necessary to the security of a free State," grant a right
>to the government to place conditions on the "right of the people
>to keep and bear arms," or is such right deemed unconditional by
>the meaning of the entire sentence?;]
>
>     [Copperud:] (4) The right is assumed to exist and to be
>unconditional, as previously stated.  It is invoked here
>specifically for the sake of the militia.

RE               <<< Note 21.103 by EST::RANDOLPH "Tom R. N1OOQ" >>>

>     [Copperud:] (1) The sentence does not restrict the right to
>keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the
>right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a
>positive  statement with respect to a right of the people.

  No one is claiming that the 2nd amendment restricts the right of people to
bear arms. As he says, it only makes a positive statement about the right
of people to bear arms to support a militia. By definition, it is left to
Congress to decide if they want to limit the right to bear arms and if they
decline then it is left to the people.

>     [Copperud:] (3) No such condition is expressed or implied.
>The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to
>depend on the existence of a militia.  No condition is stated or
>implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and
>to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the
>security of a free state.  The right to keep and bear arms is
>deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.

  No argument here either. There are no conditions implied on the right to bear
arms, rather the condition works the other way saying the right to bear arms
will be protected to allow support for a militia. What does it say about the
right to bare arms in general? Nothing. Nothing at all. 

>     [Copperud:] (4) The right is assumed to exist and to be
>unconditional, as previously stated.  It is invoked here
>specifically for the sake of the militia.

  Once again, the Constitution is saying nothing about a right to bear arms.
Any such right is independent of the Constitution. As he says, it is being
"invoked" and protected here only for the sake of a militia, nothing more
nothing less.

  Let me add, thanks for providing this analysis, it supports my point rather
completely.

  George

    .77
    
    I am not a nut.  Nor are any of the gun owners I know.
    
    There ARE nuts who have guns.  And nuts who have hatchets.  And nuts
    who have knive.
    
    And nuts who have terminals...   :-(

    Wow.  I posted that before George replied to .83.
    
    I'm amazed.  Let's see, it's about every english speaking person in the
    world against George, and...
    
    
    GEORGE WINS AGAIN!!!

    
    
    RE: .107
    
    > GEORGE WINS AGAIN!!!
    
    
    
    
    Gotta remember..... he's Polish...

    DOOM!

 BOOM

                     <<< Note 21.101 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  No one is saying that the 2nd amendment restricts the right of people to
>possess arms for other use. In fact it says absolutely nothing about the right
>of the people to possess arms for other use.

	You are really starting to lose me here. THe Amendment clearly
	recognizes an individual right (the people) to keep and bear
	arms. Your argument that this right is germane only to the formation
	of militias is disproved via semantical analysis by a recognized
	authority.

>  In other words what it is saying, according to this expert is:

>   - In the case of supporting a militia, the public has the right to bear arms

>   - In all other cases, it says nothing one way or the other about the right
>     to bear arms.

	That is clearly NOT what the expert said. 


	The right recognized, that of the people's right to keep and bear 
	arms, is unconditionally recognized by the wording of the 2nd. This 
	right is not dependent on the existence or support of any militia. 

	That IS what the expert said,.

Jim

                     <<< Note 21.104 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  Let me add, thanks for providing this analysis, it supports my point rather
>completely.

	George, what color is the sky in your world? You, being an terrific
	example of a true dyed in the wool Liberal, helps me to understand
	exactly why the Conservatives now control Congress. The public
	finally tired of unvarnished bull feces. As have I.

Jim

    >You, being an terrific example of a true dyed in the wool Liberal,
    
    He is no such thing.  He is obstinate, close-minded and stubborn. While
    he may argue for positions that correlate with those of true liberals,
    his refusal to admit when he's beaten, to admit his mistakes, or to
    ever *change* his viewpoint demonstrate that he is *not* a liberal.
    
    Those of us who hold liberal positions with integrity would appreciate
    your not repeating the error.
    
    DougO

    Actually, George is a co-conspirator, embarked on a clever campaign to
    discredit true liberals.
    
    It's the only thing I can think of, right now.  Anyway, can I use
    George as proof that conspiracies do exist?  I could use his notes as
    references!

     <<< Note 21.113 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto" >>>

>    >You, being an terrific example of a true dyed in the wool Liberal,
    
>    He is no such thing.  He is obstinate, close-minded and stubborn. While
>    he may argue for positions that correlate with those of true liberals,
>    his refusal to admit when he's beaten, to admit his mistakes, or to
>    ever *change* his viewpoint demonstrate that he is *not* a liberal.

	Obstinate, close minded, stubborn, can't admit he's wrong, won't
	listen to reason, completely illogical, twists words and meanings
	beyond recognition.........

	Sounds like a liberal to me. ;-)

Jim

    Those who are called liberals today are the opposite of the past,
    classical liberals who represented anti-force, pro-individual ideas.
    Modern "liberals" do not have good intentions. They are
    anti-individual, anti-intellectual, pro-government-force reactionaries
    who have dishonestly usurped the label of "liberal" to create illusions
    of respectability and validity. Yet, they are nothing more than
    dishonest, immature people with criminal like minds who survive by
    stealing power and values from those who produce them. They expect to
    live off the producer. To do this these modern "liberals" must promote
    the false notion that human needs are human rights. They must promote
    the hoax that being "compassionate" means forcing the producer to fill
    the needs of the non-producer.
    
    Hard, sad and true.
    
    ...Tom

  Badly beaten the gun nuts clench their teeth in agony and resort to the only
thing left, bashing their opponent. 

  No wonder you guys like guns so much, they allow for the complete disregard
of logic in favor of the ultimate form of personal attack.

  George

    
    i don't recall a gun getting (oh, i mean, being) fired in this topic at
    all.
    
    i'd say ignoring meowski is the more prudent path.
    
    jeff

RE                      <<< Note 21.118 by USAT05::BENSON >>>

>    i'd say ignoring meowski is the more prudent path.
    
  My opposition keeps threatening this but it never seems to happen.

  George

    
    RE: .117
    
    
    P & K candidate??????
    
    
    

    
    RE: .119
    
    >My opposition keeps threatening this but it never seems to happen.
    
    maybe because you're such a flippin easy target that it's hard to
    resist...
    

Re              <<< Note 21.121 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "grep this!" >>>

>    maybe because you're such a flippin easy target that it's hard to
>    resist...
    
  Keep saying it over and over and maybe even you will start to believe it.

  Dam, they fired their guns but the opposition didn't go away. Funny how
that 'ol conservative "logic" doesn't work all that well in a notes file.

  George

>                      <<< Note 21.41 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>
>
>  The 2nd amendment says:
>
>   "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."

>  Regardless of how you interpret "infringed", this is saying that the Federal
>Government can not take away the right for people to bear arms to form a
>well regulated militia.
>
>  It says nothing about the Federal Government taking away the right for the
>people to bear arms for any other reason.
>
>  George


BZZZT! Wrong again.  lets go back parse it grammatically.  The subject of 
the sentance is "The People"  The verb(s): "Keep and bear".  A well 
regulated militia has nothing to do with "The people's" right to "keep and 
bear" arms.

Or why does "the people" in every other amendment refer to the people, but in 
the second "the people" means the militia?

Take your head out of the sand or whever it happens to be stuck and WAKE UP
!!!

Geoff

    
    Well, now that even George agrees that all Americans have a right
    to keep and bear arms, the only remaining question is what is
    meant by "infringe".
    
    My own view is that in context, a registration law WOULD NOT be
    unconstitutional, just bad policy.  A confiscation law, which has
    never occurred, would be uncostitutional, as George says.
    
      bb

    While my earlier brain-cramp was rightfully dismissed (I clearly needed
    more sleep yesterday)....
    
    
    How is it that, the unsupported assertion that since the Senate
    rejected the language:
    
    	"For the common defense"
    
    Clearly indicates that the Senate absolutely intended for the 2nd
    to be unrestricted.
    
    
    But the absolute rejection by the framers of the language:
    
    	"for their defense of themselves"
    
    Doesn't cleary indicate that the 2nd ammemendent was intended to be
    restricted?
    
    								-mr. bill

                     <<< Note 21.117 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  Badly beaten the gun nuts clench their teeth in agony and resort to the only
>thing left, bashing their opponent. 

	Well, after your inane arguments have been completely demolished
	you continue to enter additional tripe. So since there is nothing
	more to be said about your misinterpretations all we are left
	to comment on is you.

Jim

   <<< Note 21.125 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>    But the absolute rejection by the framers of the language:
    
>    	"for their defense of themselves"
    
>    Doesn't cleary indicate that the 2nd ammemendent was intended to be
>    restricted?
 
	No, it does not. Such a clause, in itself, would be a restriction.

	The very fact that NO restrictive clause was made part of the
	Amendment indicates that the Framers recognized that the right
	was unrestricted.

Jim

Meowski since you have so far neatly ducked what fellow liberals like
Senator Kennedy (as head of the Senate subcommitee) have to say about
the second I thought I'd give you another "source" document.

Amos

Several people have asked me for this privately.  Sanford Levison is an
anti-gun liberal professor of law, who is on record as saying that the
Second Amendment is a bad idea, embedded in a document of bad ideas (i.e.
the Bill of Rights).  Nonetheless, he makes the case that the Second
Amendment DOES indeed guarentee the right of citizens to bear arms.
Though I don't agree with Dr. Levison's opinions on the matter, I have a
high respect for his academic integrity in facing the "ugly" truth.
Anyway, here it is.

=============================================================================

                   The EMBARRASSING SECOND AMENDMENT

                            Sanford Levinson
              University of Texas at Austin School of Law

      Reprinted from the Yale Law Journal, Volume 99, pp. 637-659

        One of the best known pieces of American popular art in this
century is the New Yorker cover by Saul Steinberg presenting a map of
the United States as seen by a New Yorker,  As most readers can no
doubt recall, Manhattan dominates the map; everything west of the
Hudson is more or less collapsed together and minimally displayed to
the viewer. Steinberg's great cover depends for its force on the
reality of what social psychologists call "cognitive maps."  If one
asks inhabitants ostensibly of the same cities to draw maps of that
city, one will quickly discover that the images carried around in
people's minds will vary by race, social class, and the like. What is
true of maps of places --that they differ according to the perspectives
of the mapmakers--is certainly true of all conceptual maps.

                To continue the map analogy, consider in this context
the Bill of Rights; is there an agreed upon "projection" of the
concept? Is there even a canonical text of the Bill of Rights? Does it
include the first eight, nine, or ten Amendments to the Constitution?
Imagine two individuals who are asked to draw a "map" of the Bill of
Rights. One is a (stereo-) typical member of the American Civil
Liberties Union (of which I am a card-carrying member); the other is an
equally (stereo-) typical member of the "New Right." The first, I
suggest, would feature the First Amendment2 as Main Street, dominating
the map, though more, one suspects, in its role as protector of speech
and prohibitor of established religion than as guardian of the rights
of religious believers. The other principal avenues would be the
criminal procedures aspects of the Constitution drawn from the
Fourth,3 Fifth,4 Sixth,5 and Eighth6 Amendments.  Also depicted
prominently would be the Ninth Amendment,7 although perhaps as in the
process of construction. I am confident that the ACLU map would exclude
any display of the just compensation clause of the Fifth
Amendment8 or of the Tenth Amendment.9

        The second map, drawn by the New Rightist, would highlight the
free exercise clause of the First Amendment,10 the just compensation
clause of the Fifth Amendment,11 and the Tenth Amendment.12 Perhaps the
most notable difference between the two maps, though, would be in
regard to the Second Amendment: "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." What would be at most a
blind alley for the ACLU mapmaker would, I am confident, be a major
boulevard in the map drawn by the New Right adherent. It is this last
anomaly that I want to explore in this essay.




I. The Politics Of Interpreting The Second Amendment


    To put it mildly, the Second Amendment is not at the forefront of
constitutional discussion, at least as registered in what the academy
regards as the venues for such discussion --law reviews,13
casebooks,14 and other scholarly legal publications. As Professor Larue
has recently written, "the second amendment is not taken seriously by
most scholars."15

        Both Laurence Tribe16 and the Illinois team of Nowak, Rotunda,
and Young17 at least acknowledge the existence of the Second Amendment
in their respective treatises on constitutional law, perhaps because
the treatise genre demands more encyclopedic coverage than does the
casebook. Neither, however, pays it the compliment of extended
analysis. Both marginalize the Amendment by relegating it to footnotes;
it becomes what a deconstructionist might call a "supplement" to the
ostensibly "real" Constitution that is privileged by discussion in the
text.18  Professor Tribe's footnote appears as part of a general
discussion of congressional power. He asserts that the history of the
Amendment "indicate[s] that the central concern of [its] framers was to
prevent such federal interferences with the state militia as would
permit the establishment of a standing national army and the consequent
destruction of local autonomy."19  He does note, how ever, that "the
debates surrounding congressional approval of the second amendment do
contain references to individual self-protection as well as to states'
rights," but he argues that the qualifying phrase "'well regulated"
makes any invocation of the Amendment as a restriction on state or
local gun control measures extremely problematic."20  Nowak, Rotunda,
and Young mention the Amendment in the context of the incorporation
controversy, though they discuss its meaning at slightly greater
length.21  They state that "[t]he Supreme Court has not determined, at
least not with any clarity, whether the amendment protects only a right
of state governments against federal interference with state militia
and police forces..  .or a right of individuals against the federal and
state government[s]."22

        Clearly the Second Amendment is not the only ignored patch of
text in our constitutional conversations. One will find extraordinarily
little discussion about another one of the initial Bill of Rights, the
Third Amendment: "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in
any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in
a manner to be prescribed by law."  Nor does one hear much about
letters of marque and reprisal23 or the granting of titles of nobility.
24  There are, however, some differences that are worth noting.

        The Third Amendment, to take the easiest case, is ignored
because it is in fact of no current importance what whatsoever
(although it did, for obvious reasons, have importance at the time of
the founding). It has never, for a single instant, been viewed by any
body of modern lawyers or groups of laity as highly relevant to their
legal or political concerns. For this reason, there is almost no case
law on the Amendment.25  I suspect that few among even the highly
sophisticated readers of the Journal can summon up the Amendment
without the aid of the text.

        The Second Amendment, though, is radically different from these
other pieces of constitutional text just mentioned, which all share the
attribute of being basically irrelevant to any ongoing political
struggles. To grasp the difference, one might simply begin by noting
that it is not at all unusual for the Second Amendment to show up in
letters to the editors of newspapers and magazines.26 That judges and
academic lawyers, including the ones that write casebooks, ignore it is
most certainly not evidence for the proposition that no one else cares
about it. The National Rifle Association, to name the most obvious
example, cares deeply about the Amendment, and an apparently serious
Senator of the United States averred that the right to keep and bear
arms is the "right most valued by free men."27 Campaigns for Congress
in both political parties, and even presidential campaigns, may turn on
the apparent commitment of the candidates to a particular view of the
Second Amendment. This reality of the political process reflects the
fact that millions of Americans, even if (or perhaps especially if)
they are not academics, can quote the Amendment and would disdain any
presentation of the Bill of Rights that did not give it a place of
pride.

        I cannot help but suspect that the best explanation for the
absence of the Second Amendment from the legal consciousness of the
elite bar, including that component found in the legal academy,
28 is derived from a mixture of sheer opposition to the idea of private
ownership of guns and the perhaps subconscious fear that altogether
plausible, perhaps even "winning," interpretations of the Second
Amendment would present real hurdles to those of us supporting
prohibitory regulation. Thus the title of this essay --The Embarrassing
Second Amendment -- for I want to suggest that the Amendment may be
profoundly embarrassing to many who both support such regulation and
view themselves as committed to zealous adherence to the Bill of Rights
(such as most members of the ACLU).  Indeed, one sometimes discovers
members of the NRA who are equally committed members of the ACLU,
differing with the latter only on the issue of the Second Amendment but
otherwise genuinely sharing the libertarian viewpoint of the ACLU.

        It is not my style to offer "correct" or "incorrect"
interpretations of the Constitution.29  My major interest is in
delineating the rhetorical structures of American constitutional
argument and elaborating what is sometimes called the "politics of
interpretation," that is, the factors that explain why one or another
approach will appeal to certain analysts at certain times, while other
analysts, or times, will favor quite different approaches. Thus my
general tendency to regard as wholly untenable any approach to the
Constitution that describes itself as obviously correct and condemns
its opposition as simply wrong holds for the Second Amendment as well.
In some contexts, this would lead me to label as tendentious the
certainty of NRA advocates that the Amendment means precisely what they
assert it does. In this particular context--i.e., the pages of a
journal whose audience is much more likely to be drawn from an elite,
liberal portion of the public--I will instead be suggesting that the
skepticism should run in the other direction, That is, we might
consider the possibility that "our" views of the Amendment, perhaps
best reflected in Professor Tribe's offhand treatment of it, might
themselves be equally deserving of the "tendentious" label.


II. The Rhetorical Structures of the Right to Bear Arms


        My colleague Philip Bobbitt has, in his book Constitutional
Fate,30 spelled out six approaches -- or "modalities," as he terms them
-- of constitutional argument. These approaches, he argues, comprise
what might be termed our legal grammar. They are the rhetorical
structures within which "law-talk" as a recognizable form of
conversation is carried on. The six are as follows:

1) textual argument -- appeals to the unadorned language of the
   text;31

2) historical argument -- appeals to the historical background of the
vision being considered, whether the history considered be general,
such as background but clearly crucial events (such as the American
Revolution). or specific appeals to the so-called intentions of
framers;32

3) structural argument -- analyses inferred from the particular
structures established by the Constitution, including the tripartite
division of the national government; the separate existence of both
state and nation as political entities; and the structured role of
citizens within the political order;33

4) doctrinal argument -- emphasis on the implications of prior cases
   decided by the Supreme Court;34

5) prudential argument -- emphasis on the consequences  of adopting a
   proferred decision in any given case;35

6) ethical argument -- reliance on the overall "ethos" of limited
   government as centrally constituting American political
   culture.36

        I want to frame my consideration of the Second Amendment within
the first five of Bobbitt's categories; they are all richly present in
consideration of the Amendment might mean. The sixth, which emphasizes
the ethos of limited government, doe s not play a significant role in
the debate of the Second Amendment.37


A. Text


        I begin with the appeal to text. Recall the Second Amendment:
"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." No one has ever described the Constitution as a marvel of
clarity, and the Second Amendment is perhaps one of the worst drafted
of all its provisions. What is special about the Amendment is the
inclusion of an opening clause -- a preamble, if you will -- that seems
to set out its purpose. No similar clause is part of any other
Amendment,38 though that does not, of course, mean that we do not
ascribe purposes to them. It would be impossible to make sense of the
Constitution if we did not engage in the ascription of purpose.
Indeed, the major debates about The First Amendment arise precisely
when one tries to discern a purpose, given that "literalism" is a
hopelessly failing approach to interpreting it. We usually do not even
recognize punishment of fraud -- a classic speech act -- as a free
speech problem because we so sensibly assume that the purpose of the
First Amendment could not have been, for example, to protect the
circulation of patently deceptive information to potential investors in
commercial enterprises. The sharp differences that distinguish those
who would limit the reach of the First Amendment to "political" speech
from those who would extend it much further, encompassing non-deceptive
commercial speech, are all derived from different readings of the
purpose that underlies the raw text.39

        A standard move of those legal analysts who wish to limit the
Second Amendment's force is to focus on its "preamble" as setting out a
restrictive purpose. Recall Laurence Tribe's assertion that the purpose
was to allow the states to keep their militias and to protect them
against the possibility that the new national government will use its
power to establish a powerful standing army and eliminate the state
militias. This purposive reading quickly disposes of any notion that
there is an "individual" right to keep and bear arms. The right, if
such it be, is only a states's right. The consequence of this reading
is obvious: the national government has the power to regulate--to the
point of prohibition--private ownership of guns, since that has, by
stipulation, nothing to do with preserving state militias. This is,
indeed, the position of the ACLU, which reads the Amendment as
protection only the right of "maintaining an effective state
militia...[T]he individual's right to keep a nd bear arms applies only
to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated [state] militia.
Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of
weapons by individuals is not constitutionally
protected."40

        This is not a wholly implausible reading, but one might ask why
the Framers did not simply say something like "Congress shall have no
power to prohibit state-organized and directed militias." Perhaps they
in fact meant to do something else. Moreover, we might ask if ordinary
readers of the late 18th Century legal prose would have interpreted it
as meaning something else. The text at best provides only a starting
point for a conversation. In this specific instance, it does not come
close to resolving the questions posed by federal regulation of arms.
Even if we accept the preamble as significant, we must still try to
figure out what might be suggested by guaranteeing to "the people the
right to keep and bear arms;" moreover, as we shall see presently, even
the preamble presents unexpected difficulties in interpretation.


B. History


        One might argue (and some have) that the substantive right is
one pertaining to a collective body -- "the people"-- rather than to
individuals. Professor Cress, for example, argues that state
constitutions regularly use the words "man" or "person" in regard to
"individual rights such as freedom of conscience," whereas the use in
those constitutions of the term "the people" in regard to a right to
bear arms is intended to refer to the "sovereign citizenry"
collectively organized.41  Such an argument founders, however, upon
examination of the text of the federal Bill of Rights itself and the
usage there of terms "the people" in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and
Tenth Amendments.

        Consider that the Fourth Amendment protects "[t]he right of he
people to be secure in their persons," or that the First Amendment
refers to the "right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It is difficult
to know how one might plausibly read the Fourth Amendment as other than
a protection of individual rights, and it would approach the frivolous
to read the assembly and petition clause as referring only to the right
of state legislators to meet and pass a remonstrance directed to
Congress or the President against some government act. The Tenth
Amendment is trickier, though it does explicitly differentiate between
"state" and "the people" in terms of retained rights.42  Concededly, it
would be possible to read the Tenth Amendment as suggesting only an
ultimate right revolution by the collective people should the "states"
stray too far from their designated role of protecting the rights of
the people. This reading follows directly from the social contract
theory of the state.( But, of course, many of these rights are held by
individuals.)

        Although the record is suitably complicated, it seems
tendentious to reject out of hand the argument that the one purpose of
the Amendment was to recognize an individual's right to engage in armed
self-defense against criminal conduct.43 Historian Robert E.  Shallhope
supports this view, arguing in his article The Ideological Origins of
the Second Amendment44 that the Amendment guarantees individuals the
right "to possess arms for their own personal defense." 45  It would be
especially unsurprising if this were the case, given the fact that the
development of a professional police force (even within large American
cities) was still at least half a century away at the end of the
colonial period .46  I shall return later in this essay to this
individualist notion of the Amendment, particularly in regard into the
argument that "changing circumstances," including plausibility. But I
want now to explore a second possible purpose of the Amendment, which
as a sometime political theorist I find considerably more interesting.

        Assume, as Professor Cress has argued, that the Second
 Amendment refers to a communitarian, rather than an individual
 right.47  We are still left the task of defining the relationship
 between the community and the state apparatus.  It is this fascinating
 problem to which I now turn.

        Consider once more the preamble and its reference to the
importance of a well-regulated militia. Is the meaning of the term
obvious? Perhaps we should make some effort to find out what the term
"militia" meant to 18th century readers and writers, rather than assume
that it refers only to Dan Quayle's Indiana National Guard and the
like. By no means am I arguing that the discovery of that meaning is
dispositive as to the general meaning of the Constitution for us today.
But it seems foolhardy to be entirely uninterested in the historical
philology behind the Second Amendment.

        I, for one, have been persuaded that the term "militia" did not
have the limited reference that Professor Cress and many modern legal
analysts assign to it. There is strong evidence that "militia" refers
to all of the people, or least all of those treated as full citizens of
the community. Consider, for example, the question asked by George
Mason, one of the Virginians who refused to sign the Constitution
because of its lack of a Bill of Rights: "Who are the militia? They
consist now of the whole people."48  Similarly, the Federal Farmer, one
of the most important Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution,
referred to a "militia, when properly formed, [as] in fact the people
themselves."49  We have, of course, moved now from text to history.
And this history is most interesting, especially when we look at the
development of notions of popular sovereignty. It has become almost a
cliche of contemporary American historiography to link the development
of American political thought, including its constitutional aspects, to
republican thought in England, the "country" critique of the powerful
"court" centered in London.

        One of the school's most important writers, of course, was
 James Harrington, who not only was in influential at the time but also
 has recently been given a certain pride of place by one of the most
 prominent of contemporary "neo-republicans," Professor Frank
 Michelman.50  One historian describes Harrington as having made "the
 most significant contribution to English libertarian attitudes toward
 arms, the individual, and society."51  He was a central figure in the
 development of the ideas of popular sovereignty and
 republicanism.52  For Harrington, preservation of republican liberty
 requires independence, which rests primarily on possession of adequate
 property to make men free from coercion by employers or landlords.
 But widespread ownership of land is not sufficient. These independent
 yeoman would also bear arms. As Professor Morgan puts it, "[T]hese
 independent yeoman, armed and embodied in a militia, are also a
 popular government's best protection against its enemies, whether they
 be aggressive foreign monarchs or scheming demagogues within the
 nation itself."53

        A central fear of Harrington and of all future republicans was
a standing army, composed of professional soldiers. Harrington and his
fellow republicans viewed a standing army as a threat to freedom, to be
avoided at all almost all costs. Thus, says Morgan, "A militia is the
only safe form of military power that a popular government can employ;
and because it is composed of the armed yeomanry, it will prevail over
the mercenary professionals who man the armies of neighboring
monarchs."54

        Scholars of the First Amendment have made us aware of the
importance of John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, whose Cato's
Letters were central to the formation of the American notion of freedom
of the press.  That notion includes what Vincent Blasi would come to
call the "checking value" of a free press, which stands as a sturdy
exposer of governmental misdeeds.55  Consider the possibility, though,
that the unlimited "checking value" in a republican polity is the
ability of an armed populace, presumptively motivated by a shared
commitment to the common good, to resist governmental tyranny.56
Indeed, one of Cato's letters refers to "the Exercise of despotick
Power [as] the unrelenting War of an armed Tyrant upon his unarmed
subjects..."57

        Cress persuasively shows that no one defended universal
possession of arms. New Hampshire had no objection to disarming those
who "are or have been in actual rebellion," just as Samuel Adams
stressed that only "peaceable citizens" should be protected in their
right of "keeping their own arms."58  All these points can be conceded,
however, without conceding as well that Congress -- or, for that
matter, the States, -- had the power to disarm these "peaceable
citizens."

        Surely one of the foundations of American political thought of
the period was the well-justified concern about political corruption
and consequent governmental tyranny. Even the Federalists, fending off
their opponents who accused them of foisting an oppressive new scheme
upon the American people, were careful to acknowledge the risk of
tyranny. James Madison, for example, speaks in Federalist Number Forty-
Six of "the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over
the people of almost every other nation."59  The advantage in question
was not merely the defense of American borders; a standing army might
well accomplish that. Rather, an armed public was advantageous in
protecting political liberty. It is therefore no surprise that the
Federal Farmer, the nom de plume of an anti-federalist critic of the
new Constitution and its absence of a Bill of Rights, could write that
"to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people
always posses s arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how
to use them..."60  On this matter, at least, there was no cleavage
between the pro-ratification Madison and his opponent.

        In his influential Commentaries on the Constitution, Joseph
Story, certainly no friend of Anti-Federalism, emphasized the
"importance" of the Second Amendment.61  He went on to describe the
militia as the "natural defence of a free country" not only "against
sudden foreign invasions" and "domestic insurrections," with which one
might well expect a Federalist to be concerned, but also against
"domestic usurpations of power by rulers."62  "The right of the
citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered," Story
wrote, "as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it
offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power
by rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the
first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over
them."63

        We also see this blending of individualist and collective
accounts of the right to bear arms in remarks by Judge Thomas Cooley,
one of the most influential 19th century constitutional commentators.
Noting that the state might call into its official militia only "a
small number" of the eligible citizenry, Cooley wrote that "if the
right [to keep and bear arms] were limited to those enrolled, the
purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or
neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in
check."64  Finally, it is worth noting the remarks of Theodore
Schroeder, one of the most important developers of the theory of
freedom of speech early in this century.65  "[T]he obvious import [of
the constitutional guarantee to carry arms]," he argues, "is to promote
a state of preparedness for self-defense even against the invasions of
government, because only governments have ever disarmed any
considerable class of people as a means toward their
enslavement."66

        Such analyses provide the basis for Edward Abbey's revision of
 a common bumper sticker, "If guns are outlawed, only the government
 will have guns."67  One of the things this slogan has helped me to
 understand is the political tilt contained within the Weberian
 definition of the state -- i.e., the repository of a monopoly of the
 legitimate means of violence 68 -- that is so commonly used by
 political scientists. It is a profoundly statist definition, the
 product of a specifically German tradition of the (strong) state
 rather than of a strikingly different American political tradition
 that is fundamentally mistrustful of state power and vigilant about
 maintaining ultimate power, including the power of arms, in the
 populace.

        We thus see what I think is one of the most interesting points
in regard to the new historiography of the Second Amendment -- its
linkage to conceptions of republican political order. Contemporary
admirers of republican theory use it as a source of both critiques of
more individualist liberal theory and of positive insight into the way
we today might reorder our political lives.69  One point of emphasis
for neo-republicans is the value of participation in government, as
contrasted to mere representation by a distant leadership, even if
formally elected. But the implications of republicanism might push us
in unexpected, even embarrassing, directions; just as ordinary citizens
should participate actively in governmental decision-making, through
offering their own deliberative insights, rather than be confined to
casting ballots once every two or four years for those very few
individuals who will actually make the decisions, so should ordinary
citizens participate in the process of law enforcement and defense of
liberty rather than rely on professionalized peacekeepers, whether we
call them standing armies or police.


D. Structure


        We have also passed imperceptibly into a form of structural
argument, for we see that one aspect of the structure of checks and
balances within the purview of 18th century thought was the armed
citizen. That is, those who would limit the meaning of the Second
Amendment to the constitutional protection of state-controlled militias
agree that such protection rests on the perception that militarily
competent states were viewed as a potential protection against a
tyrannical national government. Indeed, in 1801 several governors
threatened to call out state militias if the Federalists in Congress
refused to elect Thomas Jefferson president.70  But this argument
assumes that there are only two basic components in the vertical
structure of the American polity--the national government and the
states. It ignores the implication that might be drawn from the Second,
Ninth, and Tenth Amendments; the citizenry itself can be viewed as an
important third component of republican governance insofar as it stands
ready to defend republican liberty against the depredations of the
other two structures, however futile that might appear as a practical
matter.

        One implication of this republican rationale for the Second
Amendment is that it calls into question the ability of a state to
disarm its citizenry. That is, the strongest version of the republican
argument would hold it to be a "privilege and immunity of United States
citizenship"--of membership in a liberty-enhancing political order --
to keep arms that could be taken up against tyranny wherever found,
including, obviously, state government. Ironically, the principal
citation supporting this argument is to Chief Justice [Roger] Taney's
egregious opinion in Dred Scott,71  where he suggested that an
uncontroversial attribute of citizenship, in addition to the right
migrate from one state to another, was the right to possess arms. The
logic of Taney's argument at the point seems to be that, because it was
inconceivable that the Framers could have genuinely imagined blacks
having the right to possess arms, it follows that they could not have
envisioned them as being citizens, since citizenship entailed the
right. Taney's seeming recognition of a right to arms is much relied on
by opponents of gun control.72 Indeed, recall Madison's critique, in
Federalist Numbers Ten and Fourteen, of republicanism's traditional
emphasis on the desirability of small states as preservers of
republican liberty. He transformed this debate by arguing that the
states would be less likely to preserve liberty because they could so
easily fall under the sway of a local dominant faction, whereas an
extended republic would guard against this danger.  Anyone who accepts
the Madisonian argument could scarcely be happy enhancing the power of
the states over their own citizens; indeed, this has been one of the
great themes of American constitutional history, as the nationalism of
the Bill of Rights has been deemed necessary in order to protect
popular liberty against state depredation.


D. Doctrine


   Inevitably one must at least mention, even though there is not space
to discuss fully, the so-called incorporation controversy regarding the
application of the Bill of Rights to the states through the Fourteenth
Amendment. It should be no surprise that the opponents of gun control
appear to take a "full incorporationist" view of that
Amendment.73  They view the privileges and immunities clause, which was
eviscerated in the Slaughterhouse Cases,74 as designed to require the
states to honor the rights that had been held, by Justice Marshall in
Barron v.  Baltimore in 1833,75 to restrict only the national
government. In 1875 the Court stated, in United States v.
Cruickshank,76 that the Second Amendment, insofar as it grants any
right at all, "means no more than that it shall not be infringed by
Congress.  This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than
to restrict the powers of the national government..." Lest there be any
remaining doubt on this point, the Court specifically cited the
Cruickshank language eleven years later in Presser v.
Illinois,77 in rejecting the claim that the Second Amendment served to
invalidate an Illinois statute that prohibited "any body of men
whatever, other than the regular organized volunteer militia of this
State, and the troops of the United States....to drill or parade with
arms in any city, or town, of this State, without the license of the
Governor thereof..."78

        The first "incorporation decision," Chicago, B & Q.R.Co.  v.
Chicago,79 was not delivered until eleven years after
Presser; one therefore cannot know if the judges in Cruickshank and
Presser were willing to concede that any of the amendments comprising
the Bill of Rights  were anything more than limitations on
congressional or other national power. The obvious question, given the
modern legal reality of the incorporation of almost all of the right s
protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments, is
what exactly justifies treating the Second Amendment as the great
exception. Why, that is, could Cruickshank and Presser be regarded as
binding precedent any more than any of the other "pre-incorporation"
decisions refusing to apply given aspects of the BIll of Rights against
the states?

        If one agrees with Professor Tribe that the Amendment is simply
a federalist protection of state rights, then presumably there is
nothing to incorporate.80  If, however, one accepts the Amendment as a
serious substantive limitation on the ability of the national
government to regulate the private possession of arms based on either
the "individualist" or the "new-republican" theories sketched above,
then why not follow the "incorporationist" logic applied to other
amendments a nd limit the states as well in their powers to regulate
(and especially to prohibit) such possession?  The Supreme Court has
almost shamelessly refused to discuss the issue,81  but that need not
stop the rest of us.

        Returning, though, to the question of Congress' power to
regulate the keeping and bearing of arms, one notes that there is,
basically, only one modern case that discusses the issue, United States
v. Miller,82 decided in 1939 . Jack Miller was charged with moving a
sawed-off shotgun in interstate commerce in violation of the National
Firearms Act of 1934. Among other things, Miller and a compatriot had
not registered the firearm, as required by the Act. The court below ha
d dismissed the charge, accepting Miller's argument that the Act
violated the Second Amendment.

        The Supreme Court reversed unanimously, with the arch-
conservative Justice McReynolds writing the opinion.83 Interestingly
enough, he emphasized that there was no evidence showing that a sawed-
off shotgun "at this time has some reasonable relationship to the
preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."84 And
"[c]ertainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any
part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could
contribute t o the common defense."85 Miller might have had a tenable
argument had he been able to show that he was keeping or bearing a
weapon that clearly had a potential military use.86

        Justice McReynolds went on to describe the purpose of the
Second Amendment as "assur[ing] the constitution and render[ing]
possible the effectiveness of [the militia].87  He contrasted the
Militia with troops of a standing army, which the Constitution indeed
forbade the states to keep without the explicit consent of Congress.
The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the
common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be
secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily, soldiers on
occasion."88  McReynolds noted further that "the debates in the
Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the
writings of approved commentators [all] [s]how plainly enough that the
Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for
the common defense."89

        It is difficult to read Miller as rendering the Second
Amendment meaningless as a control on Congress. Ironically,
MIller can be read to support some of the most extreme anti-gun control
arguments, e.g., that the individual citizen has a right to keep and
bear bazookas, rocket launchers, and other armaments that are clearly
relevant to modern warfare, including, of course, assault weapons.
Arguments about the constitutional legitimacy of a prohibition by
Congress of private ownership of handguns or, what is much more likely,
assault rifles, might turn on the usefulness of such guns in military
settings.


E. Prudentialism


        WE have looked at four of Bobbitt's categories -- text,
history, structure, and case law doctrine -- and have seen, at the very
least, that the arguments on behalf of a "strong" Second Amendment are
stronger than many of us might wish were the case.  This, then, brings
us up to the fifth category, prudentialism, or an attentiveness to the
practical consequences, which is clearly of great importance in any
debate about gun control. The standard argument in favor of strict
control and, ultimately, prohibition of private ownership focuses on
the extensive social costs of widespread distribution of firearms.
Consider, for example, a recent speech given by former Justice Lewis
Powell to the American Bar Association.He noted that over 40, 000
murders were committed in the United States in 1986 and 1987, and that
fully sixty percent of them were committed with firearms.90 Justice
Powell indicated that "[w]ith respect to handguns," in contrast "to
sporting rifles and shotguns [,] it is not easy to understand why the
Second Amendment, or the notation of liberty, should be viewed as
creating a right to own and carry a weapon that contributes so directly
to the shocking number of murders in our society."91

        It is hard to disagree with Justice Powell; it appears almost
crazy to protect as a constitutional right something that so clearly
results in extraordinary social cost with little, if any, compensating
social advantage. Indeed, since Justice Powell's talk, the subject of
assault rifles has become a staple of national discussion, and the
opponents of regulation of such weapons have deservedly drawn the
censure of even conservative leaders like William Bennett. It is almost
impossible to imagine that the judiciary would strike down a
determination by Congress that the possession of assault weapons should
be denied to private citizens.

        Even if one accepts the historical plausibility of the
arguments advanced above, the overriding temptation is to say that
times and circumstances have changed and that there is simply no reason
to continue enforcing an outmoded, and indeed, dangerous, understanding
of private rights against public order. This criticism is clearest in
regard to the so-called individualist argument, for one can argue that
the rise of a professional police force to enforce the law has made
irrelevant, and perhaps even counter-productive, the continuation of a
strong notion of self-help as the remedy for crime.92

        I am not unsympathetic to such arguments. It is no purpose of
this essay to solicit membership for the National Rifle Association or
to express any sympathy for what even Don Kates, a strong critic of the
conventional dismissal of the Second Amendment, describes as "the gun
lobby's obnoxious habit of assailing all forms of regulation on 2nd
Amendment grounds."93  And yet...
        Circumstances may well have changed in regard to individual
defense, although we ignore at our political peril the good faith
belief of many Americans that they cannot rely on the police for
protection against a variety of criminals. Still, l et us assume that
the individualist reading of the Amendment has been vitiated by
changing circumstances. Are we quite so confident that circumstances
are equally different in regard to the republican rationale outlined
earlier?

        One would, of course, like to believe that the state, whether
at the local or national level, presents no threat to important
political values, including liberty. But our propensity to believe that
this is the case may be little more than a sign of how truly different
we are from our radical forbearers. I do not want to argue that the
state is necessarily tyrannical; I am not an anarchist. But it seems
foolhardy to assume that the armed state will necessarily be
benevolent. The American political tradition is, for good or ill, based
in large measure on a healthy mistrust of the state. The development of
widespread suffrage and greater majoritarianism in our polity is itself
no sure protection, at least within republican theory. The republican
theory is predicated on the stark contrast between mere democracy,
where people are motivated by selfish personal interest, and a
republic, where civic virtue, both in common citizen and leadership,
tames selfishness on behalf of the common good. In any event, it is
hard for me to see how one can argue that circumstances have so changed
us as to make mass disarmament constitutionally
unproblematic.94

        Indeed, only in recent months have we seen the brutal
suppression of the Chinese student demonstrations in Tiananmen Square.
It should not surprise us that some NRA sympathizers have presented
that situation as an abject lesson to those who unthinkingly support
the prohibition of private gun ownership. "[I]f all Chinese citizens
kept arms, their rulers would hardly have dared to massacre the
demonstrators... The private keeping of hand-held personal firearms is
within the constitutional design for a counter to government run
amok... As the Tianamen Square tragedy showed so graphically, AK 47's
fall into that category of weapons, and that is why they are protected
by the Second Amendment."95  It is simply silly to respond that small
 arms are irrelevant against nuclear armed states; Witness contemporary
 Northern Ireland and the territories occupied by Israel, where the
 sophisticated weaponry of Great Britain and Israel have proved almost
 totally beside the point. The fact that these may not be pleasant
 examples does not affect the principal point, that a state facing a
 totally disarmed population is in a far better position, for good or
 ill, to suppress popular demonstrations and uprisings than one that
 must calculate the possibilities of its soldiers and officials being
 injured or killed.96


III. Taking the Second Amendment Seriously


  There is one further problem of no small import; if one does accept
the plausibility of any of the arguments on behalf of a strong reading
of the Second Amendment, but, nevertheless, rejects them in the name of
social prudence and the present -day consequences produced by finicky
adherence to earlier understandings, why do we not apply such
consequentialist criteria to each and every part of the Bill of
Rights?97  As Ronald Dworkin has argued, what it meant to take rights
seriously is that one will honor them even when there is significant
social cost in doing so. If protecting freedom of speech, the rights of
criminal defendants, or any other parts of the Bill of Rights were
always (or even most of the time) clearly cost less to the society as a
whole, it would truly be impossible to understand why they would be as
controversial as they are. The very fact that there are often
significant costs -- criminals going free, oppressed groups having to
hear viciously racist speech and so on -- helps to account for the
observed fact that those who view themselves as defenders of the Bill
of Rights are generally antagonistic to prudential arguments.  Most
often, one finds them embracing versions of textual, historical, or
doctrinal arguments that dismiss as almost crass and vulgar any
insistence that times might have changed and made too "expensive" the
continued adherence to a given view. "Cost-benefit" analysis, rightly
or wrongly, has come to be viewed as a "conservative" weapon to attack
liberal rights.98  Yet one finds that the tables are strikingly turned
when the Second Amendment comes into play. Here it is "conservatives"
who argue in effect that social costs are irrelevant and "liberals" who
argue for a notion of the "living Constitution" and "changed
circumstances" that would have the practical consequence of removing
any real bite from the Second Amendment.

        As Fred Donaldson of Austin, Texas wrote, commenting on those
who defended the Supreme Court's decision upholding flag-burning as
compelled by a proper (and decidedly non-prudential) understanding of
the First Amendment, "[I]t seems inconsistent for [defenders of the
decision] to scream so loudly" at the prospect of limiting the
protection given expression "while you smile complacently at the Second
torn and bleeding. If the Second Amendment is not worth the paper it is
written on, what price the First?"99  The fact that Mr.  Donaldson is
an ordinary citizen rather than an eminent law professor does not make
his question any less pointed or its answer less difficult.

        For too long, most members of the legal academy have treated
the Second Amendment as the equivalent of an embarrassing relative,
whose mention brings a quick change of subject to other, more
respectable,  family members. That will no longer d o. It is time for
the Second Amendment to enter full scale into the consciousness of the
legal academy. Those of us who agree with Martha Minow's emphasis on
the desirability of encouraging different "voices" in the legal
conversation100 should be especially aware of the importance of
recognizing the attempts of Mr. Donaldson and his millions of
colleagues to join the conversation. To be sure, it is unlikely that
Professor Minow had those too often peremptorily dismissed as "gun nuts
" in mind as possible providers of "insight and growth," but surely the
call for sensitivity  to different or excluded voices cannot extend
only those groups "we" already, perhaps "complacent[ly]," believe have
a lot to tell "us."101  I am not so naive as to believe that
conversation will overcome the chasm that now separates the sensibility
of, say, Senator Hatch and myself as to what constitutes the "right[s]
most valued by free men [and women]."102  It is important to remember
that one will still need to join up sides and engage in vigorous
political struggle.  But it might at least help to make the political
sides appear more human to one another. Perhaps "we" might be led to
stop referring casually to "gun nuts" just as, maybe, members of the
NRA could be brought to understand the real fear that the currently
almost uncontrolled system of gun ownership sparks in the minds of many
whom they casually dismiss as "bleeding-heart liberals." Is not, after
all, the possibility of serious, engaged discussion about political
issues at the heart of what is most attractive in both liberal and
republican versions of politics?




FOOTNOTES

1.  It is not irrelevant that the Bill of Rights submitted to the
states in 1789 included not only what are now the first ten Amendments,
but also two others, Indeed, what we call the First Amendment was only
the third one of the list submitted to the states. The initial "first
amendment" in fact concerned the future size of the House of
Representatives, a topic of no small importance to the Anti-
Federalists, who were appalled by the smallness of the House seemingly
envisioned by the Philadelphia farmers. The second prohibited any pay
raise voted by the members of Congress to themselves from taking effect
until an election "shall have intervened." See J. Goebel, 1 The Oliver
Wendell Holmes Devise History Of the Supreme Court OF the United
States: antecedents and beginnings to 1801, at 442n.162 (1971). Had all
of the initial twelve proposals been ratified, we would, it is
possible, have a dramatically different cognitive map of the Bill of
Rights. At the very least, one would neither hear defenses of the
"preferred status" of freedom of speech framed in terms of the
"firstness" of some special intention of the Framers to safeguard the
particular rights laid out there.

2.  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion...or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of
the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances." U.S. Const. Amend. I

3.       "The right of the people to be secured in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon
probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, a nd particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be
seized." U.S. Const. Amend. IV.

4.       "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
 infamous crime, unless on a presentment of indictment of a Grand Jury,
 except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the
 Militia, when in actual services in the time of War or public danger;
 nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put
 in jeopardy of life and limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal
 case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life,
 liberty, or property, without due process of law..." U.S. Const.
 Amend. V

5.       "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the
right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State
and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which
district shall have previously ascertained by la w, and to be informed
of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the
witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining
witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his
defense." U.S. Const. Amend. VI.

6.       "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines
imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." U.S. Const.
Amend. VIII.

7.       "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall
not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
U.S. Const. Amend.IX.

8.       "[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without
just compensation." U.S. Const. Amend. V.

9.       "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." U.S. Const. Amend. X.

10. "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise thereof
    [religion]..." U.S. Const. Amend. I.

11. See supra note 8.

12. See supra note 9.

13. There are several law review articles discussing the Amendment.
See, e.g. Lund, infra note 96, and the articles cited in Dowlut &
Knoop, State Constitutions and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 7 Okla.
U.L. Rev. 177, 178 n.3 (1982). See also the valuable symposium on Gun
Control, edited by Don Kates, in 49 Law & Contemp. Probs. 1-267 (1986),
including articles by Shallhope, The Armed Citizen in the Early
Republic, at 125; Kates, The Second Amendment: A Dialogue, at 143;
Halbrook, What the Framers Intended: A Linguistic Analysis of the Right
to "Bear Arms," at 151. The symposium also includes a valuable
bibliography of the published materials on gun control, including
Second Amendment considerations, at 251-67. The most important single
article is almost undoubtedly Kates, Handgun Prohibition and the
Original Meaning of the Second Amendment, 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204 (1983).
Not the least significant aspect of Kates' article is that it is
basically the only one to have appeared in an "elite" law review.
However, like many of the authors of other Second Amendment pieces,
Kates is a practicing lawyer rather than a legal academic. I think it
is accurate to say that no one recognized by the legal academy as a
"major" writer on constitutional law has deigned to turn his or her
talents to a full consideration of the Amendment. But see Larue,
Constitutional Law and Constitutional History, 36 Buffalo L.Rev. 373,
375-78 (1988)(briefly discussing Second Amendment). Akhil Reed Amar's
reconsiderations of the foundations of the Constitution also promises
to delve more deeply into the implications of the Amendment. See Amar,
Of Sovereignty and Federalism, 96 Yale L.J. 1425, 1495-1500 (1987).
Finally, there is one book that provides more in depth treatment of the
Second Amendment: S. Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed, The Evolution
of a Constitutional Right (1984). George Fletcher, in his study of the
Bernard Goetz case, also suggests that Second Amendment analysis not
frivolous, though he does not elaborate the point. G. Fletcher, A Crime
of Self-Defense 156-58, 210-11 (1988). One might well find this overt
reference to "elite" law reviews and "major" writers objectionable, but
it is foolish to believe that these distinctions do not exist within
the academy, or more importantly, that we cannot learn about the
sociology of academic discourse through taking them into account. No
one can plausibly believe that the debates that define particular
periods of academic discourse are a simple reflection of "natural"
interest in the topic. Nothing helps an issue so much as its being
taken up as an obsession by a distinguished professor from, say Harvard
or Yale.

14. One will search the "leading" casebooks in vain for any mention of
the Second Amendment. Other than its being included in the text of the
Constitution that all of the casebooks reprint, a reader would have no
reason to believe that the Amendment exists or could possibly be of
interest to the constitutional analyst. I must include, alas, P. Brest
and S. Levinson, Processes of Constitutional Decisionmaking (2d ed.
1983), within this critique, though I have every reason to believe that
this will not be true of the forthcoming third edition.

15. Larue, supra note 13, at 375.

16. L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law (2d ed. 1988).

17. J. Nowak, R. Rotunda,& J. Young, Constitutional Law (3d ed. 19860.

18. For a brilliant and playful meditation on the way the legal world
    treats footnotes and other marginal phenomena, see Balking,
    The Footnote, 83 Nw. U. L. Rev. 275, 276-81 (1989).

19. Tribe, supra note 16 at 299 n6.

20. Id.; see also J. Ely, Democracy and Distrust 95 (1980) ("[T]he
framers and ratifiers...opted against leaving to the future the
attribution of [other] purposes, choosing instead explicitly to
legislate the goal in terms of which the provision was to be
interpreted.") As shall be seen below, see infra text accompanying note
38, the preamble may be less plain in its meaning than Tribe's (and
Ely's) confident argument suggests.

21. J. Nowak, R. Rotunda & J. Young supra note 17, at 316n.4.  They do
    go on to cite a spate of articles by scholars who have debated the
    issue.

22. Id, at 316 n. 4.

23. U.S. Const. art. I Sec. 10

24. U.S. Const. art. I sec. 9, cl. 8.

25. See, e.g., Legislative Reference Serv., Library of Congress, the
Constitution of the United States of America; Analysis and
Interpretation 923 (1964), which  quotes the Amendment and then a
comment from Miller, The Constitution 646 (1 893): "This amendment
seems to have been thought necessary. It does not appear to have been
the subject of judicial exposition; and it is so thoroughly with our
ideas, that further comment is unnecessary." Cf. Engblom v.  Carey, 724
F.2d 2 8 (2d Cir. 1983), affg 572 F. Supp. 44 (S.D.N.Y.  1983).
Engblom grew out of a "statewide strike of correction officers, when
they were evicted from their facility-residence...and members of the
National Guard were housed in their residences without their consent."
The district court had initially granted summary judgment for the
defendants in a suit brought by the officers claiming a deprivation of
their right under the Third Amendment. The Second Circuit, however,
reversed on the ground that it could not "say that as a matter of law
appellants were not entitled to the protection of the Third Amendment,"
Engblom v. Carey, 677 F.2d 957, 964 (2d Cir.  1982). The District Court
on remand held that, as the Third Amendment rights had not been clearly
established at the time of the strike, the defendants were protected by
a qualified immunity, and it is this opinion that was upheld by the
Second Circuit. I am grateful to Mark Tushnet for bringing this case to
my attention.

26. See, e.g. The Firearms the Second Amendment Protects, N.Y. Times,
June 9, 1988, at A22, col 2 (three letters); Second Amendment and Gun
Control, L.A. Times, March 11, 1989, Part II, at 9 col 1. 1 (nine
letters) ; What 'Right to Bear Arms'?, N.Y.  Times, July 20, 1989, at
A23, col 1(national ed.)(op.  ed.  essay by Daniel Abrams); see also We
Rebelled to Protect Our Gun Rights, Washington Times, July 20, 1989, at
F2 col. 4.

27. Fee Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Comm. on the Judiciary,
    the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 97th Cong., 2d Sess.  viii
    (1982)(preface by Senator Orrin Hatch)[thereinafter  The Right to
    Keep and Bear Arms].

28. See supra notes 13-14.

29. See Levinson, Constitutional Rhetoric and the Ninth Amendment, 64
    Chi-Kent L.Rev. 131 (1988).

30. P. Bobbit, Constitutional Fate (1982).

31. Id. at 25-38.
32. Id. at 9-24.
33. Id. at 75-92.
34. Id. at 39-58
35. Id. at 59-73.
36. Id. at 93-119.
37. For the record, I should note that Bobbitt disagrees with this
 statement, making an eloquent appeal (in conversation) on behalf of
 the classic American value of self-reliance for the defense of oneself
 and, perhaps more importantly, one's family.  I certainly do not doubt
 the possibility of constructing an "ethical" rationale for limiting
 the state's power to prohibit gun ownership. Nonetheless, I would
 claim that no one unpersuaded by any of the arguments derived from the
 first five models would suddenly change his or her mind upon being
 presented with an "ethical" argument.

38. Cf., e.g. the patents and copyrights clause, which sets out the
power of Congress "[t]o promote the progress of Science and useful
Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the
exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." U.S.
Const. art. I Sec. 8.

39.For examples of this, see F. Schauer, Freedom of Speech: A
Philosophical Enquiry (1982); Levinson, First Amendment, Freedom of
Speech, Freedom of Expression: Does it Matter What We Call It? 80 Nw.
U.L.Rev. 767 (1985)(reviewing M. Redish, Freedom of Expression: A
Critical Analysis (1984)).

40. ACLU Policy #47. I am grateful to Joan Mahoney, a member of the
    national board of the ACLU, for providing me with a text of the
    ACLU's current policy on gun control.

41. Cress, An Armed Community: The Origins and Meaning of the Right to
    Bear Arms, 71 J. Am. Hist. 22, 31 (1984).

42. See U.S. Const. Amend. X.

43. For a full articulation of the individualist view of the Second
 Amendment, see Kates Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of
 the Second Amendment, 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204(1983). One can also find an
 efficient presentation of this view in Lund, infra note 96, at 117.

44. Shallhope, The Ideological Origins of the Second
    Amendment, 69 J. Am. Hist. 599 (1982).
45. Id. at 614.

46. See Daniel Boorstin's laconic comment that "the requirements for
self-defense and food-gathering had put firearms in the hands of nearly
everyone" in colonial America. D. Boorstin -- the Colonial Experience
353 (1958). The beginnings of a professional police force in Boston are
traced in R. Lane, Policing the City: Boston 1822-1855 (1967). Lane
argues that as of the earlier of his two dates, "all the major eastern
cities...had several kinds of officials serving various police
functions, all of them haphazardly inherited from the British and
colonial past. These agents were gradually drawn into better defined
and more coherent organizations." Id. at 1. However, as Oscar Handlin
points out in his introduction to the book, "to bring into being a
professional police force was to create precisely the kind of hireling
body considered dangerous by conventional political theory," Id. at
vii.

47. See Cress, supra note 41.

48. 3 J. Elliott, Debates in the General State Conventions 425 (3d ed.
    1937)(statement of George Mason, June 14, 1788), reprinted in
    Kates, supra note 13, at 261 n. 51.

49. Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican 123 (W. Bennett
    e.1978)(ascribed to Richard Henry Lee), reprinted in Kates, supra
    note 13 at 261 n. 51.

50. Michelman, The Supreme Court 1985 Term -- Forward: Traces of Self
    Government, 100 Harvard L. Rev. 4, 39 (1986)(Harrington is "pivotal
    figure in the history of the 'Atlantic' branch of republicanism
    that would find its way to America").

51. Shallhope, supra note 44, at 602.

52. Edmund Morgan discusses Harrington in his recent book, Inventing
    the People 85-87 (1988)(analyzing notion of popular sovereignty in
    American thought).
53. Id. at 156.
54. Id. at 157. Morgan argues incidentally, that the armed yeomanry was
neither effective as a fighting force nor particularly protective of
popular liberty, but that is another matter. For our purposes, the
ideological perceptions are surely more important the "reality"
accompanying them. Id. at 160-65.

55. Blasi, The Checking Value in First Amendment Theory, 1977 A.  B.
    Found. Res. J. 521.

56. See Lund, infra note 96, at 111-116.

57. Shallhope, supra note 44, at 603 (quoting 1755 edition of
Cato's Letters). Shallhope also quotes from James Burgh, another
English writer well known to American revolutionaries: "The possession
of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave.  He, who has
nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him
whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his
own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to
defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously; and
at discretion." Id at 604. To be  sure, Burgh also wrote that only men
of property should in fact comprise the militia: "A militia consisting
of any others than the men of property in a country, is no militia; but
a mungrel army." Cress, supra note 41, at 27 (emphasis in
original)(quoting J. Burgh, 2 Political Disquisitions: or An Enquiry
Into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses (1774-75)).  Presumably,
though, the widespread distribution o f property would bring with it
equally widespread access to arms and membership in the militia.

58. See Cress, supra note 41, at 34.

59. The Federalist No. 46 at 299 (J. Madison)(C. Rossiter ed. 1961).

60. Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican 124 (W. Bennett
    ed. 1978).

61. 3 J. Story, Commentaries Sec. 1890 (1833) quoted in 5 The Founders'
    Constitution 214 (P. Kurland & R. Lerner eds. 1987).

62. Id.

63. Id. Lawrence Cress, despite his forceful of Shallhope's
individualists rendering of the Second Amendment, nonetheless himself
notes "[t]he danger posed by manipulating demagogues, ambitious rulers,
and foreign invaders to free institutions required the vigilance of
citizen-soldiers cognizant of the common good." Cress, supra note 41,
at 41 (emphasis added).

64. T. Cooley, The General Principles of Constitutional Law in The
United States of America 298 (3d ed. 1898): "The Right of the People to
bear arms in their own defense, and to form and drill military
organizations in defense of the State, may not b e very important in
this country, but it is significant as having been reserved by the
people as a possible and necessary resort for the protection of self-
government against usurpation, and against any attempt on the part of
those who may for the time be in possession of State authority or
resources to set aside the constitution and substitute their own rule
for that of the people. Should the contingency ever arise when it would
be necessary for the people to make use of the arms in their hands for
the protection of constitutional liberty, the proceeding, so far from
being revolutionary, would be in strict accord with popular right and
duty. Cooley advanced this same idea in The Abnegation of Self-
Government, 12 Princeton Rev.  213-14 (1883).

65. See Rabban, The First Amendment in Its Forgotten Years, 90 Yale
L.J. 514, 560 (1981) ("[P]rodigious theoretical writings of Theodore
Schroeder...were the most extensive and libertarian treatments of
freedom of speech in the prewar period"); see also Graber, Transforming
Free Speech (forthcoming 1990)(manuscript at 4-12; on file with
author).

66. T. Schroder, Free Speech for Radicals 104 (reprint ed. 1969).

67. Shalhope, supra note 44, at 45.

68. See M. Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization 156
(T. Parsons ed. 1947), where he lists among "[t]he primary formal
characteristics of the modem state" the fact that: "to-day, the use of
force is regarded as legitimate only so far as it is either permitted
by the state or prescribed by it... The claim of the modern state to
monopolize the use of force is as essential to it as its character of
compulsory jurisdiction and continuous organization."

69. See, e.g., Symposium: The Republican Civil Tradition, 97 Yale L.J.
    1493-1723 (1988).

70. See D. Malone, 4 Jefferson and His Times: Jefferson the President:
First Term, 1801-1805, AT 7-11 (1970)(republican leaders ready to use
state militias to resist should lame duck Congress attempt to violate
clear dictates of Article II by designating someone other than Thomas
Jefferson as President in 1801).

71. Scott v. Sanford  60 U.S. (19 How.) 393,417 (1857).

72. See, e.g., Featherstone, Gardiner & Dowlut, The Second Amendment to
    the United States Constitution Guarantees and Individual Right to
    Keep and Bear Arms, supra note 27, at 100.

73. See, e.g..., Halbrook, The Fourteenth Amendment and the Right to
Keep and Bear Arms: The Intent of the Framers, in The Right to Keep and
Bear Arms, supra note 27, at 79. Not the least of the ironies observed
in the debate about the Second Amendment is that NRA conservatives like
Senator Hatch could scarcely have been happy with the wholesale attack
leveled by former Attorney General Meese on the incorporation doctrine,
for here is one area where some "conservatives" may in fact b e more
zealous adherents of that doctrine than are most liberals, who, at
least where the Second Amendment is concerned, have a considerably more
selective view of incorporation.

74. 83 U.S. 36 (1873).

75. 32 U.S. (7 Pet.)243 (1833).

76. 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875).

77. 116 U.S. 252, 267 (1886). For a fascinating discussion of
    Presser,  see Larue, supra note 13, at 386-90.

78. 116 U.S. at 253. There is good reason to believe that this statute,
passed by the Illinois legislature in 1879, was part of an effort to
control (and indeed, suppress) widespread labor unrest linked to the
economic troubles of the time. For the background of the Illinois
statute, see P. Avrich, The Haymarket Tragedy 45 (1984): "As early as
1875, a small group of Chicago socialists, most of them German
immigrants, had formed an armed club to protect the workers against
police and military assaults, as well as against physical intimidation
at the polls. In the eyes of its supporters...the need for such a group
was amply demonstrated by the behavior of the police and [state-
controlled] militia during the Great Strike of 1877, a national protest
by labor triggered by a ten percent cut in wages by the Baltimore and
Ohio Railroad, which included the breaking up of workers' meetings, the
arrest of socialist leaders, [and] the use of club, pistol and bayonet
against strikers and their supporters...Workers...were resolved never
again to be shot and beaten without resistance. Nor would the stand
idly by while their meeting places were invaded or their wives and
children assaulted. The were determined , as Albert Parsons [a leader
of the anarchist movement in Chicago] expressed it, to defend both
'their persons and their rights.'"

79. 166 U.S. 226 (1897) (protecting rights of property owners by
    requiring compensation for takings of property).

80. My colleague Douglas Laycock has reminded me that a similar
argument was made by some conservatives in regard to the establishment
clause of the First Amendment. Thus, Justice Brennan noted that "[i]t
has been suggested, with some support in history, that absorption of
the First Amendment's ban against congressional legislation 'respecting
an establishment of religion' is conceptually impossible because the
Framers meant the Establishment Clause also to foreclose any attempt by
Congress to disestablish the official state churches." Abington School
District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 254 (1963) (Brennan, J., concurring)
(emphasis added). According to this reading, it would be illogical to
apply the establishment clause against the states "because that clause
is not one of the provisions of the Bill of Rights which in terms
protects a 'freedom' of the individual," id. at 256, inasmuch as it is
only a federalist protection of states against a national establishment
(or disestablishment). "The fallacy in this contention," responds
Brennan, "is that it underestimates the role of the Establishment
Clause as a co-guarantor, with the Free Exercise Clause, of religious
liberty." Id. Whatever the sometimes bitter debates about the precise
meaning of "establishment," it is surely the case that Justice Brennan,
even as he almost cheerfully concedes that at one point in our history
the "states-right" reading of the establishment clause would have been
thoroughly plausible, expresses what has become the generally accepted
view as to the establishment clause being some kind of limitation on
the state as well as on the national government. One may wonder whether
the interpretive history of the establishment clause might have any
lessons for the interpretation of the Second Amendment.

81. It refused, for example, to review the most important modern gun
control case, Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F. 2d 261 (7th
Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 863 (1983), where the Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeal s upheld a local ordinance in Morton Grove,
Illinois, prohibiting the possession of handguns within its borders.

82. 307 U.S. 174 (1939.

83. Justice Douglas, however, did not participate in the case.

84. Miller, 307 U.S. at 178.

85. Id. at 178 (citation omitted).

86. Lund notes that "commentators have since demonstrated that sawed-
    off or short barrelled shotguns are commonly used as military
    weapons." Lund, infra note 96, at 109.

87. 307 U.S. at 178.

88. Id. at 179.

89. Id.

90. L. Powell, Capital Punishment, Remarks Delivered to the Criminal
    Justice Section, ABA 10 (Aug 7, 1988).

91. Id. at 11.

92. This point is presumably demonstrated by the increasing public
    opposition of police officials to private possession of handguns
    (not to mention assault rifles).

93. D. Kates, Minimalist Interpretation of the Second Amendment 2
    (draft Sept. 29, 1986) (unpublished manuscript available from
    author).

94. See Lund, supra note 96, at 116.

95. Wimmershoff-Caplan, The Founders and the AK-47,
Washington Post, July 6, 1989, at A18, col. 4, reprinted as Price of
Gun Deaths Small Compared to Price of Liberty, Austin-American
Statesman, July 11, 1989, at A11. Ms. Wimmershoff-Caplan is identified
as a "lawyer in New York" who is "a member of the National Board of the
National Rifle Association." Id. One of the first such arguments in
regard to the events in Tianamen Square was made by William A. Black in
a letter, Citizens Without Guns, N.Y.  Times, June 18, 1989, at D26,
col. 6. Though describing himself as "find[ing] no glory in guns [and]
a profound anti-hunter," he nonetheless "stand[s] with those who would
protect our right to keep and bear arms" and cited for support the fact
that "none [of the Chinese soldiers] feared bullets: the citizens of
China were long ago disarmed by the Communists." "Who knows," he asks,
"what the leaders and the military and the police of our America will
be up to at some point in the future? We need an armed citizenry to
protect our liberty." As one might expect, such arguments draw heated
responses.  See Rudlin, The Founders and the AK-47 (Cont'd) Washington
Post, July 20, 1989 at A22, col 3.  Jonathan Rudlin accused Ms.
Wimmershoff-Caplan of engaging in Swiftian satire, as no one could
"take such a brilliant burlesque seriously." Neal Knox, however,
endorsed her essay in full, adding the Holocaust to the list of
examples: "Could the Holocaust have occurred if Europe's Jews had owned
thousands of then-modern military Mauser bolt action rifles?" See also,
Washington Post, July 12, 1989, at A22, for other letters.

96.  See Lund, The Second Amendment, Political Liberty, and the Right
to Self-Preservation, 39 Ala. L. Rev. 103 (1987) at 115: "The decision
to use military force is not determined solely by whether the
contemplated benefits can be successfully obtained through the use of
available forces, but rather determined by the ratio of those benefits
to the expected costs. It follows that any factor increasing the
anticipated cost of a military operation makes the conduct of that
operation incrementally more unlikely. This explained why a relatively
poorly armed nation with a small population recently prevailed in a war
against the United States, and it explains why governments bent on the
oppression of their people almost always disarm the civilian population
before undertaking more drastically oppressive measures." I should note
that I wrote (and titled) this article before reading Lund's article,
which begins, "The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution h
as become the most embarrassing provision of the Bill of Rights." I did
hear Lund deliver a talk on the Second Amendment at the University of
Texas Law School during the winter of 1987, which may have penetrated
my consciousness more than I realized while drafting this article.

97. See D. Kates, supra note 93, at 24-25 n. 13, for a discussion of
    this point.

98. See, e.g., Justice Marshall's dissent, joined by Justice Brennan,
in Skinner v. Railway Labor Executive Association, 109 S.  Ct.  1402,
(1989) upholding the government's right to require drug tests of
railroad employees following accidents. It begins with his chastising
the majority for "ignor[ing] the text and doctrinal history of the
Fourth Amendment, which require that highly intrusive searches of this
type be based on probable cause, not on the evanescent cost-benefit
calculations of agencies or judges," id. at 1423, and continues by
arguing that "[t]he majority's concern with the railroad safety
problems caused by drug and alcohol abuse is laudable; its cavalier
disregard for the Constitution is not. There is no drug exception to
the Constitution, any more than there is a communism exception or an
exception for other real or imagined sources of domestic unrest." Id.
at 1426.

99. Donaldson, Letter to Editor, Austin America-Statesman, July 8,
    1989, at A19, col. 4.

100. See Minow, The Supreme Court 1986 Term -- Foreword: Justice
Engendered  101 Harv. L. Rev. 1074-90 (1987). "We need settings in
which to engage in the clash of realities that breaks us out of settled
and complacent meanings and create s opportunities for insight and
growth." Id. at 95; see also Getman, Voices, 66 Tex. L. Rev. 577
(1988).

101. And, perhaps more to the point, "you" who insufficiently listen to
     "us" and to "our" favored groups.

102. See supra note and accompanying text.


Transcribed by

Chris Crobaugh
30460 Otten Rd.
N. Ridgeville, Ohio 44039
(216) 327-6655

Lorain County Firearms Defense Association
Ohio Constitution Defense Council

===========================================================================

                                                -=Road Warrior=-

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/ Shane C. Henry                   /                                       /
/ University of Missouri--Rolla    /     Is your church BATF approved?     /
/ 1022 Morrell St.                 /                                       /
/ Rolla, Mo 65401                  /////////////////////////////////////////
/                                  /  My opinions are completly my own     /
/ Internet:                        /  and do not represent the views of    /
/  shenry@saucer.cc.umr.edu        /  my employer.                         /
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/                                                                          /
/        "The only 'friendly' fire is fire pointed the other way!"         /
/                                                                          /
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


============================================================================

          THE BILL OF RIGHTS  ---- Void where prohibited by law.

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre 
minds."  (Albert Einstein)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Braeckel   dbraecke@comp.uark.edu   575-7322   UofA Computing Services


% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com by us4rmc.pko.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA09585; Tue, 25 Oct 94 12:36:35 -040
% Received: from crcnis1.unl.edu by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com (5.65/10Aug94) id AA02890; Tue, 25 Oct 94 09:16:25 -070
% Received: by crcnis1.unl.edu id AA16561 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for hamburger@tis.enet.dec.com); Tue, 25 Oct 1994 11:05:55 -050
% Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 11:05:55 -0500
% Message-Id: <Pine.3.89.9410251002.A7432-0100000@comp>
% Originator: roc@unl.edu
% Errors-To: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu
% Reply-To: <roc@unl.edu>
% Sender: roc@unl.edu
% Version: 5.5 -- Copyright (c) 1991/92, Anastasios Kotsikonas
% From: Douglas Braeckel <dbraecke@comp.uark.edu>
% To: Multiple recipients of list <roc@unl.edu>
% Subject: Re: Need electronic info ASAP

The following was sent to me by a friend.  I thought it might give people 
some "ammunition" in letterwriting / discussions.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Legal Theory of RKBA
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 19:47:16 -0500

LEGAL THEORY OF THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
 
There is considerable confusion about the legal theory underlying the
"right to keep and bear arms". This is a brief outline for a clarification
of the discussion of this issue.
 
(1) The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not _establish_
the right to keep and bear arms. None of the provisions of the Constitution
_establish_ any "natural" rights. They _recognize_ such rights, but the
repeal of such provisions would not end such rights. Such rights were
considered by many of the Framers as obvious or "self-evident", but they
were immersed in the prevailing republican thought of the day, as expressed
in the writings of Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Madison, Hamilton, and
others, which discussed "natural rights" in some detail. Others argued
that at least some of the rights needed to be made explicit in the Bill
of Rights to avoid having future generations with less understanding of
republican theory weaken in their defense of those rights. That has turned
out to be a good idea.
 
(2) Yes, the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right of individuals
under the theory of democratic government. This was clearly the understanding
and intent of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution and was a long-established
principle of English common law at the time the Constitution was adopted,
which is considered to be a part of constitutional law for purposes of
interpreting the written Constitution.
 
(3) What the Second Amendment also does is recognize the right, power, and
duty of able-bodied persons (originally males, but now females also) to
organize into militias and defend the state. It effectively recognizes that
all citizens (or at least the "able-bodied" ones - the militia) have military
and police powers, whether exercised in an organized manner or individually
in a crisis. "Able-bodied" is a term of art established by English Common
Law at the time the Constitution was adopted, and is the only qualification
besides citizenship on what constitutes the "militia". While not well-
defined in modern terms, it is somewhat broader than just able-"bodied":
implicit is also "able-minded" and "virtuous". In other words, persons might
be excluded who were physically able to bear arms but who were mentally or
morally defective. Defense of the "state" _includes_ self-defense and defense
of one's family and friends who are, after all, part of the state, but by
establishing the defense of the state as primary a basis is laid for requiring
a citizen to risk or sacrifice his life in defense of the state and is thus
a qualification on the implicit right of self-defense, which is considered to
prevail in situations in which self-sacrifice is not called for.
 
(4) The U.S. Constitution does not adequately define "arms", nor does the
common law at the time the Constitution was adopted, when "arms" included
breech-loaded muskets and pistols, swords, knives, bows with arrows, and
spears. The most reasonable definition would be "light infantry weapons
which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single
militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen
in land warfare." That certainly includes modern rifles and handguns,
full-auto machine guns and shotguns, grenade and grenade launchers, flares,
smoke, tear gas, incendiary rounds, and anti-tank weapons, but not heavy
artillery, rockets, or bombs, or lethal chemical, biological, or nuclear
weapons. Somewhere in between we need to draw the line. The standard has to
be that "arms" includes weapons which would enable citizens to effectively
resist government tyranny, but the precise line will probably be drawn
politically rather than constitutionally. If we follow the rule that personal
rights should be interpreted broadly and governmental powers narrowly, which
was the intention of the Framers, instead of the reverse, then "arms" must
be interpreted broadly.
 
(5) The right to keep and bear arms does indeed extend to the states.
As do the other rights recognized by other Amendments, and as reinforced
by the Fourteenth Amendment.  It is not just a restriction on the powers
of the central government. On the other hand, the citizens of a state can
adopt a constitution that might restrict the exercise of such rights
by delegating the power to do so to the state government. However, if the
restriction of natural rights is unduly burdensome on those rights, then
such a provision would be incompatible with the U.S. Constitution, its
guarantee of the rights, and its guarantee that all states have a
"republican" form of government - which such restrictions would compromise.
 
(6) The legal basis for a government not infringing on the right to keep and
bear arms is not constitutional provisions like the Second Amendment, but
that the power to do so is not one of the enumerated powers delegated to the
government, whether Union or State. That delegation must be explicit as
pertains to arms. They can't be regulated on the basis of general powers to
tax or to regulate commerce. Arms have a special status under constitutional
law. Some State constitutions may delegate such powers to the State government.
The U.S. Constitution does not delegate such powers to the Union government.
No powers are delegated to government by the preamble to a constitution,
which is only a statement of purpose, only by provisions in the body of the
document and its amendments.
 
(7) The legal basis on which the states can regulate arms is in those
situations in which they conflict with property rights. It is a fundamental
principal in law that the owners or managers of real property have the
power to regulate who may enter their premises, and to set conditions upon
their entry. That includes public property. Citizens have a right to keep
and bear arms - on their own property or property they control - but not on
someone else's property without their permission.
 
(8) In other words, citizens have a right to keep and bear arms in those
places and situations where they have a right to be, unless such rights are
"disabled" by due process of law. Fundamental natural rights can never be
lost, as contractual rights can be, only the exercise of those rights
restricted or "disabled", to use the legal term. The distinction is very
important. Natural rights are those which an individual brings with him
when he enters into the social contract, and reclaims if the social contract
is broken. The right to keep and bear arms is such a natural right, as
is the right of free speech, religious belief, and privacy. The alternative
is a contractual right created by a contract, such as the social contract.
The right to vote or to be judged by a jury of one's peers are examples of
rights created by the social contract, albeit important ones which are also
constitutionally protected. Because they are constitutionally protected,
it is only proper to speak of them as being disabled, rather than lost, so
long as the subject remains a citizen or natural person, depending on
whether it is a right of citizenship or personhood.
 
(9) It is unconstitutional to "disable" any rights by statute except one set:
the rights of majority. The disabilities of minority do not need to be
established by a court trial or hearing. However, they can be removed sooner
than they would be removed by constitution or statute, by reaching a certain
age. This means it is unconstitutional to disable the right to keep and bear
arms to a class of persons by statute, including those, such as felons, who
have been the subject of due process, except through a proceeding in which
the court is explicitly petitioned to disable them, the subject has an
opportunity to argue to the contrary, the petitioner has the burden of proof
that the subject if armed would be a threat to himself or others, and the court
grants that petition. Merely being convicted of a crime, or declared mentally
incompetent, is not sufficient if the language of the judgement does not
also explicitly disable the right to keep and bear arms, or set restrictions
on such right.
 
(10) "General police powers" is not a constitutional basis for states or
localities to regulate arms. "General police powers" are the powers to
use the means necessary and sufficient to stop someone who threatens to
commit a major crime, or to arrest someone who has done so. All citizens
have such power. They differ from regular, professional police only in that
the regular police also have "special police powers" in matters such as
minor offenses, and in that they _outrank_ civilians. Since citizens have
general police powers, they also have the right to such means as they
require to exercise such powers in situations in which they may be called
upon to do so. That includes arms.
 
(11) To be constitutional, state laws restricting the bearing of arms
must distinguish between public property, private commercial property which
serves the public and which therefore confers certain rights to the public,
and other private property with no public access rights. It is reasonable
and constitutional to prohibit persons from bearing arms onto purely private
property without notifying the owner or manager and obtaining his or her
permission. On the other hand, it would be an undue burden on the right to
bear arms to forbid persons from traveling between places where they have
a right to be, and to bear arms while they do so, along public pathways
or private easements, and using their own or public means of transportation.
That leaves certain grey areas in which some restriction might be imposed
without being an undue burden: certain public property where persons do not
have unrestricted access, such as auditoriums or certain parks. The area
for controversy, however, is commercial property serving the public in which
persons may need to enter in the normal course of making a living, and which
therefore confer some rights of access to the public. The rule must be that
laws must not burden the right to bear arms except to the extent that they
would impose a greater burden on the right of property owners to exclude
persons bearing arms.
 
(12) At the very least, the law must presume that places of business that
cater to arms, such as gun shops and shooting ranges, and events such as
gun shows, offer presumptive permission to bear arms and that therefore
it is not illegal to bear them there or to travel to and from them.
 
(13) A carry permit system essentially is a removal of restrictions against
bearing arms on public and private property unless there is an express
prohibition against doing so, either in the form of a posted sign or a
directive from the owner or his agent. The rationale for issuing such
permits is to equip persons of good character to more effectively function
as militiamen or police in situations in which regular police are not
available or insufficient. That also includes self-protection, but the
key factor is the duty to perform police duties as necessary. There also
needs to be explicit statutory protection of the state or other permit
issuing authority against criminal or civil liability for any acts done
by the permit holder. One kind of carry permit is that which is one of the
"special police powers" of regular law-enforcement officers, which allows
them to carry anywhere, even against the express wishes of a property
owner if they have a warrant.
 
(14) With the high levels of crime we now endure, the only effective way
to extend police protection to a level that might deter crime is to
recruit a substantial proportion of the public to go armed, by issuing
them carry permits, offering them police training, and organizing them
into a network of militia units closely coordinated with regular law
enforcement agencies. It is likely that as many as 25% of the adult public
could serve in this way on a regular basis, and another 25% on an
occasional basis, and that if they did, we might expect it to have a
significant positive impact on crime. Some such citizens might even be
granted higher police rank, and perform regular police duties on a part-time
basis. Such involvement of the public in law enforcement would also have
other benefits: breaking down the social and psychological barriers that
now separate the regular police from civilians, and deterring some of
the abuses of authority that police have sometimes succumbed into.
 
(15) That the militia should be "well-regulated" is not a basis for
restricting the keeping or bearing of arms. It does mean that militia
members may be required to carry certain standard arms during formations,
but they cannot be forbidden from carrying additional arms of their own
unless doing so would impair normal militia operations. "Well-regulated"
pertains to regulation of how, when, where and in what manner members of
the militia are to perform their duties.
 
(16) The Union government does have the power, under the U.S. Constitution,
to regulate imports and interstate commerce in arms, but the Framers
would not agree with how the "interstate commerce" clause (Art. 1, Sect. 8)
of the Constitution has been broadly interpreted to include regulation
of manufacture, possession, and local sales and use of items. A strict
constitutional interpretation should be that the Union government has
authority only over transactions that cross state lines, and not over
actions or transactions that occur within state borders, even if they
involve items that may someday cross state borders or may have once done
so. If we want the Union government to have such authority, and a good
case can be made for some such authority, then the U.S. Constitution needs
to be amended to delegate that authority to it.
 
(17) The Union government also has excise taxing power, but since arms
have special status under the Constitution, no tax may be levied that
imposes an undue burden on the right to keep and bear arms. Rights are
more fundamental than taxing powers, particularly since the right to keep
and bear arms is recognized in an amendment which supersedes any prior
provisions that conflict with it, which includes all taxing powers except
the income tax (which does not provide a basis for taxing arms). Arms may
be taxed as general merchandise is, such as with a sales tax, but any tax
law which specifies arms for special taxes, other than reasonable use fees
for public services related to them, must be considered unconstitutional.
That would include taxes on ammunition and the ingrediants to make it.
The analogy is to taxes on newsprint, which may be taxed like other
merchandise, but not in a way that would impose an undue burden on the
right of a free press.
 
(18) This means that no government has the power, unless that power is
specifically granted to it under its constitution, to prohibit any person
from manufacturing or possessing any gun or ammunition for it on his own
premises or where he has a right to be, or against using it in a safe and
responsible manner, or against selling or giving it to another person
within the borders of a state.
 
(19) Since the common law prevailing at the time the Constitution was
adopted defined "militia" to consist of "able-bodied" citizens, including
citizens younger than the usual age of majority, any law restricting the
possession, sale or gift of guns or ammunition to persons under the age
of majority or any other particular age, or to minors (since persons under
the age of majority may have their disabilities of minority removed by a
court), is also unconstitutional unless the constitution explicitly
includes a disability of the right to keep and bear arms among the
disabilities of minority. The proper test for being "able-bodied" must
involve meeting certain standards that are independent of age, such as
skill, judgement, and level of maturity. It is possible for persons to be
"able-bodied" at quite a young age, and the law must recognize that
competence where it exists. All citizens above the age of majority would
have to be presumed able-bodied unless they or the state petitioned a court
to rule otherwise and it granted the petition. However, it would be
constitutional to require a reasonable test of competence of citizens
below the age of majority, and to issue credentials to those qualifying
which they would be required to show when answering calls for formations
of the militia or, if the right to keep and bear arms were included
among the rights disabled by minority, when bearing arms. Early removal
of the disabilities of minority would then also remove the disabilties of
the right to keep and bear arms.
 
(20) The "full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution requires
that persons issued a carry permit by one state must have that permit
recognized in other states. This suggests a uniform standard for qualifying
persons for issuance.

    George,
    
    The only reason people bother arguing with you is what they get back is
    good for their garden...
    
    -b

Following are some quotations from political writers on the          
general subject of an armed population,  or on related factors. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

" . . . Let us then enunciate the functions of a state and we shall 
easily elicit what we want: First there must be food;  secondly, arts 
for life requires many instruments;  thirdly, there must be arms, for 
the members of a community have need of them, and in their own hands, 
too, in order to maintain authority both against disobedient subjects 
and against external assailants; . . ." 
        "Politics",  Aristotle

"A new prince has never been known to disarm his subjects,  on the 
contrary, when he has found them disarmed he has always armed them, 
for by arming them these arms become your own, those that you 
suspected become faithful and those that were faithful remain so, and 
from being merely subjects become your partisans.   . . . But when you 
disarm them, you commence to offend them and show that you distrust 
them either through cowardice or lack of confidence, and both of these 
opinions generate hatred against you." 
        "The Prince",  Niccolo Macchiavelli

"A martial nobility and stubborn commons, possessed of arms, tenacious 
of property, and collected into constitutional assemblies form the 
only balance capable of preserving a free constitution against the 
enterprise of an aspiring prince." 
    "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire",  Edward Gibbon 

"And therefore there be some rights which no man can be understood by 
any words, or other signs, to have abandoned or transferred.  As first 
a man cannot lay down the right of resisting them that assault him by 
force to take away his life, because he cannot be understood to aim 
thereby at any good to himself.  . . .   For the right men have by 
nature to protect themselves when none else can protect them, can by 
no covenant be relinquished. 
        "Leviathan",  Thomas Hobbes

Thomas Jefferson:

"I own, I am not a friend to a very energetic government.  It is 
always oppressive.  It places the governors indeed more at their ease 
at the expense of the people.  . . .  Nor will any degree of power in 
the hands of the government, prevent insurrections. 
        Letter to James Madison, 1787

"Our legislators are not sufficiently apprized of the rightful limits 
of their power; that their true office is to declare and enforce only 
our natural rights and duties, and to take none of them from us. 
        Letter to F. W. Gilmer, 1816

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not 
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of 
resistance? Let them take arms. . . .  What signify a few lives lost 
in a century or two?  The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time 
to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.  It is its natural 
manure." 
        Letter to W. S. Smith, 1787

"Men by their constitution are naturally divided into two parties.
1.  Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all 
    powers from them into the hands of the higher classes.
2dly  those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence 
in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, 
although not the most wise depository of the public interests. 
        Letter to H. Lee, 1824

"It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not 
more completely deprive the nation of its benefits, than is done by 
its abandoned prostitution to falsehood.  Nothing can now be believed 
which is seen in a newspaper.  Truth itself becomes suspicious by 
being put into that polluted vehicle.  . . . Perhaps an editor might 
begin a reformation in some such way as this. Divide his paper into 
four chapters, heading the 1st, Truths. 2d, Probabilities.  3d, 
Possibilities. 4th, Lies.  The first chapter would be very short." 
        Letter to J. Norvell, 1807 
---------------------------------------------------------------------

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is 
as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried 
into execution.  A tolerable expertness in military movements is a 
business that requires time and practice.  It is not a day, nor a week 
nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it.  To 
oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of 
citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military 
exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire 
the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of 
a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and 
a serious public inconvenience and loss.  It would form an annual 
deduction from the productive labor of the country to an amount which, 
calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far 
short of a million pounds.  to attempt a thing which would abridge the 
mass of labor and industry to so considerable  an extent would be 
unwise;  and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it 
would not long be endured.  Little more can reasonably be aimed at 
with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed 
and equipped;  and in order to see that this not be neglected, it will 
be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. 
     "But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be 
abandoned as mischievous or impracticable;  yet it is a matter of the 
utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon, as 
possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia.  The 
attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the 
formation of a select corps of moderate size  . . .    This will not 
only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances 
should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any 
magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the 
people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all 
inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to 
defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens." 
     "Where in the name of common sense are our fears to end if we may 
not trust our sons, our brithers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens?" 
        "The Federalist" (No. 29)   Alexander Hamilton

"Let us recollect that peace or war will not always be left to our 
option;  that however moderate or unambitious we may be, we cannot 
count upon the moderation, or hope to extinguish the ambition of 
others." 
        "The Federalist"  (No. 34)  Alexander Hamilton

"A wise nation  . . .  whilst it does not rashly preclude itself from 
any resource which may become essential to its safety, will exert all 
its prudence in diminishing both the necessity and the danger of 
resorting to one which may be inauspicious to its liberties." 
        "The Federalist"  (No. 41)  James Madison

"That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of 
time, elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both;  
that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and 
systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the 
military establishment;  that the governments and the people of the 
States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm and 
continue to supply the materials until it should be prepared to burst 
on their own heads must appear to everyone more like the incoherent 
dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a 
counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine 
patriotism.  Extravagant as the supposition is, let it, however, be 
made.  Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the 
country, be formed;  and let it be entirely at the devotion of the 
federal government:  still it would not be going too far to say that 
the State governments with the people on their side would be able to 
repel the danger.   . . .  This proportion would not yield, in the 
United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand 
men. [Note:  estimated as of 1787]  To these would be opposed a 
militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in 
their hands . . .  .  It may well be doubted whether a militia thus 
circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular 
troops.  . . .  Besides the advantage of being armed,  which the 
Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the 
existence of subordinate governments  . . .  forms a barrier against 
the enterprises of ambition,  more insurmountable than any which a 
simple government of any form can admit of.    Notwithstanding the 
military establishments in the severl kingdoms of Europe, which are 
carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are 
afraid to trust the people with arms.  . . .  Let us not insult the 
free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they 
would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in 
actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would 
be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.  Let us rather 
no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce 
themselves to the necessity of making the experiment by a blind and 
tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must 
precede and produce it." 
        "The Federalist" (No. 46)  James Madison

[Note:  The Federalist papers were written after the main body of the 
Constitution had been drafted,  but before the Bill of Rights had been 
added.  The Federalist writers strongly supported the Constitution,  
and considered a Bill of Rights as being (a)  unnecessary,  because 
the Federal government would be granted only the few powers explicitly 
stated in the Constitution; and (b)  dangerous, for enumeration of 
specific rights would only tempt Federal authorities to seize power up 
to the limits of those rights.] 


"In my opinion the main evil of the present democratic institutions of 
the United States does not arise, as is often asserted in Europe, from 
their weakness, but from their overpowering strength;  and I am not as 
much alarmed at the excessive liberty which reigns in that country as 
at the very inadequate securities which exist against tyranny." "It is 
not necessary to do violence to such a people in order to strip them 
of the rights they enjoy;  they themselves willingly loosen their 
hold." " . . . men who are possessed by the passion for physical 
gratification generally find out that the turmoil of freedom disturbs 
their welfare before they discover how freedom itself serves to 
promite it.  If the slightest rumor of public commotion intrudes into 
the petty pleasures of private life, they are aroused and alarmed by 
it.  The fear of anarchy perpetually haunts them, and they are always 
ready to fling away their freedom at the first distrubance." "I 
readily admit that public tranquility is a great good,  but at the 
same time I cannot forget that all nations have been enlaved by being 
kept in good order." 
        "Democracy in America",  Alexis de Toqueville

"Only an armed people can be the real bulwark of popular liberty."
       "The Beginning of the Revolution in Russia"
       V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, Vol. I, International Publishers,
       New York,  1967
       (Note that Lenin wrote that BEFORE he gained power.)

"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty 
when the government's purposes are beneficient  . . .  the greatest 
dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal,  
well meaning but without understanding." 
       Olmstead vs. United States,  United States Supreme Court, 1928
       Justice Louis Brandeis

"It might have been possible for the Nazis to have created a system of 
terror without giving any justification for it, but this would have 
been risky.  Hence, one of the first things that was done was to 
provide an excuse for the various repressive measures.  . . .   
Thalburg's Nazis provided this by finding various arms and weapons in 
and around Thalburg and by publishing these findings in the local 
newspapers." 
"Whether or not all the weapon discoveries reported in the local press 
were authentic is unimportant.  The newspapers reported whatever they 
were told by the police, and what people believed was more important 
than what was true." [The following paragraph summarizes a series of 
police raids with reports of finding various weapons.] "Thus 
throughout a six-week period spanning April, Thalburgers were given 
the impression that the town was a veritable arsenal.  It was easy to 
reach two conclusions:  first, that only vigorous action by the Nazis 
had prevented a civil war, and second, that it was extremely unhealthy 
to have any sort of weapon around the house." "And yet, one has to ask 
the question, what happened to those who had sworn resistance?   . . . 
" "Perhaps the basic reason for this was that there was no Nazi coup 
d'etat.  Instead, there was a series of quasi-legal actions over a 
period of at least six months,  no one of which by itself constituted 
a revolution, but the sum of which transformed Germany from a republic 
to a dictatorship." 

"The worst threat to liberty comes not from those who simply seek 
their own aggrandizement, but from those who seek the good of others, 
identifying opposition to their desires with harm to the nation." 
        Richard Goodwin,  address at the national board meeting of
        Americans for Democratic Action,  1966.


"It is a cruel hoax to seek to persuade the American people that the 
Bill of Rights should be watered down in response to rising crime 
rates." 
        "Law and Order",  Look Magazine,  29 October 1968
        Nicholas Katzenbach (former Attorney General)
        [Rather obviously out of context;  Katzenbach was arguing
        in support of the Supreme Court Miranda (and related) 
        decisions,  suggesting that they only caused about 1% more
        crime.  Note that the total of all firearms crime is itself
        about 1% of the serious crime (not all of which is reported).


"...I believe the Second Amendment will always be important." -- John
F. Kennedy 1960..
 
"To hell with the constitution." -- Mike Roos, Califonia State
Assemblyman, Democrat-Glendale 1989.
 
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin 1759
 
Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself.
Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?  -- Thomas Jefferson

There are three kinds of lies:  lies, damned lies, and statistics - Disraeli

"...We find in the Bill of Rights Amendment Two...specifically...
guaranteeing [the people] the right to keep and bear arms..."
-- Chief Justice Earl Warren  1962.

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.  Our fixed principle is that
the Communist Party shall control the gun, and the gun shall never be allowed
to control the party."   -Chinese chairman Mao Tse Tung

"the power and right comes from the barrel of guns, who will be the winner, 
who lose guns, will lose everything."    -Chinese chairman Mao Tse Tung
(Chineese citizens lost guns in 1949.)

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the     
subject races to possess arms.  History shows that all conquerors who have      
allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall   
by doing so." -Adolf Hitler                             

No ciizen is to have a firearm without a permit and these will not be issued   
to persons suspected of acting against the state.  For Jews this permission    
will be not be granted.  Those people who do not require permission to        
purchase or carry weapons include the whole S.S. (Gestapo) and S.A. (Storm    
Troopers), including the Death's Head group and officers of the Jugend.       
(Police & Military)                     
                                        
Hitlers Firearms Act of 1937            

"Society's needs come before the individual's needs."  -Adolf Hitler, 1933

"Among the many misdeeds of the British	rule in India, history will 	
look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
- Mahatma Gandhi                       

"There aren't enough bullets in the world to make socialism work." 
                                              --- Hieronymous, 1989

John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, in Cato's Letters (1755), exclaimed: "The
exercise of despotick Power is the unrelenting War of an armed Tyrant upon his
unarmed Subjects: It is a War of one Side, and in it there is neither Peace
nor Truce." 

"Government is not reason or eloquence, it is fire. 
A fearful master and dangerous slave." - George Washington 

A quote from Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned 
from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?  Let 
them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, 
with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Thomas Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939

"The tree of liberty must be watered periodically with the blood of tyrants
and patriots alike.  It is its natural manure." -- Thomas Jefferson

"When private citizens attempt to 're-distribute the wealth' of others, we call
it theft. When politicians do exactly the same thing, we call it equity!"
        --- Murray Hopper, 198?

"If anyone disagrees with anything I say, I am quite prepared not only to
 retract it, but also to deny under oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer

"Government is a cancer masquerading as its own cure."   Frederic Bastiat

"The right of the citizens to bear arms is just one more guarentee 	
against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny 	
which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to	
be always possible." - Senator Hubert Humphrey              
	
"Who will protect us from our protectors?"   Jeff Riggenbach, 1989

"Necessity is the excuse for every infringement of human freedom. It is
the argument of the tyrant and the creed of the slave" - William Pitt, 1763

"If you protect a man from folly, you will find you have a nation of fools"
               -- Wm Penn  1783

A good government is one "which shall restrain men from injuring one another,
shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and
improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it earns."
--- Thomas Jefferson          

"The right to buy weapons is the right to be free."    --- A.E. van Vogt

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must...undergo the fatigue
of supporting it."   --- Thomas Paine, 1777

"People have the God-given right to screw up their own lives. 
 Prohibition actively destroys the rest of society in the hope          
 of detering a few screwed-up individuals."  -Tom Isenberg
 
"Justice, n. A commodity which in more or less adulterated condition the State
sells to the citizen as a reward for his allegiance, taxes, and personal 
service."   -Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion." 
                                 - Edmund Burke

"Luck is when preparation meets opportunity"

"Greedy capitalists get money by trade. Good liberals steal it."
                  --- David Friedman, 1973

    Even your side quotes Sam Adams as saying that the right applies to
    "peaceable citizens".
    
    Pointing to specific language, the framers considered, and rejected,
    the restrictive clause "unless such as are or have been in actual
    rebellion".
    
    Yet, such a restrictive clause does not appear in the 2nd.
    
    What does this tell you?
    
    								-mr. bill

Re <<< Note 21.123 by ASLAN::GKELLER "Congressional Gridlick is a good thing" >>>

>Or why does "the people" in every other amendment refer to the people, but in 
>the second "the people" means the militia?

  Because every other amendment lacks the qualifying phrase.

>Take your head out of the sand or whever it happens to be stuck and WAKE UP
>!!!

  This kind of contempt is bad for you. Stress like this will lead to high
blood pressure and stomach problems. Take deep breaths and keep repeating over
and over "this is only a SOAPBOX debate, this is only a SOAPBOX debate".

  George

   <<< Note 21.132 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>    Pointing to specific language, the framers considered, and rejected,
>    the restrictive clause "unless such as are or have been in actual
>    rebellion".
    
>    Yet, such a restrictive clause does not appear in the 2nd.
    
>    What does this tell you?
 
	That they recognized the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment
	was to protect the citzenry from their own government.

Jim

RE                      <<< Note 21.124 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>

>    Well, now that even George agrees that all Americans have a right
>    to keep and bear arms, the only remaining question is what is
>    meant by "infringe".
    
  I believe that my position is that the Constitution only guarantees the right
to keep and bear arms for the purpose of participating in a well regulated
militia. 

  George

RE    <<< Note 21.126 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	Well, after your inane arguments have been completely demolished
>	you continue to enter additional tripe. So since there is nothing
>	more to be said about your misinterpretations all we are left
>	to comment on is you.

  In your opinion maybe. In my opinion it is you that failed to make your
case then resorted to name calling when logic failed.

  But ok, since you claim I've lost I'll give you a fair chance.

  Is there anyone out there who is against the idea of people being allowed to
own guns without gun control, is for a ban on assault weapons, but feels I lost
this debate?

  Or by yet another grand coincidence do most or all the people who feel that
my arguments were "demolished" also just happen to be the ones who are pro-gun?

  George

RE       <<< Note 21.128 by TIS::HAMBURGER "let's finish the job in '96" >>>

>Meowski since you have so far neatly ducked what fellow liberals like
>Senator Kennedy (as head of the Senate subcommitee) have to say about
>the second I thought I'd give you another "source" document.

  I've ducked nothing. First of all, that Senate report seemed to be from a
year when the Republicans controlled the Congress so if it's a majority report
it is the opinion of Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, and nothing more.
It is the Supreme Court that has the responsibility of interpreting the
Constitution, not the Senate Judiciary Committee. 

>Several people have asked me for this privately.  Sanford Levison is an
>anti-gun liberal professor of law, who is on record as saying that the
>Second Amendment is a bad idea, embedded in a document of bad ideas (i.e.
>the Bill of Rights).  Nonetheless, he makes the case that the Second
>Amendment DOES indeed guarentee the right of citizens to bear arms.

  So fine, another opinion. That proves nothing other than the fact that people
have opinions. There are many other people with academic intergety who feel
that the Bill of Rights is a good idea. 

  George

>                     <<< Note 21.104 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

> As he says, it only makes a positive statement about the right
> of people to bear arms to support a militia. 

> There are no conditions implied on the right to bear
> arms, rather the condition works the other way saying the right to bear arms
> will be protected to allow support for a militia.

> As he says, it is being
> "invoked" and protected here only for the sake of a militia, nothing more
> nothing less.

>   George

All this makes me wonder what George's stance on "assault weapons" is...?

    
    "Damn"....
    
    
     You're welcome...
    

RE               <<< Note 21.138 by EST::RANDOLPH "Tom R. N1OOQ" >>>

>All this makes me wonder what George's stance on "assault weapons" is...?

  Well none of this has anything to do with my opinion of the right to bear
arms. I haven't said a word about that. My part of the debate has been
restricted to my interpretation of what the Constitution has to say about
the right to bear arms.

  As for assault weapons I feel the same way. The 2nd amendment guarantees
any citizens participating in a well regulated militia the right to keep
and bear assault weapons. It says nothing about keeping and bearing assault
weapons for any other purpose.

  George

    Those of us who think appreciate that fact that George, by acting the
    part of a fool, has led to the posting of a volume of excellent
    reference material that I believe would be difficult for one person to
    assemble under normal circumstances.
    
    Thanks, George.  For those of you who are under the misconception that
    George is a liberal, please explain how else this much interest could
    be generated, except by play-acting at stupidity?

    
    RE: .141
    
    >play-acting at stupidity?
    
    Naaaaaahhh ..... just look at the last name.... 

RE             <<< Note 21.141 by ODIXIE::CIAROCHI "One Less Dog" >>>

>    Those of us who think appreciate that fact that George, by acting the
>    part of a fool, has led to the posting of a volume of excellent
>    reference material that I believe would be difficult for one person to
>    assemble under normal circumstances.
    
  Yet another case where after getting wacked up side the head during rational
debate, the conservatives declare victory and go home.

  I'm still waiting for a few noters who are not pro-gun advocates to say "I'm
not pro-gun but I have to say George lost that debate". 

  Hardly an impartial verdict.

  George

    
    
    Rep .143 George
    
    
    >>>I'm still waiting for a few noters who are not pro-gun advocates to
    say "I'm not pro-gun but I have to say George lost that debate".
    
	Well, since you asked!!! I'm not pro-gun and I think you lost the
    debate. 
    
    
    -mike
    

                     <<< Note 21.143 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  I'm still waiting for a few noters who are not pro-gun advocates to say "I'm
>not pro-gun but I have to say George lost that debate". 

	There have already been a couple of entries from folks that stated
	that they did not own any firearms. You have been offered a rather 
	lengthy analysis by a person that actually identifies themself as
	"anti-gun", not just un-pro-gun.

	How much more fo you want?

Jim

    
    
    Wow!!! Another "ski" heard from!!!!  :) :)
    
    At least this one's got his head screwed on right.... :)
    

    
    
    >>>Wow!!! Another "ski" heard from!!!!  :) :)
    
      well, he asked!!!
    
    >>>At least this one's got his head screwed on right.... :)
    
      why thank you, i even got it straight this morning!!! 
    
    
    	-mike
    

    well meowski...win a few lose a few. now suck it in like a man and let
    it be.

>                     <<< Note 21.140 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  As for assault weapons I feel the same way. The 2nd amendment guarantees
> any citizens participating in a well regulated militia the right to keep
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> and bear assault weapons. 

This is where we differ. Given that you accept (and you have, see .104):

>     [Copperud:] (1) The sentence does not restrict the right to
> keep and bear arms, [...]

Yet you restrict it.

>     [Copperud:] (3) No such condition is expressed or implied.
> The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to
> depend on the existence of a militia. [...]

Yet without a militia, your statement above is without meaning. 

>     [Copperud:] (4) The right is assumed to exist and to be
>unconditional, as previously stated.  It is invoked here
>specifically for the sake of the militia.

Your:
> It says nothing about keeping and bearing assault weapons for any other
> purpose.
is without substance. The right is assumed to exist. It cannot exist in a
vacuum. Keeping and bearing arms for any purpose *is* the right that's
assumed to exist. It is indeed invoked here in support of, but not limiting
to, a militia.

Re           <<< Note 21.148 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>

>    well meowski...win a few lose a few. now suck it in like a man and let
>    it be.

  One guy.

  Where's the rest?

  George

    
    
    
    Make it two....
    
    Never owned a gun, don't really want to at this time.
    
    

  Well dam, I guess I failed to prove my point.

  Ok it happens, I did a bad job of arguing. Guess I'll have to start all over.
This time I'll try to get it right. Here goes:

  I believe that the 2nd amendment does not grant every American a right to
keep and bear fire arms.

  Here is the 2nd amendment:

    "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.

  Notice that all of the other amendments simply state what right they are
protecting without qualification. Notice that this one gives a qualification. 

  Now the question is, why would the founding fathers qualify the 2nd amendment
but not the other amendments? I say it is for a reason and that reason is to 
indicate that the right to bear arms is for the purpose of supporting a
citizen's militia.

  Why do you feel that while this amendment was qualified, the others were not?

  George

    
    
    
    Get off the horse, George.......it's been dead for a while and is
    starting to smell pretty bad.

    
    Why does anyone have to win or lose the debate?  Are we going to
    write-lock the note or something?

    I can agree with George. But, citizen's rights to keep arms should
    extend into the future, without government interference, because a
    militia might be needed someday.
    
    ...Tom

RE  <<< Note 21.153 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "Montanabound, oneof these days" >>>

>    Get off the horse, George.......it's been dead for a while and is
>    starting to smell pretty bad.

  That was the old horse. I just obtained a new one and I'm taking it out for
a spin.

  Hey, just because I screwed up and lost the debate that doesn't mean you
are right, it just means I lost the debate.

  So heck, I'll try again.

  Why not?
  George

    
    why don't you go ahead and get on the "many ways for redistributing
    wealth" merry-go-round, meowski.
    
    jeff

Note 21.152 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI
    
  >>Well dam, I guess I failed to prove my point.
    
    well you got stamina. i'll had you that. 
    
>  I believe that the 2nd amendment does not grant every American a right to
>keep and bear fire arms.

    george. your lack of knowledge on this topic is painfully obvious. you
    need to read the responses SLOWLY and take in what's being said. take
    this statement of yours for example. NOT EVERY american has the right
    to keep and bear arms. and that has nothing to do with the 2nd.
    furthermore, stop saying that we are "granted" these rights. it makes
    it sound like something benevolent that's earned or handed down. these
    rights are GARUANTEED to all citizens. it up to you whether or not you
    lose those rights. the government recently has stepped up its strong
    arm to determine whether or not you get to keep the rights you are
    GARUANTEED as a citizen of this nation. that's what all the talk is
    about.
    
    many anti gun people think those of who ridgidly support the 2nd are
    gunnuts. let me be VERY clear about something. its not just guns. its
    OUR RIGHTS, all of them, that are threatened. rights many are willing
    to fight and die for if necessary. this country is perilously close to
    confrontation over the RIGHTS issues. on 11/8 the people told the
    government to BACK OFF. if they don't i fear for the republic.

RE           <<< Note 21.158 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>

>take
>    this statement of yours for example. NOT EVERY american has the right
>    to keep and bear arms. and that has nothing to do with the 2nd.

  That's not what I said. I admit that every American has the right to bear
arms under the 2nd amendment as long as they are participating in a well
ordered militia. 

>    furthermore, stop saying that we are "granted" these rights. it makes
>    it sound like something benevolent that's earned or handed down. these
>    rights are GARUANTEED to all citizens. 

  This sounds more like a 9th amendment argument than a 2nd amendment argument.
So far this debate has been limited to the rights granted by the 2nd amendment.
No one has claimed a right to bear arms under the 9th and I haven't argued
that point one way or the other.

>    many anti gun people think those of who ridgidly support the 2nd are
>    gunnuts. let me be VERY clear about something. its not just guns. its
>    OUR RIGHTS, all of them, that are threatened. 

  The reason I got into this was that people were holding up the 2nd amendment
as the reason why Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy and other liberals were against the
Constitution. I agree that all of our rights are threatened, but it is not
by the liberals.

  More often than not it's the Conservatives who want to treat the Constitution
as an icon while depriving people of their rights such as they do in the Susan
Smith note when they argue that the 6th amendment right to a fair trial should
be suspended once the Police produce a confession. 

  George

    
    Look, George.  SCOTUS never said what the 2nd means, and only
    their vote counts, unless they rile up most of the country to
    amend what they say.  So we are all guessing.  There just isn't
    a lot of case law.  Partly because no state or Congress ever
    tried an outright ban on gun ownership - they just nibble around
    the edges.
    
    It is entirely possible they might rule there is no RKBA for an
    ordinary citizen.  Or they might rule that there is.  They've never
    done either in over 200 years, and maybe never will.
    
    I don't own any arms.  I don't own a printing press either.  But I
    protect my rights, even the ones I don't exercise, because if I don't,
    I fear I'll lose them all.
    
    Just reading the sentence, it sounds to most of us, that it means
    an ordinary citizen can keep gunz.  The interpretation you suggest
    is not convincing, because it would render the sentence to grant no
    rights that aren't already in the document elsewhere.
    
    Of course, it may be that the founders were WRONG.  But that is quite
    a different argument indeed.
    
      bb

    
    I usually stay read only but thought the best way to find out what our
    Forefathers meant was to find written reference. So here you go.
    
Edmund Burke: 	"The people never give up their liberties but under some
		delusion." 1784 SPEECH.

Noah Webster: 	" The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by
		the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and
		constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops..."
		AN EXAMINATION INTO THE LEADING PRINCIPALS OF THE FEDERAL
		CONSTITUTION PROPOSED BY THE LATE CONVENTION (1787).

Patrick Henry:	"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every
		one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will
		preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that 
		force, you are ruined." DURING VIRGINIA'S RATIFICATION 
		CONVENTION (1788).

William Pitt:	" If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign
		troop was landed in my country, I never would lay down my arms-
		never-never-never! You cannot conquer Americal." 1777 SPEECH.

Benjamin Franklin: " They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
		   temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
		   HISTORICAL REVIEW OF PENNSYLVANIA (1759).

Thomas Jefferson:  " No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
		   PROPOSED VIRGINIA CONSTITUTION (1776), JEFFERSON PAPERS
		   344, (J. BOYD, ED. 1950).

John Adams:	 " Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at
		individual discretion...in private self-defense." A DEFENSE OF
		THE CONSTITUTIONS OF GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF 
		AMERICA (1787-1788).

James Madison:	The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed
		which Americans possess over the people of almost every
		other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust
		the people with arms."  THE FEDERALIST #46.

Thomas Paine: 	" ...arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in
		awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property...
		Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of 
		the use of them." THOUGHTS ON DEFENSIVE WAR, (1775).

Jefferson:	" Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those
		who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes
		...such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better
		for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to
		prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with
		greater confidence than an armed man."  QUOTING 18th CENTURY
		CRIMINOLOGIST CESARE BECCARIA IN _On Crimes_and_Punishment_
		(1764).

Richard Henry
Lee:		" A militial when properly formed are in fact the people
		themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms...To
		preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of
		people always possess arms..." ADDITIONAL LETTERS FROM THE 
		FEDERAL FARMER 53 (1788).

Samuel Adams:	" The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the
		people of the United States who are peacable citizens from
		keeping their own arms." DURING MASSACHUSETTS' U.S. 
		CONSTITUTION RATIFICATION CONVENTION (1788).

George Mason:  " I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people...
		To disarm the people is  the best and most effectual way to
		enslave them." DURING VIRGINIA'S RATIFICATION CONVENTION
		(1788).


Source:
NRA/ILA 1994 Calendar
		

RE                      <<< Note 21.160 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>

>    Just reading the sentence, it sounds to most of us, that it means
>    an ordinary citizen can keep gunz.  The interpretation you suggest
>    is not convincing, because it would render the sentence to grant no
>    rights that aren't already in the document elsewhere.

  Once again, this is a 9th amendment argument, not a 2nd amendment argument. 

  You can if you wish make the argument that the right to bear arms is what
Jefferson called an "unalienable right" or what Robert Bork calls "natural law"
and that it is protected by the 9th amendment. 

  But that's not the debate here. This debate started because someone made the
claim in the Susan Smith note that liberals are against the constitution
because of their refusal to admit that the 2nd amendment guarantees the right
to bear arms. 

  No one made such a claim over a 9th amendment right to bear arms so I haven't
been arguing that point. 

  Now do you guys want to give up on the issue of a 2nd amendment right to bear
arms and change your argument to be based on the 9th, do you want to say with
the 2nd, or do you want to argue both at once? 

  Make up your mind, this is confusing enough as it is.

  George

Note 21.159 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI
    
>  The reason I got into this was that people were holding up the 2nd amendment
>as the reason why Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy and other liberals were against the
>Constitution. I agree that all of our rights are threatened, but it is not
>by the liberals.

    well slick and fatboy DID launch an all out attack one the second. but
    i'll agree with you that its not just the liberals that are attacking
    our rights. its GOVERNMENT itself. there are those of ALL political
    persuasions on the bandwagon, mostly for their own political gain. not,
    as they would have you believe, in the best interest of the people.
    
    i don't trust the media and democrats AT ALL. the republicans only a very
    little.
    
  >More often than not it's the Conservatives who want to treat the Constitution
    
    rhetoric george. there is no proof that one political party is "after"
    the constitution any more than others. they ALL would sacrifice our
    country's honor for their own pitiful careers.

RE           <<< Note 21.163 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>

>    i don't trust the media and democrats AT ALL. the republicans only a very
>    little.
    
  On this we are very close to agreement. Obviously I reverse the two but
in general I agree with what you are saying.

  George

    
    
    
    
    	"The Constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States)
    assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may excercise
    it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times
    armed."
    
    	Thomas Jefferson
 
"What, Sir is the use of a militia?  It is to prevent the
 establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty...
 Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and
 liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy
 the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
	       - Eldridge Gerry (during floor debate over the 2nd amendment)
 
 
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing
 degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our
 defense?  Where is the difference between having our arms
 in possession and under our direction, and having them
 under the management of Congress?  If our defense be the
 real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they
 be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as
 in our own hands?"                    --- Patrick Henry
 
 
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+
"BANNING GUNS IS AN IDEA WHOSE TIME HAS COME"
  U.S. Senator Joseph Biden 11/18/93 Associated Press
 
"The people never give up their liberty but under some delusion."
  Sir Edmund Burke, 1784
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+
"HANDGUNS ARE A PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE"
  Joycelyn Elders USA Today 11/9/93
 
"A strong body makes the mind strong.  As to the species of exercises, I
advise the gun.  While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives
boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind...Let your gun therefore
be the constant companion of your walks."
  Thomas Jefferson, Encyclopedia of Thomas Jefferson, 318
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+
"BANNING GUNS ADDRESSES A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF AMERICANS TO FEEL SAFE"
  U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein AP 11/18/93
 
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety"
  Benjamin Franklin, 1759
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+
"UNTIL WE CAN BAN ALL OF THEM, THEN WE MIGHT AS WELL BAN NONE."
  U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum Senate Hearings 1993
 
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither
inclined nor determined to commit crimes.  Such laws make things worse for
the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to
encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with
greater confidence than an armed one."
  Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist 1764.
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+
"WE'RE HERE TO TELL THE NRA THEIR NIGHTMARE IS TRUE" "WE'RE GOING TO
HAMMER GUNS ON THE ANVIL OF RELENTLESS LEGISLATIVE STRATEGY! WE'RE GOING
TO BEAT GUNS INTO SUBMISSION!"
  U.S. Representative Charles Schumer NBC 11/30 12/8/93
 
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them,
may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be
occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to
the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the
article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
  Tench Coxe in "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments
  to the Federal Constitution." Under a pseudonym "A Pennsyl-
  vanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18,1789
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+
"MY BILL ... ESTABLISHES A 6-MONTH GRACE PERIOD FOR THE TURNING IN OF ALL
HANDGUNS"
  U.S. Representative Major Owens Congressional Record 11/10/93
 
"A free people ought..to be armed..."
  George Washington, speech of January 7, 1790
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+
"GUN REGISTRATION IS NOT ENOUGH." "I'VE ALWAYS PROPOSED STATE LICENSING ..
WITH SOME FEDERAL STANDARDS."
  Janet Reno AP 12/10/93 ABC 12/10/93
 
"Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion..in
private self-defense..."
  John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the Government
  of the USA, 471 (1788)
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+
"WITH A 10,000% TAX WE COULD TAX THEM OUT OF EXISTENCE."
  U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan Washington Post 11/4/93
 
"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few
public officials."
  George Mason, 3 Elliott, Debates at 425-426
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+
"IF IT WERE UP TO ME WE'D BAN THEM ALL"
  U.S. Representative Mel Reynolds CNN Crossfire 12/9/93
 
"The Constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the
United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
  Samuel Adams, Debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the
  Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+

    
    Ninth ?  I made no claim about the ninth.  I said the single
    sentence, called the second, when read by a school child, would
    be taken to mean any American has the right to own and carry a gun.
    
    The sentence is of the form, "Some fact, therefore, some command."
    
    So, it is an assertion that "some command" must be obeyed.
    
    In this case, the command is, "Don't infringe the right of the
    people to keep and bear arms."
    
    Why is this hard to understand ?  bb
    

                     <<< Note 21.159 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  That's not what I said. I admit that every American has the right to bear
>arms under the 2nd amendment as long as they are participating in a well
>ordered militia. 

	This is the same argument you admit you lost with before. George,
	there IS a difference between stamina and stupidity.

>  This sounds more like a 9th amendment argument than a 2nd amendment argument.
>So far this debate has been limited to the rights granted by the 2nd amendment.
>No one has claimed a right to bear arms under the 9th and I haven't argued
>that point one way or the other.

	The rights RECOGNIZED and GUARANTEED in the Bill of Rights are
	NOT "granted". These rights exist seperate from the Constitution.
	they are merely legally protected by the document.

Jim

RE                      <<< Note 21.166 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>

>    The sentence is of the form, "Some fact, therefore, some command."
>    
>    So, it is an assertion that "some command" must be obeyed.

  Some fact, therefore, some command implies to me that the command should
be carried out so as to deal with the issue stated in the fact.

  "Our cellar is flooding, the water must be controlled" sounds to me like a
command to get a sump pump, not a command to drain the Ocean.

  George

    	Of course you wouldn't do either, George.  You'd open an
    	umbrella, and then start sopping up water with all those
    	towels you have...

    RE: .161, .165, LUDWIG::BING
    
    Thank you, if only everyone were willing to make the effort, all things
    would be logical and understandable. Your input did it for me.
    
    ...Tom

>    <<< Note 21.167 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	The rights RECOGNIZED and GUARANTEED in the Bill of Rights are
>	NOT "granted". These rights exist seperate from the Constitution.
>	they are merely legally protected by the document.

And there is at least one SCOTUS ruling that states this, almost verbatim,
with regard to the 2nd.

re: .104

Thank you so very, very much for the that well phrased bit of humour.  It made
my day!

Bob

    
    RE: .168
    
    >Some fact, therefore, some command implies to me
                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    
     Therein lies the whole problem....
    

    re: Note 21.156 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI
    
    > So heck, I'll try again.
    
    It's called spin.  Spin it any way you want.  It's not going to change
    the final answer.  Your arguing from a "weak" position at best, if you
    actually have any position at all.  
    
    "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
    
    George, what I suggest to you, is you accept this fact.  **Now**, what you
    need to do is HOLD ACCOUNTABLE the people who DO NOT respect law.
    You, being a "Constitutional-heavy/Liberal" as you say, should look
    more deeply into Common Law .  You seem to be familiar with Common Law 
    since you toss it around here and there.  Plus it's mentioned on the
    news in derogatory terms all the time (common law wife, hah... less than
    official).  Constitution = Common Law = "Law of the Land".  This simple
    fact just destroyed 1 bazzilion federal/state/local laws currently
    "on the books".
                                           
    You will not win this debate with your current position.  Guaranteed.
    And, FWIW, the founding fathers were not just "liberal", they were
    considered RADICALS & Terrorists.  Probably Conspiracy freaks as well,
    they actually had it "easy" compared to the subjects of the
    crown.  They also were not supported by the majority of the people.
    The majority of the people were complacent enough to sit on their ass
    and not worry about it.  Kinda like the Waco deal.  People watched on
    TV, but nobody went and expelled the federal gov't from that property,
    even AFTER those people were assaulted.  Please, ignore for a moment
    that those people were "freaks"; they were Americans, with God given
    rights.  What about them George?  The government killed them George,
    without a trial.  David Koresh was ALLEDGEDLY (<--- ho ho ) a crazy
    bastard.  Since when is that a crime?   He was persecuted for
    ALLEGEDLY (your favorite word) avoiding TAX on 2 firearms.  Since when 
    is that grounds for destroying over 80 People?  What happens if the
    government ALLEGEDLY accuses you of being stupid?  I'll be there 
    George.  I'll help you resist tyranny with my Colt AR-15 you've
    taken from me George.  A Daisy b-b gun ain't gonna get the job done
    and you're gonna hang....
    
    George, you awake yet.... George?   I WANT ANOTHER TOWEL!!!!!!!!!
    

    re: Note 21.159 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI
    
>  The reason I got into this was that people were holding up the 2nd amendment
>as the reason why Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy and other liberals were against the
>Constitution. I agree that all of our rights are threatened, but it is not
>by the liberals.

ANYONE, and I mean Republicans too, who vote to enact legislation violating the
Constitution should be HUNG (or correct their position).  That is my opinion.  
I am not a liberal/conservative/democrat/republican.  I am an AMERICAN NATIONAL.
BillC and TedK, among others have a bad habit of enacting bad legislation
when it comes to Constitutionality.  I don't care if they're liberals or
conservatives, I care that SOMEONE is violating the Constitution.

>  More often than not it's the Conservatives who want to treat the Constitution
>as an icon while depriving people of their rights such as they do in the Susan
>Smith note when they argue that the 6th amendment right to a fair trial should
>be suspended once the Police produce a confession. 

You get stuck on labels as I've mentioned before.  I'll grant you this:
Susan Smith should get her fair trial.  If she pleads "guilty" which I 
expect she will (excluding pleading "not guilty by reason of insanity") she 
should be punished, however the punishent is defined.  I will be behind you in
SMASHING any "conservative" who violates the Constitution in this case. 

Now, go start bitching about BORK.  I WANT ANOTHER STACK OF TOWELS DUDE....
                                                               
                                                               

    Hell, it's a crap shoot but I'll try it anyway... here, George.
    
    First, let's assume the militia is made of able-bodied citizens.
    
    Next, it is organized ONLY at need - if it were permanent, it would be
    a standing army.
    
    Then, we must assume that these able-bodied citizens will bring their
    own arms, as is implied even in your own argument.
    
    ...Now, if citizens were not allowed to buy guns freely, where in hell
    would they get them in time of need?  That's the point, the citizens,
    all of them, are supposed to be able to arm themselves against time of
    need BEFORE the need occurs, and FREE of government infringement.
    
    Also note that a militia may be as small as an individual or a small
    group defending life and property, and may have to be rounded up in a
    hurry, say during a natural disaster to protect homes and business
    against looting.  This is a valid use of the militia.  There is no
    stipulation in the amendment limiting the use of militia.
    
    So, when hurricane George slams into the North Georgia Mountains,
    MadMike and I can get a couple of our buddies, and help each other out
    against the inevitable banditos that follow disasters of all types. 
    This will leave the Sheriff free to do more for those less able to help
    themselves.

               <<< PEAR::DKB100:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< Soapbox.  Just Soapbox. >-
================================================================================
Note 130.90       Canadian Gun control-Americans be forewarned          90 of 90
HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet."                   8 lines   3-DEC-1994 20:15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    all this "regulation" in canada begs one question for those that
    believe its right for us in the US. that is:
    
     "what is to be gained if the rights and liberties the law permits
      the law-abiding are dictated or determined by the choices and 
      behavior of the lawless?"
    
    i am curious of the anti's response. seriously.

    George, how come there is no record of the FF's trying to confiscate
    Joe Blow's guns. There was a regulated militia then, but nothing is
    ever mentioned... What's this tell you?
    
    Chip

RE    <<< Note 21.167 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	This is the same argument you admit you lost with before. George,
>	there IS a difference between stamina and stupidity.

  I admit I lost the argument but I believe it was because I argued poorly,
not because I was wrong.

>	The rights RECOGNIZED and GUARANTEED in the Bill of Rights are
>	NOT "granted". These rights exist separate from the Constitution.
>	they are merely legally protected by the document.

  Fine whatever, but in any case, the entire question as to whether rights
exist independent of the Constitution is a 9th amendment question and not a 2nd
amendment question. Hence that discussion does not belong in this note unless
you are arguing that the right to bear arms is a 9th amendment question. 

  So far I haven't heard that, all I've heard about is the 2nd amendment.

  George

RE    <<< Note 21.174 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly" >>>

>    "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

  Keep ignoring that 1st phrase and maybe it will go away. Then again...
    
>    George, what I suggest to you, is you accept this fact.  **Now**, what you
>    need to do is HOLD ACCOUNTABLE the people who DO NOT respect law.

  I'm working hard to understand this entire note you've written. What does
this line have to do with the debate?

>    Constitution = Common Law = "Law of the Land".  This simple
>    fact just destroyed 1 bazzilion federal/state/local laws currently
>    "on the books".

  No this is not quite right. Constitutional Law has to do with cases based on
the interpretation of the Constitution. British Common Law, as opposed to
French Civil Law, is the system of law used by the Federal Government of the
United States and 49 of the States in which previous cases are used as
precedent and the cases are presented by the litigants (or their council).
In French Civil Law, by contrast, precedents are not used and the judge acts
more as an inquisitor.

>    You will not win this debate with your current position.  Guaranteed.
>    And, FWIW, the founding fathers were not just "liberal", they were
>    considered RADICALS & Terrorists.  Probably Conspiracy freaks as well,
>    they actually had it "easy" compared to the subjects of the
>    crown.  They also were not supported by the majority of the people.
>    ...

  From this point on you really take off down a rat hole. I don't understand
what any of this paragraph has to do with the topic at hand. If this is the
way you plan on winning the next round of this debate, good luck.

  George

                     <<< Note 21.179 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  I admit I lost the argument but I believe it was because I argued poorly,
>not because I was wrong.

	But you are using EXACTLY the same argument now. You should learn
	from your previous mistakes.

>  Fine whatever, but in any case, the entire question as to whether rights
>exist independent of the Constitution is a 9th amendment question and not a 2nd
>amendment question. Hence that discussion does not belong in this note unless
>you are arguing that the right to bear arms is a 9th amendment question. 

	No it's not. The purpose of the 9th Amendment is to RECOGNIZE that
	simply not making the list, as enumerated in the 1st eight Amendments
	did NOT mean that other rights did not exist. One of the most
	cogent arguments against a Bill of Rights then, and today for those
	countries that do not have one, is that it is enarly impossible
	to enumerate ALL of the rights that people have.

Jim

RE             <<< Note 21.176 by ODIXIE::CIAROCHI "One Less Dog" >>>

>    So, when hurricane George slams into the North Georgia Mountains,
>    MadMike and I can get a couple of our buddies, and help each other out
>    against the inevitable banditos that follow disasters of all types. 
>    This will leave the Sheriff free to do more for those less able to help
>    themselves.

  No, I think the idea is that when the Federal Government decides to send
Marines to arrest the state legislators and town fathers, who are hiding out in
Concord, some guy in the tower of the North Church is suppose to hang out two
lanterns to say they are crossing the Charles instead of going down Tremount
street then some guy is suppose to drive his mustang out to Concord yelling
"the Federals are coming, the Federals are coming".

  Once the Marines arrive in Concord to burn down the town, your militia is
suppose to march across a wooden bridge and engage them in combat.

  At least, that's the way it went last time,
  George

    If they want to come and arrest the legislators, they can have at 'em.
    Bunch of liberal thieves anyway...
    
    -b

RE                    <<< Note 21.178 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>

>    George, how come there is no record of the FF's trying to confiscate
>    Joe Blow's guns. There was a regulated militia then, but nothing is
>    ever mentioned... What's this tell you?
    
  I don't know, come to think of it there is no record of the FF's trying
to regulate cars or fishing either.

  In any case, if you are saying that the right to bear arms is an inalienable
right of the people, then that's a 9th amendment argument, not a 2nd amendment
argument. 

  George 

    Cars and fishing are vacuous arguments. The argument, regardless of
    amendment alignment, would seem to be an added detail if this was the
    FF's intent, n'est pas?
    
     Chip

RE    <<< Note 21.181 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	No it's not. The purpose of the 9th Amendment is to RECOGNIZE that
>	simply not making the list, as enumerated in the 1st eight Amendments
               ---
>	did NOT mean that other rights did not exist. 

  No, it means that simply MAKING the list, as enumerated in the 1st eight
Amendments, did NOT mean that other rights did not exist. 

>One of the most
>	cogent arguments against a Bill of Rights then, and today for those
>	countries that do not have one, is that it is early impossible
>	to enumerate ALL of the rights that people have.

  I think we agree on this. You can make a 9th amendment argument that people
have the right to keep and bear arms for any purpose if you wish. However
the only way you can arrive at that conclusion using the 2nd amendment is
by ignoring the 1st phrase.

  George

Re                    <<< Note 21.185 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>

>    Cars and fishing are vacuous arguments. The argument, regardless of
>    amendment alignment, would seem to be an added detail if this was the
>    FF's intent, n'est pas?
    
  The Constitution specified certain rights. Others were assumed to exist and
were not enumerated. That doesn't mean that any and all practices that went on
were assumed to be constitutional rights. 

  George 

                     <<< Note 21.182 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  No, I think the idea is that when the Federal Government decides to send
>Marines to arrest the state legislators and town fathers, who are hiding out in
>Concord, 

	George, check out your history. The British force was not out 
	to arrest the legislature. Their sole purpose was to confiscate
	the arms, powder and shot that the Colonials had stockpiled.

	Should give you a better understanding of why the FFs thought
	the issue of RKBA was worth enumerating specifically. The Revolution
	actually got underway becuase of an attempt at "gun control".

Jim

    you're sinking george. again.

                     <<< Note 21.186 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  No, it means that simply MAKING the list, as enumerated in the 1st eight
>Amendments, did NOT mean that other rights did not exist. 

	Sorry George. Remember that the ORIGINAL document as submitted to
	the States had NO amendments. The Framers originally thought such
	an enumeration to be uneccessary. Only when the citizens balked at
	not enumerating certain specific rights THAT THEY KNEW THEY ALREADY
	HAD, did the Framers move to enumerate the more important ones.

	Go back and read some of that material that Amos entered. You'll
	see that the RKBA flows not from the 2nd Amendment but at least
	back to English Common Law.

	The citizens requried that certain rights be recognized legally 
	by the new Constitution. They did NOT ask for these rights to
	be granted, they asked for specific legal wording in order to
	be certain that these rights would be guarunteed by the new
	government.

Jim

    re: Note 21.179 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI 
    
    > I admit I lost the argument but I believe it was because I argued
    > poorly, not because I was wrong.
    
    ROOOOOOOLLLLLLLLING!!!!

RE    <<< Note 21.188 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	Should give you a better understanding of why the FFs thought
>	the issue of RKBA was worth enumerating specifically. The Revolution
>	actually got underway becuase of an attempt at "gun control".

  Exactly, they were trying to take away a cache of arms being used by
a well regulated militia, they were not trying to take hunting rifles out
of individual houses.

  Finally you see my point.

  George

                     <<< Note 21.192 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>
>  Exactly, they were trying to take away a cache of arms being used by
>a well regulated militia, they were not trying to take hunting rifles out
>of individual houses.

	Actually they WERE hunting rifles. Very little disctinction
	between a "sporting" srm and "military" arms back then (or
	now for that matter).

Jim

                     <<< Note 21.192 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  Exactly, they were trying to take away a cache of arms being used by
>a well regulated militia, they were not trying to take hunting rifles out
>of individual houses.

	Forgot to mention that the long arms WERE personally owned.
	They were not the property of the militia.

Jim

RE    <<< Note 21.190 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	Sorry George. Remember that the ORIGINAL document as submitted to
>	the States had NO amendments. The Framers originally thought such
>	an enumeration to be uneccessary. Only when the citizens balked at
>	not enumerating certain specific rights THAT THEY KNEW THEY ALREADY
>	HAD, did the Framers move to enumerate the more important ones.

  I never claimed that the amendments were part of the original document. What
point are you trying to make and why are you claiming I said things that I
never said?

>	Go back and read some of that material that Amos entered. You'll
>	see that the RKBA flows not from the 2nd Amendment but at least
>	back to English Common Law.

  And what would that prove? The reason this argument started is that people
claimed the right to bear arms is protected by the 2nd amendment and that
liberals are against the constitution because they don't observe the 2nd
amendment. 

  Now it seems that you have joined me and are trying to point to all sorts
of other sources for the right to bear arms. Are you ready to concede that
the 2nd amendment is not the source for that right?

>	The citizens requried that certain rights be recognized legally 
>	by the new Constitution. They did NOT ask for these rights to
>	be granted, they asked for specific legal wording in order to
>	be certain that these rights would be guarunteed by the new
>	government.

  Here again, this is a 9th amendment argument, not a 2nd amendment argument.

  George

RE    <<< Note 21.194 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	Forgot to mention that the long arms WERE personally owned.
>	They were not the property of the militia.

  So what? Once again this hardly seems like a 2nd amendment argument.

  George

                     <<< Note 21.196 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  So what? Once again this hardly seems like a 2nd amendment argument.

	Considering the fact the the event under disscussion occured
	12 years before the 2nd Amendment was written, I should hope 
	not.

Jim

re: .195

>  Now it seems that you have joined me and are trying to point to all sorts
>of other sources for the right to bear arms. Are you ready to concede that
>the 2nd amendment is not the source for that right?

The 2nd amendment is NOT the source for the right, it merely re-affirms the
prior existing right.  Please stop making this mistake over and over again.

Bob

                     <<< Note 21.195 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  And what would that prove? The reason this argument started is that people
>claimed the right to bear arms is protected by the 2nd amendment and that
>liberals are against the constitution because they don't observe the 2nd
>amendment. 

	And that remains true. 

>  Now it seems that you have joined me and are trying to point to all sorts
>of other sources for the right to bear arms. Are you ready to concede that
>the 2nd amendment is not the source for that right?

	It is most certainly not the source of RKBA. It IS, however,
	a legal recognition and guaruntee that this right will not
	be infringed.

>>	The citizens requried that certain rights be recognized legally 
>>	by the new Constitution. They did NOT ask for these rights to
>>	be granted, they asked for specific legal wording in order to
>>	be certain that these rights would be guarunteed by the new
>>	government.

>  Here again, this is a 9th amendment argument, not a 2nd amendment argument.

	No it's not George. I am amazed that you can not see this.

Jim

RE    <<< Note 21.198 by ROWLET::AINSLEY "Less than 150 kts. is TOO slow!" >>>

>The 2nd amendment is NOT the source for the right, it merely re-affirms the
>prior existing right.  Please stop making this mistake over and over again.

  No it is you that are making the same mistake over and over. The 2nd
amendment re-affirms the prior existing right to keep arms to support a
well ordered militia.

  George

                     <<< Note 21.200 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  No it is you that are making the same mistake over and over. The 2nd
>amendment re-affirms the prior existing right to keep arms to support a
>well ordered militia.

George,	This is the same claim you have been making all along. Your argument
	does not play any better now than it did last week. The semantic 
	analysis of the 2nd has already shown us that the right is NOT
	dependent on the existance of a militia. You seem to keep forgetting
	this.

Jim

Re: <<< Note 21.179 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>>  I admit I lost the argument but I believe it was because I argued poorly,
>>not because I was wrong.

Well if two wrongs made a right, we'd all be toast.

                                Roak

    <----  8^)

George,	Let's try a different approach, maybe we can cover some new ground.

	Let's say for a moment that I accept your argument that the 2nd
	preserves the RKBA for the purposes of ensuring a militia.

	Now, the Militia Act tells us that all able-bodied (modified by
	the American with Disabilities Act) free (modified by the 13th 
	Amendment no doubt) males (modified by the 19th AND the Civil 
	Rights Act of 1964, amended) between the the ages of 18 and 45
	(modified by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, amended) are members
	of the unorganized militia and are required to report when called
	to service with their personal arms of a type and style in 
	common military use at the time of the call-up.

	The statement that Liberals are anti-Constitution when it comes
	to the 2nd Amendment still proves true, since these very same
	Liberals are the ones that have prohibited the ability for the
	Constitutionally and legislatively constituted members of the
	militia from obtaining the appropriate personal arms as
	required by both the Constitution and the Militia Act.

Jim

RE    <<< Note 21.201 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>George,	This is the same claim you have been making all along. Your argument
>	does not play any better now than it did last week. The semantic 
>	analysis of the 2nd has already shown us that the right is NOT
>	dependent on the existance of a militia. You seem to keep forgetting
>	this.

  I don't buy that semantic analysis. It is not at all clear that the people
who wrote that amendment had the same opinion of how those semantics worked
as your expert.

  In fact I asked a question earlier and I notice that everyone has ducked it.
Take the following line:

  "The cellar being flooded, we must get the water under control".

  Would you take this to be a command to drain the cellar or a command to take
control of the rain and drain the ocean? 

  Using your interpretation of your expert's analysis, this would be a command
to drain the ocean.

  George

RE    <<< Note 21.204 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	Now, the Militia Act tells us ...

  The Militia Act is not part of the Constitution. Acts are laws passed by
Congress and can be overturned by later laws passed by Congress.

  George

                     <<< Note 21.205 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  I don't buy that semantic analysis. It is not at all clear that the people
>who wrote that amendment had the same opinion of how those semantics worked
>as your expert.

	Well come up with an expert to refute it. "Those who wrote the 
	Amendment" used English. The person that provided the analysis
	is an expert in the use of English.

>  "The cellar being flooded, we must get the water under control".

	Your example is not sematically identical to the wording of the 
	2nd Amendment. Re-write your example substituting only the
	words "dry cellars" and "the right to control water". Then tell
	me if the right is dependent on flooded cellars.

Jim

                     <<< Note 21.206 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  The Militia Act is not part of the Constitution. Acts are laws passed by
>Congress and can be overturned by later laws passed by Congress.

	The Militia Act was written 5 years after the adoptiopn of the
	2nd Amendment. It has never been repealed or modified by the
	Congress, nor has it been ruled unconstitutional by the Courts.

Jim

    Re; .187 ... or not.

    .205
    
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

>                     <<< Note 21.192 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>


>  Exactly, they were trying to take away a cache of arms being used by
>a well regulated militia, they were not trying to take hunting rifles out
>of individual houses.

 I can not believe you are this dense or this un-educated. In colonial times
there was no difference between military and sporting arms. People owned
one or two rifles or muskets(some owned their own cannons as well)
muskets used to put meat on the table or plink red-coats no difference.
the people wanted to keep that ability.
therefore they wanted to keep all arms for any purpose.

Amos
who is still waiting for you to indicate that you at least read what I entered
and your one assertion that the Senate report was under a Republican control 
is the most wonderful red-herring I've seen yet. Look at what your hero
the cape-cod island swimmer had to say.

|   Look at what your hero the cape-cod island swimmer had to say.
   
    Listen, you seem to have a problem even being ignorant.  So follow the
    lead of Howard Winston Carr III, joe average, and just call
    him "FATBOY".  OK?  Mighty stupid to call the vinyard a "cape-cod island".
    
    Of course, you could show some independent thought and call him
    "Senator Kennedy".
    
    
    "The Subcommittee on the Constitution" - so called - was made up of
    entirely of the following members:
    
	SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION

	ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman (R)
	STROM THURMOND, South Carolina (R)
	CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa (R)
	DENNIS DeCONCINI, Arizona (D)
	PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont (D)
    
    
    Senator Kennedy was not on the "Subcommittee on the Constitution" -
    so called.
    
    								-mr. bill

    Bang. Your all done.
    
    Ted Kennedy was on the Committee of the Judiciary.  It oversees the
    Committee on the Subcomittee of the Constitution.

|   Better check your facts
    
    Maybe you better check your facts.
    
|   Bang. Your all done.
    
    You have a warped sense of humor.
    
|   Ted Kennedy was on the Committee of the Judiciary.  It oversees the
|   Committee on the Subcomittee of the Constitution.
    
    Wrong.  You really need to understand a little bit more about "Senate
    Reports" and "Senate Subcommittees" and the words "oversight" and
    "autonomy".
    
    								-mr. bill

    If I can't beat you, I can't beat a judge.  and I do.

From "A Nation of Cowards" by Jeffrey R. Snyder
 
In United States v.  Cruikshank (1876), the first case in which the Court had
an opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment, it stated that the right
confirmed by the Second Amendment "is not a right granted by the
constitution.  Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for
its existence."  The repeal of the Second Amendment would no more render the
outlawing of firearms legitimate than the repeal of the due process clause of
the Fifth Amendment would authorize the government to imprison and kill
people at will.  A government that abrogates any of the Bill of Rights, with
or without majoritarian approval, forever acts illegitimately, becomes
tyrannical, and loses the moral right to govern.

    .150:
    
    Well, George, old bean...
    
    I own no guns.
    
    I don't expect to possess any guns in the forseeable future.
    
    As far as "sucking wind" goes, I've concluded that
    	the defenders of the second amendment keep giving you chances to
    	walk away with some small shred of dignity, but you keep refusing.
    
    	Perhaps your family name used to be Hoover, or Kirby?
    
    Dick

    
    This last is nuts.  It is a theory with which I disagree, called
    "natural law".
    
    No, the government cannot "infringe the right of the people to keep
    and bear arms" because the constitution says it can't.  We, the people,
    can change that rule, any time we like.  It is called "amendment".
    
    If we like, we can repeal the freedom of speech.  Or anything else.
    
    There is no power in the USA except the people, no "natural law" they
    must obey.  The dead can impede, but cannot defeat, the living.
    
      bb

    
    
    Hey Andy Fraser????
    
    You sure it wasn't the Meowski twins that were in that bar???????
    

Going to a simpler, common-sense argument (since subtlety seems to be out the
window here):

The right to self defense is a natural right of all creatures, independent of
laws and constitutions.

The right to form a militia is simply an extension of the above right,
without any particular basis in nature.

Given that the right to keep and bear arms "is not a right granted by
the constitution.  Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that
instrument for its existence." (SCOTUS, United States v. Cruikshank 1876),
there can be little doubt as to which of the above the 2nd Amendment is
protecting.

>                      <<< Note 21.220 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>
    
>    This last is nuts.  It is a theory with which I disagree, called
>    "natural law".

Do you accept the Declaration of Independence? It says much the same thing.

    
    Yes, I understand that the theory says defense is a natural right
    of all creatures, so not even the people can take it away, even by
    adding :
    
    Amendment XXX.  The power to control all arms shall reside only in the
    Congress of the United States.
    
    Natural Law theorists would say you can't do this. I disagree.  The
    people have the power to strip you of your natural rights.  It takes
    2/3 of both houses of Congress, three quarters of the states, and the
    backing of the US military and all their weapons of war.
    
      bb

    
    Rights cannot be changed by enacting a law.  Only by constitutional
    provision.  It means "nature" has changed.
    
      bb

>                      <<< Note 21.224 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>
    
>    Amendment XXX.  The power to control all arms shall reside only in the
>    Congress of the United States.

>    Natural Law theorists would say you can't do this. I disagree.

Yep, it's just a semantic argument, though. The gov't could indeed pass such
a law. The people could even back it up. You would STILL have the right to
self-defense. To say you did not would be to say that your right to life
itself was null and void (which BTW, is the power behind the right to
self-defense and the 2nd Amendment).

You have to differentiate between the right itself and immoral encroachment
on the right.

"Gun Control Means Using Both Hands"

                      <<< Note 21.226 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>

    
>    Rights cannot be changed by enacting a law.  Only by constitutional
>    provision.  It means "nature" has changed.
 
	The difference between what is "legal" and what is "right"
	should be recognized.

	It is possible, theoretically, to repeal the 2nd Amendment. It
	is NOT possible to make that "right", you can only make it
	legal.

	Over the centuries many governments have made "legal" decisions
	concerning their citizens and their "legal" rights. Over those
	same centuries the citizens have taken actions against those
	governments.

	The most eloquent explaination of this kind of action begins
	with the words "When in the course of human events....". The
	British government of the late 18th Century was well within
	its "legal" rights, but it violated most every convention
	of the Colonists "natural" (or inalienable if you like) 
	rights. At that point the Colonists "illegally" sought to 
	dissolve "the political ties that bind one people to another".
	They did this through the use of force. Technically, they
	were traitors, but since they eventually won we don't use
	that term for them. The same can be said concerning the Barons
	that forced King John to sign the Magna Carta.

Jim

>                      <<< Note 21.224 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>
>                    -< No, I understand you - do you, me ? >-

    
>    Natural Law theorists would say you can't do this. I disagree.  The
>    people have the power to strip you of your natural rights.  It takes
    
The people have the right to try. they will find it to not be easy.
There are those of us(we're the ones the libs fear) that are perfectly
willing to die for our rights.
The question is "are you willing to die to take them away?"
                      ^
                    generic libs/gov't etal

dictators and fascists come and go there will always be people to oppose them.

    I read all of George's notes backwards.
    
    They say exactly the same thing as when read forwards...

Re .231
    
>             -< or will you hide behind your hired thugs(police) >-
    
    No, I will be one. Having got fed up with DEC already, I dropped off my
    app. for the State Police this week. Glad to no what your opinion of loyal
    troopers is, though.
    
    
>The people have the right to try. they will find it to not be easy.
>There are those of us(we're the ones the libs fear) that are perfectly
>willing to die for our rights.
>The question is "are you willing to die to take them away?"
                      ^
>                    generic libs/gov't etal
	
 	Yes, if that's a law that's passed I guess would be my dut to
    uphold that law, Just like it's your duty to live by it.  
    
							S.R.

Re: <<< Note 21.233 by DNEAST::RICKER_STEVE >>>
	
>> 	Yes, if that's a law that's passed I guess would be my dut to
>>    uphold that law, Just like it's your duty to live by it.

If the law is unconstitutional, will you still uphold it?  If hired you will
take an oath to uphold the Constitution; what will you do when your orders and
the Constitution conflict?

                           Roak

                   <<< Note 21.233 by DNEAST::RICKER_STEVE >>>

> 	Yes, if that's a law that's passed I guess would be my dut to
>    uphold that law, Just like it's your duty to live by it.  
 
	A free human being has no duty to stand idly by while the government,
	or anyone else for that matter, tries to strip basic rights from
	him/her.

	They have not only the authority, but the duty, to resist such action
	by any and all means neccessary.

	Much good has come to our world from those that resisted government
	tryanny. Much evil has come to it from those who did not.

Jim

    re -1
    
    	Well, from the line of discussion in previuous replies, I had
    thought we were talking about a constitional amendment, so that would
    obviously be constitional. If not, well, unfortunately as a police
    officer, my jop would be to enforce laws, not interpret them. If they
    passed a law I didn't agree with, I would still have to enforce it. It
    would be up to a judge to rule it unconstitutional. (After which I
    would probalbly get my butt sued off) If they passed a law that I
    simply could not enforce, say shoot all redheads on sight, I guess I
    would have to resign. I will admitt most of my previous note was
    based on testosterone  prompted chest beating. I was reacting to the
    to the suggestion that people that support Gun control wopuldn't be
    willing to die for thier convictions. I don't want to, but if it came
    to that some how, well what do they say, Cowards die a thousand deaths
    but the brave must die only once. 
    
    	BTW, I do beleive that gun control laws are unconstitional but I
    support gun control. To do it legally, It would have to be an amendment
    (IMOH)
    
    
    								S.R

                   <<< Note 21.236 by DNEAST::RICKER_STEVE >>>

>If not, well, unfortunately as a police
>    officer, my jop would be to enforce laws, not interpret them. If they
>    passed a law I didn't agree with, I would still have to enforce it.

	This sounds amazingly like "I vill chust follow orders". I'm not sure
	that you are suited to be a police officer. I AM sure that the police
	commanders will think that you are.

>If they passed a law that I
>    simply could not enforce, say shoot all redheads on sight, I guess I
>    would have to resign.

	But the true test of your charachter will come when one of your former
	colleagues attempts to carry out the law. Will you stop him?

>I was reacting to the
>    to the suggestion that people that support Gun control wopuldn't be
>    willing to die for thier convictions. I don't want to, but if it came
>    to that some how, well what do they say, Cowards die a thousand deaths
>    but the brave must die only once. 
 
	All I can say to that is train hard, and bring lots of friends.

>    	BTW, I do beleive that gun control laws are unconstitional but I
>    support gun control.


	Since this IS the gun control note, I'd like to ask you to
	elaborate on your support for such laws.
 
Jim

    	re -1
    
    	I will, but tomorrow, I'm got to log off now. Just letting you know
    that I,m not ignoring you.
    
    
    							S.R.

Re: <<< Note 21.236 by DNEAST::RICKER_STEVE >>>

>>               If not [constitutional], well, unfortunately as a police
>>    officer, my jop would be to enforce laws, not interpret them. If they
>>    passed a law I didn't agree with, I would still have to enforce it.

Sounds like you're struck from the same die as the people that handled the
shower doors about 50 years ago...

                          Roak

        reply to note 21.237   SEAPIG::PERCIVAL 

        Couldn't wait 'til tomorrow. My wife will beat me, but, heck, what are
	wives for. She knows I'll enjoy it anyway. 8*)

>>If not, well, unfortunately as a police
>>    officer, my job would be to enforce laws, not interpret them. If they
>>    passed a law I didn't agree with, I would still have to enforce it.

>	This sounds amazingly like "I vill chust follow orders". I'm not sure
>	that you are suited to be a police officer. I AM sure that the police
>	commanders will think that you are.

	I'm not sure you would want a police officer to pick and choose the laws
 	that he decides to enforce. What if I am a pro-life advocate, should I 
	choose not to arrest him. Maine lowered it's DUI limit to .08. If I
	feel that is to low, should I let those drivers go. The laws are passed
	by congress or the people, the judges interpret them and the police 
	enforce them. If you don't want them enforced, don't make the law. If 
	you don't like the lawmakers, vote them out. If you ended up in a
	situation where the majority of the public votes in a law that you 
	don't agree with doesn't mean it's a natural right and you can expect 
	the Police to all abandon thier duty because you don't like it. 


>>If they passed a law that I
>>    simply could not enforce, say shoot all redheads on sight, I guess I
>>    would have to resign.

	But the true test of your charachter will come when one of your former
	colleagues attempts to carry out the law. Will you stop him?
	
        Depends on the law I guess. I suppose if the government were to start 
	overturning elections or canceling them or some such actions where they
	could really be said not to reflect the will of the people anylonger, I 
	would have to side with those that were resisting them. I do not call
	Passing am amendment through 3/4 of the states to be twarting the will
	of the people however. I also suppose that if some law were passed that
	I could truly not live with myself for enforcing. Say all Gay men are
	to be rounded up and detained, or something else truly harmful to a
	group, I probably would feel obligated to do something. (I know many
	would make the argument that gun laws are truly harmful, but I don't
	feel that way)

>>I was reacting to the
>>    to the suggestion that people that support Gun control wopuldn't be
>>    willing to die for thier convictions. I don't want to, but if it came
>>    to that some how, well what do they say, Cowards die a thousand deaths
>>    but the brave must die only once. 
 
>	All I can say to that is train hard, and bring lots of friends.

	Well, if we want to get truly macho, I'm 6' 3" 227 lbs. Been studing
	Martial arts since I was 13. (Judo, followed by Tai-Kwon Do followed
	by Wing-Chun) 6 years in the service and a fondness for knives, spikes 
	and other sharp pointy things. (Hard to get in close when your being
	shot at, but helps in a pinch) Spent 9 months on Anti-drug ops based
	out of Panama

        But the nice thing about the Police is they can bring lots of friends.
	They operate on the same principle as the Service, there's no such 
        thing as a fair fight. Outnumber the B*st*rds and blow them away.
	We were paid to take risks, but not any more than we had to.      

        Whew, let me turn down my hormone level a bit. I'm really a nice guy
									:^)

>>    	BTW, I do beleive that gun control laws are unconstitional but I
>>    support gun control.


>	Since this IS the gun control note, I'd like to ask you to
>	elaborate on your support for such laws.
 
> Jim

	Fair enough. 

	I'm not into big time control or anything, I just favor some laws that
	provide some sensible regulation. Perhaps a limit on the number of guns
	You can buy a month. Like one. This way if you want to amass an arsenal
	you can do it (rather slowly but it can be done) This would put a
	damper on people that buy masses of guns in virgia, say, and smuggle
	them into New York. (this happens a lot) All you law abiding folk out
	there that want a gun to protect your selfs can still get one, 12 even 
	by years end. That ought to be enough to protect your self. I know that
	many pro-gunners would have a fit because that would require
	registration, which they say is the first step towards confiscation,
	but I guess, I'm just willing to take that chance. If your not, that's
	where we differ and we each have one vote at the ballot. I also favor
	the assualt type weapons Ban. If you want to collect them, fine, I have 
	no problem with collectors lisenses. I know there are more powerful 
	weapons out there than the ones banned, but the banned weapons are 
	a favorite choice of gangs and drug cartel's because of their macho
	look and reputation. By outlawing them, if you do nothing else, you
	at least provide another charge against them. It's hard enough to 
	make Charges stick these days. It would help it the police could just 
	use a simple possesion charge. Did he ahve the weapon or not? He did,
	well lock him up. They same usefulness would apply to laws against 
	unregistered handguns. I know that the NRA says that criminals won't
	register handguns, but that's the point. They can be arrested before
	they use it if it's not registered.


							Steve R.
    

    Note 21.234 by PEAKS::OAKEY 
    
    A cop is a state agent.  Accountable to the state, if I'm
    not mistaken. The oath is to uphold whatever jurisdiction of law
    his employer is operating under.  Maybe a boxer police officer can clarify 
    this. Therefore, if you break state statute, they are obligated to arrest
    you.  You've broken a law the state has enacted, and the officer
    must take you in.  
    
    NOW, does the law apply to you.  If you are "in the system", it does and
    yer gonna get screwed.  If not, this is what a judge is for.  The cop
    doesn't want to discuss this stuff with me, he may in
    fact bash my head in for being a "smartarse".  A judge will/should see
    what's going on relatively quickly and quietly dismiss the issue.
    You also can start initiating legal recourse which should facilitate
    whoever it is that is trying to screw you and convince them into leaving 
    you alone.  Everyone gets their day in court.  Right?  
    
    Federal employees (like the prez, et al) take an oath to uphold the
    Constitution.  Most (state) statute law is in conflict with the 
    Constitution, or, you have granted jurisdiction to be tried under it
    (statute).  (enter a plea in court for example, "not guilty", bang now you 
    play by their rules and must impress a jury.)
    
    For something to be ruled unconstitutional, it must play out.  Now,
    do YOU want to be a poster-child for finding the "Crime Control Act"
    unconstitutional.  Do you want to sacrifice your family to prove this
    crap is unlawful.  Some things can be pushed.  Some should not.
    
    Statute law actually plays out under Admiralty law.  Jurisdiction.  And
    besides, there are no rules for Statute Jurisdiction.  It doesn't
    exist.  
    
    (try not to) Get a ticket.
    It says right on it you've violated some rule/contract in the Uniform
    Commercial Code.  Since when did I become a business?  It is a contract
    I am ignorant of. Forcing me to play your game  allows me to charge
    a couple  folks with subornation of perjury.  A federal crime.
    They probably know it.  You walk.
    
    The object of this whole deal is to act responsibly.  I am not saying
    it's ok to screw around and be stupid.  

MadMike
******************************************************************************
MadMike Maciolek, Dawsonville Georgia USA       M_MACIOLEK@VMSNET.ENET.DEC.COM
for educational purposes only.  Only a goverment sanctioned monopoly may
    "legally" practice law.
******************************************************************************
    

                   <<< Note 21.240 by DNEAST::RICKER_STEVE >>>

>        Depends on the law I guess. 

	You provided the example. A law states that the police are to
	shoot redheads on sight. What would you do?

>	Well, if we want to get truly macho, I'm 6' 3" 227 lbs.

	Well I've got you beat by an inch, but you got 7 pounds on me.

	;-)

	And you are right. Hand to hand is of little use in a gunfight.

	
>        But the nice thing about the Police is they can bring lots of friends.
>	They operate on the same principle as the Service, there's no such 
>        thing as a fair fight. Outnumber the B*st*rds and blow them away.
>	We were paid to take risks, but not any more than we had to.      

	I know, I watched the news footage from Waco.

>Perhaps a limit on the number of guns
>	You can buy a month. Like one.
>This would put a
>	damper on people that buy masses of guns in virgia, say, and smuggle
>	them into New York. (this happens a lot) 

	First define a "a lot". Then tell me why you need a law to control
	an ALREADY illegal activity.

>	many pro-gunners would have a fit because that would require
>	registration, which they say is the first step towards confiscation,
>	but I guess, I'm just willing to take that chance. 

	It is NOT just a "chance". It HAS happened.

>I also favor
>	the assualt type weapons Ban. If you want to collect them, fine, I have 
>	no problem with collectors lisenses. I know there are more powerful 
>	weapons out there than the ones banned, but the banned weapons are 
>	a favorite choice of gangs and drug cartel's because of their macho
>	look and reputation.

	You've been getting your information from a poor source. Look to
	the FBI/DOJ UCRs and the BATF reports. They tell us quite clearly
	that so called AWs are used in a very small percentage of crimes.

> By outlawing them, if you do nothing else, you
>	at least provide another charge against them. It's hard enough to 
>	make Charges stick these days. It would help it the police could just 
>	use a simple possesion charge. Did he ahve the weapon or not? He did,
>	well lock him up. They same usefulness would apply to laws against 
>	unregistered handguns. I know that the NRA says that criminals won't
>	register handguns, but that's the point. They can be arrested before
>	they use it if it's not registered.

	You need a dose of reality. THe gun charges are the FIRST ones
	that get dropped in the plea bargaining process. Less than 10%
	of the criminals arrested in Mass on Bartely Fox violations ever
	go to jail for the mandatory 1 year. The same thing happens at
	the Federal level with all the NRA sposnsored mandatory sentencing.

	You have been getting your information from Sarah and her Bunch.
	Do a little independent research and get the facts. THat's what
	I did and it made me change MY mind about gun control.

Jim

>                   <<< Note 21.240 by DNEAST::RICKER_STEVE >>>
>	I also favor
>	the assualt type weapons Ban. If you want to collect them, fine, I have 
>	no problem with collectors lisenses. I know there are more powerful 
>	weapons out there than the ones banned, but the banned weapons are 
>	a favorite choice of gangs and drug cartel's because of their macho
>	look and reputation.

Military look-alike semi-automatics are used in 3% or less of gun crimes, and
account for about 1.5% of guns seized by police.

"Favorite choice"?

	Obviously the man is getting his info from his local paper
rather than from an unbiased news source. Must be a TIME subscriber...


jim

        <<< Note 21.244 by SUBPAC::SADIN "generic, PC personal name." >>>


>	Obviously the man is getting his info from his local paper
> rather than from an unbiased news source. Must be a TIME subscriber...

I'm curious. What is your unbiased news source?

Re: <<< Note 21.245 by USMVS::DAVIS >>>

>>>	Obviously the man is getting his info from his local paper
>>> rather than from an unbiased news source. Must be a TIME subscriber...

>>I'm curious. What is your unbiased news source?

Probably the FBI stats rather then the emotional rhetoric that the media
spews...

                       Roak

    	Well, for all you that feel that the mainstream media is not
    trustworthy, I will actually go out and get some stat's from the FBI. I
    will admitt I haven't looked at there facts straight form them. How
    exactly do I go about it? Can I just call a local office and ask for
    the info? Do they have a "standerd package" or should I ask for
    specific stats? If so, which ones?
    
    	MadMike,
        
        I'm not sure I understand your note. Are you saying that the States
    have no leagal Juristiction? Kind of depressing to think I may become a
    cop with nothing to do. Could you elaborate on Your statement that most
    state laws are in conflict with the constitution some? I'm not a
    constitutional laywer so I really don't know enough on that point to
    argue with you if I was so inclined.
    
    
    Reply to  Note 21.242   SEAPIG::PERCIVAL 
               
>>        Depends on the law I guess. 

  >	You provided the example. A law states that the police are to
  >	shoot redheads on sight. What would you do?

         I already answered that.
    
    
>>	Well, if we want to get truly macho, I'm 6' 3" 227 lbs.

 >	Well I've got you beat by an inch, but you got 7 pounds on me.
    	
    
         That'll teach me to mouth off, before I see who I'm mouthing off
    	 to.
    
	
>>        But the nice thing about the Police is they can bring lots of friends.
>>	They operate on the same principle as the Service, there's no such 
>>        thing as a fair fight. Outnumber the B*st*rds and blow them away.
>>	We were paid to take risks, but not any more than we had to.      

> 	I know, I watched the news footage from Waco.

     	You think they should give crimnals the chance to "fight fair". My
    	Goal in the service was always to finish my job AND to get home for
    	beer. I would assume most cops are the same.
    
>>Perhaps a limit on the number of guns
>>	You can buy a month. Like one.
>>This would put a
>>	damper on people that buy masses of guns in virgia, say, and smuggle
>>	them into New York. (this happens a lot) 

>	First define a "a lot". Then tell me why you need a law to control
>	an ALREADY illegal activity.

        It was (I think thet changed the laws recently) very easy to get
        guns in Virginia. It was (or still is) a commmon practice to buy
        large amounts of weapons there and transport them to New York, Where
        the Laws are much stricter. Buy only allowing a person to purchase
     	gun a month, that would take the financial incentive out of this
    	Deal. Enforcement of smuggling between states in chancey at best
    	and far more expensive. That's why an additional law would be
    	helpful to curb this. Merely making it illegal doesn't mean people
    	won't do it. This will make it more difficult by drying up the
    	source. Now please tell me what real dificulty you would experiance
    	from being able to only buy one gun a month. (working from the
    	assumption that this is a constitional amendment that allows for
    	this)
             
>	You need a dose of reality. THe gun charges are the FIRST ones
>	that get dropped in the plea bargaining process. Less than 10%
>	of the criminals arrested in Mass on Bartely Fox violations ever
>	go to jail for the mandatory 1 year. The same thing happens at
>	the Federal level with all the NRA sposnsored mandatory sentencing.

  	Then pehaps it's your judicial process that needs reworking. Why
    	Drop the Gun charges weh the would be the easiest to prove. And
    	even if they are dropped, they still give the DA something else to 
    	work with, even if it's only a bargaining chip.
    
    	My initial statement still stands, that a cop doesn't have any
   	buisness judgeing the laws. It is his job to enforce them and the 
    	Judiciarys to interpret them. (Mad mike is right, the cops don't
    	want to hear it, but I wouldn't bash anyones head in) But You guys 
    	are right that this is a Gun control note, not a Police note, so
    	maybe I will open a police issues base note.
    	

>                       <<< Note 21.245 by USMVS::DAVIS >>>

>>	Obviously the man is getting his info from his local paper
>> rather than from an unbiased news source. Must be a TIME subscriber...

>I'm curious. What is your unbiased news source?
    
    	There are none. I research anything through the source before I
    take the newspapers word on it. Newspapers and magazines like Time have
    no more meaning to me than something like the national inquirer or
    Sun. If an issue is important to me, I'll get the facts myself. With
    access to WWW, gopher, ftp, etc, most of the facts are just seconds
    away....
    
    
    jim
    

re: Note 21.247 by DNEAST::RICKER_STEVE
        
>        I'm not sure I understand your note. Are you saying that the States
>    have no leagal Juristiction? Kind of depressing to think I may become a
>    cop with nothing to do. Could you elaborate on Your statement that most
>    state laws are in conflict with the constitution some? I'm not a
>    constitutional laywer so I really don't know enough on that point to
>    argue with you if I was so inclined.

States have jurisdiction, if you've granted it.  99% (just a guess) of
people within a state grant jurisdiction unknowingly (coerced).  
The "state" and it's big huge statute law books are invented by state
legislatures.  IMO, and I'm pretty sure I'm right, there is a fine line
being walked by this state law because not only do their laws pertain to
corparate entities, but to individuals as well.  But not all laws may be
applicable to individuals.  An example of this would be Murder.  It's a state
charge and valid, because even under common law, there is a victim. 
On the other hand, most "traffic" stuff is garbage and can be challenged.
Jaywalking:  Where's the victim?  There isn't one.  If you get run over,
that's your own GD fault and then mr. policeman goes to the scene and
picks up the mess.  The Federal Constitution protects INDIVIDUALS, not
corporations.  States lump individuals under there statute, which almost
always is in violation of the Constitution which you are supposedly protected 
by.  Individuals abide by Common Law...  you see.  States routinely enact
legislation which dictates how you shall maintain your house, and
what to do with your private property.  A local police chief can, and in
many places does determine if you can excersise your 2nd Amendment right.
They rule on banners and signs at private homes (1st Amendment).  I could
go on....  it is usurpation of rights.  The average joe doesn't have
the resources to challenge this stuff legally.  So, you get a lawyer,
and THAT lawyer is bound to whatever jurisdiction (play by thier rules) 
for the court you're in.  Most likely Superior Court (Admiralty law)
Kinda like trying to swim with a anvil tied around your ankle.
Most judges will pick up on that fact and say "Son, you better get yerself
a lawyer".  My reply: "Your honor,  I intentionally don't have a lawyer."  ;^)
(sound of warning bells going off in judges head)

As a police officer you'd have plenty to do.  Go find murderers, rapists,
assist people who are stuck on the side of the road.  Answer calls where
people need help for some reason or another.  The presence of the police
is often a deterent to crime.  There's plenty to do.  Yet you see an
increase in DUI roadblocks (bye-bye Amendment 4) and speed traps.
This stuff is selective, arbitrary, a form of prior restraint even.
States ASSUME all travellers are doing so under the UCC and therefore
have jurisdiction.

Getting back to jurisdiction, obtaining, and using a drivers license means
you've ackowledged you can be tried under their rules.  If you see me go
by you doing 70, you're obligated to go grab me and arrest me.  You don't
know who I am, you probably don't care either.  That's why we have judges.

I maintain a license so I can rent cars, and so I can race my cars.  These
are requirments of those places I choose to do business with (engage in
commerce under the UCC) so I need to be licensed.  To travel upon the
public roadway is not a privilege but a right, which has case law upholding
that finding, and thereby no license is required.  Oh, if I slam into
someone accidentally, you can bet yer arse I'll be licensed.  The penalty
for hurting someone under statute law is generally a lot lower.  This
is where MADD (don't have time to address that topic yet) should be
focusing.  I want drunk drivers who injure/maim/kill people strung up,
not given a slap on the wrist.  This is where we fail.  The "penalty" for
DUI ALONG WITH AN ACCIDENT is not seen as a deterant.  Roadblocks and
bagging people for being .XX or whatever is unlawful BS.

Why is this?  Think of all the wonderful FEES/FINES/LICENSES/ORDINANCES
individuals now get to enjoy under state rules.  

Confused yet, more now? 

                   <<< Note 21.247 by DNEAST::RICKER_STEVE >>>

>How
>    exactly do I go about it? Can I just call a local office and ask for
>    the info? Do they have a "standerd package" or should I ask for
>    specific stats? If so, which ones?
 
	It takes some work. Best bet for a first effort is to study the
	FBO/DOJ Uniform Crime Reports. Your local library may have copies.

>         That'll teach me to mouth off, before I see who I'm mouthing off
>    	 to.
 
	;-)   
	
>     	You think they should give crimnals the chance to "fight fair". My
>    	Goal in the service was always to finish my job AND to get home for
>    	beer. I would assume most cops are the same.
 
	No I don't. But it's a good idea to make sure that you are dealing
	with criminals before bringing out the artillery. A little background.
 	I WAS a cop. Small town in Ohio. Rode alone. Worked 11 PM to 7 AM shift.

>        It was (I think thet changed the laws recently) very easy to get
>        guns in Virginia. It was (or still is) a commmon practice to buy
>        large amounts of weapons there and transport them to New York, 

	Data, Data, who's got the data. Not what you heard from Sarah.
	REAL numbers.

	You want to make it harder. I'll ask the same question that I asked
	out Canadian brethren. How hard is it to score some coke in NYC?

>Merely making it illegal doesn't mean people
>    	won't do it. 

	No ##$%^& Sherlock.

>This will make it more difficult by drying up the
>    	source.

	I have some prime Florida bottom land for sale. Interested?

>  	Then pehaps it's your judicial process that needs reworking. 

	Yours too if you live in the US. Maine is still part of the Union
	isn't it?

>Why
>    	Drop the Gun charges weh the would be the easiest to prove.

	Easy. Since gun charges now bring mandatory setences, the DA
	can use them as leverage to get the bad guys to cop a plea.

	Give you a great example. Patrick Purdy went on a rampage with
	an AKS semi-auto rifle in a Stockton schoolyard a few years
	ago. This was the incident that started us down this "Ban AWs"
	path. Mr. Purdy haad been arressted on felony charges at least
	7 times prior to the incident. TWO of those arrests were for
	gun law violations. ALL were pleaded to misdemeanors. He spent
	a TOTAL of 81 days in the county lockup. Convince me that we
	need more gun laws when we don't enforce the ones we have.

Jim

    As everybody here knows, I am a staunch supporter of gun control...you
    should always have control of a gun.
    
    I know a few police, and I suspect that Steve Ricker will get a quick
    education - within his first few arrests.  The likelyhood is that
    everyone he arrested will walk away, and possibly spend less time than
    the cop as a result of the arrest.  The cop has to do the paperwork as
    the crook rides off into the sunset laughing.
    
    One story sticks in my mind, my next door neighbor's first arrest. 
    First, he prefaced the story by saying that out of the academy, the
    rookie cop knows every stinking statute backwards and forwards with
    regard to felony actions.  His first big call was a woman on a 911 call
    who said her husband was holding three burglars at bay with a shotgun
    (nobody got hurt in this, BTW).
    
    The guy owns a store, and lives in the back.  There is chain link
    around the property in back, and concertina on top.  The cops show up,
    and there's a pile of goods on either side of the fence, one guy
    outside, one guy inside, and one guy hung up on top of the fence
    passing the stuff over the fence.  A door to the store is smashed, and
    the store owner is standing there in a bathrobe with a shotgun.  He is
    in a "make my day" kind of mood, so the crooks were sort of not making
    any sudden movements.
    
    Now my friend the cop tells me exactly what was happening there,
    law-wise.  Five years for each of the perps.  So, he shows up in court,
    and the judge changes the charges to:
    
    	The guy inside:		Trespassing	No fine
    	The guy on the fence:	Vandalism	$50 fine
    	The guy outside:	Loitering	No fine
    
    Note that this was NOT a plea bargain.  Basically the judge said, "Hey,
    you caught the guys, nothing was stolen.  No harm, no foul..."
    
    My buddy the cop was screaming mad, and was given a day off to cool
    down.  The store owner said he was gonna shoot them the next time, and
    my friend the cop said he told him how to do it and stay out of
    trouble.
    
    So, all of this pontificating about "upholding the law" and "having
    more charges to bring" is basically a flap of the lips.  In the real
    world the judge and the prosecutor determine what somebody is going to
    be charged with, if anything.  The crime has nothing to do with it.
    
    For what it is worth, I also know of rape, assault with a deadly
    weapon, battery, robbery and burglaries where the judge dismissed the
    case for clerical reasons (he was busy that day).  In the case of the
    rape, the arresting officer called the victim and offered to kill the
    perpetrator for her, by way of apologizing for the system.
    
    If you guys think our court system works, you've been watching too much
    teevee.  Go down to the courthouse.  It will make you want to puke.
    
    So much for my cheery message of the day.  Mr. Ricker, I hope you can
    make a difference.  I wouldn't want the job...
    
    Later,
    	   Mike

    
 Re. 247
    
>     	You think they should give crimnals the chance to "fight fair". My
>    	Goal in the service was always to finish my job AND to get home for
>    	beer. I would assume most cops are the same.
    
    
    	You're exactly correct. I attended an class while I was an EMT. The
    class was about surviving the streets. They sold a t-shirt that read:
    
    		They don't pay me to fight fair, only to win
    
    ed

	Mike's note hit the nail square. The system is busted. I truly hope Mr.
Ricker can make a difference out there, but I doubt it. No matter how many times
you bust 'em, they're going to keep coming back. Heck, most murderers only serve
an average of 7years....


jim

    	On the Gun part of this issue, The FBI just released a study (as
    reported by CNN Saturday) that traced the origin of 9600 + guns used in
    the commision of a crime. They listed the top ten states of origin.
    Georgia was number one, replacing Virginia who was the previous number
    one and had been for several years. In 1993 Virginia enacted
    legislation that only allows an individual to purchase one gun a month.
    Virginia did not even make the top ten list this year. Is this
    coincidence or is that law actually having an inpact?? Also, no one
    answered my previuous question as to what harm such a law would cause
    legitamate gun owners?
    
    	BTW Haven't visited library yet to try to look up Gun stats. Finals
    week this week, so I have been to busy, but I will get to it.
    
    
    								S. R. 

    re: .254
    
    >Also, no one answered my previuous question as to what harm such a law
    >would cause legitamate gun owners?
    
    Is there anything in the U.S. that you can buy only 'x' unit(s) per
    day/week/month/year?
    
    Bob
    

    	Re .255
    
    	Yes, 0 amount of bombs grenades. I believe you need a special
    liscense for dynamite. Prescription drugs. 
    
    	Lots of things which can be dangerous if missused.
    
    	And that still doesn't answer my question as to what real harm it
    would do a LEGITAMATE GUN OWNER.(other than hurt their feelings)
    
    
    								S.R.

                   <<< Note 21.256 by DNEAST::RICKER_STEVE >>>

>    	And that still doesn't answer my question as to what real harm it
>    would do a LEGITAMATE GUN OWNER.(other than hurt their feelings)
 

	I guess it depends on what is meant by "real" harm. Let's say I 
	go to a gunshow and I see 2 (or more) pistols for sale at a 
	REALLY good price. I want them both. You get your law and I
	can only buy one. The next month I go to the show and the one
	I didn't buy is either not for sale, or the price has gone up.

	That's "harm" in my book.

	There are a;ready regulations on the books that make "strawman"
	purchases illegal. There are already regulations that require
	gun dealers to report multiple purchases to the ATF.

	As a prospective police officer I'm suprised that you are not
	calling for the enforcement of laws that are already on the
	books, rather than calling for even more laws that will be 
	ignored. Your propsal places the enforcement burden on the
	law-abiding civilians. Not on law enforcement personnel where
	it belongs.

Jim
   

    re: Note 21.254 by DNEAST::RICKER_STEVE
    
    > The FBI just released a study (as reported by CNN Saturday) that
    >traced the origin of 9600 + guns used in the commision of a crime. 
    > They listed the top ten states of origin. Georgia was number one, 
    >replacing Virginia
    
    Nice.  Dekalb County Georgia has a 14 day waiting period.  Fulton
    County has little warning labels on all new guns being sold saying
    how they are evil killing machines.  It is against the law (everywhere)
    to purchase a gun for someone else, no matter how many guns you buy.
    
    Of course, the CNN story doesn't have an agenda...

HARM?? ONE-A-MONTH?

 I have two _PAIRS_ of Derringers both contain consecutively numbered
single-shot pistols (Colt #4's to be exact) I am looking to sell them,
the buyer must wait 31 days to "show off" his matched set?
Or I am going to demand the full price for the set before I break them up
so the buyer has paid his money and must "trust" me to deliver the second 
pistol?

And all this bother for pistols that shoot _ONE_ .22short each. 
One shot per month!!!

does that mean you should wait 6 months to buy a 6-shot revolver?

GUN-RUNNING is already a crime. IT'S THE CRIMINAL STUPID!

Amos

In article <D0BF15.6o@world.std.com>, zarlenga@world.std.com (michael zarlenga) writes:
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: zarlenga@world.std.com (michael zarlenga)
Subject: Schumer "dares" conservatives
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 02:03:04 GMT
Lines: 20

WASHINGTON - A congressman who led efforts to pass new gun-control 
laws this year dared conservatives to try to repeal or weaken them
during the Republican-led 104th Congress.

Rep. Charles Schumer, D-NY, took the offensive yesterday by announcing
plans to file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission accusing
gun manufacturers of deceiving the public in advertising directed at
women.

He said ads that have appeared in both gun and general-interest maga-
zines seek to frighten women into believing that they can increase
their safety by buying a handgun.

The National Rifle Association denounced Schumer's comments yesterday,
urging women to "ignore scare tactics."
-- 
---
mike zarlenga

For PGP public key : finger zarlenga@world.std.com

-- 

>>>From: zarlenga@world.std.com (michael zarlenga)
    
    well mz. debra, i wouldn't say i exactly miss him. perhaps his antics. 

From:	US4RMC::"ma-firearms@world.std.com" "MAIL-11 Daemon" 16-DEC-1994 10:17:31.34
To:	"Mass. Firearms List" <ma-firearms@world.std.com>
CC:	
Subj:	Middlesex News declares war

I made the mistake of reading my Middlesex News before going to bed last
night.  Bad move.  I got so pissed I couldn't get any sleep.

These lying bastards need answering in spades.  A good, column-length rebuttal.
Unfortunately, I just had a letter published there two days ago, so I'm pretty
sure sending in another piece under my signature would be a waste of time.

Do any of you want to address the insults, distortions, and outright lies
contained in the article below?  I bet we could get GOAL to demand equal 
space for a rebuttal, not just three inches on the letters page.  I'm 
willing to offer some writing, editing, and/or research assistance.

* * *

For What It's Worth -- by Paul McNamara

A gun under every tree?

As any high school student knows - or should know - the Second 
Amendment protects every American's right "to keep and bear 
arms."

Right?

Not on your life, says Sarah Brady and fellow crusaders for gun 
control at the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence in Washington. 
The widely held belief that the Second Amendment provides 
constitutional cover for private gun ownership is nothing but 
propaganda promulgated and perpetuated by the National Rifle 
Association and the firearms industry, she says.

The gun nuts froth at the mouth any time anyone points this out, but 
that doesn't make it any less true.

"We think it's time to begin to dispel that myth," Brady said in an 
interview Tuesday. "Basically, what we're trying to do is educate 
people so they'll know the truth."

They also want heightened public awareness to discourage weak-
kneed politicians from hiding behind nonexistent Second 
Amendment concerns when voting on firearms legislation.

Toward these admirable ends, the center's Legal Action Project has 
begun airing TV commercials this week in selected cities, including 
Boston, that feature Brady and Warren Burger, former chief justice of 
the United States Supreme Court. Burger calls the gun lobby's 
misrepresentation of the Second Amendment a "fraud on the 
American public."

Haggling over what the Second Amendment means has long been an 
integral part of the gun control debate. What's new here is the 
organized, high-profile effort on the part of Brady's group to counter 
the NRA's historical distortions. Her center has published a nifty 12-
page booklet called "The Second Amendment: Myth & Meaning," that 
gives a compelling overview of their case.

"What we're trying to convey is that we do have a way of resolving 
constitutional arguments in this country and that is by going to 
court," said Dennis Henigan, director of the Legal Action Project. In 
that forum - the only one that really counts - the gun owners have 
failed miserably. In fact, the nation's courts have universally refused 
to accept the contention that gun laws infringe upon Second 
Amendment rights of private citizens.

Here, in its entirety, is the Second Amendment: "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."

It's those pesky 13 words at the beginning that have caused the gun 
lovers so much trouble in court. Judges you see, believe the framers 
of the Constitution wrote what they meant and meant what they wrote 
relative to well-regulated militia.

Here's what the Supreme Court said in its landmark U.S. v. Miller 
decision (1939): The "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment is 
"to assure the conticontinuation[sic] and render possible the 
effectiveness" of state militia forces. "It must be interpreted and 
applied with that end in view."

More recently, this from a 1992 8th Circuit Court case, U.S. v. Hale: 
"The purpose of the Second Amendment is to restrain the federal 
government from regulating the possession of arms where such 
regulation would interfere with the preservation or efficiency of the 
militia. "

Now, the NRA response to that ruling would be to ignore the last 12 
words. They'd also argue that the framers meant "well-armed 
individuals" when they wrote "well regulated militia," but that ploy, 
too, has failed in court.

In fact, in the wake of Miller, 30 lower court cases have addressed 
Second Amendment protection for private gun ownership, and, 
according to the Brady people, "In every case the courts have 
decided that the amendment guarantees a right to be armed only in 
connection with service in a 'well regulated militia.'" That means the 
National Guard today.

The NRA and its lackey scholars are entitled to believe that all of 
these court decisions have been rendered in error, just as abortion 
foes believe Roe v. Wade was a mistake. But opinions don't change 
case law. "The shear[sic] unanimity of the conclusions is what's 
striking here," Henigan said.

Here's how you can tell that even the NRA understands this, even if 
they pretend otherwise: "They didn't even challenge (the Brady Bill) 
on the Second Amendment because they know the courts aren't 
going to side with them," said Sarah Brady.

All legal arguments aside, didn't the framers of the Constitution 
really look favorably upon gun ownership?  Sure, Henigan 
acknowledges, but they didn't deem it a right of sufficient import to 
put into writing. They may also have held an affinity for, say, pet 
ownership, he said but they didn't put that into the Constitution 
either.

Where from here?  According to former Harvard Law School Dean 
Erwin Griswold, "To assert that the Constitution is a barrier to 
reasonable gun laws, in the face of the unanimous judgment of the 
federal courts to the contrary, exceeds the limits of principled 
advocacy. It is time for the NRA and its followers in Congress to stop 
trying to twist the Second Amendment from a reasoned (if 
antiquated) empowerment for a militia into a bulletproof personal 
right for anyone to wield deadly weaponry beyond legislative control."

Don't hold your breath.

The "Myth and Meaning" pamphlet is enlightening. If you'd like a free 
copy, write to the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, Department 
2A, 1225 Eye Street, NW Suite 1150, Washington, D.C., 20005.

"The people are on our side, at least the majority of them," Brady told 
me. "We're going to keep plugging away, and in the long run we will 
prevail."

The truth does have a way of winning out in the end.
-- 
cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
                              write today for my special Investors' Packet...
[If your reply to me bounces, your mail program doesn't honor "Reply-To:"]

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com by us4rmc.pko.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA13230; Fri, 16 Dec 94 10:16:11 -050
% Received: from europe.std.com by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com (5.65/10Aug94) id AA10892; Fri, 16 Dec 94 07:01:52 -080
% Received: from world.std.com by europe.std.com (8.6.8.1/Spike-8-1.0) id JAA00168; Fri, 16 Dec 1994 09:56:28 -050
% Received: by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0) id AA11926; Fri, 16 Dec 1994 14:51:59 GM
% Received: from transfer.stratus.com by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0) id AA11847; Fri, 16 Dec 1994 09:51:57 -050
% Received: from tavares.hqsl.stratus.com (tavares.hqsl.stratus.com [134.111.107.14]) by transfer.stratus.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA11698 for <ma-firearms@world.std.com>; Fri, 16 Dec 1994 09:51:42 -0500
% Message-Id: <cdt.1137959376A@transfer.stratus.com>
% Date: Fri, 16 Dec 94 09:55:36 +0000
% From: "C. D. Tavares" <cdt@tavares.hqsl.stratus.com>
% Subject: Middlesex News declares war
% To: "Mass. Firearms List" <ma-firearms@world.std.com>
% X-Mailer: VersaTerm Link v1.1.3
% Sender: ma-firearms-approval@world.std.com
% Precedence: bulk
% Reply-To: ma-firearms@world.std.com

   Well, why don't you ask the NRA to mount a Supreme Court challenge to
   the Brady Bill?  After all the dues money they've collected over the
   years on this issue, it's high time they spent some of it...

    .-1 towns have already refused to follow it.
    
      Chip

                   <<< Note 21.264 by TNPUBS::JONG "Steve" >>>

>   Well, why don't you ask the NRA to mount a Supreme Court challenge to
>   the Brady Bill? 

	The Association has helped to bring the Brady Bill before the
	courts. In 5 cases, the courts have overturned the law 4 times.

	BTW, the NRA is currently trying to get the Court to review
	NJ AW Ban. HCI has filed a "Friend of the Court" brief asking 
	the Court NOT to grant cert.

	So much for the charge that it's the NRA that doesn't want these
	cases heard.

Jim

    
    its pretty clear that the supremes don't want any part of this
    hot potato.
    

   Well, I think it should go to the top, don't you?

          <<< Note 21.263 by SUBPAC::SADIN "Keep it off my wave..." >>>
          -< Talk about biased media! Jeesh! write letters today!!! >-

That's a biased article, alright. But it no more indicates a "biased media" 
than Rush's shows or William Rusher's columns. It's a column, it's not 
news.

                   <<< Note 21.268 by TNPUBS::JONG "Steve" >>>
>       -< Forget the out-of-town tryouts -- take this show to Broadway >-

>   Well, I think it should go to the top, don't you?


	Shows a remarkable lack of understanding of the process.

	First step is the Federal Disctrict Court covering the jurisdiction
	of the Plaintiff. Those steps have been taken. The one case that
	was lost next goes to the Federal Court of Appeals for THAT
	jurisdiction. Those papers have been filed. Depending on the
	outcome, it can then go to the Supremes.

	Why is HCI afraid of a SCOTUS hearing on the NJ law?

Jim

   I didn't say "straight" to the top, Jim, I said "to the top."
   Why haven't any of these court cases cited by HCI been appealed until
   they reached the Supreme Court?  Or have the losses all been overturned
   on appeal?

                   <<< Note 21.271 by TNPUBS::JONG "Steve" >>>

>   Why haven't any of these court cases cited by HCI been appealed until
>   they reached the Supreme Court?  Or have the losses all been overturned
>   on appeal?

	Well, Miller v. US was a SCOTUS ruling. but the quotes in
	the article do not match my recollection of the decision.
	I'll dig up what I can on the text.

	I don't know the status of the US v. Hale case. The others
	they do not mention by name so it's kind of hard to tell.

	What I DO know is that HCI has been caught playing fast and
	loose with the truth in the past. It would not suprise me
	to find out that this is just another one of those occurences.

Jim

    
    In our system, Supremes do not have to hear anything they don't
    want to.  They choose not to hear things for many strange reasons.
    Among them is a sort of "quota" of controversy per session.  Drives
    lawyers absolutely nuts on all sides, so it can't be all bad.
    
      bb

    Letter: Risk increases for those who prey on women

    Ah, statistics. Aren't they wonderful? You can prove or disprove almost
    anything  with statistics. As Mark Twain said, ``Figures never lie, but
    liars sure figure.''

    Take, for example, the article ``Calamity Jane trend called way off
    target''  (Dec. 5). This article cites statistics trying to disprove
    earlier media statistics of more  women buying guns.

    On the one hand, we have Ken Jorgensen, director of communications at
    Smith & Wesson, without releasing any figures, saying that sales of the
    Ladysmith model  doubled from 1991 to 1992. Without the figures, the
    statement is meaningless. If one  Ladysmith was sold in 1991 and two in
    1992 then, indeed, sales would have doubled.

    On the other hand, we have Tom Smith, director of the General Social
    Survey of  the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center
    (now there's a title guaranteed to generate statistics), attempting to
    refute the Gallup Poll that  showed an increase of 53 percent in the
    number of women who own guns between 1983 and  1986.

    He believes he did so by citing 10 surveys between 1980 and 1994 that
    found  that, on average, only 11.6 percent of women owned firearms of
    any kind and just 7.4  percent owned handguns. The key words here are
    ``on average'' and his statistics really  don't say anything about what
    happened between 1983 and 1986. There could easily have been an
    increase of 53 percent between 1983 and 1986 and still a 14-year 
    ``average'' as stated by Smith.

    To the rapists and muggers out there I say, forget statistics. It only
    takes one  to blow you away. And, quoting from the Dallas Morning News,
    ``These days, you never know which woman is packing a pistol.''

    -- C.S. Churchman
    Mountain View

Published 12/16/94 in the San Jose Mercury News.

Would some gunnut please send me info on joining the NRA?

Even though I don't own or want one, methinks I ought to become a member.

For Immediate Release                        For More Information:
December 8, 1994                             NRA Public Affairs
                                             703-267-3820
     
     SECOND AMENDMENT ATTACK:  "ALL SPUTTER, NO SCHOLARSHIP"
 
Fairfax, Virginia -- "All sputter and no scholarship."  That was
the reaction of the chief lobbyist of the National Rifle
Association of America to a television advertising campaign mounted
by the gun ban movement.

"Crushed at the polls and abandoned by scholars, the gun ban
movement has resorted to desperation tactics to deceive the
American people," said Mrs. Tanya K.  Metaksa.  "Americans weren't
fooled on November 8, and they won't be fooled today.  The U.S.
Constitution means exactly what it says.

"Overwhelmingly, constitutional scholars and other academics have
affirmed that the Framers of the Bill of Rights intended the Second
Amendment to safeguard an individual right," Mrs. Metaksa said. 
"Even the American Bar Association published in 1965 an award-
winning article titled 'The Lost Amendment' which concluded that
the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual right."

Mrs. Metaksa ridiculed the TV commercials:  "Sarah Brady should be
the last one to give advice on our Constitution.  The law which
bears her name has been found unconstitutional by four Federal
courts this year alone.

"If the ABA wants an intellectually honest debate on the meaning of
the Second Amendment, step right up," she said. 

                            -- nra --

MEMO FOR CORRESPONDENTS:  In recent years, a raft of research has
affirmed the individual rights interpretation of the Second
Amendment.  Consider the following independent researchers who are
not NRA spokespersons and should not be attributed as such:

"For the point to be made with respect to Congress and the Second
Amendment is that the essential claim advanced by the NRA with
respect to the Second Amendment is extremely strong... the
constructive role of the NRA today, like the role of the ACLU in
the 1920's with respect to the First Amendment, ought itself not
light to be dismissed lightly."
--William Van Alstyne, Professor of Law, Duke University School of
Law, "The Second Amendment And The Personal Right to Arms," 1994

"The Second Amendment's language and historical and philosophical
background demonstrated that it was designed to guarantee
individuals the possession of certain kinds of arms for three
purposes (1) crime prevention or what we would today describe as
self-defense; (2) national defense (3) preservation of individual
liberty..."
-- Don Kates,  Handgun Prohibition And The Original Meaning of The
Second Amendment. 1983

"In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment
protects the `collective' right of states to maintain militias,
while it does not protect the right of `the people' to keep and
bear arms. If anyone entertained this notion in the period during
which the Constitution and Bill of Rights were debated and
ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the
18th century, for no known writing surviving from the period
between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis." 
-- Stephen P. Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed  (1984).

"The argument that today's National Guardsmen, members of a select
militia, would constitute the only persons entitled to keep and
bear arms has no historical foundation."
--Joyce Lee Malcolm,  Professor of History.  Author, To Keep and
Bear Arms (Harvard University Press 1994)

"The states'rights reading puts great weight on the word `militia',
but this word appears only in the Amendment's subordinate clause. 
The ultimate right to keep and bear arms belongs to `the people'
not `the states.' As the language of the Tenth Amendment shows,
these two are of course not identical when the constitution means
`states' it says so.  Thus as noted above, `the people' at the core
of the Second Amendment are the same `people' at the heart of the
Preamble and the First Amendment, namely citizens."
--Akil Amar, Professor of Law, Yale, The Bill of Rights as a
Constitution, 100 Yale, (1990)
--
This information is presented as a service to the Internet community
by the NRA/ILA.  Many files are available via anonymous ftp from
ftp.nra.org, via WWW at http://www.nra.org, via gopher at gopher.nra.org,
and via WAIS at wais.nra.org

Be sure to subscribe to rkba-alert by sending:
subscribe rkba-alert Your Full Name
as the body of a message to rkba-alert-request@NRA.org

Information can also be obtained by connecting to the NRA-ILA GUN-TALK
BBS at (703) 934-2121.

    
    
    Careful there Jim.... I suspect Meowski's been away so long because
    he's preparing a brief to shoot down the obvious and logical...
    
    :)
    

    
    
>         <<< Note 21.275 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>
>Would some gunnut please send me info on joining the NRA?
>Even though I don't own or want one, methinks I ought to become a member.


    	Nation Rifle Association of America
    	11250 Waples Mill Road
    	Fairfax, Virginia 22030
    	(703)267-1000
    	
    	Member Services = 1-800-NRA-3888
    
    
    	Be patient with 'em....they're still moving into their new
    building and getting set up.
    
    
    jim
    

	Here's what I had on hand regarding case law and the 2nd.

 
				CASE LAW
 
   The United States Supreme Court has only three times com-
mented upon the meaning of the second amendment to our consti-
tution. The first comment, in Dred Scott, indicated strongly that
the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right; the Court
noted that, were it to hold blacks to be entitled to equality of
citizenship, they would be entitled to keep and carry arms wherev-
er they went. The second, in Miller, indicated that a court cannot
take judicial notice that a short-barrelled shotgun is covered by the
second amendment--but the Court did not indicate that National
Guard status is in any way required for protection by that amend-
ment, and indeed defined "militia" to include all citizens able to
bear arms. The third, a footnote in Lewis v. United States, indicat-
ed only that "these legislative restrictions on the use of fire-
arms"--a ban on possession by felons--were permissable[[sic]]. But since
felons may constitutionally be deprived of many of the rights of
citizens, including that of voting, this dicta reveals little. These
three comments constitute all significant explanations of the scope
of the second amendment advanced by our Supreme Court. The
case of Adam v. Williams has been cited as contrary to the princi-
ple that the second amendment is an individual right. In fact, that
reading of the opinion comes only in Justice Douglas's dissent from
the majority ruling of the Court.
 
   The appendix which follows represents a listing of twenty-one
American decisions, spanning the period from 1822 to 1981, which
have analysed right to keep and bear arms provisions in the light
of statutes ranging from complete bans on handgun sales to bans
on carrying of weapons to regulation of carying by permit sys-
tems. Those decisions not only explained the nature of such a right,
but also struck down legislative restrictions as violative of it, are
designated by asterisks.
 
20th century cases
 
   1.  *State v. Blocker, 291 Or. 255, -- -- --P.2d-- -- -- (1981).
   "The statue is written as a total proscription of the mere posses-
sion of certain weapons, and that mere possession, insofar as a billy
is concerned, is constitutionally protected."
   "In these circumstances, we conclude that it is proper for us to
consider defendant's 'overbreadth' attack to mean that the statute
swept so broadly as to infringe rights that it could not reach, which
in the setting means the right to possess arms guaranteed by
sec 27."
   2.  *State v. Kessler, 289 Or. 359, 614 P.2d 94, at 95, at 98 (1980).
   "We are not unmindful that there is current controversy over
the wisdom of a right to bear arms, and that the original motiva-
tions for such a provision might not seem compelling if debated as
a new issue. Our task, however, in construing a constitutional
provision is to respect the principles given the status of constitu-
tional guarantees and limitations by the drafters; it is not to aban-
don these principles when this fits the needs of the moment."
   "Therefore, the term 'arms' as used by the drafters of the consti-
tuions probably was intended to include those weapons used by
settlers for both personal and military defense. The term 'arms'
was not limited to firearms, but included  several handcarried
weapons commonly used for defense. The term 'arms' would not
have included cannon or other heavy ordance not kept by militia-
men or private citizens."
   3.  Motley v. Kellogg, 409 N.E.2d 1207, at 1210 (Ind. App. 1980)
(motion to transfer denied 1-27-1981).
   "[N]ot making applications available at the chief's office effec-
tively denied members of the community the opportunity to obtain
a gun permit and bear arms for their self-defense."
   4.  Schubert v. DeBard, 398 N.E.2d 1339, at 1341 (Ind. App. 1980)
(motion to transfer denied 8-28-1980).
   "We think it clear that our constitution provides our citizenry
the right to bear arms for their self-defense."
   5.  Taylor v. McNeal, 523 S.W.2d 148, at 150 (Mo. App. 1975)
   "The pistols in question are not contraband. * * * Under Art. I,
sec 23, Mo. Const. 1945, V.A.M.S., every citizen has the right to keep
and bear arms in defense of his home, person, and property, with
the limitation that this section shall not justify the wearing of
concealed arms."
   6.  *City of Lakewood v. Pillow, 180 Colo. 20, 501 P.2d 744, at 745
(en banc 1972).
   "As an example, we note that this ordinance would prohibit
gunsmiths, pawnbrokers and sporting goods stores from carrying
on a substantial part of their business. Also, the ordinance appears
to prohibit individuals from transporting guns to and from such
places of business. Furthermore, it makes it unlawful for a person
to possess a firearm in a vehicle or in a place of business for the
purpose of self-defense. Several of these activities are constitution-
ally protected. Colo. Const. art. II, sec 13."
   7.  *City of Las Vegas v. Moberg, 82 N.M. 626, 485 P.2d 737, at 738
(N.M. App. 1971).
   "It is our opinion that an ordinance may not deny the people the
constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms, and to that extent
the ordinance under consideration is void."
   8.  State v. Nickerson, 126 Mt. 157, 247 P.2d 188, at 192 (1952).
   "The law of this jurisdiction accords to the defendant the right to
keep and bear arms and to use same in defense of his own home,
his person and property."
   9.  People v. Liss, 406 Ill. 419, 94 N.E. 2d 320, at 323 (1950).
   "The second amendment to the constitution of the United States
provides the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed. This of course does not prevent the enactment of a law
against carrying concealed weapons, but it does indicate it should
be kept in mind, in the construction of a statue of such character,
that it is aimed at persons of criminal instincts, and for the preven-
tion of crime, and not against use in the protection of person or
property."
   10. *People v. Nakamura, 99 Colo. 262, at 264, 62 P.2d 246 (en
banc 1936).
   "It is equally clear that the act wholly disarms aliens for all
purposes. The state . . . cannot disarm any class of persons or
deprive them of the right guaranteed under section 13, article II of
the Constitution, to bear arms in defense of home, person and
property. The guaranty thus extended is meaningless if any person
is denied the right to posses arms for such protection."
   11. *Glasscock v. City of Chattanooga, 157 Tenn. 518, at 520, 11
S.W. 2d 678 (1928).
   "There is no qualifications of the prohibition against the carry-
ing of a pistol in the city ordinance before us but it is made
unlawful 'to carry on or about the person any pistol,' that is, any
sort of pistol in any sort of maner. *** [W]e must accordingly hold
the provision of this ordinance as to the carrying of a pistol
invalid."
   12. *People v. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922).
   "The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all per-
sons to bear arms is a limitation upon the right of the Legislature
to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaran-
teed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the
sheriff."
   13 *State v. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921).
   "We are of the opinion, however, that 'pistol' ex vi termini is
properly included within the word 'arms,' and that the right to
bear such arms cannot be infringed. The historical use of pistols as
'arms' of offense and defense is beyond controversy."
   "The maintencance of the right to bear arms is a most essential
one to every free people and should not be whittled down by
technical constructions."
   14. *State v. Rosenthal, 75 VT. 295, 55 A. 610, at 611 (1903).
   "The people of the state have a right to bear arms for the
defense of themselves and the state. *** The result is that Ordi-
nance No. 10, so far as it relates to the carrying of a pistol, is
inconsistent with and repugnant to the Constitution and the laws
of the state, and it is therefore to that extent, void."
   15. *In re Brickey, 8 Ida. 597, at 598-99, 70 p. 609 (1902).
   "The second amendment to the federal constitution is in the
following language: '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.' The language of section 11, article I
of the constitution of Idaho, is as follows: 'The people have the
right to bear arms for their security and defense, but the legisla-
ture shall regulate the exercise of this right by law.' Under these
constitutional provisions, the legislature has no power to prohibit a
citizen from bearing arms in any portion of the state of Idaho,
whether within or without the corporate limits of cities, towns, and
villages."
 
19th century cases
 
   16. * Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54
(1878).
   "If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed
men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the
penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of con-
stitutional privilege."
   17. *Jennings v. State, 5 Tex. Crim. App. 298, at 300-01 (1878).
   "We believe that portion of the act which provides that, in case
of conviction, the defendant shall forfeit to the county the weapon
of weapons so found on or about his person is not within the scope
of legislative authority. * * * One of his most sacred rights is that
of having arms for his own defence and that of the State. This
right is one of the surest safeguards of liberty and self-preserva-
tion."
   18. *Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 8 Am. Rep. 8, at 17 (1871).
   "The passage from Story shows clearly that this right was in-
tended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed
to and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not
by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights."
   19. *Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846).
   "'The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."
The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and
boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every descrip-
tion, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be
infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and
all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and
qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the secu-
rity of a free State."
   20. Simpson v. State, 13 Tenn. 356, at 359-60 (1833).
   "But suppose it to be assumed on any ground, that our ancestors
adopted and brought over with them this English statute, [the
statute of Northampton,] or portion of the common law, our consti-
tution has completely abrogated it; it says, 'that the freemen of this
State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common de-
fence.' Article II, sec. 26. * * * By this clause of the constitution,
an express power is given and secured to all the free citizens of the
State to keep and bear arms for their defence, without any qualifi-
cation whatever as to their kind or nature; and it is conceived, that
it would be going much too far, to impair by construction or
abridgement a constitutional privilege, which is so declared; nei-
ther, after so solumn an instrument hath said the people may
carry arms, can we be permitted to impute to the acts thus li-
censed, such a necessarily consequent operation as terror to the
people to be incurred thereby; we must attribute to the framers of
it, the absence of such a view."
   21. Bliss v. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13
Am. Dec. 251 (1822).
   "For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibit-
ing the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing
such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the
latter must be so likewise."
   "But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the
right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and
complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if
any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the
part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done,
it is equally forbidden by the constitution."
 
   The following represents a list of twelve scholarly articles which
have dealt with the subject of the right to keep and bear arms as
reflected in the second amendment to the Constitution of the
United States. The scholars who have undertaken this research
range from professors of law, history and philosophy to a United
States Senator. All have concluded that the second amendment is
an individual right protecting American citizens in their peaceful
use of firearms.
 

 
			    BIBLIOGRAPHY
 
   Hays, THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, A STUDY IN JUDICIAL MISINTERPRE-
TATION, 2 Wm. & Mary L. R. 381 (1960)
   Sprecher, THE LOST AMENDMENT, 51 Am Bar Assn. J. 554 & 665 (2 parts)
(1965)
   Comment, THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS: A NECESSARY CONSTI-
TUTIONAL GUARANTEE OR AN OUTMODED PROVISION OF THE BILL OF
RIGHT? 31 Albany L. R. 74 (1967)
   Levine & Saxe, THE SECOND AMENDMENT: THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, 7
Houston L. R. 1 (1969)
   McClure, FIREAMRS AND FEDERALISM, 7 Idaho L. R. 197 (1970)
   Hardy & Stompoly, OF ARMS AND THE LAY, 51 Chi.-Kent L. R. 62 (1974)
   Weiss, A REPLY TO ADVOCATES OF GUN CONTROL LAW, 52 Jour. Urban
Law 577 (1974)
   Whisker, HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT AND SUBSEQUENT EROSION OF
THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, 78 W. Va. L. R. 171 (1976)
   Caplan, RESTORING THE BALANCE: THE SECOND AMENDMENT REVISIT-
ED, 5 Fordham Urban L. J. 31 (1976)
   Caplan, HANDGUN CONTROL: CONSTITUTIONAL OR UNCONSTITUTION-
AL?, 10 N.C. Central L. J. 53 (1979)
   Cantrell, THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, 53 Wis Bar Bull. 21 (Oct. 1980)
   Halbrook, THE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE SECOND AND FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENTS, 4 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 1 (1981)
 
 

 
 
	    ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL FIREARMS LAWS FROM THE
		PERSPECTIVE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT
 
   Federal involvement in firearms possession and transfer was not
significant prior to 1934, when the National Firearms Act was
adopted. The National Firearms Act as adopted covered only fully
automatic weapons (machine guns and submachine guns) and rifles
and shotguns whose barrel length or overall length fell below
certain limits. Since the Act was adopted under the revenue power,
sale of these firearms was not made subject to a ban or permit
system. Instead, each transfer was made subject to a $200 excise
tax, which must be paid prior to transfer; the identification of the
parties to the transfer indirectly accomplished a registration pur-
pose.
   The 1934 Act was followed by the Federal Firearms Act of 1938,
which placed some limitations upon sale of ordinary firearms. Per-
sons engaged in the business of selling those firearms in interstate
commerce were required to obtain a Federal Firearms License, at
an annual cost of $1, and to maintain records of the name and
address of persons to whom they sold firearms. Sales to persons
convicted of violent felonies were prohibited, as were interstate
shipments to persons who lacked the permits required by the law of
their state.
   Thirty years after adoption of the Federal Firearms Act, the Gun
Control Act of 1968 worked a major revision of federal law. The
Gun Control Act was actually a composite of two statutes. The first
of these, adopted as portions of the Omnibus Crime and Safe
Streets Act, imposed limitations upon imported firearms, expanded
the requirement of dealer licensing to cover anyone "engaged in
the business of dealing" in firearms, whether in interstate or local
commerce, and expanded the recordkeeping obligations for dealers.
It also imposed a variety of direct limitations upon sales of hand-
guns. No transfers were to be permitted between residents of differ-
ent states (unless the recipient was a federally licensed dealer),
even where the transfer was by gift rather than sale and even
where the recipient was subject to no state law which could have
been evaded. The category of persons to whom dealers could not
sell was expanded to cover persons convicted of any felony (other
than certain business-related felonies such as antitrust violations),
persons subject to a mental commitment order or finding of mental
incompetence, persons who were users of marijuana and other
drugs, and a number of other categories. Another title of the Act
defined persons who were banned from possessing firearms. Para-
doxically, these classes were not identical with the list of classes
prohibited from purchasing or receiving firearms.
   The Omnibus Crime and Safe Streets Act was passed on June 5,
1968, and set to take effect in December of that year. Barely two
weeks after its passage, Senator Robert F. Kennedy was assassinat-
ed while campaigning for the presidency. Less that a week after
his death, the second bill which would form part of the Gun Con-
trol Act of 1968 was introduced in the House. It was reported out of
Judiciary ten days later, out of Rules Committee two weeks after
that, and was on the floor barely a month after its introduction.
the second bill worked a variety of changes upon the original Gun
Control Act. Most significantly, it extended to rifles and shotguns
the controls which had been imposed solely on handguns, extended
the class of persons prohibited from possessing firearms to include
those who were users of marijuana and certain other drugs, ex-
panded judicial review of dealer license revocations by mandating a
de novo hearing once an appeal was taken, and permitted inter-
state sales of rifles and shotguns only where the parties resided in
contiguous states, both of which had enacted legislation permitting
such sales. Similar legislation was passed by the Senate and a
conference of the Houses produced a bill which was essentially a
modification of the House statute. This became law before the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, and was therefore
set for the same effective date.
   Enforcement of the 1968 Act was delegated to the Department of
the Treasury, which had been responsible for enforcing the earlier
gun legislation. This responsibility was in turn given to the Alcohol
and Tobacco Tax Division of the Internal Revenu Service. This
division had traditionally devoted itself to the pursuit of illegal
producers of alcohol; at the time of enactment of the Gun Control
Act, only 8.3 percent of its arrests were for firearms violations.
Following enactment of the Gun Control Act the Alcohol and To-
bacco Tax Division was retitled the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
Division of the IRS. By July, 1972 it had nearly doubled in size and
became a complete Treasury bureau under the name of Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
   The mid-1970's saw rapid increases in sugar prices, and these in
turn drove the bulk of the "moonshiners" out of business. Over
15,000 illegal distilleries had been raided in 1956; but by 1976 this
had fallen to a mere 609. The BATF thus began to devote the bulk
of its efforts to the area of firearms law enforcement.
   Complaint regarding the techniques used by the Bureau in an
effort to generate firearms cases led to hearings before the Subcom-
mittee on Treasury, Post Office, and General Appropriations of the
Senate Appropriations Committee in July 1979 and April 1980, and
before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Senate Judici-
ary Committee in October 1980. At these hearings evidence was
received from various citizens who had been charged by BATF,
>From experts who had studied the BATF, and from officials of the
Bureau itself.
   Based upon these hearings, it is apparent that enforcement tac-
tics made possible by current federal firearms laws are constitu-
tionally, legally, and practically reprehensible. Although Congress
adopted the Gun Control Act with the primary object of limiting
access of felons and high-risk groups to firearms, the overbreadth
of the law has led to neglect of precisely this area of enforcement.
For example the Subcommittee on the Constitution received corre-
spondence from two members of the Illinois Judiciary, dated in
1980, indicating that they had been totally unable to persuade
BATF to accept cases against felons who were in possession of
firearms including sawed-off shotguns. The Bureau's own figures
demonstrate that in recent years the percentage of its arrests
devoted to felons in possession and persons knowingly selling to
them have dropped from 14 percent down to 10 percent of their
firearms cases. To be sure, genuine criminals are sometimes pros-
ecuted under other sections of the law. Yet, subsequent to these
hearings, BATF stated that 55 percent of its gun law prosecutions
overall involve persons with no record of a felony conviction, and a
third involve citizens with no prior police contact at all.
   The Subcommittee received evidence that the BATF has primarily
devoted its firearms enforcement efforts to the apprehension, upon
technical malum prohibitum charges, of individuals who lack all
criminal intent and knowledge. Agents anxious to generate an
impressive arrest and gun confiscation quota have repeatedly en-
ticed gun collectors into making a small number of sales--often as
few as four--from their personal collections. Although each of the
sales was completely legal under state and federal law, the agents
then charged the collector with having "engaged in the business"
of dealing in guns without the required license. Since existing law
permits a felony conviction upon these charges even where the
individual has no criminal knowledge or intent numerous collec-
tors have been ruined by a felony record carrying a potential
sentence of five years in federal prison. Even in cases where the
collectors secured acquittal, or grand juries failed to indict, or
prosecutors refused to file criminal charges, agents of the Bureau
have generally confiscated the entire collection of the potential
defendant upon the ground that he intended to use it in that
violation of the law. In several cases, the agents have refused to
return the collection even after acquittal by jury.
   The defendant, under existing law is not entitled to an award of
attorney's fees, therefore, should he secure return of his collection,
an individual who has already spent thousands of dollars establish-
ing his innocence of the criminal charges is required to spend
thousands more to civilly prove his innocence of the same acts,
without hope of securing any redress. This of course, has given the
enforcing agency enormous bargaining power in refusing to return
confiscated firearms. Evidence received by the Subcommittee related the
confiscation of a shotgun valued at $7,000. Even the Bureau's own
valuations indicate that the value of firearms confiscated by their
agents is over twice the value which the Bureau has claimed is
typical of "street guns" used in crime. In recent months, the aver-
age value has increased rather than decreased, indicating that the
reforms announced by the Bureau have not in fact redirected their
agents away from collector's items and toward guns used in crime.
   The Subcommittee on the Constitution has also obtained evi-
dence of a variety of other misdirected conduct by agents and
supervisors of the Bureau. In several cases, the Bureau has sought
conviction for supposed technical violations based upon policies and
interpretations of law which the Bureau had not published in the
Federal Register, as required by 5 U.S.C. Sec 552. For instance, begin-
ning in 1975, Bureau officials apparently reached a judgment that
a dealer who sells to a legitimate purchaser may nonetheless be
subject to prosecution or license revocation if he knows that that
individual intends to transfer the firearm to a nonresident or other
unqualified purchaser. This position was never published in the
Federal Register and is indeed contrary to indications which
Bureau officials had given Congress, that such sales were not in
violation of existing law. Moreover, BATF had informed dealers
that an adult purchaser could legally buy for a minor, barred by
his age from purchasing a gun on his own. BATF made no effort to
suggest that this was applicable only where the barrier was one of
age. Rather than informing the dealers of this distinction, Bureau
agents set out to produce mass arrests upon these "straw man"
sale charges, sending out undercover agents to entice dealers into
transfers of this type. The first major use of these charges, in
South Carolina in 1975, led to 37 dealers being driven from busi-
ness, many convicted on felony charges. When one of the judges
informed Bureau officials that he felt dealers had not been fairly
treated and given information of the policies they were expected to
follow, and refused to permit further prosecutions until they were
informed, Bureau officials were careful to inform only the dealers
in that one state and even then complained in internal memoranda
that this was interfering with the creation of the cases. When
BATF was later requested to place a warning to dealers on the
front of the Form 4473, which each dealer executes when a sale is
made, it instead chose to place the warning in fine print upon the
back of the form, thus further concealing it from the dealer's sight.
   The Constitution Subcommittee also received evidence that the
Bureau has formulated a requirement, of which dealers were not
informed that requires a dealer to keep official records of sales
even from his private collection. BATF has gone farther than
merely failing to publish this requirement. At one point, even as it
was prosecuting a dealer on the charge (admitting that he had no
criminal intent), the Director of the Bureau wrote Senator S. I.
Hayakawa to indicate that there was no such legal requirement
and it was completely lawful for a dealer to sell from his collection
without recording it. Since that date, the Director of the Bureau
has stated that that is not the Bureau's position and that such
sales are completely illegal; after making that statement, however,
he was quoted in an interview for a magazine read primarily by
licensed firearms dealers as stating that such sales were in fact
legal and permitted by the Bureau. In these and similar areas, the
Bureau has violated not only the dictates of common sense, but of 5
U.S.C. Sec 552, which was intended to prevent "secret lawmaking" by
administrative bodies.
   These practices, amply documented in hearings before this Sub-
committee, leave little doubt that the Bureau has disregarded
rights guaranteed by the constitution and laws of the United
States.
   It has trampled upon the second amendment by chilling exercise
of the right to keep and bear arms by law-abiding citizens.
   It has offended the fourth amendment by unreasonably search-
ing and seizing private property.
   It has ignored the Fifth Amendment by taking private property
without just compensation and by entrapping honest citizens with-
out regard for their right to due process of law.
   The rebuttal presented to the Subcommittee by the Bureau was
utterly unconvincing. Richard Davis, speaking on behalf of the
Treasury Department, asserted vaguely that the Bureau's priorities
were aimed at prosecuting willful violators, particularly felons ille-
gally in possession, and at confiscating only guns actually likely to
be used in crime. He also asserted that the Bureau has recently
made great strides toward achieving these priorities. No documen-
tation was offered for either of these assertions. In hearings before
BATF's Appropriations Subcommittee, however, expert evidence
was submitted establishing that approximately 75 percent of BATF
gun prosecutions were aimed at ordinary citizens who had neither
criminal intent nor knowledge, but were enticed by agents into
unknowning technical violations. (In one case, in fact, the individual
was being prosecuted for an act which the Bureau's acting director
had stated was perfectly lawful.) In those hearings, moreover,
BATF conceded that in fact (1) only 9.8 percent of their firearm
arrests were brought on felons in illicit possession charges; (2) the
average value of guns seized was $116, whereas BATF had claimed
that "crime guns" were priced at less than half that figure; (3) in
the months following the announcement of their new "priorities",
the percentage of gun prosecutions aimed at felons had in fact
fallen by a third, and the value of confiscated guns had risen. All
this indicates that the Bureau's vague claims, both of focus upon
gun-using criminals and of recent reforms, are empty words.
   In light of this evidence, reform of federal firearm laws is neces-
sary to protect the most vital rights of American citizens. Such
legislation is embodied in S. 1030. That legislation would require
proof of a willful violation as an element of a federal gun prosecu-
tion, forcing enforcing agencies to ignore the easier technical cases
and aim solely at the intentional breaches. It would restrict confis-
cation of firearms to those actually used in an offense, and require
their return should the owner be acquitted of the charges. By
providing for award of attorney's fees in confiscation cases, or in
other cases if the judge finds charges were brought without just
basis or from improper motives, this proposal would be largely self-
enforcing. S. 1030 would enhance vital protection of constitutional
and civil liberties of those Americans who choose to exercise their
Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
 
 
 
-- 
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US murders are 
committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"   -  Andrew Ford
gtephx!forda@enuucp.eas.asu.edu  OR  !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda

         <<< Note 21.275 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>Would some gunnut please send me info on joining the NRA?


	Call 1 800-368-5714.

	Have your credit card handy.

Jim

>         <<< Note 21.275 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>Would some gunnut please send me info on joining the NRA?

>Even though I don't own or want one, methinks I ought to become a member.

I'm gonna invite more folks to our gun-nut-get-togethers if this is the 
result. :-}

(703)267-1200 by phone, use your VISA, tell 'em I sent ya. :-}  :-}

	cripes, don't tell 'em Amos sent ya...they'll never get back to you! ;*)


jim

    
       WASHINGTON, Dec 16 (Reuter) - The Treasury Department's top
    law enforcement official accused Clinton Administration budget
    planners of pushing cuts "completely out of sync" with the
    president's anti-crime initiatives, the Washington Post reported
    on Saturday.
        Ronald Noble, who as undersecretary for law enforcement
    presides over the Secret Service, Customs Service and the Bureau
    of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), in an interview with the
    newspaper, described proposed cutbacks in his budget as "stupid."
        Plans drawn up by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
    would cut ATF's gun enforcement efforts by a quarter, a move that
    would save $53 million and result in laying off 530 employees,
    the Post said.
        Noble was quoted as accusing OMB officials of being
    "intellectually dishonest," acting in a manner that was a
    disservice to Clinton, and threatening the president's
    relationship with the nation's law enforcement leaders.
        "This is stupid ... and someone should be held accountable.
    I'm telling you that people over there should be fired or moved
    or replaced, or I should be fired, removed or replaced," he told
    the Post.
        "Some of us - one of us, is completely out of sync with what
    this president stands for," he said. Clinton has made anti-crime
    programmes, especially his support for gun control, a centrepiece
    of his domestic agenda.
    

    Anent .279: Jim, I have kept the notes of Lawyer Lew Lasher for lo
    these many years albeit in printed form.  You remember -- the notes
    that so thoroughly defeated you folks that you had no reply whatsoever. 
    His reply of 25-JUL-1991 was the killer, comprising the text of the
    decision in US v. Warin (US Ct of App, 6th Cir, 1976).
    I kept them for the day when the general population had forgotten them.
    
    I can say that the HCI statements are quite true: at the Supreme Court
    level, the Second Amendment is taken as applying only to the militia,
    which today is the National Guard, and it does not convey any
    individual rights.
    
    I agree with the statement that there are arguments on both sides of
    the case.  Indeed, it would be interesting to appeal a test case up to
    the Supreme Court to see if the current lineup has a different
    interpretation.  It's too bad the NRA has so much to gain by roiling
    the waters to collect dues from outraged gun owners without actually
    risking closing that door by bankrolling a legal challenge.  I really
    think they have more to gain by taking members' dues.

    
    why is the NRA getting so much blame for gun violence?
    
    are NRA gunnuts going out and offing folks in the 'hoods?

    well RAH here in MN the papers have come right out and said the NRA is
    the primarily culprit that permits the continued violence on the
    streets and playgrounds of the US. many people, when they choose a side
    on an emotional issue, are completely blinded by ANY information that
    is contrary to their beliefs. the media preys on such folks. i call
    those folks the braindead of america.

	Gene, as Lenin said, they're useful idiots....

                   <<< Note 21.284 by TNPUBS::JONG "Steve" >>>

>    I agree with the statement that there are arguments on both sides of
>    the case.  Indeed, it would be interesting to appeal a test case up to
>    the Supreme Court to see if the current lineup has a different
>    interpretation.  It's too bad the NRA has so much to gain by roiling
>    the waters to collect dues from outraged gun owners without actually
>    risking closing that door by bankrolling a legal challenge.  I really
>    think they have more to gain by taking members' dues.

	You have yet to explain why HCI is working so hard to prevent
	just such a hearing, while at the same time they accuse the 
	NRA of being "afraid" of a SCOTUS ruling.

	The Association has made the appeal. It's up to the Court to
	make the decision to hear the case.

Jim

   Jim, I'm unaware that HCI is trying to oppose the hearing, or that they
   accuse the NRA of being afraid.  It is *my* opinion that the NRA is
   afraid of a Supreme Court appeal.
   
   I look forward to hearing the Court's interpretation (even if it's "we
   don't deign to change anything by hearing the case").

                   <<< Note 21.289 by TNPUBS::JONG "Steve" >>>

>   Jim, I'm unaware that HCI is trying to oppose the hearing, or that they
>   accuse the NRA of being afraid. 

	Would I lie to you?

> It is *my* opinion that the NRA is
>   afraid of a Supreme Court appeal.
 
	Then why have they filed the appeal?

  
>   I look forward to hearing the Court's interpretation (even if it's "we
>   don't deign to change anything by hearing the case").

	I would like a strightforward opinion. There are enough conflicting
	opinions at the District and Appelate level now. What is needed is
	a flat out SCOTUS ruling. 

Jim

   Gee, Jim, when I asked why the NRA didn't just file an appeal, you
   chided me for not knowing how the system works.  When I opined that the
   NRA was afraid to go through the appeals process, you say they've filed
   the appeal...
   
   But we agree that a SCOTUS ruling will be worthwhile.  As I said, I have
   come to feel that there are viable arguments on both sides of the issue.

    
    I agree - even a flat SCOTUS ruling that the second IS NOT an
    individual right, although I'd disagree with it, would be much
    better than the current situation.  Contrary to what somebody
    said here, there is no definitive ruling on the meaning of the
    Second.  Don't hold your breath.
    
      bb

                   <<< Note 21.291 by TNPUBS::JONG "Steve" >>>
>                     -< I can't win with you, can I? 8^) >-

	Not when you fail to pay attention. ;-)

	I did supply the information that the NRA had an appeal pending
	before SCOTUS early in the discussion.

	I reminded you of the process when you questioned why the NRA
	to not "go to the top" after the comments were made concerning
	the results of several Brady Law decisions.

	Two seperate strings.

Jim

    mayor sharon sayles belton of minneapolis has stated she plans to
    introduce a crime preventation plan to the city council that's requires
    the registration of all handguns and the ban on selling of any handguns
    in the future. this is all part of her "get tough on criminals" plan. i
    can see it now. criminals lined up 10 deep to register their handguns.
    the plan reportedly does not address any stiffer sentences for
    criminals. the mayor stated "locking more people up for longer periods
    of time does not deter crime".

 I don't own a gun, and have never had a desire to do so, however lately
 I find myself wondering if I should get one..




Jim

          FEDERAL CASES REGARDING THE SECOND AMENDMENT


                    U.S. Supreme Court Cases

     United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876).  This was the
first case in which the Supreme Court had the opportunity to
interpret the Second Amendment.  The Court recognized that the
right of the people to keep and bear arms was a right which existed
prior to the Constitution when it stated that such a right "is not
a right granted by the Constitution . . . [n]either is it in any
manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."  The
indictment in Cruikshank charged, inter alia, a conspiracy by
Klansmen to prevent blacks from exercising their civil rights,
including the bearing of arms for lawful purposes.  The Court held,
however, that because the right to keep and bear arms existed
independent of the Constitution, and the Second Amendment
guaranteed only that the right shall not be infringed by Congress,
the federal government had no power to punish a violation of the
right by a private individual; rather, citizens had "to look for
their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens" of
their right to keep and bear arms to the police power of the state. 

     
     Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886).  Although the
Supreme Court affirmed the holding in Cruikshank that the Second
Amendment, standing alone, applied only to action by the federal
government, it nonetheless found the states without power to
infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, holding that "the
States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question
out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, as
so to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for
maintaining the public security and disable the people from
performing their duty to the general government."  
     Presser, moreover, plainly suggested that the Second Amendment
applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment and thus
that a state cannot forbid individuals to keep and bear arms.  To
understand why, it is necessary to understand the statutory scheme
the Court had before it.
     The statute under which Presser was convicted did not forbid
individuals to keep and bear arms but rather forbade "bodies of men
to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or
parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law . .
. ."  Thus, the Court concluded that the statute did not infringe
the right to keep and bear arms.
     The Court, however, went on to discuss the Privileges and
Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, noting that "[i]t is
only the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States
that the clause relied on was intended to protect."   As the Court
had already held that the substantive right to keep and bear arms
was not infringed by the Illinois statute since that statue did not
prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms but rather prohibited
military-like exercises by armed men, the Court concluded that it
did not need address the question of whether the state law violated
the Second Amendment as applied to the states by the Fourteenth
Amendment.

     Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894).  In this case, the Court
confirmed that it had never addressed the issue of the Second
Amendment applying to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. 
This case remains the last word on this subject by the Court.

     Miller challenged a Texas statute on the bearing of pistols as
violative of the Second, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments.  But he
asserted these arguments for the first time after his conviction
had been affirmed by a state appellate court.  Reiterating
Cruikshank and Presser, the Supreme Court first found that the
Second and Fourth Amendments, of themselves, did not limit state
action.  The Court then turned to the claim that the Texas statute
violated the rights to bear arms and against warrantless searches
as incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment.  But because the Court
would not hear objections not made in a timely fashion, the Court
refused to consider Miller's contentions.  Thus, rather than reject
incorporation of the Second and Fourth Amendments in the
Fourteenth, the Supreme Court merely refused to decide the
defendant's claim because its powers of adjudication were limited
to the review of errors timely assigned in the trial court.  The
Court left open the possibility that the right to keep and bear
arms and freedom from warrantless searches would apply to the
states through the Fourteenth Amendment.  


     U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).  This is the only case in
which the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to apply the Second
Amendment to a federal firearms statute.  The Court, however,
carefully avoided making an unconditional decision regarding the
statute's constitutionality; it instead devised a test by which to
measure the constitutionality of statutes relating to firearms and
remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing
(the trial court had held that Section 11 of the National Firearms
Act was unconstitutional).  The Court remanded to the case because
it had concluded that:  

     In the absence of any evidence tending to show that
     possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less
     than eighteen inches in length" at this time 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.  Certainly it is not within judicial
     notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary
     military equipment or that its use could contribute to
     the common defense.
     
     Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be
constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type
arm.

     The case also made clear that the militia consisted of "all
males physically capable of acting in concert for the common
defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected
to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in
common use at the time."  In setting forth this definition of the
militia, the Court implicitly rejected the view that the Second
Amendment guarantees a right only to those individuals who are
members of the militia.  Had the Court viewed the Second Amendment
as guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms only to "all males
physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," it
would certainly have discussed whether, on remand, there should
also be evidence that the defendants met the qualifications for
inclusion in the militia, much as it did with regard to the militia
use of a short-barrelled shotgun.  


     Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 95 (1980).  Lewis recognized
-- in  summarizing the holding of Miller, supra, as "the Second
Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does
not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or
efficiency of a well-regulated militia'" (emphasis added) -- that
Miller had focused upon the type of firearm.  Further, Lewis was
concerned only with  whether the provision of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 which prohibits the possession
of firearms by convicted felons (codified in 18 U.S.C. 922(g) in
1986) violated the Second Amendment.  Thus, since convicted felons
historically were and are subject to the loss of numerous
fundamental rights of citizenship -- including the right to vote,
hold office, and serve on juries -- it was not erroneous for the
Court to have concluded that laws prohibiting the possession of
firearms by a convicted felon "are neither based upon
constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any
constitutionally protected liberties."
 
     United States v. Verdugo-Urquirdez, 110 S. Ct. 3039 (1990). 
This case involved the meaning of the term "the people" in the
Fourth Amendment.  The Court unanimously held that the term "the
people" in the Second Amendment had the same meaning as in the
Preamble to the Constitution and in the First, Fourth, and Ninth
Amendments, i.e., that "the people" means at least all citizens and
legal aliens while in the United States.  This case thus resolves
any doubt that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right.

                  U.S. Courts of Appeals Cases


     U.S. v. Nelson, 859 F.2d 1318 (8th Cir. 1988).  This case is
not a firearms case; it involves the federal switchblade knife act. 
Based on the holding in U.S. v Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1876),
that the right to keep and bear arms "is not a right granted by the
Constitution," the Eighth Circuit concluded that the right is not
fundamental.  Of course, the statement in Cruikshank -- a case
which involved the theft of firearms by private citizens from other
private citizens -- simply meant that the right was not created by
the Constitution, but that it preexisted the Constitution and that
the Second Amendment was "to restrict the powers of the national
government, leaving the people to look for their protection against
any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes"
to the state criminal laws.  Moreover, the Eighth Circuit's one
paragraph opinion cited Miller, Oakes, infra, and Warin, infra,
without any explanation, in holding that the Second Amendment has
been analyzed "purely in term of protecting state militias, rather
than individual rights."  While this statement is true, it
certainly does not mean that Miller rejected the conclusion that an
individual right was protected.  Thus, the Eighth Circuit did not
err in concluding that it was important that "Nelson has made no
arguments that the Act would impair any state militia . . . . " 

     U.S. v. Cody, 460 F.2d 34 (8th Cir. 1972).  This case involved
the making of a false statement by a convicted felon in connection
with the purchase of a firearm.  After citing Miller for the
propositions that "the Second Amendment is not an absolute bar to
congressional regulation of the use or possession of firearms" and
that the "Second Amendment's guarantee extends only to use or
possession which 'has some reasonable relationship to the
preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia,'" the court
held that there was "no evidence that the prohibition of 922(a)(6)
obstructs the maintenance of a well-regulated militia."  Thus, the
court acknowledged that the Second Amendment would be a bar to some
congressional regulation of the use or possession of firearms and
recognized that Miller required the introduction of evidence which
showed a militia use for the firearm involved.


     U.S. v. Decker, 446 F.2d 164 (8th Cir. 1971).  Like Synnes,
infra, the court here held that the defendant could "present ...
evidence indicating a conflict" between the statute at issue and
the Second Amendment.  Since he failed to do so, the court declined
to hold that the record-keeping requirements of the Gun Control Act
of 1968 violated the Second Amendment.  As with Synnes, the court
once again implicitly recognized that the right guaranteed belonged
to individuals.


     U.S. v. Synnes, 438 F.2d 764 (8th Cir. 1971), vacated on other
grounds, 404 U.S. 1009 (1972).  This is another case involving
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.  In holding that 18
U.S.C. App. Section 1202(a) (reenacted in 18 U.S.C. 922(g) in 1986)
did not infringe the Second Amendment, the court held (based upon
its partially erroneous view of Miller) that there needed to be
evidence that the statute impaired the maintenance of a well-
regulated militia.  As there was "no showing that prohibiting
possession of firearms by felons obstructs the maintenance of a
'well regulated militia,'" the court saw "no conflict" between
1202(a) and the Second Amendment.  While Miller focused on the
need to introduce evidence that the firearm had a militia use,
Synnes at least recognized the relevance of a militia nexus.  There
was a clear recognition, moreover, that the Second Amendment
guarantees an individual right.

     Gilbert Equipment Co., Inc. v. Higgins, 709 F. Supp. 1071
(S.D. Ala. 1989), aff'd, 894 F.2d 412 (11th Cir. 1990) (mem).  The
court held that the Second Amendment "guarantees to all Americans
'the right to keep and bear arms' . . . . "


     U.S. v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384 (10th Cir. 1977), cert. denied,
435 U.S. 926 (1978).  Although the court recognized the requirement
of Miller that the defendant show that the firearm in question have
a "connection to the militia," the court concluded, without any
explanation of how it reached the conclusion, that the mere fact
that the defendant was a member of the Kansas militia would not
establish that connection.  In light of the fact that Miller (which
defines the militia as including "all males physically capable of
acting in concert for the common defense") saw no relevance in the
status of a defendant with respect to the militia, but instead
focused upon the firearm itself, this conclusion is not without
basis.


     U.S. v. Swinton, 521 F.2d 1255 (10th Cir. 1975).  In the
context of interpreting the meaning of the phrase "engaging in the
business of dealing in firearms" in 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(1), the court
noted, in dicta, merely that "there is no absolute constitutional
right of an individual to possess a firearm."  Emphasis added. 
Clearly, therefore, the court recognized that the right is an
individual one, albeit not an absolute one.


     U.S. v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548 (4th Cir. 1974).  This is one of
the three court of appeals cases which uses the term "collective
right."  The entire opinion, however, is one sentence, which states
that the Second Amendment "only confers a collective right of
keeping and bearing arms which must bear a 'reasonable relationship
to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'." 
As authority for this statement, the court cites Miller and Cody v.
U.S., supra.  Yet, as the Supreme Court in Lewis, supra, made
clear, Miller held that it is the firearm itself, not the act of
keeping and bearing the firearm, which must have a "reasonable
relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated
militia."  The court did, however, recognize that Miller required
evidence of the militia nexus.  Moreover, the particular provision
at issue in Johnson concerned the interstate transportation of a
firearm by convicted felons, a class of persons which historically
has suffered the loss of numerous rights (including exclusion from
the militia) accorded other citizens. 

     U.S. v Bowdach, 414 F. Supp. 1346 (D.S. Fla 1976), aff'd, 561
F.2d 1160 (5th Cir. 1977).  The court held that "possession of the
shotgun by a non-felon has no legal consequences.  U.S. Const.
Amend II."

     U.S. v. Johnson, Jr., 441 F.2d 1134 (5th Cir. 1971).  Once
again, this decision merely quotes from Miller the statement
concerning the requirement of an evidentiary showing of a militia
nexus and a consequent rejection, without even the briefest of
analysis, of the defendant's challenging to the constitutionality
of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA).  Apparently, the
defendant failed to put on evidence, as required by Miller, that
the firearm at issue had a militia use.  Thus, Miller bound the
appeals court to reject the defendant's challenge. 


     Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir.
1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 863 (1983).  In rejecting a Second
and Fourteenth Amendment challenge to a village handgun ban, the
court held that the Second Amendment, either of itself or by
incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment, "does not apply to
the states. . . ."  The court, in dicta, went on, however, to
"comment" on the "scope of the second amendment," incorrectly
summarizing Miller as holding that the right extends "only to those
arms which are necessary to maintain a well regulated militia." 
Thus, finding (without evidence on the record) that "individually
owned handguns [are not] military weapons," the court concluded
that "the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the
second amendment."


     U.S. v. McCutcheon, 446 F.2d 133 (7th Cir. 1971).  This is
another case involving the NFA in which the court merely followed
Miller in holding that the NFA did not infringe the Second
Amendment.


     Stevens v. United States, 440 F.2d 144 (6th Cir 1971).  In a
one sentence holding, the court simply concluded that the Second
Amendment "applies only to the right of the State to maintain a
militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms ...." 
Merely citing Miller as authority for this conclusion, the court
undertook no analysis of Miller or of the history of the
ratification of the Second Amendment.  This case, moreover,
involved possession of firearms by convicted felons, a class of
persons whose right traditionally have been more restricted than
law-abiding citizens.

     
     U.S. v. Day, 476 F.2d 562 (6th Cir. 1973).  Citing Miller, the
court merely concluded, in reviewing a challenge to the statute
barring dishonorably discharged persons from possessing firearms,
that "there is no absolute right of an individual to possess a
firearm."  Emphasis added.  Since there are certain narrowly
defined classes of untrustworthy persons, such as convicted felons
and, as here, persons dishonorably discharged from the armed
forces, who may be barred the possession of firearms, it is a
truism to say that there is not an absolute right to possess
firearms.  In so saying, the court implicitly recognized the
individual right of peaceful and honest citizens to possess
firearm.


     U.S. v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103 (6th Cir 1976), cert. denied, 426
U.S. 948 (1976).  Following, and relying upon, its earlier decision
in Stevens, supra, the court simply concluded, without any
reference to the history of the Second Amendment, that it "is clear
the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an
individual right."  The court also indicated that, in reaching its
decision, it was relying upon the First Circuit's decision in
Cases, infra.   Yet in concluding that not all arms were protected
by the Second Amendment, Cases did not hold, as did Warin, that the
Second Amendment afforded individuals no protections whatever. 
Warin also erred in concluding that Warin's relationship to the
militia was relevant to determining whether his possession of a
machine gun was protected by the Second Amendment since the Supreme
Court in Miller focused on the firearm itself, not the individual
involved.  In fact, Miller quite expansively defined the
constitutional militia as encompassing "all males physically
capable of action in concert for the common defense."


     U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3rd Cir. 1942), rev'd on other
grounds, 319 U.S. 463 (1943).  This is another case involving
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.  Despite holding that
the failure of the defendant to prove, as required by Miller, a
militia use for the firearm was an adequate basis for ruling
against the defendant, the court, in dicta, concluded that the
Second Amendment "was not adopted with individual rights in mind .
. . ."  This result was based on reliance on an extremely brief --
and erroneous -- analysis of common law and colonial history.  In
addition, apparently recognizing that it decided the case on
unnecessarily broad grounds, the court noted that, at common law,
while there was a right to bear arms, that right was not absolute
and could be restricted for certain classes of persons "who have
previously . . . been shown to be aggressors against society."


     U.S. v. Graves, 554 F.2d 65 (3rd Cir. 1977).  Since the
defendant in this case did not raise the Second Amendment as a
challenge to the "statutory program which restricts the right to
bear arms of convicted felons and other persons of dangerous
propensities," the only discussion of the Second Amendment is
found in a footnote wherein the court states "[a]rguably, any
regulation of firearms may be violative of this constitutional
provision."  


     Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942), cert.
denied sub nom., Velazquez v. U. S., 319 U.S. 770 (1943).  In this
case, the court held that the Supreme Court in Miller had not
intended "to formulate a general rule" regarding which arms were
protected by the Second Amendment and concluded, therefore, that
many types of arms were not protected.  Nonetheless, the court in
Cases expressly acknowledged that the Second Amendment guarantees
an individual right when it noted that the law in question
"undoubtedly curtails to some extent the right of individuals to
keep and bear arms ...."  Id. at 921.  Emphasis added.  Moreover,
the court in Cases concluded, as properly it should have, that
Miller should not be read as holding that the Second Amendment
guaranteed the right to possess or use large weapons that could not
be carried by an individual.






                    U.S. District Court Cases


     U.S. v. Gross, 313 F.Supp. 1330 (S.D. Ind. 1970), aff'd on
other grounds, 451 F.2d 1355 (7th Cir. 1971).  In rejecting a
challenge to the constitutionality of the requirement that those
who engage in the business of dealing in firearms must be licensed,
the court, following its view of Miller, held that the defendant
had not shown that "the licensing of dealers in firearms in any way
destroys, or impairs the efficiency of, a well regulated militia."


     U.S. v. Kraase, 340 F.Supp. 147 (E.D. Wis. 1972).  In ruling
on a motion to dismiss an indictment, the court rejected a facial
constitutional challenge to 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(5) -- which prohibited
sales of firearms to residents of other states.  Recognizing that
an individual right was protected, it held that "second amendment
protection might arise if proof were offered at the trial
demonstrating that his possession of the weapon in question had a
reasonable relationship to the maintenance of a 'well-regulated
Militia.'"


     Thompson v. Dereta, 549 F.Supp. 297 (D. Utah 1982).  An
applicant for relief from disabilities (a prohibited person)
brought an action against the federal agents involved in denying
his application.  The court dismissed the case, holding that,
because there was no "absolute constitutional right of an
individual to possess a firearm," there was "no liberty or property
interest sufficient to give rise to a procedural due process
claim."


     Vietnamese Fishermen's Assoc. v. KKK, 543 F.Supp. 198 (S.D.
Tex. 1982).  Like the statute faced by the Supreme Court in Presser
v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1876), the Texas statute and the
injunction at issue here prohibited private military activity. 
Mischaracterizing Miller, the court held that the Second Amendment
"prohibits only such infringement on the bearing of weapons as
would interfere with 'the preservation or efficiency of a well-
regulated militia,' organized by the State."  Later, however, the
court, following Miller, explained that the "Second Amendment's
guarantee is limited to the right to keep and bear such arms as
have 'a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency
of a well regulated militia.'"  The courts's understanding of the
Second Amendment is thus inconsistent and, given the facts of the
case, largely dicta.  


     U.S. v. Kozerski, 518 F.Supp. 1082 (D.N.H.1981), cert. denied,
469 U.S. 842 (1984).  In the context of a challenge to the law
prohibiting the possession of firearms by convicted felons, the
court, while holding correctly (see discussion of Nelson, supra)
that the Second Amendment "is not a grant of a right but a
limitation upon the power of Congress and the national government,"
concluded that the right "is a collective right . . . rather that
an individual right," citing only Warin, supra.  As a district
court in the First Circuit, however, the court was bound by Cases,
supra, which expressly recognized that the right belonged to
individuals.
--

 
				CASE LAW
 
   The United States Supreme Court has only three times com-
mented upon the meaning of the second amendment to our consti-
tution. The first comment, in Dred Scott, indicated strongly that
the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right; the Court
noted that, were it to hold blacks to be entitled to equality of
citizenship, they would be entitled to keep and carry arms wherev-
er they went. The second, in Miller, indicated that a court cannot
take judicial notice that a short-barrelled shotgun is covered by the
second amendment--but the Court did not indicate that National
Guard status is in any way required for protection by that amend-
ment, and indeed defined "militia" to include all citizens able to
bear arms. The third, a footnote in Lewis v. United States, indicat-
ed only that "these legislative restrictions on the use of fire-
arms"--a ban on possession by felons--were permissable[[sic]]. But since
felons may constitutionally be deprived of many of the rights of
citizens, including that of voting, this dicta reveals little. These
three comments constitute all significant explanations of the scope
of the second amendment advanced by our Supreme Court. The
case of Adam v. Williams has been cited as contrary to the princi-
ple that the second amendment is an individual right. In fact, that
reading of the opinion comes only in Justice Douglas's dissent from
the majority ruling of the Court.
 
   The appendix which follows represents a listing of twenty-one
American decisions, spanning the period from 1822 to 1981, which
have analysed right to keep and bear arms provisions in the light
of statutes ranging from complete bans on handgun sales to bans
on carrying of weapons to regulation of carying by permit sys-
tems. Those decisions not only explained the nature of such a right,
but also struck down legislative restrictions as violative of it, are
designated by asterisks.
 
20th century cases
 
   1.  *State v. Blocker, 291 Or. 255, -- -- --P.2d-- -- -- (1981).
   "The statue is written as a total proscription of the mere posses-
sion of certain weapons, and that mere possession, insofar as a billy
is concerned, is constitutionally protected."
   "In these circumstances, we conclude that it is proper for us to
consider defendant's 'overbreadth' attack to mean that the statute
swept so broadly as to infringe rights that it could not reach, which
in the setting means the right to possess arms guaranteed by
sec 27."
   2.  *State v. Kessler, 289 Or. 359, 614 P.2d 94, at 95, at 98 (1980).
   "We are not unmindful that there is current controversy over
the wisdom of a right to bear arms, and that the original motiva-
tions for such a provision might not seem compelling if debated as
a new issue. Our task, however, in construing a constitutional
provision is to respect the principles given the status of constitu-
tional guarantees and limitations by the drafters; it is not to aban-
don these principles when this fits the needs of the moment."
   "Therefore, the term 'arms' as used by the drafters of the consti-
tuions probably was intended to include those weapons used by
settlers for both personal and military defense. The term 'arms'
was not limited to firearms, but included  several handcarried
weapons commonly used for defense. The term 'arms' would not
have included cannon or other heavy ordance not kept by militia-
men or private citizens."
   3.  Motley v. Kellogg, 409 N.E.2d 1207, at 1210 (Ind. App. 1980)
(motion to transfer denied 1-27-1981).
   "[N]ot making applications available at the chief's office effec-
tively denied members of the community the opportunity to obtain
a gun permit and bear arms for their self-defense."
   4.  Schubert v. DeBard, 398 N.E.2d 1339, at 1341 (Ind. App. 1980)
(motion to transfer denied 8-28-1980).
   "We think it clear that our constitution provides our citizenry
the right to bear arms for their self-defense."
   5.  Taylor v. McNeal, 523 S.W.2d 148, at 150 (Mo. App. 1975)
   "The pistols in question are not contraband. * * * Under Art. I,
sec 23, Mo. Const. 1945, V.A.M.S., every citizen has the right to keep
and bear arms in defense of his home, person, and property, with
the limitation that this section shall not justify the wearing of
concealed arms."
   6.  *City of Lakewood v. Pillow, 180 Colo. 20, 501 P.2d 744, at 745
(en banc 1972).
   "As an example, we note that this ordinance would prohibit
gunsmiths, pawnbrokers and sporting goods stores from carrying
on a substantial part of their business. Also, the ordinance appears
to prohibit individuals from transporting guns to and from such
places of business. Furthermore, it makes it unlawful for a person
to possess a firearm in a vehicle or in a place of business for the
purpose of self-defense. Several of these activities are constitution-
ally protected. Colo. Const. art. II, sec 13."
   7.  *City of Las Vegas v. Moberg, 82 N.M. 626, 485 P.2d 737, at 738
(N.M. App. 1971).
   "It is our opinion that an ordinance may not deny the people the
constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms, and to that extent
the ordinance under consideration is void."
   8.  State v. Nickerson, 126 Mt. 157, 247 P.2d 188, at 192 (1952).
   "The law of this jurisdiction accords to the defendant the right to
keep and bear arms and to use same in defense of his own home,
his person and property."
   9.  People v. Liss, 406 Ill. 419, 94 N.E. 2d 320, at 323 (1950).
   "The second amendment to the constitution of the United States
provides the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed. This of course does not prevent the enactment of a law
against carrying concealed weapons, but it does indicate it should
be kept in mind, in the construction of a statue of such character,
that it is aimed at persons of criminal instincts, and for the preven-
tion of crime, and not against use in the protection of person or
property."
   10. *People v. Nakamura, 99 Colo. 262, at 264, 62 P.2d 246 (en
banc 1936).
   "It is equally clear that the act wholly disarms aliens for all
purposes. The state . . . cannot disarm any class of persons or
deprive them of the right guaranteed under section 13, article II of
the Constitution, to bear arms in defense of home, person and
property. The guaranty thus extended is meaningless if any person
is denied the right to posses arms for such protection."
   11. *Glasscock v. City of Chattanooga, 157 Tenn. 518, at 520, 11
S.W. 2d 678 (1928).
   "There is no qualifications of the prohibition against the carry-
ing of a pistol in the city ordinance before us but it is made
unlawful 'to carry on or about the person any pistol,' that is, any
sort of pistol in any sort of maner. *** [W]e must accordingly hold
the provision of this ordinance as to the carrying of a pistol
invalid."
   12. *People v. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922).
   "The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all per-
sons to bear arms is a limitation upon the right of the Legislature
to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaran-
teed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the
sheriff."
   13 *State v. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921).
   "We are of the opinion, however, that 'pistol' ex vi termini is
properly included within the word 'arms,' and that the right to
bear such arms cannot be infringed. The historical use of pistols as
'arms' of offense and defense is beyond controversy."
   "The maintencance of the right to bear arms is a most essential
one to every free people and should not be whittled down by
technical constructions."
   14. *State v. Rosenthal, 75 VT. 295, 55 A. 610, at 611 (1903).
   "The people of the state have a right to bear arms for the
defense of themselves and the state. *** The result is that Ordi-
nance No. 10, so far as it relates to the carrying of a pistol, is
inconsistent with and repugnant to the Constitution and the laws
of the state, and it is therefore to that extent, void."
   15. *In re Brickey, 8 Ida. 597, at 598-99, 70 p. 609 (1902).
   "The second amendment to the federal constitution is in the
following language: '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.' The language of section 11, article I
of the constitution of Idaho, is as follows: 'The people have the
right to bear arms for their security and defense, but the legisla-
ture shall regulate the exercise of this right by law.' Under these
constitutional provisions, the legislature has no power to prohibit a
citizen from bearing arms in any portion of the state of Idaho,
whether within or without the corporate limits of cities, towns, and
villages."
 
19th century cases
 
   16. * Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54
(1878).
   "If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed
men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the
penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of con-
stitutional privilege."
   17. *Jennings v. State, 5 Tex. Crim. App. 298, at 300-01 (1878).
   "We believe that portion of the act which provides that, in case
of conviction, the defendant shall forfeit to the county the weapon
of weapons so found on or about his person is not within the scope
of legislative authority. * * * One of his most sacred rights is that
of having arms for his own defence and that of the State. This
right is one of the surest safeguards of liberty and self-preserva-
tion."
   18. *Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 8 Am. Rep. 8, at 17 (1871).
   "The passage from Story shows clearly that this right was in-
tended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed
to and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not
by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights."
   19. *Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846).
   "'The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."
The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and
boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every descrip-
tion, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be
infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and
all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and
qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the secu-
rity of a free State."
   20. Simpson v. State, 13 Tenn. 356, at 359-60 (1833).
   "But suppose it to be assumed on any ground, that our ancestors
adopted and brought over with them this English statute, [the
statute of Northampton,] or portion of the common law, our consti-
tution has completely abrogated it; it says, 'that the freemen of this
State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common de-
fence.' Article II, sec. 26. * * * By this clause of the constitution,
an express power is given and secured to all the free citizens of the
State to keep and bear arms for their defence, without any qualifi-
cation whatever as to their kind or nature; and it is conceived, that
it would be going much too far, to impair by construction or
abridgement a constitutional privilege, which is so declared; nei-
ther, after so solumn an instrument hath said the people may
carry arms, can we be permitted to impute to the acts thus li-
censed, such a necessarily consequent operation as terror to the
people to be incurred thereby; we must attribute to the framers of
it, the absence of such a view."
   21. Bliss v. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13
Am. Dec. 251 (1822).
   "For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibit-
ing the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing
such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the
latter must be so likewise."
   "But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the
right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and
complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if
any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the
part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done,
it is equally forbidden by the constitution."
 
   The following represents a list of twelve scholarly articles which
have dealt with the subject of the right to keep and bear arms as
reflected in the second amendment to the Constitution of the
United States. The scholars who have undertaken this research
range from professors of law, history and philosophy to a United
States Senator. All have concluded that the second amendment is
an individual right protecting American citizens in their peaceful
use of firearms.
 

 
			    BIBLIOGRAPHY
 
   Hays, THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, A STUDY IN JUDICIAL MISINTERPRE-
TATION, 2 Wm. & Mary L. R. 381 (1960)
   Sprecher, THE LOST AMENDMENT, 51 Am Bar Assn. J. 554 & 665 (2 parts)
(1965)
   Comment, THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS: A NECESSARY CONSTI-
TUTIONAL GUARANTEE OR AN OUTMODED PROVISION OF THE BILL OF
RIGHT? 31 Albany L. R. 74 (1967)
   Levine & Saxe, THE SECOND AMENDMENT: THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, 7
Houston L. R. 1 (1969)
   McClure, FIREAMRS AND FEDERALISM, 7 Idaho L. R. 197 (1970)
   Hardy & Stompoly, OF ARMS AND THE LAY, 51 Chi.-Kent L. R. 62 (1974)
   Weiss, A REPLY TO ADVOCATES OF GUN CONTROL LAW, 52 Jour. Urban
Law 577 (1974)
   Whisker, HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT AND SUBSEQUENT EROSION OF
THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, 78 W. Va. L. R. 171 (1976)
   Caplan, RESTORING THE BALANCE: THE SECOND AMENDMENT REVISIT-
ED, 5 Fordham Urban L. J. 31 (1976)
   Caplan, HANDGUN CONTROL: CONSTITUTIONAL OR UNCONSTITUTION-
AL?, 10 N.C. Central L. J. 53 (1979)
   Cantrell, THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, 53 Wis Bar Bull. 21 (Oct. 1980)
   Halbrook, THE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE SECOND AND FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENTS, 4 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 1 (1981)
 
 

 
 
	    ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL FIREARMS LAWS FROM THE
		PERSPECTIVE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT
 
   Federal involvement in firearms possession and transfer was not
significant prior to 1934, when the National Firearms Act was
adopted. The National Firearms Act as adopted covered only fully
automatic weapons (machine guns and submachine guns) and rifles
and shotguns whose barrel length or overall length fell below
certain limits. Since the Act was adopted under the revenue power,
sale of these firearms was not made subject to a ban or permit
system. Instead, each transfer was made subject to a $200 excise
tax, which must be paid prior to transfer; the identification of the
parties to the transfer indirectly accomplished a registration pur-
pose.
   The 1934 Act was followed by the Federal Firearms Act of 1938,
which placed some limitations upon sale of ordinary firearms. Per-
sons engaged in the business of selling those firearms in interstate
commerce were required to obtain a Federal Firearms License, at
an annual cost of $1, and to maintain records of the name and
address of persons to whom they sold firearms. Sales to persons
convicted of violent felonies were prohibited, as were interstate
shipments to persons who lacked the permits required by the law of
their state.
   Thirty years after adoption of the Federal Firearms Act, the Gun
Control Act of 1968 worked a major revision of federal law. The
Gun Control Act was actually a composite of two statutes. The first
of these, adopted as portions of the Omnibus Crime and Safe
Streets Act, imposed limitations upon imported firearms, expanded
the requirement of dealer licensing to cover anyone "engaged in
the business of dealing" in firearms, whether in interstate or local
commerce, and expanded the recordkeeping obligations for dealers.
It also imposed a variety of direct limitations upon sales of hand-
guns. No transfers were to be permitted between residents of differ-
ent states (unless the recipient was a federally licensed dealer),
even where the transfer was by gift rather than sale and even
where the recipient was subject to no state law which could have
been evaded. The category of persons to whom dealers could not
sell was expanded to cover persons convicted of any felony (other
than certain business-related felonies such as antitrust violations),
persons subject to a mental commitment order or finding of mental
incompetence, persons who were users of marijuana and other
drugs, and a number of other categories. Another title of the Act
defined persons who were banned from possessing firearms. Para-
doxically, these classes were not identical with the list of classes
prohibited from purchasing or receiving firearms.
   The Omnibus Crime and Safe Streets Act was passed on June 5,
1968, and set to take effect in December of that year. Barely two
weeks after its passage, Senator Robert F. Kennedy was assassinat-
ed while campaigning for the presidency. Less that a week after
his death, the second bill which would form part of the Gun Con-
trol Act of 1968 was introduced in the House. It was reported out of
Judiciary ten days later, out of Rules Committee two weeks after
that, and was on the floor barely a month after its introduction.
the second bill worked a variety of changes upon the original Gun
Control Act. Most significantly, it extended to rifles and shotguns
the controls which had been imposed solely on handguns, extended
the class of persons prohibited from possessing firearms to include
those who were users of marijuana and certain other drugs, ex-
panded judicial review of dealer license revocations by mandating a
de novo hearing once an appeal was taken, and permitted inter-
state sales of rifles and shotguns only where the parties resided in
contiguous states, both of which had enacted legislation permitting
such sales. Similar legislation was passed by the Senate and a
conference of the Houses produced a bill which was essentially a
modification of the House statute. This became law before the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, and was therefore
set for the same effective date.
   Enforcement of the 1968 Act was delegated to the Department of
the Treasury, which had been responsible for enforcing the earlier
gun legislation. This responsibility was in turn given to the Alcohol
and Tobacco Tax Division of the Internal Revenu Service. This
division had traditionally devoted itself to the pursuit of illegal
producers of alcohol; at the time of enactment of the Gun Control
Act, only 8.3 percent of its arrests were for firearms violations.
Following enactment of the Gun Control Act the Alcohol and To-
bacco Tax Division was retitled the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
Division of the IRS. By July, 1972 it had nearly doubled in size and
became a complete Treasury bureau under the name of Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
   The mid-1970's saw rapid increases in sugar prices, and these in
turn drove the bulk of the "moonshiners" out of business. Over
15,000 illegal distilleries had been raided in 1956; but by 1976 this
had fallen to a mere 609. The BATF thus began to devote the bulk
of its efforts to the area of firearms law enforcement.
   Complaint regarding the techniques used by the Bureau in an
effort to generate firearms cases led to hearings before the Subcom-
mittee on Treasury, Post Office, and General Appropriations of the
Senate Appropriations Committee in July 1979 and April 1980, and
before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Senate Judici-
ary Committee in October 1980. At these hearings evidence was
received from various citizens who had been charged by BATF,
>From experts who had studied the BATF, and from officials of the
Bureau itself.
   Based upon these hearings, it is apparent that enforcement tac-
tics made possible by current federal firearms laws are constitu-
tionally, legally, and practically reprehensible. Although Congress
adopted the Gun Control Act with the primary object of limiting
access of felons and high-risk groups to firearms, the overbreadth
of the law has led to neglect of precisely this area of enforcement.
For example the Subcommittee on the Constitution received corre-
spondence from two members of the Illinois Judiciary, dated in
1980, indicating that they had been totally unable to persuade
BATF to accept cases against felons who were in possession of
firearms including sawed-off shotguns. The Bureau's own figures
demonstrate that in recent years the percentage of its arrests
devoted to felons in possession and persons knowingly selling to
them have dropped from 14 percent down to 10 percent of their
firearms cases. To be sure, genuine criminals are sometimes pros-
ecuted under other sections of the law. Yet, subsequent to these
hearings, BATF stated that 55 percent of its gun law prosecutions
overall involve persons with no record of a felony conviction, and a
third involve citizens with no prior police contact at all.
   The Subcommittee received evidence that the BATF has primarily
devoted its firearms enforcement efforts to the apprehension, upon
technical malum prohibitum charges, of individuals who lack all
criminal intent and knowledge. Agents anxious to generate an
impressive arrest and gun confiscation quota have repeatedly en-
ticed gun collectors into making a small number of sales--often as
few as four--from their personal collections. Although each of the
sales was completely legal under state and federal law, the agents
then charged the collector with having "engaged in the business"
of dealing in guns without the required license. Since existing law
permits a felony conviction upon these charges even where the
individual has no criminal knowledge or intent numerous collec-
tors have been ruined by a felony record carrying a potential
sentence of five years in federal prison. Even in cases where the
collectors secured acquittal, or grand juries failed to indict, or
prosecutors refused to file criminal charges, agents of the Bureau
have generally confiscated the entire collection of the potential
defendant upon the ground that he intended to use it in that
violation of the law. In several cases, the agents have refused to
return the collection even after acquittal by jury.
   The defendant, under existing law is not entitled to an award of
attorney's fees, therefore, should he secure return of his collection,
an individual who has already spent thousands of dollars establish-
ing his innocence of the criminal charges is required to spend
thousands more to civilly prove his innocence of the same acts,
without hope of securing any redress. This of course, has given the
enforcing agency enormous bargaining power in refusing to return
confiscated firearms. Evidence received by the Subcommittee related the
confiscation of a shotgun valued at $7,000. Even the Bureau's own
valuations indicate that the value of firearms confiscated by their
agents is over twice the value which the Bureau has claimed is
typical of "street guns" used in crime. In recent months, the aver-
age value has increased rather than decreased, indicating that the
reforms announced by the Bureau have not in fact redirected their
agents away from collector's items and toward guns used in crime.
   The Subcommittee on the Constitution has also obtained evi-
dence of a variety of other misdirected conduct by agents and
supervisors of the Bureau. In several cases, the Bureau has sought
conviction for supposed technical violations based upon policies and
interpretations of law which the Bureau had not published in the
Federal Register, as required by 5 U.S.C. Sec 552. For instance, begin-
ning in 1975, Bureau officials apparently reached a judgment that
a dealer who sells to a legitimate purchaser may nonetheless be
subject to prosecution or license revocation if he knows that that
individual intends to transfer the firearm to a nonresident or other
unqualified purchaser. This position was never published in the
Federal Register and is indeed contrary to indications which
Bureau officials had given Congress, that such sales were not in
violation of existing law. Moreover, BATF had informed dealers
that an adult purchaser could legally buy for a minor, barred by
his age from purchasing a gun on his own. BATF made no effort to
suggest that this was applicable only where the barrier was one of
age. Rather than informing the dealers of this distinction, Bureau
agents set out to produce mass arrests upon these "straw man"
sale charges, sending out undercover agents to entice dealers into
transfers of this type. The first major use of these charges, in
South Carolina in 1975, led to 37 dealers being driven from busi-
ness, many convicted on felony charges. When one of the judges
informed Bureau officials that he felt dealers had not been fairly
treated and given information of the policies they were expected to
follow, and refused to permit further prosecutions until they were
informed, Bureau officials were careful to inform only the dealers
in that one state and even then complained in internal memoranda
that this was interfering with the creation of the cases. When
BATF was later requested to place a warning to dealers on the
front of the Form 4473, which each dealer executes when a sale is
made, it instead chose to place the warning in fine print upon the
back of the form, thus further concealing it from the dealer's sight.
   The Constitution Subcommittee also received evidence that the
Bureau has formulated a requirement, of which dealers were not
informed that requires a dealer to keep official records of sales
even from his private collection. BATF has gone farther than
merely failing to publish this requirement. At one point, even as it
was prosecuting a dealer on the charge (admitting that he had no
criminal intent), the Director of the Bureau wrote Senator S. I.
Hayakawa to indicate that there was no such legal requirement
and it was completely lawful for a dealer to sell from his collection
without recording it. Since that date, the Director of the Bureau
has stated that that is not the Bureau's position and that such
sales are completely illegal; after making that statement, however,
he was quoted in an interview for a magazine read primarily by
licensed firearms dealers as stating that such sales were in fact
legal and permitted by the Bureau. In these and similar areas, the
Bureau has violated not only the dictates of common sense, but of 5
U.S.C. Sec 552, which was intended to prevent "secret lawmaking" by
administrative bodies.
   These practices, amply documented in hearings before this Sub-
committee, leave little doubt that the Bureau has disregarded
rights guaranteed by the constitution and laws of the United
States.
   It has trampled upon the second amendment by chilling exercise
of the right to keep and bear arms by law-abiding citizens.
   It has offended the fourth amendment by unreasonably search-
ing and seizing private property.
   It has ignored the Fifth Amendment by taking private property
without just compensation and by entrapping honest citizens with-
out regard for their right to due process of law.
   The rebuttal presented to the Subcommittee by the Bureau was
utterly unconvincing. Richard Davis, speaking on behalf of the
Treasury Department, asserted vaguely that the Bureau's priorities
were aimed at prosecuting willful violators, particularly felons ille-
gally in possession, and at confiscating only guns actually likely to
be used in crime. He also asserted that the Bureau has recently
made great strides toward achieving these priorities. No documen-
tation was offered for either of these assertions. In hearings before
BATF's Appropriations Subcommittee, however, expert evidence
was submitted establishing that approximately 75 percent of BATF
gun prosecutions were aimed at ordinary citizens who had neither
criminal intent nor knowledge, but were enticed by agents into
unknowning technical violations. (In one case, in fact, the individual
was being prosecuted for an act which the Bureau's acting director
had stated was perfectly lawful.) In those hearings, moreover,
BATF conceded that in fact (1) only 9.8 percent of their firearm
arrests were brought on felons in illicit possession charges; (2) the
average value of guns seized was $116, whereas BATF had claimed
that "crime guns" were priced at less than half that figure; (3) in
the months following the announcement of their new "priorities",
the percentage of gun prosecutions aimed at felons had in fact
fallen by a third, and the value of confiscated guns had risen. All
this indicates that the Bureau's vague claims, both of focus upon
gun-using criminals and of recent reforms, are empty words.
   In light of this evidence, reform of federal firearm laws is neces-
sary to protect the most vital rights of American citizens. Such
legislation is embodied in S. 1030. That legislation would require
proof of a willful violation as an element of a federal gun prosecu-
tion, forcing enforcing agencies to ignore the easier technical cases
and aim solely at the intentional breaches. It would restrict confis-
cation of firearms to those actually used in an offense, and require
their return should the owner be acquitted of the charges. By
providing for award of attorney's fees in confiscation cases, or in
other cases if the judge finds charges were brought without just
basis or from improper motives, this proposal would be largely self-
enforcing. S. 1030 would enhance vital protection of constitutional
and civil liberties of those Americans who choose to exercise their
Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
 
 
 
-- 
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US murders are 
committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"   -  Andrew Ford
gtephx!forda@enuucp.eas.asu.edu  OR  !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda

                   <<< Note 21.284 by TNPUBS::JONG "Steve" >>>

>    I kept them for the day when the general population had forgotten them.
 
	Well, we've forgotten. It must be time to repost.

>    I can say that the HCI statements are quite true: at the Supreme Court
>    level, the Second Amendment is taken as applying only to the militia,
>    which today is the National Guard, and it does not convey any
>    individual rights.
 
	In the cases related to the 2nd Amendment, I don't find
	wording that makes this ass clear as you represent. And cases
	dealing with the National Guard, pretty clearly indicate that
	the NG is just an adjunct of the US Armed Forces, not the
	State Militia as defined under the Militia Act.

Jim

   It was rather long, Jim, and I have only a paper copy.
   If you're interested, I would be happy to mail you a photocopy for your
   perusal.

                   <<< Note 21.299 by TNPUBS::JONG "Steve" >>>

>   It was rather long, Jim, and I have only a paper copy.
>   If you're interested, I would be happy to mail you a photocopy for your
>   perusal.

	That's OK for me, but everyone else will surely
	be dissappointed. ;-)

Jim

   Oh, I'm sure they're hanging on my every *word*.
   
   When my hand feels better, and if I am overcome with energy, I may type
   it in, but I doubt it.  I will mail you a copy, though.

   Just scan it in and feed it into Microsoft Word to format it.

   - Jim

	You can decide if the media are simply dupes being used by
	this guy, or if they are willing participants in the charade.

Jim


Here's the word from NRA re:Black Rhino ammunition:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE         For further information,
December 27, 1994             call:   Tom Wyld, NRA Public Affairs
                              703-267-3820

                     "WHERE'S THE AMMO?"
                 All the Trappings of Hoax

WASHINGTON, D.C. --  In response to the media firestorm over a
"manufacturer" and his "ammunition," the National Rifle
Association of America observed the following:

     (a) The maker is not a maker -- and may never be;

     (b) The round in question has never been seen, much
         less evaluated, by competent authority; and

     (c) Contrary to USA Today and others, it cannot
         lawfully "hit gun stores Monday."

"This has all the trappings of a hoax," said Mrs. Tanya K.
Metaksa, NRA chief lobbyist.  "What we have is an outbreak
of mob journalism centering on the dubious claims of a would-be
manufacturer.  According to published reports, the "product"
goes to market next week -- but the BATF has not even granted
a license.  Neither the technical staff of NRA nor the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) has received a single
cartridge to evaluate.

"Experience dictates that it is unwise to base public policy
solely on the basis of a manufacturer's dubious claims.
According to published accounts, the "manufacturer" is a gun
control advocate.  That alone should prompt skepticism.
Reports also indicate that he expects to market the product
in January -- without having a federal license to do so.  That
alone should prompt an entirely new line of inquiry:

Who does he work for?

"NRA's position is clear:  we helped craft the prohibition
against handgun ammunition designed to penetrate ballistic
resistant vests by developing a sound, technically competent
standard.  Only when the proposed product is evaluated can
NRA comment on its conformance with the law and the
prospective manufacturer's credibility."

Downloaded from GunTalk (NRA-ILA) 703- 934-2121

    According to ABC, which acquired some Black Rhinos, the product does
    not live up to expectations.
    
    ME

       <<< Note 21.304 by REFINE::KOMAR "Patsies no longer.  Go Pats!" >>>

>    According to ABC, which acquired some Black Rhinos, the product does
>    not live up to expectations.
 
	Did they use Peter Jennings as the "test medium"?

Jim

    No.
    
    Apparently the ran the standard test with the Black Rhinos and it ONLY
    works as well as an ordinay bullet.
    
    Nightline did it's show on this, but I did not see it.
    
    ME

    
    They ran a test with the regular Rhino not the BR. Keene claimed
    9" penetration with a wound width of 4-5". Tests showed penetration
    at 3", width <2".  Nightline said the BR is a myth, and that the rhino
    is no worse than any other round on the market. Will our friends at HCI
    continue pushing to have them banned? I bet they do.
    
    WB

    
    
    
    Wasn't there also some question as to whether another manufacturer's
    parts were used to "invent" these things?  Seems to me like maybe some
    anti-gun person put these things together to create a scare so as the
    media would focus on banning stuff again.  Could it be?
    
    
    Mike

       <<< Note 21.306 by REFINE::KOMAR "Patsies no longer.  Go Pats!" >>>

>    No.
 
	It was too much to hope for.

>    Apparently the ran the standard test with the Black Rhinos and it ONLY
>    works as well as an ordinay bullet.
 
	Not as well, in fact, as a more ordinary hollowpoint. Not quite
	as good as a Glaser Safety Slug or MagSafe round.

	3.5 inches of penetration, 2 in diameter permanent wound channel.

	I will give ABC News, and Nightline in particular, credit for
	exposing this hoax. And for, if not admitting directly, ackowledging
	that the media, both print and broadcast, had been duped by Mr.
	Keene.

	Tanya Metaska said it best. She asked Chris Wallace that if she went
	to the media and claimed to have invented a car that would go from 
	0 to 60 in 1 second, would her story get this kind of coverage
	without a demonstration. Mr. Wallace didn't answer.

Jim

                       <<< Note 21.307 by LUDWIG::BING >>>

    
>Will our friends at HCI
>    continue pushing to have them banned? I bet they do.
 
	No bet. Schumer was still saying that he wasn't wrong last night
	that we should still ban "cop-killer" bullets, even if they don't
	exist.

	This guy's incredible. If someone played me for a sucker in front
	of a national audience, I'd be pissed. Schumer seemed to be proud
	of it.

Jim

    <<< Note 21.308 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "yup, it's a watchamacallit" >>>

>    Wasn't there also some question as to whether another manufacturer's
>    parts were used to "invent" these things?  

	The lab stated that the components were Olin-Winchester. The only
	additions were 4 or 5 small pellets and the polymer.

>Seems to me like maybe some
>    anti-gun person put these things together to create a scare so as the
>    media would focus on banning stuff again.  Could it be?
 
	Well after having appeared on every major TV news program telling
	us how devasting his new bullet was, Mr. Keene was decidedly
	camera shy yesterday. Seems if I was marketing a new product
	that I believed in, I'd be out front defending it, not telling
	the reporters that they were trespassing when they started asking 
	questions.


Jim

    too many americans are braindead and can't see the press for what they
    really are. this latest flap is just another in a long line of screw
    ups on their part. keep in mind that the press is willing to compromise
    on all your rights except the 1st.
    
    until the press is held accountable for their screw ups they will
    continue to run off half cocked and arrogantly refuse equal and fair
    rebuttals. keep in mind one thing. the press isn't on YOUR side unless
    it nets them something AND fits their political agendas.

Sent in my NRA membership app. Told 'em instead of sending
me one of the magazines, to keep the money for lobbying
for the preservation of the 2nd.

	good fer you! welcome aboard...

    GOOD GOING JACK!! Welcome aboard and if 'n you ever get to coloraddy
    drop by for a bit of target practice.

    
    .312
    
>   too many americans are braindead
    
    This may become known as the most reasonable statement in Soapbox-95

    
    I see that the trend continues.
    
    More gun control laws.
    Lower crime.
    
    In New York City.  In Boston Mass.  In....
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    
    
    Crime has been continuing downward for a long time Mr. Bill. In places
    with less gun-control laws it declines even faster....
    
    
    

   <<< Note 21.317 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>    I see that the trend continues.
>    
>    More gun control laws.
>    Lower crime.
>    
>    In New York City.  In Boston Mass.  In....
 

	What new laws were passed at the beginning of the period?

Jim

    The original claim by Jim Percival repeated just two short years ago
    was:
    
    	It is the unvarying experience that crime rates, including
    	gun crime rates, rise after the passage of gun-control laws.
    
    I accepted his challeng to counter this absurd claim.  After about
    an hour of digging, I found such an example in New York City.
    
    So Jim Percival modified his claim to:
    
    	It is the almost unvarying experience that crime rates, including
    	gun crime rates, rise after the passage of gun-control laws.
    
    Now we see your sad unsupportable hand waving of:
    
    	In places where gun control legislation has passed, crime
    	would have gone down further if it hadn't.
    
    								-mr. bill

   <<< Note 21.320 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>    The original claim by Jim Percival repeated just two short years ago
>    was:
 
	And, as you mention, I corrected my statement when you provided
	an example.

	I've now asked you for the same information related to your
	latest claim.

>    Now we see your sad unsupportable hand waving of:
>    
>    	In places where gun control legislation has passed, crime
>    	would have gone down further if it hadn't.
 
	Hardly unsupported. Those areas that have relaxed their laws,
	particularly those relating to civilian concealed carry, have
	seen reductions in excess of the National average.

	You can refer to the FBI/DOJ UCRs for the details.

Jim

    
|   What new laws were passed at the beginning of the period?
    
    The gun control laws in New York City and Boston were toughened before
    and during the period in question, not relaxed.
    
    You might want to do a quick search on "Weld" for example.
    
    								-mr. bill

|   Those areas that have relaxed their laws, particularly those relating
|   to civilian concealed carry, have seen reductions in excess of the
|   National average.
    
    It will take you but a moment to discover that this claim is without
    merit.  See various counties in Florida.
    
    See crime rate against tourists in Florida (be free to adjust them for
    number of days each person spends in the state) who almost universally
    do NOT conceal carry versus crime rate against Florida residents (with
    liberal conceal carry).  I know, I know, you've already claimed that
    if more residents would carry, the crime rate would go down.

    								-mr. bill

    
    
    	shoot, just issue the tourists a piece when they come in. A little
    .38spl revolver would do nicely....:*)
    
    
    

    re: .312
    
    You are right, Gene, except that they care only for select portions of
    the First...they are too stupid to realize that their irreponsibility
    will, sooner or later, catch up with them.
    
    -steve

    With CCW, Florida's Homicide Decreases While National Average Soars
                     Homicide Rates Per 100,000 Pop.

       AREA                1987*               1992                % CHANGE

       Florida             11.4                9.0                 -21%
       U.S.                8.3                 9.3                 +12%

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, F.B.I. Uniform Crime Reports
* Florida adopted CCW in 1987.


                  CCW Permits in Florida Issuance Rates

Population                                           13,277,000

% of Floridians                                      All - 62.7%
Who Own Guns                                         Male - 68.8%
                                                     Female - 57.3%

# of Floridians                                      8,325,000
Who Own Guns

# of Permit Applications                             239,411

Permits Issued                                       227,569

Permits Revoked Due To                               18 (0.008%)
Crime With Firearm Present


During the 6-1/2 year period from 10/01/87 (start-up date) through
05/31/94, 227,569 CCW permits have been issued -- 69% new permits;
31% permit renewals.  Less than one-quarter of 1% of permit
applications have been rejected due to an applicant's criminal
history; less than two-tenths of 1% have been rejected due to an
"incomplete application."  Two hundred permits (less than one-tenth
of 1%) have been revoked because a permit holder committed some
kind of a crime, though not necessarily a gun-related or violent
crime. Only 18 (less than 0.008%) permits have been revoked because
a permit holder committed a crime (not necessarily violent) in
which a firearm was present, though not necessarily used.

By contrast, the FBI reports that each year there are about 46,000
gun-related violent crimes (assaults, robberies, homicides and
rapes) in Florida.

Florida CCW Permit Source: Florida Department of State
--
This information is presented as a service to the Internet community
by the NRA/ILA.  Many files are available via anonymous ftp from
ftp.nra.org and via WWW at http://www.nra.org

Be sure to subscribe to rkba-alert by sending:
subscribe rkba-alert Your Full Name
as the body of a message to rkba-alert-request@NRA.org

Information can also be obtained by connecting to the NRA-ILA GUN-TALK
BBS at (703) 934-2121.

    
    RE: .322
    
    >The gun control laws in New York City and Boston were toughened before
    >and during the period in question, not relaxed.
    
     FYI... the Boston Globe reported yesterday that the crime rate for
    Boston went down last year...
    
      Homicides using guns has gone..... are you ready? Up...
    
    All due, to the "toughened" gun control laws enacted.... right?
    

            CARRYING CONCEALED FIREARMS (CCW) STATISTICS

Violent crime rates are highest overall in states with laws
severely limiting or prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms
for self-defense. (FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 1992)

-    The total Violent Crime Rate is 26% higher in the
     restrictive states (798.3 per 100,000 pop.) than in the
     less restrictive states (631.6 per 100,000).

-    The Homicide Rate is 49% higher in the restrictive states
     (10.1 per 100,000) than in the states with less
     restrictive CCW laws (6.8 per 100,000).

-    The Robbery Rate is 58% higher in the restrictive states
     (289.7 per 100,000) than in the less restrictive states
     (183.1 per 100,000).

-    The Aggravated Assault Rate is 15% higher in the
     restrictive states (455.9 per 100,000) than in the less
     restrictive states (398.3 per 100,000).

Using the most recent FBI data (1992), homicide trends in the 17
states with less restrictive CCW laws compare favorably against
national trends, and almost all CCW permittees are law-abiding.

-    Since adopting CCW (1987), Florida's homicide rate has fallen
     21% while the U.S. rate has risen 12%.  From start-up 10/1/87
     - 2/28/94 (over 6 yrs.) Florida issued 204,108 permits; only
     17 (0.008%) were revoked because permittees later committed
     crimes (not necessarily violent) in which guns were present
     (not necessarily used).

-    Of 14,000 CCW licensees in Oregon, only 4 (0.03%) were
     convicted of the criminal (not necessarily violent) use or
     possession of a firearm.

Americans use firearms for self-defense more than 2.1 million times
annually.

-    By contrast, there are about 579,000 violent crimes committed
     annually with firearms of all types.  Seventy percent of
     violent crimes are committed by 7% of criminals, including
     repeat offenders, many of whom the courts place on probation
     after conviction, and felons that are paroled before serving
     their full time behind bars.

-    Two-thirds of self-protective firearms uses are with handguns.

-    99.9% of self-defense firearms uses do not result in fatal
     shootings of criminals, an important factor ignored in certain
     "studies" that are used to claim that guns are more often
     misused than used for self-protection.
-    Of incarcerated felons surveyed by the Department of Justice,
     34% have been driven away, wounded, or captured by armed
     citizens; 40% have decided against committing crimes for fear
     their would-be victims were armed.

                         OTHER CCW FACTS

     With adoption of CCW by Arizona, Tennessee and Wyoming in
early 1994, 19 states have CCW laws requiring the issuance of
permits to carry concealed firearms for self-defense to citizens
who meet fair and reasonable state standards.  Vermont, which ranks
near the bottom in violent crime rates year-in and year-out, allows
firearms to be carried concealed without a permit.

     In recent years NRA successfully fought for the adoption of
favorable CCW laws now on the books in Florida (1987), Idaho (1990,
amended 1991), Mississippi (1990), Montana (1991), and Oregon
(1990).  In recent legislative sessions, proposals for similar CCW
laws have progressed in Alaska, Colorado, Missouri, Oklahoma and
Texas.

     Anti-gun forces oppose CCW with a variety of arguments,
ranging from deliberate  misrepresentations of commonly available
crime data to "studies" pretending to show that private ownership
of firearms leads to death and injury rather than providing
protection to the owner.

1.   Firearms ownership opponents claim that "violent crime" went
up in Florida since that state enacted CCW legislation in 1987, a
misleading statement for multiple reasons:

-    Florida's homicide rate has declined 21% since adopting CCW in
1987.

-    No comparison of aggravated assault, robbery, and rape (99.3%
of Florida violent crimes) beginning before 1988 is valid,
according to the Florida Dept. of Law Enforcement.  In 1988,
Florida changed its method of compiling crime statistics.

-    In Florida, as in the U.S., more than 70% of violent crimes do
not involve guns.  Violent crime rates, therefore, don't
necessarily reflect violent gun-related crime trends.  According to
the most recent FBI Uniform Crime Reports (1992), nationwide
firearms were used in the four violent crimes that make up the
total "Violent Crime" category, as follows:  Aggravated Assault
(58% of violent crimes) -- firearms used in 25%; Robbery (35% of
violent crimes) -- firearms used in 41%; Rapes (6% of violent
crimes) -- firearms used in an estimated 5%-10% (survey data); and
Homicides (1% of violent crimes) -- firearms used in 68%.

     In Florida: Aggravated Assaults (64% of violent crimes) --
firearms used in 25%; Robberies (30% of violent crimes) -- firearms
used in 37%; Rapes (4% of violent crimes) -- firearms used in an
estimated 5%-10% (survey data); and Homicides (0.7% of violent
crimes) -- firearms used in 61%.

2.   Anti-gunners cite "studies" they claim show that firearms kept
at home are "43 times more likely" to be used to kill family
members than be used for self-defense.  (Other "studies" claim
different ratios.)  The 43:1 claim, based upon a small-scale study
of Kings County (Seattle) and Shelby County (Memphis), is a fraud,
because it counts as self-defense gun uses only those cases in
which criminals were killed in the defender's home.  Approximately
99.9% of all defensive gun uses are not fatal shootings, however --
criminals are usually frightened off, held at bay, or non-fatally
wounded.  Also, many defensive firearms uses occur away from home.
Further, suicides were counted as "family member killings" in the
"study," elevating that number more than 500%.  Unfortunately, some
of these "studies" are funded with taxpayer dollars, through grants
from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a division of
the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services.
--
This information is presented as a service to the Internet community
by the NRA/ILA.  Many files are available via anonymous ftp from
ftp.nra.org and via WWW at http://www.nra.org

Be sure to subscribe to rkba-alert by sending:
subscribe rkba-alert Your Full Name
as the body of a message to rkba-alert-request@NRA.org

Information can also be obtained by connecting to the NRA-ILA GUN-TALK
BBS at (703) 934-2121.

   <<< Note 21.323 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>    It will take you but a moment to discover that this claim is without
>    merit.  See various counties in Florida.
 
	The stats are for Florida as a whole and they do hold up. Also
	see Washington state, Idaho, Oregon.

>    See crime rate against tourists in Florida (be free to adjust them for
>    number of days each person spends in the state) who almost universally
>    do NOT conceal carry versus crime rate against Florida residents (with
>    liberal conceal carry). 

	What an interesting way to look at the problem. Of course, it is
	statistically meaningless. Unless of course you can show that
	criminals are targeting specific tourists. From a statistical point
	of view, there are ALWAYS tourists in Florida. And as you point out 
	the represent, as a class, a lower risk to the criminal element.

Jim

    
|     Homicides using guns has gone..... are you ready? Up...
    
    Is that a fact?
    
    Number of homicides with firearms, Boston:
    
    1990:		85
    1993:		65
    1994:		62
    
    								-mr. bill

   <<< Note 21.322 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

    
>    The gun control laws in New York City and Boston were toughened before
>    and during the period in question, not relaxed.
 
	I was asking for specifics. Do you have them?

Jim

|	The stats are for Florida as a whole and they do hold up. Also
|	see Washington state, Idaho, Oregon.
    
    I am completely uninterested in the stats for Florida as a whole.
    If your claim has merit, it will hold for each individual county in
    Florida as well.  It does not so hold.  Your stats do not hold up.
    (Therefore, of course, they are meaningless, see below.)
    
|   What an interesting way to look at the problem. Of course, it is
|   statistically meaningless.  
    
    Of course it is statistically meaningless.  We come to that conclusion
    simply.  Any statistic which does not support your case is meaningless.
    
|   Unless of course you can show that criminals are targeting specific
|   tourists.
    
    You either slept through or forgot about the tourist crisis in two
    counties in Florida.
    
|   And as you point out the represent, as a class, a lower risk to the
|   criminal element.
    
    And as you no doubt don't want to tell anyone, they are also targeted,
    as a class, less often by the criminal element.
    
    								-mr. bill

    more press brainwashing.
    
    today's minneapolis star tribune ran two lengthy stories of people
    accidentally killed by guns while defending their home. one was in WA
    and another....i forget. this paper does this anytime it can find any
    info on shootings where a homeowner shoot/shot the wrong person. i've
    written this paper many times asking them to print real life stories of
    people who successfully defended their homes. they refuse to print
    them. they have NEVER printed such a story.
    
    remember. the media is trying to manipulate your opinion with "shock
    stories" telling only one side of the picture. before you give up your
    rights your owe it yourself, your family, your country to do the proper
    homework. otherwise, your part of the ever broadening group of
    braindead america.

    Specifically, in Mass, commonly called:
    
    	Governor Weld's Comprehensive Gun Control Bill
    
    Passed and went into effect this year.
    
    Rudolf Gulianni (Mayor, New York City, Republican) also supported and
    put into effect additional gun control legislation since his inauguration.
    This is in addition to tightening gun control legislation during
    Dinkin's administration.
    
    
    Nationally, I would think the Brady Law coming into effect on Feb 28th
    of last year would be called "the beginning of the period."
    
    
    Then of course there is the Crime Bill....  You haven't forgotten that
    already, have you?
    
    								-mr. bill

>   <<< Note 21.336 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>    Specifically, in Mass, commonly called:
    
>    	Governor Weld's Comprehensive Gun Control Bill
    
>    Passed and went into effect this year.
    
Could you remind us what gun-control measures made it through of the governors
proposal? 
Thank you

   <<< Note 21.334 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>    I am completely uninterested in the stats for Florida as a whole.
>    If your claim has merit, it will hold for each individual county in
>    Florida as well.  It does not so hold.  Your stats do not hold up.
>    (Therefore, of course, they are meaningless, see below.)
 
	So it is your contention that social policy should be framed based
	of statistical study of individuals?

   
>    Of course it is statistically meaningless.  We come to that conclusion
>    simply.  Any statistic which does not support your case is meaningless.
 
	I was refering to your "time spent in Florida" stat. Even you must
	realize that this is meaningless statistically.

>    You either slept through or forgot about the tourist crisis in two
>    counties in Florida.
 
	Nope, remember it well. In fact I remember using it to point
	out that criminals are NOT generally stupid and that, if given the
	choice, they will pursue a defenless target

>    And as you no doubt don't want to tell anyone, they are also targeted,
>    as a class, less often by the criminal element.
 
	I would be interested in the numbers on which this claim is based.

	Numbers like how many tourists there are in Florida at any given
	time and how many are the victims of crime.

Jim

    
    
    
    I hope he is (stats on individual basis), Jim.  As close as I can figure, 
    that means that 99.999% of gun owners never use their firearms for any 
    criminal purpose whatever.
    
    
    Mike

|	So it is your contention that social policy should be framed based
|	of statistical study of individuals?
    
    Find me a county in Florida that contains a single individual, and
    maybe I'll understand this question.
    
|	Nope, remember it well. In fact I remember using it to point
|	out that criminals are NOT generally stupid and that, if given the
|	choice, they will pursue a defenless target
    
    Then why do they pursue the target who is less likely to be defenseless
    (resident of Florida, rather than the tourist) instead?
    
|	I would be interested in the numbers on which this claim is based.
    
    The Florida Department of Tourism.  I'm so shocked not to find this
    information on the NRA servers - NOT!  So pardon the generalities,
    but....
    
    The rate of attack on a citizen in Florida is about 400x higher than
    the rate of attack on a tourist in Florida.  I assume that the average
    Florida resident spends the better part of 48 weeks a year in Florida.
    I further assume that the average tourist in Florida spends only a
    day in Florida.
    
    You are free to challenge my assumptions.  Maybe you think the average
    Florida resident only spends 25 weeks a year there (all those winter
    bees going there after the bowl games) then go right ahead.  If you
    think the average Florida tourist spends less than 24 hours there, go
    right ahead.
    
    You do the math.
    
    								-mr. bill

    new MN laws states that
    
      "all homicides will automatically be referred to the DA for
    prosecution, including alledged self defence" killings.

 re: Title:  You'll find tourists are safer....


  >  The rate of attack on a citizen in Florida is about 400x higher than
  >  the rate of attack on a tourist in Florida.  I assume that the average
  >  Florida resident spends the better part of 48 weeks a year in Florida.
  >  I further assume that the average tourist in Florida spends only a
  >  day in Florida.
   

	One would therefore assume that it is easier to find a Florida resident
in Florida than a tourist, thereby accounting for the difference in rate of
attack.

 

    When I am a Florida tourist, I'm definitely a Fl-oh-rida tourist.

    
    Yer a LOONY.

   <<< Note 21.340 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>    The rate of attack on a citizen in Florida is about 400x higher than
>    the rate of attack on a tourist in Florida.  I assume that the average
>    Florida resident spends the better part of 48 weeks a year in Florida.
>    I further assume that the average tourist in Florida spends only a
>    day in Florida.
    
>    You are free to challenge my assumptions.

	OK.

	Your assumptions are a joke. You have "calculated" the odds for
	an individual tourist based on the amount of time they spend
	in the State. When looking at crime trends a classes of victims
	this manipulation of the data has no meaning.

	Given your "calculation", which you have not supported, you assert
	that the victimization rate for tourists, as a class, is aproximately
	60% of the victimization rate of Florida residents.

	This assumes your 400x figure and the difference between 1 day
	and 240 days.

	I really would like to see the figures on which you base your
	"calculation". Number of crimes committed against tourists
	(I'll settle for murder, robbery, assault) and the average number
	of tourists in Florida at any given point in time. Only with
	these numbers can we calculate whether tourists, as a class, are
	at greater or lesser risk than residents.

	Also you may want to find a Florida state agency that is a little
	more objective than the one who's job is to promote tourism.

Jim

    
    RE: .332
    
    I will clarify tomorrow after perusing the aforementioned Globe column
    tonight....

    One wonders if the same people who can spot the flaw in the risk a
    tourist is exposed to normalized against all the days they aren't in
    state (as it is being interpreted by mr bill's oppponents) can also
    spot the flaw in the 'pregnant months' calculation recently offered up
    to suggest that a woman exposed to 3-5 months of risk before abortion
    as just as safe, per month, as one who carries to term, and experiences
    the risk over twice the period.
    
    DougO

|	I really would like to see the figures on which you base your
|	"calculation".
    
    You want the raw data?  You've got a pointer to it.  Gopher it, the old
    fashioned way.
    
    
    The data was presented as number of tourists per year, number of
    of violent crimes against those tourists (murder, robbery, assault was
    what I recall, but not burglary), and the rate.
    
    As you suspect, the data was presented in a way to minimize the danger
    of travelling in Florida.  You need the number of residents in Florida
    on average each day, and the number of tourists in Florida on average
    each day.
    
    Now, given the number of tourists per year, and the average length of
    stay, can you come to a ballpark figure on the average number of tourists
    in Florida on any given day?  I think you are bright enough to do this on
    the back of the envelope.
    
|	Also you may want to find a Florida state agency that is a little
|	more objective than the one who's job is to promote tourism.
    
    Bahaha.  Can I quote that the next time somebody sends anyone to the
    I'm the NRA server?
    
    Anyhow, after adjusting for the hype of the Tourist Cheerleaders, it's
    clear that tourists are clearly not in more danger than residents,
    (which is your claim).  Tourists are probably closer to 2-4 times
    less likely to be a victim of violent crime (murder, robbery, assault)
    than residents.
    
    
    And finally, I'll note that you've never provided support for your
    claim that "defenseless" are more likely to be a victim of violent
    crime than the "defenseful".  I suspect that their may be a strong
    air-bag effect to consider.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
     Using statistics or pseudo-statistics is a very high art form in
    America, but has been so overused, almost everybody is leary of
    them.  No point of view, no pro or anti position, is exempt.  As
    a take-off on this, I saw a hilarious article recently on "second
    hand smoke statistics".  The author, tongue firmly in cheek, had
    constructed a set of ten factoids, all true, for both the
    proposition that second-hand smoke was a medical calamity, or that
    it was of no importance whatever, take-your-pick.  They illustrate
    numerous common fallacies in a funny way.
    
     I don't believe for a minute that it is possible to use statistics
    to determine in any convincing way what the "results" of say, the
    "Brady Bill" are or will be.  Even sillier was the NAFTA thing.
    
    Don't be taken by charlatans bearing statistics.
    
      bb

>    Bahaha.  Can I quote that the next time somebody sends anyone to the
 >   I'm the NRA server?


	Mr. bill, I believe it was in 1983 or so that the NRA was given an award
as being one of the agencies that most accuractely reported it's data. The NRA's
data comes from the FBI/DOJ reports....check them out yourself....


jim

Any tourist going to Florida and spending time in Miami
deserves to have their head examined by blunt object.

    
    You do know what sins of omission are?
    
    								-mr. bill

    >Any tourist going to Florida and spending time in Miami
    >deserves to have their head examined by blunt object.
    
    Just spent 4 days there a few weeks ago... thought the
    place was just fine, although I wasn't being a tourist.
    It rained most of the time I was there, which was the
    only negative comment I can think of.
    
    -b

    When I'm in Florida, I'm visiting Fl-oh-rida.

   <<< Note 21.348 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>    You want the raw data?  You've got a pointer to it.  Gopher it, the old
>    fashioned way.
 
	A "pointer"? You mean the reference to the Florida State Board
	of Tourism? Nice try Bill but that's not a pointer, it's not
	even a good hint.

	Am I to assume that you do NOT have the raw data?

>    Bahaha.  Can I quote that the next time somebody sends anyone to the
>    I'm the NRA server?
 
	THe NRA does not create data. It posts it. THe references ALWAYS
	include the original source of the material.

>    Anyhow, after adjusting for the hype of the Tourist Cheerleaders, it's
>    clear that tourists are clearly not in more danger than residents,
>    (which is your claim).  Tourists are probably closer to 2-4 times
>    less likely to be a victim of violent crime (murder, robbery, assault)
>    than residents.
 
	Well, using your numbers I estimated that residents were about
	40% more likely to be victims than tourists. But of course
	without the raw data upon which you based your original
	calculation, that number is also pretty meaningless.

>    And finally, I'll note that you've never provided support for your
>    claim that "defenseless" are more likely to be a victim of violent
>    crime than the "defenseful".  I suspect that their may be a strong
>    air-bag effect to consider.
 

	You can read Professor Kleck's work if you like. Your local 
	libaray should have, or be able to obtain, a copy. His latest
	survey indicates 2 million crimes prevented. He also deals with
	the success rate of the criminals in cases where there is no
	resistance, and where the victim resists. He then breaks the 
	resistance down by category. Those who resist with a gun are
	far more succsessful in stopping the crime that any other method.
	They are also less likely to be injured than those who use a
	different method, or those who do not resist at all.

Jim

  Dr. James Wright is a professor of sociology and director of the Social and
  Demographic Research Institute (SADRI) at the University of Massachusetts,
  an expert on survey research, and a reformed advocate of harsh gun laws.
  In a 1975 article entitled, "The Ownership of the Means of Destruction:
  Weapons in the United States," Wright attacked the NRA and gun ownership.
  In 1979, Prof. Wright joined with Peter Rossi- also from SADRI at U. Mass.,
  and a former president of the American Sociological Association- in
  studying the gun issue more thoroughly.  This has caused a dramatic shift
  in their views. 

                        The Armed Criminal In America

                           by Dr. Paul H. Blackman

  Fear of the armed citizen and the threat of tough punishment for using a
  gun (or other weapons) in committing a violent crime are significant
  factors in both reducing and deterring crime, according to the results of a
  survey of imprisoned felons conducted by Professors James D. Wright and
  Peter H. Rossi. 

  Through in-depth interviews with 1,874 imprisoned felons conducted between
  August, 1982 and January, 1983, the government-funded researchers delved
  into the deep-seated attitudes of criminals on the questions of weapons
  choice, deterrence, attitudes towards "gun control", criminal history and
  firearms acquisition.  The prisoners, studied under a grant from the
  National Institute of Justice of the U.S. Justice Department, were
  incarcerated in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts,
  Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada and Oklahoma. 

  Although some of the survey and its authors conclusions have been released
  piecemeal for the past few years, the government-issued Wright-Rossi
  analysis will soon be released in it's entirety by the Justice Department.
  Complete data tapes were made available to the public on June 7, and now
  provide criminologists with extensive views into the mind of the criminal.

  The officially released analysis will likely be edited by Justice
  bureaucrats seeking to minimize its pro-gun conclusions.  The data,
  however, confirm policies espoused not only by the pro-gun fraternity for
  the past two decades but by others concerned with the trend toward judicial
  leniency in America. Based on characteristics such as age, race, education,
  marital status, and conviction offense, as reported in other surveys of
  state prisoner population, the experiences and attitudes of the adult male
  prisoners studied by Wright and Rossi appear to be fairly representative of
  the entire adult prison population, and of adult male criminals generally.
  
  Wright-Rossi divided violators into the following categories corresponding
  to their use of weapons in committing crimes: unarmed felons, improvisers,
  knife-wielding criminals, one-time gun abusers, periodic or sporadic gun
  abusers, and handgun and shotgun predators.  The last group commits a wide
  variety of crimes, using a host of weapons and with disproportionate
  frequency. For most purposes, interest centers on criminals who have used
  guns at least once in crime, although Wright notes that the predatory
  group, one fifth of the total sample, accounts for half of the crimes
  admitted to by the imprisoned felons. 

  For the impact of mandatory penalties, however, it is the unarmed or
  non-gun criminals whose responses may be more instructive.  The study show
  a full 69% of respondents who did not carry firearms, but used knives,
  razors, brass knuckles, or clubs, said that "stiffer sentences" was a "very
  important or "somewhat important" reason for their not carrying a gun.  The
  fear of "stiffer sentences" was even greater for wholly unarmed felons,
  with 79% citing tougher punishment as "very" or "somewhat important" reason
  for not being armed. 

  Mandatory sentencing and other sentence enhancements help incapacitate
  repeat, predatory criminals and also work to discourage their less
  committed comrades from using a gun to commit a crime.  The Wright-Rossi
  survey reemphasizes the need for expanding career criminal programs and for
  reducing the prosecutorial and judicial leniency, particularly with active
  or predatory weapons-wielding criminals.  Wright has noted, "It's only
  simple justice to punish criminals who prey on people with such
  intimidating weapons." 

  The Wright-Rossi survey shows clearly that gun laws affect only the
  law-abiding, and that criminals know it.  Eighty-two percent of the sample
  agreed that "Gun laws only effect law-abiding citizens; criminals will
  always be able to get guns," and 88% agreed that "A criminal who wants a
  handgun is going to get one, no matter how much it costs."  To this Wright
  adds, "The more deeply we delve into our analyses of the illicit firearms
  market, the more confident we become that these opinions are essentially
  correct ones." 

  In states with widespread gun ownership and tough punishment for gun
  misuse, criminals surveyed were often unarmed: 54% in Oklahoma, 62% in
  Georgia, 40% in Maryland, 43% in Missouri, and 35% in Florida.  In
  Massachusetts, however, only 29% of the felon-respondants were unarmed.  In
  that state, it is difficult lawfully to acquire a firearm, and the illegal
  carrying of a firearm, rather than the criminal misuse of a gun, is subject
  to the mandatory penalty.  The survey data indicate that the criminals'
  fear of an armed victim relates directly to the severity of gun laws in the
  state surveyed.  Where gun laws are less restrictive, such as Georgia and
  Maryland, criminals think twice before running the risk of facing an armed
  victim; the are much less concerned in Massachusetts. 
                                                                        
  Fifty-six percent of the felons surveyed agreed that "A criminal is not
  going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun;" 74%
  agreed that "One reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is
  that they fear being shot." 

  A 57% majority agreed that "Most criminals are more worried about meeting
  an armed victim than they are about running into the police."  In asking
  felons what the personally thought about while committing crimes, 34%
  indicated that they thought about getting "shot at by police" or "shot by
  victim." 

  The data suggest that criminals may be a little more concerned about being
  caught by police and imprisoned than about being shot, but meeting the
  armed citizen clearly elicited fears of being shot.  That deterrent effect
  of citizen gun ownership appeared in their responses to questions about
  actual encounters.  Although 37% of those surveyed admitted that they
  personally had "run into a victim who was armed with a gun," that figure
  surpassed the 50% mark for armed criminals, an experience shared by 57% of
  the active gun predators.  And 34% of the sample admitted to having been
  "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim." 

  Significantly, almost 40% said there was at least one time when the
  criminal "decided not to do a crime because [he] knew or believed that the
  victim was carrying a gun."  Clearly, armed citizens represent a real
  threat to criminals, a threat with which large numbers a personally
  familiar, or familiar with through the shared experiences of their fellow
  outlaws. 
                                           
  Other surveys, taken of law-abiding gun owners, suggest that handguns are
  used for protection about 350,000 times each year in America.  The data
  from the Wright-Rossi felon survey, based on the number of crimes each
  felon has committed, and the number of times the criminals acknowledge
  being deterred or scared off- some a few or even many times- lends support
  to that figure. And it would appear form the survey data and police data
  that a criminal is much more likely to be driven off from a particular
  crime by an armed victim than to be imprisoned for it by the criminal
  justice system. 

  The criminal's physical condition also favors the armed citizens' success
  in thwarting an attempted crime.  Abuse of alcohol or drugs appears to be
  commonplace.  More than one quarter of the felons admitted to alcoholism
  and/or drug addiction, and most had used a variety of hard and soft drugs.
  A majority (57%) admitted to being high on drugs and/or intoxicated at the
  time the committed the offense for which they were imprisoned.  Drug abuse
  tends to increase along with the number of crimes committed.  About 80% of
  the most active predators are drug abusers, compared to just over half the
  whole sample surveyed. 

  The number of criminals committing crimes while "high" on drugs or alcohol
  undermines the image, often espoused by the anti-gunners, of a victim's
  inability to overcome a competent, controlled criminal.  The trumped-up
  charge that resistance is useless against criminal attack is proved to be
  unfounded based on criminals' expressed fear of the armed citizen and
  likelihood that the criminals' abilities and reflexes are dramatically
  impaired by substance abuse. 

  The Wright-Rossi data further confirm that the widespread policy of
  treating criminals under 18 years of age with kid gloves, or ignoring the
  pre-adult records in determining sentencing in later years, is misguided
  and mistaken. A majority of felons surveyed had, before turning 18,
  committed at least one burglary and one theft, while one-third had
  committed a robbery, and over one-fourth had committed an armed robbery. 
 
  The survey also refutes the oft-stated myth that criminal obtain firearms
  to commit crime through legitimate business channels, such as firearms
  dealers in general or pawnbrokers in particular.  And the survey data thus
  show the absurdity of attempting to regulate criminal access to firearms by
  regulating legitimate channels.  As Wright noted, criminals "obtain guns in
  hard-to-regulate ways from hard-to-regulate sources.  ...Swaps, purchases,
  and trades among private parties (friends and family members) represent the
  dominant patter of acquisition within the illicit firearms market." 

  The average gun-wielding criminal studied expected to have no difficulty in
  obtaining a gun within a day after release from prison.  Fifty percent
  expected to unlawfully purchase a gun through unregulated channels; 25%
  anticipated borrowing a gun, and only one-eighth expected to steal their
  guns.  The choices of where to obtain a handgun, among those categorized as
  handgun abusers, ranged downward from friends, to the street, to fences, to
  blackmarket and their drug dealers.  Licensed gun dealers do not figure
  high in the plans of the felons surveyed.  And pawnbrokers accounted for
  only 6% of the mentions of possible sources for guns.  That low number
  supports the finding of BATF studies showing that pawnshops were not
  disproportionately used by criminals who illegally obtained firearms
  through licensed dealers. 

  Theft certainly is a problem, but other unregulated acquisition is even
  more popular with felons.  Criminals are thieves, however, and guns are
  clearly among the items stolen, mostly to sell rather than for personal
  use.  The criminals surveyed reported committing a great number of thefts,
  with a large percentage stealing guns from regulated sources.  Among those
  who reported stealing a gun (40% of the total sample), 37% stole from
  stores, 15% from a policeman, 16% from a truck shipment, and 8% from a
  manufacturer. 
                                                  
  Well-secured and well-regulated sources such as stores, shippers,
  manufacturers and even police may represent a substantial percentage of the
  guns stolen, indicating that theft from individuals may have been
  exaggerated as a problem in the illegal commerce in firearms as
  anti-gunners frequently charge. These data might suggest that a reasonable
  policy conclusion would be to make theft of a firearm, especially more than
  one, a felony regardless of the value of the gun or guns stolen. 

  The Wright-Rossi landmark study also explodes the so-called "Saturday Night
  Special" myth, long propounded by anti-gun activists, that criminals prefer
  small, cheap handguns and that their ban would save lives.  The data
  indicate that small-caliber, short barreled, or inexpensive handguns are
  quite opposite the characteristics sought when criminals steal or choose to
  own a handgun to commit a violent crime. 

  The firearm of choice, based on the handguns criminals own, is akin to
  those used by law enforcement: a .38 or .357 with a 4" barrel, made by
  Smith and Wesson, Colt, or Ruger with an estimated retail value of over
  $150. Felons stated preferences for high quality, accurate and
  easy-to-shoot guns, generally revolvers rather than semi-automatic
  firearms.  Only 14% of the guns owned by criminals would fit the classic
  anti-gun  definition of a "Saturday Night Special," combining small caliber
  (.32 or less) with short barrel (3" or less).  Fifty-five percent  combined
  a caliber of .38 or more powerful with a barrel length of at least 4".
  Only 5% admitted to owning a .25, although this particular model accounts
  for a 13% domestic market share in handguns purchased by U.S citizens,
  according the the earlier Wright-Rossi book, 'Under the Gun.' 

  The survey findings give the lie to any suggestion, popular with Handgun
  Control, Inc., and its Kennedy-Rodino gun gill, that a ban on small
  handguns, the so-called "Saturday Night Specials," would be beneficial.
  According to Wright, felons make it clear that such a law "would stimulate
  a wholesale shift to bigger and more lethal weapons among predatory
  felons."  The same crimes would still be committed, but with potentially
  more lethal firearms. Wright has characterized his findings on the possible
  impact of such a ban as "uniformly dismal.  If what they're saying is true,
  I'd rather they carry little cheap stuff.  Not that I want them to be
  carrying anything, but if the don't have little guns they might buy .357
  Magnums or 9mm semi-automatic pistols, and the death rates go up with
  larger-caliber weapons." 

  The data show that an outright ban on handguns, such as is proposed by the
  National Coalition to Ban Handguns, would have nightmarish consequences.
  Most of the criminals who have previously used handguns- and especially
  those predators who have committed many crimes using handguns- said they
  would simply move to long guns which would be sawed down to concealable
  size.  Outlawing handguns would simply make career criminals turn to what
  Wright describes as bigger more lethal weapons. 

  If a ban on handguns was enacted, 64% of the criminal respondents said they
  would shift from a handgun to sawed-off rifles and shotguns.  That finding
  was elicited from three-fourths of "handgun predators" and five-eighths of
  those who had used a handgun more than once in crime.  Wright says, "We
  would do well, by the way, to take this response seriously: most of the
  predators who said they would substitute the sawed-off shotgun also told us
  elsewhere in the questionnaire that the had in fact sawed off a shotgun at
  some time in their lives and that it would be 'very easy' for them to do so
  again.  The possibility that even a few of the men who presently prowl the
  streets with handguns would, in the face of a handgun ban, prowl with
  sawed-off shotguns instead is itself good reason to think twice about the
  advisability of such a ban.  That as many as three-quarters of them might
  do so causes one to tremble."  Wright argues, then, that there are
  "sensible and humane" reasons for opposing a handgun ban. 

  The policy implications of the Wright-Rossi survey should give lawmakers
  pause before inflicting restrictive gun laws on the law-abiding gun owner
  who plays a significant, proven role in curbing violent crime.  This policy
  implication is especially significant, coming as it does, from a man who
  admits to having taking for granted- before five years of studying guns,
  crime, and violence in America- that "gun control" laws would be
  beneficial. Today, Wright concurs with the National Rifle Association
  members in saying, "They oppose gun regulation because they don't believe
  it will help control crime, and so do I." 
    

    Professor Kleck's paper is titled "Crime Control Through the Private
    Use of Armed Force" and is available for $3.00 from the Second
    Amendment Foundation, James Madison Building, 12500 N.E. Tenth Place,
    Bellevue, WA 98005.
    
    Kleck cites over 50 references, e.g. U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics,
    U.S. FBI, U.S. Library of Congress.
    
    This is a research paper, not an opinion paper.  It contains only
    facts.  It's an eye-opener and validates what everyone with even a hint
    of common sense has known all along regarding armed self-defense.
    
    

Article 90950 of talk.politics.guns:
Path:
nntpd.lkg.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!ames!sgiblab!swrinde!cs.u
texas.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!cyber2.cyberstore.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!mmddvan!not-
for-mail
From: booth@mdd.comm.mot.com (Greg Booth)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Guns in Medical Literature
Date: 3 Jan 1994 09:20:17 -0800
Organization: Motorola - Wireless Data Group
Lines: 2002
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <2g9k4h$lgb@phoenix.mdd.comm.mot.com>
Reply-To: booth@mdd.comm.mot.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: phoenix.mdd.comm.mot.com


9.	 Doctors Studies

From talk.politics.guns Tue Dec 15 12:07:34 1992 Path: 
mdivax1!mdisea!uw-coco!uw-
beaver!cs.ubc.ca!destroyer!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-
state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-
state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!cleveland.Freenet.Edu!bb063 From: 
bb063@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Christopher J. Crobaugh) Newsgroups: 
talk.politics.guns Subject: Dr. Edgar Suter article Date: 13 Dec 
1992 17:10:12 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, 
Cleveland, Ohio (USA) Lines: 1946 Message-ID: 
<1gfqpkINNsfc@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: 
slc4.ins.cwru.edu

 Here is the full text of Dr. Suter's article as regards the 
rubbish and lies contained in manyh medical journals, incorrectly 
referred to as "research." Many of you will find it interesting, 
if tough reading.

GUN PROHIBITION IN THE MEDICAL LITERATURE - TELLING THE TRUTH?

 by Edgar A. Suter, MD Family Practice 5201 Norris Canyon 
Road, Suite 140 San Ramon, CA 94583 USA

Abstract

The AMA Council on Scientific Affairs has promulgated a policy 
that opposes private ownership of "assault weapons." The policy is 
based upon a report citing a single study that stands alone in its 
conclusion. The report fails to address considerable research that 
undermines the rationale of the prohibitionist policy. Many 
misperceptions are perpetuated in that report. The constitutional 
impediments to gun prohibition have been casually dispatched by the 
Council without sound support. This article presents evidence 
previously overlooked by the medical literature.

Acknowledgments

The author is indebted for their review and helpful 
suggestions to:

Paul H. Blackman, Ph.D., Research Coordinator, National Rifle 
Association, Institute for Legislative Action, Washington, DC

James Boen, Ph.D., Assistant Dean for Academic Affairs, 
Professor of Biostatistics, University of Minnesota, School of 
Public Health, Minneapolis, Minnesota

Robert Cottrol, JD, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Rutgers 
School of Law, Camden, New Jersey

Col. Martin Fackler, MD, Retired Chief, Wound Ballistics 
Laboratory, Letterman Army Hospital, Presidio, San Francisco, 
California

Don B. Kates, Jr., LLB, Former Constitutional Law Professor, 
St. Louis University School of Law, Civil Rights Attorney, Novato, 
California

Gary Kleck, Ph.D., Professor of Criminology, Florida State 
University, Tallahassee, Florida

The author is, however, solely responsible for the content of 
this paper. Any errors exist despite, not because of, the kind help 
of these or other reviewers.

Introduction

JAMA recently published a report submitted by the AMA Council 
on Scientific Affairs in support of banning "assault weapons." [1] 
A review of the authorities and references cited by the Council 
fails to identify the three most comprehensive compilations of 
"assault weapons in crime" data. [2, 3, 4] Also missing are the two 
most comprehensive reviews of the "guns and violence" literature, 
including the National Institute of Justice study. [5, 6] The 
Council has not addressed and, therefore, not dispatched the 
confounding data of these and many other readily available studies 
and sources. The sole datum offered in support of the policy is 
from a newspaper study so flawed that the Bureau of Alcohol, 
Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) disavowed the study's finding. [7] 
Though the Council acknowledges an individual right to firearms 
ownership, it has dismissed the constitutional impediments to 
"assault weapon" bans without analysis or authority.

Comparison of the Council's few and selected sources with the 
many other available authorities makes it difficult to conclude 
that the Council conducted either a thorough or unbiased 
investigation.

Political background

Since more than 200 million firearms are distributed amongst 
approximately half of US households, it is difficult to credibly 
characterize firearms ownership as unusual or deviant and it is 
generally accepted that promoting prohibition of private ownership 
of all guns is "political suicide." For these reasons, it is 
reported, the attempted tactic of gun prohibitionists has been to 
conquer small pieces of the electorate at a time, serially 
stigmatizing and then banning certain types of weapons, hoping 
eventually to obtain their goal of total gun prohibition. [8]

In support of this, one can observe that "the criminals' 
weapon of choice," the "bad guns" we must loathe, change more 
frequently than one can explain a change in criminals' weapon 
selection. "Undetectable plastic guns", "Saturday Night Specials", 
machine guns, "cop killer bullets", and, now, "assault weapons" 
have all been described as posing an imminent, if not actual, 
danger. Despite the claims, no figures supporting the assertions 
are offered or, if figures are offered, analysis shows the figures 
are more-or-less-artfully crafted.

Despite more than a century of effort, [9] gun prohibitionists 
have unsuccessfully promoted national and state efforts to ban 
handguns. Notwithstanding polls alleging support for handgun bans, 
in 1982 voters in California rebuffed draconian handgun 
restrictions by nearly a 2-to-1 margin. A similar referendum failed 
in Massachusetts. By the 1970's and 80's liberal and feminist 
thinkers [10] and scholars [11] began to break ranks over the 
orthodoxy of gun prohibition. By 1988, even liberal politicians, 
such as Rep. Barney Frank, [12] had found the politics of gun 
prohibition to be a liability. The California Attorney General's 
1988 study had determined "[assault weapons] constitute[d] 
absolutely no conceivable threat", so that office would not support 
their regulation. [13] Then, a drifter with a long criminal and 
psychiatric history, including multiple weapon felonies, was 
allowed to purchase several firearms, despite a waiting period and 
the background check by the California Department of Justice. In 
violation of federal law barring mental defectives from gun 
ownership, he obtained an AKM-56S rifle in Oregon and transported 
it to California. On January 17, 1989 Patrick Purdy turned his 
weapons on children in a Stockton, California school yard, killing 
5 of 35 he wounded. [14] It has gone virtually unnoticed that, even 
when used against children, almost all of those wounded (86%) 
survived.

No matter that even the Law Enforcement Adviser of Handgun 
Control Inc. (HCI), Mr. Philip C. McGuire, "agree[d] with the NRA" 
that "assault weapons" were not a problem; [15] no matter that a 
porous criminal justice system repeatedly put a dangerous and 
mentally defective Patrick Purdy on the street, or that the 
California Department of Justice allowed weapons in his hands his 
guns took the blame. One must grudgingly concede to the NRA that 
even stringent gun control failed to keep guns out of the hands of 
a known criminal and mental defective.

Perplexingly the California Department of Justice withheld 
and continues to withhold its reports showing "assault weapons" 
have been no more than an anecdotal crime problem. Handgun Control 
Inc., absent supportive data, began its political campaign. The 
media has also put its "spin" on the issue:

"It could be argued that the perception that these firearms 
are frequently used by criminals is attributable to media reports 
that selectively highlight incidents in which they have been used. 
One news commentator testified that reports on the use of such 
firearms stemmed from a conscious decision on the part of his 
broadcast station to influence the public." [16]

Typical for media coverage of gun control issues, [17] all 
pretense of objectivity in the press went out the window, [18] 
finding us where we are today. As Mercy and Houck have called us 
to science in the pages of JAMA, [[19] let us examine the data 
available and the problems of data acquisition.

The importance of defining "Assault weapons"

Obtaining a consistent definition of "assault weapon" would 
be key to amassing and collating meaningful data pertinent to 
legislative and public policy considerations. By 1988, however, the 
California Attorney General's Office had already concluded such a 
definition was technically impossible. [20] Data acquisition and 
analysis have also been hampered by prejudice and disinformation.

Consider the prejudice in the remarks of Dr. Jerome Kassirer, 
Editor-in-Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine:

"Data on [assault weapon] risks are not needed because they 
have no redeeming social value." [21] [emphasis original]

One of the Council's sources, Mr. Sugarmann, seems disposed 
to intentionally obfuscate the issues and deceive the public:

"The semiautomatic weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the 
public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus 
semiautomatic assault weapons - anything that looks like a machine 
gun is assumed to be a machine gun - can only increase that chance 
of public support for restrictions on these weapons." [22]

as does the California Attorney General's Office memorandum:

"Information on assault weapons would not be sought from 
forensic laboratories as it was unlikely to support the theses on 
which the [assault weapon ban] would be based." [23]

No functional or meaningful features or combinations of 
features uniquely distinguish the politically incorrect "assault 
weapons" from their "sporting" counterparts. Because there is no 
consistent definition, comparison of data from different 
jurisdictions is impeded.

The definition of "assault rifle"

As Mr. Sugarmann's strategy admits, though cosmetically 
similar, "assault weapons" are not the same as "assault rifles." 
"Assault rifles" are defined by widely accepted criteria. "Assault 
rifles" are capable of machine-gun-like "automatic" fire. They are 
designed to wound rather than kill. They fire intermediate power 
cartridges, more powerful than most pistols, but considerably less 
deadly than hunting rifles which, by definition, are designed to 
kill. [24, 25] In any other context, "assault rifle" is a misnomer.

"Assault rifle" wound ballistics

That "Assault rifles" are designed to wound rather than kill 
is important. Attempting to address popular misconceptions 
regarding their purported deadliness, Col. Martin L. Fackler, MD, 
the recently retired Director of the United States Army Wound 
Ballistics Research Laboratory, wrote:

"Military bullets are designed to limit tissue disruption - 
to wound rather than kill. The Full-metal-jacketed bullet is 
actually more effective for most warfare; it removes the one hit 
and those needed to care for him newspaper descriptions comparing 
their effects with a grenade exploding in the abdomen must cause 
the thinking individual to ask: how is it possible that 29 children 
and one teacher out of 35 hit in the Stockton school yard survived? 
If producers of assault rifles had advertised their effects as 
depicted by the media, they would be liable to prosecution under 
truth-in-advertising laws." [26]

It would seem therefore that we should question the 
reliability of anecdotal assertions such as:

"Of the [South African] patients who were hit with one 
projectile [from an AK-47] in any portion of their torso, there 
were no survivors whatsoever. Of the patients who were hit with 
even a single AK-47 projectile in any extremity, 95% had to have 
that extremity amputated." [27]

Streptococcal bacteremia and Clostridial gangrene are the 
common complications of any penetrating wound inadequately treated 
with antibiotics, necessitating amputation from the iatrogenic 
complication, rather than from the injury itself. [28, 29] Though 
described in the lay press, the author's search of the peer-
reviewed literature failed to corroborate injuries such as those 
described by Trunkey. The literature review finds instead that 
"assault weapon" wounds more closely approximate handgun injuries 
than rifle injuries:

"[M]any AK-47 shots will pass through the body causing no 
greater damage than that produced by non-expanding handgun bullets. 
The limited tissue disruption produced by this weapon in the 
Stockton school yard is consistent with well documented data from 
Vietnam as well as with controlled research studies from wound 
ballistic laboratories." [30]

Congressional testimony agrees:

"It is my opinion as a court-qualified 'firearms expert' that 
six- (or seven-) shot hunting shotguns are more lethal at ranges 
under 50 yards than either the semi or full-automatic versions of 
the AK-47" [31]

The Council perpetuates myths about "high velocity" bullets 
and "assault weapon" wound ballistics that have been definitively 
dispelled in the pages of JAMA [32] and elsewhere. [33, 34, 35, 36] 
The Council expresses its horror at the devastation caused by the 
single shock wave of a "high velocity" bullet, failing to note that 
the average Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy utilizes about 
2,000 shock wave pulses, each of which is three times that of the 
"high velocity" bullet, without any evidence whatsoever of soft 
tissue damage. [37] The vogue of undue concern over "cavitation" 
in all but non-elastic tissues has justifiably passed, though 
without the Council's notice. When the Council cites a newsweekly 
interview (of a surgeon who thinks inelastic watermelons are 
appropriate human tissue simulants) [38] and elsewhere [39] for 
theories of wound ballistics repudiated in peer-reviewed 
literature, one must wonder whether the Council wisely or carefully 
selected the best scholarship available. If "watermelon wound 
ballistics" were valid, deceleration injury from a one foot fall 
would similarly crack human tissue.

The public may actually be endangered more by banning less 
deadly weapons, handguns and "assault weapons." If handguns were 
unavailable, criminals have indicated they would substitute more 
deadly weapons (e.g. shotguns and rifles, which can be easily made 
concealable by using a hacksaw to make them "sawed off"), rather 
than less deadly weapons (e.g. knives and clubs). [40] It is a 
reasonable, though untested, hypothesis that the likeliest 
substitute for handgun-configuration "assault weapons" would be 
equally deadly revolvers and that the likeliest substitute for 
rifle-configuration "assault weapons" would be more deadly 
shotguns and rifles, resulting in a net increase in morbidity and 
mortality.

The lack of definition of "Assault weapon"

Even gun prohibitionists cannot agree on a definition of 
"assault weapons." [41] "Assault weapons" are semi-automatic and 
not capable of full-automatic machine gun fire (they fire a single 
bullet with a squeeze of the trigger rather than a "spray"). As the 
California Attorney General's Office has noted, they are not 
definable by any unique technical criteria. [42] This is one reason 
that legislative attempts have failed to clearly distinguish these 
"politically incorrect" guns from functionally identical "sporting 
guns" chambered in more deadly calibers. The conundrum, 
acknowledged by the Council, is one factor in the legal appeals to 
overturn the arbitrary selection of weapons in the California 
"Assault Weapon" Ban. [43]

"Assault weapons" encompass an amorphous group of guns 
functionally identical to other common hunting and target rifles. 
[44] They inconsistently share cosmetic similarities with military 
weapons. The Council has not explained how cosmetic features make 
guns more deadly than functionally identical weapons. Is a gun more 
deadly by virtue of a plastic stock, a pistol grip, a durable 
finish, a flash suppressor, tritium night sights, or a bayonet lug? 
Have we a spate of drug dealers using unrusty weapons in night 
bayonet charges?

Even the capability of accepting "high capacity" magazines is 
an unreliable distinction since every one of the common hunting and 
target rifles cited above are capable of accepting factory or 
after-market "high capacity" magazines.

Contrary to the Council's insinuation, they are not routinely 
or factory equipped with "silencers" (properly, "suppressors"). 
Federal law (and law in 38 of the 50 states) [45] does allow private 
citizens to optionally equip their firearms with suppressors under 
the restrictions of the National Firearms Act of 1934, [46] but the 
Council did not offer data to support that such legal options are 
either widespread or a problem.

Professor Kleck of the Florida State University School of 
Criminology examined the contradictions:

"The difficulties with this political compromise [of 
eliminating only some semi-automatic weapons] are obvious. If semi-
automatic fire and the ability to accept large magazines are not 
important in crime, there is little reason to regulate ["assault 
weapons"]. On the other hand, if these are important attributes, 
then it makes little crime control sense (though ample political 
sense) to systematically exclude from restriction the most widely 
owned models that have these attributes, since this severely limits 
the impact of regulation." [47]

Skullduggery and duplicity in the public debate

The first "Assault weapon" ban as a model

A review of the first "assault weapon" ban shows the 
conceptual and technical impossibilities involved. The political 
skullduggery is also impressive. In 1988 in contemplation of 
restrictive legislation, Mr. S.C. Helsley, Acting Assistant 
Director of the Investigation and Enforcement Branch of the 
California Department of Justice, was asked by his Director 
"whether a definition could be formulated which would allow 
legislative control of 'assault rifles' without infringing on 
sporting weapons." His three page memorandum of October 31, 1988 
summarized the 17 supporting technical documents, including data 
confirming the nearly non-existent use of "assault weapons" in 
crime, and concluded, "I do not think the necessary precision is 
possible." [48]

"In early January 1989, the Attorney General and his Executive 
Staff were briefed on the difference (or lack thereof) between 
assault and non-assault weapons. At the conclusion of that 
briefing, the Attorney General, to the obvious displeasure of some 
of his key advisers, said that he would not support assault weapon 
legislation unless hard data could be developed.

"With the Purdy Stockton school yard shooting in January 1989, 
the Attorney General immediately [without 'hard data'] announced 
his support for the Roberti/Roos initiatives." [49]

In another memorandum, Mr. Helsley documented, "In the past 
20 years, [Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement] specials agents have 
never been fired at by a suspect with one of the weapons listed in 
12276 PC [California's 'assault weapon' ban]." [50]

Described by California Assemblyman Tom McClintock as "the 
ultimate triumph of symbolism over substance," the ban was enacted. 
The weapons named by manufacturer and model number in the 
California Roberti-Roos "Assault Weapon" Ban of 1989 [51] were 
chosen on appearance, not by any forensic criteria or supportive 
crime data. [52] In the words of Mr. Helsley of the California 
Attorney General's Office three years after the ban's enactment, 
"Most if not all of the principal players in crafting the 
legislation had absolutely no knowledge of firearms. Most of the 
weapons on the list constitute absolutely no conceivable threat. 
Publication of a manual for public or law enforcement use will 
require that we reach some yet unreached conclusion about which 
weapons are covered." [53] [emphasis original]

Because of this approach, because technical advice was 
assiduously avoided, [54, 55] the law banned guns that didn't 
exist, [56] named gun manufacturers that do not exist, [57] failed 
to ban Patrick Purdy's gun, [58] and redundantly banned certain 
machine guns. [59] By legislative fiat in the original law, the 
Encom CM-55 became an "assault weapon" - that weapon is a manual, 
single-shot shotgun that has the menacing feature of a pistol grip.

Most damning, however, is the suppression of two statewide 
studies done by the California Attorney General's Office. Both the 
1987 Helsley report [60] and the 1991 Johnson report [61] have 
shown "assault weapons" were not and are not a crime problem. 
Poised for a later-to-fail gubernatorial campaign and ignoring the 
very report he commissioned, former Attorney General Van de Kamp 
grandstanded in support of the proposed ban of "assault weapons." 
California State Senate President Pro-tempore David Roberti's 
Office has described how they "managed" the media throughout the 
legislative process. [62] For political gain, deception was 
perpetrated upon the Californians whose taxes paid for the 
suppressed studies. The ban continues to cost taxpayers at least 
$4.5 million per year in administrative and enforcement costs. [63]

The law has been pronounced unenforceable by the current 
California Attorney General, Dan Lungren. [64] Why then does his 
office "stonewall" requests for the reports? His office received 
the draft report of the Johnson study on September 26, 1991, yet, 
the following December, in a response to a request for the report 
by State Senator Robert Presley, [65] Mr. Patrick Kenady, Assistant 
Attorney General for Legislative Affairs, stated "such a document 
does not exist. What you refer to was a preliminary draft document 
not retained in the ordinary course of business." [66] Subsequently 
the "not retained" document has been leaked and become readily 
available from channels outside the Attorney General's Office. [67] 
The raw data of the Johnson report and caveats on its reliability 
are now available from the Attorney General's Office. [68]

None of the vagueness, insupportability, errors, 
skullduggery, deception, and the resultant expensive and 
frightening legal pitfalls that the ban holds for law-abiding gun 
owners seems to trouble at least one spokesperson, Mr. Louis Tolley 
of Handgun Control Inc., the well-funded gun prohibitionist lobby:

"We believe that if any gun dealer, manufacturer, or gun 
owners wants [sic] to test the law in court, they should be given 
every opportunity. Arrest them. Put the burden on them to prove the 
law is too vague." [69]

This author fails to understand how the public good will be 
served, crime will be decreased, or lives spared by jailing or 
vindictively depleting honest citizens' financial resources at 
trial when they are simply confused by or are unsupportive of bad 
law that even their Attorney General's Office cannot understand.

Pointedly, the massive and public civil disobedience of the 
California "assault weapon" ban [70] is strong evidence that 
otherwise law-abiding citizens are unwilling to even register their 
banned guns. New York City recently confiscated "assault weapons" 
registered in 1989. Chicago has also enacted a confiscatory ban. 
[71] Seeing confiscation follow registration cannot be reassuring 
to gun owners weighing the risk and benefit of registering guns of 
any kind.

Old news and false claims

The newly-fearsome semi-automatic weapons are of a design type 
prevalent since semi-automatic weapons were developed over a 
century ago [72] and true assault rifles have been with us for 50 
years, since the Wehrmacht's 1942 introduction of the 
Maschinerkarabiner 42(H) and the slightly later introduction of the 
Sturmgewehr 44. [73] "Assault rifle" is actually a translation of 
the German "sturmgewehr." The Soviets followed with the 
introduction of the Avtomat Kalashnikova of 1947, the AK-47.

The Council perpetuates the erroneous claim that these weapons 
are "easily converted to full automatic fire", though current law 
requires that all guns undergo an extensive evaluation by the 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to prove that they cannot 
be easily converted to fully automatic fire. [74] A hint of the 
infrequency with which conversions are attempted can be gleaned 
from the observation that about 6 of the 4,000 guns seized annually 
in Los Angeles have evidence of attempted, though rarely 
successful, conversion. [75]

The Council writes "assault weapons are meant to be spray 
fired from the hip", citing Handgun Control Inc. as authority. 
Though the Council cites Assault Rifle Fact Sheet 1: Definitions 
and Background of the Institute for Research on Small Arms in 
International Security for explanation of gun nomenclature, the 
Council fails to cite pertinent portions of the Fact Sheet's 
definition of Assault Rifle:

"designed to produce roughly aimed bursts of full automatic 
fire." [emphasis added]

or its discussion of Rate of Fire:

"In actual practice the number of shots that can be delivered 
from any self-loading weapon is limited by shooter skill, 
especially the need to reload The shooter's probability of hitting 
a target with a self-loading rifle when pulling the trigger as 
rapidly as possible is about 1 hit in 5 shots fired." [76] [emphasis 
added]

A portion of the testimony of Dr. Edward C. Ezell, Curator of 
the National Firearms Collection, Armed Forces History Division, 
Smithsonian Institution, before the US Senate Committee on the 
Judiciary is cited by the Council, but the Council missed the 
preponderance of his testimony nullifying the Councils imagery. 
[77] They also ignored his similarly invalidating open-letter to 
Congressman John Dingell. [78]

The Council writes "a reliable estimate of how many of [the 
200 million firearms owned by American citizens] are assault 
weapons is not available", citing another well-funded gun 
prohibitionist group as authority. Though the Council cites Assault 
Rifle Fact Sheet 1: Definitions and Background of the Institute for 
Research on Small Arms in International Security for explanation 
of gun nomenclature, the Council fails to note either Fact Sheet 
#2's [79] or Dr. Ezell's educated guess [80] of 3.34million 
military-style semi-automatic rifles or roughly 3% of America's 
civilian rifles.

Best evidence

Since the Council acknowledges these resources, but not their 
full content, one can only speculate why the Council prefers to 
cite the partisan imagery of the well-funded gun prohibition lobby, 
Handgun Control Inc., rather than non-partisan scholars of the 
Library of Congress and Smithsonian Institution.

In an attempt to support that "assault weapons" are the 
"weapon of choice for drug gangs," the Council cites dubious 
sources and concludes "Clearly the injuries from assault weapons 
are taxing hospital emergency departments in large urban areas." 
The bases for these assertions? Newspaper articles where, for 
example, a 5% increase in multiple gun shot cases over 10 years is 
assumed, but not demonstrated to be due to "assault weapons," [81] 
a two day survey of one emergency room in Los Angeles County is 
embellished by anecdotal stories from four surgeons, [82] other 
articles that, without any evidence at all, assume, but do not 
demonstrate the wounds they treat are due to "assault weapons," 
[83] and a "background paper" [84] from the same California 
Attorney General's Office that suppressed, even denies the 
existence of, the other two contradictory statewide studies 
described above. Reading the Council's sources fails to detect any 
peer-reviewed references for factual matters. Can anyone conclude 
that the council conducted a scientific or unbiased investigation?

Is the Council so short of supporting facts that it must 
resort to hyperbole and partisan imagery? Let us look at the data.

The unrepresentative nature of gun trace requests

The only evidence offered by the Council that "assault 
weapons" are a problem of the proportion suggested by the lay media 
are the Cox Newspaper articles, [85] a series by two reporters who 
based their conclusion that 11% of crime guns were "Assault 
weapons" on gun trace requests of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco 
and Firearms. While the Council acknowledges, "The sample of 
firearms for which traces are requested is not likely to be 
representative of all firearms used in crime", they uncritically 
accept the Cox article as best evidence in the face of considerable 
documentation that the Cox figures exaggerate the "assault weapon" 
problem by a factor of three to 110, depending on locale studied 
and the definition of "assault weapon" used.

Gun traces are not representative of the criminal prevalence 
of gun use any more than perusing the index of a research journal 
necessarily reflects the prevalence of disease. Journal indices and 
gun traces largely reflect a level of interest in the topic or the 
gun. No study corroborates the prevalence suggested by the Cox or 
other gun trace figures.

In an unprecedented move, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and 
Firearms challenged the methods and conclusions of the Cox study. 
[86] As early as 1976 one well-known gun control advocate 
acknowledged the limitations of gun trace data. [87] In its Report 
For Congress on "assault weapons," the Congressional Research 
Service of the Library of Congress has elucidated the weaknesses 
that make the BATF gun trace system inappropriate for statistical 
purposes:

"The [B]ATF tracing system is an operational system designed 
to help law enforcement agencies identify the ownership path of 
individual firearms. It was not designed to collect statistics

"Two significant limitations should be considered when 
tracing data are used for statistical purposes:

--   First, the firearms selected for tracing do not 
constitute a random sample and cannot be considered representative 
of the larger universe of all firearms used by criminals, or of any 
subset of that universe. As a result, data from the tracing system 
may not be appropriate for drawing inferences such as which makes 
or models of firearms are used for illicit purposes;

--   Second, standardized procedures do not exist to ensure 
that officers use consistent definitions or terms in the reports 
of circumstances that lead to each trace request. Some trace 
requests do not even identify the circumstances that resulted in 
the request." [88]

"No crime need be involved [to initiate a gun trace]." [89] 
Efforts to return stolen guns to rightful owners, guns "found at 
the residence of a suspect though the firearm itself is not 
associated with a criminal act" (including tax evasion 
investigations), and certain non-violent crimes are included 
amongst gun traces. [90] Even the assertion that a gun trace is 
related to organized crime "does not necessarily provide 
information on an actual violation." [91]

It is axiomatic that the uncaptured guns of unsolved gun 
crimes cannot be represented amongst either seized weapons or 
traced weapons simply because the weapon is not in police hands to 
be tabulated or traced another factor explaining the 
unrepresentative nature of gun traces.

The small sampling and unrepresentative nature of gun traces 
are clear. Of the 17,000 guns seized by the New York City Police 
Department in 1990, only 1000 were selected for tracing. [92] As 
another example among many, consider Los Angeles, a hotbed of drug 
gangs and violent crime, a city in which the Council's media 
sources would have us believe "assault weapon" crime is rampant. 
In 1989 "assault weapons" represented approximately 3% of Los 
Angeles criminal gun use, but 19% of gun trace requests. [93] 
Boston, too, has highlighted "assault weapons" for special trace 
attention. [94]

The data

There are limitations on other sources of data. As noted in 
the California Attorney General's Office caveats, the 
inconsistency of attempts to define "assault weapon" in the few 
jurisdictions that, to date, have even made the effort, makes data 
comparison difficult. Compilations of statistical firearms 
forensics data are additionally hampered by incomplete responses 
of varying fractions of polled agencies. Gun traces are, however, 
hardly the best evidence. The best and the preponderance of data 
currently available indicate that "assault weapons", even in the 
hotbeds of violent crime, account for generally 1% to 3% of crime 
guns [95] which approximately equals their representation amongst 
all guns in the USA. [96] This is shown in essentially all studies 
and reports first consider the local jurisdictions:

Jurisdiction Year & Findings

Akron [97] in 1989 - 2.0% of seized guns

Baltimore City [98] in 1990 - 1.5% of seized and surrendered 
guns

Baltimore County, MD [99] in 1990 - 0.3% of seized guns

Bexar County (San Antonio), TX [100] in 1987 through 1992 - 
0.2% of homicides

     -    in 1987 through 1992 - 0.0% of suicides      -    in 
1985 through 1992 - 0.1% of seized guns

California [101] in 1987 - 2.3% of seized rifles*

California [102] in 1990 - 0.9% of seized guns

Chicago [103] in 1988 - 1.0% of seized guns

Chicago suburbs [104] in 1980 through 1989 - 1.6% of seized 
guns

Denver [105] in 1991 - 0.8% of seized guns

Florida State [106] in 1989 - 3.6% of seized guns*(also 
documented declining use of "assault weapons" since 1981)

     -    Miami in 1989 - 1.4% of homicides

     -    Miami in 1989 - 3.3% of seized guns*

Massachusetts [107] in 1984 through 1989 - 0.9% of homicides 
(study excluded Boston)

Massachusetts [108] in 1988 - 1.9% of homicides

Massachusetts [109] in 1985 through 1991 - 0.7% of all 
shootings (including suicides)

Minneapolis [110] in 1987 through 1989 - 0.3% of seized guns

Los Angeles [111] in 1989 - 3.0% of seized guns*

New Jersey [112] in 1988 - 0.0% of homicides

New Jersey [113] in 1989 - 0.0% of homicides

New York City [114] in 1989 - 0.5% of seized guns

San Diego [115] in 1988 through 1990 - 0.3% of seized guns

San Francisco [116] in 1988 - 2.2% of seized guns

Washington, DC [117] in 1988 - 0.0% of seized guns

Washington, DC [118] in 1991 - 3.0% of seized guns

* "assault weapon" broadly defined

Since none of the violence- and drug-ridden urban centers 
display a disproportionate representation of "assault weapons" 
amongst crime guns, does the Council expect us to believe "spray 
fire" weapons are hosing down rural America?

Consider national data overlooked by the Council. The 1990 FBI 
Uniform Crime Reports show 4% of all homicides in the United States 
involve rifles of any type. [119] Even in the far-fetched, 
hypothetical scenario that every single rifle homicide was 
committed with an "assault weapon," the total could not exceed that 
4%. Consult the data for types of weapons used in any reported 
violent crime; the conclusion is inescapably the same.

In a 1990 answer to the National Rifle Association's request 
for statistics on the use of "assault weapons", the Federal Bureau 
of Investigation (FBI) "noted that 12 0f 810 (less than 1.5%) 
deaths of law enforcement officers 'during the past decade' 
involved ['assault weapons'] and also discussed the dearth of 
information on the criminal use of these firearms" [120] Weapons 
used against police officers are not necessarily representative of 
guns generally used in crime; facing a trained and armed opponent 
makes a greater "stand off" distance desirable for the assailant. 
Rifles may, therefore, be more prevalent in such circumstance, so 
the "less than 1.5% potentially over-represents "assault weapons" 
amongst crime guns in general.

Having cited the prohibitionists' estimate from the Cox study, 
it strikes balance to briefly note the NRA's estimate of a 0.08% 
prevalence of "assault weapons" amongst crime guns. [121]

In researching this paper, a request for data on the use of 
"assault weapons" in crime was made of the research staff of 
Handgun Control Inc. Helpfully HCI provided copies of the Cox study 
(with appended analysis of "assault weapons" traced to crime) and 
copies of newspaper articles on "assault weapon" incidents, but, 
at the time of submission of this manuscript, no other data or 
studies. Having noted the flaws inherent to gun trace data, the 
author has not cited gun trace data from local jurisdictions. The 
author has also not cited data on "assault weapons", claims of 
"increased use," "significant numbers", or other vague claims when 
appropriate comparative or substantiating data is absent.

The Council has not even acknowledged the confounding 
evidence, much less made an attempt to dispatch it. The Council's 
report flounders with its sole datum, the Cox Newspaper article. 
While there are important caveats in consideration of any current 
data and the definitive analysis of "assault weapons" in crime has 
yet to be accomplished, it is certainly difficult to place credence 
in any claim that "assault weapons" are the "criminals' weapon of 
choice."

Of what "legitimate" use are these "Assault weapons"?

Though it is rather surprising in a democracy to be asked 
justification of the ownership of any lawful item, convincing 
answers are obtained.

Certain features, such as ergonomic design, durability, and 
high-capacity magazines, are noted amongst (though not unique to) 
"assault weapons" and other functionally similar weapons. Those 
features provoke the ire of prohibitionists, but are features that 
make such weapons particularly suited to popular action target 
competitions, hunting, home defense, defense against multiple gang 
assailants, and community defense and self-protection in times of 
riot or natural disaster.

Collecting, sport, and target competition

Despite their military origins, true "assault rifles" do 
appeal to the collector and the target shooter. An estimated 
177,000 machine guns (a legal classification that includes true 
"assault rifles") are lawfully and rightfully owned by private 
citizens under the restrictions of the National Firearms Act of 
1934. [122] They are legal under state statutes in 46 of the 50 
states. [123] They are collected and used virtually without 
incident in both formal competition sponsored by the National 
Firearms Association and informal target shooting. Even the 
Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms had 
difficulty recalling their criminal misuse. [124]

"Assault weapons" are increasingly used in national and 
international target competitions sponsored by the International 
Practical Shooting Confederation, the US Practical Shooting 
Association, the US Government's National Board for the Promotion 
of Rifle Practice, the Director of Civilian Marksmanship (DCM), 
countless local gun clubs, and the National Rifle Association (the 
official National Governing Board for the shooting sports in 
America, as such, a member of the US Olympic Committee). Those 
active in these competitions number over 35,000 (the number of 
shooters rated and ranked for purposes of DCM competitions alone) 
[125] - a number higher than reported criminal misusers - and these 
competitors consider their activity "legitimate sporting use."

In an aside the Council insinuates "surplus Garands have been 
sold at a special price by the US Army to National Rifle Association 
members", but fails to tell the whole truth - the rifles are 
available at that special price to any target competitor 
participating in the DCM matches and that the sales have returned 
over $1 million to the US Treasury. Tax dollar for tax dollar, the 
DCM matches are the most cost-effective recruiting tool for the US 
Armed Forces. [126] The National Rifle Association (NRA) promotes 
gun safety and sport shooting. The National Rifle Association 
Institute for Legislative Action is the lobbying organization for 
the nearly three million dues-paying NRA members. The NRA deserves 
innuendo for representing its members no more than does the AMA.

Hunting

The plastic materials and protective metal finishes used in 
military weapons of the last three decades have proven to be 
particularly durable. [127] Though initially proven on the 
battlefield (as sometimes occurs with advances in trauma care), use 
of these materials is now common amongst hunting rifles, semi-
automatic and otherwise, as apropos the rough terrain and/or 
inclement weather associated with hunting.

Representative Gary Ackerman missed the mark when he asked 
whether hunters needed "a Mac 10 machine gun with 30 round banana 
clips of armor piercing bullets to bag a quail". [128] Ranchers 
protecting their herds and flocks from packs of running, marauding 
predators and farmers protecting their crops from destructive 
varmints do need light and durable weapons with high magazine 
capacity and rapid-fire capability.

Self protection and community defense

The use of these weapons by citizens in community defense can 
be demonstrated in several instances. [129, 130, 131, 132] The 
higher-than-usual death toll and property damage made memorable the 
gripping video footage of uninsured, law-abiding Los Angeles shop 
owners using guns, including semi-automatic weapons, to protect 
themselves, their families, and their property. They turned back 
waves of murderous looters with determined display and, when 
necessary, use of their protective weaponry. [133] Reflect that 
riots in American cities resulting in death and damage are a 
regular phenomenon. No major American city can claim freedom from 
the problem. Does the Council have an antipathy to self-defense or 
community protection?

As nearly a dozen national studies show, including a study by 
the National Institute of Justice [134] and two studies 
commissioned by gun-prohibitionist organizations, [135,136] guns 
do protect us; they are used defensively by law-abiding citizens 
about 606,000 to 960,000 times per year exceeding all estimates of 
criminal misuse. Using a gun to resist a crime or assault is safer 
than not resisting at all or resisting with means other than 
firearms. Guns not only repel crime, guns deter crime as is shown 
by numerous surveys of criminals. [137]

Particularly where the powerful images of children are 
concerned, any recitation of the data undercutting the exaggerated 
extent of the gun problem is met with, "if it saves only one life" 
The most loving person, however, must admit that a life lost 
because a gun was absent is at least as valuable as a life lost 
because a gun was present. We generally would value the life of the 
innocent over the aggressor. Remember that "dead" is not 
necessarily or even usually "innocent." Given the preponderance of 
defensive gun use, we must see pseudo-data and images that pluck 
at our heartstrings for what they are, certainly not a basis for 
public policy.

The myths of police protection It has been argued than guns 
are not needed by citizens because they are protected by the police 
and the military, including the National Guard. [138] Despite 
increasing law enforcement manpower and expenditures and in view 
of the increased crime rate, the effectiveness of that protection 
can be rightfully questioned. It can be correctly observed that a 
significant, if not majority, of police activity involves "mopping 
up" after the crime has already occurred.

Research suggesting that police apprehension offers less 
deterrent to criminals than the threat of encountering an armed 
victim has been reviewed. [139]

Additionally, it is alarming to recall that armed citizens had 
to protect themselves from the police and US National Guard 
soldiers participating in the looting in the aftermath of Hurricane 
Hugo; [140, 141] and the withdrawal of police protection from riot-
torn areas of Los Angeles; and the two day delay in putting armed 
and supplied National Guard soldiers on those same streets of Los 
Angeles. [142]

Bursting the legal myth

Case law [143] and government statutes [144] are clear that 
the police only have a responsibility to provide some general level 
of protection to the community at large, that they are under no 
obligation whatsoever to protect any individual, even if in 
immediate danger, [145] unless the police have promised special 
protection to informants or witnesses. [146] An oral promise to 
respond to an emergency call for assistance does not make the 
police liable to provide protection. [147]

"What makes the city's position particularly difficult to 
understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda 
[the victim] did not carry any weapon for self defense. Thus, by a 
rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the 
City of New York, which now denies all responsibility to her." 
[148]

The harsh reality

Communities can afford neither the liability nor the level of 
police expenditures necessary to guarantee the personal safety of 
all the individuals who may be (or think they may be) in need of 
protection. The level of police powers necessary to attempt such 
levels of protection would necessitate more of a police state than 
would be currently tolerable in our society.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little 
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin 
Franklin [149]

Throughout American history we have innumerable examples of 
criminal activity, terrorism, civil disorder, and natural 
disaster, where the police and military forces have been unable or 
unwilling to protect citizens, often for racist reasons. [150] The 
relationships amongst gun control, racism, [151, 152, 153, 154] and 
political power [155, 156] have been explored.

The logical conclusion?

Citizens have the natural right [157] and the common sense 
duty to protect themselves, their families, their communities, and 
their property. Particularly for the weak, the infirm, the aged, 
or the individual outnumbered by organized gangs or disorganized 
rioters, guns are the equalizing tools of self-protection - utopian 
lamentations notwithstanding. Honest citizens and their families 
should not be disarmed by fantasies of paradise in a "gunless" 
utopian society so they may be martyred by sociopaths, crazies, and 
criminals.

For those who "know" there is no individual Right to Keep and 
Bear Arms

Dr. Kassirer has skeptically noted, "Some believe that 
possession [of arms] is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights." [158] A 
review of extant scholarship is convincing that such "belief" in 
an individual right to bear military style arms is consistent with 
historical evidence and case law. Among those who support an 
individual right to keep and bear arms are the US Senate 
Subcommittee on the Constitution [159] and the US Supreme Court. 
[160]

The numerous papers and statements of the authors, 
signatories, and commentators of the Bill of Rights show 
unequivocally that "militia" was, in their view, the armed citizen. 
They clearly abhorred a "select militia," namely the National 
Guard, as a threat to freedom as fearful as a "standing army." [161] 
Their intent for the Second Amendment was stated most succinctly 
by Patrick Henry "The great object is that every man be armed." 
[162]

The current United States Code states "The militia of the 
United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years 
of age and under 45 years of age." [163] The following section of 
the United States Code defines what James Madison and the other 
Founding Fathers considered a "select militia" or what we recognize 
as the National Guard. According to Congress, [164] in order to 
allow sending the National Guard overseas, it has been established 
under the Congressional authority to "raise and support armies" 
[165], not under its authority "to provide for organizing, arming, 
and disciplining the militia." [166] All Americans were reminded 
of this in the 1989 US Supreme Court decision Perpich v. Department 
of Defense [167] which prevented governors from withholding their 
National Guard units from exercises outside the United States. The 
US v. Miller decision [168] is often cited and misunderstood. Not 
only is it historically unassailable that "militia", to the authors 
of the Bill of Rights, was the armed citizen, but the US Supreme 
Court's holding in US v. Miller states explicitly that the 
"militia" comprises "all males physically able of acting in concert 
for the common defense." That same case acknowledged the individual 
citizen's right to own military weapons  "part of the ordinary 
military equipment" or which "could contribute to the common 
defense." Miller was freed at the federal district level, on Second 
Amendment grounds, from charges of possession of a "sawed-off" 
shotgun for which he had not paid the tax required under the 
National Firearms Act of 1934. The federal attorney pursued an 
appeal. Miller died before the appeal reached the Supreme Court 
leaving his position unargued. Though ample evidence from the 
trench warfare of "The Great War" was available, no evidence that 
a "sawed-off" shotgun was a "militia" weapon had been introduced. 
The Court held that, absent formal evidence submitted on Miller's 
behalf, it could not take "judicial notice" of whether or not a 
sawed-off shotgun was a protected weapon. Because Miller's position 
was unargued, his indictment was upheld leaving gun prohibitionists 
confused about the Court's holdings.

In Cases v. US, building upon US v. Miller, the Supreme Court 
found it could regulate, but not"prohibit the possession or use of 
any weapon which has any reasonable relationship to the 
preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia." [169]

In US v. Verdugo-Urquidez, [170] a Fourth Amendment case 
holding that the warrant requirement is inapplicable to the search 
of a home in a foreign country, the Court noted that "the people" 
who have the right to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to 
be secure in their papers and effects are one and the same "the 
people" who have the right to keep and bear arms. The Court 
explicitly held that the authors of the Bill of Rights did not 
somehow confuse "the people" with "the state." The Court also noted 
that "people" have rights and that the "state" has powers. The 
powers of the state regarding the militia were clearly delimited 
in the body of the US Constitution which preceded the Bill of 
Rights. The power of the states to raise their own militias and the 
power of the federal government to raise an army are not exclusive 
of the inherent, individual right of the people to keep and bear 
arms. The Bill of Rights was felt a necessary addition by 
Federalists and anti-Federalists alike to protect the many inherent 
rights of the people. [171] It is groundless to assert that the 
Second Amendment protects powers delegated to the government.

Justice Brennan, expanding upon the opinion, reminded us that 
the rights are inherent, not granted or rescinded by fickle 
government whimsy:

"[rights are not] given to the people from the government 
[T]he Framers of the Bill of Rights did not purport to 'create' 
rights. Rather, they designed the Bill of Rights to prohibit our 
Government from infringing rights and liberties presumed to be 
preexisting." [172]

All these holdings undercut the "prohibitionist theory" of the 
Second Amendment. At the US Supreme Court level, the 
"prohibitionist theory" rests largely on the refusal of the Court 
to hear certain gun cases (denial of certiorari petitions), rather 
than on the Court's explicit holdings in the admittedly few extant 
holdings. [173] Those few holdings have not used the provisions of 
the Fourteenth Amendment to explicitly "incorporate" the Second 
Amendment protections against the states. There is, however, 
increasing legal scholarship supporting such incorporation. [174, 
175] Only in Second Amendment matters do we see certain "liberals" 
take unique and hypocritical refuge in a "states' rights" posture. 
The pace of Second Amendment litigation parallels legislative 
infringements and jurisdictional conflicts, so the Supreme Court 
is unlikely to indefinitely evade the incorporation issue.

The linguistic analysis of the Second Amendment is 
unambiguous. [176] While the introductory phrase "A well-regulated 
militia being necessary to the security of a free state," is 
partially explanatory, there is nothing equivocal, qualified, or 
limiting in the substantive guarantee of the declarative phrase 
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be 
infringed." There are no qualifiers as in the right to be secure 
against "unreasonable searches and seizures." [177]

Despite efforts by the well-funded gun prohibitionist lobby 
to denigrate this individual right as the "insurrectionist theory", 
[178] their "prohibitionist theory" of the Second Amendment is the 
theory that flounders. So, if gun prohibitionists do not find the 
protective or recreational uses of firearms persuasive reasons for 
sane, law abiding, adult citizens to own the firearms of their 
choice, and in view of the constitutional impediments to gun 
prohibition, their only legal option to accomplish their goal is 
to first convince Americans that they have no lawful or natural 
right to self-protection from felons or tyrants and then to amend 
the US Constitution.

Public policy by emotion, carelessness, or deception

The Council has had the opportunity to make its case on 
"assault weapons." Any objective review of the available data 
decimates the purported factual underpinnings of the Council's 
position. If, after a review of the best evidence available, the 
Council or other readers continue to espouse a prohibitionist 
policy, so be it. If those sentiments are based on fears of what 
people "might" do with this or that weapon, so be it. If those 
sentiments are based on a general antipathy towards guns, so be it. 
Let us not, however, imagine that the prohibitionist view is 
supported by anything else. The emperor has no clothes. Neither 
hoplophobic anxieties; prohibitionist agitprop; aberrant, 
selected, and sculpted "factoids"; nor political skullduggery and 
deception are proper bases for public policy.

Other areas of gun prohibitionist interest have been equally 
biased and devoid of substance. Many firearms owners are physicians 
who are familiar with the indictments [179, 180] of the highly 
politicized Center for Disease Control (CDC) policies regarding gun 
prohibition and their funding of related research. Reviewing the 
charges might make one question whether or not the CDC is simply a 
"factory of fallacy" and whether or not taxpayers should properly 
pay for polemics masquerading as research.

The near virtual exclusion of data and analysis that confounds 
the prohibitionist position makes it appear that medical journals 
operate on the principle that "freedom of the press belongs to 
those who own one." [181] Some dream of a day when we will see:

--   standardization of gun data collection to enhance public 
policy considerations,

--   no taxpayer funding of rhetoric,

--   more incisive analysis and critical, but unbiased, review 
of articles and policies before publication,

--   less polemics and fewer contrived "factoids" from 
researchers, editors, officers, and committees enamored of their a 
priori conclusions, and

--   discontinuance of editorial policies that stifle and 
marginalize objective research and dissenting opinions.

The personal [182, 183] and monetary [184, 185] costs of guns 
compared with medical "misadventure" leaves room to wonder whether 
doctors are more deadly and costly than guns. Drs. Organ and Fry 
remind us that 25,000 trauma deaths per year [about twice the 
number of annual gun homicides and approximately equaling total 
annual gun deaths] are the result of an inadequate trauma system. 
[186] These sobering perspectives should not be lost on the 
Council, the House of Delegates, the officers of the AMA, the CDC, 
or its stable of researchers while they toe the politically correct 
line on gun prohibition.

The compromise essential to effective gun control

That the cooperation of law-abiding gun owners is necessary 
to the success of any regulatory scheme is routinely overlooked by 
gun control and prohibition advocates. The portion of 200 million 
firearms in the hands of Americans who recognize an inherent right 
to those arms will not evaporate with the stroke of a pen. 
Intolerable police state tactics will be necessary to obtain even 
their marginal compliance too high a price for too little benefit.

The author supports education in safe, responsible firearms 
ownership by mentally competent and law-abiding adults. There 
should be certain punishment for violent crime regardless of 
instrumentality. Victimless possession of objects guns responsibly 
stored and safely used should neither be banned nor restricted. The 
author sees no justification for gun bans of any kind. He, like 
Thomas Jefferson, finds support in a favorite passage penned in 
1764 by Cesare Beccaria:

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real 
advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would 
take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown 
in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws 
that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They 
disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit 
crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to 
violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the 
code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can 
be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, 
would put an end to personal liberty so dear to men, so dear to the 
enlightened legislator and subject innocent persons to all the 
vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make 
things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they 
serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed 
man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They 
ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of 
crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated 
facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences 
and advantages of a universal decree." [187]

Criminal and psychiatric background checks can be 
accomplished without leaving residual records of ownership that can 
later be used to aid confiscation. The benefits of instantaneous 
background checks must be weighed against the risks of privacy loss 
inherent to easily-accessed, centralized data on mental health 
records.

License to carry weapons, openly or concealed, should be 
available to sane, law-abiding adults who demonstrate safety, 
skill, and knowledge of the law related to self-protection. Such 
license should not entail additional encumbrance nor be subject to 
arbitrary police discretion or subjective interpretation of "need" 
or "good cause."

Inexpensive weapons should be available to the poor, 
particularly since they are most at risk for victimization.

Ironically it is two gun control but not prohibition 
advocates, Profs. Kates and Kleck, who have most illuminated these 
public policy matters. Each has made thorough evaluation of the 
broad expanse of research available (including their own research) 
and derived rational and objectively supportable suggestions for 
revising controls extending certain effectual controls and 
rejecting the ineffectual, the unattainable, or the merely symbolic 
with an eye towards realistic, attainable goals. They emphasize 
that gun control is not a panacea, only incremental improvements 
are attainable. [188, 189] The underlying causes of violence all 
violence, not just gun violence must be addressed.

In view of the one-sided nature of numerous, ineffectual 
concessions eroding gun rights to date, the author must emphasize 
that gun owners should concede no further ground until ineffectual 
and even marginally effectual controls and bans in other words, all 
controls but those described above are lifted. Too often the 
prohibitionist view of "compromise" is "gun owners have five 
apples, we are morally entitled and, therefore, demand them all."

So long as the strident prohibitionists frame the debate, 
their bigotry, symbolism, [190] deception, and intransigence will 
prevent effectual solutions. Their presumption of moral 
superiority is undeserved and an impediment to rational, effectual, 
and cost-effective solutions. Utopia is not one of our choices.

Though not a promising expenditure of effort, the author 
acknowledges one utopian fantasy; governments should not possess 
instruments of coercion and violence denied to their citizens. That 
governments should be denied the same weapons of mass destruction 
denied their citizens is already a matter of some public accord.

What else? Promising directions

Good evidence exists that violence in entertainment 
contributes significantly towards violence in our society. [191, 
192] That unwelcome contribution should be minimized. Voluntary 
restraint by an entertainment industry cognizant of its ill effects 
on children is desirable. Parents may exercise control over their 
children's viewing habits. The misdirection of anger and 
frustration amongst the poor and rich alike can be mitigated by 
training. [193]

We should reassess national drug policies that make the drug 
trade so attractively profitable that people will kill to reap 
those profits. We should cease relegating the education and moral 
instruction of our children to the state.

We should discourage the view that life is or could be risk-
free or that liberty does not have a price worth paying. We should 
retire the rhetoric of egalitarian, passive entitlement and revive 
the values of individual responsibility. We are not tossed 
completely helplessly on a sea of circumstance.

Certainly we must love and cherish our children, raising them 
with an appreciation of individual responsibility, liberty, 
learning, and the sanctity of life the libertarian views that may 
guide this nation toward better days.

Footnotes

1 American Medical Association Council on Scientific Affairs. 
Assault Weapons as a Public Health Hazard in the United States. in 
JAMA 1992; 267: 3070.

2 Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New 
York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991.

3 Florida Assault Weapons Commission. Assault Weapons/Crime 
Survey in Florida For Years 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989. Tallahassee, 
FL: May 18, 1990.

4 Johnson TD. Report on a Survey of the Use of "Assault 
Weapons" in California in 1990. Office of the Attorney General, 
California Department of Justice. September 26, 1991.

5 Wright JD. and Rossi PH. Weapons, Crime, and Violence in 
America: Executive Summary. Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, 
National Institute of Justice. 1981.

6 Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New 
York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991.

7 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. Press Release. 
undated.

8 Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New 
York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991. Chap. 2.

9 Kates DB. "Toward a History of Handgun Prohibition in the 
United States." in Kates, DB, Editor. Restricting Handguns: The 
Liberal Skeptics Speak Out. North River Press. 1979.

10   Silver CR. "Self-Defense, Handgun Ownership, and the 
Independence of Women in a Violent, Sexist Society," Salter J and 
Kates DB. "The Necessity of Access to Firearms by Dissenters and 
Minorities Whom Government is Unwilling or Unable to Protect," 
among others in Kates, DB, Editor. Restricting Handguns: The 
Liberal Skeptics Speak Out. North River Press. 1979.

11   Levinson S. "The Embarrassing Second Amendment." Yale Law 
Journal. 1989; 99: 637-59.

12   Dionne EJ. "A Liberal's Liberal Tells Just What Went 
Wrong." New York Times. December 22, 1988.

13   Helsley SC, Assistant Director, Investigation and 
Enforcement Branch, California Department of Justice. memorandum 
to Patrick Kenady, Assistant Attorney General, California 
Department of Justice. February 14, 1991. p. 1.

14   Kempsky N, Chief Deputy Attorney General. A Report to 
Attorney General John K. Van de Kamp on Patrick Edward Purdy and 
the Cleveland School Killings. Office of the Attorney General, 
California Department of Justice. October 1989.

15   Mohr C. "House Panel Issue: Can Gun Ban Work." New York 
Times. April 7, 1989. P. A-15.

16   Bea K. "CRS Report for Congress 'Assault Weapons': 
Military-Style Semiautomatic Firearms Facts and Issues." 
Washington DC: Congressional Research Service, The Library of 
Congress; May 13, 1992 (Technical Revisions, June 4, 1992). p. 38.

17   Kleck G. "The Mass Media and Information Management: News 
Media Bias in Covering Gun Control Issues." paper presented to the 
annual meetings of the American Society of Criminology. San 
Francisco, CA. November 20-23, 1991.

18   Hammond, G, Time magazine. form letter to persons 
complaining about Time's firearms coverage. August 1, 1989. in 
Morgan E and Kopel D. The Assault Weapons Panic: "Political 
Correctness" Takes Aim at the Constitution. Independence Issue 
Paper No. 12-91. Golden, CO: Independence Institute. October 10, 
1991.

19   Mercy JA and Houck VN. "Firearms Injuries: A Call for 
Science." JAMA. 1986; 255: 3143-4.

20   Helsley SC, Acting Assistant Director, Investigation and 
Enforcement Branch, California Department of Justice. memorandum 
to GW Clemons, Director, Division of Law Enforcement, California 
Department of Justice. October 31, 1988.

21   Kassirer JP. Correspondence. N Engl J. Med 1992; 
326:1159-60.

22   Sugarmann, J. "Assault Weapons and Accessories." memo to 
the "New Right Watch". 1988. n Morgan, Eric and Kopel, David. The 
Assault Weapons Panic: "Political Correctness" Takes Aim at the 
Constitution. Independence Issue Paper No. 12-91. Golden, CO: 
Independence Institute. October 10, 1991. p. 24.

23   Helsley SC, Assistant Director, Investigation and 
Enforcement Branch, California Department of Justice. memorandum 
to Patrick Kenady, Assistant Attorney General, California 
Department of Justice. February 14, 1991. p. 2.

24   Defense Intelligence Agency. Small Arms Identification 
and Operation Guide - Eurasian Communist Countries. Washington, DC: 
US Govt. Printing Office. 1988. p. 105.

25   Ezell EC. Small Arms of the World. Harrisburg, PA: 
Stackpole Books. 1983. p. 515.

26   Fackler ML. Letter to the Editor. Wall Street Journal. 
April 10, 1989. p. A-13.

27   Trunkey D. Affidavit in opposition to plaintiff's motion 
for preliminary injunction, Oregon State Shooting Association, et 
al. v. Multnomah County, et al.. September 4, 1990.

28   Fackler ML, Breteau JPL, Courbil LJ, Taxit R, Glas J, and 
Fievet JP. "Open Wound Drainage versus Wound Excision in Treating 
the Modern Assault Rifle Wound." Surgery. 1989; 105: 576-84.

29   Fackler ML and Kneubuehl BP. "Applied Wound Ballistics." 
J Trauma. 1990; 6(2) Supplement: 32-7.

30   Fackler ML, Malinowski JA, Hoxie SW, and Jason A. 
"Wounding Effects of the AK-47 Rifle Used by Patrick Purdy in the 
Stockton, California, Schoolyard Shooting of January 17, 1989." Am 
J Forensic Medicine and Path. 1990; 11(3): 185-90.

31   Knox N. testimony before the US Congress. Hearings on 
HR1154 Before the Subcommittee on Trade of the House Committee on 
Ways and Means. 101st Congress, 1st Session. April 10, 1989. 
Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. p. 304-6.

32   Fackler ML. "Wound Ballistics: A Review of Common 
Misconceptions." JAMA. 1988; 259: 2730-6.

33   Lindsey D. "The Idolatry of Velocity, or Lies, Damn Lies, 
and Ballistics." J Trauma. 1980; 20; 10689.

34   Fackler ML. "Ballistic Injury." Annals of Emergency 
Medicine. 1986; 15; 1451-5.

35   Fackler ML. "Wound Ballistics." in Trunkey DD and Lewis 
FR, editors. Current Therapy of Trauma, vol 2. Philadelphia: BC 
Decker Inc. 1986. pp. 94-101.

36   Fackler ML, Breteau JPL, Courbil LJ, Taxit R, Glas J, and 
Fievet JP. "Open Wound Drainage versus Wound Excision in Treating 
the Modern Assault Rifle Wound." Surgery. 1989; 105: 576-84.

37   Fackler ML. "Wound Ballistics: A Review of Common 
Misconceptions." JAMA. 1988; 259: 2730-6.

38   Pinkney DS. "ERs Seeing More 'War Wounds' Caused by 
Assault Weapons." American Medical News. April 14, 1989; 3: 42-5.

39   Feuchtwanger MM. "High Velocity Missile Injuries: A 
Review." J R Soc Med. 1982; 75: 966-9. 40   Wright JD. and Rossi 
PH. Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their 
Firearms. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1986. p. 220 and Table 11.3 
at p. 221.

41   Helsley SC, Assistant Director, Investigation and 
Enforcement Branch, California Department of Justice. memorandum 
to Patrick Kenady, Assistant Attorney General, California 
Department of Justice. February 14, 1991. pp. 2-4.

42   Helsley SC, Acting Assistant Director, Investigation and 
Enforcement Branch, California Department of Justice. memorandum 
to GW Clemons, Director, Division of Law Enforcement, California 
Department of Justice. October 31, 1988.

43   e.g. Fresno Rifle Club v. Van de Kamp, 746 F. Supp. 1415.; 
Abascal, Kasler, McCord, Danto, Mauser, Magaddino, Snow, Bowman, 
Henderson, Ford, Suter, Erler, Mixson, Howard, Krot, Colt's 
Manufacturing Co., Threat Management Institute v. Lundgren[sic]

44   e.g., among many, Remington 740, Remington 7400 Sporter, 
Heckler and Koch 770, Heckler and Koch SRT-9, Ruger Mini-14 Ranch 
Rifle, Browning Automatic Rifle, Valmet Hunter, Galil Hadar, 
Springfield Armory M1A, Springfield Armory SAR-4800, Armscorp T-48

45   Shea D. Machine Gun Dealers Bible. Hot Springs, AR: Lane 
Publishing. 1991. p. 199.

46   USC XXVI 5801-5872.

47   Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New 
York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991. p. 72.

48   Helsley SC, Acting Assistant Director, Investigation and 
Enforcement Branch, California Department of Justice. memorandum 
to GW Clemons, Director, Division of Law Enforcement, California 
Department of Justice. October 31, 1988.

49   Helsley SC, Assistant Director, Investigation and 
Enforcement Branch, California Department of Justice. memorandum 
to Patrick Kenady, Assistant Attorney General, California 
Department of Justice. February 14, 1991. p. 1.

50   Helsley SC, Assistant Director, Investigation and 
Enforcement Branch, California Department of Justice. memorandum 
to GW Clemons, Director, Division of Law Enforcement, California 
Department of Justice. February 13, 1991.

51   California Penal Code 12275-12290

52   Helsley SC, Assistant Director, Investigation and 
Enforcement Branch, California Department of Justice. memorandum 
to Patrick Kenady, Assistant Attorney General, California 
Department of Justice. February 14, 1991. p. 2.

53   Helsley SC, Assistant Director, Investigation and 
Enforcement Branch, California Department of Justice. memorandum 
to Patrick Kenady, Assistant Attorney General, California 
Department of Justice. February 14, 1991. p. 4.

54   Helsley SC, Assistant Director, Investigation and 
Enforcement Branch, California Department of Justice. memorandum 
to Patrick Kenady, Assistant Attorney General, California 
Department of Justice. February 14, 1991. p. 2.

55   Johnson TD. Report on a Survey of the Use of "Assault 
Weapons" in California in 1990. Office of the Attorney General, 
California Department of Justice. September 26, 1991.

56   Gilbert Equipment Company Striker 12, Calico M-900 
pistol, Heckler & Koch H-93

57   Baretta, Steyer

58   Made in China AKM-56S

59   the Avtomat Kalashnikova, Steyr AUG (Armee Universal 
Gewehr), Cetme G-3

60   Helsley SC, Acting Assistant Director, Investigation and 
Enforcement Branch, California Department of Justice. Memorandum 
to Allen Sumner, Senior Assistant Attorney General Re: AB1509 
(Agnos). June 2, 1987.

61   Johnson TD. Report on a Survey of the Use of "Assault 
Weapons" in California in 1990. Office of the Attorney General, 
California Department of Justice. September 26, 1991.

62   Forsyth R, Media Director for Senate President Pro-
tempore David Roberti, California State Senate. "Assault Weapons 
in California: A Case Study in Issue Management and the Media." 
Senate of the State of California. presented at National Conference 
of State Legislators. Chicago, IL. December 10-12, 1989.

63   Bock AW. "Statistical overkill on banned rifles." The 
Orange County Register. June 28, 1992. p. 3.

64   Los Angeles Times. "Assault Weapons Ban Called 
Unenforceable." June 25, 1991. at A-3, A-22.

65   Presley R, California State Senator. Letter to Gregory 
Cowart, Director of Law Enforcement, California Department of 
Justice. November 6, 1991.

66   Kenady P, Asst. Attorney General for Legislative Affairs, 
California Department of Justice. Letter to the Honorable Robert 
Presley, California State Senator. December 20, 1991. p. 1.

67   Bock AW. "Statistical overkill on banned rifles." The 
Orange County Register. June 28, 1992. p. 3.

68   Lungren DE, Attorney General, State of California and 
Kenady PM, Assistant Attorney General for Legislation, State of 
California. letter to Edgar A, Suter, MD. August 3, 1992.

69   Tolley L, spokesman, Handgun Control Inc. memorandum to 
Donna Brownsey, assistant to California State Senator David 
Roberti. "California Assault Weapon Lists." July 17, 1991. p. 1. 
in Morgan E and Kopel D. The Assault Weapons Panic: "Political 
Correctness" Takes Aim at the Constitution. Independence Issue 
Paper No. 12-91. Golden, CO: Independence Institute. October 10, 
1991. p. 49 footnote 12.

70   Lucas G. "State Semiautomatic Gun Registrations Called 
Surprisingly Low." SF Chronicle. March 10, 1992. p. A15.

71   Schneider J. "Chicago Semi-Auto Ban Effective Aug. 14." 
The New Gun Week. July 24, 1992. p. 1.

72   Datig FA. The Luger Pistol. 1962. Borden Publishing 
Company. pp. 37-38. regarding the development of the Borchardt 
semi-automatic pistol.

73   Hogg IV and Weeks J. Military Small Arms of the 20th 
Century - 5th Edition. Northfield, IL: DBI Books.  1985. pp. 170-1.

74   U.S.C. XXVI Chap. 53. 5801 et seq.

75   Trahin J, Detective, Firearms/Ballistics Unit, Los 
Angeles Police Department. testimony before the US Senate.  
Hearings on S386 and S747 Before the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary. 101st Congress, 1st 
Session. May 5, 1989. Washington, DC: US Government Printing 
Office. p. 379.

76   Assault Rifle Fact Sheet 1: Definitions and Background. 
Washington, DC: Institute for Research on Small Arms in 
International Security; March 24, 1989.

77   Ezell EC, curator of the National Firearms Collection at 
the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of American History. 
testimony before the US Congress. Hearings on HR1154 Before the 
Subcommittee on Trade of the House Committee on Ways and Means. 
101st Congress, 1st Session. April 10, 1989. Washington, DC: US 
Government Printing Office.

78   Ezell EC. open letter to The Honorable John Dingell. March 
27, 1989. 79   Assault Rifle Fact Sheet 2 Quantities of Semi-
automatic "Assault Rifles' Owned in the United States. Washington, 
DC: Institute for Research on Small Arms in International Security; 
March 24, 1989.

80   Ezell EC, curator of the National Firearms Collection at 
the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of American History. 
testimony before the US Congress. Hearings on HR1154 Before the 
Subcommittee on Trade of the House Committee on Ways and Means. 
101st Congress, 1st Session. April 10, 1989. Washington, DC: US 
Government Printing Office.

81   Goldfarb B. "Hospitals Endure a Drug War Assault." USA 
Today. March 19, 1990. P. D-1.

82   Pinkney DS. "ERs Seeing More 'War Wounds' Caused by 
Assault Weapons." American Medical News. April 14, 1989; 3: 42-5.

83   McCarthy C. "Medical Price of Violence; Guns and Drugs 
are Stretching Emergency Rooms to the Limit." Washington Post. 
February 21, 1989.  p. Z-14.

84   Assault Weapons: Background Paper. Sacramento, CA: 
California Attorney General's Office; February 1989.

85   Cox Newspapers. Firepower: Assault Weapons in America. 
Washington, DC: Cox Enterprises, 1989.

86   Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. Press Release. 
undated.

87   Zimring FE. "Street Crime and New Guns: Some Implications 
for Firearms Control." Journal of Criminal Justice. 1976; 4: 95-
107.

88   Bea K. "CRS Report for Congress  'Assault Weapons': 
Military-Style Semiautomatic Firearms Facts and Issues." 
Washington DC: Congressional Research Service, The Library of 
Congress; May 13, 1992 (Technical Revisions, June 4, 1992). 
Appendix B. pp. 65-76.

89   Bea K. "CRS Report for Congress  'Assault Weapons': 
Military-Style Semiautomatic Firearms Facts and Issues." 
Washington DC: Congressional Research Service, The Library of 
Congress; May 13, 1992 (Technical Revisions, June 4, 1992). 
Appendix B at p. 66.

90   Bea K. "CRS Report for Congress  'Assault Weapons': 
Military-Style Semiautomatic Firearms Facts and Issues." 
Washington DC: Congressional Research Service, The Library of 
Congress; May 13, 1992 (Technical Revisions, June 4, 1992). 
Appendix B at p. 70.

91   Bea K. "CRS Report for Congress  'Assault Weapons': 
Military-Style Semiautomatic Firearms Facts and Issues." 
Washington DC: Congressional Research Service, The Library of 
Congress; May 13, 1992 (Technical Revisions, June 4, 1992). 
Appendix B at p. 71.

92   Bea K. "CRS Report for Congress  'Assault Weapons': 
Military-Style Semiautomatic Firearms Facts and Issues." 
Washington DC: Congressional Research Service, The Library of 
Congress; May 13, 1992 (Technical Revisions, June 4, 1992). 
Appendix B at p. 67.

93   Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America.  New 
York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991. p. 75.

94   Bea K. "CRS Report for Congress  'Assault Weapons': 
Military-Style Semiautomatic Firearms Facts and Issues." 
Washington DC: Congressional Research Service, The Library of 
Congress; May 13, 1992 (Technical Revisions, June 4, 1992). 
Appendix B at p. 69.

95   Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America.  New 
York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991. Chap. 2.

96   Assault Rifle Fact Sheet 2 Quantities of Semi-automatic 
"Assault Rifles' Owned in the United States. Washington, DC: 
Institute for Research on Small Arms in International Security; 
March 24, 1989.

97   Hearings on HR1154 Before the Subcommittee on Trade of 
the House Committee on Ways and Means. 101st Congress, 1st Session. 
April 10, 1989. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. p. 
114-5.

98   Baltimore Police Department. Firearms Submissions. 1990.

99   Hearings on HR1154 Before the Subcommittee on Trade of 
the House Committee on Ways and Means. 101st Congress, 1st Session. 
April 10, 1989. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. p. 
77.

100 DiMaio V, Chief Medical Examiner, Bexar County, TX. letter 
to George Lundberg, MD. June 11, 1992.

101 Helsley SC, Acting Assistant Director, Investigation and 
Enforcement Branch, California Department of Justice. Memorandum 
to Allen Sumner, Senior Assistant Attorney General Re: AB1509 
(Agnos). June 2, 1987.

102 Johnson TD. Report on a Survey of the Use of "Assault 
Weapons" in California in 1990. Office of the Attorney General, 
California Department of Justice. September 26, 1991.

103 Simkins JE. "Control Criminals, Not Guns." Wall Street 
Journal. March 25, 1991.

104 Mericle JG. "Weapons seized during drug warrant executions 
and arrests." unpublished report derived from files of Metropolitan 
Area Narcotics Squad, Will and Grundy Counties, IL. 1989. in Kleck 
G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America.  New York: Aldine de 
Gruyter. 1991. Chap. 2.

105 Reply Brief of State of Colorado, Robertson, et al. 
plaintiffs, State of Colorado, plaintiff-intervenor v. City and 
Country of Denver. # 90CV603 (Colorado District Court). p. 13-15.

106 Florida Assault Weapons Commission. Assault Weapons/Crime 
Survey in Florida For Years 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989. Tallahassee, 
FL: May 18, 1990.

107 Boston Globe. March 26, 1989. p. 12. in Kleck G. Point 
Blank: Guns and Violence in America.  New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 
1991.

108 Arnold M, Massachusetts State Police, Firearms 
Identification Section. Massachusetts State Police Ballistics 
Records. March 14, 1990.

109 Arnold M, Massachusetts State Police, Firearms 
Identification Section. Massachusetts State Police Ballistics 
Records. April 11, 1991

110 Reins W, Sgt. memorandum to Minneapolis Police Chief J. 
Laux. April 3, 1989.

111 Trahin J, Detective, Firearms/Ballistics Unit, Los 
Angeles Police Department. testimony before the US Senate.  
Hearings on S386 and S747 Before the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary. 101st Congress, 1st 
Session. May 5, 1989. Washington, DC: US Government Printing 
Office. p. 379.

112 Newark Star Register. "Florio Urges Ban on Assault Rifles, 
Stresses His Support for Abortion." July 18, 1989. p. 15.

113 Constance J, Deputy Chief, Trenton, NJ Police Department. 
testimony before the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings 
Committee. March 7, 1991. p. 3.

114 Moran, Lieutenant, New York City Police Ballistics Unit. 
in White Plains Reporter-Dispatch. March 27, 1989.

115 San Diego Union. "Smaller Guns are 'Big Shots' with the 
Hoods." (reporting a study by the city's firearms examiner). August 
29, 1991.

116 Hearings on HR1154 Before the Subcommittee on Trade of the 
House Committee on Ways and Means. 101st Congress, 1st Session. 
April 10, 1989. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. p. 
68.

117 Wilson GR, Chief, Firearms Section, Metropolitan Police 
Department. Wall Street Journal. April 7, 1989. p. A-12, col. 3. 
and New York Times. Apr. 3, 1989. p. A14.

118 Wilson GR, Chief, Firearms Section, Metropolitan Police 
Department. January 21, 1992. in Bea K. "CRS Report for Congress 
'Assault Weapons': Military-Style Semiautomatic Firearms Facts and 
Issues." Washington DC: Congressional Research Service, The 
Library of Congress; May 13, 1992 (Technical Revisions, June 4, 
1992). Table 5. p. 18.

119 FBI. "Uniform Crime Reports Crime in the United States 
1990." 1991. Washington DC: Us Government Printing Office. p. 12.

120 Bea K. "CRS Report for Congress  'Assault Weapons': 
Military-Style Semiautomatic Firearms Facts and Issues." 
Washington DC: Congressional Research Service, The Library of 
Congress; May 13, 1992 (Technical Revisions, June 4, 1992).  p. 23.

121 Blackman PH. "Senators Use False Numbers to Cover Up Gun 
Ban Votes." The American Rifleman. November 1990. pp. 49-50.

122 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. NFA Weapons 
Inventory: Data through 12/31/90. Computer run of 1/14/91.

123 Shea D. Machine Gun Dealers Bible. Hot Springs, AR: Lane 
Publishing. 1991. p. 199.

124 Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America.  New 
York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991. Chap. 4.

125 Competitions Division, National Rifle Association. 
personal communication. July 21, 1992.

126 Baker JJ, "DCM Notes." The American Rifleman. June 1990. 
p. 72.

127 Harris CE. "Bluing and Beyond." The American Rifleman. 
December 1982. p. 24.

128 135 Congressional Record 1868. February 28, 1989.

129 Los Angeles Times, May 13, 1988, Section II. p. 3. 
reporting on a housing project using Kalashnikov-style rifles and 
other semi-automatic weapons to drive back an attack by the 
"Bloods" gang

130 Washington Times, November 25, 1988, Section C. p. 6. 
reporting on a block club defending its community from the "Bloods" 
gang

131 135 Congressional Record S1869-70 (daily ed. February 28, 
1989). in Morgan, Eric and Kopel, David. The Assault Weapons Panic: 
"Political Correctness" Takes Aim at the Constitution. 
Independence Issue Paper No. 12-91. Golden, CO: Independence 
Institute. October 10, 1991. p. 16.  citing several instances of 
citizens defending their communities using "assault weapons" in 
cases of domestic disorder following natural disasters such as 
blizzards, floods, and hurricanes.

132 Cable News Network. Video footage of Korean shop owners 
during the April 1992 Los Angeles riots. April 31, 1992.

133 Foster SE. "Guns and Property." The Free Market. Ludwig 
von Mises Institute. July 1992; 10: 1 & 7.

134 Wright J D., Rossi PH and Daly K. Under the Gun: Weapons, 
Crime, and Violence in America. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1983.

135 Cambridge Reports, Inc. An analysis of public attitudes 
towards handgun control. a survey for the Center for the Study and 
Prevention of Handgun Violence (an organization sharing directors 
with Handgun Control, Inc.).

136 survey for National Alliance Against Violence by Peter 
Hart & Assoc. in Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America.  
New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991.

137 Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America.  New 
York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991. Chapter 4.

138 Henigan DA. "Arms, Anarchy and the Second Amendment." 
Valparaiso University Law Review. Fall 1991; 26: 107-129.

139 Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America.  New 
York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991. pp. 130-8.

140 Hernandez M. "US Orders In Troops to Quell Island 
Violence." Los Angeles Times. September 21, 1989. p. 1.

141 Hyman S. "Hurricane Looting Rains Its Lessons Left and 
Right." Los Angeles Times. October 1, 1989. Opinion Section. p. 5.

142 Foster SE. "Guns and Property." The Free Market. Ludwig 
von Mises Institute. July 1992; 10: 1 & 7.

143 South v. Maryland, 59 US (HOW) 396, 15 L.Ed., 433 (1856); 
Bowers v. DeVito, US Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686F.2d. 
616 (1882).

144 for example, California Government Code  845. "Failure to 
provide police protection 

Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for 
failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide 
police protection service or, if police protection service is 
provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection 
service." 145 Hartzler v. City of San Jose, App., 120 Cal. Rptr. 5 
(1975).

146 Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A2d. 1306 (D.C. App. 
1983).

147 Warren v. District of Columbia, D.C. App., 444 A.2d. 1 
(1981).

148 Riss v. City of New York, 293 N.Y. 2d. 897 (1968).

149 Franklin B. Historical Review of Pennsylvania. 1759.

150 Cottrol RJ and Diamond RT. "The Second Amendment: Toward 
an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration." The Georgetown Law Journal. 
December 1991: 80; 309-61.

151 Tonso WR. "Gun Control: White Man's Law." Reason. December 
1985. pp. 22-25.

152 Tahmassebi S. "Gun Control and Racism." George Mason 
University Civil Rights Law Journal. Summer 1991; 2: 67-99.

153 Cottrol RJ and Diamond RT. "The Second Amendment: Toward 
an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration." The Georgetown Law Journal. 
December 1991: 80; 309-61.

154 Kates DB. "Toward a History of Handgun Prohibition in the 
United States." in Kates, DB, Editor. Restricting Handguns: The 
Liberal Skeptics Speak Out. North River Press. 1979.

155 Kessler RG. "Gun Control and Political Power." Law & 
Policy Quarterly. July 1983: Vol. 5, #3; 381-400.

156 Kates DB. "Toward a History of Handgun Prohibition in the 
United States." in Kates, DB, Editor. Restricting Handguns: The 
Liberal Skeptics Speak Out. North River Press. 1979.

157 Kates D. "The Second Amendment and the Ideology of Self-
Protection." Constitutional Commentary. Winter 1992; 9: 87-104.

158 Kassirer JP. "Firearms and the Killing Threshold." N. Engl 
J Med 1991; 325:1647-49.

159 US Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution. The Right to 
Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution 
of the Committee on the Judiciary. United States Congress. 97th. 
Congress. 2nd. Session. February 1982.

160 US v. Cruickshank, 95 US. 542 (1874), held that the 
individual right to possess arms existed independent of the Second 
Amendment and US v. Miller, 307 US. 174, 59 S. Ct. 816, 83 L. Ed. 
1206 (1939) is discussed in the body of this article.

161 Halbrook SP. "The Right of the People or the Power of the 
State: Bearing Arms, Arming Militias, and the Second Amendment." 
Valparaiso University Law Review. Fall 1991; 26: 131-207

162 Debates and Other Proceedings of the Convention of 
Virginiataken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, 275 
(2nd ed., Richmond) 1805.

163 USC X 311(a)

164 House Report No. 141, 73rd. Congress, 1st. Session. 1933. 
pp. 2-5.

165 US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 (12).

166 US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 (16).

167 Perpich v. Department of Defense. 110 S.Ct. 2418 (1990).

168 Miller v. US. 307 US 174 (1938).

169 Cases v. US, 131 F.2d. 916 (1st Cir. 1942) at 922.

170 US v. Verdugo-Urquidez. 494 US 259 (1990).

171 US Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution. The Right to 
Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution 
of the Committee on the Judiciary. United States Congress. 97th. 
Congress. 2nd. Session. February 1982.

172 US Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution. The Right to 
Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution 
of the Committee on the Judiciary. United States Congress. 97th. 
Congress. 2nd. Session. February 1982. p. 288.

173 Henigan DA. "Arms, Anarchy and the Second Amendment." 
Valparaiso University Law Review. Fall 1991; 26: 107-129.

174 Amar AR. "The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth 
Amendment." The Yale Law Journal. 1992; 101: 1193-1284.

175 Halbrook S. "Freedmen, Firearms, and the Fourteenth 
Amendment" in That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a 
Constitutional Right. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico 
Press. 1984. Chap. 5.

176 Halbrook SP. "What the Framers Intended: A Linguistic 
Analysis of the Right to 'Bear Arms.'" Law and Contemporary 
Problems. Winter 1986; 49 (1): 151-62.

177 US Constitution. The Bill of Rights. Article IV.

178 Henigan DA. "Arms, Anarchy and the Second Amendment." 
Valparaiso University Law Review. Fall 1991; 26: 107-129.

179 Blackman PH. 1990. "Criminology's Astrology: The Center 
for Disease Control Approach to Public Health Research on Firearms 
and Violence". a paper presented to the American Society of 
Criminology. Baltimore, MD November 7-10.

180 Blackman PH. 1991. open letter to the Director of the 
Office of Scientific Integrity Review of the US Public Health 
Service. April 23, 1991.

181 Liebling AJ. American Film. 3:67. July 1978.

182 Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America.  New 
York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991. p. 43.

183 Harvard Medical Practice Study. "Harvard Medical Practice 
Study." Unpublished report to the State of New York. Cambridge, MA: 
Harvard Medical School 1990. in Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and 
Violence in America.  New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991.

184 Wenzel RP. "The Mortality of Hospital Acquired Bloodstream 
Infections: Need for a New Vital Statistic" Int J Epidemiol. 1988; 
17: 225-7.

185 Martin MJ, Hunt TK, Hulley SB. "The Cost of 
Hospitalization for Firearm Injuries." JAMA. 1988; 260: 3048-50.

186 Organ CH and Fry WR. "Surgery." JAMA. 1992; 268: 413-4.

187 Beccaria C. On Crimes and Punishments. 1764. (translated 
1963 by H. Paolucci). in Halbrook S. That Every Man Be Armed: The 
Evolution of a Constitutional Right. Albuquerque, NM: University 
of New Mexico Press. 1984. p. 35.

188 Kates DB. Guns, Murders, and the Constitution: A Realistic 
Assessment of Gun Control. San Francisco, CA: Pacific Research 
Institute for Public Policy. 1990.

189 Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America.  New 
York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991.

190 Kates DB. "Bigotry, Symbolism and Ideology in the Battle 
over Gun Control" in Eastland, T. The Public Interest Law Review 
1992. Carolina Academic Press. 1992.

191 Centerwall BS. "Television and Violence: The Scale of the 
Problem and Where to Go From Here." JAMA. 1992; 267: 3059-63.

192 Centerwall BS. "Exposure to Television as a Risk Factor 
for Violence." Am. J. Epidemiology. 1989; 129: 643-52. 193 Spivak 
H, Prothrow-Stith D, and Hausman AJ. "Dying Is No Accident." 
Pediatric Clinics of North America. 1988; 35: 1339-47. u an 
individual right to keep and bear arms are the US Senate 
Subcommittee on the Constitution159 and the US Supreme Court.160 
The numerous papers and statements of the authors, signatories, and 
commentators of the Bill of Rights show unequivocally that militia 
was, in their view, the armed citizen. They clearly abhorred a 
select militia, namely the National Guard, as a threat to freedom 
as fearful as a standing army.161 Their intent for the Second 
Amendment was stated most succinctly by Patricbb -- 
bb063@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu  Chris Crobaugh - (216) 327-6655 (V) 
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little 
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

From talk.politics.guns Wed Dec 16 09:38:57 1992 Path: 
mdivax1!mdisea!uw-coco!uw-
beaver!news.u.washington.edu!usenet.coe.montana.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!c
s.utexas.edu!asuvax!asuacad!gundevil Organization: Arizona State 
University Date: Monday, 14 Dec 1992 14:09:36 MST From: Shooting 
Club at ASU <GUNDEVIL@ASUACAD.BITNET> Message-ID: 
<92349.140936GUNDEVIL@ASUACAD.BITNET> Newsgroups: 
talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: Help on NEJM info References:  
<1gasehINNnpb@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Lines: 74

 ----------------------------Original message---------------
------------- This is from "Preston K. Covey" <c

-- 
Greg Booth BSc                          />_________________________________
BCAA-PCDHF-BCWF-NFA-NRA-IPSC   [########[]_________________________________>   
 /\/\OTOROLA Wireless Data Group,       \>   I don't speak for Motorola
/    \Subscriber Products Division, booth@mdd.comm.mot.com 

    
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck,
    Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck, Professor Kleck
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    Another gem from Billy.......

    
    
    	Yes, exceedingly intelligent....
    
    
    

    
    As intelligent as citing Professor Kleck over and over and over again.
    
    								-mr. bill

    But sometimes citing him is rather enlightening.
    
    Let's hear what Kleck has to say about most of the simple minded and
    wrong I'm the NRA crowd's answers to crime....
    
    "Gun control is a very minor, though not entirely irrelevant, part of
    the solution to the violence problem, just as guns are of only very
    minor significance as a cause of the problem. The U.S. has more
    violence than other nations for reasons unrelated to its
    extraordinarily high gun ownership.  Fixating on guns seems to be, for
    many people, a fetish which allows them to ignore the more intransigent
    causes of American violence, including its dying cities, inequality,
    deteriorating family structure, and the all-pervasive economic and
    social consequences of a history of slavery and racism.  And just as
    gun control serves this purpose for liberals, equally useless "get
    tough" proposals, like longer prison terms, mandatory sentencing, and
    more use of the death penalty serve the purpose for conservatives.  All
    parties to the crime debate would do well to give more concentrated
    attention to more difficult, but far more relevant, issues like how to
    generate more good-paying jobs for the underclass which is at the heart
    of the violence problem."
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    Jeesus William, you go and cite him after having your little joke.  And
    I'm glad you cited that text.  With the repubs in office, hopefully we
    can get government contained, taxes lowered and give businesses and
    consumers more chance to create those jobs.
    
    
    Mike 

    
    
    	William is gasping for air and grabbing at anything when going down
    with the ship.
    
    	Funny him b*tching about citing one source after his little fiasco
    with the Florida Dept of Tourism....
    
    
    jim

   <<< Note 21.362 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

    
>    As intelligent as citing Professor Kleck over and over and over again.
 
	It is not my fault that your memory processes are faulty. When
	you accuse me of not providing information, I am perfectly
	within my rights to remind you that I have already done so.

Jim

   <<< Note 21.363 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>    Let's hear what Kleck has to say about most of the simple minded and
>    wrong I'm the NRA crowd's answers to crime....
 
	Well I consider myself part of the I'm the NRA crowd, and if you
	go back and read the entries I've posted concerning my thoughts
	on crime control, you'll find that Prof. Kleck and I agree on
	much of what he says.

	But of course that would shake your personal reality to its core.

Jim

    
    RE: .332
    
    Mea Cupla!! Mea Cupla!! Mea Mucho Culpa!!!
    
    Mr. Bill was correct!! I mis-read the article in question....
    
    
     Homicides fell in 1994... but due to "toughened" gun control laws (as
    billy stated)... guess what??
    
      gun use increased...
    
    
      Here are the opening two paragraphs of the article
    
    
      Homicides fell in 1994, but gun use increased.
    
      By Zachary R. Dowdy GLOBE STAFF
    
       Despite a 13 percent drop in homicides over the past year, the use
    of firearms in murders has jumped significantly, according to a review
    of Boston police records.
    
      Seventy three percent of the 85 homicides in Boston last year were
    committed with guns, a statistic that reflects a growing penchant among
    assailants to shoot to kill. In 1993, 66 percent of the 98 murder
    victims were killed with guns.
    
    ---------------
    
    BTW.... there was not one mention of those "toughened" gun control laws 
    in the whole article.... I wonder why???
    
      So? What conclusion will these bright boys come to regarding the
    increase in gun use and homicides? Why!! Stricter and "tougher" gun
    control laws of course!!! Right Mr. Bill???
    

    ... when your steady girl's daddy takes his .357 to yer head and asks
    whether it wuz YOU who done copulated wiv his liddle preggers angel?
    

    
    <--------
    
    Is dat what it means in Latin??
    
    Too obtuse I guess, even with the "mucho" in there...
    

     He's funnin' on your typo: it's mea culpa, not mea cupla.

    i knew it would happen. mr. bill branched to himself and is now in a
    perpetual loop. outside of consuming vast amounts of disk, its
    harmless.

    
    Mark... Mark....
    
    I knew that.... (honest! :) :) That's why I asked if "cupla" was
    copulation in Latin... :)

    
    
    re: .372
    
    	<snicker><snicker>
    
    

  CHICAGO (AP) - People with firearms training are more likely to keep their
  guns loaded and unlocked at home, researchers say.  A survey of 800 gun
  owners found that more than half had received formal firearms training,
  usually in the military.  27% of those with training kept a loaded, unlocked
  gun.  Only 14% of people without training did so.

  Trained gun owners may be more likely to keep a loaded, unlocked gun because
  they have a keen interest in firearms or believe they are most in need of
  protection, the researchers said, or training may increase owners' confi-
  dence that they can handle a weapon.

  The results of the survey, commissioned by Harvard University's school of
  public health, are published in today's issue of The Journal of the American
  Medical Association.  The survey had an error margin of plus or minus 4
  percentage points.

       <<< Note 21.375 by TROOA::COLLINS "Take me to your lederhosen!" >>>

>A survey of 800 gun
>  owners found that more than half had received formal firearms training,
>  usually in the military.  27% of those with training kept a loaded, unlocked
>  gun.  Only 14% of people without training did so.

	I'm suprised that the number is that low. Particularly if the question
	was phrased "At least one loaded, unlocked". We have three.

Jim

    -.1 (2) here...

    
    I'll post it tomorrow, but you gotta hear what part of the conclusion
    was in the "report" I read in the Glob this morning...
    
     It was something to the effect that the researcher was "concerned"
    that even with the training, so many people were "still" leaving their
    guns loaded and in an unlocked place... The "perception" he gave was
    that people were ignorant to do so and that it had something to do with
    gun accidents in the home...
    

    Lesse, a .357 and 2 9 MM for starters... with 2 loaded spare
    magazines for the 9s... Not to mention a combat pump shotgun
    and one of those pernicious assault rifles with 3 loaded 30
    rnd magazines. If they survive that, I've got lots of other
    stuff locked up in a cabinet that I can easily get to...
    
    Obviously, I'm _not_ planning on losing should I need to use
    this stuff... :-) :-)
    
    -b

    he's right under certain conditions... children are a big variable,
    the ages add another dimension. where you live is still another.
    
    simplified statements like that deliver nothing.
    
    Chip

    
    <--------
    
    Understood about the variables...
    
    But the spin on the article didn't mention any of that...

	yeah, the spin also didn't mention if anyone was ever hurt because of an
unlocked, loaded firearm in a trained individual's home....

>>A survey of 800 gun
>>  owners found that more than half had received formal firearms training,
>>  usually in the military.  27% of those with training kept a loaded, unlocked
>>  gun.  Only 14% of people without training did so.
>
>	I'm suprised that the number is that low. Particularly if the question
>	was phrased "At least one loaded, unlocked". We have three.


    a 9 and sometimes an "appropriate" sized 12 ga. pump with double ought
    loaded. messy. but very effective in close tight quarters.

    	The report also concluded that trained gun owners are more likely
    	to think that they'll need a gun for self-protection.

      <<< Note 21.384 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

>    	The report also concluded that trained gun owners are more likely
>    	to think that they'll need a gun for self-protection.


	I'm wondering about cause and effect. The above statement doesn't
	make a lot of sense. There's no reason that I can see where training
	would make you think you need the gun for self protection.

	On the other hand, many who believe they need a gun for self protection
	(as I do) will seek out training (as I did).

	Both sentences contain the same information, but the word order
	is critical. As stated it implies that training makes you
	paranoid. My way implies that training is merely prudent.

Jim

    	Actually, Jim, I'm more inclined to go with your interpration than
    	the reported one.  I just added that one additional piece of the
    	report for conversation purposes.

      <<< Note 21.386 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

>    	Actually, Jim, I'm more inclined to go with your interpration than
>    	the reported one.  I just added that one additional piece of the
>    	report for conversation purposes.

	Understood, I was commenting, not arguing (for a change ;-)  )

Jim

From:	CRL::"alerts@gatekeeper.nra.org" "MAIL-11 Daemon"  5-JAN-1995 01:06:55.54
To:	Multiple recipients of list <rkba-alert@gatekeeper.nra.org>
CC:	
Subj:	INFO: Response to JAMA Firearm Training and Storage

December 28, 1994

COMMENTS ON HEMENWAY ET AL., "FIREARM TRAINING AND STORAGE," JAMA
     1995;273:46-50.

Briefly:  A CDC-sponsored survey of an apparently unrepresentative
sample of gun owners (too many women; too many hours of firearms
training claimed) found that a minority (one fifth) stored guns in
a manner which might, under some circumstances but not others, be
unsafe, and that firearms training was associated with more
loaded/unlocked storage.  Unfortunately, the survey did not
determine whether the storage was unsafe for the families involved
thus telling us nothing.  The policy recommendations were based
either on other studies or no studies at all.

With more detail:  This is a follow-up to Hemenway's earlier
survey, co-authored with Weil and published in the June 1992 JAMA. 
Both studies were done at and for the Harvard School of Public
Health and partially funded by the CDC.

That earlier survey found no particular impact of firearms training
on storage practices, but included military training.  The study
was criticized on the grounds that such training was not geared
toward safe storage in the home.  This study presumably corrects
for that by asking the type of training, and asserting (without
providing the data) no particular difference in the likelihood of
storing guns unloaded and/or unlocked related to the type of
training.  However, since the whole issue is how training and
storage are related, and there's no particular reason to be
concerned with storage for most purposes, the exercise was largely
pointless.

The study found that about 10% of American households have a
readily accessible loaded firearm, as roughly one-fifth of gun-
owners have such guns.  The survey is of the view that one-fifth is
as very high figure, although the data indicate that the
overwhelming majority of gun owners store all of their guns
unloaded and/or locked -- and the likelihood of a gun being kept
loaded and unlocked is only half as likely if there are "children"
in the home.  However, children is here anyone under the age of 18;
had the survey asked about households with persons too young to
have been taught firearms safety, the figure keeping a loaded
unlocked gun around would probably be even lower, but we can't know
since they didn't ask.  The likelihood of a gun being kept loaded
and unlocked increase with ownership for protection, handgun
ownership, lack of children in the home, and education.
The likelihood of having had formal training was higher for males,
NRA members, multiple gun owners, protective gun owners, and
college graduates.

The authors hypothesize without basis that such storage increases
the likelihood of domestic homicides, suicides, and accidents. 
Indeed, a key failing of the study is that its concern is with how
guns are stored but without evidence the issue is significant. 
They cite other studies to support their fears that homicide,
suicide and accidents are related to guns being kept loaded and
unlocked, but none of the studies actually looked into the matter
of loaded and unlocked guns as related to actual homicides or
suicides.

The authors assert, as does the press release, that two safety
devices -- loaded indicator and passive safety device -- could
reduce accidental deaths by over 30%.  This is based on a study by
the GAO where children's accidents were disproportionately
involved.  And it ignores the fact that the GAO acknowledged that
the safety devices wouldn't work -- and, indeed, might be
counterproductive -- unless retrofitted on all guns owned in
America.  

The study's conclusion that training may not be the answer, of
course, indicates lack of scientific support for the training
provisions of Brady II and the recent California law.

The survey was supposed to be of actual gun owners, but women made
up a larger proportion of the sample than would have been expected
(roughly three-eighths).  Other results, too, seem to suggest the
survey results were not typical of what should have been found in
a random sample.  Of those who received formal training, 45%
reported over 80 hours of such training, with three-fourths
reporting over 10 hours of training.  (Most NRA and hunter safety
courses would be in the 8-16 hour range.)  Almost all of the
courses seemed quite extensive, with 79-97% indicating the course
covered:  safe handling, safe storage, firearms operations,
marksmanship, and firearm regulations.  (Gun storage was the least
likely of the five topics to be covered.) 

All of the concern is based on the undemonstrated assumption that
loaded and unlocked firearms increase the risk of homicide,
suicide, and accidents -- and on totally ignoring the impact on
protective gun use of storage techniques which make it harder to
get the gun in working order.  Realistically, it is not clear
society should have the goal of encouraging more persons to store
their firearms unloaded and locked.  Indeed, the study notes that
some NRA training recognizes that guns are not necessarily always
to be stored unloaded and locked, but that protective guns are
always in use with access possibly desirable.
--
This information is presented as a service to the Internet community
by the NRA/ILA.  Many files are available via anonymous ftp from
ftp.nra.org, via WWW at http://www.nra.org, via gopher at gopher.nra.org,
and via WAIS at wais.nra.org

Be sure to subscribe to the NRA mailing lists.  Send the word help
as the body of a message to listproc@NRA.org

Information can also be obtained by connecting to the NRA-ILA GUN-TALK
BBS at (703) 934-2121.

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: by easynet.crl.dec.com; id AA00205; Thu, 5 Jan 95 01:07:02 -0500
% Received: by crl.dec.com; id AA04426; Thu, 5 Jan 95 01:00:19 -0500
% Received: by gatekeeper.nra.org (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3)id AA19706; Thu, 5 Jan
1995 00:01:06 -0500
% Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 00:01:06 -0500
% Message-Id: <9501050501.AA19706@gatekeeper.nra.org>
% Reply-To: alerts@gatekeeper.nra.org
% Originator: rkba-alert@nra.org
% Sender: rkba-alert@gatekeeper.nra.org
% Precedence: bulk
% From: alerts@gatekeeper.nra.org (NRA Alerts)
% To: Multiple recipients of list <rkba-alert@gatekeeper.nra.org>
% Subject: INFO: Response to JAMA Firearm Training and Storage
% X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
% X-Comment: NRA Alerts list

    I agree on the observation around the spin. That's why the piece
    that was done serves no purpose, delivers no message, and is totally
    void of useful information. Irresponsible/Amateurish journalism
    pretty much sums it up.
    
    But, you know the anti-gun lemmings will try try and pry some kind of
    logic out of it to throw in their vacuous bag of facts.
    
    Chip

    Caught this of the AP last night.  This topic
    
    Rep Doesn't Contest Gun Charge
    	ARLINGTON, Va.--Rep. Maurice Hinchey [note: my congressman :-(]
    (D-N.Y.) pleaded no contest today to a charge of carrying a loaded
    handgun in his baggage at Washington National Airport and was ghiven a
    "suspended imposition of sentence".
    	"We did not plead guilty to anything because we had no intent to
    violate any statute," said Hinchey's lawyer, David Lenefsky.
    	Hinchey appeared before Judge Joseph Gwaltney in a county district
    court.  The judge's ruling will be lifted automatically in a year.
    	Lenefsky said that by his pea Hinchey acknowledged that the
    handgunwas his and that he had a liscense to carry it in New York, but
    not in Virginia.
    	"The handgun was inadvertantly in a poece of luggage I took from my
    upstate New York home when I drove back to Washington for the
    late-November congressional session, and it was still in that piece of
    unopened luggage on Dec. 1 when I decided to fly back to New York,"
    Hinchey siad in a statement.
    	"I was completely surprised when it showed up on the X-ray machine
    at the airport."
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Boy, am I glad he's my rep. ;-)
    
    ME

    -.1 i wouldn't be happy. this guy didn't know he had a gun in his
        luggage? Inadervently? Hello mister rep...
    
        this one belongs in the excuse hall of fame.
    
    
        Chip

     This is a guy who creeches about gun owners being responsible, etc,
    yet DOESN'T EVEN KNOW WHERE HIS GUN IS!!!!
    
     Run of the mill hypocrite, no doubt to be defended by others of his
    gun grabbing ilk.

    <- don't forget the preferential treatment... if it was one of
       us we'd be in the hole a long time.
    
       Chip

        <<< Note 21.390 by REFINE::KOMAR "My congressman is a crook" >>>

    Thanks for posting this.

    Several things caught my eye:

    1.  Notice that the Congressman has a license to carry in New York, a 
        state that makes it almost impossible to legally acquire and keep 
        firearms.  I'm sure their concealed carry laws are even worse.
        This reminds me of Senator Feinstein (D-CA), who was one of only 
        nineteen people who got a license to carry in San Francisco.

        Isn't it interesting the way the political elite can get licenses 
        that the rest of us can't?

    2.  I thought that Congressmen and Senators were sworn in as Federal law
        enforcement officers during there first day in office.  If so, aren't
        they entitled to carry concealed anywhere in the United States, even 
        after they retire?

    3.  Don't you love the "suspended imposition of sentence"?  If you or I
        did something like this, the court system would throw not hesitate to
        impose a sentence.  But when a politico is involved, they will put the
        case on permanent hold.

    .394
    Almost any one can get a gun in N.Y. State but N.Y. City is the
    toughest place...ie Sullivan law. A N.Y. State Trooper may not even
    enter the city without permission of the proper authorities with his
    pistol.

    I think he said license to carry, not license to buy...
    
    There is a difference.

   <<< Note 21.394 by STAR::OKELLEY "Kevin O'Kelley, OpenVMS DCE Security" >>>
                          -< American blind justice  >-

>    3.  Don't you love the "suspended imposition of sentence"?  If you or I
>        did something like this, the court system would throw not hesitate to
>        impose a sentence.  But when a politico is involved, they will put the
>        case on permanent hold.

No question, national pols get a lot of perks. This isn't one of them. By 
definition, he's a public figure. A lot of people know a lot about him. Not 
much risk of surprise behavior. You (or I for that matter) are not known. 
We would - and should - be throroughly investigated before being set free. 
Same is we were packing a bottle of bleach.

    
>No question, national pols get a lot of perks. This isn't one of them. By 
>definition, he's a public figure. A lot of people know a lot about him. Not 
>much risk of surprise behavior. You (or I for that matter) are not known. 
>We would - and should - be throroughly investigated before being set free. 
>Same is we were packing a bottle of bleach.
    
    	Oh my gawd, it's true. You CAN reason out ANYTHING.....truly
    frightening....
    
    

    the word is rationalize.

    
    
    	not with him it ain't rational....! :)
    
    

    .397 so you support a separate set of policies and law for 
    politicians? 
    
    That's the way it sounds to me, and... assuming that "no surprise
    behavior" stands unfounded. To me, not remembering he had the
    pistol falls into my personal "surprising" column.
    
    Chip

    RE: -1
    
    Same here.  But then again, he is a Democrat... :-)
    
    ME

No, I don't support separate rules for pols and us riff-raff.

It's just a matter of practical application of rules. The point of 
detaining anyone is to ensure that having a weapon onboard wasn't a mental 
slip, not a planned attempt to hijack or whatever. If you were the airport 
cop dealing with the situation, would you have sent him to jail while you 
checked him out? Probably, because you hate pols in general and dems in 
particular, but not because you really needed to find out about the guy. If 
it had been the president of the NRA, would you have thrown him in jail? 

    rules is rules... since when is stability in a politician 
    assumed?  :-)
    
    Chip

                   <<< Note 21.403 by HUMANE::USMVS::DAVIS >>>

RE: It's just a matter of practical application of rules.

I agree.


RE: The point of detaining anyone is to ensure that having a weapon onboard 
    wasn't a mental slip, not a planned attempt to hijack or whatever. 

I don't think that is what the law says at all.  

In my old home town of Knoxville, TN (last year), the cops arrested an 
elderly (in her 70's, I think) lady who was getting on a plane and set off 
the metal detector with a .38 revolver in her purse.  She forgot it was there.
She was arrested on the State and Federal charges.  (She did not have the 
necessary permit to carry a concealed weapon, either.)

    Did she intend to hijack the plane?  Highly unlikely.  
    Was she a danger to society?  Probably not.  
    Did she break the law?  Yes, several of them, and she was arrested, too.
    Will she be found guilty?  Probably.
    Will she serve time?  I certainly hope not: she is very old.  Based on 
    the interview in the local paper, if her lawyer pleaded diminished capacity
    and I were on the jury, I'd believe it.  However, that decision is for 
    the courts, not the policemen at the scene.


RE: If you were the airport cop dealing with the situation, would you have 
    sent him to jail while you checked him out?  Probably, because you hate 
    pols in general and dems in particular, but not because you really needed 
    to find out about the guy. 

No, I would have placed him under arrest, told him the charges, and advised 
him of his rights.  Since the honorable Representative to the People's House
appeared in court, I assume that this was done.


RE: If it had been the president of the NRA, would you have thrown him in jail? 

Yes, to do otherwise would be dereliction of duty.  This is not an area that
a police officer has any discretion.

   --------

Look at the case again.  This guy is probably a lawyer.  He is a Member of 
Congress.  He is transporting a firearm to Washington, D.C., where hanguns are
banned, and he didn't know it was there?  I find that hard to believe.  At the
very least, I'd take away his permit to carry in NY (if he can't remember 
where he put his guns).  In any case, he pleaded no contest.

   <<< Note 21.405 by STAR::OKELLEY "Kevin O'Kelley, OpenVMS DCE Security" >>>
>                     -< A practical application of rules >-


	There is one possible explaination. I seem to recall that there
	is a Federal law that prohibits any interference with a member
	of Congress if he is enroute to, or participating in, a session.

	Of course that is NOT why they let him go.

Jim

    <<< Note 21.406 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	There is one possible explaination. I seem to recall that there
>	is a Federal law that prohibits any interference with a member
>	of Congress if he is enroute to, or participating in, a session.
>
>	Of course that is NOT why they let him go.

Hmmmm.  Possibly.

I also thought that Congressmen and Senators were also sworn in as Federal
Law enforcement officers at the same time they take their oath of iffce.  
On that basis, I believe that a Congressman could get the authorization to 
carry on board the plane and could carry a firearm concealed anywhere in the 
country -- the same as Federal couriers, Federal sky marshals, and police
officers.

The problem is probably the transportation of the firearm in the baggage.
I thought that anyone who can legally possess a firearm can transport it in
baggage that is checked-in.  However, there are a few regulations that must 
be met.  If the Congressman didn't adhere to those regulations, he's in a
spot of trouble.

	minor nit. Cops (like local cops etc) cannot carry anywhere in the
U.S.A.. Once they're off duty or out of their home state, they're just like any
other schmuck.


jim

            <<< Note 21.408 by SUBPAC::SADIN "caught in the 'net" >>>

    Yes, you're right.  I was thinking of a cop on an official trip (e.g.
    transporting a prisoner or getting evidence).  Sorry.  I was in a hurry.

	just got my copy of "The Kansas City Gun Experiment". I'll be typing it
in slowly and I'll post a pointer to it when I finish. I'd suggest waiting for
me to type it in rather than asking me for a copy since the copy is in pretty
poor shape and will only get worse. thanks.


	jim

 


COMMENTS ON KELLERMANN -
GUNS IN THE HOME

   Some Methodological Problems in "Gun Ownership and
   Homicide in the Home - (Kellermann et. al., New England
   Journal of Medicine. Oct 7, 1993) 



H. Taylor Buckner

Associate Professor of Sociology, Concordia University

Kellermann and his colleagues concluded that a person who had a
gun in his or her home was 2.7 times more likely to be a victim of
homicide than someone who did not (1087). They further "found no
evidence of a protective benefit from gun ownership...(1087)."
Neither of these conclusions are justified on the basis of their
research. 

They conducted their research by limiting their cases to people
murdered in their own homes, thus excluding any instances where
intruders were killed by the homeowner. They did not ask the
victim's proxy (from whom they got their data about the victim and
his or her household) whether or not the victim had previously
defended him/herself with a gun. Thus their conclusion that a gun
provides no protective benefit flows from their failure to consider
cases where it might have. 

In order to provide a control group they selected another person
from the neighborhood of the same sex, race, and age group as the
victim, and asked them the same questions they had asked the
victim's proxy. While matched on the demographic variables, the
control group was stunningly different on behavioral measures.
Compared to the control group the victim group was more likely to:
rent rather than own, live alone, drink alcoholic beverages, have
problems in the household because of drinking, have trouble at
work because of drinking, be hospitalized because of drinking, use
illicit drugs, have physical fights in the home during drinking, have
a household member hit or hurt in a fight in the home, have a
household member require medical attention because of a fight in
the home, have a household member involved in a physical fight
outside the home, have any household member arrested, and be
arrested themselves. Thus the victim group and the control group
had very different lifestyles, with the victim group living a very
high-risk lifestyle. 

In fact, Kellermann found that having a gun in the home ranked
fifth out of six risk factors in the victims' lives. Using illicit drugs
lead to a 5.7 times risk of being murdered, being a renter 4.4 times,
having any household member hit or hurt in a fight 4.4 times, living
alone 3.7 times, guns in the household 2.7 times, and a household
member being arrested, 2.5 times. 

The entire "gun in the home is risky" analysis depends on one
crucial figure, the percent of the control group (35.8%) that have
guns in their homes. If this figure is underreported, the findings are
false. There is good reason to assume this figure is low. First, many,
many surveys report that around 48% of Americans have guns in
their homes. The victim group, as reported by their proxies, had
45.4% gun owners. This figure is unlikely to be false: the victim is
dead, in 49.9% of the cases by gunshot wound, the proxy cannot
really lie about it. The control group actually reported owning more
rifles and shotguns than the victim group, (fewer handguns) but
they may well have not reported having a pistol in the home
because it is illegal, or nobody's business. There is considerable
evidence (Kleck, 457; Newton, 6; Erskine, 456; Kennett, 253;
Stinchcombe, 115) that over the past three decades an increasing
fraction of survey respondents have incorrectly denied gun
ownership. In a pilot study, Kellermann tested whether people
reported their gun ownership correctly by asking REGISTERED
gun owners if they owned a gun, and found that their replies were
"generally valid (1089)." The official records of the members of the
control group were not checked to see if they had "registered" guns,
and likely many had guns that were not registered and not reported.
Thus even the finding that gun ownership is the fifth most
important risk factor is subject to considerable doubt. 

My conclusion is that this study is seriously flawed, and that the
conclusions were driven by ideology more than research. 



References

Erskine, Hazel. 1972. "The Polls: Gun Control." Public Opinion
Quarterly. 36:455- 469. 

Kellermann, Arthur L., M.D., M.P.H., Frederick P. Rivara, M.D.,
M.P.H., Norman B. Rushforth, Ph.D., Joyce G. Banton, M.S.,
Donald T. Reay, M.D., Jerry T. Francisco, M.D., Ana B. Locci,
Ph.D., Jancice Prodzinzki, B.A., Bela B. Hackman, M.D., and Grant
Somes, Ph.D. 1993 "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide
in the Home." New England Journal of Medicine. 329:15
1084-1091. 7 Oct. 

Kennett, Lee and James LaVerne Anderson. 1975. The Gun in
America: The Origins of a National Dilemma. Westport, Conn.:
Greenwood Press. 

Kleck, Gary. 1991. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America.
New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 

Newton, George D., and Frank Zimring. 1969. Firearms and
Violence in American Life. A Staff Report to the National
Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence.
Washington, D.C.; U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Stinchcombe, Arthur, Rebecca Adams, Carol A. Heimer, Kim Lane
Schepple, Tom W. Smith, and D. Garth Taylor. 1980. Crime and
Punishment - Changing Attitudes in America. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass. 


World-Wide-Web html format by

   Scott Ostrander: scotto@cica.indiana.edu

    
    "seriously flawed" is putting it nicely.
      

re: .408

Jim,

>	minor nit. Cops (like local cops etc) cannot carry anywhere in the
>U.S.A.. Once they're off duty or out of their home state, they're just like any
>other schmuck.

This is incorrect.  Dallas police officers are REQUIRED by departmental
regulations to be armed 24 hours a day.  I do doubt that they wear a firearm
in bed or in the shower:-)

Bob

>This is incorrect.  Dallas police officers are REQUIRED by departmental
>regulations to be armed 24 hours a day.  I do doubt that they wear a firearm
>in bed or in the shower:-)


	that would be cute. :*) I know some police officers are required to be
armed, but don't they have to have the same carry permit as joe-average citizen
when not on duty?


jim

>
> The following article is under submission.  Reproduction
> on computer bulletin boards is permitted for informational
> purposes only.  Copyright (c) 1995 by J. Neil Schulman.
> All other rights reserved.
>
>
>             OKAY, LET'S LICENSE GUNS JUST LIKE CARS
>
>                       by J. Neil Schulman
>
>     How many times have you heard gun-control advocates argue
>that it's ridiculous just anyone can buy a gun without a license
>in most states, considering you need to register your car and get
>a driver's license?
>
>     Further, the argument goes, guns should be registered and
>licensed the way cars are because while it's true that cars are
>involved in about 50,000 accidental deaths a year in the United
>States and firearms in only around 1,500 accidental deaths, guns
>are used in around 15,000 homicides a year and another 15,000
>suicides.
>
>     Of course this comparison leaves out how many automobile
>fatalities are actually suicides.  Police accident reports have
>no good way of knowing how many single-driver or opposing-traffic
>crash fatalities are suicides.  An autopsy showing blood alcohol
>or drugs won't necessarily tell you it was an accident because
>wouldn't you get stoned if you planned to kill yourself in a car
>crash?
>
>     But the final argument to register guns and license gun
>owners is always the same. Unlike cars, we are repeatedly told,
>guns have only one purpose -- to kill.
>
>     Forget for a moment that the best criminology shows guns
>being used two-to-three times more often in defense against a
>crime than guns being used to commit a crime; and forget that the
>overwhelming number of these gun defenses occur without the
>trigger ever having to be pulled.  Let's also forget that 99.6%
>of the guns in this country will never shoot anyone.
>
>     For the moment, let's just pretend that there is some reason
>behind the argument that guns should be licensed and registered
>like cars.
>
>     If we're going to take that argument seriously, then let's
>enact the same standards for owning and operating a firearm in
>the United States as are actually in use for owning and operating
>a motor vehicle.
>
>
>                Comparing Manufacture, Ownership,
>                  Registration, and Enforcement
>
>     To begin with, anyone in the United States may own a motor
>vehicle without a license.  You can be living on death row in
>your state's maximum-security prison and still hold title to a
>motor vehicle.
>
>     But under federal law, no convicted felon, or dishonorably
>discharged veteran, or a person addicted to alcohol or a
>controlled substance, may own a firearm; and there are additional
>restrictions on possession of firearms by persons under a court
>restraining order.
>
>     If we're going to treat ownership of firearms the way we
>treat ownership of motor vehicles, we're going to have to repeal
>these firearms laws.
>
>     There are no restrictions whatsoever on what sort of motor
>vehicle anyone may own.  Anyone of any age may buy or own an
>automobile, or an eighteen-wheeler, or a motorcycle, without
>restriction.  You can own a car that looks like a hot dog, if you
>feel like it.
>
>     But there are both federal and state restrictions on the
>ownership of various types of firearms, or even parts for them.
>Restrictions include operational capacities, accessories, or mere
>appearance.  Laws restrict the sale or ownership of fully-
>automatic firearms; similar restrictions affect some magazine-
>loading but non-automatic firearms.  Other laws restrict rifles
>with pistol grips or bayonet mounts or flash suppressors.
>Federal restrictions forbid the sale of ammunition magazines that
>hold more than ten rounds.  There are laws against handguns or
>shotguns with too short a barrel, and restrictions on owning
>firearms which are made to look like anything else, such as a
>wallet.
>
>     If we treated ownership of firearms the way we treat
>ownership of motor vehicles, we'd have to repeal these sorts of
>laws.
>
>     One need not register any motor vehicle unless one operates
>it on public roads.  In some states, the registration of a motor
>vehicle need not be in the actual name of an owner but may be
>registered under a fictitious or business name.  One may own and
>possess an automobile even if one lives in public housing.  There
>are no laws requiring that automobiles be kept in locked garages
>or specifically penalizing parents if their children gain access
>to an unlocked garage and operate the vehicle, causing harm.
>There is no restrictions on the ownership or possession of motor
>vehicles in Washington D.C., Chicago, Detroit, New York, or other
>major cities; nor any requirement that motor vehicles be kept
>disassembled and locked up, unavailable for immediate use.
>
>     In cities such as Washington D.C. and New York, numerous
>prohibitions, restrictions, and requirements are made in the
>possession of firearms.  In Washington D.C. and elsewhere, if
>you're allowed to own a firearm at all, you must keep it locked
>up, unloaded, and disassembled, even in your own house.  In some
>public housing projects where the police are rare, poverty-
>stricken residents must surrender all rights to possess firearms
>for self-protection.  In California and elsewhere, a parent who
>keeps a loaded or unlocked firearm for protection, even if well-
>hidden, risks special penalties if a child finds it and causes
>harm with it.
>
>     If we treat ownership of firearms the way we treat ownership
>of motor vehicles, we must repeal these firearms laws.
>
>     There is no waiting or background check necessary for the
>purchase of any motor vehicle.  There is no restriction on the
>size, power, or seating capacity of the motor vehicles one may
>legally purchase.  No one passed laws making it illegal to lower
>the noise-making capacity of a motor vehicle; to the contrary,
>laws require that motor vehicles not violate noise-pollution
>statutes.  There are few or no restrictions forbidding automobile
>ownership by ex-cons, or convicts on probation, or parolees, or
>individuals under court restraining orders, or even registered
>sex offenders --not to mention so-called deadbeat dads.  Even
>persons convicted of vehicular homicide may usually still legally
>hold title to an automobile.
>
>     But there is a waiting period to purchase a firearm in many
>states, ranging from the five days mandated by the federal Brady
>Law, to some states or cities where the background check can take
>many months to process.  Background checks often block the
>purchase of a firearm by someone whose only crime is that she has
>an unpaid traffic ticket or that he's behind on his child
>support, or someone is subject to a restraining order obtained as
>a legal maneuver in a divorce.  Often the license allows just one
>firearm of a type selected by a police official, and also
>restricts the times, places, and purposes to which one may
>possess that single firearm.  There are laws forbidding the
>installation of silencers on firearms which would allow them to
>be fired quietly during target practice, with a result that
>damage to ears  -- even with ear protectors -- is common.
>
>     If we treat ownership of firearms the way we treat ownership
>of motor vehicles, we must repeal these restrictive firearms
>laws.
>
>     There is no federal license needed to manufacture a motor
>vehicle; nor is the possession of parts with which one can
>manufacture a motor vehicle subject to federal, state, or local
>laws.  The federal government does not raid the homes of its
>citizens looking for parts that could be used in the unlicensed
>manufacture of motor vehicles.  Kids can make or modify motor
>vehicles in their back yards, driveways, or in school auto shops
>with help from their teachers.
>
>     In contrast, manufacture of any firearm requires a federal
>license requiring fingerprints, a police background check, oaths
>and warrants, and significant license fees.  Both federal and
>state authorities have harassed both licensed dealers and non-
>commercial sellers suspected of paperwork or technical
>violations; and sting operations have entrapped individuals.
>Authorities induced backwoodsman Randy Weaver into sawing a
>shotgun barrel shorter than the legal limit, and attempted to
>make him miss a court appearance for this violation by changing
>his court date without notice; his failure to appear resulted in
>a violent confrontation between this previously law-abiding man
>and federal authorities.  The confrontation resulted in the death
>of a federal officer and of Weaver's wife Vicki, who was shot --
>standing unarmed while holding an infant -- by an FBI Hostage
>Rescue Team sharpshooter 600 yards away.
>
>     At Waco, Texas, an armed assault by the Bureau of Alcohol,
>Tobacco, and Firearms on the Christian Branch Davidians resulted
>in a firefight which led to immediate deaths on both sides, and
>the later deaths of 85 previously law-abiding men, women, and
>children; the warrant which authorized this raid was that the
>Davidians were suspected of possessing parts which would have
>enabled the conversion of a magazine-fed but non-automatic rifle
>into a full-auto rifle that -- if the federal tax had been paid
>-- would have been legal to own in the state of Texas, anyway.
>
>     In numerous cases, acting on nothing more than anonymous
>tips, federal officers have staged raids on gun-owners' homes,
>destroying their property, terrorizing their families,
>confiscating valuable gun collections later determined to be
>perfectly legal, and even killing their pets.  No compensation
>has ever been made to victims of these gestapo-like raids.
>
>     If we treat ownership of firearms the way we treat ownership
>of motor vehicles, we must repeal these confusing laws and
>disband federal police agencies involved in these sorts of
>operations.
>
>     There is no requirement that a motor vehicle be purchased
>from a licensed dealership.  There is no federal licensing of
>motor vehicle dealers, and no federal bureau with police powers
>allowing regular inspection of dealer's sales records without a
>warrant.
>
>     In some states, including California, all purchases of
>firearms must be made from federally-licensed dealers.  All
>federally licensed firearms dealers must allow the Bureau of
>Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms a yearly inspection of their
>dealer-record-of-sales forms.  ATF agents have been known to
>use these occasions for general searches or even theft of any
>other paperwork they find interesting, without obtaining a search
>warrant meeting constitutional requirements.  The Bill of Rights
>forbids general searches and requires officers, if they wish a
>search warrant, to make sworn affidavits stating what they are
>looking for and what crime it is evidence of.
>
>     If we treat ownership of firearms the way we treat ownership
>of motor vehicles, we must repeal these firearms laws, and forbid
>such unconstitutional searches.
>
>     Anyone can purchase a motor vehicle by mail, or across state
>lines.  There is no restriction of the number of motor vehicles
>one may own, or any restrictions on the number of motor vehicles
>one may buy in a month.
>
>     It is illegal to purchase a firearm by mail or from a seller
>in another state unless one holds a federal dealer's license or
>such purchase meets legal purchase requirements in both states.
>Some states, such as Virginia, forbid the purchase of more than
>one firearm per month.
>
>     If we treat ownership of firearms the way we treat ownership
>of motor vehicles, we must repeal these laws.
>
>
>                       Comparing Licensing
>
>     One does not need any license to be in possession of any
>motor vehicle anywhere in the United States of America.  There
>are no requirements that a motor vehicle be kept locked up and in
>non-operational condition as a requirement of legally
>transporting one.  There are no laws requiring cars to be stored
>in locked garages, or otherwise made inaccessible to their
>owners.  Students who drive may drive their cars to school and
>park them on school property if such parking is available.
>
>     In many cities and states, it is illegal for a private
>individual -- and often even a sworn police officer who is off-
>duty -- to be in personal possession of a firearm in operational
>condition -- that is, loaded and without a trigger guard -- or in
>possession of even an unloaded firearm if it is concealed or not
>deliberately rendered inaccessible to its owner; or to keep even
>an unloaded firearm in the trunk of one's car or concealed on
>one's person.
>
>     If we treat ownership of firearms the way we treat ownership
>of motor vehicles, we must repeal these firearms laws.
>
>     There are no restrictions on the operation of motor vehicles
>on private property, with the owner's permission, anywhere in the
>United States.  A child may legally operate a motor vehicle on
>private property with no license required.  The only licensing
>requirements in any state are in the event that one is going to
>operate that motor vehicle on public streets or highways, in
>which case one must qualify for and carry an operator's license.
>
>     In many states or cities it is impossible for a private
>individual to legally possess a firearm on public streets at all;
>and the use of a firearm, even in cases of legal self-defense or
>protection of the lives of others, often results in prosecution
>on firearms charges.  Bernhard Goetz, acquitted by a jury for
>shooting young punks on a subway whom he had good reason to
>believe were attempting to mug him, was convicted and served jail
>time for possessing the firearm he used to defend himself.  There
>are additional restrictions on the possession of firearms by
>minors, even with their parents' permission, under conditions
>where such possession would be for a legally-permissible purpose.
>In addition to other criminal penalties, students possessing a
>firearm, or a toy gun, or even empty ammunition casings on school
>property are suspended or expelled.
>
>     If we treat ownership of firearms the way we treat ownership
>of motor vehicles, we must repeal these firearms laws against
>possession and legitimate use of firearms.
>
>     Training for operating a motor vehicle is part of the
>curriculum at public high schools.  There are also private
>operator's schools in every neighborhood, without zoning
>restrictions.  In many states one may get a learner's permit to
>operate a motor vehicle on public roads as young as age 14, and
>an operator's license as young as 16.  At 18 one can get an
>unrestricted operator's license.  Additional tests allow one to
>operate 2-wheeled vehicles and 18-wheel vehicles. The test for an
>operator's license tests one's knowledge and proficiency in the
>safe operation of a motor vehicle.  You do not have to convince
>anyone that you have a need for the license.  Once you've
>demonstrated competency at a level that almost anyone can
>satisfy, the state has no discretion in refusing you an
>operator's license.  Except for convicted violators allowed
>restricted driving privileges, any state's license for operating
>a motor vehicle is good in all places throughout the state, at
>all times, and every state's license is recognized by every other
>state.  The license is good for operating all motor vehicles of
>that class, not just motor vehicles which one owns.
>
>     In those states where it is possible to obtain a license to
>carry a gun at all, such licenses are often at police discretion,
>and handed out as payoffs to political cronies.  The licensing
>procedure is often burdensome, invasive of privacy, time-
>consuming, and expensive.  In some states the possession of a
>carry license is a matter of public record which can be reported
>in the news.  Often licensing is blatantly discriminatory against
>women and minorities.  Often the license has severe restrictions
>as to time and place that one may carry the firearm, and limits
>the carrying to only specified firearms.  Usually the license is
>not recognized by other states and a person carrying a firearm
>under another state's license is prosecuted as if they were not
>licensed at all.  In Los Angeles, actor Wesley Snipes was arrested
>for carrying a gun; Snipes was licensed to carry in Florida but
>was charged anyway.  Even in states, such as Florida, which make
>issuance of licenses mandatory to qualified applicants, there are
>numerous restrictions on the places into which one is permitted
>to carry the firearm, resulting in accidental violations of law
>and suspensions of licenses.  One must be twenty-one to obtain a
>license to carry a firearm in most states; and federal law
>severely restricts possession of firearms by individuals under
>eighteen, even with their parent's consent.  Firearms training in
>schools is a rarity, with the result that those minors in
>possession of firearms -- even if they have legitimate fear for
>their lives -- are both penalized for carrying them and often
>left unqualified, by lack of available training, to possess or
>operate them in a safe or disciplined manner.
>
>     If we treat ownership of firearms the way we treat ownership
>of motor vehicles, we must rewrite these carry laws to remove
>these burdens and restrictions, and make training more available.
>
>     You may, with your motor vehicle operator's license, rent a
>motor vehicle when your motor vehicle is unavailable -- such as
>upon arrival at an airport in a city one is visiting.
>
>     There is certainly no Hertz Rent-a-Gun at every airport.
>
>     Now, shall we place exactly the same restrictions on the
>manufacture, vending, purchase, ownership, and operation of
>firearms that we currently place on automobiles?
>
>     The laws regarding motor vehicles in our society, while
>not perfect, at least recognize these common devices as serving
>the legitimate purposes of large numbers of the population.
>Lawmakers have at least tried to see that the laws governing
>automobile ownership and operation do little more than serve
>basic public requirements, such as revenue and encouraging
>proper training and safety awareness.  Ordinary motorists,
>while perhaps overburdened themselves, at least aren't
>penalized for thinking they have a need to keep a working
>car with them.  Punishments in our society are reserved for
>those who misuse motor vehicles, not those who use them as they
>were intended.
>
>     Contrariwise, the laws regarding firearms in our society
>always seem to place the burden of proof on any private person
>to demonstrate to some public servant a need to own or
>possess a firearm.  Restrictions disarm the public in places
>where there is increased danger of violence -- precisely where
>one might need to defend oneself.
>
>     It is true that, for most of us, guns aren't as useful on a
>daily basis as cars.  Looked at with a micro perspective, you
>could carry a gun for years before finding it needful; a gun kept
>for protective purposes is more like a fire extinguisher than a
>car.  You might never need it; but when you do, having it can
>prevent tragedy.
>
>     Looked at with a macro view, we now know that one of your
>neighbors uses a firearm every thirteen seconds or so preventing
>just that sort of tragedy, and that using a gun for defense in an
>assault or robbery attempt is twice as likely to keep you
>unharmed than either not resisting at all or attempting any other
>form of resistance.
>
>     Yet, for a person not either engaged in a life of crime or
>professionally confronting criminals, it is the very unlikeliness
>of needing the gun that fosters our problems with them.  If more
>ordinary people carried guns more regularly, more of us would be
>familiar with them, education in them would be as common as for
>cars, and we'd see more stories on the news about how one of our
>fellow citizens was Joanie-on-the-spot with her gun when some
>psychopath decided to turn her lunch break into a murder spree.
>
>     The protection of your life, property, family, and community
> ...  hunting game ... shooting sports ... and training of the
>young in arms ... these are all well-established in our nation's
>customs, the Declaration of Independence, our Bill of Rights,
>federal legislation, and various state constitutions and laws.
>Unlike laws treating motor vehicles, our firearms laws are a
>patchwork quilt of taxes, burdens, regulations, conditions,
>invasions of privacy, and outright prohibitions, all expressing
>the mentality that only persons of political privilege may
>possess means to use deadly force if the need arises.  Gun
>control advocates demand a "national gun policy," but their
>demands are only for increases in gun restrictions in places that
>don't currently have them; they are unwilling to unify laws in
>such a way that local violations of firearms rights are preempted
>by federal laws.
>
>     So, by all means, let's start immediately rewriting the
>laws in this country so that the ownership, possession, and use
>of guns are as fair and even-handed as laws governing cars.
>Maybe more people will then keep guns with them when they're
>needed, and criminals with guns will no longer operate with the
>guarantee of a disarmed public to prey upon.
>
>     Honest gun-control advocates should be delighted at this
>prospect.  They just might get precisely what they've asked for.
>
>                                 #
>
> J. NEIL SCHULMAN is the author of two Prometheus award-
> winning novels, Alongside Night and The Rainbow Cadenza,
> short fiction, nonfiction, and screenwritings, including the
> CBS Twilight Zone episode "Profile in Silver."  His latest
> book is STOPPING POWER: Why 70 Million Americans Own Guns.
> Schulman has been published in the Los Angeles Times and
> other national newspapers, as well as National Review,
> Reason, Liberty, and other magazines.  His LA Times article
> "If Gun Laws Work, Why Are We Afraid?" won the James Madison
> Award from the Second Amendment Foundation.  Schulman's books
> have been praised by Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, Anthony
> Burgess, Robert A. Heinlein, Colin Wilson, and many other
> prominent individuals.
>
>
>    Reply to:
> J. Neil Schulman
> Mail:                 P.O. Box 94, Long Beach, CA 90801-0094
> Voice Mail: (on AT&T) 0-700-22-JNEIL (1-800-CALL-ATT to access AT&T)
> Fax:                  (310) 839-7653
> JNS BBS:              1-310-839-7653,,,,25
> Internet:             softserv@genie.geis.com
>
>
>"Mr. Schulman's book is the most cogent explanation of the
>gun issue I have yet read. He presents the assault on the Second
>Amendment in frighteningly clear terms. Even the extremists who
>would ban firearms will learn from his lucid prose."
> --Charlton Heston
>
>"Schulman has truly changed my mind on guns and self defense."
> -- Dennis Prager, KABC Radio
>
>"Schulman shoots down all of the tired old anti-gun arguments and
>explains clearly why "gun owners are morally, historically,
>legally, and politically justified in their choice to be armed."
>This book is entertaining as well as informative and should be a
>part of every gun owner's library. ...  Buy an extra copy for your
>congressman."
> --Bill O'Brien, GUNS & AMMO
>
>"Schulman's reasoning powers are superb, and he uses them to
>cut through the bunk that clouds the issue. ... Just like a
>good handgun, STOPPING POWER will disable the adversary,
>hopefully for good.  Buy it."
> --AID & ABET POLICE NEWSLETTER
>
>"A vastly entertaining book that clarifies the real issues and
>blows the opposition away like a Vulcan cannon.  As a successful
>screen and SF writer, Schulman has produced what may be the most
>powerful (and readable) gun rights book yet."
>  --LANCER MILITARIA
>
>"Schulman is no armchair freedom-fighter.  ... [STOPPING POWER]
>includes practical, philosophical, and constitutional arguments
>against gun control ..."
> --LIBERTY MAGAZINE
>
>"Gives you the ammunition that you need to effectively debate
>and talk intelligently about the attack on our Second Amendment
>rights in everyday language ... The book is thoroughly
>researched ... Once you have read this book and feel the way
>that I do about its content, then order a second and a third
>copy either for your public library, as a gift for a friend,
>or for your club legislative director.  Help spread the word,
>the facts, the truth."
> --John C. Krull, THE NEW GUN WEEK
>
>"[STOPPING POWER] should take its place as one of the most
>convenient and readable arguments for firearms rights on the
>market.  The most delightful thing about this book -- besides
>the frequent humor and often hilarious sarcasm -- is the utterly
>unapologetic attitude Schulman takes toward the right to keep
>and bear arms.  Some Second Amendment activists mumble about
>hunting and sportsmen and traditions, while endorsing
>compromises that are put forward as just a little harmless
>regulation.  Schulman comes right out and says that the right to
>keep and bear arms has to do with protecting yourself from
>criminals because you can't count on the cops, and protecting a
>free society from a potentially tyrannical government. ...
>Whatever your position on this issue, you'll enjoy Neil's
>pungent and stylish writing."
> -- Alan Bock, ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
>
>"Much of value in the book, especially Mr. Schulman's incisive
>critiques of the factoids, misleading rhetoric, and outright
>lies of the anti-gun lobby."
> --Jacob Sullum, NATIONAL REVIEW
>
>"His research is impeccable. Nobody expresses the other side
>better than the author of STOPPING POWER, J. Neil Schulman."
> --Michael Jackson, KABC Radio
>
>"It's a most important book and if you've ever been on the fence
>regarding gun control and why you think the Second Amendment
>is outdated perhaps, or if you've thought maybe that we do have
>a right but you couldn't hang your hat on anything that makes
>sense, this is the book that will do it for you."
> --Ray Briem, KABC Radio
>
>"Deserves to be read.  It makes a powerful case for law-abiding
>gun ownership."
> --Alan Caruba, BOOKVIEWS
>
>          FEATURED ALTERNATE OF LAISSEZ FAIRE BOOKS!
>"An intriguing miscellany  ... Schulman provides a wealth of
>information which can help you decide how best to protect
>yourself and your loved ones."
> --Jim Powell, LAISSEZ FAIRE REVIEW
>
>"Always eloquent.  Always well-reasoned.  And dammit, always
>stirring.  This is down in the trenches stuff, real argument
>and debate.  It is the fevered journalism of a man in mid-crusade.
>A man fighting a war for independence we should all be up to
>our hips in right now."
> --Wally Conger, OUT OF STEP
>
>
>
> STOPPING POWER: Why 70 Million Americans Own Guns
> by J. Neil Schulman
>
> Foreword by Criminologist and Civil-Rights
> Lawyer Don B. Kates, Jr.
>
> Published by Synapse--CenturioN
> Price: $22.95 USA / $29.95 Canada
> ISBN: 1-882639-03-0
> Hardcover, 288 pages
>
> PLEASE encourage all gun rights activists to ask the manager or
> assistant manager of their local chain bookstore -- B. Dalton,
> Waldenbooks, Barnes & Noble, Bookstar, Crown, etc. -- about when
> they are getting in STOPPING POWER.  This will be an enormous
> help in getting the chains to order the book.
>
> "To deter crime, place a gun nut behind the dead bolt." -- JNS

re: .414

Texas currently has no carry permit legislation.

Bob

            <<< Note 21.408 by SUBPAC::SADIN "caught in the 'net" >>>

>	minor nit. Cops (like local cops etc) cannot carry anywhere in the
>U.S.A.. Once they're off duty or out of their home state, they're just like any
>other schmuck.

	A nit on your nit. It depends on the town/city you work for. Some,
	like the department I worked for, automatically issued a carry permit
	with your shield. Not good outside the State of Ohio though.

Jim

	I'm still trying to understand the Texas thing. How can the cops carry
when they don't have a permit? Isn't a cop only a cop when on duty (legally I
mean)? Don't the same laws that apply to you and me apply to them (in theory)?
Is there some kind of pre-emption law?

            <<< Note 21.418 by SUBPAC::SADIN "caught in the 'net" >>>

>	I'm still trying to understand the Texas thing. How can the cops carry
>when they don't have a permit? ? 

	The "Texas thing" is most likely in how the prohibition against
	concealed carry is worded. A simple "except for sworn law enforcement
	personnel" in the law is probably how it's done.

>Isn't a cop only a cop when on duty (legally I
>mean)

	Depends on the jurisdiction. Most departments consider their sworn
	officers to be "on duty" at all times. Even if they are not working
	a shift, they are "on call". On and Off duty really have no legal
	meaning.

>Don't the same laws that apply to you and me apply to them (in theory)?

	Theoretically, yes. But a little confession. When I was a cop,
	I kept my driver's license in my police ID wallet (shield and
	ID card), not in my regular wallet. In a number of cases this 
	would save me from receiving a ticket. Did the laws concerning
	speeding "apply" to me when I was "off duty"? Sure. But the
	difference between a warning to me and a ticket to a civilian
	would, in all honesty, hinge on how you answered "Are you a cop?".

Jim 

	hmmm. Maybe next time I get pulled over I'll tell 'im I'm a cop....I'll
either get let off or get thrown in jail...:*)

        NATIONAL INSTISTUTE OF JUSTICE

        Research in Brief (December 1994)

        THE KANSAS CITY GUN EXPERIMENT
        ------------------------------

        by Lawrence W. Sherman, James W. Shaw, and Dennis P. Rogan

        **(typed in by Jim Sadin, all typo's are mine)**


        Handgun crime is increasing rapidly throughout the Nation(1),
especially in inner-city areas where youth homicide rates have
skyrocketed(2). While some scholars argue that more gun carrying by
law-abiding citizens may be the best deterrent to gun violence(3), others
find little evidence to support that view(4) but much more evidence that
increases in gun availability produce increases in gun homocides(5). Still
others argue that it is not the total number of guns in circulation that
increases gun violence, but the carrying of guns in high-risk places at
high-risk times(6). This argument suggests the hypothesis that greater
enforcement of existing laws against carrying concealed weapons could
reduce gun crime. But this hypotheses had never been tested until the
Kansas City gun experiment.

        The experiment developed out of the first Federal grant awarded
under the U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance(BJA) "Weed and Seed" program in
1991. The Kansas City (Missouri) Police Department (KCPD) was given wide
latitude in planning its Weed and Seed startegy. Shortly after the BJA
award to the KCPD, the nation Institute of Justice(NIJ) awarded the
Universtiy of Maryland a grant to evaluate the Kansas City effort. This
timing allowed the police and researchers to collaborate in planning a
focused program with a strong research design.

        This Research in Brief explains the study's methodology and key
findings, analyzes the reasons for the findings, and concludes with a
discussion of policy implications.

        STUDY DESIGN

        The program was based on the theory that additional patrols would
increase the gun seizures, which, in turn, would reduce gun crime. Two
possible mechanisms were suggested: deterrence and incapacitation. The
deterrence theory assumed that if police took guns away, illegal gun
carriers would become less likely to carry them in the area. The
incapacitation theory assumed that if enough potential gun criminals in the
area had their guns confiscated, they would be unable to commit gun crimes
- at least for as long as it took them to acquire a new gun.

        Neither of these theories could be directly examined within the
limits of the study. Rather, the evaluation study focused on the basic
hypothesis that gun seizures and gun crime would be inversely related. From
the outset, the project team recognized that confirmation of the hypothesis
would not "prove" that more gun seizures result in reduced gun crime. The
design could not eliminate all competing explanations that could be
suggested for the results. But if an inverse correlation between gun
seizures and gun crime were found, it could suggest the value of further
research and development. it could also support a policy of extending the
patrols, regardless of the exact reason for their effectiveness.

        Since the target area, patrol beat 144, already selected for the
"Weed and Seed" grant had the second highest number of driveby shootings of
any patrol beat in 1991, the police and academic team designing the
experiment chose the reduction of gun crime as the principal objective of
the program. the program budget for the police overtime and extra patrol
cars was then dedicated to getting guns of the street as cost-effectively
as possible.

        While the evaluation concentrated primarily on this first phase of
the Weed and Seed grant, additional findings from the evaluation report
what happened when the initials funding of patrols stopped (first half of
1993) and continuation funding allowed resumption of the patrols (second
half of 1993).(7)

        Target area. The target beat is an 80block area with a 1991
homicide rate of 177 per 100,000 persons, or about 20times the national
average(8). In addition to its 8 homcides in 1991, there were 14 rapes, 72
armed robberies, 222 aggravated assaults (142 with firearms), and a total
of 349 violent felonies - close to one a day. Exhibit 2 shows that the
beat's population is almost entirely nonwhite, with very low property
values for the predominatly single-family detached homes. Homeownership
rates are very high; more than two-thirds of all occupants own their own
home. 

        Because the program was restricted to one target patrol beat - see
exhibit 3 - the planning team selected a before-after comparison design.
The primary basis for selecting patrol beat 242 in the Metro Patrol
District was its almost identical number of driveby shootings(9) in 1991;
25 driveby shootings in the control beat compared to 24 in beat 144.
Exhibit 2 also shows the comparison beat, beat 242, is similar to the
target beat in many ways. The major difference is that beat 242 has almost
twice the population and three times the land area, including a park. The
comparison beat also has slightly higher housing prices. Both beats have
substantial volumes of violent crime, which provided reliable statistics
for assessing trends over time.

        Patrol operations. For 29 weeks, from July 7, 1991, to January 27,
1993, the Kansas City Police Department forcused extra patrol attention on
gun crime "hot spots"(10) in the target area. The hot spot locations were
identified by a University of Maryland computer analysis of all gun crimes
in the area. The extra patrol was provided in trotation by officers from
Central Patrol in a pair of two-officer cars working on overtime under the
BJA-funded Weed and Seed program. Four officers thus worked 6hours of
overtime each night from 7pm to 1am, 7 days a week, for a total of 176
nights, with two officers working an additional 24 nights, for a total of
200nights, 4,512 officer-hours, and 2,256 partol car-hours. they focused
exclusively on gun detection through proactive patrol and did not respond
to calls for service.

        While no special efforts were made to limit police activites in the
comparison area, beat 242, there were no funds available for extra patrol
time in that area. Several different strategies for increasing gun seizures
were attempted in beat 144(see "Trial and Error in Gun Detection"), but
federal funds for extra police patrol were expended entirely upon the
overtime patrols.

        Measures used. Because the extra patrol hours were federally
funded, seperate bookkeeping was required to document the time. In addition,
an onsite University of Maryland evaluator accompanied the officers on
300hours of hot spots patrol time and enforcement in and out of the area.
Property room data on guns seized, computerized crime reports, calls for
service data, and arrest records were analyzed for both areas under the
study. No attempt was made to conduct victimization surveys, although a
before and after survey of the target and compartison beats was conducted
to measure citizen perceptions of the program(17).

        Data analyses. The data were examined in several different ways.
The primary analyses compared all 29 weeks of the phase 1 patrol program
(July 7, 1992, through January 25, 1993, when the phase 1 funding for the
special patrols expired) to the 29 weeks preceding phase 1, using
difference of means tests. Other analyses added all of 1991 and 1993. The
1993 data included 6 months with no overtime patrols and phase 2 overtime
patrols for 6 months in the second half of 1993.  These analyses thus
covered six 6-month periods, two of which had the program and four of which
did not. The citizen survey analysis compared the amount and direction of
before-after differences in attitudes within beats.

        Both shorter and longer periods around the program were also
examined  for overall impact. Autoregressive moving averages (ARIMA) models
were used to compare gun crime in the 52 weeks before and after the patrols
in both the target and comparison beats. Standard chi-square tests were
used to compare 1991 versus 1992 differences in gun crimes for all four
quarters, as well as both half-years, in both target and comparison beats.
No matter how the data were examined, the results were similar.

        THE PROGRAM IN ACTION.

        Patrol activity. Officers reported spending 3.27 car-hours of the
12 car-hours per night actually patrolling the target area (27percent), for
a total of 1,218 officer-hours of potential gun detection and visible
patrol presence in the area. The officers thus spent 70 percent of their
time processing arrests and performing other patrol-related duties (note
from typist jim - eating donuts???), as well as some patrol work outside
the target area.

        Despite their limited time in the area, the officers generated a
lot of activity. Both in and out of target beat 144, the directed patrols
issued 1,090 traffic citations, conducted 948 car checks and 532 pedestrian
checks, and made 170 state of Federal arrests and 446 city arrests, for an
average of 1 police intervention for every 40minutes per patrol car. There
is some evidence that activity levels declined during October through
January, just as street activity usually does at the onset of  colder
weather(18). The average number of car checks made per day, for example,
began at a high of 6.5 in July, and dropped to a low of 3.2 in November,
but time in the target area, miles driven, and traffic citations issued
did not change substantially during the first 6 month period.

        The actual techniques the officers used to find guns varied, from
frisks and searches incident to arrest on other charges to saftey frisks
associated with car stops for traffic violations (see exhibit 3)(19). Every
arrest for carrying concealed weapons had to be approved for adequate
articulable suspicion and a supervisory detective's signature. 

        RESULTS OF INCREASED PATROL

        Gun Seizures. The federally funded hot spots patrol officers found
29 guns in addition to the 47 guns seized in the target beat by other
police units during phase 1 (second half of 1992), increasing totals guns
found in the beat by 65 percent over the previous 6-month period and almost
tripling the number of guns found during car checks. The ratio of guns
seized to directed patrol time in the target area was 1 gun per 156 hours,
but the ratio to time actually spent in the area (and not processing
arrests) was 1 gun per 84 hours and 1 gun per 28 traffic stops. Overall,
there was an increase from 46 guns seized in beat 144 in the first half of
1992 to 76 seized in the last half.

        Once the guns were seized, most of them were then permanently
removed from the streets. Not all of the guns were carried illegally; about
one-fifth (14) of the toal 76 guns seized in the target area during phae 1,
and 4 of the 29 guns seized by the extra hot sports patrols were
confiscated by police for "safekeeping," a practice followed by many police
agencies when officers have reason to believe gun violence may otherwise
occur. While guns taken for this reason are usually returned to their
registered owners upon application at the property room, the process can
take several days to serveral weeks to complete. Illegally carried guns, on
the other hand, are destroyed by Kansas City police and not returned to
circulation.

        Gun Crime. There were 169 gun crimes in the target area in the 29
weeks prior  to the hot sports patrols, but only 86 gun crimes in the 29
weeks during the phase 1  patrols - a 49% decrease, with 83 fewer gun
crimes (see exhibit 4). This change was statistically significant in both a
test of differences of means (t-test) for that period, and in an ARIMA
model covering and even longer before and after period(20).

        The comparison beat 242 showed a slight drop in guns seized, from
85 in the first half to 72 in the second half of 1992. It also showed a
slight increase in gun crimes, from 184 in the 29 weeks before the program
to 192 gun crimes in the 29 weeks during the program (see exhibit 5).
neither change was statistically significant(21).

        In addition, while gun crime dropped in beat 144, none of the seven
contiguous beats showed any significant change in gun crime, as exhibit 5
shows for the 29 weeks before and after tests. The 52 weeks before and
after special tests (ARIMA models) showed significant reductions in gun
crimes in beats 141 and 143. 

        Driveby Shootings. Driveby shootings in beat 144 dropped
significantly during both 6-month periods of hot spots patrols (second
halves of 1992 and 1993) compared to the 6-month periods without them. The
same analysis showed no differences in the beats surrounding 144 and an
increase in the comparison beat 242(22).

        Homicides. Homicides were also significantly lower in beat 144
during the two 6-month program periods than in other 6-month periods, from
1991 through 1993, while there were no significant differences in homicides
across those periods in comparison beat 242.

        Other crimes. Neither total calls for police service, alls about
violence, property or disorder crimes, total offense reports, nor property
or violent offenses showed any effect of the increased patrol. There were
no changes in these measures in either the target or comparison area. The
target are hot spots patrols focused specifcally on guns, and their effects
were limited to gun crimes.

        Community perceptions. Community surveys before and after the
intestive patrols showed that respondents in the target area, beat 144,
became less fearful of crime and more satisfied with their neighborhood
than respondents in the comparison beat 242. Target area respondents also
perceived less physical and social disorder after phase 1. While target
beat respondents were only marginally more likely to say that they shooting
problem had goetten better and no more likely to say that overall crime
problems had improved, they were significantly more likly than comparison
area respondents to say that neighborhood drug problems had gotten better.

        When the experimental period was over, crimes involving firearms
gradually increased again for 5 months in the first halft of 1993,
consistent with the typical police crackdowns pattern(23). When the phase 2
patrols began in the second half of 1993, gun crimes dropped again,
although not as consistently as in phase 1.

        ANALYSIS OF THE GUN CRIME REDUCTION

        Assuming that there are 100,000 handguns in Kansas City(24), the
seizure of 29 handguns may be considered a drop in the bucket, an
implausible reason for any significant reduction in gun crime (Exhibit 6
indicateds how gun crime was defined and recorded). but there are at least
three plausible theories for how the patrols may have cause a reduction in
gun crime: high-risk places, high-risk offenders, and deterrence. 

        High Risk Place. One scholar has argued that most guns are not at
immediate risk of being used in crime(25).Guns seized by police in high
gun crime areas at high crime times may be far more at risk of imminent use 
in crimes than the average handgun. Another researcher estimated that for
each new cohort of 100 guns,  33 uses of those guns in crime are
reported(26). Those uses could be heavily concentrated among the small
fraction of that cohort that are carried in gun crime hot spots.

        Still, criminals may easily replace guns seized by police.
Connecting the 29 guns seized to the 83 crimes prevented may thus require a
further assumption that gun crime is more likely to be a spontaneous
incident of opportunity than a planned event and is relatively infrequent
in the career of any criminal. The contrary assumption - that crimanls with
guns commit many gun offenses in a 6-month period in the same small area -
may be harder to defend. Even if the suspects who lose their guns to police
quickly replace them, the opportune circumstances for the crimes prevented
by the guns being seized might not recur as quickly.

        High-risk Offenders. Some gun carriers, of course, may be far more
frequent gun users than others. If 10% of the 170 State and Federal arrests
by directed patrols captured high frequency gun users and if the arrestees
spend the next 6 months in jail on serious charges from outstanding
warrants, then the program's incapacitation of the 17 offenders alone may
have prevented 83 gun crimes - a not implausible average of 5 gun offenses
each or less than 1 per month.

        Deterrence. Deterrence of gun carrying may be an even more
plausible cause of reduced gun crime. The 29 extra gun seizures, 1,434
traffic and pedestrian stops, or the total of 3,186  arrests, traffic
citations, and other police encounters, could have specifically deterred
potential gun criminals who encountered police. Visibility of police
enounters in the hot spots may have also created a general deterrent effect
among those who were not checked by police. This argument appears plausible
enough to conclude that directed patrols can reduce gun crime, regardless
of the theoretical rationale.

        CONCLUSION

        The most important conclusion from this evaluation is that police
can increase the number of guns seized in high gun crime areas at
relatively modest cost. Directed patrol around gun crime hot spots is about
three times more cost-effective than normal uniformed police activity
citywide, on average, in getting guns off the street(27). The raw numbers
of guns seized in each beat may not be impressively large, but the impact
of even small inc reases in guns seized in decreasing the percentage of gun
crimes can be substantial. If a city wants to adopt this policy in a high
crime area, this experiment proves that it can be successfully implemented.

        There is still much more to be learned, however, about the entire
process of gun detection and seizure by police. Until recently, it has not
been a priority of either police administrators or researchers to
understand or encourage the factors leading to gun seizures. Little is
known about differences across police agencies or police officers in their
respective rates of gun detection, and it is not even known how many more
guns could be detected if patrol officers generally were given more
direction and training in how to locate guns in the course of their
routine activities. What is clear from the Kansas City gun experiment is
that a focus on gun detection, with freedom from answering calls for
service, can make regular beat officers working on overtime very
productive.

        Officer safety. A related conclusion is that gun detction does not
require large tactical opersation. Some police agencies require three to
five patrol cars to be present at gun patrol car stops in high gun crime
areas, primarily for the reasons of officer safety. Yet in the Kansas City
experiment, with 20times the national homicide rate, a pair of two-officer
cars working independently was able to increase gun seizures by 65%. No gun
attacks on officers were reported in the course of these patrols, and no
one was injured. Rather than assigning three to five  cars to one traffic
stop, police agencies could disperse those cars over a wider area to obtain
even greater numbers of guns seized from the same investment in police
patrols. Whether that will increase the risk of officer injury in the long
run is impossible to say. But whatever the level of that risk, the Kansas
City officers were willing to assume it without hesitation.

        Cautions. Now that police know how to increase gun seizures in
target areas, the key question is whether that policy will reduce gun crime
without total displacement. The Kansas City evidence suggests that the
policy can reduce gun crime without local displacement. Only repeated tests
of the hypothesis, however, will show whether the policy can predictably
produce that result. Previous NIJ research has also reported unreplicated
findings(28), only to have replications show more mixed results(29). The
need for replications is a major caution for interpreting any research
results.

        Intensified gun patrols also need other cautions. They could
conceivably have negative effects on police-community relations or be a
waste of time and money. They could also pose great risks to officer
safety. They could even provoke more crime by making youths subjected to
traffic stops more defiant of conventional society.

        All of these hazards are possible but unknown. The tradeoff is the
well-known risk of gun violence, which is extremely high in many inner
cities and still rising. Firearm crimes in Indianapolis, for examples have
risen by 220% since 1988. Whether a citywide program can succeed in doing
what Kansas City did in a small area is an important next question for both
research and policy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        ****typists note**** I did not include any of the references
since it's more than a page long and my fingers are shot. :*) Contact Dr. 
Howard Sherman  (317) 259-1358, chief criminologist at Indianapolis PD for
a copy of the report if you wish to see the references, accompanying
charts, etc.

jim  

    
    
    	IMHO, the previous study I posted is crap. Increase cop presence,
    crime goes down, take away extra cops, crime comes back up.
    Derrrrr...%*|
    
    	I was curious about their methods, so I sent away for the study.
    Though everyone else might like to have a reference to how not to do a
    study, so I typed it in. :)
    
    
    jim

            <<< Note 21.420 by SUBPAC::SADIN "caught in the 'net" >>>

>	hmmm. Maybe next time I get pulled over I'll tell 'im I'm a cop....I'll
>either get let off or get thrown in jail...:*)

	You need to "get a visual" on the transaction I was describing.

	"License and registration.", I pull out my ID wallet (shield visible
	on one side, Department ID on the other) reach behind the Department
	ID and hand him my license. "You a cop?", "Yep, Streetsboro.", "Do
	me a favor, slow down a bit.", "Will do.".

	It would be considered bad form to blurt out "I'm a cop". You let
	the other guy NOTICE and ask. 

Jim

    
    
    	maybe if I show him my gun, he'll think I'm a cop. Ya think? ;*)
    
    

    Jim, I wouldn't recommend that. :-)
    
    On a related but different note, the PO who taught the firearms
    safety course at Worcester PD, said that if you have a gun in
    the car or on your person that you should always inform the
    officer of the fact. You do not want to wait for the PO to
    find this out by seeing the butt of a handgun sticking out of
    your jacket... handing the PO your license to carry at the
    same time you hand him/her your driver's license is also
    recommded.
    
    -b

What did he suggest you do if it is impossible for the officer not to see it
as he approaches the car?

Bob

    Bob,
    
    He didn't say anything special about that case, but I think common
    sense would apply: namely, leave both hands visible on the steering
    wheel and do not attempt to pick up or move the firearm.
    
    -b

	I remember the Worcester PD safety class (took it 5 years ago...just got
my license renewed) and I wasn't too impressed with the instructor. He had a S&W
4th generation 9mm and was showing the class how the magazine disconnect safety
worked by chambering a round, dropping the mag, and squeezing the trigger! I
almost soiled my shorts! And this guy was the Worcester Armorer!

	frightening. No wonder cops how more AD's than private folks....


jim

reL: .427

Brian,

Not owning a handgun, I can only guess, but I was thinking of something like
this:  You are carrying a handgun in a shoulder holster under an unzipped
jacket.  If you are right handed, the gun will be on the left and not likely
to be visible to the officer before you can hand him your driver's license and
LTC.  On the other hand, I'm left handed and would therefore have the gun
on my right and the butt could quite easily be visible to the officer as he
approaches my car window.

Bob

    
    
    	rule #1: don't wear a shoulder holster...:*)
    
    
    

    
    
     During the hunter education class's that I was involved in teaching
    when we got to the handgun section our recomendation was always.....
    
      If you are carrying concealed and are pulled over by ANY law
    enforcement officer this is what you do.
         1) stay IN your vehicle (unless directed to get out)
         2) while the officer is approaching the vehicle place your hands 
            either on the steering wheel or windshield ar dashboard.
         3) tell the officer that you have a hangun on your person.
         4) from there do as they say.
     
      If you have a weapon inside the passenger compartment follow steps 1
    and 2 , step 3 tell the officer what firearms you have in the vehicle,
    and step 4 would be the same.
    
        If you dont inform the officer and he happens to catch a glimpse of
    the firearm the situation may become very tense, after all this officer 
    probably doesnt know you at all. and I dont know about anyone else but
    haveing a gun pointed at me isnt real high on my TTLT list. and if you
    are carrying and didnt tell the officer and he see's the gun youcan
    almost be asured that he will pull his firearm.
    
       After all if you are properly licensed and a legal owner there
    should be no problem with being upfront with the officer.
    
                                                                 Lee
     

From:	US4RMC::"owner-fwiw@earth.execpc.com" 12-JAN-1995 09:55:08.41
To:	fwiw@earth.execpc.com
CC:	
Subj:	[FWIW] A Dire Precedent

FWIW

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 95 23:31:10 -0800
Subject: Bovard in the WSJ on FBI Accountability

The following piece appeared in the Editorial section
of the Wall Street Journal, page A24 of the Western
Edition, on Tuesday-10-January-1995:

*****

   No Accountability at the FBI
   ----------------------------

   by James Bovard

   FBI Director Louis Freeh last week announced
   that no FBI agents would be fired or severely
   punished for their role in the botched attack on
   Idaho white separatist Randy Weaver and his
   family in 1992, which led to the death of Mr.
   Weaver's son and wife.  The announcement, which
   drew denunciations from both the American Civil
   Liberties Union and the National Rifle
   Association, is the conclusion of a patchwork of
   deception that has continued for more than two
   years. 

   Mr. Freeh, in his statement on Friday, declared
   that "the [Randy Weaver case] crisis was one of
   the most dangerous and potentially violent
   situations to which FBI agents have ever been
   assigned."  But this is patent nonsense.  Given
   the growing importance of this case, a review of
   the facts is in order. 

   Randy Weaver Lived with his wife and four
   children in an isolated cabin on Ruby Ridge in
   the Idaho mountains, 40 miles south of the
   Canadian border.  Mr. Weaver did not favor
   violence against any other race, but believed
   that the races should live separately.  Because
   of his extreme beliefs, he was targeted for a
   sting operation.  

   _Two Shotguns_

   In 1989, an undercover agent of the Bureau of
   Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms approached Mr.
   Weaver and pressured the mountain man to sell
   him sawed-off shotguns.  Mr. Weaver at first
   refused, but the agent was persistent and Mr.
   Weaver eventually sold him two shotguns --
   thereby violating federal firearms law.  A court
   official sent Mr. Weaver a notice to appear in
   court on the wrong day; after Mr. Weaver did not
   show up on the correct date, a Justice
   Department attorney (who knew of the error) got
   a warrant for his arrest.  Federal agents then
   launched an elaborate 18-month surveillance of
   Mr. Weaver's cabin and land. 

   David Niven, a defense lawyer involved in the
   subsequent court case, noted later: "The U.S.
   marshals called in military aerial
   reconnaissance and had photos studied by the
   Defense Mapping Agency.... They had
   psychological profiles performed and installed
   $130,000 worth of solar-powered long-range spy
   cameras.  They intercepted the Weavers' mail.
   They even knew the menstrual cycle of Weaver's
   teenage daughter, and planned an arrest scenario
   around it." 

   On Aug. 21, 1992, six heavily armed, camouflaged
   U.S. marshals sneaked onto Mr. Weaver's
   property.  Three agents threw rocks to get the
   attention of Mr. Weaver's dogs.  As Mr. Weaver's
   14-year-old son, Sammy, and Kevin Harris, a
   25-year-old family friend living in the cabin,
   ran to see what the dogs were barking at, U.S.
   marshals killed one of the dogs.  Sammy Weaver
   fired his gun in the direction the shots had
   come from.  Randy Weaver came out and hollered
   for his son to come back to the cabin.  Sammy
   yelled, "I'm coming, Dad," and was running back
   to the cabin when a federal marshal shot him in
   the back and killed him. 

   Kevin Harris responded to Sammy's shooting by
   fatally shooting a U.S. marshal.  Federal agents
   falsely testified in court that the U.S. marshal
   had been killed by the first shot of the
   exchange; evidence later showed that the marshal
   had fired seven shots before he was shot
   himself. 

   After the death of the U.S. marshal, the
   commander of the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team was
   called in, and ordered federal agents to shoot
   any armed adult outside the Weaver cabin,
   regardless of whether that person was doing
   anything to threaten or menace federal agents.
   (Thanks to the surveillance, federal officials
   knew that the Weavers always carried guns when
   outside their cabin.) 

   With the massive federal firepower surrounding
   the cabin -- the automatic weapons, the sniper
   rifles, the night vision scopes -- this was
   practically an order to assassinate the alleged
   wrongdoers.  Four hundred government agents
   quickly swarmed in the mountains around the
   cabin.  Most important, the federal agents at
   that time made no effort to contact Mr. Weaver
   to negotiate his surrender. 

   The next day, Aug. 22, Randy Weaver walked to
   the little shack where his son's body lay.  As
   he was lifting the latch on the shack's door, he
   was shot from behind by FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi.
   As he struggled back to the cabin, his wife,
   Vicki, stood in the doorway, holding a
   10-month-old baby in her arms and calling for
   her husband to hurry.  The FBI sniper fired
   again and hit Vicki Weaver in the temple,
   killing her instantly.  (Mr. Horiuchi testified
   in court that he could hit within a quarter inch
   of a target at a distance of 200 yards.) 

   Reuters reported on Aug. 25, three days after
   the shooting: "FBI Agent Gene Glenn said that
   the law enforcement officers were proceeding
   with extreme care, mindful that Weaver's wife
   Vicki and three remaining children... were also
   in the cabin.  'We are taking a very cautious
   approach,' he said in a statement to reporters."
   An internal FBI report completed shortly after
   the confrontation justified the killing of Mrs.
   Weaver by asserting that she had put herself in
   harm's way, the New York Times reported in 1993.
   
   Though federal officials now claim that the
   killing of Vicki Weaver was an accident, the
   Washington Times's Jerry Seper reported in
   September 1993: "Court records show that while
   the woman's body lay in the cabin for eight
   days, the FBI used microphones to taunt the
   family.  'Good morning, Mrs. Weaver.  We had
   pancakes for breakfast.  What did you have?'
   asked the agents in at least one exchange." 

   Neither Randy Weaver nor Mr. Harris fired any
   shots at government agents after the siege
   began.  Mr. Weaver surrendered after 11 days.
   An Idaho jury found him innocent of almost all
   charges and ruled that Kevin Harris's shooting
   of the U.S. marshal was self-defense.  Federal
   Judge Edward Lodge condemned the FBI and issued
   a lengthy list detailing the Justice
   Department's and FBI's misconduct, fabrication
   of evidence, and refusals to obey court orders. 

   Justice Department officials launched their own
   investigation.  A 542-page report was completed
   earlier this year that recommended possible
   criminal prosecution of federal officials and
   found that the rules of engagement "contravened
   the Constitution of the United States."  Yet
   Deval Patrick, assistant attorney general for
   civil rights, rejected the findings last month
   and concluded that the federal agents had not
   used excessive force. 

   FBI Director Louis Freeh concluded that there
   was no evidence to show that Mr. Horiuchi
   intended to shoot Mrs. Weaver.  Yet Bo Gritz,
   the former Vietnam War hero who represented the
   government when it finally negotiated Randy
   Weaver's surrender after the death of his wife,
   declared that the government's profile of the
   Weaver family recommended killing Mr. Weaver's
   wife: "I believe Vicki was shot purposely by the
   sniper as a priority target. ... The profile
   said, if you get a chance, take Vicki Weaver
   out." 

   Mr. Freeh justified the FBI shooting of the
   Weavers because sniper Horiuchi "observed one of
   the suspects raise a weapon in the direction of
   a helicopter carrying other FBI personnel."  But
   other federal officials testified at the trial
   that no helicopters were flying in the vicinity
   of the Weavers' cabin at the time of the FBI
   sniping. 

   _Slaps on the Wrist_

   One of the most disturbing aspects of Mr.
   Freeh's slaps on the wrist last week is his
   treatment of Larry Potts, Mr. Freeh's pick as
   acting deputy FBI director.  Mr. Potts was the
   senior official in charge of the Idaho operation
   and signed off on the shoot-without-provocation
   orders.  Despite the finding by the Justice
   Department that the orders violated the
   Constitution, Freeh recommended that the only
   penalty Mr. Potts face be a letter of censure --
   the same penalty Mr. Freeh received when he lost
   an FBI cellular telephone. 

   The Weaver case is by far the most important
   civil-rights/civil-liberties case the Clinton
   administration has yet resolved -- and it
   resolved it in favor of granting unlimited
   deadly power to federal agents.  If the new
   Republican congressional leaders let the Justice
   Department and the FBI get away with what may
   have been murder, they will be accomplices to a
   gross travesty of justice.

   -----------------

   Mr. Bovard writes often on public policy.

***** End article *****

     ===================================================================
        The above text comes from The BIRCH BARK BBS / 414-242-5070
     (long distance callers require manual upgrade, usually within hours)
     ===================================================================
        To subscribe to FWIW simply send the following:
        To: listserv@earth.execpc.com
        Subj: (leave blank)
        Message:
        subscribe fwiw

        That's it!  The welcome letter will tell you more!
     ===================================================================



% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com by us4rmc.pko.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA09981; Thu, 12 Jan 95 09:53:47 -050
% Received: from earth.execpc.com by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com (5.65/10Aug94) id AA02603; Thu, 12 Jan 95 06:43:59 -080
% Received: (from daemon@localhost) by earth.execpc.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) id IAA03476 for fwiw-outgoing; Thu, 12 Jan 1995 08:10:25 -0600
% Received: (from jfish@localhost) by earth.execpc.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) id IAA03444; Thu, 12 Jan 1995 08:10:18 -0600
% Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 08:10:16 -0600 (CST)
% From: James Fish <jfish@earth.execpc.com>
% Subject: [FWIW] A Dire Precedent
% To: fwiw@earth.execpc.com
% Message-Id: <Pine.3.89.9501120725.A169-0100000@earth>
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
% Sender: owner-fwiw@earth.execpc.com
% Precedence: bulk
% Reply-To: owner-fwiw@earth.execpc.com

    Last Sunday's New York Times magazine ran a long article on these
    Idaho survivalists. They're a very strange bunch -- camped out in
    teepees and shacks waiting for the end of the world.  
    
    Here, and in the Waco incident, our federal government has gone way
    over the line, in my opinion.
    
    

     They are murderers who have gotten away with it. Everyone complicit in
    the whitewashing is a criminal, IMO. That includes Janet Teflon Reno.

    
    
    
    
    This makes me want to puke every time I see it.  The monster has got to
    be stopped!
    

    Did Mr. Weaver ever get his land back?

    Here's what's wrong with America in a nutshell. Here's a guy
    (Randy Weaver) who held unpopular opinions (and I strongly
    disagree with his opinions BTW) but... well, you see his
    opinions were not politically correct. So, there's NO problem
    if Janet Reno and company pop him, his wife and his son. No
    problem. He gave up his rights when he took up an unpopular
    position. Just doing a little light housekeeping, that's all.
    
    The cry from the left is deafening, oh ye great defenders
    of the constitution...
    
    -b

    Wrong.
    
    Randy Weaver BROKE THE LAW.   He manufactured and sold sawed-off
    shotguns to a guy who was working for the FBI. Then he failed to
    show up for his trial. Then the FBI overreacted.
    
    

    > The cry from the left is deafening, oh ye great defenders
    > of the constitution...
    
    What a nonsensical cheap shot.  For the record the Weavers were treated
    unjustly and this latest slap on the wrist with the FBI refusing to
    discipline its errant officials is outrageous.  But I prefer to fight
    the institutionalization of the police state over in the War On Some
    Drugs topic, thanks very much for your support.
    
    DougO

    It would seem that once a federal agent gets killed at one of these
    stand-offs, all hell breaks loose and innocents are slaughtered.
    
    What you have to ask about the Idaho and Waco situations is 'were the
    alleged offenses worth this much reaction?'
    
    Obviously not.

    Yes, more guiltys should get slaughtered. We'd all feel better about it
    that way.

    
    The senior FBI man at the Idaho standoff ordered his sharpshooters to
    shoot to kill ANY adult they could get in their sights at the Weaver
    cabin.
    
    One of them put a bullet in the head of Weaver's wife as she stood in
    the cabin doorway holding a 10 month old baby in her arms.
    
    Although reprimanded by FBI Director Freeh, this senior FBI man will
    be getting promoted soon.
    
    

    >It would seem that once a federal agent gets killed at one of these
    >stand-offs, all hell breaks loose and innocents are slaughtered.
    
     First they start killing people for nothing, THEN if you fight back
    they see how many they can kill. Then they lie about it in court, get
    reprimanded by the judge, the surviving defendants get acquitted, and
    raises and promotions are given to all. It's a great club for cowboys.

=========================================================================
                          THE ROOT OF THE EVIL
                             by Jeff Cooper

    My dictionary describes an obsession as "a haunting by a fixed
idea." A haunting is a nagging, continuous fear of the unreal. A fixed
idea is one that cannot be altered, by truth or reason or anything else.

    Phobia is listed as "fear, horror, or aversion -- of a morbid
character. "Morbid" is "unwholesome, sickly. "

    Those of us who shoot cannot help being perplexed when we encounter
people who are apparently haunted by a fixed and morbid aversion to our
guns. When first we meet such persons we generally respond with
explanations, as is only reasonable. But with time we discover that
often we are not dealing with rational minds. This is not to say that
everyone who is opposed to shooting is mentally aberrant, but it is to
say that those who latch on to an unreasonable notion and thereafter
refuse to listen to any further discussion of it have problems that are
more amenable to psychiatry than to argument.

    I coined the term hoplophobia over twenty years ago, not out of
pretension but in the sincere belief that we should recognize a very
peculiar sociological attitude for what it is -- a more or less
hysterical neurosis rather than a legitimate political position. It
follows convention in the use of Greek roots in describing specific
mental afflictions. "Hoplon" is the Greek word for "instrument," but
refers synonymously to "weapon" since the earliest and principal
instruments were weapons. Phobos is Greek for "terror" and medically
denotes unreasoning panic rather than normal fear.  Thus hoplophobia is
a mental disturbance characterized by irrational aversion to weapons, as
opposed to justified apprehension about those who may wield them. The
word has not become common, though twenty years is perhaps too short a
time in which to test it, but I am nevertheless convinced that it has
merit. We read of "gun grabbers" and "anti-gun nuts" but these slang
terms do not face up to the reasons why such people behave the way they
do. They do not adequately suggest that reason, logic, and truth can
have no effect upon one who if irrational on the point under discussion.
You cannot say calmly "Come, let us reason together" to a hoplophobe
because that is what he is -- a hoplophobe. He is not just one who holds
an opposing view, he is an obsessive neurotic. You can speak, write, and
illustrate the merits of the case until you drop dead, and no matter how
good you are his mind will not be changed. A victim of hydrophobia will
die, horribly, rather than accept the water his body desperately needs.
A victim of hoplophobia will die, probably, before he will accept the
fallacy of his emotional fixation for what it is.

    Have you noted that whenever an assassination is committed with a
rifle, our journalistic hoplophobes clamor for further prohibitions on
pistols? A pistol is a defensive weapon; a rifle is an offensive weapon.
Yet the hoplophobes always attack pistols first because they feel that
pistols are somehow nastier than rifles. (Though rifles are pretty
nasty, too. They will get to those later.) This is the age of the "gut
reaction" -that crutch of intellectual cripples -- and for an interesting
number of commentators it is not even embarrassing to admit that
actually thinking about anything important is just too much trouble.
Some of our most ubiquitous and highly paid social-problem columnists
are egregious examples of this.

    Not long ago a staff member of the Chicago Tribune held forth at
some length about how the color gatefolds in outdoor magazines
exemplified the same sniggering depravity that we find in the
pornographic press, substituting guns for girls.  What a sewer of a mind
this man displays! It is undeniable that both a man-made work of art and
a beautiful woman are manifestations of God's blessing, but to imply
that our admiration for them is obscene is to give oneself away. For
some it indeed may be, but the rest of us need no advice from such.  (I
had thought that the fad to fantasize everything into a Freudian
sex-symbol had gone out of vogue prior to World War II, but obviously
there are a good many who never got the word.)

     The essence of the affliction is the belief that instruments cause
acts. It may be that certain degenerate human beings are so far gone
that they will use something just because it is there -- a match, for
instance. (I saw a bumper sticker in the Rockies that admonished
"Prevent Forest Fires. Register Matches!")  One who will burn people
because he has a match is the same as one who will shoot people because
he has a gun, but the hoplophobe zeroes in on guns because he is -- let's
face it -irrational.  He will answer this by saying that we need matches
(and cars, and motorcycles, and power saws, et cetera) but we do not
need guns. He will not accept the idea that you may indeed need your
guns, because he hates guns.  He is afflicted by the grotesque notion
that tools have a will of their own.  He may admit that safe driving is
a matter of individual responsibility, but he rejects the parallel in
the matter of weapons.  This may not be insanity, but it is clearly
related to it.

    One cannot rationally hate or fear an inanimate object.  Neither can
he rationally hate or fear an object because of its designed purpose.
Whether one approves of capital punishment or not, one cannot rationally
fear a hemp rope.  One who did, possibly because he once narrowly
escaped hanging, would generally be referred to a shrink.  When the most
prominent hoplophobe in the United States Senate says that he abhors
firearms because their purpose is to put bullets through things, he
reinforces the impressions that many have formed about his capacity to
reason.

     My point -- and I hope it is clear -- is that hoplophobia is a mental
disturbance rather than a point of view.  Differences of opinion -- on
economic policy, or forced integration, or the morality of abortion, or
the neutron bomb -- these we may hope to resolve by discussion. But we
cannot so resolve a phobia.  The mentally ill we cannot reach.  But we
can identify a form of mental illness for what it is, and so separate
its victims from the policy considerations of reasonable people.

    The root of the evil is the unprincipled attempt to gain votes by
appealing to the emotions of the emotionally disturbed. Few reasonable
politicians dare to take on the Second Amendment, even in the Eastern
Megalopolis. (One prominent left-liberal told a New Yorker interviewer
that he "would rather be a deer, in season, than to take on'the gun
lobby'!")  But if, as is the case with the aforementioned senator, the
politician is already a hopeless hoplophobe, his advisers must turn him
loose to appeal to his constituency of crazies, since their jobs depend
on it. "Go to it, Senator! The nuts are all with you."

   This is something we who prize our traditional liberties must face.
Convincing the uninterested is the very essence of politics, in a
two-party system. It is up to us to do that by demonstrating that
hoplophobia is a disease, and to call upon all reasonable people to
reject it as a basis for the formulation of policy.

From:

Jeff Cooper.
To Ride, Shoot Straight, and Speak the Truth.
Boulder, Colorado: Paladin Press, 1990.

pages 16-19
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
5.5" X 8.5", hardcover, illustrated, 384 pages,  $26.00

Paladin Press Books can be ordered by mail from:

Paladin Press
PO Box 1307
Boulder, CO 80306

Or by phone (Visa, MasterCard, Discover): 1-800-392-2400 24 hr/7 days
FAX (303) 442-8741

Please add $4.00 Postage & Handling

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    re: Note 21.438 by WECARE::GRIFFIN 
    
    > Randy Weaver BROKE THE LAW.   He manufactured and sold sawed-off
    > shotguns to a guy who was working for the FBI.
    
    I think the FBI was peaved at him for not informing on some person
    in another case.  The issue of the sawed-off shotgun was, at what
    length did he deliver the firearm.  If you sell me a (legal) 28" gun and 
    I saw it down some more (in an effort to entrap you), is it then ok to go 
    and arrest you, murder your boy and wife and rape your name in court?  I 
    don't think so.
    
    
    

   > re: Note 21.438 by WECARE::GRIFFIN 
   > 
   > > Randy Weaver BROKE THE LAW.   He manufactured and sold sawed-off
   > > shotguns to a guy who was working for the FBI.
    
   He may have cut one or two shotguns (which I believe were provided
   by the fed entraptors) after extensive pressure was brought to bear 
   on him. He rejected this pressure many times before he felt he had no 
   choice but to comply. He was entrapped. He refused to cooperate with 
   the feds so they entrapped him.

   The price he paid for not cooperating was his wife and child.
   Would you be willing to pay the same price under the same situation!

   This is why he was found innocent.

   Is this how our federal law enforcement agencies should be spending 
   their time and our money? Chasing after harmless folks out spite?

   I think not.

   Doug.
  

                    _The Armed Citizen_
          The American Rifleman, January/February 1995
          
     Studies indicate that firearms are used over two million times
a year for personal protection, and that the presence of a firearm,
without a shot being fired, prevents crime in many instances. 
Shooting usually can be justified only where crime constitutes an
immediate, imminent threat to life, limb, or, in some cases,
property.  Anyone is free to quote or reproduce these accounts. 
Send clippings to: "The Armed Citizen," 11250 Waples Mill Rd.,
Fairfax, VA 22030.


     "You can't even feel safe in your own neighborhood," says
Sondra Evelyn Kinnett of Annapolis, Maryland. Kinnett's home was
broken into by a man who lives only a few blocks away. Fortunately,
her son, Michael Strissel, was there when it happened. Awakened by
the burglar's footsteps, Strissel grabbed his shotgun, confronted
the criminal as he hid in a bedroom, and held him at gunpoint until
police arrived. (The Capital, Annapolis, MD, 10/14/94)
 
     JoEllen Hammersley almost became a cop 20 years ago, and maybe
she missed her calling. Hammersley was pulling up to a bank in East
Chicago, Indiana, when she heard screams and saw a man run off with
a woman 's purse. Without hesitation, Hammersley retrieved her .32
from her purse and gave pursuit. With the help of a bystander, she
caught the thief and held him at gunpoint for police. Hammersley
received a Citizens Award from the mayor for her action. The local
police chief remarked: "It's people like Mrs. Hammersley who make
my job a lot easier." (The Times, Munster, IN, 9/29/94)
 
     One moment it was a routine morning at Gregory Morris's
Inglewood, California, furniture store. The next moment it was
"like one of them shoot'em-up movies." Morris and an employee fired
at least 20 shots defending their lives against an armed robber who
threatened to kill them. He fired 13 times. "I'm on the phone with
911 and I'm screaming for help," says Morris. "There's bullets all
over the place. It's like pop, pop, pop, pop, pop." The battle
ended with the thug prone with a bullet through his cheek. Morris
and his employee were unharmed. Police say the criminal had served
less than three months of a two-year prison sentence for robbery.
(The Daily Breeze, Los Angeles, CA, 8/27/94)
 
     Jack Parker's parents have lived in the same Little Rock house
for 30 years. But the neighborhood has deteriorated so much that
Parker fears for their safety and often stays with them at night.
When the family dog began barking at 1 a.m., Parker grabbed a
pistol. Finding an intruder behind the house, Parker yelled at him
and was answered by a gunshot. He shot back, hitting and killing
him. Police say no charges will be filed against Parker. (Arkansas
Democrat Gazette, Little Rock, AR, 9/22/94)
 
     On his final run of the night, Rochester, New York, pizza
deliveryman Michael Vaccaro was set upon by a group of five to
seven men. One of them shoved a gun in Vaccaro's face, while
another took him in a chokehold. Vaccaro was able to free himself
from the stranglehold, pull his gun and shoot the man holding a gun
on him. At the sound of shots, the gang fled, stealing Vaccaro's
car. The wounded suspect was apprehended and faces multiple
charges.(Democrat and Chronicle, Rochester, NY, 10/9/94)
 
     When Louis Simoni walked out of a Rialto, California,
restaurant and into the parking lot, he had no idea there were two
men inside his car. As Simoni approached, one of the thieves gunned
the engine and tried to back over him. That's when Simoni pulled
his handgun and shot the driver, killing him. Simoni was not
charged in the shooting. (The Sun, San Bernardino, CA, 10/3/94)
 
     After a man pounded on her door, cut the electric, telephone
and alarm system lines to her house and launched several bricks
through her windows, 61-year-old Annie Holt decided she'd had
enough. With her .22 derringer in hand, the Nashville resident
repeatedly warned her harasser to stop trying to force entry or be
shot. He didn't stop, so Holt finally shot and killed him. Police
did not expect charges to be filed against Holt. (The Tennessean,
Nashville, TN, 10/10/94)
 
     A wheelchair-bound 71-year-old Henrico County, Virginia, woman
proved too tough for the likes of a local burglar. Lillian Allen,
who keeps a .32 under her pillow, wheeled herself into the bedroom
when she saw a criminal armed with a tire iron enter her home
through a window. After she fired on the intruder, he fled out the
front door. The doughty grandmother says crime won't run her out of
her neighborhood. "As long as I have the gun, I feel secure with
that," she said. (Times- Dispatch, Richmond, VA, 10/18/94)
 
     Like a scene from the hit movie "Home Alone," a 12-year-old
Archer, Florida, boy used his wits, and a gun, to protect himself
and his family's proper- ty. While the boy was watching TV, a
burglar entered the farm house through an open side door. Seeing
the intruder, the youngster retrieved the family's 12-ga. shotgun
and fired one shot, sending the perpetrator packing. A newspaper
report said the youth is an experienced hunter and has taken a
course in gun safety. (The Sun, Gainesville, FL, 10/10/94)
 
     When Springfield, Oregon, resident John Shannon heard noises
at four in the morning, he figured it was the family cat asking to
go out. Shannon didn't find the cat, but he did find an intruder on
his hands and knees next to his wife's side of the bed. Quickly,
Shannon retrieved his .45 from his closet, trained it on the
intruder and cut on the lights. After his wife called 911, NRA
member Shannon detained the burglar until police could arrive. (The
Register-Guard, Eugene, OR, 10/10/94)
 
     Portland, Wisconsin, gun shop owner William Ripley was
suspicious about the two youths in his store asking "silly
questions ." When one announced a holdup and pulled a gun, Ripley
drew his own .22 pistol and fired. "We both fired at the same
time," says Ripley. "I dodged, and he missed by about 6". I have
powder burns on my face." Ripley's shot went through the robber's
cheek and lodged in his neck. Police nabbed the wounded robber and
a second suspect and later found the stolen car they were driving.
(The Herald, Sparta, WI, 9/19/94) 

Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 19:21:49 -0500
From: Craig Peterson <craig@mainstream.com>
To: best-rkba@mainstream.com
Subject: "White Paper" for Fresno "Right to Carry" Legislation
Message-ID: <199501200021.TAA01190@n1mep.mainstream.com>

Date:    Sat, 14 Jan 1995 16:24:56 -0800
From:    "Edgar A. Suter" <suter@CRL.COM>
Subject: "White Paper" for Fresno "Right to Carry" legislation

The following White Paper is being submitted to the Fresno City Council
in support of the "Right to Carry" legislation being discussed Tuesday,
1/17/95. Those familiar with my other publications/testimony will find
nothing new or surprising, since it is largely a re-compilation of data.

The piece begins with an overview of the benefits of guns and exposure
of the myths of gun prohibition. The piece then summarizes the data on
the violence reductive benefits of reforms restoring the rights of people
to defend themselves _outside_ their homes.

  *************************************************************************
  * Edgar A. Suter, MD                                      suter@crl.com *
  * Chair, DIRPP        Doctors for Integrity in Research & Public Policy *
  *************************************************************************
---   the lives saved by concealed weapon law reform   ---
Statement of Edgar A. Suter MD
National Chair, Doctors for Integrity in Research & Public Policy
before the Fresno, California City Council
January 18, 1995


The 1990 Harvard Medical Practice Study suggested that about 180,000
Americans die every year from physician negligence[1]  - about five times
the number of Americans killed with guns.  Why don't  we conclude that
doctors are a deadly public menace? Because, in balance, doctors save many
more lives than they take and so it is with guns where guns protect 2.5
million lives every year.

Myth #1      "guns are only used for killing"

Compared to about 35,000 gun deaths every year, 2.5 million good Americans
use guns to protect themselves, their families, and their livelihoods -
there are 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun - five
lives are protected per minute - and, of those 2.5 million protective uses
of guns, about 1/2 million are believed to have saved lives.[2]

Myth #2     "guns are dangerous when used for protection"

US Bureau of Justice Statistics show that guns are the safest and most
effective means of defense. Using a gun for protection results in fewer
injuries to the defender than using any other means of defense and is safer
than not resisting at all.[3] The myth that "guns are only used for
killing" and the myth that "guns are dangerous when used for protection"
melt when exposed to scientific examination and data. The myths persist
because they are repeated so frequently and dogmatically that few think to
question the myths by examining the mountains of data available. Let us
examine the other common myths.

Myth #3      "there is an epidemic of gun violence"

Even their claim of an "epidemic" of violence is false. That claim, like so
many other of their claims, has been so often dogmatically repeated that
few think to question the claim by checking the FBI and other data.
Homicide rates have been stable to slightly declining for decades except
for inner city teens and young adults involved with illicit drug
trafficking. We have noticed that, if one subtracts the inner city
contribution to violence, American homicide rates are lower than in Britain
and the other paragons of gun control.[2]

The actual causes of inner city violence are family disruption, media
violence, and abject poverty, not gun ownership. In the inner city, poverty
is so severe that crime has become a rational career choice for those with
no hope of decent job opportunities.[4]

Myth #4      "guns cause violence"

     homicide

For over twenty years it has been illegal for teens to buy guns and,
despite such gun control, the African-American teenage male homicide rate
in Washington, DC is 227 per 100,000 - 20 times the US average![5] The US
group for whom legal gun ownership has the highest prevalence, middle-aged
white men, has a homicide rate of less than 7 per 100,000 - about half of
the US average.[6]

If the "guns-cause-violence" theory is correct why does Virginia, the
alleged "easy purchase" source of all those illegal Washington, DC guns,
have a murder rate of 9.3 per 100,000, one-ninth of DC's overall homicide
rate of 80.6?[7 ]Why are homicide rates lowest in states with loose gun
control (North Dakota 1.1, Maine 1.2, South Dakota 1.7, Idaho 1.8, Iowa
2.0, Montana 2.6) and highest in states and the district with draconian gun
controls and bans (District of Columbia 80.6, New York 14.2, California
12.7, Illinois 11.3, Maryland 11.7)?[7] The "guns-cause-violence" and "guns
exacerbate violence" theories founder. Again, the causes of inner city
violence are family disruption, media violence, and abject poverty, not gun
ownership.

     accidents

National Safety Council data show that accidental gun deaths have been
falling steadily since the beginning of this century and now hover at an
all time low. This means that about 200 tragic accidental gun deaths occur
annually, a far cry from the familiar false imagery of "thousands of
innocent children."[8]

     suicide

Gun bans result in lower gun suicide rates, but a compensatory increase in
suicide from other accessible and lethal means of suicide (hanging,
leaping, auto exhaust, etc.). The net result of gun bans? No reduction in
total suicide rates.[3] People who are intent in killing themselves find
the means to do so. Are other means of suicide so much more politically
correct that we should focus on measures that decrease gun suicide, but do
nothing to reduce total suicide deaths?

Myth #5      the "Friends and Family" fallacy

It is common for the "public health" advocates of gun bans to claim that
most murders are of "friends and family."  The medical literature includes
many such false claims, that "most [murderers] would be considered law
abiding citizens prior to their pulling the trigger"[9 ]and "most shootings
are not committed by felons or mentally ill people, but are acts of passion
that are committed using a handgun that is owned for protection."[10]

Not only do the data show that acquaintance and domestic homicide are a
minority of homicides,[11]  but the FBI's definition of acquaintance and
domestic homicide requires only that the murderer knew or was related to
the decedent.  That dueling drug dealers are acquainted does not make them
"friends."  Over three-quarters of murderers have long histories of
violence against not only their enemies and other "acquaintances," but also
against their relatives.[12,13,14,15]   Oddly, medical authors have no
difficulty recognizing the violent histories of murderers when the topic is
not gun control - "A history of violence is the best predictor of
violence."[16]  The perpetrators of acquaintance and domestic homicide are
overwhelmingly vicious aberrants with long histories of violence inflicted
upon those close to them. This reality belies the imagery of "friends and
family" murdering each other in fits of passion simply because a gun was
present "in the home."

Myth #6      "a homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a
family member as an intruder"

To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family
with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann's
long-discredited claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a
family member than an intruder."[17] This fallacy , fabricated using tax
dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense
lobby.

The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved,
the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected
- not Kellermann's burglar or rapist body count.  Only 0.1% (1 in a
thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the
predator.[3] Any study, such as Kellermann' "43 times" fallacy,  that only
counts bodies will expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun a
thousand-fold. Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only
measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of people killed by
police? Of course not. The honest measure of the benefits of guns are the
lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved by deaths and
injuries averted, and the property protected. 65 lives protected by guns
for every life lost to a gun.[2]

Kellermann recently downgraded his estimate to "2.7 times,"[18] but he
persisted in discredited methodology. He used a method that cannot
distinguish between "cause" and "effect." His method would be like finding
more diet drinks in the refrigerators of fat people and then concluding
that diet drinks "cause" obesity.

Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism,
drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse . From such a poor and
violent study group he attempted to generalize his findings to normal
homes. Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was interviewed he stated that,
if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for
protection.[19] Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn't even believe his own
studies.

Myth #7      "the costs of gun violence are high"

The actual economic cost of medical care for gun violence is approximately
$1.5-billion per year[20]- less than 0.2% of America's $800-billion annual
health care costs. To exaggerate the costs of gun violence, the advocates
of gun prohibition routinely include estimates of "lost lifetime earnings"
or "years of productive life lost" - assuming that gangsters, drug dealers,
and rapists would be as socially productive as teachers, factory workers,
and other good Americans - to generate inflated claims of $20-billion or
more in "costs."[20]  One recent study went so far as to claim the "costs"
of work lost because workers might gossip about gun violence.[21]

What fraction of homicide victims are actually "innocent children" who
strayed into gunfire?  Far from being pillars of society, it has been noted
that more than two-thirds of gun homicide "victims" are drug traffickers or
their customers.[22,23]  In one study, 67% of 1990 homicide "victims" had a
criminal record, averaging 4 arrests for 11 offenses.[23] These active
criminals cost society not only untold human suffering, but also an average
economic toll of $400,000 per criminal per year before apprehension and
$25,000 per criminal per year while in prison.[24] Because the
anti-self-defense lobby repeatedly forces us to examine the issue of
"costs," we are forced to notice that, in cutting their violent "careers"
short, the gun deaths of those predators and criminals may actually
represent an economic savings to society on the order of $4.5 billion
annually - three times the declared "costs" of guns.  Those annual cost
savings are only a small fraction of the total economic savings from guns,
because the $4.5 billion does not include the additional savings from
innocent lives saved, injuries prevented, medical costs averted, and
property protected by guns.

Whether by human or economic measure, we conclude that guns offer a
substantial net benefit to our society.  Other benefits, such as the
feeling of security and self-determination that accompany protective gun
ownership, are less easily quantified. There is no competent research that
suggests making good citizens' access to guns more difficult (whether by
bureaucratic "red tape," taxation, or outright bans) will reduce violence.
It is only good citizens who comply with gun laws, so it is only good
citizens who are disarmed by gun laws.  As evidenced by jurisdictions with
the most draconian gun laws (e.g. New York City, Washington, DC, etc.),
disarming these good citizens before violence is reduced causes more harm
than good.  Disarming these good citizens costs more - not fewer - lives.

Myth #8      "gun control will keep guns 'off the street' "

Vicious predators who ignore laws against murder, mayhem, and drug
trafficking routinely ignore those existent American gun laws.  No amount
of well-meaning, wishful thinking will cause these criminals to honor
additional gun laws.

Advocates of gun control rarely discuss the enforceability of their
proposals, an understandable lapse, since even police-state tactics cannot
effectively enforce gun bans.  As evidence, in Communist China, a country
whose human rights record we dare not emulate, 120,000 banned civilian guns
were confiscated in one month in 1994.[]25

Existent gun laws impact only those willing to comply with such laws, good
people who already honor the laws of common decency.  Placing further
impediments in the path of good citizens will further disproportionately
disarm those good people - especially disarming good, poor people, the
people who live in the areas of highest risk.

If "better" data are forthcoming, we are ready to reassess the public
policy implications.  Until such time, the data suggest that victim
disarmament is not a policy that saves lives.

What does save lives is allowing adult, mentally-competent, law-abiding
citizen access to the safest and most effective means of protection -
guns.[26,27]

Brady I and Brady II

The extremists at Handgun Control Inc. boast that "23,000 potential
felons"[28] [emphasis added] were prevented from retail gun purchases in
the first month of the Brady Law.  Several jurisdictions have reviewed the
preliminary Brady Law data which resulted in the initial Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) overestimated appraisal[29] of the "success" of
the Brady Law.

The Virginia State Police, Phoenix Police Department, and other
jurisdictions have shown that almost every one of those "potential" felons
were not felons or otherwise disqualified from gun ownership. Many were
innocents whose names were similar to felons.  Misdemeanor traffic
convictions, citations for fishing without a license, and failure to
license dogs were the types of trivial crimes that resulted in a computer
tag that labeled the others as "potential" felons.[30]  In transparent
"governmentese," BATF Spokesperson Susan McCarron avers, "we feel [the
Brady Law has] been a success, even though we don't have a whole lot of
numbers.  Anecdotally, we can find some effect."[31]

Even if the preliminary data had been accurate, that data only showed about
6.3% of retail sales were "possible" felons - consistent with repeated
studies showing how few crime guns are obtained in retail transactions.  A
minuscule number of actual felons has been identified by Brady Law
background checks, but the US Department of Justice is unable to identify
even one prosecution of those felons.[32 ]  In such circumstance, the
minimal expected benefit of the Brady Law diminishes to no benefit at all.
The National Institute of Justice has shown that very few crime guns are
purchased from gun dealers. 93% of crime guns are obtained as black market,
stolen guns, or from similar non-retail sources.[28] Since none of Handgun
Control Inc.'s Brady I or Brady II suggestions impact on the source of 93%
of crime guns, their symbolic nostrums cannot be expected to do anything to
reduce crime or violence.

residential gun dealers

The press and broadcast media have vilified low-volume gun dealers,
pejoratively named "kitchen table" dealers, yet the claim that such dealers
are the source of a "proliferation of guns on our streets" is contradicted
by data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF). Those data
show that 43% of gun dealers had no inventory and sold no guns at all.[33
]In fact, Congressional testimony before enactment of the Firearms Owner
Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) documented that the large number of
low-volume gun dealers is a direct result of BATF policy. Prior to FOPA the
BATF prosecuted gun collectors who sold as few as three guns per year at
gun shows, claiming that they were unlicensed, and therefore illegal, gun
dealers. To avoid such harassment and prosecution, thousands of American
gun collectors became, at least on paper, licensed gun dealers. Now the
BATF and the anti-self-defense lobby claim BATF does not have the resources
to audit the paperwork monster it created. Reducing the number of gun
dealers will only ensure that guns are more expensive - unaffordable to the
poor who are at greatest risk from violence, ensuring that gun ownership
becomes a privilege of only the politically connected and the affluent.

Instead of heaping more onerous restrictions upon good citizens or
law-abiding gun dealers who are not the source of crime guns, is it not
more reasonable - though admittedly more difficult - to target the real
source of crime guns? It is time to admit the futility of attacking the
supply of legal guns to interdict the less than 1% of the American gun
stock that is used criminally. Instead, we believe effort should focus on
targeting the actual "black market" in stolen guns. It is equally important
to reduce the demand for illicit guns and drugs, most particularly by
presenting attractive life opportunities and career alternatives to the
inner-city youth that are overwhelmingly and disproportionately the
perpetrators and victims of violence in our society.

Myth #9     "citizens are too incompetent to use guns for protection"

Nationally good citizens use guns about seven to ten times as frequently as
the police to repel crime and apprehend criminals and they do it with a
better safety record than the police.[3] About 11% of police shootings kill
an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent
person. The odds of a defensive gun user killing an innocent person are
loss than 1 in 26,000.[27] Citizens intervening in crime are less likely to
be wounded than the police.

We can explain why the civilian record is better than the police, but the
simple truth remains - citizens have an excellent record of protecting
themselves and their communities and NOT ONE of the fear mongering
fantasies of the gun control lobby has come true.

"treat cars like guns"

Advocates of increased gun restrictions have promoted the automobile model
of gun ownership, however, the analogy is selectively and incompletely
applied. It is routinely overlooked that no license or registration is
needed to "own and operate" any kind of automobile on private property. No
proof of "need" is required for automobile registration or drivers'
licensure. Once licensed and registered, automobiles may be driven on any
public road and every state's licenses are given "full faith and credit" by
other states. There are no waiting periods, background checks, or age
restrictions for the purchase of automobiles. It is only their use - and
misuse - that is regulated.

Although the toll of motor vehicle tragedies is many times that of guns, no
"arsenal permit" equivalent is asked of automobile collectors or motorcycle
racing enthusiasts. Neither has anyone suggested that automobile
manufacturers be sued when automobiles are frequently misused by criminals
- in bank robberies, drive-by shootings, and all manner of crime and
terrorism. No one has suggested banning motor vehicles because they "might"
be used illegally or are capable of exceeding the 55 mph speed limit, even
though we know "speed kills." Who needs a car capable of three times the
national speed limit? "But cars have good uses" is the usual response. So
too do guns have good uses, the protection of as many as 2.5-million good
Americans every year.

progressive reform

Complete, consistent, and constitutional application of the automobile
model of gun ownership could provide a rational solution to the debate and
enhance public safety.  Reasonable compromise on licensing and training is
possible.  Where state laws have been reformed to license and train good
citizens to carry concealed handguns for protection, violence and homicide
have fallen.[11,26,27]   Even unarmed citizens who abhor guns benefit from
such policies because predators cannot determine in advance who is carrying
a concealed weapon.

fear mongering and the gun control lobby

In opposing progressive reforms that restore our rights to self-protection,
the anti-self-defense lobby has claimed that reform would cause blood to
run in the streets, that inconsequential family arguments would turn into
murderous incidents, that the economic base of communities would collapse,
and that many innocent people would be killed[26,27]  In Florida, the
anti-self-defense lobby claimed that blood would run in the streets of
"Dodge City East," the "Gunshine State"  ---  but we do not have to rely on
irrational propaganda, imaginative imagery, or political histrionics.  We
can examine the data.

data, not histrionics

One-third of Americans live in the 22 progressive states that have reformed
laws to allow good citizens to readily protect themselves outside their
homes.[26,27]  In those states crime rates are lower for every category of
crime indexed by the FBI Uniform Crime Reports.[11] Homicide, assault, and
overall violent crime are each 40% lower, armed robbery is 50% lower, rape
is 30% lower, and property crimes are 10% lower.[11]  The reasonable reform
of concealed weapon laws resulted in none of the mayhem prophesied by the
anti-self-defense lobby.  In fact, the data suggest that, providing they
are in the hands of good citizens, more guns "on the street" offer a
considerable benefit to society - saving lives, a deterrent to crime, and
an adjunct to the concept of community policing.

As of 12/31/93, Florida had issued 188,106 licenses and not one innocent
person had been killed or injured in the 6 years post-reform.  Of the
188,106 licenses, 17 (0.0001%)  were revoked for misuse of the firearm. Not
one of those revocations were associated with any injury whatsoever.[27]
In opposing reform, fear is often expressed that "everyone would be packing
guns," but, after reform, most states have licensed fewer than 2% (and in
no state more than 4%) of qualified citizens.[27]

Notwithstanding gun control extremists' unprophetic histrionics , the
observed reality was that crime fell, in part, because vicious predators
fear an unpredictable encounter with an armed citizen even more than they
fear apprehension by police[34] or fear our timid and porous criminal
justice system.  It is no mystery why Florida's tourists are targeted by
predators -  predators are guaranteed that, unlike Florida's citizens,
tourists are unarmed.

Those who advocate restricting gun rights often justify their proposals "if
it saves only one lifeI."  There have been matched state pair analyses,
crime trend studies, and California county-by-county research[27]
demonstrating that licensing law-abiding, mentally-competent adults to
carry concealed weapons for protection outside their homes saves many
lives, so gun prohibitionists should support such reforms, if saving lives
is truly their motivation.

the right

Importantly, the proponents of the automobile model of gun ownership fail
to note that controls appropriate to a privilege (driving) are
inappropriate to a constitutional right (gun ownership and use). Let there
be no doubt. The Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged an individual
right to keep and bear arms.[35] It is specifically the "weapons of war" -
militia weapons - that are protected. The intent of the Second Amendment
was to ensure that, by guaranteeing the individual right to arms, a citizen
militia could always oppose a tyrannical federal government. That the
Supreme Court has acknowledged the right, but done little to protect that
right, is reminiscent of the sluggishness of the Supreme Court in
protecting other civil rights before those rights became politically
fashionable. Need we be reminded that it has taken over a century for the
Supreme Court to meaningfully protect civil rights guaranteed to
African-Americans in the Fourteenth Amendment?

Besides Second Amendment guarantees of the pre-existent right to keep and
bear arms, there are Ninth,[36] Tenth,[35] and Fourteenth Amendment,[37] as
well as "natural right"[38] guarantees to self-protection.

Since 1980, of thirty-nine law review articles addressing the Supreme Court
case law and history of the right to keep and bear arms, thirty-five
support the individual right view and only four support the "collective
right only" view[39]  (and three of these four are authored or co-authored
by employees of the antiselfdefense lobby).  One would never guess such a
legal and scholarly mismatch from the casual misinterpretations of the
right in the medical literature and popular press. The error of the gun
prohibitionist view is also evident from the fact that their "collective
right only" theory is exclusively an invention of the twentieth century
"gun control" debate - a concept of which neither the Founding Fathers nor
any pre-1900 case or commentary seems to have had any inkling.

California and Concealed Weapons

California has been studied and we discover that the counties that have the
lowest rates of concealed weapon licensees have the highest rates of murder
and the counties with the highest rates of concealed license issuance have
the lowest rates of murder.[27]

It has also been noted that current California law gives considerable
discretion to police chiefs and county sheriffs regarding the issuance of
Concealed Weapon Licenses. Particularly in urban jurisdictions, abuse of
that discretion is common. The result? In many jurisdictions only the
affluent and politically connected are issued such licenses. In California
few women and virtually no minorities are so licensed, even though poor
minorities are the Californians at greatest risk from violence.

Conclusion

The police do not have a crystal ball. Murderers, rapists, and robbers do
not schedule their crimes or notify the police in advance, so the police
cannot be where they are needed in time to prevent death and injury. They
can only arrive later to count the bodies and, hopefully, apprehend the
predators.

There have been state-by-state analyses, county-by-county research, and
crime trend studies. All the research shows that allowing good citizens to
protect themselves outside their homes is a policy that saves lives. The
anti-self defense lobby advances many proposals in hopes that it will "save
only one life." Reform of concealed carry laws is a policy that saves many
lives, so it is a policy that should be supported by the gun control lobby,
if saving lives is really their interest.

Will Stockton base its policy on experience and sound data? or will
Stockton fall prey to misinformation, fear, prejudice, and imaginative
false imagery?[40]

We beg you. Let Stockton's good citizens protect themselves, their loved
ones, and their livelihoods. The ordinance before you costs no money and it
will save many lives.


[1]     Leape LL. "Error in Medicine." JAMA. 1994; 272(23): 1851-57.
[2]     Suter E. "Guns in the Medical Literature - A Failure of Peer
Review." Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia. March 1994; 83:
133-48.
[3]     Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America.  New York:
Aldine de Gruyter. 1991.
[4]     Suter EA, Waters WC, Murray GB, et al. "Violence in America -
Effective Solutions." Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia. Spring
1995, forthcoming.
[5]     Fingerhut LA, Ingram DD, Feldman JJ. "Firearm Homicide Among Black
Teenage Males in Metropolitan Counties: Comparison of Death Rates in Two
Periods, 1983 through 1985 and 1987 through 1989." JAMA. 1992; 267:3054-8.
[6]     Hammett M, Powell KE, O'Carroll PW, Clanton ST. "Homicide
Surveillance - United States, 1987 through 1989." MMWR. 41/SS-3. May
29,1992.
[7]     FBI. Uniform Crime Reports Crime in the United States 1991.
Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 1992
[8]     National Safety Council. Accident Facts 1992. Chicago: National
Safety Council. 1993.
[9]     Webster D, Chaulk, Teret S, and Wintemute G. "Reducing Firearm
Injuries." Issues in Science and Technology. Spring 1991: 73-9.
[10]     Christoffel KK. "Towards Reducing Pediatric Injuries From
Firearms: Charting a Legislative and Regulatory Course." Pediatrics. 1992;
88:294-300.
[11]     Federal Bureau of Investigation, US Department of Justice. Uniform
Crime Reports Crime in the United States 1993. Washington DC: US Government
Printing Office. 1994.  Table 5.
[12]     Dawson JB aand Langan PA, US Bureau of Justice Statistics
statisticians. "Murder in Families." Washington DC: Bureau of Justice
Statistics, US Department of Justice. 1994. p. 5, Table 7.
[13]     US Bureau of Justice Statistics. "Murder in Large Urban Counties,
1988." Washington DC: US Department of Justice. 1993.
[14]     Narloch R. Criminal Homicide in California. Sacramento CA:
California Bureau of Criminal Statistics. 1973. pp 53-4.
[15]     Mulvihill D et al. Crimes of Violence: Report of the Task Force on
Individual Acts of Violence." Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.
1969. p 532.
[16]     Wheeler ED and Baron SA. Violence in Our Schools, Hospitals and
Public Places: A Prevention and Management Guide." Ventura CA: Pathfinder.
1993.
[17]     Kellermann AL. and Reay DT. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of
Firearms-Related Deaths in the Home." N Engl J. Med 1986. 314: 1557-60.
[18]     Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Rushforth NB et al. "Gun ownership as a
risk factor for homicide in the home." N Engl J Med. 1993; 329(15):
1084-91.
[19]     Japenga A. "Gun Crazy."  San Francisco Examiner. This World
supplement. April 3, 1994. p. 7-13 at 11.
[20]     Max W and Rice DP. "Shooting in the Dark: Estimating the Cost of
Firearm Injuries." Health Affairs. 1993; 12(4): 171-85.
[21]     Nieto M, Dunstan R, and Koehler GA. "Firearm-Related Violence in
California: Incidence and Economic Costs." Sacramento CA: California
Research Bureau, California State Library. October 1994.
[22]     McGonigal MD, Cole J, Schwab W, Kauder DR, Rotondo MF, and Angood
PB. "Urban Firearms Deaths: A Five-Year Perspective." J Trauma. 1993;
35(4): 532-36.
[23]     Hutson HR, Anglin D, and Pratss MJ. "Adolescents and Children
Injured or Killed in Drive-By Shootings in Los Angeles." N Engl J Med.
1994; 330: 324-27.
[24]     Zedlewski EW. Making Confinement Decisions - Research in Brief.
Washington DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.
July 1987.
[25]     United Press. "China seizes 120,000 guns." October 21, 1994.
[26]     Cramer C and Kopel D. Concealed Handgun Permits for Licensed
Trained Citizens: A Policy that is Saving Lives. Golden CO: Independence
Institute Issue Paper #14-93. 1993.
[27]     Cramer C and Kopel D. "Shall Issue": The New Wave of Concealed
Handgun Permit Laws. Golden CO: Independence Institute Issue Paper. October
17, 1994.
[28]     Aborn R, President of Handgun Control Inc. Letter to the Editor.
Washington Post. September 30, 1994.
[29]     Thomson Charles, Associate Director for Law Enforcement, Bureau of
alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Department of teh Treasury. Statement before
the Subcommitttee on Crime and Criminal Justice, Committee of the
Judiciary, US House of Representatives. September 20, 1994.
[30]     Halbrook SP. "Another Look at the Brady Law." Washington Post.
October 8, 1994. p A-18.
[31]     Howlett D. "Jury Still Out on Success of the Bardy Law." USA
Today. December 28, 1994.  p A-2.
[32]     Harris J, Assistant Attorney General, US Department of Justice.
Statement to the Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice, Committee on
the Judiciary, US Gouse of Representatives concerning Federal Firearms
Prosecutions. September 20, 1994.
[33]     Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, US Department of the
Treasury. ATF News.. Washington DC: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms. FY-93-38. 1993.
[34]     Wright JD and Rossi PH. Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey
of Felons and Their Firearms. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. 1986.
[35]     Suter EA, Morgan RE, Cottrol RJ, et al. "The Right to Keep and
Bear Arms - A Primer for Physicians." Kansas Journal of Law & Public
Policy. Spring 1995, forthcoming.
[36]     Johnson NJ. "Beyond the Second Amendment: An Individual Right to
Arms Viewed through the Ninth Amendment." Rutgers Law Journal. Fall 1992;
24 (1): 1-81.
[37]     Amar AR. "The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment." Yale
Law Journal. 1992; 101: 1193-1284.; Winter 1992; 9: 87-104.;
[38]     Kates D. "The Second Amendment and the Ideology of
Self-Protection." Constitutional Commentary. Winter 1992; 9: 87-104.
[39]     Articles supportive of the individual rights view include:
Van Alstyne W. "The Second Amendment and the Personal Right to Arms." Duke
Law Journal. 1994; 43: 6.;
Amar AR. "The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment." Yale Law
Journal. 1992; 101: 1193-1284.; Winter 1992; 9: 87-104.;
Scarry E.  "War and the Social Contract: The Right to Bear Arms." Univ.
Penn. Law Rev. 1991; 139(5): 1257-1316.;
Williams DL. "Civic Republicanism and the Citizen Militia: The Terrifying
Second Amendment" Yale Law Journal. 1991; 101:551-616.;
Cottrol RJ and Diamond RT. "The Second Amendment: Toward an
Afro-Americanist Reconsideration." The Georgetown Law Journal. December
1991: 80; 309-61.;
Amar AR. "The Bill of Rights as a Constitution" Yale Law Journal. 1991; 100
(5): 1131-1210.;
Levinson S. "The Embarrassing Second Amendment" Yale Law Journal. 1989;
99:637-659.;
Kates D. "The Second Amendment: A Dialogue." Law and Contemporary Problems.
1986; 49:143.;
Malcolm JL. Essay Review. George Washington U. Law Review. 1986; 54:
452-464.;
Fussner FS. Essay Review. Constitutional Commentary. 1986; 3: 582-8.;
Shalhope RE. "The Armed Citizen in the Early Republic." Law and
Contemporary Problems. 1986; 49:125-141.;
Halbrook S. "What the Framers Intended: A Linguistic Interpretation of the
Second Amendment." Law and Contemporary Problems. 1986; 49:151-162.;
Kates D. "Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second
Amendment." Michigan Law Review. 1983; 82:203-73.
Halbrook S. "The Right to Bear Arms in the First State Bills of Rights:
Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Vermont, and Massachusetts." Vermont Law
Review 1985; 10: 255-320.;
Halbrook S. "The Right of the People or the Power of the State: Bearing
Arms, Arming Militias, and the Second Amendment." Valparaiso Law Review.
1991; 26:131-207.;
Tahmassebi SB. "Gun Control and Racism." George Mason Univ. Civil Rights
Law Journal. Winter 1991; 2(1):67-99.;
Reynolds. "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Under the Tennessee
Constitution." Tennessee Law Review. Winter 1994; 61:2.
Bordenet TM. "The Right to Possess Arms: the Intent of the Framers of the
Second Amendment." U.W.L.A. L. Review. 1990; 21:1.-30.;
Moncure T. "Who is the Militia - The Virginia Ratifying Convention and the
Right to Bear Arms." Lincoln Law Review. 1990; 19:1-25.;
Lund N. "The Second Amendment, Political Liberty and the Right to
Self-Preservation." Alabama Law Review 1987; 39:103.-130.;
Morgan E "Assault Rifle Legislation: Unwise and Unconstitutional." American
Journal of Criminal Law. 1990; 17:143-174.;
Dowlut, R. "Federal and State Constitutional Guarantees to Arms." Univ.
Dayton Law Review. 1989.; 15(1):59-89.;
Halbrook SP. "Encroachments of the Crown on the Liberty of the Subject:
Pre-Revolutionary Origins of the Second Amendment." Univ. Dayton Law
Review. 1989; 15(1):91-124.;
Hardy DT. "The Second Amendment and the Historiography of the Bill of
Rights." Journal of Law and Politics. Summer 1987; 4(1):1-62.;
Hardy DT. "Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies: Toward a Jurisprudence of the
Second Amendment." Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. 1986;
9:559-638.;
Dowlut R. "The Current Relevancy of Keeping and Bearing Arms." Univ.
Baltimore Law Forum. 1984; 15:30-32.;
Malcolm JL. "The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms: The Common Law
Tradition." Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly. Winter 1983;
10(2):285-314.;
Dowlut R. "The Right to Arms: Does the Constitution or the Predilection of
Judges Reign?" Oklahoma Law Review. 1983; 36:65-105.;
Caplan DI. "The Right of the Individual to Keep and Bear Arms: A Recent
Judicial Trend." Detroit College of Law Review. 1982; 789-823.;
Halbrook SP. "To Keep and Bear 'Their Private Arms'" Northern Kentucky Law
Review. 1982; 10(1):13-39.;
Gottlieb A. "Gun Ownership: A Constitutional Right." Northern Kentucky Law
Review 1982; 10:113-40.;
Gardiner R. "To Preserve Liberty -- A Look at the Right to Keep and Bear
Arms." Northern Kentucky Law Review. 1982; 10(1):63-96.;
Kluin KF. Note. "Gun Control: Is It A Legal and Effective Means of
Controlling Firearms in the United States?" Washburn Law Journal 1982;
21:244-264.;
Halbrook S. "The Jurisprudence of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments."
George Mason U. Civil Rights Law Review. 1981; 4:1-69.
Wagner JR.  "Comment: Gun Control Legislation and the Intent of the Second
Amendment: To What Extent is there an Individual Right to Keep and Bear
Arms?" Villanova Law Review. 1992; 37:1407-1459.
The following treatments in book form also conclude that the individual
right position is correct:
Malcolm JL. To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right.
Cambridge MA: Harvard U. Press. 1994.;
Cottrol R. Gun Control and the Constitution (3 volume set). New York City:
Garland. 1993.;
Cottrol R and Diamond R. "Public Safety and the Right to Bear Arms" in
Bodenhamer D and Ely J. After 200 Years; The Bill of Rights in Modern
America. Indiana U. Press. 1993.; Oxford Companion to the United States
Supreme Court. Oxford U. Press. 1992. (entry on the Second Amendment);
Cramer CE. For the Defense of Themselves and the State: The Original Intent
and Judicial Interpretation of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Westport
CT: Praeger Publishers. 1994.
Foner E and Garrity J. Reader's Companion to American History. Houghton
Mifflin. 1991. 477-78. (entry on "Guns and Gun Control");
Kates D. "Minimalist Interpretation of the Second Amendment" in E. Hickok
(ed.), The Bill of Rights: Original Meaning and Current Understanding.
Univ. Virginia Press. 1991.;
Halbrook S. "The Original Understanding of the Second Amendment." in Hickok
E (editor) The Bill of Rights: Original Meaning and Current Understanding.
Charlottesville: U. Press of Virginia. 1991. 117-129.;
Young DE. The Origin of the Second Amendment. Golden Oak Books. 1991.;
Halbrook S. A Right to Bear Arms: State and Federal Bills of Rights and
Constitutional Guarantees. Greenwood. 1989.; Levy LW. Original Intent and
the Framers' Constitution. Macmillan. 1988.;
Hardy D. Origins and Development of the Second Amendment. Blacksmith.
1986.;
Levy LW, Karst KL, and Mahoney DJ. Encyclopedia of the American
Constitution. New York: Macmillan. 1986. (entry on the Second Amendment);
Halbrook S. That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional
Right. Albuquerque, NM: U. New Mexico Press. 1984.;
Marina. "Weapons, Technology and Legitimacy: The Second Amendment in Global
Perspective." and Halbrook S. "The Second Amendment as a Phenomenon of
Classical Political Philosophy." -- both in Kates D (ed.). Firearms and
Violence. San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute. 1984.;
U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution. The Right to Keep and Bear
Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on
the Judiciary. United States Congress. 97th. Congress. 2nd. Session.
February 1982.
regarding incorporation of the Second Amendment:
Aynes RL. "On Misreading John Bingham and the Fourteenth Amendment." Yale
Law Journal. 1993; 103:57-104.;
The minority supporting a collective right only view:
Ehrman K and Henigan D. "The Second Amendment in the 20th Century: Have You
Seen Your Militia Lately?" Univ. Dayton LawJReview. 1989; 15:5-58 and
Henigan DA. "Arms, Anarchy and the Second Amendment." Valparaiso U. Law
Review. Fall 1991; 26: 107-129. -- both written by paid general counsel of
Handgun Control, Inc.;
Fields S. "Guns, Crime and the Negligent Gun Owner." Northern Kentucky Law
Review. 1982; 10(1): 141-162. (article by non-lawyer lobbyist for the
National Coalition to Ban Handguns); and
Spannaus W. "State Firearms Regulation and the Second Amendment." Hamline
Law Review. 1983; 6:383-408.
In addition, see:
Beschle. "Reconsidering the Second Amendment: Constitutional Protection for
a Right of Security." Hamline Law Review. 1986; 9:69. (conceding that the
Amendment does guarantee a right of personal security, but arguing that
personal security can constitutionally be implemented by banning and
confiscating all guns).
Though not in the legal literature, for arguably the most scholarly
treatment supporting the "collective right only" view, see:
Cress LD. "An Armed Community: The Origins and Meaning of the Right to Bear
Arms." J. Am. History 1984; 71:22-42.
[40]     Kates DB. "Bigotry, Symbolism and Ideology in the Battle over Gun
Control" in Eastland, T. The Public Interest Law Review 1992. Carolina
Academic Press. 1992.

------------------------------

End of BEST-RKBA Digest 180
***************************

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com by us4rmc.pko.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA22995; Thu, 19 Jan 95 20:11:12 -050
% Received: from n8ino.mainstream.com by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com (5.65/10Aug94) id AA19014; Thu, 19 Jan 95 17:03:51 -080
% Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by n8ino.mainstream.com (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id TAA04297; Thu, 19 Jan 1995 19:39:25 -0500
% Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 19:39:25 -0500
% Message-Id: <199501200039.TAA04297@n8ino.mainstream.com>
% Errors-To: listproc@Mainstream.com
% Reply-To: best-rkba@Mainstream.com
% Originator: best-rkba@mainstream.com
% Sender: best-rkba@Mainstream.com
% Precedence: bulk
% From: best-rkba@Mainstream.com
% To: Multiple recipients of list <best-rkba@mainstream.com>
% Subject: BEST-RKBA digest 180
% X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
% X-Comment: Right to Keep and Bear Arms "Best of" list

Investor's Business Daily
Monday, January 16, 1995
Page 1
 ------  N A T I O N A L    I S S U E  ------

         POSSESSING CONCEALED WEAPONS
 More States Allowing People To Arm Themselves
              By John A. Barnes

Two days before last November's election, a staff member for 18-year veteran
Kansas Democratic Rep. Dan Glickman was asked by a friend if Glickman was in
any re-election trouble.

  Not at all, the staffer replied.  The congressman's opponent was an
obscure Replublican state legislator whose only claim to fame was a bill
that would make it easier for citizens to carry concealed firearms

Three days after that conversation, both Glickman and his staff were 
looking for new jobs.

  How much the gun-control issue played a role in Rep. Todd Tiahrt's upset
victory is unclear.  But the issue of the citizenry's ability to use guns to
defend themselves from criminals has been a part of American Political
discourse for the past three decades.

 Most of the gun-related headlines in the last few years have dealt with the
efforts of states to ban possession of so-called assault weapons.  A federal
ban was also enacted as part of last year's crime bill.

  As Public concern about violent crime has increased in recent years,
however, a quietly successful campaign has taken hold in the nation's state
legislatures to liberalize laws restricting private citizens from carrying
concealed handguns.

  "The recognition has taken hold that the police can't be everywhere," says
David Kopel, executive director of the Golden, Colo.-based Independence
Institute, which has provided much of the intellectual muzzle-velocity
behind the movement.  "People want to be able to defend themselves."

  Florida in 1987 became the first important state to liberalize its CCW
laws.  Under the Florida statute, any citizen who applies for a permit to
carry a concealed weapon and who has a clean police record, no record of
serious mental illness, no history of drug or alcohol abuse and who passes a
safety course, must be issued one.

  Seventeen states now have so-called "must issue" laws, that is, any
law-abiding citizen who meets requirements similar to those listed above
cannot be denied a CCW permit.  Four states -- Alaska, Arizona, Tennessee
and Wyoming -- passed such legislation in 1994

  A similar bill passed the Texas legislature in 1993 but was vetoed by
Democratic Gov. Ann Richards.  With Richards now replaced by Republican
George W. Bush, however, proponents expect some form of liberalization to
pass this year.  Bills have also been introduced in Colorado, Michigan and
elsewhere.  (Uniquely, Vermont requires no permit of license of any kind to
carry a concealed weapon.)

  These laws are a considerable change from the old "discretionary" system
in most of the states that allow some form of CCW for civilians.  (Eleven
states and the District of Columbia ban CCW's for anyone except law
enforcement personnel.)  Under the discretionary system local police and
sheriffs decided who was allowed to carry a concealed weapon and who was
not.

  "The new legislation," says Tennessee state Rep. Harold Stockburger, who
sponsored the change in that state's law, "says the sheriff must issue the
permit if the citizen meets certain criteria.  That's the difference.  Also,
the permit is good throughout the state.  Under the old law, you could
obtain a permit in one county and it wasn't necessarily recognized in another
county."

  Indeed, the discretionary system has bred a hodgepodge of laws and
regulations that CCW proponents say often makes it practically impossible for
an ordinary citizen to obtain permission to carry a firearm, especially in
high-crime areas such as major cities.  At the same time, they charge,
friends and cronies of the sheriff or the police chief usually experience
little trouble obtaining permission.

  Proponents often point to New York City as a prime example of these
charges.

  "My experience is the police will seize on any excuse whatever to deny you
a permit, even for home defense,"  says Mark K. Benoson, a New York attorney
who specializes in gun-permit cases.  "The slightest altercation with the
law in your past can be enough for them to say 'no.'"

  Generally, to obtain a CCW in a restrictive city such as New York
requires the citizen to prove that he or she has a "need" to carry a
concealed weapon.  Proving such need, however is no simple matter.  Plain
old fear of living in a crime-ridden neighborhood or practicing a dangerous
occupation are almost never considered sufficient.  Example: taxi drivers
are routinely robbed and several have been killed in New York City in recent
years, but cabbies are rarely granted CCW's by the New York police.

  Attorney Benonson says he knows people who have been threatened by
exspouses or lovers who have had their request for permits denied, while an
editor of Benonson's acquaintance, who said he had received threats from
writers whose work he had rejected, was granted a permit.

  And as with most systems where bureaucrats have great discretion, the rich
and/or politically well connected seem to experience little difficulty.
Stephen L. D'Andrilli, a former New York Police officer, several years ago
successfully sued the City of New York to release the closely-held CCW list.

  It was almost a Who's Who of the city's wealthy and politically powerful
elite: billionaire Donald Trump, comedienne Joan Rivers, actor Robert
DeNiro, conservative columnist William F. Buckley, Jr., retired publisher of
the (pro-gun control) New York Times.

           Grass-Roots Support

  Who is pushing for the liberalization of CCW laws?  While the National
Rifle Association and other pro-gun ownership organizations have supported
the effort, most of the impetus appears to be coming from grass-roots
citizen groups who fear gun-toting criminals and want to even the odds, as
well as some activist state legislators.

  "I used a gun to protect myself from an intruder several years ago says
Rebecca Tschirpkei, a Colorado woman who is an official of SWARM (Safety for
Women and Responsible Motherhood), a group that claims 1,500 female members
and is dedicated to lobbying for liberalized CCW in Colorado.

  "The prosecutor and the police said I was a hero.  But I asked them, 'If I
had shot the person who attacked me on the street or in a parking lot, would
they still think I was a hero?  Or would they be arresting and prosecuting
me?'  I didn't get a real answer."

  Naturally, CCW liberalization has gun-control advocates fuming.  Carrying
a gun might engender a false sense of security, they argue.  An armed
citizenry might lead to a "Wild West" atmosphere, with citizens more likely
to hurt themselves or innocent civilians in petty disputes than serious
criminals or intruders.

  "The question you have to ask yourself is:  Do more guns make us safer?"
says Gwen Fitzgerald of Handgun Control Inc.

Police and sheriffs' organizations have generally been opposed to
liberalized CCW legislation.  "Many police officers have been injured and
killed with their own guns,"  says Beth McGee a spokeswoman for the National
Association of Police Organizations.  "Given that reality, what chance does
John Q. Citizen have?"

  The Law Enforcement Alliance of America, an organization composed largely
of rank-and-file officers and crime victims, however, is strongly in favor
of citizen gun ownership.

  "It is our experience that many, if not most, line police officers either
support CCW liberalization or are neutral on the subject,"  says LEAA
spokesman Ted Deeds.  "The leadership of some national police organizations
may feel pressure from the politicians to come out against it"

            A Good Laboratory

  The advocates of CCW liberalization have not had it all their own way, of
course.  A highly publicized effort to legalize the concealed carrying of
firearms in Stockton, Calif. -- site of Patrick Purdy's schoolyard rampage
with an assault rifle -- failed last year.

  There has been no systematic study of crime rates in states that have
liberalized their license-to-carry laws.

  Florida, however, has collected the most data and would seem to serve as a
good laboratory for the experiment and determining its good and bad effects.

Unlike rural, low-crime Vermont, which requires no permit to carry a
concealed weapon, Florida has several large urban areas, a high crime rate,
an overcrowded prison system and an occasionally combustible racial and
ethnic mix.

  In the early 1980's, Florida experienced a crime and murder spree that
drew national attention.  According to FBI statistics, in 1980, Florida
experienced nearly 15 homicides per 100,00 population, compared with a
little over 10 for the nation as a whole.  By 1993, However, the homicide
rate per capita had fallen dramatically to 8.8 per 100,000, compared with
9.5 per 100,000 for the nation as a whole.

  There is no way to determine, short of detailed statistical analysis, if
the passage of the liberalized CCW law was responsible for the fall in the
homicide rate, though the correlation is striking.

  Doyle Jourdan, head of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, even
attributed the well-publicized attacks on tourists in Florida partly to the
state's CCW law.

             'Gunshine State'?

  "The bad guys are not stupid," Jourdan told the New York Times after an
attack on a tourist in 1993.  "They understand that a tourist from Germany
is far less likely to come back and testify against them in court, and they
know that these people carry large amounts of cash, don't have weapons and
are generally not that well-aware of where they are going."

  What about instances of CCW misuse?  During the debate in the state
legislature, gun-control proponents warned Florida would become known as
"the gunshine state" and that disputes over fender-benders and garden hoses
would quickly escalate into shootouts.

The figures do not bear out these fears.  According to the Florida
department of state, a total of 256.193 CCW permits were issued between Oct.
1, 1987 and Nov. 30, 1994, of which 145,750 were still valid.  (Some 
licensees do not renew; others die or move out of state.)

  A total of just 431 permits have been revoked.  The breakdown on
revocations is as follows:
      * 66 because of legislative changes
      * 10 for illegible fingerprints
      * 113 because a criminal record came to light after the permit had
been issued (four of those crimes involved the presence, though not
necessarily the use, of a firearm).
      * 226 were revoked because a crime had been committed after the permit
had been issued (18 of those crimes involved the presence of a firearm).
 Sixteen revocations are classified as "other."

Thus, only a very tiny percentage of CCW permit holders in Florida were
found to have behaved irresponsibly, and an even tinier percentage used or
possessed a gun in the commission of a crime.

  "While it is impossible to prove that the passage of a liberalized CCW law
deters crime," says the Independence Institute's David Kopel, "I think it is
safe to say it certainly does not increase crime."

[end]

     ===================================================================
        The above text comes from The BIRCH BARK BBS / 414-242-5070
     (long distance callers require manual upgrade, usually within hours)
     ===================================================================
        To subscribe to FWIW simply send the following:
        To: listserv@earth.execpc.com
        Subj: (leave blank)
        Message:
        subscribe fwiw

        That's it!  The welcome letter will tell you more!
     ===================================================================




% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from inet-gw-3.pa.dec.com by us4rmc.pko.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA03633; Thu, 19 Jan 95 23:44:10 -050
% Received: from earth.execpc.com by inet-gw-3.pa.dec.com (5.65/10Aug94) id AA26586; Thu, 19 Jan 95 20:36:46 -080
% Received: (from daemon@localhost) by earth.execpc.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) id VAA25270 for fwiw-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jan 1995 21:59:47 -0600
% Received: (from jfish@localhost) by earth.execpc.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) id VAA25245; Thu, 19 Jan 1995 21:59:35 -0600
% Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 21:59:32 -0600 (CST)
% From: James Fish <jfish@earth.execpc.com>
% Subject: [FWIW] To Have And To Hold...
% To: fwiw@earth.execpc.com
% Message-Id: <Pine.3.89.9501180823.A3167-0100000@earth>
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
% Sender: owner-fwiw@earth.execpc.com
% Precedence: bulk
% Reply-To: owner-fwiw@earth.execpc.com

reposted form t.p.g. 


              Clinton Regs. Could Ban Lead Bullets
          -- Response needed to your Congressman & EPA
                               by
                     Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 (703)321-8585

 (January 18, 1995) -- New rules issued by the Environmental
Protection Agency could lead to the banning of lead bullets. The
EPA will investigate whether it deems lead bullets as toxic to
the environment and will then consider implementing either a
complete ban or partial restrictions on the manufature of such
bullets.

 This is nothing but another one of Bill Clinton's attempts at
gun control!

 The EPA will begin studying this issue to determine whether
lead bullets should be banned or regulated. But clearly, the EPA
has no constitutional authority to make these determinations.

 To make matters worse, the EPA could ban the bullets, even if
they never complete their environmental-impact study. The EPA
states they can issue "an order to prohibit or limit the
manufacturing, processing, or distriblition" of lead bullets
while they continue their risk evaluation.

 This is clearly an outrageous attempt -- once again -- to
infringe upon our Second Amendment liberties. Legislators like
Sen. Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) have made it clear that the way to
ban guns is to dry up the supply of bullets. This is just
another chipping away of our rights. If they can claim authority
over lead bullets, where will it end?

 In Texas, this type of environmental tyranny has recently led
to the closing of a shooting range. State authorities used local
environmental regulations to doom the bullets as toxic waste,
and thus, closed the range.

 You need to speak out before they ban our bullets, close down
our shooting ranges and leave you with guns that serve no other
purpose than as bulky paper-weights. Your Congressman and the
EPA need to hear from you before January 27, 1995. HERE'S WHAT
YOU MUST DO:

 * Call/fax your Representative (202-225-3121) and urge him to
express his opposition to this new gun control attempt. He must
contact the EPA before Jan. 27. Tell him that Gun Owners of
America will be circulating a letter (signed by Rep. Bill
Emerson) opposing the regulations. Ask your Representitive to
call Rep. Emerson and sign the letter.

 * Send a message to the EPA and ask them under what
constitutional authority can they consider baning or regulatiiig
lead bullets. Tell them that the Second Amendment prevents ANY
infringement, and that means bullets are protected. Remind them
that in the recent elections, voters rejected the "Nanny
Government" view, and that if they persist in violating the
Constitution, you will demand that your Congressman press for
disbanding the entire EPA. The EPA must receive your written
comments before January 27, 1995. You may send your comments to
the EPA by the following means:

 1. Letters: OPPT Document Control officer (7407), Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection
Agency, Rm. E-G99, 401 M St., SW, Washington, DC 20460. All
written data and comments should be identified by the docket
number OPPTS-50618 and should be submitted in triplicate.

 2. Electronic Mail (3 ways): (a) By sending electronic mail
(e-mail) to Docket-OPPTS@epamail.epa.gov; (b) by sending a
"Subscribe" message to listserver@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov and
once subscribed, send your comments to RIN-2070-AC37; or (c)
through the EPA Electronic Bulletin Board by dialing
202-488-3671, enter selection "DMAIL," username "BB-USER" or
919-541-4642, enter selection "MAIL," user name "BB-USER." All
comments and data in electronic form should be identified by the
docket number OPPTS-50618.

 Note: The EPA's proposed regulations on lead bullets are part
of a larger "advance notice" on lead in general. The EPA will
also be studying the "dangers" of lead solder, gutters, fishing
sinkers, motor fuel and much more.

===============================================================

{As a side note, lead solder is now considered hazardous material and can not
be shipped by air.}


== Johann Opitz      e-mail:  johann_opitz@smtp.svl.trw.com ==
== All Disclaimers Apply (so as to protect my employer) ==


% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com by us4rmc.pko.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA23921; Fri, 20 Jan 95 13:37:04 -050
% Received: from nova.unix.portal.com by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com (5.65/10Aug94) id AA27985; Fri, 20 Jan 95 10:16:01 -080
% Received: from jobe.shell.portal.com (chan@jobe.shell.portal.com [156.151.3.4]) by nova (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id KAA04117; Fri, 20 Jan 1995 10:07:25 -0800
% Received: (chan@localhost) by jobe.shell.portal.com (8.6.9/8.6.5) id KAA26719 for firearms-alert-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jan 1995 10:06:22 -0800
% Received: from nova (root@nova.unix.portal.com [156.151.1.101]) by jobe.shell.portal.com (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id KAA26710 for <firearms-alert@shell.portal.com>; Fri, 20 Jan 1995 10:06:19 -0800
% Received: from gatekeeper.svl.trw.com (gatekeeper.svl.trw.com [129.193.146.11]) by nova (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id KAA03974 for <firearms-alert@shell.portal.com>; Fri, 20 Jan 1995 10:06:18 -0800
% Received: from smtp.svl.trw.com (smtpout.svl.trw.com) by gatekeeper.svl.trw.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA24414; Fri, 20 Jan 95 10:06:04 PS
% Message-Id: <n1421526132.51222@smtp.svl.trw.com>
% Date: 20 Jan 1995 10:01:04 -0800
% From: "Johann Opitz" <Johann_Opitz@smtp.svl.trw.com>
% Subject: EPA bullet ban
% To: "Firearms Alert" <firearms-alert@shell.portal.com>
% X-Mailer: Mail*Link SMTP-QM 3.0.2
% Sender: firearms-alert-owner@shell.portal.com
% Precedence: bulk

            <<< Note 21.448 by SUBPAC::SADIN "caught in the 'net" >>>

This 2.5 million figure is the gospel upon which most everything you post 
is based. Where did it come from and how was it arrived at? It just doesn't 
add up in my mind - but hey, what do I know?

One in every 100 people use a gun to ward off a crime EVERY YEAR, according 
to that statistic. What are your chances of being the victim of a crime 
within one year? How many american households keep guns for their 
protection? How many break-ins occur in a year? How many occur in occupied 
households? How many American carry a gun in public? How many assualts 
occur in public places/year.

I've got nothing against guns being used for lawful purposes, including 
self defense, but there's something mighty suspicious about that number.

re:                   <<< Note 21.451 by HUMANE::USMVS::DAVIS >>>
    
    	The 2.5million figure comes from professor Klecks study. You may
    order the study for yourself (for the whopping sum of $3) and make your
    own judgement of his research.
    
    Professor Kleck's paper is titled "Crime Control Through the Private
    Use of Armed Force" and is available for $3.00 from the Second
    Amendment Foundation, James Madison Building, 12500 N.E. Tenth Place,
    Bellevue, WA 98005.
    
    Kleck cites over 50 references, e.g. U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics,
    U.S. FBI, U.S. Library of Congress.
    
    This is a research paper, not an opinion paper.  It contains only
    facts.  
    

jim    

Reposted from Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns

This is from the Los Angeles Times, 17 Jan 95.

U.S. PROBES ANIMAL GROUP'S ARMS CACHE

* Weapons: Federal officials say the Van Nuys organization has a $100,000
stockpile, including assault-style guns.

By Josh Meyer

VAN NUYS -- While Los Angeles County supervisors were honoring an
animal-welfare organization in September for donating $20,000 to help the
county spay and neuter pets, federal agents had their eyes on the same
group--for spending as much as five times that amount on guns.

Agents of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms were
investigating the Van Nuys-based Mercy Crusade Inc. for stockpiling an
estimated $100,000 arsenal, according to authorities close to the
investigation.

Among the guns were assault-style weapons that were purchased just before
they were restricted under federal gun control legislation. The agents
seized a dozen assault-style pistols and are still holding them.

The guns were purchased for the group's 12 humane officers, quasi-police who
have powers of investigation and arrest in animal abuse cases. Although they
can wear uniforms and badges virtually identical to those of California
Highway Patrol officers and carry guns, they are supervised by no government
agency and little formal law enforcement training is required of them.

They draw their authority from an obscure state law more than 80 years old,
which allows animal welfare groups to appoint such officers with a judge's
approval.

Mercy Crusade's humane officers are headed by James McCourt, a Pepperdine
University economics professor, and recently included a resteraunt security
guard, a lawyer, a martial arts instructor, and a retired kennel operator.

McCourt said the guns were needed for "law enforcement purposes." No charges
have been brought against him or Mercy Crusade.

Although it is legal for any adult without a criminal record to buy the
guns, federal agents are still investigating, saying they are concerned that
they cannot answer this question: Why would a group whose stated purpose is
to deal with mistreatment of animals want to arm badge-wearing volunteers
with military-style weapons that would give them far more firepower than a
police SWAT squad?

Even the professional Los Angeles city and county animal control
officers--who are not connected to state humane officers--do not ordinarily
carry so much as a pistol.

"You have an unregulated organization with questionable people arming
themselves to the gills and imperiling the public," said one federal source,
who called the purchases "outrageous."

"The system has got to be changed," he said, referring to the unsupervised
status of humane officers.

"There is obviously something wrong that this organization can legally carry
firearms with little or no training....No legitimate police agency carries
any of those weapons," except for specially trained SWAT teams, he said.

He echoed concerns by others in law enforcement that many humane officers,
especially in the Los Angeles area, operate outside the institutional
framework of supervision and professionalism that is standard for other
peace officers.

Indeed, part of the problem for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
when the investigation began was that, like many others inside and outside
law enforcement, the federal agents had never heard of state humane officers
and found it difficult to understand that a private, nonprofit organization
such as Mercy Crusade is entitled to field a unit of sworn law enforcement
officers.

Federal investigators are still holding 12 semiautomatic Heckler & Koch
"assault pistols" seized in June from McCourt, who is the chairman of the
board of directors of Mercy Crusade Inc., as well as its chief humane
officer.

The guns, which are classified as handguns but come with 15- or 30-round
magazines and are designed to be fired with two hands, are now on a federal
list of weapons that can no longer be manufactured, although it is not
illegal to own them.

In addition, McCourt or his aides in the past year bought or ordered 22
other weapons, including five AR-15s, a Bushmaster, a Heckler & Koch .308
and a Fabrique Nationale de Arms .308--which are all modified versions of
military assault rifles--plus an unusually powerful Israeli .50-caliber
pistol, according to authorities.

McCourt told the Times that he bought the Heckler & Koch weapons shortly
before their manufacture was banned by federal law because "we were
anticipating...that these things would no longer be available and that extra
taxes and extra paperwork would be required [after the ban]. And that is
something I was not prepared to do. I'm old-fashioned."

McCourt offered several other reasons for the purchases, at one point saying
that he wanted his officers to be familiar with the guns in case they ever
encountered them in investigations.

McCourt also said that having such weapons would gain Mercy Crusade's humane
officers more respect from other law enforcement officers, and that he hoped
to promote a sense of camaraderie by giving his officers identical
state-of-the-art weapons.

"It seemed like a good idea--go to the firing range at the same time with
the same type of gun," he said.

Another need, McCourt said, is to be armed well enough to protect animal
shelters from rioters. During the 1992 riots, armed Mercy Crusade officers
were dispatched to protect various animal shelters and clinics, he said, and
"we were worried we might have to do that" again.

Because he gave federal agents several different answers to their questions,
they "thought he was being evasive" and that his explanations "just didn't
add up," said one source.

The federal bureau declined to comment, citing the ongoing investigation.

The weapons were purchased with Mercy Crusade funds, McCourt said. According
to records filed with the secretary of state's office that supervises
tax-exempt charities such has Mercy Crusade, the group had a $2.3-million
treasury at the end of 1993. The group raises money primarily through
direct-mail solicitation of animal lovers.

Firearms agents began the investigation that led to McCourt after receiving
tips from San Fernando Valley gun shop owners that two men had been
purchasing large numbers of assault weapons, the sources said. The gun
dealers said the purchasers declared that the guns were for law enforcement
use, and one of the wore a police uniform.

But the dealers became suspicious because of the number of guns purchased
and because the buyers paid by checks drawn on a private organization's bank
account, which is not how police departments make such purchases, the
sources said.

In June, notified that the two gun buyers had returned to one of the shops,
federal agents followed McCourt and a uniformed fellow humane officer,
Judson Swearingen Jr., from the shop to McCourt's home, the sources said.
The agents interviewed them at length and seized the 12 Heckler and Koch
SP89 pistols, for which McCourt has paid more than $2,700 apiece, the
sources said.

McCourt said he voluntarily surrendered the guns to the agents, but has now
asked Mercy Crusade's attorney to have them returned.

Although bureau spokesman John D'Angelo refused to comment on the case, he
noted that agents "don't take guns for safekeeping--we take guns [by
seizure] when we believe there is evidence of a crime."

McCourt said the agents questioned him for several hours in June, asking
what humane officers are and why Swearingen was in uniform, and "challenging
whether we needed" the weapons.

He said that agents asked sever times whether he had bought the weapons with
the intention of reselling them at a profit after changes in gun-control
laws made them harder to find and therefore more valuable. He said he
thought the agents suspected he was planning "to turn around and sell them
to gangs. But we don't."

McCourt said the questions left him "kind of shocked, because I wasn't aware
that capitalism had been outlawed in this country."

According to McCourt and sources close to the case, the investigation
remains open, but is at a standstill.

Federal prosecutors declines to bring charges against McCourt and Swearingen
for listing a post office box instead of McCourt's street address on the
federal gun purchase form, a felony. McCourt said he was only trying to hide
the location of his home and business, a common practice by law enforcement
officers to thwart vengeance-seekers.

Prosecuters also refused the ATF's request to seek a warrant for a search of
McCourt's home and Mercy Crusade's office by agents who hoped to determine
how many weapons McCourt and the other officers had, and how they paid for
them. The sources say that purchase records filed by gun shops indicate the
group's members had bought at least 34 guns worth at least $100,000 in the
past year.

State humane officers are not required to meet the minimum firearms
education requirements imposed on other law enforcement officers in
California, who fall under the Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST)
Commission, which is part of the state Department of Justice. Lack of POST
certification, for example, briefly helped prevent even Los Angeles Police
Chief Willie L. Williams from carrying a gun when he first arrived from
Philadelphia.

To carry firearms, humane officers are required only to take a 24-hour
course in firearms safety offered at community colleges--compared to the 364
hours required of virtually all other state law enforcement officers, and
the more than 500 hours that is normal in many large departments. POST
officials said that as far as they know, humane officers are one of only
three classes of peace officers--along with investigators supervised by
state banking and real estate regulators--required to take so little
firearms training.

Although there are clearly scores of humane officers in Los Angeles County
alone, and probably hundreds of them in the state, state officials say there
is no central registry of who they are, or which of them are authorized to
carry weapons--a decision that is up to the animal welfare groups they
belong to.

Apparently the only records are kept by the county clerks and registrars who
swear in the officers after a judge's approval. According to Los Angeles
Superior Court administrators, such applications are routinely approved
after a cursory fingerprint check for criminal convictions.

As for McCourt, he said he could not remember how many weapons Mercy Crusade
had purchased. "When you put them [the guns] in a pile, it looks big," he
said, "but it really isn't."

-- 
      |            Kenneth G. Hagler           |                        |
      |            khagler@kaiwan.com          |  My insurance company  |
      |   Finger me for PGP 2.6ui public key   |    is Beretta U.S.A.   |

===========================================================================


== Johann Opitz      e-mail:  johann_opitz@smtp.svl.trw.com ==
== All Disclaimers Apply (so as to protect my employer) ==


% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from inet-gw-3.pa.dec.com by us4rmc.pko.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA00678; Mon, 23 Jan 95 13:11:19 -050
% Received: from nova.unix.portal.com by inet-gw-3.pa.dec.com (5.65/10Aug94) id AA19917; Mon, 23 Jan 95 10:02:51 -080
% Received: from jobe.shell.portal.com (chan@jobe.shell.portal.com [156.151.3.4]) by nova (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id JAA18629; Mon, 23 Jan 1995 09:54:34 -0800
% Received: (chan@localhost) by jobe.shell.portal.com (8.6.9/8.6.5) id JAA11877 for firearms-alert-outgoing; Mon, 23 Jan 1995 09:52:38 -0800
% Received: from nova (root@nova.unix.portal.com [156.151.1.101]) by jobe.shell.portal.com (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id JAA11833 for <firearms-alert@shell.portal.com>; Mon, 23 Jan 1995 09:52:33 -0800
% Received: from gatekeeper.svl.trw.com (gatekeeper.svl.trw.com [129.193.146.11]) by nova (8.6.9/8.6.5) with SMTP id JAA18382 for <firearms-alert@shell.portal.com>; Mon, 23 Jan 1995 09:52:31 -0800
% Received: from smtp.svl.trw.com (smtpout.svl.trw.com) by gatekeeper.svl.trw.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA14550; Mon, 23 Jan 95 09:52:12 PS
% Message-Id: <n1421267759.88878@smtp.svl.trw.com>
% Date: 23 Jan 1995 09:48:46 -0800
% From: "Johann Opitz" <Johann_Opitz@smtp.svl.trw.com>
% Subject: BATF strikes in LA
% To: "Firearms Alert" <firearms-alert@shell.portal.com>
% X-Mailer: Mail*Link SMTP-QM 3.0.2
% Sender: firearms-alert-owner@shell.portal.com
% Precedence: bulk

    <----- This is of grave concern to Spike & I. Why would someone need a
    50 cal pistol to check out my squirrel and cat??

	It seems that the governemtn is unable to obtain a warrant
	by meeting even the miniscule burden of showing evidence of 
	a crime. Yet they have confiscated the legally owned property
	of a group of citizens.

	Why?

Jim

    Did the NRA support or oppose the abolishment of the "Fairness Doctrine"
    in 1986?
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    
    re -1
    
    	give them a buzz and find out. 1-703-267-1000.
    
    
    jim

    
    Will do so tonight.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    
    	keep us posted...I'm curious myself.
    
    
    jim

   <<< Note 21.457 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

>    Did the NRA support or oppose the abolishment of the "Fairness Doctrine"
>    in 1986?
 
	I don't recall them taking a position. Not suprising as one way
	or the other it would not affect the Associations access to the
	media.

Jim

    re; why would someone need a .50 cal. pistol to check out my
        squirrel and cat? because they're sooooo cool. 
    
        my local gun shop had one... not a hide-away let me tell ya'
    
        Chip

From:	CRL::"alerts@gatekeeper.nra.org" "MAIL-11 Daemon" 23-JAN-1995 15:37:38.45
To:	Multiple recipients of list <rkba-alert@gatekeeper.nra.org>
CC:	
Subj:	ALERT: Turn up the heat -- Repeal the Gun Ban!

January 20, 1995
                
            TURN UP THE HEAT -- REPEAL THE GUN BAN!

      Late last week, another bill to repeal the gun ban was
introduced by staunch pro-gun supporters Rep. Bartlett (R-MD) and
Rep. Stockman (R-TX).  The bill, H.R. 424, is substantially
similar to H.R. 125, the gun ban repeal bill introduced by Rep.
Chapman (D-TX).  The NRA wholeheartedly supports both of these
bills.  

Simultaneously, we are working to guarantee that there is gun ban
repeal language in H.R. 3 -- the Contract With American Crime Bill. 
In fact, pro-gun Democrats, led by Reps. Brewster (D-OK) and Tauzin
(D-LA), have written a letter to House Speaker Newt Gingrich
encouraging the Republican Leadership to include repeal  provisions
in the original text of H.R. 3!  

H.R. 3 is a high priority in the new Congress, however, House leaders
have not yet included repeal language in this bill!   We need to make
sure they do!  

ACTION ALERT!  Even if you've already done so, please contact members
of the House Judiciary Committee and ask that H.R. 3 contain a repeal
of the 1994 gun ban.  The Judiciary Committee will start debate on
H.R. 3 on Wednesday, January 25, so be sure to pass the word on to
your family, friends and fellow firearm owners.  ALSO, please contact
YOUR U.S. REPRESENTATIVE and ask him to encourage Judiciary Committee
members to include repeal language in the crime bill!

Please download CONGDIR.TXT for a complete list of phone/fax numbers
for Congress!  Send "get congress congdir.txt" (without the quotes) to listproc@nra.org

U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee:

Jerrold Nadler (D) New York - 8th District, Of Manhattan
Capitol Office: 109 Cannon Bldg. 20515-3208; 
telephone: (202) 225-5635;  fax: (202) 225-6923; 
Internet address not reported. 

Xavier Becerra (D) California - 30th District, Of Los Angeles
Capitol Office: 1119 Longworth Bldg. 20515-0530; 
telephone: (202)  225-6235; fax: (202) 225-2202; 
Internet address not  reported. 

Zoe Lofgren (D) California - 16th District, Of San Jose
Capitol Office: 118 Cannon Bldg. 20515; 
telephone: (202) 225-3072; fax number not reported; 
Internet address not reported. 

Charles T. Canady (R) Florida - 12th District, Of Lakeland
Capitol Office: 1222 Longworth Bldg. 20515-0912; 
telephone: (202)  225-1252; fax number not reported; 
Internet address not  reported. 

Robert W. Goodlatte (R) Virginia - 6th District, Of Roanoke
Capitol Office: 123 Cannon Bldg. 20515-4606; 
telephone: (202) 225-5431;  fax number not reported; 
Internet:  TALK2BOB@HR.HOUSE.GOV. 

Melvin Watt (D) North Carolina - 12th District, Of Charlotte
Capitol Office: 1230 Longworth Bldg. 20515-3312; 
telephone: (202)  225-1510; fax: (202) 225-1512; 
Internet:  MELMAIL@HR.HOUSE.GOV. 

Bob Inglis (R) South Carolina - 4th District, Of Greenville
Capitol Office: 1237 Longworth Bldg. 20515-4004; 
telephone: (202)  225-6030; fax: (202) 226-1177; 
Internet address not  reported. 

Michael Patrick Flanagan (R) Illinois - 5th District, Of Chicago
Capitol Office: 1407 Longworth Bldg. 20515; 
telephone: (202) 225-4061;  fax number not reported; 
Internet address not reported. 

Fred Heineman (R) North Carolina - 4th District, Of Raleigh
Capitol Office: 1440 Longworth Bldg. 20515; 
telephone: (202) 225-1784;  fax number not reported; 
Internet address not reported. 

Jack Reed (D) Rhode Island - 2nd District, Of Cranston
Capitol Office: 1510 Longworth Bldg. 20515-3902; 
telephone: (202)  225-2735; fax: (202) 225-9580; 
Internet address not  reported. 

Ed Bryant (R) Tennessee - 7th District, Of Henderson
Capitol Office: 1516 Longworth Bldg. 20515; 
telephone: (202) 225-2811;  fax number not reported; 
Internet address not reported. 

Sheila Jackson Lee (D) Texas - 18th District, Of Houston
Capitol Office: 1520 Longworth Bldg. 20515-4318; 
telephone: (202)  225-3816; fax number not reported; 
Internet address not  reported. 

Bob Barr (R) Georgia - 7th District, Of Smyrna
Capitol Office: 1607 Longworth Bldg. 20515-1007; 
telephone: (202)  225-2931; fax number not reported; 
Internet address not  reported. 

Steve Chabot (R) Ohio - 1st District, Of Cincinnati
Capitol Office: 1641 Longworth Bldg. 20515; 
telephone: (202) 225-2216;  fax number not reported; 
Internet address not reported. 

Henry J. Hyde (R) Illinois - 6th District, Of Bensenville
Capitol Office: 2110 Rayburn Bldg. 20515-1306; 
telephone: (202)  225-4561; fax number not reported; 
Internet address not  reported.  
Note: Republican Policy Committee chairman. 

Martin R. Hoke (R) Ohio - 10th District, Of Cleveland
Capitol Office: 212 Cannon Bldg. 20515-3510; 
telephone: (202) 225-5871;  fax: (202) 226-0994; 
Internet: HOKEMAIL@HR.HOUSE.GOV. 

Barney Frank (D) Massachusetts - 4th District, Of Newton
Capitol Office: 2210 Rayburn Bldg. 20515-2104; 
telephone: (202)  225-5931; fax number not reported; 
Internet address not  reported. 

Charles E. Schumer (D) New York - 9th District, Of Brooklyn
Capitol Office: 2211 Rayburn Bldg. 20515-3209; 
telephone: (202)  225-6616; fax: (202) 225-4183; 
Internet address not  reported. 

Howard L. Berman (D) California - 26th District, Of Panorama City
Capitol Office: 2231 Rayburn Bldg. 20515-0526; 
telephone: (202)  225-4695; fax number not reported; 
Internet address not  reported. 

Rick Boucher (D) Virginia - 9th District, Of Abingdon
Capitol Office: 2245 Rayburn Bldg. 20515-4609; 
telephone: (202)  225-3861; fax: (202) 225-0442; 
Internet address not  reported. 

Bill McCollum (R) Florida - 8th District, Of Longwood
Capitol Office: 2266 Rayburn Bldg. 20515-0908; 
telephone: (202)  225-2176; fax: (202) 225-0999; 
Internet address not  reported.  
Note: Republican Conference vice chairman. 

Patricia Schroeder (D) Colorado - 1st District, Of Denver
Capitol Office: 2307 Rayburn Bldg. 20515-0601; 
telephone: (202)  225-4431; fax: (202) 225-5842; 
Internet address not  reported. 

John Bryant (D) Texas - 5th District, Of Dallas
Capitol Office: 2330 Rayburn Bldg. 20515-4305; 
telephone: (202)  225-2231; fax: (202) 225-0327; 
Internet address not  reported. 

F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R) Wisconsin - 9th District, Of Menomonee Falls
Capitol Office: 2332 Rayburn Bldg. 20515-4909; 
telephone: (202)  225-5101; fax number not reported; 
Internet address not  reported. 

Jose E. Serrano (D) New York - 16th District, Of the Bronx
Capitol Office: 2342 Rayburn Bldg. 20515-3216; 
telephone: (202)  225-4361; fax: (202) 225-6001; 
Internet address not  reported. 

Carlos J. Moorhead (R) California - 27th District, Of Glendale
Capitol Office: 2346 Rayburn Bldg. 20515-0527; 
telephone: (202)  225-4176; fax: (202) 226-1279; 
Internet address not  reported. 

Steven H. Schiff (R) New Mexico - 1st District, Of Albuquerque
Capitol Office: 2404 Rayburn Bldg. 20515-3101; 
telephone: (202)  225-6316; fax: (202) 225-4975; 
Internet address not  reported. 

George W. Gekas (R) Pennsylvania - 17th District, Of Harrisburg
Capitol Office: 2410 Rayburn Bldg. 20515-3817; 
telephone: (202)  225-4315; fax number not reported; 
Internet address not  reported. 

John Conyers, Jr. (D) Michigan - 14th District, Of Detroit
Capitol Office: 2426 Rayburn Bldg. 20515-2214; 
telephone: (202)  225-5126; fax: (202) 225-0072; 
Internet:  JCONYERS@HR.HOUSE.GOV.  
Note: Defeated in race for Mayor of Detroit. 

Elton Gallegly (R) California - 23rd District, Of Simi Valley
Capitol Office: 2441 Rayburn Bldg. 20515-0523; 
telephone: (202)  225-5811; fax number not reported; 
Internet address not  reported. 

Lamar Smith (R) Texas - 21st District, Of San Antonio
Capitol Office: 2443 Rayburn Bldg. 20515-4321; 
telephone: (202)  225-4236; fax: (202) 225-8628; 
Internet address not  reported. 

Steve Buyer (R) Indiana - 5th District, Of Monticello
Capitol Office: 326 Cannon Bldg. 20515-1405; 
telephone: (202) 225-5037;  fax number not reported; 
Internet address not reported. 

Howard Coble (R) North Carolina - 6th District, Of Greensboro
Capitol Office: 403 Cannon Bldg. 20515-3306; 
telephone: (202) 225-3065;  fax: (202) 225-8611; 
Internet address not reported. 

Robert C. Scott (D) Virginia - 3rd District, Of Newport News
Capitol Office: 501 Cannon Bldg. 20515-4603; 
telephone: (202) 225-8351;  fax number not reported; 
Internet address not reported. 

Sonny Bono (R) California - 44th District, Of Palm Springs
Capitol Office: 512 Cannon Bldg. 20515; 
telephone: (202) 225-5330; fax  number not reported; 
Internet address not reported.
--
This information is presented as a service to the Internet community
by the NRA/ILA.  Many files are available via anonymous ftp from
ftp.nra.org, via WWW at http://www.nra.org, via gopher at gopher.nra.org,
and via WAIS at wais.nra.org

Be sure to subscribe to the NRA mailing lists.  Send the word help
as the body of a message to listproc@NRA.org

Information can also be obtained by connecting to the NRA-ILA GUN-TALK
BBS at (703) 934-2121.

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: by easynet.crl.dec.com; id AA01845; Mon, 23 Jan 95 15:38:01 -0500
% Received: by crl.dec.com; id AA21072; Mon, 23 Jan 95 15:31:15 -0500
% Received: by gatekeeper.nra.org (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3)id AA07664; Mon, 23 Jan 1995 15:24:41 -0500
% Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 15:24:41 -0500
% Message-Id: <9501232024.AA07664@gatekeeper.nra.org>
% Reply-To: alerts@gatekeeper.nra.org
% Originator: rkba-alert@nra.org
% Sender: rkba-alert@gatekeeper.nra.org
% Precedence: bulk
% From: alerts@gatekeeper.nra.org (NRA Alerts)
% To: Multiple recipients of list <rkba-alert@gatekeeper.nra.org>
% Subject: ALERT: Turn up the heat -- Repeal the Gun Ban!
% X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
% X-Comment: NRA Alerts list

From:	CRL::"alerts@gatekeeper.nra.org" "MAIL-11 Daemon" 23-JAN-1995 16:12:29.59
To:	Multiple recipients of list <rkba-alert@gatekeeper.nra.org>
CC:	
Subj:	GRASSROOTS: NRA-ILA Grassroots Bulletin  95-01-20

                          NRA-ILA FAX NETWORK
              11250 Waples Mill Road * Fairfax, VA  22030
               Phone: 1-800-392-8683 * Fax: 703-267-3918
Vol. 2, No. 3                                                   1/20/95

                TURN UP THE HEAT -- REPEAL THE GUN BAN!

      Late last week, another bill to repeal the gun ban was
introduced by staunch pro-gun supporters Rep. Bartlett (R-MD) and
Rep. Stockman (R-TX).  The bill, H.R. 424, is substantially
similar to H.R. 125, the gun ban repeal bill introduced by Rep.
Chapman (D-TX).  The NRA wholeheartedly supports both of these
bills.  Simultaneously, we are working to guarantee that there is
gun ban repeal language in H.R. 3 -- the Contract With American
Crime Bill.  In fact, pro-gun Democrats, led by Reps. Brewster
(D-OK) and Tauzin (D-LA), have written a letter to House Speaker
Newt Gingrich encouraging the Republican Leadership to include
repeal  provisions in the original text of H.R. 3!  H.R. 3 is a
high priority in the new Congress, however, House leaders have
not yet included repeal language in this bill!  We need to make
sure they do!  ACTION ALERT!  Even if you've already done so,
please contact members of the House Judiciary Committee and ask
that H.R. 3 contain a repeal of the 1994 gun ban.  The Judiciary
Committee will start debate on H.R. 3 on Wednesday, January 25,
so be sure to pass the word on to your family, friends and fellow
firearm owners.  ALSO, please contact YOUR U.S. REPRESENTATIVE
and ask him to encourage Judiciary Committee members to include
repeal language in the crime bill!  If you need the names and
phone numbers of Committee members, as well as your own
representative, call the NRA-ILA Grassroots Division at 1-800-
392-8683, check bulletin #1 on GUNTALK, or check NRA.org

      A LOOK AT THE STATES:  Virginia -- Fight to Reform Right to
Carry Underway: The Senate Courts of Justice Committee will host
a public hearing on critical, NRA-supported right to carry reform
bills on Wednesday, January 25.  The hearing will be held at 2:30
p.m., in Room B on the first floor of the General Assembly
Building in Richmond.  Members in the area are strongly
encouraged to attend to show their support for these critical
reforms!  

Pennsylvania -- A special session on crime will convene on
Monday, January 23.  We'll work with Gov. Ridge to implement real
criminal justice reform in the state -- without any "gun control"
provisions.  

Wyoming -- Pro-Gun Legislation on the Move: S. 76, the NRA-
supported shooting range protection bill, and S. 77, the NRA-
supported statewide firearms preemption bill, both passed out of
Committee this week and are headed to the Senate floor for
consideration.  We will keep you posted as to when a vote date
has been scheduled. 

Wisconsin - Anti-Gunners Win in Fox Point:  This week, the Fox
Point Village Board unanimously passed an ordinance banning the
commercial sale of firearms within the Village.  Although there
are currently no gun stores within Fox Point, this ordinance will
prevent any new ones from opening in the business district.  The
passage of this measure only further demonstrates the need to
pass a statewide firearms preemption bill in the state
legislature this year!  

      STAND WITH FELLOW GUN OWNERS AND RALLY FOR YOUR RIGHTS!  Our
thanks to the "freedom fighters" in Washington State for making
last week's rally a success!  We have three more for you --
members in these areas are strongly encouraged to attend!  

New Mexico - Join the NMSSA on the west end/back steps (the
"Roadhouse") of the capitol building in Santa Fe on Saturday,
January 28, from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.  A strong showing by gun
owners will send a strong message to New Mexico's lawmakers that
we intend to push hard for right to carry legislation and other
pro-gun reforms this year!  

Utah - On Saturday, January 28, the USSC's 2nd Annual Firearms
Freedom Rally will be held at 4:00 p.m. in the State Capitol
Rotunda in Salt Lake City.  Join fellow gun owners to encourage
Utah's lawmakers to pass pro-Second Amendment reforms, such as
statewide firearms preemption, and to reject any and all "gun
control" schemes.  

Virginia - join the call for victims' rights on Tuesday, January
24th at the state capital in Richmond and show your support for
legislation to guarantee victims' rights.  The rally is scheduled
for Tuesday, January 24th, at 11:00 a.m., in the courtyard in
front of the General Assembly Building.  For more information on
these rallies, please call the NRA-ILA Grassroots Division at 1-
800-392-8683. 
--
This information is presented as a service to the Internet community
by the NRA/ILA.  Many files are available via anonymous ftp from
ftp.nra.org, via WWW at http://www.nra.org, via gopher at gopher.nra.org,
and via WAIS at wais.nra.org

Be sure to subscribe to the NRA mailing lists.  Send the word help
as the body of a message to listproc@NRA.org

Information can also be obtained by connecting to the NRA-ILA GUN-TALK
BBS at (703) 934-2121.

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: by easynet.crl.dec.com; id AA02549; Mon, 23 Jan 95 16:12:52 -0500
% Received: by crl.dec.com; id AA25118; Mon, 23 Jan 95 16:07:41 -0500
% Received: by gatekeeper.nra.org (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3)id AA08732; Mon, 23 Jan 1995 16:01:51 -0500
% Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 16:01:51 -0500
% Message-Id: <9501232101.AA08732@gatekeeper.nra.org>
% Reply-To: alerts@gatekeeper.nra.org
% Originator: rkba-alert@nra.org
% Sender: rkba-alert@gatekeeper.nra.org
% Precedence: bulk
% From: alerts@gatekeeper.nra.org (NRA Alerts)
% To: Multiple recipients of list <rkba-alert@gatekeeper.nra.org>
% Subject: GRASSROOTS: NRA-ILA Grassroots Bulletin  95-01-20
% X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
% X-Comment: NRA Alerts list

    
      Although I support repeal, I'm not sure I like merging the
    potentially divisive HR 424 into HR 3, because HR 3 is very
    important in its own right, and bundling too much in endangers it.
    
      This is, however, a question of tactics, not principle.
    
      bb

            <<< Note 21.464 by SUBPAC::SADIN "caught in the 'net" >>>

Wasn't once enough?

    
    
    	re .466
    
    	the first message had different information at the end than the 2nd
    message did. If you look, the first message has 200+ lines while the
    2nd message only has 100+ lines....
    
    
    jim

Bill K. Brewster
3rd District Oklahoma

Ways and Means Committee

                    Congress of the United States 
                    House of Representatives
                    Washington, D.C. 20515-3603

The Honorable Newt Gingrich
Speaker
U.S. House of Representatives
H-232, The Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Speaker:

As you know, there is a large bloc of Democrats who were vehemently
opposed to including a ban on firearms in President Clinton's
Omnibus Crime Bill signed into law during the 103rd Congress.  The
purpose of this letter is to let you know that we remain opposed
the gun ban and are resolute in our commitment to repealing this
ill-conceived measure at the first opportunity.  Such an
opportunity appears to be at hand with the Republican " Contract
with America" crime bill scheduled for Judiciary Committee mark-up
January 25th.

We believe that a central theme established by the most recent
Congressional elections is that the American people strongly resent
government intrusions into their personal freedoms.  As a party
which has always striven to represent individual freedom, as a
group we are going to work to focus our leadership's attention on
the importance of this issue for the system of government for which
we share a common love.

With this purpose in mind, we hope that you and the rest of the
Republican leadership will join us in supporting the inclusion of
a repeal of this gun as original text in the bill when it is marked
up and reported by Judiciary Committee in the coming weeks.  If
such a provision is not included in the Sub-Committee or Committee
mark, it is our intention to offer an amendment to the Rules
Committee to accomplish this purpose.  With this correspondence we
wish to inform you and the rest of the Republican Leadership it is
our full intention to use every parliamentary opportunity and
procedure to repeal the ban.  It is our sincere hope that we will
be able to work in full cooperation with the Republican leadership
and party on this most important issue.

If we can be of assistance in bringing the facts of this issue to
the attention of the American people please call on us.  It is our
belief that our nation is served best by those who support the
rights inimical to preserving their personal freedom.  We urge you
to join with us in addressing this issue, and look forward to your
reply.

Sincerely,

Bill K. Brewster (D-OK)                 W. J. (Billy) Tauzin (D-LA)
Ralph Hall (D-TX)                       Charlie Stenholm (D-TX)
Collin Peterson (D-MN)                  Gene Taylor (D-MS)
Greg Laughlin (D-TX)                    Nathan Deal (D-GA)
Bill Orton (D-UT)                       Karen Thurman (D-FL)
James Hayes (D-LA)                      Pete Geren (D-TX)
John Tanner (D-TN)                      Mike Parker (D-MS)
Glenn Poshard (D-IL)                    Rick Boucher (D-VA)
Lee Hamilton (D-IN)                     John Murtha (D-PA)
Robert (Bud) Cramer, Jr. (D-AL)         Jim Chapman (D-TX)
Harold Volkmer (D-MO)                   Gene Green (D-TX)
L.F. Payne (D-TX)                       Frank Tejeda (D-TX)
Chales Wilson (D-TX)                    Soloman P. Ortiz (D-TX)
--
This information is presented as a service to the Internet community
by the NRA/ILA.  Many files are available via anonymous ftp from
ftp.nra.org, via WWW at http://www.nra.org, via gopher at gopher.nra.org,
and via WAIS at wais.nra.org

Be sure to subscribe to the NRA mailing lists.  Send the word help
as the body of a message to listproc@NRA.org

Information can also be obtained by connecting to the NRA-ILA GUN-TALK
BBS at (703) 934-2121.

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: by easynet.crl.dec.com; id AA29069; Wed, 25 Jan 95 00:10:51 -0500
% Received: by crl.dec.com; id AA29705; Tue, 24 Jan 95 22:28:45 -0500
% Received: by gatekeeper.nra.org (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3)id AA27126; Tue, 24 Jan 1995 22:21:17 -0500
% Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 22:21:17 -0500
% Message-Id: <9501250321.AA27126@gatekeeper.nra.org>
% Reply-To: alerts@gatekeeper.nra.org
% Originator: rkba-alert@nra.org
% Sender: rkba-alert@gatekeeper.nra.org
% Precedence: bulk
% From: alerts@gatekeeper.nra.org (NRA Alerts)
% To: Multiple recipients of list <rkba-alert@gatekeeper.nra.org>
% Subject: INFO! Bloc of Democrats who want firearms ban lifted!
% X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
% X-Comment: NRA Alerts list

From:	US4RMC::"starrd@iia.org" "MAIL-11 Daemon" 25-JAN-1995 18:26:33.59
To:	Multiple recipients of list <rkba-alert@mainstream.com>
CC:	
Subj:	Patriot's Archives


Greetings!


I am a ShareBook author/compiler, I would like to make my files available
to you.    They include such titles as:

CASE CITES
Hundreds of case cites, covering Constitutional law, taxes, admiralty,
jurisdiction, common-law, 14th amendment, etc.

GREAT DOCUMENTS OF HISTORY
Complete text of the U.S. Constitution, California Constitution, Magna
Carta, Declaration of Independence, plus many more!)

HOW TO COMPLETE A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST TO THE GOVERNMENT
There are over 50 government agencies that each could have a file on you!
The FBI, IRS, DEA, CIA, BATF, and all the other organizations of the
government.  This disk shows how to process a Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) request.  It even includes complete directions, forms, and even how
to appeal the request!

THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
This disk goes into detail on the legal definations of weapons, 2nd Amendment
case cites, the text of the "Brady Bill," and the true intent (with proof) of
the Brady Bill.  This disk is a must for gun owners who want to keep them!

THE NEW WORLD ORDER
This ShareBook contains lots of informations covering all aspects of the
New World Order, FEMA, etc...what you don't know can kill you!


Along the same lines, we have another ShareBook that is called...

FEMA I:  WHAT FEMA, FBI & NSA HAVE IN MIND FOR YOU
This ShareBook contains information about the concentration camps that are
already built on American soil all ready to go, seizing and closing borders,
food supplies, etc.  This ShareBook contains the executive order numbers and
text!  This ShareBook proves what FEMA really is intended for!

And one of our most popular disk...

1984 OR VARIOUS WAYS THE GOVERNMENT SUSPENDS PRIVACY
This incredibly popular disk covers brainwashing, the Clipper chip - used for
listening in on private phone calls, Tempest technology - used to tap in on
what is on your computer screen at any moment, President Clinton's bill to
outlaw EVERY method of encryption but his own (DES), complete tutorial about
encryption, exact way the gov't will be structured under the United Nations,
methods to be used to disarm the citizens, the executive orders (including
numbers) that will be activated to achieve this goal!   This ShareBook even
details how Nazi-designed propaganda techniques are in use today - on YOU!
Plus MUCH more!!

When you see 1984, you will see why it is our most popular disk, it's
incredible!  The information is truely mind boggling!


So you can see that all the ShareBooks are very interesting reading!

Running a ShareBook is easy!  Each of the ShareBooks is made so that the
user just types "Begin" and a electronic-book-on-disk format displays on
the screen, and the user just moves through the book with the arrow keys
and the ESC key!  No configuration required whatsoever!  It can run on a
floppy or hard disk based system!  It will run under DOS, DR-DOS, PC-DOS,
MS-DOS or Windows(tm) and almost anything else!  No compatablity problems!


If you would like to read the ShareBooks, please drop me a note and I will
see to it that you get a copy of one or all of them - your choice!

Please note that this is only a sampling of the titles available...over 25
titles in all are available.  List provided upon request.


Please send notes on Internet to starrd@iia.org


SD: 940606


************************** From:starrd@iia.org ***************************
* Access our worldwide interactive FAXified(sm) Database by calling      * 
* 1-800-947-3650, enter "054" for info & index.  Hundreds of categories! *
*     Get paid to upload shareware, get file UPLOADER.ZIP at our ftp     *
* Home of the original Patriot's Archive * files avail. via email or ftp *
*   --->  Server: mary.iia.org   *   cd /pub/users/patriot  <---         *
*   IP address: (198.4.75.9) * Read textfile "descript.ion" for index    *
**************************************************************************


% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from inet-gw-3.pa.dec.com by us4rmc.pko.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA19030; Wed, 25 Jan 95 18:25:13 -050
% Received: from n8ino.mainstream.com by inet-gw-3.pa.dec.com (5.65/10Aug94) id AA10394; Wed, 25 Jan 95 15:19:38 -080
% Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by n8ino.mainstream.com (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id SAA15056; Wed, 25 Jan 1995 18:01:48 -0500
% Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 18:01:48 -0500
% Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.90.950125175430.24264B-100000@iia.org>
% Errors-To: listproc@Mainstream.com
% Reply-To: starrd@iia.org
% Originator: rkba-alert@mainstream.com
% Sender: rkba-alert@Mainstream.com
% Precedence: bulk
% From: "starrd@iia.org" <starrd@iia.org>
% To: Multiple recipients of list <rkba-alert@mainstream.com>
% Subject: Patriot's Archives
% X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
% X-Comment: RKBA Alerts list

From:	CRL::"alerts@gatekeeper.nra.org" "MAIL-11 Daemon" 26-JAN-1995 22:00:14.22
To:	Multiple recipients of list <rkba-alert@gatekeeper.nra.org>
CC:	
Subj:	UPDATE: House leaders and NRA leaders meet regarding 2nd amendment

January 26, 1995

NRA-ILA Legislative Update for the 104th Congress:

NRA leaders met for nearly one and one-half hours Wednesday with
Speaker Newt Gingrich and the entire Republican House leadership,
along with NRA board member Sen. Larry Craig.

The outcome of the meeting was a commitment from the leadership to
work "in partnership" with NRA in what Speaker Gingrich called "a
coherent Second Amendment strategy to define gun ownership as a
constitutional right, not a duck hunting right."

The House leadership recognizes the very real threat that President
Clinton would veto a repeal bill, and plans a multifaceted strategy
to win support for repeal and reform of firearms laws this year.  The
leadership plans to hold a series of hearings on federal law
enforcement abuses including the Waco and Randy Weaver incidents,
which will educate Americans about the gun laws on the books, and
show how they're used to harass innocent citizens instead of
punishing criminals.  Speaker Gingrich promised to wipe out the
budgets of abusive agencies if necessary.

On the GOP's "Contract with America" crime bill, the leadership plans
to offer a total of 6 or 7 bills rather than one omnibus bill.  One
of those bills will deal with the gun ban repeal and other related 
issues.  These bills will be considered between now and early May.

ILA Executive Director Tanya Metaksa called this new strategy "a
Second Amendment partnership", and one of the best opportunities
we've ever had to work productively with the top Congressional
leadership to win further victories for gun owners' rights -- and,
perhaps equally important, broaden public understanding of guns,
crime, and the meaning of the Second Amendment.

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: by easynet.crl.dec.com; id AA10802; Thu, 26 Jan 95 22:01:02 -0500
% Received: by crl.dec.com; id AA18059; Thu, 26 Jan 95 21:54:56 -0500
% Received: by gatekeeper.nra.org (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3)id AA19802; Thu, 26 Jan 1995 21:39:59 -0500
% Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 21:39:59 -0500
% Message-Id: <9501270239.AA19802@gatekeeper.nra.org>
% Reply-To: alerts@gatekeeper.nra.org
% Originator: rkba-alert@nra.org
% Sender: rkba-alert@gatekeeper.nra.org
% Precedence: bulk
% From: alerts@gatekeeper.nra.org (NRA Alerts)
% To: Multiple recipients of list <rkba-alert@gatekeeper.nra.org>
% Subject: UPDATE: House leaders and NRA leaders meet regarding 2nd amendment
% X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
% X-Comment: NRA Alerts list

    Could someone tell me what the fansination(sp?)is that the americans
    have with guns.A lot of americans seem to have at least 1 gun,some have
    2 or 3 and some have even more.Why???Is it "macho" to own a gun?
    Are they status symbols??.Are they purely for protection against gun
    totting thugs?Explain please.
    
    	Dougie.
    	

    Penis substitutes,Dougie.
    

Personal security and the power to keep the government in check.

/scott

    <--- So, you guys are one election away from a Nazi state then?

 Gee, here's a topic we've never discussed in here

    >Could someone tell me what the fansination(sp?)is that the americans
    >have with guns. A lot of americans seem to have at least 1 gun, some have
                    ^                                               ^
       a space goes here                                      also here

    >2 or 3 and some have even more. Why??? Is it "macho" to own a gun?
                                    ^      ^
               another space goes here and here

    >Are they status symbols??. Are they purely for protection against gun
                               ^
                     one goes here

    >totting thugs? Explain please.
                   ^
     and one more here
    

    :^)
    	

    >>..and the power to keep the government in check.
    So if the government upset enough people,you would what??Start a
    revolution??

    moderator(s) please move this...
    
    BTW, what your fascination with the fascination?

    re: .5
    
    Actually, you should have 2 spaces between a period and the next
    letter, at least, that's the way I was taught.
    
    -steve

>    <--- So, you guys are one election away from a Nazi state then?

The Nazi state had the strongest (at the time) gun control laws of any
country... all in the name of "peace" and "stopping the violence"...
so Hitler said...

I don't buy for a moment that the people pushing for gun bans and strong
gun control are concerned for either of the above... And I believe that
giving citizens access to whatever gun/ammo they want is very important... 
If ever this country fell apart, how would we defend ourselves if we do not 
have the needed firepower for at least a fighting chance??? You might think 
it extreme, but it is silly to think that it could never happen here... All 
countries fall apart someday, and a lot of those end up in a very violent
state. If the citizens are not armed, we stand the chance to loose all of 
our freedoms...

After all, the Bill of Rights doesn't talk about the right to bear arms for
hunting, rather for "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the 
security of a free State"

BTW, I don't own any guns nor do I belong to the NRA... so don't peg me into
that hole...

/Scott

>    >>..and the power to keep the government in check.
>    So if the government upset enough people,you would what??Start a
>    revolution??

see my .9, to understand what I mean...

/Scott

    re.7
    Just curious. 

    re: .0
    
    They were a good buy at the auction......? 

    someone said it already, phallus obsessive... :-)

    Mr. Collins:
    
    Just as a side note, there is only one space after a comma...not two.
    He should have put a semi colon in place of the comma!

    
    
    The workings of the mechanism.  Truly a mechanical work of art.
    
    Sport.  Trying to better your groupings and getting the shots in the
    black at a set distance in a set timeframe.
    
    Protection.  
    
    

    
    Jack,
    
    I *did* only put one space after the comma; what are you talking about?
    
    You're right, though, that should have been a semi-colon.
    
    And I didn't even want to *think* about the spelling!  :^)
    
    jc
    

>          <<< Note 21.486 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "Space for rent" >>>
    
>    The workings of the mechanism.  Truly a mechanical work of art.
    
>    Sport.  Trying to better your groupings and getting the shots in the
>    black at a set distance in a set timeframe.
    
>    Protection.  
        
        What Mike said - says it all fer me...
        
        Andy
        
        (Scots, not American [two guns as opposed to two sheds])
        
    
    

    Who is running on the Nazi ticket in '96?

>     <<< Note 21.489 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Belgian Burger Disseminator" >>>

>    Who is running on the Nazi ticket in '96?

Prolly Herr Klintoon again

    >Could someone tell me what the fansination(sp?)is that the americans
    >have with guns.A lot of americans seem to have at least 1 gun,some have
    >2 or 3 and some have even more.Why???Is it "macho" to own a gun?
    >Are they status symbols??.Are they purely for protection against gun
    >totting thugs?Explain please.
    
    It's not so much our fascination (NNTTM) with guns; it's our pesky
    fascination with liberty that gets your goat, isn't it?
    
    -b

    
    
    	yes, living in a free country does seem to baffle some folks...
    
    
    

    Ya but don't you see, if guns were kept legal, there would be no
    victims and the libs would lose a big part of their constituency!

    Who are these gun "totting" thugs?  I've not seen many tot-sized
    thugs, with or without guns.
    
    (&y, if got rid of your guns, would your friends call you "No Guns"
     Fraser?)

	Based on a survey conducted in 1978

	Primary reason to own/use firearms:
	Hunting 	51%
	Protection 	32%
	Target shooting	13%
	Collecting	 4%

	Primary reasons to own/use handguns:
	Hunting 	10%
	Protection 	58%
	Target shooting	18%
	Collecting	14%

Jim

    Some people aren't telling the truth.

    
    
    	why do you say that Mr. Richardson?
    
    
    

                       Test for the Truth

                          An Address by

                      Mrs. Tanya K. Metaksa

                       Executive Director
              NRA Institute for Legislative Action

                    at a seminar sponsored by
 
            The Women's Resources and Research Center
            and The Rape Prevention Education Program

                    University of California
                        Davis, California

                        January 18, 1995


I am happy to speak to the women of the University of California at
Davis for one reason:   you're not politicians, you're students.  

And because you're students, I know you test for the truth.  

You want correctness, not political correctness.  

You reject preconceived notions.  

You hear all sides.

You test for the truth -- not only the truth for women throughout
our society -- but the truth for you  ... personally .

You don't make hasty judgements, and you don't let propaganda cloud
your judgement.

Or do you?  

Before we test for the truth about the Second Amendment and lawful
gun ownership by women, let's test ourselves.  

In reading literature distributed before this seminar, I learned
that we would be discussing, 

     " ... how the NRA's marketing of guns to women compares with
     [NRA's] marketing ... to men.:

Let's have a show of hands.  How many of you believe that NRA
should not be marketing guns to women, quoting again, playing into
women's fears, providing a false sense of security?  

Let's see the hands ... 

Well, that's very gratifying.  Those of you who raised your hands
passed the test.  Because, you see, I, too, believe that NRA should
not be marketing guns to women and providing a false sense of
security.

Now, are you ready for the truth?

NRA does not market guns to women.  We are a service, not a sales,
organization of 3.5 million Americans -- hundreds of thousands of
whom are women -- who believe that the Constitution is neither
technicality nor luxury. 

NRA is 35,000 certified instructors -- many of them women -- who
teach safe firearms handling to three-quarters of a million
Americans every year.  

NRA is elementary school teachers who teach an accident prevention
message that has reached six million youngsters across the nation -
- a program whose creator -- also a woman -- won the National
Safety Council's top honors for community service in 1994.  

NRA is a coalition that has lobbied successfully for victims'
rights, truth in sentencing and other criminal justice reforms in
more states than you can imagine.  In fact, NRA put 3 Strikes on
the books in Washington state more than a year before President
Clinton spoke out for it in his '94 State of the Union Address.

And the leader of the NRA division that does all that ...  is a
woman. 

NRA is also people from different walks of life.  I am the daughter
of Russian emigres.  My mother was a dancer.  My father was a
theater director who read me Shakespeare as a little girl,
translating from the Russian into English.  I was a wife, a fifth
grade school teacher and mother who never gave the Second Amendment
the first thought when my husband first took me to a shooting
range.    I qualified as Range Master at my husband's gun club.
Because I was a women, however, I could not qualify as a member of
that club.  

Times change.  

I am now a grandmother.  And I am the chief lobbyist of the biggest
gun club in America, the National Rifle Association.  

I am not here to persuade you to join NRA or feel any better about
why we fight so hard for what we believe in.

At the end of this evening, I would be happy -- even count it as a
victory -- if most of you left with this pledge in mind:

On the issues of lawful gun ownership and gun control, I will ...

Test for the truth before I forfeit any freedom ...
And I will test for the truth sooner rather than later -- and more 
rather then less.

Isn't it time for you to test for the truth?  The most critical
domestic issue facing women in America is violent crime and what we 
do about it.  

But let's not kid ourselves.  The most critical domestic issue
facing each one of you is violent crime ... 

... and what you are going to do about it -- 

... how you are going to make yourself and your loved ones safer. 

Don't think for a moment that you're merely witnessing an
intellectual clash.  Don't be fooled into thinking that this is
ivory tower warfare, or a test of the debating skills of the women
you see on this platform.

It's not.

All this talk really doesn't matter.  All the statistics and all
the rhetoric don't matter.  All this ... is about you.  What
matters ... is you.  

And you owe it -- to yourself -- to test for the truth.  

The fact is, you did come tonight with some preconceived notions. 
It's okay, many do.  Many come to this issue with the hunch that
restrictive gun control is a good idea -- until they tested for the
truth.   

The Professor of Criminology at Florida State University is a case
in point.  Professor Gary Kleck once had unquestioning support for
gun control.  Only his research persuaded him to abandon it.  On
his gradual conversion experience, Kleck had this to say: 

     "The problem is, few people give the issue any serious
     thought.  My support for gun control wasn't based on any
     empirical evidence.  I think this is still true [of people]
     today.  People believe in gun control without examining the
     evidence.   It seems logical that gun control will reduce
     crime and violence.  I can empathize with them, but common
     sense has its limits."

Perhaps the most noteworthy example of conversion in the social
science community is James Wright, the Favrot Professor of Human
Relations at Tulane, who was commissioned by the National Institute
of Justice under President Carter to make the intellectual case for
restrictive gun control.  

His marching orders were clear.  The Carter Administration wants
gun control.  His job: prove that it works.  

Unfortunately for President Carter, they picked someone who tested
for the truth.  

Carefully reviewing all existing research, Wright and other
scholars found no persuasive scholarly evidence that America's
20,000 gun-control laws had reduced criminal violence.   

Wright found that criminals obtain their guns through unregulated
channels, such as theft.  In a later study, Wright commented that
regulated channels (legitimate licensed dealers) represent, "a
minor and unimportant source," of felon arms.

In a later study of felons, Wright established that private
firearms ownership is not just a defense against crime, but may
well be a deterrent.   He found that fifty-six percent of prisoners
said that a criminal would not attack a potential victim who was
known to be armed.  Seventy-four percent agreed that one reason
burglars avoid houses where people are at home is that they fear
being shot during the crime.

Professor James Wright had become a convert, because he tested for
the truth.  Here's what Professor Wright says about his conversion
experience: 

     "[That] the best available evidence, critically considered,
     would eventually prove favorable to the pro-[gun-]control
     viewpoint was not in serious doubt -- at least not to me, not
     in the beginning.

     "In the course of our research, however, I have come to
     question nearly every element of the conventional wisdom about
     guns, crime and violence.   Indeed, I am of the opinion that
     a compelling case for strict gun control cannot be made,  at
     least not on empirical grounds."

And the latest research on the use of guns in self-defense has
established that Americans use firearms of all types for some self-
protective purpose as many as 2.4 to 2.5 million times annually. 
Indeed, scholarly research -- once depended on to prove gun
control's effectiveness -- has proven gun control useless and gun
ownership effective in thwarting criminal attack.   

Some other facts established by Kleck and other researchers in the
award-winning book Point Blank: 

     "Results generally indicate the gun was fired in less than
     half of the defensive uses ... 

     " ... Gun control proponents sometimes argue that only police
     have the special training skills and emotional control needed
     to wield guns effectively in self-defense.  They hint that
     would-be gun users are ineffectual, panic-prone hysterics, as
     likely to accidentally shoot a family member as a burglar. 
     Incidents in which householders shoot family members mistaken
     for burglars and other criminals do indeed occur, but they are
     extremely rare.  Studies ... indicate that fewer than 2% of
     fatal gun accidents involve a person accidentally shooting
     someone mistaken for an intruder.... Compared with ...
     defensive uses of guns, this translates into about a 1-in-
     26,000 chance of a defensive gun use resulting in this kind of
     accident.

     " ... It has been claimed that many people who attempt to use
     guns for self-protection have the gun taken from them by the
     criminal and used against them.... Although this type of
     incident is not totally unknown, it is extremely rare.... At
     most, 1% of defensive gun uses resulted in the offender taking
     a gun away from the victim....

     "Robbery and assault victims who used a gun to resist were
     less likely to be attacked or to suffer injury than those who
     used any other method of self-protection or those who did not
     resist at all.... [O]ther forms of forceful self-protection
     are far more risky than resisting with a gun."

Much has been made about an essay called Female Persuasion.  In
light of the raft of responsible research, the objective observer
would have to ask, why the fuss?

This tract is not a study by an independent researcher.  It is an
essay distributed by a gun prohibitionist organization, the
Violence Policy Center.  In its battle for the hearts of American
women, the Violence Policy Center forgets that American women have
minds, too.

As women, we not only have the right and the obligation to make our
own decisions about safety and security -- we have the intelligence
to do so.

It is out of recognition of that intelligence that I spearheaded a
group of women from the NRA board, staff and membership to create
a new program.  Called REFUSE TO BE A VICTIM, it is the first NRA
course of instruction that is NOT a gun course.  Taught by and for
women only, REFUSE TO BE A VICTIM does one thing: it enables women
to develop their own personal safety strategy, at home, in the
parking lot, on the road.  It is NOT a gun course. 

By the way, the most vocal critics of this program have never
experienced the program.  If you don't believe me, take the course. 
See for yourself.  Test for the truth.

In criticizing this program, my program, the Violence Policy Center
charged that we insist that women adopt NRA's world view, adding, 

     " ... women who don't buy into the NRA's world view are in
     fact choosing to be victims."

What is the NRA's world view?  That people should be prepared. 
That people, women in particular, are capable of making their own
decisions. 

What is our opposition's view?  That people shouldn't have a plan? 
That women are so emotional that they cannot test for the truth? 
That women are so susceptible that they are incapable of making
decisions on their own?  

You will probably hear from other speakers tonight that gun
ownership won't help you, that if you own a gun, you are more
likely to kill yourself than an intruder.   That's not just faulty
study methodology.  That's nonsense.  

Again, you must test for the truth.  And the truth is, too many in
the academy and in the public health community arrive at a prior
conclusion when it comes to gun ownership, and then look for a
yardstick short enough to prove their point.  

     The self-defense effectiveness of guns is not measured in
     lives taken, but lives saved.  

I've already mentioned the research which confirms that, in the
typical self-defense scenario, a shot is not fired.  How then can
the yardstick of self-defense effectiveness be lives taken, when no
shot is fired?  

Answer?  

It can't.  

Professor Robert Cottrol of Rutgers and Professor Raymoind Diamond
of Tulane recently wrote "The Second Amendment, Toward an African-
Americanist Reconsideration." I think the voices of these African-
American scholars should be heard in our discussion tonight.  

Listen: 

     "For all too many black Americans," they wrote, "the state's
     power and inclination to protect them ... historically has not
     been available."

The scholars raise two important questions: state power and state
inclination.  Is there some truth here for American women?  

Does the state have the power to protect us?  As good as a job as
our police do, can they be everywhere?  

The second question raised by the scholars is much more troubling: 
is the state inclined to protect us? 

Again, not always a perfect score.     

Last week in D.C., criminals raided a woman's home.  They were
armed with masking tape and gasoline, a particularly grisly form of
witness intimidation.  The woman defended herself and her family
with a handgun.  But handguns are banned in the District of
Columbia.  Now, this family was going to be burned alive.  This
woman chose a more noble route -- fighting back.  But, by defending
herself and her family, the woman could face imprisonment.  Is this
the picture of state power inclined to protect victims?  Or a state
inclined to indict them?

Like many, many other scholars, law professors Cottrol and Diamond
affirmed the Second Amendment as guaranteeing an individual right. 
They concluded their analysis in this way: 

     " ... a society with a dismal record of protecting a people
     has a dubious claim on the right to disarm them.  Perhaps a
     re-examination of this history can lead us to a modern
     realization of what the framers of the Second Amendment
     understood: that it is unwise to place the means of protection
     totally in the hands of the state, and that self-defense is
     also a civil right."

Indeed, hundreds of years after the ink dried on the Bill of
Rights, a federal judge, in U.S. versus Panter, wrote simply, 

     The right to defend oneself against deadly attack is
     fundamental.

Never think that this discussion tonight has been about ... some
grand policy matter ... some intellectual exercise.  

Tonight has been about you.  You have the ability to decide for
yourself.  Indeed, you have the freedom to decide for yourself.  

Let me paraphrase what I mentioned a moment ago. 
  
     Your right to defend yourself against deadly attack is
     fundamental.

Now it's your turn ... to take that right one step further -- by
tackling the one question only you can answer, a question you have
the intellectual freedom to answer:  

     If my right to defend myself is fundamental, is self-defense
     a moral imperative ... for me? 

Thank you. 

    Well, some people want to have one cause it's cool. Some people want
    one so they can kill other people.

>    Well, some people want to have one cause it's cool. Some people want
>    one so they can kill other people.

Wow... how long did it take you to come up with this golden nugget of logic?

/scott

    
    
    RE: .500  Glenn, perhaps, by looking at your last reply, you might want
    to add Beavis or Butthead to your personality list. ;')

    I wasn't testing anything.

    If there was a box on a survey that said  [ ] Commit Homicide, how
    many would put a tick mark there?

>    I wasn't testing anything.
>
>    If there was a box on a survey that said  [ ] Commit Homicide, how
>    many would put a tick mark there?

I'm not sure what drugs you're taking, but could I have some? I'd like to
try and understand where you are coming from with your logic!!!

/scott

>    I wasn't testing anything.
>
>    If there was a box on a survey that said  [ ] Commit Homicide, how
>    many would put a tick mark there?

How many law abiding citizens would put a mark there? in the USA in Canada?
The answer is none.

Those that would say yes are not obtaining guns thru the lawfull channels
but you knew that.

Amos

    Are you saying that all guns used in homicides are illegally obtained?

   >Could someone tell me what the fansination(sp?)is that the americans
    >have with guns.A lot of americans seem to have at least 1 gun,some have
    >2 or 3 and some have even more.Why???Is it "macho" to own a gun?
    >Are they status symbols??.Are they purely for protection against gun
    >totting thugs?Explain please.
  
  Most gun owners do not have a facination with guns. Most anti-gun folks
  do.

  Most who own guns do so not out of facination (since there is little 
  facinating about them) but do so for practicle reasons. One that hasn't
  been listed is to excersize your right to have one lest the government
  infringe on it anymore than they already have (read: government 
  shortsightedness).

  Doug.

    
    21.506, Amos:
    
     >you deserve the Canadian gov't you got
    
    What in the current string brought forth this non sequiter?  Would this 
    be similar to me saying "You deserve the Crime Bill you got", or "You
    deserve the murder rate you got"?
    

  |Most gun owners do not have a facination with guns. Most anti-gun folks
  |do.

    Was this little nugget of truth obtained from a survey?

    As a gun owner, are you fascinated with guns? yes[ ] no[ ]
    
    
    Pardon me while I roll another joint.

  >  Was this little nugget of truth obtained from a survey?

  Nope, Just my observations ... 

  After all, It's not the gun owners making the big stink over guns, its 
  the anti's ...


  Doug.

>    Are you saying that all guns used in homicides are illegally obtained?

	No, only about 99.7%. Why don't you order professor Gary Klecks study
and research the data for yerself?


jim

    What is a typical model of how a gun is illegally obtained in the U.S.? 
    From the factory to the thug what is the flow?

    >From the factory to the thug what is the flow?
    
    What does abortion have to do with this? :-)

    Pardon me while you roll me a joint.

     <<< Note 21.513 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Belgian Burger Disseminator" >>>

>    What is a typical model of how a gun is illegally obtained in the U.S.? 
>    From the factory to the thug what is the flow?

	Not sure if there is a "typical". Most involve theft, from individuals,
	from gun stores, by hijacking shipments, stealing from National
	Guard armories or other government installations. Some involve
	smuggling. A few involve illegal purchases from legitimate sources.

Jim

	BTW, even if you did have the "for homicide" box and EVERYONE
	who committed a murder with a gun checked it. The stat would
	come out to 8 ten thousandths of 1 percent, which would likely
	be grouped into a category called "other".
 

[This message contains a copy of a FAX from Speaker Gingrich followed
 by a Press Release from the ILA concerning the new partnership with
 congress.  Craig.]

January 28th, 1994

Dear Fellow Supporters of Repealing the Gun Ban:

I received this letter by fax late Friday afternoon, January
27th, in response to the meeting between NRA and Republican
House Leadership.

Mrs. Tanya Metaksa.


Newt Gingrich                                     (202) 225-2800
Sixth District
Georgia                       (U.S. SEAL)
                         Office of the Speaker
               United States House of Representatives
                         Washington, DC  20515

                           January 27, 1995
 
Ms. Tanya Metaksa
National Rifle Association
11250 Waples Mill Road
Fairfax. Virginia 22030
 
Dear Tanya,
 
There were several articles in the paper regarding discussions that
we have been having with the NRA and other fire-arms freedom groups
regarding repealing the gun ban and other issues affecting the
Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans.
 
Let me say that this is both a discussion among friends but more
importantly among like-minded individuals.  As long as I am Speaker
of this House, no gun control legislation is going to move in
committee or on the floor of this House and there will be no
further erosion of their rights.
 
What we are going to have is a partnership of strengthening laws
against the criminal misuse of firearms, which everyone agrees is
the real problem issue, and eliminating harassment of law abiding
gun owners who are not the problem.
 
Republicans want to demonstrate the Second Amendment is more about
the fundamental rights of the people in a government of and by the
people.  Our purpose is to remove ill-conceived and unnecessary
government interference in those rights.
 
I look forward to working with you.

 
Your friend,
 
(signed)
Newt Gingrich

[The Press Release...]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                   For further information, 
January 27, 1995                        call:   NRA Public Affairs
                                        703-267-3820
                                
                        NRA GAINS GROUND 
       AFTER MEETINGS WITH HOUSE LEADERSHIP, KEY DEMOCRATS
              "A New Second Amendment Partnership"

Washington, D.C. -- When President Bill Clinton promised in his
State of the Union Address not to allow repeal of his 1994 gun and
magazine ban, he was not expecting to prompt a new Second Amendment
partnership or a new Second Amendment strategy -- but he prompted
both. 

"There will be a repeal," Mrs. Tanya K. Metaksa assured the
President.  "We will give Bill Clinton the chance to keep his
word," NRA's chief lobbyist continued, "with one critical
difference: he will face a massive effort aimed at educating the
Congress and the public."

In the twenty-four hours following the President's address,
meetings were held between officials of the National Rifle
Association of America, House leadership and key Democrats.  A new
Second Amendment partnership was struck and a new pro-gun-rights
strategy emerged.  

"I am pleased to announce a new partnership and a new strategy
developed in concert with a former history professor, Speaker of
the House Newt Gingrich, and me, a former high school teacher,"
said Mrs. Tanya K. Metaksa, NRA chief lobbyist.  "Not surprisingly,
the primary component of this strategy is education."

Mrs. Metaksa said the new partnership will generate the most
comprehensive hearings and spark the most profound public debate on
guns, crime and freedom in years.  "Instead of a lone NRA witness
being lost in the last panel of a Congressional hearing and being
heard only after the cameras have gone home, our witnesses will be
heard early, with the cameras rolling.  The entire Congress will
hear the truth about the Second Amendment and the uselessness of
gun bans.  So will America."

In correspondence to Mrs. Metaksa today, Speaker Gingrich wrote:
"Republicans want to demonstrate the Second Amendment is more about
the fundamental rights of the people in a government of and by the
people.  Our purpose is to remove ill-conceived and unnecessary
government interference in those rights."

                          -- nra --   
--
This information is presented as a service to the Internet community
by the NRA/ILA.  Many files are available via anonymous ftp from
ftp.nra.org, via WWW at http://www.nra.org, via gopher at gopher.nra.org,
and via WAIS at wais.nra.org

Be sure to subscribe to the NRA mailing lists.  Send the word help
as the body of a message to listproc@NRA.org

Information can also be obtained by connecting to the NRA-ILA GUN-TALK
BBS at (703) 934-2121.

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: by easynet.crl.dec.com; id AA07471; Sat, 28 Jan 95 18:00:23 -0500
% Received: by crl.dec.com; id AA11517; Sat, 28 Jan 95 17:55:05 -0500
% Received: by gatekeeper.nra.org (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3)id AA04112; Sat, 28 Jan 1995 17:38:31 -0500
% Date: Sat, 28 Jan 1995 17:38:31 -0500
% Message-Id: <9501282238.AA04112@gatekeeper.nra.org>
% Reply-To: alerts@gatekeeper.nra.org
% Originator: rkba-alert@nra.org
% Sender: rkba-alert@gatekeeper.nra.org
% Precedence: bulk
% From: alerts@gatekeeper.nra.org (NRA Alerts)
% To: Multiple recipients of list <rkba-alert@gatekeeper.nra.org>
% Subject: UPDATE! Gingrich and NRA Working Together on Gun Issue
% X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
% X-Comment: NRA Alerts list

     <<< Note 21.491 by MPGS::MARKEY "Investors in fine Belgian jewelry" >>>

>    It's not so much our fascination (NNTTM) with guns; it's our pesky
>    fascination with liberty that gets your goat, isn't it?

Yeah, we've got a monopoly on the liberty thing. The rest of the world 
hungers to be oppressed.

...I wonder where the concept of "ugly American" came from...

If I may venture a guess about our uncivilized brethren oversees (or due 
north), I think what puzzles them is the vehemence with which we insist on 
our right to have and to hold as many guns of whatever type our hearts 
desire, while living in a country with far and away the highest violent 
crime rate in the world.

    >Yeah, we've got a monopoly on the liberty thing. The rest of the world 
    >hungers to be oppressed.

    >...I wonder where the concept of "ugly American" came from...
    
    This is truly, truly funny. Did you drool on your Chairman Mao
    outfit while you were typing this Tom?
    
    -b

    Uh, I don't care what they call me...they're not getting my gun!!
    
    By the way Tom, how do you explain Washington DC?
    
    -Jack

    well, most of our esteemed brethren's countries have been overrun
    at least once in their histories... that must say somethin', eh?
    
    Chip

    
    
    re -1
    
    	good 'un....:)
    
         

    re.121   When I was at school I had a teacher that used to say." America
    the so called Mighty war machine  has only really ever been in 4/5 wars...
    (and all these little countries like Greneda,Panama,Hiati etc. don't count
    as a war as this is just bullying).
     	The first was they war in which they beat the British and gained
    independance. Then there was WW I/II where they came in when the
    British had done most of the ground work and the war was almost finished
    anyway, and Vietnam which America lost." Probably the most significant
    war which America won was one in which they were fighting each other in
    the civil war".
                     So really in the cold light of day Uncle Sam is not as
    tough as you all like to make out he is.
    
    Dougie. 

    
    
    Nice wind up, Dougie. :') 
    
    
    
    Mike

    So I guess the War of 1812 and Korea doesn`t fit in and neither does
    the Spanish/American War. I`d like that teacher to tell the survivors
    of those wars that the death of a significan other don`t really count.
    It amazes me the ignorance of professional people that spread such
    filth. 

    
    re:<<< Note 21.523 by MASALA::DALEXANDER "Centuwian...stwike him woughly!>>>
    
    
    	Oh puhleeze......what in the world does this have to do with gun
    control? sounds like your teacher had an inferiority complex....
    
    
    jim

    And the teacher was also incorrect, Vietnam was never OFFICIALLY a war.
    
    ME

	ah yes, the Vietnam CONFLICT......

    Sorry, my last note is re-.521  and not .121 as I said.

    Neither was Korea a war...it was action taken by the United Nations.

    
    Yup.... them Brits were really beating the snot outa them Krauts at
    Dunkirk before they decided it wasn't worth the hassle... yup...
    

    I must disagree with my countryman. We needed the help in WWII but
    could have done without the sh*tload of yank bairns that were left
    all over the place.
    			Davi.

    I think our help could have been better used in the Pacific at the
    time. If it were not for Europe Bataan Death March might never have
    happened and MacArther might never have said, "I shall return".

    ... yeah, plus a really fair showing in Asia too with the Japanese
        knocking on India's door.
    
        i'm not sitting here knocking the Brits. they paid severely for 
        their involvement. i consider them with respect and character,
        but, don't, don't even try to go there (didn't need help).
    
        the remark is pure ignorance.
    
        the Japanese would still have rolled over the pacific. our presence
        was very week and the rising sun's juggernaut was, initially, un-
        stoppable. we didn't have the resources to deploy or adequate time
        to deploy (even if we had the resources).
    
        Chip 

    .534
    The only reason we didn`t have the resources in the Pacific was
    everything went to Europe (I`m not singleing out any one European
    Country). Everything went into D-DAy in 1944 while Wainwright was
    surrendering (close in time). Its not a matter of the Japaness lossing
    but it would have been sooner had the resources been available.

        <<< Note 21.519 by MPGS::MARKEY "Ban assault tuna sandwiches" >>>

>    This is truly, truly funny. Did you drool on your Chairman Mao
>    outfit while you were typing this Tom?

One of the most dispiriting things I've learned since plunging into the 
'box is that their are apparently intelligent people, even people who like 
to think of themselves as artists, who can spout idealogical tripe with 
the best of 'em.

Why do the folks that make the biggest to-do about individual liberty seem 
so willing to abandon individuality?

    
     RE: .535
    
    
    Sorry.. you're way off on your dates...
    
    The surrender was in 1942
    
    The problem was that Japan needed a killing blow at the end of 1941 and
    then deal/negotiate from a position of strength...
    
      What they got was a crippling blow when they didn't get the carriers
    they expected to...
    
      They were fearful of the US's resources and ability to bring their
    production to a war-time capacity...
    
      The US (and its allies) had to rely on a holding action until that
    capacity came up to steam....
    
      They were right....

    .537
    Thanks. I thought the surrender was closer to D-Day. I had an older
    brother in the Death March. I didn`t realize that he was a POW for that
    long.

    re; .535 meant early on (prior to significant escalation/focus
             on the ero-campaign. more specifically, our presence
             prior to Pearl Harbor.
    
             Chip

     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   The following article is appearing in the Orange County (CA) Register
   on Sunday, September 19, 1993, and an upcoming issue of Gun Week.
   Reproduction on computer bulletin boards is permitted for
   informational purposes only.
   
   Copyright (c) 1993 by J. Neil Schulman. All other rights reserved.
   
   
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
PRIVATE FIREARMS STOP CRIME 2.5 MILLION TIMES EACH YEAR, NEW UNIVERSITY SURVEY
                                   CONFIRMS
                                       
   
   
By J. Neil Schulman

   
   
   Gary Kleck, Ph.D. is a professor in the School of Criminology and
       Criminal Justice at Florida State University in Tallahassee and
       author of "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America" (Aldine de
       Gruyter, 1991), a book widely cited in the national gun-control
       debate. In an exclusive interview, Dr. Kleck revealed some
       preliminary results of the National Self- Defense Survey which he
       and his colleague Dr. Marc Gertz conducted in Spring, 1993. Though
       he stresses that the results of the survey are preliminary and
       subject to future revision, Kleck is satisfied that the survey's
       results confirm his analysis of previous surveys which show that
       American civilians commonly use their privately-owned firearms to
       defend themselves against criminal attacks, and that such
       defensive uses significantly outnumber the criminal uses of
       firearms in America.
       
       The new survey, conducted by random telephone sampling of 4,978
       households in all the states except Alaska and Hawaii, yield
       results indicating that American civilians use their firearms as
       often as 2.5 million times every year defending against a
       confrontation with a criminal, and that handguns alone account for
       up to 1.9 million defenses per year. Previous surveys, in Kleck's
       analysis, had underrepresented the extent of private firearms
       defenses because the questions asked failed to account for the
       possibility that a particular respondent might have had to use his
       or her firearm more than once.
       
       Dr. Kleck will first present his survey results at an upcoming
       meeting of the American Society of Criminology, but he agreed to
       discuss his preliminary analysis, even though it is uncustomary to
       do so in advance of complete peer review, because of the great
       extent which his earlier work is being quoted in public debates on
       firearms public policy.
       
       The interview was conducted September 14-17, 1993 by J. Neil
       Schulman, a novelist, screenwriter, and journalist who has written
       extensively on firearms public policy for several years.
       
       Readers may be interested to know that Kleck is a member of the
       ACLU, Amnesty International USA, and Common Cause, among other
       politically liberal organizations. He is also a lifelong
       registered Democrat. He is not and has never been a member of or
       contributor to the NRA, Handgun Control Inc., or any other
       advocacy group on either side of the gun-control issue, nor has he
       received funding for research from any such organization.
       
   
   
   
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   SCHULMAN: Dr. Kleck, can you tell me generally what was discovered in
   your recent survey that wasn't previously known?
   
   KLECK: Well, the survey mostly generated results pretty consistent
   with those of a dozen previous surveys which generally indicates that
   defensive use of guns is pretty common and probably more common than
   criminal uses of guns. This survey went beyond previous ones in that
   it provided detail about how often people who had used a gun had done
   so. We asked people was the gun used defensively in the past five
   years and if so how many times did that happen and we asked details
   about what exactly happened. We nailed down that each use being
   reported was a bona fide defensive use against a human being in
   connection with a crime where there was an actual confrontation
   between victim and offender. Previous surveys were a little hazy on
   the details of exactly what was being reported as a defensive gun use.
   It wasn't, for example, clear that the respondents weren't reporting
   investigating a suspicious noise in their back yard with a gun where
   there was, in fact, nobody there. Our results ended up indicating,
   depending on which figures you prefer to use, anywhere from 800,000 on
   up to 2.4, 2.5 million defensive uses of guns against human beings --
   not against animals -- by civilians each year.
   
   SCHULMAN: Okay. Let's see if we can pin down some of these figures. I
   understand you asked questions having to do with just the previous one
   year. Is that correct?
   
   KLECK: That's correct. We asked both for recollections about the
   preceding five years and for just what happened in the previous one
   year, the idea being that people would be able to remember more
   completely what had happened just in the past year.
   
   SCHULMAN: And your figures reflect this?
   
   KLECK: Yes. The estimates are considerably higher if they're based on
   people's presumably more-complete recollection of just what happened
   in the previous year.
   
   SCHULMAN: Okay. So you've given us the definition of what a "defense"
   is. It has to be an actual confrontation against a human being
   attempting a crime? Is that correct?
   
   KLECK: Correct.
   
   SCHULMAN: And it excludes all police, security guards, and military
   personnel?
   
   KLECK: That's correct.
   
   SCHULMAN: Okay. Let's ask the "one year" question since you say that's
   based on better recollections. In the last year how many people who
   responded to the questionnaire said that they had used a firearm to
   defend themselves against an actual confrontation from a human being
   attempting a crime?
   
   KLECK: Well, as a percentage it's 1.33 percent of the respondents.
   When you extrapolate that to the general population, it works out to
   be 2.4 million defensive uses of guns of some kind -- not just
   handguns but any kind of a gun -- within that previous year, which
   would have been roughly from Spring of 1992 through Spring of 1993.
   
   SCHULMAN: And if you focus solely on handguns?
   
   KLECK: It's about 1.9 million, based on personal, individual
   recollections.
   
   SCHULMAN: And what percentage of the respondents is that? Just
   handguns?
   
   KLECK: That would be 1.03 percent.
   
   SCHULMAN: How many respondents did you have total?
   
   KLECK: We had a total of 4,978 completed interviews, that is, where we
   had a response on the key question of whether or not there had been a
   defensive gun use.
   
   SCHULMAN: So roughly 50 people out of 5000 responded that in the last
   year they had had to use their firearms in an actual confrontation
   against a human being attempting a crime?
   
   KLECK: Handguns, yes.
   
   SCHULMAN: Had used a handgun. And slightly more than that had used any
   gun.
   
   KLECK: Right.
   
   SCHULMAN: So that would be maybe 55, 56 people?
   
   KLECK: Something like that, yeah.
   
   SCHULMAN: Okay. I can just hear critics saying that 50 or 55 people
   responding that they used their gun and you're projecting it out to
   figures of around 2 million, 2-1/2 million gun defenses. Why is that
   statistically valid?
   
   KLECK: Well, that's one reason why we also had a five-year
   recollection period. We get a much larger raw number of people saying,
   "Yes, I had a defensive use." It doesn't work out to be as many per
   year because people are presumably not remembering as completely, but
   the raw numbers of people who remember some kind of defensive use over
   the previous five years, that worked out to be on the order of 200
   sample cases. So it's really a small raw number only if you limit your
   attention to those who are reporting an incident just in the previous
   year. Statistically, it's strictly the raw numbers that are relevant
   to the issue.
   
   SCHULMAN: So if between 1 percent to 1-1/3 percent of your respondents
   are saying that they defended themselves with a gun, how does this
   compare, for example, to the number of people who would respond that
   they had suffered from a crime during that period?
   
   KLECK: I really couldn't say. We didn't ask that and I don't think
   there are really any comparable figures. You could look at the
   National Crime Surveys for relatively recent years and I guess you
   could take the share of the population that had been the victims of
   some kind of violent crime because most of these apparently are
   responses to violent crimes. Ummm, let's see. The latest year for
   which I have any data, 1991, would be about 9 percent of the
   population had suffered a personal crime -- that's a crime with
   personal contact. And so, to say that 1 percent of the population had
   defended themselves with a handgun is obviously still well within what
   you would expect based on the share of the population that had
   suffered a personal crime of some kind. Plus a number of these
   defensive uses were against burglars, which isn't considered a
   personal crime according to the National Crime Survey. But you can add
   in maybe another 5 percent who'd been a victim of a household
   burglary.
   
   SCHULMAN: Let's break down some of these gun defenses if we can. How
   many are against armed robbers? How many are against burglars? How
   many are against people committing a rape or an assault?
   
   KLECK: About 8 percent of the defensive uses involved a sexual crime
   such as an attempted sexual assault. About 29 percent involved some
   sort of assault other than sexual assault. Thirty-three percent
   involved a burglary or some other theft at home. Twenty-two percent
   involved robbery. Sixteen percent involved trespassing. Note that some
   incidents could involve more than one crime.
   
   SCHULMAN: Do you have a breakdown of how many occurred on somebody's
   property and how many occurred, let's say, off somebody's property
   where somebody would have had to have been carrying a gun with them on
   their person or in their car?
   
   KLECK: Yes. We asked where the incident took place. Seventy-two
   percent took place in or near the home, where the gun wouldn't have to
   be "carried" in a legal sense. And then some of the remainder, maybe
   another 4 percent, occurred in a friend's home where that might not
   necessarily involve carrying. Also, some of these incidents may have
   occurred in a vehicle in a parking lot and that's another 4 percent or
   so. So some of those incidents may have involved a less-regulated kind
   of carrying. In many states, for example, it doesn't require a license
   to carry a gun in your vehicle so I'd say that the share that involved
   carrying in a legal sense is probably less than a quarter of the
   incidents. I won't commit myself to anything more than that because we
   don't have the specifics of whether or not some of these
   away-from-home incidents occurred while a person was in a car.
   
   SCHULMAN: All right. Well, does that mean that approximately a half
   million times a year somebody carrying a gun away from home uses it to
   defend himself or herself?
   
   KLECK: That's what it would imply, yes.
   
   SCHULMAN: All right. As many as one-half million times every year
   somebody carrying a gun away from home defends himself or herself.
   
   KLECK: Yes, about that. It could be as high as that. I have many
   different estimates and some of the estimates are deliberately more
   conservative in that they exclude from our sample any cases where it
   was not absolutely clear that there was a genuine defensive gun use
   being reported.
   
   SCHULMAN: Were any of these gun uses done by anyone under the age of
   21 or under the age of 18?
   
   KLECK: Well we don't have any coverage of persons under the age of 18.
   Like most national surveys we cover only adults age 18 and up.
   
   SCHULMAN: Did you have any between the ages of 18 and 21?
   
   KLECK: I haven't analyzed the cross tabulation of age with defensive
   gun use so I couldn't say at this point.
   
   SCHULMAN: Okay. Was this survey representative just of Florida or is
   it representative of the entire United States?
   
   KLECK: It's representative of the lower 48 states.
   
   SCHULMAN: And that means that there was calling throughout all the
   different states?
   
   KLECK: Yes, except Alaska and Hawaii, and that's also standard
   practice for national surveys; because of the expense they usually
   aren't contacted.
   
   SCHULMAN: How do these surveys make their choices, for example,
   between high-crime urban areas and less-crime rural areas?
   
   KLECK: Well, there isn't a choice made in that sense. It's a telephone
   survey and the telephone numbers are randomly chosen by computer so
   that it works out that every residential telephone number in the lower
   48 states had an equal chance of being picked, except that we
   deliberately oversampled from the South and the West and then adjusted
   after the fact for that overrepresentation. It results in no biasing.
   The results are representative of the entire United States, but it
   yields a larger number of sample cases of defensive gun uses. They
   are, however, weighted back down so that they properly represent the
   correct percent of the population that's had a defensive gun use.
   
   SCHULMAN: Why is it that the results of your survey are so
   counter-intuitive compared to police experience?
   
   KLECK: For starters, there are substantial reasons for people not to
   report defensive gun uses to the police or, for that matter, even to
   interviewers working for researchers like me -- the reason simply
   being that a lot of the times people either don't know whether their
   defensive act was legal or even if they think that was legal, they're
   not sure that possessing a gun at that particular place and time was
   legal. They may have a gun that's supposed to be registered and it's
   not or maybe it's totally legally owned but they're not supposed to be
   walking around on the streets with it.
   
   SCHULMAN: Did your survey ask the question of whether people carrying
   guns had licenses to do so?
   
   KLECK: No, we did not. We thought that would be way too sensitive a
   question to ask people.
   
   SCHULMAN: Okay. Let's talk about how the guns were actually used in
   order to accomplish the defense. How many people, for example, had to
   merely show the gun, as opposed to how many had to fire a warning
   shot, as to how many actually had to attempt to shoot or shoot their
   attacker?
   
   KLECK: We got all of the details about everything that people could
   have done with a gun from as mild an action as merely verbally
   referring to the gun on up to actually shooting somebody.
   
   SCHULMAN: Could you give me the percentages?
   
   KLECK: Yes. You have to keep in mind that it's quite possible for
   people to have done more than one of these things since they could
   obviously both verbally refer to the gun and point it at somebody or
   even shoot it.
   
   SCHULMAN: Okay.
   
   KLECK: Fifty-four percent of the defensive gun uses involved somebody
   verbally referring to the gun. Forty-seven percent involved the gun
   being pointed at the criminal. Twenty-two percent involved the gun
   being fired. Fourteen percent involved the gun being fired at
   somebody, meaning it wasn't just a warning shot; the defender was
   trying to shoot the criminal. Whether they succeeded or not is another
   matter but they were trying to shoot a criminal. And then in 8 percent
   they actually did wound or kill the offender.
   
   SCHULMAN: In 8 percent, wounded or killed. You don't have it broken
   down beyond that?
   
   KLECK: Wound versus kill? No. Again that was thought to be too
   sensitive a question. Although we did have, I think, two people who
   freely offered the information that they had, indeed, killed someone.
   Keep in mind that the 8 percent figure is based on so few cases that
   you have to interpret it with great caution.
   
   SCHULMAN: Did anybody respond to a question asking whether they had
   used the gun and it was found afterward to be unjustified?
   
   KLECK: We did not ask them that question although we did ask them what
   crime they thought was being committed. So in each case the only
   incidents we were accepting as bona fide defensive gun uses were ones
   where the defender believed that, indeed, a crime had been committed
   against them.
   
   SCHULMAN: Did you ask any follow-up questions about how many people
   had been arrested or captured as a result of their actions?
   
   KLECK: No.
   
   SCHULMAN: Did you ask any questions about aid in law enforcement, such
   as somebody helps a police officer who's not themselves an officer?
   
   KLECK: No. I imagine that would be far too rare an incident to get any
   meaningful information out of it. Highly unlikely that any significant
   share of these involved assisting law enforcement.
   
   SCHULMAN: The question which this all comes down to is that we already
   have some idea, for example from surveys on CCW license holders, how
   rare it is for a CCW holder to misuse their gun in a way to injure
   somebody improperly. But does this give us any idea of what the
   percentages are of people who carry a gun having to use it in order to
   defend himself or herself? In other words, comparing the percentage of
   defending yourself to the percentage of being attacked, does this tell
   us anything?
   
   KLECK: We asked them whether they carried guns at any time but we
   didn't directly ask them if they were carrying guns, in the legal
   sense, at the time they had used their gun defensively. So we can
   probably say what fraction of gun carriers in our sample had used a
   gun defensively but we can't say whether they did it while carrying.
   They may, for example, have been people who at least occasionally
   carried a gun for protection but they used a gun defensively in their
   own home.
   
   SCHULMAN: So what percentage of gun carriers used it defensively?
   
   KLECK: I haven't calculated it yet so I couldn't say.
   
   SCHULMAN: So if we assume, let's say, that every year approximately 9
   percent of people are going to be attacked, and approximately every
   year that 1 percent of respondents used their guns to defend against
   an attack, is it fair to say that around one out of nine people
   attacked used their guns to defend themselves?
   
   KLECK: That "risk of being attacked" shouldn't be phrased that way.
   It's the risk of being the victim of a personal crime. In other words,
   it involved interpersonal contact. That could be something like a
   nonviolent crime like purse snatching or pickpocketing as well. The
   fact that personal contact is involved means there's an opportunity to
   defend against it using a gun; it doesn't necessarily mean there was
   an attack on the victim.
   
   SCHULMAN: Did you get any data on how the attackers were armed during
   these incidents?
   
   KLECK: Yes. We also asked whether the offender was armed. The offender
   was armed in 47.2 percent of the cases and they had a handgun in about
   13.6 percent of all the cases and some other kind of gun in 4.5
   percent of all the cases.
   
   SCHULMAN: So in other words, in about a sixth of the cases, the person
   attacking was armed with a firearm.
   
   KLECK: That's correct.
   
   SCHULMAN: Okay. And the remainder?
   
   KLECK: Armed with a knife: 18.1 percent, 2 percent with some other
   sharp object, 10.1 percent with a blunt object, and 6 percent with
   some other weapon. Keep in mind when adding this up that offenders
   could have had more than one weapon.
   
   SCHULMAN: So in approximately five sixths of the cases somebody
   carrying a gun for defensive reasons would find themselves defending
   themselves either against an unarmed attacker or an attacker with a
   lesser weapon?
   
   KLECK: Right. About five-sixths of the time.
   
   SCHULMAN: And about one-sixth of the time they would find themselves
   up against somebody who's armed with a firearm.
   
   KLECK: Well, certainly in this sample of incidents that was the case.
   
   SCHULMAN: Which you believe is representative.
   
   KLECK: It's representative of what's happened in the last five years.
   Whether or not it would be true in the future we couldn't say for
   sure.
   
   SCHULMAN: Are there any other results coming out of this which are
   surprising to you?
   
   KLECK: About the only thing which was surprising is how often people
   had actually wounded someone in the incident. Previous surveys didn't
   have very many sample cases so you couldn't get into the details much
   but some evidence had suggested that a relatively small share of
   incidents involved the gun inflicting wounds so it was surprising to
   me that quite so many defenders had used a gun that way.
   
   SCHULMAN: Dr. Kleck, is there anything else you'd like to say at this
   time about the results of your survey and your continuing analysis of
   them?
   
   KLECK: Nope.
   
   SCHULMAN: Then thank you very much.
   
   KLECK: You're welcome.
   
   
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   Reply to:
   
       J. Neil Schulman
       Mail: P.O. Box 94, Long Beach, CA 90801-0094
       JNS BBS: 1-310-839-7653,,,,25
    softserv@genie.geis.com
    
   
   
   
     _________________________________________________________________
   

    RE: .536
    
>    Why do the folks that make the biggest to-do about individual liberty
>    seem
>    so willing to abandon individuality?
 	
    	Sorry about the formatting, but I have an answer.
    
    	The people that care about individual liberty are not willing to
    abandon individuality.  Individuality cannot be achieved without
    individual liberty.  Without the right to free speech, everyone would
    be forced to think, or at least express the same opinion - no
    individuality.  Without the freedom to worship as you see fit, we would
    all follow the same religion - no individuality.  These are two
    examples of how our individual liberties guard our individuality.  
    
    	My other answer is that people who care about individual liberty
    also happen to be similar in some if not many ways.
    
    ME

        <<< Note 21.541 by REFINE::KOMAR "My congressman is a crook" >>>

 >   My other answer is that people who care about individual liberty
 >   also happen to be similar in some if not many ways.
    
It's the ways in which you're similar that I'm talking about.

What I meant is that the right - and particularly the libertarian right - 
seem to make a binary judgment in any ideological discussion: you're either 
for us or agin' us. You're a hard-working, noble American or a whining 
liberal. You're either a constitutional fundamentalist or a Communist. 
You're either for unrestricted freedom to bear arms or for taking
everyone's guns away and giving them to criminals. And that mindset comes
out in spades in the 'box. It demeans the individuality of those on both
sides of the debate. It ignores the infinite variability and shading of
ideas that exist between ideological extremes. In short, it's a mob 
mentality.

Now, you could accuse me of doing the same thing in reverse. But you'd be 
wrong. I'm criticizing individual acts not ascribing individuals with group 
labels. I realize that there is much diversity of ideas and allegiances 
on the right, but IMHO there is an inordinate commonalty in language and 
style. To respond in kind, I would have to be calling you and you political 
leaders fascists and I'd have to be responding to your criticism of my ideas 
with "you must have drooled all over your swastika when you wrote that!"

By the way, I'm not "whining" about my treatment here. I've got a pretty 
thick skin - you'd be nuts to dive into the 'box without one. I'm just 
pointing out the irony of donning a uniform and ignoring individuality when 
warring for unbridled individual liberty.

    Ever hear the expression, "You'll never find a liberal democrat who was
    mugged"?  
    
    I think alot of the rhetoric from the right is based on the
    frustrations of the left element propogating the proven failed policies
    of the recent past...again, Washington DC being the best example of 
    miserably failed gun laws.  When I as a citizen see this...and then see 
    Bill and friends trying to get yet more of the guns from the public,
    something starts to smell!

                   <<< Note 21.542 by HUMANE::USMVS::DAVIS >>>

>It's the ways in which you're similar that I'm talking about.

	I find it curious that while you decry the behavior it doesn't
	seem to stop you from dragging out your very own broad brush.

	The fact that many of us that value individual liberty share 
	a view does not mean that we have forsaken our individuality.

	It certainly does not mean, in the context of this particular
	note, that we agree on all things. One need only look at my
	entries in this note and those in the Gay Rights or Seperation of
	Church and State notes.

	Just a quick review shows us "pro-gun, anti-abortion, prayer in
	school" supporters, but at the same time we find "pro-gun,
	pro-abortion, total religious seperation, feminists" as well.

	Quite a diverse group actually. It is likely that the anti-gun
	side has a similar diversity, but in the debate over individual
	rights, as they relate to private gun ownership, the arguments
	seem to be all the same. Of course the arguments for gun ownership
	also tend to be the same.

	To generalize the overall profile of any opponent or proponent
	by virtue of the stand that they take on a single issue, while
	ignoring the stands that they take on other issues, is foolish.


>What I meant is that the right - and particularly the libertarian right - 
>seem to make a binary judgment in any ideological discussion: you're either 
>for us or agin' us.

	Rights should not and can not be compromised. That IS a hard and
	fast position. Those that call for such compromise are most
	certainly "agin' us". That's not "mob mentality" it just a firmly
ex




Jim

    I started this... so I might as well answer it. I have no problem being
    identified as the furthest right person here, but you have to also
    realize that in general I get a bit of a kick out of tweeking people's
    noses and that almost everything I write is done with a huge grin,
    inspired by the thought of fertilizer hitting the ventilator. I don't
    think you're a communist Tom, I think you're a puppet on a string, like
    George, who will rise to any taunt with a requisite amount of slander;
    which, in my opinion, not only makes a political point, but
    demonstrates the fact that yes, you too have all sorts of predudice
    and bigotry about which you endlessly whine. I'm sure you picture
    me, and many of my "gun-toting NRA loony friends" as someone who
    wears camoflage to work and spends his weekends plotting abortion
    clinic bombings.
    
    -b

    <<< Note 21.544 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

You seem to have missed the point. Ah well...

       <<< Note 21.545 by MPGS::MARKEY "Llamas are larger than frogs" >>>

>   I'm sure you picture
>    me, and many of my "gun-toting NRA loony friends" as someone who
>    wears camoflage to work and spends his weekends plotting abortion
>    clinic bombings.

You didn't seem to grasp my message, either. I don't have any such image in 
mind, -b. 
 
>    inspired by the thought of fertilizer hitting the ventilator. I don't
>    think you're a communist Tom, I think you're a puppet on a string, like
>    George, who will rise to any taunt with a requisite amount of slander;
>    which, in my opinion, not only makes a political point, but
>    demonstrates the fact that yes, you too have all sorts of predudice
>    and bigotry about which you endlessly whine.     

But clearly you've got me pegged neatly, eh. Or...oh, you're just pullin' 
my leg, you rascal! Slingin' that slander just to raise my dander. What a 
clever fellow you are! I'll know from now on to dismiss anything you say 
with apparent emotion as just funnin'. Can I do that with all the other 
"Fat Boy" "B/Witch" "Socialist" stuff ad nauseum in the 'box, too? I get 
it. We "idiots" on the left have are heads so far up our behinds we miss 
out on all that delicious playground humor from the right. No one's ever 
accused me of being humor impaired before! This is a revelation I'll have 
to ponder in my pea brain for some time to come. Thanks.

Tom

                   <<< Note 21.546 by HUMANE::USMVS::DAVIS >>>

>You seem to have missed the point. Ah well...

	In communication there are generally two or more people involved.
	One, the communicator, the other(s) the audience. In a number
	of communication classes that I've taken the instructors have
	always taken that the communicator has the major responsibility
	in ensuring that the message is transmitted clearly. They also
	noted that many communicators tend to blame the audience for
	for any lack of understanding.

Jim

    Tom,
    
    I don't have you pegged. To adequately peg someone requires paying
    a great deal of attention to that person. So no, I'm nowhere near
    having you pegged.
    
    You entered a conversation, made reference to us (me in particular)
    as being "ugly Americans". In other words, you took the gloves off
    and joined the fray. A hard right to the jaw in the form of a quip
    about your Chairman Mao suit made you cry and you haven't stopped
    yet. If I really thought you were a communist I would say "I think
    you're a communist". I haven't said that (yet :-), so don't worry
    about it.
    
    As for the rest of the box rhetoric, bitch/witch what-have-you, I
    can't speak for anyone else, but I choose to no longer use those
    words because clearly some people felt them offensive. That doesn't
    mean I now have higher regard for Connie Chung or Hillary Clinton,
    it's just that I've decided that I can express my extremely low
    opinion of them in other ways.
    
    Regarding the "humor impaired". I never said that. Nor did I
    imply that it was "humor" that I was engaging in. A grin in
    on face does not necessarily imply humor. Us right wingers
    get maniacal grins sometimes, even when there's nothing funny...
    
    -b

        <<< Note 21.541 by REFINE::KOMAR "My congressman is a crook" >>>

> >   My other answer is that people who care about individual liberty
> >   also happen to be similar in some if not many ways.
    
>What I meant is that the right - and particularly the libertarian right - 
>seem to make a binary judgment in any ideological discussion: you're either 
>for us or agin' us. You're a hard-working, noble American or a whining 
>liberal. You're either a constitutional fundamentalist or a Communist. 
>You're either for unrestricted freedom to bear arms or for taking
>everyone's guns away and giving them to criminals. And that mindset comes
>out in spades in the 'box. It demeans the individuality of those on both
>sides of the debate. It ignores the infinite variability and shading of
>ideas that exist between ideological extremes. In short, it's a mob 
>mentality.

    Those that tend to agree will eventually use the same arguement.  And,
    as was stated in a post previous to this, anyone who wants to take away
    my rights is against me.
    
>Now, you could accuse me of doing the same thing in reverse. But you'd be 
>wrong. I'm criticizing individual acts not ascribing individuals with group 
>labels. I realize that there is much diversity of ideas and allegiances 
>on the right, but IMHO there is an inordinate commonalty in language and 
>style. To respond in kind, I would have to be calling you and you political 
>leaders fascists and I'd have to be responding to your criticism of my ideas 
>with "you must have drooled all over your swastika when you wrote that!"

    This is classis pot and kettle (if it is not already there).  First,
    you talk about the mentality of the "right".  But you claim that you
    are doing so on the basis of individual acts.  If so, critucize the
    individual(s) responsible and don't hold the group responsible.
      
>By the way, I'm not "whining" about my treatment here. I've got a pretty 
>thick skin - you'd be nuts to dive into the 'box without one. I'm just 
>pointing out the irony of donning a uniform and ignoring individuality when 
>warring for unbridled individual liberty.

    However, the post sounds whiny to me.  If you have a complaint, file it
    with the individual.  Don't blame the entire group.
    
    ME

       <<< Note 21.550 by MPGS::MARKEY "Llamas are larger than frogs" >>>

>    You entered a conversation, made reference to us (me in particular)
>    as being "ugly Americans". In other words, you took the gloves off

No, -b, I wasn't referring to you as an ugly american. I was commenting on 
your remark suggesting (it seemed to me) that Americans value liberty while 
other peoples don't, suggesting that that sort of attitude appears arrogant 
and probably is the reason for the term Ugly American.
 
>    and joined the fray. A hard right to the jaw in the form of a quip
>    about your Chairman Mao suit made you cry and you haven't stopped
>    yet. If I really thought you were a communist I would say "I think
>    you're a communist". I haven't said that (yet :-), so don't worry
>    about it.

I've been hit my much, much harder verbal blows than that, old man. And I 
could give a rat's patunia whether you think or call me a communist. My 
point was the depersonalizing rhetoric that seem particularly widespread in 
the right. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it's my own bias showing through. But 
that's sure as spit how it seems.
    
>    Regarding the "humor impaired". I never said that. Nor did I
>    imply that it was "humor" that I was engaging in. A grin in
>    on face does not necessarily imply humor. Us right wingers
						^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    get maniacal grins sometimes, even when there's nothing funny...
    
You mean there ARE common traits among you RWs??

Tom

    >No, -b, I wasn't referring to you as an ugly american. I was commenting on 
    >your remark suggesting (it seemed to me) that Americans value liberty while 
    >other peoples don't, suggesting that that sort of attitude appears arrogant 
    >and probably is the reason for the term Ugly American.
 
    I was being testy, no boudt adout it; a testiness born from my
    frustration at why people in other countries feel that I, as
    an American, owe them an explanation on why I choose to use the
    rights I was granted in _our_ Constitution. Further testiness
    ensued when a fellow American (you) chose to take me to task
    on a gently, but firmly implied, <r.o.> off.
    
    >You mean there ARE common traits among you RWs??
    
    Well, the intended humor of my original comment aside, consider
    for example the abortion topic. I think you will find quite a
    variety of opinion on "the right".
    
    Further, I would caution you not in lumping me in with the right,
    but in lumping the right in with me. I have a caustic style that
    has little to do with discussing politics, and is, as I indicated
    earlier, generally intended to invoke humor. But you really place
    an unfair black eye on my brothers and sisters on the right when
    you blame me on them. I'm sure most of them cringe as much as
    you do when I get the machete out.
    
    But can we stop talking about this now and talk about guns?
    
    -b
    

    Gun control doesn't work, and is unconstitutional.  There, case closed. 
    We may now move on to other highly debated subjects where I will solve
    them once and for all, too.  8^)

    
    
    	guns....BIG guns.....50cal 800grn projectiles.....yeah....
    
    
    

    -1 don't forget the depleted uranium cores! :-)

    
    
    	heh he heh heh heh....depleted uranium is cool....
    
    

    I am cornholio!!!

   * * *  Media Alert  * * *  Media Alert  * * *  Media Alert  * * * 

January 30, 1995   
   
  Dr. Suzanna Gratia will be on the Blanquita Collum Show, tomorrow
January 31, from 3:15pm - 3:45pm Eastern Time.  

  Dr. Gratia is a survivor of the Luby's Cafeteria shootings and is an
outspoken advocate of Right to Carry legislation.

  Please listen and call to voice your support of laws which allow
law-abiding citizens to carry firearms for self-defense.

  Some stations which carry the Blanquita Collum Show are listed:
  
    KSIR  AM 1010 / FM 107.1      Fort Morgan, CO
    WINC  AM 1400                 Winchester, VA
    WWNR  AM 620                  Beckley, WV
    KLWT  AM 1230                 Lebanon, MO
    WRUF  AM 850                  Gainseville, FL
    WTAZ  FM 102.3                Morton, IL
    KVSF                          Sante Fe, NM
    KLRA  AM 1530 / FM 96.5       Littlerock, AR
    WOMP  AM 1290                 Wheeling, WV
    KBCR  AM 1230                 Steamboat Springs, CO
    WQBC  AM 1420                 Vicksburg, MS
    WASQ                          New Orleans, LA

    
    <------
    
    Jim,
    
     Any chance of someone taping it????
    
    
     Andy
    

Ummm. Jim, wasn't that a few days ago?

Bob

            <<< Note 21.559 by SUBPAC::SADIN "caught in the 'net" >>>

I think the 'box ought to start charging Sadin and the NRA for advertising 
space. Maybe the proceeds could go to fund 'Boxbashes?

Hensforth, Mr. Sadin, please forward $10/entry to Ms. Debra.

Akchully, we should charge /john for his Catholic promotions, too. But he 
could avoid that if he prefaced each message with "The following is a 
public service announcement"

    
    MSO2-3/C3.  I'll keep it along with Gene's NRA Sign-Up Poster 8^).

    
    
    	re: dated posting
    
    	oops! Missed the date on that thing...sorry folks. %*}
    
    	re: money
    
    	if you can find a way to squeeze some more money out of my paycheck
    every week, you're welcome to it....:)
    
    
    jim

            <<< Note 21.564 by SUBPAC::SADIN "caught in the 'net" >>>

>    	if you can find a way to squeeze some more money out of my paycheck
>    every week, you're welcome to it....:)

Sorry, Jim. If you can't pay, you can't play. 'Course you could get your 
compadres in the 'box to post them for you; sorta share the burden. 
Besides, I get the impression that bashes are attended predominantly by 
card-carrying NRA members (I don't know this, because I haven't had the 
pleasure yet), so all that dough eventually comes home, anywho.

So, please pay up. I'm sure the Boxbash treasurer designate will keep the
revenues warm and never stoop to deficit spending.

Tom

    
    Your impression, re: NRA card carriers, is wrong...
    

    
    
    Speaking of Haagster,
    
    
    I received a call from him this morning.  He passes on no words of
    wisdom.  Says he's fresh out.  Going to forward me a mail later to be
    posted.
    
    
    Mike

    
    Bet the libs in here are real shocked about that!!!
    
    :)
    

    
    
    BANG!
    
    
    Snarf/
    

 <<< Note 21.566 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy, vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>

Um...you mean you don't attend these bashes, Andy? Or you're not a member? 
Or that most of those going to these bashes aren't gunslingers? Gee, goes to 
show you not to jump to assumptions. I thought if you weren't a member of 
the NRA when you got there, Haag'd convert you before you left. SSo all 
this time I've been looking forward to "seeing the light" over a few beers     
for NOTHING. Dang.

    
     Tom,
    
     I attend when I can.... I'm an NRA member...
    
    Gunslingers? I dunno... I didn't see any body packing that day
    (including me)...
    
    The sheepster's lone comment about guns that night was in reference 
    to how well his wife shot the Beretta 92FS he just purchased...
    
    As for "seeing the light".... well.... if you haven't by now... ;)

 <<< Note 21.571 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy, vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>

>    As for "seeing the light".... well.... if you haven't by now... ;)

Sometimes it takes a wee bit o' the barley to prod revelation along :^)

    
    
    	Well then step over to the nook and I'll pour you a tall one! :)
    
    
    jim

From:	CRL::"alerts@gatekeeper.nra.org" "MAIL-11 Daemon"  6-FEB-1995 10:30:26.84
To:	Multiple recipients of list <rkba-alert@gatekeeper.nra.org>
CC:	
Subj:	INFO: ILA Bulletin  95-2-3

                       NRA-ILA FAX NETWORK
           11250 Waples Mill Road * Fairfax, VA  22030
Vol. 2, No. 5Phone: 1-800-392-8683 * Fax: 703-267-3918     2/3/95

         A "NEWT" DAY DAWNS FOR GUN OWNERS IN CONGRESS!

     In a personal letter to NRA-ILA Executive Director Tanya
Metaksa, House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) affirmed that as long
as he is Speaker, "no gun control legislation is going to move in
committee or on the floor of the House."  Speaker Gingrich's letter
marks an historic occasion for this nation's 65 million gun owners
-- never in our nation's history has the Speaker of the House, a
position only two heartbeats removed from the presidency, given gun
owners such a rock-solid commitment to protect Second Amendment
rights and free them from government harassment!  And unlike his
predecessor, Tom Foley -- who first opposed gun control, but in
1994 supported banning guns in the Clinton Crime bill -- Speaker
Gingrich emphasized to Mrs. Metaksa that his purpose was also to
"remove ill-conceived and unnecessary government interference in
those rights."  With support from Speaker Gingrich and others, we
should be able to defeat all gun control proposals which anti-
gunners like Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Pat Schroeder (D-CO) throw
our way, and instead, concentrate on advancing our pro-firearms
rights agenda!  Of course at the top of our agenda is a repeal of
President Clinton's gun ban, and we know a bill calling for repeal
will begin making its way through the House in early May, after
extensive hearings on federal law enforcement abuses (BATF and
other agencies) and the Second Amendment.  This should give us
plenty of time to contact our Representatives and urge them to
support these efforts.

     A LOOK AT THE STATES:  COLORADO: On Monday, February 6, the
Senate Judiciary Committee will begin consideration of two NRA-
supported right to carry bills -- SB 104 and SB 60.  Both bills
recognize law-abiding citizens' right to carry firearms for self-
defense.  The Committee will also consider SB 67, sponsored by
anti-gun Senator Wham, which would actually make it more difficult
for law-abiding citizens to carry for personal safety.  As the
Judiciary Committee could vote at any time, Colorado members are
urged to contact their State Senators and ask them to request that
Judiciary Committee members support SB 104 and SB 60 and oppose SB
67.  

ILLINOIS: On Tuesday, February, 7, the House Agriculture and
Conservation Committee will consider HB 568, the NRA-supported
firearms preemption bill.  HB 568, sponsored by Rep. Larry
Wennlund, would prohibit local governments from enacting their own
gun control laws.  Members are encouraged to attend the hearing
scheduled for 3:30 p.m., in Room 114 of the State Capitol Building,
to show their support for HB  568.  

OHIO: On Thursday, February 2, the Public Safety Committee of the
Cleveland City Council heard Ordinance No. 52-94 -- a laundry list
of gun control proposals which includes gun bans and "arsenal"
licensing schemes.  The Committee will either hear these proposals
again or vote on them on February 15.  Area members should call
their City Council member and urge opposition to Ordinance No. 52-
94.

SOUTH CAROLINA: This Tuesday, February 7, is special election day
for the open seat on the Charleston County Council, and NRA has
endorsed Timothy Scott.  Voter turnout is expected to be low so
this is a golden opportunity for members in the area to go to the
polls on Tuesday, and elect a pro-Second Amendment Councilman!  

UTAH:  On Monday, January 30th, the Senate Transportation and
Public Safety Committee passed SB 59, a bill requiring mandatory
training for any new purchasers of firearms.  SB 59 now moves to
the Senate floor where a vote could take place at any time.  Utah
members should contact their State Senators and urge them to oppose
SB 59.  To leave a message for your Senator, call 1-800-662-3367. 
Meanwhile in the State House, HB 54, the NRA-supported firearms
preemption bill, and HB 70, an NRA-supported right to carry bill,
have passed out of Committee and could be voted on by the full
House at any time.  Utah members should contact their State
Representatives at 1-800-662-3367, and urge them to support HB 54
and HB 70!  

VIRGINIA: SB 744 & SB 793, the NRA-supported right to carry reform
bills, have passed out of both the Senate Courts of Justice
Committee and Senate Finance Committee.  Another good right to
carry bill, HB 1712, may also be voted on by the House Courts of
Justice Committee as early as this weekend!  Virginia members are
urged to call their state lawmakers in Richmond over the weekend in
support of these right to carry bills.  

WEST VIRGINIA: On Monday, February 6, primary elections will be
held for seats on the Charleston City Council.  A list of pro-gun
candidates was mailed to all area members.  If you did not receive
your voting recommendations, please call the NRA-ILA Grassroots
Division for this critical election information.

     CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING (CPB) STILL MARCHING TO
ANTI-GUN DRUM:  CPB, which is notorious for using taxpayer monies
to fund its anti-gun agenda, is at it again.  This time the
Minnesota Monthly, which is owned by Minnesota Public Radio, has
called for regulating guns like cars, which means licensing and
registration of firearms and firearms owners.
--
This information is presented as a service to the Internet community
by the NRA/ILA.  Many files are available via anonymous ftp from
ftp.nra.org, via WWW at http://www.nra.org, via gopher at gopher.nra.org,
and via WAIS at wais.nra.org

Be sure to subscribe to the NRA mailing lists.  Send the word help
as the body of a message to listproc@NRA.org

Information can also be obtained by connecting to the NRA-ILA GUN-TALK
BBS at (703) 934-2121.

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: by easynet.crl.dec.com; id AA24819; Mon, 6 Feb 95 10:31:19 -0500
% Received: by crl.dec.com; id AA05905; Mon, 6 Feb 95 10:28:32 -0500
% Received: by gatekeeper.nra.org (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3)id AA16619; Mon, 6 Feb 1995 10:25:48 -0500
% Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 10:25:48 -0500
% Message-Id: <9502061525.AA16619@gatekeeper.nra.org>
% Reply-To: alerts@gatekeeper.nra.org
% Originator: rkba-alert@nra.org
% Sender: rkba-alert@gatekeeper.nra.org
% Precedence: bulk
% From: alerts@gatekeeper.nra.org (NRA Alerts)
% To: Multiple recipients of list <rkba-alert@gatekeeper.nra.org>
% Subject: INFO: ILA Bulletin  95-2-3
% X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
% X-Comment: NRA Alerts list

Article: 184949
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!nntp.crl.com!crl10.crl.com!not-for-mail
From: discipio@crl.com (William R. Discipio Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: USA TODAY EDITORIALS ON GUN CONTROL
Date: 31 Jan 1995 22:48:38 -0800
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access	(415) 705-6060  [Login: guest]
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <3gnas6$8jp@crl10.crl.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: crl10.crl.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
 
Reprinted without permission from the January 31, 1995 issue of USA TODAY
(Typos are mine.)
 
GUN LAWS ARE NO ANSWER
 
By. Bill K. Brewster, D-Okla.
 
You'd think USA TODAY would know what was going on in the USA today.  But 
it doesn't.  Leaving law-abiding Americans disarmed and defenseless in 
the face of violent criminals who continue to roam freely only encourages 
an increase -- not a decrease -- in violent crime.
 
Since USA TODAY doesn't get it, here's the reality of the USA today:
 
-No gun law has ever reduced violent crime.  The District of Columbia has 
banned guns since 1976; the murder rate has risen 200%.  Bans don't stop 
criminals.
 
-According to the Justice Department, the firearms banned in last year's 
crime bill account for far fewer homicides than those caused by 
criminals' fists and feet.
 
-The average murderer spends just 7.7 years in prison, the average rapist 
3.3 years.
 
-During the last two years, rape, other sexual attacks, robbery, assault 
and personal thefts increased by 6.7%.
 
-During the same time, prosecutions for federal weapons and firearms 
offenses have dropped a staggering 23%.
 
-64% of Americans believe gun control laws do not reduce crime, according 
to a CBS poll, and 60% oppose gun bans, according to a Gallup survey.
 
-More than 2 million times a year, citizens use lawfully owned firearms, 
including semiautomatic firearms, to defend themselves and their families 
from criminal attack, according to Florida State criminologist Gary Kleck.
 
Gun laws aren't the answer.  Criminal attacks have increased while 
federal prosecutions declined.  Yet the "disarm America" politicians and 
media can only think to offer a sure-to-fail gun ban.  But Americans know 
that regulating the law-abiding doesn't stop criminals -- prosecution and 
punishment does.
 
Any weapon used in a crime is an assault weapon.  Those guns covered in 
last year's ban account for less than 1% of all homicides.  How can 
addressing only 1% of all homicides have any measurable effect on crime?  
We should be attacking criminals; they are the common thread that 
connects 100% of all homicides and violent crimes.
 
Preserve the right of law-abiding Americans.  Increase, rather than 
decrease, tough prosecution of armed criminals.  Congress should pass 
tough minimum-sentencing laws for crimes committed with guns, not gun 
bans.  That's the reality Americans want and voted for last November.  
And that's the reality Americans expect from this Congress.
-- 
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
William Di Scipio                  They'll be hunting politicians with 
discipio@crl.com, WC1J@N0ARY       dogs by the end of the decade.
=+=+Live Free or Die=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=DON'T TREAD ON ME=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=

            <<< Note 21.574 by SUBPAC::SADIN "caught in the 'net" >>>

>     In a personal letter to NRA-ILA Executive Director Tanya
>metaksa, house speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) affirmed that as long
>as he is speaker, "no gun control legislation is going to move in
>committee or on the floor of the house."  speaker Gingrich's letter

So much for Newt's pledge of a new openness in congress, to public debate 
of issues.

PS: Ms. Debra, did he send you the $$ for the last two postings? I have 
the feeling the next 'boxbash will be a good'n.

    
    
    	re: .576
    
    	the check's in the mail.....:*)
    
    

MEDIA ADVISORY                          For further information,
February 6, 1995                        call: NRA Public Affairs
                                        703-267-3820

                    MAJOR NRA PRESS CONFERENCE

NRA TAKES CLINTON GUN BAN TO COURT

Washington, D.C. -- On Tuesday, February 7th, the National Rifle
Association of America will file suit in U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan in Bay City, Michigan. Target of
the suit: the 1994 Clinton gun ban.

Joined by her attorneys, Mrs. Tanya K. Metaksa, NRA's chief
lobbyist, will discuss the suit at a press conference in Lansing at
3 p.m.  Also accompanying Mrs. Metaska will be Tom Washington, NRA
President and executive director of Michigan United Conservation
Clubs (M.U.C.C.), a co-plaintiff in the suit.

"We challenged the Clinton gun ban in the voting booth November
8th, and we won," said Mrs. Metaksa. "We are challenging the ban in
the 104th Congress, and we are gaining ground. It is time to take
our case to the courts."


Press Conference Details:

Where:  Lansing Center, Room 104
333 East Michigan Avenue
Lansing, Michigan 48933

Date/Time:      Tuesday, February 7 at 3:00 p.m.

- nra -

=================================================================

               NRA TAKES CLINTON GUN BAN TO COURT

                         A Fact Sheet

In Public Law 103-322, Congress outlawed "Semiautomatic Assault
Weapons."  What are they?  That is the question raised by this
suit.

The Clinton gun ban defines them in two ways:

The first definition is any of the firearms :"known as" the
"avtomat Kalashnikov," the "Colt AR-15," etc. -- together with
"copies or duplicates" of any of these.

The second definition includes any rifle with two or more features
from a list of five -- pistol grip, folding stock, etc.

In court, NRA will prove that the statute is constitutionally void
in many respects. The most obvious are:


* Void for Vagueness: "KNOWN AS"

The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that a law is "void for
vagueness" when a person of ordinary intelligence cannot determine
what is allowed or forbidden. The first definition of the forbidden
firearms are guns "known as" certain names. Yet, six of the seven
names given are, in fact, the names of fully automatic firearms
(i.e., machine guns). For example, Colt has not made a
semiautomatic rifle named "AR-15" since the mid-1980s.

Thus, the statute has to, literally, aimed at guns "known as" the
AR-15, etc. -- not guns which are so named.


* Void for Vagueness: "COPIES OR DUPLICATES"

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (which encompasses
Michigan) recently struck down a city ban on certain semiautomatic
firearms as void for vagueness.  _Springfield Armory v. City of
Columbus_, 29 F. 2D 250 (6th Cir. 1994).  That city banned named
guns and "models by the same manufacturer with the same action
design that have slight modifications or enhancements." The Sixth
Circuit pointed out that guns varied widely in design, function and
power; it was impossible to determine how much of a difference it
took to make something not of "the same action design.'  The
Clinton gun ban is even more ambiguous.


* Equal Protection of the Law

The Clinton gun ban also violates the equality components of the
"due process" clause of the Fifth Amendment. Congress banned the
"Colt AR-15" without banning nine other companies' manufacture of
nearly identical rifles. It added a list of over a hundred guns --
by manufacturers' names -- which were exempt from the ban -- even
though many have identical function (caliber, rate of fire, etc.)
to banned items. The Ruger Mini-14 fires the same cartridges as the
AR- 15, but is exempted.

Due process implies some equality of treatment and that
inequalities have some "rational basis." There is none in the
Clinton gun ban.
--
This information is presented as a service to the Internet community
by the NRA/ILA.  Many files are available via anonymous ftp from
ftp.nra.org, via WWW at http://www.nra.org, via gopher at gopher.nra.org,
and via WAIS at wais.nra.org

Be sure to subscribe to the NRA mailing lists.  Send the word help
as the body of a message to listproc@NRA.org

Information can also be obtained by connecting to the NRA-ILA GUN-TALK
BBS at (703) 934-2121.