Gun Information Archive #1 Contents: California Legal code regarding police protection The

Gun Information Archive #1 -------------------------- Contents: California Legal code regarding police protection The Myth of Police Protection: who is responsible for your safety? Language Expert says 2nd Amendment still guarantees Individual RKBA Americans are putting up with spiraling Gestapo State, by Paul Craig Roberts Vote the anti-gunners out of office, from Citizens Against Corruption USSR vs. US Constitutions, and the 2nd Amendment Police abuses against gun owners The Second Amendment: Freedom's Insurance Policy by Larry Pratt, Executive Director, Gun Owners of America Why Gun Laws are a waste of time, by Cincinnati Police Lt. Harry Thomas ********************************************************************** ********************************************************************** From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) Subject: Re: Three blind mice and a cannibal Date: 5 Sep 91 17:45:25 GMT > In article <1991Aug13.145652.17791@NPIRS.Purdue.EDU> Jim Heath wrote: > >I am curious about the three policemen who missed the chance to > >coller Dahmer (sp?) in Milwaukee. I agree that they blew it. > >However, did they break the law? Is there anything they can be > >charged with? Wouldn't they be covered by the Supreme Court > >ruling that said that the police are under no obligation to > >protect any particular citizen? > > Could anyone fill me in on this S.C. ruling? Like who v. who and when? The decision was in the District of Columbia Appeals Court; I don't think the SC ever heard it. The decision was in the early 1980s, I *think* 1983. A number of other courts have made similar decisions, and many states (California included) have statutes codifying this. (See end of this posting for details). The case in DC involved three women in a townhouse. Three bad guys broke in downstairs, proceeded to rape and torture two women. The woman upstairs phoned the police. They drove by, saw nothing amiss, and left. She called again, telling them what was going on. This time they knocked on the door. No one answered it, so they left. Eventually, the bad guys discovered the gal upstairs, and raped, sodomized, and tortured her too. One died, one went to a mental hospital, one was left permanently disabled. They sued the DC police for negligence. They lost. There is no obligation of the police to protect any individual -- but at least the Court of Appeals expressed its sympathy to the victims. Isn't it nice to know that only knuckle-dragging Neanderthals think they need a gun to protects themselves in their home? We all know that the police will protect us! ( FIREARMS EDUCATION INSTITUTE) ------------------------------ P.O. Box 2193 El Segundo, CA 90245 (213) 322-7244 (Voice) (213) 546-3032 (BBS) Document title: California Laws on Police Protection Document name: PROTECTN.FEI Originator: FEI/MDR,RH Origination date: 19 July 1989 Revision date: 19 July 1989 CALIFORNIA LAWS ON POLICE PROTECTION ================================================================= NOTE: The following information has been researched and provided by the Firearms Education Institute (F.E.I.). For more information, contact F.E.I. at P.O. Box 2193 El Segundo, CA 90245 (213) 322-7244 (voice) (213) 546-3032 (BBS) California has enacted statutes asserting that government is not responsible for providing police protection. Most other states (about 37) have similar statutes, while those that do not (about 13) have case law which is substantially similar. Thus, in all jurisdictions, the public authority is NOT LIABLE for lack of protection. Since criminals choose the place and time that crimes are committed, it is obvious that successful criminals wait until the police are gone before committing their crimes. Thus, the police cannot possibly protect individual citizens. They can only attempt to provide some level of protection to the community as a whole. The following sections of the California Government Code, and similar laws in other states, are evidence that the state governments recognize this fact. $ 821.2 applies to permits to own, possess, or carry firearms, including C.C.W. permits. $ 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. $ 820.2. DISCRETIONARY ACTS Except as otherwise provided by statute, a public employee is not liable for an injury resulting from his act or omission where the act or omission was the result of the exercise of the discretion vested in him, whether or not such discretion be abused. $ 820.6. ACTING UNDER UNCONSTITUTIONAL, INVALID OR INAPPLICABLE ENACTMENTS If a public employee acts in good faith, without malice, and under the apparent authority of an enactment that is unconstitutional, invalid or inapplicable, he is not liable for an injury caused thereby except to the extent that he would have been liable had the enactment been constitutional, valid and applicable. $ 846. FAILURE TO MAKE ARREST OR TO RETAIN PERSON ARRESTED IN CUSTODY Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for injury caused by the failure to make an arrest or by the failure to retain an arrested person in custody. $ 845.8. PAROLE OR RELEASE OF PRISONER; ESCAPE OF PRISONERS Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for: (a) Any injury resulting from determining whether to parole or release a prisoner or from determining the terms and conditions of his parole or release or from determining whether to revoke his parole or release. (b) Any injury caused by: (1) An escaping or escaped prisoner; (2) An escaping or escaped arrested person; or (3) A person resisting arrest. $ 845.2. FAILURE TO PROVIDE PRISON, JAIL OR CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES Except as provided in Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 830), neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to provide a prison, jail or penal or correctional facility or, if such facility is provided, for failure to provide sufficient equipment, personnel or facilities therein. $ 821.2. ISSUANCE, DENIAL, SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF PERMIT, LICENSE, ETC. A public employee is not liable for an injury caused by his issuance, denial, suspension or revocation of, or by his failure or refusal to issue, deny, suspend or revoke, any permit, license, certificate, approval, order, or similar authorization where he is authorized by enactment to determine whether or not such authorization should be issued, denied, suspended or revoked. $ 820.9. MAYORS, MEMBERS OF LOCAL PUBLIC ENTITIES, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND ADVISORY BODIES NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR INSURIES CAUSED BY PUBLIC ENTITY Members of city councils, mayors, members of boards of supervisors, members of school boards, members of governing boards of other local public entities, members of locally appointed boards and commissions, and members of locally appointed or elected advisory bodies are not vicariously liable for injuries caused by the act or omission of the public entity or advisory body. Nothing in this section exonerates an official from liability for injury caused by that individual's own wrongful conduct. Nothing in this section affects the immunity of any other public official. ----------------------- F.E.I. COPYRIGHT NOTICE ----------------------- All F.E.I. information materials are copyrighted. The Firearms Education Institute (F.E.I.) hereby authorizes the reproduction of any of its educational material, provided that such materials are not altered in such a way as to change their substance or meaning, and provided that the Firearms Education Institute is credited as the originator of the ideas and information. Such materials are not authorized for reproduction or distribution for profit, without express written consent of Firearms Education Institute. COPYRIGHT (c) 1990 by the Firearms Education Institute ================================================================= ********************************************************************** From: bae@auspex.auspex.com (Brian Ehrmantraut) Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc Subject: The Myth of Police Protection Message-ID: <1767@auspex.auspex.com> Date: 7 Jun 89 01:43:01 GMT Who is responsible for your safety? ----------------------------------- Many people feel that the purpose of the police is to protect them. This is true, however the police forces of this country are unable to protect you directly, and are not responsible for doing so, in any event. The purpose of the police force is to provide indirect deterrence to crime, through patrolling the streets, and by apprehending the criminal after the criminal act has occurred. It would be impossible for the police to protect you, the individual, at all times. There are approximately 550,000 peace officers in this country. They work three shifts a day, so their number must be divided by three in order to determine how many are available to patrol the streets. This number must be halved again to account for the percentage of the force dedicated to support roles (paperwork, booking, lab work, training, etc.) This leaves less than 100,000 officers to patrol the streets at any given time. These officers are facing ~10,000,000 criminals, that is to say, they are outnumbered 100 to 1... [figures from Prof. John Bowman, U. of Illinois] Recognizing the logistical impossibility of providing around-the-clock, full coverage, our legal system has consistently held that the police have no legal duty to you, the individual. In California, the California Government Code (sections 821,845,846) reads: "A public employee is not liable for an injury caused by his ... failure to enforce any enactment [law]. ... Neither a public entity not a public employee is liable for failure to ... provide police protection ... or to provide sufficient police protection ... [or] for injury caused by the failure to make an arrest or the failure to attain an arrested person in custody." In Illinois, the Illinois Rev. Statutes (4-102) state the matter more clearly: "Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes, and failure to apprehend criminals." In the case of "Riss vs. City of New York (1961)", the Supreme Court held that even though Ms. Riss had asked the police for help six times previously, warning them of threats made against her by a rejected suitor, the police could not be held liable for their failure to prevent him from throwing acid in her face, disfiguring her for life. In the case of "Warren vs. District of Columbia (1981)", 2 women were upstairs in their house, and heard their other roommate being attacked downstairs by rapists. They called the police, and, when 1/2 hour later the noise downstairs had stopped for some time (because their roommate had been beaten into unconsciousness), went downstairs to meet the police. In the words of the Court, "for the next fourteen hours, the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon one another, and made to submit to the sexual demands" of their attackers. Their calls were mishandled by the dispatcher. The police never came to their aid... The Court held that the "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen" absolved the police and the city government from any liability in the case. So think about this, as you are debating whether people should be able to keep weapons for self-defense or not - if you truly believe the police will protect you when you need it, you are potentially fatally mistaken. In the final analysis, you MUST be responsible for the safety of your family and yourself - no one else is. -- Brian A. Ehrmantraut UUCP: {uunet, mips, sun, bridge2} !auspex!bae, bae@auspex.auspex.com BELL: voice:(408) 970-8970 fax: (408) 970-8977 - I'm the NRA! USnail: 2903 Bunker Hill Lane, Santa Clara, CA 95054 ********************************************************************** From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (lawrence.v.cipriani) Subject: Language Expert Says Amendment Still guarantees Individual RKBA Keywords: American language expert Date: 16 Sep 91 01:16:36 GMT 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 Schwarzkopf, 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 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 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 a distinguished 17-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 Publisher's 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: "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 for 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 test 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." 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 follow analysis (into which I have 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, constitutes 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 to keep and bear arms is asserted as an 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 a 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:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not 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 tot he 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 governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right. As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power. And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms -- all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution. And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing. it seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. no one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak ? Or will be simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortuned, and our sacred honor ? (C) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All other rights reserved. About the Author J. Neil Schulman is the award-winning author of novels endorsed by Anthony Burgess and Nobel-economist Milton Friedman, and writer of the CBS "Twilight Zone" episode in which a time-traveling historian prevents the JFK assassination. He's also the founder and president of SoftServ Publishing, the first publishing company to distribute "paperless books" via personal computers and modems. Most recently, Schulman has founded the Committee to Enforce the Second Amendment (CESA), through which he intends to see the individual's right to keep and bear arms recognized as a constitutional protection equal to those afforded in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth amendments. J. Neil Schulman may be reached through: The SoftServ Paperless Bookstore, 24-hour bbs: 213-827-3160 (up to 9600 baud). Mail address: PO Box 94, Long Beach, CA 90801-0094. GEnie address: SOFTSERV -- Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com "I just love the smell of gunpowder." -- Bugs Bunny ********************************************************************** Message-ID: <000312Z29011994@anon.penet.fi> Newsgroups: misc.headlines,misc.misc,talk.politics.misc From: an35198@anon.penet.fi ("White Dragon") Date: Fri, 28 Jan 1994 23:56:27 UTC Subject: TAX FARMERS WITH GUNS! [cross-posted from t.p.g] AMERICANS ARE PUTTING UP WITH A SPIRALING GESTAPO STATE By Paul Craig Roberts - Special to the Los Angeles Times What will become of "law and order conservatism" now that we know that our law-enforcement agencies -- from the Justice Department to local police forces -- can be as criminal as the miscreants that they are supposed to pursue? Unspeakable acts of cold-blooded murder and fabricated evidence now routinely characterize everyday acts of law enforcement in the United States. In Malibu, Calif., a 30-person raiding party of sheriff's deputies, federal drug agents and the California National Guard broke into the home of Donald Scott and shot him dead. Scott, it turns out, was a reclusive man, heir to a European fortune, whose $5 million, 200-acre ranch was targeted by federal agents under drug-forfeiture laws. No drugs or marijuana plants were found, but an alert Ventura County prosecutor, Michael Bradbury, did find that the raiding party had an appraisal of Scott's ranch, along with notes on the sale price of nearby property. Gideon Kanner, a Los Angeles law professor who has examined the case, concluded that the feds thought Scott might have a wife who indulged in drugs and decided to see if they could bag a $5 million piece of property for the Treasury. In pre-democratic times, this was known as "tax farming". Government officials simply seized whatever they could and raked off a commission. Today, the commission is in the form of the bureaucracy's budget. Ever since President Reagan's budget director, David Stockman, invented "budget savings" from tougher Internal Revenue Service and drug enforcement, the pressure has been on these marauders to farm more revenues. The results are mounting abuses of citizens and occasional deaths. What will be done about it? Nothing. Scott, awakened from sleep by the sound of his door crashing in, made the mistake of walking out of his bedroom with a gun in his hand. The military force got off with a self-defense plea. Shades of Waco, Texas, where the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms folks killed 86 men, women and children, while the attorney general took all the credit to show how tough she is. Noted defense attorney Gerry Spence told the Montana Trial Lawyers Association in July that he had never been involved in a case with the federal government in which the government had not lied and manufactured evidence to gain a conviction. "These are not the good guys", he said. "These are people who do what they believe is necessary to do to bring about a conviction." The law gets hung with the victim. What, you might protest, about the Los Angeles and Detroit convictions of police officers who beat black motorists? Aren't these signs that checks and balances work and that we are free from the arbitrary application of power that medieval serfs had to endure? Alas, these police offers were not done in because they abused their power, but because they were charged with racism and violating the civil rights of a member of a "preferred minority". As incredible as it may seem, in the United States only blacks have any protection from abusive state power. They have a special, racial civil-rights shield. The rest of us must make do with happenstance. Formerly, a person could protect himself by getting rich. But today that just makes you more of a target. Witness the fates of billionaires Michael Milken and Leona Helmsley -- and of Donald Scott. Politically ambitious prosecutors need drama, and they don't get that from the local drug pusher. Federal drug agents are not going to waste their time and risk their lives rounding up Jamaican drug gangs (who shoot back) -- especially when inner-city juries may not convict either out of fear or feelings of racial solidarity -- when they can pick soft targets like Scott. Nothing makes it clearer that the United States is no longer a "nation of laws" than federal wetlands regulations. These "laws" have been created entirely by bureaucrats and courts. All over America, people are finding their uses of their property circumvented and themselves in jail because of these regulatory police and their "laws". Recently, the Clinton administartion said: "Congress should amend the Clean Water Act to make it consistent with the agencies' rule- making." And Sens. Max Baucus, D-Mont., and John H. Chaff, R-R.I., have introduced a bill to codify all the wetlands regulations that are being enforced without any legal basis. Note that the two senators did not introduce a bill to stop unelected bureaucrats from illegally creating laws and running all over our constitutional protections. Not even a wrist slap. To hell with the U.S. Constitution, say the senators. Let's pass a law that future courts will use to give carte blanche to the regulatory police. Let's ennoble the bureaucrats. Divine rule cannot be blocked by special-interest lobbying. [Roberts, former assistant Trasury secretary, is chairman of the Institute for Political Economy.] ... CLINTON - ompulsive iar n ation's op ffice ow. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------- To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi. Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized, and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned. Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi. ********************************************************************** From: chan@shell.portal.com (Jeff Chan) Subject: CAC: OPEN LETTER TO FEINSTEIN Message-ID: Summary: vote gun prohibitionists out of office, let them know Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1993 08:58:26 GMT [Please send this to your legislators. Contact CAC for more information. For this letter in various word processor formats, ftp portal.com, cd /pub/chan, get difi.uue or difi.zip] Jeff Chan Internet: chan@shell.portal.com UUCP: {apple,claris,pyramid,uunet}!shell.portal.com!chan (Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are mine unless otherwise noted.) +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Say NO to Big Brother Government. | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ maintainer of {ba,ca}-{firearms,liberty}@shell.portal.com ----- CITIZENS AGAINST CORRUPTION 2201 East Willow Street, D-333 Signal Hill, California 90806-2143 (310) 437-3373 November 3, 1993 BEFORE YOU VOTE FOR GUN CONTROL, READ THIS OPEN LETTER Dear Senator Feinstein: We recently read that you're in charge of lining up Senate votes for a ban on so-called "assault weapons", more accurately described as a semi-auto ban. Be sure to refer your colleagues to some of your friends who recently became ex-politicians. They had to learn the hard way that violating basic Constitutional rights is a bad career move. All the media's horses, and all the media's men, couldn't put these Humpty Dumpties back together again. Whatever happened to California Attorney General/Gubernatorial Candidate John Van de Kamp? Remember how he led the charge to ban "assault rifles"? How he "ran against the NRA", night after night in his ads, claiming he'd beaten the powerful gun lobby? Remember his picture in the Capitol holding an "AK-47" over his head, and how violent crime jumped dramatically after the gun ban passed? He didn't even survive the primary. What's John doing these days? Whatever happened to California Assembly Speaker Pro Tem Mike Roos? You know, co-author of the Roos-Roberti "assault weapon" ban, the ban you're taking nationwide? We can tell you about that. We documented Assemblyman Roos' politics in a 14-page mailer, sent it to all of his constituents, asked them to call the FBI and DOJ to demand an investigation, then started a recall campaign. Roos resigned 10 weeks later. They said it couldn't be done in a 70% Demo district. We did it and liked it! Whatever happened to L.A. Mayoral Candidate Mike Woo? Remember how he repeatedly attacked "Candidate Riordan and his NRA friends" in televised forums. How his "crime solution" was to ban guns? You don't think his anti- self-defense message helped elect a Republican Mayor in a Democratic city left defenseless by the police during the riots, do you? Didn't the criminals know they're not supposed to have weapons? Didn't the victims know all they had to do was dial 911? Say, isn't Mikey's loss reminiscent of a recent election in New York? What's to become of Gov. Jim Florio? Hey, those anti-gun ads were great... the best money could buy. Especially the tasteless one with the "AK-47" shooting at the viewer with an NRA logo in the background. Sure did him a lot of good, too. Say, didn't he pass an assault weapon ban? Didn't he lose the election yesterday? What's to become of Virginia Gubernatorial candidate Mary Sue Terry? Say, wasn't she way ahead before attacking the NRA, calling for a 5-day waiting period in every ad? Didn't she lose yesterday, too? You don't think it's a pattern, do you? So what's up with California Senate President David Roberti? You know, your pal of Roos-Roberti "assault weapon" fame? Well, twice last year we thumped him in massive letter-writing campaigns to his constituents, forcing him to spend an historic $2.5 million to get a pitiful 34% in a 60% Democratic District, barely defeating an inexperienced, unfunded challenger who didn't even have a publicly-listed campaign phone number. Terribly embarrassing. Now we're gathering signatures to recall him. If we get 21,000 valid signatures, he'll have to get 50% to survive, just when he should be raising money for his State Treasurer bid. Best of luck, Dave! In closing, we'd like to thank you and your anti-civil-rights, anti-self- defense friends for getting us involved in politics by violating your oath to defend the Constitution. It's so much fun, we can't get enough. Was it as good for your friends as it was for us? Hey, you know that close election you're looking at next year? Just want you to know we'll be there for you. Some good advice though: Raise twice as much money as you thought you needed. And get in touch with the L.A. Times. They're your kind of people: Supporting a total ban on guns and ammunition for law-abiding citizens (Bet L.A.'s 100,000+ gang bangers love that idea). Maybe the Times will help you like they helped Roos, Woo, and Roberti. Well, maybe people just don't trust the media like they used to. By the way, clever idea Senator Moynihan has: Massively tax self-defense ammunition so only the wealthy can afford self-defense. Is he a racist, or just an elitist? You know, a politician out of office, out of power, out of money, and out of friends is a pathetic sight. Beautiful, isn't it? Citizens Against Corruption -- Jeff Chan Internet: chan@shell.portal.com UUCP: {apple,claris,pyramid,uunet}!shell.portal.com!chan ********************************************************************** From: ipser@vaxa.isi.edu (Ed Ipser) Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc Subject: constitution quiz Message-ID: <9878@venera.isi.edu> Date: 26 Sep 89 22:09:37 GMT Name this country. It is characterized by the following rights, among others, guaranteed in its constitution (from which the quotations are taken): citizens of this nation "are equal before the law, without distinction of origin, social, or property status, race or nationality, sex, education, language, attitude to religion, type and nature of occupation, domicile, or other status"; all citizens of this nation "who have reached the age of eighteen have the right to vote and to be elected" and elections are held "on the basis of universal, equal, and direct suffrage by secret ballot"; citizens of this nation "are guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly, meetings, street processions and demonstrations"; citizens of this nation "have the right to associate in public organizations that promote their political activity and initiative and satisfaction of their various interests" and "public organizations are guaranteed conditions for successfully performing the functions defined in their rules"; citizens of this nation "are guaranteed freedom of concience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion and to conduct religious worship" and "the church is separated from the state"; citizens of this nation "are guaranteed inviolability of the person"; citizens of this nation "are guaranteed inviolability of the home"; for this nation "the privacy of citizens, and of their correspondence, telephone conversations, and telegraphic communications is protected by law"; citizens of this nation "are guaranteed freedom of scientific, technical, and artistic work"; citizens of this nation "have the right to take part in the management and administration of state and public affairs and in the discussion and adoption of laws and measures" of national and local significance; citizens of this nation have "the right to submit proposals to state bodies and public organizations" and "prosecution for criticism is prohibited"; for this nation "respect for the individual and protection of the rights and freedoms of citizens are the duty of all state bodies, public organizations, and officials"; and citizens of this nation "have the right to protection by the courts against encroachments of their...personal freedom and property". The above very nearly subsumes the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution, and then some. You would think that this nation would be a bastion of personal freedom. However, such a conclusion assumes that the government of this nation adheres to its own constitution which historically has not been the case. The nation in question is the USSR. Conspicuously absent from the Constitution of the USSR is the individual right to keep and bear arms. There are other differences such as the declaration of the "central role" of the Communist party but none more directly affects the protection of those rights granted by the Constitution. It may be argued that the traditions of the US and the USSR are significantly different but this merely begs the question. The point is that Americans have always enjoyed not only the *rights* of individual liberty but the will and capability to defend and assert those rights. The Second Ammendment of the US Constitution serves many purposes including defense against foreign invasion and self defense in the absence police protection, roles lessened these days by a strong standing army and a powerful police force, respectively, to the extent of the (sometimes questionable) effectiveness of each. But the Second Ammendment of the US Constitution also serves as the linch pin of the rights and procedures described therein *especially* in an environment of a strong standing army and a powerful police force. Any dilution of the Second Ammendment indirectly dilutes our ability to defend other rights guaranteed. A constitution is a legal document defining the powers of the government. It is the original and fundamental principles of law by which a system of government is created and according to which a country is governed. But like any law, without enforcement, it becomes nothing more than a scrap of paper. The right to keep and bear arms together with the right of revolution is the enforcement clause of the United States Constitution. Of course, the USSR is an extreme example, there are many European nations which currently enjoy individual personal freedoms comparable to the US. But the US Constitution, now over two-hundred years old, is the oldest working constitution in the world. That it has been followed very nearly to the letter throughout its history is but a further tribute to its design as a working document. If for no other reason, the United States Constitution, in general, and the Second Ammendment therof, in particular, should be revered for having withstood the test of time. "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence" George Washington ********************************************************************** Is this America? ---------------- Late afternoon, March 25th, 1989, a firearms owner is cleaning his single-shot shotgun. The curtains of his apartment window are open and some of the neighborhood kids start peering in to look at the shotgun. The owner shoos away the kids and closes the curtains. About an hour or so later the Los Angeles Police Department surrounds the house,knocks on the door, and when the door is opened, handcuffs the gun owner. He is accused (but never charged) of "Assault with a Deadly Weapon." He is questioned (Miranda rights were not read until he was taken away to jail) and his house searched without a warrant. His single-shot shotgun is confiscated along with a .22 calibre rifle. Apparently the parents of the neighborhood kids thought their children were in danger. Upon questioning the children the police officers determined that there was no "Assault". Nevertheless, they took the gun owner into custody. He asked what he was being arrested for, but there was no reply. As the police had no basis for charges, they had to find something. While the gun owner was handcuffed to a bench for over an hour, the police officers debated amongst themselves as to whether his semi-automatic .22 caliber rifle was an "Assault Rifle" or not, under the new L.A. ordinance. The owner brought up the fact that under the city ordinance (LAMC 55.05) ALL .22 caliber rifles are exempted - to no avail. The gun owner was forced to pay $100 "bail" for his "illegal" weapon (a Ruger 10/22, available for $129.00 new...). On April 19th, 8:30 AM, he will be appearing at the Van Nuys Courtroom, Division 101 at 14400 Erwin St. Mall. Please be on notice - if you own ANY firearm for protection or for whatever purposes you are subject to having your house searched without a warrant. All it takes is a disgruntled neighbor picking up a phone, and telling the police you are "endangering their life." Even if charges are not pressed, the police have the authority to search your entire house while questioning you, sieze all of your firearms, and take you to jail while they investigate the legality of those firearms. Furthermore, the police will interpret these new weapons laws as they see fit. It has happened, it will continue to happen. Welcome to America... -- Brian A. Ehrmantraut UUCP: {uunet, mips, sun, bridge2} !auspex!bae, bae@auspex.auspex.com BELL: voice:(408) 970-8970 fax: (408) 970-8977 - I'm the NRA! USnail: 2903 Bunker Hill Lane, Santa Clara, CA 95054 ********************************************************************** From: rats@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (ISDN 7506) Subject: Larry Pratt on the 2nd Amendment Date: 27 Sep 89 16:07:29 GMT The Second Amendment: Freedom's Insurance Policy by Larry Pratt Executive Director, GOA May/ June 1989 Defense Watch Recent events in Panama, China and the Soviet Union should remind us once again of the wisdom of our founding fathers in guaranteeing the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. When government has a monopoly on the means of defense, namely firearms, there is no check upon its appetites. In places like Panama, only the police and military can own firearms. Here in Virginia, we take no notice of the members of the armed forces who walk our streets or share our public transportations. We don't see anything to worry about. My wife, who was born and raised in Panama, personally knows that this state of affairs is not common elsewhere. We've been following recent developments in her homeland quite closely. I'll never forget the broadcast I heard during the days of rioting over the election Noriega stole. One man explained the situation there this way: "the United States must help us. For we have no guns." The results of that policy are displayed night after night on our television screens. Domestically bred dictators and foreign invaders like know that to restrict a hostile people, the government must have a monopoly of force. The British understood that all too well. Following the British invasion of rebellious Boston in October of 1768, the New York Journal reported that "the inhabitants had been ordered to bring in their arms." By 1775, the British were seizing large quantities of ammunition, and as analyst Stephen Halbrook has put it: "The Revolutionary War was sparked when militiamen exercising at Lexington refused to give up their arms." The victors in the American war for independence were wary of creating an American tyranny to replace the British yoke. Those who argued for a strong central government had to offer assurances that such a government could not turn against the people. That assurance became the Second Amendment: an individual's right to keep and bear arms. The Philadelphia Independent Gazatteer for August 20, 1789, the day that the new House finished debating the Second Amendment, offered a reasurring report: "And that the said constitution be never construed to authorize congress ... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." The Second Amendment's rights to keep and bear arms provided the colonist with an independent guarantee that they would have the means to enforce other amendments, particularly the third. For how could an unarmed people practically prevent the forced quartering of troops in their homes otherwise? While the Chinese students must confront tanks with bicycles and the Panamanian opposition is beaten and shot for daring to win an election, we Americans sit secure in our homes, unafraid of our government. Any group of would-be American dictators either from within or outside our nation would confront the simple fact that about half of all American households have at least one firearm, firearms which are already used a million times annually in self-defense by law-abiding citizens. Some of these households have the best firearms technology has made available, just as the men at Lexington had some of the best weapons available at that time. Those who would deny American citizens their constitutional right to bear arms, or wish to decide which firearms Americans are allowed to own, are in effect undermining that right which makes America more secure from internal subversion or external invasion. The first things dictators have done throughout the ages is to disarm the people. "To [a standing army] would be opposed a militia ... of citizens with arms in their hands ... It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by regular troops. "Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against British arms will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it." Important lessons can be learned from two very recent examples which show the continuing importance of an armed citizenry. Guatemala and the Phillippines in the past have tottered on the brink of Communist takeover in the face of a guerilla insurgency. As long as the people were not involved in their own defense, the government was left alone to try to fight the battle alone. Since the guerillas were the only continuing force in most parts of the country, the people had little choice but to tolerate or even cooperate with the Communist insurgents. When the government began to work with the people, including providing arms in the case of Guatemala and bringing volunteer groups under control in the Philippines, the insurgents began to lose their sanctuary. People began to be willing to cooperate with the government because their arms and organization as a citizens "militia" enabled them to avoid reprisals from the insurgents. An armed citizenry enabled the authorities to deal successfully with the insurgents in both Guatemala and the Phillippines. Upon the individual right to bear arms rest all the other rights Americans take for granted. That right must not be lost or taken away. ********************************************************************** From: bae@auspex.auspex.com (Brian Ehrmantraut) Subject: Why Gun Laws Are A Waste Of Time Message-ID: <2344@auspex.auspex.com> [The following essay is by Cincinnati Police Lieutenant Harry Thomas.] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gun laws are a waste of time--your time, my time and the taxpayer's money. Why? Because gun laws directed at law-abiding citizens do nothing to combat crime. That's why rank-and-file law enforcement stands firm with the NRA in support of the people's right to keep and bear arms. The majority of peace officers I've talked to agree that gun laws only result in armed criminals preying on defenseless citizens. Instead of useless anti-gun owner legislation, what we need and need right now are tough anti-crime measures. Anti-gun bills only cloud the real issue. And those of us who actually battle crime pay the price. In Cincinnati, where I work, members of my Fraternal Order of Police lodge voted to oppose a local ban on semiautomatic firearms: real cops don't trample on citizen's rights in order to effect an imaginary in- crease in their own margin of safety. Ohio is the home of U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, who has sponsored numerous anti-gun bills, including the proposed ban on semiautomatics. I oppose this legislation and, along with more than 225 law enforcement officers from throughout the nation, traveled to Washington to speak out against it. Once again, we all considered the bill an affront to law-abiding citizens and a waste of our time. I can only appeal to you as a policeman, and not as an official spokesman for the Cincinnati Police Division. Yet I think most peace officers feel that the semiauto firearms issue has been blown totally out of proportion by the news media. I don't know of any officer who considers himself "outgunned." Frankly, most of the people ranting about semiautos don't even know what they're talking about. Maybe they should do their homework--or talk to a peace officer--before they push for these bans. Right now, America has over 20,000 gun laws already in place across the nation, yet crime continues to flourish. Criminals do not obtain firearms through legal channels, and lawmakers need to realize it. Only law-abiding citizens obey gun laws, and law-abiding citizens aren't a threat to law and order. We need tougher laws that punish criminals, not laws that punish the millions of Americans who own guns and support our efforts. As a second-generation police officer with 17 years of service, I can also assure you that privately owned firearms truly do provide a strong deterrent to crime. Yet most of the anti-gun legislation I've seen will only serve to disarm good, hard-working, law-abiding American people-- and leave criminals free to plunder. Sometimes I think the news media has conspired to cover up how law enforcement really feels about the gun issue. For far too long, anti- gun big city police chiefs with political axes to grind and political favors to repay have received extensive press coverage, while pro- Second Amendment working cops have been ignored. That's why so many peace officers want America to hear the truth--hear it from those of us who are out in the streets fighting crime every day. Lawmakers all across the nation should listen to what real peace officers--not desk-bound police bureaucrats--say about crime and guns. We want you to hear from those of us who actually fight crime, instead of the reporters and political opportunists who claim to speak for us. We say restrictive gun laws will not reduce crime. They only waste our time, your time, and skirt the real issue--the failure of our criminal justice system to effectively deal with violent criminals. And that's the truth from a real police officer. -- Brian A. Ehrmantraut UUCP: {uunet, mips, sun, bridge2} !auspex!bae, bae@auspex.auspex.com BELL: voice:(408) 970-8970 fax: (408) 970-8977 - I'm the NRA! USnail: 2903 Bunker Hill Lane, Santa Clara, CA 95054 **********************************************************************