GUNS AND TOBACCO

NOVEMBER 2015

THE STUDY PUBLISHED BY HARVARD THAT GUN-GRABBERS FEAR
By Thomas Lifson, October 14, 2015

A truly amazing study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy debunks just about every argument of the gun-grabbers. No wonder the media have managed to ignore it ever since it was published in 2007. But Beliefnet (hat tip: Instapundit) summarizes its findings, and they confirm what gun owners know and gun-grabbers can’t bear to learn:

The popular assertion that the United States has the industrialized world’s highest murder rate, says the Harvard study, is a throwback to the Cold War when Russian murder rates were nearly four times higher than American rates. In a strategic disinformation campaign, the U.S. was painted worldwide as a gunslinging nightmare of street violence – far worse than what was going on in Russia. The line was repeated so many times that many believed it to be true. Now, many still do.

Today violence continues in Russia – far worse than in the U.S. – although the Russian people remain virtually disarmed. “Similar murder rates also characterize the Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and various other now-independent European nations of the former U.S.S.R.,” note Kates and Mauser . Kates is a Yale-educated criminologist and constitutional lawyer. Dr. Mauser is a Canadian criminologist at Simon Fraser University with a Ph.D. from the University of California Irvine. “International evidence and comparisons have long been offered as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths. Unfortunately, such discussions are all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and factual error.”

By the early 1990s, Russia's murder rate was three times higher than that of the United States. Thus, “in the United States and the former Soviet Union transitioning into current-day Russia,” say Kates and Mauser, “homicide results suggest that where guns are scarce, other weapons are substituted in killings.”

The impact of Soviet disinformation amplified by American media acting as co-conspirators continues unto today.

Then there is this:

When Kates and Mauser compared England with the United States, they found “’a negative correlation,’ that is, ‘where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense, violent crime rates are highest.’ There is no consistent significant positive association between gun ownership levels and violence rates.”

In 2004, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released an evaluation from its review of existing research. After reviewing 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications and its own original empirical research, it failed to identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide, or gun accidents, note Kates and Mauser. (snip)

Somehow, it goes unreported that “despite constant and substantially increasing gun ownership, the United States saw progressive and dramatic reductions in criminal violence,” write Kates and Mauser. “On the other hand, the same time period in the United Kingdom saw a constant and dramatic increase in violent crime to which England’s response was ever-more drastic gun control. Nevertheless, criminal violence rampantly increased so that by 2000 England surpassed the United States to become one of the developed world’s most violence-ridden nations.

There’s much more. Send this article to every gun-grabber you know.

Reprinted with permission from the American Thinker: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/10/the_study_published_by_harvard_that_gun_grabbers_fear.html#ixzz3of4dJI2R

Return to Index

JUNE 2014

DOJ ADMITS FAST & FURIOUS DOCS SHOULD BE RELEASED UNDER FOIA
Judicial Watch, May 22, 2014 http://www.judicialwatch.org

Can a federal agency trying to cover up wrongdoing lawfully withhold documents under executive privilege—reserved for the president of the United States—when the records don’t even involve the commander-in-chief?

That’s the question being argued before a federal court in Washington D.C. and the ruling could have a widespread impact on how government unscrupulously hides information from the public as well as Congress. The feud involves a congressional committee investigating a disastrous Obama administration experiment that allowed Mexican drug traffickers to obtain U.S.-sold weapons that later ended up in a multitude of crime scenes, including the murder of a Border Patrol agent.

Run by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), which works under the Department of Justice (DOJ), the secret operation was known as Fast and Furious and it allowed guns from the U.S. to be smuggled into Mexico so they could eventually be traced to drug cartels. Instead, federal law enforcement officers lost track of hundreds of weapons used in violent crimes on both sides of the border. High-ranking officials in the Obama administration, including Attorney General Eric Holder who heads the DOJ, insist they knew nothing about the reckless operation.

Judicial Watch has sued the DOJ for records involving Fast and Furious and has been repeatedly stonewalled by the administration. In fact, last year the DOJ filed a motion to indefinitely delay consideration of JW’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeking access to Fast and Furious records withheld from Congress by President Obama under executive privilege. A congressional panel investigating the matter, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has also been stonewalled and forced to take legal action.

The House committee duked it out with the DOJ in federal court this month, arguing before a D.C. Circuit judge that executive privilege doesn’t apply in this case because the documents it is seeking don’t even involve communications with the president or the performance of his core constitutional functions. Amusingly, the DOJ attorney representing the agency countered that if the records were requested under FOIA (as Judicial Watch has done), they would most likely be subject to disclosure. However, because Congress requested the records, the DOJ lawyer argued, the standard is somehow different and the information essentially doesn’t have to be handed over.

It’s an insane logic and an obvious stall tactic since the DOJ clearly has no intention of releasing what is most likely very damaging information to anyone, not even Congress, and certainly not to a government watchdog like Judicial Watch. Remember that the agency filed a motion, which JW has appealed, to indefinitely delay even considering our Fast and Furious FOIA request. JW is used to these sorts of stall tactics from the government but this seems to be a new level of stonewalling that could very well be interpreted as a cover-up.

Recently, we saw the success of FOIA vs. Congress involving explosive Benghazi records uncovered by JW. The Obama administration essentially blew Congress off, failing to provide crucial documents about the 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. Special Mission in Libya. Through a FOIA lawsuit, JW was able to obtain the records that show the White House was directly involved in misleading the public about the attack to protect President Obama’s image. The administration specifically withheld the records from Congress, but turned them over the JW because a federal court ordered it. This proves the importance of groups like JW because, let’s face it, when Congress asks any agency for records, it’s political theater with no official system in place to assure the information is handed over.

JW Attorney Michael Bekesha, who’s handling JW’s Fast and Furious lawsuit, was in court during the recent hearing between the DOJ and the House investigative committee. For those who find the lengthy transcript too boring, here’s a layman’s synopsis from Bekesha: “They basically argued that, in the olden days, when Congress asked for documents and they said ‘no,’ they just went away.” That isn’t happening here.” How convenient that a government agency can swat away a congressional request for documents as if it were an annoying fly.

Return to Index

APRIL 2013

THE FEVERISH DE-LEGITIMIZATION OF PERSONAL SELF-DEFENSE
Lee DeCovnick, March 3, 2013

Three Florida high school students disarmed another student who was armed with a loaded pistol while riding home on a school bus. The school district then promptly suspended all three students for being involved in an "incident" with a weapon.

One of the suspended students asked, "How are they going to suspend me for doing the right thing?"

Authorities confirmed to WFTX the weapon was indeed loaded, and the arrest report stated the suspect, identified by WVZN-TV as Quadryle Davis, was "pointing the gun directly" at the other student and "threatening to shoot him."

That's when, the teen told the station, he and two others tackled the suspect and wrestled the gun away. The next day, all three were suspended. Meanwhile, the student accused of pointing the weapon has been charged only with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon "without intent" to kill.

"Those kids had to fight for their lives," the mother of the suspended teen said. "All the kids that was involved in this they should have a pat on their backs because they did the right thing to save someone from burying their child."

The feverish de-legitimization of personal self-defense by the progressive elements in our society continues unabated. Guns maybe bad, but defending other students from being shot is obviously unacceptable behavior.

What lessons will other high school students infer from the punishment handed out by the school district? The next generation is being formed. Can we surmise that the leadership of the Lee County School District would have much preferred a dead student, so that that the shooting could be leveraged by the national media in forwarding their radical anti-Second Amendment agenda?

We live in an "Alice in Wonderland" society, where those who fervently wish to enslave us are daily challenging our commonly held perceptions of right and wrong.

Page reprinted with permission from the American Thinker: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/03/the_feverish_de-legitimization_of_personal_self-defense.html

Return to Index

FEBRUARY 2013

I WILL NOT BE INTIMIDATED
By Steve McCann, January 8, 2013

As a young boy I was shot by a man whose clear intent was to kill me as I had deliberately, by throwing broken bricks at him, interrupted his attempt to rape a young teen-aged girl, allowing her to escape. To this day I can still see the evil in his face and the sun glistening off the barrel of the pistol he aimed in my direction. As I turned and began to run away he fired hitting me in back. The bullet entering my chest felt as if someone had hit me with baseball bat followed immediately by an excruciating burning sensation as I fell to the ground from the impact. Perhaps it was the adrenaline, but I was able scramble to my feet and run as far as I could until finally passing out from the shock and loss of blood. Fortunately, someone came to my rescue and took me to a military hospital and the first step on my journey to the United States.

According to the current incarnation of the American left, who traffic constantly in victimhood and noble intentions, I should be in the vanguard of the mandatory gun control and confiscation movement. That somehow it was the inanimate object this soldier was holding and not him that was responsible for the attempt on my life or to ignore the fact that his mindset was such he would have used any weapon at hand to accomplish the same goal.

On the contrary, I own a handgun today because of the experience of coming face to face with the evil that permeates some men's souls. I and the girl I rescued were defenseless. There were no police or armed citizens around and the death of another homeless and unknown boy and girl, buried in an unmarked mass grave, would have been just another easily ignored casualty of the post-War period. I was determined that I would never again face a similar circumstance. I have had in my possession firearms for virtually my entire life, as I have been fortunate to live in the one nation on earth that has embedded in its founding document the right to bear arms.

Today, I am, along with a vast majority of my fellow citizens, being made the scapegoat for the failed policies of the so-called progressives -- whether it is the inability of society to deal with extreme psychopaths or the mentally deranged, because the left insists they are entitled to the same rights as other citizens, or the never-ending attempt to rehabilitate criminals incapable of rehabilitation. Consistent with their inability to ever admit a mistake, the left and much of the Democratic Party instead focuses on symbolism over substance and the path of least resistance -- going after the law-abiding hard working people who are the backbone of America.

But the motivation is more insidious than that. Those that self-identify as progressives, leftists, socialists or Marxists, have one overwhelming trait in common: they are narcissists who believe they are pre-ordained to rule the masses too ignorant to govern themselves. Over the past thirty years as these extremists fully infiltrated academia, the mainstream media, the entertainment industry and taken over the Democratic Party, the American people have lost many of their individual rights. They are now being told what they can eat, where they can live, who they must associate with, where and how their children must be educated, and soon what medical care they are allowed to access, as well as the type of car they can drive and the amount of energy they are permitted to use.

The last bastion of freedom is unfettered gun ownership, so that too must go. That the left is willfully and egregiously exploiting the actions of a deranged psychopath in the tragic death of 26 people (20 children) in Newtown, Connecticut to achieve this end exposes their true motivation.

I immigrated to the United States from a continent that had nearly destroyed itself in World War II. The War was the end-product of the ascension to power of various ego-maniacs, steeped in socialist/Marxist ideology, determined to amass all political power within their countries. Once elected to office, these despots began to centralize their power and eliminate all individual freedoms and democratic institutions. The people, as they lived in nations that did not allow unfettered gun ownership, were powerless to stop the inexorable seizure of power and many paid the ultimate price as nearly 40+ million were killed during the War.

Many on the left and others will say I am trafficking in hyperbole, that nothing similar to that could ever happen in the United States -- perhaps not a massive and physically destructive war but the destruction of the nation as it was founded is well on its way. These same ideologues have reassured the American people over the past 40 years that they had no intention of ever:

Telling the American people how to live;
Limiting access to medical care;
Attempting by fiat and legislation to dramatically limit gun ownership;
Shifting near unlimited power to Washington D.C., by ignoring the concept of federalism;
Deliberately bankrupting the country;
Placing the private sector under the thumb of bureaucrats;
Monitoring without search warrants American's private conversations and communications;
Allowing unrestrained illegal immigration in order to affect the voting patterns in their favor.

Yet in the America of 2013 all this, and more, has come to past and we are expected to believe the progressive cabal when they say their ultimate aim is not to effectively invalidate the second amendment by ever more stringent laws and regulations.

The left's fundamental objective of transforming America is in sight, particularly with a fellow-traveler in the White House no longer facing re-election. Over the next four years, this faction will push their agenda more forcefully than ever as they will never allow a crisis, real or manufactured; to go to waste as they make certain an ever-increasing percentage of the population becomes indentured to the government.

I have lived my entire life on borrowed time and now in the twilight of my years, I have but one thing to say to those determined to take away or limit my right to own a firearm and to transform and destroy the greatest nation in the history of mankind. I, and many like me, will not be intimidated and you will only accomplish your ultimate ends over our dead bodies.

Page reprinted with permission from the American Thinker: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2013/01/i_will_not_be_intimidated.html

Return to Index

JUNE 2009

AN INVITATION FROM THE NRA

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is giving FREE 1-year memberships to everyone who wants to join.  They are trying to build up their membership to fight pending legislation that impacts our right to keep and bear arms.

It is very important that anti-gun congressmen see how many people they will have to fight to get their legislation through. https://www.nrahq.org/nrabonus/accept-membership.asp

Return to Index

MAY 2009

FOLLOW UP ON DEMOCRATS

Georgia Arms replied to an e-mail in which I asked if the casings policy (where the Department of Defense would scrap used casings rather than sell them to ammunition manufacturers) was still in effect.  They advised that the policy was changed after 5 days because of customer uproar to their elected officials in Washington.  It shows that sometimes Washington does listen to the voters.

Sean Harkins, in the April 17, 2009 edition of The Alpena News, reported on Michigan Democratic Party Chair, Mark Brewer.  He has been traveling through a dozen Northern Michigan counties to talk to local parties and attempt to sign up candidates.  He said the Democrats are targeting the 36th and 37th district senate seats now held by Tony Stamas and Jason Allen.  He is also searching for a candidate for the 106th district state house seat now held by Andy Neumann, an Alpena Democrat.

The Democrats apparently think the jobs being done by Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Pres. Barack Hussein Obama are so impressive that they deserve additional seats in the legislature and the State offices.  We still have at least 75% of the people in our area employed.  We must need to lower that some more.  We still have some money left after paying taxes.  We have to get that to the State, local and federal government as soon as possible.  We should only be satisfied when everyone is equally poor and living on welfare.

Return to Index

APRIL 2009

THE GUN ATTACK BEGINS

In the March 18, 2009 edition of the Canada Free Press Selwyn Duke reported that Obama has just disallowed the Department of Defense (DOD) from selling spent brass shell casings to manufacturers of ammunition for the civilian market.  This will raise the cost and, some say, reduce the supply.

This DOD directive will cause the fifth largest producer of centerfire pistol and rifle ammo in the country, Georgia Arms to lay off approximately half of his sixty-person workforce. 

The brass will have to be shredded and sold for lower prices as scrap and will probably end up in China.

In addition, the Democrats are talking about requiring manufacturers to "code" ammunition by stamping each bullet so it could be traced back to the purchaser.  If passes, the coding measure will require disposition of all uncoded ammo by 2011.  This means that at the same time you have to get rid of your ammo, you will have a harder time trying to buy replacements.  Tricky isn't it.

Return to Index

AUGUST 2007

REPEAL THE SECOND AMENDMENT?

Nathan Burchfiel, Cybercast News Service staff writer, wrote on June 12, 2007 that Benjamin Wittes, a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution, believes that "The Second Amendment is one of the clearest statements of right in the Constitution.  We've had decades of sort of intellectual gymnastics to try to make those words not mean what they say."

He is no fan of gun rights, and, says that modern society is much more ambivalent than the founders were about gun ownership being fundamental to liberty.  "One of the things that they believed was that the right of states to organize militias, and therefore individuals to be armed, was necessary to protect the liberty of those states against the federal government."  He says: "This is something we don't really believe as a society anymore."

Burchfiel believes that rather than engaging in convoluted discussions over the meaning of the Second Amendment, it should be repealed, which he concedes is highly unlikely.

But challenging the Second Amendment on the basis that society's circumstances have changed since the drafting would similarly open up to question all other constitutional rights, according to Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett, who also participated in the discussion.

Return to Index

MARCH 2007

QUITE A SHOT

In The Des Moines Register on Jan. 10, 2007, Perry Beeman reported that a bald eagle was spotted by a state botanist, John Pearson, who found the bird hanging from a branch about 60 feet above the lake near the Elk Rock State Park ranger station.

An Iowa conservation officer, Jason Sandholdt, was off duty and eating lunch when he was called by the US Army Corps of Engineers from the reservoir southeast of Des Moines.

Sandholdt responded with state colleagues and county workers.  With binoculars, they could see that the bird appeared to have caught a single talon in a knothole in the branch when it landed.  Apparently, the bird tried to take off and lost its balance.  It hung by the talon, upside down.

Because the bird was hanging over a cliff and high in the air, ropes and ladders seemed out of the question as rescue tools.  Many in the group thought a mercy killing was the best option.

Sandholdt asked for a chance to free the bird with his muzzleloader, figuring at best the bird would fall into the lake and have to be rescued for rehabilitation at a clinic.

While none of his buddies thought he could do it, Sandholdt bent a tree sapling over to use as a brace.  He used the gun's scope to take aim with the .50 caliber muzzleloader.  The bullet traveled 60 to 70 feet, cleanly through the edge of the knothole.  Sandholdt figures he hit the talon, too.

The eagle flew away, and while some waited for it to collapse, the bird kept flying, disappearing over the horizon.  No one knows its odds of survival, but it faced certain death before the rescue, Pearson said.

Sandholdt didn't get a deer that day.  The eagle got his best shot.

What a shot it was.

Return to Index

DECEMBER 2006

FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE

1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

3. Glock: The original point and click interface.

4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.

5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?

6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.

7. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

8. If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.

10. The United States Constitution (c) 1791: All Rights reserved.

11. What part of "... shall not be infringed ..." do you not understand?

12. The Second Amendment is in place in case they ignore the others.

13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

14. Guns only have two enemies: rust and liberals.

15. Know guns, know peace and safety. No guns, no peace nor safety.

16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

17. 911 - government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.

18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

19. Criminals love gun control -- it makes their jobs safer

20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.

21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

22. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.

23. Enforce the "gun control laws" we have, don't make more.

24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control

26. ".. a government of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, for the PEOPLE..."

Keep our service men and women in our thoughts.   Protect Americans, not terrorists

From the internet -- Author Unknown

Return to Index

MARCH 2006

CANADIAN GUN REGISTRY MAY DIE

On February 15, 2006, the Toronto Star reported that the Conservative government has created a committee of two cabinet ministers and a backbencher to figure out how best to kill the long-gun registry as soon as possible. 

When the Liberals added the registry to the federal gun control program in 1995, they said it would cost taxpayers no more than $2 million.  But the most recent estimates put the figure in the hundreds of millions of dollars, bringing the total cost of the gun program to more than $1 billion.

Canada.com, on Feb. 17, 2006, reported that the new Public Security Minister, Stockwell Day, said that Canadians will be shocked by the true cost of the gun registry.

The auditor general is working on determining the true cost.  At last estimate, the program was said to be consuming $90 million a year to maintain.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised voters during the election campaign that the registry would be scrapped and money redirected to public safety.

The Conservatives have called the registry a waste of taxpayers' money that targets duck hunters rather than criminals.

Return to Index

APRIL 2005

THE FOLLY OF GUN CONTROL

Canada installed a gun registry system, originally projected to have a net cost of $2 million, in ten years has surpassed $1 billion.  The system was designed to keep firearms from people who are likely to be a danger to themselves or to others.  However, the Toronto Star reported on March 7, 2005, that a farmer from Alberta, Jim Roszko, a convicted child molester who was aggressive and in emotional pain was known by local residents and police to have guns hidden on his farm.  He faced numerous firearms charges over the years.  Roszko shouldn't have had weapons, and, if the registry actually worked, wouldn't have had them.

However, he did, and, on March 3, 2005, he used a high-powered weapon to kill four constables of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police before turning the gun on himself.

Roszko's brother George said police knew Roszko had weapons, but he hid them.  "There was numerous searches there.  They tried to find his automatic weapons numerous times.  But he's not stupid."

One parliamentary critic of the registry noted that the government had wasted $2 billion on the registry which could have gone to front-line policing.

One former Mountie called the registry "totally useless" because criminals don't register their guns.

Well, DUH?

In England, where registration lead to confiscation, people are at the mercy of the criminals.  If you defend yourself or your belongings, you are likely to end up in jail.

A March 10, 2005, London TIMESONLINE article told the outrageous story of a frail 84-year old Royal Air Force veteran who was afraid to leave his house or even open his front door after being robbed by doorstep conmen twice last year.  These criminals distract the homeowner with some story at the front door while an accomplice breaks in and steals from the homeowner.

Herbert Buckland and his wife thought they were safe by not answering the door and keeping the doors and windows locked.  However, on February 24, 2005 a burglar forced a locked, double-glazed bedroom window.  Buckland and his wife confronted the thief, who ran off after stealing some cash.

Buckland told relatives that the world was no longer a place he wanted to live in.  His granddaughter said: "he no longer felt safe in his home and was too proud a man to move out.  After the last burglary, he became anxious and worried."

Three days later he was found hanged in the bungalow that he shared with his wife, Barbara, in Wroughton, near Swindon, Wiltshire.

Return to Index

FEBRUARY 2005

GUN CONTROL DOESN'T WORK

In the Jan. 8, 2005 edition of the Chicago Sun-Times, John R. Lott, Jr. reports on a 328-page report of the National Academy of Sciences on gun control laws.  The panel was set up during the Clinton administration, and all but one of its members favored gun control.

The big news is that the academy's panel could not identify any benefits of the decades-long effort to reduce crime and injury by restricting gun ownership.  The survey covered 80 different gun control measures and some of the panel's own empirical work, and couldn't identify a single gun control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents.

Probably because of these findings, the panel suggested more study.  It did not look objectively at all the evidence.  The panel ignored many studies showing that gun control may actually be counterproductive.  There was no mention of research that shows that locking up guns prevents people from using them defensively. The panel also ignored most of the studies that find a benefit in crime reduction from right-to-carry laws.  It did pay attention to some non-peer reviewed papers on the right-to-carry issue, and it also noted one part of a right-to-carry study that indicated little or no benefit from such laws.  What the panel didn't point out, however, is that the authors of that particular study had concluded that data in their work did much more to show there were benefits than to debunk it.

James Q. Wilson, professor of public policy at UCLA, was the one dissenting panelist and the only member whose views were known in advance not to be entirely pro-gun control.  His dissent focused on the right-to-carry issue, and the fact that emphasizing results that could not withstand peer-reviewed studies called into question the panel's contention that right-to-carry laws had not for sure had a positive effect.  He said "virtually every reanalysis done by the committee" confirmed right-to-carry laws reduced crime.

Despite the evidence that gun control doesn't help, the National Academy of Sciences suggests more research.

Lott concluded: ". . . (T)he panel has left us with two choices.  Either academia and the government have wasted tens of millions of dollars and countless man-hours on useless research (and the paned would like us to spend more in the same worthless pursuit), or the National Academy is so completely unable to separate politics from its analyses that it simply can't accept the results for what they are.

"In either case, the academy, and academics in general, have succeeded mostly in shooting themselves in the foot."

Return to Index

JUNE 2003

CNN AND GUN "TRUTH"

In the May 20, 2003 issue of The Washington Times, CNN was exposed for misleading viewers about the types of weapons prohibited by the "Assault Weapon Ban" law which is due to expire next year.

In two broadcasts in the previous week, a firing demonstration by the Broward County, Florida Sheriff's Department suggested that the guns banned under the 1994 law were more powerful than similar, legal weapons.

After being exposed by the National Rifle Association, CNN admitted that this was not true.  "In fact, if you fire the same caliber and type bullets from the two guns, you get the same impact," CNN's John Zarella told viewers on May 19.

In one of the segments, Broward County Sheriff Ken Jenne (a Democrat who supports the extension of the law) introduced a detective with "an old Chinese AK-47 that has been banned."  Zarella, CNN's Miami bureau chief, then said: "That is one of the 19 currently banned weapons."

The detective first fired six shots in semi-automatic mode.  Then, in fully automatic mode, the detective fired a burst at a cinder block target, prompting Zarella to exclaim: "Wow!  That obliterated those blocks. . . . Absolutely obliterated it.  And you can tell the difference."

In fact, the weapon is NOT covered by the 1994 law.  Fully automatic weapons like the AK-47 shown in the demonstration are regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934.

Wayne LaPierre of the NRA said:  "We caught them red-handed, in the act.  Now they're backpedaling,"  after the corrections aired.  

It seems that the segment which showed the cinder block being destroyed was followed by another with a demonstration of a legal semi-automatic weapon doing no damage to the cinder block.  The problem was that the detective doing the shooting was not firing at the cinder block.

The main difference between legal and illegal weapons under the act is appearance.  The 1994 law was pushed by Senators Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer of California.  They wanted to get rid of guns they deemed ugly.

Return to Index

SEPTEMBER 2001

SUITS AGAINST GUNS FAILING 

On July 27, 2001, the Associated Press reported that the Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled that gun owners do not have a duty to the public to reasonably care for their firearms.  

The case involved the shooting of a police officer who was killed by a burglary suspect who stole a handgun from his parents, shot the officer and was also killed in an exchange of gunfire.  

The officer's family filed a civil suit against the parents from whom the gun was stolen on the theory that they knew their son had violent tendencies and they had a duty to ensure he did not gain access to the handgun in question.

While the appeals court said some Indiana cases require reasonable care in other contexts, such as by dog owners or people waxing a public floor, those cases are different because they do not involve a constitutional right.

On August 6, 2001, the Associated Press reported on a decision of the California Supreme Court in which the judges in a 5-1 decision reversed the Court of Appeal.  The Supreme Court held that victims cannot sue gunmakers when criminals use their products illegally, rejecting a suit stemming from the 1993 massacre of eight people in a skyscraper.

Every state high court and federal appellate court in the nation to consider such lawsuits has ruled that makers of legal, non-defective guns cannot be sued for their criminal misuse.

This case was followed by a decision in a New York state judge from Manhattan, who dismissed the State Attorney General's novel lawsuit to find the gun industry liable under a nuisance theory, reported in the New York Law Journal on August 15, 2001.  New York is the only state to date to have sued the gun industry, but at least 32 municipalities have filed similar suits.  According to the judge's opinion, eight courts have rejected the nuisance theory and three have adopted it. 

The judge rejected the State Attorney General's argument that the gun industry markets guns in a manner that makes them likely to end up in the hand of criminals, finding too many gaps in the tracing process.

The judge also pointed out that the New York Court of Appeals, in Hamilton v Beretta, rejected a closely related theory that sought to impose industrywide liability on a "negligent marketing" theory.

Return to Index

SEPTEMBER 2000

SECOND AMENDMENT CASE ARGUED

The Fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals heard the case of United States of America vs. Emerson on June 13, 2000, WorldNetDaily.com reported on June 16th.  

The case stems from the arrest of Dr. Timothy Joe Emerson who was under a restraining order as a result of a divorce proceeding.  He was accused of violating a federal statute that prohibits a person under such an order from possessing a firearm.  US District Court Judge Sam R. Cummings of Texas found the arrest to be unconstitutional.  

While the case involves the Second Amendment, a Tenth Amendment issue is also raised because the prosecutors argued that the statute was allowed under the federal government's right to regulate interstate commerce.  Judge DeMoss asked the prosecutors: "I have a 12 gauge and 16 gauge shotgun and a .30 caliber deer rifle in my closet at home.  Can you tell me how those affect interstate commerce?"

NewsMax.com reiterated some of the questions and answers from the argument on June 19.

One of the three judges asked the Justice Dept. attorney who represented the government's position:  "You are saying that the Second Amendment is consistent with a position that you can take guns away from the public?  You can restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns from all people?  Is that the position of the United States?"

Government attorney William B. Mateja replied simply: "Yes."

Then the judge asked:  "Is it the position of the United States that persons who are not in the National Guard are afforded no protections under the Second Amendment?"

The response was: "Exactly."

The panel was composed of Judges Harold R. DeMoss, Jr. (Bush appointee), Robert M. Parker (Carter appointee, moved to appellate court by Clinton) and Will Garwood (the senior judge).

During the argument, Judge Parker reportedly told the government, "I don't want you to lose any sleep over this, but Judge Will Garwood and I between us have enough guns to start a revolution in most South American countries."

Return to Index

SEPTEMBER 2000

NEWS ON VETS AND GUN RIGHTS

NewsMax.com reported on June 22, 2000 that the Veteran's Administration (VA) is violating the privacy rights of tens of thousands of ex-servicemen by providing the FBI and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) with medical records branding them as incompetent, thus denying them their Second Amendment rights to buy and own guns.

A memo issued by the Veteran's Benefit Administration (VBA) confirmed that the VA sent medical information on "88,898 beneficiaries, which were loaded into the NICS index" to the FBI's National Instant Background Check System (NICS).

The BATF incorporated the VA definition of incompetancy into the category of those adjudicated as a mental defective.  Even if and individual has their competency restored they are still permanently restricted from purchasing or redeeming a firearm.  Many Vietnam and Gulf War vets received psychological diagnoses because there were no physical diagnoses available. Many were adjudicated "psychological disorders" who were not and do not fit in that category.

The American Legion "will be studying this in detail and issuing" a strong statement "clarifying our position" in the near future.

Return to Index

 

JUNE 2000

FEWER GUNS, MORE CRIME

Reports from the March-April, 2000 edition of American Trapper magazine and WorldNet Daily (March 3, 2000) verify that Australia's 12 month experiment on the banning of ownership of personal firearms is producing predictably devastating results.  Gun owners were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms which were destroyed, costing the Australian government more than $500 million.

The results, Australia-wide are in:  homicides are up 3.2%, assaults are up 8.6%, robberies are up 44%.  In the state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300%.  In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily, now there is a "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.

The results have been similar in England where lawmakers passed similar restrictive gun control laws.

Return to Index

MAY 2000

IT WAS NEVER ABOUT THE CHILDREN

We always told you it was never about "The Childrun" -- it was always about attempting to ruuin legal businesses which tended to favor and contribute to Republicans.

In The Washington Times National Weekly Edition for Feb. 25 - Mar. 5, 2000, Jerry Seper reported that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) pumped $6.5 million into the building of nine smoke shops across the nation on Indian reservations.  These sell millions of cigarettes every year at reduced prices because of the tax differences.  

When challenged by Sen. Christopher Bond (R - Missouri), chairman of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee which oversees HUD's budget, the agency tried to argue there was "no causal relationship" between smoking and cancer.

That reminds us of "no controlling legal authority. . ."

Return to Index

DECEMBER 1999

SECOND AMENDMENT NEWS

On September 8, the Conservative News Service reported that The Law Enforcement Alliance of America (LEAA), boasting of more than 65,000 rank-and-file law enforcement agents expressed their displeasure with the Clinton  administration's efforts to exploit police officers while pushing an anti-gun agenda.  They also objected to a 46% drop in criminal prosecutions since Attorney General Janet Reno took over the Justice Department.

They were incensed by Clinton's pardoning of 16 convicted Puerto Rican terrorists while using police chiefs "for another political photo-op to push his anti-gun agenda," according to an LEAA statement.  They supported successful law enforcement programs like Project Exile, a cooperative effort between local, state and federal agents using federal laws to prosecute criminals who commit a felony while possessing a firearm.  They did not support more gun legislation.

Meanwhile, the Associated Press reported on Sep. 6, 1999 that the earlier decision of US District Court Judge Sam Cummings which held that the right to bear arms is a protected individual right, not just a right belonging to an organized militia, is on the way to the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals.  This issue is hotly debated among scholars, but is supported by noted liberal Harvard law professor, Laurence Tribe, who believes in the individual right to bear arms.  This case may well be on the way to the Supreme Court.

Return to Index

OCTOBER 1999

REGISTRATION MEANS CONFISCATION

The battle started ten years ago in California when the state legislature passed the Robert-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act, reports Stephan Archer in the 7/1/99 edition of World Net Daily. It centers on the SKS rifle. When the law was enacted, there were two distinct models of the SKS - one with a fixed magazine, and one designed to accept a detachable magazine, the "Sporter" mode. The law precluded the sale of the the "Sporter" model by gun shops but allowed owners of the gun to keep them if they complied with a background check and had the gun registered.

The situation became more complicated in 1992 when then California Attorney General, Dan Lungren approved the sale of Chinese-designed SKS, which use detachable magazines. However, some district attorneys throughout the state threatened to arrest anyone who sold the gun claiming it violated the Roberti-Roos law.

In 1997, Lungren, (who was then running for governor) reversed his earlier opinion and made the "Sporters" illegal. This resulted in making immediate felons of those who had complied with his earlier opinion by registering and submitting to the background check. Because of the confusion, California passed Assembly Bill 48 which granted immunity to owners of the SKS rifles and set up a "buy-back" program of "Sporters". The law set the buy-back price at $230 through January 1, 2000.

According to the California National Rifle Association (CNRA), in a 7/6/99 press release, a California court ruled last year that firearms registered after March 30, 1992 were considered invalid under Roberti-Roos (which required the registration of the rifles by March 30, 1992). This holding is despite the fact that the California Department of Justice  continued to allow registration as late as last year while the case was pending in the courts. On August 18, 1999, the Associated Press reported that the state attorney general agreed to drop the appeal clearing the way for the state to order owners to give their guns to law enforcement.

The CNRA indicates that California will issue confiscation orders for the approximately 1550 weapons registered after March 30, 1992. Using the information provided when the owners registered them, owners will not be given the option to remove them from the state, will not be compensated, and will have them confiscated,

Return to Index

SEPTEMBER 1999

DON'T ROB A GUN STORE

The Ann Arbor News reported on June 12, 1999, that a 19-year-old South Lyon man is in jail in Washtenaw County after a failed armed robbery attempt on June 11 at B. McDaniel Co., a firearms dealer and gunsmith in Salem Township.

The robber entered the store wearing a mask over his face and carrying a handgun. He confronted the 3 employees, produced handcuffs and demanded they hand cuff themselves. When he demanded all the handguns from the business, the employees refused and a confrontation ensued.

One of the employees twisted the .22-caliber handgun from the robber's hand while another got a shotgun which he used to hold the suspect until the police arrive and took custody of the robber, his weapon and handcuffs.

Return to Index

MAY 1999

WHERE DID GUN LAWS START?

Tim O'Brien published an article on the op-ed page of the Detroit News on March 4, 1999 which explored the adoption of the Concealed Carry Laws in Michigan.

On September 8, 1925, a prominent and successful black physician named Dr. Ossian Sweet moved his family into their new two-story brick home on Detroit's east side. The neighborhood was generally populated by poor, working class whites of much lower income and education. Another black doctor had been driven out of the Waterworks Park area some weeks before.

A mob of hundreds calling themselves the Waterworks Park Improvement Association gathered in the schoolyard across the street while a dozen police cordoned off the area and walked between the mob and the Sweet residence.

When the mob started howling and threw stones at the house, Dr. Sweet grabbed a gun and ran to an upstairs window to get a better view of what was going on. His dentist brother, Henry and a friend arrived just then and ran into the house as a rock smashed a window. That's when the first shot rang out.

When it was all finished, six of the eleven people inside the house had fired their weapons and one of the police officers had emptied his revolver. Two members of the mob were struck, one fatally. At this point, the police, who had mostly stood by until gunfire erupted now stormed the house and arrested everyone inside for murder.

After two trials (the first one ending in a mistrial) wherein the defendants were defended by Clarence Darrow, no convictions were obtained and Henry (who, in essence, admitted firing the fatal shot) was acquitted as acting in self-defense.

As a consequence, the Ku Klux Klan lobbied for and got the first round of restrictive gun legislation in Michigan including the requirement that citizens obtain government issued "purchase permits" following mandatory "safety inspections"and made sure that the only opportunity to legally carry the weapon would be granted at the whim of (unaccountable) county "gun boards.

The next round of restrictions came after the riots of 1967 in the form of the Gun Control Act of 1968 which was modeled on the German Weapons Law of 1938 enacted by the Nazi government.

Michigan now has a chance to change these laws, requiring the county gun boards to issue permits to applicants unless there is a reason not to. Rep. Mike Green (R-84th District in the Thumb) will be introducing legislation again this session which has bipartisan support to do just that. And, by the way, ladies, it seems that it is much more difficult for the fairer sex to get a permit to carry than the men, even if they have the same or better qualifications. . . .

And now you know the rest of the story.

Return to Index

OCTOBER 1998

DO DEMOCRATS REALLY HATE
TOBACCO AND GUNS?

Democrats really DO hate AMERICAN tobacco and guns. Not so if they come from the Chinese Communists.

While the Democrats proposed a monumental tobacco bill which would have imposed hundreds of billions of dollars of new taxes on Americans to "save the childrun", those same taxes would not have applied to the largest non-American tobacco company in the world, the Pagoda Red Mountain cigarette company which funnled over $400,000 into the Clinton-Gore re-election effort. Could their real motivation be to tax companies which contribute more heavily to Republican candidates than Democrats?

The Clinton Administration has proposed regulations to have the FBI institute a tax on firearms purchases and to use the National Instant Check System to create a national database of gun owners. Gun related interests are more often supporters of Republicans who support the Second Amendment.

However, the 1996 law which banned the importation of semi-automatic guns was waived by Mr. Clinton to allow a Chinese company to import 100,000 semi-automatic weapons to the U.S. The customs inspectors found that the Chinese had included 2,000 fully automatic AK47's (machine guns -- which have been illegal since the 1930's) destined for Los Angeles street gangs. The Chinese Ocean Shipping Co. (COSCO) was the company which brought in those guns. This is the company which wants to take over Long Beach Naval Station for its shipping operations and is being supported in those efforts by Mr. Clinton and the Democrats in the Administration.

It has been said that a good politician is one that "when you buy him, he stays bought." The question is exactly how much of our national security has been for sale for the sake of the "childrun."

Return to Index

Go to Our Main Page Legislation, Lawsuits, Items of Interest Look for Past What's New Articles Fill out a Membership Application
Search our Website Meeting Information Some Interesting Links Send us an E-Mail

Revised: