Additional information on Governor Pataki's historic "Gun Violence Legislation"

BlackFlagLiberty.com
MAKE THEM PAY FOR WHAT THEY DID!
ALSO CHECK OUT: Tyranny Response Team

Two children die because of Cal. gun lock up law.     Jessica Lynne Carpenter is 14 years old. She knows how to shoot; her father taught her. And there were adequate firearms to deal with the crisis that arose in the Carpenter home in Merced, Calif. -- a San Joaquin Valley farming community 130 miles southeast of San Francisco -- when 27-year-old Jonathon David Bruce came calling on Wednesday morning, Aug. 23.

   There was just one problem. Under the new "safe storage" laws being enacted in California and elsewhere, parents can be held criminally liable unless they lock up their guns when their children are home alone ... so that's just what law-abiding parents John and Tephanie Carpenter had done.

   Some of Jessica's siblings -- Anna, 13; Vanessa, 11; Ashley, 9; and John William, 7 -- were still in their bedrooms when Bruce broke into the farmhouse shortly after 9 a.m.

   Bruce, who was armed with a pitchfork -- but to whom police remain unable to attribute any motive -- had apparently cut the phone lines. So when he forced his way into the house and began stabbing the younger children in their beds, Jessica's attempts to dial 9-1-1 didn't do much good. Next, the sensible girl ran for where the family guns were stored. But they were
 locked up tight.

    "When the 14-year-old girl ran to a nearby house to escape the pitchfork-wielding man attacking her siblings," writes Kimi Yoshino of the Fresno Bee, "she didn't ask her neighbor to call 9-1-1. She begged him to grab his rifle and 'take care of this guy.' "

   He didn't. Jessica ended up on the phone.

   By the time Merced County sheriff's deputies arrived at the home, 7-year-old John William and 9-year-old Ashley Danielle were dead. Ashley had apparently hung onto her assailant's leg long enough for her older sisters to escape. Thirteen-year-old Anna was wounded but survived.

   Once the deputies arrived, Bruce rushed them with his bloody pitchfork.  So they shot him dead. They shot him more than a dozen times. With their guns.

   Get it?

   The following Friday, the children's great-uncle, the Rev. John Hilton, told reporters: "If only (Jessica) had a gun available to her, she could have stopped the whole thing. If she had been properly armed, she could have stopped him in his tracks." Maybe John William and Ashley would still be alive, Jessica's uncle said.

   "Unfortunately, 17 states now have these so-called safe storage laws," replies Yale Law School Senior Research Scholar Dr. John Lott -- author of the book "More Guns, Less Crime." "The problem is, you see no decrease in either juvenile accidental gun deaths or suicides when such laws are enacted, but you do see an increase in crime rates."

   Such laws are based on the notion that young children often "find daddy's gun" and accidentally shoot each other. But in fact only five American children under the age of 10 died of accidents involving handguns in 1997, Lott reports. "People get the impression that kids under 10 are killing each other. In fact this is very rare: three to four per year."

   The typical shooter in an accidental child gun death is a male in his late teens or 20s, who, statistically, is probably a drug addict or an alcoholic and has already been charged with multiple crimes, Lott reports. "These are the data that correlate. Are these the kind of people who are going to obey one more law?"

   So why doesn't the national press report what happens when a victim disarmament ("gun control") law costs the lives of innocent children in a place like Merced?

   "In the school shooting in Pearl, Miss.," Dr. Lott replies, "the assistant principal had formerly carried a gun to school. When the 1995 ("Gun-Free School Zones") law passed, he took to locking his gun in his car and parking it at least a quarter-mile away from the school, in order to obey the law. When that shooting incident started he ran to his car, unlocked it, got his gun, ran back, disarmed the shooter and held him on the ground for five minutes until the police arrived.

   "There were more than 700 newspaper stories catalogued on that incident. Only 19 mentioned the assistant principal in any way, and only nine mentioned that he had a gun."

   The press covers only the bad side of gun use, and only the potential benefits of victim disarmament laws -- never their costs. "Basically all the current federal proposals fall into this category -- trigger locks, waiting periods," Lott said. "There's not one academic study that shows any reduction in crime from measures like these. But there are good studies that show the opposite. Even with short waiting periods, crime goes up. You have women being stalked, and they can't go quickly and get a gun due to the waiting periods, so they get assaulted or they get killed."

   The United States has among the world's lowest "hot" burglary rates --  burglaries committed while people are in the building -- at 13 percent, compared to "gun-free" Britain's rate, which is now up to 59 percent, Lott reports. "If you survey burglars, American burglars spend at least twice as long casing a joint before they break in. ... The number one reason they give for taking so much time is: They're afraid of getting shot."

   The way Jonathon David Bruce, of Merced, Calif., might once have been afraid of getting shot ... before 17 states enacted laws requiring American parents to leave their kids disarmed while they're away from home.
 

 Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, and editor of Financial Privacy Report (subscribe by calling Norton at 612-895-8757.) His book, "Send in the Waco Killers: Essays on the Freedom Movement, 1993-1998," is available by dialing 1-800-244-2224; or via web site  http://www.thespiritof76.com/wacokillers.html.
  ***
  Vin Suprynowicz,   vin@lvrj.com
  "When great changes occur in history, when great principles are involved, as a rule the majority are wrong. The minority are right." -- Eugene V. Debs (1855-1926)
  "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 To subscribe, send a message to vinsends-request@ezlink.com, from your
 NEW address, including the word "subscribe" (with no quotation marks)
 in the "Subject" line.
 The Vinsends list is maintained by Alan Wendt in Colorado, who may be reached directly at alan@ezlink.com. The web sites for the Suprynowicz column are at http://www.infomagic.com/liberty/vinyard.htm, and http://www.nguworld.com/vindex. The Vinyard is maintained by Michael Voth in Flagstaff, who may be reached directly at mvoth@infomagic.com.

                   Sep. 8, 2000 | 5:21 p.m.  By RON JENKINS Associated Press Writer

                   OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) -- The National Fraternal Order of Police endorsed Republican George W. Bush for president Friday, with officers rejecting an earlier recommendation for Al Gore by a union steering committee.
     ``Real officers facing real problems understand that George W. Bush is a leader who shares their values and shares an unyielding commitment to support law enforcement with action,'' Gilbert Gallegos, the national FOP president, said in a statement at the union's national board meeting.

                  Also, the rule -- 69-309 -- permitting active duty U.S. military members to "import" up to three
                  rifles or shotguns and 1,000 rounds of ammunition upon "returning from active duty," has been revoked by BATF.

For starters, Congress ought to establish minimum standards for licensing of handgun owners and registration of the handguns.
. . .
Most effective would be a ban on the general sale of handguns, but that clearly is not in the legislative cards this year. Nor were most of the concerned Americans who gathered last Mother's Day seeking such a ban. They were, and still are, asking for these other, less sweeping but patently useful reforms. The lawmakers hear the public when shootings in schools or summer camps or offices make news; they make a show of concern; and then they vote with the gun lobby. It's a shame, and one worth remembering on Election Day.

            VIDEO OF NRA VICE PRESIDENT PROCLAIMING, "IF WE WIN, WE'LL HAVE A PRESIDENT WHERE WE WORK OUT OF THEIR OFFICE" WILL AIR THIS WEEK IN FIVE MAJOR MARKETS

          (Washington, DC) Handgun Control, Inc. today began a $1.2 million purchase in five important states that highlights the pro-gun record of Governor George W. Bush. The ad, which contains  footage of NRA First Vice President Kayne Robinson bragging that, "If we win, we'll have a president where we work out of their (sic) office," also lambastes Governor Bush’s signing of Texas legislation allowing the widespread carrying of hidden handguns, even into churches, hospitals and amusement parks. The ad will air initially in Philadelphia, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Detroit and St. Louis; other markets will soon be announced. The $1.2 million buy is the largest amount ever spent by Handgun Control on an ad campaign.

FOR MORE INFO GO TO HCI'S WEBSITE AT:     http://www.handguncontrol.org/

 What follows on the next page of this Special FAX Alert is the text of a letter from the Department of Justice to an NRA member. The letter is also posted on www.NRAILA.org.
 The letter confirms what we reported in a previous FAX Alert (No. 24, June 16) -- that the Clinton-Gore-Reno Justice Department stands by its contention that law-abiding individual Americans have NO Right to Keep and Bear Arms!
 This letter should serve as a stark reminder to all gun owners why this year's elections are so critical to the future of the Second Amendment.
 On Friday, you will receive a "Grassroots Election Action FAX Alert" that will outline the steps you must take in the coming weeks and months to ensure we can replace elected officials and government appointed bureaucrats who view the Second Amendment with such hostility.
 We hope you will share this letter with your family, friends, and fellow firearm owners and use it to ensure
 that all of our supporters are fully engaged in this year's elections.
                                                          U. S. Department of Justice
                                                          Office of the Solicitor General
                                                                     Solicitor General
                                                             Washington, D.C. 20530
                                                                    August 22, 2000

 Dear Mr. (Name Deleted):

 Thank you for your letter dated August 11, 2000, in which you question certain statements you understand
 to have been made by an attorney for the United States during oral argument before the Fifth Circuit in
 United States v. Emerson. Your letter states that the attorney indicated that the United States believes “that
 it could ‘take guns away from the public,’ and ‘restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns from all
 people.’” You ask whether the response of the attorney for the United States accurately reflects the
 position of the Department of Justice and whether it is indeed the government's position “that the Second
 Amendment of the Constitution does not extend to the people as an individual right.”

 I was not present at the oral argument you reference, and I have been informed that the court of appeals
 will not make the transcript or tape of the argument available to the public (or to the Department of Justice).
 I am informed, however, that counsel for the United States in United States v. Emerson, Assistant United
 States Attorney William Mateja, did indeed take the position that the Second Amendment does not extend
 an individual right to keep and bear arms.

 That position is consistent with the view of the Amendment taken both by the federal appellate courts and
 successive Administrations. More specifically, the Supreme Court and eight United States Courts of
 Appeals have considered the scope of the Second Amendment and have uniformly rejected arguments that
 it extends firearms rights to individuals independent of the collective need to ensure a well-regulated militia.
 See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) (the “obvious purpose” of the Second Amendment was
 to effectuate Congress’s power to “call forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,” not to provide
 an individual right to bear arms contrary to federal law”); Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916, 921 (1st
 Cir. 1942) (“The right to keep and bear arms is not a right conferred upon the people by the federal
 constitution.”); Eckert v. City of Philadelphia, 477 F.2d 610 (3rd Cir. 1973) (“It must be remembered that
 the right to keep and bear arms is not a right given by the United States Constitution.”); United States v.
 Johnson, 497 F.2d 548, 550 (4th Cir. 1974); United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103, 106-07 (6th Cir.
 1976) (“We conclude that the defendant has no private right to keep and bear arms under the Second
 Amendment.”); Stevens v. United States, 440 F.2d 144, 149 (6th Cir. 1971) (“There can be no serious
 claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm.”); Ouilici v. Village of Morton
 Grove, 695 F.2d 261, 270 (7th Cir. 1982) (“The right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the
 second amendment.”); United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016, 1019 (8th Cir. 1992) (“The rule emerging
 from Miller is that, absent a showing that the possession of a certain weapon has some relationship to the
 preservation or efficiency of regulated militia, the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to
 possess the weapon.”); United States v. Tomlin, 454 F.2d 176 (9th Cir. 1972); United States v. Swinton,
 521 F.2d 1255, 1259 (10th Cir. 1975) (“There is no absolute constitutional right of an individual to
 possess a firearm.”).

 Thus, rather than holding that the Second Amendment protects individual firearms rights, these courts have
 uniformly held that it precludes only federal attempts to disarm, abolish, or disable the ability to call up the
 organized state militia. Similarly, almost three decades ago, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal
 Counsel explained:

      The language of the Second Amendment, when it was first presented to the Congress, makes
      it quite clear that it was the right of the States to maintain a militia that was being preserved,
      not the rights of an individual to own a gun…[and] [there is no indication that Congress
      altered its purpose to protect state militias, not individual gun ownership [upon consideration
      of the Amendment] . . . . Courts…have viewed the Second Amendment as limited to the
      militia and have held that it does not create a personal right to own or use a gun . . . . In light
      of the constitutional history, it must be considered as settled that there is no personal
      constitutional right, under the Second Amendment, to own or to use a gun.

 Letter from Mary C. Lawton, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, to George
 Bush, Chairman, Republican National Committee (July 19, 1973) (citing, inter alia, Presser v. Illinois, 116
 U.S. 252 (1886), and United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)). See also, e.g., Federal Firearms Act,
 Hearings before the Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency of the Committee on the Judiciary,
 United States Senate 41 (1965) (Statement of Attorney General Katzenbach) (“With respect to the second
 amendment, the Supreme Court of the United States long ago made it clear that the amendment did not
 guarantee to any individuals the right to bear arms.”).

 I hope this answers your question. Thank you again for writing.

 Yours sincerely,
 Seth P. Waxman  Posted: 2000-09-05