OCTOBER 2000
CHECK BACK BECAUSE I ADD NEWS AND INFORMATION AS IT BECOMES AVAILABLE
CLICK HERE TO E-MAIL ME
|
10/28/00
|
10/29/00
|
10/30/00
|
10/31/00
|
|
Saturday
|
Sunday
|
Monday
|
Tuesday
|
|
VoteDay
-10
|
VoteDay-9
|
VoteDay-8
|
VoteDay-7
|
|
VOTE FOR LEVINSON
I do not have anything against Judge Klein and
if elected I think and hope that she will be a good Judge and will treat
gun owners in a fair manner but this is one time that we can vote for a
Democrat that has a gun permit. This is as much about thanking Gov.
Mario Pataki for passing his new gun control regulations as it is about
who our local candidates are. How the Republicans are dealing with gun
control, Stewart Buffer Land and rifle hunting in Orange County is not
helping Republican candidates when we are give a valid choice. It
should be obvious that if Judge Levinson was anti-gun or had not taken
the time to talk with the local sportsmen and women he would not have been
considered. |
CLICK
HERE TO GO TO A PRINTER FRIENDLY GUIDE
Voter 2000 Guide:
All elections: vote on the Conservative
Party Line if your candidate is listed on that line.
If the candidate is unopposed or you have no choice WRITE IN CHARLTON
HESTON!
(Apologies to all of the 3rd parties who should be considered but can
not win this time. Unopposed means no Dem. Party Opposition.)
THIS IS NOT THE FINAL GUIDE. CHECK BACK JUST BEFORE THE
ELECTION TO MAKE SURE THAT NOTHING HAS CHANGED.
Federal
Pres. George W. Bush
Senate: Rick Lazio (Conservative Line)
House: 19th Sue Kelly
20th Ben Gilman
26th Robert Moppert |
STATE SENATE
38th WRITE IN CHARLTON HESTON
(NOT Morahan!)
39th WRITE IN CHARLTON HESTON
( Larkin Unopposed)
40th WRITE IN CHARLTON HESTON
(Bonacic Unopposed) |
STATE ASSEMBLY
94th Nancy Calhoun
95th Howard Mills
96th Thomas Kirwan
98th Jacob E. Gunther III
101st Fawn Tantillo |
ORANGE COUNTY FAMILY COURT RACE: JUDGE DAVID LEVINSON
|
New York Firearms Owners, Inc.
Candidates Ratings 2000
(The ones in the (X) I disagree with.)
US Senate:
Democrat H. R. Clinton F
Republican Rick Lazio * D-
RTL Louis Wein
A+ |
US House
District 19
Democrat Larry Otis Graham F
Republican Sue Kelly
B
District 20
Democrat Paul Feiner (HCI)
F
Republican Benjamin Gilman (F)
District 26
Democrat Maurice Hinchey F
Republican Bob Moppert A |
New York State Senate
38 (D) Kenneth Zebrowski
F
(R/C/I) Thomas Morahan
F
Morahan has been targeted by several groups
for defeat because he originated the Assault
Weapons Ban in the new gun control law.
39 ( D) none
(R/C) William J. Larkin Jr.
A+
40 (D/I) none
(R) John J. Bonacic
A
|
New York State Assembly
94 (D) James Sollami
D
(R/C/I) Nancy Calhoun
A+
95 (D) Noel Spencer
F
(R/C) Howard D. Mills III
A
96 (D/I/L) Lee Kyriacou
F
(R/C/RTL) Thomas J. Kirwan
A-
98 (D/C/I) Jacob E. Gunther III
A+
(R/C/I) William Brenner
A
101 (D/I/L) Kevin A. Cahill
F
(R/C) Fawn Tantillo
A+
|
|
STEWART AIRPORT, Pataki's Symbolic Groundbreaking?
Date sent: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 21:32:16
-0500
To: All SPARC Supporters et al -
- And anyone else with common sense who believes
that we need to preserve hunting lands and wildlife habitat in Orange County
for our future, the future of passive outdoor enthusiasts and the future
of our children who hunt, fish and enjoy the outdoors.
Today, 10/30/00 the Stewart Park and Reserve Coalition, the Orange County
Federation of Sportsmen Clubs, the Sierra Club and the New York - New Jersey
Trail Conference - Announced that they are all co-plaintiffs in a lawsuit
against New York State - And more than 100 coalition groups unified against
the Drury Lane I-84 Interchange Project that will open up development of
1,200 acres of the Stewart Co-op as well as approx. 600
acres of bow hunting only co-op lands. This land will probably be put
out for bid again. The other times no-one bid on it. As for Stewart Airport
proper all 2,400 acres - it was given away to a foreign company for 99
years.
On Tuesday 10/30/00 the governor (Mario Pataki)of NYS is/was coming
to Stewart Airport (or maybe just the Lieut. Gov.) for a symbolic ground
breaking ceremony of the Drury Lane Interchange Proj. And all this before
all approvals are finalized. It is our understanding that more than
200 public servants are invited to attend this so-called ground breaking.
The first of its kind ground breaking to be accomplished 2 miles away from
the actual project site.??? Could it be that they are afraid that we may
be there. Also, this will be the first time in history that a Chamber of
Commerce and the business community will endorse a project (that is located
West of the airport) that will seek to direct major traffic flows away
from existing businesses (East of the airport).
At any rate if you can join us on Tuesday 10/31/00 - it would be appreciated.
We will be meeting at the Little Britain Grange on Route #207 near Drury
Lane at 10:15 AM from there we will be driving to the site of the ground
breaking. And yes we will be demonstrating and protesting this lack of
good judgement by our elected public servants from the local Orange County
Level up to and including the governor. This is just another example
of poor decision making in the Pataki Administration. I plan to be
there - I am hoping to see you there. Bring someone along with you.
PS I've said it before and I will say it again. There seems to be a
big concern in government with conflicts between church and state. The
real problem that our state fascists in government fail to identify and
intentionally overlook is the problem between business and state. There
is entirely too much interdependence between (big) business and state.
.... Frank Carbone Jr.
--- forthebirds39@earthlink.net
|
| |
GUN DNA UPDATE 10/24/00
|
State Police still working on new rules.
Final rules weeks away.
Part 1
Is it legal for the FFL to drive to the location to
have a gun test fired?
After talking with a lawyer for the NY State Police
I have found out that they are almost finished with the new rules dealing
with the DNA section of the new law, but they are still open to suggestions.
Some people think that state law would not allow an FFL to drive around
with guns to be test fired but it looks like those in charge are going
to say that it is legal using the following part of the current law.
§ 265.20 Exemptions. … 10. Engaging in the business
of gunsmith or dealer in firearms by a person to whom a valid license therefor
has been issued pursuant to section 400.00. (MY
COMMENT: This refers to the NY State issued gunsmith or dealer license.
Not a personal handgun permit.)
Because the new law requires that the gun dealer drive the gun to an accepted
State Police location then when he is doing so he is engaging in something
that is required for the FFL to do business and so is covered under 265.20,
10.
The question still open is if AG Spitzer feels the
same way and will every other NYAG from now till the end of time feel the
same way?
As it stands now the FFL holder is the only one
who will be allowed to carry the guns but I requested that the FFL holder
be allowed to appoint someone else to take the gun for the required test
even if the rules require that the FFL notify the State Police who the
person is and require that the person have a Firearm License issued under
PL 400.
I also requested that a range that meets all of
the required OSHA regulations be used when possible and I was told that
they are looking into having some type of mobil lab that could do the test.
It really would not take much. A sound proof box to hold the gun
and some type of bullet trap to stop the bullets. (That might not
even be required because nothing in the law requires that a case with a
bullet be used. You should be able to use a blank and get the same
fired case.) They are going to try to have 6 locations while the
law only calls for 5 locations.
Part 2
What are the time limits for the new DNA section of
the law for a gun without the fired brass?
(3)
A GUNSMITH OR DEALER IN FIREARMS LICENSED IN THIS STATE
SHALL,
31 WITHIN TEN DAYS OF THE RECEIPT
OF ANY PISTOL OR REVOLVER FROM A MANUFAC-
32 TURER THAT FAILS TO COMPLY WITH
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, EITHER
33 (A) RETURN SUCH
PISTOL OR REVOLVER TO SUCH MANUFACTURER, OR (B) NOTIFY
34 THE DIVISION OF STATE POLICE
OF SUCH NONCOMPLIANCE AND THEREAFTER OBTAIN
35 A SUBSTITUTE SEALED CONTAINER
THROUGH PARTICIPATION IN A PROGRAM OPER-
36 ATED BY THE
STATE POLICE AS PROVIDED IN SUBDIVISION FOUR
OF THIS
37 SECTION.
Note that the FFL is given 10 days to NOTIFY and THEREAFTER
obtain ... So the FFL is only required to obtain the fired brass
before the gun is delivered to the final buyer without any time limit as
long as the FFL notifies the State Police that they have a non compliant
gun within 10 days. (THEREAFTER "at this time" is being
taken to mean that no time limit.)
PART 3
How many guns are we talking about?
It looks like very few guns will have to be fired
just for the brass. Most of the guns that will need to be fired to
supply the brass will be the guns that were in the distribution chain before
the gun makers started to comply with the law. Most gun makers are
planning to comply and legal actions to prevent the law from taking effect
in the first place might be in the works. GUNS IN STOCK AT A GUN
STORE ON MARCH 1, 2001 WILL NOT NEED THE FIRED BRASS.
PART 4
WHAT WILL THIS COST?
Nothing right now. (I wonder how long that
will last?) |
UPDATE 10/21/00
|
I am getting very positive feedback from all of the
gun makers that I have had time to talked to. Most say that they
will
be shipping the brass in the container by the March 1st deadline. It
is unclear how many guns will not be able to be sold because they do not
have the required "SEALED CONTAINER".
|
10/18/00,
GUN DNA TO HAVE MAJOR IMPACT ON SALE OF ALL NEW HANDGUNS,
THREATENS TO END MANY NEW HANDGUNS SALES.
|
How long will it take
for the gun makers to supply the fired brass and will some gun makers refuse?
March 1st, 2001 is the starting date that the
FFL must ship the SEALED CONTAINER to the State Police within 10 days of
selling the handgun. I have been able to get e-mails from several
gun makers and they all say that they will comply with the new law.
I am still working on this story but I now have some details. It
is going to take me some time to do the research into the details of existing
State and Federal law. This is complicated so you are going to have
to try hard to understand it. That is what happens when you try to
explain bad law. |
In short, the failure of Gov. Mario
Pataki to think through his required so called "DNA Fingerprint" will require
FFL's to break State, (and probably Federal,) laws if they get new handguns
that do not come with the required shell case sealed in a container.
The success of the new law depends on the fact that the gun manufactures
provide "A SHELL CASING OF A BULLET OR PROJECTILE
DISCHARGED FROM SUCH PISTOL OR REVOLVER;". If the
gun maker fails to meet the requirement then the FFL can, within 10 days,
(A). return the handgun or (B) notify the state police and "OBTAIN A
SUBSTITUTE SEALED CONTAINER THROUGH PARTICIPATION IN A PROGRAM
OPERATED BY THE STATE POLICE".
How will this program work? From
the unofficial information that I have now, the FFLs are going to have
to call up and make an appointment with one of the six State Police locations
that can test fire the gun. The FFL will then have to get in his car and
drive to the office with the guns that need to be test fired and the State
Police will test fire the guns with the FFL's ammo while the FFL waits.
One
small problem, New York State Law makes it ILLEGAL for
an FFL to remove a gun from his place of business except for going
to a gun show. Without a change in the law this part of the program
will fail and
gun dealers will not be able to sell guns
that do not come with the "SEALED CONTAINER."!!
The proposed solution is to pass a new law to allow
the the FFL to make the trip. Without the change in the law, what
the FFL will, in reality, be doing when he goes to have the gun test fired
is turning himself or herself in for violating the current law and supplying
the evidence in the form of the guns that need testing. (Please e-mail
if you want to take a bet that Sheldon Silver is going to sign off on this
new law when he learns that failure to pass the new bill will reduce the
number of guns sold in NY State and will drive up the price of the guns
that are sold. Are the anti-gunners going to be happy with the idea
of an FFL driving hundreds of miles with dozens if not hundreds of guns
in the back seat? What additional requirements will they insist on?
What about insurance? The new law must be passed and signed by
3/1/2001!!)
Their are many other problems. One is
the question of how many FFL's are going to be able to afford to take the
time and spend the money to drive possibly many hours away and wait for
the guns to be fired? What will happen if the FFL does not get an
appointment within the required 10 days? What happens if something
prevents the FFL from making the appointment for many reasons like illness
or the car breaking down? When the FFL shows up after the 10 days
will he be arrested and charged with a CLASS A MISDEMEANOR as required
in the law, and his state FFL and her/his pistol license revoked?
Will the State Police have weekend and night hours. How can the hundreds
of part time FFLs meet this requirement?
Not addressed is the
questions of black powder revolvers. They are not directly exempted
by the new law. Will someone at some point say that you can not sell
them because you can not supply fired brass? NY State Appeals Court
rulings in some cases would appear to support this possibility. |
|
I THINK THAT GOV. MARIO PATAKI IS SITTING ON THE
RULES TO AVOID LOOSING MORE OF THE GUN OWNERS VOTE.
The new law required that the rules for this program be published on Oct.1st.
We are still waiting! The rules are probably written but are on Gov.
Mario Pataki's desk waiting his signature. I do not think that he
wants to release this until Nov. 7 for fear of what political damage that
it might cause. |
WHY NOT JUST HAVE THE FFL UPS OR MAIL THE GUNS TO THE STATE
POLICE?
-
COST
-
ACCOUNTABILITY
-
FFLs can only ship a gun to a gunsmith or another FFL under federal law.
The State Police do not have and can not get an FFL.
|
CLASS A MISDEMEANOR, under
Penal
Law 70.15, (1). "Class A misdemeanor.
A sentence of imprisonment for a class A misdemeanor shall be a definite
sentence. When such a sentence is imposed
the term shall be fixed by the court, and shall not exceed one year;
provided, however, ..." |
|
ORANGE COUNTY
NEW YORK STATE
NATIONAL
LINKS ONLY
From HCI's web site: Senator John McCain's appearance
in two TV ads supporting the ballot
initiatives
in Colorado and Oregon issues a special challenge to Governor George W.
Bush.
link using: http://www.handguncontrol.org/press/release.asp?Record=19
CLICK HERE FOR NRL-ILA
HOME PAGE
NRA ALERTS &
NEWS ARTICLES
The Firearms Coalition
Alerts Log, (http://www.nealknox.com/alerts/ )
Subject: I.D.P.A. MATCH
#2
Date sent: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 20:46:28
-0700
Shooter's, we had a great day of shooting and the weather was
perfect. The turn out was better than the first match and everyone had
a good time.Four prizes were given out to the participants: Stephen
Crance in custom defensive pistol took first place novice with his Kimber
custom carry, Bill Gates in stock service pistol took first place marksman
with his khar
k9, Ellen Otto in stock service pistol took first place novice with
herSig p220 and last but not least. Ted Gates in stock service pistol
took second place with his Khar k9. That is all for now on the I.D.P.A.
matches until after election day.
Speaking of election day It is very important that
Orange County handgun owners vote for the family court judge. The
family court judge is the judge that signs all of the pistol permits and
there amendments. Judge Levenson has said that he will sign unrestricted
permits for qualified applicants and will treat us fairly in all maters
pertaining to our guns. Remember that our Republican officials have
not treated us well recently. I do not feel warm and fuzzy about
judge Levenson's opponent.
Please vote in this all important election year.
Sincerely Yours Ted Gates
tag1@pikeonline.net
HCI endorses Paul Feiner
Handgun Control Voter Education Fund and Sarah Brady
has endorsed Democrat Paul Feiner who is running against Rep. Ben Gilman.
Feiner is a total anti-gunner who will vote to repeal the GCA of 1932.
TRI-STATES
ROD AND GUN CLUB Rifle Shoot Report
We had a great day for the shoot. We gave away five hams as prizes
as well as many cash prizes. Fun was had by all. There were
competitors from New Jersey as well as New York. There was
several very close contests between the competitors at the bench rest as
well as the fifty yard offhand. The running deer target at seventy
yards or so was a real challenge! There where a few shoot-offs to
settle targets that were to close to call. We would like to thank
all those that stayed around to help clean up afterwards! Looking
forward to doing it again I next year!
Yours truly Bill Gates, Ted Gates and Ellen Otto
Local
Blooming Grove police take away a man's Ruger Mini 14
claiming that they want to make sure that it is not an assault weapon.
For some reason the Blooming Grove police got a call
about gun shots and went to investigate. They found a local 23 year
old man legally shooting a legally owned Mini 14. The detained the
man and took the Mini 14 saying that they had to check with the ATF to
see if a Mini 14 was an Assault Weapon. The Mini 14 was purchased
in a legal private sale from another person who had bought the gun from
a local gun store. The Police decided on 9/26/00 that the gun was
legal but they said that they would not return the gun unless it went through
an FFL for a NICS check. I have now found out that they did allow
the person to just pick up the gun.
Gov.
Mario Pataki changed his mind on the AWBan from 1996
In 1996 I saw a small story that said that Pataki would
sign an Assault Weapons Ban so I sent him a long letter. He did not
reply but had Paul Shcechtman, the head of DCJS, reply to my letter.
CLICK HERE TO SEE THE LETTER
New
York State Rifle and Pistol Association Annual Meeting
Things are going to be happening at the State Association
and soon. A new president and other officers were elected with promises
that the State Association is going to undergo a major update including
possibly a new name and other major changes. I am not going to steal
their thunder so for more information:
CLICK HERE TO LINK
TO THE NYSRPA
A representative from the National
Association of Shooting Ranges spoke and said that the EPA and NY DEC
will be publishing new rules and regulations in the next few weeks that
will have a major impact on how all ranges operate and deal with lead.
If a range does not an approved LEAD MANAGEMENT PLAN then the EPA
or DEC will write the plan for them. Go to the NASR page to find
out more. I will update this when I have more information.
State
Police miss Oct. 1st deadline for new gun control DNA rules.
According to the new gun control law:
(4) THE DIVISION OF STATE POLICE SHALL NO LATER THAN
OCTOBER FIRST,
39 TWO THOUSAND, PROMULGATE
RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE OPERATION OF A
40 PROGRAM WHICH PROVIDES A GUNSMITH OR
A DEALER IN FIREARMS LICENSED IN
41 THIS STATE WITH A
SEALED CONTAINER ENCLOSING THE ITEMS SPECIFIED IN
42 SUBDIVISION TWO OF THIS SECTION.
As of 10/3/00 they still have nothing posted. Can we expect the
same amount of compliance in the future?
10/6/00 I just got the following e-mail from DCJS:
Date sent: Thu,
05 Oct 2000 12:00:31 -0400
From:
InfoDCJS <INFODCJS@dcjs.state.ny.us>
To:
grogero@warwick.net
Subject: Re:
New Gun control law
This is in response to your recent e-mail to the Division of Criminal
Justice Services.
The information you are inquiring about can be best answered by the
New York State Police. May we suggest that you contact them at www.troopers.state.ny.us
and pose the question to them.
We hope this information is helpful to you.
If you want to copy the quote of the new law from the top of this article
and send it to the state police and ask them when they will have the information,
please do so.
CLICK HERE TO SEND
AN E-MAIL TO THE STATE POLICE
Pataki's
new gun control comes under fire.
Gov. Mario Pataki's new gun control law has come
under fire. The DNA part is one part of the new law that has come
under fire for it's lack of common sense and waste of money. The
same people who claim that 90% of the guns used in crime come from other
states think that having a copy of the case from each new gun will help
bring down crime. Forgetting the fact that it only takes 5 seconds
to change the "DNA" of the gun and that the tested guns would have to be
kept by the legal gun owner who committed a random crime against someone
who they were not connected to in any way and it would apply only to semi-automatics
because the bullet cases from revolvers will not normally be left at the
crime because revolvers do not eject spent cases after doing the math,
how many guns does that leave?
Washington Times,
why Gore is now pro-gun.
Kenneth D. Smith
The Los Angeles Times picked the morning of the first presidential debate,
Oct. 3, to hit George W. Bush with a journalistic beanball. In a front-page
story titled, "Felons get concealed gun licenses under Bush's 'tough' law,"
the paper detailed abuses of a Bush-backed Texas law that allowed citizens
who could meet certain basic requirements — no history of mental illness,
no felony convictions and more — to carry concealed weapons. It turned
out that some felons had managed to get licenses despite the restrictions
and that other licensees had committed crimes — albeit not necessarily
with guns — including a couple that kidnapped a woman and held her as a
sex slave before she escaped.
Though the paper made space for such sensational tales, it neglected
to mention that as a group, Texas license holders are almost six times
less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public.
It also failed to mention findings by Yale researcher John Lott linking
concealed-carry laws to reduced levels of crime. Were Roger Clemens a journalist,
he could not have knocked the presidential candidate down more effectively.
But if the paper's reporters and gun-control proponents thought Mr.
Bush's Democratic foe, Al Gore, would take advantage of the story that
night during the debate, they were soon disappointed. In fact Mr. Gore
said nothing about gun control at all during the first debate. He mentioned
it in subsequent debates to say only that he wouldn't do anything to threaten
hunters and other sportsmen and then changed the subject. Coming from a
man who passionately declared as recently as April, "I think one of the
lessons of [the school shootings at] Columbine is that we have to stand
up to the [National Rifle Association] and the gun industry," his subdued
response must have seemed a missed opportunity to supporters.
The explanation is not that Mr. Gore had abruptly reverted to the National
Rifle Association (NRA) supporter he once was as a congressman from Tennessee.
It's that he has discovered there is a fairly large segment of gun owners
and sympathizers who don't recognize themselves in the usual Beltway, media
caricature of such people as weapons-crazed, high school student-shooting
(and occasionally sexually depraved) criminals. They don't think gun ownership
per se is wrong. Worse, they and their friends tend to vote in fairly large
numbers against those, like Mr. Gore, whom they regard as a threat to their
gun rights.
One can understand the vice president's surprise given the reporting
of the mainstream media. In August, a New York Times reporter dropped in
on Texas to cover the campaign and filed a wry account of the kind one
would expect from a foreign correspondent dispatched to cover some quaint,
backward little country. "One expectation of anyone running for governor
of Texas," he began, "is that he or she must grab a gun and shoot something."
Animals, beer cans, other people, whatever.
But less than a month later, the same New York Times discovered that
Mr. Gore and his advisers were taking gun owners quite seriously. Many
independent and Democratic Party voters in key swing states like Michigan,
Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Missouri, happen to be socially conservative,
and, the paper reported ominously, "many own guns." The same Los Angeles
Times that treated Mr. Bush's concealed-carry law as a horror reported
two weeks later that a key Democratic constituency, union members, have
been returning pro-Gore flyers to union organizers, saying, "I don't want
a man who's going to take my gun." Organized labor's own polling, the paper
reports, shows that about 40 percent of union members in the Midwest are
sympathetic to the NRA. The Washington Post has noted reports saying that
many — and as many as half — of the people attending enthusiastic NRA rallies
recently in Michigan were wearing United Auto Worker jackets.
President Clinton jumped into the debate this week, charging that the
NRA was, um, "lying" about the effects of gun control, but polling data
suggest union members believe otherwise. According to a Tarrance Group
survey on gun control, just 21 percent of respondents overall called for
more gun laws versus 72 percent of respondents who thought there should
be better enforcement of existing laws. That's hardly an endorsement of
gun control in general. But union members are, if anything, less enthusiastic
about it. Of labor union members surveyed, just 15 percent agreed there
should be more gun laws versus 81 percent who thought there should be better
enforcement. Given that Mr. Gore has already offended organized labor with
both a free-trade and environmentalist agenda that could threaten union
jobs, he doesn't want to aggravate the divisions in his coalition with
a high-profile stance in favor of gun control.
Asked about his support for the Brady bill, Mr. Gore told debate moderator
Jim Lehrer, "None of my proposals would have any effect on hunters or sportsmen
or people who use rifles. They are aimed at the real problem. Let's make
our schools safe. Let's make our neighborhoods safe. Let's have a three-day
waiting period, cooling off, so we can have a background check to make
sure that criminals and people who really shouldn't have guns don't get
them.
"But I'd like to use my remaining time on this exchange, Jim, to respond
to this — to an exchange that took place just a moment ago. Because a couple
of times the governor has said that I am for a bigger government . . .
"
The Los Angeles Times may have been aiming at Mr. Bush, but it was
Mr. Gore who wound up ducking.
E-mail: smithk@twtmail.com
Kenneth Smith is deputy editorial page editor of The Washington Times.His
column appears on Thursdays.
Congress passes
.08 Drunk Driving Limit
For those of you who drink this might be important.
Some Judges will pull your license if you have a DWI or at least want to
see you. With the level down to .08 more people might have to be
more careful.
CLICK
HERE TO SEE MADD'S PRESS RELEASE
Justice
Department Withholds Information Needed for Judging Clinton Administration
Enforcement Effort
(From an NRA Alert)
Syracuse, October 4 -- The Justice
Department is denying news organizations, public interest groups and the
general
public access to comprehensive information
about how the Clinton Administration has enforced the nation's laws.
The department's action
became known when the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA)
repudiated its agreement to release comprehensive
records describing the criminal and civil cases handled by federal
prosecutors nationwide. During the course
of litigation brought by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
(TRAC), the EOUSA had acknowledged that the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requires that all of the case
records and the vast majority of fields in
these databases must be disclosed to the public. These critical records,
however, have not been released because the
agency refused to follow its own position on public access and is
withholding material that it previously had
agreed to release to TRAC.
One example:
In August of 1999, after careful study of Justice Department data tapes,
TRAC put up a new edition
of its web site
focusing on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearm. The key finding:
ATF referrals
for the prosecution
of weapons cases had declined by 44% from 1992 to 1998. The documentation
of
this sharp and
previously unnoticed decline immediately resulted in numerous news articles
and became
the focus for
criticism of the Clinton Administration by the National Rife Association
and Senate and
House Committees.
It also has better informed public debate about the basic purpose of federal
gun
control efforts.
The administration now claims that weapons referrals are sharply up in
FY 1999, but
has refused
to provide TRAC the underlying data to support these claims.
CLICK
HERE FOR THE FULL ARTICLE
Monster.com
owner joins in gun control battle
By Associated Press, 10/1/2000 19:15
NEW YORK (AP) Monster.com owner Andrew McKelvey has joined in the gun
control fight, sinking $12 million into a new group, Americans for Gun
Safety, Newsweek reports in this week's edition.
But the group will not be a typical gun control advocacy organization.
McKelvey sees his group falling somewhere in between avid antigun supporters
and the National Rifle Association.
The hope is to get both mainstream Americans and gun owners to rally
around “common sense” solutions, such as tougher enforcement of existing
gun control laws and safer gun designs to prevent children from using them,
McKelvey told the magazine.
The group will make its debut this week with television ads in Colorado
and Oregon, where referendums on background checks for gun shows are slated
this November.
McKelvey, who according to Forbes magazine is worth $2.1 billion, made
the bulk of his fortune with Maynard, Mass. based Monster.com, the world's
biggest online job hunting and recruitment portal. He lives in New York
City.
Americans for Gun Safety is nonpartisan. It has already reached out
to more than 50 statewide gun violence groups with the offer that if they
become chapters, they will be given $60,000 a year to pay their staff and
equip their offices.
Twenty-eight groups have already signed on.
Gun-control
lobby runs out of ammo
THE WASHINGTON TIMES By Sean Scully October 2, 2000
Gun control has largely fizzled as an election year issue
despite strong efforts by congressional Democrats, activists say. “On the
gun issue, the reason that we are losing is that we are being out-organized,”
said Rep. Jan Schakowsky, Illinois Democrat and an advocate for stronger
gun-control laws. “It’s that simple. . . . “[Pro-gun activists] are organized
and mobilized, so that is shame on us.”
This time a year ago, congressional Democrats were confidently
predicting they would use public outrage over a series of highly publicized
school shootings to topple Republican control of the House. They took every
opportunity to speak on the House floor or stage rallies around the Capitol
to criticize Republican leaders for defeating a package of gun-control
measures that passed the Senate but failed in the House.
Vice President Al Gore, meanwhile, began his presidential
bid vowing to pass new gun-control laws — including requiring all handgun
owners to obtain a government license — and promising to “stand up to”
the National Rifle Association. Gun-control backers, led by a woman with
links to the Clinton administration, organized the “Million Mom March”
in May to put pressure on lawmakers to pass new gun laws.
But recent polls show the public has little taste for
new gun laws and doesn’t necessarily blame Republicans for the failure
of the gun-control package on Capitol Hill. Mr. Gore has muted his attacks
on guns as he struggles for votes in the Midwest and South, where hunters
and gun owners are a major power.
“The bottom line is Democrats have figured out that the
gun-control issue isn’t as popular as they thought,” said Rep. J.C.
Watts, Oklahoma Republican and chairman of the Republican Conference.
Gun-control supporters held a press conference Thursday
on Capitol Hill to premiere a pro-gun control documentary and “bring new
energy to the gun violence debate.”
“I think their admission of, if not defeat, . . . the
need to regroup, is absolutely correct,” said Rep. Bob Barr, Georgia Republican
and a leading gun-rights activist. “They have misread how far they can
push this issue with the American people.”
Except for Mrs. Schakowsky, the organizers of the gun-control
press conference were reluctant to say that their effort to inject the
issue into the election has failed, but there was a clear tone of irritation
in their remarks.
Mike Beard, president of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence,
blamed the media for the flagging gun-control campaign. He said many people
are interested in the issue but are discouraged by the lack of attention
it is getting. He cited some students he spoke to in North Carolina last
week.
“They’re a bit confused and quite angry about what’s
going on with the issue of gun violence,” Mr. Barnes told reporters.
“They’re confused about why you in the media aren’t covering the subject
more, why you won’t ask the candidates what is your stand on the issue
of gun violence. They want more questions from you, they want to hear some
responses from the candidates.”
They hope to revive the issue with a series of rallies
around the nation today, featuring members of the Clinton administration
such as Attorney General Janet Reno and Housing and Urban Development Secretary
Andrew Cuomo.
But pollsters and strategists say there is little chance
gun control will emerge as a galvanizing campaign issue.
A series of polls over the past year show that voters
are more excited about candidates who promise stronger enforcement of existing
laws — a major theme of Republican presidential nominee George W. Bush
and of congressional Republicans — over those who promise new gun laws
— a theme of Mr. Gore and congressional Democrats.
A Gallup poll, conducted in the first week of September,
showed that 53 percent of voters prefer a candidate who supports stronger
enforcement while 45 percent prefer a candidate who advocates new laws.
In July, pollster John Zogby found that likely independent voters prefer
the stronger enforcement approach, 69 percent to 25 percent.
Efforts to inject the issue into the election are further
complicated by the unusual politics of gun control. Opinions on firearms
tend to break down along regional lines or along urban/rural lines, rather
than along neat party divisions.
Republican strategist Whit Ayres says those splits make
it more difficult for Democrats to lay claim to gun control without offending
large blocks of voters they need to win this razor-thin election. It also
makes it more difficult to blame Republicans for the failure of the gun
control bill on Capitol Hill since it was not a neatly partisan issue.
The man most responsible for the failure of that bill
when it came up for a vote last year was Rep. John D. Dingell of Michigan,
the most senior Democrat in Congress and normally a stalwart ally of party
leaders. He led a coalition of 45 Democrats — many of them holders of powerful
committee and leadership spots — in opposing Democratic proposals to tighten
regulations on gun show sales.
That dissident faction allied with pro-gun rights Republicans
and blocked the remaining Democratic leadership.
“I don’t think people are particularly interested in
the subject,” Mr. Dingell said last week as it became clear the gun bill
would die.
“I haven’t heard any vast groundswell by anybody to be
taking guns away from law abiding citizens. . . . All you've got to do
is take [guns] away from criminals,” he said. “There are people who have
quite a different idea on that around here.
Supreme
Court fails to take up AW ban appeal.
10/2/00- 1:00PM Several gun
manufactories brought a lawsuit saying that Congress did not have a right
to ban so called Assault Weapons. The case reached the Supreme Court
and the court had a chance to take up the case or let the appeal ruling
that Congress did have the power to ban AWs stand. The court choose
not to take up the case so the ruling stands. This does not mean
that the court totally agrees with the ruling but it does mean that the
issue is not "ripe" or does not bring up issues in a way that the court
wants to address. It does not look good any way you look at it.
UPDATE 10/6/00
For gun makers, a stunner from the Supreme Court
Another legal pillar crumbles
By Daniel Small, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR
BOSTON, Oct. 4 — With little fanfare, and
no written opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court Monday may have just brought
down the second and final constitutional pillar supporting the opposition
to regulating guns in America. The “bottom- up” pillar, the Second Amendment’s
reference to the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” has been repeatedly
rejected as a bar to gun control. The “top- down” pillar, the Commerce
Clause’s restriction on Congress’ powers unless it involves interstate
commerce, has now crumbled as well.
Now the question is clearly and simply a political
one: how much gun control do the people want, and how much will Congress
give them?
The case involves the Violent Crime Control and
Law Enforcement Act, passed in 1994, which made it unlawful to, “manufacture,
transfer or posses a semiautomatic assault weapon.” A long list of specific
weapons were included in the ban.
The manufacturers of two of those weapons sued to
challenge the constitutionality of the law. Their principal claim was that
Congress did not have the power to enact controls on ordinary sales of
guns, many of which do not go beyond state lines.
A little factual context for this legal argument:
The weapons in question are not normal guns. In fact, the 1994 act specifically
exempts from the ban anything that comes close to being a hunting or sporting
weapon. Rather, these are nasty little killing machines, with — as they
say about pornography — little redeeming social value.
One plaintiff, Pennsylvania-based Penn Arms, makes
the “Strike-12” and related models, a 12-gauge revolving cylinder shotgun.
This gun, originally made in South Africa for riot control, can fire twelve
12-gauge shotgun shells in less than 15 seconds. A similar weapon was accurately
called the “Street Sweeper.”
Florida-based Intratec, the other plaintiff, makes
various models of the “TEC.” This is one of the smallest and least expensive
assault weapons around. The “TEC-22T Auto Pistol” sells for only about
$150. Several models come standard with 30-36 round ammunition magazines
capable of being fired as fast as you can pull the trigger. Not surprisingly,
they are very popular with drug dealers and other violent criminals.
Early opposition to gun control was often based
upon the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which states, “A well-regulated
Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of
the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Gun proponents
viewed this language (and many still do) as creating an absolute right
to own and carry guns of all sorts. Gun control advocates argue that the
Second Amendment relates to only to “militia” and “national security,”
and was written at a time when civilian militias were the nation's first
line of defense.
Whatever our founding fathers meant, the courts
have consistently ruled that the Second Amendment does not prohibit reasonable
gun control. Certainly, no reasonable person could argue that the framers
of the Constitution had imagined that allowing killing machines like the
“Street Sweeper” to be readily available when they wrote the Second Amendment.
This plague of guns does not protect the “security of a free state,” but
rather threatens it.
As it became clear that guns were not a “bottom-up”
absolute right of the people, gun proponents sought other arguments to
block controls. Within the Constitution, they turned to the Commerce Clause,
using a “top-down” approach to say that the federal government does not
have the right to interfere with the making and selling of guns on the
local level. For Congress to regulate business, they argue, there must
be a significant impact on interstate commerce. This is the principal argument
that Intratec and Penn Arms made in their challenge to the assault weapons
ban.
The U.S. Court of Appeals rejected this argument.
It found that there was plenty of evidence of the “flow of semiautomatic
assault weapons across state lines.” Individual cities or states that try
to regulate them only get flooded with weapons coming in from outside.
This is clearly a national, “interstate” problem, and requires an interstate
solution. The court upheld the law.
Intratec and Penn Arms then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The high court has a luxury that most other courts don’t have: it can choose
what cases it wants to hear. In legal terms, it can either grant
or deny “certiorari.” With so many courts feeding cases up to the Supreme
Court, most cases are denied certiorari. Technically, a denial has no added
legal significance: the high court is not necessarily agreeing with the
lower court; it is simply declining to hear the case, thus letting the
lower court’s opinion stand. The Supreme Court justices can always choose
to consider the same issue later, through another case.
In reality, though, when a prestigious appeals court issues an opinion
in a high-profile case upholding the constitutionality of controversial
legislation, the Supreme Court’s silence speaks volumes. An impact on interstate
commerce will always be a requirement for legislation in this area, but
when the issue is trafficking in weapons, that impact is now clearly established.
The last constitutional pillar supporting the opposition to gun control
is now gone.
Now gun control becomes strictly political. Being
a free society means that we must tolerate all kinds of offensive things,
from speech to art and whatever the latest trends may be. But if what is
offensive is also deadly: how far must we go? It’s nice to talk about constitutional
theory, but it is important to remember that killing machines are the source
of this controversy. Across America are gravestones of police, innocent
children, and others who have fallen victim to this particular form of
“freedom.”
The Court of Appeals’ review of the history and
impact of gun control is frightening. The court noted that when Congress
passed the Safe Streets Act of 1968, it found that “the ease with which
any person can acquire firearms, …is a significant factor in the prevalence
of lawlessness and violent crime in the United States.”
Sadly, what was a only a “factor” 32 years ago is
a nightmare today. Thousands and thousands of pointless killing machines
are flooding our streets, our homes, and even our schools. By quietly rejecting
this last constitutional claim, perhaps the Supreme Court has taken a step
towards stopping the madness.
************************************
Dan Small is a trial lawyer in Boston. He is a former federal prosecutor
and lecturer on litigation at Harvard Law School and author of two recent
ABA books, “Going to Trial” and “Preparing Witnesses.” He is a regular
contributor to MSNBC..
CLICK
HERE TO LINK TO THE ARTICLE WITH SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
HCI
launches new anti-Bush/Gun web site.
Hand Gun Control's idea of a democracy is that only
they are allowed to have anyone in the government pay attention to what
they say. They are a well meaning group of citizens and anyone pro-gun
is a member of a radical, right winged, cruel and inhumane group that should
have no representation in the government. HCI is willing to let no
lie left untold or truth left unbent to prevent the NRA from having a meeting
with anyone from the White House.
THE WEB SITE ADDRESS IS:
http://www.bushandguns.com/
(You will have to link there yourself. I do not want a link
coming back to my web page.)
They have a link to " Martin Sheen Stars in New Ad Criticizing Bush Record"
that you will want to see. Martin Sheen plays the President on the
TV series "West Wing" who's last episode last year ended with a right wing
skin head group shooting at President
Josiah Bartlet, a liberal anti-gun president, with the question, "Who`s
been shot?," the hanging question left to be answered in the first episode
of this year. The White House Press Conference in the opening episode
ended with a list of people who where shot during the previous 24 hours
because of the "bad guns." They left out the fact that handguns are
banned in D.C..
The poll question on their web site is:
Do you think TV portrayals of attempted White House assassinations
could encourage real-life copycats?
Definitely
5.5%
Possibly
29.6%
Doubtful
48.5%
Absolutely not 16.4%
6605 respondents (10/13/00)
NRA REPLY
HCI left out the facts and logic with this attack.
You would think that the people who apply for a handgun license would normally
be a group of people who want to follow the law at a higher rate that any
other group. You would think that a reporter would also include information
about the Federal NICS checks and the failures that they have had when
the Federal Gov. approved gun sales and the fact that FFLs have even been
issued to criminals. I wonder who has the highest rate of error,
Texas or the NICS check system?
CLICK
HERE TO LINK TO THE NRA FACT SHEET
ATF announces
the launching of “FFL eZ Check”
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) announces
the launching of “FFL eZ Check” —– a new tool that will allow licensees
to verify the status of other licensees with whom they propose to do business.
ATF will also be proposing a new regulation that
would ultimately make this authentication process a mandatory requirement.
CLICK
HERE TO LINK TO ATF BREAKING NEWS
CLICK
HERE TO LINK TO ATF OPEN LETTER TO FFL's
Subject: Important
WalMart Gun Survey
From: JPFO Alerts <webmaster@jpfo.org
Subject: ALERT: WalMart wants your opinion about guns
Date sent: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 15:11:09 -0700
ALERT FROM JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP
America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization
September 25, 2000
ALERT: WalMart wants your opinion about guns
JPFO has received this notice via e-mail:
Walmart founder Sam Walton was a dedicated quail hunter, and must
be rolling over in his grave over the success of anti-gun activists in
blocking gun and ammo sales at two stores.
The company is now taking a call-in count of whether they should continue
to sell guns in their other stores. To voice your opinion call:
(800) 925-6278, select option #1, then option #4, which -- after
an 8-10 minute wait -- will give you a real-live representative in the
CEO's office.
Note: from the information I have, this means any kind of guns
... from shotguns to water pistols. The MMMs have been busy!!! Let's
let WalMart know how WE feel!
WalMart: http://www.walmart.com/
Forwarded by The Liberty Crew
================================================================
Don't forget JPFO's new sister organization CCOPS: Concerned
Citizens Opposed to Police States. Check out the new website: http://www.ccops.org/