From: [l v c] at [cbvox1.att.com]
Newsgroups: info.firearms.politics
Subject: October PROponent - Long
Date: 9 Oct 93 02:54:56 GMT

The
      PROponent

                   Peoples Rights Organization
5 E. Long St., Suite 412;   Columbus, OH 43215;   (614) 268-0122

Volume 5           October, 1993              Number 10

** Cops poll pro-gun! **


FINALLY!  SOMEONE POLLS RANK AND FILE POLICE...

     The first ever polling of a police organization was conducted
by the Southern States Police Benevolent Association concerning gun
control.  This is a major law enforcement organization with nearly
11,000 members.
     The Southern States PBA has traditionally remained neutral on
gun control, but they finally had enough of every special interest
group, including several national police organizations, claiming
they spoke for the rank and file member on the subject of gun
control that they decided to run their own poll.  Southern States
PBA President Jack Roberts stated that, "The only way to know how
law enforcement feels about gun control is to ask them.  And that's
exactly what we did."
     A professional research team, Spectrum Resources, Inc. of
Tallahassee, Florida was used to insure the validity of the survey.
     Due to space, the top three answers of the 3,824 responses
will be listed, plus any related to firearms.

1)  In general, what do you think is the most pressing cause of
violent crime in the United States today?
45%       Drugs
10.6%     Family Values/Decline of Family
4.1%      Courts, Inadequate Sentencing
1.1%      Gun/Firearms

2a)  How effective has the US Congress been in dealing with violent
crime?
47.1%     Only Minimally Effective
45.9%     Not Effective At All
5.6%      Somewhat Effective

2b)  Please indicate which of the following option would be least
effective in reducing violent crime?  (Pick only one option)
65.3%     Stricter Gun Control Laws
11.5%     Stop Early Release
6.3%      Not Sure

3a)  There should be an immediate background check on handgun
purchases right at the gun shop.
47.5%     Strongly agree
34.8%     Agree
11.7%     Disagree

3b)  Other than for police and military, all guns should be
outlawed.
67.8%     Strongly Disagree
28%       Disagree
1.8%      Strongly Agree

3c)  The entire criminal justice system needs major reform.
59.7%     Strongly Agree
29.8%     Agree
8.2%      Disagree

3d)  The US Constitution guarantees every law-abiding citizen the
right to own a gun.
58.9%     Strongly Agree
31.2%     Agree
5.8%      Disagree

3e)  People should have the right to own a gun for self-protection.
66.5%     Strongly Agree
29.9%     Agree
2.4%      Disagree

3f)  A waiting period to purchase handguns will only affect
law-abiding citizens--criminals will still be able to obtain
handguns illegally whenever they want.
59.5%     Strongly Agree
27%       Agree
10.1%     Disagree

3g)  The Federal government should take legal action to curb the
amount of violence on television.
38.4%     Agree
25.2%     Strongly Agree
24.6%     Disagree

3h)  A federal law should be passed allowing qualified law
enforcement officers to carry a concealed firearm anywhere in the
United States.
74.8%     Strongly Agree
19.5%     Agree
3.4%      Disagree

3i)  Based on my own experience, if the laws on handgun ownership
were stricter than they are now, the overall number of violent
crimes would be reduced.
36.2%     Disagree
34.7%     Strongly Disagree
17.1%     Agree

3j)  A gun is not an assault weapon if it fires only one bullet
each time the trigger is pulled.
27.3%     Disagree
25.8%     Agree
23.5%     Strongly Agree
19.3%     Strongly Disagree

4)  All things considered, which of the following two opinions
would you prefer--a bill requiring a five-day waiting period on the
purchase of handguns, or a bill requiring an immediate criminal
background check at the time of the sale?
63.8%     Instant Check
23.1%     Waiting Period
5.6%      Neither
5.4%      Both

5)  Aside from your department issued firearm, do you have guns of
any kind in your home?
85.3%     Yes
8.6%      Refused to Answer
6.0%      No

6)  How many years have you served in law enforcement?
45.7%     10 Years or More
26.6%     5-10 Years
21.2%     2-5 Years

7)  Are you a sworn or non-sworn employee?
96.9%     Sworn
3.1%      Non-Sworn

8)  In general, do you serve in a rural or in an urban area?
64.1%     Urban
32.5%     Rural
3.3%      Mixed

     The results of the Southern States PBA law enforcement
officers shows that they resoundingly reject gun control laws as
effective measures in deterring violent crime, and strongly support
the right of citizens to own firearms.

S. 8 - CRIME BILL OF 1993...

     There are always certain signs when Congress is about to give
John Q. Public the shaft.  One sign is when a phone book sized bill
appears, labeled with the name of a major problem and the current
year, like say "the drug-abuse bill of 1988".  What's that?
You say you don't remember the 366 page bill of very fine print
that tried to make warrantless searches legal (the feature was
removed by the Senate).  It was the bill that made all manner of
drug testing and drug searches legal through "implied consent".
This is where the courts say that by taking a certain job, or
getting a driver's license, you have given up your rights and can
make no further claim to them.  It was the Bill that proposed to
allow citizens to be held guilty without trial.  (This feature was
removed by specific amendment.)  It was the bill that gave the
Secretary of the Treasury the power to seize any transaction
records of any domestic financial institution as well as all
information the institutions have on the persons making the
transactions.  It was the bill that required all businesses to
report all cash transactions over $10,000 and ordered a study on if
$100 and $50 dollar bills should be removed from circulation.  It
was the bill that allocated $23 million dollars for a machine
readable national ID card program.  It was the bill that made it a
crime punishable by 1 year in prison to carry any weapon into any
Federal Facility. (A pocket knife with a blade less than 2 1/2
inches long is the only exception.  Happily, under this law, unlike
in public schools, a Boy Scout knife is not a weapon.)  It was the
bill that made it illegal to send locksmithing tools through the
mails.  It was the act that mandated that military installations
could be used as mental treatment centers or prison camps with
forced labor and authorized a study of using that forced labor to
pay for the costs of the camps.  In short it was a huge bill full
of "gotchas".
     So now yet another phone book bill is making its way through
Congress.  This one is called S. 8, the "Crime Control Act of 1993"
and needless to say, it would be better named the "Rights Control
Act of 1993".  I'm sure you know that the "Brady Bill" has been an
on again-off again part of S. 8, but there is much, much more you
should know about this bill.  To just give you a little flavor of
it let me quote a message from Linda Thompson, one of the attorneys
involved in the Waco affair.
     "While in Waco, I saw a copy of a bill, I hope I remember the
number right, but it was titled the Crime Bill of 1993, and I
believe it was SB 108 [Editors: it was S. 8] and it makes it a
DEATH PENALTY offense to 'conspire' against the government or to
'use a gun in the commission of' ANY crime in the federal books."
     "Now, keep in mind, I have a guy who had guns, unloaded, in
boxes on a shelf in his closet, who is charged with "using a gun in
the commission of a crime", who is charged with 'conspiracy to sell
drugs' (on the word of a paid government informant, no evidence)
and because he supposedly talked about drugs in his house, and the
guns were in the house, ergo, he 'used a gun in the commission of
a drug crime.'"
     "And, keep in mind that the way the 'gun in the commission of
a crime' law is right now, you can be charged with "using a gun in
the commission of a crime" but NEVER BE CHARGED OR CONVICTED OF THE
CRIME ITSELF -- yes, really, right here, in AmeriKa."
     "Now, with this proposed bill -- it is about 2 inches thick
and I only read the first three pages and choked -- ANY crime in
the federal books (and there are a lot) is now eligible for the
DEATH PENALTY if the government merely alleges that you were
'conspiring against the government' or 'using a gun' when you did
it."
     "Consider what 'conspiring' against the government can mean.
If you do something that is a federal crime, why, that's against
the federal law, and, whoa -- it must be 'against the government',
so if you planned it with someone, you conspired and, surprise,
you've 'conspired against the government.'  Kiss your ass
good-bye."
     It gets worse.  Remember the article we reprinted in the June
1993 PROponent describing the proposed S. 265 "Terrorist Death
Penalty act of 1991" and Senator Biden's "Comprehensive
Counter-Terrorist Act of 1991"?  These are now part of the Crime
bill.  As you may remember these are written like current Drug and
RICO laws authorizing confiscation of property for any "violent
act" whether or not it actually causes harm.  It allows any
organization "benefiting from foreign contact" to be charged as an
agent of a foreign power.  Note that international computer
networks fill this bill if any "node" was accused of "terrorist"
activities.  "Terrorist activities" are not just defined as violent
acts but also includes actions which "appear to be intended (1) to
intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (2) to enforce the
policy of a government by intimidation or coercion."  This could be
just a political demonstration or labor strike.  It could even be
a radio talk show or a political speech.  It means that if any
participant of the 1993 Gun Rights Policy Conference goes home and
commits a violent act, all CCRKBA and SAF (the sponsors) assets
could be seized.  All participants could be charged as
"conspirators" and have their property seized as well if they had
or "should have had" knowledge that somebody at the meeting might
commit a terrorist act.
     Bill Cooper on an international shortwave broadcast on WWCR in
June described more of the vile "gotchas" in the phone book bill.
He notes, "But the 'Trojan horse' in the Crime Control Act of 1993
is this: anyone in the United States committing an undefined
violent act or attending an assembly can be charged with terrorism.
If they defend it under Section 2333 of Title 7, terrorist acts
and/or conspiracy seeks to discover from the Department of Justice
the evidence against him, the attorney for the government may
object on the ground that compliance will interfere with a criminal
investigation or prosecution of the incident or a national security
operation related to the incident which is the subject of civil
litigation."
     "Chapter 113B Section 138 [of S. 8] states that the list of
veniremen [ed. that is, the list of persons from which the jury was
selected] and witnesses need not be furnished to capital offense
defendants should the court find by a preponderance of the evidence
that providing the list may jeopardize the life or safety of any
person.  And who decides that?  Well, they do, of course."
     "Title 7 Section 2337 states the Crime Control Act of 1993
eliminates civil suits against the United States and foreign
governments by persons injured resulting from government agents in
pursuit of prevention of terrorist acts. If they raid your home
because they made a stupid mistake (Ed. or on purpose) and kill
your entire family, you cannot sue the United States government or
foreign governments."
     "Title 7 Section 711 - Sentencing Guidelines Increased for
Terrorist Crimes. The United States sentencing commission shall
have the power to provide an increase in the base offense level for
any felony committed in the United States that involves or is
intended to promote international terrorism."
     "S8, the Crime Control Act of 1993, amends the exclusionary
rule to add Section 3509 - Admissibility Of Evidence Obtained By
Search Or Seizure: (A) evidence obtained by objectively reasonable
search or seizure; (B) evidence not excludable by statute or rule
... [the] Government need only assert that 'a search and seizure
was carried out in circumstances justifying an objectively
reasonable belief that it was in conformity with the Fourth
Amendment.'"
     "Under proposed provisions of the Crime Control Act of 1993,
special breaks are afforded informants, even against the death
penalty. The government will have no difficulty creating
informants, creating informants to cause the incarceration of any
citizen considered a threat to ones political agenda."
     Remember that right now under the drug forfeiture laws, the
government is giving informants 25% of the take from all seizures
(often in cash!).  What this bill does is create open season on any
honest politically oriented person.  It boldly invites all those
who cherish theft as a way of life to join with those in power to
rob anyone who even speaks against an all powerful government.  I
hate to be this strong, but can you believe this treason?
     Not only will this criminal conspiracy rob the honest, but
also deftly deflects any defense that the victim might choose to
mount.  It provides for secret trials, secret witnesses, illegal
searches, sealed warrants, punishment set by those in power rather
than by law, reduction of sentences as bribes for paid informants,
government immunity against civil suits plus the standard Drug and
RICO presumption of guilt where the accused must prove they are
innocent.
     The brass of Senator Biden, President Clinton and others in
Washington who have been pushing this bill is truly beyond measure.
They obviously think they can turn this country into Hitler's and
Stalin's dream of the future by decree and none of you "sheeple"
will notice or care.  They may indeed be right, but I don't think
so.  While Bill Cooper says we may be living in the "last days of
freedom for the average man", I believe we are seeing here the last
desperate gasp of those who would twist the American dream into
their own vision of control.  Either of us could potentially be
correct.  Which it ultimately is depends upon you.  We are fast
approaching the point when EVERY American must choose exactly whom
he or she will serve.  No fence sitters will be allowed.  If the
boot of government stamping on your face forever is not YOUR vision
of the future, then raise Hell about S. 8 and DO IT NOW.  Remember
once it is law, your protests just might be considered a "terrorist
act".

TWO VIEWS...

     On Saturday, July 14, 1993, the Columbus Dispatch published a
letter from a man returning to America after having lived in
London, England for a year and a half.  He denounced the violent
use of firearms and returning to what the Japanese call the "gun
culture of America."
     Ted Rice, the author, states that "In London, a city of almost
7 million people, I have far less fear for my safety and that of my
wife that i did before I left Columbus, which has one-seventh the
population and, by American standards, is a safe city."
     "London has plenty of crime, but relatively little is violent.
Car and property theft probably worse here than in many American
cities, but the murder and violent-crime rate is much lower.  One
reason for this is that so few people have guns"
     Rice goes on "I see the damage our country's reputation
suffers as a result of casual killing by guns.  There is no other
nation in the developed world that allows it's citizens such
unrestricted access to lethal weapons."  As is usual with an
anti-gun diatribe, truth plays little role.  Clearly Mr. Rice does
not consider Switzerland or Israel to be part of the "developed
world."
     What Rice fails to see is that America is the only super-power
in the world, and that this country has never given birth to a
Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Castro, Tito, Napoleon; nor have we ever
had a leader declare that "There will be peace in our time" without
having the strength and resolve to back it up.
     Being the only super-power leaves us open to attack from every
wanna-be on everything that happens in America.  Our gun culture.
The violence in our streets.  Our lifestyles.  Our fashions.  Our
movies.
     As violent and "gun-crazy" as we are, who does the world call
on when the bullies come knocking on their door?  America and
Americans.  We have gone to the aid of the world twice, and
countless countries in countless wars to defend democracy.  When
France built their Maginot Line the Germans parachuted around it,
and Americans had to go and die to save their country.  When
Britain and the other countries were in a panic over Hitler,
America had to go over there and save them from themselves.  Does
Mr. Rice recall when "peaceful" Londoners were begging the American
public to send them handguns?
     Did any of them pay back the money that America has spent in
two world wars to liberate them, or has any country offered to help
America when we have had a natural disaster?  Only one country has
repaid their war debts to us, and not very many have ever helped
Americans in their time of adversity.  Bangladesh has donated
$100.00 towards the devastation caused by the flooding in the
Mississippi River basin.  This comes a month after they lost 456
people in floods in their own country.
     Another letter, written by Makram Samman, originally from
Egypt, was sent to the Sacramento Bee Newspaper and published
August 4, 1991.  Samman says it all.
     "If there is a single reason for my immigration to the U.S. it
would be the two complementing documents of the Constitution and
Bill of Rights.
     I am always surprised by my fellow citizens born in America
because they take these documents for granted and do not put these
principles into practice.
     I have traveled and studied in more than 50 countries.  I
always come back to the U.S. and I'm glad to come home.  Nothing's
better than home: America."
     If you have never traveled from America's shores, it is
difficult to translate the lump in your throat, the feelings of
pride that flow through you when you see the Statue of Liberty,
the Golden Gate Bridge, the Rio Grande or the Great Lakes.  You are
back home in the land of the free; and it is free because of the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights and because the Second
Amendment helps the common, ordinary citizen protect her.

____________________________________________________________

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real
advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would
take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may
drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction.  The
laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature.
They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to
commit crimes."

Ceasare Beccaria, An Essay on Crimes and Punishments 87-8 (1764)

(Note that Thomas Jefferson was so impressed with this statement he
copied it longhand into his personal collection of favorite
quotations."
____________________________________________________________

RISING SUN...

     In recent weeks, there has been a minor controversy over the
movie Rising Sun.  Is it about theatrical violence?  No.  It is
about Japan bashing.  Actually, what the movie and the book of the
same name try to do is to show the difference in the cultures of
America and Japan.
     Business in Japan is considered a war, while in America it is
considered a game, with the best man winning.  With two such
divergent points of view, it is no wonder that we look at the
private ownership of firearms differently.
     In an article written by Louis B. Parks, of the Houston
Chronicle, he conducted an interview with Sean Connery.  Connery
stated that "The elements that make this story dramatic are the
differences between the two countries."
     Connery went on, "In the United States we can't deal with
crime, because people have two many rights-which is absolutely
valid but makes it easier for the criminal.  In Japan you don't
have that many rights, so you have a more secure system.  But
they (Japanese police) are also allowed to ignore all sorts of
privileges America has."
     With these differences in our cultures, one has to decide what
is best for the most people.  Japan's style, where the police are
allowed to do whatever they want to obtain a confession; or
America, where the individual is protected from police
transgressions?  America, of course, where we have the Second
Amendment to protect ourselves.

COMFORT WOMEN...

     A dark day in history began over 60 years ago.  Korean,
Philippine and Dutch prisoners of the Japanese Imperial Army were
forced into sex slavery.  There were tens of thousands of them.
     After three years of complaints and scores of lawsuits, Japan
has finally admitted that they had army "comfort centers" between
1932 and 1945.  They still deny that the women were forced.  This
admission was the last act of the ousted government of Prime
Minister Kiichi Miyazawa.  Miyazawa resigned August 4, 1993 after
a dismal and embarrassing showing by the ruling party in July's
parliamentary elections.
     The admission by the ousted government was precedent setting
for a nation reluctant to discuss the atrocities in its past.  The
reach of the system of sex slavery was stunning, in that it reached
from Burma to New Guinea and from northeastern China to Indonesia.
History has no such similar record of a comparable systematic
network of military sex slavery.
     After a yearlong investigation, the government acknowledged
that most of the brothel captives had been "recruited against their
will" and that "virtually all were kept in misery and in a coercive
atmosphere" that limited their movements even when they were not
servicing soldiers.
     The report also revealed a cold-hearted political rationale
for the practice.  The women were used to satisfy the desires of
conquering Japanese soldiers and thus discouraged rape and kept
down the incidence of venereal disease.
     Most of the sex slaves are believed to have been Korean, which
was then a colony of Japan.
     The government did not address the question of compensation,
saying only that Japan would continue to consider seriously how
best to "show remorse."
     America has had her bad apples during her conflicts with other
nations, but we have never turned tens of thousands of unwilling
people into sexual slaves.  Nor have we subjugated countries that
we have defeated as did Japan, Germany and Italy.  In fact, we have
provided the means for those countries to better themselves and to
provide for their citizens a better form of government.
     One foreign exchange student is shot, and the Japanese want to
deprive us of our Second Amendment.  Would the tens of thousands
"sex slaves" been slaves if they had firearms?  Also, Japan has
never been held accountable for most of the war crimes that they,
as a country committed between the years of 1932 and 1945.
     German soldiers of the Third Reich are still being hunted down
and prosecuted for their war crimes.  This is as it should be.
These were crimes against humanity.  Why aren't the perpetrators of
Japanese war-time atrocities being hunted down to stand trial for
their crimes against humanity?
     Japan has admitted guilt in their sexual slavery of tens of
thousands of women.  They should offer some form of compensation to
these women that suffered up to fourteen years of sexual abuse at
the hands of the conquering Imperial Army.  So far, they have not
addressed this matter.  Perhaps a petition signed by millions of
Americans would force them to face their criminal wrong-doings
against humanity during the years of and preceding World War II.
____________________________________________________________

     At the conclusion of the Convention, Benjamin Franklin was
asked, "What have you wrought?"  He answered,

"...a Republic, if you can keep it."

[editors: Note that he did not answer "a democracy"!]

____________________________________________________________

REMEMBER THE ALAMO...

     During the siege of the Alamo and it's 186 defenders, William
B. Travis wrote a letter to the people of Texas and to all
Americans in the world.  It reads:

     "To the people of Texas and all Americans in the world-Fellow
citizens-& compatriots-I am besieged by a thousand or more of the
Mexicans under Santa Anna.-I have sustained a continual bombardment
and cannonade for 24 hours & have not lost a man-The enemy has
demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise the garrison are to
be put to the sword if the fort is taken-I have answered the demand
with a cannon shot, and our flag still waves proudly from the
walls-I shall never surrender or retreat.  Then, I call on you in
the name of Liberty, of patriotism & everything dear to the
American character, to come to our aid with all dispatch-The enemy
is receiving reinforcement daily & will no doubt increase to three
or four thousand in four or five days.  If this call is neglected,
I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible & die like a
soldier who never forgets what is due his own honor & that of his
country-VICTORY OR DEATH."

     With just a little imagination one can transpose the gallant
words of Travis at the Alamo to battles that are raging in every
state of the Union today.  Even in our capitol.  The Brady Bunch
want to deprive us of our rights, while the NRA, CCRKBA, Second
Amendment Foundation, Gun Week, Women & Guns, OCDC and PRO are
saying to them, no.
     The Brady Bunch receives reinforcements daily through the
slanted articles and biased reporting of the media.  If you do not
help now, in letters to the editors, campaigning for those that
feel as we do or by monetary contributions, what you are doing is
just lip service to America; to the Constitution; to the Bill of
Rights and to the Second Amendment!

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH...

     The following letter was published in the Columbus Dispatch on
August 16, 1993.  It was in reply to an editorial written by Pete
Du Pont.  In his article, Du Pont castigated the press in their
efforts to manipulate the news to effect governmental policy.

Dear Editor:

     Pete Du Pont's recent Forum-page column, "Factual illusions
used to change perceptions, influence public policy," was right on
the money.  In it he castigated the media in their manipulation of
information and facts, in their calls to expand the powers of the
state.
     Du Pont did not go far enough.  He left out the most serious
onslaught of the media against individual liberty in our country
today.  He failed to mention the assault against the individual
ownership of firearms, without governmental intrusion or
regulation.
     The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights precludes the
government from stopping law-abiding citizens from easy access to
firearms.
     Fewer than 1 percent of all firearms in the United States are
used feloniously, yet I and others are continuously bombarded by
media hype and hyperbole to convince the government to enact
stricter legislation (which has never worked in New York, Washington
or Hawaii) or to abolish the Second Amendment altogether.
     Without the Second Amendment, what protects Du Pont's right to
freedom of speech?  Our elected officials?  If they can do away
with one amendment, they can do away with the freedoms of speech,
religion and protection against search and seizure.

Respectfully,

Dennis Walker

COURTHOUSES AND POST OFFICES...

     In recent months, while we have heard of the tragic shootings
in post offices around our country, there have also been many acts
of violence in our courthouses.  Before the Topeka, Kansas
shooting, there were ten incidents of lethal violence in American
courthouses since 1992.

Jan. 7, 1992:  Two killed in Cuyahoga County Courthouse
in Cleveland, Ohio.  An estranged wife and her brother.
Mar. 9, 1992:  Shirley Lowery was stabbed to death at the
Milwaukee County Courthouse when she tried to obtain a restraining
order against her killer.
May 4, 1992:  A woman shot and wounded her brother-in- law at the
Colbert County Courthouse in Alabama.
May 5, 1992:  While awaiting a divorce hearings in Clayton,
MO, a man killed his estranged wife and wounded their attorneys.
May 5, 1992:  A district judge was shot and wounded in      Grand
Forks, N.D., during a hearing on failure to pay child support.
July 1, 1992:  A lawyer fatally shot two lawyers, wounded   two
judges and a prosecutor at the Tarrant County Courthouse in Ft.
Worth, Texas.  He was upset at child molestation charges brought by
his former wife.
July 20, 1992:  A former police officer, up on charges of   bank
robbery, shot and killed two other guards and himself.
Sept. 24, 1992:  A self-defense shooting of a man.  The man
was killed.
Jan. 19, 1993:  In State District Court in Dallas a man killed
his wife, wounded a bystander and then took his own life.
March 12, 1993:  A parole officer killed his wife in a New  York
courthouse waiting room.  He also wounded two other people.

     Americans pride themselves with their judicial system.  But
how can this pride be continued when justice is meted out in such
terrible and final means.  Is the problem with society or with the
members of the judicial community?
     With local judges, such as Columbus' Evelyn Stratton
pontificating from the bench, it is no wonder that the common man
is frustrated with the judicial system in America.
     On Dec. 16, 1992, Stratton gave a life sentence to Simon
Schatz, for the murder of co-worker Howard Norton.  Schatz shot
Newton two days after purchasing a pistol.  In her sentencing,
Stratton stated, "Had there been a five-day waiting period, maybe
Mr. Schatz would have come to his senses."
     Candidates for judges are disallowed from uttering opinions
during elections, as these might be construed to be prejudicial in
a case they might have to sit on.  The same should be said about
their editorializing during sentencing.

SNIPER...

     What are SWAT snipers for?  Just maybe the Federal Government
can learn a thing or two from Cowtown.  It was national news with
pictures of Columbus Special Weapons and Tactics officer Michael
Plumb shooting a gun out of the hand of a man who had seated
himself in a busy intersection and was waving the pistol at passing
cars.  "The Shot" from 60 yards away disarmed Douglas J. Conley, 37
by shooting the handgun out of his hand.  Police immediately moved
in and arrested the man, who did not appear to this observer to be
one of our more stable citizens.  The final outcome was no one hurt
and Mr. Conley gets his day in court.
     Compare the above case with attitude of Federal snipers.
Compare it to the Weaver case where snipers felt that it was not
only their duty to provide immediate justice to the accused, but to
innocent bystanders as well.  So they gunned down Vicki Weaver
while holding her baby, and the sniper called it an "accident".
Apparently, he was just trying to be judge and jury for them and
slipped or something.  Defense attorney Gerry Spence, however,
point blank asked the government shooter if this was the
government's way to separate Vicki and her husband.  He implied it
was very suspicious that one day an FBI agent was developing a
psychological profile on the Weaver family that showed Vicki to be
the strongest member and the next day she is "accidentally" taken
out.  Especially since sniper Lon Horiuchi testified that his rifle
would allow him to hit a quarter at 200 yards.
     G. Wayne "Duke" Smith, the Associate Director of Operations in
the Marshal's Service testified at the trial that the governments's
rules of engagement for snipers had been changed from the normal
"imminent danger" which requires that snipers only shoot when there
is an "imminent danger" of death or serious harm.  This became one
where if any of the adults in the "compound" were observed with a
weapon , "deadly force can and should be employed to neutralize the
individual."  The new policy said that any dog "can be taken out",
but reserved the normal "imminent danger" policy for the babies and
children.
     It is very interesting that the revised rules of engagement
had two distinct cases.  Prior to the government demand for
surrender, snipers only had open season on armed adult males and
then only if the shot could be made without endangering the
children.  After the demand was made, snipers were free to kill any
armed adult, male or female, and did not have to take into account
any danger that such action could pose to the baby and children.
Defense attorney Gary Spence pointed out that even with open
season, the snipers did not even follow their own rules, killing
Vicki when she was unarmed.
     The same attitude can be seen in reports from Waco about the
killing of unarmed Davidians who just happened to be caught outside
the compound when the raid began.  The October, 1993 Soldier of
Fortune magazine confirms this saying, "This source was privy to a
phone call wherein the leader of the ATF sniper team called the
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center near Brunswick, Georgia and
told an ATF instructor how the team members believed they had
killed six or seven Davidians during the first hour of the raid.
Most disturbing, however, was the team's leader admission that
three Davidians had been unarmed when shot."
     There are two things that need to be understood here: one by
law enforcement and the other by the public.  The first is that the
function of police is to arrest the accused and bring them to
trial.  It is not to go for maximum body count by shooting anything
that moves be it suspects, women, children, cats, dogs or water
buffalo in some twisted "Vietnamization" of American streets.  The
second is for the public to understand that justification for
funding a SWAT squad comes not from what it does but rather from
what it is prepared to do.  They must understand that it makes no
difference that the Plumb shot was the first time a sniper round
was fired in Columbus.  If the public and politicians start
screaming to cut SWAT funding because they haven't "done anything
lately", I can assure you that the tendency will be exactly that
observed at the federal level: to produce a body count to justify
jobs.
     Happily, we can be proud of the Columbus sniper team, their
restraint, and their contribution to justice.  Once again Ohio has
to show all those folks running things from the murder capital of
the country what law enforcement is all about.


THIRD ANNUAL PRO-NRA
Peoples Rights Organization
SPORTING CLAYS FUNDRAISER

     All shooters are welcome to attend this "fun" shoot.  This
year's Sporting Clay's program will include a ladies category.
Competitor classifications will be: Beginners, Intermediate, and
Advanced levels of ability.  Trophies and Prizes will be awarded
for the Sporting Clays event.  Also, a Stillboard shoot (turkey
shoot) sub-event will be held offering a cash jackpot.

WHERE:         Buckeye Valley Sporting Clays, 12360 Shellbeach
Road, Thornville, Ohio  43076  (614) -467-2686

WHEN:          October 17, 1993. Start at 10:00 am.

HOW :          For information please call PRO at (614) 268-0122

 * map to Buckey Valley Sporting Clays here *

     The program will consist of 50 targets with a fee of $15.
Tips for Caddies are welcome.  All net proceeds to benefit PRO.
The Stillboard Shooters fee is $2 per event, shotshells will be
provided for the Stillboard program only.  Safety shall be observed
at all times on both the Sporting Course and Stillboard Range.
Please bring your own eye and ear protection.  A modern clubhouse
will be used for our staging area.  You may bring a lunch, however,
hot food will be provided at a nominal fee.

  PEOPLES RIGHTS ORGANIZATION, 5 EAST LONG STREET, SUITE 412
  COLUMBUS, OHIO  43215   "Fighting for your rights"

____________________________________________________________

The following comments upon Arnold v. City of Cleveland were made
in a letter to the editor in the September 17, 1993, The New Gun
Week.

     "The only reason courts have created a distinction between
fundamental and non- fundamental rights is so, where the right is
found to be fundamental, it can only be infringed by government
when there is a proven and compelling reason.  If a right is not
fundamental, then a law which injures the right need only be shown
to be reasonable, and the government virtually always wins when the
"reasonable" standard is applied.
     "So when the Court said the Ohio right to keep and bear arms
was fundamental, but applied only a reasonableness standard to the
Cleveland ban, the court really said it does not believe the right
is fundamental at all.  In this respect the Court was only copying
other judicial tricksters who give cheap lip service to civil
rights while simultaneously destroying those rights.
     "... I urge Ohioans not to forget this decision when their
Supreme Court stands for election.

     Jerold E. Levine
     Attorney at Law
     Valley Stream, NY
____________________________________________________________

CON-CON EXPUNGED...

     These days it is really wonderful to find someone really doing
something right.  I am speaking about what Nevada did to reverse
their call for a Constitutional Convention (Con-Con) to balance the
budget.
     To review the situation for new readers, there has been a
major push for some time to call a constitutional convention to
"reform" the American system of government.  Back in 1974 there was
completed a Rockefeller foundation financed development of a "new"
model constitution called "A Proposed Constitutional Model for the
Newstates of America".  Previous issues of the PROponent have
covered the details of this nightmare document.  "Nelson
Rockefeller, then president of the U.S. Senate, engineered the
introduction of HCR 28 calling for an unlimited convention in
1976."  The plan failed and the effort to call a Con-Con returned
to the individual states.
     And a big effort it was.  It was so big and effective that
under the guise of producing a "balanced budget amendment" 32 state
legislators out of the required 34 passed resolutions calling for
a Constitutional Convention.  While many of the resolutions
contained clauses limiting discussion to strictly a balanced budget
amendment, all legal experts on all sides agree that such clauses
can never limit a convention to a single topic.  The pressure is
still on in Ohio (which has never passed a Con-Con resolution) and
last year they actually sneaked one through the State Senate before
public resistance got it defeated.  Some states began to wise up
and Florida, Louisiana and Alabama passed resolutions rescinding
their previous calls for a Con-Con.
     But the other side was ready and had high-powered attorneys
prepare legal arguments showing that once a state makes a
Convention Call it can never be rescinded ... except by actually
holding a Convention.  They sent copies to the Attorney Generals of
every state.  Enter Nevada.  Nevada had also passed a Con-Con
resolution but took a much better tactic to nullify it.  They
Expunged it!
     You see, if you rescind something, it says that well yes, we
called for a Con-Con, but now we changed our minds.  On the other
hand if you expunge the call, legally it says the original
resolution never existed!  I know this is the kind of nit-picky
lawyer-speak that drives common folk nuts and makes them crack
lawyer jokes, but in this super-high stakes game played by lawyers
with YOUR RIGHTS, their rules are important.
     When Nevada discovered that a Constitutional Convention could
not be limited to a single topic and that a Con-Con was not
required to force a balanced budget they called a spade a spade.
They called it fraud.

     "WHEREAS, The adoption by the Nevada Assembly of Senate Joint
Resolution No. 8 of the 60th session of the legislature (File No.
39) requesting the Congress of the United States to call a
Constitutional Convention was therefore induced by fraud; and
     "WHEREAS, 'Fraud colors everything it touches,' and the
appropriate remedy is for the Assembly to expunge from its Journal
its passage of Senate Joint Resolution No. 8 of the 60th session of
the Legislature requesting the Congress  of the United States to
call a Constitutional Convention; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED BY
THE ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,  That the Chief Clerk  of the
Assembly draw a black border  around  the portion of the 1979
Assembly Journal whereby the Assembly passed Senate Joint
Resolution No. 8 and write across the face thereof:  'Expunged by
order of the Assembly this 24th day of June, 1989';"

     The resolution reportedly passed unanimously.
     The importance of the Nevada approach cannot be
over-estimated.  Expungement immediately denies all claims that a
Con-Con call can never be rescinded.  It says that such and such a
state never made such a call.  PRO strongly urges the legislatures
of those states who have passed Convention resolutions to
immediately EXPUNGE them.  Even those states who have rescinded
them should also expunge them.  And we also urge the legislatures
of those states such as Ohio who have never called for a Con-Con to
hold the line against the constant pressure to over-turn our
American form of government.  We don't think that there are many
people in this country who really believe that the solution to the
problems of modern life lie in making our form of government "more
European".
     We would also point out that the Con-Con is the "whole
enchilada".  If you lose the Second Amendment, issues like the
"Brady Bill" won't mean squat.  Neither will the rest of your
current Rights.

HORNS OF THE BEAST...

     In our May 1993 PROponent we discussed electronic tracking of
citizens by computerized scanners and "smart cards" and we said:
     "If you want to understand all this, think of yourself as one
of the farmer's cows.  Sure the farmer wants them all healthy.  He
want's health care for all his herd because healthy cattle are
productive cattle and thus profitable cattle.  The farmer keeps a
complete dossier on every bossy.  It's just good business.  But, of
course, if a cow gets uncontrollable, you know where it ends up.
And there is another thing you will notice ... all the cows have ID
tags, but you won't find one crimped on the farmer's ear."
     PRO member Phil Hernstein read this statement and loved it,
but then discovered a connection to gun control.  It seems his
wife's grandfather, Cecil Hafey had an old book from 1922 called
Productive Farming by Kary C. Davis.  And on page 281 we find the
quote, "HORNED CATTLE OFTEN DO EACH OTHER, OR THEIR KEEPERS,
CONSIDERABLE HARM IN THE FEED-LOT OR CATTLE CAR."
     Clearly, the solution to this problem as every anti-gunner
knows, is a good legislative dehorning.

DEAR PRO...

Dear Editors:

     Just a small correction to the September issue.  As far as I
know the Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court is Mr. Moyer, not
Mr. Douglas.
     That does not make either of them less of an anal orifice.

     Best ever,
     F.H. Woods
     Columbus, Ohio

(Editors: Mr. Woods is correct on both points.  Our keyboard
slipped when we meant to say Justice Douglas wrote the opinion on
Arnold v. Cleveland and somehow a "Chief" slipped in.  Sorry.)

Dear PRO:

     I would like to donate this video on lead exposure at indoor
firing ranges to the PRO library.
     Things are going to be getting tougher for all of us as
Clinton and his Brady Bunch shift into pursuit of "what looks good"
(gun control) instead of what works (crime control).
     I'm doing what I can to help our cause: recruiting new NRA
members, writing pro-gun editorial letters and working for PRO's
candidates.  If I could find a decent job, I'd jump at the chance
to do more financially for PRO and NRA.  Do you know of any jobs
for unemployed, or semi-employed writers?
     By the way, I'd like to compliment whoever came up with the
idea for raffle tickets for PRO workers helping to elect PRO
candidates.  It's a fine idea to provide that little extra nudge
into action.  Also, the folks who put their money where their mouth
is, who actually give of their time (and shoe leather) deserve an
extra bonus for the good they're doing for us all.

     Keep the faith.
     Sincerely,
     John Haueisen

(Editor's Note:  John is an excellent writer, and has written for
several of the major gun magazines in the country.  My father made
extra money by writing articles for Sport's Illustrated and the
Columbus Dispatch.  If you know of a job where a literate,
intelligent gun owner can find employment, please call the PRO
hotline, and we will put you into contact with John.  PS. John, the
PROponent is looking for good articles...but we don't pay.)

CANDIDATE'S NIGHTS...

     PRO has issued many invitations over the last five years to
Democratic candidates and the Democratic party to participate in a
candidates night.  The same invitation has been given to the
Republicans, who have responded in a positive way.  Except for Mr.
Cordray and Sheriff Jim Karnes, the Democrats have never answered
our invitations until now.  Both written and vocal invitations were
given.  PRO doesn't expect all candidates, either Republican or
Democrat to respond, but we like to think that a few might.
     Shirley Cochran, democratic candidate for City Attorney, was
delegated the task of responding to PRO's latest request for a
candidates night.  In her letter, Cochran replied, "As you may or
may not be aware, there was a decision to decline this event,
basically because the candidates including myself, are unaware of
your organization and its interest in the upcoming elections."
     She went on, "In addition, should there be an obvious
divergence of views, it would be better not to spend time in a
confrontational situation that does not serve the purpose
intended--the education of the candidate of your concerns and the
group of the candidate's intentions regarding these concerns."
     Cochran asked for a letter explaining PRO and a copy of any
other literature that PRO puts out explaining our organization.
This was sent to her, and followed up with a phone call.  As a
result of the call, Cochran came across as a forthright, candid
person with legitimate concerns about the City Attorney's office.
She also asked that a questionnaire be sent to her.  PRO complied.
     To be fair to Cochran and Ron O'Brien, a survey was sent to
both.  Current City Attorney O'Brien failed to show up at the
recent republican candidates night.  As soon as these surveys are
returned, PRO and Citizens Against Crime will grade all the
candidates involved in the November 2, 1993 election and make the
grades known to our membership and mailing list, which is now over
11,000 labels.

(Editor's Note:  PRO is not partisan. PRO has probably provided
more support to the statehouse legislative efforts of Mr. Malone (a
Democrat) than it has to any of our Republican statehouse friends.
PRO itself does not endorse specific candidates, but our members
and our PAC do help candidates sharing their views get elected.
When a candidate comes to our Candidates Night they are asked
questions about their positions and we honestly report to our
members what they said on issues of interest to us.  If the
Democratic candidates are afraid to discuss their positions in the
public forum of a Candidates Night, what are they doing getting
involved in politics at all.  We think Shirley Cochran is missing
a good bet here.  We are aware that a number of PRO Republicans
have had a growing dissatisfaction with Mr. O'Brien.  She could
easily capitalize on this and gain support by simply taking a
strong anti-crime and pro-rights stand.  As it is, we can only
assume that she and other city Democrats hold views so far out of
line that they don't dare even discuss them in public.)

REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES NIGHT...

     The August PRO meeting was Candidates Night for Republicans.
Our September meeting was supposed to be Candidates Night for
Democrats (see above).
     We had a great many speakers which will limit somewhat our
reporting on what each of them said.  Since the next PROponent will
be our pre-election candidates issue, we will delay our report
until then.  That way you can have one paper you can take with you
to the polls containing the information you need on where the
various candidates stand and their ratings.

PRO-GUN NOISES...

     "There's not a person in this country that values the culture
of the outdoors and the hunting and all of that than I do," and
"Many sportsmen contribute significantly to our nation's
conservation efforts; Many species of American wildlife have made
an  amazing recovery, thanks to the efforts of our hunters and
anglers." said Clinton recently.  Why it almost sounds as if Slick
Willie has joined PRO!
     However anyone who remembers how this guy operates knows that
sounds is the operative word.  Why he even sounds like he wants to
disarm gang-bangers. "But neither those who love to hunt or love to
shoot weapons in contests, nor the framers of the Constitution when
they wrote the Second Amendment ever envisioned a time when our
children [would own more guns] than the people who are supposed to
be policing them," said Clinton.
     But your president still thinks you are stupid.  He thinks
that if he sounds pro-gun you won't notice that his proposal to
disarm criminal gangs starts by first disarming all law-abiding
citizens ... it starts by disarming YOU.  Presumably once all
honest people are helpless, then they can begin to think about
going after Crips and Bloods.
     PRO's analysis of this, however, says that Slick Willie
wearing an NRA hat means only one thing: Our efforts are being
effective.  The NRA has been getting new members at an unbelievable
rate and our "Clinton Resistant" Congress is becoming more and more
obvious to those seeking control of your lives.  The Clinton method
says that if you can't do it with money and media then try trickery
and treachery.
     One more sign that we are being effective is the formation of
a new "NRA spinoff" founded by one Ernest Lissabet which is
supposed to be made up of NRA dropouts who agree with Janet Reno's
lament that if there is ever going to be gun control Americans need
to rise up and tell the NRA to "get lost".  This group called the
American Firearms Association supposedly favors "common sense" gun
control like the Brady Bull and banning "assault weapons" like
".357 magnums."  The founder says it stands for things the NRA no
longer does like "good citizenship and sporting values."
     That this is some kind of shill organization seems obvious to
us.  Words like "common sense" gun control is a line right out of
Handgun Control's handbook.  Even though it only has 20 members,
it's purpose seems obvious: A media darling that they can hold up
saying, "look even gun owners reject the extremist NRA and support
Clinton's gun control program."
     There's just one little problem here.  Virtually all the
people I know who rejected the NRA (myself included) did so because
it was too "reasonable" and "common sense" about giving up our
Rights.  And it is the "new" hardcore NRA that got my attention and
money.  Almost all of the disgruntled I know have also re-joined.
     Again, all this seems to mean that we are making life very
difficult for gun-grabbers.  That they must resort to these con
games is a very good sign that they just don't have the votes they
need.  And one more thing:  Go out and find a sportsman or friend
who is not yet an NRA member and sign them up.  Tell them we need
to make up for the 20 stupid ones who decided to fight crime by
turning in their guns to Slick Willie.

OGCA ELECTION...

     It is time once again for the members of the Ohio Gun
Collectors Association to vote for trustees.  Since many PRO
members are also members of the OGCA we are going to stick our nose
in their business and give endorsements for those candidates who we
feel are most pro-gun.
     PRO supports and endorses:
          Robert J. Wos
          Cathy L. Gilronan
          Daniel A. Tanko
     PRO strongly supports the OGCA and in fact, was founded
because of the efforts of Columbus City Council to boot their
famous gun shows out of town.  But we must also say that OGCA has
in some ways been a sleeping political giant.  OGCA has an enormous
political fund but doesn't seem to think times are desperate enough
yet to use it.  Some of the other candidates are even of the
opinion they should never use it.  They have said that if they ban
semi-autos and revolvers we can still collect black powder arms!.
Vote for the ones we endorse.  All ballots must be received by the
Dayton Post Office by October 22, 1993.

_________________________________________________________________

The PROponent is published by:
Peoples Rights Organization;
5 E. Long St., Suite 412;  Columbus, OH 43215;
Tel (614) 268-0122
Fax (614) 275-0092
Richard Hale, Chairman;  Ron Herman, Vice Chairman
Dennis Walker, Secretary;  Bill Johnson, Treasurer
Editors:  Dennis Walker and Frank Jacoby
Contributions, either written or financial are gladly accepted.

       Anyone wishing to reprint all or part of an article from the
PROponent may do so.  Please mention the PROponent and the issue
that the article was in, and send a copy of your publication to our
PRO office. (We like to know what your organization is doing too.)
Also, PRO will exchange newsletters with any pro-gun, pro-rights,
pro-hunting, etc. group to further grass-roots communication.  Put
us on your newsletter mailing list and we will put your club on
ours.
     PRO general meetings are held the third Tuesday of every month
at Veterans Memorial Auditorium, W. Broad St. Columbus, Ohio.
_________________________________________________________________
--
Larry Cipriani, [l v cipriani] at [att.com] or attmail!lcipriani