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