From: [c d t] at [sw.stratus.com] (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Reprehensible Tactics/HCI/CPHV
Date: 30 Jun 1994 03:33:08 GMT

> If anyone has further information about 
> this program or any ideas about how best to counter this attempt to 
> rewrite American history, I think we could use the input.                  

This movement is hardly quiet.  From a previous post:

Particularly frightening is her promise to rewrite history in
your children's textbooks...


(CHPV promotional mailing received February 22, 1993)

CENTER TO PREVENT HANDGUN VIOLENCE

Sarah Brady
CHAIR

Dear Handgun Control Supporter,

There are two major reasons why the cause of reducing gun violence
in our communities and our neighborhoods is facing a tremendous
uphill fight in the critical year ahead.

First, in spite of the fact that for 200 years the U.S. Supreme Court
has consistently ruled that the Constitution grants only a very
narrow right for citizens to be armed -- and only as part of an
organized state militia! --62% of all Americans still believe the
Second Amendment guarantees a broad individual right to "bear
arms."

And until we completely shatter the gun lobby-perpetrated myth
that gun control laws interfere with this imagined constitutionally
protected liberty, lawmakers will continue to use this fraud as an
easy excuse to oppose any and all gun control laws.

Second, even after a horrendous toll of 60,000 lives from gun
violence in just the past two years -- and a terrifying increase in
multiple murders involving combat-style assault weapons -- gun
makers continue to promote the firepower of their products. And gun
dealers still refuse to accept responsibility for the fatal results of
selling guns to ineligible buyers -- such as underage minors,
convicted felons or persons who are obviously distraught and have a
history of mental instability.

Clearly, these are formidable obstacles for Handgun Control, Inc.'s
sister organization, the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, to
overcome. But we are determined to do so -- and, to succeed, we
need your help.

You see, a citizen's lobby -- even one as strong and effective as HCI -
- is not enough by itself to combat the heavily financed
litigation/propaganda machine of the gun lobby and its front
organization, the National Rifle Association. That's why the Center
was created. As the legal and educational arm of the gun control
movement, we are a direct counterforce to the NRA's enormous
influence in these areas.

Because you are a member of HCI, and therefore have helped pass
some of the strongest state and local gun control laws on record, I
wanted to alert you to the grave threat to both existing and future
laws posed by this pro-gun influence peddling. But I also wanted you
to know what the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence -- which I
also chair -- is doing to confront the gun lobby and the NRA in the
vitally important arenas of the courtroom and of public opinion.

This year, in an all-out effort to both protect gun control laws and to
empower victims of gun violence, the Center's Legal Action Project
has developed a LEGAL ACTION PLAN FOR 1993. I have enclosed
your personal copy. It summarizes not only those legal initiatives
that are essential to reducing gun violence in the coming year, but it
also spells out the long-term goals we must reach if we are to stop
the carnage that has now reached into every community in this
country.

But to achieve these lifesaving goals, we will require the help of
every committed gun control supporter, especially members of
Handgun Control, Inc.

And that's why I'm asking you today to become an official supporter
of the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence. Your help is urgently
needed if we are to carry out our aggressive LEGAL ACTION PLAN to
defeat -- once and for all -- the challenges to sane gun control laws
as they arise in upcoming constitutional confrontations that are
pending in a number of state courts . In fact, I'm asking you to
respond with a generous contribution of support in the next crucial
15 days if at all possible.

You see, right now our opponents in the gun industry -- led by the
National Rifle Association (NRA) -- are redirecting the bulk of their
false and misleading "right to bear arms" campaign from the national
to the state level.

At this moment, NRA-supported state constitutional challenges to
local assault weapon bans are awaiting court action in Ohio, Colorado
and Oregon.

And at the same time, due to weaknesses in federal gun laws and in
federal regulation of the industry, gun makers continue to put profits
before people's lives and most gun dealers still have little fear of the
consequences of engaging in irresponsible selling practices.

That's why, with your strong support, we will immediately set into
motion three key elements of our LEGAL ACTION PLAN...

ONE, we will mount a massive nationwide public education and
media effort targeted at influential columnists, reporters, lawmakers
and the public to dispel the myth that the Second Amendment rules
out sane and sensible gun control laws. This campaign will include
opinion-editorial pieces as well as paid advertising.

TWO, we will defend gun control laws against legal challenges in
state courts by persuading these courts to adopt interpretations of
state "right to bear arms" provisions that will pose no threat to gun
control.

THREE, we will maximize the number of lawsuits brought against
irresponsible gun dealers on behalf of gun violence victims or their
surviving families. We will make reckless behavior a "high-risk"
operation for gun dealers who flout the law and public decency in
their business practices.

When you look over our LEGAL ACTION PLAN, you will see why your
immediate support is crucial if we are to meet the goals detailed in
this document.

That's why I urge you as strongly as I know how to become a
supporter of the Center and of this vital action plan with the most
generous contribution you can afford to make at this time.

Sincerely
Sarah Brady
Chair

1225 Eye Street, N.W. / Suite 1100 / Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 289-7319

------------------------------------------------------------------------

LEGAL ACTION PLAN FOR 1993

For almost a decade the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence has
been on the front lines of educating the public about the scope of gun
violence in this country and the available means of preventing it.
This mission is grounded in the Center's central belief that a
fundamental change in public attitudes--based on an increased level
of public outrage and on knowledge of the true meaning of the
Second Amendment--is necessary to reduce significantly the
escalating wave of gun violence that is plaguing every community in
America.

Throughout this time, the few laws we have to control guns and
reduce gun violence have been under constant attack from the gun
industry and its front organization--the National Rifle Association.

As a result, since it was established in 1989, the Center's Legal
Action Project has defended these hard-won legislative victories of
our sister organization, Handgun Control, Inc. in courtrooms from
coast to coast.

Despite the constant legal challenges from opponents of reasonable
gun control, however, our work has helped to prevent the NRA from
achieving a single significant courtroom victory. Consequently, we
are now recognized as both the guardian of our nation's gun control
laws and as the champion of the legal rights of victims of gun
violence.

The following LEGAL ACTION PLAN FOR 1993 describes some of the
most critical challenges in all of these areas that we face in the year
ahead. It also details our meeting them. While no action plan could
describe every single one of our efforts, this agenda amounts to a
determined reaffirmation of our pledge to lead the fight for the
fundamental right of people to live their lives free of the fear of gun
violence. We ask for your strong support in this effort.

I. THE SECOND AMENDMENT:
FOCUSING THE LIGHT OF TRUTH

The Second Amendment has a profound influence on the entire gun
control debate. That's because of an erroneous interpretation that the
Second Amendment grants every American the "right to bear arms."
And thus any gun control legislation would interfere with that
supposed right. But the truth is the Second Amendment only grants
the right to bear arms to Americans serving in a militia. And the
Supreme Court has totally agreed with this interpretation for 200
years! But lawmakers persistently have called upon this right-to-
bear-arms myth as an excuse to vote against sane gun controls.

Over the long term, we must transform the 62% of Americans who
mistakenly believe this NRA-perpetuated invention into a solid
majority that understands that the Constitution in no way precludes
effective gun control.

Our 1993 agenda for this difficult Second Amendment goal includes:

Publicizing the NRA's Surrender in the California Assault Weapons
Case: This past December the National Rifle Association stunned gun
control advocates everywhere by abandoning its two-year effort in
the federal courts to overturn California's ban on assault weapons. In
allowing the deadline to pass for requesting Supreme Court review of
a federal appeals court decision upholding the California law, the
NRA left unchallenged a significant ruling that rejected the NRA's
Second Amendment argument and which recognized that gun control
laws are constitutional. In the immediate weeks ahead we will be
distributing an opinion-editorial to newspapers in every major media
market explaining how and why the NRA surrendered in this
landmark Second Amendment case.

Expanding Our "Truth in Textbooks" Campaign: In a major victory for
the Project, a leading textbook publisher recently corrected the
misinformation about the Second Amendment previously included in
its publications. And the newly written textbooks will soon be used
in 11 state school systems. During this next year, we will be
communicating with every major textbook publisher about the true
meaning of the Second Amendment. We will provide textbook
authors with this essential information as well, and we will continue
to participate in textbook review proceedings in states where
textbooks still need to be corrected. Eventually we will expand this
campaign to include reference works, government publications and
other materials.

Producing Public Service/Paid Advertising: A public
education/media campaign that depends solely on the good will of
the press will only go so far in delivering our vitally important
message about the Second Amendment. It is critical that we also
begin testing the effectiveness of paid advertising.

II. GUN CONTROL LITIGATION:
DEFENDING PEOPLE'S LIVES

The NRA's conspicuous lack of success in using the Second
Amendment to overturn gun control laws has led the gun lobby to
develop a new tactic that targets state constitutional provisions on
the "right to bear arms." This strategy poses a significant threat
because many state provisions are more broadly worded than the
Second Amendment.

As the NRA tries to cover up its surrender at the U.S. Supreme Court
by targeting test cases in some of the 43 states with "right to bear
arms" constitutional provisions, we must ensure that state courts
continue, without exception, to uphold local and state gun control
laws.

In 1993 we are facing "right to bear arms" challenges in:

The Ohio Supreme Court: At the request of the City of Cleveland, our
Project filed an amicus curiae brief this past December in the Ohio
Supreme Court in support of the Cleveland assault weapon law,
opposing a lawsuit filed by several gun owners and supported by the
NRA. This ordinance, passed in February of 1989, was one of the first
local ordinances banning possession and sale of these military-style
firearms. The suit alleges that the law violates the "right to bear
arms" in Ohio's state constitution.

Because the Cleveland case is the first assault weapons challenge to
reach a state supreme court, the outcome is sure to have a far-
reaching impact on other cases. In fact, an adverse decision in Ohio
would be used by the NRA as support for its challenges to gun
control laws in other states and cause state legislators to hesitate
even more to pass new gun laws.

We must do everything in our power to make certain the City of
Cleveland wins this case.

The Denver County (Colorado) District Court: In this case, we are
helping the City of Denver to defend its ordinance banning possession
and sale of combat-style assault weapons. In February of 1990, a
group of gun owners filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn the
ordinance, claiming that it violates the "right to keep and bear arms"
in the Colorado constitution and that it is preempted by state law.
The gun owners are being assisted both by the NRA's Firearms Civil
Rights Legal Defense Fund and by the Colorado Attorney General. We
are currently waiting on a decision by the court and, whatever the
outcome, an appeal by the losing side is inevitable.

The fact that in this instance the resources of the Colorado Attorney
General are being brought to bear against a city ordinance makes our
Project's assistance even more essential.

The Oregon Court of Appeals: We filed a legal brief in defense of the
Multnomah County (Portland) ordinance barring possession of an
assault weapon in a public place. Similar to what is happening in Ohio
and Colorado, this ordinance was challenged by pro-gun groups as a
violation of the "right to keep and bear arms" provision of the Oregon
constitution. In August of 1991, the local trial court upheld the
ordinance, holding that the state constitution does not protect a right
to bear military arms. This ruling was appealed and oral argument
was held this past October. We are awaiting a ruling by the appeals
court.

Again, the outcome in this case will determine who files the next
appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court, but there will surely be one.
Given the heavy involvement of the NRA in supporting the pro-gun
forces, it is imperative that we continue to assist the county every
step of the way in this important legal challenge.

But the NRA's strategy to preclude state and local gun control laws is
not limited solely to legal tests involving "right to bear arms"
provisions. This organization will attack any gun law under any legal
ruse available.

And this astonishing fact was never clearer than when the NRA
agreed to fund a challenge to several city ordinances in Arizona that
require (minors under 18 years of age) to have written consent from
their parents in order to carry firearms within city limits.

Whatever our differences with the NRA over gun control, one would
think we could at least agree on the dangers of allowing youngsters
to carry loaded handguns as readily as they carry personal radios.
Yet, last November our Project lawyers found themselves in
Maricopa County Superior Court filing an amicus curiae brief with
several state and local police associations in support of parental
consent ordinances passed in the cities of Phoenix, Glendale and
Apache Junction. In this instance, the NRA and the minors they
represent alleged the local laws conflict with Arizona state law.

In December, the superior court ruled in favor of the cities, holding
that the possession of firearms by juveniles is a question of both
state and local concern and that the ordinances at issue are not i
conflict with state law.

By the time you receive this action plan, we will know if we are
facing an appeal of this decision. If so, it is absolutely essential that
we continue to assist in this case which could help stem the tide of
juveniles charged with possessing or carrying weapons in this
country.

III. GUN LIABILITY LITIGATION:
EMPOWERING VICTIMS OF GUN VIOLENCE

Gun violence often is the direct result of irresponsible gun dealers
engaging in retail transaction which they have every reason to
believe will lead to tragedy: direct sales to minors or other ineligible
buyers; sales to "straw purchasers" who then transfer the weapon to
an ineligible buyer; sales to people exhibiting signs of mental
instability; sales in violation of what few regulations there are, such
as showing proper identification; and repeated multiple sales to
people obviously engaged in gun trafficking.

Our liability litigation against irresponsible dealers helps fill the gap
left by the government in a basically unregulated industry--but one
that trades in the most dangerous consumer product on the market.
By making real the threat of civil damages against gun dealers who
engage in reckless conduct, we are starting to provide a powerful
incentive for dealers to obey the law and to reevaluate the cost of
doing business.

To date, we have seen a jury verdict of more than $100,000 against
Guns Unlimited in Virginia Beach for selling a gun to a "straw buyer"
for a minor who went on a rampage and killed a teacher. In Oakland,
California a gun dealer paid a $400,000 settlement to the widow of a
man killed in a drive-by shooting--after being sued for selling a gun
to a suspected "straw buyer" who bought the gun for a drug dealer
convicted in the killing. And in Los Angeles, The Grant Boys settled
for $900,000 with the family of a man killed by a woman showing
obvious signs of mental distress at the time she bought the gun.

in the critical years ahead we must continue to empower victims of
gun violence to assert their legal rights and to ensure a lifesaving
change in future gun dealer behavior by maximizing the number of
winnable lawsuits brought in any given year.

Three of the most important cases we are involved in this year are:

Sage v. Guns Unlimited. This case involves the same Virginia Beach
gun dealer discussed above. The new case stems from the random
and fatal shooting of an insurance executive on a crowded
Philadelphia street in April, 1991. The shooter was a man twice
institutionalized for mental illness. He was sold the murder weapon
by Guns Unlimited even though he refused to certify his eligibility to
buy the gun by signing the required federal form. We are
representing the victim's family.

Hoosier v. Randa. We are participating as amicus curiae in this case,
urging the California Court of Appeals to reverse the trial court's
dismissal of this "straw purchase" case. This suit arose from the
shooting of a young man by his 19-year-old friend during an evening
of drinking. It alleges that the dealer was negligent in selling a gun to
the killer's grandmother when the gun merchant knew she was at
the store acting as a "straw buyer" for her grandson.

Noi Douendy v. Ron Petersons-Guns. In this case we are assisting an
Albuquerque, New Mexico attorney representing the family of a 20-
year-old Laotian refugee killed in a random shooting while sitting in
a car. The suit seeks damages from a gun dealer who sold an AK-47
assault rifle to a convicted felon without first checking the buyer's
criminal record.

We encourage your comments on this Action Plan and, of course,
urge you to support it as generously as you can.  This work cannot be
done without you.  --Sarah

CENTER TO PREVENT HANDGUN VIOLENCE
1225 Eye Street, N.W. / Suite 1100 / Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 289-7319
-- 

[c d t] at [rocket.sw.stratus.com]   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR [c d t] at [vos.stratus.com]        write today for my special Investors' Packet...