Mar2000

The Armed M is a publication of the 2nd Amendment SIG, a special interest group of American Mensa Ltd. Opinions expressed herein are the opinions of the writers, and not of American Mensa, Ltd. which has no opinions. This newsletter is linked to the Mensa web page WWW.Mensa.org as WWW.webcatt.com/2ndAmend_SIG

I have moved and am now in Wilmington North Carolina. My e-mail address is Smith13@Worldnet.att.net. I can always use contributions to the newsletter. If you write something or find something e-mail it to me I'll put it in the newsletter as space and theme allows.. Bob Smith

Compared to about 35,000 gun deaths every year, 2.5 million good Americans use guns to protect themselves, their families, and their livelihoods there are 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun - five lives are protected per minute and, of those 2.5 million protective uses of guns, about 1/2 million are believed to have saved lives.[2]

US Bureau of Justice Statistics show that guns are the safest and most effective means of defense. Using a gun for protection results in fewer injuries to the defender than using any other means of defense and is safer than not resisting at all.[3] The myth that "guns are only used for killing" and the myth that "guns are dangerous when used for protection" melt when exposed to scientific examination and data. The myths persist because they are repeated so frequently and dogmatically that few think to question the myths by examining the mountains of data available. Let us examine the other common myths.

Even their claim of an "epidemic" of violence is false. That claim, like so many other of their claims, has been so often dogmatically repeated that few think to question the claim by checking the FBI and other data. Homicide rates have been stable to slightly declining for decades except for inner city teens and young adults involved with illicit drug trafficking. We have noticed that, if one subtracts the inner city contribution to violence, American homicide rates are lower than in Britain and the other paragons of gun control.[2] The actual causes of inner city violence are family disruption, media violence, and abject poverty, not gun ownership. In the inner city, poverty is so severe that crime has become a rational career choice for those with no hope of decent job opportunities.[4]

For over twenty years it has been illegal for teens to buy guns and, despite such gun control, the African-American teenage male homicide rate in Washington, DC is 227 per 100,000 - 20 times the US average![5] The US group for whom legal gun ownership has the highest prevalence, middle-aged white men, has a homicide rate of less than 7 per 100,000 - about half of the US average.[6] If the "guns-cause-violence" theory is correct why does Virginia, the alleged "easy purchase" source of all those illegal Washington, DC guns, have a murder rate of 9.3 per 100,000, one-ninth of DC's overall homicide rate of 80.6?[7 ]Why are homicide rates lowest in states with loose gun control (North Dakota 1.1, Maine 1.2, South Dakota 1.7, Idaho 1.8, Iowa 2.0, Montana 2.6) and highest in states and the district with draconian gun controls and bans (District of Columbia 80.6, New York 14.2, California 12.7, Illinois 11.3, Maryland 11.7)?[7] The "guns-cause-violence" and "guns exacerbate violence" theories founder. Again, the causes of inner city violence are family disruption, media violence, and abject poverty, not gun ownership. Accidents National Safety Council data show that accidental gun deaths have been falling steadily since the beginning of this century and now hover at an all time low. This means that about 200 tragic accidental gun deaths occur annually, a far cry from the familiar false imagery of "thousands of innocent children."[8] Suicide Gun bans result in lower gun suicide rates, but a compensatory increase in suicide from other accessible and lethal means of suicide (hanging, leaping, auto exhaust, etc.). The net result of gun bans? No reduction in total suicide rates.[3] People who are intent in killing themselves find the means to do so. Are other means of suicide so much more politically correct that we should focus on measures that decrease gun suicide, but do nothing to reduce total suicide deaths?

It is common for the "public health" advocates of gun bans to claim that most murders are of "friends and family." The medical literature includes many such false claims, that "most [murderers] would be considered law abiding citizens prior to their pulling the trigger"[9 ] and "most shootings are not committed by felons or mentally ill people, but are acts of passion that are committed using a handgun that is owned for protection."[10] Not only do the data show that acquaintance and domestic homicide are a minority of homicides,[11] but the FBI's definition of acquaintance and domestic homicide requires only that the murderer knew or was related to the decedent. That dueling drug dealers are acquainted does not make them "friends." Over three-quarters of murderers have long histories of violence against not only their enemies and other "acquaintances," but also against their relatives. [12,13,14,15] Oddly, medical authors have no difficulty recognizing the violent histories of murderers when the topic is not gun control "A history of violence is the best predictor of violence."[16] The perpetrators of acquaintance and domestic homicide are overwhelmingly vicious aberrants with long histories of violence inflicted upon those close to them. This reality belies the imagery of "friends and family" murdering each other in fits of passion simply because a gun was present "in the home."

Myth #6 "A homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a family member as an intruder"

To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann's long-discredited claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."[17] This fallacy , fabricated using tax dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense lobby. The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected not Kellermann's burglar or rapist body count. Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator.[3] any study, such as Kellermann' "43 times" fallacy, that only counts bodies will expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun a thousand-fold. Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of people killed by police? Of course not. The honest measure of the benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved by deaths and injuries averted, and the property protected. 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun.[2] Kellermann recently downgraded his estimate to "2.7 times,"[18] but he persisted in discredited methodology. He used a method that cannot distinguish between "cause" and "effect." His method would be like finding more diet drinks in the refrigerators of fat people and then concluding that diet drinks "cause" obesity. Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism, drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse . From such a poor and violent study group he attempted to generalize his findings to normal homes. Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was interviewed he stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for protection.[19] Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn't even believe his own studies.

The actual economic cost of medical care for gun violence is approximately $1.5-billion per year[20]- less than 0.2% of America's $800-billion annual health care costs. To exaggerate the costs of gun violence, the advocates of gun prohibition routinely include estimates of "lost lifetime earnings" or "years of productive life lost" - assuming that gangsters, drug dealers, and rapists would be as socially productive as teachers, factory workers, and other good Americans - to generate inflated claims of $20-billion or more in "costs."[20] One recent study went so far as to claim the "costs" of work lost because workers might gossip about gun violence.[21] What fraction of homicide victims are actually "innocent children" who strayed into gunfire? Far from being pillars of society, it has been noted that more than two-thirds of gun homicide "victims" are drug traffickers or their customers.[22,23] In one study, 67% of 1990 homicide "victims" had a criminal record, averaging 4 arrests for 11 offenses.[23] These active criminals cost society not only untold human suffering, but also an average economic toll of $400,000 per criminal per year before apprehension and $25,000 per criminal per year while in prison.[24] Because the anti-self-defense lobby repeatedly forces us to examine the issue of "costs," we are forced to notice that, in cutting their violent "careers" short, the gun deaths of those predators and criminals may actually represent an economic savings to society on the order of $4.5 billion annually three times the declared "costs" of guns. Those annual cost savings are only a small fraction of the total economic savings from guns, because the $4.5 billion does not include the additional savings from innocent lives saved, injuries prevented, medical costs averted, and property protected by guns. Whether by human or economic measure, we conclude that guns offer a substantial net benefit to our society. Other benefits, such as the feeling of security and self-determination that accompany protective gun ownership, are less easily quantified. There is no competent research that suggests making good citizens’ access to guns more difficult (whether by bureaucratic "red tape," taxation, or outright bans) will reduce violence. It is only good citizens, who comply with gun laws, so it is only good citizens who are disarmed by gun laws. As evidenced by jurisdictions with the most draconian gun laws (e.g. New York City, Washington, DC, etc.), disarming these good citizens before violence is reduced causes more harm than good. Disarming these good citizens costs more - not fewer lives.

Vicious predators who ignore laws against murder, mayhem, and drug trafficking routinely ignore those existent American gun laws. No amount of well-meaning, wishful thinking will cause these criminals to honor additional gun laws. Advocates of gun control rarely discuss the enforceability of their proposals, an understandable lapse, since even police-state tactics cannot effectively enforce gun bans. As evidence, in Communist China, a country whose human rights record we dare not emulate, 120,000 banned civilian guns were confiscated in one month in 1994. [25] Existent gun laws impact only those willing to comply with such laws, good people who already honor the laws of common decency. Placing further impediments in the path of good citizens will further disproportionately disarm those good people - especially disarming good, poor people, the people who live in the areas of highest risk. If "better" data are forthcoming, we are ready to reassess the public policy implications. Until such time, the data suggest that victim disarmament is not a policy that saves lives. What does save lives is allowing adult, mentally competent, law-abiding citizen access to the safest and most effective means of protection - guns. [26,27] Brady I and Brady II The extremists at Handgun Control Inc. boast that "23,000 potential felons"[28] [emphasis added] were prevented from retail gun purchases in the first month of the Brady Law. Several jurisdictions have reviewed the preliminary Brady Law data which resulted in the initial Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BAT) overestimated appraisal [29] of the "success" of the Brady Law. The Virginia State Police, Phoenix Police Department, and other jurisdictions have shown that almost every one of those "potential" felons were not felons or otherwise disqualified from gun ownership. Many were innocents whose names were similar to felons. Misdemeanor traffic convictions, citations for fishing without a license, and failure to license dogs were the types of trivial crimes that resulted in a computer tag that labeled the others as "potential” felons. [30] In transparent "governments," BATF Spokesperson Susan McCarron avers, "we feel [the Brady Law has] been a success, even though we don't have a whole lot of numbers. Anecdotally, we can find some effect."[31] Even if the preliminary data had been accurate, that data only showed about 6.3% of retail sales were "possible" felons - consistent with repeated studies showing how few crime guns are obtained in retail transactions. A minuscule number of actual felons have been identified by Brady Law background checks, but the US Department of Justice is unable to identify even one prosecution of those felons. [32] In such circumstance, the minimal expected benefit of the Brady Law diminishes to no benefit at all. The National Institute of Justice has shown that very few crime guns are purchased from gun dealers. 93% of crime guns are obtained as black market, stolen guns, or from similar non-retail sources. [28] Since none of Handgun Control Inc.'s Brady I or Brady II suggestions impact on the source of 93% of crime guns, their symbolic nostrums cannot be expected to do anything to reduce crime or violence. Residential gun dealers the press and broadcast media have vilified low-volume gun dealers, pejoratively named "kitchen table" dealers, yet the claim that such dealers are the source of a "proliferation of guns on our streets" is contradicted by data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF). Those data show that 43% of gun dealers had no inventory and sold no guns at all.[33 ]In fact, Congressional testimony before enactment of the Firearms Owner Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) documented that the large number of low-volume gun dealers is a direct result of BATF policy. Prior to FOPA the BATF prosecuted gun collectors who sold as few as three guns per year at gun shows, claiming that they were unlicensed, and therefore illegal, gun dealers. To avoid such harassment and prosecution, thousands of American gun collectors became, at least on paper, licensed gun dealers. Now the BATF and the anti-self-defense lobby claim BATF does not have the resources to audit the paperwork monster it created. Reducing the number of gun dealers will only ensure that guns are more expensive - unaffordable to the poor who are at greatest risk from violence, ensuring that gun ownership becomes a privilege of only the politically connected and the affluent. Instead of heaping more onerous restrictions upon good citizens or law-abiding gun dealers who are not the source of crime guns, is it not more reasonable - though admittedly more difficult - to target the real source of crime guns? It is time to admit the futility of attacking the supply of legal guns to interdict the less than 1% of the American gun stock that is used criminally. Instead, we believe effort should focus on targeting the actual "black market" in stolen guns. It is equally important to reduce the demand for illicit guns and drugs, most particularly by presenting attractive life opportunities and career alternatives to the inner-city youth that are overwhelmingly and disproportionately the perpetrators and victims of violence in our society.

Nationally good citizens use guns about seven to ten times as frequently as the police to repel crime and apprehend criminals and they do it with a better safety record than the police.[3] About 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person. The odds of a defensive gun user killing an innocent person are loss than 1 in 26,000.[27] Citizens intervening in crime are less likely to be wounded than the police. We can explain why the civilian record is better than the police, but the simple truth remains - citizens have an excellent record of protecting themselves and their communities and NOT ONE of the fear mongering fantasies of the gun control lobby has come true. "Treat cars like guns" Advocates of increased gun restrictions have promoted the automobile model of gun ownership, however, the analogy is selectively and incompletely applied. It is routinely overlooked that no license or registration is needed to "own and operate" any kind of automobile on private property. No proof of "need" is required for automobile registration or drivers' licensure. Once licensed and registered, automobiles may be driven on any public road and every state’s licenses are given "full faith and credit" by other states. There are no waiting periods, background checks, or age restrictions for the purchase of automobiles. It is only their use - and misuse - that is regulated. Although the toll of motor vehicle tragedies is many times that of guns, no "arsenal permit" equivalent is asked of automobile collectors or motorcycle racing enthusiasts. Neither has anyone suggested that automobile manufacturers be sued when automobiles are frequently misused by criminals in bank robberies, drive-by shootings, and all manners of crime and terrorism. No one has suggested banning motor vehicles because they "might" be used illegally or are capable of exceeding the 55-mph speed limit, even though we know "speed kills." Who needs a car capable of three times the national speed limit? "But cars have good uses” is the usual response. So too do guns have good uses, the protection of as many as 2.5-million good Americans every year? Progressive reform complete, consistent, and constitutional application of the automobile model of gun ownership could provide a rational solution to the debate and enhance public safety. Reasonable compromise on licensing and training is possible. Where state laws have been reformed to license and train good citizens to carry concealed handguns for protection, violence and homicide have fallen.[11,26,27] Even unarmed citizens who abhor guns benefit from such policies because predators cannot determine in advance who is carrying a concealed weapon. Fear mongering and the gun control lobby In opposing progressive reforms that restore our rights to self-protection, the anti-self-defense lobby has claimed that reform would cause blood to run in the streets, that inconsequential family arguments would turn into murderous incidents, that the economic base of communities would collapse, and that many innocent people would be killed[26,27] In Florida, the anti-self-defense lobby claimed that blood would run in the streets of "Dodge City East," the "Gunshine State" --- but we do not have to rely on irrational propaganda, imaginative imagery, or political histrionics. We can examine the data. Data, not histrionics One-third of Americans live in the 22 progressive states that have reformed laws to allow good citizens to readily protect themselves outside their homes.[26,27] In those states crime rates are lower for every category of crime indexed by the FBI Uniform Crime Reports.[11] Homicide, assault, and overall violent crime are each 40% lower, armed robbery is 50% lower, rape is 30% lower, and property crimes are 10% lower.[11] The reasonable reform of concealed weapon laws resulted in none of the mayhem prophesied by the anti-self-defense lobby. In fact, the data suggest that, providing they are in the hands of good citizens, more guns "on the street" offer a considerable benefit to society - saving lives, a deterrent to crime, and an adjunct to the concept of community policing. As of 12/31/94, Florida had issued 188,106 licenses and not one innocent person had been killed or injured by a licensed gun owner in the 6 years post-reform. Of the 188,106 licenses, 17 (0.0001%) were revoked for misuse of the firearm. Not one of those revocations were associated with any injury whatsoever.[27] In opposing reform, fear is often expressed that "everyone would be packing guns," but, after reform, most states have licensed fewer than 2% (and in no state more than 4%) of qualified citizens.[27] Notwithstanding gun control extremists' unprophetic histrionics , the observed reality was that crime fell, in part, because vicious predators fear an unpredictable encounter with an armed citizen even more than they fear apprehension by police[34] or fear our timid and porous criminal justice system. It is no mystery why Florida's tourists are targeted by predators - predators are guaranteed that, unlike Florida's citizens, tourists are unarmed. Those who advocate restricting gun rights often justify their proposals "if it saves only one life." There have been matched state pair analyses, crime trend studies, and California county-by-county research[27] demonstrating that licensing law-abiding, mentally-competent adults to carry concealed weapons for protection outside their homes saves many lives, so gun prohibitionists should support such reforms, if saving lives is truly their motivation. The right Importantly, the proponents of the automobile model of gun ownership fail to note that controls appropriate to a privilege (driving) are inappropriate to a constitutional right (gun ownership and use). Let there be no doubt. The Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged an individual right to keep and bear arms.[35] It is specifically the "weapons of war" - militia weapons - that are protected. The intent of the Second Amendment was to ensure that, by guaranteeing the individual right to arms, a citizen militia could always oppose a tyrannical federal government. That the Supreme Court has acknowledged the right, but done little to protect that right, is reminiscent of the sluggishness of the Supreme Court in protecting other civil rights before those rights became politically fashionable. Need we be reminded that it has taken over a century for the Supreme Court to meaningfully protect civil rights guaranteed to African-Americans in the Fourteenth Amendment? Besides Second Amendment guarantees of the pre-existent right to keep and bear arms, there are Ninth,[36] Tenth,[35] and Fourteenth Amendment,[37] as well as "natural right"[38] guarantees to self-protection. Since 1980, of thirty-nine law review articles addressing the Supreme Court case law and history of the right to keep and bear arms, thirty-five support the individual right view and only four support the "collective right only" view[39] (and three of these four are authored or co-authored by employees of the antiselfdefense lobby). One would never guess such a legal and scholarly mismatch from the casual misinterpretations of the right in the medical literature and popular press. The error of the gun prohibitionist view is also evident from the fact that their "collective right only" theory is exclusively an invention of the twentieth century "gun control" debate - a concept of which neither the Founding Fathers nor any pre-1900 case or commentary seems to have had any inkling. California and Concealed Weapons California has been studied and we discover that the counties that have the lowest rates of concealed weapon licensees have the highest rates of murder and the counties with the highest rates of concealed license issuance have the lowest rates of murder.[27] It has also been noted that current California law gives considerable discretion to police chiefs and county sheriffs regarding the issuance of Concealed Weapon Licenses. Particularly in urban jurisdictions, abuse of that discretion is common. The result? In many jurisdictions only the affluent and politically connected are issued such licenses. In California few women and virtually no minorities are so licensed, even though poor minorities are the Californians at greatest risk from violence. Conclusion

The police do not have a crystal ball. Murderers, rapists, and robbers do not schedule their crimes or notify the police in advance, so the police cannot be where they are needed in time to prevent death and injury. They can only arrive later to count the bodies and, hopefully, apprehend the predators. There have been state-by-state analyses, county-by-county research, and crime trend studies. All the research shows that allowing good citizens to protect themselves outside their homes is a policy that saves lives. The anti-self defense lobby advances many proposals in hopes that it will "save only one life." Reform of concealed carry laws is a policy that saves many lives, so it is a policy that should be supported by the gun control lobby, if saving lives is really their interest. Will Stockton base its policy on experience and sound data? or will Stockton fall prey to misinformation, fear, prejudice, and imaginative false imagery?[40] We beg you. Let Stockton's good citizens protect themselves, their loved ones, and their livelihoods. The ordinance before you costs no money and it will save many lives.

[2] Suter E. "Guns in the Medical Literature - A Failure of Peer Review." Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia. March 1994; 83: 133-48.

[3] Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991.

[4] Suter EA, Waters WC, Murray GB, et al. "Violence in America - Effective Solutions." Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia. Spring 1995, forthcoming.

[5] Fingerhut LA, Ingram DD, Feldman JJ. "Firearm Homicide Among Black Teenage Males in Metropolitan Counties: Comparison of Death Rates in Two Periods, 1983 through 1985 and 1987 through 1989." JAMA. 1992; 267:3054-8.

[6] Hammett M, Powell KE, O'Carroll PW, Clanton ST. "Homicide Surveillance - United States, 1987 through 1989." MMWR. 41/SS-3. May 29,1992.

[7] FBI. Uniform Crime Reports Crime in the United States 1991. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 1992

[8] National Safety Council. Accident Facts 1992. Chicago: National Safety Council. 1993.

[9] Webster D, Chaulk, Teret S, and Wintemute G. "Reducing Firearm Injuries." Issues in Science and Technology. Spring 1991: 73-9.

[10] Christoffel KK. "Towards Reducing Pediatric Injuries From Firearms: Charting a Legislative and Regulatory Course." Pediatrics. 1992; 88:294-300.

[11] Federal Bureau of Investigation, US Department of Justice. Uniform Crime Reports Crime in the United States 1993. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 1994. Table 5.

[12] Dawson JB aand Langan PA, US Bureau of Justice Statistics statisticians. "Murder in Families." Washington DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, US Department of Justice. 1994. p. 5, Table 7.

[13] US Bureau of Justice Statistics. "Murder in Large Urban Counties, 1988." Washington DC: US Department of Justice. 1993.

[14] Narloch R. Criminal Homicide in California. Sacramento CA: California Bureau of Criminal Statistics. 1973. pp 53-4.

[15] Mulvihill D et al. Crimes of Violence: Report of the Task Force on Individual Acts of Violence." Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 1969. p 532.

[16] Wheeler ED and Baron SA. Violence in Our Schools, Hospitals and Public Places: A Prevention and Management Guide." Ventura CA: Pathfinder. 1993.

[17] Kellermann AL. and Reay DT. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearms-Related Deaths in the Home." N Engl J. Med 1986. 314: 1557-60.

[18] Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Rushforth NB et al. "Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home." N Engl J Med. 1993; 329(15): 1084-91.

[19] Japenga A. "Gun Crazy." San Francisco Examiner. This World supplement. April 3, 1994. p. 7-13 at 11.

[20] Max W and Rice DP. "Shooting in the Dark: Estimating the Cost of Firearm Injuries." Health Affairs. 1993; 12(4): 171-85.

[21] Nieto M, Dunstan R, and Koehler GA. "Firearm-Related Violence in California: Incidence and Economic Costs." Sacramento CA: California Research Bureau, California State Library. October 1994.

[22] McGonigal MD, Cole J, Schwab W, Kauder DR, Rotondo MF, and Angood PB. "Urban Firearms Deaths: A Five-Year Perspective." J Trauma. 1993; 35(4): 532-36.

[23] Hutson HR, Anglin D, and Pratss MJ. "Adolescents and Children Injured or Killed in Drive-By Shootings in Los Angeles." N Engl J Med. 1994; 330: 324-27.

[24] Zedlewski EW. Making Confinement Decisions - Research in Brief. Washington DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice. July 1987.

[26] Cramer C and Kopel D. Concealed Handgun Permits for Licensed Trained Citizens: A Policy that is Saving Lives. Golden CO: Independence Institute Issue

[27] Cramer C and Kopel D. "Shall Issue": The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws. Golden CO: Independence Institute Issue Paper. October 17, 1994.

[28] Aborn R, President of Handgun Control Inc. Letter to the Editor. Washington Post. September 30, 1994.

[29] Thomson Charles, Associate Director for Law Enforcement, Bureau of alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Department of teh Treasury. Statement before the Subcommitttee on Crime and Criminal Justice, Committee of the Judiciary, US House of Representatives. September 20, 1994.

[30] Halbrook SP. "Another Look at the Brady Law." Washington Post. October 8, 1994. p A-18.

[31] Howlett D. "Jury Still Out on Success of the Bardy Law." USA Today. December 28, 1994. p A-2.

[32] Harris J, Assistant Attorney General, US Department of Justice. Statement to the Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice, Committee on the Judiciary, US Gouse of Representatives concerning Federal Firearms Prosecutions. September 20, 1994.

[33] Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, US Department of the Treasury. ATF News.. Washington DC: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. FY-93-38. 1993.

[34] Wright JD and Rossi PH. Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. 1986.

[35] Suter EA, Morgan RE, Cottrol RJ, et al. "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms - A Primer for Physicians." Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy. Spring 1995, forthcoming.

[36] Johnson NJ. "Beyond the Second Amendment: An Individual Right to Arms Viewed through the Ninth Amendment." Rutgers Law Journal. Fall 1992; 24 (1): 1-81.

[37] Amar AR. "The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment." Yale Law Journal. 1992; 101: 1193-1284.; Winter 1992; 9: 87-104.;

[38] Kates D. "The Second Amendment and the Ideology of Self-Protection." Constitutional Commentary. Winter 1992; 9: 87-104.

[39] Articles supportive of the individual rights view include: Van Alstyne W. "The Second Amendment and the Personal Right to Arms." Duke Law Journal. 1994; 43: 6.; Amar AR. "The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment." Yale Law Journal. 1992; 101: 1193-1284.; Winter 1992; 9: 87-104.; Scarry E. "War and the Social Contract: The Right to Bear Arms." Univ. Penn. Law Rev. 1991; 139(5): 1257-1316.; Williams DL. "Civic Republicanism and the Citizen Militia: The Terrifying Second Amendment" Yale Law Journal. 1991; 101:551-616.; Cottrol RJ and Diamond RT. "The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration." The Georgetown Law Journal. December 1991: 80; 309-61.; Amar AR. "The Bill of Rights as a Constitution" Yale Law Journal. 1991; 100 (5): 1131-1210.; Levinson S. "The Embarrassing Second Amendment" Yale Law Journal. 1989; 99:637-659.; Kates D. "The Second Amendment: A Dialogue." Law and Contemporary Problems. 1986; 49:143.; Malcolm JL. Essay Review. George Washington U. Law Review. 1986; 54: 452-464.; Fussner FS. Essay Review. Constitutional Commentary. 1986; 3: 582-8.; Shalhope RE. "The Armed Citizen in the Early Republic." Law and Contemporary Problems. 1986; 49:125-141.; Halbrook S. "What the Framers Intended: A Linguistic Interpretation of the Second Amendment." Law and Contemporary Problems. 1986; 49:151-162.; Kates D. "Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment." Michigan Law Review. 1983; 82:203-73. Halbrook S. "The Right to Bear Arms in the First State Bills of Rights: Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Vermont, and Massachusetts." Vermont Law Review 1985; 10: 255-320.; Halbrook S. "The Right of the People or the Power of the State: Bearing Arms, Arming Militias, and the Second Amendment." Valparaiso Law Review. 1991; 26:131-207.; Tahmassebi SB. "Gun Control and Racism." George Mason Univ. Civil Rights Law Journal. Winter 1991; 2(1):67-99.; Reynolds. "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Under the Tennessee Constitution." Tennessee Law Review. Winter 1994; 61:2. Bordenet TM. "The Right to Possess Arms: the Intent of the Framers of the Second Amendment." U.W.L.A. L. Review. 1990; 21:1.-30.; Moncure T. "Who is the Militia - The Virginia Ratifying Convention and the Right to Bear Arms." Lincoln Law Review. 1990; 19:1-25.; Lund N. "The Second Amendment, Political Liberty and the Right to Self-Preservation." Alabama Law Review 1987; 39:103.-130.; Morgan E "Assault Rifle Legislation: Unwise and Unconstitutional." American Journal of Criminal Law. 1990; 17:143-174.; Dowlut, R. "Federal and State Constitutional Guarantees to Arms." Univ. Dayton Law Review. 1989.; 15(1):59-89.; Halbrook SP. "Encroachments of the Crown on the Liberty of the Subject: Pre-Revolutionary Origins of the Second Amendment." Univ. Dayton Law Review. 1989; 15(1):91-124.; Hardy DT. "The Second Amendment and the Historiography of the Bill of Rights." Journal of Law and Politics. Summer 1987; 4(1):1-62.; Hardy DT. "Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies: Toward a Jurisprudence of the Second Amendment." Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. 1986; 9:559-638.; Dowlut R. "The Current Relevancy of Keeping and Bearing Arms." Univ. Baltimore Law Forum. 1984; 15:30-32.; Malcolm JL. "The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms: The Common Law Tradition." Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly. Winter 1983; 10(2):285-314.; Dowlut R. "The Right to Arms: Does the Constitution or the Predilection of Judges Reign?" Oklahoma Law Review. 1983; 36:65-105.; Caplan DI. "The Right of the Individual to Keep and Bear Arms: A Recent Judicial Trend." Detroit College of Law Review. 1982; 789-823.; Halbrook SP. "To Keep and Bear 'Their Private Arms'" Northern Kentucky Law Review. 1982; 10(1):13-39.; Gottlieb A. "Gun Ownership: A Constitutional Right." Northern Kentucky Law Review 1982; 10:113-40.; Gardiner R. "To Preserve Liberty -- A Look at the Right to Keep and Bear Arms." Northern Kentucky Law Review. 1982; 10(1):63-96.; Kluin KF. Note. "Gun Control: Is It A Legal and Effective Means of Controlling Firearms in the United States?" Washburn Law Journal 1982; 21:244-264.; Halbrook S. "The Jurisprudence of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments." George Mason U. Civil Rights Law Review. 1981; 4:1-69. Wagner JR. "Comment: Gun Control Legislation and the Intent of the Second Amendment: To What Extent is there an Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms?" Villanova Law Review. 1992; 37:1407-1459. The following treatments in book form also conclude that the individual right position is correct: Malcolm JL. To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right. Cambridge MA: Harvard U. Press. 1994.; Cottrol R. Gun Control and the Constitution (3 volume set). New York City: Garland. 1993.; Cottrol R and Diamond R. "Public Safety and the Right to Bear Arms" in Bodenhamer D and Ely J. After 200 Years; The Bill of Rights in Modern America. Indiana U. Press. 1993.; Oxford Companion to the United States Supreme Court. Oxford U. Press. 1992. (entry on the Second Amendment); Cramer CE. For the Defense of Themselves and the State: The Original Intent and Judicial Interpretation of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Westport CT: Praeger Publishers. 1994. Foner E and Garrity J. Reader's Companion to American History. Houghton Mifflin. 1991. 477-78. (entry on "Guns and Gun Control"); Kates D. "Minimalist Interpretation of the Second Amendment" in E. Hickok (ed.), The Bill of Rights: Original Meaning and Current Understanding. Univ. Virginia Press. 1991.; Halbrook S. "The Original Understanding of the Second Amendment." in Hickok E (editor) The Bill of Rights: Original Meaning and Current Understanding. Charlottesville: U. Press of Virginia. 1991. 117-129.; Young DE. The Origin of the Second Amendment. Golden Oak Books. 1991.; Halbrook S. A Right to Bear Arms: State and Federal Bills of Rights and Constitutional Guarantees. Greenwood. 1989.; Levy LW. Original Intent and the Framers' Constitution. Macmillan. 1988.; Hardy D. Origins and Development of the Second Amendment. Blacksmith. 1986.; Levy LW, Karst KL, and Mahoney DJ. Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. New York: Macmillan. 1986. (entry on the Second Amendment); Halbrook S. That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right. Albuquerque, NM: U. New Mexico Press. 1984.; Marina. "Weapons, Technology and Legitimacy: The Second Amendment in Global Perspective." and Halbrook S. "The Second Amendment as a Phenomenon of Classical Political Philosophy." -- both in Kates D (ed.). Firearms and Violence. San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute. 1984.; U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary. United States Congress. 97th. Congress. 2nd. Session. February 1982. regarding incorporation of the Second Amendment: Aynes RL. "On Misreading John Bingham and the Fourteenth Amendment." Yale Law Journal. 1993; 103:57-104.; The minority supporting a collective right only view: Ehrman K and Henigan D. "The Second Amendment in the 20th Century: Have You Seen Your Militia Lately?" Univ. Dayton LawJReview. 1989; 15:5-58 and Henigan DA. "Arms, Anarchy and the Second Amendment." Valparaiso U. Law Review. Fall 1991; 26: 107-129. -- both written by paid general counsel of Handgun Control, Inc.; Fields S. "Guns, Crime and the Negligent Gun Owner." Northern Kentucky Law Review. 1982; 10(1): 141-162. (article by non-lawyer lobbyist for the National Coalition to Ban Handguns); and Spannaus W. "State Firearms Regulation and the Second Amendment." Hamline Law Review. 1983; 6:383-408. In addition, see: Beschle. "Reconsidering the Second Amendment: Constitutional Protection for a Right of Security." Hamline Law Review. 1986; 9:69. (conceding that the Amendment does guarantee a right of personal security, but arguing that personal security can constitutionally be implemented by banning and confiscating all guns). Though not in the legal literature, for arguably the most scholarly treatment supporting the "collective right only" view, see: Cress LD. "An Armed Community: The Origins and Meaning of the Right to Bear Arms." J. Am. History 1984; 71:22-42. [40] Kates DB. "Bigotry, Symbolism and Ideology in the Battle over Gun Control" in Eastland, T. The Public Interest Law Review 1992. Carolina Academic Press. 1992.

FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED OCT. 20, 1999 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz Give these women guns

The newspapers reported Donna Hernandez of Las Vegas did everything she could to protect herself. Fearing that her estranged husband was going to kill her, she repeatedly informed the police that she feared for her life. She even went to court and got protection orders.

It didn't help. Two weeks ago, Donna Hernandez was found stabbed and strangled in her home. Her ex-husband is now in jail, facing murder charges.

About a third of all slayings in the Las Vegas Metro police jurisdiction stem from domestic violence. In October of 1997, 17-year-old Maureen McConaha obtained a protective order against her ex-boyfriend. Weeks later, she was shot to death. The ex-boyfriend, Johnny Walker, is awaiting trial on murder charges.

In January of 1998, police found Judy and Ronnie Norman dead inside the couple's Las Vegas home. Next to their bodies police found a protective order that Judy Norman had taken out against her husband. Police ruled the deaths a murder-suicide.

In October of last year, Brenda Denise James was shot to death in front of her six children, days after she applied for and received a protective order against her ex-boyfriend, Robert Lee Carter, 30. A murder charge against Carter is pending.

While court-issued protective orders are "a good tool for law enforcement, they don't stop a bullet or knife, and we need to make sure everyone knows that," offers Clark County Domestic Violence Commissioner Patricia Doninger.

"We have to find a better way to protect people like Donna Hernandez," says a frustrated District Judge Nancy Saitta.

But that better way has long been available. God may have made women, but Colonel Colt made women equal, and carrying the tool he invented remains the constitutional right of every American.

The problem is, so far as can be determined, Donna Hernandez, Maureen McConaha, and Brenda Denise James did (start ital)not(end ital) do everything they could to protect themselves and their children: They did not buy and carry handguns, and acquire the skill to use them.

Police cannot provide an armed bodyguard for every woman who's been threatened. Therefore, police should actively recommend that such women acquire appropriate, effective weapons for self-defense, and the minimal training necessary to handle them safely.

In fact, if any arbitrary "background check" or "concealed-carry permit" paperwork delays stand in the way of a woman who holds such a valid "protection order" and wishes to acquire a handgun, our state lawmakers and particularly U.S. Rep. Shelley Berkley, a proponent of women's rights and an avowed supporter of the Second Amendment should immediately introduce legislation to provide for an instant waiver of any such waiting periods or bureaucratic delays, authorizing the immediate, legal placement of a handgun in any such woman's purse.

Those with an irrational phobia of firearms though they would never propose that we send our boys to Bosnia armed with nothing more than a whistle on a key ring will whine that "A woman is in greater danger if she has a gun; the assailant will just take it away and use it on her."

In fact, Gary Kleck, professor of criminology at Florida State University in Tallahassee, examined the statistical evidence for that concern in his book, "Targeting Guns."

Guns are taken away from their owner and used by an assailant in fewer than 1 percent of defensive handgun uses, Professor Kleck determined. Nor is there any indication that more widespread gun ownership would turn our neighborhoods into "shooting galleries": Dr. Kleck also found that in more than 90 percent of defensive handgun uses, the weapon isn't even fired.

"It's one of the great lies of the anti-gun people, that people are so incompetent that they're going to have their guns taken away from them," says David Kopel, research director of the Independence Institute in Golden, Colo. and author of the book "Guns: Who Should Have Them?"

In fact, if the authorities would send out a notice that the victim is now armed, along with the court "keep-away" order, most of these attacks might never occur, at all.

"There's very strong evidence that knowledge that victims have guns is a great deterrent to attacking," adds Don Kates, a criminologist with the Pacific Research Institute in California. "The National Institute of Justice has sponsored extensive surveys of criminals in prisons, and ... they attest that they were far less likely to commit crimes against people when they knew that they were likely to be armed.

"The other thing is, it is universally reported that women respond much better to firearms training than men do, because the problem with men is that their testosterone levels get in the way," Mr. Kates explains. "They're supposed to already know about guns, and so you have to get them to unlearn things that they know that are wrong, and they're very stubborn about that."

So, if at-risk women find it easy to learn to use guns safely and effectively, why aren't they all urged by authorities to go out and get themselves a Smith & Wesson?

"That's to admit that the whole system is a complete failure," explains criminologist Kates. "Notice that the whole thing with restraining orders is a failure designed to remedy a failure. We already have laws against violence, so why do we need restraining orders? Because police won't enforce laws against violence within the family."

October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month, a time when our political leaders annually call on us to reflect on the number of domestic-violence incidents that occur each year, and to take action to stop them.

OK then. Let's stop mooning and moaning. Let's do something that works. It's not big, sturdy men who fear to be the last person leaving the shopping mall late at night, walking across that darkened parking lot. It's America's women.

"The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it." -- John Hay, 1872

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken * * *

JURIES,AMERICA'S HISTORIC BARRIER AGAINST OPPRESSIVE LAWS AND GOVERNMENT TYRANNY. By Senator Wayne Stump

Editor's Note: Former State Senator Wayne Stump of Arizona and a former member of the NRA board of directors. His article covers jury nullification of unjust laws. Alcohol prohibition failed and the politicians turned away from it because it was very difficult to get a conviction. NRA failure to publish this article was another in a long series of giving in to tyranny. It is another good reason to vote for the Second Amendment Action slate on Neal Knox's web sight www.nealknox.com The biographies of our candidates can be seen on: http://www.paulrevere.org/nrabod/index.htm

Prior to the American Revolution English general was overheard to say, "You can not pull the wool over the eyes of those Americans; they are all a bunch of lawyers." Bookstores in London at that time sold more law books in the American colonies than any book except the Holy Bible. The American Revolution and the American Republic were rooted in a climate of knowledge. Americans knew their law! They also knew their Bible, upon which the principles of the English common law are based. Thomas Jefferson said, in effect, that a people who wished to remain ignorant and to be free, desired something that never had been and never would be.

The NRA has launched a grass-roots campaign to help its members, their families, and friends become informed activists in the fight to keep and regain our God-given rights, including those protected by the second amendment.

In the fight to regain our rights, most of our effort is, and has to be, in the political arena, however, in addition to political action, there is another area in which NRA members, their families, and friends can be effective in stopping the government dead in its tracks, whenever it attempts to infringe upon our rights, IF THEY HAVE KNOWLEDGE!

Any Citizen when serving on a jury, if he KNOWS his rights and duties as a juror, can in the case he is on, stop the government cold if he believes the statute to be unconstitutional or unfair simply by voting not guilty. When juries find a defendant not guilty in cases where the defendant did in fact violate the statute, it nullifies the statute in that particular case. Repeated and continuous JURY NULLIFICATION of a law makes it impossible for the government to enforce it and will lead to repeal of that law. The power of the jury to nullify was first exercised in a seventeenth century English court and was discussed in an article by Godfrey Lehman in the November 1988 issue of The Justice Times.

"The ordeal suffered by twelve anonym s in London over 300 years ago is recorded obscurely in history under the colorless, non-descriptive title of "Bushell's Case." Its 20th century oblivion belies the respect it commanded in the 18th, and conceals its enduring multiple influences upon our Constitutional republic. Fully understood, it can be appreciated as one of the most influential single events in the entire history of our imperfect species* because of its impact upon the writers of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Most significantly it was spontaneous, unlike any other great charter of liberty.

"It was accomplished without deliberate, conscious planning; without great public agitation, and did not require the signing of a formal document. It did not involve any highly placed persons. It arose directly from the people.

It is the story of the trial of William Penn, who had committed no more serious offense than preach Quakerism in spite of an official "law," known as the Conventicle Act, intended to proscribe all religions except the Church of England. The jurors suffered up to nine weeks of torture to stand by the principle that every person has a right to worship according to his own conscience. Because they did not waver, they finally won.

"The Conventicle Act fell before these twelve inconsequential "bumble heads" - these twelve "simple-witted cockneys" without rank nor position in the government. There were no further prosecutions under that act. It was not necessary to importune vote-seeking legislators to pass repealing legislation. The entire government was humbled before them. They gained no material benefits for themselves, they blended back into their pre-trial anonymity.

"By nullifying, the jury corrects governmental abuses and usurpations one at a time without violence, within the arena of the courtroom, preventing the formation of a long chain, which unchecked, could lead to revolution, as it did in 1776. The jury should be highly respected and honored."

The right of juries to judge the justice of laws was eloquently discussed in 1852 by author Lysander Spooner in his, "ESSAY IN THE TRIAL BY JURY."

He wrote, "For more than six hundred years - that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215 - there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws.

"Unless such be the right and duty of jurors, it is plain that, instead of juries being a "palladium of liberty" - a barrier against the tyranny and oppression of the government - they are really mere tools in its hands, for carrying into execution any injustice and oppression it may desire to have executed.

"That the rights and duties of jurors must necessarily be such as are here claimed for them, will be evident when it is considered what the trial by jury is, and what is its object.

"The trial by jury," then, is a "trial by the country" - that is, by the people - as distinguished from a trial by the government. It was anciently called "trial per pais" -that is, "trial by the country."

"The object of this trial "by the country," or by the people, in preference to a trial by the government, is to guard against every species of oppression by the government. In order to effect this end, it is indispensable that the people, or "the country," judge of and determine their own liberties against the government; instead of the government's judging of and determining its own powers over the people. How is it possible that juries can do anything to protect the liberties of the people against the government , if they are not allowed to determine what those liberties are?

"To secure this right of the people to judge of their own liberties against the government, the jurors are taken from the body of the people, by lot, or by some process that precludes any previous knowledge, choice, or selection of them, on the part of the government. This is done to prevent the government's constituting a jury of its own partisans or friends. In other words, to prevent the government's packing a jury, with a view to maintain its own laws, and accomplish its own purpose."

Things have come a long way since 1852. I'm sure that Mr. Spooner would cringe if he were to witness jury selection today. Both sides try to stack the jury. If you were to serve on a jury on a gun case it is not unrealistic to expect the government to ask if there are any gun owners, or maybe even NRA members, in the jury pool. Sometimes jurors are asked to answer questions by raising their hands. In that situation it is possible to not volunteer an answer by not raising ones hand. Quoting further from Mr. Lehman's Justice Times article:

"Almost universally, judges would extricate from jurors the false oath to "Take the law as I dictate it to you, no matter how you feel about it." Judges who do this are acting criminally as they are violating their own sacred Constitutional oaths. They would dominate the jury. Principled jurors refusing to take the oath are forcibly removed from the panel (also illegal).

"My position as a juror is to take the oath but, if the law is repugnant, to repudiate it in the jury room. Since to insist upon the oath is duress, and since it demands yielding inherent, Constitutionally guaranteed rights and powers, it is a lie from the beginning. It is not valid. It is the gun to your head and the offer you can't refuse. Jurors who have ostensibly sworn to the oath have remained on juries to prevent what would have been miscarriages of justice.

"The intense inquisition of jurors before trial is also to destroy jury independence by attempting to stack the jury with only compliant non- questioning jurors. The Constitution does not permit the court to invade the private lives of jurors with these outrageous inquisitions.

"That all of this is done in defiance of the Constitution is only partial demonstration of the extent we have progressed toward judicial oligarchy - despite those repeated Constitutional guarantees. The most valuable lesson we can learn from the ordeal of the Bushell jurors is that we do not require legislation nor other official act to save this grand bulwark of liberty, and liberty itself. We require only ourselves, knowledgeable and refusing to submit.

"And because our liberty depends principally upon the honesty of jurors, we the people, can overcome the oligarchy by doing nothing else than following, as jurors, the Bushell example of acting on conscience and principle."

Knowledgeable grass roots political activity is absolutely necessary if we are to keep and regain our unalienable rights, protected by constitutional prohibitions on government. However, by serving on juries, when given the opportunity, with knowledge, acting on conscience and principle we can, once again, make the jury (at least the one we serve on) a "palladium of liberty."

It is my hope that all NRA members will become informed regarding the power of juries and that they will share their knowledge with family, friends, and neighbors. It is far easier to stop the enemies of liberty in the jury box than it is at Concord's bridge (shot heard around the world).

It is NRA policy, established by the members at an annual meeting, to support fully informed juries. For more information, write to the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA), P.O. Box 59, Helmville, Montana, 59403, Phone (406) 793-5550

Did you know that you qualify for another, much more powerful vote than the one which you cast on Election Day? This opportunity comes when you are selected for jury duty, a position of honor for over 700 years. The principle of a Common Law Jury or Trial by the Country was first established on June 15, 1215 at Runnymede, England when King John signed the Magna Carta, or Great Charter of our Liberties. It created the basis for our constitutional, system of Justice.

JURY POWER in the system of checks and balances: In a Constitutional system of justice, such as ours, there is a judicial body with more power than Congress, the President, or even the Supreme Court. Yes, the trial jury protected under our Constitution has more power than all these government officials. This is because it has the final veto power over all "acts of the legislature" that may come to be called "laws".

In fact, the power of jury nullification predates our Constitution. In November of 1734, a printer named John Peter Zenger was arrested for seditious libel against his Majesty's government. At that time, a law of the Colony of New York forbid any publication without prior government approval. Freedom of the press was not enjoyed by the early colonialists! Zenger, however, defied this censorship and published articles strongly critical of New York colonial rule. When brought to trial in August of 1735, Zenger admitted publishing the offending articles, but argued that the truth of the facts stated justified their publication. The judge instructed the jury that truth is not justification for libel. Rather, truth makes the libel more vicious, for public unrest is more likely to follow true, rather than false claims of bad governance. And since the defendant had admitted to the "fact" of publication, only a question of "law" remained.

Then, as now, the judge said the "issue of law" was for the court to determine, and he instructed the jury to find the defendant guilty. It took only ten minutes for the jury to disregard the judge's instructions on the law and find Zenger NOT GUILTY. That is the power of the jury at work; the power to decide the issues of law under which the defendant is charged, as well as the facts. In our system of checks and balances, the jury is our final check, the people's last safegard against unjust law and tyranny.

A Jury's Rights, Powers, and Duties: But does the jury's power to veto bad laws exist under our Constitution? It certainly does! At the time the Constitution was written, the definition of the term "jury" referred to a group of citizens empowered to judge both the law and the evidence in the case before it. Then, in the February term of 1794, the Supreme Court conducted a jury trial in the case of the State of Georgia vs. Brailsford (3 Dall 1). The instructions to the jury in the first jury trial before the Supreme Court of the United States illustrate the true power of the jury. Chief Justice John Jay said: "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision." (emphasis added) "...you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy". So you see, in an American courtroom there are in a sense twelve judges in attendance, not just one. And they are there with the power to review the "law" as well as the "facts"! Actually, the "judge" is there to conduct the proceedings in an orderly fashion and maintain the safety of all parties involved.

As recently as 1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the jury has an " unreviewable and irreversible power... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge.... (US vs Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 (1972))

Or as this same truth was stated in a earlier decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Maryland: "We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic of passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision." (US vs Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969)).

YOU, as a juror armed with the knowledge of the purpose of a jury trial, and the knowledge of what your Rights, powers, and duties really are, can with your single vote of not guilty nullify or invalidate any law involved in that case. Because a jury's guilty decision must be unanimous, it takes only one vote to effectively nullify a bad "act of the legislature". Your one vote can "hang" a jury; and although it won't be an acquittal, at least the defendant will not be convicted of violating an unjust or unconstitutional law.

The government cannot deprive anyone of "Liberty", without your consent! If you feel the statute involved in any criminal case being tried before you is unfair, or that it infringes upon the defendant's God-given inalienable or Constitutional rights, you can affirm that the offending statute is really no law at all and that the violation of it is no crime; for no man is bound to obey an unjust command. In other words, if the defendant has disobeyed some man-made criminal statute, and the statute is unjust, the defendant has in substance, committed no crime. Jurors, having ruled then on the justice of the law involved and finding it opposed in whole or in part to their own natural concept of what is basically right, are bound to hold for the acquittal of said defendant.

It is your responsibility to insist that your vote of not guilty be respected by all other members of the jury. For you are not there as a fool, merely to agree with the majority, but as a qualified judge in your right to see that justice is done. Regardless of the pressures or abuse that may be applied to you by any or all members of the jury with whom you may in good conscience disagree, you can await the reading of the verdict secure in the knowledge you have voted your conscience and convictions, not those of someone else. So you see, as a juror, you are one of a panel of twelve judges with the responsibility of protecting all innocent Americans from unjust laws.

You must know your rights! Because, once selected for jury duty, nobody will inform you of your power to judge both law and fact. In fact, the judge's instructions to the jury may be to the contrary. Another quote from US vs Dougherty (cited earlier): "The fact that there is widespread existence of the jury's prerogative, and approval of its existence as a necessary counter to case-hardened judges and arbitrary prosecutors, does not establish as an imperative that the jury must be informed by the judge of that power". Look at that quote again. the court ruled jurors have the right to decide the law, but they don't have to be told about it. It may sound hypocritical, but the Dougherty decision conforms to an 1895 Supreme Court decision that held the same thing. In Sparf vs US (156 US 51), the court ruled that although juries have the right to ignore a judge's instructions on the law, they don't have to be made aware of the right to do so. Is this Supreme Court ruling as unfair as it appears on the surface? It may be, but the logic behind such a decision is plain enough.

In our Constitutional Republic (note I didn't say democracy) the people have granted certain limited powers to government, preserving and retaining their God-given inalienable rights. So, if it is indeed the juror's right to decide the law, then the citizens should know what their rights are. They need not be told by the courts. After all, the Constitution makes us the masters of the public servants. Should a servant have to tell a master what his rights are? Of course not, it's our responsibility to know what our rights are! The idea that juries are to judge only the "facts" is absurd and contrary to historical fact and law. Are juries present only as mere pawns to rubber stamp tyrannical acts of the government? We The People wrote the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." Who better to decide the fairness of the laws, or whether the laws conform to the Constitution?

Sometime in the future, you may be called upon to sit in judgment of a sincere individual being prosecuted (persecuted?) for trying to exercise his or her Rights, or trying to defend the Constitution. If so, remember that in 1804, Samuel Chase, Supreme Court Justice and signer of the Declaration of Independence said: "The jury has the Right to judge both the law and the facts". And also keep in mind that "either we all hang together, or we most assuredly will all hang separately".

You now understand how the average citizen can help keep in check the power of government and bring to a halt the enforcement of tyrannical laws. Unfortunately, very few people know or understand this power which they as Americans possess to nullify oppressive acts of the legislature.

America, the Constitution and your individual rights are under attack! Will you defend them? READ THE CONSTITUTION, KNOW YOUR RIGHTS! Remember, if you don't know what your Rights are, you haven't got any!

If you received this as a forward and wish to join please send: E-MAil to listserver@frostbit.com with the following text in the message body: SUBSCRIBE 2nd-Amendment-News

We have had a computer error. If you want to be removed send a message to the list administrator, send E-mail to luz.clark@prodigy.net

If you know anyone who would appreciate these alerts, please let us know and we'll enroll them on a trial basis.

Unlike many interviews with Holocaust survivors, this one conducted by Aaron Zelman, founder, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (P.O. Box 270143, Hartford, WI 53027; 262-673-9745; membership $20) with Theodore Haas, a JPFO member and a former prisoner of the infamous Dachau concentration camp, is a clear warning to all freedom loving peoples to keep our guard up against arrogant politicians who are hell bent to create governments that control our lives. In pre-Nazi Germany, the good, law-abiding citizens dozed while government passed laws (all purported to be for the public good) that paved the way for tyranny to flourish. Haas, who survived years of Nazi persecutors, is speaking out to Americans who are now dozing while our government, at the strong urging of leftists in the media and others in society they influence, passes laws (again supposedly for the public good) to ban and severely restrict firearms ownership. Theodore Haas believes gun control is a prelude to totalitarian rule -- The editors.

Q.) How did you end up at Dachau? How old were you?

A.) November 9th, 1938 was Kristalnacht -- The Night of Broken Glass -- The night Synagogues were ransacked and burned, Jewish owned shops destroyed; I guess you could call it the night the fires of hell engulfed the soul of humanity. I was arrested November 10th, "for my own personal security." I was 21 years old. My parents were arrested and ultimately died in a concentration camp in France. I was released from Dachau in 1941, under the condition that I leave Germany immediately. This was common procedure before the "Final Solution."

Q.) What did you think when you were sent to Dachau? What did you know about Dachau beforehand?

A.) My first thoughts were those many others: "The world has gone mad." I knew that the life expectancy at Dachau was relatively short. I knew beforehand that inmates were abused. The horror of Dachau was known throughout Germany. People (Germans) use to frighten their children, "If you do not behave, you will surely end up at Dachau." A famous German comedian, Weiss Ferdl, said "Regardless how many machine gun towers they have around K.Z. Dachau, if I want to get in, I shall get in." The Nazis obliged him; he died at Dachau.

Q.) How did you accept the fears of Dachau?

A.) Due to the constant hunger and extreme cold weather, one becomes too numb to even think of fear. A prisoner under these conditions becomes obsessed with survival; nothing else matters.

Q.) What were the living conditions like in Dachau?

A.) We were issued one quarter of a loaf of bread. That was to last three days. In the morning, we picked up, at the kitchen, a cup of roasted barley drink. There was no lunch. At dinnertime, sometimes we got a watery soup with bits of tripe or some salt herring and a boiled potato. Our prison clothes were a heavy, coarse denim. They would freeze when they got wet. We were not issued hats, gloves or underwear.

The first night, about 500 prisoners were stuffed into a room designed to hold 50 (Believe me, it is possible). Later on, we were forced to sleep on straw. As time went on, the straw disintegrated and we became lice infested. The guards delighted in making weak and ill-clothed prisoners march or stand at attention in rain, snow, and ice for hours. As you can imagine, death came often due to the conditions.

Q.) Do you have residual fears? How do you feel about German re-unification?

A.) I have nightmares constantly. I recently dreamed that a guard grabbed me. My wife's arm touched my face, and I unfortunately bit her severely. German re-unification, in my opinion, will be the basis for another war. The Germans, regardless of what their present leadership says, will want their lost territories back, East Prussia, Silesia, and Danzic (Gdansk). My family history goes back over 700 years in Germany. I understand all too well what the politicians do not want the people to be thinking about.

Q.) You mentioned you were shot and stabbed several times. Were these experiments, punishment or torture?

A.) They were punishment. I very often, in a fit of temper, acted "while the brain was not in gear." The sorry results were two 9-mm bullets in my knees. Fortunately, one of the prisoners had a fingernail file and was able to dig the slugs out. In another situation, I was stabbed in the washroom of room #1, Block 16. Twice in a struggle where I nearly lost my right thumb. A German prisoner Hans Wissing, who after the war became mayor of his hometown, Leinsweiler, witnessed the whole situation. We stayed in touch until a few months ago, when he died.

Q.) Do you remember some of the steps taken by the Nazis to de-humanize people and to make them feel hopeless? How were people robbed of their dignity?

A.) If you had treated an animal in Germany the way we were treated, you would have been jailed. For example, a guard or a group of them would single out a prisoner and beat him with canes or a club. Sometimes to further terrorize a prisoner, the guards would form a circle around a prisoner and beat him unconscious. There were cases of a prisoner being told to report to the Revier ("Hospital") and being forced to drink a quart of castor oil. Believe me, this is a lousy, painful, wretched way to die. You develop extreme diarrhea, vomiting, nausea, and severe dehydration. If the Nazis wanted you to live and suffer more, they would take measures to rehydrate to victim.

Q.) What was the routine like at Dachau?

A.) Three times a day, we were counted. We had to carry the dead to the square. Each time, we had to stand at attention in all kinds of weather. We stood wearing next to nothing, had weak bladders, while our tormentors had sheepskin coats and felt boots. The bastards really enjoyed watching us suffer. I remember how the guards had a good laugh when one of them "accidentally" let loose with a machine-gun, killing about 30 prisoners.

Q.) What did people do to try to adjust to Dachau? Keep up their spirits up?

A.) There were some actors, comedians, and musicians among us. Sometimes they would clandestinely perform. One of the musicians got hold of a violin and played for us. To this day, it remains a mystery how he got his hands on a violin. I still keep in touch with other prisoners. I am a member of the Dachau Prisoners Association. Each year I go back to Germany to visit.

Q.) Did people ever successfully escape? Do you remember acts of bravery?

A.) Nobody escaped, only in the movies does the "hero" escape. Guards received extra leave time for killing prisoners that got too close to the fence. I do, however, think all prisoners were heroes in their own way. Especially the German prisoners, for they would not acquiesce to the Nazis. They suffered greatly too.

Q.) Did the camp inmates ever bring up the topic, "If only we were armed before, we would not be here now"?

A.) Many, many times. Before Adolph Hitler came to power, there was a black market in firearms, but the German people had been so conditioned to be law abiding, that they would never consider buying an unregistered gun. The German people really believed that only hoodlums own such guns. What fools we were. It truly frightens me to see how the government, media, and some police groups in America are pushing for the same mindset. In my opinion, the people of America had better start asking and demanding answers to some hard questions about firearms ownership, especially if the government does not trust me to own firearms, why or how can the people be expected to trust the government?

There is no doubt in my mind that millions of lives could have been saved if the people were not "brainwashed" about gun ownership and had been well armed. Hitler's thugs and goons were not very brave when confronted by a gun. Gun haters always want to forget the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, which is a perfect example of how a ragtag, half starved group of Jews took up 10 handguns and made asses out of the Nazis.

Q.) Did you have any contacts with the White Rose Society (mostly German students against Hitler)? Did anyone try to hide you from the Nazis?

A.) I did not, but my local friend, Richard Scholl, had two cousins or nephews who were members. Both were executed in Munich (I believe) for standing up for decency and freedom. Not enough people knew about the White Rose Society. There were many non-Jews who were not anti Semitic and were very much opposed to Hitler. It was impossible to hide people from the Nazis in Germany -- it is so densely populated and food was rationed. Another point that many people fail to understand is that in Germany, you had a situation where the children were reporting to their teachers if their parents listened to the BBC on the short wave radio, or what they were talking about at home. If a German was friendly to a Jew, he was warned once. If he failed to heed the warning, he would disappear and never be heard from again. This was known as "Operation Night and Fog."

Q.) Do you think American society has enough stability that Jews and other minorities are safe from severe persecution?

A.) No. I think there is more anti-Semitism in America (some of it caused by leftist Jewish politicians