Nov2000

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

Chuck Michel (310) 548-0410: I am very interested in your pursuit of justice for gun owners who have been victims of any government action to take their guns.

I am such a victim, and last week I was found guilty of failure to register. I could not get an attorney in Hawaii to assist me because apparently all of them are pro-guncontrol. Actually I got one lawyer named Mike Ostendorp who promised me he would make complaints in federal court for me but that I would have to pay him up front $2,000 cash.....he was sounding so good I did the unthinkable and borrowed it on my credit card which I only use for an ID to rent car on the rare travel I do to Honolulu from Molokai. He did not file any such thing, but only argued in District court that I qualify for a public defender, which I was then assigned. He then said he did not want me for a client anymore because he knows I can't pay him, and that was that.

Anyway, the Hawaii law is §134, and it required me to first get a permit to acquire the gun, and then within 5-days of taking possession I have to provide all the pertinent info on make model serial number calibur, etc for the purpose of registration. I did that in person, and so did the gun store where I bought it by fax as they do for every gun purchase. The prosecutor stipulated to that fact. But I was still convicted because I did not bang on the police station door and find out what else needs to be done to register. I thought it was all done since police don't provide any forms for me to fill out and they do all the paperwork based on the info provided, and they probably just mail the registration to me since I already had the permit to acquire in my possession. When they did a weapons check on me they found that I had two guns registered to me (the permit to acquire) but their gun registration division put out an alert for late registration on me and they took my guns and charged me as a criminal for not registering. This was last November 1999. Last week the court ordered my guns returned, but also found me guilty of failing to register and fined me $200 and put me on probation for 6-months. The prosecutor also wanted me in jail for 2-days and prohibit possession for 6-months but the judge did not go with that. Until now, I have no criminal record, I am 55 years old. Now I am a criminal they say.

I can't stand to live like this, with this injustice and conviction against me. But I only have 12-days more before the end of the 30-days appeal window closes. All the lawyers say the same thing, you are convicted, you are not in jail, you got your guns back, there is no basis for appeal, don't worry about it. I disagree and I want to be acquited so my record is clean and not subject to probation invasions of my home and business. I did not do anything wrong, and the prosecutor agree that I had provided the required information on time. I don't control the paperwork the police do, so they are at fault for not doing the registration paperwork and not notifying me,but nobody agrees with me in Hawaii. They say if you blame the police, it will just go harder against you.

I believe the 2nd Amendment Right cannot be regulated....I have since learned due to this incident and my studies of law and Bill of Rights, and dicta, and scholars on 2nd Am. Not only did I act in good faith pursuant to existing though un-Constitutional Hawaii gun laws, but I never should have been subjected to the un-Constitutional permit and registration in the first place....AND CERTAINTLY MY GUNS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TAKEN FROM ME WHEN I HAD COMMITTED NO CRIME USING GUNS!

I hope you can help me get this cleared up. Can you come to Hawaii? Or, do you have a Hawaii connection who will help me? Any suggestions of how I might proceed pro se? (I have filed a Motion for new trial, but without a memorandum because I don't have an expensive transcript; and I am contemplating a Motion for Appeal, but again need transcript; and I am thinking of a Motion to vacate the sentence with a memorandum explaining the mitigating factors etc, but all the lawyers here just roll their eyes and brush me off. I contacted 2nd Am Foundation, but they can not help me specifically and they have the Munroe case in federal appeal now so I am watching that. I hope you can help me out or refer me to someone who can.

Here are the current national police on-duty fatality statistics as of July 31, 2000.

Excerpt: "It is all very familiar, and very depressing. Find me a man so vast an imbecile that he seriously believes that this prohibition would work. What would become of the millions of revolvers already in the hands of the American people if not in New York, then at least everywhere else? (I own two and my brother owns at least a dozen, though neither of us has fired one since the close of the Liberty Loan drives.) Would the cops at once confiscate this immense stock, or would it tend to concentrate in the hands of the criminal classes? If they attempted confiscation, how would they get my two revolvers lawfully acquired and possessed without breaking into my house? Would I wait for them docilely or would I sell out, in anticipation, to the nearest pistol bootlegger?"

As far as I am concerned H.L. Mencken was the greatest journalist of the 20th century. Though he lived in the early part of the century he was well aware of the rise of statism whether it is called, socialism, communism, third wayism, or leftism -- and he wasn't too happy with the right sometimes either. He hated pretention and stupidity and a departure from common sense, which often happens to people with a cause. This article on gun control is as old as the last century and as new as the news from Hillary and Rosie land.

THE UPLIFTERS TRY IT AGAIN by H. L. Mencken (Copyright, 1925, by The Evening Sun. Republication without credit not permitted.)

The eminent Nation announces with relish "the organization of a national committee of 100 to induce Congress to prohibit the inter-State traffic in revolvers," and offers the pious judgement that it is "a step forward." "Crime statistics," it appears, "show that 90% of the murders that take place are committed by the use of the pistol, and every year there are hundreds of cases of accidental homicides because someone did not know that his revolver was loaded." The new law or is it to be a constitutional amendment? will do away with all that. "It will not be easy," of course, "to draw a law that will permit exceptions for public officers and bank guards” to say nothing of Prohibition agents and other such legalized murderers. "But soon even these officials may get on without revolvers."

More than once in this place, I have lavished high praise upon the Nation. All that praise has been deserved, and I am by no means disposed to go back on it. The Nation is one of the few honest and intelligent periodicals published in the United States. It stands clear of official buncombe; it prints every week a great mass of news that the newspapers seem to miss; it interprets that news with a freedom and a sagacity that few newspaper editors can even so much as imagine. If it shut up shop then the country would plunge almost unchallenged into the lowest depths of Coolidgism, Rotarians, Stantaquaism and other such bilge. It has been for a decade past, the chief consolation of the small and forlorn minority of civilized Americans.

But the Nation, in its days, has been a Liberal organ, and its old follies die-hard. Ever and anon, in the midst of its most eloquent and effective pleas for Liberty, its eye wanders weakly toward Law. At such moments the old lust to lift 'em up overcomes it, and it makes a brilliant and melodramatic ass of itself. Such a moment was upon it when it printed the paragraph that I have quoted. Into that paragraph of not over 200 words it packed as much maudlin and nonsensical blather, as much idiotic reasoning and banal moralizing, as Dr. Coolidge gets into a speech of two hours’ length.

The new law that it advocated, indeed, is one of the most absurd specimens of jackass legislation ever heard of, even in this paradise of legislative donkeyism. Its single and sole effect would be to exaggerate enormously all of the evils it proposes to put down. It would not take pistols out of the hands of rogues and fools; it would simply take them out of the hands of honest men. The gunman today has great advantages everywhere. He has artillery in his pocket, and he may assume that, in the large cities, at least two-thirds of his prospective victims are unarmed. But if the Nation’s proposed law (or amendment) were passed and enforced, he could assume safely that all of them were unarmed.

Here I do not indulge in theory. The hard facts are publicly on display in New York State, where a law of exactly the same tenor is already on the books the so-called Sullivan Law. In order to get it there, of course, the Second Amendment had to be severely strained, but the uplifters advocated the straining unanimously, and to the tune of loud hosannas, and the courts, as usual, were willing to sign on the dotted line. It is now a dreadful felony in New York to "have or possess" a pistol. Even if one keeps it locked in a bureau drawer at home, one may be sent to the hoosegow for ten years. More, men who have done no more are frequently bumped off. The cops, suspecting a man, say, of political heresy, raid his house and look for copies of the Nation. They find none, and are thus baffled but at the bottom of a trunk they do find a rusted and battered revolver. So he goes to trial for violating the Sullivan Law, and is presently being psycho-analyzed by the uplifters at Sing Sing.

With what result? With the general result that New York, even more than Chicago, is the heaven of footpads, hijackers, gunmen and all other such armed thugs. Their hands upon their pistols, they know they are safe. Not one citizen out of a hundred that they tackle is armed for getting a license to keep a revolver is a difficult business, and carrying one without it is more dangerous than submitting to robbery. So the gunmen flourish and give humble thanks to God. Like the bootleggers, they are hot and unanimous for Law Enforcement.

To all this, of course, the uplifters have a ready answer. (At having ready answers, indeed, they always shine!) The New York thugs, they say, are armed to the teeth because New Jersey and Connecticut lack Sullivan Laws. When one of them wants a revolver all he has to do is to cross the river or take a short trolley trip. Or, to quote the Nation, he may "simply remit to one of the large firms which advertise the sale of their weapons by mail." The remedy is the usual dose: More law. Congress is besought to "prohibit the inter-State traffic in revolvers, especially to bar them from the mails."

It is all very familiar, and very depressing. Find me a man so vast an imbecile that he seriously believes that this prohibition would work. What would become of the millions of revolvers already in the hands of the American people if not in New York, then at least everywhere else? (I own two and my brother owns at least a dozen, though neither of us has fired one since the close of the Liberty Loan drives.) Would the cops at once confiscate this immense stock, or would it tend to concentrate in the hands of the criminal classes? If they attempted confiscation, how would they get my two revolvers lawfully acquired and possessed without breaking into my house? Would I wait for them docilely or would I sell out, in anticipation, to the nearest pistol bootlegger?

The first effect of the enactment of such a law, obviously, would be to make the market price of all small arms rise sharply. A pistol, which is now worth, second-hand, perhaps $2, would quickly reach a value of $10 or even $20. This is not theorizing; we have had plenty of experience with gin. Well, imagining such prices to prevail, would the generality of men surrender to the Polizei, or would they sell them to the bootleggers? And if they sold them to the bootleggers, what would become of them in the end: would they fall into the hands of honest men or into the hands of rogues?

But the gunmen, I take it, would not suffer from the high cost of artillery for long. The moment the price got really attractive, the cops themselves would begin to sell their pistols, and with them the whole corps of Prohibition blacklegs, private detectives, deputy sheriffs, and other such scoundrels. And smuggling, as in the case of alcoholic beverages, would become an organized industry, large in scale and lordly in profits. Imagine the supplies that would pour over the long Canadian and Mexican borders! And into every port on every incoming ship!

Certainly, the history of the attempt to enforce Prohibition should give even uplifters pause. A case of whisky is a bulky object. It must be transported on a truck. It cannot be disguised. Yet in every American city today a case of whisky may be bought almost as readily as a pair of shoes despite all the armed guards along the Canadian border, and all the guard ships off the ports, and all the raiding, snooping and murdering everywhere else. Thus the camel gets in and yet the proponents of the new anti-pistol law tell us that they will catch the gnat! Go tell it to the Marines!

Such a law, indeed, would simply make gun-toting swagger and fashionable, as Prohibition has made guzzling swagger and fashionable. When I was a youngster there were no Prohibition agents; hence I never so much as drank a glass of beer until I was nearly 19. Today, Law Enforcement is the eighth sacrament and the Methodist Board of Temperance, Prohibition and Public Morals is itself the authority for the sad news that the young of the land are full of gin. I remember, in my youth, a time when the cops tried to prohibit the game of catty. At once every boy in Baltimore consecrated his whole time and energy to it. Finally, the cops gave up their crusade. Almost instantly catty disappeared.

The real victim of moral legislation is almost always the honest, law-abiding, well-meaning citizen what the late William Graham Summer called the Forgotten Man. Prohibition makes it impossible for him to take a harmless drink, cheaply and in a decent manner. In the same way the Harrison Act puts heavy burdens upon the physician who has need of prescribing narcotic drugs for a patient, honestly and for good ends. But the drunkard still gets all the alcohol that he can hold, and the drug addict is still full of morphine and cocaine. By precisely the same route the Nation's new law would deprive the reputable citizen of the arms he needs for protection, and hand them over to the rogues that he needs protection against.

Ten or fifteen years ago there was an epidemic of suicide by bichloride of mercury tablets. At once the uplifters proposed laws forbidding their sale, and such laws are now in force in many States, including New York. The consequences are classical. A New Yorker, desiring to lie in an antiseptic for household use, is deprived of the cheapest, most convenient and most effective. And the suicide rate in New York, as elsewhere, is still steadily rising.

This in from a WGEN subscriber I knew this type of information was available as Sarah Casada (WA) had sent a former employer of mine a birthday card one year and he about blew his top over it (she lost his vote because of this). Wanted to know HOW she knew it was his birthday and where she got that information from. She never did answer him completely just said it is public record and all politicians can purchase those lists if they want to. It takes time to compile these lists and sort them - or, at least it used to. Now it is faster than a speeding bullet with computers. So, if you thought for a moment that your personal information is *private* you better think again, because now days the only thing *private* is the word itself. All the more reason to find out where all the DOL has sold your personal information and who they have transferred it to. When you fill out those surveys, warranty cards, - how much are you giving away to others about yourself? So, don't get all excited when some politician sends your birthday greetings - they are only buying info about you so they can schmooze you to get you to keep them in office. Don't for a minute think they really care or for that matter even know they sent you something - it is most often a staffer who does such things. (Again, there are minor exceptions to this.)

[Editor] I am a Libertarian politician. I have the county voting records ($3.00). I know who is registered, their party, when they registered, their birthday and if they voted in each of the last six elections. I have the tax records(5.00 +$5.00 photo). I know who owns their home, when it was purchased, what the price was and what the value of the land, home and auxiliaries. I have an aerial photo of heir property. I know my bosses birthday, his wife’s birthday, when they bought their home, what they paid for it and what its current value is.

SAN FRANCISCO - At the end of an alley on a nondescript street, a political consulting firm with the unusual name of Aristotle International has compiled the nation's largest voter databank, the names of 150 million Americans registered to vote. And it is selling them to politicians like George W. Bush, Joseph I. Lieberman and John McCain in ways that many fear removes too much privacy from the voting booth.

Want to contact Democrats in your district between the ages of 45 and 55, who have Hispanic names, children, own their homes and annual incomes of more than $75,000? That's possible. What about sending a personalized letter to Republican women, in a specific precinct, older than 65 who have made campaign contributions and voted in at least three primaries? "No problem," according to Aristotle's advertising.

How about reaching the rich? Aristotle's "Fat Cat" list of wealthy donors can turn "your personal computer into a proven fund-raising machine" and "raise more money than you ever thought possible."

With promises like that, it is not surprising Aristotle, which was started in 1983 by two brothers with the same middle name, has a client list that reads like a political convention: 45 senators, more than 200 members of the House, 46 Republican and Democratic state parties, and most major presidential candidates this year except Al Gore, whose campaign said it would not hire any firm whose practices could jeopardize the public's privacy.

Of particular concern this election season, when electronic privacy has become a significant issue, is Aristotle's ability to help transmit "pop- up" campaign advertisements to specific voters using the Internet.

"They are one of the first companies to fully exploit the use of technology in the political system," said William Dal Col, a Republican strategist and manager of the New York Senate campaign of Rick A. Lazio, who is not an Aristotle client. "They found a niche and exploited it dramatically. They built a database and made it readily accessible. And they market, market, market it."

For nearly two decades, John Aristotle Phillips and Dean Aristotle Phillips have been collecting voter registration lists from states, towns and counties. While this information is public, it is not always easy to obtain - located on ledgers or computers in town halls, state office buildings or county courthouses, each with different hours and different rules of access.

As a result of the brothers' persistence, Aristotle now has the nation's largest repository of registered voters, including their names, addresses, telephone numbers, party affiliation and frequency of voting. Aristotle blends this data with information from other sources - the Internet and commercial vendors that sell personal data - to provide office- seekers with even more detailed voter profiles, including information about their cars, ethnicity, incomes, employers and up to 25 other factors.

In Wisconsin, for instance, where public voter lists do not include a person's party affiliation, Aristotle can make that information available. And any Congressional candidate can use Aristotle's software to find out if any donor has inadvertently given more than the $1,000 allowed. And Aristotle's databank can help place candidates' advertisements that pop up, as if by magic, on the computer screens of some voters. For campaigns pressed for time and worried about cash, such precise information is golden, enabling them to identify potential supporters and not waste money on the unswayable. In some ways, Aristotle's voter lists simply provide a modern version of the information that office-seekers have long used to get out the vote. "It's not the database; it's the data," said Steve Grubbs, a former official of Steve Forbes's presidential campaign. "If I want to talk to retirees in Alabama who are registered to vote, I'd go to Aristotle first. If I wanted soccer moms who are registered Republican, I'd go there. Lots of states don't keep their voter files very well. Aristotle does this a lot better than the government." But information that makes for good business or could be useful in politics concerns privacy advocates, especially when it begins to pull back the curtain of one of the most protected locations in America, the voting booth. Privacy advocates say this scrutiny of the electorate has brought a Big Brother aspect to politics; many fear that if citizens feel their privacy is being invaded by voting and donating to campaigns, they may stop going to the polls. Moreover, the combination of the information available on the Internet with voter lists creates a potent stew of data that voters may not even know exists. "We're concerned," said Ari Schwartz, an analyst at Center for Democracy and Technology, a Washington nonprofit group. "And we are especially concerned when we are talking about voting and citizenship, things that are so central to the election process." John Aristotle Phillips, the company's chief executive, declined to comment, citing a pending public offering of the company's stock. But he provided access to the company's offices and promotional literature. At the office, a rah-rah attitude was pervasive among a youthful staff. A hand-written sign offered a daily update of voters in the firm's databank: at the time, 150,811,187. Drawing on state motor vehicle registrations, the Postal Service and Census Bureau, among other sources, the Aristotle databank includes a person's age, sex, telephone number, party affiliation and estimated income, whether he or she rents or owns a home, has children, and has an ethnic surname. It also provides the make and model of voters' cars, whether they are campaign donors, their employer and occupation, and how often they vote. A dollar sign pops up next to the name of a voter identified as a "Fat Cat." "As more and more voting information becomes electronic, the ability to cross-match that information with other data and build a voter profile becomes easier," said Robert Arena, a Republican strategist and webmaster for Bob Dole's presidential campaign in 1996. "Some people are finding it disturbing." Equally, if not more, troubling to privacy advocates is Aristotle's recent foray into the advertisements that pop up when voters surf the Web. Since the advertisements appear only on the computer screens of potential supporters, they require an intimate knowledge of an individual's Web-surfing habits.

For instance, with the deadline for getting on the ballot for the Virginia primary only 10 days away, the McCain campaign hired Aristotle to send Internet advertisements to registered Virginia Republicans. When a potential voter went online, if he were a positive match with an Aristotle list, a McCain banner advertisement would appear inviting him to sign and circulate a McCain petition. "It was effective in getting McCain on the ballot," said Max Fose, the campaign's Internet manager. "We needed to pull out the stops." Aristotle charged about $5,000 for the project, Mr. Fose said.

In Aristotle's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission for its upcoming stock offering, it says it takes data only from public records and "standard commercially available" data sellers. It adds that its database "does not contain information of a confidential nature." Aristotle, which has not set a date for the offering, also said it did not use hidden tracking systems, or cookies, that could collect data on the Web behavior of those who see its clients' advertisements. Use of such devices, which track Web visits, has been criticized by privacy advocates and government regulators as a hidden intrusion into private behavior. Still, privacy concerns have caused two big Internet players to scuttle plans to enter ventures with Aristotle. In the last year, Microsoft and America Online backed away from proposals by Aristotle to mesh its voter data with information Internet users give to Microsoft and America Online when registering to go online. The venture would have made it easier for Aristotle to place Internet advertisements and would have provided the company with millions of e-mail addresses. In fact, America Online and Microsoft each recently enacted policies prohibiting combining data about voter registration with information collected from their users.

"There's a backlash when it comes to mixing this data," said Cyrus Krohn, director of political advertising for Microsoft. Aristotle is also raising eyebrows with its "California Gold Rush" and "Fat Cat" databases of campaign donors because it is illegal to sell Federal Election Commission data, which is available to the public free, for commercial purposes. But Ian Sturton, a commission spokesman, said, "If someone thinks there is a violation, they can file a complaint." No one has. Moreover, to protect itself, Aristotle requires all candidates using its services to sign a statement saying they will not use the information for illegal purposes. "Federal election data cannot be used for commercial purposes, but no one has ever challenged it," said Trevor Potter, a former federal election commissioner. "These are some fuzzy areas, and no one has really pushed the edges of it." When it comes to selling contributor lists, Aristotle's gushy advertisements either warm the hearts of politicians looking for cash or are examples to advocates of campaign finance reform of what is wrong with the system. The company's promotional material offers breathless come-ons: "Hit your opponent in the Wallet! Using Fat Cats, you can ferret out your adversary's contributors and slam them with a mail piece explaining why they shouldn't donate money to the other side. This technique is 100 percent legal and especially effective in rough primary battles. "You'll be amazed!" the material continues. "Upon viewing Fat Cats for the first time, even the most hardened political pros react with awe. Party bosses and seasoned politicians who think they `have seen it all' can't get enough of Fat Cats." Aristotle is looking for fat cats, too. The company, whose revenues doubled to $3.9 million last year from $1.7 million in 1997, has yet to turn a profit. High costs - including a hiring spree and heavy advertising - have caused Aristotle to rack up losses, $1.9 million for 1999 and $2.8 million for the first half of this year. Aristotle wants to sell stock to raise $20 million to $28 million. How would the money be used? According to its S.E.C. filings, to get more voter names and more information about them. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. [Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml