April2001

__________________________________________________________________________________________

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

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - The FBI shooting of a white separatist’s wife during the 1992 Ruby Ridge standoff was recounted in a federal courtroom Wednesday in a case that is testing whether federal agents are immune to state prosecution.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals didn't immediately indicate whether prosecutors would be allowed to try agent Lon T. Horiuchi on manslaughter charges for the death of Randy Weaver's wife, Vicki.

Wednesday's hearing stemmed from a request by Boundary County, Idaho, prosecutors, who argued in court papers that the shooting was done by a "wild-headed government sniper." The county asked the court to review its June decision that said the county couldn't prosecute the sharpshooter for "actions taken in pursuit of his duties as a federal law enforcement officer."

Attorney Ramsey Clark, arguing for the county, said the court must reverse that decision in a case defining "when government agents can kill with immunity."

Solicitor General Seth Waxman told the 11 judges that it didn't matter whether Vicki Weaver's death was the result of excessive force.

"These federal law enforcement officials are privileged to do what would otherwise be unlawful if done by a private citizen," Waxman told the panel during the hour-long hearing. "It's a fundamental function of our government."

Judge Alex Kozinski questioned Waxman's argument, saying: "If the Constitution does not provide limitations for federal agents' actions, then what does?"

Judge Susan Graber asked whether Horiuchi, who wasn't in the courtroom, knew the unarmed woman was in the line of fire when he shot at Weaver's cabin. "Reasonable people could differ whether Agent Horiuchi's actions were reasonable or not," she said.

Waxman said the facts are irrelevant, and that federal agents subject to various state laws could chill the government's ability even to guard the president.

During the weeklong standoff at northern Idaho's remote Ruby Ridge, Horiuchi shot and killed Weaver's wife and wounded family friend Kevin Harris. Witnesses have said the sharpshooter fired as Vicki Weaver held open the cabin door, her 10-month-old baby in her arms, to let Randy Weaver, their daughter and Harris in.

Horiuchi maintains he didn't see Vicki Weaver when he fired at Harris, who was armed and was ducking into the cabin as federal agents attempted to arrest Randy Weaver on a weapons trafficking charge. He also has said he fired to protect a government helicopter overhead.

The Justice Department this summer announced the settlement of the last remaining civil lawsuit stemming from the standoff. The government admitted no wrongdoing, but paid Harris $380,000 to drop his $10 million civil damage suit.

In 1995, the government paid Weaver and his three surviving children $3.1 million for the killing of Weaver's wife and their son, Samuel. The 14-year-old boy died in a shootout with federal marshals that ignited the siege. A deputy marshal was also killed. -

Wireless systems capable of tracking vehicles and people all over the planet are leaving businesses aglow with new possibilities, and some privacy advocates deeply concerned. .Companies seeking to tap the commercial potential of these technologies are installing wireless location systems in vehicles, hand-held computers, cell phones - even watchbands. Scientists have developed a chip that can be inserted beneath the skin so that a person's location can be pinpointed anywhere. .One early user of this technology is David Hancock, the owner of a small company in Dallas that installs automobile alarms. .He uses a wireless tracking service to monitor his fleet of six pickup trucks. The equipment alerted him recently when one of his trucks turned out to be in the parking lot of the Million Dollar Saloon, a strip club. ."When I signed up for this service, I told my guys, 'Big Brother's keeping an eye on you, and I'm Big Brother,'" Mr. Hancock said. "After I fired that one fellow, you bet they all believed me." .These technologies have become one of the fastest-growing areas of the wireless communications industry. The market for location-based services is estimated at nearly $600 million and is forecast to approach $5 billion within three years, according to IDC, a technology research company. A U.S. government effort to make it easier to pinpoint the location of people making emergency 911 calls from mobile phones will mean that by next year cell phones sold in the United States will be equipped with advanced wireless tracking technology. .Various plans include alerting cell phone users when they approach a nearby McDonald's restaurant, telling them which items are on sale, or sending updates to travelers about hotel vacancies or nearby restaurants with available tables. One Florida company wants to provide parents with wireless watchbands that they can use to keep track of their children. . But while the commercial prospects for wireless location technology may be intriguing, and the social benefits of better mobile 911 service are undisputed, privacy-rights advocates are worried.

"By allowing location-based services to proliferate, we're opening the door to a new realm of privacy abuses," said James Dempsey, senior staff counsel for the Center for Democracy and Technology, a Washington-based advocacy group. "What if your insurer finds out you're into rock climbing or late-night carousing in the red-light district? What if your employer knows you're being treated for AIDS at a local clinic? The potential is there for inferences to be drawn about you based on knowledge of your whereabouts.”. Satellite-based Global Positioning System technology has been commercially available for some time for airplanes, boats, cars and hikers, but companies have only recently begun manufacturing so-called GPS chips that can be embedded in wireless communications devices. The technology uses satellite signals to determine geographic coordinates that indicate where the person with the receiving device is situated. .Improvements in the technology have come about largely from the research initiatives of several start-up companies in the United States, Canada and Europe, and from large companies like International Business Machines Corp., which recently formed a "pervasive computing" division to focus on wireless technologies like location-based services. ."Location technology is a natural extension of e-business," said Michel Mayer, general manager for pervasive computing at IBM. "It's no surprise that a whole new ecology of small companies has been formed to focus on making it all more precise."

For example, Peter Zhou helped to create a chip called Digital Angel that could be implanted beneath human skin, enabling his company - Applied Digital Solutions of Palm Beach, Florida - to track the location of a person almost anywhere using a combination of satellites and radio technology. .After all, he reasoned, wouldn't the whereabouts of an Alzheimer's patient be important to relatives? Wouldn't the government want to keep track of paroled convicts? Wouldn't parents want to know where their children are at 10 p.m., or 11 p.m, or any hour of the day? A review of the commercial potential, though, revealed concern over the potential for privacy abuses. The device has been altered so it can be affixed to a watchband or a belt. The company plans to make it commercially available this year. .Some of the world's largest wireless carriers, like Verizon Wireless Inc., Vodafone PLC of Britain and NTT DoCoMo Inc. of Japan, are promoting location technology, in addition to dozens of small companies in the United States and Europe. .SignalSoft Corp., based in Boulder, Colorado, develops software that allows tourists or business travelers to use their mobile phones to obtain information on the closest restaurants or hotels, while Cell-Loc Inc., a Canadian company, is testing a wireless service in Austin, Texas, and in Calgary, Alberta, that, after determining a caller's location, delivers detailed driving directions. Webraska Mobile Technologies, a French company, plans to map every urban area in the world and allow these maps to be retrieved in real time on wireless devices.

Late last year, the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association, a Washington-based group that represents several hundred wireless companies, submitted a proposal for privacy guidelines for location-based wireless services to the Federal Communications Commission. .The proposal suggested that companies inform each customer about the collection and use of location-sensitive information; provide customers with the opportunity to consent to the collection of location information before it is used; ensure the security of any information collected; and provide uniform rules and privacy expectations so consumers are not confused when they travel in different regions or use different kinds of location-based services.

"People are justifiably concerned with the rapidity with which this technology is being deployed," said Albert Gidari, a lawyer with the Seattle firm of Perkins Coie, who advised the industry association on the creation of the proposal. "We need to assure them that there is no conspiracy to use this information in an underhanded way."

Today's champions of tyranny -- and the victim disarmament which is a necessary condition for the advancement of any enduring tyranny -- have been busy for some years attempting to demonize the term "militia."

What does "militia" actually mean? Richard Henry Lee, who drafted the Second Amendment as well as the rest of the Bill of Rights, gave us a definitive answer in 1788: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves. ... The Constitution ought to secure a genuine [militia] and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militias shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include ... all men capable of bearing arms. ..."

But mention "militia" in polite company today, and many folks -- having been fed regular doses of that carefully crafted propaganda -- automatically think of some small band of racist skinhead kooks in Montana or Idaho, embracing the laughable racism of "The Turner Diaries" and preaching some deviant doctrine of white supremacy.

Yet the arguments of these gun-grabbers quickly turn in on themselves, "as dogs upon their masters." They have long assured us -- despite the disagreement of such well-known left-wing legal scholars as Lawrence Tribe -- that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what is clearly says ("The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.") Why? Because those of us who would honor our Constitution and our duty to defend it supposedly ignore the introductory clause of the amendment, to wit: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State...”

Well, what's the plain meaning of this clause? Note the use of the word "free." A well-practiced citizen militia is not necessary to the security of a police state, since police states have droves of uniformed bully boys goose-stepping about in fancy black uniforms and willing to follow the Imperator's orders to arrest and imprison anyone who refuses to Get With the Program.

What the founders meant by that "militia" which must be maintained as our main source of armed men for national defense, if we are to remain a free country, are companies of citizens like the farmers and tradesmen who picked up their state-of-the-art rifles and swarmed to Saratoga in the fall of 1777 to ambush Gentleman Johnnie Burgoyne's foraging parties, eventually bringing the invading redcoats to battle and defeating them under the ad hoc leadership of one of America's great combat heroes, New Haven storekeeper-turned-soldier Benedict Arnold (yes, I know he later messed up.)

As Americans have a duty not merely to show up for jury duty but to understand their right and obligation to acquit any defendant on trial under an unconstitutional statute -- or any defendant who has clearly been refused his right to present a principled constitutional defense -- so do Americans have a strongly implied obligation under the Second Amendment to stand ready to defend our freedoms (remember, "necessary to the security of a free state") by owning, maintaining and keeping in good practice with a firearm of "militia usefulness" -- that being, in this day and age, an M-16 or (preferably, in my opinion) an M-14 combat rifle.

Now, there is a slight problem. The would-be tyrants on the Potomac have made it a federal crime for any American to build or import a military-style, select-fire M-14 or M-16 rifle for sale to a fellow citizen who does not wear a government uniform -- the exception being granted for members of precisely the kinds of "special militias" and "standing armies" which the founders feared.

This leaves only a limited supply of "pre-ban" M-14s and M-16s still circulating. The laws of supply and demand thus mean I'm going to pay more than $4,000 for my fully-automatic M-14 -- after I pay a $200 tax and submit myself to fingerprinting and other clearly unconstitutional indignities and "infringements" -- once I finally get enough saved up.

In the meantime, I'm the proud owner of a semi-automatic version of the military M-14 -- the civilian M-1A.

The M-16 (in the lighter .223 caliber) has a similarly more affordable semi-automatic civilian sister, the perfectly legal little AR-15 ... though fans of tyranny like Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein and Ted Kennedy naturally seek to ban these slightly less useful militia weapons at every turn, lying and calling them "assault rifles" (an assault rifle must be capable of fully-automatic fire; these are not) and by -- get this -- trying to link them to "dangerous militias" ... a word which originally defined precisely the kind of peaceful, armed citizens who might stand in the way of any scheme to deliver us over to a massive, cradle-to-grave, socialist welfare/police state!

Ever shirked your jury duty? Feel proud to know some fellow citizen may now be serving time because you couldn't be bothered to go stand as his last line of defense against a bad law or overzealous prosecution -- or, worse yet, because you followed some black-robed lawyer's "order" to convict, even though you couldn't for the life of you figure out who the defendant had hurt, and felt in your heart it was the overzealous cops, trampling our Bill of Rights to "build their case," who should really have been on trial?

What about your obligation to help maintain the militia, so "necessary to the security of a free state"? Have you bought into the absurdity that we "don't need militias any more; times have changed and the standing armies of the DEA and FBI and BATF and the National Guard" -- the guys who maintained and flew the helicopters that machine-gunned the babies and nursing mothers at Waco -- "can do the job just fine"?

Oh, (start ital)there's(end ital) a good excuse to spend the weekend on the couch, watching the game.

Be wary of any attempt to twist and poison and propagandize concepts and words which the founders considered vital to instruct us about our freedoms and the tools necessary to preserve them, turning them into "hate speech" terms of scorn and derision.

Citizens do indeed have a few duties in this country. Jury service is one. Owning a combat rifle is another. Have you shirked either of those duties, assuming "someone else will do it -- someone better trained. I can't be bothered, and besides -- what do I know?"

If you can't afford a $1,500 M-1A, a WWII surplus Garand can be found for $500 ... or a WWI surplus Enfield for $250.

So far as I know, all firearm sales at the Cashman Field gun shows in Las Vegas are now subjected to a federal background check -- the back door to national firearms registration and eventual confiscation. But Lou Fascio is running his big gun show at the Reno Hilton again April 6 through 8 -- no background checks or federal registration except those required by law for handguns sold by federally licensed gun dealers.

"When great changes occur in history, when great principles are involved, as a rule the majority are wrong. The minority are right." -- Eugene V. Debs (1855-1926)

"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 * * *

Park service employees could be arrested for violating property rights >By Tyler J. Baskfield, Daily Press Writer Friday, December 15, 2000

Some National Park Service employees could find themselves sitting in the Moffat County Jail if there isn't a change in the U.S. Department of Interior policy.

Moffat County Sheriff Buddy Grinstead said a recent correspondence between Dinosaur National Monument Superintendent Dennis Ditmanson and Dinosaur Monument private land inholder Tim Mantle was brought to his attention and immediately concerned him.

Mantle had requested information from Ditmanson regarding hunting and the discharging of firearms on his private land, which lies within the boarders of the monument.

Ditmanson told Mantle the rules enforced on monument property carry over to any private land inholding within the monument.

"The prohibition on hunting within the Monument is extended to private inholdings based on the demonstrated threat of risk or harm to the Federal lands or resources, i.e., the wildlife, as well as to visitors and staff caused by the discharge of firearms," Ditmanson stated in the letter.

Grinstead believes the National Park Service staff prohibiting Mantle from hunting or discharging a firearm on his private property is a direct infringement on his constitutional and private property rights. Rights that Grinstead took an oath to uphold.

"They are infringing upon the constitutional rights and private property rights of the citizens of Moffat County," Grinstead said. "We (the Moffat County Sheriff's Department) are responsible to protect the private land rights of Moffat County residents, and if someone trespasses or commits a criminal act we will respond appropriately."

ccording to Grinstead, this means that if the National Park Service were to enter the Mantle ranch without Mantle's permission to try to enforce the prohibition of hunting on his private land, their actions could result in charges or citations from the Moffat County Sheriff's Department.

In his letter, Ditmanson cites Part 36 of the code of Federal Regulations paragraph 2.2 (36CFR2.2). Grinstead views the regulation as unconstitutional and is in the process of drafting a letter to Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt and Ditmanson. Grinstead also believes the Federal Regulation infringes on second-amendment rights because the case deals with discharging a firearm on private property.

Ditmanson's letter also claims the Colorado Division of Wildlife (DOW) supports the private land prohibition.

"The Colorado Division of Wildlife cooperates with the United States in this prohibition. See the closures and use restrictions published in the annual hunting proclamation."

Grinstead claims the DOW regulations do not say anything about private property within a monument.

"National parks and national monuments are closed to hunting," DOW regulations state.

Grinstead is in the process of following up with DOW Director Russell George to clarify if the DOW does support the prohibition on Mantle's land. As far as Grinstead is concerned, he doesn't believe that the DOW would have any reason to keep Mantle from hunting on his private property.

"As long as he has all of the necessary tags and licenses, I don't see why the Division would have a problem with him hunting on his land," Grinstead said.

Mantle doesn't blame Ditmanson for the regulation, in fact he applauds Ditmanson for looking up the regulations and sending them to him.

"The monument people have been telling us for years that we cannot hunt or use firearms on the property," Mantle said. "I understand that comes from the top down. He (Ditmanson) had the courage and compassion to look up the regulations and send them to us and I appreciate that."

Mantle thinks the prohibition of firearms is a violation of his rights. He said that he has brought it up to the state and national congressional representatives, but Grinstead was the only official who would listen.

As a cattle rancher, being able to discharge a firearm is a right that his livelihood depends on, Mantle said. Whether it is the need to defend his livestock from predators or the extra income Mantle could make from allowing hunters on his property, the firearm prohibition is hurting Mantle financially.

"You can have a gun; you just can't have any bullets," Mantle said. "It's gun control. It's wrong that a private-property owner cannot produce what income is available to him on private property or be able to protect that property. This is damn sure a taking, and it is a pretty high-dollar taking."

Mantle said that, to the best of his knowledge, the monument staff usually doesn't come onto his land, but he said his ranch is constantly under surveillance.

antle plans to fight the regulation, but doesn't want to challenge it by purposely breaking it. He wants to battle by-the-book and fight the battle on the legislative front.

"Now it's up to our political people to reinstate our private property rights," Mantle said.

Grinstead also plans to pursue a legislative remedy. He has contacted Congressman Scott McInnis R-Colo., to gain his help in the situation.

"I think it's a dramatic overreaching by the National Park Service," McInnis said. "They have had their eye on the Mantle Ranch for a long time. There's no better way to get their hands on the property than by cutting off their income. I think your sheriff is absolutely correct on this one."

Grinstead vows to uphold Mantle's personal property rights until he is told otherwise.

"Let the park service manage federal land, and the sheriff be responsible for private land," Grinstead said.

The Million Mom March Foundation has laid off 30 of its 35 employees this month, if you can believe the New York Times. The reason? Two gun rights activists from California: Jim March & Nadja Adolf. This story just goes to show that all of you can have an impact on events, if you make the effort. In this case, these two "NRA gun nuts" brought down a large anti-gun propaganda machine by pursuing the truth and using the "open records" laws that many states (like Texas) have in place. They noticed from the MMM website that the location of the MMM headquarters was a local hospital, so they began to make inquiries to the hospital about MMM. What they uncovered was a virtually hidden operation occupying a 7,500 square foot space on the 3rd floor of a publicly owned building on the premises of a public hospital facility in San Francisco. Paying NO rent.

And they exposed what should be no real surprise: the liberal-left has become very adept at finding ways to finance their agenda campaigns with your tax dollars. It should be obvious to all that using taxpayer dollars to fund a private agenda is not only unjust and undemocratic--it is a crime. The question now is, will any heads roll for what has been going on, by best estimates, since 1994. If the lack of resolve of the Republican Congress these past 6 years is any guide, the answer is that no one will go to jail, because Republicans have proven to be very weak-willed at making consequences for illegal conduct STICK.

Regardless though, it is good to know that the MMM propaganda machine has been hit hard. However, five full time employees doing nothing but working for the prohibition of firearms should still give you pause, because even that kind of operation represents considerable expense. Peaceable Texans, by contrast, has never been able to afford even one full-time employee.

You may remember in 1995 when the NRA discovered federal grant money (from the CDC) was being illegally used to lobby for passage of the 1994 ban on semi-automatics? As it turns out, that grant money went to the same people running MMM. At that time, they were the "Trauma Foundation." Later, they created a separate entity called the "Bell Campaign." Still later, the Bell Campaign merged with the MMM Foundation. The April 1 issue of GunWeek reports how these two individuals found the location of MMM headquarters:

"We went all over the place, and nobody seemed to know where their office was," Adolf recalled. "Finally, there was this delivery guy we had ridden up and down the elevators with, and he said they were over in Building one on the third floor… It struck me as very strange." But the delivery man's directions led Adolf and March directly to the Trauma Foundation's rent-free office space. "So we head over there, jump in the elevator, hit the third floor button and nothing happens. We hit it again. No joy. So we get back out, look around and discover that to get to either of the two floors occupied by the Trauma Foundation you have to buzz an intercom and try to beg an audience." March was refused, but Adolf managed to gain access. When March asked about the necessity of the security measures, he was told by one of the MMM staffers: "We have security in place for a reason; there's all these NRA nuts running around."

For complete details from Jim & Nadja themselves (ain't the internet great?) go to:

Federal Judges are extremely important to your freedom. Why? Because, over the years, they have become the final arbiters of what the Constitution means. Back in the 1950's the American Bar Association (ABA) was given a veto power over judicial nominees--even though the Constitution gives the sole responsibility to selecting federal judges to the President. At the time, it was thought that the ABA would help weed out bad candidates and ensure a pool of the highest quality legal talent from which to draw our federal judges. That probably was true--back then. But over the years, the ABA has become a very partisan, politically vocal organization. The ABA has taken stands on controversial political issues including, you guessed it: Endorsing Gun Control. Needless to say, the ABA’s power over the process in deciding who can become a federal judge has been very bad for your gun rights. Press reports now reveal that the Bush administration is "considering" taking the ABA out of the loop. In essence, the ABA will have no more voice than any other organization that wants to oppose a judicial nomination. By taking political stands on divisive issues, the ABA has lost its prestige as an institution of integrity, and indeed many lawyers now refuse to join because of "official" ABA positions, (e.g., contending that the 2d Amendment does not mean what it says). We all need to jump on this bandwagon and try to make this happen! The mainstream news media and Chuck Schumer have already begun to criticize Bush for this. President Bush needs to know he has your support. Let him know!