May2002

__________________________________________________________________________________________

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 Smith705@Juno.com. 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 -----

I have been having problems with ATT Internet service. They put a sieve on e-mail limiting address to twenty-five. I couldn’t just split the mailing list because by anti virus does not like sending repeat messages. I think I have it all fixed. I was deeply mistaken when I wrote this. I will be using juno who lets me do 50 at a time. Juno doesn’t give me opportunity to do to hide recipient so you will lose some of your privacy. Sorry about that

__________________________________________________________________________________________

"A slipping gear could let your M203 grenade launcher fire when you least expect it. That would make you quite unpopular in what's left of your unit" - Army's magazine of preventive maintenance.

Cluster bombing from B-52s is very, very accurate. The bombs always hit the ground.

Whoever said the pen is mightier than the sword obviously never encountered automatic weapons.

If God meant us to be in the Navy, we would have been born with gray, baggy skin.

Don't ever be the first, don't ever be the last, and don't ever volunteer for anything.

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

BUSH ADMINISTRATION STANCE ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT: IS THE GLASS HALF EMPTY OR HALF FULL?

The word roared through the Second-Amendment community earlier this week: Solicitor General Theodore Olson had written, in a brief to the Supreme Court, "The current position of the United Sates ... is that the Second Amendment more broadly protects the rights of individuals ... to possess and bear their own firearms."

It was the third time a prominent Bush administration member had taken a similar position. Attorney General John Ashcroft stated the same viewpoint in a letter to the NRA last year. Then in November Ashcroft wrote to federal prosecutors applauding a pro-gun decision in Emerson v. United States.

But above all, this alert is to urge all Second-Amendment advocates to (as Ronald Reagan said) "trust, but verify."

Without question, Bush administration officials have expressed better intentions toward gun owners than any administration from Richard Nixon onward. After the aggressive rights thievery of Bill and Hillary Clinton, the new policy statement is truly a relief.

The fact that this individual-rights position was stated in a brief to the Supreme Court is significant -- far more so than a statement made to a private organization, because of its potential impact on the court's decision and future government policy.

It's crucial to understand that Olson's statement is in no sense the law of the land. But to the degree that it influences court decisions or the decision of prosecutors to bring (or drop) cases, it could eventually be a godsend to peaceable people who run afoul of paperwork violations or face unjust charges for violating federal or state firearms laws. Precedent is a powerful force in U.S. law, and this policy could _eventually_ result in defense attorneys having new tools to defend their clients -- and defend the Second Amendment.

In the most optimistic case, the change of policy could even be the first domino in the toppling of anti-gun laws. As Eric Lichtblau observed in the _L.A. Times_

"Current state and federal laws subjecting law-abiding citizens to background checks, regulating concealed weapons and banning the purchase of certain guns, such as assault rifles, could all be vulnerable ..."

Attorney Richard W. Stevens, editor of JPFO's own _Bill of Rights Sentinel_ and co-author of _Death by "Gun Control"_, takes the optimistic position: "I say, hooray for the Justice Department and Ashcroft for moving in our direction, as Ashcroft promised. This position change can potentially affect court decisions nationwide." To those who say the administration hasn't done enough, Stevens adds, "If you don't cheer their moving in the right direction, then what will encourage them to keep moving our way? We criticize them for doing wrong, we praise them for doing right ...and use it to our advantage ... even if their 'right' isn't perfect."

Having declared the individual rights position, Olson went on to note in his brief that the right is "subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to crime."

This_ portion of the statement (consistent with Ashcroft's earlier caveats), suggests that the Justice Department will do nothing to challenge obnoxious background checks, waiting periods, magazine bans, concealed carry restrictions, registration or licensing laws, or restrictions on types of firearms owned.

"Reasonable" restrictions is language straight out of the gun- banners' PR handbook. Is there any restriction that a hoplophobe wouldn't find "reasonable"?

And who is "unfit" to possess a firearm? If this means only violent felons or the violently mentally ill, fine. But if it continues to mean that people with unpaid parking tickets or thirty-year-old misdemeanors are barred from purchasing or owning firearms, then peaceable people are still being denied their rights.

And which weapons are "particularly suited to crime"? A brick, a hammer, a screwdriver, or a rock can, in criminal hands, be "particularly suited to crime." According to the campaigns of various victim disarmers -- campaigns that have too often resulted in the passage of laws -- all of the following have been accused of being "particularly suited to crime":

In short, there is _no_ type of firearm that can't be regulated or banned by the government under the Olson standard.

Mssrs. Olson and Ashcroft have uttered hopeful words. But their "fine print" means that total government regulation remains possible. Actions speak louder than words, and we don't see the administration withdrawing its support from any of the unconstitutional laws, regulations, or abusive regulatory agencies that have been imposed upon Americans in the last 70 years.

There is one other aspect to the cheers of the Second-Amendment community that disheartens us. As professional songwriter Dan Starr wrote in an e-mail to JPFO , "Isn't it amazing that we are cheering the decision by the government to respect exactly what they pledged to uphold when they took office?"

In fact, the Second Amendment community has been cheering the administration for doing far _less_ than fulfill its pledge to uphold the Constitution. It has cheered "weasel words" not backed by any solid deeds.

After discussing the potential positive ramifications of the Bush policy, Richard Stevens concludes, "All of this takes a lot of time. Meanwhile, the DoJ's position shift gives us a powerful educational tool. We can say, 'Look, we have the two Emerson decisions and the U.S. Department of Justice saying that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. Sayonara, collective right theory -- enjoy eternity in the dust bin.'"

In other words, the new policy should not encourage us to relax, but to work even harder to explain and demand our rights -- to use the momentum created by this development to achieve much, much more than we have in the last painful decades.

Yes, we can cheer with relief that the people currently in the White House and the DoJ don't hate and demonize us as their predecessors did. But we must accept nothing less than the restoration of a true Bill of Rights culture in the United States -- beginning with an authentic respect, expressed in both words and actions, for the guardian amendment that protects the other nine.

To learn why there's a better alternative than politics for restoring the Bill of Rights, read "The Last of the BOHICANS" by Aaron Zelman and Claire Wolfe at http://www.jpfo.org/bohica.htm

While everyone's busy fighting little skirmishes, the armored column of the police state is rolling down the middle of the highway, almost unnoticed. If you want to see the big picture of why America and other English-speaking countries are losing freedom, read _The State vs. the People: The Rise of the American Police State_, by Claire Wolfe and Aaron Zelman. Order _The State vs the People_ for just $19.95 (shipping and handling included -- 10% more in Canada) and receive three "Gran'pa Jack" educational booklets: Gran'pa Jack #2: "Can you get a Fair Trial in America?,"Gran'pa Jack #3: "It's Common Sense to Use Our Bill of Rights," and Gran'pa Jack #5: "The United Nations is Killing Your Freedoms!" (a total $10.00 value, free when you order The State vs the People today. http://www.jpfo.org/tsvtp.htm )

If you want to understand the ultimate progression of "gun control," read _Death by "Gun Control"_: The Human Cost of Victim Disarmament by Aaron Zelman and Richard W. Stevens. It begins with "reasonable measures" to control the unruly; it ends in the death of a thousand cuts - and millions of disarmed citizens. Order _Death by "Gun Control"_ for just $16.95 (shipping and handling included -- 10% more in Canada) and receive Gran'pa Jack #6: "Will 'Gun Control' Make You Safer?," and Gran'pa Jack #7:"Do Gun Prohibitionists Have a Mental Problem?" (a total $6.00 value, free when you order Death by "Gun Control" today. ( http://www.jpfo.org/deathgc.htm )

"Gun control" survives as an idea because most Americans believe one single myth: "You don't need a gun because the police protect you from crime." To destroy "gun control," you need to effectively rebut that statement. To learn how to make the strongest possible argument for private ownership of firearms, read Richard W. Stevens' _Dial 911 and Die_. Just $11.95 postpaid from JPFO. ( http://www.jpfo.org/dial911anddie.htm )

LOWER YUAN FAMILY VILLAGE, China - When a feud between villagers here and a neighboring community turned violent, people didn't turn to police for help but took matters into their own hands.

Police, after all, are distrusted because of their tendency toward corruption, and local officials can be all too easily influenced by personal connections. Better, the villagers decided, to protect themselves. Pooling together $5,000 and working from their homes, farmers here manufactured about 40 shotguns and more than 100 hand grenades.

Officials here in central China's Jiangxi province seized the cache of weapons last spring and jailed the ringleaders. Villagers say officials confiscated the guns not only because they were illegal but because authorities worried the weapons might one day be aimed at the government. There had already been arguments over taxes. Would authorities be the next target?

"They were afraid we would turn against them," said Yuan Shenggen, a 75-year-old farmer and former soldier in the People's Liberation Army.

Gun ownership is virtually banned in China, but the country is awash in firearms. Last year, police seized 1.34 million guns and cracked more than 100,000 criminal cases involving guns and explosives, according to China's state-run press.

Scholars say firearms are helping drive the nation's violent crime rate, which is low by U.S. standards but rising. Between 1995 and 2000, reported robberies nearly doubled. Although the government does not provide comprehensive statistics on legal gun production, the number of firearms in society has soared in the past decade.

"Since the early 1990s, it has become a big, big problem," said He Jiahong, a law professor at People's University in Beijing who estimates firearms may have increased tenfold. "Today, we really don't know how many guns are in the hands of people."

Hundreds of villages make guns for profit and protection. Some weapons are smuggled from Hong Kong, Vietnam and Myanmar; others are made by rogue military factories, stolen from police or sold by security forces on the black market.

Zhang Jun, China's most infamous bank robber, was blamed for killing more than 20 people before he was executed last year. His arsenal of weapons included at least 13 shotguns obtained from a military doctor who bought them from a military factory in Hunan province.

Government control of armories is notoriously lax and the nation's police famously careless in their work. Last year, China's Public Security Bureau issued a directive reminding officers not to drink while armed.

Officials might have had Yang Zaisheng in mind. Yang, a policeman in southwest China's Guizhou province, collapsed in a drunken stupor one evening in a karaoke bar in 1999. When he awoke on a couch the next day, his pistol was gone.

In some of the country's poorer regions, such as Guizhou, homemade guns have proven a lucrative cottage industry. Industrious villagers can make copies of People's Liberation Army pistols for as little as $5 each and sell them for nearly $100 to neighboring counties and provinces. In the mid-1990s, police confiscated 8,772 guns - including six submachine guns and 18 cannons - from farmers in Guizhou's Songtao County.

Thirty-three people died and 210 were injured in gun battles in Songtao between 1992 and 1997, according to Southern Weekend, China's most aggressive newspaper. In neighboring Hunan province, villages used three homemade cannons in a 1996 battle that left four dead and 20 injured.

The lawlessness of some villages does not fit with the image the Communist Party projects overseas, but it is in line with the country's chaotic reality.

Under Mao Tse-tung, the party ran a totalitarian state sealed off from most of the world. After more than two decades of market reforms, the government has lost most of its control over daily life.

The party has responded to rising crime with crackdowns known as "Strike Hard," campaigns in which authorities arrest thousands of suspected criminals and courts swiftly sentence hundreds to death. Critics say such efforts exhaust local law enforcement officers and ignore deeper causes of crime, including economic dislocation, lack of faith in government and police corruption.

China passed its first comprehensive gun law in 1996, setting stiff penalties for offenses such as the illegal manufacturing of firearms. But enforcement hasn't been easy. Local officials often tolerate gun manufacturing because of the money it produces for poor economies.

"Generally speaking, the local officials will close at least one eye, so long as you don't make trouble there," said He, the Beijing law professor.

Yuan is a two-hour drive from Nanchang, the capital of Jiangxi province. The village lies along a rutted dirt road that crosses flooded wheat fields filled with grazing water buffalo and muddy haystacks. About 1,000 people live in the village, a carefully built grid of gray brick homes with matching tile roofs and attached pigsties.

Farmers grow sugar cane, cabbage, spinach and potatoes. Almost everyone is named Yuan. A family of six earns $480 to $600 a year.

Villagers say they made guns for protection against the rival Du family village, about four miles away. The feud began in 1996 when a Yuan villager crashed his bicycle into a Du villager and then beat him up.

Du villagers demanded $1,200 in compensation. Yuan villagers refused to pay more than hospital expenses.

Du villagers responded by ambushing Yuan farmers when they visited the market in nearby Small Harbor Township. When a Yuan girl traveled to the Du village to marry a boy there, Du villagers attacked her entourage.

"Ever since then, we realized we should develop some guns to protect our basic interests," said a Yuan villager, who did not give his name. "We would not even dare go to town."

Yuan farmers bought three shotguns on the black market, used them as models for manufacturing others and began building the arsenal. Villagers contributed various skills.

Jiangxi is famous for its firecracker industry. Yuan Deliu, an elderly farmer who made firecrackers in his house, manufactured more than 100 hand grenades to throw at Du villagers in case of attack. Two of the grenades exploded in 1997, killing Deliu in his home workshop.

Quality control was a problem. The barrels of some weapons were made with steel pipe, and many guns had a range of only 150 feet. So, just in case, villagers went out and bought two more shotguns, three high-powered rifles and 400 rounds of ammunition.

The farmers stored the weapons in the village's ancestral temple, a two-story, gray-brick building with a red tile roof that flares up at the edges like a ship's prow. Villagers spread word that they were heavily armed.

Last year, a Yuan farmer with a grudge against village officials informed police about the weapons cache, and the township government seized the guns. Three Yuan officials who had supervised the manufacturing were sentenced to prison terms ranging from four to six years.

Yuan villagers insist they had no choice but to arm themselves. Like many rural Chinese, they have little faith in police to resolve disputes fairly. They note the pervasive influence of personal connections in Chinese culture and the predilection of police for corruption.

"Everyone has some relationship with the police station," said Zhao Shengshu, who teaches Chinese and math in the village's elementary school.

"There are no officials in my family," added Huang Caizi, whose husband, "Tiger Cub" Yuan, is serving four years for his role in making guns. "If we had one, my husband wouldn't be in jail."

Surrounding communities were relieved when police disarmed the Yuan village. Farmers in nearby Seven House village had engaged Yuan villagers in mud fights over a disputed path. When they learned their opponents had guns, they, too, had retreated in fear.

The Yuan village's ability to fund and construct guns is, in some ways, a sign of China's increased prosperity and openness. Before market reforms allowed farmers to grow and sell what they wanted, peasants here were too poor and too busy to make weapons.