ARMED-M

__________________________________________________________________________________________

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

===============================================================================

Feb. 2003 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 -----

===============================================================================

Elderly man on walker fatally shoots robber     Savannah Morning News

"When 74-year-old J.C. Adams saw three would-be robbers walk into his convenience store, he grabbed his shotgun with one hand and balanced himself on his walker with the other... He pushed the walker to the front of the store and confronted the armed suspects, firing a blast that killed one man and wounded the other." (01/11/03) http://www.savannahnow.com/stories/011103/LOCElderlyCrimestopper.shtml

Drugs and violence and the ONDCP     Town Hall     by Rich Lowry

"ONDCP, showing some residual good taste, spares viewers the splattered brains, but we are supposed to learn that smoking pot will kill you. ... get you raped or make you a rapist, prompt you to run over children on bikes, and otherwise transform you into a rampaging beast. Thus is the sensationalistic dishonesty of the War on Drugs broadcast for all to see.... No kid will be dissuaded by these ads from trying marijuana, since the ads are so at odds with nearly everyone's experience with the drug. But ONDCP can't produce more tempered and truthful ads about pot -- because it simply isn't that scary." (01/13/03)

Guns save lives     Backwoods Home Magazine     book review by John Silveira

"In case after case you read about real people: women who wake up in the middle of the night to find strangers on top of them while their children sleep in the next room, elderly who wind up in hand-to-hand combat with crack addicts, or store owners who find the business end of a gun jammed in their faces. And there is no John Wayne, there is no cop waiting in the wings to save them. And all would have been lost, except for the moment when the citizen -- make that average citizen -- grabs a personal firearm, and in a turning-of-the-tables that rarely happens in the movies, he or she pulls the trigger and sends the miscreant on a well-deserved, one-way trip straight to hell." (01/03)

Nick and Norm: How The Drug War Commercial Should Read     Sierra Times     by J.J. Johnson

"With the onslaught of television commercials now running on the airwaves staring 'Nick and Norm' at the dinner table, I wonder why no one has really challenged the notion that the 'war on drugs' causes terrorism. Yet it continues unchallenged. A script written to counter it might sound something like this ..." (01/09/03)

The Real Reason Americans Don't Trust   Democrats On Homeland Security  By Alan Gottlieb

  Still picking themselves off the floor and brushing off the dust from their   remarkable drubbing in the mid-term elections, Democrats - who, according to   tradition, should have made gains in Congress - lost ground, and still don't   understand why.

  The "why" is that as long as Americans know that Democrats stand against their    right of personal defense, they will not trust Democrats to truly embrace   homeland defense.

  The nation is in the midst of a very new and different kind of war; a war in   which Americans know that ultimately they must depend upon themselves for   protection. They understand that the threat from terrorists is no different   than the threat from street thugs.

  From experience, they know the government cannot protect them from murderers, rapists or armed robbers. They put little faith in Democrats who have labored   to prevent citizens from defending themselves against neighborhood criminals, while blocking efforts to defend against international criminals.

  It's the same Democrats who consistently vote against the personal firearms   defense rights of gun owners who also vote against common sense homeland   defense measures.

  Unmistakably and undeniably Democrats have lost touch with millions of   Americans, and their concerns about personal and national security. The issue   is no more clearly defined than by the traditional stand Democrats take on gun   ownership.

  Despite all attempts to appear as though they were ready to embrace the   concept of gun ownership as a legitimate, individual Constitutional right, Democrats never repudiated their long-standing anti-gun philosophy. America   noticed this, and spoke loudly at the polls. In the aftermath of the 9/11   attack, Democrats were not paying attention when Americans by the thousands, realizing perhaps for the first time in their lives that they were ultimately   responsible for their own safety, and that of their families, changed their   attitude about gun ownership. Many of those people bought guns when they never   before wanted to be around guns.

  In that same rush of rationalization, these Americans concluded that the same   Democrats who have shown such utter disregard for the right of personal   protection also have poor records of support for homeland defense.

  Democrats and their liberal think tank cheerleaders have also not grasped what   it was very simple for the average American to decipher. To the millions of   Americans from whom the Democrats have been drifting ever farther in the last   decade, the issue is freedom and the ability to protect not just individual   lives, but the life of a nation.

  The two concepts go hand in hand. Only Democrats and cultural elitists, who   have campaigned to limit gun rights while also working to weaken our military   and handcuff our police, remain on the far side of a widening social and   philosophical chasm that separates them from the rest of the population.

  Democrats evidently do not realize the simplicity in the choices they have   given us. Americans have been presented with two sharply different options.   They can elect Democrats who would strip them of their ability to defend their   homes against everyday thugs, while reducing the ability of our military to   defend the nation against world-class thugs and terrorist madmen, or they can   elect Republicans who at least seem to understand there are ten amendments in   the Bill of Rights, and that criminals eventually need to be dealt with.

  Laughably, Senators Tom Daschle and Hillary Rodham Clinton have gone on an   offensive about how the Bush Administration "hasn't done enough" to capture   Osama bin Laden. What would Democrats have done differently? Perhaps, instead   of just quietly sitting back and letting Reps. Jim McDermott and David Bonior   - both of whom, by no coincidence, never saw a gun control law they didn't   immediately embrace - jet off to Baghdad to badmouth the President, Democrats   might have sent their whole congressional delegation.

  Americans have made their choice, and they have decided to rally behind   leadership that understands and accepts the concept and responsibility of   self-protection, whether it is for the purpose of protecting your family or   your country.

  Somewhere along the line, Democrats conditioned themselves to ignore a simple   truth that has been re-discovered in the past year. America has always had   "Homeland Security." It's called The Second Amendment.

  Democrats went wrong in believing that if they preach unilateral disarmament, on an individual and perhaps national level, the people would flock to their   cause.

  Most Americans, however, view themselves as people, not sheep.

  Alan M. Gottlieb is chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep   and Bear Arms, and founder of the Second Amendment Foundation.

ALERT FROM JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP

February 22, 2003 ALERT:  Proposed Federal Law Relies On JPFO Argument!

Congressman Joe Wilson, R-S.C., has introduced a bill (H.R. 648) designed to bolster the legal standing of citizens who obtain firearms for defensive purposes.  Geoff Metcalf, columnist and talk host in San Francisco, describes the law in his piece on Newsmax.com (link below).

But guess what?  According to Mr. Metcalf's article, the bill includes a section of "Findings" -- and that section includes this language:

"(1) Police cannot protect, and are not legally liable for failing to protect, individual citizens, as evidenced by the following: (A) The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals, only the public in general. ..."

For over 10 years JPFO has been urging that citizens and legislators should make the most of the "gov't owes no duty to protect" argument to uphold our right to keep and bear arms.  Now, a U.S. Congressman is doing just that.

Jump on the bandwagon yourself!  If you don't yet have a copy of Dial 911 and Die, then just order one for yourself and one for your local congressman.   Help your congressman use this powerful tool to drive another wedge against "gun control" at the federal level.  Politically, there will never be a better time to educate your federal representatives and move them to protect our right to self-defense.

Geoff Metcalf's article about H.R. 648:

Maybe JPFO cannot take *all* the credit -- but what other organization has been consistently warning Americans that the government police owe no legal duty to protect individual citizens ... that you might just Dial 911 and Die?

Help us to keep the pressure on!  Do what you can to get this crucial message to as many people as possible.

From: "W.G.E.N." <idzrus@earthlink.net
Subject: 2A: Democrat Targets .50 Caliber Revolver for Nationwide Ban

There are those on the anti-gun side that would pass laws to prevent us from making a fist as only mean people make fists and fists can kill people.  Doing away with our ability to defend ourselves is the goal, regardless of the tool we might use to do so.  The goal is to disarm Americans - never forget that point.  Many of those who are demanding gun control are surrounded with body guards who carry guns - and some of those public figures also carry their own *protection* while denying the same right to the rest of us.

There is a difference between the Right To Bear Arms and The Rite To Bare Arms.
Jackie JunttiWGEN  idzrus@earthlink.net
 
Democrat Targets .50 Caliber Revolver for Nationwide Ban

By Michael L.  Betsch CNSNews.com Staff Writer February 17, 2003 (CNSNews.com) -

A well-known gun maker recently introduced a powerful new hunting revolver that is said to have no equal in terms of firepower.

But within days of introducing the Smith & Wesson 500 Magnum at an industry-wide trade show in Florida, an anti-gun Democrat promised to seek a nationwide ban on the product.

"It's hard for me to rationalize any particular need or purpose" for the 500 Magnum, said Rep.  Danny Davis (D-Ill.).  "I think guns are made to kill people.  That's my opinion."

Asked if he would seek a nationwide ban on the 500 Magnum, Davis replied, "Yes, indeed."

Billed as the "most powerful production revolver in the world today," S&W claims its new 500 Magnum cartridge produces nearly three times the muzzle energy of the .44 Magnum round, one of the most powerful sidearm cartridges available.

But Davis said the .50 caliber revolver, which weighs 72.5 ounces and has an overall length 15-inch has no purpose in society except to cause injury and death to humans, dismissing the manufacturer's claim that it is intended for hunting wild game.

He claimed handguns in general are specifically designed kill fellow human beings, whereas rifles and shotguns are typically relegated to hunting animals.

"You don't go out hunting deer with a revolver," Davis said.  "Those of us who live in big, urban centers have a different fear and a different take than some people who may live in different environments."

Davis believes the 500 Magnum has a greater potential for becoming a lethal inner-city status symbol than an effective hunting tool, at least in his congressional district.  He added that its high power combined with its concealability could make it the "weapon of choice" for urban gangs.

"If you live in a place like Chicago, and you know the amount of violence that is perpetrated by individuals who grow-up with the idea that having, handling and using a gun is a way-of-life in terms of establishing yourself on the streets or as part of the culture, then I'm afraid that many of these individuals will, in fact, acquire this weapon," Davis said.

"And, of course, the thing will be, 'I've got the most powerful piece on the block,'" he said.

Can a revolver be an assault weapon?

While Smith & Wesson's new five-round revolver is billed by the company as "the most powerful production revolver ever made," it's already being reclassified by some gun control advocates.

"If you've got something that masquerades as a handgun, but has the firepower of a major weapon, you're all at risk," said Illinois State House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie.  "This is not the Wild West.  It hasn't been for a long time."

Currie compared the 500 Magnum to "military-style assault weapons," although she had no information to base her claims on except for a "tip" received from a reporter.

"I'm not a weapons expert, but it sounded like pretty strong firepower to me," Currie said.
"The description I heard was that from a significant range you could fell a large bear."

She dismissed the notion that the 500 Magnum is a hunting revolver, but did equate it with mob violence.

"My concern is whether this kind of weaponry -- it is a handgun as I understand it -- in a crowded, urban area downtown street corners in the midst of people who are angry about something and developing the kind of range that means vandalism and mob action - whether this kind of weapon has any place," Currie said.

Like Davis, Currie said she would examine the prospects of making the sidearm illegal in the state.

"I'm going to look at the technology, as I say, and see if there is any way to specifically keep it from operating in the state of Illinois," Flynn said.  "We are also working on efforts to ban military-style assault weapons, and, perhaps there is something about this technology that makes it possible to amend that legislation to include firepower like this."

Anti-gun message said to be flawed Rifles are most commonly used for hunting, but many gun enthusiasts have also used smaller side arms for hunting, according to Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt, who corrected the claim by Davis that hunters don't use revolvers to shoot prey.

"He's quite ignorant because there are people who do," Pratt said.  "I do know for a fact that people take large caliber handguns with them to go hunting.  And, I have no doubt that if you were lucky enough to get close enough, you could take a deer down with a .44 Magnum, which until now, was the biggest gun around."

As far as Davis' contention that any would-be criminal could easily conceal the 500 Magnum, Pratt said, "Yeah, if you have a trench coat or something like that."

Asked if the 500 Magnum's predecessor, the .44 Magnum faced the same criticisms and threats by politicians upon its introduction in 1955, Pratt said the controversy over Smith and Wesson's latest offering appears to be a sign of the times.

"It was all sort of good clean fun when it was introduced, but we're 20 years further along the gun-hating sensitivity training," Pratt said.  "We're talking about the frame of mind that opposes concealed carry by private citizens."

LUBBOCK, Texas (AP) - A man was sentenced Friday to 2 1/2 years in prison for owning guns while under a protective order - a limitation on gun rights that an appeals court held was constitutionally acceptable.

The U.S. Supreme Court last June declined to hear arguments that Timothy Emerson should have been allowed to keep his guns under the Second Amendment right to ``keep and bear arms.''

Emerson was indicted after the restraining order was issued during his divorce in 1998. He owned several rifles and a handgun at the time.

A federal judge dismissed the charges, but the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the decision in 2001, ruling that an individual's right to bear arms could be restricted in some circumstances.

In Emerson's case and a similar one the Supreme Court also rejected, the Bush administration told the Supreme Court that the Second Amendment protects an individual as well as the collective right to gun ownership. That position reversed decades-old policy on the Second Amendment.

The administration, though, did not support Emerson's appeal, saying the Second Amendment right was still subject to reasonable restrictions.

The Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case sent it back to the district court, where Emerson was convicted in October.

Emerson's attorney, David Guinn, argued at trial his client shouldn't be punished for owning guns that were legal once his divorce was completed. He plans to appeal the sentence.

Emerson had faced a maximum of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

/The administration, though, did not support Emerson's appeal, saying the Second Amendment right was still subject to reasonable restrictions.

The Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case sent it back to the district court, where Emerson was convicted in October.

Emerson's attorney, David Guinn, argued at trial his client shouldn't be punished for owning guns that were legal once his divorce was completed. He plans to appeal the sentence.

Emerson had faced a maximum of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

Subject: 2A: Mandatory handgun registration bill

From Rush Holt, Congressman from New Jersey, comes this latest Nazi-esque bill to register all handguns... Wow! Just in time for us peons to "help" Big Brother fight the Perpetual War on Terrorism... 

Thanks to FriendOfThem, Eliot, for sending us this one. 

As Eliot so wonderfully stated in his message to us: "How would Mr. Holt understand the limits of power granted the federal government by the U.S. Constitution?  He probably received his education in American history from TV news talking hairdos.  Government schools no longer teach even their revisionist version in school.  No time for that.  In Jersey they have Leroy Jones the racist, America hater "poet"?  Maybe he could teach history.

This from Rush Holt of New Jersey. He is another Up East Socialist that does not understand the powers granted to the Federal Government by the people. THE ONLY POWER THE FEDS HAVE WITHIN THE STATES IS TO CONTROL INTERSTATE COMMERCE, PERIOD. This bill seeks to regulate individuals and their possessions by the Federal Government."

Actually, since firearms are federally regulated, and there is a Federal Firearms License (FFL) now required for people to buy and sell guns commercially, as well as for gunsmiths to repair and work on guns, the feds could easily argue that because of this, ALL firearms fall completely in the venue of interstate commerce.  But then they usually argue that about just about everything... they maintain they have the right to regulate medical marijuana, for example, that is grown in one state and sold or given to people in the same state... no interstate commerce there, but they insist they have federal jurisdiction all the same, and they'll arrest you and seize your property if you dare to defy this edict.

At any rate, if you want to contact Congressman Holt and attempt to educate him about such things as how the U.S. 1968 Federal Gun Law was obviously derived from the 1938 Nazi Gun Law, and how those stellar proponents of Holtish gun registration, Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot and other murderous tyrants were just like him in that they mandated the registration of all guns before they seized all the registered guns and disarmed their populaces so that genocide would be easy, and how gun control leads to tyranny and mass murder, be our guest. If you want to send him some educational links, here are a few suggestions: 

"The Six Things Americans Should Know About the Second Amendment":

The 1938 Nazi Gun Law: http://www.jpfo.org/NaziLawEnglish.htm

"Death by Gun Control": http://www.jpfo.org/deathgc.htm

"Diall 911 and Die!" http://www.jpfo.org/dial911anddie.htm

"Do Gun Prohibitionists Have a Mental Problem?" (written by a psychiatrist): http://www.jpfo.org/gpjack7.htm

"How Gun Control "Worked" in Jamaica": http://www.jpfo.org/jamaica.htm

You might also consider sharing this quote with Mr. Holt: "The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people; or of peaceable assemblies by them, for any purposes whatsoever, and in any number, whenever they may see occasion." -ST. GEORGE TUCKER'S BLACKSTONE (Thanks to the good folks at http://www.keepandbeararms.com for that one!)

Holt's alleged e-mail address: http://holt.house.gov/display2.cfm?id=1071&type=Home

Remember... be polite and try to be articulate.  There's nothing the anti-self-defense crowd like more than to have pro-self-defense people act like inarticulate, emotional, irrational, spit-slinging, epithet-tossing, ad-hominem-emoting, fraud-promoting, statistic-concocting, Belleisle-and-Brady-esque buffoons. 

Let's leave that kind of behavior to the anti-self-defense crowd exclusively, since it comes so naturally to them anyway.

108th CONGRESS 1st Session

H. R. 124 To provide for the mandatory licensing and registration of handguns.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES January 7, 2003

Mr. HOLT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To provide for the mandatory licensing and registration of handguns.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Handgun Licensing and Registration Act of 2003'.

SEC. 2. FEDERAL HANDGUN LICENSING AND REGISTRATION SYSTEM TO APPLY IN ANY STATE THAT DOES NOT HAVE A HANDGUN LICENSING AND REGISTRATION SYSTEM THAT MEETS CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 931. Licensing and registration of handguns

`(a)(1) The Attorney General shall establish a Federal system for the licensing and registration of all handguns owned, possessed, or controlled in the United States, which shall include a method for easily retrieving information sufficient to identify--

`(A) each resident of a State to which this subsection applies who owns, possesses, or controls a handgun; and `(B) the handgun.

`(2) It shall be unlawful for a person to own, possess, or control a handgun in a State to which this subsection applies unless the person--

`(A) is licensed to do so by the system established pursuant to paragraph (1); and `(B) has registered the handgun with a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency.

`(b) Subsection (a) shall not apply in a State if there is in effect a certification by the Attorney General that the State has in effect a system for the licensing and registration of handguns owned, possessed, or controlled in the State that--

`(1) includes a method for easily retrieving information sufficient to identify--

`(A) each resident of the State who owns, possesses, or controls a handgun in the State; and `(B) the handgun; and

`(2) at a minimum, imposes criminal penalties on any person who owns, possesses, or controls a handgun in the State, and who--

`(i) has not completed training in firearms safety; `(ii) is not licensed by the State to possess a handgun; or `(iii) has not registered the handgun with a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency.

`(c) A certification under subsection (b) with respect to a State shall have no force or effect on or after the date the Attorney General finds, after an opportunity for a hearing on the record, that the State does not have in effect the system described in subsection (b). `(d) The Attorney General shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out this section.'. (b) PENALTIES- Section 924(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following: `(7) Whoever knowingly violates section 931(a)(2) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not less than 15 years, or both. The court shall not suspend a sentence of imprisonment imposed under this paragraph or impose a probationary sentence under this paragraph.'. (c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections for such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following:

`931. Licensing and registration of handguns.'.

(d) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendments made by this section shall apply to conduct engaged in after the 2-year period that begins with the date of the enactment of this Act.