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 accessible from the Mensa web page. Almost all editions are on the web site. It takes about two minutes to download each of the sixty editions using dial up.
May 2004 I live 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 -----
Following is a rebuttal to the LA Times Story. Just goes to show you that the truth will come out if one is diligent!! San Antonio Express-News The malicious "License to Kill" press releases issued recently by the Violence Policy Center in Washington, D.C., misrepresent the truth about concealed-handgun-license- holders in Texas.
Analysts at the Violence Policy Center cite arrest statistics to argue falsely that the handgun program in Texas is a failure. However, an unbiased comparison of arrest rates of concealed-handgun-license-holders with arrest rates of all adults in Texas proves that the 214,000 Texans with the licenses, as a group, remain the exemplary citizens they were when they received their licenses. (The basic data for this comparison comes from the Texas Department of Public Safety and the U.S. Census Bureau. The arrest rates were calculated using average annual population figures and average number of annual active concealed-handgun licenses).
First, the center's implication that there should never be an arrest among the 214,000 concealed-handgun-license-holders in Texas is ludicrous. The arrest rate of clergy is not zero.
Second, the center does not differentiate between felony arrests and misdemeanor arrests. Of the 3,679 total arrests among concealed-handgun-license-holders in Texas for a four-year period from 1996 to 2000, 889 are felony arrests. The remaining 2,790 arrests involve less-serious misdemeanor charges.
Third, arrest does not mean guilt. Of the 474 felony arrests that have been resolved, fewer than half resulted in convictions.
Fourth, the data show that average annual arrests for all crimes among all adult males in Texas (9,508 per 100,000) is 14 times greater than the rate for concealed-handgun-license-holders (671 per 100,000). The violent-crime arrest rate of all adult men in Texas (306 per 100,000) is five times greater than the violent-crime arrest rate of concealed-handgun-license-holders (62).
Furthermore, since Jan. 1, 1996, a total of three concealed-handgun-license holders have been convicted of murder, attempted murder or manslaughter. Only at the Violence Policy Center do three convictions in four years add up to a "License to Kill."
Since 80.5 percent of concealed-handgun-license-holders in Texas are men, these comparisons are valid, and it is clear that the center's insinuations of a crime wave among this population are false and absurd. To the disappointment of the Violence Policy Center and other gun-control advocates, the Texas model for other states, such as Colorado, that is considering licensing concealed handguns. It proves that citizens who are screened by state and federal law enforcement and properly trained can be trusted to carry concealed handguns for their own protection and the protection of others.
Why does the Violence Policy Center continue its attack on Texas? The answer probably lies in an unwillingness to present the whole truth, not to mention a callous and dangerous disregard for the lives and safety of the people of Texas by extremists for whom gun control has become a religion.
Robert, I am forwarding some stats for your review:
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS A DOCTOR.
Alert your friends to this threat. We must ban doctors before this gets out of hand. As a public health measure I have withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear that the shock could cause people to seek medical attention.
Nicholas Garloff, Ombudsman SFRM
On Wednesday, February 4, New York City joined nearly 250 municipalities and 3 states in passing a resolution to resist the Patriot Act and other Ashcroft diktats that destroy individual rights.
With the vote of the New York city council, 43,455,388 US residents now live under governments that have sworn opposition to the Bush administration's abuses of free speech and association. These governments have declared that the US has no right to detain people without trial or counsel, or to deport them without charges or hearings. They've declared their opposition to secret, warrant less snooping expeditions in the name of the war on terrorism.
These "Civil Liberties Safe Zones" now include places as diverse as Chicago and Los Angeles, the state of Alaska, and the tiny town of Tonasket, Washington.
New York City is most significant, of course, not only because of its size, but because this resolution was passed only a few blocks from ground zero -- the gaping hole where once the World Trade Center stood. NYC has said, in effect, "Don’t use our tragedy as an excuse to create a nationwide tragedy."
The resolution was the work of local activists working under the inspiration of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee.
Everybody involved with this endeavor deserves the thanks and congratulations of all people who value freedom and who want to take America back from the power-mongers who are trying to turn our nation into a police state.
Now we'd like to see the city council really make NYC a "Civil Liberties Safe Zone" by repealing laws that violate the guardian of the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment. We won't hold our breath waiting for that to happen. But we can say that everything that raises Bill of Rights consciousness is a step in the right direction.
Read about NYC's resolution
Here's the text of NYC's resolution
A list of places where civil-rights protection resolutions have already been passed or are in the works.
And an article about one of the smallest, most conservative places to pass an anti-Patriot Act resolution.
Consider sending a copy of "Innocents Betrayed" to your friends in New York City to remind them of the one part of the Bill of Rights they still need to support.
Read The State vs. the People to see how close we really are to becoming a Soviet-style police state.
A revised House Bill 12 has been passed by the General Assembly, and Governor Taft has signed the measure. It goes into effect in 90 days. The Senate voted 25-8 and the House 69-24. The compromise bill includes a provision allowing the media access to records of license-holders.
This website has more details.
The final bill that was passed can also be downloaded (pdf).
January 21, 2004
Imagine yourself in this situation: You're returning from a holiday trip. The travel days are long and, like half the other drivers on the freeway, you're going faster than the speed limit. You're pulled over by state troopers.
Fair enough. But you've forgotten something. You're also carrying concealed sidearm. In your home state, that's perfectly legal. It's also legal in most of the states you're passing through. You've got a permit. You've done everything "right."
But in the state you're in now, merely carrying those loaded sidearm without ever using them in any act of aggression is a felony. The trooper drags you out of your vehicle and throws you into jail.
And even that isn't the full catastrophe. The state is Ohio. It not only has horrible antigun laws. Its police have been unsuccessfully trying to catch a freeway sniper. They haven't got a clue how to stop the evildoer. So there you are -- a tourist from New Hampshire who wasn't even in the state when the shootings took place, concerned about your own protection -- and the troopers decide to make an example of you.
They parade you and your "arsenal" before the media. They let the media photograph the *perfectly legal* "assault-style" rifle and ammo you had locked in the back of your vehicle (yes, it was perfectly legal even under Ohio law). They describe the collection of swords you were transporting -- never mentioning that one was a dull-edged souvenir Lord of the Rings sword you'd taken to show your young nieces at Christmastime. They allow the media to take a photo of your tired, bewildered, uncombed self that makes you look like everybody's worst idea of a "lone nut with guns."
Most strangely, they mutter about the "possible detonator" they found in your possession. You don't even know what they're talking about until a friend figures it out. A couple of years ago, the case broke on the keyless entry remote that opens the doors of your vehicle. Rather than pay $80 for a new remote, you put the electronics inside a different case -- and the police tell the whole nation that this innocent object is a "possible detonator."
It takes you two days to get out of jail and more than a week to get your vehicle back -- at which point you find your vehicle trashed, your Christmas presents opened, many of your perfectly legal possessions still missing (including the heirloom knife your now-dead grandfather gave you). Dozens of innocent items are gone.
The police have "disappeared" your laptop computer without even giving you a receipt. You can't find out why.
The police have confiscated *every single piece* of political literature you were carrying. None of that literature advocated violence. It just advocated less government. You can't find out why they took that, either.
The police have also kept all your firearms, even the ones that were legally possessed under Ohio law. You have no way of knowing whether you'll ever get them back.
And you now face up to three years in prison. And the permanent loss of your right to keep and bare arms. For an act that didn't hurt anybody -- except yourself.
This didn't happen to you, thank heaven. But it did happen to a great friend of liberty and a JPFO supporter, Jeffrey "Hunter" Jordan, on December 29, 2003.
We had a reason for saying "you" throughout this story. Many people who hear about Hunter's plight immediately snap, "It's his own fault. He shouldn't have broken the law!"
Well, yes and no.
First of all, Ohio's law against concealed carry of firearms is unconstitutional and the Supreme Court itself has said that no one is obligated to obey a law if the law doesn't obey the Constitution.[1]
But second and more important in this world where we have so many laws that even police and legislators can't know what's legal and what's not what happened to Hunter truly could have happened to anybody. We like to think that only other people screw up, that we have better sense, that we wouldn't make such a stupid combination of mistakes. It makes us feel better to say, "It couldn't happen to me."
But think about the last time you drove hundreds of miles on the freeway. Your foot may have gotten heavy. Your mind got tired. You certainly didn't know the technicalities of the law in every state you passed through. And you believe the Second Amendment means what it says: your right to carry arms "shall not be infringed."
And the law ... well, the law itself is an ever-changeable thing. Between the time Hunter was released from jail and the day he was allowed to get his vehicle, Ohio's governor signed a bill making licensed concealed carry perfectly legal for Ohio residents. Once the law goes into effect a simple reciprocity agreement with his home state of New Hampshire could make today's "felony" a perfectly legal and acceptable act tomorrow.
Should a man spend three years in prison for such an absurd "crime"? Of course not.
Maybe you or I would have been smarter than Hunter. We'd like to think so. But in moments when we're weak, tired, or preoccupied, we all make mistakes. We should pay for our mistakes, certainly.
But this is far, far too high a price.
Don't make excuses. If you want people to defend *your* freedoms, defend theirs.
Jeff "Hunter" Jordan will be arraigned in Ashland, Ohio, on February 2, and he could use your support, both moral and financial. If you're in or near Ashland, consider attending his arraignment, February 2, 11:30 a.m., at the Ashland County Common Pleas Court. (If you go, please remember that it will help Hunter's case for you to dress neatly and behave in a way that makes it clear gun owners are exemplary citizens.)
Wherever you are, please consider making a donation to Hunter's legal defense. Remember what Ben Franklin said: "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."
[1] Marbury vs Madison "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."
16th American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 177 late 2nd, section 256: "No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose, since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it."
'Canada is a pleasantly authoritarian country," Alan Borovoy, general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, said a few years ago. An example of what he means is Bill C-250, a repressive, anti-free-speech measure that is on the brink of becoming law in Canada. It would add "sexual orientation" to the Canadian hate propaganda law, thus making public criticism of homosexuality a crime.
It is sometimes called the "Bible as Hate Literature" bill, or simply "the chill bill." It could ban publicly expressed opposition to gay marriage or any other political goal of gay groups. The bill has a loophole for religious opposition to homosexuality, but few scholars think it will offer protection, given the strength of the gay lobby and the trend toward censorship in Canada. Law Prof. David Bernstein, in his new book You Can't Say That! wrote that "it has apparently become illegal in Canada to advocate traditional Christian opposition to homosexual sex." Or traditional Jewish or Muslim opposition, too.
Since Canada has no First Amendment, anti-bias laws generally trump free speech and freedom of religion. A recent flurry of cases has mostly gone against free expression. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission ruled that a newspaper ad listing biblical passages that oppose homosexuality was a human-rights offense. The commission ordered the paper and Hugh Owens, the man who placed the ad, to pay $1,500 each to three gay men who objected to it.
In another case, a British Columbia court upheld the one-month suspension, without pay, of a high school teacher who wrote letters to a local paper arguing that homosexuality is not a fixed orientation but a condition that can and should be treated. The teacher, Chris Kempling, was not accused of discrimination, merely of expressing thoughts that the state defines as improper.
That anti-free-speech principle, social conservatives argue, will become explicit national policy under C-250, with criminal penalties attached. Religious groups say it would become risky for them to teach certain biblical passages. If a student says something that irritates homosexuals in class, the student's parents might be held legally liable. Some Canadians worry that, for instance, discussions about gay men giving blood will be suppressed.
Robert Spitzer of Columbia University, a longtime supporter of gay rights and an important figure in the American Psychiatric Association, published a study finding that many gays can become heterosexual. Would that study be banned under C-250 as hate speech? And since C-250 does not mention homosexuality but focuses broadly on "sexual orientation," Canada's freewheeling judiciary may explicitly extend protection to many "sexual minorities." Pedophilia and sadism are among the conditions listed by the American Psychiatric Association under "sexual orientation."
Church foes? The churches seem to be the key target of C-250. One of Canada's gay senators denounced "ecclesiastical dictators" and wrote to a critic, "You people are sick. God should strike you dead." In 1998, lesbian lawyer Barbara Finlay of British Columbia said "the legal struggle for queer rights will one day be a struggle between freedom of religion versus sexual orientation."
It's starting to be defined just that way in other countries. In Sweden, sermons are explicitly covered by an anti-hate-speech law passed to protect homosexuals. The Swedish chancellor of justice said any reference to the Bible's stating that homosexuality is sinful might be a criminal offense, and a Pentecostal minister is already facing charges.
In Britain, police investigated Anglican Bishop Peter Forster of Chester after he told a local paper: "Some people who are primarily homosexual can reorientate themselves. I would encourage them to consider that as an option." Police sent a copy of his remarks to prosecutors, but the case was dropped. In Ireland last August, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties warned that clergy who circulated a Vatican statement opposing gay marriages could face prosecution under incitement-to-hatred legislation.
In the United States, the dominance of anti-bias laws and rules limiting free speech and free exercise of religion is clear on campuses, not so clear in the real world. Still, First Amendment arguments are losing ground to antidiscrimination laws in many areas, and once stalwart free-speech groups, like the American Civil Liberties Union, have mostly gone over to the other side.
An unlikely split has occurred. In the interest of fighting bias, liberal groups reliably promote laws that limit First Amendment principles. The best defenders of free speech and freedom of religion are no longer on the left. They are found on the right.
Hi, Bob.
As of April 8, Ohio has a "shall-issue" concealed carry law. I applied for my license Apr. 15 and am expecting a call from the Greene Co. Sheriff's office to come pick it up.
As a result, some businesses have posted a sign at the entrance prohibiting customers from entering if they are armed. Kroger is the largest such business to do so, so far. They have posted all Ohio stores.
To counter Kroger's action, and serve as a warning to other businesses, we are working on a boycott. We intend for it to be nationwide in any state that has Kroger stores.
We need some help: Could you pass this information to the 2A SIG e-mail list? Also, anyone is welcome to forward and cross-post to maximize distribution.
Here's a sample letter to the Kroger CEO, to be sent from outside Ohio:
(Return Address)
(date)
Mr. David Dillion
CEO, The Kroger Co.
1014 Vine St.
Cincinnati, OH 45202-1100
Dear Mr. Dillion:
I understand Kroger has "posted" its Ohio stores as off limits to law-abiding citizens carrying firearms in accordance with their state-issued licenses.
I am puzzled as to why you want to exclude law-abiding citizens, lawfully armed in accordance with state law, from your premises. They are not the people you should fear. Ohio has the strictest "shall issue" concealed firearm licensing law in the country. As conditions of licensing, all who hold Ohio licenses to carry concealed hand guns have passed criminal background checks and have undergone rigorous training in the safe handling and appropriate, lawful use of their firearms.
As long as ANY Kroger store in ANY state excludes lawfully armed customers, I will not shop Kroger here or in any state.
Sincerely
Dick
There was a time when the word "police" was not usually used as a noun. It was a verb that described what the people did to keep order in society. Today the people only police a campground, or some similar action.
The history of the changing meaning of police is a history of the transformation of America from a society of limited government serving the people to our present plight where the people serve the government.
Borrowing on the idea of the kinsman redeemer in the Bible, America - even for decades beyond the War for Independence relied on private prosecutors. Victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury that would investigate the matter and issue an indictment if it concluded that a crime should be charged.
Then the victim, or his representative (generally an attorney, but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men.
These are some of the findings from the research done by Roger Roots and published in the Seton Hall Constitutional Law Journal in an article entitled "Are Cops Constitutional?"
The term "prosecutor" meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person. The idea was that criminal acts were not against the state but against the victim. Since people did not belong to the state and were masters of government, crimes could not be committed against the state. (One notable exception to this would be the crime of treason.) A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was rarely seen even after the beginning of the Republic.
Under such a system of criminal justice, who would be the victim to accuse another of owning or carrying a gun? Such a concept of crime also makes it harder to abridge the rights to free speech, press, religion and assembly as well as the right to keep and bear arms. The recent assault on the First Amendment perpetrated by the federal government - enactment of the Campaign Finance Law to protect incumbents from groups informing voters of Congressional voting records would be nearly inconceivable in a system where crimes are limited to actual harm done to or threatened against another.
With such a view of justice, how would we have a War against Crime? The government would not be in a position, nor have the personnel, to prosecute such a war. No prosecutor, no police, and no consequent arrogance of power such as we see today.
Roots found that private prosecution meant that criminal cases were for the most part limited by the need of crime victims for vindication. Grand jurors often acted as the detectives of the period. In the early 1700's, grand jurors were sometimes called upon to make arrests in cases where suspects were armed and in large numbers. When a sheriff was unable to execute a warrant, he could call upon a posse of citizens to assist him.
"Formal criminal justice institutions dealt only with the most severe crimes. Misdemeanor offenses had to be dealt with by the private citizen on the private citizen's own terms. In other words, before the advent of professional policing, fewer crimes - and only the most serious crimes - were brought to the attention of the courts," Roots found.
Does that mean that much crime went not only unreported but also unpunished? On the contrary, visitors to the US such as Alexis de Toqueville found that there was little crime in the US and that criminals, while having little fear of a nearly non-existent government presence, had much to fear of the entire people. He marveled at how well such an undirected and non-professionalized system could work so well.
And the reason we changed was?
[Roger Roots was interviewed on Live Fire; the interview is archived on the web] copyright 2004 Larry Pratt - All Rights Reserved