The PROponent Peoples Rights Organization 5 E. Long St., Suite 412; Columbus, OH 43215; (614) 268-0122 Volume 5 September, 1993 Number 9 Catch 22! HIGH COURT SAYS YOU HAVE RIGHT TO A GUN BUT ONLY IF YOU DON'T OWN ONE... Remember the book and movie Catch 22? In that story there was this grunt who kept getting an appointment to see his superior officer but every time he would show up to see him, the officer would be gone. Later the officer explained that the man had a perfect right to talk to him ... anytime he wasn't there. He called it "Catch 22". Well the Ohio Supreme Court has just played "Catch 22" with gun owners in the Cleveland case. The high court affirmed in a 5-2 decision supporting the Cleveland semi-auto firearm ban that the Ohio Constitution gives you an individual fundamental Right to Keep and Bear Arms and to self-defense, but then by supporting the Cleveland ordinance, ruled that you have that right only so long as you choose never to exercise it. Catch 22! While the plaintiffs and the NRA are understandably putting the best face possible on the decision by stressing that the court upheld the rights written in the Ohio Constitution, nevertheless the court bought the argument put forth by Lee Fisher, the FOP, and the Handgun Control Federation of Cleveland. As you recall, that argument was any ordinance that impinges upon the Rights guaranteed in our State Constitution "is constitutional if it even arguably serves its stated purpose of protecting the heath, safety, welfare, and security of the citizens of Cleveland." [Ed. emphasis theirs] Wrote Chief Justice Andrew Douglas for the majority, "The ultimate objective of the legislation appears to be public safety." "To reach this end, the municipality is attempting to limit the accessibility of certain generally recognized dangerous firearms." "Legislative concern for public safety is not only a proper police power objective - it is a mandate." The court also noted that under the Ohio Constitution the Right to bear firearms was a "fundamental individual right" but that it also was not an absolute right. They ruled the Right to Bear Arms is subject to "reasonable regulation". The "reasonable regulation" of "fundamental individual rights" is a very slippery slope argument indeed. Where do you stop? Just how extreme can "reasonable" be. The court has answered that banning a whole major class of firearms is "reasonable". It is as if the court had said that you have the fundamental individual right to "due process" but that a law banning all civil litigation would be a "reasonable" reform of the justice system. Contrary to the "fire" in a crowded theater example, I would argue that fundamental Rights are absolute. Sure, felons and the mentally incompetent cannot bear arms, but it is not that the Right is regulated, it is that these persons have lost their civil right. Rights imply responsibilities. A demonstrated lack of responsibility can be cause for removal of one's Rights. Thus, falsely shouting "fire" or using a firearm to rob another may be cause for the loss of one's rights, but it in no way implies that you can turn that around and say that because of the irresponsibility of the few, the Rights of all must be "regulated". Thus, to require a "speaker's permit" to give a speech on certain topics, to require a "parade permit" to demonstrate for redress of grievances, (we are not talking here about blocking public streets) or a "firearm permit" to own a gun all imply that these "rights" are not rights at all, but privileges given on the basis of what government officials deem "reasonable". Do not be fooled by the words "Well Regulated Militia" in the Second Amendment. The meaning of words often changes with time. The key is not what people are trying to say the words mean now, but rather what they meant at the time they were written. The militia then, as now did not mean the standing army, the military, it meant all able-bodied citizens. Furthermore, "regulation" never referred to government regulations as those of us raised in the modern age of octopus government might imagine. No. In those days to "regulate" a firearm was to sight it in. Thus, a "well regulated militia" meant an armed group of citizens, trained in military discipline and skilled in marksmanship. Thus, the true meaning of the Second Amendment is: "Since a military organization composed of all able-bodied citizens, who are skilled in military discipline and marksmanship is necessary for the security of a free state, the right to own and carry the weapons of war and self- defense shall in no way be limited, restricted or prohibited." Strong Stuff! We are all aware of the case of Los Angeles California and those elsewhere where the right to own a gun was "reasonably regulated" by the requirement of obtaining a police permit and then the police "reasonably" choose to issue none. So Cleveland officials think that crime can be curbed by banning guns that can fire "large numbers of bullets without reloading." So they ban any semi-automatic firearm that "accepts a detachable magazine" with a high capacity. But wait, how high is high? 30? 20? 10? 4? Right now Cleveland says 20, but if later it's 4, then revolvers also can fire "large numbers" of bullets without reloading. Thus, it is "reasonable" to ban them as well. And what about cartridge power? It is certainly "reasonable" to ban all "high powered" cartridges. And so it goes until all firearms are "reasonably" banned as "assault weapons". And why not? Ohio Attorney General Lee Fisher has repeatedly said that "assault weapons have no legitimate purpose for self-defense." What Fisher does support can be seen by his attendance June 13 at the 2nd annual Stonewall Cleveland Pride dinner where he reportedly pledged to add sexual orientation as a protected category to the hate-crime laws he sponsored. [ed. The Stonewall Union is a large gay activist group] I suppose this makes sense to him since now that Rights no longer exist, we have to give back these protections as privileges, one group at a time, by legislation. That way you can leave out the groups you don't like ... like gun owners. Who is to blame for our loss in the court? I am going to point the finger squarely at every gun owner and sportsman who failed to vote against Lee Fisher when he ran for office. I am sure you remember the closest election ever in Ohio. All you non-voting ladies and gentlemen have in essence thrown your own rights away by your inaction. So while out in Colorado the state attorney general came down on the pro-gun side, here in Ohio the office was used to pressure the Court to slam gun owners. However, you can still redeem yourselves. Another election season is coming up and many strong pro-gun, pro-rights candidates need your help. If you find excuses, I can only say that you are going to love the public safety and security a police state provides ... if you live to see it. How bad is it? Its bad. I spoke to one of the Cleveland attorneys involved in the Cleveland Case. They told me that unlike the PRO case which raised Federal issues and thus, could have been taken forward after the decision to the Federal level, their case never raised them (although the Supreme court judges themselves did). The bottom line seems be that cities can regulate gun rights and until another case comes up, say about free speech, which is decided differently from this one, we can do nothing. CLEVELAND DECISION, THE DETAILS... Remember these names: Moyer, Sweeney, Wright, Resnick, and Chief Justice Andrew Douglas. Justices of the Supreme Court of Ohio are elected. Why we want you to remember their names will become obvious once we give you the details of what they said in the majority opinion upholding the Cleveland total semi-auto ban. First of all the majority opinion begins by presuming that the law enacted in Cleveland is automatically constitutional. They said, "In determining the constitutionality of an ordinance, we are mindful of the fundamental principle requiring courts to presume the constitutionality of lawfully enacted legislation." Given that presumption and even citing PRO's case they assert that the law "will not be invalidated unless the challenger establishes that it is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt." Pretty stiff conditions. Next the majority examined your Right to Keep and Bear Arms. As to whether the Second Amendment grants an individual a fundamental right to bear arms, they assert the question, "seemingly, been decided in the negative." citing a number of cases. Citing Presser v. Illinois (1886), the Ohio court opinion quoted the Supreme court decision saying, "that the right of the people to keep and bear arms 'is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than it shall not be infringed by Congress." You should understand that what the courts are saying here is more or less correct. The Bill of Rights "grants" no rights. It was merely a re-statement of pre-existing Rights. However, the majority opinion in the Cleveland case seems to be strongly implying that Rights not granted by the government don't exist. The Cleveland opinion then notes that the Second Amendment has been held by some courts and scholars to be a "collective" rather than an "individual" right. They do not take sides in this assertion but neither do they mention the U.S. Supreme Court Verdugo-Urquidez decision affirming that "Right of the people" has the same meaning as in the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights, namely an "individual" Right. Neither does the court intend to be bound by the Fourteenth Amendment which states: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States." The Ohio court simply dismisses this because the 14th Amendment has never been held to specifically apply to the 2nd Amendment. Simply put, they say Ohio is in no way bound to enforce the 2nd Amendment within its borders. After noting that the Second Amendment in the U.S. Constitution grants no rights they then declare that the Ohio Constitution is capable of granting broader Rights than the Federal Constitution. The court majority wishfully gives the opinion that the Right to keep and bear arms existing in the Ohio Constitution would be quite different if enacted today, but then grudgingly admits that they must decide the issue on how the law is rather than on how they wished it were! Examining the Ohio Constitution, the court observes that there is a right to self-defense but notes that Rights are not absolute but are rather all subject to limitation by government, be it the right to bear arms or the right to trial by jury (despite the fact the Ohio Constitution {art. I sec. 5} declares " the right of trial by jury shall be inviolate.") Therefore the court concludes that Ohioans have the right to keep and bear arms but also that rights can be limited by government. And what the court declares can limit any of your rights is commonly referred to as "police power". The court notes that municipalities are granted power to enact laws restricting individual or collective rights under certain conditions. In the past the court has ruled that municipalities cannot just pass police power laws at random but "must bear a real and substantial relation to the object sought to be obtained." But this court concluded, "Therefore, the test is one of reasonableness." Since the Cleveland ordinance stated, "that the function of this type of weapon [ed. semi-autos] is such that any use as a recreational weapon is far outweighed by the threat that the weapon will cause injury and death to human beings." and also said, "It is not the intent of the Council to place restrictions on the use of weapons which are primarily designed and intended for hunting, target practice, or other legitimate sports or recreational activities.", the high court concluded this was "reasonable". Note that the court does not care that the law actually does restrict the firearms it is purportedly intended not to restrict. The court also noted it does not have to rule on the wisdom of the law only it's "reasonableness". The majority opinion also dismisses the assertion that the Cleveland law interferes with participants in the Federal DCM program at Camp Perry. They said there was no interference, "since the people of Cleveland could practice marksmanship without those firearms that have been classified as "assault weapons." This is, of course, and argument heading dangerously close to the "realistic toy range" arguments of former Chicago city councilmen. In summary then the court concluded: A: the Second Amendment grants no right to keep and bear arms. B: Even if it did, it does not apply under the 14th Amendment to the citizens of Ohio. C: Citizens of Ohio do have the fundamental right to keep and bear arms under the Ohio Constitution. D: But municipal police powers supersede all Constitutional Rights provided that some argument can be concocted that makes the restrictions "reasonable". D. Furthermore, municipal "police power" can even restrict Federally mandated programs provided some substitute exists, such as practicing marksmanship with bent sticks. The dissension by justices Hoffman and Pfeifer to this slam-dunk of Ohio citizens by the court is also very interesting. The basic thrust of their argument is that "reasonableness" is not the true test of police power infringement of rights, rather "A 'strict scrutiny' test, i.e., whether the restriction is necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest, as opposed to the less demanding 'reasonable' or 'rational relationship' test, ought to be applied." In other words, the city must actually prove that the restrictions are necessary to public safety. It is very interesting that this is precisely the argument we made in the PRO lawsuit. It also shows what the outcome would have been had we taken those arguments to the Ohio Supreme Court: 2 for to 5 against. Let me just remind you one more time: Ohio Supreme Court Judges are elected. Moyer, Sweeney, Wright, Resnick, and Chief Justice Andrew Douglas just stole your Rights. As the Woodie Guthrie song goes, "some rob you with a sixgun and some with a fountain pen." JUST LIKE CARS... Perhaps you noticed the page we have included in the last issue from the NRA/ILA giving suggestions on how to write letters to the editor of your local newspaper. This is a very important activity for a number of reasons. First, Letters to the Editor is typically one of the most-read parts of the newspaper. Second, in many anti-gun newspapers this is the only place where information from our side ever appears. And third, the more discussion and debate we create on this issue the better for our side ... all the facts and research to date support the pro-gun position. Often your letter won't be printed, but if we all fire enough volleys a few decent letters will get through. And even if they don't print it, at least you can always get it printed here. So this editor having done his duty by answering a letter printed in June 4, Columbus Dispatch by a Mr. Nick Gatz who among other things repeated that old saw about how guns should be licensed just like cars, found out that the paper prints pro-gun rebuttal only if it isn't too good or they happen to be in the mood. Apparently they weren't in the mood. But nevertheless it gets printed here: Dear Editor: ... "The suggestion was made that if only the rules for cars were applied to guns we all would be safe. I tell you if the rules for guns were applied to cars, Mr. Gatz wouldn't tolerate it for a second. - You would be able to own a car and have it anywhere you wanted ... on your own property. - You could take your car somewhere only by transporting it in the back of a closed truck with the gas tank empty and the gas stored away from the car in a separate container. - Driving your car to any place that served alcoholic beverages would be a felony. - Only police and government agents would be allowed to freely drive a car, but only in the performance of official duties. - To buy (not drive) a car you would have to identify yourself and swear you were not a felon, drug addict or illegal alien. A record of the sale would be retained by the car dealer for government inspection forever. If the dealer went out of business all records would be required to be handed over to the government. - In many communities the ownership of cars with certain cosmetic features or the ability "to accept" a large capacity fuel tank would be totally banned and any cars already owned (or passing through town) having those features would be confiscated by the government and their owners arrested. - Lastly, in spite of these controls it seems criminals just keep stealing cars and running people down. In fact, for some reason automobile deaths keep increasing and are now astronomical compared to the days when everyone used to drive what and where they pleased." APRA... The American Pistol and Rifle Association has held a rendezvous for many years near Benton, Tennessee. At these gatherings, they have taught CPR, first aid, safe use of firearms, home security, and communications. Dr. John Grady, editor of the APRA News has announced the cancellation of the 1993 Rendezvous and National Freedom Conference. In their latest news letter Dr. Grady writes: "The APRA Rendezvous and National Freedom Conference, scheduled for Sept. 28th through October 1st, has been canceled. This decision was made after it became clearly evident that at least one BATF informant and possibly another agent had `infiltrated' the APRA organization for the purpose of setting up a `sting operation.' This attempted entrapment, if successful, could have resulted in the arrest and incarceration of Dr. Grady and others; a raid on the property where APRA is provided office space; or in the worst scenario, an assault on the APRA Rendezvous similar to the Waco massacre. We believe that plans may have been in the works to manufacture an incident and fabricate charges to justify a raid resulting in the arrest of several hundred gun owners `who were training with semi-automatic pistols and assault rifles.' And, in the process, the feds would undoubtedly confiscate the property which is provided for the use of APRA and the APRA Academy." "Regarding the infiltrator: We know that this man has been an informant for the BATF because we have copies of correspondence, documents, affidavits by federal agents, and court records dealing with the arrest and prosecution of an individual for `gun violations'--in which our `infiltrator' was the confidential informant on whose information the BATF search and subsequent prosecution were carried out." In a conversation with Dr. Grady, this editor was impressed with his sincerity and level-headedness. He is no "shepherd boy" crying wolf for attention. In the past, ATF agents have invaded gun shows; "respected" journalists have attempted to break gun laws by coercing gun owners to sell them firearms illegally, and now federal agents are accused of infiltrating a gathering of gun owners on a peaceful retreat with their families. Does Waco bring a worst case scenario to mind? DAVIS'... Since the inception of the Dublin gun ban, Davis' Guns has been losing money and customers due to the restrictions instituted by council member A.C. Strip. Gun buyers in Dublin must pay a $10 application fee, be photographed [to make sure Dublin authorities have a record of your sex and race] and wait seven days before completing a gun purchase. As a result of Strip's vendetta against the only gun store in Dublin, Davis Guns has moved to 150 W. Main St. in Plain City. "I've always wanted to expand... Plus, I really didn't have any sales," Sue Davis was quoted as saying in the July 13, Dispatch. She went on "Sales have increased, and we have seen quite a few people from Plain City and the Marysville area." Her new store will include fishing and archery equipment, as well as firearms. Unlike Dublin, the apparent current home town of Columbus City Councilman, John P. Kennedy, which ran Sue and her store out of town, She said, "Plain City has welcomed me ... I have found it to be an extremely friendly atmosphere." We wish Sue the best of luck in her new location. We also hope she does not drop her lawsuit against the City of Dublin. We do not feel City Governments should be allowed to get away with passing laws that allegedly illegally target a given business establishment or individual. ____________________________________________________________ "I've never believed that guns were an adequate and acceptable method for self-defense. They breed violence. The presence of a gun accentuates the possibility of violence ... Because when you display anything that resembles a weapon you force the other person to make a decision. That decision is either to retreat or to become more aggressive. But you forced that decision, you've challenged him and in doing that you have dramatically increased the potential for violence." David C. Eaton, past president of Colt Firearms. (Remarks made while making TV sales pitch for a "Pulsewave Myotron" electric shocking device.) [What happens to the normal brain once it's owner becomes CEO of a major firearms manufacturer?] ____________________________________________________________ THIRD ANNUAL PRO-NRA Peoples Rights Organization SPORTING CLAYS FUNDRAISER All shooters are welcome to attend this "fun" shoot. This year's Sporting Clay's program will include a ladies category. Competitor classifications will be: Beginners, Intermediate, and Advanced levels of ability. Trophies and Prizes will be awarded for the Sporting Clays event. Also, a Stillboard shoot (turkey shoot) sub-event will be held offering a cash jackpot. WHERE: Buckeye Valley Sporting Clays, 12360 Shellbeach Road, Thornville, Ohio 43076 (614) -467-2686 WHEN: October 17, 1993. Start at 10:00 am. HOW : For information please call PRO at (614) 268-0122 The program will consist of 50 targets with a fee of $15. Tips for Caddies are welcome. All net proceeds to benefit PRO. The Stillboard Shooters fee is $2 per event, shotshells will be provided for the Stillboard program only. Safety shall be observed at all times on both the Sporting Course and Stillboard Range. Please bring your own eye and ear protection. A modern clubhouse will be used for our staging area. You may bring a lunch, however, hot food will be provided at a nominal fee. PEOPLES RIGHTS ORGANIZATION, 5 EAST LONG STREET, SUITE 412 COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215 "Fighting for your rights" ____________________________________________________________ THE DRIVER'S LICENSE IDEA... [Your editor wrote the following letter to Joe Tartaro, editor of The New Gun Week in answer to some editorial comments Joe made regarding the idea of marking driver's licenses with an indicator of felony convictions. The letter, printed in the July 16, The New Gun Week has received rave reviews from a variety of activists in the pro-gun community. They believe as does your editor, that you can't be "a little bit pregnant" and your guns can't be "a little bit registered."] Open Letter to Joe Tartaro, Editor: "Some years ago when I woke up and joined the pro-gun movement, I was ignorant and green as grass when it came to politics and how government works. You and Alan Gottleib and others came to town with your Leadership Training Conference and you educated me and set me straight. I thank you for that, but now I wish to return the favor and set you straight. I refer to your editorial comments on the letter from Jim Kennedy proposing felon designations on Driver's licenses. You dismiss the idea because: 1. Motor vehicle laws vary from state to state. 2. Opposition from Civil Libertarian groups. 3. Some convicted felons don't drive. Let me answer these: 1. If congress can mandate the overthrow of our Constitutional Rights nationwide, they sure as hell can mandate a felony mark on licenses. This has nothing to do with vehicle laws anyway. 2. A felony conviction and being adjudged mentally incompetent are matters of public record. Public records being indicated on your license is not an invasion of privacy. 3. In Ohio and many other states non-drivers can get a State ID card which is essentially a non-driving driver's license. Most non-drivers have them because of the universal use of a driver's license for identification. But now having answered your objections let me improve upon this idea. Dave Buda, lawyer for the Peoples Rights Organization, came up with an idea some years ago which we have been promoting ever since. Dave noted that the requirements for gun ownership and being able to vote are identical. (As well they should be!) Therefore, you simply mark the driver's license with an indicator that the person can vote. This automatically means that they are not a convicted felon, mentally incompetent, or drug addicts. This has numerous benefits: A. The mark has a positive rather than negative connotation. B. Responsible gun sellers can do an "instant background check" even in the case of private sales. D. The picture ID can also be used when you vote to help reduce election fraud. E. Government computers can only contain a list of registered voters, NOT a list of gun owners. F. It forces government to get serious about doing background checks on those who vote to choose our government officials. G. It forces gun owners and sportsmen to register to vote if they want to buy a gun. Do you know the Golden Rule of firearm safety? Always keep your muzzle pointed in a safe direction! The "Brady" bill, instant background checks, FOID cards, and what have you all can give the authorities (legally or illegally) a list of gun owners. With the National Guard practicing house to house gun-grabbing in Somalia and FEMA holding exercises with local police practicing rounding up large numbers of persons from names on lists, I say any pretext for giving the government a list of gun owners is a loaded gun pointed at my head. It takes but one "Kristallnacht" for civilization to quickly fall apart. I quite frankly don't understand how the NRA and others keep supporting these schemes that take down a list of gun owner's names so that if something goes wrong a lot of people get hurt. The right way is to keep that muzzle pointed in a safe direction so that if by some fluke the gun does go off, the government only has a list of voters and nobody gets hurt." ____________________________________________________________ "The Mexican Government...has demanded us to deliver up our arms; which are essential to our defense, the rightful property of freemen, and formidable only to tyrannical governments." The Texas Declaration of Independence, 1836. ____________________________________________________________ AMY SALERNO... Amy Salerno, candidate for Columbus City Council was at the July PRO meeting kicking butt and taking names. This former OSU pistol instructor spared nobody ... even PRO members. Since Arlene Shoemaker has moved up to the County level, we have been once again left with only Jeanette Bradley as the lone pro-gun voice on Council. Jeanette reports that all our pals, the "insider" Democrats on Council won't even talk to her. They just decide what they want to do and pass it as "emergency" legislation with no readings, discussion or public awareness of what they did. Amy Salerno is sick of this. She is tired of "sweetheart" deals by City Council. She is tired of important legislation affecting the lives of thousands in various city neighborhoods being passed in "emergency" sessions to prevent any public discussion. She is tired of city council regarding tax money as "free" money with the attendant waste of vast amounts of dollars. She is tired of city government ignoring the will of the people as in the case of the convention center that was voted down four times and then they just built it anyway ... with your money, of course. She is tired of seeing this happen over and over again, with a new sports arena being the latest effort to use up some of those "unvoted funds." She is disgusted with plans for trash fees and vast increases in fees for other city services. You might think that with Amy Salerno's extensive involvement in real estate, the Short North, Victorian Village, Italian Village, and law (she is a practicing attorney) that she is just one more "boy" for the movers and shakers. Wrong. It seems she strongly believes that people living in the neighborhood should decide what is best for the neighborhood. Therefore, she strongly backed the residents in their fight against the Tuttle Mall. Big-time developers were not amused. They politely told her not to expect any campaign support from them. The meaning here is that you cannot expect a massive TV blitz in the campaign of Amy Salerno for City Council. If grassroots can't do it, it won't get done. This is why Amy told the PRO membership, "without your work, your vote, and your money, we can't win." She jumped on the case of those PRO members who complain about the "business as usual" at City Hall but who can't spare a few bucks, can't spare a Saturday morning to hand out campaign literature, or in some cases even bother to vote. Said Amy Salerno, Candidate for Columbus City Council, "If you sit on your apathy, I don't think you have the right to complain." TERESA LISTON... Municipal Judge Teresa Liston who PRO members helped elect to an unexpired term is now up for re-election to a full term. She spoke at the July PRO meeting outlining the progress we have made in our plans to introduce firearms education into the court system. I am happy to report that our major difficulties are the magnitude of the problem and the fact that we have never done classes like this before rather than the more usual political resistance. Judge Liston is very enthusiastic about our plan for firearms education of offenders. She is also in a position to do something about it. All the municipal court judges elect one of their number to oversee the entire court operation and Teresa Liston was elected to that position. With the Franklin County being the largest single court system in Ohio, we could not have a better situation to implement our classes. She agrees with us that there are serious problems with the justice system in America and one of those problems relates to the filling of jails with minor offenders while violent criminals tend to be squeezed out for lack of space. With an average of seven firearms safety violation cases a week in just her court alone, you can see what we mean. The answer here is not jail, but rather education. Judge Liston says everyday dummies come before her court who haven't a clue what gun safety is all about. The traditional answers of fines, firearm confiscation or even jail really don't solve the problem. It just creates other problems in other areas. Judge Liston sees no advantage in the Federal approach of confiscating firearms and having them destroyed to make sure neither the owner nor the taxpayers get any benefit from the sentence. The answer here is making education the condition for the return of a firearm. Tell the offender they can get their gun back, but only once they learn that you don't just throw a loaded revolver on the front seat of your car to drive to the range or fire it the air to celebrate the fourth of July. The re-election of Judge Liston is extremely important to continue our efforts to bring firearm education to the municipal court system. Remember that municipal judges are elected county-wide and city-wide, so that if you live in Franklin County or in the City of Columbus (even in the areas outside Franklin County) you can vote for Teresa Liston. Her continuation on the bench will allow her to make good on her offer to make her courtroom an experimental setting to test our educational ideas and even now our NRA instructors and lawyers have been working with her to figure out ways to both handle the volume of cases and the changes that would need to be made to convert the lessons to an offender's program. We know our progress in this area has been a little slow, but once you begin to grasp the magnitude of the problem of fixing the American system of justice you can see that this is not going to be so easy. But just because a job is big, doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. Firearms education is a job that must be done, because without it the only alternative is the one being proposed by many in government today: total [law-abiding] public disarmament.Progress has been slow, but very encouraging. Help us keep this program on track. DRIVER'S LICENSE OHIO BACKGROUND CHECK... Who is the most pro-gun guy in the Statehouse? No, it isn't a Republican. It is Mark A. Malone, (D-94) from South Point, Ohio. How pro-gun is he? He is more pro-gun than many PRO members. While many PRO members believe that the "bear" in the "Right to keep and bear arms" in the Second Amendment refers to any device you can carry, Mr. Malone believes that "bear" also includes anything that fits the trailer hitch on the back of your 4 wheel drive pickup. Now, that's pro-gun! But Mr. Malone just doesn't sit around telling everyone how pro-gun he is, he does something about it. This A+ rated legislator takes the initiative introducing legislation like the Uniformity Bill he sponsored. Lately he has been working with Gun Owners of America (GOA) to introduce the idea of marking felony convictions on Ohio Driver's licenses as an alternative to the massive registration scheme and waiting period bill introduced by Ray Miller. GOA reports in the July issue of The Gun Owners that they have teamed up with Mr. Malone and pro-gun police to help undermine the proposed waiting period (HB 99). GOA has supplied a model "Felon- only Check" bill to Mr. Malone who changed it slightly and plans to introduce it as an alternative to gun owner registration in Ohio. Under the Malone system the felon information would be "covert" because it would be encoded into a magnetic strip on the back of your driver's license. Rep. Malone says other states are already using magnetic strips on licenses. The key to gun owner privacy here is that the system is "local." With credit card magnetic stripes, the data (including your name) is telephoned to a central computer system. Under the Malone system, each gun store has a "reader" box that does not communicate with any central system. No chance of taking your name, no telephone delays, no chance of stopping gun sales by simply shutting down state "background check" computers and no convicted felons buying firearms at gun stores. Many police officers are also supportive of the Malone plan because (police cars also will have magnetic readers) it lets them know if they are dealing with a possible violent felon at a routine traffic stop. We know this sounds on the surface like an invasion of privacy, but as we have pointed out many times, felony convictions are public records. On the other hand, we don't think a person should be harassed forever because they made a mistake when they were young. For this reason we also strongly support the program which allows convicted felons to have their records expunged and their civil rights restored once they have proved they have become productive, law-abiding members of society. That these two things go together can be seen in the efforts of gun-grabbers to both register gun owners AND eliminate the restoration of Rights to felons who have changed their illegal ways. RUGER BACKS OFF...SLIGHTLY Remember how the big Mossberg gun lock controversy went? First old man Mossberg begins making public statements about how great his cable gun locks are and how laws should be passed making their use mandatory. Gun owners went ape and began grassroots pressure on Mossberg calling for a massive boycott of Mossberg products. Mossberg refused to back down. This caused gun owners to step up pressure particularly at the SHOT show where great controversy was generated about Mossberg and Ruger positions. It worked. Under the heat Mossberg began to turn. First their lawyer began taking back the Mossberg position and finally the company disavows the whole mandatory lock position. Score one win for both gun owners AND the Mossberg Co. Old man Ruger, however has proved to be a tougher cookie. He sniffed at SHOT show pressure. Later to show his contempt for his customers he went on television saying he had "no problem" with background checks, registration and waiting periods. His anti-gun positions caused last year's Gun Rights Policy Conference to pass a resolution boycotting all NEW Ruger products. But at last some cracks are starting to appear in the dike. Mr. Stephen L. Sanetti, General Council and VP for Sturm, Ruger & Co. wrote a very pro-gun letter to the editor blasting an editorial call for an assault weapon ban in the Connecticut Post. We now seem to be at the "lawyer explaining the company position" stage. Bill Ruger on the other hand continues to stonewall by giving unsatisfactory explanations of his previous anti-gun statements. PRO believes that continued grassroots pressure can turn Mr. Ruger around, just as it turned Mossberg around. Now is the time to keep it up. Bill Ruger needs to be made to understand that he can't have it both ways. He can't join a government push for "gun control" to keep those orders for silenced "special" forces weapons coming and expect to also keep his traditional civilian customers. We continue to ask Mr. Ruger to stand up for what he knows to be right and to join us. If he does that, we will then back him and his company to the hilt. ____________________________________________________________ "I interviewed one of the Davidians who admitted to me that he had shot several of the agents, and frankly, he had a very good defense. Because they shot at him first and he was simply shooting back at someone who had invaded his home and was shooting at him. Now, the law is that you don't have the right to resist the lawful execution of a warrant. The way to contest a warrant is in court. "But you don't have to submit yourself to being killed. In other words, if a warrant is being unlawfully executed by the use of excessive force, you or I or anybody else has a right to resist that unlawful force. If someone's trying to kill you, even under the excuse that they have a warrant, you have a right to defend yourself with deadly force, and to kill that person. That would have been that person's defense, and it would have been David's defense. "Conspiracy, on the other hand, makes everyone who's a member of a conspiracy equally responsible under the law for a criminal act. So that would have been the difficulty with Koresh. The government would have claimed that David Koresh either authorized or ordered [the others] to do his bidding. "That would have been difficult to prove also. Because contrary to the government picture of this, this wasn't a group of organized, militant religious fanatics. It was a group of highly religious people. But they certainly weren't very organized and there wasn't any kind of plan to kill all the agents. It happened that the ATF stormed that place with excessive force. Those on the inside with the ability to fight back, did." Dick Deguerin, David Koresh's lawyer; from an interview printed in the July 22-28 edition of the Houston Press, a local "alternative" news and entertainment newspaper. ____________________________________________________________ CS... We hate to keep harping on the events in Waco but there is just so much about that massacre that needs to be said. And some of it has been said. PRO's electronic information department has run across an electronic newsletter called the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor (MIA) and has placed it on the Blue Moon Bulletin Board. If you have access to a modem and computer we strongly recommend you download a copy and read the entire July 93 issue for yourself. While the MIA is explicitly Christian, conservative and free trade, that in no way diminishes the truth of the facts contained therein. And part of that truth is the horror of the use by our own government of military CS gas on women and particularly upon children and babies. President Clinton, Janet Reno, and the FBI/BATF spokesmen have called CS gas, "a harmless tear gas, an irritant, designed to cause mothers to grab their children and run out of the building." The statements convey the impression that ordinary CN tear gas (chloroacetophenone) was used. No. The gas actually used on the inhabitants of the Waco compound was CS, a much stronger military incapacitant. If you have ever been exposed to concentrated CS in military training, in law enforcement or otherwise, you know the President's and Reno's statements are pure bull-spin. CS gas (O-chlorobenzylidene malonitrile) is nasty stuff. CS is about 80 times stronger that CN. It was used in Viet Nam to flush VC from tunnels. It causes dizziness, disorientation, shortness of breath, chest tightness, nausea, burning of the skin; even blistering in hot weather, intense tearing, temporary blindness, and from my own experience coughing and vomiting beyond belief. It is, in short, a battlefield incapacitating gas. (Actually, it is not a gas at all but rather a very fine powder. The powder is sometimes mixed with silica gel to improve the flow characteristics.) In fact, CS has been banned as a chemical warfare agent by the Chemical Weapons Convention in Paris which was signed by the U.S. and 130 other nations. You may remember, however, that its use was not banned for internal "police" matters. As Neal Knox pointed out, "CS gas is classified as an irritant only in very low concentrations. In higher concentrations such as in a building, it immobilizes by nausea, vomiting and vertigo." The manufacturer's printed warnings list the dangers of launching the gas into buildings or other closed areas. Amnesty International reports as many as 80 deaths worldwide from CS. It is true that many of us have been gassed with CS and are still alive and well, but we are adults. Said the (4/23/93) Washington Times "the CS would have most harshly affected the children in the compound. The reaction would have intensified for the children since the smaller you are, the sooner you would feel the response." Remember also, that the children had no gas masks since they were too small to wear them. Former SWAT commander Lt. Jim Gunn was quoted in the (3/10/93) The Houston Chronicle as saying, "CS gas can get into a child's lungs and cause congestion and kill them." It seems clear that had not all evidence been destroyed by the fire (and subsequent bulldozing), it is likely that in the end, CS would have been shown to have been a death gas for many of the children, especially the babies. Honest autopsies might still show this. As it was, CS was a contributing factor making it a death gas for adults. One survivor reported that the black smoke was so thick that within seconds he couldn't see where he was. People were trapped. The building was falling down. "The damn tanks had destroyed the structure and nobody knew where they were because the ceiling had just fallen in. Everyone was disoriented and blinded by the [CS] gas." Contrary to the FBI "experts" you may have seen on television, CS is highly flammable ... even explosive. It's flash point is 386 degrees F and is explosive in a concentration of about 1/1200 of an ounce per quart of air. It's possible contribution to the great fire cannot be denied. There is little doubt that the children were also specifically gassed. I quote a survivor of the fire who said, "and the FBI, the agents; They were running around and they were saying to each of us, they were saying,'where are the children.' 'Tell us where the children are.' 'You gotta live with this.' 'You gotta live with yourself.' 'Tell us where the children are.'" "And I'm looking up at him, at the agent screaming this, I'm going, 'Check the bus.' 'Go in the bus now.' 'Go check the underground bus, you know all about it.' 'Go look in there.'" "And I heard one of them say, 'We tear gassed the bus.'..." Isn't it incredible that a chemical agent which our country has agreed not to use against the soldiers of Saddam Hussein is freely pumped into a bus filled with unprotected children. But government officials protested that they had to do it "for the sake of the children." And media distortions and official lies have worked well. Polls show that 80% of the American people think the government handled the Waco situation properly. Jack Wheeler, a contributing editor to the Strategic Investment Newsletter summed it up saying, "To hear how over 20 children endured a nightmare of torture by CS gas and then see the Attorney General praised in Congress and hear the President ruthlessly dismiss their deaths in a tone of voice as devoid of humanity as Lenin's, has for the first time in my life made me ashamed of being an American." ____________________________________________________________ "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction." Ronald Reagan ____________________________________________________________ WE GOOFED... In our last issue, we stated that Senator Eugene Watts was opposed to the Dove Bill. Shortly after mailing the August newsletter, Sen Watts office called and stated that the Senator did not oppose the Dove Bill. They also liked the article "Two Down." Senator Watts is in the running for soon-to-be-departed Howard Metzenbaum's seat in Washington. Senator Watts is the most viable candidate in the 1994 Senate race. We would urge you to give your whole hearted support to his campaign. Also, in the last issue of the PROponent we referred to a swimming pool shooting by newspaper columnist Mike Royko. We meant to say anti-gun columnist Carl Rowan, who was involved in the shooting. Actually, Chicago Tribune columnist Mike Royko who used to be an outspoken anti-gunner has become more and more pro-gun in the last year or so. In a recent article he noted that, "thickheaded as the gun lobby can be, they are right about one thing: The gangbangers, grocer killers and drug dealers aren't deterred by registration or cooling-off periods." Certainly not perfect ... but definitely much better. We apologize for these gaffs in your newsletter. SALERNO'S POSITION... [Editors: Amy Salerno, one of the republican candidates for city council, has written a position letter to PRO concerning firearms. PRO and many organizations find a written position statement from candidates seeking public office essential to gain substantial support from our membership. The reason is that after supporting and working for the election of various candidates, PRO members have seen them turn after the election and vote against their pre-election purported positions. Thus, all candidates should be aware that our PAC requires written position statements to gain our strong support. Candidates should also be warned that these written statements will also be used as a hammer should a position suddenly be reversed after a successful campaign. Just ask Governor Voinovich who according to some of his aides "had a problem" with "assault weapons" until the Ohio Constitution Defense Council threatened a campaign using the written "no new gun laws" pledge that got him elected.] Dear PRO, As a Columbus City Council candidate and a concerned citizen, I am distressed by the loss of the Ohio Gun Collectors Association shows, which met in Columbus six times a year. The loss of the OGCA shows have cost our city $16-24 million in revenue per year. This large economic loss is a direct result of the vote by a majority of our current Democratic City Council members. For the first time, Columbus is facing a huge deficit. The 1994 deficit will be $34 million and will continue to grow larger each year. In response to this, the City is looking at raising income taxes, cutting services and charging for emergency services. Retention of conventions, jobs and businesses should be their response. Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution of Ohio specifically says: "The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security..." I am opposed to legislation which unduly restricts the constitutionally protected right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms. I know that the technology exists to have "instant background checks" for firearm purchasers. Columbus should pursue the "instant check," rather than wasting taxpayers' money on useless firearms control measures, such as waiting periods and gun bans. Criminals, by definition, do not obey the laws. I also believe that the State of Ohio should have uniform laws regarding firearms ownership. Allowing different cities to pass their own firearms ownership laws only puts law-abiding citizens across Ohio at risk of unknowingly committing criminal acts as they travel from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Finally, I believe that those who commit crimes with firearms, not law-abiding gun owners, should be punished. I firmly believe that those who commit crimes with firearms should be dealt with harshly, including mandatory jail sentences which cannot be plea bargained away by the prosecutor. Our City needs people in office who are responsive to our needs and problems. Only you can make a change in government. Your support, help and vote is imperative. Please contact me at 461-4AMY with questions or concerns or to volunteer. If you sit on your apathy, you have no right to complain. Thank you for your consideration, Amy Salerno GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE - DOCTORS DO... [Dr. Edgar A. Suter, Chair of the Doctors for Integrity in Research & Public Policy, is a champion of the Second Amendment. He has written several papers and brochures castigating the American Medical Association on their stance against the Second Amendment. One brochure, "GUNS: Facts and Fallacies" is distributed at all of PRO's gun shows. On August 9, 1993, Dr. Suter wrote a letter to PRO concerning negligence of doctors in our country. We reprint his letter in it's entirety.] Dear PRO, The 1990 Harvard Medical practice study suggests that each year 100,000 to 150,000 people die from the negligence of doctors - doctors kill three to five times the number of people killed by guns - a bona fide - "public health emergency" about which the American Medical Association is suspiciously silent. Since there are about 600,000 doctors in the US, that means each year an average of one out of every four doctors kills a patient negligently. Over a thirty year career, this would mean the average doctor kills about 8 patients. Since there are about 200 million guns in the US and about 30,000 people die annually from gun assaults, suicides, and accidents combined, each year an American gun has a one in 6,666 chance of killing someone. This means that any doctor, any year, is about 1,700 times as likely to kill someone as any gun. The largest scale and the only methodologically un-flawed study of the protective uses of guns will soon be published. That study suggests that guns are used by good people 1.5 million times every year (about seven to ten times as frequently as by the police, safer than resisting assault by other means, safer than not resisting at all) to protect themselves, their families, their communities, and their property. This translates into lives saved, injuries prevented, medical costs saved, and property saved - these are the benefits overlooked by those mesmerized by the illusory promises of gun prohibition. Before medical societies gullibly parrot the polemics of prohibitionists, they should undertake a review of the risks and benefits of guns - the sine qua non of a meaningful risk-benefit ratio. A sober review of the risks of medical care would suggest that the American Medical Association, American College of Surgeons, and American Academy of Pediatrics ought to clean their own nests first. Respectfully, Edgar A. Suter, MD Chair, D.I.R.P.P [Editor's Note: Dr. Suter lives in California. His address, if you would like to express your opinion about his article, is: 5201 Norris Canyon Rd, Suite 140, San Ramon, CA, 94583.] BUYBACKS... A memorial fund has been established for Anthony M. James, an employee of National City Bank in Dayton, Ohio, who was shot and killed when three suspects were stealing his car. Two juveniles and one adult have been charged in the slaying and theft of James, a twenty year old bank employee. Co-workers at the bank began the memorial fund to give to Tony's family. Jeff Siler, executive vice-president at National City Bank said "Tony was a young guy who worked for us...a real young, bright, articulate fellow. Just about everybody in the National City office was in a state of shock." Siler eventually talked with National City bank president Fred Shantz. In their conversation Shantz asked "Why don't we give another $1,000 to the SCLC gun buyback?" National City Bank donated $1,000 in Tony's honor to hopefully take another 20 guns off of the street. National City had already donated $2,000 to the gun buyback campaign. SCLC is the Southern Christian Leadership Conference's Stop the Killing program. In it they offer $50 to people who turn in guns with no questions asked. Others that contributed to the buyback scheme were: Dayton Daily News $5,000 Children's Medical Center $5,000 Viacom Cablevision $200 Church's Fried Chicken $500 Dayton Police Department $15,000 United Way $5,000 McDonalds Restaurants Unspecified, but believed to exceed $1,000 National City Bank $3,000 PRO sympathizes with the family and friends of Tony James. We can understand the memorial fund for Tony and his family. We cannot understand the gun buyback program. They rarely get criminal guns off of the street, and when they do, they are destroyed. Thusly eliminating valuable police evidence. If any of the above companies and charities really want to make an impact on crime and murder they should hire the inner-city youth. Give them summer jobs. Help them to respect themselves so that they can respect others. The majority of firearms turned in were junk. Not even worth $50. Some even turned in BB guns and flare pistols. [Editor's Note: The above information was gathered from the July, 1993 newsletter from the Miami Valley Association for Responsible Legislation and three articles written in the Dayton Dailey News by reporters Edwina B. Clark, Derek Ali and Anna Cearley. PRO has also pulled all of it's accounts from National City Bank and urges you to do the same. We would also urge you to boycott or stop donating monies to the other companies and charity in the above list. You should send them a letter telling them why.] COPS... Peace Officer or Police Officer? Why is it that we all like peace officers but many of us are afraid of police officers and all are terrified of a police state? What's the difference between a peace officer and a police officer? Look in a dictionary. The word police comes from the same Latin root as politics. A police officer enforces the laws of the state. A peace officer keeps the peace. He enforces the two fundamental laws that make civilization possible. He fights encroachment and fraud. He protects us. A police officer does whatever politicians tell him, even if this means breaking the peace and encroaching in others. In short, countries that are free have peace officers, and countries that are unfree have police officers. [Editor's Note: The above definition came from an "Uncle Eric" book titled "Whatever Happened to Justice?", by Richard J. Maybury. It is available at the Columbus Public Library. "Uncle Eric" is a series of books and publications written for young people and adults alike. Each "Uncle Eric" book is consistent with the principles of our country's Founding Fathers. Other books in the series are: "Whatever Happened to Penny Candy?" and "Guidelines for Selecting Books Consistent With the Principles of America's Founders."] LIBERTY BELL... This issue of the PROponent contains an insert issue of the Liberty Bell. PRO is a member organization of the Ohio Constitution Defense Council and distributes this letter to keep our members informed of statewide issues. PRO encourages all our readers to make copies of the Liberty Bell and distribute them to all pro-gun and sporting clubs in our state. Clubs without the money to include this information in their newsletter should at least hang a copy on their clubhouse bulletin board. (The PROponent too!) All the "Rod and Gun" people who think they only want machine guns need to wake up and see these same people want to stop hunting and ban hunting guns too. GOODBYE COLUMBUS DISPATCH? There seems to be a nasty rumor circulating around town that the Wolfe family is thinking about selling off their newspaper. This is not good news. Believe it or not, in spite of our constant complaining, the Dispatch is actually a very conservative newspaper. Just ask any liberal. Sure the editors do their anti-gun duty by writing gun-grabbing editorials slamming the NRA and gun owners for being insensitive oafs, but except for copied wire service pieces, little of this finds it's way off the editorial page. One interested buyer is said to be the COX empire. If you think we have a flood of anti-gun propaganda in our town now, wait till these pro-fascist writers take over. Come on, Wolfe people, let's keep our small town institutions all in the family. NEW GUN SHOW SCHEDULE... The following is the revised 1993-1994 schedule for PRO Gun Shows. October 9, 10 November 26, 27, 28 December 18, 19 February, '94 5, 6 March, '94 5, 6 Notice particularly the changes in the March date and the change from January to December. ARMS AND THE WOMAN... In the August 14-20 issue of TV Guide, there is an article in the Grapevine section of the magazine. This article talks about Valerie Bertinelli and her 12 year marriage to rocker Eddie Van Halen. In it, Bertinelli talks about the only thing her and her husband argue about. Guns. Bertinelli spouts the HCI line when countering Van Halen's inducements to learn to shoot. She says "Eddie wants me to learn how to shoot, and I don't believe in it. Statistics say that people who own guns are more likely to be shot by their own weapons than by someone else's." Her husband's guns are locked in a safe and they have a 2-year-old son. This is as it should be because the safety of children should be our foremost consideration. However, safety has many facets some of which have obviously never been considered by Mrs. Van Halen. The HCI line is that everyone should passively submit to violence and willingly hand over to the aggressor without resistance whatever he wants, including your life. If she wishes to take the path of the saint, so be it, but she does not have the right to hand over the life of her child. Their son should thank God he has at least one parent who is not ready to sacrifice his life to their extreme beliefs. Suicides and accidents with your own gun may indeed be more numerous than murders by strangers. Banning guns won't ban suicides, but it will increase murders. _________________________________________________________________ The PROponent is published by: Peoples Rights Organization; 5 E. Long St., Suite 412; Columbus, OH 43215; Tel (614) 268-0122 Fax (614) 275-0092 EMAIL: 73427.1615@compuserve.com Richard Hale, Chairman; Ron Herman, Vice Chairman Dennis Walker, Secretary; Bill Johnson, Treasurer Editors: Dennis Walker and Frank Jacoby Contributions, either written or financial are gladly accepted. Anyone wishing to reprint all or part of an article from the PROponent may do so. Please mention the PROponent and the issue that the article was in, and send a copy of your publication to our PRO office. (We like to know what your organization is doing too.) Also, PRO will exchange newsletters with any pro-gun, pro-rights, pro-hunting, etc. group to further grass-roots communication. Put us on your newsletter mailing list and we will put your club on ours. PRO general meetings are held the third tuesday of every month at Veterans Memorial Auditorium, W. Broad St. Columbus, Ohio. _________________________________________________________________