Latest GOA, E-mail... House Gun Vote And More

Franz

New member
Date:
Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:53:21 -0500
From:
Gun Owners of America <goamail@gunowners.org>
To:
goamail@gunowners.org


Good and Bad News on House Gun Vote
-- Gun rights activists lose symbolic vote by a squeaker

Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 http://www.gunowners.org


(Thursday, March 16, 2000) -- The House narrowly voted yesterday to
instruct House-Senate conferees to begin meeting on the anti-gun
juvenile bill within two weeks. If the committee does meet, it
would be their first session since August of last year.

That's the bad news. We lost the vote -- albeit by the slimmest of
margins. Considering the fact that there are 435 Representatives,
the 218 votes in favor of the motion was exactly the number of votes
needed to get a majority in the House. [NOTE: GOA should have this
vote posted on the web at http://www.gunowners.org/106hvote.htm by
this weekend.]

As for the good news, the motion that passed is non-binding. It can
be completely ignored by the conferees, and 218 votes is not much of
a mandate anyway. But that's not all. We also appear to be gaining
ground.


On The Offense

Our side picked up more than 20 votes from the last time this issue
was voted on. Last September, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) offered a
similar motion instructing the conferees to begin meeting. It
passed with 241 votes. Her motion yesterday only passed with 218
votes.

It would seem that the gun banners are losing ground and that you
guys are having an impact once again. GOA thanks you for your hard
work.


The Bigger Issue

Hours before the vote, a bipartisan group of Congressmen went to the
White House and publicly asked their colleagues to support the
juvenile crime legislation. Meanwhile, Clinton remained on the
attack, answering many of his critics by claiming that gun
prosecutions are actually up.

Whether they are or not, one should be worried about the
administration's desire to do so.

First of all, nobody doubts that violent crimes -- whether committed
by guns, knives or fists -- should be prosecuted. But they should
be prosecuted at the state level. That's the position of the
Constitution and the Founding Fathers. Real criminals need to be
taken off the streets by the local authorities.

The problem in this debate revolves around the question: Should
BATF agents also be encouraged to go after non-violent, very
technical offenders of the federal gun laws? When federal
prosecutors and agents go after gun crimes, they go after ALL gun
crimes -- even the paper offenses. A Project Exile style,
zero-tolerance approach for these types of gun crimes means that:

* Grandpas will get thrown in jail. Federal law prohibits the
exchange of a handgun from the resident of one state to the resident
of another state, without going through a firearms dealer. So what
happens when a grandpa innocently gives a handgun to his son or
grandson who lives in another state? Does grandpa really merit
zero-tolerance?

* Brave teachers like Joel Myrick of Mississippi can go to jail,
even after saving the lives of countless students. Myrick used his
gun in 1997 to stop a killer in his tracks. The gun was illegal,
however, since he was in possession of a firearm within 1,000 feet
of a school. Violation of that law would invite federal
jurisdiction and severe draconian penalties under Project Exile.

Already, prosecutors routinely abuse their power by going after
individuals who use guns in lawful self-defense. GOA is working to
pass the Citizen's Self-Defense Act for that very reason. Should we
now open the door for even more such abuses by federal prosecutors?

* We'll see more Wacos and Ruby Ridges. The tragedies in Waco,
Texas, and Ruby Ridge, Idaho, were all about enforcing the federal
gun laws. In the case of the former, it was alleged that the proper
paperwork had not been done and taxes had not been paid on certain
NFA weapons. In the latter case, a man was accused of selling two
shotguns that had barrels which were too short. Do we really want
zero-tolerance for these kinds of "criminals"?

* Even state legislators and cops will not be exempt from the
federal gun web. From coast to coast, out-of-control BATF agents
have shown themselves to be "equal opportunity" abusers.

In Alaska, GOA came to the assistance of Democratic state
legislator Rich Foster when the BATF tried to send him away to
prison for 50 years (and to fine him up to $1.25 million). For what
heinous crime? For building a replica machinegun -- the BATF had at
first OK'd it, but then later used it to arrest him in a sting
operation. A jury, outraged by the BATF's actions, acquitted
Foster.

In New Jersey, the BATF went after two Camden cops and
confiscated two of their private handguns, claiming they were too
easy to convert to fully-automatic fire. And in Pennsylvania, the
BATF's "machinegun" case against Sgt. James Corcoran was thrown out
after the judge learned that the BATF, not Corcoran, tampered with
his semi-automatic rifles, making some of them double fire. [By the
way, both of these cases can be viewed on GOF's video: Breaking the
Law in the Name of the Law: The BATF Story. It is available from
GOF at 1-888-886-GUNS (4867) or at http://www.gunowners.com/resource.htm on the web.]

The President is talking a lot these days about enforcing the
anti-gun laws on the books. That should scare us. GOA Executive
Director Larry Pratt responded to Clinton in a national op-ed
article this week. Pratt had this to say about the Clinton
administration's desire to go after so-called "gun crimes":

"Forcing people to be checked out by the government before they buy
a gun is not going to keep criminals from getting a gun. A gun ban
in England has not kept criminals from stocking up, so what makes us
think a Brady instant check in the U.S. will get any better
compliance than a ban in England?

"For that matter, the handgun bans in Chicago and Washington have
also led to skyrocketing crime rates. Imagine that, criminals on
both sides of the Atlantic behave the same. Disarm the victims, and
the criminals are more vicious than ever before. The problem is
not that Clinton has failed to enforce the unconstitutional gun laws
currently on the books. Let us hope he never does.

"The problem is that Clinton wants to take away guns from the
civilian population. Clinton is for victim disarmament. That is
the issue. Dead, disarmed victims. The issue should not be Project
Exile.

"Instead of Project Exile, let's have Project Repeal -- of existing
gun laws. Let's have Project Victim Rearmament. Gun control kills.
Guns save lives."


**************
Cheaper Than Dirt donates a percentage of your total order to GOA if
you use http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/goa.htm to enter their online
store.

**************
Did someone else forward this to you? To be certain of getting up to
date information, please consider subscribing to the GOA E-Mail
Alert Network directly. There is no cost or obligation, and the
volume of mail is quite low. To subscribe, simply send a message to
goamail@gunowners.org and include the state in which you live, in
either the subject or the body. To unsubscribe, reply to any alert
and ask to be removed.

------------------
Written on the Men's room wall, Outback Steakhouse, Tacoma, Washington,
If you voted for Clinton in the last election, you can't take a
dump here. Your asshole is in Washington, DC
> >
 
Get on the horn with your congress critters. Tell them to vote NO to juve justice unless ALL gun control is removed!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Back
Top