Time: Thu Jun 12 16:09:06 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA21832;
Thu, 12 Jun 1997 12:57:54 -0700 (MST)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 15:48:34 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: CONGRESS 'GANGING UP' ON THE BILL OF RIGHTS. (fwd)
<snip>
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 19:29:27 -0500
>From: Robert's E-mail <rbo@intrcom.com>
>To: rbo@intrcom.com
>Subject: CONGRESS 'GANGING UP' ON THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
>
>This one lengthy and took some careful typing but,
>this writer is one of the best second amendment thinkers
>in the United States and should be read and passed along.
>He is a libertarian and is with the Cato Institute which,
>I believe,is a libertarian, economic think-tank.
>Any net friends out there with some input on how conceal
>carry weapon legislation went in your state legislature
>this year? Please, send me a short note on the outcome
>of the legislation and thank you.
>=========================================================
>
>THE GUN OWNERS LETTER
>VOLUME 16, NUMBER 3 * JUNE 20, 1997
>
>HATCH, FEINSTEIN BILL THREATENS GUN
>OWNERS.
>CONGRESS 'GANGING UP' ON THE BILL OF
>RIGHTS.
>
>BY DAVID KOPEL
>ASSOCIATE POLICY ANALYST
>CATO INSTITUTE
>
>Imagine the following scenarios:
>
>++ Every week a group of office workers bet
>money on NFL football games, in an office betting
>pool.
>
>++ A father and a mother take their teenage
>children target shooting every weekend one
>summer. The teenagers use their parents'
>handgun, under parental supervision. Although
>the teenagers are under continuous parental
>supervision, the teenagers do not possess and
>keep in their possession at all times a written
>note from their parents authorizing them to
>possess a handgun at the target range.
>
>++ Three adult men often go hunting together,
>and like to tinker with their rifles. One afternoon
>they put a folding stock on one of their rifles, to
>make it easier to carry in the field. Another day,
>they put a muzzle brake on the rifle, to make the
>follow-up shot more accurate.
>
>All of the above activities are already federal
>crimes. S.54 would substantially increase the
>penalty for all these crimes, by defining the
>persons who did any of these things as a
>"criminal street gang" engaged in a "pattern of
>criminal gang activity."
>
>Every one of the persons described in the above
>scenarios would be imprisoned for a minimum of
>10 years. All property associated with the crime
>(such as the hunting lodge, all of the guns, the
>cars that carried the guns, and the office
>computers which tracked the football betting)
>would be forfeited to the federal government.
>
>How can it be that a bill bearing the attractive
>title of "Federal Gang Violence Act" can impose
>many draconian, patently unjust penalties on
>persons who have nothing to do with gangs?
>The answer, oddly enough, is that every thing
>gangs do--such as sell controlled substances,
>kill rival gang members, and steal property--is
>already illegal under state and federal law.
>
>Because the enactment of legislation is often
>confused with genuine actions, enacting "anti-
>gang" legislation may have a strong political
>appeal--even when the criminal law has already
>covered everything that gangs do. When there
>are a few substantive laws which can be
>added(e.g., murder and drug dealing are already
>illegal), legislatures may be tempted to create
>what might be called "second order laws." That
>is, laws which take existing laws, arrange those
>existing into new combinations, and create new
>"crimes" out of the new combinations.
>
>For most part, S.54 is a second order law. It
>takes exiting federal criminal laws--many of them
>for very minor crimes--and creates new crimes--
>with severe penalties--built of the bricks of trivial
>crimes.
>
>In an era when hardly any Congressperson
>carefully reads and studies the text of every bill
>he or she is voting on, second order laws are
>especially dangerous. Because the impact of the
>bill depends heavily on the content of other laws,
>which are only briefly referenced, many
>legislators may not understand the implications
>of S.54's severe penalties.
>
>SO-CALLED "CRIMINAL STREET GANGS"
>
>The bill was introduced by Senators Orrin Hatch
>(R-UT) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), among
>others. Entitled the "Federal Gang Violence Act,"
>it should deal only with gang violence. But most
>of the crimes which are labeled as "gang" crimes
>are not violent crimes. The vast majority of the
>persons who are covered by the law are not gang
>members. And the bill addresses other subjects-
>-such as the possession of handguns by
>teenagers, or the wearing of body armor by
>anyone--which sometimes involve gangs, but
>which usually do not.
>
>A "criminal street gang" is defined in Section 3 of
>the bill as a "formal or informal," ongoing group,
>club, organization, or association, or association
>of 3 or more persons" who meet certain
>requirements.
>
>There is a difference between a genuine
>gang(such as the Crips)--which typically has
>dozens or thousands of members--and a mere
>group of friends. Three juvenile delinquents may
>spend a lot of time together, and even commit
>various crimes together, but they ae not a real
>gang. (The three are, of course, still criminals,
>and can be punished for violating whatever laws
>they violate.)
>
>The very broad definition of 'criminal street
>gang" makes it very easy for almost any
>association of there people, including almost any
>business, to be labeled a "criminal street gang,"
>providing that at least one person in the group
>commits two "predicate gang crimes" in a five-
>year period, and offenses are in some way
>"committed in connection with, or in furtherance
>of" the group.
>
>Most people who hear the phrase "predicate
>gang crimes" would think of drive-by shootings,
>fencing stolen property, first degree assault, and
>a few other major violent felonies. But S.54
>defines "predicate gang criimes" to include a
>vast number of minor or non-violent crimes,
>many of which are paperwork offenses, which
>real gang members--generally illiterate--would
>never commit.
>
>For example, one of the five sub-sections listing
>a "predicate gang crime" includes any federal
>firearms offense, any federal gambling offense,
>and defaming the dead. The entire federal Gun
>Control Act of thrown in as a predicate gang
>offense. Notably, the Gun Control act does not
>define any violent crimes. Rather, the act defines
>possession of a gun under various conditions as
>a crime, bans some guns, and establishes a
>complex regulatory system for licensed firearms
>dealers.
>
>To state the obvious, a federal licensed firearms
>dealer is not a "criminal street gang." He
>operates out of a storefront, not on a street. But
>the kinds of paperwork offenses, generally
>misdemeanors, which a store might commit are
>labeled "gang" crimes.
>
>Many other minor firearms offenses would be
>turned into "predicate gang crimes." For
>example:
>
>++ It is illegal ( and it would therefore be a
>"predicate gang offense") to put certain
>accessories, such as a folding stock or a
>bayonet lug, on an imported gun [18 U.S.C.
>922(r)].
>
>++ It is illegal to take your own children target
>shooting with a handgun unless the children
>carry a permission note from you at all times.
>Even if the children are carrying the note, it is
>illegal if they transport the unloaded handgun to
>a target range in a case, and they do not lock the
>case [18 U.S.C. 922(x)].
>
>++ It is illegal even to hold a gun in your hands if
>you were once convicted of a domestic violence
>misdemeanor, or if you have used drugs within
>the last several months [18 U.S.C. 922(g)].
>
>++ It is illegal to have a gun in your car for
>protection if your car comes within a thousand
>feet of a school. It is no defense to this crime to
>point out that your state's laws specifically
>authorize carrying a gun in a car for protection,
>and no permit is needed to so carry [Gun Free
>School Zones Act of 1996].
>
>Simply put, this clause amounts to a sub rosa
>repeal of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of
>1986. Enacted in response to copious testimony
>about abusive prosecution, the bill lowered the
>penalties for various paperwork offenses. This
>clause turns all those minor offenses into
>"predicate gang crimes" carrying a 10-year
>mandatory minimum.
>
>FIREARMS AND RICO:
>THE METZENBAUM LEGACY
>
>S.54 also revives legislation sponsored in 1988
>by then-Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D-OH)--
>one of the most energetic foes of the Second
>Amendment ever to serve in the U.S. Senate;
>turning every violation of the Gun Control Act
>(including a conspiracy to violate) into a RICO
>predicate offense.
>
>Of the many anti-gun provisions in this bill,
>section 6 is the most important. The RICO
>statute is one of the most powerful in the entire
>federal code. RICO prosecutors are granted
>enormous powers; forfeiture provisions are
>heavily weighted in favor of the government;
>sentences run up to 20 years. The attorney
>general is granted sweeping subpoena power to
>investigate potential RICO violations. And
>private plaintiffs are granted extensive rights to
>sue, to obtain broad injunctions, and to recover
>attorney fees.
>
>And S.54 turns even the tiniest violation of
>federal gun laws into a RICO predicate. S.54 is a
>dream-come-true for anti-gun lawyers determined
>to destroy firearms manufacturers, wholesalers,
>and retailers through litigation. Indeed, even
>individual gun owners could be sued by anti-gun
>groups.
>
>PROHIBITIONS RELATED TO FIREARMS
>
>Currently, federal law imposes an unworkable,
>inappropriate ban on the possession of
>handguns by minors [18 U.S.C. 922(x)]. The
>conditions under which minors should possess
>handguns ought properly to be set by each state,
>taking into account the conditions in each state.
>Rules that might make sense in Manhattan might
>be inappropriate for Montana.
>
>There are some exceptions allowing juveniles to
>possess handguns while ranching or farming, or
>engaged in lawful target shooting or hunting.
>But even then, the juvenile must have prior
>written permission from his or her parents, and
>must carry that permission at all times while in
>possession of the handgun.
>
>It would be a mistake to think that teenagers
>helping on their parents' ranches and farms are
>actually complying with this silly statute. On the
>ranch, they do not carry around prior written
>permission. Off the ranch they may carry a
>handgun in their pickup truck for protection
>while driving on isolated rural roads at night, as
>people in their family have for many generations.
>It is doubtful that most farmers and ranchers
>even know of the federal statute.
>
>Currently, fedreal law provides a penalty of up to
>one year for an adult who violates the statute,
>and no penalty for the juvenile. Section 7 of S.54
>imposes a mandatory sentence of at least one
>year on adults and on juveniles aged 14 or older.
>
>If there is something to be gained by sending
>teenage farmers, ranchers and their parents to
>federal prison for one year,it is hard to discern.
>If there is no intent to imprison farm and ranch
>children, then there is no jutification for a
>mandatory prison sentence.
>
>MORE PROSECUTORS AND MORE
>FEDERALIZATION
>
>S.54 is not the type of bill which could become a
>good bill through revised drafting. Simply put,
>S.54 addresses crime, the overwhelming majority
>of which have no place in the federal criminal
>law. To the extent that S.54 relates to legitimate
>federal powers, all things which it criminalizes
>are already federal crimes. S.54 therefore makes
>no legitimate contribution to the federal criminal
>code.
>
>The sponsors of this legislation [Senators Hatch,
>Feistein, etc.] might note that they are concerned
>about actual gang violence, and not about the
>myriad of non-violent crimes discussed in this
>testimony. But the sponsors' intent is no
>defense at all to the applicationof this bill as
>written; if enacted, the bill will be applied as
>written.
>
>It is plain beyond doubt that Congress never
>contemplated abortion protesters when enacting
>the RICO statutes. But prosecutors do not
>enforce according to the literal text of the law.
>And because of the literal text of the law, Sammy
>Weaver, and William F. Degan are dead as the
>result of a federal law which makes it a felony
>just to process--without any violent purpose--a
>shot-gun whose barrel is too short. Nicole
>Richardson is serving a 10-year federal prison
>term just for answering the phone and telling an
>undercover federal agent where her boyfriend ( a
>drug dealer) could be found. *
>---------------------------------------------------
>* Nicole Richardson was the girlfriend of an LSD
>dealer whose customers included and
>undercover federal agent. When the agent called
>the boyfriend's house one day, Richardson
>picked it up, and, in response to the
>agent/buyer's request, told the agent where to
>find the boyfriend, to make a purchase. Under
>federal drug laws, this participation in the
>"conspiracy" makes her criminally liable for the
>entire quantity of drugs which the agent bought
>from the boyfriend. Years after breaking up with
>the boyfriend, she ws charged with the
>conspiracy and is serving a 10-year mandatory
>sentence.
>----------------------------------------------------
>
>Especially when prosecutors can earn notches
>on their belts by winning convictions for long
>mandatory sentences, laws are applied as
>written. As a former appellate prosecutor, I know
>that most prosecutors push written statutes as
>far as the language can possibly go. Families
>Against Mandatory Minimums can supply
>hundreds of horror stories of harsh federal laws
>being applied just as written, against minor
>offenders.
>
>Significantly, S.54 appropriates 100 million
>dollars for extra prosecutors--twenty million a
>year for five years. All of the underlying offenses
>which are actually real gang crimes are already
>being fully prosecuted. There are no state or
>federal prosecutors in this country who are going
>soft on gang murders, gang arson, and the like.
>So at least some of the new prosecutors will
>necessarily have to look for "new" offenses to
>justify their funding.
>
>S.54 aggravates the problems that led to Waco
>and Ruby Ridge. As a "second order" law, it
>adds a second layer of federal control to a group
>of offenses which for the most part have no place
>in the federal statute books. The extreme
>mandatory sentences for minor offenses will not
>only cause injustice to many individuals, but will
>also further reduce the already low level of
>respect many Americans have for the federal
>government.
>***************************************************
>>From Southwest Missouri
>Freedom now days is a state of mind.
>***************************************************
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>--
>For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@zilker.net
>with the word help in the message body.
>
>
>_______________________________________
>Charles L Hamilton (chasm@insync.net) Houston, TX
>
>-> Send "subscribe snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com
>-> Posted by: chasm@insync.net (Schuetzen)
>
>
>
========================================================================
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness
email: [address in tool bar] : Eudora Pro 3.0.2 on Intel 586 CPU
web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
========================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail