Time: Sat Nov 02 03:55:41 1996 To: Harvey Wysong <hwysong@atl.mindspring.com> From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: Re: GOA Special Alert Pt IV Cc: Bcc: Harvey, What is "GOA"? /s/ Paul Mitchell At 10:16 AM 10/27/96 -0500, you wrote: >Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 20:14:22 -0500 >From: craig fields <crfields@gunowners.org> > > As Disinformation Campaign Hits Fever Pitch, >GOA refutes efforts to downplay damage caused by recent gun bans > > Special GOA Alert (Part IV) > (703)321-8585, fax: 321-8408 > http://www.gunowners.org > > (Friday, November 1) -- Some advocates, both in Congress and >in the Second Amendment community, have attempted to dismiss the >tragic sweeping importance of new federal legislation to create >expansive "gun free zones" around every American school. >Regarding this sweeping ban, some have claimed that "its effect >on gun owners will be minimal" and that in most cases, the new >law will "have little effect." > > Of course, the anti-gun zealots did not work frantically to >pass this gun ban merely because they felt it would have a >minimal effect. And EVEN IF the impact of this new law was >minimal, gun owners should be outraged by ANY law restricting >their rights. The Second Amendment states that the "right to >keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED." Those words do not >leave us any room for making compromises. > > Thus, we need to hold those legislators accountable who >voted for the "gun free zones" and the domestic gun ban. It is >GOA's assessment that these two gun bans are just as bad -- if >not worse -- than the Brady Act and semi-auto ban. You can get >GOA's full response to those who are apologizing for the gun free >zones on the GOA Web page (http://www.gunowners.org/fs9611.htm). >Listed below are some excerpts: > > >Myth: The "gun free zones" ban is not a sweeping piece > of legislation > > The "gun free school zone" legislation would create a > virtual 1/2 mile wide "gun free" circle around every American > school (or a 1,000 foot zone going in any one direction from > any school) -- a zone which could possibly include home > schools. Anyone carrying a gun within this "gun free zone" > would be subject to five years in prison, unless he or she has > fulfilled one of the government-ordained exceptions to the law > -- these exemptions treating our liberties more as privileges, > rather than rights. (More on this below.) > > >Myth: The "effect on gun owners will be minimal" -- > after all, isn't this the same law as was passed in 1990? > > When the first disastrous "gun free zones" provision was > passed in 1990, it was almost immediately challenged. The > effective date was January 27, 1991. By the first months of > 1992, the events triggering the Lopez case, which ultimately > overturned the law in the Supreme Court, had transpired. > Aggressive enforcement was held in abeyance while the > constitutionality of this language wound its way through the > courts. In this sense, this law was little different from > other gun bans in which enforcement was gradually tightened > until the full repressive impact of the legislation had been > eased into place. > > >Myth: Most states have comparable laws to the new "gun free > zones" ban at the federal level > > Wrong. Many states have laws which, on their face, are > much narrower than the federal law and do not create mammoth > "gun-free zones." For instance, Indiana and Minnesota > prohibit carrying a gun on "school property." States like > Arizona, Colorado, New York and Virginia -- to name just a few > -- all prohibit guns within "school grounds" or "school > buildings" or at "school functions." The fact that the > expansive federal law is putting pressure on states to enact > equally repressive measures at the state level is a recent > development which represents perhaps the most dangerous aspect > of the new law. > > Aside from that, while a few states, such as New York > and Massachusetts, have specialized in firearms repression, > most have been considerably less abusive than BATF in > interpreting and enforcing anti-gun statutes, even when those > statutes may be overbroad. Even if the only impact of this > legislation were its massive expansion of BATF authority, this > would be a very bad law. > > And finally, as already mentioned above, anti-gun zealots did > not work frantically to pass this piece of legislation merely > because they felt it was redundant of state legislation > currently on the books. > > >Myth: There are significant exemptions to the "gun free > zones" ban > > * THE BOGUS "HUNTER EXEMPTION": The so-called "hunter > exemption" applies only when the school authorities > specifically give permission for a hunter to cross their > property -- and then only when the gun is unloaded. Assuming > that a hunter on the way to a hunting trip would have to cross > fifty school zones, that hunter would have to check with all > fifty schools -- or risk being a felon if he did not qualify > under another exemption. > > * THE "PRIVATE PROPERTY" TRAP: While it is true that a person > living within a school zone would not automatically have to > relinquish his guns, it would be UNLAWFUL for him TO CARRY HIS > GUN TO HIS CAR PARKED ON THE STREET OUTSIDE HIS HOUSE. (See > GOA's Web page for analysis of other exemptions.) > > > ACTION: Make sure you get all your gun owning friends and >family to put the heat on their legislators. Distribute GOA's >four alerts. Also, if your Representative says he didn't know >the gun bans were in the bill (H.R. 3610), then ask him to prove >his sincerity: ask him to write a letter to Mr. Gingrich (which >he should show you) that asks him to bring up these provisions >for a vote early next year, so that Congress can repeal them. >Finally, let us know if your Representative is still denying the >gun bans were even included in H.R. 3610. > > Urgent request for information: GOA is looking for real life examples >to demonstrate to the Congress just how extreme the Lautenberg >Domestic Gun Ban is. If you have real examples showing how this ban >will disarm those who it is supposed to help -- namely women -- please >email or fax these examples to GOA. These examples should pertain >to people who were arrested for slight offenses -- such as a slap on the >face -- and who were charged with a "domestic violence" misdemeanor. > >Are you receiving this as a cross-post? You can subscribe to our E-mail >Alert Network directly. Address your request to crfields@gunowners.org and >include in the body of the message either "XX" or "all" where XX is your >state abbreviation. If you subscribe by state, you will receive federal >alerts plus those which are specific to your state of residence. Requesting >"all" gets you all GOA alerts-- imagine that. > > > > >
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail