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