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