Editor's Note by Weldon Clark This post contains 3 parts. The Simpson article is from Law Professor Joe Olson. Next is Clinton and Gore soliciting campaign money from trail Lawyers for Clinton's veto of a bill and third Gore's anti-gun agenda including destroying your gun and hunting rights by Dave Kopel of the Independence Institute. Use these first two articles with friends and family to who guns are not the issue. Examples of what Gore and Bush have done. Last year, Gore cast the tie breaking vote in favor of a U. S. Senate bill that would have outlawed gun shows as we know them. Gore has indicated he favors national government registration of all law abiding gun owners. Governor Bush signed legislation allowing law abiding citizens who pass a background check and firearms training course obtain a permit and carry concealed firearms for self defense. Governor Bush signed legislation outlawing politically motivated local lawsuits against the firearms industry. Register to vote on line by printing out a form and mailing it. http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/ leads to http://www.fec.gov./votregis/vr.htm ******************************** Al Gore's Gulf War Vote By Former Senator Alan Simpson Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore's new campaign ad is running in your state and says he is "fighting for us." But the true story of his Gulf War vote says he is usually fighting for Al. Here is the inside story of what happened. The Gulf War vote was pretty serious business. I can't think of anyone who didn't have a lump in his or her throat as they weighed the situation - 500,000 American troops already deployed; Iraq's Saddam Hussein promising the "mother of all battles"; most "experts" predicting heavy American losses. The choice was not easy. Senators with combat experience on both sides of the aisle were on both sides of the issue. Some Democrats openly supported the measure; some Republicans openly opposed it. And vice versa. The seriousness of the situation called for open, honest debate. No deal-making. No politics. Just an honest discussion, followed by an honest vote of conscience by each senator. As Republican whip, I worked with the Republican leader Bob Dole and the Democratic leaders, George Mitchell and Sam Nunn, to schedule the debate. As Republicans, Sen. Dole and I were responsible for scheduling time to speak for senators who supported the war. As Democrats, Sens. Mitchell and Nunn were responsible for scheduling time to speak for those who opposed the war. The night before this monumental debate, I sat in the Republican cloakroom with Sen. Dole discussing the debate schedule for the next day. Then a senator walked in and asked to speak to us. It surprised Bob and me because he was a Democrat coming to ask for a favor. He was Tennessee Sen. Al Gore Jr. Sen. Gore got right to the point: "How much time will you give me if I support the president?" In layman's terms, Gore was asking how much debate time we would be willing to give him to speak on the floor if he voted with us. "How much time will the Democrats give you?" Sen. Dole asked. "Seven minutes," came the droning response. "I'll give you 15 minutes," Dole said. "And I'll give you five of mine, so you can have 20 minutes," I offered. Gore seemed pleased, but made no final commitment, promising only to think it over. Gore played hard to get. He had received his time. But now he wanted prime time. Dole and I knew it. After Gore left, Dole asked Republican Senate Secretary Howard Greene to call Gore's office and promise that he would try to schedule Gore's 20 minutes during prime time, thus ensuring plenty of coverage in the news cycle. Later that night, Gore called Greene and asked if Dole had him in a prime-time speaking slot. When Green said nothing had been finalized yet, Gore erupted: "Damn it, Howard! If I don't get 20 minutes tomorrow, I'm going to vote the other way." The following day, Gore arrived on the Senate floor, still waiting to see which side - the Republicans or the Democrats - would offer him the most and the best speaking time. Sen. Dole immediately asked the Senate to increase the amount of speaking time for both sides. I believe only then, after Gore realized we were asking for more time to make room for him on our side, that he finally decided to support the resolution authorizing the use of force to drive Hussein out of Kuwait. It brings me no joy to recount the events leading up to the Gulf War vote. It isn't something I wanted to do. But it is something I have to do. I was there. I have to set the record straight because the Gore campaign is now running an ad proclaiming that Al Gore "broke with his own party to support the Gulf War." In reality, it's much closer to the truth to say he broke for the cameras to support the Gulf War. And I have to set the record straight because the Gulf War vote was far too important an issue to fall victim to politics and repulsive revising. It was a moment of challenge. Sadly, Al Gore was not up to it. In January of 1991, Al Gore put politics over principle. Alan Simpson was a Republican senator from Wyoming. ******************************************** By Jerry Seper Vice President Al Gore was asked by the Democratic National Committee in 1995 to solicit $600,000 in donations from not one, as previously reported, but six wealthy Texas personal injury lawyers, just weeks before President Clinton was to veto a bill limiting cash awards in product-liability cases. The solicitation requests are listed on telephone call sheets prepared by the Democratic National Committee and, according to documents obtained by The Washington Times, were sent to Mr. Gore two days after he attended a November 1995 fund-raiser at the Houston home of John Eddy Williams, a Texas personal-injury lawyer, who has given $550,000 to Democrats since 1995. **************************************** THE GORE GUN AGENDA: Al's ultimate objective would be to abolish all firearms privacy. By Dave Kopel, Independence Institute What's in the future for the anti-gun agenda, should Al Gore be elected President? Just drop by the website for Handgun Control, Inc., to find out. There's only a short interval from the keyboards at HCI to the lips of the President and Vice President. On the site, you'll find details about what comes next - but not what comes after that. Nor will you find any details on what HCI Chair Sarah Brady says is her long-term objective: a "needs- based licensing" system, in which gun ownership is allowed only when the police determine that the would-be owner "needs" the gun. How does one get from the current Clinton/Gore/HCI program to the needs-based licensing system? In other words, what would a Gore administration push for, if it achieved the current items on the anti-gun agenda? Perhaps the best guide is the 1994 report of the White House Working Group, a secret memo which was uncovered by U.S. News and World Report. Here's the long-term strategy: Complete Gun Licensing and Registration First, the attack on the non-existent "gun show loophole" is only a warm-up. The ultimate objective is to abolish all firearms privacy. Every firearms transfer - including a Christmas gift from one's cousin - would have to be routed through a federally-licensed dealer, and recorded by the federal government. A government license would also be needed to purchase ammunition. All currently owned firearms would have to be registered with the federal government, and non-registration would be a federal crime. During the Democratic primaries, Bill Bradley called for national gun registration, while Gore rejected Bradley's plan as politically unrealistic. Gore was correct; for registration to be politically possible, it needs to be built on an existing system of licensing. Salami tactics are the essence of successful gun control. The Clinton/Gore proposal for a national ID card for handgun purchasers is a sensible "moderate" and "common-sense" step toward the goal of total licensing and registration for all guns. Politically speaking, it is best if the initial stages of gun licensing can be implemented liberally (as rifle licensing was in Britain in the 1920s and 1930s) so that most people can get the license. Once licensing is in place, the bureaucracy can take care of gradually tightening the licensing process (without ever needing to ask the legislature to change the law), so that hardly anyone qualifies for a license (as rifle licensing currently is enforced in Britain). Hunting Restrictions While the White House licensing and registration system would apply to all guns, especially strict rules would be imposed on owners of handguns and for self-loading long guns (such as the Marlin Camp Carbine or the Ruger .22 rifles). Appropriating a term of art from Canadian gun law, the White House would designate all handguns and all self- loading long guns as "restricted weapons." Owners of "restricted weapons" could possess them only at home, at work, or at a target range. In other words, it would be a federal crime to go bird hunting with a Remington 1100 shotgun. Handgun hunting, which is legal in every state in the Union, would vanish. President Clinton and Vice President Gore strenuously insist that none of the laws which they have signed, and none of the regulations they have created, have interfered with hunting. Although Clinton and Gore are not correct in their claim, their "restricted weapons" agenda would remove their pro-hunting mask, and take away the primary sporting arms of millions of American hunters. Bans on Defensive Gun Use and Possession It would also be a federal crime to carry a handgun in public for protection - even for people with state licenses authorizing them to carry. The White House memo also recommends consideration of a federal law to outlaw "the carrying of firearms in...work sites." The White House proposal would override current laws of many states, which allow a person who runs a dry cleaning shop that stays open late to choose to carry a concealed gun for protection. Or an accountant who stays at work late during March and April, can choose whether to keep a handgun in her desk, and carry it with her when she walks to the parking lot late at night. The White House Working Group praises the 1976 Bartley- Fox law in Massachusetts. This law imposes a mandatory one year term in prison for carrying a gun without a permit. In one notorious case, the law was applied to a man who started carrying a gun after a co-worker assaulted him, and repeatedly threatened to kill him. The co-worker did attack later, and the victim successfully defended himself. The crime victim was then sentenced to a mandatory one year in prison for carrying a gun without a permit. This is the kind of law that the Clinton/Gore administration wants to apply nationwide. Banning More Guns The Clinton/Gore memo states that domestic manufacture of guns should be brought under the federal government's regulatory standards for product designs. The White House memo predicts that such regulation would outlaw "Many handguns now manufactured in the United States for civilian use." With great applause from the White House, a forerunner of the White House plan was recently imposed in Massachusetts, by the administrative edict of the state Attorney General. The result of the new standards was to ban the sale of all handguns except the Smith & Wesson models. ******************************************************** For those of you in South Carolina who wish to receive specific alerts please e-mail request to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and/or visit www.scfirearms.org. ************************************************************ What To Do If The Police Come To Confiscate Your Militia Weapons see www.2ndamendment.net For legislative updates contact www.nealknox.com and go to "Scripts from the Firearms Coalition Legislative Update Line" *************************************************** The Georgia Sport Shooting Association wants you! A free shooting events list is published every two weeks. Go to www.gssa.com and sign up today. ************************************************* >From The 2ndAmendmentNews Team a new server has been installed. If you received this as a forward and wish to join please send: E-Mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Leave subject line blank In the body of the message subscribe 2nd-Amendment-News If you unsubscribe please follow directions below and please send a copy to the list moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you know anyone who would appreciate these alerts, please let us know and we'll enroll them on a trial basis. Also, feel free to forward our alerts. ------------------------------------------------------------- Under Bill s.1618 TITLE III passed by the 105th U.S. Congress this letter cannot be considered "spam" as long as we include: 1) contact information (see above); and, 2) the way to be removed from future mailings (see below). To be removed from this list, please e-mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "usubscribe 2nd-amendment-news" in body and you will be removed from our list. ------------------------------------------------------------
