---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 21:10:18 -0400 From: Weldon Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Golden Opportunity to Support the Second Amendment Golden Opportunity to Support the Second Amendment Editor's note by Weldon Clark This is a bit long but extremely important. You have an opportunity to strike a blow for liberty. You need to write letters to your local newspapers and to your Congressman and Senators. Say two things, first the US government says I do not have a right to own a firearms, then say that you do and the Judges agree with your. Quote them. This will get a powerful message out to the general public. Thanks to Tom Gresham and Neal Knox. In South Carolina State Senator Larry martin won reelection. He sponsored the bill REPEALING the DCM and military firearm ban in South Carolina. I paid for, wrote and sent one thousand post cards to gun owners in favor of his reelection. **************************************** June 15 Neal Knox Report -- My report on Tuesday's oral argument in U.S. v. Emerson, based mainly on law school grad Linda Thomas' phone calls immediately after the argument, has created a stir on the internet -- as well it should. Because the judges asked such good questions, and appeared so favorable to Emerson and the Second Amendment, some folks have started premature celebrating. I hate to throw cold water, but even if the three-judge panel rules solidly our way, we're a long ways from home. Nevertheless, the anti-gun crowd is worried. Handgun Control Inc.'s legal beagle, Dennis Henigan, told the Washington Post that if gun possession is found to be an individual constitutional right, as Judge Sam Cummings ruled when he struck down the 1996 Lautenberg amendment, gun laws would be held to "a completely different standard" that could weaken or strike down existing laws. No kidding, Dennis. My brain wasn't in gear when I said "all" Federal gun laws are based on the Commerce Clause. The National Firearms Act, particularly, is based on Congress' taxation powers � as Attorney General Homer Cummings explained when he was pitching the machine gun law to Congress back in 1934. Radio talk show host, long-time friend and gun writer Tom Gresham has a most excellent report on the hearing on his web page, www.guntalk.com. (I've copied it at the tail of this piece.) By the way, I got most of my info on the argument from Linda Thomas of Houston, who is not Linda Thompson, the Indianapolis lawyer who made a doctored Waco film a few years back. ----------- Here's Tom Gresham's good report on the Emerson case to his "Truth Squad," for which he prepares sample letters for local newspapers and lawmakers. As I told Tom at the NSSF Summit at Phoenix, that's an extremely important work, for many of our folks can't craft an informed, persuasive letter. What most folks don't realize is that Congress-types rarely see the letters sent to their offices (which need to go there anyway, because Congressmen get the count and some letters get through). But your Congressman will almost certainly read your letters to editor in local newspapers. Congressmen subscribe to local papers, or get daily faxes of key sections -- particularly Letters to Editor -- so they know what the folks at home are thinking. Tom says there's some differences between his and Linda Thomas' views, as I reported them, but I didn't see anything in his report that's different from what Linda told me, except in the detail. He was shocked to hear Justice Department lawyers say we have no gun rights, but I've been hearing that from them for years, so it didn't have the same impact on Linda or me. But Tom gives a lot of additional info that answers questions from a lot of you folks. ----- By Tom Gresham www.GunTalk.com This is an important case for Second Amendment supporters. For a complete background on Emerson, see the Second Amendment Foundation website: http://www.saf.org/EmersonViewOptions.html. Neal Knox sent out an alert about this immediately after the arguments were heard, and while I agree with much of that report, Neal wasn't here. Also, because Neal has been in this fight for a long time (as has Linda Thomas, who gave him the report), I think they both might have glossed over something that many gun owners would find amazing. By the way, Neal's email reports are good information, and I suggest that you subscribe to them. www.nealknox.com. He and I don't always agree, but if you take his reports as a part of your research, I think you will find them useful. I sat next to Linda, which is interesting, in that our notes differ in a couple of places. Such is reporting, I guess. Nothing big, but a few details. Here are the "Cliff Notes" on the case. Dr. Emerson was issued a boilerplate restraining order in the middle of a divorce. There were 22 orders in the R.O., and three of them said, basically, that he had to stay away from his wife. By federal law (since 1994), a person who is under a restraining order, even if there is no evidence of a threat of violence, may not own firearms. Yes, that's right. You lose a civil, Constitutional right because a judge pushes a key on a computer and a standard R.O. comes out. The original decision by Judge Sam Cummings is a work of art, tracing the history of government restriction of arms ownership (swords, armor, firearms) back to England, before there was a United States of America. You owe it to yourself to read this decision: http://www.saf.org/1999Emersoncase2amend.html. Now, to the appeal in the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans, yesterday. First, let me say that the lawyer (Crooks) representing Emerson was . . . how shall I say this . . . not the best I've seen. However, the attorney from the Alabama Attorney General's office (Cooper) was very good. The A.G.'s office argued on Emerson's side. The three-judge panel (Garwood, DeMoss, and Parker) asked tough questions, and showed that they weren't buying the government's (federal government) assertion that because a firearm once traveled across state lines, that this gun was "involved in interstate commerce." This is important, because if the firearm is not involved in interstate commerce, the federal government has no place in this, and it is a state matter. Note this exchange: Judge DeMoss: "I have a 16 gauge shotgun in my closet at home. I have a 20-gauge shotgun. I also have a 30-caliber rifle at home. Are you saying these are "in or affecting interstate commerce? Meteja (government lawyer): "Yes" You'll note the personal tone to Judge DeMoss's question. This personal tone carried throughout the one-hour session. Veterans of Second Amendment battles understand that the U.S. government takes the position that you do not have a right to own a gun. Many people, however, say "Oh come on, you don't really believe that, do you?" Well, here it is from the mouth of the lawyers representing the United States government, from my notes at the Emerson case. Judge Garwood: "You are saying that the Second Amendment is consistent with a position that you can take guns away from the public? You can restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns from all people? Is that the position of the United States?" Meteja (for the government): "Yes" Judge Garwood was having none of that. Judge Garwood: "Is it the position of the United States that persons who are not in the National Guard are afforded no protections under the Second Amendment?" Meteja (for the government): Exactly. Meteja then said that even membership in the National Guard isn't enough to protect the private ownership of a firearm. It wouldn't protect the guns owned at the home of someone in the National Guard. Judge Garwood: Membership in the National Guard isn't enough? What else is needed? Meteja (for the government): The weapon in question must be used in the National Guard. In other words, no one, even if a member of the National Guard, has a right to own guns privately. That is the position of the U.S. government. The judges seemed to reject the federalism position of the government which says that once an item has moved across a state line, it is forever covered by federal laws because it is involved in interstate commerce. This rejection seems to be in line with several narrow decisions from the Supreme Court in recent years. The judges also appeared incredulous that the government was saying that no one has a right to own guns, and that the Second Amendment guarantees only the right of the National Guard to own guns. It will be weeks or months before a decision is issued on this case, and nothing is assured, by any means. However, if you need some hope, I leave you with this final statement to government lawyer, made by Judge DeMoss. "You shouldn't let it bother your sleep that Judge Garwood (the senior judge) and I, between us, own enough guns to start a revolution in most South American countries." Now, what can you do with this information? 1. Write letters detailing the government's position that NO ONE has a right to own a gun. Most people in this country believe that they do, in fact, have the right to own a gun, and they need to know what the government is saying. 2. Explain to your fellow gun owners how important this case is (see point number 1 above), and that it is vital that Al Gore not be elected president, where he can appoint Supreme Court justices. If the Emerson case goes as I hope, it will be appealed to the Supreme Court. We don't want Gore appointees sitting there when this case arrives. And a personal note: Thanks for your overwhelming support. You are getting your letters published all over the country. Keep 'em coming. Keep 'em SHORT! Stay on point. Pick a single point to make, and stick to it. Save everything else for other letters. Best, Tom Gresham, host Tom Gresham's Gun Talk radio show http://www.guntalk.com/ ************************************************************ 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" *************************************************** ================================================================= Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh, YHVH, TZEVAOT FROM THE DESK OF: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> *Mike Spitzer* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ~~~~~~~~ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The Best Way To Destroy Enemies Is To Change Them To Friends Shalom, A Salaam Aleikum, and to all, A Good Day. ================================================================= <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html <A HREF="http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
