• Pistol Permit Department
• Election line up.
• Wallkill Pin and Plate Shoot
• Senator Larkin Call in Request to Save Stewart Buffer Lands, (LINK ONLY)

NEW YORK STATE
(I am not going to cover the outcry against the NRA about opening up an NRA Restaurant.  The anti-gunners are more upset about that than the guys who killed the 5 Wendy workers.)

• CIVIL RIGHTS RALLY SET FOR ALBANY, NEW DATE
• Grassroots-Election seminar in Hempstead, NY, June 24th
• Westchester safe storage passes
• NASSAU ALERT, LICENSE FEES TO INCREASE 1900%
• Assembly and Senate meetings are now LIVE on the web.
• New York City Sues Gun Makers
• June 25: New York Becomes First State to Sue Gun Companies

Rosie O'Donnell supports gun owners!

Florida Law related to storage laws related to teachers shooting.

Schumer: New York needs Clinton to fight for gun licensing law

Treasury Department to recall 25 million coins. (JOKE)

U.S. v Emerson, first appeal hearing

Gun Deaths

•  Walter Williams on gun locks.   http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams1.asp
•  References for Rosie v. Reality article now available on-line at: http://www.jpfo.org/alert20000607.htm
• New ATF "Gun Trafficking" Report - June 2000
• See what HCI has to say about George Bush and guns.

 

THEN                                                                                                          NOW

(the) "only people in this nation who should be allowed to own guns are police officers."      "I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'Sorry.'     "you are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison."

"I don't personally own a gun, but if you are qualified,  licensed and registered, I have no problem."

     Ms. O'Donnell, notorious for her virulent anti-gun stance, insists that although she doesn't personally own a gun, "if you are qualified, licensed and registered, I have no problem." Moreover, according to today's Stamford Advocate, Ms. O'Donnell has expressed concern that "publicity about her son's attendance at a local school — coupled with the information that the guard would be unarmed — could make him [Parker] vulnerable to harm [emphasis added]." This is about as close as it gets to a concession that an unarmed private citizen finds himself at greater risk of harm from the various felons and crazies that populate our world.

  NEW YORK (AP) Sen. Chuck Schumer announced a new gun licensing proposal on Friday and said New Yorkers should elect Hillary Rodham Clinton to join him in the Senate so that she can vote for it.
''New Yorkers deserve a senator in Washington who we can absolutely count on every single time there's a critical gun control vote,'' said Schumer, who joined fellow Democrat Clinton at a news conference at the Manhattan headquarters of the United Federation of Teachers.  ''No hesitation, no equivocation, no waiting till the last minute to announce a position, but true, iron-clad commitment to stand with the people of New
 York on gun control,'' Schumer said. ''New York needs Hillary Clinton because she will vote with us on gun control 100 percent of the time.''
  Schumer said that under his proposal, which he will formally introduce next  week, a person would have to pass a gun-safety course and obtain a gun  license in order to buy a firearm.
  ''This will be a three-year renewable photo license that can be easily renewed just like a driver's license or a passport at state agencies, so long as the individual has not committed a crime or done some other act that makes them ineligible to own a gun,'' he said.
  Clinton, who is running for U.S. Senate against Republican Rep. Rick Lazio, said the proposal ''is the right fight for New York, and it's the right fight for our children and families.''
  ''I'm happy to be here today to state my very strong support for Chuck's new  landmark gun-licensing legislation,'' she said.
  Lazio, a four-term congressman from Long Island, has backed a variety of gun control measures but has called licensing ''invasive.''

          The U.S. Treasury Department has announced today that it will re-call all 25 million commemorative quarters honoring the admission of Massachusetts into the union.

          Over a ten year period all quarters coined will have on the reverse side a symbol honoring a state's admission to the union. Five were minted in 1999 honoring the first five States. This year the first state to be honored is Massachusetts.

          The recall of the Massachusetts quarters is prompted by the outcry from many groups over the depiction of a man with a gun. The depiction represents the minutemen who fired the first shots of the revolutionary war and has been used by the State of Massachusetts as a state symbol. President Clinton has signed an executive order forcing the treasury department to recall these quarters and issue ones more appropriate to the history of Massachusetts.

          A committee of Massachusetts's legislators and U. S. Treasury officials approved the design. President Clinton through his spokesman Joe Lockhart stated that he was not properly informed by this committee and is outraged that the coin was released without his approval. Sarah Brady, the outgoing president of Handgun Control, Inc., said today, "This administration has committed an act of insensitivity unprecedented in recent history. How can the President at one time name the White House press briefing room in honor of my husband Jim Brady, who was horribly wounded by a gun, and then allow a coin to be issued containing the picture of a gun."

          Donna Dees-Thomases, organizer of the Million Mothers March against guns said, " This coin sends the wrong message to our children. It says to the children that guns are not always dangerous, evil objects that should only be possessed by the government. Also, I noticed that the rifle on the quarter does not have a trigger lock."

          Wayne LaPierre, spokesman for the Gun Lobby said, " This is the type of hysterical over-reaction we have come to expect from these ninnies."

          We have also learned that Sen. Charles Schumer (D. N.Y.) suffered personal humiliation and was injured as a result of the release of the Massachusetts commemorative quarter. Sen. Schumer was recently elevated to the Senate from the House of Representatives chiefly because of his unyielding stance for reasonable gun control legislation. Sen. Schumer was drinking in an upscale Georgetown watering hole with Sen. Ted Kennedy (D. Mass.). According to police reports, Senator Kennedy was idly flipping a quarter, which just happened to be the newest release. The quarter landed unnoticed in Senator Schumer’s glass. As Sen. Schumer lifted the glass to take a sip, he spied there in the bottom an image of a man with a gun. The Senator was so frightened by this he dropped the glass and dove under the table. Sen. Kennedy seeing this, and believing Sen. Schumer had a waitress down there, dove on top of him causing minor injuries.

I have two reports on the arguments on the case.  The first is from Tom Gresham and the second is from Linda Thomas.  You should read both reports because this is the most important gun rights case in years.
 Tom Gresham's report
Date sent: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 08:46:23 EDT
U.S. v Emerson

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 there.
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:
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.
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:  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.
Garwood:  Membership in the National Guard isn’t enough?  What else is needed?
Meteja:  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.nealknox.com/alerts/msg00289.html
5:30 p.m. June 13 Neal Knox Report—“The Court really beat up on the government” Linda Thomas of Houston ecstatically told me a few minutes ago.
She was on a cell phone, standing on the steps of Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.  A three-judge panel had just heard oral argument in the Emerson case, in which Lubbock, Texas, Federal Judge Sam Cummings struck down part of the 1996 Lautenberg Amendment prohibiting persons under a restraining order from possessing firearms.
The government prosecutor said the Second Amendment only applied to arms issued to militia members, in Dr. Timothy Emerson’s case either the Texas National Guard or Texas State Guard.  Judge Harold R. DeMoss, Jr., a George Bush appointee, told him he was misreading the 1939 Miller case.
The court held in Miller that there had been no evidence that Miller’s sawed-off shotgun was a militia-type arm.  Nothing was said abou= t the gun having to have been issued.
Judge DeMoss asked the prosecutor if Dr. Emerson’s Beretta 92 9mm pistol isn’t the type used by armies.  Of course, it’s the standard U.S. sidearm.
Judge DeMoss also raised a critical question that addresses the Tenth Amendment.  “I have a 12 gauge and 16 gauge shotgun, and a .30 caliber deer rifle in my closet at home.  Can you tell me how those affect interstate commerce.”
All Federal gun laws are based on the power of the Congress to regulate interstate commerce.  The present Supreme Court has struck down several laws in a series of narrow decisions based on the Tenth Amendment’s stipulation that powers not specifically delegated to Congress “are reserved to the states and the people, respectively.”
Judge Robert M. Parker, appointed by President Carter, and to the appellate court by President Clinton, told the government:  “I don’t want you to lose any sleep over this, but Judge Garwood (the senior judge) and I between us have enough guns to start a revolution in most South American countries.”
Linda, a gun rights activist who has just finished law school and is preparing for the bar exam, said the folks on our side of the aisle “are all smiles.”
Unlike most firearms-related court cases, there was no reluctance to discuss the Second Amendment, and, Linda said, the judges had done their homework.  “It was like sitting in on a Gun Rights Policy Conference legal seminar.”
One thing about it, Timothy Emerson’s case is going to have a full and fair hearing.  And so will the Second Amendment.
If the Fifth Circuit concurs with the trial judge that the Second Amendment protects gun ownership as an individual right— which now seems quite possible—there would be a conflict between the circuit courts, almost guaranteeing a Supreme Court hearing after the next election.
That’s just one more reason to make certain that Al Gore isn’t in a position to appoint Supreme Court justices.

Gun homicides in the same age group totaled 346.  As for Holder's claim of "12 young people, dying every day," he is including the 17-19-year-old gangsters and drug dealers - who target primarily each other - among the "young."

 For all ages, of a population of 270,000,000, there were 13,522 homicides involving the use of a gun.  Tragically, while blacks compose 12.8% of the population, they account for more than 50% of all homicides - mostly black males killed by black males.

 Interestingly, the CDC includes gun deaths by "legal intervention" or self-defense among the total cited above