CLICK HERE TO REGISTER FOR THE GRPC 2000

GRPC Report: Final Part  [got to part 1] [go to part 2]

St. Louis Conference Speakers

Target Emerging Gun Issues

 

by Nancy Norell

    The second half of the 14th annual Gun Rights Policy Conference, held in St. Louis, MO, on the weekend of Sept. 17-19, began Saturday afternoon with a discussion of the anti-gunners’ problems with finding any kind of gun they might like. A panel entitled, “The Red Riding Hood Syndrome,” dealt with the fact that any firearm over 12 inches is labeled an “assault rifle” by its detractors and any gun under 12 inches is labeled a “Saturday night special.”

    Because the anti-gun media and politicians have recently focused on the .50 Browning caliber rifles, Marty Liggins, a Tennessee teacher and Gun News Digest correspondent, began by sharing his observations about the demonization of the .50BMG, and emphasizing the necessity for all supporters of the Second Amendment to unify.

    Liggins set the mood by saying that the panel should have been entitled, “The Continuation of Demonization of Certain Firearms by the Media and their Elitist Puppeteers.”

    He warned conferees that the media makes use of ill-advised statements by shooters, and of poorly thought-out manufacturer advertisements to make certain firearms sound sinister.

The Evil Side

    “They will remember what we say,” he said. “Our advertising is being used against us. The media turns it to the evil side of the force. They take what’s good in the eyes of the shooter and make it bad in the eyes of the beholder. What we say can and will be used against us in the court of public opinion.

    “A lot of times we think, well if we play fair, they’ll play fair. Wrong! They are out to hurt you. They are going to do it in the most underhanded and conniving way possible.”

    Liggins said it was important for all shooters and supporters of individual rights to stick together.

    “We can’t have sacrificial lambs—.50-caliber, ‘Saturday night specials,’ or other guns. We should not have given up ‘assault weapons.’ Yet that ‘assault weapon’ terminology is something they picked up from us. They picked it up from our advertising. We had semi-autos that looked like ‘assault weapons’ and we were listing them as ‘assault weapons,’ even though technically they were not. Our advertising came back to bite us from behind. It will continue to do so.”

    He warned that all of the individual targets for gun control advocates were simply a surrogate for what they really want—a complete ban on all firearms. That this is a possibility was proven by what has happened in Australia and Great Britain.

    “Why do we say we love our country and fear our government? Some want to reestablish a ruling class with special privileges. Granting rights to all citizens does not fit within that framework. It is their goal to make their privileges their rights, and our rights our privileges. We cannot allow that,” Liggins concluded.

FCSA Gearing Up

    John Burtt, chairman of the Legislative Activities Committee of the Fifty Caliber Shooters Association (FCSA), told the audience that the recent demonization of the .50-caliber rifle had changed his association from one that was primarily interested in enjoying and improving their sport to one that was preparing to fight to save their right to continue shooting long distances with extreme accuracy.

    Burtt said, “Up until three months ago, we were just letting NRA take care of us. In April, Rod Blagojevich (D-IL) submitted a bill, HR-2127, that will take away our right to shoot a .50-caliber rifle. It would put the ownership of .50 under the 1986 Tax Act and regulations under the National Firearms Act (NFA).

    “I live in California. I own four .50 calibers and that will make me an instant felon.”

    Burtt said that his organization was taking serious steps to protect their sport and their member’s rights—raising funds and hiring a Washington, DC, consultant.

    He concluded his remarks by challenging others to support their cause. “I have a funny feeling that the .50 caliber is going to be given up for an example. We are not enjoying the support we need from other organizations. We need your support.”

    Next to speak was Dan Shea, the founder of the Committee of 1776. Its members collect and shoot military firearms, including legal machineguns and destructive devices.

    He said, “We’re kind of the crazy old uncle of the gun world, but we’re starting to get a little more company in the closet.”

    He enumerated the types of firearms that were under attack by the anti-gunners. “They’re after your .50 caliber. They’re after your small handguns, big handguns. I can’t figure out what a bad gun is unless I assume that they’re all bad. One minute it’s the small ‘Saturday night special,’ then it’s big heavy pistols.”

Ignorance Helps Antis

    General ignorance about firearms has helped the anti-firearms rights crowd, Shea said. “People who don’t know anything about guns wrote down the scary stuff—stuff that frightened them—bayonet lugs, flash hiders, pistol grips. They banned those characteristics, so we took them off our guns. Now they accuse us of trying to get around the law. No, we’re not. We’re trying to comply with the law. But you can’t comply with people whose whole agenda is to get rid of all firearms.”

    Shea echoed Burtt’s call for unity. “We need to stick together,” he said.

    Next, John M. Snyder, public affairs director of CCRKBA, moderated a panel on issues to related to the notorious 1993 Waco incident.

    Snyder explained the history of the broad-based coalition of civil rights and religious organizations, who worked together to demand formation of a blue ribbon task force to review federal law enforcement practices and policies because of shared concerns raised by the fiasco and deaths at Waco. Snyder had been a key representative for gun groups to the coalition which met frequently in the offices of the American Civil Liberties Union.

    Joe Waldron, Lt. Col., USMC (ret.), executive director of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), then examined broader policy issues related to the 1993 Waco incident.

    He said, “I view Waco and Ruby Ridge as symptoms of a bigger problem; the militarization of law enforcement, and the law enforcementization of the military. The line between the two is becoming diffused.

Deep Misunderstanding

    “The use of the military for civilian law enforcement shows a deep misunderstanding of the military’s role,” Waldron said. “I spent 28 years in the Marine Corps, and I know what it’s all about. The rules of engagement are very simple. They tell me what I can and can’t do when I go in to kill someone or smash something. They don’t tell me how I’m supposed to deal with US citizens who are protected by the Bill of Rights.

    “When I go to Kosovo, I’m guided by the rules of engagement. The Bill of Rights doesn’t mean squat to me. If uniformed personnel are used in the US in a support capacity, or in a direct action capacity, they sure as hell better understand what the Bill of Rights is all about.”

    A law enforcement role is also detrimental to the military’s primary role, Waldron said.

    “Use of the military in law enforcement detracts from its major mission which is to defend US territory from international threat, and to look after the national security interests of the US. Unconventional assignments drain training time. All these extra assignments drain funds. Readiness goes down the tube.”

    Waldron offered a surprising, but logical personal opinion. “I don’t consider the use of the military for law enforcement within our borders to be unconstitutional. Posse Comitatus, the law restricting the use of the military for civilian law enforcement, is public law, not a constitutional issue. But if you are going to call out these forces, you’d better do it right.

    Waldron saw the emphasis on domestic terrorism, like the war on drugs, as an opportunity to militarize law enforcement and violate constitutional rights.

    Courts have authorized standards for what constitutes unreasonable search and seizure that makes military surveillance equipment and techniques a serious threat to individual rights, Waldron said. “The military is now offering this kind of thing to civil law enforcement.”

    SWAT teams are a part of the increasingly military look of civilian law enforcement. “According to a CATO study, of cities over 50,000, 90% have SWAT teams. Under 50,000, 70%. SWAT teams have armored cars, military uniforms, helmets, M-16s. Los Angeles now has bayonets. What do American police need bayonets for?” Waldron concluded.

Reno As Accessory

    Dave Kopel, co-author of No More Wacos, told the conference, “Shortly after the murders in Fort Worth, TX, Attorney General Reno appeared on television, where she spoke with a great deal of passion about how wrong it is that people even in a church can’t feel safe from criminal attack. My suggestion is that if she really cares about that, what she ought to do is to take real responsibility for what happened at Waco. She ought to go to the nearest US Courthouse and turn herself in as an accessory after the fact.” The crowd applauded.

    That will not happen, Kopel said, because, “Despite her public displays of anger about Waco, she continues to obstruct justice about Waco. Even as she was sending marshals to seize evidence from the FBI’s office, her attorneys were trying to obstruct justice in the civil suit brought by families and survivors of Waco. Her lawyers only stopped when the judge threatened to hold them personally in contempt of court.”

    Kopel questioned Reno’s support of an honest and thorough investigation of Waco.

    He quoted Reno, who said, “The ghosts of Waco will haunt me forever.”

    “Pass this on to Reno, if you see her,” Kopel said. “It’s not just the ghosts of those 26 children who were murdered; you’ve got problems with living people as well. There are seven political prisoners, the Branch Davidians, who must be freed from prison, and the real perpetrators must be put in prison where they can’t kill anyone else.”

Strengths and Weaknesses

    Next, Glen I. Voorhees, Western field editor for Gun Week and a trustee of the Second Amendment Foundation which co-sponsored the Gun Rights Conference with CCRKBA, moderated a panel examining the strengths and weaknesses of the gun movement.

    Voorhees first introduced Michael J. Saporito, vice president and general counsel of RSR Wholesale Guns, who is a former New York state prosecutor and judge. Saporitio touched on the unity issue examined in an earlier panel.

    “First of all, we’re fragmented,” Saporito said. “The shotgunners are trying to give away the handgunners’ rights; the riflemen are trying to give away the handgunners,’ they all want to get rid of the black powder people; and now the .50-caliber people are saying, ‘what about us?’

    “If we organized into one group, we would be the most powerful in the world. There are 77 million of us! Seventy-seven million people are not 77 million voters. If we don’t vote, we lose. If we do vote, we win.”

    Saporito said that the movement needed to provide alternate solutions for political problems faced by legislators.

Get Involved

    “Get involved with politics,” Saporito urged. “The anti-gunners are so enmeshed in politics they got one of their own elected to the presidency.

    “We preach to the choir, but that’s not a waste of time, because each one of you is a missionary. Go baptize the great unwashed and bring them into the fold! Teach them our beliefs.”

    “Our strengths—our goal is a noble goal,” Saporito said. “We armed citizens stand guard over the tabernacle in which liberty is enshrined. The First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments are all under colossal attack. We are believers; we are dedicated. We will do what we have to do. We are unified in principle; we fight for the same goal. We are truthful. There is nothing I hate more than someone who lies, who gives false statistics.

    “We’re not driven by large foundations or corporations. We are single individuals who have an agenda. There is strength in those individuals, even more than in well-heeled corporations.

    “When it comes down to the number of people who pull the levers, we count big.”

    Saporito concluded, “Yes, we do have weaknesses, but they are neither fatal nor insurmountable. We can’t be satisfied with our strengths, either. We have to do better, work harder. If we are going to keep the light of freedom from being extinguished, we have to unite in a strong, positive way.”

A Convert’s View

    Prof. Michael Gordinier, PhD., of Washington University in St. Louis, gave the conference his observations on the movement from the standpoint of a convert to firearms rights. When he first decided to purchase a gun, he felt extremely uncomfortable simply going into a gun store.

    “I felt just like a Southern Baptist would going into an adult book store,” Gordonier said. “Oh, my God, I’m in a strange and sinful land. What if someone sees me going in?”

    Because of the changing culture in the US, in which many have had absolutely no experience with firearms, this uneasy feeling is common to millions of ordinary people, Gordinier said. The lack of positive experience with firearms as a means of defending oneself or one’s family makes many view firearms use as simply a hobby—and a hobby that makes dangerous firearms available to criminals and lunatics.

    “Basically,” Gordinier said, “we have a marketing problem.”

    Gordinier categorized complaining about press bias as unproductive.

    He also warned against using the enemy’s terminology—“assault weapons,” “Saturday night specials.”

    And, he said, “Let’s not call people anti-gun. Let’s call them what they are: anti-choice, anti-option, anti-freedom, anti-self-defense.”

    Gordinier wound up his observations. “We need to make everyone in America, not just gunowners, feel threatened by what the government is attempting to do. I want every hunter in this country to be worried. There are no bad guns—we’ve got to be in this together.”

    Richard Feldman, a firearms issues consultant, criticized the firearms rights movement for fighting on the enemy’s terms, and failing to understand that the real battle is not over legislative and legal decisions—it is a cultural struggle.

    “Understanding the nature of the fight is so important,” Feldman said. “The cultural war that surrounds the issue is a weakness. It is not working for our benefit. We’re good at focusing in on the narrow legislative and political battles but the diffused cultural war, we are losing.”

Cultural Battle

    This cultural war is crucial. “If we lose the cultural battle, we will ultimately lose the legislative and political battles.”

    Feldman drew on his years of work with the firearms industry to say, “For the first time, the firearms industry is heavily involved in the battle. As most of you know, the ’68 Act had the fingerprints of the domestic firearms industry all over it.”

    The philosophical beliefs of the movement are a strength, Feldman said. “Our right to own arms shows the very nature of our relationship with our government. The government is not above us, they are below us, they are our servants, not our masters.

    The crowd applauded as Feldman concluded, “The fight, simply put, is not about guns—it’s about freedom.”

    Since the Saturday afternoon panels had been running late, Voorhees adjourned the meeting promptly at 6 p.m. without the traditional Q&A to get people ready for the evening reception hosted by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, at which Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) was scheduled to speak.

A Greater Threat

    Barr, who is also an NRA board member, told the conferees at the reception that a lack of understanding of the Constitution threatened not only the Second Amendment, but all other constitutional guarantees as well.

    “When we try to talk about the Second Amendment, we run into a brick wall of disinterest in the substance,” Barr said. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms means that the people actually have a right. Also, because of its placement in the Bill of Rights, it means that it is an individual right. Those concepts are alien to many people in Washington.”

    Barr praised the Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizens’ Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for their roles in educating political leaders about the meaning of the Second Amendment.

    Barr said that President Clinton’s comments in an interview with talking head Dan Rather showed how this Administration has turned that meaning on its head. When asked if it was a dishonor to be the first sitting president to be impeached, Clinton said, “Oh, no, this was an honor because it gave me the opportunity to defend the Constitution from these mean-spirited folks.”

    “It should not come as any surprise to us,” said Barr, “that we have Members of Congress, learned judges, and high government officials who don’t understand that the Second Amendment is a right secured to the people. Its codification in the Bill of Rights is simply a reaffirmation,” Barr said.

    This truth was not accepted by some, Barr said. “Some people believe that right is only given to us for a limited purpose—to form militias, and they believe that purpose has outlived its usefulness.”

Animosity to Constitution

    He said that the Clinton Administration demonstrated a deep-seated animosity to the Constitution. Sweeping presidential directives turn the notion of separation of powers on its head, Barr cautioned.

    Barr shared a discussion he had with foreign parliamentarians who could not understand the importance of the Second Amendment to Americans. He told them that what had happened at Waco showed, “…if the government has the power to take away a power that is expressly reiterated in the Bill of Rights, then there is absolutely nothing that the government cannot take away. There is no limit to its power. It is a question of whether or not we will have constitutional government in our country.”

    Barr expressed disappointment with his fellow Republicans for their failure to carry through with the Contract with America.

Juvenile Justice Bill

    And he said that it was still not clear what would result from the Conference Committee on the Juvenile Justice bill.

    Barr wound up his formal remarks by urging the members of the audience to contact their representatives to let them know of their support for the Second Amendment.

    In a question and answer period Barr opened after his prepared remarks, the congressman said, “Waco goes to the question of what sort of society we are going to have. If we don’t know what happened, we cannot take steps to guarantee that it never happens again. Waco was the darkest day in American law enforcement history. We must find out to what extent perjury was committed by federal agents and witnesses who told us no shots were fired into the compound on the day of the final assault. They told us there were no pyrotechnic devices or military involvement. We have substantial evidence that was not true. Government witnesses are accountable and obstruction of justice still does matter to this country.”

    Barr questioned the value of the Department of Justice’s Waco investigation. “Congress has to reassert its proper oversight role and insure that our laws are not misused and misinterpreted. Whatever the Administration does on Waco is suspect,” he said.

Final Day

    Sunday, Sept. 19 was the final day of the 1999 GRPC. The program opened with a panel designed to help gunowners take advantage of modern communications technology as they take gun rights into the new millennium.

    Joe Huffman, a Washington state activist  and member of the Microsoft Gun Club, was the first member of this panel to address the conference.

    Huffman said, “The Internet is probably as important as the invention of the printing press or human speech.” It is an invaluable tool for the support of firearms rights.

    E-mail allows ready-made notes of a conversation, Huffman said, and allows the sharing of information with dozens, even hundreds of individuals.

    Huffman shared an example of how speedy communication allowed firearms rights activists to squelch an anti-gun protest at a shooting range. He said, “The antis had called the media and there was a TV crew ready to set up about the same time we got there. They never got out of their truck. The media left before the anti-gun people got there. There was no anti-gun news on the news that night.”

Reduction of Fear

    Huffman cautioned e-mail users to be discrete in their e-mail communications. “Anyone can tune into a website, make a copy and use it however it suits them. Our opposition can use what you say to scare the public. Our enemies create fear of private citizens with guns. Anything that you do that can be used to create fear will weaken us.” He urged gunowners to associate a reduction of fear with guns—personal protection, safety, recreation, competition, even protection from tyranny.

    The next panelist was Craig Peterson, a webmaster who is president of Gun Owners of New Hampshire (GO-NH). He discussed how computer communication was used to track the campaign appearances of an anti-gun politician. He also said that computer technology was important in getting out support for range protection.

    Keeva Segal, who designs websites, said that computer owners who have Windows 98 or Windows 2000 can easily build their own website. He discussed the importance of the Internet for retrieving information.

    Segal said, “When you are talking about the Internet, you are talking about rights. The Internet is the First Amendment in a pure, undiluted form. There is no editor between you and your audience. Government has certainly tried to control it. It is an unrestrainable, international resource.”

    Segal said he had created an organization to urge authorities to lock up felons with guns called “Lock Them Up.” In less than 24 hours, he created an organization that was recognized by The Wall Street Journal, simply by using his computer skills.

    He urged activists to make use of their fax modem—a piece of paper, he explained, has to be dealt with, whereas an e-mail can simply be deleted.

    Next, computer bulletin boards were defined by panelist Leroy Pyle as “basically a place to store and disseminate information.” Pyle is a retired police officer, and founder of the Paul Revere Network BBS. He urged conferees to bring more people on-line; to get people signed up.

Gun Control & Doctors

    The question, “Is Gun Control Dangerous to your Health,” was discussed by three medical doctors in the next panel. The first speaker was Timothy Wheeler, MD, director of Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, a project of the Claremont Institute in California.

    “Most of what you hear on the media on the medical debate about firearms,” Wheeler said, “casts gunowners in a negative light—suggesting we are intellectually dull, morally backwards. They suggest that guns are viruses that cause the disease of gun ownership. To get rid of the ‘disease’ of gun ownership, just get rid of the guns.”

    Wheeler said this view prevailed in many medical journals. He also said that although the medical community was turning to other political problems, it was still a threat to the Second Amendment.

    “There still are cadres out there that make life hard on the public relations front. This has brought the level of medical scholarship down to the lowest level I have ever seen. And it’s not just the gun issue. The idea of editors of medical journals using their authority and the trust that the public places in them to advance their personal political views is a pernicious trend,” Wheeler said.

    Medical science is based on the scientific method, he said. It is designed to keep naturally human tendencies out of the process. In the Journal of American Medical Association, that philosophy has been thrown out the window, Wheeler said. “On the editorial page, they say, ‘We are no longer in the business of just bringing you facts; we have a social agenda. We have a right to do that.’ ”

DRGO Handbook

    Because of all the disinformation in the medical community, the Claremont Institute has published a 25-page booklet for both medical professionals and the layman called Firearms, a Handbook for Health Professionals. It particularly discusses the work of Professors John Lott and Gary Kleck.

    The next speaker was Joel Butler, MD, who has been pivotal in planning Mississippi’s trauma services. Butler criticized a recent study on the cost of gunshot wounds in the US.

    “It isolates information, and it ignores the benefits of firearms ownership. The media just takes the headlines without the qualifiers. Isolating information has a long tradition. The cost of gunshot injuries is one quarter of 1% of all health care spending.”

    He said, “With guns, the risks are tangible, and the benefits are not tangible to the average person.”

    Butler said that the organization of the trauma care system in Mississippi should result in the collection of some interesting statistics about the relatively small role firearms play in emergency room cases.

    “We know that automobiles are far, far out in front of gunshot injuries,” Butler confirmed.

    David Oliver, MD, an NRA board member and Missouri firearms rights activist, outlined his work in obtaining support from the medical community for Missouri’s concealed carry initiative.

    “I’ve always thought that there were a lot of doctors out there who were closet gunowners, NRA members, who were afraid to become public. I would like to keep adding to our list of medical supporters.” Oliver urged the audience to educate their own doctors.

    “The more medical people we can get on our side, the more credible we will be,” Oliver said.

    He recommended an article in the Spring 1995 issue of The Tennessee Law Review entitled, “Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda?”

    “It paints a bad picture of medical research. Much ‘research’ is just outright lies—I’m embarrassed by that.”

    Next, Julianne Versnel Gottlieb, publisher of Women & Guns magazine, moderated a panel focusing on children, women and safety, particularly for urban communities.

Value-Neutral Video

    The first speaker was Jeff Jennings, who is on the editorial board of the New Hampshire Firearms Safety Coalition. Jennings said that this group began its existence as an anti-gun organization.

    “The premise was to take HCI (Handgun Control Inc.) and public health material and disseminate this to schools, public health organizations, and pediatricians,” he said. “The woman who chaired the organization decided she wanted some pro-gun people—and pro-gun money. Our organization is unique because it has input from both sides. In New Hampshire, we’ve found common ground. We took an issue that was initially anti-gun in tone and by our participation, turned it around to something that is value-neutral.”

    The organization has produced a video tape that is designed and produced by middle school youngsters who are too old for NRA’s Eddie Eagle safety program. The tape shows strategies for disengaging from a situation where there might be improper use of a firearm. It also takes young people out to a range and shows them how firearms behave in real life. It includes an interview with the victim of an unintentional shooting.

    Jennings reported that the tape includes an interview with a New Hampshire school principal. Because of a program in place in his school, a student came forward saying that someone was planning a shooting and had a list of proposed victims. That shooting was stopped 20 minutes before it happened. The tape tells kids to assume that all guns are loaded. If an irresponsible person is talking about using a gun irresponsibly, young people are told to find a responsible adult, and turn the firearm over to them.

    Copies of the tape will be available in shortly through Gun Owners of New Hampshire which can be reached on the Internet at www.gonh.org.

NSSF’s HomeSafe

    Lt. Gen. James Chambers, executive director of SAAMI, outlined a new National Shooting Sports Foundation program called “HomeSafe.” Headed by Doug Painter of NSSF, the safety program is aimed at the non-traditional firearms owner—those in urban areas or inner cities, who might have a firearm in the home for self-protection, but have not had the advantage of being raised with firearms. The program is presented in cooperation with law enforcement and city governments.

    HomeSafe teaches common sense firearm safety—unload and lock, store firearms and ammunition separately, Chamber said. It shows firearms owners how to educate their own children, and it emphasizes the extreme importance of protecting other children who might come into your home.

SAF Safety Program

    Joe Tartaro, editor of Gun Week and president of SAF, next discussed the importance of closing the gap between gunowners and those who do not know about firearms or how they are safely and responsibly used.

    Tartaro explained a new SAF program called “GunSafe,” that was designed to be used to present basic firearms knowledge in free programs conducted in cooperation with public service groups such as the Kiwanis, the Lions’ Club, or local law enforcement or government agencies.

    Among the program tools is an 11x17 folder that explains the differences in firearms actions and how to open them to prevent them from discharging.

    “By giving the history of firearms development and explaining how most guns work,” Tartaro said, “we can demystify and correct what many people know about guns without getting into a political debate.”

    Tartaro concluded by observing that the program, which will include billboards, posters and a lesson plan for volunteer instrutors, might help educate the media as well.

    Julianne Gottlieb urged women to write to their legislators, and to the media to show that families who own guns are as concerned about firearms safety and misuse as anyone.

    “Remember to say that you are a mom,” she said, “when you explain your views.”

Open Forum

    Tom Gresham, host of the nationally syndicated radio show “Gun Talk,” moderated an open forum panel with John Barnett, executive director of SAF. Gresham scolded the conferees for using the terms “conservative” and “liberal.”

    “Every time you say ‘conservative’ you run off a bunch of pro-gun liberals who will help you.”

    He continued, “Public opinion drives all of the smaller battles we have won or lost in the last 30 years—and we have lost that battle. We have won the intellectual battle, but it doesn’t matter.”

    Gresham said that the public wanted to hear that the firearms rights community cared about firearms tragedies. “They think we think it’s OK for kids to die. If we don’t convince the general public that we are responsible people, we will lose.”

    A variety of speakers shared information and views with the conference from the floor during the open forum.

     A woman from Arizona said that she was organizing a new group to educate women about self-defense and family defense. The organization is called “Mothers Arms,” or “MA,” and it uses federal grant money to defend women’s rights to defend their children at home and at school. She said that the group’s website, www.gunlaws.com, can be contacted for information on possible discretionary grants that come out of the Department of Justice.

    John Hosford from Wyoming discussed AARP, the American Association of Retired People. He found that many gunowners were contributing to that organization, ignorant of the fact that AARP lobbies against firearms rights.

    A professor, retired from the University of Illinois, told about how his organization put up pro-firearms rights signs modeled after Burma Shave signs. He gave an example. “Your brain. Is. The best. Safety device. Gunsavelives.com.”

    Another speaker announced a pro-freedom rally day on March 8, 2000 in the Missouri state capital Rotunda at Jefferson City.

    After this final panel, attendees discussed and voted on resolutions (see sidebar on Page 15) before Alan Gottlieb and Joe Tartaro adjourned the 1999 GRPC and Barnett announced the date and location for next year’s conference: Sept. 29 - Oct. 1, 2000 in Crystal City, VA, across the Potomac River from Washington, DC.
[got to part 1] [go to part 2]