Gun Rights Policy Confab a Major Success
by Bob Lesmeister
Photos by John Krull
(photos included in off-site copy here)

“For the President of the United States to stand up and speak out against gun rights organizations, to say it’s your fault people are dying on the streets of America, is in itself the most anti-American expression for a President ever in the history of this country.”

This telling and accurate observation expressed by Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) drew thunderous cheers and applause from the crowd of 300 pro-firearms rights activists who attended the year 2000 Gun Rights Policy Conference (GRPC) reception held at the Crystal City Marriott, Washington, DC.

This Friday night event opened the 15th annual GRPC, held Sept. 29-Oct. 1 in the heart of the District of Columbia. Co-sponsored by the Citizens Committee for the Right To Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), the GRPC was attended by a record number (well in excess of 500) of men and women. They came from all corners of this country as well as from other nations. They came not only to learn what is happening on the social and political firearms fronts, but also to voice their concerns and opinions. And they offered valuable and constructive remedies to the problems plaguing the honorable industry of firearms manufacturing and the rights of American citizens to own and bear arms.

Additional support from the following companies and organizations ensured that the GRPC was not only successful, but remained the premier gun rights conference in this hemisphere: Browning, Cannon Safe Company, Fifty Caliber Shooters Association, Heckler & Koch, Law Enforcement Alliance of America, National Rifle Association, National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), MBNA America, Marathon USA, Microsoft^® Gun Club, North American Arms, Smith & Wesson, Sporting Arms & Ammunition Manufacturers Institute (SAAMI), Talk America Radio Network and the Washington Arms Collectors.

At the reception hosted by NSSF and SAAMI, Craig went on to praise the endeavors of active gunowners.

“We are about two weeks from ending the 106th session of Congress and, because of your efforts, no new gun control laws will have been passed,” Craig observed.

He also went on to chastise the White House for its unprecedented onslaught against American gunowners. “I’ve had the privilege of serving my state of Idaho in Congress for 20 years, but during these past few years I have seen the gun community under attack from a single President as never before!”

He also warned the pro-gun purists not to abandon Gov. George W. Bush over the little matters, when the larger threat is personified by Al Gore. Craig reassured the crowd that Bush not only honors the Second Amendment, but believes that the right of gun ownership for law-abiding Americans is a profound right that cannot be tampered with.

Of Gore’s intentions, Craig warned, “We are at a fundamental turning point in our country. If we elect Al Gore and keep a Janet Reno-style Justice Department, you and I both know the kind of assault our individual rights will be under. Not only will we continue to see a decline in law enforcement against those criminals and those individuals who illegally use guns, but we will see a fundamental assault against citizens like you who play by the rules and abide by the law.”

While the enthusiastic crowd munched on sumptuous foodstuffs at the opening reception, Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT) took the opportunity to slip a little levity into the proceedings. He passed around photos of Gore mentally saying to himself, “Don’t go off, don’t go off...” while staring at gun barrels.

Cannon explained that this is the Administration’s new gun safety program.

“There are some restrictive requirements for admission to the program,” Cannon said. “Your IQ has to be above room temperature but below body temperature.” This sort of “show-and-tell” illustrated the old adage, which is still true, that guns don’t kill people. People kill people. A firearm is an inanimate object that, in and of itself, can do nothing. It’s the person using the firearm who is to be congratulated or prosecuted, depending on how that gun is used.

Cannon was serious, however, when he said we are in a cultural war. The citizens who love liberty and who support the Bill of Rights are under constant attack by those who would subvert or reject our constitutionally-guaranteed rights in lieu of “political correctness.” The Internet is one way for the average American to fight back and have his voice heard along with millions of others, Cannon said.

“I am a fan of the Internet because it is the greatest potential focus for freedom and expression of the people in the history of the world.” He urged listeners to log on to his website, www.chriscannon.com and link to www.gunvote2000.com

“We want desperately to give Americans a place of focus, a place where they can say, ‘I care about these issues.’ And it’s not just you alone, or you at a local town meeting. It provides a central point for millions of you who care about the issues and it gives you a place to assert your will. I want to plead with you for two things. One, get on the Internet and make your voice heard. Two, elect the person who is most likely to advance your interests or the least likely to oppose them.”

Before signing off for the evening, Rep. Cannon recalled when he first came to Washington, DC, he was an admirer of Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL) and that influenced his decision to get on the Judiciary Committee, which led to his being involved in the impeachment of the President. During this time he had the displeasure of daily contact with Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA). “Her desire to take my guns induced me to go from an occasional shooter to a passionate gunowner. Guns are the things she wants because guns are the things that keep us free.”

While there were a good number of boos and hisses at the mention of Waters’ name, Cannon explained, “You’re lucky, I had to spend four years listening to her. When you hear her on TV, you have the ability to change channels or turn her off. I didn’t have that luxury.”

At the conclusion of his remarks, Cannon was presented with the Gun Rights Legislator of the Year award by Alan M. Gottlieb, chairman of CCRKBA.

Rep. Matthew Martinez

It’s always been a mistake to fight the pro-firearms war by supporting one political party over another without taking into account the Second Amendment supporters and potential supporters within the parties. Rep. Matthew Martinez (D-CA) is one of the reasons to keep an open mind.

Martinez was the third speaker at the reception. He thanked the attendees for their pro-firearms efforts and their endeavors to keep any anti-gun legislation from passing this past year. He also emphasized that America consists of two areas, urban and rural.

It’s in the rural areas, observed Martinez, where it’s easiest to defend gun rights because many of the inhabitants in the country have grown up using firearms and accepting hunting as a way of life. It’s in the urban areas, where guns are most often misused and where the fight to keep and bear arms is the greatest.

“In Congress, you have to remember, it’s men and women from both sides of the aisle who initiate legislation that would prohibit the responsible, law-abiding individual from acquiring and using nearly every type of firearm. There were over 100 pieces of legislation that had been created in the last Congress that would have altered our already limited Second Amendment,” he said. “It was through your efforts of lobbying and talking to your representatives that prevented those laws from passing.”

Hypocrisy is not lost on Martinez, either. He recalled that when the Democrats controlled Congress, he had created a bill that would have required security guard companies to perform background checks through the FBI on the people they hired to wear a uniform and carry a gun. In too many cases, felons were being hired by guard companies in one state while they were wanted in other states for grievous crimes.

“Charles Schumer and his committee killed the bill even though it would have saved lives,” Martinez said. “Yet he’s the one who championed the new wave of anti-gun legislation. This man is so idiotic that he defeats his own purpose.”

Libertarian VP

To many of the guests at the reception, it was cocktail hour, but to Art Olivier, vice presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party, it was the hour of discontent. A former mayor of Bellflower, CA, Olivier chastised both the Republicans and Democrats for passing laws that impinge on the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms.

“They outlawed ‘cop-killer’ bullets, that never killed a cop,” he blared. “They banned ‘plastic’ guns that are 80% metal. They banned ‘Saturday Night Specials’ because they were not big enough and then banned so-called assault rifles because they are too big! We are sick and tired of losing our freedom.”

According to Olivier, the only hope for Americans this election year is to elect himself and the Libertarian Presidential nominee Harry Browne to office. “Harry Browne feels that the right to keep and bear arms is not a negotiable issue. It’s a God-given right.”

Fortified by a continental breakfast hosted by Cannon Safes early Saturday, Sept. 30, GRPC attendees settled into the Crystal Forum for a day’s worth of indispensable information and updates on all the important issues facing American gunowners and the firearms industry.

As soon as John Barnett, executive director of the SAF, called the GRPC to order, the Pledge of Allegiance was led by Doc Carlson, vice president of the Washington Arms Collectors, followed by the invocation led by the Rev. Anthony Winfield, chaplain for Elmhurst Hospital, Long Island, NY.

Alan M. Gottlieb

Alan Gottlieb, as the first scheduled speaker, provided an overview of the state of the nation. While not retracing every battle the pro-gun forces have fought during the last eight years, Gottlieb acknowledged that in spite of the opposition throwing everything it could at the firearms faithful, not much was accomplished in terms of meaningful gun control.

“When you look at the Clinton/Gore Administration, anti-gun legislation, the media assaults and everything else they’ve thrown at us to further their agenda, we’ve done very well,” Gottlieb said.

“If you compare our situation with that of the tobacco industry, you can see just how well we have done. The tobacco industry, with all of their billions of dollars and the millions of people who smoke cigarettes, did not fare as well as we did over the last eight years.”

Gottlieb thanked grass roots activists for their role in keeping the gun grabbers at bay and for ensuring that the anti-gun crowd had no clear, concise victories. While admitting that pro-firearms forces lost out on the Brady Bill war, they did win the battle in the sense that the federal waiting period is now history and that just about everything the anti-gun forces claimed as a “win” was nothing more than symbolism over substance.

“Also, if you take a look at the ‘assault weapons’ ban, the other federal battle we didn’t win, it sunsets in a few short years, provided that we get the right Congress elected this November. Over the last decade, a significant number of states across the nation have passed right-to-carry laws, something we pushed very heavy and won. And a lot of those states that have passed right-to-carry have also increased reciprocity. In the last two weeks, for example, Texas has now recognized Tennessee, Arkansas and Kentucky right-to-carry licenses.”

In spite of the many battles the pro-firearms groups have won, Gottlieb said, it still seems like our side is constantly losing. Gunowners are under constant attack in such places as Chicago, New York City and Washington D.C. The media is a never ending fount of vitriol when it comes to addressing the firearms issue and the right to bear arms. “But in spite of what the media has thrown at us, nothing has stuck,” declared Gottlieb. “Take a look at the public opinion polls post-Columbine. They show a 2% support level higher than pre-Columbine for the right to keep and bear arms.”

The many assaults on Americans’ fundamental firearms rights has had the opposite effect of what the anti-groups would have expected, Gottlieb said. The number of members in and supporting gun groups is at an all-time high. He attributed the strength and success of these groups to the way the grass roots movement has become more sophisticated and better trained. But he also cautioned that the other side is not sitting idly by. “We need to learn to think outside the box as the other side has. We have to change the way we phrase our terminology and how we work.”

By thinking outside the box, the gun grabbers have taken gun control to a new level by calling for safety measures. Gottlieb called it the classic bait and switch.

Joseph P. Tartaro

Following Gottlieb, Joseph P. Tartaro, president of SAF and editor of The New Gun Week, outlined a myriad of opportunities the pro-gun corps can use to fight the forces of the gun-grabbing bandits. Taking note that the crowd attending the GRPC had many more women and young people than in years past, Tartaro praised the emergence of the Second Amendment Sisters (SAS).

SAS provided the pro-firearms side with a unique and highly effective opportunity to counteract the “Million” Mom March, he said. The so-called million moms never amounted to anymore than 100,000—if that. Members of SAS, being mothers, gunowners, concerned housewives and professional women, didn’t buy the $4 million hype, nor the media’s adoration of the bogus march.

“They did something about it,” said Tartaro. “And what they did was significant. It changed the playing field as far as the ‘million’ moms went. The moms couldn’t control the media and couldn’t control the mood. The Second Amendment Sisters got our side of the story out. The Second Amendment Sisters are a prime example of how individual gunowners all around the country are responding to the threat they see. As we come into the 21st century, we’re reaching an era of opportunity. The gun issue and any other public policy issue is decided not at the extremes at either end but by the people in the middle,” he said.

As the nation goes digital and wireless technology evolves even further, the opportunities offered by the future may be unlimited. Tartaro told the firearms enthusiasts that how gunowners and the firearms industry take advantage of the technological revolution is going to determine to a great extent the future of firearms ownership in America.

“We have to find the most effective ways of using this technology, especially when the other side is taking advantage of it. The Democratic National Committee is setting up e-precincts, encouraging people to become e-precinct captains. They are creating electronic constituencies that will be led by particular coordinators to keep their message up. This is extremely important now that we are already experimenting with electronic voting by computer.”

As we travel faster and further into the 21st century, the government will also take advantage of the new technology. They already have the capability to exploit cell phones and “V” chips and the FBI’s controversial “Carnivore” e-mail tapping system has both conservatives and liberals feeling uneasy. But, as Tartaro explained, this is all the more reason for Second Amendment supporters to embrace the new age and profit from its technology.

Federal Affairs

“If Gore wins. You lose,” shouted John Snyder, public affairs director of CCRKBA, immediately following Tartaro. A few “amens” erupted from the audience.

“If Gore wins, America loses,” Snyder continued in moderating the Federal Affairs Briefing panel that included Lt. Gen. James Chambers (SAAMI), Ted Deeds (LEAA), John Velleco (GOA) and Neal Knox of the Firearms Coalition.

“If Gore wins, the horrendous gun-grabbing legislative attacks spearheaded by the Clinton/Gore Administration will continue and increase.” Snyder, never one to mince words or sugarcoat an issue, expressed his personal gratification at being able to spend the last quarter century speaking out on gun rights issues. But he admitted that the last eight years have been the most difficult in his crusade.

“If this regime continues, and it will under a Gore/Lieberman Administration, the political attacks on our civil rights might be so sustained and so severe, as to be irreversible,” Snyder said.

“Gore the Bore,” as Snyder referred to the Vice President, has made no pretense to what he would do if he attains the White House. You can expect handgun licensing, a ban on handguns he determines are “junk,” limited firearms sales, a national three-day waiting period, legal attacks on firearms manufacturers and a host of other anti-rights measures. Snyder explained how “Gore the Bore” has become a chameleon, doing whatever it takes to get the vote and grab political power. As a senator, Gore supported the Gun Owners Protection Act and opposed a national 14-day waiting period for handgun purchases. Then when he became Vice President, “Flipper Gore” did a 180 on the gun issue and became a national poster boy for “Gun Grabbers Inc.”

“As President of the Senate, he cast the tie-breaking vote (in 1999) in favor of the infamous Lautenberg Amendment to a proposed Juvenile Justice Bill,” asserted Snyder.

Lt. Gen. Chambers

Snyder then introduced Chambers, a retired Air Force general and executive director of SAAMI. Chambers didn’t see much difference between the wars he fought in the past and the current battle for gun rights.

“I’ve spent over 35 years in the Air Force and during those years, I’ve faced the enemy. They were dangerous, malicious, prone to fabrication, devious and above all immoral. As a civilian, I face an enemy with those same characteristics. I join this fight willing and able to carry it to its logical conclusion, which is victory for all law-abiding gunowners and Second Amendment rights believers.”

Chambers discussed some of the laws several states have passed that have curtailed the rights of gunowners and punished gun manufacturers. He discussed S-15 signed into law by California Gov. Gray Davis that goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2001. This bill was a collaboration between a liberal state senator and Handgun Control Inc. It basically forces safety standards on firearms that can be sold in California, but the standards are all but impossible to meet, which would have the effect of banning handguns in the state. In order to be sold, three handguns of the same model must be presented to a Department of Justice laboratory for testing and certification. Another bill set to go into effect on the first of next year would require safety devices to be included with each sale of a firearm. These safety devices would also have to be approved and certified by the state’s Department of Justice labs.

He also brought up S-23 in California, the “assault weapons” ban that went into effect on the first day of year 2000. “It allows each jurisdiction in the state to make its own determination of what is an ‘assault weapon.’ While one jurisdiction in the southern part of the state might give you authority to sell a firearm as a non-‘assault weapon,’ you may find yourself in violation in San Francisco with the same gun.”

Chambers also spoke about S-211 in Maryland, which requires a manufacturer to fire a test round, capture the spent case and identify it as coming from that particular arm. It must then be sealed in a container and included in the box with the gun to be sold. When the gun is sold, the dealer must send the sealed container with the empty casing to the Maryland State Police, where it will become part of a digital data base. The cost in terms of money and manpower for manufacturers to abide by this law make it nearly impossible to comply, Chambers said. Similar laws are going into effect in New York and Massachusetts.

“This is a proliferation I fear will continue,” grieved Chambers. “If it does continue, you’ll find the firearms manufacturer having to present three items of one model to 50 states to run through the tests at great cost. To sell a firearm in the United States, it will cost the manufacturer $100,000 per model.”

Ted Deeds

Ted Deeds, chief operating officer of LEAA, followed Chambers with a different take on the issues at hand. He emphasized that law enforcement and the average citizen both suffer from the ramifications of gun control. LEAA and the NRA are fighting the government violations of privacy in court over illegal records retention and the National Instant Check System (NICS). Deeds pointed out that a couple of the Jane and John Does from these lawsuits were actually sitting in the audience.

Deeds also addressed one of the major misconceptions that many people have about law enforcement and firearms ownership. “It’s the traditional misrepresentation that rank and file cops don’t support the Second Amendment. I spend a lot of time and energy explaining why that’s not true,” said Deeds.

As he explained, many of the major police organizations, especially those with unions, have been nothing more than lap dogs for the Clinton/Gore Administration. Not long ago, the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), the largest police union in the country, unanimously decided to support Gore for president. The FOP executive council ratified a Gore endorsement, but unrest erupted among the rank and file of FOP.

“For the first time, rank and file members, through their election process and through their trustees sent a message to the Grand National Lodge of the FOP, and basically said you endorse Gore over our dead bodies. And the grand national lodge of the national FOP, in what we are terming a stunning reversal, came out and endorsed George Bush.”

This was good news, Deeds observed, but unfortunately the media decided not to let the public know. LEAA, through media research, found that there is a 10 to 1 disparity in reporting. “When a police organization comes out for Al Gore, it’s all over the front page. When a major police organization, that has been in bed with the Administration, breaks away and comes over to our side, we get absolutely no press whatsoever.”

Deeds alerted the audience to the importance of the getting Bush elected, not only for the change in the White House, but also for the change it would have on the courts.

John Velleco

John Velleco, media director for Gun Owners of America, retrieved the microphone from Deeds and quickly asked why gunowners are always on the defensive when they have facts and accurate, scholarly studies to support the right to carry and bear arms.

“People like John Lott, Gary Kleck and Dave Kopel have given us enough facts and evidence to destroy any argument the anti-gunner can come up with. Contrast that with the lack of serious scholarship from the other side,” Velleco said.

So, why are the gun grabbers the ones gaining ground? Velleco cites three possible reasons: biased media; ultra liberal college professors who don’t teach the Constitution, and the breakdown of the American family. The anti-gunners also have mastered the 10-second sound bite where mere rhetoric is seen by the public as unassailable truth.

“They are winning not because of facts, but because of mere words. The most insidious danger of anti-gun terms is their use by the pro-gunners, Velleco warned. “When gun grabbers talk about keeping felons from getting guns by banning them we should simply say something like, ‘If such a proposal was constitutional, which it is not, it is ridiculous because less than 1% of all guns will ever be used in a crime, yet your proposals will affect 100% of law-abiding.’ ”

Velleco said the talk about licensing gunowners is no longer talk, but a reality. He lamented that the license required to carry is more than it seems. “I don’t mean to step on any toes, but the ACLU would never accept First Amendment licenses, then neither should we accept them for the Second Amendment.”

Neal Knox

Neal Knox, executive director, of the Firearms Coalition, echoed Velleco’s concerns about the other side’s lack of common sense. “This is a critical battle. This is not a battle about us going duck hunting and we need to let the people know that. The gun confiscation lobby never cares anything about sensible. They don’t care about reasonable because they only have one thing in mind and that’s to get our guns.”

Knox also brought up an aspect of the recent attempts to pass oppressive gun laws that no one has yet addressed. He told listeners that Clinton really didn’t want the juvenile possession, the trigger lock or magazine restriction laws to pass because he wanted these issues to beat the Republicans and especially the gun groups over the head with. Knox said that he didn’t think there was a chance of any Brady amendments going anywhere because, “Al Gore doesn’t want it elevated in the battleground states. But I feel that the congressional election can go either way. Most likely, I think we are going to see a couple of seats change either way in the House. Maybe one or two losses in the Senate.”

As a lifelong warrior for gun rights, Knox admitted that he’s one of the old guard and it is time for the younger generation to get involved. “I challenge the two-thirds of you who are younger than I am to get out there and bust your butts to get your people registered to vote and get them to the polls. The battles that we are talking about today are going to be won or lost on Nov. 7.”

State Legislation

After a break, attendees were eager to get back to their seats for the latest scoop on state and local legislative efforts. Panelists were state Sen. Sam Slom (R-HI), Evan F. Nappen, Dennis Fusaro and Paul Moog.

Slom, trustee and secretary of SAF, said the real action is at the local and state levels. “That’s where the action is. That’s where you come from. That’s where the grass roots movement is most important and that’s where you can make the most changes.”

Slom said that there is always an argument whether the pro-gun groups are winning or losing, but no one can deny that they are always fighting the battle for Second Amendment rights. He encouraged the GRPC attendees to take back the materials and information provided by the conference and use them to create new ideas and new thoughts to fight the anti-gun forces in their communities. He also related a major flop for the gun grabbers in his home state of Hawaii.

“I am really pleased to be here, but I am sorry that I had to leave Hawaii at this time because we are in the midst of the fourth extension of our famous gun buy-up program. It has been so ‘successful’ that it had to be extended four times. They hoped to collect over 250 guns, but the last tally was something like 79.”

Slom cautioned people not to feel overwhelmed by the anti-gun forces and that one person or one vote can make a difference. Slom, himself, is just one of two Republicans in a 25-member state senate, so he knows what it’s like to buck the odds. But no matter how outnumbered you may feel at the local level, the strongest weapon you have is the family. If the family retains the qualities and values that the country was founded on, the stronger the support for rights such as the Second Amendment. But there are forces that would subvert family cohesion, Slom said, mentioning MTV as an example.

Evan F. Nappen

While Slom may have some complaints about his home state of Hawaii, Evan F. Nappen, Esq., founder of ReformNewJerseyGunLaw.com, told listeners that without question, New Jersey is heaven to gun haters and hell to freedom lovers.

“If I can convince you that New Jersey is the worst place to be if you are a gunowner, perhaps you can feel better about your state and know what to avoid.”

Nappen explained that unlike other states in the union, in New Jersey all gunowners are guilty until they can prove themselves innocent. He elaborated on what one might consider a contradiction in basic constitutional principles. “Under New Jersey State Statute 39-5, all guns are banned. It’s up to the citizen to show by way of exception under NJS 39-6 that he lawfully qualifies for exemption. In law, those exemptions are called an affirmative defense and it is incumbent on the defendant to prove that he is within the exemption.”

Exemptions include possession in one’s residence, possession at the target range or possession while hunting and they all come with a series of technical requirements. It’s up to the gunowner to prove at any time that he is within the exemption. Some time ago, New Jersey came up with the requirement for a firearms owner identification card to possess a long arm. Now, one would think that having an owner’s ID card would override the ban on all firearms, but the New Jersey legislature figured how to slide out of that one.

One example involved Joseph Pelleteri, a law-abiding citizen with no prior record who won a .22-caliber Marlin Model 60 in a shooting match. He supplied his firearms ID card to acquire the gun, took it home and locked it up in a safe with the factory tags still on it. He was convicted of possessing an illegal “assault” rifle under New Jersey law, which carried a five-year sentence and the complete loss of all his rights to own guns—ever. Nappen said that this was bad, but the appellate court ruling was even worse. “The appellate said that when dealing with guns the citizen acts at his peril. In New Jersey, the gun laws are, as a matter of law, perilous to gunowners!”

Before turning over the podium to Dennis Fusaro, director of state affairs, Gun Owners of America, Nappen plugged his new novel, The Declaration, about a person who finds the original Declaration of Independence. According to Nappen, it’s loaded with pro-gun sentiments.

Dennis Fusaro

“We have a motto at the State Legislative Affairs at GOA,” said Fusaro. “Pain is good and extreme pain is extremely good...for politicians, that is. We divide the political world of gun rights into two seasons, the election season and the legislative season. Whatever they do to us in the legislative season, it’s our job to do back to them during the election season.”

Fusaro encouraged everyone to log onto GOA’s website at www.gunowners.org to get legislative alerts for their states and to get involved in GOA’s state candidate survey program. The purpose of the survey is to mobilize grass roots gunowners to get them involved and use pressure to educate local candidates.

Fusaro also brought up two initiatives pending in Oregon and Colorado that would require background checks at gun shows for private sales, and in the case of Oregon, it would lead to registration of the firearm with the state police. “You need to educate your friends and neighbors why legislation like this is bad,” Fusaro directed. “Registration leads to confiscation. It happened in DC. It happened in New York City, and it’s happening in California.”

The final speaker on state and local legislation was Paul Moog, president, Virginia Citizens Defense League Inc. He expressed surprise that with just a few key activists in 1994 and help from the NRA and GOA, Virginia Citizens Defense League was able to get a concealed carry law passed. “This year and the past five years we’ve been working on getting rid of the ban on carrying concealed weapons in restaurants. Hopefully, this year we will end that ban.”

Moog said that he knew what it feels like to be a lone activist and try to get something done. It’s only through networking and operating with other people can you really accomplish a lot. “One thing I’ve found very rewarding is starting a grass roots group and working with other grass roots activists. It can be frustrating to be one individual and find you can’t get much done, but if you can get 20 or 30 people together, you can get a lot accomplished. We only had about 30 people when we started our efforts to get a concealed carry law in Virginia. If you get people to work together, you can enjoy success.”

Tom Gresham

After listening to pro-gun efforts at the local level, GRPC attendees heard about current pro-gun efforts by the industry to defend itself against attacks. Tom Gresham, board member of the CCRKBA and host of the nationally syndicated radio program “Gun Talk,” was first to address the subject of fighting back. “The biggest threat to gunowners and the one with the greatest potential for shutting it all down is the suit against the gun-makers themselves. Make no mistake about it, the plan is to end firearms sales by destroying the firearms industry. You can have a Second Amendment, but it doesn’t mean anything if you can’t buy a gun.”

Gresham dismissed the critics that claimed he was pushing for compromise. He cautioned the audience to pay attention. “I keep saying we have to fight smarter. Never compromise. Never give in. You can’t take a bat and baseball mitt to a football game. You have to know the game in order to play.”

Just because someone is not getting into a face-to-face confrontation over the gun issue doesn’t mean that the person is not fighting or is compromising. Perhaps he or she is just fighting smarter. To illustrate the concept of fighting smarter Gresham recalled the massive brouhaha over S-2099, which was introduced by Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI). It was a gun registration bill that amended the 1934 National Firearms Act and called for a $50 tax on handguns. “How many of you received e-mail on 2099?” he asked. Several hands went up. “How many of you wasted your time, effort and money fighting that silly ‘Chicken Little’ measure?” he asked.

“It was a waste. It wasn’t going anywhere. Millions upon millions of e-mails that could have been better spent on something that was effectual were wasted on something that made us feel better. We’ve got to fight smarter. If a bill is so outrageous that we know it will not pass, we have to ignore it. Let’s not be sidetracked by Chicken Little on the Internet.”

As a host of a widely successful radio show, Gresham knows what it takes to be heard by the media. In the media, he says, you have to get permission to speak. “It’s not enough just to say you have a good idea. You have to earn the right to speak. It’s not good enough just being right. You can be right and lose or you can be right and win. It’s your choice. But to be right and win you have to get smart. You have to show credibility in order to speak out. Get involved in programs like Project Home Safe. Give away free gun locks. It buys you credibility and therefore a right to speak.”

$100,000 a Month

Following Gresham, Chambers delivered some staggering figures on what it costs the firearms industry to defend itself. “Right now the industry is facing lawsuits in 31 cities and counties. It is costing us $100,000 a month to defend against these.”

Chambers said most of the suits were leveled against handgun manufacturers and they came in two varieties, the New Orleans model and the Chicago model. The New Orleans model, based on a 1998 suit filed by the mayor of that city, claims that firearms manufactured by gun companies are of unreasonably dangerous design and manufacturers have failed to implement safety devices that would prevent unauthorized users from firing their guns.

The Chicago model is one where the firearms manufacturers are accused of saturating the areas surrounding the city with guns so that even though you cannot buy or sell within the city limits, you have free access just outside the line. “This suit purports that gun manufacturers knowingly flood cities with more guns than they could ever expect to sell to law-abiding citizens, knowing full well that criminals are going to pick up the slack,” Chambers explained.

The industry has had several successes against these suits, Chambers said. Suits have been dismissed in Cincinnati, OH; Bridgeport, CT; Miami/Dade and Tampa, FL. Both Louisiana and Georgia have state laws that prohibit cities from filing against firearms manufacturers, but that hasn’t stopped the opposition from trying.

There were some disappointments, too. “In Boston the motion to dismiss was denied,” Chambers said. “That’s on appeal from us. In Detroit, a partial motion to dismiss was granted on one count. The other is still pending. In Cleveland, the motion to dismiss was denied.”

Chambers lauded Rep. Bob Barr’s (R-GA) Firearms Heritage Protection Act that, with bipartisan support, will put an end to the frivolous lawsuits against firearms manufacturers in both state and federal courts.

Things weren’t always so gloomy, according to Chambers. He said that the NSSF and SAAMI had selective meetings with some of the mayors of major cities and were finding common ground, when the White House interjected itself into the talks. “New York Attorney General Spitzer was the lead component of those discussions but pressure from the White House forced him to break off all talks.”

Chambers also provided some insight into the HUD/Smith & Wesson deal. “Cuomo made promises to the White House that he could get the industry to fall in line. Just give me one major firearms manufacturer, he said, and the rest would fall in line. Well, he’s fallen on his butt because that did not happen.”

Chambers reported that NSSF and seven handgun manufacturers including Beretta, Browning, Colt’s, Glock, SIGarms, Sturm Ruger and Taurus filed suit in Federal Court against HUD Secretary Cuomo, Spitzer, Massachusetts Attorney General Blumenthal and elected officials in 14 municipalities charging them with an illegal conspiracy and restraint of trade in violation of the US Constitution.

Chris Dolnack

Chris Dolnack, community outreach coordinator for NSSF, expanded on the role of the trade association in helping the pro-gun fight. “It’s a war of attrition,” Dolnack said. “Uncle Sam has deep pockets financed by our tax dollars. All of the money being put into legal defenses by the firearms industry should be going to fund R&D, sponsorship of shooting events and sponsorship of conservation organizations.”

In response to the financial trouble faced by manufacturers, NSSF started the Hunting & Shooting Sports Heritage Foundation which oversees the Hunting & Shooting Sports Heritage Fund, commonly referred to as the Heritage Fund. “We currently have 73 manufacturers, publishers, web groups, PR and ad agencies who have committed 1% of their net sales of hunting and shooting related items. The contributions to this war chest has given us an $11 million budget. This historic commitment produced quick victories in Cincinnati, Miami and Bridgeport, but we still have a long way to go.”

By charter, 50% of the money is used for legal defense and litigation support. The other 50% is used for communications.

“We kicked off our TV campaign during the Republican National Convention,” stated Dolnack. “And we ran it again during the Democratic National Convention. In total, we are spending close to $5 million in the media to take our message to the American people.”

Dolnack informed the crowd that the NSSF is also engaged in a program called Vote Your Sport, which is a voter mobilization and registration campaign.

The third program that Dolnack shed light on was Project HomeSafe, a partnership program among the firearms industry, government and law enforcement. It provides free safety kits, which includes a gun cable lock, to non-traditional gunowners.

“This program gives us a chance to get into the urban areas and get our safety message out.”

There are four ways, Dolnack asserted, by which individuals can help the Heritage program. First, is to write the 73 manufacturers and say thanks for their help. Secondly, individuals can write to the manufacturers who aren’t giving 1% of their sales and ask them why. Thirdly, get friends, family and neighbors out to vote. Finally, everyone is invited to log on www.hsshf.org and contribute to the cause.

John Lott

The climax of the morning panels was the arrival of Professor John Lott, senior research fellow, Yale University Law School and author of More Guns, Less Crime, now in its second edition. Lott addressed the truth about the right to carry. There is a lot of fear about guns, he said, most of it unwarranted and fueled by the media. “My guess is that few people outside this room would know that probably the best estimates we have indicate people use guns sensibly about 2 million times a year. That’s five times more frequently than guns used to commit a crime.”

Lott acknowledged that a dead body is more sensational for a newspaper or TV crew than footprints left by a felon who fled the scene due to the actions of an armed citizen who brandished a firearm. But, he continued, that doesn’t explain all the reasons why the media ignores stories where guns were instrumental in saving lives. He recalled the school shooting incident in Pearl, MS, where an assistant principal used his handgun to subdue a gun shooting attacker.

“We did a computerized news search of the incident and found about 700 news stories around the country that covered the incident. Of the 700 stories, only 19 made any mention of the assistant principal. Only 13 of the 19 mentioned that he had anything to do with stopping the attack. And only nine of the 13 mentioned that he used a gun to stop the gunman. None of these were national stories, just local news. One of the stories covering the assistant principal’s actions did end up on ABC News, but it was at four o’clock in the morning.”

Lott also cited the incident in which five people were brutally murdered in a New York City Wendy’s restaurant and that this tragedy made front page news all over the country. What did not make the news during the same time period were incidents where guns were used to prevent similar tragedies.

“None of these cases received any news coverage outside their local media markets,” Lott said. “A lot of the debates we have right now would be dramatically different if even a few stories where people used guns defensively got the same type of news coverage that the bad events do.”

Self-Defense Myths

Lott discussed the various myths connected with the defensive use of guns against crime. The suggestion by experts that you should act passively when confronted by a criminal is misleading. According to Lott, this advice stems from the National Crime Victimization Survey. Unfortunately, it lumps all sorts of different modes under the heading of active resistance, including fists, fleeing, screaming, baseball bat, pepper spray, knife and gun. By lumping all of these actions together, says Lott, you are getting a false impression that passive behavior is preferable to resistance.

“If a woman resorts to using her fists the very likely result will be a physical response from the attacker with a high probability of either death or serious injury to the victim. When you break down the different types of active resistance, what do you find? By far the safest course of action for anyone to take, but particularly for people, who are relatively physically weaker than the attacker, is to use a gun. Women who behave passively when confronted by an attacker are about 2.5 times more likely to be seriously injured than a woman who has a gun. Men who behave passively are about 1.4 times more likely to end up being seriously injured than a man who has a gun.”

One of the myths that has permeated both sides of the gun issue is that of having a gun in the home is risky business. Lott claimed that quite the opposite is true. “We often hear the claim that having a gun in the home is more likely to result in a death of you or a loved one than result in the death of an attacker. This claim is based on a few studies that have been published in medical journals by the same sets of authors.”

The problem is how the studies are done. Lott explained that what they will do is identify a group of people within a certain area who have died from gunshot wounds. Then they will go and question the victim’s relatives to find out whether that person owned a gun or if they knew if there was a gun in the person’s residence. If either of these were the case, then they automatically assume that it was the person’s own gun that caused the death. “When people have gone back and looked at the data, what they found was that even including suicides, at most only 14% of the deaths could be attributed to the firearm that was in the home.”

Another flaw in much of the anti-gun studies is that not all of the benefits of merely owning a gun are taken into account. They only count as a benefit of gun ownership cases where the attacker was killed. “That’s extremely rare,” admits Lott. “Only one out of every 1,000 times that people use guns effectively is the attacker killed. About 98% of the time simply brandishing a gun is sufficient cause for the criminal to break off his attack. Less than 2% of the time the weapon is fired, and most of those are just warning shots.”

The myth most prevalent currently is the one that says safe storage laws reduce firearms accidents and suicides. Lott claims that if you look at the data, little has changed in the states that have passed mandatory safe storage laws.

Also, says Lott, when you hear of children under the age of 10 dying from gunshots, you assume that it’s another child who did the shooting. That’s not true. “The typical person who accidentally fires a gun is an adult male, who’s in his very late teens or early 20s. He’s either an alcoholic or drug addict who has a history of arrests for violent crime.”

Different Households

The thing you have to take into consideration when you talk about guns in the house, maintains Lott, is that there are two types of households, law-abiding households and criminal households. In law-abiding households the probability of an accidental gunshot involving a child is essentially zero. The cases where a child is accidentally shot in the home, it’s likely that the incidents occurred in criminal households and the person who actually fired the shot had a long criminal history.

“I don’t care what kind of locking device you are going to require to be sold with a gun, you are not going to stop a 24-year-old male from accidentally firing his own gun,” Lott said.

He ended his discussion of firearms myths by dismissing the concept that licensing and registration are important tools for law enforcement.

“The notion is that if a gun is licensed and registered and if it’s left at the crime scene, it’s theoretically possible to trace the gun back to the criminal. The problem is when you talk to police they can’t identify even one crime that’s been solved as a result of licensing and registration. Criminals don’t register their guns and they virtually never leave them at crime scenes. The only time that ever happens is when the criminal has either been seriously injured or killed.”

Part II of the GRPC 2000 Report as Reported in Gun Week Nov. 10, 2000

If you hold a freedom conference, they will come...

The information-packed afternoon session of the first day of the Gun Rights Policy Conference (Sept. 29-Oct. 1, in the Washington DC area), co-sponsored by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), featured guest speakers Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association and Rep. Jack Metcalf (R-WA).

CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb introduced LaPierre, who’s been speaking at and supporting the GRPC since its inception 15 years ago. Currently on a whirlwind trek across the country getting out the pro-gun vote, LaPierre expressed his pleasure at being able to address the GRPC attendees. He then launched into an attack on the Clinton/Gore Administration for its efforts to ban freedom in America by passing laws to restrict a citizen’s right to self-defense.

“They have every law they’ll ever need right now to take violent felons, murderers and drug dealers off the street, hold them without bail and force them to do at least 85% of their time, but they’re not doing it,” LaPierre said.

He praised Project Exile in Richmond, VA, which cut the murder rate there by 65%, and expressed disgust at the current Administration for fighting such programs. “They have meetings at the Department of Justice on how to deflect support for programs like this,” LaPierre said.

Also addressed was the comment that LaPierre made earlier this year accusing the President of aiding violent crime by his inactivity. “Boy, did the media feel his pain! They made him the victim. He’s not the victim. The victims are the people who are dying because the President refuses to apply the laws we already have in place. He went on television and in a temper tantrum attacked me personally, but what it did was force the national media to give us our say and people listened. In every single poll I have seen since, over 70% of the American public say we don’t need any more gun laws because we’re not enforcing those we already have.”

To prove his point, LaPierre proclaimed that the NRA has grown by 1.2 million members over the last 12 months. It is the largest membership increase of any organization in the United States over that time period. He also praised the NRA’s daily half-hour newscast on its website (www.nrahq.org). “If we can get around the media’s filter, the politicians and the media are not going to be able to get a stranglehold on us like they have in the past. We are starting a pro-gun revolution from the grassroots up.”

Al Gore was criticized for his flip-flop on the gun issue as LaPierre demonstrated Gore had supported gun rights in the past and voted to curb funding to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms. Then when Gore decided to run for president for the first time in 1988, his aides notified LaPierre that he would be taking the anti-firearms stance to get through the New York primary. Now that states such as Ohio, Tennessee, Florida and Missouri—to name a few—are the real gateway states in this election, Gore is claiming to be a Second Amendment supporter. “Gore has got union stewards walking into shops in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania telling union members that Al Gore is better on the gun issue than George Bush,” LaPierre said. “We have at least 50 union members willing to go on record with the national media to document this.”

It is not only the Clinton/Gore Administration’s attempts to ban firearms ownership in the United States, LaPierre asserts. It is their disdain for the Constitution.

“They think they are more powerful and smarter than the most powerful document in the history of freedom. Al Gore should never be put in a position where he could get his hands on this document,” he shouted as he held up a copy of the US Constitution.

Jack Metcalf

Just prior to the awards ceremony, Metcalf addressed the luncheon crowd. “It’s a great privilege to be able to work with people who are dedicated to this cause,” he beamed. “I appreciate the opportunity to discuss with you one of my favorite and most crucial topics related to maintaining our fundamental liberties.”

He stressed the need to convert the people who live in urban areas. He acknowledged that most people who inhabit our rural areas have grown up with guns and don’t need much encouragement for pro-firearms support. It is the urban areas where we need to focus our attention, Metcalf said, but it’s an uphill fight because that’s where the majority of people live and they are usually neither friendly nor helpful to the pro-gun cause.

Metcalf then related how important firearms are to the very core of our existence as a country. “The colonists were loyal subjects to the king, but as they became more and more oppressed, they protested more. They were being unfairly taxed and the British were legislating for them without allowing them any input. They complained a lot and they protested, but through all of this they were still loyal to the crown. Even when the king closed the port of Boston, which was economically critical to the colonists, they remained loyal British citizens.”

It wasn’t until April 1775 when the British marched into Lexington and Concord that the colonists decided to make the break. “We were loyal subjects to the king in sprite of all the hardships he heaped upon us. But when they came to take away our guns, we went to war.”

Awards

With that, awards were presented. The Lifetime Achievement Award was presented to LaPierre, a past recipient of the Gun Rights Defender of the Year Award. This year’s Gun Rights Defender of the Year Award was presented to Metcalf who is retiring from Congress.

Lt. Gen. James Chambers, executive director of the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute (SAAMI), accepted the Bill of Rights Award, which was presented to the Hunting and Shooting Sports Heritage Foundation, in recognition of the important pro-gun role the industry has played in the past year. The Grass Roots Activist of the Year Award was handed to John Burtt, chairman of the Fifty Caliber Shooters Policy Institute. Doc Carlson, vice president, Washington Arms Collectors, accepted the CCRKBA Affiliate of the Year Award for a job well done.

Joe Tartaro, president of SAF, presented the Gun Rights Organization of the Year Award. “I have a presentation for a group that has already made significant impact on the firearms debate this year.” With that Dianne Sawyer and Juli Bednarzyk co-founders of the Second Amendment Sisters rose to accept. Bednarzyk saw fit to thank the three women who most influenced her pro-firearms activism. “Thank you Hillary, thank you Rosie, and thank you Donna Dees-Thomases.”

Before the luncheon ended, Don Liotta and Phil Wahlbom of Marathon USA presented some hefty checks to the Fifty Caliber Shooters Policy Institute, Law Enforcement Alliance of America (LEAA), Peoples Rights Organization of Ohio (PRO), Washington Arms Collectors, 10th Cavalry Gun Club, Heritage Foundation Legal Defense Fund and the Second Amendment Coalition of Missouri, the NRA, SAF and CCRKBA. Marathon USA is a Georgia-based company that offers long distance phone service and donates 15% of customers’ long distance usage each month to the pro-gun organization of the customer’s choice.

Richard Gardiner

The afternoon’s first panel titled, Gunowners’ Rights and the Courts, moderated by former CCRKBA executive director, John Hosford, got off to a fine start with well-known pro-firearms civil rights attorney Richard Gardiner. He related how he was involved with Navegar (Intratec) and Penn Arms in their challenge to the 1994 gun ban.

At the time he spoke, Gardiner was awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision on whether or not to hear the case. Literally the day after the conference, the Supreme Court, without comment, refused to hear the case. He also expressed disappointment in an unfavorable ruling against Penn Arms, which was challenging ATF’s interpretation that their Striker-12 shotgun was a destructive device.

Gardiner described the case brought by the NRA and LEAA against Janet Reno, challenging the Administration’s retention of records under the National Instant Check System (NICS). The Court of Appeals, in a 2 to 1 opinion, said that the Administration had the power to retain records for up to 6 months. The two judges who wrote the opinion were Clinton appointees and the reason for the opinion was Clintonesque in its terminology. It seems that the Administration can keep records because Congress did not spell out what they meant by the word “records.” Gardiner explained that they had filed a petition for a rehearing and the court ordered the government to file a reply to the petition.

But wordplay doesn’t end with the NICS case. “Another case is our challenge to the import ban. The Administration’s position is that the word ‘or’ means ‘and’.”

William Gustavson

William Gustavson, a Cincinnati attorney on right to carry, had much to say about other aspects of firearm owner harassment. In Ohio, if you carry a concealed firearm and are stopped by police you are subject to arrest, strip searched, taken to jail, booked, and in debt to a lawyer. You are guilty until you can prove to a judge or jury that you have a legitimate reason for carrying a firearm. According to the Ohio Constitution, which takes a different position than the US Constitution, you have a right to bear arms for your defense.

Gustavson, together with fellow pro-gun attorney Tim Smith looked at the impossibility of the issue. “If you can’t carry a gun concealed and you can’t carry it exposed, then you don’t have a constitutional right at all.”

They filed a lawsuit citing both the state and federal constitutions. The city lawyers bragged to the media that they were going to take the case to federal court, but Gustavson and Smith liked the local judge they had, Bob Ruehlman, who ruled in favor of the gun industry in the city’s lawsuit against it. In order to keep Judge Ruehlman, Gustavson dropped their federal constitutional challenges and filed under the due process clause and equal protection clause of the state statute governing concealed carry. Under the statute if you are a state employee, your boss can give you permission to carry a gun, but if you are a private citizen doing the same job as the state employee you can go to jail for carrying a gun. In the meantime, Handgun Control Inc. requested to come in on the case on behalf of the city of Cincinnati. Ruehlman remembered their meddling in the case against the manufacturers and denied their request.

The case is scheduled to be tried by Ruehlman and if he finds in favor of Gustavson and Smith, Hamilton County, OH, will have a law similar to Vermont where there is no requirement for a permit to carry a firearm.

Feely Case

Smith then described what he called the Feely case. Patrick Feely was a pizza deliveryman who was stopped for a traffic violation and charged with carrying a concealed firearm. He claimed that he needed the gun to protect himself because he was carrying several hundred dollars at a time on delivery runs to construction sites. Smith represented Feely before Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Thomas Crush. Crush acquitted Feely, recognizing Feely’s argument of affirmative defense.

“The judge said that Ohio’s concealed weapons law was flawed because it did not distinguish between criminals and people who carry guns for their protection,” revealed Smith. Unfortunately, the judge’s ruling will not prevent Feely from being stopped again and having to plead affirmative defense again.

Scott Mitzner, general counsel of the Illinois Rifle Association, followed Smith to the podium. He let it be known from the start that pro-gunners are in a fight for their lives and it’s all-out war with the gun grabbers. He explained that his expertise was in investigation and that his job was to put unlawful judges, lawyers and politicians in jail. “I play to win. It’s total warfare,” he roared.

The Illinois Supreme Court passed a new law that states prosecutors, states’ attorneys, attorneys general, and US attorneys, under Illinois license who engage in pretrial publicity such as passing out videos of gun arrests or passing out pictures of guns at pretrial can lose their licenses. That’s where Mitzner says all gunowners can get into the battle and make a difference. “If attorneys violate the rules you people have to go out and file complaints. Complaints must be investigated and responded to. When you keep filing complaints and keep their licenses on the line you keep their attention.”

Another tack is to fill all of the jobs that affect firearms ownership with pro-gunners. “Go after every single job; every job in the state police, every job in the department of natural resources, every job in every county that can affect guns and hunting. Take the jobs away from the liberal environmentalists.”

Chuck Michel

While Illinois has its problems, California certainly doesn’t take a back seat to anti-gun behavior as Chuck Michel, chairman, legislative committee, of the California Rifle & Pistol Association revealed. One of the real problems, says Michel, is the new and not improved 1999 amendment to the 1989 “assault weapons” law. The 1989 approach was to list the guns by make and model. The 1999 amendment defines “assault guns” by their features. “We challenged the 1999 amendment in the California Supreme Court and lost, but we are petitioning the US Supreme Court,” he said.

Michel told how a police officer who owned a Maadi rifle was charged with having a prohibited AK-47 under the 1989 law. He had the officer register the rifle under the 1999 law and received a registration certificate from the California Department of Justice. So the gun that he is accused of possessing illegally has been declared by the state as not being an “assault weapon.” “The Department of Justice is on their third set of revised regulations,” he said.

Michel successfully sued the Los Angeles Police Department for their policy of seizing and not returning firearms without a court order. The LAPD has revised their policies and the city ended up paying attorney fees. He also got an injunction against the ban on the Great Western Gun Show. In the meantime, however, the county has been interfering with the contracts between the property management company and Great Western.

“We have filed a lawsuit for interfering with contracts and they have no legislative immunity. We will be seeking punitive damages against the supervisors in Los Angeles County,” Michel said.

By the end of the year, the California Rifle & Pistol Association will have a website that will publish all of the concealed weapon policies and procedures of the anti-gun cities in California.

Pressed for time following Thomas, Dave Caplan, trustee, of NRA’s Civil Rights Defense Fund and an NRA board member, simply stated, “I am not a gun nut but I’m a Second and Fourth Amendment voluptuary in the sense that the Fourth Amendment has roots in the concept that a man’s house is his castle and fortress.”

Second Amendment Sisters

After a short refreshment break sponsored by Smith & Wesson, GRPC attendees were treated to some highly motivated pro-gun ladies on a panel designated Second Amendment Sisters v. The Sucker Moms: Round II, moderated by Julianne Versnel Gottlieb, publisher of Women & Guns.

“I am proud to welcome these ladies. We are sisters,” Gottlieb said. “We all feel that it is vitally important for us to have the right to shoot, the right to defend our families, our children and our homes.” With that she introduced Dianne Sawyer, a co-founder and director of the Second Amendment Sisters (SAS).

Sawyer recalled seeing a plea on an Internet forum for mothers to descend on Washington, DC, to demand Congress enact stricter gun control laws. This was to become the “Million” Mom March. She said that there were five women on the forum who didn’t want the ill-informed representing them and that the “Million” Mom March did not speak for all women. These five women made the decision to go to Washington to protest the “Million” Moms. They posted an e-mail address and announced their intentions on other forums to get others interested in a counter rally. In a month, they had a solid following.

“We decided to incorporate and give ourselves a name. Second Amendment Sisters was born. We called our pro-freedom rally the Armed Informed Mothers March. We divided up the tasks from our home computers. Kim Watson of Florida became our spokeswoman. Juli Bednarzyk of Illinois sorted through legal matters. Marinelle Thompson handled mail. Deb Wasilewski created flyers and wrote press releases and I answered e-mail and developed our growing data base of supporters,” Sawyer noted.

By the time the rally took place, SAS had state coordinators in 40 states. Maria Heil became the national press coordinator and Diane McKeough took charge of national state coordination. “In excess of 5,000 men, women and children joined us on Mother’s Day in Washington, DC, and attended rallies around the country, letting Congress and state legislators know that we would not tolerate further infringements on our constitutional rights.”

SAS Strategy

Bednarzyk, also a director and co-founder, took over from Sawyer and explained SAS strategy. “We are up against a very real enemy. They don’t hesitate to paint us as despicable human beings. But we’re here to stand up and say we are just like everybody else, only we own a gun.”

Bednarzyk said that SAS has three targeted audiences. The first is Congress. The second is the media and the third is the middle-of-the-road mom. She sees the importance of female spokespersons. “We can say things about freedom that if a man said it, he’d be labeled as an extremist.”

As for the middle-of-the-road moms, Bednasrzyk puts them into two categories, the frightened mom and the busy mom. The frightened mom, she says, is afraid that the SAS will cause problems for the “Million” Moms by screaming and disrupting marches. Unfortunately, it is the “Million” Moms who take that tactic. As for the second type of mom, the busy mom, she is just too preoccupied to look into the argument.

“You cannot argue against the right to defend yourself and your family and we will get people to agree with us. We will meet our opponents everywhere and be a thorn in their side,” Bednarzyk said.

Heil explained that it’s not hard to get good press if you know how to handle the media. Prior to the Armed Informed Mothers March on Mother’s Day, Heil took a local reporter to the range and the result was a spate of positive news articles. She told how she accepted invites from local radio shows, and that led to a spot on a live call-in show which was the Pennsylvania state equivalent of C-Span. “I went on unopposed because the Democrat gun control man from Philadelphia backed out when he found out he was going up against a mother with a gun.”

Heil said that the SAS could not let the “Million” Moms go unopposed. “Can you imagine how they’d be acting now if we hadn’t been there?” she asked. “How arrogantly they would be proposing new gun laws, saying that everyone was behind them except the big, bad NRA?”

Get Involved

SAS Virginia state coordinator Melinda Gierisch explained that there are a lot of women who haven’t addressed the gun issue but are ripe for education. “We have determined that we have to go where women congregate. And that’s not gun shows or gun stores. Women don’t tend to go to those places. If we are going to recruit women, we need to do so outside the typical gunowner block.”

Gierisch suggested that moms join their local Parent Teacher Association to stop the propaganda that anti-gunners are introducing into the school curriculum and to encourage firearms safety classes.

Stephanie Sailor, SAS Chicago coordinator, admitted that she is not your typical gun rights activist. “I got involved because I was tired of crime. I had been assaulted, I had been shot at. A friend of mine was shot in front of my house and another friend was raped on the street. I am not a victim. I’ve always been a fighter and I always will be.”

Sailor organized a rally in Chicago at which she thought about three people would show up and was surprised when 300 arrived. “One of the things that was popular was the National Police Officers Week. A lot of police officers in Chicago support the right of citizens to arm themselves. We gave them cards to hand out that day that said, ‘Mommy, if 911 doesn’t come, how will you protect me?’ ”

Sailor stated she also has had luck taking reporters to the gun range and getting positive feedback. She is also running for Congress on the Libertarian ticket and although she has doubts about winning, she is certain that the mere fact that she is running will generate press to promote the gun rights agenda.

“I just couldn’t handle the notion of walking into the voting booth in November and having no one but an anti-gun Democrat on the ballot.”

Joe Waldron

Immediately following the ladies there was discussion on Government Eavesdropping on Internet Privacy moderated by Joe Waldron, executive director of CCRKBA. Waldron admitted that during his military service he worked as a cryptologist for the National Security Agency, the federal agency tasked with monitoring foreign communications. “There is an incredible capability there that offers an incredible opportunity for misuse if it’s turned inwards instead of toward our external enemies,” he said.

Waldron spoke of how the media has played up terrorist bombings, weapons of mass destruction, chemical attacks, biological attacks and other threats to the point where it has desensitized us to the legislation that is being proposed to turn our intelligence capability on US citizens.

Jim Philbin, legislative analyst for Gunowners of America, was of the opinion that the current threat in cyberspace is the government’s attempts to control the Internet. He noted that 19th century historian and political theorist Lord Acton was prophetic when he viewed history as a struggle between liberty and power. “Governments have always and through a variety of ways, attempted to expand their power at the expense of the population’s freedoms.”

The Internet’s greatest asset is the fact that it offers an alternative communications medium outside the traditional sources where ideas and thoughts can be freely discussed without supervision. Philbin warned that the new hate crime laws are nothing more than a backdoor approach to control the Internet.

Joe Huffman

Joe Huffman a Microsoft Gun Club alumnus, suggested ways to keep the government’s eyes and ears from interfering with Internet use. He acknowledged that the government has the ability and desire to read our e-mail, but that we don’t have to make it easy for them to do so. He furnished three ways to make it hard for them to snoop. One is cryptography, another is stenography and the third is consumption of resources.

Encryption changes the bit patterns at the binary level so that the message is different than what it was when it was constructed. “Encryption is available to everyone,” Huffman said. However, he cautioned that law enforcement could always steal one’s crypto keys or set up a monitoring station across the street from one’s home and literally read a computer monitor through the walls of a house.

Huffman explained that stenography is a way to hide an e-mail message in another message or a photo. This, too, is available free and can be downloaded from the net. As for consumption of resources, “The more and more you hide your messages and make it an effort for people to look for them, the more they have to develop resources for things that probably aren’t that interesting or important.”

In the future, said Huffman, we will have e-mail programs that encrypt messages by default and automatically decrypt them on the receiving end.

Internet Piracy

This writer followed Huffman and focused more on Internet piracy than privacy, explaining how the Internet is going to be instrumental in robbing the country of our next generation of gunowners. Internet sites such as MTV offer an array of young singers and musicians of dubious character to poison youngsters against firearms ownership. Sites such as Rock the Vote, American Bar Association, PAX, and the Ceasefire Action Network all twist the truth about firearms. These sites and all like them are supported by the usual anti-firearms organizations. They never provide both sides of the gun control debate.

The American Psychiatric Association has a site and they support almost all of the anti-gun sites. What makes this so hypocritical is that much of the youth violence can be attributed to the phony diagnosis of Attention Deficit Disorder and the widespread irresponsible dispensing of psychotropic drugs to kids of all ages.

Parents should be ever vigilant as to what their children are viewing on the web. Many of the anti-gun sites are dressed up as “health” sites, “fun” sites or “educational” sites. Underneath they have a whole program of anti-gun bias with links to hundreds of other gun-grabbing sites.

Greg Nojeim

Greg Nojeim, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), had much to say about the evolution of wiretapping and its Internet equivalent. Nojeim said that there are two ways this country can go. One is where the government has access to everyone’s communications and citizens can’t communicate in confidence and one where people are able to communicate in confidence without government interference.

The ACLU is opposed to wiretaps. “When the FBI gets a warrant to place a wiretap on a person’s phone it doesn’t say it will wait until they have probable cause that a particular conversation is incriminating. Each time a wiretap is placed, 200 persons’ conversations are intercepted and only one or maybe two of them will ever be indicted. That’s tremendous privacy carnage.”

According to Nojeim, the Clinton Administration set the record for the most wiretaps in 1993. It broke its own record a year later. It broke the record again in 1996 and then again last year.

Now that the Internet is so pervasive the FBI wants more approval to eavesdrop. The problem for citizens is that much of their personal data is stored by third parties (doctor’s office computer, bank computer, telephone company computer, etc.) and the Supreme Court declared that the Fourth Amendment does not protect third party information. So, if your e-mail is stored with an Internet provider such as AOL, it’s fair game.

FBI’s “Carnivore” is a computer running specialized software at the Internet provider to channel a copy of e-mail from a large portion of that service provider’s customers. The FBI then strips out the e-mail of the person under surveillance. With a regular wiretap, the phone company turns over the conversations of only the target. With Carnivore, the FBI gets everybody’s e-mail and asks us to trust them.

But it’s not all bad news said Nojeim. “There is some good news in Congress. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 2000, HR-5018, requires that the FBI go to a judge and get a court order before it can get a person’s private communications. It also prevents e-mails from being used in court.”

Elections Panel

Introducing the panel, The 2000 Elections: Referendum on the Right to Bear Arms, Alan Gottlieb read a letter that he received from George W. Bush congratulating SAF and CCRKBA on their 15th annual GRPC.

“I believe that law-abiding adults have the right to own guns to protect themselves and their families,” wrote the governor. Bush also promised, if elected president, to use existing laws to prosecute gun abusers and make more funds available for more prosecutors and set up separate penalties for crimes committed with guns.

“Not everyone in this room is going to agree with everything George W. Bush stands for,” said Gottlieb. “But there is a world of difference between someone who supports our right to keep and bear arms and somebody who believes you don’t have that right at all. I think we ought to compliment the governor for being honest and not pandering and for telling us exactly where he stands, something that most politicians would never do.”

Kerri Houston, director of the American Conservative Network, followed Gottlieb. It was her opinion that the gun issue and the unions have become Al Gore’s “third rail.”

Said Houston, “There are a lot of union members who I’ve spoken to who really have a problem because a lot of them are gunowners and a lot have concealed carry permits, but they have a union leadership that’s telling them they have to vote Democratic. And their own money coming out of their paychecks is going to increase the coffers of candidates who are against what they believe in. That’s a wedge we can use.”

Houston claimed that political battles are not won or lost on Capitol Hill or in the White House, but over the dinner table. This is where people express their feelings on particular issues. She also warned not to be just single-issue-oriented to get your point across. Set a common ground and then couch your Second Amendment support with other matters that people care about.

The team-up of state attorneys general and lawyers has been devastating but Houston recommended a solution to the tobacco type anti-gun suits. “I call it the Nebraska solution. Nebraska discovered a law in its Constitution and tweaked it a little bit. Any kind of punitive damages must go to a third party and the third party in Nebraska was the educational fund. The crazy lawsuits by trial lawyers in that state went from about 179 to three the first year the law was applied. Lawyers are not ideological. They just want cash.”

Chuck Cunningham

A review of candidates was provided by Chuck Cunningham, federal affairs director, NRA-ILA. “The battleground states fortunately are those where gunowners and sportsmen are numerous and strong,” he said. “These are states where people like us can make a big difference.”

As for Senate races, Cunningham said that we should pick up Virginia this year and probably Nevada. George Allen has a chance to beat Chuck Robb in Virginia and he’s got the money and name recognition to do it. Delaware remains competitive with Bill Roth a clear choice over Tom Carper. And Bill McCollum is the choice for Connie Mack’s seat in Florida.

In Michigan, Spencer Abraham who is good on the gun issue, has driven up anti-gun Debbie Stabenow’s negatives. Minnesota’s Rod Grams is looking at a tough race. And Rick Santorum should do well in Pennsylvania. Ron Klink, his anti-gun opponent is having a rough time raising money. Also in Pennsylvania, state senator Melissa Hart, an A-rated candidate, is running strong in her bid for a congressional seat. Her opponent has come out supporting an outright handgun ban.

“New Jersey and New York are what I call RINO races, Republican In Name Only,” Cunningham said. “There is a difference now that Giuliani is out of the race. Lazio opposes registration and licensing . In New Jersey, Bob Franks hasn’t been a good vote, but his opponent is as bad as Florio on the gun issue.”

Robert Aderholt is in a very competitive race in Alabama where he’s challenged by the wife of the former governor. Jay Dickey in Arkansas is in a tight race and he doesn’t accept PAC money. In California, Calvin Dooley is being challenged by Rich Rodriguez, a pro-gunner who’s pulled ahead of Dooley. In Illinois, Mark Baker is running against Lane Evans, who has been bad on all the issues. In Kentucky, anti-gun former congressman Scotty Baesler is running against Ernie Fletcher who took his seat when Baesler ran against Jim Bunning for the senate race. And in Texas, Pete Sessions is in a tough race but his opponent is pushing the unpopular notion of allowing prisoners to organize labor unions in prison.

Glen Voorhees

The final panel on the GRPC’s first day was: Is The Grassroots Ready For a Tough Campaign?, moderated by SAF trustee Glen Voorhees. He admitted that his first active political campaign was for Barry Goldwater. “I went to my precinct meeting and they asked for volunteers who would be willing to knock on doors. Out of 75 people only about eight of us raised our hands. And that’s what this panel is about, grass roots.”

Voorhees then introduced Sheriff Richard Mack, the man who challenged the Brady Bill. According to Mack, one of the most important elections citizens can ever participate in is that for the local sheriff. He’s the one who can stop a lot of the gun control nonsense if he’s true to his oath. Waco and Ruby Ridge would never have happened the way they did, said Mack, if the local sheriff remained in control. “Leave the local issues to the local authorities who are responsible to the local citizens who know and understand the people who live there instead of having hit-and-run gangs from Washington, DC, come in and take over then leave.”

It’s the sheriff, claims Mack, who should protect you when the IRS comes to town to confiscate bank accounts, automobiles and homes. He cited Sheriff Dave Mattis of Bighorn County, WY, who has a policy in his department that says all federal agents will check with him before they serve any papers or make any arrests in his county.

“When your sheriff takes the oath, does he swear to protect you from only street criminals or does it also apply to criminals with badges, briefcases and three-piece suits?”

Michael Saporito

Following Mack, Michael Saporito, vice president of RSR Wholesale Guns, warned against using those arguments that make the pro-gunners sound like nuts and extremists. “Every time you mention a conspiracy, the people you mention it to turn you off and label you a nut. Just because there are a group of people with the same ideas and ideals does not make them co-conspirators. If you are elected to office you are going to staff your office with people who share your ideology,” he said.

Saporito cautioned everyone not to waste their vote in this election. He recalled the first election when Clinton got elected. “If you vote for a third party as many of us did when we voted for Perot, you will lose. We said okay we’ll show them. We showed them all right. We showed them how to get the ‘assault weapons’ bill passed and showed them how to get the Brady Bill enacted. That was our reward for showing them.”

He also said one of the reasons why the anti-gunners are so successful is that they are committed, much more committed than the pro-gun forces. With over 77 million gunowners in the United States, he asked, why are there only three or four million members of GOA, NRA and SAF? He encouraged attendees to go back home and recruit people for our cause and not just pro-gun people.

John Burtt

The last speaker of the day was John Burtt, chairman of the Fifty Caliber Shooters Policy Institute. He recalled how uninvolved he and the Fifty Caliber shooters were until the Administration attacked their interests. With the help of SAF, GOA and the NRA’s ILA, he was walked through the growing process of political activism. “The learning process included incorporating our parent organization, the Fifty Caliber Shooters Association, as a non-profit organization. We then formed the Fifty Caliber Shooters Policy Institute so that we could engage in political activities. We also created a PAC and have been involved in raising as much money as we possibly can raise.”

His group has raised over $200,000 since last year’s GRPC. “Myself and two other members of this organization have become registered lobbyists and we’ve been spending as much time as we can on Capitol Hill knocking on doors and shaking hands showing people that we are not the demons that Sen. Feinstein makes us out to be,” he said.

Burtt confessed that the issue is not a gun issue nor a Fifty Caliber issue. It’s a freedom issue and people from all walks of life are recognizing the fact. “Go out and vote for George Bush,” he directed.

Timeline for British Gun Ban,
New Ideas Unveiled at Reception

“In March 1996, a well-known child abuser walked into a primary school in Dunblane, Scotland, and shot 15 children and a teacher before turning the gun on himself. His name was Thomas Hamilton,” somberly related Stuart Andrews, an independent firearms consultant from England, on the incident that lead to the virtual ban on firearms ownership in the United Kingdom.

Andrews was addressing the crowd of pro-firearms activists assembled at a Saturday night, Sept. 20, buffet reception, hosted by the National Rifle Association at the 15th annual Gun Rights Policy Conference (GRPC) in Arlington, VA (Sept. 29-Oct. 1).

Andrews went on to explain that in less than a day after the tragic incident, the entire world media had known what Hamilton had done and every politician in Britain was getting into the act.

“There was certainly a sense of national grief, but Hamilton was dead and the media looked around for someone to blame. They picked the instrument not the man, and from then on we gunowners saw an inevitable deterioration of our status as responsible law-abiding citizens,” Andrews said.

Rupert Murdoch, explained Andrews, took it upon himself to run the nation’s most notorious anti-gun campaign in the country’s history. As he owned nearly every newspaper in the United Kingdom, Murdoch filled the pages of his trash rags with hired quotes from every “hack ex-cop, every failed psychologist and any idiot he could find.”

‘Enthusiasts’ to ‘Sickos’

Gunowners were first described in the press as gun enthusiasts, then gun fanatics, gun freaks and finally as gun sickos. During all of the anti-gun hoopla, with politicians and media heads slandering honest gunowners, something was beginning to smell in central Scotland. There were rumors that someone had protected Hamilton.

“Hamilton was protected on eight separate occasions by Chief Inspector McMurdo of the Central Scottish Police,” revealed Andrews. “As it turned out they were good buddies. Hamilton was a pedophile procurer and we believe that McMurdo covered up for him. By any account, it was unthinkable that he would be issued a firearms certificate. We found out that the persons who were spreading stories about irresponsible gunowners were none other than McMurdo and Chief Inspector McKenzie, the president of his police association!”

Prime Minister John Major’s conservative government initiated an inquiry that reported that gunowners in Britain were responsible people of good character and that there was no need for a handgun ban. The press then erupted and accused all British gunowners of “trampling on the dead children.” An organization called Snowdrop created a petition of nearly 700,000 signatures and presented it to Major at 10 Downing Street. But as it turned out, this petition was a phony. As Andrews revealed, “When you looked at it, only the first page was handwritten. The rest of it was e-mails from everybody and his dog from all over the world.”

Gun grabbers brought out a pop record that blamed the massacre on gun ownership, and every DJ was afraid not to play it for fear of being branded anti-Dunblane kids. Dunblane parents put together a very distorted anti-gun video and had it shown in every movie theater in the United Kingdom. Most astonishing of all, the voice over was supplied by Sean Connery. “Sean Connery, a man who’s made a very nice living over the misuse of guns. Sean Connery, a man not only with a license to kill, but also a license to lie. Sean Connery, a Scottish actor who resides full time in the United States where he is free to enjoy the privileges and the right of the Second Amendment, while seeking to deny comparable privileges to his own countrymen,” Andrews said.

Every shooting sports council in Britain remained silent as the Labor Party produced bogus anti-gun reports. And in 1996, at the party conferences, where all the top political parties give their speeches on what they are going to do for the country, the Labor Party produced Ann Pearson, the chairwoman of Snowdrop, to read a speech that Andrews described as “written by shyster lawyers and questionable psychologists, exclusively based on emotions and not facts.” There were no opposition speeches. Then the media pitched in. “I was feeling as if I was a Jew in Nazi Germany. We were being tried by the media, a trial at which we were forbidden to give a defense,” Andrews said.

New Ideas Suggested

The reception guests were also treated to some interesting goings-on from author Alan Korwin and Angel Shamaya, executive director, keepandbeararms.com. Korwin, author of Gun Laws Of America and the Texas Gun Owner’s Guide, among others, told how he enjoyed visiting his daughter’s school last year on Author’s Day. He had the children in the class write a line on freedom. The teacher liked the idea so much she had them each write an essay on what they thought was the meaning of freedom.

This year, Korwin is sponsoring an essay contest in his daughter’s class where the top prize is $100. “They are going to answer questions like: What is freedom? Where does freedom come from? What are the threats to your freedom? And what is the role of government in freedom? The teachers are going to learn from the students,” Korwin predicted.

Korwin sees this as one way of introducing concepts such as freedom, of which gun ownership is a part, to the next generation, while educating the current generation. After being bombarded with requests from parents all over the country for more information on his essay contest idea, Korwin will be offering the American Freedom Essay Contest package to interested parties shortly. He said to look for details on his website, www.gunlaws.com

Shamaya urged all of the listeners to think ahead, to beat the gun grabbers at their own game. To prove his point, he divulged that his enterprise, keepandbeararms.com owns sarahbrady.com, sarahbrady.org and sarahbrady.net. “We also own gunwatch.net and what we are going to do is train a webcam on a table and sitting on that table will be a gun. We are going to watch that gun 24 hours a day and make sure it doesn’t get up and shoot someone.”

In addition to his website strategies, Shamaya said he is currently working on a project to collect brass from people all over the country by which he will have a new Liberty Bell constructed. Hopefully, by July 4, 2001, he can take that bell and a million gunowners to the mall in Washington, DC, and give the so-called “Million” Moms something to think about.

Insurance Suits

Early on Sunday morning (Oct. 1), following a continental breakfast hosted by MBNA America MasterCard, the GRPC opened up with a panel moderated by Dave LaCourse, public affairs director, Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) asking, Cities v. Gunmakers: Can a Historic Industry Survive? This discussion opened appropriately enough with Andrew Miller, Esq., from the Washington, DC, lawfirm of Dickstein, Shapiro, Morin & Oshinsky. His firm was successful in a lawsuit that forced insurance companies to defend the gunmakers against frivolous lawsuits. The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) retained Miller’s firm because its insurer, Scottsdale Insurance Company, was filing lawsuits against NSSF, so that the organization would have to fund their litigation from sources other than Scottsdale.

The city of New Orleans sued the gun industry and Scottsdale denied coverage. The company claimed that there was no case of bodily injury and therefore they were not required to get involved. However, the city’s lawsuit was filed in order to recoup the expenses paid out due to bodily injury from firearms. The insurance company then said that there was no occurrence. “The policy reads that occurrence is an accident including continuous exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions,” explained Miller. “Well, again, that was what the city complaint was all about.”

The judge denied Scottsdale’s motion for summary judgement and the NSSF filed a cross motion for summary judgement saying that Scottsdale had the duty to defend. The judge recognized that the duty to defend was greater than the duty to indemnify. “He ruled in favor of the NSSF and on July 11, that decision was upheld by the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The other cases brought by Scottsdale have now been stayed, pending the determination of the underlying municipal cases whereupon the duty to indemnify will be raised, assuming there’s any judgement, and hopefully there never will be,” Miller said.

Right before the conference, Miller’s firm also won a victory for RSR Management Company, a firearms distributor. The NAACP sought an injunction against RSR, and again Scottsdale wasn’t going to honor its policy. “Insurance coverage with respect to an injunction usually does not trigger a duty to defend because insurance policies are focused on providing coverage for damages. But there was a quirk in New York law that said only if there was no possible basis for a claim for damages would the insurer not have a duty to defend.”

Miller also provided advice to gun companies. “Go on the offensive. You need to establish your historical coverage and because many of these suits reach back to an unstated period of time, you need to establish insurance coverage as far back as you possibly can. If that’s the case, then you may not only involve your current insurer, but also a number of other insurance companies that previously provided coverage. The US Chamber of Commerce has decided it is going to be much more aggressive with respect to industries which, for whatever reason, are in political disfavor. If there is a situation where the Chamber can be of assistance, they wish to do so,” Miller concluded.

Industry Posture

Lt. Gen. James Chambers, executive director, Sporting Arms & Ammunition Manufacturers Institute (SAAMI), lamented the shape this country would be in without a firearms industry.

“How would our military have fared going into battle with foreign-made arms?” Chambers asked. He also said that the firearms industry should be able to withstand tobacco type lawsuits because there is no “smoking gun” with the firearms industry as there was with tobacco. The people within the firearms industry are hard working, honest and they don’t hide anything from the public.

“We are certified by the federal government and governed by the federal government. These lawsuits that claim public nuisance are ridiculous. According to the cities, manufacturers allegedly created this nuisance by legally selling too many guns in some area and they should have known that the purchasers of those guns would use them in their illegal endeavors,” Chambers said. “I liken this to General Motors being liable because the market for cars is saturated in southern California and individual motorists are blaming GM because of the traffic jams in that area.”

Chambers also commented on how many of the lawsuits against the industry claim that firearms are defective, not because they don’t work, but because criminals can use them. But these lawsuits fail to take into account Prof. John Lott’s study that proves guns are used defensively two-and-a-half million times a year, far greater than the number of firearms crimes committed. “Handguns are the only consumer product for which the manufacturer, wholesaler and retailer all require a federal license. The design of every new model of gun must be inspected and approved by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). These facts are ignored by the antis and the media,” Chambers said.

Most of the city lawsuits, Chambers suggested, may be a way for mayors to cover up their own failures to reduce crime because wherever there is a high percentage of gun ownership, crime rates are down.

Suing the Mayors

James Warner, assistant general counsel of the NRA, couldn’t agree more. He said the mayors, who are part of the executive branch, have no constitutional basis for trying to do the job of the legislative branch.

“They have no consideration whatsoever of the constitutional restraints placed upon them,” he said.

Warner saw a similarity between the city lawsuits and rope-a-dope in the boxing ring. When you play rope-a-dope, you lean against the ropes and let your opponent bang on you until he gets tired and then you let him have it. “That’s what the mayors think they are doing to us. Letting us expend all of our energy so that we will exhaust ourselves into bankruptcy by defending against lawsuits that have no meaning.”

The way to defeat the mayors in their rope-a-dope ploy, instructed Warner, is to take away the ropes. The ropes in this case are their unlimited resources. “The sole remedy available is for the taxpayers to get injunctions against spending money. You can ask to have any government funds prohibited from being spent. That includes any payments for judgements against mayors and any payments by their insurance companies. If they (the mayors) are sued, the money will have to come out of their own pockets,” Warner said.

Sanford Abrams, vice president, Maryland Firearms Dealers Association, had a slightly different take on the subject. “I’m what Sarah Brady would call a dinosaur. I’m an independent firearms retailer. I own Valley Gun in Baltimore. You can have all the firearms manufacturers in the world, but if there are no retailers for those guns, what’s the use?”

Last year, Abrams said he received a letter from ATF claiming he wasn’t quick enough on a crime gun trace and because of that he would have to send them all of his records for the past three years and continue to do so every month for as long as he stays in business.

“I said no,” he said. “With the help of the NRA and some good customers of mine, we went in front of a Clinton-appointed judge and he told ATF in no uncertain terms, that the regulations require them to do crime gun traces for qualified criminal investigations, but not for ‘fishing trips.’ We won.”

Sports Authority

There were about 25 other firearms dealers who received the same letter and Abrams encouraged them not to comply because he didn’t have to. ATF responded by appealing to the 4th District in Richmond, VA. “We hope to beat them when the case comes up,” said Abrams.

The downside to this story was the action by Sports Authority. Sports Authority in White Marsh, MD, also received one of the ATF letters. Within seven hours, they took all of their records and shipped them off to ATF.

“So, if you bought a gun from Sports Authority in the last three years in the state of Maryland, ATF knows about it. And every month Sports Authority sends ATF your firearms purchase information.” Sports Authority, as a large corporation, won’t do otherwise. Their bottom line is sales. They don’t have a stake in your Second Amendment rights, said Abrams. “I would suggest that you support your local gun shop. Without it, you won’t have a place to take your trade-in, someone to put a gun on lay-away or someone to special order for you.”

“What’s up doc?” was the question posed by moderator Peggy Tartaro, editor of Women & Guns, of her guests on the panel, Economics and Science In The Gun Control Movement. Timothy Wheeler, MD, director of Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, a project of the Claremont Institute, addressed the problem of physicians doling out anti-firearms advice during office visits. When a doctor asks you if you have guns in the house, or how many guns you have, or cautions you to get rid of your guns because they are dangerous, he or she is committing an ethical violation.

Doctor’s Liability

“The doctor is stepping over the line in the doctor/patient relationship to advance a political cause. That’s wrong,” Wheeler said. One of the ways of fighting this kind of anti-gun ploy is to report these doctors to the boards that license them or the HMOs who employ them. Also, if a doctor or pediatrician advises you to lock up or incapacitate a gun and then someone in your family gets hurt or killed as a result of you’re not being able to get at it, you should sue that physician, Wheeler said.

How are you able to sue? Wheeler explained the current theory. “There is a new theory of liability called ‘negligent firearms counseling by physicians.’ It’s the idea of Joe Horn, a retired Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department official. He now runs a risk management company and several of his articles have been published on keepandbeararms.com.”

Unless a doctor is certified in the area of home safety counseling, if he gives firearms safety advice, he is practicing outside of his field of medicine. “Most of what physicians talk about and the resources from which they draw in counseling people on firearms is nothing but political propaganda from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the American Medical Association (AMA).”

Wheeler then asked, “Could there also be an issue if the doctor fails to review the whole area of safety issues that are more likely to cause harm to children such as drowning, falls, electrical burns, and poisons?” He hypothesized that perhaps a physician could also increase his liability exposure by failing to cover all of these hazards. Practicing outside one’s own area of expertise is one thing that will jeopardize a doctor’s liability insurance, and giving advice that can harm patients is another.

“Since the beginning of the year, it has been the standard line of the AAP doctors to tell their patients to get rid of their guns,” Wheeler said. If a patient is harmed or killed by his or her inability to use a firearm for defense, the victim or his survivors should be able to sue the doctor who advised getting rid of the gun.

If the public can actually establish “negligent firearms counseling” as a legal remedy, physicians will be forced by their malpractice insurance companies to cease risky behavior like telling their patients to get rid of their guns, Wheeler said.

“All we need is one or two cases where a doctor is sued for practicing outside of his scope of practice and his malpractice insurance denies payment. He then will have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars out of his pocket for that judgement and believe me, news like that gets around the medical community real fast,” Wheeler said.

Anti-Gun ‘Junk Science’

Jeremy D. Blanks, PhD, of Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws, reiterated the problems of the medical associations cited by Wheeler. As a young scientist, Blanks claimed he was fed the fallacies of the gun control crowd; “lies like you are 43 times more likely to be the victim of your own gun as you are to use it defensively on someone else.” Blanks wondered why all of the gunowners in the country weren’t killed off. That’s when he realized that much of the anti-gun data are based on junk science.

“Junk science is out there in many forms,” Blanks said. “We’ve seen it in the phony breast implant debate, in global warming and cold fusion. Junk science always shows up when there is a dollar to be made, fame to be gained or politics involved. And we are going after organizations such as the AMA who base many of their findings on junk science.”

Junk science is science that is presented as legitimate work but falls outside of the scientific method in theory and process. “It can be politically motivated distortions of good scientific work. At its worst, it is simply opinion or speculation by scientists who have been paid by anti-gun lobbyists. The best way to know when someone is intentionally misleading you is they don’t present the full set of data or their methodology in how they collected their data.”

One question Blanks asked especially resonated with the audience. “If your physician tells you not to have a gun in the house, how in the world can you trust him to give you sound advice about your personal health?”

Natural Allies

They say you are measured by the company you keep, which was the gist of the panel, Let’s Not Ignore Our Natural Self-Defense Allies, moderated by Michael Connelly, Esq., a CCRKBA board member.

“The Gun Rights Policy Conference has special meaning for me,” explained Alicia Wadas, founder of the group Mothers Arms. “It was exactly a year ago at this conference where I brainstormed the concept of Mothers Arms. Little did I know at the same time, somewhere in some room back in Washington, DC, there was a woman and a president coming up with an idea called the ‘Million’ Mom March. I used to refer to them as the Misguided Million Moms, but I’ve also come to learn through a series of experiences over the past year that there is a certain segment of them that I call the Malicious Mom March.”

Mothers Arms is a group that provides resources for women to learn how to protect themselves and their families. “We use awareness, common sense and the use of safety rescue tools,” Wadas said. Those tools can be anything from a frying pan in the kitchen, pepper spray, or even a gun. The organization understands that carrying a firearm requires a personal evaluation on the part of the individual, and you really have to be committed to use it to defend yourself and loved ones.

Wadas said that Mothers Arms and the pro-firearms group Second Amendment Sisters are complimentary and Mothers Arms can “prime the pump” for SAS membership. Many of the women that Mothers Arms reaches do not even understand the Second Amendment and most believe that with 911, the police will protect them.

Wadas explained that when she attends women’s expos and asks women what their plan of defense is, they reply they call 911. “I then ask how long does it take before police respond to a 911 call and they usually agree that three minutes would be pretty fast. I then say look at the second hand on your watch and visualize me as an attacker, punching your face, choking the life out of you or stabbing you. I say, now look at your watch. Usually only about 30 seconds have gone by and I say we have two-and-a-half more minutes to go before police arrive. Some of them are shocked and appalled and don’t talk to me after that, because I’ve made them think about something that they do not want to think about,” Wadas said.

It is Mothers Arms job, she said, to help women understand that it’s not only a woman’s responsibility to defend herself and family, but also her God given right. They must first understand their responsibility in order to understand the meaning of “right.” Once you understand that, you understand the concept of keeping and bearing arms. “I ask women, do you have life insurance? Do you have fire insurance? Then how about self-defense insurance? And this involves just some really basic steps on how to take care of yourself and family. I have had many women say to me that they just want to get rid of those assault weapons. I say to them, you know what I think an assault weapon is? It’s a knife to my throat; it’s a revolver in the hands of an attacker. It’s the hand of a man who’s bigger than I am. That’s an ‘assault weapon.’ ”

Minority Views

While women may be the fastest growing segment of Second Amendment supporters, there is another group that is moving into the pro-gun arena, according to the next speaker, Telly Lovelace, director of external affairs, Coalition of Urban Renewal and Education (CURE). Lovelace addressed the racist history of gun control.

“Gun control goes back to the 1600s when blacks and slaves were denied the right to own a gun. It is essentially a freedom issue, especially among blacks,” he said. “The pro-gun forces are a natural alliance for the black community. Many people think that most blacks are anti-gun but not at the grass roots. The black leadership is so far left, they are communists. If you live in a housing project in Washington, DC, or Chicago, what are you going to arm yourself with? A knife? That’s no defense against an armed drug dealer breaking down your door.”

Lovelace cited the many cases in the US, and especially Washington, where guns are outlawed and the crime rate is soaring—prime examples that gun control in the inner city does not work. He admitted that the issue of gun control is something that CURE, a non-profit organization, is just beginning to look at. He also conceded that he started out with a typical leftist opinion, but after doing a research paper on the subject, he saw the light.

“I came to the conclusion that there was a lot of BS out there. I began to understand the Constitution and not take the interpretation of some of those nutty teachers. When I read the quotes of George Washington, Samuel Adams and John Adams, they made me think that the Second Amendment was really a right. A right to own a gun, a right to be armed and a right to protect myself and my family. ”

Not happy with black leadership’s views on gun control, Lovelace complained that black leaders condemn gun ownership but they have their own bodyguards and police protection to keep them safe. “Self-defense is a natural right and we need to take that to the black community. We need to adopt the gun issue because it’s not only a natural right; it’s a civil right. Next year when we come back here, we hope to see more African Americans in attendance,” Lovelace concluded.

Conservative Cohorts

As everyone agreed that gun control was a freedom issue, Grover Norquist, chairman, Americans for Tax Reform, let everyone know that the largest segment of downtrodden Americans is the taxpayer. And overburdened taxpayers, like gunowners, just want the government to leave them alone, and if they work together, perhaps they could make it happen. He said taxpayers are a center right coalition of people who not only don’t want to be taxed, but they don’t want other people taxed, either.

“Traditional values conservatives work well with Second Amendment supporters because nobody wants anything from anybody else,” Norquist said. “They don’t want the government interfering with their ability to raise their children in the faith of their choice. They don’t want schools handing out condoms to children or making fun of their religion. As long as Christians agree not to take away anyone’s guns, and gunowners agree not to raise anyone’s taxes, we can all be friends. It’s the perfect low maintenance coalition. The left keeps telling us that we will fall apart, but they don’t realize that although we may be a diverse group, most people who go to church pay taxes, own homes, possess guns, etc. We have a lot in common.”

GRPC attendees enjoyed a mid-morning refreshment break hosted by Browning following the “natural allies” panel, but were quick to return for the Guns and The Media Forum discussion, moderated by Joe Tartaro, president of SAF and editor of The New Gun Week. Before introducing the first speaker, Tartaro cited the media spin following the first debate between Rick Lazio and Hillary Clinton, where Lazio was likened to a stalker and Hillary’s defeat was turned into a “victory” overnight. “I think the best spin example was probably the column by Maureen Dowd in The New York Times in which she said Lazio had turned off women because he suddenly became the ‘abusive husband’ who complained about the misuse of the credit card and how the car was parked. “If you were there you saw one thing, but when you hear the spin doctors and the experts who appear on the countless broadcast and cable shows, all you get are interpretations of the news, not real news,” Tartaro said.

Media Management

Rob Geist, senior account executive, Craig Shirley & Associates (media consultants), expounded on the problems with the media. “We have a story to tell, but the problem is the media wants to hear something that can be wrapped up in a 26-minute newscast, preferably in a two- or three-minute segment.” Geist asked if anyone could remember the last time the media showed a truthful representation of a hunter or sportsman, or recalled the all-but-invisible coverage of shooting events at the Olympics. The problem he surmised is that the people in the media are not only spawns of liberal colleges like Yale and Harvard, but are subject to a culture that they need to embrace in order to survive. He recalled that two anti-gun talking heads, Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather both grew up in states that are gun friendly, South Dakota and Texas respectively. But in order to get ahead, both embraced the anti-gun agenda.

The end of the military draft is also one of the contributing factors why pro-gunners have a hard time making their point. Without the draft, we have lost two generations of Americans who never had to pick up a gun, shoot one or even understand the need for firearms for defense. Geist recalled The New York Times’ review of the movie, “The Patriot,” and how the scene where Mel Gibson’s character provides his sons with muskets to slay the British who killed one of his other children, was called “repugnant.” Yet a review of a movie called “Full Attention,” which glorified sexual conquests of two step-siblings was praised for its wit and clever plot.

“Drugs and sex are okay, but guns are different. How do we change this? We have to start at the grass roots,” Geist said. “We have to remember that reporters who end up as Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather started out as Tommy Brokaw and Danny Rather writing for the local newspaper. Get to these local media people now and invite them over. Show them that we are regular people. Let them know that Ed, who owns the corner grocery store, or Jim, the mechanic, are gunowners. They aren’t the crazy gun nuts so often portrayed in the press.”

Getting the word out that gun people protect the community and are concerned with safety is also important, said Geist. The media never reports on the thousands of children who are trained in safety by NRA’s Eddie Eagle or the thousands of police officers who are trained by NRA instructors, but are quick to praise the efforts of the Administration or local government. “Fact is, the government hasn’t spent a dime on these projects, but the shooting community has spent millions. We need to tell our story. We can get around the media blockade by taking advantage of talk radio, the Internet and e-mail. We are doing these things but we need to do them more and better if we are to widen our circle of influence.”

On-Line Resources

Dave Kopel, senior fellow of the Cato Institute and policy analyst at the Independence Institute, explained that there are many ways to get the pro-gun point across in spite of the vicious lies that gun-grabbing organizations spread about honest gunowners. “One of the key lies out there comes from the ‘Million’ Mom March. Their line is they’ll win because they love their kids more than we love our guns. That is a vicious and mean-spirited libel. We are not here because we love guns, we’re here because we love freedom and we want people to be safer and happier, and guns are wonderful tools to accomplish that. Gun ownership not only makes gunowners safer, it makes everyone safer,” he said.

Kopel cited the lower home invasion and burglary rates in the United States compared to other countries. About half the homes in America have guns and the burglars don’t know which are the ones that do. Only about 13% of American home burglaries or home invasions occur when somebody is there, said Kopel. In countries such as the Netherlands, Ireland and England, that rate is over 50%, because in those countries burglars prefer to have someone home because they can be pressured to turn off burglar alarms and lead them to where the cash is hidden. Many times the burglaries in these countries also lead to personal assaults.

“You are not just pro-choice. You are pro-life, too. You are the guys who are saving lives. You are the ones who can prevent those horrible crimes.”

Before turning the microphone over to Tom Gresham, host of the nationally syndicated radio show, “Gun Talk,” Kopel invited everyone to tap into his website, independenceinstitute.org to sign up for free weekly and semi-weekly e-mail newsletters.

Gresham, related how he handled a news crew from MSNBC when they wanted to do a piece on guns. He took them out on the range, had everyone from the producer to the sound man try out different guns and they all had a good time, so much so, they didn’t want to quit. He set up interviews with everyday gunowners like a veterinarian and a 29-year-old soon-to-be mother. The final product was a very fair representation of the firearms community, said Gresham. Don’t be afraid to talk about guns, he said, but make sure what you say is effective. “The minute you let the word ‘Hitler’ escape your lips, you lose. You may be right, but instantly lose. It’s not about being right. It’s about winning.”

In order to help out those who want to vocalize on the gun issue, Gresham set up what he calls the Truth Squad on his website, guntalk.com. “What I do is write template letters that expose the truth about some of the falsehoods that are flying around about guns, gunowners and gun rights. I put them into a mailing list for people who subscribe to the Truth Squad. These subscribers can then take the letters and change them a little and submit them to their local newspaper. I believe that a thousand people writing to their editorial page in their local newspapers are far more effective in changing public opinion than 10,000 writing to Congress.”

Gresham reminded everyone that it’s not only their duty to bitch when they see or hear anti-gun items in the media, it’s also a must to say thanks to the media when they get it right. And when you follow up and offer your help, chances are that media person will include you in his list of contacts.

Gun Show Ballot Issues was the last panel of the day. Joe Waldron, chairman of WeCARE and executive director of CCRKBA, reminded everyone that Election 2000 is extremely important. He also mentioned that there are states that allow initiatives, whereby citizens by vote can overturn legislative action. While initiatives can work for the pro-gun cause, they can also work against it. “ The initiative process sounds good, because the people have control over government. But it’s a double-edged sword. It’s very dependent on PR and media spin. What you have to do to pass or defeat an initiative is manipulate the pubic. Colorado and Oregon are going to be running gun show ‘loophole’ initiatives. Once they close the gun show ‘loophole,’ they can then open the private sale ‘loophole’ to an initiative and go the rest of the way in terms of eliminating all privacy of gun transactions.”

Another problem with initiatives is that some states can have as many as 20 or 30 on a ballot, and when the voter sees all of these the natural tendency is to vote no on all of them. That’s good if there are anti-gun initiatives buried in the pile but bad if there are pro-gun programs that need to be passed. Waldron then discussed the means of using the voter initiative process to campaign f