Printed in the USA.
The Gottlieb-Tartaro Report
Issue 034
October, 1997
HUNTER VICTORY IN AFRICA The Gottlieb-Tartaro Report is brought to you electronically about one month after publication. To help support the Report, and to receive it when it is current, subscribe by calling 425-454-7012 (and make sure you mention that you heard about it on the Internet!). More information on how to subscribe is available at the end of this page.
Subscribe Electronically to the printed edition of the report, and receive the news when its most current! Our online subscription for the Glottlieb-Tartaro report is available 24-Hours a day.
Dear Subscriber,
Hunters, who have always supported sound conservation, recently won an important international victory in Congress to keep a conservation hunting program alive in Africa. The U.S. House of Representatives voted down the destructive Fox-Miller Amendment (Reps. JON FOX [R-PA] and GEORGE MILLER [D-CA]) to the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill in a 159 to 267 vote.
This amendment would have banned the use of CAMPFIRE development assistance funds to promote or support trophy hunting. The CAMPFIRE program gives funds to villages in Zimbabwe, Africa to help them become self-supporting and thus less dependent upon foreign aid.
CAMPFIRE funds have been going toward the administration of elephant hunting permits that allow sportsmen to help control the elephant population. Elephants cause significant crop damage and occasionally trample villagers.
The Zimbabwe villages get to keep the money raised from sale of these permits, and can use it for schools, roads, water purification systems and other needed infrastructure. The Fox-Miller amendment would have destroyed that vital source of local income.
The CAMPFIRE hunting program also gave an incentive for the villagers to clamp down on poachers, who illegally harvest elephants and thus deny income to the villages. Poaching also harms conservation efforts by killing animals for their products rather than following a biologically sound thinning program.
Just as we have seen in the United States when whitetail deer hunting has been curtailed, the animal population explodes, so the elephant population has exploded in Zimbabwe. The current issue of Reason magazine notes that “elephant numbers are on the increase in Southern Africa, soaring in Zimbabwe to 66,000 from 46,000 in the span of the CAMPFIRE years.”
It is appalling that Reps. FOX and MILLER drafted an amendment that would not only ignore the economic benefits of hunting, but would also thwart proven legitimate conservation methods to the detriment of African wildlife.
Rep. MILLER has a long record of supporting animal extremists and the “deep ecology” movement with legislative proposals that intrude upon hunter rights and the right to keep and bear arms. He is one of a small but vociferous group in Congress that continually uses “protection of the environment” as a justification for abridging gun rights.
Fortunately, a number of responsible Members of Congress led the fight against the amendment, notably Reps. DON YOUNG (R-AK), JIM SAXTON (R-NJ), SONNY CALLAHAN (R-AL) and COLLIN PETERSON (D-MN). They have helped to preserve a priceless hunting heritage of wildlife conservation.STUDY SHOWS WHY CRIME IS DOWN: CATCH ’EM AND LOCK ’EM UP
A new study has confirmed what common sense tells us about crime: Stiffer prosecutions and stiffer sentences deter criminals.
The study, “Crime and Punishment in America: 1997 Update,” was recently released by the noted criminologist, Dr. MORGAN REYNOLDS, director of the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis.
Its major conclusion: Today’s 15-year low in serious crime is the result of increases in the chances criminal offenders will go to prison for committing any type of major crime and the longer time they can expect to serve in prison.
Dr. REYNOLDS said at a Washington, D.C. news conference, “Most offenders are not mentally deranged and most crimes are not irrational acts. Like most people in business who compare profits and losses, the criminal will compare the expected benefits of committing a crime with the expected cost.”
Every category of violent crime has declined since 1993, Dr. REYNOLDS said:
However, serious crime (violent crimes plus burglaries) are still 10% higher than in 1970.
Worse, the probability of punishment is only half what it was through the 1950s. Dr. REYNOLDS said, “Americans continue to be burdened by an appalling amount of crime and by the fear that it spawns. The chances of being a victim of a violent crime or burglary are still three times greater than in 1960.”
In a related report, Crime Control Digest published the results of a Gallup Poll conducted for the International Association of Chiefs of Police: chiefs polled believed, “The most effective way to combat recidivism is for the courts to hand down tougher, longer sentences to repeat offenders.”
GREAT JOB FOR THE REALITY-IMPAIRED
The Violence Policy Center is looking for a few good men (or women). The Washington, D.C.-based anti-gun group run by JOSH SUGARMAN has placed a help wanted ad in Roll Call, the Capitol Hill newspaper.
The group wants a communications director and a communications assistant. The ad says the communications director would be responsible for “movement wide press strategy,” in addition to “developing effective media strategies to implement specific policy objectives.”
Why does this sound so much like an ad for a faker? Maybe it’s because these days gun grabbers don’t so much make the news as they make up the news.
Applicants are invited to send their resume and writing samples to: Violence Policy Center, 1350 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 825, Washington, DC 20036.
HANDGUN CONTROL, INC. ENTERS THE CYBER-AGE
Backwards HCI finally made the leap into cyberspace with a new web site. You can find it at http://www.handguncontrol.org/index.htm.
Hold your nose and go take a look.
Who knows? Maybe even gun grabbing Rep. CHARLES SCHUMER (D-NY) will have an e-mail address by the end of the century.
LATEST ON RUBY RIDGE
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has just ruled that Kevin L. Harris, who was hit by the same FBI sniper bullet that killed Vicki Weaver on August 22, 1992, may pursue a lawsuit against the agency for its shoot-on-sight policy. The suit stems from the shootout at RANDY WEAVER’s home at Ruby Ridge, Idaho in which three were killed: RANDY WEAVER’s wife VICKI, their 14-year-old son SAMUEL, and Deputy U.S. Marshal WILLIAM DEGAN. HARRIS was living with the WEAVERs when the shootout occurred.
The ruling upheld federal Judge B. LYNN WINMILL’s decision that HARRIS can sue 13 federal agents for alleged false arrest and subjecting him to excessive force in violation of his constitutional rights.
Harris was acquitted of murder charges in federal court in 1993, but Boundary County, Idaho prosecutors charged him with murder in August in state court. Harris is free on $5,000 bail and is working as a welder in Republic, Washington.
The prosecutors also filed a charge of involuntary manslaughter by use of a firearm in a reckless, careless or negligent manner against LON HORIUCHI, the FBI marksman who fired the shot that killed Mrs. WEAVER as she was standing in the doorway of the family cabin in northern Idaho holding her baby daughter. Horiuchi said he was aiming at HARRIS, who was fleeing into the house from the sniper's first shot, and did not see Vicki Weaver.
HARRIS’s lawsuit said two marshals, ARTHUR RODERICK and LARRY COOPER, falsely told other officers that HARRIS fired first in the initial confrontation on WEAVER’s property. The lies led to the later shootings at the cabin and were repeated during HARRIS’s criminal investigation and trial, the suit alleged.
Most importantly for future law enforcement, the suit also challenged the adoption of special FBI rules of engagement that allowed officers to shoot any armed adult male they saw near the cabin, regardless of whether the target posed an immediate threat to the officer.
The officers denied lying about HARRIS, but moved for dismissal of the suit on the grounds that they had violated no clearly established constitutional rights, even if HARRIS’s factual allegations were true. The appeals court disagreed in a 3-0 ruling in the case of HARRIS v. RODERICK, 96-35780.
The opinion of the court by Judge STEPHEN REINHARDT said that if RODERICK and COOPER falsely blamed HARRIS for the initial shootings, they should have known that they were putting him in danger of being shot. Judge REINHARDT also said the shoot-on-sight policy was a departure from the usual FBI rules and U.S. Supreme Court standards — both allow deadly force only to protect officers or others from serious harm.
“Alteration of those rules ... constitutes a gross deviation from constitutional principles and a wholly unwarranted return to a lawless and arbitrary wild West school of law enforcement,” said REINHARDT. He added, “any reasonable law enforcement officer” should have known the rules were illegal.
The court also said HARRIS could sue HORIUCHI for shooting him. The FBI agent’s argument that HARRIS would have posed a greater danger if he had been allowed to reenter the cabin ignored the fact that HARRIS posed no immediate threat to HORIUCHI or anyone else, REINHARDT said.
“A desire to prevent an armed suspect from entering the place he is residing because it may be difficult to persuade him to reemerge is insufficient cause to kill him,” REINHARDT said.
The opinion was joined by Judge SIDNEY THOMAS and U.S. District Judge JOHN SEDWICK of Alaska, temporarily assigned to the appeals court.
One of HARRIS’s attorneys, DAVID Z. NEVIN, said, “At the same time we depend on the police to protect us, we must police the police.” NEVIN emphasized that the ruling was important for larger questions of law enforcement conduct.
CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEF MUST STOP ISSUING CARRY PERMITS OUTSIDE HIS CITY
A long-running controversy stirred up by Isleton, California Police Chief EUGENE BYRD has come to a head. Gov. PETE WILSON recently signed SB 146, legislation that will force BYRD to stop issuing concealed weapons permits to people from throughout Sacramento County.
Beginning the first of next year, the new law will prohibit police chiefs from issuing concealed carry permits to anyone outside their own city.
BYRD has issued about 1,500 concealed carry permits to residents living far from the tiny town of Isleton.
BYRD is miffed by the new law. “I guarantee there will be a backlash,” he told reporters. “I’ve issued permits to honest, hard-working citizens who try to obey the law. Now the state wants to make them criminals for carrying a gun.”
The bill was drafted by Sen. PATRICK JOHNSTON, D-Stockton. “Concealed weapons permits will be a privilege, not a right, under the bill signed by the governor,” JOHNSTON said. “Police and sheriffs who have the burden of preserving the peace in their jurisdictions will be the only ones to issue concealed weapons permits.”
Assemblyman RICO OILER, R-San Andreas, said the bill was “a grave error.”
“What Chief BYRD has done is provide honest citizens with concealed weapons permits so they can defend themselves when our sheriff in this county has failed to do his job.”
But Assemblywoman DEBORAH ORTIZ, D-Sacramento, said the new law “Recognizes that decisions as to who should be issued a concealed weapons permit should be determined by the local factors.”
ORTIZ emphasized that, “The criteria are vastly different in Isleton than in Sacramento.”
Why did Gov. WILSON sign such an anti-gun bill, with his eye on a run for the Presidency? Spokesman SEAN WALSH said the governor signed the bill largely because of its strong support from law enforcement, particularly from Sacramento County Sheriff GLEN CRAIG.
CRAIG was the force behind the bill. He has a long track record of delaying or denying concealed carry permits, which drove people to Chief BYRD in Isleton in the first place.
He said, “Isleton doesn’t issue business permits for the city or county of Sacramento. Why should they issue concealed weapons permits for these jurisdictions?”
CRAIG said the new law will prevent police chiefs from issuing permits to people over whom they would have no accountability or responsibility if the gun were used illegally.
The new law also prohibits police chiefs from renewing concealed weapons permits already issued to residents outside their city limits.
The law has given impetus to Chief BYRD’s 1998 candidacy for Sacramento County Sheriff to replace retiring Sheriff CRAIG.
BYRD’s response to Gov. WILSON’s signing the bill into law was. “He just made me sheriff of Sacramento.” BYRD argued that the new law undercuts a constitutional right to protect “life, liberty and pursuit or happiness.”
BYRD pledged, if elected, to loosen requirements countywide and allow more residents to carry guns. He said the legislation will boost his campaign.
However, outgoing Sheriff CRAIG said, “I don’t think he has a clue about being sheriff. It’s the only issue he has.”
The debate over SB 146 opened a larger question. State law requires that applicants for a permit have “good cause” and be of “good moral character.” However, law enforcement officials in different jurisdictions interpret “good cause” in vastly different ways. Concealed carry permits are relatively easy to get in some rural areas, but nearly impossible to obtain in large cities, including Sacramento.
Win or lose in his run for Sacramento County Sheriff, Chief BYRD is probably right about one thing: We haven’t seen the last of this issue.
SEN. FEINSTEIN GOES INTERNATIONAL AGAINST GUNS
Building on her success in getting her so-called “assault weapons” ban into President CLINTON’s 1994 Crime Bill, Sen. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA) has written directly to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in an effort to totally eliminate as many firearms as possible.
The Senator was to convince U.S. officials and the Israeli government to block the importation of semi-automatic Uzi and Galil rifles, which have been lawfully modified to meet U.S. import standards.
Imported by the popular gun maker Mossberg, these firearms are almost never used in the commission of crimes. FEINSTEIN is well aware of that fact.
When presented with FBI data showing that rifles of any type are used in only 3% of homicides, Sen. FEINSTEIN told the San Diego Union Tribune, “I don’t doubt that at all. It is probably less than 3%.”
Then why this latest effort to “close loopholes that have facilitated the proliferation of thousands of fearsome, rapid fire guns”?
Something may be learned from her remark on CBS NEws 60 Minutes in 1995: “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it.”
AUSTRALIAN GUN OWNERS DEFY BAN
Since legislation to seize guns has been passed in all States of Australia now, the question is: How is it being enforced?
The Australian media cover the issue as if the new gun legislation is going along without any hitches. That appears to be far from the truth of the matter.
IAN McNIVEN, Vice President of the Gun Owners of Australia, tells us that resistance to the new gun laws is massive.
Figures as of August 25th, 1997, claimed 506,399 guns have been confiscated by the government. However, the number of guns in Australia is estimated to be more than 10 million.
In the State of Queensland, 80,000 guns have been seized out of a total of approximately 3 million, a tiny fraction.
Of the half-million guns seized, about 15% were taken from gun dealers, not individual gun owners.
Of greatest interest: Since the gun confiscation program began, some 1 million Chinese semi-automatics have been imported into Australia and sold out into the public. This is one type of gun specifically targeted by the new law.
The conclusion is obvious: the vast majority of citizens are not obeying the new law. They are not surrendering their guns.
What’s more, the Sporting Shooters of Australia reports that many city gun owners are joining them as a reason to hold arms legitimately. Membership is predicted to rise to a quarter million within a year. That would bring the SSA an income of $10 million.
More importantly, it would make the SSA the single largest political organization in the history of Australia. By comparison, all political parties in the nation combined have only 150,000 members.
IAN McNIVEN said, “A political juggernaut could be forming in Australia. This is the direct result of grabbing guns. It is forcing people to organize. This juggernaut has the potential to sweep the gun grabbers from our parliament.”
AMENDMENT TO ALLOW IMPORTATION OF SEMI-AUTOMATIC FIREARMS FAILS
The amendment to the Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill by Rep. JOHN MURTHA (D-PA) to legalize the importation of as many as 2.5 million Army surplus rifles and pistols — World War II Garland rifles, M-1 carbines and M1911 pistols — was stripped from the bill prior to final passage.
The MURTHA Amendment was removed when the bill was brought to the House floor with no “rule for consideration,” a procedural move to avoid contentious issues. REP. CHENOWETH’S LAUTENBERG-REPEAL BILL GATHERS COSPONSORS
H.R. 1009, a bill to repeal the notorious “Lautenberg Amendment,” which banned gun ownership to anyone with a domestic violence conviction, regardless of remoteness in time or rehabilitation of the offender, now has 32 cosponsors, more than any of the other bills, H.R. 26 and H.R.445, designed to repair the damage done by the pernicious law.
Rep. HELEN CHENOWETH (R-ID), who introduced H.R. 1009, recently announced that Reps. COMBEST (R-TX), HALL (D-TX), and KOLBE (R-AZ) have signed on to the bill, which repeals the entire Lautenberg Amendment. By contrast, H.R. 26 merely removes the retroactive reach of the law and H.R. 445 only provides an exemption for the police and military. The Lautenberg Amendment has caused numerous police officers to lose their weapons, and is facing several court challenges.
METRO-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT FACES SHOOTING LAWSUIT
When BOBBY WHIPPLE, 27, covered his hand with a sock to work on his car at his Miami residence, he had no idea it would get him shot by police.
At least two people saw him with his dark sock on his hand and reported to police that a man was wielding a gun. Fourteen officers responded to the location. They surrounded WHIPPLE and ordered him to put his “weapon” down. When he did not put any weapon down, five of the officers opened fire on him, including one using a shotgun.
Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami said WHIPPLE received 23 separate wounds but was in good condition. No weapon other than the sock was found on WHIPPLE.
PAT BRICKMAN, spokesman for the Metro-Dade Police Department, said, “Witnesses said that he had a gun and the officers assumed they were correct. He took the position of an aggressive stance. At this point, we don’t have any indication that the officers acted inappropriately when faced with deadly force.”
Unable to grasp what deadly force might come from a sock, ALAN GOLDFARB, WHIPPLE’s attorney, is preparing a civil rights lawsuit against the police department over the shooting.
A LOOK AT THE STATES
GEORGIA: The reciprocity issue in which states mutually honor each other’s concealed carry permits now spotlights Georgia. An official listing of states that meet Georgia’s requirements for right to carry reciprocity was recently released, showing that permit holders in Idaho, Michigan, Mississippi, New Hampshire, and Texas may now legally carry in Georgia. The trouble is, none of these states has extended the same courtesy to Georgia carry permit holders.
NORTH CAROLINA: Governor JIM HUNT has signed the shooting range protection bill into law. North Carolina is now the 26th state to shield shooting ranges from nuisance lawsuits by opponents who want to get rid of them.
TENNESSEE: The state has released its official listing of other states that satisfy Tennessee’s requirements for right to carry reciprocity. Permit holders in Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Virginia, and West Virginia may now legally carry in Tennessee. The trouble in Tennessee is the same as in Georgia: none of the states on this list have returned the favor and allowed Tennesse permit holders to carry in their states. A national right to carry reciprocity bill is moving through Congress now, H.R. 339, with 57 cosponsors.
WASHINGTON: Thurston County Superior Court Judge RICHARD HICKS ordered important changes to the ballot summary of I-676, the so-called “Handgun Safety Act.” As a result, the state voter’s guide will include language informing voters that their names will appear on a police database and their guns could be confiscated if I-676 passes. The original proposed summary prepared by the Attorney General’s Office left out these key details. The Washington Citizens Against Regulatory Excess (WeCARE) argued in support of the change.
ANTI-GUN PUBLICITY STUNT IN UTAH
Handgun Control, Inc. appears to have their “media strategy” all set, unlike JOSH SUGARMAN’s Violence Policy Center, which has a want ad out for a “communications director” (see story on page 2).
HCI’s media strategy is to give out report cards to states for “how the state protects children from gun violence and accidents.” Then they get free media for the stunt. Reporters then write news stories from HCI’s point of view and it all sounds real.
Utah got a “D.” The Salt Lake Tribune published a story by reporter ROBERT BRYSON about the state’s low HCI grade. BRYSON treated it as if the report card referred to something real, just like HCI’s media strategy had planned.
BRYSON quoted HCI’s JAKE TAPPER as saying, “Utah has some of the weakest laws in the nation regarding concealed weapons, and training and gets an “F” there.”
What does that have to do with child safety? Well, nothing really. And Reporter BRYSON never asked. But it gave JAKE TAPPER the chance to say Utah has “weak” laws, and that sounds bad.
In fact, HCI’s grading system is nothing more than how well the state’s laws agree with HCI’s anti-gun agenda, not any measure of actual child safety.
The Tribune said, “grades were based on whether concealed handguns are allowed and if training is required for them; if there are laws against juveniles possessing or selling handguns; if adults are required to keep firearms out of the reach of children; and whether state law can override strict city or county ordinances regarding firearms.”
The assumption is that generally strict gun laws will prevent child deaths — something very questionable. But the reporter accepted HCI’s frame of reference without question.
It is eight paragraphs into the story before we find any mention of gun deaths of children. HCI spokesman JAKE TAPPER was quoted as saying “There were 36 Utah children that were dead from firearms in 1994, the latest statistics from the National Center for Health Statistics.”
It sounded like 36 kids accidentally killed themselves or other children with guns.
Wrong. Reporter BRYSON noted next, “The Utah Department of Health in 1995 documented two accidental deaths from guns by youths under 19, and 34 suicides.”
It is just plain lying with statistics to claim deliberate suicides as “gun violence” or “accidents,” which is what the HCI report card was supposed to represent.
In fact, Utah had only 2 child deaths from gun accidents, which should have given it an “A” grade. But TAPPER said, “No state got an A,” noting that California, New Jersey, Connecticut and Iowa earned “B” grades.
TAPPER said, “We are tough graders when it comes to children’s safety regarding guns.”
The media strategy was to use children as an emotional trigger to gain public sympathy, then to include unrelated parts of their agenda into the discussion.
In fact, the whole report card idea was merely a slick lobbying effort to promote anti-gun laws in state legislatures. Utah’s “D” was just to provoke public alarm over a vague and undefined feeling about “child safety.”
The Tribune’s BRYSON quoted STEVE GUNN of the anti-gun Utahns Against Gun Violence: “D - That is where I would have ranked Utah.” GUNN is working on proposed legislation about concealed weapons in schools.
It’s not about child safety, it’s about stripping gun rights from law abiding citizens by passing laws that criminalize the ownership of guns.
Wouldn’t it be surprising to see that in a headline some day?
GOV. PETE WILSON VETOES BAN ON CHEAP HANDGUNS IN CALIFORNIA
We are pleased to give our Parting Shot to California Gov. Pete Wilson, whose veto message on the “Saturday night special” ban we have excerpted:
I am returning Senate Bill 500 without my signature.
SB 500 is a bill that purports to protect gun users against shoddy guns. It is essentially offered as consumer protection. But the vast majority of the proponents of SB 500 who have urged me to sign it have done so because of their passionate hope and belief that it will instead protect potential victims against whom the proscribed guns might otherwise be used....
Proponents assert that “junk guns” costing as little as $35 are the weapons of choice of gang members and are used with disproportionate frequency to inflict harm upon Californians.... The fact is that gang members and professional criminals prefer and use higher quality, more expensive guns....
In short, SB 500 seeks to achieve gun control in the guise of consumer protection of gun users. But rather than protect either gun owners as consumers or the public as potential victims, SB 500 is far more likely to deprive those who must defend themselves against crime of an important means of doing so.
As the Governor of this state, I have seen far too much suffering caused by guns ending lives tragically, abruptly and all too early - be it by drive-by shootings, home invasions or hold-ups in supermarket parking lots. I can personally attest to that kind of bereavement. My mother was left fatherless, my grandmother widowed, by a gun-wielding thug.
However, I will not support a measure that fails the basic test of protecting the innocent. Ultimately, the real test applied by the bill is whether or not the weapon is readily concealable. If so, it is adjudged by SB 500 to be “non-sporting” and is therefore prohibited. By this definition and test, all handguns - except, ironically, the largest and deadliest - are included in the ban. The clear if unstated premise of this test is that handguns that are concealable can have no sporting purpose and therefore no valid purpose. This flawed logic ignores reality: it ignores the obvious fact that millions of law-abiding Californians - including a growing number of women - have felt the need to own concealable weapons not for sport but to protect themselves, their families, and their property.
As much as I deplore the necessity, I cannot in good conscience deny them that protection if they choose it.”
Cordially,
PETE WILSONThey reason that SB 500, by its elimination of “crummy little handguns,” will profoundly reduce gun crimes by effectively disarming thousands of low-budget gang members. Sadly, the facts - as reported by major police departments - pointedly contradict these assumptions: the Los Angeles Sheriffs Department reports that of the total guns seized by the Department in one year, only 16 percent were “Saturday Night Specials,” or junk guns. The experience of the San Diego Police Department is essentially the same. They report a 14 1/2 percent incidence of inexpensive guns while the California Department of Justice reports a statewide rate in the 10- to 13-percent range.
The Gottlieb-Tartaro Report: An Insiders Guide for Gun Owners
$30 for a full year of 12 great issues
This publication is available to be ordered online! Find out how, and start your subscription today!
Printed in the USA.
The Gottlieb-Tartaro Report (ISSN 1079-6169) is published monthly by the:
Second Amendment Foundation
James Madison Building
12500 N.E. 10th Place
Bellevue, WA 98005
Phone (425) 454-7012. FAX (425) 451-3959Please call or write if you have a question regarding your subscription.
Subscriptions $30 per year anywhere in the USA, $35 elsewhere. Single issues $5.00.Send address changes to:
The Gottlieb-Tartaro Report
12500 N.E. 10th Place
Bellevue, WA 98005Publishers: Alan M. Gottlieb and Joseph P. Tartaro
Editor: Ron Arnold
Design: Northwoods Studio
Production: Janet Arnold
Subscriptions: Susan Elings
Published by: Second Amendment FoundationCopyright 1999-2002 by Alan M. Gottlieb and Joseph P. Tartaro.
Photocopying, reproduction or quotation strictly prohibited without written permission of the publishers.
Bulk rates on request. Postage paid at Bellevue, WA.