Printed in the USA.
The Gottlieb-Tartaro Report
Issue 046
October, 1998
SENATE HOLDS HEARINGS ON MEANING OF SECOND AMENDMENT
U.S. Senator JOHN ASHCROFT (R-MO) recently chaired an important hearing of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism and Property Rights. The subject was "Whose Right to Keep and Bear Arms -- the Second Amendment as a Source of Individual Rights."
In the light of proposals, including congressional proposals, to eliminate the Second Amendment, the hearing was significant even though it was not related to any pending legislation.
In announcing the hearing, Sen. ASHCROFT said, "The Bill of Rights is the great charter of American freedom. One of the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution is the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
Sen. ASHCROFT also expressed the hope that the hearing would "remind us all that the Constitution is not written in disappearing ink. Its guarantees of personal freedom are clear, permanent and precious."
Three distinguished academicians presented the case for interpreting the Second Amendment as a personal right. Testifying were Professor Robert J. Cottrol, George Washington University; Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA School of Law; and Prof. Joyce Lee Malcolm.
JOHN SNYDER, Public Affairs Director for the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms submitted testimony asserting that "The right to keep and bear arms is a civil right, at least as significant and important as the other civil rights enumerated in our Bill of Rights."
Noted constitutional attorney and National Rifle Association counsel Stephen Halbrook testified, citing case after case on Second Amendment issues.
But the personal right to keep and bear arms was pointedly challenged by Sen. ROBERT TORRICELLI (D-NY). He demanded of leadoff witness CHARLTON HESTON, making his first congressional appearance as NRA president, "Why have you never challenged the assault weapons ban or the 1993 Brady Act on Second Amendment grounds in court?"
Throwing a taunt at HALBROOK, TORRICELLI asked HESTON, "In which of these cases is there a personal right to bear arms cited in a U.S. Supreme Court case?"
The complex answer to that question was addressed by most of the witnesses, but Sen. TORRICELLI evidently chose not to hear it.
Judiciary Committee Chairman ORRIN HATCH (R-UT) was bemused. "It is amazing to me that we still have this debate." He pointed out that 17 years ago this same subcommittee, under his leadership, issued a report on gun rights.
Sen. HATCH said, "Advocates of gun control seem to believe that because some individuals commit crimes with guns, the right to bear arms must not be guaranteed."
Sen. BOB SMITH (R-NH) said he hoped President CLINTON will not veto his measure prohibiting the FBI from charging a fee for using the new computerized national instant background check system beginning in November. The fee would be "gun control rather than criminal control," said Sen. SMITH.
WEALTHY PRIVATE FOUNDATION OPERATES ANTI-GUN PROPAGANDA MILL
Chicago’s Joyce Foundation is a big-money private foundation out to end your right to keep and bear arms. It funds anti-gun lobbying thinly disguised as public opinion surveys. The Joyce Foundation originally got its money from a lumber fortune, now owns a diversified investment portfolio, and operates a radical "Gun Violence" program with part of its assets of over half a billion dollars ($587,899,563 in 1995) and grants disbursed of $20,449,905 (1995).
The Joyce Foundation’s most recent foray into taking your guns away from you was the recently released Second Annual National Gun Policy Survey. It uses statistics to show that the public wants "to take guns out of the hands of criminals even if that means making it harder for law-abiding citizens to purchase handguns."
The survey was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which sounds prestigious and unbiased. But the Joyce Foundation prescribed the survey project and then paid the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago and the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research (CGPR) to perform it. The lead author was NORC’s STEPHEN P. TERET.
The results showed that 68% of Americans want government to regulate gun design, mostly so that children can’t fire them. The report was full of similar statistics. It asserted that 88 percent of Americans support legislation requiring handguns to be designed so children cannot fire them; that 71 percent want all new handguns to be personalized so that only authorized users can fire them; and 73 percent want handguns to have load indicators showing if they contain ammunition.
The Joyce-funded survey didn’t mention that no practical child-proofing devices exist to do these things, only that no laws exist that require these (imaginary) solutions.
When the medical journal published the report, it was accompanied by a blistering anti-gun editorial by DAVID HEMENWAY of the Harvard School of Public Health, couched in nice language telling us "the public health community has been studying this issue and has suggested many reasonable, feasible policies." Asking for laws that demand imaginary devices somehow seems less than reasonable or feasible.
And there is the serious question of the backstage influence of an agenda-laden big-money foundation making it all happen. NORC’s website (http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/studies/epi.htm) said, "NORC worked closely with the Joyce Foundation, the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, and a national panel of experts to design the questionnaire, which focused on issues related to the manufacture, sale, use of, and opinions about guns. The questionnaire also included items about child-proofed and personalized guns, in addition to questions about perceptions of what particular advertising meant to the respondents." Advertising perceptions? Why does this look like a foundation-directed persuasion campaign, and not an opinion survey?
NORC and CGPR will not publish the survey questions or how the answers were interpreted, so we have no way of knowing if the survey consisted of straight questions or of made-up situations fed to respondents and designed to provoke the exact answers the money source wanted to hear. All we know is that telephone surveyors called 1,200 U.S. adults during 1997-98 and NORC claims a 4% margin of error.
When the newspapers got hold of the report, Reuters news service did not even mention the role of the Joyce Foundation, and the Chicago Sun-Times noted only that "the survey was funded" by the foundation, but did not reveal its influence in prescribing the survey and shaping the questionnaire.
The Sun-Times quoted ALAN GOTTLIEB, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, as saying the study asked skewed questions based on child-proofing devices that haven’t been invented.
"They take a popular concept, wrap it in the term ‘legislation’ and go to push it," GOTTLIEB said. "But they don’t tell the people they’re polling that the technology to put such things into place isn’t there yet. They pretend like we can be there tomorrow when we can’t."
NORC’s TOM W. SMITH, co-author of the study, said the questions were fair, but won’t say what they were or how NORC interpreted them. Too many secrets.
What is clear is that the only purpose of the survey was to pressure Congress to pass tougher anti-gun laws. Deborah Leff, president of the Joyce Foundation, said: "What this survey shows is that Americans want legislation that will help prevent the tens of thousands of handgun deaths a year. But there’s a big gap between the laws and protections Americans want and the laws America has. We hope this survey will prompt policy makers to take notice and better protect the public."
In other words, all these high-sounding non-profit institutions were linked together to lobby Congress in the guise of an opinion survey that may have been totally and deliberately biased to produce the desired results. And not a single newspaper questioned the legitimacy of the report.
BIG LIES REVEALED
A new book takes a look at America and exposes "The 15 Biggest Lies in Politics." With a title like that, it’s a sure seller.
It also doesn’t hurt that the two co-authors are in a position to know about politics: journalist Major Garrett of U.S. News & World Report and former Rep. Timothy Penny (D-MN), now a senior fellow at the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey Institute.
Their take on the lies we all fall for is fascinating. Look to see how your favorite issues fare. Here’s their list of biggest lies:
1. The abortion debate matters.
2. Gun control reduces crime.
3. Religion and politics don’t mix.
4. Immigration hurts America.
5. All politicians are corrupt.
6. Money buys elections.
7. "Fat cats" are the problem.
8. The budget will be balanced by the year 2000.
9. Social Security is a sacred government trust.
10. Medicare works.
11. Tax cuts are good.
12. In education, more money equals better results.
13. On the environment, it’s Mother Earth or mother lode.
14. Republicans believe in smaller government.
15. Democrats are compassionate.
CONGRESSMAN BOB BARR EXPOSES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE POWER GRAB
Anyone who saw the political comedy movie "Wag the Dog" gets the idea that a President might start a war to hide his personal scandals. But now that President CLINTON is mired in a sordid mess, has anyone asked what the scandal might be hiding?
Well, is all this impeachment flap deflecting our attention from something important?
Representative BOB BARR (R-GA) recently released something which might answer that 	question: information that the Department of Justice is trying to obtain massive new enforcement powers by sneaking new provisions into an appropriations bill without hearings or debate.
BARR obtained the information from a confidential source with federal law enforcement. The DOJ’s "wish list" for new authority includes, among other things:
l A vastly expanded definition of terrorism to include domestic crimes having no relationship to terrorism.
l The power to seize commercial transportation assets for federal use.
l The ability to commandeer personnel from other federal agencies without reimbursement.
l Expanded wiretap authority to allow "roving" wiretaps and wiretaps without any court authority.
l Enlarged asset forfeiture provisions to allow the FBI to seize personal property in both criminal and civil matters.
l The establishment of a permanent "FBI Police Force."
l Loosening of Posse Comitatus restrictions to allow more military involvement in domestic law enforcement.
l Authority to force telephone and Internet companies to divulge information on their customers.
Rep. BARR said, "These requests belong in some bizarre conspiracy novel, not in serious legislative documents being circulated at the top levels of federal law enforcement. These proposals represent a sneak attack on the most cherished principles of our democracy. If they become a part of our law, freedom and privacy in America will be permanently and severely diminished."
SEATTLE SCHOOLS AND ZERO-TOLERANCE GUN POLICY: STOOPING TO STUPIDITY
The Seattle (Washington) School District ruled a year ago that real-looking toy guns fall under their zero-weapons policy. The policy orders expulsion as the punishment for bringing a weapon to school. Suspension is possible in "rare cases."
A dozen children were expelled last year for bringing toy weapons to school. The first kid expelled this year was 11-year-old LOGAN HAMM, a sixth-grader at Whitman Middle School. He painted his squirt gun black with a brown handle. It allegedly fell out of his backpack during lunch and was reported by fellow students. LOGAN, who comes from a nice family in a nice neighborhood, was expelled.
Even the normally anti-gun Seattle Times couldn’t stomach that. "Expelled children are branded children," the lead editorial said. "They can never return to their neighborhood school."
Now get this: One hot day in August, that same Whitman Middle School encouraged children to bring their squirt guns and Super Soakers for a day of fun, as part of a summer program through the city parks and recreation department.
The Seattle Times editorialized, "With such mixed signals, the district has an obligation to keep educating children about the dangers of guns, threats and crying wolf. It also has a duty not to harm individual children by valuing safety more than common sense." Glad to see common sense and the Seattle Times on speaking terms.
FLORIDA BALLOT MEASURE THREATENS GUN RIGHTS
Florida’s state uniform firearms laws are under attack by ballot measure Proposition 12, which would amend the state constitution to allow cities and counties to regulate firearms and ammunition.
What anti-gunners could not get in the legislature, they hope to get from the voters, not by passing a law, but by needlessly amending the state constitution.
The proposition was not put on the ballot by the voters, but by an unelected "Constitution Revision Commission," which, under Florida’s constitution, is convened once every 20 years with 37 members to decide what constitutional amendments should be presented to the voters.
Gun rights defender MIKE SAPORITO, chairman of Florida Victims of Crime, says Proposition 12 fails to solve alleged concerns about gun purchases while creating a host of harmful side effects.
"This poorly-crafted Constitutional Revision will lead to lower criminal penalties for serious criminals," said SAPORITO, "a patchwork quilt of gun laws, violations of privacy rights, and cost the tax payers hundreds of thousands of dollars without solving anything."
Handgun Control Inc. PAC Contributions to Federal Candidates
The Federal Elections Commission files on Handgun Control Voter Education Fund, the Political Action Committee of HCI, show political contributions for the 1997-98 period to Democrats: $59,250 (95%); to Republicans: $3,000(5%), for a total of $62,250.
Senate Candidates: Boxer, Barbara (D-CA), $1,500; Dodd, Christopher J (D-CT), $500; Durbin, Richard J (D-IL), $500; Kennedy, Edward M (D-MA), $1,500; Moseley-Braun, Carol (D-IL), $1,000; Murray, Patty (D-WA), $2,000; Reid, Harry (D-NV), $1,000; Schumer, Charles E (D-NY), $4,000; Torricelli, Robert G (D-NJ), $1,000. Total to Senate Democrats: $13,000. Total to Senate Republicans: $0.
House Candidates: Allen, Tom (D-ME), $500; Biagolevich, Rod R (D-IL), $1,000; Blumenauer, Earl (D-OR), $500; Cammermeyer, Margarethe (D-WA), $2,000; Capps, Lois (D-CA), $3,000; Castle, Michael N (R-DE), $1,000; Clayton, Eva (D-NC) $1,000; Conyers, John Jr (D-MI), $500; Davis, Thomas M III (R-VA), $1,000; DeGette, Diana (D-CO), $2,000; Delahunt, William D (D-MA), $1,000; Dunn, Sandie (D-CA), $500; Eskelsen, Lily (D-UT), $2,000; Evans, Lane (D-IL), $2,000; Filner, Bob (D-CA)	$1,500; Ford, Harold E Jr (D-TN)	$500; Purse, Elizabeth (D-OR), $500; Gephardt, Richard A (D-MO)	$500; Hoeffel, Joseph M (D-PA), $500; Hooley, Darlene (D-OR), $1,000; Inslee, Jay R (D-WA), $2,000; Jackson-Lee, Sheila (D-TX), $500; Lee, Barbara (D-CA), $500; Lowey, Nita M (D-NY), $500; Luther, William P "Bill" (D-MN), $1,500; Maloney, Jim (D-CT), $1,000; McCarthy, Carolyn (D-NY), $4,000; McGovern, Jim (D-MA), $1,500; Moran, James P Jr (D-VA), $500; Olver, John W (D-MA), $500; Pascrell, William J Jr (D-NJ), $1,000; Price, David E (D-NC), $3,000; Rothman, Steven R (D-NJ), $500; Roukema, Marge (R-NJ), $1,000; Sanchez, Loretta (D-CA), $1,500; Sawyer, Tom (D-OH), $1,000; Schakowsky, Jan (D-IL), $2.000; Scott, Robert C (D-VA), $500; Sherman, Brad (D-CA), $500; Slaughter, Louise M (D-NY), $1,000; Thompson, Bonnie (D-MS), $500; Tierney, John F (D-MA), $750; Waite, Ralph (D-CA), $500; Woolsey, Lynn (D-CA), $500. Total to House Democrats: $46,250. Total to House Republicans: $3,000.
CANADIAN PROVINCIAL COURT OF APPEAL UPHOLDS GUN LAW
Canada’s new gun law has withstood a legal challenge in the Alberta Court of Appeal. A panel of five judges narrowly upheld the registration of all firearms, including rifles and shotguns.
Two judges dissented, one of them saying the law was invalid for infringing on provincial powers. The ruling may be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.
WINNING BACK GUN RIGHTS AGAINST INVOLUNTARY MENTAL HEALTH COMMITMENTS
RUSSELL G. LAING, a Pennsylvania gun owner, recently won a court case restoring his second amendment rights, including his CCW license, after a nightmarish episode of detention for "mental health evaluation."
Under Pennsylvania law, an examining physician can "certify" that a detainee is mentally ill by signing an uncontested, unrebutted letter and mailing it to the state police. Such a certification is grounds for stripping an individual of all firearms rights, which is what happened to LAING.
After LAING’s court victory, his attorney received a formal ruling from the BATF stating the federal position agreeing with LAING. Here is the BATF letter, reproduced in full because of its vital bearing on gun rights:
"Dear Mr. PUSHINSKY [LAING’s attorney]:
"You had asked if a person who has been involuntarily detained for an emergency mental health examination pursuant to 50 PA Cons STAT Sect 7302 would be prohibited from possessing firearms under 18 USC Sec 922(g)(4). You stated that you believe such a person would not be prohibited. We agree.
"Title 18 USC Sec 922(g)(4) makes it unlawful for a person who has been committed to a mental institution to possess a firearm. The term "committed to a mental institution" is defined in 27 CFR Sec 178.11 as follows:
"‘A FORMAL commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term includes a commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes commitments for other reasons such as drug use. THE TERM DOES NOT INCLUDE A PERSON IN A MENTAL INSTITUTION FOR OBSERVATION or a voluntary admission to a mental institution.’
"An involuntary detention under Section 302 does NOT constitute a commitment to a mental institution within the meaning of 27 CFR Sec 178.11. Section 302 provides for temporary emergency measures and as such falls short of the "formal commitment" described in Sec 178.11. Although Section 302 provides for the immediate medical treatment of a person deemed by a physician to require it, the apparent broader purpose of the statute is to enable the authorities to observe the subject and determine their options within a 120 hour period. One option is to make an application for extended involuntary emergency treatment pursuant to 50 PA CONS STAT Section 303.
"Unlike a person detained pursuant to Section 302, a person facing extended involuntary treatment (up to 20 days) pursuant to Sec 303 is afforded a variety of due process rights including the right to counsel, notice, and hearing. Pennsylvania also provides for longer periods of commitment pursuant to CONS STAT Sec 304 & 305. These sections likewise provide a panoply of due process rights for persons who might be subject to them. In the context of these provisions for formal commitments, the distinction between a detention under Sec 302 and a commitment which would meet the definition in CFR 27 Sec 178.11 is clearer still.
"GIVEN THE LACK OF DUE PROCESS provisions afforded 50 PA CONS STAT Sec 302, the limited duration of a detention pursuant to it, the fact that its primary purpose is to provide mental health officials time to observe a detainee and make an assessment, and the existence of more formal commitment procedures under Pennsylvania law, we conclude that a detention under 50 PA CONS STAT Section 302 does NOT constitute a commitment for the purpose of 18 USC Sec 922(g)(4).
"If you have additional questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to call ATF Attorney Kevin White at (215) 597-7183."
Sincerely Yours,
Lawrence L. Duchnowski
Special Agent in Charge
CALIFORNIA: GOVERNOR Wilson Vetoes Anti-Gun Bills
California Governor PETE WILSON recently rejected a number of restrictive firearm bills that would have harmed state gun owners and the firearm industry. In strongly worded messages to the California legislature, WILSON asserted that tough penalties on individuals who commit felonies with firearms, not more gun control, was the way "to deal with gun violence."
In rejecting SB 1500 by Senator POLANCO, which sought to ban affordable handguns by establishing arbitrary "safety" and testing standards, WILSON stated that the bill "threatens to unreasonably limit the right of law-abiding citizens to obtain previously lawful firearms. It makes little sense for the law to deny weapons to people who need them, on the pretext that they are unsafe to the user when they are arguably in far greater danger from certifiably unsafe thugs than from uncertified handguns."
AB 2560, by Assemblyman PERATA, which sought to expand the definition of "assault weapons" under the state’s current Roberti-Roos law, was also vetoed by the governor. While WILSON was amenable to legislation that imposed limitations on the sale and purchase of high capacity magazines, he rejected PERATA’s effort, saying it "mixes together issues of capacity and cosmetics with too little attention given to capacity and too much to cosmetics. If this bill’s focus were high speed sports cars, it would first declare them ‘chariots of death’ and then criminalize possession of Ramblers equipped with racing stripes and wire wheels."
WILSON further noted that the bill was so flawed as to be "more susceptible to constitutional attack than the law it seeks to replace. By design, or happenstance, it is a maze which would entrap the unwary, (and) generate endless litigation."
A third bill vetoed by Wilson was SB 1550 by Senator HAYDEN which would have required gun dealers to offer for sale "use limitation devices" for firearms. In vetoing a bill last year that would have mandated the sale of gun locks, WILSON alluded to the firearm industry’s voluntary initiative to begin shipping safety locking devices with new guns and pending federal legislation requiring the offer but not sale of locks "as an alternative approach." While SB 1550 addressed those issues, WILSON expressed his concern that the bill would not prohibit local jurisdictions from placing more stringent requirements upon firearm dealers regarding locking devices and thus "would violate the standing state policy to preempt local regulation of firearms." Firearm regulation requires a "standard of statewide uniformity." SB 1550, he said, "threatens to undermine the present, wise policy of state preemption."
Wilson signed two key bills: SB 63 by Senator PEACE requiring the state Department of Justice to conduct a second background check on gun purchasers if they fail to take possession of their handgun within 30 days after completing the initial background check (bringing California into compliance with the federal NICS requirements), and AB 48 by Assemblyman WRIGHT which grants criminal immunity for individuals or groups who possessed SKS rifles from January 1, 1992 to December 19, 1997 and did not register their weapons with the state.
MASSACHUSETTS: TWO DEMOCRATS OPPOSE FEDERAL RECIPROCITY BILL
Massachusetts Congressmen MARTIN MEEHAN and WILLIAM DELAHUNT have emerged as leading opponents of H.R. 218, legislation to exempt off-duty law enforcement officers from state laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms.
The bill was approved by the House Judiciary Committee in August, with changes made by Crime Subcommittee Chairman BILL McCOLLUM to also give civilians greater latitude in carrying concealed weapons outside their states.
MEEHAN and DELAHUNT vowed to "lobby their colleagues hard to defeat the bill on the floor." The bill was said to be scheduled for a mid-September vote under suspension of the rules in the House, but it did not appear on the suspension calendar.
H.R. 218 has been reported out of committee for a voice vote.
National ID Card System Opposed by Law Enforcement
This month we give our Parting Shot to JAMES J. FOTIS, Executive Director of the Law Enforcement Alliance of America. His message is of vital concern to us all.
"A national identification card system has been proposed by the federal government to be handled by the Department of Transportation. The problem this preposterous legislation is supposed to solve is illegal immigration. The national ID card will be issued by each state, much like current driver’s licenses, but with the added complication of following federal guidelines, regulations and procedures.
"Like other efforts of this administration, this bureaucratic requirement is not supported by rank-and-file law enforcement. The program will force individual, cash-strapped states to pay for yet another unfunded federal mandate, and will require the officer on the beat to waste his or her time ticketing honest citizens who have not obtained the new federally imposed card.
"Our country is overwhelmed by drugs, crime, and illegal immigrants simply because our borders are not secure. Instead of supporting law enforcement to secure our borders and make our country safe from illegal aliens and drugs, the Clinton Administration wants to implement new bureaucratic measures which are not needed.
"Many believe the national ID card will constitute an internal passport that will ultimately deprive law-abiding citizens of their privacy and basic civil liberties. This system will allow the government to track personal information such as medical, credit and employment records. From the street cop’s perspective, the administration’s energies would be better spent focusing on tracking known felons rather than tracking honest citizens. After all, if issuing a social security number to U.S. citizens and requiring proper INS forms to work in the U.S. isn’t stemming the illegal immigration problem, how will one more bureaucratic process solve the dilemma?
"We know for a fact that effective border enforcement has resulted in significant arrests for illegal entries of our borders—of both drugs and illegal aliens. Securing our borders is a much better way to address the related crime problems.
"The federal government should do the right thing and increase funding to law enforcement efforts such as the U.S. Coast Guard, Customs and the Border Patrol so they can continue to improve the security of our nation’s borders."
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.