GT Report 062

TWO VICTORIES FOR GUN SHOWS

Two cities that attempted to ban or regulate gun shows in public facilities have been slapped down in court.

In 1994, the City of South Bend, Indiana banned the Northern Indiana Gun & Outdoor Shows Inc. (NIGOS) from holding its gun shows in the Century Center, a municipal facility, claiming they were not safe.

The group in charge of the show sued the city in federal court, where a jury ordered the city to pay the group $300,000 in lost profits.

The NIGOS group had been holding the gun show in Century Center for four years when the trouble started.

The city claimed to have received complaints about patrons smoking in the hallway outside the show, where live ammunition was displayed. Other complaints the city said it received objected to having actual guns at the gun shows.

NIGOS contended that its rights to political speech under the First Amendment were violated when they were precluded from conducting gun shows at Century Center. NIGOS also alleged violation of its commercial speech rights.

NIGOS also sued Century Center alleging it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution because it excluded NIGOS from conducting gun shows at Century Center while permitting other trade shoes to be conducted.

After five days of trial, the seven-person jury agreed with the NIGOS contentions and awarded $300,000 in damages. NIGOS is owned by Mr. and Mrs. RICK CROSIER of Waddy, Kentucky.

The city expects to appeal the decision, said ALADEAN DeROSE, chief assistant city attorney.

In the second case, the city of Houston lost its appeal of a lower court ruling that shot down a city ordinance requiring show promoters to remove firing pins and install trigger locks on all weapons displayed at city-owned facilities.

The court also affirmed a jury verdict ordering the city to pay more than $383,000 in lost profits and attorneys fees to the operator of High Caliber Gun and Knife Shows, Inc., TODD BEAN.

BEAN sued the City of Houston in 1996, claiming the 1993 ordinance all but banned gun shows from the convention center.

City officials claimed it was to protect public safety, but BEAN argued that the requirement was too onerous for a small operator to be able to put on a profitable show.

The ordinance also mandated that all entrants to gun shows at city-owned facilities fill out forms declaring all firearms in their possession.

U.S. District Court Judge MELINDA HARMON agreed with BEAN’s arguments, enjoining the city from enforcing the ordinance and ruled BEAN was entitled to damages from the city. A jury awarded BEAN $329,000 in lost profits and over $54,000 in legal fees.

The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court ruling. BEAN said the ruling was a “vindication for the little guy.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUING GUN INDUSTRY, WILL BE SUED BY S.A.F.

The D.C. government has joined a group of cities targeting gun makers and distributors, filing a lawsuit that seeks tens of millions of dollars in damages for the “public nuisance” and injury allegedly created by the sale of illegal firearms.

The District’s suit is modeled after litigation filed by 29 other jurisdictions across the country, a legal strategy similar to the one used against tobacco companies in lawsuits seeking damages for illness caused by smoking.

ALAN GOTTLIEB, founder of the Bellevue, Washington-based Second Amendment Foundation, said his group will file a countersuit on behalf of gun makers.

The Second Amendment Foundation has already filed countersuits against cities and counties in the anti-gun lawsuits.

GOTTLIEB said that the District of Columbia filed its suit against the gun industry as a scapegoat for lax law enforcement and acts committed by criminals.

D.C. Mayor ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS (D) said in announcing the lawsuit, “We’re supposed to have the toughest gun prohibitions in the nation, and yet our streets are flooded with guns.”

SAF’s GOTTLIEB retorted, “That proves gun control doesn’t work. Criminals will get illegal guns because they ignore the law.”

Judges have thrown out anti-gun lawsuits filed by Cincinnati, Bridgeport, Conn., and Miami-Dade County. The Ohio judge ruled that criminals, not gunmakers, are responsible for shootings. An Atlanta judge has dismissed part of that city’s case and may dismissed the rest.

GUNMAKERS WON’T LET CLINTON ADMINISTRATION IN LAWSUIT TALKS

When the CLINTON administration recently announced it would throw its weight behind the cities that have brought anti-gun lawsuits and join them at the negotiating table, it was widely seen as boosting chances for a settlement.

It didn’t work. Firearms manufacturers criticized the move as election-year politics and refused to attend the settlement talks if the White House showed up.

The cities refused to attend if the White House was not allowed into the talks, so the negotiations are stalled.

Gun manufacturers are willing to take their chances in court, spokesmen said.

U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS AND THEIR WALL OF DEATH

Denver Mayor WELLINGTON E. WEBB recently touted a new publicity gimmick to call for tougher federal gun laws at a U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting in Washington, D.C.

WEBB, who is president of the Conference, displayed a black 10-foot board listing the names of more than 3,000 Americans fatally shot since the killings at Columbine High School on April 20, 1999.

The anti-gun mayors in the Conference call their portable billboard “The Wall of Death.” “We hope Congress gets the message,” said WEBB.

Newspapers covered the big poster with details of how many shooting deaths occurred in 100 surveyed cities since the Littleton, Colorado, school shootings. Eleven cities had no fatal shootings. The 89 others had fatalities ranging from one shooting death in Superior, Wisconsin, to 343 in Chicago.

However, at a separate Conference meeting, it was the mayors who were taken to task for failing to stop school violence in their own cities.

CLINTON ANNOUNCES (ANOTHER) NEW GUN PROGRAM

The president wants more agents for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and money for a system to track firearms through ballistics tests.

President CLINTON recently asked Congress for $280 million to hire 500 BATF agents and inspectors and create a new ballistics-tracking bureaucracy.

The CLINTON White House has already asked for $10 million from Congress to develop “smart guns” that only fire when held by their owners.

JOHN PODESTA, White House chief of staff, said that CLINTON’s proposed budget for the fiscal year beginning October 1 will include the money requests.

MEDIA FOUND TO BE BIASED FOR GUN CONTROL

A respected media watchdog group has found that the television networks are so badly slanting the gun control debate they have become “the communications division of the anti-gun lobby.”

BRENT BOZELL, chairman of the Washington, D.C.-based Media Research Center, recently released a study on two years of television news stories on gun control.

The study analyzed 653 morning shows and evening newscasts between July 1, 1997 and June 30, 1999 on ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC.

Generally in most stories, the study claimed, pro-gun themes were not covered and gun proponents were not given air time.

Stories advocating more gun control outnumbered stories opposing gun control 357 to 36 or a ratio of 10 to 1. The group said 260 stories were neutral.

The study found:

• On the evening news, nearly 60% (184) of the stories favored one side. Of those stories taking a side, 89% (164) promoted the anti-gun position, while only 11% (20) supported pro-gun views, a ratio of 8 to 1. The worst in this category were ABC’s World News Tonight (43 anti to 3 pro), and CNN’s The World Today (50 to 7).

• The morning news coverage was even worse in its bias. Of the 208 morning segments that exhibited bias, 93% (193) promoted an anti-gun message, while six percent (15) presented a pro-gun view, a ratio of 13 to 1. ABC’s Good Morning America ran 92 anti-gun segments, and only one pro-gun story.

• Anti-gun sound bites were used twice as often as pro-gun bites, 412 to 209.

• Morning programs with interview segments had more than twice as many anti-gun guests as pro-gun, 82 to 27.

• Pro-gun themes, like the decline in federal gun prosecutions under the CLINTON-GORE administration or the success of the “Project Exile” prosecution model, received scant coverage, in the single digits, from the 653 stories reviewed.

OLIVER NORTH, who hosts a talk show on MSNBC, said, “This blitz of bias is having an extraordinary impact on public policy and legal opinion.”

DAVID BITTLER of CNN defended his network’s reporting, saying, “We do not advocate for or against any particular position and we stand behind the balance and fairness that goes into all our reporting.”

Another study of anti-gun bias was reported by Boston Globe columnist JEFF JACOBY. BRIAN PATRICK, a University of Michigan scholar, spent a year comparing the coverage of pro-gun organizations in several prestigious newspapers — The New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, and Christian Science Monitor — with the coverage of anti- or non-gun groups.

Prof. PATRICK found that the National Rifle Association was labeled with negative terms and the American Civil Liberties Union, the NAACP or Handgun Control, Inc., were labeled with positive words.

The NRA was typically called a “lobby” or a “special interest group,” while Handgun Control was described as “a citizen lobby,” a “nonprofit organization” or a “public interest group.”

When Handgun Control is quoted, the stories note that it “spoke out, “vowed,” “declared,” or “announced,” but when the NRA is quoted, it’s all negative verbs like “claims,” “asserts,” “contended,” “likes to portray” and “alleges.”

CHICAGO GUN SHOP PROSECUTION FAILS

Federal prosecutors lost big when a federal judge recently declared a mistrial in the first of what was supposed to be a groundbreaking series of cases against suburban gun shops that allegedly supply guns to criminals.

The case against Universal Firearms, Inc., which operates Bell’s Gun and Sport Shop in Franklin Park, Illinois, and two sales clerks who work there, DEAN CERETTI and MICHAEL RICH, fizzled when jurors deadlocked.

U.S. District Judge JAMES F. HOLDERMAN declared a mistrial when jurors said they had reached “a permanent impasse” over the only remaining count in what had originally been a six-count indictment against the defendants.

The case is significant to gun owners because it illustrates the arrogance and stupidity of the CLINTON-GORE administration’s anti-gun crusade.

It began when federal prosecutors brought the case with evidence generated in an undercover sting conducted by the Chicago Police Department to support a lawsuit against the firearms industry.

The appearance of political motivation in the case was strong from the start. And the bungling of the federal prosecutors was even more apparent.

In December, Judge HOLDERMAN dismissed three charges jointly naming the gun shop and one of the clerks, MICHAEL RICH.

A month later Judge HOLDERMAN dismissed two counts jointly naming the shop and clerk DEAN CERRETTI, leaving only one count accusing CERETTI and the shop of knowingly selling guns to a person who intended to resell them illegally.

Judge HOLDERMAN nearly dismissed the case because of the prosecution’s failure to supply documents to the defense as the judge had ordered.

Judge HOLDERMAN threatened to hold the lead prosecutor, STUART FULLLERTON, in contempt of court for “failing to comply” with a directive that the defense get copies of all forms and documents the government might use in questioning witnesses.

When Judge HOLDERMAN learned that the prosecution had 20 copies of a compilation of all the documents in the courtroom, but had not yet given one to the defense, HOLDERMAN angrily said he might have to “dismiss the case.”

After FULLERTON’s co-counsel, LAWRENCE OLIVER, told the judge the failure to supply the materials had been “unintentional,” HOLDERMAN shot back, “Intent does not make any difference.”

Adding to the appearance of political motivation, U.S. Attorney SCOTT LASSAR was sitting in the back of the courtroom on the trial’s opening day, emphasizing the CLINTON-GORE administration’s interest in the unusual prosecution.

LASSAR said he would retry the one count.

CONVICTED POLICEMAN LOSES GUN CASE

The United States Supreme Court recently refused to hear the case of a former Indianapolis policeman who says he had a right to carry a gun even after pleading guilty to a domestic violence crime.

The court turned away GERALD GILLESPIE’s constitutional challenge to a 1996 federal law that took away his gun and cost him his job.

In 1996, Congress approved a measure sponsored by Sen. FRANK LAUTENBERG (D-NJ) that banned guns to anyone convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor, and did not exempt federal, state and local government officials.

GILLESPIE had pleaded guilty to a battery charge involving his ex-wife, which convinced Indianapolis police officials he could no longer carry a gun. He was required to carry a gun as a police officer, and was fired from the job he had held for more than 25 years.

He sued, but a federal judge ruled against him. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court also ruled against his appeal, using a 1939 Supreme Court ruling that said there is no right to own a sawed-off shotgun in the absence of “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.”

The militia argument is hotly contested in the political arena.

DEMOCRAT PRESIDENTIAL HOPEFULS COMPETE FOR “MOST ANTI-GUN CANDIDATE”

The Democrat presidential primary debates sound a lot like a monster movie script: You think that was scary? Look at this, it’s really scary.

AL GORE says, “I’ve helped to pass the toughest new gun-control measure in the last generation. I’m now proposing photo-license IDs for the purchase of a new handgun, a ban on assault weapons and Saturday night specials and so-called junk guns, and a policy of zero tolerance in our schools.”

BILL BRADLEY: The first step is commonsense gun control. And by that I mean registration and licensing of all handguns in America. If we can do that for automobiles, we ought to be able to do that for handguns. I’m the only person who’s called for registration and licensing of all handguns.”

Leadership, BRADLEY said, “is making the difficult possible.”

CALIFORNIA’S DEMOCRAT LEGISLATURE HITS GUN CONTROL SNAG

The California state senate, assembly and governor’s office are firmly controlled by Democrats. Last summer they passed the nation’s most restrictive gun laws, riding roughshod over gun owner protests with the blessing of Governor GRAY DAVIS.

They banned numerous rifles as so-called “assault weapons.” They limited handguns purchases to one a month. They prohibited the manufacture of affordable handguns. They also required all guns made or sold in California to have safety locks on triggers.

California’s lawmakers recently charged back to work vowing to push the law further. Now they want to impose more extensive registration and licensing requirements on prospective gun owners, mostly in the form of annual fees for permits — a step that could lead to confiscation by raising fees to levels average owners can’t afford, forcing them to turn in their guns.

Only now there’s a pivotal primary for presidential candidates in less than two months. Governor GRAY DAVIS is worried about new gun rules that would galvanize conservative voters at a time when the presidential race in make-or-break California is gearing up. Early polls show Vice President GORE, whom DAVIS has endorsed, in a dead heat with Texas Governor GEORGE W. BUSH.

So, Gov. DAVIS barely mentioned gun control in his annual address to the legislature. He instead praised the gun control measures that lawmakers approved last year as sensible and important, but then said, “They need time to work.”

GARRY SOUTH, a political adviser to DAVIS, warned legislators that Gov. DAVIS has shelved gun control for the year. “He’s being very clear,” SOUTH said. “We should not be overloading the system with too many new laws at once. There can be a real backlash to where we’re going.”

The laws are already having a profound effect on California’s gun industry. Essentially, the smaller firearms retailers are going out of business and the big outlets are taking control of the market.

And gun sales are soaring, twice as high as last year, an unintended consequence of gun control laws.

Stay tuned to see how the California legislature copes with a governor of the same political party who won’t accept their anti-gun agenda.

MARYLAND G.O.P. OFFICIAL QUITS IN GUN RAFFLE FLAP

BETTY L. SMITH, vice chairwoman of the Republican Party’s Carroll County central committee resigned in protest after the group decided to raffle off a gun in a fund-raising event.

SMITH said that as a mother of five she could not tell her children she had a part in raffling a gun.

SMITH’s resignation may have boosted raffle ticket sales. The committee had planned to print 500 tickets to be sold at $5 apiece, but requested 3,500 more.

Organizers say ticket sales are going great.

TUCSON PAPERS BAN GUN CLASSIFIEDS

Tucson, Arizona, has two daily newspapers and no classifieds for individuals to sell guns through classified advertisements.

The Arizona Daily Star and The Tucson Citizen both announced the policy change last month.

JANE AMARI, the Star’s editor and publisher, said in a front page notice to its readers, said there was concern that people buying guns through classifieds circumvent background checks now required by law.

AMARI included an editorial comment: “In an age of increasing gun violence, it is difficult to defend our part in the transaction.”

DON HATFIELD, editor and publisher of the Citizen, said the policy change is intended to help keep guns from falling into the wrong hands, but not to stem the sale of guns.

Both newspapers will continue to accept ads placed by registered gun dealers.

SHERIFF REMOVES GUN PRIZE IN RAFFLE

Los Angeles County Sheriff LEE BACA has replaced a prize in the department’s fund-raising raffle because it is a 9 mm handgun. BACA said he would substitute $500 cash for the firearm.

The raffle is aimed at law enforcement officers, not the general public, and is intended to raise money for deputies who want to participate in an annual law enforcement relay race.

Gun control advocates criticized the prize and BACA caved in, saying he feared the firearm prize sent a mixed message to the public.

“We will not now or ever raffle off guns in the Sheriff’s Department,” BACA said.

CHICAGO SUBURB MAY VOTE ON BANNING ALL HANDGUNS

Northbrook, Illinois, officials have been considering a ballot measure that would ask village voters if they wanted to ban all handguns, including those that are legally owned.

The measure would be non-binding, which means that regardless of the vote, no law would be enacted immediately.

Village president MARK DAMISCH, who opposes a gun ban, said it’s best to find out what residents think.

Most village trustees favor the idea of putting such a referendum on the ballot, but decided recently to skip the spring election because the gun issue would distract attention from a park district bond issue.

Trustees tabled the proposal until July, when they may place the question on the fall ballot.

GUN SHIPPING TROUBLES ATTRACT GUN CONTROL CROWD

Gun theft woes of shipping companies have become the latest target of gun control advocates. As the G-T Report told you last issue, UPS has experienced gun thefts by distribution workers. Other delivery firms have similar troubles.

A Chicago railroad security officer reported last June that 1,200 firearms were stolen from UPS deliveries in a single theft at a Chicago railroad yard.

U.S. Rep. ROD BLAGOJEVICH (D-IL) has announced a push to tighten up regulations on gun transportation. He will introduce a bill in Congress to require tracking of gun shipments by private delivery services and the U.S. mail; mandate overnight air delivery of firearms, burglar proof shipping containers and reporting of thefts; require more stringent background checks for delivery-service workers in contact with firearms; and stiffen jail terms for gun thefts from interstate carriers.

GUN NEWS TICKER: SHORT TAKES ON GUNS

• A Baltimore County Circuit Judge has delayed the transfer of Maryland State Police Lieutenant DAVID BARCROFT, a 23-year veteran, from his job in Baltimore County to a newly created position a three hour commute from his home. BARCROFT sued, alleging he is the “fall guy” for a bureaucratic foul-up in which state police failed to make sure that domestic-violence restraining orders were correctly entered into computer databases. Because of delays, thousands of people barred from owning guns were able to buy them because their names were not in the database. The judge ordered state police to justify the job switch before taking any further action against BARCROFT.

• Californians are buying guns in near record numbers, according to State Department of Justice statistics showing sales have increased to 3,000 a day in December from 1,200 a day a few months earlier. The San Francisco Examiner reported the increase was apparently because of new gun control laws. In addition, Y2K hype may have spurred buyers to stock up before any disruption might happen. The spurt in gun sales benefitted fewer stores however, because many long-established gun stores have closed. The growth in gun sales in not limited to California. FBI statistics also show a surge in the number of background checks on prospective gun buyers in recent months.

• Two Chicago anti-gun activists have claimed that the Web site of the Illinois State Rifle Association contains a veiling threat to them. Pictures of anti-gun activists STEVE YOUNG and MARK KARLIN are on the Web site www.isra.org under the heading “Support Freedom.” The text says, “They don’t like you. In fact, they hate you. They plan to neutralize you politically. They plan to stigmatize you socially. They plan to isolate you culturally. They fear you. Why? Because you own guns. People who own guns are beholden to no one, including the government.” YOUNG said the last statement was a veiled threat. RICHARD A. PEARSON, president of ISRA said it was not. It means that gun owners derive their rights from the Constitution, not from the government that writes anti-gun regulations.

• JENNIFER BONO will be pictured in her high school yearbook holding her competition rifle and trophies, despite objections from Downsville Central School Superintendent ROGER A. HUTCHINSON. JENNIFER BONO first submitted a photo of herself standing by a Jeep with her AR15, the civilian version of the military’s M16 rifle. HUTCHINSON said the photo showed an “assault rifle” and it promoted violence. “I just didn’t feel that the photo was appropriate under the circumstances. I understand that JENNIFER is a marksman, but the picture didn’t show that.” The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association supported JENNIFER’s right to have the picture in her yearbook and deluged HUTCHINSON with emails, which convinced him to compromise by allowing a picture of JENNIFER with her rifle and surrounded by trophies.

• A new gun-retailer trade group has been formed to demand a place at the table in negotiations to settle municipal lawsuits brought against firearm makers, distributors and dealers. Gun retailers started the National Coalition of Firearm Retailers out of worry that their interests aren’t being represented by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the overall industry trade group. This move is seen as a break in ranks by some observers, who feel that a united front is best in negotiations. ROBERT RICKER, who was effectively pushed out of a Washington-based lobbying job last spring because of his willingness to talk with the White House, is a consultant to the new trade group.

• The National Shooting Sports Foundation, feeling pressure from a series of lawsuits against gun makers, is collecting millions of dollars from its members for legal defense and has announced plans to support candidates and to lobby at all levels of government to fight greater gun restrictions. NSSF has traditionally steered clear of political action such as lobbying and supporting candidates, leaving that to other gun organizations. The major shift in the 39-year-old foundation was announced by ROBERT T. DELFAY, foundation president, at the foundation’s 22nd annual trade show in Las Vegas, Nevada. “Historically, we have not been politically active as an industry. That must change and will change. This upcoming election will impact our industry, and we must have an impact on this election.”

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: SCARED OR SCARY?

The University of Minnesota-Duluth may be politically correct, but it’s $150,000 poorer because of it.

The school agreed to pay that amount to settle a free-speech lawsuit brought by two teachers who posed for spoof pictures in the spring of 1992 as part of a display aimed at getting students to join the history club.

The problem was that Professors ALBERT BURNHAM and RON MARCHESE posed with weapons! Oh my!

One wore a laurel wreath and a Roman sword!

The other had a coonskin cap and held a pistol!

A sword and a pistol! Oh my!

Another professor complained that the pictures contributed to “a climate of fear.”

We can just see mobs of students fleeing the Duluth climate in terror after looking at such photographs.

Then-Chancellor LAWRENCE IANNI ordered the pictures removed from their display case.

BURNHAM and MARCHESE sued the university, claiming that IANNI had violated their First Amendment rights. They also claimed that the former chancellor’s action caused emotional distress, loss of income and damage to their reputations.

BURNHAM said school officials had “bowed to the whims of political correctness.”

Their suit went up to a federal appeals court, which sided with the teachers. The out-of-court settlement followed, providing $85,000 each to BURNHAM and MARCHESE, $5,000 total for two students who joined in the suit and $15,000 to the plaintiffs’ attorneys.

MARCHESE, a tenured professor, is still at the university, although now on sabbatical.

BURNHAM, a nontenured instructor, lost his job in 1995 when he was “not rehired.”

BURNHAM said, “I consider it a victory in our particular situation. But in the long run, the university has not learned from this.”

He said he was upset that the school refused to admit wrongdoing.

The university must have known something was awry, because they waited four months to disclose the settlement.